Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Huntington Central Park- Final EIR 81-5 - Resolution 5171 -
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL 'ACTION 91 4vN A,4-#ho� Date November 21 , 1985 Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council .( W' Submitted by: Charles W. Thompson, City Administrato Prepared by: Melvin M. Bowman, Community Service D rector Subject: CENTRAL PARK AMPHITHEATER OAWk.f A r?twtp r To `Do Sit woe k %. I *us c ah,W wk4otme st a//owed /►Ar /� 4,,% fi AAA C 0 S ���, A'ftA,ift, 7A) dVA,* > State ent of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions, Attachments: STATEMENT OF .ISSUE: There is a small amphitheater in Central Park which is underused. An interest has been generated in utilizing this space for the performance of plays in the spring and summer . The existing amphitheater is inadequate in size, equipment, lighting, and utilities to facilitate these performances . RECOMMENDATION: Direct staff to prepare requests for proposal to hire an architect to draft a design for the expansion and utilization of the Huntington Central Park Amphitheater as a performing arts theater . ANALYSIS: The Allied Arts Board has reviewed and expressed its desire that the Central Park Amphitheater be developed to accommodate theatrical presentations . To this extent, $20 ,000 was budgeted in fiscal year 1985/86 for the expansion of the stage , electrical lighting, dressing rooms , fencing, etc . It was planned that the construction work would be performed by the Public Works Department . Subsequently, notice was given that city personnel would be unable to participate in any phase of construction. Additionally, more specific architectural renderings are needed before any construction begins . The architect is needed to draft plans which will indicate the best method of development as well as provide illustration of final project . From these plans , total construction cost can be estimated. Once construction estimates are completed, the project will be submitted for consideration in next fiscal year ' s budget . FUNDING SOURCE: Park Acquisition and Development FY 85/86 - Account #790767 . P10 4/81 ALTERNATIVE ACTION: 1 . Expend $20 ,000 on minor improvements . 2. -Relocate theater at a different location. ATTACHMENTS• 1 . Map of specified area 2 . Central Park Amphitheater Proposal CWT:MMB:RH:gc S: L A T E R A V .E N, c AMPHITHEATER PARKS p _MAINTENANCE YARD t ---- TALBERT LAKE 1 ADVENTURE H LIBRARY PLAYGROUND o N O TP-4.BERT AVE. SN E _ _ C. E N T .R _A L P. A .R K . A M P H I T H E A T- .E R. A L l�tfAl caurq�niE� 1.7 , om reskrO ` �- •tea. ' - .. ' '� t - �cK�7s 1 _ REQUES i FOR CITY COUNCSIACTION �k Date January 15, 1985 5____._..... ..- -- gpPo�V EA 8i.T . _ u Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council u 4 C Submitted by: Charles W. Thompson, City Administrator �^-___ Prepared by: Paul E. Cook, Director of Public Work _^C.rrY 2 CIaRK __ Subject: STREET EASEMENT FOR GOLDENWEST STREET AT HUNTINGTON CENTRAL PARK (EQUESTRIAN CENTER) Consistent with Council Policy? [X] Yes [ ] New Policy or Exception Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source,Alternative Actions,Attachments: STATEMENT OF ISSUE: To provide ultimate right-of-way for future construction of Goldenwest Street, the City should provide a street easement to itself. RECOMMENDATION: Approve the granting of a street easement for Goldenwest Street over a portion of City owned property at Central Park and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute. ANALYSIS : In 1973 ,. the City purchased, as an addition to Central Park, the parcel of land where the Equestrian Center is now located. No provisions were made at that time for the additional 20. 00 feet of street right-of-way needed on Goldenwest Street to conform to our Master Plan of Arterial Highways. To provide the right-of-way for the future widening of Goldenwest Street, it is recommended that the City execute and record a street easement deed to itself. Similar action has been taken in the past for the remainder of the park frontage. ALTERNATIVE ACTION: None. FUNDING SOURCE: No expenditures involved. ATTACHMENTS : 1. Easement Deed 2. Location Map CWT:PEC:JM: jy PIO 4/84 d/ ;, CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK DIV 43 October 7, 1982 OCT 8 LEE A. U�iilY i�Ti County Clork �y County Clerk Public Services Division P. 0. Box 838 Santa Ana, CA. 92702 Enclosed is a Notice of Determination for the following project: Huntington Central Park Master Plan EIR 81-5 Please return a stamped copy of same to this office. Enclosed is a stamped, self-addressed envelope. 0 cl, Alicia M. Wentworth City Clerk AMW:CB:bt CC: Jim Barnes; Development Services Department (Telephone:714-536-5227) NOTICE OF DETERMINATION F I L E D NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT A� DETERMINATION HAS BEEN MADE WITH RESPECT TO THE BELOW Off 8 lg��' DESCRIBED PROJECT. U APPLICANT: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ADDRESS: 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92648 PROJECT TITLE• Huntington Central Park Master Plan Environmental Impact Report - . PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Master plan for future development of a 300± acre park LOCATION: Generally located south of Slater Avenue, west of Gothard Street, north of Ellis Avenue, and east of Edwards Street. The above described project was: Approved On October 4, 1982 Disapproved On By City Council Discretionary Body The project will, X will not, have a significant effect on the environment. . . If approved, having a significant effect, a statement of Overriding Considerations is attached. (X) An Environmental Impact Report was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA (EIR 4 81-5 ) . ( ) A Negative Declaration was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. A copy of the Negative Declaration (Environmental Clearance Report) is attached. The EIR is available for review at the City of Huntington Beach Department of Development Services Environmental Resources Section. Date Mailed Signed Title Removal Date Authorized to Publish Advertisements of all kinds, including public notices by Decree of the Superior Court of Orange County, California, Number A-6214, dated 29 September, 1961,and A-24831,dated.11 June, 1963. 0�j STATE OF CALIFORNIA k, ' County of Orange Public Notice Advertising covecod bythis agidavit it set in 7 point with 10 .p pica column width. o. c� I am a Citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the below entitled matter. I am a principal clerk of the Orange PUBLIC NOTICE Coast DAILY PILOT, with which is combined the NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NEWS-PRESS, a newspaper of general circulation, ENVIIRONMENTALTINGTONRIMPAACT p published in the City of Costa Mesa, REPORT(EIR 81_5)' rioted and NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held by the County of Orange, State of California, and that a City Council of the City of Huntington Notice Of Public Hearing Beach, in the Council Chambers oT the Civic Center,Huntington Beach, CITY OF I-rUNTI.NGTON BEACHCalifornia, at the hour of 7;30 p.m, or as soon thereafter as possible on Monday the 4th day of October, 1982,for the purpose of considering , Environmental Impact Report No. of which copy attached hereto is a true and complete 81-5 which,assesses the impacts of, theproposed Master Plan of Land copy, was printed and published in the Costa Mesa, Use for Huntington Central Park.All , interested persons are invited to Newport Beach, Huntington Beach, Fountain Valley, attend said hearing and express their opinions regarding the Irvine, the South Coast communities and Laguna Environmental Impact.Report Beach issues of said newspaper for one No.81-5Further information rnay be issue(z) of obtained from the Office of the City Clerk,2000 Main Street,Huntington Beach, California 92648 - I (714)536-5227. Copies of EIR NO. . 81-5 are available for review at the City Clerk's office and the September 24 198 2 Huntington Central Library. DATED this 24th day of September, 1982 City of Huntington tyeacn By:Alicia M.Wentworth 198 City Clerk ! Public Orange Coast Daily Pilot Sept.24, 1982 �- ------ 4238-82� 198 198 198 1 declare, under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on September 24 198 2 at Costa Mesa, California. 1 nature PROOF OF PUBLICATION Authorized to Publish Advertisements of all kinds, including public notices by Decree of the Superior Court of Orange County, California, Number A-6214, dated 29 September, 1961, and A-24831,dated 11 June, 1963. STATE OF CALI FORNIA County of Orange Public Notice Advertising covered by this affidavit is set in 7 point with 10 pica column width. I am a Citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the below entitled matter. I am a principal clerk of the Orange Coast DAILY PILOT, with which is combined the I PUBLIC NOTICE 4 NEWS-PRESS, a newspaper of general circulation, NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING HUNTINGTON CENTRAL PARK printed and published in the City of Costa Mesa, i ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT(EIR 81-5) County of Orange, State of California, and that a NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held by the Notice of p»hl i e- Hparing City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, in the Council Chambers of CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH I the Civic Center,Huntington Beach, California, at the hour of 7;�o p.m. .or as soon thereafter as possible on Monday the 4th day of October, . of which coy attached hereto is a true and complete 1982,for the purpose considering p p Environmental Impact Report No. copy, was printed and ublished in the Costa Mesa, 81-5 which assesses the impacts of p the proposed Master Plan of Land Newport Beach, Huntington Beach, Fountain Valle Use for Huntington Care inviteal .All p g Y+ interested persons are invited to Irvine, the South Coast communities and La una attend said,,;hearin� and express g their opi,niolns regarding the i Beach issues of said newspaper for one Environmentaf!_Ampact Report No.81-5 ���t1aY x31l1) xx�C]NC$tX�I�BC issue(s) of urther 0-formation th Office of nma Cit obtained y Clerk,2000 K46in Street,Huntington Beach,' California 92648 - (714)536-52.27. Copies of EIR NO. 81-5 are available for review at the September 24 2 City Clerk's office and the 198 Huntington Central Library. DATED this 24th day,of ! September, 1982 City of Huntington rseacn 198 By:Alicia M.Wentworth City Clerk Public Orange Coas? Daily Pilot 198 Sept.24, 1982 4238-82 .—— -' _. 198 198 1 declare, under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on September 24 198 2 at Costa Mesa, California. ignature PROOF OF PUBLICATION 4 .1146 -YI Co u w« 1 REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION (11k444. 6411 Date April 4, 1984 Submitted to: The Honorable Mayor and City Council Submitted by: Charles W. Thompson, City Administrator Prepared by.: Melvin M. Bowman, Acting Director, Community Servic Subject; HUNTINGTON CENTRAL PARK SPORTS COMPLEX Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions,Attachments: STATEMENT OF ISSUE City Council directed staff and the Community Services Commission to , research alternative sites within Huntington Central Park for develop- ment of a sports field complex. RECOMMENDATION Authorize development of four ballfields on the city landfill property (Exhibit A) when funds and Orange County property become available in accordance with the Capital Improvement Program. ANALYSIS At a study session on June 20, 1983, Council was presented a conceptual plan for the development of four ballfields within Central Park on the west side of Goldenwest and Talbert. At the conclusion of the study session, Council instructed staff to coordinate with the Community Services Commission to research alternative sites for the ballfield complex. Staff directed the city' s contract landscape architect to provide conceptual plans for ballfield development within the city landfill area of Central Park. It was determined that four ballfields as indicated in Exhibit A would be the most suitable site . The Com- munity Services Commission on March 14, 1984 approved Exhibit A and recommended Council approval of same . Estimated development cost for Exhibit A development is $1 .23 million. The Commission indicated that if Exhibit A is not feasible, Exhibit B development would be its second choice, that is , three ballfields with lights at an estimated cost of $891,000 . Exhibit C was developed by staff as another alternative site . It would include two ballfields on the west side of Goldenwest adjacent to Talbert With backstops , limited bleachers and no lighting. The cost is estimated at $200,000 per. field. Parking lot, street improvements and signal modification would cost an additional $500,000. FUNDING SOURCE Park Acquisition and Development Fund. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS 1 . Exhibit B development; 2 . Exhibit C development; 3 . Modify the number of ballfields in Exhibit A or the other exhibits REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION April 4, 1984 Page Two Subj : Huntington Central Park Sports Complex 4 . Do not develop ballfields in Central Park. ATTACMMTS Exhibits A, B, and C Council meeting minutes of June 20, 1984 (Study Session) MMB: cs ,,_k v r GOLD i i i i i i i i i i LIBRARY i i ESTIMATED EXPENSES PARKING Fields $ 800,000 EXISTING PROPERTY LINE 400 Lights 280,000 Parking 150,000 . 7 �""""""""- TOTAL $1,230,000 i i i i i ...1 i D r FUTURE PROPERTY LINE N D { BALL FIELDS m__ m i PARKING Z rCft 312 ; i 1 GOTHARD.- ST. EX�H I— T A �� y GOLDE i i . i i i i i i i LIBRARY ESTIMATED EXPENSES PARKING. EXISTING PROPERTY. 470 Fields $600,000LINE.- Lights 210,000 Parking 81,000 TOTAL $891 ,000 i i i i D i r W BALL FIELDS m N p FUTURE PROPERTY LINE a i m GOTHARD ST. EXISTING TREE LINE FUTURE_ a Y.QA•C L BALL__FIELD a BALL FIELD El GOLD T. i i i i . i i i i . i i i i i i i i LIBRARY i ESTIMATED EXPENSES Fields $400,000 treet & Signal Modifications 440,000 Parking 60,000 TOTAL $900,000 i i I i n r m ND i a i rn i GOTHARD ST.. EXHIRIT C t , MINUTES Council Chamber, Civic Center Huntington Beach, California Monday, June 20, 1983 Mayor MacAllister calked the adjourned regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach to order at 6:30 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Pattinson, Kelly, MacAllister, Finley, Bailey, Absent: Mandic (arrived 6:44 P.M. ), Thomas (arrived 6:52 P.M.) PARK ACQUISITION AND DEVELOPMENT - FIVE YEAR ESTIMATED INCOME Max Bowman, Community Services Deputy Director, presented an overview of park acquisition and development estimoted income for Fiscal Year 1983/84 - 1988/89. He presented viewgraphs showing funding sources and various grants. PARK _ACQUISITION AND DEVELOPMENT - FIVE YEAR PRIORITY Max Bowman presented viewgraphs showing capital improvement projects and the five year project priority program. HUNTINGTON CENTRAL PARK SPORTS COMPLEX - DISCUSSION Max Bowman, Deputy Director, Community Services, presented slides of the proposed site for a sports complex in Huntington Central Park. Dicussion. was held regarding the number of trees that would be removed and the number of fields to be included in the complex and whether it could be planned to alleviate the need for user parking to be located across Goldenwest Street. Vince Moorhouse, the Director of, Community Services recommended that the fields be limited to softball only, not multipurpose fields. Councilman Mandic suggested that two fields be located in the landfill and two in HCP with the parking remaining on the east side of Goldenwest Street, south of Talbert Avenue. Vince Moorhouse suggested that the shooting range be relocated in the future. He stated that surveys indicated little league and bobby sox teams prefer to play in neighborhood parks rather than HCP and that the sports complex was needed to serve the adult population. Councilwoman Bailey stated that she would rather see multipurpose fields constructed. Mr. Moorhouse explained the difficulties in meeting the different needs of rugby, football , softball, etc. and the expense involved. ' Councilwoman Finley stated that she would like to see the neighborhood parks developed and the sports complex left to the future. Mr. Moorhouse stated that the need is here now as Huntington Beach is an active community. L Mr. Moorhouse traced the route of the proposed sewer trunk line indicating the , ed to purchase sixteen lots. REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION . Date September 23, 1982 Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council Submitted by: Charles W. Thompson, City Administrat r Prepared by: James W. Palin, Director of Development Services' Subject: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 81-5 (HUNTINGTON CENTRAL PARK) � sr 2/ Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions, Attachments: STATEMENT OF ISSUE: Transmitted for the City Council ' s consideration is Final Environmental Impact Report No. 81-5, which assesses the environmental effects of a plan for the future development of Huntington Central Park. RECOMMENDATION: The Department of Development Services recommends that the City Council certify, pursuant to the attached resolution, that it has considered the information contained in Final EIR 81-5 and that the EIR is in con- formance with the California Environmental Quality Act and State CEQA Guidelines. DISCUSSION: Final EIR 81-5 was presented to the City, Council on September 20, 1982. The Council requested that more information be provided regarding the relationship between certification of the EIR and future planning of Huntington Central Park. On August 17, 1981 the City Council directed Community Services Depart- ment staff to pursue a concept for the future development of Huntington Central Park which included establishment. of an equestrian center, sports field complex, YMCA facility, compatible fast food concessions, and an expanded shooting range within the park. These new uses, as well as existing uses within the park, were depicted conceptually on a map which was shown to the Council at the August 17th meeting. The map is shown in EIR 81-5 as Figure 5 and is described as a master plan for development of Huntington Central Park. Subsequent to the August 17, 1981 City Council meeting, the Department of Development Services staff was requested by the Community Services Department staff to initiate the environmental review process on the master plan. Since the plan involved the development of new facilities which had not previously been subject to the State-mandated environ- mental review process, staff conducted an initial study pursuant to CEQA and determined that an EIR should be required. 1 i PIO 4/81 m HEIR 81-5 September 23 , 1982 Page 2 Within the context of CEQA the new uses directed by the City Council to be developed within the park constitute a single project. A "project" as defined by CEQA means the whole of an action which has the potential for resulting in a physical change in the environment. CEQA also requires that cumulative effects be discussed when found to be potentially significant. Staff determined that the most efficient and appropriate method of conducting environmental assessment of the pro- posed new uses within the park was to consider them collectively as a single project. Final EIR 81-5 if certified by the City Council will serve as the re- quired environmental documentation for all future development within the park which is consistent with the plan described as Figure 5 in the EIR. Furthermore, any of the alternative uses analyzed for the planning mode area within the EIR could be approved by the City Council without the need for additional environmental assessment. However, the discussion of planning mode alternatives in the EIR does not require the City Council to make a decision on a specific land use for the planning mode area. An environmental impact report is an informational document which is intended to assist decision makers in evaluating environmental con- sequences. Certification of this EIR does not in any way obligate the City Council to carry out the project or any project alternatives which are described in the EIR. If in the future new or revised con- cepts are devised for development of Central Park, they will be addressed environmentally either by modifying the EIR or conducting additional environmental assessment to a lesser degree. In conclusion, staff is requesting that the City Council certify that it has considered the information contained in the Final EIR prior to its approval of a master plan or individual projects within Central Park to comply with State law. Certification of the EIR does not pre- clude future planning options for development of Huntington Central Park. FUNDING SOURCE: Not applicable. ALTERNATIVE ACTION: The EIR describes a master plan of development for Huntington Central Park. However, the City Council has the option of not formally adopt- ing a master plan but to use the EIR for assessment of individual pro- jects as they are proposed .within Huntington Central Park. SUPPORTING INFORMATION: 1. Request for City Council Action dated September 8, 1982 2: Resolution CWT:JRB:df NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING HUNTINGTON CENTRAL PARK ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR 81-5) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, in the Council Chambers of the Civic Center, Huntington Beach, California, at the hour of 7: 30 P.M. , or as soon thereafter as possible on Monday the 4th day of October, 1982, for the purpose of considering Environmental Impact Report No. 81-5 which assesses the impacts of the proposed Master Plan of Land Use for Huntington Central Park. All interested persons are invited to attend .said hearing and express their opinions regarding the Environmental Impact Report No. 81-5 . Further information may be obtained from the Office of the City Clerk, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California 92648 - (714) 536-5227 . DATED this 24th day of September, 1962 City of Huntington Beach By: Alicia M. Wentworth City Clerk �f IN THE 4 2 f7 ���y'�,//f1 Superior Court hz07'C,eC,O/, ice d d,, e. OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA In and for the County of Orange CITY OF H U N T I N G T O N B E A C H 9 PROOF OF PUBLICATION CITY CLERK NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PUBLICNOTICE State of California ) . NOTICE OF PUWUC UARIIVG County of Orange )ss. MASTER PLAN OF LAND USE FOR HUNTINGTON CE nX"PARR JEANNIE L. THO,'MAS AND � ENVIRONMENTAL BIWACI' REPORT , 81S NOTICE IS.HEREBY GIVEN that a That I am and at all times herein mentioned was a citizen of public hearing will be held by the City Counca of the City of Hunter Beach the United States,over the age of twenty-one years,and that I in the Council Chambare of the Civic am not a party to,nor interested in the above entitled matter; Center,Huritingwn Beach,at the hour of that I am the principal clerk of the rinter of the 7:30 P.M.,or as soon thereafter as p� I{p p p his on Monday the 20th day of - bar,1982,for the purpose Of considering H U N T I N G T O N BEACH I N D. REVIEW the Proposed Master Plan of Lena Use .for Huntington Central Park.Also being considered is Environmental Impact Re- a newspaper of general circulation,published in the City of port No.81.5 which was prepared for the City of Huntington Be to eesees the H U N T I N G T O N BEACH environmental impactsach of the Proposed Huntington Central Park Master Plan. All interested persons are invited to at- County of Orange and which.newspaper is published for the tend said bearing and, express their disemination of local news and intelligence of a general charac- opinions for or succinct the Plan Huntington Cent Perk Master ter Pl ter, and which newspaper at all times herein mentioned had and Environmental impact Report No. and still has a bona fide subscription list of paying subscribers, 81-5. Copies of eefa Master Plan and Envi- and which newspaper has been established, printed and pub- ronmental Impact Report are available lished at regular intervals in the said County of Orange for a for review in the Office of the City Clerk, period exceeding one year; that the notice, of which the Ca Mein Street Huntington Baacb P g Y C�forme. annexed is a printed copy, has been published in the regular Further information may be obtained and entire issue of said newspaper,and not in any supplement 4tom the Office of the City Clerk,2000 Main Street,Huntington.Beach,Califor- thereof,on the following dates,to wit: nia 92848,(714)538-6227. DATED September 7,1982 CITY OF S E P T E M B E R 99 1982 HYUNTI We BEACH B Alicia a M entworth City Clerk Pub.6 9,1982 %imt-L.96 Ind.Rev.#30552 I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the forego- ing is true and correct. Dated at.G A R 1DE N..G.R.Q V F......................... Ca t rnia,this10 t h day of .S ..T''T9. ...... ..... ... ...... Signature 1 Form No.CAF-81380 , t REQUES40R CITY COUNCIL ACTION Date September 8, 1982 Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council Submitted by: Charles W. Thompson, City Administra � Prepared b Vincent. G. Moorhouse, Director .of Community Servic ip P y� James. W. Palin, Director-,of . Development Services Subject: HUNTINGTON CENTRAL PARK MASTER . PLAN A MASTER PL FOR LONG-RANGE DEVELOPMENT OF HUNTINGTON CENTRAL PARK EIR 81-5 - AN ANALYSIS OF THE HUNTINGTON CENTRAL PARK MASTER PLAN Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions, Attachments: qCi STATEMENT OF ISSUE: Transmitted for the City. Council ' s consideration is the Huntington . Central Park Master Plan and',Environmental .Impact Report No. 81-5, which assesses the environmental effects of the plan. RECOMMENDATION: The Departments of Community Services and Development Services recom- mend that the City Council certify Final EIR No. 81-5 as being adequate and in conformance with the. California Environmental Quality Act and adopt the Huntington .Central Park Master Plan subject to the following findings and conditions:.' FINDING: Changes or alterations can be incorporated into the project which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects identified in Final EIR No. 81-5. CONDITION:' The mitigation measures included in- Section .2.. 0 of Final EIR No. 81-5 shall become. conditions of approval for all future development within the park. ANALYSIS: Applicant: City of Huntington Beach Location: The site is generally bounded by Slater Avenue on the north, Ellis Avenue on the south, Edwards Street on the west, and Gothard Street on the east. Request: Adoption of a Master Plan for Huntington Central Park and certification of Environmental Impact Report No. 81-5 . PIO 4/81 RCA - HCP Master Plan September 8 , 1982 Page 2 Community Services Commission Action. on August 11, 1982: ON MOTION BY FROST AND SECOND BY COOPER THE COMMUNITY SERVICES COM- MISSION RECOMMENDED THAT THE HUNTINGTON CENTRAL PARK ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR 81-5) , WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS PREPARED BY WILDAN ASSOCIATES, BE CONSIDERED ADEQUATE. AYES: Blankinship, Cooper, Farrell, Frost, Giese, Jensen, Kennedy, Osness, Rivera . NOES None DISCUSSION: The Huntington Central Park Master Plan was developed at the direction of the City Council to provide guidance , for long-range development of Huntington_ Central Park. The Master Plan evolved from a planning. process which included a substantial amount of staff and City Council input, as well as the preparation of an economic feasibility study of revenue-producing uses for the park prepared by Ultrasystems, Inc. The economic feasibility study was presented to ,the. City Council in May, 1981 . On the basis of informa- tion contained in the economic feasiblity study, the .City Council on August 17, 1981 unanimously directed staff to develop and analyze a master plan for the park which- included- establishment of an equestrian center, sports field complex, YMCA facility, compatible fast-food concessions, and an- expanded shooting range. The Council further directed a. realignment of Central Park boundaries to include only a portion of the additional 75. 3 acres proposed -for expansion of the park in Open Space Conservation 'Amendment No. 80-1 . Finally, the Council voted to place 25± acres of land located at the northeast corner of Goldenwest Street and Ellis Avenue in a "planning mode" to allow for further staff evaluation of alternative uses for the site. In October of 1981 the environmental assessment process was initiated by City staff for evaluation of the master plan. This process in- vowed preparation of an initial study pursuant to the; .State EIR Guidelines and a final determination that an environmental impact re- port should be prepared analyzing the project. On. December 21 , 1981 the City Council authorized expenditure of funds to engage the envir- onmental consulting firm .of. Wildan Associates to prepare an EIR on the master plan. The final EIR was completed and presented to the Community Services Commission in August, 1982 . On September. 7, 1982. a report entitled "Planning Mode Study" was pre- sented to the City Council analyzing four land use alternatives for the "planning mode" area. The City Council decided to. schedule a joint study session with the Community Services Commission on a future date for further consideration of the "planning mode study, " ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Environmental Impact Report No. 81-5 was prepared pursuant to the provisions contained. in the .-Environmental Quality .Act and State EIR Guidelines. A draft EIR was prepared by Wildan Associates under the guidance and supervision of City staff. As provided in the State EIR ''Y RCA - HCP Master Plan September 8, 1982 Page 3 Guidelines, the draft EIR was distributed to .public agencies and members of the- general public for a 45-day public review period which extended from May 10 to June 23 , 1982. All comments received during the public review period and the City' s response to the comments are contained in Section_ 5.O of the Final EIR. At the August 11, 1982 Community Services Commission meeting, there was discussion regarding the adequacy of economic information presented in the EIR. According to Section 15012 (b) of the State EIR Guidelines it is not mandatory that economic information be included in an EIR; however, since the _ _Ultrasystems study was available staff determined it was appropriate -- - - -- - _- in this instance to include an economic analysis in the EIR. In response to some of the comments made at the Community Services Commission meeting,. Wildan Associates has submitted the attached letter dated August 23, 1982, making certain clarifications and revisions to the economic analysis contained. in Final EIR 81-5. Staff is requesting that the City Council certify that it has consid- ered the information contained in the Final EIR prior to its approval of the project and .find the EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA.'.and the State EIR Guidelines. Section 15150 of the State EIR Guidelines, "Standards for Adequacy of an EIR, " states .the following: "An EIR should be prepared with a sufficient degree of analysis to provide decision makers. with informa- tion which enables them to- make a decision which intelligently takes account of. environmental consequences . An evaluation of the environ- mental effects of a proposed project need not be exhaustive, but the sufficiency of an EIR is to be reviewed in light of what is reasonably feasible. Disagreement among experts does not make an EIR inadequate. The courts have looked not . for protection but for adequacy, complete- ness, and a good faith effort at full disclosure. " FUNDING SOURCE: Not applicable.. ALTERNATIVE ACTION: Several alternative land uses were considered by. the City Council for future development of -the park prior to the Council':s decision on August 17, 1981 to pursue the, uses indicated on the proposed master plan. . Section 15143 (d) of the State EIR Guidelines requires that all reasonable alterriatives' to the project. which . could feasibly attain the basic objectives of the .project be considered in the. EIR. Section 3 . 05 of Final EIR 8175 presents several. alternatives to the project for the City Council ' s consideration. SUPPORTING INFORMATION: 1. Community Services Commission 'August ll, . 1982 Minutes. 2 . Letter from Wildan Associates dated August 23 , 1982 3 . Final EIR No. 81-5 3 CWT:VGM:JWP:.JRB:df COMMUNITY SERVICES C MISSION August 11, 1982 MINUTES.- 464 Page 2 MOTION: MOVED BY , GIESE, .SECONDED BY JENSEN, COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMISSION RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE BLUFFTOP LANDSCAPE PLAN AS PREPARED BY ROGER PRESBURGER. MOTION CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AY CS: BLANKINSHIP, COOPER, FARRELL, GIESE, JENSEN, KENNEDY, RIVERA, VANDER MOLEN NOES: FROST, OSNESS ABSENT: DYSINGER ABSTENTION: NONE HUNTINGTON.CENTRAL. PARK, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT A meeting of the Huntington Central Park Committee was held on August 1.1, in order to review .the . Huntington Central Park Environmental Impact Report. Gary Werner of Willdan Associates and Jim Barnes of the Development Services Department were present to answer any concerns the Commission members had in regard to the EIR. Several questions were brought up at the Committee meeting regarding the drainage basin for Huntington Lake extending "east" of Beach Boulevard and the out of date list of persons and organizations. Mr. Werner. distributed an addendum to the EIR 81-5 in response to questions. The figure was corrected and a new page was submitted for inclusion. in the EIR. The addendurn also included a revised list of persons and organizations consulted on page 98 of the EIR. . MOTION: MOVED BY FROST, SECONDED BY COOPER, THAT THE COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMISSION RECOMMEND THE HUNTINGTON CENTRAL PARK ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED BY WILLDAN ASSOCIATES, BE CONSIDERED ADEQUATE. DISCUSSION FOLLOWED. AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION: MOVED BY OSNESS, SECONDED BY FROST, TO AMEND THE MOTION BY ADDING THE SENTENCE AFTER HUNTINGTON CENTRAL PARK ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS. MOTION CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: BLANKINSHIP, COOPER, FARRELL, FROST, GIESE, JENSEN, KENNEDY, OSNESS, RIVERA, VANDER MOLEN. NOES: NONE AMENDED MOTION: THAT THE COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMISSION RECOMMEND THE HUNTINGTON CENTRAL PARK ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE FISCAL . IMPACT ANALYSIS, PREPARED BY WILLDAN ASSOCIATES, BE CONSIDERED :ADEQUATE. MOTION CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: BLANKINSHIP, COOPER, FARRELL, FROST, GIESE, JENSEN, KENNEDY, OSNESS, RIVERA,-VANQ1E R.i:CmnL_EN. NOES: NONE It was Dr. Cooper's concern .that the planning "mode" be approved prior to any action taken. by the City Council on the Environmental Impact Report for Huntington Central \r, Park. - �l WILLDAN ASSOCIp.�tS ❑ ENGINEERS, A��CH1TLL _; S & PLANNERS '1 anoheir ,NOi\dGlk,`,;h^r h irG.LC nCC;sic•r.SCn Bet;iC:rr/ino of d Scan Di( C.CGIi(GrniG \ Phoenix,FIG�SiGif,c�nd Pf�SCOii,AiizonG RECEIVED August 23, 1982 AUG 2 51982 Develaprr,2,1t S,3rYi,jp� Mr. James R. Barnes Associate Planner City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California 92648 . Dear Mr. Barnes: This letter is intended as a further update and clarification to the Fiscal Impact Model Assessment of Huntington Central Park as contained in Final EIR 81-5. ' Subsequent to the August 11, 1982 meeting of the Community Services Commission Mr. Daryl D. Smith of the City 's Park, Tree, and Landscape Depart- ment indicated that general park and landscape maintenance was not included in the fiscal analysis. The changes reflected in this letter received verbal concurrence from Mr. Charles Clark and Mr. Daryl Smith of the City of Hunting- ton Beach. Therefore, it is my belief that while there is no substantial change to the bottom-line costs reported in the EIR, the analysis contained in Appendix G now reflects a more accurate account. of anticipated expenditures and revenues, based upon available information. Proposed revisions to the Fiscal Impact Analysis contained in the Appendix G of the EIR follow: PROGRAM ACTIVITY -. GENERAL PARK USE 1. Affected Public Services - Public Works, Street Maintenance, General Maintenance, and Park Maintenance (Excluding maintenance. of 190 acres of park area cur- rently in use). Assumptions services to the entire park.a. Includes general ,.. b. 137 additional park acres (plus 190 existing park acres equals 327 .acres) C. 9,000 lineal feet of new street frontage. 1745 ORANGEWOOD AVENUE • SUITE 210 • ORANGE, CALIFORNIA 92668 • (714) 978-6185 • (213) 924-1631 Mr. James R. Barnes City of Huntington Beach August 23, 1982 Page Two 2. Estimated Services Costs Subtotal = $184,424.20 a. Public Works/ Administration, and Engineering (137) x ($95.31) _ $ 13,057.47 b. Public Works/ Facility and Equipment Maintenance (137) x ($261.29) _ $ 35,796.73 C. Street Maintenance (Street Frontage) (Cost Per Foot) (9,000) x ($1.83) _ $ 16,470.00 d. Fishing Lake (2,700) (7 Acres) _ $ 18,900.00 e. Parking Lot (1,900) (25 Acres) _ $ 22,500.00 f. Park Maintenance (Additional Park Area Less Leaseholds) x ($1,400) (55.5 Acres) x ($1,400) _ $ 77,700.00 (existing park area) ($266,000.00) CENTRAL PARK PROGRAM ACTIVITY SUMMARY 1. Estimated Annual Service Costs a. Ball Field Complex = $147,321.6.0 b. Equestrian Center = $104,176.65 c. Restaurant = $ 10,228.19 d. YMCA = $228,432.42 e. Fishing Lake = $ 22,800..00 f. General Park Use = $1843.424.20 TOTAL. _ $697,383.06 i Mr. James R. Barnes City of Huntington Beach August 23, 1982 Page Three 2. Estimated Revenue a. Ball Field Complex = $100,200.00 b. Equestrian Center = $ 23,952.00 C. Restaurant = $ 88,000.00 d. YMCA = $ 12,000.00 e. Fishing Lake = $189,880.00 TOTAL. _ $413,942.00 Finally, the General Park Use entry on Page 88 of the EIR should also be amended to read in the amount of $184,424.20 and the total estimated annual service costs should be amended to read $697, 383.06. If you have any. questions on this matter, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, WILL AN ASSOCI TES ' GAP WE NER Urban' Planning Services Director GW':jl ' E-401 cc: Charles Clark Daryl Smith . Vincent G. Moorhouse Publish 9//9/82 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING MASTER PLAN OF LAND USE FOR HUNTINGTON CENTRAL PARK AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 81-5 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, in the Council Chambers of the Civic Center, Huntington Beach, at the hour of 7:30 P.M. , or as soon thereafter as possible on Monday the 20th day of September, 1982, for the purpose of considering the proposed Master Plan of Land Use for Huntington Central Park. Also being considered is Envi- ronmental Impact Report No. 81-5 which was prepared for the City of Huntington Beach to assess the environmental impacts of the proposed Huntington Central Park Master Plan. All interested persons are invited to attend said hearing and express their opinions for or against the proposed Huntington Central Park Master Plan and Envi- ronmental Impact Report ITo. 81-5. Copies of said Master Plan and Environmental Impact Report are available for review in the Office of the City Clerk, 2000 Main Street; Huntington Beach, California. Further information may be obtained from the Office of the City Clerk, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California 92648 - (714) 536-5227 DATED 9/7/82 City of Huntington Beach By: Alicia Mi.-Wentworth City Clerk. ov a 0 .1. ' CITY OF HUNTI G TON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH To Charles W. Thompson From Vincent G . Moorhouse City Administrator Director, Community Services Subject. Huntington Central Park Date September 3 , 1981 Master Plan Pursuant to the City Council ' s request on August 17 , 1981 , .for a time schedule of construction of selected projects for Huntington Central Park, I instructed Cardoza-DiLallo to prepare a master plan based on Council ' s recommendations . I have attached a copy of a report from Cardoza-DiLallo out- lining the priorities and estimated time schedules in which the park can be developed . Based on this report and if the Council so desires , . construction of some projects could possibly commence within six months . I would appreciate Council reviewing the master plan attached and, if at all possible, being in a position Tuesday night to identify its priorities and instruct staff as to which projects it desires developed in the .prescribed time frames . A large scale , colored plan will be on display at the Council meeting and I will be prepared to identify and discuss the location's of the selected projects . Once Council has established its priorities , the master plan will be reviewed with the Community Services Commission, an EIR will be prepared and all additional tasks will be under- taken to bring about orderly implementation of Council ' s instructions . VGM : cs Attachment 6; ■ L a n d s c a p e A r c h i t e c t u r e E n v i r o n m e n t a l P l a n n i n g September 1, 1981 Owner: City of Huntington Beach Prepared By: Leslee A. Temple C.D.A.. Project Number 81-050 CENTRAL PARK MASTER PLAN PHASE I I. Infrastructure Improvements 1,600 LF 60" Storm Drain Pipe ®$ 37.50/LF. $ 60,Ob0. 3,600 LF 12" Sewer Main and Lift Station (could be financed by Sewer Fund revenues) LS (620,000.) 1,700 LF Sully Lake Overflow LS 300,000. 1,280 LF 12" Water Line on Ellis 30.00/LF 38,400. Infrastructure Improvements Total $ 398,400.00 Storm Drain Yearly Maintenance $ 1,000.00 Sewer Line Yearly Maintenance $ 4,500.00 II. Street Improvements (at rural standards*) (would be eligible for county/city arterial highway financing programs) 2,200 LF Golden West 0$ 125.00/LF $ 275,000. 2,200 LF Ellis ® 125.00/LF 275,000. 1,400 LF Talbert a 175.00/LF 2451000. 650 LF Talbert at Landfill ® 235.00/LF 152,750. Signal at Golden West/Talbert LS 65,000. Street Improvements Total $1,012,750.00 Yearly Maintenance $ 9,700.00 III. Equestrian Center Landscape Improvements (actual facility development by lessee) 16,000 CY Mobilization and Earthwork ®$ 5.00/CY $ 80,000. 10 AC Clearing and Grubbing ® 900.00/AC 9,000. 10 AC Subterranean Drainage System ® 3,800.00/AC 38,000. 10 AC Irrigation ® 24,000.00/AC 240,000. 10 AC Preplanting Preparation. ® 500.00/CA 5,000. 10 AC Hydroseeding ® 300.00/AC' 3,000. 1,000 Shrubs (I-Gallon Minimum) ®. 8.00/EA 8,000. 450 Trees (15-Gallon Minimum) 150.00/EA 67,500. Equestrian Center Landscape Improvements Total $ 450,500.00 Yearly Maintenance $ Z7,000.00 IV. Parking Area. Along Golden West and Across from Library Methane Gas Collection System LS $ 75,000.** 15,000 CY Mobilization and Earthwork @$ 5.00/CY. 759000. 6.5 AC Clearing and Grubbing ® 900.00/AC 5,850.. 6.5 AC Subterranean Drainage System ® 3,800.00/AC 24,700. 8,100 CY Pea Gravel a 50.00/CY 4051000. 9,000 LF Concrete Curbing ® 15.00/LF 135,000. 15 Litter Cans a 400.00/EA 6,000. 2,700 LF Temporary Perimeter Fencing ® 20.00/LF 54,000. 1.5 AC Irrigation ® 24,000.00/AC 36,000. High Pressure Sodium Lighting LS 65,000. contd. 1599-A4 Superior Ave.,Costa Mesa,Catit.92627,(714)645-5161 /(714)546-4917 ..nnn • - 1,..1 1 - n_r, n. 1-%onn_ncnn - hl�lal�i!� ' 1 C.D.A. Project Number 81-050 -2- Phase I IV. Parking Area Along Golden West and Across from Library contd. 1.5 AC Preplanting Preparation @$ 6,500.00/AC $ 9,750. 1.5 AC Ground Cover: @ 8,700.00/AC 13,050. . 125 Trees (15-Gallon Minimum)' @. . 150.00/EA 18,750. Parking Area Total $ 923,100.00 Yearly Maintenance $ 9,750.00 V. Ballfield Complex 31,000 CY Mobilization and Earthwork @$ 5.00/CY $ 155,000.*** 19 AC Clearing and Grubbing @ 900.00/AC 17,100. 19 AC Subterranean Drainage System @ 3,600.00/AC 72,200. Relocation of Existing Walk LS 7,200. 19 AC Irrigation @ 24,000.00/AC 456,000. Adjustments to Existing Irrigation LS 65,000. Plaza Area at Concession/Restroom LS 5,000. Concession/Restroom LS 150,000. 25,500 LF Concrete Walks and Flatwork @ 5.00/LF 127,500. 360 CY Brick Dust @ 20.00/CY 7,200. � 6 Backstops @ 8,200.00/EA 49,200. 300 LF Dugout Fencing @ 12.00/LF 3,600. 12 Dugout Benches @ 500.00/EA 6,000. 8 Free-standing Bleachers LS 65,000. 4 Built-in Slope Bleachers LS 32,000. 4 Soccer Goals and Sleeves LS 7,500. 4 Football Goals and Sleeves LS 12,000. 20 Litter Cane ® 400.00/EA 8,000. 8 Drinking Fountains @ 1,200.00/EA 9,600. 19 AC Preplanting Preparation @ 6,500.00/AC 123,500. 19 AC Turf Hydroseeding @ 3,000.00/AC 57,000. 450 Trees (15-Gallon Minimum) @ 150.00/EA 67,500. High Pressure Sodium Lighting LS 320,000. Ballfield Complex Total $1,823,100.00 Yearly Maintenance $ 196,080.00 VI. Ballfield Sound Mitigation Mounding 39,000 CY Mobilization and Earthwork @$ 5.00/CY $ 195,000. 4 AC Irrigation @ 24,000.00/AC 96,000. 4-AC Preplanting Preparation @ 3,000.00/AC 12,000. 4 AC Hydroseeding @ 2,500.00/AC 10,000. 400 Shrubs (1-Gallon Minimum) @ 8.00/EA. 3,200.' 180 Trees (5-Gallon Minimum), @ 40.00/EA. 7,200. Ballfield Sound Mitigation Mounding Total. $ 323,400.00 Yearly Maintenance $ 10,800.00 VII. Slopes at Golden West and YMCA 4 AC Irrigation @$ 24,000.00/AC $ 96,000. 4 AC Preplanting Preparation @ 3,000.00/AC 12,000. 4 AC Hydroseeding 0 2,500.00/AC 10,000. 400 Shrubs (1-Gallon Minimum). @ 8.00/EA 3,200. 180 Trees (5-Gallon Minimum) @ 40.00/EA 7,200. Slopes @ Golden West and YMCA Total $ 128,400.00 Yearly Maintenance $ 10,800.00 sip IHN li C.D.A. Project Number 81-050 -3- Phase 1 PHASE I CONSTRUCTION DEVELOPMENT TOTAL $5,059,650.00 PHASE I YEARLY MAINTENANCE TOTAL $ 269,630.00 Phase I Landscape Architectural Fees $ 355,000.00 Phase I Environmental Impact Report $ 9,500.00-*** Phase I E.I.R. Related Consultants' Fees $ 10,000.00 Phase I Geological Investigation $ 2,900.00 Phase I Sanitary Engineering Investigation $ 15,000.00 Phase I Sanitary Engineering System Design $ 5,000.00 * Includes right-of-way landscaping, bike/pedestrian path, lighting and hydrants. �* Methane Gas Collection System based on an underground pipe system,.large industrial fan, and activated carbon column to extract, treat and discharge the gas. **i► Fill dirt obtainable' at no cost under certain circumstances and depending upon time of.avail- ability of fill and.time of construction of ballfield. **** For maximum flexibility with minimum risk it is recommended that corresponding sections of the-E.I.R. be done in conjunction with the respective Phases; addressing the cumulative impact`. *+E** Fees for lake investigations will be negotiated under the existing time and materials contract between the City of Huntington Beach and J. Harlan Glenn & Associates. „ LAT/dgw, 11M MAN OEM Ulm lam fl Landscape Architecture Environmental Planning September 1, 1981 Owner: City of Huntington Beach Prepared By: Leslee A. Temple C.D.A. Project Number 81-050 CENTRAL PARK MASTER PLAN PHASE II I. Street Improvements (at rural standards*) (would be eligible for county/city arterial highway financing programs) 600 LF Golden West @$ 125.00/LF $ 75,000.00 Yearly Maintenance $ 900.00 II. Fast Food Area (Actual facility developed by lessee) -0- III. YMCA (Actual facility developed by leases) -0- IV. Huntington Lake Aeration System $ 30,000.00 V. Sully Fishing Lake Landscape Buffer 9,300 CY Mobilization and Earthwork @$ 5.00/CY $ 46,500. 6 AC Irrigation @ 24,000.00/AC 144,000. 6 AC Slope Stabilization @ 11,000.00/AC 66,000. 6 AC Preplanting Preparation @ 3,000.00/AC 18,000. 6 AC Hydroseeding @ 2,500.00/AC 159000. 600 Shrubs (1-Gallon Minimum) @ 8.00/EA 4,800. 270 Trees (5-Gallon Minimum) @ 40.GO/EA 10,800. Sully Fishing Lake Total $ 305,100.00 Yearly Maintenance $ 16,200.00 VI. Remaining Parking Area at Golden West and Talbert 25,000 CY Mobilization and Earthwork @$ 5.00/CY $ 125,000. 15.5 AC Clearing and Grubbing @ 900.00/AC 13,950. 15.5 AC Subterranean Drainage System @ 3,800.00/AC 58,900. 19,000 CY Pea Gravel @ 50.00/CY 9501000. 21,500 LF Concrete Curbing @ 15.00/LF 322,500. 40 Litter Cans @ 400.00/EA 16,000. 1,350 LF Perimeter Fencing @ 65.00/LF 87,750. - 4 AC Irrigation @ 24,000.00/AC 96,000. High Pressure Sodium Lighting LS 93,000. 4 AC Preplanting Preparation @ 6,500.00/AC 26,000. 4 AC Ground Cover @ 8,700.00/AC 34,800. 300 Trees (15-Gallon Minimum)_ @ 150.00/EA : , 45,000. Parking Lot Total $1,868,900.00 Yearly Maintenance. $ 23,250.00 PHASE II CONSTRUCTION DEVELOPMENT TOTAL, $2,279,000.00 PHASE II YEARLY MAINTENANCE. TOTAL $ 40,350.00 Phase II Landscape Architectural Fees $ 158,000.00 Phase II Environmental Impact Report $ 3,500.00 Phase II E.I.R. Related Consultants' Fees $ 31000.00" Phase II Geological Investigation $ 2,600.00 Phase II Huntington Lake Aeration Design $ 7,500.00 4 Includes right-of-way landscaping, bike-pedestrian path, lighting and hydrants. ** Fees for lake investigation will be negotiated under the existing time and materials contract between the City of Huntington Beach and J. Harlan Glenn & Associates.. LAT/dgw 1599-A4 Superior Ave.,Costa Mesa,Calif.92627,(714)645-5161 /(714)546-4917 ..— . non —.1 n.—;� (IAGCC IAt C1 QI)O-A4M LandscapeArchitecture" En v i r o n m e n t a I 'P I a n' n i n g September 1, 1981 Owner: City of Huntington Beach Prepared By: Leslee A. Temple C.D.A. Project Number 81-050 CENTRAL PARK MASTER PLAN PHASE III I. Infrastructure Improvements 400 LF 12" Water Line on Ellis @$ 30.00/LF $ 12,000. 2,000 LF 12" Water' Line on Edwards a 30.00/LF 60,000. Infrastructure Improvements Total $ 72,000.00' II. Street Improvements (at rural standards*) (would be eligible for county/city arterial highway financing programs) 800 LF Golden West ®$ 125.00/LF $ 100,000. 400 LF Ellis ® 125.00/LF 50,000. 2,000 LF Edwards ® 125.00/LF 250,000. Street Improvements Total $ 400,000.00 Yearly Maintenance $ 49800.00 III. Equestrian Center Parking Lot 8,000 CY Mobilization and Earthwork @$ 5.00/AC $ 40,000. 5 AC Clearing and Grubbing ® 900.00/AC 4,500. 5 AC Subterranean Drainage System ® 3,800.00/AC 19,000. 4 AC Asphaltic Concrete ® 195,000.00/AC . 780,000. 3,320 LF Concrete Curbing ® 15.00/LF 49,800. 4 AC Striping @ 1,600.00/AC 6,400. 6 Litter Cans ® 400.00/F-A 2,400. 1 AC Irrigation @ 24,000.00/AC 24,000. High Pressure Sodium Lighting LS 23,000. 1 AC Preplanting Preparation ® 6,500.00/AC 6,500. 1 AC Ground Cover ® 8,700.00/AC 8,700. . 85 _ Trees (15-Gallon Minimum) ® 150.00/EA 12,750.. Equestrian Center Parking Lot Total $ 977,050.00 Yearly Maintenance. $ 7,500.00 1599-A4 Superior Ave.,Costa Mesa,Calif.92627,(714)M-5161 /(714)546-4917 1 1 000_A nCl1 M,KG,04A r1 J K. r`�if QArAA /di Sl R9Q-AAM IT C.D.A. Project Number 81-050 -2- Phase IIi IV. Passive•Park Area with Equestrian Trails 40,000 CY Mobilization and Earthwork 5.00/CY $ . 200,000. 55 AC Clearing and Grubbing ® 900.00/AC• 49,500. Removal of Existing Facilities LS 10,000. 7,800 LF Equestrian Trails ® 2.00/LF 15,600. 15,600 LF Equestrian Trails Fencing a 6.00/LF 93,600. 55 AC Irrigation ® 6,500.00/AC. 357,500. (Quick coupler system for naturalized area) 55 AC Preplanting Preparation ® 2,000.00/AC 110,000. 55 AC Hydroseeded Annual Grasses ® 2,200.00/AC 121,000. 2,300 Trees (15Gallon Minimum) ® 150.00/EA 345,000. Passive Park Area Total $1,302,200.00 Yearly Maintenance $ 82,500.00 PHASE III CONSTRUCTION DEVELOPMENT TOTAL $2,751,250.00 PHASE III YEARLY MAINTENANCE TOTAL $ 94,800.00 Phase III Landscape Architectural Fees $ 193,000.00 Phase III Environmental Impact Report $ 3,000.00 Phase III E.I.R. Related Consultants' Fees $ 3,000.00**. Phase III Geological Investigation $ 700.00 * Includes right-of-way landscaping, bike/pedestrian path, lighting and hydrants. * Fees for lake investigation will be negotiated under the existing time and materials contract between the City of Huntington Beach and J. Harlan Glenn & Associates. LAT/dgw. r ' o \ O Landscape Architecture Environm ental Planning August 31, 1981 . City of Huntington Beach C.D.A. Project Number- 50-81 Prepared By: Leslee A. Temple CENTRAL PARK MASTER PLAN PROJECTED COSTS AND TIME FRAME The Central Park Master Plan Development as approved by the City Council on August 17, 1981 has been divided into the following phases: CONSULTANT TIME CONSTRUCTION YEARLY FEES ALLOTMENT DEVELOPMENT MAINTENANCE PHASE I: Ballfield Complex, Equestrian Center, 397,400. 180 DAYS 5,059,650. 269,630. 6.5 Acres of Parking along Golden West and across from Library PHASE II: Fast Food Area, 15.5 Acres of Parking at 174,600. 45 DAYS 2,279,000. 40,350. Talbert and Golden West, YMCA, Fishing Lake Landscape Buffer, Huntington Lake Aeration System PHASE III: Passive Park Area with Equestrian Trails, 199,700. 45 DAYS 2,751,250. 94,800. Equestrian Center Parking Lot TOTALS 771,700. 270 DAYS 101,089,900. 404,780. These phases are dependent upon lease agreement negotiations, land acquisition ' time table, an environmental impact report, geological investigations, and adherence to the above schedule by the Community Services, Planning and. Public Works Departments. The actual development of Sully Lake for fishing will be held until develop- ment of the "Planning Mode" at Golden West and Ellis as defined in the City Council minutes of August 17, 1981. The Shooting Range upgrading of facilities should be negotiated. with the Police Association to increase safety, improve aesthetics and establish a con- cession area providing supplies and repair service that would generate revenue: in. accordance with the recommendations as outlined in the Ultrasystems Economic Feasibility Study. Current. landfill operations at the southwest corner, of Talbert and Gothard shall. continue under acceptable practices until brought to appropriate grade. An environmental impact report is an essential element to be considered ' immediately. Determination of the impact on Central Park development by in- creased traffic flows, seismic conditions, methane gas emissions from landfill sites and water quality conditions will play a major role in the time frame and construction considerations of the park plan. 1599-A4 Superior Ave.,Costa Mesa,Calif.92627,(714)645-5161 /(714)546-4917 •nnn • non�..� .� n\,.� �..� ._ n_.[ n•�n!\ /1•�\AM MM .- - .. ..-.. City of Huntington Beach pg. 2 Central Park Master Plan For maximum flexibility with minimum risk it is recommended that corresponding sections of the Environmental Impact Report be done in conjunction with the respective Phases; addressing the cumulative impact. The phased E.I.R. . approach will allow construction documents to be started on Phase I while particular issues are being resolved on Phases 2 and 3. The E.I.R. schedule would be as follows: Preparation Time Approval Procedure Time Phase 1 6 Weeks 15-16 Weeks Phase 2 4 Weeks 14-15 Weeks 'Phase 3 4 Weeks 14-15 Weeks The costs attached herewith represent those established at current costs for consultant fees, construction development and maintenance. Landscape archi- tectural consultant fees represent those percentage figures allocated under the present contract between Cardoza-DiLallo Associates, Inc. and the City of Huntington Beach which includes subconsultants for civil, structural, mechanical, . electrical engineering. Other subconsultants are as detailed herein. Street improvement and infrastructure costs are as obtained from the City Engineer. Soil tests shall be obtained at the expense of the City. Maintenance costs are based on optimum practices and not necessarily in con- currence with City figures. Due to the scope of work- and unforeseen implica- tions or delays, these costs would need to be adjusted annually from the date of this report on the following percentages. Consultant Fees (as indicated in current Cardoza-DiLallo Associates, Inc. contract) Construction Development 90 Maintenance 99a The time allotment shown for the preparation of contract documents is based on the number of calendar days anticipated necessary from the report of the most current topography plan and related engineering base data to the first submittal for review by the Public Works Department; providing policy and , design decisions will be made by the Community Services, Planning and Public Works Departments in a most expedient fashion. � I U, , City of Huntington Beach pg. 3 Central Park Master Plan During the course of implementing the .Master Plan, Cardoza-DiLallo Associates, Inc. will be utilizing the following subconsultants in order to expedite the construction document preparation. Hunsaker and Associates, Inc. R.W.R. Associates (civil engineers) (electrical engineers) , 3001 Red Hill, Bldg. VI , #212 2950 Airway Ave. , #D6 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Ultrasystems, Inc. Pacific Soils Engineering (environmental assessment, (geological investigations) economic analysis) 17907 Fitch 2400 Michelson Drive Irvine, CA 92714 Irvine, CA 92714 J. Harlan Glenn & Associates Fraser-Wilson & Associates (lake consultants) (sanitation engineers) 1440 So. State College Blvd. 2945 Harding Street, Ste. 211 Anaheim, CA 92806 Carlsbad, CA 92008 Soil and Plant Laboratory Inc. Southern California Organic Fertilizer P. 0. Box 11744 P. 0. Box 769 Santa Ana, CA 92711 Glendale CA 91209 Concerning the three parcels placed in the current 116-month Planning Mode" and the several leasee properties planned for all phases of Central Park develop- ment, we recommend the following: (1) That the Community Services Department work with the current consultant to the Development Services Department, Ultrasystems, to : examine the. issues related to these aforementioned parcels and properties, in- cluding: a) The possible land uses. b) The costs and benefits of including these parcels within the bound- aries of Central Park. c) The potential fiscal impacts on the City for. each of the viable alternative uses of these parcels. (2) Since concessionaires are to be utilized, a separate contract should be. negotiated with Ultrasystems to; prepare bid specifications, obtain proposals, negotiate leases and prepare a development schedule and pro forma analysis. � [rj/�����•y :t�+bpi!'' �.. .'^-��7Rta�� �y„ L •�, � 1 �fp7 y�b,7i�L7�r J ���✓R•`� 1 $s ,^ ' i •r iii -i•ff I � 1 } ON ► u 'f,��,�.*"�3� ZS���•j,: �1'4`�y'-�ti'�.�:Fs�=,� 'v^��t'�s :� '�`�' �+ a;��:, �6`s.. �..."'-ti,� Ji �. ,.. "e+�d►-•tea' 1��r�i.�_wt�, i•=���� ` �''�1 ._,, � r�,� .. t+ • �� t ���� �s�.��,,���•t7"�1Y +� rP fi�' i IR''a11 Y° y yip. � 'e1C C' dw•�.�.�.+�, j4 yu.dl 1""za Y���`-�. '- �:�����3�1''�sheiel��: '3 _ ,�'��� df��I 'is+.. •!! NAr.�'� .1 .iU.,lleriaerY�'�+�51.a• �• _ _����'w.•'_.`7y'Ft'LS+'.-lTr._.� .��/S11+'�'�4 i-_ - — ..... .ul�f: f� _.__ ^ YI1- cc�._�- ..-.J' +wY•. :.a Nmrcr iirl.aw +w iw-t�.. - -- �u /� �!:� .�'r Y- •woY -,'f. ,� 'S8. 4 � a�a�� 1s y�9 _� � � . � ',� - �',y! ��1+�I t•, ��* `� as ��� �t - �,q ,'`rLj, `�"�""�� � .a•,+r„"�Y�."Lr; � � `, � All, 01 �,, g, ->:"'A:.-- -- �' h ���7_-•_�„�!=':�►,. ", 75�: - �1 ,�� -� ,fig- i��� 1 .qy ,g �,'" � •7JlI�,•rY�. 1 rn _ _` '�r+ev11w Y�:i� ;LL�����'+ • l r ,e� ly I � r� ,� c�Y•Ir rJ' • � � I �• � I � _ t��I � a u � J • y' /• �� � •rya IN THE Superior Court cv OF THE l STATE OF CALIFORNIA LAB In and for the County of Orange CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY CLERK ` PROOF OF PUBLICATION Public Hearing NOTICE(IF PUBLIC HEARING -" PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF'• HUNTINGTON CENTRAL PARK State of California NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN tha't:s County of Orange )ss' public hearing will be held by the'City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, in the Council Chamber of the Civic Cen- ter,Huntington Beach,*at the hour of 7:30 Rita J Richter P.M.,or as soon thereafter as possible on Monday,the 3rd day of August,'1981,fdi the purpose of conside the ebonbmic That I am and at all times herein mentioned was a citizen of Ism ility stud prepared by Uttrasys-, the United States,over the age of twenty-one years,and that I tams,Inc.,on the proposed development am not a art to,nor interested in the above entitled matter; of Huntington Central Park. i party Copies 'of the' economic feasibility that I am the principal clerk of the printer of the f study are available for review in the CitY Clerk's Off iee,,2000 Main Street snd4he Central Library,7111 Talbert Avenue:.= Huntington Beach Ind. w<I interested hearing ng and are reike'nvi t l Review V 1 eW �attend said hearing end e:preae them � a newspaper of general circulation,published in the City of opinions for or against said development.. Further information may be obtained from the Office of the City Clerk,2" HUntington Beach Main Street,Huntington Beach,Califor- nia 92648—(714)536-6221. Count of Orange and which newspaper is published for the DATED July HUNTINGTON Y gP CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH- disemination of local news and intelligence of a general charac- By:ALICIA M.WENTWORTH r ter, and which newspaper at all times herein mentioned had City Clerk and still has a bona fide subscription list of paying subscribers, Pub.July 9h Ind P P Y K 'Hunt.Beach Ind.Rey.#t0564 -. and which newspaper has been established, printed and pub- lished at regular intervals in the said County of Orange for a period exceeding one year; that the notice, of which the annexed is a printed copy, has been published in the regular and entire issue of said newspaper,and not in any supplement Q ''7 l thereof,on the following dates,to wit: 611/ / e G/l cu,e�" July 99 1981 I certify(or declare) under penalty of perjury that the forego- ing is true and correct. Garden Grove Datedat................................................ Calif nia, is .9 t.h..day e�UJI...... 101...... ... .... .. .ti.�i°� ....... Signature ki � v I Form No.CAF-81380 ,\..... / V .. Publish July 9;, 1981� NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF HUNTINGTON CENTRAL PARK W1 1Cl_ IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held by the City Council . (if the City of Huntington Beach, in the Council Chamber of the Civic Center, luntington Beach, at the hour of 7:30 P.M. , or as soon thereafter as possible on _ _ Monday the 3r d day of Augsts t 1981 . for the purpose of Considering the economic feasibility study prepared by Ultrasystems, Inc. , on the proposed development of Huntington Central .Park. Copies of the economic feasibility study are available for review in the City Clerk's Office, 2000 Main Street and the Central Library, 7111 Talbert Avenue. All interested persons are invited to attend said hearing and express their opinions for or against said development Further information may be obtained from the Office of the City Clerk, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California. 92648 - (714) 536-5227 DATED July 6, 1981 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH By: Alicia M. Wentworth City Clerk REQUES) -' EOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION' Date July 28 , 1981 Submitted to: The Honorable Mayor and City Council Submitted by: Charles W. Thompson, City Administratorr01M Prepared by: Vincent G . Moorhouse, Director, Community Services Subject: Ultrasystems.' Economic Feasibility Study of Huntington Central Park Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions, Attachments: STATEMENT OF ISSUE With the completion of the economic feasibility analysis by Ultra- systems , Inc . , Council should now. provide policy and direction to staff regarding the. proposed development plan of Huntington Central Park. RECOMMENDATION 1 . If economic feasibility in Huntington Central Park is the highest priority of Council, staff recommends development .of Alternate 4a of the Ultrasystems report which was approved by the Community Services Commission. (See attachment SQ _5 2 . If economic feasibility is not the primary goal , staff recommends the acquisition of all properties north .of Ellis Avenue except the property (A. C . "Marion) lying north .of Ellis Avenue and west of Goldenwest Avenue and the frontage on Gothard Street north of Ellis Avenue . (See attachment. 2) Uses within .these boundaries could accommodate many of the plans contained in the Ultrasystems report except the proposed golf course and hotel . The Marion property should be developed commercially in a manner to be com- patible with the Linear Park and t-he proposed estates area to the south of Ellis Avenue . ANALYSIS In August of 1979., Council . directed the Community Services staff to prepare a schematic development plan for Huntington Central Park utilizing three basic elements : passive, nonrevenue-producing active, and revenue-producing active . Numerous public meetings were held by staff with .citizens and special interest groups in the past two years to obtain input on the .schematic plan. In .July of 1980 , the Community Services Commission held a public hearing on. the schematic plan and recommended Council approval. of the HCP schematic .plan and authoriza- tion of staff to develop a preliminary master plan. The Commission further recommended that the". city contract with a qualified firm to conduct an economic feasibility study of the proposed. schematic plan. The firm of Ultrasystems,, Inc . was engaged. by Council on. January 12, 1981 , and the study was completed in late April . During a study PIO 4/a1 / session on .June 8, 1981, the Council reviewed the. study with the Ultrasystems '- consultant . At its meeting of July 8, 1981, the Community Services Commission recommended . to Council.. that the HCP boundaries be the same as the. previously adopted. schematic plan shown in. the Ultrasystems Plan 4a with addition. of. the. five -acre parcel on the northeast corner of Ellis Avenue and Edwards Street ; that an equestrian center be included in or near HCP or the Orange County: Linear Park . to include- horse facilities for public use and that the elements included .in. Plan 4a be- approved in. order to generate the greatest amount of revenue .for. maintaining- the park system. In addition, Commission recommended that contingent upon approval by Council. of the HCP boundaries as previously recommended by the. Commission.; the surplus. park properties (.Terry. - 10 acres , Wieder - 2 . 5 acres , and Irby - 8 acres) be sold .to assist in the purchase of HCP properties . If economic feasibility is not the primary goal, staff recommends that the property. at the. corner of Ellis Avenue. and Goldenwest Avenue (Marion property) be zoned and left for private - development and that the property at the corner of- Ellis Avenue and Gothard Street be- kept industrially zoned with part of it used for a heli- port site which would be adjacent to the fire station. The net effect of this. proposal would permit the. city to establish bound- aries and develop HCP, retain much needed industrial land and tax base , and also provide for private sector development of commercial park oriented property. August 33 19813 has been set by Council as the date. for a public hearing to allow public input on the schematic plan. Final decision on the plan will be made at the August 17 Council meeting. The intent and purpose of the plan was to investigate the feasibility of utilizing commercial recreation as . a poss.ible. so.urce .of=` income to offset, inflationary maintenance costs . of.. the park system. A policy decision. now needs to be made- as to whether. the Council desires such development. in HCP . and the general plan.�amended to reflect the new boundaries . FUNDING SOURCE Park Acquisition. and. Development Fund; sale of. surplus_ properties state and federal grants ; private sector investment . (See attach. _. ) ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS 1 . Select another plan. or a. combination of the .plans prepared by Ultrasystems; 2 . Reject .all plans and refer matter to staff for additional design; 3 . Set permanent boundaries. for . Huntington Central Park future development and instruct staff to acquire land in accordance with that boundary; 4 . Defer development of the park to a future date; 5 . If Council has specific uses it wants developed .in the park, and such uses are of sufficient priority, Council may set the HCP boundary and direct staff to acquire necessary land and proceed with. master planning and development to include those specific uses . ATTACHMENTS 1 . Recommended Plan 4a 2 . Map showing land .to be acquired 3 . Map showing ownership of land 4 . Financial . analysis and. staff. recommendation. for Park Acquisition and Development 81/82 expenditures 5 . Letter from Community Services Commission Secretary verifying recommendation from its meeting of July 8 , 1981 . VGM: cs 1 x .11 MIT city yard arboretum �r youth camping area existing concessio ' adventure playground�'�f library Y existing nature area hotel/conference enter ' . s IaKe c shooting range and - Qun shop ymca complex r. baiYields existing concession huntingtolkv � `fishin l IaKe pz0acresjj,5 i aarcade5 area ry camping- 23o spa�ces ry camping- 2so spaces CrN OF HUHTWaMH TEACH o so-� a� 6= -oF Sacs. N1(1 Coe. t=-LL)s 4 EDtoIpRO S t EcQucsT,zi,eA) CEu7'En ttrusyst�ms 4 a �� - �9 � �-�_� -J / h ��_L1.���1—.-_� r-f i�--� hoo��r `�Tr. ^_--T-'���✓� I _ -T-.' -J ...n•rr.. cw } Y 0 DR raRno ur Lk y� LL I V•.X`^ ..oar• o. �'• L C r r � 1 vl!•w y!.hlMl 1 ,v�'n Otl Ot l 3• a/ vu Caw_-• .� I w a JA JS�I Il 1 I I ; l Diu +Kw � l I ` r n l > f l 1 I 4 THTT I ilk J TAlBEitT ` 77 Huntington ^ � ;, �� s Central Park � ,- � � �t; . (367 acres) ; _ I I r- l I C,F— C -!— ! .1 II I I I � II Figure 4.4 Central Park Boundary / 4-1) Configuration No. 4 (Same. v�ee_reco�ine�c�pC/D/7 '�2 % as No. 3 Plus Northwest Corner 5 At of Gothard and Ellis. I 1 J 0 Z TOTAL PARCELS C3 OCEANVIEW MUSHROOM :(56) = _2,47 ac. s ANGELINA GIACALONE (1) CLEORA HOTCHKISS (1) 6ZOI ac ALPHA COUNTS &. DOYLE GILBERT (3) - -- j s MARGARET- WESTOVER , OE ► lE (1 JEAN M. HETHCOCK (2) Ausk, ROOM- - _ - ALAN &, CHRISTIAN SIERY (1) r_ MICHAEL .9 GRACE: DALAN'Y. (1) _ HUNTINGTON C. G: & -CARL E. SLAIR (1) t PACIFIC CITY OF HUNTINGTON- BEACH- (2) = : i SULLY MILLER {([ CORP. i -2 5 aC- N Y. LOTS Alqy g/�, 4 E C - - `•.W. 9Y9G ;.' •�O B� .• YSVAa 85. 0 uoo � � STATE. , � ® LOTSf w _ �A■ ��00 5 ,,.;000 VIC ORA- CORP.. ry�m00 . -4. ,000 _ _ X;_` aS9 ac 0► 00te JAMES HUDSON 42 LtJ i 23 6 . ELL $19494.00 AVENUE MASEL. SRADLEY $567,000 NO. OF ENCY. LOTS "DO NOT .INCLUDE :MORROW TRADE RICHARD. PARISEAU $2%400 OCEANVIEW. MUSHROOM .1`7 ac. COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT PARK ACQUISITION AND DEVELOPMENT FUND FISCAL YEAR 1981-82 The purpose of this document is to identify and define the source and allocation of funds necessary for the expansion of Huntington Central Park in conjunction with the report prepared by Ultrasystems, Inc. ASSUMPTIONS: 1. Land values in this report are valid. They are based on present zoning, current land appraisals and recent property sales. They do not reflect business relocation costs or future appreciation. 2. Subdivision and unit lot fees will be doubled effective October 1, 1981. 3. 20-1/2 acres of surplus park lands will be sold. 4. Activity will be sequenced to maintain a positive cash position. SUMMARY SOURCE OF FUNDS Fund Balance June 30, 1981 2,346,000 Sale of Properties FY 82 6,569,000 Estimated Income FY 82 3,941,000 TOTAL 12,856,000 APPLICATION OF FUNDS Land Acquisitions 8,640,000 P.A. and D. Projects FY 82 4,073,000 TOTAL 12,713,000 ESTIMATE FUND BALANCE JUNE 30, 1982 143,000 6278E/4856 COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT Page -2- PARK ACQUISITION AND DEVELOPMENT FUND FISCAL YEAR 1981-82 FUND BALANCE AND CURRENT USABLE ASSETS Identifies current cash balance in the Park Acquisition and Development Fund, as well as 20.5 acres of surplus park land which can be converted to cash upon sale thereof. Land values were estimated by Charles Davis, City's Right-of-Way Agent. Balance, PA & D Fund (as of June 30, 1981) 2$ 46,000 Irby Park (8 acres surplus at 250,000/acre) 2,000,000 Wieder Park (2.5 acre surplus at 522,720/ac plus 20 percent) 1,569,000 Terry Site (10 acre surplus at 300,000/ac) 3,000,000 8,915,000 ESTIMATED INCOME 19 81-82 State and Federal Grants, Park Acquisition and Development Fund, Unit Lot Fees, Subdivision Fees, Interest, Landfill Operation and Huntington Central Park Concessions. State Energy and Resources Fund 62,000 1980 Parkland Bond Act 6369000 Land and Water Conservation Grant (50 percent match) 6099000 1974 State Bond Act 80,000 Unit Lot Fees 455,000 Subdivision Fees 1,2259000 Interest, PA & D Fund 2509000 Landfill Operation 70,000 HCP Concessions 10,000 SB 174 - Roberti-Z'Berg 2099000 1976 State Bond Act 1359000 HCO Oak View 200,000 3,941,000 TOTAL SOURCE OF FUNDS 12,856,000 6278E/485B COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT Page -3- PARK ACQUISITION AND DEVELOPMENT FUND FISCAL YEAR 1981-82 PROPOSED LAND ACQUISITION 1981-82 Estimated expenditures for acquisition of land for Huntington Central Park. These costs are based on appraisals and estimates prepared by Charles Davis, City's Right-of-Way Agent, and Locke Land Services. Sully-Miller/Ocean View Mushroom (Gothard and Ellis - 8.97 ac) 2,691,000 Mushroom Farm (Goldenwest - 19.12 ac) 2,294,000 Nelson Auto, Etc. (Northeast Goldenwest and Ellis - 4.34 ac) 930,000 Marion (Northwest Goldenwest and Ellis - 8.86 ac) 1,063,000 Small Lots (North of Ellis - 11.5 ac) 1,080,000 Huntington Beach Company (Northeast Edwards and Ellis - 4.85 ac) 582,000 8,640,000 REAPPROPRIATIONS FROM FY 81 Golden West College Field Improvements 2,000 Manning Street Improvements 25,000 Moffett, Drew, Bolsa View Development 50,000 LeBard Backstops 59000 Marine View Backstops 5,000 Dwyer/Gisler Lighting 68,000 City Gym Parking Lot 31,000 Marina Park - Handball 10,000 Seeley Park -. Gate, Walks 32000 Franklin Park - Trees, Tables 1,000 Oak View Center Park Development '(1.5 ac) 75,000 275,000 6 278E/485B COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT Page -4- PARK ACQUISITION AND DEVELOPMENT FUND FISCAL YEAR 1981-82 FY 1981-82 BUDGET (HIGH PRIORITY) These projects have been given high priority by both staff and the Community Services Commission to be completed in FY 81-82. PA & D Operation 55,000 Landfill Operation 70,000 Energy Service Study 50,000 Appraisals 5,000 Golden West Sports Field Lighting 50,000 Park Signs 22000 Landscape Architecture 75,000 Langenbeck Park Development 687,000 Library Parking Expansion and Lighting 56,000 HCP Payment (3rd to Prentice Taylor) 39,000 Oak View Center Addition 225,000 Park Tables 30,000 Edison Ballfield Fencing 8,000 Huntington Beach Community Park Street Improvements 56,000 Warner Park Street Improvements 12,000 Bartlett Park Street Improvements 60,000 HCP - Other 25,000 1,505,000 FY 1981-82 BURET (LOWER PRIORITY) These projects have been given a low priority status and may or may not be constructed in FY 1981-82. The totals for these projects have been included in the overall expenditure summary. McCallen Park Development 340,000 Helme Park Development 1091000 Bartlett Park (Barn and Garden) Development 339,000 Dwyer School Court and Field Lighting 150,000 Marina Park Court Lighting Revisions 50,000 Central Library Pools/Planters Conversion 901000 HCP Sully-Miller Lake Development 976,000 City Gym Site Acquisition 239,000 2,293,000. TOTAL APPLICATION OF FUNDS $12,71.3,000 � D ,�a D 6 278E/4856 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 P. 0. Box 190 COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT (714) 536-5486 Vincent G. Moorhouse,Director July 10, 1981 Honorable Mayor and City Council Post Office Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Honorable Mayor and City Council : On July 8 , 1981 , the Community Services Commission made the following recommendations regarding the Ultrasystems Report . MOTION: Mr. Dysinger moved, seconded by Mr.. Mossteller, the Community Services Commission recommend to the City Council that the Huntington Central Park boundaries be the same as the previously adopted schematic master plan as shown in the Ultrasystems Plan 4a with addition of the 5 acre parcel on the northeast corner of Ellis Avenue and Edwards Street ; that an equestrian center be included in or near Huntington Central Park or the Orange County Linear Park to include horse facilities usable by the public and that the elements included in the Ultrasystems Plan 4a be approved in order to generate the greatest amount of revenue for maintaining the park system. MOTION CARRIED. MOTION: Dr. Cooper moved, seconded by Mr. Mossteller, that contingent upon approval by the City Council for the Huntington Central Park boundaries as previously recommended by the Community Services Commission, that the surplus park properties (Terry-10acres,, Wieder-2 . 5 acres and Irby-8acres) be sold to assist 'in the purchase of Huntington Central 'Park properties . MOTION CARRIED. Respectfully submitted, Vivian Borns , ecretary Community Services Commission VB : cgs HELLO MY NAME IS � `'1of ISM representing Corral 100 - the 1©cal eTu"S of Equestrian Trails Inc. , a national equestrian organization.. have a slide presentation 'to' show -you as an Information item t©Hite. WE INTEND TO. show-these slides to various groups . Andp planner's and decision makers in Huntington Beach and to pursue a permanent equestrian plan for, the city. We would like for this commission .to be involved in any planning efforts that evolve since recreation, land use, housing , etc. all need to be coordinated. SOME of our goals are AN EQUESTRIAN CENTER IN CENTRAL PARK VARIOUS TYPES OF HOUSING TO ACCOMODATE -- - - EQUESTRIAN-USE *--FRQM-CONDOSk-T-O=-ESTATEW AND A TRAIL SYSTEM TO ,INTERCONNECT THE ENTIRE NETWORK. WE HOPE to pursue revisions in the General Plan to reflect these ideas THERE ARE now about 500 horses in Huntington Beach with all stables full and waiting lists of several months. All the equestrian facilities are on variances with .no permanent zoning. Horses have been pushed out of many areas of the city' and are now mainly concentrated around Central Park and the Estate planned areas. we_ r jlt is imperative that this undeveloped area be wisely planned prior to development. And there is no reason why planned development cannot include Urban Horsekeeping. R � ' CENTURY RIDERS CORRAL NO. 100 P. 0. BOX 2303 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA. 92647 A NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION Dedicated to Equine Legislation and the Acquisition ORGANIZED 1944 and Preservation of Riding and Hiking Trails 11/l4/78 Honorable Mayor and City Council Members, Our group represents over four hundred City residents and horseowners who are alarmed at the Central Park Tentative Mas- ter Plan and the Alternatives being considered by you. The Equine Trail as shown on both plans is totally inadeq- uate. It is pictured as being a straight trail skirting the perimeter of Phase 111. The existing dedicated trail winds its way through Phase 111, up and down and around hills, which makes for an interesting, varied and pleasant riding experience. This existing meandering trail can easily be retained and in- corporated into the design of the proposed golf course (like Los Alimitos ) or R. V. Park and be perfectly compatible and aesthetically pleasing. Hundreds of equestrians worked for years to get our equine trail and continue to work to benefit the trail and the City. 1. E.T.I. has taken out an insurance policy to meet City requirements and our members have volunteered several weekends of labor to spread shredded tree cuttings over 90% of the two miles of trail. We were told the City was short on manpower and funds so we gladly did it our- selves. 2. Our members have worked to police the trails. The fenc- ing along Edwards and Goldenwest was constantly being knocked down and broken by four wheel vehicles. E. T.I. set up night patrols of horsemen to contact police whenever vandals were spotted. The fences have now re- maiked untouched for months. 3. E.T.I. has voted to donate enough money to the City to purchase signs warning equestrians to KEEP OUT of the restricted areas of the park. City staff is currently preparing a cost estimate. 4. E.T.I . members have spent two weekends carting ugly and dangerous trash off City Park property to the dump. There are still some areas l.ef t and we plan to finish these. These examples are merely brought out to show how much the trail means to the people and all of the above were really a labor of love. The equestrian trail is probably the most frequently used facility in the park. It is used every day, rain or shine, summer or winter, day or night. The horse population of this city is centralized around the Park, and they all use the trail. This is the ONLY park use where you have all your participants right there just waiting to use the facility. The equestrians appreciate this trail and are committed to preserving it. (OVER) Another area of concern is the omission of an Equestrian Center in the Tentative Master Plan and the very small area allocated to it on the Alternative. Equine facilities for shows and events are booked a full year in advance in So. Calif. and are full every weekend. There is a real need for this type of facility. It would have regional significance as well as serving this community and would easily be self supporting. People in this city are currently forced to travel long distances for equestrian events and children are are either limited or priced out of the market. In addition, an Equestrian Center should definitely be located near the campground to accomodate the large numbers of equestrians with R.V. s and trailers. Equine events typically last from two to seven days and generate much business in the area. E.T.I . was extremely pleased to .note the strong COUNCIL PRIORITY for the Equestrian Trail which received SIX of your votes, and for the Equestrian Trail which received SEVEN votes (the HIGHEST-#IIPRIORITY on the list) . Please take our concerns into consideration and let us know if there is any way we may' be of service to you.. Sincerely, E.T.I . Corral 100 Jerry Phelps, president " , 1 a � 0 b 00 a N' O H 0 R S E 9 PIYOND Do _ C.o2czc� 1 t 00 H�:Kz,N�Tv►� C3e�c�+ 7R-R � ides 1 1 A � N -® A � �v �A�� �J �S —► � N �,�.. j h.o�s�� +EN N l3 (--"Lv e E!- t`i H 0 R-S(2,S . a. DO N(O-r R P P po NCH P A5� f� GTtlCt2. i4 ©F5e iz �� iTNOVT LJt�� v , �Jq - No H a RS e, M(zs\y lQ-V-7 LU tv NO -Tc b N v e- h , (ZA J -X- C) 4W7 Caw► �� � c� �m� ( �s s l v�r�a-(� C P�s CIA vt�t°fZarl -lw, 4 rice hA-c _. (kc Caul 68►F{ IYI ma(4fel �✓decrsicm -{�v►c l�-� tir1 -� 0� r is r(fzavle ,-f ttQ csf&ar wdocle: A&A po,*s av -j Od l;Icy. Pack w.. ;bp K 4�6L -1p aww�� we 5ko W will c.cM2�1,lG�'rr� � � addlihc`•1ce_ , 1�0%a-{- 9 "�W cf Ct� ��dl *04 aftm -�whg f(nw^�f 6 Gt v-61c -6-JI 1. *a.- Q?I W44(H Ic co f c i vie, aw ( 5wA PCMW 4h4,y, 660 Mat .aj cosy,,, 4 -(� �(�� 2ZWjl av wt11A dc(°j COMM416L �G, i �C&O mvio 05.GL dcd �►a�-f �l� 5�e� v�+-�" - k4e ifis �iVe, diveclzom fo 5fa�f. -fo �v�rvt�` 6ac(� -l-tAe ,.�r"P.e'" lit �- C�`�� �-fi,�G� P�� C�c� ( -Fa✓ Gvarl ivf mud vwhov\ in Auk is-f6 ate-(✓ cavopN1 evrfs o(-ct,w D✓GQc!/lG�vtcu. �tr v�.I � �leiicY�{ • ' Y�lo�iLvvYtevlda�Zo� '(�tf'-ffl .¢.. pwt. (; �S ��rrl�vtfi o�-(�e� ouc✓al ( ordrutaM.ce.. G,� i����za( lr, GIIYn+CM a0,W� �a I V\J �vt alb .=C�f « Cto oyd ' p5zf(� �alk�vt�t tons xeov, 6PA (� 47;.. 42 utof-ccvty�X� Ufln GP, `h^�• CAP usatlalo be c(.w.V&(. _` i� 00ticsv"(�ng aueas� r r FINAL . ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ON THE PROPOSED HUNTINGTON CENTRAL PARK EXPANSION (EIR 81-5) r r July, 1982 r r r Prepared by: ENVISTA, a division of Willdan Associates 1745 Orangewood Avenue Suite 210 Orange, California 92668 r (714) 978-6185 r TABLE OF CONTENTS SUMMARY ......... . .. . ... . . . . . ...... .. . . . . ... . . .. . . . .... . . ... ... . . . . . .. . ... 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION . ..... . ... . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . .. .... .... . . . . . . . . . 1 . PARK IMPACTS - SUMMARY ... .. .. ... . ..... . . .... . . . .. . . . . . ........ . . . . . . 1 PLANNING MODE IMPACTS - SUMMARY .. . .. .. .... . . . . .. . . .. . . .. .. .. ... . . . . . 3 1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION . . . . . . . . .... . . .. . . .. .. . . . . . . .. ..... .. . . . . . .... . . . 5 1.01 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . 5 1.02 PROJECT PROPONENTANDOBJECTIVES . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . 6 1.03 PROJECT LOCATION AND BOUNDARIES ... . . . . .. .. .. .. . . . . . .. . .... 7 1.04 PROJECT COMPONENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ... . .. .. . . . .. 7 1.05 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING . . . . ... .. ....... . . . .. . ..... . . . . . .. . . . 13 . 1.06 PROJECT BACKGROUND . . . .. . .. . .. ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . ... .. . . . . . 14 2.0 EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT D MI&GATION MEASURES .. . .. . ..... .. . . . ... .. . .. .... . . . . . . .. . . 21 2.01 SOILS AND GEOLOGY . .. . .. .... . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . .... ... . . . . . 21 2.02 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY... . .. .. . . .. .. ..... .. . . . . . . . . . . 31 2.03 BIOLOGY . .... ... . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . 41 2.04 LAND USE AND PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. .. . . 44 2.05 ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL RESOURCES . . .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . 49 . 2.06 TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION . . . ... . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. 53 2.07 CLIMATE AND AIR QUALITY ... .. .. . ... . . . . . . . . . .... . . . . . . . . . .. 62 2.08 NOISE . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. .. . . . . . . .. . . . . 71 2.09 VISUAL AND AESTHETICS . . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . .... ... . .. . . . .. . . . . . . 78 2.10 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES. .. . . . . .. . ... ... . .. . . . . . . . . .. 84 2.11 ENERGY CONSIDERATIONS . . . ... . .. . .... . . . . . . .... ... . . . . . . . . . . 89 2.12 SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .... . . . . . . .. 91 3.0 TOPICAL ISSUES . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . .. .... . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. .. 92 3.01 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ... . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 92 3.02 SHORT-TERM EFFECTS VERSUS LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY . .. ... .. .. 92 3.03 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS 93 3.04 GROWTH INDUCEMENT ..... . . . .. .. . . .... . .... . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . 93 3.05 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES .... .. ... ....... .. . . . . ..... ....... .. . . 94 i� TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont 'd. ) 4.0 REFERENCES .... ... . . . . . . . . . ... . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . .. . . . . . . . . . . ... . 97 4.01 BIBLIOGRAPHY . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . .... . 97 4.02 PERSONS AND ORGANIZATIONS CONSULTED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . 98 • 4.03 REPORT PREPARATION TEAM . . . . .. .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 5.0 PUBLIC REVIEW COMMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 5.01 PUBLIC REVIEW COMMENTS AND RESPONSES . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . 100 0 5.02 COMMENT LETTERS . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . ... . . 104 6.0 APPENDICES • A. INITIAL STUDY B. TRAFFIC STUDY C. ARCHAEOLOGY ANALYSIS D. AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS E. NOISE ANALYSIS . F. STATE HEALTH DEPARTMENT CORRESPONDENCE G. FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET ! LIST OF TABLES A. CENTRAL PARK MASTER PLAN RECREATIONAL AND USE ELEMENTS ... . ... .. .. 15-19 B. MAXIMUM PROBABLE EARTHQUAKES .. . . .. ... ........ . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . 25 C. ESTIMATED GROUND AND BASE ROCK MOTION CHARACTERISTICS . .... . . .... .. . . 30 D. TRIP GENERATION . .. . . .. . . . . ...... . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . 55 E. EXISTING AND PROJECTED DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES . . .. .. . . . . . . ... ..... .. . . 57 F. ONE-WAY TRIP LENGTHS BY LAND USE ... .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... . .. . . . . 61 G. VEHICLE MILES OF TRAVEL . . .. ... .. . . . ... . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. . .... . .. ... . . . 62 H. CENTRAL PARK EXPANSION AREA - 1995 PROJECTED MOBILE AND STATIONARY SOURCE EMISSIONS . .. ... .. .... .. . . .. . . .. . . ...... .... . . . . . . . 67 I. CENTRAL PARK EXPANSION AREA - EMISSION INVENTORY COMPARISON . . . . . . . .. 67 J. 1995 CARBON MONOXIDE CONCENTRATIONS ADJACENT TO ROADWAYS CARRYING PROJECT TRAFFIC .. .. .. . . .. . . . ... .. . . . . .. .. . . .. .. .. . . ... . . . . . 68 K. PLANNING MODE AIR POLLUTANT EMISSION INVENTORY . ... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . 70 L. ARTERIAL TRAFFIC NOISE MEASUREMENTS .. . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . .. .... . . .. . . 72 M. NOISE IMPACT ASSESSMENT CRITERIA . . . .. . . . . . . . . . ... ... .. .. . . . . . . . . . .. . 73 LIST OF FIGURES a 1. REGIONAL LOCATION . ..... ... . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .... ..... . . . .. . . ... . . .. . . . . . 8 2. VICINITY MAP . . . .. . . .......... ... . . . . . . . . . .... . . .. . . . . .. . . .. . . .. . . ... 9 3. HUNTINGTON CENTRAL PARK BOUNDARIES ...... . .. .... . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. ... . . 11 4. EXISTING CENTRAL PARK ACTIVITIES . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . ... . . . . . . . .. .. . . . ... 12 5. CONCEPTUAL CENTRAL PARK MASTER PLAN . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . ... . . ... . .. . . . . 20 6. REGIONAL SEISMICITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . ... . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . ... . . . . . . . 22 7. LOCAL SEISMICITY . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... .. . . . . . . .... . . . . . . .... . . . 23 8. EARTHQUAKE EPICENTER LOCATIONS . . . . ..... . .. . . . . . . ..... . .. . . .. .. . . .. .. 24 9. ACTIVE FAULT LOCATION IN CENTRAL PARK . . ... . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . 26 10. NATURAL HAZARDS . ... . . . . .. . . .. . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . 27 11. ORGANIC SOILS . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . ... . . .. 28 11A. GENERALIZED DRAINAGE PATTERNS .. . . .. . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . . . . 32 12. PROPOSED BALL FIELD LIGHTING . . . . . .. ...... . . .. ... .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . 46 13. ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES . . . . . . ... . . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . .. . . 51 14. CNEL NOISE CONTOURS . ... . . . . . . . . . . .. . ... .... . .... .... . . . . . . ... . . . .. . . 74 14A. A-WEIGHTED NOISE CONTOURS . . . . . . .. .. . . .... . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 15. SITE PHOTOS 1 TO 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . .. 80 16. SITE PHOTOS 9 TO 16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . .... . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . 81 17. SITE PHOTOS 17 TO 24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... .. ...... . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . 82 18. SITE PHOTO LOCATIONS . . .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 SUMMARY PROJECT DESCRIPTION The City of Huntington Beach proposes to adopt a Park Master Plan which includes expanding the boundaries of Huntington Central Park with the addition of 30 acres of vacant land located north of Ellis Avenue and to pursue the development of recreational and related park facilities including: o Six lighted ball diamonds and accompanying facilities. o An equestrian center. o Parking facilities. o A restaurant. o A YMCA facility. o Lake improvements to Huntington and Sully-Miller Lakes. o Expansion of the existing firing range. In addition, the City is investigating opportunities to manage by purchase or through the City' s zoning authority the land use activities on a 25-acre area of land referred to as "Planning Mode." This area located adjacent to the park west of Sully-Miller Lake has been found to be of significance to the orderly development and use of the park. The City has designated this area "Planning Mode" and directed City staff to conduct a land use analysis of the r area. That analysis, available from the City, considered four land use alternatives. The impacts of those alternatives are assessed in this EIR. The following discussion provides a summary of the salient environmental impacts associated with the proposed project. For a detailed discussion the reader is referred to the main text of this Environmental Impact Report. S PARK IMPACTS - SUMMARY Soils and Geology Existing preliminary information indicates potentially severe geotechnical hazards may exist in several locations within Huntington Central Park con- straining the construction of new structures. Additionally, completed land- fill areas in the park may be subject to differential subsidence for a period of up to 100 years. Potentially active branch faults of the Newport-Inglewood System have been identified within the boundaries of the project site. The Bolsa-Fairview Fault traverses the southerly portion of the project site in a southeasterly direction. The location of this fault may impact development of the Planning Mode area. -1- Water Quality and Hydrology The lakes existing within the boundaries of Central Park are beset by numer- ous existing and potential problems of which the most significant are: o Bank erosion. o Water level fluctuation. o Nutrient inputs. o Groundwater seeps. 41 o Debris inflow. o Oxygen concentrations. o Water clarity. Biology 40 Development of the ball field complex will result in the loss of 35 to 75 trees along the westerly boundary of the proposed ball field complex. The loss in trees will be mitigated with the development of a landscape buffer near the same boundaries and around the periphery of the ball field complex. 41 Land Use and Planning The most significant impacts arising from the proposed project, relative to land use, are: i o Ball field complex impacts upon the nearby residential neighborhood. o Ball field complex impacts upon the adjoining nature area. Archaeological Resources i The existing midden area contains an archaeological site (Ca-ORA-82) which is considered extremely significant where numerous artifacts and human skele- tal materials dating back to 3000 B.C. have been uncovered. The EIR text identifies investigation measures to preserve the site. Traffic and Circulation Arterial roads providing access to the park are to be at, or near, capacity by 1995 with, or without, the project. However, implementation of the pro- ject in the immediate future would necessitate the improvement of Golden West Street to its maximum designed width and all Streets bordering the project should be improved to their respective minimum half-width dimension. In addition, the project will require several traffic control measures to minimize associated traffic concerns. -2- Climate and Air Quality The project will not significantly degrade air quality on a local or regional basis. Grading of the site will produce exhaust emissions from construction equipment and fugitive dust generated by earth movement. Subsequent to construction the primary ambient air quality impacts will be that of carbon monoxide associated with emissions of vehicles carrying park users to the site and other vehicles utilizing the major thoroughfares through the Park area (Golden West Street, Talbert Avenue, etc. ). PLANNING MODE IMPACTS - SUMMARY Soils and Geology The Bolsa-Fairview Fault traverses the southerly portion of the Planning Mode. This fault system is considered active and has been classified as a High Risk fault in the City's General Plan. Land Use and Planning The "no project" alternative would result in the continuation of the existing . or similar use of the property, essentially that of the mushroom farm. This use has been found to be incompatible with the adjoining park from a visual , odor, and possibly fly breeding standpoint. Two of the four land use alternatives (garden office and residential ) result in varying degrees of land use compatibility with the estate residential land use being more compatible with the park than garden office/restaurant due primarily to the lesser intensity of development and use associated with residential . The recreational vehicle park would be compatible to the extent that it would provide a supplemental use to the park. r The nursery/tree farm use would provide general compatibility with the park due to its open space nature. Traffic and Circulation Traffic generated by the various land use alternatives considered vary from 6,210 to 10,480 vehicle trips per day. The office/restaurant use poses the greatest impact upon the area due to its regional orientation as opposed to other uses which would be expected to generate local traffic. ! -3- Fiscal Impact Over a ten-year period the garden office and nursery/tree farm land uses each reflect greater City costs compared to revenues received to maintain necessary public services. Environmental Health Generally the project will result in an increased noise level due to the noise generated by traffic. Moreover, the ball field complex will signifi- cantly increase the noise levels upon a nearby residential neighborhood and the existing nature area. Nighttime use of ball field lighting will also pose potential impact upon the use of residential property. These impacts and mitigation measures are discussed in greater detail in the text of the EIR. M -4- r r CHAPTER 1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1p r r 1.0 r PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1.01 INTRODUCTION The preparation of this Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was authorized by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach in a contract executed by and between the City of Huntington Beach and Willdan Associates. Comments regarding the preparation and content of the Draft Environmental Impact Report may be submitted in writing and should be addressed to: Mr. James R. Barnes, Associate Planner City of Huntington Beach, Development Services 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California 92648 Telephone: (714) 536-5272 Envista, a division of Willdan Associates, is the primary environmental con- sultant responsible for the preparation of this Environmental Impact Report. The format follows closely, and is intended to comply with, the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) comprising Chapters 1, 2, 2.5, 2.6, 3, 4, 5, and 6 of Division 13 of the Public Resources Code. Guidance in the preparation of this EIR was provided by the City of Huntington Beach - Development Services Department in the form of an Initial Study (Appendix A). The Initial Study delineates areas of primary concern includ- ing: topographic, geologic, and seismic hazards; air quality; water drainage and water quality; plant and animal species; noise; light and glare; land use; vehicular and pedestrian traffic; public services; utilities; recrea- tional facilities; and archaeology. The Initial Study forms the basis for the preparation of this EIR. Assisting Envista is a team of environmental sub-consultants assembled for the purpose of providing special expertise in particular areas of concern. The sub-consulting firms and respective areas of expertise are: o The Endo Company - Air Quality o William Kunzman Associates - Traffic o J.J. Van Houten Associates - Noise o Archaeological Resource Management Corporation - Archaeology In furtherance of obtaining as objective an analysis as possible, efforts were made to solicit public input during the preparation phase of the Draft EIR. This input, in addition to the public review phase required by CEQA, was found helpful to the environmental consultants in presenting the salient concerns of all parties affected by the proposed project. -5- 1.02 PROJECT PROPONENT AND OBJECTIVES Proponent: City of Huntington Beach, A Municipal Corporation Project information may be obtained by contacting: Mr. Vincent G. Moorhouse, Director , Community Services Department 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California 92648 (714) 536-5291 In pursuit of the adoption and implementation of the proposed Huntington . Central Park Master Plan the City proposes to attain several General Plan goals and objectives which are restated here and included as the objectives of the project: o Goal - To conserve land resources which enhance the physical , social , and economic life-style of the area by maximizing the ` outdoor and environmental potential of the City by providing com- prehensive, coordinated recreation, parks, and open space programs that fulfill the needs of all segments of the community. (Open Space and Conservation Element, 2.1.2.1-4) o Goal - To achieve wise management and well-planned utilization of . the area' s water resources by promoting preservation of the area' s marshes and lakes. (O.S./Cons. , 2.1.2.2-3) o Objective - To achieve land use conformity with the General Plan' s designation of "Recreation" use. o Objective - To protect fragile resources by reliance on ordinance as well as acquisition. (O.S./Cons. , 2.1.2.6-3) o Objective - To maintain existing public recreation areas as per- manent open space lands. (O.S./Cons. , 2.2.2.6-4) o Objective - To expand the existing recreation system to prevent overuse of existing facilities. (O.S./Cons. , 2.1.2.6-5) , In addition to these are certain procedural objectives intended to be accomp- lished in sequence as follows: 1. Certification of an Environmental Impact Report on the proposed Hunting- ton Central Park Master Plan. 41 2. Adoption of the Huntington Central Park Master Plan. -6- 3. Acquisition and/or ordinance amendment as required to implement the pro- visions of the Huntington Central Park Master Plan. 4. Project implementation in accordance with the Huntington Central Park Master Plan, Phasing Plan, and upon the availability of funds. 1.03 PROJECT LOCATION AND BOUNDARIES The project is located in the City of Huntington Beach, Orange County, Cali- fornia in the Huntington Central Park and an adjoining area of land desig- nated "Planning Mode" (See Figure 1 and Figure 2). Huntington Central Park is situated at the intersection of Talbert Avenue and Golden West Street and is generally bounded by Slater Avenue on the north; Gothard Street on the east; Ellis Avenue on the south; and Edwards Street on the west. 1.04 PROJECT COMPONENTS The components of the project assessed in this Environmental Impact Report include environmental impacts arising from the implementation of the "Hunt- ington Central Park Master Plan" (Master Plan) and Planning Mode Study. While the act of adopting the Master Plan is clearly one of the discretionary decisions to be made by the City of Huntington Beach, that act alone 'rill not result in any environmental consequences. Hence, this EIR assesses the secondary impacts arising from implementation of the proposed "Huntington Central Park Master Plan." Implementation of the Master Plan will necessitate: 1. Acquisition by the City of certain real properties contained within the ultimate boundaries of the Park; 2. Relocation or modification of existing activity areas, and related facilities to accommodate new activities and facilities as proposed in the Master Plan; 3. Site preparation and construction of proposed facilities to accommodate activities consistent with the Master Plan; and 4. Potential rezoning of certain properties to provide supplemental services to park patrons. The four primary activities described above represent the general requirements in fulfillment of the Master Plan in its entirety. However, there is no attempt here to suggest that the implementation sequence of these activities will necessarily follow the sequence described above. For example, the City ' may implement an element of the project prior to any future acquisitions, provided that element itself does not require acquisition of real property. -7- �. W ° r Cl �Z LL 1 / � Z � W � W J Z 0 F- O z z ° Fwr. r� rMrr 'r A� • Q o oj z z uai Zn rp�p �M V aIn w u CJ NOS LO rrr` r�y�, Yr W AMA �' 39NVtl0 Z ��P < y W J Y r`Yr Q. a �n rp�Yr�btirrr�r�' r oY. as by�r rr�� }��'• o d 02cc < 0 Z ui --- Z o �r rYbr A b�p 4 Cal WUJ a x r�Y�yrytiA�r�"ry�ti}j„''Y G Z W tiyy��rY}y�'yY'y�rr ry`�r,�` AN a • • a • a ' ! �� I Q� ��. 17 BR H R p J \ 1) L O ' 2n ,V wal� W I I a U• �i�i' ■i m ::O-._S `v\ / �`--- ERR nDR("�C c , ��� I• v �11 h 4 a O01 -"- - — —---- �_ -i 'Trailer I� CHAN ■ �� a-in ln•I TS�IIIg 1 ICE ' R.nc h�v" c the Count ,�� 6jolerr :•••••I, �, D Park - 2 - r . An ♦. ., WARNERd ell li AVE+ Well _ I-••�• t - an• �• W I •'yam I.�I•• 2 a s.l y h m an Vi �. �, 1 '.I..•.•� II �I -� pll I I• H❑ yl� 8 YOCK R li 5 '� r ,Lark Vte i_ I� C Traile �o; � o.l 3O ire vA4. 1 DR L..... �Sch -,� f Park• •1• r" J Sta �- I I I ...... W FRIES ND OR I .�I•-� _ 'I• SIN 2LJ l 11"1 ?'IN TON -,;. :i::i: li lip wc+�la D OR' R�4_L �—RK 26. i, L T 4. AVE Well lan Ej � n�: rn I I II •Water; II w*. .•II" !�I I�;• ,5. ■_■! I 41 •�;:::'.��• NEWMAN _o .,.. �;- _ _ •C:iqullogi �.•• ''I .. ('—,�: ---- ,i ;I_9 .� •..■ • J Iggqlllq qql l' _ - C: Ilj •j �i Ij19i j 1 i ,j�i r •i• I c _. s 't he/Cem to her ii•� _ r C �: :7. _ �=J .�_-_-___—_\_/ cc 1 - - _ ■. TAtBERT�,d.AK£ ' • • •-••f•�1• ' J �Kump I' $ la •/ •Crest V' I ��'1 1 .rifle _' �`�-'� �• 4 "9 n.III ,\ 'ir"' 7,: - >.r ,�' ,�� � •F :-�)' I ��ail: 1-�i•�-_-'�'_ IL .��•'•\' � <� y'l' o,', o�S • Nttt{!y ., / o •_.•,�--.,�, JIB .i o 1 /id L (1 /.�:;�• T; i l 36 ' 1, a \�� .o' ° �'�Y'-� J.l o - �r—,. J/. , I `•° c . _ • d �' 'I�� ',ram;, '��-E;7�•� ;.c mac• ° •q,y :: _ •✓-,- ` ! .• ' •i q is::� f o I -b' /� - �.`' a• •\V I me \, /" •� � ED,.pA K .' i�LA—NN1� ° ;i•_., • ° � A- ;;Vcam IN _: i° °�� � • c _ °_1'-°,)O ��; 1'l n' I•,1 ♦ _ •:� \ ��' d /• �.: _ I o \/li I�,� q■i. ••• mil, .q \� -,..•1�^r O°'21° _ 0�-'--�& It c P •° il•I 1 J•• I a i, o- 4,10°o= I, tt' `� 4 _ � o �_@ I• . p. _ 'j `�c�..` .�_�� off°°:,,.•' °3 �Y I�''s�t�o°il°C oo ° ]�� O/�I� •per• � I' i:s4i 1:/5 I c J'• o I ° c�railer'', c% __ _•. b 'o � c �: >cua''-_ -.�oJ,^°c�o�T,? c �_` ark � •.,t F. 17r/� JF./ ° / � �°.%" \... � ��,j�_-''� �c°�o�j�o°ii d��° •O ° ° f�IIY.�SI',r,c J �.•I:�:''rr1 IN BEACH,6 CORD\� DY 721/' i+ �� I i, °C ° o ° Jf° ° 21�'� •C (4 °° // 1 - °� ° �,' :I,•.�I': :III cp is ..». 2 o _\� 5 .cl ■ -o o i I��� 55 ... KzowN AVE 'I //4• / '° 36 '/%< ° '�! °/,/ ° ° 'j�;�'1: ;Ili'.''.: \\ elipprt\3s�� A.v (Se.` - � - Hi�L 1(t JI^ /c IC ° ° �•O II• •I; 3�• I II -_ •' ✓;��� �� �t C 50 :1 iii _{h /• ^o c o °o o I• : L^• q ' p 1• II °II o UT °° °ti°v,o A�f o \,Cl�e• c \\I^�� `�,' �' y I -� ll. ✓� ,c _ °to 0 0 00 o S��li- II FIGURE VICINITY MAP "� 2 HUNTINGTON Q CENTRALPARK. p4annIng&ettvlronmeNol sclemm -9- . r i The full scope of the project is described in more detail as follows: r I. Acquisition (Potential ) The current and potential ultimate boundaries of the Huntington Central Park are illustrated in Figure 3. The three distinguishable boundaries merit fur- ther description as follows: 1. The area designated "Huntington Central Park" comprises a gross area of 297 acres. The City retains ownership of the entire area designated Huntington Central Park. The area designated for expansion contains 30 acres including an unimproved (small lot subdivision) created in approxi- mately 1920, located north of Ellis Avenue. While the City has purchased many of the lots in this subdivision, several properties still remain under private ownership. The City' s parcel acquisition policies regard- ing Huntington Central Park may result in the City' s ultimate ownership of this area. 2. Additionally, that area designated "Planning Mode," in Figure 3, consists of a gross area comprising 25 acres all under private ownership. The major part of the Planning Mode area (18 acres) is retained by and for the use of Ocean View Mushroom Growers, Inc. Pursuant to the City' s desires to properly plan for the future of the area the Planning Mode area is considered here as an integral part of the Central Park Master Plan due to its close proximity to the Park. To that end, the City has designated this area "Planning Mode" to allow City staff and this EIR to investigate and assess the relative impacts associated with four recrea- tional and non-recreational land use alternatives. In the preparation of this EIR the "Planning Mode Study Area - Special Report" prepared by City staff was utilized as the source in determing potential land use alternatives. That report studied four primary land uses: a. Garden Office/Restaurant. b. Residential in the following densities: 1) Estate residential (3 du/ac) . 2) Low density planned residential (6.24 du/ac) . 3) Medium density (12 du/ac) . C. Recreation Vehicle Park. d. Nursery/Tree Farm. Depending upon the outcome of the City analysis and this EIR the City may choose to: 1) acquire and annex the Planning Mode area to the park; r 2) acquire and lease the use of the land; 3) choose not to acquire the Planning Mode area but utilize the City's zoning authority to guide future use; or 4) do nothing. r -10 ........................ ...___._-..-..._...._._......:...............:........-.... _ y. .. .. t ii >i JJii , ' � r` f :li: ...,i:: .... ..♦t.t:;;>-W`` _...... '..._. ....._ ♦ '.+ ' : i � ,;•;.+.{•ty-.-._. ..._ `�•�', ,/- ,may , _...___. R ..._ E C II .........._...... �... t : E _j { i ti } : i .. i . q Alt: R ( 7-7 / } I4 1.. ¢ i I i ' I , ;S ...... _ .... ;gY7t •Up fPi ����° : '•�\.. f ..... : : - fT— LLJ A , • /' / ` ZIP .j)(� t 3j} ''SIT ..:...: l }{ T3 W � ^ ; ix 41 i ( jif J3 -•� � ....r-'^--'-.-«-..:........y... �-.-r-r-.-.-,,,�'"i _' �---:---,.,-xw- 1._. SnbV.R, v,� `K• -,..�-e{. :�,..j,... �.K:i. II L..fs...l...:. 5 : _r. { y, R r k. I i : p t e �~ ' f w• r �..............:...__........................................... t fjf ♦ ......_ ...:...._' �0 .�•F �� may..... ._ I.\ _L....A..;. :.-......£.;..�x..:.-Lirr _t.y _ ..-, . jT _,-T-'- . E�T tip 4 P AR ...:...... f f _� 1�...... .>r 01 tt .14 i [ i..i-..i......'J{._._. ;.__!. *� „• t�yj •�..t+i:.$i..d.i,-j a. �h ♦ s \ ,_ ti „syR 1 _i i.�1�...J-L✓i y - .. �y +-{will-:.- -------..._..._....._......-.....7rr .. __ .... lR..S-'..5. ......... . la: f € ''i � A :. .--._:.......:....._...._.._... L�1..� i r :....� €...:>. _ __.............. ..4. 01 , i'. j]f i '{F 1 E I / _ .... rn ...... j .n C }{ .._..__I i 1 ♦ ..... I.......--............ ...._—_- � � = u_' .... 3•t _ Z i... ...�.._..___. E r F .fin - ....5-.:.: ........ :..1 Q.:....i_.. :: .. i {{{ ; ' rr;{ ri!li•>t 4: - - I_. ..... _ 1 _ ai _Y i .-....... _ .OPOSEDi .E� PLANNIN Tt. PA K. EXPAN ht ..._......................... _ ._....................... MODE _j _ ........ I 33 ............ _ 5 : lt... i Z .. ._ . _ _ .............__.......... ._.......... _.Y._. 7. .........._..... i .... ..._.. .. .. .... .......,j.............. < : rn .................. _ - to north - '�" '{ `. i .. ....... --._........� tom' •.. . �,. i i --� r- i _ ...- .__._.._................---- i _ . .... t � � t as I ; I : � s V 7 Oki i 1000 { : j 1 �CA) --- - D �- m � r i O t C C C:,A?e JE.L r=_37•^+-.1....�, .....................�.-.__..._ _. ._._.......i...............:....._ ; ! _. , ........................_._ ' •r ' ! ' is k ' yY i v i J....Do TJ .. J < i(`-- Y. Tz ,i ._....' , W..._...... �.__i._ , _ , i - eF 1 ..... i �.. it 1, •. �^� ...,\...�.....7.,�_�.e� 1.. , .s '7-:t ._. e._.... S,tNiX `f4E? .,! '-- �'�Rl-`«--• '_.:.: { ( {..._.e..,, :', � i'""'i ... , : �.y/ ��OF` -'•_ --�,,....r� ... ...w..a...��,.T-�:1..�J '' J': ' .�_: ',;.altf. i` ,M..'-' ...... � 'K ...... .-'._"^ 1. , '( ,•t•-«»..-...-..-'�.-.'--�•`'--+----•• t....., �< 4ncwwi w i E 5al..k:h ...�:.7......yv..._.v+i.,-'- ET . `tMRIt RG 9Ar LN ........f....:...:..................,..._.,_..».................A..� ai..._.i..i...�..�...i_.�i j i i +�" y yy .. ............._..........._...__. _............................... YCITI' i, . A I=. 3 , , ;kk jTfF} 1 � i �ICESSI IY :.RR,w - A 1 i { i t} L_.I..i ..{...1 ...III � � . y` `iS-'w`isi,C..............!..................... E... .... �"� c N A � . , . °AM i G R»� A : . . �..., . ...,.. CN1 ` EA :r.:: NATURE I 'Hf�+dU _ �._ l'�' DEVE� � AREA ( E j T „ Li V E TES PLAY ,. .. (yam` CAR` .... . 1 1 L HUNTINQTdf . ro h - t ?•. .. INACTIV IV� 17 i LANDFIL rn AOLA"' S OOTIPI, 1 R� GE: ZC : :;: ........_ + MIDD �......_ �- m ARE i.L isAlIC ....... _.......... rr:. i SUN EV LEI ...; I , rn 1 ::T _ o _ .moo. z _ X NMI , _ 00 .j'� i .... i!: ,r L STRIAN ...........................................: ! r - PLAN 'MODE-. ISBEE 1 OLF - - I i , G .....18 SE QD .17 ! -- 3 O � ...� . ..I... ........ . E , r: S .... ...._..... ..__._.. , h _ . ,. N < port .......__ ....... - i ; : . . ........ :_............ ... .. .........._ :. -- _ __ rn a .�_ _. _ _ . 1 , ,i , 0 t 1000 iwl 00 44h ------- ... f � _ --- -1 1 II. Relocation or Modification of Existing Activities Existing park activities and related facilities are depicted in Figure 4. Several existing activities must be relocated or modified to accommodate the uses and/or activity levels contemplated in the Master Plan. They are: 1. Frisbee Golf Course - Now located adjacent to the easterly edge of Huntington Lae the Frisbee Golf Course is proposed to be relocated or redesigned due to the proposed YMCA facility. 2. Equestrian Facility - An equestrian facility currently operated by a private vendor and located south of Huntington Lake is proposed to be expanded. This facility will extend westerly from Golden West Street south of Taylor Avenue and will consist of up to 25 acres of land area. Private equestrian activities which presently occur between the present park boundary and Ellis Avenue will be terminated upon development of the new equestrian center. 3. Shooting Range - An existing shooting range facility situated north of the proposed Fishing Lake (Sully-Miller Lake) is to be enlarged to allow the public to shoot an American Standard Course for handguns with the construction of a two-story structure for additional shooting stations, classrooms, a public restaurant, sporting goods store, and a gunsmith shop. III. Site Preparation and Construction The full scope of new or modified uses to accomplish the principles and objectives of the Central Park Master Plan is described in Table A and illustrated in Figure 5. 1.05 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The project site is situated in a semi -developed urban setting surrounded by low-density residential development, light commercial , industrial , and vacant land uses. Vehicular access to the project area is provided by: North-South Arterials East-West Arterials Edwards Street Slater Avenue Golden West Street Talbert Avenue Gothard Street Ellis Avenue Located approximately one mile to the southwest of the project site are Bolsa Bay and Bolsa Chica State Beach. This complex physical and biological estuary which drains to the Pacific Ocean is also the site of numerous oil wells. -13- Huntington Central Park was initially established for park use in 1969 with the City' s purchase of 89 acres of land which was combined with 58 acres containing the landfill previously purchased by the City. This marked the first of three phases outlined in the original park Master Plan. Amendments to the original Master Plan are now proposed by the City and are assessed in greater detail in this Environmental Impact Report. 1.06 PROJECT BACKGROUND The Huntington Central Park Master Plan now under consideration represents several years of studies, activities, and public input by City staff, the Community Services Commission, the City Planning Commision, and the City Council . Various interest on the expansion of Huntington Central Park sur- faced during 1979 with the availability of Acquisition and Development Funds through the State Department of Parks and Recreation. Moreover, the City was interested in investigating the long-range potential for revenue produc- ing park uses. In January, 1980 the City reviewed a conceptual park master plan and initi- ated General Plan and zoning amendments to accommodate the ultimate park use. This action was closely followed by the City hiring Harlan Glenn and Associates, a Water Management Consultant to develop plans and specifica- tions to properly manage the lake properties in Central Park. In January, 1981 the City retained the services of Ultrasystems, Inc. which studied the economic feasibility of revenue producing uses within Central Park. The study, completed in May, 1981 investigated five land use consider- ations including existing boundaries up to full expansion to 372 acres. Recom- mended park uses included a hotel and convention facility, an 18-hole golf course, recreational vehicle park, restaurant, snack concessions, YMCA, and an amphithater among other uses. These alternatives were considered and re- viewed by the Community Services Commission at numerous public study sessions. Subsequent to an additional study session and public hearing conducted by the City Council between June and August, 1981 the City Council unanimously re- jected further consideration of a golf course and hotel in Central Park. Support and direction for future uses were placed on an equestrian center, sports field complex, YMCA, an expanded shooting range, and restaurant uses. Cardoza Dilalo Associates, Inc. , the City' s Landscape Architect prepared the conceptual Master Plan containing such uses. Envista, a division of Willdan Associates was retained by the City in February 1982 to prepare the environ- mental impact report on the master plan consisting of the uses hereinbefore described, the expansion of park boundaries and the considereation of land use alternatives in the planning mode area. -14- Table A Central Park Master Plan Recreational and Use Elements Implementation Use Phase Location/Surrounding Uses Description 1. Ballfield One West of Golden West Street; 500' Six lighted softball diamonds; Complex east of Cliffview Lane; south of accompanying bleachers; dugouts; the nature area; and extending north- fencing; central control building erly from a line located approximat- to accommodate player and specta- ely 600' south of the westerly exten- for use including concessions, sion of Talbert Avenue. Surrounding restrooms, equipment, storage, etc. uses will ultimately include: Softball fields are designed to double for use in football , soccer, North - Nature Area or rugby competition. Six sets of ' East - Parking/Fast Food Area bleachers will provide a seating South - YMCA capacity accommodating approximate- West - Passive Park Buffer ly 600 spectators. 2. Equestrian One Approximately 700' north of Ellis Stable facilities for approximate- Center Avenue extending westerly with front- ly 250 horses, paddocks, practice age and access from Golden West Ave- ring, show ring/rodeo arena with nue. Surrounding uses will ultimate- bleachers for spectators, and con- ly include: struction of central building. North - YMCA East - Planning Mode South - Park-oriented Commercial West - Frisbee Golf Course Table A (Cont'd. ) Central Park Master Plan Recreational and Use Elements Implementation Use Phase Location/Surrounding Uses Description 3. Golden West One On Golden West Street, across from Development of 6.5 acres (approxi- Parking the library. Surrounding uses will mately 650 spaces) of the total 22 (6.5 Acres) ultimately include: acre (2,200 space) vehicle park- ing facility. Parking lot will North - Library be turf or gravel surface and East - Existing Landfill will serve the ballfield complex, South - Shooting Range library, and other existing uses. West - Fast Food Area rn 4. Shooting One Approximately 1,000' east of Golden Expansion of the shooting range to Range West Street and 900' south of Tal - include a two-story structure for Expansion bert Avenue. Surrounding uses in- additional shooting stations, class- clude: rooms, public restaurant, sporting goods store, and a gunsmith shop. North - Parking Lot East - Orange County Transfer Station South - Sully-Miller Lake West - Planning Mode 5. Restaurant Two Southeast corner of Talbert Avenue Approximately 3 acres are set aside and Golden West Street. Surrounding for lease to construct and operate uses include: a restaurant facility. • • • • • W W W Table A (cont'd) Central Park Master Plan Recreational and Use Elements Implementation Use Phase Location/Surrounding Uses Description North - Talbert Lake East - Parking' Lot South - Parking Lot West - Ballfield Complex 6. Golden West Two East of Golden West Street, south of Development of 15.5 acres (1,550 Parking Talbert Avenue. Surrounding land spaces) completing the 2,200-space (15.5 Acres) uses will ultimately include: parking facility. Parking lot will be turf, gravel , or similar sur- North - Fast Food Area face and will serve the ballfield East - Landfill complex, library facility, and sup- South - Planning Mode plement all other park uses. West - YMCA 7. YMCA Two Fronting on the west side of Golden An approximately 5.5-acre parcel West Street approximately 900' south to be leased by the City for con- of Talbert Avenue. Surrounding land struction and operation of a YMCA uses will include: facility. Accessory paved parking for approximately 340 vehicles is North - Ballfield Complex included. East - Parking Lot South - Equestrian Cennter West - Huntington Lake Table A (cont'd) Central Park Master Plan Recreational and Use Elements Implementation Use Phase Location/Surrounding Uses Description 8. Fishing Lake Two Northerly and easterly perimeters of Provide a heavy landscape buffer Landscape Sully-Miller Lake located east of and aesthetic backdrop to Sully- Buffer Golden West Street and north of Miller Lake which is to be up- (Sully-Miller Ellis Avenue. Surrounding land uses graded to accommodate fishing ac- Lake) will include: tivities in Phase Three. North - Shooting Range o East - Joint Fire Training Center ' South - West - Planning Mode 9. Huntington Two Huntington Lake located east of In- Construction of an aeration system Lake Aeration let Drive. Surrounding land uses including air compressor, air line, System include: air diffuser, and an access pier. This system will enable the lake North - Single-family Residential to be stocked with fish. East - YMCA South - Equestrian Center West - Park Open Space • • • • • • • • • • • W • • • • • • • • • • Table A (cont'd) Central Park Master Plan Recreational and Use Elements Implementation Use Phase Location/Surrounding Uses Description 10. Sully-Miller Two Sully-Miller Lake Construction of an aeration system Lake Aeration as in Huntington Lake. System 11. Equestrian Three Equestrian Center Paved parking facilities for ap- �, Center Park- proximately 200 vehicles. ing Lot 12. Passive Park Three Throughout Park Supplementary park areas to be Area/Eques- landscaped for general passive use. trian Trails Development of equestrian trail system. C G ....-....... i... ( C ................._.�_.._._.__.._....:.......... _..._._,._. _.,....... ........ ...._._...- : I `�r 11 t ( f _ .. ._.... ...._.__... .............. . 1' ILL r ,E k J ? •. �r , i _1." i � �1��'^••'i -- U. Ytxxa :x : . . ' "E 1j >.... >_'i-�--•-_s-•,.......E '-•--•- r,•i.'_ f.'"'_'""-"" �....tdi ... t \r r gin'JL NIL �^ I DP ..y HAI ...{... . k h / j - . r r � r Li *l ~...._.I_, __:...✓ e...... 1 r ' r' {' ...,-a..� i \` I k 4 'i ,,. j ..r• lr�' z..:, jr - 7 S t .. 77 TT dLL IA : u . ; ......... 1'r1fAR� yr rx �,. . ..... bG 11 / t[ { e � CONC ! E�S�t�1�i ... w 7 l j i_ .:.. � ( du H ti. btl V. :cA �IIV .. ......:.:�:is i:•iiii:•i:4ii.:.. RE i . -i•� :...1.�.L...._....:..,..z...I.�..l..l.l.; t..l..i.. ...1. fnc+r�>x• .... E 1 > <' :>: ADV PLAY+�a'�#�"JI,jNbE +OU+ WO 'T bwE�`J. O 4r E y ._. . Eye. 101�t*�f�s__.HE� ::: LIBRA Y� i � t--<. �,_.1�_:,..•;.I \.. .`� j fir' $ � +: -•��- i 1 1 � ���®� .REST T_ r li , __. .HUN N ..... �.� - . 1.A .DFlLL ` PA�KING 200 CARS _ t ; ' i rn = z c C� EQUESTRIAN SHt��T�N . ; �►N�t 0 ' E AND :GUN 5N }I � m CENTER �J]_..... a z z j L.. � FISHING ,,�.)4._ [ E 1 arT .......... z • .q .1 y i .l i�1 d F.I1 _. ���,,, _ 0 a � PL NNING DE r ROPOSED ` llC CAS _� 1111 YMCA ;._ ! .... .. ...tXPANS,ION ..,. _ -, .. ,.__- - - ._ 4 - - PAR .......... EN, E�:. { I - . ... .__ .. . .. - ..... C M_ ERCIAL.. a —I > . EXISTING Ac �ITIB , north .......... z � _:..... oo a L TEE PAfl,POSE TIVI- - 0 1 000 j I • cI m 1 r CHAPTER 2.0 EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT, AND MITIGATION MEASURES 2.0 EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT, AND MITIGATION MEASURES This chapter contains a discussion of the potential impacts created as a re- sult of the proposed project. This discussion will involve an analysis of the following areas: o The environmental setting prior to the initiation of the proposed project; o The impacts associated with improvements necessary to accommodate pro- posed activities at Huntington Central Park; o Measures specifically designed to partially or completely reduce or miti- gate the impacts associated with project implementation; and o Unavoidable adverse impacts where applicable. 2.01 SOILS AND GEOLOGY 2.01.1 Environmental Setting The City of Huntington Beach lies toward the northern end of the Peninsular Range Province. This geomorphic province is characterized by northwesterly- trending mountains and valleys bounded by ancient faults. The City of Hunt- ington Beach is located directly astride the Newport-Inglewood Structural Zone (see Figures 6 and 7) . The term "Structural Zone" implies that the Newport-Inglewood Fault is not just a single break but consists of many minor faults that cover a certain distance laterally, thus directly affect- ing that area during an earthquake along this system. Figure 8 shows the locations of epicenters from historical earthquakes. r Table B illustrates the approximate relative distances of the major faults to the project site, historical , and expected future magnitudes for these potentially active fault systems. Available data indicates that, locally, the Bolsa-Fairview Fault traverses the southerly portion of Huntington Central Park (see Figure 9). Potentially 10 active traces of this fault slice through Huntington Lake, the Planning Mode Area, and Sully-Miller Lake in a southeasterly direction. Although a detailed soils analysis has not been prepared for the site, indica- tions are that soil stability may be a constraint to potential construction of facilities to accommodate proposed activities in several locations through- out the park. Figure 10 illustrates potentially hazardous locations within -21- X s s "J Axe Sus Santa a I Jacinto F,,n �'�ando -Zlult ,\, Eagl e Rock Fault b Fault Mac�le o RaYmond -'k kl- ........... -J� r v c', NO, /k lk % 46 ez�cl PROJECT LOCATION north FIGURE REGIONAL SEISMICITY NO. HUNTINGTON 6 &W41to CENTRALPARK pkrnnIrQ&environmenta'sciences -22- 1 °a •^ 4,a *� .�+ CI HGF#ST SEISMIC RISK • 1► (GREATEST SURFACE RUPTURE `•. POTENTIAL WITHIN CITY , O' `% \� u►� ®AREA OF INTENSIVE SHEAR BURIED TRACE OF FAULT t%" • . (WITHIN 400'ZONE) •.\ \ ©UNCERTAINTY AS TO EXISTENCE p OR EXTENSION OF FAULT PROJEC ITE _ r •• i P f�'• �.,• B :^�� --� =?==?' R1d: ��''' -- _ •, �SA' � ' �1 FAV .�•"`•-- .c:...--'--- .art::---` � i ------}- _=,--"^'. ;=f-._-.. ---------SOUTH_ ANCH FAULT------ --- - --" '��•• +• • �, ?Gam."_.�.--.-•.-...-"... --- 'Nw1 '�o•ti� �--- ALIVE 5[f .W1� =5I' ULT - -- •� P - LOCAL SEISMICITY 0*4 D m HUNTINGTON &wva SOURCE: HUNTINGTON CENTRAL PARK pk)mi,g&environmer0al scwc„ BEACH PLANNING DEPT. FAULT 10 GARDEN 6 V R SEAL BE �' .� '•••1 IN V0A L HUNTI NGTON BEACH ..; < �� � •• T MESA :'o NEWP 4.s 4.8B CH a:o north EARTHQUAKE EPICENTER LOCS. FINO.E HUNTINGTON Q CENTRAL PARK p�ormine ernironmenta��� -24- - r Table B MAXIMUM PROBABLE EARTHQUAKES CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Approximate Maximum Maximum Distance From Magnitude of Probable Earthquake 6 Fault Zone Project Site Historical Earthquakes Magnitudes Newport- 0-3 6.3 6.6 Inglewood (1933) Whittier 21 3.2 6.8 (1971) Elsinore 25 5.5 7.2 ' (1938) San Jacinto 50 7.1 7.5 (1940) San Andreas 53 6.5 7.7 (1948) Source: Geotechnical Inputs, Huntington Beach Planning Department. the park area which consist of deep peat deposits and may be subject to liquefaction, and beach erosion. Figure 11 shows the distribution and thickness of organic soils for Central Park and the surrounding region. A portion of the project site (32 acres) fronting on the south side of Talbert Avenue is a former solid waste landfill dating back to the 1920' s. The most easterly 10 acres of the landfill site is a City-operated landfill under per- mit from the Orange County Solid Waste Enforcement Agency and remains active M for the deposit of solid waste materials. However, that portion of the landfill located between the actual landfill area and Golden West Street has been filled to capacity and terminated as an active landfill . This portion of the landfill site known locally as the Bruce Brother' s Pit was formally closed in June, 1973. r r -25- . '- - -- - "�.�..�. 7 C f' C (: ••....„•;...i......._.._ : .._ ....................._._„_..._....._.............�....._.._,._....._.._..........._.._____ .._.__..._._.... ... ................__...__......__.._............... ..... _ ,..__.._.__.._..................' -" } :I" -"_,..:'---:_-mac::� �� �--'�-- yttt' r _ E , ? M � i.. i ! ""' ::,::<.:.!.' .., ,. �''iij..q.',;ie:. •�.�._.. y':f}_._- _..i4 .............._- ._..................... ... .! i _.._... tom.-.... i 1 i i + _ ....... ... ............ . _..Sr� _" .. it ..,�..J,...i «..�•">^�5.,�� �r t..f ,.�...t...,. 4E.+ew Apt: .... .............. 77 ` I ' ! i _ x a I i „ _. �......�{.... NAPCE.i.fhR O+t y" _.i .�._(...,z ..._ , • u> � fff ,,.,' F_...� ...:r.\..��1. .--,...:rT•..._y..... � :,� yK}..�..1 }' ,♦ tvFF,x -e�_'{•'r- Y.�,.. i ....�..... e.. i I . . . ;..:.ter ul:FaZ M Lty .._i....,r.....,t ._...._......................................._.____.............................._....,. .— ...._....... • � is ..... ..__._._................. ...... ... Y i . i ' , i i ! w. V m min i ' - i. , . ! 1 .—W-.. ........ .. JJI i 7 ' t C • .:....{ } .... ..:. : x _ _...:. : 4 i : t i... I ! ' j 1 ` i E - s ram• ......... s«..... ....... �..; ...: .-" , : 1`•. 1 b J d... ._,__ .:3....4. "l Y, _ ....... 1717 r : ,t 3 N r .... R b ., I r•;r : _ s •__ l.• ,.. N Z ............. ....::::::.; _ ....-----_...-----.... , :.� Moo 11:0 _ =>t ._...........__.. a c I �i �•: . TIMM i,..�yuvt� •�T ••• .............:.::UM :`.';:i`a";:' ............................................. , C - _ ___..................... r ::,:r ;ACTIVE FAVT ...... ; .'•... LOCATIO y s .... . - <. I f .. ........ ... ... ( <.€f.{...,;,� ..�....._._...... m o �r ._.. ....__.............. + O north .....:..:.. ( I € ......... xr ;. 31... Z _. . ............... �_..__ ..;< I 1 �" �i, r.. . >.........-_-.. _.._.�......_......:...... ....._...____................. .. ..... ....«.A. t. _..........._..................,_..._.... ' i :.;:_ w - n 0 100 .0 € ---- - 1 D � _ m � 1 I ..-----...... .................. ....._....,..,t . : t -- - -- --- -' - - - .................. _....-...........-._..mow_,-_.-...............__..._._.., .......,._._. ......................... ... ..._,...._,_.................... ...�:..r...... ,.i ......._....._._ .�.w. f 7 C :a... o'er,:::•, ; y k =. s....�. i4 .• � ---;':ii� ;1 .'� Mkt _ `rct I v .....,Ilk, �L;......,... ,br. i t yy € T i s • � r 3 f— ..;_i_.T..1._.. _;....y ,.-_.t... ..__.._--'- .M.At�:.k•l�-_� ._�.....:td( Y'.,-, ,.x X, x• ' t r•• _ C , 1 .. ...... � � i :� .....Wit. .-...,.� ..✓'...�_'•.r ...7.q T r :_ ' �" 1. 1 ,J t E I ] , i • :-. {! a .....:..._: ,__..Y__t ... � .-;��"". i..,.......r..,... .,�.,..,.�'•,i � ��! �VtT 7 t _-_.................................. _ ................................. - �` 3. ( ,•, i _ < .77 t I —MAJOR i.Fl.F T { ! QBI—EMS 11O �� u T— .4� ' ROLLA LETH c,,.._. _.,.. . .. l :�. 1 , k 7 : : 1 �1 1f 1C1 : : , , �.......�. .. .......-.� .-.-r- r.. : ,... rl M 1 t. a WAW r z�: t I i� ter.. EE _ _ .a.°o o,tl.po:DA.00 ..o.m INACT � E LANDFILL �€ ;CT. I/ °a ° Vli-&AN I ILL I m ............................... :i,k:'. ,}.b O. A.'O ............ ....._ :. ... C ° i i s !!M!i! - I � � to A. .. 1 ,,:.+ .,lit Ai' � t • .-V ;fir i ........ _� _ .. ` 11lumimm 01 C3ayt. D ..............................................: y• ,.;.;ill � � € � O. �(t{r[ I = TENS M IV P BL Aa r HIGH �IS E i { DtF I LT OR-1 CT 'cAL ...... ........._.."_TO .......... 1 I _ Co : i h Wort l TITIL €f; , s„_..._,........ ...... 3 .a.............__.__,_................... ..... ..... , �j O-O-fit..._.. { ;OP N SPAC NT' rE. ?l'E —khk AL LAND` :USE '+CAPABILIT�/MAP 0 1 000 D : i f1 w IMP f ot,: 'elf. /w- = , , PROJ SIT ;`::::;;::_: 90 ' 4.;:• ==_7 z • o PROBABLE IACATION OF PEAT (AREA&DEPTH UNKNOWN) M 1/2 TO 5 TMCK LAYER OF PER ® 5 TO 25 THICK LAYER OF PEAT © OVER 25 THICK LAYER OF PEAT '+ ` : :: .. :�• ' t f 1 MARSH 1925,1905,OR 1901 -- INFERRED BOUNDARY = ORGANIC SOILS* ZO MOL om HUNTINGTON Q SOURCE: H.B. CENTRAL PARK planning&environmental sciences G E O T E C H N I C A L INPUTS The Bruce Brothers site was under investigation by the State of California Departmment of Health Services - Hazardous Materials Management Branch as part of a statewide survey to locate inactive and abandoned hazardous waste disposal sites which were in use between 1945 and 1972. In response to the City's request for comment on the preparation of this EIR, the Department of Health Services submitted initial comments in the form of a letter dated March 1, 1982, (a copy of which is containd in Appendix F) and a final clear- ance letter dated June 7, 1982 (a copy of which is contained in Section 5.02 of this Final EIR) indicating that the most recent inspection of the site and sampling of soils conducted by the Enforcement Section revealed that the Bruce Brothers Pit is not a "potential hazardous waste disposal site." However, it is projected that this area will not be suitable for the con- struction of any major structures for approximately 100 years due to soil settlement arising from the decomposition of waste materials. 2.01.2 Environmental Impact r Soils and Geology Existing preliminary information indicates potentially severe geotechnical hazards may exist in several locations within Huntington Central Park con- straining the construction of new structures. Additionally, completed land- fill areas in the park may be subject to differential subsidence for a period of up to 100 years. Local seismicity produced from the Newport-Inglewood Structural Zone could re- sult in surface rupture and liquefaction. Potentially active branch faults of the Newport-Inglewood System have been identified within the boundaries of the project site. The Bolsa-Fairview Fault traverses the southerly portion of the project site in a southeasterly direction (see Figure 9) . The location of this fault may impact development of the Planning Mode area. Table C records the expected magnitudes and durations of ground motion associated with earthquake faults for the City of Huntington Beach. The liquefaction potential depends upon many factors in addition to ground- water level such as soil type, relative density and intensity, and duration of ground shaking. Generally, low areas of poorly consolidated recent allu- vium within one mile of the coast are considered to have high liquefaction potentials. 2.01.3 Mitigation Measures Soils and Geology M Prior to the construction of any additional structures and public facilities within Central Park, detailed site-specific soils and geotechnical studies must be undertaken to determine levels of risk and to develop appropriate -29- Table C ESTIMATED GROUND AND BASE ROCK MOTION CHARACTERISTICS CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Estimated Estimated Predominant Probable Causative Maximum Base Maximum Ground Period of Base Duration of Earthquake Rock Acceleration Acceleration Rock Motion Strong Shaking Fault (g) (g) (Seconds) (Seconds) Newport-Inglewood 0.65+ 1.00 0.30+ 19 0.90 Whittier 0.21 0.30 0.30+ 22 Elsinore 0.20 0.35 0.35+ 30 San Jacinto 0.10 0.18 0.45+ 40 San Andreas 0.10 0.20 0.50+ 46 Source: Geotechnical Inputs, Huntington Beach Planning Department. mitigation measures to reduce seismic and other risks to acceptable levels. Portions of the site or proposed activities most affected by the prospect of ground movement or potential failure associated with existing conditions and respective mitigation measures are: 1. The restaurant proposed at the southeast corner of Golden West Street and Talbert Avenue is in close proximity to the inactive landfill site. A soils and foundation study should be performed to identify and mitigate any construction issues which may relate to the inactive landfill site (settlement) or seismic hazards. 2. The equestrian center and planning mode are located within a potentially high risk seismic safety corridor with traces of the Bolsa-Fairview Fault. A seismic hazards investigation prepared pursuant to the Alquist- Priolo Special Studies Zone Act should be performed for proposed con- struction located within the affected corridor. 2.02 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 2.02.1 Environmental Setting Three significant bodies of water exist within the boundaries of Huntington Central Park--Huntington Lake, Talbert Lake, and Sully-Miller Lake. A majority of surface runoff within the park drains to these three lakes. (See Figure 11A. ) Huntington Lake's drainage area includes the existing equestrian area to the south, areas containing oil wells, developed park land, and other vacant lands. The watershed and outer edges of the lake contain peaty soils which tend to release dissolved organic compounds which discolor water and reduce its alkalinity, but generally do not harm aquatic life in the lake. Ground- water seeps into the 13-acre Huntington Lake both above and below the water- line and is particularly evident along the southeasterly shoreline. Historic- ally, Huntington Lake was created from a sand and gravel operation. The Talbert Lake water supply sources consist of storm water runoff and seep- age from the groundwater basin. The lake is generally underlain by fairly heavy clays with intermittent layers of peat and a few pockets of sandier materials. Discoloration of the 25-acre lake has resulted from the peaty soils in the lake's drainage area and bottom, and from runoff from the mushroom plant at Golden West Street and Ellis Avenue. The watershed of Sully-Miller Lake consists of the areas which contain the mushroom growing facility, oil wells, a fire station, an automobile repair facility, the police shooting range, and tributary flows occurring from the Five Points area and portions of residential developments east of Beach Boulevard. The remainder of the 9-acre lake's tributary area is vacant. -31- ICY (-AN NCI ••.. .•............... ............ ._..................j_. ____._------- i I�l ` Y. t , PMJ : ; / ( ray : :.:..,, .:� - .................. ................_ .. .. .....;.:..�. . �.._ '... v— F1.. iZ_ n- -1 .. . z .. .... ........... ..........a..... Rre«x:e:e �R:.J"� ...1...3........ ._L_A_.E_.[T. f i ........................_ � . -•-- .. r, lX CR : !R w Le > .....__................_-..................__ ...............—._......A......R .._._.................... _,...F t..... 1•K ... ! �..._ .i....j.._j ? / :l:rs.' ixTTY ' axpa-i DR. " .. R , ............. ... E ....i R W ! s.... J . Lull j..... i ....i. ..:/ f 7. Do ._.! i......E.."S .' •�-;..T........ p,j OOIFi, } r a y ............................... :...._ —.__.._............................... .. G. \ + ....... .... ..-. .g DR ..... A.k'. .t. it _........ :I 'wi..wi,ixs` I x�� � ••-•--=-�..:.I wal?.'vu� -c•.- 'S.. .....:...:.. � EI jj II f 1...._._ _ _...:. } �a ...�:.... �. i�.-............:�f i R 1.1... oR..m ......L.. .-.. _� [ /•. y...':...�.�,.;I!ifwYE4 �iflf( '\t R,.�.�.:} ,}y ._ .. (C L......1 i.._:_.....�....... qq�l JJJJ i �x.i/ tp .......... ... ....�.K mR ?.. -i..dt : x < • , P If /i r r' E...... ! ! ""j `....'!:....' -'i ;o,�``;.T,'„'•_.,/,i"i`7 iz:. ........_ _....._ .�1`•T`.�14'.�_.> • '�-'�...�i_...'J?-.. ....` �.__ -f �� i � 'r rim:� '.1�+.�`!^.. +��.. .F �� ''11iii.•"'n-v.a•,:. J i < FFF yl..r.;7.:;- ✓ " •` 3-^:E'i ,.T 4R' `.a...;w•.:.J ' 1,.- , y y r _. 00 t .. , ,a• < --- AT `. At , ;. A NDFI ............. _._.....t-" 40 ..r..... :..... k: ! ............__.__..... z A. m s �'— _._ rn ,•1�rrn Z ... .......... .. _............ .. ... - - _ ..... ... 4 x. Z ♦::: j > w I � •: , o 7? i av . is .:: _. __ - . f • rW. , !!w I 1L --------------------- " f _ ....... ......... ------ .................... ( T — ............. �i1II.......... , l ! /�r L........._---- -- I ...n._ _... .......---.............. ..r............. I .......--__........... 7 7_ rn . i0 ................... ... 3 i ............ - ? _ ..... ...< i i i::: it ................................... — '^^—`_' a i - - j _.................. �. i ; rn Ivor#h !- �o .. Z ........................_.... l- .... e .... t 3y r i H ! 0 1000 If' .......... MML OZ CMI D The lake was formerly the site of a sand and gravel operation, hence the extent of peat deposits prevalent on its outer edges. Sully-Miller Lake is bounded on all sides by steep banks which tend to be eroded by storm runoff. As with the other lakes, Sully-Miller Lake is also partially supplied by groundwater seeps. Additionally, storm runoff from areas south of Ellis Avenue are fed into the Lake from 33-inch diameter reinforced concrete pipe which passes under Ellis Avenue. Excessive sedimentation has occurred as a result of surface runoff and erosion along the Lake's banks. 2.02.2 Environmental Impact Each of Central Park 's three lakes is beset by a variety of existing prob- lems and potential problems from project implementation. Following is a summary of problems inherent to each lake as discussed in previously pre- pared studies for the City of Huntington Beach*: 1. Huntington Lake: Summary of Problems and Potential Problems a. Bank Erosion - There is excessive bank erosion along certain areas of shoreline. This erosion adds sediment to the lake, exposes tree roots along the shore, and is aesthetically unattractive. b. Water Level Fluctuation - Annual water level fluctuations of three . feet or more can occur due to changes in the groundwater table and storm runoff. Water level fluctuations of this magnitude are un- desirable. C. Shoreline Slope - The shoreline and near shore slopes are extremely steep in some places. They exceed a 4:1 slope ratio and thus create a safety problem. 1 * "Huntington Lake--An Assessment and Restoration Plan," Arlo W. Fast and J. Harlan Glenn and Associates, December 1980. "Sully-Miller Lake--An Assessmment and Development Plan," Arlo W. Fast and J. Harlan Glenn and Associates, October, 1980. "Final Report--Talbert Lake Seepage Problem," J. Harlan Glenn and Asso- ciates, July 5, 1978. "Report on City of Huntington Beach Lakes," Toups Engineering, Inc. , February, 1970. 0 -33- d. Nutrient Inputs - Excessive nutrients are entering the lake which have caused eutrophication which includes: dense algal growth, reduced clarity, oxygen depletion of the deep waters, oxygen super- saturation of surface waters, and the threat of a massive fish kill . The main sources of the nutrient inputs appear to be the equestrian operations on the lake's watershed and the duck population on the lake. e. Water Chemistry - The lake has an unusually high salinity level for a lake in this region. The possible sources of salt contamina- tion include oil well brine, equestrian operation, and irrigation water. f. Groundwater Seeps - There are numerous groundwater seeps along the . shoreline which are unsightly and messy. They also cause bank erosion and inhibit access to the water. g. Debris Inflow - Substantial quantities of horse manure, organic debris, and silt are carried into the lake during high rainfall and runoff. Steps can and should be taken to reduce these inflows. . h. Riparian Vegetation - Willows and other bushes are excessively dense along parts of the shoreline. These plants block access to the water, contribute to the debris load on the lake, are unsightly, and waste water through evapotranspiration. i . Oxygen Concentrations - During the summer there is insufficient oxygen to support fish life at the 2-meter depth and deeper. This forces the fish into a shallow surface zone and removes more than 60 percent of the lake's volume from possible habitation. Further- more, the surface oxygen values are excessively supersaturated. This is a highly unstable condition caused by eutrophication of the lake. The entire lake could easily become oxygen depleted with massive loss of fish life. j. Water Clarity - The transparency or clarity of the water is greatly reduced due to dense algal populations. k. Fishery - The present fishery appears to be severely impacted by the poor condition of the lake. Even if water quality is improved, the lake has a limited capacity to provide quality fishing unless its natural production capacity is augmented with stocked fish. A stocking program of catchable sized fish could include channel catfish year round and rainbow trout during the winter. 1 . Refuse - There are excessive accumulations of trash and debris in the lake. Some are man-made while others come from natural sources on the watershed. M. Waterfowl - There is an excessive number of waterfowl on the lake. These cause excessive nutrient input to the lake, increased trash load, and unsightly conditions along the shore. -34- 2. Sully-Miller Lake: Summary of Problems and Potential Problems a. Bank Erosion - The steep banks above the lake are sparsely vege- tated and consequently subject to excessive erosion. The eroded sediment will ultimately lead to an undesirable filling on the lake. b. Shoreline Erosion - The fluctuating water level and unprotected nature of the shoreline is causing excessive shoreline erosion. The eroded sediments will be carried into deeper water and result in an undesirable shoaling of the lake's maximum water depths. C. Water Level Fluctuation - The lake is subject to large fluctua- tions in water level . Rapid changes occur due to storm runoff, while longer term changes occur due to changes in the groundwater table. These water level fluctuations are highly undesirable and must be controlled before a shoreline development and refuse con- trol program can be developed. d. Outlet Drain - This drain is presently inoperative. e. Shoreline Slope - The shoreline and near shore slopes are exces- sive y steep. In many locations the slope exceeds 4:1, and is even vertical in places. This creates a safety problem. . f. Nutrient Inputs - Excessive amounts of nutrients are entering the lake. These nutrients cause eutrophication which can include: reduced water clarity, undesirable plant growth, algal mats, oxy- gen depletions, fish kills, odors, insect infestations, and an unsightly appearance. Other evidence of excessive nutrient inputs include high nutrient concentrations in the lake's waters, dense algal populations (green color of water) , oxygen, supersaturation of surface waters, and lack of oxygen below the 5 meter depth during the summer. g. Water Chemistry (Quality) - Very high concentrations of salts are . entering the lake. Sodium, chloride, and bicarbonate concentrations are especially high. The concentrations of these substances in the lake are still satisfactory but the in-lake conditions could degrade if the influx of these substances are not controlled. h. Riparian Vegetation - Bushes and other plants are excessive along much of the shore ine. These plants block entry to the water, contribute debris to the lake, are unsightly, and waste water through evapotranspiration. i . Fishery - The natural production capacity of Sully-Miller Lake is inadequate to provide quality fishing. Without fishery enhance- ments, the lake will yield the equivalent of only 0.2 to 6.0 suc- cessful fishing trips per day. The lake can support only warm -35- water fish species on a year-round basis unless special tech- niques are used. The fishery could be severely impacted by the excessive nutrient and other undesirable substances now entering the lake. j. Refuse - Trash accumulation could become a problem after the lake is opened to recreation unless provisions are made for a refuse collection system. k. Waterfowl - Excessive numbers of ducks and geese could accumulate at the after it is opened to recreation unless a control program is designed and implemented. 1 . Flies and Odors - Undesirable flies and odors presently occur at t e lake due to the large piles of horse manure at the mushroom factory. Unless the conditions are controlled, potential for visi- tor usage of the lake will be reduced. •3. Talbert Lake: Summary of Problems and Potential Problems a. Groundwater Seeps - Talbert Lake has historically experienced detrimental water losses which have been caused by one or more of the following problems : o Pockets or lenses of granular material connecting the exist- ing lake bottom and the groundwater aquifers below the lake. o Pockets or lenses of peat connecting the existing lake bottom and the groundwater aquifers below the lake. o Thin layers of clay soil over granular material or peat. o Low densities in the clay layers of the lake bottom. o Granular material or peat layers in the lakesides that would allow horizontal seepage. o Degradation of the clay layers below the lake bottom by ad- verse chemical reaction with the lake waters. b. Water Chemistry - The lake has an unusually high salinity for a lake in this region. The possible sources of salt contamination included oil well brine and irrigation water. C. Debris Inflow - Substantial amounts of organic debris and silt are carried into the lake during high rainfall and runoff. Steps can and should be taken to reduce these inflows. -36- d. Water Level Fluctuation - Annual water level fluctuations of three eet or more can occur due to changes in the groundwater table and storm runoff. Water level fluctuations of this magnitude are undesirable. e. Nutrient Inputs - Excessive nutrients are entering the lake. These have caused eutrophication which includes: dense algal growth, re- duced clarity, oxygen depletion of the deep waters, oxygen super- saturation of surface waters, and the threat of a massive fish kill . f. Water Clarity - The transparency or clarity of the water is greatly reduced due to dense algal populations and dissolved organic ma- terials as a result of the lake's location in a peat deposit. g. Refuse - There are excessive accumulations of trash and debris in the lake. Some are man-made while others come from natural sources on the watershed. h. Waterfowl - There is an excessive number of waterfowl on the lake. These cause excessive nutrient input to the lake, increased trash load, and unsightly conditions along the shore. 2.02.3 Mitigation Measures The following proposed mitigation measures reflect the recommendations con- tained in the engineering analyses referenced previously which strive to im- prove the water quality, fish habitat, and public appeal of Central Park 's lakes as well as mitigation measures proposed to be implemented in conjunc- tion with the project: 1. Huntington Lake: a. Means should be devised and implemented to prevent the inflow of horse manure and other debris from the equestrian area to reduce nutrient runoff into Huntington Lake. The primary source of this inflow is from an existing privately operated equestrian facility. The project proposes an expansion of this facility from 10 acres to 25 acres extending to Golden West Street. The City will retain ownership and direct regulatory control of the expanded facility and thereby impose proper management control responsibilities upon the leaseholder. b. A permanent lake aeration system is proposed to be installed to: eliminate oxygen depletions in the deep water, prevent excessive algal growth, increase fish habitat availability, increase fish survival and growth, and prevent fish kills. An aeration system should also promote the oxidation of accumulated organic matter in the lake sediments. This should reduce the oxygen demand of the sediments and reduce the nutrient releases from the sediments. -37- C. Huntington Lake should be treated with potassium permanganate and with alum. These should be separate treatments and both should , occur after aeration begins. The purpose of the potassium perman- ganate treatment is to help oxidize the organic materials in the water and sediment. The purpose of the alum treatment is to remove suspended materials from the water, reduce the nutrient content of the water, and to form an alum floc on the lake bottom and thus help prevent the release of nutrients from the sediments. d. The entire northerly shoreline should be reshaped and reconstructed to provide: 1) better access to the water; 2) a more aesthetically pleasing appearance; 3) a safe slope and underwater configuration, and 4) good erosion control . e. Groundwater seeps occur along the easterly and southeasterly shorelines of Huntington Lake and have created marshy conditions. The marshy problem can be solved by the shoreline stabilization or it can be relieved by the installation of interceptor drains. f. The water level in Huntington Lake should be monitored twice . monthly to establish records on lake water levels. g. Unless an adequate fee permit system is inaugurated or suitable funds are otherwise available, the fishery at Huntington Lake should be limited to those warm water fish produced by the lake plus occasional stocks of catchable sized trout and catfish. The , continuance of the present fishery, or any improvement in this fishery, is contingent on an improvement in the water quality of the lake. The installation and operation of an aeration system, a reduction in nutrient inputs from the equestrian operations, and a reduction in the waterfowl population will help achieve this improvement. , h. Trash and debris can be removed manually by the use of hand tools such as nets and rakes. The material removed should be removed from the park through normal trash collection. The trash and debris could also be removed by the use of mechanical skimmers with screens or baskets operated by pumps. This method also trans- , fers water to keep the cove areas from becoming stagnant through decomposition of the soluble organics that are associated with the debris. i . One access pier should be constructed at Huntington Lake. The pier will provide visitor access onto the lake, and access to deep water fishing, in lieu of boat access. The pier should include safety railings, benches, and a special anchoring system which is self adjusting for water level fluctua- tions. -38- j. The proliferation of domestic waterfowl (ducks and geese) should be controlled to minimize quantities of nutrients added to the lake from this source. 2. Sully-Miller Lake: a. The park development plan calls for the terracing and stabilization of large portions of the banks around the lake. Terracing and stabilization are important means of erosion control and should be implemented. In those bank areas where terracing may not occur, such as the banks adjoining the fire department training area and police shooting range, the banks should be stabilized with vegeta- tion cover or by other means. b. The entire shoreline of Sully-Miller Lake should be modified to pro- vide: 1) better access to the water; 2) a more aesthetically pleas- ing appearance; 3) a safe slope and underwater configuration; 4) good erosion control ; and 5) good control of tules and other aquatic nuisances. C. The water level in Sully-Miller Lake should be stabilized. Rapid elevation increases due to storm runoff should be controlled through the installation of a pump and reconstruction of the inoperative outlet drain. Supplemental water sources should be sought for diversion into the lake to prevent excessive reductions in eleva- tion during dry periods. d. Nutrient and other dissolved substance concentrations in the pres- ent runoff water are definitely excessive. The sources of these materials should be more clearly identified, and control measures taken to reduce or eliminate these problems. Storm runoff from the Planning Mode area should be collected and diverted around the lake and into the outlet drain. This is more desirable than allowing these runoff waters to enter the lake as these waters could contain debris, oil , and other undesirable materials. e. A fishery development plan which is founded on a put-and-take fishery for catchable rainbow trout and channel catfish has been recommended. If the plan is adopted, trout and catfish could be stocked year-round. They would compliment the limited production capacity of Sully-Miller Lake for other fish species. The trout and catfish stocking rates could be adjusted to accommodate or generate any likely level of fishing intensity. f. An important component of the proposed lake development and manage- ment plan for Sully-Miller Lake is lake deepening. Maximum depth presently is about 35 to 40 feet. It has been recommended that the maximum depth be increased to 60 feet in the southern portion of the lake. -39- There are three principal benefits from the deepening: 1) the greater depth will assure the success of the proposed fishery plan , for catchable trout and for artificial aeration. It will greatly increase the volume of cold water within the lake, and 2) an in- creased depth will greatly extend the useful life of the lake. Even with the recommended sediment control program the lake will eventually fill with sediment and debris. The recommended deepen- ing could increase the life of the lake by many hundreds of years, . and 3) an increased depth will increase the lake's ability to absorb nutrient input without excessive eutrophication. g. It has been recommended that three access piers be constructed at Sully-Miller Lake. These piers will provide visitor access onto the lake and access to deep water fishing. In lieu of boat access . the piers are necessary to assure satisfactory fishing success for trout during the summer months. The piers should include safety railings, benches, and a special anchoring system which is self- adjusting for water level fluctuations. h. For long range maintenance of good quality water at Sully-Miller , Lake, it is recommended that at least two (2) intake and pump systems be installed. The intake skimmers should be designed to operate with weir boards over the range of water levels recommended. i . The existing shoreline vegetation should be removed and the shore- line should be reshaped and developed. Subsequently, more appro- priate vegetation (trees and bushes) should be planted. These plants should be selected for: low debris characteristics, low water needs, attractiveness, shelter for visitors and animals, and hardiness. They should not be planted too close to the shore- line, nor have root systems which are likely to disrupt the soil cement construction. , j. The proliferation of domestic waterfowl (ducks and geese) should be controlled to minimize quantities of nutrients added to the lake from this source. 3. Talbert Lake: a. From a total of six potential methods to prevent groundwater seeps from Talbert Lake, two have been identified as being most feasible for implementation. One alternative, lining the lake with a PVC membrane (plastic) is the easiest method for bidding purposes be- , cause it could be let on a square footage basis. The other alter- native identified as feasible consists of lining the entire lake bed with an impermeable layer of clay. b. Means should be devised to control and reduce the inflow of nutri - tive materials such as debris and silt through surface runoff. , -40- C. The water level in Talbert Lake should be monitored and stabilized to the greatest extent feasible. Pumping may be necessary to dispose of excessive runoff at times; alternate water supplies may be neccessary during dry periods for water level stabilization. d. The proliferation of domestic waterfowl (ducks and geese) should be controlled to minimize quantities of nutrients added to the lake from this source. 2.03 BIOLOGY 2.03.1 Environmental Setting Huntington Central Park serves a dual purpose in the midst of one of the world's most heavily urbanized regions. The park not only serves to pro- vide much-needed visual relief and recreational opportunities for the urban population, but at the same time provides refuge for a diverse variety of floral and faunal species. This is especially true within the "nature area" in the northeasterly portion of the park complex. The nature observation area is considered to be the most significant bio- logical resource within the park because it remains in its natural state with a diversity of indigenous vegetative species which in turn provides a suitable habitat for indigenous avifauna and mammalia. The remainder of the existing site also serves an important function as a habitat for wildlife including the three lakes which have been stocked with game fish. Following is a representative list of the vegetative species which have been observed in Huntington Central park: Trees California Alder (Alnus Rhombifolia) Monterey Cypress (Cupressnus Macrocarpa) Red Gum (Eucalyptus (Amaldulensis) Yate Tree (Eucalyptus Cornuta) Scarlet Flowering Gum (Eucalyptus Ficifolia) Bushy Yate (Eucalyptus (Ehmannii ) Moitch Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus Rudis) Moreton Bay Fig (Ficus Macrophylla) Maidennair Trees (Ginko Biloba) Dawn Redwood (Metasequoia Glyptostroboides) Aleppo Pine (Pinus Halepensis) Monterrey Pine (Pinus Radiata) Torrey Pine (Pinus Torreyana) London Plane Tree (Platanus Aceritolia) California Sycamore (Platanus Racemosa) Weeping willo (Salix Babylonica) California Pepper (Schinus Molle) -41- Plants and Shrubs Wild Celery (Apium Graveolens) Wild Radishes (Raphanus Sativus) Sweet Clover (Melilotus Albus) Mustard (Brassica Geniculata) Elderberry (Sambucus Mexicana) Burning Nettles (Urtica Holosericea) Bull Thistles (Cirium Vulgare) Australian Saltbush (Atriplex Semibaccata) Wild Fennel (Foeniculum Vulgare) Narrow Leafed Pondweed (Potamogeton Pectinatus) Bullrush (Scirpus sp. ) Cattail (Typha Latifola) California Gold (Bouganvillea) Crimson Sewel (Bougainvillea) Orange King (Bougainvillea) Ceanothus 9Sierra Blue, Santa Ana, Hurricaine Point) California Redbud 9Cercus Occidentalis) Pampas Grass (Cortaderia Selloana) Parney Cotoneaster 9Cutoneaster Parneyi ) Pride of Madeira (Echium Fastuosum) Southern Fremontia 9Fremontia Mexicana) Toyon (Heteromeles Arbutifolia) Pfitzer Juniper (Juniperus Chinensis) Compact-Pfitzer (Juniperus) Sea Lavender (Limonium Perezii ) Myoporum Insulare, Myoporum Laetum Nerium Oleander (Cherry Ripe, Isle of Capri , Sister Agnes, hardy Red) Pelargonium Domesticum (Mixed Colors) Karo, White Spot, Victorian Box (Pittosporum) Blue Cape Plumbago, Wite Cape Plumbago Cataline Cherry 9Prunus Lyonii ) Lalandi , Santa Crux (Pyracantha) Coates Crimson, Bill Evans (Raphiolepis Indica) Lemonade Berry 9PPhus Integrifolia) Sugar Bush 9Rhus Ovata) Red Flowering Current (Ribes San Quinieum) Pepperment (Mentha Piporita) The above list is by no means an exhaustive inventory of all vegetative spec- ies present, but reflects a compilation of various documents which have been produced in relation to Central . Park in the last several years. Similarly, the list of fauna previously observed in the park follows: Pocket Gophers (Thomomys Bottae) Western Gulls (Larus) Sandpipers (Charadrii ) Black-Necked Stilts (Himantopus) Meadowlarks (Sturnella Neglecta) Common Crow (Corvus Brachyrhynchos) -42- Jackrabbits (Sylvilagus Bachmani ) California Mouse (Peromyscus Californicus) Ducks (Aythya Collaris) Geese (Anatidae) Coots (Fulica Americana) Western Fence Lizard (Sceloporus Occidentalis) Pheasants (Phasianus) Blue Gill (Lepomis Machrochirus) Brown Bullheads (Letalarus) Goldfish (Carassis Auratus) Threadfin Shad (Polynemidae Alosa) Redear Sunfish (Lepomis Microlophus Salmoides) Largemouth Bass (Micropterus Salmoides) Channel Catfish (Ostariophysi ) 2.03.2 Environmental Impact In its current state, Huntington Central Park comprises an extremely viable habitat for flora and fauna which impacts the surrounding vicinity and the City of Huntington Beach as a whole in a positive manner by providing a refuge for wildlife and vegetation and by providing open space values and recreational opportunities for residents. Upon further improvement and expansion of the facility, beneficial community impacts will expand along with the park as further open spaces and planted areas will be introduced. Development of the ballfield complex will impact existing landscaped areas. The westerly edge of the proposed ballfield complex will compete with existing landscaped areas resulting in the loss of 35 to 15 trees. The severest effect result from the northwesterly most sports field which will result in the loss of approximately 35 pines, eucalyptus and sycamore trees ranging in height from 20 to 40 feet. This sports field will also result in the loss of numerous smaller trees which were planted throughout this site. However, these trees were not considered as significant in size and stature and therefore not considered as important as the larger trees, mentioned. 2.03.3 Mitigation Measures Given the tree impact as reported above the City proposes to supplement the buffer area with additional trees and mounding to mmitigate the noticeable effect upon existing landscaping. Additionally, the City should transplant as many trees as possible taking advantage of their larger size. -43- 2.04 LAND USE AND PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS 2.04.1 Environmental Setting Huntington Central Park currently exists as a partially developed complex which is generally devoted to recreational uses including such uses as the library, nature observation areas, the midden area, a system of trails and picnicking areas, equestrian trails, a frisbee golf course, the adventure playground, the shooting range, and a youth camping area. Surrounding land uses include residential development to the north and northwest; the proposed Bolsa Chica linear park to the west; various land uses including the Orange County Transfer Station, residential and industrial development to the east; and oil fields and stables to the south. Zoning in the vicinity includes R-1 (Single-Family Residential ) to the north and west; primarily M-1 (Light Industrial ) to the east; and RA (Residential Agricultural ) to the south. Zoning designations within existing and proposed park boundaries include CF-R (Community Facilities-Recreational ) , RA (Resi- dential Agricultural ), and M-1 (Light Industrial ) for the City Yard and the shooting range. The Huntington Beach General Plan currently designates the site and vicinity as Public Use/Open space. 2.04.2 Environmental Impacts 1. Land Use and Planning The entirety of the existing Central Park area (297 acres) and the 30- acre area proposed to be annexed to the Huntington Central Park (Figure 3) are designated "Recreational " in the City's General Plan-Open Space/ Conservation Element. In addition, the entire project area (existing park, proposed park expansion area, and planning mode) are designated "Public Use-Open space" in the City's Land Use Plan. In the event the City chooses one of the nonrecreational/open space options for the Plan- ning Mode Area the General Plan would have to be amended to a land use designation consistent with the desired ultimate land use. 2. Land Use Compatibility (External ) Proposed additions and modifications to Huntington Central Park will alter, in varying degrees, the relationship of park activities to nearby and adjoining land uses. Taking into account the types of facilities proposed, existing park boundaries and park uses, and existing or ulti- mate land uses surrounding the park, potentially significant land use conflicts arise. Conflicts with land uses outside of Central Park are limited to those occurring as a result of the interrelationship of the proposed ball field complex and the residential neighborhood located -44- r approximately 550 feet to the west. Residents of this neighborhood . could be impacted by light and glare from the 46 light poles proposed for field illumination which may range in height from 60 to 80 feet. A diagrammatical depiction of the spatial relationship of the ball fields and the nearest residences is shown in Figure 12 which illustrates that measures will be necessary to prevent light from travelling off-site where existing residences may be affected. A total of 46 light poles (each containing 8 fixtures with 1,000 to 1,500 watt lights) ranging in height from 60 to 80 feet are proposed for the ball field complex and an undetermined number of lights will be required to light parking lots and provide security lighting for buildings con- structed. The parking lot and building security lights will not signifi- cantly impact existing residential uses, but proper directional design will be necessary to prevent adverse impacts from the 2,200-car parking lot on potential residential development on the Planning Mode property. The lighting proposed for the ball fields, however, could potentially have adverse impacts in the form of light and glare on residences to the west and on wildlife in the existing nature area. Figure 12 serves to demonstrate that if lighting is not confined to the ball field area it could directly affect nearby residences because existing and proposed buffering is probably not tall enough to, block the projected light. Thus, special care will be required to ensure that the lighting system is designed with hooding devices to confine light to the actual site intended for illumination. 3. Land Use Compatibility (Internal ) Potential conflicts arising from the proposed uses are generally insig- nificant with the exceptions of: 1) the ball field complex which abuts the existing nature area; and 2) the location of the 2,200-space parking lot relative to the recreational facilities and uses it serves. The ball field complex is located directly south of, and adjacent to, the existing nature area. The active and occassionally loud character- istics associated with use of the ball fields is inherently incompatible with the passive and more subdued environment of the nature area. Moreover, nighttime use of the ball field complex accomplished with ball field illumination will further affect the wildlife. While the immediate effect upon the nature area might include the loss of some wildlife inhabitants such loss is considered temporary. This is evi- denced by the fact that wildlife has thrived in the nature area in the presence of street lighting and traffic noise on Golden West Street. The 2,200-space parking lot facilitiy is located such that access to most recreational activities, the library, and other uses requires pedestrian crosswalks across Golden West Street and Talbert Avenue. The land use concern raised by this relationship is that of pedestrian safety and is discussed in greater detail in Section 2.06 - Traffic and Circulation. -45- f. j i I . i ...tar i .�.., .. r*� •_.... � I u •.r_._._1 � t f .��:._ � t_L.:..,�.. s-.1� �1........_ ` i i �,,{ !S ..,,._ ..fit p E [ _ 33 :._:..-....y�.. (....L - - '. "a.f ,.._...Y.;....t.l.il...t..✓ 3 \� { l t 'Si 1 _ : I . J .777 :- _ SECTION iL s v oa • xI ; ; } i...._.........._... j ''..d'.,,.f s � -aP� ...-�e'. -2.1 wry,__ jj y kl^ 1" •1 ... ...JJJ �r jj ,_.7 PROPOSED k k �• k EXISTING BALLFIELD x = h RESIDENCE nmomummmntmunmunnnmmnuiimm�uunnnmmimunmiutuu !tNo L� � � t 1 SECTION LIGHT ".7 nnnmmm nnnnmmnnmmmummnnuunuumm�nnnnme gnu nn . .w- � _... unununnu (80' MAX ) f ..r A ... y....<.........L �. `I , � : } :�• ���� � EXISTING 0, ,........ . �.� : : , BUFFER AREA PROP. 60-120 3 , ! Li ► [.�.•- :.�........._ _ .(PLAYING FIELD) IL A 900' �� � ram,.'2•.''A'i i UNCONFINED nmunuunnnunu LIGHT�. ............ .F. ._. ........................ _ ............. _ _-........... GH RAY I ' i� , : . t .. i - - 3,.' <F D - LIGHTING CONFINE T L EA O LD � BA LFIE AREA I• _.__............. ...... _ .. „ E PROPOSED BALLFIELD LIGHTING FIGURE i . 12 HUNTINGTON I wvto �._., CENTRAL PARK planning&ernrfronmenialsciences { 4. Planning Mode a. Garden Offices/Restaurant - Although generally regarded as a low intensity use, garden offices with a 35-foot height limit may pose land use compatibility problems with adjacent park uses and future estate residential development. Through landscaping and proper design, a garden office complex could be visually integrated into the largely low intensive land uses surrounding the planning mode site. However, this alternative is projected to generate the highest traffic volume of any of the land uses considered for the planning mode. The inherent increase in traffic generation and related noise may detract from the rural , equestrian-oriented atmosphere of Central Park and planned estate residential devlopment to the south. Development of garden offices with an adjoining restaurant would require a General Plan amendment redesignating the planning mode property from open space to a commercial designation and a zone change. An appropriate zoning district would be R-5, office professional . b. Residential - Estate residential development on the 25-acre planning mode site would allow for development of up to 71 homes (3 du/ac) , according to the projected density for the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan area (a proposed residential development located south of the planning mode area) . Similar development on the planning mode property would serve as a natural extension of the specific plan area, ensuring land use compatibility with adjacent residential and park uses. This type of development could also serve to enhance the Ellis-Goldenwest area by preserving the continuity of low intensive, equestrian- oriented development established by Central Park and planned eques- trian estates to the south. A low density planned residential development of 148 units (6.24 du/ac) , properly landscaped and buffered, would present no land use compatibility concerns with any of the surrounding uses and would enable the builder to bring the purchase price of individual units in line with a wider range of incomes. A medium density development of 285 units (12 du/ac) would accomplish the same goal but could pose incompatibility problems with the largely low intensive uses 16 surrounding the site. Relatively low traffic generation projections (see Section 2.4) for all three residential densities would not significantly impact the area' s rural atmosphere. Residential development on the planning mode site would require a General Plan amendment redesignating the property from open space ID to residential . Appropriate zoning for a low or medium density residential development would be R1-PD and R2-PD, respectively. 10 -47- Estate development would likely be implemented as an extension of the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan. C. Recreation Vehicle Park - The 25-acre planning mode property, used or a recreational vehicle camping park, could allow for approxi- mately 580 campsites. Conceptual plans show the property terraced down to the shore of Sully Miller Lake, which would be landscaped and offer recreational fishing opportunities. Terracing of the RV park development to the lakeshore would help to visually integrate this land use with surrounding recreational uses in Cerntal Park. Should this alternative be selected for the site, plans are to landscape and rennovate Sully Miller Lake which would serve not only as an attraction for campers but would also create a 41 new recreational and fishing area for City residents. An RV park facility located on the planning mode property may, however, negatively impact the planned estate residential develop- ment south of Ellis Avenue. If adequate setbacks, berms, landscap- ing, or other buffering techniques are incorporated into the overall design, recreational uses of this type could be developed without any significant adverse impacts. The low traffic volume generated by this use would not adversely impact the area' s circulation system. Traffic noise (and vehicle emissions) would also be relatively insignificant and would be compatible with the area' s rural nature. The planning mode property, developed as an R.V. facility, would require a zone change to either ROS (Recreational Open Space) or CF- R (Recreational - Community Facilities) . d. Nursery/Tree Farm - The final land use analyzed for the planning mode site is a commercial nursery combined with a tree farm. A hypothetical development which projects that approximately one third (eight acres) of the site woudl be utilized as a commercial nursery consisting primarily of open space for plant distribution, a small sales office and greenhouses. The wholesale tree farm area ! would comprise the remaining 16 acres. Whether the trees are grown on site or stored in containers, no permanent structures would be necessary in the tree farm area. This alternative would likely serve as a transitional land use. If properly designed, a nursery/tree farm would blend well with the surrounding park and the planned estate residential development to the south. Trees and other plant life associated with this land use would accent the park's own vegetation and highlight the rural quality of the estate development. Also, the relatively low traffic volume generated and the passive nature of this use preclude any appreciable rise in air pollutant or noise levels. This combined -48- use is consistent with the present open space development designa- tion and zoning on the site with the exception of the 1.89 acre northeast corner of Ellis Avenue and Goldenwest Street zoned MI-CD. 2.04.3 Mitigation Measures 1. Ballfield Complex Lighting a. Minimize the height of all light standards especially those located on ballfields closest to residential neighborhoods. The maximum height of such standards (and lighting fixtures) should be no more than necessary to achieve the appropriate level of lighting for nighttime use. b. Light fixtures oriented in any manner which would result in off- site glare should be hooded, screened, or modified by appropriatte means at the light source to eliminate glare. C. Use of lighting fixtures should be limited to City-authorized play and should be programmed by automatic means (or controlled by the City) to turn-off no later than 15-minutes after the City-approved time for nighttime play expires. d. The landscaped buffer proposed west of the ballfield complex shall be properly maintained so as to adequately screen the lighted facilities from nearby residential uses. e. The design and development of a lighting plan for the ballfields shall be subject to the review of a lighting engineer to determine conformance with these mitigation measures and others required by the City. 2. Ballfield Complex Noise . Noise impacts and mitigation measures associates with the project are discussed in greater detail in Section 2.08 of this EIR. 2.05 ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL RESOURCES 2.05.1 Environmental Setting A resources assessment which is the basis for the ensuing discussion was conducted on the existing Huntington Central Park, the Planning Mode area, and the proposed park expansion area by Archaeological Resource Management Corporation. The purpose of the assessment was to delineate any resources which could be impacted through modification of the land for park use. i -49- 1. Archaeological Resources (Prehistoric) Two prehistoric sites have been located within the park's boundaries: Ca-Ora-142 and the northeastern portion of Ca-Ora-82. Ca-Ora-142 is located on a knoll directly northwest of the intersection of Talbert Street and Golden West Street. Ca-Ora-82 is located along the bluff edge between Ellis Avenue and Taylor Drive with Edwards Street bisecting the site (see Figure 13) . Ca-Ora-142 was field checked by Archaeological Research, Incorporated (ARI) in 1972. According to the survey report, the Division of Highways used the site area as a borrow site, thus, almost totally removing the deposit (ARI 1973: 19). According to the updated site form, only one edge of the midden remains with scattered shell and flakes the only surface indicators as to the prior location of the site. The northeastern portion of Ca-Ora-82 extends into the project area. This portion was excavated by the Pacific Coast Archaeological Society (PCAS) under the direction of Lee Savio (Brown) with the aid of the field classes from Saddleback Community College and Santa Ana Community College. The project was started because the widening of Edwards Street followed by heavy rains resulted in considerable erosion along the road right-of-way which exposed numerous artifacts and human skeletal mater- ial . The primary purpose of the excavations was an attempt to preserve, through controlled excavations, that area of the site which appeared to be in danger of being destroyed through natural forces aggravated by a the road widening. Thirty-seven 2m2 units were excavated in the area of the site contiguous to the road and east of the road. In all , eight (and possibly nine) burials were salvaged. In addition, an extensive pH testing and mapping project was completed by John Maguire and Ed Lyons of PCAS which defined the perimeters of the site. The excavations which have been completed on the portion of CA-Ora-82 within the park boundaries are sufficient to define this area as a pre- historical burial ground. Although the limits of the burial ground with- in the site area have not been defined, those portions of the site . which functioned as living areas are also important to future research into the life style of the prehistoric peoples who inhabited the area. The site has been radio-carbon dated to approximately 3000 B.C. and, consequently, can provide valuable data pertinent to research geared toward the earlier occupations of the Huntington Beach Mesa Area. 2. Paleontological Resources According to the ARI report (1973) , no known paleontological locations are within the park limits. However, since the park is located on the Huntington Beach Mesa, it is possible that vertebrate faunal materials . related to the Pleistocene epoch could be uncovered. -50- �U • /79* L I ! • ..., TJIF �► . 1p _ 1E 100 e I� "Wa � Tan S A vj ML ump C I 0o I • /� i - 1 /of l 11 0 0 0 ° • FIGURE -ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES NO. HUNTINGTON &W41to 13 CENTRAL PARK plarminp&ernir«,meMa sciences -51- 2.05.2 Environmental Impact 1. Archaeological Resources (Prehistoric) The archaeological potential for Ca-Ora-142 is low due to the fact that a major portion of the site no longer exists. Some undisturbed portions which are covered by bulldozer backfill , however, may still remain intact and could be encountered during earth-moving activities. On the other hand, Ca-Ora-82 represents a significant archaeological find which warrants protection and preservation. Because this area has been well defined, it has become an easy target for pot-hunters. During a field reconnaissance by Frank Chapel in 1979, numerous fresh holes were observed in the site area. It is assumed that the area continues to be dug by unauthorized persons for unscientific purposes. Development of active uses on and near Ca-Ora-82 is undesirable due to the significance and fragile nature of the site and associated artifacts. 2. Paleontological Resources Although no records of any significant paleontoligical deposits within Central Park or the proposed expansion areas exist, earth-moving opera- tions which excavate over five (5) feet in depth have a potential for uncovering such resources. 2.05.3 Mitigation Measures 1. Archaeological Resources (Prehistoric) As previously discussed, some portions of Ca-Ora-142 may remain intact and could be uncovered during earth-moving activities. If such deposits are encountered during earth moving activities, the activities should be diverted and a qualified archaeologist should be retained to determine the significance of any remaining midden deposit. In respect to Ca-Ora-82, it is recommended that the portion within the park area be fenced to discourage pot-hunters and their destructive efforts. Preservation would also include excluding the area from con- struction of irrigation pipes, equestrian trails, sidewalks, and other structures. It is also recommended that any improvements to, or along Edwards Street, be monitored by a qualified archaeologist. -52- r 2. Paleontological Resources It was noted by ARI (1973:8) that earth moving activities which excavated over five feet of dirt (in depth) had the greatest potential for uncover- ing paleontological deposits. In the event that such deposits are uncovered, a qualified paleontologist should be retained to inspect the deposit and remove significant fossils. 2.06 TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION 2.06.1 Environmental Setting , The following discussion is a capsulization of the "Central Park Traffic Study" prepared by William Kunzman Associates and March 24, 1982. The traf- fic study is contained in its entirety in Appendix B. Local and regional access is provided for Central Park from the following roadways: 1. Golden West Street Golden West is an existing north/south roadway in the City of Huntington Beach which divides the Central Park site and is presently striped as a , four-lane undivided roadway. Portions of Golden West are constructed to the full ultimate primary roadway cross section with curbs, gutters and street lights, but adjacent to the site, Golden West is currently con- structed with only graded shoulders and has no center median as it traverses the site. Golden West has an existing on-street bicycle route adjacent to the site and is also an existing O.C.T.D. Bus Route. , 2. Talbert Avenue Talbert Avenue is an existing two-lane undivided roadway which divides proposed park uses from Golden West eastward. As it is shown on the , City's Circulation Plan of Streets and Highways, Talbert is designated to be ultimately constructed to secondary roadway standards between Golden West and Gothard and primary roadway standards east of Gothard. In addition, a discontinuous portion of Talbert Avenue is constructed west of Edwards but it does not align directly with Talbert to the east of Golden West. The two sections of Talbert are not shown as connecting , in the City's Circulation Plan even though the Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways shows Talbert Avenue as a continuous arterial between Edwards and Golden West Street. -53- 3. Ellis Avenue Ellis Avenue is an existing east/west roadway located along the southern boundary of the project site. Ellis is presently constructed as a two- lane roadway with graded shoulders between Edwards and Gothard. Ellis is designated to be ultimately constructed to primary roadway standards between Gothard and Edwards and is shown as a proposed primary arterial connecting to Bolsa Chica to the west of Edwards. Existing Traffic Volumes The most recent daily traffic volume counts for roadways in the study area are shown in Table D. Traffic volume counts were obtained from the City of Huntington Beach, the County of Orange, and CalTrans. Traf- fic volumes on State Highways are 1980 traffic volumes, City of Hunting- ton Beach average daily traffic volumes are for 1978 conditions, and County of Orange Traffic Flow volumes are dated for 1981 conditions. Existing Daily Volume to Capacity Ratios Roadway capacity is generally defined as the number of vehicles which can reasonably be expected to pass over a given section of a road in a given time period. Daily roadway capacities reflect estimates of the amount of daily traffic which will result in peak hour traffic volumes equal to the maximum desirable capacity for each roadway type. Daily roadway capacities for Level of Service D conditions on roadways in the study are estimated to be 12,500 vehicles per day for two-lane undivided roadways, 22,000 vehicles per day for four-lane undivided roadways, 33,000 vehicles per day for four-lane divided roadways, and 49,500 vehicles per day for six-lane divided roadways. It should be noted that the daily capacities estimated are lower than can actually be achieved by approximately ten percent. This is also reflected in the Level of Service D notation which is typically used as the design stand- ard for urban conditions. By dividing existing traffic volumes by daily roadway capacity for existing facilities, existing daily volume to capacity ratios have been calculated and are shown in Figure 4 of the Traffic Study (Appendix B) which indicates that Golden West between Talbert and Slater is currently approaching capacity for the existing roadway geometrics adjacent to the project site. -54- Table D TRIP GENERATION Daily Daily Weekend Weekend Generation Trips Generation Daily Trips Land Use Quantity Rate Generated Rate Generated Central Park Project Ballfield Complex 6 fields 70/Diamd 420 100/Diamd 600 Equestrian Center 100/Units 100 300/Unit 300 Shooting Range 6 AC 77/AC 463 128/AC 768 Restaurant Complex 2 Units 2 ,100/Unit 4,200 3,150/Unit 6,300 YMCA 5.5 AC 90/AC 495 110/AC 605 Subtotal 5,680 8,580 Planning Mode Alternatives 1. Garden Offices 175 TSF, 20/TSF 3,500 6/TSF 1,050 Restaurant 6 TSF 200/TSF 1,300 200/TSF 1,320 Subtotal 1. 4,800 2,370 2. Residential a) 3 DU/AC 71 DU 12 DU 850 11/1)U 780 b) 6 DU/AC 148 DU 10 DU 1,480 9/DU 1,330 c) 12 DU/AC 285 DU 8 DU 2,280 7/DU 2,000 3. Recreational Vehicle 230 Park Sites* 2.0/Site 46.0 580 Sites 1,160 4. Nursery/Tree Farm Nursery 8 AC 45/AC 360 70/AC 560 Tree Farm 16 AC ll/AC 170 ll/AC 170 Subtotal 4. 530 730 Project + Alternative 1 10,480 10,950 Project + Alternative 2a 6,530 9,360 Project + Alternative 2b 7,160 9,910 Project + Alternative 2c 9,960 10,580 Project + Alternative 3 6,140 9,740 Project + Alternative 4 6,210 9,310 *Assumes 40 percent occupancy. AC = Acre DU = Dwelling Unit TSF = 1,000 Square Feet Source: William Kunzman and Associates, 1982 -55- 2.06.2 Environmental Impact To estimate project-related traffic volumes at various points on the street network, a three-step process is utilized. First, the traffic which will be generated by future development is determined. Secondly, the traffic volumes are geographically distributed to major attractions of trips such as employ- ment centers, commercial developments, and residential developments. Finally, the trips are assigned to specific roadways and the future traffic volumes are determined on a route-by-route basis. Table D portrays the number of vehicular trips projected for the proposed land uses within Huntington Central Park. Depending on which land use alter- native is selected for the Planning Mode area 6,210 and 10,950 trips are ex- pected to be generated. Traffic generated from the Planning Mode varies between 460 and 4,800 vehicular trips per day depending on land use. Existing Plus Project Traffic Conditions . Once the project-related traffic is assigned to the existing street net- work and added to existing volumes, the traffic impact can be assessed. An analysis of existing plus project-related traffic indicates that, based on current conditions, the roadways serving Central Park can accom- modate the additional generated traffic. Golden West Street would be operating slightly beyond capacity and will require improvement to its . ultimate cross section as a four-lane divided roadway in conjunction with park development. Other surrounding roadways are capable of accom- modating additional generated traffic at the present time. In respect to signal warrants, a signal at the intersection of Golden West Street and Talbert Avenue has been constructed. Future Traffic Considerations Existing and average daily traffic volumes for future 1995 conditions with or without the proposed project, are shown in Table E. The 1995 • daily traffic volumes are from the City of Huntington Beach Traffic Model which was run and tested by the County of Orange EMA in the Winter of 1981. EMA staff indicated that the land uses assumed are for the existing General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach. Future 1995 average daily traffic volumes shown in Table E have been . identified by EMA staff as reflecting the existing General Plan for the City of Huntington Beach. However, as coding for individual zones in such traffic models represents an aggregate of land use in a particular zone, and is typically tabulated in terms of employees, the specific land use assumptions for the Central Park project area and the Planning Mode study area could not be identified. To provide for a worst case . analysis, it has been assumed that neither the proposed Central Park project, nor land use alternatives for the Planning Mode study area have -56- Table E EXISTING AND PROJECTED DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES Current 1995 Average 1995 With Project* Daily Without (Volume to Volume Project Capacity Ratio) EDWARDS STREET 41 Between Warner and Slater 8,000 15,000 15,000 (0.68) Between Slater and Talbert 6,000 9,000 9,000 (0.41) Between Talbert and Ellis 5,000 6,000 6,000 (0.27) GOLDEN WEST STREET 40 Between Warner and Slater 27,000 35,000 38,000 (1.15) Between Slater and Talbert 21,000 32,000 36,000 (1.09) Between Talbert and Ellis 17,000 29,000 33,000 (1.00) GOTHARD STREET Between Warner and Slater 6,000 13,000 13,000 (0.59) Between Slater and Talbert 5,000 13,000 13,000 (0.59) Between Talbert and Ellis 5,000 13,000 13,000 (0.59) BEACH BOULEVARD Between Warner and Slater 46,000 66,000 67,000 (1.35) Between Slater and Talbert 39,000 65,000 66,000 (1.33) Between Talbert and Ellis 40,000 60,000 60,000 (1.21) WARNER AVENUE Between Edwards and Golden West 24,000 50,000 51,000 (1.03) Between Golden West and Gothard 25,000 52,000 53,000 (1.07) Between Gothard and Beach 25,000 53,000 54,000 (1.09) SLATER AVENUE Between Edwards and Golden West 10,000 11,000 13,000 (0.59) Between Golden West and Gothard 9,000 10,000 11,000 (0.50) Between Gothard and Beach 8,000 10,000 10,000 (0.45) TALBERT AVENUE West of Edwards 2,000 4,000 Not Available Between Golden West and Gothard 4,000 6,000 9,000 (0.41) Between Gothard and Beach 4,000 10,000 12,000 (0.36) ELLIS AVENUE Between Edwards and Golden West 1,000 6,000 7,000 (0.21) Between Golden West and Gothard 1,000 7,000 8,000 (0.24) Between Gothard and Beach 1,000 10,000 11,000 (0.50) * Includes "Worst Case" Situation for Planning Mode Source: William Kunzman and Associates, 1982 -57- been included in future 1995 traffic model volume projections. Based on this assumption, traffic from the Central Park project and the Planning Mode study area have been added to 1995 traffic model projections. the Planning Mode study area, Golden West between Talbert and Ellis will also operate at capacity. Based on future volume to capacity ratios, Beach, Warner, and Golden West north of Talbert are projected to exceed capacity with the proposed Central Park project. With the addition of the worst case traffic from the Planning Mode study area, Golden West between Talbert and Ellis will also operate at capacity. Although conclusions are based on worst case assumptions and are without the specific knowledge of all land use assumptions in the traffic model for particular traffic zones, general traffic model results indicate that it is preferable that land uses which are primarily local in nature, such as the proposed Central Park project, will result in less overall traffic impacts than will uses generating regional type trips such as the garden office project on the Planning Mode site. Other Traffic Considerations o Vehicle Parking Demand - Vehicle parking demand for each of the proposed parking lots has been estimated. Parking demand estimates are based on parking demand studies performed by Kunzman Associ- ates, a review of existing parking codes, and a literature search of parking demand at inventoried park facilities. Based on the estimated parking demand, the proposed number of parking spaces is anticipated to be adequate for future traffic conditions. o Golden West Parking Area Access - Four driveway locations are pro- posed for the 2,200-vehicle parking lot. Based on a review of park locations, a maximum of 75 percent of accumulated parking demand was observed to egress a site during a peak one-hour period. Based on the distribution of traffic from the site, all driveways from the site are anticipated to be capable of adequately servicing 10 peak period egress demand. Some short-term queuing at the Golden West and Talbert intersection may occur; however, the intersection should be capable of servicing vehicles with a minimum of vehicle delay to egressing traffic and traffic on the arterials. o Pedestrian Access - With the proposed location of the Golden West 10 parking lot, pedestrians will be required to cross Golden West for access to the ball field complex and other portions of the park. Pedestrians will also be required to cross Talbert Avenue for access to the existing library and the existing portion of the park. Pedestrian crossing facilities should be located to create crossings of major streets at signalized intersection locations. -58- Pedestrian crossing indicators should be installed in conjunction with the installation of the traffic signal at Golden West and Talbert and pedestrian walkways should be oriented to provide for pedestrian crossings at this location. Due to the remote location of proposed parking to the ball field complex, it is of concern that some ball field users will attempt to park on Golden West or will stop adjacent to the ball field complex to load and unload passengers. City roadway standards do not provide for on-street parking on arterials, and the stopping of vehicles to load and unload passengers is anticipated to result in a significant safety hazard and create congestion on Golden West. "No Stopping" signs should be posted on Golden West adjacent to the ball field complex to eliminate the loading and unloading of passengers from vehicles on Golden West and ball field users attempting to park on Golden West. o Emergency Vehicle Access - For existing and proposed portions of Central Park, the park is designed with only remote parking loca- tions and vehicle access is not permitted interior to the park. To provide for emergency and maintenance vehicles access interior to the park, pedestrian trails should be constructed as all weather surface trails and be of sufficient width to accommodate emergency and maintenance vehicles. Trail access locations should be con- trolled with locked barriers to restrict private vehicles from driving on these trails in the parks interior. o Equestrian Crossings - With the provision of an equestrian facility in the park plan, there is the potential for equestrian users to attempt to travel along and across adjacent arterials. To provide for the maximum safety of the horses, the riders, and the driving public, it is highly desirable for equestrian trails to be identi- fied which are internal to the park area and do not require any at- grade crossings of the adjacent arterials. In any event, the at- grade crossing of arterials should be minimized and should only occur at prescribed locations where adequate visibility is feasible and lower traffic volumes exist. Equestrian crossing locations should be posted to alert motorists and the locations should be monitored by the City of Huntington Beach to insure crossing safety. o Potential Future Realignment of Ellis to Connect With Talbert - Dur- ing the planning process, the realignment of Ellis Avenue west of Golden West to connect with existing Talbert west of Edwards has been proposed. The proposed realignment would divide existing park properties and result in an isolated site south of the re- aligned Ellis Avenue. The proposed realignment is anticipated to result in increased pedestrian and equestrian crossings for site access. Special treatment of parking for the isolated site would probably need to be considered. In addition, the realignment would significantly reduce the extent to which equestrian trails -59- could be provided which would not cross arterial highways. The proposed realignment is not shown on the existing City of Hunting- ton Beach Circulation Plan and would require the modification of that plan. In addition to the Ellis-Talbert connection there exists the poten- tial feasibility of connecting the discontinuous segments of Talbert Avenue via an alignment south of the Lake. This connection, along with the Talbert bridge crossing the Santa Ana River, would provide through travel for east/west traffic. While this alternative is consistent with the County Master Plan of Arterial Highways it would require further consideration for its inclusion in the City's Circulation Element. One of the contributing factors to the capacity problems and pro- jected heavy volume on Warner Avenue is the lack of adequate and continuous parallel facilities serving destinations to the east. o Vehicle Miles of Travel - Based on information derived from the Los Angeles Regional Transportation Study (LARTS) , average one-way trip ends by land use have been identified and are shown in Table F. Based on the average daily trips generated by the Central Park Project and Planning Mode study area alternatives, the vehicle miles of travel for the proposed uses have been calculated and are shown in Table G. 2.06.3 Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measures are recommended to minimize traffic impacts associated with the proposed project and maximize public safety: 1. Maintain the traffic signal at Golden West Street and Talbert Avenue to provide for safe pedestrian crossings of Golden West from proposed parking facilities. 2. Improve Golden West Street as a four-lane divided roadway between Talbert . and Slater in conjunction with development. 3. Construct all streets bordering the project to half-section widths adja- cent to the project boundary in conjunction with development. 4. Design bicycle and pedestrian circulation facilities to create crossings of major streets at signalized intersection locations. 5. Construct pedestrian trails internal to the park system with all weather surfaces and of sufficient width to accommodate emergency vehicle ac- cess internal to the park area. Trail access locations should be controlled with locked barriers to restrict non-emergency/maintenance vehicle access to interior park locations. -60- 6. "No Stopping" signs should be posted on Golden West adjacent to the ball field complex to eliminate the loading and unloading of passengers from vehicles on Golden West and ball field users attempting to park on Golden West. 7. Future potential equestrian crossing locations of arterials should be minimized and crossing locations should be posted and monitored by the City to insure crossing safety. 8. Prior to the approval of detailed engineering plans for the ultimate de- velopment of Golden West Street, the City of Huntington Beach should incorporate appropriate input from the Orange County Transit District as to the location and design of bus facilities. 9. To relieve queuing problems during peak hours and special events at the park, the City should consider a southbound right-turn-only lane on Golden West at the park entrance. 10. To accommodate the loading and unloading of passengers at the ballfield complex and avoid on-street congestion therefrom, the City should con- sider either an inlet street or a loading and unloading zone safely separated from traffic on Golden West Street. 11. The City should consider improving Talbert Avenue to its ultimate design standard in conjunction with park improvements. 1 Table F ONE-WAY TRIP LENGTHS BY LAND USE Land use Trip Length Miles , Residential 6.9 Commercial 3.5 Employment 9.8 (estimated)* High School 2.0 (estimated) Elementary School 1.0 (estimated) , All Trips 7.2 Source: Los Angeles Regional Transportation (LARTS) Base Year Report with the "estimated" numbers furnished by Kunzman Ts-sociates. * LARTS data indicated the home-to-work trip is 10.5 miles and all "other" trips to place of employment is 8.3 miles. The 9.8 assumes two work trips for each "other" trip. -61- Table G VEHICLE MILES OF TRAVEL Daily Trips Average Trip Daily Vehicle Project Generated Length (Miles) Miles of Travel Central Park Project 5,680 3.5 19,900 Planning Mode Alternatives 1. Garden Offices 4,800 9.8 47,000 r 2. Residential a. 3 DU/AC 850 6.9 5,900 b. 6 DU/AC 1,480 6.9 10,200 c. 12 DU/AC 2,280 6.9 15,700 3. Recreational 460 7.2 3,300 Vehicle Park 4. Nursery/Tree 530 3.5 1,900 Farm Source: William Kunzman Associates, 1982 2.07 CLIMATE AND AIR QUALITY 2.07.1 Environmental Setting 1. Climate and Meteorology The study area has a mediterranean climate with warm summers and mild winters. The average daily temperature during the winter months is 52 degrees. During the summer months, temperatures average 68 degrees. Medium humidity and daily fogs are also characteristic of this shoreline. The land/sea breeze is the primary factor affecting the region's mild climate. The daytime winds are sea breezes predominantly from the south- west which flow at 5 to 7 miles per hour. During the night the winds usually reverse direction. These land breezes flow from the northeast at 1 to 2 miles per hour. During the fall and winter months the study area is subject to moderate and strong Santa Ana winds. The average precipitation is approximately 12 inches annually within the project vicinity. Rain falls in Orange County an average of 35 days per year. -62- 2. Ambient Air Quality The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) maintains ambient air quality monitoring stations at numerous locations, the closest of which are Los Alamitos and Costa Mesa. Ambient air quality data from these stations is given in terms of state standards which were adopted to protect public health with a margin of safety. In addition, California has adopted episode criteria for oxidant, carbon monoxide, and sulfur dioxide. Episode criteria represent short-term exposures at concentrations which actually threaten public health. Air quality trends have developed at the Costa Mesa and Los Alamitos air quality monitoring stations between 1978 and 1980. These trends are discussed below. Appendix D of this report provides the ambient air quality data in terms of state standards. Also included is a comparison of State standards and emergency criteria. From this information it can be seen that only sulfur dioxide has not equalled or exceeded the relevant 1-hour and 24-hour State standards. All other major pollutants monitored have exceeded the standards at the two nearby stations. Of all the pollutants, total suspended particulates equal or exceed the California standard most often. Suspended particulates exceeded the California 24-hour standard of 100 micrograms per cubic meter on 46 percent and 30 percent of the days monitored at the Los Alamitos and Costa Mesa stations, respectively. Between 1978 and 1980, 19 percent of the months at the Costa Mesa station exceeded the lead standard (1.5 micrograms per cubic meter over a 30-day averaging time) . The lead standard was exceeded at Los Alamitos during 22 percent of the months. However, due to the phasing out of lead as a motor vehicle fuel addi- tive, this condition is expected to improve. Oxidants are also of concern. The California one-hour standard (0.10 pm) was equalled or exceeded on 16 percent of the days monitored at Los Alamitos and 9 percent of the days monitored at Costa Mesa. Ten Stage One episodes for ozone were called between 1978 and 1980 at the Los Alamitos monitoring station. Five were called in 1978, 2 in 1979 and 3 in 1980. No Stage Two episodes have been called at Los Alamitos. Four Stage One episodes, but no Stage Two episodes for ozone were called between 1978 and 1980 at the Costa Mesa monitoring station. Three Stage One episodes were called in 1978 and one in 1979. At Costa Mesa, the State standard for carbon monoxide (10 ppm - 12-hour avg. ) was violated on ten days, during the last three years, but the one- hour standard was not exceeded. Carbon monoxide levels in Los Alamitos were not measured. Carbon monoxide episode levels have not been attained at either station. Although nitrogen dioxide was not measured at Los Alamitos it did exceed the one-hour standard on 1 percent of the days monitored at Costa Mesa. The California standard for nitrogen dioxide is .25 ppm for one hour. -63- 3. Effects of Pollutants on Receptors Demonstrated effects of air contaminants on health and vegetation are briefly discussed below. Oxidants at high enough concentrations can cause eye irritation; aggravate respiratory disease; suppress the body's capacity to fight infection; impair athletes' performance, and cause growth retardation in sensitive trees. Hydrocarbons in the presence of other primary pollutants (particularly oxides of nitrogen) lead to the formation of oxidants. Hydrocarbons also damage plants by inhibiting growth and causing flowers and leaves to fall . Carbon monoxide is essentially colorless, odorless, and toxic to humans. It enters the blood stream and interferes with the transfer of fresh oxygen, thereby depriving sensitive tissues in the heart and brain of oxygen. At high enough concentrations it can impair visual function, psychomotor performance, and time discrimination. Nitrogen dioxide at high enough exposures can cause fibrotic lung changes, bronchostriction, and acute bronchitis among infants and school children. In sensitive plants, over several months of exposure it can cause collapsed lesions near the leaf margin and moderate injury. Lead at high enough concentrations impairs hemoglobin synthesis by increasing the lead levels in the blood. Sulfur dioxide and suspended particulate exposure causes higher frequencies off acute respiratory symptoms and diminished ventilatory functions in children. 4. Sanitary Landfill Considerations Included within the study area are an existing operational sanitary landfill and a former Class II abandoned sanitary landfill . The aban- doned landfill has been covered; however, anaerobic decomposition of the organic matter present is occurring and causing settling as well as generating gaseous products which can be toxic and malodorous. The composition of gases exuded by sanitary landfills is generally 50 to 55 percent methane and 40 to 45 percent carbon dioxide with traces of other r gaseous elements such as ammonia and hydrogen sulfide. The mechanism of gas production in landfills and the factors affecting it have not been well understood. Major environmental factors affecting gas production appear to be moisture content, temperature, pH, alkalin- ity, and nutrition. Generally, gas production will increase with temp- erature up to 55 degrees centigrade beyond which decomposition rates decline sharply. Additionally, less gas is produced in regions where soils exhibit lower moisture contents. Refuse placement, cover procedures, and materials can affect the move- ment of both gas and water at the surface of abandoned landfills. Land- fills covered by very tight caps which retard the release of noxious -64- gases will experience lateral migration of these gases. In this in- stance, venting systems would be needed to allow the escape of these gases, particularly because of the explosion potential and combustibil- ity of methane. For this reason, escaping gases are often "burned off" or captured with recovery wells and harnessed as a source of energy. It is important to note that non-urban air naturally contains 1.0 to 1.5 ppm methane. Methane is virtually inert (non-reactive) and therefore does not contribute to the formation of photochemical smog as other reac- tive hydrocarbons do. 5. Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) The AQMP, adopted by the California Air Resources Board on May 10, 1979 is the air quality management plan for the South Coast Air Basin. It was designed to meet and maintain Federal and State ambient air stan- dards by 1987. Required by the Clean Air Act (Amendments of 1977), the AQMP was included in the State Implementation Plan and submitted to the Environmental Protection Agency in July 1979. The plan includes mea- sures to be implemented by the State and local agencies to achieve attainment by 1987. The plan includes 75 control measures which fall into five major categories: o Measures for cleaner industrial processes; o Measures for cleaner vehicles and fuels; o Measures to reduce congestion-related emissions; o Incentives for ridesharing; o Measures for energy conservation. 2.07.2 Environmental Impact Two types of air pollutant sources must be considered with respect to the pro- posed project: stationary sources and mobile sources. Stationary source con- siderations include emissions on-site from construction activities and natural gas combustion as well as emissions at the power plant associated with any electrical requirements for the project. Mobile source considerations in- clude short-term construction activities and long-term traffic generation. 1. Short-Term Impacts The primary impacts of the project are similar to those for any construc- tion activity. Grading of the site will produce two types of contamin- ants: exhaust emissions from construction equipment and fugitive dust generated by earth movement. Atmospheric dust will be generated by the mechanical disturbance of the topsoil associated with construction activities. In addition to large dust particles that settle to the earth near the construction site (often creating a localized nuisance problem) considerable amounts of fine-grained fugitive dust particles will be emitted and dispersed over much greater distances. -65- Dust emissions will occur during land clearing, ground excavation, cut and fill operations, and the construction of structures, roads, and parking lots on-site. These emissions will vary substantially from day to day depending on the level of activity., the specific construction operations, and the prevailing weather. Significant amounts of fill may be necessary to develop the active recreation areas. Based upon field measurements by the Environmental Action Agency at medium activity construction sites with moderate silt content and semi-arid climates, 1.2 tons of fugitive dust per acre of construction per month of activity can be expected. The park expansion area includes 30 acres not all of which will be under constructiion at any one time. Exhaust emissions from construction activities include those associated with the transport of workers and machinery to the site as well as those produced on-site as the equipment is used. Without a precise construc- tion plan, it is difficult to predict heavy-duty construction equipment emissions because of the day-to-day variability in construction activity levels. The temporary emissions from the predominantly diesel-powered equipment may, however, be significant at times although sensitive receptors are not located downwind at distances small enough to cause concern. The motor vehicle emissions from construction workers will be minor. 2. Long-Term Pollutant Emissions Long-term impacts are those associated with the permanent usage of the proposed park expansion. These include stationary and mobile source emissions. The air pollutant emissions can be projected for various years by multiplying the anticipated motor vehicle, natural gas, and electrical usage rates by appropriate emission factors. The results obtained in this manner are shown in Table H. As shown, stationary source emissions generated as a result of the pro- posed project represent approximately 14.3 percent of the total emission burden. In 1995, motor vehicle emissions will account for 85.7 percent of the project-related emissions although exhaust control technology or legislation as well as more stringent stationary source emission control measures may alter that total . It should be noted that the bulk of the air pollutant emissions (56.9 percent or .12 ton of the .21 ton per day total ) will be carbon monoxide emitted from motor vehicles. Table I provides regional emission inventories for comparison with the project emissions. As shown, if the project was completed immediately, the project-related emissions would represent far less than one percent (.03 percent) of the county wide emissions in 1982. Although the pro- ject is expected to be built out by 1985, the analysis addresses 1982 and 1995 for which traffic volume projections are available as well as 1982 and 1987 for which regional emission inventories are available for comparison. -66- Table H CENTRAL PARK EXPANSION AREA , 1995 PROJECTED MOBILE AND STATIONARY SOURCE EMISSIONS Primary Natural Gas Electricity Vehicular Total Pollutant (Tons/Day) (Tons/Day) Tons/Day Tons/Day CO .0004 .0009 .1166 .1179 THC .0002 .0008 .0175 .0185 NOx .0026 .0104 .0307 .0437 Sox .0000 .0122 .0044 .0166 Particulates .0000 .0018 .0066 .0084 Note: Based upon a natural gas consumption rate of 44,000 cubic feet per day, an electrical usage rate of 9,000 kWh per day, a daily VMT of 19,900 miles, and motor vehicle emission factors from EMFAC 6C. (See Appendix D) Table I , CENTRAL PARK EXPANSION AREA EMISSION INVENTORY COMPARISON Project Emissions Orange County Emissions (Tons/Day) (Tons/Day) , Pollutant 1982 1995 1982 1987 CO .3279 .1179 862.47 789.99 THC .0521 .0185 444.32 429.59 NOx .0676 .0437 142.45 156.76 Sox .0166 .0166 30.35 35.86 Particulates .0099 .0084 49.11 49.83 .4741 .2051 1 ,528.70 1 ,462.03 Note: County wide emission inventory courtesy of SCAQMD, Mr. Mike Nazemi , February 1980. -67- 3. Long-Term Air Quality Projections The assessment of the project impact on localized ambient air quality requires that future ambient air quality levels be projected. Carbon monoxide concentrations can be estimated adjacent to Golden West, Slater, and Talbert using the California Department of Transportation line source dispersion model Caline 3. Because of the relative inertness of carbon monoxide in the photochemical smog formation process, and limitations of knowledge on dispersion characteristics of other air pollutant species, carbon monoxide is the most suitable tracer pollutant for microscale modeling. Secondary pollutants are a large-scale phenomenon and should be analyzed on a regional basis rather than a local one. The assumptions made in the Caline 3 modeling process are given in Appendix D. The results of the calculations appear in Table J. As shown therein, the carbon monoxide concentrations adjacent to the road- ways most heavily used by project traffic will be less than 14 ppm and well below the 40 ppm State standard and the 35 ppm Federal standard for one hour. Over an 8-hour or 12-hour period, project-related traffic along these roadways will contribute approximately 0.05 ppm to the carbon monoxide concentration at 150 feet from the road. Consequently, if the Federal 8-hour carbon monoxide standard of 9 ppm or the State 12-hour standard of 10 ppm is equalled or exceeded as a result of regional vehicular emissions, it will also be exceeded adjacent to the project site. However, project-related traffic alone will not cause the 8- or 12-hour standards for carbon monoxide to be exceeded locally. Receptors located closer than 150 feet will experience identical carbon monoxide exposures with or without the proposed park expansion. Table J 1995 CARBON MONOXIDE CONCENTRATIONS ADJACENT TO ROADWAYS CARRYING PROJECT TRAFFIC 1-Hr Avg. (ppm) 8-Hr Avg. (ppm) Receptor Distances (Feet) 50 100 200 50 100 200 WITH OR WITHOUT THE PROJECT Golden West @ Slater 13.7 13.4 13.4 9.9 9.9 9.8 Golden West @ Talbert 13.6 13.4 13.4 9.9 9.9 9.9 Gothard @ Talbert 13.5 13.3 13.2 9.8 9.7 9.7 Background Concentration - 1995 13.2 13.2 13.2 9.7 9.7 9.7 Note: All concentrations include the background levels noted and represent the "worst case" or downwind corner. -68- 4. Sanitary Landfill Considerations As mentioned earlier, the primary concerns related to the abandoned landfill on-site focus on the combustibility of the methane gas produced by the decomposition occurring and the potential for impact related to odors. The proposed expansion project includes a 2,200 space vehicle parking facility with a turf or gravel surface to cover the abandoned landfill . The escaping methane gas will be studied in detail prior to a decision on whether to vent and burn off the methane or attempt its recovery and use. In order to reclaim as much methane as possible, it will be necessary to cap the abandoned landfill with an impermeable material which will prohibit lateral or vertical migration of decomposition gases and limit the amount of oxygen entering the landfill . An uncapped or improperly capped landfill may experience reduced or suspended anerobic decomposi- tion. Further, the intrusion of oxygen could create potentially ex- plosive conditions if concentrations of 5 to 15 percent methane are permitted to develop ("Control of Gas Flow From Sanitary Landfills," Houshang Esmaili , 1975). . Generally, gases are not vented from landfills by any means other than natural venting through the soil cover. Structures built on or near a landfill may therefore require protection by a forced air withdrawal or other system. The best control of odors is achieved through the rapid and continuous coverage of solid wastes and the sealing of sur- face cracks in completed landfill areas to prevent emissions of large concentrations of odorous gases. Despite these precautions, the aban- doned landfill could produce objectionable odors if disturbed during the construction process. 5. Planning Mode Alternatives Four land use alternatives have been studied by Huntington Beach City Staff for a 25-acre Planning Mode or Study Area adjacent to the Huntington Beach Central Park. The development alternatives included: a. Garden offices with an adjoining restaurant. b. Residential development at various densities. C. Recreational vehicle park. d. Commercial nursery/tree farm. The "Planning Mode Study Area Special Report" recently prepared by City . staff analyzed each land use alternative and concluded that each alterna- tive would impact air quality within the South Coast Air Basin to vary- ing degrees. However, the Garden office/restaurant use alternative which has the highest impact rating of the uses considered would still represent an insignificant incremental decrease in air quality. An air pollutant emission inventory was included for each alternative and has been reproduced in Table K. 41 -69- As shown in Table K, the more intense land use alternatives such as the garden offices or medium density residential development generate larger quantities of air pollutants. The recreational vehicle park or nursery alternatives generate less than 150 pounds of air pollutants daily, most of which will be dispersed over a large area by vehicles approaching or leaving the site. Table K PLANNING MODE AIR POLLUTANT EMISSION INVENTORY Land Use Alternative Air Pollutant Emissions (Tons/Day) Garden Offices/Restaurant 0.67 Estate Residential 0.16 Low Density Residential 0.24 Medium Density Residential 0.40 Recreational Vehicle Park 0.06 Nursery/Tree Farm 0.07 Source: Huntington Beach Planning Division, 1982. 6. Cumulative and Growth-Inducing Impacts Cumulative impacts of growth proposed for the surrounding area have been taken into account in the ultimate 1995 analysis and the ultimate 1995 plus project analysis under "Long-Term Air Quality Projections. " The proposed project is the result of previous growth inducements in the area. The project is not being proposed in a totally unurbanized area where infrastructure is absent or arterial highways do not exist. Conversely, the site is served by arterial highways and bounded by residential and other developments. The AQMP assumes a level of growth consistent with SCAG 78. The imple- mentation of the AQMP may require that some of the growth provided for in County and City General Plans be modified, eliminated, or delayed if that growth will prevent or interfere with the attainment and mainten- ance of ambient air quality goals. Since the growth accommodated by the proposed project will cumulatively impact the ambient air quality of the region, but will most likely not exceed SCAG 78 forecasts or cause local air pollutant concentrations to exceed the relevant stan- dards, its consistency with the intent of the provisions of the AQMP is clear. -70- 2.07.3 Mitigation Measures The most effective air pollution mitigation measure for consideration during project design is a substantial reduction in vehicle miles traveled (VMT). This can be achieved by providing recreational opportunities near the resi- dents they are designed to serve. The project accomplishes this goal through its design and location. Measures selected for incorporation in the project include: o Adequate watering techniques will be employed to partially mitigate the impact of construction-generated dust particulates. o SCAQMD Rule 403 relative to cleanup operations during and after construc- tion will be adhered to. o The installation of thermal insulation in walls and ceilings which meets or exceeds standards established by the State of California or the Department of Building and Safety. The following mitigations are offered as suggested measures which can be incorporated as conditions of approval , should the City of Huntington Beach so determine, to further reduce the air quality impacts associated with the project. o The preferential use of diesel-powered construction equipment rather than gasoline-powered equipment, to affect exhaust emission reductions and evaporative and crankcase HC emission reductions. o The covering of all trucks filled with soil that exceed 20 mph or venture off-site. o Speed control of 20 mph on unpaved surfaces. o The balance of cut and fill quantities on-site to eliminate the need for imported or exported soil . 2.08 NOISE 2.08.1 Environmental Setting A noise assessment was conducted for Huntington Central Park in March, 1982 by J.J. Van Houten and Associates, Inc. This study (reproduced in Appendix F) evaluated existing and projected noise levels for traffic on adjoining arterials, potential activity at the ball field complex, and the existing shooting range. -71- The analysis in regards to arterial traffic concludes that residences adja- cent to Warner Avenue, Slater Avenue, Golden West Street, Beach Boulevard, and Edwards Street are currently significantly impacted. Table L summarizes the noise measurements obtained at five locations in the general vicinity of Central Park. The area designated for the ball field activity currently does not contribute to ambient noise levels as it has remained an undeveloped open meadow to date. Measurements of activity at the existing shooting range were obtained at a location in the southerly library parking lot approximately 600 feet north of the range. At this distance, individual weapon firing generates a peak noise level of 54 to 58 dB(A). Using this data, the peak noise level generated at the nearby noise sensitive areas by activity at the gun range can be calculated. Thus, it is determined that the peak noise level at the library will be about 49 to 53 dB(A) and about 62 to 66 dB(A) at the nearest position on the planning mode alternative site to the gun range. It is also pointed out that under ideal climatic conditions noise generated from occasional use of the shooting range during the evening hours has been reported by residents in the downtown area. Table L ARTERIAL TRAFFIC NOISE MEASUREMENTS Sound Levels Position L50 L10 Leg . Corner of Rio Vista and 64 dB(A) 71 dB(A) 66 dB(A) Golden West East End of Jardines Dr. 43 47 45 East End of Central Park Dr. 49 56 54 Additional Parking Lot of 57 60 59 the Library Corner of Ellis and Golden 59 66 63 West Street Note: The sound levels indicated above (L50, L10, and Leq) provide the noise level exceeded during 50 percent and 10 percent of the measurement period and the energy equivalent sound level (Leq) for the measurement period. Refer to Appendix E for further . clarification on "A" weighted sound levels. Source: Van Houten and Associates, 1982 S -72- 2.08.2 Environmental Impact Noise measurements and projections obtained were compared to the City of Huntington Beach noise standards to determine the level of impact generated by proposed Central Park activities. Following is a summary of the City's noise impact assessment criteria: Table M NOISE IMPACT ASSESSMENT CRITERIA Location CNEL Range Peak Level Range Impact Residential Less than 60 dB Less than 70 dB(A) (nighttime) Insignificant 60 and over 70 and over (nighttime) Significant Public Less than 60 dB Less than 75 dB(A) Insignificant Institution 60 and over 75 and over Significant Park Less than 70 dB ----- Insignificant 70 and over ----- Signficant Commercial Less than 80 dB Less than 80 dB(A) Insignificant 80 and over 80 and over Significant 1. Arterial Highways Figure 14 portrays the community noise equivalent level (CNEL) contours for the future (1995) traffic volumes on the major arterials within the study area for the "with project" case. These traffic volumes were obtained from the traffic study prepared and discussed in Section 2.06 of this Report. The following is noted from the noise measurements and an analysis of the traffic data developed by Kunzman Associates (Appendix B) : o A significant impact currently exists at residential locations directly adjacent to Warner, Slater, Golden West, Beach, and a por- tion of Edwards. o A significant impact is projected for residential locations directly adjacent to all arterials within the study area except for some reaches of Talbert, Ellis, and Edwards. This will occur with or without the project. In addition, a significant impact is projected for the portions of the park that are adjacent to Golden West. Again, this will occur with or without the project. -73- C I : .. �._ .l u - ..... ...• { ' : ........... _.._....__ ....._--..........._...___......... .._ •s 60 's , i r • t .. 65- - ...t......._.—._ _ ,. ............ �_ ......._.. .......... ._ ....... ... .. -. ....._-__._ —.__ Ja•N._J� .......... ...—..—._ _ .... _ ........__._ ........._.... ...... ... ..---r—*--- S -L� ;. 65 i I I ' i h .. ` -... , , ; ! n ._ . 65 { 11 . 1 .. w: : .. .•. 1a♦ ':, .. 65 ,lam• 60 r. ;. I ....._...i:. ; —SAY;—•- I ..4 l...i : - . ( EL _ : : ..... .. I _. i 7 '' j�• f � t + 4 . , .� _ _ ff IT _ { 7 .... T-Tx ....y..... - - ��O �} " OIL. _ i I O L K.1 \ r f . i . 1 r•- O _ 71- ....\;;;,* i. r tiYtea... :w tr r t w - _ _ oil ILJ V it •T io+Y _ _ d. 1 ; ._�,-�,;� ....._., _..,..__...._ •.'-•- - s ........-...r. ._._-.�...._--_-.�.--.-sue._ ... _ ... __....... _... .....- ... _. , sum, �.. , tot CNEL CONTOURS 1 .• .t�._.. ...J--" r r-� M•! j,p/lp .{J•� 'V.. IYJ �" ��y` f _ _ ._..._.__-___.- ___._.... ...__.____.._—__.__ f < < r FIGURE ` , �._ r ., > � Community i t y u i lent Level (CNEL) Contour Lines Generated No � . o Equivalent :: . I:i - _ } i •r - , + !i` by Future (1995) Traffic Volumes on. Arterials Within the Study 4 — Y�:_ }- Area, With Project. ; Tp ` ,F r 1 4 i •--! -r i ...:.. i r•\:T:�._ I r .?ti.... t :r , -: HUNTINGTON &M/ta " CENTRAL PARK plonninq8erwitonmentofsciences o The exterior CNEL at the location of the planning mode alternative is currently greater than 65 dB. It is expected to be greater than 70 dB by 1995, with or without the project. Therefore, a significant impact exists and will need to be mitigated if residential construc- tion is planned for this area. 2. Ball Park Activity Figure 14A depicts the noise contours for the peak A-weighted sound levels that are expected to be generated by activity at the proposed recreational activities. These contours reflect the peak sound levels that will be experienced at nearby noise sensitive areas after the recommended noise mitigation measures have been implemented. Noise generated from the proposed ball park complex will consist of spectator and loudspeaker noise. Based on the analysis conducted by Van Houten and Associates, the maximum noise level generated by ball park activity when measured at the library and an adjacent residence is 74 to 75 dB(A) which exceeds the City' s 70 dB(A) maximum standard for nighttime noise levels for residential development, but not for public institutions (75 dB(A) ). Ball park activities are expected to generate 77 to 80 dB(A) levels at the proposed YMCA, thus also exceeding the maximum standard of 75 dB(A) for public institutions during nighttime hours. Noise levels when measured at the northern periphery of the i Planning Mode property are expected to be less than 65 dB(A) which is less than the maximum standard for residential development. Thus, a significant impact will exist in regards to all sensitive noise recep- tors in the area with the exception of the Planning Mode property. The peak noise level generated by the loudspeaker systems at the pro- posed ball park facilities is not expected to create a significant impact at any of the noise sensitive locations near the ball park. However, the loudspeaker systems will be clearly discernible above the ambient noise level and, therefore, represent a potential source of annoyance. 3. Shooting Range Based upon the Huntington Beach noise ordinance standards and the estimated peak noise levels generated by activity at the gun range, it is determined that an insignificant impact will exist at noise sensitive locations in proximity to the gun range. However, a significant impact may exist at some residential locations in the northern portion of the planning mode alternative site if activity at the gun range occurs during the nighttime and early morning hours (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) . In any event, the weapon firing may be annoying to residents living in proximity to the gun range since the sound will be discernible above the ambient noise level . -75- I ^ l I _ �._........._.._____...., .. -..- ....._ ..- -. .a ,_is...ra 1... ...�. 1 _ _ Z' 1 I - . - .........,a -..., ... 'E v" 14. _ I , z --- — - ! _ ............... , LAB A R , Ib' .. .............. i F._,t.: :.J r . .;... I77 -GU N . .t is 1 , �l , _ : : E .. .. f I t ... ' ' I - s : .....__... .�.- r 1 JIM i - — I CA i ! , .1 : : s jolt • :-..:�� ... it lrit: .l k. -Tj r M C I � 1 -- ' t� 1 y i' -� r .,_. ^, •f_—:[—1 :A�- i i .,\ 1- :?4..._i_{a'.•+ ,rr —f BALL FIELDS .. .1'... : t I.....:., ,. ; , ELD i <.. .. •__ � � 5 c ....... - _. ..... _ --... . ...J . ,• -�.,_��r' � .:� ice._.,, _ Rr- E j—. .......:. : }:t t—:�..... :.1_. :ti�w'•- w'r'..'w`S �-� •o,, ,..._l�t ....-. _...........JS... .....�� t ,.... r" I '11. ! ! C- , .,.._.. d y�• ..s L _..._:...._..... _..tom �__..1.: _.i.. L;..... _ -...'S..-t._. --+ T jo ..__. ._ -. . ... . ............ �--� 1-�-"• . .: : : : : : : $fit_; i f.....:.. ..1. _:�—;;- I �_.,.....� ___ � __.._ --- .. : I -� ':?t �:.. { t -1 _...-..-,-A��...��.'. "ao.' r._;t•_::_ Y , i t r• - s -r A ..........._.. t .; : - 1..._r d:...�>'xG�l �- :( =.: .:__ ._. ... ... _.. L�€:•:±'ks"_ _ 1 ........... _.....r...mot ,y`yf EIGHTED SO LEVEL CONTOURS v I j t i J� �.;.... _ Peak Noise Level Contours Generated; by Recreational Activity at nIo 1 - `'—"'�° • �.-r< >-r-=�.._.; `'. - �aE the Proposed Huntington Central Park Expansion After Implementing a PREP Measures. P '} � Recommended Noise Mitigation } _ ..... 4 HOU'TEN; ASOCIATES �t 1798 2); .., _ '� HUNTIN T N • • &wt/ta CENTRAL PARK pfonning&envi,onmentol sciences i , i 4. Construction Noise Annoyance due to construction noise during the development of the park will be minimal . Equipment associated with grading and excavation produces potential annoyance. However, the duration of this activity is only for a few weeks. Construction noise may cause considerable annoyance if it occurs after 7:00 p.m. on weekdays and during the day on Sundays. Figure 3 identifies the level of construction activity noise, some of which will be generated by truck movements to and from the site and within the park itself. 2.08.3 Mitigation Measures In order to provide a project which complies with the City of Huntington Beach Noise Ordinance and Noise Element, the following mitigation measures are recommended: o Activity at the ball park facilities should be limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. , pursuant to the City of Huntington Beach Noise Ordinance. o Crowd sizes at the two ball park facilities nearest to the proposed YMCA should be limited to no more than 25 to 40 people. o Bleachers and loudspeakers at the ball park facilities should be ori- ented away from nearby noise-sensitive areas whenever possible (refer to Figure 2). o Loudspeakers should be placed at the center of a large baffle (about 4' X 4' ). o The loudspeakers should be placed near the bleachers and should be controlled so that the peak sound level (when measured at the spec- tator locations) is no greater than 75 dB(A). o An alternative to items 1 through 5, above, would be the construction of a continuous berm/wall combination around the ball park area. A combined height of about 7 feet would be needed on the north, west, and east sides and a height of about 11 feet would be needed on the south side. The barriers could be constructed entirely by use of an earth fill , or any combination of earth fill and block wall , as needed to achieve the heights of 7 or 11 feet. o Activity at the gun range should be limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 P.M. o The type of weapons that will be used at the expanded gun range should be limited to the largest caliber currently being fired. -77- o If a residential community is developed at the Planning Mode alterna- tive site, a noise barrier with a minimum height of 6 to 7 feet will be needed adjacent to Golden West and Ellis in order to reduce traffic noise to acceptable levels. 2.09 VISUAL AND AESTHETICS 2.09.1 Environmental Setting Huntington Central Park, in its existing state, provides much-needed visual relief from the highly urbanized character of the region through its rural , and passive nature. Walks and paths wind through open spaces which contain large groves -of trees, lush vegetation, wildlife, and lakes. Observation shelters, restrooms, and two concessions are interspersed throughout the park to cater to picnicking and nature observation by park users. Figures 15, 16, and 17 provide a pictoral description of Central Park in its present state and proposed expansion areas. Figure 18 provides a locational index for these illustrations. 2.09.2 Environmental Impact Implementation of the proposed Central Park Master Plan will have the effect of modifying the present passive nature of the park area by incorporating a variety of active recreational uses. A restaurant, a 2,200-car parking lot, expansion of the existing shooting range, a fishing lake, and various development alternatives for the Planning Mode area are proposed in the southeasterly portion of the park (southeast of the intersection of Golden West Street and Talbert Avenue) . Development of these activities at the proposed locations will not significantly affect existing segments of the park from a visual standpoint. It is believed that the development of these facilities will improve the visual quality of this area which is currently occupied by the landfill , the mushroom farm, and other scattered development. No additional park development is proposed for the northeasterly portion of Central Park (northeast of the intersection of Golden West Street and Talbert Avenue) which contains Talbert Lake and the City Library. This visually appealing segment of the park is currently devoted to passive activities which are proposed for retention. Q Major alterations are proposed in park areas to the west of Golden West Street which contain Huntington Lake, the equestrian area, the frisbee golf course, the midden area, and the nature observation area. Proposed modifications include expansion of the park southerly to Ellis Avenue to facilitate an area for a relocated frisbee golf course and recreational trails; relocation of , -78- the equestrian center to the southeast corner of Huntington Lake; the develop- ment of a Y.M.C.A. building along Golden West Street; and a lighted ballfield complex along Golden West Street to the southeast of the existing nature area. . A park-oriented commercial area outside of the park boundaries is planned at the northwest corner of Ellis Avenue and Golden West Street. Huntington Lake, the midden area, and the nature observation area are to be retained. Of special concern is the relationship of the ballfield complex to the exist- ing residences located approximately 500 feet to the west and the existing nature area adjacent to the north. Noise and glare impacts upon the resi- dential area are minimum primarily due to the 550-foot distance separating these uses. Within this 600-foot buffer area is a series of dense tree stands which significantly reduce the potential visual impact upon the resi- dences. Additionally, landscaping and mounding are proposed near the peri- meter of the playfields which will further ensure that the viewshed from the adjacent residences is not adversely affected. (This topic is discussed further under Section 2.08.) r Impacts upon the nature area are more apparent because of the close proximity of the two activities. A dense buffer has been proposed between the two areas, but special attention will be necessary to alleviate potential impacts resulting from more intense public use, glare from lighting, and noise which will unavoidably disturb the serenity of the nature area. From an overall standpoint, implementation of the Central Park Master Plan will alter the general aesthetic character from an open space, rural atmosphere to one oriented more towards active recreational use. 2.09.3 Mitigation Measures In implementing proposed plans, special care should be devoted to providing buffer areas which provide gentle transitions from incompatible uses such as the residential and nature area affected by the ballfield complex. Parking areas and all active recreational facilities should be landscaped with plant materials that are currently found in the park to minimize significant visual differences throughout the park. All lighting fixtures should be directed inward to confine light and glare to the area intended for illumination, particularly in relation to the ballfield complex where light standards may be up to 80 feet in height. -79- J Fi Al .?.'- = „ ''` < �., `�; a„ - -ram un x AREA Lis" t 4� 4 %1-iiiii a � n� -,�� AA i '_ �! LAKEVIEW DRIVE rigIN r� �Jit - �-^„ • a-. .x.,. ., e7 LIBRARY e HUNTINGTON LAKE/CONCESSION �ierc ' 44 _WATURE ! �.« a ija 71 SITE PHOTOS ( 1 TO 8) z6T) (�1 °m HUNTINGTON EtWifta CENTRAL PARK planning&environmental sciences RIPARIAN AREA F, µ »E � 13 PRGIPOEISIN ►I ^E .�., _ � _. .:� .w Mom'., .. ''.;�:�� .,�"' i,.^.�� � �` +�`P fi �;s�- s ,8{.�..'° �� ?a� W.�• � �a.. �` „^�S r, MW Ylt F � �d- � P-T- � r 11 ACTIVE LANDFILL 15 PLANNING MODE AREA 12 PROPOSED PARKING LOT 16 PLANNING MODE AREA :.� A m j SITE PHOTOS (9 TO 16) z° °c • D m HUNTINGTON /IItQ ♦ CENTRAL PARK planning&environmental sciences f R 21 PARK ORIENTED COMMERCIAL SITE e y �F Q 4 ,s� � �� s .�,., � _,�,�_ � ,� tea;?v�°�`� -. ._; k,¢��3..��� �� „«" �- ✓ t` 18 PROPOSED BALLFIELD SITE 22 EXISTING EQUESTRIAN AREA 19 PROPOSED BALLFIELD SITE 23 ; PR©POSED EXPANSIQN AREA "FMQft . - r z kv":�, m.= ME^,. aa °ram -T, SITE PHOTOS ( 17 TO 2 4) Z0 Om • to HUNTINGTON CENTRAL PARK planning&environmental sciences n f•... "</,?.:•d)1, r,5^3 ....__.. ...... .. ..._...-._.,,.................... ..___.,.-_......_-.............._.._ ........_..�,_..-...-. ..........._....__._,._'.__...... ................:.... ,.. ...... -... .. __........._._............ Irin;• -- ,f .sV. ! i ff K 31 r� l t f , �.... .,f,... 71.: :, :__._:..�.�... ,�_ !._,:, -:.I � •ice ...s<� _. .... .r �. of a..._ e , ji ,_,`�..........} (.__.,.:,.....c_i.A._-b.j.-,._.'.---•. .3. t—'j,578PA,s�!i.S$ } p�;x;...� _ t_i z Rom.... . } ...........: j+j t o } I r._ 4V t ' . . : A4.V.71. . E? C. , 1<( , 1. j[ S- , �:.A....� ....... ... .. .xw._..>..--r,,; ..,...E......w'•" y,...�-'r.... vs3._ ..��'<, p .i.t..2 ..... t ' .:. .......... f7 A.. ......................;.. -------------- _ sLi ] 111111 i . 19 , , 5 : A , } 3- 8 't , � r y ,._...............__....... __ ''Jn _BO ._....... ...._. . r , > F r U:: .. t ,- e�� ��.,, ., •F.°.:.F9 F.3'<i -_... �4,er»i�k�i]�.<.e:_, ;i t , ,AY ? .... . .. .._.. 12 i 17 _ . i 1'T1 ..._.....- .. _ .. - , FZOL i! a z16wi rirrr; ...... --i i 7 , : 1 y -i e+.e .E• {t:i;Fliit F, .?81i�1'-!I d<'ai is -'� � `E i ..e 24 1r . _Mf1y.. _ a�l1lkir. ,22 21 �� _ o µ""..... 13_... _W._._.._. 23 15 . 14 D�A E :llpy.LE.[.iSw9 WWI I < 1 ....... } - .. .. ...................___............... ............._i_......E... .._.............. ..-._...........__, ca _ R: a ( , I ` J , north } I. . ..... < .............._._.._.. ._:._..,._.._....._.:....._..,_._...__... ........... ... _. !........ .. .... ........ �.s...i.A. 4.._....,,_...................-- ............... . !pp !t y l �nl zj 0 1000 co I it ...... . .........: :.. : � +.. t D m � i k 2.10 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES 2.10.1 Police and Fire Protection 1. Environmental Setting The Huntington Beach Police Department Headquarters are located in the Civic Center at the southeast corner of Main Street and Yorktown Avenue. The station is located approximately two miles south of the center of Huntington Central Park. Response time to the park facilities would likely be within five minutes. The Department currently maintains regular patrols throughout the area. A fire station exists within one-half mile of Central Park southeast of the intersection of Talbert Avenue and Golden West Street. Due to the proximity of the fire station, response times would generally be within five minutes. 2. Environmental Impact Increases in active recreational activity in Central Park will likely increase demand for police responses. In a previous study conducted by the City' s Planning Department, it was determined that up to two addi- tional officers would be necessary to accommodate development of the Planning Mode Area. Although it has not be specifically determined, it is likely that addi- tional patrols will be required upon implementation of the Central Park Master Plan. None of the facilities contained within, or proposed for, Central Park represent a significant hazard in respect to fire potential . Responses required from Fire Department personnel would likely be limited primar- ily to Paramedic squad responses to injuries incurred by park users. The proposed project is not believed to generate any major impacts to the Huntington Beach Fire Department. 3. Mitigation Measures Prior to approval of any specific site plans for proposed park activities, these plans should be submitted to the Police Department for review and recommendation. Through the development and expansion of the park and associated facili- ties, adequate access should be provided for on-site circulation for Fire Department equipment and operations. -84- 2.10.2 Electricity, Telephone, and Gas r 1. Environmental Setting Electrical service has been extended to various portions of the park to support existing activities by the Southern California Edison Company. The proposed project is located within the jurisdictional boundaries of the General Telephone Company. Telephone service already exists to various facilities within Central Park and existing lines are adequate to serve the currently proposed and future expansion. Gas service is provided to the City of Huntington Beach by the South- ern California Gas Company. Gas lines exist in sufficient locations and sizes to serve the ultimate needs of Huntington Central Park's facilities. According to the Gas Company, the continued long-term supply of natural gas is subject to gas availability and State and Federal regulatory policies. 2. Environmental Impact Upon construction of the proposed park land uses substantial quantities of electricity will be required. The proposed ball field complex will utilize 46 poles, each of which contain 8 fixtures with 368 lights each of 1000-1,500 watts. The proposed equestrian center, expanded shooting range, restaurant, Y.M.C.A. , Planning Mode, lake aeration systems, and parking lot lighting will also be major electrical consumers. Due to the conceptual nature of the Central Park Master Plan, it is presently impossible to deter- mine the quantities of electricity to be consumed. The proposed project will not significantly affect telephone or natural gas service delivery in the area. 3. Mitigation Measures Metal halide or other energy-efficient lighting such as high-pressure sodium should be utilized for outdoor lighting for parking areas and the ball field complex to produce the maximum amount of light while minimizing electrical consumption. No mitigation measures are proposed for telephone or gas utilities. d -85- 2.10.3 Water, Sewers, and Storm Drains 2.10.3.1 Environmental Setting 1. Water The master planned water delivery system for the Central Park area proposes loop water systems with 12-inch to 14-inch mains in each street suurrounding or traversing the site. In-place facilities which are up to master planned standards exist in Golden West Street, Gothard Street, Talbert Avenue, Slater Avenue, and Lakeview Drive. 2. Sewers Sewer service along the perimeters of Central Park exist in sizes and quantities which meet Master Plan specifications. Sewer ser- vice within Central Park, however, has not been fully developed and is inadequate to meet the demands created as a result of the proposed project. 3. Storm Drains Drainage in Central Park is largely a function of the three existing lakes. This has created numerous problems which are discussed in the hydrology section of this report. The park' s storm drain system is currently largely unimproved and will require drainage measures to support the proposed project. 2.10.3.2 Environmental Impact 1. Water Construction of proposed facilities in Central Park and the Plan- ning Mode area will require completion of the loop water system in accordance with the City' s Master Plan. Twelve-inch water mains will be required in Edwards Avenue between Ellis Avenue and Inlet Drive (to be located parallel to the 42-inch water main which al- ready exists in Edwards) and in Ellis Avenue between Edwards and Gothard Street (a short segment already exists to serve the exist- ing stables west of Golden West Street). -86- The proposed Restaurant and YMCA may necessitate water facilities improvement beyond the facilities master planned. However, the Park Master Plan does not provide specific information relative to size and anticipated consumption. 2. Sewers Development of the proposed project will necessitate upgrading of the sewage collection systems to master planned specifications. Specifically, a 12-inch sewer main will be necessary between Ellis Avenue (from approximately 1,300 feet east of Edwards Street) and Golden West Street (to approximatley 700 feet north of Talbert Avenue). Special attention must be addressed to the sewerage requirements of the equestrian facility, the restaurant and the YMCA. Equestrian facilities and wash racks should be designed such that horses and horse areas can be washed down in designated wash areas. Wash areas should be covered by a roof and graded such that rainwater drains around the wash area. Furthermore, the drain should be covered with a metal grate (with 1" to 1 1/2" opening) and kept free of hay and other debris which may otherwise clog its opening. This sewer line would connect with a 12-inch sewer main. Horse droppings should also be placed into sealed containers and periodi- cally removed from the site for proper disposal in accordance with County Health and Sanitation Codes. The YMCA and Restaurant facilities will connect to the existing 8- inch sewer main in Goldenwest Street. Depending upon the sewage outflow of these two facilities an additional sewer line parallel to the existing line may be needed. 3. Storm Drains Implementation of the proposed project will require the construction and extension of several storm drains. A 60-inch storm drain is required between Ellis Avenue and Hunting- ton Lake. A bypass storm drain should connect this storm drain to the existing bypass along the westerly shore of Huntington Lake. Remedial action is also necessary near Sully-Miller Lake. A 102- inch storm drain should be constructed under Ellis Avenue to connect to a proposed bypass along the easterly shore of Sully-Miller Lake, which in turn should connect to the existing 36-inch storm drain which connects Sully-Miller and Talbert Lakes. In addition, the operability of this 36-inch drain will need to be investigated as blockages may exist. -87- 2.10.3.3 Mitigation Measures All water, sewer, and storm drain facilities should be upgraded con- sistent with the City's Master Plan to adequately service proposed park activities. Additionally, bypass storm drains should be constructed along Huntington and Sully-Miller Lakes to prevent excessive runoff from causing large water level fluctuations. The equestrian facility should be properly designed to a sewer facility to collect residue from the site. Horse wash areas should be covered by a roof and graded such that rainwater runoff bypasses the wash area. A metal grate shall be placed over the drain and shall be kept free of debris. 2.10.4 Fiscal Impact Analysis 1. Park Uses The following analysis provides an estimate of the anticipated annual costs in the provision of specific public services relative to uses proposed in Huntington Central Park. This analysis was performed utiliz- ing the City's Land Use Fiscal Impact Model (Ultrasystems) and revenue/ cost data provided in the "Final Report on An Economic Feasiblity Analysis. ..Within Huntington Central Park" (Ultrasystems). While these reports provide the basis for the following analysis, several assumptions . had to be made due to the conceptual and recreational nature of the project. The summary analysis which follows is supplemented by the analysis worksheets located in Appendix G. FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS SUMMARY a. Estimated Annual Services Costs o Ball field Complex $147,321.60 o Equestrian Center $104,176.65 o Restaurant $ 10,228.19 o YMCA $228,432.42 o Fishing Lake $ 22,800.00 o General Park Use $185,458.20 Total $698,417.00 b. Estimated Revenue o Ball field Complex $100,200.00 o Equestrian Center $ 23,952.00 o Restaurant $ 88,000.00 o YMCA $ 12,000.00 o Fishing Lake $189,800.00 Total $413,952.00 -88- 2. Planning Mode (Planning Mode Study Area Special Report) The Cityfiscal impact model projects that over a ten p p � year period, 1982- 1992, a garden office complex (with an adjoining restaurant) located on the planning mode site would create a negative cash flow for the City of $378,574. High administrative, fire, police, and street maintenance costs are assumed to far outweigh any return revenue to the City generated by the development. The alternative would generate little in the area of sales tax revenue. All of the residential alternatives considered for the planning mode property are projected to generate a revenue surplus. Primarily through property taxes, estate residential development of 71 units would produce $106,421 in City revenue over ten years. A low density development of 148 units is projected to generate $49,495 and a medium density develop- ment of 285 units is expected to create a positive cash flow of $126,251. Of all the land use alternatives considered, the R.V. camping facility is projected to generate the highest amount of revenue for the City. With a 40-percent annual occupancy rate and a $10 nightly fee, a 580- space facility located on the planning mode site is projected to create a positive cash flow of $5,753,620 over a ten-year period. Although a 40-percent annual occupancy rate is projected by staff, the R.V. development would break even if only a 15-percent annual occupancy rate were maintained. It must be noted, however, that the above revenue projections do not include the initial land acquisition, facility development, or infra- structure costs for a City operated R.V. campsite. Taking into account these factors, a 580-space facility would not begin to pay for itself until after ten years. The nursery/tree farm alternative is projected to have a highly negative cash revenue ratio. The principal revenue sources, property and sales tax, are low due to the few structures required and the largely wholesale nature of this use. Total costs are projected to outrun total revenue by a margin of 7 to 1, or a $1,529,088 negative cash flow. 2.11 ENERGY CONSIDERATIONS 2.11.1 Environmental Setting Urban areas consume nonrenewable energy sources for transportation, residen- tial heating and cooling, etc. The most commonly used energy sources are gasoline for motor vehicles and natural gas and electricity for residential and other land uses. In their present use (vacant) , no energy is expended within the areas proposed for expansion and modification. Several factors related to the site present potential measures in efforts of conserving energy. They are: 1) use of trails; 2) solar access; and 3) recovery of methane gas from the landfill site. -89- 2.11.2 Environmental Impact The construction of facilities and improvements on the project site will consume quantities of nonrenewable energy resources. During grading and construction activities the equipment will require petroleum products. Upon completion, the proposed facilities will require electricity, natural gas, and petroleum products. The amounts to be consumed represent irretrievable . quantities of energy and therefore will contribute to a diminished supply. In addition to the gasoline consumed by citizens traveling to and from the park, natural gas and electricity will be consumed on the site by the YMCA structure, the Equestrian Center, parking lot and ball field lighting, lake aeration systems, shooting range, restaurant, and Planning Mode development. • Specific quantities of resources consumed are difficult to determine at this time due to the conceptual nature of the Master Plan. Several energy-conserving measures can, and should be, incorporated into the project where feasible. Both the Southern California Gas Company and the Southern California Edison Company have a program to help consumers in plan- ning to conserve energy. Measures designed to reduce the vehicle miles traveled by future users of the park area would probably have the greatest single effect on the total energy consumption. The land use plans of the overall master plan incorporate a network of bikeways and equestrian trails. The bikeways could be used in lieu of auto use, but it is doubtful that the equestrian trails will be used for anything other than recreation given the recreational nature of the project. Considerable research has recently been conducted in the solar energy field. Within the next few years new methods of utilizing energy from the sun could be available for incorporation into development. Even today there are certain methods which can be employed to take advantage of the sun for heating and . cooling buildings. West-facing walls will be the greatest source of direct solar heat gain during the summer, and south-facing walls the greatest source of direct solar heat gain during the winter. It is possible that the use of solar panels will not only become practical , but commonplace, within the next decade. . Finally, the City is investigating the use of methane gas which may possibly be tapped from the inactive landfill site and used as an energy source to produce heat and electricity. However, this opportunity has not been fully explored by the City to determine its actual feasibility. . 2.11.3 Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measures are recommended to lessen the project' s consumption of nonrenewable energy resources. 1. Implementation of energy conservation measures outlined in "Energy Con- servation Standards for New Residential Buildings" of the California Ad- ministrative Code, Title 24, Part 6, Article 1, as amended July 26, 1978. -90- 2. Appropriate use of shade trees to minimize direct solar irradiation on west and southwest building surfaces. 3. Use of energy-efficient exterior lighting fixtures such as metal-halide or high-pressure sodium. 4. Use of active solar water heating in commercial uses on-site. 5. Use of other active or passive solar measures where practical . 2.12 SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS 2.12.1 Environmental Setting The orientation and close proximity of the shooting range (as existing and as proposed for enlargement) relative to the public landfill raises the potential and, in fact, past occurrence of stray bullets landing in the immediate work area. 2.12.2 Environmental Impact Enlargement of the shooting range facility will increase its use by private citizens and by public agencies which would practice with automatic weapons. Increased usage would result in a greater number of stray bullets landing in the landfill area thereby increasing the chances of injuring or fatally wound- ing a worker or other persons on the landfill site. 2.12.3 Mitigation Measures The expanded shooting range facility should be developed with overhead baffles or range limiters along the entire length of the shooting range. Such devices would reduce or eliminate stray bullets from the immediate site. -91- CHAPTER 3.0 TOPICAL ISSUES 3.0 TOPICAL ISSUES 3.01 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Cumulative impacts occurring as a result of the implementation of the Hunting- ton Central Park Master Plan are largely limited to traffic and air quality considerations. As discussed in Section 2.06 (Traffic and Circulation) , traffic generated by the project will increase volumes on nearby arterials of which several are expected to be near or beyond capacity by the year 1995. It should be noted, however, that the arterials which are expected to exceed capacities will do so with or without the implementation of the proposed park development. In regards to air quality, the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) assumes a level of growth consistent with SCAG 78. The implementation of the AQMP may require that some of the growth provided for in County and City General Plans be modified, eliminated or delayed if that growth will prevent or interfere with the attainment and maintenance of ambient air quality goals. Since the growth accommodated by the proposed project will cumulatively impact the ambient air quality of the region, but will most likely not exceed SCAG 78 forecasts or cause local air pollutant concentrations to exceed the relevant standards, its consistency with the intent of the provisions of the AQMP is clear. 3.02 SHORT-TERM EFFECTS VERSUS LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY The proposed Central Park Master Plan will have a long-term effect of preclud- ing typical urban development patterns such as residential , commercial , and industrial land uses. The proposed project will commit certain areas within the park such as the YMCA, the Equestrian Center, the ball field complex, and the Planning Mode property for these specific uses for extended periods due to the construction of permanent structures. Other areas in the park will be conserved largely in open space presumably for an extended period as well , but will not be subject to permanent improvements. In preserving the Central Park area for open space and recreation, long-term productivity will be enhanced by properly maintaining the park's facilities for the enjoyment and benefit of the community. -92- 3.03 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS Although mitigation measures are recommended for some of the anticipated impacts resulting from the project, some of the impacts addressed in this environmental impact report are seen as being partially, if not totally, unavoidable. Such adverse impacts are seen as a direct or indirect result of the proposed project. Implementation of the proposed project will thus result in the following: o Loss of developable, vacant space. o Incremental increase in air pollution from motor vehicles. o A slight increase in demand for energy and nonrenewable resource. o Increased traffic on surrounding streets within the study areas. o Minor increase in demand for public services and utilities. o Incremental increase in noise levels within the study area. o Increase in population within the study area, depending on which Planning Mode alternative is selected. o Partial loss of the open space-oriented, passive nature of Central Park. o Land use contrast between the proposed ball field complex and exist- ing residential uses and the nature observation area due to noise and lighting. 3.04 GROWTH INDUCEMENT The Central Park Master Plan is not seen as a growth-inducing measure but, rather, as being growth-accommodating. Implementation of the project will not extend public services to areas which could subsequently be developed. Public facilities which will be extended to the site are basically in-filling measures which are in full conformance with the City's Public Works Master Plans. The project may accommodate more intensified urban growth in the vicinity by providing substantial visual relief from urban development pat- terns and by providing ample passive and active recreational opportunities to the community. -93- 3.05 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES t 3.05.1 "No Project" Alternative The "no project" alternative would amount to a freeze of park boundaries in their present location; terminating any future consideration of purchasing property for park purposes in the area designated for park expansion; and terminating any consideration of purchasing property in the "Planning Mode" area for park use. Moreover, undeveloped portions of the park would remain undeveloped for an undeterminable period of time. Given the "no project" alternative several environmental and land use issues would remain present posing concerns the City may be obligated to study and resolve. They are: 1. Water Quality Associated With Talbert and Sully-Miller Lakes - Current drainage conditions and the lack of adequate water quality improvement efforts will result in the current and potentially worsening water qual- ity conditions evident in Talbert and Sully-Miller Lakes. Moreover, Sully-Miller Lake, being a former quarry pit, is visually unattractive in its present state. 2. Private Equestrian Area Use - A privately operated equestrian use is presently situated on portions of property located north of Ellis Avenue and west of Golden West Street. In addition to this use operating with minimal health, safety, and aesthetic standards, water drainage from the site picks up and carries relatively high concentrations of equine urine and feces into Talbert Lake. The proposed project would result in the development of a new equestrian area with supplemental landscaping and more adequate facilities to allow for healthier methods of equine management. Moreover, importantly, the City would be the leasor and may exercise greater authority in controlling negative aspects of the use. 3. City Owned Property - Several acres of land within the present park boundaries and immediately adjacent to the park (encyclopedia properties) have been acquired by the City for ultimate park use. Such properties would become surplus and may be subject to sale for development. Finally, the no project alternative would result in the elimination of "nega- tive impacts" which have been identified and associated with the project. 3.05.2 Open Space - Private Development The proposed expansion area is presently designated as open space in the Land Use Element. This area could be rezoned to Recreational Open Space (ROS) in order to restrict residential use and provide for compatible activities and uses. Rezoning properties to ROS without amending the Open Space/Conservation Element would not, however, allow the City to take advantage of State and Federal sources for additional acquisitions. -94- Use of the property, under this alternative, may revert to private develop- ment and operation of an open space/recreational activity by lease or sale of property by the City. A prime example of use that may be considered could be a golf course. However, as discussed in a following alternative, the Ultrasystems' Economic Feasibility Study it is questionable whether a golf course coulc operate profitable without complimintary uses including the need for a hotel . Such a use was found to be inconsistant with the primary intent of the City to establish a community oriented facility, not to mention the greater impacts on traffic, noise, visual , and other factors of the local environment. 3.05.3 Scaling-Down Proposed Recreational Uses This alternative consists of reducing the intensity of proposed recreational uses to improve their compatibility with existing uses in and around the park. As an example, the ballfield complex could be reduced from six play- ing fields to three decreasing various impacts resulting from noise, light, glare, air quality, and traffic generation upon the adjacent residences and nature observation area. This alternative would also serve to reduce the number of trees to be lost in order to accommodate the project. In addi- tion, less parking would be necessary and this area could be devoted to open space. The use of the Planning Mode property for a low-intensity use such as a nursery/tree farm would also reduce impacts on air quality, noise, and traffic patterns and would help retain an open space character. However, this alternative would not fully achieve the City's objectives as stated in Section 1.02 of this Report. 3.05.4 Previous Alternatives Considered The City retained the services of Ultrasystems Incorporated which prepared an "Economic Feasibility Analysis of Proposed Revenue-Producing Uses to be located within Huntington Central park" (May, 1981). This study was instru- mental in the City's project investigation and alternative concept review procedure which eventually led to the present master plan concept assessed in this EIR. The study investigated numerous recreational activities and presented alternative concept plans. Reference is herein made to the de- tailed description and analysis of each alternative discussed in the Economic Feasibility Report (on file in the City of Huntington Beach, City Clerk's Office) . Following is a brief description of the alternatives studied: Alternative 1 This alternative configuration was limited to the present central park boundaries. Two land use alternatives were considered: a. The first configuration focuses on the creation of a relatively passive resort atmosphere through the development of a hotel/ conference center, a golf course, fishing lake, and the YMCA. Not enough space remains for an RV park , thus a small parking area is provided adjacent to the fishing lake. -95- b. The second configuration is based on development of a 6-field baseball/sports field complex in conjunction with an arcade and pizza parlor, the fishing lake, YMCA and amphitheater in the cur- rent remaining portion of the Bruce Bros. Pit. Alternative 2 The acquisition of the parcel on the northeast corner of Golden West and Ellis provides an opportunity to expant alternatives la and lb so as RV park west of the fishing lake as well as to place a baseball/sports field complex on either side of Gilden West. In addition, an equestrian facility can now be incorporated with a golf course use whereas this was not possible within the boundaries of Alternative No. 1. Alternative 3 The acquisition of the Marion property at the northwest corner of Golden . West and Ellis provides the opportunity tto expand those golf-oriented alternatives to as large as 122 acres for golf and still include some of the key features and uses shown in the alternatives for Configuration No. 2. Alternative 4 Alternative 4 includes the expansion of Huntington Central Park to achieve a total of 367 acres which permits the opportunity of either a golf-oriented resort theme or a non-golf-oriented resort theme, whichh would include an amphitheater. The acquisition of the 9-acre parcel on the northwest corner of Gothard and Ellis enables the provision of an additional 250 spaces for RV use. As a matter of fact, because of its location in the Gothard industrial corridor, this is probably the best use for this parcel if it were to be included in Central Park. -96- . CHAPTER 4.0 REFERENCES 4.0 REFERENCES 4.01 BIBLIOGRAPHY . "Geotechnical Inputs," Huntington Beach Planning Department, February, 1974. "Huntington Beach General Plan," Huntington Beach Planning Department, December, 1976 (amended through March, 1979). "Environmental Impact Report on the Proposed Olympic Skateboard Park" (EIR 77-12) , Envista, Inc. , February 1978. "Planning Mode Study Area Special Report," Huntington Beach Planning Depart- ment, 1982. "Huntington Lake - An Assessment and Restoration Plan," Arlo W. Fast and J. Harlan Glenn and Associates, December 1980. "Sully-Miller Lake - An Assessment and Development Plan," Arlo W. Fast and J. Harlan Glenn and Associates, October, 1980. "Final Report - Talbert Lake Seepage Problem," J. Harlan Glenn and Associates, . July 5, 1978. "Report on City of Huntington Beach Lakes," Toups Engineering, Inc. , February, 1970. "Economic Feasiblity Analysis of Proposed Revenue-Producing Uses Within Huntington Central Park," Ultrasystems, Inc. , May, 1981. "Scientific Resources Survey and Inventory," Archaeological Research, Inc. , January, 1973. "Open Space/Conservation Element Amendment and Final Environmental Impact Report 80-4," Huntington Beach Planning Department, December, 1980. "Open Space/Conservation Element Amendment," Huntington Beach Planning Depart- ment, October, 1981. -97- i 4.02 PERSONS AND ORGANIZATIONS CONSULTED City of Huntington Beach, Planning Department James Barnes, Associate Planner Charles Clark, Associate Planner Howard Zelefsky, Assistant Planner City of Huntington Beach, Community Services Vince Moorhouse, Director City of Huntington Beach, Recreation, Parks, and Human Services Norm Worthy, Director City of Huntington Beach, Public Works i Don Noble, Engineering Planner City of Huntington Beach, Police Department i Van Bethea, Special Operations Division State of California, Department of Health Services Wendy Latham Palmer, Project Assistant Ozden Mindevalli , Waste Management Engineer Cardoza Dilallo Associates, Inc. Leslee A. Temple, AILA -98- 4.03 REPORT PREPARATION TEAM i Envista, a division of Willdan Associates Gary Werner, Project Manager Ernest Egger, Project Planner Endo Company Vicki Endo, Air Quality Engineer William Kunzman Associates William Kunzman, P.E. Ron Jonas, P.E. Archaeological Resource Management Corporation Dee Schroth Marie Cottrell J. J. Van Houten and Associates, Inc. John Van Houten, P.E. David L. Wieland, Associate Engineer -99- . CHAPTER 5.0 PUBLIC REVIEW COMMENTS r i i 5.0 PUBLIC REVIEW COMMENTS 5.01 PUBLIC REVIEW COMMENTS AND RESPONSE The "Draft Environmental Impact Report on the Proposed Huntington Central Park Expansion, (EIR 81-5) , May, 1982" was distributed to interested citizens, affected agencies, and agencies required by law or by special expertise to review the Draft EIR. The review and comment period extended from May 10, 1982 to June 23, 1982. . A copy of the distribution list is on public file and available for inspection at the City of Huntington Beach, Development Services Department. The following pages contain a restatement of the comments received from various reviewing agencies commenting on the Draft EIR and a summary of the response which is contained in the text of the Final EIR. A copy of the letters received follows in Subsection 5.02 As required by the California Environmental Quality Act, relevant comments received on the Draft EIR during the public review period shall be responded to and copies of the response provided to the commenting agency. This section contains the responses to comments made on the Draft EIR. However, to provide decision makers with an informational document which incorporates all relevant concerns, responses to relevant comments have been embodied within the text of this Final EIR where appropriate. The responses to comments follow: 1. HILARY J. BAKER, SENIOR ENGINEERING AIDE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY - MAY 14, 1982 COMMENT 1: "This office has reviewed the EIR for Huntington Central Park and takes exception to the following comment on page 87: 'Equestrian facilities and wash racks should be designed such that . horses and horse areas can be washed down such that the residue drains into an improved sewer drain. ' Please be advised that the waste from animal care areas is not an accept- able waste to the Sanitation Districts ' sewerage facilities. It will be necessary to make other arrangements for the disposal of this water product." -100- i RESPONSE 1: A telephone conversation on July 2, 1982 with Mr. Tom Dawds, Deputy Engineer of the County Sanitation Districts, revealed that the Districts ' concern is the potential for clogging of drains caused by horse debris and rainwater drainage. The statement taken exception to has been corrected on Page 87 under the topic of Sewers. In addition, Section 2.10.3.3 - Mitigation Measures (P. 88) has been amended accordingly. 2. DICK HSU, ENVIRONMENTAL COORDINATOR ORANGE COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT - MAY 20, 1982 COMMENT 2A: "Route 25 currently operates on Goldenwest with a 30-minute frequency. We suggest that you consider designing bus improvements into the ulti- mate width of the street (i .e. , pavement sections, turnouts, sidewalks, etc.)." RESPONSE 2A: The need for bus facilities to service Huntington Central Park is acknowledged and can be facilitated by the addition of the following mitigation measure on Page 61, Section 2.06.3: "8. Prior to the approval of detailed engineering plans for the ultimate development of Golden West Street, the City of Huntington Beach should incorporate appropriate input from O.C.T.D. as to the location and design of bus facilities." COMMENT 2B: "Additionally, service could be implemented on Edwards, Ellis, Talbert, Slater and Gothard in the future. The potential bus stops are shown on the attached map. Facilities similar to those provided for on Goldenwest should be designed into these streets." RESPONSE 2B: In developing and approving detailed engineering plans for these streets, consideration should be given to the fact that bus services may be initiated. The design of these streets should be such as not to exclude the development of bus stop facilities. -101- 3. VINCENT G. MOOREHOUSE, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICES CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH - JUNE 1, 1982 COMMENT 3A: "Concerning subject EIR, this department feels that the issue of possible expansion of the Police Firing Range should be addressed. At present, staff is negotiating a new lease for the range which includes reconstruc- tion of the premises to allow the public to shoot an American Standard Course for handguns, construction of a multistoried structure to include additional shooting stations, classrooms, public restaurant, sporting goods store and gunsmith shop." RESPONSE 3A: The project description relative to the proposed expansion of the shooting range facility was amended to reflect current plans to include a two-story structure. The project description was amended on Page 13 (Section 1.04 II-3) and on Page 16 (Table A). COMMENT 3B: "Additionally, provision of security should be addressed. Staff working at the public landfill adjacent to the range has reported several inci - dents of stray bullets from the range landing in their immediate work area (see Jim Way, X-5287)." RESPONSE 3B: Section 2.12 - Safety Considerations (P. 91) has been added to the Final EIR, accordingly. . COMMENT 3C: "Also, the noice factor should be studied. Residents in the downtown have reported hearing rounds from the range at night." RESPONSE 3C: A noise study was conducted the results of which were documented in the Draft EIR, Section 2.08 (P. 71). However, Section 2.08.1 - Environmental Setting has been amended to reflect the reported noise impact upon the downtown area (P. 72). -102- 4. JOHN A. HINTON, P.E. , ENFORCEMENT SECTION HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT BRANCH DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES STATE OF CALIFORNIA, HEALTH AND WELFARE AGENCY - JUNE 7, 1982 COMMENT 4: "This office's regular staff on March 10, 1980 inspected and sampled the soil in an area in which drilling muds were disposed of. The investiga- tion was at the request of the City of Huntington Beach after the area had been cleaned-up. All samples upon analysis were determined to be non-hazardous. Additionally we have reviewed the Abandoned Site Groups file and found • nothing in it to indicate that the Bruce Bros. Pit is a 'potential hazardous waste disposal site. ' Therefore, based upon the information available to this office, we do not consider the Bruce Bros. Pit a 'pontential hazardous waste deposal site. '" RESPONSE 4: Discussions in the Draft EIR which indicated "potential hazardous waste" associated with the Bruce Brothers Pit have been amended accordingly. This includes amendments to the following sections of the Draft EIR: Section Title Page of DEIR Page of Final EIR i N/A Summary 3 and 4 1 2.01.1 Environmental Setting 29 25, 29 2.01.2 Environmental Impact 30 29 2.01.3 Mitigation Measures 32 29,30,31 5. KENNETH E. SMITH, MANAGER ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS DIVISION ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY COUNTY OF ORANGE - JUNE 16, 1982 COMMENT 5A: "The EIR should show the derivation of usage rates for natural gas and electricity given in the air quality appendix." -103- RESPONSE 5A: In view of the lack of definitive site specific information on energy usage from City staff and the public utility companies, the following conservative assumptions were made to estimate the. future energy usage on-site: o Equestrian Facilities: 10 percent building coverage, 52 cubic feet of natural gas per square foot of floor space annually, 32.5 kilowatt-hours per square foot annually. o Shooting Range: 15 percent building coverage, 52 cubic feet per square foot of floor space annually, 16.3 kwh per square foot annually. o Ballfield: 40,000 square feet, 52 feet of natural gas per square foot annually and 32.5 kwh per square foot annually. o Mobile Home: 9,125 cubic feet of gas per month per dwelling unit and 4.0 kwh per square foot annually (assuming 1,000 square feet of floor- space). o Restaurants: 6,000 square feet of floor space, 660 cubic feet of gas per square foot annually and 76.9 kwh per square foot annually. o YMCA: 20,000 square feet of floor space, 220 cubic feet of gas per square foot annually and 32.5 kwh per square foot annually. o Parking Lots: Electric lighting with a required lighting level of 1 to 2 foot-candles and a uniformity ratio of 6 to 1 for average illumination/. lowest level , for a total or approximately 450 kwh per day in all parking areas combined. o Lake Aeration Systems: Compresssors and diffusers - negligible. As shown in the report Appendix, the energy consumption rates were derived from the SCAQMD Handbook and yielded a total project demand of 44,000 cubic feet of natural gas and 9,000 kilowatt hours of electricity daily. COMMENT 5B: "The motor vehicle emissions factors for total hydrocarbons should be 1.42 gm/mi in 1982 and 0.58 gm/mi in 1995." RESPONSE 5B: Per EMA direction, crankcase blowby, diurnal emissions and hot soak emissions of hydrocarbons were added to the tabularized total hydrocarbon emission factors above as shown on the following page: -104- THC Emission Factors 1982 1995 Base Value 1.42 0.58 Crankcase 0.032 0.0006 Diurnal 0.196 0.044 Hot Soak 0.68 0.174 TOTAL 2. 0.80 • Thus 2.33 gm/mile and 0.80 gm/mile were used in the analysis as shown in the Air Quality Report Appendix. COMMENT 5C: "Results of the CALINE3 computer runs should be reproduced in the air quality appendix." RESPONSE 5C: Refer to the air quality appendix in this Final EIR which now includes the results of the CALINE3 computer runs. COMMENT 5D: 41 "Note for your information, that stability Class F is the worst case." RESPONSE 5D: The site is located in the coastal zone and benefits from a pronounced land/sea breeze regime. Stability Class F conditions would be highly unlikely given the project's location with respect to the ocean and surrounding topography. Additionally, telephone communications with Mr. Iry Borrow (air quality specialist at CalTrans familiar with the Caline 3 Program) led to the use of Stability Class E during the peak hour runs and Classes C, D, and E during w off-peak hours. COMMENT 5E: "On page 53, last paragraph, the report states that the section of Talbert between Edwards and Golden West is not shown in the City's Circulation Plan. It should be noted that there is an inconsistency between the City and County Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH) ; the County plan shows Talbert continuous between Edwards and Golden West." -105- RESPONSE 5E: The last paragraph on Page 53 of the DEIR (Talbert Avenue) has been amended to reflect the MPAH. COMMENT 5F: "On page 59, last paragraph, the report discusses the potential future realignment of Talbert to connect to Ellis. The report should also discuss the potential feasibility of connecting the discontinuous sec- tions of Talbert via an alignment south of the lake. This connection, along with the Talbert Street bridge crossing the Santa Ana River, would provide through travel for east/west traffic. It should be noted that one reason for the projected heavy volumes and associated capacity problems on Warner, is the lack of parallel facilities serving destina- tions to the east (i .e. , South Coast Plaza) . The proposal to extend Talbert to Ellis will not alleviate this problem, since Ellis terminates at the river and traffic is redirected north, on to Euclid." RESPONSE 5F: The paragraph referring to the potential future realignment of Talbert Avenue (P. 59 and 60) has been amended to reflect a second possible connection of the discontinuous segments of Talbert Avenue via an alignment south of the Lake. The projected heavy volumes and capacity problems on Warner Avenue are so noted. COMMENT 5G: "On page 60, Mitigation Measures section, the report should consider a southbound right turn only lane on Golden West at the park entrance. This will relieve queuing problems during peak hour and special event uses of the park." RESPONSE 5G: An additional mitigation measure has been added to Section 2.06.3 (PP. 60 and 61) which reads: . 9. To relieve queuing problems during peak hours and special events at the park, the City should consider a southbound right-turn-only lane on Golden West Street at the park entrance." -106- 6. DARYL D. SMITH, SUPERINTENDENT PARK, TREE & LANDSCAPE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH - JUNE 14, 1982 COMMENT 6A: "The E.I.R. , is rather deceptive regarding size, location and disruption to existing park caused by proposed ballfields." RESPONSE 6A: The Draft EIR was prepared for a conceptual design of the Central Park Master Plan and, as a result, does not provide the detail which would otherwise be available from park improvement plans. However, even on a conceptual level the Draft and Final EIR's do identify the approximate size and location of proposed uses and facilities. Furthermore, the EIR provides an adequate level of impact assessment and mitigating measures to allow the public and decision makers to review the project and make an intelligent judgement as to the severity of impact which could likely arise from the project, if developed. COMMENT 6B: "The proposed ballfield complex is the one feature of the Huntington Central Park improvement project that creates serious impacts to the entire area in and around Huntington Central Park." RESPONSE 6B: As indicated in the EIR, the major impacts arising from the ballfield complex result from nighttime lighting (Section 2.04.2, PP. 44 and 45), noise genera- tion (Section 2.08.2, P. 75) , and the loss of numerous trees (Section 2.03.2, P.43), among others. COMMENT 6C: "None of the mitigating measures are substantial enough to satisfac- torily solve the problems created by the size and anticipated use of the ballfields." RESPONSE 6C: That is a subjective opinion which may or may not be shared by others. In any case, the purpose of the EIR process is to bring specific concerns to the attention of the reviewing agency. -107- COMMENT 6D: S "As I interpret the E.I.R. , the only way to resolve the ballfield issue is to down-size the complex and build the fields in the undeveloped area between Goldenwest Street and the existing park area." ` RESPONSE 6D: The ballfield complex will result in lighting impacts, noise impacts, tree impacts, traffic impacts, and biology impacts. Each significant impact identified may be mitigated to an extent. There is no disagreement that down sizing the complex will reduce the degree of various impacts. However, the decision-making body must determine the proper balance between meeting City objectives and individual or local concerns. COMMENT 6E: "On page 39 - 2.02.3 Mitigation Measures Huntington Lake: It is abso- lutely unnecessary to recommend construction of a pier into the lake. This recommendation has nothing to do with mitigation measures regarding Huntington Central Park. As a matter of improvement, appearance and aesthetic value, a pier out into the lake would detract from the beauty of the lake and park in general . Also, the pier would create a substan- tial addition to the park maintenance program as well as increasing the City liability." RESPONSE 6E: The pier into the Lake was recommended as part of the Lake Restoration Plan prepared by Harlann Glenn and Associates; December, 1980. COMMENT 6F: "In the Appendix to this E.I.R. , it is indicated there will be an estimated revenue from the ballfields of $200,200. , or $548.49 per day continuously for 365 days per year. This estimate of revenue appears to be rather high and possibly unobtainable. Someone should verify this figure and the basis of the estimate." RESPONSE 6F: The revenue figure of $200,200 is in error and has been revised to $100,200. The revenue sources were obtained from the City's "Economic Feasibility Analysis" for Central Park. -108- COMMENT 6G: "The E.I.R. , indicates that existing streets will accommodate the addi - tional traffic generated by the project. This assumption is simply not accurate and should be clarified and corrected with appropriate costs added to project funding needs." RESPONSE 6G: • The comment is not accurate. The Draft EIR (Section 2.06.2, Page 56) indi - cates: "Golden West Street would be operating slightly beyond capacity and will require improvement to its ultimate cross section as a four-lane divided roadway in conjunction with park development. Other surrounding roadways are capable of accommodating additional generated traffic at the present time." This EIR does not address the capital improvement costs associated with the project. Such an assessment is not required by the California Environmental Quality Act. 7. BILL PATAPOFF CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH - JUNE 21, 1982 COMMENT 7A: "Page 33, the drainage patterns are incorrect." RESPOSNE 7A: Figure 11A was initially prepared with assistance from the City's Public Works Department. However, it has been corrected as indicated on the map attached to the comment. COMMENT 7B: "Page 56, paragraph 4 and page 60, paragraph 2.06.3 (1) a traffic signal has recently been constructed at the intersection of Goldenwest and Talbert." RESPONSE 7B: The paragraphs have been updated accordingly. -109- COMMENT 7C: "Economic analysis in Appendix G does not list the required Public Works facilities (streets, sewer, storm drain, water mains), although the body of the report outlines their needs. Also the financing of the facilities needs to be decided." S RESPONSE 7C: See Response 6G. COMMENT 7D: "The E. I.R. does address the problems of the proposed ballfield lighting and how it will affect surrounding homes and residences. However, this E. I.R. does not address its (lighting) affect on Goldenwest Street. What type of buffer will be installed? Will a buffer be necessary?" RESPONSE 7D: A landscape buffer is proposed along the Golden West Street frontage. The lighting affect on Golden West Street may at some points result in traffic glare. However, mitigating measure lb (Section 2.04.3, P. 49) would reduce or eliminate glare to acceptable levels. COMMENT 7E: "The E.I.R. states that 'the roadways serving Central Park can accommodate the additional generated traffic. ' It further states that these roadways can accommodate this additional traffic as they exist today, except for Goldenwest Street. Other roadways need to be improved. One of the most vital roadways to this park, specifically Talbert Avenue, needs to be improved to its ultimate. This is going to be the park 's direct access from the east. Improvements will also be necessary on Ellis Avenue." RESPONSE 7E: The EIR, Section 2.06.3 (P. 60) recommends : 112. Improve Golden West Street as a four-lane divided roadway between Talbert and Slater in conjunction with development. 3. Construct all streets bordering the project to half-section widths adjacent to the project boundary in conjunction with development." An additional mitigation measure considering the improvement of Talbert Avenue to its ultimate design width has also been added on Page 61. -110- COMMENT 7F: "On page 58, second paragraph, the last sentence stops in mid frame. The sentence needs to be completed." RESPONSE 7F: The complete statement could be found on Page 14 of the Traffic Study contained in the Appendix. The text has been corrected. The complete sentence on Page 58 now reads: ' "With the addition of the worst case traffic from the Planning Mode study area, Golden West between Talbert and Ellis will also operate at capa- city." COMMENT 7G: "Again, the E.I.R. states that there will be attempts to park on Golden- , west or stop adjacent to the ballfield complex to load and unload passen- gers. Since 'No Stopping, ' 'No Standing, ' 'No Sitting' and 'No Parking' are going to be enforced, how will loading and unloading occur? Traffic Engineering staff feels that this subject should be addressed in this E.I.R. A possible solution would be an inlet street." RESPONSE 7G: A mitigation measure has been added to Section 2.06.3 (P. 61) which reads: "10. To accommodate the loading and unloading of passengers of the ball - . field compelx and avoid on-street congestion therefrom the City should consider either an inlet street or a loading and unloading zone which is safely separated from traffic on Golden West Street." COMMENT 7H: "The matter of transit facilities has been unaddressed in this E.I.R. Since transit is only going to get bigger and better, these items (buses, zones, etc. ) need to be included in this project." RESPONSE 7H: See Response 2A. -111- 1 8. NORM WORTHY, SUPERINTENDENT PARK, ACQUISITION AND DEVELOPMENT CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH - JUNE 24, 1982 COMMENT 8A: "Maps needing to be numbered - Figure 3 - Page 11 Figure 14 - Page 74 Figure 4 - Page 12 Figure 15 - Page 80 Figure 9 - Page 26 Figure 16 - Page 81 Figure 10 - Page 27 Figure 17 - Page 82 Figure 11 - Page 33 Figure 18 - Page 83" ' Figure 12 - Page 46 RESPONSE 8A: Maps are numbered with Figure Numbers. Page numbers are identified in the Table of Contents. COMMENT 8B: "Figure 10 - S-E corner of Talbert and Goldenwest. 300' east from Golden- west is solid ground, not landfill ." RESPONSE 8B: Figure 10 has been corrected. COMMENT 8C: "Page 38, 1.a - The equestrian center proposed by the city is in the same location as the existing Reynolds Stables but expanded from 10 to 25 acres to Goldenwest Street." RESPONSE 8C: The paragraph referred to is located on Page 37 of the Final EIR and has 1 been corrected. COMMENT 8D: "Page 55, Table D - Remove resident caretaker (City Council ruled against 1 the idea) ." i 1 -112- RESPONSE 8D: Table D has been corrected. COMMENT 8E: "Page 77, 2.08.3 - Mitigation Meaures Ball par hours from 7 a.m. to 10:30 p.m." RESPONSE 8E: The EIR recommended hours of operation (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. ) are consistent with the City's Noise Ordinance. Extending the hours to 10:30 p.m. would be in conflict with the ordinance. 9. CHARLES E. BRANDES, OPR , STATE OF CALIFORNIA - JUNE 21, 1982 COMMENT 9: "This letter certifies only that you have complied with the State Clear- inghouse review requirements for draft environmental document, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (EIR Guidelines, Section 15161.5)." RESPONSE 9: No response required. ! 1 1 -113- 5.02 COMMENT LETTERS The following pages contain copies of the letters received from the various reviewing agencies commenting on the Draft EIR. -114- COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS TELEPHONES: • AREA CODE 714 BBB s40-2910 OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA �,�'' 9 6 2-2 41 1 P. 0. BOX 8127. FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIF13RNIA 92708 10844 ELLIS AVENUE (EUCLID OFF-RAMP, SAN DIEGO FREEWAY) May 14, 1982 RECEIVE' , MAY1? 15c? Develeplr.crt Se-�`�°-� City of Huntington Beach , Post Office Box 190 Huntington Beach, California 92648 Attention: James R. Barnes, Associate Planner Reference: EIR 81-5 Huntington Central Park , This office has reviewed the EIR for Huntington Central Park and takes exception to the following comment on page 87: "Equestrian facilities and wash racks should be designed such that horses and horse areas can be washed down such that the residue drains into an improved sewer drain." Please be advised that the waste from animal care areas is not an acceptable waste to the Sanitation Districts' sewerage facilities. It will be necessary to make other arrangements for the disposal of this waste product. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to call Jim Wybenga of the Districts' Industrial Waste Division at (714) 540-2910 extension 253. Hilary J. 2aker Senior Engineering Aide HJB:ss cc: Jim Wybenga =115- ,acsa ORANGE COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT May 20, 1982 RECEIVED MAY 2 4 1982 j Mr. James Barnes Development Se-;,i:e; Associate Planner City of Huntington Beach P.O. Box 190 i Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Mr. Barnes: SUBJECT: DEIR 81-5 - HUNTINGTON BEACH CENTRAL PARK I Thank you for sending us a copy of DEIR 81-5 - Huntington Beach Central i Park for our review and comment. Route 25 currently operates on Goldenwest with a 30-minute frequency. We suggest that you consider designing bus improvements into the ultimate width of the street (i.e. pavement sections, turnouts, sidewalks, etc.) Additionally, service could be implemented on Edwards, Ellis, Talbert, Slater and Gothard in the future. The potential bus stops are shown on the attached map. Facilities similar to those provided for on Goldenwest should I be designed into these streets. If there are any questions regarding these comments, please contact me or ' Mike Haack at 971-6405. Sincerely, I ,L v Dick Hsu Environmental Coordinator DH:SX � I 11222 ACACIA PARKWAY • P.O. BOX 3005 • GARDEN GROVE, CALIFORNIA 92642 • PHONE(714)971.6200 -116- ... �Ni .v 1. , I .. . , ! I 1 exr>rI .. j L s jT,77 1 y T,I, . ram. ...1 - p p IT - S t Ir. .AL PA �. 1 4 .♦, i0f.. � � 1. � y' �.,. I TT _......_........., ii. TALNEQ Qn : V ........... I y ...._... � J r 1 OPOSED ��� P A N PA K 9.XP.pN �:::::.z.._-_.-..-. . .. -._.... _ .._ Mo E _ ... _ . ....... ...... PO'i'F?�TrI SUS STOP LOCATIONS -. ._...... _.. I ' r I , north • I ._..i 1 7_ -.�__ .......... ti Wit.: • CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH x INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION NUcn �— To . JiM .Barnes From_ Vine t G. Moorhouse Associate Planner Director, Community Services r;. Subject EIR 81-5, Huntington Central Date June 1, 1982 Park Expansion Concerning subJect EIR, this department feels. that the .issue of possible expansion of the Police Firing Range should be addressed. At present,•;staff. is negot.iating -a new lease for the range -which includes reconstruction of the premises to allow the public .to shoot an .American. Standard Course for handguns, construction of a multistoried structure to include additional shooting stations, . classrooms, public restaurant , sporting goods store and gunsmith shop. Additionally, provision of security- should ..be addressed. Staff working at, the public :landfill adjacent .to: the range have re- ported several incidents of stray bullets from the range landing in their. immediate work area. (see Jim Way, X-5287) . Also, the noice :factor should be studied. Residents- in the downtown have reported hearing rounds from the range at night .- .- Other pages .in the. report have been paperclipped with notes addressing additional concerns . Thank you for the opportunity -to review this .document. If you need further information, please c-ontact me directly. i VGM:cs Attachment RECEIVED JUN 2 ]987 Develcment Semi ; $r p ' -11 O- STATE OF CALIFORNIA—HEALTH AND WELFARE AGENCY EDMUND G. BROWN JR., Governor DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES 107 SOUTH BROADWAY,ROOM 7&34* 7128 LOS ANGELES,CA 90012 (213) 620-2380 June T, 1982 h [ l .`. t e Mr. James R. Barnes C2ralep;,rri Se:; Associate Planner Department of Development Services City of Huntington Beach P. 0. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Mr. Barnes: This letter is in response to your Mr. Charles W. Thompson's April 15, 1982 letter to Mr. John Hinton of this office, regarding the Bruce Bros. Pit being considered a "potential hazardous waste disposal site." Our abandoned site people did not have enough information to consider the Bruce Bros. Pit a potential hazardous waste site. This office's regular staff on March 10, 1980 inspected and sampled the r soil in an area in which drilling muds were disposed of. The investigation was at the request of the City of Huntington Beach after the area had been cleaned-up. All samples upon analysis were determined to be non-hazardous. Additionally we have reviewed the Abondoned Site Groups file and found nothing in it to indicate that the Bruce Bros. Pit is a "potential hazardous waste disposal site." Therefore, based upon the information available to this office, we do not consider the Bruce Bros. Pit a 'potentiE osal site." and norcemnecon Hazardous Waste Management Branch JAH:mw -119- MURRAY STORM DIRECTOR,EMA ROBERT G.FISHER a S�1 U w,� O c DIRECTOR OF PLANNING ``^t( ,`/ r LOCATION:1 811 NORTH BROADWAY SANTA ANA,CALIFORNIA 5 3 / RANG S MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. BOX 4048 V ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY SANTA ANA,CA 92702-4048 TELEPHONE: PLANNING (714)834.4643 June 16, 1982 FILE GSR2N027 R [ CEIW 1]D James R. Barnes City of Huntington Beach jul'! Development Services/Planning Division P. 0. Box 190 n ,Ve!rp'n-_r+ Huntington Beach, California 92648 SUBJECT: DEIR for Huntington Central Park Expansion Dear Mr. Barnes, The Environmental Management Agency has reviewed the subject document and has the following comments to relate: Air Quality o The EIR should show the derivation of usage rates for natural gas and electri- city given in the air quality appendix, o The motor vehicle emissions factors for total hydrocarbons should be 1.42 gm/mi in 1982 and 0.58 gm/mi in 1995. o Results of the CALINE3 computer runs should be reporduced in the air quality appendix. o Note for your information, that stability Class F is the worst case. Circulation o On page 53, last paragraph, the report states that the section of Talbert be- tween Edwards and Golden West is not shown in the City's Circulation Plan. It should be noted that there is an inconsistency between the City and County Mas- ter Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH) ; the County plan shows Talbert continuous between Edwards and Golden West. o On page 59, last paragraph, the report discusses the potential future realign- ment of Talbert to connect to Ellis. The report should also discuss the poten- tial feasibility of connecting the discontinuous sections of Talbert via an alignment south of the lake. This connection, along with the Talbert Street bridge crossing the Santa Ana River, would provide through travel for east/west -120- Mr. Barnes File GSR2N027 Page 2 traffic. It should be noted that one reason for the projected heavy volumes and associated capacity problems on Warner, is the lack of parallel facilities serving destinations to the east (i.e. , South Coast Plaza) . The proposal to extend Talbert to Ellis will not alleviate this problem, since Ellis terminates at the river and traffic is redirected north, on to Euclid. o On page 60, Mitigation Measure section, the report should consider a south- bound right turn only lane on Golden West at the park entrance. This will relieve queuing problems during peak hour and special event uses of the park. Should you have any questions regarding this matter, contact Patricia Flores at 834-6246. Thank you for the opportunity to respond to this environmental document. When it becomes available, please forward a copy of the FEIR. Very truly yours, s -6 _ `r lam_ Kenneth Smith, Manager Environmental Analysis Division PF:crn -121- *ECEIyfe CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH JUN 2 2192 ;! INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION OevNorment Services . HUNTINGTON BEACH To Don Noble From Daryl Smith, Supt . Engineering Planner Park, Tree & Landscape Subject E. I .R Date June 14, 1982 Huntington Central Park The E. I .R. , is rather deceptive regarding size, location and disrup- tion to existing park caused by proposed ballfields . The proposed ballfield complex is the one feature of the Huntington Central Park improvement project that creates serious impacts to the entire area in and around Huntington Central Park. None of the mitigating measures are substantial enough to satis- factorily solve the problems created by the size and anticipated use of the ballfields . As I interpret the E. I .R. , the only way to resolve the ballfiel.i issue is to down-size the complex and build the fields in the undev:::-- oped area between Goldenwest Street and the existing park area. On page 39 - 2 . 02. 3 Mitigation Measures Huntington Lake : It is absolutely unnecessary to recommend construction of a pier into the lake. This recommendation has nothing to do with mitigation mea- sures regarding Huntington Central Park. As a matter of improvement , appearance and aesthetic value, a pier out into the lake would detraeu from the beauty of the lake and park in general. Also, the pier would create a substantial addition to the park maintenance program as well as increasing the City liability. In the Appendix to this E. I .R. , it is indicated there will be an estimated revenue from the ballfields of $200 ,200 . , or $r48. 49 per day continuously for 365 days per year. This estimate of revenue appears to be rather high and possibly unobtainable. Someone should verify this figure and the basis of the estimate. The E. I .R. , indicates that existing streets will accomodate the additional traffic generated by the project . This assumption is simply not accurate and should be clarified and corrected with appropriate costs added to project funding needs . DDS :mf -122- 2ECEIIIED CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH JUN 2 21942 INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION oevewprmt Semis To Jim Barnes From -Bill Patapoff X., Subject Huntington Central Park Date June 21, 1982 = Expansion F.I.R. We have reviewed the subject E.I.R. and have the following tl' . comments: 1. Page 33, the drainage patterns are incorrect. See attached corrected flow patterns. 2. Page 56, paragraph 4 -and page 66, paragraph 2.06.3 (1) a traffic signal has recently been constructed at the inter- section of Goldenwest and Talbert. . . 3. Economic analysis in Appendix G does not list the required Public Works facilities (streets, sewer, storm drain, water mains) , although the body of the report outlines their needs. Also the financing of the facilities needs to be decided. 4. The E.I.R. does address the problems of the proposed ball- . field lighting and how it will affect surrounding homes and residences. However, this E.I.R. does not address its (lighting) affect on Goldenwest Street. What type of buffer will be installed? Will a buffer be necessary? 5. The E.I.R. states that "the roadways serving Central Park can accommodate the additional generated traffic. " It further states that these roadways can accommodate this additional traffic as they exist today, except for Goldenwest Street. Other roadways need to be improved. One of the most vital roadways to this park, specifically Talbert Avenue, needs to be improved to its ultimate. This is going to be the park's direct access from the east. Improvements will also be necessary on Ellis Avenue. 6. On page 58, second paragraph, the last sentence stops in mid frame. The sentence needs to be completed. 7. Again, the E.I.R. states that there will be attempts to park - '- on Goldenwest or stop adjacent to the ballfield complex to load and unload passengers. Since ".No Stopping," "No Standing," "No Sitting" and "No Parking" are. going to be enforced, how will loading and unloading occur? Traffic Engineering staff feels that this subject should be addressed in this E.I.R. A possible solution would be an inlet street. :T: -123- Memo to Jim Barnes Huntington Central Park Expansion June 21, 1982 Page 2 8. The matter of transit facilities has been unaddressed in this E.I.R. Since transit is only going to get bigger and better, T these items (buses, zones, etc. ) need to be included in this project. S.. See attached comments submitted from Darvl Smith. WAP:lw cc: Les Evans Bill Patapof f_ ` Bruce Gilmer Karl Huy Daryl Smith Don Noble Stan Farber �q F -124- 1 . .i �: r r .. i -1..: 1�...i.11: ..:....:.;'�� , I 1 --- - I v`o _ ►EXIST. 47.. LANDFIr 'Y I T 1. , k 4 Z r— ;4a tl=' ► _. nm 4. Q - i.. _............... _ - i..;t.� ._._..._�_ .. . : - - _•��/ �_� , north rn j 2 0 0 0---_..� _ {� ..` ... T 0 1000 Ii i m I i V: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION Mxrr.icroa.E..a+ .. OTo Mai Barnes From NO Worthy, Superintendent :Associate Planner Park, Acquisition and -Development Subject E.I.-R. 81-5, HCP EXPANSION Date June 24, 1982 The following concerns are hereby noted on the Envista "Draft" E.I.R. for Huntington Central Park: Maps needing to be numbered - Figure 3 - Page 11 Figure 14 - Page 74 Figure 4 - Page 12 Figure 15 - Page 80 Figure 9 - Page 26 Figure 16 - Page 81 Figure 10 - Page 27 Figure 17 - Page 82 Figure 11 - Page 33 Figure 18 - Page 83 Figure 12 - Page 46 Figure 1010 - S-E corner of Talbert and Goldenwest. 300' east from Goldenwest s s� off-ground, not landfill. Page 38, La. - The equestrian center proposed by the city is in the same location as the existing Reynolds Stables but expanded from 10 to 25 acres to Goldenwest Street. Page 55 Table D - Remove resident caretaker (City Council ruled against the idlea) . Page 77, 2.08.3 - Mitigation Measures Ball park Furs from 7 a.m. to 10:30 p.m. NW:dp RECEIVED JUN 2 5 1982 - �looabr,r serv;oes L -126- tafo o (r,alif11rniti "•` GOVERNOR'S OFFICE m OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH 1 400 TENTH STREET SACRAMENTO 95814 EDMUND G. BROWN JR. GOVERNOR June 21, 1982 James R. Barnes City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 SUBJECT: SCH## 82052102 Huntington Central Park Expansion Dear Mr. Barnes: The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named environmental decument to selected state agencies for review. T E ;'evi ew period is cl os.-d 1—nd none of the state agencies have comments. This letter certifies only that you have complied with the State Clear- inghouse review requirements for draft environmental documents, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (EIR Guidelines, Section 15101.5) . Where applicable, this should not be construed as a waiver of any jurisdictional authority or title interests of the State of California. The project may still require approval from state agencies with permit authority or jurisdiction by law. If so, the state agencies will have to use the environ- mental document in their decision-making. Please contact them immediately after the document is finalized viith a copy of the final document, the Notice of Determination, adopted mitigation measures, and any statements of overriding considerations. Once the document is adopted (negative declaration) or certified (final EIR) and if a decision is made to approve the project, a Notice of Determination must be filed with the County Clerk. :f the project requires discretionar; p�rcr�': fro ' any state agency, the Notice of Determination must also be filed ;.ith the Secretary for Resources (EIR Guidelines, Sections 15083 (f) and 15085 (h) ) . Sincerely, �-�,� . k.CharIesRector Brandes Deputy for Project Coordination RECEIVED JUN 2 5 1982 ENVISTA, INC. -127- r x evvta planning& environmental sciences Q i i CHAPTER 6.0 i APPENDICES i i i APPENDIX A INITIAL STUDY P 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM I. Background I. Name of Proponent City of Huntington Beach 2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California 92648 (714) 538-5272 3. Date of Checklist Submitted 4. Agency Requiring Checklist City of Huntington Beach 5. Name of Proposal, if applicable EIR 81-5; Central Park Expansions 11. Environmental Impacts (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets.) Yes M be No I. Earth. Will the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? . X b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil? X _ c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? X d. The destruction, covering or modification 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, in let or lake? X a' t Yes M No g. Exposure of people or property to geolo- gic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? X 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? X b. The creation of objectionable odors? X c. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? X 3. Water. Will the proposal result in: i a. Changes in currents, or the course of di- rection of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? X b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage pot- terns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? X c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? _ d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? X e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, in- cluding but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? X . f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? X g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or with- drawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? X h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? X' i. Exposure of people or property to water re- lated hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? . X ,a Yes Maybe No 4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of plants (including 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 S. 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 animals 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 to severe noise levels? X 7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? X 8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in a sub- stantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? X 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? X. Yes Mc�be No b. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource? X 10. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involve: a. A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? X b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan? X 11. Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of on area? X 12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing hous- ing, or create a demand for additional housing? X 13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal r result in: a. Generation of substantial additional . vehicular movement? X b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or X i demand for new parking. c. Substantial impact upon existing transpor- tation systems? X d. Alterations to present patterns of circula- tion or movement of people and/or goods? X e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traff ic? X f. Increase in traffic hazards to 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: a. Fire protection? X ' b. Police protection? _X c. Schools? X A Yes Maybe No d. Parks or other recreational facilities? X e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? X _ f. Other governmental services? X • 15. Energy. Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? X b. Substantial increase in demand upon exist- ing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? X 16. 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 I e. Storm water drainage? 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 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? X + 20. Cultural Resources. a. Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? X Yes Maybe No b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure, or object? X 1 c. Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? X d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? X 21. Mandatory Findings of Significance. G. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause- a fish or wild- life population to drop below self sus- taining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? X b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A 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 are individually limited, but cumulatively con- siderable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) X d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? X III. Discussion of Environmental Evaluation. The following comments further describe project characteristics for which "yes" or "maybe" answers were represented above. I.B. Construction on the subject site may result in removal and over- covering of the soil. C. Construction on the subject site may result in alteration of topo- graphy. A significant amount of fill may be necessary to develop the active recreational areas. G. The City-wide Geologic Hazard Study prepared by Leighton/Yen and Associates indicates that the Bolsa-Fairview fault traverses the southwest portion of the site. 2.A. With an expected increase in automobile traffic to the park, there will be a subsequent increase in emissions from cars. A cumulative assessment of air quality impacts should be prepared taking into account existing air quality standards. B. The former county landfill emits methane gas which could produce ob- jectionable odors if disturbed. 3.B. Projects which are eventually constructed on the site may substanti- ally decrease water absorption rates and increase runoff. Some areas are at lower elevations than other areas and may experience poor drainage. E. Discharges from development and equestrian uses may alter surface water quality within the park lake system. 4.A. Construction of recreational uses (especially in and around ball- field) will result in displacemment of existing trees and shrubs. C. Supplementary landscaping for buffer and aesthetic purposes is pro- posed. 5.A. Some species of animal may be displaced from the park while others will relocate to new niches within the park. 6.A. Increased automobile traffic and short-term construction will result in increased noise levels on the adjacent streets. Noise from acti- vity on the ballfield complex may impact residential areas. 7.A. Lighting for the ballfield complex may impact adjacent residential areas. 8.A. The proposed land use changes will result in a substantial increase in intensity of use and character of the park (from passive to active). 10.A. A potential risk due to the release of methane gas or other hazard- ous substances in the landfill area may pose a hazard to users of the park. 13.A, Projects eventually constructed on the site will result in a sub- B, C, stantial amount of automobile traffic which may significantly D, F. impact the City's circulation system. Based on the number of additional trips generated by projects which will ultimately de- velop on the sites, a general assessment of impacts on street and intersection capacities should be presented. Further, given the level of recreational activity, an assessment should also be made on the adequacy of the parking facilities. 14.A. The potential increases in intensity of use resulting from projects B, D, which will be developed on the site may result in significant de- E, F. mand for additional public services. A general assessment of con- cerns of potentially affected agencies and departments (i.e. , fire, police, public works) should be determined and presented in the EIR. 16.A The potential increases in intensity of use resulting from projects -F. which will be developed on the site may result in significant demand for the expansion of existing utility systems. A general assess- ment of the concerns of the potentially affected agencies should be determined and presented in the EIR. 18. The character of the park may change from passive to active uses, thus altering the aesthetic quality. 19. New recreational opportunities will be offered by the proposed changes within the park. 20. The proposed land use change may alter archaelogic sites in the southwest portion of the park. 1 IV - DETEWU NATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. 1 I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have _ been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. 1 I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environ- ment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. X Date i nature 1 . r 1 i 1 1 1 r r 1 APPENDIX B TRAFFIC STUDY 1 1 1�''Y�1•�'.�jr. � �'j••"ri `��'��•r� �('��'r!� r�=�''�f�� f�!{j� `-��•� 1�tj!':�(r��i�� let ep tf i,� 4 Cr �rjr,c, /��;r l, .r�1r• .�• �/ �� „ tlr r,'�, I��,. �V� ff��l i�},'1��'JJ�;'�� J,fJ�� Jt�•l�`���,:i rl ,� '`! �7!`J,`",�/ 1•). S! r77;,L {�@!� f• /Cl r.Vf .���af !,i)u ,r• 'y' r::JYr•t r{� �(J/�{ .� �re. .+�fU� �pt� �15.�•l�1 a� f1�r•y �,�1- ��Ltr`. .�i f j,y: 1.�,• .1 �n)�.c �f JY�.�,;� .y=�')f•i',.: 'f.� �.�f t r �.,/r�.{� . 1••fll 'V1l' + 1" Nj�:• 'f" )j r ; 71 / (j% Il. ?`'� '• f~�''` ' /_4 1,��'� •� r T, y��JJ :�1'r,� �;� •t�.�� �,�,.',l rf,i/�y�"�t fl{ �r � .^�lST ,frC��l fl,� �,�JJ'J9,,J ,�sf �r f /r � 7 r�� Kf, J •+� l•1�,'!%-: •/.r•1�ii��Sr:� r3 �{ �lf�rsr�f��'��// t• � �rFrSa af/)� ,►.•�}� rj,.�1 J f�. i J'�l;•�1r �';/�,j'���{.��•�1��'�/�(t r,4 ,'f{�:i'�J�r -\r �''�.%! ,�I;f � Nil t ••/��,� �T;R �'',vl j�J%� �lf,:l`1f;�7�{r l'J J�'��i" `i It� �' j��f� .Jr�'•r// r City of Huntington Beach � y 9 r Central Park Traffic -Study . '!�,/��?r/i`'rJi�ll'u} 17i� ' �1 �`ir•�/�t}'�• /•`f 1��t1"�!j, ��. :'f !` ►aI/ �,•, A'�, y�'.'7''?�r��l��rY'� '�� •.fr >r l ?;J`�/f�lf.!f . � �ti-. �r�c• lur' !' ` uN �MaN r,}�ssociates� �c r Jib s Transportation Planning *Traffic Engineering � f f .;� .rzz r•• � f ?f� �/s��' ,� 1� ��� iC � 1,1f:7C{ilf'f'r�^ ��f:�sr�� •,,} y��/%�a;; 1;�l;!/�f��f•'�l,��j �J .yJ� r,�'/�' ,+'!`.r.,=Y�" '`�; � �:Y�r� ,l".J�•*'��!'i�'Y•J>'fJ�C]I,,,1 r�►r1�rr1.J r '....,`r) (/ .����;✓, Table of Contents Section Page No. 1. Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 - Existing Traffic Conditions - Future Traffic Conditions - Mitigation Measures 2. Project Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 - Project Location - Proposed Project 3. Existing Traffic Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 - Surrounding Street System - Number of Through Travel Lanes and Existing Intersection Controls - Existing Traffic Volumes Is - Existing Daily Volume to Capacity Ratios - Circulation Plan 4. Traffic Generation and Distributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 - Traffic Generation - Traffic Distribution and Assignment 5. Existing Plus Project Traffic Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 - Traffic Volumes - Volume to Capacity Ratios - Signal Warrants - Existing Plus Project Plus Planning Mode Alternatives 6. Future Traffic Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 - Future Average Daily Traffic Volumes - Future Conditions Volume to Capacity Ratios - Future Traffic Conditions With The Central Park Project and Planning Mode Alternatives 7. . Other Traffic Considerations 15 - Vehicle Parking Demand - Golden West Parking Area Access - Pedestrian Access - Emergency Vehicle Access - Equestrian Crossings - Future Realignment to Connect with Talbert - Vehicle Miles of Travel 1 List of Figures Following Figure No. Title Page No. 1 Project Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2 Existing Number of Travel Lanes and Intersection Controls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3 Existing Average Daily Traffic Volumes . . . . . . . . 7 4 Existing Daily Volume to Capacity Ratios . . . . . . 7 5 City of Huntington Beach Circulation Plan of Arterial Streets and Highways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 6 Traffic Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 7 Existing Plus Project Traffic Volumes and Volume to Capacity Ratios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 8 Existing Plus Project Plus Planning Mode Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 9 Future Daily Traffic Volumes and Volume to Capacity Ratios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 10 Future Traffic Conditions With Project . . . . . . . . 14 11 Future Traffic Conditions With project Plus Planning Mode Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 List of Tables Table No. Title Page No. 1 Trip Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 2 Signal Volume Warrants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 3 Parking Adequacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 4 One-Way Trip Lengths by Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 5 Vehicle Miles of Travel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 City of Huntington Beach Central Park Traffic Study This report contains the traffic impact analysis for the City of Huntington Beach Central Park project. The project is located in the City of Huntington Beach and is bounded by Golden West, Ellis, Slater and Gothard. The overall site includes approxi- mately 279 acres. Anticipated park uses includes six ball fields, an equestrian center, a YMCA site, expansion of an existing shooting range , food facilities and a 2200 car parking lot. The traffic report contains documentation of existing traffic conditions, traffic generated by the project, distribution of the project traffic to roads outside the project, and an analy- sis of future traffic conditions. Each of these topics is con- tained in a separate section of the report. The first section is "Findings" , and subsequent sections expand upon the findings. In this way, information on any particular aspect of the study can be easily located by the reader. Although this is a technical report, every effort has been made to 'write the report clearly and concisely. To assist the reader with those terms unique to transportation engineering, a glossary of terms is provided in Appendix A. 1, Findings This section summarizes the existing traffic conditions, project traffic impacts, future traffic conditions, and the suggested mitigation measures. Existing Traffic Conditions 1. Existing land uses on the Central Park project site include existing park uses, a public library, equestrian facilities, a shooting range and a recreational lake. 2. Although the existing circulation network in the study is generally constructed, many of the roadways are not con- structed to their full ultimate cross-sections. 3. The existing roadways in the vicinity of the project site are generally operating below capacity except for Golden West Street between Talbert Avenue and Slater Avenue which is approaching existing capacity. 4. Although parking is provided for existing park and library uses, parking demand frequently exceeds the number of avail- able parking spaces. Future Traffic Conditions 1. Proposed land uses for Central Park project includes the con- struction of a ballfield complex, a YMCA and restaurant facilities, relocation of the equestrian center, expansion of shooting range, aeration of lakes to provide for fishing, and the construction of a 2,200 space parking lot. 2. Full development of the Central Park project will result in the generation of 5,680 vehicle trips on an average weekday. 3. Alternative land uses analyzed for the 25 acre Planning Mode site adjacent to the park project include garden offices , , residential development, a recreational vehicle camp area, and a commercial nursery and tree farm. 4. Daily traffic generation for the land use alternatives in the Planning Mode area ranges between 460 and 4 , 800 vehicle trips daily. 5. For existing plus project traffic conditions, Golden West between Talbert and Slater will exceed the capacity of the existing roadway. 2 6. For future traffic conditions, the regional roadways of Beach Boulevard and Warner Avenue are projected to exceed capacity. For worst case conditions assuming the addition of project traffic to future traffic projections, Golden • West between Warner and Talbert is approaching the capacity of full ultimate roadway improvements. 7. General traffic model results indicate that it is preferable that land uses which are primarily local in nature, such as the proposed Central Park project, will result in less over- all traffic impacts than will uses generating regional type trips, such as the garden office project on the Planning Mode site. 8. The proposed project parking facilities will adequately service future parking demand. Mitigation Measures 1. Install a traffic signal at Golden West and Talbert based on traffic volume signal warrant and to provide for safe pedestrian crossings of Golden West from proposed parking facilities . 2. Improve Golden West as -a four lane divided roadway between Talbert and Slater in conjunction with development. 3. Construct all streets bordering the project to half-section • ,widths adjacent to the project boundary in conjunction with development. 4. Design bicycle and pedestrian circulation facilities to create crossings of major streets at signalized intersection locations. • 5. Construct pedestrian trails internal, to the park system with all weather surfaces and of sufficient width to accommodate emergency vehicle access internal to the park area. Trail access locations should be controlled with locked barriers to restrict non-emergency/maintenance vehicle access to • interior park locations. 6. "No Stopping" signs should be posted on Golden West adjacent to the ballfield complex to eliminate the loading and unloading of passengers from vehicles on Golden West and ballfield users attempting to park on Golden West. • 7. Future potential equestrian crossing locations of arterials should be minimized and crossing locations should be posted and monitored by the City to insure crossing safety. • 3 2. Project Description Project Location The project is located in the City of Huntington Beach and is bounded by Golden West, Ellis, Slater and Gothard. The Planning Mode study area site is located on Golden West between Ellis and Talbert. Proposed Project The area designated Huntington Central Park comprises a gross area of 297 acres in addition to a potential expansion area of 30 additional acres. Proposed land use improvements within the park are discussed further below and their approximate locations are shown in Figure 1. 1. Ballfield Complex - The ballfield complex is proposed to in- clude six lighte2l softball. diamonds with accompanying blea- chers, dugouts , concessions , restrooms , and equipment storage buildings. Six sets of bleachers will provide a total seat- ing capacity for approximately 600 spectators. Softball fields are also designed to double for use in football , soccer, or rugby competition. 2. Equestrian Center - The equestrian center is to provide stable facilities for approximately 250 horses. Also included in the equestrian center is a practice ring, paddocks , a central building, and a show ring/rodeo area with bleachers for spectators. 3. Golden West Parking - Approximately 2 ,200 parking spaces will e constructed on a turf or gravel surface and will be located southerly of the existing library and east of Golden West. Parking in the Golden West lot will service adjacent restau- rants, the existing library, and the ballfield complex. 4. Resident Caretaker - A single mobile home slab is proposed for construction to accommodate a resident caretaker for the park area. 5. Shooting Range Expansion - Expansion of the existing shooting range will provide for additional shooting stations and a gun shop on the 6 acre site. 6. Restaurant - Approximately 3 acres are set aside to con- struct and operate restaurant facilities . 4 r.�f.--- ,�/ ��''��. �,f�"�- ""'�' ; rj_� �- _ .�+.�-- •+'ems.. � .lam' i --�---- �"-'.""'•b'�' �— i. �L+c ash ".....�„�-_ �• r � �•--4 . 7. YMCA - The construction of a YMCA facility on a 5.5 acre parcel is proposed and would include 340 paved parking spaces for the site. 8. Sully Miller Fishing Lake - Sully Miller Lake is to be upgraded to accommodate fishing activities and landscapinq is to be provided. 9. Huntington Lake Aeration System - The construction of an aeration system and access pier to enable the lake to be stocked with fish is proposed. 10. Sully Miller Lake Aeration System - Construction of an aeration system to enable the la-Re to be stocked with fish is proposed. 11. Equestrian Center Parking Lot - Paved parking facilities for approximately 200 vehicles is to be provided for equestrian center uses. 12. Passive Park Area and Equestrian Trails - Supplementary park areas throughout the park are to a andscaped for general passive use. An equestrian trail system throughout the park will also be developed. 13. "Planning Mode" - Additionally, 25 acres currently under private ownership has been designated as "Planning Mode" to allow the City to investigate site opportunities . The four alternative land uses which were considered for the Planning Mode study are as follows: a. Garden offices with an adjoining restaurant b. Estate residential C. A recreational vehicle camp d. A commercial nursery/tree farm 5 3. Existing Traffic Conditions This section discusses the surrounding street system, daily traffic volumes and the existing circulation plan. Figures 2 and 3 illustrate the existing traffic conditions in the study area. Surrounding Street System Local and regional access are provided for the project from the following roadways . Golden West Street. Golden West is an existing north/south roadway in the City of Huntington Beach. Golden West divides the Central Park site and is presently stripped as a four lane undivid- ed roadway adjacent to the site. Portions of Golden West are con- structed to the full ultimate primary roadway cross-section with curbs, gutters and street lights, but adjacent to the site, existing Golden West is constructed with only graded shoulders. Golden West has a existing on-street bicycle route adjacent to the site and is also an existing OCTD Bus Route. It now has no median by the park. Talbert Avenue. Talbert Avenue is an existing two lane un- divi ed roadway which divides proposed park uses from existing Central Golden West through the City of Huntington Beach. As it is shown on the City's Circulation Plan of Streets and Highways , Talbert is designated to be ultimately constructed to secondary roadway standards between Golden West and Gothard and primary roadway standards east of Gothard. In addition, a discontinuous portion of Talbert Avenue is constructed west of Edwards but it t does not directly align with Talbert to the east of Golden West. The two sections of Talbert are not shown as connecting on the City of Huntington Beach Circulation Plan. Ellis Avenue. Ellis Avenue is an existing east/west roadway locate a ong t e southern boundary of the project site. Ellis is / presently constructed as a two lane roadway with graded shoulders between Edwards and Gothard. Ellis is designated to be ultimately constructed to primary roadway standards between Gothard and Edwards and is shown as a proposed primary arterial connecting to Bolsa Chica to the west of Edwards. 6 Number of Through Travel Lanes and Existing Intersection Controls The number of through travel lanes and existing intersection con- trols for existing roadways in the study area are shown in Figure 2. Existing Traffic Volumes The most recent daily traffic volume counts for roadways in the study area are shown in Figure 3. Traffic volumes counts were obtained from the City of Huntington Beach, the County of Orange, and CalTrans. Traffic volumes on 'State Highways are 1980 traffic volumes, City of Huntington Beach average daily traffic volumes are for 1978 conditions, and County of Orange Traffic Flow volumes are dated for 1981 conditions . Existing Daily Volume to Capacity Ratios , Roadway capacity is generally defined as the number of vehicles which can reasonably be expected to pass over a given section of a road in a given time period. Daily roadway capacities reflect estimates of the amount of daily traffic which will result in peak hour traffic volumes equal to the maximum desirable capacity , for each roadway type. Daily roadway capacities for Level of Service D conditions on roadways in the study are estimated to be 12, 500 vehicles per day for two lane undivided roadways, 22 ,000 vehicles per day for four lane undivided roadways , 33 ,000 vehicles per day for four lane divided roadways, and 49, 500 vehicles per day for six lane divided roadways . It should be noted that the , daily capacities estimated are lower than can actually be achieved by approximately ten percent. This is also reflected in the Level of Service D notation which is typically used as the design standard for urban conditions. By dividing existing traffic volumes by daily roadway capacity for ' existing facilities, existing daily volume to capacity ratios have been calculated and are shown in Figure 4 . Review of Figure 4 indicates that Golden West between Talbert and Slater is currently approaching capacity for the existing roadway geometrics adjacent to the project site. Circulation Plan 1 The City ,of Huntington Beach has an existing Circulation Plan for the study area and it is shown in Figure 5 . 1 1 7 1 Figure 2 Existing Number of Travel Lanes And Intersection Controls .) N y P 4 C 4U L • W �N L u M O O Ct O W 4D O 0 4D 0 41.1 4D Warner Avenue 4D 4D 2D 4D 0 4D ID 4D � 4D Slater Avenue • . I --- I I' 6D 2u . 2U 4D I I- 2U 41.1 d/ 21.1 i Talbert Avenue 00 41.1 6D I• I, 2D 21.1 I I • i V9 I 0 , 4D ® 21.1 (i) ._ 21.1 Ellis Avenue 4U 22 J 4D Lgggnd i stop sign Iraffic Signal 2U Number of Undivided Travel lanes 4D Number of Dk**d Travel Lanes ® Far My Stop �nuh���nUh c}�SSOCiUfeS Figure 3 Existing Average Daily Traffic Volumes (I"'s) r r N d y 3 72 c m N �N L v • W 20 w 24 25 0 25 Warner Avenue CO m � 6 10 9 6 Slater Avenue m I 411, 4 4 Talbert Avenue T I 1 Ellis Avenue � m �Uh�i1,Qh v4SSOClQfeS Figure 4 Existing Daily Volume to Capacity Ratios <. •OON t S u M O O M .61 w •73 � .76 C) .76 � Warner Avenue • th N CD 18 .30 .27 .24 r Slater Avenue l � .09 I 32 I- 18 ld� �� Talbert Averae I ' ' I I i . N � � .08 � Ellis Avenue �P y Lgggnd Level of Service - D Cwi3man c,Assocwtes Figure 5 City of Huntington Beach Circulation Plan of Arterial Streets and Highways y 3�c. T S ; P vN t u 0 0 10 M w M M M M Warner Avenue S p S M S S S S Slater Avenue l� -i S M S I p S I. P Td� S �i ' Talbert Avenue . iIP S M SI _ I C S P - P Ellis Avenue P C p4�� M Legend M Major p Primary S Secondary C Collector �un���an v4ssociates 1 4. Traffic Generation and Distributions To estimate project-related traffic volumes at various points on the street network, a three step process is utilized. First, the traffic which will be generated by future development is de- termined. Secondly, the traffic volumes are geographically distributed. to major attractions of trips, such as employment centers, commercial developments, and residential developments. Finally, the trips are assigned to specific roadways and the future traffic volumes are determined on a route-by-route basis. Traffic Generation The traffic generated by the land uses is determined by multiplying an appropriate trip generation rate by the quantity of land use. Trip generation rates are expressed in terms of trip ends per per- son, trip ends per employee, trip ends per acre, trip ends per dwelling, or trip ends per thousand square feet of floor space. If a particular land use generates six outbound trips per acre in the morning peak hour, then six vehicles are expected to leave the •site in the morning peak hour for each acre of development. Significant research efforts have been made by CalTrans, the Institute of Transportation Engineers, Kunzman Associates, and others to establish the correlation between trips and land use. From this body of information, trip generation rates can be esti- mated with reasonable accuracy for various land uses . Trip gene- ration rates are predicated on the assumption that energy costs , the availability of roadway capacity, the availability of vehicles to drive, and our life styles remain similar to what we know today. A major change in these variables may affect trip generation rates. Trip generation rates were determined for average daily traffic and daily weekend traffic conditions. By multiplying the traffic generation rates by the quantity of land uses , the traffic volumes are determined. Table 1 exhibits the traffic generation rates and the daily traffic volumes by project land use. Traffic Distribution and Assignment Traffic distribution is the determination of the directional orientation of traffic. It is based on the geographical location of residential uses along with commercial, and other business opportunities. 1 8 1 Traffic assignment is the determination of which specific route traffic will use once the generalized traffic distribution is determined. The basic factors affecting route selection are minimum time path and minimum distance path. Quite often the minimum time and distance paths are one in the same. When the two paths are different, the minimum time path will usually take precedence, assuming all other considerations are equal. Other considerations might be the aesthetic quality of alternate routes, grades, and so forth. It should be noted that the minimal time path is cognizant of congestion. As a roadway's volume approaches capacity, operating speeds decrease. Ultimately, congestion on the shortest distance path will decrease the speed until an al- ternate path has a shorter time path, then traffic will divert to the shorter time path. Based on the types of land uses proposed in the Central Park plan and the land uses identified in the City of Huntington Beach General Plan, the generalized traffic distribution for the study area is shown in Figure 6. 9 Table 1 TRIP GENERATION Daily Daily Weekend Weekend Generation Trips Generation Daily Trips Land Use Quantity Rate Generated Rate Generated Central Park Project Ballfield Complex 6 fields 70/Diamd 420 100/biamd 600 Equestrian Center 100/Units 100 300/Unit 300 Resident Caretaker 1 DU 7/DU 7 7/DU 7 Shooting Range 6 AC 77/AC 463 128/AC 768 Restaurant Complex 2 Units 2,100/Unit 4,200 3,150/Unit 6,300 YMCA 5.5 AC 90/AC 495 110/AC 605 Subtotal 5,680 8,580 Planning Mode Alternatives 1. Garden Offices 175 TSF 20/TSF 3,500 6/TSF 1,050 Restaurant 6 TSF 200/TSF 1,300 200/TSF 1,320 Subtotal 1. 4,800 2,370 2. Residential a) 3 DU/AC 71 DU 12 DU 850 ll/DU 780 b) 6 DU/AC 148 DU 10 DU 1,480 9/DU 1,330 c) 12 DU/AC 285 DU 8 DU 2,280 7/DU 2,000 3. Recreational Vehicle 230 Park Sites* 2.0/Site 460 580 Sites 1,160 4. Nursery/Tree Farm Nursery 8 AC 45/AC 360 70/AC 560 Tree Farm 16 AC ll/AC 170 ll/AC 170 Subtotal 4. 530 730 Project + Alternative 1 10,480 10,950 Project + Alternative 2a 6,530 9,360 Project + Alternative 2b 7,160 9,910 Project + Alternative 2c 9,960 10,580 Project + Alternative 3 6,140 9,740 Project + Alternative 4 6,210 9,310 *Assumes 40 percent occupancy. AC = Acre DU = Dwelling Unit TSF = 1,000 Square Feet 10 Figure 6 Project Traffic Distribution , � N N V 2% ; 18% Vin 3% z 5 6 % w c7 c7 4%► Warner Avenue 2 7G► Slater Avenue J � I I. 16% lye`S �I Talbert Avenue ' I . I � Ellis Avenue 2% JY4% r% � }� ; % r Legend D<un3man v4ssowxfes 5. Existing Plus Project Traffic Conditions Once the project-related traffic, is assigned to the existing street network and added to existing volumes, the traffic impact can be assessed. Figure 7 illustrates the existing plus project traffic conditions. Traffic Volumes Upon completion of the Central Park land uses, the expected daily two-way traffic volumes are as illustrated in Figure 7 . Volume To Capacity Ratios Based on the capacities of the existing roadway sections, the volume to capacity ratios for the existing plus Central Park pro- ject condition has been calculated and is also shown in Figure 7 . For future conditions with project traffic, Golden West between Talbert and Slater will exceed existing capacity. The -improvement of Golden West to its ultimate cross-section as a four lane divided roadway will result in a volume to capacity ratio of 70 percent of capacity. Therefore, based on needed capacity, the improvement of Golden West should occur in conjunction with park development. Signal Warrants Once traffic volumes are determined, the next step is to determine whether the Golden West and Talbert intersection warrants a traffic signal. Examination of Table 2 , signal volume warrants, r and the existing plus project traffic daily volumes shown in Figure 7 reveals that a signal at Golden West and Talbert is ex- pected to be warranted with the construction of the project. Existing Plus Project Plus Planning Mode Alternatives Future traffic volumes based on existing traffic conditions and the completion of the project and the construction on the planning mode is shown in Figure 8 . Future daily traffic volumes are . shown as a range reflecting the range in trips generated by the planning mode alternatives. 1 With the planning mode alternatives , the traffic volumes increase most significantly on Golden West. Golden West between Talbert Avenue and Slater will need to be modified to a four lane divided roadway based on roadway capacity. Golden West between Ellis and Talbert will also be approaching capacity and it would be desir- able for it to be widened to a four lane divided roadway in con- junction with planning mode alternatives development. 11 1 Table 2 SIGNAL VOLUME WARRANTS Warrant Minimum Volumes Entering Minimum Vehicular Interruption of Intersection Volume Continuous Warrant Traffic Warrant Urban* Rural Urban* Rural Major Street (Add Both Approaches) 1 lane approaches Daily Volume 8 ,000 5,600 12,000 8,400 Eight Highest Hours Volume 500 350 750 525 Peak Hour Volume 800 560 1,200 840 2 or more lane approaches Daily Volume 9, 600 6,720 14,400 10, 800 Eight Highest Hours Volume 600 420 900 630 Peak Hour Volume 960 672 1,440 1,080 Minor Street Hig est Vo ume Approach) 1 lane approaches Daily Volume 2,400 1,680 1,200 850 Eight Highest . Hours Volume 150 105 75 53 Peak Hour Volume 240 168 120 85 ' 2 or more lane approaches Daily Volume 3,200 2, 240 1,600 1,120 Eight Highest Hours Volume 200 140 100 70 Peak Hour Volume 320 224 160 112 1 * Use rural warrant if speed is greater than 40 miles per hour on any leg Source: CalTrans and Federal Highway Administration adopted 1 signal warrants 1 12 1 r re 7 r Existing Plus Project Traffic Volumes And Volume to Capacity Ratios r M O l0 20-.61 W 24-.73 C7 25-.76 O 25-.76 Warner Avenue CD CD m m N a 11 -.33 10- .30 8-.24 Slater Avenue r o � N O r N m A N r 6-•50 6-.27 rorj� Talbert Avenue r CD "' o N 1-.08 2-.17 m Ellis Avenue r r► y� tt` Legend .11.33 Daily Traffic Volume- Volume to Capacity Ratios �un�rnan associates Figure 8 Existing Plus Project Plus Planning Mode Alternatives H � d N C r t W v_!A L cti 2 c ? o 6 76 W w 2 C7 S O 5 O � Warner Avenue ti .6 O m • a Us- 11 g 10 14 �Tg- .30 Slater Avenue CO CD O •Sl3 l 2-3 Talbert Avenue , `''be 25 '7 q� LO -I2-3 _1-2 -� Ellis Avenue Legend 5-6 Average Daily Traffic volume Range .50 Maximum Daily Traffic Moiume to Capacity Ratio 1 cYuh3rnan c-AsoCiatcs 1 6, Future Traffic Conditions Traffic volumes forecasts for 1995 conditions have been obtained and are discussed further below. Future Average Daily Traffic Volumes Average daily traffic volumes for future 1995 conditions are shown in Figure 9. 1995 daily traffic volumes are from the City of Huntington Beach Traffic Model which was run and tested by the County of Orange EMA in the Winter of 1981. EMA staff said that the land uses assumed are for the existing General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach. Future Conditions Volume to Capacity Ratios Based on the future 1995 traffic volumes, volume to capacity ratios have been calculated and are shown in Figure 9. Future conditions volume-to-capacity ratios have been calculated based on full buildout of the City of Huntington Beach's Circulation Element. For 1995 conditions, the regional roadways of Beach Boulevard and Warner Avenue are projected -to exceed planned capacity. In addition, Golden West between Warner and Slater is also projected to exceed capacity, and Golden West between Slater and Ellis is shown to be approaching the capacity of full ultimate roadway improvements. Future Traffic Conditions With The Central Park Project and Planning Mode Alternatives Future 1995 average daily traffic volumes shown in Figure 9 have been identified by EMA staff as reflecting the existing General Plan for the City of Huntington Beach. However, as coding for individual zones in such traffic models represents an aggregate of land use in a particular zone, and is typically tabulated in terms of employees, the specific land use assumptions for the Central Park project area and the Planning Mode study area, could not be identified. To provide for a worst case analysis, it has been assumed that neither the proposed Central Park project, nor land use alternatives for the Planning Mode study area have been included in future 1995 traffic model volume projections . Based on this assumption, traffic from the Central Park project and the Planning Mode study area have been added to 1995 traffic model projections. Average daily 1995 traffic_ volumes for only the Central Park project impacts are shown in Figure 10, and traf- fic volumes for both the Central Park project and the worst case Planning Mode study area alternative are shown in Figure 11. Also shown in Figures 10 and 11 are the future volume to capa- city ratios for the two alternatives. 13 Based on future conditions volume to capacity ratios, Beach, Warner, and Golden West north of Talbert are projected to exceed capacity with the proposed Central Park project. With the addition of the worst case traffic from the Planning Mode study area, Golden West between Talbert and Ellis will also operate at capacity. Although conclusions are based on worst case assumptions and are without the specific knowledge of all land use assumptions in the traffic model for particular traffic zones, general traffic model results indicate that it is preferable that land uses which are primarily local in nature, such as the proposed Central Park project, will result in less overall traffic im- pacts than will uses generating regional type trips , such as the garden office project on the Planning Mode site. 14 Figure 9 i Future Daily Traffic Volumes (1000'S) N � ' 3 N N L U w 50-1.01 0 52-1.05 0 53-1.07 0E Warner Avenue CO I 'In 10-.45 10-.45 Slater Avenue a C4 r m i Os 6;27 10 -.30 rtli 4-.18 Talbert Avenue � � N N N m m 6-,18 7-.21 10 -.45 Ellis Avenue tea` Legend 10-,45 Daily Traffic Volume - Volume to Capacity Ratios CJCu113c>1an (Associates iF Figure 10 Future Traffic Conditions With Project N N d N N V L L O « U • O w 50-1.01 52-1.05 53-1.07 t� Warner Avenue rImi, h e m 12-.55 11-.50 10-.45 Slater Avenue 0 Cl 8-.36 11 -.33 Talbert Avenue , N h 1. Cl) r m 6-.18 7:21 10:21 Ellis Avenue Legend 15.- .45 Daily Traffic Volume - Volume to Capacdy Ratios Lkgociafes Fgure 11 Future Traffic Conditions With Project Plus Planning Mode Site r H r N N T VO O w w 51 - 1.03 0 53-t07 54-1A9 Warner Avenue 91 I� I I• I m 13-.59 11.50 10-,45 Slater Avenue r � � I 9-41 12-,36 Talbert Avenue '7 C N 0 I . r- N I m 11.50 7:21 8:24 Ellis Avenue Legend 10 -.45 Daly Traffic%bkum - Volume to Capacity Ratios Ok'umpwp (Associates 7. Other Traffic Considerations Vehicle Parking Demand Vehicle parking demand for each of the proposed parking lots has been estimated and is shown in Table 3. Parking demand esti- mates are based on parking demand studies performed by Kunzman Associates, a review of existing parking codes, and a literature search of parking demand at inventoried park facilities. Based on the estimated parking demand, the proposed number of parking spaces is anticipated to be adequate for future traffic conditions. Golden West Parking Area Access Four driveway locations are proposed for the 2,200 vehicle parking lot. Based on a review of park locations , a maximum of 75 percent of accumulated parking demand was observed to egress a site during a peak one hour period. Based on the distribution of traffic from the site, all driveways from the site are anticipated to be capable of adequately servicing peak period egress demand. Some short M term queueing at the Golden West and Talbert intersection may occur , however, the intersection should be capable of servicing vehicles with a minimum of vehicle delay to egressing traffic and traffic on the arterials. Pedestrian Access With the proposed location of the Golden West parking lot, pedes- trians will be required to cross Golden West for access to the ballfield complex and other portions of the park. Pedestrians will also be required to cross Talbert Avenue for access to the existing library and the existing portion of the park. Pedestrian crossing facilities should be located to create crossings of major streets at signalized intersection locations. Pedestrian crossing indi- cators should be installed in conjunction with the installation of the traffic signal at Golden West and Talbert and pedestrian walk- ways should be oriented to provide for pedestrian crossings at this location. Due to the remote location of proposed parking to the ballfield complex, it is of conern that some ballfield users will attempt to park on Golden West or will stop adjacent to the ballfield complex to load and unload passengers. City roadway standards do' not provide for on-street parking on arterials , and the stopping of vehicles to load and unload passengers is antici- pated to result in a significant .safety hazard and create con- gestion on Golden West. "No Stopping" signs should be posted on Golden West adjacent to the ballfield complex to eliminate the loading and unloading of passengers from vehicles on Golden West and ballfield users attempting to park on Golden West. 15 Emergency Vehicle Access For existing and proposed portions of Central Park, the park is designed with only remote parking locations and vehicle access is not permitted interior to the park. To provide for emergency and maintenance vehicles access interior to the park, pedestrian trails should be constructed as all weather surface trail and be of sufficient width to accommodate emer- gency and maintenance vehicles. Trail access locations should be controlled with locked barriers to restrict private vehicles from driving on these trails in the parks interior . Equestrian Crossings With the provision of an equestrian facility in the park plan, there is the potential for equestrian users to attempt to travel along and across adjacent arterials. To provide for the maximum safety of the horses, the riders, and the driving public, it is highly desirable for equestrian trails to be identified which are internal to the park area and do not require any at-grade cros- sings of the adjacent arterials . In any event, the at-grade crossing of arterials should be minimized and should only occur at prescribed locations where adequate visibility is feasible and lower traffic volumes exist. Equestrian crossing locations should be posted to alert motorists, and the locations should be monitored by the City of Huntington Beach to insure crossing safety. Future Realignment of Ellis To Connect With Talbert During the planning process, the realignment of Ellis Avenue west of Golden West to connect with existing Talbert west of Edwards has been proposed. The proposed realignment would divide existing park properties and result in an isolated site south of the re- aligned Ellis. . The proposed realignment is anticipated to result in increased pedestrian and equestrian crossings for site access . Special treatment of parking for the isolated site would probably need to be considered. In addition, the realignment would signi- ficantly reduce the extent to which equestrian trails could be provided which would not cross arterial highways. The proposed realignment is not shown on the existing City of Huntington Beach Circulation Plan and would require the modification of that plan. Vehicle Miles of Travel Based on information derived from the Los Angeles Regional Transportation Study (LARTS) , average one-way trip lengths by land use have been identified and are shown in Table 4. Based on the average daily trips generated by the Central Park Project and Planning Mode study area alternatives, the vehicle miles of travel for the proposed uses have been calculated and are shown in Table 5. 16 Table 3 PARKING ADEQUACY 7 Estimated Parking Design Parking Spaces Lot Location Demand Provided Golden West Parking Restaurants 110 - Shooting Range 100 - General Park Uses 890 - Ballfield Complex 360 - i Total 1,460 2 ,200 YMCA 300 340 Equestrian Center 60 200 1Parking demand is estimated for typical design conditions and does not include additional demand for special events . 17 Table, 4 ONE-WAY TRIP LENGTHS BY LAND USE Land Use Trip Length Miles Residential 6. 9 Comme r ci a 1 3.5 Employment 9. 8 (estimated) High School 2 (estimated) r Elementary School 1 (estimated) All Trips 7. 2 SOURCE: Los Angeles Regional Transportation (CARTS) Base Year Report with the "estimated numFers furnished by Kunzman Associates . * LARTS .data indicated the home-to-work trip is 10. 5 r miles and all "other" trips to place of employment is 8. 3 miles. The 9. 8 assumes two work trips for each "other" trip. 18 r i Table 5 VEHICLE MILES OF TRAVEL Daily Average Daily Vehicle Trips Trip Length Miles of Project Generated (miles) Travel Central Park Project 5,680 3. 5 19, 900 Planning Mode Alternatives • 1. Garden Offices 4 , 800 9.8 47 ,000 2. Residential a) 3 DU/AC 850 6. 9 5,900 b) 6 DU/AC 1,480 6.9 10 ,200 c) 12 DU/AC 2 ,280 6. 9 15,700 3. Recreational Vehicle Park 460 7 .2 3,300 4. Nursery/Tree Farm 530 3. 5 1 ,900 i a 19 i 1 Appendix Appendix A - Glossary of Transportation Terms w fi i A APPENDIX A GLOSSARY OF TRANSPORTATION TERMS 1 Glossary of Transportation Terms . COMMON ABREVIATIONS AC: Acres ADT: Average Daily Traffic CalTrans: California Department of Transportation DU: Dwelling Unit EMA: Environmental Management Agency FAU: Federal Aid Urban F11WA: Federal Highway Administration ICU: Intersection Capacity Untilization LOS: Level of Service TSF: Thousand Square Feet V/C: Volume/Capacity VMT: Vehicle Miles Traveled TERMS AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: The total volume during a year divided by the number of days in a year. Usually only weekdays are included. BANDWIDTH: The number of seconds of green time available for through traffic in a signal progression. BOTTLENECK: A constriction along a traveled way which limits the amount of traffic which can proceed downstream from its location. • CAPACITY: The maximum number of vehicles which can be reasonably expected to pass over a given section of a lane or a roadway in a given time period. CHANNELIZATION: The separation or regulation of conflicting traffic movements into definite paths of travel by the use of pavement markings, raised islands , or other suitable means to facilitate the safe and orderly movements of both vehicles and pedestrains . CLEARANCE INTERVAL: Same as yellow time. CORDON: An imaginary line around an area across which vehicles , persons, or other items are counted (in and out) . CYCLE LENGTH: The time period in seconds required for one complete cycle. CUL-DE-SAC STREET: A local street open at one end only, and with special provisions for turning around. DAILY CAPACITY: The daily volume of traffic which will result in a volume during the peak hour equal to the capacity of the roadway. DAILY TRAFFIC: Same as average daily traffic. DELAY: The time consumed while traffic is impeded in its movement by some element over which it has no control, usually expressed in seconds per vehicle. 1-91 umplQo c SSOCtQfES DEMAND RESPONSIVE SIGNAL: Same as traffic-actuated signal. DENSITY: The number of vehicles occupying a unit length of the through traffic lanes of a roadway at any given instant. Usually expressed in vehicles per mile. DETECTOR: A device that responds to a physical stimulus and transmits a resulting impluse to the signal controller. DESIGN SPEED: A speed selected for purposes of design and correlation of those features of a highway, such as curvature, superelevation, and A sight distance, upon which the safe operation of vehicles is dependent. DIRECTIONAL SPLIT: The percent of traffic in the peak direction at any point in time. DIVERSION: The rerouting of peak hour traffic to avoid congestion. , FIXED TIME SIGNAL: Same as pretimed signal. FORCED FLOW: Opposite of free flow. FREE FLOW: Volumes are well below capacity. Vehicles can maneuver freely . and travel unimpeded by other traffic. GAP: Time or distance between successive vehicles in a traffic stream, rear bumper to front bumper. HEADWAY: Time or distance spacing between successive vehicles in a traffic . stream, front bumper to front bumper. INTERCONNECTED SIGNAL SYSTEM: A number of intersections which are connected to affect progression. LEVEL OF SERVICE: A qualitative measure of a number of factors, which , include speed and travel time, traffic interruptions, freedom to maneuver, safety, driving comfort and convenience, and operating costs. LOOP DETECTOR: A vehicle detector consisting of a loop of wire imbedded in the roadway, energized by alternating current and producing an output circuit closure when passed over by a vehicle. MINIMUM ACCEPTABLE GAP: Smallest time headway between successive vehicles in a traffic stream into which another vehicle is willing and able to merge. MULTI-MODAL: More than one mode ; such as automobile, bus transit, rail rapid transit, and bicycle transportation modes. OFFSET: The time interval in seconds between the beginning of green at one intersection and the beginning of green at an adjacent intersection. ORIGIN-DESTINATION SURVEY: A survey to determine the point of origin and the point of destination for a given vehicle trip. �Cun�rman - v4ssociates 1 ' PEAK HOUR: The 60 consecutive minutes with the highest number of vehicles. PLATOON: A closely grouped component of traffic that is composed of several vehicles moving, or standing ready to move, witb -clear spaces ahead and behind. PRETIMED SIGNAL: A type of traffic signal which directs traffic to stop and go on a predetermined time schedule without regard to traffic conditions. PROGRESSION: A term used to describe the progressive,movement of traffic through several intersections. SCREEN-LINE: An imaginary line or physical feature across which all trips are counted, normally to verify the validity of mathematical traffic models. SIGNAL COORDINATION: Same as interconnected signal system. SIGNAL CYCLE: The time period in seconds required for one complete sequence of signal indications. SIGNAL PHASE: The part of the signal cycle allocated to one or more traffic movements. STARTING DELAY: The delay experienced in initiating the movement of queued traffic from a stop to an average running speed through a signalized intersection. TRAFFIC-ACTUATED SIGNAL: A type of traffic signal which directs traffic to stop and go in accordance with the demands of traffic, as registered by the actuation of detectors. TRIP: The movement of a person or vehicle from one location (origin) to . another (destination) . For example, from home to store to home is two trips, not one. TRIP-END: One end of a trip at either the origin or destination; i.e. each trip has two trip-ends. A trip end occurs when a person, object, or message is transferred to or from a vehicle. TRIP GENERATION RATE: The quantity of trips produced and/or attracted by a specific land use stated in terms of standard units such as per dwelling, per acre, and per 1,OOO, square feet. TRUCK: A vehicle having dual tires on one or more axles, or having more than two axles. UNBALANCED FLOW: Heavier traffic flow in one direction than the other. VEHICLE MILES: A measure of the amount of usage of a section of highway, obtained by multiplying the average daily traffic by length im miles . <un3man (Anociateg r APPENDIX C ARCHAEOLOGY ANALYSIS z J Archaeological Resource Management Corp. March 23, 1982 Envista, Incorporated 1745 Orangewood Avenue Suite 210 Orange, CA 92668 Attn Gary Werner Resource Assessment of 352 Acres Designated Huntington Central. Park A resources assessment was conducted on 352 acres designated the Huntington Central Park and including the area of Proposed Park Expansion and the area entitled Planning Mode. The assess- ment, conducted at the request of G. . Werner of Envista, consisted of a records search to identify potentially significant resources inasmuch as the area had been surveyed prior to this time. The purpose of the assessment was to delineate any resources which 0 could be impacted through modification of the land for park use. The area, located in the City of Huntington Beach, is an irregular shaped parcel within the limits of Gothard Street to the east, Slater Avenue to the north, Edwards Street to the west, and Ellis Avenue to the south. On the USGS Topographic Maps, 7k' Series, Seal Beach and Newport Beach Quadrangles, the area is located in Sections 26, 27, 34, and 35 of Township 5 South, Range 0 11 West (Figure 1) . 12918 Haster Street Garden Grove, CA 92640 • (714) 750-0874 Lark\'le - .I C• Trader p�J• Itre t� VA i «.-� •Park Sty i IL -_t e N � � FRIES 26 inn'.ice-- •• - - - - —wvf. -- !! •� •�i t 'es .i JE • 14. Ave...1^ •-Nf W11fAFT L':111111111111-� !_-�l _-�_- -_�;_.. -_-i f. � i -•� plpHltlr fit ' - ---- - r JVG" em to d , ".TPump ( r TAYLOR �Y��O°.:0 0.1� /i� III 1 �•--y1.L_— _.J:f�'� :.-:�:�� � i: Upi '01'` ° �., aC�O 9'�J?a�E ��i� o•; g ,. p •.�C c— _ o- �.t C._ ..... •, -s IL =oj •O '1�^' , 't'0�" •' Q'c `o� Q�� ?fie•��i °�• c���'••o oi:.�_r ' • «en ° ter A .�• � i o.-' •�v�9' I�fir° �.� a��i .�° � p�° OL � ''�- ° r _ 't19<'O� i.,,'r �eo oo•oo 'r- o too o•� \'rl' o G�-���• Lo tk '��oh the r[•'. y ° Izf �• 'I I o �P 1� �" 'o I'm71:tqq• ' °oo�.�a.°A'v � / .o o ..r. • � ».:I�.�` �/ �Q!:Y?2��`��'�'°•°r.oI��:�r�cjd.t,jpb1o93o.�.�. J)o o-o G •p ';•j'/��c�o o pR e�_•• 7 Oo O�:p"'7p°�r'a a•r o"yL^* 'kl e"A� c : o5 o °° o• • o I. ° •G/� uo1 � o -- 1� J—o a L, , °•v .. Perry 9 �'_ •• ,per_cco >'rci'"•fl= 1 0 % ' °T -3 • seh l: cgam_--�+• Oo c° .'_°!./ �'s�i�/ ••t •t�' ��\ -971 76 '�'3 \ 'fir ,� ;:�.• -° ° 'e o - b �� • o Ilwt•'•' -�.'ii��C�.`\\�� � r_n\� GO\-^v'i:"�I'�1.'�I' ��.•Q'. �ti` r o�I o �:9� o .,a � I� ... %� Figure 1 : Project Location taken from USGS Topographic Map 7k' Series, Seal Beach & Newport Beach Quadrangles. 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 feet 0 S 1 kilometers -2- The area is located along the western bluff edge of the Huntington Beach Mesa overlooking the Bolsa Chica Bay area. Recent activities .in the area appear to be primarily related to oil field activities with a sand pit also located within the area. Some property development -has also occurred, primarily in the southern areas. The park area was surveyed in 1972 as part of the large resources survey conducted by Archaeological Research, Incorpo- rated (ARI) for the City of Huntington Beach (ARI 1973) . As a result of this survey, two archaeological sites were re-checked and one potential historical site was defined within the area delineated for the park. No paleontological locales were reported in this area. HISTORICAL RESOURCES The potential historical site was not positively identified,, but was determined to be near the intersection of Gothard Street and Slater Avenue within the limits of the .park boundaries (ARI 1973 :29) . The site would consist of the remains of the Marilla Adobe and would date to ca. 1800 A.D. If located, it would be significant in providing data pertinent to research in four periods of early California history: 1) the initial contact period between Anglos and Native Americans, .2) the Spanish Rancho period, 3) the Mexican State, and 4) the transition to California statehood. t -3- Recommendations : It was recommended by ARI that attempts be made to locate this potentially significant site. It is possible that one of 41 the older buildings now in existince in the park area consists of adobe covered by wood. This could, therefore, be the remains of' the Marilla Adobe (Helen Smith, personal communication) . Prior to the removal of existing structures, they should be checked by a qualified, historian to ascertain their historical potential. In the event that the adobe is not located through the examination of the older buildings , a monitor should be present during earth moving activities in case artifacts associated with this historic structure are uncovered. If historic remains are encountered, grading should be diverted until an evaluation can be made. PREHISTORIC RESOURCES Two prehistoric sites have been located within the parks boundaries : CA-Ora-142 and the northeastern portion of Ora-82. Ora-142 was located on a knoll directly northwest of the inter- section of Talbert Street and Golden West . Street. Ora-82 was located along the bluff edge between Ellis Avenue and Taylor Drive with Edwards Street bisecting the site. t CA-Ora-142 Ora-142 was field checked by ARI in 1972. According to the survey report, the Division of Highways used the site area as a . borrow site, thus , almost totally removing the deposit (ARI 1973 : 19) . According to the updated site form, only one edge of the midden remains with scattered shell and flakes the only surface indicators as to the prior location of the site. -4- Recommendations : Since the major portion of this site no longer exists, the archaeological research potential of this area is low. Some undisturbed portions of the site may remain, however, covered by bulldozer back dirt. If such deposits are encountered during earth moving activities, the activities should be diverted and a qualified archaeologist should be retained to determine the significance of any remaining midden deposit. CA-Ora-82 Previous Investigations : The northeastern portion of this site extends into the project area. This portion was excavated by the Pacific Coast Archaeological Society (PCAS) under the direction of Lee Savio (Brown) with the aid of the field classes from Saddleback Community College and Santa Ana Community College. The project was started because the widening of Edwards Street followed by heavy rains resulted in considerable erosion along the road right-of-way, which exposed numerous artifacts and human skele- tal material. The primary purpose of the excavations was an attempt to preserve, through controlled excavations, that area of the site which appeared to be in danger of being destroyed through natural forces aggravated by the road widening. Thirty-seven 2 m2 units were excavated in the area of the site contiguous to the road and east of the road. In all , eight (and possibly nine) burials were salvaged. In addition, an extensive ph testing and mapping project was completed by John Maguire and Ed Lyons of PCAS which defined the perimeters of the site (Pat Hammond, PCAS; Frank. Chapel, PCAS; personal communication) . -5- Site Significance: The excavations which have been completed on the portion of Ora-82 within the park boundaries are sufficient to define this . area as a prehistorical burial ground. Although the limits of the .burial ground within the site area have not been defined, those portions of the site which functioned as living areas are also important to future research into the life style of the prehis- toric peoples who inhabited the area. The site has been . radio carbon dated to approximately 3000 B.C. and, consequently, can provide valuable data pertinent to research geared toward the earlier occupations of the Huntington Beach Mesa area. / Because this area has been so defined, it has become an easy target for pot-hunters. During a field reconnaissance by Frank Chapel in 1979, numerous fresh holes were observed in the site area. It is assumed that the area continues to be dug by unau- thorized persons for non-scientific purposes. Recommendations : It is recommended that the portion of Ora-32 within the park area be .fenced to discourage pot-hunters and their destructive . efforts. Preservation would also include, excluding the area from construction of irrigation pipes, equestrian trails, sidewalks, etc. It is also recommended that any improvements to or along Edwards Street be monitored by a qualified archaeologist. ' PALEONTOLOGY According to the ARI report (1973) , no known paleontological locations are within the park limits. However, since the park is located on the Huntington Beach Mesa, it is possible that vertebrate faunal materials related to the Pleistocene epoch could be uncovered. -6- Recommendations: It was noted by ARI (1973 :3) that earth moving activities _which excavated over five feet (in depth) of dirt had the greatest potential for uncovering paleontological deposits. In the event that such deposits are uncovered, a qualified paleon- tologist should be retained to inspect the deposit and remove significant fossils. . SUMMARY OF RECOrDENL DATIONS Historical - An attempt should be made to determine if any of the existing structures in. the park area are the Marilla Adobe. 0 If this approach fails , then any historic deposits encountered . during earth-moving activities should be inspected by a historian to determine possible relationships to the adobe. 0 Archaeological - That portion of Ora-82 located within the park limits has been defined as containing a prehistorical burial ground dating to ca. 3000 B.C. Ora-82 should be fenced and pre- served intact. Since Ora-142 was destroyed in 1972, no investi- gations are recommended. However, if -undisturbed midden areas are uncovered in the vicinity of the site during earth moving operations, a qualified archaeologist should be retained to determine the .deposit' s significance. (Figure 2) . Paleontology - Potentially, earth-moving . operations at a depth of five feet could encounter paleontologically significant fossils. In the event that fossils are encountered, a qualified paleontologist should be retained to determine their si;nifi- cance and remove any important remains. -7- J• .Lark V:e-ii T C Trailer OdJ' �• - FT,- t vw I iy �' ••n..•• Park ot- .N $� Y�+j- FRIES AO . L ' l•�� `--• �I. � - :=1::1•:II (' 'I :'J V ..I �,., MOILA D D 1;• --�,vim— / _— J --1 1pf � � • _9r - �ER AVE••. j �� I Well ` .y; .. .». _• i •Wale?v - - .".. :exl4, 'I -6 j /' -- _ ,;III limit , A,t �``•� � � �' he .¢he- phe . '_- ( I ry )=— �` `I o' - U •� r em tery /eP 1 LBERT L w __ •• P f °° Ct V' ump res�� �.: 5- - •c9 Se1F +K F �� y �,•� I D O -- - , '-TAYL OR »••ORS. ,vim`+,/ � � -- :� 1�u ` - J •���==••_�•:J;iii �..; . .� .' . ' ice �o i'�``.� °j• 5 _ �t' J ;• o ( E $$ 0 '0/• �ram • •IC y .- 1•• •.i j 1 f I � q tio., Imo:, o�•' '� oPD� •,�. � 4--'L 9\ ,' v,o�° �;��o: 05� -� • 0/,/1 "�= �, ,�6''a;'`f�'V�°°OI����.g�:,: ° set � r ° �-. o' y.•. �\\ "d• -o. °- ° 0 'i M o o .•_6Q j '•: =ems q0 0 • O - t_/o� ahBpiQ o\ I�! \ LI �bl $ � ° 0 < .tt ..� ° =-:i7'.�ls '0oovc,;��A `° ° 0:5 .•p o ,C�' ,,>,o�,d,�I'l c° •g •o 0 0o R�,[] �.�t( �- ` •WT' •o ° �!c••�- °qo ' 0 0e aile o ( •__,/ o �'i c4 a ,LTR !A /' I, ° a —ry _ � ° �• °•` oo �••;:.e•.� °r2:1'{I�_ aO �o i:.'.ice •.� o o ° `. �,J�—' Perry �53 CORP';', ' 13ISY . 'Izi :'� �o d° :o l,� o ZgDD :y�o —•, '�•»•'•r '7 orb\ ._ ` I /x'�° Y rse y,��i% 8 .� f H�il�� RO't'-'3 4, i1 iIl° °il 'off' \ '. _ .IiSk n �. Figure 2 : Archaeological Sites taken from USGS Topographic Map 7k' Series, Seal Beach & Newport Beach Quadrangles. 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 test 0 S kilometers —8— REFERENCES CITED Archaeological Research, Incorporated . 1973 Report of a Scientific Resources Survey and Inventory: Conducted for the City of Huntington Beach, California. Ms. on file at ARMC. Chapel, Frank, PCAS 1982 Personal communication. Field Director at CA-Ora-82. Hammond, Pat, PCAS 1982 Personal communication. Report of Excavations at CA-Ora-82 , In Progress. Smith, Helen, PCAS 1982 Personal communication. Historian. -9- APPENDIX D AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS R I R 42[1 RL I T Y I MPRC T S T"V Y FOR THE HEINTx"49TON "EACH CENTRr4L PRRm E X PRNS ION PROJE C T Prepared Fora WILLDAN ASSOCIATES 1745 Orangewood Ave. , Suite 210 Orange, Calif. 92668 (714) 978-6185 Prepared By: THE ENDO COMPANY 21825 Calabaza Mission Viejo, Calif. 92691 (714) 586-2781 March 249 1982 f TABLE OF CONTENTS Section -N--Title Page- __ ----------- ----------------------------- -_____ -_ 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2. EXISTING AMBIENT AIR QUALITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 - Climate and Meteorology - Ambient Air Quality - Effects of Pollutants on Receptors - Sanitary Landfill Considerations - Air Quality Management Plan i 3. AIR QUALITY IMPACT ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : 5 - Short-Term Impacts - Long-Term Pollutant Emissions - Long-Term Air Quality Projections - Sanitary Landfill Considerations - Planning Mode Alternatives - Cumulative and Growth Inducing Impacts 4. MITIGATION MEASURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 APPENDICES - Air Quality Data - Stationary Source Emissions - Caline 3 Assumptions 1.0 EXCUTIVE SUMMARY 1) All air pollutants monitored at the Los Alamitos and Costa • Mesa stations have exceeded the ambient air quality standards except sulfur dioxide. 2) Although the 8-hour and 12-hour carbon monoxide standards are occassionally exceeded in the region at present, the frequen- cy of exceedance will lessen in future years because of emission controls on motor vehicles. 3) The South Coast Air Basin has been designated a nonattainment area because of violations of the National Ambient Air Quali- ty Standards for carbon monoxide, ozone, nitrogen dioxide and total suspended particulates. 4) Any incremental increases in these pollutants may prevent or delay this area from attaining the standards as outlined in the AQMP. 5) If the proposed project were completed immediately, it would generate approximately .03% of the countywide . emissions of air pollutants or 0.474 tons per day. b) . By 1995, motor vehicle emission controls will reduce the air pollutant emissions associated with the project to 0.205 tons per day. 7) Receptors 150 feet from the roadways serving project traffic will experience an insignificant increase (0.05 ppm) in car- bon monoxide concentrations over 8-hour or 12-hour averaging periods after the park expansion is complete. 8) The project will not significantly degrade air quality on a local or regional basis. , 1 2.0 EXISTING AMBIENT AIR QUALITY 2. 1 Climate and Meteorology The study area has a mediterranean climate with warm summers and mild winters. The average daily temperature during the winter months is 52 degrees. During the summer months, temperatures average 68 degrees. Medium humidity and daily fogs are also characteristic of this shoreline. r The land/sea breeze is the primary factor affecting the region's mild climate. The daytime winds are sea breezes predominantly from the southwest which flow at 5 to 7 miles per hour. During the night, the winds usually reverse direction. These land breezes flow from the northeast at 1 to 2 miles per hour. During the fall and winter months the study area is subject to moderate and strong Santa Ana winds. The average precipitation is approx- imately 12 inches annually within the project vicinity. Rain falls in Orange County an average of 35 days per year. 2.2 Ambient Air Quality The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) main- tains ambient air quality monitoring stations at numerous loca- tions, the closest of which are Los Alamitos and Costa Mesa. Ambient air quality data from these stations is given in terms of state standards which were adopted to protect public health with a margin of safety. In addition, California has adopted. episode criteria for oxidant, carbon monoxide and sulfur dioxide. Epi- sode criteria represent short-term exposures at concentrations which actually threaten public health. Air quality trends have developed at the Costa Mesa and Los Alamitos air quality monitoring stations between 1978 and 1980. �. These trends are discussed below. The Appendix of this report provides the ambient air quality data in terms of state stan- dards. Also included is a comparison of state standards and emergency criteria. From this information, it can be seen that only sulfur dioxide has not equalled or exceeded the relevant 1- hour and 24-hour state standards. All other major pollutants monitored have exceeded the standards at the two nearby stations. Of . all the pollutants, total suspended particulates equal or exceed the California standard most often. Suspended particu- lates exceeded the California 24-hour standard of 100 micrograms per cubic meter on 46 percent and 30 percent of the days moni- tored at the Los Alamitos and Costa Mesa stations, respectively. Between 1978 and 1980, 19 percent of the months at the Costa Mesa station exceeded the lead standard (1.5 micrograms per cubic meter over a 30-day averaging time) . The lead standard was exceeded at Los Alamitos during 22 percent of the months. How- ever, due to the phasing out of lead as a motor vehicle fuel additive, this condition is expected to improve. Oxidants are also of concern. The California one-hour standard 2 i (0. 10 pm) was equalled or exceeded on 16 percent of the days monitored at Los Alamitos and 9 percent of the days monitored at Costa Mesa. Ten Stage One episodes for ozone were called between 1978 and 1980 at the Los Alamitos monitoring station. Five were called in 1978, 2 in 1979 and 3 in 1980. No Stage Two episodes i have been called at Los Alamitos. Four Stage One episodes, but no Stage Two episodes for ozone ,were called between 1978 and 1980 at the Costa Mesa monitoring station. Three Stage One episodes were called in 1978 and one in 1979. At Costa Mesa, the state standard for carbon monoxide (10 ppm - r 12-hour avg. ) was violated on ten days, during the last three years, but the one-hour standard was not exceeded. Carbon monox- ide levels in Los Alamitos were not measured. Carbon monoxide episode levels have not been attained at either station. Although nitrogen dioxide was not measured at Los Alamitos, it did exceed the one-hour standard on 1 percent of the days moni- tored at Costa Mesa. The California standard for nitrogen diox- ide is .25 ppm for one hour. 2.3 Effects of Pollutants on Receptors Demonstrated effects of air contaminants on health and vegetation are briefly discussed below. Oxidants at high enough concentra- tions can cause eye irritation; aggravate .respiratory disease; suppress the body's capacity to fight infection; impair athletes' performance and cause growth retardation in sensitive trees. Hydrocarbons in the presence of other primary pollutants (partic- ularly ox i des of nitrogen) lead to the formation of ox.i dants. Hydrocarbons also damage plants by inhibiting growth and causing flowers and leaves to fall . Carbon monoxide is essentially colorless, odorless and toxic to humans. It enters the blood stream and interferes with the transfer of fresh oxygen, thereby depriving sensitive tissues in the heart and brain of oxygen. At high enough concentrations it can impair visual function, psychomotor performance and time discrimination. Nitrogen dioxide at high enough exposures can cause fibrotic lung ' changes, bronchostriction, and acute bronchitis among infants and school children. In sensitive plants, over several months of exposure it can cause collapsed lesions near the leaf margin and moderate injury. Lead at high enough concentrations impairs hemoglobin synthesis ' by increasing the lead levels in the blood. Sulfur dioxide and suspended particulate exposure causes higher frequencies of acute respiratory symptoms and diminished ventilatory functions in children. 3 2.4 Sanitary Landfill Considerations Included within the study area are an existing operational sani- tary landfill and a former Class II abandoned sanitary landfill . The abandoned landfill has been covered; however, anaerobic de- composition of the organic matter present is occurring and caus- ing settling as well as generating gaseous products which can be toxic and malodorous. The composition of gases exuded by sani- tary landfills is generally 50 to 55 percent methane and 40 to 45 percent carbon dioxide with traces of other gaseous elements such r as ammonia and hydrogen sulfide. The, mechanism of gas production in landfills and the factors affecting it have not been well understood. Major environmental factors affecting gas production appear to be moisture content, termperature, pH, alkalinity and nutrition. Generally, gas pro- duction will increase with temperature up to 55 degrees centi- grade beyond which decomposition rates decline sharply. Addi- tionally, less gas is produced in regions where soils exhibit lower moisture contents. Refuse placement and cover procedures and materials can affect the movement of both gas and water at the surface of abandoned landfills. Landfills covered by very tight caps which retard the release of noxious gases will experience lateral migration of these gases. In this instance, venting systems would be needed to allow the escape of these gases, particularly because of the explosion potential and combustibility of methane. For this reason, escaping gases are often "burned off" or captured with recovery wells and harnessed as a source of energy. It is important to note that non-urban air naturally contains 1.0 to 1.5 ppm methane. Methane is virtually inert (non-reactive) and therefore does not contribute to the formation of photochemi- cal smog as other reactive hydrocarbons do. 2.5 Air Quality Management Plan (AOMP) The AOMP, adopted by the California Air Resources Board on May 10, 1979 is the air quality management plan for the South Coast r Air Basin. It was designed to meet and maintain federal and state ambient air standards by 1987. Required by the Clean Air Act (Amendments of 1977) , the AOMP was included in the State Implementation Plan and submitted to the Environmental Protection Agency in July 1979. The plan includes measures to be implemen- ted by state and local agencies to achieve attainment by 1987. The plan includes 75 control measures which fall into five major categories: - Measures for cleaner industrial processes; - Measures for cleaner vehicles and fuels; - Measures to reduce congestion-related emissions; - Incentives for ridesharing; - Measures for energy conservation. 4 3.0 AIR QUALITY IMPACT ANALYSIS Two types of air pollutant sources must be considered with re- spect to the proposed project: stationary sources and mobile sources. Stationary source considerations include emissions on- . site from construction activities and natural gas combustion as well as emissions at the power plant associated with any electri- cal requirements for the project. Mobile source considerations include short-term construction activites and long-term traffic generation. 3. 1 Short-Term Impacts The primary impacts of the project are similar to those for any construction activity. Grading of the site will produce two types of contaminants: exhaust emissions from construction equipment and fugitive dust generated by earth movement. Atmos- • pheric dust will be generated by the mechanical disturbance of the topsoil associated with construction activities. In addition to large dust particles that settle to the earth near the con- struction site (often creating a localized nuisance problem) considerable amounts of fine-grained fugitive dust particles will be emitted and dispersed over much greater distances. . Dust emissions will occur during land clearing, ground excava- tion, cut and fill operations, and the construction of struc- tures, roads and parking lots on-site. These emissions will vary substantially from day to day depending on the level of activity, the specific construction operations, and the prevailing weather. Significant amounts of fill may be necessary to develop the active recreation areas. Based upon field measurements by the EPA at medium activity construction sites with moderate silt content and semi-arid climates, 1.2 tons of fugitive dust per acre of construction per month of activity can be expected. The park expansion area includes 30 acres not all of which will be under construction at any one time. Exhaust emissions from construction activities include those associated with the transport of workers and machinery to the site as well as those produced on-site as the equipment is used. Without a precise construction plan, it is difficult to predict heavy-duty constuction equipment emissions because of the day-to- day variability in construction activity levels. The temporary emissions from the predominantly diesel-powered equipment may, however, be significant at times although sensitive receptors are not located downwind at distances small enough to cause concern. The motor vehicle emissions from consturction workers will be minor. 3.2 Long-Term Pollutant Emissions Long-term impacts are those associated with the permanent usage of the proposed park expansion. These include stationary and mobile source emissions. The air pollutant emissions can be projected for various years by multiplying the anticipated motor 5 r vehicle, natural gas, and electrical usage rates by appropriate emission factors. The results obtained in this manner are shown in Table 1. i TABLE 1 CENTRAL PARK EXPANSION AREA 1995 PROJECTED MOBILE AND STATIONARY SOURCE EMISSIONS r Primary Natural Gas Electricity Vehicular Total Pollutant (Tons/Day) (Tons/Day) (Tons/Day) (Tons/Day) CO .0004 .0009 . 1166 . 1179 r THC .0002 .0008 .0175 .0185 NOx .0026 .0104 .0307 .0437 Sox .0000 .0122 .0044 .0166 r Particulates .0000 .0018 .0066 .0084 Note: Based upon a natural gas consumption rate of 44,000 cubic feet per day, an electrical usage rate of 9,000 kWh per day, a daily VMT of 19,900 miles, and motor vehicle emis- sion factors from EMFAC 6C. (See Appendix) As shown, stationary source emissions generated as a result of the proposed project represent approximately 14.3% of the total emission burden. In 1995, motor vehicle emissions will account r for 85.7% of the project-related emissions, although exhaust control technology or legislation as well as more stringent stationary source emission control measures may alter that total . It should be noted that the bulk of the air pollutant emissions (56.9% or . 12 ton of the .21 ton per day total) will be carbon monoxide emitted from motor vehicles. r Table 2 provides regional emission inventories for comparison with the project emissions. As shown, if the project were com- pleted immediately, the project-related emissions would represent far less than one percent (.03%) of the county-wide emissions in 1982. Although the project is expected to be- built--out by 1985, the analysis addresses 1982 and 1995 for which traffic volume projections are available as well as 1982 and 1987 for which regional emission inventories are available for comparison. r 6 r TABLE 2 CENTRAL PARK EXPANSION AREA EMISSION INVENTORY COMPARISON a Pollutant Project Emissions Orange County Emissions (Tons/Day) (Tons/Day) 1982 1995 1982 1987 CO .3279 . 1179 862.47 789.99 THC .0521 .0185 444.32 429.59 NOx .0676 .0437 142.45 156.76 Sox .0166 .0166 30.35 35.86 Particulates .0099 .0084 49. 11 49.83 Total .4741 .2051 15528.70 1,462.03 Note: County-wide emission inventory courtesy of SCAQMD, Mr. Mike Nazemi , .Feb. 1980. 3.3 Long-Term Air Quality Projections The assessment of the project impact on localized ambient air quality requires that future ambient air quality levels be pro- jected. Carbon monoxide concentrations can be estimated adjacent -to Golden West, Slater and Talbert using the California Depart- ment of Transportation line source dispersion model Caline 3. Because of the relative inertness of carbon monoxide in the photochemical smog formation process, and limitations of know- ledge on dispersion characteristics of other air pollutant spe- cies, carbon monoxide is the most suitable tracer pollutant for microscale modeling. Secondary pollutants are a large-scale phenomenon, and should be analyzed on a regional basis rather than a local one. The assumptions made in the Caline 3 modeling process are given in the Appendix. The results of the calculations appear in Table 3. As shown therein, the carbon monoxide concentrations adjacent to the roadways most heavily used by project traffic will be less than 14 ppm and well below the 40 ppm state standard and the 35 ppm federal standard for one hour. Over an 8-hour or 12-hour period, project-related traffic along these roadways will contribute approximately 0.05 ppm to the carbon monoxide concentration at 150 feet from the road. Conse- quently, if the federal 8-hour carbon monoxide standard of 9 ppm or the state 12-hour standard of 10 ppm is equalled or exceeded 7 1 as a result of regional vehicular emissions, it will also be exceeded adjacent to the project site. However, project-related traffic alone will not cause the 8 or 12-hour standards for carbon monoxide to be exceeded locally. Receptors located closer than 150 feet will experience identical carbon monoxide exposures with or without the proposed park expansion. TABLE 3 1995 CARBON MONOXIDE CONCENTRATIONS ADJACENT TO ROADWAYS CARRYING PROJECT TRAFFIC 1-Hr Avg. (ppm) 8-Hr Avg. (ppm) Receptor Distances (Feet) 50 100 200 50 100 200 WITH OR WITHOUT THE PROJECT Golden West a Slater 13.7 13.4 13.4 9.9 9.9 9.8 Golden West as Talbert 13.6 13.4 13.4 9.9 9.9 9.9 Gothard Z Talbert 13.5 13.3 13.2 9.8 9.7 9.7 Background Concentration - 1995 13.2 13.2 13.2 9.7 9.7 9.7 Note: All concentrations include the background levels noted -and represent the. "worst case" or downwind corner. 3.4 Sanitary Landfill Considerations As mentioned earlier, the primary concerns related to the aban- doned landfill on-site focus on the combustibility of the methane gas produced by the decomposition occurring and the potential for impacts related to odors. The proposed expansion project in- cludes a 2,200 space vehicle parking facility with a turf or gravel surface to cover the abandoned landfill . The escaping methane gas will be studied in detail prior to a decision on whether to vent and burn off the methane or attempt its recovery and use. • In order to reclaim as much methane as possible, it will be nec- essary to cap the abandoned landfill with an impermeable material which will prohibit lateral or vertical migration of decomposi- tion gases and limit the amount of oxygen entering the landfill . An uncapped or improperly capped landfill may experience reduced or suspended anerobic decomposition. Further, the intrusion of oxygen could create potentially explosive conditions if concen- trations of 5 to 15 percent methane are permitted to develop ("Control of Gas Flow From Sanitary Landfills", Houshang Esmaili , 1975) . Generally, gases are not vented from landfills by any means other than natural- venting through the soil cover. Structures built on or near a landfill may therefore require protection by a forced 8 air withdrawl or other system. The best control of odors is achieved through the rapid and continuous coverage of solid wastes and the sealing of surface cracks in completed landfill areas to prevent emissions of large concentrations of odorous gases. Despite these precautions, the abandoned landfill could produce objectionable odors if disturbed during the construction process. 3.5 Planning Mode Alternatives Four land use alternatives have been studied by Huntington Beach City Staff for a 25 acre planning mode or study area adjacent to the Huntington Beach Central Park. The development alternatives included: 1. Garden offices with an adjoining restaurant 2. Residential development at various densities 3. Recreational vehicle park 4. Commercial nursery/tree farm The "Planning Mode Study Area Special Report" recently prepared by City staff analyzed each land use alternative and concluded that each alternative would adversely impact air quality within the South Coast Air Basin. An air pollutant emission inventory was included for each alternative and has been reproduced below: TABLE 4 PLANNING MODE AIR POLLUTANT EMISSION INVENT0RY Land Use Alternative Air Pollutant Emissions (Tons/Day) Garden Offices/Restaurant 0.67 Estate Residential 0. 16 i Low Density Residential 0.24 Medium Density Residential 0.40 Recreational Vehicle Park 0.06 Nursery/Tree Farm 0.07 Source: Huntington Beach Planning Division, 1982. M As shown in Table 4, the more intense land use alternatives such as the garden offices or medium density residential development generate larger quantities of air pollutants. The recreational vehicle park or nursery alternatives generate less than 150 pounds of air pollutants daily, most of which will be dispersed over a large area by vehicles approaching or leaving the site. 3.6 Cumulative and Growth Inducing Impacts Cumulative impacts of growth proposed for the surrounding area have been taken into account in the ultimate 1995 analysis and 9 the ultimate 1995 plus project analysis in Section 3.3. The proposed project is the result of previous growth inducements in the area. The project is not being proposed in a totally unur- banized area where infrastructure is absent or arterial highways do not exist. Conversely, the site is served by arterial high- ways and bounded by residential and other developments. The AQMP assumes a level of growth consistent with SCAB 78. The implementation ' of the AQMP may require that some of the growth provided for in County and City General Plans be modified, elim- inated or delayed if that growth will prevent or interfere with the attainment and maintenance of ambient air quality goals. Since the growth accommodated by the proposed project will cumu- latively impact the ambient air quality of the region, but will most likely not exceed SCAB 78 forecasts or cause local air pollutant concentrations to exceed the relevant standards, its consistency with the intent of the provisions of the AQMP is clear. 10 4.0 MITIGATION MEASURES The most effective air pollution mitigation measure for consider- ation during project design is a substantial reduction in VMT. This can be achieved by providing recreational opportunities near the residents they are designed to serve. The project accom- plishes this goal through its design and location. Measures selected for incorporation• in the, project include: 1) Adequate watering techniques will be employed to partially mitigate the impact of construction-generated dust particu- lates. 2) SCAGMD Rule 403 will be adhered to. 3) The installation of thermal insulation in walls and ceilings which meets or exceeds standards establiched by the State of California or the Department of Building and Safety. The following mitigations are offered as suggested measures which can be incorporated as conditions of approval , should the City of Huntington Beach so determine, to further reduce the air quality impacts associated with the project. 1) The preferential use of diesel-powered construction equip- ment rather than gasoline-powered equipment, to affect ex- haust emission reductions and evaporative and crankcase HC emission reductions. 2) The covering of all trucks filled with soil that exceed 20 mph or venture off-site. 3) Speed control of 20 mph on unpaved surfaces. 1 4) The balance of cut and fill quantities on-site to eliminate the need for imported or exported soil. 1 11 APPEND I X Table I CONPAIISONS OF III QUALITY STANDAIOS IND EMERGENCY CNITE111 Air Air uslity Standardse Es rjency Criteria Pollutant Notional SCAONOc and California Episode National Episode and State I Emarlency Significant Action California Primary Secondary Naaith Sials 2 Stage S Alert Vol lotion Nam To Required Advisor WarningEmergencylevel fatal level Nealth level 0.12 ppm 0.12 ppm Ozone 0.10 ppm, (240 ug/m3) (240 ug/03) 0.20 ppm, 0.35 ppm, 0.50 ppm 1.51 ppm, 0.11 op•. 03 1-hr. Avg. 141. owl. I-hr. owg. 141. Avg. 141, owl. I-hr. avg. 141. avg. 1-hr. avg. 1 ppm 0 ppm. 50 ppm. 10 ppm. (10 mt/m ) (10 mt/m3) 20 ppm. 35 ppm. 50 ppm. 1-hr. avg. Carbon 12-hr. avg. 1-hr. avg. 1-hi. avg. 12-hi. avg. 12-hr. avg. 12-hr, awl. Monoxide 15 ppm, 30 ppm. 40 ppm. 15 ppm. CO 40 ppm. 35 ppm 35 ppm 40 ppm, 15 ppm, 100 ppm, 141. art. 1-hr. avg. 1-hr. avg. 4-hr. awg. 1-hr. avg. (40 Wei) (40 ■t/e!)) I-hr. avg. I-hr, avg. 141. ovg. 125 ppm. 1-hr. avg. 1-hr. avg. 1-hr. avg. 0.15 ppm, 0.30 ppm. 0.40 ppm. 0.50 ppm. Nit►ogsn 0.05 ppm 0.05 ppm, 24-hr, avg. 24-hi. awl. 24-hr. avg. 24-hr. avg. t/m3 Dioxide 0.25 ppm, (100 ug/01) (I Do u ) •• NO2 1-hr. avg. AAN AAN 1.00 ppe. 1.2 ppm. 1.1 ppm; 2.1 ppm. I-hr. avg. 1-hr. avg. 1-ht. awl. 1-hr. avg. 0.14 ppm 0.05 ppm,• (315 Wei) 0.21 ppm, 0.70 ppm. 1.00 ppm. Sulfur 2441. avg. 24-hr. avg. 1.50 ppm, 24-hr. avg. 24-hr. avg. 24-hr. art. 1.30 ppm, 0.10 ppm, 1.10 ppm. 1:1 ppm. Dioxide (1300 ug/r1) 24-hr. avg. 24-hr. avg. 24-hr. avg. 24-hr. avg. S02 6.50 ppm, 0.03 pp*. 3-hr. avg. 1.50 ppm, 1.1 ppm, 2.0 ppm, 1-hr. avg. (Be ut/m7) 1-hr. avg. 1-hr. owl. I-hr. art. AAN Ozone In Combination 0.20 ppm, L8.35 ppm, 1.50 ppm. Nith Sulfur 1-hr. avg. r. owl.. I-hr. avg. Dioxided) Sulfate In 25 ug/23, 25 ug/m3. 24-hr. avg. combined with Particulate 2441. avg. Ozone. 0.20 ppm, I-hr. avg. Netter 100 ug/0 . 260 ug/m3 150 ug/m 24-hr. avg. 24-hr, owl. 24-hi. avg. Particulate 315.ug/n3 125 Ng/m3 I75 mg/o3 1000 mg/mS Natter 00 ug/63 15 ug/m3 00 ug/83 24-hi. avg. 24-hr. avg. 24-hr. avg. 24-hr. avg. (TSP) ACV ACV AGN Particulate Natter (ug/03) 1 15.000 201.000 313,001 410.000 SO ( ) a 2120 24-111. owl. 2441. avg. 24-hr. avg._ 24-hi. avg. • Occuring in combination with a violation of the State Ozone or Tit standards. •• No standard or criteria when blocks its blank. (Continued) a All • • a d Table I (Continued) COMPARISONS OF All QUALITY STANDARDS AND EMERGENCY CRITERIA lit Air Quality Standstills Emergency Willis Pollutant Notional SCAQMOc and California Episode National Episode and Stage I Emorgsncy Significant Acllle California Primly Secondary Health Stago'2 Stage 3 Alert Veining Action Nor■ To Required ldvisoty Kerning Emergency Laval Level level Noolth Level Load 1.5 a&/83 1.3 ug/ Pb 30-dayavg. calendar qusrtor average Nydrocarbons 0.24 pps 0.24 ppe (corracted for (160 ug/23) (180 ug/53) methane) 3-hi. avg. 3-hr. avg. 8-0 a.m. 0-0 e.g. Hydrogen 1.03 pps, Sulfide 141. erg. M21 Vinyl Chloride 8.01 pps (chlaroothens) 2/-hr. owl. 1.10 ppm 1-hr. avg. Ethylene 1.00 pps 1-hi. avg. In sufficient concentration to reduce Visibility risibility to Reducing less than too Particles miles at fell- live humidity of less than IDS. Voluntary Open burn- Incinerator reduction In Mandatory Ing prohib- use prohib- physical ac- abotseent ited. Na- Iced. Re- Vehicle use tivity and ■ossures. quested quired re- prohibited. some as Actions vehicle Action ranges Slate can reduction duction in Industry shut "Emorgsncy" to be operation. from voluntary take action in vehicle vehicle down or cur- exscpt most Taken Open burning to mandatory. If local operation. operation. tailmont. industry banned (not efforts industrial Industry Public acti- shut down. on action at fail. Curtail- curtailed vilies coast. this level Bent. further. after 1010). a) standards shown in parenthesis are restatements of the preceding standard but expressed on an alternative basis. b) Concentrations other than annual averages not to be sxcsoded more than once a year. c) SCAOW - South Coast Air Quality Management District. d) lions and sulfur dioxide concentrations both must be greater than 8.10 ppe. NUMBER OF DAYS STATE STANDARDS WERE EXCEEDED AND ANNUAL MAXIMUM HOURLY AVERAGES 1980 OZONE CAFMON SULFUR t�GtD}CIL1Ec) DIOXIDEd) DIO.�DEt # AREA CODE LOS ANGELES COUNTY a) b) Days Max Days Max Days Max Days Max 001 Los Angeles CENT 109 0.29 7 19 0 .037 16 0.44 060 Azusa ESGV 164 0.41 0 10 0 .030 1 0.27 069 Burbank ESFV 137 0.35 39 29 0 .028 23 0.35 072 Long Beach SOCO 21 0.20 2 16 0' .030 4 0.31 074 Reseda WSFV 142 0.38 17 22 0 .016 4 0.32 075 Pomona PWVA 140 0.37 0 13 0* .013* 1 0.27 076 Lennox SWCO 9 0.11 41 31 0 .029 5 0.38 080 Whittier SOFA 70 0.27 .8 21 0 .048 6 0.47 081 Newhall SCRV 138 0.36 0* 7* 0* .012* 0* 0.10 082 Lancaster** ANVA. 106 0.29 0 11 NM NM 0 0.09 083 Pasadena WSGV 160 0.41 4 20 0 .039 12 0.35 084 Lynwood SCLA 42 0.18 43 31 0 .055 1 0.29 085 Pico Rivera SSGV 143 0.39 7 19 0 .024 8 0.54 086 West L.A. NWCO 89 0.21 19 25 0 .017 18 0.37 ORANGE COUNTY 3176 Anaheim ANAH 68 0.28 24 . 26 0 .025 17 0.43 3177 La Habra LAHB 106 0.31 6 25 0 .032 5 0.42 3185 Costa Mesa COST 20 0.16 2 17 0 .016 2 0.31 3186 E1 Toro TORO 65 0.34 NM AM 0* .013* . NM tit 3190 Los Alamitos LSAL 49 0.22 NM NM 0 .032 NM NM 3191 Santa Ana C. SACN 89 0.33 NM NM 0* .010* NM NM RIVERSIDE COUNTY 4137 Palm Springs** PLSP 102 0.21 0 8 0 .024 0 0.13 4139 Indio** INDO 3 0.11 NM NM NM NM NM NM 4140 Prado Park PRPK 135 0.34 0* 16* tit NM NM NM 4144 Riverside RIVR 166 0.37 0 9 0 '.030 0 0.20 4149 Perris PERI 144 0.29• 0* 6* NM NM NM NM 4150 Banning** BANN 117 0.26 0* 3* NM NM NN. M SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY 5151 San Bernardino SNBD 163 0.36 0 11 0 .016 1 0.25 5155 Barstow** BARS 45* 0.19 0* 6 NM NM 0 0.12 5165 Redlands REDL 166 0.32 0 6 NM NM NM tM 5175 Upland UPLA 159* 0.44 0 14 0 .021 2 0.35* 5176 Fontana FONT 181 0.42 0 19 0 .018 1* 0.25* 5181 Lake Gregory LKGR 153 0.32 0* 6* NM NM NM ti-i 5182 Yucaipa YUCI 166 0.33 NM NM NM NM NM tM 5190 Victorville VCVL 96* 0.26 0* 8* NM NM 0 0.15 5191 29 Palms** TNPS 4* 0.12 0* 8* NM NM ice{ tM 5192 Trona** TRON 7* 0.11* 0* 3* 0* .026* NM iM a) Days - number of days exceeding state standard for indicated pollutant. b) Max - single highest 1-hour (for 902 24-hmw) average of the year in parts per million. c) All exceedances are of the 12-tour standard. The 1-hour standard was not exceeded d) All exceedances and maxima are of the 24-hour stated. The-1-hna standard was not exceeded. * less than 12 months of data. ** Southeast Desert Air Basin Stations. All others in South Oust Air Basin. NM - not meas+red. NUMBER OF DAYS/MONTHS STATE STANDARDS WERE EXCEEDED AND ANNUAL MAXIMUM DAILY/MONTHLY AVERAGES 1980 TSP SMYAZE LEAD S No. of AREA CODE mysa) K..b) Daysa) Max.b) Mmrbsa) Max.c) amyf� sd7 LOS ANGELES COUNTY 001 Los Angeles CENT 33 248 5 32.8 5 2.68 60 060 Azusa ESGV 33 303 3 38.2 0 1.45 54 069 Burbank ESFV NM NM NM NM NM NM 072 Long Beach SOCO 21 282 4 40.7 1 2.01 40 074 Reseda WS FV 20 175 3 35.6 3 1.71 56 075 Pomona PWVA NM NM NM NM NM NM 076 Lennox SWCO 29 236 6 34.0 5 3.44 56 080 Whittier SOEA Ili NM NN NM NM NM 081 Newhall SCRV NM rM NM NM NM M 082 Lancaster** ANVA 31 295 0 12.4 0 0.71 60 083 Pasadena WSGV 23 208 4 38.4 4 1.72 58 084 Lynwood SCLA 35 290 7 34.2 5 3.02 58 085 Pico Rivera SSGV 42 378 7 34.3 4 2.34 60 086 West L.A. NWCO 17 .191 3 34.9 2 2.02 59 ORANGE COU!`tTY 3176 Anaheim ANAH 27 305 2 37.2 1 2.05 59 3177 La Habra LAHB 32 340 5 35.0 1 1.72 61 3185 Costa Mesa COST 6 125 0 13.5 0 0.82 20 3186 E1 Toro TORO 21 218 0 21.2 0 0.69 57 3190 Los Alamitos LSAL 25 238 2 34.6 1 1.88 57 3191 Santa Ana C. SACN 23 232 2 35.2 0 1.03 58 RIVERSIDE COUNTY 4137 Palm Springs** PLSP 11 207 0 11.9 0 0.35 58 4139 Indio** INDO 22 _ 232 0 16.9 0 0.36 60 4140 Prado Park PRPK NM "'Z1 NM NM NM NM 4144 Riverside RIVR 41 495 3 39.2 0 1.07 56 4149 Perris PERI NM NM NM NM NM NM 4150 Banning** BANN 20 157 0 18.5 0 0.31 56 SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY 5151 San Bernardino SNBD 34 445 6 42.8 0 1.30 58 5155 Barstow** BARS 10 224 0 13.1 0 0.47 56 5165 Redlands REDL 23 304 3 37.3 0 0.57 55 5175 Upland UPLA NM NM NM NM NM NM 5176 Fontana FONT 29 417 3 40.0 0 0.86 51 5181 Lake Gregory LKGR 3 112 1 37,3 0 0.31 54 5182 Yucaipa YUCI Nt' NM NM NM NM NM 5190 Victorvil le** VCVL 12 251 0 10.6 0 0.34 55 5191 29 Palms** TNPS 3 244 0 7,2 0 0.25 54 5192 Trona** TRON 30 422 7 47.7 0 0.34 54 a) Nt-=her of days/months exceeding state standard for indicated pollutant, b) Single highest 24-hour average of the year in ug/m3 . c) Single highest monthly average of the year in ug/m3 , d) Measurements are normally made on every sixth day. ** Southeast Desert Air Basin Stations. All others in the South Coast Air Basin. not rl,�asured, NUMBER OF DAYS FEDERAL STANDARDS WERE EXCEEDED 1980 # AREA CODE a) CARBON b) SULFUR c) d) e) LOS ANGELES COUNTY OZONE MONOXIDE DIOXIDE TSP LEAD 001 Los Angeles CENT 59 18 0 0 1 060 Azusa ESGV 129 0 0 1 0 069 Burbank ESFV 99 63 0 NM 11,14 072 Long Beach SOCO 6 12 0 1 1 074 Reseda WSFV 98 31 0 0 1 075 Pomona PWVA 99 8 0 NM NM . 076 Lennox SWCO 0 70 0 0 2 080 Whittier SOEA 40 21 0 NPi NM 081 Newhall SCRV 96 0* 0 NM NM 082 Lancaster** ANVA 61 0 NM 1 0 083 Pasadena WSGV 118 29 0 0 1 084 Lynwood SCLA 17 67 0 1 1 085 Pico Rivera SSGV 107 22 0 1 1 / 086 West L.A. NWCO 35 37 0 0 1 ORANGE COUNTY 3176 Anaheim ANAH 39 46 0 1 0 3177 La Habra LAHB 63 20 0 1 0 3185 Costa Mesa COST 5 7 0 0 0 3186 E1 Toro TORO 25 NM 0 0 0 3190 Los Alamitos LSAL 13 NM 0 0 1 3191 Santa Ana C. SACN 47 NM 0 0 0 RIVERSIDE COUNTY 4137 Palm Springs** PLSP 49 0 0 0 0 4139 Indio** INDO 0 NM '0 0 0 4140 Prado Park PRPK 99 1* NM NM NM 4144 Riverside RIVR 132 0 0 9 0 4149 Perris PERI 103 0* NM NM NM 4150 Banning** BANN 76 0* NM 0 0 SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY 5151 San Bernardino SNBD 130 0 0 9 0 5155 Barstow** BARS 9 0* NM 0 0 5165 Redlands REDL 127 0 NM 5 0 5175 Upland UPLA 131. 0 0 NM N1: 5176 Fontana FONT 146 0 0 3 0 5181 Lake Gregory LKGR 125 0* NM 0 0 5182 Yucaipa YUCI 135 NM NM NM NM 5190 Victorville** VCVL 47 0* NM 0 0 5191 29 Palms** TNPS 0 0 NM 0 0 5192 Trona** TRON 0 0 0 3' 0 a) Based on number of days 03 > 0.12 ppm, 1-hour average. b) Based on number of days CO > 9 ppm, 8-hour average. (The 1-hour average was not exceeded.) c) Based on number of. days S02 > 0.14 ppm, 24-hour average. d) Based on number of days TSP > 260 ug/m3 , 24-hour average. e) Based on number of quarters Pb > 1.5 ug/m3 , quarterly average. * Less than 12 months of data. ** Southeast Desert Air Basin Stations. All others in South Coast Air Basin. NM- not measured. C N... Dsl-\- slawlard \la%. Cmw. No. Da.c- Toan&,td \1;1\. I Ma lit F\.......lud M lit N". D;%\- Iodrroi N Ltis Angeles -20.10 114 47 14 1 1.I I L.13 W. Los Angelus 24 33,10 1 b.141 ii II 4.141 Ili 12 11.5 215 Lennox 27 51.11 :15'0 19 7 17 13 11.1 310 Long, Beach .20 '21,10 7,10 21 11 31 ';7 :.,2 9.4; 14 1k) Whiltierr) 20 19!() :12 .17 bo :17 10 NM \M Hosedu 23 3210 16'!(1 3:1 103 146 31 1; 14.0 :.143 1, Burbank 27 57"(1 36.10 39 92 137 35 2 i 11.4 230 A Pasadena 17 2.5,111 1,10 11 150 191 36 1 1 9.9 151 Azusa 11 0"0 0.10 15 149 176 to 1 9-h 111h Pomona 1.1 2.'0 0"o 35 126 167 :it 1; 6.b 1 19 Pico Rivera 16 26,10 7/o 39 110 166 .11 13 1b.(1 1250 I.Y11woCXI 30 70/11 3b.10 s9 2 6 52 :37 1_' 16.2 2551111 Newhall II o/o 0.110 &P 140 177 29 2 6.0 3211 Lancaster 15 o"*0 0 40 so 10 U 6.3 106 La Habra 20 23,10 210 3b 62 112 24 It. 11.2 1),j;;j n) Santa Ann Cyn. NM NNI NM 39 47 95 NM NM NM NM 0 Anaheim 19 35/0 14/0 33 27 61 33 b 11.0 NM It Los Alamitos NM NM NM 26 16 50 NM NM NM NM Costa klosa 21 18/0 5/0 21 16 26 29 4 NM NM E I roro NM NM NM 32 '21 57 NM NkI NM N.%I Prado Park 9 0/0 0/0 33 114 160 NM NM 31.0 NM R Riverside 10 0/0 o/o 34 151 186 20 0 10.0 NkI I Perris T (1/0 o/o 25 118 151 NM NM NM NM V Banning 5 (1/0 0/0 27 84 123. N4 NM. NM NNI Palm Springs 5 (),/o 0/0 24 49 112 101) 01) 7.0 NM Indiog) 11 0/0 0/0 21 1 16 45 9 1 0 8.0 1 NM Upland 11 0/0 0/0 37 135 163 30 1 12.0 NM Fontana 20 5/o 0!0 42 164 197 18 0 NM NkI San Bernardino 10 0/0 0/0 34 140 161 23 0 10.0 NM S Rediandg 9 0/0 0/0 34 139 173 19 0 NNI NM a Yucaipa ) 5 (1/0 0/0 15 1 4 NM NM NMNMD Lake Gregory 12 0/0 0/0 40 139 IGO NM NM NM NNI Victorville 8 0/0 0/0 21 31 go is 0 NM NM Barstqw 12 1/0 0/0 le 0 32 16 0 NKI NM Tronal) 12 0/0 0/0 12 0 6 6 0 NM NM Twenlynine Palms 8 0/0 0/0 13 6 46 NM NM NhI NM .(a)/(b) Federal Standards, respectively: (a) 8-hours > 9 ppin and/or (b) 1-hour > 35 ppm. (c)/(d) State Standards, respectively: (c) 12-hours > 10 ppm and/or (d) 1-hour > 40 ppm. e) Reactive hydrocarbons (total minus methane). Station was inactivated April I through August 31* 1979 and reactivated on September 1, 1979. Station sampled only ozone and TSP after June 30, 1979. Station inactivated after March 31, 1979. i) No data in January 1979 except for TSP. Nitrogen oxides monitoring initiated after July 1, 1979. No data in December. 1) No data March - July and September. m) No data January, August. and September. n) No data in September. NM Pollutant not monitored. SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT Alit QUALITY IN 1970 (' -u1f,o Dioxide Perticulalcs Ili-Vol Lead (Ili-Vol)' Sulfate (Ili-Vol) Viaibilil Il 16.%. Com. Days Standard No. Samples No. Occasionsit) No. Samples 1I in F oceeded Total Max. :xcetvler Standard Max. Exceeded Standnrd Max. F.xceodod Standard Location No. Days N T PPINI F.d.•rul Stale Samples Value Federal Stalo Value Federal SWIG Value State State Standard Y I ll..ur '1 hr. .I4 PPM o/ r u /m3 ,6(1 U,,",31 100 u lm ug/m3 1.5 u !m3 1.5 u ling ug/.31 25 u /m8 Exceeded Loa Anp,,•Ie., i 0 0/0 61 267 1 31 4.13 2 6 29.7 2 Los Angeles 117t N. Los Antiult. 4 0 0/0 61 154 0 T 4.20 1 2 23.5 0 Burbank AP 230 Lenoox 10 0 0/0 60 206 0 21 6.13 2 1 36.1 3 LAX AP 163 l...ul; li•„•1, 13 1 0/0 NM NM NAI NM NM NM NM NM NM Long Bosch AP 220 111.it[..rt1 14 tt 4/0 NM NM NM NM Nkl NM NAI Nk1 NM Fox AFB 5 Ilo.a,ln 3 0/0 60 230 0 28 4.30 '1 a 22.9 0 L Burh,o,k tI 0 0/0 Nkl NM NM NM NM NM NAI NM NM A I'n ud.•nn a 0/0 59 193 0 27 3.53 1 a 26.4 1 Azuse 1 n 0/0 60 237 0 35 2.45 0 1 24.5 0 Pomona 5 o 010 NM NM NAI NM NM NM NM NM NM Pieo Ittcrru 10 0 0/0 61 417 1 36 3.97 2 4 $0.6 3 L�nwaal Ir, 0 1/0 81 252 0 32 6.23 2 5 28.1 5 Newhall 5 11 n/n NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM Luncu+mr %%I \AI NM 68 339 2 22 3.62 0 0 14.4 0 Lu lluhra 9 0 0/0 60 300 1 30 3.79 1 2 26.2 2 El Toro MCAS 330 Sunta Ana Cyn. '_' 41 0/0 61 24T 0 25 2.43 0 0 23.1 0 O Anaheim 7 0 0/0 60 301 1 25 3.39 1 2 24.4 0 R Los Alemitos 11 0 0/0 61 327 1 26 4.94 1 3 26.0 1 Cnsta Mesa 7 n 0/0 61 252 0 26 8.14 0 8 24.2 0 El Toro 9 0 0/0 61 219 0 13 1.61 0 0 21.5 0 Prado Park NkI NM NM NM NM NM NM NAI NM NM NM NM March AFB 236 R Riverside 6 0 0/0 61 8T4 11 52 2.78 0 0 28.1 3 1 Perris Ohl Ski NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM V Donning Ski NM NM 61 193 0 28 0.84 0 0 20.0 0 Palm �prings 34) 0 0/0 59 188 0 4 0.68 0 0 12.0 0 IndioB 4 0 0/0 5T 211 1 0 19 0.65 0 0 18.9 0 Upland 8 0 0/0 451) 256 0 25 1.82 0 0' 82.0 4 Onatrio AP 259 Fontana 12 0 0/0 60 320 4 *10'W 1.47 0 0 82.8 8 Norton AFB 234 Son Bernardino 6 0 0/0 61 290 2 86 2.12 0 1 at.? 8 6 Redlands NM NAI NM 55 242 0 38 1.04 0 0 28.6 0 B Yucaipah) NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM D Lake Gregory NM NM NM 59 132 0 9 0.68 0 0 13.9 0 Victurvidle NM NNI NAI 61 1 358 1 23 0.04 0 0 18.0 0 Durstgw \AI NM NM 61 308 1 9 0.68 0 0 27.0 1 Truest) NM NAI NM 41 362 4 26 0.60 0 0 39.3 2 Twentynine Palms 1 NM VAI NM 59 137 0 2 0.35 0 0 9.4 0 (o)/(p) Ante Standards, respectively: (o) 24-hour:-5 pphm with 1-hour ozone 0.10 ppm or higher, or with 24-hour TSP 100 ug/mB or higher, and/or (p) 1-hour-2 50 pphm. q) For Federal Standards, figure indicates number of quarters quarterly average exceeded 1.5 ug/m3; for State Standard, figure indicates number of months 80dsy average equalled or exceeded 1.5 ug/m3. r) Standard: Visibility should be 10 miles or greater on days when relative humidity is lose than 70%. s) Sulfur dioxide monitoring initiated July 1, 1979. t) No data after September 30, 1979. All db a VIOLATIONS CF SPATE STANDARDS AND ANNUAL HAXIAM HOURLY AVERAGES 1978 Station Carbon Sulfur Nitrogen No. Location Code Ozone Mm=ddec) Dioxided) Dioxide Daysa) Max.b) Days Max. Days Max.d) Days Max. LDS AN31ES CMZM 001 Los Angeles CINf 113 0.30 15 20 0 0.038 26 0.42 060 Azusa ESGV 182 0.40 0 12 G 0.026 15 0.43 069 Burbank ES?V 156 0.30 28 28 0 0.035 38 0.53 072 Long Beach SOCO 18 0.19 12 20 0 0.046 16 0.40 074 Reseda WSFV 116 0.27 26 28 0 0.075 10 0.52 075 Pomona PWVA 162 0.41 2 14 0 0.033 10 0.36 076 Leraxox SWCO 29 0.30 30 27 0 0 031 10 0.39 080 Whittier SOEA % 0.36 5 18 0 0.040 15 0.50 C81 Newhall SCRV 155 0.32 0 12 0 0.024 0 0.20 082 Lancaster ANVA 56 0.27 2 15 -- --- 0 0.18 083 Pasadena WSCV 185 0.42 4 19 0 0.028 25 0.59 084 Lynwood SCLA 51 0.18 44 29 0 0.047 4 0.26 085 Pico Rivera SSGV 165 0.43 23 21 0 0.026 26 0.46 086 West L.A. NWCO 75* 0.24* 9* 21* 0" 0.036* 20* 0.56* ORANGE COU:Tr: 3176 Anaheim ANAH 73 .0.29 6 22 0 0.020 2 0:30 3177 La Habra LAID 113 0.35 3 19 0 0 038 LO 0.38 3185 Costa Mesa COST 52 0.22 3 18 0 0.017 4 0.30 1186 El Toro TORO 68 0.34 -- -- -- --- -- -- -'s°3188 San Juan C. SJCA 32 0.32 0 5• -- --- -- -- 3190 Los Alamitos LSAL 72 0.27 -- -- 0 0.044 -- -- RIVERSIDE COUNTY • 41]7 Palm Springs PLSP 103 0.20 0 6 -- --- -- -- 4139 Indio RM 83 0.17 0 12 -- --- 0 0.13 4140 Prado Park PRPK 163 0.40 0 8 -- --- -- -- •*4141 Hemet HEW. 49 0.27 -- -- -- --- -- -- 4144 Riverside RIVR 179 0.39 0 9 0 0.034 0 0.22 4149 Perris PERI 153 0.32 0 9 -- --- -- -- 4150 Barrd ng BANN 115 0.30 0 5 -- --- -- -- **4151 Temecula ME 24 0.23 -- -- -- --- -- -- **4152 Elsinore ELSN 71 0.30 -- -- -- -- -- SAN BERNARDIND COUNTY 5151 San Bernardino SNBD 163 0.36 0 13 0 0.040 0 0.12 5155 Barstow BARS 27 0.16 0 5 -- --- 0 0.12 5165 Redlands REM 165 0.39 0 9 -- -- 0 0.21 **5173 Chino CHIN 84 0.36 0 9 -- -- 5175 Upland UPLA 170 0.35 0 10 5* 0.27* 5176 Fontana FONT 183 0.42 0 13 0 0.044 3 0.30 5181 Lake Gregory 1I0R 149 0.33 0 11 -- --- -- -- 5182 Yucaipa YUCI 163 0.33 0 8 -- -- •- -- *`5184 Big 7,,aar BGBE 70 0.27 0 10 -- --- -- -- 5190 Victorville VCVL 74 0.21 0 8 -- -- -- 5191 Twentynine Palms TNPS 6* 0.11* 0* 7* -- --- -- -- a) DAYS - Number of days violating state standard for indicated contaminant. b) MAX. - Single highest one hour (for S02 24-hour) average o° the year in parts per million. c) All violations are of the twelve hour standard. The one hcr= standard was not violated. d) All violations and mad= are of the 24-has standard. '"he one tckx standard was not violated. * Less than 12 months of data. ** Station ceased operation after July 1978. VIOLATION OF STATE STANDARDS AND ANNUAL 14AXP M DAILYMONTHLY AVERAGES 1978 Number of Station TSP SULFATE LEAD Sampling. No. Location Code Daysa) Hax.b) Daysa) Max.b) Months Ka...C) Days LOS ANGELES COUNTY 001 Los Angeles CENT 26 197 4 45.0 5 2. 71 61 060 Azusa ESGV 36 772 5 36.7 3 1.59 61 069 Burbank ESFV -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 072 Long Beach SOCO -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 074 Reseda WSFV 38 230 4 57 3 10 3.05 60 075 Pomona P1JVA -- -- -- -- -- -- -- / 076 Lennox S14CO 25 233 4 44 4 10 5.48 62 080 Whittier SOEA -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 081 Newhall SCRV -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 082 Lancaster ANVA 10 239 0 10.2 0 1.13 58 083 Pasadena WSGV 27 203 5 53.4 12 4. 16 60 084 Lvnwood SCLA 40 288 4 38.1 9 4.42 61 085 Pico Rivera SSCV 42 231 5 47.2 11 4.02 61 086 West L.A. Nlwcn 6* 136* 4* 41.2'-- 2"', 2.90* 45 OEANGE COUNTY 3176 Anaheim ANAH 24 200 2 30.7 4 2.96 61 3177 La rabra LAHB 33 226 5 34.7 4 3.20 61 3185 Costa Mesa COST 10 175 2 27.2 - 4 3.11 61 3186 E1 Toro TORO 12 145 1 26.7 0 1.36 61 **3188 San Juan C. SJCA 8* 186* 0* 19.2* 0* 1.10* 36* 3190 Los Alamitos LSAL 31 268 3 31.0 4 4.04 61 3191 Santa Ana C. SACN 28 197 2 30.5 3 2.27 60 RIVERSIDE COUNTY 4137 Palm Springs PLSP 7 262 0 13.9 0 0.73 60 4139 ;.ndic INDO 26 280 0 11.4 0 0.63 60 4140 Prado ?ark PRPK -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -':4141 Hemet HEIIE -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 4144 Riverside RIVR 42 405 5 55.9 3 1 80 60 . 4149 Perris PERI -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 4150 Banning BANN 21 198 0 20.7 0 0.5' 61 *4151 Temecula TF11E -- -- -- 4152 Elsinore ELS:. -- -- -- -- -- -- -- SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY 5151 San Bernardino SNBD 33 357 5 47.1 2 3.53 59 5155 Barstow BARS 12 291 0 22.4 0 0.82 60 . 5165 Redlands REDL 29 351 3 32.7 0 1.25 59 **5173 Chino CHIN 24* 358* 2* 30.2* 2* 1.68* 33* 5175 Upland UPLA 30 300 4 37.0 2 1.68 58 5176 Fontana FONT 31 379 9 51.7 0 1.19 58 5181 Lake Gregory LKGR 1 107 0 9.8 0 0.36 60 5182 Yucaipa YUCI -- -- -- -- -- -- -- *'5184 Big Bear BGBE 4* 130* 0* 8.3 '` 0* 0.44 29* 5190 Viccorville VC,.L 11 •248 0 13.6 0 0.54 59 5191 Twentynine Palms TNPS 1* 116* 0* 8.2* 0* 0.27* 44 a) Number of days/months violating state standard for indicated contaminant. b) Single highest 24 hour average of the year in ug/m3. c) Single highest monthly average of the year in ug/m3. * Less than 12 months of data. Station ceased operation after July 1978. NUMBER OF DAYS NOT MEETING FEDERAL STANDARD 1978 Station Ozone Carbon No. Code Monoxide LOS ANGELES COUNTY a) b) c) d) 001 Los Angeles CENT 136 55 60% 42 060 Azusa ESGV 192 155 19% 0 069 'Burbank ESFV 173 102 41% 57 072 Long Beach SOCO 23 8 65% 33 074 Reseda WSFV 136 68 50% 49 075 Pomona n1VA 172 136 21% 7 076 Lennox STICO 43 13 70% 70 080 Whittier SOFA ill 65 41% 30 081 Newhall SCRV 172 121 30% 0 082 Lancaster ANVA 67 35 48% 4 083 Pasadena WSGV 196 126 36% 26 084 Lynwood SCLA 61 16 74% 89 085 Pico Rivera SSGV 178 120 33% 40 086 West L.A. mJCO 102* 34* 67% 22 ORANGE COUNTY 3176 Anaheim ANAH 90 51 43% 24 3177 La Habra LAHB 131 69 70% 19 3185 Costa Mesa COST 64 25 61% 9 3186 El Toro TORO 81 33 59% -- **3188 San Juan C. SJCA 37 17 54% 0 3190 Los Alamitos LSAL 94 39 59% -- RIVERSIDE COUNTY 4137 Palm Springs PLSP 116 57 51% 0 4139 Indio INDO 109 37 66% 0 4140 Prado Park PRPK 181 113 38% 0 **4141 Hemet HEME 59 20 66% - 4144 Riverside RIVR 192 139 28% 0 4149 Perris PERI 167 109 35% 0 4150 Banning BANN 126 79 37-,. 0 **4151 Temecula TEME 40 8 80% -- **4152 Elsinore ELSN 79 45 437. -- SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY 5151 San Bernardino SNBD 169 138 18% 0 5155 Barstow BARS 38 8 79% 0 5165 Redlands REDL 177 136 23% 0 **5173 Chino CHIN 93 65 30% 0 5175 Upland UPLA 177 138 22% 0 5176 Fontana FONT 193 155 20% 2 . 5181 Lake Gregory LKGR 161 123 24% 0 5182 Yucaipa YUCI 174 129 26% 0 **5184 Big Bear BGBE 83 34 59% 0 5190 Victorville VCVL 88 27 69% 0 5191 Twentynine Palms TNPS 15* 0* 100% 0 a) Based on number of days Os 1-hour average >0.08 ppm (federal standard up to 2/79). b) Based on number of days 0. 1-hour average >0.12 ppm (new federal standard). c) Percent decline in violations as a result of change in the standard. d) CO 8-hour average >9 ppm. The 1-hour average standard was not violated. * Less than 12 months of data. ** Station ceased operation after July, '1978. ST Limb T I ONAF::ZY S0UF2CE EM I SS I nM EMISSION FROM NATURAL GAS COMBUSTION AND SPACE HEATING NEmission Factor(l) Usage Rate(2) Emissions Pollutant (lb. /106 ft3) (ft3/day) (tons/day) CO 20 44000 .000 HC 8 as CH4 44000 .000 NOx 80 - 120(3) 44000 .003 Sox Negligible 44000 .000 Particulates 0. 15 44000 .000 (1) Source: `Air Quality Handbook For Environmental Impact Reports' South Coast Air Quality Management District, Oct. 1980. (2) Based on typical natural gas consumption rates given in the SCAQMD Handbook. (3) 80 represents domestic usage and 120 represents commercial heating. , EMISSIONS FROM GENERATION OF ELECTRICITY (BY FUEL OIL COMBUSTION) / Emission Factor (1) Usage Rate(2) Emissions Pollutant (lb/kWh) (kWh/day) (tons/day) CO 0.00020 9000 .001 HC 0.00017 9000 .001 NOx 0.00230 9000 .010 sox 0.00270 9000 .012 Particulates 0.000401 9000 .002 (1) Source: `Air Quality Handbook For Environmental Impact Reports' South Coast Air Quality Management District, Oct. 1980. (2) Based on typical electrical consumption rates given in the SCAQMD Handbook. CAL I NE 25 ASSUMPT I mmS Traffic Data — was taken from the Kunzman Assocates study of March 24, 1982. Daily traffic volumes were converted to peak hour and average hourly volumes for the 8-hour runs by assuming that 10 percent of the daily volume occurs during the peak hour and 60 percent of the daily volume occurs during the peak 8 hours. Average Speeds — of 35 m.p.h. were assumed for the streets. Meteorological Conditions — included 2 m.p.h. winds, stability clases of C, D and E. and wind directions to and from the northeast depending upon the time of day for typical October conditions, when CO concentrations are highest. Highway Widths — were based on the City of Huntington Beach Circulation Plan of Arterial Streets and Highways. The widths included 3 meters per side as specified for the Caline 3 model input. . Emission Factors — were taken from EMFAC 6C as provided in a computer run dated July 29, 1981 made by the Orange County EMA and shown below. CALIFORNIA CORRECTED MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSION FACTORS Pollutant 1982 (gm/mi ) 1995 (gm/mi ) CO 14.90 5.32 THC 2.33 0.80 NOx 2.49 1.40 SOx 0.20 0.20 Parts. 0.37 0.30 Note: Carbon monoxide emission factors of 19.34 and 5.32 (gm/mi ) respectively, were assumed for 1980 and 1995. Background Concentrations — for carbon monoxide were derived from ambient air quality data for 1980 taken as the Orange County summary figures by the CARE. The second highest hourly concentrations were used (ie. 18.4 ppm for the 8-hour average, 25.0 ppm for the 1-hour average, and 16.8 ppm for the 12-hour average) . These levels were proportionally reduced to reflect two trends anticipated by the year 1995. First, the reduction in emission rates between 1980 and 1995 resulting from emission control technology was used to reduce the 1980 ambient concentrations of carbon monoxide. Next, the increase in the number of in-use vehicles was accounted for by proportionally increasing the 6.25 million vehicles in the South Coast Air Basin during 1976 to 12.0 million vehicles by 1995. This growth amounts to a 3.5 percent increase annually per the CARB document , entitled "Procedure and Basis for Estimating On- Road Motor Vehicle Emissions" dated January 1980. The resulting 1995 background or ambient concentrations of carbon monoxide were found to be 13.20 ppm, 9.72 ppm and 8.87 ppm respectively for the i-hour, 8-hour and 12-hour averaging periods. . CALINE3: CALIFORNIA LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL SEPTEMBER, 1979 VERSION JOB: HB PARK FILE: HBPARKI RUN: GOTHARD (NS) a TALBERT (EW) (PK-HR) W/O PROJECT I. SITE VARIABLES U = 2.0 M/S ATIM = 60 MINUTES . BRG = 225 DEGREES ZO = 108 CM CLAS = 5 (E) VS = 0. 0 CM/S MIXH = 1000 M VD = 0.0 CM/S AMB = 0. 0 PPM II. LINK VARIABLES LINK LINK COORDINATES (M) EF H W DESCRIPTION X1 Y1 X2 Y2 TYPE VPH (G/MI ) (M) (M) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- A. NORTH LINK 0 0 0 1000 AG 1300 5.3 O 32 B. EAST LINE:: 0 0 1000 0 AG 1000 5.3 0 38 C. SOUTH LINK 0 -1000 0 0 AG 130o 5.3 0 32 D. WEST LINK -1000 0 0 0 AG 600 5. 3 0 32 III. RECEPTOR LOCATIONS COORDINATES (M) TOTAL + AMB RECEPTOR X Y Z (PPM) -------------------------------------------- 1. RECP. 1 15 15 1.8 .3 2. RECP. 2 30 30 1.8 . 1 3. RECP. 3 46 46 1 . 8 0. 0 4. RECP. 4 61 61 1.8 0.0 5. RECP. 5 91 91 1 .8 0. 0 CALINE3: CALIFORNIA LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL SEPTEMBER, 1979 VERSION JOB: HP PARK FILE: HBPARK2 RUN: GOTHARD (NS) & TALBERT (EW) (8-HR) W/O PROJECT I . SITE VARIABLES U = 2.0 M/S ATIM = 60 MINUTES BRG = 225 DEGREES ZO = 108 CM CLAS = 5 (E) VS = 0.0 CM/S MIXH = 1000 M VD = 0. 0 CM/S AMB = 0. 0 PPM II. LINK. VARIABLES LINK LINK COORDINATES (M) EF H W DESCRIPTION X1 Y1 X2 Y2 TYPE VPH (G/MI ) (M) (M) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- A. NORTH LINK 0 0 0 1000 AG 930 5.3 0 32 B. EAST LINK 0 0 1000 0 AG 710 5.3 0 38 � C. SOUTH LINK 0 -1000 0 0 AG 93() 5. 3 0 32 D. WEST LINK -1000 0 0 0 AG 430 5. 3 0 32 III. RECEPTOR LOCATIONS COORDINATES (M) TOTAL + AMB RECEPTOR X Y Z (PPM) -------------------------------------------- 1. RECP. 1 15 15 1 .8 . 1 2. RECP. 2 30 30 1 .8 0. 0 3. RECP. 3 46 46 1.8 0. 0 4. RECP. 4 61 61 1 .8 0.0 5. RECP. 5 91 91 1.8 0. 0 CALINE3: CALIFORNIA LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL SEPTEMBER, 1979 VERSION JOB: HP PART: FILE: HBPARK2 . RUN: GOTHARD (NS) a TALBERT (EW) (8-HR) W/O PROJECT I. SITE VARIABLES . U = 2.0 M/S ATIM = 60 MINUTES BRG = 225 DEGREES ZO = 108 CM CLAS = 4 (D) VS = 0.0 CM/S MIXH = 1000 M VD = 0.0 CM/S AMB = 0.0 PPM II. LINE:: VARIABLES LINK LINK COORDINATES (M) EF H W DESCRIPTION X1 Y1 X2 Y2 TYPE VPH (G/MI ) (M) (M) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- A. NORTH LINK 0 0 0 1000 AG 930 5. 3 0 32 B. EAST LINK 0 0 1000 0 AG 710 5. 3 0 38 C. SOUTH L I NF::: 0 -100�i 0 0 AG 930 5. 3 0 32 D. WEST LINK -1000 0 0 0 AG 430 5. 3 0 32 III. RECEPTOR LOCATIONS COORDINATES (M) TOTAL + AMB RECEPTOR X Y Z (PPM) ---------------------------- ------- 1 . RECP. 1 15 15 1 .8 . 1 2. RECP. 2 30 30 1 .8 0.0 . 3. RECP. 3 46 46 1 .8 0. 0 4. RECP. 4 61 61 1 .8 0.0 5. RECP. 5 91 91 1 .6 0. 0 L CALINE3: CALIFORNIA LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL SEPTEMBER, 1979 VERSION JOB: HB PARK FILE: HBPARK2 RUN: GOTHARD (NS) & TALBERT (EW) (8-HR) W/O PROJECT I. SITE VARIABLES U = 2.0 M/S ATIM = 60 MINUTES BRG = 225 DEGREES ZO = 108 CM CLAS = 3 (C) VS = 0. 0 CM/S MIXH = 1000 M VD = 0. 0 CM/S AMEN _ 0. 0 PPM II . LINK VARIABLES � LINK LINK COORDINATES (M) EF H W DESCRIPTION X1 Y1 X2 Y2 TYPE VPH (G/MI ) (M) (M) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- A. NORTH LINK C) o 0 100► AG 93o 5. 3 0 32 B. EAST LINK 0 U 1000 0 AG 710 5. 3 0 38 � C. SOUTH LINK 0 -1000 0 ti AG 930 5.3 0 32 D. WEST LINK -1000 G 0 0 AG 430 5. 3 D 32 III. RECEPTOR LOCATIONS COORDINATES (M) TOTAL + AMP RECEPTOR X Y Z (PPM) -------------------------------------------- 1 . RECP. 1 15 15 1 . 8 . 1 2. RECP. 2 30 30 1 .8 0. G 3. RECP. 3 46 46 1 .8 0. 0 4. RECP. 4 61 61 1 .8 0. 0 5. RECP. 5 91 91 1 .8 0.0 r CALINE3: CALIFORNIA LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL SEPTEMBER, 1979 VERSION JOB: HB PARK FILE: HBPARK3 r RUN: GOTHARD (NS) a TALBERT (EW) (PK-HR) WITH PROJECT I . SITE VARIABLES U = 2.0 M/S ATIM = 60 MINUTES BRG = 225 DEGREES ZO = 108 CM CLAS = 5 (E) VS = 0.0 CM/S MIXH = 1000 M VD = 0.0 CM/S AMB = 0. 0 PPM II. LINK VARIABLES LINK LINE`, COORDINATES (M) EF H W DESCRIPTION Xi Yi X2 Y2 TYPE VPH (G/MI ) (M) (M) -----------------------7---------------------------------------------- A. NORTH LINK O O 0 1000 AG 1300 5. 3 O 32 B. EAST LINK. 0 0 1000 0 AG 1100 5. 3 0 38 C. SOUTH LINK 0 -1000 0 0 AG 1300 5. 3 0 32 D. WEST LINK -1i:100 O 0 0 AG 80O 5. 3 0 32 III. RECEPTOR LOCATIONS COORDINATES (M) ' TOTAL + AMB RECEPTOR X Y Z (PPM) -------------------------------------------- 1 . RECP. 1 15 15 1 .8 . 3 2. RECP. 2 30 30 1 .8 . 1 3. RECP. 3 46 46 1 .8 0. 0 4. RECP. 4 61 61 1 .8 0. 0 5. RECP. 5 91 91 1 .8 0. 0 CALINE3: CALIFORNIA LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL 48 SEPTEMBER, 1979 VERSION JOB: HB PARE; FILE: HBPARK4 RUN: GOTHARD (NS) a TALBERT (EW) (8-HR) WITH PROJECT I. SITE VARIABLES U = 2.0 M/S ATIM = 60 MINUTES BRG = 225 DEGREES ZO = 108 CM CLAS = 5 (E) VS = 0.0 CM/S MIXH = 1000 M VD = 0.0 CM/S AMB = 0.0 PPM II. LINK VARIABLES LINT; LINK COORDINATES (M) EF H W DESCRIPTION X1 Yl X2 Y2 TYPE VPH (G/MI ) (M) (M) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- A. NORTH LINK 0 0 0 1000 AG 930 5. 3 0 32 B. EAST LINK 0 0 1000 0 AG 790 5.3 0 38 � C. SOUTH LINK 0 -10(_0 0 0 AG 930 5. 3 0 32 D. WEST LINK -1000 0 0 0 AG 570 5.3 0 32 III . RECEPTOR LOCATIONS COORDINATES (M) TOTAL + AMB RECEPTOR X Y Z (PPM) -------------------------------------------- 1. RECP. 1 15 15 1.8 . 1 2. RECP. 2 30 30 1 .6 0. 0 3. RECP. 3 46 46 1 .8 0.0 4. RECP. 4 61 61 1 .8 0. 0 5. RECP. 5 91 91 1 .8 0. 0 CALINE3: CALIFORNIA LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL SEPTEMBER, 1979 VERSION JOB: HP PARK FILE: HBPARK4 RUN: GOTHARD (NS) @ TALBERT (EW) (8-HR) WITH PROJECT I . SITE VARIABLES U = 2.0 M/S ATIM = 60 MINUTES BRG = 225 DEGREES ZO = 108 CM CLAS = 4 (D) VS = 0.0 CM/S MIXH = 1000 M VD = 0.0 CM/S AMB = 0. 0 PPM II. LINK. VARIABLES LINK LINE; COORDINATES (M) EF H W DESCRIPTION X1 Y1 X2 Y2 TYPE VPH (G/MI ) (M) (M) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- A. NORTH LINK 0 0 0 100i) AS 930 5. 3 0 32 i B. EAST LINK 0 0 1000 0 AS 790 5. 3 0 38 C. SOUTH LINK.: 0 -1000 0 0 AS 930 5.3 0 32 D. WEST LINK -1000 0 0 0 AS 570 5. 3 0 32 III. RECEPTOR LOCATIONS COORDINATES (M) TOTAL + AMB RECEPTOR X Y Z (PPM) -------------------------------------------- 1 . RECP. 1 15 15 1 .8 . 1 2. RECP. 2 30 30 1 .8 0. 0 3. RECP. 3 46 46 1 .6 0.0 4. RECP. 4 61 61 1 .8 0. 0 5. RECP. 5 91 91 1 . 8 0.0 r CALINE3: CALIFORNIA LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL a SEPTEMBER, 1979 VERSION JOB: HB PARK FILE: HBPARK4 RUN: GOTHARD (NS) & TALBERT (EW) (8-HR) WITH PROJECT I. SITE VARIABLES U = 2.0 M/S ATIM = 60 MINUTES BRG = 225 DEGREES ZO = 108 CM CLAS = 3 (C) VS = 0.0 CM/S MIXH = 1000 M VD = 0.0 CM/S AMB = 0.0 PPM II. LINK VARIABLES � LINK: LINK COORDINATES (M) EF H W DESCRIPTION X1 Y1 X2 Y2 TYPE VPH (G/MI ) (M) (M) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- A. NORTH LINK 0 0 0 1000 AG 93o 5. 3 0 32 B. EAST LINT; 0 0 1000 0 AG 790 5. 3 0 38 i C. SOUTH LINK 0 -1000 0 0 AG 930 5.3 0 32 D. WEST LINK -1000 0 0 0 AG 570 5. 3 0 32 III. RECEPTOR LOCATIONS COORDINATES (M) TOTAL + AMB RECEPTOR X Y Z (PPM) -------------------------------------------- 1. RECP. 1 15 15 1.8 . 1 2. RECP. 2 30 30 1.8 0.0 3. RECP. 3 46 46 1 .8 0. 0 4. RECP. 4 61 61 1 .8 0.0 5. RECP. 5 91 91 1 .6 0. 0 CALINE3: CALIFORNIA LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL SEPTEMBER, 1979 VERSION JOB: HB PARK,' FILE: HBPARK5 10 RUN: GOLDENWEST (NS) a SLATER (EW) (PK-HR) W/O PROJECT I. SITE VARIABLES U = 2.0 M/S ATIM = 60 MINUTES BRG = 225 DEGREES ZO = 108 CM CLAS = 5 (E) VS = 0.0 CM/S MIXH = 1000 M VD = 0.0 CM/S AMB = 0.0 PPM I I. LINK VARIABLES LINK: LINK COORDINATES (M) EF H W DESCRIPTION X1 Y1 X2 Y2 TYPE VPH (G/MI ) (M) (M) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- A. NORTH LINK 0 0 0 1000 AG 3500 4.5 0 38 B. EAST LINK 0 0 1000 0 AG 1000 5. 3 0 32 C. SOUTH LINK: 0 -1000 0 0 AG 3200 4.5 0 38 D. WEST LINK:: -1000 0 0 0 AG 1100 5 0 32 III. RECEPTOR LOCATIONS f COORDINATES (M) TOTAL + AMEN RECEPTOR X Y Z (PPM) -------------------------------------------- 1. RECP. 1 15 15 1 .8 .5 2. RECP. 2 30 30 1 .8 .2 3. RECP. 3 46 46 1 .6 .2 4. RECP. 4 61 61 1 .8 .2 5. RECP. 5 91 91 1 .8 . 1 CALINE3: CALIFORNIA LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL SEPTEMBER, 1979 VERSION JOB: HB PARK FILE: HBPARK6 RUN: GOLDENWEST (NS) a SLATER (EW) (8-HR) W/O PROJECT I. SITE VARIABLES U = 2.0 M/S ATIM = 60 MINUTES BRG = 225 DEGREES ZO = 108 CM CLAS = 5 (E) VS = 0. 0 CM/S MIXH = 1000 M VD = 0.0 CM/S AMEN = 0. 0 PPM II . LINK VARIABLES � LINK LINK COORDINATES (M) EF H W DESCRIPTION X1 Y1 X2 Y2 TYPE VPH (G/MI ) (M) (M) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- A. NORTH LINK 0 0 0 1000 AG 2500 4.5 0 38 B. EAST LINK 0 0 1000 0 AG 710 5.3 0 32 C. SOUTH LINK 0 -1000 0 0 AG 2290 4.5 0 38 D. WEST LINK -1000 0 0 0 AG 790 5. 3 0 32 III . RECEPTOR LOCATIONS COORDINATES (M) TOTAL + AMP 1 RECEPTOR X Y Z (PPM) -------------------------------------------- 1. RECP. 1 15 15 1 .8 .2 2. RECP. 2 30 30 1.8 .2 3. RECP. 3 46 46 1 .8 . 1 4. RECP. 4 61 61 1 .8 . 1 5. RECP. 5 91 91 1 .6 0.0 CALINE3: CALIFORNIA LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL SEPTEMBER, 1979 VERSION JOB: HB PARK FILE: HBPARK6 RUN: GOLDENWEST (NS) & SLATER (EW) (8-HR) W/O PROJECT I. SITE VARIABLES U = 2.0 M/S ATIM = 60 MINUTES BRG = 225 DEGREES ZO = 108 CM CLAS = 4 (D) VS = 0.0 CM/S MIXH = 1000 M VD = 0.0 CM/S AMB = 0. 0 PPM I I. LINK VARIABLES LINK LINK COORDINATES (M) EF H W DESCRIPTION xi YI X2 Y2 TYPE VPH (G/MI ) (M) (M) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- A. NORTH LINK 0 0 0 1000 AS 2500 4.5 0 38 B. EAST LINT; 0 0 1000 0 AS 710 5.3 0 32 C. SOUTH LINK 0 -1000 0 0 AS 2290 4.5 0 38 D. WEST LINK -1000 0 O 0 AS 790 5. 3 0 32 III. RECEPTOR LOCATIONS COORDINATES (M) TOTAL + AMB RECEPTOR X Y Z (PPM) -------------------------------------------- 1. RECP. 1 15 15 1 .8 .2 2. RECP. 2 30 30 1 .8 .2 3. RECP. 3 46 46 1 .8 . 1 4. RECP. 4 61 61 1 .8 0.0 5. RECP. 5 91 91 1.8 0. 0 r CALINE3: CALIFORNIA LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL • SEPTEMBER, 1979 VERSION JOB: HB PARK FILE: HBPARK6 RUN: GOLDENWEST (NS) @ SLATER (EW) (8-HR) W/0 PROJECT • I. SITE VARIABLES U = 2.0 M/S ATIM = 60 MINUTES BRG = 225 DEGREES ZO = 106 CM • CLAS = 3 (C) VS = 0.0 CM/S MIXH = 1000 M VD = 0.0 CM/S AMB = 0.0 PPM II. LINK VARIABLES • LINK. LINK. COORDINATES (M) EF H W DESCRIPTION X1 Y1 X2 Y2 TYPE VPH (G/MI ) (M) (M) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- A. NORTH LINK 0 0 0 1000 AG 2500 4.5 0 38 B. EAST LINK: 0 0 1000 0 AG 710 5. 3 0 32 • C. SOUTH LINK: 0 -1000 0 0 AG 2290 4.5 0 38 D. WEST LINK -1000 0 0 0 AG 790 5. 3 0 32 III. RECEPTOR LOCATIONS COORDINATES (M) TOTAL + AMB 7 RECEPTOR X Y Z (PPM) -------------------------------------------- 1 . RECP. 1 15 15 1. 6 .2 2. RECP. 2 30 30 1 .6 .2 3. RECP. 3 46 46 1.8 . 1 4. RECP. 4 61 61 1 .6 0.0 5. RECP. 5 91 91 1 .6 0. 0 CALINE3: CALIFORNIA LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL SEPTEMBER, 1979 VERSION JOB: HB PARK FILE: HBPARK7 . RUN: GOLDENWEST- (NS) @ SLATER (EW) (PK-HR) WITH PROJECT I. SITE VARIABLES U = 2.0 M/S ATIM = 60 MINUTES BRG = 225 DEGREES ZO = 108 CM CLAS = 5 (E) VS = 0.0 CM/S MIXH = 1000 M VD = 0.0 CM/S AMB = 0. 0 PPM II. LINK VARIABLES LINK LINK COORDINATES (M) EF H W DESCRIPTION X1 Y1 X2 Y2 TYPE VPH (G/MI) (M) (M) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- . A. NORTH LINK: 0 0 0 1000 AS 3600 4.5 0 36 B. EAST LINT: 0 0 1000 0 AG 1100 5. 3 0 32 C. SOUTH LINFL: 0 -1000 0 0 AS 3400 4.5 0 38 D. WEST LINK: -1000 0 0 0 AS 1200 5.3 0 32 III. RECEPTOR LOCATIONS COORDINATES (M) TOTAL + AMB RECEPTOR X Y Z I (PPM) -------------------------------------------- 1. RECP. 1 15 15 1.8 .5 2. RECP. 2 30 30 1.8 .2 . 3. RECP. 3 46 46 1 .8 . 2 4. RECP. 4 61 61 1.8 .2 5. RECP. 5 91 91 1.8 . 1 CALINE3: CALIFORNIA LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL SEPTEMBER, 1979 VERSION JOB: HB PARK, FILE: HBPARK8 RUN: GOLDENWEST (NS) a SLATER (EW) (8-HR) WITH PROJECT • I . SITE VARIABLES U = 2.0 M/S ATIM = 60 MINUTES BRG = 225 DEGREES ZO = 108 CM CLAS = 5 (E) VS = 0.0 CM/S MIXH = 1000 M VD = 0.0 CM/S AMB = 0. 0 PPM II. LINK VARIABLES ! LINK LINK COORDINATES (M) EF H W DESCRIPTION Xi Y1 X2 Y2 TYPE VPH (G/MI) (M) (M) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- A. NORTH LINK 0 0 0 1000 AG 2570 4.5 0 38 B. EAST LINK O 0 1000�00 0 AG 790 5.3 0 32 ! C. SOUTH LINK is -1000 0 0 AG 2430 4. 5 0 38 D. WEST LINK -1000 0 O 0 AG 860 5.3 0 32 III. RECEPTOR LOCATIONS COORDINATES (M) TOTAL + AMB RECEPTOR X Y Z (PPM) -------------------------------------------- 1 . RECP. 1 15 15 1 .8 . 2 2. RECP. 2 30 30 1 .8 .2 3. RECP. 3 46 46 1 .8 . 2 4. RECP. 4 61 61 1.8 . 1 5. RECP. 5 91 91 1 .8 0. 0 ! ! CALINE3: CALIFORNIA LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL SEPTEMBER, 1979 VERSION JOB: HB PARK FILE: HBPARK8 RUN: GOLDENWEST (NS) @ SLATER (EW) (8-HR) WITH PROJECT r I . SITE VARIABLES U = 2.0 M/S ATIM = 60 MINUTES BRG = 225 DEGREES ZO = 108 CM CLAS = 4 (D) VS = 0. 0 CM/S MIXH = 1000 M VD = 0.0 CM/S AMB = 0. 0 PPM II. LINK VARIABLES LINK LINK COORDINATES (M) EF H W DESCRIPTION X1 Y1 X2 Y2 TYPE VPH (G/MI ) (M) (M) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- A. NORTH LINK 0 C► 0 1000►00 AS 2570 4.5 0 38 B. EAST LINK 0 0 1000 0 AS 790 5. 3 0 32 C. SOUTH LINK 0 -1000 0 0 AS 2430 4.5 0 38 D. WEST LINK -1000 0 0 0 AS 860 5. 3 0 32 III. RECEPTOR LOCATIONS COORDINATES (M) TOTAL + AMB RECEPTOR X Y Z (PPM) -------------------------------------------- 1. RECP. 1 15 15 1 .8 .2 2. RECP. 2 30 30 1 .8 . 2 3. RECP. 3 46 46 1 .8 . 1 4. RECP. 4 61 61 1.8 0.0 5. RECP. 5 91 91 1 .6 0. 0 A CALINE3: CALIFORNIA LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL SEPTEMBER, 1979 VERSION JOB: HB PARK FILE: HBPARK,'8 RUN: GOLDENWEST (NS) @ SLATER (EW) (8-HR) WITH PROJECT I. SITE VARIABLES U = 2.0 M/S ATIM = 60 MINUTES BRG = 225 DEGREES ZO = 108 CM CLAS = 3 (C) VS = 0.0 CM/S MIXH = 1000 M VD = 0.0 CM/S AMB = 0. 0 PPM II. LINK VARIABLES � LINK LINK COORDINATES (M) EF H W DESCRIPTION X1 Y1 X2 Y2 TYPE VPH (G/MI ) (M) (M) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- A. NORTH LINK. 0 0 O 1000 AG 2570 4.5 0 38 B. EAST LINK 0 0 1000 0 AG 790 5. 3 0 32 � C. SOUTH LINK O -1000 0 O AG 2430 4.5 0 38 D. WEST LINK 1000 0 0 0 AG 860 5.3 0 32 III . RECEPTOR LOCATIONS COORDINATES (M) TOTAL + AMB RECEPTOR X Y Z (PPM) -------------------------------------------- 1 . RECP. 1 15 ' 15 1 .8 . 2 2. RECP. 2 30 30 1.8 .2 3. RECP. 3 46 46 1 .8 . 1 4. RECP. 4 61 61 1 .8 0.0 5. RECP. 5 91 91 1 .8 0. 0 CALINE3: CALIFORNIA LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL SEPTEMBER, 1979 VERSION JOB: HB PARK FILE: HBPARK9 RUN: GOLDENWEST (NS) a TALBERT (EW) (PK-HR) W/O PROJECT I. SITE VARIABLES U = 2.0 M/S ATIM = 60 MINUTES BRG = 225 DEGREES ZO = 108 CM CLAS = 5 (E) VS = 0.0 CM/S MIXH = 1000 M VD = 0.0 CM/S AMP = 0.0 PPM II. LINK VARIABLES LINK LINK COORDINATES (M) EF H W DESCRIPTION X1 Y1 X2 Y2 TYPE VPH (G/MI ) (M) (M) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- A. NORTH LINE: O O 0 1000 AG 3200 4.5 0 38 B. EAST LINK 0 0 1000 0 AG 2900 5. 3 0 32 C. SOUTH LINE 0 -1000 0 0 AG 600 4.5 0 38 III. RECEPTOR LOCATIONS COORDINATES (M) TOTAL + AMB RECEPTOR X Y Z (PPM) -------------------------------------------- 1. RECP. 1 15 15 1.8 .4 2. RECP. 2 30 30 1.8 .2 3. RECP. 3 46 46 1 .8 .2 4. RECP. 4 61 61 1.8 .2 5. RECP. 5 91 91 1.8 . 2 CALINE3: CALIFORNIA LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL SEPTEMBER, 1979 VERSION JOB: HB PARK FILE: HBPARK10 RUN: GOLDENWEST (NS) a TALBERT (EW) (8-HR) W/O PROJECT I. SITE VARIABLES U = 2.0 M/S ATIM = 60 MINUTES BRG = 225 DEGREES ZO = 108 CM CLAS = 5 (E) VS = 0.0 CM/S MIXH = 1000 M VD = 0.0 CM/S AMB = 0. 0 PPM II. LINK VARIABLES � LINK LINK COORDINATES (M) EF H W DESCRIPTION X1 Y1 X2 Y2 TYPE VPH (G/MI) (M) (M) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- A. NORTH LINK O 0 0 1000 AG 2290 4.5 0 38 B. EAST LINK 0 0 1000 0 AG 2070 5.3 0 32 C. SOUTH LINK 0 -1000 O 0 AG 430 4.5 0 38 III . RECEPTOR LOCATIONS COORDINATES (M) TOTAL + AMP RECEPTOR X Y Z (PPM) -------------------------------------------- 1. RECP. 1 15 15 1 . 8 .2 2. RECP. 2 30 30 1.8 . 2 3. RECP. 3 46 46 1 .8 . 2 4. RECP. 4 61 61 1 .8 0.0 5. RECP. 5 91 91 1.8 0. 0 CALINE3: CALIFORNIA LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL SEPTEMBER, 1979 VERSION JOB: HB PARK FILE: HBPARKIO RUN: GOLDENWEST (NS) @ TALBERT (EW) (8-HR) W/O PROJECT 10 I. SITE VARIABLES U. = 2.0 M/S ATIM = 60 MINUTES r BRG = 225 DEGREES ZO = 108 CM CLAS = 4 (D) VS = 0.0 CM/S MIXH = 1000 M VD = 0.0 CM/S AMB = 0. 0 PPM lb II. LINK VARIABLES LINK LINK COORDINATES (M) EF H W DESCRIPTION X1 Y1 X2 Y2 TYPE VPH (G/MI ) (M) (M) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- A. NORTH LINK 0 0 0 1000 AG 2290 4.5 0 38 B. EAST LINE; 0 0 1000 0 AS 2070 5. 3 0 32 C. SOUTH LINE; 0 -1000 0 0 AS 430 4.5 0 38 III. RECEPTOR LOCATIONS COORDINATES (M) TOTAL + AMB RECEPTOR X Y Z (PPM) -------------------------------------------- 1 . RECP. 1 15 15 1 .8 .2 2. RECP. 2 30 30 1 .6 .2 3. RECP. 3 46 46 1 .8 . 2 4. RECP. 4 61 61 1 .8 0.0 5. RECP. 5 91 91 1 .8 0. 0 CALINE3: CALIFORNIA LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL SEPTEMBER, 1979 VERSION JOB: HP PARK FILE: HBPARKIO RUN: GOLDENWEST (NS) @ TALBERT (EW) (8-HR) W/O PROJECT I. SITE VARIABLES U = 2.0 M/S ATIM = 60 MINUTES BRG = 225 DEGREES ZO = 108 CM CLAS = 3 (C) VS = 0. 0 CM/S MIXH = 1000 M VD = 0.0 CM/S AMB = 0.0 PPM II . LINK VARIABLES � LINK LINK COORDINATES (M) EF H W DESCRIPTION X1 Y1 X2 Y2 TYPE VPH (G/MI ) (M) (M) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- A. NORTH LINK 0 0 0 1000 AG 2290 4.5 0 38 B. EAST LINK 0 0 1000 0 AG 2070 5. 3 0 32 � C. SOUTH LINK 0 -1000 0 0 AG 430 4.5 0 38 III . RECEPTOR LOCATIONS COORDINATES (M) TOTAL + AMB RECEPTOR X Y Z (PPM) -------------------------------------------- 1. RECP. 1 15 15 1 .8 .2 2. RECP. 2 30 30 1 . 6 .2 3. RECP. 3 46 46 1 .8 . 1 4. RECP. 4 61 61 1 .8 0. 0 5. RECP. 5 91 91 1 .8 0. 0 CALINE3: CALIFORNIA LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL SEPTEMBER, 1979 VERSION JOB: HB PARK FILE: HBPARK11 RUN: GOLDENWEST (NS) TALBERT (EW) (PK-HR) WITH PROJECT I. SITE VARIABLES U = 2.0 M/S ATIM = 60 MINUTES BRG = 225 DEGREES ZO = 108 CM CLAS = 5 (E) VS = 0.0 CM/S MIXH = 1000 M VD = 0.0 CM/S AMB = 0.0 PPM r II . LINK VARIABLES LINK LINK COORDINATES (M) EF H W DESCRIPTION X1 Y1 X2 Y2 TYPE VPH (G/MI ) (M) (M) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- A. NORTH LINK 0 0 0 1000 AG 3400 4.5 0 38 B. EAST LINK 0 0 1000 0 AG 3000 5. 3 0 32 C. SOUTH LINK 0 -1000 0 0 AG 800 4.5 0 38 III. RECEPTOR LOCATIONS COORDINATES (M) TOTAL + AMB RECEPTOR X Y Z (PPM) -------------------------------------------- 1. RECP. 1 15 15 1 .8 .4 2. RECP. 2 30 30 1 .8 .2 3. RECP. 3 46 46 1 .8 . 2 4. RECP. 4 61 61 1 .8 .2 5. RECP. 5 91 91 1 .8 . 2 CALINE3: CALIFORNIA LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL SEPTEMBER, 1979 VERSION JOB: HB PARK FILE: HBPARK12 RUN: GOLDENWEST (NS) a TALBERT (EW) (8-HR) WITH PROJECT I. SITE VARIABLES U = 2.0 M/S ATIM = 60 MINUTES BRG = 225 DEGREES ZO = 108 CM CLAS = 5 (E) VS = 0.0 CM/S MIXH = 1000 M VD = 0.0 CM/S AMEN = 0. 0 PPM I I. LINK VARIABLES � LINK: LINK COORDINATES (M) EF H W DESCRIPTION Xi Y1 X2 Y2 TYPE VPH (G/MI) (M) (M) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- A. NORTH LINK 0 0 0 1000 AG 2430 4.5 0 38 B. EAST LINK; 0 0 1000 0 AG 2140 5. 3 0 32 � C. SOUTH LINK 0 -1000 0 0 AG 570 4.5 0 38 III. RECEPTOR LOCATIONS COORDINATES (M) TOTAL + AMP RECEPTOR X Y Z (PPM) -------------------------------------------- 1. RECP. 1 15 15 1 .6 .2 2. RECP. 2 30 30 1.8 .2 3. RECP. 3 46 46 1.8 . 2 4. RECP. 4 61 61 1.8 . 1 5. RECP. 5 91 91 1.8 0. 0 CALINE3: CALIFORNIA LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL SEPTEMBER, 1979 VERSION JOB: HB PARK FILE: HBPARK12 RUN: GOLDENWEST (NS) Q TALBERT (EW) (8-HR) WITH PROJECT I. SITE VARIABLES U = 2.0 M/S ATIM = 60 MINUTES BRG = 225 DEGREES ZO = 108 CM CLAS = 4 (D) VS = 0.0 CM/S MIXH = 1000 M VD = 0.0 CM/S AMB = 0.0 PPM II . LINK VARIABLES LINK LINK COORDINATES (M) EF H W DESCRIPTION X1 Y1 X2 Y2 TYPE VPH (G/MI) (M) (M) ------------------------------1 NORTH LINK: 0 0 0 1000 AS 2430 4.5 0 38 B. EAST LINK 0 0 1000 0 AS 2140 5.3 0 32 C. SOUTH LINK 0 -1000 O 0 AS 570 4.5 0 38 III. RECEPTOR LOCATIONS COORDINATES (M) TOTAL + AMB RECEPTOR X Y Z (PPM) -------------------------------------------- 1. RECP. 1 15 15 1.8 .2 2. RECP. 2 30 30 1.8 .2 3. RECP. 3 46 46 1 .6 .2 4. RECP. 4 61 61 1 .6 0.0 5. RECP. 5 91 91 1 .6 0.0 CALINE3: CALIFORNIA LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL SEPTEMBER, 1979 VERSION JOB: HB PARK FILE: HBPARK12 RUN: GOLDENWEST (NS) Z TALBERT (EW) (8-HR) WITH PROJECT I. SITE VARIABLES U = 2.0 M/S ATIM = 60 MINUTES BRG = 225 DEGREES ZO = 108 CM CLAS = 3 (C) VS = 0.0 CH/S MIXH = 1000 M VD = 0.0 CM/S AMB = 0.0 RPM II . LINK VARIABLES � LINK LINK COORDINATES (M) EF H W DESCRIPTION Xi Y1 X2 Y2 TYPE VPH (G/MI) (M) (M) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- A. NORTH LINK 0 0 0 1000 AG 2430 4.5 0 38 B. EAST LINE; 0 0 1000 0 AG 2140 5.3 0 32 C. SOUTH LINK 0 -1000 0 0 AG 570 4.5 0 38 III. RECEPTOR LOCATIONS COORDINATES (M) TOTAL + AMB RECEPTOR X Y Z (PPM) -------------------------------------------- 1. RECP. 1 15 15 1 .8 . 2 2. RECP. 2 30 30 1 .8 .2 3. RECP. 3 46 46 1 .8 . 2 4. RECP. 4 61 61 1 .8 0. 0 5. RECP. 5 91 91 1 .6 0. 0 APPENDIX E NOISE ANALYSIS J. J. VAN HOUTEN & ASSOCIATES, Inc. 2784 W. LINCOLN AVENUE, SUITE D,ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA 92801 (714) 635-9520 JOHN J. VAN HOUTEN, PE Consulting Engineer in Acoustics April 5 , 1982 Project File No. 1108-82 ENVISTA, INC. 1745 Orangewood Avenue Suite 210 Orange, California 92668 . Attention: Mr. Gary Werner Subject: Noise Assessment, Huntington Central Park Expansion Project, City of Huntington Beach References : 1 . "City of Huntington Beach Central Park Traffic . Study , " prepared by Kunzman Associates. 2 . Site plans prepared by Cardoza Dilallo Associates, no date. 3 . "Noise Impact Considerations for the Proposed Little League Field at Center School , " prepared by Long/Davy/Associates , September 13 , 1977 . Gentlemen : Measurements have been obtained and an analysis has been performed to determine the existing and projected noise levels within the study area of the proposed Huntington Central Park expansion project. In addition to traffic, the impact of other sources of noise more directly associated with the project itself have been assessed and mitigation methods have been identified where considered necessary . The following provides the results of the assessment: NOISE EVALUATION CRITERIA AND STANDARDS The Noise Element of the General Plan for the City of Huntington Beach indicates that the community noise equivalent level ( CNEL) shall not exceed 60 dB within the exterior living spaces of residential locations and shall not exceed 45 dB within the interior living spaces. ( Refer to Appendix I for an explanation of the A-weighted measure of noise level and the CNEL measure of noise exposure. ) An exterior CNEL of 70 dB is also specified for recreational areas such as the park, and 80 dB is specified for . general commercial uses . ENVISTA, INC. Project File No. 1108-82 April 5 , 1982 Page Two In addition to the above , the noise ordinance for the city of Huntington Beach specifies noise levels which shall not be exceeded by activities within the park when experienced at nearby land uses: Exterior Noise Standards Land Use Noise Level Time Period Residential 55 dB( A) 7 am - 10 pm 50 dB( A) 10 pm - 7 am Public Institution 55 dB(A) Anytime Commercial Property 60 dB( A) Anytime In the event the offensive noise consists entirely of impact noise , simple tone, noise , speech , music , or - any combination of these sources , each of the above noise levels is reduced by 5 dB( A) . These standards are further altered to account for and permit higher noise levels for various durations each hour . The maximum noise level which may be generated at a residential location is 75 dB( A) during the daytime and 70 dB( A) during the nighttime . EXISTING AND PROJECTED NOISE LEVELS Three sources of noise have been examined for this study : ( 1 ) traffic on the arterials within the study area , (2) activity at the proposed ball park complex , and ( 3) activity at the proposed gun range expansion . Each of these has been examined in detail below: Traffic on the Arterial System Noise measurements were obtained at five positions in the study area . These positions are identified in Figure 1 . The data obtained , is provided in Appendix II and is summarized in the table below: J. J. VAN HOUTEN & ASSOCIATES, Inc. ENVISTA, INC. Project File No. 1108-82 April 5 , 1982 Page Three Sound Levels Position L50 L10 Lea Corner of Rio Vista & Golden West 64 dB( A) 71 dB( A) 66 dB( A) East End of Jardines Dr. 43 47 45 East End of Central Park Dr. 49 56 54 Additional Parking Lot of the Library 57 60 59 Corner of Ellis & Golden West 59 66 63 The sound levels indicated above ( L501 L10 , and Leq) provide the noise level exceeded during 50% and 10% of the measurement period and the energy equivalent sound level ( Leq) for the measurement period . In addition to the noise measurements , an analysis has been performed using the data of the referenced traffic study to determine the CNEL generated on the arterials within the study area. The results of this analysis , including the distance from the arterials to the CNEL contour lines (60, 65 , and 70 dB) are provided in Appendix III. Ball Park Activity The noise generated by spectators at a ball game has been measured ( reference 3) . This data indicates that the peak noise level generated by about 450 people when measured at 400 feet is 88 dB( A) . It is noted that this maximum level will only occur when the spectators are cheering or yelling in unison. On March 31 , 1982 a measurement was obtained at Covina High School with thirty students yelling in unison. The results essentially agree with the data provided in reference 3 . In addition to the spectators , another source of noise will be the loudspeaker systems used at each ball park . It is estimated that in order to be effective , the systems will need to generate a sound level of at least 75 dB( A) at the spectators ' locations. J. J. VAN HOUTEN & ASSOCIATES, Inc. s•: ENVISTA, INC. Project File No. 1108-82 April 5 , 1982 Page Four In order to estimate the maximum amount of noise that will be generated at the nearest noise-sensitive location to a ball park, it is assumed that the spectator noise of only one game is experienced at each noise-sensitive location in proximity to the proposed ball park complex . Hence , the calculations have been performed for the nearest ball park to each location being considered. Using this case, it is determined that the peak spectator noise level at the nearest residence and at the library will be about 74 to 75 dB( A) . At the proposed YMCA, the peak noise level will be about 77 to 80 dB( A) ; and , at the planning mode alternative site, the peak noise level will be less than 65 dB( A) . These values take into account the orientation of the bleachers with respect to the noise sensitive locations. That is , up to 20 dB( A) of noise reduction is assumed for bleachers which are facing away from these areas ( refer to Figure 2 for orientations) . If a loudspeaker system is used at the facility nearest to the noise-sensitive location being studied , it is estimated that the sound level at the nearest homes and at the library will be about 54 dB( A) . At the YMCA , it is estimated that the sound level will be about 69 dB( A) and about 59 dB( A) at the nearest position on the 41 alternative planning mode site to the ball fields. Gun Range Noise Measurements of activity at the existing gun range were obtained at a position in the southerly parking lot of the library ( about 600 feet north of the range) . At this distance , individual weapon firing generates a peak noise level of 54 to 58 dB( A) . Using this data , the peak noise level generated at the nearby noise sensitive areas by activity at the gun range can be calculated . Thus, it is estimated that the peak noise level at the library will be about 49 to 53 dB( A) and about 62 to 66 dB( A) at the nearest position on the planning mode alternative site to the gun range . ASSESSMENT OF IMPACT The impact of noise in relation to the city of Huntington Beach noise ordinance and Noise Element has been assessed for each of the three sources of noise within the study area: ( 1 ) traffic on the arterials, ( 2) activity at the six proposed ball park facilities , J. J. VAN HOUTEN & ASSOCIATES, Inc. r ENVISTA, INC. Project File No. 1108-82 April 5 , 1982 Page Five and ( 3) activity at the expanded gun range . These are discussed separately below. The impact for each of these sources is assessed according to the criteria listed in Table 1 . r Arterial Traffic The following is noted from the noise measurements and an analysis of the traffic data developed by Kunzman Associates ( reference 1 ) : r 1 • A significant impact currently exists at residential locations directly adjacent to Warner , Slater, Golden West, Beach , and a portion of Edwards. 2 . A significant impact is projected for residential locations directly adjacent to all arterials within the study area except r for some reaches of Talbert , Ellis , and Edwards. This will occur with or without the project . In addition, a significant impact is projected for the portions of the park that are adjacent to Golden West. Again , this will occur with or without the project. r 3 . The exterior CNEL at the location of the planning mode alternative is currently greater than 65 dB. It is expected to be greater than 70 dB by 1995 with or without the project . Therefore, a significant impact exists and will need to be mitigated if residential construction is planned for this area . Ball Park Activity Since the ball park facilities are to be lighted , the assessment of noise impact should be evaluated relative to the Huntington Beach noise ordinance nighttime standards. That is , the maximum noise level which should be generated by ball park activity when measured r at an adjacent residence is 70 dB( A) . In addition, the maximum noise level when measured at a public institution ( such as the library or YMCA ) should not exceed 75 dB( A) . If the ball park noise is clearly discernible as speech , then a 5 dB( A) correction would be applied to these values . However , for the distances involved and number of people generating the noise , the five decibel reduction r in standard is not considered appropriate. The analysis performed earlier indicates a peak spectator noise level of 74 to 75 dB( A) at the nearest residence and at the library, 77 to 80 dB( A) at the proposed YMCA, and less than 65 dB( A) at the northern portions of the planning mode alternative r site. Thus, for nighttime activity a significant impact will exist J. J. VAN HOUTEN & ASSOCIATES, Inc. r ENVISTA, INC. Project File No. 1108-82 April 5 , 1982 Page Six at all of these locations as a result of spectator noise at the proposed ball park facilities. It is noted , however , that an insignificant impact will exist at the northern portions of the planning mode alternative even if it is developed as residential . . The peak noise level generated by the loudspeaker systems at the proposed ball park facilities is not expected to create a significant impact at any of the noise sensitive locations near the ball park. However, the loudspeaker systems will be clearly discernible above the ambient noise level and , therefore , represent . a potential source of annoyance . Traffic noise on Golden West may provide a masking effect for the ball park noise when experienced at the library or the site of the alternative planning mode . However, this effect will be lessened at night as traffic volumes decrease. . Gun Range Activity Based upon the Huntington Beach noise ordinance standards and the estimated peak noise levels generated by activity at the gun range , it is determined that an insignificant impact will exist at noise sensitive locations in proximity to. the gun range . However, a significant impact may exist at some residential locations in the northern portion of the planning mode alternative site if activity at the gun range occurs during the nighttime and early morning hours ( 10 : 00 p.m. to 7 : 00 a.m. ) In any event, the weapon firing may be annoying to residents living in proximity to the gun range since the sound will be discernible above the ambient noise level . CONSTRUCTION NOISE Annoyance due to construction noise during the development of the park will be minimal . Equipment associated with grading and excavation produces potential annoyance . However , the duration of this activity is only for a few weeks . Construction noise may cause considerable annoyance if it occurs after 7 : 00 p.m. on weekdays and during the day on Sundays. Figure 3 identifies the level of construction activity noise , some of which will be generated by truck movements to and from the site and within the park itself . MITIGATION OF EXCESSIVE NOISE In order to provide a project which complies with the city of Huntington Beach noise ordinance and Noise Element , the following mitigation measures should be considered : J. J. VAN HOUTEN & ASSOCIATES, Inc. ENVISTA, INC. Project File No. 1108-82 April 5 , 1982 Page Seven 1 . Activity at the ball park facilities should be limited. to the hours of 7 : 00 a .m. to 10 : 00 p.m. 2 • Crowd sizes at the two ball park facilities nearest to the proposed YMCA should be limited to no more than 25 to 40 people. 3 . Bleachers and loudspeakers at the ball park facilities should be oriented away from nearby noise sensitive areas whenever possible ( refer to Figure 2) . 4 - Louds eakers4 should be placed at the center of a large baffle t 5 . The loudspeakers should be placed near the bleachers and should be controlled so that the peak sound level (when measured at the spectator locations) is no greater than 75 dB( A) . 6 . An alternative to items 1 through 5 , above , would be the construction of a continuous berm/wall combination around the ball park area. A combined height of about 7 feet would be needed on the north, west, and east sides and a height of about 11 feet would be needed on the south side . The barriers could be constructed entirely by use of an earth fill or any combination of earth fill and block wall as needed to achieve the heights of 7 or 11 feet. 7 . Activity at the gun range should be limited to the hours of 7 : 00 a .m. to 10 : 00 p.m . 8 . The type of weapons that will be used at the expanded gun range should be limited to the largest caliber currently being fired . 9 . If a residential community is developed at the planning mode alternative site, a noise barrier with a minimum height of 6 to 7 feet will be needed adjacent to Golden West and Ellis in order to reduce traffic noise to acceptable levels . CONCLUSION r Measurements have been obtained and an analysis has been performed to determine the existing and projected noise levels within the study area for the proposed expansion of the Huntington Beach Central Park. It is found that a significant impact due to traffic J. J. VAN HOUTEN & ASSOCIATES, Inc. ENVISTA, INC. Project File No. 1108-82 April .5 , 1982 Page Eight noise currently exists in many portions of the study area . This impact will increase in the future as traffic volumes in the area increase , with or without the project . The primary source of noise associated with the proposed expansion of the park will be activity at the ball park facilities. A significant impact due to spectator noise is projected for all noise sensitive locations in proximity to the ball park facilities. Methods of reducing the impact of spectator noise have been provided . It should be noted , however, that the ball park noise ( spectators and loudspeakers) will be discernible at all noise sensitive areas in proximity to the proposed facilities , especially during the evening hours . This maybe annoying to ' people residing near the sports facilities. If you have any questions regarding this report or the recommendations contained herein , please contact the undersigned at (714 ) 635-9520 . Very truly yours , J . J . VAN HOUTEN & ASSOCIATES, INC . John J . Van Houten, P. E. David L . Wieland Consulting Engineer in Acoustics Associate Engineer JJVH: DLW: dlw Attachments J. J. VAN HOUTEN & ASSOCIATES, Inc. TABLE 1 NOISE IMPACT ASSESSMENT CRITERIA LOCATION CNEL RANGE PEAK LEVEL RANGE IMPACT Residential Less than 60 dB Less than 70 dB(A) (nighttime) Insignificant 60 and over 70 and over (nighttime) Significant Public Less than 60 dB Less than 75 dB(A) Insignificant Institution 60 and over 75 and over Signficant Park Less than 70 dB ----- Insignificant 70 and over ----- Signficant Commercial Less than 80 dB Less than 8OdB(A) Insignificant 80 and over 80 and over Significant OPIUMnomingi Hill IO oilr CF- "�•� Illf�nnn�l � =iii ���"� �11lIIIIIIYP' - man@ Hunti 2 _ l, - .CF— . i aaami liana{i main i _iw�uuasauljlow .11,UIII,:I, JaI,J as i�um Hill © . � nannnu -72 �r - � .' _ •'` ,\� RUGBY �..SO ALL _ I I I_SOCCER C I FOOTBALL OOTBALL OCCE 1 I' SOFTBALL:: 15; SOFTBALL`` SOFTBALL I FOOTBALL \ ------- --FOOTBALL SOCCER SOCCER Figure 2. Recommended Locations of Bleachers and Loudspeakers fn Order to Minimize the Impact of Noise at Nearby Noise Sensitive Locations No APPENDIX I NOISE EVALUATION CRITERIA AND STANDARDS A description of the character of a particular noise requires the following : 1. amplitude and amplitude variation of the acoustics wave, 2 . frequency (pitch) content of the wave motion, and 41 3. duration of the noise. The scale of measurement which is most useful in community noise measurement is the A-weighted sound pressure level , commonly called the A-level or dB(A) . It is measured in decibels to provide a scale with the range and characteristics most consistent with that of people ' s hearing ability. A-Weighted Sound Level To establish the A-weighted sound level, the acoustics signal is detected by the microphone and then filtered (heavily weighting those portions of the noise which are most annoying to individuals) . This weighting of sound energy corresponds approximately to the relative annoyance to human senses of noise experienced at various frequencies . The A-weighted sound pressure levels of a few typical sources of noise experienced by people within the general vicinity of the subject project are indicated in Figure I-1. The A-weighted sound level of traffic noise and other long-term noise producing activities within and around the community varies considerably with time. Measurements of this varying level are accomplished by recording the values of the noise for a specified period of time . An analysis of these recordings yields the A-level values for noise which are useful in assessing the potential annoyance of the disturbance. For purposes of this study, the following values have been used: L90 - The near minimum A-level . 90% of the time, the A-level is greater than this value. Lso - The central tendency of A-level . This value is exceeded 50% of the time during the measurement period. Lio - The near maximum A-level . This value is a measure of the long- term annoyance of the noise . 10% of the time , the A-level is greater than this value. Leq - The energy equivalent level is representative of the long-term annoyance potential of the noise . Readings of these measures are recorded to provide representative samples of the noise during the time period being examined (i.e . , peak traffic period, morning , afternoon, night, etc. ) . Appendix I, Continued Page Two Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) It is recognized that a given level of noise may be more or less tolerable depending on the duration of exposure experienced by an individual. There are numerous measures of noise exposure which consider not only the A-level variation of noise but also the duration of the disturbance. The State Department of Aeronautics and the California Commission on Housing and Community Development have adopted the community noise equivalent level (CNEL) . This measure considers the weighted average noise levels for the evening hours (7 : 00 p.m. to 10 : 00 p .m. ) and increases the levels by 5 dB, and increases the late evening and morning hours ' noise levels (10 :00 p.m. to 7 : 00 a.m. ) by 10 dB. The daytime noise levels are combined with these weighted levels and are averaged to obtain a CNEL value. Figure I-2 indicates the outdoor CNEL at typical locations . Acceptable Exterior Noise Exposures - CNEL Figure I-3 indicates the CNEL considered acceptable for various _ land use categories . In general , exterior noise exposures at resi- dential locations should not exceed a CNEL of 65 dB. i The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency has promulgated a recommended policy for exterior noise exposures which,. in effect, suggest that a CNEL which is no greater than 55 dB should be permitted within exterior living spaces . However, they emphasize that this level of exposure may not be economically feasible or, in many cases , may not be a practical level to achieve. Acceptable Interior Noise Exposures - CNEL California ' s Noise Insulation Standards were officially adopted by the California Commission on Housing and Community Development in 1974. The regulations became effective on August 22 , 1974. The ruling states that "interior community noise equivalent level (CNEL) attributable to exterior sources shall not exceed an annual CNEL of 45 dB in any habitable room" . Additionally, the Commission specified that residential buildings or structures to be located within exterior community noise equivalent level contours of 60 dB or greater of an existing or adopted freeway, expressway, parkway , major street, thoroughfare , railroad, rapid transit line , or industrial noise source shall require an acoustical analysis showing that the building has been designed to limit intruding noise to the level prescribed (interior CNEL of 45 dB) . A-We NOISE SOURCE �dB�j�"�Level NOISE SOURCE —1 0— THRESHOLD OF PAIN SMALL AIRCRAFT OVERHEAD —t2 — RIVETING MACHINE 30 TO 40 FEET TRAIN PASSING 50 FEET — — AUTOMOBILE HORN 59 FEET AWAY NOISY STENOGRAPHIC ROOM —17 — AVERAGE CONVERSATION, 3 FEET NOISY OFFICE NOISY RESIDENCE, INTERIOR QUIET OFFICE — — VOICE - VERY SOFT WHISPER, 3 FEET — — OUTDOOR IN RURAL AREA THRESHOLD OF AUDIBILITY Fig.ure I-1. Representative Noise Sources and Sound Levels i'.•r I. 1 CNEL OR QUALITATIVE Ldn DESCRIPTION dB OUTDOOR LOCATION —90- 3/4 MILE FROM TOUCH DOI-IN AT MAJOR AIRPORT rCITY NOISE —go— DOWNTOWIN IIITH SOME CON- I (DOWNTOI•IN MAJOR— STRUCTION ACTIVITY METROPOLIS) i i VERY NOISY 70 — �� RESIDENTIAL LOCATION HOUSING ON MAJOR AVENUE < IPOISY URBAN � 8 MILES FROM TOUCH DOI-IN AT MAJOR AIRPORT � f���� 3-5 RILES FROM TAKEOFF AT � U�BAN —60� SMALL AIRPORT ____> RESIDENTIAL AREA t1EAR <`BURBAII SECONDARY STREET .<' E T SUBURBAN —50�. RESIDENTIAL SUBURBAN AREA SU FIELD ON FARM IN RURAL AREA AWAY FR91 HIGHI'AYS —40— SOURCE: In Dart taken from, "Information on Levels of Environmental Noise. . . " , U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 550/9-74-004, March 1974. r Figure I-2 Outdoor Noise Exposures at Various Locations LAND USE CATEGORY CNEL cm Ldn . dB INTERPRETATION 55 60 65 70 75 80 NORMALLY ACCEPTABLE Residential Multi- Speci6ied Land uze iz sati66acto&y, Family based upon Vie ".6umption that any buitding.6 involved aAe o6 nokmat Residential - low den- . 777 conventionat con,6tAuction, without sity single family, mum any .6peciat noise in,6ueation 4e- duplex, mobile homes quiAement6. Transient lodging VZz,,/,. CONDITIONALLY ACCEPTABLE motels, hotels New con.6tAuction on devetopment 16houtd be undettaken only a6teA a Schools, libraries, detaited anaty.6i,6 o6 the noize churches, hospitals, teduction teqwiAement6 iz made and nursing homes needed noi.6e inzutation 6eataAa inctuded in the design. Conven- Auditoriums, concern tionat conztAuction, but withhalls, amphitheatres Nw7 ctosed viindow.6 and 6)Lesh aiA 6uppty I zystem.6 on aiA conditioning wiU Sports arena, outdoor VW� noAmaRy su66ice. spectator sports NORMALLY UNACCEPTABLE Playground, New con,6tAuction on devetopment neighborhood parks zhoutd geneAatty be di,6coutaged- 16 new conztAuction on devetopment doe.6 puceed, a detaited anatysiz Golf courses, riding o6 the noise teduction uquixpAent6 stables, water recrea- must be made and needed noize in- tion, cemeteries 4utation jeatutez inc.Wed in the dezign. Office buildings, busi ness commercial and professional CLEARLY UNACCEPTABLE Industrial , manufac- New conz;tAuction on development turing, utilities, 4houtd geneAatty not be undeAtaken. agriculture SOURCE: In part taken from "Aircraft Noise Impact Planning Guidelines for Local Agencies" , U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development, TE/NA-472, November 1972. Figure 1-3 - Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments APPENDIX II Noise Measurement Equipment and Listing of the Noise Measurements Noise measurements were obtained by use of precision sound level meters (noise monitors , per American National Standard ANSI SI.4-1971) . It is hereby certified that the information contained in the data listing is the result of completely and carefully conducted measurements and is , to the best of the undersigned' s knowledge , true and correct in all respects . Gti Jo J. an Houten, P .E. Consulting Engineer in Acoustics i TABLE II-1 NOISE MEASUREMENT EQUIPMENT The following items of equipment were used during the course of the noise measurement program: 1. •A-Weighted Noise Level - Analysis Community Noise Level Analyzer, B & K Type 4426 i 2 . Acoustic Calibration Acoustic Calibrator, B & K Type 4230 (94 dB @ 1000 Hz) 3. Graphic Level Recording Graphic Level Recorder, B & K Type 2306 4. Measurement of Atmospheric Conditions Portable Wind Meter, Dwyer Instruments Thermometer, Weksler Instruments , Type 317 i i J. J. VAN HOUTEN & ASSOCIATES 1. 2. 3. /4. 5. Noise Survey 11:02- 11 :28 11:55- 12:2546- 11: 12 11:3 12:05 12:3556 N LN LN LN LN LN PROJECT: ENVISTA-Huntington Central Park Expansion f 74.0 54.3 66.3 70.3 74.3 MEASUREMENT POSITION: Noted DATE: March 25, 1982 TIME: From Noted To 70.5 47.0 55.8 60.3 66.3 Source of noise: Traffic on adjacen arterials Distance to source: Variable SLM height: 5 feet BBN NOISE MONITOR, 614 Serial Number: -------- t30 63.8 42.8 48.8 56.5 59.3 B6K 4426 RMS DETECTOR Serial Number: 630796 o Fast o Maximum Level o Impulse i6Slow ® Instant Level Sample period (s) : 1 Range (dB) : 26-90 90 6.3 39.3 45.3 53.3 54.3 CALIBRATION ® B&K 4230 D B&K 4220 Serial Number: 584622 ATMOSPHERIC CONDITION Time observed: 11:00 Wind direction: --- Wind vel : -- 99 6.8 35.3 46.5 Temp: 65° Rel . humidity: Leq 66.2 44.5 54.2 58.9 63. 1 Data Record of Lmax OPERATOR(S) : D. Wieland Samples 6000 6000 6000 1 6000 6000 J. J..VAN HOUTEN & ASSOCIATES Sheet _ of _ APPENDIX III ANALYSIS OF NOISE EXPOSURES GENERATED BY TRAFFIC ON ARTERIALS WITHIN THE STUDY AREA TABLES DESCRIPTION III-1 Distances to CNEL Contour Lines, No Project Case, for Both the Existing and Future Traffic Volumes III-2 Distances to CNEL Contour Lines, With Project Case, for Both the Existing and Future Traffic Volumes III-3 Distances to CNEL Contour Lines, Existing Plus Project Plus Planning Mode Alternative Table III-1 Distance to CNEL Contour Lines, No Project Case CNEL at 50 Feet Distance to Contour Lines, 1981 Distance to Contour Lines, 1995 Existing Projected 1981 1999 1981 /995 Chang f Od 15.Q 7OdB 75dB 8OdB 60dB 65dB 7OdB 75dB 80dB WARNER AVENUE Edwards to Golden West 24,000 50,000 70.0 dB 73.0 dB +3.0 dB 300' 130' 50' -- -- 460' 215' 90' -- -- Golden West to Gothard 25,000 52,000 70.0 73.5 +3.5 300' 130' 50' -- -- 490' 235' 100, -- -- Gothard to Beach 25,000 53,000 70.0 73.5 +3.5 300' 130' 50' -- -- 490' 235' 100, -- -- SLATER AVENUE Edwards to Golden Nest 10,000 11,000 66.5 66.5 0.0 170' 69' --- -- -- 170' 69' --- -- --- Golden West to Gothard 9,000 10,000 66.0 66.5 +0.5 155' 62' -- -- --- 170, 69, Gothard to Beach 8,000 10,000 65.5 66.5 +1.0 143' 56' --- -- -- 170' 69' --- -- --- TALBERT AVENUE Golden West to Gothard 4,000 6,000 63.0 64.5 +1.5 90' -- -- -- -- 120' --- --- --- Gothard to Beach 4,000 10,000 63.0 66.5 +3.5 90' --- -- -- --- 170' 69' -- --- --- ELLIS AVENUE Edwards to Golden West 1,000 6,000 56.0 64.5 +8.5 -- -- -- -- --- 120' --- --- -- --- Golden West to Gothard 1,000 7,000 56.0 65.0 +9.0 -- -- -- -- -- 130' 50' --- -- --- Gothard to Beach 1,000 10,000 56.0 66.5 +10.5 --- -- -_ -_ -_ 170' 69, --- -- --- EDWARDS STREET Ellis to Talbert 5,000 6,000 64.0 64.5 +0.5 110, -- -_ -_ -_ 1201 -- __- Talbert to Slater 6,000 9,000 64.5 66.0 +1.5 120' -- -- -- -- 155' 62' --- --- -- Slater to Warner 8,000 15,000 65.5 68.0 +2.5 143' 56' -- -- -- 215' 90' --- -- --- GOLDEN WEST STREET Ellis to Talbert 17,000 29,000 68.5 70.5 +2.0 235' 100, -- -- -- 320' 143' 56, -- --- Talbert to Slater 21,000 32,000 69.0 71.0 +2.0 255' 110' --- --- -- 340' 155' 62' -- -- Slater to Warner 27,000 35,000 70.5 71.5 +1.0 320' 143' 56' --- -- 368, 170' 69' -- --- GOTHARD STREET Ellis to Talbert 5,000 13,000 64.0 67.5 +3.5 110, -- --- -- -- 200, E3' --- --- --- Talbert to Slater 5,000 13,000 64.0 67.5 +3.5 110, -- --- -- --- 200' 83' Slater to Warner 6,000 13,000 64.5 67.5 +3.0 120' --- --- -- -- 200' E3' --- --- --- BEACH BOULEVARD Ellis to Talbert 40,000 60,000 72.0 dB 74.0 dB +2.0 dE 395' 185' 75' --- --- 520' 255' 110' Talbert to Slater 39,000 65,000 72.0 74.5 +2.5 395' 185' 75' --- --- 560, .78' 120' Slater to Warner 46,000 66,000 72.5 74.5 +2.0 428' 200' 83' --- --- 560, 278' 120' --- --- Table III-2. Distance to CNEL Contour Lines, With Project Case CNEL at 50 Feet Distance to Contour Lines, 1981 Distance to Contour Lines, 1995 Existing Projected 1981 1995 1281 1995 Chang E 6OdB 65dB 7OdB 75dB 8OdB 6QdB 65dB TOdH 75dB 8OdB WARNER AVENUE Edwards to Golden West 24,000 50,000 70.0 dB 73.0 dB +3.0 dE 300' 130' 50' »- -- 46o' 215' 90' -- -- Golden West to Gothard 25,000 52,000 70.0 73.5 +3.5 300' 130' 50' -- -- 490' 235' 100' -- -- Gothard to Beach 25,000 53,000 70.0 73.5 +3.5 300' 130' 50' -- -- 490' 235' 100' -- -- SLATER AVENUE Edwards to Golden West 11,000 12,000 66.5 67.0 +0.5 170' 69' -- -- -- 185' 75' -- -- --- Edwards to Gothard 10,000 11,000 66.5 66.5 0.0 170, 69' -- -- -- 170' 69' -- -- --- Gothard to Beach 8,000 10,000 65.5 66.5 +1.0 143' 56' --- -- --- 170' 69' -- -- --- TALBERT AVENUE Golden West to Gothard 6,000 8,000 64.5 65.5 +1.0 120, -- --- --- --- 143' 56, -- »- --- Gothard to Beach 6,000 11,000 64.5 66.5 +2.0 120' --- --- --- --- 170' 69' -- --- --- ELLIS AVENUE Edwards to Golden West 1,000 6,000 56.0 64.5 +8.5 --- -- -- -- -- 120' --- --- -- -- Golden West to Gothard 2,000 7,000 59.0 65.0 +6.0 --- »- -- -- »- 130' 50' -- -_ --_ Gothard to Beach 1,000 10,000 56.0 66.5 +10.5 --- -- --- -- --- 170' 69' -- -_ EDWARDS STREET Ellis to Talbert 5,000 6,000 64.0 • 64.5 +0.5 110, --- »- -- --- 120' -- -- --- --- Talbert to Slater 6,000 9,000 64.5 66.0 +1.5 120' --- --- -- -- 155' 62' -- -- --- Slater to Warner 8,000 15,000 65.5 68.0 +2.5 143' 56' --- -- --- 215' 90' GOLDEN WEST STREET Ellis to Talbert 18,000 30,000 68.5 71.0 +2.5 235' 100, -- -- -- 340' 155' 62' -- --- Talbert to Slater 23,000 34,000 69.5 71.5 +2.0 278' 120' -- --- --- 368' 1701 69' -- -- Slater to Warner 28,000 36,000 70.5 71.5 +1.0 320' 143' 56, -- -- 368' 170' 69' -- --- GOTHARD STREET Ellis to Talbert 5,000 13,000 64.0 67.5 +3.5 110, -- --- --- --- 200' 83' -- Talbert to Slater 5,000 13,000 64.0 67.5 +3.5 110, --- --- -- --- 200' 83' --- --- --- Slater to Warner 6,000 13,000 64.5 67.5 +3.0 120' --- --- -- --- 200' 83' --- -- --- BEACH BOULEVARD Ellis to Talbert 40,000 60,000 72.0 dB 74.0 dB +2.0 dI 395' 185, 75' --- --- 520' 255' 110, --- --- Talbert to Slater 39,000 65,000 72.0 74.5 +2.5 395' 185' 75' --- --- 560, 278' 120' --- --- Slater to Warner 46,000 66,000 72.5 74.5 +2.0 428' 200' 63' --- -- 560, 278' 120' --- --- J. J. VAN HOUTEN & ASSOCIATES, Inc. 1784 W. LINCOLN AVENUE, SUITE D, ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA 92801 (714) 635-9520 JOHN J. VAN HOUTEN, PE Consulting Engineer in Acoustics May 4, 1982 Project File No . 1108-82 4 ENVISTA, INC. 1745 Orangewood Avenue, Suite 210 Orange, California 92668 Attention : Mr. Gary Werner 4 Subject : Supplemental Noise Assessment, Huntington Central Park Expansion Project , City of Huntington Beach Reference : 1 . "Noise Assessment , Huntington Beach Central Park Expansion Project, City of Huntington Beach", 4 prepared by J. J. Van Houten & Associates , Inc. April 5, 1982 . 2 . "City of Huntington Beach Central Park Traffic Study" , prepared by Kunzman Associates . 3. Site plans prepared by Cardoza Dilallo Associates , no date. 4. "Noise Impact Considerations for the Proposed Little League Field at Center School" , prepared by Long/ Davy/Associates, September 13, 1977. Gentlemen : The enclosed noise contour maps have been prepared as part of the noise assessment study for the proposed expansion of Huntington Cen- tral Park (reference 1) . Figure 1 provides the community noise equivalent level (CNEL) contours for the future (1995) traffic volumes on the major arterials within the study area for the "with project" case. These traffic volumes were obtained from the traffic study prepared by Kunzman Associates (reference 2) . Figure 2 pro- vides the contours for the peak A-weighted sound levels that are expected to be generated by activity at the proposed recreational facilities . It should be noted that these contours represent the peak sound levels that will be experienced at the nearby noise sensitive areas after the recommended noise mitigation measures have been implemented (see reference 1 for a listing of these measures) . Table III-3• Distance to CNEL Contour Lines, Existing + Project + Planning Mode i Distance to Contour Lines, 1981 Existing 1981 CNEL @ 50' 60dB 65dB 7OdB 75dB 80dB WARNER AVENUE Edwards to Golden West 25,000 70.0 dB 300' 130' 50' --- --- Golden West to Gothard 26,000 70.0 300' 130' 50' --- --- Gothard to Beach 26,000 70.0 300' 130' 50' --- -- SLATER AVENUE --- --- Edwards to Golden West 11,000 66.5 170' 69' --- 170' 69' --- --- -- Golden West to Gothard 10,000 66.5 Gothard to Beach 9,000 66.0 155' 62' --- --- --- TALBERT AVENUE Golder. West to Gothard 7,000 65.0 130' 50' --- --- --- Gothard to Beach 7,000 65.0 130' 50' --- --- --- ELLIS AVENUE Edwards to Golden West 2,000 59.0 --- --- - - Golden West to Gothard 3,000 62.5 83' --- --- —- -- Gothard to Beach 3,000 62.5 83' --- --- �- --- EDWARDS STREET Ellis to Talbert 6,000 64.5 120' -- Talbert to Slater 7,000 65.0 130' 50' --- --- --- Slater to Warner 9,000 66.0 155' 62' --- --- --- GOLDEN WEST STREET Ellis to Talbert 21,000 69.0 255' 110, --- --- -- Talbert to Slater 26,000 70.0 300' 130' 50' --- --- Slater to Warner 30,000 71.0 340' 155' 62' --- --- GOTHARD STREET Ellis to Talbert 6,000 64.5 120' --- --- --- --- Talbert to Slater 6,000 64.5 120' --- --- --- --- Slater to Warner 7,000 65.0 130' 50' --- --- --- BEACH BOULEVARD' Ellis to Talbert 41,000 72.0 dB 395' 185' 75' --- --- Talbert to Slater 40,000 72.0 395' 185' 75' --- --- Slater to Warner 47,000 72.5 428' 200' 83' --- - I N co — Cs v U) _ 65 "0 . 65 Lu- in p I a > -` r- -70 65 = = ¢ _... _ 70 ....... 6 I•. 65 1 1 0 CIA :1 i i _-� --__�_,u=4i�`�,-- � it •' !_: :1 - '' • mil;i 0 T :; 0 ff . ...... -{ --,..--�•.- _{;--tea. -::�i - += -ya_a l•��.-_'-"F �tl..'bc�;.. .. f•i::i- . ;. CNEL CONTOURS { Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) Contour Lines Generated by Future (1995) Traffic Volumes on Arterials Within the Study area With Project. - - - 14 , - - -- - -- HUNTINGTON Erwvto 1 CENTRAL PARK n:,��•.�'��..,�„••�� r ENVISTA, INC. Project File No. 1108-82 May 4, 1982 Page Two Please contact the undersigned at 714/635-9520 if you have any ques- tions regarding this supplemental report . Very truly yours, J. J. VAN HOUTEN & ASSOCIATES , INC. Gv✓1 � r ohn J. V /ngineer , P. E. Consulti in Acoustics JJVH:ds Attachments J. J. VAN HOUTEN & ASSOCIATES, Inc. — = LIBRARY = � 1 1 1 j 1 GUN R�N4 T i 1 1' �' :`i�:• 1 rl YMCA 0. I jy - -�« BALL FIELDS !` -'I! 75 k 1L a r:r :� J---:� it •— • - -- "-------1-r-•--, ,� ::-�;. �d `s�sum..�s�a�_�����f t�� _ - -- - - -- r A—WEIGHTED SOUND LEVEL CONTOURS —'c ' --- •-• ,-�--..:" � '�•`- _ - i Peak Noise Level Contours Generated by Recreational Activity at _. ' -��•�•°�' i^ � '�' .—I' ; ' ;.,::,,: . i the Proposed Huntington Central Park Expansion After Implementing PREPARED Bl _ =-- ' , !_ Recommended Noise Mitigation Measures. 14 -JA VAN HOUTEN k-A§SOCIATES (1982) HUNTINGTON -.,. — . „•. i CENTRAL PARK �., .Ef�1/IJto A APPENDIX F STATE HEALTH DEPARTMENT CORRESPONDENCE STATE 7F CAUFORN k—NEALTH AND WELFARE AGENCY EDMUND G BROWN JR. Go.e•no: Ib DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES HAZARDOUS MATERIALS MANAGEMENT BRANCH ` ABANDONED SITE PROTECT ' 1140 W. Santa Ana Boulevard Santa Ana, CA 92703 17r%' March 1, 1982 Mr. James R. Barnes Associate Planner Department of Development Services f C�'_ ' iJ� City of Huntington Beach Post Office Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Mr. Barnes: The California Department of Health Services, Hazardous Material Management Branch, is conducting a statew4de survey to locate inactive or abandoned hazardous waste disposal sites that. were used between 1945 and 1972. The survey is now being conducted in Orange County and consists of a search of public agency records and use of a questionnaire through which operating industries provide information regarding their past waste disposal practices. Information received by the Department of Health Services indicates that your agency is in the process of preparing an Environmental Impact Report. for the development of a piece of property formerly known as the Bruce Bro- thers Pit. The site is located between Goldenwest and Gothard on Talbert in the City of Huntington Beach. In light of the inpending development of the Bruce Brothers Site, we would like to provide the City with a .summary• of historical hazardous waste disposal data gathered thus far on the subject site. As part of this on-going study the Department, has found that the Bruce Bros. Pit was a sand excavation operation prior to 1927. From 1927 to 1949 the pit was used as a disposal site for industrial wastes from oil fields. In 1948 a restraining order was issued to the site operators by the. California Dept. of Public Health prohibiting any furth'e= disposal of "brines, waste oil sludges and other offensive substances".-- From 1949 to 1957 the pit was used as a disposal site for "rotary muds and #caste muds from sumps". In 1957 Industrial Waste Disposal Permit ,1#80 was issued to the operators from the Water Pollution Control Division of the -County of-Orange for the disposal of inert materials. From 1957 to 1973 the Water Pollution Division noted permit violations for disposal of "liquid refinery wastes", "oil and brines", and "sump bottoms" to the site. In 1973 the City of Huntington Beach purchased the property and closed the pit. Based on the historical waste disposal data compiled so far by the Department, the site is currently considered to be a potential hazardous waste disposal r, RECEIVED (IA2 91982 CNVISTA. IN(.. 1 James R. Barnes -2- March 1, 1982 site. The Department will continue it's investigation of this site. If you have any questions concerning the information provided, please contact Ms. Wendy Latham Palmer of this office at (714) 558-4793. Sincerely, Ozden Mindevalli Waste Management Engineer Hazardous Materials Management Branch Orange County Project Supervisor WLP/om cc: John Hinton APPENDIX G FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET lip FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET PROGRAM ACTIVITY - BALL FIELD COMPLEX 1. Affected Public Services : Police, Fire, Water, and Maintenance 2. Estimated Annual Service Costs: Subtotal = $147,321.60 a. Police Costs = (bldg. sq. ft/comm. recreational use) X (cost/sgg. ft. ) (15,000 ) X (2.882) . _ $ 43,200.00 b. Fire Costs = (bldg. sq. ft/comm. recreational use) X . (cost/sq. ft) (7,2254) X ($1.683) = $ 12,138.00 C. Water Usage = (number acres) X (water consumption per acre) X (cost nit)=(17) X (32.62 ) X (.3311) = $ 183.60 d. Maintenance = Ultrasystems (p. 5-12) = $ 91,800.00 3. Estimated Annual Revenue: Subtotal = $100,200.00 a. League Revenue (annual ) = $ 36,200.00 b. Tournaments = $ 64,000.00 PROGRAM ACTIVITY - EQUESTRIAN CENTER 1. Affected Public Services: Police, Fire, Water Assumptions a. 40,000 sq. ft. stable buildings. b. 8,000 sq. ft. office center. C. 25 total acres. 2. Estimated Annual Service Costs: Subtotal = $104,176.65 a. Police Costs = (8,000) X (2.88) = $ 23,040.00 b. Fire costs = (48,000) X (1.60) = $ 80,640.00 C. Water Costs = (1,500) X (.3311) = $ 496.65 3. Estimated Annual Revenue: a. 4% of gross revenues = $ 23,952.00 PROGRAM ACTIVITY - RESTAURANT 1. Affected Public Services: Police Fire, Water, General Government Assumptions 0 8,000 sq. ft. facility o Comparable use - community shopping center. 2. Estimated Annual Service Costs: Subtotal = $ 10,228.19 a. Police Costs = (8,000) X (1.19) = $ 9,520.00 b. Fire Costs = (8,000) X (.0699) = $ 559.20 C. Water Costs = (450 cu. ft) X ( .3311) = $ 148.99 3. Estimated Annual Revenue 0 Annual Lease Fee = $ 88,000.00 PROGRAM ACTIVITY - YMCA 1. Affected Public Services: Police, Fire, Water Assumptions 0 50,000 sq. ft. facility. o Comparable use - commercial recreation. 0 Annual water consumption = 1,306 ft.3 2. Estimated Annual Service Costs: Subtotal = $228,432.42 a. Police Costs = (50,000) X (2.88) = $144,000.00 b. Fire costs = (50,000) X (1.68) = $ 84,000.00 . C. Water Costs = (1,306) X ( .3311) _ $ 432.42 3. Estimated Annual Revenue: o Land Lease . Revenues = $ 12,000.00 PROGRAM ACTIVITY - FISHING LAKE 1. Affected Public Services: Police, Fire Assumptions 0 Comparable use - commercial recreation, golf course. . 0 5,000 sq. ft. - build equivalent. 2. Estimated Annual Service Costs: Subtotal = $ 22,800.00 a. Police Costs = (5,000) X (2.88) = $ 14,400.00 b. Fire Costs = (5,000) X (1.68) = $ 8,400.00 3. Estimated Annual Revenues Subtotal = $189,880.00 a. User fees = $ 74,800.00 b. Bait shop = $ 70,980.00 C. Boat Rental = $ 44,100.00 PROGRAM ACTIVITY - GENERAL PARK USE 1. Affected Public Services - Public Works, Street Maintenance, General Maintenance Assumptions 0 Includes general services to the entire park. 0 327 Total park acres. 0 15,000 lineal feet of street frontage. 2. Estimated Service Costs Subtotal = $185,458.20 a. Public Works/ Administration, and Engineering (327) X (95.31) = $ 31,166.37 b. Public Works/ Facility and Equipment Maintenance (327) X (261.29) = $ 85,441.83 C. Street Maintenance (street frontage) (cost per foot) (15,000) X (1.83) = $ 27,450.00 d. Fishing Lake (2,700) (7 acres) = $ 18,900.00 1 e. Parking Lot (1,900) (25 acres) = $ 22,500.00 1 1 1 CENTRAL PARK PROGRAM ACTIVITY SUMMARY 1. Estimated Annual Service Costs a. Ball field complex = $147,321.60 b. Equestrian center = $104,176.65 C. Restaurant = $ 10,228.19 d. YMCA = $228,432.42 e. Fishing lake = $ 22,800.00 f. General park use = $185,458.20 Total = $698,417.00 2. Estimated Revenue a. Ball field complex = $100,200.00 b. Equestrian center = $ 23,952.00 C. Restaurant = $ 88,000.00 d. YMCA = $ 12,000.00 e. Fishing lake = $189,880.00 Total = $413,952.00