Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
File 2 of 2 - Land Use Element Amendment 85-1 - Holly Proper
1 1 1 i FINAL � ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 1 Hol ly Property � Planned Community � General Plan Amendment 844 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 1 � March 1985 1 ,D.vb � pifACI�M�'2 r r r r FINAL, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Holly Property Planned Community General Plan Amendment 84-1 City of Huntington Beach SCH #84071111 Prepared for: City of Huntington Beach Development Services Department P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, California 92648 (714) 536-5271 i Prepared by: Michael Brandman Associates, Inc. 3140 Red Hill Avenue, Suite 200 Costa Mesa, California 92626 (714) 641-8042 r March 1985 r - r i TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page 1.0 Introduction . . . .. . . . . . . ... . . .. . .. . ... . . . . ... . .. .. . . . . .. . .. . . .. . . .1 1.1 Purpose of EIR.. • . . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 1.2 Response to Draft EIR. Comments and Final EIR . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . .I 1.3 EIR Participants . . . . . . . .. . .. ...... . ... . . .. .. . . .. . . . . . .. . . . .1 1.4 Effects Found Not To Be Significant .. . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . ..1 1.5 Executive Summary . . .. . . .... ..... . . . .......... . .. ........3 2.0 Project Description. . . ... .. . . ... .. . . .. .. .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . .9 2.1 Project Location . .. . . .: : . .. .9 2.2 Planning History . . . . . . . . .. . . .• • • •. . . . . .. . .. • • • . . • •• • . • . • .9 2.3 Project Characteristics .. .. . .. . . . .. .. .. . . .. .. . ... . .. .. . . . . .10 2.4 Project Objectives .. . .. . . . ... .. . . . .. ... .... . ... . . . . . . . .13 2.5 Project Phasing .. .. .. .. . . . . . . . ... .. . .. . . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .13a 3.0 Existing Conditions, Impacts and Mitigation Measures . ... . . .. .. . . . . .14 3.1 Landform/Topography . . . . . . . . .. ... .. .. . ... . .. .. . . .. .. . . . . .14 3.2 Geology/Soils/Oil Production . . . .. .. .. .. .. . . ... ... . . . . . . . . . .16 3.3 Hydrology.. .. . . . . .. . .. ... ..... . ... . .. . . . .. .. . . . . . . .. . .. . .28 3.4 Biological Resources.. .. ... . . . .. .. ... . . ... ... . .. . . . . . . . .. . . .38 3.5 Archaeological Resurces . .. ... . . . .. .. . .44 3.6 Land Use and Planning Considerations.. . .. . . .... . . .. . . .. . . .. .46 3.7 Aesthetic Resources.. . . . . ... . .. . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . ..58 3.8 Traffic/Circulation. . . ... .61 3.9 Air Quality. . . ... .. .. .. .. .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . .82 3.10 Noise. . .. . . .. . .. . ...... . ... .... .. .. . . .... . . . .96 3.11 Public Services/Utilities . .. . . .. . . .... .. ... .... . . . . . . . . . . . .106 4.0 Fiscal Analysis. . . .. .. .. ... .. . . .. . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . ... . .. . .. .. .. .125 5.0 Alternatives. . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . .. .. . . .. . . . ... . . .. . . .. .. . . . ... .. .140 5.1 No Project . . . . . . . . ... . .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .140 5.2 No Action. . .. . • ... . .. .. .. .. . ... .. . . . . . .. .. .. .. . . . . . .. . . .142 5.3 Higher-Density .. . .143 5.4 Lower-Density.. .. . . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . . . .. . .. . .. .. . . .. . . ..144 5.5 Mixed-Use .. .. . . .. . . .. . . . . . .. .. .. .. .145 5.6 Industrial/Medium Density Residential .. . .. .. . . . . . .. . . .. . . . .145 5.7 Industrial/Low Density Residential . .. ... . . .. .. . . ... . .. .. . . .147 6.0 Growth-Inducing and Cumulative Impacts...... ........... ...... ..149 6.1 Growth-Inducing Impacts .. .. .. . . . . . . . .. ... .. . . . . .. .. .. . . . .149 6.2 Cumulative Impacts .... . . .. .. .. . . . .. . . . .. .. . . .. .. . . . .. .149 7.0 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources. . . . . . .. .. . .150 i r TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page 8.0 Relationship Between Local Short-Term Uses of Man's Environment and the Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-Term Productivity.. . . . ... . . . . . . .. . . . .. . .. . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . .151 9.0 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts .. . .. . . .. . . .. . .. . . .. . .. . . . . . . . .. . . .152 10.0 Organizations and Persons Consulted. ... . . .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .153 11.0 References. . .. .. . . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . ... ... .. .. . .. . . . . . . . .155 12.0 Appendices.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . .158 r A. Initial Study B. Notice of Preparation (NOP) and NOP Responses C. Geology/Soils Report D. Hydrology Report E. Floral and Faunal Compendia F. Archaeology Report G. Traffic Report H. Air Quality Data I. Noise Data J. Correspondence K. Huntington Beach Oil Code L. Notice of Completion (NOC)and NOC/DEIR Distribution List M. Comments on Draft EIR and Corresponding Responses r r 1 ii r LIST OF TABLES ' Number Page 1 Planned Community Statistical Summary .. . . ... .. .. ... . .. . . . . . . . ..11 2 General Seismic Parameters .. .. .. . . .. . .. . ... ... . . . . .. . . . . ... . .19 3 Summary of Roadway Characteristics.. .. . . . .. .. . . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . .62 4 Intersection Capacity for Existing Conditions . .63 5 Existing Roadway Segment Capacity Analysis .. .. .. . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . .64 6 Summary of Existing General Plan, Post 1995 Daily Traffic Roadway Segment Capacity Analysis .. . . . .. . . . . . . .. .. . . . . .65 7 Summary of Trip Generation Rates .. .. ... . . .. . .. . .. .. . . . . . .. . . . ..69 8 Summary of Project-Related Trip Generation . . . . . . . .70 9 Summary of Roadway Segment Capacity Analysis Existing Plus Project Related Traffic. . . . . . .. . • •• •• • . .72 10 Summary of Post 1995 Daily Traffic Roadway Segment Capacity Analysis . . . ... . .. . . .. ... . . . ... .. .. . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . ..73 11 Intersection Capacity Utilization and Level of Service for Existing Plus Project Related Traffic . ... . .. . .. . . .. . ... .. . . . . . .75 12 1979-1983 Annual Summary of Clean Air Standards Violations - Costa Mesa Air Quality Monitoring Station. . . .. . . . .. . . . .84 13 1979-1983 Annual Summary of Clean Air Standards Violations - Los Alamitos Air Quality Monitoring Station . . . . . . . . . . ..85 14-A Projected Mobile and Stationary Source Emissions With the Existing General Plan. .. . .. . ..... . .. . . . . .. . . . .. .. . . .. . . .91 14B Projected Mobile and Stationary Source Emissions With the Proposed Project.. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. . . .. . .. . .. . . .. . . . . . .91 15 Emission Imecatory Comparison (1987) ............. . .. ..... . . . . .. .92 16 Optimum Noise Levels . .98 17 Exterior Noise Standards .. . . . . . .. . .. . . .. . .. . .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . .99 18 Existing Traffic Noise Levels .. .. ... . . . .. .. . .. . .. .. . .... .. . . .. . .100 19 Future Traffic Noise Levels .. .. .. .. . ... .. . . . . .. . .. .. . .. .. . . . . . .102 20 Noise Levels from four Remaining Oil Derricks.. . . . . .. .. .. . . . . . . . .103 21 Educational Facilities.. .. .. . . .. ... . . .. . . .. .. . .. . . . . .. . . . . .. . . ..110 22 Estimated City of Huntington Beach Revenues and Costs _Resulting From the Holly Planned Community Development.. . .. . . . .134 23 Estimated City of Huntington Beach Revenues and Costs Resulting From Development According to Current Land Use Designations. • . . . .. . .. . . • •• . •• . .139 iii LLST OF EXHIBITS Following Number Page Number 1 Regional Location. .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10 2 Vicinity Map. . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . .. . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . .10 3 Existing General Plan. . . . . . . .. . .. . .. .. . . .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10 4 Concept Plan . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12 5 Topography.. . . . .. . . . .. . . .. . . . .. . .. . . . .. .. . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . .15 6 Cut and Fill Map . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15 �. 7 Regional Geologic Map. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . .... . . . .. . . .. . . . .17 8 Fault Locations .. . . .. .. .. . .. .. . . ... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17 9 Surficial Units . . . . . .. .. . . . ... . ...... .. .. .. . . .. . .... .........17 10 Oil and Water Wells .. . .. . .. ... . . . . . . .. . . .. .. .. . . . . .. . .. .. . . .21 11 Existing Hydrology .. .. . . . . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . .29 12 Master Plan of Drainage . . . . . . . .. ... . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .29 13 Post-Development Hydrology . . . .. . ... . . . . .. .. .. . . . . . . .. . .. . . .33 14 Vegetation . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . .39 15 Existing Land Uses . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . .. . . ... . . .. . .47 16 Existing Zoning . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. .. ... .. .. . . . .. . .. .. . . . .. . .. .47 17 Existing Traffic Volumes .. ... . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . ... .. . .. . . . . . . . .61 18 Existing Traffic Volumes/Gothard Street Realignment. . .. . . . . . . ..67 19 Project-Related Traffic Volumes .. . .. . . . . . .. .. .. .. . . .. . . . .. . . .71 20 Existing Plus Project Traffic Volumes. . . . . . . . . .... . . . .. . . . . . .. .71 21 Post 1995 Daily Traffic Volumes . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . 73 22 Site Access and Internal Circulation . . .. .. . . . . . ... . .. . . .. .. . . ..75 23 Police Helicopter Approach and Departure Pattern . .. . .. .. . . . . .101 24 Unmitigated 1995 Noise Contours .. . .. .. . . .. . . .. . . . . . ... . .. . .103 iv 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 PURPOSE OF EIR This environmental impact report (EIR) provides an assessment of the environmental impacts resulting from General Plan Amendment (GPA) 84-1 for the City of Huntington Beach. The analyses in this EIR have been prepared in conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), State CEQA Guidelines (as ' amended), and- the City of Huntington Beach procedures pertaining to CEQA. The lead agency for this EIR is the City of Huntington Beach, the applicant is the Huntington Beach Company, and the environmental consultant is Michael Brandman Associates, Inc. (MBA). 1.2 RESPONSE TO DRAFT EIR COMMENTS AND FINAL EIR The draft EIR was distributed for a 45-day review to all responsible and interested parties in late December 1984. The Notice of Completion (NOC) for the Draft EIR and the distribution list for the Draft EIR and/or NOC are included in Appendix L. Written comments received on the Draft EIR are included in Appendix M along with their corresponding responses. For a number of responses it was necessary to revise portions of the Draft EIR text, and in these cases, the corresponding-'pages with revisions are referenced. The revisions are highlighted with bold type to allow the reader to understand what changes to the Draft EIR have resulted. In addition, the number of the corresponding comment which generated the revision is identified in the margin adjacent to the revised text. This document constitutes the Final EIR for the project as required by Section 15089 of the CEQA Guidelines, as amended. The contents of this Final EIR comply with the requirements of Section 15132 of the CEQA Guidelines, as amended. 1 1.3 EIR PARTICIPANTS Key contact persons for the preparation of this EIR are listed below: z Lead Agency: Howard Zelefsky City of Hunting Beach Planning Division P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, California 92648 (714) 536-5271 Project Applicant: Bill Holman Huntington Beach Company 2110 Main Street Huntington Beach, California 92648 (714) 960-4351 Environmental Consultant: Thomas E. Smith, Jr., AICP , Beverly Bruesch Michael Brandman Associates, Inc. 3140 Red Hill Avenue, Suite 200 Costa Mesa, California 9.2626 (714) 641-8042 1.4 EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT The city prepared an initial study for GPA 84-1 which is included in Appendix A for r easy reference. The initial study identified those environmental elements which would, or could, be significantly impacted by the project. The environmental evaluation which follows the checklist describes the potential significance of each environmental impact. As indicated by the initial study, certain topical areas were determined not to be significant, or potentially siggificant. These topical areas will not be addressed in this EIR. L5 EXECUTWE SUMMARY The following pages include a summary of the impacts of the proposed project and recommended mitigation measures. A summary of the unavoidable adverse impacts is included in Section 9.0. 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ' Landform/Topography Impacts Approval of the GPA will not significantly alter landf or m/topography impacts associated with development of the site. Development of the project with any urban land use will alter the sites existing topography. In general, the proposed grading retains the character of the site's topography except in the northeastern corner of the site. The realignment of Gothard and filling the "hole" created by the realignment will require substantial fill quantities. . Mitigation Measures A grading plan will be prepared and will be required to comply with the Huntington Beach grading ordinance. Geology/Soils/Oil Production Impacts Geology, soils and oil production constraints will be present with any kind of development proposed for the site. The study area may be subject to ground rupture due to possible subsurface faulting, and it will be subject to groundshaking from earthquakes. The potential for liquefaction, slope failure, settlement or ground lurching is considered minimal except in relatively small portions of the site. Preliminary laboratory tests on lime deposits found within the site boundaries have not ruled out the presence of hazardous chemicals and, therefore, the incorporation of the deposits into the grading materials may not be possible and the deposits would have to be completely removed. Spills or leaks of petroleum products are a possibility with oil well operations and could result in hazardous fumes, fire or pollution. In addition, the possible existence of old buried sumps, trash dumps, abandoned pipelines and underground storage tanks could be a potential health hazard to future residents, if not recognized and appropriately removed or cleaned up. Mitigation Measures Adequate building setbacks may be required if, upon further investigation, the risk of ground surface rupture is found to exist. Design and construction of structures in conformance with latest UBC should mitigate groundshaking impacts. More detailed subsurface and soils investigations will evaluate site conditions and recommend appropriate grading and construction techniques to mitigate any significant soil or foundation constraints. A physical and chemical soils analysis will most likely be required as part of any �2 tentative map filing. The State Department of Health Services (DOHS), recommends that a full site characterization study be prepared for DOHS review. 3 If hazardous chemicals or wastes are found to be present, cleanup and disposal of all toxic subsances will be required. In addition, a review of all available records and a , subsurface investigation should be carried out prior to grading to verify the locations of all suspected sumps or dumps. Any hazardous substances should be removed prior to site grading per DOHS standards. The city's OR Code includes several measures for the safe and compatible operation of oil production facilities in residential areas, including provisions for fire prevention, general nuisance prevention, and abandonment and clean up procedures. Hydrology Land use approved with the proposed GPA will not significantly change the hydrology impacts associated with development of the site. Development of the site will increase surface water runoff and decrease water percolation into the groundwater. Drainage patterns will be altered and storm drain improvements required. Water quality impacts will include an increase in urban pollutants (oil, grease, fertilizers, etc.), but a decrease in erosion and sedimentation. (Erosion and sedimentation will increase during the construction phase.) Impacts to Sully Miller Lake would include increased runoff volumes and increased , urban pollutants in the runoff reaching the lake. Sedimentation levels should be reduced upon project completion. Unless the inlet structure draining into the lake is improved, the lake could potentially fill to a point where it could back up onto the ' project site. Mitigation Measures A detailed hydrology study will be prepared as required by the city to further quantify drainage impacts on storm drain facilities and Sully Miller Lake. Storm drain facilities should be designed to minimize the volume and velocity of surface. runoff through proper design of drains, grading and landscaping to the specification of the city's Public Work's Department. Both the inlet pipeline and the outlet pipeline at the north end of Sully Miller Lake should be repaired as needed to accommodate projected flows and stabilize the level of the lake. Further studies of Sully Miller Lake should take into account impacts from development within its watershed. The Regional Water Quality Control Board should be consulted for further water quality control measures applicable to the lake's development. Soil erosion control measures should be implemented during the construction phase according to the city's grading ordinance. The developer shall provide an adequate B-2 plan for erosion control. Biological Resources Impacts , Approval of the GPA will result in the same impacts to onsite biological resources as development under the existing general plan. All onsite vegetation will be removed , and wildlife will move to adjacent areas or be vulnerable to mortality by predation or 4 , unsuccessful competition for food and territory. No species of plant or animal designated threatened, rare, endangered, or otherwise sensitive are located within the site. Mitigation Measures It is recommended that native riparian plants be included in the landscaping plan for the proposed swale area. Revegetation should be accomplished on all graded areas without structures, and landscaping materials should include drought-adapted, fire retardant plants. The stand of Eucalyptus trees shall be retained where possible. C-14 Archaeological Resources Impacts No impacts to archaeological resources are expected to result due to development of the site (with or without the GPA), although prehistoric remains could be exposed during grading. Mitigation Measures ' If any remains of prehistoric origin are uncovered during construction, it is recommended that a qualified archaeologist be contacted to evaluate the finds and determine appropriate mitigation measures. Land Use and Planning Considerations Amendment of the General Plan would alter the kinds of land uses allowed on the property from a mix of single-family residential, industrial and office to planned community residential uses. The proposed residential uses are generally compatible with land uses surrounding the site to the east and south, and with the Huntington Central Park facilities and recreation stables located to the north and. west. The residential uses proposed are not compatible with the pockets of industrial uses, primarily to the south and east. Some number of oil wells will be maintained onsite until oil reserves are depleted. Unless properly mitigated, these oil wells could result in odors, noise, fire and safety problems for onsite residents. A-1 The proposed greenbelt should be maintained for recreation purposes. Maintenance of the greenbelt should the responsibility of the homeowners. The development must A-2 meet the city's park fees or dedication requirements. A-3 Mitigation Measures The site should be visually screened from incompatible uses along Crystal and ' Ernest. Fire protection and .safety measures outlined in the city's zoning and oil code, and the fire department will be required to reduce hazards of mixing residential uses and oil production facilities. 5 Aesthetics , Impacts Development of the site would alter the viewsheds of the site from open space and oil production to residential. Views of oil production facilities should be improved by camouflaging, screening, etc. Mitigation Measures The topography of the swale areas should be retained where possible to provide open ' space and topographic relief. Where feasible, oil wells should be consolidated to reduce their number and should be painted, camouflaged or screened by perimeter walls or landscaping as required by the oil code. Views of the industrial area along Ernest and Crystal should be screened by landscaping. Traffic/Circulation Impacts Approval of the GPA will result in less traffic generation than under the buildout of the site under the existing General Plan. The proposed project, if developed with 1,200 units, will generate approximately 9,620 vehicle trip ends. Project traffic will primarily add to the capacity concern on Golden West Street, between Talbert Avenue and Yorktown Avenue. Development of the site will add to the cumulative (post-1995) capacity problems on on surrounding roadways. Internal roadways are expected to operate satisfactorily. Two of the proposed internal intersections with Gothard (realigned) have problems with spacing. A traffic signal will be required at the intersection of Garfield and Gothard (realigned). The design of the realignment of Gothard should consider spacing of internal ' intersections, sight and stopping distances, slope banks, walls and landscaping at intersections. The Gothard realignment may impact Crystal south of Garfield and B-11 traffic flow in the area due to out-of-the way travel to reach Main Street. Mitigation Measures The city's Circulation Element should be amended to upgrade the classification of Golden West Street, north of Garfield, and Ellis Avenue, east of Gothard. The development should be required to improve arterial roadways adjacent to the site to their current/proposed MPAH classification. Design features and traffic signalization should be implemented as recommended by the traffic engineer (for the proposed concept plan). A detailed study, of the Gothard realignment should be conducted prior to development approval to assess impacts to Crystal south of Main, the need for B-11 extending Crystal (Gothard to Main), and other alternatives. 6 Air Quality ' Because the proposed GPA will result in fewer vehicle trips than the existing general plan uses; air quality impacts from the project should be commensurately reduced. Short-term increases in dust and exhaust emissions will result during the construction phase (with or without the GPA). Mitigation Measures Dust and exhaust control techniques should be implemented during construction. Energy conservation and public transit meaasures should reduce stationary and mobile source emissions, respectively. Noise ' Impacts Noise increases from the project traffic will be insignificant. Construction noise will result from project development (with or without the GPA). The site will be impacted by traffic noise from adjacent roadways. A portion of the site will be impacted by periodic helicopter noise due to the nearby police heliport. In addition, there is the potential noise from oil well pumps (if not mitigated properly). Mitigation Measures Construction activities should be limited to weekdays and daytime hours. Berms or walls should be constructed along Ellis, Golden West, and Garfield to devrease noise impacts. Dwelling units near Gothard could meet noise standards with insulation and air conditioning. A more detailed acoustical analysis should be prepared when final site plans and architectural drawings are in progress to insure noise criteria can be met. iIn addition, measures to reduce helicopter noise should be considered. Noise from the remaining onsite oil well pumps should be mitigated to comply with the city's noise ordinance. Public Services and Utilities Impacts Development of the site, with any kind of urban use, will increase the demand for public utilities and services. Realignment of Gothard Street will have an impact on utilities within the existing 1 right-of-way. In general, the proposed project will have a lesser impact on electricity, telephone, and wastewater treatment/sewer systems than development under the existing general plan. However, natural gas and water resources, and the school, police and fire protection services will receive a greater impact under the proposed general plan land uses. 7 r r Mitigation Measures Measures which will reduce impacts to public services and utilities include energy r and water conservation measures, fire protection and crime prevention measures, relocation of utility lines, and additional school and public transit facilities. Please see Section 3.11 for more detail. Fiscal Analysis Anticipated annual revenue from development under the proposed general plan (assuming the buildout of the 1,200 units in the conceptual plan) is $611,991 versus costs of $499,605; resulting in an estimated net annual surplus of $112,386. The revenue-to-cost ratio is 1.23, identifying that for each $1.00 spent on public services, an additional $0.23 will be returned to the city as revenue. . 1 i . r 1 i r r r r r r 8 r 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.1 PROJECT LOCATION As shown on Exhibits 1 and 2, the 126-acre study area is located in the City of Huntington Beach and is bordered by Ellis Avenue on the north, Gothard Street on the east, Garfield Avenue and Ernest Avenue on the south, and Golden West Street and Crystal Street on the west. ' 2.2 PROJECT lIISTORY ' Between 1910 and 1920, the northerly portion of the project area was subdivided into five acre farm lots. Around 1920, oil was discovered in the area and most of the farm lots were leased for oil exploration. Many of these original leases are still active. In the early 1900s, Holly Sugar operated a sugar refinery on the southern portion of the site between Garfield Avenue and Crystal Street. Several buildings, water wells, tand possibly underground fuel tanks were associated with this plant. In 1925, the sugar plant was abandoned and Holly's SoCal Oil Company drilled oil wells and built a gauge tank facility on the site, utilizing the Holly Sugar buildings for a boiler house and warehouse. These facilities were used to remove the water from the oil prior to shipment to the refinery. Wastewaters were reportedly disposed of directly onto the ground. In early 1964, the Huntington Beach Company acquired the Holly property (covering ' 55 acres). The SoCal tank facility was removed and the land restored to its preexisting condition. Between 1974 and 1982, the majority of the farm lots have been acquired by the Huntington Beach Company. The company owns a total of 119 acres and at this time has offered to purchase one of the independently-owned parcels. Currently the site is almost entirely vacant, the only buildings being two single- family dwellings (along Golden West Street) and the small brick building (old Holly office building) occupied by a church (at the corner of Gothard and Garfield). The 9 primary use of the land is oil production; 22 producing wells 2 idle wells, and related , P Y P g � buildings and equipment are located on the property, primarily in the northwest , corner. The Huntington Beach Company controls 79 acres of surface area and operates the 6 S producing oil wells in the southeastern portion of the site. The remaining 47 acres in the northwest part of the site are leased to a number of independent oil companies and have a total of 16 producing wells. The various oil and gas leases active in this area generally allow continued operation of existing wells as long as oil production is ' profitable. Average daily production from these wells ranges from 2 to 10 barrels of oil per well. Onsite oil wells produced a total of 35,000 barrels of oil in 1983, and ' overall production is declining by approximately 5 percent annually (Division of Mines and Geology). Given the multiple operators, it is difficult to determine how long individual wells will continue to operate. I The Huntington Beach General Plan land use designations for the site are Professional Office (5 acres), Estate Residential (46.6 acres), and General Industrial (75 acres). Exhibit 3 shows the General Plan Land Use Diagram for the project site. 2.3 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS The proposed project is the redesignation of the General Plan land_uses designated for the study area from Professional Office, Estate Residential, and General Industrial to Planned Community. The land use designations are briefly described below. No change to the existing zoning is being requested at this time. The applicant intends to submit a specific plan once an overall general development concept has , been approved for the site. Existing General Plan According the general plan, the Estate Residential portion of the site would allow no , more than 2 dwelling units per gross acre on approximately half the Estate ' Residential area (46.6 acres total) and no more than 4 dwelling units per acre on the remaining half. Assuming 23.3 acres per density range, this area could be developed with up to 140 single-family dwelling units. 10 LOS ANGELES COUNTY 1 1 SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY � ' 1 1 1 r' • FULLERTON 3 U. r FW r RIVERSIDE COUNTY 40;0 ANAHEIM a p 1A s ORANGE �"� Irvine Gard Gro F Lake 4' SANAA TUSTIN SEAL BEACH y �d ' Site Airports ne r. ' — COSTA IRVINE �•� HUNTINOTON MESA San BEACH ? a Lake Q Mission j $ Viejo �o 4f NEWPORT v MISSION �S`f BEACH VIEJO m I PACIFIC OCEAN LAaviiA BEACH Or SAN JUAN v CAPISTRANO J SAN DIEGO CLEMENTE COUNTY P 1 REGIONAL LOCATION 0 0 -� MOLLY L&HH70 a � C OO G G�lMaO���C�G°�lQ 4 City of Huntington Beach r p 3 e MILES EXHIBIT 1 __ -f r '[ Toua:: :x;,,;• .,No ru oar. �I + "a sicUF Ii131 x� „ r 1 D�.irs ;A v �� J I C61r nIV n N 1� I♦{RE' mw,fu. f F. S[N Wr x[ (/r w J F T! . ® a N[11001(A[ T.GT'S .0 I Gw.NIW4IAS f0 { • _ [[.xx[x TII ' M 1 u[a[ _� _ "" "q c �r�ry uc. — T a UANa lfw xT O a T .�,,�_ •t f r. �.K. c" N ' s°"„au IF$ Y;a�411 YFIxYIITyI ■ ` w __'_ x, s. 4�- T E= — —_ GxIST la: - --'-- R � 'rll• Nur/ "Om -I O I i �Y yy x• I ' (�+•1 1y lS ICI SI a:f r F �L xr r ; N6 ry E i�(111�\1,,' O sr, 1 � �•*^1 S I 4 ~ TCN L - 0 ST T.qC 4 /•� 1 I I NJNI J�. �• I yoYEi( v }LJI IN(lw. •x IbCOSTA-...7... .rt•s 3 a s 1 BE.Ip--•. �p ,� y l rt ,_ 1 _... -.oa.rlwa x F N 1 x MNIaNi.ICfr-� O ' 1 rLTN+• yr„1„fE...-..... I r .�iM ''9 - y N i CENTRAL 1 O .Y ce•11•1Nr o .. 3 xlNa. •�. -----' I� �ots* .Ew r u.as .-- ox _ 7 cavrwu = � w y W L I sw O - fr • '." AtwF Q IAx fT x• .,... O •xt. / .nef1 ONv (��) xlx xrfn ' ^ Q xOr� I 1+ TIGN I OTl ANN. rr J 1 •a I14 s aV[ 't Ir r.. ^ .O T - ..SIT•' ELLIS ►RYx(LI W FM NN No O;mx ROM coo I I NCO I s GAR FIELD [ '"` r �•� �1 p0b _ �a ~ a,eA 01 xYrAP. � `n�v. nxuf� / rRl[ p L a El r / Ln i a J .�.L / N xc /r >r S --xLl - U.) ❑ is , . ffl I Ov —x YOW �� SFAC(jF I L �tiM) ►ox - COAC p11(.cl. IcF.rIC a ew x�.. - I � n to 13�,} �tp1 4�/ .� N( SCa O'. i 5 �> ?I 1 YTI \\ i Cx7 �. C L o❑ Vi g„a MKS- 0 PR WroJ1 1 M \ ❑ ` � f # 4T O S ��I CiP�gl� \ 1 \ � � .Y✓pl =c AND : :�?'fir �, o � . � •�� 4.V If 1 ' VICINITY MAP ' City of Huntington Beach 0 1000 2000 FEET ' EXHIBIT 2 No WO/ • . •• HOLLY PLANNED 1111\`II COO MMUNfTY/GPA 84 -1 I/\ ■■■■■� The zoning for this Estate Residential area would allow no more than 1 dwelling unit per gross acre. However, given that the general plan land use diagram was prepared more recently than the zoning code, the density limits proposed by the general plan were used to estimate the maximum land uses allowed. In addition, the analysis prepared in this EIR is directed toward the change in the general plan land use designation and not a change to the zoning. General Industrial uses are currently allowed on the majority of the site (75 gross acres). This area is the southern tip of what has been called the city's "Central Industrial Corridor." This land use designation allows light industrial uses; those ' which produce minimal emissions of smoke fumes, vibration and noise. The southeast corner of the site (5 acres) allows Professional Office uses which generally include low intensity professional and administrative offices. Proposed General Plan The proposed Planned Community designation provides for a combination of residential types which must be in accordance with the criteria set forth in the General Plan Land Use Element. This category is intended to provide for the ' comprehensive planning and development of an identifiable area of land (minimum 40 acres). Concept Plan ' Within the proposed planned community, the applicant is seeking the approval in concept for development of 1,200 dwelling units to be developed in four product types. Exhibit 4 illustrates the concept plan submitted by the applicant. Table 1 below lists the proposed breakdown of units by product type. 11 TABLE 1 ' PLANNED COMMUNITY STATISTICAL SUMMARY Product Type Net Acres Density Units A. Single-Fanfily Detached 54.8 6.4 350 B. Single-Family Attached 17.3 9.8 170 C. Multi-Family Townhouses 16.6 13.9 230 , D. Multi-Family Flats 23.8 18.9 450 Public Streets 7.8 Total 120.3 1,200 Project Site Access As shown in Exhibit 4, primary access to the site is to be taken off Garfield Avenue , and Gothard Street. Gothard Street is to be reconstructed as a secondary arterial (four lanes, undivided) along its master plan alignment connecting with Crystal ' Street at Ernest Avenue and continuing south to Garfield. South of Garfield, Crystal deadends before Main Street. However, the city's master plan calls for the B-1 connection of the realigned Gothard (now Crystal) to connect with Main Street. Secondary access points are located on Ellis and Ernest Avenues, and no direct , access is planned from Golden West Street. The existing right-of-way of Gothard Street is proposed to be vacated to eliminate one leg of the five-way intersection at Main and Garfield. , Sixty-foot wide public collector roads are planned to define local streets within , Product Areas B, C, and D. Local streets within each product area are proposed to be private. ' Open Space The proposed concept plan incorporates existing open space features into the open space areas of the project. Within Product Area A, approximately 13 acres are ' planned to be landscaped and retained as a private greenbelt which will retain the natural drainage patterns on this portion of the site and provide an area for passive , and active recreation. 12 , .. =� .�. .�.�. � ,,. r•�� � .� .��. .� '. .��� �.: „1:,: JT�ly� ,rye fir" � — \i�/��`, �5+''r • •♦���`�i�pi :�7f�111 �. �%v •''� j�'tti .� I � � �/������� � ��•� • n u,•� a nn Zti .i �:� � Ni R�"r•• ;'�.,R'��, 'w I //'" 9. ��►�NINE M.l ,�.. e;. ..J.•:ar'1;;�b7y �Z ti► y t , .9.�� � �� s.-= 's a:. ail•• �•„ r��"�:' ter• g g. g �rs� •�' � '�` 'q 4 �1•: ��t ► •1Y� / ��� •�`��It,�� 4�l� .,� • d 4,,1�•s �!t �s�: qr�e t1e '��•n-��i{i��!��i�{'.ii„u! ��■,�''�`.;`��s Vim• �,� "'��'r� `��°°aa. - .�4�ti� s. �•= 'sty; e�i; F[���F[�����F[���L���.� '`• � ..........foe E��,�� ,ba aos�,' �s� ��, -.•`�so s ��; _ _ _ _ ��• �It Whir -u u .I{u u.Ie un-�i ��Z^:' ..,`- • •i�I►�/ � aril •�M %',tt• � �•.��u�u a, ,n .� u n 1 �� 7'�' v°vi `,• •�I��..Q-d� »d � s �0�%�ifPr' i'� ��y{ �F F I , �� Ii�- ��'O�•� �.• tea Hai �o °;!,•, --•� I ,{,17'!I�' �j�j ,�� -, � `r •� �aaJ- tsa o��, ps �,. � 1., .h�,�1.,�:,�, 7;�17�c "7 t+= g •atj= . t°° Oj�• �lj" .,hr" (L� _ a A➢ ,.�', ,�.ti.. ;A � � • :rye �� d��•a,, . R tad �`\tip. ►•� � �ii�• iiiel '`'siii :•tij i � asS•c1, ,■ i a Naga ;a. ri+ii MLAU-Famqy Flats 450 23,8 MO i�ii1, I 1 IV, I • • C HOLLY PLANNED 1111111 COMMUNITY/GPA 84 -1 /\ ■����■ r In Product Areas C and D, private common open space areas are designed around an existing stand of eucalyptus trees. Parkways bordering arterials are planned to be sufficient to accommodate off-street trails. Oil Facilities ' The proposed general plan amendment will not impact existing oil operations and production is expected to continue for many years from all existing wells on the site (B. Holman, Huntington Beach Company, 1984). The concept plan, shown in Exhibit 4, is intended to be illustrative with respect to accommodating remaining ' wells. The specific plan to be developed for the site will address the treatment of wells to be incorporated within residential developments although the decision as to ' which wells will remain at the time of actual development cannot be made at this time. rThe proposed concept plan provides for the potential of continuing operation of four of the producing Huntington Beach Company oil wells located east of the realigned Gothard Street. These wells, located in Product Areas C and D would be screened from the residential areas with walls and landscaping as required in the city's Oil ' Code. r Because of the uncertainty as to the longevity of oil production in the area west of realigned Gothard Street, this area is planned to be the latter phase of development. Also, no attempt has been made to accommodate specific wells and ' tanks in the development concept proposed for Product Area A. The disposition of these wells will be addressed at the specific plan stage. ' M PROJECT OBJECTIVES The applicant, the Huntington Beach Company, is seeking the Planned Community designation for the Holly property to "reinforce the identification of the Holly property as a single, identifiable planning unit." The main objective of the requested GPA is to establish a compatible mix of land use for the project area and guidelines for further planning and development activities. Whereas the existing general plan divides planning of the property, the proposed general plan would unify planning for 13 1 r the site and would provide for a consistent coordinated approach to development in , P � PP P the area. 1 2.5 PROJECT PHASING i Development of the planned community is proposed to occur in at least two phases over the next ten to fifteen years, concurrent with the consolidation of oil production facilities and construction of major drainage, sewer, utility, and street improvements: The first phase of development (over the next five to ten years) will occur east of the realigned Gothard Street and will include Product Areas B, C, and D. Product Area A, located west of the realigned Gothard Street, will be developed during the second phase (over the next ten plus years). ' r r , r . r r r r r . r r 13a r ' 3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES 3.1 LANDFORM/TOPOGRAPHY 3.1.1 Existing Conditions ' The project site is located on the Huntington Mesa and is topographically variable as shown on Exhibit 5. The southern half of the site is relatively flat with an elevation of aproximately 62 to 66 feet above mean sea level (MSL). The northern portion of the site is bisected by two east to west trending drainage courses that converge near the northern boundary of the site. The elevation of the northern half of the site ' ranges from approximately 13 feet MSL at the convergence of the two drainage courses, to approximately 60 feet MSL. The highest point is approximately 80 feet MSL in the east central portion of the site atop a small knoll. The maximum topographic relief is approximately 65 feet. Drainage of the site is generally northward. 3.1.8 Impacts Implementation of the proposed General Plan Amendment will not in itself impact the landform and topography of the site. Subsequent development of the site in accordance with the concept plan would, however, significantly alter the site's ' land orm and topography, as illustrated in Exhibits 4 and 5. In general, the proposed conceptual grading plan retains the character of the site's existing topography. The most significant grading is required to establish acceptable grades for the master plan alignments of Goldenwest, Ellis, and Gothard. The major ravine system in the northwestern part of the site is retained for open space and drainage purposes. The major fill area will be east of the realigned Gothard Street ' and is required to remedy the "hole" created by the master plan alignment. Grading would be contoured to adjoin adjacent property's elevations and would also be contoured in the proposed greenbelt area along the drainage courses. Cut and fill on the site will be balanced and will total approximately 485,000 cubic yards. Exhibit 6 illustrates the primary areas of cut and fill. Onsite roadways would have a grade of between 0.5 and 4 percent. 14 A preliminary assessment determined that the realignment of Gothard Street would require approximately 25,000 cubic yards of net fill to establish grades that comply ' with arterial highway design safety standards. The drainage area in the northeast portion of the site, east of the proposed alignment of Gothard Street, would be completely filled, raising the elevation in some portions of the area by 20 feet. The remainder of the drainage area would be contour graded, but would retain the existing form and flow direction. Total fill in the drainage areas would be approximately-395,000 cubic yards. The southwestern portion of the site is relatively flat, except for isolated deposits of lime. Grading in this area will be minimal and necessary only to provide adequate ' street drainage. Total cut in this area is estimated at 261,000 cubic yards. Fill material, when properly compacted, should be suitable for building placement. 3.L3 Mitigation Measures r 1. Subsequent to submittal of a tentative tract map and rough grading plan ' for the project site, or any portions thereof, a detailed grading plan should be prepared and geotechnically reviewed for feasibility. 2. Grading will be conducted in accordance with the City of Huntington Beach grading ordinance. 3. Graded areas should be protected from wind and water erosion through r acceptable slope stabilization methods such as planting or netting. 15 T — ld J : 7," �- " 3.54.2' ��_r'ta\'~\~ u � � ��ai i �/�✓� �.� �.`��15.5'- -—0.+4:+'�'r �'.1. //(//t it { 7 ,� �+,^ � _�__ __.��1�1` fir- - -' }t I. i - •'O` -' 1 - �. .. _ .. .. -460.0 : i - - _ _ • it , lk `i L. I - i • _ °•1 ii_.. �'�.'i •'}.I it J.?fL,�-1.11 � !{_} � :% - .. �`_. LEGEND sumps DRAINAGE COURSE ' ELEVATION x63.3' ABOVE MEAN SEA LEVEL TOPOGRAPHY C�OIv][ MaO��OC�pQ o �6 4 City of Huntington Beach � c 0 216 430 FEET ' EXHIBIT 6 � �A��� '• �f 1�/ �"Q AID e° �� �t' c fit - �.�%.� ;rev „�w®' � '�d`� �. � . �. �' �•: �e�� ' v'y� �F[ILE -ILF[IL�F ' �, �� J �� y O� �` a° �`►�s' �•. k k I > >l i'�I 1��jsZ��-, .i`�^� Vie/�i����.�, ��� �at►sR �� •;�y��ti E 7 l 7! l 7 Public Streets 7.8 imp:+ '����x �� .4 ''° ,. ' �• fa:as ;►asp � —_ E�v�r gSOt d��i 1l�St lSL4�, tr �rdaE! �EElf— C4ii+ • �a�tt • • • • � � 11111 1111 HOLLY PLANNED 11 COMMUNITY/GPA ■■■■■■ 3.2 GEOLOGY/SOILS/OIL PRODUCTION 1 This section is a summary of the major findings from a geotechnical study prepared by Leighton and Associates in August 1984. The report is included in its entirety in ' Appendix C. Additional information and mitigation measures have been incorporated from both the state's Department of Conservation, Division of Oil and Gas and Department of Health Services,Toxic Substances Control Division. G 3.2.1 Existing Conditions Regional Geology The study area is located in the central portion of the Huntington Beach Mesa, near the southern coastal edge of the Los Angeles Basin. The mesa is situated between the Santa Ana River gap to the east and the Bolsa gap to the west. Nearly horizontal terrace deposits (both ancient near-shore and terrestrial deposits) cap the mesa, overlying the sedimentary San Pedro and Fernando (formerly Pico) Formations. The Newport-Inglewood fault zone forms an important element of the regional geologic structure. The Huntington Mesa is one of the southernmost landward ' expressions of a succession of hills and mesas aligned along this fault zone. A questionable extension of the Yorktown Avenue fault has been shown on a map in the City of Huntington Beach Seismic Safety Element to be crossing the study area. The major geologic and geographic features of the region are shown on Exhibits 7 and 8. The relationship of various branch faults to the property are discussed below. Surficial Soils and Earth Materials The majority of the surface of the property is mantled b a few feet of topsoil, J Y P P Y Y Ps , consisting primarily of brown, porous, sandy to clayey silt. Colluvial deposits (soil generally greater than 4 feet in depth) appear to have formed on the sides of the ' canyons in the drainage swales and reentrants (see Exhibit 9). Alluvium, generally consisting of gray and tan, sandy and clayey silt, is present within the major drainage channels; it is locally marshy near Ellis Avenue and Golden West Street. Fill ' associated with the oil field and adjacent roadway development is usually derived from nearby shallow cuts. 16 In terms of their agricultural classifications, the near-surface soils consist of the Myford sandy loam, Alo clay series and Thapto-histic fluvaquents. Tests of shrink- ' swell characteristics on such clayey soils indicate a high expansion potential which has been noted to cause problems in urban development. The highly organic peat ' deposits are known to be very compressible. Existing artificial fills at the site include: a partial filling of the main canyon in the ' northeast portion of the property; minor fills associated with roadway construction ' within the site and with the cut/fill grading of oil drill site pads; and three relatively large road fills for the city streets in the areas of the major drainages. Numerous piles of loose fill and trash with concrete and asphalt rubble and organics have been , dumped locally throughout the property. A few deposits of tar and oil were observed on the ground surface locally near oil wells, north of the former Holly sugar plant , and near the intersection of Crystal Street and Ernest Avenue. The latter location is near the site of an old oil sump, as shown on the 1949 U.S. Geological Survey Seal ' Beach Quadrangle. Although no oil sumps are known to exist on the property according to the Division of Oil and Gas or the Huntington Beach Company, older significant disposal areas associated with the oil field activities could be encountered ' in exploratory excavations or during site grading. Lime Deposit - Large amounts of a white powdery material have been stockpiled '(approximately 5 feet high) in the east-central portion of the property. This material , is reportedly a waste product of limestone that was originally used during the processing of sugar from beets. This residue is believed to be 90 percent calcium ' carbonate. It is probably all inert material at this time, the organics having decomposed. A chemical analysis was made in 1977 on samples obtained from the site. Both the Holly Sugar Company and Birtcher Pacific Developers (who have ' recently developed another old Holly Sugar site in Santa Ana) report that similar material at the Santa Ana site was found to be suitable for use as fill and that, with ' appropriate moisture conditioning, it will compact satisfactorily. Geologic Structure and Faults ' The site is shown to be bisected by the conjectured westward extension of the ' Yorktown and Adams Avenue faults. The projected subsurface traces of these faults 17 N4N � t jB4Y u ----- _. I _._..- _______ .. _..-.__ -------------------- WARNER OOLS CHICA I ES i •HUNTINGTON a ti SITE f. :r0 BE CH T s s. \�OADAM m nv ----`G� �-- -- ---� -- -- - - }N otu I otm so ool Qr0 •ocl :otU HUNTINGTO :8.9-.I •,r r - -r -- - ••,9 �\ NEWPORT MESA.:: LEGEND BEAc .ti� I :: ti 1.00uita«.w Uli/.at/r..WI(a antarclS _.� - _: __..-' :_l_ _ __ ot10 rr:aa+RIM)oa Caa..e Wtta Clam. �••' : (`META ar Id IWSIA Ktra W ataCl CO. t%71 ,- �f0 ;:,• :loop! ; Y1 �•,T •mar-.w.•s awto 1 ..r...c.•a•.aa , 'o01!t: �� "Qf Qt Qil r1ee-+ea.or0-oo•a•co.•oa.e••aoa.waa. s•s...ce ot•os.•s....re.r...rs eo.s. 001. ®r•s.a•.+•w.n..vaa.•.o wamr.+..o.•semo-•t.o-r. :.fir:, BAY .e.•oss.a.ra•ws..o•-oo.m•a.+Clam•eorrwtr+.a. I T �.✓i/, s..•se.e•e•r...e. _ _tte otm O4 . /� f Qt0 .....t s..o.a•.raa.+.a•.•.e ea.-:..eaueaa—to C -� •:j .�/ ��/ ro..•sn••.e aor••.-.•a-sru-a.• u:aoC.Lt.aa• � a....a-eawsn.w.o.rr. •-¢-•on•u o•s•.a•.a NEW �• i rZ rsa-•sao..•s••.Clam-•o..r..taaa. SEA CH ®ce.aea.o••to uo+a......oc•6 - T.65. -C...ea++e Y..m•O.a.M.a a.»O+•a.+.O.a: .t eac•••C-ocn..e•oc•s mot.•...'a...... .,•=-to--a.f•.we•.r.•ta•a oc..to.Do••so .-a•a Co t•aao o-•..a•-ao -_• •_-__ r.Ce. C. e•+-eo»a•s..•t•ao..e ert+•.e.uaa Qla //�� REGIONAL GEOLOGIC MAP C0wwUH0VVARpa 2 Z 4 City of Huntington Beach No h 0 1 2 MILES EXHIRIT 7 i ' Kl.00SL.� •� t Id r4! SUBJECT PROPERTY gVcw„_ tip, C7 HIGHEST S89%4C RISK ♦`.':� `�`�(� ,``� ``q - .o..! (GREATEST SURFACE RUPTURE `♦�\� `� ! ` `� • ` A POTENTIAL WITHIN CRY ` •,! �` :tr ..��` .� < ®AREA OF INTENSIVE SHEAR •; `. e.A q ,• `` r BURIED TRACE OF FAULT `. •, t,, `:` . . (W"400'ZONE) �` ,,` `•�` `✓ ®UNCERTAMTY AS TO EXISTENCE `�`♦ ,,~,,• 'q(f1, , OR EXTENSION OF FAULT ! ♦ From: Huntington Beach, Seismic Safety Element, 1974. FAULT LOCATIONS WOLLl PUVED NO SCALE City of Huntington Beach Noah Midnel Bn,ldnun A�otim EXHIBIT 8 -[f=� � �- i"'V• 1I.. i ,il I_ -; r r, ''/[I� f ~ s - � •c� _i 'l�. �l i- R `�► _-.: ` ti r,,� ' �'/ `Cal -\ pp••.• ' `.\�� � ''.'- '��-"' ``� . ` 1.. Ot y� : � / . y � Af x y io 1 \ �. - is N. ot -77 we , Col "j_l _ l '� 11 - Z `,; �,`�, ``_ � �_, -; ,,:�'� �-.�,..f•,•�\ _ ._ _ Aot r .�•�'�-_���T �>> ,1 ;; , _ is � � �� ��. _. - 1 � , � Vicinity of- .. -.—i�f c=— r Old Oil Sump 1 (USGS ,1949 Ouad Sheet) -!� Gt "_ Ili .J _ ,I _ _ -�•- � - ''., .. _. 'Iri Former Site of __ a Old Waste r Water Sumli LEGEND z, - - . 1 ' Surficial Units _ Symbols Af Major Fill Areas (Smaller fills not shown) Contact ' AI Lime Deposits Aot Oil and Tar Deposits (More may occur than shown on map) col Colluvium ' Foal Alluvium Mat Terrace Deposits SOURCE: LEIGHTON 8 ASSOCIATES, AUGUST 1984 SURFICIAL UNITS C0G°�Q � City of Huntington Beach Nomb o 216 430 FEET EXHIBIT 9 are shown on Exhibit 8 (reproduced from the Huntington Beach Seismic Safety Element). A recent review of the fault data by the California Division of Mines and Geology indicates that there appears to be a lack of sufficient evidence that the faults mapped north of the North Branch fault displace the relatively younger alluvial aquifers in the Santa Ana gap, as indicated by earlier Department of Water Resources investigations. Like the extension of the Yorktown and Adams Avenue faults, there is a lack of evidence as to'the location and/or existence of the Bolsa-Fairview Branch within the younger formations on the mesa and in the surrounding areas. It has been mapped at, or just beyond, the northeast corner of the subject site. Recent geologic mapping by the California Division of Mines and Geology and others has found no evidence of the existence of this fault at the surface. The ort-In major active faults within the New lewood fault zone are considered to P g be the North Branch and the South Branch faults, which are 5,000 and 2,000 feet, respectively, southwest of the property. Recent subsurface investigations on the northwest side of the Huntington Beach Mesa and on the Bolsa Chica Mesa have uncovered offset along the North Branch fault within the Pliestocene-age marine. terrace deposits. This investigation failed to locate the South Branch. Alquist-Priolo Zonation - In 1972, the State of California enacted the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone Act. The purpose of this act is to delineate all active faults (faults with movement in the last 10,000 years) in California and to prohibit development of structures for human occupancy across the terrace of an active fault, in order to mitigate the hazard of fault rupture. In December of 1973, the state released preliminary special studies zones maps of the Newport-Inglewood fault zone (including the Bolsa-Fairview fault and all of the other branches within the zone), classifying them as active. Following a subsequent review period, the southern section of the Newport-Inglewood zone was removed from the special studies zone as of July 1, 1974, inasmuch as the faults could not be demonstrated to be sufficiently well-defined, according to state criteria, to be included in the zone. The area of the subject property, as well as the other portions of the fault zone within the City of Huntington Beach, are excluded from the special studies zone. 18 1 Regional Seismicity The frequency of earthquakes and the intensity of the seismic ground shaking to be experienced at the site will depend upon which of the numerous active regional faults produced the earthquake, upon the earthquake magnitude, the distance from the earthquake epicenter, and the local soil conditions. Epicenter locations of earthquakes of Richter magnitude greater than 4.0 during the period from 1932 to 1972 are shown on Figure 5 in Appendix C. Table 2 indicates the estimated earthquake magnitudes and intensities associated .with major active faults of the region, based on the latest analyses. ' TABLE 2 GENERAL SEISMIC PARAMETERS Maximum Probable Earthquake Magnitude Maximum Mercalli Fault Distance (mi) (Richter) Intensity (at site) Newport-Inglewood 0-2 6.5 IX Whittier-Elsinore 22 6.7 VII San Jacinto 46 7.5 VII-VIII Sierra Madre- San Fernando 32 6.5 VI-VII San Andreas 51 8.3 VII-VIII Design Considerations for Seismic Shaking - Because of the proximity of the Newport-Inglewood fault zone, future earthquakes on this fault, in all likelihood, would produce the strongest seismic ground motion at the site and would be considered the controlling fault for the purposes of building design and site stability analysis. Since the subject property is underlain by poorly to moderately consolidated alluvial and terrace materials, the intensity of ground shaking could range from moderate to high. Secondary Effects of Seismic Shaking - Soil liquefaction, flow landslidin seismically , � � g� induced settlement, and ground lurching are secondary earthquake phenomena ' generally associated with relatively strong seismic shaking, shallow groundwater 19 ' generally associated with relatively strong seismic shaking, shallow groundwater conditions, and the presence of loose sandy soils or alluvial deposits. Such a set of adverse site conditions may exist locally in the canyon bottoms at the site. However, further analysis and site exploration will be necessary to verify this possibility. Landslides and Erosion No areas of significant slope instability were observed during the Leighton and Associates geotechnical site reconnaissance, nor have any such areas been previously mapped on the property by others. The near-surface formations underlying the mesa are relatively stable from the standpoint of landslide resistance. Significant erosion was noted in the northeast portion of the property where there was no soil or vegetation cover and water was directed along a dirt road that washed 1 out. Minor erosion was noted on roadway fill slopes, on cut areas in the oil fields, and locally throughout the property, mostly in the areas of previous grading activities. Groundwater Conditions The margin Huntington Beach Mesa lies at the southwestern of the Orange Count g � g Y coastal plain groundwater basin. There are three main water-bearing zones beneath the Huntington Beach Mesa. Both the upper and middle aquifers have been contaminated by salt water since the 1920s. Old U.S. Geological Survey water supply maps (1953, 1956, and 1959) show a total of eight groundwater wells on the subject property, five of which are located in the suthern portion of the property and were probably associated with the Holly Sugar plant (see Exhibit 10). These wells are not in use today and it is not known if they were ever abandoned according to current requirements. Current Oil Production Status There have been approximately 37 oil wells drilled on the study area, according to maps of the California Division of Oil and Gas, 13 of which are known to be 20 abandoned, see Exhibit 10. There are presently 22 wells pumping oil and two that are , idle but believed to be capable of producing. The idle wells are "Copeland 12" and "Russell 1." These wells are awaiting further evaluation to determine their future disposition. None of the oil wells on the property were known to be injection wells. The Division of Oil and Gas has issued certificates of compliance for all abandoned oil wells on , the site (B. Holman, Huntington Beach, California, 1984). The subject property is presently leased by several different oil companies, with leases dating back to the 1920s. Due to the fact that the oil development on the property has had such a long history with many different operating companies, there appears to be a very complex system of pipelines (both operating and abandoned) and numerous storage tanks at the site. There is an oil gathering system with pipelines to each well. Three maintained lines are known to exist on the property, including: a Standard Oil line near Ellis Avenue; , a Union Oil line near Golden West; and a Texaco line which reportedly passes through the property. Water and electrical service lines run to all the well sites. , Other Mineral Resources , Although no other resources have been extracted from the study area, many other mineral sites have been recorded in the vicinity. Early oil well records indicate previous geothermal resources of natural stream. The "O'Brien Porter 2" .well, located just south of Main and Holly Streets, produced hot salt water and the "Sequro , No. 1" well reached downhole temperatures of 45°F. Clay was mined to 3- to 5-foot depths at a location approximately 1,000 feet north , of the subject property along the Southern Pacific Railroad between the year 1906 to 1907. The mines shut down in 1974 due to urban encroachment. Two abandoned sand pits, the Sully-Miller Pit and the Bruce Brothers Pit, are located north of the property in the drainage channel at approximate distances of 200 and 1,000 feet, respectively, from the subject property boundary. The quarries were active in the 1950s and nearly depleted in the early 1970s, at which time they were sold to the City of Huntington Beach. 21 ' - 1 US a #CN A APC iwor Ou 6 ' ♦ 7 IfI _•1 *r•�.t i•,a tim iti o I wn lr«ww _ 1 24i-•�NfV A1!' ' ELLIS AVE. _ • wI ew w• J�/ •' • pit JICII Oil Co. M+ Y.•OMI/.Y/-�rWI• SUBJECT s lot ♦2 PROPERTY •F• Fi•n• 1[ I►,wV •/F/C. 1 l Reh&wit Corp .,"dPot "Asw" ����/�/IdJ Nw►►iw�hw /wwA Ct • 10 22 • lMuwl/nylow M•///,) sC iM • 7 1.01w)•AlMd O ♦121 of ! •7 % 7 •1 • •!' o w o 3- c.wJJ ati•.a•u/z r A s P 1 • (7i..•rsXwer•t) N 1 O P 7 Ts ric• /1e. nr� /mac• � (si�yrl • s N y ♦1 I[I• /r h- II ,,.,, ..•. ,�. O P 5,6 11 ��-3414roes • • ♦ N •Iw4 • J►�•/ :..I... ♦• rer, ♦t u iw,r o:/C'/r. O P 3 I: J.MI r.•e Ji•14 :..ar/" • ww w• :Y•t�.A'M- * '♦ tar'•• `_ _..4/ 'T'A ia./a wo,:,4 ♦' / dd 22 w":i•,,.�e•1 ��+� •� r ....+wi'1l�f]�.s1.:i•;�yns) +wa/ C.worr/a.16.0 `• 1 • r!'tx» M. (MI�•.` �•./C. t K/i(,M•r.��� w aI ti..C.,/,v �Ce+'•) � LEGEND ' Base Map Modified From: • Producing Oil Well Div. of Oil and Gas 9 Map Sheet 134, Huntington Beach Oil Field, ♦ Abandoned-Oil Well Dated Oct. 30.1982 + Abandoned-Dry Hole OApproximate Location of Old Water Well (After Sinnott, A and Poland, J.F., 195% and Bob Allen, H.B. Water Department, Personal Communication) OIL AND WATER WELLS MOLLY PL&MM City of Huntington Beach 11a� 0 260 500 FEET r EXHIBIT 10 3.2.2 Impacts This section presents in summary form the principle geotechnical factors that were ' considered and rated on a subjective scale, comparing the study area with the range of hazard severity which is generally representative in southern California; refer to Table 2; in Appendix C, which presents a matrix indicating the rating of the hazard type affecting the subject site, and possible mitigation measures which could be utilized. Those hazards not specifically. discussed below were considered to have minimal or no potential impact. Fault Displacement or Ground Rupture Earthquake-related movement along suspected. faults (such as the Yorktown/Adams Avenue and Bolsa-fairview faults of the Newport-Inglewood zone), which results in surface rupture of the ground is one of the more significant potential hazards to be revaluated in the future development of the property. . Although the property is not presently included within an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies zone .(a state regulation requiring the special investigation of potentially active faults), its implications with regard to the possible development constraints associated with the movement of ' faults in the Newport-Inglewood zone must be appropriately evaluated during the planning process. ' Further research and analysis will be necessary to assess the risk of ground rupture from fault movement, and to determine what mitigation measures, if any, are required. A site-specific field investigation involving trenching to verify the absence of near-surface faulting will probably be necessary. Such investigations are normally conducted at the tentative map phase. Regional Seismic Ground Shaking The most severe seismic shaking at the site is expected to originate from a nearby earthquake along the Newport-Inglewood fault zone. The response and performance of the structures subjected to seismic ground shaking will depend on the mitigation ' measures employed in grading and the type and design of the structures. 22 1 Liquefaction and Other Related Secondary Seismic Hazards , Secondary earthquake hazards, such as liquefaction, seismically induced settlement, , and ground lurching are generally associated with high intensities of ground shaking, shallow groundwater conditions, and the presence of loose sandy soils or alluvial , deposits. Since most of the site is underlain by semiconsolidated terrace deposits and the groundwater table is believed to be generally deeper than 50 feet below the mesa, the hazard potential spears to be slight. The canyons appear to-have more unconsolidated alluvial deposits and a shallower groundwater table; consequently, the hazard potential may be moderate in those areas. Settlement and Expansive Soils In general, the foundation bearing capacity of the formations underlying the mesa is relatively predictable and favorable. Settlement of structures built on natural ground (cut areas) or on properly placed and compacted fills, therefore, is expected to be negligible. Some clay soils (probably moderately to highly expansive) appear to underlie the northeast corner of the property and some peat deposits (susceptible to collapse) appear to underlie the northern central canyon area. Generally, they should not pose a significant development constraint if they are recognized and properly mitigated. , Lime Deposit Disposal Although existing tests on the sugar processing waste deposits confirm they are largely lime, the presence of hazardous chemicals or constituents (other than their unsuitability for plants) apparently was not ruled out. _Their incorporation into earth fills as part of the development grading, however, is probably feasible, based on recent practices involving similar materials elsewhere, and subject to favorable laboratory tests confirming the absence of hazardous chemicals. The addition of soil amendments to counteract the relatively high pH of the deposits would probably be necessary if the fill containing them is to serve as a planting medium. 23 Slope Instability Landsliding or other similar slope stability problems have not been, and are not expected to be, a significant development constraint. The natural slopes along the canyon areas will require further analysis during the tentative map phase to confirm the generally favorable conditions anticipated. There may be a potential for failure of trench walls and/or steep temporary slopes made during construction. Seiches The risk of Seiches (seismically induced waves in lakes or reservoirs) is considered nil ' to slight. There is a remote possibility that the water level in the Sully-Miller Lake may arise high enough (especially during the winter months) to pose a threat of seiche activity along the banks of the lake but probably not to the subject property. Erosion, Sedimentation, and Flooding The erosion and sedimentation hazards from storm runoff appears to be a significant ' problem within the drainage channels at the site, since surface runoff from existing residential areas to the northeast and from the property to the west is presently channeled across the subject property. Oil Field Hazards and Constraints . ' Mechanical failures, accidents, or earth movements resulting in rupturing of well pipelines or tanks are always a possibility within an oil field. Such breaks could lead to spills of petroleum products and leakage of water, steam, or gases resulting in hazard from fumes, fire and pollution. With appropriate handling techniques, such occurrences would be unlikely. Standard safety practices, monitoring, adequate repairs and maintenance, and contingency ' .plans should adequately mitigate the potential hazards related to active oil field operations. The possible existence of old buried sumps, trash dumps, abandoned pipelines, and underground storage tanks, however, could be a source of groundwater ' pollution or environmental health hazards if their presence and potential impacts are unrecognized and not appropriately mitigated. If required by the State Department 24 of Health and Safety (DOHS), a site characterization study will be prepared prior to tentative map approval to assess the potential environmental hazards within the ' site. Mitigation measures will then be based on the findings of the study. Abandoned Oil and Water Wells - Thirteen known oil wells, seven known water wells, and possibly more unrecorded wells have been abandoned on the subject property. Producing oil wells will also be abandoned in the future as production is phased out. All abandoned oil wells will be required to be plugged according to the City of Huntington Beach Oil Code and the California Division of Oil and Gas standards (currently, abandoned oil wells have been certified as having met these standards. The water wells must be properly abandoned according to the City of Huntington Beach Water Well Abandonment Code 1917. Any wells that may have been , abandoned improperly pose the hazard of surface seepage of oil, gases, or groundwater. Pipeline - Extensive oil, water, and electric utility lines exist beneath the site. Proposed grading would either expose the existing utility lines in cut areas or bury them beneath new fills. Inasmuch as the trench backfill materials may be susceptible to settlement, appropriate mitigation measures will be necessary in any areas where the proposed grading does not remove them. Sumps - Oil and wastewater sumps and other types of waste disposal sites are known to exist on the subject property. Such known and presently unrecognized old sumps or buried disposal pits could be significant soil constraints and environmental hazards because of the unsuitable and possibly toxic materials they may contain. , 3.2.3 Mitigation Measures 1. Mitigation of a fault rupture hazard, if found to exist, would usually require an adequate building setback from the fault or faulted zone. The amount of setback could vary depending upon the geologic circumstances and the reliability of the fault location, but in most cases it might range , between about 20 to 50 feet. In some instances it could be as much as 100 feet. Such setbacks would not usually be a constraint to development of roads, utilities, parking lots, recreational usage, or storage-type , structures. It is generally not considered feasible to mitigate fault rupture hazards by designing structures to be more resistive. , 25 2. Mitigation of the potentially damaging effects of seismic ground shaking is usually accomplished by the design and construction of the proposed residential structures in conformance with the latest Uniform Building Code (UBC), applicable for Seismic Zone 4. Grading in accordance with the current code requirements should provide adequate densification of 1 those relatively minor alluvial soil deposits which might tend to amplify certain types of seismic motion. ' 3. A subsurface geotechnical investigation (normally required prior to approval of development plans) would be necessary to better evaluate the ' potential for liquefaction or settlement and to recommend the appropriate mitigation measures. ' 4. A more detailed analysis f to ys s o the onsite sods is recommended, although 1 standard grading techniques and conformance with current. grading requirements are anticipated to satisfactorily mitigate the hazards from ' settlement or expansive soils. Expansive soils can be easily mitigated by appropriate foundation design, and compressible soils can be removed prior to fill placement. 5. Should further testing determine that hazardous chemicals are present, the ' lime deposits would most likely require their removal to a suitable disposal site (see Mitigation Measure 14). G-2 ' 6. Hazards such as failure of trench walls and/or steep temporary slopes made during construction may be satisfactorily mitigated by observing ' standard construction regulations and procedures. ' 7. Channel improvements in the main drainage courses, as well as adequate outlet improvements to the north, remain the chief means to mitigate the ' potentially significant impacts of stream channel flow and to protect the proposed structures of adjacent lands. 8. All abandoned well locations and abandonment procedures already implemented should be verified through examination of records and/or 26 r field inspection prior to grading. Any well which will be disturbed or exposed by grading (i.e., cuts lowering the ground elevation) must be ' recapped according to the current standards. 9. Per Section 9930.2(c)(16) of the Huntington Beach Zoning Code, tentative ' maps filed for development on the site shall be required to show all existing wells and appurtenances and plan for their disposition or , treatment. 10. All existing pipelines should be located through examination of records and/or field exploration during the site grading. Pipelines no longer in use and the surrounding trench backfill material should be removed or the , settlement potential otherwise treated by an acceptable method. If functioning lines are to remain in use, phasing of the project should be , coordinated with abandonment of the facilities. Alternatively, pipelines could be re-routed either temporarily or permanently during the grading , and construction phases of the project. 11. A review of all available records should be carried out prior to any grading , at the site. All readily verified existing oil and tar sumps and any related deposits containing hazardous wastes should be removed prior to or during site grading. The wastewater sump and all suspected dumps or sumps should be evaluated by means of a subsurface investigation. 12. Per section 9930.2(c)(18) of the Huntington Beach Zoning Code; a physical , and chemical analysis and soils report prepared by a qualified registered soils engineer will most likely be required by the Deputy Director of Development Services as part of the tentative tract map filing. , 13. The city's Oil Code also includes several measures applicable to the safe , and compatable operation of oil production facilities in residential areas, including provisions of fire prevention, general nuisance prevention, and , abandonment and clean-up procedures. 14. The State Department of Health Services reeommends that a full site ' G--2 characterization study be prepared to assess the full nature and extent of 27 r contamination within the site. Further mitigation measures will be based on the findings of the study. 15. Operation, maintenance, and abandonment of all onsite oil wells and future F-1 grading operations on the site shall comply with requirements of the F2 Huntington Beach Oil Code and the State Division of Oil and Gas regulations. The city's oiil. code regulations are the same or, in some cases, F-3 more stringent than the state's regulations and, in those cases the city's F-5 requirements must be met. r r 28 r 3.3 HYDROLOGY This section is based primarily on information provided by Irvine Civil Engineering in ' their letter report of August 31, 1984. The letter and attached worksheets are included in Appendix D for easy reference. ' 3.3.1 Existing Conditions , Drainage Characteristics Existing hydrology of the site is shown on Exhibit 11. As shown on the exhibit, most of the study area drains to the north towards one of two drainage courses/ swales , which run east-west across the northern portion of the site. The two drainage courses converge near Ellis Avenue and drain,through a 33-inch pipe which runs under ' Ellis and empties into Sully Miller Lake. These drainage courses are also fed by offsite areas to the east and west (see Exhibit 11). The most southerly portion of the ' site is flat and runoff in this area generally pools in sumps on the southeastern edge of the site (see Exhibit 5). As shown on Exhibit 11, a 25-year frequency storm will generate approximately 179 cubic feet per second (cfs) of runoff from areas within the study area boundary. Of this total, 30 cfs sheet flows toward Garfield or collects in the sumps on the southeastern portion of the site and seeps into the ground. The remaining 149 cfs ' drains towards the two drainage courses and eventually is carried through the Ellis drain into Sully Miller Lake. ' The total amount of runoff entering Sully Miller Lake under existing conditions is not quantified. However, it would include the runoff from offsite areas to the northeast ' and west. The 33-inch drain under Ellis is currently undersized to freely carry the total runoff from the watershed. Therefore, during heavy rains ponding occurs on , the site before the runoff can flow through the pipe. In 1979, L. D. King be Associates prepared a Master Drainage Plan f or the City of Huntington Beach based on build-out of its Land Use Plan. That portion of the plan covering the study area is shown on Exhibit 12. The study concluded that runoff due ' to a 25-year frequency storm to Sully Miller Lake through the Ellis pipe would total 29 r _ � ) LA •-`-�1, I' 1 t I I 4c SULLY R _ r�,`ILL - r J .m - / Ff 10 ._�$�-- � � j1 .�S 9 177jj1ii� y \.~, 1/'`'yam�/�:. -�\ � _/' t \ ��/^` �� �-'Y � -.� .�•- - \�. ��` �I I .�. FF WUN . \ 4: I, i1 ✓ O ❑ _ I i 1• SOURCE: IRVINE CIVIL ENGINEERING, AUGUST 1984 EXISTING HYDROLOGY 00(vl i1�G�]���DOpLa 02044 ' City of Huntington Beach North 0 z,s 430 FEET EXHIBIT 11 ' __ LEGEND • cAss,�F A.m 6b'n6y Qrt+�lhp�/./ Qiye•r`irs a/':AVOSI fb✓ CA4/ Liii�t/ Ro Q7Aa 7h7oeArmw (hoar _d"6j/rjW:r AVA) ' ubase AV.Et_ �ri�lM ,�)r O nr C�'etd, n Avi P{z (C14P) /dosrMr•n♦rho) O Ca.NiC>/r pcb /dia.rhr n trite) C M'»'rrr.Vril(fume.>1s,[*J/rt3nl ri i+r e Co rrap,rd A*Aa/.v,cn(duY,y:as, by IL•yN/i,.riW Lv GNN,t4a OA'�fvcX S�xwn Of/Sfbrn OWA? Lo*MAr j n:l re/ TALBERT oyo �rre' _. � ysua 1 /-a•s u�iix ;.. e26 /eeB 02 !D reB F I i { 1 y Its - SULLY �.. MILLER 71; ._t _ LAKE' � . e W - C 4�2> ySee L/ELT -". - all ELLI _ _.Milli 5024 ref —- a II /eoyi� ® ae t u e7 / T SITE �' I. C.t "� r t / 1 re o i t: rss GARFIELD, on• w•a.. m• o•.o n an ou.... j 'r 5......•r i +.....J i .� LOGFIG HUNTINGTON BEACH MASTER PLAN OF DRAINAGE ff I ok OOG G�i]MaO��OC�pQ A 4 ' City of Huntington Beach North 0 500 1000 FEET EXHIBIT 12 r ' roughly 533 cubic feet per second (efs). This assumed buildout of the site and surrounding areas within the lake's watershed. The plan also shows a total of ' approximately 284 cfs entering the site at the northeast corner of the site and about 90 cfs entering the site at the western boundary just north of Ernest Avenue. Sully Miller Lakel Sully Miller Lake was formed by sand and gravel excavation operations. The open pit collected storm runoff and is fed by groundwater forming the lake. Only a portion of the pit is waterfilled. The steep banks on all sides are 40 to 60 feet above the water's surface and are subject to excessive erosion. r The lake's watershed consists of a mushroom farm (directly west of the lake) oil ' wells (on and off the Holly property), a fire station, an automobile repair facility, the police practice range, horse stables, and open space (on the Holly property). Storm runoff into the lake is primarily from the 33-inch storm drain under Ellis. This drain enters the lake at 9.23 feet above mean sea level (MSL). ' The water level fluctuates considerably during the year and is primarily controlled by the groundwater table. At elevation 0.0 feet MSL, the lake has.a total surface area ' of 9.3 acres and a total volume of 223.7 acre-feet. Large storm runoffs cause rapid rises in the lake's surface level. Originally, this rise would stabilize or reverse as the ' water level reached and exceeded the outlet drain at elevation 7.47 feet above MSL. This drain is located at the north end of the lake (opposite the inlet from Ellis) ' and runs underground through the landfill area bordered by Golden West Street and Talbert Avenue. However, this drain is presently inoperative apparently due to collapse of the pipe in the landfill area. Consequently, all of the storm runoff must now percolate into the ground. ' The city has plans to expand the Huntington Central Park to include the Sully Miller Lake. The lake would most likely be developed into a fishing pond with appurtenent facilities. At this time, however, the plans for the use of the lake have not been finalized. 1 Information for this section is from Sully Miller Lake) An Assessment and Development Plan, A. W. Fast, Ph.D. and J. H. Glenn, P.E., October 1980. 1 30 i r r Groundwater l ' The Huntington Beach Mesa lies at the southwestern margin of the Orange County ' coastal plain groundwater basin. There are three main water-bearing zones beneath Huntington Beach Mesa. The upper aquifer is 50 feet thick at an approximate depth of 50 to 60 feet below the ground surface at the site. In 1983, the elevation of the ' groundwater surface was mapped at an elevation of 0 MSL by the Orange County Water District. The middle aquifer is also about 50 feet thick and occurs roughly 200 feet below the site. The lower aquifer is 250+ feet thick and occurs at about 300 feet below the surface. ' Old U.S. Geological Survey Maps show a total of eight groundwater wells on the subject property. These wells are not in use today and it is not known if they were ' ever abandoned according to current requirements. Exhibit 10 in Section 3.2 illustrates their approximate locations. ' Water Quality Surface Water - Water quality of the offsite and onsite generated runoff carried through the site is influenced by urban activities, agricultural activities, and , industrial (oil production) activities. Urban activities generate oil, grease, and heavy metals from motor vehicles, and nutrients (fertilizers) and pesticides from landscape , maintenance. Agricultural activities, such as the horse stables to the west are also a source of nutrients (manure). Oil producing activities, such as those on and off the , site can generate oil and dissolved solids (from brine spills). Due to the open space condition of most of the site, the site is a source of silt and sediment due to erosion of the unprotected soils. The quality of the surface water within the drainage courses on the site appears poor ' due to stagnation and debris loading. An anaysis of the drain water entering the Sully Miller Lake provides an indication of the quality of runoff carried through and ' originating from the site. 1 Source of groundwater information: Leighton and Associates "Geotechnical r Assessment for EIR Related to Holly Property Residential Project," August 1984. , 31 1 r r - . The quality of water in Sully Miller Lake was evaluated as part of the Sully Miller Lake study (Fast and Glenn, 1980). The study did not quantify sedimentation rates or nutrient loads, however, it appears that sediment transport into the lake is moderate and mostly from the exposed lake banks; and nutrient loading is excessive, the primary source being the manure used at the mushroom farm. Nutrient concentrations of the inlet drain water were also considered high. 1 ' Total dissolved solids concentrations in the lake are relatively low compared to other lakes, such as Huntington Lake. However, the quality of the influent drain water was considered very poor due to the excessive concentration of total dissolved solids ' (TDS). The source of the high TDS was believed to be oil production activities. They assumed that brine spills at the wells could account for the high TDS values in the Ellis drain water. Groundwater - Of the three aquifers underlying the Huntington Beach Mesa, the upper and middle aquifers have been contaminated by salt water since the 1920s. The lower zone is inclined northward and pinches out to the south, thereby retarding the intrusion of salt water. The City of Huntington Beach is presently using groundwater as their primary source of domestic water, all of which is extracted from areas north of the mesa. The ' aquifers underlying the mesa have become brackish for use as domestic water, although water is being pumped from the lower aquifer for irrigation uses. 3.3.2 Impacts Amendment of the city's general plan to develop mixed residential versus industrial, office and estate residential uses will not significantly alter the hydrology impacts ' associated with development of the site. In general, any kind of urban development on the site will result in an increase in surface water runoff and a decrease in water ' percolation into the groundwater. In addition, drainage patterns will most likely be altered and storm drain improvements required. Drainage and water quality impacts to the existing and future conditions of Sully Miller Lake will also have to be considered. Water quality impacts will include an increase in urban pollutants (oil, grease, fertilizers, pesticides, etc.), but a decrease.in erosion and sedimentation 1 - 32 1 r r Drainage Characteristics According to the preliminary hydrology study prepared for the EIR, the runoff volumes to Sully Miller Lake from the site developed under the proposed concept ' plan (illustrated on Exhibit 13), will increase by 16 cfs (for a 25-year frequency storm). This represents an 11 percent increase over the existing condition. This increase is based on a number of assumptions, including the locations of future storm drains. ' Further hydrology studies should be prepared to evaluate the cumulative impact of , this increase plus any changes from offsite areas draining to Sully Miller Lake via the site. As shown on the city's Master Drainage Plan (Exhibit 12), offsite areas will contribute the majority of runoff draining across the site to the Ellis Avenue drain. This offsite drainage should also be accounted for in any further analysis of Sully Miller Lake. , It was not evident from the concept plan, how the offsite runoff entering the subject property from east of the Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way would be carried r through the site. Options might include piping it through the site to the greenbelt/drainage course or carrying it in a culvert along Ellis Avenue. , The existing 33-inch RCP under Ellis Avenue, which drains into Sully Miller Lake, is , not currently adequate to effectively drain the site under existing or ultimate conditions. Unless retention of runoff in the onsite greenbelt south -of Ellis is , proposed, the.culvert will require replacement by a substantially larger structure. In addition, the hydrology analysis shows that runoff from a small portion of the , developed site will drain presumably through streets, to Garfield Avenue to the south. The post-development volume is shown to be 13.9 efs, which is about half of ' the volume shown to be draining to this point under existing conditions (see Exhibit 11). However, most of the runoff occurring under the existing condition collects , onsite or seeps into the ground and does not reach Garfield. Under post-development conditions almost all surface runoff will reach Garfield through the streets, thereby ' increasing the demand for improved storm drain facilities in Garfield. . r 33 1 r r B ��� 44 4, t;4> q. ; el {/-cam 1 �I 4�� q ._..+� fjl' ' V�!'� '" �,_ �� � • $ r ...., ... !, f TU � � TYPE LINTS ACRES U/A CC�` L�•O. r A Seale Fanny Detached 350 84.8 8.1 - B SoVe Famiy Attached 170 17.3 9.8 y Cl C MAti-Famry Towriwuse 230 18.8 13.9 ? I �•^"' � ('�Y' D KMi-Famity Flats 450 23.8 18.8 8 _ ;�v� ••- ie- ' Ptbbc Sheets 7.8 I .'. -.' 8.�.. :fl m:r.:-I• TOTAL 1200 120.3 10.0 n I [ �.. �. � - r � ... p Pp 1 ' v rSOURCE: IRVINE CIVIL ENGINEERING. AUGUST 1984. 1 1 POST-DEVELOPMENT HYDROLOGY MOLEY pUMM D Midnelt nAronam OOO G�]G�MaO��OC�pQ 4 4 City of Huntington Beach 0 215 430 FEET EXHIBIT 13 As part of the full street improvements required for Garfield Avenue upon project ' development, the storm drain system in Garfield will be upgraded. This will include the westerly extension of the storm drain in Garfield near Delaware over to the project site's point of discharge. This extension is shown as part of the city's Master Plan of Drainage. Sully Miller Lake The increased,runoff volume will impact Sully Miller Lake in its existing condition. Increased runoff could increase erosion and sedimentation as it empties into the lake, Also, during extreme storm conditions, the lake could"potentially fill to a point ' where it could back up onto the project site. ' The 1980 Sully Miller Lake study recommended that the outlet drain at the north end of the lake be reconstructed to allow for water level stabilization (draining of excessive storm flows). If this outlet drain was repaired, it could alleviate this potential impact as well as act as a water quality control device for the lake. ' The lake study suggests that it would be desirable to divert at least part of the Ellis Avenue drain water and runoff from the mushroom farm around the lake and directly into the repaired outlet drain. This would reduce the amounts of undesirable contaminants now entering the lake water., Such a measure should be considered by the city as part of any further studies prepared for rehabilitation of the lake. ' Groundwater Upon project development, percolation of water to the groundwater table will be ' reduced due to the increased coverage by impermeable surfaces. This should not have a significant impact since the upper groundwater aquifers underlying this part of the mesa are not suitable for domestic uses. Water Quality Construction Phase - During the construction phase of the proposed project, or any urban development on the site, the concentration of urban pollutants and sediment in the site's runoff would increase. This is a temporary adverse impact which cannot be 34 avoided, however can be mitigated, through careful construction practices and ' erosion control measures. ' Development of the project is proposed to occur in two phases over a five- to ten- year period. Therefore, these short-term water quality impacts could be expected ' during the initial grading phase and any subsequent phases of heavy construction operations. Significant soil erosion could result if a portion of the site is cleared and left uncovered or unvegetated between phases. Developed Phase - Development of the site with residential uses would cumulatively ' add to the amount of urban contaminants reaching the surface water resources from the site. The removal of most of the oil wells should offset some of this increase , since they are contributors of oil and total dissolved solids. The landscaped areas of the residential development would contribute fertilizers, pesticides, and sediment to ' the surface water runoff. The amount of sediment generated would, however, be significantly less than is being generated by the existing, primarily undeveloped ' condition of the site. Sully Miller Lake - Under existing conditions, the quality of the Ellis drain influent is i poor. This is due primarily to high concentrations of nutrients and total dissolved solids. The source of the high nutrient levels is most likely the adjacent mushroom farm, the ' residential area that borders the site to the east, the horse stables across Golden West Street to the west, and onsite vegetation debris. Therefore, with development t of the proposed project and the related landscaping features, these nutrient levels will most likely increase. This is of prime concern since high nutrient concentrations can lead to accelerated eutrophication of the lake. ' The source of the high TDS levels was assumed to be the oil well activities in the , watershed. This would most likely include oil facilities both on and off the project site. Upon ultimate project development, the number of oil wells should be ' reduced. This should effectively reduce the amount of oil, salts, and other related contaminants entering the lake's runoff. 35 The sediment load originating from the site should be insignificant upon completion of the proposed development and its associated groundcover or landscaping. Depending on the ultimate use of the lake, the proposed project could have an insignificant or a significant impact on the quality of Sully Miller Lake. If it remains under its existing use as a stormwater retention basin, the increase in urban ' pollutants may not be a significant factor. However, given that the city could potentially develop the lake as a fishing lake, this degradation of water quality would be considered cumulatively significant. Development of the site would add cumulatively to the pollutant loads entering the runoff from other parts of the lake's watershed. As stated earlier, one of the measures recommended by the lake study for improving the quality of the lake's water, is to divert at least part of the Ellis drain runoff and mushroom farm runoff around the lake and directly into the outlet structure at the north end of 'the lake (assuming it is functional). This measure may, in fact, be desirable and necessary to upgrade the quality of usefulness of the lake, however, further study would be required to determine its necessity and feasibility. 3.2.3 Mitigation Measures 1. A detailed hydrology study will be prepared by a licensed civil engineer as required by the city to further quantify the combined drainage impacts of the development and other developments in the same watershed, and evaluate the need for upgrading of public storm drain facilities. 2. The developer will be required to construct or upgrade all onsite and offsite storm drain facilities needed to drain the site according to city requirements. This would include improvements to the Garfield Avenue ' storm drain system, the storm drain under Ellis Avenue, and any other facilities determined in the more detailed hydrology study. ' 3. The outlet structure at the north end of Sully Miller Lake should be reconstructed to allow for stabilization of the lake's water level. 36 4. Further studies of Sully Miller Lake should take into account the increased ' runoff volumes expected from ultimate development of the site and surrounding areas in its watershed. In addition, diversion of part or all of ' this runoff around the lake should be considered to improve water quality. 5. The Regional Water Quality Control Board should be consulted for other ' water quality control measures which would be applicable to the lake's ' development. 6. It is strongly recommended that the final drainage plan for the ' development should be designed to minimize the volume and velocity of surface runoff through proper design of surface drains, appropriate ' grading, and landscape programs to the specification of the city's Department of Public Works. 7. It is strongly recommended that the city's street sweeping program be ' continued with state-of-the-art equipment to reduce street and parking lot contaminants. 8. The project shall comply with the city's grading ordinance which includes various soil erosion control techniques. ' 9. It is recommended that any areas left undeveloped and unprotected prior to the project completion phase be seeded or landscaped to reduce soil ' erosion from the site. 10. The developer shall provide an adequate plan for erosion control even with an accomplished landscaping plan to reduce soil erosion. B®2. 11. Erosion control measures should include the management of storm drain ' facilities installed as the construction progresses. 37 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ' The biotic composition of the project site is described below from information compiled through field reconnaissance, supplemented by already existing ' documentation of biological resources within the project vicinity. The site was surveyed by motor vehicle and on foot by the firm of Michael Brandman Associates ' on August 8, 1984. Weather at the time of the survey was mild, with a temperature range of 650 F to 750 F, overcast skies and no wind. ' The physical nature of the property permitted a complete direct examination of all terrain within its confines. Floral and faunal constituents encountered were ' recorded in terms of relative abundance and host habitat type, and the overall biotic composition of the site was derived from this information combined with documented habitat preferences of regional wildlife species which, whether or not detected during the survey, are known to include the site within their range. Habitat designations used in this report are according to the basic classification system of Munz and Keck (1959). Floral taxonomy follows the current regional flora of Munz (1974). Common plant names, where not available from Munz (1974), are taken from Abrams (1923), Higgins (1949), Hitchcock (1950), Robbins, et al. (1951) and Collins _(1972). Vertebrates identified in the field by sight, calls, tracks, scat or other signs are cited according to the nomenclature of Stebbins (1972) and Collins, et al. (1978) for amphibians and reptiles; AOU (1983) for birds; and Hall (1981) and Jones, et al. (1982) for mammals. Sources used for determination of sensitive ' biological resources are as follows: plants - FWS (1982), CDFG (1982a) and Smith, et al. (1980); wildlife - FWS (1982) and CDFG (1980, 1982b). ' 3.4.1 Existing Conditions ' Vegetation The vegetation of the site consists of four plant communities: annual grassland (including roadsides and fallow fields), herbaceous riparian, landscaped ornamental (lawns and gardens) and eucalyptus grove. The distribution of each of these onsite is ' depicted in Exhibit 14. The approximate coverage of each plant community onsite is: annual grassland, 102 acres (81 percent); landscaped ornamental, 14 acres (11 38 percent); eucalyptus rove 8 acres 6 percent); herbaceous riparian, 2 acres P � yP grove, ( A )� P � (2 percent). ' The 126-acre site is relatively flat in the southern portion, with greater topographic ' relief in the northern portion. The elevational gradient is from 12 feet in the north- central portion to 70 feet in the eastern portion along Gothard Street. Most of the site has been highly disturbed in the past during various stages of urbanization ' including agricultural and oil development. There are several structures onsite, including four- residences, a small church and several oil drilling rigs and storage , tanks. Approximately 85 percent of the land remains in open space. Most of the southeastern third of the site has been disked recently. A total of 69 plant species representing 26 families was recorded by the site survey. These are listed in Table 1 of Appendix E. Of these, 50 (72 percent) are non-native , plants, including several species of ornamental trees and shrubs planted as landscaped ornamentals on the site. The floral composition of each plant community ' is described below. Annual Grassland - This plant community encompasses most of the site and includes fallow fields, disturbed roadside edges (ruderal association) and somewhat less disturbed hillside grassland. Much of the grassland component is crisscrossed by t motorcycle trails and unimproved roads. Typical grasses onsite are non-native Mediterranean annuals that have replaced many of the native species in the past century. Red brome (Bromus rubens) and foxtail fescue (Vulpia megalura) are frequent throughout, with bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon) becoming dominant in , disturbed areas adjacent to roadways and paths, and saltgrass (Distichlis s ip cats) predominating in moister or more alkaline areas as in the drainage course in the ' northern sector. Wild oat (Avena fatua and A. barbata), rabbit's-foot grass (Polypogon monspeliensis) and Italian ryegrass (Lolium erp enne) are also frequent and widespread onsite, with wild oat reaching its greatest abundance on hillsides and the , latter two becoming most abundant in moister, low-lying areas. Representative forbs in the ruderal association are western ragweed (Ambrosia , psilostachya), tocalote (Centaurea melitensis) and Russian thistle (Salsola iberica). , In recently plowed fields short-podded mustard (Brassica geniculata), black mustard (Brassica nigra) and wild radish (Raphanus sativa) are abundant, with other species 39 � �- -`-•4-1—�•.., i�`�„-Si� � -�"s.. I 7� `r ..fir 4 � —{t`---�� { { 4 —77 j'� � r,i/ i •I ll / _ F 'Cry {t '� I.. \ `y-�73- �� � ;•cti � �7i..--. < Ls+sr 1, t 4c�rY= �.�F-4aY�� f�v _1-�-•t//i� i=j[� - ',� :'���, _f�+ n i Lf- ' - � — f , -;' _ r .. �t \�— i r-r.. -_ Ji ' EG �. :..99��!!.�����.�i9.i sir •. - IEG i / I 7 1 - if AG. Ej I' LEGEND - AG ANNUAL GRASSLAND ' HR HERBACEOUS RIPARIAN LO LANDSCAPED ORNAMENTAL EG EUCALYPTUS GROVE VEGETATION 00KMUa0CTv/C0 4 � ' City of Huntington Beach Nor,,, 0 216 430 FEET EXHIBIT 14 such as Australian saltbush us)(Atri lex1? semibaccata) and curly dock (Rumex cris — —P_ also well represented. On hillsides that .have not been recently plowed, common sunflower (Helianthus annuus) and sweet fennel (Foeniculum vul are) are common. Herbaceous Riparian - An open storm drain enters the site west of Gothard Street, drains across and under the site and exits the site to the north under Ellis Avenue. Associated with this drainage are fragmented patches of herbaceous riparian vegetation and various non-native weeds and brush typically associated with disturbed wet areas. Marsh vegetation onsite is predominantly bulrush (Stir us olneyi and S. validus) with lesser amounts of cattail (Typha sp.) and willow (Salix gooddingii and S. lasiolepis). Also present in this community are cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium), common sunflower, saltgrass, sweet fennel, five-hooked bassia (Bassia hyssopifolla) and spear saltbush (Atriplex ap tula). Between Gothard Street and the Signal Oil property is approximately one-tenth acre of open water with patches of duckweed (Lemna sp.) and California .arrow-head (Sagittaria calycina). Landscaped Ornamental - This community includes landscaped areas associated with housing—lawns, gardens, hedgerows, ornamental trees and shrubs. A church in the southeastern corner of the site and three houses in the western portion of the site ' along Golden West Avenue, have been landscaped. Typical groundcover, shrubs and trees used in landscaping on the site are hottentot-fig (Carpobrotus edulis), bermudagrass, myoporum (Myoporum laetum), oleander (Nerium oleander), common olive (Olea europea) and common fig (Ficus carica). Eucalyptus Grove - There is a windrow of large eucalyptus trees extending from the southeastern corner of the property to the central portion. These are almost ' exclusively red gum (Eucalyptus camaldulensis), apparently planted in association with former structures, the foundations of which are still present. As is typical of eucalyptus groves, there is virtually no understory beneath these trees other than leaf and twig litter. W ildlif e Most animals found onsite during the present survey, other than a few non-resident birds found in association with the marsh vegetation, are common, widespread and 40 highly adaptable species. While birds are the most conspicuous vertebrates, several Audubon cottontails were encountered and the California ground squirrel is also abundant. Among the reptiles, several species of lizards are expected to occur although none were observed during the site visit. A snake skin, apparently that of a eoachwhip (Masticophis flagellum), was found in the grassland near the north end of the property. All vertebrates recorded or expected to occur commonly on the site are listed in Table 2 of Appendix E. Twenty-three species of birds were observed on or foraging over the site during the course of the survey. The most common species encountered were the mourning dove, American crow, red-winged blackbird and house finch in the fields; Anna's hummingbird, northern mockingbird and house sparrow in the eucalyptus grove and landscaped ornamental communities and killdeer, red-winged blackbird, song sparrow ' and American goldfinch in the herbaceous riparian community. In addition, several non-resident or transient waterbirds (mallard, sora, black-necked stilt and common snipe) were observed in association with the small patches of freshwater marsh vegetation. Because of their strictly transient role, these species are not included in the list of breeding and winter resident birds provided in Appendix E. Audubon cottontails and California ground squirrels should be the most abundant and , conspicuous diurnal mammals onsite. While not encountered, several less visible, although equally abundant, nocturnal or subterranean species such as the common opossum, striped skunk, southern pocket gopher, California vole, western harvest mouse, deer mouse, Norway rat and house mouse are also expected to occur. Common reptiles on the property are expected to include the side-blotched and western fence lizards, gopher snake, coachwhip and western rattlesnake. Amphibians ' likely to be common are the western toad, Pacific treefrog and garden slender salamander. Sensitive Biological Resources The entire site was examined for the presence of sensitive plant and animal species, with particular attention addressed to areas considered candidate localities for such species. No species of plant or animal designated threatened, rare, endangered or otherwise sensitive by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, California Department of ' 41 Fish and Game (CDFG), National Aubudon Society or California Native Plant Society (CNPS) was disclosed by the survey, nor are any likely to occur on-the site. The site is an isolated area of undeveloped land surrounded by development. It is too highly degraded and too small to support any viable populations of the sensitive animals or plants known to occur regionally. 3.4.2 Impacts Vegetation Implementation of the proposed project would require conversion of approximately 118 acres of annual grassland, riparian vegetation and ornamental plant communities, most of. which are already highly degraded. The very high percentage of non-native ' plants (72 percent) onsite is indicative of significantly modified plant communities. Wildlif e Construction activity would disturb all wildlife in the vicinity and many species could . be expected to move to adjacent areas of similar habitat provided it is available at the onset of activity. Wildlif a which do emigrate are particularly vulnerable to mortality by predation and unsuccessful competition for food and territory. Species of low mobility and those refusing to emigrate would be eliminated outright by site ' preparation. This is particularly true of burrowing mammals and reptiles. Following construction, some species would return to the developed portion of the site if suitable habitat is present, though most would be dislodged permanently from this area by removal of habitat suited to their existence. Among the native members of the southern California fauna known for their ability to thrive near human habitation are the slender salamander, California ground squirrel, Audubon cottontail and most species of birds listed in Appendix E. The restricted variety of habitats presented by the new urban environment could be expected to attract some of the fauna now present, comprising principally introduced or highly adaptive native species tolerant of human disturbance. Among those species that may be favored in terms of population increase by the altered environment are the Norway rat, house mouse, rock dove (pigeon), spotted dove, 42 American crow, northern mockingbird, European starling, Brewer's blackbird, house finch and house sparrow. A variety of migrant songbirds*could also be expected to frequent the new habitat during certain times of the year, particularly in areas where specimen size trees are present in the new landscaping. Indirectly, wildlife populations in surrounding offsite areas would be affected adversely by the general reduction of available habitat within the project area, as wildlife from this area generally will be pressured to extend their foraging range into these surrounding areas. This would cause increased stress upon the nearby wildlife , populations as competition for food, water and nesting sites increases. Although raptors as a group, especially red-tailed hawks and American kestrels, exhibit a measure of capability in adapting to the activities of man in and adjacent to their preferred habitats, they are nevertheless, on balance, adversely affected by ' urbanization and its associated influences. Construction activity associated with the proposed development could be expected to exert an adverse impact upon the few raptors presently utilizing the site. 3.4.3 Mitigation Measures 1. The proposed project specifies the retention of greenbelt area in open space where the present swale is located. It is recommended that native willows and sycamores be included in the landscaping plan to add to the natural appearance of this riparian community. 2. Revegetation should be accomplished on all graded and cut-and-fill areas where structures or improvements are not constructed. Consideration should be given to the use of drought-adapted, fire retardant plants, especially species native to the southern California foothills and coastal slopes, contingent upon the availability of seed stocks and approval by appropriate agencies acting in the interest of fire control. If water- requiring species are used for rapid growth, water injection systems should , be considered. 3. The stand of Eucalyptus trees will be retained where possible. C-14 :' 43 3.5 ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES ' An archaeological resource assessment, consisting of a records search and an in-field survey, was prepared for the project by Archaeological Resource Management Corporation (ARMC). The results of this analysis are summarized below and the complete report is contained in Appendix F. 3.5.1 Existing Conditions Physical Setting Both the Bolsa Chica and the Santa Ana River Gaps were cut during Pleistocene times by drainages emanating from the mountains to the east and north. Rising sea levels f ollowing the' retreat of the ice age inundated these gaps with salt water creating embayments and/or estuaries. The bays/estuaries with their numerous marine resources became ideal locations for prehistoric human settlement with the result that numerous archaeological sites are found along the rim of the Huntington Beach :Mesa overlooking the surrounding water systems. Cultural Setting The project area falls within the territory of the Gabrielino. At the time of first contact, the Gabrielino were loosely affiliated bands of hunters and gatherers who came under the influence of the Spanish Mission at San.Gabriel. The Gabrielino were thought to have been one of the most wealthy, populous, and powerful nationalities in the southern California region. Based on linguistic evidence it appears that the Gabrielino entered the Los Angeles Basin sometime prior to A.D. 500. Gabrielino material culture was typified by the use of manos metates, mortars, pestles, basketry, shell fishhooks, and ornaments, bows and arrows, and a wide variety of chipped stone tools such as knives, drills, and scrapers. Records Search The records search indicated that the study area had been previously surveyed as ' part of a larger survey and inventory conducted by Archaeological Research Incorporated for the City of Huntington Beach in 1972-73. As a result of this study, 44 i 29 prehistoric sites were located along the bluff edges on the east and west side of Huntington Beach Mesa and along the eastern bluff of Bolsa Chica Mesa. No sites ' were noted within or near the current project area. Field Survey The field survey revealed that all parts of the survey area had been subject to recent historic disturbance, primarily in the form of oil-drilling activities. This disturbance included extensive dumping, filling, and grading as well as dirt and paved roads, pipelines, oil wells, windbreaks, and buildings. On the southerm portion of the study area, where the Holly Sugar refinery was sited there were also signs of disturbance. No evidence of prehistoric activities was noted during the field survey. It is possible that at one time sites were present in the area, but recent disturbance may have obliterated any indicators of prehistoric habitation. It is probable that the site was located too far away from the bay/estuary areas of the Bolsa Chica and Santa Ana River gaps to represent an attractive village or satellite settlement site. 3.5.2 Impacts No impacts to archaeological resources are expected to result due to development of the proposed project, although, prehistoric remains could be exposed during grading activities. r 3.5.3 Mitigation Measures 1. If any remains of prehistoric origin are uncovered during construction, it is recommended that a qualified archaeologist be contacted to evaluate the finds and determine appropriate mitigation measures. 45 3.6 LAND USE AND PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS 3.6.1 Existing Conditions Land Use The existing land uses on and surrounding the site are illustrated in Exhibit 15. As this exhibit indicates, the 126±-acre project site is largely vacant with scattered oil wells and appurtenant facilities (see Exhibit 10). A church and two single-family residences with stables are also located on the site. A variety of land uses surround the site. An industrial park, mushroom farm, Sully- Miller Lake, and automobile repair facilities are north of and adjacent to the site. Light industrial/warehouse buildings are located directly to the east of the site, with multi-family residential adjacent to the northeastern portion of the site. South of the site are a variety of uses, including automobile repair facilities, multi-family residential, a YMCA, and oil production. Light industrial, storage yards, oil production, and self-storage uses occur southeast of the site. American Landscaping Company (a nursery) and horse stables are located west of the site. ' Other prominent uses near the site include the Joint Powers Fire Prevention Training Center, a future heliport, a landfill, shooting range, and Huntington Central Park, all within 1/3 mile to the north.l The city is considering purchasing a large amount of the land north of Ellis Avenue between Gothard and Golden West Streets for future expansion of Central Park; however, future plans for the park expansion are not precise at this time.2 Zoning Existing zoning for the project site and surrounding area is illustrated in Exhibit 16. The project site has several zoning designations, as follows: 1 The heliport will be operational in January 1985 and will be used primarily by !. the Huntington Beach Police Department. 2 Personal communication with Max Bowman, Department of Community Services, City of Huntington Beach, July 23, 1984. 46 o MI-0 (Light Industrial, Oil Production/MI-O-CD (Light Industrial, Oil Production Civic District)- 75 gross acres. o RA-0 (Residential Agriculture, Oil Production/RA-O-CD (Residential Agriculture, Oil Production, Civic District) - 46.6 gross acres. o R5 (Professional Office)- 5 gross acres. Oil production is allowed in all areas with zoning designations followed by "O" or 110111 which comprises all but approximately five acres of the site. Most of the oil zone is designated by 11011, which allows maintenance and operation of 'oil production facilities, however, does not allow any new oil well drilling. The 1101" district allows drilling of new oil wells. The other allowed uses within each zoning- designation include: o RA (Residential Agriculture) - Single-family residences on a one-acre t minimum parcel, (not including commercial animal enterprises) and, subject to a use permit, certain agricultural activities and wholesale distribution of plants and nursery stock. o MI (Light Industrial) - Most light industrial and manufacturing uses, including (but not limited to) oil production facilities, automotive repair facilities and storage yards. o R5 (Office Professional) - Professional offices and, subject to a use permit, motels, hotels, and service establishments. The production of oil in Huntington Beach is subject to several provisions, as stated in Title 15 of the Huntington Beach Oil Code (for easy reference, a copy of the Oil Code is attached in Appendix K of this EIR). These provisions are especially restrictive when oil production occurs within a developed area (as defined in the , code). Specifically, production wells in developed areas must be landscaped so the well is screened (Section 15.12.040(b)); wells shall not be drilled within 100 feet of any residence (Section 15.20.030); well operations within 300 feet of any residence are restricted to maintenance of existing wells and are to be conducted within the hours of 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. (except in the case of an emergency) (Section 15.20.100); wells with moving parts potentially hazardous to the safety of persons shall be ' 47 : :�::3 lug: _ ■■=a■�:■ . a ■■ i.■■r■■■..r.a■■■.a■..■.■gg .. ... .. .... .... ....................... .. .. .... mmommmumon ..... ...... - i....r■■.ar■.....a■a..■■t� ■ _. ... ■■:M .: ..... .. ..■ .. .■■■■■■■rr■■■■.........■ ■� olam H mein! ::i::::In 59 ati::is ofiILISM :Is as atuS 1111:i•L••t.M �se� cea=Eee ? ei . � ss .:..a■..::.■.■...a.ai' vn■uuunuu•.�t •a.......rr...■.r�i �.a.....r..aa■■;M ■....r...■.■_it 1 �...■r.....r�,t ■..ra.■..t lr■onlr..■.■r ■..ra.r■at • ■: • ■..r....at dal::::t ...r..••n 'I..n . . \ ...r.a. I IL a..r.uui • 20 � � r IL 4co V 1 — ::iIL • f • sV ' RA-;j-CD � RI RI j ' CF-C MI - I. �yy' p' OUEBEC DM CDeLBEon De c MI-CD I All RI �I RI P RI Z Y C2-0-toy ; j M I I, 'I .,pD. Dl 1 ml '-mi j 3 i J'� _ l_-�; CO � lf�Rl Irf3 R3 = R2 :.::::..........:::. .. )oo 5 R ................ =CR RA- - 0 co M 20 ............... •`:�il?f}:'..ww'.i: ii:{Ji:L:4}i}:?L•i:.iiiY':ii:......:.:i:v:::::::::v::::::::::{::::::::::/: v. :4ii};i•:Yii:i•:<LiiYii::}}?yi: :iiiiyy:{:ij;ii:C$iii ':$:i;:';r>:;y}}iiii;I. R3-.: 3 8 R R2r$ oD I • o �. c I + ./Rs 7I /PA'rI'FV, Dp71 RA-0-CD !—D j w-A-cD MI- I _M- C CD 3 2-�If 0 RA-0-CDI Mi-A-CO MI-0 ,j Rs /I+i 1`I R 4 RA-O-CD .: M,.r•of � �' ''` �" R2 II aARRRRI LD 'IfiR 5+:.. I•_—-- R2 Y RA-0 Cl R2 RA-01-CD Mi lR � MH MI R2 V�' 2' MI-A o c RA-0 '� 1 mm M2-01-CD R 2 s R2 - s r M1 j RI-co RI P2 '',' ' PLANCWRCT I.) Lay �Tfo-- 1 11 1 RI J C2-0- f j Rb I+esemrtuRl � cl'`[y' A LEGEND` NOTE uL prrnYn.•• . ... r9•rr ® fpQ111YL•atILTlIfL ommcr I��l wanaea•fsrr•v wmrwa•..alarr rr.•, drrrrr.+ro r.••.. ofro arrr of.wmcrs C20.1 n.I.ae elv[Lo.r[.r m•....r L 1 imnr•lreu*u1IL 1•�•••rcT ro rl(nrre• a•wer+a.r a r•. Wf!•O•1Tr OL wImIC1A1 f IIL) rdRTaa eatfcT [eaL[IWar l�uu DYTaI[T L"T lll"T[ull anTa1cT �� plums el101r,r llplalT cmwm Y pfr[KT -] •Orryrl.r Y '•KT COYt•m iM DIL IaepKTp IpaT .at !.UlI[•C• CDYW=T RCLITallalc[[•TOl•LIDOTaST © Hrilr'Yar ft1R•2[ 1'`.'•rr[• ® —N plTIKT [ -I •IIIV-�0I[f90.4 pfrw.r ® •<YrKD RKLOIr[.T © fEi1 (WILT 11[!O[i[01[Ta1CT YlI am uYT[0 uf[ Q L�aTlO reLTl•ll r• n.fq lrl pfrr ® dla!•1194•f[Ir•TOI I• —[erW1t1•L ® fiat .m fra[7 1fLa{�j[-S�gl M4�MT[D rMfK11NYi D�!!FC• ® OlW[•uTflrf[[leR•Kr CeIrMMl, I•cf.ttosec l els r T egra•• (��I rrrswrl I•Cattrf lC�vrcl eif r•Kr a..wa .tf Isla.ar d w umnYL avu e•r.,rr • cerprro nn oa Iaadi nw - f4r[+aO Yrr pL lllpellClM CrvK par K.T 9rDI! rrffJllnWOlrf[[T•l0[f+. EXISTING ZONING MOLLVPLAMMED ' OOO G�MMaO �C�pQ o k.� City of Huntington Beach Numb 0 400 800 FEET ' EXHIBIT 18 enclosed with a fence (Section 15.20.160); oil-fired recovery heaters shall be located ' no closer than 100 feet from a residential unit if enclosed by a six-foot high masonry wall (500 feet without the wall) and gas-fired heaters shall be located no closer than 50 feet or 300 feet, respectfully, from residential units (Section 15.20.210). Several other provisions of the oil code are applicable to the safe and compatible operation of oil production facilities in residential zones, including provisions for soundproofing and muffling noisy facilities, fire prevention, general nuisance prevention, and abandonment and clean-up procedures. General Plan The City of Huntington Beach's General Plan is comprised of nine separate elements: land use, circulation, open space and conservation, seismic safety, scenic 1 highways, noise, housing, community facilities, and coastal. The latter element is not applicable to the project site. Land Use Element -The Land Use Element was designed to plan for general land uses in the city over the long term, and attempts to plan for compatible uses. The existing land use designations for the site and surrounding area are illustrated in Exhibit 3 (Section 2.3, Project Description). Designations for the site are estate residential (2 du/ac or less and 4 du/ac or less), general industrial, and office. professional. Designations for the areas surrounding the site include general commercial to the northwest, open space and industrial to the north, low-density residential to the northeast, medium-density residential and general industrial to the east, office professional to the southeast, high-density residential to the south, general industrial to the southwest, and estate residential to the west. Circulation Element - The Circulation Element contains a Plan of Arterial Streets and Highways. This plan designates Gothard Street as a secondary roadway realigned to pass through the center of the site and connect to Crystal Street and Ernest Avenue. Other roadway designations are discussed in Section 3.8, Transportation and ' Circulation. Open Space Element - The Open Space and Conservation Element focuses on the preservation of open space and conservation of resources. The Open Space and Conservation Plan designates the northwest quarter of the site as "open space 48 Uses within this designation development." gn on should be planned to incorporate and maximize open space. Seismic Safety Element - The Seismic Safety Element identifies areas of potential geologic hazard that could occur from seismic shaking. Most of the site is in a low risk seismic zone; however, a small portion of the site is in a high risk zone and another, larger, portion is within a medium-high risk zone. Section 3.2, , Geology/Soils/Oil Production, discusses the site's seismicity in detail. Scenic Hiichway Element - The Scenic Highway Element does not identify any scenic highways at or near the site. However, Golden West Street is recommended as a "landscaped corridor" in the area between Central Park and the coast, including where it passes the site. This designation is discussed in Section 3.7, Aesthetics. Noise Element -The Noise Element identifies areas of high noise levels and discusses policies to attenuate noise. The site is not identified as having high noise levels; however, the heliport being constructed north of the site as well as oil derricks on the site may have excessive noise levels. This is discussed in Section 3.10, Noise. Housing Element - The Housing Element provides goals for housing in the city, , including the achievment of sound housing for all socioeconomic, racial, and ethnic groups of the community; the provision of a variety of housing opportunities by type, tenure, and cost for households of all sizes throughout the city; and the development of a balanced residential environment with access to employment opportunities, community facilities, and adequate services. The Housing Element expresses several policies to meet these goals. Generally, the policies are aimed at providing a variety of housing types throughout the city and encouraging housing affordability. Among its programs, the city provides density bonuses to developers who build affordable housing. The Housing Element has estimated that the city could be expected to support a total of 76,557 units (probable case) or 83,714 units (maximum case) at ultimate , buildout based on the present Land Use Element. . The element also states that growth projections could increase due to redevelopment, infilling, or GPAs. The city has not specified a specific "build-out" date, however, based on the SCAG 82 Growth Forecast, the city would be developed with 78,700 units by 1990, 83,400 units by 49 1995, and 85,700 units by 2000. SCAG-82 estimates are based on the city's general ' plan but have been adjusted to consider regional growth patterns. Therefore, SCAG- 82 projections appear to be high when compared to the Housing Element's projections for the city's maximum housing supply. SCAG-82 population estimates for the city are 198,000, 203,000, and 206,640 for 1990, 1995, and 2000, respectively. Community Facilities Element - The Community Facilities Element discusses the provision of infrastructure to development areas. The supply ,and need for infrastructure-at the site is discussed in Section 3.11, Public Services and Utilities. Related Projects Other new or proposed Huntington Beach developments in the vicinity which relate to the proposed project include the Seacliff Planned Community, the Downtown Specific Plan, Bolsa Chica, and Pacific Ranch. These projects relate to the project due to traffic generation and other cumulative impacts, and due to their implications for land use planning in the area. ' The 112-acre Seacliff Planned Community development is located about a half mile southwest of the project site and is currently under construction. -At build-out, it will include a total of 563 dwelling units with oil facilities interspersed throughout the development. This planned community's traffic generation has been included in ' the city's traffic model for the area. The city's Downtown Specific Plan area covers approximately 336 acres and is located approximately 2 miles south of the project site. This plan proposes the "revitilization" of the downtown through a mix of commercial, residential, and recreational uses which take advantage of the tourist opportunities of the beach location. Traffic from increased development in this downtown area has been included in the city's traffic model for the area. 1 Bolsa Chica is the 1,600-acre coastal area in unincorporated Orange County, about 1 mile to the west of the study area. The county has adopted a Land Use Plan for this area which includes a mix of residential (up to 5,700 d.u.) and tourist-serving commercial, centered around a public marina and marsh restoration project. The Land Use Plan is currently under consideration by the Coastal Commission, however, 50 e City of Huntington Beach has already incorporated Bolsa Chica traffic 'the y g y po generation assumptions into their traffic model for affected parts of the city. Pacific Ranch is a 46-acre planned residential development located at the northwest corner of Yorktown Avenue and Huntington Street (southeast of the Holly property). This development has been approved for up to 558 dwelling units. 3.6.2 Impacts Land Use Amendment of the General Plan, as proposed, would alter the kinds of land uses allowed to be developed on the site. Both the existing land use designations (residential, industrial, and office) and the proposed planned community residential ' designation could ultimately result in the alteration of the mostly undeveloped site to urban uses. Land use impacts associated with the existing General Plan have been evaluated as part of the citywide General Plan EIR. The following list of impacts could be expected from any kind of urban development on the site: , o Alterations to the landform and topography (see Section 3.1). This would , impact onsite areas. o Potential exposure to geologic hazards (see Section 3.2). This would impact future residents of the site. o Exposure to potential oil production hazards (see Section 3.2). This would impact future residents of the site. o Alteration of hydrologic conditions (see Section 3.3). Onsite and offsite areas would be affected. o Disruption to biotic communities (see Section 3.4). Onsite resources would be aff ected. o Potential disruption of archaeological resources (see Section 3.5). Any , resources located on the site would be affected. o Alteration of aesthetic resources (see Section 3.7). This would impact , onsite and surrounding areas. o Increased traffic (see Section 3.8). This would impact surrounding areas although traffic volumes could be less with the GPA than under the current general plan. 51 ' o Increased air pollutants (see Section 3.9). This would affect the regional airshed. o Increased noise (see Section 3.10). This would impact onsite and surrounding areas although noise could be less under the GPA than under the current general plan. o Increased demand on purveyors of public servicers and possibly utilities (see Section 3.11). This would impact local and regional purveyors. More demand on public services could be expected under the GPA than with the current general plan. ' Please refer to the sections noted above for a detailed discussion of these impacts, and possible methods for their mitigation. Land Use Compatibility ' The project site is located in an urbanizing area. Land uses are evolving from open space, oil production, and agricultural uses (i.e., horse stables, crops) to residential uses (to the northeast and south) and commercial/light industrial uses (to the northeast). The traditional low-intensity land uses located to the north of the site ' are being reaffirmed for this use, as expansion of this area into parkland associated with Huntington Central Park is proposed by the city. Alteration of onsite land uses from vacant industrial (oil � roduction) and (limited) production), ' residential to planned community residential uses comprising single- and multiple- family units will follow the general evolving trend for nearby land uses. The land use plan for the site is in its conceptual stage. However, as Exhibits 4 and 5 illustrate, the concept plan generally provides for a compatible interface between surrounding uses. The multiple-family units planned for the southern portion of the site (Area D on the site plan) are comparable with the multiple-family development already located to the south of the site. While industrial land uses are located to the south (south of Garfield) and east of the site, these uses are of low intensity and generally ' lack nuisance factors (i.e., noise, odors, etc.) that would make these uses incompatible with the proposed residential land uses. The industrial/storage yard land uses to the southeast (south of Ernest Avenue, east of Crystal Street) might be the source of nuisance odors and noise (see Sections 3.9 and 3.11), and they are ' visually incompatible with the proposed uses for the adjacent areas of the site (Product Areas A, C, and D on the concept plan). The low-density residential uses 52 (6.4 du/ac) for Product Area A on the site are more compatible with the ' proposed P low-intensity uses to the east (stables, open space) and north (stables, limited light 1 industrial, proposed parkland). The medium-density uses proposed in Area B on the site plan (9.8 du/ac) are compatible with the medium-density residential development east/northeast of the site. After the realignment of Gothard, encroachment of the Pacific Blectric Railroad C-7 , right-of-way could result. Historically, the city has desired to maintain this right- of-way for future rapid transit via a light-rail railroad. ' The proposed land uses will, in general, be internally compatible. However, oil wells ' located onsite could cause excessive odors and noise to any nearby residential units (see Sections 3.9 and 3.10). In addition, oil operations pose fire and safety problems which create potential hazards for onsite residents. These safety issues are discussed in Sections 3.2.2 and 3.11.1. Zonin g The proposed planned community uses are not consistent with the existing zoning , designations for the site. The maximum residential densities that could be constructed within the existing RA zoning designation (western portion of the site) are two dwelling units per acre or four dwelling units per acre. Residential uses are not allowed within either the existing M 1 or R5 zoning designations. A zone change ' or specific plan will be required to bring the zoning into consistency with the general plan. General Plan The proposed amendment to the city's General Plan would change the land use designation for the site from General Industrial, Office Professional, and Estate Residential to Planned Community. The proposed concept plan would be consistent with the proposed designation for the site. The planned community designation for ' the site would provide for more internally compatible land uses than would the mixture of industrial, office, and residential uses that could be developed within the existing general plan. 53 The goals of the Open Space and Conservation Element, which designates the northwest quarter of the site as open space development, would be met if open space is maximized in Product Area A on the site plan. The concept plan for the project contains a greenbelt along the drainage courses in this area. The conceptual site plan provides for a variety of housing types on the site, as listed below: Type Number of Units Acres (net) Single-Family Detached 350 '54.8 Single-Family Attached 170 17.3 Multi-Family Townhouse 230 16.6 Multi-Family Flat 150 23.8 1,200 While the range of housing and rental prices is not known at this time, estimates of these housing costs have been estimated for use in the fiscal impact analysis (see Section 5.0). It appears that a wide range of prices will occur as a result of the diversity in housing types, however, the provisions for affordable housing have not been identified. A project of this size could be a candidate for incorporation of ' affordable housing. Socioeconomics The result of the increase in housing is, of course, an increase in the city's population. Assuming other areas designated for residential are developed as planned, this would mean an increase in the total housing and population projected for the city at ultimate build-out. The proposed 1,200 units represent a 1.6 percent increase in the "probable" number of units the Housing Element has projected the city could support. It represents 1.4 percent of SCAG's estimates for the city's total housing supply for the year 2000 and represents 17 percent of the housing growth SCAG anticipates to occur between 1990 and 2000. The amount of population expected from this development can be estimated using persons per unit rates from the 1980 census. As shown in the following table, the 54 population from the proposed conceptual development would total approximately 2,810. ` Product- Number Persons/Unit Population A. Single-Family Detached 350 3.27 1,145 ' B. Single-Family Attached 170 2,08 354 C. Multi-Family Townhouse 230 1.85 478 D. Multi-Family Flat 450 1.85 833 2,810 ' This population represents 1.4 percent of SCAG's estimates.of the city's total year- 2000 population. It represents 33 percent of the population growth SCAG anticipates to occur in the city between 1990 and 2000. The existing general plan would also have generated a residential population. Assuming 140 single-family detached units at 3.27 persons per unit, a population of 458 might have been generated. Therefore, the impacts associated with the existing general plan population would have been less than could result under the proposed GPA. The GPA would also result in the removal of land use designations which could ' potentially generate employee opportunities. At maximum buildout, the professional office and light industrial land uses could have generated 2,324 jobs based on the ' typical employee rates shown below: Maximum Employees Per ' Land Use Square Footage 1,000 sq.ft. Employees Industrial 1,800,000 1 1,800 , Office 131,000 4 524 Total 2,324 ' This employee number represents 1.9 percent of SCAG's estimated year-2000 employment for RSA 38 (which includes Huntington Beach, Seal Beach, Fountain Valley, and Westminster). It also represents 0.16 percent of SCAG's estimated year- 2000 employment for the County of Orange as a whole. ' 55 Related Projects ' Amendment of the general plan to allow planned community residential uses is consistent with the trend in the area to develop areas which are phasing out their oil production land uses (such as is hapening in the Seacliff Planned Community and is proposed for Bolsa Chica. This practice will be continued with the proposed development. The proposed project will add to the cumulative traffic, air quality, and public services impacts associated with the Seacliff, Bolsa Chica, and other developments in the vicinity. The Downtown Specific Plan area is another area where oil facilities, in addition to older commercial uses, will be phased out over time for newer, more marketable commercial, office, and residential uses. The proposed-project will not directly affect the downtown program, however, it will add to the support market for the downtown commercial and recreational redevelopment uses. The proposed project ' will also add to the traffic and other cumulative impacts associated with the Downtown Specific Plan. ' 3.6.3 Mitigation Measures Measures to mitigate impacts to landform and topography, geology, hydrology, biology, archaeology, aesthetics, traffic, air quality, noise, and public services and utilities are discussed in Sections 3.1-3.5 and 3.7-3.11 of this report. Measures to mitigate land use compatibility and planning impacts are discussed below: ' 1. The site should be visually screened from aesthetically incompatible land uses south of Ernest Avenue and east of Crystal Street. 2. Upon submittal of a tentative tract map for the site, a zone change from ' RA, MI, and R5 to specific plan is recommended. (The project applicant is proposing to submit a specific plan on the project.) 3. Product Area A, as designated on the conceptual plan, should be planned to maximize the open space potential presented by the presence of two ' converging drainage areas in order to comply with the General Plan Open Space and Conservation Element. The proposed greenbelt area should be A^1 maintained for recreation purposes. 56 4. Maintenance of the proposed greenbelt should be the responsibility of the A®2 ' homeowners. 5. The development will be subject to the city's park requirements which t A 3 include dedication of park land or payment of in-lieu fees. The city's Development Services Department has requested the payment of the in- lieu fees rather than the dedication of perk land. 6. The applicant should strive to develop a variety of housing types and sizes , and at a range of prices in order to comply with the General Plan Housing , Element policies for affordable housing. 7. Fire and safety measures outlined by the city's Zoning Code, Oil Code, and ' Fire Department will be implemented to reduce hazards of mixing residential uses with existing and abandoned oil production facilities. ' Please refer to Sections 3.3.3 and 3.11.1 for further fire and safety measures related to the oil production activities. , 8. If possible, the Pacific Electric right-of-way should be maintained in its C-7 location to allow for its potential future use as a light-rail railroad line. Interim uses of the right-of-way might include a bicycle or an equestrian trail. ' 1 57 ' 3.7 AESTHETIC RESOURCES ' 3.7.1 Existing Conditions Viewshed of Site From Surrounding Land Uses ' Because of its size and proximity to roadways, the project site is highly visible from a large surrounding area. The site is visible as a large area of undeveloped open space, punctuated in places with oil production facilities. Large eucalyptus trees, forming a row running northwest to southeast on the ' southern or southeastern portion of the site are somewhat visible from all areas surrounding the site, and highly visible from Gothard Street, Garfield, Crystal, and Ernest Avenues. Also visible from Gothard and Garfield is a small, low-profile church on the northeast corner. ' Oil production facilities on the northern half of the site are highly visible along Gothard from a point approximately 250 yards north of Garfield up to Ellis Avenue, ' and are also visible along the entire stretch of Ellis between Golden West and Gothard. Oil production facilities include small storage tank farms, several pumps, and one or two field offices. A swale and a small creek bisects the northern portion of the site and generally runs from east to west. The creek runs from Gothard to a large oil production area approximately 700 feet to the west where it runs underground and trickles into a Swale to the northwest. The viewshed from Gothard to the west is of the creek and relatively dense oil production facilities. From Golden West Street, oil production facilities, stables, and two single family ' residences can be viewed. Viewshed From the Site The viewshed from the site is highly variable. The mushroom farm, a fairly new rglass and metal commercial/industrial building and single- and multiple-family residences are visible to the northwest across Ellis Avenue. Three large white 58 i warehouse-type structures east of Gothard are visible from the eastern portion of r the site. To the south across Garfield, multi-family residences, automotive. repair, and oil production facilities are in view. The viewshed from the site across Crystal , Avenue and south of Ernst Avenue is of an oil production facility, commercial storage structures, a junk yard, and industrial storage yards (i.e., the used tire , storage yard). Across Golden West Street to the west are views of the American Landscape Company (to the southwest) and stables. Visible to the northwest across Ellis Street at Golden West Street is an automotive repair building and horse stables. 3.7.2 Impacts Amendment of the general plan as proposed would alter the land uses planned for the , site. Both the existing land use designation (residential, industrial, and office) and the proposed planned community residential designation would result in the alteration of the site to urban uses. Development of the site as conceptually proposed would alter the viewsheds of the r site both from surrounding land uses and from onsite areas. The site will convert from a somewhat open area to an urban area developed with residential uses. , Therefore, site development could be considered a significant impact from the standpoint that this openness would be removed. ' The development could improve the view of oil production facilities if they are ' screened, camouflaged, or otherwise improved in their aesthetic appearance. However, if no aesthetic treatment of oil production facilities is implemented, the site would lose some of its potential aesthetic appeal. ' As discussed in Section 3.1.2, the drainage course in the northeastern portion of the ' site is to be filled (east of the realigned Gothard Street), raising the elevation in this area up to 20 feet. This will effectively remove a portion of this topographic feature from the site. On the western half of the site, (west of the realigned Gothard Street), the Swale area is also to be filled and contoured, raising the elevation by ' approximately 5 feet. This swale area is proposed to be retained in open space as a drainage course withlandscaped greenbelt on either side. r r 59 1 The industrial development and storage yards south of Ernest Avenue and west of ' Crystal Avenue are aesthetically incompatible with the proposed residential development. This is especially evident south of Ernest where the tire storage yards are not screened from the project site. The tire storage and junk yards west of Crystal Avenue are somewhat screened from the site by special fencing, however, these uses could still be considered incompatible with residential uses. The city's landscaping requirements for Crystal Avenue, when widened to connect with the realigned Gothard Street, should reduce the visual effect of the industrial uses on the proposed residential area. 3.7.3 Mitigation Measures 1 Several measures are recommended to reduce the overall aesthetic impacts, to enhance the aesthetic character of the site, and to make the site and surrounding land uses aesthetically compatible. 1. The topography of the creek and swale area should be retained on the site wherever feasible in order to provide an interesting relief feature to ifuture onsite residents and to retain a potentially significant aesthetic resource. Open space in this portion of the site should be maximized. 2. Wherever feasible, oil production facilities onsite should be consolidated to reduce their total number. Facilities that remain onsite should be painted, camouflaged, or otherwise screened by perimeter walls, plantings, or like treatments to reduce their unsightliness to future onsite residents. Landscaping and screening provisions of the Huntington Beach Oil Code, Title 15, Chapter 22 should be followed.. 3. The viewshed from the site to industrial uses south of Ernest Avenue should be altered by either providing vegetative or other type screening on the fences of these facilities, and/or on the project site boundary. 4. The city's landscaping requirements for Crystal Avenue (when widened to connect with realigned Gothard) should mitigate some of the visual imcompatibilities between the existing industrial area west of Crystal Avenue and the proposed residential uses. 60 3.8 TRAFFIC/CIRCULATION The following is a summary of the traffic report prepared by Basmaciyan-Darnell, ' Inc. in August 1984, and amended via correspondence in December 1984. The report and correspondence are included in Appendix G. , 3.8.1 Existing Conditions Circulation System and Roadway Characteristics ' Regional access to the study area is provided by the I=405 (San Diego) Freeway, Pacific Coast Highway, Golden West Street, and Beach Boulevard. The site is , bordered by Ellis Avenue, Gothard Street, Garfield Avenue, Golden West Street, Ernest Avenue, and Crystal Street. Exhibit 17 illustrates the alignments of these and other roadways and presents the corresponding existing traffic volumes. Table 3 summarizes the existing and master planned characteristics of these roadways. Capacity Anslysis ' The four major intersections in the vicinity were analyzed using the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) method. In brief, this method determines the amount of ' green time being utilized at an intersection and related this to a quantitative description (or Level of Service) of the operating characteristics of that ' intersection. Table 4 summarizes the ICU analyses for the intersections. Copies of the ICU worksheets are found in Appendix B of the traffic study in Appendix G of B-3 this EIit, as well as an explanation of Levels of Service. Review of Table 4 indicates that each of the intersections are operating at Level of ' Service (LOS) A. This represents a free flowing condition and minimum delay to vehicles approaching the intersection. ' 61 r51000 Talbert Avenue m m « y � m m p O O O 3 3 to m 1 { C N � m O O r ° Ellis Avenue 1,800 11500 12,800 600 p o � ' ProjectN g Site •� i Ernest St p 500 « m o m Garfield Avenue N 3,4000 51850 12,900 ' 3,400 5,850 m m Huntington Seacliff Country Club tr r c N rrr. Yorktown Yorktown Avenue Avenue m 1 m LEGEND XXX - DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUME m ae Adams Avenue o� 00 1 ecfJ° pm CcQoem' y e c p � MO aCHIC ghy. Ocean SOURCE: CALTRANS AND ESTIMATES BY 801 BASED ON 1978 HUNTINGTON BEACH COUNTS 1 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES u uOLLV PUMu VIED -NO SCALE WWWUH04V�C�pQ o Z4 City of Huntington BeachIII Ril ' �8nndm-m Am im EXHIBIT 17 TABLE 3 SUMMARY OE' ROADWAY CIIARACT13RIS`-ICS Location Existing Condition Master Plan Classification Talbert Avenue , West of Gothard Street 2-lanes undivided Primary. Road 4-lane divided Ellis Avenue West of Gothard Street 2-lanes undivided Primary Road 4-lane divided East of Gothard Street 4-lanes undivided Secondary Road 4-lane undivided Garfield Avenue West of Goldenwest Street 2-lanes undivided Major Road 6-lane divided East of Goldenwest Street 4-lanes undivided Primary Road 4-lane divided Yorktown Avenue West of Beach Boulevard 4-lanes undivided Primary Road 4-lane divided East of Beach Boulevard 4-lanes undivided Secondary 'Road 4-lane undivided Adams Avenue West of Beach Boulevard 4-lanes and painted Primary Road 4-lane divided N median Goldenwest Street North of Garfield Avenue 4-lanes undivided Primary Road 4-lane divided South of Garfield Avenue 4-lanes undivided Major Road 6-lane divided Gothard Street North of Ellis Avenue 3-lanes undivided Secondary Road 4-lane undivided South of Ellis Avenue 2-lanes undivided Secdonary Road 4-Lane undivided Main Street 4-lanes divided Primary Road 4-lane divided Seventeenth Street 2-lanes undivided Secondary Road 4-lane undivided Beach Boulevard 6-lanes divided Major Road 6-lane divided. TABLE 4 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION AND LEVEL OF SERVICE r FOR EXISTING CONDITIONS A.M. P.M. ' Intersection ICU LOS ICU LOS ' Ellis Avenue at: Gothard Street 0.35 A 0.38 A Golden West Street 0.29 A_ 0.38 A Garfield Avenue at: Golden West Street 0.32 A 0.34 A Main Street/Gothard Street 0.42 A 0.53 A Level of Service is defined as: ' A = ICU 0.00 to 0.60 B = ICU 0.61 to 0.70 C = ICU 0.71 to 0.80 D = ICU 0.81 to 0.90 ' E = ICU 0.91 to 1.00 F = ICU 1.01 or greater For more detailed Level of Service description, refer to Appendix G. In addition to the intersection capacity analysis, daily roadway capacity analyses were prepared. The roadway capacities are representative of the streets in the study area. Utilizing the existing average daily traffic volumes and LOS C capacity for ' each roadway segment the volume to capacity ratio can be calculated. The results of these analyses are presented on Table 5. A V/C ratio of less than 1.0 means that the roadway is operating within its available LOS C daily capacity whereas a V/C ratio greater than 1.0 means that the LOS C daily capacity is exceeded. Review of Table 5 shows that Golden West Street between Talbert and Garfield Avenues is ' presently exceeding its LOS C capacity. 63 , TABLE 5 EXISTING ROADWAY SEGMENT CAPACITY ANALYSIS Existing LOS "C" V/C Roadway Segment ADT Capacity Ratio Talbert Avenue Golden West St. to Gothard St. 5,000 10,000 0.50 Ellis Avenue Edwards St. to Golden West St. 600 10,000. 0.60 Golden West St. to Gothard St. 1,600 10,000 0.16 Huntington St. to Beach Blvd. 1,500 10,000 0.15 East of Beach Boulevard 12,800 20,000 0.64 rGarfield Avenue Golden West St. to Gothard St. 3,400 10,000 0.34 ' Gothard St. to Main St. 5,850 10,000 0.59 East of Beach Boulevard 12,900 20,000 0.65 Golden West Street ' Talbert Avenue to Ellis Avenue 25,000 20,000 1.25 Ellis Avenue to Garfield Avenue 23,100 20,000 1.16 Garfield Avenue to Yorktown Avenue 19,300 23,000 0.97 Gothard Street Talbert Avenue to Ellis Avenue 6,500 10,000 0.65 Ellis Avenue to Garfield Avenue 6,100 10,000 0.61 Main Street Seventeenth St. to Huntington St. 17,700 30,000 0.59 ' Garfield Avenue to Yorktown Ave. 20,400 30,000 0.68 Beach Boulevard Talbert Avenue to Ellis Avenue 36,000 45,000 0.80 Ellis Avenue to Garfield Avenue 26,000 45,000 0.58 Garfield Avenue to Yorktown Avenue 26,000 45,000 0.58 ' ADT: Average Daily Traffic 64 3.8.2 Future Conditions ' Roadway Characteristics ' Not all of the facilities in the vicinity of the project are constructed to their Master ' Plan of Arterial Highway (MPAH) classification. Table 3 provides a comparison of each roadway's existing and master planned configurations. Figure 4 in Appendix G presents the portion of the MPAH for the area surrounding the project site. Future Traffic Volumes Future traffic volume forecasts for the roadways surrounding the proposed project r were obtained from the City of Huntington Beach Transportation Model, Alternative 1. These volumes are presented in Figure 5 in Appendix G and represent , expected Post 1995 traffic conditions. The future volume forecasts are also B-4 presented on Exhibit 21 later in this section. The traffic volume forecasts include , future development of the Bolsa Chica area and arterial crossings of the Santa Ana River into Costa Mesa. ' Roadway Segment Capacity Analysis To assess future traffic conditions, a capacity analysis was prepared for the various roadways in the study area. Table 6 shows that several roadway segments are ' expected to exceed their LOS C or D capacity (denoted by a V/C greater than 1.0). Specifically, portions of Ellis Avenue, Garfield Avenue, Golden West Street, Gothard , Street, and Beach Boulevard are expected to exceed LOS C or D capacity. LOS C is generally accepted as the planning tool for long-range forecasts whereas LOS D capacity is generally used to identify acceptable conditions for urban areas. Volume to capacity ratios that exceed 1.0 indicate roadway segments which are expected to reach or exceed their daily capacity and experience delay and congestion. 65 ' Table 6 SUMMARY OF EXISTING GENERAL PLAN POST 1995 DAILY TRAFFIC(a) ROADWAY SEGMENT CAPACITY ANALYSIS(b) FOR PROJECT SITE Future LOS "C" V/C LOS "D" V/C Roadwav Segment ADT Capacity Ratio Capacity Ratio Talbert Avenue East of Goldenwest Street 20,200 30,000 0.67 33,000 0.61 West of Gothard Street 19,800 30,000 0.66 33,000 0.60 Ellis Avenue West of Goldenwest Street 23,700 30,000 0.79 33,000 0.72 Goldenwest St. to Gothard St. 21,700 30,000 0.72 33,000 0.66 Gothard St. to Huntington St. 25,500 20,000 1.28 22,000 1.16 Huntington St. to Main St. 21,900 20,000 1.10 22,000 1.00 ' East of Beach Boulevard 27,900 20,000 1.40 22,000 1.27 Garfield Avenue West of Goldenwest Street 44, 100 45,000 0.98 49,500 0.89 ' Goldenwest St. to Gothard St. 33,200 30,000 1.11 33,000 1.01 Gothard Street to Main Street 28,000 30,000 0.91 33,000 0.83 Main St. to Huntington Street 28,000 30,000 0.93 33,000 0.85 Huntington St. to Seventeenth St. 31,120 30,000 1.04 33,000 0.94 Seventeenth St. to Beach Blvd. 35,660 30,000 1.19 33,000 1 .08 East of Beach Boulevard 37,600 30,000 1.25 33,000 1.14 ' Goldenwest Street Talbert avenue to Ellis Avenue 41, 100 30,000 1.37 33,000 1.24 South of Ellis Avenue 43,700 . 30,000 1.46 33,000 1.32 Forth of Garfield Avenue 42,900 30,000 1.43 33,000 1.30 South of Garfield Avenue 48,700 45,000 1.08 49,500 0.98 ' Gothard Street North of Ellis Avenue 19,300 20,000 0.96 22,000 0.88 South of Ellis Avenue 13,860 20,000 0.69 22,000 0.63 North of Garfield Avenue 13,910 20,000 0.70 22,000 0.63 South of Garfield Avenue 21,000 20,000 1.05 22,000 0.95 ` ain Street South of Ellis Avenue 18,800 30,000 0.63 33,000 0.57 Huntington St. to Garfield Ave. 18,600 30,000 0.62 33,000 0.56 South of Garfield Avenue 19,500 30,000 0.65 33,000 0.59 ' Beach Boulevard South of Talbert Avenue 62,300 45,000 1.38 49,500 1.26 North of Ellis Avenue 61,900 45,000 1.38 49,500 1.25 South of Ellis Avenue 50,300 45,000 1.12 49,500 1.02 North of Garfield Avenue 49,100 45,000 1.09 49,500 0.99 South of Garfield Avenue 45,900 45,000 1.02 49,500 0.93 ' (a) Without Proposed General Plan Amendment (b) Based on "taster Plan Roadway Configurations ' 66 Realignment of Gothard Street The Master Plan of Arterial Highways shows Gothard Street to be constructed as a ' secondary arterial and realignment westerly from Ellis Avenue to connect with Crystal Street at Ernest Avenue and then continue south to Garfield Avenue. In ' addition, a further extension of Gothard Street southerly of Garfield Avenue to Main Street is planned. Exhibit 18 presents the existing traffic volumes for the area with Gothard Street realigned. Also presented on Exhibit 18 are the resulting realigned —traffic volumes with Gothard Street further extended south to Main Street. The major implication of this realignment is the elimination of the five-way intersection ' at Main Street/Garfield Avenue/Gothard Street. Analysis of the realignment of Gothard Street was prepared by redistributing the existing daily and peak hourly turning volumes and the calculating ICUs. With Gothard Street realigned the existing morning peak hour ICU would be 0.39, LOS A and the evening peak hour ICU would be 0.41, LOS A, at the Main Street/Garfield Avenue/Gothard Street intersection. Although the Main Street/Garfield Avenue intersection will operate at acceptable , levels of service with the realignment of Gothard, this improvement will require B-4 motorists to travel out-of-direction in reaching origins/destinations south of Main ' Street. In fact, without proper signing, traffic southbound on Gothard may expect to travel through the intersection onto Crystal Street (future Gothard). This item will B-11 be further discussed under Impacts- Gothard Street Realignment Considerations. 3.8.3 Impacts ' To. evaluate the impact of the proposed GPA, the trips generated by the proposed conceptual development of 1,200 units are estimated and analyzed for their impact on the streets existing and ultimate circulation system. In addition, the project's trip ' generation is compared to the trips that could be generated by the current general plan designations for the site. 67 5,000 Talbert Avenue � m r = 7 a 0 W t0 C m a C a O p 3 3 �o m 1 7 C " Cq W a o c7 v Ellis Avenue 1,600 11500 O . O a� ' Project"' ��Ike Site " �0`cco O Ernest Street ' p 500 o c: Garfield Avenue " 3,600 m (8.100) 5,850 12,900 9,100 5.850 Huntington Seacliff nom t a@ Country Club 00 (3.000) g%4. Oo 7 O ^ N r a Yorktown N Yorktown Avenue Avenue ° co�aa� LEGEND 5` m XXX - DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES �a3` m (yyy)-DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES '\a0c Adams Avenue WITH GOTHARD EXTENDED TO MAIN ST. a - �a 5` y C0 O C c'ific_ Ocean 9y ' SOURCE: BASMACIYAN-DARNELL, INC. EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES/ GOTHARD STREET REALIGNMENT o e p EXHIBIT 18 a0(��� p[�LaGJaGD NO SCALE C OO G�G`�1Ma�4�OC�pQ o Z 4 City of Huntington Beach Trips Generated To assess the traffic-related impacts of the proposed 1,200 dwelling units on the surrounding circulation system, tripmakng to/from the proposed site was estimated and distributed to the surrounding roadways. Based on the trip generation rates presented in Table 7 the proposed development of 1,200 dwelling units would generate 9,620 daily vehicle trip ends. During the morning peak hour 842 trip ends would be generated and during the afternoon peak hour 859 trip ends would be generated. Table 8 provides a summary of the project-related daily, AM and PM ' traffic. Based on trip distribution characteristics developed for the site, the average daily trip ends were distributed onto the circulation system, as shown on Exhibit 19. To assess cumulative traffic conditions, estimates of project-related traffic were then added to the existing traffic volumes on the surrounding roadway system. The resulting average daily traffic volumes are presented on Exhibit 20. Based on rough estimates of maximum buildout, the existing General Plan land use designations for the site could be expected to generate up to 13,134 daily trip ends.l Approximately 2,200 of these trips would occur during the morning peak hour and 2,125 would occur during the afternoon peak hour to the surrounding roadways. Therefore, as summarized in Table 8, the proposed GPA would be expected to reduce the number of potential trips by 3,514 daily trip ends. Vehicle Miles Traveled Based on previous studies and experience at similar developments, the average length of trips to/from the proposed residential development would be 8.0 miles. The average trip length factor was applied to the estimated average daily trip ends for the proposed project. The resulting vehicle miles traveled for residential tripmaking would be approximately 76,960 miles. 1 This is based on the assumption that the site is built out at its maximum under the existing general plan: 140 estate residential units, 1.8 million square feet light industrial, and 131,000 square feet of professional office. If developed with lower intensities, the number of trips generated would be commensurately lower. 68 Table 7 SUMMARY OF TRIP GENERATION RATES PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT ` AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Land Use Daily IN OUT IN OUT ' Single Family detached 10/DU 0. 3/DU 0. 6/DU 0 . 5/DU 0 . 4/DU Single Family attached 8/DU 0 . 2/DU 0 . 5/DU 0 . 5/DU 0 . 3/DU ' Multi-Family townhomes 7/DU 0 . 2/DU 0 . 4/DU 0 . 4/DU 0 . 2/DU Multi-Family flats 7/DU 0 . 2/DU 0 . 4/DU 0 . 4/DU 0 . 2/DU , EXISTING GENERAL PLAN FOR PROJECT SITE AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Land Use Daily IN OUT IN OUT Industrial 5 . 5/KSF 0 . 85/KSF 0 . 15/KSF 0 . 32/KSF 0 . 63/KSF , Office 14/KSF 1 .87/KSF 0 . 22/KSF 0 . 44/KSF 1 . 76/KSF ' Single-Family detached 10/DU 0 . 3/DU 0 . 6/DU 0 . 5/DU 0 . 4/DU DU = Dwelling Units I K.SF = Thousand Square Feet 1 1 69 , Table 8 SUMMARY OF PROJECT-RELATED TRIP GENERATION PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AM Peak Hour PM Peak flour Land Use Units Daily IN OUT IN OUT Single Family detached 350 DU 3500 TE 105 TE 210 TE 175 TE 140 TE • Single Family attached 170 DU 1360 TE 34. TE 85 TE 85 TE 51 TE Multi-Family 680 DU 4760 TE 136 TE 272 TE 272 TE 136 TE PROJECT TOTAL 1200 DU 9620 TE 275 TE 567 TE 532 TE 327 TE EXISTING GENERAL PLAN FOR PROJECT SITE v o AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Land Use Units Daily IN OUT IN OUT Industrial 1 ,800,000 KSF 9900 TE 1530 TE 270 TE 576 TE 1134 TE . Office 131 , OOO KSF 1834 TE 245 TE 29 TE 58 TE 231 TE Single Family Detached 140 DU 1400 TE 42 TE 84 TE 70 TE 56 TE TOTAL 13, 134 TE 1817 TE 383 TE 704 TE 1421 TE Existing General Plan Less Proposed Holly Planned Community 3, 514 TE 1542 TE 184 TE 172 TE 1094 TE DU = Dwelling Units KSF = Thousand Square Feet TE = Trip Ends Roadway Capacity Analysis , Cumulative traffic conditions (estimated project-related and existing traffic volumes) on the surrounding roadway system are depicted on Exhibit 20. Referring to this figure and the summarized traffic volume projections in Table 8, it can be seen that project-related traffic will primarily add to the capacity concerns on Golden West Street, between Talbert Avenue and Yorktown Avenue, as the volume to capacity ratio is above the desired V/C ratio of 1.0 or less. Utilizing the data presented in Exhibit 20, the existing roadway capacity analysis was performed and is summarized in Table 9. Table 9 provides a comparison of the effect of project-related traffic on the existing roadways. This table provides a , comparison of roadway segment V/C ratios at LOS C capacity for existing plus project-related traffic. ' A review of Table 9 shows that project-related traffic will primarily add to the capacity concerns on Golden West Street between Talbert Avenue and Yorktown Avenue. The next step in the process involves the assessment of future (post 1995) daily traffic volumes. Exhibit 21 presents the post-1995 daily traffic volumes with and , without project-related traffic. Table 6, presented previously, summarizes post-1995 daily traffic volumes and the roadway segment capacity analysis without project- related traffic. Presented in Table 10 is a summary of post-1995 daily traffic volumes with project-related traffic and a roadway segment capacity analysis. The table shows that the following roadway segments would exceed their LOS C or D capacity: , Ellis Avenue - Gothard Street to Beach Boulevard Garfield Avenue - Golden West Street to Gothard Street - East of Beach Boulevard Golden West Street - Talbert Avenue to south of Ellis Avenue Beach Boulevard - South of Talbert Avenue to south of Garfield Avenue 71 Talbert Avenue a � � am to 4 co v ^ m;� a c� r- co V 3 m CO N� t - b N 40 tLo � tp to N N N N NC N co m W ►gym ti �:. A CD � O Ellis Avenue 0 722/41/80 722141180 + f 03 co 722/85/49 722/85/49 N P r o i e c t Site �ti��� `,� o � m a � � � h Lacc m ' Ernest'StYeet _ 1�'ry a a 722/48/82 Garfield Avenue 1203/89/133 203/69/133 481/28/53 481/57/33 12031142/83 1203/142/8 y 481/67/33 e(722/a5/50 --as1/z8/53 y f -►�m m ) v } 1: ce 'ch Huntington 3each" � �',U�� as ` '`° ' Country Club ,^o N ca ` y�� to CO Yorktown Yorktown Avenue AvenueN � 1 A cc N a 'o LEGEND XXX/YYY/ZZZ - PROJECT- 1 RELATED DAILY/AM/PM PEAK oac Adams Avenue HOUR TRAFFIC (XXX/YYY/ZZZ)- PROJECT- a` RELATED DAILY/AM/PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFICWITH GOTHAR9 5 EXTENDED TO MAIN c C � o Pacific ay Ocean SOURCE: BASMACIYAN-DARNELL. INC. PROJECT-RELATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES � o n GOLLY FLQMED NO SCALE EXHIBIT 19 City of Huntington Beach RN H Talbert Avenue a m y � � 9 0 7 9 0 N Q/ m Q W C N L r N a c 0 8,990 a Ellis Avenue 2,080 2,940 2.940 13.240 0 m � Pro ject� 0 Site 'v Ernest Streeto 1 00 O c 9.470 �a � Garfield Avenue N 4560 8,250 13,860 8.250 Huntington Seacllff V q as County - 11.500, Y Club a (3.980) % (7�540) 5� o � O �c m 04 rJ w' N N 4 .... Yorktown Yorktown Avenue Avenue V a �`400 LEGEND . a XXX — DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES (YYY)-DAILY TRAFFIC Adams Avenue VOLUME WITH GOTHARD vow EXTENDED TO MAIN 5` dc�f N y Pacific y. ay Ocean SOURCE: SASMACIYAN-DARNELL. INC. EXISTING PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES NOLLV pLQaaGDD NO SCALE EXHIBIT 20 no City of Huntington Beach TABLE 9 SUMMARY OF ROADWAY SEGMENT CAPACITY ANALYSIS EXISTING PLUS PROJECT-RELATED TRAFFIC Existing + Project- Related LOS "C" V/C Roadway Segment Traffic Capacity Ratio Ellis Avenue Goldenwest St. to Gothard St. 2, 080 10, 000 0. 21 Huntington St. to .Beach Blvd. 2, 940 10, 000 0. 2.9 East of Beach Boulevard 13, 240 20 , 000 0. 66 Garfield Avenue Goldenwest St , to Gothard St. 4,560 10, 000 0 . 46 Gothard St, to Seventeenth St. 7,540/ 11,500 10, 000 0. 75/1. 019 (a East of Beach Boulevard 13,860 20, 000 0. 69 Goldenwest Street Talbert Avenue to Ellis Avenue 26,440 20 , 000 1 . 32 Ellis Avenue -to Garfield Avenue 24, 060 20, 000 1 . 20 Garfield Avenue to Yorktown Avenue 20,260 20, 000 1 . 01 Gothard Street Talbert Avenue to- Ellis Avenue 7 ,460 10, 000 0. 75 Ellis Avenue to Garfield Avenue 9,470 10, 000 0. 95 Garfield Avenue to Main Street -/3, 000 10, 000 _ -/0. 30 (a) Main Street Seventeenth St. to Huntington St. 19,140 30, 000 0. 64 Garfield Avenue to Yorktown Ave. 21 , 360 30, 000 0 . 71 Beach Boulevard Talbert Avenue to Ellis Avenue 37 , 920 45, 000 0 . 84 Ellis Avenue to Garfield Avenue 27 , 440 45,000 0. 61 Garfield Avenue to Yorktown Avenue 26 , 960 45 , 000 0 . 60 (a) with and without Gothard Extended to Main Street 72 TABLE 10 SUMMARY OF POST 1995 DAILY TRAFFIC(a ) ROADWAY SEGMENT CAPACITY ANALYSIS(b) Future LOS "C" V/C LOS "D" V/C Roadway Segment ADT Capacity Ratio Capacity Ratio Ellis Avenue Goldenwest St . to Gothard St. 21 , 500 30,000 0. 72 33, 000 0. 65 Gothard St, to Huntington St. 24, 900 20,000 1 .25 22,000 1 . 13 Huntington St, to Main St. 21 , 300 20,000 1 .07 22,000 0. 97 East of Beach Boulevard 27 , 300 20,000 1 .37 22,000 1 .24 Garfield Avenue Goldenwest St. to Gothard St. 32, 800 30,000 1 . 09 33, 000 0. 99 Gothard Street to Main Street 26, 300 30, 000 0.88 33, 000 0.80 Main St , to Huntington Street 27, 000 30, 000 0.90 33, 000 0.82 East of Beach Boulevard 37, 200 30, 000 1 . 24 33, 000 1 . 13 Goldenwest Street ' Talbert Avenue to Ellis Avenue 40, 400 30, 000 1 . 35 33, 000 1 . 22 w South of Ellis Avenue 42, 500 30, 000 1 . 42 33, 000 1 . 29 South of Garfield Avenue 48, 300 45, 000 1 . 07 49, 500 0. 98 Gothard Street South of Talbert Avenue 18, 960 20,000 0. 95 22, 000 0.86 South of Ellis Avenue 13, 000 20,000 0..65 22, 000 0. 59 North of Garfield Avenue 12, 700 20, 000 0. 64 22, 000 0. 58 South of Garfield Avenue 20, 800 20, 000 1. 01 22, 000 1. 00 Main Street Seventeenth St, to Huntington St. 18, 200 30,000 0.61 33, 000 0.55 South of Garfield Avenue 19, 100 30, 000 0.64 33, 000 0. 58 Beach Boulevard South of Talbert Avenue 61 , 000 45, 000 1 . 36 4)9�500 1 . 23 North of Garfield Avenue 48, 500 45,000 1 .08 49, 500 0. 98 South of Garfield Avenue 45, 500 45,000 1 .01 49, 500 0. 92 (a) With Proposed General Plan Amendment (b) Based .on Master Plan Roadway Configurations ADT = Average Daily Traffic i r ri r �r �r r r■E rr rr ar ■r �r r r� rr r� rr �r r Talbert Avenue � m m �• � O O 00 00 O ^ A 00 y co CDp0 m p 0 a O CD O v o av 13900 r 4 ; m� W ^ c .. (12:700)o v C 0 21,700 25,500 21,900 27,900 Ellis Avenue (21 500) 1 (24.900 (21 300) 7 300) 42,900 O42,¢00) x� ro ject Site o ,yOoo o Ernest Street '��, � ^ 0p 0 %. �, ,.Io m� lion Garfield Avenue 37 800 28 300. 8,000 (37,200) (27-0000 33,200 , Huntington Seaclif 32,800 bp�0 ``aa p o Country Club 0 0 21,000 ` �r at 1O (20,800) iO �° v e a co Yorktown Yorktown Avenue \ Avenue `f n o e o p LEGEND ' ry0�a p a cti .�•g �O o XXX_- POST 1995 DAILY 9 m• m VOLUMES •tea `� (YYY) - POST 1995 DAILY lac Adams Avenue VOLUME FORECASTS \ Go WITH PROJECT- RELATED TRAFFIC 00` VOLUMES 5 ao NOTE: POST 1995 VOLUME N a WITH PROJECT BASED ON coe a GENERAL PLAN INTENSITY REDUCTION. Pacific = Oc � ean #y SOURCE: BASMACIYAN-DARNELL, INC. POST 1995 DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES MOO LLU PL�L=JUvLIVISDD NO SCALE EXHIBIT 21 00 ]G�MaO��OC�pQ 2) City of Huntington Beach Numb 44 To improve the roadway V/C ratios to 1.0 or less in the analysis, Ellis Avenue and Golden West Street segments were upgraded to the next higher roadway classification. Volume to capacity analyses were performed and it was determined that each segment would be significantly improved. Analysis of Beach Boulevard has not been performed in this EM, however, a detailed study titled "Beach B-7 Boulevard Corridor Study" was prepared by Berryman do Stephenson, Inc. for the Orange County Transportation Commission in July 1984. Intersection Capacity Analysis In addition to the roadway segment analysis, Intersection Capacity Utilization B-9 analyses were performed at six intersections in the vicinity of the project site using the existing plus project-related traffic conditions (see Table 11). It was found that all six intersections fall within the LOS A and are, therefore, expected to experience , free-flow conditions in both the morning and afternoon peak hours. Access and Internal Circulation Exhibit 22 depicts the proposed Holly Planned Community. Each of the collector roads within the site have been labeled "A" through "F" and each critical intersection has been identified and numbered 1 through 10. Project-related daily traffic was then assigned to each roadway for the purposes of analyzing the adequacy of each roadway and for identification of any problem areas. Also presented on Exhibit 22 are the expected project-related daily traffic volumes. Review of the exhibit shows that each of the interior roadways are expected to operate satisfactorily. Further review of the intersections/access points identified potential problems with the spacing of two intersections along Gothard Street. The spacing between "B" Street and "E" Street along Gothard Street (Intersections 2 and 3 on Exhibit 22) were found to be too close to operate satisfactorily. In addition ' to the spacing problem, the intersections as proposed are located within the horizontal and vertical curvature alignment of Gothard Street. To mitigate this concern it is recommended that the site be redesigned to align "B" and "E" Streets across from each other to create a four-way intersection. Also, the revised location should be a minimum of 800 feet south of Ellis Avenue. (The city Public Works B-10 Department recommends a minimum of 475 feet south of Ellis.) 74 1- TABLE 11 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION AND LEVEL OF SERVICE FOR EXISTING PLUS PROJECT-RELATED TRAFFIC AM PM Intersection ICU LOS ICU LOS Ellis Avenue at: Gothard Street 0. 43 A 0. 44 A Goldenwest Street 0. 34 A 0. 41 A Garfield Avenue at: Goldenwest Street 0.34 A 0. 36 A Gothard St. /Crystal St. 0. 36 A 0. 39 A Main Street 0. 44 A 0 . 43 A Main Street at: Clay Avenue 0, 28 A Q, 28 A r i 1 1 1 1 75 1 Ellis Avenue _ AlTr ��I��'t4`lljil !1�1 '55�1(li'ju�• �iTfr`:1!41 thFG11�Ll�lly!.III�l�7i'tir I ii fIl� II �Sjirjlr`1')ti. r: A. 1 I 1 1 -,. J`1 ! } o (. fir i�' fil �,�f11C1 I`i'. �� 1�,�1',�IY .� 1YIsl �l��f!�li,.� �� t� ;r,j f.. r,�li'r11 ;�,�;,•- ,, (1 t 5 7 ,. &J/; LL� 1Ul ;, 42 ",../r���[•�!' ;;Cj�%'[`�')., �flj��� '. ► 'rv�•w��i/,t J F• ','r`1�:ST�1��{���l� rc�% _Jj,; •.�,� ., .� .� tn,, • `:III 'T�- A Cr. : '.IJ r���`:.. :)/� • r��r;! 1 C L��. Per v 7.S ,fl r.11�,1t1``I� I'r�l��, II''!•� r: •• �/� n /, •i• �� '1 1 11 �I I � r I. r��:ti.� r� '�8�•.'�Y`, r ,,. _Qr �` 4 Iitpl'r0 i."14111��!`ij(1�4;Pr 1If.W n t*J J I •1 I f �"W �i. _ �•. >' rf�f�i((�� Ernest Street ---- ; ' L. �l 'J d . .:.2180-_._ - _ 9 X �v �} r i., llTM «: lungc. � . Ila MAD c � �;• ��AI�j . , 4:a � . '4I:1�„���a1r1�: � ,���I,,,�,���I . • �lr- • � ((IYSIb �IIIIIII!IHIIIIIII innunur.(1' n:nnuunn:� dllllllllll`i1111111110 m I iiAI1Y - Ic: L: G _-9LlA) Garfield Avenue 0 LEGEND SOURCE: SASMACIYAN-DARNELL. INC. 4 ACCESS ' XXX - PROJECT-RELATED DAILY TRAFFIC SITE ACCESS AND INTERNAL CIRCULATION MOLLY pLLaaHC�DD IMidudBnndm.oArod..� OOKWUH07'UMP& & 64 City of Huntington Beach Ul Ell I I ' 0 220 440 FEET EXHIBIT 22 The remaining intersections were found to be adequate. At the intersection of Garfield Avenue and "F" Street (Intersection 10) it is recommended that a left and a ' right turn lane entering Garfield Avenue be provided. Traffic Control ' The need for traffic signals were analyzed and it was determined that one would be needed at the intersection of Garfield Avenue and Gothard/Crystal Street due to the ' realignment of Gothard and project-related traffic.. . Review of the traffic signal warrant worksheets (see Appendix G) found that a ' traffic signal at Golden West Street and Ernest would not be warranted. However at Garfield. Avenue and Gothard Street/Crystal Street a traffic signal would be ' warranted due to the realignment of Gothard Street and the addition of project- related traffic. ' At Gothard Street and Ernest Avenue a traffic signal would not be warranted. However, Ernest Avenue traffic should be stopped with a stop sign prior to entering ' Gothard Street. Gothard Street Realignment Considerations ' The most significant effect of the initial realignment of Gothard Street will be that southbound traffic currently using Gothard will be redirected to the Garfield/Gothard/Crystal intersection then turn left to travel east on Garfield to ' reach the Main Street intersection to continue east and/or south on Main Street. Northbound travel would be the opposite of the southbound travel. This movement will result in a slight increase in travel distance until such time that Gothard Street is extended south to Main Street. ' The realignment of Gothard Street through the project site will result in a portion of the city's circulation system being implemented. However, the City of Huntington B-11 Beach staff is concerned about the short-term effects of this realignment without the roadway being extended further south to Main Street. The city's concern ' involves the out-of-direction travel required for motorists and the potential inducement of traffic to travel south through the intersection onto Crystal Street 76 (future Gothard). Exhibits 18 and 20 in the Final EIR present volume data with the extension. Review of the data shows that the realignment would be expected to ' under existing traffic conditions, the daily traffic volumes on Gothard south of Garfield would total approximately 3,000 daily vehicles. The Holly project would add , an additional 960 vehicles resulting in a total of 3,960 vehicles on Gothard south of Garfield Avenue. As other properties in the area are developed and occupied this demand would be expected to increase. Although the Holly project in itself does not create the actual need for the further extension of Gothard south of Garfield, it initiates the concern for implementing the extension. The traffic consultant concurs with this concern and the city's desire to , implement the Gothard Street realignment through the project site as well as south of Garfield Avenue to Main Street. To adequately address this issue it is recommended that a detailed study of the Gothard Street realignment be prepared and approved prior to development of the 8-11 ' Holly property. s address e The detailed study should addr the following: - Identification of constraints and opportunities. Rights-of-way and avail- ability would be major items to be addressed. , - The timing and need for the extension of Gothard south of Garfield Avenue. ' - Alternatives to be considered are as follows: No project. With this alternative appropriate signalization would be installed and Crystal Street would possibly be closed temporarily. Extension of roadway to Main Street, with Master Plan geometries. Two-lane extension to Clay Street and treatment of Main/Clay intersections. 77 - Funding alternatives. This section would provide a discussion of the various funding opportunities. It is expected that this would include ' discussions ranging from a city-sponsored/funded project, assessment district, reimbursement agreement, and others as appropriate. The alignment and geometric design of Gothard Street as presented on the Holly Planned Community Concept Plan was evaluated to determine its adequacy. The evaluation considered horizontal and vertical curvature, spacing of intersections, ' sight distance, and alignment at Ellis Avenue.. The traffic study concludes that the realignment will be satisfactory provided the ' following measures are included in the final site design and roadway design: 1. The intersection of Ernest Avenue and "F" Street be separated a minimum of 400 feet or aligned to form a four-way intersection. 2. The intersection of "B" Street and "E" Street should be separated a minimum of 400 feet or aligned opposite each other to form a four-way intersection. In addition, a four-way intersection should not be located closer than 600 feet to Ellis Avenue. 3. Design of the sag vertical curve (at Gothard's intersection with "E" Street south of Ellis) should take into consideration adequate sight distance and safe stopping distance. ' 4. The design of slope banks, walls and landscaping at intersections should be carefully reviewed during preparation of the grading plans and street ' improvement plans. It is recommended that design criteria presented on the County of Orange Standard Plan No. 117 be utilized. A copy of the ' Standard Plan is included in Appendix G. 3.8.4 Mitigation Measures 1. The proposed project is expected to contribute to future roadway segment congestion in the vicinity of the project site. The post-1995 traffic conditions are expected to exceed their LOS C and LOS D capacity. This 78 condition is anticipated with the proposed project as well as with the , present general plan designations for the project site. To mitigate these future conditions, it is recommended that the City of Huntington Beach Circulation Element be amended with or without the GPA as follows: a. Upgrade MPAH classification of Golden West Street north of Garfield Avenue from a primary arterial, four-lane divided, to a major arterial, , six-lane divided. The city is currently proposing the upgrading of this classification from primary-to major. . b. Upgrade MPAH classification of Ellis Avenue east of Gothard Street by either redesignating it from a secondary arterial (four-lane undivided) , to a primary arterial (four-lane divided), or by restriping the street within the existing right-of-way for two lanes each direction, a painted median and no parking. 2. Mitigation measures for Beach Boulevard are not addressed in this report but can be found in the Beach Boulevard Corridor Study completed by the Orange County Transportation Commission. 3. Mitigation of site specific impacts is recommended and the following , improvements should be made a part of the development of the Holly Planned Community: a. Improve the arterial roadways adjacent to the project site to their current/proposed MPAH classification. , b. Realign Gothard Street in accordance with the MPAH and as generally ' depicted on the Holly Planned Community Site Plan. In addition to the widening of the roadway to secondary arterial standards, additional roadway width will be needed to accommodate left-turn lanes at the 8-12 various project access points and at Garfield Avenue, Ernest Avenue, and Ellis Avenue. The city may consider a Primary Classification to ' provide a continuous median. 79 c. Modify the traffic signals at the following intersections to ' accommodate the various roadway improvements and Gothard Street alignment. - Golden West Street at Ellis Avenue - Ellis Avenue at Gothard Street - Gothard Street at Main Street/Garfield Avenue d. Construct a traffic signal at the -realigned Garfield Avenue and Gothard Street/Crystal Street intersection. ' e. Put a stop sign on Ernest Avenue at Gothard Street. f. Design Gothard Street and the final project site plan to incorporate the following recommendations: ' - The intersection of Ernest Avenue and "F" Street to be separated a minimum of 400 feet or aligned to form a four-way intersection. ' - The intersection of "B" Street and "E" Street to be separated a minimum of 400 feet or aligned opposite each other to form a four- way intersection. In addition, a four-way intersection should not be located closer than 600 feet to Ellis Avenue. - Design of the sag vertical curve (at Gothard's intersection with "E" Street south of Ellis) should take into consideration adequate sight distance and safe stopping sight distance. ' - The design of slope banks, walls, and landscaping at intersections should be carefully reviewed during preparation of the grading plans and street improvement plans. It is recommended that design criteria presented on the County of Orange Standard Plan No. 117 be utilized. A copy of the standard plan is included in Appendix G. Widen Gothard Street to more than the standard secondary arterial ' to provide pavement width for left turn lanes at each access point and at Ellis Avenue and Garfield Avenue. - Consideration be given to the design of Gothard Street at Ellis Avenue to provide 100 to 200 feet of tangency entering the intersection rather than carrying the centerline curve through the intersection. A slight skew of the intersection would be more acceptable than the proposed centerline curve design. 80 r 4. If, during later planning or development phases, traffic volumes generated , are expected to increase, decrease, or be redistributed by 20 percent or B-13 more in any of the individual phases of the proposal, a revised traffic study , must be submitted by the applicant to the city for review and approval. 1 5. It is recommended that a detailed study of the Gothard Street realignment be prepared which addresses traffic constraints, right-of-way availability, ' timing for extension of Gothard south of Garfield, and alternatives to the realignment. i 1 r r r r r r r r r 81 r ' 3.9 AIR QUAL rY 3.9.1 Existing Conditions ' Air pollutants are classified as primary or secondary based upon the manner in which they are formed. Primary pollutants are emitted directly from a source into the atmosphere. Examples of primary pollutants are carbon monoxide (CO), nitric oxide and nitrogen dioxide (NO and NO2), sulfur dioxide (S02), particulates, and various ' non-methane hydrocarbons (NMHC). Secondary. pollutants are created with the passage of time in the air mass by chemical and photochemical reactions (often involving primary pollutants). Examples of secondary pollutants are ozone (03), ' photochemical aerosols, and peroxyacetylnitrates (PAN). ' The air quality of the South Coast Air Basin (SoCAB), in which the study area is located, is determined by both the primary pollutants added daily and the existing ' secondary pollutants. Secondary pollutants—specifically oxidants—represent the major air quality problem basinwide. Air quality in the study area is a function of the primary pollutants emitted locally, the existing regional ambient air quality, and the meteorological and topographical factors influencing the intrusion of pollutants into the area from pollutant sources outside the immediate area. ' Climate and Meteorology Climate combines with meteorologic and topographic a hic conditions to affect local and regional air quality. The study area climate is typical of the southern California ' coastal region: warm, dry summers and short, mild winters. ' The average temperature in Huntington Beach is approximately 520F in winter and 680F during the summer months. Most of the annual rainfall occurs between November and April, averaging approximately 12 inches per year in the Huntington Beach area. Rainy days vary from 5 to 10 percent of all days in the air basin. Huntington Beach's prevailing daytime winds are sea breezes from the southwest which flow at 5 to 7 miles per hour. Nighttime winds drain the basin and flow from the northeast and east offshore at slightly lower speeds. During the fall and winter months the study area is subject to moderate and severe Santa Ana winds. 82 The dispersion of air pollutants in the SoCAB is often hampered by the presence of a persistent temperature inversion in the layers of the atmosphere near the ground , surface. The combination of low wind speeds and low inversions produce the greatest concentration of pollutants. In the winter, the greatest pollution problems are from , carbon monoxide and oxides of nitrogen during the night and early morning hours. In the summer, the longer daylight hours and brighter sunshine combine to cause a ' reaction between- hydrocarbons and oxides of nitrogen to form the typical photochemical smog. Ambient Air Quality Ambient it quality is given in ter 'air q ty gi n terms of state and federal standards adopted to protect public health with a margin of safety (see Table 12). In addition to ambient ' standards, California has adopted episode criteria for oxidants,. carbon monoxide, sulfure dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, and particulate matter. The episode levels represent short-term exposures at which public health is actually threatened. ' In Orange County, air quality data is collected primarily by the South Coast Air ' Quality Management District. The District's Costa Mesa and Los Alamitos stations are closest to the study area and most indicative of ambient air quality at the site , (see Tables 12 and 13). The Costa Mesa station did not monitor hydrocarbons in 1981. Despite the incomplete nature of the data, the following trends have , developed for the most critical pollutants from 1979 through 1984, as described below. Oxidant - Between 1979 and 1983, the state one-hour ozone standard (0.10 ppm) was exceeded between, 8 and 11 percent of the sampling period at the two stations , annually. The federal one-hour standard (0.12 ppm) was exceeded 2 percent of the year in Costa Mesa and 19 percent of the year in Los Alamitos during this same ' period. During 1980, three stage one episodes (over 0.20 ppm/hour) were called in Costa Mesa because of oxidant concentrations. The highest one-hour oxidant levels , reached were 0.26 ppm in Los Alamitos and 0.25 in Costa Mesa. 83 TABLE 12 1979-1983 ANNUAL SUMMARY OF CLEAN AIR STANDARDS VIOLATIONS COSTA MESA AIR QUALITY MONITORING_STATION Pollutant - Standard 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 Ozone 1 hr>0.10 ppm (state) 26 20 28 25 41 1 hr.:;0.12 ppm (federal) 16 5 6 6 15 1 hr>0.20 ppm (state-Stage 1 episode) 1 3 — — — ' Maximum 1 hr-(ppm) �121 0.16 0.20 0.18 0.25 Carbon Monoxide 1 hr>35 ppm (feder,J) 0 0 0 0 0 1 hr>20 ppm (state) 1 0 8 hrs>9 ppm (state and federal) 18 7 5 2 1 ' Maximum 1 hr (ppm) 21 17 15 21 14 Maximum 8 hr (ppm) 10.9 13.8 Nitrogen Dioxide 1 hrz-0.25 ppm (state) 4 2 2 0 1 Maximum 1 hr (ppm) 0.29 0.31 0.29 -0.23 0.27 ' Sulfur Dioxide 24 hr>0.05 ppm (state) 0 0 0 0 0 ' Maximum 24 hr (ppm) 0.018 0.020 — — 0.04 Particulates 24 hrs_>100 ug/m3 (st te)/# samples 26/61 6/20 NM NM NM Maximum 24 hr (ug/m ) 225 125 NM NM NM ' Lead 1 mom 1.5 ug/m3 (state) 3 0 NM NM NM ' Maximum Concentration (ug/m3) 3.74 0.82 NM NM NM Sulfates 24 hrs>25 ug/m3 (sta%e) 0 0 NM NM NM Maximum 24 hr (ug/m ) 24.2 13.5 NM NM NM — Means no data. NM Means not monitored. * This standard became effective December 12, 1982. 84 TABLE 13 1979-1983 ANNUAL SUMMARY OF CLEAN AIR STANDARDS VIOLATIONS , LOS ALAMITOS AIR QUALITY MONITORING STATION Pollutant - Standard 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 , Ozone 1 hr>0.10 ppm (state) 50 49 37 28 42 ' 1 hr>0.12 ppm (federal) 18 13 13 10 16 1 hr>0.20 ppm (state-Stage 1 episode) 2 3 — — — Maximum 1 hr•(ppm) 0.26 0.22 0.18 0.23 0.20 , Carbon Monoxide 1 hr>35 ppm (federq) NM NM NM NM NM , 1 hr>20 ppm (state) NM NM NM NM NM 8 hrs>9 ppm (state and federal) NM NM NM NM NM Maximum 1 hr (ppm) NM NM NM NM NM ' Maximum 8 hr (ppm) NM NM NM NM NM Nitrogen Dioxide ' 1 hr>0.25 ppm (state) NM NM NM NM NM Maximum 1 hr (ppm) NM NM NM NM NM , Sulfur Dioxide 24 hr>0.05 ppm (state) 0 0 0 0 0 Maximum 24 hr (ppm) 0.11 OL03 0.06 0.08 0.05 Particulates ' 24 hrs_>100 ug/m3 (state)/# samples 26/61 25/57 32/58 19/57 16/58 Maximum 24 hr (ug/m ) 327 238 602 218 175 Lead 1 1 mo_>1.5 ug/m 3 (state) 3 1 0 0 0 ' Maximum Concentration (ug/m3) 4.94 1.88 2.18 1.98 1.52 Sulf ates 24 hrs>25 ug/m3 (state) 1 2 1 0 1 Maximum 24 hr (ug/mt) 26.6 34.6 26.0 24.5 26.3 — Means no data. NM Means not monitored. * This standard became effective December 12, 1982. 85 ' r r ' Carbon Monoxide - Carbon monoxide levels are not monitored in Los Alamitos. At the Costa Mesa station, the eight-hour carbon monoxide standard (9 ppm) was exceeded an average of 2 percent of the days between 1979 and 1983. The one-hour federal standard (35 ppm) was not exceeded at the station during this period. The highest recorded one-hour carbon monoxide level during this period was 13.8 ppm in 1980. ' Nitrogen Dioxide - The Costa Mesa station exceeded the state one-hour nitrogen dioxide standard (0.25 ppm) less than 1 percent of the sampling period. The maximum hourly nitrogen dioxide concentration measured at Costa Mesa during the rpast five years was 0.31 ppm in 1980. Nitrogen dioxide is not monitored at the Los Alamitos station. 1 Sulfur Dioxide - The state sulfur dioxide standard (0.05 ppm/24 hours) was not exceeded at either station during the past five years. Total Suspended Particulates - The California 24-hour total suspended particulates r (TSP) standard (100 ug/m3) was exceeded on approximately 36 percent of _the days monitored in 1979 and 1980 at the Costa Mesa station. No data was collected for 1981 through 1983 at this station. At the Los Alamitos station, the state TSP standard was exceeded on 40 percent of the days monitored between 1979 and 1983. This highest concentration recorded was 602 ug/m3 in 1981. Odors Oil recovery operations are located on and near the site. Hydrogen sulfide gas and ' petroleum fumes which escape from the oil recovery facilities are carried across and off the property by the prevailing sea breeze. Although the odor recognition rthreshold for hydrogen sulfide gas is very low (0.00047 ppm), no odor complaints about current oil activities on site have been reported from surrounding ' neighborhoods..1 r 1 Personal communication with Tom Shaw, Huntington Beach Fire Depaprtment, September 4, 1984. 86 1 Air Quality Management ' The State Lewis Air Quality Act (1976) and the Federal Clean Air Act Amendments (1977) require the development of a program to meet state and federal air quality standards in the SoCAB. The state has indicated a time frame of "at the earliest ' achievable date" and the federal government requires attainment of all primary national ambient air quality standards by 1982 with a possible extension of ' attainment deadlines to 1987 for carbon monoxide and photochemical oxidants. The SoCAB is designated a non-attainment area for oxidants, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, and total suspended particulates. ' In February 1979, the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) and the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) adopted the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) for the South Coast Air Basin. The Air Resources Board ' adopted a revised version of the AQMP in May 1979. In January 1981, EPA approved with conditions the portions of the SoCAB State Implementation Plan (SIP) regarding particulate matter and nitrogen dioxides; however, the portions covering ozone and ' carbon monoxide were disapproved for lack of legal authority to implement an inspection and maintenance (I/M) program. In April 1982, EPA approved submittals to remove conditions, but continued the ozone and carbon monoxide disapprovals. On September 10, 1982, Governor Brown signed Senate Bill 33 which required biennial ' I/M programs in non-attainment areas, such as the SoCAB. Full implementation of the IN programs began in January 1984. The Draft 1982 Revision of the AQMP was adopted by SCAG and the SCAQMD on October 15, 1982. AQMP projections and mitigation measures are based on the SCAG-82A Growth Forecasts. The AQMP recommends control measures that when implemented will succeed in reducing primary air emission to the level of the state , and federal air quality standards by 1987. The control measures rely heavily on continued technical improvements to both stationary and mobile pollution control , equipment and the implementation of transit, ride-share and congestion relief. Rules and Regulations - The SCAQMD has published a set of "Rules and Regulations" , to reduce both stationary and mobile source pollutant emissions. This document outlines permits, fees, prohibitions, procedures for hearings, emergency measures, ' order for abatement, standards of performance for new stationary sources, and 87 standards for additional specific air contaminants (Federal Register, Vol. 46, No. 13, January 13, 1981). Rule 402 of Regulation IV, Prohibitions, of the "Rules and Regulations," prohibits the discharge of...."such quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or tto the public which endanger the comfort, repose, health, or safety of any such persons or the public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property." Rule 403(a) mandates that "a person shall not cause or allow fugitive dust emissions ' from any transport, handling, construction, or storage activity, so that the presence of such dust remains visible in the atmosphere beyond the property line of the emission source." Also, "a person shall take every reasonable precaution to minimize fugitive dust emissions from wrecking, excavation, grading, cleaning of land and solid waste disposal operations" (Rule 403(b)) and "...to prevent visible particulate matter from being deposited upon public roadways as a direct result of their operations" (Rule 403(d)). Orange County Subregional Element - Orange County has developed a "Subregional Element for the 1982 Regional Air Quality Management Plan." Several measures are listed in the Orange County element which may have applicability to the proposed ' project. The Orange County sub-element encourages new development to incorporate commercial and industrial uses near residential communities to reduce ' trips and trip lengths. The element also encourages several parking management strategies, carpool and bus alternatives, and the promotion of bicycle rack installation. &9.2 impacts ' The approval of the GPA will alter the land uses to be developed at the project site PP P P ] from estate residential, office, and industrial to mixed-density residential. The long- term affect on air quality from this action will primarily be a positive one since the residential use will generate less traffic and subsequently fewer vehicular emissions ' than would the primary industrial use. The resulting short-term air quality impacts from construction activities will not be significantly different due to this land use 1 88 change. The balance of this section will address the short-term and long-term impacts associated with the proposed planned community residential project. ' Two types of air pollutant sources must be considered: stationary and mobile. Stationary sources include emissions onsite from construction activities and natural ' gas combustion as well as emissions at the power plant associated with any electrical requirements for power, lighting, etc. In addition, long-term oil well operations in proximity to residential use are a potential source of odors. Mobile source considerations- include short-term construction activities and long-term traffic generation. The following impact discussion is organized into two general categories for ease of presentation: short-term impacts (fugitive dust and .construction ' equipment emissions) and long-term impacts (stationary, mobile, and odor sources). Short-Term Impacts ' The preparation of the study area for building construction will produce two types of air contaminants: exhaust emissions from construction equipment and fugitive dust generated as a result of soil movement. Because the project is to be phased, these ' construction impacts could be expected during each phase of development. The emissions produced during grading and construction activities, although of short-term duration, could be troublesome to workers and adjacent developments, even though r prescribed wetting procedures are followed. These emissions will not, however, cause ambient air quality standards to be exceeded onsite. ' Exhaust Emissions From Construction Equipment - 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. Appendix H presents exhaust emission factors for various types of equipment used during construction operations. Fugitive tiveDust Emissions - Construction activities are a source of fugitive dust emissions that may have a substantial temporary impact on local air quality. , Building and road construction are the prevalent construction categories with the highest emission potential. Emissions are associated with land clearing, ground excavation, grading operations, and construction of the structures. ' 89 Dust emissions vary substantially from day to day, depending on the level of activity, the specific operations, and the prevailing weather. A large portion of the emissions ' results from equipment traffic over temporary roads at the site. The quantity of fugitive dust generated is proportional to the area of land being worked and the level of construction activity. Emissions from heavy construction operations are directly proportional to the silt content of the soil (that is, particles smaller than 75 micrometers .in diameter) and inversely proportional to the square of the soil moisture. ' Based upon field measurements of suspended dust emissions from apartment and shopping center construction projects, an approximate emission factor for construction operations is 1.2 tons of fugitive dust per acre of construction per month of activity (U.S. EPA, AP-42, 1977). ' Lon Term Impacts Long-term impacts are those associated with the permanent use of the facilities proposed. The emissions associated with the existing general plan and those associated with the proposed project are both analyzed for comparison purposes. In �1 both cases it is assumed that the projects are built out to their maximum intensity or density. The air pollutants emitted can be projected for various years by multiplying the anticipated vehicular, electrical, and natural gas usage rates by the appropriate ' SCAQMD emission factors. It was assumed that this project would be completed by year 2000. The results of the analysis are shown in Tables 14-A and 14-B. Appendix H includes a summary of the emission factors used. 90 TABLE 14-A PROJECTED MOBILE AND STATIONARY SOUCE EMISSIONS , WITH THE EXISTING GENERAL PLAN (Tans/Day) Primary Natural Gas Electricity 2000 Total ' Pollutant Combustion- Generation 2 Vehiouler3 All Sources D-1 CO 0.0017 0.0030 L4725 1.4772 r NMHC 0.0007 0.0019 . 0.1360 0.1386 _ NOx 0.0083 0.0302 0.2141 0.2526 ' Sox NegL 0.0201 0.0289 0.0490 Part's NegL 0.0026 0.0463 0.0489 TABLE 14-B r PROJECTED MOBILE AND STATIONARY SOURCE EMISSIONS WITH THE PROPOSED PROJECT ' (Tons/Day) D-1 Primary Natural Gas 4 Electricity 5 2000 6 Total , Pollutant Combustion Generation Vehicular All Sources CO 0.0024 0.0020 1.0785 1.0829 1 NMHC 0.0009 0.0012 0.0996 0.1017 NOx 0.0094 0.0201 0.1568 0.1863 Sox Negl. 0.0134 0.0212 0.0346 Part's Negl. 0.0017 0.0340 0.0357 1 1 Based on a natural gas usage rate of 167,123 cubic feet/day (see Section 3.11). ' 2 Based on an electricity usage rate of 28,767 kwh/day (see Section 3.11). 3 Based on 131,340 vehicle miles traveled (10 miles/trip x 13,134 trips/day). 4 Based on a natural gas usage rate of 235,763 cubic feet/day (see Section 3.11). 5 Based on an electricity usage rate of 19,193 kwh/day (see Section 3.11). 6 Based on 96,200 vehicle miles traveled (10 miles/trip x 9,620 trips/day). 91 As indicated by comparing the two tables, the proposed project could reduce D-1 emissions associated with potential land uses by approximately 26 percent. Motor ' vehicle emissions will account for the majority of the emissions associated with development under either land use scenario To assess what the proposed project's atmospheric loading implies in terms of its ' relative impact on air quality, the project-related emissions are compared to the projected emissions for the county and the local Source Receptor Area (SRA).1 D-1 ' Huntington Beach lies within SRA 18 which also includes Seal Beach, Costa Mesa, Fountain Valley, and Newport Beach. Table 15 below provides a comparison of the District's projected 1987 emissions for Orange County SRA 18 and the project- related emissions (using 1987 emission factors). Emissions for the SRA are only available for carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, and oxides of nitrogen, therefore, these ' are the pollutants represented in the table. As seen from the table, the project emissions will represent 0.3 to 0.7 percent of the SRA's 1987 emissions and 0.03 to 0.14 percent of the county's 1987 emissions. The ' project's emissions appear insignificant compared to the more regional emissions shown in the table. However, the project's emissions will add to the cumulative emissions total for the region and vicinity. TABLE 15 EMISSION INVENTORY COMPARISON (1987) (Tons/Day) ' Pollutant Orange County2 SRA #183 Project CO 1,254.78 215.51 1.50 NMHC 424.80 38.60 0.13 NOx 173.98 38.17 0.24 ' Assessing the impact of the proposed project on local air quality and the impact of ' the local air quality on the proposed project is accomplished through evaluating ' 1 The District has broken down the regional emissions for the major pollutants into Source Receptor Areas for use in monitoring and planning purposes. 2 Source: SCAQMD, Draft AQMD, Draft Appendix V-C, August 1982. 3 Source: SCAQMD, Air Quality Handbook for EIRs, Revised December 1983. 92 carbon monoxide concentrations along relevant roadway corridors or intersections. Because the project's traffic is not expected to significantly increase traffic ' congestion on any of the city's roadways, the offsite concentrations will not be affected and only carbon monoxide levels within the project site need be evaluated. Traffic on the surrounding arterials should not significantly affect carbon monoxide , levels within the project site. As indicated by the traffic volumes and volume to capacity ratios in Exhibit 20, the ultimate volumes along these roadways will not ' result in a condition which generates significant carbon monoxide outside the road right-of-ways. This is confirmed by SCAQMD's methodology for estimating carbon monoxide concentration.) Based on this methodology, carbon monoxide ' concentrations would be less than 3 ppm (1 hour) at 50 feet from the roadway centerline. , Odors ' Hydrogen sulfide gas emissions and petroleum fumes from the oil recovery operations located on and near the site may be detected by nearby residents during periods of ' low wind speeds. However, given that complaints are rarely reported in other parts of the city where residential uses are adjacent to oil operations, it is unlikely that , these emissions will result in a significant odor nuisance or health hazard. The odor threshold of the hydrogen sulfide gas is well below the concentration which is harmful to health (the California standard for hydrogen sulfide in 0.03 ppm). Since residents would most likely be warned of any potential health hazard by the odor of ' the gas well before dangerous concentrations were reached, the downwind location of the emission source should not represent a significant risk to project residents. Only under extreme worst case conditions of very light wind speeds and a major release of hydrogen sulfide gas into the atmosphere would concentrations of the gas approach dangerous levels. ' 1 "Simplified Analysis Technique for Establishing CO Concentrations Near Highway Facilities," Appendix E, Air Quality Handbook for EIRs, SCAQMD, ' December 1983. 93 ' Air Quality Management The proposed GPA is not consistent with the South Coast AQMP. The AQMP is based ' on SCAG's growth projections which are in turn based on local general plans. The residential uses proposed do not currently conform with the land use plan of the general plan. However, the GPA for the project will be reviewed and will only be approved if the city decision-makers determine that the amendment will meet the overall goals of the city's general plan. Because the GPA will replace general plan industrial and office uses with residential uses, population and employment projections for the city will be altered. The project will add to the city's housing and population, and will reduce the number of projected employment opportunities. The SCAG-82 Growth Forecast estimates the city's housing will increase by 16,400 between 1985 and 2000.2 The project's maximum buildout of 1,200 d.u. would represent approximately 7 percent of the expected housing growth to occur in the city in the next 15 years. This is not considered a disproportionately large percentage. ' 3.9.3 Mitigation Measures It is strongly recommended by the SCAQMD that the following measures be implemented to reduce the short-term (construction) impacts associated with the project. ' 1. Regular watering, paving/oiling of construction roads, or other dust palliative measures. ' 2. Maintain construction equipment engines in proper tune. 3. Phase and schedule construction activities to level emissions peaks. ' 4. Discontinue construction during first and second stage smog alerts. It is also strongly recommended that the following measures be incorporated into the project to reduce long-term (operational) impacts associated with the project: 2 Based on projection of 69,300 units in 1985 and 85,700 units in 2000. 94 5. Energy conservation measures such as are outlined in Section 3.11. ' 6. Incorporation of convenient pedestrian access to busstops, public sidewalks and incorporation of a commercial center into the development plan. 7. Provide appropriate bus shelters or benches. ' 8. Provide convenient bicycle storage facilities. Rules 402 and 403 of the SCAQMD "Rules and Regulations" can be implemented to mitigate excessive odor and fugitive dust problems, respectively. 95 1 3.10 NOISE The project site is surrounded by existing roadways is near a police helipad, and ' contains over a dozen operating oil wells, some of which will remain with project development. These noise sources are addressed in the following analysis. ' 3.10.1 Background Noise pollution, like air and water pollution, is a very real environmental concern. Excess noise levels not only constitute an annoyance but also can cause both physical and psychological damages. The effects of noise on people range from annoyance and inconvenience to temporary or permanent hearing loss. Every day, people are subjected to a multitude of sounds in the urban environment. Many of these sounds are by-products of desirable and necessary day-to-day activities. Unfortunately, some of these sounds, such as the roar of cars and trucks, the thunder of jet aircraft, and the humming of air conditioners, are not only undesirable but are also detrimental to health. These sounds are generally referred to as noise. Since the human ear is not equally sensitive to sound at all frequencies, a specific ' frequency-dependent rating scale was devised to relate noise to human sensitivity. A A weighted dB (dBA) scale performs this compensation by discriminating against frequencies both above and below 1,000 Hz in a manner approximating the sensitivity ' of the human ear. The basis for comparison is the faintest sound audible to the average, young, male, human ear at the frequency of maximum sensitivity. Typical sounds normally range from 40 dB (very quiet) to 100 dB (very loud). Examples of various noise levels are shown in Appendix I. Conversation is roughly 60 dBA at three feet and noise becomes discomforting at 110 dBA. Doubling the sound ' pressure of a noise source causes the decibel rating to be increased by only 6 dB due to the logarithmic nature of the noise scale. However, due to nonlinearities in the mechanism of the human ear, a sound must be nearly 10 dBA higher than another to be judged twice as loud. It follows that a sound of 20 dBA is four times as loud, and 30 dBA is eight times as loud. ' Noise impacts are commonly evaluated in.the Community Noise Level (CNEL) noise index. CNEL is a method of'representing in a single number the combined effect of 96 r a daily noise exposure. The CNEL value computed at any point is the sum of the decibel values of the sound, with corrections for time of day and averaged over 24 hours. Weighting factors of 3 and 10 are employed to account for increased sensitivity to noise in the evening (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.) and nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) periods. Community reaction to CNEL noise levels is shown in Appendix I. Generally, noise ' levels exceeding 65 CNEL are undesirable for residential developments and 60 CNEL is a more desirable and acceptable level with only 2 percent of the population impacted complaining. Noise Criteria Both state and City of Huntington Beach noise standards and guidelines would apply to this project. State - The State of California has adopted noise standards in areas of regulation not preempted by the federal government. State standards regulate noise levels of motor vehicles and motor boats, establish noise impact boundaries around airports, regulate freeway noise affecting classrooms, and set noise insulation standards. The application standards for this project is the State Noise Insulation Standards found in the California Administrative Code, Title 25, Chapter 1, Subchapter 1, Article 4. This code requires acoustical insulation in areas subjected to 60 dB CNEL or greater ' in order to maintain an annual interior level of 45 dB CNEL in any habitable room of a multiple-dwelling unit. City of Huntington Beach - The City of Huntington Beach has adopted a Noise Element of the General Plan, a Noise Ordinance, and an Oil Code which would apply to the project. The Noise Element identifies goals, objectives, and policies formulated to provide basic guiding principles for reduction of noise in Huntington , Beach. The Noise Element has guidelines for noise exposure by land use category as shown in Table 16. The optimal noise level for all residential uses is 60 CNEL for ' outdoors and 45 CNEL for indoors. These optimal noise levels for residential uses imply that acoustical analyses are required in areas where the optimum standard is ' exceeded and that structural modifications for new development (more insulation, minimizing windows facing streets, etc.) could be necessary. The optimum criteria ' 97 level of 60 CNEL for residential uses is compatible with the California Noise Insulation Standards. It should be noted that these noise levels indicate a target level toward which efforts should be directed. These levels are, however, guidelines in noise control to determine what development proposals could need acoustical analyses and where structural modifications for new development may be necessary. TABLE 16 OPTIMUM NOISE LEVELS (Normally Acceptable) Land Use Community Noise Equivalent Level Residential 60 Institutional 60 Golf Courses, Riding Stables, Water Recreation Areas, Cemeteries 70 Office-Prof essional 75 General Commercial, Industrial 80 The city's Noise Abatement Plan in the Noise Element includes actions regarding noise from oil pumping operations. These actions are cited below. ro Consider restricting new residential development within 25 feet of a gasoline engine-powered pump. o Consider restricting new residential development within 25 feet of an c ng p electric motor-driven pump. The City of Huntington Beach has a community noise ordinance to control unnecessary, excessive, and annoying noise. The city is divided into four noise zones, two of which apply to this project. The exterior noise standards are shown in Table 17. It is unlawful for another property user to expose residential properties to these noise levels for a cumulative period of more then 30 minutes in any hour. As the cumulative time period decreases, the noise standard increases in -5 dB increments. r 98 r TABLE 17 EXTERIOR NOISE STANDARDS Noise Allowable Exterior Zone Type of Land Use Time Interval Noise Level I Single, double, or multiple 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. 45 dB family residential (R1, R2, 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. 50 dB R3, or R4) II Single, double, or multiple 10:00 p.m. to-7:00 a.m. 50 dB family residential (111, R2, 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. 55 dB R3, R4, RA) The Title 15, Huntington Beach Oil Code also addresses noise. The two applicable sections are quoted below. 15.20.220 Soundproofing. Where an oil field recovery heater is operated within a developed area, the fire chief may, in cases of disturbance such as excessive noise or vibration, require the operator to: (a) Enclose the heater with a fire-resistant, soundproofing material which r shall be maintained in a serviceable condition. (b) In the case of emergency or when it has been determined by the chief that the noise or vibration is detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare of the surrounding neighborhood, the chief may order the operator to cease operations. (Ord. 2491, July 1, 1981). 15.20.240 Public Nuisance Declared. The foregoing sections notwithstanding, no person shall conduct any oil operation in a manner that would create a noise, odor, or vibration detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare of the surroundiang neighborhood or any considerable number of persons. Such operation is hereby declared to constitute a public nuisance. (Ord. 2491, July 1, 1981). 3.10.2 Existing Conditions Traffic Noise Traffic along the adjacent roadways was computer modelled with the Federal Highway Administration's Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model, FHWA-RD-77- 108, December 1978. This model was modified to generate CNEL values. Model r 99 r I - 1 input data includes average daily traffic levels; day/evening/night percentages of autos; medium and heavy trucks; vehicle speeds; ground attenuation factors; and roadway widths. Table 18 quantifies the distances from ELlis Avenue, Golden West Street, Garfield Avenue, and Gothard Street to the 60, 65, and 70 CNEL contour lines. Because of the low traffic volumes, the 65 CNEL noise contours are relatively close to the roadway right-of-way. Golden West Street has the greatest impact to.the site with the 65 CNEL contour line extending 122 feet from the centerline. The site contains over a dozen operating oil wells. Field measurements of the machinery noise indicated noise levels in the 50 to 60 dBA range at a distance of 120 f eet. 1 TABLE 18 EXISTING TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS Distance to CNEL Contour from Centerline of Road (feet) Roadway 60 CNEL 65 CNEL 70 CNEL t Ellis Avenue Golden West St. to Gothard St. 43 33 31 Golden West Street Ellis Ave. to Ernest Ave. 233 122 80 Garfield Avenue Crystal St. to Gothard St. 89 70 65 Gothard Street Garfield Ave. to Ellis Ave. 68 41 33 Helicopter Noise The Huntington Beach Police Department currently uses the helipad located on the west side of Gothard and approximately 500 feet north of the project site. This facility is being upgraded to become the city's main police heliport. Construction is to be completed in early 1985. By 1990, the department anticipates between 12 to 14 helicopter operations in a 24-hour period (with half occurring during the day and half occurring at night). 100 Operations would consist of an approach from the north and a departure heading southwesterly over the project site (see Exhibit 23). On November 26, 1984, the City Council authorized purchase of a helicopter quieter than those currently owned, the Hughes 500D. The Hughes 500D with its relatively low top speeds and the multi- blade rotor is one of the quietest helicopters manufactured. Assuming a conservative departure angle of 45, a helicopter would be roughly 500 feet when reaching the project site. Single-event noise levels for maximum gross weight at this point are projected to be 79 dBA. As the-helicopter continued to climb, noise levels would decrease. 3.10.3 Impacts Construction Noise Trucks, graders, bulldozers, concrete mixers, portable generators, and other construction equipment will be operating during the construction phases. Over the short-term, construction noise will substantially increase ambient noise levels. The project site .is in a non-residential location and construction noise should not be disruptive to adjacent land uses. Roadway Noise Future roadwaynoise impacts were projected using the FHWA Traffic Noise P P ] g . Prediction Model. The distances to the 60, 65, and 70 CNEL for existing and proposed roadway segments are shown in Table 19. Two conditions were modelled; existing traffic plus the projects contribution and the 1995 Master Plans projection of traffic. The projects contribution to the existing CNEL noise contours is j insignificant when compared for the various existing roadways. The greatest change on the remaining existing roadways is a 65 CNEL increase in distance of only six feet. When compared to the 1995 project traffic levels and noise contours, the project represents only a minor contribution. i 101 TOUL;' J � �4 i7 f' I ww .--4fR4 COW+ ' i'/ fAMILY. A- J - '^AIACNL Y/fM O G' <a w AFTAIF I ` Y IdPrr APT_ .�- SC N 2 W �I� IAp• AP f! J N- K J — 'CILIf ;' I` /CFIY V/LM T R M 1 IufT Ib VILLA IAPPLE �_ _ 0.'fAV f u IR • C4ECN urf I p �""S. IM WARNER' i MEADOW CRE T APT'S' AFT.'. I —NMISM- ' 9 P Arm_ u Z .. CAANII:I IPT3 -_ 4 yyy ANI '. �• V .- RE a! T BR eNNEN i .•a=I ys, I rN/pIAS f F O CYPPI55 j �MAiKE1LLE 0 3 �u¢GC 2 qy0. JU��N' C I .100 10.0-FN BROOK ' _ :ErMyl ONENT �� i SCM. O 113LE��IIGI�DA °K Q TUCA.e�W �1i�jAI� 1 r'��Iy i $L•M 1lRI RI I 1 L RLN- R A r1•R (/� TEfOS el'. -AND "TVw .�L RuaaL4 acnLr R' -- a Zf gyp - ¢ r° MTf Va[W D J S I CITY' *O c✓rf I �I °j ! W E ��EW�pt•° 'I 1`. R 1 W YARD -i, N FNOIL AND r�5C 9pN A qit R.. °I� I wwuTTAN s ; °rtraEl� Q�mratrze R Q Y .`. EI 1.. NOR.. A IN L MA ., SANI_ .2 �• K W { f _ �` 4 �`�--.~ N _ _ IF ° M 111'u nKE LL Z CILL_ IS ..�Q LRISTA 4• S �HOPE N flL OS AV I - --I iq< C EY MON OrAAS °' . pZ P CdL N G La I¢ R r g Av > R io I TY Ri,♦ _aaR •� I�JARW+ES w ' 2` cQ I�_ .. MAN T r N N $ ITCN )��Q EL '-•1.I LLI_ KW19Te•' _AnE :: l/ i•:,� - NJ/NFro. TER row/A[w 8--•IL -Fro.■ r 5 T RON l!-A.'J A 1AC057A.__.'- rs+v R", S� N19 F ¢V N R q -hOiY/7It MORAL 3 0 5 MN/MG70M M t\ O * Q 1 ?74N I S'YME... V i vI f t Zlw uBRAEMA R 4 `Y CENT RA: •.{ ". Cl•If'EN LE Y x .� O IW _Ig4A I, cc p v CENTAIL 3 ———— 1CREST VIEW -AR I, y Cilh"M -— z A w TWO Art' W I L _ •.w.fa 1 f" 2' 17wL�(. ` :- ` ACPI- _j .i.•� ` O w lPN - STER•. ' _ .!*fQ£ r i 'Clf t RYim r NMR n / — _ V mr l '� 1 41rt1°�J -I �` - KIN gFEP ::::....... POACH ::::....:............; •::: ::: LA HELIPORT P Q ELLIS < a ENANKI:INp t-4„A F` l0 Q J '�'A \ NINf. FT.£ La.P.T Q O y .it� Ko. ER GAR :i P /�i m �6 L NDYeD �Els WAVE i / AR / f 3Ip ODN RAINR0IN ti i ti� CL r V.lE C.r sL.a UM, auuRETI •MIIJ(� -.fAAr O GR.S if��,'-11`�, DMi F Rs �V� ( L4K7L :.I i CLAY ^. „ EeL � �J ( Imo. [I�► Q i _ Id. ' ; Ow N '. TGRG E< Z W .ALL-^ I.'LUAMS W TYLER > PO K .-VILLAGE ' b_ c.C1f1.PE YpZKTOWN II YOPK EF iC,F^.T'EW .t% _ J.Y i o.AET� �/f��/ SF� NI Y':•Lll O ` rrT I O: � � - - I UTICA __ I % ` r•I - .>, n •T/ -.� \i f O All -Ni a KLANFY I I ply/lS "C'- 5a orlon T�.+o pQ A,Y. ;E `fJ• .rclo'- Ai.T „a GAR y FLAnrN NOTE: SOURCE: DEPARTURE PATH IMPACTS LAST.PHASE 'HELIPORT MASTER PLANNING STUDY' OF PROPOSED PROJECT. CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, MARCH 1983 POLICE HELICOPTER APPRO ACH and DEPARTURE PATTERN a0LO pUMFED MrFudl3randm.nA[.¢ciam OO NUM071YAWQ 4 �� r City of Huntington Beach Nan,, 0 1000 2000 FEET EXHIBIT 23 TABLE 19 FUTURE TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS Distance to CNEL Contour from Centerline of Road (feet) 60 CNEL 65 CNEL 70 CNEL (Existing) 1995 (Existing) 1995 (Existing) 1995 Roadway + Project MP + Project MP + Project MP Ellis Avenue Golden West St. to Gothard St. (43) 48 230 (33) 35 130 (31) 31 96 Golden West Street Ellis Ave. to Ernest Ave. (238) 239 349 (122) 125 178 (80) 81 111 Garfield Avenue Gothard St. to Main St. 106 — 75 — 67 — Crystal St. to Gothard St. (89) — 297 (70) — 157 (65) — 104 Gothard Street — — Ellis Avenue to Ernest St. 117 — 78 67 Ernest St. to Garfield St. 120 — 80 — 68 — Ellis Ave. to Garfield Ave. (68) — 146 (41) — 88 (33) — 70 It should be noted that the roadway noise contour distances represent worst case conditions since no obstructions to the noise path are considered. The project will have a relatively minor contribution to the overall traffic noise environment along nearby roadways. However, the substantial 1995 Master Plan traffic volumes require a review of total future traffic noise impacts on the projects residential development. Exhibit 24 graphically depicts the noise contours. The contours indicate that a substantial number of residential units will require some type of noise barrier or noise insulation. Oil Well Pump Noise In addition to the traffic noise impacts, the remaining onsite oil well pumps will generate noise. Noise measurements were conducted at each of potential oil well locations shown on the concept plan. The sites are shown in Exhibit 24 and the fifteen minute noise measurements are summarized in Table 20. Fifteen minute 102 samples were considered adequate since the machinery operates at constant noise levels throughout the day. The table indicates that Holly 7A, 11, and 9 generate very , similar noise levels with the noise level being exceded 50 percent of the time only ranging from 62 to 64 dBA. Holly 10 has different machinery with a slower pumping rate and is substantially quieter. Measurements were also taken at 120 feet for comparison. The noise levels at Holly 7A, 11, and 9 dropped off at 4.7 to 7.1 per doubling of distance at these sites. The drop off rate at Holly 10 was much less and may have been influenced by the surrounding background noise levels. The concept plan indicates that residential units would be within about 100 feet of these oil wells and would be exposed assuming no noise barriers, to constant noise levels of approximately.60 dBA. While marginally acceptable during the daytime, a 60 dBA level would be unacceptable during the nighttime. TABLE 20 NOISE LEVELS FROM FOUR REMAINING OIL WELLS Site dBA at 60 Feet Background dBA at 120 Feet , 1. Holly VA — (56.5 - 57.6) L10 63 L50 62 L90 62 2. Holly #11 — (56.9 - 58.4) L10 64 L50 64 L90 63 3. Holly #9 — (56.5 - 58.3) L10 63 L50 63 L90 62 4. Holly #10 — (48.8 - 50.6) L10 54 L50 53 L90 53 L10 - Noise level exceded 10 percent of the time. L50 - Noise level exceded 50 percent of the time. L90 - Noise level exceded 90 percent of the time. 103 F'[ IL�[:ILt[ILt� w, w , ��, rJ�,/,��� .����i� wow '♦♦tit ..•.- �s •� � � ,�l. �ii�� •'. .gyp � _ '`Fvi .. A RV ,Y � + • �p�R ������ ,��4 � ups � •.r,.��� C�■��� .' 7� of �+� �•. �� i`� a� 4 ,� ���i�� ,i,;� .�/ Irk rr ■. �v, •�4 -^r : :���� �` aF� - w y M `1{457 tiitf t3i3t �� � � �►1J1! ��tlt iR#+ t49i# HOLLY PLANNED 11111`II COMMUNITY/GPA 84 -1 �\\ �����■ I Helicopter Noise Future residents within the north-central and northwest portion of the site (latter phase of development) may be subject to periodic helicopter noise due to operations at the nearby police heliport. By 1990, these operations are expected to occur up to 14 times a day as helicopters takeoff from the facility. A preliminary study of this facility determined that, with the quieter helicopters that the department will be purchasing, the noise levels for a single operation at the project boundary would be approximately 79 dBA and, as the helicopter continues to climb, the noise level would decrease. Therefore, noise levels within the site should be less than 79 dBA. These noise events may be considered annoying by residents in the north-central and northwest corner of the site. 1 3.10.4 Mitigation Measures 1. In general, berms or walls should be constructed along Ellis Avenue, ' Golden West Street, and Garfield Avenue to decrease noise intrusion. 2. Dwelling units along Gothard Street could meet noise compatibility guidelines through additional noise insulation and air conditioning if berms or walls are not constructed. 1 . 3. Typical construction practices with windows closed (mechanical ventilation) yield 20 dBA of noise reduction and would meet the 45 dBA interior standard. These measures may also be necessary even with berms or walls for the first and second fronting units facing Ellis Avenue, Golden West Street, and Garfield Avenue. 4. Noise from the remaining oil wells should be mitigated. A 6-foot blockwall surrounding each of these derricks should contain their noise levels depending on the final site plans and construction materials. An accoustical engineer should review the wall plans to assure acceptable noise reductions and compliance with the eity's Noise Ordinance. 104 5. Construction activities should be limited to weekdays and daytime hours and construction traffic routed away from noise sensitive areas. 6. When final site plans and construction drawings have been prepared, an acoustical analysis of residential development within the traffic-generated 60 CNEL contour and within the area impacted by helicopter noise should be prepared to insure that the noise criteria have been met. Construction plans should be reviewed and approved by an acoustical engineer to certify acceptability prior to the issuance of building permits. 7. Perspective homeowners or tenants within the north-central and northwest corner of the site should be notified of the potential for periodic helicopter noise. i i t 1 105 3.11 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTHX1`IES 3.11.1 Fire proteetionl Existing Conditions r ' Fire protection for the proposed project will be provided by the Huntington Beach Fire Department. The site will be served by the Gothard Station located on Gothard Street 300 _feet north of Ellis Street, and the Lake Station, located on Lake and Frankfort Streets. The Gothard Station consists of 8 personnel, 2 engines, 1 support vehicle and 1 battalion chief car. The Lake Station consists of 7 personnel, 1 engine, 1 ladder truck and 1 paramedic unit. The response time to the site will be approximately 5 minutes. Insurance Services Office (ISO), an independent service which rates city fire protection services on a scale of one to ten, one being best, rates the "brush" areas in the city at 119" and the "developed" areas at 112." The Department currently takes part in the Orange County Mutual Aid System. ' Paramedic service in the city is provided by the Fire Department and ambulance service is provided by private agencies, most often Seals Ambulance Company. The normal response time for paramedics to the project area would be approximately ' 5 minutes, and the normal ambulance response time would be 15 minutes. Humana Hospital Huntington Beach, located approximately 2 miles from the site, would serve the proposed project. They provide full emergency services and a full range of health care. Impacts eMechanical failures, accidents, or seismic activity could potentially result in rupturing of well pipelines serving the remaining oil derricks. Such breaks could lead to spills of petroleum products and leakages of water, steam, or gases resulting in hazardous fumes, fire, or pollution. .With appropriate handling techniques, such occurrences would be unlikely. Standard safety practices, monitoring, adequate repairs and maintenance, and contingency plans should adequately mitigate the potential hazards related to active oil field operations. 1 The material in this section comes primarly from correspondence with Captain Tom Poe, Huntington Beach Fire Department, July 19, 1984. 106 Hazards from existing wells and abandoned wells, pipelines, sumps, trash dumps, etc., , should be mitigated prior to development of the site through the provisions of the city's Zoning and Oil Codes which require, among other things, examination and removal of abandoned facilities, soils investigations, setbacks from remaining oil facilities, etc. Existing manpower and equipment are adequate to maintain the present level of service in the event the proposed project is approved. The ongoing oil production in and around the site will require the provision of fire access lanes. The higher density of the proposed project as compared to the previous land use designation may cause limited access to perform fireground operations. This possibility, along with measures to mitigate the impacts, will be investigated at the Fire Department's plan check. The fire flows required for the project will be a minimum of 2000 gpm and a ' maximum of 3500 gpm. Mitigation Measures 1. Fire access lanes must be provided and kept unobstructed to prevent adverse impacts on fire protection from ongoing oil production hazards. 2. If during the Fire Department's plan check it becomes evident that fireground operations will become impeded, the department will impose mitigating measures such as automatic sprinkler systems, alarm systems, access roads, etc. 3. Other measures of fire protection are strongly recommended, such as smoke detectors and fire retardant building and landscape materials. 4. Measures to eliminate or reduce fire and safety risks from existing and , abandoned oil production facilities and disposal areas are presented in Section 3.2.3. These include abandonment and clean-up procedures, pipeline and sump examinations, soils investigations, setback and fencing requirements, and maintenance procedures. , 107 3.11.8 Police 1 Existing Conditions Police service is provided to the project area by the Huntington Beach Police Department. They are responsible for crime prevention, investigation, and enforcement of the law. The Police Department is located at 2000 Main Street in Huntington Beach. The most current response time study shows priority one (emergency) calls average 4.5 minutes, while response to priority two and three calls averaged 11.3 and 22.1 minutes, respectively. These response times would apply to the proposed development. At the present time, the Huntington Beach Police Department has 201 sworn officer. The Department operates 49 black and white units, 16 motorcycle units, 2 helicopters, 40 unmarked units, and 10 support vehicles (buses, beach vehicles, etc.). Huntington Beach has trained 10 officers for the Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) team to handle certain emergency situations. At present, because the P _ majority of the area is undeveloped, a small number of traffic-related reports are ' the only calls for service. rImpacts If current service levels are to be maintained, 7 sworn officers will need to be phased in over the 14-year development of the project. This figure is based upon the national average of 2.0 sworn officers per 1,000 population and historical data indicating approximately 1.26 calls for service per dwelling. The change in land use designation will increase the number of called-for police services from the site, impacting police resources negatively. Realigning Gothard to eliminate the curve and the 5-way intersection at Garfield and Main will reduce potential traffic hazards and improve vehicle flow, impacting police services positively. The street changes that will result under the proposed development should provide adequate access for emergency vehicles. 1 The material in this section comes primarily from correspondence with Jim Moore, Crime Analyst, Huntington Beach Police Department, July 17, 1984. 108 1 Mitigation Measures 1. The project developer should consult the Police Department during preliminary stages of the project design to review the safety features, determine their adequacy, and suggest improvements. 2. Easy access into and within the project site for emergency vehicles must be provided. 3. A perimeter wall and security gates may be provided if requested by the Police Department. 4. All areas of the project should be well-lit, including alcoves, walkways, doorsteps, and parking facilities. 5. Addresses should be well marked to facilitate response by officers. , S 6. Rooftop identification is encouraged to facilitate helicopter patrol. 3.11.3 Schoolsl The study area is located in the Huntington Beach City School District for elementary and intermediate schools and the Huntington Beach Union High School District for high schools. Students in the vicinity of the Study area attend the schools listed in Table 21. The table also lists the schools' capacities and current enrollments. Current City School District enrollment is 5,600 and current capacity is 5,820. Currently Union High School District enrollment is approximately 17,500 and the district is currently operaing at capacity. Huntington Beach also provides a college for advanced education, Golden West College, offering AA degrees and certificate programs. 1 The material in this section comes primarily from correspondence with Dr. P Y P Gary Burgner, Assistant Superintendent of Business Services, Huntington ' Beach City School District, July 25, 1984 and personal communication with Glen Dysinger, Business Services Office, Huntington Beach Union High School District, August 9, 1984. 109 ' I TABLE 21 EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES School Student Capacity Current Enrollment Smith Elementary School 770 17th St., Huntington Beach 600 503 Dwyer Intermediate School 1502 Palm Ave., Huntington Beach 900 839 Huntington Beach High School 1905 Main St., Huntington Beach 3,000 2,600 Studies conducted by the City School District indicate a student generation factor of 0.21 for single-family dwellings and 0.12 for multiple-family dwellings. The Union High School District reports a student generation factor of 0.26 for single-family dwellings and 0.04 for multiple-family dwellings. Impacts The City School District foresees a possibility that Smith and Dwyer schools may be overcrowded in the future. Using the generation factors noted above, the proposed project will generate approximately 191 elementary and intermediate school students. These students will be generated in small increments over a 10 to 15 year period. It may also be'necessary for the City School District to transport students to and from school. The Union High School District foresees no significant impact on school facilities as a result of the proposed project. Using the generation factors noted above, the project will generate approximately 162 high school students over a 10 to 15 year period. Huntington Beach High School enrollment has declined recently due to the loss of students from areas of Seal Beach that were formerly served, and therefore will have adequate facilities to serve the proposed project. 110 Mitigation Measures ' 1. If necessary, the school district will develop a plan to finance student transportation, portable classroom use, or additional school construction. This plan may include fees to be paid by the developer. ' 3.11.4 Solid Waste Disposal Existing Conditions Solid waste generated in the city is collected by Rainbow Disposal Inc., a private collection company under a ten-year contract to the city. The city pays for r collection service from single family, duplex, triplex and four-plex residential units with individual trash cans at a monthly rate on a per-unit basis. Four-plex r residential units with trash bins, multi-family residences of five or more units, and commercial and industrial units contract with Rainbow Disposal on an individual ' basis.l The final destination of collected waste is the Coyote Canyon disposal station in ' Irvine, which is a class 11-2 landfill site. The life expectancy of this landfill has been projected to be October 1988, at which time the initiation of operations in a suitable i replacement site is expected.2 The estimated rate of solid waste generation in the county as a whole averages about 8.5 pounds per person per day (includes all uses). Rainbow Disposal operates a transfer station in the city at 17121 Nichols St. At this ' facility, Rainbow Disposal transfers waste from small trucks to larger trucks which then take the refuse to the landfill. Hauling larger loads to the landfill is a more efficient use of fuel, manpower, and machinery.3 1 Huntington Beach General Plan, Community Facilities Element. 1981. p. 69. 2 Correspondence from Mike Luke, Assistant Chief Engineer, County of Orange , General Services Agency, Waste Management Program, July 16, 1984. 3 Correspondence from richard Timm, Operations Manager, Rainbow Disposal Co., Inc., July 25, 1984. , 111 Impacts mpa is Approval of the proposed GPA will result in a residential land use, which will potentially generate more solid waste than the current land use designation (primarily industrial). Rainbow Disposal and the Orange County General Services Agency, however, see no adverse impacts in serving the proposed development. No negative impacts are seen on Rainbow Disposal's operations, its transfer station, or the county landfill. These facilities are presently adequate to serve the proposed project. Mitigation Measures 1. Project design should consider means of reducing the amount of waste material generated both during construction and when the project is in use. 2. The developer should contact Rainbow Disposal during the design stage to ensure the most efficient and economical means for rubbish removal. The design must include rubbish enclosures, projected travel areas, and turn- abouts where necessary. C-12 ' 3. The city should investigate the implementation of a city-wide recycling program. 3.11.5 Public TransI?ort ationl Existing Conditions Public transportation service to the project site will be provided by the Orange County Transit District (OCTD). OCTD Route 25 currently serves Golden West St. with transit stops at Ellis/Golden West and Garfield/Golden West. 1 Source for material in this section comes from correspondence with Dick Hsu, Section Chief, Developmental Planning, OCTD, July 27, 1984. 112 1 Impacts The increased population from the proposed project could generate more demand for PoP P P� P transit service to the area. This increased demand would add cumulatively to the m ' need for public transit improvements, although in the long run it could have a positive benefit on local and regional public transit systems. High density residential developments on or near transit routes tend to increase ridership, and therefore r actually increase the efficiency of local and regional public transit systems. Depending on them magnitude and Pattern of the development for the proposed project over the next 15 years, certain transit improvements may be made by OCTD. These could include one or more additional stops on Golden West St. between Ellis Avenue and Garfield Avenue, which would be located at points of access to the development. Service may also be routed through the project on Gothard, if the t realignment and street upgrading becomes a reality as indicated on the Master Plan of Arterial Highways. ' Mitigation Measures OCTD suggests the following features be included in site plans for the proposed project in order to support the transit service and encourage transit usage: 1. Highest density land uses (apartments or condo miniums) should be located closest to arterials, so that transit service may be available to the greatest number of potential riders. . 2. Pedestrian access to arterials with transit service should be provided by minimizing setbacks in order to shorten walking distances and by appropriately placing convenient walkways (or breakthroughs or stairs in sloped landscaped areas or sound barrier walls, if such are provided). ' 3. Transit amenities such as a bus shelter, bus pad, bench, and sidewalk should be provided at each stop. 4. Depending on the projected traffic volume and speed, bus turnouts may be necessary at the bus stops. , 113 1 In addition, the city Public Works Department suggests the following: B-12 1 5. The necessary improvements should be integrated into the improvements ' 8-14 required at site access points to enhance bus ridership where appropriate. 3.11.6 Electricity Existing Conditions The proposed project is located within the service area of the southern California Edison Company (SCE). The nearest electrical facility is a 66 kV line running just south and parallel to Ellis Avenue through the proposed project site. All new lines installed in the city are required to be underground, and the city is working with SCE to achieve the undergrounding of existing lines.l r Impacts Approval of the proposed GPA to change the land use designation from estate residential, office, and industrial to planned community would result in a significantly lower electricity requirement for the site. Electrical consumption estimates for the proposed project are based on South Coast Air Quality Management District's (SCAQMD) recognized consumption rate of 5,838 kwh per dwelling unit per year. Assuming 1,200 dwelling units, the annual electrical consumption rate for the proposed site would be approximately 7 million kwh per year at buildout. The existing land use designations would allow up to 1.8 million square feet of light industrial, 130,700 square feet of professional office, and 140 low-density single- family units. Based on annual usage rages of 4.5 kwh per square foot of light industrial, 12.2 kwh per square feet office and 5,838 kwh per dwelling units for residential, the existing general land uses could consume up to 10.5 million kwh annually at buildout.2 ' 1 Huntington Beach General Plan, Community Facilities Element. 1981. p. 64- 65. 2 Source for usage rates: SCAQMD, Air Quality Handbook for EIRs, December 1983. 114 1 . r The actual annual consumption rates would differ according to use areas, climate, ' and the degree of energy conservation measures incorporated into the project design. SCE does not anticipate any significant impacts in providing electrical service to the proposed project. The project site is surrounded by facilities adequate to serve it, however, some facilities may require relocation or removal depending on ' street alignments.3 Mitigation Measures ' 1. Building construction shall comply with the Energy Conservation Standards , set forth in Title 24 of the California Administrative Code. 2. Energy conservation tactics such as the following should also be considered: o Energy efficient concepts in building layout, design, and orientation. The use of solar water and space heating technologies should be considered. o Comprehensive planningfor landscaping to complement new structures and parking lots, thereby minimizing heating and cooling energy use. o Walls, ceiling, floors, windows, and hot waterlines should be insulated ' to prevent heat loss or gain. o Energy efficient lighting (e.g., high pressure sodium outdoors and fluorescent indoors) should be used rather than less efficient types of lighting. Maximum use of natural lighting should be made during daylight hours. 3. It is strongly recommended that the developer consult with SCE during the , building design phase for further energy conservation measures. 3 Correspondence from R. L. Coolidge, SCE Service Planner, July 18, 1984. 115 4. It is strongly recommended that the developer consult with SCE during the preliminary planning stages to allow for efficient relocation of Edison facilities during construction, if necessary. ' 3.11.7 Natural Gast Existing Conditions The Southern California Gas Company (SCG) provides natural gas service to the project area. Existing facilities in the project area include a district regulator and a 16-inch high pressure pipeline located in Golden West Avenue, a 4-inch main located in Garfield Avenue, and a 3-inch main located in Ernest Avenue, all adjacent to the project site. The project could be served from an existing main in the proposed project area. Impacts Approval of the GPA will result in a land use which consumes significantly more ' natural gas than the existing land use designation. The estimated gas consumption of the proposed residential.project is approximately 85 million cubic feet per year at buildout.2 The existing land use designation could consume up to 61 million cubic feet per year of natural gas at buildout.3 SCG representatives have indicated that gas service to the proposed residential ' project can be provided without any significant impact on their services. As a public utility, SCG is under the jurisdiction of federal regulatory agencies. Should these agencies take any action which affects gas supply or the condition under which service is available, gas service will be provided in accordance with revised conditions. ' 1 The material in this section comes primarily from correspondence with M.T. P Y [?o Roseen, Technical Supervisor, Southern California Gas Company, July 17, 1984. 2 Based on SCG usage rates of 8,858 cf/mo/du for single-family housing, 5,178 cf/mo/du for multi-family housing (less than 4 units), and 4,692 for multi- family housing (greater than 5 units). The number of units assmed for each ' type of housing is 350,170 and 680, respectively. 3 Based on SCG usage rates of,8,858 cf/mo/du for 140 units of estate residential development and 2.0 cf/mo/sq.ft. for 1.9 million square feet total of office and industrial development. 116 1 Mitigation Measures 1. Please refer to mitigation measures in previous section (3.11.6, Electricity). ' 2. It is strongly recommended that the developer consult .the Southern California Gas Company for other methods of conservation during building design phases. ' 3.11.8 . Water Supplyl Existing Conditions Water supply service in the City of Huntington Beach is currently provided by the Huntington Beach Public Works Department, Water Division. During the summer, the Water Division obtains 85 percent of its water from the nine (9) city wells and imports 15 percent of its water via the Metropolitan Water District of southern , California (MWD) system of aqueducts. During the winter, the percentages are 95 and 5, respectively. The Water Division maintains emergency connections with the Cities of Fountain Valley and Seal Beach. The City of Huntington Beach proposes new water wells as demand within the city increases. The nearest facilities to the proposed project are a 14-inch main located along Golden West Street adjacent to , the project site, and a 12-inch main ending at the intersection of Gothard and Ellis Streets. At the present time, the system is inadequate to serve the proposed development. Impacts Approval of the proposed planned community would result in development of a project which would result in development of a project which would consume substantially more water than the estate residential, office, and industrial uses ' 1 The material in this section comes from the Huntington Beach General Plan, Community Services Element, 1981, p. 35-47, and correspondence from E. A. Elevatorski, Water Superintendent, Huntington Beach Public Works Department, Water Division, July 17, 1984. ' 117 ' r general . Based on a water consumption allowed under the current ge ral plan factor of 157 gallons per capita per day and 2,810 residents, the proposed project would consume approximately 441,170 gallons of water each, day at buildout. The existing general plan would allow 254,900 gallons daily, based on 157 gallons per day per person for residential developments, 1,800 gallons per acre per day for office developments, and 2,200 gallons per acre per day for industrial developments at buildout. The city does not foresee any adverse impacts from the increased water use on supply and services to the rest of the city. The existing water mains, however, are inadequate to serve the proposed project or to provide to Fire Department's minimum fire flow requirement of 2,000 gallons per minute. Service to the project will initiate from the 12-inch water main at the Gothard/Ellis intersection. The developer will build or pay the city to build continuing 12-inch mains to carry water along major roads within the project.1 The developer is also responsible for distribution mains to bring water to individual residences on the project site Mitigation Measures 1. The following water 'conservation measures will be implemented as required by state law: i o Low-flush toilets (Section 17921.3 of the Health and Safety Code). o Low-flow showers and faucets (California Administrative Code, Title 24, Part 6, Article 1, T20-1406F). o Insulation of hot water lines in water recirculating systems (California Energy Commission regulations). ' o The project also will comply with water conservation provisions of the appropriate plumbing code. 2. In addition, the State Department of Water Resources recommends implementation of several other interior and exterior water conservation measures which vary as to their applicability and practicality for any one particular development proposal. A list of these measures is listed below 1 Personal communication with Stan Farber, Huntington Beach Public Works Department, Water Division, August 16, 1984. 118 and should be investigated as to their feasibilit for use in the ' � y developm ent. Interior: o Supply line pressure: recommend water pressure greater than 50 pounds per square inch (psi) be reduced to 50 psi or less by means of a , pressure-reducing valve. o Flush valve operated water closets: recommend 3 gallons per flush. ' o Drinking fountains: recommend equipped with self-closing valves. o Pipe insulation: recommend all hot water lines in dwelling be insulated ' to provide hot water faster with less water waste and to keep hot pipes from heating cold water pipes. o Laundry facilities: recommend use of water-conserving models of ' washers. Exterior: ' o Landscape with low water-consuming plants wherever feasible. o Minimize use of lawn by limiting it to lawn dependent uses, such as ' playing fields. o Use mulch extensively in all landscaped areas. Mulch applied on top of soil will improve the water-holding capacity of the soil by reducing evaporation and soil compaction. o Preserve and protect existing trees and shrubs. Established plants are often adapted to low water conditions and there use saves water needed to establish replacement vegetation. o Install efficient irrigation systems which minimize runoff and evaporation and maximize the water which will reach the plant roots. Drip irrigation, soil moisture sensors and automatic irrigation systems are a few methods of increasing irrigation efficiency. o Use previous paving material whenever feasible to reduce surface ' water runoff and aid in groundwater recharge. o Investigate the feasibility of utilizing reclaimed wastewater, stored rainwater, or household grey water for irrigation. o Encourage cluster development which can reduce the amount of land being converted to urban use. This will reduce the amount of ' impervious paving created and thereby aid in groundwater recharge. 119 o Preserve existing natural drainage areas and encourage the incorporation of natural drainage systems in new developments. This ' would aid in groundwater recharge. 3. The developer will pay for or build new water mains to carry water • through the project and will construct distribution mains to individual ' residences. 4. It is strongly recommended that thedeveloper consult with the Water Division of the city's Public Works Department during design and construction phases for further water conservation measures. L11.9 Wastewater Treatmentl ' Existing Conditions The project area is served by the City of Huntington Beach Public Works Department, Sewerage Division, for collection of wastewater, and by the County Sanitation Districts of Orange County (CSDOC) for the treatment of wastewater. The city operates collection lines in Golden West Street north of the project site, and ' in Gothard Street, adjacent-to the project site. The county has trunk lines in Ernest, Crystal, and Garfield Streets and the study area lies within County Sanitation -1 District No. 3 but is planned to be served by facilities which drain to the north and are tributary to the Slater Avenue Pump Station operated by County Sanitation District No. 11. The Master Plan for County Sanitation District No. 11 envisions the completion of the Coast Trunk Sewer to intercept flows generated in the northwest portions of the City of Huntington Beach and includes abandonment of the Slater Avenue Pump Station. The pump station is presently at capacity and adequate modifications to the station may not be possible. 1 The material in this section comes primarily from correspondence with Donald W. Kiser, Division Engineer, Huntington Beach Public Works Department, Sewerage Division, July 17, 1984, and with Hilary Baker, Senior Engineering Aide, County Sanitation Districts of Orange County, August 16, 1984. Additional information was provided through personal communication with Bill Patapoff, Engineer, Huntington Beach Public Works Engineering Department, ' July 18, 1984. 120 The sewage generation factors used b the city for residential uses in gallons per ' g g Y Y � g day per dwelling unit, are as follows:1 ' Single Family Detached 230 B-16 Single Family Attached 230 ' Multi Family Townhouses 230 Multi Family Flats 160 , The city sewage generation factors for office and industrial uses are 2,000 and 3,000 ' gallons per day per acre, respectively. CSDOC's master plan shows the proposed site as industrial development, using a sewage flow coefficient of 3,880 gallons per day , per acre. The district's flow coefficient for medium density residential development (10 units per acre) is also 3,880 gallons per day per acre. B-17 Impacts Based on the city's sewage generation factors noted above, the proposed development ' would generate 244,500 gallons of sewage per day. The existing land use designation would generate more sewage, approximately 267,200 gallons per day if built to its maximum intensity. r Due to the realignment of Gothard Street, the city facilities in the existing Gothard Street may be abandoned. New facilities would need to be built from the ' Gothard/Ellis intersection to a point south of the Ellis/Golden West intersection. From there a pump station would be necessary to raise the sewage up to the , Ellis/Golden West intersection, where it would continue flowing north in the Golden West city sewer and eventually flow into the county's trunk sewer. The existing Gothard Street sewer may continue to be used to serve part of the project even after the street is realigned2. A facility relocation plan for all sewage ' transmission lines will be part of a specific plan for proposed development of the site. , 1 Based on Draft EIR comment letter from Karl Huy, City of Huntington Beach ' Public Works Department, February 14, 1985 (see Appendix M). 2 Personal communication from Bill Holman, Huntington Beach Company, November 1984. , 121 Due to this increased flow, from either level of development, the Golden West city sewer may need improvements before the project site is developed. Based on the sewage rates noted above, the impacts from the proposed general plan would be less than those associated with the existing general plan. Completion of the County Sanitation District No. 11 Coast Trunk Sewer, which now terminates at Goldenwest Street and Orange Avenue, is necessary for the longterm service of the'property. Connection of this parcel-to the Sanitation District No. 3 system in Goldenwest Avenue would require payment of connection fees to County ' Sanitation District No. 3, which are much lower than the connection fees charged by the serving district. .One measure that could be considered to offset the impact of the development on District No. it would be to assist in the route selection and obtaining of right-of-way necessary to implement construction of the Coast Trunk Sewer. CSDOC's generation factors (noted above) are the same for both the GPA and the ' district's master planned land use designation, and therefore predicted sewage flows are the same under each usue. The district's trunk sewer and treatment plant facilities have been sized to accommodate master planned sewage flows. Wastewater from the district's service area is treated at treatment plants in Fountain Valley and Huntington Beach. The Sanitation Districts have an ongoing operations program to maintain.applicable waste discharge standards while handling increased tributary flows. At the present time, an environmental impact report is being prepared to evaluate modifications to the two treatment plants. Mitigation Measures 1. Water conservation measures such as recommended in Section 3.11.8, ' Water Supply, should be considered as measures to reduce sewage flows from the site. 2. The developer will build new sewage facilities including a sewer lift station to handle wastewater flows from the proposed project. The developer will also build improvements to the Golden West city sewer line, if necessary. 122 1 3. Prior to development of this property, it is recommended that the project , proponents meet with the County Sanitation Districts' staff in order to I-1 resolve the outstanding capacity difficulties. ' 3.11.0 Telephonel Existing Conditions The General Telephone Company (GTE) provides service to the proposed project ' P P Y area. The service facility for the project area is located within the existing Gothard , Street and service would initiate from that point. the existing Gothard Street contains a GTE major trunk feed, including a 12-duct system, 6 manholes, and 4 major cables consisting of 4,800 circuits. The City of Huntington Beach requires ' that all new transmission lines be installed underground, and the city is working with GTE on the undergrounding of existing lines. ' Impacts ' GTE does not foresee any problems in providing telephone service to the proposed project. The major impact on GTE's service from the proposal will come from the r realignment of Gothard Street. GTE'has a major trunk feed in this street which must be relocated due to the abandonment of the existing Gothard Street alignment. ' Relocation of facilities into the new Gothard Street easement will require GTE at least 18 months to complete.1 The estimated relocation cost to GTE is estimated at ' $750,000.2 A facility relocation plan, to be prepared as part of the specific plan, will address relocation of the telephone trunk line. After facility relocation, telephone service to the project will initiate from the realigned Gothard Street. 1 Material in this section comes primarily from the Huntington Beach General Plan, Community Services Element, 1981, p. 67., and correspondence with W. ' R. Duvall, Resident Engineer, Orange Division, GTE, July 18 and July 25, 1984. 1 Ibid. 2 Ibid. ' 123 1 1 Mitigation Measures ' 1. The developer and GTE should work together during the initial planning ' stage to allow for efficient relocation time during street construction and improvement. ' 2. A facility relocation plan for all transmission facilities, including telephone lines, will be part of the specific plan prepared for the proposed ' project. i 1 1 1 1 i 1 i 1 1 i 1 124 i 4.0 FISCAL ANALYSIS ' The purpose of this analysis is to estimate the potential fiscal impact of the Holly ' Planned Community on the City of Huntington Beach as a result of project development and the population which it generates. ' The density, intensity of land coverage, and purchase price are based on current , conceptual development plans. Development is planned to be phased over 10 to 15 years, concurrent with oil production consolidation,-as well as construction of major ' drainage, sewer, and street improvements. The proposed development types and acreages are below: Product Units Acres Density A. Single-Family Detached 350 54.8 6.4 ' B. Single-Family Attached 170 17.3 9.8 C. Multi-Family Townhouses 230 16.6 13.9 ' D. Multi-Family Flats 450 23.8 18.9 Public Streets 7.8 ' Total or Average 1,200 120.3 10.0 Revenue Analysis of the Holly Planned Community , In order to assess the impact of the project, it is necessary to estimate the assessed ' valuation of the Holly Planned Community. These estimates are based on the following assumptions: , 1. All assessed values are in fiscal 1984 dollars unless stated otherwise. This , is a conservative estimate of valuation and, therefore, a conservative estimate of all revenues base on property taxes. 2. The value of improvements have been estimated based on current development plans proposed by the Huntington Beach Company. ' 3. It is assumed that all required on-site improvements will be the ' responsibility of the developer. 125 4. The revenue analyzed is annual; one time development fees are not Y � P discussed in this analysis. Property Tax The proposed project is within the City of Huntington Beach tax rate area (TRA) number 4-013 and the rate is 1.11376 percent of the total assessed value of the land and improvements, which is collected by the County of Orange.1 The basic levy is 1 percent; the additional 0.11376 is for special districts, and bond indebtedness. The city receives into its general fund 0.19870629701 percent of the assessed property value, which equates to 17.84 percent of the collected property tax. The existing assessed value for the Holly Planned Community property is $3,124,357. The current property taxes collected on site are $34,798, of which $6,208 goes to the city general ' f und. Based upon information provided by the applicant, the estimated average sale prices per unit type will be as follows: single-family detached, $190,000; single-family attached, $150,000; multi-family townhouse, $125,000; and multi-family flats, $100,000. The total annual property tax is projected to be $1,846,057 for the site, while the city's general fund should receive $329,337, as follows: County City Unit Type Number $/Unit Total General Fund General Fund Single-family detached 350 $190,000 $66,500,000 $740,650 $132,132 ' Single-family attached 170 150,000 25,500,000 284,009 50,667 Multi-family townhouse 230 125,000 28,750,000 320,206 57,125 Multi-family flats 450 100,000 45,000,000 501,192 891413 Total $329,337 ' Sales Tax The Holly Planned Community is proposed to have 1,200 units which will generate approximately 2,810 people, based upon the generation rates shown below. It is anticipated that the residents will occupy their units on a full-time basis. It is also 1Source: Auditor/Controller Office, City of Huntington Beach, July 1984. 126 predicted that 40 percent of the retail purchases made by these residents will be within Huntington Beach. The remaining 60 percent can be attributed to the surrounding communities retail opportunities, especially to surrounding shopping ' malls, which attract customers on a regional basis. 'Unit Type Number Persons/U rut1 Total Single-family detached 350 x 3.27 = 1,145 Single-family attached 170 x 2.08 = 354 Multi-family townhouse 230 x 1.85 = 478 ' Multi-family flats 450 x 1.85 = 833 Total 2,810 Holly Planned Community will not contain any retail facilities to attract patrons. , Also, it is assumed that the 2,810 residents of the Holly Property will be new to Huntington Beach, and not relocating from other portions of the city. ' Sales price of the units are estimated to be 3.0 times the purchaser's household income. For this analysis, 3.0 times household income will be used for the income calculation. Unit Type Density Price Family Income Single-family detached 3.27 $190,000/3.0 = $63,333 Single-family attached 2.08 150,900/3.0 = 50,300 , Multi-family townhouse 1.85 125,000/3.0 = 41,666 Multi-family flats 1.85 100,000/3.0 = 33,333 The Internal Revenue Service gives sales tax generation factors for various family sizes. Based on these figures, the taxable sales would be as follows: , 1 Based on persons per dwelling unit type from the 1980 United States census ' [?e P g Yp in the City of Huntington Beach. 127 Family Income IRS Factor Taxable Sales $63,333 x (0.0767) + $4,450 = $9,308 $50,300 x (0.0633) + $3,800 = $69984 ' $41,666 x (0.0633) + $3,800 $6,437 $33,333 x (0.0633) + $3,800 $5,910 ' It is estimated that 40 percent of the taxable sales will take place within Huntington Beach, and 60 percent in surrounding communities. Sales tax is levied and collected by the State of California at a rate of six cents on every dollar spent on taxable goods. The City of Huntington Beach receives one cent of every six collected on ' taxable sales within the city. The sales tax generated by the Holly Planned Community and received by the city for the general fund is estimated to equal $55,560 annually. The quantitative estimated taxes from the Holly Planned ' Community follow: ' 40% 6% State 1% to Unit Type Number Taxable Sales in City Sales Tax City ' Single-family detached 350 x $9,308 x 0.40 = $1,303,120 $78,187 $13,031 Single-family attached 170 x $6,984 x 0.40 - 474,912 28,495 4,749 ' Multi-family townhouse 230 'x $6,437 x 0.40 = 592,204 35,532 5,922 Multi-family flats 450 x $5,910 x 0.40 = 1,063,800 63,828 10,638 Total $534,340 Utility Tax 1 Electricity - The city collects 5 percent of ever electricity bill for service within Y P Y Y the city. The average Southern California Edison residential electricity bill for 1984 is $34.751. Therefore, an estimate of the electricity tax to be gained by the city equals $25,020. The calculation follows: ($34.75 bUl'x 12 months) (5 percent tax x 1,200 units) _ $25,020 1 California Energy Commission, "Energy Watch," May 1984. 128 Natural Gas - The city collects 5 percent of every gas bill for service within the city. The average Southern California Gas residential bill for 1984 is $42.272. Therefore, an estimate of the natural gas tax to 'be gained by the city from ' development of the Holly Planned Community will equal $23,234. The calculation follows: ($32.27 bill x 12 months) (5 percent tax x 1,200 units) = $23,234 Telephone -The city collects 5 percent tax on every telephone bill in the city. Based on an estimated residential telephone bill of approximately $40 per month of ' service. An estimate of the telephone tax to be gained by the city from the Holly property development equals $28,800. The calculation follows: ' ($40 bill x 12 months) (5 percent x 1,200 units) = $28,800 revenue , A summary table of the user tax collected by the city on utilities follows: ' Revenue Utility Generated Electricity $25,020 ' Gas 23,234 Telephone 28,800 Total $77,054 Franchise Tax ' The primary sources of franchise tax for the city are based on the gross receipts of natural gas, and electricity accounts in the city. The tax amount is based on 2 percent of gross receipts for electricity and 4 percent for gas.1 The amount of franchise tax is expected to equal $28,596. The calculations follow: ' 2 California Energy commission, "Energy Watch," May 1984. ' 1 Personal communication with Arnold Ross, Accountant, Huntington Beach, July 1984. 12 9 $500,400 annual electricity receipts x 0.02 tax = $10,008 464,688 annual gas receipts x 0.04"tax = $18,588 Annual franchise tax $28,596 Fines, Forfeitures, and Penalties The fines, forfeitures, and penalties for the City of Huntington Beach are collected from traffic and court fines, library fines and fees, and alarm billing fines. According to the 1984-85 Annual Budget, the city estimates fines, forfeitures, and penalties to equal $1,966,500. Based on the January 1, 1983, City of Huntington Beach population estimate of 178,706 residents, the fines, forfeitures, and penalties ' revenue amounts to $11.00 per capita.1 Based on the 2,810 anticipated residents $30,910 can be estimated in additional revenue, as follows: ($1,966,500 / 178,706 residents) (2,810 residents) = $30,910 revenue Cigarette Tax ' The estimated cigarette tax for 1984-1985 from the City of Huntington Beach Annual Budget is $530,000. Based on the January 1, 1983, estimated population of ' 178,706, the cigarette tax-revenue amounts to $2.97 per capita. The 2,810 new residents would add approximately $83,457 in revenue to the city as shown: ($530 000 tax/ 178,706 residents) (2,810 residents) = 83 457 revenue ' Motor Vehicle In-Lieu ' 'he motor vehicle in-lieu revenue is estimated to be $300,000 according to the City of Huntington Beach Annual Budget Fiscal Year 1984-85. Based on the January 1, ' 1983, population estimate of 178,706 for the city, the motor vehicle in-lieu revenue amounts to $1.68 per capita. The 2,810 anticipated residents will generate approximately $4,721 in revenue, as follows: ($300,000 revenue / 178,706 residents) (2,810 residents) = $4,721 revenue ' 1 Since theoriginal ginal population figure was calculated, the 1984 population figure has become available — 180,000. Because the change was less than 1 percent, the calculations were not revised for this analysis. ' 130 Park and Recreation Fees Facility use fees and recreation program fees are combined to compose the park and recreation fee revenue. According to the Annual Budget Fiscal Year 1984-85, the ' estimated park and recreation fees revenue is $1,500,000. Based on the January 1, 1983, population estimate of 178,706, the park and recreation fees revenue amounts , to $8.39 per capita. The 2,810 new residents at Holly Property will generate approximately $23,576 in new revenue as shown. ($1,500,000 / 178,706 residents) (2,810 residents) = $23,576 revenue In addition, a one-time in-lieu park fee will be required. Based on a rate of , $139,633/acre of park, the fee would be $1,961,844 (2,810 persons x 5 acres/1,000 ' persons). This fee would be assessed because residential uses generate the need for public park facilities. Cost Analysis of the Holly Planned Community General and Administrative Expenditures ' In fiscal year 1984-85, the City of Huntington Beach anticipates expenditures for ' salaries, operations, and maintenance for general and administrative functions to equal approximately $8,281,400. This includes funds for: City Council, ' Administration, City Treasurer, City Attorney, City Clerk, Administrative Services, and non-departmental expenditures. This analysis is based on the assumption these ' costs are the same on an acreage basis regardless of the type of land use. Total developed acres in the city are about 14,638, resulting in a cost of $565 per acre. ' The proposed project will result in a total annual cost of approximately $68,059 for general and administrative services. The calculations follow: ($8,281,400 cost / 14,638 acres)(120.3 acres) = $68,069 cost Public Safety Expenditures for public safety (Police and fire) in fiscal year 1984-85 are anticipated ' to total $26,437,662. Pro-rated on the basis of total developed acres (14,638) in the 131 ' city results in a cost of $1,806 per acre. The proposed project will result in an ' incremental public safety cost increase of $203,186 per year. ($26,437,662 cost / 14,638 acres) (120.3 acres) = $217,262 cost Development Services According to the Annual Budget of Fiscal Year 1984-85 for the City of Huntington Beach, the expenditures for development services, excluding capital costs are 1 expected to equal $1,813,600. Fees are collected for a majority of the services provided by these Departments. This is a very conservative estimate of costs, which ' assumes no service fees are collected. Pro-rated on the basis of the city population, the city cost for development services equals $10.15 per capita. The cost would then be an additional $28,517 for the 120.3-acre Holly Planned Community as shown. ($1,813,600 cost / 178,706 residents)(2,810 residents) = $28,517 cost Community Services Community services expenditures for the city are projected to equal $5,962,106 ' excluding capital outlay. Pro-rated on the basis of per capita cost, community services are projected to equal $33.36 per resident. The costs are presumed to be increased by $93,742 as a result of development of the Holly Planned Community as shown: ($5,962,106 cost/178,706 residents)(2,810 residents) = $93,742 cost Public Works ' The City of Huntington Beach anticipates expenditures for the public works department to equal $14,355,765 for fiscal year 1984-85. Public works expenditures ' are based on a cost per residential acre. Due to development of the proposed project, public works costs may increase as shown: ($14,355,765/14,638 acres)(78% residential acres)(120.3 acres) = $92,025 cost 132 In addition to the above mentained costs to the City of Huntington Beach, there are ' other local costs, which are met by the county or other district. Schools generate the primary cost, other than those incurred by the city. These additional costs, , however, are paid by other revenues, and not by the those revenues collected by the city. ' Summary of Revenue and Costs for the Holly Planned Community Table 22 presents a comparison of the Holly _Planned Community.. residential development annual revenue and public service cost impacts for the City of ' Huntington Beach. Revenue for the Holly Property is $611,991 versus total estimated annual costs of $499,605, resulting in an estimated net annual surplus of ' $112,386. The revenue to cost ratio is 1.23 identifying that for each $1.00 spent for public services, an additional $0.23 will be returned to the city as revenue. , Revenue/Cost Analysis of Development Based on Current General Plan Designations This analysis was conducted in order to make a revenue/cost comparison between the proposed project and one which would be consistent with the existing general plan ' designations. The current general plan allows approximately .466 gross acres of Estate Residential , 75.0 gross acres of General Industrial and 5.0 gross acres of Professional Office. ' This equates to a maximum of approximately 140 single-family dwelling units, 1.8 million square feet of industrial space and 131,000 square feet of office space, as shown in the table below: ' 132a ' Existing General Plan Approximate Maximum Density Maximum Land Use Designation Gross Acreage or Site Coverage Buildout Estate Residential 23.3 2 du/acre 47 du 23.3 4 du/acre 93 du Subtotal 46.4 140 du General Industrial 75.0 55% 41.25 ac or 1,796,800 sq. ft. ' Professional Office 5.0 30% 1.5 ac 130,680 sq. ft. 1 1 Assumes a two-story structure. Property Tax The maximum number of homes allowed under the existing general plan is 140. ' Given to the size of the lots required by the current General Plan designations, the homes would be priced at approximately $350,000. Total residential value of the ' property would be $49 million. ' Industrial areas are typically developed with up to 55 percent land coverage, which in this case equates to 41.25 acres, or 1.8 million square feet. Construction costs for warehousing are being estimated at $30 per square foot.1 Total value of the ' industrial space including land costs would be $56 million. ' Office space is typically allowed to be developed up to a 30 percent coverage. With a two-story structure, the gross floor area would equal approximately 131,000 square ' feet. Two-story office construction costs in the greater Los Angeles area average $63 per square foot.2 Total professional office space value including land costs would be $8.38 million. In addition to building construction, the office and industrial uses have a ground ' development cost of approximately $1.80 per square foot for all land not covered by building. This would be 45 percent or 1.47 million square feet for industrial use and ' 70 percent or 152,000 square feet for professional office. This cost of $2.65 million includes landscaping, parking, curbs and gutters. 1Construction Industry Research Board, August 1984. 21bid. 133 TABLE 22 ESTIMATED CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ANNUAL REVENUES AND COSTS RESULTING FROM HOLLY PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT (Current Dollars) Revenues Estimated Amount ' Property Tax $329,337 ' Sales Tax 34,340 Utility Use Tax 77,054 Franchise Tax 28,596 ! Fines, Forfeitures, and Penalties 30,910 Cigarette Tax 83,457 ' Motor Vehicle In-Lieu Tax 4,721 Park and Recreation Fees* 23,576 , Total $611,991 Costs ' General and Administrative $ 68,059 Public Safety 217,262 , Development Services _ 28,517 Community Services 93,742 ' Public Works 92,025 Total $499,605 , Revenue - Cost = $112,386 Revenue/Cost = 1.23 ' * One-time in-lieu park fee (based on today's park value rate) $1,961.844 The projected annual city revenue from property tax on the project site valued at $133.43 million would total $265,134 million if it was developed to its maximum ' intensity under the existing general plan and zoning designations.) 1 This project was assumed to have a 15 percent profit for the developer. ' 134 ' 1 Sales Tax The 140 homes are expected to be sold for an average of $250,000 per unit. At a ' price of 2.75 times household income, average income would be $90,900. The taxable sales would equal $15,990 as shown in the following calculations: ($90,900 income x IRS factor 0.076) + $4,450 IRS factor = $11,422 taxable sales $11,422 taxable sales / 0.01 city tax rate = $685 tax x 140 units = $15,990 Sales tax would also be generated by the project from merchant purchases in the City of Huntington Beach. However, the amount cannot be estimated as the type of business and number of employees are not known. The generated sales tax in the 1 office and industrial use areas is not expected to be as high as with a residential development. Utility Tax ' Electricity - Using the rates presented earlier for the proposed project's electricity tax generation, the 140 housing units allowed by the current general plan designation would generate approximately $2,900 in electricity tax. ' As discussed in Section 3.11.6, the annual electricity usage rate used for the light industrial use is 4.5 kwh per square foot and assuming a maximum build out of 1.8 million square feet, the electricity consumption from this use could be 8 million kwh per year. Using the Southern California Edison price of 7.5 cents per kwh, the industrial space would generate about $600,000 per year. This would bring $30,000 to the city in electricity tax. The average annual rate for electricity in a low rise office is 12.2 kwh per square foot. The 131,000 square feet of office space would use 1.6 million kwh of electricity which would cost $120,009. The resulting city electricity tax would equal $6,000. ' The total electricity tax from residential, industrial and office uses would equal $38,900. 135 Natural Gas - Using the rates presented earlier for the proposed project's natural gas ' tax generation, the city tax from residential natural gas usage (140 d.u.) would equal $3,550 of the $71,000 expected in natural gas bills per year. Industrial use demand is 0.396 BTUs per square foot annually.l This equates to a ' total billing of $391,330 for 712,800 BTUs. This will generate $19,570 in tax for the city. Office uses generate a demand of 0.42 BTUs per square foot annually.2 A total of 55,000 BTUs annually would be used for $30,200. The city tax would equal $1,510. The total natural gas tax from currently allowed uses would equal $24,630. ' Telephone - Based on rates presented earlier, the residents will generate ' approximately $67,200 in telephone service bills which will bring $3,360 in tax to the city. A summary table of the tax to be collected by the city for utility use follows: Revenue ' Utility Generated Electricity $38,900 Gas . 24,630 Telephone 3,360 ' Total $66,890 Franchise Tax The single family residential, office and industrial usage of electricity and natural ' gas would generate $34,598 in franchise tax on gross receipts of gas and electricity: a total of $15,568 for electricity and $19,030 for gas. 1 Source of usage rate: State Energy Resources and Conservation Development ' Commission, August 1984. 2 Ibid. 136 ' Fines, Forfeitures, and Penalties ' A densityof 3.27 for 140 single-family units would generate 458 people and $5,038 in g Y fines, forfeitures and penalties annually. Cigarette Tax The anticipated cigarette tax is $2.97 per capita or $1,360 annually from the new residents. Motor Vehicle In-Lieu The motor vehicle in-lieu revenue to the city would amount to $769 annually. Park and Recreation Fees The park and recreation fees currently amount to $8.39 per capita, which would ' equal $3,843 with the new development. Costs Costs which were figured on an acre-by-acre basis are for general and administrative expenditures and public safety. Public works was pro-rated by the type of acreage use. Community and development services were handled on a per capita basis. o General and administrative expenditures ' ($8,281,400 cost/14,638 acres)(120.3) - $68,069 ' o Public Safety - ($26,437,662/14,638 acres)(120.3 acres) 217,262 cost o Development Services ($1,813,600 cost/178,706 residents) ' (458 residents) _ $4,648 137 o Community Services ($5,962,106 cost/178,706 residents) (458 residents) _ $15,280 o Public Works ($14,355,765 cost/14,638 acres)(78% residential acres x 46.4 acres) _ $35,494 , ($980.72 cost/acre)(12% industrial acres x 75.0 acres) _ $8,826 ($980.72 cost/acre)(10% commercial , acres x 5.0 acres) _ $490 Total $44,810 Summary of Revenue and Costs for the Alternative Plan ' The following table presents a comparison of costs and revenues to be incurred by the city if the project site was developed in accordance with the general plan and current zoning. The revenues are estimated at $393,622 versus total costs of 350,059. The revenue to cost ratio is 1.12, compared to 1.26 for the proposed project. In addition, the table reexamines the revenues and costs of the proposed project. As seen from the table, revenue to cost of the proposed project would be greater than , that under the existing general plan and zoning designations. Again this assumes the existing general plan alternative is developed to its maximum buildout of dwelling units, industrial and office space; and that the proposed project is developed to its , maximum of 1,200 dwelling units. 138 r TABLE 23 ' ESTIMATED CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ANNUAL REVENUES AND COSTS RESULTING FROM DEVELOPMENT ACCORDING TO CURRENT LAND USE DESIGNATIONS (Current Dollars) Proposed Existing Revenues Project General Plan Property Tax $329,337 $265,134 Sales Tax 34,340 15,990 Utility Use Tax 77,054 66,890 Franchise Tax _ 28,596 34,598 Fines, Forfeitures, and Penalties 30,910 5,038 Cigarette Tax 83,457 1,360 Motor Vehicle In-Lieu Tax 4,721 769 Park and Recreation Fees 23,576 3,843 Total $611,991 $393,622 Costs General and Administrative $ 68,059 $ 68,059 Public Safety 217,262 217,262 Development Services 28,517 4,648 Community Services 93,742 44,810 Public Works 92,025 15,280 Total $499;605 $350,059 Revenue - Cost = +$112,386 +$43,563 Revenue/Cost = 1.23 1.12 . 139 5.0 ALTERNATIVES Alternative development concepts are evaluated in this section and include "No Project" and "No Development" alternatives. Reasonable development alternatives include higher density residential, lower density residential, and a mix of commercial and residential uses. All of the alternatives assume the continuation of oil production on the site and the phasing out of these facilities over time. In addition, all the alternatives assume that Gothard Street is realigned as shown on the MPAH. 5.1 NO PROJECT `. Under the No Project alternative, the general plan designation for the site would remain Estate Residential, General Industrial, and Professional Office. Due to the presence of the surrounding residential and light industrial development and the site's existing designations, the No Project alternative would probably only delay development of site with these uses. Therefore, this alternative assumes that some kind of mixed light industrial, office, and estate residential development is built, not that the site is left in its present oil production use. ' 1 land use diagram shows the western art of the site north of The city s general plan a gr p Ernest Avenue) as being Estate Residential with about half being limited to no more r� than two dwelling units per acre and the other half limited to no more than 4 dwelling units per acre. The city estimated that approximately 46.6 acres of the site lies within the Estate Residential zoning. Therefore, assuming 23.3 acres per density range, the site could include up to 140 single-family dwelling units. General Industrial uses are allowed over the majority of the site (75 acres). Assuming a 55 percent site coverage and single-story structures, up to 1,800,000 square feet of light industrial uses could be developed here. Five-acres of the site is designated for Professional Office. Assuming 30 percent ' site coverage and a two-story structure, this parcel could be developed with up to about 131,000 square feet of office uses. ' These estimates of maximum potential buildout have been developed to assess the , worst-case condition that could result if no GPA were approved and the site was 140 ' eventually developed as allowed under the current general plan. It is understood that this level of development may never result on this site and that oil production activities will continue on the site until oil resources are used up. This alternative also assumes that oil production activities can continue within limited areas on the site provided the appropriate safety, access, and visual concerns are mitigated. Development of these alternative uses would result in the same types of environmental impacts as could be expected from the proposed project evaluated in this EIR. The level of significance of these impacts would vary depending on the environmental topic addressed. The difference in environmental effects between the existing general plan and planned community residential uses have been evaluated in a number of sections in this EIR and a summary of the findings is presented here. iLandform, geology, and hydrology constraints to development of industrial and office structures would be virtually the same as identified in Sections 3.1.2, 3.2.2, and 3.2.3 for the proposed residential structures although more mass grading may be required for larger industrial lots. The industrial and office uses would probably generate more runoff and allow for less groundwater recharge than the proposed project, although the difference would probably not be considered significant. Biological resources would be completely removed as is proposed by the conceptual site plan for the GPA. Traffic, air quality, and noise impacts associated with the No Project alternative would be greater than those associated with the proposed project (assuming the site is built-out to its maximum intensity). However, as discussed in Section 3.8, the traffic volumes would not be considered significantly greater. The congestion will occur along select arterials in the area unless they are upgraded to their MPAH classification and other measures are implemented. Air quality and noise impacts could also be expected to be somewhat greater due to the increase in vehicle trips. The No Project alternative would also have a greater impact on electricity, telephone and wastewater treatment/sewer requirements than the proposed project. However, the natural gas and water utilities and the school, police, and fire ' protection would receive less impact under this alternative. 141 This alternative would potentially provide more revenue to the city than the proposed residential, planned comunity (see Fiscal Impacts, Sectin 4.0). Generally, non-residential uses are more revenue generating than residential uses. As estimated in Section 4.0, the proposed project would result in a revenue-to-cost ratio of 1.46 and the no project alternative would result in a revenue-to-cost ratio of 2.78. The project site is in a transitional area between residential uses to the east and south, light industrial uses to the southwest, south and north, and estate , residential/open space uses to the west and north. This property is shown at the southernmost end of the central industrial zone on the city's current Land Use , Diagram (see Exhibit 3). The uses on this property will set the trend for development of the areas to the west and north. Estate residential uses are certainly compatible with the open space uses to the north (the Huntington Central Park) and with the stables and scattered residential to the west. However, it does not appear compatible with the industrial uses south of Ernest or the light industrial uses on the rest of the study area. Unless the transition areas between these two uses are carefully designed, this mix of uses would not be considered compatible. Light industrial uses have historieally been developed in this area and would not be incompatible with some of the uses along Gothard north of Ellis and along Garfield between Golden West and Gothard. However, given that the areas to the south and west are general planned for residential, development of the industrial uses on the site would require careful site planning and buffering to insure that these uses were more compatible with future surrounding residential areas. In summary, the No Project alternative would not result in environmental impacts substantially different than those associated with the proposed project. The major differences lie in the compatibility of land uses and the amount of traffic generated. 5.2 NO ACTION This alternative proposes that no GPA be approved and that no further development of the site be implemented. In other words, this alternative proposes that the oil production facilities and other uses on the site remain and the rest of the is site is maintained as open space. 142 ' ' This alternative would result in the fewest environmental impacts of all the alternatives. Landform, geology, hydrology, biology, and cultural considerations would be the same as they are right now. The land use' would be compatible with the other open space/oil production/stable areas to the north and west. Traffic, air quality, noise, public services, and utilities impacts would be virtually the same as they are right now, which would be considered minimal. Given the pressures for growth in this part of the city, and the landowner's desire to maximize the use of the site, it is unlikely that the site would remain un-urbanized as oil production phases out. It is more likely that if no GPA is approved and if the existing general plan uses are not developable, that this area will remain undeveloped only as long as it takes for the landowner/developer and city to agree on some kind of development alternative. 5.3 HIGHER DENSNY This alternative proposes a residential planned community where higher densities and thereby more units are developed than are proposed under the concept plan submitted and shown in Exhibit 4 (Section 2.0) The residential densities allowed in areas surrounding the site range from estate residential (at no more than 2 d.u./acre) to medium density residential (no more than 15 d.u./acre). If the entire project were developed with medium density residential, the number of units would reach up to almost 1,900. This kind of development could include duplexes, triplexes, apartments, condominiums, or townhouses. Even more units could be achieved if the density limit was higher. The city has medium-high (16-25 d.u./gross acre) and high (greater than 25 d.u./gross acre) density categories which are appropriate for ' apartment/condominium complexes and high-rise residential. The most likely way of developing a higher density community is with a mix of densities which are higher than those proposed in the conceptual site plan (6.4 to 18.9 d.u./gross acre). This would provide a better range of product types than one density throughout. 143 A higher density development would increase the cumulative traffic, air quality, noise, public services, and utilities impacts associated with the. number of units shown in the concept site plan. The landform, geology, hydrology, biology, and cultural resources considerations would be the same. A higher density residential development could be as compatible with adjacent and uses as the proposed plan would be, if it takes into consideration the densities of surrounding residential uses, the locations of industrial areas, and open space opportunities. •However, given that most of the residential development.in the area is estate low or medium density, large apartment complexes or high-rise structures would be incompatible. A higher density community could possibly provide more opportunities for affordable housing. 5.4 LOWER DENSITY , This alternative proposes a residential planned community where lower densities and thereby fewer units are developed than are proposed under the concept plan , submitted and shown in Exhibit 4 (Section 2.0). These densities could range from estate residential to medium density residential. A lower density planned community would have the same types of environmental impacts as are associated with the proposed project. However, the project's contribution to cumulative traffic, air quality, noise, public services, and utilities impacts-would be commensurately less. A lower density planned community could also be compatible with surrounding land , uses if the higher densities are placed adjacent to the surrounding light industrial and medium density uses, and if the estate residential or low density units are placed , adjacent to the northeastern corner, adjacent to .the areas zoned for estate residential and open space. This alternative would probably not provide the same opportunities for affordable housing as the proposed concept plan or the higher density alternative. 144 ' 5.5 MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT ' 1 This alternative would allow a mix of residential and commercial (shopping center) uses within the project boundaries. Because commercial uses generate far more ' traffic than residential uses, it could be assumed that this alternative would generate far more traffic congestion, air quality, and noise impacts than would the proposed all-residential project. The environmental considerations regarding landform, geology, oil production facilities, hydrology, biology, and cultural resources would be the same as for the proposed project. ' As mentioned earlier, the project site is in an area of transition between residential uses to the east and south; industrial uses to the southwest, south, and north; and estate residential and open space uses to the east and north. Commercial uses are generally concentrated along Beach Boulevard about a half mile to the east. In addition, the Seacliff Shopping Center is located about a half mile south of the site on Golden West Street. ' Commercial development might be a good transitional use in this area, particularly adjacent to the commercial industrial uses along Garfield. Residential uses would be most appropriate in the northern and western portions of the site. The provision'of convenient neighborhood commercial uses would reduce the-vehicle ' miles of travel of the resident's living within the site and vicinity. However, given the current availability of commercial center uses along Beach and Golden West ' (south of Garfield), it is not clear if additional commercial development would be marketable in this area. 5.6 INDUSTRIAL/MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL In this alternative, approximately ten acres of the 120-acre site are proposed for ' medium density residential development resulting in 150 units located in the northwest corner of the site. The residential portion of the alternative is separated ' from the industrial section by the existing ravine and swales. 145 The majority of the area would be devoted to industrial development. Assuming a 55 percent site coverage (110 acres) and two-story structures, the estimated building square footage would be 2,635,000. It is assumed that an area that large would be an ' industrial park containing a range of uses from light industrial to high-technology commercial office. ' Development of this alternative would result in similar types of environmental , impacts as the proposed project is expected to have, and discussed in this document. For example, landform, geology, and hydrology constraints from development of industrial and office structures would be virtually the same as , identified in Sections 3.1.2, 3.2.2, and 3.2.3 for the proposed residential structures. The industrial and office uses would probably generate more runoff and allow for less groundwater recharge than the proposed project, although the difference would probably not be considered significant. Biological resources would be completely ' removed as is proposed by the conceptual site plan for the GPA. Traffic, air quality, and noise impacts associated with this alternative would be , greater than those associated with the proposed project (assuming the site is built- out to its maximum intensity). Traffic volumes could be significantly greater than the proposed project _because of an estimated building area that is greater than Alternative 5.1, although the land use is similar. However, with the widening of , .Golden West Street and the realignment of Gothard, which will occur before development of the site is completed, congestion associated with this type of ' development should not be significantly greater than the proposed project. Air quality and noise impacts could also be expected to be greater due to the increase in vehicle trips. , This alternative would also have a greater impact on electricity, sewage, and ' telephone requirements than the proposed project. Natural gas and water consumption would be lower, plus impacts on school, police, and fire protection services would be reduced. Fiscally, this alternative is expected to have a higher revenue to cost ratio than the , proposed project and similar to Alternative 5.1. The degree to which this alternative is a fiscal improvement would depend on the type of business that is located at that , site. For example, the home office of some corporations (i.e., pharmaceutical 146 f headquarters which manufacturers) report all sales tax collected from the corporate result in the home office city receiving a portion (one percent) of the total tax reported. The project site is in a transitional area between residential uses to the east and south, light industrial uses to the southwest, south and north, and estate residential/open space uses to the west and north. This property is shown at the southernmost end of the central industrial zone on the city's current Land Use Diagram (see Exhibit 3). ' The industrial portion of this alternative would constitute a retention of the southernmost portion of the Gothard Corridor for industrial purposes and would retain an industrial link to the Stewart/Crystal industrial area to the southwest. The ' residentially designated area in this alternative would be compatible with the open space uses to the north (Huntington Central Park) and with the horse stables and estate residential to the west. The residential area would be separated from the industrial portions of the project by existing swales in the topography which would be 1 retained and, in the case of similar Alternative 5.7, by Gothard Street to the east. Utilizing these separations in conjunction with careful planning and design, it will be feasible to create a project in which residential and light industrial uses are compatible. In summary, Alternative 5.6 would not result in environmental impacts substantially different than those associated with the proposed project. The significant ' differences would be compatibility of land uses, the amount of traffic generated and fiscal impacts. 5.7 INDUSTRIAL/LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL The mix of land uses in this alternative is just slightly different than the previous alternative. Again, the primary use of the site would be industrial, approximately 1,965,000 square feet of building, assuming two-story structures on 82 acres. Forty-eight acres would be zoned low density residential resulting in approximately 336 dwelling units. The number of units will be greater in this alternative, and a larger population per dwelling unit is expected to generate an increase, in comparison to Alternative 5.6, in residential traffic impacts. 147 This alternative would have the same impacts as 5.6 except that traffic generated by the light industrial portion is expected to be less since the building area in this concept is approximately 25 percent less than Alternative 5.6. Although traffic patterns are different than 5.6, the overall result is that the impacts associated with this alternative are the same as Alternative 5.6 when compared to the proposed project: increase in traffic, land use compatibility and r higher revenue/cost ratio. r 148 6.0 GROWTH-INDUCING AND CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ' 6.1 GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS Approval of the proposed GPA would most likely be growth-inducing to properties immediately east, west, and north of the site. The provision of additional housing ' within the city would assist in meeting the demand for housing created by the growth of employment opportunities within the city and the region. These areas are currently undeveloped or are developed with low intensity uses such ' as horse stables and oil production. Development of the site will require some major infrastructure improvements and will therefore, bring upgraded facilities into the ' area which could potentially service these adjacent parcels. 6.2 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 1 Development of the proposed residential project would add cumulatively to the water ' quality, traffic, air quality, and noise impacts associated with urban development in the city and region. Projects which are coming on line or could potentially add to the cumulative impacts in the area include the Pacific Ranch, Seacliff Planned Community, Bolsa Chica, and the Downtown Specific Plan projects. Compared to a primarily industrial project, as allowed under the current general plan, cumulative impacts from the project site could be somewhat less. ' Demands placed on public services and utilities, such as fire, police, schools, solid waste disposal, electricity, gas, water, sewer, and telephone would also add to the ' cumulative demand for the area. Most of these demands are expected to be greater than the demands created by a mixed use (primarily non-residential) development of the type allowed under the current land use designations. 149 7.0 IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES The environmental changes produced by the implementation of the proposed project , would occur mainly as a result of alterations to the physical environment in the form of a commitment of community services and urban land form. If the project is i approved and subsequently implemented, structures would be built, utilities installed, and a circulation system would be constructed; all of which would comprise an urban , infrastructure. Oil production facilities would be consolidated and eventually phased out. Project development is a short-term irreversible commitment of the land. After the ' 50 to 75 year structural lifespan of the buildings is reached, it would be feasible to redevelop the site to alternative land uses. However, it is improbable that the site would revert to open space or oil production uses due to the large capital investment , that will have already been committed. Implementation of the project also represents a long-term commitment of energy resources, primarily in the form of fossil fuels, including fuel oil, natural gas, and gasoline for automobiles in construction equipment. The construction or destruction of other non-renewable and slowly-renewable resources would also result from the proposed actions. These include, but are not limited to: lumber, sand and gravel, asphalt, metals, water, etc. An increase commitment of social services and public maintenance services (waste disposal and treatment, etc.) would also be required. 150 8.0 THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM USES OF MAN'S ' ENVIRONMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG- TERM PRODUCTIVITY ' The study area supports oil recovery activities and these activities are expected to continue on the site until the reserves are gone or until such time as it is not ' economically feasible to continue their operation. The proposed' concept plan shows oil -wells interspersed within the residential structures on the eastern half of the site. The Huntington Beach Company proposes ' to continue operation of these wells until the reserves in this area are gone. The leases on the western half of the site are not controlled by the company, however, it is expected that the facilities on that portion of the site will will also continue ' operation until reserves are depleted. Therefore, the relatively short-term (20+ years) use of the land for oil extraction will not cease due to the proposed ' development. ' The principle goal of this project is to commit basically undeveloped land to urban uses. The anticipated 50 to 75 year lifespan of structures represents another short- tern use of the environment. However, implementation of the project would represent a relatively long-term commitment to urbanization and population support systems. It is logical to assume that the proposed uses will, in turn, be replaced by another productive activity as the development and redevelopment of land progresses through time in response to human needs. ' The project applicant considers the property marketable for development in the next P Y few years. In the next few years the oil facilities can be consolidated and the potentially hazardous conditions on the site removed. Major advantages to near-term development include greater economic productivity from the property for the landowner and an increased supply of housing in the City of ' Huntington Beach. 151 9.0 SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACTS WHICH CANNOT BE AVOIDED IF THE PROJECT 14 IMPLEMENTED As discussed in Section 3.0 ultimate implementation of the proposed project will , � P P P� P J result in significant adverse impacts to the environment. This section provides a summary of those adverse impacts which may remain after the implementation of the city's policies/requirements or proposed mitigation measures. The degree of significance of each impact is dependent upon the extent to which mitigation , measures are ultimately incorporated into.the project. 1. Development of the project would significantly alter views of the site from the roads and surrounding areas. Following mitigation, this impact, , which is subjective interpretation may still be perceived as significant by surrounding viewers. , 2. Impacts to water quality, traffic, air quality, noise, public services, utilities, and natural resources can be mitigated to some degree, however, , they may be considered cumulatively significant., 152 10.0 ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS CONTACTED ' The following MBA personnel participated in the preparation of the EIR: Principal in Charge Thomas E. Smith, Jr., AICP Project Manager Beverly Bruesch Research and Analysis Thomas Fitzwater, AICP Gary Jakobs Joan P. Kelly Buck Panchal ' Graphics Lynn Buhlig Lori Scharnell Word Processing Charlene Kortgard ' Janette Redd The following.consultants prepared technical studies for the EIR: ' Geology/Soils Terri Wright Richard Lung Leighton & Associates ' 1151 Duryea Avenue Irvine, California 92714 ' Traffic/Circulation Bill Darnell Basmaciyan-Darnell, Inc. 4262 Campus Drive, Suite B-1 Newport Beach, California 92660 Drainage Dennis D. Nelson ' Irvine Civil Engineering 3140 Red Hill Avenue, Suite 200 Costa Mesa, California 92626 ' Other organizations and individuals contacted during preparation of the EIR include: City of Huntington Beach Howard Zelefsky ' Department of Development Services Max Bowman Pam.Poston Diana Blaisure Charles Clark ' Fire Department Tom Shaw Tom Poe Police Department Jim Moore Lt. R. Morrison ' Roy Wiley 153 Public Works Department Les Evans Lyman McCray William Patapoff ' Don Kiser Bruce Gilmer Accounting Arnold Ross , Huntington Beach Company Bill Holman Huntington Beach City School District Gary Bergner ' County of Orange General Service Agency. Mike Luke ' County Sanitation Districts of Orange County Hilary J. Baker General Telephone Company W. R. Duvall ' Southern California Gas Company M. T. Roseen Southern California Edison Company R. L. Coolidge i Orange County Transit District Dick Hsu Rainbow Disposal Company Richard Timm , i 1 1 154 r 11.0 REFERENCES General City of Huntington Beach. 1979. Huntington Beach General Plan. City of Huntington Beach. July1981. Huntington Beach Oil Code. ' City of Huntington Beach. 1965 (Updated through July 1984). Ordinance Code. Geology/Soils/Oil Production See Appendix C. Hydrology ' Fast, A. W. and H. J. Glenn. 1980. Sully Miller Lake: An Assessment and Development Plan. ' Also, see Appendix D. Biological Resources Abrams, Leroy. 1923. Illustrated Flora of the Pacific States. Stanford University Press, Stanford, California. 4 Volumes. American Ornithologists' Union (AOU). 1983. The AOU Check-list of North American Birds. 6th ed. Allen Press, Lawrence, Kansas. 877 pp. California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 1980. At the Crossroads: A Report on the Status of California's Endangered and Rare Fish and Wildlife. State of California Resources Agency, Sacramento, California. 147 pp. + Addenda. California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 1982a. "Designated Endangered or Rare Plants." Summary list from Section 1904 Fish and Game Code(Native ' Plant Protection Act). State of California Resources Agency, Sacramento, California. 4 pp. California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 1982b. "Endangered, Rare and Threatened Animals of California," Revised March 15, 1982. State of California Resources Agency, Sacramento, California. Photocopied List. 4 pp. ' Collins. B. J. 1972. Key to Coastal and Chaparral Flowering Plants of Southern California. California State University, Northridge, California. 249 pp. Collins, J. T., J. E., Hukeey, J. L. Knight and H. M. Smith. 1978. "Standard Common ' and Current Scientific Names for North American Amphibians and Reptiles." Soc. Study Amphibians and Reptiles. Herp. Circ. 7. Fish.and Wildlife Service (FWS). 1982. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Federal Register 50 CFR 17.11 and 17.12. U.S. Department of the Interior;Reprint. 13 pp. 155 1 Hall, E. R. 1981. The Mammals of North America. John Wiley and Sons, New York, ' New York. Higgins, E. B. 1949. "Annotated Distributional List of the Ferns and Flowering ' Plants of San Diego County." Occas. Papers, San Diego Society of Natural History, No. 8. 174 pp. Hitchcock, A. S. 1950. Manual of the Grasses of the United States. U.S. Department of Agriculture Miscellaneous Publication No. 200. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 1051 pp. ' Jones, Jr., J. K.; D. C. Carter, H. H. Genoways, R. S. Hoffman and D. W. Rice. 1982. "Revised Checklist of North American Mammals North of Mexico, , 1982:' Occas. Pap. Mus. Texas Tech Univ., No. 80. Munz, P. A. 1974. A Flora of Southern California. University of California Press, Berkeley, California. 1086 pp. ' Munz, P. A. and D. D. Keck. 1959. A California Flora. University of California Press, Berkeley, California. 1681 pp. ' Robbins, W. W., Margaret K. Bellue and Walter S. Ball. 1951. Weeds of California. State of California Department of Agriculture. 547 pp. Smith, J. P., Jr., R. J. Cole and J. O. Sawyer, Jr. 1980. Inventorx of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California. Special Publ. No. 1 2nd Edition F California Native Plant Society. 115 pp. + Supplements. Stebbins, R. C. 1972. Amphibians and Reptiles of California. University of California Press, Berkeley, California. 279 pp. Archaeology See Appendix F. ' Land Use and Planning Considerations City of Huntington Beach. July 1978. Final EIR 77-6, Seacliff IV, Planned , Community Development. Prepared by Ultrasystems, Inc. City of Huntington Beach. July 1982. Final EIR on the Proposed Huntington Central Park Expansion (EIR 81-5). Prepared by ENVISTA. City of Huntington Beach. 1983. The Downtown Specific Plan for the ' Implementation of the Huntington Beach Coastal Element. City of Huntington Beach. August 1976. Land Use Element Background Report. , City of Huntington Beach. November 1979. Housing Element, Huntington Beach General Plan. T raffie/Circulation ' See Appendix G. 156 Air Quality South Coast Air Quality Management District, Air Quality Data (1979-1983). South Coast Air Quality Management District, Air Quality Handbook for EIRs, Revised December 1983. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Air Quality Management Plan, 1982. ' South Coast Air Quality Management District, Rules and Regulations. ' United States. Environmental Protection Agency, .Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Supplements 1-13, AP-42), 1976. Noise rCalifornia, State of. Guidelines of the Preparation and Content of.Noise Elements of the General Plan. February 1976. ' CH2M Hill. Heliport Master Planning Study. March 1983. Harris, C. M. Handbook of Noise Control. 1979. Hughes Helicopters. Hughes Helicopter's Guide to Flying Neighborly, August 1984. U.S. Department of Transportation. Impact of Noise on People. May 1977. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Protective Noise Levels- Condensed Version ' of EPA Levels Document. November 1978. Public Services and UtRities ' City of Huntington Beach. May 1981. Community Facilities Element. Fiscal Impacts ' City of Huntington Beach. June 1984. Annual Budget FY 84-85. 157 12.0 APPENDICES A. Initial Study ' B. Notce of Preparation (NOP) and NOP Responses C. C. Geology/Soils Report ' D. Hydrology Report E. Floral and Faunal Compendia ' F. Archaeology Report G. Traffic Report ' H. Air Quality Data I. Noise Data J. Correspondence K. Huntington Beach Oil Code L. Notice of Completion (NOC)and NOC/Draft EIR Distribution List , M. Comments on the Draft EIR and Corresponding Responses 158 � � A Av�i w a a � a � � M M Mon M M M M M M M i M M M M M Yes Maybe No APPEM)IX 1 ENVIRONMENTAL CJiECKLIST FORM g. I rposure of people or property to geolo- gic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, (To Be Completed By Lead Agency) mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? X_ 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: I. Background j a. 5!rbsfontial air emissions or deterioration I. Narne of Proponent Huntington Beach Company of ambient air quality? X 2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent 2110 Main Street i b. The creation of objectionable odors? X Huntington Beach, CA 92648 c. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or (714) 960-4351 temperature, or any change in climate, X — - either locally or regionally? 3. Date of Checklist Submitted 7-02-64 — 3. Wafer. Will the proposal result in: 4. Agency Requiring Checklist City of Huntington Beach a a. Changes in currents, or the course of di- 5. Name of Proposal, if applicable "Holly Property' General Plan Amendment rection of wafer movements, in either X marine or fresh waters. tt. pat- Environmental Impacts + b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage pat- terns, or the rate and amount of surface X (Fxplanotions of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets.) runoff? c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood Yes M No waters? X I. Farts. Will the proposal result in: I d. change in the amount of surface water in any water body? X a. ' .,ruble earth conditions or i changes geologic substructures? X e. Discharge into surface wafers, or in any alteration of surface wafer qualify, in- b. isrupllans, displacements, compaction'o chiding but not limited to temperature, .0 overcoveri X ngf thew soil? g-- dissolved oxygen or turbidity? c. r Mange in topography or ground surface relief features? X f. Alteration of the direction or rote of flow X -- -- of ground waters? d. T'.e destruction, covering or modification g, Change in the quantity of ground waters, of any unique geologic or physical features? X either through direct additions or with- e. Any increase in wind or wafer erosion of drnwals, or through interception of an X soils, either on or off the site? g aquifer by cuts or excavations? f. (7hunges in deposition or erosiar of beach h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water sands, or Changes in siltation, deposition or supplies? X •r•sion which may mrxlify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or :,y bay, inlet a lake? X i. Exposure of people or property to wafer re- X _—_ lated hazards such as flooding or tidal waves.' 310 309 Yes Maybe No Yes Mr�be No 4 b. S-bstantial depletion of any nonrenewable . Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: natural resource? X a. Change in the diversity of species, or 10. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involve: nurnher of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic I a. A risk of an explosion or the release plants)? X of hazardous substances (including, boot not unique, limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or b. Reduction of the numbers of any W . radiation) in the event of an accident or rare or-endangered species of plants? X upset conditions? X _ c. Introduction of new species of plants into b. Possible interference with on emergency an area, or in a barrier to the normal response plan or an emergency evacuation replenishment of existing species? X plan? X d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural It. Population. Will the proposal alter the location, crop? X distribution, density, or growth rate of the S. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: human population of an area? X 12. IMusing. Will the proposal affect existing hous- o. number in the diversity o/ animals, bi ing, or create a demand for additional housing? X numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and 13. Tronspor tat ion/Circulation. Will the proposal shellfish, benthic organisms or insects)? X X ` result in: b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, I a. Generation of substantial additional rare or endangered species of animals? X vehicular movement? X 1 c. Introduction of new species of animals into b. Effects on existing*parking facilities, or X an area, or result in a barrier to the X demand for new parking? migration or movement of animals? c. Substantial impact upon existing tronspor- d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife tation systems? X habitat? X 6. Noise. Will the proposal result in: d. Alterations to present patterns of circulo- P aP tion or movement of people and/or goods. X a. Increases in existing noise levels? X e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air trot f ic? X b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? X f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor 7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? X new light or glare? X 8. Land Use. Will the r osal result in a sub- 14. Public Services. Will the proposal have on P aP effect upon, or result in a need for new or stontial alteration of the present or planned altered governmental services in any of the land use of an area? X ,- following areas: X 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. Fire protection? X a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural b. Police protection? X resources? X_ c. Schools? X 312 311 e i-rsea r r r r r� r■ r ri ■r r■ � rr r �r rr rr rr r r Yes Maybe No Yes Maw No d. fp.vks or other recreational facilities? X b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or e. Maintenance of public facilities, including historic building, structure, or abject? X roads? X c. Does the proposal have the potential to I. Other governmental services? X cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? X 15. Energy. Will the proposal result in: d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? X or sacred uses within the potential impact area? X b. Substantial increase in demand upon exist- ing sources of energy, or require the X 21. Mandatory Findings of Significance. development of new sources of energy.' a. Does the project have the potential to 16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need degrade the quality of the environment, for new systems, or substantial alterations to substantially reduce the habitat of a fish the following utilities: or wildlife species, cause a fish or wild- life population to drop below self sus- a. Power or natural gas? X taining levels, threaten to eliminate n plant or animal community, reduce the b. Communications systems? X number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate C. Water? X important examples of the major periods X of California history or prehistory? d. Sewer or septic tanks? X X b. Does the project have the potential to e. Storm water drainage? X achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short- (. Solid waste and disposal? X tern impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive 17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in: period of time while long-term impocts will endure well into the future.) X a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? X i c. Does the project have. impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively con- b. Exposure of people to potential health siderable? (A project may impact on two hazards? X or more separate resources where the impact j on each resource is relatively small, but 18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the where the effect of the total of those X obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to impacts on the environment is significant.) the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open d. Does the project have environmental effects to public view? X which will cause sul:slantiol (Averse effects on Iwman beings, eilher directly or indirectly? X 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in nn import upon the quality nr quantity of existing recreational opportunities? X Ill. Discussion of Environmental Evaluation 20. Cultural Resources. IV. Determination a. Will the proposal rendt in the alteration (To he completed by the Lead Agency) of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archon)logical site? _ _ X 313 314 On the basis of this initial evaluation: ADDENDUM find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will he prepared. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM I find that oltlmugh the proposed project could hove a significoni effect ` on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on on attached sheet hove — i 1. EARTH been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL HE PREPARED. b,c. A geotechnical review of the project site should be con- find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environ- ducted to address the implications of grading/erosion meet, and on ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. Ix I (on-site and downstream), final reclamation potential (e.g., feasibility of filling), seismic related geotechnical issues such as fault rupture along a branch of a Newport/ Inglewood fault, and the consolidation of oil production facilities. It should be noted that the City's Seismic Date i t re Safety Element shows an approximate trace of a branch of ( this fault through the site. The Holly Sugar Factory soil For residue should be analyzed and described in an appropriate means by which to dispose of the residue or maintain it on- (Note: This is only a suggested form. Public agencies are free to devise their own site should be recommended. format for initial studies.) 4 2. AIR QUALITY a. A characterization of the existing ambient air quality in the vicinity of the project site should quantify air quality impacts expected to occur upon implementation of the project Both short term emissions (construction related) and long term emissions (motor vehicle and energy related) should quantify the projects impact on the local and regional air quality. 3. WATER b,e,g. A review of the existing. hydrologic data, the proposed grading plan, the existing and planned drainage facilities, and historical flooding patterns in the project area should be analyzed. Based upon this review the determination of the impact of the concentrated site run-off upon existing drainage system and the effectiveness of this system in conveying site run-off should be made. 4. PLANT LIFE a. A walkover survey of the site should be conducted to determine the floral and formal composition of the area. Special attention should be addressed to the documentation mapping of any sensitive resources. There should be a determination if the project will result in a change and diversity of species, or number of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, benthic organisms or insects). 6. NOISE Existing noise levels should be determined through on-site noise monitoring. The short and long term impacts on surrounding land 315 uses can be determined based upon traffic volume increases and future projections of noise levels. with and without the project should be determined. r■ w■ rr ri r� ■r rr ® rr �r r� �r r� �r rr rr rr �r r ADDENDUM ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM Page 2 7. LIGHT AND GLARE Depending on the orientation of the proposed development new glare might occur onto adjacent properties. 8. LAND USE The applicant is seeking to have the property redesignated from estate/residential, industrial and office professional to planned community on the City's General Plan Land Use Element. 9. NATURAL RESOURCES a. The impact of 1200 more- housing units with respect to their use of natural resources should be accessed. 11. POPULATION The project will create 1200 new housing units in an area that is basically surrounded by industrial type uses. It will provide a new source of housing stock. 12. HOUSING If the General Plan request is approved as submitted it would allow for low density development on the subject Bice. 13. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION a,c,d. The traffic analysis should include intersection capacity utilization analysis at the following intersections: Ellis and Goldenwest Street; Ellis and Gothard Street; Gothard and Garfield Avenue; Main Street and Garfield, Gothard and Main, and Garfielo and Goldenwest. Existing traffic on interior and adjacent roadways, existing plus project traffic, an existing plus cumulative tratfic should be analyzed by the future daily traffic volumes. The re- alignment of Gothard Street relative to its vertical and horizontal alignments, site distance, grade, and curve radii should be evaluated based upon standard engineer requirements and the proposed plan submitted by the applicant. 15. ENERGY AND 16. UTILITIES a,b,c, d,e,f. The effected public service utility perveyors will have to be contacted to access potential project impacts. There should be discussion of the opportunities for alternative energy resources (e.g., solar) and design alterations to optimize opportunities for passive and/or active solar systems for the project. 1 i 1 1 APPENDIX B iNOTICE OF PREPARATION (NOP) AND NOP RESPONSES 1 i r i . r r i 1 r i r LEGAL ADVERTISEMENT CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES NOTICE OF PREPARATION (EIR NO. 84-2) �aL: JJJ✓✓✓ / �F� _ HOLLY PROPERTY r+- NOTICE IS HEREBY.GIVEN that the City of Huntington Beach, Department y,of Development Services has initiated the preparation of an Environ- mental Impact Report on a proposal by the Huntington Beach Company � {�_ - `� ;w•°"" - for a General Plan Amendment covering approximately 120 net acres = - of land in central Huntington Beach. The applicant is seeking to • have the property redesignated from estate/residential, industrial and office professional to planned community on the City's General -.z` i y- .<:;_;' / y ��} '' w � �•� Plan Land Use Element. Within the proposed planned community, the ,.c' J X.._o -_�...,,� �> ___ '.ram• ' � Huntington Beach Company is seeking approval in concept for the development of 1200 housing units to be developed in four distinct `G i,.� ':!, •s �^''� Y� / l product area%. The Holly property 'encompasses contiguous arcels =� T _ _ �• '• \ rr�''� "'+_` -�'—� P Y P P Y Pp of land bounded by Ellis Avenue to the north, the southern Pacific e j\ 7 irt. Y•,_1- __1.. Railroad to the east, Garfield and Ernest Avenues to the south, and Goldenwest and Crystal Streets to the west. The site is ....`�,t: - 4 fir= - +N "• "- � ` predominantly vacant, the only buildings being two single family ',�1 dwellings and a small brick building occupied by a church. +�• ;' - � ' y Any person(s) wishing to comment as to the scope and content of the environmental information relevant to the project 'may do so within a 30-day period from publication of this notice ending August 6, 1984. �(� 4f�J?� U�•• :; Written comments should be sent to the City of Huntington Beach, /C -' `� e +., ;, •�., �'� Department of Development Services, 2000 Main Street, Huntington F 1 ' ,' Beach, California 92648. XUXnXo�oCH X }-. Dated: HUNTINGTON BEACH CALFORNIA PLANNING DIVISION EIV� s7AlE x Gl6aEN1A.-4IEAITN AND wEVAEE AGENCY GEORGE OEt1R/AE/1AN•ce..� N.O.P. DI57RIBCiTION r.Isz ✓�� DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES - 6, 1984 df HOLLY PROPERTY Q lj(/6 JIJI lEREIEY WAY -rr EERKEWY,CA 94704 )range County Sanitr;tion 415/540-2665 District PLANNING COMMISSION August 10, 1984 10844 Ellis Avenue ountain Valley CA 92708 -ttn: Tom Daws RECEIVEON„u 1 Iddl 'ounty of Orange EMA ,.0. Box 4048 :m to Ana, CA 92702 CITY COUNCIL ttn: Bob Rusby range County Transit Howard Zelefsky District CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 11 Civic Center Dr. I-lest Department of Development Services ants Ana, CA 92702 21)UO Main SteeeL ttn: Mike Haak Huntington Beach, California 92648 ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD So.Int Cnr>r:hkc;v.fi.tra IWc vt� SUBJECT: City of Huntington Beach's HOP for Holly Property CPA - SCH 084071111 Attn: Nike Kimbrell h1,4nZiLT- Mike Knapp c%150 FLA-tt? "0 e_ The Department has reviewed the subject environmental document and offers t.1 f1uN R 1 C$c., +I r'�t the following comments. .Sr�ItT1 NCv) [T tate Clearinghouse W1hr1N ito A Sc1tt-t_ Enclosed for your. information Is a document prepared by the Noise Control t00 loth Street �- Program entitled, Guidelines for Noise Study Reports as Part of Environ- hl'I�Ct r mental Impact Reports", which indicates the type of information the Depart- icramento, CA 95814 73!,- /u/rlt )'7eCL'r i ment considers Important in EIRs. //v:Yr11vt)I V If- If you have any questions or creed further Information concerning these com- ,.uthern California r-as Co, ments, please contact Dr. Jerome Lukas of the Noise Control Program, Office ange County Division of Local Environmental Health Programs, at 2151 Berkeley Way, Room No. 6139 .O. cox 3344 Berkeley, CA 94704, 415/540-2665. nahein:, CA 92803 'Stuart E. Richardson, Jr., R.S., Chief Office of Local Environmental Health Programs uthern Californib Edison Company 33 Balsa Avenue / cstmin-ter, CA 92683P.y.�housticlan . Lukas / NOISE CONTROL PROGRAM CITY CLI:RK Enclosure cc: END HUNTINGTON BEACH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES SCH C'.TY LIBRARY AUr, 1 WUci P.O.Box 190 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 .w .� r. i� �r r� s +�■� �. r �r i� r r• r r � r �• S Bes Contents of a Noise ted Study Report Guidelines for Noise Study Reports as Part of Environmental Impact Reports ColUbmis Office of Noire Control 1. A brief description of the project in terms of its effect on the noise environment and a Californis Department of Health Services description of the existing noise environment and its impact upon the project(homes near 2151 Berkeley Way s freeway,for example). Berkeley,California 94704 11. Two sale maps--one showing the existing setting and the proposed project with adjacent land uses,receptors,and noise sources identified,and the second map showing the future condition(use a time span of no less than 10 years,unless the project's life span is less) May 1992 with the proposed project and proposed land uses,receptors,and noise sources identified. Ill. A detailed survey of the"Ming noise environment. A. The noise survey should encompass the proposed project area and must include any noise sensitive receptors,both near and far. The survey should establish the exist- ing ambient noise level which may then be used to evaluate compliance of the pro- posed project with applicable noise standards. The standards should be local (city, county)but in their absence state or federal standards may be used The rationale For the selection of noise survey sites should be included in the report. Because a about environmental noise are so frequent, the Office Noise Control B. The survey should cover the time periods when the noise environment may be recommendsnds that e every project with a potential for increasing environmentall .noise levels or effected by the proposed project. which may be affected by existing or future noise sources should have a Noise Study Report. This report assesses how noise levels associated with the project may affect people. The infor- C. The survey should encompass enough days to be representative of the existing'nor- mation contained in the Noise Study Report should be summarized in the Environmental mal'noise environment. Discussion of the similarity of dissimilarity of the noise Impact Report or Environmental impact Statement, and kept on file by the lead agency for environment during the survey period with that during other times of the year review by those with a specific interest in noise.- should be included. The attached is designed to help those who prepare Noise Study Reports and Environmental D. For the time periods measured,the reported noise data should include the L�,J.Lt, Impact Reports and reviewers of Environmental Impact Reports. Because there are so many Lto,LO Lau and identification of typical noise levels emitted by existing sources. If different combinations of noise sources and receivers(people impacted by those sources),it is day and night measurements are made,report the La,also. La„is approximately virtually impossible Io develop guidelines that cover all situations. Nevertheless,the guidelines equal to CNEL;either-descriptor may be used. It is imperative that the descriptor should help to bring some consistency to the way noise information is presented in environ- conform to that used in the appropriate standard, mental documents. E. Summarize the present environment by providing a noise contour map showing lines of equal noise level in S d8 steps,extending down to Lm,—60. In quiet areas lower contours should be shown also. F. identify the noise measurement equipment used in the survey by manufacturer, type,End date of last calibration. IV. A description of the future noise environment for each project alternative. The scope of the analysis and the metrics used will depend on the type or project,but as a minimum the following information must be provided: A. Discussion of the type of noise sources and their proximity to potentially impacted areas. B. Operations/activity data: 1. Average daily level of activity (traffic volume, flights per day. hours on per day,etc.). 2. Distribution of activily over day and nighttime periods,days of the week,and seasonal variations. 3. Composition of noise sources (91 trucks, aircraft fleet mix, machinery type, etc.). ONC 5/92 2_ 4. Frequency spectrum of sources(1/3 octave band data are preferable). 5. Any unusual characteristics of the sources(impulsiveness,tonality,etc.). C. Method used to predict future levels. 1. Reference to the prediction model used,if standard(e.g.,FHWA-RD-77-108, Summarisation of Noise Study Reports in Environmental etc.). impact Reports or Statements 2. If corrections to a standard model are made or empirical modeling is used, state the procedure in detail. 3. Show typical levels(e.g.,Lt,Lta,etc.)at the receptors- 4. Give any other date yielded by the model you used. D. Contours of future levels should be Included(down to La 55 where applicable),and Information included In the Environmental Impact Report or Statement should be a summary superimposed over projected population(receptor)densities. of the noise study. The following Information must be included: V. impact A. Map.showing the existing setting and the proposed project with adjacent land uses A. Quantify anticipated changes In the noise environment by comparing ambient infor. and noise sources Identified. Pertinent distances should be noted. mation with estimated source emissions. Evaluate the changes in light of applicable B. A description of the existing noise environment. standards. C. The change in the noise environment for each project alternative. B. Discuss how this project relates to the Noise Element of the applicable general plan. D. A discussion of the impacts for the alternatives. C. Discuss the anticipated effects of increased noise levels (speech interference,sleep E. A discussion of the compatibility of the project with the applicable Noise Element of disturbance,disruption of wildlife habitat,etc.). the Geriend Plan or the most applicable noise laws or ordinances. i VI. Mitigation F. A discussion or'mitisadon measures,clearly identifying the locations and number of A. Discuss how adverse noise impacts can be mitigated, suggesting alternative tech- people affected when mitigation Is not feasible. niques for mitigation,their relative effectiveness,and feasibility of implementation. G. Statements of: (1)where to obtain a copy of the Noise Siudy Report from which Provide a table listing the most and least effective techniques. For this table, the Information was taken(or the Noise Study Re port may be effectiveness should be defined in terms of the number of people being exposed to dix,and(2)the name of the consultant who conducted the Noise lStudy tf ituded as nwa snot noise at some given level. conducted by the author of the Environmental Impact Report. B. Responsibility for effectuating the mitigation measures should be assigned. C. Discuss any noise impacts that cannot be mitigated,and why mitigation is not feasi- ble. ONC 5/82 ` ONC 5/82 aia � ■r � �t � � a al � i � � �: � A � � r S_I1!E OF CALIFORNIA-RESOURCES AGE NCY GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN.G--, Department Of Water Resources Recommendations DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES for Water Conservation and Water Reclamation - -- --- P.C.8-6598 - LOSANGELES reduce water demand, the following water conservation measures should be 90055 Implemented: TO FP.zquired flaw: 7B1 2?++.3i I. Low-flush toilets (see Section 17921.3 of the Health and Safety Code), 2. Low-flow showers and faucets (California Administrative Code, Title 24, Part 6, Article 1, T20-1406F). City of Huntington Beach Department of Development Services 3. Insulation of hot water lines in water recirculating systems (California Energy 2000 Hain Street Commission regulations). Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Recommendations to Le implemented where applicable: Attention: Howard Zelefsky Interior: Notice of Preparation of DEIR for CPA Covering Approximately 120 Net Acres of Land in Central Huntington Beach, Holly Property, 1. -Ely line pressure: recommend water pressure greater than 50 pounds per SCH 84671111 square inch (psi) be reduced to 50 psi or less by means of a pressure-reducing valve. The Department of Water Resources' recommendations on the subject 2. Flush valve operated water closets: recomwnd 3 gallons per flush. document dated July 11, 1984, are attached. The recommendations are related to water conservation and flood damage prevention. 3. Drinking fountains: recommend equipped q pped with self-closing valves. Consideration should also be given to a comprehensive program to use 4. Pipe insulation: recommend all.hot water lines in dwelling be insulated to reclaimed water for irrigation purposes in order to free fresh water provide hot water faster with less water waste and to keep hot pipes from supplies for beneficial uses requiring high quality water. heating cold water pipes. For further information, you may wish to contact John Pariewski at 5. Hotel rooms: recommend posting conservation reminders in rooms and rest rooms.* (213) 620-3951. Recommend thermostatically-controlled mixing valve for bath/shower. Sincerely, 6. Laundry facilities: recommend dse of water-conserving models of washers. /r/ 7. Restaurants: recommend use of water-conserving models of dishwashers or e r J `'`�� retrofitting spray emitters. Recommend serving drinking water upon request [/ Robert Y. D. Chun, Chief only.*. Planning Branch Exterior: Southern District Attachments I. Landscape with low water-consuming plants wherever feasible: cc: Office of Planning and Research 14UNTINGTON BEACH 2. Minimize use of lawn by limiting it to lawn dependent uses, such as playing State Clearinghouse DEVELOPMENT SERVICES fields. 1400 Tenth Street Sacramento, CA 95814 P.O.BOX 190 *The Department of Water Resources or local water district may aid in develcping Huntington Beach,CA92648 these materials. F4. Use mulch r.>a ensively In all landscaped areas. tlulch applied on t.op of soil Departmentof kater ResourcesRecoc:-icudations forFlood Damage tio Prevenn will improvo the. water-hld toy capacity of the soil by reducing evaporationand soil cov.paction. Preserve and protect existing trees and shrubs. Established plants are often In flood-prone areas, floed dama;,z. prevention mr_arures tcryuircd to protect a proposed adapted to low cater conditions and their use saves caster needrd to establish development should he based on the folio ing guidel.iues: replacement vegetation. 1. All building structures should be protected against a 100-year flood. 5. Install efficient irrigation systems which minimize runoff and evaporrtion It is the State s olio and mtxinize the water which will reach the plant roots. Drip irrigation, should be mitigated. y to conserve water. lmy potential loss to ground water soil moisture sensors and automatic irrigation systems are a few methods of g Increasing irrigation efficiency. ' 2. In those areas not covered by a Flood Insurance Rite t'r!p or a Flood Boundary and 6. Use pervious paving material whenever feasible to reduce surface water runoff Floodvay Rap, issued by the Federal Emergency Rauagecont Agency, the 100-year and aid in ground water recharge. flood elevation and boundary should be shown on the F.nvircomental Impact Report. 3. At least one route of Ingress and egress i 7. Grading of slopes should minimize surface water runoff. g E ess to the develo•metit should be available during a 100-year flood. 8. Investigate the feasibility of utilizing reclaimed waste water, stored 4. The slope and foundation designs for all Structures should be based on derailed rainwater, or household grey water for irrigation. soils and engineering studies, especially for all hillside developments. 9. Encourage cluster development which can reduce the amount of land being converted to urban use. this will reduce the amount of impervious paving 5. Revegetation of the slopes should be done as soon as possible. created and thereby aid in ground water recharge. 6. The potential damage to the proposed development by mudflow should be assessed 10. Preserve existing natural drainage areas and encourage the incorporation of and mitigated as required. natural drainage systems in new developments. This would aid in ground water 7. Grading should be limited to dry months to minimize problems associated with recharge. sediment transport during construction. 11. Flood plains and aquifer recharge areas ❖hich are the best sites for ground water recharge should be preserved as open space. 1 -2- f rr � err � �r � � � i � � •�. � � � r � � r tm M IM No M M IM so I STATE OF CAIRORNIA—WSINFIS AND TRANSPORTATION AGENCY GEORGE DEORMEMAN.Ge,e,nw MURRAYSTORIA DIRECTOR.EMA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ROBERTG.FISHER DISTRICT 7.►.O BOX 2xN.to$ANGEIES 9OD51 4 ^�� LINTY OF DIREC ToR OF PLANNING (213) 620-5335 LO4:Ar1ON 17 CIVIC .i V IC BEN TF R PLAZA P.n.Iv1R ADAD s 3 RANGE SAN TA ANA.CA-71024040 August 2, 1984 M AILING AnDRESS' P.O Dox 40" ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY SANTAANA.CA92702.40" File: Notice of Preparation PLANNING Tr.1,PHONE 07-ORA 7141834 4642 EIR No. 84-2 FILE SCH fB4071111 July 27, 1984 Huntington Beach General Plan Amendment City of Huntington Beach Mr. Howard 2elefsky Department of Development Services Huntington Beach Department of 2000 Hain Street Development Services Huntington Reach, California 92648 . 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 SUBJECT: Notice of Preparation (EIR No. 84-2) Holly Property Dear Mr. 2elefsky: Dear Sirs: The Notice of Preparation for the General Plan Amendment in Attached for your consideration is a copy of this Agency's Transportation Huntington Reach has been reviewed by Caltrans staff. It appears Planning Division Memorandum which expresses our concerns regarding air that Caltrans is not a Responsible Agency on this proposed ;.lality, bikeways and traffic circulation. project. We have no discretionary approval power over the project rlease transmit two copies of the Draft EIR and Appendices Agency's to this but will he a Review Agency because of our expertise in transpor- P PP tation systems or facilities potentially impacted. bnvironmental Analysis Division when It become available. - The planned development of 1200 housing units is likely to Vory truly yours, generate substantial additional vehicular movement. Subsequently, the document should include an examination of traffic impacts upon local roads and state highways. Quantify the existing traffic characteristics in the area and the estimated impact of the proposed Alex A. Chobadl plan change. We can provide you with traffic data if needed. Environmental Analysis Division Means to mitigate this increase in traffic such as car/vanpools and AAG:am public transit should be discussed in the environmental document. Attachment Contact person in our agency is Paul Gonzales. He may be reached at (2131 620-3992. Very truly yours; HUNTINGTON BEACH W. B. BALLANTINE, Chief DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Environmental Planning Branch HUNTINGTON BEACH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES I(�( P.O.Box 190 P.O.Box 190 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 MEN oO nie�rew ecounty of Orange GATE: July 20, 1984 i TO- F. W.Olson,Manager oEPTIDIST: EMA/Environmental Analysis Division Hy .rmment: rROM: Jerry E.Bennett,Manager EMA/Transportation Planning Division c:•: E 1 H No. 81-2 situ jest Property: (lolly Properly SUBJECT- NOP EIR U84-2 Holly Property(GPA,2C)Huntington Beach I un opposed to any general plan admendunv:t� per- taining to lndustrail Holly Property that would isolate the now existing industrail area to the We have reviewed the above referenced notice of preparation for an environmental smith of subject property and break the (:, -hard document to be prepared for a proposal of the Huntington Beach Company to build 1,200 In4ustrail quarter into, leaving Carfield, Goldenwost housing units on a 120 acre site bounded by Ellis Avenue, the Southern Pacific Railroad, Ernost and crystal Streets and island by it self Garfield and Earnest Avenues, and Crystal and Golden West Streets. We have the also leaving it spoE zoned. following comments: Air Quality o The air quality analysis for this project should be prepared in accordance with the RECEIVED JUL 3 0 1984 techniques recommended by the California Air Resources Board and the South Coast Air Quality Management District. Bikeways v /�7 o The Master Plan of Countywide Bikeways shows Class 11 bike lanes on Goldenwest Street in the project area. The project is also bounded by 3 existing bike lanes: on Garfield Avenue, on Gothard Street, and on Ellis Avenue. The EIR should include a ��/ �J I discussion about these bikeways o The project proponent is encouraged to provide local bikeway.facilities such as bike paths, lockers and racks. These facilities are mitigation measures to reduce traffic congestion, vehicular noise, and air pollution by encouraging the use of bicycles as an alternative mode of transportation. Such measures would be in compliance with the Air Quality Management Plan 1982 Revision,adopted by the Orange County Board of Supervisors on September 27, 1993. Circulation o The traffic circulation of the EIR should include a discussion of the cumulative impacts of the proposed Bolsa Chica LCP and any resultant reconfiguration of the arterial highway network as a result of that planning effort. Please forward a copy of the DEIR when it becomes available for review. J rry e tt,M`ariager/ HUNTINGTON BEACH Transportation Planning Division DEVELOPMENT SERVICES PL:mlt DT24-96(PL) All 2.1m P.0-Box 190 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 M w 4w r ■ 001 M M M i M i aft *N r M r rr ■r err r� � rf. �r err sr r r r r�r r� ter r■R r rr 901II1IFI7rJ n:Atll,)!-:hi^ 1cw, COrnr'ArlY We have devetoa_d several programs WAch are available, upon request, ORANGE COUNTY DIVISION P.O.BOX SUM.ANAHEIM.CALIF.amm i to provide assistance in selecting the most effective applications of energy conservation techniques for a particular project. If you desire further information on any of our energy programs, please July 17, 1964 i contact this office for assistance. Sincerely, City of Hnntirwton Beach r Uevt. of Developmental Services 2000 Main St. M.T. Rrneen Huntington Beach, CA 92648 I Technical Supervisor Subject: EIR No. 84-2 Holly Property DH/dru attachment This letter is not to be interpreted as a contractual ormnitnent to serve the proposed project, but only as an information service. Its intent is to notify you that the Southern California Gas Conpany los facilities in the area Where the above-romled project is proposed. Ga, service to the project could be provided froin an existing main as shown on the attached atlas sheet without any significant impact on the environment. The service would be in accordance with the Canpany's policies and extension rules on file with the California PulAic Utilities Commission at the time contractual arrange+nents are Inuila. The availability of natural gas service, as set forth in this letter, is based upon present colnlitions of gas supply and regulatory policies. As a public utility, the Southern California Ga-, Contony is u,xi-r the jurisdiction of the federal regulatory agencies..Should tlies� agenr'�s take any action which affects gas supply or the ntr coition L uier cJ,ich service is available, gas service will be provided in accordance with revised coMx/itons. Residential (System Area Average) Yearly Single-Fanily 1095 Therms/year/dwelling wilt Multi-r•<mily 4 or less units 640 Itwrms/year/dw lling unit nilti-Family 5 or less; units 580 'lberms/year/dwelling unit The:r e3tEmate4 are based on gas consullption in residential wAts j served by Pcuthern California Gas Conpany (luring 1975 and it should not be implied that any particular Mm, apartment or tract of Innis will we'these amounts of energy. This is particularty true due to the State's new insulation rcquirenents and CDnsumers' efforts toward energy conservation. HUNTINGTON BEACH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES .IUL. 2 P.O.Box 190 i Huntington Beach,CA 92648 r r ' APPENDIX C P IX *GEOTECHNICAL STUDY r 1 r r . r r r LEIGHTON and ASSOCIATES LEIGHTON and ASSOCIATES i NCo"ORATED Amh ell INCORPORATED Amh % . • 0 O SOIL ENGINEERING GEOLOGY GEOPHYSICS GROUND WATER HAZARDOUS WASTES SOIL ENGINEERING GEOLOGY GEOPHYSICS GROUND WATER HAZARDOUS WASTES August 8, 1984 Project No. 1840474-01 GEOTECHNICAL ASSESSMENT FOR EIR RELATED TO HOLLY PROPERTY TO: Michael Brandman Associates,Inc. RESIDENTIAL PROJECT, 3140 Red Hill Avenue,Suite 200 GOLDEN WEST STREET AND ELLIS AVENUE, Costa Mesa,California 92626 HUNTINGTON BEACH,CALIFORNIA ATTENTION: Ms.Beverly Bruesch SUBJECT: Geotechnical Assessment for EIR Related to Holly Property Residential Project, Golden West Street and Ellis Avenue, Huntington Beach, California August 8, 1984 In accordance with your request and authorization, we have completed a geologic, Project No. 1840474-01 seismic, soil and hydrogeologie assessment of the subject property, as outlined in our proposal of April 25, 1984. The study evaluated the potential environmental impacts, hazards and development constraints,especially as the geotechnical conditions relate to the general development concept plan, dated March 23, 1984, prepared by John L. Chapman, Land Planning. Our assessment was based on available published and unpublished data,personal contacts,and a recent site reconnaissance. Submitted for review are two copies of our report,which was prepared in accordance with CEOA guidelines for EIR's. It summarizes the principal geotechnical findings, presents possible mitigation measures,and documents our analysis of the pertinent data collected and reviewed. If you have any questions regarding the study or require further Information,please do not hesitate to contact us. Respectfully submitted, LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES,INC. Richard Lung,Et 11 I Prepared for: Principal Engineering Geologist MICHAEL BRANDMAN ASSOCIATES,INC. TW/RL/cas 3140 Red Hill Avenue,Suite 700 Distribution: (2)Addressee Costa Mesa,California 92626 Attention: Ms.Beverly Bruesch 1151 DURYEA AVENUE.IRVINE.CALIFORNIA 92714 IRRR1 253 4567•(7 141 250-1421 •(2131 691 2125 1151 nI IRYTA AVFIIUF.IIIVINE.CALIFORNIA 92714 (ROM 253-45A7•(714)250-1421•(213)691-2125 IRVINE • WESTLAKEIVENTURA DIAMOND BARIWALNUT SAN BENNARnINO:niVERSIDI' • %ANr,,Fr.n InVINF • WFSII_AKF'VENTURA OIAMONOBAWWALNUT 0 SAN BERN ARDINO/RIVERSIDE • RANDIEOO PALINDESERT • SANIA Ct ARIIAIVAI.FNCIA PALMDESFRT • SANTA CLARIIAIVAI FNCIA 1840474-01 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd.) Section Page 6.0 Oil Field Hazards and Constraints 16 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 6.0.1 General 16 6.0.2 Abandoned Oil and Water Wells 16 6.0.3 Pipelines 16 1.1 Objective and Scope of Investigation 1 i 6.0.4 Sumps 17 1.2 Site Description 2 1.3 Site History 2 2.0 PROPOSED-DEVELOPMENT AND GRADING 3 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS AND APPENDIX 2.1 Regional Geology 3 Tables 2.2 Surf icial Soils and Earth Materials 3 2.3 Sedimentary Formations 4 Table I - General Seismic Parameters 6 2.4 Geologic Structure and Faults 5 Table 2- Checklist of Geotechnical Hazards and Potential 2.4.1 Alquist-Priolo Zonation 6 Mitigation Measures 13 2.5 Regional Seismicity 6 I 2.5.1 Design Considerations for Seismic Shaking 7 i Figures 2.5.2 Secondary Effects of Seismic Shaking 7 2.6 Landslides and Erosion 7 , Figure I - Index Mop Showing Fault Locations Rear of Text Figure 2- Regional Geologic Map Rear of Text 3.0 HYDROGEOLOGIC SETTING q Figure 3- Geologic Cross-Section Rear of Text Figure 4 - Geotechnical Map of Holly Planned Community Property Rear of Text 3.1 Ground Water Conditions q Figure 5- Major Regional Faults and Earthquake Epicenters Rear of Text 3.2 Surface Runoff Conditions q Figure 6- Ground Water Contour Map Rear of Text Figure 7- Oil Well and Water Well Location Map Rear of Text 4.0 OIL PRODUCTION AND MINERAL RESOURCES 10 4.1 Early History of Oil Production 10 Appendix 4.2 Oil Field Geology 10 Appendix A-References 4.3 Current Oil Well Status 10 4.4 Lease Facilities 11 4.4 Other Mineral Resources 11 5.0 PRINCIPAL GEOTECHNICAL HAZARDS,CONSTRAINTS, IMPACTS AND POSSIBLE MITIGATION MEASURES 12 5.1 Geologic Factors or Potential Problems Evaluated 12 5.2 Fault Displacement or Ground Rupture 12 5.3 Regional Seismic Ground Shaking 12 5.4 Liquefaction and Other Related Secondary Seismic Hazards 14 5.5 Settlement and Expansive Soil 14 5.6 Lime Deposit Disposal 14 5.7 Slope Instability IS 5.8 Tsunamis and Seiches I5 5.9 Erosion,Sedimentation and Flooding 15 ITM-1;0% 1 FIG"TON and ASSOCIATES LEIGHTON•nd ASSOCIATES RCORORnlfO NCOR�ORATED rr� �r rr rr rr rr rr rr r rr rr� ai rr �r �s r rr �rr rr 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.2 Site Description The subject property is a 120t-acre parcel of land located on Huntington Mesa in 1.1 Objective and Scope of Investigation the City of Huntington Beach,California. It is a wide, inverted L-shaped property bounded on the north by Ellis Avenue,on the east by the Southern Pacific Railroad In accordance with your authorization, we have conducted a geotechnical adjacent to Gothard Avenue,on the south by Garfield and Ernest Avenues, and on assessment for the environmental impact report for the proposed Holly Planned the west by Golden West and Crystal Streets(refer to Figure 7). The southern half Community project, Golden West Street and Ellis Avenue, Huntington Bench, of the site is relatively flat to sloping gently toward the north. Past grading and the California (refer to Figure 1). This assessment of the approximately 120-acre dumping of'waste products related to oil extraction and sugar refining activities at subject site includes the evaluation of the potential geologic,soil,fault/seismic and the site have altered the topography in the north portion of the property where two hydrogeologically related impacts or constraints affecting the proposed residential natural drainage courses converge near the north boundary. From that point the development. Special emphasis has been placed on the potential impacts of seismic runoff enters a culvert under Ellis Avenue and discharges on the north side into an hazards (fault rupture/earthquake shaking), of the existing deposits of sugar old sand pit ("Sully-Miller Lake")offsite. The maximum topographic relief at the processing waste, and of past and continued oil production. Although our study site is approximately 50 feet and surface drainage is generally directed northward. generally addresses the hydrologic conditions of the study area from the standpoint of ground water, surface runoff and erosion, we understand that a more detailed Existing structures at the site include an old church building near the intersection of analysis of these aspects(flooding,runoff and drainage)will be reviewed by Irvine Garfield and Gothard Avenues, two dwellings along Golden West Street, and oil- Civil Engineers, Inc. This report, documenting our analysis and findings, was related buildings located in the Huntington Signal Oil Co. property off Ellis Rood. prepared in accordance with the state guidelines (the California Division of Mines Many other storage sheds are scattered throughout the northern portion of the and Geology Note 46). property. The foundation remains of on old Holly Sugar plant exist in the central portion of the site. Numerous producing oil wells and abandoned oil and water wells, Our investigation included the following geotechnical steps: tanks, pipelines, fences and related structures are dispersed throughout the site. Access is provided by asphalt-paved,gravel and dirt roads. Vegetation of the site • Review of pertinent published and unpublished geotechnical maps and reports, includes mostly grasses and weeds with several groves of.eucalyptus trees through including the city and county Seismic Safety Elements of their General Plans. the central portion of the property. Locally,landscaping(lawns and shrubbery)were rated around the developed areas; marsh-type reeds and plants are present along • Study of 1980 aerial photographs of the site. drainage courses. • Geotechnical site reconnoissance, including obtaining a sample of the stockpiled waste material located at the site. 1.3 Site History • Compilation and analysis of the geotechnical data. The history of oil production in the Huntington Oil Field which underlies the property dates as far back as the 19201s; a detailed history of oil production is • Preliminary laboratory analysis of the sample obtained from the site. presented in Section 4.1. In the early 1900's a Holly Sugar plant was in operation in the southeast portion of the site. Several buildings, water wells and possibly • Preliminary evaluation of the potential constraints imposed by the anticipated underground fuel storage tanks were associated with this plant (Lou Orlenes, Holly site conditions on the proposed development(from a conceptual plan standpoint). Sugar Company,personal communication). • General discussion of mitigation measures which may be feasible in minimizing to 1925, the sugar plant was abandoned and a SoC01 Company gouge tank facility or eliminating such hazards. was built at the site, utilizing the Holly Sugar Buildings for a boiler house and warehouse. These facilities are used to remove the water from the oil prior to • Preparation of this report and illustrations. shipment to the refinery. Reportedly, the waste waters were usually disposed of directly into the ground (Larry McComish, Chevron Oil, personal communication). Although 50a tanks are shown on facility maps, Chevron Oil Company officials report that no underground tanks are usually associated with this type of facility. Several underground pipelines,as illustrated on the site plans, were associated with this plant. A wastewater sump was located just west of the church (refer to Figure 4). In early 1964, the Huntington Beach Company acquired the land. The SoCal tank facility was removed and the land was restared to its preexisting condition (Bill1-blmon, Huntington Beach Company, personal communication). No documentation of abandonment or cleanup of the tank facility was available for our -��(�-�• '• review,however. n LrIGN TON end ASSUCIAlfS -2 LEIGInroN ana AssacIATES Inc ASSOCA IFS �.+cosso"wreo In terms of their agricultural classifications,the near-surface soils consist primarily of the Myford sandy loam overlying most of the mesa portions of the site. The Alo 2.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AND GRADING clay series was mapped by the Soil Conservation Service throughout the north- eastern portion of the property, overlying both terrace and alluvial deposits (Reference 25). Thapto-histic fluvaquents, which have a typical profile of clay Review of a conceptual grading plan prepared by John L. Chnpman, Land Planning, loam,silty clay and 3 feet of block peat,were mapped in the low-lying marsh area undated and received July 12, 1984 indicates 1,200 dwelling units are planned, including near Ellis Avenue. Tests of shrink-swell characteristics on such clayey soils indicate single-family detached and attached homes, and multifamily units. The proposed a high expansion potential which has been noted to cause problems in urban develop- development will also reroute Gothard Street from the north to connect to the existing ment. The highly organic peat deposits are known to be very compressible. Crystal Street of the southwestern property boundary. Existing artificial fills at the site include: a partial filling of the main canyon in the The proposed grading of the site appears to be mainly filling the major drainage channel northeast portion of the property underlying the Huntington Signal Oil Company located in the northeast quarter of the property. A general leveling of the rest of the site lease;minor fills associated with roadway construction within the site and with the Is planned with the exception of the drainage channels in the northwestern portion of the cut/fill grading of oil drill site pods;and three relatively large road fills for the city property which appear to be left in their existing condition. ; streets in the areas of the major drainages (refer to Figure 4 for the approximate location of the main fill deposits). Numerous piles of loose fill and trash with concrete and asphalt rubble and organics have been dumped locally throughout the 2.1 Regional Geology properly. A few deposits of tar and oil were observed on the ground surface locally i near oil wells,north of the former Folly Sugar plant and near the intersection of The subject property is located in the central portion of the Huntington Beach Mesa, Crystal Street and Ernest Avenue. The latter location is near the site of an old oil near the southern coastal edge of the Los Angeles Basin. The mesa is situated sump, as shown on the 1949 U.S. Geological Survey Seal Beach Quadrangle. between the Santa Ana River gap to the east and the Balsa gap to the west. Nearly Although no oil sumps are known to exist on the property according to the Division horizontal terrace deposits(both ancient near-shore and terrestrial deposits)cap the of Oil and Gas or the Huntington Beach Company, older significant disposal areas mesa, overlying the sedimentary. San Pedro and Fernando (formerly Pico) associated with the oil field activities could be encountered in exploratory exco- Formations. Surficial deposits include alluvium, colluvium, topsoil and fill vations or during site grading. materials. Large amounts of a white powdery material have been stockpiled (approximately The Newport-Inglewood fault zone farms an important element of the regional S feet high)in the east-central portion of the property. This material is reportedly geologic structure. The Huntington Mesa is one of the southernmost landward a waste product of limestone that was originally used during the processing of sugar expressions of a succession of hills and mesas aligned along this fault zone. This from beets(Lou Orlenes,Folly Sugar Company,personal communication). The lime zone extends as a southeast-trending band from the Baldwin Hills in the Lae Angeles was added to the sugar solution during a purefication step to extract the organics Basin, through Signal Hill in the Long Beach area, to the Huntington and Newport- from the solution by precipitating them out with the lime. This residue is believed Costa Mesa areas, then offshore. Uplift along the fault has resulted in a broad to be 90 percent calcium carbonate;It effervesces readily in hydrochloric acid. It is up-arching and disruption of the subsurface formations and a gentle landward tilting probably all inert material at this time, the organics having decomposed. A of the ground surface at Huntington Mesa. The fault zone has been mapped by the chemical analysis was made in 1977 on samples obtained from the site state and others as a broad "zone of deformation", comprised of a series of (Reference 23). Both the Holly Sugar Company-and Birtcher Pacific Developers subparallel faults underlying the mesa. A questionable extension of the Yorktown (who have recently developed another old Holly Sugar site in Santa Ana)report that Avenue fault has been shown on a map in the City of Huntington Beach Seismic similar material at the Santa Ana site was found to be suitable for use as fill and Safety Element to be crossing the subject property. Refer to Figures I and 2,which that,with appropriate moisture conditioning,it will compact satisfactorily. Illustrate the major geologic and geographic features of the region. The relationship of various branch faults to the property are discussed in Section 2.4. 2.3 Sedimentary Formations 2.2 Surficial Soils and Earth Materials The southern portion of the subject property is mantled by approximately.80 feet of late Pleistocene-age marine and terrestrial terrace deposits,as encountered during The majority of the surface of the property is mantled by a few feet of topsoil, the drilling of an old water well pS/I I-35P3(refer to Figures 3 and 7). The terrace consisting primarily of brown,porous,sandy to clayey silt. Colluvial deposits (soil materials probably thicken toward the north and generally consist of reddish- to generally greater than 4 feet in depth) appear to have formed on the sides of the grayish-white, poorly to moderately consolidated, fine to coarse-grained sands with canyons in the drainage swales and reentrants. Alluvium, generally consisting of silty clay and gravelly sand interlayers. gray and fan,sandy and clayey silt,is present within the major drainage channels;it is locally marshy near Ellis Avenue and Golden West Street. Fill associated with the The San Pedro Formation, the next oldest (early Pleistocene-age) marine unit oil field and adjacent roadway development is usually derived from nearby shallow beneath the terrace deposits, consists of yellowish-gray to buff, poorly to cuts. moderately consolidated,sandy silt and silty sand with interlayers of silty clay and pebbly sands. Beneath the site,this formation is roughly 400 feet thick and thickens toward the north(References I I and 21). 3- I_1111;ft,, -4- [1 �� 1 EIaNTON atM ASSOCIATFS LEIGIIION and ASSOCIATES ».on molt w„n »CURfO»wTf 0 r� r r i r r r a r r r a ar r r a�■� � �r r 2.4.1 Alquisf-Priolo Zonation The Newport-Inglewood fault zone has long been known to be seismically The next deepest formation,underlying the site at an approximate 500-foot depth, active, presumably on the North or South Branches of the zone. The most Is the late Pliocene-age.Fernando Formation (formerly referred to as the "Pico" destructive and well known event on this fault was the 1933 Long Beach Formation). These marine deposits consist primarily of moderately consolidated earthquake which had a 6.3 (Richter) magnitude and an epicenter located fine-grained sandstone and siltstone. This unit produced relatively minor oil offshore near Newport Beach. Numerous other smaller earthquakes have production when compared with the deeper early Pliocene-and Miocene-age units. occurred along the zone to the northwest(refer to Figure S). In 1972, the State of California enacted the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies 2.4 Geologic Structure and Faults Zone Act. The purpose of this act is to delineate all active faults(faults with movement in the last 10,000 years) in California and to prohibit development While the near-surface geologic structure is relatively simple, consisting of of structures for human occupancy across the trace of an active fault,in order generally flat-lying terrace deposits, the subsurface complexities within the older to mitigate the hazard of fault rupture. In December of 1973, the state formations have become evident through the extensive oil field development and released preliminary special studies zones maps of the Newport-Inglewood ground water investigations along the Newport-Inglewood fault zone. Subsurface fault zone (including the Bolso-Fairview fault and all of the other branches mapping and correlation of strata from oil and water wells have depicted a within the zone),classifying them as active. Following a subsequent review substructure of northeasterly inclined strata offset by a series of northwest-trending period,the southern section of the Newport-Inglewood zone was removed from faults(References 4, 21 and 22). The faulting has resulted in both the trapping of the special studies zone as of July 1, 1974,inasmuch as the faults could not be oil and the offset of ground water aquifers in various permeable strata. demonstrated to be sufficiently well-defined,according to state criteria,to be Included in the zone. The area of the subject property,as well as the other The site is shown to be bisected by the conjectured westward extension of the portions of the fault zone within the City of Huntington Beach, are still Yorktown and Adams Avenue faults,which were originally mapped by the California excluded from the special studies zone. Department of 'Hater Resources (DWR) in their study of the Santa Ana Salinity Barrier in the Santo Ana gap. The projected subsurface traces of these faults are shown on Figure I (reproduced from the Huntington Beach Seismic Safety Element). 2.5 Regional Seismicity A recent review of the fault data by the California Division of Mines and Geology Indicates that while there appears to be fault offset of the deeper Miocene-age The frequency of earthquakes and the intensity of the seismic ground shaking to be strata(older than 71 million years),there appears to be a lack of sufficient evidence experienced at the site will depend upon which of the nurnerous active regional that the faults mapped north of the North Branch fault displace the relatively faults produced the earthquake,upon the earthquake magnitude, the distance (rain younger alluvial aquifers in the Santa Ana gap, as indicated by the earlier DWR the earthquake epicenter, and the local soil conditions. Refer to Figure 5, which Investigations (David Fuller, CDMG, personal communication). The apparent shows epicenter locations of earthquakes of Richter Magnitude greater than 4.0 discontinuities in the aquifers may be attributable to lateral changes caused by during the period from 1932 to 1972. This map illustrates the relatively higher variations in the sediment composition from normal depositional processes or activity associated with the Newport-Inglewood fault zone,as compared with other .tectonic warping and folding of the strata,rather than faulting. faults in the Los Angeles-Orange County areas. Table I indicates the estimated earthquake magnitudes and intensities associated with major active faults of the Like the extension of the Yorktown and Adams Avenue faults, there is a lack of i region,based on our latest analyses. evidence as to the location onTd/or existence of the Bolsa-Fairview Branch within the Younger formations (less than It million years)on the mesa and in the surrounding areas. It had been mapped at,or just beyond, the northeast corner of the-subject TABLE I site. Recent geologic mapping by the California Division of Mines and Geology and others has found no evidence of the existence of this fault at the surface,either in GENERAL SEISMIC PARAMETERS cuts made into the mesa(the Sully Miller sand pit,located just north of the subject property) or on the bluffs where the fault is projected to cross the mesa Maximum (Russ Miller,personal communication). Mercalli Maximum Probable Intensity The major active faults.within the Newport-Inglewood fault zone are considered to Fault Distance(Mi.) Earthquake Magnitude(Richter) (At Site) be the North Branch and the South Branch faults, which are 5,000 and 2,000 feet, respectively, southwest of the property. Recent subsurface investigations on the Newport-Inglewood 0-2 6.5 IX northwest side of the Huntington Beach Mesa and on the Balsa Chico Mesa have Whittier-Elsinore 22 6.7 VII uncovered offset along the North Branch fault within the Pliestocene-age marine terrace deposits (Russ Miller and David Fuller, CDMG, personal communication). San Jacinto 46 7.5 VII-VIII This investigation failed to locate the South Branch. Sierra Madre- 32 6.5 VI-VII San Fernando San Andreas 51 8.3 VII-VIII 6 I u ]L Mn 1 rf1l I I ON and ASSOCIATES r.�ow I.E IGNTON and ASSOCIATES —cowrowwieo Historical earthquake events have resulted in the following recorded Mercalli Intensities felt at the site: 1933 Long Beach event produced VIII Mercalli Intensity The surficial stability and susceptibility of slopes to erosion relate primarily to the at the site and both the 1968 Borrego Mountain and the 1971 San Fernando events degree of soil or strata induration or cementation,and the exposure o/ the slope to produced intensities of V in Huntington Beach(Reference 16). surface runoff. The firmer the material and the more protected the slope is from concentrated runoff,the less the erosion potential. Significant erosion was noted in the northeast portion of the property where there was no soil or vegetation cover 2.5.1 Design Considerations for Seismic Shaking and water was directed along a dirt road that washed out. Minor erosion was noted on roadway fill slopes, an cut areas*in the oil fields, and locally throughout the Because of the proximity of the Newport-Inglewood fault zone, future property,mostly in the areas of previous grading activities. earthquakes on this fault,in all likelihood,would produce the strongest seismic ground motion at the site and would be considered the controlling fault for the purposes of building design and site stability analysis. The peak bedrock acceleration anticipated from a maximum probable earthquake within the general Newport Beach area is 0.65+g (Reference 11). However, the repeatable high ground acceleration of 0.42+g (taken as 65 percent of the peak acceleration for sites within 20+miles of the epicenter) may be more applicable for design analysis at the site(Reference 20). Other factors to be taken into account in design include the duration of the strong motion, the type of building, the depth to ground water and the underlying soil characteristics. Such factors will influence the seismic wave characteristics and the relative potentially damaging effects of an earthquake. In general, the intensity of a given earthquake (i.e., the observed damage effects) will be greatest in those areas underlain by deeper, softer and saturated alluvial deposits; somewhat less where o site is underlain by relatively firm to semiconsolidated soil or formation; and least where very firm to hard bedrock is present at the surface. Since the subject property is underlain by poorly to moderately consolidated alluvial and terrace materials, the intensity of ground.shaking could range from moderate to high. 2.5.2 Secondary Effects of Seismic Shaking Soil liquefaction, flow landsliding, seismically induced settlement,and ground lurching are secondary earthquake phenomena generally associated with relatively strong seismic shaking, shallow ground water conditions and the presence of loose sandy soils or alluvial deposits. The occurrence and severity of these hazards is difficult to predict without sufficient subsurface data,and equally difficult to mitigate if there is a high probability of their occurrence. A condition where relatively loose,uniform("clean"),medium- to fine-grained sand is present, with the ground water level within about 30 feet of the surface, would be especially conducive for soil liquefaction if subjected to strong seismic shaking of sufficient duration. Such a set of adverse site conditions may exist locally in the canyon hottolns at the site. However, further analysis and site exploration will he necessary to verify this possiblity. 2.6 Landslides and Erosion No areas of significant slope instability were observed during alr site reconnais- sance,nor have any such areas been previously mnpped on the property by others. The near-surface formations underlying the mesa are relatively stable from the standpoint of landslide resistance. 1 FIGIITON and ASSOCIATES -a LEIGHTON and ASSOCIATES �wr nw�nww,cn u.rowrowwrco r r rr r� rr rr rr r rr r re a� rr rr rr rr rr ar rr 3.0 HYDROGEOLOGIC SETTING 3.1 Ground Water Conditions 4.0 OIL PRODUCTION AND MINERAL RESOURCES The Huntington Beach Mesa lies at the southwestern margin of the Orange County coastal plain ground water basin, from which wells extract water contained in the primary aquifers of the Pliestocene-age alluvial and terrace deposits, and in the 4.1 Early History of Oil Production Pliocene-age sediments below them. There are three main water-bearing zones beneath the Huntington Beach Mesa. The upper aquifer is approximately 50 feet The Huntington Beach Oil Field is the fourth largest California field in terms of thick of an approximate depth of 50 to 60 feet below the ground surface of the mesa 11tal production. It is roughly 6 miles in length paralleling the coast line, and of the site. This aquifer is inclined gently eastward toward Garfield Road S-miles wide at maximum width, extending offshore to the southeast. The first (References 18 and 21;refer to Figure 3). The middle aquifer is also approximately well("Huntington AI")within the field was drilled by Standard Oil Company in May 50 feet thick and occurs roughly 200 feet below the mesa at the site. It is separated of 1920. It was located 1/3-`mile southwest of the site(southwest of Garfield and from the upper aquifer by approximately 100 feet of silt and clay sediments. The Golden West Avenues)and had a low rate of production causing little excitement. In middle aquifer also has the some easterly inclination. Both the upper and middle November of 1920,a second hole("Balsa 111)was drilled approximately 3/4 mile west aquifers have been contaminated by salt water since the 1920's. The lower aquifer of the subject property (northwest of Garfield Avenue and Edwards Street) which Is 250`-feet thick and occurs at roughly 300 feet below the surface. This lower zone was flowing at an initial rate of 2,000 barrels of 2.8-degree gravity oil per day. This Is inclined northward and pinches out to the south where it is replaced by silt which find resulted in a rapid development of closely spaced wells which extended into the retards the intrusion of sea water. subject property. By April 1923, production from 100 wells, located north of the North Branch of the Inglewood fault, reached a peak of 119,000 barrels of oil per Old U.S.Geological Survey water supply maps(1953, 1956,and 1959)show a total day. Development of the field continued through 1958 when a new pool discovery of eight ground water wells on the subject property, five of which are located in the resulted from the deepening of a well(Reference 4). southern portion of the property and were probably associated with the Holly Sugar plant. These wells are not in use today and it is not known if they were ever The"Sequro No. I"well was drilled for oil and was located about 200 feet southwest abandoned according to current requirements (refer to Figure 7 for their of Golden West Avenue at Ernest Avenue(see Figure 7), by Standard Oil Company approximate locations). (Reference 16). Downhole temperatures reached 45001`, causing handling difficulties, and the hole-was plugged in 1949. The total depth of the well is The City of Huntington Beach is presently using ground water as their principal 9,100 feet and the well is now producing. source of domestic water (Ulrich Stenziel, City of Huntington Beach, personal communication),all of which is extracted from the alluvial areas north of the mesa. The aquifers underlying the mesa have all become brackish with waters tow poor in 4.2 Oil Field Geology quality for domestic uses,although water is presently being pumped from the deeper aquifers for irrigation use. Refer to Figure 6 which depicts the elevation of the The Huntington Beach'Oil Field is the result of an accumulation of oil in an . ground water surface as of late 1983 in southwestern Orange County. This map elongated faulted anticline. The northwesterly trending axis of the anticline is Indicates an elevation of zero,or sea level,in the site area. located offshore. An intensely faulted central portion is located between the shoreline and the North Branch fault. North of this fault, underlying the subject property, is the northeasterly dipping flank of the anticline (Reference 4). Two 3.2 Surface Runoff Conditions secondary faults trending NSOE to NISoE have been mapped transecting the property on the basis of oil well data interpretation. These faults are believed to The southern portion of the property is relatively flat,varying between 62 to 67 feet occur at great depth(3,500 to 4,500 feet below the site)within the upper Miocene- in elevation,with several shallow, localized depressions where surface waters may age Puente Formation. Oil production is mainly from the very lower Pliocene collect and percolate down into the underlying soils. Toward the north the gently (Repetto)and upper Miocene(Puente)bedrock formations underlying the site. sloping mesas are relatively well drained with surface runoff directed into the canyon. Where artificial fill has been placed in the canyons without sufficient drainage facilities (as in the construction of Ellis Avenue roadfill and in the 4.3 Current Oil Well Status Huntington Signal Oil Company lease fill),large depressions have resulted behind the fills that appear to pond water. There have been approximately 37 oil wells drilled on the subject property, according to maps of the California Division of Oil and Gas (refer to Figure 7), of A large storm drain empties onto the property under Gothard Street just south of its which 13 are known to be abandoned. There are presently 22 wells pumping oil and intersection with Ellis Street. This drain reportedly allows surface drainage through two that are idle but believed to be capable of producing. The idle wells are catch basins from developed areas located toward the northeast as for away as "Copeland 12"•and"Russell I"according to field observations and verification from Beach Boulevard(Donald Kiser,City of Huntington Beach,personal co mmumication). Bill hiolrnon of the Huntington Beach Company. These wells are awaiting further This runoff posses through the subject property and drains kinder Ellis Avenue into evaluation to determine their future disposition. the"Sully-Miller Lake"which is presently acting as a large flood control retention basin. There presently is a minor discharge from the Gothard Street storm drain and the flow partially ponds behind(east of)the Hun lington Signal Company lease fill. _9_ [.=1>>(�_lam _ ,o_ & � 1 rIC.11ION a�.d ASSOC ATES LEIGHTON and ASSOCIATES �.�nn.n"wren �wcow�owwreo S.0 PRINCIPAL GEOTECFNICAL HAZARDS,CONSTRAINTS, None of the oil wells on the property were known to be injection wells. All of the IMPACTS AND POSSIBLE MITIGATION MEASURES abandoned wells are believed to have been properly abandoned (Bill Holman, Huntington Beach Company,personal communication). S.1 Geologic Factors or Potential Problems Evaluated 4.4 Lease Facilities This section presents in summary form the principal geotechnical factors that were The subject property is presently leased by several different oil companies,and has considered and rated on a subjective scale,comparing the study area with the range been leased since at least 1964 when the Huntington Beach Company acquired the of hazard severity which is generally representative in southern California;refer to property. Due to the fact that the oil development on the property has had such a Table 2,which presents a matrix indicating the rating of the hazard type affecting long history and many different companies have been involved,there appears to be a the subject site,and possible mitigation measures which could be utilized. Those very complex system of pipelines (both operating and abandoned) and numerous hazards not specifically discussed below were considered to have minimal or no storage tanks at the site. potential impact. There is an oil gathering system with pipelines to each well. Three maintained lines S.2 Fault Displacement or Ground Rupture are known to exist on the property,including: a Standard Oil line near Ellis Avenue;. a Union Oil line near Golden West; and a Texaco line which reportedly passes Earthquake-related movement along suspected faults(such as the Yorktown/Adams communication). Water and electrical through the property (Bill 1 real Huntington Beach Company, personal Avenue and Bolso-Fairview faults of the Newport-Inglewood zone), which results in service lines run to all the well sites. surface rupture of the ground is one of the more significant potential hazards to be evaluated in the future development of the property. Although the property is not 4.5 Other Mineral Resources presently included within on Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone(a state regulation requiring the special investigation of potentially active faults), its implications with Although no other resources have been extracted from the subject property, many regard to the possible development constraints associated with the movement of other mineral sites have been recorded in the vicinity. Early oil well records faults in the Newport-Inglewood zone must be appropriately evaluated during the indicate previous geothermal resources of natural steam. The "O'Brien Porter 2" planning process. Our research and analysis of the data thus for indicate that the well,located just south of Main and Holly Streets, produced hot salt water and the aforementioned branches of the fault zone,although believed to affect the deeper, "Sequro No. I" well (previously discussed in Section 4.1) reached downhole older formations beneath the subject property, are probably inactive and have not temperatures of 4500F. offset the younger formations within at least several hundred feet of the surface. The available data,however,are not sufficient to irrefutably substantiate the latter Clay was mined to 3-to 5-foot depths at a location approximately 1,000 feet north conclusions or to confirm the location of the fault at depth relative to the subject of the subject property along the Southern Pacific Railroad between the years 1906 site. Consequently,further research and analysis will be necessary to assess file risk to 1907. The materials extracted were used originally for common brick and later of ground rupture from fault movement, and to determine what mitigation for drain tile. The mines shut down in 1974 due to urban encroachment measures, if any, are required. If such additional evaluation is inconclusive, with (Reference 16). regard to the fault hazard,a site-specific field investigation involving trenching to verify the absence of near-surface faulting would probably be necessary. Two abandoned sand pits, the Sully-Miller Pit and the Bruce Bros. Pit,are located north the property to the drainage channel at approximate distances Mitigation of a fault rupture hazard, if found to exist, would usually require fe et, respectively,from the subject property boundary. Pebbly sand d from the 200 and nd on I,000 fe adequate building setback from the fault or faulted zone. The amount of setback near-surface Pleistocene-age marine terrace deposits was removed from the pits for could vary depending upon the geologic circumstances and the reliability of file fault use as asphalt and concrete aggregate. The quarries were active in the 1950's and location, but in most cases it might range between about 20 to 50 feet. In salve nearly depleted in the early 1970's, at which time they were sold to the City of Instances it could be as much as 100 feet. Such setbacks would not usually be a Huntington Beach. The Sully-Miller pit is roughly 1,400 feet long by 50+feet deep constraint to development of roads, utilities, parking lots, recreational usage, or and the shallow ground water table required underwater dragline excavation toward storage-type structures. It is generally.not considered feasible to mitigate fault the end. This pit now has a lake in the bottom and is used as a flood control rupture hazards by designing structures to be more resistive. retention basin. 5.3 Regional Seismic Ground Shaking The most severe seismic shaking at the site is expected to originate from a nearby earthquake along the Newport-Inglewood fault zone, and could exceed a ground acceleration of 0.42 g. The response and performance of the structures subjected to seismic ground shaking will depend upon the mitigation measures employed in grading and the type and design of the structures. 1G l�Jl. 0 - 12- ltlfl�slsl 11 - I.E1G11 J ON and ASSOCIA7ES LEIGHTON a.d ASSOCIATES �w,.ownowwieo rr r rr r rr r r r r rr rr r r r■i rr rr rr �■r rr 1840474-01 TABLE 2. CHECKLIST OF GEOTECHNICAL HAZARDS AND POTENr1Al MITIGATION MEASURES (MODIFIED FROM COWS NOTE 46) Mitigation of the potentially damaging effects of seismic ground shaking is usually accomplished by the design and construction of the proposed residential structures In conformance with the latest(1982)Uniform Building Code (UBC),applicable_ for G E O L O G I C P R O B L E M S DEGREE OF HAZARD POSSIBLE MITIGATION MEASURES Seismic Zone 4. Grading in accordance with the current code requirements should OR PROBLEM provide adequate densification of those relatively minor alluvial soil deposits which C> might tend to amplify certain types of seismic motion. PROBLEM ACTIVITY CAUSING PROBLEM N §=4 S.4 Liquefaction and Other Related Secondary Seismic Hazards FAULT MOYIM:NT X X X Secondary earthquake hazards,such as liquefaction,seismically induced settlement and ground lurching are generally associated with high intensities of ground shaking, LIQUEFACTION X X X J. shallow ground water conditions, and the presence of loose sandy soils or alluvial IANDSI.M-rS X X X deposits. Since most of the site is underlain by semiconsol i dated terrace deposits DIFFERENTIAL COMPACTION/ and the ground water table is believed to be generally deeper than 50 feet below the EARTHQUAKE mesas, the hazard potential appears to be slight. The canyons appear t6 have more SEISMIC SETTLEMENT X X X unconsolidated alluvial deposits and a shallower ground water table; consequently, DAMAGE 6RDOA'D RuPnmE (lurching) X X X - the hazard potential may be moderate In those areas. GROUND SAAING X X - A subsurface geotechnical investigation (normally required prior to approval of TSUNAMI X N/A development plans)would be necessary to better evaluate the hazard potential and SEICHES X X N/A to recommend the appropriate mitigation measures. FUMING (DAN OR LEVEE FAILURE) X N/A 5.5 Settlement and Expansive Soil LOSS OF ACCESS X X X - In general,the foundation bearing capacity of the formations underlying the mesa is LOSS OF relatively predictable and favorable. Settlement of structures built on natural DEPOSITS COVERED BY CHANGED ground(cut areas)or on properly placed and compacted fills,therefore,is expected MINERAL LAND USE X X X to be negligible. Some clay soils(probably moderately to highly expansive)appear RESOURCES �I to underlie the northeast corner of the property and some peat deposits(susceptible _ONIIIG RESTRICTIONS X X to collapse)a p ppear to underlie the earthen central canyon area. Generally, they should not pose a significant development constraint if they are recognized and WASTE CH&WE IN GROUNDWATER LEVEL X X X properly mitigated. DISPOSAL DISPOSAL OF EXCAVATED MATERIAL* X X X A more detailed analysis of;the onsife soils Is recommended, although standard PERCOLATION OF WASTE MATERIAL* grading techniques and conformance with current PROBLEMS - X X.? X 9 9 ues q grading requirements are antici- pated to satisfactorily mitigate these hazards. Expanssve soils can be readily SLOPE AND/OR LANDSLIDES AND NUDFLOWS X X mitigated by appropriate foundation design,and compressible soils can be removed UNSTABLE CUT AND FILM.SLOPES X X X prior to fill placement. FOUNDATION COLLAPSIBLE AND EXPANSIVE SOIL X X INSTABILITY ------ 5.6 Lime Deposit Deposit Dismal - TRENCH-WALL SIABI LITY X X X ' EROSION. Although existing tests on the sugar processing waste deposits confirm they are rROSION OF GRADED AREAS X X X _ largely lime (Reference 23), the presence of hazardous chemicals or constituents SEDIMENTA- ALTERATION OF RUNOFF X X X (Other than their unsuitability for plants) apparently was not ruled out. Their T ION, UNPROTr:RED OAAIHAGE WAYS X X X incorporation into earth fills as part of the development grading, however, is probably feasible, based on recent practices involving similar materials elsewhere, FLOODING INCREASED IMPERVIOUS SURFACES and X X - and subject to favorable laboratory tests confirming the absence of hazardous chemicals. The addition of soil amendments to counteract the relatively high pl-1 of EXTRACTION OF GROUNDA'AIER,CAS, - the deposits would probably be necessary if the fill containing them is to serve as a LAND planting medium. OIL,ULUIIIERW\L ENERGY X SUBSIDENCE HTOROCOMPAr.TIM. PEAT UXIDATION X X X VOLCANIC LAVA Flnr X N/A 14 HAZARDS ASH FAIL X N/A I SPECIAL WORK"CAN INCLUDE ADDITIONAL INVESTIGATItlL SPECIAL SITE PRLPAIATION,OR Sff.CIAL FOUII1IAT11TIS. LEIGHTON And ASSOCIATES ..C..PowwTco *Includes lime deposits from Sugar processing and oil drilling or processing waste materials Should further testing determine that hazardous chemicals are present, the lime deposits would most likely require their removal to a suitable disposal site. 6.0 Oil Field Hazards and Constraints 5.7 Slope Instability 6.0.1 General. Mechanical failures, accidents, or earth movements resulting in rupturing of well pipelines or tanks are always a possibility within an oil Ladsliding or other similar slope stability problems have not been, and are not field. Such breaks could lead to spills of petroleum products and leakage of expected to be,a significant development constraint. The natural slopes along the water,steam or gases,resulting in hazard from fumes,fire and pollution. canyon areas will require further analysis to confirm the generally favorable With appropriate tandli techniques, y. conditions anticipated. Standard safety practices, monitoring, adequate rrepai s and maintenance, There may be a potential for failure of trench walls and/or steep temporary slopes and contingency plans should adequately mitigate the potential hazards made during construction. Such hazards may be satisfactorily mitigated by related to active oil field operations. The possible existence of old buried observing standard construction regulations and procedures. sumps, trash dumps, abandoned pipelines, and underground storage tanks, however, could be a source of ground water pollution or environmental health hazard if their presence and potential impacts are unrecognized and 5.8 Tsunamis and Seiches not appropriately mitigated. Problems from tsunamis are not expected to affect the site,considering its location and elevation. The risk of seiches(seismically induced waves in lakes or reservoirs) 6.0.2 Abandoned Oil and Water Wells. Thirteen known oil wells, seven known Is considered nil to slight. There is a remote possibility that the water level in the water wells, possibly more unrecorded welts have been abandoned on the "Sully-Miller Lake" may rise high enough (especially during the winter months) to subject property (refer to Figure 7). Producing oil wells will also be pose a threat of seiche activity along the banks of the lake but probably not to the I abandoned in the future as production is phased out. All abandoned oil wells subject property. i presumably have been, or will be required to be,plugged according to the City of Huntington Beach Oil Code and the California Division of Oil and Gas standards. The water wells must be properly abandoned according to 5.9 Erosion,Sedimentation and Flooding City of Huntington Beach Water Well Abandonment Code 1917. Any wells that may have been abandoned improperly pose the hazard of surface The hazard of flooding(producing erosion and/or sedimentation) from storm runoff seepage of oil,gases or ground water. appears to be a significant problem within the drainage channels at the site, since surface runoff from existing residential areas to the northeast and stream channel All abandoned well locations and abandonment procedures already runoff from the property to the west is presently channeled across the subject implemented should be verified through examination of records and/or field property. Inspection prior to grading. Any well which will be disturbed or exposed by grading (i.e., cuts lowering the ground elevation) must be recapped Measures to mitigate the effects of flooding are related to measures used to reduce according to the current standards. erosi d on a sedimentation. Channel improvements in the main creeks, as well as adequate outlet improvements to the north,remain the chief means to mitigate the 6.0.3 Pipelines Extensive oil, water and electric utility lines exist beneath the potentially significant impacts of stream channel flow and to protect the proposed _ structures and adjacent lands. site. Proposed grading would either expose the existing utility lines in cut areas or bury them beneath new fills. Inasmuch as the trench hackfill materials may be susceptible to settlement, appropriate mitigation measures will be necessary in any areas where the proposed grading does not remove them. All existing pipelines should be located through examination of records ad/or field exploration during the site grading. Pipelines no longer in use and the surrounding trench backfill material should be removed or the settlement potential otherwise treated by an acceptable method. If functioning lines are.to remain in use, phasing of the project should be . coordinated with abandonment of the facilities. Alternatively, pipelines could be re-routed either temporarily or permanently during the grading and construction phases of the project. I s_ _NJ I;ft _ 16- I FI�:IIT ON a.d ASSOCIATES a LEIGHTON and ASSOCIATES v.r.owvoww.cn .wcow�owwYeo �a as a� a� as a� as as r a as a■� as as as �a as �a a� ILL- --- I�I , + 4N4m NSTtN� \\ NIMfRV.• Y __•____•___ -_�_ ...._ ..... .... • ...._ .... ..... . —__•_ _._• y '• N4NN A Gal ..`4 '--- ;�� '-.• --NTINGTON S - — — _ ITE Zi ,' .. •O,� BC t� . tl --- ....... - 9y` '•.A CIO M1NT1NGT0 .1 `.bt•�� •�'� N(SIPoRT Y(31�" _ �" 4;�(„. SEAL \ tidy Wo•vi� t. LEGEND •�a't�..N N•u a aril 4..:MI1 � ••OaL�: .fWR,'. 5:..:�:�. ��:. �� .. NE70 TN 77s- 7-7 REGIONAL GEOLOGIC MAP 0 2 ■ '/� ..............«.«..... ......«o SCALE: 1'•2 MILES 1840474-01 FIGURE 2 A Vicinity of SubIbet Property q' I I MUNTINGTON BEACH MESA SANTA ANA CAP b e 5 BOL3A GAP ------------- -____-_r :.:%�:_�'.':'•�:i• tOm- 'tom tom- I .am- .aav Rw -sow 0 •YM • VwOW•faM N tR1M I10Nmnitl•CW ' GEOLOGIC CROSS SECTION 1840474-01 ' FIGURE 3 6.0.4 Sumps. Oil and waste water sumps and other types of waste disposal sites are known to exist on the subject property. Such known and presently 18404T4 O1 FIGURE E unrecognized old sumps or buried disposal pits could he significant soil constraints and environmental hazards because of the unsuitable and possibly toxic materials they may contain. A review of all available records should be carried out prior to any grading /at the site. All readily verified existing oil and tar sumps and any related deposits containing hazardous wastes should be removed prior to or during site grading. The waste water sump and all suspected dumps or sumps should be evaluated by means of a subsurface investigation. We understand " that the California State Department of Health has made an initial Inspection of the subject site for potentially hazardous waste deposits and „ez will be conducting a more detailed examination and possibly a field exploration and sampling investigation in late 1984 or early 1985 (Michael Pardee,personal communication). ` 'i`•��' y I SUBJECT PROPERTY k. INDEX MAP SHOWING, FAULT LOCATIONS ` Lam`. FEET_ /I K.PEAIFSI S1WACE"TM PoWMEw 4CPY W.Ma EV AMA OF [LISP �. —eml)'ACE of rml J r 'H'00'i01f1 Q11NCFe1NPr AS b"GIEWF OP EFIMLON OF MI1 _ 17_ `- -n� I _ From: Huntington Beach. Seismic Safety Element. 1974. LFIG"10N and ASSOCIATES a GEOTECHNICAL MAP OF HOLLY PLANNED COMMUNITY PROPERTY 1840474-01 AI\ MAJOR REGIONAL FAULTS AND EARTHQUAKE EPICENTERS , 1 7 :. 7 yJ Of ;' + x % x + At + y Tf f t of -.. ���\. \ .-.. it :4.:� x x x x x k v At x \ Tr, ) ,� + x + ' * x kx 01—77 x x Al'1 Oel '��• ' Oel , , x x x \�tx . x \ ..�,~-_�.) � _ X x x x \` \,\ 001 Ot x x x x x 1 xx 1 _ x,e ,x x \�x +x x 'x %xX,x + x— xI + l5 Col 1 ..._ _�_ - - % 1 % "I ,� xCx�lr x x x %,�y x .i �K / T I x x K % x x Act$ \ x x xx x :r----— �° x + 7s i ,_ ...;� .�.- _ ►'1/ _ xx \BIG PIN 8'IN x X xg=NTA x x x x 0 NEVicinity of - --.-.- _: i�. x x x Old Oil Sump J x a xk SITE x \�i %X 19t% Iv (USGS.1949 x x xx x x \ '� % x Ouad Sheet) O1 x xx XX # x Xt x r0 Xx x X% .x R x p_ 1, \ x -e- 1 Former site ol: 1l Old We sls x % �y'�� c * rl u SCale:111425' :} water sumo 121 1 *�� 9\ + x x, I x u Y x xle� % _ 1 x% i' x x.o0 1 x x- -x x x x X_x x�xx 0 so 100m1 x _ x x k % xx x xx x x X� x,x x LEGEND =�_ _-_-"'- ,¢ x��� r.,� x 'j�vs� 32 0 50 100 1501tm 1 9 X V-,Y ;3i ', x Surlicial Units Symbols (MINTER S'ftvs X x # x z� x�x ► %% 1n�55 x x % Y, e xY.y� p 6 x x X X )000( 0000( AI Major Fill Areas (Smaller lips not shown) Contact q c x x_ x x _ Ile 117 ��If __x x its >�00(xX At Lime Deposits - x 'a x xx xx>o(xx x of Oil and Tar Deposits (More may occur than shown on map) Col Colluvium 193: IIIROUCM 1972. EVENTS EQUAL OR GRERTEn IIIRII HAGN11UOF-4 el Alluvium Itf_LhUJdI(_I1I�/i�� t]t Terrace Deposits ...... FIGURE 5 1840474-01 FIGURE 4 . Al o I I _ I a o �.!'I.- a � j I his E • o 'P, ' /...' i e + 7 G 3 h 1•.'fry a'.!. l !! 1 0. r TI 7T (' • ...i- pp SS � rit r. Lon l. _ .o , 1 aj jr �i4 S�tierc.. f; �/>. � 1 c � _ l) 'r •' y nI �" 11 - s All/� - r.--1•w� / 1.._. a Or J //�� _ ;��-.��+� ��I t� _���.�•O� l �t-I '.J` ,1 .ill as 1=i • r ] , c":_.:-: i 7-r ✓fr � � "�1��� YI'/ -ti� ; ' � _ram+•.. I �,5-mot•��� .£�.. ..a� i- I ' •� I I �• C'r.=n.l I_� �]r u�.' oY/6ol/hY• Ill «•slola ELLIS AVE. Ll --------'----- - *I ar C. rw•ri ' •` SUBJECT PROPERTY •• • 1 -IIMM..r�r I. ( IW.rV•M�r.►+Mir• • ray, M 2 ......"., �r • -�_c•m LEGEND !: •,! !, •i7 • • Producing Oil Well • �'�;' O t Abandoned-Oil Well'"•, •7 + Abandoned-Dry Hole P1;- -�• •••W+ r��,� " • O Approximate Location of Old Water Well -- O *'- • (After Sinnott, A and Poland. J.F., 1959, •� !, rnF..x...> + and Bob Allen, H.B. Water Department. Ni OPT • ' '""Y; "'a "` Personal Communication) •7 ,. ,may r. ; a. OP5 6 cr ° OP 3 • '•ice;' -+.,...- .. i— -��—�'�1\r,w,r,�.�•i rry � ..ro ' r•- dl •'� •t �„ �� Base Map Modified From: /// Div.of 011 and Gas `�a I •..•... :'•�.._..w lb ' .c::p.w.. ".�../l,r�n, Map Shoot 136. -� ;� .�"II L•....�a„ �� �I M �.�r.+1 r Huntington Beeeh Oil Fisld, IF'�'�=�, w..•.r.�I•.��.��. �T..,.,,,.,,,,_ I�• .P .. �•ef; Dated Oct.30.19 2 0 500 1000 1840474-01 FIGURE 7 OIL WELL AND WATER WELL LOCATION MAP rr r rr rr r rr r■� r� rr rr r a. �r rr rr r rr ■r it 1840474-01 13. , 1983, Geotechnical environmental assessment study for Alamitos Land APPENDIX A Company Development,Cities of Signal Hill and Long Beach,California, REFERENCES Project No. 1800650-01,dated June 10, 1983. 14. , 1984, Focused geotechnical environmental impact assessment report, proposed Mesa Verde Apartment project,Adams Avenue and Mesa Verde I. Barrows, A.G., 1974, A review of the geology and earthquake history of the Drive East, Costa Mesa, California, Project No. 1840333-01, dated Newport-Inglewood structural zone, southern California: California April 19, 1984. Division of Mines and Geology,Special Report 114, 115 p. 15. Morton, P.K., Miller, R.V., and Fife, D.L., 1973, Preliminary geo-environmental 2. California Department of Water Resources, 1966, Santa Ana gap salinity barrier, maps of Orange County, California: California Division of Mines and Orange County: Department of Water Resources Bulletin 147-1, 178 p. Geology,Preliminary Report 15. 3. , 1967, Progress report on ground water geology of the Coastal Plain of 16. Morton, P.K., Miller, R.V., and Evans, J.R., 1976, Environmental geology of Orange County, Southern District: California Department of Water Orange County, California: California Division of Mines and Geology, Resources,dated July 1967, 138 p. Open-File Report 79-8LA,474 p. 4. California Division of Oil and Gas, 1958, Huntington Beach Oil Field: Summary of 17. Munger, A.H.,ed., 1967t Munger map book,California Oil and Gas fields,eleventh Operations,v.44,no. I,pp. 13-25. edition,April 1967. 5. 1982, Huntington Beach oil field map, Orange County, Map 134, dated 18. Orange County Water District, 1984, 1982-83 Engineers report on ground water October 30, 1982. conditions,water supply and basin utilization,dated February 8, 1984. 6. Hart, E.W., 1980, Fault-rupture hazard zones in California, Alquist-Priolo Special 19. Piper,A.M.and Garrett,A.A., 1953,Native and contaminated ground waters in the Studies Zones Act of 1972, with index to Special Studies Zones Maps: Long Beach-Santa Ana area,California: U.S.Geological Survey'hater California Division of Mines and Geology,Special Publication 42,revised Supply Paper 1136. March 1980. 20. Ploessel,M.R.,and Slosson, J.E., 1974,Repeatable,high ground accelerations from 7. Hilemon, J.A., Allen,C.R., and Nordquist, J.M., 1973,Seismicity of the southern earthquakes - important design criteria: California Geology, v.27, California region, 1 January 1932 to 31 December 1972: Seismological pp. 195-199. Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California, Contribution 2385. 21. Poland, J.F., and Piper, A.M., 1956, Ground water geology of the coastal zone, 8. Joint Committee on Seismic Safety, 1974 Meeting the earthquake challenge(Final Long Beach - Santa Ana, California: U.S. Geological Survey Water , n9 qu 9 Supply Paper 1109: report to the Legislature, State of California): California Division of Mines and Geology,Special Publication 45. 22. Poland,J.F., 1959,Hydrology of the Long Beach-Santa Ana area,California: U.S. 9. Lamar, D.L., Merifield, P.M., and Proctor, R.J., 1973, Earthquake recurrence Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 1471. Intervals on major faults in southern California,in Moran,D.F_.,Slosson, 23. Soil and Plant Laboratory, Inc., 1977,Sugar beet waste report,dated December 5, J.E., Stone, R.O., and Yelverton, C.A., editors, Geology, seismicity, 1977,Lab No. 1225.' and environmental impact: Association of Engineering Geologists, special publication. 24. Sprotte, E.C., et al., 1980,Classification and mapping of Ouaternary sedimentary Association of Engineering Geologists, deposits for purposes of seismic zonation, south coastal Los Angeles 10. Leeds,D.J., 1973,The design earthquake: in _ Basin, Orange County, California: California Division of Mines and special publication,pp.337-347. Geology,open-file report 80-19 LA. 11. Leighton and Associates, Inc., 1973, Geotechnicol inputs, seismic safety element, 25. Wachtell, J.K., 1978, Soil survey of Orange and western part of Riverside County, City of Huntington Beach: Project No. 73154,dated Septeinher 28, 1973. California: U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service and Forest Service, 149 p. 12. 1981, Geotechnicol environmental impact analysis report (final drnft), Binning-Newport Ranch, Orange County, Californin, Project 26. Woodward-Clyde Consultants, 1979, Report of the evaluation of maximum earth- No. 180562-02,dated March 30, 1981. quake and site ground motion parameters associated with the offshore zone of deformation,San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station: consultant report dated June 1979. A-i A-ii AERIAL PHOTOS Dote Fli t Photo Nos. Scale Source 2/25/00 80033 169, 170 1"=2000, American Aerial Survey PERSONS CONTACTED. I. City of Huntington Beach Tom Show,Oil Inspector,Fire Department (714)536-541 1 Ulrich_Stenziel,Public Works (714)536-5431 Donald Kiser,Division Engineer,City Yard (714)848-0600 Bob Allen,Water Department (714)536-5610 Les Evans,City Engineer (714)536-5435 Charles Clark,Planning (714)536-5271 2. California Division of Mines and Geology Russell Miller,Geologist (714)558-4187 David Fuller,Geologist (213)620-3560 3. California Division of Oil and Gas Ed Brannon,Enhancement Oil Recovery Engineer (213)590-5311 4. California State Department of Health/Toxics Michael Pardee (213)620-4812 5. Holly Sugar Company Lou Orlenes (303)471-0123 6. Huntington Beach Company Rick Sailor (714)960-4351 Bill Holman (714)960-4351 7. Chevron Oil Company Larry McComish (213)694-7570 8. Birtcher Pacific Jess Dawson,Superintendent (714)831-8031 9. Orange County Water District Mr.Riley (714)963-5661 A-iii r �r it �r ri ri r■� a■i rE r r r � r r r r i r APPENDIX D HYDROLOGY STUDY r Irvine Civil Engineering 314n RcJ Bill Acc•Suite 1I11).(•oaa Aida,CA 9206 Ph.l?IJ1 611-8641 Ms.Beverly Bruesch September 4,1984 Page 2 September 4,1984 The existing 33"pipe culvert under Ellis Avenue is not adequate in size to freely pass Michael Brendman Associates Inc. the expected runoff eontributary to that point and unless retention of runoff in the greenbelts southerly of Ellis' Avenue is proposed that culvert will require 3140 Red Hill Avenue,Suite 200 replacement by a substantially larger structure. Costa Mesa,California 92626 This Is intended as very preliminary in lieu of more detailed drainage proposals.** Attn: Beverly Bruesch At such time as those proposals are submitted I would be happy to provide assistance in comparing them to the analysis described'above. Re: Holly Property EIR,City of Huntington Beach Dear Ms.Bruesch: Best wishes, � a�� • This Is in response to your request for a preliminary drainage analysis for the subject I property concept plan. III*plan covers a 120.3-acre parcel which is mainly grassy Dennis D.Nelson hills and gullies bounded on the north by Ellis Avenue,on the east by the southern Principal Pacific Railroad, on the south by Garfield and on the west by Goldenwest Street. There exists a 33-inch diameter pipe culvert under Ellis Avenue from which the DDN/jr majority of the site runoff flows northerly to Sully-Miller Lake. Approximately 7.6 acres of the site drains to Garfield. The site is in drainage district number 9. In 1979 L.D. King h Associates prepared a master drainage plan for the City of Huntington Beach. A portion of that study includes the subject property. That study concludes that the runoff due to a 25-year storm to Sully-Miller Lake totals 533 c.f.s. Approximately 149.0 c.f.s is contributed by the Holly property In Its present undeveloped state. As a result of the development as proposed by the concept plan this runoff will Increase by approximately 16 c.fs.to 165 c.f.s. This increase is based upon a number of assumptions including the locetiore of[afore stormdraire. R was not evident on the concept plan how the existing 284 c.fs. entering the subject property from easterly of the Southern Pacific Railroad right- of-way would be carried through the site. If this were to be carried in the large greenbelts near Ellis it would need to be analyzed for Its impact on the water surface In the vicinity of the adjacent building pads. The Sully-Miller Lake acts as a retention devise which stores runoff in excess of 61 c.fs. City of Huntington Beach Assistant Civil Engineer William Patapoff stated that the 36"culvert which drains the 61 c.f.s previously mentioned is silted closed at this time so that no runoff passes the lake at this time. The retained water percolates over the dry periods. This condition,of course,would not be acceptable should the subject property be developed. Ile further stated that to his knowledge no engineering studies have been performed which would analyze the storm retention capabilities of the lake,in conjunction to the proposed project.* •• The above described comparisons only address the Increase in runoff from the • proposed site. It does not address the impacts to this runoff by off-site water A study titled "Sully-Miller Lake - An Assessment and Development Plan"was entering the site from the east and west. More complete drainage analyses will be prepared by J. Harlan Glen and Associates in October of 1980. This study does necessary in order to precisely define the drainage implications of the subject discuss the existing retention capabilities of the lake. project. .12 i -.4 ' 3t FACILITY NO 8 NAME r E Calculi fed by DD^ Date 9/Z8 B t ro Checked by / Oate N 29,ie4 x ConcentrationSoil Land ft tc F t ld' Discharge Flow P�fh Slope Hydraulics and -4 Point Description No. Group Us min min in/M ^ e L ny h ft/ff ft/see Notes j 6v z w, o�&A/,.,,./ ,4 7 G 7 6 1� ,t1,c /4 g z Z.2/ V,g2G r s,-4de0C�.{4.4 840' E =3.A /,1ifr'o'/Ar,� m �.61Y�'n'/laarK,,e al S.7 57 D /v1.F. /4.0 Z.ZG .&7 /0.7 /0.7 0iv°,7 5/.io•rNCxt>r•si �Jt /320� .0/92 4.d�u. S/=60' ,,e= 3.0 x BZ l.4 7 / D 44- /9.S zs /d l $zZ Z./ /2 8 c i 53 /?-1 /2.3 D MF. /5.8 zs z/3 82T ?/-6 Z/.G /•8 35,0 .0/23 3•z 51:40','4: Z Flow B4 / a O 9 /,3.Z (7 MF /7,6 7.0 V .8z4 /•S ZJ.l x o/ da a/Tc4 05 3 / /6.3 D M.F /7G S Zo &4 5/ 282 p, w r '• o.�/o/ rn Sf F/o Z 7 7S0 .OZ44 4 7 0. Sf 7�', A BG /•G /7.9 D M.F. Zo.3 zS /8S ✓1.823 ?.4 30.6 n l ,,E S&- e T 57 /56 33.5 D M.F 20.3 Z /-85 v .St3 Z3.8 54.4 p r S! Flow 8B /6 7 50.2 D M•r 20.7 /84 .SZZ Z5•Z 79.G i5o pd44 S7 5/=ao' d•9.G to/39a6/0 a9 I z ' Ll Sa. r i a 3/a , 9 lo./ !� M M.7 f /8d .8zz /SO 9'.6 a N I / Oav=. n•..�zs = at 3 S /000 oo-7 4.7 E//, // S7 LS S D MP 24.7 21 / 7oId 8zo 7.9 /02.5 �I /000 ab=/3-7 C/ /?o /2•o D 14' /2/ 7,2.S3 .8Z9 ZS.4 ZSd �, c/ Z Sa .0/ 3.4 5,.,4e' a,g.7 of sQ�^e T CZ / 9 13•9 D MF l7.1 a 25SId 8Z9 4.0 Z9.4 u, q.,:3a.r r=:33 /•Z 4Go .0/84 16 C3 3 3 /7•Z D MF 13.3 ?35 v .8z7 6.4 Jr..a SI.4o' A= g 3 I 1 1 /-7 C4 A/ 28.3 D M.f /so=s 2.18 v .825 Zo•O SS8 -7.. w/C4 "S" /az 38.5 !) /y.F /Se is 2./8 -f W /83 7�_l r� (� ' � C�S•^• c r:75 I a:ors I z5 Z oS 3S0 006 3.0 6: d NF. G.9 .323 Z 2 7G•3 ':AGILITY NO 8 NAME .ro 777 ' Calculated by Date 9 288 - - Checked by 0.A/ Date D ' Concentration Soil Land ft fc F t c Disch rqe FlowPalh Slope V Hydraulics and iPoint Description No. Group Use min met in' ^ A Lin t ft/ft ft/see Notes Z 1 arm c165. 24.2 /i•S8 r I� x O + O '� N A � D rn n D ' 0 z m ' x m m � f 1 , r 4 R IN IN c �' d� fl49Q o n �- --.� fll?99Q9flfld9flQaQ �7 j �d dC�r741. G,-dde76a4da�, �,a- :Ip' poi � _• =r�� .ap_�1flQfl�flo: _s �.� aaDa�aaabaat�.�r �pp40 Opdpf Sb'` ' - !'C1C199Q9fl�,'419CIfl[7.' 1 �aPado�aUddaada�.i��,;c� - •. =?i1�}�-9,y�;^o;^`�� .�j. `-�� , I �a: �aoaaaadd flalogQ '� Jp ao _.g a rrr. I,.rs.ou W.IA e.o.F. ow.u.a vo su a. e bor..yr.naura rro rra Y �iijZrf � "".-- 1' j i c rrtr.ar ra.war rn ru w .: .iL� ro.,.rim rwo lu i a 14 ....-- _,_ WcsyT RAN 1 HOLLY PLANNED COMM Nrrlr HOLLY PROPERLY HUNTINGTON BEACH COMPANY •'.r`~• n •_.► _ _ -spa t.G �, �.-..,f-..:,._:� , - n � � _ _— _ - i•v R C -`J-- mow;• _ VEdW. Aw NYOQdLOGY M40 _ � •I ' MWIS OO STATE) i-7 -I, TM i 1 1 1 1 APPENDIX E ' FLORAL AND FAUNAL COMPENDIA 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 TABLE 1 DICOTYLEDONAE FLORAL COMPENDIUM(al ACERACEAE-MAPLE FAMILY AG HR LO EG LEGEND • CerpobrI edulls o - f - VIM. HABITAT(bl • Gasoul crystallinum o - - - AG-Annual Grassland ice plant HR-Herbaceous Riparian LO-Landscaped Ornamental AMARANTHACEAE-AMARANTH FAMILY EG-Eucalyptus Grove • Amaranthus albus I ABUNDANCE(cl tum6 nng p gweed c -common f -frequent APIACEAE-CARROT FAMILY. o -occasional I -infrequent • Foeniculum vulgare f f - - sweetlennel STATUS . • Non-native APOCYNACEAE-DOGBANE FAMILY • Nerium oleander - - O - oleander ASTERACEAE-SUNFLOWER FAMILY Ambrosia psilosteehya c - - - i western ragweed _ - - Bacepris emor i memory baccharis Baccharis lutg inosa - o mulefat Carduus pyenocephalus i - - - Italian thistle • Centaurea melitensis c - - - tocalote Cirsium sp. I - - - (al This Is not intended as an exhaustive listing of the vegetation occurring thistle on the site; some annual herbs or very uncommon species may not have • Conyza canadensis - - - been detected by the field survey. ' f horseweed (bl Indicates habitat types (plant communities) in which species most commonly occurs;species may occur in limited numbers or localities in Corethrogyne flWnifolia i - - - other communities. cudweed aster (cl This is simply a gross indication of relative frequency of occurrence on • the site. Quantitative sampling methods were not employed to arrive at Cotulr u tto coronopi[olia o - - - these determinations. bnssfins ASTERACFAE-SUNFLOWER FAMILY(continued) AC HR LO EC CHF.NOPODIACEAE-GOOSEFOOT FAMILY AG HR LO EG at ul - [ - - Gnaphalium beneolens o - - - Atriplex spear saltbush fragrant everlasting Gnaphallum chilense i - - - ' Atriplex Austrasem[blian altb [ o - - Austrelien saltbush cotton batting plant • Bessie h�sso it�olla o f - - Helianthus annuus f f - - — veZ led bassis common sunflower • Beta vulgaris o o - - HemizonIa sp. o - - - sugar beet tarweed Heterothece�rendif�lora o - - _ ' Cheno ium ambrosioldes - I - - telegraph w—eel • Salsola iberica f o - - • Lactucn serriola I - - - Russian-thistle prickly lettuce • Picris echioides o o - - bristly ox-tongue EUPHORBIACF,AE-SPURGE FAMILY ' Sonchus asper i - - - • Ricinus communis - prickly sow-thistle castor-bean • Sonchus oleraceus o - - - common sow-thistle • Xanthium spinosum I I - - LAMIACEAE-MINT FAMILY spiny clotbur • Marrubium vulzare - • Xanthium strumarium o f - - horehound cocklebur MALVACEAE-MALLOW FAMILY BORAGINACEAE-BORAGE FAMILY Side Imo_ I - - - Heliotropium curassavicum ) - - - alkali-mallow salt heliotrope MORACF.AE-MULBERRY FAMILY BRASSICACEAE-MUSTARD FAMILY • Ficus carica - - I - • Brassica geniculata f o - - fIg short-podded mustard • Brassica nib f - - - MYOPORACEAE-MYOPORUM FAMILY Mate mustard • Raphanus sativus f - - - • Myoporum laetum - - o - wild radish myoporum • Sisymbrium altissimum I - - - tumbling-mustard MYRTACF.AE-MYRTLE FAMILY • Eucalyptus comaldulensis - - - c red gum • Eucalyptus rudis - - - i e�gum � ■a�' �r aar �a of r� �aa � a� a ra as �a� � �� �a � � OLEACEAE-OLIVE FAMILY AG HR LO EG PALM ACEAE-PALM FAMILY AG HR LO EG • Olea europeea - - i _ • Phoenix canarlensis - - i - common olive Canary 1an date palm ' • Washingtonia filifera - - i - California fan palm POLYGONACEAE-BUCKWHEAT FAMILY I , • Rumex crrispus f o - - POACF.AE-GRASS FAMILY curly dock • Avena barbata f - - - slender wild oat SALICACEAE-WILLOW FAMILY ' Avena fetus f o 0 0 Sallx gooddingii _ i _ _ common wild oat black willow • Bromus diandrus Sallx lasiole is _ _ ! ripgutgrass arroyo willow ' Bromus mollis i - - - i —soIfT SOLANACEAE-NIGHTSHADE FAMILY i • Bromus rubere c o o - red ' Nicotiana lauca o f - - I • Cortaderia atacamensis - tree tobacco pampas grass • Cynodon dactylon c f c i AGAVACEAE-AGAVE FAMILY bermudagrass Distichlis sspicata f c o - • Yucca aloifolia - - I ass Spanish bayonet Leptochloa uninervia - i - - sprangletop ALISMATACEAE-WATER-PLANTAIN FAMILY • Lolium r enne multitlorum' c f - - Hall.!n ryegrass Sa ii tari�a calycina_ - i - - CaliLornia arrow-head • Paspalum dilatatum - i - - dallas grass • P�oly22M mops_ liensis f f - f - CYPERACEAB-SEDGE FAMILY rabbit's-oo t grass Scirpus olneyi _ o _ _ ' Vulpie megalura c o o - olney bulrush foxtail fescue Scirpus validus - o - - softstemmed bulrush TYPHACF.AF.-CAT-TAIL FAMILY Typha sp. - o - - LEMNACEAE-DUCKWEED FAMILY eattail Lemna sp. - o - - duckweed TABLE 2 AMPHIBIANS FAUNAL COMPENDIUM tal CAUDATA-SALAMANDERS LEGEND Batrachoseps major garden slender salamander + Presence noted by direct sighting, can identification or observation of tracks, scat or other signs. SALIF.NTIA-FROGS AND TOADS • Non-native Buto boreas western toad Hyla r Ba ac is Ueetrog I REPTILES ! SQUAMATA-LIZARDS AND SNAKES Seeloporus oceidentalls western e—T n�zard Uta stansburiana side-blotched lizard Gerrhonotus multicarinatus southern a�=zard Cnemidophorus tigris western whiptall Coluber constrictor racer Lampropeltis getulus common Oiji0ce + MM�as�tic��oo h�is�flee. Bum c..c h Pituophis melanoleucus gopher snake Crotalus viridis western ra►tlesnake [a] List includes species observed or expected to occur on or in the immediate vicinity of the site. Note: Only breeding and overwintering birrtc are listed. Migrants and vagrants are not included. fM OM MO NS M M ' mom MO MM am 1M. MM M: MM � BIRDS PICIFORMES-WOODPECKERS AND ALLIES i uratus FALCONIFORMES-VULTURES,HAWKS,OSPREYS AND FALCONS Colanorthern flicker Accipiter striates sharp-sh ennd hawk PASSERIFORMES-PERCHING BIRDS AcclNer coo aril CoopewK Sa_ oy rnis says omalcsi Say's phoebe Suter j-toile ha + Sa ornis ni iaans red-tailed hawk ac p e e + Falco s ar c_a_n_ M tarchus cineraseere —Americen kestrel _�_�_ a h roated matcher + Aphelocoma coerulescens GALLIFORMES-GALLINACEOUS BIRDS sera ay Cellipe la californica + Corvus brachyrhynchos California quail American crow + Psaltri arusarus minimus bushtit CHARADRHFORMES-SHOREBIRDS Thres bewlekii Charadrius vociferus �wic s wren kr Regulus calendula ruhy-crowned kinglet COLUMBIFORMES-PIGEONS AND DOVES Catharus ttatus —��m t_t1Wu_sE •+ Columbia Iivia + Mimus 1 lottos rock dove(domestic pigeon) northern mockingbird •+ StreptapeHa chinensis Bombycilla cedrorum spotted dove cedar waxwing + Zenaida macroura + Laniusludovictanus mourning dove loogger ea s ke '+ Sturnus vulgaris STRIGIFORMES-OWLS European starling Vermivora celata Tyto alba orange-crowned warbler common barn-owl Dendroica coronata yellow-rumped warbler APODIFORMES-SWIFTS AND HUMMINGBIRDS + .Pi ilo fuscus TrownTowhee ' Calypte anna Anna's hummingbird + Melospize melodia song sparrow Zonotrichia leuueo �hr white-crowned Junco hyemalis dnrk-eyed junco PASSERIFORMES-PERCHING BIRDS(cont'd) + A eQ laius phoeniceus RODENTIA-GNAWING MAMMALS red-winged blackbird Spermophilus beecheyi Sturnella_n l�ecta California ground squirrel western meowlark Thom umbrinus Euphagus cyanocephalus sou ern�ef gopher Brewer's blackbird Reithrodontomys megalotis Molothrus ater western harvest mouse brown-headed cowbird Peromyscus maniculatus leterus alg bula deer mouse northern oriole • Rattus norvegicus + Carpodacus mexicanus Norway rat house finch • Mus musculus + Carduells tristis house mouse Kmer cT an goldfinch Carduelis psaltria LAGOMORPHA-HARES AND RABBITS lesser goldfinch *+ Passer domesticus Lepus californicus house sparrow 61ack-ta ed ackrabbit + Sylvilagus audubonii MAMMALS Audubon cottontail MARSUPIALLA-POUCHED MAMMALS Didelphis virginiana Virginia opossum CHIROPTERA-BATS Myotis californica California myotis N cy teris cinerea red bat CARNIVORA-FLESH-EATERS Mustela frenata long-tailed weasel Spilogale rg acilis spotted skunk Mephitis mephitis striped skunk Canis latrans coyote APPENDIX F ARCHAEOLOGY-STUDY' j t 1 1 1 .. im, " Now M M M M *am *a m " fie: r it RECEIVED l,UG 2 1984 INTRODUCTION ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCE ASSESSMENT FOR THE HOLLY PLANNED COMMUNITY, HUNTINGTON BEACH GPA 84-1, HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA An archaeological resource assessment, consisting of a re- cords search and an in-field survey, was conducted for a 120 +/- acre parcel located within the City of Huntington Beach, Califor- nia. The study was performed by Marie Cottrell and Kathleen Del Chario of Archaeological Resource Management Corporation (ARMC) by at the request of Michael Brandman Associates, the consultant preparing the Environmental Impact Report for the subject proper- Kathleen Del Chario ty. The purpose of the survey, undertaken in accordance with 6 current state environmental law, was to locate, identify, and Marie Cottrell evaluate cultural resources which might be present within or adjacent to the project site and which might be impacted by the proposed development. The subject property which consists of several contiguous for parcels known collectively as the "Holly Property" is located in central Huntington Beach. It is bounded by Ellis Avenue to the Michael Brandman Associates north, the Southern Pacific Railroad and Gothard Street to the 3140 Red Hill Avenue east, Garfield and Ernest Avenues to the south, and Goldenwest Suite 200 and Crystal Streets to the west. On the U.S.G.S. Topographic Costa Mesa, California 92626 maps, 7.5' Series, Newport Beach and Seal Beach Quadrangles, the project area is found in Township 5 South, Range 11 West, in the Southwest quarter of Section 35. submitted by SETTING Archaeological Resource Management Corporation 12421 Magnolia Street, Suite 65 The project area is situated on Huntington Beach Mesa appro- Garden Grove, California 92641 ximately 2 km northeast of the present-day coastline, 2 km west of the bluffs overlooking the Santa Ana River Gap, and 1.5 km east of Bolsa Chica Gap. Huntington Beach Mesa is part of the larger Los Angeles Basin physiographic province and is one of a series of four uplifted mesas which are separated by deep drain- July 1984 age cut gaps. While for the most part flat, the project area is bisected by a stream channel that flows in a.southwesterly direc- tion across the northern part oZ the site and empties into Bolsa Chica Gap. Elevations within the project area range from 25 to 60 feet above sea level. i U A h, Both Bolsa Chica and the Santa Ana River Gaps were cut dur- IA ing Pleistocene times by drainages emanating from the mountains 1.t K -W,te, to the east and north. Rising sea levels following the retreat of the ice age inundated these gaps with salt water creating , embayments and/or estuaries. The bays/estuaries with their num- erous marine resources became ideal locations for prehistoric human settlement with the result that numerous archaeological sites are found along the rim Huntington Beach Mesa overlooking f the surrounding water systems. E vidence from archaeological sites in this area indicate JJ that the prehistoric inhabitants depended on shellfish and fish Z. resources of the bay/estuary systems for many of their food I resources. Additionally, the Grassland, Freshwater Marsh, and A5, Coastal Sage Scrub Plant Communities would have been found in the IJ area and would have provided many seed and leafy plant products w J; L hich were used as foods and medicines. With freshwater being available from tributary drainages, a bay/estuary filled with marine shellfish and fish, and useable plants being available in the surrounding plant communities, the area was highly attractive for prehistoric settlement. Cultural Setting a! Ethnographically, the project area falls within the terri- tory of the Gabrielino. The Gabrielino at the time of contact were loosely affliated bands of hunters and gatherers who came r i under the influence of the.Spanish Mission at San Garbriel. The Gabrielino prehistorically,were thought to have been one of the 0 most wealthy, populous, and powerful nationalities in the south- A ern California region (Bean and Smith 1978:538). Based on lin- guistic evidence the Gabrielino who speak a Takic language enter- ed the Los Angeles Basin sometime prior to A.D. 500 displacing the indigenous Hokan-speaking population. G:brielinomaterial culture was typified by the use of manos metate , mortars, pestles, basketry, shell fishhooks, and orna- ments, bows and arrows, and a wide variety of chipped stone tools such as knives, drills, and scrapers. Gabrielino settlement in the coastal area was fairly sedentary with village movements 00r..l occurring within a restricted area. Classified as base camps, these large settlements were probably occupied for most of the year with smaller nearby settlements representing seasonal camps &u. tore .. r.. r. fib •!� .� r� " WE weft err M mom where individual families or small groups settled during a first tradition defined by Warren, San Dieguito begin sometime portion of the year to gather localized or seasonally available before 9000 years ago and has its terminus at about 7000 years resources. ago. It is replaced by the Encinitas Tradition at about 5500 B.C. The Encinitas Tradition is thought to have terminated in Prehistorically, the southern California coastal area has the local area about 1500 B.C. being replaced by the Campbell ar been inhabited for the past 9000 years. Through time the culture Tradition. The last tradition defined for the study area is of the local inhabitants changed as adjustments were made to the the Shoshonean Tradition which begins at about A.D. 500 and environment and external forces acted upon the occupants of the terminates with the arrival of the Spanish. coast. As major changes in the prehistoric record were noted, I they were assigned a place in the chronology of the area. Two such chronologies have been prepared for the southern California RECORDS SEARCH coastal area. Wallace published in his chronology in 1955 when a limited amount of data for the coast was available. His was followed by a chronology presented by Warren in 1968. Warren was I Prior to the in-field poritnof the assessment, a records able to incorporate not only more excavation data into his paper, search was completed using maps and site records housed at ARMC. but by this time radiocarbon dates were available for a number of These records are duplicated at the Archaeological Survey, Uni- sites on the coast correcting in part the temporal placement pro- versity of California, Los Angeles, the official repository of blem which existed for the coastal area. site records for Orange County. The records search indicated that the study area had been previously survey as part of a Based primarily on stratigraphic evidence, Wallace (19551 j larger survey and inventory conducted by Archaeological Research proposed four cultural horizons which he felt represented the Incorporated for the City of Huntington Beach in 1972-3. As a changes observed in the cultural patterns along the coast. result of this study, 29 prehistoric sites. were located and Horizon I was defined As Early Man and was considered a hunting described. All sites were shell middens found to be located culture characterized by a lack of ground stone tools and with along the bluff edges on the east and west side of Huntington the presence of large crudely made points, scrapers, and biface I Beach Mesa and along the eastern bluff of Bolsa Chica Mesa. No tools. Millingstone Assemblages followed the Early Man Culture I sites were noted within or near the current project area. and are typified by the presence of large numbers of manos and metates with few projectile points. It is thought that the Millingstone Horizon Culture had a subsistence economy oriented I FIELD SURVEY AND RESULTS towards collecting and gathering rather than hunting. The Inter- mediate Cultures are characterized by large, stemmed projectile points and the introduction of the mortar and pestle. This cul- i Since the ARI survey had been completed some 12 years ago, ture has a diversified subsistence economy which may be related it was determined that a field check was in order at this time. to population growth in the basin area increasing competition Sites, over time, may become exposed by natural causes such as over resources necessitating the expansion of the subsistence I erosion, or by cultural activities such as plowing or grading. base. Lastly, the Late Prehistoric Cultures are typified by an 1 In this way, once obscured sites may become apparent at a later elaboration of both subsistence related and personal adornment I time. artifacts as well as an increase in small, triangular projectile points. The Late Prehistoric continues the trend towards inten- The field survey, which was completed on July 24, 1984, sification first observed during the Intermediate Cultures revealed that all parts of the survey area had been subject to Horizon. recent historic disturbance, primarily in the form-of oil-drill- ing activities. This disturbance included extensive dumping, Warren in 1968 with the aid of radiocarbon dates refined filling, and grading as well as dirt and paved roads, pipelines, and elaborated on Wallace's sequence using a model of culture oil wells, windbreaks, and buildings. On the southern portion of ecology and t.e concept of tradition rather than Horizon. The the study area, a sugar refinery had at one time been present and i there were signs of disturbance in this area as well. The entire property was walked by Marie Cottrell and Kath- leen Del Chario in parallel transects. During the walk-over survey, the ground surface was examined for any indication of prehistoric land use which in this area often exist in the form of lithic artifacts and debitages, soil discolorations, fire affected rocks, and shell midden concentrations. No evidence of prehistoric activities were note during the field survey. It is possible that at one time sites were present in the area, but recent disturbance may have obliterated any indicators of prehistoric habitation. It is more likely, however, that the property is too far away from the resources of the gaps and was not occupied by the aboriginal inhabitants of the area. RECOMMENDATIONS No prehistoric cultural resources were found to exist within or near the proposed Holly Planned Community, and it appears that none will be adversely impacted by proposed development. It is recommended, however, that if any remains of prehistoric origin are uncovered-during construction, a qualified archaeologist be contacted to evaluate the finds and determine appropriate miti- gation. I � � �■�r �t i� �s � �. � � � r�r �i r v � � � r 1 1 1 1 APPENDIX a TRAFFIC STUDY 1 r i i M r: Nw w Room s r r M us tol o r .N* 4W MW M W TRAFFIC.STUDY TABLE OF CONTENTS FOR HOLLY PLANNED COMMUNITY PAGE NO. IN THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH . INTRODUCTION 1 Project Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 EXISTING CONDITIONS. . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Roadway Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Existing Traffic Volumes. . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Capacity Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Public Transit. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 FUTURE CONDITIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Roadway Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Future Traffic Volumes. . . . . . . . . 11 Roadway Segment Capacity Analysis . . . . . . . . . 11 Gothard Street Realignment. . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Prepared for -- PROJECT-RELATED TRAFFIC. 15 Michael Brandman Associates 3140 Red Hill Avenue Trip Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Suite 200 Trip Distribution and Assignment. . . . . . . . . . 15 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Vehicle Miles Traveled: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 IMPACTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Roadway Capacity Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Intersection Capacity Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . 25 ACCESS AND INTERNAL CIRCULATION AND TRAFFIC CONTROL. . . 25 Access and Internal Circulation . , , , , , , . . . 25 Traffic Control . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Prepared by GOTHARD STREET REALIGNMENT CONSIDERATIONS. . . . . . . . 29 BASMACIYAN-DARNELL, INC. MITIGATION MEASURES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 4262 Campus Drive, Suite B-1 Newport Beach, CA 92660 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS. . . . . . . . . . . 32 (714)549-9940 APPENDICES: APPENDIX A - Turning Movement Counts APPENDIX B - Intersection Capacity Utilization Worksheets and Level of Service Description APPENDIX C - Traffic Signal Warrant Worksheets August 14, 1984 LIST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGURES TABLE NO. DESCRIPTION PAGE NO. FIGURE NO. DESCRIPTION PAGE NO. 1 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION AND LEVEL OF SERVICE FOR EXISTING CONDITIONS.. 6 1 VICINITY MAP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2 EXISTING CONDITIONS ROADWAY SEGMENT 2 SITE PLAN. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 CAPACITY ANALYSIS......................... 8 3 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES (1984) . . . . . . . 5 3 SUMMARY OF ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS........... 9 4 MASTER PLAN OF ARTERIAL HIGHWAYS (MPAH) . 10 4 SUMMARY OF EXISTING GENERAL PLAN - POST 1995 DAILY TRAFFIC ROADWAY SEGMENT 5 POST 1995 TRAFFIC VOLUMES. . . . . . . . . . 12 CAPACITY ANALYSIS FOR PROJECT SITE........ 13 6 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES WITH GOTHARD STREET 5 SUMMARY OF TRIP GENERATION RATES............. 16 REALIGNMENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 6 SUMMARY OF PROJECT-RELATED TRIP GENERATION... 17 7 PROJECT-RELATED TRIP DISTRIBUTION. . . . . . 18 7 SUMMARY OF ROADWAY SEGMENT CAPACITY ANALYSIS 8 PROJECT-REALTED TRAFFIC VOLUMES DAILY/AM/PM. 19 EXISTING PLUS PROJECT-RELATED TRAFFIC..... 22 9 EXISTING TRAFFIC PLUS PROJECT-REALTED 8 SUMMARY OF POST 1995 DAILY TRAFFIC ROADWAY TRAFFIC VOLUMES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 SEGMENT CAPACITY ANALYSIS................. 23 10 POST 1995 DAILY.TRAFFIC VOLUME FORECASTS 24 9 SUPtMARY OF POST 1995 DAILY TRAFFIC ROADWAY SEGMENT CAPACITY ANALYSIS................. 26 11 SITE ACCESS AND INTERNAL CIRCULATION 28 10 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION AND LEVEL OF SERVICE FOR EXISTING PLUS PROJECT-RELATED TRAFFIC.............................. . .. 27 i man im m r NEWS M tn' lm aa*, ON r an no: *r M. �r TRAFFIC STUDY I 1-407Av.enu@ Grovel Freeway FOR I HOLLY PLANNED COMMUNITY INTRODUCTION The Huntington Beach Company has requested a General Plan Amend- I ment (GPA) for approximately 120 acres of land in central Huntington Beach. Under the proposed GPA the property would be ' redesignated from estate/residential, industrial, and office professional to planned community on the City's General Plan Land Use Element. Known as the Holly Property, the area is bounded by \ Ellis Avenue to the north, Gothard Street to the east, Garfield and Ernest Avenues to the south and Goldenwest and Crystal 801" Streets to the west. Figure 1 iS a vicinity map showing the Avenue location of the project site and the surrounding roadways. The purpose of this study is to analyze the traffic-related impacts °Oy associated with the proposed General Plan Amendment. a °+ a° Project Description d Edinger tf• Q 1200 dwelling units are proposed for the Holly Property in Avenue < central Huntington Beach. Of those, 520 will be single family e o o`\� W dwelling units and 680 will be multi-family dwelling units. e °s >' Presently the site is predominantly vacant. Some of the land is o • g : 2 being used for industrial/oil-related uses and a small church .2 occupies the south-eastern corner of the property. Figure 2 me ° U Warner presents the site plan for the proposed project area. Avenue EXISTING CONDITIONS Suter As mentioned previously, the site proposed for development is Avenue predominantly vacant and is surrounded by parcels of vacant land, o other industrial-related uses, and multi-family dwelling units inrl Tolbert the City of Huntington Beach. Primary access to the site is o Avenue proposed via Garfield Avenue and Gothard Street. Gothard Street will be realigned through the project site to connect with •°�i� o° Ems Crystal Street at Garfield Avenue. Secondary access points are o Avenue proposed for Ellis and Ernest Avenues, and no' direct access is. °• planned from Goldenwest Street. Regional access to the project j site would be provided via I-405 (San Diego Freeway), Goldenwest / Garfield Street, Beach Boulevard and Pacific Coast Highway. • / Avenue Roadway Characteristics Project Site— e Ellis Avenue is located to the north of the proposed project site and facilitates travel in an east-west direction. This roadway . carries approximately 1,600 vehicles per day in the vicinity of ee` Adams the project area and has one lane in each direction with the y<< ° Avenue exception of the segment between Delaware and Gothard Streets, which has 2 lanes in each direction. .� A -1- -2- i Z aAlong the easterly border of the project site Gothard Street runs north and south through the area. The master plan alignment O i calls for Gothard Street to be reconstructed to connect with 0 U Ernest Avenue and Crystal Street to the south, and to extend to Garfield Avenue. Presently Gothard Street has one lane in each W = direction south of Ellis Avenue. North of Ellis Avenue the Ij;�M1f R; Z V ` I I roadway has two lanes in the northbound direction and one lane in < \ the southbound direction. Garfield Avenue borders the project site on the south and iI t a Z Z traverses the area in an east-west direction. west of Goldenwest _ 0 Street Garfield Avenue has one lane in each direction. East of yam.. ( Goldenwest Street the roadway has two lanes in each direction. U S ? The project site is also bounded on the South by Ernest Street. 0 c ZC y i Presently, Ernest Street acts as a service or access road, and _ U = carries approximately 500 vehicles daily. The project site is bounded by Goldenwest and Crystal Streets to the — : carriesapproximately23,10 vehicles daily.in C y Crystal Street has Goldenwestet has two lanes each direction and • r 0r s N one lane in each direction. "? d— tua �................. Existing Traffic Volumes CC IL A - K � m - \TY,•_ J �F Ki I W The existing daily traffic volumes in the vicinity of the project -i ..: site are shown on Figure 3. The traffic volumes along Beach (L N Boulevard were obtained from 1983 CalTrans traffic volume data and the remaining volumes are based on City of Huntington Beach '•r -: � 9 Y 9 traffic counts from 1978 that were adjusted to reflect the growth that has occured from 1978 to 1984. m��:, � � �a �." r'•..,a..= e ram^, -.:::.:•^. z -_ " _3 A factor of 6"J- rZ,_ _; �� ^y percent per year was applied to the 1978 traffic counts to estimate the existing (1984) traffic volumes in the _ �•� j i`'; ;F�.- _r.Q�DI area. In addition, Basmaciyan-Darnell, Inc. conducted peak period w -�:..._ Q turning movement counts at four intersections surrounding the ��. i \� a _.�• G f c�� project. Copies of the turning movement count sheets can be :yro 21 j found in Appendix A. Ie:,isoieVlop — - Capacity Analysis -.r a41'fo�Q; GE'G�i The intersections counted were analyzed using the Intersection 3. QO Q. Capacity Utilization (ICU) method. In brief, this method deter- mines the amount of green time being utilized at an intersection vr.•�-, U - i and relates this to a qualitative description (or Level of .+ of^,.< �P al ! Service) of the operating characteristics of that intersection. �'G., � � I < Table 1 summarizes the ICU analyses for the intersections. �71e � >,' z•�>� � _ o I Copies of the ICU worksheets are found in Appendix B, as well as an explanation of Levels of Service- � �- Review of Table 1 indicates that each of the intersections are :'6M _ w cc? __--- =::` a f ,j operating at Level of Service A. This represents a free flowing condition and minimum delay to vehicles approaching the inter- Iea/IS Isamueploo -3- -4 saw' . M 6.000 Talbert Avenue e TABLE 1 J q INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0 AND LEVEL OF SERVICE FOR EXISTING CONDITIONS o i 3 n o w a 1D AM PM v 0e Intersection ICU LOS ICU LOS � � o O Ellis Avenue 1.600 1.500 12.800 Ellis Avenue at: 800 p 0 ea Gothard Street 0.35 A 0.38 A ProjectN gaa° Goldenwest Street 0.29 A 0.38 A Site aC 0 e °�o° o Garfield Avenue at: al O Ernest St aoo 0 Goldenwest Street 0.32 A 0.34 A 0 Main Street/Gothard Street 0.42 A- 0.53 A oerllsld Avenue tv 9,400 8.880 /2,800 3,400 5.850 � � e Huntlnpton 8escllff Country Club O p yaa �� o toy lac o Level of Service is defined as: � A = ICU 0.00 to 0.60, B = ICU 0.61 to 0.70, i — C = ICU 0.71 to 0.80, D = ICU 0.81 to 0.90, Yorktown Yorktown Avenue E = ICU 0.91 to 1.00, F = ICU 1.01 or greater. Avenue 0 For Level of Service Description, refer to Appendix A. 3 0 r ea a LEGEND aa° XXX-DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUME ' fee Adams Avenue J oa a � a°e i alas 0 9e Cc Coeei e J Pacific et Ocson OURCE• CALTRANS AND ESTIMATES BY 001 BASED ON 1878 HUNTINGTON BEACH COUNTS FIGURE 3 BAS&IACIYGN.DARNt:LL,INC. EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES A J262 CA-put Dri.r.Sun,0.1 (1 984) Nr 0.1t Beach,C.10 4 92660 1'1A1549.9940 TABLE 2 In addition to the intersection capacity analysis, daily roadway capacity analyses were prepared. The daily capacity values for EXISTING CONDITIONS ROADWAY SEGMENT CAPACITY ANALYSIS roadway segments are based on data obtained from the Orange County Environmental Management Agency (OCEMA) Transportation Existing LOS "C" V/C Planning Division. The roadway capacities are representative of Roadwav Segment ADT Capacity Ratio the streets in the study area. Utilizing the existing average daily traffic volumes and LOS "C" capacity for each roadway Talbert Avenue segment the volume to capacity ratio can be calculated. The Goldenwest St. to Gothard St. 5,000 10,000 0.50 results of these analyses are presented on Table 2. A V/C ratio of less than 1.0 means that the roadway is operating within its Ellis Avenue available LOS "C" capacity whereas a V/C greater than 1.0 means Edwards St. to Goldenwest St. 600 10,000 0.60 that the LOS "C" daily capacity is exceeded. Review of Table 2 Goldenwest St. to Gothard St. 1,600 10,000 0.16 Shows that Goldenwest Street between Talbert and Garfield Avenues Huntington St. to Beach Blvd. 1,500 10,000 0.15 is presently exceeding its LOS "C" capacity. East of Beach Boulevard 12,800 20,000 0.64 Public Transit Garfield Avenue Goldenwest St. to Gothard St. 3,400 10,000 0.34 Transit service for the area is provided by the Orange County Gothard St. to Seventeenth St. 5,850 10,000 0.59 Transit District (OCTD). At the present time, 3 bus lines ser- East of Beach Boulevard 12,900 20,000 0.65 vice the surrounding area. Route 25 runs along Goldenwest Street, Route 29 runs along Beach Boulevard and Garfield Avenue Goldenwest Street and Route 74 runs along Beach Boulevard and Main Street. Talbert Avenue to Ellis Avenue 25,000 20,000 1.25 Ellis Avenue to Garfield Avenue 23,100 20,000 1 .16 FUTURE CONDITIONS Garfield Avenue to Yorktown Ave. 19,300 20,000 0.97 Gothard Street Roadway Characteristics Talbert Avenue to Ellis Avenue 6,500 10,000 0.65 Ellis Avenue to Garfield Avenue 6,100 10,000 0.61 Not all of the facilities in the vicinity of the project are constructed to their Master Plan classification. Based on the Main Street Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH) the roadways in the Seventeenth St. to Huntington St. 17,700 30,000 0.59 project area are classified as follows: Garfield Avenue to Yorktown Ave. 20,400 30,000 0.68 Major - 6 lane Divided Beach Boulevard - Garfield Avenue west of Goldenwest Street Talbert Avenue to Ellis Avenue 36,000 45,000 0.80 - Beach Boulevard Ellis Avenue to Garfield Avenue 26,000 45,000 0.58 Primary - 4 lane Divided Garfield Avenue to Yorktown Ave. 26,000 45,000 0.58 - Talbert Avenue west of Gothard Street ADT: Average Daily Traffic - Ellis Avenue west of Gothard Street - Garfield Avenue east of Goldenwest Street - Yorktown Avenue west of Beach Boulevard - Goldenwest Street north of Garfield Avenue i - Main Street Secondary - 4 lane Undivided - Ellis Avenue east of Gothard Street Yorktown Avenue east of Beach Boulevard - Seventeenth Street I Table 3 provides a comparison of each roadway's existing con- figuration and respective Master Plan classification geometrics. Figure 4 presents the portion of the MPAH for the area surround- ing the project site. -7- rr 9m m dw � 1�r Ar a� r Mr r SUMMARY OF RUADWAY CHARACTERISTICS , Location Existing Condition Master Plan Classification Talbert Avenue West of Gothard Street 2-lanes undivided Primary Road 4-lane divided Ellis Avenue West of Gothard Street 2-lanes undivided Primary Road 4-lane divided East of Gothard Street 4-lanes undivided Secondary Road 4-lane undivided Garfield Avenue West of Goldenwest Street 2-lanes undivided Major Road 6-lane divided East of Goldenwest Street 4-lanes undivided Primary Road 4-lane divided Yorktown Avenue West of Beach Boulevard 4-lanes undivided Primary Road 4-lane divided East of Beach Boulevard 4-lanes undivided Secondary Road 4-lane undivided Adams Avenue West of Beach Boulevard 4-lanes and painted Primacy Road 4-lane divided median Goldenwest Street North of Garfield Avenue 4-lanes undivided Primary .Road 4-lane divided South of Garfield Avenue 4-lanes undivided Major Road 6-lane divided Gothard Street North of Ellis Avenue 3-lanes undivided Secondary Road 4-lane undivided South of Ellis Avenue 2-lanes undivided Secdonary Road 4-lane undivided Main Street 4-lanes divided Primary Road 4-lane divided Seventeenth Street 2=lanes undivided Secondary Road 4-lane undivided Beach Boulevard 6-lanes divided Major Road 6-lane divided m o ' D o o D 1 Z lip o- z G ry. � i \ A / l D 1 M 1 r a� a> M _ m z D 20.200 Talbert Avenue a e 24.500 Future Traffic volumes = o y _ 0 Future traffic volume forecasts for the roadways surrounding the ' 0 fO o a proposed project were obtained from the City of-Huntington Beach ; ; s o 0 Transportation Model, Alternative 1. These volumes are presented ' o in Figure 5 and represent expected Post 1995 traffic conditions. a 13.860` od The traffic volume forecasts include future development of the Bolsa Chica area and arterial crossings of the Santa Ana River - Fills Avenue 21.700 ) 25.600 21.000 27.000 into Costa Mesa. 23.700 0 �I Roadway Segment Capacity Analysis Project; M To assess future traffic conditions Table 4 was prepared and Siteh �e�Q 0 provides an analysis of the various roadways in the study area. AA review of Table 4 shows that several roadway segments are Ernest Street ` expected to exceed their Level of Service "C" or "D" capacity(denoted by a V/C greater than 1.0). Specifically, portions of r;Ellis Avenue, Garfield Avenue, Goldenwest Street, Gothard Street, Garfield Avenue 31,200 37.600 and Beach Boulevard are expected to exceed Level of Service "C" 44,100 28,000 or "D" capacity. Level of Service "C" is generally accepted as E the planning tool for long range forecasts whereas Level of . >s Service "D" capacity is generally used to identify acceptable Huntington sescliff o m Country Club` o roe 0 conditions for urban areas. Volume to capacity ratios that 0 8 0 o at exceeding 1.0 indicate roadway segments which are expected to o reach or exceed their daily capacity and experience delay and congestion. 28.900 26.600 Yorktown Yorktown Avenue 14.100 Realignment of Gothard Street Avenue The master plan of arterial highways shows Gothard Street to be constructed as a secondary arterial and realigned westerly from o Ellis Avenue to connect with Crystal Street and Ernest Avenue and then continue south to Garfield Avenue. In addition, a further extension of Gothard Street southerly of Garfield Avenue to Main Street is planned. Figure 6 presents the existing traffic y aM1 $ LEGEND volumes for the area with Gothard Street realigned. The major ae a to XXX-POST 1995 DAILY implication of this realignment is the elimination of the five- �� TRAFFIC FORECASTS pe Adams Avenueway intersection at Main Street/Garfield Avenue/Gothard Street. ; 22,e0o Analysis of the realignment of Gothard Street was prepared by v redistributing the existing daily and peak hourly turning volumes �aa° and the calculating ICUs. The existing ICU's are 0.42 LOS "A" in the morning peak hour and 0.53 LOS "A" in the afternoon peak hour, as shown in Table 1. With Gothard Street realigned the existing morning peak hour ICU would be 0.39, LOS A and the c evening peak hour ICU would be 0.41, LOS A. When project-related ,co traffic is added to the existing traffic volumes the AM ICU is \ °s, 0.44, LOS A and the PM ICU is 0.43, LOS A. This realignment is proposed with the Holly Planned Community. ti - oacsifle ny, i ocean ��, 1 FIGURE 5 \\ POST 1995 TRAFFIC VOLUMES 3.: TABLE 4 6000 T•Wrt A. ew SU?§WV OF EUSTING GE)"A1 PLAN • i POST 1995 DAILY TRAFFIC(a) ROADWAY SEDGM CAPACITY ANALYSIS(b) . : IN RMECT STTE i ; + � • gi i Future laS "C• Y/C lOS •D' Y/C • 3 e° aa Rdwr 5ettuent ADT Capacity Ratio Capacity Ratio Oo Talbert Avenue East of Goldewesc Street 20.2fi0 30.000 0.67 33.000 0.61 Eat•A.•Iw• 1.600 t `eat of GQLbnrd Street 19,800 30.000 0.66 33,000 0.60 • Ellis Avenue Project- ��• best of Goldeereac Street 23.700 30.000 0.79 33.000 0.72 Site foldetMsst Sc. to fothard St. 21.700 30,000 0.72 33.000 0.66 • Gathsrd St. to Euscisgtos St. 25.500 20.000 1.28 22.000 1.16 EtssA peer bating.- St. to Main St. 21.900 20.000 1.10. 22.000 1.00 •p Q . ' I&" of Enoch Eoulevnrd 27.900 20.000 1.40 22.000 1.27 i 7c Garfield Averse O•rtr•a Aveow •' a.too)� is eon Rest of Goldsoreu Street 44,100 45.000 0.98 49,500 0.89 E •'cp S�AO Goldeatssc St. to Gochard St. 33.200 30.000 1.11 33.000 1.01 S Godard Street to Mara Street 28.000 30.000 0.91 33.000 0.83 ttutnrptoa so• �t Main St. to Eustiagton Street 28.000 30.000 0.93 33.000 0.85 Gotlmn d p•)./' e 4 Huntington St. to Seventeenth St. 31.120 30.000 1.04 33,000 0.94 Seventeenth 5c. to Bnnch Blvd. 35.660 30,000 1.19 33.000 1.08 o East of Etrach Eoslevard 37.600 30.000 1.25 33,000 1.14 -� • or Goldesttat Street r town. • voretoura^moms Talbert Avesee to Ellis Avenue 41.100 30.000 1.37 33.000 1.24 Ave South of Ellis Avasus 43.700 30.000 1.46 33.000 1.32 r_ torch of Garfield Avenue 42,900 30.000 1.43 33.000 1.30 South of Garfield Atxwe 48.700 45.000 1.08 49.500 0.98 a' • Gothard Street °•` $ GEND horn of Ellis Avenue 19.300 20,000 0.% 22,000 0.88 6`` : lou�lnlX r TM1AFiMC VOLUMES South of Ellis Avenue 13.860 20.ODO 0.69 22.000 0.63 ` • j V Borth of Garfield Avenue 13.910 20,000 0.70 22,000 0.63 d• trnl-o Tnastne oturE South of Garfield Avenes 21.000 20.000 1.05 22.000 0.95 p•� Adams a'°a1° WITH 4oTNwttO ° EXTENDED TO NAM ST. Meta Street •� South of Ellis Avenue 18,800 30,000 0.63 33.000 0.57 r� thatingto• St. to Garfield Ave. 18.600 30.000 0.62 33,000 0.56 South of Garfield Avenue 19.500 30.000 0.6S 33.000 0.59 Beach Boulevard 0 So uth of Talbert Avenue 62.300 45.000 1.38 49.500 1.26 c°••� ; e' North of Ellis Avenue 61.900 45.000 1.38 49.500 1.25 'c South of Ellis Avenue 50.300 45.000 1.12 49.500 1.02 i hortb of Garfield Avenue 49.100 45,000 1.09 49.500 0.99 1ecM7c °•• Soute of Garfield Avenue 4S.900 45.000 1.02 49.500 0.93 Oc••• (a) athout Proposed General Plss Auendnent FIGURE 6 (b) fused on Master Plan Boadrr Configurations EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES -13- "MACIYAN•O+RvELL.INC. WITH GOTHARD STREET REALIGNMENT .:i:C. P� s 7nw.Sw*a-. . ICI• .oFs9W PROJECT-RELATED TRAFFIC TABLE 5 To assess the traffic-related impacts of the proposed 1,200 SUMMARY OF TRIP GENERATION RATES dwelling units on the surrounding circulation system, tripmaking PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT to/from the proposed site was estimated and distributed to the surrounding roadways. The following is a description of the AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour process used to estimate project-related traffic which would be Land Use Daily IN OUT IN OUT anticipated along roadways and at intersections in the vicinity of the proposed project upon its completion. Single Family detached 10/DU 0.3/DU 0.6/DU 0.5/DU 0.4/DU Trip Generation Single Family attached 8/DU 0.2/DU 0.5/DU 0.5/DU 0.3/DU The trip generation rates used in this analysis are based on data Multi-Family townhomes 7/DU 0.2/DU 0.4/DU 0.4/DU 0.2/DU presented in the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual and on counts and field surveys conducted for Multi-Family flats 7/DU 0.2/DU 0.4/DU 0.4/DU 0.2/DU similar projects. Table 5 presents the trip generation characteristics of the proposed project as well as the existing EXISTING GENERAL PLAY FOR PROJECT SITE General Plan land uses. AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Based on the trip generation rates presented in Table 5 the Land Use Daily IN OUT IN OUT proposed development of 1,200 dwelling units would generate 9,620 daily vehicle trip ends. During the morning peak hour 842 trip Industrial 5.5/KSF 0.85/KSF 0.15/KSF 0.32/KSF 0.63/KSF ends would be generated and during the afternoon peak hour 859 trip ends would be generated. Table 6 provides a summary of the Office 14/KSF 1.87/KSF 0.22/KSF 0.44/KSF 1.76/KSF project-related daily, AM and PM traffic. Single-Family detached 10/DU 0.3/DU 0.6/DU 0.5/DU 0.4/DU The existing General Plan land use for the site is expected to generate approximately 13,134 daily trip ends. Approximately 2,200 trips would occur during the morning peak hour and 2,125 DU = Dwelling Units would occur during the afternoon peak hour to the surrounding KSF = Thousand Square Feet roadways. Therefore, as summarized in Table 5, the proposed General Plan Amendment would be expected to add 3,514 daily trip ends with 1,358 occuring during the morning peak hour and 1,970 during the afternoon peak hour to the surrounding roadways. This data is also presented on Table 6. Trip Distribution and Assignment The trip distribution characteristics of the site were developed taking into consideration the spatial orientation of possible origins and destinations and regional travel patterns. The re- sulting trip distribution pattern is depicted on Figure 7. The traffic that would be generated.by the proposed residential development was then assigned to the surrounding street system in accordance with the trip distribution pattern shown in Figure 7. Figure 8 presents project-related traffic volumes for the proposed General Plan Amendment. I To assess cumulative traffic conditions, estimates of project- related traffic were then added to the existing traffic volumes on the surrounding roadway system. The resultant average daily traffic with the proposed project is depicted in Figure 9. -15- TABLE 6 SUMMARY OF PROJECT-RELATED TRIP GENERATION PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Land Use Units Daily IN OUT IN OUT Single Family detached 350 DU 3500 TL•' 105 TE 210 TE 175 TE 140 TE Single Family attached 170 DU 1360 TE 34 TE 85 TE 85 TE 51 TE Multi-Family 680 DU 4760, fE 136 TE 272 TE 272 TE 136 TE PROJECT TOTAL 1200 DU 9620 TE 275 TE 567 TE 532 TE 327 TE , EXISTING GENERAL PLAN FOR PROJECT SITE AM Peak Flour PM Peak Hour Land Use Units Daily IN OUT IN OUT Industrial 1,800,000 KSF 9900 TE 1530 TE 270 TE 576 TE 1134 TE Office 131,000 KSF 1834 TE 245 TE 29 TE 58 TE 231 TE Single Family Detached 140 DU 1400 TE 42 TE 84 'fE 70 TE 56 TE TOTAL 13,134 TE 1817 'fE 383 TE 704 TE 1421 TE L•'xisting General Plan , Less Proposed Holly Planned Community 3,514 TE 1542 TE 184 TE 172 TE 1094 TE DU = Dwelling UnitS KSF Thousand Square Feet TE = Trip Finds - vD Edwaida 31ron1 10o O g �yp71{yw1yr� '• "w m Ck -' W'7 , e t f ' 1a• - Wr' '>s' s w —•A r • -' •• 0 3 � •-.o n / yl yl Golden Want 91roal ` OI it p crystal 8; ae� 84w1 , M•In sn : o o / 6olnerd Bernal 10 o � w a M � i o M_ Huntington 81reo1 O > m x /�/4 w /Q�•ia ao fn n M > / co m m D heath eoulavurd s rn O m v f as Z � xr, rn a g0 om a� �9 a' =m o T tl•rt AZ= T•10•rt A• s .. : • • Y t Y i • • • Et4 AN••• ` - TiIM' O - 722/41/80 Eft AN••• t.000 640 !MO 1&240 T22MU40 -722/41649 = Project! , ,ram , , Project: •.�` 0 Site' ' �'� Site + •. @PENN an" \ 1� w w Ernest street ` �� J 722/44101 i .41 •• o•rtI.1•AN•w , t2os/OM1s2— 202/N/122 —A21nu02 p•rti•W A•Nw• �' ANO •260 12 E•o Nt/Bf/itl i t2021t12/N- IMW14V t/Af/S2 t1.2E0 -wlnuss t �s �f22�osiBo) R1 s Ir•••EI••B•rdN ' s -arft t !`� w N•AtHptoa E••c2N « 1E Poo)o b♦(T,E•O) ` • C•rtrT Cry` « « • ♦ • Co•etry G • o ti r : isi z : .•�.t•.. Yorktown,AN••• •r.t•.• ♦onto.•A••••• AN.W,- • A••••• S • • LEGEND . 7`[7EIE�lIE/Y�11/ta-MW�eT- 4 : XXX-DALT TRAFFIC VOLUMES •` RELATED OA<r/AWFM FEJIK ••` - • (TTr)-DAILY TRAFFIC Noun TRAFFIC A A••Avon" �� AA••M AV~ VOLUME ARM a A Aoa (XXXUrrr/2Z�-FAOECT- EXTENDED TO MAIN NAMO RELATED DALTIAMi PEAK �•• M01U1)TRAFFKMITN OOTNAOI ♦� EXTENDED TO MAIN !` c S c c r • C • o •• 1 c o• g •� � •� c PfcRlt �• P•cMb �� z OCN• Or.••• FIGURE 8 FIGURE 9 a EXISTING TRAFFIC PLUS BAS PROJECT-RELATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES BA5MACIYAN-DARNE�L.INC. PROJECT-RELATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES i MAC�f �ARNELI.I`i{ DAILY/AM/PM �_{::�+o.•tiw• S.ro�-' •:63 Gwwr C^n.1MI.!f-� •!-pt•rJ4 ciii,, W):6w• 4-01•r,:0. 1:660 20- ■s air r i mi ow rc ar r r r r� r� . rr r rf r r r� wrr err r �r r� r r r� r► rr rr vehicle Niles Traveled fvKTI TABLE 7 SUMMARY OF ROADWAY SEGMENT CAPACITY ANALYSIS Based on previous studies and experience at similar developments, EXISTING PLUS PROJECT-RELATED TRAFFIC the average length of trips to/from the proposed residential development would be 8.0 miles. The average trip length factor via applied to the estimated Existing . Project- average daily trip ends for the proposed project. The resulting LOS vehicle miles traveled for residential tripmaking would be 'Traffic Capacity acitty Ratio approximately 76.960 miles. Ellis Avenue Goldenwest St. to Gothard St. 2,O80 10,000 0.21 IMPACTS Huntington St. to Beach Blvd. 2.940 10,000 0.29 East of Beach Boulevard 13,240 20,000 0.66 The impacts associated with the proposed General Plan Amendment are assembled and addressed in this section of the report. To Garfield Avenue assess the impacts of the proposed general plan amendment, daily Goldenwest St, to Gothard St. 4.560 10,000 0.46 traffic volumes, existing and future roadway segment capacity Gothard St. to Seventeenth St.7,540/ 11.500 10.000 0.75/1.019(,%) analyses, intersection capacity analysis and access and East of Beach Boulevard 13,860 20,000 0.69 circulation were analyzed. Goldenwest Street Roadway Capacity Analysis Talbert Avenue to Ellis Avenue 26,440 20,000 1.32 AvenueEllis Garfield Avenue Analysis of the cumulative daily traffic volumes compared to Garfield Avenue toYorktownAvenue 20,260 20,000 1.01 available roadway capacity is the first step in assessing the impacts of traffic on the surrounding street system. Utilizing Gothard Street the data presented in Figure 9, the exiting roadway capacity Talbert Avenue to Ellis Avenue 7,460 10,000 0.75 analysis was performed and is summarized in Table 7. Ellis Avenue to Garfield Avenue 9,470 10,000 0.95 Table 7 was prepared to provide a comparison of the effect of Garfield Avenue to Main Street -/3,000 10,000 -/0.30 (a) Maln Street project-related traffic on the existing roadways. This table Seventeenth St: to Huntington St. 19,140 30,000 0.64 provides a comparison of roadway segment volume to capacity (VIC) Garfield Avenue to Yorktown Ave. 21,360 30,000 0.71 ratios at Level of Service 'c' capacity for exiting plus project- related traffic. Beach Boulevard Talbert Avenue to Ellis Avenue 37,920 45,000 0.64 A review of Table 7 shows that project-related traffic will 2 Ellis Avenue to Garfield Avenue 7,44410 45,000 0.6161 primarily add to the capacity concerns on Goldenwest Street Garfield Avenue to Yorktown Avenue 26.960 45,000 0.60 between Talbert Avenue and Yorktown Avenue. The next step in the process involves the assessment of future (a) with and without Gothard Extended to (fain Street (Post 19951 daily traffic volumes. Figure 10 presents the Post 1995 daily traffic volumes with and without project-related traffic. Table 4, presented previously, summarizes Post 1995 daily traffic volumes and roadway segment capacity analysis without project-related traffic. Presented in Table B is a Summary of Post 1995 daily traffic volumes with project-related traffic and a roadway segment capacity analysis. Table 6 shows that the following roadway segments would exceed their Level of Service 'C' or 'D' capacity: -22- -21- TABLe tl SUMMARY OF POST 1995 DAILY TRAFFICIa) ROADWAY SEGMENT CAPACITY ANALYSISIb) Future ' LOS "C" V/C LOS "D" v/C Roadway Segment ADT Capacity Ratio Capacity Ratio Ellis Avenue Goldenwest St. to Gothard St. 21.500 30,000 0.72 33,000 0.65 Gothard St, to Huntington St. 24,900 20,000 1.25 22,000 1.11 Huntington St. to Main St. 21,300 20,000 1.07 22,000 0.97 East of Beach Boulevard 27,300 20,000 1.37 22,000 1.24 Garfield Avenue Goldenwest St, to Gothard St. 32,800 30,000 1.09 33,000 0.99 Gothard Street to Main Street 26,300 30,000 0.68 33,000 0.80 Main St. to Huntington Street 27,000 30,000 0.90 33,000 0.62 East of Beach Boulevard 37,200 30,000 1.24 33,000 1.13 Goldenwest Street Talbert Avenue to Ellis Avenue 40,400 30,000 1.35 33,000 1.22 South of Ellis Avenue 42,500 30,000 1.42 33.000 1.29 u South of Garfield Avenue 48,300 45,000 1.07 49,500 0.90 Gothard Street South of Talbert Avenue 18,900 20,000 0.95 22,000 0.86 South of Ellis Avenue 13,000 20,000 0.65 22,000 0.59 North of Garfield Avenue 12,700 20,000 0.64 22,000 0 Soo South of Garfield Avenue 20,800 20,000 1.01 22,000 1.00 Main Street Seventeenth St, to Huntington St. 10,200 30,000 0.61 33,000 0.55 South of Garfield Avenue 19,100 30.000 0.64 33,000 0.58 ' Beech Boulevard South of Talbert Avenue 61,000 45,000 1.36 49,500 1.23 North of Garfield Avenue 48,500 45,000 1.08 49,500 0.98 South of Garfield Avenue 45,500 45,000 1.01 49,500 0.92 (a) With Proposed General Plan Amendment IN Based on Master Plan Roadway Configurations ADT • Average Daily Traffic • � A ' • R _� ••� �"-� Edwards Street 01 •4 3.st0 0 go Il 7 .� •Oe•♦ epp G (�Op!�p.:o ; (13.000) i , '••♦ fii.aN) :� ~ Golden West street w •1.000 e ,� te0.e00) � e8 88 � eH••1 ! Gothe.d •tree• FAA*in ! Ili »» (I too� ) v 4! Huntington Street 3 on 3 ►M ♦t4• C e �� 1•�♦ e� o Mm Te;�oi < Beech Boulevard el,eo0 l4s,000) 0 ••.too tet.000) Q (46,60 0) 446.600) .. ... �►+Oi O fi t Ili� /1� �' 0 a tl r+.o rr �r rr are rs r �r err war rr r �r +r �r rr sr �■r � rr Ellis Avenue - Gothard Street to Beach Boulevard Garfield Avenue - Goldenwest Street to Gothard Street - East of Beach Boulevard Goldenwest Street - Talbert Avenue to South of Ellis Avenue - South of Garfield Avenue Beach Boulevard - South of Talbert Avenue to South of U ';� 40400, Garfield Avenue >a a 000 oc To Improve the roadway V/C ratios to 1.0 or less. Ellis Avenue and Goldenwest Street segments were upgraded to the next higher 0 0 0 00 roadway classification. . Volume to capacity analysis was per- '3 0 0 formed and is presented in Table 9. Review of Table 9 shows that ' u each segment is significantly improved. Analysis of Beach Boule- Oq • +�+ yard has not been performed. However a detailed study has been a U prepared by the Orange County Transportation Commission. • • M Intersection Capacity Analyses In order to accurately access the traffic flow conditions in the > 00 am s vicinity of the proposed project. Intersection Capacity o c Utilisation Analyses were performed at the five intersections vi o 0 00 0 which would be Impacted by expected traffic to/from the proposed e m u 0 0 0 0 o a project. The analyses were performed to assess the cumulative a. c u affect of existing traffic plus project-related traffic. nnn For .U.< 0 0 n analysis purposes, an IN 0.90 or less is generally considered 4 08 i c acceptable for urban conditions. Table 9 presents the resulting pCG o ICUs. 0FF. c: As can be seen on Table 10, all six intersections fell within wua.s �I o0i -vnn 01 n 40 2 the Level of Service 'A' category and are thus expected to m Is<a. t : o e:m c a, experience 'free flow' conditions in both the morning and after- C x a U nr nn, ..• E.4 noon peak hours. H H r EE c O az •U o.w s • �. ACCESS AM INTER]IAL CIRCULATION AND TRAFFIC CONTROL hove .+ e c s N Ul - to • �Q Access and Internal Circulation g i c m < • 0. v • 7 �+ Figure 11 depicts the proposed Holly Planned Community. Each of �s e-Ci +• i w i the collector roads within the site have been labeled 'A' Street 0 �• � >> e'r through 'F' Street and each critical intersection has been a C 0 o o >v .. identified and numbered 1 thru 10. Project-related daily traffic =4, ,.,c.. • was then assigned to each roadway for the purposes of analyzing o &•• the adequacy of each roadway and for identification of any .+ u.. • 2.4w • problem areas. Also presented on Figure 11 are the expected o o ,UC;S. g project-related daily traffic volumes. E 0 oc ` 21Ma S. o Review of Figure 11 shows that each of the interior roadways are H >v c w o o s c expected to operate satisfactorily. Further review of the inter- de •. _Ir t a .+ • sections/access points identified potential problems with the i e u e e-.>; i spacing of two Intersections along Gothard Street. u= u H m 0 The spacing between 'B' Street and 'E' Street along Gothard Street (Intersections 2 and 3 on Figure 101 were found to be too close to operate satisfactorily. In addition to the spacing -25- -26- Ipt� r �yv •C Y1 O r A ►�+ 11 �y��y 1 1fn�� u 1e 1'► 1� ~ 1q M r ►/ r�+ O OOO OO IC Ni�(��pr l7 M On y ysy 3p IS .043o �Mr s o 000 oo h N �W W �• O W�O O� �• y •q > >Y! sY IN — — Elpe Avenue _ /�[��\//�.ry� {� Ste. • eeP•1r�►Or•�i M, ,• J'�r'7y� 9`1 UUJ/V1' I il• •� + •�..r a eq••^Yw�•r» U, ee y y� ar...u. w 0, r,• /!S• l i � dffQ' ,w�iu. ' I n '��i� c:' ---'.'��` :3�QIi1'll.�"�,'/,/�'fy/,�/�1.f4'r>✓6I@��.. rurr�m•»,-ao lilt � I �i:�'��L��'�- ' .,•!��J1p;�rZ�r.� .•J � (�6��t�S,,,lj�l t1i%''�h'hi�j� --- - �'"' fs'• PLANNED Ail,�'••i_���,! tr� ,�lir�t• r�,yv. 4 nil _ ,• Qii. •����.. f�ti HOLLY /'� ��/ �'�i�itiUC911'h111C6p7,'�.! rS•. � .(JUL���(� ��,��J / c � 1 .�� HUNnNKaTON BEACH CONIRANY � I �k!{t't`i'9�i<hl(11i94 '�,�'I r' G • rl �..�1r��J,'rQ;�'�•��i•���1��,i � m � f1);;;+,'i�,,�!;iii_I_Jtu �-, ���.��.:�irr• ru t`��,( `'"u �� Q.. Ernest j�,OR3 E/Met 8 ..I 11IJIf0Ul� �, �� "Im qq ���' � w►d LEGEND I?JH ACOOOO Z / XX M10JVOT-1111LATINDDAMT ' I011 ''/+•wo .� +JMu,/Iwwe �I / TRAFFIC Al i FIGURE 11 ' SITE ACCESS AND INTERNAL CIRCULATION r r rr rr rr ar rr �■■ rr rr rr �r r r r rr r r rr problem the intesections as proposed are located within the As previously mentioned the spacing of intersections is a major horizontal and vertical curvature alignment of Gothard Street. concern. Review of the Concept Plan depicted on Figure 11 found To mitigate this concern it is recommended that the site plan be the intersection of Ernest Avenue and "F" Street to be too close redesigned to align "B" and "E" streets across from each other to (approximately 250) and the intersections of "B" and "E" Streets create a four-way intersection. Also, the revised location to be too closely spaced (approximately 170') to safely should be a minimum of 800 feet south of Ellis Avenue. accommodate turning movements. The remaining intersections were found to be adequate. At the At each of these locations it is recommended that the site plan intersection of Garfield Avenue and "F" Street (Intersection 10) be redesigned to eliminate these conflicts. The intersections it is recommended that a left and a right turn lane entering should be realigned to form four-way intersections or separated Garfield Avenue be provided. 350' to 400'. Traffic Control The alignment of Gothard Street at Ellis Avenue is depicted on the Concept Plan as a continuation of the centerline radius The need for traffic control at Goldenwest and Ernest Street and through Ellis Avenue. This creates a skewing effect through the Garfield Avenue at Gothard Street/Crystal Street was evaluated intersection and alignment. problem with travel lanes. To mini- utilizing California Department of Transportation Daily Traffic mize this effect it is.recommended that the Gothard Street align- Signal warrant worksheets. A copy of the worksheets are con- ment be changed to provide 100-200 feet of tangency south of the tained in Appendix C. centerline of Ellis prior to beginning the centerline curve. A slight skew of the tangency may be acceptable, but should be re- Review of the traffic signal warrant worksheets found that a viewed with the City of Huntington Beach Public works Department. traffic signal at Goldenwest Street and Ernest would not be warranted. However at Garfield Avenue and Gothard Street/Crystal In summary the overall Gothard Street alignment was found satis- Street a traffic signal would be warranted with the realignment factory provided the following are included in the final site of Gothard Street, as well as the addition of project-related design and roadway design: traffic. 1. The intersection of Ernest Avenue and "F" Street be separated At Gothard Street and Ernest Street a traffic signal was also a minimum of 400 feet or aligned to form a four-way intersec- found to not be warranted. However, Ernest Street should be tion. stopped prior to entering Gothard Street. 2. The intersection of "B" Street and "E" Street be separated a minimum of 400 feet or aligned opposite each other to form a GOTHARD STREET REALIGNMENT CONSIDERATIONS four-way intersection. In addition a four-way intersection should not be located ,closer than 600 feet to Ellis Avenue. The alignment and geometric design of Gothard Street as presented on the Holly Planned Community Concept Plan was evaluated to 3. Design of the sag vertical curve should take into considera- determine its adequacy. The evaluation considered horizontal and tion adequate sight distance and safe stopping sight distance. vertical curvature, spacing of intersections, sight distance and alignment at Ellis Avenue. 4. The design of slope banks, walls and landscaping at intersec- tions should be carefully reviewed during preparation of the The horizontal curvature of Gothard Street contains two reversing grading plans and street improvement plans. It _ is curves separated by 300 foot of tangency. The upper curve is recommended that design criterA presented on the County of approximately . 1300 foot radius and begins at the centerline of Orange Standard Plan No. 117 be utilized. A copy of the Ellis Avenue. This lower curve is approximately a 1100 foot Standard Plan is included in Appendix D. centerline radius and ends at about Ernest Avenue. The design speed of these two curves is 48 and 45 mph respectively with a MITIGATION MEASURES negative two percent superelevation. The proposed project is expected to contribute to future roadway The vertical curvature of Gothard Street is less than two (2) segment congestion in the vicinity of the project site. The Post percent and includes a sag vertical curve at its intersection 1995 traffic conditions are expected to exceed their LOS "C" and with "E" Street (approximately 600 ft. south of Ellis). The LOS "D" capacity. This condition is anticipated with the pro- design of the sag vertical curve will need to be finalized during posed project as well as with the present general plan designa- preparation of detailed engineering plans and will need to tions for the project site. To mitigate the future conditions it include consideration for adequate sight distance. is recommended that the City of Huntington Beach Circulation Element be amended as follows: -29- I -30- o Construct a traffic signal at the realigned Garfield Avenue 1. Upgrade MPAH classification of Goldenwest Street north of and Gothard Street/Crystal Street intersection. Garfield Avenue from a primary arterial, 4-lane divided, to a major arterial, 6-lane divided. o The design of Gothard Street and final project site plan 2. Upgrade MPAH classification of Ellis Avenue east of Gothard incorporate the following recommendations: Street from a secondary arterial, 4-Lane undivided to a - The intersection of Ernest Avenue and "F" Street be primary arterial, 4-Lane divided. separated a minimum of 400 feet or aligned to form a four- Each of these MPAH classification changes are recommended to way intersection. accommodate Post 1995 traffic conditions and will be needed with - The intersection of "B" Street and "E" Street be separated or without the proposed General Plan Amendment. a minimum of 400 feet or aligned opposite each other to form a four-way intersection. In addition a four-way A review of Table 10 shows that the improvements do have a intersection should not be located closer than 600 feet to considerable effect on the volume to capacity ratio. Both Ellis Ellis Avenue. Avenue and Goldenwest Street would operate at favorable Levels of Service. - Design of the sag vertical curve should take into con- sideration adequate sight distance and safe stopping sight Mitigation measures for Beach Boulevard are not addressed in this distance. report but can be found in the Beach Boulevard Corridor Study completed by the Orange County Transportation Commission. - The design of slope banks, walls and landscaping at inter- sections should be carefully reviewed during preparation Mitigation of site specific impacts is recommended and the of the grading plans and street improvement plans. It is following improvements should be made a part of the development recommended that design criteria presented on the County of the Holly Planned Community: of Orange Standard Plan No. 117 be utilized. A copy of o ' Improve the arterial roadways adjacent to the project site to the Standard Plan is included in the Appendix. their current/proposed MPAH classification. - Gothard Street be widened to more than the standard secondary arterial to provide pavement width for left turn - Goldenwest Street - Major Arterial. - 6 lane divided lanes at each access point and at Ellis Avenue and Garfield Avenue. - Garfield Avenue - Primary Arterial - 4-lane divided Consideration be given to the design of Gothard Street at - Ellis Avenue - Goldenwest to W/O Gothard Street - Ellis Avenue to . provide 100 to 200 feet of tangency Secondary Arterial entering the intersection rather than carrying the center- line curve through the intersection. A slight skew of the W/O Ellis Avenue to E/O Ellis Avenue - intersection would be more acceptable than the proposed Primary Arterial centerline curve design. - Gothard Street - Secondary Arterial - 4 lane divided SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS o Realign Gothard Street in accordance with the MPAH and as generally depicted on the Holly Planned Community Site Plan. o The proposed development of 1200 dwelling units for the Holly In addition to the widening of the roadway to secondary Planned Community in Huntington Beach is expected to generate arterial standards, additional roadway width will be needed 9,620 daily vehicle trip ends. During the morning peak hour to accommodate left turn lanes at the various project access 842 trips are expected 4275 inbound, 567 outbound) and during points and at Garfield Avenue, Ernest Avenue and Ellis Avenue. the afternoon peak hour 859 trips are expected (532 inbound, 327 outbound). o Modify the traffic signals at the following intersections to accommodate the various roadway improvements and Gothard o The existing general plan for the project site is expected to Street alignment. generate a larger number of trip ends than the proposed Holly - Goldenwest Street at Ellis Avenue Planned Community. Thus, the incremental difference between - Ellis Avenue at Gothard Street - Gothard Street at Main Street/Garfield Avenue i -31- -32- rr �r rr rr rr �r r ar rr �r r �■r rr �r rr rr rr �r rr o a r r� a s �■�► � r ■r a a a r r a� r r r the existing general plan and the proposed project would be 3.514 daily vehicle trip ends. During the morning peak hour 0 The need for traffic control at Goldenwest Street and Ernest 1,35E trips are expected and during the afternoon peak hour 1,266 trips are expected. Street and Garfield Avenue at Gothard Street/Crystal Street was evaluated. At Goldenwest Street and Ernest Street a o Intersection Capacity Utilisation analyses were performed for traffic signal was found to not be warranted. However at Garfield Avenue and Gothard Street/Crystal Street a traffic existing conditions for four intersections in the vicinity of the project. site. Table 1 provides a summary of those signal would be warranted with the realignment of Gothard analyses. All the e Intersections operate at Level of Service Street, as well as the addition of project-related traffic. 'A' or free flow the Also, at Gothard Street and Ernest Street a traffic signal was found to not be warranted. o Daily roadway capacity analyses were performed for existing o The alignment and geometric deisqn of Gothard Street as plus project-related traffic and the results are summarized presented on the Holly Planned Community Concept Plan was in Table 7. Three roadway segments on Goldenwest Street were evaluated to determine its adequacy. The evaluation con- found to exceed their Level of Service C Capacity. sidered horizontal and vertical curvature, spacing of inter- 0 Intersection Capacity Utilisation analyses were performed for sections, sight distance and alignment at Ellis Avenue. existing plus project-related traffic and are summarized in Table 9. The six intersections are expected to operate at In general the overall Gothard Street alignment was found Level of Service 'A'. satisfactory provided the following are included in the final site design and roadway design: o Daily roadway capacity analyses were also performed for Post - The intersection of Ernest Avenue and 'F' Street be 1995 traffic and the results can be found in Table a. separated a minimum of 400 feet or aligned to form a four- Certain roadway segments were found to exceed their Level way intersection. of Service C or D Capacity. Those segments are: Ellis Avenue - Gothard Street to Beach Boulevard - The intersection of 'B' Street and 'E' Street be separated Garfield Avenue - Goldenwest Street to Gothard Street a minimum of 400 feet or aligned opposite each other to - East of Beach Boulevard form a four-ray intersection. In addition a four-way Goldenwest Street - Talbert Avenue to South of Ellis Ave. intersection should not be located closer than 600 feet to - South of Garfield Avenue Ellis Avenue. Beach Boulevard - South of Talbert Avenue to South of Garfield Avenue - Design of the sag vertical curve should Lake into consideration adequate sight distance and safe stopping 0 Mitigation of the unacceptable roadway capacities will sight distance. necessitate that . the City of Huntington Beach MPAN be - The design of slope banks, walls and landscaping at amended. The recommended amendments are as follows: intersections should be carefully reviewed during Upgrade MPAN classification of Goldenwest Street north of preparation of the grading plans and street improvement Garfield Avenue from a primary arterial, 4-lane divided, plans. It is recommended that design critera presented on to a major arterial, 6-lane divided. the County of Orange Standard Plan No. 117 be utilized. A copy of theStandard Plan is included in Appendix D. - Upgrade MPAN classification of Ellis Avenue east of Gothard Street from a secondary arterial, 4-lane undivided o Each of the mitigation measures identified in the MITIGATION to a primary arterial, 4-lane divided. MEASURES section of this report need to be included in the conditions of approval for the proposed project. 0 Review of the access and internal circulation components of the Holly Planned Community found certain areas that need to be modified prior to final approval of development plans. The areas of improvement primarily encompass•the spacing of intersections. The recommended changes are found in the mitigation measures section of this report. -33- -31- m a I n r• Z 0 v � M ' x 's 3 N rr rr 0 r cr rr m DIRECTIONAL TRAFFIC COUNT ' LOCATION MAJOR N/8 - Go 7 W T E/W CO. RTE. P.M. 1:LL15 MINOR .LLW DATE 31 84 TIM£ 7:00-8:30 COMMENTS �S OBSERVER WEATHER PERIOD I o'.n G-LOW-,CST 5 on W,..EST E. on aWS on ELLi 5 VEHICLES ENTERING BEGIN W W W W MAJ MIN TOT MAJ MIN TOT L 8 R u I. 8 R o L 8 R a L 8 R 93 0 (;6 4 1 4 5 5 zoo Iq 2w g 91 4 5 9sD - - 1 s L 3 4 7 7v3 Zz us ' 7:SO 7:1K g ISL II IZ IZA- 3 tl 4 to 5 a 291 41 W-1Z ►:vf-8.0o L 93 4 7 w Z l 13 Iz 4 5 (p IsS 2.9 187 8:00-O:If 8 59 s L 45 5 o B Z 4 10 7 1OZ b 1 Zs,` 8x- 6:30 7 77 I I 87 4 I (a I 2 9 4- 117 25 Zoo VIC- 5:i<' ZLp 395 ZZ Z44 376 i2 37 8 •LI 2-4 28 gsa I2.3 977 f 1 a1GMACIVAN-DARNELL,INC. DIRECTIONAL TRAFFIC COUNT a N1 LOCATION - N/S L_: - 60,.OEN I..)SST MAJOR'E�W CO. RTE. PM. T MINOR /� ~ ELLlS r£!W X DATE I'31 -$4 TIME COMMENTS , EU..S OBSERVER SALK.E WEATHER ' PERIOD N o� on v,r N� g on 4aLOb,.w.r a on EJ Le5 L• m on CL1S Y VEHICLES ENTERING BEGIN W W W W YAJ MIN TOT MAJ YIN TOT L S R L S R o L 9 R o L S R o' 4:ou-4:1s y 140 l0 10 lot 5 2 1 3 4 /� 3 P/ 35 z9v 4:IS-4:eo 1 129 $ 10 94 3 lv 8 2 L /y 7 Z45 37 Zg2 4:3o Oaf 3 1uo 9 gto 1 4 11 11j ?� 4 Z04 41 Z61 4:4-C-6:oo (p 17.3 4- 11. 103 `}- Z IS 3 7 9 7 Z60 43 Z99 s:oo-s:lc 10 130 1 10 log 5 3 5 Z 2 /4 3 U0 0 IZ99 s:l< -6:5o 3 138 15 13 1Z5 tit Z 13 4 8 ZZ, 3/1? 68 317 S:30-5:vi y IZ'S 14 to I11 IV 4 IL -1 /B B ZBt 52 334 112, 10 101 17, 7. to 4 15 /3 5 Z44 ¢Z I ZS 1 n:ut'-S:vC Z! 514 90 ¢9 45/ 5L II aS IZ 24 1.03 2.9 BASYACIVAN-DARNELL.INC. DIRECTIONAL TRAFFIC COUNT i LOCATION MAJOR N18 K 11•, rNA4D El W CO. RTE. P.Y. MINOR Efw X DATE 8•Z-84 TIME 7•-0-8:3c COMYENTB it---I OBSERVER WEATHER PERIOD M on &ermagp on C-*T"A p L on EL1-112 w on E1-1-15 m VEHICLES ENTERING rn r4 � ' BEGIN o 0 0 0 L 9 R L 8 R o. L S R i L 8 R 6 YAJ YIN TOT YAJ YIN TOT rApo-1:16 Z 17 0 / 13 3 2 3 0 1 1. /3 31 3(0 (01 1:� 7 30 13 Z 15 2 5 8 1 I ZD ZZ 57 3S 9Z T:so-7:MS Z 30 10 11 -Z Z 18 1 I 1p Z/ 5 J3 5lt 16 T:ys-8:o0 'S 60 6 ao 7- 4 2 1 0 19 35 67 1-13 ltro j 8:oo-g:ls 3 43 2 t5 3Z c, (o Z(P 1 1lt ZS 75 1-1 17b 1 8:Is-a:x Z- 38 I 10 ZB 5 5 Zo 1 ZO Up 7L 64 1s(I 7:3o-8: 10 1l1 3 39 1077 15 Il loto 1 3 IL Jolt ' BABYACIVAN-OARNELL.INC. U11itV 11VNAL I r(Nrrn; (..VUN 11 \ ""1\ .-_.- .,N....`•« - LOCATION L"', N J?D MAJOR E/W CO. ATE. PM. MINOA E/W K DATE 7-L4-8y TIME COMMENTS WS OBSERVER .)ALls!!G WEATHER PERIOD N an 60TIJAQO S On l.JTNA W G On EJa-IS W on EWy m VEHICLES ENTERING , BEGIN W W W W MAJ MIN TOT MAJ MIN TOT L S R L S R o L S R L S R 4:oo-a:IC 40 1 tO N. 13 Zo 15 8 R/ 3 9� &0 /5(0 4:l<-4.io 21 1 4 2S 10 Z lL 3 11 15 /Z 60 55 a��-4:v< 3 3Z L 11 4h (0 1 /3 ¢ S /Y 3 /05 70 /8/ 4:vf-5:oo 7, 3o I IS 4b 5 - -� /�_ -8 — 7 /Z 5 /0 S:I)V-5:d 4 35 3 1g (c3 7 3 r5 /Z 9 37. L1 /30 98 ZZ8 ' S-al 5 !.-> Z I I 1,# S4 8 3 /1 7 1 V Zl /TKO 65 yN s:eo- 6:4C Z. 27 2 1-5 7 ► 15 5 _ �, w z3 /09 Iry /0's 5:qC /D0) 4:vC• /2, 8 (o¢ Z/5 29 (03 3Z Z9 /00 91 r BASMACIVAN-DARNELL•INC. DIRECTIONAL TRAFFIC COUNT LOCATION N/8 3} MAJOR Gu r/ 7• M E/W, CO. RTE. P.M. ` MINOR I'k! A DATE -7-4-0Y TIME 7.'--b:30 COMMENTS OBSERVER TC WEATHER PERIOD on(',pl,p(�ILie? a ondaAEVJ KN - E. r.on64m 0 kmond.aRF6v m VEHICLES ENTERINO- BEOIN L 8 R i L 8 R L S R a L $ R 4 MAJ YIN TOT YAJ MIN TOT 1:00-rK g 4191 3 1-3 0 L 39 '(0 3 39 11 10 /uz nt , 4 L Z Z3 0 1 39 1 (0 44 lv 7! 17,3 /94 7:30- I'`< g SS 7 30 ¢ 7 35 9 5 46' 113 101 1I6 09 I 7.0(-S:w 8 &Z. (v (0 39 I 7 50 /5 4 4?, 19 /"%, 136 V -6!1< (, 51 91 I 40 3 to 4.7 I< 3 'S/ /L /01 /3d Z39 -V 47 Z 3 37 5 7 '69. !co ss /d /v1 15L 1:fiL'-&so Lto Z45 IS to I¢(o 13 31 14S s8 t3 t93 (o(- i 1 1 BASMACIVAN-OARNELL.INC. ' . DIRECTIONAL TRAFFIC COUNT ��� � . LOCATION N/S �J3 �� MAJOR W r E%W CO. RTE. P.M. MINO�E DATE - q-01< TIME 4'W-0:00 COMMENTS , !/ft0a4fFlArlo OBSERVER Szt WEATHER ' PERIOD At an E 6m oto N y onga606l"ir asonS.4gfl aig w w onG.I0/6Jo M VEHICLES ENTERING BEGIN W W W W MAJ MIN TOT MAJ MIN TOT L S R o. L 9 R a L 3 R ° L 3 R ° ' 4.vu-4•7e 13 /3' ('41 / 0 Z/ ZI / Zo 9 /69 70 3s firs or.30 L3 -15 Z IS 13 4 1 20 23 0 t,3 9 /9L 8Z Z744 • f:a-4.a6 20 es Is 78 4 0 32• 40 / ZZ 1 ro 7*5 /o5 Sze 4:05-5•vu Z5 So 4 12, m 1 1 30 31 3 Z•5 I t� /I/ 109 z% -sw- 43 98 7 Z3 79 I 4 ZS 3o 4 ?,6 /1 Z5/ (14 51.1> ,5:"r-S 30 V 90 3 2-0 85 0 0 ?A Z-3 2 Zo 15 ZZ5 84 305 5:3v•5:41( /3 59 14 (.9 2 / Zv 1.$ / /9 9 157 165 uz s:at-UOJ 15 48 3 // &Z, l 15 /1 1 /5<i 5q 199 ' 4:so-5:5- IZI 35to 7-3 13 311 5 114 13o l0 9L 57 SASMACIVAN-0AIINELL,INC. DIRECTIONAL TRAFFIC COUNT \B\ LOCATION NIS MAJOR f. u'Wrif O C...rraj E/W CO. RTE. PM. MINOR E DATEi'�7�Sy TIME 1:•?O- S'. COMMENTS - , OBSERVER 7-.W7 WEATHER PERIOD AdOn c..,rN44J m Z on GnL�GtJ m w on 6AeA"d2 w on MAi as on A'//iv BEGIN W W W W W - L 9 R L L 3 R ' L 3 R ' L S R ' L 9 R o TOT z/ s w y r 43 ¢ Z 57 /y �g fro 1 9:IC�7:Su /L 37 to ZS ¢7 8 z w 67 18 3Zb 9:so- 7'4r /3 13 -1 3S /v 21 47 (P C. (p/ Z/ 89 /cam 35/ $ /I, 7 ¢Z- 1fj 1 5 37 4 3 (af ?h 81 9 9:0.0-s:It 9 1 4 fl /cn /C Soli %. 3 SS i9 *, /3 77— 9:1(->�w 9 /9 7 /f ,o 48 3 3 97 / L3 -75 7 .,. 3') 10 ?!� r(rq toy !o� /1$ is /o x." ,0 18 .539 ' _ - BASMACIVAN-CARNELL,IN DIRECTIONAL TRAFFIC COUNT \"D\ ' LOCATION N/9 CO. RTE. P.M. Ef VV MINOR N E DATE 1-r9-Sy TIME 4�' 6:Ju COMMENTS OBSERVER �w WEATHER ' Al on Gotim a c on 440c'"o w on 441f'E1.9 on on PERIOD M a a ao m BEGIN W W W W W TOT L S R L 9 R L S R o. L S R o L S R d 7" y3 Zo Yr 9 17 l4`I I N SS 7 ; gr 13 4Z5 4:,f-4:3o LY 39 !4 5S 15 /ra s6 3 Z y 7 ,o 8o 19 4Lt 4:S--u:vf 33 33 r Z 59 ZL rr S /3 !/ 39,y 1Z W /3 9i S3 S ' 10- 31 Z 15 9 31) 10`( 13 / 81 y g : (v1 8 ¢•U ry 79 r _ /D I lv9 if _ 8 f ¢ _ :=/ �y0 19 4:,x Svs' c.�+ 29 r1 17 r) 2 c{i !`� 9 $9 Lv v 39 r? br 34 2SS (c3 LSZ ¢3 /v f�/ LK it Z95 90 1 i ' BABMACIVAN-DARNELL.INC. H n ro c -a 0 0 M M x x m ' I ro rr m �r rr rr ar rr ar rr �r rr �r r r rr rr rr rr rr rr rr GOLDENWEST STREET/ELLIS AVENUE Existing + I MAIC1 STREET/GARFIELD AVENUE ExistingProject-Related With Gothard Street Realigned Existing + ICU Existing ICU Project-Related No. AM Peak Crit. AM Peak Crit. -------------------- -- -------------------- Movemnt Lanes Cap. Vol. V/C M No. AM Peak Crit. AM Peak Crit.mt. Vol. V(C Mvmt. Movemnt Lanes Cap. Vol. VIC Mvmt. Vol. VIC Mvmt. WL 1 1600 26 0.02 FALSE 26 0.02 FALSE NR NA NA 22 NA FALSE 22 NA FALSE NL 1 1600 16 0.01 FALSE 44 0.03 FALSE NT 2 3200 395 0.13 TRUE 452 0.15 TRUE NR 1 1600 20 0.01 FALSE 20 0.01 FALSE NT 2 3200 401 0.13 TRUE 401 0.13 TRUE SL 1 1600 24 0.02 TRUE 38 0.02 TRUE SR NA NA 12 NA FALSE 12 NA FALSE SL 1 1600 98 0.06 TRUE 98 0.06 TRUE ST 2 3200 375 0.12 FALSE 403 0.13 FALSE SR 1 1600 45 0.03 FALSE 86 0.05 FALSE ST 2 3200 339 0.11 FALSE 339 0.11 FALSE EL NA NA 5 NA TRUE 5 NA TRUE ER NA NA 8 NA FALSE 8 NA FALSE EL 1 1600 29 0.02 FALSE 114 0.07 TRUE ET 1 1600 37 0.03 FALSE 37 0.03 FALSE ER 1 1600 74 0.05 FALSE 102 0.06 FALSE ET 2 3200 189 0.06 TRUE 331 0.10 FALSE WL NA NA 21 NA FALSE 21 NA FALSE WR NA NA 28 NA . FALSE 56 NA FALSE WL 1 1600 65 0.04 TRUE 65 0.04 FALSE WT 1 1600 24 0.05 TRUE 24 0.06 TRUE WR 1 1600 15 0.01 FALSE 15 0.01 FALSE WT 2 3200 178 0.06 FALSE 247 0.08 TRUE N/S component 0.15 0.17 N/S component 0.19 0.19 E/W component 0.05 0.06 Rt.Tn. component 0.00 0.00 E/W component 0.10 0.15 Yellow Clearance 0.10 0.10 Rt.Tn. component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.10 0.10 ICU 0.29 0.34 +aaaaaaaaa#a+a#+ra#aa+a++####+++##aa+a#a++++++#a++#+++a##a###a#a#aa##### ICU 0.39 0.44 r aaaaa.ara+++.aria.++•#######k###+,t##########+##+++++a++�+*+a+at,t+a+ar+# Existing + Existingj Existing ICU Project-Related ICU Project-Related Existing + -------------------- -- -------------------- No. -- -------------------- No. PM Peak Crit. PM Pe Crit. Movemnt Lanes PM Peak Crit. PM Peak Crit.Cap. Vol. V/C Mvmt. Vol. VIC Mvmt. Movemnt Lanes Cap. Vol. VIC Mvmt. Vol. VICak Mvmt. NI, 1 1600 21 0.01 FALSE 21 0.01 FALSE NR NA NA 40 NA FALSE 40 NA FALSE NI, 1 1600 10 0.01 FALSE 63 0.04 FALSE NT 2 3200 514 0.17 TRUE 547 0.18 TRUE NR 1 1600 10 0.01 FALSE 10 0.01 FALSE NT 2 3200 266 0.08 TRUE 266 0.08 TRUE SL 1 1600 49 0.03 TRUE 76 0.05 TRUE SR NA NA 52 NA FALSE 52 NA FALSE SL 1 1600 96 0.06 TRUE 96 0.06 TRUE ST 2 3200 451 0.16 FALSE 504 0.17 FALSE SR 1 1600 70 0.04 FALSE 150 0.09 FALSEST 2 3200 293 0.09 FALSE 293 0.09 FALSE EL NA NA 11 NA TRUE 11 NA TRUE EL 1 1600 56 0.04 FALSE 105 0.07 FALSE ER NA NA 12 NA FALSE 12 NA FALSE ER 1 1600 61 0.04 FALSE 77 0.05 FALSE ET 1 1600 45 0.04 FALSE 45 0.04 FALSE ET 2 3200 403 0.13 TRUE 485 0.15 TRUE WL NA NA 24 NA FALSE 24 NA FALSE WL 1 1600 63 0.04 TRUE 63 0.04 TRUE WR NA NA 27 NA FALSE 43 NA FALSE WR 1 1600 43 0.03 FALSE 43 0.03 FALSE WT 1 1600 63 0.07 TRUE 63 0.08 TRUE WT 2 3200 252 0.06 FALSE 385 0.12 FALSE N/S component 0.20 0.23 E/W component 0.07 0.08 N/S component 0.14 0.14 Rt.Tn. component 0.00 0.00 E/W component 0.17 0.19 1 Yellow Clearance 0.10 0.10 Rt.Tn. component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.10 0.10 ICU 0.38 0.41 ICU 0.41 0.43 1 BASMACIYAN — DARNCELLL,((INC. Project No. ���� Date - rr ay�,'4IN� Checked' Project Description ZGU CA 1 c�latiur� fY1e;� 6a tr 6ar�te� k- zsz/I(.4 45 off. �o vol VlC VOL- V-- 11 `— -7 0 0.o. l 8 4 0. 12 I ' 8 I //n1 "ZQ(o 1 ) APPENDIX C Za 3� �$00 �� �•� � � 1�o �- O 1 ' 1 Traffic Signal worksheets Igo 0 (0 > p.0 164/I14 lg9 p.0(0 I Ct1 14$/14-7 30DO 3o/7Z l�eo 15 p.ID 0.O 3�o L I { KC O OD rr rr r r r ar rr rr rr r� r rr rr rr r rr r r� r� 1•� SIGNALS AND UGHTING TRAFFIC r.ANUAL SIOIALS AND UGHTING TP.AFFIC-MANUAL fig-.!•IC Ror..Fu TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS 1R...r«[s...+A-•-.•e.l,T«I!._tr r1.«a d.«+«[.....�A•«•t•o.l,T..M._L Wr.a URBAN---------------RURAL__.X------ MI.u—l.rl.rrn MAN------ ------Vim____________ IU.Ir.t..d.rr« [ADT [ADT 1.Mwr.ril..l« - i.wdr.vild« S.x•R./ W.S.A•A � V.4d.•,.r A•rr.y« vA:d«•w LTr Yew.. nww 1w.1•1 r.a .Iwwr.�n..r..,r..d S«I•R./ M«f.N.!-+ ..«.I.W.1 Ala ..Ir..rw+.w•..d S..•1 Ir«V.r.iy...M<r wd 4.•••i �.....A..1 (..•.ar rM .«l.•.I lr.•M...a..w.Ms-..A..p..i 1.r..d«) (w+L..n:r rl,l . a.,Irr••1 wr.Aww UAr R..1 Uar !.«I ,I.wr Y:,..Sr..w UAr R..1 U4- bnl 1....... ... 1................ t.0oo S.foO LSD I.No 1.. Y 1................ 3.600 ro 1.6t0 u«. .... •.�............. f.660 71D L/00 ry7...-.. .4w 6.713 I,dal 7«rw...----- 7..r............ 9,S00 6,720 7.700 7•24D 2.rn........ ..r..:..... 6.7ID X200 x.240 _�. t............. 7•.r............ leao s,/oo 3.700 170 1............_ 7..r«........... 1600 4600 7,x00 ;xO oO 70o q To0 -70L) 2.4w•..«r a G.•:.....T.M. 7.I.�.....Mr.I O.mr..T-M. YY Vil•1•.,w lq rrh. Ydld«...lq..K�.._ Vilel«,«a.,rr»• vd:d••rw+rr6�.w_ - S.A•R•I W LM•A.A 1 •w.•r(rr.l.1 S.a ..I.w.:...•:r.r.n..d 7•.•R.A 11•.LM.A.A C .,•r..d.•1 1�iww:r rM .r..r Mrd•1 I.a ..I..•�.w.r..w..,..d .f....d•.1 1..i..a.:w..1.1 .►.r•/1««i.•r.i..rM.r rd�r+.d. .Mr.l Ir«I.rr.ay rr./!.r wrd...w.dr j.,M... Y:.•r 3r••.• UAr *..I U4_ R..1 - Sr.•. M• MYr•lr.... Ilrlr•r R..1 .UAr 1............. 1................ 17.000 t:07A8m 1,x00 1............. 1................ I7,000 t.40 I,Mo sso �..?...... -a............ 1•,a0 Cb � 1,x00 t50 1 «r« ...... m.�........... o f0,Ot0 ,S� t50 ..rn........ x..rw........... 14,ap 10.080 1.600 I.I20 ..r.......... 7«r«........... I.,Qp IO.otO ,60o 1.120 1.............. 7•.w............ 17,000 t,a0 1,600 1,I20 1.............. 7.•r«.....:..... 12000 2 4M 1•nn 1 1'.0 4 l Op O Cf 1570c) -) O S".A.1 M.,f tl.R./ - 7.rrh 7�.....« S.rr•R.I 11•r W.RJ l.,,., l.r.rr• 7 .• 7 W r•-...�...x.R.14n 1.11..1..rw.«. w r...r...r.wl•1:.1 A.r 1.14.bR..wr1. -•• ArlRll•1 tOR« NOTG NOT[: 1. .4 4 r••.r.w«r.F..a. ...r.•«••r M I.s1.W.la.:.«•Ir.....1...•11...,.m• 1. l M�«r..r•.4..M r .w.«.q V WI.J.1.:a.I.w.w«...I..r 11.•.,..... .:�..1 PL.-1.w 4 r.-:Id .A•I•h.r.w r...r.. dp•1.A.«1..•5.....:M 1.,A.Idr.w•.r...rr. L T.L.«d wrl,1.•M[!IMTERSECTIOMf«.a«Ir«:r..Mw«•..1 r.rR...lw..•.....r L T.M•.•1 rl,W new INT[RS[CTION3 w.aw 1.•«:r..4•.rr.d r.IR._I_...r•- M nrx Is•se FIlaURE C-�' FIliURE C-Z \BD\I TKAFFIC 51GNAL WAFFANT5 \�� TKAFFIG 516NAL WAVFANTS BASMACIYAN-DARNELL,INC. i f BASMACIYAN•DARNELL,INC 47 C.rr•p-Dd..,Sr k.0-i Goa Er1�1es-1- .xc7 c, //'' ,�J_ /� c - �.cU1 e 5'� s� n w.v«I 0..dr.QW--OA 97660 w ., cant,S.R.Fl l(JD TI'Lal/�7( J�- w«I s k,�n,aalr«.1,nsso 1714I SAP1f40 (7141 S/f-"40 I 11� S!WIALS AND LIGHTING TRAFFIC 0INUAL I 94 SIGNALS AND LIGHTING TRAFFIC RANUAL ..•l lrri I1pr.!•IC Fan t•SC TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS lR•..6 r E•+1...6 Arw...0.07 T.111.-1w Nr->! (4..1-Ea.I.w6 A.a..0 Died,T-M.-L.M...D !URBAN------/X......RURAL------_...... Y..:w t.-.I.rw•. URBAN---------------RURAL_, C.----- 6Y-:a..R...:.....» lAOT EADT 1. 1.KIM—Ydl.rlr rdld..r••�••.«y« va:a«rb«uf•.- Sr.a.6 M.eL•I. _ r.ud..r•b r.y« Va dw.«LrrYdw- N»M(1.rI•/M� .Irwr.M./.•*..d -.....11..1•I 6.4 .Iw..ri•.-w....rd rlrl rM .w.ra•r..d.rr�••d rM.-r la...W�.ly.wRle r..d ar•..d UAr t..l O.M. R.rl S.— Ilir.slr YAr R.»I UAr t..J 1............. 1................ $.ON 5.600 L.m 1.660 1............. I................ 6.000 5,600 2.600 1.1180 2 1 .... .......... VAM 6.7ID 400 AS0 ... ....... 1................ gam 6Z8 � A AR «. ...C 0.... ,. 'i,� 6,7ID L0 I160 « ».......� ......,. 90 k7ID LIDt ............_ •.............. 000 1.600 100 1140 ............ ...... .. 9.000 I= 1:100 �iDO L I.w.....xr•r G-x.r..T-M. 2.I.w.w...tr a6 Cr.iw.-T-M. r.6kl.8.••6•r r..l.. VJadw.•'6q r 1.#...- Ydlel..pw 6.7 r.•j.. Yd:dw r 6•I r«••- ......Iw.J.11.6: f.x•a.J��M.r Lw.A.6 •w.n Iwnl•/M• ..1,...:.r.•rnwr.+•d Lx d1.J W.L..0.6__.1S_ M. ..Mrdwl (.r i.s•:w rlrl gp..•d.•1 (.«i..c•:.•..I.1 .•1lww 6•....+y«.Ili.r wd..-..d 1 .•1lrw 6«�.i...riRar wd•f.+.d N.S.— YM..S.— UAr 1...1 Ud.. V_j 1..So—, Yi...L»M UAr M" ta•« 1............. 1................ Mant.ANI,AO ISO I 1............. I................ 11,000 t.Soo 1.700 950 .. 1.. I6.600 10.080 1 100 - M •............ 1................ 14.600 10 0t0 1.700 t10 «.+... ....�I....w7......... 10.9.0 /I.aaOJ. t.t7D .::.» ��..-:�........ I1�0 (�SE.OtO�� I.IW _ C .LID «...•........... ow 6..00 1T00 1,LID I.............�'.f_. �� �f ........ w.w........... I;000 600 I,600 �1 o O67 Lw.A.J M..6.a.a 1 1 r.,..,.. 1 r..•r.. f.x.R.6 No S.M•/:./ 11I...•.•. 1 W.r•. 61•...-..rr..N.a.6 M•6d16.1.1..nw. N.r•w...r.•.Nd1.6 I..f.14.1.. 1 1 1 1 i NOTE: MOTE: L 1. L.q.:. n a..�.r..l•r..M..r M Md.a6.:A.:w...x.w»Iw..it..w.»•. - -IV-4 16...I.»M...:M6 I..i.1•i•......•w.••. .t.nl pAer 1.•.M...16.6 I•.A.I.4. r..wrr. L T-1. 1.NEW INTERSECTIONS«.A«1.."x J.» 6..-.J.41 I-MEW INTERSECTIONS«.A«4•.N.w•.A...•ew»I•.If.•»I...•s.r-. rare rare \ \ TIWFIG 516MAL WARRANTS \BD\I TPAFFIG 516MAL WARRANTS c2I57�t BASMACIYAN DARNELL,LNG �1 7 sASMACIYAN-DARNELL.ING �p.E� A\IUX✓ pT t/p87}}l}�/ GOT1}QQ� S�T1ZE�- r}T, �nAQ�IELL7 6161 Caw•p.N Orlw,Sak.LI 6161 Cai••pm Orl.e.Swke LI "-.R..S S--h.C.M."11660 W..a.ti U..%.C.Mar.0 926"47161 S49-"40 1� J 1 nle)S61S960 r r �r r� �r r r r r �■r r r■ r r r r r � r i C x Limited use Re:w4 medbn Limited Yw mfp ores •, Curd IiM R/W Line Of Mint(TIP.) ' 4 Toe of elope(Tvp) OISTANCE(!T.) a 1 T' x x' MAJOR 325 37 a7 13 ' PRIMARY NO 25 25 Ia SECONOART' SSO Ii IR e - COMMUTER' 300 0 0 0 COLLECTOR ISO O 0 0 LOCAL 175 0 0 0 APPENDIX D County of Orange Standard Plan No. 117 ORANGE COUNTY ENVIRONMENTA4X" E T GENCT STD. PLAN dII, IuiLon/ Dir�cb pled: Ree. 1rPL Re.:wC INTERSECTION SIGHT DISTANCE SHEET I OF 2 NOTES: i 1. The Limited Use Area is determined by the graphical method using the appropriate distances given in the above table. It shell be used for the purpose of prohibiting or clearing obstructions in order to maintain adequate sight distance at intersections. 2. The Line of Sight line shall be shown at intersections on all landscaping plans, grading plans, and tentative tract plans where safe sight distance ' is questionable. to cases where an intersection is located on a vertical - curve, a profile of the sight line may be required. ). Walls or any obstructions that could restrict the vie. within the Limited Use Area shall not be permitted. G. The toe of the slope shall not encroach into the Limited Use Area. i. The Limited Use Area shall be as near level as possible, yet maintain proper drainage. 6. Plants and shribs shall be of the type that will gro. no higher than 30 inches above the ground within the Limited Use Areas. 7. Trees shall be of the type that Grow no larger than six (6) inches in diameter,and tree limbs shall be a minimum of six (6) feet above the - around within the Limited Use Area. Trees shall be. spaced far enough ' a;art such that adequate sight distance is maintained within Limited Use Areas. 8. Points A and A' are the locations of a driver's line of sight while in a vehicle at an intersection 10 feet back from the projection of the curb Iine. The distance Y' is the distance measured from the centerline of the road to the far right through traffic lane. The distance Y' is , equal to zero for T-intersections. 9. The distance C renregents the safe stopping sight distance measured along Lu, e,nc,rlum of Lue rod- 10. Points C and C' are the locations (centerline of the travel lanes) where the driver of vehicle, traveling at a given speed, has the minimum stopping sight distance required to bring his vehicle to a safe stop. The distance X is the distance measured from the centerline of the road to the far right through traffic lane. The distance X' is the distance measured from the centerline of the road to the center of the travel lane nearest the centerline of the road. ORANGE COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL "NO? E�T /AGENCY STD. PLAN C A NIA A09'.10n/ O,,W- 117 adopaM 4a rr-92 Q_d' I INTERSECTION SIGHT DISTANCE SHEET 2 OF 2 BD BASMACIYAN-DARNELL, INC. `\ ENGINEERING AND PLANNING Ms. Beverly Bruesch December 19, 1984 Transportation.Traffic•.Municipal.Transit Michael Brandman Associates 262 Campus Drive.Suite B-t Newport Beach.California 92660 (714(549-9940 i As development in the -area adjacent to the Gothard Street extension occurs the City of Huntington Beach should require that December 19, 1984 RECEIVE00.0- this roadway be implemented. Please call me if you have any questions. Ms. Beverly Bruesch Sincerely Michael Brandman Associates 3140 Red Hill Avenue BASMACIYAN-DARNELL, INC. Suite Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Subject: Holly Planned Community Traffic Study BILL E. DARNELL, P.E. Dear Ms. Bruesch: c.c. Bruce Gilmer, City of Huntington Beach Pursuant to the City of Huntington Beach's request to include traffic from "The Ranch" project we have updated the ICU's for the Garfield Avenue intersections at Gothard Street realigned and at Main Street. The results of our ICU analysis found that there was not any change in the AM or PM peak hour ICU's as a result of the addition of the "The Ranch" project traffic. A copy of the ICU worksheets and the project-traffic assignments for "the Ranch" project are attached. The City of Huntington Beach concerns for this area I believe are related to the future extension of Gothard Street south of Gar- field Avenue to its master plan connection with Main Street. Our examinations of the cumulative traffic conditions with the Holly - - - Planned Community show that the adjacent street system can ade- quately accomodate the Holly Planned Community without the future extension. The most significant effect of the initial realignment of Gothard Street will be that southbound traffic currently using Gothard will be redirected to the Garfield/Gothard/Crystal intersection then turn left to travel east on Garfield to reach the Main Street intersection to continue east and/or south on Main Street. Northbound travel would be the opposite of the southbound travel. This movement will result in a slight increase in travel until such time that Gothard Street is extended south to Main Street. In summary it is concluded that traffic to/from the Holly Planned Community does not create the need for the future extension of Gothard Street south of Garfield Avenue to Main Street. However it can be concluded that the realignment of Gothard Street within the Holly Planned Community initiates the ultimate need for the future extension by implementing the Gothard Street realignment - as shown on the City's Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH). GOTHARD STREET/GOLDENWEST STREET/CRYSTAL STREET Qaew_. } Existing Existing ICU Project-Related �*?" -------------------- -- -------------------- No. AM Peak- Crit. AM Peak Crit. Movemnt Lanes Cap. Vol. V/C Mvmt. Vol. V/C Mvmt. `^ c s NI, 1 1600 15 0.01 FALSE 15 0.01 FALSE 8 �o NR 1 1600 10 0.01 FALSE 10 0.01 FALSE NT 2 3200 25 0.01 TRUE 25 0.01 TRUE SL 1 1600 39 0.02 TRUE 209 0.13 TRUE GARFIELO AVE. meow- m � WL ro n SR 1 1 600 70 0.04 TRUE 98 0.06 TRUE - ST 2 3200 25 0.01 FALSE 25 0.01 FALSE o `° x 8 EL 1 1600 5 0.00 FALSE 19 0.01 FALSE ER 1 1600 10 0.01 FALSE 10 0.01 FALSE g _ ET 2 3200 204 0.06 TRUE a YI 0.0-7 TRUE WL 1 1 600 15 0.01 TRUE 15 0.01 TRUE WR 1 1600 33 0.02 FALSE 116 0.07 FALSE Ao 4 ayai- ss WT 2 3200 185 0.06 FALSE 195 O.OIo FALSE is } _ _u A 3 Al,N/S component 0.03 0.14 `" q� E/W component 0.07 0.08 ,_ SPIN R �1265 N Rt.Tn. component 0.03 0.04 Yellow Clearance 0.10 0.10 Z PROJECT 10/s „o SITE ICU 0.24 0.36 YORKTOwN AVE.`60 ,.s 145 Existing + 5t. Existing ICU Project-Related „ `r -------------------- -- -------------------- No. PM Peak Crit. PM Peak Crit. - Movemnt Lanes Cap. Vol. V/C Mvmt. Vol. V/C Mvmt. NL 1 1600 20 0.01 FALSE 20 0.01 FALSE NR 1 1600 15 0.01 FALSE 15 0.01 FALSEIr > NT 2 3200 30 0.01 TRUE 30 0.01 TRUE SL 1 1600 184 0.12 TRUE 282 0.18 TRUE d SR 1 1600 80 0.05 TRUE 96 0.06 TRUE r oz ST 2 3200 30 0.01 FALSE 30 0.01 FALSE ' W x EL 1 1600 10 0.01 TRUE 37 0.02 TRUE ER 1 1600 15 0.01 FALSE 15 0.01 FALSE ET 2 3200 135 0.04 FALSE I(oi O,O S FALSE WL 1 1600 20 0.01 FALSE 20 0.01 FALSE WR 1 1600 143 0.09 FALSE 303 0.19 FALSE WT 2 3200 175 0.05 TRUE 175 0.05 TRUE N/S component 0.12 0.19 E/W component 0.06 0.08 I:Er Rt.Tn. component 0.03 0.03 Yellow Clearance 0.10 0.10 XX XX AM/PM PEAK !OUR VOLUMES D24 HOUR iOLU�iES 5 ICU 0.32 0.39 PPOjECT TRAFFIC ASS�G,••E;:_• rr r it rr rr rr ■r r rr rr rr r �r rr rr r r r r MAIN STREET/GARFIELD AVENUE rI�G ILo1, t With Gothard Street Realigned Existing + Existing ICU Project-Related -------------------- -- -------------------- No. AM Peak Crit. AM Peak Crit. Movemnt Lanes Cap. Vol. VIC Mvmt. Vol. V/C Mvmt. NI, 1 1600 16 0.01 FALSE 44 0.03 FALSE NR 1 1600 20 0.01 FALSE 20 0.01 FALSE NT 2 3200 401 0.13 TRUE 411 0.13 TRUE SL 1 1600 98 0.06 TRUE 98 0.06 TRUE SR 1 1600 45 0.03 FALSE 86 0.05 FALSE ST 2 3200 339 0.11 FALSE 339 0.11 FALSE EL 1 1600 29 0.02 FALSE 114 0.07 TRUE ER 1 1600 74 0.05 FALSE 102 0.06 FALSE ET 2 3200 189 0.06 TRUE 331 0.10 FALSE WL 1 1600 65 0.04 TRUE 65 0.04 FALSE WR 1 1600 15 0.01 FALSE 15 0.01 FALSE WT 2 3200 178 0.06 FALSE d5� 0.08 TRUE N/S component 0.19 0.19 E/W component 0.10 0.15 Rt.Tn. component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.10 0.10 ICU 0.39 0.44 •..+w►.•r•�.wx*r+*+�+.�.#.#t.t:rf*wx..:.+•xx�+*#**r*t*+•+....*+••r+#t�xx Existing + Existing ICU Project-Related -------------------- -- -------------------- No. PM Peak Crit. PM Peak Crit. ` Movemnt Lanes Cap. Vol. V/C Mvmt. Vol. V/C Mvmt. NI, 1 1600 10 0.01 FALSE 63 0.04 FALSE NR 1 1600 10 0.01 FALSE 10 0.01 FALSE NT 2 3200 266 0.08 TRUE a-it 0.08 TRUE SL 1 1600 96 0.06 TRUE 96 0.06 TRUE SR 1. 1600 70 0.04 FALSE 150 0.09 FALSE ST 2 3200 293 0.09 FALSE 305 0.09 FALSE EL 1 1600 56 0.04 FALSE 105 0.07 FALSE ER 1 1600 61 0.04 FALSE 77 0.05 FALSE ET 2 3200 403 0.13 TRUE 485 0.15 TRUE WL 1 1600 63 0.04 TRUE 63 0.04 TRUE WR 1 1600 43 0.03 FALSE 43 0.03 FALSE WT 2 3200 252 0.08 FALSE 385 0.12 FALSE N/S component 0.14 0.14 E/W component 0.17 0.19 Rt.Tn. component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.10 0.10 ICU 0.41 0.43 E+ � A A z w � a p a 0 t EMMION FACTORS SUMMARY I. Stationary Source of Emission Factorsi Natural Gas Electricity ' Primary Emission Factor Emission Factor Pollutant (lbs/106 cu.ft.) (lbs/1,000 kwy) ' CO 20 0.21 ' HC 8 as CH4 0.13 NOx 80 (domestic) 2.10 120 (commercial) Sox Negligible 1.40 r Particulates 0.15 0.18 II. Mobile source Emission Factors2 ' Primary EMFAC6D Emission Factors at 35 mph Pollutant Grams per mile) 1987 2000 CO 14.14 10.18 HC 1.19 0.94 NOx 2.01 1.48 ' sox 0.21_ 0.20 Particulates 0.33 0.32 1 1 SCAQMD, Air Quality Handbook for EIRs, December 1983. ' 2 Orange County EMA, EMFAC6D Program, February 8, 1984. APPENDIX J APPENDIX J (Continued) CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS Emission Factors for Heavy-Duty, Emission Factors for Heavy-Duty, Gasoline-Powered Construction Equipment Diesel-Powered Construction Equipment POLLUTANT m r PLUAN Type of Carbon Ex�t -N trogen Su ur vapo- ran - Equipment Monoxide Hydrocarbons Oxides Oxides Particulate Carbon Exhaust ratio- case Type of Mon- Hydro- Hydro- Hydro- Nitrogen Sulfur Partic- Equipment oxide Carbons carbons carbons Oxides Dioxide ulates Tracklaying Tractor 175 50.1 665 62.3 50.7 Wheeled i Wheeled Tractor 4320 164 30.9 32.6 195 7.03 10.9 Tractor 973 67.2 451 40.9 61.5 Motor Wheeled i Grader 5490 186 30.0 37.1 145 7.59 9.4 Dozer 335 106 2290 158 75 Wheeled Scraper 660 284 2820 210 184 Loader 7060 241 29.7 48.2 235 10.6 13.5 Motor Roller 6080 277 28.2 55.5 164 8.38 11.8 Grader 97.7 24.7 478 39 27.7 Wheeled Miscella- Loader 251 84.7 1090 82.5 77.9 neous 7720 254 25.4 50.7 187 10.6 11.7 Tracklaying Loader 72.5 14.5 265 34.4 26.4 Off-Highway Truck 610 198 3460 206 116 Dust Emissions Roller 83.5 24.7 474 30.5 22.7 1.2 tons per acre are of construction per month of activity. or 110 lbs. per acre per working day. i Miscellaneous 188 71.4 1030 64.7 63.2 f --- - Source for all above data: EPA AP-42, August 1977 � t i t i i J-1 J-2 ' I ~ 04 A A z a p � z ri it r �r ri rr r� .r� rr rr r� r r� r rr r r � ■r �I �r r Ir r� Ir■ �Ir r �r r� rr �r ilr r rr t■t �r I�r rr I 60 PERCENTAGE Y RELATIVE COMMON INDOOR COMMON OUTDOOR COMPLAINANTS LOUDNESS NOISE LEVELS NOISE LEVELS I Z 80 /�_ 20 REACTIONS a dBA t5 VIGOROUS 120 ROCK BAND o tp ACTION x 40 COMPLAINTS& m NCE 5 THREATS 92 110 CHAIN SAW AT 2 FEET MEAN 2 OF LEGAL ACTION 20— 18 100 OAS LAWN MOWER AT S FEET Q t NONE w IL 8 90 FOOD BLENDER AT 9 FEET 0 50 60 70 60 90 4 80 GARBAGE DISPOSAL AT S FEET DIESEL TRUCK AT 50 FEET - DAY•NIGHTSOUND LEVEL,ILdn) Ic„cl , NOISY URBAN DAYTIME SOURCE:'IMPACT OF NOISE ON PEOPLE' 2 70 VACUUM CLEANER AT 10 FEET AUTOMOBILE AT 50 FEET CUA01TY,I MAYF197iIRONMENTAL 1 60 CONVERSATION AT S FEET HEAVY TRAFFIC AT 300 FEET COMMUNITY REACTION TO NOISE LARGE BUSINESS OFFICE 112 50 QUIET OFFICE QUIET URBAN DAYTIME 1/4 40 QUIET RURAL NIGHTTIME LIBRARY 1/S 30 1/18 20 I 1/92 10 THRESHOLD OF HEARING 0 TYPICAL NOISE LEVELS ON dBA SCALE 1 1 r APPENDIX J CORRESPONDENCE 1 . r 1 � - r r r 1 1 t 1 1 Captain Tom Poe B. Where are the closest hospital/emergency facilities to the site? Huntington Beach Fire Department Humana Hospital Huntington Beach which has full emergency care is located 1. What is the location and approximate response time of the fire stations that approximately 2 miles from the site. would be responding to an emergency at this site? Which station is nearest to the site? Gothard station is located on Gothard Street approximately 300 feet 9. Do these facilities provide emergency service and/or afull range of health care? north of Ellis. Lake station is located on Lake and Frankfort Streets. NM The response time will be approximately 5 minutes. They provide a full range of emergency/care. 2. What is the hazard severity classification for the site? 10. Is the existing manpower and equipment adequate to maintain the present level of service In the event the project is approved? If not, what mitigation DNA measures would you suggest to offset potential Impacts? Yes. 3. What is the Insurance Services Office(ISO)rating for the site? 11. What special implications does the ongdIng oil production in and around the site Insurance service rates the present "Brush" areas at "9" and the present in providing health and fire services? "Developed" areas as "2". No special implications as long as fire access lanes are provided and unobstructed. 4. What equipment is maintained at the affected fire station(s)? 12. What will the fire flow requirement be for the proposed site? a. Gothard Station - 2 Engines, 1 Support Vehicle and I Battalion Chief Car Depending on the size of the buildings, the fire flows would be minimum b. Lake Station - I Engine, 1 Ladder Truck and 1 Paramedic Unit of 2000 gallons per minute, maximum of 3500 gallons per minute. 5. What is the manpower of the affected fire station(s)? 13. Does the Department currently take part in the Orange County Mutual Aid system? a. Gothard Station - 8 Personnel Yes. b. Lake Station - 7 Personnel 8. Who will provide paramedic and ambulance services to the proposed site? 14. In general, what would be the difference in serving this proposed planned p, p community plan and zonal jing(estate residential,indusared to the land trial,and oes ffice)? the The Fire Department provides Paramedic service. Ambulance service g p � � ? provided by private agencies. Most often Seals Ambulance Company. Generally the community residential projects are of higher density and allow limited access to perform fireground operations. Generally during plan check if it becomes evident that fire operations will become impeded, the department will impose mitigating measures such as automatic sprinkler 7. What is the normal response time of these services? systems, alarm systems, access roads, etc. The normal response time for paramedics to this area would be approximately Any other comments you.may have are welcome. 5 minutes. The ambulance response time normally is approximately 15 minutes. RECEIVED JUL 1 8 1981 i, „m CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 1. W,,at is the approximate response time of the patrol units that would be responding 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 to an amergency at this site? P.0.BOX 70 POLICE DEPARTMENT Tel:(714)960 8811 Our most current response time study shows Priority 1 calls averaged 4.5 minutes EARLE ROBITAnLE while Priority 2 & 3 calls averaged 11.3 and 22.1 minutes, respectively. This Chi.iM P.W. would be generally indicative of the area in question. 2. What is the number of sworn police officers in the Iuntington Beach Police Department? At the present time, the police department has been allocated 201 sworn officers. 3. What is the number of vehicles and special equipment (units, SWAT team, helicopters) available at the station serving the site? July 17, 1984 The department maintains a fleet of 49 black and white units, 16 motorcycle units, 2 operable helicopters, 40 unmarked units, and approximately 10 support vehicles such as buses, beach vehicles, etc. Huntington Beach has trained 10 officers for the Special Weapons and Tactic Team to handle certain emergency situations. Michael Brandman Associates 4. Is existing manpower and vehicle supply adequate to maintain the present level of 3140 Red Hill Avenue, Suite 200 service in the event the project is developed? If not, what additions would be Costa Mesa, California 92626 required? Dear Mr. Panchal: Based upon the national average of 2.0 sworn officers per 1000 population and historical data indicating approximately 1.26 calls for service per dwelling, Enclosed is the completed questionnaire for the E.1.R. concerning City annually, the anticipated personnel requirements for a project of this magnitude of Huntington Beach General Plan Amendment 84-1 as it relates to police indicates 7 sworn officers should be phased in over this fifteen year project if service. If you have any questions, please contact me at (714) 536-5943. current workload is to be maintained. Sincerely yours, S. What types of crimes occur in the vicinity of the site? tt/ii�J ���IUL'E Since the majority of this area is undeveloped, very few calls for service are received with the exception of a scare number of traffic-related reports. JIM MOORE Crime Analyst 6. Do you foresee any adverse impacts as a result of the project? What mitigation measures would you suggest to reduce potential impacts to the police department? JM:se I see no adverse impacts from this project provided personnel requirements are Enclosure met. An obvious consideration to this department of any project is easy access into and within the site for emergency vehicles and this seems to have been provided with the recommended street changes. In fact, realigning Gothard to eliminate the curve and the five-way intersection at Garfield and Main would reduce potential traffic hazards and improve vehicle flow. 7. In general, what would be the difference in serving this proposed planned community residential project, compared to the land uses allowed under the current general plan and zoning (estate residential, industrial and office)? a m .a a as as a� a ■a as as �a as as as a a� �a as rgner If the proposed plan increases the number of individuals occupying this site in Assistant Buperin contrast to the existing,plan, it can be anticipated the calls for service will Assistant Superintendent of Business Services increase proportionately. However, if the proposed planned community includes a Huntington Beach City School District perimeter wall and security gates, this has been found to be very"effective in re- ducing crime. Other than those stated, there would be no difference in police 1. Whet are the locations of the schools that will serve the proposed project? service to the alternate plan. Dwyer School, 1502 Palm Avenue, Huntington Beach Smith School, 770 17th Street, Huntington Beach 8. What is the current enrollment and capacity for those schools? ENROLLMENT CAPACITY Dwyer 839 -6Q`,"7'() Smith 503 -988 L-n 4. What is the district's current enrollment and capacity? Enrollment - 5,6001 Capacity - 59820 4. What generation factors are used to forecast future enrollment? Depends on type of unit. 5. Does the capacity e3dst to provide adequate service? Is expansion planned In the future? It is possible that Smith and Dwyer could be overcrowded. 6. Will there be adverse Impacts from the proposed development? If so, do you have any suggestions for mitigating the impacts? It could be necessary to transport student to and from school. 7. What is the financial Impact of the project,based on tax rates and/or cost per student? If transportation is needed, cost per student will increase. iAny other comments you may have are welcome. i Mr. Buck Panchal July 27, 1*984 Page Two - Transit amenities such as a-bus shelter, bus pad, bench, and sidewalk should be provided at each stop. ORANGE COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT July 27, 1984 - Depending on the projected traffic volume and speed, bus turnouts may be necessary at the bus stops. ,RECEIVED JOL 3 1 1904 We appreciate the opportunity to comment and look forward to reviewing future site plans as they are being developed. If you have any ques- Mr. Huck Panchal tions, please call me or Deb Marpert, at 971-6410. Michael Brandman Associates i 3140 Red Hill Avenue Sincerely, Suite 200 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 / Dear Mr. Panchal: �7GC Dick Hsu Section Chief SUBJECT: DEIR FOR GPA 84-1, CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH i Development Planning We have reviewed your request for transit information regarding the STH:ae Holly property site and have the following comments: I 1. OCTD Route 25 currently serves Golden West Street with transit stops at Ellis/Golden West and Garfield/Golden West. 2. Depending on the magnitude and pattern of the development for the proposed project over the next 15 years, certain transit service improvements may be made, which could Include: - One or more additional stops on Golden West Street between Ellis Avenue and Garfield Avenue which would be located at points of access to the development. - Service may be routed through the project on Gothard, if the realignment and street upgrading becomes a reality as indl- cated on the Master Plan of Arterial Highways. 3. We suggest the following features be included in site plans for the proposed project in order to support the transit service and encourage transit usage: _ Highest density land uses (apartments or condos) should be located closest to arterials, so that transit service may be available to the greatest number of potential riders. ' - pedestrian access to arterials with transit service should be provided by minimizing setbacks in order to shorten walking distances and by appropriately placing convenient walkways (or - breakthroughs or stairs in sloped landscaped areas or sound barrier walls, if such are provided). 11222 ACACIA PARKWAY•P.O"BOX 3005•GARDEN GROVE.CALIFORNIA 92642•PHONE 17141 971 6200 I I S RECEIVED JUL 1 8 190 4 ss C)UNTY OF C> P— oF%^MC3 R.A.SCOTT i 1w.C•0w Mr.Mike Luke 7 RAY RHOADS County of Orange General Services Agency �s `z /GENERAL SERVICES AGENCY rwnwoww WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 1. What is the location of the landfill which would serve the proposed project? I)Do SOUTH GRAND AVS. - SANTA ANA.CALIFORNIA 92781 Coyote Canyon Sanitary Landfill serves this parcel, it is located 1714) 624.3591 off Bonita Canyon Road in the City of Irvine. 2. What is the class of this landfill? It is a Class II-2 landfill site. July 16, 1984 3. What is the lifespan of the landfill? Are there any proposals for new landfill Michael Brandman Associates sites,or expansion of the current site? 3140 Red Hill Avenue, Suite 200 its life expectancy is October 1988 at which time the initiation of Costa Mesa, CA 92626 disposal operations in a suitable replacement site is expected. Attention: Buck Panchal Subject: EIR for City of Huntington Beach General Plan Amendment 84-1 4• What are the solid waste generation factors for commercial centers and for multiple-family residential developments (e.g., pounds per 1000 square feet or Dear Buck: resident per day)? Transmitted herewith is the response sheet for the project showing our replies The generation rate of solid waste in Orange County is estimated to be to your questions. 8.5 pounds per capita per day. We do not have generation factor break- downs for commercial centers or multi-family residential developments. If you have any further questions or need any further information, please call 5. Will there be any adverse impacts on the landfill resulting from the approval of Kori Sanders at (714)834-2860. the project? Sincerely, No. Mike Luke,Assistant Chief Engineer 6. What is the location of the transfer station serving the area of the proposed project? KS:ner The County of Orange no longer operates any transfer stations. There is, however, a privately owned transfer station at 17121 Nichols Street which Enclosures serves the area of the proposed project. It is operated by Rainbow Disposal. T. Will there be any adverse Impacts on the transfer station resulting from the approval of the project? If so,what mitigation measures do you suggest? The project should not have any adverse impact on the operation of the transfer station. i Any other comments you may have are welcome. Project design should consider means of reducing the amount of waste material generated both during construction and when the project is in use. RECEIVED JUL 3 0 1984• RECEIVED JUL 1 9 19%. oIsros,l�c ;, CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH I? _ n2000 MAIN STREET P.O.BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 Paul E.Cook Public Works Department P.O.BOX 1026 • HUNTINGTON BEACH.CALIFORNIA 92647 • PHONE (714)847.3581 Director (714)536-5431 July25, 1984 July 17, 1984 Michael Brandman Associates 3140 Red Hill Avenue,Suite#200 Costa Mesa,Ca.92626 Attn:Buck Panchal-Reserch Assistant Michael Brandman Associates 3140 Red Hill Avenue, Suite #200 Dear Mr.Panchal: Costa Mesa, California 92626 In reference to your environmental report for the City of Huntington Beach General Plan Subject: Development Holly Property site. Amendment 84-1(Development of I,200 dwelling units to be developed in area referred to in Attention: Buck Panchal Sectional District Map 35-5-11).hopefully the following information will be of assistance. Question#1-Can we service the proposed project? Answer:Yes,we can and will,but we would Gentlemen: like to be in contact with the designers and engineers,if possible,to insure the most efficient Per your letter dated July 10, 1984, enclosed are the answers to your and economical way for rubbish removal. This would include the rubbish enclosures,projected questions regarding the Enironmental Impact Report. travel areas and turn-abouts. And that aH travel areas would have to bear state required legal limits of 80,000lb.vehicles. 1. Enclosed find a Public Information Report. Question#Z-Where will the waste be taken and how will it be transported? Answer:Reference 2. The City proposes new water wells as demand within the City increases. question#1 answer on planning stages and waste will be collected and transported in trash trucks 3. Presently there are very few water mains located in the area. of legal height,width,and weight to our transfer station in Huntington Beach and then transported to a legal land fill for final disposal. 4. Domestic demands in residential areas asgume, for design purposes, 157 gallons per capita per day, with estimated 3.5 persons per Question#3-Will the proposed project cause any problems or adverse impact on our operations? dwelling unit per average day. Fire demand minimum 1,000 GPM. Answer:Reference question#1 answer. As per our telecon that Gothard will go through the project 5. Industrial and commercial demands require special design. Fire and connect with Crystal street and give us excess to your project plus travel into the areas we must demands 3,000 GPM in multiple family residential not exceeding three service. We must insist that this pass through the project be open to truck traffic at all times. stories. 3,000 GPM for commercial, residential, and up to 6,000 for We do feel that the eliminating of the five point intersection at Gothard and Garfield will help high rise residential and commercial. eliminate some of the accidents and confession problems that exist at this time. 6• New large size watermains will have to be built to bring aa,er ro the project as well as distribution mains within the development. If additional information is needed or if we may be of any other assistance to you in any other way, 7. At present without new mains to be built by the developer, the please feel free to contact my office. system is inadequate. Sincerely, If you have any further questions please contact Stan Farber at (714) I 536-5528. Very truly yours, Richard imm E.A. Elevatorski Operations Manager Water Superintendent RT/ew by �ymari McCray EAE:LM:SF:ek cc: Stan Farber r r rr rr rr rr r r� rr rr rr r� rr rr rr rr rr rr r Mr.Donald Kiser CITY OF City of Huntington Beach Public Works Department,Sewerage Division HUNTINGTON BEACH 1. What sewer facilities would be serving the proposed project? ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA it vcv �1-1id 3-1-79 ,. Sewer facilities would be existing on development installed City of LILLIS Huntington Beach mains to Orange County Sanitation District trunks. (General map of existing is enclosed). 2. Are the sewage transmission lines adequate for serving the proposed project? P°'o J7gfi0✓ Doubtful - See below. /y..fK 3. What generation factors do you use for estimating sewage from residential developments? From office and industrial projects? Depends on density. 1 4. Will service to the site cause any adverse impacts on the city's sewage system? If so,what mitigation measures do you suggest to decrease the impact(s). Yes - Depends on density. I Any other comments you may have are welcome. zux Due to the acreage involved together with its topography and the av'rGP ocsy. 4V contributory areas to the north and east, all these inquiries need to 16722 LrNvCP be directed to the Public Works Engineering Department. They have I �� the past records and have already performed some preliminary studies regarding this area. It is anticipated that the area will require I significant design efforts for mitigation of sewage and drainage impacts that development may present. 2 y,✓cP As a matter if interest, the vacation of Gothard could also significantly oFr,�• impact General Telephone in as much as they have a major trunk feed in this street. IF c ly w Please, direct any other inquiries through Les Evans, City Engineer, at 2000 Main Street. , a o: I�-- W �. Donald W. Kiser i Division Engineer ,"•," 24_IcP pcJa =&,clp ..._ .. ••--- 41 Michael Brandman Assoc. - 7/18/84 Page 2 General Telephone Company 3. See item 2. Consider and-de-sac at either, or both ends of the proposed of California Gothard Street abandonment plan. 6774 Weslminsler Blvd. Weslminsler,California 92683-3788 As previously discussed, the phase and timing of the plan would be critical 714s81-as26 to the General Telephone Company. Frcm our point of view, the planned 71a m916321 development should initiate on the perimeters of Ellis Avenue and the R.R.R.W. In nr•ply RM• 'i o Access problems and rights of may requirements to cross undeveloped land exist July 18, 1984 should other sequences be initiated. If I can be of further assistance in the matter, please feel free to call me Atcnvn) at (714) 891-5321. Michael Brandman Associates JUL 2 5 1984 Attn: Buck Panchal / 3140 Red Hill Ave., Suite 200 �� Costa Mesa, CA 92626 W.R. Duvall I Dear Mr. Panchal Resident Engines Orange Division Reference: Your letter to J.S. Botelho dated July 10, 1984 Huntington Beach General Plan Amemkient 84-1 cc: J.S. Botelho - 8236 - V09 - Your environmental impact letter has been referred to for engineering G. Cleaver 3770 - W04 consideration and evaluation. Please direct further requests directly to me to insure a minimum of delays in this matter. To confirm our telephone conversation of this morning, sufficient time was not allocated for an in depth study of the request. I would suggest more than a 10-day turn around for such requests is necessary in most instances. I have given the project a assery look and find some serious considerations before us. I shall answer the request at this time, with the understanding same rather minor isolated situations may yet exist. Essentially, within the project, some phase time frame should be established and plans presented. i 1. Service to the project area is essentially within Gothard Street, and would initiate from that point. 2. Yes, a serious impact exists with existing services. The portion of Gothard-Street currently proposed for abandamlml: contains a major underground service. Basically, in this portion of Gothard Street, General Telephone has a 12 duct system, 2 manholes and 4 major cables consisting of 4,800 circuits. Any major activity such as land fills, construction, etc. would necessitate the relocation of the facilities in question. A part of GTE Corporation i ,Itr1c zo'I uc DM 39 -ECTIONAL DISTRICT MAP 35-5-II •�--L1--L CITYOII' ..�....•.YwK:�°...,_ :�......�._.:_ .... ;. ; A General Telephone Company HUNTINGTON BEACH ;� r' _ z �' of California ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIAam DEO e.?ONE CASE: �;u s ®� +�-••- 677awes1mnslmei•ro ';• I� Westminster.California 92683-3788 ..•a.u.m;w.v.~,.+..•..n.ew,w }.!•.' .... 13 69 1,32 714 ii.u..,.an..w.waw....e.a.u-•..,. .amen-,..n.r.n a..n.. Fa" 'fsw•• ... 14691-5321 ..r►+�i n.,•.....i.e"'✓.w•.v►:' n::':�'•.w.....w,,wa.w•+.we...e.w, tip w _ . .. • .ua {rE_1 "s ....... "':•>:;... July 25. 1984 In seta,.nit ,ro - 1f� MI-CD MI-A f0J12-I'D •� t i Michael Brandnan Associates J�E MFA Ra sR, I ElAttn: Buds Panchal CE/rEQ Jul -" Re-sR arz+Ir 3140 lied Hill Ave. Suite 200 � ai Costa Mesa, CA 92626 R MI-CD 1 CF MI_ rCF-R MI-CD RI Dear Mr. Panchal : - 'w`" I C2 Reference: Holly Planned Cammmmdty "' _ `•"~ Htmtingtan Beach General Plan Amendment 84-1 In MI RI nI C 2 ~' 'thank for the additional information on referencedproject. Of articular RA-0-CD; _ you P CF C RIp__ _.,N n a` RI RI interest is the type, phasing and general plan of the project, with the new ! MI I ''' I route of Gothard Street extremely important. � ru RI RI �R! i� z I have reviewed this plan with the City of Huntington Beads Engineering and MI-CD RI RI RI i RI w a z c• Planning Departments as well as the Huntington Beads Company. z MI I I��,s ■ "`•i I RI Rs RI R:;.., •, Generally, the plan includes rather extensive land fills, the total abandon- III �--rtz-r—_ '' melt of existing Gothard Street and I would expect a major street improvement to Ellis Avenue at the project site. R2 �. ',.� C2 C2. With the total abandonment of Gothard Street as illustrated, I must revise my n2� Rs estimates estimates of the facilities involved. I refer you to item 2 in my letter of ns I July 19, 1984. The following is a list of basic major items of interest: M2-0 Rs —j 2800' of twelve way ducts 5 each manholes 10'6" x 4'6" x 7'6" 1 each manhole 10'6" x 5'6" x 8'6" "r v 2800' of major copper cable - 4800 circuits 2800' of 416 pair multi channel carrier cable and _ as - C4. associated repeaters in one location .,.EO OUCarsc ..JMTIIpI.ON- R] I Total relocation of General Telephone facilities will be necessary. Currently,w-cr c:: tD1s cr arEf f I i an orderly relocation into the new Gothard/Crystal Street alignment would ' 'gp MI-0 —°i"' require: '•'m w'oI •,Rs Rs R 2 ;Rs 1 1. An estimated time frame to complete rerouting of telephone facilities Rs Rz :fit l R2 F �� would require a minimm of eighteen months from plan inception to completion. 4 ` ._ u n p1 1 1 nl-1 V rrnp-alion Michael Brandnan Assoc. - 7/25/84 A Page 2 l/ SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA 9QS COMPANY 2. New Gothard Street would require a rough grade of plus or minus 6" ORANGE COUNrY OMSION • P.0.BOX M.ANAHEIM.CALF.emu for new conduit and manhole installation. 3. Prior to construction activity within existing Gothard Street, that is July 17, 1984 paving removals, fills, grading, etc., General Telephone will need to complete the rerouting and remove existing cables and carrier equipment. 4. Telephoneservice to the plannedproject would initiate for the most 3140 Re hilBral Aveman Associates. RECEIVED JUL 2 3 1984 P � 3140 Reclhill Ave., Ste. 2(10 part from the new conduit sytem in new Gothard/Crystal Street. In Costa Mesa, CA 92626 the intial planning ata�e, considerations for actual planned construction would be required to make the design compatable for exisiting and Attn: Buck Panchal planned use. 5. A preliminary estimate of the costa involved in this relocation have Subject: F.IR for City of Hunt. Bch. General Plan /Vmndmpnt 84-1 been established at $750,000.00. VA3 letter is not to be interpreted as a contractual comlnitunnt to serve the proposed project, but only as an information service. Its Of additional interest to General Telephone is the improvement of Ellis intent is to notify you that the Southern California Ca_; Company has Avenue between Crystal Street and existing Gothard Street. Properly coordinated, General Telephone would plan to extend a conduit system at facilities in the area couldhere the above-named project is girainlas Gas service to the project could be provided from an existing Ibin as this location prior to final paving and street Improvements. shvan on the attached atlas sheet without any significant ii act on I will request a representative of General Telephone Company be present the environment. The service .would be in accordance with the at the planned December Canmission Hearing to answer further questions Company's policies and extension rules on file with the California Public utilities Crnmission at the time contractual arralgarents are as required in this matter. nncb. If I can be of further assistance in this matter, please feel free to call V*- availability of natural gas service, as set forth in this ,h-tter, is based upon Present conditions of gas supply and regulatory policies. As a public utility, the Southern California Gas Company is Very truly yours under the jurisdiction of the federal regulatory agencies. Should these agencies take any action which affects gas supply or the condition under which service is available, gas service will he jll Provicl-d in accordance with revised eonditons./�X_dkezfe_�f_6 . W.R. UWAIL RL-Adential (System Area Average) Yearly Resident Engineer Single-ramily 1095 Therms/year/dwelling unit J.S. Botelho - 8236 - W9 multi-randly 4 or less units 640 Therms/•year/dwelling unit G. Cleaver - 3770 - W4 aulti-Family 5 or less units 580 '!berm,/year/dwelling unit These estinnte:; are based on was consumption in residential units by Southern California Gas Caupany during 1975 and it should nut ln inplied that any particular hone, apartment or tract of Inres will use the:_e anounts of energy. This is particularly true due to the Stite's rtna insulation reluirements and consumers' efforts toward eneniv entc;ervation. RECEIVED JUL I g 1984 E.L.Coolidge SCE Service Planner we have devel.ock?d several programs which are available, upon rEYluest, i to provide assistance in selecting the tmst effective aipliaations of 1. What are the locations of eutisU facilities In the vicinity of the eat area! energy conservation teduiiques for a particular project. If you ng y project desire Eurther information rn any of our energy program.;, please Are they adequate to service the proposed project! contact this office for as:;is:taav -r4k-_ M030CW- 15 Sl.1P-R.A.CAvaHJ Sincerely, rM kv;'"'A '_its SEQ/tlE IT`. M.T. Rcseen 2. Whet are the electricity usage rates for single-end multiple-family residential Tedinical SuUprvisor developments? Office and Industrial development? DPI/dru SEE 147tt►4�/I . attaclrnent , 3. Would the proposed project•Impact electrical service within the Southern California Edison service area? If a%what mitigation/conservation measures,in general,would you suggest SIDM6 t'Ae( .I T16S AJ IGOT- ,2EQu/P-E Q E LDCq-fiz0rJ 0A2. &e r1IPV •i. D'u Any other comments you may have are welcome. .p1_E14S£ ,Dleccr 4Wy � snags �9u ~a -TO R•,r. jtn c.M4oJ AJ, 69 5-D a-oq 1 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY Revised Ce1.P.U.C.Sheer No.7951-E SOUTHERN CALFOFUA EDISCH COMPANY Revised Cil.P.U.C.Shoes No. E-1 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue.Rosemead,Californiaalifo2a1 WSW 0rtlua Avenm 7036-E. It Bt770 Rpsemsed•Celienlle 91770 ' Revl sed CsL P.U.C.SlWei Noji069-E CaneeRtnp Revised CaI.P.U.C.Sfieet No.7904-E ' Schedele DOMESTIC SMILE sde6ttle b.0 �aEfTit SEtFic! APPLICABluIY i (teat/reed) AppllcaDls to domestic service including lighting, heating, cooking, and pG:er or conbiratlon caereof to a single-family accommodations also to domestic tarn service when supplied through the farm IiECIAL COIOIT1016 operator's domestic meter. TERRITORY I 1. sesswl seeatnt For Sower cottage costmters and others who normally require service for only part of the year,this schedule is applicable only on annual contract- Within the entire territory served. 1 in!. Lltetin fogent The-rates lifeline erg quantity tect to o stment as bebilled underdatesdesignated 46 RATES the applicable to Statement. The all Per 1Mter aDDl lcable to 1lftl lac service shall be may allowance for life-support devices permitted under Part N, Per Month Paragravvh 6. of the Preltminery statement, plus the sea of the applicable lifeline quantities set Energy Charges forth for the customer's cllmstic region (aa described on Lifeline Rate Climatic Region qps) as !hd:•::tad vela.: Lifeline Serwicst arm Per Msntb All kWh. per kWh ..................................................... 6.2419 c PP eeee Air en Cllmatic Residential titer Ipace span Nonlifellne services hglen One b.t1nR Da i"& Ikattsge Canditleateya! caMltiontaq» W 240 no 6SO 11i0 --- --- AI1 kWh. per kWh ..................................................... 9.2CM 1I 240 ISO too -.- 1 240 ISO 1.120 210 --- d scrfellhe Ssrvlca Includes all kWh In encase of applicable lifeline allcvancas as 2 2t0 250 1.120 270 '0 200 Cescrttsd 1n Special Condition No. 2, c 210 25D --- 270 280 60 For service on Santa Catellne Island, the above rates are subject to the Catalina Energy M 240 no _� Soo 100 Cost Balance Adjustment, as set forth to Special Condition ro. 3. 1 240 250 --- 650 - 130 , S 240 ISO -- Miniaam Charges •Ipveeber through April. Inclusive. The Base Rate Energy Charge shall be subject to a monthly tilnlmum Charge of 12.00. ••Key through October. 10002,ire. The Energy Charge Includes the following Energy Charge Compohegts. 3. Gt&IIU FMWW Cast %lew West�ets For service on Santa Catalina Island, tine rates above are subject to adjustment as provided in Part G of the Preliminary Statement, at a billing factor of 2.5939 per kvh. Per motor Per Manth Pow kWh Lifeline Noollfellne Base Rates Service Serwiee All kWh ....................................................... 4.457e 4.457e Adjustment Retest Energy Cost Adjustment Billing Factors ........................ 0.136c 3.4039 Annual Energy Rate ............................................ 0.354[ 0.3S49 Conservation Load Management Adjustment Billing Factor......... 0.0269 0.026c Electric Revenue Adjustment Billing Factor .................... 0.040c O.C409 i Major Additions Adjustment Billing Factor ..................... 0.7679 0.767e Annual Major Additions Rate ................................... 0.154c 0.1549 PUC Reimbursement Fee 0.007 0.000 ' Total Adjustment Rates ........................................ 1.784e d,751f . The PI1C Reimbursement Fee is described 1n Schedule tlo. RIF-E. The Adjustment Rates are describec , In Parts G. I. J, and L of the Preliminary Statement. (Continued) t..d bn Advice Utter No. 651-E aAlehasl R:Psevev it.1w: J b.•a") rt.r...wd w a coot i Date Filed Merch e30. 198a F,dsrard A Men Dam Filed December 30. 1982 ".•+ Advice Lett No. Anima-F Decialon No. 84-03-OS9 Effective April 1. 1984 82-12-055 Effective January 1. 1983 Decision No.82-12-115 Vlee PrasMmnt Vicei Resolution No. ter Resolution No. r rr rr r� rr r r � r r rr �■ r rr r� rr r rr r SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY Revised Cal.P.U.C.Sheet No.7613-E SOUTHERN CAL�OFBVIA EGISON MANY Revised Cal.P.U.C.Sheet No.7951-E 2211 Walnut Grove Avenue - --- - Rosemead, California 91770 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue,Rosemead.CuRlomis 9i770 CaaceBing Rev i sed Cal. P.U.C.Sheet No.7392-E Cancelling Revised Call.P.U.C.Sheer No.7910.E Schedule too. GS-1 Sebedele No.BS-I . liEtlEBEL iEBII� GENERAL jiEHElfF. (0astiased) At'.PLICABi11II Applicable to single-Rod three-phase general service including lighting and power. - TERRITORY 1. Voltages Service alit be sopplied at one standard voltage. 2. R-lay Installations Where the Company installs the standard transformer capacity requested Within the entire territory served, by a customer to serve separately an X-ray Installation, the billing will be Increased by $1.00 par aIA of transformer capacity requested. 3. Excess Trnssfomer Capaoitys The amount of transformer capacity requested by a customer Per Rape- which L In excess of the applicable standard transformer size determined by the Corgxany as required Energy Charges Par Month to curve the customer is massanble kilowatt demand. Excess Transformer Capacity shall be available to all customers under this schedule and shall be billed at $1.00 per kVA per month. AllkWh. per kWh ............................................................. 9.3749 1. Is Olsxxstfaraece of Services Where the use of energy is seasonal or intermittent, The above rates are subject to the Steal Surcharge Adjustment as set forth In Special no adjustments will be safe for a temporary discontinuance of service. Any customer prior to resuming Conditl on No. 5. service within twelve months after such service was discontinued will be required to pay all charges which would have been billed If sery I.had not boon discontinued. For service on Santa Catalina Island, the above rates are subject to the Catalina Energy Cost Balance Adjustment, as set forth In Special Condition No. 6. S. Stsol Sertiarye Al)aadamts The rates above are subject to adjustment as provided In Part M Minimum Charges of the Preliminary Statement. at a billing factor of 0.0499 per kWh. A. Catalins Emery Cast Salames A(ioftmts For service on Santa Catalina Island, the rates The Base Rate portion of the Energy Charge shall be subject to a monthly Minimum Charge of above are subject to adjestmet as provided in Part G of the Preliminary Statement, at a billing SS.00. factor of 2.593d per kWh. The Energy Charge Includes the following Energy Charge Components. ENERGY CHARGE COMIMMENTS Per kWh Base Rates AllkWh ........................................................................ 5.425R - Adjustment Retest Energy Cost Adjustment Billing Factor .......................................... 2.6019 Annual Energy Rao ........................ 0.3549 ..................................... Conservation Load Management Adjustment Billing Factor ......................... 0.026d Electric Revenue Adjustment Billing Factor ..................................... u.Zzu major Additions Adjustment Billing factor ...................................... 0.7679 Annual Major Additions Rat-.................................................... 0.1549 PUCReimbursement Fee.......................................................... ll wlif Total Adjustment Rats ......................................................... 3.949c The PUC Reimbursement Fee Is described In Schedule No. RF-E. The Adjustment Rates are described In Part G. I.J. and L of the Preliminary Statement. (Contlnoed) i T•`e,-urted be-wilrtrl laved M /T.b.inurt.J b,C.I.F.U.C.) n.x..•..rt....v,.,. � crew- ..e <<<I Advice Letter No. 610-E Edward A.Myers,Jr. Date Filed- September 19, 1983 Advice Lellas No. 651-E Michael R.Peavey Dale Filed March'An. I98av 933-09-025 N— w... Dnisi.•n No. 83-09-007 Effective October 9, 1983 Decision No. 84-03-059 Effective April 1. 1984 ( _-- - - - _--- Vice Ptaidrnl Reso{miun No. Ti a Vice PresidentResoMion No. rs - SOUTHERN CALFORMA EDISON COMPANY Revised Cal.P.U.C.Sheol No.7960-E 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue.Rosemead.Cafilomla 91770 90IJ11 EfMa CALFCOM®ISM COWAW Revised CAL Irpt sham No. 7089-E • CanCellMp 0.evised CaI.P.U.C.ShselNo.7913-E 2244 Walnut ByoMAvssw Flow,.ae.CW=rda 91770 6929-E.SB46-E. 5924-Es SSE i wheal•No.65-2 r vlstd Cal.?Mr-Shen No. moth-r 3 an&11EBm-tR]lAtO faalYle b.O-2 SENEIAL�ti-N1MID APPLICABILITY (hetlased) Applicable to single- and three-phase general service Including lighting and power. subject to neter availability. TFRD�tTOW . Within the entire territory served. 2fEC1Al f11oIT10RS - RAlFS 1. VbltagR: Service mrill be adept/ee K ewe atendero voltage. ppar or E. 1111lag paaalh The billing cold Shall be the kilowatts of mall um done al.determined to Demand Charges the aearest kV. All kV or hitting demand,per as............................................. $3.80 L Misstates limed: We markets demand to any month shall be the measured mastaim !.!raggee .....•...•............ kilowatt input. Indicated or recorded by Instruments to be supplied by the Company. during ay lS- (Subject to Minimum Demand Charge. See Special Condition No. 6) mteate metered Interval in the mantis, but (!aclpt for hes Customers or existing Customers atictinp Contract Demmd as deflmed in these Special Clenditions) shall ro er t be less than the divttfied Energy Charge (to be added to D was ad Chartists re1/5tance {elder load Computed Is accordance with the section designated Velder Service in pule NO. 2. lAere she demand it Intermittent Or Sbjact to Violent fluctuations,a S-milete interval may All kWh, per kWh 6.87a1 be used. ............................................................. . The above rates are subject to the Steel Surcharge Adjustment as set forth In Special 4. 14tar iostalldlOmm: Ylere the Company lasteIla the standard transformer copacity requested Condition No. 11. by a cu toner to save up= I an X-ray iosta lstia,the dntansm Charge will be.lncressed by SI.W per&VA of transformer capacity requested. For service on Santa Catalina Island. the above rates are subject to the Catalina Energy Cost Balance Adjustment, as sat forth In Special Condition No. 12. g. Contract 0 A cantraCt dame will be established by the Cowan based a applicant'{demand demand requirements for any Custose with demaM requirements greater than 7S Y Who requests service minimum Charges On this schedule and for any Customer of record an this schedule who.requests;an Increase In- transformer capacity In KCadance with Rule b.12 0. A contract demand Is required of all Customers The Demand Charge plus the Bass Rate Portion of the Energy Charge shall be subject to a newly requesting service an this Schedule for resistance Welder iDadS or ether load which does not monthly Minimum Charge of$100.00. Create measurable demand. A contract demand arrangement Is available upon request for all customers of record on this sehedele. The Contract 4 4 will be used Only for purposes of establishing the The Energy Charge Inclades the following Energy Charge Compormat*. alinieua demand Charge for facilities fW ed to provide service under the rate and Will not be Otherwise used for billing purposes. Contract damnd Is based upon the newinel hilevelt.ampere rating NSROr CHARGE COMPONENTS Of the Company's Serving transformers)or the standard transformer site determined by the Company as rewired to serve the Customer's Stated mesaureble kllowett demand,whichever Is less ChM Is depressed Per kith in ktlantts. Bass Rates �• Mlwtav pas/Cutup: Pere a contract demand Is established,the monthly minimum demand AllkWh ........................................................................ 2.92S1 Charge shall be S1.00 per kilowatt Of Contract domand. Adjustment Retest I. EAms Trarnfasa CIVacety: The treniforser capacity in emcees Of o COStOmer'a Contract demand which 1s either required ity the Caspay because Of the mature of the customer's load Or Energy Cost Adjustment Billing Factor .......................................... 2.6011 requested by the customer. Eacess tram=foreer Capacity shall be billed at$1.00 per IlVA per month. Annual Energy Rate ............................................................. 0.3549 Coneervation Load Management Adjustment Billing Factor ......................... 0.0269 L Voltage Psceenti The loop" WON adjustment{ will be reA+nd by 39 for service Electric Revenue Adjustment Billing Factor ..................................... 0.0409 delivered and metered at voltages of from E kV to 10&V. by OS for service delivered and metered at Major Additions Adjustment Billing Factor ...................................... 0.7679 VOiUooes Of fro 11 kV to 0 al; and by W for service delivered and metered et voltages over 50 kV• Annual Major Additions Rate .................................................... 0.lS41 OZCW that who only am trasf~lon fro=a tralmmission voltage level b involved, ism Custer PNC Reimbursement Fse .......................................................... 0.007e normally entitled to is 21 discount will be entitled to a K dlsteunt. Total Adjustment Rates ......................................................... 3.9499 s The Pit Reimbursement Fee Is described In Schedule No. RF-E. The Adjustment Rates are described In Parts 0. I. J. and L of the Preliminary Statement. (Continued) n.w rro..aw.wrl 1.u...w n.w•....ro w C..u c h (0=attem�) Advkatetter No. 651-E Michael R.Peavey Dale Filed March 30. 1984 rw.r IT.a,hhh.-W der saryl am by if.as bwh.d h,V rill Decision No. 84-03-059 Effective April 1. 1984 AJAC.Letter No. 604-e Now JL Risen.k. Dot lied (toCeAber )0. 1902 Vice President e2-12-055 Elfacd.e Jameary 1. 1983 m. Resolution No. Decision No. 52-12-115 Vice Pnikffl Mndklaoe NO. SOUTHERN CAUFORNIA EDISON CGWANY Revised W.P.U.0 Sheet No. 22dd Walnut Grow Avenue Revised Rosemead,California 91"0 C-1108 Revised Cd•P.U.C.Sheet N0.=_E Sebofal•ft.03-2 Kff8d11idEICE-OFJlSIC (Cwtiewed) SEEGIAL..00�IBOtli Itk•t1aoN) 9. Power factor adjustments When the billing demand has one zoo kW for three consecutive months. • kllovar-hour e•t•r will be Installed as soon es practical, and, thereafter. until the billing demand has been less than 130 kW for tfolve consecutive months, the charges will be adjusted each r,>,nth for power factor, as follower The charges will be decreased by 20 cents per kilowatt of measured menisum demand and will be no Increased by 20 cents per kilovar of reactive demand. Nowever. In rase shall the kllaware used for the adjustment be loss than one-fifth the number of kilowatts. The kt lovers of reactive demand shall be calculated by multiplying the kilowatts of measured .. a m demand by the ratio of the kllaver-hours to the kllowatthours. Demands in kilowatts and kllovare shall be Oeurotied to the nearest unit. -a ratchet device will be Instilled on the lover-hour inter to prevent Its rover"operation on loading power factors. 10. Tonowery Disconttwamce of Services Where the use of energy to aeeson�l or Intermittent. no adjustment• will be made for a temporary discontinuance of service. My ca/L r resuming""Ice with in twelve months after such service was discontinued will be repaired to pay all charges which would have been billed If service had not been discontinued. 11. Steel Surcharge Adjustments The rates above are subject to adjustment as provided to Part K of the Preliminary Statement. at a billing factor of 0.049d per kWh. 12. GUlime Energy Out M Santa G laws Adjustments for service on teltne Island, the rates above •r• subject to adjustment as provided In Part 6 of the Preliminary SUtan•nt, at a billing factor of 2.5939 par kWh. i I fie ben:nand h m441 Isrd ken ITo 4 in.emd M C.1.r.l'.C.1 Advice Letter No. M-E Edward A.Myers,if. Date Filed__S_eplenbe.r 19, 1987 87-09.025 � Decision No. 8�0�007 Effective_ October_-9,-1983 Vice President Resulutiun No. APPENDIX K ' HUNTINGTON BEACH OIL CODE 1 1 1 15.04.010--15.04.020 i5.04.030--15.04.060 Title 15 HUNTINGTON BEACH OIL CODE fare. (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) 1 .04.0 0 Administration. The fire chief, or his duly appointed representative, Is. hereby authorized and directed to Chapters: enforce the provisions of this code, except that requirements pertaining to fences, walls and gates, and idle wells shall 15.04 General Provisions he jointly enforced by the fire chief and the director of de- 15.06 Definitions velopment services, or their duly appointed representatives. 15.12 Permits and Fees (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) 15.1-6 Bonds 15.20 Drilling, Operation and Safety Regulations 15.04.040 Oil committee--Authorization and duties. The 15.22 Screening and Landscaping council may from time to time appoint, on an ad hoc basis, an 15.24 Cleanup and Maintenance oil committee which shall Include, but is not limited to, the 1115.26 Wastewater System following: a member of the city council, a member of the planning 15.32 Nonproducing and Idle Wells commission, the city attorney, fire chief, director of development 15.E Nuisance Oil Wells and Sites services, or the duly authorized agents of such members, a repre- 150 Activation of Idle Wells sentative of the Western Oil and Gas Association, and a member of the Independent Oil Producers Association. A representative of the California division of oil and gas may be requested to serve Chapter 15.04 as an ex officlo member of such committee. The committee shall act as an advisory body to the department and city council with GENERAL PROVISIONS regard to the contents of this code and its revision. (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) Sections: 1 .04.0 0 Right of entry. Whenever necessary to enforce any of the provisions of this code, or whenever the fire chief 15-04.010 Title. has reasonable cause to believe that there exists in any build- 15.04.020 Purpose. Ing or upon any premises any condition contrary to the provisions 15-04.030 Administration. or this code, the chief, or his authorized representative, may 15.04.040 Oil committee--Authorization and duties. enter such building or premises at all reasonable times to In- 15.04.050 Right of entry. spect the same or to perform any duty imposed upon the chief by 15-04.060 Operator's agent. this code. If such entry is refused, the chief shall have re- 15.04.070 Well acquisition notice. course to every remedy provided by law to secure entry. 15.04.080 Transfer of operator. No owner or occupant or any other person having, charge, 15.04.010 Title. This title shall be known and may be care or control of any building or premises shall fail or neg- cited as the City of Huntington Beach 011 Code. "Code, as re- lest, after proper demand, to permit prompt entry therein by ferred to in this title, unless the context clearly indicates the chief for any purpose pursuant to this code. (Ord. 2491, otherwise, shall mean the City of Huntington Beach Oil Code. 1 Jul 81) (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) 15-04.060 Operator's agent. Every operator of any well shall designate himself or an agent, or agents, who is a resi- 15.04.020 Purpose. It is hereby declared to be .the pur- dent of the state of California, upon whom all orders and notices pose of this title to establish reasonable and uniform limits- provided In this code may be served in person, or by registered ttons, safeguards and controls for present and future opera- or certified mail. Every operator so designating such agent shall dons related to drilling for and production of oil, gas, and within ten (10) days notify the department in writing of any other hydrocarbon substances within the city so that this activity change In such agent or such mailing address unless operations may be conducted In harmony with other uses of land, thus pro- within the city are discontinued. (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) testing the people In the enjoyment and use of their property and providing for their comfort, health, safety and general wel- 424 423 15.08.010--15.08.030 15.04.010 .Jeii acLisitlon_ notice. Every person who ac- lulr: any ;; l property or site upon whtch ol1 operations exist, Sections: (Continued) whether, by purchase, transfer, assignment, conveyance, exchange ,)1• oUierwise, slla) 1 within teen (10) ,lays after acquiring such well 15.08.020 Abandonment. prope.,•ty, or site, rnrtlfy tits :epartinent Ln writing of his owner- 15.08.030 Approved type and approved design. ahlp. The nntic,e ,hall conta Ln the following: 15.08.040 Blowout preventer. 15.08.050 Cellar. (a) The nano .nd :LdAress of file person acquiring such well, 15.08.060 Completion of drilling, redrilltng and rework. property or site; 15.08.070 Department 15.08.080 Derrick. (b) The cane and location of the well; 15.08.090 Desertion. 15.08.100 Developed area. (c) Tne date X acquisition; 15.08.110 Division of oil and gas. 15.08.120 Drilling. (•i) A description of the properties and equipment trans- 15.08.130 Drilling equipment. 15.08.140 Drill site. furred; 15.08.150 Enhanced recovery. (e) ;-.e name ariA address of any person designated for derv- 15.08.160 Fluids. ice of note:?. (Ord. i491, 1 Jul B1) 15.08.170 Gas. 15.08.180 Injection well. 15.04.080 Transfer of operator. The operator of every 15.08.190 Lessee. well shall notify the department In writing of the transfer to 15.08.210 Lessor. another operator of s•:ch well for any purpose. Within ten (10) 15.08.20 Maintenance. days after such transfer by reason of sale, assignment, transfer, 15-08.2jO Oil field 15.08.220 Neewww wellll.. conveyance or exchange, said notice shall be given and shall 15.08.240 Oil operationovery heater. contain the following: 15.08.250 Oil operation site. (a) The name and address of the P erson to whom such 15.08.270 Operator. 15.08.270 Outer boundary line. well was soli, assigned, transferred, conveyed or exchanged; 15.08.280 Owner. 15.08.290 Processing. (b) The name and location of the well; 15.08.300 Redrill. (c) The date of sale, assignment, transfer, conveyance or 15.08.320 Reworking. exchange; g y 15.08.330 Sump oorosump pit. 15.08.340 Tank. P pit. (d) The date when possession was relinquished by the 15.08.350 Well. former operator, and a description of the properties and equip- 15.08.360 Well servicing. ment transferred. (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) 15.08.010 Definitions. The terms used in this title shall, unless the context indicates otherwise, have the respective mean- Chapter 15.08 ings herein set forth. (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) DEFINITIONS 15.08.020 Abandonment. "Abandonment" shall be as defined by the division of oil and gas of the department of conservation and shall include the restoration of the drill site as required Sections: by these regulations. (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) 15.06.010 Definitions. 15.08.030 Approved type and approved deait;n. "Approved type and approved design ahal mean an Inc Me e Improvements, ` !1?5 426 ■■■ rr r w� r rr r w r� w r� r� r sr r w� r� rr rr 15.08.040--15.08.110 0.08.120--15.08.200 equipment or facilities of a type or design approved by the gas" shall mean the Division of Oil and Gas of the Department or development services department, fire department, or public Conservation of the state of California or any other state agency works •lepartment. (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) charged with its responsibilities. (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) 15.08.040 out preventer. "Blowout preventer" shall 15.08.120 Drilling. "Drilling" shall mean digging or boring a mechanical, hydraulic, pneumatic or other device or com- a new well for the purpose of exploring for, developing or pro- meanbination of such devices secured to the top of a well casing ducing oil, gas or other hydrocarbons, or for the purpose of in- Including valves, fittings and control mechanism connected jecting water, steam or any other fluid or substance into the therewith which can be closed around the drill pipe, or other earth. (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) tubular goods which completely closes the top of the casing and is designed for preventing blowout. (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) 15.08.130 Drilling equipment. "Drill.ing equipment" shall mean the derrick, together with all parts of and appurtenances 15.08.050 Cellar. "Cellar" shall mean an excavation around to such structure, every piece of apparatus, machinery or equip- and above the top joint of the casing of a well. (Ord. 2491, ment used or erected, or maintained for use in connection with 1 Jul 81) drilling. (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) 15.08.060 Completion of drilling, redrilling and reworking. 15.08.140 Drill site. "Drill site" shall mean the premises Drilling, redrilling and rework ng is completed for the purpose oC used during the drilling or reworking of a well or wells located these regulations, thirty (30) days after the drilling, redrilling thereon. (Ord. 2491. 1 Jul 81) or reworking crew has been released through completion of its work or released by those so employing said crew. (Ord. 2491. 1 Jul 81) 15.08.150 Enhanced recovery. "Enhanced recovery" shall mean any production method which Involves the injection of water, gas, 15.08.070 De artment. "Department," unless specified steam,-or any other fluid into the earth for the purpose of ex- otherwise In.this tit e, shall mean the fire department. (Ord. 2491, tracting oil or other hydrocarbons. (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) 1 Jul 81) 1_5 08.160 Fluids. "Fluids" shall mean any gas or liquid. 15.08.080 Derrick. "Derrick" shall mean any portable (Ord. 2 91, 1 Jul 1 framework, tower, mast or structure which is or are required or used in connection with drilling, reworking, operating, or main- 15.08.170 Gas. "Gas" shall mean any fluid, either com- taining a well for the production of oil, gas or other hydrocarbons bustlble or noncombustible, which is produced in a natural state from the earth. (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) from the earth and which maintains a gaseous or rarefied state at standard temperature and pressure conditions. It shall also. 15.08.090 . Desertion. "Desertion" shall mean the cessation mean the gaseous components or vapors occurring In or derived of operation at a drill site without compliance with the pro- from petroleum or natural gas. (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) visions of this title relating to suspended operations, Idle wells, or abandonment. (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) 15.08.180 Injection well. "Injection well" shall mean a well or gay well used for the purpose of injecting water; waste- 15.08.100 Developed area. "Developed area" shall mean: water, brine, hydrocarbons, steam or any other substance as a means of enhanced recovery, repressurization or disposal whether (a) 'Any area within 150 feet of an occupied residential, under pressure, gravity or vacuum. (Ord. 2491. 1 Jul 81) commercial, or office/professional structure which is Itself 15 .190 Lessee. "Lessee" shall mean the person who has within one hundred (100) feet of another occupied residential, execute.08 an oil or gas lease or sublease, or the owner or the commer,:Ial, or office/professional structure; or land or minerals, or his heirs, or who conducts or carries on (b) An area within a any oil or gas exploration, development and operation thereof, y public park, beach or recreation area or any person so operating for himself or others. (Ord. 2491, which ham heen developed and opened for public use. (Ord. 2491, 1 .Jul 81) l Jul 81) 15.08.110 Division of oil and gas. "Division of oil and 15.08.200 Lessor. "Lessor" shall mean the owner of surface 428 427 15.08.210--15.08.270 or mineral rights who has executed a lease. (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) the lease or unit shall be deemed to Interrupt such contiguity. 15.08.210 Maintenance. "Maintenance" shall mean and (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) include the repair or replacement of machinery, equipment, ap- paratus, structure, facility and parts thereof, used in con- 15.08.280 Owner. "Owner" shall mean a person who owns nection with an oil operation site or drill site as well as any a legal or equitable title in and to the surfaces of the drill other work necessary to reduce fire hazards or any hazards to site or oil operation site. (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) employees, public health, safety and welfare. (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) 15.08.290 Processing. "processing" shall mean the use of oil operatlone Por gauging, recycling, compressor repressuring, 15.08.220 New well. "New.well" shall mean a new well bore injection, reinjection, dehydration, stimulation, separation or well hole established at the ground surface and shall not in- (Including but not limited to, separation of liquids from gas), clude redrilling or reworking of an existing well which Is not shipping and transportation, and gathering oil, gas, other abandoned. (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) hydrocarbon substances, water or any combination thereof. (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) 15.08.230 Oil field recovery heater. "Oil field recovery heater" shall mean any steam generator, or air or water heater 15.08.300 Redrill. "Redrill" shall mean recompletion of used in an oil field thermal recovery operation. (Ord. 2491, an existing well by deepening or sidetrack operations extending 1 Jul 81) more than 150 feet from the existing well bore. (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) 15.08.240 Oil operation. "Oil operation" shall mean the 15.08.310 Reworking. "Reworking" shall mean recompletion of use or maintenance of any Installation, facility or structure an existing well with n the existing bore hole ea ea by deepening or used, either directly or indirectly, to carry out or facilitate sidetrack operations which do not extend more than 150 feet from one or more of the following functions: drilling, redrilling, the existing well bore, or replacement of well liners or casings. reworking and repair, production, processing, extraction, en- (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) hanced recovery, stimulation, abandonment, storage or shipping of oil or gas from the subsurface of the earth. (Ord. 2491, 15.08.320 Source of ignition. "Source of ignition" shall 1 Jul 81) mean any flame, arc, spark or heated object or surface capable 15.08.250 Oil operation site. "Oil operation site" shall of igniting liquids, gases or vapors. (Ord. 2491. 1 Jul 81) mean the physical location where oil operations are conducted. 15.08.330 Sum or sum it. "Sump or sump pit" shall mean (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) an earl en p t ine or un lne for the discharge of oil field 15.08.260 operator. "Operator" shall mean any person wastes. (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) drilling, maintaining, operating, pumping or in control of any 15.08.340 Tank. "Tank" shall mean a container, covered or well. However, if the operator, as herein defined, is different uncovered uses in conjunction with the drilling or production from the lessee under an oil or gas lease of any premises af- of oil, gas or other hydrocarbons for holding or storing fluids. fected by the provisions of this title, then such lessee shall . (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) also be deemed to be an operator. In the event that there is no oil or gas lease relating to any premises affected by this 15.08.350 Well. "Well" shall mean any oil or gas well or title, the owner of the fee estate in the premises shall also well drilled for the production of oil or gas, or any well rea- _ be deemed an operator. (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) sonably presumed to contain oil or gas. "Well" shall include the injection wells for the purpose of enhanced recovery, re- 15.08.270 Outer boundary line. Where several contiguous pressurization or the field and disposal wells for the purpose parcels of land in one or different ownerships are operated of disposing of wastewater. (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) .as a single oil or gas lease or operating unit, the term "outer boundary line" shall mean the exterior limits of the land in- 15.08.360 Well servicing. "Well servicing" shall mean eluded in the lease or unit. In determining the contiguity the maintenance work performed within any existing well bore -if any such parcel of land, no street, road or alley lying within 430 429 15.12.010--15.12.030 15.12.040--15.12.060 which does not involve drilling, redrilling or reworking. essary, each producing oil well and suspended or Idle well or (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) any oil well deemed idle by this title for the purpose of ascer- taining whether the well Is being operated or maintained within the standards of this code. On the first day of July next after Chapter 15.12 the issuance of a drilling permit and on the first day of July of each year thereafter until the well has been abandoned, as pro- PERMITS AND FEES vided in this code, an annual renewal inspection permit shall be obtained from the department for each and every well, including Injection wells. (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) Sections: 1, lil UI Annual renewal Inspection pemit--Additional 15.12.010 Permit required. requirements. a Fencing: Be ginning J r uly 1, 1953, an annual 15.12.020 Drilling or redrilling permit. renewal inspection permit shall not be issued for any well in a 15.12.030 Annual renewal inspection permit. developed area, as defined in this title, which is not enclosed 15.12.040 Annual renewal inspection permit--Additional by a fence which conforms to the specifications contained in .requirements. Chapter 15.22 of this title, and the regulations of the division 15.12.050 Wastewater annual permit. of oil and gas as contained in the California administrative 15.12.060 Reworking permit. code as they presently exist or may hereafter be amended. The 15.12.070 Activation permit. chief may grant an extension of six (6) months so that fencing 15.12.080 Other permits requirements may be met if the area has become developed since 15.12.090 Encroachment permit. the issuance of the last annual renewal Inspection permit. 15.12.100 Fees set by resolution--Fee payment date. 15.12.110 Permit procedure. (b) Landscaping: Beginning July 1, 1983, an annual re- 15.12.120 Permit utilization. newal inspection permit shall not be issued for any well in a 15.12.130 Additional permits. developed area, as defined In this title, which has not been 15.12.140 Persons liable for fees. landscaped to conform to the requirements of this title and to 15.12.150 Penalty for delinquency. a landscape plan, submitted for the review and approval of the 15.12.160 Orounds for suspension or revocation. chief and the director of development services. The chief may 15.12.170 Effect of suspension or revocation of permit. grant an extension of six (6) months so that landscaping re- 15.12.180 Appeals. quirements may be met if the area has become developed since the issuance of the last annual renewal inspection permit. Land- scapingRUN shall not be required for any well or tank which is not visible from a public street unless the well Is within a public the city of Huntington Beac for the oil operations, activi- park, beach or recreation area which has been developed and open ties, or structures in the city limits of Huntington Beach, as for public use. (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) required by this title. (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) 15.12.050 Wastewater annual permit. Oil well wastewater 15.12.020 Drilling or redrilling permit. Drilling or re- shall not be ischarg into the city a sanitary sewer system drilling sha not be commenced un esa or until: unless a permit therefor is obtained each calendar year from the public works department for every well discharging such vision of oil and gas is 'submitted ed to the fire chief; and (a) A copy of approval P such operations from the di- wastewater into the system. (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) 15.12.060 Reworking permit. Reworking shall not be con- (b) A permit for such operations has been obtained from menced un ess or until: the department. Said permit is herein referred to as a "drilling permit." (Ord. 2491. 1 Jul 81) (a) A copy of approval for such operation from the di- vision of oil and gas 1s submitted to the chief; and 15.12.030 Annual renewal inspection permit. The fire chief • shall inspect annually, and at such other times as he deems nec- (b) A reworking permit for such operation has been ob- 431 432 1`�.12.J'lU--15•l2.t to 15.12.120--15.12.140 talneJ from the department. (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) (c) A plot plan showing the location of all oil facilities 15.12.070 Activation permit. No Idle well shall be acti- on the oil operation site Including, but not limited to, wells, vated without obtaining an activation permit In accordance tanks, dikes, pipelines, heaters and storage sheds; with the provisions of this title. (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) (d) The location of the pearest public road or alley, oc- cupied residences and commercial structures within five hundred (500) Peet of the well; also the location of all churches, hospi- mechanical, fire, demolition, and other permits shall be obtained tals, rest homes, schools, preschools, nurseries and places of from the appropriate department in accordance with the require- public assembly within five hundred (500) feet of the well; ments of, and in the manner specified by Title 17 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code. (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 8':) (e) A corporate surety bond In conformity with the provisions 15.12.090 Encroachment perm it. An encroachment permit of this title; shall be obtained from the public works department when it is (f) A landscape plan which meets the requirements of this necessary to encroach over public property with any oil oper- title. Exem tion: Reworking permits and wells which are not in atlon. (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul B1) develops areas, as defined In this code shall be exempt from this requirement. 15.12.100 Fees set by resolution--Fee payment date. Fees shall be required for the issuance of each of the permits re- (g) A statement signed by the applicant under penalty of quired pursuant to this chapter. Such fees shall be set by perjury declaring that he is duly authorized to sign on behalf resolution of the city council. Said resolution shall also of the.operator and file the application and that the information detennine the conditions of payment and collection of the contained in the application is true and correct. (Ord. 2491, required fees. 1 Jul 81) The annual Inspection fee shall be due and payable on 15.12.120 Permit utilization. No permit issued hereunder July 1 of each year and, if not paid, shall be delinquent on shall be valid unless utilization of the privileges granted August 1 of the same year. thereby be commenced within one hundred twenty (120) days from and after the date of Issuance of the permit, or if after coin- The wastewater annual permit fee shall be due and payable mencement, such activity Is suspended or abandoned at any time on January 1 of each year and, if not paid, shall be delinquent for a period of one hundred twenty (120) days. on February 1 of the same year. If no work has commenced and the one hundred twenty (120) The drilling, reworking, and activation fees shall be due days commencement period has not expired, the permittee may re- and payyable at the time of. application therefor. (Ord. 2491. quest, in writing, a refund for his fees paid minus ten dollars 1 Jul 81) ($10). (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) 15.12.110 Permit procedure. The application for a drilling, 15.12.130 Additional permits. The permits required by this reworking, or activation permit shall be obtained from and filed title are in addition to and are not In lieu of any permit which with the department. Said application shall contain the follow- may be required by any other provision of the Huntington Beach ing required Information: Municipal Code or by any other government agency. The department shall not issue any permit under this title until all other per- (a) The complete legal- description of the mits required by other municipal departments, if any, have been pproperty; issued and a fee, if required, has been paid. (Ord. 2491, (b) Plans and engineering specifications of structures, 1 Jul 81) drilling derricks, drilling masts, tank and high-pressure 15.12.140 Persona liable for fees. Each of the persons systems regulated by this code. Applicant need not file plans whose duty It Is to obtain any permit shall be declared and and engineering specifications of standard derricks, masts and made to be jointly and severally liable for the payment of the tanks when such standard plans and specifications are already on fee required to be paid. (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) file and approved by the department; 433 434 r M & M MW tM M M W MI .M goIMM IM M s 1!i.12.15 0--15.12.170 15.13.1d0 15.12.150 Penalty for delinquency. Any delinquent fee 15.12.180 Appeals. In addition to the hearings provided shall he subject to a penalty in an amount equal to 10 percent or such fee. Such penalty shall be added thereto for each for by this tit e, any person or entity whose drilling, re- month for such delinquency, and shall be collected as part of working, activation or annual renewal inspection permit Is re- voked or whose well or equipment is deemed by the fire chief to such fee. (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) be idle may, within thirty (30) days of the decision of the 15.12.160 Grounds for suspension or revocation. The fire chief, file a written appeal to the planning commission in chief may, in writing, suspend or revoke any permit issued under accordance with the following procedure: the provisions of this code upon finding any of the following: (a) The planning commission shall have and exercise the power to hear and determine appeals where it is alleged there (a) A permittee has Called, neglected or refused to per- Is error or abuse of discretion regarding the revocation of any form, comply with and abide by any of the conditions of the permits issued hereunder or determination of the existence of permit; an idle well, as provided by this title. (b) That permittee has failed or neglected or refused to (b) An appeal shall be in writing and shall be filed in comply with or abide by, or has in any way violated any of the triplicate in the department of development services. The provisions of this code, or of any other ordinance of the city, grounds for appeal must be set forth specifically and the error or any other law, rule, or regulation either directly or in- described by the appellant. directly, by reason of or in connection with or incidental to his conduct of oil operations; (a) Within ten (10) days from and after the filing of the appeal, the director of development services shall transmit (c) If any of the permittee's operations or the contin- to the planning commission all papers involved in the pro- uance thereof upon the premises covered by the permit are a ceedings and two (2) copies of the appeal. In addition, the menace or hazard to public or private property, or to any in- director of development services shall make and transmit to the terest of the city, or to the lives or safety of persona; planning commission such supplementary reports as he may deem necessary to present the facts and circumstances of' the case. (d) Any of the permittee'a operations or the continuance Copies shall be mailed to the appellant ten (10) days prior to thereof upon the premises covered by the permit constitutes a the hearing. public nuisance as described in this title; (d) Upon receipt of the records, the director of development (e) If permittee shall have made any willful misrepre- services shall set the matter for hearing and give notice by mail sentation of facts in any application for any such permit, or of the time, place and purpose thereof to appellant, and any other In any report or record required by this code to be filed or party. who has requested 1n writing to be so notified. No other furnished by permittee. (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) notice need be given. 15.12.170 Effect of suspension or revocation of perm it. (a) Upon the date for the hearing the planning commission No person shall carry on any operations performed un er the shall hear the appeal unless, for cause, the planning commission terms of any permit during any period of permit suspension shall-on that date continue the matter. No notice of continuance or revocation, or pending a judgment of the court upon any need be given if the order therefor is announced at the time for application for writ taken to review the decision.or order of which the hearing was set. (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) the city in suspending or revoking such permit; provided, how- ever, that nothing therein contained shall be construed to Chapter 15.16 prevent the performance of such operation as may be necessary In connection with a diligent and bona fide effort to cure and remedy the default, or violation for which the suspen- BONDS slon or revocation of the permit was ordered, or such opera- Sections: tion as necessary for the safety of persons or as required by the division of oil and gas. (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) 15.16.010 Existing wells--Exception for present bonds. 435 436 15.16.010--15.16.040 15.16.050--15.16.070 Sections: (Continued) bond. The obligations and liabilities under the bonds required hereunder (corporate, surety or cash) are continuing obliga- 15.16.020 New wells--Bond required. tions and liabilities, and the liability of the surety under 15.16.030 Bond form. this bond may be terminated solely and only at the time or 15.16.040 Single bonds, times, In the manner and by strict compliance with the provi- 15.16.050 Substitutions. sions for termination of liability as set forth In the Huntington 15.16.060 Blanket bonds. Beach Municipal Code. Regardless of expenditures which may in- 15.16.070 Default in performance of conditions--Notice to cur from action on any bond, said bond shall always be main- be given. tained at its original face value, and it shall be the re- 15.16.080 Exoneration. sponsibilit of y the principal to insure and provide that the 15.16.010 Existing wells--Exception for_present bonds. bond shall be fully maintained. (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) Except as to oil bonds existing on the effective date of this 15.16.050 Substitution. A substitute bond may be filed oil code which satisfy the requirements of the previous In lieu of the bon 3—on file hereunder and the department shall Huntington Beach Oil Code, a bond 1n the form required by this accept and file same if it is qualified in proper form and title shall be filed for each well drilled prior to said efrec- substance. The bond for which it is substituting shall then tive date of this title, which has not been abandoned prior to be exonerated. (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) said effective date in accordance with the standards and laws of the state of California and the requirements or the 15.16.060 Blanket bonds. Any operator, in lieu of filing Huntington Beach Municipal Code. (Ord. 2491,_ 1 Jul 81) a separate bond on each well as required by the foregoing, may file a blanket bond in the amount or fifty thousand dollars 15.16.020 New wells--Bond required. A bond or bond rider (i50,000) if he has more than five (5) wells. (Ord. 2491, in the form required by this title shall accompany every appli- 1 Jul 81) cation for drilling or reworking of any oil well, injection well, or disposal well. (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) 15.16.070 Default in performance of conditions--Notice to be��lv��en. Whenever the deparg ent finds that a default has 15.16.030 Bond form. Bonds or riders to existing bonds occurre3 in the performance or any requirement or condition of shall be on forms approved by the city attorney and shall be these regulations, a written notice thereof shall be given to filed with the department. (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) the principal and to the surety on the bond. Such notice shall specify the work to be done, the estimated cost thereof and the 15.16.040 Sin le bongo. Corporate surety bonds in the period of time deemed by the department to be reasonably necessary penal sum of ten thousan dollars ($10,000) shall be required for the completion of such work. After receipt of such notice, for each well. The bonds shall be executed by the operator as the surety shall, within the time therein specified, either cause principal and by the authorized surety company as surety and or require the work to be performed, or railing thereupon, shall conditioned that the principal named in the bond shall faithfully pay over to the department 125 percent of the estimated cost of comply with this title and any other ordinance of the city or doing the work as set forth in the notice. Upon receipt of such Huntington Beach, which ordinance, law, rule or regulation in monies, the department shall proceed by such mode as deemed any manner pertains or applies to any of the principal's oil convenient to cause the required work to be performed and com- operations. Compliance by the principal named In the bond pleted, but no liability shall be incurred therein other than for shall include compliance with any and all provisions, amendments the expenditure of said sum in hand. In the event that the well and changes in the Huntington Beach Municipal Code regularly has not been properly abandoned under the regulations of the adopted. The bond shall secure the city of Huntington Beach dlvision of oil and gas, such additional money may be demanded against all costs, charges and expenses incurred by it for from the surety as 1s necessary to restore the drill site in the failure of the principal to comply fully with the provisions conformity with the regulations of this title. or the Huntington Beach Municipal Code. The bond shall Include In the event the surety does not cause the work to be the correct name and number and legal description or precise performed and fails or refuses to pay over to the department location of the well and such other Information as may be nec- the estimated cost of the work to be done as set forth in essary to Identify the oil well readily. Any operator may fur- the notice, the city may proceed to obtain compliance and abate nish negotiable securities or cash In lieu of a corporate surety 437 438 amp No M11 , 15.16.080 :5.20.010--15.20.030 the default by way of civil action against the surety, or by criminal action against the principal, or by both such methods. Sections: i Con tInued) (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) 15.20.280 Setbacks--General. 15.16.080 Exoneration. When the well or wells, covered by 15.20.290 Portable pulling masts and gin poles--Removal said bonds have been properly abandoned in conformity with all of. regulations of this title, and in conformity with all regulations 15.20.300 Pipelines. of the division of oil and gas and notice to that effect has been 15.20.310 Storage of equipment. received by the department, or upon receipt of a satisfactory 15.20.010 Derricks. All derricks and portable masts used substitute bond, the bond issued in compliance with these for drilling or reworking shall meet the standards and specifica- ationa shall be terminated and cancelled and the surety relieved ed ttons of the American Petroleum Institute as they presently exist C all obligations thereunder. (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) or may be amended hereafter. All drilling, redrllling or reworking equipment shall be re- Chapter 15.20 moved from the operation site within thirty (30) days following the completion of drilling, redri111ng or reworking unless other- DRILLING, OPERATION AND SAFETY REGULATIONS wise permitted by the division of oil and gas. (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) Sections: 15.20.020 Inscection. If a well 1s to be drilled or re- wofkea within one hun red fifty (150) feet of any occupied 10 Derricks. structure or street right-of-way, after the operating equipment 15.20.0 15.20.00 Inspection. is securely 1n place and prior to commencement of drilling, the operator shall notify the department for the purpose of Inspec- 15.20.030 Well setbacks. tion. If an inspection is anticipated to be needed other than 15.20.040 Lights. duringnormal working hours the o 15.20.050 Signs. B Aerator shall notify the de- B partment during a working day of the approximate time the 15.20.060 "No smoking" signs. operator will be ready for the Inspection and shall not commence 15.20.070 Waste removal. drilling until the department has made an Inspection and given 15.20.080 Unlined sump, sump pits or skim ponds--Prohibited. approval to commence. The fire chief shall not give his ap- 15.20.090 Private roads and drill sites. proval until all the applicable provisions of the Huntington 15.20.100 Oil operations--Location--Time. Beach Municipal Code have been met. The chief shall make his 15.20.110 Well servicing hours. inspection within a reasonable time after receiving notice from 15.20.120 Wellhead safety equipment. the operator. 15.20.130 Blowout prevention. 15.20.140 Cellars. Upon completion of drilling or reworking operations, the 15.20.150 Fence permit required. operator shall notify the department, and the chief shall make 15.20.160 Fences. an inspection of said drill site to insure that provisions of 15.20.170 Masonry wall specifications. this code and/or any conditions of the drilling or reworking per- 15.20.180 Gate specifications. mit have been met. (ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) 15.20.190 Operation of oil field recovery heaters. 15.20.200 Notification of installation. 15.20.030 Well setbacks. It shall be unlawful to drill 15.20.210 Installation. any wel the center or which at the surface of the ground is 15.20.220 Soundproofing. located within twenty-five (25) feet 15.20.20 Muffling exhaust. 15.20.240 Public nuisance declared. (a) From any outer boundary line, or 15.20.250 Fire prevention--Sources of ignition.15.20.260 011 storage tanks. (b) From any recovery heater, oil storage tank, or source 15.20.270 Tank setbacks. or ignition, or 439 440 15.20.040--15.20.060 15.20.070--15.20.100 �- (a) Within one hundred (100) feet of any building not nec- essary round. (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul. 81)background or white on a red back .� to the operation of the well, or B g (d) Within three hundred (300) feet of any building used 15.20.0j.2_Waste removal. Rotary mud, drill cutting, oil as a place of public assembly, institution or school, or or liquid hydrocarbons and all other oil field wastes derived or resulting from, or connected with the drilling or reworking (e) Within twenty (25) feet of any public street, road of any well shall be discharged into a portable steel tank. or highway or future street right-of-way. Setbacks shall conform Waste materials shall be removed from the operation site within to appropriate provisions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. thirty (30) days from and after completion of drilling. (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) (f) The distances set out in subsections (c), (d) and (a) n of this section may be reduced at the discretion of the chief if 1 .20.080 Unlined sump, sump pits or skim ponds--Prohibited. a six (6) foot masonry wall is constructed around the perimeter No peraon�e aTI-own, operate, have possession of, be In controlof, of the site. For protection of the public health, safety and or maintain any well site, former well site or property on which welfare, the chief may impose additional requirements for a reduc- an unlined sump or sump pit or skim pond is located. All such tlon of such distances. (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) sumps or sump pits and skim ponds Shall be excavated of all for- eign materials and filled with compactible earth to the level of 15.20.040 Lights. No person shall permit or allow any the surrounding terrain. The provisions of this section shall. lights located on any oil operation site to be directed in not apply to portable sump tanks as required by the state divl- euch a manner so that they shine directly on adjacent prop- sion of oil and gas or the regional. water pollution control board. erty or property in the general vicinity of the oil operation (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) site. (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) 15.20.090 Private roads and drill. sites. Prior to the 15.20.050 Signs. A sign shall be prominently displayed commencement of any �c Tung operations, al . private roads used for access to the drill site and the drill site itself shall and maintained in good condition near or on the pumping unit or be surfaced with crushed rock, gravel or decomposed granite, or �.. fence of each well whether producing or not. Such sign shall be oiled and maintained to prevent dust and mud. In particular of durable material and, unless otherwise required by the di- cases these requirements governing surfacing of private roads vision of oil and gas, shall have a surface area of not less maybe altered at the discretion of the chief after considera- than two (2) square feet nor more than four (4) square feet and tion of all circumstances including, but not limited to, the shall be lettered with the following: following: distances from public streets and highways; distances . from adjoining and nearby property owners whose surface rights (a) Well name and number; are not leased by the operator; the purpose for which the prop- erty of such owners is or may be used; topographical features; (b) Name of operator; nature of the soil; and exposure to wind. (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) (c) Telephone numbers of two (2) persons responsible for 15.20.100 011 operations--Location-_Time. (a) It shall be said well who may be contacted in case of an emergency. unlawful Por any person to engage in any work whatsoever on any oil operation site within three hundred (300) feet of a dwelling In the event the drill site or leasehold to fenced or walled unit, church, hospital, rest home, school, preschool, nursery, or it shall be sufficient if all entrances to said drill site or other place of public assembly, except in the following situations: leasehold are posted with a like sign. In addition, a readily visible sign of durable material designating the well name and (1) Where such work consists of minimum maintenance number shall be posted on or near each and every well within the or surveillance on the oil operation site; and/or drill site or leasehold. (Ord. 2491. 1 Jul 81) (2) Where such work is conducted between the hours 15.20.060 "No smoking" signs. "No smoking" signs of a of 7 a.m. and 10 p.m.; and/or durable material shall be posted and maintained in all locations approved or designated by the fire chief. Sign lettering (3) In case of emergency; and/or shall be four (4) inches in height and shall be red on a white 442 441 r �r M it fair M 00 few NM_ 510 am no Aw a" M_ 60 15.20.110--15.20.130 - 15.20.140--15.20.160 (4) Where so ordered by the division of oil and gas; and/or state division of oil and gas and the safety orders for drll- (5) Where the work oeing so conducted Is soundproofed ling and production of the state division of Industrial safety. and such soundproofing is approved by the chief. (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) 15.a20.140 Cellars. The following regulations shall apply (b) Where operations are conducted beyond a distance of to ce ra: three hundred (300) feet from the aforementioned facilities, the chief may, in cases of disturbance, such as excessive noise (a) .Every cellar shall be constructed in accordance with or vibration, require the oil. operator to: the Huntington Beach Building Code and with the requirements as they now exist, or are hereafter amended, of the California (1) Enclose the derrick and all drilling machinery division of industrial safety; used in connection with drilling of any well, with fire resis- tant soundproofing material, which shall be maintained in a serv- (b) Except during drilling and servicing operations, such iceable condition. No operations other than well logging shall cellars shall be kept covered, free from water, oil drilling be conducted outside the enclosure; or fluids, rubbish, debris, or other substances; (2) Enclose all drilling machinery used in connection (c) All multlwell cellars exceeding three (3) feet in with the drilling, redril-ling, or reworking operations with fire depth and twenty-five (25) feet in length shall have two (2) resistant soundproofing material including the drilling mast or separate means of exit or entrance. If the cellar exceeds two derrick, which shall. be so enclosed on a minimum of three (3) hundred (200) feet in length, a third means of entrance and sides to a height of twenty (20) feet, and conduct no operations exit shall be provided. The depth of such cellars shall be between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. with the exception of the vertical distance between the lowest point of the floor circulation of fluids and well. logging. The fire chief may allow or such cellar and the adjacent ground level; other phases of the operation to continue during the restricted hours if, in his opinion, the noise is minimal., or if required by (d) Multlwell cellars shall have a steel grate or covering the division of oil and gas, or in the case of emergency. with no unobstructed openings in excess of three (3) inches. (Ord. 2532, 3 Feb 82; Ord. 2491, 7/81) (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) 1.5.20.110 Well servicing hours. It shall be unlawful. to 15.20.150 Fence permit required. No fence or wall shall do any work between the hours of 10 p.m, and 7 a.m. in connec- be conatructe to enc ose any of well site, oil operation site tion with pulling a well which is within two hundred (200) feet or drilling island site in whole or in part until a permit of any residential building, except where circulation in the therefor shall have been Issued by the development services Je- well must be maintained, or the well would be endangered if the partment. As a condition of issuing such permit, the director pulling work were not continued. (Ord. 2532, 3 Feb 82; of development services or the fire chief may impose thereon Ord. 2491, 7/81) any conditions as are necessary In the interest of the public safety, and such fence or wall shall be constructed In accord- 15.20.120 Wellhead safety equipment. On all wells there ance with such conditions. The provisions relating to dedica- shall be connected to the casing string a two (2) inch steel. tion of right-of-way and construction of improvements shall not valve with a rated working pressure equal to that of the corre- be applicable to the issuance of such permit. All such en- sponding casing head for the purpose of bleeding off casing closures shall be subject to the setback requirements contained pressure and for hookup to kill the well In case of an emergency. in this title. (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) 15.20.160 Fences. All oil operation sites, drilling is- 15.20.130 Blowout prevention. In all cases, protection lands, and individual drill sites having external moving parts hazardous to life or limb shall be completely enclosed by a chain shall be provided to prevent blowout during oil operations as link fence, masonry wall, or other approved fencing material ac- required by and in conformance with the requirements of the cording to one of the following requirements: 443 444 15.20.160 t�.zo.t?o--15.20.180 (a) Individual drill sites: and the director of development services in accordance with the (1) All chain link fence enclosures shall have a mini- provisions of Chapter 5.22. mum height of six (6) feet; (6) Post and rails shall be standard galvanized, welded ' (2) There shall be at least one gated opening for pipe, schedule forty (40) or thicker; provided, however, that access, shall nongalvanlzed drill pipe may be used if it exceeds schedule forty placed in a nonhazardous position and said gat be kept locked at all times while left unattended by a watchman (40) in thickness; or serviceman; (7) All pipe and other ferrous parts, except chain link fabric and drill pipe, shall be galvanized inside and out- (3) There shall be no opening below the fence greater side with a plating which contains a minimum of 1.2 ounces of than four (4) inches; zinc per square foot of surface area; (4) Fencing constructed of individual chain link (8) Tension rods shall be three-eighths (3/8) inch panels shall be securely latched, pinned or hinged to prevent round steel bolt stock. Adjustable tighteners shall be turn- unauthorized persons from gaining access to such equipment or buckle or equivalent having a six (6) inch minimum take-up. oil site; Tension bars shall have a minimum thickness of one-fourth by (5) Support poste shall be set In concrete and shall three-fourths (1/4 x 3/4) inch. (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) be imbedded Into the ground to a depth sufficient to maintain 15.20.170 Masonry wall_ specifications. All"masonry walls the stability of the fence; used to enc ose in whole or in part any oil well site, oil operation site or drilling Island site shall be constructed in (6) The fence shall at all times be maintained in accordance with standard engineering practices and shall meet a state of good repair. the following specifications: (b) Oil operation sites and drilling islands: All chain (a) The wall shall be of a design compatible with the link fences used to enclose in whole or in part any oil opera- facilities, buildings and structures on and adjacent to the tion site or drilling island site shall meet the following specifi- site; cations: (b) The wall shall be at least six (6) feet in height; (1) The fence fabric shall be at least six (6) feet In height; (c) It shall be constructed in accordance with the pro- visions of the Huntington Beach Building Code. (Ord. 2491, (2) Support posts shall be set in concrete and shall 1 Jul 81) be imbedded into the ground to a depth sufficient to maintain the stability of the fence; 15.20.180 Gate specifications. For oil operations and drill sites, all chain link fences and masonry walls shall be (3) The chain link fabric shall be galvanized steel equipped with at least one gated area. The gated areas shall wire with a minimum plating of 1.2 ounces of zinc per square foot meet the following specifications: of surface area or shall be coated with vinyl or plastic material, approved by the fire chief, with both selvages barbed; (a) Each gated area shall be twelve (12) feet wide and be composed of two (2) gates, each of which is six (6) Peet (4) The chain link fence fabric shall have a minimum wide, or one sliding gate twelve (12) feet wide. The gates thickness of eleven (11) gauge; shall latch and lock in the center of the twelve (12) root span; (5) The chain link fabric shall be two (2) inch mesh; (b) The gates shall be of chain link construction which meets the applicable specifications or of other approved material used on any fence where the fabric is interwoven with artificial provided, however, three and one-half (3 1/2) inch mesh may which, for safety reasons, shall be at least as secure as chain link fence; screening of redwood slats or other material approved by the chief 445 446 15.20.190--15.20.210 15.20.220--15.20.260 (a) They shall be provided with a combination catch and locking attachment device for a padlock, and shall be kept one foot or wrapped with a minimum of one inch thick approved locked except when being used for access to the site; asbestos pipe insulation. (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) (d) Hinges shall be heavy duty malleable iron or steel 15.20.220 Soundproofing. Where an oil field recovery Industrial service type with a one hundred eighty (180) degree heater is operated within a developed area, the fire chief may, swing. (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) in cases of disturbance such as excessive noise or vibration, require the operator to: 15.20.190 Operation of oil field recovery heaters. All (a) Enclose the heater with a fire-resistant, soundproofing oil field recovery heaters shall have a va id state of California "permit to operate" and shall be equipped with and operated by material which shall be maintained in a serviceable condition; or safety controls which monitor certain essential operating con- (b) In the case of emergency or when it has been determined ditions and which shall shut down the boiler and require manual by the chief that the noise or vibration is detrimental to the restart when any of the essential conditions vary from pre- health, safety or welfare of the surrounding neighborhood, the scribed limits. An emergency shutdown switch shall be in- chief may order the operator to cease operations. (Ord. 2491, stalled a minimum of fifty (50) feet from the oil field re- 1 Jul 81) covery heater and shall be Identified as such by a sign with let- ters not less than three (3) inches high. (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) 15.20.230 Muffling exhaust. It shall be unlawful for 15.20.200 Notification of installation. Prior to the in- any person, owner or operator to discharge into the open air the exhaust from any steam engine, internal combustion engine stallatlan and operation of any oIT field recovery heater, the stationary or mounted on wheels, used in connection with the person or entity proposing to Install and operate such heater drilling of any well or for use on any production equipment shall so notify the department. All heaters shall beinstalled unless it is equipped with an exhaust muffler, or mufflers or and operated in compliance with the applicable provisions of an exhaust muffler box constructed of noncombustible materials this chapter. (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) sufficient to suppress noise and prevent the escape of obnoxious 15.20.210 Installation. The distance between o11 field gases, fumes or ignited carbon or soot. (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) recovery heaters and real entlal, commercial, and public as- 15.20.240 Public nuisance declared. The foregoing sec- sembly buildings shall be as follows: dons notwithstanding, no person shall conduct any oil operation In a manner that would create a noise, odor or vibration detri- (a) oil-fired recovery heaters: five hundred (500) feet. mental to the health, safety or welfare of the surrounding neigh- Except where enclosed by a aix (6) foot high masonry wall, the borhood or any considerable number of persona. Such operation is distance may be reduced to one hundred (100) feet; hereby declared to constitute a public nuisance. (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) (b) Gas-fired recovery.heaters: three hundred (300) feet. Except where enclosed by a six (6) foot high masonry 15.20.250 PIre prevention--Sources of ignition. All elec- wall, the distance may be reduced to fifty (50) feet. trical equipment used, loafs led or maintained within fifty (50) feet of a drilling rig, or within twenty-five (25) feet of any (c) All oil field recovery heaters shall be separated other oil operation shall be installed and maintained in accord- s minimum of twenty-five (25) feet from any oil storage tank, ance with all applicable state and municipal regulations. wellhead or public right-of-way; No boiler, pass-through boiler, steam generator, direct- (d) oil field recovery heaters being operated in a de- fired heater, gas or oil-burning device, or other open flame veloped area, as defined in this title, shall be completely shall be located closer than twenty-five (25) feet.from a well- fenced, including the wellhead, with a six (6) foot high chain head or oil storage tank. (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) link or other approved fence complete with two (2) self-closing gates Installed on opposite aides of the enclosure. Steam lines 15.20.260 O11 storage tanks. All tanks used for the storage, from the heater to the wellhead shall be buried to a-depth of production o 0 1, or t e iaposal of wastewater shall conform to the following: �. 447 448 15.20.270--15.20.290 (a) A.P.I. Specifications. All tanks shall conform to American Petroleum Institute A.P.I.) specifications unless other specifications are approved by the fire chief. (b) Structural Requirements. If, as determined by the chief, any structure used or operated in connection with any oil operation is structurally unsound to the point of being hazardous, he may order the person in charge of such o`.l oper- ation to provide licensed civil or structural engineers' analy- sis pertaining to the adequacy of said structure. (a) Dikes and Ca acit Requirements. All persona owning, operating or suing control or storage tanks, clarifying tanks or tanks used in connection with the production of oil shall construct and maintain dikes around said tanks. Drainage dikes and walls shall be constructed and maintained to meet the stand- ards of the National Fire Protection Association as they presently exist or may hereafter be amended. (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) 15.20.270 Tank setbacks. All new tanks, including replace- ment tanks, and permanent structures shall be set back pursuant --•sty �I to the standards oP the National Fire Protection Association as zl they presently exist or may hereafter be amended, but in all cases shall be at least a minimum of twenty-rive (25) Peet from a F an ultimate right-oP-way as defined in the Huntington Beach \ `j u Ordinance Code. 11 EXCEPTION; The replacement of existing oil storage tanks, F which pose a hazard of bursting or of severe leakage or of any other danger to persons or other property, and which cannot meet tl the required setback limits, may be authorized by the fire chief but in no case may the replacement tank be or a larger capacity diameter or height than the existing tank. (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul di) 15.20.280 Setbacks--General. With the exception of pumping units, no oil production equipment over forty-two (42) inches high shall be located or relocated within the safety-eight angle at street Intersections. a Z The safety-sight angle shall be triangular and formed by Cr measuring to a point twenty-five (25) feet along the front-and O exterior side lot lines of a corner lot from the point of inter- section of said lines and striking a hypotenuse between the two z points, as illustrated in the diagram included herein. _ (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) (J 0 Co • 15.20.290 Portable pulling masts and gin poles--Removal z o of. All well servicing equipment, including portable pulling masts and gin poles, shall be removed from the leasehold, oil U' z r Z v x 449 _ r aw5 r �i �i: ii 1-90-= So am go s so no "Oft err MAN ON � 15.2.0.300--15.20.310 15.22.010--15.22.030 operation site or drill site within seven (7) days after com- Sections: (Continued) pletion of a well servicing operation. (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) 15.20.300 Pipelines. Within six (6) months after adoption 15.22.040 Landscaping for developed areas--Drilling and activation. of this chapter, all pipelines In developed areas, as defined In 15.22.0 this'tttle, which are not enclosed within a fence shall be placed Landscaping--Minimum area. underground or covered with materials approved by the fire chief. 15.22.060 0 Landscaping--Minimum requirements. Such covering shall be maintained in a neat, orderly, secure 1 22.010 Screening--Developed areas. On or before July 1, manner. (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) 1983,11 oil wells and tanks located in developed areas, as de- 15.20.310 Storage of equipment. (a) No drilling, re- fined In this title, shall be screened by a fence enclosure con- structed of one of the following materials: drilling, reworking, or other portable equipment shall be stored . on the oil operation site which is not essential to the everyday (a) A solid masonry wall; operation of the oil well located thereon. This includes the removal of Idle equipment unnecessary for the operation of gas (b) A chain link fabric with three and one-half (3 112) Inch wells, flowing wells, disposal wells, water and steam injectors mesh interwoven with redwood slats. The director of development and wells produced by electric bottom hole pumps. However, services may approve the use of other opaque materials for use drilling or production equipment may be stored on an oil opera- with chain link fabric if he finds such materials are compatible tion site if such site is entirely enclosed with a fence that with surrounding uses and effectively screen the oil operation; conforms to the specifications set out in this title and the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code, and such storage is a permitted (c) Any other material, compatible with surrounding uses, use In the base zone district of the site. which effectively screen the oil operation site, approved by the director of development services. (b) Lumber, pipes, tubing and casing shall not be left on the oil operation site except when drilling or well servicing (d) All fencing, masonry walls, redwood slatting, or other operations are being conducted on the site. comparable materials for use with chain link fabric, shall be of a solid neutral color, compatible with surrounding uses, and (c) Waste control shall conform to applicable provisions maintained in a neat, orderly, secure condition. Neutral colors of the Huntington Beach Fire Code. shall include sand, grey and unobtrusive shades of green, blue and brown, or other colors approved by the fire chief. (d) It shall be illegal for any person, owner or operator (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) to park or store any vehicle or item of machinery in any driveway, alley or upon any oil operation site which constitutes a fire 15.22.020 Screening--Drilling, redrilling and activation. hazard or an obstruction to or interference with fighting or Within sixty 0 days of completion of drilling or redrilling, controlling fires except that equipment which is necessary for or within sixty (60) days of activation of an idle well if such the maintenance of the oil well site or for gathering or trans- well is located In a developed area, as defined In this title, portation of hydrocarbon substances from the site. (Ord. 2491, auch well ahall be screened by a fence enclosure which con- 1 Jul 81) forms to the requirements of this chapter, the provisions set out elsewhere in this code, and the regulations of the division of oil and gas contained in the California administrative code Chapter 15.22 as the yy presently exist or may hereafter be amended. (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) SCREENING AND LANDSCAPING �.22.030 Screening setbacks. Minimum setbacks for all screening aha meet the proviaiona or the Huntington Beach Sections: Ordinance Code applicable to the oil operation site but In no case shall be less than five (5) feet from the ultimate right- 15.22.010 Screening--Developed areas. of-way of any public street. The director of development 15.22.020 Screening--Drilling, redrilling and activation. services may reduce such required setbacks where an oil well 15.22.030 Screening setbacks. 450 451 15.22.040--1>..': .ow) or other necessary equipment is or must be located In the set- back area, in which case special landscaping requirements for scPeening purposes may be imposed. (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) k 15.22.040 Landscaping for developed areas--Drilling and of activation. Prior to the issuance of any drilling or activation >W permit, a landscaping plan which meets the requirements of this z H W chapter, shall be submitted for review and approval by the fire a.o:z chief and the director of development services. Within sixty (60) yrW„ days after completion of drilling or redrilling or within sixty (60) days after activation of an idle well, any oil operation site* i In a developed area, as defined in this title, shall be land- ; scaped in conformance with the plan submitted and approved, and the specifications contained in this chapter. Landscaping shall not be required for any well which 1s not visible from a public street unless the well 1s within a public park, beach or recreation area which has been developed and open for public use. (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) Y 'G 15.22.050 Landscaping--Minimum area. The minimum area re- a a quired to be landscaped at an oil operation site shall be that w a area between each lot boundary line fronting a public street and q a line or- lines drawn parallel to each lot boundary line fronting o o on a public street and through the center of any well or tank a a on such site. When there is more than well or tank on an oil u a operation site, the well or tank closest to each boundary line o u fronting on a public street shall be used to determine the mini- z mum landscape area. Any area enclosed by a fence meeting the re- w quirements of this title, shall be excluded from the minimum area ag to be landscaped. (See Figures 1 and 2.) (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) Y o 4 z o x 15.22.060 Landscaping--Minimum requirements. The minimum F W number of trees and shrubs per square foot shall be as follows: a � a Square footage of 3 minimum landscape Minimum trees Minimum shrubs ❑ 0-149 1 3 a 150-249 2 6 z 250-349 3 9 ' O 350-449 4 12 ' 1�6 450-549 5 15 0' 3 550-649 6 18 650-749 7 21 u g 750-849 8 24 850-949 9 27 Z o 950-1499 10 30 1500-1999 12 36 R U' 2000 - as determined by the director of development services Z Z 452 pp� • 116�. 15.24.010--15.24.060 15.24.070--15.28.010 Sections: (Continued) operation site shall be painted and maintained at all times, Including pumping units, storage tanks, heaters, and buildings 15.24.060 Painting. or structures. When requiring painting of such facilities, the 15.24.070 Gas emission or burning prohibited. fire chief shall consider the deterioration of the quality of the material of which such facility or structure is constructed, 15.24.010 Cleanup after well servicing. After completion the degree of rust, and its appearance. Paint shall be of a of well servicing or abandonment operations, the responsible neutral color, compatible with surrounding uses. Neutral colors party shall pump out the cellar, clean the drill site area and shall Include sand, grey and unobtrusive shades of green; blue repair all damage to public property caused by such servicing and brown, or other colors approved by the chief. All produc- or abandonment operations. (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) tion equipment shall be painted a neutral color, as defined herein, within six (6) months after the adoption of this chapter. 15.24.020 Oil spill plans required. An oil spill contin- gency plan or spill plan shall be required for every oil opera- EXCEPTIONS: The color requirements of this section shall not Lion site, and available for inspection by the chief at any time. apply where there are continuing and ongoing multiple drilling Plana prepared pursuant to applicable provisions of the California operations which (a) do not have public access; (b)' are not ad- administrative code as they presently exist, or may hereafter be jacent to existing residential property or property that is gen- amended shall satisfy the requirements of this section. eral planned or zoned for residential use; and (c) are screened (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) from public view. (Ord. 2515, 4 Nov 81; Ord. 2491, 7/81) 15.24.070 Oas emission or burning prohibited. No person 1�.24.030 Cleanup afte�r a��il_ls, leaks and malfunctions. After any spill, leak or ma function, the respona b e party shall shall a ow or cause or permit gases to be vented into the at- remove or cause to be removed to the satisfaction of the chief mosphere or to be burned by open flame except as provided by all oil and waste materials from any public or private property law or as permitted by the division of oil and gas or appropriate affected by such spill, leak or malfunction. (Ord. 2491, air pollution control district. (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) 1 Jul 81) 15.24.040 Releasing of fluids. No person shall deposit, Chapter 15.28 place, discharge or cause or permit to be placed, deposited or WASTEWATER SYSTEM discharged any oil, naptha, petroleum, asphaltum, tar, hydro- carbon substances or any refuse Including wastewater and brine from any oil operation or the contents of any container used in Sections: connection with an oil operation in, into, or upon a public right-of-way, a storm drain, ditch or sewer; a sanitary drain or 15.28.010 Wastewater system. sewer; any portion of the Pacific Ocean or any body of water; or 15.28.010 WastewaterSewer -conn syste permit--Application fee. any private property in this city. 15.28.030 Contents of application--Property description. EXCEPTION: 'Created wastewater and brine may be discharged 15.28.040 Damages. either into a sanitary sewer If a permit is obtained for such 15.28.050 Discharge line. discharge In accordance with the provisions of this title, or 15.28.060 Rules for laying drainpipe to sanitary sewer. Into an outfall approved by the regional water quality control 15.28.010 Wastewater s stem. For the purpose of handling board. (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) Industrialwastes from o11 and gas wells, including wastewater 15.24.050 Freedom from debris. All property on which an and brine, the public works department shall Issue a sewer con- nection permit whenevbr such waste is to be deposited into the oil well site Is located shall at all times be kept free of city's sanitary sewer system, provided such Industrial waste does (a)- debris; (b) pools of oil, water or other liquids; not contain more than one hundred (100) milligrams/liter of any (c) weeds; (d) brush; (e) trash, or other waste material. crude, distilled or refined petroleum products, mud, rotary mud, (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) oils, or other residual products mentioned In Orange County sani- 15.24.060_ Painting. All production equipment on the oil tation district discharge regulations. Such industrial waste 455 454 15.28.020--15.28.060 15.32.010--15.32.040 a hall be processed through a clarification system approved by the department. At no time shall discharge water be over 1400 Fahren- Sections: (Continued) heit at point of entry to the sewer. (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) 15.32.030 Production report--False. 15.28.020 Sewer connection permit--Application lee. No 15.32.040 Nonproducing oil wells. connection shall be made to the city's sanitary sewer system 15.32.050 Idle wells. until a sewer connection permit has been obtained from the 15.32.060 Site restoration--Procedure. public works department. An application for such sewer connec- 15.32.070 Extension of nonconforming rights. tion permit shall be filed with the department together with a 15.32.080 Site restoration--Time limit. fee per sewer connection, as established by resolution of the 15.32.090 Abandonment procedure. city council. (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) 15.32.100 Abandoned well requirement. 15.32.110 Abandoned well--Surface requirements. 15.28.030 Contents of application--Property description. 15.32.120 Abandonment requirements prior to new Said applicat on sha conta n a eecr pion a pr�Ti o ert construction. p y upon which said water or wastewater Is located, the name of 15.32.130 Maintenance of records. the owner of the property, the point where the water will be 15.32.010 Production report--Filing da_tea. The operator discharged into said sanitary sewer, the location of the clad- of an we a fi e w th the 3epartMt, during the first Eying plant, type of plant to be used, including plans and specifications approved by the public works department and the thirty (30) days of each quarter, for the last preceding calendar method of clarifying and settling the objectionable substances quarter, a statement in such form as the fire chief may desig- from said water, Including pplane and sppecifications of wastewater nate, showing: settling systems. (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) (a) The amount of oil and gas produced from each well 15.28.040 Dam ea. The permlttee shall be responsible during the period indicated and the number of days during which for all damages to city property. (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) fluid was produced from each well; 15.28.050 Discharge line. The discharge line shall have (b) The number of wells drilling, reworking, producing, an approved gate valve and shall be provided with an approved idle, and owned or operated by such person; method of observing or testing the wastewater for impurities. (a) In lieu of the above, the operators may submit to the (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) chief copies of state of California, division of oil and gas Form 110 report, as submitted to the state division of oil and 15.28.060 Rules for laying drainpipe to sanitary sewer. gas; The method of installation for the discharge line from the clarifying tank, Including all pipe and fittings, shall be (d) Oil operators and buyers of gas from wells in In accordance with the provisions of the Huntington Beach Huntington Beach shall be required to meter such gas for Inspec- Plumbing Code. No sewer connection to the city's sanitary tion and review by the chief when the latter requests same. sewer system shall be made by other than a licensed plumbing (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) contractor. (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) 15.32.020 Production report--Failure. Failure to report product on as requ re in thia chapter shall constitute a mia- Chapter 15.32 demeanor punishable as set forth in Chapter 1.16 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code. (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) NONPRODUCINO AND IDLE WELLS 15.32.030 Production report--False. Filing a false, fraud- ulent, or intentionally inaccurate report shall constitute a mis- Sections: demeanor punishable by fine, imprisonment or both. (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) 15.32.010 Production report--Filing dates. 15.32.020 Production report--Failure. 15.32.040 Nonproducing oil wells. Whenever any oil well, 456 457 so MM 15.32.050 15.32.060--15.32.070 conforming with tce rrc:vlslons o: the Huntington Beach Ordinance the land on which such well is situated as shown on the last Code fails to l.j oz-e at tt:r quarterly rate an twenty t a bar- equalized assessment roll, and to the owner of the mineral rights tell of to of oi; h o::n.�r ousanarbon substances or et o quay- on which such well is situated as shown on the last equalized for rate ea one huh raS thousand (100,000) cubic feet of gas assessment roll, and to the operator of such well as indicated for sale, lease Esc: or storage for two (2) successive calendar quarters, such well snail be zla331fied as "nonproducing." Such on either the records of the state division of oil and gas, nonproducing well, when located on a site with other oil produc- department of conservation or the records of the department. tion operations, shall be maintained in accordance with the pro- Once the notice is sent, the well or wells specified therein visions of this title. may not be activated unless the requirements of Chapter 15.40 of this code are adhered to and satisfied. When such nonproducing well is located on a site having no (b) The notice shall indicate the name and location of other oil production activity, the chief shall notify the opera- the well in question and a statement by the chief of the rea- tor that the well nan been classified as nonproducing and, in the sons why such well to an idle well, as defined by section event the well is not reactivated within six (6) months of the 15.32.040 of this code. (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) date it first became nonproducing, a hearing will be initiated before the planning, commission to show cause why the "0" zoning 15.32,060 Site restoration--Procedure. Within thirty (30) classification on the oil• production site should not be removed. days after notice has been mailed, the part tea to whom the notice In the event t^e "0" zoning is removed, the well shall thereafter has been sent shall clean and restore the drill site and surface be an "idle" weli and subject to the requirements for such wells in conformity with the following requirements: as set forth below. (a) The derrick and all appurtenant equipment thereto Whenever any oil well, which is nonconforming under the pro- existing above the surface of the ground level shall be _removed visions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code, fails to produce from the drill site; at a quarterly rate of twenty (20) barrels of crude oil or other hydrocarbon substances or at a quarterly rate of one hundred (b) The drilling and production equipment, tanks, towers thousand (100,000) cubic feet of gas for sale, lease use or and other surface installations shall be removed from the drill storage ror two (2) successive calendar quarters, such well shall site or tank farm site; be classified as "nonproducing." When any such well has become nonproducing, the chief shall notify the operator that the well (c) All concrete, pipe (except tubing head), wood and other has been so classified and give notice that said well will be- foreign materials existing above or on the surface of the ground come an "idle" well thirty (30) days from the date of such no- level shall be removed from the drill site or tank farm site; tice unless the operator, within that thirty (30) day period, shows cause why the well should not be classified an "idle" well. (d) All oil, waste oil, refuse or waste material including debris, junk, trash and accumulated piles of miscellaneous In the event the operator ra113 to show cause why the well material shall be removed from the drill site or tank farm site; should not be classified an "Idle" well, such well shall be so classified and any nonconforming rights to continue or reactivate (e) The rathole and all holes, depressions, and sumps shall such oil operation shall cease. Documentation that the well is be cleaned out of all foreign material (except well cellar walls) an injection well or is part of a unit operation involved In an regardless or depth and filled and packed with clean compactible enhanced recovery pra;ect shall be considered acceptable for not soil; classifying a well -"Idle." (Ord. 2491, 1-Jul 81) (f) The wellhead shall be capped with a blind flange and 1 2.050 I�:e w_ells. When a well is determined to be an a minimum of two (2) inch steel bleeder valve shall be installed "Idle'' we oodijig to the provisions of section 15.32.040 above, which shall be locked In a closed position. (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul ,1) the surface area of t.le well site shall be cleaned pursuant to the following: 15.32.070 Extension of nonconforming rights. In the event the fire chief finds that the operator has shown that the sub- (a) Notice shall be sent by the fire chief,_by registered ject well should not be classified an "Idle" well, he Is au- or certified mail, to the owner of the fee simple interest in thorized to extend the nonconforming rights of such oil opera- 458 459 15.32.080--15.32.100 15.32.110--15.32.130 tion for a period not to exceed six (6,) months. Such extension confirmingcompliance with all abandonment may be subject to reasonable conditions to insure that the oil p proceedings under the state law; and operation site is maintained in a safe and clean condition. (b) A notice of intention to abandon under the provisions In order to extend the nonconforming fights, the fire chief of this section and statidg the date such work will be commenced. shall find that: Abandonment may then be commenced on or subsequent to the date so (a) Because of special circumstances applicable to the stated. (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) property, Including its size, shape, topography, location, or 15.32.110 Abandoned well--Surface requlrements. Abandon- surroundings, the strict application of the provisions of this ment s a be approve y the chle after restoration of the section deprives the owner or lessee of such property of privi- drill site and the subsurface thereof has been accomplished in leges enjoyed by other owners or lessees of property in the vi- conformity with the following requirements: cinity and in the same zoning classification; (a) The derrick and all appurtenant equipment thereto (b) Approval will not constitute a special privilege shall be removed from the drill site; Inconsistent with the limitations placed upon other properties In the vicinity and in the same zoning classification; (b) All tanks, towers and other surface installations (c) Approval will not be detrimental to the public welfare, shall be removed from the drill site; or injurious to other property 1n the area or injurious to im- (a) All concrete, piping, wood and other foreign materials, provements thereon; regardless of depth, shall be removed from the drill site, unless part of a multiwell cellar that is being used in connection (d) Approval will not be in conflict with established with any other well for which a permit to in force; general and specific plans and policies of the city; (d) All holes and depressions shall be filled with clean, (e) That the site to adequate to accommodate continuation compactible soil. All oil, waste oil, refuse or waste material of the use; shall be removed from the drill site. (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) (f) That there is compliance with the applicable provisions 15.32.120 Abandonment requirements prior to new construc- of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code. (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) tion. i!l2 a an on or eserte we a or r a tes shirr meet the moat current abandonment requirements or the division of oil 15.32.080 Site restoration--Time limit. The time period and gas prior to the issuance of any building or grading permit provided for compliance herein shall be suspended from the date for development of the property. an appeal is filed pursuant to the procedure set out in this title until final decision 1s rendered on the appeal. (Ord. 2491, To the maximum extent practicable, new structures shall not 1 Jul 81) be constructed directly over abandoned wells. When structures are constructed over abandoned wells, however, the installation 15.32.090 Abandonment procedure. Whenever abandonment of vapor recovery systems around the well, as approved by the fire occurs pursuant to the requirements of the division of oil and chief, shall be required. (Ord. 2491. 1 Jul 81) gas, the person so abandoning shall be responsible for the restoration of the drill site and oil operation site to its 3e 130 Maintenance of records. The fire chief shall main- original condition as nearly as practicable In conformity with tain current an accurate recor a of each well drill site or the regulations of this code, as provided in this title. lease. Such records shall reflect the status of each well and Its drill site or lease with respect to each of the regulatory (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) provisions of this oil code. The records shall also indicate whether each well is producing, idle, or abandoned and whether it 1 2.100 Abandoned well requirement. The responsible party Is in compliance with the Huntington Beach Municipal Code. shall urn eh t e c e with: (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) (a) A copy of the approval of the division of oil and gas, 460 461 15.36.010--15.36.030 15.36.040--15.40.020 Chapter 15.36 the county recorder for each parcel of land involved, and when NUISANCE OIL WELLS AND SITES recorded, shall be delivered by the fire chief to the.county con- troller and assessor who is expressly authorized to enter the Sections: amount thereof in the county assessment book opposite the descrip- tion of said parcels, and thereafter such amount shall be collected 15.36.010 Notice and hearing. at the time and in the same manner as ordinary municipal taxes are 15.36.020 Work--Costs report--Hearing on assessment. collected, and shall be subject to the same penalties and the same 15-36.030 Notice of lien filed to pay assessment. procedures under foreclosure and sale in case of delinquency, as 15-36.040 Additional remedies. provided for ordinary municipal taxes. 15.36.010 Notice and hearing. Whenever the fire chief de- Notice to pay the assessment shall be sent to the parties termines that a public nuisance, as described in this code ex- liable to be assessed. (Ord. 2491. 1 Jul 81) fists on any property or In connection with any well, drill site or lease, he shall give notice to the property owner, the lessee 15.36.040 Additional remedies. As to any lots or property of surface or mineral rights, the oil operator and the occu- declared to be a nuisance hereunder, the city attorney of the pants of any such property to abate such nuisance. city of Huntington Beach may proceed to abate the same by filing a civil action to abate a nuisance against the owners, or oil The notice shall also state that in the event the nuisance operators, or lessees or occupants thereon. (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) is not abated as directed, the objectionable material or con- dition may be removed and the nuisance abated by the city, and the cost of removal assessed upon the lands and buildings from Chapter 15.40 or in front of which the nuisance is removed and such cost shall constitute a lien upon such land until paid. ACTIVATION OF IDLE WELLS The notice shall also specify a date and time within thirty (30) days of the date of the notice when the city council will Sections: hold a public hearing to afford those so notified an opportunity Activation 15.40.010 Ac to be heard concerning the determination of the chief and the permit required. notice to remove or eliminate the nuisance conditions. The city 15.40.020 Application and fee. council may direct the department to proceed with the work nec- 15.40.030 Action by chief and director of development essary to remove the objectionable conditions or materials and services. to take such other action as is necessary to abate the nuisance. 15.40.040 Expiration of permit. ( 15.40.050 Test permit. Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) 15.40.060 Cease and desist order. 15.36.020 Work--Costs report--Hearing on assessment. The 15.40.010 Activation ermit re!uired. No person shall work shall proceed under the direction of the fire chief and may activate or put into pro uction any of well that is an idle well be done by city forces or private contractor. The individual in pursuant to this code, or any well whose drill site has be-:n charge of the work shall keep a record and account of the coats cleaned and restored in accordance with this code, unless an of abatement. Upon completion of the work, a report shall be activation permit has been first obtained pursuant to the pro- filed with the city clerk who shall set a hearing before the visions of this title. (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) city council. The parties to be assessed shall receive by first class, prepaid mail a notice of a public hearing on the assess- 15.40.020 Application and fee. An application, on a ment. (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) form provide�by the department, shall be filed with the depart- ment together with the required permit fee. The application 15.36.030 Notice of lien filed to pay assessment. If the shall include a plot plan and such other information necessary to cost of assessment is approved by the city council a ter the show that the property and the oil operation will comply with the hearing thereof, a notice of lien shall be filed in'the office of provisions of this title and the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. 462 463 15.40.030--15.40.050 J. 160 No activation permit application shall be accepted by the _lion of oil and gas and this title. (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) department unless- the property on which the well is located may be lawfully used for oil operations in accordance with the pro- 1 .40.060 Cease and desist order. Jr. at any time, any visions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code and the required operator a n vio at on of any of the provisions of this title, permit application fee Is paid. Such fee shall not be refundable. the fire chief may order compliance and set a reasonable period of (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) time for same. If compliance is not obtained within the time 1 40.0 0 Action b chief and director of develo ent period specified, the chief shall order, in writing, the operator 5. 3 to cease and desist operation of the well immediately. The services. Within ten 10 working days after such application is operator shall immediately comply with the order of the. chief i ed, the fire chief and the director of development services to cease and desist and shall not resume an operation shall review the application. IP the chief finds that activation site affected unless and until the written a rovat the of the well as requested in the application and the property on Is obtained. (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) approval off the chief which the oil operation is to be located meets all of the re- quirements of this title, and if the director of development services determines that all applicable provisions of the (Prior law: Ord. 280. 4/26. Ord. 418, 10/38; Ord. 515, 9/47; Huntington Beach Ordinance Code have been met, the chief shall Ord. 1203, 5/61; Ord. 1559. 4/70. Ord. 1653, issue the activation permit. If the director of development 11/71; Ord. 1814, 2/73; Ord. 2189, 6/77; services is unable to find compliance with the applicable pro- Ord. 2228. 10/77; Ord. 2309, 9/78; Ord. 2321, visions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code, the chief shall 10/78; Ord. 2351, 3/19) deny the permit and shall give notice to the applicant of such denial. (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) 15.40.040 Expiration of permit_. Any activation permit issued under the proviaione of this title shall expire by limitation and become null and void if the oil operation autho- rized by such permit is not commenced within one hundred twenty (120) days from the date of issuance or such permit. (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81) 15.40.050 Teet permit. At the request of' the applicant and prior to the issuance of the activation permit, the fire chief may grant a test permit for a period not to exceed ninety (90) days. This test permit is to authorize the applicant to operate the well on a test basis to determine- if said well is capable of producing in the quantities specified In this code. The test permit shall not be issued unless the drill Bite and oil operation is in compliance with all the provisions of this title and other applicable provisions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code except that equipment. materials and opera- tions necessary for the conducting of the test shall be permitted. Should the well fail to produce oil. gas or other hydro- carbon substances within the ninety (90) day period in a manner sufficient to demonstrate that it is capable of producing the quantities specified in this code. the applicant shall abandon the well within one hundred eighty (180) days from the issuance of the test permit in accordance with the regulations of the 464 465 �' 0 mint aw. so INTERSECTION CAPACITY UT1LLIZATION COMMPUTATT'IONS INTERSECTION m4f..j S_Avr - 44tl 1 �a ke•� e_ Ex i tiing Existing tKli+tA_FA KU CSf i- tx } eKAS. + Capa- Capa- Pe r. VIC Mi.- POCIC�t P� Pau�+c+ Pac%4-� + Pam) Movement city city Volume p,,,,� VCL Qeh�.�1 VIC, Pro�J` V/L pro ., Vic. NL t(060 Z o O• D 1 0 0-0 ` $ 0. 01 NT Z O.11 2(0 1 D•0 -7 D• t$ NR SL 1100D ST 2, Zoe 4� 0- tS� S3Z S -7 O z 0. 1"1 SR EL L} ET �bOD 1 0.04 O.l�4 (1 0.0 ER 3 -3& wL WT lbOD < c 0.00 d.ob 30 o.o WR n Z 2 Yellow Clearance Intersection Capacity Utilizat'ICU - D.2� �.7iYj Z ICU is sum of critical movements, denoted by asterisk (�) N-Northbound, S-Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, L=Left, T=Through, R=Right VIC - Volume to Capacity Ratio APPENDIX L _ NOTICE OF COMPLETION (NOC) AND NOC/DRAFT EIR DISTRIBUTION LIST ftil Iv .Mate Cleariru;h�xuo-. I.11r, Tcnih St, Ian 121. Sacrawnto, CA 9_Zl4-916/44:H)G13 :1(1!: ry ::n i NOTICE OF OOIIPLETION vu r'imsor L DOmmw 18AnsiaTfAL FAY r SCH n I. Project Title* "HQ11V PLQperty" Environmental Impact Report.84-1 2. Lead Agenc^: City of Huntington Beach 3. Contact Person: Howard Zelefsky 3a. Street Address: 2000 Main Street' 3b, City: Huntington Beach 3c. County: Orange 3d. Zip: 92648 3e. Phone: (7141 536-5721 Orange Huntington Beach PBOIBtT LOCITTQ) 4. County: g 9a. CitYlComity: g 4b. Assessor's Parcel No. c. Section 35 Twp• 5 RaflBeT : 1 • 5a. Cross Streets: Ellis Avenue ~& Goldenwest St. 5b. For Rural, Nearest Community State Air- Rail- d' Water- 6. Within 2 miles: a. _�, a 3 9/1 - b, ports C. ways ways .. DOWN! TYPE 8. LOCAL ACrIGFF TTP8 9. D97ELLFK fr.TTPR CEQA 01. _General Plan Update 01. X Residential: Units 1200 Acres 120 01. _NOp 06. _NOE 02. _flew Element 02. _Office: Sq. Ft. 02. Early Cons 07. NOC 03. X General Plan Amendment Acres Employees 03. _Neg Dec 08. _NOD 04. _plaster Plan 03. _Sbopping/Commercial: Sq. Ft. 04. X Draft EIR .05. _Annexation Acres Employees Supplement/ 06. _Specific Plan 04. _Industrial: Sq. Ft. 05. Subsequent EIR (Prior SCR No.: 07. Comity Plan Acres Employees 08. _Redevelofinent 05. _Water Facilities: CD NEPA 09. Rezone 06. Transportation: Tyge Draft ("0• _NOI 11. -EIS 10. Land Division 07. _Mining: Mineral T3ubdivision, Parcel 10. _FCNSI 12. �EA Map, Tract Map, etc.) 08. _Power: Type Watts - OTIIM 11. -Use Permit 09. _Waste Treatmnt: Type 13. Joint Document 12. Waste Mgmt Plan 10. OCS Related 14. Final Document 13. _Cancel Ag Preserve 11. _Other: 15. _Other 14. _Other 10. TOTAL ACRIM: 120 net II. 19M JC13S CREATED: 12. PRWErr ISSUES DISCUSS® IH DOWI1ffirr 15. _Septic Systems 23. X Water Quality I r 01. X Aesthetic/Visual 08. X Flooding/Drainage 16. X Sewer Capacity 24. X _Water Supply 02. _Agricultural Land 09. X Geologic/Seismic 17. X Social 25. _Wetland/Ripariao 03. X Air Quality 10. X Jobs/Housing Balance 18. X Soil Erosion 26. X_Wildlife 04. X Archaeological/Rlstorical I1. Minerals 19. _Solid Waste X Growth Inducing 05. _Coastal Zone 12. X Noise 20. X Toxic/Hazardous 211 _Ince"npatible Landuse 06. X Economic 13. X Public Services 21. X Traffic/Circulation 20. X• Cumulative E::ects 07. _Fire Hazard 14. X Schools 22. _Vegetation 30. _Other 13. F MDG (approx) Federal 3 State S Total 5 14. mwENS''LAm USE AND zmiNG: Vacant property except for two single family dwellings and a building used as a church. Zoning; industrial, office prof. , estate residential. 15. PFKITBCr DESCRIp' UN: General Plan Amendment for 120 acres of property in central Huntington Beach. The proposal is to change the land- use designation from estate/residential, industrial and office professional to Planned Community, to allow for the construction of 1200 housing units, 16. SI(;IATTIIFE OF LEAD AGE14 T 1ATSVE: DATE: / NCR'E: Cleariemouse will assign ldenr.lficat i numbers for al' ts. ! SCH number already exists for project from a Notice of preparation or prev draft dccumen ease 11 it RPM9VI AGENQEg Resources Agency X Caltrans L. .r-rict 7 ., Boating/Waterways Dept. of Transportation Ping Conservation Aeronautics Fish and Game CA Highway Patrol Forestry Housing & Community�bdv't Colorado River Board Statewide Health Ping Dept. Water Resources X Health'..:- Toxie Substances Reclamation Food & Agriculture Parks and Rec Public Utilities Comm �. Office of Historic Preservation Public Works Native American. Heritage Comm Corrections S.F. Bay Cons. & Dev't. Comm General Services Coastal Comm 0 LA Energy Comm Santa Monica Mtns State Lands Comm TRPA-CALZRPA X Air Resources board OPR - OLGA Solid Waste Mgmt Board OPR - Coastal SWRCB: Sacto Bureau of Land Management £WQCB: Region Forest Service Water Rights Other: Water Quality Other: FOR SCH USE CNLY Date Received at SCH Catalog Number Date Review Starts Applicant Date to Agencies Consultant Date to SCH Contact Phone Clearance Date Address , Notes: DRAFT EIR 84-1 DISTRIBUTION LIST No, of Copies State Clearinghouse 10. 1400 - 10th Street Sacramento, CA 95814 Attn: Ms. Goggens County of Orange 2-- EMA 811 No. Broadway Santa Ana, CA 92702 Attn: Alex Ghobadi Jerry Bennet Orange County Sanitation District 1 10844 .Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley, CA 92708 Attn: Tom Daws Environmental Board Mike Kimbrell 1 - Cynthia Doe 1 Department of Water Resources 1 P . 0. Box 6598 Los Angeles, CA 90055 Attn Robert Chunn Southern California Gas Co. 1 Orange County Division P. 0. Box 3334 Anaheim, CA 92803 Attn: M. T. Roseen Department of Transportation 1 District 7 P . 0. Box 2304 Los Angeles, CA 90051 Attn: W. B. Ballantine Department of Health Services 1 Toxic Substances Control Division 107 South Broadway, Room 7128 Los Angeles, CA 90012 Attn: Nestor Acedera Orange County Transit District 1 11222 Acacia Parkway Garden Grove, CA 92642 Attn: Mike Haak DRAFT EIR 84-1 DISTRIBUTION LIST ,,g+ Page 2 No, of Copies . South Coast Air Quality Mgmt . _Dist . 1 "� 9150 Flair Drive E1 Monte, CA 91731 Attn: John Nevitt Huntington Beach School District I 735 - 14th Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 City Clerk 2 Alicia Wentworth City Library 2 Reserve Desk City Administrator 1 Charles Thompson City Attorney 1 , Gail Hutton Fire Department 1 Chief Robitaille Public Works: 3 Paul Cook - Director Les Evans - City Engineer Bruce Gilmer - Traffic Engineer Community Services 1 Max Bowman Director Development Services 1 James W. Palin Director Administrative Services 1 Bob Franz Florence Webb 1 Advance Planning City Council 7 . Planning Commission 7 51 copies W m z Ho � a x � z a oN wa U UA r APPENDIX M COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR AND CORRESPONDING RESPONSES Introduction This section includes all the written comments received on the Draft EIR. during the public review period. The responses to the comments are found directly following each corresponding comment letter. In addition, portions of the EIR, text have been revised in response to certain comments. The portion(s)of text revised per a written comments are referenced in the corresponding response. Revisions in the text are highlighted in bold and are also cross-referenced back to the appropriate comment found in this section. The agencies commenting on the draft EIR are listed below. A. City of Huntington Beach, Department of Community Services B. City of Huntington Beach, Department of Public Works C. City of Huntington Beach, Environmental Board D. County of Orange, Environmental Management Agency, Planning Division. E. State of California, Office of Plannig and Research. F. State of California, Department of Conservation, Division of Oil and Gas. G. State of California, Department of Health Services, Toxic Substances Control Division H. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Planning Division I. County Sanitation Districts of Orange County %• ' CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEAC"EC IVE© 3A111 ,, 3 '1985 INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTING ION BEACH To Howard Zelefsky From owman Associate Planner irector, Community Services Subject EIR 84-1 - Holly Property . Date January 21, 1985 After review of subject report, I have the following comments : 1. We should maintain the requirement of the thirteen acre A-1 greenbelt for passive and active recreation. 2 . Maintenance of the greenbelt should be the responsibility g p y A-2 of the homeowners . 3 . In-lieu fees should be collected rather than acceptance of A-3 dedicated parkland. MMB:cs Attachment HUNTINGTON BEACH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES JAN 2 2 1985 P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 A. City of Huntington Beach, Department of Community Services A-1. This comment is hereby incorporated into the final EIR as a mitigation measure. Please see pages 5 and 56 of the final EIR. A-2. This comment is hereby incorporated into the final EIR as a mitigation measure. Please see page 57 of the final EIR. A-3. This comment is hereby incorporated as a mitigation measure. Please see page 57 of the final EIR. l 1 _1J ' CITY OF FIUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH To From Ka Howard Zelefskv Assistant Planner R.F r 'Vil Engineer Associate Subject Holly Project EIR, 84-1 Date February 14 , 1985 The Traffic Engineering and Development Divisions for the Public Works Department have- reviewed, analyzed and evaluated the attached ' report and would like to relay the following comments to you for your use: 1. Page 6 (Project Site Access) This description of access to the-site needs to be expanded to explain the connection of Gothard Street, south from B-1 Garfield along with Crystal alignment with Main Street. 2. Page 32 - (Mitigation Measures Regarding Drainage) Additional requirements should be placed on the developer to provide an adequate plan for erosion control even with an B-2 accomplished landscaping plan to reduce soil erosion. Erosion control consideration should include the management of the storm drain facilities installed as the construction progresses . 3 . Page 56 - (Capacity Analysis) There are no copies of ICU worksheets in Appendix "B. " This B-3 should be corrected to indicate Appendix "G. " 4. Page 60, 61 and 62 - (Realignment of Gothard St. ) The report mentions the further extension of Gothard St. south- erly of Garfield :Avenue to Main Street as being planned. On page 61 under Gothard St. , south of Garfield Ave. , the future B-4 ADT is shown as 21 , 000 which is the 1995 daily traffic . That number is not refle-cted on Exhibit 18 which shows the existing traffic volumes. It does show on Exhibit 20 , but Gothard Street is not extended to Main Street with its 21 ,000 future capacity. The cumulative affect is finally shown on Exhibit 21. 5. Exhibit 20 This figure represents the existing traffic volumes and the project related volumes combined. This figure shows those B-5 volumes being distributed onto the City' s street system. The distribution breakdown and allocation assignments should be provided for our review. This can be provided in text or in an additional exhibit. Memo to Howard Zelefsky Holly Project EIR, 84-1 � February 14 , 1985 Page 2 ' 6. Page 66 - (Table -9) The analysis of existing project related traffic under Gothard Street analysis is omitted for the Garfield to Main Street B-6 length of Gothard Street. It should be included as an impor- tant and relevant. link accessing this project site. Similarly, on page 68 , Table 10, under Gothard Street, the same segment needs to be shown and the resultant traffic analyzed in that table. 7 . Page 67 - (Roadway Capacity Analysis) The report should make reference to which study, from the Orange County Transportation Commission, analyzed and evaluated B-7 the roadway capacities of Beach Blvd. 8 . Exhibit 21 , It appears that the legend explanation for this exhibit is in error. How can the post 1995 daily volumes plus the project B-7 related traffic volumes be less than the post 1995. daily volumes themselves? 9. Page 69 - (Intersection Capacity Utilization and Level of Service Table 11) The intersection of Gothard and Main Street and Clay Avenue should be addressed as part of this draft EIR as it relates B-9 to the Holly property community project and the Pacific Ranch project currently under construction. This request has been made of the developer of the Holly project on several occasions and has yet to be included in any of the documentation. 10. Exhibit 22 Access onto Gothard Street should be minimal. Any and all accessways onto Gothard shall be aligned directly opposite to B-10 other accessways. Also, any accessway onto Gothard shall be located at least 475 feet south of the intersection of Gothard and Ellis. 11. Page 71 - (Gothard Street Realignment Considerations) The Traffic Engineering Division totally disagrees with the conclusions reached in this document pertaining to the comments in this section. _ To quote, "the traffic consultant' s examina- tions of culminative traffic conditions with Holly Planned , Community show that adjacent streets system can adequately B-11 accommodate the Holly planned community without the future extension (from paragraph G) . " Second quote , "this movement will result in a slight increase in travel distances until such time Gothard Street is extended south to Main Street. " This development as described proposes the installation of a traffic Memo to Howard Zelefsky Holly Project EIR, 84-1 February 14 , 1985 Page 3 signal at Gothard (realigned). and Garfield. There is no logical reason to expect people traveling south on Gothard to make a �. left turn, travel to Main Street, turn right and proceed south on Main Street. It is inconceivable that a travel pattern B-11 such as that described. in this document would be� developed� unless Crystal Street were closed at Garfield Avenue and the public forced to take an artificially long and circuitous route to reach Main Street. Similarly, it is equally incon- ceivable that people wishing to travel north on Gothard would travel north on Main Street, turn left at the Gothard/Garfield intersection, travel west to Gothard, then turn right and go north on the newly improved roadway. It is strongly -urged that this section of the document -be re- vised vised to include: (1) the logical extension of Gothard Street ' south to Main Street; (2) provide for the amount of traffic to be transferred onto that new section of roadway; and (3) B-11 provide for the construction of that link as part and parcel of the establishment of the realignment of Gothard Street. In the strongest possible terms, this realignment should not. be done piecemeal, but must be done as a total integrated package from the Main Street intersection north to the Ellis intersection. It is further suggested that this improvement can be done on the same basis that other public improvements outside of the confines of the project area are done and which do. .not solely benefit the residents of the new development. The "reimburse- ment agreement" could be entered into by this developer; the B-11 costs for the improvements made could be then reimbursed to the developer upon subsequent improvement of the adjacent properties. It is strongly urged that the City take this position as it pertains to Gothard since we anticipate using that corridor as -a major north-south route. It will be used and continues to be used as a major bypass both to Goldenwest Street and to Beach Boulevard. 12. Page 74 - (Mitigation Measures) Discussions should be added here to reflect the installation of bus turnouts on Goldenwest and Garfield. Also, it is not required to provide left turn lane"s at the access points within the development and at Gothard and -Garfield Avenue. Those B-12 left turn facilities can be provided within the 80 foot right of way specified fora secondary. It may be useful, however , to consider assigning a primary width to Gothard if generated ' traffic is as close to primary capacity as the analysis numbers indicate. �• 13. Page 75 - Item #4 This item discusses projected increases in traffic generation B-13 due to a revision for planning developments pertaining to the Memo to Howard Zelefsky Holly Project EIR, 84-1 February 14 , 1985 Page 4 site. It indicates that should a 20% increase be experienced on the site, a revised traffic study must be submitted. That should be changed to "a 20% increase in any of the individual B-13 phases of proposal" ; that is, the single family or the multi- family or multi-unit portion of the project. If for instance a portion of the .single family were to change to a multiple . unit development, that change, if it increases the traffic from that portion of the development by more than 200 , would generate the new .traf.fic study. 14 . Page 106 - (Mitigation Measures) Pertaining to transit facilities, Item 4 recommending . bus turnouts depending project traffic volume. It may be appropriate to require integration of bus turnouts at or near the various access points to accommodate bus transit ridership. Those B-14 facilities could be part of the widening at intersections previously described by the developer in the document. Comment regarding the letter by Basmacian/Darnell in the ap- pendix dated December 19 , 1984 to Ms. Beverly Bruesch. This letter from Bill Darnell of BDI , Inc. , the traffic consultant on this project, awaits the information pertaining to Gothard extension which is incorporated in' the body of the environmental document. The backup data accompanying that letter printed B-15 . in this appendix includes what appears to be the project site, traffic assignments pertaining to the Pacific Ranch Project. Examination of the traffic assignments of that document show 75 trips in the morning northbound on Huntington Street crossing , Garfield and are then assigned to Main Street northbound toward Beach Blvd. It is suggested that this assignment is erroneous and not realistic. It is further suggested that the assign- ments on this map incorporated into existing ICU calculations for Gothard/Goldenwest/Crystal are extremely misleading since this document did' not assign substantial trips onto Gothard Street, Gothard not connecting at that time to the Clay/main , intersection near the Pacific Ranch site. It is felt that this part of the analysis should be reconsidered and will contact Mr. Darnell to ascertain the method by which he made his analysis. 15. Page 113 - (Existing Conditions) The sewage generation. factors shall be changed to: Single family detached & attached 230 gpd/D.V. Multi-family townhomes 230 gpd/D.V. B-16 Multi-family flats 160 gpd/D.V. 16. Page 114 Change the amount of sewage generated for the project to re- B-17 flect the generation factors stated above. KH: jy B. City of Huntington Beach, Department of Public Works B-1. Please see page 12 the final EIR where the access discussion has been expanded. B-2. These comments are hereby incorporated into the EIR as mitigation measures. Please see pages 4 and 57 of the final EIR. B-3. Please see Appendix B of the Traffic Study in Appendix G of the final EIR. Also, page 61 of the final EIR has been revised to clarify the location of the ICU worksheets. B-4. Page 65 of the draft EIR referenced Figure 5 in Appendix G for the future post 1995 traffic volumes. The information contained in the report is accurate except that additional information has been requested by the city to show the effect of realigned Gothard traffic south of Main Street. This data has been added to Figure 6 in Appendix G (Exhibit 18 in the EIR text) and on Table 7 in Appendix G (Table 9 in the EIR text). The data presented in the draft EIR is correct since the cumulative effects presented in the draft EIR is correct since the cumulative effects previously presented did not assume Gothard Street to be extended south of Garfield Avenue. Please see page 67, Table 9 and Exhibit 18 for revisions to the EIR text and graphics, and Appendix G for revisions to the traffic study. B-5. The information requested is contained in Figures 6 through 9 in the traffic study prepared for the project (see Appendix G). B-6. The data requested has been included in the final EIR on Exhibits 18 through 20 (Figures 6, 8, and 9 in Appendix G), as well as Tables 9 and 10 (Tables 7 and 8 in Appendix G). B-7. The study referenced its titled 'Beach Boulevard Corridor Study" and was prepared by Berryman & Stephenson, Inc. in July 1984. Please see page 74 of the final EIR for the revisions to the text. B-8. The data is correct. The post 1995 volumes with the project are less because of the proposed general plan would generage fewer vehicle trips than would the potential land uses under the existing general plan. B-9. A copy of the ICU worksheet for Main Street at Clay is included in Appendix G. ICUs were prepared with and without the project and for the previously approved Pacific Ranch project. The data has been included on Table 11 in the EIR and Table 10 in Appendix G. B-10. Similar recommendations are contained on page 74 of-the final EIR. The city's recommendation is hereby incorporated on page 74 of the final EIR. B-11. Please see the additional analyses provided on pages 6,67, and 76 through 78 of the Final EIR. B-12. This is a valid comment and an u radin to primary standards may be . Pg g P Y Y desirable from the city's viewpoint to provide a continuous median on Gothard Street. Please see pages 79 and 114 where the city's recommendations have been incorporated into mitigation measures in the final EIR.. B-13. Comment is acknowledged and the text on page 81 has been rephrased. B-14. This comment is incorporated into page 114 of the final EIR as part of a mitigation measure. B-15. The reassignment of Pacific Ranch traffic may result in the comments noted. Further analysis of the traffic impacts on these roadways can be accomplished prior to project development and based on actual traffic volumes from Pacific Ranch and other developments in the area. B-16. Please see revision on page 121 of the final EIR. B-17. Please see revision on page 121 of the final EIR. CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH P.O. BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES BUILDING DIVISION(714)536-5241 PLANNING DIVISION (714)536-5271 ' February 21, 1985 City of .Huntington Beach Department of Development Services 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, Ca. 92648 Attn: Howard Zelefsky Subject: GPA 84-1 Holly Property Dear Mr. Zelefsky: It is the opinion of the Environmental Board of the City of Huntington Beach that the General Plan not be amended to accommodate this proposed development. This area has been zoned M1-0, RA-0 and R-5. The predominant portion of this area is designated M1-0, Light Industrial Oil Production. This Light Industrial designation is consistent with the surrounding area, as several Light.- Industrial businesses are C-1 located along Gothard in an area commonly referred to, as the "Gothard Industrial Cor- ridor". The addition of a residential development of this size. has the potential of ' generating large numbers of. nuisance complaints from the residents of this develop- ment due to noise or odors .generated by the existing industrial businesses in the sur- rounding areas. The Police Heliport currently scheduled to be located directly north of the proposed C-2 project is another potential source of complaints of excessive noise by the residents of this proposed development_. The proposed traffic directly on the surrounding streets, as indicated in the Draft C-3 EIR, will exceed the capacity of the intersections surrounding the proposed project 1 and will exceed the capacity of the streets between the intersections. This is true even when -the streets are upgraded to meet the current circulation plan for the City, again as indicated in the Draft EIR. The Environmental Board feels C-4 that this is unacceptable, and, if the proposed development be allowed, that this development be burdened with the incremental difference between the current circula- tion plan and that required by this project. The additional traffic generated by this project will increase the traffic noise a- long the streets used for access to this proposed development. The zoning for at- C-5 least some of the property west of Goldenwest Street is designated' RA-01 , Estate/Residential . Development in this area will have a "rural flavor". The additional traffic noise generated by this proposed project will conflict with this "rural fla- vor". For these imcompatibilities with the surrounding areas, the Environmental Board re- C-6 commends that this General Plan Amendment be denied. Should the project continue, the following points should be taken into consideration. After the realignment of Gothard, encrochment of the Pacific Electric Right-of-Way could be possible. The Environmental Board has been on record a number of times con- cerning this Right-of-Way, and our desire to maintain this Right-of-Way for future C-7 rapid transit via a light-rail railroad. Interim uses for this Right-of-Way could be bicycle or biking trails or equestrian trails. These uses are very compatible with the RA-0 zoning but could be incompatible with the proposed project. Run-off from this development will Beverly impact the Sully-Miller lake. In the appendix to this Draft EIR, the run-off from this proposed project could range from C-8 16 c.f.s. to 165 c.f.s. (Appendix D). The body of the Draft EIR addressed only the 16 c.f.s. run-off rate. The Draft EIR states that run-off from the site will drain to Garfield and storm sewer upgrade is required. All of this is based on a 25 year storm. In Appendix B of the Draft.. EIR, in response to the WOP for this project, the State of California Department of Water Resourses has indicated that "All building C-9 structures should be protected from a 100-year flood". Also, "At least one route of engress and egress to the development should be available during a 100-year flood". As long as storm sewere are to be upgraded, they should be designed for the 100-year flood condition. As the oil production from the existing wells decreases as the field ages, secondary and tertiary oil recovery techniques may be used. One drawback to these techniques is that they are significantly more effective when used over the entire field. It is possible that additional water flood or steam injection may be required in the area C-10 of this proposed project to maintain oil flow at the wells to the west of Goldenwest near Edwards. This will be significantly more difficult, if not impossible, should the proposed project be allowed. If the proposed project is built both passive and active, solar energy techniques C-11 should be incorporated to decrease the proposed projects' energy demands. Provisions should also be made for source separation of recyclable materials, so re- C-12 cycling reduces the energy demands of the nation as a whole and decreases the refuse , to be landfilled. Several oil sumps are known to exist on the proposed site. Site characterization should be done to guarantee that the site is free from potentially hazardous material prior to any grading. The Draft EIR discusses this; however in the opinion of the C-13 Environmental Board, the discussion in the Draft EIR is insufficient in this area. The proposed project should avoid the destruction of the stand of Eucalyptus trees on the proposed site as much as possible. This "wooded area" and surrounding grass C-14 is habitat for a significant number of animals that will be forced to relocate should , the site be developed. While rpne of the animals or plants are rare or endangered, they do add to the "rural flavor" of the RA-0 zoning discussed earlier, the current zoning for some of this property. Again, the recommendation of the Environmental Board is that this General Plan Amend- C-15 ment be denied. Very trul you s, Michael R. Kimbrell MRK:kIa , C. City of Huntington Beach, Environmental Board C-1. As noted in the Land Use Compatibility discussion on pages 52 and 53 of th final EIR, the proposed land uses would be visually incompatible with some of the surrounding light industrial uses. In addition, there would be more potential for complains of nuisance odors and noise due to both the adjacent industrial activities and the on site oil production activities. C-2. As noted on page 104 of the final EIR, future residents of the project may be subject to periodic helicopter noise due to operations at. the nearby heliport. C-3. Comment so noted. C-4. Comment so noted. Please see pages 79 through.80 of the final EIR for a description of the roadway improvements which the .project would be responsible for. C-5. Comment so noted. The proposed general plan amendment would introduce residential land uses which would most likely generate less traffic than the uses allowed under the existing general plan land use designations (primarily industrial). The potential development of industrial buildings under the existing general plan would not be compatible with the "rural flavor" mentioned in the comment. C-6. Comment so noted. C-7. Please see pages 53 and 57 of the final EIR where this comment is incorporated. C-8. Please refer to the first paragraph on page 33 of the final EIR and the second paragraph on page 1 of Appendix D of the final EIR. In both paragraphs the statements indicate that the proposed land uses would increase the 25-year runoff volume by 16 cubic feet per second (cfs). The existing site condition already contributes 149 efs. The total estimate of 165 cfs would be considered in the more detailed hydrology analysis to be prepared at a later planning stage. In addition, as noted in both the impacts and mitigation measures discussions for the Hydrology Section, runoff from existing and future offsite developments would need to be considered in the analysis of required storm drain improvements. C-9. All city storm drain facilities are designed to 25-year storm flow standards. All new building pad elevations are required to be above the 100-year flood plain level. . C-10. Comment so noted. The proposed GPA would not preclude secondary and tertiary oil recovery techniques. Phasing of development under the proposed land use designation will require further planning and coordination with oil operators on the site. Secondary and tertiary oil recovery such as water flooding or steam injection, are normally conducted in large areas owned or operated by one operator. The subject property has numerous oil operators, and, therefore, the chances of these kinds of secondary or tertiary operations occurring over the entire field are unlikely (Bill Holman, March 1984). C-11. Please see Mitigation Measure #2 on page 115 of the final EIR. C-12. Please see page 112 of the final EIR which incorporates this comment as a mitigation measure. C-13. Please see additional information provided by the Department of Health Services in their comment on the draft EIR (Item G in this section). In addition, please see revisions to the Mitigation Measure: No. 14 on page 27 of the final EIR. C-14. Comment so noted. The applicant has indicated that the stand of Eucalyptus trees will be retained where possible. Please see added mitigation measure on pages 5 and 43 of the final EIR. C-15. Comment so noted. MURRAY STORM DIRECTOR,EMA t53 ROBERT G. FISHER NTY O F DIRECTOR OF PLANNING _i 1ECEI LOCATION: ���—•� .o. •.•dN .; J •i;�^y12CIVICCENTERPLAZA P.O. BOX 4048 RANG E SANTA ANA,CA 92 02 4048 MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. BOX 4048 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY SANTA ANA,CA 9 2 7 02-4048 PLANNING TELEPHONE: (714)834-4643 FILE NCL 4032 January 24, 1985 HUNTINGTON BEACH Howard Zelefsky, Associate Planner DEVELOPMENT SERVICES City of Huntington Beach JAN 2 81985 Department of Development Services 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 SUBJECT: DEIR 84-1 Holly Property Planned Community Dear Mr. Zelefsky: The County of Orange Environmental Management Agency has reviewed the above referenced document addressing the impacts of building 1,200 dwelling units on a 120 acre site in Huntington Beach. The proposed site is bounded by Ellis Avenue,. the Southern Pacific Railroad, Garfield and Earnest Avenues, and Crystal and Golden West Streets. We have the following comments: - Page 82, last paragraph: The DEIR states that the long term affect on air quality from the proposed GPA would be a positive one. This -1 statement should be supported with -a quantitative analysis comparing the current General Plan versus the proposed land use. - Page 85, paragraph 1: The stationary source emissions are referred to as being 4 percent of the :total emissions burden from ail sources. U-2 The individual species are not additive. The stationary source emissions .could be compared by species and sources, but no--: of the total of all species. The DEIR should be revised accordingly. Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the DEIR. We continue to look forward to working with you or this project. We ao*sic a-Dreciate receiving two copies of the FEIR when they become available.If you have any questions, please contact Jeff Race at 834-5550. Very truly yours, a ' Michael A. Ruare, Chief EMA/EAD, Public Projects Coordination JR:am D. County of Orange, Environmental Management Agency, Planning Division D-1. Pages 90 through 92 of the final EIR have been revised to quantify and compare the air quality impacts associated with the existing and the proposed general plan land use designations. D-2. The text referred to in this comment is hereby deleted from the final EIR. No revised text is required. ! o r :STATE OF CALIFORNIA—OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Govvsmor OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH .1400 TENTH STREET fie, SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 HUNTINGTON BEACH . + DEVELOPMENT SERVICES FEbruary 22, 1985 FEB 2 61985 P.J. Box lyU City of Howard ZeleHuntington Beach fsky Huntington Beach, CA 92648 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA. 92648 Subject: "Holly Property" Environmental Impact Report 84-1, SCH # 84071111 ' Dear Mr. Zelefsky: The State Clearinghouse sutmitted. the above named draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to selected state agencies for review. The review period is closed and the com- ments of the individual agency(ies) is(are) attached. If you would like to discuss their concerns and recommendations, please.contact the staff from the appropriate agency(ies) . When preparing the final EIR, you must include all comments and responses (CE(A Guidelines, Section 15132) . The certified EIR must be considered in the decision- making process for the project. In addition, we urge you to respond directly to the commenting agency(ies) by writing to them, including the State Clearinghouse n•uxber on all correspondence. ' In the event that the project. is approved without adequate mitigation of significant effects, the lead agency must make written findings .for each significant effect and it must support its actions with a written statement of overriding considerations for each unmitigated significant effect (CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 and 15093) . If the project requires discretionary approval from any state agency, the Notice of Determination must be filed with the Secretary for Resources, as well as with the County Clerk. Please contact Mark Boehm at (916) 445-0613 if you have any questions about the environmental review process. Sincerely, John B. Ohanian ' Chief Deputy Dir r cc: Resources Agency attachment 1 B. State of California, Office of Planning and Research No comment required. 0 ' STATE OF CALIFORNIA—THE RESOURCES AGENCY GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN. Governor —s DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION DIY;SION OF ADMINISTRATION AND LEGISLATION u. ' ' DIVISION OF LAND RESOURCE'PROTECTION • DIVISION OF MINES AND GEOLOGY DIVISION OF OIL AND GAS IA16 Ninth Street ' F _ SACRAMENTO,CA 9581a February 13, 1985 (916) 322-5873 Mr. Howard Zelefsky City of Huntington Beach -:jL:_-.' 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California 92648 nc5ct.?CH Dear Mr. Zelefsky: & SCH 84071111 ii DEIR , "Holly Property" Planned Community General Plan Amendment 84-1 City of Huntington Beach The Department of Conservation has. reviewed the Draft Environ- mental Report for the Holly Property Development Project . The Department ' s Division of Oil and Gas submits the following comments for your consideration. There are presently 24 producing and 13 abandoned oil wells in the project area. The Division' s district office should be contacted prior to any grading or excavation operations for the purpose of determining the exact location and mechanical condition of these wells. If any structure is proposed to be located over or near any previously abandoned wells, there F-1 is the possibility that reabandonment of such wells maybe necessary. Section 3208.1 of the Public Resources Code authorizes the State Oil and Gas Supervisor to order the reabandonment of any previously abandoned well when construction of any structure over or in the pradmity of the well could result in a hazard . Also, the cost of abandonment operations shall ' be the responsibility of the owner of the property upon which the structure is to be located. In addition, if any excavation or - grading results in damage to the cemented surface plug in any abandoned well , remedial cementing operations may- be required. If such damage occurs , F-2 the Division ' s district office should be contacted for the purpose of obtaining information on the requirements and approval to perform remedial cementing operations. 0 Periodic maintenance of the 24 active oil wells will be an ongoing activity until the wells are abandoned; therefore , adequate provisions should be taken to ensure that mobile F-3 rigs have access to each well . In addition, these wells may require that each well or wells be surrounded by adequate fencing to provide safety for the public. . -2- Since the project is within an active oil field , provisions F-4 should be made for access to possible future drilling in the area. , If you have any questions regarding the above, please contact Ken Carlson at the Division ' s district office in Long Beach . , The address is 245 West Broadway, Suite 475 , Long Beach, CA 90802; telephone ( 213) 590-5311 . Also, certain sections of the Huntington Beach Oil Code that relate to abandonment , wellhead safety equipment may be in F-5 conflict with Division of Oil and Gas statutory responsibilities and regulations. E. R. Wilkinson, also of the Division' s Long Beach office, should be consulted for further information regarding possible conflicts . Sincerely, Dennis J. O' Bryant Environmental- Program Coordinator , cc: K. Carson, Division of Oil and Gas , Long Beach '• E. R. Wilkinson, Division of Oil and Gas, Long Beach R. Reid, Division of Oil and Gas, Sacramento 0 1 F. State of California, Department of Conservation, Division of Oil and Gas F-1. Please see Mitigation Measure No. 15 added on page 28 of the final EIR. F-2. Please see Mitigation Measure No. 15 on page 28 of the final EIR. F-3. Please see Mitigation Measure No. 15 on page 28 of the final EIR. F-4. Through the development of the planned community regulations for the site, access opportunities for future oil well drilling can be established. The proposed GPA does not preclude future drilling in the area. Zoning can be established to allow drilling of new wells. F-5. Please see Mitigation Measure No. 14 on page 28 of the final EIR. i ! 1 1 . 1 1 i 1 1 0 i 1 1 STATE OF CALIFORNIA—HEALTH AND WELFARE AGENCY _ I,` GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Governor DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES ' 107 SOUTH BROADWAY, ROOM 7128 LOS ANGELES, CA 90012 (213) 620-2380 RECEIVE inl� ; 7 •°o5 January 15, 1985 ' Mr. . Howard Zelefsky Associate Planner P. 0. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Mr. Zelefsky: HOLLY PROPERTY PLANNED COMMUNITY (AKA: HAWKS FIELD) Enclosed find a preliminary assessment of the potential hazardous at the G_1 ' subject site related to past hazardous waste disposal. The Department recommends the site be subjected to a full site characterization G-2 , to determine- the full nature and extent of contamination. You may ob! ain a copy of the file by contacting David Hartley, Program Manage- ment Section, Toxic Substances Control Divi.sion, .714 "P" Street, Sacramento, CA 95814. Telephone (916) 324-1798. Sincerely, , Y•Yti�c Ji Smi.th Assessemnt nd Mitigation Unit Southern Ca�fornia Section Toxic Substances Control Division ' JS:kp HUNTINGTON BEACH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES JA N 1 6 1985 P.O. Box 190 ' Huntington Beach, CA 92648 STATE OF CALIFORNIA—HEALTH AND WELFARE AGENCY GEORGE.DEUKMEJIAN, Governor DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES lug WEST TEMPLE STREET. LOS ANGELES. CA 90026.5698 � 1 Preliminary Assessment Summary Hawk's Field August 1984 18971 Main 'Street NW Corner of Gothard & Garfield Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Preparer: Michael Pardee Toxic Substances Control Division Southern California Section (213) 620-4469 Problem and and History: In 1911 Holly Sugar Company operated a sugar beet refinery at this location. Lime in large quantities used in the refining process, was disposed of on-site. An oil boom in the 1920's ended the economic feasability of sugar. Holly Sugar then formed an oil company (So. Cal. Refinery Co.) to refine oil from- this site and other hold- ings in the area. Disposal practices are unknown, however industry-wide practice at the time included on-site disposal. The refinery operated until 1964 when it was torn down and the land was sold to Huntington Beach Company. Oil field pumping has continued at the site ever since. The site is owned by the Huntington Beach Company (Standard Oil controls 2/3 of the stock) and there are plans to develop the land in the near future for residences. The ASP staff inspected the site on January 12, 1982 and took photographs (see ASP file) . Thirteen locations of waste deposits were identified. 113012" Project staff revisited the site on July 20, 1984 and found the site to be virtually unchanged (see drive-by 7/20/84). Recommendation: On-site disposal of sugar refinery wastes is known to have occurred. An oil refinery operated at the site for many years, and on-site disposal of wastes was common indus- try practice. ASP staff inspected the site (1/12/82) and identified thirteen areas of possible contamination. Staff recommends medium priority with site investigation. PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT Region 9 n Michael Pardee `1' '1 r , Preparer s Name Date August 1984 SOURCE INFORMATION , 1 . Site ID Number 2. Site Name ASP File Hawk 's Field Bill Holman 18971 Main Street 3. Site Location Huntington Beach ' NW4) 960-4351 Corner of Gothard & Garfield (71 (714) 9 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Drive-by 7/20/84 Orange 4. County Michael Pardee Phone contact 5. Owner (Address & Bill Holman Huntington Beach Company telephone no.) 2110 Main Street , Huntington Beach Huntington Beach, CA 92648 (714) 960-4351 7/24/84 (714) 960-4351 ,6. Operator (Address & Phone contact Holly Sugar telephone no.) Bill Holman P.O. Box 1052 Huntington Beach (714) 960-4351 Colorado Springs, CO 80901 7/24/84 (303) 471-0123 Drive-by 7/20/84 ' 7. Type of Ownership .Michael Pardee Private Drive-by 7/20/84 Oil production 8. Status Michael Pardee. active / Refinery inactive Phone contact 9. Source Activity Bill Holman Sugar refining Huntington Beach Oil refining (714) 960-4351 7/24/84 Bill Holman 1911 - 1984 10. Years of Operation (7 ,4) 960-4351 7/20/8 11. Facility Type Bill Holman Huntington Beach On-site disposal (714). 960-4351 Wastes to ground Terry Wright ' 12. Waste Type and Bill Holman Sugar beet wastes Description Huntington Beach ( (possibly lime) 714) 960-4351 ' Oil refinery wastes Terry Wright Unknowns Leighton & Assoc. (714) 250-1421 7/24/84 EPA-IX-FORM 890 1/18/83 t 2 13. Contacts Bill Holman, Huntington Beach Co. (714) 960-4351 Terry Wright, Leighton & Assoc. (714) 250-1421 Beverly Bruesh, Michael Brandman Assoc. (714) 641-8042 Mrs. Winters, Holly Sugar (303) 471-0123 John Cooper, Holly Sugar (303) 471-0123 14. Incidents None documented. Fire and Explosion Direct Contact 15. . Inspections (date, type, by whom, recommendations) None documented. 16. Enforcement History (list date, type of action, requirements, outcome) None- documented. 17.a. Initial recommendation for further action: On-site disposal of sugar refinery wastes is known to have occurred. An oil refinery operated at the site and on-site disposal of wastes was common indus- try practice. Staff recommends medium priority with soil and/or water samplin . 17.b. E;A recommendation for further action: 18. Response Termination: No Further Action Pending _ Active J'Ustification: 01 EPA-IX-FORM 890A 1/18/83 State of California—Health ana Welfare Agency Department GI Health Services • SWIS-01 ' r SOLID WASTE INFORMATION SYSTEM ` FACILITY INVENTORY INFORMATION , 1. FACILITY FILE NO. 2. CITY CODE 3. CAT. 4. DATE PREPARED 5. FORM STATUS I Add Change Delete , i �C? .' i3 ,oll 00 I 1L , �, luIu CO. SIC. NO. MONTH DAY YEAR A C D 6. FACILITY NAME: ' 7. FACILITY LOCATION (STREET, ROAD,OR LOCATION DESCRIPTION) N , r , r 8. CITY 9. STATE 10. ZIP i I c A 11. 12. LATITUDE: LONGITUDE: DEG. MIN. SEC. DEG. MIN. SEC. 13. 14. =T!CN': .I I TOWNSHIP: l I RANGE: I .J I BASE 8, MERIDIAN: 15. OPERATOR/CONTACT NAME: 116. TELEPHONE NUMBER: a fI AREA C. NUMBER 17. OPERATOR/CONTACT ADDRESS: I I 18. CITY: 19. STATE: 20. ZIP: , 21. LAND OWNER NAME: 22. TELEPHONE NUMBER: AREA C. NUMBER 0 23. LANDOWNER ADDRESS: 24. CITY: ach25. STATE: 26. ZIP: , State u'CptotCrnia—Health ane '•Vetlare Agency Deoar;•Went or Heattn Se,v.cr% SWIS-02-1(a) SOLID WASTE INFORMATION SYSTEM • FACILITY BACKGROUND INFORMATION 1. FACILITY FILE NO. 2. COUNTY 3. DATE PREPARED U CO. StC NO. MONTH Of-v—_—+EAR 4. FACILITY NAME: - �a 4 S — —_- FACILITY CHARACTERIZATION ;1 SSSS) _. 5. FACILITY PERMIT STATUS 6. OPERATIONAL STATUS 7. OWNERSHIP O 110101► PERMITTED O (10201) ACTIVE O (10301) FEDERAL (10306) PRIVATE J� (10102) UNPERMITTED jZ (10202) INACTIVE i C (10302) STATE C• (103071 UNKNOWN (101031 NOT REQUIRED C (10203) PLANNED O (10303) COUNTY O (10104) PENDING C' (10204) CLOSED O (10304) CITY C (10305) DISTRICT 8. OPERATOR i 9. OPERATIONAL METHODS �, (105061 SALVAGING 0 (10401) FEDERAL '�- (10406) PRIVATE 7S (10501) LANDFILL (10507) INCINERATION (10402) STATE 00407) UNKNOWN ; O (10502) SURFACE 1 MP. (t05C8� INJECTION (10403) COUNTY 9- (10503) LANDSPREADING (10509) MINESHAFT (10404) CITY O (10504'1 TRANSFER (LG.) C (105101 CONTAINERIZATION _(10405) DISTRICT C (10505) TRANSFER (SM.) (10521) OTHER, —' i 10. SURROUNDING LAND USE 11. URBAN LAND USE (10601) URBAN!BUILT•UP O (10605) WATER (10701) RESIDENTIAL (10705) COIMPLEX (10602) AGRICULTURAL C (10606) WETLAND O (10702) COMMERCIAL �K (10706; IMIXED URBAN (10603) RANGE LAND C (10607) BARREN O (10703) INDUSTRIAL (107071 OTHER URB.A.i•! (106041 FOREST LAND O (10704) TRANS., COMM. & UTILITIES 12. GENERATOR 13. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING (10901)•100 YR. FLOOD PLAIN C (109061 WETLANDS 00801) ON-SITE- 1 O (10902) REGULATED FLOODWAY C (10907) SURFACE WATERSOF THE U.S. 3 (10802) OFF-SITE O (10903) CRITICAL HABITAT/RANGE O (10908) RECHARGE ZONE O (10904) SEISMIC ACTT-VITY C (10909) SOLE SOURCE AQUIFER O (109051 SOILS INSTABILITY O (10910) AIRPORT PROXIMITY 14. WRCB CLASS 15. WRCB REGION 16. DAYS OF OPER. . I ; i C (112011 S (11001) I I O (11101) NORTH COAST O 01106) LAHONTAN C' 01202i..'^ C (11002) II-1 ! O 01102) SAN FRANCISCO BAY O ' (11107) COLORADO RIVER : 0 (11203) T (t 1003) I I-2 ; v (11 103) CENTRAL COAST ' (11108) SANTA ANA O 01204) W (110041 111 C (11104) LOS ANGELES O 01109) SAN DIEGO O (11205) T (11005) NONE O (11105) CENTRAL VALLEY (11206) F O (11207) S 17. TOTAL AREA I 18. AREA PERMITTED FOR DISPOSAL 19. COMMENCEMENT DATE (YEAR): ACRES: ACRES: I . (11301) t I (11401) i t t t ' i (11501: 20 CLOSURE DATE (YEAR): i 21. DISTANCE TO NEAREST I 22. PRIORITY i STRUCTURE OFF-SITE (FEET): t ( (11601) : t 0 170 1) Lam- t l (12001)___L__ — r no I SOLID WASTE INFO:ti-A 0 ION S 'STEM i OVERSIGHT ACTIONS III PORYIN 1 FORM t FACILITY FILE NUMBER 2. PROG. CODE 3. _ Ci)UIjTY 4. DATE PREPARED L�, I y �� J U I J L 1QJ L�J v SIC NO. MO. DAY YEAR 5. FACILITY FILE NAME:- 6. ACT. 7.SUB' 8. ACT. DATE DE CODE MO..' DAY YEARYuEARR 9. COMMENTS I o 8 I n , n I ► ! o ,v �r i � I ���n�� � ��N� �� t. N .o ..�A����� � �0, , �04AAN V. I 0 , 0 1 e1 ,( K AEAk. I ���f�K1e Iraq 1 1 0 0 1 ��1 1 s� s���1���51 �-�, ? �/ � f44�(v1�1 �U/ 4 GC�� 1 103 L� .7 � U0. - 301a I3 CoNFI //���� v1'I NPo CO CP/i�_ eQ 1 0 0 101 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1�1• 1 ^1�1 1 '! '1 1 1 1 1 1( 1 1 1-f I , I Q 1 1 1 1 1 v v sS n ►J 1 Lcln��s�rQ. 1 0 1 0 1 t D , " ,0, ()1 V 'y ► t� ,�' U!; 'S 'I , 1 ' ; , Ur C ' or- �S���Gf 1 rieet1 1 , I I i 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 10 10 10 1 1 r� � � 1 �� �1 �7� Ny I�� P/ � 5, C�(`t-SA P 1 o . 0 1 10 , 011 c r � Lo 101 1 1—J t o 10 1 1 1 , 1 • I_ 1 r rl, 1``I 1 �� �1��1� 1 •f l Io i 1 Iv1/ 1�1 1 �1 `1� T •1 r�/l�r`1 4xc 0 0 ` 1 1 1 1 1 1 1— 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 I I DIIS 8015 (3/82) V� G. State of California, Department of Health-Services, Toxic Substances Control ' Division ' G-1. The findings of this preliminary assessment concur with those of the geotechnical consultant in their study on the property for this EIR. However, it should be noted,,that, while the geotechnical consultant gave no estimate of the potential number of contaminated areas within ' the site, the Department of Health Services identified thirteen (13) areas of potential contamination. ' G-2. Please see pages 3 and 27 of the final EIR where Mitigation Measure No. 14 has been revised according to this comment. 1 South Coast ' AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 9150 FLAIR DRIVE, EL MONTE, CA 91731 (818)572-6200 ' January 14, 1985 HUNTINGTON BEACH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES , Howard Zelefsky City of Huntington Beach JAN 18 1984 Dept. of Development Services ' P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Mr. Zelefsky: , Draft Environmental Impact Report Holly Property Planned Community GPA ' SCAQMD 0501085 Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the above project. We have the following comment: ' o The report states that the proposed project is not consistent with the South Coast Air (duality Management Plan. If a project is not consistent with the AQMP, either additional mitigation measures should be proposed H-1 or the project should be revised to make it consistent with the AQMP . This issue should be addressed in the final Environmental Impact Report. ' If you have any comments please contact me at (818) 572-6405. Sincerely yours, ' Jillv Gay` Muttersbach ' Air Quality Specialist Planning Division ' GM:ts 1 H. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Planning Division H-1. Although the proposed project results in a change in the existing general plan, the traffic generated by this project should be less than that generated by a build-out of primarily industrial uses under the existing general plan. Therefore, air quality impacts should be less under the proposed project. ' The mitigation measures proposed, if implemented, shold reduce air quality impacts associated with the long-term operation of the residential uses. 1 � fiTv'7aw ' I COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS AREA CODE 7 4 fMu TCLEPHO 540-2910 OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 9 6 2-2 41 1 ' I 1 P. 0. BOX 8127,FOUNTAIN VALLEY,CALIFORNIA 92728-8127 10844 ELLIS AVENUE(EUCLID OFF-RAMP, SAN DIEGO FREEWAY) ' March .5, 1985 , City of Huntington Beach P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Attention Howard Zelessky, Associate Planner ' Dear Mr. Zelessky: SUBJECT: DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT HOLLY PROPERTY PLANNED , COM UNrrY GENERAL PLAN A 1ENDMENT 84-1 In our planned amendment 84-1 is the land use change for a 120- acre site bounded by Ellis Avenue on the north, Garfield Avenue on the south between Goldenwest Street and Gothard Street. The ' proposed land use includes single and multi-family units totaling I-1 1200 residences. The property is located within County Sanitation District No. 3 but is planned to be served by facilities which drain to the north and are tributary to the Slater Avenue Pump ' Station operated by County Sanitation District No. 11. As we discussed at a meeting with Les Evans, of the City's staff, ' on January 30, the Master Plan for County Sanitation District No. 11 envisions the completion of the Coast Trunk Sewer to intercept flows generated in the northwest portions of the City of , Huntington Beach and includes abandonment of the Slater Avenue Pump Station. The pump station is presently at capacity and ade- quate modifications to the station serving this parcel and other adjacent areas may not be possible. Caapletion of the Coast Trunk Sewer, which now terminates at Goldenwest Street and Orange Avenue is necessary for the long-term service of the property. Connection of this parcel to the Sanitation District No. 3 system ' in Goldenwest Avenue would require payment of connection fees to County Sanitation District No. 3, which are much lower than the connection fees charged by the serving district. one mitigation ' measure that could be considered to offset the impact of the development on District No. ll would be to assist in the route selection and obtaining of right-of-way necessary to implement ' construction of the Coast Trunk Sewer. Prior to development of this property, it is recam ended that the project proponents meet ' with the Sanitation Districts' staff in order to resolve the outstanding capacity difficulties. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please 11 Hilary J. Baker of the Districts' staff. Thomas M. Dawes Deputy Chief Engineer kk (29.1) ' cc Michael Brandman Associates, Inc. ✓ 1 L County Sanitation Districts of Orange County I-1. Please see pages 120 through 122 where the information and mitigation ' measures outlined in this comment have been incorporated into the final EIR. ' , REQUE;. FOR CITY COUNCI ACTION Date June 7 , 1985 Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council �^+....��� Submitted b : Charles W. Thompson, City Administrator l� S y Prepared by: James W. Palin, Director , Development ServiceJ&U— Subject: FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REP APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL Consistent with Council Policy? D4 Yes [ ] New Policy or Exception i�� Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source,Alipmative Actions,_Attachments: CITY CLE STATEMENT OF ISSUE: aQad.o� %7/gs- Final Environmental Impact Report 84-1 has been prepared as an objective assessment of impacts relative to several development concepts with the development of 120 acres south of Ellis Avenue and north of Garfield Avenue between Goldenwest Street and Gothard Street known as the Holly property. The EIR was prepared at the request of the property owners (Huntington Beach Company ) in consultation with Development Services Staff to . provide proper environmental disclosure for a proposed redesignation of land use for the above property. RECOMMENDATION: Planning Commission action and recommendation: ON MARCH 19, 1985 ON MOTION BY ERSKINE AND SECOND BY SCHUMACHER FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT WAS RECOMMENDED FOR CERTIFICATION AND FURTHER ANALYSIS OF THE FISCAL IMPACT SECTION REQUESTED. AYES: Erskine, Schumacher , Rowe, Winchell , Livengood, Porter , Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None FINDINGS FOR RECOMMENDATION THAT EIR 84-1 BE CERTIFIED: 1. Final EIR has been completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and State EIR Guidelines. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council approve-, . certification of Final EIR 84-1 which has been completed in compliance with CEQA and State EIR Guidelines. Y ,a PIO 4/84 ANALYSIS: Applicant: Huntington Beach Company 2710 Main Street Huntington Beach, California 92648 Request: Certification of Final EIR 84-1 Location: "Holly Property" A draft EIR was prepared by Michael Brandman and Associates under the direction of the Development Services staff. Section 15087 of the State EIR Guidelines, requires that the City "provide adequate time for other public agencies and members of the public to review and comment on an EIR that has been prepared. " The draft EIR was distributed to the agencies and individuals listed on the attached distribution list. The persons reviewing the draft EIR were given 45 days to make comments on its adequacy to the City. Specifically, the EIR addresses the approval of a General Plan Amendment which would redesignate 120 net acres of land in central Huntington Beach. The "Holly Property" encompasses contiguous parcels of land surrounded by Ellis Avenue to the north , the Pacific Railroad to the east, Garfield and Ernest Avenues to the south , and Goldenwest and Crystal Streets to the west. The applicant is seeking to have the property redesignated from estate/residential , industrial and office professional to planned community on the City' s General Plan Land Use Element. The site is predominantly vacant, the only building being two-single family dwellings and a small brick building occupied by a church. The EIR was prepared at the request of the applicant (Huntington Beach Company) in consultation with the Development Services Staff regarding the potential impacts associated with the proposed project. . The environmental consulting firm of Michael Brandman and Associates was engaged by Development Services Department to prepare the EIR. Alternative development concepts are evaluated in the Final EIR (pages 140-147 ) and include "No Project" and "No Development" alternatives, higher density residential , lower density residential , and a mix of commercial and residential uses. All of the alternatives assume the continuation of oil production on the site and the phasing out of these facilities over time. In addition , all the alternatives assume that Gothard Street is realigned as shown on the MPAH. Section 15002 , State EIR Guidelines , states that the basic purposes of CEQA are to: 1 . Inform governmental decision makers and the public about th potential environmental effects of proposed activities ; RCA - June 7 , 1985 -2- ( 2555d ) 2. Identify ways that environmental damage can be avoided or significantly reduced; 3 . Prevent significant avoidable damage to the environment by requiring changes in the project through the use of alternatives or mitigation measures when the governmental agencies find the changes to be feasible; 4 . Disclose to the public the reasons why the governmental agency approved the project in the manner the agency choose. In staff 's analysis , Final EIR 84-1 is adequate to enable the City Council to accomplish the purposes stated above. Section 15132 of the State EIR Guidelines requires that a "Final EIR" shall consist of: 1 . A draft EIR or revision to the draft 2. Comments and recommendations received on the draft EIR either verbatum or summary. 3 . A list of persons, organizations and public agencies commenting on the draft EIR. 4. . The responses of the lead agency to significant environmental points raised in the review and consultation process. Section 15002 of the State EIR Guidelines states that, "Environmental Impact Report is an informational document which , when fully prepared in accordance with the CEQA and State EIR Guidelines , will inform public decision makers and the general public of the Environmental affects of projects they propose to carry out or approve. While CEQA requires that major consideration is given to preventing environmental damage, it is recognized that public agencies have obligations to balance other public objectives including economic and social factors, in determining whether and how a project should be approved. " Section 15151 of the State EIR Guidelines, also states that, "An EIR should be prepared with a sufficient degree of analysis to provide the decision makers information which enable them to make a decision which intelligently takes account of environmental consequences. An evaluation of the environmental effects of a proposed project need not be exhaustive, but the sufficiency of an EIR 'is reviewed in the line of what is reasonably feasible. Disagreement among experts does not make an EIR inadequate. The courts have looked, not for perfection, but for adequacy, completeness , and a good faith effort at full disclosure. " It is staff 's position that EIR No. 84-1 meets the intent of the above sections of the State EIR Guidelines . RCA - June 7 , 1985 -3- (2555d ) Section 15690, Subsection (B) of the State EIR guidelines requires that the final EIR shall be presented to the decision making body of the leading agency. "The lead agency shall certify that Final EIR has been complete in compliance with CEQA and the State Guidelines in that the decision making body or administrative official having final approval authority over the project, has reviewed and considered the information contained in the EIR prior to the approval of the project . " In response to Planning Commission concerns , Staff prepared a revised fiscal analysis of major costs and revenues associated with the proposed Holly Plan. The analysis also includes two additional scenarios: Existing General Plan and Recommended Alternative Plan. FUNDING SOURCE: The Huntington Beach Company provided the funds necessary for the City to enter into a contract with Michael Brandman Associates . ALTERNATIVE ACTION: Not certify EIR 84-1 and request specific revisions be made or information added to Final EIR 84-1 . ATTACHMENTS: 1 . Minutes of Planning Commission meeting March 19, 1985 2 . Final EIR 84-1 3. Revised fiscal impact information prepared by Development Services Staff JWP:HZ:kla RCA - June 7 , 1985 -4- ( 2555d ) REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS: C71 HUNTINGTON SHORES MOBILE HOME PARK RELOCATION ASSISTANCE .PLAN I Applicant : Huntington Beach Company The Huntington Shores Mobile Home Park Relocation Assi•s-t°dace Plan was submitted. in November 1984. ano originally schedules for a public . hearing .before the Planning Commission on January 8, 1985. The public hearing was postponed to. Mar-ch 19, 1985., however , to allow the Huntington Beach . Company to negotiate with the City regarding their participation in development .of a Relocation Park . On Monday, March 18, 1985, the Huntington Beach Company will submit to the City Council a letter outlining the terms of their participation in the Relocation Park . It is anticipated that the offer will be for a $250, 000 contribution to development of the Relocation Park, plus moving expenses for those coaches moving to the Relocation Park . If this concept ' is acceptable to the City Council , this ;offer would supersede the attached Relocation Assistance Plan . Staff will be prepared to review with the' Planning Commisson on March" 1:9, . 1985 Council Action and will. have an alternative resolution :.ior approval . After a brief discussion, the Commission motioned to continue the item in order to provide the City Attorney 's Office and Development Services staff an opportunity to draft sufficient language to amend the resolution approving the Relocation Assistance Agreement in accordance with .the recent information presented by the Huntington Beach Company and subject to their. review and approval. ON MOTION BY ERSKINE AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGER THE HUNT'INGTON MOBIL EHOME PARK RELOCATION ASSISTANCE PLAN (RESOLUTION NO. 1338 ) WAS CONTINUED TO THE NEXT REGULARLY SCHEDULED PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter , Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None C-2 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 84--1 (HOLLY PROPERTY ) Applicant: Huntington Beach Company Final EIR No-. 84-1 has .been prepared as an. objective assessment of the individual and collective environmental impacts associated with . the development of approximately 1,200 housing units . . Specifically, the ElR addresses the approval of a General Plan Amendment which would redesignate 120 net acres of land in central Huntington Beach. The "Holly Property" encompasses contiguous parcels of land surrounded by Ellis Avenue to the north, the Pacific Railroad to the east, Garfield and Ernest Avenues to the south, and Goldenwest and Crystal streets to the west .. The applicant is seeking to have the property redesignated from es tate/residential ; Industrial and Office .Professional .to Planned Community on the City 's General Plan Land Use Element. . The site is predominantly vacant ,. the only building ( 2134a ) -1- P..C. Minutes 4/2/85 w ' being two-single family dwellings ana• a small brick building occupied by. a. church. it The EIR was preparea at the request of the applicant (huntington Beach Company ) in consultation with the Development .Services Department Staff regarding the potential impact assoc3.,&ed with the proposed project. T-he environmental consulting firm of Michael Brandman and Associates was engaged by Development Services Department to prepare the EIR. 'Tom Smith of -Michael. Brandman and Associates commented on the key issues . he stated the tree EIR has been circulated since December . He commented on key , issues such as the compatibility- of- the adjacent land uses, traffic impacts and desirability of residential versus the existing General Plan designation. Another issue he commented on was the Police Heliport . The Heliport is to be upgraded to become the city 's main police hel'iport ,.locatea on the west side of Gothard and approximately 500 feet north of the project site. Commissioner Erskine asked Mr . Smith to go through th6 economic fiscal analysis to compare the proposed project -to th.e• General Plan . Mr . . Smith stated that the basic approach is to compare revenues and costs of the proposed General Plan Amendment to revenues and. costs proposed from the development . Commissioner Erskine questioned Mr . Smith ' if ' there were any park and recreations fees . Mr . Smith stated that there is a $3, 843 revenue source to park and recreation fees . Commissioner Schumacher questioned Mr. Smith on the table where the EIR is comparing the cost for public is safety which shows the same figure for both the existing General Plan and the proposed project.. She asked how this was. Justified. Mr . Smith stated that he was not prepared for this question. THE; PUBLIC hEAR1NG WAS OPENED: Larry Strasbaugh , owner of property located at Ellis and Gothard northeast of the project, commented on two points of concern one being the Police heliport and the traffic it will create, and the conclusion of the fiscal impacts section of the EIR concluding that residential uses will bring in more revenue than industrial uses . Allen Strasbaugh stated that he was not opposed to the EIR but would like to see the General Plan Amendment held till the next meeting . Bill Holman, representing huntington Beach Company, discussed the industrial 'and residential zoning . There w.ere no other persons- present to speak for or against the proposal , and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Porter thanked the Planning Staff for incorporating M_ items in the EIR that the Commission discussed months ago. Commissioner .Winchell stated that she concurred with Commissioner Porter . (2134d ) -2- P.C. Minutes 4/2/85 ,, The Commission discussed concerns regarding traffic ana - the fiscal analysis stating that there were no grounds to vote down the EIR but t ; the fiscal analysis needed further research to clarify 3ustification E.. for the numbers. presented and the convulsions reached .the.reon. ON MOTION BY ERSKINE AND SE;CGND BY SCHUMACHER FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 84-1 (HOLLY PROPERTY ) WAS APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: ' Rowe, Winche.11, Schumacher , Livengood, Erskine, Porter , Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: -None ABSTAIN:'- ' . None C-3 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 85-1 Applicant : Huntington Beach- Company Transmitted for public hearing is Land Use Element Amendment 'No. 85-1 . The amendment addresses approximately 126 acres 'ot property known as the holly .Property located on the south side of Ellis Avenue., west oi ' the Southern Pacific Railroad Right-.of-Way, north of Garfield and Ernest Avenues and east of Crystal and Goldenwe.st Streets . The request is to change the Land Use aesignation from Estate Residential, General Industrial and Office/Professional to Planned Community . Environmental Impact Report No. 84-1 was prepared for this amendment as a separatedocume,nt and must be _ approved by the Planning Commission for recommendation to the City .4 . Council before action is taken on the Land Use Element Amendment . ' At the applicant 's request, General Plan .Amendment No. 85-1 was continued with the concurrence of the 'Planning Commission to the May 7 , 1985 Planning Commission Meeting . GN MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. b5-1 ( IN CONJUNCTION W.17h 'ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 84-1 ) WAS CONTINUED TO. THE MAY 7, 1985 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING . BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe Winchell, Livengood, Erskine, Porter ,. Mirjahangir. NOES : None ABSENT: Schumacher out. of the room ABSTAIN: - None C-4 TENTATIVE TRACT 9653 (REVISED ) , USE PERMIT NO. 85.=7, CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 85-10. Applicant: Beach Front Properties/Risk Jeffries Use Permit No. 85-7 in conjunction with Tentative Tract 9653 is a 1 Lot Subdivision for the. purpose .of developing 32 apartment units . The applicant has also filed a Conditional Exception to allow for � ~ the reduction in the l bedroom unit size , fr.om the required 650 square feet to 517 square feet . ( 2134d ) -3- P.C. Minutes 4/2/85 huntington beach development services department srAff REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Development Services DATE: May 22 , 1985 SUBJECT: FISCAL ANALYSIS REVISION - HOLLY PROPERTY EIR NO. 84-1 A review of the Holly Property EIR, Fiscal Analysis, generated concern regarding the methodology used in the report to evaluate the revenue and cost impacts of the proposed development. As a result of this concern, Development Services has prepared its own fiscal analysis of the proposed project. The following is an explanation of the assumptions used and the inclusion of Staff 's recommended alternative for the Holly property. The three development scenarios,. in brief, are as follows : Proposed Existing Recommended Holly General Alternative Plan Plan Plan Residential units acres 1,200 DU's/ 140 DU 's/ 140 DU 's/ 120 acres 46 acres 10 acres Population 2,810 458 259 Industrial* squarefeet/acres ---- 1,796 ,800 s . f./ 2 ,000, 000 s . f./ 75 acres 116 acres Professional Office square feet/acres ---- 130, 680 s . f./ 5 acres As discussed in the EIR, the proposed plan will contain only residential development with four types of units ranging from single-family detached to multi-family flats. The existing general plan scenario contains estate type units at two to four per acre, plus industrial and professional offices . Staff 's recommended alternative plan retains ten acres (see Figure 1 ) in the northwest corner of the .site for multi-family units and the balance for an industrial park development . * For both the general plan and alternative plan the assumed development is an industrial park with a mix of uses ranging from high-tech to warehousing. I AtMtX A-FM-23A AlThCOME9T :5 The site coverage assumptions for industrial and professional office buildings used in this analysis are: Industrial - 55% Professional Office - 30% These are consistent with site coverage assumptions used in the EIR. Staff has reviewed the fiscal analysis in the EIR, provided new assumptions for several revenue factors and all cost factors and developed assumptions for the recommended alternative plan scenario. I . REVENUES: Property Tax For the analysis* of property tax revenue for the existing general plan and recommended alternative plan the following set of assumptions, divided into two scenarios, are proposed: Assumption A: The property would be retained by the Huntington Beac Company. 1. The Huntington Beach Company would develop the site and lease the industrial buildings. 2 . The retention of site ownership would keep the assessed land value at its current rate of $19 ,787 per acre. ** Therefore, the estimated value of the 80 acres of industrial and office use is $1 ,582,960. 3. The above factors would result in a developed value per square foot based on land value, construction costs, plus five percent of that total for miscellaneous costs. Based on the above assumptions a comparison of the two development scenarios is as follows : Existing General Plan 1 , 796, 800 square feet of industrial , high-tech/light manufacturing structures with a construction value of $60 per square foot. 130, 680 square feet of professional office structures (two story) at $80 per square feet. . * The source for construction values and developer miscellaneous costs were provided by Coldwell Banker , Irvine Office , Mike Burge, Real Estate Development. ** The land value, based on 54 acres of the proposed site, was provided by the County Assessor on May 1 , 1985 . Total construction value is = Industrial $107,808,000 Offices 10,454 ,400 $118r 262 ,400 plus land 11 ,582,960 plus 5% 5,992,268 misc. costs , The property tax assessment would be one percent or $1,258, 376 and the City would receive $250,039 or 19. 87 percent of the one percent. The dwelling units in the plan would, at $350,000 per unit, generate (140 ) ($350, 000 ) _ $49,000, 000 in sales or $490,000 in County property tax and $97 , 363 in City property tax. Total property tax revenue collected by the City equals = $347 ,402. Recommended Alternative Plan The two million square feet of industrial development would have a construction value of approximately $60 per square foot. Therefore the taxable value would be: Construction $120,000,000 Land (116 acres ) $ 2,295,292 Misc. Costs ( . 05 ) $ 6 ,114,765 Total $128,410, 057 For the 140 multi-family units a value of $125,000 per unit , will result in a total value of $17 ,500, 000: (140 ) (125 ,000 ) _ $17 ,500,000 For the industrial and residential : 17 ,500, 000 + 128,410,057 $145, 910,057 ($145,910, 057 ) ( . 01 ) _ $1 ,459 ,101 in total property tax revenue, which when multiplied by 19 . 87 percent would result in $289,924 in property tax revenue for the City. Assumption B: Huntington Beach Company sells the property to an industrial investment/development firm. 1 . The sale of the site would result in a reassessment of the properties ' value. The property value would increase from the existing $.45 per square foot to $8 per square foot based on currently proposed light industrial projects in the City. Therefore, the value of the developed sites based on the assumption would be as follows: Existing Recommended General Plan Alternative Plan Construction $118,262,400 $120,000,000 Land 27, 878,400 (80 acres ) 40, 423, 680 (116 acres ) $146 ► ► ► ► 691G— Misc. Costs ( . 05 ) 7 , 307 ,040 8 , 021 ,184 Total $153,447,840 168,444,864 Residential 49, 000 ,000 17 , 500 ,000 Total Value $202,447,840 $185,944,864 Total Property Tax = $ 2 ,024, 478 $ 1 ,859,449 City Property Tax Revenue = $402,264 $369 ,472 Proposed Holly Plan The property tax revenue estimate for the proposed plan in the EIR is acceptable and, therefore, remains the same in this report , which is $329, 337. Sales Tax Sales tax assumptions in the EIR, for the proposed plan are not disputed by Staff, but sales tax assumptions for the revised General Plan and recommended Alternative Plan scenarios are presented below: For the existing General Plan scenario a home sold for $350, 000 is estimated to require an annual income of approximately $116,667. According to the Internal Revenue Service an annual income of 100,000 ( for a family of 3-4 ) will generate approximately 112,117 in taxable sales per year. The City's share of the State tax collected is one percent or $120 per family. However, it is estimated that approximately 60 percent of the taxable sales generated by families in this City are collected by (or leakage occurs to ) surrounding communities , therefore the amount of annual sales tax revenue collected per family in Huntington Beach would be $48 or a total of $6, 720 for the 140 units. The recommended plan is estimated to generate $6 ,437 in taxable sales per family per year (based on Internal Revenue Service figures quoted in the EIR) . The amount of sales tax collected, per family, by the City would be $26 (40% of total sales tax revenue generated per family) or a total of $3,640 for the 140 multi-family residences . Of the taxable sales expended by residents in the City. The majority of that revenue, 75 percent, is expected to be collected by retail commercial outlets. On an annual basis that 75 percent has filtered through the commercial outlets in the City and is then directly credited to commercial and not to residential. Therefore, the net amount of revenue directly attributed to the residential units would be: General Plan - (25% ) ($48 ) _ $12 (140 ) _ $1 ,680 Alternative Plan - (25% ) ($26 ) _ $6. 50 (140 )= $910 Holly Plan sales tax revenue as shown in EIR is $34,340 ( 25% ) _ $8, 585 Industrial Sales Tax Revenue In 1979 a component of the Ultrasystems fiscal model that measured sales tax generated by non-commercial business districts in the City showed that light manufacturing produced sales tax revenue that impacted the City 's general fund. At that time, light manufacturing, business of 8, 000 square feet or more, generated $8. 13 per square feet in taxable retail sales . Since 1979 the Consumer Price Index (CPI ) for Los Angeles and Orange Counties urban area has increased at an average rate of seven percent per year for the five year period 1979 to 1984. Based on that average the per square foot taxable sales attributed to light manufacturing today is estimated to be $11 .41 . As a result of the City Code, 9510. 14b( 3 ) , mixed use industrial may contain a ratio of 35% commercial business . Based on this ratio it will be assumed that of the industrial park scenarios discussed in this report 35 percent of the gross square feet of building will generate taxable sales. Therefore, the existing general plan would have 628,880 square feet of space generating taxable sales at $11 . 41 per square foot = $7,175,521 resulting in $71 , 755 in sales tax revenue. And, the recommended alternative plan would have 700,000 square feet of space generating taxable sales at $11 . 41 per square foot = $7,987, 000 resulting in $79 ,870 in 'sales tax revenue. Utility and Franchise Utility use tax and franchise tax assumptions were not revised* and the formulas used in the EIR were also applied to the existing general plan and recommended alternative plan: * See the Holly EIR for the factors used to calculate utility use and franchise tax revenue. Utility User Tax Annual Revenue* Electric Gas Phone Proposed Plan Residential $25,020 $23,234 $28,800 Existing General Plan Residential** $ 2,919 $ 2 ,711 $ 3, 360 Industrial 30,000 19 ,570 N/A *** Office-Professional 6,000 1 ,510 N/A *** �38,qiq $23,7913, 360 Recommended Alternative Plan Residential $ 2,919 $ 2, 711 $ 3, 360 Industrial 33,750 20,258 N/A �36,669 $22,969 ,36 Franchise Tax Annual Revenue**** Electric Gas Proposed Plan Residential $10,008 $18, 588 Existing General Plan Residential $ 1 ,168 $ 2 ,169 Industrial and Office-Professional 14,400 16, 861 15,568 $19,030 Recommended Alternative Plan Residential $ 1 ,168 $ 2 ,169 Industrial 13,500 16, 206 14,668 $18, 375 * The City collects a five percent utility tax on the annual electric, gas and phone billings. ** It is assumed that estate-type residential units would use a higher percentage of electricity and gas than multi=family, but this analysis was limited to average estimates provided by the respective utilities. *** N.A. , in this case, means not available. **** The City collects a two percent franchise tax on the annual gross receipts of the Southern California Edison Company and a four percent franchise tax on the Southern California Gas Companies ' annual gross receipts. Business License Fee Revenue The industrial and professional office developments in the existing general plan and the recommended alternative plan would require business licenses and, therefore, generate business license fee revenues for the City. Business License Fees are based on the number of employees per business* and also a fee per number of trucks . Estimating the number of trucks is not feasible in this report, but estimating the number of potential employees is possible with the aid 'of factors derived from the City of Los Angeles EIR Manual. Typically, light industrial will require one employee per 1 ,000 square feet of gross leasable space. Professional office will require one person per 250 square feet of gross leasable space. Gross leasable space in this report is 80 percent of total building space (see pages 1 and 2 for total square feet and site coverage assumptions ) . For the existing general plan scenario the leasable industrial space would equal 1,437 ,440 square feet , generating 1,437 employees ; professional office space would be 104, 544 square feet, generating 418 employees . This scenario would result in an estimated 1 ,855 employees . ** For the recommended Alternative Plan scenario the leasable space would be 1 ,600,000, generating 1 ,600 employees. The City 's business license schedule shows that for 1 ,000 employees the fee is $1 ,583. 25 plus $15 for every 10 employees exceeding 1 ,000 which would result in the following business license fee revenue : Existing Recommended General Plan Alternative Plan $2,873. 25 $2,483. 25 Remaining Revenue The remaining revenue factors are based on a per capita estimate and generated only by residential development. The population base used by Staff is 180, 000 (January 1 , 1984 ) , provided by the State * Minimum fee is $37. 50 for one to three employees, regardless of the type of business . There is no maximum fee. ** Future industrial development in the City is likely to also have a portion of high-tech/research and design business within it which would require a higher ratio of employees per square foot than traditional industrial . However , a faction to calculate that estimate is not available at this time. Department of Finance. An additional revision, among this group, is the allocation of Park and Recreation Fees . Staff chose only to use park and recreation user fees and not include projected park development funds which are a one-time-only cost generated by development and are not recurring or annual revenues . The remaining revenue allocations are as follows: Fines , Forfeitures and Penalties Proposed Holly Plan 10. 93/capita ( 2810 )= $30,713 Existing General Plan 10. 93/capita (458 ) = $5,006 Recommended Alt. Plan 110. 93/capita (259 ) = 2 ,831 Cigarette Tax Proposed HolTy Plan 2.94/capita (2810 ) = 8 ,261 Existing General Plan 2. 94/capita (458 ) = 11 ,347 Recommended Alt. Plan 12 . 94/capita ( 259 ) = 761 Motor Vehicle In-Lieu Tax Proposed Holly Plan 2 .19/capita ( 2810 ) = 6 ,154 Existing General Plan 2.19/capita (458 ) = 11 ,003 Recommended Alt . Plan 12. 19/capita ( 259 ) = 567 Park and Recreation User Fees Proposed Holly an 4 . 04/capita (2810 ) _ $11, 352 Existing General Plan 4. 04/capita (458 ) = $1,850 Recommended Alt. Plan 14 . 04/capita ( 259 ) = 1 ,046 II . Costs The method used by Staff to estimate project cost impacts is similar to that used in the EIR. It provides a reasonable analysis considering the limited data and the application of a manual (versus computer ) model . The assumptions used in this report are based on per capita costs for residential and per acre costs for industrial and office professional. The budget items used reflect recurring costs , in 1984 dollars , and do not consider capital expenditures. Also, cost factors applied to industrial , industrial park and professional office are identical , again, a result of limited data. For the purpose of this report one cost factor methodology will be described and the remainder will list the title, budget expenditure and per capita or per acre cost. General/Administrative Expenditures This fund includes : City Council , Non-Departmental, Administration , City Treasurer , City Attorney, City Clerk and Administrative Services . The approved 1984/1985 budget (minus capital expenditures ) 'shows a total of $9,422,029 for this fund. Residential development in the City includes 78 percent of the privately developed acres . The residential portion of this fund, would therefore, equal $7, 349,183. Based on a population estimate of 180,000, the per acre cost for residential is $956 .10. Industrial development comprises 12 percent of the privately developed acres in the City. Therefore , the industrial portion of this fund would be $1 ,130,643 or $770. 19 per acre. Fire Department Expenditures The budgeted 1984/1985 expenditure is $9,169, 601; the residential per acre cost is $930. 34 and the industrial per acre cost is $749 . 56 . Police Department Expenditures The budgeted 1984/1985 expenditure is $17,423,265 ; the residential er acre cost is $1 ,767. 96 and the industrial per acre cost is 1;424 . 25. Community Service Expenditures The budgeted 1984/1985 expenditure is $5,948, 306 ; the residential per acre cost is $603.68. Although there may be some impact on community service from industrial and professional office development, the amount would be minimal and, therefore, is not assessed in this analysis . Public Works Expenditures The budgeted expenditure is $14, 366, 765; the per acre residential cost is $1 ,457. 92 and the industrial cost per acre is $1,174 . 40. In addition to the previously discussed changes, the Development Services fund expenditure was omitted from this report as it reflects one-time-only development related revenue and is not appropriate to. include in an analysis of annual or recurring costs . CONCLUSION: Using the assumptions discussed in this report, the following tables compare revenues and costs for the proposed Holly plan scenario, the existing general plan scenario and the recommended alternative plan scenario. Table lA includes the assumption that the Huntington Beach Company will retain the Holly Property and develop it for primarily industrial uses. Table 1B includes the assumption that the Huntington Beach Company will sell the Holly Property, thus increasing the assessed land value and ultimately property tax revenue. Based on the proceeding analysis the existing general plan scenario generates the highest revenue to cost ratio, A = 1 . 21 B = 1 .33, with a revenue excess of A = $92, 315 and B. = $147,177. JWP:DB: kla Table lA REVISED FISCAL ANALYSIS FOR THE HOLLY PROPERTY PLANNED COMMUNITY GPA 84-1 EIR Revenues Proposed Existing Recommended Holly General Alternative Plan Plan Plan Property Tax $329,337 $347,402 $289,924 Sales Tax 8,585 73,435 80, 780 Utility Use Tax 77,054 66,070 62,998 Franchise Tax 28,596 34,598 33, 043 Business License ---- 2,873 2 ,483 Fines, Forfeitures, and Penalties 30, 713 5,006 2, 831 Cigarette Tax 8,261 1 ,347 761 Motor Vehicle In-Lieu Tax 6,154 1 ,003 567 Park and Recreation User Fees 11 ,352 1 ,850 1 ,046 Total $500,052 $533,584 $474,433 Costs General and Administrative $114,732 $ 80,315 $ 78,353 Fire 111,641 78,161 76, 251 Police 212,155 148,519 144,889 Community Services 72,442 11 ,807 6,677 Public Works 174,951 122,467 119,472 Total $685, 921 $441,269 $425, 642 Revenue - Cost = (185,869 ) $92, 315 $ 4-8,791 Revenue/Cost = . 73 1. 21 1 . 11 * Using adopted 1984 1985 budget expenditures and omitting capital expenses . Table 1B REVISED FISCAL ANALYSIS FOR THE HOLLY PROPERTY PLANNED COMMUNITY GPA 84-1 EIR Revenues Proposed Existing Recommended Holly General Alternative Plan Plan Plan Property Tax $329,337 $402,264 $369, 472 Sales Tax 8, 585 73, 435 80, 780 Utility Use Tax 77,054 66,070 62 ,998 Franchise Tax 28, 596 34,598 33, 043 Business License ---- 2,873 21483 Fines , Forfeitures, and Penalties 30,713 5,006 2, 831 Cigarette Tax 8, 261 1,347 761 Motor Vehicle In-Lieu Tax 6,154 1,003 567 Park and Recreation User Fees 11 , 352 1 ,850 1 ,046 Total $500,052 $588, 446 $553,981 Costs General and Administrative $114,732 $ 80, 315 $ 78,353 Fire 111 ,641 78,161 76 ,251 Police 212,155 148,519 144,889 Community Services 72, 442 11,807 6, 677 Public Works 174,951 122,467 119,472 Total $685, 921 $441,269 $425, 642 Revenue - Cost = (185,869 ) $147,177 $128, 339 Revenue/Cost = . 73 1.33 1. 30 * Using adopted 1984 1985 budget expenditures and omitting capital expenses. (2322d ) Publish June 6, 1985 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT 85-1 AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT .REPORT 84-1 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held by the City • Council of the City of Huntington Beach, in the Council Chamber of the Civic • Center, Huntington Beach, at the hour of 7:30 P.M. , or as. soon thereafter as possible on Monday, the 17th day of June, '1985-, for the purpose of considering Land Use Element Amendment No. 85-1 and Environmental Impact Report 84-1. Land Use Element Amendment No. 85-1 is a gropoced amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan (LUE 85-1), which covers a request by the Huntington Beach Company to change the General Plan designations on approximately 120 acres from Estate Residential 0-2 units per acre, Estate Residential 0-4 units per acre, General Industrial and Office Professional to Planned Community. The subject property is located on the south side of Ellis Avenue, west of the Southern Pacific Railroad Right-of-Way, north of Garfield and Ernest .Avenues and east of Goldenwest Street. The applicant's.request could result in approximately 1,200 dwelling units. A legal description is on file in the Department of Development Services. Environmental Impact Report 84-1 assesses the environmental impacts of the proposed Land Use Element Amendment. All interested persons are invited to attend said hearing and express their opinions for or against said Land Use Element Amendment 85-1 and Environmental Impact Report 84-1. Further information may be obtained from the Office of the City Clerk, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California 92648 - (714) 536-5227. Dated: June 4, 1985 . CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH By: Alicia M. Wentworth . City Clerk SECTIONAL DISTRICT MAP 35-5-II r - Kti, CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA ` USE OF PROPERTY MAP it to _ !f N 1 TALKRT AVE. i t ZE 1 V) > Fi::............ .. .... .. ........... CF-Rj ; u;:aIT:.z;e'nN :V:renl.r:\Rn1 ,.L.:'.�' DR � F 2 ONTARIO DR z �C J CF-C--- __ -- WNtW __DUES _ ANKLIN$ DR — 1'UNON DR A ELLIS AVE - ' 0044000RE CR. ' -.,�i�..a. rrrrrrrrrrrrr 111�111,�• -- ►a 1 f '• W I DO 3 = _ F. iJ L1111:Q>al 2 ' Z u GARFIELD AVE. --1�. a i t : LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT 85-1 Legal Notice CN- - 7 -- 9 City of Huntington BeachOffice of the City Clerk o_ o— i s ikP. O. Box 190 ,Huntington Beach,CA 92648PS.e3iize i c� o See Yee 6791.Loyola '} Huntington E3each CA 92 111-150-06- . ce FIRST CLASS MAIL HUNTINGTON BEACH ��