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 3 - HOLLY-SEACLIFF MASTER PLAN - Huntington Beach
HOLLY - SEACLIFF GENERAL PLAN A M E N D M E N T Draft Environmental Impact Report No. 89-1 Volume 1 City of Huntington Beach 1 Holl -Seacliff General P an Amendment DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT No. 89-1 State Clearinghouse No. 89010412 Prepared For: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 i Prepared By: FORMA 190 Newport Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 HOLLY - SEACLIFF GPA CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH )uly, 1989 TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER TITLE PAGE 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.1 Project Summary Matrix 1.0-1 1.2 Alternatives Summary Matrix 1.0-14 2.0 INTRODUCTION 2.0-1 2.1 Background 2.0-1 2.2 Project History 2.0-2 2.3 Contact Persons 2.0-5 2.4 Impacts Found not to be Significant 2.0-6 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3.0-1 3.1 Location 3.0-1 j 3.2 Proposed Actions 3.0-4 3.3 Characteristics/Phasing 3.0-6 3.4 Objectives 3.0-14 3.5 Lead, Responsible and Trustee Agencies 3.0-16 3.6 Related Projects 3.0-17 4.0 EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES 4.1 Land Use 4.1-1 4.2 Aesthetics 4.2-1 I 4.3 Earth Resources 4.3-1 i 4.4 Hydrology 4.4-1 4.5 Population/Housing 4.5-1 4.6 Recreation 4.6-1 4.7 Traffic/Circulation 4.7-1 4.8 Air Quality 4.8-1 4.9 Noise 4.9-1 4.10 Light and Glare 4.10-1 I July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF G.P.A. EIR 422102.009 CHAPTER TITLE PAGE 4.11 Cultural/Paleontological Resources 4.11-1 4.12 Biological Resources 4.12-1 4.13 Natural Resources 4.13-1 4.14 Oil Facilities 4.14-1 4.15 Human Health and Safety 4.15-1 4.16 Public Services and Utilities 4.16-1 4.17 Water Facilities 4.17=1 4.18 Sewer Facilities 4.18-1 5.0 FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS 5.0-1 6.0 LONG-TERM IMPLICATIONS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT 6.0-1 6.1 The Relationship Between Local Short-Term 6.0-1 Uses of Man's Environment and the Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-Term Productivity 6.2 Significant Irreversible Environmental 6.0-2 Changes Which Would be Involved in the Proposed Action Should it be Implemented 6.3 Growth Inducing Impact of the Proposed Action 6.0-3 7.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 7.0-1 7.1 No Project 7.0-3 7.2 No Development 7.0-7 7.3 Industrial Alternative 7.0-10 7.4 Residential Alternative 7.0-15 7.5 Alternative Location 7.0-18 8.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SUMMARIES 8.0-1 8.1 Impacts Mitigated to a Level of Insignificance 8.0-1 8.2 Unavoidable Significant Adverse Impacts 8.0-1 8.3 Mitigation Measures/Applicable Standard City 8.0-4 Policies and Requirements July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF G.P.A. EIR 422102.009 CHAPTER TITLE PAGE 9.0 ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS CONSULTED 9.0-1 10.0 REFERENCES 10.0-1 July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF G.P.A. EIR 422102.009 CHAPTER TITLE APPENDICES Volume II (Bound Under Separate Cover) A Initial Study B Notice of Preparation (NOP) and NOP Responses C Project Correspondence D Response to Comments (to be included in final) E Geotechnical Feasibility Investigation F Hydrology/Drainage Report G Traffic and Circulation Analysis H Air Quality Assessment I Noise Assessment J Cultural Resources Reconnaissance K Paleontological Resources Assessment L Biological Evaluation M Sewer and Water Facilities and Utilities Report N Fiscal Impact Report July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF G.P.A. EIR 422102.009 LIST OF EXHIBITS EXHIBIT NUMBER TITLE PAGE Exhibit 1 Regional Location 3.0-2 Exhibit 2 Local Vicinity 3.0-3 Exhibit 3 Existing General Plan/Zoning 3.0-10 Exhibit 4 Proposed Land Use Plan 3.0-11 Exhibit 5 Aerial Photograph 4.1-2 Exhibit 6 Topographic Features 4.1-3 Exhibit 7 Proposed Land Use Plan 4.1-18 Exhibit 8 Circulation Element 4.1-25 Exhibit 9 Open Space Element 4.1-26 Exhibit 10 Visual Resources Site Photo Index and Site Photos 4.2-2 Exhibit 11 Community Theme Element 4.2-13 Exhibit 12 Existing Soils and Geology 4.3-2 Exhibit 13 Existing Hydrology 4.4-4 Exhibit 14 Proposed Hydrology 4.4-7 Exhibit 15 Recreational Facilities 4.6-4 Exhibit 16 Intersection Location Map 4.7-3 Exhibit 17 City Bicycle Facilities 4.7-5 Exhibit 18 Existing Condition Average Daily Traffic Volumes and 4.7-6 V/C Ratios Exhibit 19 Project Trip Distribution 4.7-13 Exhibit 20 County of Orange Master Plan of Arterial Highways 4.7-18 July 21, 1989 HOLLY SEACLIFF G.P.A. 422102.009 EXHIBIT NUMBER TITLE PAGE Exhibit 21 City Circulation Plan 4.7-19 Exhibit 22 Existing General Plan Average Daily Traffic Volumes 4.7-23 and V/C Ratios Exhibit 23 Proposed Land Use Concept Plan Average Daily Traffic 4.7-24 Volumes and V/C Ratios. I Exhibit 24 Signal Warrant Analysis Intersection Location Map 4.7-28 Exhibit 25 CNEL Outdoor Location 4.9-3 Exhibit 26 CNEL Noise Contours for Police Heliport 4.9-9 Exhibit 27 Construction Equipment Noise 4.9-13 Exhibit 28 Biological Resources 4.12-2 Exhibit 29 Existing Oil Wells 4.14-2 Exhibit 30 Major Oil Transmission and Storage Facilities 4.14-3 Exhibit 31 Existing Gas/Electric 4.16-5 Exhibit 32 Existing Telephone/Cable TV 4.16-6 Exhibit 33 Existing and Proposed Water Facilities 4.17-3 Exhibit 34 Existing and Proposed Sewer Facilities 4.18-3 Exhibit 35 Existing General Plan 7.0-2 Exhibit 36 Industrial Alternative 7.0-13 Exhibit 37 Residential Alternative 7.0-17 July 21, 1989 HOLLY SEACLIFF G.P.A. 422102.009 LIST OF TABLES TABLE TITLE PAGE NUMBER Table 1 Phasing Matrix 3.0-13 Table 2 Ownership Acreage Comparison 4.1-5 Table 3 General Plan vs. Proposed Land Use Plan 4.1-21 Table 4 Historic Seismic Events 4.3-6 Table 5 City of Huntington Beach Projected Population Growth 1988-2010 4.5-2 Table 5A 1989-1994 Household Needs by Income Group 4.5-5 Table 6 Existing General Plan Population Generation 4.5-6 Table 7 Existing General Plan Employment Generation 4.5-7 Table 8 Proposed Land Use Plan Population Generation 4.5-9 Table 9 Proposed Land Use Plan Employment Generation 4.5-11 Table 10 Existing Arterial Condition 4.7-4 Table 11 Existing Condition ICU Summary 4.7-9 Table 12 Existing General Plan Trip Generation 4.7-11 Table 13 Proposed Land Use Concept Plan 4.7-12 Trip Generation Table 14 Existing Plus Project Daily Traffic Volumes 4.7-15 and V/C Ratios Table 15 Existing Plus Project ICU Summary 4.7-16 Table 16 Committed Intersection Improvements 4.7-20 Table 17 Future Year Development ICU Summary 4.7-26 Table 18 Signal Warrant Analysis Summary Sheet 4.7-29 Table 18A Mitigated Intersection Lane Geometries 4.7-32 Table 19 Air Quality Levels Monitored at the Costa Mesa __ _4.8-5 Ambient Air Monitoring Station Table 20 Emission Rates for Grading Scraper 4.8-8 Table 21 Vehicular Emissions 4.8-10 Table 22 Emissions from the Combustion of Natural Gas 4.8-11 Table 23 Emissions generated by Electrical Usage 4.8-11 I July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF G.P.A. EIR 422102.009 TABLE TITLE PAGE NUMBER Table 24 Comparison of Emissions 4.8-13 Table 25 Decrease in Projected Emissions due to Project 4.8-13 Table 26 Huntington Beach Noise Ordinance Standards 4.9-4 Table 27 Distance to CNEL Noise Contours for Existing Conditions 4.9-6 Table 28 Noise Measurement Results 4.9-7 Table 29 Change in CNEL Noise Level Future Secenario vs. 4.9-14 Existing Conditions Table 30 Change in CNEL Noise Level Proposed Project vs. 4.9-15 Current General Plan Table 31 Distance to CNEL Noise Contour for 4.9-17 Proposed Project Table 32 Noise Data on Drilling Rig Operations 4.9-18 Table 33 Drilling Operations Noise Levels at 100 Feet 4.9-18 Table 34 Educational Facilities 4.16-4 Table 35 Average Dwelling Units Per Acre 5.0-3 Table 36 Floor Area Ratios 5.0-4 Table 37 Projected Property Values and Property Taxes 5.0-5 Table 38 Projected Retail Sales Tax Revenues 5.0-7 Table 39 Projected Business License Taxes 5.0-8 Table 40 Police Operating Cost Assumptions 5.0-9 Table 41 Estimated Allocation of Cost/Revenues by Land 5.0-11 Use Category Table 42 Revenue and Cost Factors Per Acre Comparison 5.0-12 Table 43 General Plan vs. Proposed Land Use Plan 7.0-4 Table 44 Industrial Alternative vs. Proposed Land Use Plan 7.0-11 Table 45 Residential Alternative vs. Proposed Land Use Plan 7.0-15 July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF G.P.A. EIR 422102.009 HOLLY - SEACLIFF GPA EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 1.0 NOTE TO THE READER: The proposed project consists of an amendment to the City of Huntington Beach existing General Plan covering 768 acres of primarily undeveloped land. The major changes to the General Plan are as follows: o Decreases industrial acreages by 70 acres. o Increases residential acreages by 93 acres. o Increases open space acreages by 35 acres. o Decreases maximum allowable residential dwelling units from 5,848 to 4,410. o Decreases projected traffic by 38%. The following Matrix summarizes the environmental impacts associated with complete development of the area covered by the General Plan Amendment compared to existing (undeveloped) conditions. For a detailed discussion of these impacts, please refer to the appropriate sections of Chapter 4. For a comparison of environmental impacts between the proposed amendment and development in accordance with the existing General Plan, please refer to the Alternative Summary Matrix at the end of Chapter 1. PROJECT SUMMARY/MATRIX DESCRIPTION OF IMPACT PRIOR TO MITIGATION LEVEL OF RESOURCE MITIGATION SCOPE MEASURES SIGNIFICANCE LAND USE On-Site Project will result in the conversion of 768 acres Project-specific None proposed. Project-specific and cumulative im- of land to urban uses that are at a much greater de- and cumulative pacts cannot be mitigated to a level of gree of development than what is presently exist- insignificance. ing. Development of the project may result in impacts Project-specific Mitigation measures 1 and 2 in Sec- Project-specific impacts mitigated to a from oil service vehicles driving through proposed tion 4.1 shall be implemented. level of insignificance. residential developments. Development of the project may result in short- Project-specific None proposed. Project-specific impacts are not con- term compatibility impacts from new residential sidered significant because roadways communities adjacent to old industrial areas. and walls will act as buffers. Surrounding Development of the project adjacent to the golf Project-specific Mitigation measure 3 in Section 4.1 Project-specific impacts mitigated to a Land Uses course may result in landscape incompatibilities. shall be implemented. level of insignificance. Land Use Development of the project will impact the goals Cumulative Mitigation measure I in Section 4.5 Cumulative impacts cannot be miti- Policies of the Housing Element by reducing the housing shall be implemented. gated to a level of insignificance. stock by 25%. Grading activities or development on-site could Project-specific Mitigation measures 4 through 7 in Project-specific impacts mitigated to disrupt or destroy on-site natural swales. This Section 4.1 shall be implemented. a level of insignificance. would be inconsistent with goals stated in the Open Space/Conservation Element. ' n PROJECT SUMMARY/MATRIX DESCRIPTION OF IMPACT PRIOR TO MITIGATION LEVEL OF RESOURCE MITIGATION SCOPE MEASURES SIGNIFICANCE AESTHETICS Grading activities may result in devegetation and Project-specific Mitigation measures 1 and 2 in sec- Short-term project-specific impacts potential impacts to drainage swales. tion 4.2 shall be implemented. mitigated to a level of insignificance. The project may result in visual impacts associat- Project-specific Mitigation measure 3 in Section 4.2 Project-specific impacts mitigated to a ed with overhead utility lines. shall be implemented. level of insignificance. The project may result in visual impacts to homes Project-specific Mitigation measure 4 in Section 4.2 Project-specific impacts mitigated to a on adjacent parcels. shall be implemented. level of insignificance. The project may result in aesthetic impacts Project-specific Mitigation measure 5 in Section 4.2 Project-specific impacts not consid- �' assoicated with the occurrence of oil wells adjacent shall be implemented. ered to be significant. to residences. The project may result in visual impacts associat- Project-specific Mitigation measure 6 in Section 4.2 Project-specific impacts mitigated to a ed with the removal of the existing windrows. shall be implemented. level of insignificance. The project may result in aesthetic impacts asso- Project-specific Mitigation measure 7 in Section 4.2 Project-specific impacts mitigated to a ciated with the loss of open space land where the shall be implemented. level of insignificance. railroad transportation corridor exists. The project will contribute to a cumulative loss of Cumulative None proposed. Cumulative impacts cannot be miti- open space views. gated to a level of insignificance. PROJECT SUMMARY/MATRIX DESCRIPTION OF IMPACT PRIOR TO MITIGATION LEVEL OF RESOURCE MITIGATION SCOPE MEASURES SIGNIFICANCE EARTH RESOURCES Local Geology The project will alter existing topography and Project-specific Mitigation measures 1 through 3 Project-specific impacts cannot be soils through the proposed grading and construe- in Section 4.3 shall be implement- mitigated to a level of insignificance. tion activities onsite. ed. Groundwater The development of the project may cause further Project-specific Mitigation measure 4 in Section Project-specific impacts mitigated to degradation of groundwater in the area,and could 4.3 shall be implemented. a level of insignificance. increase erosion and siltation. Seismicity The project lies in a seismically active area. Project-specific Mitigation measures 5 and 6 in Project-specific impacts mitigated to o Section 4.3 shall be implemented. a level of insignificance. w Liquefaction The project contains areas with relatively high Project-specific Mitigation measure 7 in Section Project-specific impacts mitigated to amount of groundwater within the alluvium that 4.3 shall be implemented. a level of insignificance. may contribute to some potential for liquefaction. Subsidence The potential for subsidence to occur exists on the Project-specific Mitigation measures 8 and 9 in Project-specific impacts mitigated to project site. section 4.3 shall be implemented. a level of insignificance. Tsunamis Portions of the project site are located within a Project-specific Mitigation measure 10 in section Project-specific impacts mitigated to tsunami risk area. 4.3 shall be implemented. a level of insignificance. Other Geologic The occurrence of bluff erosion is a distinct possi- Project-specific Mitigation measure 11 in Section Project-specific impacts mitigated to Hazards bility along the western portion of the project site. 4.3 shall be implemented. a level of insignificance. PROJECT SUMMARY/MATRIX DESCRIPTION OF IMPACT PRIOR TO MITIGATION LEVEL OF RESOURCE MITIGATION SCOPE MEASURES SIGNIFICANCE HYDROLOGY On-site The elimination of swales by development could Project-specific Mitigation measure 1 through 3 in Project-specific impacts mitigated to potentially cause drainage impacts. Section 4.4 shall be implemented, a level of insignificance. The project will increase the amount of impervi- Project-specific Mitigation measures 4 and 5 in Project-specific impacts mitigated to ous surface which will increase drainage runoff. Section 4.4 shall be implemented. a level of insignificance. Off-site The project will increase downstream siltation and Project-specific Mitigation measures 6 through 8 in Project-specific impacts and cumula- contribute to the degradation of water quality. and cumulative Section 4.4 shall be implemented. tive impacts are potentially signifi- cant. POPULATION/ HOUSING Project buildout of the residential development Project-specific None proposed. Project-specific and cumulative impacts will add approximately 10,880 people to the pop- and cumulative are not considered to be significant. ulation. The project will result in a 25%decrease in the Cumulative Mitigation measure 1 in Section Cumulative impacts cannot be mitigat- amount of housing planned for buildout under the 4.5 shall be implemented. ed to a level of insignificance. existing General Plan. It will decrease the sup- ply of affordable housing. PROJECT SUMMARY/MATRIX DESCRIPTION OF IMPACT PRIOR TO MITIGATION LEVEL OF RESOURCE MITIGATION SCOPE MEASURES SIGNIFICANCE RECREATION The population generated by this project would Project-specific Mitigation measures I through 3 in Project-specific impacts mitigated to place a demand for a total of 54 acres of parkland section 4.6 shall be implemented. a level of insignificance. at a ratio of 5 acres per 1,000 persons. TRAFFIC/ CIRCULATION Development of the project will result in impacts Cumulative None proposed. Cumulative impacts are considered sig- o to three off-site intersections which will operate nificant. LA below LOS C in both peak hours. Development of the project will result in reduced Project-specific Mitigation measures 1 through 5 in Project-specific impacts mitigated to a LOS for traffic in the project vicinity. -The GPA Section 4.7 shall be implemented. level of insignificance. (LOS C or will result in 60,470 ADT. better) Development of the project may result in access Project-specific Mitigation measure 6 in Section Project-specific impacts mitigated to a impacts to major arterial streets. 4.7 shall be implemented. level of insignificance. Development of the project will result in impacts Project-specific Mitigation measure 7 in Section Project-specific and cumulative im- to Garfield Avenue/Main Street intersection from and cumulative 4.7 shall be implemented. pacts considered significant. access locations along Garfield. The project may result in impacts to designations Project-specific Mitigation measure 8 in Section Project-specific impacts mitigated to a for bus stop turnouts. 4.7 shall be implemented. level of insignificance. The project may result in impacts to the future Project-specific Mitigation measure 9 in Section Project-specific impacts mitigated to a railroad transportation corridor. 4.7 shall be implemented. level of insignificance. PROJECT SUMMARY/MATRIX DESCRIPTION OF IMPACT PRIOR TO MITIGATION LEVEL OF RESOURCE MITIGATION SCOPE MEASURES SIGNIFICANCE AIR QUALITY Short-term Development of the project will result in short- Project-specific Mitigation measure 1 in Section Project-specific impacts mitigated to a term construction related impacts on air quality. 4.8 shall be implemented. level of insignificance. Long-term Occupancy of residential units on-site will result Project-specific None proposed. Project-specific impacts are not consid- in long-term increases in stationary source emis- ered significant. sions both on and off-site. a� Development of the project will result in long- Project-specific Mitigation measure 2 in Section Project-specific impacts are not consid- term increases in vehicular source emissions. 4.8 shall be implemented. ered significant. Development of the project will contribute to the Cumulative None proposed. Cumulative impacts are considered sig- degradation of regional air quality. nificant. Odor-control Development of the project may expose residents Project-specific Mitigation measure 3 and 4 in Sec- Project-specific impacts mitigated to a to odors from oil leakage. lion 4.8 shall be implemented. level of insignificance. PROJECT SUMMARY/MATRIX DESCRIPTION OFIMPACT PRIOR TO MITIGATION LEVEL OF RESOURCE MITIGATION SCOPE MEASURES SIGNIFICANCE NOISE Construction During construction,existing residential land uses Short term Pro- Mitigation measures 1 in Section Project specific impacts cannot be mit- situated adjacent to the project site could be ex- jest-specific 4.9 shall be implemented. igated to a level of insignificance and posed to impacts from occasional single-event dis- are unavoidable adverse impacts over turbances caused by construction equipment. the short-term. Roadway Noise Project development could result in potential traf- Project-specific Mitigation measures 2 through 4 in Project-specific impacts mitigated to a fic related noise that could potentially increase out- and cumulative Section 4.9 shall be implemented. level of insignificance door and indoor noise levels in residential and commercial land uses to unacceptable levels. 0 .�, Oil Well Short-and long-term noise from oil operations, Project-specific Mitigation measures S through 9 in Project-specific impacts mitigated to a Operations which include: drilling,oil well pumping and Section 4.9 shall be implemented. level of insignificance. pulling,redrilling and service drilling,and well consolidation,could affect on-site residential uses. Truck Trucks passing through residential areas to periodi- Project-specific Mitigation measure 10 in Section Project-specific impacts mitigated to a Operations cally empty on-site storage tanks,could result in 4.9 shall be implemented. level of insignificance. associated noise nuisances to residents. Helicopter Potentially significant noise from police heliport Project-specific Mitigation measures 11 through 14 Project-specific impacts mitigated to a Operations activities operations could occur. in Section 4.9 shall be implement- level of insignificance. cd. i PROJECT SUMMARY/MATRIX DESCRIPTION OF IMPACT PRIOR TO MITIGATION LEVEL OF RESOURCE MITIGATION SCOPE MEASURES SIGNIFICANCE LIGHT AND GLARE On-site The project will result in street,vehicular,and securi- Project-specific Mitigation measures 1 through 5 in Project-specific light impacts mitigat- ty related lighting which will be visible to surround- Section 4.10 shall be implemented. ed to a level of insignificance. ing areas. Also the amount of glare related to vehicular traffic Project-specific None proposed. Project-specific glare impacts are not will increase as a result of the project. considered to be significant. The amount of glare caused by reflective surfaces on Project-specific Mitigation measure 6 in Section Project-specific impacts mitigated to a buildings and by vehicles may be visible and increase 4.10 shall be implemented. level of insignificance. o as a result of the project. 00 Surrounding The project will result in an incremental increase in Cumulative Mitigation measures 1 through 5 in Cumulative increase in light and glare Vicinity the amount of light and glare in the area. Section 4.10 shall be implemented. is not considered to be significant. CULTURAL RESOURCES Archaeology Development of proposed project will result in the de- Project-specific Mitigation measures I through 5 in Project-specific and cumulative im- struction of potentially significant archaeological re- and cumulative Section 4.11 shall be implemented. pacts mitigated to a level of insignifi- sources. cane. Paleontology Grading and other earth moving activities will likely Project-specific Mitigation measure 6 through 10 in Project-specific and cumulative im- expose fossil remains and potentially destroy them. and cumulative Section 4.11 shall be implemented. pacts mitigated to a level of insignifi- cance. 4' PROJECT SUMMARY/MATRIX DESCRIPTION OF IMPACT PRIOR TO MITIGATION LEVEL OF RESOURCE MITIGATION SCOPE MEASURES SIGNIFICANCE BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES On-site The conversion of existing open areas into residential Project-specific Mitigation measures 1 through 3 in Project-specific and cumulative im- and commercial uses will result in the removal of and cumulative Section 4.12 shall be implemented. pacts cannot be mitigated to a level of vegetation and the destruction or displacement of insignificant. wildlife which uses the on-site habitat. Also the amount of glare related to vehicular traffic will increase as a result of the project. The project may result in the loss of large trees Project-specific Mitigation measures 4 in Section Project-specific impact mitigated to a which will reduce raptor nesting sites. 4.12 shall be implemented. level of insignificance The project will result in the potential loss of brack- Project-specific Mitigation measures 5 and 6 in Project-specific and cumulative im- C) ish wetlands on the western border. Section 4.12 shall be implemented. pacts mitigated to a level of insignifi- cance. Off-site Increased access and encroachment into the wetlands Project-specific Mitigation measure 7 in Section Project-specific and cumulative im- located to the west of the project site may destroy 4.12 shall be implemented. pacts mitigated to a level of insignifi- habitat and disrupt breeding and foraging activities of cance. wildlife. The projected extension of Garfield Avenue into the Cumulative None proposed. Cumulative impact cannot be mitigat- Bolsa Chica Wetlands area will necessitate grading ed to a level of insignificance. and construction activity that will eliminate habitat and disrupt the breeding and foraging actvities of wildlife. The night lighting associated with the proposed pro- Project-specific Mitigation measure 8 in Seciton Project-specific and cumulative im- ject may disrupt wildlife activity. 4.12 shall be implemented. pacts mitigated to a level of insignifi- cance. PROJECT SUMMARY/MATRIX 'DESCRIPTION OF IMPACT PRIOR TO MITIGATION LEVEL OF RESOURCE MITIGATION SCOPE MEASURES SIGNIFICANCE NATURAL AND ENERGY RESOURCES During development,energy will be consumed Project-specific None proposed. Short-term Project-specific impacts through grading,site preparation and construction ac- not considered significant. tivities. Upon completion,project residences will generate an Project-specific Mitigation measures I and 2 in Sec- Project-specific and cumulative im- increased demand on natural gas and electricity. and cumulative tion 4.13 shall be implemented. pacts cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance. 0 0 OIL FACILITIES Development of the project will result in the consoli- Cumulative Mitigation measure I in Section Cumulative impacts mitigated to a dation of oil wells adjacent to new development. 4.14 shall be implemented. level of insignificance. Development of the project within an oil district may project-specific Mitigation measures 2 and 3 in Sec- Project-specific impacts mitigated to a result in operational and locational impacts. tion 4.14 shall be implemented. level of insignificance. The withdrawal of oil may result in subsidence im- Project-specific Mitigation measures 4 and 5 in Sec- Project-specific impacts mitigated to a pacts to new development structures. tion 4.14 shall be implemented. level of insignificance. Development among operating oil wells can include Project-specific Mitigation measure 6 in Section Project-specific impacts mitigated to a hazards from oil field,surface oil contamination,ac- 4.14 shall be implemented. level of insignificance. cumulation of methane gas,fire or blow out inci- dents,oil spills,noise and air quality impacts. PROJECT SUMMARY/MATRIX 'DESCRIPTION OF IMPACT PRIOR TO MITIGATION LEVEL OF RESOURCE MITIGATION SCOPE MEASURES SIGNIFICANCE HUMAN HEALTH AND SAFETY Surface Oil Previous oil production activities could result in areas Projex:t-specific Mitigation measure 1 and 2 in Section Project-specific impacts mitigated to a Contamination of surface oil contamination on the project site,re- 4.15 shall be implemented. level of insignificance. quiring a site specific evaluation to direct cleanup op- erations on-site. Methane Gas The potential exists for the project site to experience Project-specific Mitigation measures 3 and 4 in Sec- Project-specific impacts mitigated to a explosions due to methane gas accumulations. tion 4.15 shall be implemented. level of insignificance. Other Oil The operation of oil wells in proximity to residential Project-specific. Mitigation measures 5 and 6 in Sec- Project-specific impacts mitigated to a Production development may result in hazards related to blow- tion 4.15 shall be implemented. level of insignificance. ►� Related outs,explosions,fires,ruptures and vandalism. Hazards Hazardous The storage and use of hazardous materials can be ex- Project-specific Mitigation measures 7 through 10 in Project-specific impacts mitigated to a Materials pected as part of operations in industrial portions of Section 4.15 shall be implemented. level of insignificance. the project site. PUBLIC SERVICES & UTILITIES Fire Protection Development of the project will create the need for ad- Project-specific Mitigation measures 1 through 3 in Project-specific impacts mitigated to a dittonal fire protection services. Section 4.16 shall be implemented. level of insignificance. P lice Development within the project area will impact he Project-specific Mitigation measures 4 in Section Project-specific impacts mitigated to a Services level of police services presently provided. 4.16 shall be implemented. level of insignificance. Community Development of the project will result in the addition Project-specific Mitigation measures 5 through 7 in Project-specific impacts mitigated to a Services of new residents to the area creating a need for expand- Section 4.16 shall be implemented. level of insignificance. ed park facilities and library facilities. -f�.. }+� Y,- - - • T '' .• {�� �q�'![1�•ice ,�••'' L- • .+� < gopo0, A �����-�'-'Jh��s� 5.}• +•Y'.'�/•-gym 3: jfi�!;�•.t •fi' - e•r'••�� <r,°+6`�'. :i '� .:lCy�l.�';•.•��� f'..tt.; 'ic'�i' .,'jl"i ,t',�-;z+ �:}e' ..f4. .•�R ,Y' ,�:I.fn• ;�.'*'Z •sir.' s =s�j:..,'•-x'.'k r &. -. :. : •-.�..+. .�. �)sL'.Sd:' ~• :%.-:j'+ ''¢• -~,1.r'•e11 <t r'„+•* s, ,� t` c�p:�:;� ir� jt`'V�ycag _.�` " M •ram r •.: •i.+ • ! f ?'! `t{ {, : -;y' '4}v'}.'/., .Elio;�ti J+i,xi�.•.• r4 v �� 4: t.�.l�T f .K PROJECT SUMMARY/MATRIX DESCRIPTION OF IMPACT PRIOR TO MITIGATION LEVEL OF RESOURCE MITIGATION SCOPE MEASURES SIGNIFICANCE PUBLIC SERVICES & UTILITIES, CONT. LibmnE Development of the project will have an incremental Project-specific Mitigation measures 8 in Section Project-specific and cumulative im- impact on already overcrowded conditions at the cen- and cumulative 4.16 shall be implemented. pacts mitigated to a level of msignifi- tral Library and may additionally increase the use and canoe. demand on the service of the Main Street Branch. Schools Elementary Development of the project will impact elementary Project-specific Mitigation measures 9 through 11 in Project-specific and cumulative im- school facilities by generating students in excess of and cumulative Section 4.16 shall be implemented. pacts mitigated to a level of insignifi- school capacity. cane. 0 .'_. High School Development of the project will require reconstruc- Project-specific Mitigation measures I 1 and 12 in Project-specific and cumulative im- �' tion of the existing facilities to house additional stu- and cumulative Section 4.16 shall be implemented. pacts mitigated to a level of insignifi- dent beyond capacity. cane. Utilities Solid Waste Development of the project could potentially impact Project-specific Mitigation measures 13 and 14 in Potential project-specific and cumula- Disposal waste disposal facilities and services. and cumulative Section 4.16 shall be implemented. five impacts mitigated to a level of in- significance. Gas and Development of the project could potentially impact Project-specific Mitigation measures 15 through 17 Potential project specific and cumula- Electricity conservation and planning efforts. and cumulative in Section 4.16 shall be implement- five impacts mitigated to a level of in- ed significance. Telephone Development of the project could potentially impact Project-specific Mitigation measures 18 and 19 in Potential project specific and cumula- and Cable service delivery and planning efforts. and cumulative . Section 4.16 shall be implemented. five impacts mitigated to a level of in- TV significance. PROJECT SUMMARY/MATRIX -DESCRIPTION OF IMPACT PRIOR TO MITIGATION LEVEL OF RESOURCE MITIGATION SCOPE MEASURES SIGNIFICANCE WATER FACILITIES Development of the project will result in the need for Project-specific Mitigation measures 1 through 3 in Project-specific impacts mitigated to a water facility improvements such as major transmis- Section 4.17 shall be implemented. level of insignificance. sion lines and a booster station. Development of the project will result in the need for Project-specific Mitigation measure 4 in section4.17 Project-specific impacts mitigated to a increased storage capacity. shall be implemented level of insignificance. Development of the project will incrementally in- Cumulative Mitigation measures 5 through 15 in Cumulative impacts upon the City's ocrease the demand for additional water supplies. Section 4.17 shall be implemented. water supply cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance due to a lack of w available water sources. SEWER FACILITIES Ultimate development project area will require four Project-specific Mitigation measures 1 through 8 in Project-specific and cumulative im- major trunk lines and one pump station to collect and and cumulative Section 4.18 shall be implemented. pacts mitigated to a level of insignifi- convey sewerage from the project area. cane. ALTERNATIVES SUMMARY/MATRIX INDUSTRIAL RESIDENTIAL _ CATEGORY OF IMPACT NO PROJECT * NO DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVE ALTERNATIVE LAND USE Impacts are Impacts are Impacts are Impacts are expected to be expected to be expected to be expected to be greater than the less than the greater than the similar to the proposed project. proposed project. proposed project. proposed project. AESTHETICS Impacts are Impacts are Impacts are Impacts are expected to be expected to be expected to be expected to be similar than the less than the greater than the less than the proposed project. proposed project. proposed project. proposed project. EARTH RESOURCES Impacts are Impacts are Impacts are Impacts are expected to be expected to be expected to be expected to be similar to the less than the similar to the similar to the .� proposed project. proposed project. proposed project. proposed project. WATER RESOURCES Impacts are Impacts are Impacts are Impacts are expected to be expected to be expected to be expected to be less than the less than the greater than the similar to the proposed project. proposed project. proposed project. proposed project. POPULATION/ Impacts are Impacts are Impacts are Impacts are HOUSING expected to be expected to be expected to be expected to be greater than the less than the greater than the greater than the proposed project. proposed project. proposed project. proposed project. RECREATION Impacts are Impacts are Impacts are Impacts are expected to be expected to be expected to be expected to be greater than the less than the greater than the greater than the proposed project. proposed project. proposed project. proposed project. * Same as existing General Plan ALTERNATIVES SUMMARY/MATRIX INDUSTRIAL RESIDENTIAL CATEGORY OF IMPACT NO PROJECT * NO DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVE ALTERNATIVE TRAFFIC/ Impacts are Impacts are Impacts are Impacts are CIRCULATION expected to be expected to be expected to be expected to be greater than the less than the greater than the similar to the proposed project. proposed project. proposed project. proposed project. AIR QUALITY Impacts are Impacts are Impacts are Impacts are expected to be expected to be expected to be expected to be greater than the less than the greater than the less than the proposed project. proposed project, proposed project. proposed project. NOISE Impacts are Impacts are Impacts are Impacts are expected to be expected to be expected to be expected to be greater than the less than the greater than the similar to the O proposed project. proposed project. proposed project. proposed project. N LIGHT AND GLARE Impacts are Impacts are Impacts are Impacts are expected to be expected to be expected to be expected to be greater than the less than the greater than the less than the proposed project. proposed project. proposed project. proposed project. CULTURAL/ Impacts are Impacts are Impacts are Impacts are PALEONTOLOGICAL expected to be expected to be expected to be expected to be RESOURCES greater than the less than the greater than the similar than the proposed project. proposed project. proposed project. proposed project. BIOLOGICAL Impacts are Impacts are Impacts are Impacts are RESOURCES expected to be expected to be expected to be expected to be greater than the less than the greater than the less than the proposed project. proposed project. proposed project. proposed project. Same as existing General Plan �h.i�' - ,.�, / •L,"_ '=t'j, `,p��`,a,,,,�:?'''s* S;,- .w�L '} ' 'Rk, `,>. ,- t - 1 � .� . .E: 1"` � _ ,,' � ',,, j.,s.,i,� , - ', re , ¢s4`y s .-v',•yra l4 K '�X3^z..'' �:wY fsv` ?r v 4�'. w x' _K�•' s '•� ; 5 r.V.r �, "�,'` " r .v. `•tl` "'�... • 4,t ? '9v,.�"y�Y,.� -',qk._^� ` •'� ' €"„ �,; ° "-[a-��,�r.,y.�t�,. '�.."'` •>. %?<, rr '`-•.r .s: a •�''}�'}:. .� ��'' s r.< �"""'r.X�+a�.r� 'w <.i.'. 4 •�fS. -g'�'z '�(:;x+' ,p., ,F.4. "k,�`. .'�H., � ..,G',: .- �'t's'�'`:a6:+�'�: �•ec� wk t=w y `' �+ .r``! i• � '.: 3�,l^ g. y" ram.,..3�'!'-... •+'a.'- :; x`4+ "L`:.�` y• ,a-� r' u Y. ' - .,'�+,�',r a'.w..,9d`. x y { ;,�. -s ' ;;4. ,'rj' ' ' .. T' '� - t '1-;`c.« +4't r .Y-� ., . " � r t ti,.�'.� .�+.f ^'aJ`.°c,J - _,C C_ .�;, -S'e rr"'F•� i:rY' =w•._ ;�,, r ALTERNATIVES SUMMARY/MATRIX INDUSTRIAL RESIDENTIAL CATEGORY OF IMPACT NO PROJECT NO DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVE ALTERNATIVE NATURAL RESOURCES Impacts are Impacts are Impacts are Impacts are expected to be expected to be expected to be expected to be greater than the less than the greater than the similar to the proposed project. proposed project. proposed project. proposed project. OIL FACILTIES Impacts are Impacts are Impacts are Impacts are expected to be expected to be expected to be expected to be similar to the similar to the similar to the similar than the proposed project. proposed project. proposed project. proposed project. HUMI HEALTH AND Impacts are Impacts are Impacts are Impacts are SAFETY expected to be expected to be expected to be expected to be .r similar to the less to the similar to the similar to the o proposed project. proposed project. proposed project. proposed project. 4. O' PUBLIC SERVICES Impacts are Impacts are Impacts are Impacts are AND UTILITES expected to be expected to be expected to be expected to be greater than the less than the greater than the greater than the proposed project. proposed project. proposed project. proposed project. WATER FACILITIES Impacts are Impacts are Impacts are Impacts are expected to be expected to be expected to be expected to be greater than the less than the greater than the similar to the proposed project. proposed project. proposed project. proposed project. SEWER FACILITIES Impacts are Impacts are Impacts are Impacts are expected to be expected to be expected to be expected to be greater than the less than the greater than the less than the proposed project. proposed project. proposed project. proposed project. * Same as existing General Plan ALTERNATIVES SUMMARY/MATRIX INDUSTRIAL RESIDENTIAL CATEGORY OF IMPACT NO PROJECT NO DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVE ALTERNATIVE UNDER No 1`0 No Yes CONSIDERATION Yes ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR TO THE No Yes No PROPOSED PROJECT O J * Same as existing General Plan HOLLY - SEACLIFF GPA INTRODUCTION CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2.0 2.0 INTRODUCTION 2.1 BACKGROUND In conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), this Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared to facilitate an objective assessment of the individual and collective environmental impacts associated with the General Plan Amendment for the Holly Seacliff property. The materials contained in this EIR are intended to serve as an informational document for decisions to be made by the City of Huntington Beach and Responsible Agencies regarding the proposed project. The precise area under consideration is a 768-acre parcel located regionally within northwest Orange County, in the City of Huntington Beach. The City of Huntington Beach is the lead agency responsible for preparation of the environmental documentation in compliance with CEQA, and will have the responsibility to balance possible adverse effects of the project against a variety of public objectives, including economic, environmental and social factors, in determining whether the project is acceptable to approve for implementation (Section 15021 of the State EIR Guidelines). The objective of this EIR is to serve as a "Program EIR", for it not only evaluates the proposed General Plan Amendment, but it also will allow for subsequent actions to be examined. This document evaluates the impacts associated with the ultimate development of the project site, based upon the most definitive project data available, corresponding to the degree of the underlying activity (Section 15146 of the State EIR Guidelines). Moreover, it provides a sound framework within which future, more detailed planning for the project (i.e., Specific Plans, site plans, tentative tract maps, etc.) can be reviewed. A portion of the project area evaluated within this EIR has been included within the scope of another environmental document previously prepared for the City of July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 2.0-1 Huntington Beach. As provided by CEQA (Section 15150), relevant information from the Ellis-Golden west Quartersection Draft Environmental Impact Report 88-2, prepared in February 1989, is hereby incorporated by reference into the current EIR. These incorporations are summarized at the appropriate locations in the text. State CEQA Guidelines require a brief statement describing the intended use of an EIR. This EIR analyzes and assesses the significant environmental impacts of the project. The EIR indicates the cumulative impacts of such development coupled with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable development in surrounding areas. It identifies alternatives to the proposed project and discusses possible ways to reduce or avoid the potentially significant environmental impacts. This EIR, as a final document pursuant to Sections 15089 and 15132 of the State CEQA Guidelines, will serve as the environmental informational document for all public and private activities and undertakings pursuant to or in furtherance of completion of the project. The City of Huntington Beach Planning Commission as advisory body, and Huntington Beach City Council as decision making body, will consider the information in this document in the course of their deliberations and decisionmaking. 2.2 PROJECT HISTORY The project area has been the subject of numerous planning and zoning actions. These include the following dates and actions: Seacliff Area In 1976, just following the adoption of the City's first General Plan, the Seacliff peninsula area, originally designated planning reserve, was then changed to Planned Community. Holly Property In 1984, the 126 acre Holly property in the northeastern portion of the project (Planning Area C) area was the subject of a General Plan Amendment to redesignate the area Planned Community. This application was denied by the July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 2.0-2 City Council in June of 1986, due to concerns over the conversion of industrial land to residential uses. The market viability of industrial uses was to be evaluated following this decision. Ellis-Goldenwest Quarter Section In December of 1980, the City reviewed a General Plan Amendment request to redesignate a 10 acre portion of the Holly Property located along Ellis Avenue between Gothard and Goldenwest. The study area was expanded to include a larger area designated Estate Residential (bounded by Ellis Avenue to the north, the City boundary to the west, Garfield and Ernest Avenues to the south, and a line extending north from Crystal Street to the east) from Estate Residential to High Density Residential. The City Council retained the Estate Residential designation and directed staff to study the feasibility of low density, equestrian planned developments. In May 1981, City Planning staff completed a conceptual study of the Ellis- Goldenwest area which included analysis of property ownership, physical site characteristics, oil uses, community facilities, circulation, housing, and equestrian activities and identified issues of concern. Included in this document was a set of planning objectives for the area. In July 1981, the Planning Commission directed staff to prepare a specific plan for the Ellis-Goldenwest area to implement the Estate Residential designation and the objectives contained in the conceptual study. In July 1982, the City completed a Draft EIR (82-1) for the Ellis-Gol den west Specific Plan. This EIR was never certified. In August 1982, the City completed a Draft Specific Plan for the project area. This plan was never adopted. In 1986, initial conceptual work began again on the Specific Plan. No documents or actions resulted. July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 2.0-3 In January 1988, a zone change application was filed covering 51 gross acres within the 160 acre Ellis Goldenwest quarter section. The application requested Rl-(4)-6,000 zoning to permit up to 199 single family lots. No action has been taken on this zone change to date. Subsequently, three additional zone change and subdivision applications were filed within the quarter section. In late 1988, based on direction given by the Planning Commission, staff began preparation of the Ellis-Goldenwest Quarter Section Specific Plan. This project area (160 acres) is somewhat smaller than the original area. A Draft Specific Plan was completed in December 1988 and revised in March 1989. Concurrently, Draft EIR I (88-2) was prepared and completed in February 1989 for the City of Huntington Beach. The purpose of that document was to analyze impacts associated with implementation of the Specific Plan. On May 1, 1989, the EIR was certified and the Specific Plan was approved by the Planning Commission, scheduled for adoption by Council in June 1989. Western Project Area During 1987, Zone Change (87-16) was initiated on 55.5 acres west of Edwards Street in the western portion of the project. This proposal included the following: 1. Approximately 43 acres from RA-01 (Residential Agricultural combined with Oil Production) to R1-(2)-01-10,000 (Low Density Residential -2 units per acre-with a minimum 10,000 square foot lot size-Combined with Oil Production); 2. Approximately .5 acres from RA-0-CZ (Residential Agricultural combined with Oil Production in the Coastal Zone) to R1-(2)-0-10,D00-CZ (Low Density Residential-2 units per acre-with a minimum 10,000 square foot lot size-Combined with Oil Production in the Coastal Zone); and July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 2.0-4 3. Approximately 12 acres from RA-01-CZ (Residential Agricultural combined with Oil Production and Drilling in the Coastal Zone) to R1- (2)-01-10,000-CZ (Low Density Residential-2 units per acre-with a minimum 10,000 square foot lot size-Combined with Oil Production and Drilling in the Coastal Zone). The City Council continued this zone change in order to consider issues related to Bolsa Chica Linear Park, the Ell is-Golden west Specific Plan and Edwards-Seapoint arterial alignments. The staff recommended that a larger study be prepared to include this area as well as the surrounding area. This study was to be a General Plan Amendment to address Land Use, Circulation and Open Space/Conservation elements. The proposed amendment was to establish the boundaries of the Linear Park, the alignments of Edwards Street and Seapoint, land use designations in and around the Ellis-Goldenwest area and serve as a basis for a dedication agreement for Linear Park acquisition north of Garfield. This action was the impetus for this General Plan Amendment, which is the subject of this EIR. 2.3 CONTACT PERSONS The lead agency in preparing the Environmental Impact Report is the City of Huntington Beach. The environmental consultant to the City is FORMA Design, Inc. of Newport Beach, California. The project applicants are the Huntington Beach Co., and the City of Huntington Beach. Preparers and contributors to the report are listed on page 8.0-1. Key persons are as follows: City of Huntington Beach: Mr. Hal Simmons Senior Planner City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street, P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, California 92648 (714) 536-5271 Environmental Consultant: Mr. Gene Hsieh Principal FORMA Design, Inc. 190 Newport Center Drive Newport Beach, California 92660 (714) 644-8001 July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 2.0-5 Ms. Leslie Freeman Senior Project Manager FORMA Design, Inc. 190 Newport Center Drive Newport Beach, California 92660 (714) 644-8001 Project Applicant: Mr. Bill Holman Huntington Beach Company 2120 Main Street, Suite 200 Huntington Beach, California 92648 (714) 960-4351 2.4 IMPACTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT The City of Huntington Beach conducted an Initial Study on December 22, 1988 to identify the potentially significant environmental effects associated with the proposed project. A complete list of anticipated effects as identified by the City is provided in Appendix A (Environmental Analysis Checklist) along with the Notice of Preparation. The environmental factors requiring analysis, based upon the current project proposal, include: Earth Resources, Air Quality, Water Resources, Biological Resources, Cultural/Scientific Resources, Aesthetics, Natural Resources, Land Use, Transportation/Circulation, Recreation, Noise, Light and Glare, Population/Housing, Human Health and Safety, and Public Services and Utilities. The Initial Study checklist for the proposed project indicates that all environmental factors have the potential for significant impacts. Therefore, this document does not identify any impacts found not to be significant. July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 2.0-6 HOLLY - SEACLIFF GPA PROJECT DESCRIPTION CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 3.0 3.1 LOCATION The proposed project is located in the central portion of the City of Huntington Beach, California. Specifically, the site is bounded by Central Park/Ellis Avenue on the north, Huntington and Main Streets on the east, Yorktown and Clay Avenues on the south and the Orange County boundary line on the west. Exhibits 1 and 2 depict the project site and the reference from a regional and local perspective. Present land uses surrounding the site include Huntington Central Park and Gothard Industrial corridor to the north, existing commercial and civic uses to the east, Seacliff Country Club to the south, residential to the east and south and the Bolsa Chica Wetlands to the west. Regional access to the project site is provided from the San Diego Freeway (I-405) directly from the Goldenwest interchange. Pacific Coast Highway (State Highway 1) provides access from the north and south. On a local perspective, access is provided via Edwards, Goldenwest, Gothard, Main, Ellis and Garfield. i July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF G.PA 422102.009 3.0-1 VENTURA COUNTY LOS ANGELES COUNTY THOUSAND SAN V101 OAKS PASADENA 215 BERNARDINO 210 AGOURA CALABASAS 5 66 HALLS HOLLYWOOD 605 1 1 60 RIVERSIDE � SANTA. LOS ANGELES MONICA 91 5 1 �5 LONG 405 BEACH H GTO BEACH PROJECT "EAOi 1 74 15 SITE i 5 PACIFIC OCEAN \ OCEANSIDE EXHIBIT 1 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REGIONAL LOCATION MAP (� oOL�(��I��CQC�LOf�G� QG�3CQ �h v jo s Lu ill oc k SLATER AVENUE to W oTALBERT AVENUE 3 J 0 W p Z ELLIS AVENUE cr �z f ' . GARFIELD AVENUE OF MINE 90 111 T ^� YORKTOWN AVENUE 00, ,oq Gy A NUE ADAMS AVENUE ,09oor C' W J D Z W W ^ a' lO 6] y~j Q I N Q � J � O S Y ' y/Cy�L,9y m < m oor EXHIBIT 2 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH VICINITY MAP [�OOLL���CQC�L�Q[ � �1G3CQ 3.2 PROPOSED ACTIONS 3.2.1 CERTIFICATION OF AN E.I.R. The project will require acceptance of this environmental document as having been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (C.E.Q.A.), the State C.E.Q.A. Guidelines and City policies, and certification that the data was considered in final decisions on the project. 3.2.2 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT It has been over 12 years since there has been a major and comprehensive planning study for the area. During the past 12 years there have been various changes in land uses within the proposed project site which include: o Discontinuation of oil operations o New development pressures o Increased land values o Areas not developed to their full potential o General Plan/Zoning Conflicts o Changing housing market/increased housing costs o Increased demands on existing circulation system o Increased demands on services o Changes in state laws The City also desires to manage future growth in ways that meet the following objectives: - o Balance development with open space o Insure adequate services for new development o Improve the ability of government to provide services July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 3.0-4 o Provide for necessary transportation improvements to accommodate increasing demands of new and existing development o Balance potential uses as related to traffic generation o Balance projected cost and revenues This proposed General Plan Amendment will comprehensively assess the type of potential land-uses that would be most beneficial to the community. This will include the following components: o Market demands for housing o The need for price sensitive housing o The range and mix of housing products o The amount of commercial and industrial uses o The viability of commercial and industrial uses A final added benefit provided by the General Plan Amendment will be to enhance the quality of development. This will be accomplished through the following: o Improving coordination among numerous property owners o Adding landscaping along arterial corridors o Sensitively treating the development edge o Improving the relationship of open space to development o Developing a comprehensive trail systems In summary, a General Plan Amendment is proposed in order to implement land use designations and zoning which most accurately reflects the current needs of the City and its residents. In addition, several Specific Plans will be subsequently proposed following approval of the GPA, which will further define the intent of the General Plan and respond to unique conditions and constraints existing in each of the sub- areas. July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 3.0-5 3.3 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS/PHASING 3.3.1 EXISTING AND PROPOSED LAND USES The proposed Land Use Plan provides for the ultimate development of the 768-acre parcel known as the "Holly-Seacliff Area". In contrast to the existing General Plan, the proposed General Plan Amendment provides an overall plan for the entire area which results in a consistent, coordinated approach to development of the area. The proposed plan has less total units than the existing General Plan, decreasing the maximum planned number of residential units from the 5,845 allowed by the present General Plan and zoning to a total of 4,410 dwelling units. The proposed plan increases acreage for residential development while reducing acreage for high density residential development. For a detailed description of the proposed Land Use Plan, please refer to the Land Use section in this EIR. Existine Land Uses A significant portion of the site is either undeveloped or is utilized for oil recovery operations. The oil production facilities are spread throughout the area but the largest concentration is found in the western half of the site. The northern portion of the site, the Ellis-Goldenwest quarter section, is characterized by a combination of new homes, a horse stable, a landscape company and oil facilities. In the central portion of the site, a mixture of industrial/storage uses are found. Such uses include an auto repair shop, a truck yard and other similar uses. The __ _ southeastern corner of the site is occupied by Seacliff Village neighborhood retail center. July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 3.0-6 Proposed Land Uses The proposed land uses include residential of varying product types at densities ranging from three to twenty five units per acre, commercial, and industrial uses and open space. Five planning areas A,B,C,D, and E are designated across the project area. Planning Area A, located west of Edwards Street, includes estate residential uses and 23 acres of open space proposed to be dedicated to the Linear Park which acts as a buffer between the bluffs and the adjacent Bolsa Chica lowlands. These proposed land uses address the sensitive character of this area due to the adjacent wetlands and archaeological resources found in this area. Planning Area B, the Ellis-Goldenwest quartersection is proposed for estate residential land uses consistent with the already approved Specific Plan for this area and the existing General Plan. Because the quartersection, Planning Area B, is centrally located in the project site, it influenced the types of land uses that would be planned for adjacent areas A and C. A 40 acre piece of open space adjacent to Huntington Central Park, most of which is presently designated on the existing General Plan as open space, is retained as open space on the proposed plan. Planning Area C proposes low density residential land uses. Other medium and medium high densities are proposed within Planning Area C on the east. Planning Area C also contains industrial uses focused near the major intersection of Garfield and Goldenwest. Planning Area D proposes a mix of low, medium and medium high density residential with higher densities closer to the major arterials transitioning to lower densities westward. Additionally, a seven acre commercial area is proposed to be located-at the intersection of Garfield Avenue and Edwards Street to serve the low density neighborhood to the west. This Planning Area also contains 13 acres of open space along the bluffs. July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 3.0-7 Planning Area E will incorporate the more urban components of the plan, including industrial, mixed development (medium residential and retail), commercial and medium density residential. These proposed uses will be clustered around the existing Seacliff Village retail center providing for a focal point for the entire project area, directly across from the Civic Center. Another, important component of the Proposed Plan is the 89 acres of Open Space which is planned for the project. There are 36 acres to be dedicated to the Linear Park along the bluff; 40 acres designated as open space adjacent to Huntington Central Park and a total of 13 acres of neighborhood parks in appropriate locations. Hiking, riding and bike trails are also planned throughout the project area. For a discussion of land use compatibility, please refer to the Land Use section in this EIR. 3.3.2 GENERAL PLAN ANALYSIS Development of the 768-acre site through the provisions of the existing General Plan land use designations illustrated in Exhibit 3, would permit the following land use: Existing General Plan Acres D.U.'s Estate Residential 284 878 Medium Density Residential 66 980 Planned Community* 115 3,990 Commercial 67 Office 16 Industrial 124 Resource Production 42 Open Space 54 TOTAL 768 5,848 * underlying zoning of R-4 High Density As proposed by the applicant, the entire 768-acre site would be redesignated by the General Plan Amendment as shown in Exhibit 4, to reflect the following uses: July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF CPA 422102.009 3.0-8 Proposed G P A Acres D.U.'s Estate Residential 209 640 Low Density Residential 174 1,010 Medium Density Residential 139 1,525 Medium High Density Residential 39 760 Mixed Development 53 475 Commercial 11 Industrial 54 Open Space 89 TOTAL 768 4,410 Within the project area, the plan proposes new land use catagories which include low and medium high density residential and mixed development. It removes the existing General Plan designations of planned community, office and resource production. 3.3.3 FUTURE ACTIONS Future approvals may include specific plans, zone changes, tentative tract maps, vesting tentative tract maps, development agreements, site plans and possible community facilities and assessment districts. These actions will be covered by this Program EIR, supplemental EIR's or addendum. 3.3.4 PHASING Development of the project area is proposed to occur in at least three phases over the next 10-15 years, concurrent with the phase out and/or consolidation of oil production facilities and construction of major drainage, sewer, utility, and street improvements. A summary of the proposed phasing is depicted on Table 1. Phase I would include development of a total of 6 acres of industrial in Planning Area C; 1,055 dwelling units in Planning Areas B, C, D and E; and one 3 acre park. The dedication of the Linear Park would also take place at this time. July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 3.0-9 I 100 4NL E G E N D OPEN SPACE GENERAL GENERAL PLAN W RECREATION COMMERCIAL ROS•O-CD C2-O ; Estate 52 un/gac v Estate.13 un/gac FAffy Avenue -CD Estate 54 un/gac E TAT RA-0-Ca M1 Ar RA-0-CD un/g CiOe o0o co ESTATE aE M1-01-CD Medium Density M7-01 RA-0 LU•0•CD RA-O-CD General Commercial LU-O-CD Office Professional RA-0 R apt- RA-0-CD E:] General Industrial M2-0 = Resource Production (0)-R1-(2.7)-0.8,000 RA-0-CD °LU-O-CD RA-O GENERAL INDUSTRIAL Recreation open Space 5 4 U /gaC RA-0 Planned Community RA-01 LU•0•CO RA-O-CD Mt-O RA° MI-A- M7.O•CD Op � Coastal zone Boundary ES ATE 52 /gac Mt-CD 1,12,01 0?1 RA-O,-CZ ❑ M1-Ot Ot of-CD —— MI-A- RA- OPE RA-0-CD oP ZONING SPACE Mt-o OP R2 Low Density C EATIO M1CDDf MCD t RA-O OP R1 Residential District R2 Medium Density RA- Cf Garfield Avenue Residential District Z Multi y 4-O-CZ R2 R4 R ide Residence s District RA-01-CD hill OFFICE Residential Ct-O M2-01 RA-O MEDIUM PROFESSIONAL RA Agricultural District PRO UU RESOURCE CD DENSITY Mi Light industrial District RA-0 1 M2 Industrial District PLANNED M2-01-CD R2 I CI Neighborhood COMMUNITY CI Commercial District Rt ;.� C2 Community Business Rt-CD ___ - District 2- Office-OP DistriclProlesslonal ROS Recreation Ra-o GENE AL cz•o open Space e C O M M E C I A L c D Civic District e L LU Limited Use a C2•Dt- m CD g Cr° m CZ Coastal Zone Suffix C2-0-CD c2 O/O 1 09 Combining Districts f Yorktown Avenue EXHIBIT 3 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH EXISTING GENERAL PLAN /ZONING H=V—SEACLOFF m - � B4 ty lU r IDS a Vp:a m 77 _ 40 AC ■ C p�-';i �' PLANNING GAND•USE ACRES DWELLING UNITS L A!N 1 _ -a' LY.x6 P D (1 '1W kL !I J'l — Ellis Avenue A E ?e ss ed is: ,.':_--_..'."� ,rL.■1111111111�..��..f�■.Il�ul----- A os 2e t`r 1 '' ••'\!��� — --�' � roru NANwNG AREA AcuAGE/ rs no A, ;.}r 1 1 :" -J -- 1 ..=_ L 'yr ' ALL AW VNIR C _ Ug s-�� I I BZ ; r�l I: PLANNING IAND•USE ACRES DWELLING UNITS '>U f C IV A!u IMr LY.MN a.v.MAIL _10 U A^,`V. 1 1 46 AC to suestAtwN F*■ I 140'DU 1 f1f � Cl G 8 3.0 DU/AC I I V �-'—'--__ , f.■1 60 AC d''.r� m • ?. E _ ee. tes les 1 1 1 1■ 310 DU C2 C� �•I TOTAL MNNIIW AReA/ACRGG!/ 1 ELF AUD AEM UNM dro —__— ;■ I I r�l 4ACRE PARK / 29 AC C �il�i m 240 DU 'r rn 'K'INCLUDES 3 ACRE PARK E 8.3 DU/AC ISM a 1 ; ' 1 I �I \\ C Ili PLANNING LAND-USE ACRES DWELLING UNITS 1 J 1 / p� E ARfA IRRI — LU MN or MAZ A2 •I 7 AC -tea_____—_ J i x M 2V 2m E 4l5 1 60 DU __--- _ 3 M - / e0-_ 1os 2�6 AC �+r / `T ,/ a 3 DU/Ac �� `ll C _— _ 3..DU'AC ttt E /'- _ • ...s yH y• ax5~ dos.-. I E" i i v e MH _—_a 100 ISU... C l C _ 1 1 ` ' ------------ `� -- ' ' 2 ,5�5 AMMiI= I.I TaTAI NO ARENAGRAOE/ i 1__ L.. s / , ALLMW U. t',. At A4 �\ �i MH M l / V INCLUDES J ACRE PARK C•1 4ACRE PARK C•5 O S E s ! 20 AC 30 ACE f PLANNING )LAND-USE ACRES DWELLING UNITS 400 OU 42 Mf 5 DU= AREA V LU.MN G.P.MAK 23 AC \ ' 55 AC (FFt1 �7 i zo DU/AC a,z ou,AF /. tl ,_ M is Ms 270 165 OU f : 3ACRE PAM 2 L 23 _1W 161 fE I 1 3 0 DU�AC 32 AC = I■I s L es sTo ., !. A3 - .,'. E 7 ACRF.PARK i _ - E 56 AC I I /I up il� D 4 n. 1T 19 D9 16 AC 166DU = s M 22_ _ Os 55 DU e i �, = I•I e rwl U xa0_ J25 -' fU _ MH `4 340UAC zs DU nc - , s*, 6 AC • T L la eo ve 13 AC a��.,� E', r F 1 I 10o Du 1 }p JI I` J{ l �. �-f.+'•.."� -.£ ^'^i,ti• J,.::,`_��..,--.-"e T.-__•_�- -..,_�a: w—..- T._.•_J _...,._-._.r_ -- 16.7 DU/AC J�� ` IJ __. _... •. A Y -�... -Arr.■ ■■���. �■ .. ■. .......neeelf.r■/■�R�r..f�•E.■�RI.�.\�..�fEfEE�..�■■e�E.tl�..�. �f��f•ffl `� 'MLG -MNG AREA ACEF 1 1 d may,„,....., .. �....�_...—__�_-`•___""_ __�_] i Di 4 D8 �- ^- E1 C co Garfield Avenue L/' $INCLUDES J ACRE PARK M C D5 M 4 AC ♦/ PLANNING LAND-USE ACRES DWELLING UNITS 18 AC i 7 AC M MH ": E5 F 165 DC /�•' AREA -4215 LV.P AN c.P.MAx 125DWn, I 22 AC I 13 AC �� T ..I � , 1e 1ss M 265 OU 260 DU 22 AC { I s.7 Du/Ac DEC` 12.0 DU/AC 1 1.'7 S ? a _ M v u lay ---- -- --------- \ l E v EWO ns_ D2 22 TOM FF T MNG AREA ACRGGE/ 112 1- 1 / AMOW UNIIe 23 AC 14 AC \ • D7 E3 yt r,fid E2 • OUND Tar Tee .10 6.1 0 DU AC I , 100 Ou '.,�..E.:. L K M 4, ,+" M • 1 7.0 DU/AC v �' 14 Au 9 AC t;, t;/ 8 AC me l wv er of guide ands v Indicated on the Ladd use Plan 3 ACRF.PARK / \ 80 DU .� 85 DU y;, 70 DU L. snail serve as a gukse for development. • ' • 5.6 DUlAC '2' 9.4 DU/AC rSyk h 8.a DU:AC • D '1 ,t i CWe*Q unm may be transferred from a planning unit or units i !� IFaNO P v'� numb the dwe wits Areo,w bnp as the mmhor e �4A ,„ '�'•■�..EE��■. nun,Der of dweEtp win aAowetl by Geneml Plan for each / C�oY Ave Clue r Clay Avenue PlarnRq Lind Ls nat exceeded ana so bng os me 5 not number 1 ' ezeea etli CtYtlle osoeated for Ihat Pbnnd,g Area b not i••e I n I • E4 MD STATISTICAL SUMMARY 1 ✓ / / y �F`90�fxML Ytl dsl \ It53 AC d oo I�e AlDAvxGx xNRn . ,� 63.AC �• MD EFnD oeflow.Em a 370 DU C coMNTxvd 5.0 DLVAC ` — Yorktown Avenue__--_ os Drtx vAR .....A..... F.C...— •• ••' 'NEPN E,E"M`�NMvou,:'v��ip+. l ee' N C ' ,■� "'' EXHIBIT 4 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH PROPOSED LAND USE PLAN BHOLLu—S /CLOFIF AREA Inl dIIIIIIIIIII IR l Phase II would include development of the Linear Park and the open space area within Planning Area B; 1,750 dwelling units, two neighborhood parks in planning areas C and D; 34 acres of industrial in Planning Areas C and E; and 11 acres of neighborhood commercial in Planning Areas D and E. Phase III would include 14 acres of industrial in Planning Areas C and E; a 4 acre neighborhood park in Planning Area C; 20 acres of commercial in Planning Area C; and 1,605 dwelling units in Planning Areas A, C, D and E. For further analysis on phasing, refer to the Fiscal Impact Analysis of this EIR. July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 3.0-12 TABLE 1 i Phasing Matrix PHASE PLANNING AREA A B C D E TOTAL PHASE I Residential (DU) 0 390 460 110 95 1,055 Commercial (AC) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Industrial (AC) 0 0 6 0 0 6 Open Space (AC) 26 3 3 13 0 42 PHASE II Residential (DU) 65 80 880 570 155 1,750 Commercial (AC) 0 0 0 7 4 11 Industrial (AC) 0 0 18 0 16 34 Open Space (AC) 0 40 4 0 47 PHASE III Residential (DU) 105 0 195 770 535 1,605 Commercial (AC) 0 0 0 0 20 20 Industrial (AC) 0 0 8 0 6 14 Open Space (AC) 0 0 0 0 0 0 DU =Dwelling Units (Parks dedicated in Phase I, developed in Phase 1I.) AC =Acres 3.4 OBJECTIVES The City of Huntington Beach objectives associated with the General Plan Amendment include: o To specifically amend the City's Land Use, Circulation, Open space and Community Facilities Elements in order to provide for a better integrated community. o To establish specific policies and development strategies and standards within identified sub-areas of the plan. o To redesignate "resource production" area as residential or commercial. o To gradually phase out oil production operations within the project area and improve visual aesthetics of the site through screening of the remaining oil wells. o To provide for additional single-family, single family attached, and multi-family housing opportunities within the City. o To enhance the community image through the establishment of a community theme. o To ensure high quality development through the use of landscaping and improvement controls. o To develop adequate community infrastructure to serve existing and new development . July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 3.0-14 o To ensure that an adequate circulation network is designed to serve the existing and future needs of the community while serving as a coordinated unit of the City's circulation system. o To provide for a balance of housing, shopping, recreational and employment opportunities. o To balance open space with development. o To create a development compatible with and sensitive to the natural features of the site. o To preserve important environmental characteristics, resources and open space. o To dedicate and develop open space areas which are consistent with the goals of the General Plan. o To preserve natural drainage swales. July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 3.0-15 3.5 LEAD. RESPONSIBLE AND TRUSTEE AGENCIES LEAD AGENCY This EIR will be used by the City of Huntington Beach, as the Lead Agency, in the review and consideration of the proposed development. City of Huntington Beach: Mr. Hal Simmons Senior Planner City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 RESPONSIBLE AND TRUSTEE AGENCIES This EIR is intended to provide environmental information to a number of agencies which may be involved in serving the project, or may otherwise have an interest in the development's environmental effects. These agencies include: Air Resources Board Department of Conservation Office of Historic Preservation Department of Parks and Recreation Public Utilities Commission California Department of Transportation (CALTRANS) District 7 Department of Fish and Game South Coast Air Quality Management District - Santa Ana Region July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 3.0-16 3.6 RELATED PROJECTS In the local vicinity of the project site there are four projects that may be affected by or have effects on the proposed project. Each project's size, location and relationship to the proposed project are discussed below. 1. Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan Area The Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan and Draft EIR was approved by the City of Huntington Beach Planning Commission in March of 1989. The Specific Plan provides comprehensive development standards from which subsequent Tentative Tract Maps and Conditional Use Permits will be evaluated. This specific plan covers 160 acres betw--en Edwards and Goldenwest Streets and Ellis and Garfield. The plan allows an overall maximum density of three dwelling units per acre with a maximum number of dwelling units of 480. Private and commercial equestrian facilities are also permitted uses. Within the 160 acre project site, three specific projects have been approved by the City. The three specific approved projects consist of: 1) Tentative Tract Map No. 13714/Conditional Use Permit No. 88-36 for the development of 30 single family homes on a 10 acre parcel. 2) Tentative Tract Map No. 13269 and No. 13270/Conditional Use Permit No. 88-16 for the development of 26 single family homes on a 10 acre parcel July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 3.0-17 3) Tentative Tract Map. No. 13439/Conditional Use Permit No. 88-17 for the development of 21 single family homes on a 7.5 acre parcel. 2. The Estates at Seacliff Country Club. This project by Pacific Coast Homes is a 158-lot single-family subdivision on a 27.7-acre site. The site is located southeast of the current terminus of Seapoint Avenue. This project was approved by the City Council in August 1988. Estimated traffic counts from this project were included in the cumulative traffic analysis for this EIR. Rough grading has been completed, occupancy of the first phase of 26 homes is scheduled for Spring 1990. 3. Central Park Development. The total project site encompasses approximately 380 acres, of which 216 acres are developed. The remaining acreage is split into three separate areas. One area is located east of Goldenwest Street between Talbert Avenue and Ellis Avenue. It will encompass approximately 55 acres. Intended uses are open space with passive recreation. A small lake will be refurbished and a golf course may be developed. Additionally, a 140 unit mobile home park may be relocated to this area as a part of the city's re- development program. The second undeveloped area is located west of Goldenwest Street at Talbert Avenue. This area will encompass approximately 16 acres and be used as passive open space. Uses will include picnic areas and parking. The third area to be acquired and developed is located north of Ellis Avenue. It encompasses approximately 57 acres. Intended uses include open space and passive recreation. Equestrian trails will be developed and a golf course may be constructed. There is presently no projected time line for completion-of these projects. 4. Bolsa Chica. The Bolsa Chica Land Use Plan was approved by the Bolsa Chica Planning Coalition and endorsed by the City Council. It was processed by the County of Orange at Signal Landmark's request. July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 3.0-18 Currently the proposed plan includes the following: 412 acres for residential 1105 acres for wetlands, open space and environmentally sensitive habitat areas 50.9 acres for Linear Park 53.7 acres for roadways 13.2 acres for flood control The density for residential ranges from 6.5 to 18 DU per acre. Total units range from 4000 to 5000. The actual number will be determined thorough the Specific Plan process. The above description is only conceptual at this stage and there has been no formal agreement to these acreages. The site is located west of the Holly-Seacliff area in unincorporated Orange County and is expected to be annexed to Huntington Beach. The Bolsa=Chica Planning Coalition is currently studying alternative land use plans for the property. In any plan, the Bolsa Mesa would be the first area to be developed. A series of Citizen Advisory Committee meetings are expected to continue in Huntington Beach. 5. Other projects of smaller scale include a 86 unit, "The Huntington Classics" a single family residential tract adjacent to Yorktown and Lake Streets. Additionally, near Goldenwest Street and Palm Avenue, a single-family, 110- unit development called "Ocean Point" is currently under construction. 6. Major road improvement and water improvement projects in the planning stages are discussed later in Section 4.7 Transportation and 4.16 Public Services. July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 3.0-19 EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS, HOLLY - SEACLIFF GPA IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH -4.0 HOLLY - SEACLIFF GPA Land Use CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 4.1 4.1 LAND USE 4.1.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS On-Site Land Uses The 768-acre project site is currently occupied by a variety of land uses as illustrated in Exhibit 5, Aerial Photograph. They include: o Oil and Natural Gas Production o Residential Uses o Storage Yards o Commercial Shopping Complex o Light Industrial/Warehouse Buildings o Horse Stable o Landscape Company The project site is located at the northeast edge of the Huntington Beach oil field with oil and gas production occurring throughout the entire area. For a detailed discussion of oil, refer to the Oil Facilities Chapter in this document. The topographic features of the site are illustrated on Exhibit 6. Estate residential uses presently occupy portions of the Ellis-Goldenwest quarter-section. The existing 15 acre Country View Estates and the 15 acre Central Park Estates residential developments consist of a total of 77 approved single-family residential units. The equestrian facility, Huntington Crest Stable, is located on the corner of Ellis and Goldenwest. The stable encompasses approximately five acres and is adjacent to the Central Park Estates development. July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 I a. L Z W 0 O Z m Ouj = W �- o Lu Q J � W � a 41 .. _ 1 t..r• 1 F Ii�� •�` C }� '� !_�f 'I I 47r�`y1 II -it _ Irt� im �.. - �''��•`,iCBs?{r -- u�} �`.' .s�'*� i4 ��„+ .�.i�r — ,ig�jF' � �,�_ �6� �iJ�_ -•q-r'��. � - B ' $. h ,gpp1 y7 �. t L 4 �1�'y ti F �� 1 a.' ► - fir A>gs l�t �i _ ,�'' i Q } NN", va s+� • ` �irxf� ' �� } Fi , 't,,gr'�,wt'17j.e+. Y+ '',',- ,,. :{: {{ •:q Q r v C, S tia�f fir, vt�lit _ s 1 - r fM .;y,yi_ .w�, _� _ :• i e+- C �i - - I��I 61a��_ w d:.• 1w - i Y 4�'� �'� o w`rw°', .,.„ '�' n n SW me �T .K • _. 1"h, X ,r� *syF F�f a - O kji kW � rYr ir `N „ r- k+�, aA.y,py RCi � +q^ `N � S ., E�'• :Ay� t i1 �_�i7- � -.s^' _'� � .- !. 1t >�yT� {..q-- � hflT 3 V 2 MR "n1 � Vl" r 'ram ` I, tr � n,. •�"tom ��� ' �1����`•� c r � .� n L��I oaf*/VW .� aA, �,; r��' '�✓l ,11j P �� ��I R-1-m , - vl��/*T-=zzi LEGEN Y�- r°;� 11r,.� r .��, ��SG, ! c ����tl•, A �G�.,"\�Cy-'rl/�� �-, �'��,1j y�-c.,,5l I -;�'�'� � '�yi/ � �:�" Q r"' /:'-i ��;�r �����" �`7 � i�l � - y �7 N�; ,, =� , �_.{L �..; ,, , , ° --� .� .,;�. - , - ••� PROJECT BOUNDARY -Nn . ` .�.J ,t ,,j�,`/// j /- ,i�4• � t -����J � � _ ;_ �� I \w�1�., ..,\ ICI �lJl.� .,� , r1' J i LA�•i,� �, �� ' ��� � !�� � /:-„" Ck�/6b� a��,� -^; � � „�JJ� � � it , .�.•' f .J 1 �a f } 1 JL„�" j �! '4,;f_.J'�'f� J - ..i d ,�,. \Ii/• `� i'� r j r:i i \�S �' ': ,� }_'"r � f;f, - 1 - 1�{----T�L`"`�,i �\, / i\'r, 4 71 zf '�' vT I i ``I t �jF r, �,::'� J r '^ a,u f irf r i`-"` /� ��l r'� ..._,.-.- "`� ,r ��� ( (\, C�„ • ,� /� ? + : l / 91 2�R-Z-V t ') t � �-rs��� � '.i _ - ✓� '�_ rE 2 e 'v ^Z. �- `I,�.�'4:y� - '�v. ,� j✓L_rd Ililt ttg71 NQ a:. _; �•` G r {(/I .. emu; ��� r l ;�,; ��, � �-• �I' � ± � }J '-�" i 4..._✓ ��r�,bC CUB d.> �` 1x n_\ `. iiJ_ L >• - l - - i � - -- � �•,. '.,, .,l/. --F ----------..f .� +-. :`F a -- -.-�I + EXHIBIT 6 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH TOPOGRAPHIC FEATURES L-OLCL Y-3 E ° C OFF The American Landscape Company is centrally located within the project site along Goldenwest Street near Garfield Avenue. This is a full service nursery and supplier of fountains, encompassing approximately 15 acres. The Seacliff Village is the only major commercial shopping complex on-site. It is located along the southern project boundary near the intersection of Yorktown Avenue and Main Street. Light industrial and warehouse buildings are evident along Huntington Street. These buildings, in conjunction with the scattered storage yards between Goldenwest and Main Streets, contribute to a predominantly industrial character in the area. Surrounding Land Uses The project site is surrounded by a variety of land uses. The extensive Huntington Central Park, the associated Central Library and the 25-acre Equestrian Center facility are located to the north of the site along Goldenwest Street. North of Ellis Avenue near Gothard Street lies the Sully-Muller Lake, a police heliport and a shooting range, as well as the Gothard Industrial corridor. The City Civic Center, a high school, single-family residences, and the Seacliff Country Club are located immediately south of the project site. The majority of the area to the west is used for oil production and includes the Bolsa Chica wetlands. It appears vacant except for scattered oil wells, pipelines and service roads. Within the wetland territory is a ecological reserve which is bounded by Pacific Coast Highway to the west. Multi-family residential developments and mixed commercial/office land uses exist to the east of the project area. July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.1-4 Ownershl]D The 768-acre project site is divided into the five planning areas A,B,C,D and E, shown on Exhibit 7. There are over 100 private property owners within the project area. The majority of the project site is owned by the Huntington Beach Company (HBCO), as indicated in the table below. TABLE 2 Ownership Acreage Comparison Planning Acreage Acreage Area HBCO OTHERS A 68 7 B 56 144 C 153 38 D 190 - E 78 34 Total 545 223 City of Huntington Beach 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 highways, noise, housing, community facilities and the coastal program. Land Use Element The Land Use Element (LUE) for the City of Huntington Beach General Plan includes goals designed to serve as a general guide for the future development of Huntington Beach in terms of the location of land uses, allowable residential densities and other criteria. July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.1-5 I I The LUE designates land uses in the project area as follows: LAND USE ACRES Estate Residential 284 878 Medium Density 66 980 Planned Community' 115 3990 General Commercial 67 - Office Professional 16 - General Industrial 124 - Resource Production 42 - Recreation Open Space 54 _ Total 768 5848 ' Underlying zoning R4 (High Density Residential) The Estate Residential designation is intended to add housing variety, increase spaciousness and enhance the open space character of certain portions of the City. Allowable densities range from 2 to 4 dwelling units per gross acre. Medium Density is designed to encourage and concentrate the development of housing of a more intense nature than single-family detached dwelling units. Duplexes, triplexes, apartments, condominiums, and townhouse developments are permitted in this category. Single-family homes, such as patio homes, are also allowed. The maximum allowable density is 15 dwelling units per gross acre. The majority of the land designated for commercial use falls under the General Commercial category. The types of uses that are specifically allowed are: a. Convenience and neighborhood commercial developments b. Community shopping centers C. Regional shopping centers d. Highway related commercial uses In addition, hotels, motels, and office professional uses are permitted. I July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.1-6 I I The Office Professional category of commercial land use includes land for the exclusive development and/or continued use of low intensity professional and administrative offices. Typical uses found in this category include insurance, real estate, branch banks, medical offices, attorneys' offices and other personal and private services. These uses should be located, depending upon their functional relationship to other uses, near commercial, general business or government office nodes. Supporting residential and commercial uses are also permitted. General Industry is considered desirable and compatible with the residential character of Huntington Beach and is commonly known as "light industry". Light industry produces minimum emissions of smoke, dust, fumes, vibration and noise. Generally, industrial development is limited to specific areas solely for industrial parks. Proximity to arterial streets and access to the freeway are considered extremely important. Typical uses would include research and development; electronics; office-type industrial; distribution; and warehousing. The Resource Production designation is intended to accommodate coastal dependent oil activities. Principal permitted uses include oil wells, injection equipment, separation and treatment facilities, storage tanks, transmission lines, equipment storage, maintenance yards and administrative offices. This designation is not applied to areas where small scale oil production activity take place in conjunction with other primary land uses. Rather, the Resource Production designation is used for areas where the extraction, separation, storage, and transmission of crude oil constitutes the primary land use and is anticipated to be the major use for the next 15-30 years. Recreation is an open space designation that covers parks, scenic corridor areas and other general open space areas in the City not included in the Water or Conservation Open Space categories. It is used to accommodate both passive and active uses.-. The Recreation designation allows for more intensive uses if compatible with environmental resources. Uses include publicly and privately owned golf courses, tennis and boating clubs, athletic fields, stables, campgrounds, and other commercial recreation uses. July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.1-7 The Planned Community designation is intended to provide for the comprehensive, coordinated planning and development of an identifiable area of land to take advantage of the benefits of large scale community planning. The Planned Community designation allows for the creation of a quality living environment through implementation of a development plan on a minimum fifty (50) acre area. The underlying zoning in the existing Planned Community area is R4 (High Density Residential). Circulation Element The Circulation Element focuses on the City's arterial streets and highways, public transportation modes and services, water transportation, and air transportation. This element is illustrated in the Traffic/Circulation section of this report. The Circulation Plan of Arterial Streets and Highways (adopted 12/12/76 and most recently amended 6/4/84) shows the following classification for local roadways: Goldenwest Street, Garfield Avenue - Major Arterial (45,000 street capacity) Garfield, Ellis and Yorktown Avenues, Main and Goldenwest Streets - Primary Arterials (30,000 capacity) Edwards and Gothard Streets and Ellis Avenue - Secondary Arterial (20,000 capacity) Scenic Highways The Scenic Highways Element focuses on scenic areas traversed by roadways and seeks the preservation of urban and natural scenic resources adjoining roadways. The objective of this element is to serve the City's open space objectives while promoting the achievement of the "complete highway", which incorporates safety, utility, economy, and beauty with the surrounding environment. There are no scenic highways adjoining the site. The planned realignment of Edwards Street (west of where it currently borders the site) is noted as a Local Scenic Route in this element (July 1977). This planned realignment has been identified as a July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.1-8 scenic route because of the scenic area (Bolsa Chica) it would adjoin. The element states that the plan for scenic routes is by no means "fixed". It is flexible and should be molded in conjunction with future planning efforts to realize the maximum benefits for existing and future residents and visitors. Goldenwest Street, in the vicinity of the project site, has been designated as a Landscape Corridor. Landscape Corridors are major beach access routes requiring special treatment, but not to the extent proposed through the program for scenic routes. Housing Element The Housing Element is intended to direct residential development and preservation in a way that coincides with the overall economic and social values of the community. The element establishes policies that will guide City officials in daily decision making and sets forth an action program designed to enable the City to realize its housing goals. The three adopted goals of the Housing Element are: 1. The attainment of decent housing within a satisfying living environment for households of all socioeconomic, racial, and ethnic groups in Huntington Beach. 2. The provision of a variety of housing opportunities by type, tenure, and cost for households of all sizes throughout the City. 3. The development of a balanced residential environment with access to employment opportunities, community facilities, and adequate services. The Housing Element discusses five distinctive issues including accessibility, adequate provision, adequate sites, preservation of housing and neighborhoods, and affordability. Refer to the Population and Housing section of this EIR for further detail. July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.1-9 Community Facilities Element The Community Facilities Element is intended to provide direction for the provision of community facilities needed to serve existing and proposed development in the City in a coordinated and cost effective manner. It is also intended as a basic informational document, containing pertinent data regarding the status of the City's major capital facilities. Topics discussed in this element include the sewerage, drainage and water systems, public buildings and utilities such as electricity, gas, telephone, cable television, and refuse collection and disposal. Trunk water mains exist along Main, Huntington, Edwards, and Goldenwest Streets and Garfield Avenue, within the project site. On or near the project site the following sewer facilities exist: Goldenwest trunk sewer, Newland-Delaware trunk sewer (C.S.D. No. 11), Gothard Street, Crystal Street and City Pump Station No. 14. Proposed facilities include: Ellis Avenue interceptor sewer west, Goldenwest Street interceptor sewer (C.S.D. No. 11), West boundary trunk sewer, and a City pump station. For a more detailed discussion of these facilities, refer to the Public Services section of this EIR. Local Coastal Element This element includes information sufficiently detailed to indicate kinds, location and intensity of land use and applicable resource protection and development policies. The Coastal Element designates different categories of land uses which will be permitted within the coastal zone and specifies the areas where each land use is appropriate. The element is intended to reflect local conditions and needs while meeting the Coastal Act policies and requirements. The Coastal Element is organized around the following issue areas which have been identified as relevant to the City's coastal zone: July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.140 o Recreation and Shoreline Access o Visitor-Serving Facilities o Visual Resources o Water and Marine Resource/Diking, Dredging and Filling, and Shoreline Structures o Environmentally Sensitive Habitats o Energy o Community Facilities Open Space/Conservation Element The Open Space and Conservation Element focuses on the preservation of open space and the conservation of resources within the Huntington Beach sphere of influence. The objective is to conserve open space in adequate amounts to preserve the environmental amenities which embody the quality of life in Huntington Beach. Elements including the natural ravines (swales) and oil production are two major open space/conservation concerns on site. The swales represent a unique topographical feature and serve aesthetic as well as functional drainage purposes. Oil production areas are designated as Third Priority Areas (containing valuable assets but of less significance) which should be incorporated into a comprehensive Open Space and Conservation Program. Oil production is further discussed in the Oil Facilities chapter of this report. The Open Space and Conservation Element, shows the entire Ellis-Goldenwest Quarter Section and the area directly to the east as open space development. Open space development areas are special resource areas, in this case oil production and natural swales. The natural swales are further discussed in the Hydrology Section of this report. Permitted uses include open space and other kinds of uses, including residential, which maximize open space benefits by incorporating natural resources into the development plan. July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.1-11 Seismic Safety Element The Seismic Safety Element sets forth measures to reduce the threat to community safety posed by flood, earthquake, and fire in light of certain constraints on development and design, as dictated by these hazards. The Fault and Geologic Conditions map (dated 9/l/73) shows the entire site as having older alluvium soils. On-site geologic risks from earthquakes range from Risk I (lowest) over a majority of the site, to Risk III (next to highest) in the extreme southwest portion of the site. As part of the Geology investigation for this report, an active trace of the Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone has been identified. This is designated as a Special Studies Zone by the State of California Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone Act. This zone is illustrated on Exhibit 12 in the Earth Resources Section of this EIR. The project site is not located in any flood hazard area (Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2/16/83). The area directly northwest of the site is designated as Zone B. This indicates an area that is between limits of the 100-year flood and 500-year flood; or certain areas subject to 100-year flooding with average depths less than one foot or where the contributing drainage area is less than one square mile; or areas protected by levees from the base flood. Noise Element The Noise Element focuses on noise sources within the City, including highways, freeways, railroad, airport and helicopter operations, residential/institutional sources, and oil pumping operations. The project site exists within the 60 Ldn noise contour, with adjoining roadways registering within the 65 Ldn contour (source dated 1974). - A police heliport (one of four heliports in the City) is located near the project site, south of Talbert Avenue and east of Goldenwest Street, which also generates noise in the area. July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.1-12 Recreation Element The Recreation Element provides direction for the acquisition, development and maintenance of the City's public recreation facilities. The goals and policies contained in the element are intended to help the City prioritize its expenditures on park facilities to achieve a system that best meets the recreation needs of the community. The City acknowledges two proposed regional bicycle trails within the project area as identified in the Master Plan of Countywide Bikeways (MPCB). Route Number 31 is identified as a Class II (on-road, striped only) trail which follows Goldenwest Street to Pacific Coast Highway. The trail is not currently existing within the project area. Also identified is Route Number 34 a Class I (off-road) trail within the project area. This route will provide an important linkage to the future Bolsa Chica Linear Park, a regional recreational facility. Huntineton Beach Zonin¢ Ordinance The existing zoning for the site includes the following base district designations: RI - Single-Family Residential R2 - Medium Density Residential R4 - High-Density Residential RA - Residential Agriculture ROS - Recreational Open Space M1 - Light industrial M2 - Industrial MIA - Restricted Manufacturing LU - Limited Use C1 - Neighborhood Commercial C2 - Community Business Q - Qualified Classification OP - Office Professional July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.1-13 Additionally, the following suffixes when attached to a base district indicate further requirements: Civic District (CD): regulates the orderly, harmonious and attractive development of facilities surrounding community facilities districts in order to preserve the character and integrity of the public facility. Prior to issuance of building permits or other required entitlements, developments having the CD suffix are required to be approved by the design review board unless it is of an insignificant nature. Coastal Zone (CZ): provides supplementary regulations and specified permitted uses for those areas in the City of Huntington Beach which lie within the coastal zone. Developments within the coastal zone are required to be in accordance with the policies of the 1976 California Coastal Act. Oil Districts (O and 01): It is the purpose of oil districts (0 and 01) to enable utilization of land for compatible development of normal commercial, residential and industrial surface uses as well as the extraction of hydrocarbon substances from the earth's subsurface. It is also the purpose of these districts to improve the general appearance of all oil sites in order to enhance and improve the scenic beauty and recreational resources of the City, thereby leading to an increase in property values and the economic development of the tourist and recreational industry in the City. "O" districts allow any oil operation except drilling. "01" districts allow drilling of wells in addition to other oil operations. These zoning designations and their distribution across the project site are illustrated on Exhibit No. 3. July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.1-14 4.1.2 IMPACTS On-Site Land Uses Approval and development of the General Plan Amendment will amend the Land Use Element of the existing General Plan. This will result in the conversion of the 768 acre site to residential, mixed development, commercial, industrial and open space uses. Some of these uses do exist on-site presently, but to a much lesser degree. The General Plan Amendment has five different planning areas (A,B,C,D,E) for planning purposes, as illustrated on Exhibit No. 7. Although this project proposes 1,438 units fewer than with the existing General Plan buildout, this project does represent a greater degree of development than what presently exists on-site. This is a significant impact which cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance. Planning Area A, located in the northwest project area, currently exists as oil fields adjacent to a bluffline. Development of the proposed project will phase out these oil activities and introduce both open space and residential land uses which will enhance the disturbed appearance of the area. A Linear Park is to be created along the bluff top, which protects this sensitive area. Planning Area B incorporates the Ellis-Goldenwest quarter section n 4 a g ea p s qand 0 acres directly north of the quarter section. According to the existing General Plan and the proposed Land Use Plan within the quarter section, estate residential uses are planned where the existing American Landscape Company and Huntington Crest Stable currently operate. This will create compatibility with the adjacent existing new residential uses when the landscape company and stable are phased out. There will be a short term compatibility impact which may occur depending on construction phasing. The northern 40 acres will be adjacent to Huntington Central Park. Planning Area C, located in the northeast project area, currently incorporates many different land uses including warehouse buildings, scattered oil tanks and industrial related equipment. The existing light industrial and warehouse buildings east of Gothard Street will be replaced with medium density residential development upon I buildout. This proposed use will be more compatible with respect to the surrounding July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.1-1 S residential land uses in Planning Area B but potentially less compatible with existing industrial to the north. If a scenario occurs such that existing industrial uses cannot be phased out until a much later date, short-term compatibility impacts are not anticipated to be significant because as each area is developed, buffering techniques will be incorporated. Exhibit 11, Community Theme Element, illustrates the placement of community theme walls along the perimeter of each development. The designation for industrial within Planning Area C will be a compatible land use with respect to location adjacent to major streetways and the residential uses proposed for the surrounding areas. While some existing industrial uses may be displaced, this plan will provide for clean, high quality light industrial uses concentrated in one central location within the site, consistent with the type of uses permitted under the MI-A zoning designation. The types of light industrial uses will be defined in future Specific Plans and/or development approvals. Southern Pacific has exclusive rights to the transportation corridor existing within Planning Area C as depicted on Exhibit 7, Proposed Land Use Plan. Active use of the railroad does not go any further south than Talbert Avenue. Development has occurred to the south which makes it unlikely that the corridor will be extended further south of Garfield Avenue. The proposed project will designate the railroad right-of-way as a transportation corridor to allow for the option of future mass transit, trail and railway use. Future Specific Plans will analyze compatibility issues of residential uses adjacent to a transportation corridor. Planning Area D, located in the southwest project area currently exists as vacant/oil production land. Currently, the existing uses in Planning Area D are not in conformance with the existing residential development on the adjacent Ellis- Goldenwest quarter section. The proposed project will bring this area into conformance with the urbanization of surrounding properties by designating the area for low, medium, and medium-high residential and commercial uses. The proposed development will upgrade the appearance of this area and create a well planned sense of community. The southern low density neighborhood will be surrounded by the golf course. July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.1-16 Within this planning area, impacts may continue from service vehicles coming on site for maintenance and/or service of remaining on site producing wells. A potential impact would arise from these vehicles driving through the existing and proposed residential developments. This impact should be mitigated through the routing of maintenance equipment off local streets where possible. Planning Area E, located in the southeast project area incorporates the knoll, the transportation corridor, the Seacliff Village Shopping Center and scattered oil tanks and storage yards. The Seacliff Village will be incorporated into a mixed development land use, which will extend north of Yorktown Avenue and east of Goldenwest Street within the knoll region. In other areas of Planning Area E, a new four acre parcel commercial area will be created near Garfield and Main Streets. This proposed commercial area will displace marginal industrial uses, resulting in a more compatible use with the existing commercial Seacliff Village. This will result in a more unified land use pattern, which will also be more aesthetically pleasing. Additionally, within Planning Area E, industrial is planned for the project south of Garfield and east of Goldenwest. The existing General Plan designates this area for medium density residential. The industrial designation will provide for light industrial uses with a more focused range of allowable uses, making it more compatible with surrounding existing multi-family residential and commercial uses than the current industrial designation. This designation is also more compatible because it has more exposure adjacent to a major intersection and better access from Garfield. These uses will develop more quickly within a consolidated area, allowing for more efficient re-parceling. The existing use of the area is marginal industrial which includes scattered storage tanks. The new designation will not be compatible with the existing marginal industrial uses to the north in Planning Area C. This impact is not considered significant as walls and Garfield Avenue will buffer between new development and existing uses. July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.1-17 r m OR m D gg 7� m � w B4 = o 1 d) N 40OAC it C2 _ PLANNING LAND-USE ACRES DWELLING UNITS L LY. O ARIA 1■■T PLAN l.MAX � ■� M a Ellis Avenue"; eX3 •;:,' w "ti,••a� �' .� „ �� 4 ..,�--..--r,,....�.-,..._ ...,.,_,� »� Avenue"; A a E za aD o4 -.!.-'—... .. e E le 55 Ia :■__ __�_= !c W�_�� __ w 1 .ti w ■r_r.■.r__ \.M_12 iir i u�u�■■■r�i■ �! r :+/ G os 2-6 ' ■ t�S'� —J�/'"A Toiu MIMNG ASU ACQAGI/ ae Iro E 1 , I 4+■ B2 PLANNING LAND-USE t q ( " SE ACRES DWELLING UNITS r---------ob�� E '� ^�`� p AnA un LU.nAM e.P.M 3,DDJ.AC 46 AC /� f W 1 SUISTAIION Lfi I 140 DU 1 C1 ` a f tl im Im _______�' 3,0 DU/AC I I' L V_ i 1 6 s -E _se• Ias Ias 60 AC 11 I lY 5.21DU.AC M O TOTAL INmARFA/ACRIAfiE/ zm dro I �q... I I �,•t 4 ACRE PARK 29 AC 0 •1F INCLUDES J ACRE PARK . 240 DU p ■ . 8.3 DU/AC C_ I O PLANNING LAND-USE ACRES DWELLING UNITS ' C '•u•( ! 'I I C ARIA YMT LY.MM O.P.MNL. q. A2 /! •' M P v I L e1. NO Ode E s R I 60 DU 'I s 2 M V am dJs j' I I 26 AC yr[^i `\ ',i 8.3 DU/AC \` _ll C e M — / O ��__ 90 DU ems. /' ,. ■ MN 1a mD 5aD 3.5 DU/AC `� ' I 5 - M 1,• a25 dv5 E' — e_ MN _ a _ _ao ---.I50'- ■ ` �------------ � / � II TOT PIAMNINe AGREADe az _� A `�-�/ ��------------ _ ;'c a u AMA, IGI ,5� �, e,ti ;s, I I � I, AuowAIM uNm C4 C5 R Aq \� i 1 MH M = I iE INCLUDES 3 ACRE PARK C•1 d ACRE PARK C-S OS �� " B3 20 AC 30 ACES 1� PLANNING LAND-USE ACRES DWELLING UNITS E �• 7 400 DU G35 CU c ,;. AREA u- LV.PUN O.I.MA L ♦ � 23 AC B1 I 165DU 1 zoowac ( IACREPA! ��t( M e azs 2ro ' 3.0 DU/AC 32 AC 7 ACRE PAR a L 23 1W Ie1 c3 E ' 3 ACRE PARK _ ■I G i 5 I' 3 L W 3M a1 56 AC ' ' I D d L n. im no C6 D9 `.� 16 Ac fis Du i - MH s M aa_ _ aas O S` `� 55 DU 2.9 DUAC p i i 4. = ■ _e MN I]_ am say .��� * 3.3 DU AC !N', LI b,�, 6 AC I■I I L Id f0 Po 13 AC �1� - Ln lao ou I\ /IL�L� v os Is \\ "�_.—_ 1.�.■ r ..■ .■. ..�\\�.\_.\t•�1.■�..1.�..�. •,.: y`..•-__—.`_� - �I77 TOTAL MNHING AMA ACfGGE/ ���—_ /7 AILOWAMl UNIR / M1 I C D5 D6 ' E1 C E6, ♦1' Garfield Avenue `/ dE INCLUDES J ACRE PARK } A ' ♦ �'. M 4 A // PLANNING LAND-USE ACRES DWELLING UNITS T 22 AC 7 AC M 13nAC `� T5 " 16 AC i♦% ARIA uND Lu nu+ D.P.wLz 22 AC 155 DU ' e I M le iss_ am 12.5 CU,AC i 260 DU 9 7 DU/AC z6s ou 22 AC / 1-20 Ct0 .r' �\=_��------J `------ 12.0 DU/AC ; ' 20 owac i�. 135 — -- D2 Dq ��------1�* ----- ------ a [ TOTAL I AMNING AMA AAC—WI/ 11a 7e5 L 23 AC / 14 'S /ya F' AuowAMt YNUs ISO DU 14 AC D7 E3 7 v,' }, E2 ■ DRAND TOTAL lee 4410 esDu'Ac 100 Du I 7.0 DUAC \�•••••�••` L 1H M M ■ ' / \ 14 AC 9 AC �i.ay,^ a AC me rxmlber of guide f Ir development. opment.on the Land Use Plop 3 ACRE PP1iK x It. SIIaO serve aS a Ide for dev ♦c_- 80 DU 85 DU f r A:, 70 DU W ^t• 5.8 DU/AC :�• 9.4 DU/AC s » 8.8 DU;AC D / 111♦�, a `: '� I D. Mng wits may be transferred from a DIar"rig mit a units �__�' +.. .■�.■_.■s..■ VAhin the Sartre MdTLnVg Area•so long as the mcNI fum 5 number of dweRng unih allowed by General Plan for each / j Clay`-gnue � �J Clay Avenue Planning unit Is not exceeded and so long as the total number d +ff)) of weR Nh ng u alocated for that Planning re Area is not ♦♦ , exceeded. P . ■ MD STATISTICAL SUMMARY �srA1I m eao 53 AC � "RA ■ m fF © avDKirvu Ira Iola t' 41 olrmli ,w Isu ♦ C EE D3 ` MX Ln-w xw z ro L - 63,AC ♦♦ MD MsooTloA R v .Ts 370 DU 5.9 DUTAC ` © coMMLRcuI n IEj nDlmmAl s. ♦ -� - Yorktown Avenue os OPFN9ACL w •♦ Mlo ♦♦/ N �PuxR..7I��D�Wvv� Ii�R+� C \.�••�.\�•\_..�■.�"''•• � EXHIBIT 7 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH PROPOSED LAND USE PLAN 0 0 0 o d R i FO :w w Roe 7I14/1989 As development occurs within the project area, potential short term compatibility impacts may arise from new residential communities adjacent to old industrial areas including oil production areas. These impacts are not considered significant because existing roadways will separate these different uses. Additionally, community theme walls are proposed to screen all residential communities from adjacent uses. Regarding oil production activities, mitigation is proposed in the Oil Facilities Chapter to buffer adjacent existing residential development. Ownership Approval and development of the General Plan Amendment will potentially create project-specific impacts to the General Plan designation of property owned by a number of individuals. Implementation of the proposed project may result in the recycling of oil related storage use to higher value commercial-industrial business. However, in a long term perspective, property values will rise because of more unified approach to planning and development and due to establishing land use types more appropriate for current market conditions. Future Specific Plans will address potential displacement impacts to owners of existing industrial uses. After implementation of the mitigation measure, project-specific impacts will be reduced to a level of insignificance. Surroundine Land Uses Land uses immediately adjacent to the project site include undeveloped land, oil operations, the City equestrian center, Sully Miller Lake, Seacliff Country Club golf course, the Civic Center, the high school, residential uses and industrial uses in-the Gothard Industrial Corridor. This is made up of existing uses such as an automobile repair complex on the northwest corner of Ellis and Gothard. The police heliport lies behind that use. Industrial uses continue north on Gothard all the way to Edinger Avenue. July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.1-19 The majority of vacant land surrounding the project site lies to the north and to the west. This surrounding area is characterized by Huntington Central Park to the north and the Bolsa Chica wetlands and proposed Linear Park to the west. Within Planning Area A, 26 acres of open space are proposed to be added to the linear park along the western project boundary will help mitigate potential land use conflicts with existing oil operations. This open space will offer future residents pleasant views from on-site into the surrounding area. Additionally, 40-acres of open space/recreational uses are proposed on-site north of the Ellis-Goldenwest quarter section. It could be used for passive picnic areas, equestrian trails or a golf course. Sully-Miller Lake, which lies adjacent to Ellis Avenue on the north, appears as a deep pit and is surrounded by generally open fields. It also provides a sense of open space which will be compatible with the adjacent low density residential uses proposed within Planning Area C. The low density residential area proposed for the project in Planning Area D will positively impact views from the golf course and the existing single-family residences in the Clay Avenue neighborhood. No negative impacts are anticipated to surrounding land uses with the incorporation of the landscape treatment mitigation. I The Civic Center and high school surrounding the project area to the south will interface with the proposed mixed development planned north of Yorktown Avenue, between Goldenwest and Main Streets. Within Planning Area E, the mixed development designation will provide compatibility with these surrounding land uses. I i City of Huntington Beach General Plan Land Use Element Approval and development of the General Plan Amendment will amend the existing General Plan Land Use Element on land use designations on approximately 315 acres, or forty percent of lands within the study area. Approximately 561 acres will be July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.1-20 designated for residential uses at densities ranging from 3 units per acre to 20 units per acre. Approximately 54 acres for new business and industrial development will be designated to provide a focal point for employment. Additionally, 11 acres for neighborhood retail facilities will be designated to conveniently serve both existing and new residential development. The General Plan Amendment will allocate lands to be designated as permanent public open space. These include areas within Huntington Central Park, the Bolsa Chica Linear Park, and local neighborhood parks. The proposed Land Use Plan is consistent with planned arterial highway alignments and improvements. The following table illustrates a comparison between the existing General Plan and the proposed Land Use Plan: TABLE 3 General Plan vs Proposed Land Use Plan Land Use General Proposed Net Acre Category Plan Acres Plan Acres Change Residential 465 561 +96 Mixed Development 0 53 +53 Commercial 67 11 -56 Office/Professional 16 0 -16 Industrial 124 54 - 70 Resource Production 42 0 -42 Open Space _L4 89 +35 Total Acres 768 768 As indicated on Table No. 3, the major revisions to the existing General Plan include i changes to Industrial, Resource Production, Planned Community, and i Office/Professional land uses categories. The proposed Land Use Plan reduces the Industrial acreage in response to current market conditions, which indicates weak demand for industrial uses because of the area's distance from the freeway system. Resource production is removed as a separate land use category as oil production facilities will be phased out in conjunction with residential development. This allows for greater compatibility with the existing residential area to the west of the July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.1-21 Resource Production area. Oil production will still be permitted as an interim use until development occurs. The Office/Professional category has been removed as a separate land use, due to the study area's limited visibility and traffic levels compared to the major commercial arteries in the City such as Beach Boulevard and Warner Avenue, where office development potential is greater. The proposed Land Use Plan has added a new category called mixed development. This will include 20 acres of commercial uses and 33 acres of residential use at medium to medium-high densities. Open Space acreage has increased by 65 percent, from 54 acres in the existing General Plan to 89 acres in the Proposed Land Use Plan. The overall effect of the General Plan Amendment will redistribute planned residential, commercial, industrial and open space uses to more accurately reflect current development opportunities. The amendment will also increase compatibility with surrounding land uses, while being sensitive to existing landforms and development constraints. No impacts to the Land Use Element are anticipated. Circulation Element Buildout of the proposed project will implement the policies of the Circulation Element. Gothard Street is proposed to be realigned with Crystal Street and associated arterial highways consistent with the existing General Plan Circulation Element. The planned road capacities have been evaluated based on proposed land uses and amended as required to accommodate ultimate projected traffic from both existing and proposed development in the region. Additionally, a current and future Class II bicycle circulation plan will be included. Please refer to the Traffic/Circulation section of this EIR for a complete discussion of the transportation impacts associated with the proposed project. The Circulation Element will be amended to reflect the required road and signal improvements based on July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.1-22 projected traffic volumes as shown on Exhibit 8. This is further discussed in the Traffic/Circulation section of this EIR. A transportation corridor has been shown along the existing railway line to accommodate possible future use for rail, mass transit and trails. The transportation corridor is discussed in more detail in the Traffic/Circulation Section of this EIR. Scenic Highways Element No scenic highways exist on-site. The Transportation/Circulation section of this EIR discusses roadway improvements proposed for all roadways bordering the site. As long as proposed improvements are in compliance with requirements for Landscape Corridors (Goldenwest Street), and Local Scenic Routes (planned realignment of Edwards Street), no significant impacts to the Scenic Highways Element are expected from implementation of the proposed project. Housing Element Buildout of the General Plan Amendment will result in the construction of up to 4,410 dwelling units, encompassing a total of 561 acres. This reduces the maximum number of dwelling units planned for the area by 25 percent. The proposed Plan provides for development in a range of densities to provide housing opportunities for I a broad range of needs. The proposed project will cumulatively impact the goals of the Housing Element by reducing the housing stock by 25% which is considered significant. i Regarding low-moderate income housing, given the popular, coastal location of the project, at this time the feasibility of low income housing cannot be determined. Low income housing becomes more feasible as higher density units are allowed, however impacts to some environmental issues increases. For a more detailed discussion of potential impacts to housing, please refer to the Population/Housing section in this EIR. July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF CPA 422102.009 4.1-23 I Community Facilities Element Buildout of the General Plan Amendment would place increased demands on existing infrastructure resulting from increased housing and population. The Community Facilities Element provides a master plan of improvement for water and sewer service, storm drainage, and gas, electric and telephone service. The CIP will establish a phasing plan for Community Facilities. Implementation will establish funding responsibilities for Community Facilities. Specific impacts to these services are discussed in the Public Services and Utilities section of this EIR. The Community Facilities Element will be amended through adoption of the phasing plan. No significant impacts to the Community Facilities Element are anticipated. Coastal Element Only a small portion of the project site is located within the Coastal Zone. Implementation of the proposed project will not result in any impacts to the Coastal Element because the portion which is within the Coastal Zone is along the bluff. This is designated as permanent open space. Open Space/Conservation Element A major goal of this Element is to preserve and protect outstanding geographical and topographical features. On-site grading for this development could potentially impact existing swales. The proposed project is designed to preserve and enhance the natural swales as open space corridors, while still allowing improvements required for landscaping, drainage, sewer lines and access. With implementation of mitigation measures 4, 5, 6 and 7, the impacts to swales will be reduced to a level of insignificance. However, grading of other parts of the site will likely be significant. Another goal of this Element is to encourage beautification of oil producing areas and restoration of non-productive oil land. It is not known how many, if any, oil wells will remain on-site upon buildout. Implementation of the General Plan Amendment will result in the gradual phasing out of oil production in the area. This Element will be amended to designate permanent public open space in the Linear July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.1-24 SECTIONS ° a y o W Ve 400s c GENERAL PLAN � B L C m Ellis Avenue 60 fP r es.�}�' J es�e• 00 s I s E I B SIDEMA,K i C WEWIE ----------laaA E 46 AC AA MAJOR ARTERIAL HIGHWAY s WMADon_—__--- I , GOLOENWES! STREET �_-- L GARFIELD AVENUE -'--- I 60 AC I , M I er I C C 29 AC _ I LDEWAIR r r Az e 0 .IKE LAW 1 l M I 1 E 7 AC BB PRIMARY HIGHWAY 26 AC \ > ELMS AVENUE I MAIN 1 STREET YORKiOWNWN AVENUE \\ 1 C MH O$ E 20 AC a0 ACC a 'r 23 AC \_ I I a a sss•--}r I SID: l 55 AC uKE UNE s II A A 32 AC C C — C E 56 Ac OS 16 AC a A I = 6MH I CC SECONDARY HIGHWAY A EEREEi 13 AC 1 i � fLLIS L115 AVENUE GOTNARD STREET B C Garfield Avenue AV <<00� 1Mc i 7AC 2MC i 1MH 3 AC A A I C CMc B 4A 22 AC c 23 AC I 14 AC L M \ 14 AC 9 AC 8 AC C%Y Avenue Cloy Avenue 1 , MD 1 53 AC c 'oo 63 AC B Yorktown venue B m m N C a EXHIBIT 8 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH CIRCULATION ELEMENT HOO LPL Y=SEACU FF AREA :es ass see 7I74I1989 • N a �}}:?F:?k,�,°i¢�h"., .o:;,ui?F:�M.�:.. wti,?:+z a'�;Yf���`� `fib. ISM '+.?`a.+• �` J ^i'v?riitr:� .F +'v��+ vx � 0000000000 CLASS I BIKE TRAIL • wy;�+.. ,Fx..a.: r�h;s.;n„, ,..fit::." ..'�. � vim • V �t:%i.?:a•4 •• ••• .....:.... v _O rI CLASS II BIKE TRAIL f+ •.•::: QQCQO° .. .. �� .... .n.......?..??:,.n.:: .:::� :., ;'j:Y�:::^.>�::::�:::?.}`f}f.}h::!:i:•1G�5?trf • f.nv ,nn •1• •i:: ::::: •� • • N,.N••• ■ • �•N�••••1��•.•N�NN�•■�NNN•■�t•N•���••■t••i•' •• .• \ • � �* e"' __ •i «,.,e ,,,,, �_, 'r Ellis Avenue � EQUESTRIAN TRAIL 1 • �• ::' \ �� OPEN SPACE DEVELOPMENT RECREATION AREA • • �m■ M 29 AC m . 0 4 I ; f•• 240 DU D : .]7 f•%• \ aaDuuc fI ;� SCENIC CORRIDOR • ■ (• \ so Du TRANSPORTATION\ I ' Ea /; /�■ s. DwAc >�� i i= �BEL BiA�I TRAIL CORRIDOR ■ y� �- • / •�. 7l` PROPOSED PARK LOCATION ;�I'I ••+• \\ fit G+ �' •` MH M l' ems••' a POTENTIAL SCHOOL SITE 400 DU 425 DU �•. ....... ``�- j 20 DU/AC 14.2 DUI •• •::•$.pv j `� 32 AC I 3 ACRE PA� �•� mn a4:,.t„h �N� « l.•N•"i'• •N•N�.•�•NON• • ::,y;.:: •Q�: C Gafield Avenue r. :.hqo.• M M a A '• :::}t::: b:• IS AC I Ci zzsou 7AC M I MH 16AC +' 1zs DwAC ( 22 AC 13 AC tss Du'\ 265 Du I 20 ouWC 22 AC 9.7 DU AC 12. Leo Qo C ------------ -- L L 23 AC 14 AC 150 DU - - _ 700 DU `.v� L 8.5 DWAC = M 7.0 DWAC P 14 A C 9 AC - 3 ACRE ARK B AC _ -- so 0 U 85 DU_ 7 0 x`\ DU 9.4 /DU A 1 C 9.8 DU'5.8 ! AC t \x` DU AC Cr 0 Y e Y C Av enue u I A enua ve n A 1 - _ - m - MD Vl 53 AC =s€' m .R v L 63.A C 370 DU 5.9 DUAC •N......::::::FiiiiiiE:;F'�:: i::lCr.::c:.:y,i;::Fci:9i:::?.i::-;:,,... .;::.u.. ....,,..-::;::p3Fl�{i�:;::,-;;::;;c::;c •N•�. v. e are: tt Yor kfown venue m m _ N C _ D == EX HIBIT HI BI T9 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH OPEN SPACE ELEMENT Park and adjacent to Central Park. Neighborhood parks will also be designated. This is shown on Exhibit 9 Open Space Element. No impacts to this portion of this Element are anticipated. Exhibit 9, the Open Space Element, depicts a region of open space development. Open Space development areas are special resource areas, in this case containing both oil production and natural swales. Permitted uses include open space and other kinds of uses, including residential, which maximize open space benefits by incorporating natural resources into the development plan. Seismic-Safety Element The proposed project will comply with the intent of the Seismic Safety Element by undergoing all required geologic and seismic safety procedures and programs. A more detailed discussion of geologic characteristics of the site is found in the Earth Resources section of this EIR. No impacts to the Seismic Safety Element are anticipated with the proposed project. Noise Element Specific noise impacts, both on-site and traffic related, are discussed in the Noise section of this EIR. The proposed project will comply with the intent of the Noise Element by conforming with all applicable short- and long-term noise standards. No impacts to the Noise Element are anticipated. Recreation Element The Recreation Element indicates a park goal of five acres per 1,000 population. Development in accordance with the General Plan Amendment would generate a need for up to 54.4 acres of park land. Implementation of the proposed project will provide 89 acres of parkland within the project area. Development of the proposed equestrian trail system within the project area will link the Central Park Stables to the proposed Linear Park. This will provide for an July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.1-27 expanded recreation system for equestrian uses. These trails will be open to the public and will contribute toward the enhancement of the City's recreational environment. The City's Master Plan of Bikeways, illustrates that the majority of arterials in the study area have provisions for bicycle lanes. Bicycle lanes are not currently provided along segments of Ellis Avenue and Goldenwest Street. These segments will include bike lanes on the buildout scenario. The Master Plan of Countywide Bikeways routes (No. 31 and No. 34) are illustrated on Exhibit No. 9. These bikeway routes have been incorporated into the proposed plan. Implementation of the proposed project will add significant park acreage, therefore no significant impacts to the Recreation Element are anticipated. Huntineton Beach Zonine Ordinance The zone changes for this project proposal have not been identified at this time. They will be addressed in future Specific Plans or zone changes as necessary. These actions will be accompanied by either a supplemental environmental document or an addendum to this EIR. 4.1.3 MITIGATION MEASURES On-Site Land Uses 1. Prior to issuance of building permits for individual tracts, the applicant should demonstrate that service vehicle access to all remaining operating oil wells on- site is monitored through the existing or proposed residential tracts. 2. All potential buyers and renters of on-site residences should be notified of-the effects resulting from on-site and off-site oil production activities. The notification should state the frequency and locations of maintenance and service operations. The notification should indicate that noise levels from oil activities may also significantly increase during these times. July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.1-28 Ownership 3. The City should adopt a redevelopment plan or other strategy to assemble encyclopedia lots and other non-buildable parcels of land in Planning Areas B, C & E. Surrounding Land Uses 4. Prior to the approval of tentative tracts adjacent to the Seacliff Country Club and golf course, preliminary landscape plans and development /open space edge treatments should be submitted for City approval. These plans should provide for the review of planting compatibility along the relevant south edge of the development. Land Use Policies 5. In order to retain the existing swale character, future specific plans should incorporate policies which specify the amount of slope, cut and fill, improvements for storm drainage and include a schematic design for recreational and open space treatment within drainage swales. 6. Only limited grading activities or development should be allowed within areas encompassing natural swales on-site. This should be limited to changes required to install access roads, utility and storm drainage lines and landscaping to enhance the natural condition of the swale areas. 7. Detailed grading plans for all development on-site should be submitted to and approved by the Planning Department prior to the issuance of grading permits. Such plans should show all natural swales on-site and the areas to be graded. 8. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the Department of Fish and Game should be notified of grading activities on-site that are scheduled to commence in the swales, in order to preclude the possible elimination of wetland areas July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.1-29 under the jurisdiction of the Department of Fish and Game as further specified in the Biological Resources section of this EIR. 4.1.4 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE Approval and development of the General Plan Amendment will result in the conversion of 768-acres of land to urbanized uses that are at a much greater degree of development than what is presently existing. This impact to on-site land uses cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance and remains as a significant unavoidable impact. Also remaining as significant impacts are effects to topography and the housing element due to the 25% decrease in the housing stock. These impacts cannot be reduced to a level of insignificance and remain as a significant unavoidable impact. Implementation of the above recommended mitigation measures will mitigate to a level of insignificance impacts related to existing swales, surrounding land uses, ownership and land use policies. The proposed project will, in conjunction with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, contribute to a cumulative impact upon the conversion of land to urbanized uses. July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.1-30 HOLLY - SEACLIFF GPA Aesthetics CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 4.2 4.2 AESTHETICS 4.2.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS The following is a discussion of the visual resources which comprise features in the project area. Site photographs are included within this chapter - and their orientation is illustrated in Exhibit 10, Visual Resources Site/Photo Index. Natural Features Ravines The Holly-Seacliff project area is characterized by a variety of natural landforms. Two areas of natural ravines traverse the site in the northern area which contribute to the varied topography. These natural drainage areas are illustrated in photograph Nos. 1 to 4. One ravine crosses Ellis Avenue between Edwards and Goldenwest Street forming a gully in the terrain. The slope of the land into this ravine is gradual and ranges from five to twenty percent. The second swale begins in the Ellis-Goldenwest quarter section, crossing Goldenwest Street and draining in a northeasterly direction into the Sully Miller Lake. This ravine is visible along Ellis Avenue between Goldenwest and Gothard Street and extends across Gothard Street in the eastern project area. The topography gradually slopes downward to the bottom of the ravine. The slope of the land into this ravine ranges from five to thirty percent. These ravines presently carry run-off from within the study area as well as from east of the project area. These drainage areas have been the subject of illegal dumping of trash and debris which has also degraded the visual quality of the area. July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.2-1 ;�► , - .,- SULLY CF-C _ ----- LEGEND TdILLER .. 1_.. LAKE' s t ' I }4, 3 j7 r ENUEt VIEW DIRECTION PHOTOGRAPH NUMBER 1 I 17 : - - 1 1 A Lu \— — — �•— ROW WIND S.. - ; OIL PRODUCTION > • OI PRODUCTI — 0v G" T 13 a TION I I GARFIELD AVENUE KNOLL OIL PRODUCTION INDUST — - �� 1 _ sr� I - - r AL OIL — EACLI F •,� I 5 _� n j �. PRODUCTION �y� VIL O FICE ` J r— r. k q { ` 1 I y l \ f • \� Eli E�LI EAi_3 1 ) �i� M EXHIBIT 10 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH EXISTING USES / VISUAL RESOURCES i 1 VIEW LOOKING OFF-SITE AT RAVINE CROSSING ELLIS AVENUE ON THE NORTH IMMIM i a �- IIyy w I. MEN 2 VIEW LOOKING NORTH EAST AT RAVINE CROSSING GOLDENWEST STREET i CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH SITE PHOTOGRAPHS I = ' Tw M1 .a ., -� ,� -.•, _ __, a. "; ` .� n ,,,tee. ti -Dal i• • • ♦ • ♦ . • ♦ ♦ ♦ • • • • • , • 41 it f Ty.� ¢� •.I1.` +may � ..17Z4'Y AL �. down y M • • • • • HOLLY- SEACLIFF AREA • ' 6 LONG RANGE VIEW LOOKING WEST TOWARD WINDROWS FROM GOTHARD STREET jags M A p o 7 VIEW LOOKING WEST OFF-SITE FROM BLUFF LINE TOWARDS BOLSA CHICA LOWLANDS CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH SITE PHOTOGRAPHS HOLLY-SEACUFF MEA i k,,:?:'. - - ��� aP �v n(.y�"Y N."+ h ,�a, �yi' "�'.•'lKr-mot� �.r S VIEW LOOKING WEST TO THE TOP AT KNOLL 4 aa 9 VIEW LOOKING NORTH WEST AT INTERSECTION OF CLAY AND GOLDENWEST STREETS CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH SITE PHOTOGRAPHS HOLff-BEACUFF AREA FORM\ N II 10 VIEW LOOKING SOUTH FROM KNOLL AT SURROUNDING 11 VIEW LOOKING EAST FROM KNOLL AT STORAGE TANKS URBAN CHARACTER AND EXISTING RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OFF-SITE ZV RM a t x ..' -,. ax=` 6� "..� ,tr "`�•�,-...A-r�'y t tic�.. i. 12 VIEW LOOKING NORTH DOWN STEWART AVENUE 13 VIEW LOOKING NORTH TOWARDS ESTATE RESIDENTIAL AT MIXED INDUSTRIAL USES DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE ELLIS-GOLDENWEST QUARTER SECTION CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH SITE PHOTOGRAPHS nMff=3 E ° CUF MEA � 1 0 ;14 b"M x, r.Sa - ... gam... N. 14 VIEW LOOKING EAST FROM INTERSECTION OF ELLIS AVENUE AND EDWARDS STREET s r 5 VIEW LOOKING NORTH ACROSS CHEVRON OIL FIELD CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH SITE PHOTOGRAPHS [RHOLff-S[AC UFF AREARv a 7,4!16 VIEW LOOKING WEST TOWARDS EDISON SUBSTATION AND BOLSA CHICA LOWLANDS ` , � __ - i. •a�d4 rb` ��7�h ,.-. �_- �,evd_�iia.....�^a�wcYy,. 17 VIEW LOOKING NORTH FROM ADJACENT GOLF COURSE TO OIL FIELDS CITY OF HUNTINGTON -BEACH SITE PHOTOGRAPHS 4 a +-r r HOLLY-4FACLOFF AREA FORM*% Y Ir . n � L I s q _ � �..,.. y..,-,.ram' "�' - J!/ ♦ �, t _ u r. a`,+s. F,v..' .ter .,- _. ♦ ..., .- .�r„ +" �,}.,,++�+..�, -..,:Y-'r'�St , F- � -yi� 'a� ,�:«. _ n HOLLY- SEACLI FF AREA ` ' 18 VIEW LOOKING SOUTH FROM OIL FIELDS TOWARD EXISTING SEACLIFF GOLF COURSE T � d � t � e - � 4 `i - fax,. ^.�n`y ..�hw� ... <. ✓",�, "'k 3 3Y. �am� �aarc=r �,y �t �v:,- ` x �� .� `. 3•,,..�k� �a y�y� _ ��r� .rv '�,,�r�s 19 VIEW LOOKING EAST OFF-SITE AT DISPERSED STORAGE YARDS AND RESIDENTIAL 20 VIEW LOOKING NORTHWEST AT INDUSTRIAL _- COMMUNITIES STORAGE AREAS ADJACENT TO THE KNOLL CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH SITE PHOTOGRAPHS HOLLV-3FACUFF MEA b r e.g 21 LONG RANGE VIEW OF RAILROAD OVERCROSSING 22 VIEW LOOKING NORTH OF RAILROAD ON THE LLIS AVENUE EAST SIDE OF GOTHARD STREET AL 24 VIEW LOOKING SOUTH ACROSS SEACLIFF GOLF COURSE 23 VIEW LOOKING WEST ACROSS MAIN STREET AT SEACLIFF VILLAGE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH SITE PHOTOGRAPHS 'Lfl=V=3 E ° CUF MEA i 4 25 VIEW FROM OIL FIELD LOOKING SOUTH ACROSS SEACLIFF GOLF COURSE TO ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD ' 3 d V. a n' 54" i 26 VIEW LOOKING WEST AT INTERSECTION OF GARFIELD AVENUE AND GOLDENWEST STREET CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH SITE PHOTOGRAPHS HOLLY=SEAC UFF � � � ° _�� ;x t, c , 27 VIEW LOOKING NORTH EAST AT INDUSTRIAL STORAGE YARDS ALONG GARFIELD AVENUE 28 VIEW LOOKING NORTHWEST AT INTERSECTION OF GARFIELD,GOTHARD AND MAIN STREET 1 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH SITE PHOTOGRAPHS r r . R pow x f i { v Y, .'s 3�` .r�,�. „ #f x " v 29 VIEW LOOKING NORTH ALONG GARFIELD AVENUE AND MAIN STREET 30 VIEW LOOKING WEST ALONG INTERSECTION OF ELLIS AVENUE AND GOLDENWEST STREET CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH SITE PHOTOGRAPHS HOLLY-SEACUFF AREA i yy • y lT y. y c Mw 7 Nil - OR- �# � w 31 VIEW LOOKING AT A COUNTRY VIEW ESTATE RESIDENCE 32 VIEW OF EQUESTRIAN TRAILS WITHIN COUNTRY VIEW ESTATES a a� I tr _ I 33 VIEW LOOKING SOUTH ACROSS ELLIS AVENUE TOWARD 34 VIEW LOOKING SOUTH OFF—SITE TO CIVIC CENTER ACROSS QUARTER SECTION AND NATURAL RAVINE YORKTOWN AVENUE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH SITE PHOTOGRAPHS Windrows (Introduced Species) A windrow of eucalyptus exists near the eastern project boundary which lines the western side of Gothard Street near Garfield Avenue as depicted in photograph Nos. 5 and 6. The windrow is also visible from the northern project area in the vicinity of Ellis Avenue and Gothard Street. The windrow covers an area characterized by vacant, gently hilly terrain. The total acreage of windrows on-site encompasses approximately 17.25 acres of land. Within the central portion of the Ellis-Goldenwest quarter section exists a grove of eucalyptus trees. These two areas comprise the only areas with much tree coverage. The remaining vacant areas of land are covered by non-native ruderal annual grassland. The windrows comprise ornamental tree species planted by the Holly Sugar Company in the 1920s. These trees are non-native and their habitat value has not been determined at this time. For a more detailed discussion please refer to the Biological Resources section in this EIR. Bolsa Chica Lowlands & Bluffs The Bolsa Chica lowlands comprise a large area of resource habitat adjacent to the western project area and are highly visible from Pacific Coast Highway and the uplands in the City. As illustrated in photograph No. 7, oil production activity exists within this region. The presence of dikes, oil pumps and storage tanks strongly influences the character of the area. The lowlands extend west from the bluff below Edwards Street to Pacific Coast Highway. The topography of this area is generally flat, with occasional ponds and marsh areas which constitute the Bolsa Bay. Residential developments border the bluffs to the north and south. The lowland area lies between two mesas. On the northwest side of the marsh, bluffs rise to an upland area called the Bolsa Chica Mesa. To the southeast (project region), another line of bluffs extends between Pacific Coast Highway and Edwards Street. The bluff top area here is called the Huntington Beach Mesa. Views to the bluffs July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.2-4 constitute a scenic resource as denoted in the city's Local Coastal Plan. However, at the present time, there are oil wells, pipelines, tanks as well as a Southern California Edison Substation located along the bluff area. The bluffs are the site of the proposed Bolsa Chica Linear Park, which will provide a vital open space and recreational link between Huntington Central Park and the Pacific Ocean. Knoll The highest point within the City of Huntington Beach is found at the knoll located in the center of the site as illustrated in photograph No. 8. From this vantage point, one can see panoramic views of the City's physical characteristics. The surrounding area has an urbanized appearance. Photograph Nos. 9 to 12 depict the views from the top of the knoll. Residential housing (both new developments and established neighborhoods) is visible to the west and east and mixed industrial uses are found to the north. Ocean views can also be seen from this vantage point. Generally the surrounding area appears flat, with few tall buildings appearing on the skyline. The major streets in close proximity include Clay Street, Goldenwest Street and Garfield Avenue. Man-Made Features Oil/Industrial Land Uses The Holly-Seacliff site is located at the northeast edge of the Huntington Beach oil field. Views of oil wells, tanks and oil-related facilities and equipment dominate this area. The existing zoning for the area allows oil facilities through an oil district overlay. The visual character of the project area reflects the transition from oil operations and undeveloped land to residential and commercial development. This scenario is already gradually occurring within the Ellis-Goldenwest quarter section as depicted in photograph Nos. 13 and 14. Oil wells are partially buffered within the residential subdivisions through the use of screen walls. The most intense oil operations occur in the southwestern portion of the project area July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.2-5 which are depicted in photograph Nos. 15 to 18. Chevron U.S.A. has exclusive use of a 119-acre oil production area along the bluff line, with their facilities extending south to the Seacliff Country Club development. This area also contains a proliferation of overhead utility lines. Other industrial uses such as heavy equipment storage areas line the eastern side of Goldenwest Street between Garfield Street and Ellis Avenue. Motorists traveling along Goldenwest Street are screened from this direct view by a six-foot brick wall. Along Garfield Avenue, just east of Goldenwest Street, pumping equipment, oil tanks and other heavy equipment are visible as depicted in photograph No. 27. These structures are highly visible to motorists. Other existing marginal industrial uses in this area include an auto repair shop, a truck yard and similar uses. These uses may continue to exist as adjacent development occurs. The sprawling nature of storage yards and industrial equipment is further evident along Main Street at the east side of the intersection with Clay Avenue as depicted in photograph No. 19. A medium density neighborhood is within view behind this area. A variety of storage tanks line the intersection of Clay Avenue and Stewart Avenue near the knoll as depicted in photograph No. 20. They comprise a very prominent visual feature contributing to the unattractive industrialized character of the area. Railroad Railroad tracks are found in the project area, as depicted in photograph Nos. 21 and 22, where the tracks cross Ellis Avenue east of Gothard Street. The tracks continue southward into the project area and are visible on the east side of Gothard Street near the existing windrow area. The tracks terminate near the intersection of Gothard Street, Garfield Avenue and Main Street. Within the project area, the railroad is not currently in use. At one time the spur was utilized for building i construction on the Holly property. However, the railroad tracks extending north of Ellis Avenue outside the project area are still currently utilized by Southern Pacific Railroad for deliveries to several lumberyards and other industrial uses along the Gothard industrial corridor. July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.2-6 Commercial Center The Seacliff Village shopping center, located on the corner of Yorktown and Main Street, is the only existing commercial center on-site. The shopping center illustrated in photograph No. 23, incorporates a rustic wharf style design that enhances the visual appearance of the area. Golf Course The most prominent visual feature of the Seacliff Country Club is the 18 hole golf course. The course is surrounded by the Chevron oil fields to the north, exclusive estates and townhomes to the south, Seapointe Street on the west and an existing residential neighborhood near Clay Street on the east. The character of the property is illustrated in photograph Nos. 24 and 25. The existing oil field abuts the golf course in the central portion of the site. Walls screen the neighborhood to the east and mature trees and bushes screen views of the oil fields from the golf course. As illustrated in photograph Nos. 24 and 25, the golf course provides a sense of landscaped, maintained open space, which enhances the visual character of the area. Major Intersections The key intersection of the project is centrally located where Garfield Avenue and Goldenwest Street meet. This intersection and the surrounding character are illustrated in photograph Nos. 26 and 27. This intersection is dominated by several large storage tanks. The other corners are occupied by a landscape company, a_ heavy industrial storage yard and vacant land. Another important intersection is located in the northeast project area, where Garfield Avenue, Main Street and Gothard Avenue join. This area appears wooded in photograph Nos. 28 and 29 because of the presence of the windrows. July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.2-7 The intersection of Ellis Avenue and Goldenwest street is depicted in photograph No. 30. Scattered tanks, a horse stable and vacant parcels surround the intersection. Huntington Central Park Huntington Central Park is a multi-purpose recreational facility incorporating a central library, a 25-acre equestrian center, an 18-acre nature center, and other recreational facilities. The park is currently 216 acres in size and eventually will be expanded to 380 acres. It lies adjacent to the northern project boundary and encompasses areas along both sides of Goldenwest Street, north of Ellis Avenue. The character of the park is serene, with views of tree and shrub woodland, public trails, placid lakes and a variety of wildlife. Huntington Lake is located adjacent to the equestrian center on the west side of Goldenwest Street. It is not visible from the street but can be seen from the interior area of the park. Talbert Lake is located on the east side of Goldenwest Street and extends a greater length than Huntington Lake. Both of these lakes are visual resources which enhance the character of the park. Existing Residential Within the Holly-Seacliff area there are several recently completed residential subdivisions, which contribute to the urbanization process occurring within the area. Both Country View Estates and Central Park Estates, located within the Ellis- Goldenwest quartersection, provide an estate type of character, located among equestrian facilities and oil drilling facilities. Photograph Nos. 31 and 32 depict the character of the Country View Estates development. Oil recovery still occurs adjacent to various homes in Central Park Estates. The edge of this development is illustrated in photograph No 33. The two developments encompass approximately 15 acres each, for a total of 30 acres. Since this particular area is generally flat, the homes are quite visible from a distance. July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.2-8 Surrounding Character The Huntington Central Park will eventually encompass over 360 acres for public use and is located to the north of the site, on Goldenwest Street between Ellis Avenue and Slater Avenue. Attractions include picnic and barbecue facilities, three children's playgrounds, six miles of walking/bicycle trails and lakes where fishing is permitted. Other recreational amenities adjacent to the site include the Huntington Central Park stables, a well equipped, 25-acre equestrian facility operated by the City. The equestrian hunt course is visible from Goldenwest Street. The Bolsa Chica lowlands make up a significant portion of the area bordering the site on the west. At this time, the land is primarily undeveloped with oil drilling facilities scattered along the horizon. Wetlands occurring within these areas are an important biological resource, providing a unique ecosystem habitat that supports a diversity of species. A variety of land uses surround the Holly-Seacliff area on the south. Most proximate to the project site is the Seacliff community, which incorporates scenic landscaping in its entry from Goldenwest Street and Palm Avenue. A landscaped median and mature palm trees line Palm Avenue, giving the community an ocean resort-like appearance. It is buffered from the adjacent oil operations by means of high walls around the perimeter of Palm Avenue. There is access to the Seacliff Country Club and golf course via Palm Avenue. Townhomes and exclusive estates make up the residential component of this community. The western side of this area has distant bluff-top views of the ocean. Further southwest of the project area are community features such as the Civic Center, depicted in photograph No. 34, and the Huntington Beach High School near Main Street and Yorktown Avenue. The Civic Center is a large, very prominent building complex featuring a modern architectural design. Urbanization continues westward to the historic downtown district along Main Street. Established residential neighborhoods are clustered throughout the area as depicted in photograph No. 35. July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.2-9 South of the Holly-Seacliff area, mixed land uses typical of an urban environment exist, including commercial, industrial and residential uses. An office building complex depicted in photograph No. 36, is located on the corner of Yorktown Avenue and Main Street, bordering the project area on the east. Beach Boulevard is the major north-south arterial bordering the project area farther east. A modern light industrial complex is located to the north of Ellis and Gothard as seen in photograph No. 37. 4.2.2 IMPACTS Buildout of the proposed General Plan Amendment will permanently alter the appearance of the project site. These impacts will be both positive and negative. Adverse Visual Imoacts 1. Short term construction activities, devegetation, grading, well abandonment rigs. 2. Cumulative loss of vacant land and relatively unobstructed views of the site. Positive Imoacts 1. Removal of extensive oil facilities, storage tanks, above-ground pipelines, overhead power lines; remaining facilities to be screened. 2. Elimination or screening of offensive open storage yards. 3. Completion of street improvements and landscaped parkways, medians, or trail corridors; community theme elements (see Community Theme Exhibit 11). 4. Development of parks and enhancement of open space areas. 5. Preservation of natural swales as an aesthetic feature. Grading activities associated with construction of on-site roadways and preparation of future building pads represents a significant short-term aesthetic impact. Additionally, grading activities may impact the drainage swales if the proper measures are not implemented. Mitigation measures 1 and 2 have been suggested to minimize the short-term impact. July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.2-10 Existing and future project site residents will view construction activities and land with all vegetation removed during grading phases of development. This impact will gradually change as the area becomes landscaped and is not considered significant. Ultimate development of the 768-acre project site could result in adverse visual impacts associated with an overabundance of utility lines which would provide future residences with electricity, phone and cable service. Mitigation measure 3 has been proposed to eliminate the possibility of such impact. As described earlier, there are existing residential communities within the project site. The development of this project may encroach upon the privacy of these residences on adjacent parcels. Landscaping which incorporates screening techniques and careful orientation of windows as stated in mitigation measure 4 will reduce this project specific impact to a level of insignificance. THe oil operation activities on-site will gradually be phased out as development occurs. Future residents will still see oil facilities for some time. Mitigation measure 5 is proposed to minimize impacts associated with development of residences adjacent to oil facilities. The gradual phasing out of oil related activities to allow for residential development will enhance the aesthetic character of the area. Where possible within the proposed plan, the windrows will be incorporated within proposed park sites or replaced elsewhere on the site. No impacts are anticipated to the windrows after implementation of mitigation measure 6. The conversion of land to urban uses may impact the existence of the railroad transportation corridor as a community feature. After implementation of mitigation measure 7, this project specific impact will be reduced to a level of insignificance. As previously discussed, the project area contains heavy industrial uses which includes metal storage buildings, equipment junkyards and other unaesthetic features. Development of the proposed project will replace these blighted industrial areas with new construction that will make the community more attractive. The overall effect July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.2-11 of the development will enhance the general appearance of both the project area and the City as a whole. 4.2.3 MITIGATION MEASURES 1. Specific Plans should incorporate policies which specify maximum grade of slope, permitted amount of cut and fill, improvements for storm drainage and a schematic design for recreational and open space treatment within the ravines. 2. The topography of the natural ravines and their associated drainage courses should be preserved in accordance with open space standards adopted with approval of future Specific Plans. 3. As required in the Public Services and Utilities section of this EIR, new utility lines including but not limited to electric, (excludes SCE 66KV transmission lines)telephone, street lighting and cable television, should be placed underground. The applicant should be responsible for complying with this requirement and should make the necessary arrangements with the utility companies for the installation of such facilities. 4. Landscaping of future projects should be designed so as to minimize visual impacts on adjacent parcels. Special consideration should be given to orientation of the project's residences (i.e. windows and decking) so as to respect the privacy of adjacent and nearby homes. 5. Wherever feasible, oil production facilities on-site should be eliminated or consolidated to reduce their total number. Facilities that remain on-site should be painted, camouflaged, or otherwise screened by perimeter walls, plantings or like treatments to reduce their unsightliness to future residents. 6. Windrows should be preserved within park sites or replaced to maintain the aesthetic benefits they contribute to the community. Further studies should be completed to assess the health of these trees. July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.2-12 L E G END sW Primary Community Intersection W OS 3 ao AC � � � Community Identity Features 112 Ellis Avenue a�\J Neighborhood Entry �,.,..., �....... .... �.,.,.,.,� .............,.. NEIGHBORHOOD IDENTITY ---UL E � • ; 46 ac I : _ : � ° The Bluffs 1 wen�no. ■ � i i : r ----------- - I I .. ■ 60Ac : ; 8 ....� M i ;m © Country View I - 29 AC = H ■ r _' ■ ) : Ito -- 'i ■ � �� � • � ,M �� � = �w Holly Planned Community ■ i • E _ i 26 AC ! `\ ■ � ■ � • � �.....,.,.,.,, .......rt �� � Seaclill Planned Community \__ . ' ■ I I ® Garfield Business Center : I ;MAC 30AC O E S \\ e I _ 23 AC _� i 55 AC : - i $ ® SeOCII//Village ■ 32 AC E - ■ 56 AC ■ i ■ : —� ' 16 AC ■ I ■ ■ ; ��a Community Theme Walls v: S Os 13 AC Garfield Avenue m� 18 AC 7 AC ■ M Jr �•16 AC y�a0 • \\ ... ( .�. • 22 AC 13nAC ■ ■ _ T ■ 0 �• •� \ •, 22 AC •� i. ■ ' .;..• ia.�...........■�� \ '�f`w' �.,aaaaa� :, r-r---- I / i 23 AC... . ■ 14 AC •' 4y/� w.... ... + i.`1, t • 14 AC - i 9 AC i °r 8 AC • C%q -- M1 Y Avenue i * Clay Avenue v / y \ -,J ■ MD 53 AC 1, e ■ 3 `o. v 0 L - 63,AC Yorktown venue m m N C 0 EXHIBIT 11 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH COMMUNITY THEME ELEMENT HDLLV=8 E ° CMFF AREA d iiiiiiiii i i i i77 '• e :oa wo eea 7I14/1989 7. As future development occurs, the designated railroad transportation corridor should be preserved for future use as trails or transit. 4.2.4 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE Approval of the proposed General Plan Amendment will lead to visual alteration of 768 acres of partially passive open space into a variety of urbanized uses. Upon ultimate development, the scenic character and aesthetic appearance of the site will be altered. Views of the new land uses will be visible both from areas within the project and from certain off-site locations. Implementation of the above recommended mitigation measures will reduce the project-specific impact of short-term grading to a level of insignificance. Additionally, the loss of open space views is considered a project specific cumulative impact that cannot be reduced to a level of insignificance. The proposed project will, in conjunction with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, contribute to a cumulative improvement in the aesthetic appearance of the project vicinity. However, the project will contribute to a cumulative loss of open space views which is considered an unavoidable adverse impact. July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.2-14 I HOLLY - SEACLIFF GPA Earth Resources CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 4.3 4.3 EARTH RESOURCES The Earth Resources section of this EIR is based upon the "Geotechnical Feasibility Investigation" prepared by Stoney-Miller Consultants, Inc. which is found under a separate cover in Volume II. 4.3.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS The site is located within the geographic region of Huntington Beach, California, known as the Huntington Beach Mesa. This mesa comprises a wedge-shaped, upland area which rises abruptly from sea level approximately 127 feet to its highest point, near the intersection of Goldenwest and Clay Streets. Topographically, the site consists of generally east-west and north-south trending minor drainage courses, which have dissected the relatively flat to gently sloping mesa. The site exhibits very little relief, with elevations ranging from approximately 15 to 95 feet above sea level. The surface of the Huntington Beach Mesa is divided into three portions, the boundaries of which parallel the coastline. These boundaries might represent the surface expression of splays of the Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone, the dominant geologic feature of this area, or more likely, ancient wave cut benches. The Huntington Beach Mesa is one of the southern-most landward expressions of a succession of hills and mesas aligned along this fault. The site is underlain by Lower Pleistocene-age sedimentary rocks, Upper Pleistocene- age marine terrace deposits, and Quaternary-age alluvium/fluvial deposits. Descriptions of the rock materials present follows, with the location of each indicated on Exhibit 12 the existing Soils/Geology Map. July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.3-1 LEGEND l fTp ALLUVIUM 1 i �Hdi HO OCene-age,lOOsely f �t�pconsolydated gravelssands and silts. ' Q— MARINE TERRACE DEPOSITS •- P Bti71 / �{ 5► raj :{rC j yi , ✓ r Pleistocene age,Poorly to moderately ��,; consolidated,light brown to yellowish- A, L Lj brown sand,gravel and silt. "• ` ``,_ '%, SAN PEDRO FORMATION Pleistocene age,marine.Poorly _�` ` � ,�� , ,,;, - ~. �,. �:,;{; �:�.'1 , •�, �, _ Y , s*- ! - consolidated,light yellowish-gray siltstone Qq and lenticular pebble conglomerate. h ` Via, J v a r ?' Qtm - >•" ` `, , t'', �1 c •�. r AND. SORROW Plj i LIMITS OF GEOLOGIC FORMATION Qdc SPECC � ATI f ! t s •q _, %',,, '•F,,S �,l L STUDIES ZONE IABOUNDARIES /a - •,,'= r� .- •. POTENTIALLY ACTIVE :•.• �,Fr d{.i..` ,\ '+' l ��i,. i^.VL`.. {— .- .7 wa p—'�.� { J \ 1 w .�.-4y• 4,�.F .• ..••.N•MNM FA .^4's•�l, ,x'7 t a{ !.�y_ ,�.,,, }.. ,•tx.. ,.-' , r! (�}4y.. T �� ri.:_ ULT r'. R .'' r .. , �.ti•t }.l A/,I - ,�nS < $�- �': ,a .a r J � i t� , i r�� I U Iff ii.;+y�#I`4 �. { t .t 4 ..-: l� •y•• ,�Q-�l�.a ,r`��;� ¢ j [;��� pp.. �' �� -:�_ {� �:. R:'.�,y� , , ,�..., / Y s \\-��Y`caV/� J :_ }� -v�V.. ! C7 r .( y'+ •/ <i Y w+^ OLlJ4 iNz v •�1' ,� '.# _ F ''^" x - 'vet"z+! tr '., t /� I' ''. q,j I ;. , ,•f �� '•" 1 ---�,' .. �. r r p.`.�...11. _ C L ♦ �.'+�ii ' .J'S r--� 1 11_i�c ,x'^• .. .. h rf a` f it \ ': qCqe .., \ �'• {S/�}J� k f +, �fi .. f '?�� Qtm - '� qk A. � � •`tiles` �: _ �,�..-..•4 .�y. I '�!'. �. �} � 1 `� i �-,. t . Y } t.- A�_:. S•l�i'"S�i'�,� ee •e��„�' y' C :� r •;�'�,�5�<�I �/ �,� ��.A � .. _�k','`�. _ :._'t�l � t'i'._� � r� _ �� J. � r .'�' $ir'�^,i/r` �._ �s>�. <'. F , {�y7`.1 �•=� � - r�1xr rr '.. j_.x .. f.�...- :.a:=...-Y _.. �., '„� �•.��i'' ,�p 'r' ,.�'R �s� /'....!�\�cr��-A -..... r"-"�o•=.�`sjfy ��:' I::'�y� �,•�i.`!` ����3;- l, + CITY OF EXHIBIT 12 HUNTINGTON BEACH EXISTING SOILS /GEOLOGY 1f::NMff=3FACUF1F MEN MEAT 'EHER pL JM14,19M STONEY MILLER CONSULTANTS INC Local Geoloav Artificial Fill (no map symbol) Artificial fill materials are located in relatively minor quantities at various locations throughout the site. Generally, the fills relate to previous and/or current land uses associated with the oil fields, as well as commercial and residential development. Fill ground is also associated with the construction of public roadways as they cross existing drainage courses. The most significant of these fills is in the northeast corner of the area where Gothard Street crosses a major canyon area. Other fill materials generally consist of stockpiles of fill and debris dumps at various locations throughout the property. There is a high probability that there will be an unknown number of oil sumps located on-site. These sumps are relatively small in area and generally less than 15 to 20 feet deep. A deposit of imported calcium carbonate material is located in the northeastern portion of the property on the west side of Gothard Street. This material is considered inert and was originally imported for use in the processing of sugar from beets at the Holly Sugar plant which is no longer present on the property. Similar materials have been successfully incorporated into compacted fill during the redevelopment of the Holly Sugar Plant in Santa Ana. Alluvium/Colluvium (map symbol qac) Alluvial deposits consisting of undifferentiated surficial accumulations of sands, silt and clay, along with some cobbles and boulders, are present in the narrow drainage courses and along the wider alluvial plain areas. Colluvium and slopewash blanket the base of most of the slopes with moderate relief. The composition of the slopewash generally reflects its bedrock source and is generally more expansive than the source, due to weathering of the parent material. July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.3-3 Terrace Deposits (map symbol qtm) Materials immediately underlying the site consist of Terrace Deposits, which are considered to be a portion of the Lakewood Formation of Pleistocene-age. The sediments which comprise the upper portion of this formation are both continental and marine in origin. The Lakewood Formation is reported to be about 300 feet thick, and underlain by the San Pedro Formation, which is Lower Pleistocene in age. The marine terrace deposits consist generally of poorly to moderately consolidated light reddish-brown to yellowish-brown sand, gravel, and silt. San Pedro Formation (map symbol qsp) The San Pedro Formation represents the oldest sedimentary bedrock exposed on-site and is limited in outcroppings to the northwestern project boundary along the Huntington Beach Mesa and Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve. The San Pedro Formation consists generally of marine, poorly consolidated, light yellowish-gray siltstone and lenticular pebble conglomerate. Residual soils developed on the San Pedro Formation are generally non-expansive to moderately expansive. The slopewash and colluvium developed are also generally low to moderately expansive. Groundwater Groundwater elevations within the subject property range from near sea level to minus 10 feet below sea level. (Orange County Water District Report for 1984-1985.) Information from the State Department of Water Resources and Water Quality Control Board indicates that groundwater underlying the site in the shallow aquifers is of poor quality and subject to degradation due to sea water intrusion. Evidence of groundwater seeps and/or springs is not evident, however, some minor seepage might be anticipated within the drainage courses on-site. These seeps would be the result of surface water percolation and would not be representative of a static groundwater surface. July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.3-4 Seismicity The site is located within the seismically active southern California region. Located within the project boundary, as shown on Exhibit 12, the Soils/Geology Map, lies the active trace of the Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone. This zone has been designated by the State of California Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zones Act as an active fault, and is shown on the Seal Beach and Newport Beach Quadrangles, revised July 1, 1986. Previous published reports identified this segment of the fault as the North Branch or the High School Fault. Several published maps show additional faults parallel or subparallel to this larger fault. However, topographic expression of the lesser faults is either vague or nonexistent, and they are not listed as potentially active. Geologic studies of the North Branch segment of the Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone identified evidence of faulting present in the near surface terrace deposits, as exposed in the sand borrow pit located approximately 700 feet west of the intersection of Edwards Street and Garfield Avenue (Woodward-Clyde Consultants, 1984). In this area the fault zone is approximately 80 feet wide. Based on geomorphic evidence, it appears as though the fault "steps" to the northeast along the southeastern trend of the zone. Although the evidence of previous ground rupture along this segment of the fault is inconclusive, the zone should be considered the active trace of the Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone. Seismic hazards within the site can be attributable to surface fault rupture along any portion of the active north branch of the Newport-Inglewood fault, and to ground shaking resulting from events on this or on a nearby fault. Evidence to support this system's status as an active fault is well documented and includes late Quaternary to Holocene offset stratigraphy and groundwater barriers. Furthermore, historic seismic events associated with the Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone include incidents with the following dates and magnitudes: July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.3-5 Table 4 Historic Seismic Events Date Magnitude October 22, 1941 4.9 June 19, 1944 4.5 March 11, 1933 6.2 Source: Ziony, J.I. and Yerkes, R.F., 1985 and Hileman, F.A. et al, 1973. The epicenters of a number of earthquakes with Richter Magnitude 5.0, or greater, fall within a 60 mile radius of the site. Liquefaction Liquefaction is defined as the transformation of a granular material from a solid state into a liquefied state as a consequence of increased pore water pressure. Ground shaking resulting from an earthquake is capable of providing the mechanism for liquefaction, usually in saturated, loose, medium to fine-grained sands, silty sands, and certain types of clayey soils. The potential for liquefaction is greatest in areas of shallow ground water or near-saturated soils at generally shallow depths. The porous alluvial soils, when saturated or wet, have a moderately to high potential for liquefaction. The likelihood of liquefaction occurring depends on many factors including differences in the compaction of soil layers, nature of the soil, depth of the deposits, and depth of the water table. Liquefaction occurring as a result of a seismic event would result in a localized area of subsidence due to the discontinuous stratification of the loose liquefiable sand layers. July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.3-6 Subsidence Slow subsidence due to the withdrawal of oil in the areas underlying the coastal oil fields from Huntington Beach to Seal Beach has been occurring since oil production operations began in the region about 1920. As reported in California Division of Mines and Geology Open-File Report 79-8 LA, dated 1976, the most active area is centered within 2 miles of the coast between Beach Boulevard and Huntington Harbor. County of Orange Surveyor Records indicated that the most affected area subsided an average of 0.20 feet during a 4-year interval while the rate of subsidence declines to zero inland 2 miles northeast of and subparallel to the San Diego Freeway and southwestward to Newport Bay. Surveys from 1957 through 1962 indicate that the Huntington Beach subsidence rate was at least twice as great in earlier years. The greatest total measured subsidence from 1931 through 1964 is 4.0 feet located near the intersection of Golden West Street and Pacific Coast Highway. It is estimated that a total of 5 feet of subsidence at this location has occurred from 1920, when oil withdrawal began, through 1972. It is probable that subsidence in this coastal area is related in part, to withdrawal of oil and gas from the West Newport, Huntington Beach, Sunset Beach oil fields. It is also probable that the decline in the rate of subsidence since 1965 is the result of water injection operations. Water injection in the Huntington Beach field was experimentally implemented in 1959 with maximum injection rates occurring in more recent years. Tsunamis Tsunamis are seismically induced sea waves. All low-lying coastal areas of California are subject to the threat of Tsunamis. �- July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.3-7 4.31 IMPACTS The site may have several potential geotechnical constraints. The site is suitable for development provided special considerations are given to these constraints in the design and construction of the proposed project. Detailed analysis of specific on-site development areas will be required as part of future geotechnical investigations prior to the final development plan for the property. The following discussion provides a description of general geotechnical impacts associated with the buildout of the proposed project. Local Geology Development of the project will involve grading activities and cut and fill operations to create a series of relatively flat building pads for the construction of residential structures. Actual planned heights and depths of cut and fill slopes are unknown at this time. There will be grading requirements established by future Specific Plans for areas adjacent to Open Space Corridors that contain significant topography such as swales. After implementation of the mitigation measures, no significant impacts are anticipated to swales. However, other areas of the site will be significantly impacted by grading. Earth materials near the surface of the site can be excavated with conventional earth moving equipment and are satisfactory for use in fills when properly compacted. The soils at existing ground surface, and those likely to be exposed by grading, exhibit generally low to moderate expansive potential. Design of slabs and footings must consider the expansion potential of the soils. High bearing capacity bedrock and terrace deposit materials are available for foundation support at relatively shallow depths. Additionally, the natural slopes within the project area are generally very stable. The bedrock and terrace deposits underlying the site are competent and not expected to undergo settlement due to earthquake shaking. Areas underlain by alluvium are July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.3-8 more susceptible to settlement due to earthquake shaking and may undergo some settlement. No impacts are anticipated to local geology soil conditions. Groundwater Groundwater conditions are such that, in much of the area, development should not be adversely affected, except possibly in the lower elevations of the site along the western edge of the mesa. The control of surface and subsurface water is an important factor in this type of residential development for controlling unimpeded erosion and must be considered throughout the area. It is unlikely that development of this site will cause further degradation of the groundwater in the area. After implementation of the mitigation measures, no impacts to groundwater are anticipated. Seismicity The project site lies within a seismically active area. As designated by the Alquist- Priolo Special Studies Zones Maps for the Huntington Beach area, there is an active trace of the Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone located within the project area, creating the possibility of significant ground shaking and ground rupture during the lifetime of the proposed development. The most significant seismic event would be a maximum credible 7.6 magnitude or maximum probable 6.6 magnitude earthquake on the Newport-Inglewood Fault (North Branch). A maximum credible earthquake event is utilized for design of critical structures, such as hospitals, fire stations, etc., while a maximum probable earthquake event is utilized for design of normal inhabited structures. The accelerations produced at the site by such an event would exceed those of events on any other known fault. A magnitude 6.6 earthquake within, or in close proximity to the site, could produce a peak ground acceleration of 0.70g at the subject site, with the duration of strong shaking exceeding 35 seconds. Peak acceleration is not, however, representative for July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.3-9 the accelerations to which structures are actually subjected. Repeatable high ground acceleration from a 7.5 magnitude earthquake on the Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone is estimated to be on the order of 0.46g. Breaking of the ground because of active faulting on the site is a definite possibility because of the presence of an active splay of the Newport-Inglewood Fault (North branch), which traverses the site in a northwest-southeast direction and passes diagonally through the intersection of Garfield Avenue and Edwards Street. Cracking of the ground due to shaking from local or distant events is considered as a potentially significant hazard because of the active fault located on-site. After implementation of the mitigation measures, the potential seismic impacts will be reduced to a level of insignificance. Liquefaction Recent studies pertaining to liquefaction in the Orange County area conclude that the general area of the subject site has a very low potential for liquefaction related ground failure. The subject property is underlain by medium dense to dense bedrock and terrace deposit materials which are not subject to liquefaction due to seismic shaking. Areas underlain by alluvium, particularly along the western portion of the site off the mesa, in conjunction with a high ground water level, could contribute to some potential for liquefaction. Areas of relatively high groundwater are present within the alluvium located along the western portion of the site off the mesa, and may contribute to potential for liquefaction. Additional information is necessary to assess the liquefaction potential. No liquefaction impacts are anticipated after implementation of the mitigation measure. July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.3-10 Subsidence The proposed project has the potential for subsidence impacts due to the withdrawal of oil. Implementation of the mitigation measures will reduce impacts to a level of insignificance. Tsunamis The majority of the site is located on the elevated Huntington Beach Mesa, which is at a sufficient height above sea level to eliminate the potential for tsunamis. However, minor portions of the subject site located along the western portion are situated at or near the boundary of the mesa and the Bolsa Chica wetlands, and are within a tsunami risk area as designated by Orange County Environmental Maps (Welday, 1976). Due to the absence of large bodies of water in an enclosed or semi- enclosed basin (as a lake, bay, harbor, or reservoir), the potential for such related problems is unlikely. After implementation of the mitigation measure, no tsunami related impacts are anticipated. Other Geologic Hazards The occurrence of bluff erosion is a distinct possibility along the western portion of the subject site at the transition zone between the Huntington Beach Mesa and the Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve. If surf icial runoff is allowed unimpeded to sheet flow over the top of the bluff and down the slope face, significant amounts of I erosion are likely to occur. No areas of slope instability were observed in the bluff areas. After implementation of the mitigation measures, no bluff erosion impacts are anticipated. Erosion in the major drainage courses on-site is not significant at this time due-to the presence of various types of groundcover. The transportation of surficial materials resulting from wind erosion is considered to be insignificant and will not have an impact on proposed development. July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.3-11 Because of the minor relief present on-site, no slopes of significant height were encountered. Therefore, seismically induced landsliding is not considered a significant hazard at the site. 4.3.3 MITIGATION MEASURES 1. Prior to preparing the final development plan for the property, a detailed preliminary geologic and soils engineering investigation should be completed. The purpose of this subsequent investigation should be to develop specific grading and foundation recommendations for the proposed site development. Local Geology 2. In order to retain the existing swale character, future Specific Plans should incorporate policies which specify maximum grade of slope, permitted amounts of cut and fill, permitted improvements for storm drainage and include a schematic design for recreational and open space treatment within drainage swales. 3. Prior to the issuance of future grading permits, internal collector streets should be aligned around topographical features and avoid crossing the natural swales where possible. Groundwater 4. Subdrains should be installed where necessary. Location and size of subdrains, if any are required, should be determined after preliminary geotechnical and grading information is made available. Seismicity 5. The design of structures should comply with the requirements of the City of Huntington Beach Code and the standard practices of the Structural Engineers Association of California. July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.3-12 6. A detailed geologic fault investigation should be undertaken to delineate any additional active trace of the Newport Inglewood fault. A setback zone should be established to prevent the construction of habitable structures within 50 feet on either side of any active fault trace. Therefore, as is the case in the western portion of the property, where the fault zone as exposed in the sand borrow pit is 80 feet wide, the ultimate setback zone should have a total width of 180 feet. Liauefaction 7. Prior to future development, additional information on particle size, density, and ground water levels should be obtained to accurately assess the potential for liquefaction due to seismic shaking in the alluvial areas. Subsidence 8. As future development occurs, continued subsidence rate monitoring for the region of the subject site is necessary to determine if subsidence rates are declining with current water injection methods being used at operating oil production facilities. 9. The use of post-tensioned slabs should be considered in the foundation design in order to eliminate distress to structures and slabs from minor regional subsidence. Although this measure will provide for a more rigid slab, it will by no means eliminate distress to foundations resulting from the rapid subsidence of the land from continued oil and gas withdrawal. Tsunamis 10. At the time of future development, habitable structures will be located outside of the tsunami risk zone. July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.3-13 Other Hazards 11. During and after project construction, adequate surface drainage should be maintained by the applicant, in order to eliminate bluff erosion. Surface water should be carried quickly away from the top of the bluff and not allowed to pond or run down the slope face. 4.3.4 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE After mitigation, project specific impacts associated with local geology, groundwater, seismicity, liquefaction, subsidence, tsunamis and other hazards are not considered significant. Significant impacts to topography will occur as a result of grading activities. No cumulative impacts to earth resources have been identified. / July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.3-14 HOLLY - SEACLIFF GPA Hydrology CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 4.4 4.4 HYDROLOGY The Hydrology section of this EIR is based upon the "Hydrology/Drainage Report" by Walden & Associates. This report may be found under separate cover in Volume II. 4.4.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS The majority of the site currently drains as surface flow into natural swales to four primary drainage outlets. The existing hydrology of the project site is shown on Exhibit 13. Also shown on this exhibit are current hydrologic tributary drainage areas. As identified, the majority of the site drains as surface flow into natural swales with four primary drainage outlets. The existing closed conduit storm drain facilities within this project are minimal and consist primarily of street under- crossings. In 1979, L.D. King & Associates prepared a Master Drainage Plan for the City of Huntington Beach based on the City's ultimate development under the current General Plan and the then current Orange County Hydrology Manual. In 1986, the County of Orange adopted a new updated Hydrology Manual to analyze storm runoff, thus making the City's current (1979) hydrology study obsolete by today's standards. The 1986 Hydrology Manual criteria has been applied to the current General Plan along with current zoning to give an ultimate discharge. Both this study and the L.D. King & Associates study utilize a 25 year frequency rainfall. As noted above, this project area consists of four primary drainage and runoff outlets and several minor drainage areas. The first primary runoff outlet consists of flows collected from the northwest portion of the project that drain to the north. The existing conveyance facilities for this area collect the majority of surface flows by swales, transport the flows north under Ellis Avenue in a culvert and then July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.4-1 northerly in swales beyond the project limits to Huntington Central Park. The existing runoff which is generated from this area and is conveyed under Ellis Avenue is approximately 145 CFS. The runoff for a small portion of the far west of the project surface drains westerly into the Bolsa Chica area. The second primary drainage outlet consist of flows collected from the northeast portion of the project which crosses under Ellis Avenue to the north and outlets into Sully-Miller Lake. This northeast area is primarily served by earth swales. Currently, approximately 210 acres of developed off-site property to the northeast of the project site drain to Ellis Avenue. This drainage is conveyed in a 72" closed conduit system, and upon crossing Gothard Avenue outlets into an existing earth swale near the east boundary of the project. An earth swale transports these flows and the surrounding tributary site drainage to a 33" RCP culvert under Ellis Avenue. (The runoff for the off-site developed area has been determined by adjusting the flows calculated by L.D. King & Associates to approximate flows generated under the new County procedures.) As shown on Exhibit 1, this off-project area contributes nearly half of the overall flows which pass under Ellis Avenue and discharge into Sully-Miller Lake. Based on the new hydrology study utilizing existing land uses, the runoff flow which crosses under Ellis Avenue is approximately 750 cfs. This is an increase of nearly 40% from flows determined by L.D. King and Associates in 1979. The existing 33" RCP culvert which conveys the flows of the northeast portion of the site under Ellis Avenue and ultimately into Sully-Miller Lake is not adequately sized for ultimate conditions. Therefore, under storm conditions, temporary ponding will occur in the earth swales to the south of Ellis Avenue. Sully-Miller Lake is the disposal point for the natural runoff of the northeast portion of the project site as well as other off-project areas of the City. Its current use is a retention basin for this drainage. The lake is the result of the excavation of-sand and gravel by Sully-Miller Contractors and has been in existence since the late nineteen fifties. The pit is fed by groundwater and runoff, thus forming the lake. Only a portion of the pit is water filled. The side banks are nearly vertical extending 40 to 60 feet above the water's surface and are subject to excessive erosion. The lake's existing watershed consists of a mushroom farm (directly west of the lake), July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.4-2 oil wells (on and off the Holly Seacliff property), a fire station, an automobile repair facility, the police practice range, horse stables, open space (on the Holly Seacliff property) and residential development (off-site). The majority of the storm runoff into the lake comes through the 33" RCP culvert under Ellis Avenue. This culvert enters the lake at 9.2 feet above mean sea level (MSL). The water level in the lake fluctuates considerably during the year and is primarily controlled by the ground water table. At elevation 0.0 feet MSL, the lake has a total surface area of 9.3 acres and a total volume of approximately 224 acre-feet. Storm runoffs would raise the lake's water surface level. Previously this rise would continue until the water level reached the overflow outlet system which has an inlet at elevation 7.5 feet above MSL. The overflow drain is located at the north end of the lake (opposite the outlet from Ellis Avenue) and runs underground through the landfill area bordered by Goldenwest Street and Talbert Avenue. However, this drain is presently inoperative due to a collapsed portion of the drain pipe under the landfill area. Consequently, all of the storm runoff must now percolate into the ground, evaporate, or be retained as a lake. 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, created mostly from the exposed lake banks. Nutrient loading is excessive with the primary source being the manure used at the mushroom farm. Nutrient concentrations of the inlet drain water were also considered high. It was also found that total dissolved solid concentrations in the lake are relatively low compared to other lakes, such as Huntington Lake. However, the quality of the influence drain water was considered very poor due to the excessive concentration of total dissolved solids (TDS). The source of the 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. July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.4-3 60 4"' LEGEND , m. , �� ' !� — , z Wiz✓ �':' 1f �_' -,. ° riir r' ;i. - �! iL TRIBUTARY BOUNDARY EXISTING STORM DRAIN OR SWALE 26 8 RUNOFF FOR 25 YEAR STORM (CFS) ;1w4, I:J>� : : `'` ' ry - f �• a_ ' � ACREAGE ASSOCIATED t' - - r l " s 9• 1 , > + ,� ,; WITH DOWNSTREAM RUNOFF l i .� r PROJECT BOUNDARY K - ' `\ � 41S �.-._ - _ NODE NUMBER CORRESPONDING TO , HYDROLOGY CALCULATIONS /�� i. too y)y TRIBUTARY AREA NUMBER AND ACRES ! I, CORRESPONDING TO HYDROLOGY tr CALCULATIONS e 1 , F � axo 7 ^/ �, g apt s 9 3 v C1 a K �_ I -TwQac b cad .... , � -. �• y., ���J, i ,_ -�� � ,J ✓:.�..t- „ ` RS' '• -.. ',.. �...� � I Ato .74 _ , N 4 a ti , + � 'Zr y1r Ifs s of EY lU :r► • CITY OF EXHIBIT 13 HUNTINGTON BEACH EXISTING HYDROLOGY t! UOLLU—SEACUFF �IENOMENT C�1E�l� p ASSOCIATES WALDEN AND ASSOCIATES The third primary drainage outlet consists of flows collected in the southwest portion of the site, or the "Seacliff" area. This area currently surface flows south beyond the project limits to the existing Seacliff Golf Course. From the golf course, the flow ultimately enters a desilting basin and then a drainage system which terminates in the Bolsa Chica area. Although this tributary area currently is vacant land, the drainage system downstream has been designed to convey runoff from ultimate development under the current General Plan. The tributary drainage to this part of the site, based on the current General Plan, would generate about 260 cfs at its outlet. The fourth and final primary drainage area consists of runoff which surface flows from the southeast portion of the project and drains either north to conduits in Garfield Avenue or south to Main Street and Yorktown Avenue. The majority of the area from this portion is tributary to, and collected in, the existing 24" storm drain in Garfield Avenue. Based on the ultimate discharge of 129 cfs determined in the hydrology study for this tributary area, the existing 24" RCP is undersized to convey flows to the existing downstream 66" RCP in Delaware Street. Therefore, under some storm conditions, temporary flooding of Garfield Avenue will occur. The remaining portion of this section drains either to the conduit system in Main Street just south of Clay Street, which travels through the Pacific Ranch project, or into Main Street and Yorktown Avenue. Due to the increase of runoff as a result of the use of the new Orange County Hydrology Manual, it is possible that the existing conduit systems in Pacific Ranch and in Main Street are not able to convey the ultimate design runoff. Because these two systems are outside of the project limits, they were not included in the hydrology study for this EIR. 4.4.2 IMPACTS On-Site Amendment of the City's General Plan to change various residential products, commercial uses, business parks, industrial parks, and open space land uses, will not significantly change the hydrology impacts associated with the proposed development of the project site. It is anticipated that the proposed drainage patterns will closely July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.4-5 follow the existing patterns. To better analyze the impacts of the proposed land use, a preliminary hydrology study was made using the 1986 Orange County Hydrology Manual utilizing a 25 year frequency storm. The Iand uses, tributary areas, and the associated runoff volumes are shown on Exhibit 14. As with existing conditions, the majority of the proposed development project site surface drains into natural swales with four primary runoff outlets as shown on Exhibit 13. It is recommended that the proposed project maintain these natural swales to preserve the natural topography of the area, a policy of the existing General Plan Open Space and Conservation Element. It is also recommended that underground storm drain systems be installed and/or upgraded as required to provide for new streets and adequate crossings under existing streets. Some of the existing earth swales may require the removal of debris and overgrown vegetation and/or some regrading so as to facilitate the design flows. The first of these primary runoff outlets consists of drainage collected from the northwest portion of the project draining north. The proposed Land Use Plan is reasonably consistent with the existing General Plan for this area and thus an increase in runoff is not anticipated as seen in Exhibit 14 the Proposed Hydrology Map. In addition to the two catch basin/culvert sections on Edwards Street, there is a proposed storm drain from Edwards Street northeasterly to the Ellis Avenue crossing. There is a possibility that a portion of this storm drain could be kept in open drainage swales depending on the specific site plans for this area. After implementation of mitigation measure No. 3, no impacts are anticipated. The second primary runoff area consists of flows collected from the northeast and central portion of the project. With the build-out of the proposed land use, it is anticipated that the runoff which currently ponds in some low spots to the south of Garfield Avenue will drain north in a storm drain system as shown on Exhibit 14. Other impacts to this area could be the need to improve existing drainage swales as discussed previously under Local Geology in Section 4.3.2, culvert crossings at both Goldenwest Street and at Ellis Avenue and the addition of storm drain systems in Goldenwest Street to Ernest Avenue and in the Gothard Street realignment. After July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.4-6 �ILEGEND 60 Id _ pe 1 .. : •�.;+~ PROJECT BOUNDARY . Nn TRIBUTARY DRAINAGE BOUNDARY •'•� ;� T f,� ,' -� ?.. EXISTING STORM DRAIN CONDUIT 72 .� L a EXISTING SWALE TO REMAIN 10 -�A PROPOSED STORM DRAIN CONDUIT �i ¢-�--��—�--r� I ... RUN OFF FOR 25 YEAR STORM f \ �I-r- �r I# At�( :\� � �. IL - ACREAGE ASSOCIATED WITH , DOWNSTREAM RUNOFF . 3 _ f ♦ \+ � < I .c:� ;� ,.,.� . f: , '.. ._ - . �_, .. ,.,:- � , „ � NODE NUMBER CORRESPONDING TO HYDROLOGY CALCULATIONS as117_ 0 0` . rrr---......., *y ,,`�• � ..�. �:,,� � --�-- _ � _ ' `l - — �-l°6�-�r�-,� -_, 'ti'-' - M-�` TRIBUTARY AREA NUMBER AND ACRES / .^,`.✓ -.1'�- '' - i� �i — � — - �' 60' H=175.3 :,, ♦yo C I 90 x .` e -` :.. ..... CORRESPONDING TO i ! — . ,'1 A=79.4 i. s HYDROLOGY CALCULATIONS _ 8 (. t; �(Y ♦y ,[f .+ if IIAF L c - ! / b• ;� ' ys 1-1 ` / F , / ,� ��t �. ... � + J a��r`w Jr �.. �,., '( •.�,,,T�J �l a J 2f2 �3 .' � r I R,u 77 / Il - I ' r +,�:,f 1 1' ;� 9+,u� (, r� �'�•'rt`/x', r1([ ll�t, i n � �y�, _ ��. `I ,.�i` µ•. � 1' t�,, 1 � r5s ! ze lll�Al oor 1 i � S O Ems.. ./+ we CITY OF EXHIBIT 14 HUNTINGTON BEACH PROPOSED HYDROLOGY U UOLMDFACH lJ IJ 411111I1111 11 fORN l 1 WALDEN AND ASSOCIATES implementation of Mitigation Measure No. 2 and 3 in this section no impacts are anticipated. As seen on Exhibit 14, the runoff entering the Sully-Miller Lake from the Ellis Avenue under-crossing for the proposed Land Use Plan is approximately 752 cfs; an increase of less than 1% over the existing General Plan. The major impact to the Sully-Miller Lake will occur when the under-crossing at Ellis Avenue is fully improved. The existing 33" RCP under-crossing at Ellis Avenue restricts larger storm flows from freely entering the lake. It creates a detention situation to the south of Ellis Avenue resulting in ponding and allowing some sedimentation and percolation to occur prior to entering the lake. The upgrading of the crossing would increase the flow of water entering the lake. Increased erosion and sedimentation within the lake is a likely impact resulting from increasing the Ellis Avenue culvert size. The inoperative overflow system from the lake needs to be addressed with respect to positive overflow and potential back water ponding within the proposed project site. A Sully-Miller by-pass/detention system needs to be constructed for collecting sedimentation and conveying flows and contained J containments. This is stated in mitigation measure No. 6. The third primary runoff area consists of flows collected in the westerly and southwesterly portion of the site. The westerly draining areas will discharge through designated Open Space areas to the lower lying Bolsa Chica area. These three discharge areas are the same as those under the existing General Plan. With proper outlet protection from man-made facilities, there does not appear to be any significant impact from these areas due to the approximate 10% increase in discharge. The southwesterly draining areas all discharge through the Seacliff Golf Course. These three discharges are within 5% of the existing General Plan flows and all pass through a detention basin at the downstream end of the golf course designed for these flows. There will be no impact from the southwesterly flows. The fourth drainage area consists of flows leaving the project area to the east and southeast portion of the site. The easterly discharges consist primarily of surface flows draining onto Garfield Avenue. The proposed flows into Garfield Avenue July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.4-8 based on the proposed land uses are an increase of approximately 23% over existing land uses. The existing 24" RCP storm drain in Garfield Avenue is currently undersized to handle this increased flow. The impact due to the increased runoff will require additional storm drain facilities in Garfield Avenue. This impact will be mitigated through mitigation measure No. 4. The remaining three flows from this area of the project site drain southeasterly into Main Street, Yorktown Avenue, and Clay Avenue. The proposed project areas draining southeasterly have the same (or very similar) land uses as those shown on the existing General Plan. The proposed land uses should not impact the off-site downstream conditions providing they were properly designed for the build-out of the existing General Plan. However, prior to development within this tributary area, further detailed studies of the off-site downstream conditions should be made to analyze the impact the new Orange County Hydrology procedures have on the existing conduit systems. The development of the propos•.-d project could incrementally add to the deterioration of drainage water quality as compared to the current development today on the project site. The deterioration of runoff quality is a result of the increased amount of urban runoff pollutants. Although the runoff quality will be adversely impacted by any new development, the proposed Land Use Plan does not appear to be significantly different from the approved existing Land Use Plan. Implementation of proposed mitigation measures should reduce the potential impact associated with the amendment of the City's existing General Plan to a level of insignificance. Off-Site There will be an increased occurrence of downstream siltation due to construction of the proposed project. This will likely have a short-term impact on the water quality of the runoff. Construction related activities that require grading and vegetation removal will cause greater erosion and downstream siltation. The drainage to the west and southwest enters the Bolsa Chica area. The increase in volumes could have an impact on the storage capacity and water quality of this area. July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.4-9 The City has plans to expand the Huntington Central Park to include the Sully-Miller Lake. The lake would then most likely be developed into a fishing pond with appurtenant facilities. Currently, the lake is surrounded by security fencing and the water is inhabited by aquatic plants and animals. Water quality could be a concern for the use as a public pond unless quality control measures are implemented. As stated previously, impacts to the existing off-site downstream storm drain systems may occur based upon the adoption of the new hydrology procedures by the County of Orange. It has been found that predicted flows for a 25 year frequency storm (assuming all other factors remain the same) are increased by 15%-40% from the old County of Orange procedures. Further detailed studies should be completed prior to specific development to determine actual capacities of downstream systems. Dependent on the methods utilized to design the existing downstream systems, the increase of design run-off due to development and the new hydrology procedures could be considered to have a significant impact. However, with the construction of new lines or possibly the redirecting of flows, the impact to existing systems will be reduced to a level of insignificance. 4.4.3 MITIGATION MEASURES By implementing the following mitigation measures, the significant impacts to both the environment due to run-off and the City storm-drain facilities can be significantly reduced. On-Site 1. Prior to approval of future Specific Plans or grading permits, a detailed area- wide flood control/hydrology/hydraulic study should be prepared by a licensed civil engineer as required by the City and completed by the applicant (per the current County of Orange Hydrology Requirements) to further quantify and detail the combined drainage impacts of development within the watershed area. These detailed studies may be used to adjust the suggested conduit sizes proposed for the EIR and shown on Exhibit 14. A separate detailed study July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.4-10 should be completed for each tributary area. These studies shall be completed prior to the approval of future Specific Plans or at the time of grading permit. 2. All future discretionary permits should be consistent in preserving area-wide natural drainage patterns along with preserving and enhancing the goals, objectives and policies of the General Plan Open Space and Conservation Element. The permits should insure that development provide for facilities needed to accommodate runoff from a 100 year storm. 3. Individual projects should be required to construct or upgrade on-site and off- site drainage facilities needed to drain the site according to City requirements. This should include: limited improvements to existing earth swales so as to convey nuisance flows as well as floodwater; required storm drain conduits; storm drain crossings under Goldenwest Street, Ellis Avenue, and other proposed streets; and any other facilities determined as needed in the more detailed hydrology studies. 4. An additional closed conduit system will be required in Garfield Avenue from Crystal Street easterly to the connection with the existing storm drain-line in Delaware Street. This system will be required to accommodate flows generated by development within the study area. 5. The City should be responsible for the construction of upgraded swales, closed conduits and a desilting basin to transport the drainage runoff collected from the northwest portion of the project site, from north of Ellis Avenue to Huntington Central Park. Off-Site 6. Developers will be required to design and construct all required improvements (swales, conduits, overflow provisions, desiltation, by-pass system) required for flows entering Sully-Miller Lake. Per City Ordinance, the developers may enter into reimbursement agreements. The developer shall be responsible for on-site generated run-off only. July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.4-11 7. It is recommended that final drainage and grading plans be designed to minimize erosion and velocity of surface runoff through proper design of surface drains, appropriate grading, and landscape programs, all to the specification of the City's Department of Public Works. 8. All work should comply with the City of Huntington Beach Public Works Standards and Specifications and any pertinent grading ordinances. 4.4.4 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE The development of the proposed project could incrementally add to the deterioration of drainage water quality, downstream siltation and erosion as compared to the current development today on the project site. The deterioration of water quality is a result of the increased amount of urban runoff pollutants. Implementation of the proposed mitigation measures should reduce impacts related to water quality, downstream siltation and erosion to a level of insignificance. The City has plans to expand the Huntington Central Park to include the Sully-Miller Lake. The lake would then most likely be developed into a fishing pond with appurtenant facilities. Currently, the lake is surrounded by security fencing and the water is inhabited by aquatic plants and animals. Water quality could be a concern for the implementation of a pond unless quality control measures are implemented and thus, reducing water quality impacts to a level of insignificance. As stated previously, impacts to the existing off-site downstream storm drain systems may occur based upon the adoption of the new hydrology procedures by the County of Orange. It has been experienced that by using the new hydrology method, flows for a 25 year frequency storm (assuming all field characters remain the same) are increased by 15% - 40% over what was determined by using the old hydrology method. Further detailed studies should be completed prior to specific development to determine actual capacities of downstream systems. Dependent on the methods utilized to design the existing downstream systems, the increase of design run-off due to development and the new hydrology procedures could be considered to have a July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.4-12 significant impact. However. with the construction of new lines and/or possibly redirecting the increased flows to a downstream system which has adequate capacity, the resultant, impacts could range from unavoidably significant to insignificant. The mitigation measures require precise hydrologic and drainage studies to address specific impacts regarding ;run-off, siltation, water quality, erosion, downstream conduit systems, and increased volumes, where applicable. Dependent on the findings of these detailed studies and the feasibility and phasing of the mitigation programs, under a worst case scenario, resultant impacts can be considered unavoidable adverse. Jul i, 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.4-13 DOLLY - SEACLIFF GPA Population/Housing CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 4.5 4.5 POPULATION AND HOUSING 4.5.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS City of Huntington Beach Housin¢ Element The Housing Element provides goals for housing in the City, including the achievement of sound housing for all socio-economic, 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.' It appears that these figures fall short of both SCAG's and Orange County's projections for the year 1990 and beyond. Recycling and infilling may tend to increase the estimated housing growth projections, and it is possible that amendments to the General Plan could convert areas presently designated Planning Reserve and Resource Production to residential use or increase densities on existing residential areas. New residential construction is expected to add approximately 19,000 housing units and 28,000 new residents through the year 2000.' From 1980 to 1986, the number of total housing units in Huntington Beach increased from 63,365 to 68,686. This is an increase of 5,321 units or 8.4 percent. This rate of growth is expected to continue in I ' City of Huntington Beach, July 1984. Housing Element, Pg. 20. July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.5-1 i the short-term to mid-term. The following surrounding cities had similar growth during the 1980 to I986 period: Costa Mesa 2,214 units (6.6 percent), Fountain Valley 516 units (3.1 percent), Newport Beach 2,043 units (6.6 percent). The major component of population growth in Huntington Beach is new housing construction and families that move into the new units. On January 1, 1988 the estimated population for the City of Huntington Beach was 187,740. The number of dwelling units was estimated to be 70,179 as of January 1, 1988. The number of persons per household was estimated to be 2.7. The 1980 census revealed an overall vacancy rate of 3.9 percent. In 1988, an estimated 54,000 persons were employed in the City. (Source: City of Huntington Beach) Table 5 projects population within Huntington Beach through the year 2010. According to estimates prepared by the Orange County Forecast Analysis Center, the City's population is expected to grow 12.3 percent between 1988 and 2010, representing an average annual growth rate significantly below that experienced during the 1980-1988 period. This growth would add 26,156 new residents to Huntington Beach, for a 2010 population of nearly 213,900. Factors which may influence future growth in Huntington Beach include growth controls, the availability of land suitable for residential development, and the price of housing.2 Table 5 City of Huntington Beach Projected Population Growth: 1988-2010 Year Total Population 1988 (a) 187,740 1995 (b) 199,577 2000 (b) 203,291 2010 (b) 213,896 Source: (a) Calif. Dept. of Finance, Controlled Population Estimates for 1-1-88. (b) Orange County Forecast Analysis Center, 1988 modified population estimate, conversation with Bill Gayke. 2 City of Huntington Beach Housing Element Update. March 1989, July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.5-2 City Housin¢ Protections In response to SCAG Regional Housing Needs Allocation, the City of Huntington Beach has recently analyzed vacant land available for housing stock. SCAG has allocated a total of 6,228 units to the City within the next 5 years. The City had requested a housing stock reduction due to environmental constraints such as oil production land uses precluding the development of housing. The reduction was not granted however. The principal concern regarding the constrained land is that development may not occur within the short (5-year) time frame suggested by the SCAG Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA). The 1989 RHNA identifies a need for 6,228 new housing units in the City of Huntington Beach within the next five years. There are approximately 752 acres of residentially designated land remaining to be developed within the City. Under the existing zoning and general plan designations, that land will result in a maximum of 7,641 additional housing units. A great deal of the remaining vacant land, however, is vacant because of the fact that constraints to its development exist. Such constraints include oil production, floodplain regulations and fragmented ownerships. Of the 752 vacant residential acres, approximately 535 acres are subject to such development constraints. Approximately 4,563 units could ultimately be developed on that land when constraints are removed. The fact that land is constrained from immediate development, however, does not mean that development will not ever occur. Rather, the pace of development will simply be slowed somewhat. It may be anticipated that oil facilities will be phased out or combined in unification projects over the next ten to fifteen years, thereby gradually freeing the land for residential development. The rising value of land will also eventually stimulate the consolidation of fragmented ownerships into partnerships or single-owner arrangements for development. i f 3 City of Huntington Beach, Feb. 1989. Housing Projection Revort. July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.5-3 Apart from residentially designated land, there may be opportunities for the City to redesignate non-residential land for residential purposes. A survey of vacant commercial and industrial land has revealed that most properties within those categories would be considered to be infill projects. That is, they are small parcels of land located within developed commercial and industrial areas. As such, they would not be suitable for residential development. Several larger parcels, however, have been identified as potential sites for redesignation to residential. Those sites amount to a total of 135 acres. If designated for Medium Density Residential, they could accommodate 2,027 new housing units. Another approach to identifying additional housing opportunities is to estimate recycling of older housing units from lower to higher densities allowed by the existing zoning. Most of the residential recycling in Huntington Beach is occurring in the Downtown, Townlot and Oldtown areas of the City. A survey of demolition permits and new construction permits in those areas for a five-year period revealed that 77 units were demolished and 280 rebuilt in their place. That amounts to a net increase of 203 housing units over five years. That same number may be extrapolated to the next five years as well. A summary of all of the above information suggests the following total for potential new units in the City: Acres Units Vacant Prime Residential Land 218 3,078 Constrained Vacant Residential Land 535 4,563 Land Which Could Be Redesignated Residential 135 2,027 Recycling — 203* - 888 9.871 * Every five years I July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.5-4 If 50 percent of the prime residential land, 10 percent of the constrained residential land, 50 percent of the land to be redesignated, and 100 percent of the expected recycling develops over the next five years, a total of 3,211 new residential units may be expected to be built by the year 1994. This is, in fact, almost identical to the net increase of 3,398 units which occurred in the City during the five-year period between 1983 and 1988. The projected 3,211 units, however, is still far short of the RHNA projection for 6,228 units. The City is attempting to provide ways to meet the required allocation which calls for an equal proportion of low, moderate and high income housing. Table 5A illustrates the number of units per income group required to meet future needs according to RHNA. TABLE 5A City of Huntington Beach 1989-1994 Household Needs By Income Group Income Group Units Very Low (0-50% County median income) 984 (15.8%) Low (50-80% County median income) 1,264 (20.3%) Moderate (80-120% County median income) 1,370 (22.0%) Upper (over 120% County median income) 2,610 (46.9%) Total Households 6,228 Source: SCAG Regional Housing Needs Assessment, June 1988 (Draft) Existin¢ General Plan The following table illustrates the proposed buildout and estimated population for the Holly-Seacliff project area based on the existing General Plan: July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.5-5 Table 6 Existing General Plan Population Generation Number Land Use Acres of Units Persons/Unit Population Estate Residential 284 878 3.27 2,871 Medium Density 66 980 2.08 2,038 , Planned Community* 134 3.990 1.75 6.983 TOTAL 5,848 11,892 * R4 High Density As indicated above, the existing General Plan proposes 5,848 dwelling units which would generate a population of 11,892 residents. SCAG Growth Forecast Policy The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) develops a Growth Forecast Policy every two to four years as part of its Development Guide Program. Growth forecasts are made for counties, cities, and regional statistical areas. Growth policies are used for: (1) encouraging balanced regional growth within both existing urban and unurbanized areas; (2) encouraging subregional growth to take place in a concentrated, compact form; (3) balancing commercial, industrial, and employment growth with the population of each subregion; and (4) preserving the region's natural resources through development phasing with an area's ability to accommodate growth. The Southern California Association of Governments' SCAG '82 Growth Forecast Policy contains the following projections for the City of Huntington Beach: Date Dwelling Units Population 1990 78,700 198,000 1995 83,400 203,000 2000 85,700 206,640 Source: City of Huntington Beach, 1989 July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.5-6 I SCAG-82 estimates are based on the City's General Plan but have been adjusted to consider regional growth patterns. Employment Employment in the City of Huntington Beach was 47,817 in January of 1984 and is estimated to be 54,000 in December of 1988.4 Based on the historical growth rate it is projected to increase to 70,006 in 2000 and 86,914 in the year 2010. The employment to population ratio is presently .288. This is expected to increase to .320 by 2000 and .375 by the year 2010.5 The following table provides an estimation of the employee opportunities anticipated according to the existing General Plan Land Uses: Table 7 Existing General Plan Employment Generation Maximum Employees per Land Use Sauare Footage 1000 Sa. Ft. Emplovees Neighborhood Commercial 108,900 3 327 Community Commercial 620,730 3 1,862 Office 243,936 4 976 Industrial 2,214,590 1 2.215 TOTAL 5,380 Source: FORMA As indicated, approximately 5,380 jobs would be created. 4 Orange County Progress Report, 1988 s Southern California Association of Governments July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.5-7 4.5.2 IMPACTS The construction of this project will have the following impacts on the City's Housing Element: It will be consistent with the goals of: 1. The attainment of decent housing within a satisfying living environment for households of all socio-economic, racial and ethnic groups in Huntington Beach. This will be accomplished through providing a range of housing types ranging from low density, single family to medium density, single family detached and attached to medium density multi-family. These units will be available to all racial and ethnic groups through fair market rental and sales practices. 2. The provision of a variety of housing opportunities by type, tenure and cost for households of all sizes throughout the City. The various types of permitted units will provide both rental and owner occupied housing to low, moderate and high income groups. 3. The development of a balanced residential environment with access to employment opportunities, community facilities and adequate services. This project located in central Huntington Beach will have excellent access to commercial centers both on site at the Seacliff Shopping Center and at nearby centers along Beach Boulevard. Community facilities will also be convenient, as Huntington Central Park is immediately adjacent to the site, the Linear Park is proposed to the north and the City's Civic Center is just off-site to the south. Employment opportunities are also being provided for through the designation of 54 acres of industrial use along with 11 acres of commercial. July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.5-8 The amount of population expected from this development can be estimated using persons per unit rates provided by the City of Huntington Beach in 1989. As shown in the following table, the population from the proposed Land Use Plan would total approximately 10,880 and the housing units would total 4410. Table 8 Proposed Land Use Plan Population Generation Product Acres Number of Units Persons/Unit Population Estate 213 650 3.27 2,126 Low Density 189 1,050 3.27 3,434 Medium Density 159 1,750 2.08 3,640 Medium High 49 960 1.75 1.680 TOTAL 4,410 10,880 When compared to existing conditions, the project impacts will be significant as an additional 4,410 units will be brought into the City's housing inventory on 558 vacant acres. In comparison to the existing General Plan, the proposed 4410 units represents a 25 percent decrease in the amount of housing projected and a 9 percent decrease in the population forecasted given implementation of the existing General Plan. The proposed project represents 5.3 percent of the total units anticipated (maximum case) by the City's Housing Element. Assuming other areas designated for residential are developed as planned, this would mean a decrease in the total housing and population projected for the City at ultimate buildout. While the project is generally consistent with the plans and policies of the General Plan and Housing Element, there is a total decrease in number of dwelling units provided. Cumulatively, this impact is considered significant. The population associated with the proposed development represents 5.3 percent of SCAG's estimates of the City's total year-2000 population. It represents 126 percent of the population growth SCAG anticipates to occur in the City between 1990 and 2000. The proposed 4410 units represents 5.1 percent of SCAG's estimates for the July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.5-9 City's total housing supply for-the year 2000 and represents 63 percent of the housing growth SCAG anticipates to occur between 1990 and 2000. The proposed Land Use Plan changes the type of unit and shifts primarily from high density to medium and low density. This will likely be a significant decrease in the supply of affordable housing. The following table itemizes changes in dwelling unit allocation: Existing General Proposed Product Plan (DU) Land Use Plan (DU) Chanae Estate 878 640 - 27% Low 0 1010 +100% Medium 980 1525 + 56% Medium/High 0 760 +100% High 3990 475 - 88% While the precise housing and rental prices are not known at this time, ranges for housing costs are projected to range from $175,000 to $550,000.6 The values in this area are established by density, proximity to the beach and the marketplace. It is difficult to provide affordable housing in this location with new construction. Proposed Plan Housing Affordability % of Dwelling # of Total Product Unit Value Units Project Units Estate $550,000 640 14 Low Density 400,000 1,010 23 Medium Density 275,000 1,525 35 Medium-High Density 225,000 760 17 Mixed Development 175,000 475 11 4,410 6W.K.A. Holly Seacliff Market Study, March 1989 July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.5-10 Existing General Plan Housing Affordability Dwelling # of % of Total Product Unit Value Units G.P. Units Estate $550,000 878 15 Medium Density 275,000 980 17 Planned Community 175,000 3.990 68 5,848 As indicated in the tables above, the existing General Plan provides a greater number of housing units in the affordable income range required by RHNA compared to the proposed plan. Thirty-seven percent of the housing in the proposed plan is over the $275,000 dwelling unit value. Only approximately eleven percent of the units in the proposed plan will be priced in the $175,000 range compared to sixty-eight percent in the General Plan. Cumulatively, this impact is considered significant as it will impact the ability to meet the City's RHNA total allocation. Employment Development of the proposed project is anticipated to generate approximately 4,870 employees. This is based on data from the following table: Table 9 Proposed Land Use Plan Employment Generation Maximum Employees per Land Use Sauare Footage 1,000 sa.ft. Employees Neighborhood Commercial 119,790 3 359 Community Commercial 217,800 3 653 Industrial 964,418 4 3.858 TOTAL 4,870 Source: FORMA July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.5-11 This employee number represents 7.2 percent of SCAG's estimated year-2000 employment for RSA 38 (which includes Huntington Beach, Seal Beach, Fountain Valley, and Westminster). In comparison to the existing General Plan, the proposed project will create 4,870 employment opportunities which represents a nine percent net decrease in employment potential within the project area. This nine percent reduction in employment opportunities is not considered significant and therefore no socio- economic impacts are anticipated. 4.5.3 MITIGATION MEASURES 1. 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 as well as the needs identified in the RHNA. 4.5.4 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE The level of residential development represented by the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment will generate approximately 10,880 new project residents which does not exceed City growth projections indicated in the City's General Plan. The proposed project, in comparison to the existing General Plan, would incrementally decrease employment opportunities within the project area by nine I percent, contribute to a 25% reduction in the housing stock available to the City and a reduction in affordable housing opportunities/RHNA requirements. This cumulative impact cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance and remains an unavoidable adverse impact. July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.5-12 HOLLY - SEACLIFF GPA Recreation CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 4.61 4.6 RECREATION 4.6.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS Recreation Element The Recreation Element of the City General Plan is intended to provide direction for the acquisition, development and maintenance of the City's public recreation facilities. The goals and policies contained in this element are intended to help the City prioritize its expenditures on park facilities to achieve a system that best meets the recreation needs of the community. The Recreation Element has specified certain goals to establish and maintain neighborhood parks. They include: 1. Provide neighborhood parks that are generally 2.0 to 5 acres in size. 2. Centrally locate parks within neighborhoods. 3. Design neighborhood parks to serve the area within a one-quarter mile radius. 4. When possible, locate neighborhood parks adjacent to school so that both facilities can provide more functional uses. 5. Place a high priority on developing a neighborhood park to serve the Seacliff area. 6. In new residential tracts, consideration should be given to providing and maintaining neighborhood recreation areas through a homeowner's maintenance association. Master Plan of Ridine and Hiking Trails County In 1984 the County of Orange adopted a new Recreation Element. This Element reestablished a network of riding trails which link the harbors, beaches, parks and July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.6-1 other open space and recreation lands in Orange County together. The trails substantially enhance the value of regional recreation facilities by maximizing scenic vistas and viewpoints. They allow the equestrian and hiker to travel from the county's inland area (Cleveland National Forest) to the shoreline, and from Niguel Peak (987 feet elevation) to the Pacific Ocean. The county wide regional trail network has 250 miles of existing and proposed trails. Sixty-nine miles of trails are currently developed, most of which are located in North Orange County. City Prior to 1972, the City did not have a plan for formally designated riding trails. The City of Huntington Beach introduced a Trails Element Preliminary Plan in June, 1972, which set forth the criteria for developing a 13-mile official trails network. In April of 1983, staff prepared a Master Plan of Equestrian Trails for Huntington Central Park. The standards set forth in this master plan include the following: 1. A connection to the Linear Park from the equestrian trail. 2. All facilities in the park be compatible. 3. The trail be a "permanent" system. Of the five alternative trail plans presented to the commission, two plans were adopted (Alternative A and E). The basic plan (Alternative A) encompasses approximately 11,000 linear feet of trails in an altered double loop configuration passing through the two major observation areas. Access to the trail from estates in the project area is included in the plan. Alternative E offers a 1000 linear foot trail linking the initial system to the south of the existing Huntington Central Park Stables. The system provides a variety of trail experiences such as open fields, valley floors and shaded eucalyptus groves. Existing and Planned Recreational Facilities The City of Huntington Beach contains both extensive and diverse opportunities for recreation. In addition to a park system which includes 50 neighborhood parks, four July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.6-2 community parks and the largest City-owned and operated regional park in Orange County (Huntington Central Park), the City also has a variety of public recreational opportunities including beaches, equestrian trails, bike paths, school playgrounds and athletic fields at the community college. These recreational facilities are illustrated on Exhibit 15. In addition, there are two regional parks in close proximity to the City (Sunset Aquatic Park in Seal Beach and Mile Square Park in Fountain Valley) which provide recreational areas for Huntington Beach residents. The community and regional parks are not presently considered in the assessment of neighborhood park supply and demand, even though they complement neighborhood parks. Huntington Central Park is the closest park to the project site, located on Goldenwest between Slater and Ellis. It has 216 acres of park land, with lakes, a nature center, six miles of walking/biking trails and a city operated equestrian center. Ultimate park development will expand to 380 acres when additional funding becomes available. Bolsa Chica Linear Park is currently a County planned passive park. The site is located immediately west of the Holly-Seacliff area at Edwards and Ellis. The park will eventually provide passive recreational opportunities (bicycle, equestrian, and pedestrian trails) and will eventually link Huntington Central Park with Bolsa Chica State Beach. Based upon a June 1977 feasibility study and subsequent consideration by the City of Huntington Beach, the following planning goals were established for the Linear Regional Park. A. Provide relief to and shape the future urban environment in the adjacent Bolsa Chica Gap and Huntington Beach Mesa pursuant to Policy A-1 of the adopted County Master Plan of Regional Parks. B. Provide a corridor along the Huntington Beach Mesa within which trails for pedestrians, equestrians and bicyclists can be located. July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.6-3 LEGEND BOLSA CHICA ECOLOGICAL RESERVE BOLSA CHICA STATE BEACH PARK fah. %f i�fsi col yg96 m� q BOLSA CHICA PROPOSED LINEAR PARK HUNTINGTON CITY BEACH PARK C` `Pao- ``q90 HUNTINGTON STATE BEACH PARK 84b�1-y +Oaf SEACLIFF GOLF COURSE HUNTINGTON CENTRAL PARK BGm q leao lb % Y V - , r � r } J `. PACIFIC .... ::a.......•a .„..�..„...... ,.,: .. i - �- •.- - - i COAS ..ems. ...... ,.. .,. f Q n � EXHIBIT 15 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH RECREATIONAL FACILITIES MM hlIIIIII II�� I I FQ� C. Provide connections between Huntington Beach Central Park, and Bolsa Chica State Beach for pedestrians and bicyclists. D. Provide connections for equestrians using the trails and auxiliary facilities established in or adjacent to Huntington Central Park. E. Allow for arterial highways in the area consistent with the County and City Master Plans of Arterial Highways. F. Provide a staging area on the west side of Edwards Street, opposite Huntington Central Park, for pedestrian, bicyclist and equestrian access to the Linear Regional Park. G. Relate the Linear Park to Huntington Central Park so as to enhance the potential for the functional utility, operation and maintenance efficiency of each. H. Provide appropriate buffer areas between park activity areas and the State Department of Fish and Game Ecological Reserve, oil extraction operations and existing and proposed urban development including roadways. I. Protect and preserve the bluff edges and bluff faces from further erosion and defacement. J. Provide appropriate corridor support facilities, such as parking, overlooks, vista points, rest stops, picnic areas and concession and service points. K. Minimize grading except for the grading necessary for the arterial roads. 1 L. Retain the railroad right of way as an open space corridor for future trail or transit use. I July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.6-5 Other existing recreational opportunities near the project consist of the State Department of Fish and Game Ecological Reserve to the north, the Bolsa Chica State Beach to the west, and the Seacliff Private Golf Course just south of the project area. The Reserve offers a passive recreation area where visitors can view a functioning salt marsh habitat. The Bolsa Chica State Beach includes approximately five miles of shore line, much of which is currently developed with a variety of recreation facilities. The existing and planned recreational facilities available to Huntington Beach residents at ultimate development will total 1,078 acres, including 236 acres in neighborhood/mini parks, 380 acres in Huntington Central Park, 78 acres in community parks, 72 acres in Huntington City Beach, and 318 acres in State beach parks (Source: Recreation Element)'. An analysis of park needs indicates that an additional 102 acres of park space beyond what is currently proposed should be developed in order to meet a park goal of five acres per 1,000 population. Development of additional public recreation facilities should be balanced, however, against the costs of park construction and on-going maintenance. The Fiscal Impact Study indicates that annual costs to the City to maintain parks is $3,500 per acre. Equestrian Facilities There are three stables currently operating in Huntington Beach. Smokey's Stables is located the farthest from the project area near the intersection of Bolsa Chica Road and Warner Avenue. The Huntington Central Park Stable is the largest of the three stables and is located just north of the project area along Goldenwest Avenue. The Huntington Crest stable is located on the corner of Ellis Avenue and Goldenwest Street within the project area and adjacent to existing residences within the Ellis- Goldenwest quarter section. ' April 20, 1989 phone conversation with Jim Engle, Superintendent of Park Development indicated that the City has obtained an operational agreement with the State to maintain approximately 1.3 miles of beach north of the pier which would increase City beach acreage to 172 acres. July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.6-6 4.6.2 IMPACTS Recreation Element The proposed project provides a comprehensive and coordinated plan for the acquisition and development of public and private open space and recreation areas. The project proposes 40 acres of open space area adjacent to Central Park, dedication of 36 acres of land for the Bolsa Chica Linear Park, and four new neighborhood parks within the project area. This is shown on Exhibit 9 Open Space Element. After implementation of the mitigation measures, no significant adverse impacts are anticipated. Master Plan of Riding and Hikin¢ Trails The project proposes to incorporate equestrian trails which link Central Park to the bluffs of Huntington Mesa. A link is also proposed from Central Park into the Ellis- Goldenwest quarter section where trails will be provided wherever appropriate to link to the main trail system. Bike trails will also be provided both within roadways and in the Linear Park. The project is consistent with the City and County Master Plan of Riding and Hiking Trails. Recreational Facilities Development of the Holly-Seacliff project, as currently proposed, would include a I total of 89 acres planned towards public parks and open space. The proposed plan includes 36 acres which will be dedicated for addition to the Bolsa Chica Linear Park, 40 acres for recreational use adjacent to Huntington Central Park and 13 acres for neighborhood parks. The 36 acres planned for the Linear Park will preserve the sensitive bluff areas, in cooperation with Orange County's plans for the Bolsa Chica wetland area. Access will also be provided from Central Park to the coastline through the park. Forty acres of open space area are to be designated adjacent to Huntington Central Park north of Ellis between Goldenwest and Edwards Streets. The Linear Park will be the July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.6-7 subject of a separate environmental assessment. Four neighborhood parks are planned to serve the project area. One three-acre park is planned in the Ell is-Golden west quarter section; a second three-acre park is planned near Edwards and the extension of Clay Street; a third three-acre park is planned in the medium density area east of Garfield between realigned Gothard and Huntington Streets and a four-acre park is planned for the low density area, west of Ellis between realigned Gothard and Goldenwest Streets. No impacts are anticipated to parklands within the project after implementaion of the mitigation measures. The population generated by this project would place a demand for a total of 54 acres of park land at a ratio of 5 acres per 1,000 persons. The proposed Plan provides a total of 89 acres, which exceeds the projected demand by 35 acres or 39 percent. No impacts are anticipated to recreational facilities after implementation of the mitigation measures.. Eauestrian Facilities Development of the project will occur within an area of equestrian activity which is most predominant within the Ellis-Goldenwest quarter section. While the location of the existing stable is planned for residential use, this quarter section is planned as an equestrian oriented community. This will be facilitated by allowing horses to be kept on the lots exceeding 12,000 square feet. The Draft Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan allows for private commercial equestrian facilities, as well as equestrian oriented facilities in public park areas. The Draft Plan has shown a network of equestrian trails which will provide for equestrian - access all throughout this area. The trail system will also connect to Central Park. Upon buildout, the project will be consistent with the County Master Plan of Riding trails. The project does not have a direct impact upon equestrian facilities within Huntington Beach as this has been addressed by the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan already adopted. July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.6-8 4.6.3 MITIGATION MEASURES 1. The City should adopt a plan for acquisition and development of land within the Central Park expansion area north of Ellis Avenue. 2. The City shall enter into an agreement with major landowners to dedicate designated parklands prior to or concurrent with development in each Planning Area. 3. The City should create a special assessment district(s) for the development and maintenance of public trails and parklands within the project area. 4.6.4 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE Approval and development of the proposed project will contribute to the conversion of vacant/oil producing land to urban use. The net benefit to the City will be an improved appearance of this area, along with conversion to alternative uses and dedication of 89 acres for open space. This is 35 acres (39%) more than is required to meet park impact standards of the City. All project specific impacts will be mitigated to a level of insignificance after implementation of the mitigation measures. The proposed project will create an incremental increased demand on regional recreation facilities which will be mitigated to a level of insignificance through development of the linear park. Approval of this project will not result in any unavoidable adverse impacts to recreation facilities within the City. July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.6-9 HOLLY - SEACLIFF GPA Traffic/Circulation CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 4.7 4.7 TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION The following study assesses the traffic and circulation impacts from the proposed Holly Seacliff General Plan Amendment project onto the local intersection and arterial street system within the project study area. This impact analysis has been conducted for both the existing plus project and General Plan build out scenarios. The existing plus project daily trip analysis is presented to determine the Holly Seacliff traffic impacts to the existing circulation system. The daily trips generated by the proposed project are compared to daily trips associated with build out of the County and City's General Plan Land Use Elements and the Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH). In addition to the traditional General Plan level daily traffic analysis, AM and PM peak hour trips have been generated for the proposed Holly Seacliff GPA project in order to assess potential intersection impacts related to the proposed development. A full discussion of methodology including key intersections studied may be found in the full transportation report completed by LSA Associates found in the appendix of this document. The full report contains indepth analysis of all alternatives studied. 4.7.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS Existing Roadway Characteristics The existing street system in the vicinity of the study area is presented in Exhibit i 16 (Intersection Location Map). Primary north/south circulation in the study are is via Edwards Street, Goldenwest Street, Gothard Street, Main Street and Beach_._ _ I Boulevard. Primary east/west circulation is via Pacific Coast Highway, Yorktown Avenue, Garfield Avenue and Ellis Avenue. Regional freeway access to the I-405 is provided at Beach Boulevard and Goldenwest Street approximately four miles to the north of the study area. A summary of the existing arterial characteristics is illustrated in Table 10 (Existing Arterial Condition). July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.7-1 Other modes of transportation are also provided for in the study area. Exhibit 17 is the City's Master Plan of Bikeways, and illustrates that the majority of arterials in the study area have provisions for bicycle lanes. Bicycle lanes are not currently provided along segments of Ellis Avenue and Goldenwest Street. These segments, along with other planned roadway additions, will include bicycle lanes in the build out scenario. In addition, the Orange County Transit District (OCTD) provides bus service to the Holly Seacliff study area. OCTD currently offers service on two routes in the project area. These routes include #74 - Irvine to Huntington Beach and 025/25A - Fullerton to Huntington Beach. There are eight existing OCTD stops in the Holly Seacliff GPA area. The majority of these stops do not include bus turnouts, benches or shelters. Provisions for these amenities will be addressed with the development of the GPA project. The Standard Pacific Railroad (SPRR) currently maintains a rail line along Gothard Street from Garfield to the north. This rail line handles freight traffic from the industrial uses along this corridor. While this rail line does not currently provide an additional mode of personal transportation, the SPRR easement has been discussed as a possible transportation corridor and should be preserved for future planning efforts. Daily Traffic The existing 1988-1989 average daily traffic (ADT) volumes for the arterials in the vicinity of the project are presented in Exhibit 18 (Existing Condition ADT and V/C Ratios). Exhibit _18 also presents the existing volume to capacity (v/c) ratios. - - Volume to capacity ratios are simply the daily traffic volume divided by the daily capacities of the existing system. For the city of Huntington Beach, however, the design capacity values used to determine the v/c ratios are not actually representative of the total physical capacity July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.7-2 < SLATER x < 0 w .J c m o < -J z x cc 0 TALBERT <) voo ♦ iN ELLIS �—■ 2 34p 4 Mai C Project I Site ' G IELD ' ' •` 5 6 • •r��� J CLAY � r YORKTOWN A A� • � 10 c `� ...�... 8 0 LEGENDyy ? Major Z Primary 12 Secondary ■— Project Boundary 11 x ' m SCALE IN FEET 0 1000 2000 HOLLY SEACLIFF INTERSECTION LOCATION MAP saa 115/4/,,,KF EXHIBIT 16 TABLE 10 EXISTING ARTERIAL CONDITION LOCATION EXISTING CONDITION Talbert Avenue West of Gothard 2-lanes undivided Ellis Avenue West of Gothard 2-lanes undivided East of Gothard 4-lanes undivided Garfield Avenue West of Goldenwest 2-lanes undivided East of Goldenwest 4-lanes undivided Yorktown Avenue West of Beach Boulevard 4-lanes undivided + divided East of Beach Boulevard 4-lanes undivided + divided Goldenwest Street North of Garfield 4-lanes undivided South of Garfield 4-lanes undivided + divided Gothard Street North of Ellis 3-lanes undivided South of Ellis 2-lanes undivided Main Street 4-lanes divided Beach Boulevard 6-lanes divided July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.7-4 FFF ■�01 OW '*1% +� -N% 111111IM PROPOSED O J� J . r SCALE IN FEET 0 1600 3200 EXHIBIT 17 Lsa 114,,4,,9.K. . CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH BICYCLE FACILITIES ► o to to N 1 _O C* SLATER i 14.8/0.74 15/0.75 15.7/0.79 18/0.9 (� W J O N cc A t7 C, O O !9 a� I� z N z O N co N � TALBERT 5.3/0.44 9.7/0.81 5;8/0.7 J N.N- N tt / r■�.� tn i ELLIS ■ � 5.3/0.27 6.6/0.8 ` 7/0.58 ` , O m a Ci to Project Site o, o 0 a A o v ■, w C N O p GARFIELD �o 15/1.25 21/1.05 �' W 21/1.05 24.5/ ' 1.23 J CLAY 9 Go 0 N YORKTOWN A'�i 9��1 • 15/0.75 15/0.75 CIO LEGEND �' y '�' 6 qy °'Cb a10 �■�e Major o a N "' 0 Primary s'�2 cli -- Secondary -- --- Project Boundary YD SCALE IN FEET HOLLY SEACLIFF 0 1000 2000 EXISTING CONDITION AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND VIC RATIOS �sa 137/18/89:KF EXHIBIT 1S of the facility, but reflect capacity at level of service (LOS) C. The upper limit of a LOS C value is approximately 80% of the physical arterial capacity. Therefore, a v/c ratio of 1.00 in this analysis indicates a volume of daily traffic utilizing approximately 80% of the physical arterial capacity. In actuality, a volume to capacity ratio of approximately 1.20 indicates an arterial link in which the physical capacity is reached. The LOS C design capacity values used by the City for the various roadway classifications are presented as follows: Tyne of Arterial Daily Volume at LOS C Capacity Major 45,000 Primary 30,000 Secondary 20,000 As can be seen in Exhibit 18 (Existing Condition Average Daily Traffic V/C Ratios), Coast Highway in the project vicinity currently operates in excess of the design capacity, but is not over the physical capacity. Goldenwest Street, between Garfield and Slater, also operates in excess of the City's design capacity for the arterial. North of Slater, Goldenwest Street operates over capacity. Beach Boulevard, north of Ellis, currently operates over the physical capacity of the roadway with a total daily volume of approximately 57,000 ADT. All other arterial segments in the study area operate acceptably, with daily traffic volumes well under the respective LOS C capacity values. Intersection Capacity Roadway capacity is generally limited by the ability to move vehicles through intersections. The impact that development has on intersection operation is determined using the intersection capacity utilization (ICU) method. The ICU method produces a numeric value representing the percentage of signal green time required to accommodate intersection traffic with a given number of traffic lanes. To establish a base condition for evaluation, the ICU is calculated for existing traffic conditions during a.m. and p.m. peak hours at subject intersections. July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.7-7 To evaluate the current performance of the study area intersections, existing a.m. and p.m. peak hour turn movement counts were conducted during February 1989, and along with measurements taken on the Coast Highway in August 1988. The ICU is expressed in terms of level of service (LOS), where LOS A represents free flow activity and LOS F is overcapacity operations. For evaluation of intersection impacts, the threshold between LOS D and LOS E, or an ICU of 0.91, is considered unacceptable. The existing ICU and LOS determinations are illustrated in Table I (Exiting Condition ICU Summary). As seen in the Table, the intersection of Beach/Ellis currently operates over-capacity in the p.m. peak hour. All other intersection currently operate below the 0.90, or LOS D, threshold. It should be pointed out that the intersection of Beach/Garfield approaches unacceptable operations in the p.m. peak hour, while the intersection of Goldenwest/Coast Highway approaches unacceptable operations in the a.m. peak hour. 4.7.2 IMPACTS Triu Generation For this analysis, specific allowable densities for each land use have been assumed as a means to assess the potential circulation impacts associated with development. j Daily and a.m. and p.m. peak our trips were generated for the project based on the land uses proposed for this area. Trip generation is the product of trip generation rates multiplied by the proposed number of development units. In recognition of the differential in commercial trip generation by commercial center size, representative retail trip generation rates were established by type of commercial centers: neighborhood (0-150,000 square feet), community (150,000 250,000 square feet) and district (greater that 250,000 square feet). As the GPA project alternatives contain solely neighborhood commercial facilities, the rate for centers of this size have been used in this analysis. This daily trip generation rate is approximately 82 daily trips per 1,000 square feet. The use of this July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.7-8 trip rate presents a worst case analysis, as it assumes a greater trip generation potential for the larger centers, while approximating the trip generation for the more moderately sized retail centers. The trip generation for the existing General Plan and the Proposed Plan are summarized below: Current General Plan. The current General Plan trip generation for the project site is presented in Table 12 (Existing General Plan Trip Generator). Land use units assumed for this exercise include the maximum allowable densities of each particular land use permitted within the project area under the General Plan. As seen in the Table, the existing General Plan for the Holly Seacliff area is forecast to generate approximately 97,280 average daily trips (ADT) and 7,030 a.m. and 9,730 p.m. peak hour trips. TABLE 11 EXISTING CONDITION ICU SUMMARY EXISTING CONDITION AM PEAK PM PEAK INTERSECTION ICU LOS ICU LOS 1. Edwards Street/Ellis Avenue 0.54 A 0.69 B 2. Goldenwest Street/Ellis Avenue 0.50 A 0.59 A 3. Gothard Street/Ellis Avenue 0.42 A 0.47 A 4. Beach Boulevard/Ellis Avenue 0.72 C 1.02 F 5. Edwards Street/Garfield Avenue 0.41 A 0.47 A 6. Goldenwest Street/Garfield Avenue 0.52 A 0.59 A 7. Main Street/Garfield Avenue 0.51 A 0.58 A 8. Beach Boulevard/Garfield Avenue 0.66 B 0.89 b 9. Goldenwest Street/Yorktown Avenue 0.64 B 0.80 C 10. Main Street/Yorktown Avenue 0.53 A 0.50 A 11. Goldenwest Street/Coast Highway 0.88 D 0.84 D 12. Goldenwest Street/Palm Avenue 0.48 A 0.55 A 13. Gothard Street/Garfield Avenue N/A --- N/A --- July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.7-9 Proposed Land Use Concept Plan. The Proposed GPA is comprised of predominantly low density residential, with some commercial and industrial activities. The proposed Land use Concept Plan is forecast to generate approximately 60,370 daily trips and 4,080 a.m. and 5,710 p.m. peak hour trips. The Proposed GPA results in fewer trips as compared to the General Plan, as can be seen in Table 13 (Proposed Land Use Concept Plan Trip Generation). This represents a 38% reduction in gross daily trip generation over the current General Plan Trip Distribution and Assignment The trips generated as described above were distributed and assigned to the local and regional circulation systems according to distribution patterns established by the County of Orange Traffic model and Bolsa Chica Subarea Traffic Model distribution patterns. For illustrative purposes, the generalized distribution percentages are presented in Exhibit 19 (Project Trip Distribution). These generalized patterns were refined to reflect the local circulation system, proposed parcel access locations and particular land use types. Existing Plus Proiect Daily Traffic Impacts A daily traffic analysis was conducted to assess the arterial impacts of the project area development on the existing circulation system. The project daily trip assignments, output from the LSA Holly Seacliff model, were added to the existing daily traffic base, and resulting volume to capacity ratios were calculated. July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.7-10 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Existing TRIP GENERATION RATES GENERAL PLAN TRIP GENERATION TAZ LAND USE UNITS General Plan DAILY AM IN AM OUT PM IN PM OUT DAILY AM IN AM OUT PM IN PM OUT ------- ------------------------------ ----- --------------- ------- ------ ------ ------ ------ -------- ------- ------- ------- -------- A.1 Open Space ACRES 16 (1) A.2 Residential Estates DU 183 (2) 10.06 0.20 0.55 0.63 0.37 1,841 37 101 116 68 B.1 Residential Estates DU 124 (3) 10.06 0.20 0.55 0.63 0.37 1,247 25 68 79 46 B.2 Residential Estates OU 354 (4) 10.06 0.20 0.55 0.63 0.37 3.561 72 195 224 132 8.3 General Commercial TSF 120 82.00 1.40 1.30 3.20 3.40 9,823 168 156 383 407 B.4 Open Space ACRES 29 C.1 Residential Estates DU 56 10.06 0.20 0.55 0.63 0.37 563 11 31 35 21 C.2 Residential Estates DU 96 10.06 0.20 0.55 0.63 0.37 966 20 53 61 36 C.3 General Industrial TSF 2,215 6.97 0.85 0.12 0.12 0.91 15.429 1,871 255 275 2.022 C.4 Office/Professional TSF 244 14.30 1.87 0.22 0.44 1.76 3,488 456 54 107 429 0.1 Planned Community DU 3,990 7.44 0.11 0.39 0.41 0.21 29,682 444 1.575 1,630 840 0.2 Resource Production/Storage TSF 750 6.97 0.76 0.17 0.20 0.70 5.228 570 128 150 525 E.1 Medium Density Residential OU 918 (5) 7.00 0.09 0.47 0.38 0.19 6.426 83 431 349 174 E.2 lGeneral Commercial TSF 376 (6) 50.60 0.40 0.20 2.10 2.20 19,026 150 75 790 827 TOTAL TRIP GENERATION 97.281 3,908 3,121 4,199 5,527 --------------=-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (1) - Includes 11 acres of open space recreational land in Planning Area D. (2) - Includes 9 dwelling units of residential estates in Planning Area D. (3) - Excludes 15 dwelling units of residential estates already developed. (4) - Excludes 50 dwelling units of residential estates already developed. (5) - Excludes 62 dwelling units of residential estates already developed. (6) - Excludes 125.000 gross square feet of leasable floor area already developed. (Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers, 4th. Edition Trip Generation Manual) TABLE 12 HOLLY SEACLIFF EXISTING GENERAL PLAN Lsa ,,9,,9:KF TRIP GENERATION TABLE ---------- -- -- --- ------------ Proposed Land TRIP GENERATION RATES PROPOSED PLAN TRIP GENERATION TAZ LAND USE UNITS Use Plan DAILY AM 1N AM OUT PM IN PM OUT DAILY AM IN AM OUT PM IN PM OUT ------- ------------------------------ ----- --------------- ------- ------ ------ ------ ------ ------- ------- ------- ------- -------- A.1 Open Space ACRES 26 A.2 Residential Estates OU 170 10.06 0.20 0.55 0.63 0.37 1.710 35 94 108 63 8.1 Residential Estates OU 142 (1) 10.06 0.20 0.55 0.63 0.37 1.429 29 78 90 53 B.2 Residential Estates DU 122 (2) 10.06 0.20 0.55 0.63 0.37 1.227 25 67 77 45 B.3 Residential Estates DU 141 (3) 10.06 0.20 0.55 0.63 0.37 1.418 29 78 89 52 8.4 Open Space ACRES 40 C.1 Low Density Residential OU 310 10.06 0.20 0.55 0.63 0.37 3.119 63 171 196 115 C.2 General Industrial TSF 572 6.97 0.85 0.12 0.12 0.91 3.982 483 66 71 522 C.3 Medium Density Residential OU 240 7.00 0.09 0.47 0.38 0.19 1.680 21 112 90 44 C.4 Medium Density Residential DU 425 7.00 0.09 0.47 0.38 0.19 2.975 38 198 160 79 C.5 Med./High Density Residential DU 400 7.00 0.10 0.44 0.46 0.22 2.800 38 174 183 86 C.6 Medium Density Residential DU 60 7.00 0.09 0.47 0.38 0.19 420 5 28 23 11 C.7 Med./High Density Residential OU 100 7.00 0.10 0.44 0.46 0.22 700 10 44 46 22 0.1 Open Space ACRES 13 0.2 Low Density Residential OU 150 10.06 0.20 0.55 0.63 0.37 1,509 31 83 95 56 D.3 Medium Density Residential OU 225 7.00 0.09 0.47 0.38 0.19 1.575 20 105 85 42 0.4 Low Density Residential DU 100 10.06 0.20 0.55 0.63 0.37 1.006 20 55 63 37 0.5 General Commercial TSF 76 82.00 1.40 1.30 3.20 3.40 6,251 107 99 244 259 D.6 Medium Density Residential DU 265 7.00 0.09 0.47 0.38 0.19 1,855 24 124 100 49 D.7 Med./High Density Residential DU 260 7.00 0.10 0.44 0.46 0.22 1.820 25 113 119 56 D.8 Low Density Residential DU 80 10.06 0.20 0.55 0.63 0.37 805 16 44 51 30 0.9 Low Density Residential OU 370 10.06 0.20 0.55 0.63 G.37 3.722 75 204 234 138 E.1 General Industrial TSF 393 6.97 0.85 0.12 0.12 0.91 2,737 332 45 49 359 E.2 Mixed Use Development ACRES 53 232.45 3.73 4.14 9.62 9.12 12.320 198 219 510 483 E.3 Medium Density Residential OU 85 7.00 0.09 0.47 0.38 0.19 595 8 40 32 16 E.4 Medium Density Residential OU 93 (4) 7.00 0.09 0.47 0.38 0.19 651 8 43 35 17 E.5 General Commercial TSF 44 (5) 82.00 1.40 1.30 3.20 3.40 3,572 61 57 139 148 E.6 Medium Density Residential DU 70 7.00 0.09 0.47 0.38 0.19 490 6 33 26 13 - - ---- - ----- - -- TOTAL TRIP GENERATION 60,368 1,706 2.373 2.914 2.195 - -- -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (1) Excludes 23 dwelling units already developed. (2) Excludes 18 dwelling units already developed. (3) Excludes 24 dwelling units already developed. (4) Excludes 62 dwelling units already developed. (5) Excludes 125,000 gross square feet of leasable floor area already developed. (Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers, 4th. Edition Trip Generation Manual) TABLE 13 HOLLY SEACLIFF PROPOSED LAND USE CONCEPT PLAN Lsa 6/21/89;KF TRIP GENERATION TABLE SLATER cc w 0 35 25 is _ z � d TALB ERT ELLI oe g owl cc Project Site ♦ ` — OAAFIELD ' • �. .�. 10 CLAY � r • YORKTOWN 00. LEGEND e■ Major o" Z �■ Primary Secondary -- Project Boundary XX Percent Trip Distribution Ok ,. m SCALE IN FEET 0 1000 2000 HOLLY SEACLIFF PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION Lsa 133,10/,,:,D EXHIBIT 19 The resulting existing plus project daily traffic volume analysis is presented in Table 14 (Existing Plus Project Daily Traffic Volumes and V/C Ratios). The first column illustrates the existing daily traffic volumes and v/c ratios. Column 2 presents the existing conditions plus the traffic generated by the proposed Land Use Plan. If the project were developed, all links of Garfield Avenue studied would exhibit overcapacity conditions assuming the current two lane roadway. Other segments, including Coast Highway, Yorktown east of Beach, Goldenwest north of Coast Highway and Beach north of Ellis, are forecast to experience overcapacity operations assuming the addition of the proposed project on the existing circulation system. In addition, certain arterial segments would exhibit levels of service in excess of the City standard LOS C. These segments include Ellis east of Beach, Yorktown west of Goldenwest, segments of Edwards and segments of Gothard. It should be pointed out that arterial widenings associated with the build out of the study area General Plan Circulation Element will eliminate these daily traffic impacts and provide for acceptable arterial levels of service. These include arterial widenings along Goldenwest Street, Edwards Street, Ellis Avenue and Garfield Avenue. Existin¢ Plus Proiect Intersection Level of Service Impacts Peak hour intersection impacts for the proposed project based on the existing circulation system are presented in Table 15 (Existing Plus Project ICU Summary). Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) analysis has been conducted assuming the proposed project's peak hour trip contribution to the existing peak hour traffic and circulation base. Table 15 (Existing Plus Project ICU Summary) also includes the existing peak hour ICU results for purposes of comparison. July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.7-14 -------------------------- --------------- --------------- ----- EXISTING EXISTING EXISTING • COMCE►T • INDUSTRIAL •RESIDENTIAL EXISTING PLAN PLAN PLAN CONDITION CONDITION CONDITION CONDITION --------------------------------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- EEXISTING VOLUME VIC VOLUME VIC VOLUME VIC VOLUME VIC LINKS I --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Slater Avenue Edwards to Goldenwest 20.0 14.8 0.74 IS-0 0.75 15.0 0.75 15.0 0.75 6oldenwest to Gothard 20.0 35.0 0.75 IS.? 0.76 15.2 0.15 15.2 0.76 Gothard to Beach 20.0 15.7 0.79 16.2 0.81 16.3 0.81 16.2 0.81 East of Beach 20.0 18.0 0.90 18.1 0.20 18.1 0.90 16.1 0.20 Talbert Avenue Edwards to Goldenwest 12.0 S.3 0.44 S.S 0.46 5.5 0.46 5.5 0.46 Goldenwest to Gothard 12.0 5.3 0.44 6.1 O.S1 6.2 0.51 6.1 O.S1 Gothard to Beach 12.0 9.7 0.81 11.4 0.95 11.4 0.95 11.3 0.94 East of Beach 20.0 15.8 0.71 15.9 0.79 IS.9 0.79 15.9 0.79 Ellis Avenue Edwards to Goldenwest 12.0 7.0 0.58 9.7 0.61 10.0 0.84 9.7 0.61 Goldenwest to Gothard 12.0 5.3 0.44 7.9 OAS 8.1 0.68 Y.7 0.54 Gothard to Beach 21.0 5.3 0.21 7.6 0.38 7.9 0.39 7.6 0.38 East of Beach 20.0 16.6 0.113 2Z.1 1.11 22.1 1.11 21.3 1.07 Garfield Avenue Edwards to Goldenwest 12.0 15.0 1.2S 29.1 2.34 28.9 2.41 24.9 2.08 Goldenwest to Gothard/Main 20.0 21.0 1.OS 34.1 1.70 33.7 1.69 34.4 1.72 Gothard/Maln to Beach 20.0 21.0 1.05 33 S 1.67 33.3 1.66 27.2 1.36 East of Beach 20.0 24.5 1.23 42.9 1.14 42.9 2.14 41.4 2.07 Clay Avenue Goldenweat to Main I2.0 2 0 0.17 11.1 1 06 12.3 1.03 13.0 1.09 Main to Beach 12.0 2.0 0.11 3.3 0.28 3.3 0.28 3.6 0.30 Yorktown Avenue 6oldenwest to Main 20.0 15.0 0.75 19.3 0.91 19.3 0.97 20.1 1.01 Main to Beach 20.0 15.0 0.75 17.1 0.86 17.2 0.86 17.0 0.89 East of Beach 20.0 26.2 1.31 11.9 1.38 27.6 1.38 27.8 1.39 Coast Highway West Of 6oldenwtst 30.0 36.0 1.10 4S.$ 1.S3 46.1 1.S4 45.6 1.52 East of Goldenwest 30.0 40.0 1.33 43.9 1.46 44.1 1.47 44.3 1.48 Edwards Street North of Slater 20.0 14.1 0.74 16.5 0.93 18.8 0.94 18.5 0.92 Slater to Talbert 20.0 7.5 0.38 II.S 0.57 it.$ 0.59 11.5 O.SB Talbert to Ellis 12.0 7.5 0.63 11.6 0.97 11.0 1.00 11.8 0.95 Ellis to 6ar•leld 12.0 1.2 0.60 11.1 0.93 11.7 0.97 11.2 0.94 Goldenwest Street North of Slater 45.0 36.0 0.60 47.1 1.05 46.9 1.04 46.9 1.04 Slater to Talbert 45.0 32.4 0.72 43 S 0.97 43.3 0.96 43.3 0.96 Talbert to Ellis 45.0 2S.0 O.SB 36.1 0.62 36.5 0.81 36.6 0.81 Ellis to Garfield 4S.0 32.0 0.71 4Z.1 0.94 41.4 0.92 42.3 0.94 Garfield to Yorktown 20.0 22.1 1.14 3S.0 1.75 35.5 1.71 3S.9 1.79 Yorktown to Coast Highway 20.0 17.6 0.83 29.4 1.47 19.8 1.49 30.0 1.50 Gothard Street North of Slater 20.0 2S.6 0.79 11.1 1.06 21.4 1.07 21.3 1.07 Slater to Talbert 20.0 14.5 0.73 23.2 1.01 20.4 1.02 20.3 1.02 Talbert to Ellis 20.0 14.S 0.73 21.0 1.05 11.3 1.06 21.1 1.06 Ellis to 6arfleld 20.0 14.0 0.70 19.S 0.97 18.9 OAS 23.5 1.16 Main Street Beach/Ellis to Garfield 30.0 16.2 0.54 25.7 0.86 25.5 0.85 26.3 0.88 Garfield to Yorktown 30.0 12.0 0.40 18.5 0.52 14.8 0.49 19.2 0.64 South of Yorktown 30.0 12.0 0.40 14.4 0.48 14.S 0.45 14.3 0.48 Beach Boulevard North of Slater 45.0 57.0 1.27 72.0 1.60 72.2 1.51 72.0 1.60 Slater to Talbert 45.0 60.0 1.33 74.6 1.66 74.8 1.66 74.5 1.66 Talbert to Ellis 45.0 57.0 1.21 70 0 1.56 70.1 I.S6 70.1 1.56 Ellis to Garfield 45.0 44.0 0.98 4S.2 1.00 45.3 1.01 45.0 1.00 Garfield to Yorktown 45.0 44.0 0.93 47.1 1.05 47.2 1.05 46.9 1.04 Yorktown to Coast Highway 45.0 25.0 0.S6 28.8 0.64 29.9 0.94 29.0 0.64 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- EXISTING PLUS PROJECT DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND V/C RATIOS �Lsa TABLE 14 TABLE 15 EXISTING PLUS PROJECT ICU SUMMARY EXISTING CONDITION LAND USE CONCEPT PLAN AM PEAK PM PEAK AM PEAK PM PEAK INTERSECTION ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS 1. Edwards St./Ellis Ave. 0.54 A 0.69 B 0.72 C 0.94 E 2. Goldenwest St./Ellis Ave. 0.50 A 0.59 A 0.70 B 0.80 C 3. Gothard St./Ellis Ave. 0.42 A 0.47 A 0.57 A 0.66 B 4. Beach Blvd./Ellis Ave. 0.72 C 1.02 F 0.84 D 1.27 F 5. Edwards St./Garfield Ave. 0.41 A 0.47 A 0.59 A 0.71 C 6. Goldenwest St./Garfield Ave. 0.52 A 0.59 A 0.79 C 0.89 D 7. Main St./Garfield Ave. (1) 0.51 A 0.58 A 1.04 F 1.43 F 8. Beach Blvd./Garfield Ave. 0.66 B 0.89 D 0.89 D 1.41 F 9. Goldenwest St./Yorktown Ave. 0.64 B 0.80 C 0.87 D 1.08 F 10. Main St./Yorktown Ave. 0.53 A 0.50 A 0.61 B 0.59 A 11. Goldenwest St./Coast Hwy. 0.88 D 0.84 D 1.40 F 1.33 F 12. Goldenwest St./Palm Ave. 0.48 A 0.55 A 0.86 D 1.02 F (1) Intersection includes Gothard Road as the fifth leg. As seen in the Table, the intersection of Beach/Ellis, which exhibits over capacity operations in the existing conditions will continue to deteriorate in level of service with the addition of the proposed project to the existing traffic base, assuming no improvements to the existing streets and intersections. In addition, proposed project related peak hour volumes would create unacceptable operation at seven intersections, again assuming existing lane geometrics. These intersections would include Edwards/Ellis, Beach/Ellis, Main/Garfield/Gothard, Beach/Garfield, Goldenwest/ Yorktown, Goldenwest/Coast Highway and Goldenwest/Palm. July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.7-16 Proposed Circulation Improvements This section addresses the potential impacts associated with future development. As travel demands increase, improvements to the transportation network are required to meet these increased demands. A knowledge of these improvements is necessary to determine future conditions. The City of Huntington Beach and the County of Orange currently have General Plan Circulation Elements designed to accommodate long-range future Development. One short range circulation improvement that the city is planning is the widening of Goldenwest Street to its ultimate six lane major arterial status from Coast Highway to Garfield Avenue and ulitmately a primary between Garfield and Warner Avenue. Additional long range General Plan circulation improvements include the completion of arterial segments designated on the County Master Plan of Arterial Highways and the City Circulation Plan. The portion of the County MPAH in the study area is illustrated in Exhibit 20 (Master Plan of Highways). The City Circulation Plan is illustrated in Exhibit 24 (Circulation Plan). As can be seen in the Exhibits, the adopted circulation plans differ with respect to planned arterials within the Bolsa Chica area. The County MPAH calls for Garfield to be extended northwesterly to Bolsa Chica Road. This road, called the "cross-gap connector", would be intersected west of the study area by the proposed Seapointe Avenue, it would also intersect Coast Highway at its southerly terminus. Talbert and Slater both would be extended to the cross-gap connector while Ellis would terminate at Edwards. In the City Circulation Plan, Garfield would be extended to the northwest, but would terminate at the extension of Bolsa Chica Road across the Bolsa Chica marsh. The Bolsa Chica extension would terminate at Coast Highway. Edwards would be extended south to meet Seapointe Avenue, which would terminate at Coast Highway. As the majority of these arterial improvements would occur within the County jurisdiction, the County MPAH arterial alignments have been assumed for the future year circulation system. As pointed out previously, these alignments have been supplemented with the assumed modified secondary arterial designation for the cross- gap connector. July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.7-17 SUPER STREET pwIi AI�wOnt rA+ti+E� A. M I FFF SLATER AV TALIlaT A. I 1� ` Q Ne ELLIS � t . ♦`♦ ty N � C F MAJOR MODIFIED MAJOR PRIMARY MODIFIED ---- MODIFIED PRIMARY SECONDARY ----- SCALE ------ SCALE IN FEET o 2000. 4000 COUNTY OF ORANGE MASTER PLAN OF ARTERIAL HIGHWAYS `sa 13 EXHIBIT 20 �w "rs RASA o" won •.• ►•-•�•• •�- ��w ►• M • M ►w •mow i •1 ^' V \� M 4 S LEGEND: FREEWAY STREET CAPOCITY MAJOR _451000 PRIMARY_ —30000 'Q NOTE: SECONDARY _2Q000 qy .,� SOLID LINES tNB6TE Exisrwc r4opfT or Mar +l ' NOT NECESSARILY ULTIMATE RIO T W MAY DASHED LINES OC CATE AREAS WHERE NO RXMT OF MAT EXISTS SCALE IN MILES D 1 /2 ' CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH CIRCULATION PLAN �� ®4/24/as:KF EXHIBIT 21 rrr ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- - NORTHBOUND --SOUTHBOUND- -EASTBOUND WESTBOUND --- --------- ------ --------- ---- ---- -------- ----- ---- --------------- INTERSECTIOk I-LEFT-ITHROUGHI-RIGHT - -LEFT ITHROUGH1 RIGHT I- - - -LEFT �THROUGH� RIGHT I- -LEFT ITHROUGH1 RIGHT ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- EXISTING CONDITION -------- --------- 1. EDWARDS STREET/ELLIS AVENUE 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 2. GOLDENWEST STREET/ELLIS AVENUE 1 2 0 1 2 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 3. GOTHARD STREET/ELLIS AVENUE 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 4. BEACH BOULEVARO/ELLIS AVENUE 1 3 0 1 3 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 5. EDWARDS STREET/GARFIELD AVENUE 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 6. GOLDENWEST STREET/GARFIELD AVENUE 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 1 1 1 1 7. MAIN STREET/GARFIELD AVENUE(1) 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 8. BEACH BOULEVARD/GARFIELD AVENUE 1 3 0 1 3 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 9. GOLDENWEST STREET/YORKTOWN AVENUE 0 2 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 10. MAIN STREET/YORKTOWN AVENUE 1 2 1 2 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 1 11. GOLDENWEST STREET/COAST HIGHWAY 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 2 0 1 2 0 12. GOLDENWEST STREET/PALM AVENUE 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 13. GOTHARD STREET/GARFIELD AVENUE N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FUTURE CONDITION ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. EDWARDS STREET/ELLIS AVENUE 0 2 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2. GOLDENWEST STREET/ELLIS AVENUE 1 3 0 1 3 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 3. GOTHARD STREET/ELLIS AVENUE 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 4. BEACH BOULEVARD/ELLIS AVENUE 2 4 0 2 4 0 2 2 1 1 3 0 S. EDWARDS STREET/GARFIELD AVENUE 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 2 0 0 2 1 6. GOLDENWEST STREET/GARFIELD AVENUE 1 3 0 1 3 0 1 2 1 1 2 0 7. MAIN STREET/GARFIELD AVENUE 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 8. BEACH BOULEVARD/GARFIELD AVENUE 1 3 0 1 3 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 9. GOLDENWEST STREET/YORKTOWN AVENUE 1 3 0 1 3 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 10. MAIN STREET/YORKTOWN AVENUE 1 2 1 2 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 1 11. GOLDENWEST STREET/COAST HIGHWAY 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 2 0 1 2 0 12. GOLDENWEST STREET/PALM AVENUE 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 13. GOTHARD STREET/GARFIELD AVENUE 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (1) In the existing condition, this intersection also includes a southbound leg of Gothard with one southbound left and one southbound right turn lane. TABLE 16 HOLLY SEACLIFF Lsa 5n0i89:GD COMMITTED INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS Intersection improvements are also considered in the future year circulation system. Future year intersection geometrics for Beach Boulevard are assumed to be improved to Super Street Standards. Intersections along Goldenwest Street are assumed to be improved to the Goldenwest Street Widening intersection geometrics. The remaining study area intersections are assumed to be improved according to the proposed Circulation Element designations for arterial segments within the Holly Seacliff GPA area. These improvements include the realignment of Gothard from the existing five legged intersection at Garfield/Main west to Crystal Street where it will intersect Garfield. This improvement will eliminate the five legged intersection and create two standard four legged intersections along Garfield. These committed, approved or assumed intersection geometrics are part of this future condition circulation assessment. The proposed project development is compared against the current General Plan designation for the project site. Potential circulation impacts are addressed for both the daily and peak hour conditions. Existin¢ General Plan Daily Traffic Impacts Forecast average daily traffic volumes for the current General Plan build out scenario are illustrated in Exhibit 22 (Existing General Plan Average Daily Traffic Volumes and V/C Ratios). This scenario is based on the build out of the project site with the General Plan land use assumptions, as well as the build out of the remainder of the City of Huntington Beach to General Plan designations. This scenario also includes all committed arterial improvements identified in previous sections of this study. In addition to the average daily traffic volumes, the resulting volume to capacity (at LOS C) ratios are presented. As seen in the Exhibit, the segments of Coast Highway investigated are forecast to operate over capacity with the build out of the current General Plan. In addition, Garfield Avenue from east of Beach Boulevard to the proposed cross-gap connector would operate over the level of service threshold and, in places would operate over capacity. Beach Boulevard north of Yorktown Avenue is also forecast to operate over the LOS C threshold, and over capacity in some segments, in the current General Plan scenario. Gothard Street north of the project site would also exceed LOS C. All other links are forecast to operate below the LOS C threshold assuming the current General Plan scenario. July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.7-21 Proposed Land Use Plan Daily Traffic Impacts Forecast average daily traffic volumes and associated volume to LOS C capacity values for the Proposed Land Use Plan scenario are illustrated in Exhibit 23 (Proposed Land Use Concept Plan ADT Volumes and V/C Ratios). This scenario assumes the replacement of the current General Plan traffic base with the Proposed Land Use Plan traffic base on the project site. The build out of the remainder of the City's General Plan is assumed. The traffic volumes and v/c ratios presented in Exhibit 23 are lower, with fewer impacts than the current General Plan scenario. Coast Highway is still forecasted to operate over capacity south of the Bolsa Chica, but with a v/c ratio lower than the General Plan scenario. Segments of Garfield through the project site and west across the proposed cross-gap connector will operate below the LOS C threshold in the scenario; however, Garfield Avenue east of Goldenwest Street is forecast to operate over capacity assuming a primary arterial section. Another design consideration is to limit the access opportunities along Garfield Avenue to reduce the total volume of traffic and the conflict points along this arterial. According to traffic engineering standards for major arterials, signalized full access locations should be spaced in approximately one-half mile intervals. For primary arterials, of which Garfield east of Goldenwest may function, the spacing is approximately one-quarter mile. Therefore, one full access should be provided along Garfield west of Goldenwest to provide circulation between Planning Areas B and D. This recommendation would require the realignment of the planned residential collector south of Garfield to be the fourth leg of this intersection. No other full access locations should be permitted along Garfield. Planning Area parcels adjacent to Garfield should take access on Goldenwest or Gothard to reach Garfield, or on Ellis, Clay or Yorktown for parallel east-west travel. Right turn in and out access locations may be permitted on Garfield, but should also include a right turn deceleration lane to remove turning vehicles from the through travel lane. July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.7-22 N co 0) 00 O 1n m _ d N SLATER m wo 17/0.85 16.2/0.81 19.7/0.99 21/1.05 I a N co cc a c o Y II ^ o co Cc ( C7 CM ^ TALBERT ` 13.4/0.45 9.6/0.32 12.8/0.43 17/0.57 ^ r o ` / M Cl! O CO) N N N ^ OONONON ELLIS Ml . 17.8/0.59 9.4/0.31 , 9.8/0.49 18.7/0.9 ' yowlco 0'1 co N-oo —� Project ^ �I Site WLO c uJ ��.Z3'=10 GARFIELD 52/1.73 53/1.77 1 46/1.53 18.210.6 45.6/1.01 ' �' 0 Cr ( ' ^ • UJ v9 ,6 `• •�1•`. ,J o CLAY a a 22a�� j W LO 5 0 A's� , ` • co ! YORKTOWN I 'O • • 20.610.69 20.1/0.67 17.1/0.5 0 > LEGEND '�y ° �' 1 -o o, o "ry oco o �� Z � ^ �■� Major s° v lb o •�� Pri mary 'sue �o LO �— Secondary Project Boundary ° so m SCALE IN FEET HOLLY SEACLIFF 0 1000 2000 EXISTING GENERAL PLAN AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND V/C RATIOS Lsa 135/4/89:KF EXHIBIT 2Z N Ln N O O N p � � m Lq SLATER cli It 17/0.85 15.9/0.79 19/0.95 21/1.05 C7 J t, O tp N Q t` C) N O O = C Z CM I- 1- N Ql d CO) Q t` y TALB ERT ` 13/0.43 5.8/0.19 9.7/0.32 1710.57 � co o ` c oLn co N OR OR T (p ELLS L._.._. A 11.7/0.39 5.6/0.19 / ` 5.8/0.29 21.4/ ■ 1.07 job o Project o NI Site C6 c' 0 in 10 0 GARFIELD u3 ■ 5.8/1.5 • 32.4/0.72 47.9/1.6 - 44.911.49 [2.711.09 w `�'i 20.5j0• � ■ � � CLAY g 1 sr • a o w cl N N A ■ "' - ■ YORKTOWN 13.7/0.46 17.5/0.58 16.6/0.5 09`�''y�o ,n LEGEND ,9r '� h 0 Ln co +..�� Major 9� �• < to � o ••� Primary Secondary ---- Project Boundary AO t1/ m SCALE IN FEET HOLLY SEACLIFF PROPOSED LAND USE 0 1000 2000 CONCEPT PLAN AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND V/C RATIOS saa E] 6/2,/,9,,D EXHIBIT 23 Proposed Plan Intersection Level of Service In a fashion similar to the current General Plan intersection analysis, the peak hour traffic volumes associated with the Proposed Land Use Plan have been added to the future cumulative traffic and circulation base. Intersection Capacity Utilization analysis has been conducted for this scenario, for which a summary is presented in Table 17 (Future Year Development ICU Summary). The current General Plan scenarios are included for comparative purposes. Due to the less intense development associated with the proposed Land Use Plan, the forecast intersection impacts are much less significant than the current General Plan Land Use Element. The proposed plan peak hour traffic contribution to the future year circulation system will create three impacted intersections, as compared to the eight impacted intersections in the existing General Plan scenario. These three intersections include Main/Garfield, Beach/Garfield and Golden west/Coast Highway. As can be seen in Table 17 (Future Year Development ICU Summary), most intersections internal to the project site will actually operate below LOS C in both peak hours. Therefore, the proposed Plan will have less impact at selected project study area intersections than the currently approved General Plan. Signal Warrant Analysis As part of the traffic impact analysis, signal warrants were compared to the proposed plan's forecast of daily traffic volumes. Two warrants were used to test selected intersections within the project area. Warrant 1, Minimum Vehicular volume applies to intersections where the volume of intersecting traffic is the principal reason for the consideration of signal installation. Warrant 2, Interruption of Continuous Flow applies to conditions where traffic volume is so heavy that traffic on a minor intersecting street suffers excessive delay or hazard in entering or crossing a major street. For this study, 11 intersections were considered for signal warrant analysis, as i presented in Exhibit 24 (Signal Warrant Analysis Intersection Location Map). July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.7-25 I I TABLE 17 FUTURE YEAR DEVELOPMENT ICU SUMMARY CURRENT GENERAL PLAN LAND USE CONCEPT PLAN AM PEAK PM PEAK AM PEAK PM PEAK INTERSECTION ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS 1. Edwards St./Ellis Ave. 0.55 A 0.66 B 0.40 A 0.47 A 2. Goldenwest St./Ellis Ave. 0.47 A 0.59 A 0.41 A 0.49 A 3. Gothard St./Ellis Ave. 0.49 A 0.57 A 0.34 A 0.38 A 4. Beach Blvd./Ellis Ave. 0.71 C 1.31 F 0.72 C 0.76 C 5. Edwards St./Garfield Ave. 0.87 D 1.02 F 0.62 B 0.73 C 6. Goldenwest St./Garfield Ave. 0.96 E 0.86 D 0.74 C 0.77 C 7. Main St./Garfield Ave. 1.33 F 1.78 F 1.08 F 1.69 F 8. Beach Blvd./Garfield Ave. 1.01 F 1.45 F 0.98 E 1.42 F 9. Goldenwest St./Yorktown Ave. 0.91 E 1.10 F 0.73 C 0.83 D 10. Main St./Yorktown Ave. 0.79 C 0.71 C 0.63 B 0.52 A 11. Goldenwest St./Coast Hwy. 1.53 F 1.45 F 1.39 F 1.31 F 12. Goldenwest St./Palm Ave. 0.79 C 0.95 E 0.74 C 0.88 D 13. Gothard St./Garfield Ave. 0.43 A 0.60 A 0.40 A 0.52 A July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.7-26 As seen in Table 18 (Signal Warrant Analysis Summary Sheet), in the current General Plan scenario, seven of the eleven intersections analyzed meet either one or both signal warrant criteria. In the proposed Plan, seven intersections also meet one or both warrants, the difference being that in the existing General Plan scenario Gothard/Ellis meets Warrant 1, yet it is not met in the Proposed Plan. However, traffic volumes on Goldenwest/Clay in the Proposed Plan do satisfy both warrants, while this intersection does not warrant consideration of a signal in the General Plan scenario. It should be pointed out that additional signals may be warranted as specific development plans are submitted. Specific development plans, and hence proposed parcel access, were not available for review as part of this analysis. However, as part of any tentative tract map approval, signal warrant analysis should be required to fully respond to the potential need of additional signalized intersections. It should further be pointed out that this signal warrant analysis assumes complete build out of the General Plan Land Use Element. The phasing of signals has not been addressed, and will require a monitoring of traffic increases to determine the appropriate timing of signal installations. After implementation of the recommended mitigation measures, circulation impacts are anticipated to be reduced to a level of insignificance. Recommended Off-Site Lane Improvements To mitigate the circulation impacts identified in the Proposed Plan build out scenario, the following lane improvements are recommended for off-site intersections that may exceed physical capacities in the future: o Main Street/Garfield Avenue - Construct the intersection to include two left turn lanes, three through lanes and one right turn lane on all approaches. These improvements will reduce the Proposed Plan scenario ICU values to 0.72 in the a.m. and 1.06 in the p.m. peak hours. While the p.m. peak hour ICU is not July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.7-27 a SLATER s a t� w o s � a z s IL t07 TALBERT , 1 2 3 4 5 a, Pro ct I Site ' G LD ' 6 ' . 7 CLAY 1 r 10 11 A ` YORKTOWN °may% LEGEND ? q} Major Z 'a Primary -- Secondary - . —�— Project Boundary Y m SCALE IN FEET HOLLY SEACLIFF 0 1000 2000 SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS INTERSECTION LOCATION MAP Lsa [35/4/,,,KF EXHIBIT 24 FFr --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MINIMUM ESTIMATED AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUME CURRENT GENERAL PLAN PROPOSED L.U. CONCEPT INDUSTRIAL ALTERNATIVE RESIDENTIAL ALTERNATIVE INTERSECTION Warrant I Warrant 2 Warrant 1 Warrant 2 Warrant I Warrant 2 Warrant I Warrant 2 Warrant 1 Warrant 2 Major Minor Major Minor Min. Volume Intrpt. Flow Min. Volume Intrpt. Flow Min. Volume Intrpt. Flow Min. Volume Intrpt. Flow --------------------------------- ----- ------ ------ ----- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ 1. EDWARDS (2) 6 ELLIS (2) 9600 3200 14400 1600 YES YES YES NO YES NO YES YES 2. COLLECTOR A (1) 6 ELLIS (2) 9600 2400 14400 1200 No NO NO NO NO NO NO NO 3. COLLECTOR 8 (1) 6 ELLIS (2) 9600 2400 14400 1200 NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO A. GOLOENVEST (2) 8 ELLIS (2) 9600 3200 14400 1600 YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES S. GOTMARD (2) 8 ELLIS (2) 9600 3200 14400 1600 YES NO NO NO NO No NO NO 6. SEAPOINTE (2) i GARFIELD (2) 9600 3200 14400 1600 YES YES YrS YES YES YES YES YES 7. EDWARDS (2) a GARFIELD (2) 9600 3200 14400 1600 YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES 8. COLLECTOR C (1) 6 GARFIELD (2) 9600 2400 14400 1200 NO NO NO No NO NO NO NO 9. GOTMARD (2) i GARFIELD (2) 9600 3200 14400 1600 YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES 10. GOLDENWEST (2) 8 CLAY (2) 9600 3200 14400 1600 NO No YES YES No YES No YES 11. MAIN (2) i CLAY (2) 9600 3200 14400 1600 YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Note: Number of lanes per approach indicated after each intersecting arterial. HOLLY SEACLIFF SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS SUMMARY SHEET LSa 5/9/89:KF TABLE 18 mitigated to an acceptable level of service, additional design mitigation measures are discussed in this section of this report. o Beach Boulevard/Garfield Avenue - Construct the intersection to include two left turn lanes, four through lanes and one right turn lane for the northbound and southbound approaches, and two left turn lanes, three through lanes and one right turn lane for the eastbound and westbound approaches. These improvements will reduce the Proposed Plan scenario ICU values to 0.59 in the a.m. and 0.83 p.m. peak hours. o Goldenwest Street/Pacific Coast Highway - Include a second southbound right turn lane on Goldenwest Street. Add a westbound right turn lane on Coast Highway. These improvements will reduce the Proposed Plan scenario ICU values to 0.89 in the a.m. and 0.84 in the p.m. peak hours. The above recommended lane improvements will also mitigate the unacceptable levels of service for the proposed land use plan. 4.7.3 MITIGATION MEASURES The following measures are recommended to ameliorate the potential circulation impacts arising from the development of the proposed Holly Seacliff General Plan Amendment. 1. Arterial links within the project study area shall be improved to their ultimate width, consistent with the proposed Circulation Element for the General Plan Amendment request. A listing of the ultimate arterial widths within the project study area is presented below. Ellis Avenue - Edwards Street to Gothard Street primary 4 lane divided arterial Gothard Street to project east boundary secondary 4 lane undivided arterial July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.7-30 Garfield Avenue Seapointe Street to Main Street major 6 lane divided arterial Yorktown Avenue Goldenwest Street to Main Street primary 4 lane divided arterial Edwards Street Ellis Avenue to Garfield Avenue secondary 4 lane undivided arterial Goldenwest Street Yorktown Avenue to Ellis Avenue major 6 lane divided arterial Gothard Street Ellis Avenue to Main Street secondary 4 lane undivided arterial Main Street Huntington Street to Yorktown Avenue primary 4 lane divided arterial These improvements should include all necessary curbs, gutters, and median requirements per the City of Huntington's standard plans. In addition, all residential collectors, industrial collectors and residential streets should be improved to their ultimate width consistent with the proposed Circulation Element for the General Plan Amendment project. 2. Intersections within the study area should be constructed to the lane geometrics identified in Table 18A. 3. Prior to the first Specific Plan or Tract Map approval, a fair share funding program for the construction of the cross-gap connector from Edwards to Bolsa Chica as a modified secondary arterial and the Sea- pointe Avenue extension from Garfield to Coast Highway should be determined. In the determination of this fair share funding program, a credit should be given for the segment of the cross-gap connector and Seapointe Avenue constructed within the project boundary. July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.7-31 FFF ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -NORTHBOUND - SOUTHBOUND -EASTBOUND WESTBOUND - - -- ------------------- - - - - - - . .. - - - INTERSECTION LEFT ITHROUGH1 RIGHT LEFT ITHROUGH1 RIGHT LEFT �THROUGHJ RIGHT-I LEFT �THROUGH1 RIGHT ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. EDWARDS STREET/ELLIS AVENUE 0 2 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2. GOLDENWEST STREET/ELLIS AVENUE 1 3 0 1 3 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 3. GOTHARD STREET/ELLIS AVENUE 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 4. BEACH BOULEVARD/ELLIS AVENUE 2 4 0 2 4 0 2 2 1 1 3 0 5. EDWARDS STREET/GARFIELD AVENUE 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 0 0 2 1 6. GOLDENWEST STREET/GARFIELD AVENUE 1 3 0 1 3 0 1 2 1 1 2 0 7. MAIN STREET/GARFIELO AVENUE(1) 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 8. BEACH BOULEVARD/GARFIELD AVENUE(1) 2 4 1 2 4 1 2 2 1 2 3 1 9. GOLDENWEST STREET/YORKTOWN AVENUE(1) 1 3 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 10. MAIN STREET/YORKTOWN AVENUE 1 2 1 2 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 1 11. GOLDENWEST STREET/COAST HIGHWAY 0 0 0 2 0 2 2 2 0 1 2 1 12. GOLDENWEST STREET/PALM AVENUE 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 13. GOTHARD STREET/GARFIELD AVENUE 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (1) Indicates Intersection lane geometrics identified as recommended lane improvements. HOLLY SEACLIFF MITIGATED INTERSECTION LANE GEOMETRICS Lsa6,2,,,9:GD TABLE 18A 4. The arterial and intersection improvements required to occur commen- surate with Planning Area development are as follows. Planning Area A • Contribute on a fair share basis towards the implementation of all necessary intersection improvements identified as mitigation measures for the proposed project. • Contribute on a fair share basis towards the construction of the cross-gap connector. • Construct the ultimate westerly half section (40 feet, 2 lanes) of Edwards Street from Ellis Avenue to Garfield Avenue. • Construct the ultimate northerly half section (60 feet, 3 lanes) of Garfield Avenue from the project's westerly border to Edwards Street. Plannin¢ Area B • Contribute on a fair share basis towards the implementation of all necessary intersection improvements identified as mitigation measures for the proposed project. • Contribute on a fair share basis towards the construction of the cross-gap connector. • Construct the ultimate easterly half section (40 feet, 2 lanes) of Edwards Street from the project's northern border to Garfield- Avenue. • Construct the ultimate section (100 feet, 4 lanes) of Ellis Avenue from Edwards Street to Goldenwest Street. July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.7-33 • Construct the ultimate northerly half section (60 feet, 3 lanes) of Garfield Avenue from Edwards Street to Goldenwest Street. Plannin¢ Area C • Contribute on a fair share basis towards the implementation of all necessary intersection improvements identified as mitigation measures for the proposed project. • Contribute on a fair share basis towards the construction of the cross-gap connector. • Vacate the existing Gothard Street from Ellis Avenue to Garfield Avenue and construct the realigned Gothard Street to the west from Ellis Avenue to Clay Street. The realigned segment of Gothard Street should be constructed to its ultimate four lane secondary section from Ellis to Clay. • Construct the ultimate northerly half section (60 feet, 3 lanes) of Garfield Avenue from Goldenwest Street to the project 9s eastern border. Plannine Area D • Contribute on a fair share basis towards the implementation of all necessary intersection improvements identified as mitigation measures for the proposed project. • Contribute on a fair share basis towards the construction of the cross-gap connector. • Construct the ultimate southerly half section (60 feet, 3 lanes) of Garfield Avenue from the project's westerly border to Goldenwest Street. July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.7-34 Planning Area E • Contribute on a fair share basis towards the implementation of all necessary intersection improvements identified as mitigation measures for the proposed project. • Contribute on a fair share basis towards the construction of the cross-gap connector. • Construct the ultimate southerly half section (60 feet, 3 lanes) of Garfield Avenue from Goldenwest Street to the project's easterly border. 5. At the time of Specific Plan or Tract Map approval for a given Planning Area or portion thereof, a traffic study shall be completed to determine whether the incremental increase in traffic from the specific plan or tract map area causes any of the intersections under investigation to result in unacceptable levels of service. If unacceptable levels of service result, this traffic analysis shall determine the portion of the ultimate intersection improvements which are required, the phasing of the improvement and the funding source. If the project requires intersection improvements which are greater than the project's fair share, a reimbursable agreement shall be required of those subsequent develop- ments which contribute to the need for said improvement. 6. Prior to Tract Map approval, a signal warrant analysis shall be conducted for any project access points to the major arterial street system. 7. As part of any subsequent Specific Plan or Tract Map that requires access along Garfield Avenue, an operational analysis of said access shall be- conducted and submitted for review and approval of the City Traffic Engineer. The access on Garfield Avenue shall be limited to right turn in and out, except one location, mid-block between Edwards Street and Goldenwest Street. A signalized full movement intersection shall be permitted at this location. The access design shall be limited on Garfield July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.7-35 Avenue and spread to other parallel arterials, such as Ellis Avenue, Clay Avenue and Yorktown Avenue. 8. Prior to any Specific Plan or Tract Map approval, the Orange County Transit District shall be consulted for the need to construct bus stops, turnouts and shelters. 9. The current Southern Pacific Railroad (SPRR) easement shall be pre- served as a transportation corridor for future use for mass transit and trails. 4.7.4 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE The General Plan peak hour traffic base, added to the projected cumulative traffic base and circulation system, was elevated through an ICU analysis. Because the General Plan is the current designation for the area, this analysis is presented as a benchmark for peak hour intersection evaluation of the project. The level of significance after mitigation is determined by the level of service (LOS) predicted by the traffic study. LOS C or better is considered acceptable by the City. LOS D or lower is not considered satisfactory and results in significant unavoidable impacts to circulation. The contribution of peak hour traffic volumes from the project site's existing General Plan Land Use Element would create unacceptable intersection operations at eight locations in the future. These include the intersections of Beach/Ellis, Edwards/Garfield, Goldenwest/Garfield, Main/Garfield, Beach/Garfield, Goldenwest/Yorktown, Goldenwest/Coast Highway and Goldenwest/Palm. It should be reiterated that this scenario assumes the approved or committed circulation improvements illustrated in Table 16. Therefore mitigation measures in excess of these approved or committed circulation improvements are necessary to accommodate the current General Plan land uses on the project site. Approval and development of the proposed project will create traffic impacts on three off-site intersections which will operate below LOS C in both peak hours. These intersections include: July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.7-36 1) Main/Garfield 2) Beach/Garfield 3) Goldenwest/Pacific Coast Hwy. Implementation of the mitigation measures will reduce project generated trips to a level of insignificance. However, the intersection of Main Street and Garfield Avenue cannot be mitigated to a level of significance and remains an unavoidable adverse impact. The monitoring of mitigation through limiting access on Garfield can reduce the significance of this impact. July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.7-37 HOLLY - SEACLIFF GPA Air Quality CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 4.8 4.8 i AIR QUALITY 4.8.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS This section summarizes an air quality technical report prepared by Mestre Greve Associates which is found in Volume II bound under a separate cover. The technical report also contains detailed analyses of alternatives. Climate The climate around the project area, as with all of Southern California, is controlled largely by the strength and position of the subtropical high pressure cell over the Pacific Ocean. It maintains moderate temperatures and comfortable humidities, and limits precipitation to a few storms during the winter"wet" season. Temperatures are normally mild with rare extremes. Winds in the project area are almost always driven by the dominant land/sea breeze circulations stem. Regional wind y g patterns are dominated by daytime on-shore sea breezes. At night the wind generally slows and reverses direction traveling towards the sea. Wind direction is altered by local canyons, with wind tending to flow parallel to the canyons. During the transition period from one wind pattern to the other, the dominant wind direction rotates into the south and causes a minor wind direction maximum from the south. The frequency of calm winds is less than 10 percent. Therefore, there is little stagnation in the project vicinity during busy daytime traffic hours. Southern California frequently has temperature inversions which inhibit the dispersion of pollutants. Inversions may be either ground based or elevated. Ground based inversions, sometimes referred to as radiation inversions, are most severe during clear cold early winter mornings. Under conditions of a ground based inversion, very little mixing or turbulence occurs, and high concentrations of primary pollutants may occur local to major roadways. Elevated inversions can be generated by a variety of July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.8-1 meteorological phenomena. These inversions act as a lid or upper boundary and restrict vertical mixing. Below the elevated inversion dispersion is not restricted. Mixing heights for elevated inversions are lower in the summer and more persistent. This low summer inversion puts a lid over the South Coast Air Basin and is partly responsible for the high levels of ozone observed during summer months in the air basin. Air Ouality Management The proposed project is located in the South Coast Air Basin and,jurisdictionally, is the responsibility of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and the California Air Resources Board (CARB). The SCAQMD sets and enforces regulations for stationary sources in the basin. The CARB is charged with controlling motor vehicle emissions. The SCAQMD in coordination with the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) has developed an Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) for the air basin. The South Coast Air Basin has been designated a non-attainment area for ozone, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, total suspended particulates, and lead. The AQMP had the goal of achieving healthful levels of air quality by 1987, and is mandated by State and Federal laws. Included in the plan are new stationary and mobile source controls; carpooling, vanpooling, and other ride-sharing programs; and energy conservation measures. The AQMP is designed to accommodate a moderate amount of new development and growth throughout the basin. The AQMP projections and mitigations are based on the SCAG-82 Growth Forecasts. Within the AQMP is a list of strategies designed to improve the transportation system throughout the region. This package of measures explores the feasible limits for long range solutions to system-wide air quality concerns. Measures included in the AQMP can be divided into five broad categories; - o transportation control measures o mobile technological controls o energy conservation o land use o stationary source controls July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.8-2 The land use strategies focus on land use measures that could help reduce the number and length of automobile trips made. The underlying premise for the land use measures is that trip making and mode choices are not only a function of the transportation system, but also such factors as housing density, the relative location of land uses, and the way land uses relate to the transportation system. Improvements in the recommended transportation system include; bus system expansion, high occupancy vehicle lanes, traffic signal synchronization, and traffic pattern optimization. Orange County has developed a "Subregional Element for the 1982 Regional Air Quality Management Plan." The measures are recommended for all of Orange County, but are only recommended, not required. The Orange County sub-element encourages new development to incorporate commercial/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 racks. In 1987,Governor Deukmejian signed Senate Bill 151 into law which gives the SCAQMD significant new powers. The law instructs the SCAQMD to develop new transportation control measures and to develop rules for indirect sources (e.g., shopping centers, stadiums, and facilities which attract a large number of vehicles). The District is also required to develop further programs and regulation that would increase ridesharing and limit heavy-duty truck traffic on freeways during rush hours. The new SCAQMD programs will be developed during 1989, with the implementation following later. Portions of the new AQMP have been released in draft form (as of 12/7/88). The total plan will include a "Growth Management Plan", and a "Regional Mobility Plan", as well as specific measures designed to reduce emissions from transportation and stationary sources. Monitored Air Ouality Air quality at any site is dependent on the regional air quality and local pollutant sources. Regional air quality is determined by the release of pollutants throughout the air basin. Estimates for the South Coast Air Basin have been made for existing emissions. The data indicate that mobile sources are the major source of regional i July 21, 1989 f..- HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.8-3 emissions. Mobile sources account for 50 percent of reactive hydrocarbon emissions, 58 percent of nitrogen oxide emissions, and 85 percent of carbon monoxide emissions. The nearest air monitoring station operated by the SCAQMD is in Costa Mesa. The data collected at this station is considered to be representative of the air quality experienced in the vicinity of the project area. The project site is in the SCAQMD's Source Receptor Area 18, for which the designated monitoring station is Costa Mesa. Air quality data for 1984 through 1987 for the Costa Mesa station is provided in Table 19 . The air quality data indicate that ozone is the air pollutant of primary concern in the Costa Mesa area. Ozone is a secondary pollutant; it is not directly emitted. Ozone is the result of the chemical reactions of other pollutants, most importantly hydrocarbons and nitrogen dioxide, in the presence of bright sunlight. Pollutants emitted from upwind cities react during transport downwind to produce the oxidant concentrations experienced in Costa Mesa,with the more significant areas being those directly upwind. Particulate levels in the area are due to natural sources, grading operations, and motor vehicles. The number of times each year that the carbon monoxide standards have been exceeded have steadily decreased over the past several years at the Costa Mesa Station. The trend maximum carbon monoxide concentrations experienced is less clear. A one hour high of 15 ppm was reached 1986. The average of the yearly 1 hour maximums for the last three years is about 12 ppm. Carbon monoxide is generally considered to be a local pollutant. That is, carbon monoxide is directly emitted from several sources (most notable motor vehicles),and the highest concentrations experienced are directly adjacent to the source. July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.8-4 TABLE 19 AIR QUALITY LEVELS MEASURED AT THE COSTA MESA AMBIENT AIR MONITORING STATION California National Maximum Days State Pollutant Standard Standard Year Level Std.Exceeded Ozone 0.1 ppm 0.12 ppm 1984 0.25 29 for 1 hr. for 1 hr. 1985 0.21 33 i 1986 0.17 24 1987 0.16 23 CO 9 ppm 9 ppm 1984 13 1 for 8 hr for 8 hr 1985 9 5 1986 15 3 1987 8.4 0 NOz .25 ppm 0.05 ppm 1984 .22 0 for 1 hr for I hr 1985 .24 0 1986 .20 0 1987 .19 0 NOTES: 1. Standards for sulfur dioxide were not exceeded. 2. Monitoring of lead and particulates discontinued in 1981. Existing Odor Environment The project site presently contains oil wells. There are approximately 350 "active" oil wells according to records of the California Division of Oil and Gas. It is estimated that less than half of these so called "active" wells are currently being produced, i.e., they are temporarily or permanently shut down but have not yet been abandoned. The July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.8-5 majority of these wells will be abandoned concurrent with development within the project area, although some wells may be relocated as part of one or more oil well consolidation projects. The location of well consolidation areas is not known at this time. The overall project site is surrounded by various land uses including residential and school areas. Some odor complaints have occurred in the City of Huntington Beach and elsewhere when oil fields are located close to residential areas. Several odor producing sources presently exist on the project site, including over 300 oil wells,a Shell Gas Plant(off-site),a Chevron Separation Plan,standing water areas,horse stables, and a compost storage field. The dominant odors on-site emanate from the oil production related sources and are discussed below. Odors from the stables and the compost field range in intensity from faint to noticeable, and tend to be dominated by odors from oil sources. The level of odor at an oil production site is a function of several variables including the sulfur content of the oil, the gas production, the on-site facilities for handling the oil, and the general cleanliness of the operations. The sulfur content of the oil is a primary indication of the potential generation of hydrogen sulfide. This gas, which has an odor described as "rotten eggs," is the gas primarily responsible for odor complaints. Although the oil extracted from the wells at the site is considered to have a high sulfur content, it appears that since the field is "old" with very little gas production left, that hydrogen sulfide odors are not a problem at the site. Each well has a sump, designed to contain oil that might leak around the rod shaft seal, or be discharged when pulling a well. The volatile compounds in the oil evaporate, and may be perceived as odors. Generally, the sumps are pumped dry periodically, and this practice minimizes odor generation. Removing the oil from the ground is considered a "closed" process. That is, ideally any gases would be contained within the system. However, the system is not without problems. The major sources of leaks in the system are the rod shaft seal and the storage tanks. Worn seals can allow vapors to escape. According to Mr. Wilkinson of the July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.8-6 California Department of Oil and Gas, worn seals can be a major source of odor release, especially in fields that utilize steam injection. Storage tanks as they are filled displace the gas inside the tanks with oil. This gas may contain odorous compounds. Large storage tanks utilize a floating roof which moves up or down as the oil level changes. With floating roof systems very little vapor is exhausted as the tank is filled. This system is not practical for field storage units. Vapor recovery systems can be used on field storage tanks and are discussed in other sections of this document. In general, the range of odors presently experienced at the site would range from no odor to faint odors. The odors could be described as "musty" or "burnt". However, the on-site processes appear to be clean, well maintained, and not producing substantial odors. The consolidation process would eliminate several of the oil wells,thus improving the odors experienced in the vicinity. 4.9.2 IMPACTS Short Term Impacts Temporary impacts will result from project construction activities. Air pollution will be emitted by construction equipment and dust will be generated during grading and site preparation. Construction activities for large development projects are estimated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to add 1.2 tons of fugitive dust per acre of soil disturbed per month of activity. If water or other soil stabilizers are used to control dust as required by SCQMD Rule 403, the emissions can be reduced by 50 percent. Applying the above factors to the 768 acres of the project, a 12 month grading cycle, and a 3 year total project grading schedule, the estimate of particulate generation is 5.05 tons per day. This is a relatively small amount compared to the 87 tons per day of particulates currently released in Orange County. Additionally, this material is inert silicates, rather than the complex organic particulates released from combustion sources which are more harmful to health. Dust generated by such activities usually becomes more of a local nuisance than a serious health problem. July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.8-7 Since residences are located adjacent to the site, care should be taken to minimize the generation of dust. Common practice for minimizing dust generation is watering prior to and during grading. Heavy-duty equipment emissions are difficult to quantify because of day to day variability in construction activities and equipment used. Typical emission rates for a diesel powered scraper is provided in Table 20, and were obtained from the SCAQMD Air Quality Handbook. A diesel powered scraper is the most common equipment used for grading operations. For this type of project, two pieces of heavy equipment may be expected to operate at one time. If all of the equipment operated for 8 hours per day, the following emissions would result; 23 pounds per day of carbon monoxide; 99 pounds per day of nitrogen oxides; 10 pounds per day of hydrocarbons; 7.4 pounds per day of sulfur oxides; and approximately 6.5 pounds per day of particulates. The emissions generated by construction equipment are very minor. TABLE 20 EMISSION RATES FOR GRADING SCRAPER (grams per hour) POLLUTANT EMISSION RATE Carbon monoxide 660 Nitrogen oxides 2820 Hydrocarbons 284 Sulfur oxides 210 Particulates 184 Odors will likely be generated during grading operations. Odorous compounds in the soil will also be released during grading. The impact will be substantial during the initial grading but this impact should be short term. July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.8-8 Lone Term Impacts The main source of emissions generated by the project will be from motor vehicles. Other emissions will be generated from the residential combustion of natural gas for space heating and the generation of electricity. Long term impacts are discussed as vehicular emissions, stationary sources and total emissions. Vehicular Emissions Estimates of the vehicular emissions generated by the proposed project were made. Emission factors from the April 1987 edition of the "Air Quality Handbook," (South Coast Air Quality Management District) were utilized. The factors are based on the EMFAC7C Computer Program. The traffic analysis for the project forecasts the number of trips per day generated by the project. These forecasts were combined with an average trip length of 10 miles per trip to calculate the total vehicle miles traveled (VMT) per day for the project. The VMT forecasted is included in Table 21. An average vehicle speed of 25 miles per hour was assumed for the projections. The projected emissions are presented in Table 21. The project-specific emissions are calculated by multiplying the VMT for the project times the emission factor and appropriate conversion factors. Project-specific vehicular emissions will be reduced to a level of insignificance after implementation of the mitigation measure. July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.8-9 TABLE 21 VEHICULAR EMISSIONS (Tons Per Day) Vehicle ------------------------POLLUTANT---------------------- Alternative Miles Travelled CO NOx SOx Part. TOG ROG Proposed Project 682,210 6.41 0.99 0.18 0.22 0.56 0.50 Industrial Alt. 697,700 6.55 1.01 0.18 0.23 0.58 0.52 Residential Alt. 697,960 6.39 0.98 0.18 0.22 0.56 0.50 KEY: CO: Carbon Monoxide Part: Particulates NOx: Nitrogen Oxides TOG: Total Organic Gases (Hydrocarbons) - SOx: Sulfur Oxides ROG:Reactive Organic Gases Stationary Sources Site-specific emissions will be generated on-site by the combustion of natural gas for space heating and water heating. Emission factors were obtained from the Air Quality Handbook referenced previously. Projections of emissions are presented in Table 22. Off-site emissions will be generated due to electrical usage. The generation of electrical energy by the combustion of fossil fuels results in additional emission off-site. Emissions generated by this means are presented in Table 23. The impact of the stationary source emissions is not considered significant. July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.8-10 TABLE 22 PROJECT EMISSIONS FROM THE COMBUSTION OF NATURAL GAS (Pounds Per Day) ---------------------------------POLLUTANT------------------------------------ CO NOx Sox Part. TOG ROG 16.0 66.9 0.0 0.12 4.2 4.2 TABLE 23 PROJECT EMISSIONS GENERATED BY ELECTRICAL USAGE (Pounds Per Day) ---------------------------------POLLUTANT------------------------------------ CO NOx Sox Part. TOG ROG 20.0 115.0 12.0 4.0 1.0 1.0 July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.8-11 Total Emissions The additional emissions generated by the project are compared cumulatively to emissions for Orange County in Table 24. The first two lines of Table 24 present the Orange County emissions for the year 2000 (from the 1982 Revision to the Air Quality Management Plan) and the Receptor Area (#18) emissions for 1987. The next line presents the total emissions for the project, with the following two lines showing the percentage of County emissions and receptor area emissions respectively. The increases in all pollutants will be less than 1 percent. Additionally,the project was compared to the current General Plan in order to show that future emissions from the project would actually be lower than with the current General Plan. The results are presented in Table 25 and represent the percentage of decrease in emissions compared to the current General Plan. The first line presents the total emissions for the current General Plan. The next line indicates how much less the project emissions are compared to the emissions that would be secreted if development occurred according to the current General Plan. The decreases in emissions presented in Table 25 show that project would result in future emissions almost 38% lower than the already adopted land use plan for the site. The project in conjunction with all past, present and reasonably foreseeable future projects will contribute to the cumulative degradation of regional air quality which is an unavoidable adverse impact. The projects contribution of total emissions is not considered significant. Potential Odor Impacts Past experience in Huntington Beach, Torrance, and Costa Mesa indicate that when residential areas are located in or adjacent to oil production operations,some complaints are voiced concerning odors. July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.8-12 TABLE 24 COMPARISON OF EMISSIONS CO NOx Sox Part. TOG ROG 2000 Orange County 1010 173 19.0 118 362 230 Emissions (tons/day) Receptor Area 18 215.5 38.2 N/A N/A N/A 38.6 Emissions (tons/day) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1992 Proposed Project 6.43 1.08 0.19 0.23 0.57 0.51 Emissions (tons/day) Proposed Project as a 0.64% 0.62% 0.98% 0.19% 0.16% 0.22% Percent of County Emissions Proposed Project as a 2.98% 2.82% N/A N/A N/A 1.31% TABLE 25 DECREASED IN PROJECTED EMISSIONS DUE TO PROJECT (as compared to projected emissions for the current General Plan) CO NOx Sox Part. TOG ROG Current General Plan- 10.36 1.76 0.30 0.36 0.91 0.82 1992 Emissions (tons/day) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Proposed Project 38.0% 38.9% 38.4% 38.1% 37.9% 37.9% Decrease in Emissions - July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.8-13 An odor has to experience a dilution of 100 times before the odor intensity will decrease I odor level (e.g., from faint to very faint). The odorous gases might have to travel several thousand feet downwind before this level of dilution would occur. Several measures are recommended for the site that will minimize the generation of odors on- site to a level of insignificance. 4.8.3 MITIGATION MEASURES Short-term Impacts 1. To minimize dust generation during grading operations,SCAQMD Rule 403 should be adhered to which will require watering during earth moving operations. To further reduce the emissions, grading should not occur when wind speeds exceed 20 mpg. Long-term Impacts 2. There should be support and compliance with the AQMP for the basin to achieve regional air quality. The AQMP includes improvement of mass transit facilities and implementation of vehicular usage reduction programs. Energy conservation measures are also included. Specific measures which may be appropriate for the proposed project include: o Encourage the use of alternate transportation modes by promoting public transit usage including the designation of the transportation corridor and providing secure bicycle facilities. o Provide public transit accommodations: such as bus turnout lanes, park and ride areas, and bus shelters. o Provide energy conserving street lighting. o Provide traffic signal synchronization where feasible. July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.8-14 Odor Control 3. Because it only takes a small amount of material to generate odors, it is important to maintain a very clean operation. Therefore, any oil spilled on the ground should be quickly cleaned up. Well sumps should be pumped out after pulling a well, and periodically in the interim. Maintenance of seals and gaskets on pumps and piping should be performed whenever leaks are evident. General clean up of the site should result in significant improvements in the level of odor found in the area. 4. Appropriately designed, vapor recovery systems which pull the gas off the well casing should be employed, as well as vapor recovery systems for oil transport trucks. A similar system could be employed for any remaining storage facilities on-site. 4.8.4 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE Approval and development of the proposed project in conjunction with other past, present and reasonably foreseeable projects will contribute to degradation of regional air quality which is considered a significant cumulative impact and cannot be lessened by mitigation. The projects site-specific contribution to air quality impacts is not considered significant. Implementation of the mitigation measures will reduce the project-specific short-term dust impacts, vehicular emissions and odor impacts to a level of insignificance. July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.8-I5 Noise 4.9 is determined primarily by rations. Oil well drilling and on the project site are the This section will deal with led analysis of conditions in please refer to the "Noise n Volume II under separate of alternatives. of community noise. These shown to contribute to the in the environment, (3) the rough the environment, and lominant rating scale now in t is the Community Noise me weighed 24 hour average I refers to the fact that noise .ixed for occurring at these time periods and penalties se during these time periods. — - nt types of communities are Noise Standards The Normal Element of the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach establishes outdoor and indoor noise limits for mobile noise sources. The outdoor noise standard for exterior living areas for residential land use is 65 CNEL. The indoor noise standard for residential land use is 45 CNEL. The indoor noise standard for residential land use is 45 CNEL. The proposed project also specifies the development of commercial and industrial uses. In fact, commercial and industrial land uses are less sensitive to exterior noise and more influenced by interior noise levels. A common interior noise guideline for office space is 50 CNEL. For industrial uses, 55 CNEL seems to be a common guideline. The oil production operations are relatively insensitive to noise,and therefore, there are no standards regulating the noise impacting the oil productions site itself. The Huntington Beach Noise Ordinance establishes exterior and interior noise standards to protect residential areas from non-transportation related noise sources(such as the oil well operations). Table 26 presents the outdoor and indoor noise standards. The Huntington Beach Noise Ordinance is important because it provides noise levels which are deemed to be acceptable in residential areas. By comparing the noise levels generated by the oil producing activities to the Noise Ordinance, the acceptability of the noise levels can be determined. The Noise Ordinance is designed to control unnecessary, excessive and annoying sounds. Existing Traffic Noise Levels The traffic noise levels in terms of CNEL were computed using the Highway Noise Model published by the Federal Highway Administration. The FHWA Model uses traffic volume, vehicle mix, vehicle speed, and roadway geometry to compute the "equivalent noise level." Weighing these noise levels and summing them results in the CNEL for the traffic projections used. Contours are determined by iterating over many distances until the distances to the 60, 65, and 70 CNEL contours are found. For roadway analysis,worst-case assumptions about future motor vehicle traffic and noise levels have been made and were incorporated in the modeling effort. No reductions in motor July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.9-2 CNEL Outdoor Location —90— Apartment Next to Freeway 3/4 Mile From Touchdown at Major Airport a 80 m_—Downtown With Some Construction Activity Urban High Density Apartment —70- Urban Row Housing on Major Avenue 60 4 Old U,ban Residential Area —50�—Wooded Residential Agricultural Crop Land �40�--Rural Residential --Wilderness Ambient —30— EXHIBIT 25 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH TYPICAL OUTDOOR CNEL NOISE LEVELS MnflXy-S2 CLOFF p M Fp MESTRE GREVE ASSOCIATES vehicle noise were assumed in spite of legislation requiring quieter vehicles at the time of manufacture. TABLE 26 HUNTINGTON BEACH NOISE ORDINANCE STANDARDS NOISE LEVEL NOT MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE TO BE EXCEEDED DURATION OF EXCEEDANCE (in A weighted decibels) (in minutes/hour) ------OUTDOOR------ Daytime Standards (7 a.m. to 10 p.m.) 55 dBA 30 minutes/hour 60 dBA 15 minutes/hour 65 dBA 5 minutes/hour 70 dBA 1 minute/hour 75 dBA For any period of time Nighttime Standards (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.) 50 dBA 30 minutes/hour 55 dBA 15 minutes/hour 60 dBA 5 minutes/hour 65 dBA 1 minute/hour 70 dBA For any period of time ------ INDOOR------ Daytime Standards (7 a.m. to 10 p.m.) 55 dBA 5 minutes/hour 60 dBA 1 minute/hour 65 dBA For any period of time Nighttime Standards (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.) 45 dBA 5 minutes/hour 50 dBA 1 minute/hour 55 dBA For any period of time Existing traffic volumes and speeds for the roadways in the vicinity of the project were used with the FHWA Model to estimate existing noise levels in terms of CNEL. Traffic volumes were obtained from the traffic report prepared for this EIR. July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.9-4 The time and traffic distributions utilized are also presented in the traffic section. These data were compiled by the Orange County Environmental Management Agency, and are based on traffic counts at 31 intersections throughout the Orange County area. The data is considered typical for roadways in Southern California. The distances to the CNEL contours for the roadways in the project area are given in Table 27 on the next page. A more detailed analysis of conditions in the vicinity of the project is presented in the Appendix. These values represent the distance from the centerline of the road to the contour value shown. Note that the values given in the Table do not take into account the effect of any noise barriers of topography that may affect ambient noise levels. The unmitigated noise levels along the roadways servicing the site currently range from about 60 to 69 CNEL at a distance of 50 feet from the roadway centerlines. The City of Huntington Beach has required that all new residential projects be constructed so that they meet the 65 CNEL exterior noise level standard. Because of this standard, several of the residential areas in the project vicinity are protected by noise barriers which lower existing noise levels in those neighborhoods to below the 65 CNEL. Noise Levels Generated by Oil Production Operations Noise is generated by several activities associated with the current production and transportation of oil at the project sites. On-site oil related operations include several hundred oil wells, the Chevron USA Low Temperature Separation Plant and Shell Gas Plant No. 11 (off-site) and various storage facilities throughout the site. Noise levels associated with the existing oil production sites are: pumping operations, well maintenance, and truck loading. Previously, Mestre Greve Associates conducted a measurement survey of oil well operations within the City of Huntington Beach. The pumps that were measured are all electric and are located above ground (i.e., ground level). At the time of the noise measurements, all pumps appeared to be in operation. The measurement results are presented in Table 28 in terms of the equivalent noise levels (Leq), peak noise levels (Lmax), background (ambient) noise levels (L90), and noise levels exceeded for a July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.9-5 TABLE 27 DISTANCE TO CNEL NOISE CONTOURS FOR EXISTING CONDITIONS ROADWAY NAME CNEL @ DISTANCE TO CONTOUR 100 ft. 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL ELLIS AVENUE Edwards to Goldenwest 60.9 25 53 114 Goldenwest to Gothard 59.6 20 44 95 Gothard to Beach 59.6 20 44 95 GARFIELD AVENUE Edwards to Goldenwest 64.2 41 88 190 Goldenwest to Gothard 65.6 51 110 237 Gothard to Beach 65.6 51 110 237 YORKTOWN AVENUE Goldenwest to Main 62.9 34 73 156 EDWARDS STREET Garfield to Ellis 61.0 25 54 116 Ellis to Talbert 61.2 26 55 119 GOLDENWEST STREET Yorktown to Garfield 67.1 64 138 297 Garfield to Ellis 68.6 80 173 373 Ellis to Talbert 67.5 68 147 317 MAIN STREET Garfield to Ellis 64.5 43 93 200 July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF CPA 422102.009 4.9-6 percentage of time. In particular, noise levels which exceeded 1 minute/hour (L1.7), 5 minutes/hour T(L8.3), 15 minutes/hour(1,25),and 30 minutes/hour(1,50)were measured. These time periods correspond with the critical time periods contained in the Huntington Beach Noise Ordinance. The measurement data reflect oil well pumping operations only, other operations were not observed. TABLE 28 NOISE MEASUREMENT RESULTS Distance From Well Leq Lmax L1.7 L8.3 L25 L50 L90 25' 54.2 68.3 60.6 57.2 54.1 51.8 49.3 25' 51.0 71.2 61.8 56.6 52.9 50.6 48.7 125' 58.1 70.7 61.7 55.1 50.6 47.5 44.4 During the measurement period, the major contributor to the noise environment was the motor vehicle traffic on the nearby roadways not the oil pumping operations. The actual noise level of the pumps lies somewhere between the L50 and L90 percentile levels, with the higher noise levels representing traffic on roadways near the measurement sites. The oil operations measured should be considered typical of operations on the Holly Seacliff project site. The measurements indicated that the operations did not exceed the City's Noise Ordinance. Noise Levels Generated by Police Department Facilities The heliport for the Huntington Beach Police Department lies to the north of the project site. Noise contours for the heliport obtained from "Land Use Element 85-l" (March, 1985) indicate that the northern portion of the project site is exposed to helicopter noise ranging from 55-65 CNEL. Heliport contours are reproduced as Exhibit 26 (CNEL Noise Contours for Police Heliport). The helicopters arrive and depart into the wind. July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.9-7 They generally arrive from the north and depart to the south. Most operations are during the daytime, although they can occur during anytime of the day or night. The current and projected number of helicopter flights per day is seven. This is a minimum number and is based on the required patrol schedule which is subject to variation. Factors such as maintenance, narcotics surveillance and new training may increase the number of flights.l The shooting range for the City's police department also lies to the north of the project site. Instantaneous bursts of gunfire from the shooting range are audible at the northern project boundary, and seem to range in noise level from 50-55 dBA on-site. On-site evaluation of the existing noise environment indicated that traffic noise from Ellis masked most of the noise associated with the shooting range. Noise Levels Generated by the S.C.E. Substation A Southern California Edison Substation is presently located on-site near Edwards Street and Ellis Avenue. Noise measurements were made at the substation to determine existing peak noise levels associated with it's operation. At 50 feet from the substation, noise emanating from the transformers achieved peak noise levels of less than 55 dBA. 4.9.2 IMPACTS For the purposes of this report, noise impacts may be divided into two categories;(1) the impact of the proposed projects on the surrounding land uses, and (2) the compatibility of the proposed project with the ultimate noise levels on the project site. Impact on Adiacent Land Uses An important part of a noise analysis is the identification of noise-sensitive land uses that may be impacted by the proposed project. This would include residential properties, schools, or other noise-sensitive land uses adjacent to the project or situated along roadways that will carry project-generated traffic. In the case of the proposed project, I Phone conversation with Sergeant King, July 18, 1989. July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.9-8 . s 41, J PROJECT SITE Owe EXHIBIT 26 MESTRE GREVE ASSOCIATES CNEL Noise Contours for Police Heliport residential land uses are located along Clay Avenue, Garfield Avenue, Huntington Street,Ellis Avenue and Golden West. Most of these homes are generally protected from traffic noise by a sound wall. Two types of noise impacts on adjacent land uses were assessed: (1) construction noise impacts; (2) project-related traffic may increase noise levels on properties located along primary access routes. Construction Noise Construction noise will occur as a result of the development of the proposed project and its potential noise impacts must be considered. Construction noise represents a short-term impact on ambient noise levels. Every effort must be made to ensure that during construction excessive noise is not produced. Noise generated by construction equipment and construction activities can reach high levels. Construction equipment noise comes under the control of the Environmental Protection Agency's Noise Control Program. There are existing residential land uses situated directly adjacent to the project site that may be exposed to audible noise levels from construction activities. The nearest homes are located within 150 feet of the construction site. For most of the construction, the nearest homes are located greater than 500 feet away. Exhibit 27 depicts the range in noise levels for construction equipment referenced to 50 feet. At 150 feet these noise levels would be 9 dBA less; at 500 feet 20 dBA less. Most of the types of construction activities associated with this type of construction do not generate high noise levels. In addition, traffic noise from the adjacent arterials should mask most construction noise. Therefore, construction noise is not considered a significant impact. However, occasional single-event disturbance from construction activities is possible. This could be, for example, a grading truck. If problems do arise, enforcement of the Huntington Beach Noise Ordinances that limits the hours of construction to normal weekday working hours will help minimize any potential noise impacts. July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.9-10 Potential Off-Site Traffic Noise Impacts The proposed project will generate traffic, and as a result may alter noise levels in surrounding areas. To assess the impact of the proposed project on land uses adjacent to streets that will serve the project, the increases in roadway noise along these streets were determined. Analysis was aimed at identifying the impacts attributable to the project. The existing traffic, the existing General Plan, and the proposed project were modeled for several roadways in the project vicinity. The results were used to project the increase in noise levels over existing levels for the General Plan and the proposed project. These are shown on Table 29 (Future Scenario vs. existing conditions). In most noise studies, increases over three dBA are considered significant. Increases of greater than three dBA only occur along Garfield Street in the proposed plan while in the existing General Plan they occur along Ellis, Garfield and Edwards. This increase in noise is considered a cumulative impact. This impact is not considered significant after implementation of mitigation measures. Potential On-Site Traffic Noise Impacts Future traffic noise levels on the project site were established in terms of the CNEL index by modeling the surrounding roadways for the future traffic characteristics. The future traffic projections are derived from the traffic study in the report and included project related traffic. This data is presented in the Appendix. The highway noise levels were computed using the FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model (described in the "Existing Noise Conditions" section). The roadways that were modeled include all the major streets that are adjacent to the project. Traffic distribution assumptions are the same as for existing conditions. The distances to the CNEL contours for these roadways are given in Table 30 (Proposed Project vs. current General Plan). It represents the distances from the centerline of the road to the contour value shown. Note that the projections do not take into account the effect of the topography or intervening barriers that will alter ambient noise levels. In July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.9-11 addition, existing legislation is expected to reduce noise levels from future vehicles by 3 dBA or more. This reduction is not included in these projections. The CNEL contour distances presented in Table 31 indicate that the worst case noise exposure for the proposed project would occur along Goldenwest Street and Garfield Avenue. Noise levels along these roadways would range from 65 to 70 CNEL at 100 feet from the roadway centerline. Noise levels along other roadways surrounding the project would range from 60 to 67 CNEL at 100 feet. Residential uses planned along all roadways listed except Ellis Avenue would be exposed to exterior noise levels in excess of 65 CNEL (assuming a worst case building setback of 50 feet). The future noise levels for the proposed residential land uses are as high as 74 CNEL for the proposed plan (along Garfield Avenue). Mitigation in terms of sound barriers will be required in order to meet the 65 CNEL exterior noise standard. In order to meet the 45 CNEL interior noise level standard, the buildings would need to achieve outdoor/indoor building attenuation as high as 29 dB. Most new residences achieve 20 to 23 dBA outdoor to indoor noise reduction. Special construction measures may be required for homes built along the major roadways in order for the interior standards to be achieved. Special construction measures typically involve higher noise rated windows. The State of California guidelines consider noise levels up to 77 CNEL as acceptable for commercial land uses. In order to meet the 50 dBA CNEL interior noise level guideline, the buildings would need to achieve outdoor/indoor building attenuation of 24 dB(assuming a 50 foot setback). Most new commercial buildings achieve greater than 20 dBA outdoor to indoor noise reduction. Additional noise analysis on a site-specific level will need to be completed as detailed site plans and architectural drawings become available for the various projects. From a traffic noise standpoint, the land uses planned would be compatible with future noise levels. Without mitigation, the noise levels on the project site would exceed City noise assessment criteria. With mitigation, the noise levels can be reduced to below City standards and not be considered significant. July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.9-12 A•Weighted Sound Level (dBA) at 50 feet 60 70 80 90 100 110 Compact (rollers) Front loaders .� Backhoes Tractors Scrapers, graders Pavers Trucks Concrete mixers Concrete pumps Cranes (movable) Cranes (derrick) Pumps Generators Compressors Pneumatic wrenches . Jackhammers and drills Pile drivers (peak levels) Vibrators Saws Source: "Handbook of Noise Control," by Cyril Harris, 1979. EXHIBIT 27 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT NOISE HMV-WACUF MFA MESTRE GREVE ASSOCIATES TABLE 29 CHANGE IN CNEL NOISE LEVEL FUTURE SCENARIO VERSUS EXISTING CONDITIONS 1 Increase over Existing CNEL Noise Levels with ROADWAY NAME Existing Current Proposed CNEL @ 100' General Plan Project ELLIS AVENUE Edwards to Goldenwest 60.9 4.2 2.2 Goldenwest to Gothard 59.6 2.5 0.2 Gothard to Beach 59.6 2.7 0.4 GARFIELD AVENUE Edwards to Goldenwest 64.2 4.8 3.3 Golden West to Gothard 65.6 3.9 3.6 Gothard to Main 65.6 4.0 3.4 YORKTOWN AVENUE Goldenwest to Main 62.9 1.4 0.4 EDWARDS STREET Garfield to Ellis 61.0 3.4 1.4 Ellis to Talbert 61.2 3.3 1.3 GOLDENWEST STREET Yorktown to Garfield 67.1 1.5 0.1 Garfield to Ellis 68.6 0.9 0.6 Ellis to Talbert 67.5 1.3 0.9 MAIN STREET Garfield to Ellis 64.5 2.1 1.1 July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.9-14 i TABLE 30 CHANGE IN CNEL NOISE LEVEL PROPOSED PROJECT VERSUS CURRENT GENERAL PLAN Increase/Decrease In CNEL Noise Level ROADWAY NAME Current General Plan Proposed CNEL @ 100' Project ELLIS AVENUE Edwards to Goldenwest 65.0 -1.9 Golden West to Gothard 62.1 -2.2 Gothard to Beach 62.3 -2.3 GARFIELD AVENUE Springdale to Seapointe 65.5 -0.1 Seapointe to Edwards 66.1 -0.6 Edwards to Goldenwest 69.0 -1.5 Golden West to Gothard 69.6 -0.4 Gothard to Main 69.6 -0.6 YORKTOWN AVENUE Goldenwest to Main 64.3 -1.8 SEAPOINTE STREET PCH to Garfield 64.7 -0.5 EDWARDS STREET Garfield to Ellis 64.4 -2.0 Ellis to Talbert 64.5 -2.0 GOLDENWEST STREET Yorktown to Garfield 68.6 -1.5 Garfield to Ellis 69.5 -0.4 Ellis to Talbert 68.8 -0.4 GOTHARD STREET Garfield to Ellis 65.0 -0.6 MAIN STREET PCH to Yorktown 64.5 -0.1 Garfield to Ellis 66.6 -0.9 July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.9-15 I Potential Off-Site and On-Site Impacts Due to Oil Well Operations The oil production operations on the site will decrease with implementation of the proposed project. However, additional drilling will be necessary as part of any consolidation of oil well operations. The major source of noise in the short term (1 to 2 years) will be the drilling operations. The long term major sources of noise will be service drilling,oil well pumping operations,equipment involved in pulling or redrilling a well, and truck loading. The location of the consolidation area(s) has not been determined. Therefore, general guidelines imposed by the City should be used as an aid in choosing a location that will have the least noise impact on residential and other sensitive land uses. Additional analysis of the impacts associated with the consolidation area(s) will be required when detailed phasing plans become available. Without mitigation, this could be a potential significant impact. With proper design and the use of sound barriers, the potential impacts can be eliminated. Mitigation measure No. 5 is proposed to reduce this impact to a level of significance. Oil Well Drilling Drilling operations involve running 800 to 1000 horsepower motors 24 hours per day, the pulling of drill pipe from the hole, racking of pipe, pumping of drilling and completion fluids, wireline well logging, installation of casing, and completion of the wells. All of these operations are generators of noise to some degree. The drilling operation tends to have the greatest impact owing to its 24 hour operation. During nighttime hours when ambient noise levels are low, noise from the drilling operations can carry a long distance. For this project, the drilling rig(s)will be isolated inside acoustic enclosures as required by the Huntington Beach Oil Code which will reduce emissions to some degree. Data on the effectiveness of acoustic blankets were obtained from the Office of Noise-Control of the Environmental Health Board of the California Department of Health Services. The exact type of acoustic blanket used is not known, however, most acoustic blankets are composed of canvas material with lead or other sound absorbent material. These data are presented in Table 32 (Noise Data on Drilling Rig Operations) and based on well drilling operations in Orange County. July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.9-16 TABLE 31 DISTANCE TO CNEL NOISE CONTOUR FOR PROPOSED PROJECT ROADWAY NAME CNEL @ DISTANCE TO CONTOUR 100FT. 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL ELLIS AVENUE Edwards to Golden West 63.1 35 75 161 Goldenwest to Gothard 59.9 21 46 98 Gothard to Beach 60.0 22 47 101 GARFIELD AVENUE Springdale to Seapointe 65.4 49 107 230 Seapointe to Edwards 65.5 50 107 231 Edwards to Goldenwest 67.5 68 147 317 Goldenwest to Gothard 69.2 89 191 411 Gothard to Main 69.0 86 185 399 YORKTOWN AVENUE Goldenwest to Main 62.5 32 68 147 SEAPOINTE STREET PCH to Garfield 64.3 41 89 192 EDWARDS STREET Garfield to Ellis 62.4 31 67 145 Ellis to Talbert 62.5 32 68 147 GOLDENWEST STREET Yorktown to Garfield 67.1 65 139 300 Garfield to Ellis 69.2 88 190 408 Ellis to Talbert 68.4 78 169 364 GOTHARD STREET Garfield to Ellis 64.4 42 91 I96 MAIN STREET Yorktown to Garfield 66.7 60 129 278 July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.9-17 TABLE 32 NOISE DATA ON DRILLING RIG OPERATIONS DISTANCE TO TYPE OF ACOUSTIC NOISE DRILLING RIG MOTOR BLANKET LEVEL 100 FT Diesel Not Used 70 dBA 50 FT Diesel Used 60 dBA 15 FT Electric Used 50 dBA * Source: Office of Noise Control of the Environmental Health Board of California Department of Health Services. i Since the location of the consolidation area is not known at this time, the worst case receptor was assumed to be 100 feet from the drilling operations. The worst case noise levels at the nearest off-site residences (100 feet) for each type of drilling rig are given in Table 33. TABLE 33 DRILLING OPERATIONS NOISE LEVELS AT 100 FEET NOISE LEVEL (DBA) TYPE OF MOTOR ONE RIG TWO RIGS THREE RIGS FOUR RIGS Diesel 70.0 73.0 74.8 76.0 Diesel, with acoustic blanket 54.0 57.0 58.8 60.0 Electric, with acoustic blanket 33.5 36.5 38.8 39.5 The data in Table 33 show that in order for the drilling operation to satisfy the Huntington Beach Noise Ordinance, outdoor standards for electric motors with acoustic blankets must be used (or the consolidation area should be located several hundred feet from the nearest residence or school). Diesel motors even when shielded by acoustic blankets will not meet the nighttime Noise Ordinance standards at the nearest residences (assuming the 100 foot setback). July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.9-18 If there are plans to conduct the drilling operations during the nighttime hours, then . according to the Oil Code, the operations must be soundproofed and approved by the fire chief. Acoustic blankets as well as a masonry wall along the site perimeter will likely reduce the noise levels to below the Noise Ordinance standards. Implementation of mitigation measure No. 6 will reduce any oil well drilling impacts to a level of insignificance. Oil Well Pumping Pumps are another noise generating operation associated with oil production. There are currently a number of pumps operating at the site, and the project implementation will significantly decrease their number. If the project calls for installing submerged pumps for all oil wells as part of the consolidation, then the noise levels generated by the pumps will not be significant. However, if other types of well pumps such as ground level electric or diesel pumps are to be used, then additional mitigation will be necessary. Implementation of mitigation measure No. 7 will reduce oil well pumping impacts to a level of insignificance. Pulling Wells, Redrilling, Service Drilling, and Well Maintenance Occasionally wells will need to be pulled and redrilled. These are noisy operations involving the use of heavy equipment and lasting for several days. Traditionally, the redrilling operations have been conducted on a 24 hour basis. The noise levels generated by drilling are discussed in the Huntington Beach Oil Code. In this case, due to possible close proximity of the nearest residences to the wells, the Oil Code requires that any redrilling performed at night provide soundproofing. The Oil code prohibits the pulling of wells during the nighttime hours (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.) Service drilling for this project should be conducted during the daytime hours only. Data on service drilling operations have be obtained from J. J.Van Houten& Associates, Inc. (1986). The noise levels generated by a diesel powered rig would be approximately 64 dBA at 100 feet. Service drilling operations would exceed the City's daytime standard of 55 dBA. Locating these operations at least 250 feet from the nearest July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.9-19 residences or enclosing the consolidation area with a sound wall would reduce the noise impacts and satisfy the City standard. Well maintenance activities occur regularly. Routine well maintenance activities were observed during the noise measurement survey presented earlier in this report, and do appear to generate significant levels of noise. The routine well maintenance activities would occur inside any noise barrier surrounding the project site. These and other mitigation measures are recommended in the mitigation section that will reduce noise impacts associated with maintenance activities to a level of insignificance. Truck Operations Trucks enter onto the site periodically to empty the on-site storage tanks. The trucks are filled mostly with a gravity feed (no pumps involved). The lower portions of the tanks are loaded with a pump located on the truck. The noise levels generated by these trucks are expected to be typical of trucks passing through an residential area and may create associated noise disturbance. To minimize annoyance, truck access should be limited to daytime hours (i.e., 7 a.m. to 10 p.m.). After implementation of the mitigation measure this impact is reduced to a level of insignificance. Effects of Well Consolidation Currently there are several hundred wells scattered throughout the project area. Each of these wells constitute a minor source of noise impacting its immediate surrounding. With the project some of these wells will be consolidated into one or more areas, and the remaining wells will be removed. The final result is that through much of the project area, the noise levels will be lower. In the immediate vicinity of the project site, the noise levels will increase but with proper mitigation measures incorporated into the project design, the resulting noise levels will still be within the Huntington Beach Noise Ordinance. No impacts are anticipated after implementation of the mitigation measures. July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.9-20 On-Site Impacts From the Police Facilities Aircraft noise contours for heliport operations were presented previously in Exhibit 26. The contours can be considered representative of future conditions. On-site noise levels associated with heliport operations will range from 50-60 CNEL in future years (along the north-northwest portion of the site zoned Estate Residential). Additional analysis of on-site aircraft noise impacts should be undertaken on an individual project basis as the various subdivisions of the Estate Residential Area that lie within the 60 CNEL contour are developed. After implementation of the mitigation measures, impacts will be reduced to a level of insignificance. Noise associated with gunfire at the shooting range is not expected to have a significant impact on the project site in future years. Traffic on Ellis Avenue should continue to mask a high percentage of the shooting range noise. S.C.E. substation Noise levels associated with the Southern California Edison Substation were presented previously. The possible relocation of the substation has been discussed as part of the County Linear Park project. The substation would not have an impact on planned residential uses in it's existing form and location. However,relocation of the substation might entail altering the structure of the transformer assemblies,and thus alter the noise levels. An additional analysis of the substation noise would be required if the relocation took place and was adjacent to residential land uses. 4.9.3 MITIGATION MEASURES Roadway Noise The following mitigation measures are recommended to minimize any potential noise impacts associated with traffic noise on surrounding roadways. July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.9-21 1. Enforcement of the City of Huntington Beach Noise Ordinance should be implemented which limits the hours of construction to normal weekday working hours. 2. Measures should be designed to satisfy the requirement that 65 CNEL not be exceeded in residential outside living areas. Where residential buildings are to be located within these 65 CNEL contours,mitigation measures should be undertaken to reduce noise to acceptable levels. Mitigation through the design and construction of a noise barrier (wall, berm, or combination wall/berm)is the most common way of alleviating traffic noise impacts. The effect of a noise barrier is critically dependent on the geometry between the noise source and the receiver. A noise barrier effect occurs when the "line of sight" between the source and receiver is penetrated by the barrier. A barrier which does not break the line-of- sight is not an affective barrier, while one which just interrupts the line-of-sight achieves a 5 db reduction in noise. The greater the penetration the greater the noise reduction. Increasing building setbacks should also be used to attenuate noise down to acceptable levels. 3. The City of Huntington Beach should require that the housing portion of this project comply with the State of California Noise Insulation standards. The code requires that "interior community noise levels (CNEL) with window closed, attributable to exterior sources shall not exceed an annual CNEL of 45 dB in any habitable room." Any measures, such as window upgrades, can be specified at the time of building permit application. 4. At the time of building permit application, the design should again be reviewed to ensure that sound mitigation is included in the design. Oil Well Operations 5. Noise levels generated by the oil operations should be mitigated to levels consistent with the Huntington Beach Noise Ordinance, by locating consolidation area(s) at least 300 feet from the nearest residential or other sensitive land uses (locating consolidation areas within industrial use areas would be the most desirable from July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.9-22 a noise standpoint). The oil wells could be located closer to sensitive land uses if a perimeter wall with a minimum height of 8.0 feet was utilized around the consolidation area(s). The following mitigation measures assume a 100 foot distance to receptor and the mitigation effects of an 8.0 foot sound wall. Additional analysis of the consolidation area(s) will be necessary when phasing plans become available. Oil Well Drilling Operations 6. The results show that in order for the drilling operations to satisfy the Huntington Beach Noise Ordinance outdoor standards, electric motors with acoustic blankets must be used. Diesel motors even when shielded by acoustic blankets will not meet the nighttime Noise Ordinance standards at the on-site and off-site residences,and will not meet the daytime Noise Ordinance standards at the on-site residences. If there are plans to conduct the drilling operations during the nighttime hours, then according to the Oil Code,the operations must be soundproofed. Acoustic blankets as viell as a 8.0 foot high masonry wall along the site perimeter will likely reduce the noise levels to below the Noise Ordinance standards. Oil Well Pumpinst 7. The well pumps used in the consolidation area should be submerged. If other types of well pumps such as ground level electric or diesel pumps may be necessary. Specific mitigation measures should be presented in an additional noise study. Well Pulling. Redrilling, and Service Drilling Operations 8. Well pulling and drilling operations are confined to daytime hours (7 a.m. to 10 p.m.) by the Oil Code. Any redrilling performed at night must provide soundproofing to comply with the Noise Ordinance. The Oil Code prohibits the pulling of wells during the nighttime hours (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.). Well maintenance activities should also be conducted between the hours of 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. only. Although high levels of noise may be generated by routine well maintenance operations, these activities would occur inside the noise barrier surrounding the consolidation area. July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.9-23 9. Service drilling for this project will be conducted during the daytime hours only. Data on service drilling operations indicate that with a diesel powered service rig and an 8 foot high noise barrier, the noise level at 100 feet will likely be 55 dBA which corresponds to the City's daytime Noise Ordinance standard. All servicing of the wells must comply with the noise standards contained in the Huntington Beach code. Truck Operations 10. Truck operations should be limited to daytime hours only (7 a.m. to 10 p.m.) Helicopter Operations 11. Residential development within the helicopter flight corridor should generally be discouraged. 12. All residential buildings to be constructed within the helicopter activity corridor should be designed to achieve a 25 dBA outdoor to indoor noise reduction. 13. Helicopter noise impacts should be addressed in the acoustical assessments for residential uses within the helicopter flight corridor. Any mitigation requirements necessary to reduce helicopter noise impacts should be included in the assessment. 14. A notice (and statement of acknowledgement) to prospective homeowners is required stating that the property is subject to overflight, sight and sound of helicopters associated with the police facility. 4.9.4 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE Approval and development of the proposed project will contribute to off-site increases in traffic-related noise levels in conjunction with past, present and reasonably foreseeable projects. However, after implementation of mitigation measures, the contribution to noise impacts attributable to the proposed project can be reduced to levels below City standards and not be considered significant. July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.9-24 Project-specific short-term impacts related to noise generated by construction activities can be lessened and restricted to hours acceptable to the City of Huntington Beach. However, these impacts cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance and are considered unavoidable adverse impacts over the short-term. Through implementation of mitigation, long-term noise impacts can be reduced to insignificant levels. Impacts related to on-site traffic,associated oil operations and helicopter operations are not considered significant after mitigation. July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.9-25 HOLLY - SEACLIFF GPA Light and Glare CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 4.10 4.10 LIGHT AND GLARE 4.10.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS 1 The study area is situated in Central Huntington Beach. The majority of the area, which is undeveloped land and land used for oil production, is characterized by an i absence of light and glare. On-site oil wells and associated equipment are not lighted at night. The majority of light and glare that is produced within the area is currently generated by street lights, vehicle lights, commercial uses and residences where the single-family home sites are located. Light and glare in the vicinity of the project area include street lights, vehicle lights, parking lot lights, and signage from the mixed industrial uses located along Garfield Avenue and the Seacliff Village Shopping center. Street lights and vehicles travelling along the streets that border the study area also generate light and glare. During the day, light and glare problems are virtually non-existent due to the absence of reflective building materials in the area. 4.10.2 IMPACTS As projects are developed in the area, required street and traffic lighting, along with parking lot lighting and signage, will increase the sources of night lighting. This increase in lighting may be initially perceived by existing residents of the area as a significant impact. This perceived impact is anticipated to decrease over time as the proposed residences, offices, and commercial establishments become part of the community and local residents become accustomed to these new sources of light. Normally as development occurs, each new source of light is perceived as less of an impacting source. July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422\02.009 4.10-1 Without mitigation, light and glare impacts could be considered as significant. However, carefully designed lighting can minimize these impacts to a level of insignificance. Mitigation measures are proposed in the following section to ensure that exterior lighting is designed to minimize spillage. Glare impacts are usually caused by reflective surfaces on buildings, and by vehicles which may be visible from one or more locations. Because of the non-reflective building materials typically used in residential development, no significant increase in glare is expected to be produced in the residential sections of the study area. The project proposes 54 acres of industrial land uses to be developed within the project. Frequently, reflective glass is utilized in commercial building construction. Restrictions on reflective building materials in non-residential sections of the study area will substantially limit the increase in glare usually associated with non- residential development, minimizing glare impacts to a level of insignificance. The vehicular related glare will increase proportionately with increased levels of vehicles in the immediate area. These vehicle related increases in glare are not considered significant in a suburban setting, particularly where walls are constructed around the perimeter of residential areas. 4.10.3 MITIGATION MEASURES 1. A phased landscaping program should be developed in conjunction with all future Specific Plans to ensure landscaping commensurate with residential and non-residential occupancy to adequately screen on-site light and glare impacts. 2. All outdoor lighting should be consistent with the standards established by__ future Specific Plans to minimize off-site light intrusion. 3. All outdoor lighting should be hooded and directed downward to minimize direct light and glare impacts on public rights-of-way and surrounding properties. July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422\02.009 4.10-2 4. Appropriate types and heights of street lights should be consistently established in future Specific Plans. Street lighting should be standardized throughout the project area. 5. Lighting associated with recreational uses, where applicable, should be designed to minimize light intrusion onto surrounding property and right-of-ways surrounding such uses. 6. Non-residential building materials should be consistent with architectural standards incorporated into future Specific Plans. These standards should address the minimization of glare. 4.10.4 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE Approval and development of the proposed project will affect on-site and nearby residents' nighttime perception of light and glare. Implementation of the above mitigation measures will reduce project specific lighting impacts to a Ievel of insignificance. Project specific glare impacts are not considered significant in a suburban setting. The project will incrementally increase the amount of light and glare in the area in conjunction with existing future projects. Over time, the project will contribute to a cumulative increase in the amount of light and glare in the vicinity. Neither of these are considered significant after mitigation measures. Approval and development of the project will not result in unavoidable adverse impacts related to light and glare as all of the surrounding area is already developed. July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422\02.009 4.10-3 HOLLY - SEACLIFF GPA Cultural/Paleontological Resources CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 4.11 4.11 CULTURAL RESOURCES The cultural resource section of this EIR has been taken from Technical Reports prepared by RMW Paleo Associates. These reports may be found in the Appendices under separate cover. 4.11.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS Archaeology The Holly-Seacliff study area consists of approximately 768 acres in the City of Huntington Beach in southwestern Orange County, California. The northern, western and southwestern portions of the property are on bluffs overlooking major area drainages and the Bolsa Chica wetlands. The balance of the property contains oil production facilities, mixed industrial and residential or is vacant and is surrounded by urbanization. During the first half of this century the study area was subjected to oil exploration and drilling activity. In addition, major portions of the property are now covered with commercial or residential development. Area development activity extends back to the late 1800s, when several structures were known to exist in the vicinity. The oil drilling activity and the recent construction have greatly altered the character of the study area. Very little native vegetation can be seen and the original topography has been greatly altered. Prehistoric The Holly-Seacliff study area contains several archaeological sites along the bluff tops. These sites are well developed shell middens, but with few apparent artifacts. Some of the sites have been subjected to exploratory excavation, but this work has received inadequate reporting. All of the sites are damaged by past construction activity, primarily related to oil field operations. July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.11-1 The archaeological sites represent a very long span of occupation and are expected to contain data required to address many important research questions. The chronology represented on the following pages, indicates the types of material expected to be found from each period, some of which have already been found on the project site. CHRONOLOGY. BASED ON KOERPER AND DROVER (1983) PERIOD* TEMPORAL SPAN MAJOR DIAGNOSTIC TRAITS Early Man or ? to 7500 B.C. 1. Lack of grinding implements. Paleo-Indian 2. Large, well made projectile points. Characteristics and adaptations: 1. Subsistence through hunting of large Pleistocene game animals. 2. Temporary camps at large kills. 3. Group no larger than extended family. 4. Widespread. Covered most of North American continent, but no sites known locally. 5. Very small total population. Millint, Stone 7500 B.C.+/- 1. Predominance of manos and metates. or Encinitas to 1000 B.C, 2. Ornaments made of stone. +/-250 3. Large and often crude projectile points. 4. Cogstones and discoidals. 5. Charmstones. 6. Some mortars and pestles near end of period. * Both the Chartkoff and Koerper and Drover names are given for the various periods, with the Koerper and Drover names appearing first. July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.11-2 Characteristics and adaptations: 1. Heavy reliance on hunting in early part of period. Deer, rabbits and other small game associated with chaparral. 2. In middle to late part of period, reliance was on hard seeds associated with chaparral. 3. Coastal groups utilized shellfish and near shore resources. 4. Seasonal round based on ripening vegetable resources rather than animal migrations. This caused increased isolation leading to noticeable differences in culture in much smaller geographic areas. 5. Probably about 50 persons in average group. 6. Very little noticeable change in last two thirds of period. 7. Colonization of Channel Islands near end of period. Intermediate 1000 B.C. +/- 1. Bone ornaments. or Campbell 250 to A.D. 750 2. Wide use of mortars and pestles along +/- 250 with manos and metates. 3. Use of steatite begins. 4. Many discoidals. 5. Large projectile points trending to smaller in the last part of the period. July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.11-3 Characteristics and adaptations: 1. Heavy reliance on acorns as food resource. Hard seeds, small animals and coastal resources continue to be used. 2. Many more deep water ocean resources utilized. 3. First permanently occupied villages. 4. Large increases in local population. 5. Atlatl (spear thrower) in use. Bow and arrow probably introduced near end of period. 6. Some evidence of trade. Late A.D. 750+/- 1. Shell ornaments. Prehistoric to Spanish 2. Mortar, pestle, mano and metate or Shoshonean contact use continues. 3. Small, finely worked projectile points. 4. Wide use of steatite. 5. Some pottery vessels appear near the end of the period. Characteristics and adaptations: 1. Increased exploitation of all resources. 2. Large populations, some villages had as many as 1,500 persons. 3. Great increase in art objects. 4. Much evidence of trade. July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.11-4 The project site contains the following cultural resources: Lithic artifacts are the only surviving material from the Paleo-Indian Period. These consist primarily of large and extremely well made projectile points and large but cruder tools such as scrapers and choppers. Large shell mounds and tools used for the processing of hard seeds, manos, metates and cogstones are attributed to the Milling Stone Period. The Historic Era is also represented on the site from the 1500s to the present time. This is mostly characterized by artifacts related to the Holly Sugar Refinery dating to 1911, the presence of the railroad in the area, and oil production facilities dating to the 1920s and continuing to the present day. The following archeological deposits have been identified on or near the subject site. This information was gained from a literature review at the Archaeological Survey, UCLA and four field inspections. CA-Ora-142: Archaeological site CA-Ora-142 was located to the west of the intersection of Goldenwest Street and Talbert Avenue. This location is outside the current study area, but some discussion of this site is warranted. The site was quite large and was apparently quite deep. The site was a shell midden, containing numerous lithic artifacts, including cogstones. It was destroyed in the 1960s, the material being used for freeway ramp construction. CA-Ora-82: Archaeological site CA-Ora-82 is a rather large shell midden located partially within the study area at its extreme northwestern corner. The site is a rich shell midden with manos and bowl fragments in evidence. CA-Ora-82 is one of the few sites in the vicinity which has been subjected to some reported excavation. This excavation was performed by faculty and students from the Long Beach State University. Additional excavation was accomplished by the Pacific Coast Archaeology society. Two reports were generated as a result of the Long Beach State University work. The first report describes the site as a well developed shell midden with some lithic artifacts; but no steatite, small ornaments or small projectile points were found. The i July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.11-5 second report dealt exclusively with the seasonality of harvest of Pismo clams based on shells collected during the excavation. It should be noted that burial sites were reported in CA-Ora-82. The burials have not been adequately analyzed or reported. A test excavation, recommended below, will determine if additional burials exist, their condition and their relationships to each other. Treatment of burials will be in accordance with a burial strategy, also recommended below, to be developed with input from all concerned parties. The site has been considerably damaged by oil field activity and road construction, but significant portions remain intact. Much shell and thermally altered stone is currently visible on the surface of CA-Ora-82, but very few lithic tools are in evidence. However, one metate fragment and several flakes were seen. The dearth of lithic material was expected, since the previous excavation work probably included a surface collection. Several circular depressions were seen in the central part of the site. A careful examination failed to reveal their exact nature. They could be house pits, earth ovens, modern oil field disturbance or even the excavation units from the earlier work in the 1960s. CA-Ora-88: Archaeological site CA-Ora-88 is located to the south of CA-Ora-82, on the opposite side of a shallow drainage which cuts through the bluff. The site is a shell midden containing metates, manor and a cogstone. Of all the known archaeological deposits on the Holly-Seacliff property, CA-Ora-88 is the most disturbed. This is because the bluff top in the site area was chosen for construction of numerous oil field facilities. Some midden is visible along the bluff top, but may be displaced material. The true degree of disturbance can only be established through test excavation. CA-Ora-365: This large site is a shell midden with broken grinding tools and chert flakes in evidence. Very little of these materials were found in the subsurface on the site during a prior limited test excavation. Of 40 recovered artifacts, 35 were found on the surface. Some historic material in the form of glass and ceramic fragments have been removed. A cogstone was also found. The current examination indicates that CA-Ora-365 is very similar to the sites located farther to the north. July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.11-6 The site has undergone serious damage, but significant portions remain intact. A large borrow pit has removed the western portion of the site, and the walls of this feature reveal a shell midden about a meter in depth. Lithic artifacts are few, but this should be expected in view of previous work at the site. The presence of a historic component at the site is important, since the area may well contain material from the Spanish or early American Periods. CA-Ora-364: This site is described as a shell midden. A mano, a chert core and numerous chert flakes have been noted. There has been no excavation reported at this site. CA-Ora-364 appears to be mostly intact, with some limited disturbance from oil field activity. CA-Ora-366: This site was described as a shell midden with some lithic material in evidence. CA-Ora-366 has been heavily damaged by oil field activity, but some limited portions may be intact. There is much shell to be seen at the site, but very few lithic artifacts were noted. Holly-Seacliff 1: This site has been recorded but a CA-Ora number has not yet been received from the Archaeological Survey of UCLA. This newly discovered deposit is located immediately to the southeast of CA-Ora-364. The base of a Cottonwood Triangular projectile point was found on the surface of the site during the current reconnaissance. This is an extremely important discovery, since Cottonwood Triangular points can be confidently assigned to the Late Prehistoric Period. Thus, all locally known archaeological periods, excepting only the Early Man, are represented in the Holly-Seacliff deposits. Shell and Lithic Scatters: During previous work in the southeast quarter of Section 34 done in 1988 for the Ellis-Goldenwest EIR, several scatters of shell and lithic material were noted. Very similar scatters were discovered at various points within the Holly-Seacliff study area during the current assessment. Test excavations clearly established that the scatters were archaeological in nature, but modern historic trash was found below the deposits. In other words, the archaeological material represented modern imported material, probably from some archaeological site in the vicinity. The scientific value of the material had been lost. July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.11-7 The shell and lithic scatters discovered during the.current evaluation have not been recorded as archaeological sites. Recording should take place only after test excavation establishes that the deposits are in situ archaeological material. Historic Holly Sugar Refinery Area: Located in the eastern part of the study area are the railroad siding and associated warehouses. The Holly Sugar Refinery was in this area, between the rail terminal and the current intersection of Main Street and Garfield Avenue. The Holly Sugar Refinery became operational in 1911, remained active for about a decade and then was converted to other uses. The building was destroyed in the 1960s. The plant was historically noteworthy, since it was the first such plant to be fully electrified. Huntington A-1: This oil well is located a short distance to the northwest of the intersection of Goldenwest Street and Clay Avenue. As implied by the number of the well, this was where the first drilling occurred. Huntington A-1 was the well that led to the discovery of large oil deposits in the area. A plaque currently is in place at Huntington A-1. Historic 'Trash Deposits: No older in situ trash deposits were seen in the study area during the current project, but there is a high probability that such deposits exist and will be discovered during construction excavation. Paleontology The purpose of this study is to assess the known and potential paleontological resources of the project site and to determine any necessary mitigation measures. This assessment is based on a review of published geological/paleontological __ . literature and a records search at the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County (LACM). Dr. J.D. Stewart, Assistant Curator of Vertebrate Paleontology at the LACK also was consulted concerning fossil distribution within the project vicinity. No Los Angeles County Museum of Natural History vertebrate localities are recorded July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.11-8 on the Holly-Seacliff project site. A field survey of the Holly-Seacliff property was conducted February 15/16, 1989. Rock units within the study area were assigned a paleontologic sensitivity which indicates the potential for fossil discovery during development work. This is not a measure of the importance of the individual fossils because it is impossible to gauge in advance that fossils are present at a site or to measure their significance until they have been excavated, collected, cleaned and studied. All fossils are assumed to be significant for the regional paleontologic resource data base. Therefore, for the purposes of environmental impact studies, paleontologists measure the potential for the discovery of any fossil remains. This sensitivity or potential is determined from the past record of fossils within the given rock unit(s) in the study site and all other exposures of the rock unit(s). A field survey of the area made for this study reveals that rock outcrops were limited by grass cover and development. The best rock exposures are located at the north and northwest edge of the property along the bluffs. Massive and crossbedded siltstones, sandstones and pebbly gravels are visible in the bluff face. Along natural drainage areas and road cuts occasional small areas of rock are exposed to view. A sand/shell horizon is intermittently exposed along the bluff on the northwest side of the property. These shells are interpreted as an archaeological shell midden. Fossilized animal burrows (trace fossils) were observed in the massive sandstone units exposed on the northern edge of the site. No other fossils were located during the field survey. Research shows that the study area is underlain by (1) the San Pedro Sand and (2) a thin veneer of Quaternary alluvium overlaying unnamed marine terrace deposits ranging in age from +/- 200,000 to 10,000 years (Rancholabrean Land Mammal Age). These units are well exposed to view in the bluffs on the north and northwest. Surficial materials, such as soils and slope outwash, overlie these units. The upper Pleistocene San Pedro Sand and unnamed marine terrace deposits are the oldest rock units exposed on the project (+/- 120,000 to 10,000 years). These units underlie much of the City of Huntington Beach and are characteristics of the July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.11-9 southern California coastal areas. Both vertebrate and invertebrate fossils are commonly found in upper Pleistocene deposits within the Los Angeles basin. There have been reports of major discoveries of "Ice Age" land animals from terrace materials at Huntington Beach, Long Beach and Seal Beach. Currently the closest recorded Los Angeles County Museum of Natural History fossil vertebrate locality is on Warner Avenue in Huntington Beach where extinct bison and mammoth remains were recovered. Additional collections of scientifically significant vertebrate fossils have also been reported from the San Pedro and Newport Beach areas. A large marine invertebrate fauna has also been recovered from the San Pedro sand and unnamed terrace deposits within the Los Angeles Basin. 4.11.2 IMPACTS Archeology The archaeological deposits within and near the study area are important resources. The deposits are very extensive, not only in terms of surface area and depth, but also in terms of the enormous span of time they represent. There is very little known about the sites, but the little data available indicates that the sites contain data from the early Milling Stone time well into the Late Prehistoric Period. Sites clustered as closely as the ones within the current study area rarely cover such a long period of time. All of the Holly-Seacliff deposits are damaged, some to the point of almost total destruction. However, significant portions of most of the sites remain. Since the oil field activity is decreasing and residential and commercial construction is on the rise, it is clear that the sites are now likely to sustain additional damage. The reduction of oil field security along with the increase in residential construction will combine to greatly increase the foot, vehicular and equestrian traffic in the site areas. Damage to fragile surface artifacts will increase, as well as illegal collections. Residential and commercial construction within the site areas will cause extensive and irreparable damage. July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.11-10 The Holly-Seacliff sites present a challenging management problem. The sites are already damaged and the threat to them is serious and will continue to increase in the coming years. Further, the sites are all located within prime building areas and the pressure for development will be quite high. Under these circumstances, any effort to preserve large portions of the Holly-Seacliff complex of archaeological sites would be very expensive and, over the long term, would probably be ineffective. Under these conditions it is felt that a program of excavation is the best available method for treatment of the sites. The Holly-Seacliff archaeological shell middens are among the last remaining of many such deposits which existed along the Orange County coast. In other words, the Holly-Seacliff deposits are one of the very last opportunities to gain information about Orange County coastal prehistory, a long period which is not well understood. It is expected that important historical deposits from early times also exist within the study area. However, the exact locations of such deposits cannot be determined and their true extent is unknown. There is no method of locating these deposits, other than observation of construction grading. This may entail some minor grading delays to permit recovery of any important historic material which may appear. It is recommended that a phased program of excavation be undertaken to recover as much data as possible from the sites before they are altered by proposed residential, commercial and park construction. The first phase would be designed to define the extent of the remaining undisturbed portions of the sites, their significance and whether certain observed shell and lithic scatters are in situ deposits or imported material. Subsequent phases would be designed to recover as much data as possible from those sites which will be negatively impacted by construction. Preservation is not seen as a viable option for the Holly-Seacliff deposits since they are already heavily damaged and occupy prime portions of the study area. Important historical deposits may also exist within the study area, but they are not well defined. These should be located through observation of ground disturbing activity, collected and reported. Those historic deposits which occur within archaeological deposits will be treated with those deposits. July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.11-11 Paleontology The rock units underlying the Holly-Seacliff area are rated as having a high paleontologic potential. Grading and other earthmoving activities are likely to expose fossil remains contained within these unities. But by uncovering these fossils, they will, in the process, be destroyed. 4.11.3 MITIGATION MEASURES Archaeoloptv 1) It is suggested that the research design be prepared by the Principal Investigator selected to perform the work and that it be reviewed by a second consulting archaeologist. This step will help insure the completeness and viability of the research design prior to its implementation. The involvement of a second professional is viewed as an inexpensive means of insuring that no major elements are overlooked. 2) The archaeological deposits within the Holly-Seacliff study area should be i subjected to a program of excavation designed to recover sufficient data to fully describe the sites. The following program is recommended: A. Analysis of the collections made by the Pacific Coast Archaeological Society, Long Beach State University and any community college which has such material. If the collections are properly provenienced and are accompanied by adequate documentation, they should be brought together during this phase and complete analysis performed. Of particular importance during this phase is the recovery of survey data to be used to determine the exact locations of previous excavation efforts. B. Prior to the beginning of any excavation effort, a burial strategy should be developed by the archaeologist retained to accomplish the excavation, members of the Native American community and appropriate City Staff. The strategy should address details of the handling and processing of July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.11-12 human remains encountered during excavation, as well as the ultimate disposition of such remains. C. Completion of test excavations should be made at each of the archaeological deposits. The information gained from the test excavation will guide the following data recovery excavation. The excavations should have two primary goals: o Definition of site boundaries and depth. o Determination of the significance of the site and its degree of preservation. D. A statistically valid sample of site material should be excavated. The data recovery excavation should be conducted under the provisions of a carefully developed research design. The research questions presented earlier in this report should be incorporated into the research design, other important research questions should be developed from the test excavation data included, and a statement of methodology to be observed must be included. E. A qualified observer appointed by the Principle Investigator/ Archaeologist should monitor grading of the archaeological sites to recover important material which might appear. The monitor will be assigned by the Principal Investigator. This activity may require some minor delay or redirecting of grading while material is being recovered. The observer should be prepared to recover material as rapidly as is consistent with good archaeological practice. Monitoring should be on a full time basis when grading is taking place on or near an archaeological deposit. However, the grading should terminate when the cultural deposit has been entirely removed and clearly sterile deposits exposed. July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.11-13 F. All excavation and ground disturbing observation projects should include a Native American Observer. Burials are known to exist at some of the sites, a circumstance which is extremely important to the Native American community. G. A detailed professional report should be prepared which fully describes the site and its place in prehistory. Reports should receive sufficient distribution which includes the City, the County and the UCLA repository for archeology to insure their availability to future researchers. H. Arrangements should be made for proper curation of the collections. It is expected that large quantities of material will be collected during the excavation. Curation should be at an institution which has the proper facilities for storage, display and use by interested scholars and the general public. 3) The shell and lithic scatters should be subjected to test excavation to determine if they are or are not in situ archaeological deposits. If any of the scatters prove to be in situ archaeological material, a site record should be prepared and submitted to the Archaeological Survey, University of California, Los Angeles, and the site should be treated as in mitigation number one. If the sites are shown to be not archaeological in nature or not in situ, then no further action should be taken. 4) Ground disturbing activity within the study area should be monitored by a qualified observer assigned by the Principle Investigator/Archaeologist to determine if significant historic deposits, (e.g. foundations, trash deposits, privy pits and similar features) have been exposed. The monitoring should be on_a full time basis but can be terminated when clearly undisturbed geologic formations are exposed. If such exposures occur, appropriate collections should be made, followed by analysis and report preparation. Historic material may be encountered anywhere within the Holly-Seacliff property, but the area around the old Holly Sugar Refinery is probably more sensitive than the July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.11-14 balance of the project area. Historical material recovered at the archaeological sites should be treated with those deposits. 5) The plaque commemorating oil well Huntington A-1 should be preserved. As development in the area continues, it may be desirable to upgrade this feature. Paleontology 6) A qualified paleontologist should be retained to periodically monitor the site during grading or extensive trenching activities that cut into the San Pedro Sand or the Quaternary marine terrace units. 7) In areas where fossils are abundant, full-time monitoring and salvage efforts will be necessary (8 hours per day during grading or trenching activities). In areas where no fossils are being uncovered, the monitoring time can be less than eight hours per day. 8) The paleontologist should be allowed to temporarily divert or direct grading operations to facilitate assessment and salvaging of exposed fossils. 9) Collection and processing of matrix samples through fine screens will necessary to salvage any microvertebrate remains. If a deposit of microvertebrates is discovered, matrix material can be moved off to one side of the grading area to allow for further screening without delaying the developmental work. 10) All fossils and their contextual stratigraphic data should go to an institution with a research interest in the materials, such as the Orange County Natural History Foundation. 4.11.4 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE Provided the mitigation measures are properly implemented with the proposed project, project specific and cumulative project impacts may be mitigated to a level of insignificance. July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.11-15 Provided the mitigation measures are properly implemented, the development of this project will not cause an unavoidable adverse impact to cultural resources. July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.11-16 HOLLY - SEACLIFF GPA Biological Resources CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 4.12 4.12 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES This section of the EIR is based upon a "Biological Evaluation" prepared by LSA Associates Inc. The biological assessment was performed on foot and by car on four occasions in 1989: February 21 from 10:30 AM to 2:00 PM; April 3 from 12:45 PM to 3:45 PM; April 14 from 1:30 PM to 5:00 PM; and April 20 from 3:00 PM to 5:00 PM. Further detail may be found in this report under separate cover on Volume II. 4.12.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS This section includes an analysis of the biological resources in the Holly-Seacliff Area. The analysis is based on the California Natural Diversity Data Base and four field visits. The following contains descriptions of the existing biotic communities found in the project area. As the term implies, biotic communities are recognized assemblages of species which exist within the same physical habitat and have a very close and complex set of interrelationships. Mapped habitats are shown in Exhibit No. 28. The predominant habitat in the area is ruderal (weedy) grassland interspersed with various structures related to oil production, such as oil wells, buildings and storage tanks. Other developed areas within the project boundaries include residential communities, businesses, industrial buildings and storage yards, a shopping center and a covered reservoir. Woodlands within the project are a non-native type consisting of a comparatively small number and variety of ornamental species planted in residential yards, around urban structures and in fields. Wetland habitats, areas that contain water and that are dominated by wetland plant species are very limited in the area. Small degraded ponds occur in the northern portion of the project site. Isolated willow stands occur in a drainage area located in the northeast corner of the site, and are designated willow woodland. The western boundary lies adjacent to Bolsa Bay, and a limited area of salt marsh occurs here. July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.12-1 . . I '_='�__ )C__ � ".. __- , _��'�_._'�___ '13�'� -�.. - __ � _�'� ---- -- ; -r* - - ,� - - - 'k- -- _-,'lz�'�x @; '-, .----�'--s-, - _��� , -_���,,, ;�!Z��j� , ____ - - - . . - �- - - �--_-�,-�S'-�� �al", -__ _: .'_.lw �! k -.-' "-t"'� r �_� -, __ , � �_'_ _ � � - . . � 1, . �.' - 'r - -- --- - '4� .' �-��- ,'_�� �� ;� _�_.- - - -- ' , --- -t - -- i ��,. —— � .7- - __- ,-.�', �3- __'I- - 11 . ;�PA_�_-,�_w-0. - . � __ ,�'� �_-1.- I -�-� -- - - k___`_' ' 1-Apo k�1 '� "��__f_,�,- ,--L. --__-"-�� �- � ?p r, --i ,-,----�_-;�ff---� � . - �'-'_ -_-�'�. . 1,�_s r `__ .� --- --- ---- ' - - - I t � � I- I � :I_I --g" _g !��'�j ,. _k _-��.1— ;, ��—;'v: , a - ----I- - - __'_�_-_-�-'_-'_-_ : . --_ �__ . X_ -, _. �r LEGEND _�,,_ . . --, _'__ __ w'� -_ --- � _ . - -- ' ' -4 : - , - rjA - 11, - �i. - -, ';�'A -, - _ � � �� ��'� -1"_S'-_�_��-_�_-_-�� - r . , � � �---n��_ ,-_--,-Z,_1__�_____.- s --- -_- - , , - r - � �. �.' — - -' - 5��-'.- � � I 1 - ' '- � _ � � -- � � - � . i" - w � ; � ,.0 " - — " - -. , .-- - -- -� -- ��--,-r� �-,�'-5-� - �--''--T��- 7�7�,�*-I _� t5*; ffil`t�k'_�. -��-_ _ �- Cm, - 5�. - -��-��-- -"I-------�----� ----r - � - - 4-, - Y .� :!.; 7-77��_�-�--,-----�� .-- - , --' IRV - - _7�' I-,-- __----- �_ �;i_ _ I �' -- - - :5�- -_ - - ` , � AG-`-_�Fa� �` ---,---'Z---'- 1-� ---lt*tg� ... .- _ _'_'___ s - -�R' -- -- - -j�_--:� '-, -�-� _ . -�---,_�__-_-_-_. - �� , . , � .-V , � -- : - -- , -. __� - __ J, '�_. . _-,�,_� __�' - , -"� �-_, � _w--,--- - ,- -, �fA�' � - _'_r�_- - � �_---,�-_-_ _-_- , " � _ - �_� 1 ��'- � 1. � - -, -���-_-� - -_ - 'f'�r-�4,T -------� 'i� -_.�' �' . - - - �. . -..- - - - . �--�- - �� � _-_ �'-��W"'_ "-_ -, .�' � , r - - '_ - 1 v --- _�' , .__ -1 - - - - -jv..' '_ - - -�-- ___ , _ - --;J�-" -'_��_-_--__ � -_-. �_ �;''��__�'11 -I-.-- DEVELOPED AREA - 'z - , - -1-mm - _-uz�'--- -. _1�._ ci- .- - - �; -"�z';.�Z�-"_-,,-=--_� � — ' -_ -, - �pj --- �----------- - ------ �� - � -11 __ - , , _p� - --;. N -� , - ;-"-:- ---- . .. - - � '-- - , _- - w i.,' � - -- � N M f i �� _�. ��-� - ,A -- .-_--_. __ __ - - --__� ��'-' �__ - '- - __ -1 , - - 1 ��t �_ -L - _�. I----�_n_l��I;a- I- - -_� -�____1�__� __ � n�� '.� -, -- - `�M - -1 -, S k�- ".- - � - - � . �'_'-�r�_�Ql`__A: �i__ -- ' -- -- --' - - - - -�_-��'_-� ,- - - �---- - - - - : - - .- 4 1� - -� - ___ �-- - �)�'- , '-� -6 - -NATIVE WOODLAND �---__H_-_-`��L - - I -,� _e ..__'_ -_�_--.'_-:___'_'�_��_'- - - i�. _- _�__07��'�_��_ -q-� - ."� !7!�� '��-�'- - '--�--��-_--_ ,------�--_��- - - __. __ -_��!� - -�__ NON _V .n - - - I --- - - - - - -- - . __ � -�._ -� ��.: - - _'. ,- I . �---'2 - !! ��_�;-—----- ' A - - �' - ----- - I , N .- ___ - - s - _- --:� - - �� � __t .'�� _�_r ERAL ANNUAL GRASSLAND , '�� -;4 __ - - 11 �'n I-— - -' - - - -�_ - - - . �-- " ` _`� -�` - !k;017 � - �--�-�---�*tK-_-,��`�:� N __ � I M � - 'a - - __ v __ !0�� � - --:- � l '_ -�� - ---_�� - - .. - - - _ - __ - , ." - - / _q_E I -T7�vg-n-. -- -- � �' �___�' � �___�'. � . - - � , - - 7 _-, - - __ � - ;o-- - -_-, -� � - , � --. - 4 A , - I .., . - , _ -- ��.�' -Z - V .1 -. - .. 1� . . -.... -- I �-� , - - . ' - -_ -�_ - ._�;� �- --f�".3'_'--I.. _2:'!T�!�:Ni__ I -- , -- I - '__ -- ---- _-,�-_-_- ---�_�-- _�.'--�r_-_, _ - �� , - Q -1 ' �' - ___ _1�1 �4 �---- __w - - - _��i� j �� ____'�___-_-:�1� --- - � -- A, - __ '�I vc- __ , _'�' , � ___- - � --- - __ - __ , ______a� - __ - - ;:�- - - - I - - - - - - I , _ _ , i .__ '__ �_ � _� -� �- 2-_�_- --, I A I RUD __� - � 1. , ; ___ - - ".. - - ; ---� -� F ' - -- � �-�-A�� �_ - '�� �I .-, 1 __ ", �' - _ Jis6p ---- - - ,�- . - - - :- : -- - _- --- , PALUSTRI N E,S H RU B,D ECI D U 0 US,SALIX - - - , - -- - _: � - - - (::Z;2D - - �'5- - , --- --�----,� --.-�--- - - - _ - .___ 4_ - - S�--- - � I DEV - -_ -__� - �_ -, _�4._�'-- � - - - ,. � _:'. �'_�--�-o��,---,��-g ___l -_-- , ' -- i � - �;�t:___"__Y� . -_ �' , - , � � - ` - - , ... ��-- ',.-��--r. -, - � --. _�::-K��'___ -, S�s . -- "A�,_�` - --- , ��` --p-_-P DS---'�-- - , --- - _'l- r-,-_ -_77t s --j. - : - _- - - -- � � wiw'�� __. . DEV --"---__- ___� -- 4 - �POSTA-_,-t-_- EV I!-` 5 - � - --`� -�RAG--"'--_"�--_ ��-__ '��-� __ , - -- �'_- _ -. - � - .. - ,_ � - __i��-T�p� -,-- _4A --- -- - � ___ - - � � - -- -----s - - - � - - -- I - -- ' -----:�� -e--�-� - -��.��-- - - - � 1-�'-_T-�----;f'WF".-, - ._: - - -- - 111- -,-, _-� ---.--��_-�__- --------,. I- ___ ___ z __--. _. - -' -- , -f" �. -- - .: -�- - --� - � ,--- - �--- - �- - ,-!�' --- --� ---, � :_��- -,----, - � - - - �__ ��i�'�._-'_--__ � :�� --- ,"� -: --. -,- � -_ �� _��t _ � �, � � _� -1 _ ;�. �W�: '�:��__�_� �'��l----_m �llz� - . - '_- . U �_ - -- --- ,�� '.� ,",, �� "jr'-N N - -__ _'v_' ' -- `t'_-��_ ,--i----��-���.'a't--��_1.�- -_-- _��-���_-'-_--'��''--- �� � '��F�� ill_ - I & � - )NN NN __4 NN ! - - w- --�-��'---� f�--'-�-,- -� -", � - � _--.f'� � - __ - � ----- --. ,-_,,_, --l-, -, PALUSTRINE, UNCONSOLIDATED BOTTOM -� --.- I I -1 - - -I_- .----.,-----�-_-_-.' _��-.- -�_ I_N N � � �E �_--� - �':� _-_--,,, ..��_` _' '_�_,� I I� � 0�0� _� " K�_-.��, - - -- -- �' _� - � '�g�____I _ "' �' --,,'_��-'�-_-�- - --�- - '� ______ ----- I - c . . - -- - -_ _� ��-- ----�'--j�--_-��'--, --T��--_-_��--_---`- -T - , �� -" Albv_'.� I-- -,��- - --��_ -- - _�_ - �lle�'�� - _��ft'_ -"'�- , luel_7` -" __�_.�'_'�' --.i--__��_--_ -r_v--z_'_-_--_�-�N �-�)_k- -____'zk--;�-_ - - , - - -�� '__- .: _ �kr , �-I ��--_-_-_--- - � L -_'�--'!'�'-_�'�--�--�---'. _ - �' -��L--�,'--�'��-,-�'--�'�--.---------- _ ' i'� -'-_!rr-_u--7_��'-,- �_'-_-kA "w'-i'� A -, , -7, e ��-����-�--,-�-��-����;';I";'-���-'�'- ;�Sa_'�Li_'___'��_ �_- �';_��--__� �--�" - 2;_-��'%t.�_� - - - , -- �--�----'k - --- - , - - _'�� � � - -- � ---` ` 11 PALUSTRINE, EMERGENT, PERSISTENT, DISTICHLIS . - - -1-, --- � ��'� '� I [_�_L_ _la,�:. ---------- , � ' __ - - , ___ , j�' ,,___ ,,___ ,,___ ,, -1 , - ___ , - ,_-S - _ . -- � - - ,---- - , - - �' , -, - - -." - - . � - , '_� -__�_ - , � - - , 11f�Z_�� S5�;�'�71,����"-_ -�-�_-� __ .-�----�-�- � - _...�_ , - - ��- - L - �- -- -- , , __---t_ -- - _- - �_ - -'`-� �--I -.-`-_-�"�_ r'�j - - L � - - -1 - - � 'G, - �� -'__� - � �� �__ __ :_a'� lt� m, -� _r_� , . i � -- -� -----, __�;�Zll lzl�_ - , -- , ' ' - -�--, , - � - , ... ..��� �_' ' _ - --._�� ��, ,, _:'�� - I � � L, , ,-"'.., -- -_-__s'--- -- - ----" - - �_ _'�� 7_777_- '_ �'� i�nI7 � - , ,-,__: - ___ �- � _ _ �__a__�F. _ ___ - � �lll , � '�. ..". - �_ -�Jr." - - I " -s- �- - - ___ '� - - - �-_!�-- - ���Z -�.'�-�--�� �" "I �".,_�_< - -� .-.----,-, ,--_-.----'�'._--- -.1 ___ - _ �--- �_�:"'-� . _______ - I_ �'-,-�� - _.�� , --,"-_-, � , �.� '_-__ij -_ - - ,,, p - - I R.- __ , '5' T__�___ I - - -. 7 " � � . -, __ - - - I __s -, _ - � , -- _ __ - � -___-"__'.' '11, � - �- , _ - -- , _'__'_ - � __ 1- '_; , - I- '�' - - , , -- � - � - - � - ���'�-'_-_--;f�'Rx-V' � - ' . � - - Utl. � , , �� i�.3��_ ���,� I I� I__�_. - . -- ��- . - ,_':_��- - - � 'e��4 - , - A - -- _�e_ ---I — _. �_ - - I _� ___ _ ___ _s�- -- 1�111 _� ;;7 _ 1-1- I��?"�' ' , , - ; -,' '_�� �__ , PALUSTRINE, EMERGENT, PERSISTENT, I 11 � .-, . N -"' �'_'� . -��"�'� - mr-7 _� - __ � ___ - - _ , __ -,':-_-,�-_-. , ���L' _' � .N u�: �4�'_ F P�s SALIPORNIA i-n�-�'_ --'-�_ L 4 r— _' , - -,--- � '_.-__�,�... ...I 4f L �. - �- - '��tL,� _'t�__" - - �_ � __- �lll 11 � - -- - _____�__�' ` -�'5� - � - - _- - , ,-.I— , "' -r:i .. , _- .. �----- - ��;4��_' _-'l J_--7- "- ' i - - --- .- , �'- � �4._ -, t i"_-�- _-�----_?-,�,'4 � 2'j,z-, '-.-'-'�z_-_52'��-'--- I:-, 6 1�f' - .. I - "�--- ---_-t�'�f�--'L-�-'::-`--' ' _5::z, .,--,-RAI�;,-���'-�,�:--���"'-� - - � EV -- - , "-'-f`-;DEV4*,- ,---�-__-- ,NN (:�' _-i-s- I - ��`�` � � �--- 5' - - - __� li_�V_ - - _ . � �" -_,`�'-��'�'-"_��_' , - , S � I � p 406,- � � - - I _�� � '__' -_ - - �' , PALUSTRINE, EMERGENT, PERSISTENT, TYPHA ' � - - I -,"�� ,� -- _�' �� -- : DFV -I' - - �- `_�' - -���" "% I � -- -.' - - - �;_ 1� -,._ ���-�,,, - ,-x '� ---- . _��--��--'��,-��"-�_ ,'�",,"'-_--_l�"'-__�_��-"_"- ,,,, 2 .��,11 �, r i- --- --- - � -_ '—:' � � I e-� _;", � , -'.---�-'�--__r�-,,-__ _---_-�-' -, ,- --"-- �W!- - I 1� ;?_'I __ I— -yf,'! NNW � - _,� _�_�� _-_-1___�_'i ----&- �' m_� F - ;A�_._ V" : " " -'.--�---t I - , - _,_,s.'l"_' IL 1'�__'�"� �F_ - - -I- '� '� "---,.,- "_ __ � �.-, -. - -�L. ', -'� �-i ,-.-_,'� _y_ 't �__ 1, � -� � ,- , -, L �� m 'Z�-y--j'��-'�- - -1_-::� 'Wj" ��-_" 'T� �-" - .-�.-"i. PALUSTRINE, UNCONSOLIDATED SHORE � - -""- , - �"�X T:� � 4 - - - N ' � ...... - " ; -,� E � [.� � � - ' � ��'4 " , - - - � -- I __ � - --r�%X-'� i.--��;��UA2 . _-�--_-�-�� , ,_ , �� � -,-,"-_s-�'" � -� _'���' 1-4 1'Y_�-'�-' �"�_ �� �V�L' ,-, ,1�1, - �? �__ -_ - �- ��� ,, �_-I�"r_,',,,-�-'�, ��M I - __ f-'-.-�---��---�-�" ��_ .--___ - � - - ' ' - !�-' I x'- �'.-i�,"$C-�" , _�A - -_�' 3 p %�'LDEY,�__� _a-"_'--� -" "-fQQIZAG� �r-"? ' '_`T� 1 �'_�''� � 11 - , -11 1�1 - , -, ,� i 1�_�_"w'l :�-___"," _�_�__'.i�_� ��_�� ��_--_� � :-, -_�' - - , __:��? _ __-__'��_-L'� , � - , � �� '_ L� �'_ ��'�i; '2�� - IL __� .' _ , i ,- , ���. , � 2 �' -- , __ " " NNW�,���_!� " , ' - �' -; _.,� --�._-_-'��� -_._-J ',`�' "-s-�.e-'f g _, ��'_:�'i�__'_t - �U - -4" "'."'&L � 1, - ____ __ -7 , ___ - - -��-'-J��,'!�'. '� 7 - " . - - - - " - ' � -- if i�� - -� - .- _! � - - -" -- -- ;, ��--'��-_.'-'- "�'.--_S -- � - I -1 - �e-� 7 ---:!_?, -, '�� ��j -," 1�-- ___ � � -11 __ - z - - -- -2. -z' �. __ _'�' , - ,t I—- 11 --- ...... __ - - .- - _-- I - - - -��-��,-�'����-��--,',�L"---.-��-,�'�--_-'_�"!�I_y__f.t�' �� ,�I - , � ;4�4 PALUSTRINE, UNCONSOLIDATED SHORE, � PuVC , _ - , - , - - r _.__- , - - - ,I, ".A, �._;;_'_;�_�� �- X_ E ,-A,� 7 , � g'n�'�' ,- i'_-', � j - -,��' A ,� - v � -, -, r�' & 'm�_�__ -T.� - -�- V ' 5 - � ". ,�-a'A �� -, - - - ��:_��'��',- - NNYV_'_, Q - -"-�-- - , ;----'l-'_-):'- - � �' , - - - - - , - -, - � ,�;z�'_'�e __�� - �' _-�'�' , �1� - - "; --e�j4 '2 " �, _�-'-4 __ -- � ,, _4�_-'_'�:- 11 , ��-.- �" �' -��'-� - ��, � _` �-�� -�i� ":�-7�"�'!Z- - - - - - ,_ " Zi. " , ,��-� -�'R�----- -. --DEV—__ `"---�� - I �'---�-7-�-�--�'--A-��-,�-,,�,---'-,��-��-,-"-,�,5-,���'�,-,-�-�t,�5�:-� ._'Al - ' " __ '� � _2� __ , 11-11 ___-__ � � � ,' _� -I , � __��._' -_.--._'_,�. , '_-__jk'i.'_'-. .' ;"�"�- -�� -2 -11� � ��' I -, __ _3 ,� -1 , ___'�. ---I- - -� , "� 'I"'s, __ - �"'-_ � - VEGETATED,CONYZA - " -- - �___-11- _y I - - I ' '-j -��:.�" - -,,--,. - __ - .- -, _."�-"_11'.��_'-k�a_:nm ... __ __ � - :. --11,'' I. lio 1-1�$ __ "_'�'a_'� it �;. 1 " L E ,� :-,----, -�'�- I I �._--�__,'�"_' ��:�-��.-�--.-���,�,-�--,-r---�-��'�-�-a -�--;-'�__', "__� - Y, .- 2 - ,�'-_',";��L '_'-c" �__--',,'�w--�L __�1'4�;a - , __ -'�' I - - - , . ' .-`_'_1_11 'L ,' - , � '___'j�_ I � . '71 .._ '. _' ' � , ,,- , , ------- '_'� _rj L- I ___� " . �. "l-__�1_0 '_ I_-- � , _ - �... ___ - � � - ___�- - :� �� "'jn�'_'�_-_�_� - - � _rF�;;� , ' -'_� 1 11-L-21 �1117 - --��-.r'.'�-�_.�' , , - , _ _ - _ - _ -, - -,- - 4- -_�m ,, " � � �-a��_� ___l � -, " '-_ , " -k .F��.'_' p I cl��7�t" _ � ,_ � '_'V' --.� � � _'�'4; �'- -A - ,,-- �' I - , " � �_ - -_- - � _,"_,_ - _�" , , - _. 11 -, - � --, , - . � A , - I -' _-_ -9v - _ A i��V .' _': "�'-�; D I U _ ; - �w� .� , - f ." - --kaw�a,�Z' _��'�" Z' I I _ ; _ , , ' �"��7 "f _ " -_ 71� A'��' �� - �� , "� � I � - -? -,--.--;,V,- _ -1, -1 m I __. � ' - , _z; ff t�' .--. --- I . i_ 77� ,---- �' - � I I k-'C'1-_.;'�A-- --h�' 4�4v - I-it I - - K" 1"�- 4 - , �n', !r�-,_, -_,-- - -1 , _ " - � � , � �Q - ., - -1 rt�7 ,�I�Nl� — �___ I tq_ -:___-�"�l-'_ � -" _ - ` -:�- -"��- p� , -'�P� +_ , 4 -_ -- - ',! �__ I :§__-r���:v � - -_ - - �1" ' � . .'��� '� .. ,- � o , _��'�- - ". _ 7,"',,�,.��; 1 -, ,- - 5� �L ;� ' - !� "I � '," _ 7_ � I 1 _ -, - I— - �S � L '�' -- 'HO'&"w��L`V �_ � - i��' - F ..lt� . � _�.-:�'D_ _'�__' " 4_7 '.'� -, P S '� .. 0- __ -1, ,- ��g'k� - �bE ��'_�7fl, , '�' _.� _ i g;7 0 , __'�_ �'r'_� _!75� l , �' I r�tAvv - " - "", __ -- � , �� � _3,_-, " - , w - ------ Oi " � "-. ---- - - ------- _ _'---", . iF_� '� -- - - ,. --.-� �_' UP w - - - .- , , i � 7�---�--� C �Q�,-'�Z���--�, , __-��--, 4 - "'-I ,v --"��� '. _� - '� _�' !e��'Q�' " '& I -" _���_`____2'� 'K_ , __ ��',f! , - `- - 4 _j �- I . '_� � - .' -� - -DE I-I , , , _� ---,-,- - _ 1 I �� 11 � - _ - t'-. ,� - �&:' __ Zll�'.:vl� gr��. - ; '_"�-�' - - �- -�- ", �_i'.-`, RAG R � � ,I I I ��-Wl� . - --�_ --- -- �N ,. '�_1-�A'-�7�'-, --�--_�_i�'- -�� A �- I -. '_ '; 'i . I , - -'%:� -&�_-�--_ � , , " -, - "-�'__ -_- , - 1, '��",�,� ;'� -�li"�'. --j�_ , �.' -, - 1. �- _ I-- " � -, ;�i� I _ 4 .--. _/ - -1- , - , __ - - , , . '9�� a- --- I ,_�"_w_70.'�'E s 9�IV M_ "'F", I I - , - ','-_�' `_f'Zl��"_�-_t�'�'_- __ t--- - �-_," - i ' V � , . -1 �e"'�P �:g�_____' s s:_ ���W ';f_-"�.';� J--,.-7-.�_ ,---,, , - � ,, -, _-`-- __ - --- __' '- __ �m --l'- : _j��,�jl�', - -----""�' .1 S�'� - I '_w'-' _ �;��'� ��X`;J_I�n�_-_-��-�� ': _ ' - , -I- , _ - �� , i!��_ I �� .��' I _ ,I_I -.1 -'i��' _�,�'��;,-��'-' 7�1- �,r "� -' '_.N I " " � " , , -, �_� - 4� 4, � - _ _ 1 " , -K��'Nk -,� RAG - , - .i, -_�� � "�dl �2.11 1 0 � 'F _A � -- r !E_ 'a�t"-_- -__��?'�P. - ,- - -; , , _-6-12" � I�-," ' �-;��:-RAG�-lv -_� ��T-"--'E_ ,7�- .4;_,"- 1 e ?`- - - ;' -- � -- . - I I -- "'O'_'R��"'. , "�'�'��.."' - i" 7, , � ' ---- - " - , -, , . .-.-g� IF-If, -,- � ftx��_-_ - - -__ .. , "-.,-. �",I �� � �t, - 15:, ; - "�- , '4 �a4!:'Y',� -n�� �� ,-� ;---- , '_,i.t" .'-�7�-_-4 - - -, � - � -- i�i -_�'_sq_"--qk"'3- �...t�. .- - _ 1 -,�J, � � - "i �,�'v-- - :�; _r-I--,-- _: ___l0Ai ,_ �_i5 fpwlllii�PW7t" - _'. , �;',"-.- - j!.� -, '�� 7 � ir- — -- -�- ------ ,--- � ':� _.�K� - - ��. ' _ ' , t�! �3; T1 _'� - -0, -'� �_' � 7 � .� 'i- a � - - _ - A ,. �� '- .L'� " :�-,�� -, ; -'.I'_'_" � -- j� -__ !j t ." �" �"-;�;-__"_. I 1 . I �__;� -, x 11 - �'!� - '4 �� - - V� F ,� �"�i��`�" -;�- , -� � ."�_�� '��"11--*— I�t.� - I . -, . --I , I � 14 -1 7�'-:-,7- �" V � - � ts---1�t-,--, w �h-�-��"�,'�u �� - '_�'??_- - � 1 - I - I __ �_� , ' 'r� -.I'- __ g'._: , ---;� ffk --'�� ".4� __ .--- �i , � � _-�--, �� , ', 11, __-1. - . & '�-'� 91�_ ". ,j��_-' -"%'_�'t_ -I,;;,-," _. ,NNW � ,,, - ,:L:��" - L " _N"'�-'_'T'-M'- ��- - - -'L ____ ___11_'_il 0� fw-"cl ';� �..... �� -1 - � 4, � , _" -1,�--.� -- �___ ,— " "� 1� ��"_� �Y�'��L"�� ___"N ---, - ; I i ", -, _jqs -"-- -" - � - '---�� '' -'-__ '�' _� - � Pk ----- � I��-_J. p---- - � k ftivf"'- ��'��"-`� " ,___ TZ , , 4= �' �1'1-:;- -1""--r�t`i-':--F';:-'_f'�� __llll_�tl -T�'. - �,�- ,-, ' _*_,_,4_; � _�____'_, -"-t I . '_ - � S 1�.'r-i�' � �- ; j�'-'- -'��i -- - -9w --�I��,It, z '� '-, -,�'-'-_'��1--',_11" -'-,I f' �L ;?'�bg* -�' "' - . �,, -_. __ � -_' &, ";1a -I- - �*'- �"1"�""_�� ,"' -� �g f"'g"Azo�-, � _��!-��t.� 1'1`� _L_' _�' -�' I " 511"'�""'11-'�', .� I , --1 1.,'x- _�I I ,��'ZRAG.4iR, 'i 211- -, ���r -xl P, I I : � - ,"n�l�� ' -'W v_�'-,_��' l-qL7'4"�` , '-�t_� I a, � -11- - - � , - - ___ ", z - , - ' 'l� � , ' -_-"L '_� - ---"- - ffiR* f . - �_- �� - , , 4�1'7�"��'�l DEV - N�-- --uu�M-�i'4'!k-6- ' 1.4--- 1 �� .�W;R-t����_,-'._�'-��!'��'��_���_tl -1.� - - __ , ""__' �. '_% 'y - 46- '��iL� , -- i '� _'l-l""- _1 __'.','i-l�', 1--vg' ' "'�"'_.",... 3 'i�a�_ -_�_i��"; .,I`�:�A ; ��'�t �i��'"";�__ - _4'1�' �?L,�i'�11!11` �, !�'_�- -- - , ,-A -, � �' I - - - �7��__- -Z � - - � , � N 4 i__�W_"&fk� L - �--_- ' -.',r� I ,�-'- "� _ _ , I _;�ff."?"`� � 1_':'z L gf?Z4�,'4� I - , -' -- -- - � '- T'-, 4 Ll� i� - - ,-1, .� ,-'� ; p'�-;--": - ,T __ - , _-'� 'r ,-- - -1 � 4- '� - , �-' tA� I ��_ "I I �.�-'-W' '-��'_"4_�'_'W_ _p--' 2,110- 1.11?��__ 7 A"o_ ' � ' , � - , -1-1- '44 n-_k".'f�,Z�t- ��f L - , i '--�_-- -�- - -, �_�li-,-,-�--�-----,,-�-"��-�'�F-,"- _11'�,"'�j".'� __ �� 1, ---- ` 7 �- :_'�1_2 _"�gx'�'g - � - " le L I - - , � ,- , ,_, � - �� ��. � " - _ rly � V"', ' -- '�' . - - :,j , I - �g _"Z 1-m-"' , -;� - - I vtt�---- -,--r'��-- .1 ", � , - � '� . _ i Q -, � e'�t &------ - 1'qa�' -fl I '-f-Z±1�'-"F"�ti� � - ����_�� `V,_ _'_%�;�___ ' , -1- 'l- ' - . ""'� -, ; - 7 I- I - , ,, A- � 4 � I �e � �") - , � -'- '��' _'_ '�;'.� li 't�� ��. -,, , - - !�---------i��. � ' , - -�' & - - iiEr I -- ---, w - , _ A -J ,,,, -& ' I 1���O , - __ i � � Q - I V' - ' A__ �a ��_ 'kOw" ��A. -�- !", __ � .1. a - , - _� - ---'' -��"- -- -1 � . _ ' _ - � 0 lm� , " - __ , -- 2 , -��'�� -'-_�-�'.�"le� ,!'��'�'�_Zi� - W� ; I I , _` -1-1_111' , -,-- _t - _ '� _ '_ . 'r I _0 Vj�rz ,.L-z- ,, 11 ':� - 11 Aw .i!x. - -, - , -Uri ' lw�"�' '�_�� . -" ___ ,,%- X �,I �Ts_�' ' I , , , � ". ,. '-' �--�'--�i " Of w- ,�- - - _ I -' __ 1, - , 11 :A ' - - _10 _�t_;" .--.I- . _�. - - , - I � -'.l�"'�T_'_a -�,-,:Fl".,-��� -�'-�.,i�-Y,--�-,�_-�i�Y' .1K - �.�_.'_Z�lrl - _�_' _.- Z �� _0 ,--!__��'- f � L,, -.�' - - ,_��- �"r � i: ____ , - - I , '. ."e _ - ' a'., -- ,'� " _� I - - , 5: " -_ _'It" ' t�.i _� �- ' L - - ""j, � = - w':�. - � ",7_ �'_ '_lll. , �7-_� , ' ,1-- - �-"' 'T'-', 4��vlv�l Z-P - - "__ � � �_ 11 , tg 1� �'�' - �� " ;l �I_' .1 - .� r�-'��,s, " I k' jy ," , �� _, , , ; '�'� �-"2: , - - , . !!' ",'% _ , -"'!-'-�- _" ��2_'' _g -. I IT- 7� - - - � , _ - , -- �'- - I "'--- '�4_-112E, gx - - -- - ._ � _ -� I X;- � � _'� - �_' 1 4, — _'--� , I -, - R.4'lki- ' ---<-4'.'-r�" 11' ,, '�' �' - - , - � -t - I -Z��-7�;'e:��j-�'-,��o � -, ' ' � ir , "� '�"'t';----4-A'L _ ,� , -, , -1 't �- -� -" h R m T�,�"�? , '! �K , , ht "'___ " L ���,- _ � ,", , �� �T'� ' � � � ,� " ,-".-"---"- ,, V t� - !: � ",- --- - ---- � _ �- i����M�� , 4 =q- - �',-�1 - �� , - F�- - a Z� � � X :A _"� � - ( I `J-7D& �`ji , _ __ � - - -� - - - - , ..- �'� t '-n vvl" - _ _' , , - �� - - " L __ , I -- ,__ � � _"' ,7-i - 7 - � .3?_"" - - gg i , -, �� ` -_' - i��_l I I _� , __ I., - - � -1 ,, -4��!-% i�4' ' -- -, , _t' "E"N__ F-71 ," -- - ; I I N " I _" I _' ;__'� '_"__ '� -vu� ♦�� I __ I " , , i �__��I t� M n�W�" --Z-,- , I f " �'.' � , 3-.EE *� 1_1 � , � - �o - , , - lill � 7 -- ,= ig . - -,- - k � --. , 11 - -, �r* � I I � - , i - _ __ � "Zll- ' !-.,, ;,_---- �� -- ", ., --,,;---,- ; ,,' � , ' 77777T-��_1-�-4�i nl;%/""�_'-'. ,I -"' ` ""v4 -1 - - � � �� 4� �8' r "t �� I _�- , 1 , -,-1 -- ,�f-,-�'�'�i"", ', � - �!—,s'11 .�� ,- ` ,- --_�t - --_ 'N�4. L-"-E'-i�T- ��"� f L� -�; � ,- � - .11 "-7-1 �'_ -- "?.�t�' �E , �� , OA � - 'all- li �""��' tt"��'F -�-'.11�- - - - , 4!7' -�iv;�rl "� I -- .I,,- i-1. , ; ,-��'�,'!A-,-',lR',,"-s ��' i-------,, - ,_�' lZi,"m- 5"R -,"F � -__�� _�'i �I"-,'� - ,'��'im.�-, -4"',! �_ - - ",,!��"�".^'��' �.�KL, �� � -l" - - _� I. - i � � WIN___i� _�"O ': - � '?� ' :N''I jw- "�' _: , _/, '� 7"'Y��!, ' �'g� , , 'g,"y��g , �-, -_ - 1 __��2 11 - Zl- .' "��:�� - '- - � 11 I , 'S"N'-`O�'IN- -�'-�'-o -q, , " ,- , -� � -� `- -- ��' -'�_�'j����"L ,- - .��_ , �' - , A Al - - _' '- '�_'_ im"""A�4� -,-� ' .-,- �' � - .1-11,112- '� _ - - � f 0 " �' ,r__�-'.Q�'_"' 7'?_%oZ'z_-_' "' ,. -11111, I �'�V.'-' - � - � ,'_' t 4 ' , -,� , - -, '% I� -�_ -1-� , - -"p, , _ L'g_'_'�� -, �. I 5, ai , V'-.'-�- ;----- " � �4 -�a�g_�:- -,'u'�'- . 11 - I �. , , _'. 1----"-gA � v , - ��� - -4 L S�'. � 5�-� �"."-'4l'Al"A_'s�/ ��' - _? 7 �� � Z l*'__l I '- �. ��"-'�--",-"U.�," ��''-- -_ - _Z'__ - -.-;- - - � .s , I ", ✓s -e L'. '�e �m ___"�_ --1 I - - - -1._!�� ' "I tm -__ , -, �� ." " ,_""' � g - - - - ,,, NNW 3x , � � - , - - 6� -- '!"" V "'<'-, '---" I I I— h-A,_- ��'---" __TX_1_4 I - - NNW "0, � __ "g � --- � , -A - ., ill,1�i'i I�441�-"'l -1-5-.-JE '�_�rl _-7 '---- -"K �__� �' � r)E i - I -, , "'.-'.' 1- -P,,- w@" � � g? , � - " -�S � , - ,-"N�� 4±\�' �� _�. '. '�'�F; , �-- , '� �4 0- _.u�'4 .�� i -�'T�' _ _� �t'e, �u� _� -,�_.'s _&��ii'� " w.� .111- I .11 � '� _� �,�4 -, �--L' V_. _ -, I "-, at�� 't K'�'s'_�' �i�' �.�I , m"_ � " ��- a 11 - ��' -I�-rr - , I I .1 , - , _ - � - ._�-"I."� � - .-, ��'k § , . * I io , 0 ,", '_-, ,� v ,", _ ?6i- - , '. ___ - 'r _ ' o�-�' % ,iN-, "Z "'l*_x_rj-f � 't4%4� . _p �-�it,-_��-_- ,, z �' - - , "'_� t ,_k��� � k,-� � '_ � � - �� '�� - Ae� .%'� - i ,,J4 '�,�-M'A��- �Vr',�_ zi�� - 11 ',T _ __ - - $, • " ,' I �'- I� __ �111,11 � '� ,- , M- � _111 - � -� -W - _ '7 — . - ---- p� -?f�g y"', ' i 11 � !�'.' ""' V., '��il'J �.� .' �' -_ , __ "-' i I � ,'��a�� � �- I :11 - �- .4 _. . � � -, �' i � I L.11 ;r_.r;_l '.1 ; I I � i - - ! . : - � ; I CITY OF . EXHIBIT 28 ! ... ' . ' . I �. HUNTINGTON BEACH BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES " L __ IftOLLY-81FACHIFF � � A11111111111 1 � . L01M 4. 1�w 4[7 -"I 11 --- . ; I w t _'_ - I - I _; � -"5,1 1 1-1 �__-I-� --�,-,, '_"I' I ' 'r '___ - �'� ' -1��-I 7 � _:_J�� : � - I _m` � t � � - " -,_L4_�n - AMEMIDNIENT QUIENIERAL PLM i 'm' '989 � LSA ASSOCIATES, INC ; I I I ; I . Plant Communities/Habitat Types Saltwater Wetlands: The Saltwater wetlands type of habitat are scattered in small portions of the site. These brackish emergent wetlands occur in only two small areas totalling 3.1 acres of the Holly- Seacliff area. They are near or below sea level on the western boundary next to Bolsa Bay. Coastal wetlands are important habitats which were formerly quite extensive throughout the state. The filling and development of these wetlands has threatened several species which are found in these habitats. The first wetland area, identified by habitat code PePD, measures 1.4 acres and is strongly dominated by saltgrass. This site is separated by the other wetland by a raised oil company road and probably receives its water from fluctuations in the water table and runoff. It is not as healthy or as diverse as the second site. The second brackish wetland area, identified by habitat code PePS, measures 1.7 acres. This area is wetter and exhibits a more complex structure. It is dominated by pickleweed, hyssop-leaved bassia, rush, and saltgrass. This wetland probably receives its water from the same sources as the PePD site, and may also receive tidal surface flow from the channel directly to the west of the site. Belding's savannah sparrow is a locally common resident in the pickleweed marsh of Bolsa Bay and may use this site. However, none were found in this wetland or in the vicinity, despite surveys conducted when their activity is generally greatest. Freshwater Wetlands: These areas are identified by Pb, PePt, Pu, Ps Ds, and PuVc habitat codes. The few freshwater ponds, marshes and drainages which occur on the project site are apparently formed where blocked culverts in drainages and depressions result in an accumulation of runoff from the site and adjacent developments. These are heavily disturbed and degraded, and are consequently of less biological value than is typical for such areas. As these wetlands occur, their most important function in the local ecology is as a water supply for wildlife and as nesting habitat for a limited variety of birds. Taken together, freshwater wetlands cover 2.2 acres of the area. It should be noted, however, that these areas are heavily disturbed with some not believed to have standing water year round. July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.12-3 Non-native Woodland/Developed Areas: Planted ornamental trees are scattered throughout the project site, often in association with existing developments, and are utilized primarily by those species most adaptable to human presence. Eucalyptus, mostly red gum, is the most common tree on the project site, occurring in groves within the ruderal annual grassland, in residential yards and alongside roads. Other planted species present include olive, pine, myoporum, fig, and fan palm. Ruderal Annual Grassland: This is a disturbed habitat dominated by non-native grass species such as slender wild oats, red brome, abu-marhi, bermudagrass, and weedy herbaceous species such as red-stemmed filaree, wild mustard and sweet- clover. Scattered individuals of some of the non-native woodland species also occur in portions of this habitat. Species of passerine birds inhabit grasslands as primary foraging areas. Raptor species also utilize this habitat due to the relative abundance of reptiles and mammals which inhabit it. Most of the undeveloped land on the project site falls under this category. Wildlife Amphibians: No amphibians were recorded on-site during field surveys, but in moist locales, Pacific treefrog and bullfrog are expected species. Reptiles: Many reptile species are not tolerant of disturbed areas and do not occur in large numbers in ruderal or urban areas. One species, the western fence lizard, was recorded in annual grassland areas. Other species likely to occur in this and other habitats include side-blotched lizard, southern alligator lizard, common kingsnake, common garter snake, and western rattlesnake. Birds: Birds are common inhabitants of all areas of the project site. Although species composition varies somewhat between habitats, there is considerable overlap of habitats utilized. In pickleweed marsh (PePS), American wigeon, sora, black-necked stilt, black phoebe, northern rough-winged swallow, common yellowthroat, and song sparrow are typical species. Belding's savannah sparrow may also utilize this area. July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.12-4 The freshwater wetlands have different characteristics, and therefore support somewhat different mixes of species. Since willow woodland is so limited on the project site, this habitat is considered as part of the major contiguous drainage. Although the freshwater drainages and ponds on-site are degraded and therefore do not support avifaunal populations as rich in diversity or number as healthy areas would, occasionally long-legged waders such as the black-crowned night-heron and dabbling ducks such as the mallard may be found feeding on-site. Additionally, species more typical of other habitats use these areas as a water source for drinking and bathing. Terrestrial species expected around the freshwater I wetlands include black-chinned hummingbird, ash-throated flycatcher, house wren, common yellowthroat, orange-crowned warbler, brown towhee, brown-headed cowbird, and house finch. Non-native woodland/developed areas are utilized by a variety of birds for nesting, foraging, roosting and perching. Associated with developed areas, these ornamental plantings are usually frequented by common passerines such as Anna's hummingbird, scrub jay, bushtit, American robin, northern mockingbird, European starling, hooded oriole, house sparrow, and house finch. Where human presence is not as immediate, large eucalyptus trees are often utilized by raptors such as red-tailed hawk, and red- shouldered hawk for perching and nesting. The common barn owl frequently lives in large fan palms. Ruderal annual grassland is utilized by a variety of species, most conspicuously the large birds of prey. However, very few raptors were seen on the project site, despite efforts to locate them during four field visits of approximately 1/2 day each. The large expanses of grasslands suggest that red-shouldered hawks, red-tailed hawks, American kestrel, and perhaps other, less common, species could be present and relatively easy to locate, but only one red shouldered and two red-tailed hawks were seen. Raptor nesting has been reported previously at Gothard Street and Ellis Avenue, but was not noted during the actual survey. As rodents appeared to be plentiful, the conspicuous human presence (in the form of development) in the area probably explains this scarcity. Other expected ruderal grassland species include July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.12-5 killdeer, turkey vulture, mourning dove, Say's phoebe, loggerhead shrike, water pipit, western meadowlark, and white-crowned sparrow. Mammals: In ruderal annual grassland, Virginia opossum, black-tailed hare, Audubon cottontail, and Beechy ground squirrel were sighted during the field survey, while the holes of the Botta pocket gopher were noted. Other mammals expected on the project site include deer mouse, red fox, and striped skunk. Sensitive Biological Elements No plants or animals listed by federal, state, or private agencies as being rare, endangered, or declining were encountered in the area, although it is possible that a few such species could use parts of the area for habitat. These plant and animal species are identified in Volume II, Appendix H under a separate cover. 4.12.2 IMPACTS Impacts are divided into discussion of direct and indirect (off-site) impacts. Direct Impacts The most obvious impact of implementation of the Plan will be the loss of large areas of upland habitat and associated wildlife in the Proposed Land Use Plan areas which are proposed for development. The existing open areas will be converted to residential, and commercial uses. This will result in the removal of the existing vegetation and the destruction or displacement of the wildlife which utilizes the on- site habitat. Most of the less mobile wildlife such as amphibians, reptiles and small mammals will not escape the grading/construction operations. The more mobile species, such as larger mammals and birds, will be displaced to adjacent undeveloped areas. To the extent that the adjacent areas are not already at their carrying capacity for the displaced species, some individuals may be able to utilize these areas. However, in most cases the adjacent areas will not be able to support additional individuals or July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.12-6 species, and competition will reduce the total numbers of animals in the adjacent areas to pre-project levels. Raptors are of particular concern whenever large areas are developed. However, the development which has occurred in surrounding areas to the north, east and south, have lessened the importance of the Holly-Seacliff study area as upland raptor foraging habitat. The loss of large trees through development may impact the availability of nesting sites by raptors. No use of the site by raptors (such as the northern harrier) from the wetlands area was noted during the biology survey. Upon completion of the project, many species which can coexist with humans will re- populate the project area. However, the overall species diversity will be lower than under the existing conditions. Typical species in developed areas include western fence lizard, southern alligator lizard, mockingbird, house finch, house sparrow, European starling, American crow, Norway rat, house mouse and Botta pocket gopher. Due to the low value habitat on-site and the absence of any significant occurrence of sensitive elements in the proposed development area, this overall impact of conversion of the site should be considered biologically insignificant. However, since the site is the one last remaining large open space parcels in the vicinity, its conversion is considered locally significant. Another potential impact of project development is the loss of the small amounts of wetland habitat in the planned open space area near the western boundary of the project and in the drainages in the northerly portions of the project. Usually, the loss of any wetland habitat is considered significant by the California Department of Fish and Game and United States Fish and Wildlife Service, due to the scarcity of this type of habitat in California. The brackish emergent wetland area which is adjacent to the Bolsa Chica Wetlands on the western edge of the Holly-Seacliff area provides potential habitat for the Belding's savannah sparrow and other coastal wetland species. Therefore, any impact to this area should be considered potentially significant. The westerly extension of Garfield Avenue would impact this area and development in the open space (e.g. recreation facilities), could also potentially impact this wetland. July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.12-7 The freshwater wetlands in the northerly portions of the project are of relatively low value. Due to their small size and lack of vegetative development, they do not provide primary habitat for any sensitive species, but rather supply water and augment the foraging habitat in the surrounding grasslands. Therefore, the potential impacts to these isolated wetland areas, should be considered biologically insignificant, given mitigation. However, any impact to wetland habitats such as cattail marsh and willow trees is considered significant by resource agencies such as the California Department of Fish and Game and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Indirect Impacts The greatest potential impacts of the project are the indirect impacts to the sensitive wetlands located to the west of the project*. One of these impacts is the potential of increased access and encroachment into the wetlands by humans and their pets. Humans and their pets can destroy habitat and disrupt the breeding and foraging activities of wildlife, including sensitive species such as the Belding's savannah sparrow. This impact is considered potentially significant but can be mitigated to a level of insignificance. Another impact is the projected extension of Garfield Avenue into the Bolsa Chica Wetlands area. This will necessitate grading and other construction activity which will eliminate wetland habitat and possibly disrupt wildlife movement, breeding and foraging activity. Since this impact is not directly related to the project, it should be considered a significant cumulative impact. Night lighting may potentially impact the wildlife in nearby Bolsa Bay. Bright lights could disrupt the activity of some nocturnal species, although this impact would only be significant in the case of very bright lights directed into the wetland. * Assessment assumes that immediately adjacent habitat will be preserved. Development of upland areas on bluff tops will not significantly affect wetland species because they do not use these areas to any great extent. July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF CPA 422102.009 4.12-8 4.12.3 MITIGATION MEASURES Several mitigation measures can be implemented which will reduce the significant impacts to levels of insignificance and further reduce the insignificant impacts. Since many project development details have not been proposed, these mitigation measures are discussed on a general level. 1. The setting aside of 92 acres of parks and other open space will partially mitigate the loss of the existing open space and provide some wildlife habitat. 2. The Specific Plan should address revegetation on all graded areas where structures or other improvements are not built. In public open space areas, consideration should be given to the use of native or naturalized species which require little irrigation and provide wildlife habitat, with a gradual transition to more ornamental species along the development edge. 3. Following construction of necessary infrastructure in the main drainage Swale, i.e. utility lines, sewers, etc., this swale should remain as open space. Mitigation for the loss of cattail marsh habitat (0.5 acres) and willow habitat (0.5 acres) which are depicted on Exhibit 28, will take place such that a minimum of 1.0 acre of riparian vegetation is established in this drainage swale. The plants utilized in the revegetated area will be chosen from the recommended plant palette indicated in Appendix H. I 4. Through adoption of future Specific Plans large trees suitable for use by raptors such as the red-shouldered hawk, should be preserved or replaced in accordance with the tree species identified in the plant palette contained in Appendix H. 5. Any grading or filling in the brackish wetlands in the western portion of the project site will be mitigated by restoration of an equal area of coastal wetland at a nearby location in the open space area. July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.12-9 6. Effects upon on-site wetlands within the jurisdiction of the California Department of Fish and Game will require mitigation defined by 1603 permits. 7. Development/use of the linear park (open space areas along the northern and northwest project boundaries) will be limited to passive recreation such as riding and hiking trails. Fencing and vegetative buffers shall be designed to exclude humans and pets from the Bolsa Chica Wetlands areas. The bluffs and other upland areas in the linear park shall be revegetated with native plants which are adapted to coastal environments. 8. The effects of night lighting can be mitigated by the following measures: 1) use of low intensity street lamps at the development edge; 2) use of low elevation lighting poles; and 3) shielding by internal silvering of the globe or internal opaque reflectors. The degree to which these measures are utilized should be dependent upon the distance of the light source to the urban edge. Use of private sources of illumination around homes should also be restricted to prohibit area lighting on lots adjacent to open space areas. 4.12.4 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE Project specific impacts related to loss of brackish wetlands on the western border, loss of freshwater wetlands in drainage areas, human encroachment adjacent to Bolsa Chica Wetlands and night lighting all can be mitigated to a level of insignificance. However, after mitigation, the loss of open space and the cumulative impact of the Garfield extension is still considered significant and remains an unavoidable adverse impact. July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.12-10 HOLLY - SEACLIFF GPA Natural Resources CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 4.13 4.13 NATURAL AND ENERGY RESOURCES 4.13.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS Natural Resources The City's General Plan Land Use Element describes measures to provide for the proper maintenance, improvement, preservation and use of the City's natural resources. These measures include: developing green belts and preserving natural vegetation areas; maintaining existing City lakes; controlling traffic density to minimize air pollution; removing and restoring oil production areas as wells become non-productive; protecting wildlife in its natural habitat; designing development to accommodate energy conservation features; and promoting development within the City which would facilitate the establishment of mass transit systems. The City has recognized as high planning priorities areas where valuable resources exist and development pressures are high. The following is a description of those areas recognized for their valuable resources that are in or near the project area: Bolsa Chica: This area includes the property in the Bolsa Chica between the two bluff lines, excluding the property under State ownership or lease agreement. Contained within this planning area are numerous valuable and unique resources: wildlife habitat, distinctive vegetation, archaeological sites; scenic, historic, and mineral resources. It is subject to flooding and seismic hazards. A special open space plan is needed to protect the valuable resources contained within this area. Seacliff: This area includes the 600-acre Seacliff Planned Community and the bluff to the northwest, along the City boundary. Valuable resources also exist in this location: archaeological sites, the bluffs, vista points, and mineral resources. Approximately 50 percent of this planning area is still vacant and requires a plan to guide future urban development that will be in harmony with the natural environment. July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.13-1 Enerev and h1incral Resources The proposed Holly-Seacliff site is located within the Huntington Beach Oil Field which covers the entire site. There are a total of 522 oil wells existing on-site. Of this total, 320 or 61 percent are operating. Oil operation activities have been established in the City since the 1920s. For a more detailed discussion of oil facilities, please refer to the oil facilities chapter in this document. Although no resources other than oil 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 steam. 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. 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. Currently, natural gas and electricity are consumed by urban uses existing on site. According to the existing General Plan, buildout of the project area is anticipated to consume 3,275,610 therms per year of natural gas and 34,206,378 KWH per year of electricity. July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.13-2 4.132 UAPACTS Natural Resources The project site lies within areas identified as having natural resources. The sites that may potentially be impacted by development include the Bolsa Chica and Seacliff areas. Conversion of the 768-acre site to urbanized uses will significantly reduce the future extraction of oil and natural gas from this portion of the Huntington Beach Oil Field. The proposed project will replace undeveloped coastal area land with suburban uses, changing the visual appearance of the area. However, site development will improve the visual quality because the area will be landscaped and oil production and drilling equipment will be removed. The appearance of the site will be of improved open space and residences rather than what is seen today. Natural resources will be enhanced by preservation of bluff and Swale areas, and significant landscape planting within new development and along arterial highways. Development of the site will consume quantities of steel, concrete, petroleum products and other building materials to construct the development activity associated with the Proposed General Plan Amendment. Further, the conversion from current uses to residential will result in long-term increased consumption of natural resources. In particular, increased driving distances, reduced access to public transportation and the need for roads and other public services needed for the project will increase demands on non-renewable resources. Enemy Resources Following adoption of the General Plan Amendment and as development of the-- - project takes place, gradual phasing out of operating oil wells will occur. Additionally, consolidation of oil wells is planned. The end result will be a net reduction in the oil recovery for the area. This phasing out of oil facilities is expected to occur regardless of project implementation. Therefore, this impact is not considered significant. July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.13-3 During the development of the project, energy will be consumed through grading, site preparation and construction activities (short-term effects). Required construction equipment will consume energy during the time development occurs. Additionally, project construction, materials delivery and construction worker travel will consume additional quantities of fuel (primarily gasoline and diesel fuel) until the project is completely built out. A description of the specific construction impacts cannot be estimated until grading studies have been made for specific proposals. Additionally, upon completion, project residences will utilize approximately 2,063,500 therms of natural gas annually. Buildout of the proposed land uses will consume 25,768,386 KWH of electricity annually. In comparison to the existing General Plan, this represents 37 percent less natural gas consumed and 25 percent less electricity consumed on an annual basis. Project construction represents a long-term commitment of energy resources to meet the on-going needs of future project residents. 4.13.3 WTIGATION MEASURES 1. Building construction should comply with the Energy Conservation Standards set forth in Title 24 of the California Administrative Code. Energy conservation features should include: o Installation of thermal insulation in walls and ceilings which meet or exceed State of California, Title 24 requirements. o Insulation of hot water pipes and duct systems. o Use of natural ventilation where possible. o Use of natural gas for space heating and cooking. o Installation of attic fans or other ventilation devices. July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.13-4 o Orientation to sunlight and use of overhangs. o Landscaping with deciduous trees, to provide shade in the summer months and allow sunlight through in the winter months. 2. It is recommended that the developer consult with both the Southern California Gas Company and Southern California Edison during the building design phase for further energy conservation measures. 4.13.4 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE Approval and development of the project will increase the demand on electricity and natural gas facilities and contribute to the eventual need for new energy sources and distribution facilities. Cumulatively, these projects will also contribute to a reduction in natural resources as well as open space which is considered a significant impact. However, this reduction will be less than that anticipated in the existing General Plan. Approval of the proposed project will place an additional demand upon existing natural gas and electrical facilities. However, no expansion of gas and electric facilities other than those already programmed is anticipated. Approximately 2,063,500 therms per year of natural gas and 25,768,386 kilowatt hours of electricity per year will be required to serve the heating, cooling, and electrical needs of the project. Not withstanding the mitigation measures incorporated into the project to reduce energy consumption, the development of this community will result in an increase in the use of energy in this area for the life of the project. This is considered a long-term unavoidable adverse impact. July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.13-5 HOLLY - SEACLIFF GPA Oil Facilities CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 4.14 4.14 OIL FACILITIES 4.14.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS The Holly-Seacliff site is located within the Huntington Beach Oil Field. This field covers approximately 2,320 proven subsurface acres on shore and 2,385 proven acres offshore. This field covers the entire project site and as a result oil facilities may be found throughout the project area. Oil/Resource Production uses permitted in the area include petroleum extraction and injection equipment, storage tanks, pipelines, oil wells, separation and treatment facilities, transmission lines, and equipment storage yards. The operation of these oil facilities is regulated by the Division of Oil and Gas, along with the City of Huntington Beach. There are a total of 522 oil wells existing on-site. Of this total, 320 are operating wells, 185 are abandoned wells, and 17 are injection wells. These wells are shown on Exhibit No. 29. Chevron USA Inc. is the largest single operator with a total of 212 wells in the Holly-Seacliff area. Of that number, 174 are active wells and 21 are abandoned wells. All 17 injection wells are operated by Chevron. The remaining 310 wells are owned by 51 other independent operators. In addition to the wells, there are also a number of oil and water storage tanks, a gas separation plant and a number of transmission lines existing on the site. These are shown on Exhibit No. 30. The City has explicit regulations regarding the location of new development within an oil district or on property on which oil operations exist. These regulations will control any temporary interface that will occur between these uses. These regulations require the submittal of a plan for removal or treatment of: July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.14-1 134 134 28 21? 26 2s 4� %r S RIIVY ...... 213 —P, --------------- %: % 011 % % % A F—T FIA Ll Z-o V" 4 3 F % % T IfW If Zi7!• yL T 3.!11A N�A r 4 T63RIIW \ \^�' A X c <I</ L I 71 X I \/� ��� , �} :,fir _ __ __ �_.-_.._ _d.{. ............. DRILLING DRILLING-IDLE "',14. loo ABANDONED•DRY HOLE compLETED-OIL IDLE-OIL ABANDONED-011- COMPLETED GAS IDLE GAS ABANDONED GAS GAS-OPEN TO OIL ZONE COMPLETED WATER FLOOD SOURCE 11 Ar COMPLETED WATER DISPOSAL );If COMPLETED WATER FLOOD FIELD BOUNDARY COMPLETED STEAM FLOOD 4-1- 4.3 NO RECORD NOT AVAILABLE 4 Y. S SfATE Of CALIFORNIA 0 ft T E IITIAEN Of CONSERVATION DIVISION OF OIL a GAS EXHIBIT 29 \T.3 W3 \�4:L-T CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH EXISTING OIL WELLS MMY=WARCUFF ARF ,��\ \ `� ,y \,,, fJjN l/;',' .... l�� �Fr � rY3 ? j �: t 4 S 7`i.l � r� Lf�, f'(iJT'_�`'_'y�a-!r �. �! •1 , - LEGEND '` • ; ` 9 ;� CHEVRON CRUDE OIL PIPELINES y l ..� R, h .' � '}' r� tJ.^�r J _f �..TM I!F�•.�, �.:, ,; Y I �T�i �` - i y •� / 'r.F 1} /. 1� ? .:+-t J tK.�,e ;.,+. .v ^�`�?�*^ia,�..{r�..:..ca r _ l __ ji 4 ,y r. TEXACO CRUDE OIL PIPELINES v;I „1i1 �. � t: �f '� '' • :.• ,� k : _ ..;�. �t9„11 i { '1.�{ �• 'ti„ S �� ._ '�h �' y ` 1 `�."r — �" `f' • CRUDE OIL STORAGE FACILITIES t r 4op, l )nt 1 Vm 1 i ;{ 'a;� } f fi :��: Y �• a F a Y.. � ��- _ .. .,�, r"'r t - f F^ `1/ r I. 4 - j �.}j .: ': t_±!.:, �'e+�.''er.•- F 1 ;?;Kl '\""2 t Fry .... 1 -' .,,� *� 1 _ 1� S'tl �� , 2l,! 7 `>,• '-a*.�. '�},!P�. nj ��,, -z � ✓� Y�4 .;: `'\' � f r \ � :. /1 ."`_ { '• F 1� °:`•1•its �t, ':�� i r '- �t U t r y �. 4 ;: # :,� �. F-"L i•"0 Z, iit ''u+' �,L,� 4 t5i.To j n • s 9 t ,M4'r l�v..i, 'l r :'-.wx .7 r '" ` 1': '7'1 5� t _ J {^• a {{ ��— �il... 4 s ti * ••..✓" \'4' t td_'re >. i.`.�r ...F ` �.. .yam. Y t ',1 all \ "l.' r J �lqt ...r i, ��fl X ��'� •`f, �Y ��' l r,.- 'v-- RR{'+,, ,� 'ail.. .� r r i'•p .�w;,l r .,,, YS 7:{ ,s�,.�`•`•F'Ji r Y t.' 1 1~ t 1,1. s' `j„� !�,Y 4}4 t � '`t '_�o\ .. ., �.,.�K'a' �. L M' ," F y °.r,•,. y>.,W r'\ K Z i?'i:n,; d-... � t y..• „� v r jt.r 4Y , � <,f�.•.��._,i"J� ,'t+�v 1/ � 1 �( � • T� pp 14 t I t - F' i.--v'r Yi �•.:;/ - g r �`r,• 't' '' 3�}t.�>.i'�Y�-r.., x � � .` �Ri., w �'���1+���:.' "*�ly�' � } �:: 1�`�-�r r y� yr � > / .\\ \. �' t •: "",F,' r <., �'� �E e1 � !� �"L- +,'h.,� s=w+� .sue-� �,!,+�1 �'- F.? � 4 y, `Jn�': � .1 \`'vi,- �� ` Y �w�T fi i..l� y�'S��� '.t'.,t �� �'.rJ^.. ',� .. �.z'r .r.' � Y .• �4 y. - ,v<��.a, a t Jh N �,>r, i ... I a,I ._� r '1�� '`' �, 4'..•s a J' '�' -tr y:.���. Jt..,�: 5 ...[ "r_=�j"�'+ry-S "('}t` �� ��� •!�i}, , r� r ...5`.q,.�'. Yv.:ra2`''k' ..:�' !�" fj�;•�( .5.1, _ T''� .:t r r�. !�'/'�,e :r't� -->� ', - EXHIBIT 30 CITY OF MAJOR OIL TRANSMISSION HUNTINGTON BEACH AND STORAGE FACILITIES L`f�'jGLff-61EACLFrl;F:3 A 1111111111 1 1 IFORN4� STONEY MILLER CONSULTANTS INC o existing oil wells o abandoned oil wells 0 proposed oil wells 0 operations located on-site 0 operations to be located on-site Other Oil Facility Related Conditions There are several other issues which warrant examination with respect to oil facilities. These issues are discussed elsewhere in this EIR as noted below: o Oil Field Subsidence: Section 4.3 - Earth Resources o Surface Oil Contamination: Section 4.15 - Human Health and Safety o Methane Gas Accumulation: Section 4.15 - Human Health and Safety o Other Impacts (i.e. gas blowout, explosion, fire and spills): Section 4.15 - Human Health and Safety o Noise: Section 4.9 - Noise o Air Quality: Section 4.8 - Air Quality 4.14.2 IMPACTS Following adoption of the General Plan Amendment and as development of the project takes place, gradual phasing out of operating oil wells will occur. In addition to this phased removal, some consolidation of oil wells may occur. Potential cumulative impacts may arise if oil production is not separated and buffered from new development. These consolidation areas will be identified through the future Specific Plan process. The location of new development within an oil district will be controlled by the City's regulations which are included as a mitigation measure. After implementation of the proposed mitigation measures, this project specific impact will be reduced to a level of insignificance. July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.14-4 Both of these measures will minimize the long term impacts of oil facilities on residences. However, there will be a short term interface between new development in the proximity of operating oil wells, as is the case today where existing residences co-exist with active oil facilities. Mitigation will be provided to reduce this potential impact to a level of insignificance. The proposed project additionally has the potential for subsidence impacts due to the withdrawal of oil as discussed in the Earth Resources chapter of this document. Implementation of mitigation measures, which includes water injection methods, will lessen the subsidence potential to a level of insignificance. Other Oil Facility Related Impacts Development of residential dwellings among operating oil wells can result in several potential project specific impacts. These impacts can include structural hazards from oil field, surface oil contamination, accumulation of methane gas, fire or blowout incidents, oil spills, noise and air quality impacts. These impacts are all addressed within other sections of this EIR, as noted earlier in this section. 4.14.3 MITIGATION MEASURES 1. Future Specific Plan(s) should include an area or areas for the consolidation of oil well facilities. 2. All new development proposals should be accompanied by: o A plan which addresses the requirements for abandoned wells. o The abandonment plans for existing wells. o The operational plans for any remaining wells and facilities. July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.14-5 These plans must satisfy the requirements of the City of Huntington Beach and the Division of Oil and Gas. 3. The criteria for the approval of development plans within oil districts should include: (a) That enough open space has been reserved around the oil operation site to allow existing and future equipment which could reasonably be expected to be used on the site, including any setbacks from new development required by the Fire Chief. (b) That adequate access to all operation sites is provided for portable equipment and emergency vehicles. (c) That reasonable expansion of the existing facilities, if permitted in the oil district, can be accomplished. (d) That any proposed development includes all provisions for soundproofing and fire protection required by the Fire Chief. (e) That screening of oil facilities from any new development is included in the plan. (section 9680.4, Article 968 OIL DISTRICTS, City of Huntington Beach Municipal Code). 4. As future development occurs, continued subsidence rate monitoring for the region of the subject site is necessary to determine if subsidence rates are declining with current water injection methods being used at operating oil production facilities. 5. The use of post-tensioned slabs should be considered in the foundation design in order to eliminate distress to structures and slabs from minor regional subsidence. Although this measure will provide for a more rigid slab, it-will by no means eliminate distress to foundations resulting from the rapid subsidence of the land from continued oil and gas withdrawal. July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.14-6 6. All other mitigation measures pertaining to oil contamination, methane gas accumulation and other hazards are contained in other sections of this EIR, as previously noted. 4.14.4 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE Approval and development of the proposed project will result in the cumulative reduction of oil facilities and the eventual conversion of the site to non-oil related uses. This cumulative phasing out of oil facilities is expected to occur regardless of project implementation. This cumulative impact is not considered significant. Implementation of the General Plan Amendment and implementation of all recommended mitigation measures will reduce oil facility related impacts to a level of insignificance. No unavoidable adverse impacts are anticipated. July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.14-7 HOLLY - SEACLIFF GPA Human Health and Safety CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 4.15 4.15 HUMAN HEALTH AND SAFETY 4.15.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS The 768 acre Holly-Seacliff site encompasses a diversity of land uses, ranging from single family dwelling units to small scale industrial uses and oil related facilities. A large portion of the site is vacant. Oil Production The proposed project is located within the Huntington Beach Oil Field. This field encompasses approximately 2,320 proven subsurface acres on-shore and 2385 proven acres offshore. Discovered in 1920, this field covers the entire project site and as a result, oil facilities are scattered throughout the project area. Oil/Resource Production is defined by the City of Huntington Beach to include: o Petroleum extraction equipment o Storage tanks o Transmission pipelines for oil, gas and wastewater o Oil wells o Injection equipment o Separation and treatment facilities o Equipment storage maintenance yards The operation of these facilities are regulated by the City of Huntington Beach, as well as the Division of Oil and Gas. Surface Oil Contamination The presence of these oil production facilities presents several sources of potential concern for health and safety. The first is the possibility of some crude oil contamination of the near surface soils from pipelines carrying crude oil. In July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.15-1 addition, there could be a number of drilling mud sumps associated with the oil wells which often contain heavy metal residue. Methane Gas A second concern is the possible presence of methane gas. The operation of oil wells in close proximity to residential development presents a potential hazard due to the accumulation of methane gas from abandoned wells and fire-related incidents. Problems from the release of methane gas have been noted in the general project vicinity, mostly north of the project site. Methane gas can be biogenic (originating from old fossils or peat) or petrogenic (originating from oil or natural gas). All incidents to date of methane gas release in the City have been biogenic in nature. City of Huntington Beach Fire Department (HBFD) personnel indicated that methane gas releases should not be a problem on-site if wells are abandoned in accordance with current Division of Oil and Gas standards, and are properly vented to the atmosphere.) For example, methane gas can accumulate beneath developed areas where concrete and asphalt surfaces prevent the natural migration of the methane gas to the atmosphere. If cracks develop in the concrete or asphalt, gas could migrate into the interior of the overlying structure and possibly result in an explosion and fire. There is the potential for biogenic deposits of methane in the Holly-Seacliff area. Potential petrogenic sources include leaky or abandoned wells, residual sump materials and gas from the oil production zones which migrate through the overlying formation materials. Other Oil Production Related Hazards Other potential hazards to residents include, but are not limited to: o natural gas, blowout, explosion, or fire; o crude oil spills o pipeline ruptures 1 STA, Inc., Ellis Goldenwest EIR 88-2, Feb. 1989. July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.1 S-2 Hazardous Materials The use of hazardous materials is a necessary part of many industrial businesses today. A hazardous material is defined as an injurious substance, including pesticides, herbicides, toxic metals and chemicals, explosives, volatile chemicals and nuclear fuels and materials. It is likely that some of the industrial businesses on site utilize hazardous materials. Regulation and enforcement of safety measures for the storage, use, disposal and transport of hazardous materials is the responsibility of numerous local, state and federal agencies. In Orange County, the Orange County Health Care Agency, Waste Management Section has jurisdiction over clean-up of pesticides and oil field wastes. The United States Environmental Protection Agency requires that containers of hazardous materials be properly labeled with instructions for use. The California Department of Industrial Relations, California-OSHA Division regulates the proper use of hazardous materials. The United States Department of Agriculture and California Department of Food and Agriculture and the Department of Industrial Relations regulate pest control operations, pesticide dealers, and pesticide users to insure that these hazardous chemicals are properly used. Disposal of Hazardous Wastes There are at present no active landfills operating in Huntington Beach that accept hazardous wastes. Hazardous wastes generated within the City are transported to other Counties, which contain active "Class I" landfills. July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF CPA 422102.009 4.1 S-3 4.15.2 IMPACTS Surface it Contamination With the construction of a residential community, the areas of oil contamination (both soil and sump areas) will require a site specific evaluation to determine the precise type, location and clean-up method to be utilized. This will take the form of a phased environmental assessment, which should also evaluate the presence of methane gas. With the proper institution of mitigation measures, the development of this project will have a positive impact on existing conditions because the potential areas of contamination will be removed. Methane Gas The potential impacts due to explosions caused by biogenic and petrogenic methane gas accumulations are considered significant. Prior to development, the source and type of vapors need to be identified. The majority of existing oil wells will be abandoned prior to grading and development of residential and other urban uses on- site. The development of this project should result in the reduction of petrogenic risk due to the presence of methane gas, provided proper mitigation measures are undertaken. Other Oil Production Related Hazards Hazards related to blowouts, explosions, fires, and ruptures will be directly related to the number of operating wells remaining and their proximity to residences and-- - roadways. At this time it is not known how many operating oil wells will remain when development is complete. As long as oil wells are operating on-site, impacts related to fire and explosion (excluding methane gas accumulation) will remain. Recommended mitigation measures will reduce impacts to a level of insignificance. July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.15-4 As development proceeds, the potential for vandalism of producing oil wells will remain. Vandalism can occur in many ways, the most serious of which is the actual tampering with machinery. Resulting consequences could pose a hazard to nearby residents or the oil field itself. Proper security fencing will be required to reduce this problem. Hazardous Materials The storage and use of hazardous materials can be expected within the City's industrial areas. The storage and use of hazardous materials is a normal part of industrial operations, and cannot be prevented; however, certain measures can be taken to reduce risks related to fires and accidental spills. These measures are described under "mitigation measures". Businesses located within the City of Huntington Beach are required to inform the City Fire Department of the types, quantities, and location of flammable and hazardous materials being used in their operations. While this measure is not necessarily intended to reduce or limit the storage or use of hazardous materials, it will greatly assist the Fire Department in responding to emergencies, improving overall levels of safety within the City's industrial areas. After implementation of the proposed mitigation measures, project specific impacts related to hazardous materials will be reduced to a level of insignificance. 4.15.3 MITIGATION MEASURES Surface Oil Contamination 1. Prior to grading and development, a site reconnaissance should be performed including a phased Environmental Site Assessment to evaluate areas where contamination of the surficial soils may have taken place. The environmental assessment should evaluate existing available information pertinent to the site and also undertake a limited investigation of possible on-site contamination. July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.15-5 Phase I should include: a. Review of available documents pertinent to the subject site to evaluate current and previous uses. b. Site reconnaissance to evaluate areas where contamination of surficial soils may have taken place. C. Excavation and testing of oil samples to determine presence of near surface contamination of soil. d. Subsurface exploration to determine presence of sumps on-site. Testing of possible drilling fluids for heavy metals. e. Completion of soil gas vapor detection excavations located adjacent to the existing on-site wells. f. Testing of air samples for gas vapor, methane gas and sulfur compounds. 2. The actual site characterization and remedial action plan would be developed as part of a later phase. Upon completion of the Environmental Assessment, a Remedial Action Plan can be developed. This plan should address the following items: a. Treatment of possible crude oil contaminated soils. A possible solution to this condition would be aeration of the contaminated soils to release the volatile gases and then incorporation of the treated soils into the roadway fills (subgrade). Another alternative includes bio-remediation treatment which could be in-situ or at an off-site location. - b. Treatment of possible drilling sumps by either on-site disposal of non- contaminated drilling fluids or off-site disposal of contaminated fluids. C. Treatment of the possibility of the accumulation of methane gas. July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.1 S-6 Methane Gas 3. Prior to development, a thorough site study for the presence of surface and shallow subsurface methane gas should be performed. Any abnormal findings would require a Remedial Action Plan and further studies to assure sufficient mitigation of the hazardous areas prior to building construction. All structures should have a gas and vapor barrier installed underneath the slabs and foundations. Gas collection and ventilation systems should be installed over abandoned wells which are underneath or within ten (10) feet of any structure, and over wells which show evidence of surface emissions of methane gas. Additionally, following construction of structures, an organic vapor analysis should be conducted and the results evaluated to assure that acceptable air quality is maintained within buildings and residences. 4. The presence of methane gas on-site should be the subject of future studies that include the following tasks: a. Drilling of test wells to monitor for subsurface methane deposits and confirm or deny the presence of biogenic methane bearing strata near the surface in the development area. b. Shallow excavation and sampling in areas either known or assumed to be potential drilling mud sumps; C. Vapor monitoring of shallow vapor probes placed at strategic locations on the site and collection of soil vapor samples; d. Vapor survey areas adjacent to known abandoned oil wells; e. Laboratory analysis of selected soil samples for metals and soil vapor samples for gases. July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.15-7 Other Oil Production Related Hazards 5. Oil wells scheduled for abandonment should be completed in accordance with the standards and specifications of the City of Huntington Beach and the California Division of Oil and Gas. Wells which have previously been abandoned must be reabandoned to the most current requiriements of the City of Huntington Beach and the Division of Oil and Gas. 6. Existing oil production lines are located throughout the site. Treatment of these lines will depend on proposed land use and development. Utility lines should be relocated and or removed with the trench being filled with compacted fill. Hazardous Materials 7. An inventory of all hazardous materials used and stored by industries locating within the project area should be maintained and recorded for use by the City Fire Department. This inventory should include the location at which each hazardous material is used. 8. The use, storage and disposal of hazardous materials should be enforced by City of Huntington Beach to provide the greatest possible protection to the public from accidental occurrences. 9. Active wells remaining on-site should be secured and screened as required by the City of Huntington Beach. 10. Prior to development, a review of available public health records should be performed to evaluate possible public health risk sites in the vicinity of the subject site. July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.15-8 I I 4.15.4 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE With the implementation of mitigation measures, no project specific or cumulative impacts are anticipated as the hazards presently existing on the site will be removed concurrent with development. Implementation of the General Plan Amendment and its associated buildout may subject future residents to potential health and safety impacts from industrial and oil related activities. Dependent on the findings and mitigation measures recommended in the Site Environmental Assessment, the resultant impacts should be reduced to a level of insignificance. No project specific unavoidable adverse impacts can be identified at this time. July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.15-9 I HOLLY - SEACLIFF GPA Public Services and Utilities CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 4.16 4.16 PUBLIC SERVICES & UTILITIES 4.16.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS Fire Protection Fire protection for the proposed project is provided by the Huntington Beach Fire Department. The site is currently served by the two stations listed below: Station Location Distance from site (miles) Gothard Station 18301 Gothard .1 - 1.7 Lake Station Lake & 5th St 1.9 - 2.7 The Gothard Station consists of one, three-man engine company; one, three-man telesquirt/hazardous material company; and one, two-man battalion chief unit. Response time from the Gothard Station is estimated to be from 1.25 minutes to 4.9 minutes including dispatch times. The Lake Station consists of one, three-man engine company; and one, four-man truck company. Response times are estimated to be from 5.2 minutes to 6.5 minutes including dispatch times. These stations provide emergency services for fire protection and prevention and life support both advanced and basic. The Fire Department also provides inspection and public education services. The Huntington Beach Fire Department goals for response times are: o an engine company on the scene within five minutes of dispatch, 90 percent of the time; July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422\02.009 4.16-1 o paramedic unit on the scene within five minutes of dispatch, 80 percent of the time; o truck on the scene within ten minutes of dispatch, 98 percent of the time; o a first alarm assignment (all of the above) on the scene within ten minutes of dispatch, 100 percent of the time. The Huntington Beach Master Plan of Fire Protection calls for a new fire station to be constructed in the area of Springdale Street south of Talbert Avenue. This station would be located approximately one mile from the site, thus becoming the second nearest fire station to the project. The station may be constructed as part of the proposed Bolsa Chica development. Paramedic service in the City is provided by the Fire Department and ambulance service is provided by private agencies. The normal response time for paramedics from the Lake Street Fire Station to the project area would be approximately 6 minutes, and the normal ambulance response time would be 15 minutes. Police Services Police services are provided to the project area by the Huntington Beach Police Department. The Department provides police patrol, traffic accident investigation, crime investigation and emergency services. Existing manpower is 1.1 officers per 1,000 persons. Emergency calls are dispatched to patrol vehicles and/or police helicopter, which is based just north of the project area. Response times average 3 to 4 minutes depending on the nature of the incident and availability of patrol units in the area. Community Services The Community Services Department is responsible for City park development, recreation, human services, library, cultural arts and beach services. Facilities operated by the Community Services Department within the project area include July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422\02.009 4.16-2 Huntington Central Park and Huntington Central Library. The following facilities will service the site: Huntington Central Park - This city-wide recreational facility is located north of Ellis Avenue, between Edwards Street and Gothard. The park presently provides 216 developed acres; with ultimate development to be 380 acres. The area immediately north of Ellis Avenue contains equestrian trails and undeveloped parkland. Located approximately 1/2 mile from Ellis Avenue is an open grassy area used for sporting activities such as softball and soccer. A conceptual master plan for future expansion of the park and the development of additional recreational opportunities is presently being reviewed by the City. Expansion dates are unknown because specific funding has not been identified. Library The Huntington Beach Central Library is located immediately adjacent to the north project area and contains 72,000 square feet, 400 parking spaces and over 350,000 volumes. The Central Library provides an extensive level of service, including the circulation of approximately one million items annually. There is approximately twenty one percent non-resident usage of the library. The library has two additional branches: the Main Street branch , approximately 4,500 square feet; and the Banning branch, approximately 2,400 square feet. The Central Library provides an extensive level of service, including circulation of approximately one million items annually. Schools The area lies within 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 34. The table also lists capacities and current enrollments of each school. July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422\02.009 4.16-3 I i Table 34 Educational Facilities School Student Capacity Current Enrollment Perry Elementary School 19231 Harding Lane, Huntington Beach 750 530 Dwyer Intermediate School 1502 Palm Ave., Huntington Beach 800 808 Huntington Beach High School 1905 Main St., Huntington Beach 2,651 2,359 Source: FORMA Perry School is approximately 2 miles from the center project area and serves K-5 students. Dwyer School is approximately 3 miles from the center project area and serves grade 6-8 students. Huntington Beach High School is less than a mile from the center project area and serves grade 9-12 students. Major renovation is needed for the existing high school facilities. Currently the high school is using modular classrooms. Parking is also currently inadequate. Hospitals There are two hospitals that serve the project area, Pacifica and Humana Hospital. Pacifica Community Hospital is located at 18800 Delaware in Huntington Beach, and is within two miles from the project area. Pacifica Hospital provides acute care services including medical, surgical, intensive and coronary care. The hospital contains 109 beds, and maintains an average occupancy rate of 45 percent. The Humana Hospital is located at 17772 Beach Boulevard in Huntington Beach. It provides general, acute care, including a maternity ward, outpatient surgery, a paramedic base station, 24-hour emergency department, coronary and intensive care July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422\02.009 4.16-4 LEGEND II _ EE] OVERHEAD 12,000 VOLT ELECTRICAL LINE EIfm Avenue �—� QUARTER UNDERGROUND 12,000 VOLT ELECTRICAL 1 I� LINE ". ■ ,. n , . ` EXISTING GAS LINE <r60To1:ten OVERHEAD 66,000 VOLT ELECTRICAL LINE oe ----- --=-- \ ,_- --+ Garfield Avenue oe yi I Avenue %r CIaY Avenue Cz. i CITY OF EXHIBIT 31 HUNTINGTON BEACH EXISTING GAS/ELECTRIC lJ IOLLYLB ACUF -AMENDMENT G��ENERAL PLAN WALDEN AND ASSOCIATES LEGEND OVERHEAD CABLE TV LINE o UNDERGROUND CABLE TV LINE Ellis AvenueK\ .......... OVERHEAD TELEPHONE LINES UNDERGROUND TELEPHONE LINES . ............. .10 JJ 1.10 FK? MENNE777kaki. k,, Garfield Avenue .............. Cloy Me-& ...... .......... EXHIBIT 32 CITY OF EXISTING TELEPHONE/CABLE TV HUNTINGTON BEACH HOLKYLSE&CUFF AILY 14,1989 AMENDMENT (13:WEMIEK& IPLM WALDEN AND ASSOCIATES and a biological depression unit. The hospital has 141 beds and maintains a 50 percent occupancy rate. The hospital is within one to three miles of the project area. Solid Waste Disposal 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 collection service for single-family, duplex, triplex and four-plex residential units with individual trash cans at a monthly rate on a per-unit basis. Four-plex residential units with trash bins, multi-family residences of five or more units, and commercial and industrial units contract with Rainbow Disposal on a individual basis. The estimated rate of solid waste generation in the county as a whole averages about 8.5 pounds per person per day which includes all uses. Rainbow estimates the total rubbish generated per single-family household per week at 95 to 100 pounds. Rainbow Disposal has a current capacity of 2,000 tons per day and is currently operating at 1,200 tons per day. Rainbow Disposal operates a transfer station in the City at 17121 Nichols Street. At this facility, Rainbow Disposal transfers waste from small trucks to larger trucks, which then take the refuse to the Coyote Canyon disposal station in Irvine. Hauling larger loads to the landfill is a more efficient use of fuel, manpower and machinery. Gas The subject property is located within the service territory of the Southern California Gas Company (SCG). Major existing facilities within the project area include a district regulator, a 12-inch high pressure pipeline located in Goldenwest Street from Yorktown Avenue to Garfield Avenue, a 16-inch high pressure pipeline located in Goldenwest Street from Garfield Avenue beyond Ellis Avenue, and a 16- inch high pressure line extending westerly from the 16-inch line in Goldenwest Street. Several minor service lines are located throughout the project site. All existing service lines are underground and are plotted on Exhibit 31 for Existing Gas/Electric. The City requires that all gas lines are to be underground. July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422\02.009 4.16-7 Electricity The subject property is located within the service territory of the Southern California Edison Company (SCE). The SCE Company owns and operates an electrical distribution substation facility within the project area, located on the west side of Edwards Street south of Ellis Avenue. This substation is part of the overall electrical transmission/distribution system which supplies electrical energy to a large portion of the City. An additional substation facility which services areas within the project site is located approximately 3 miles south of the project near the intersection of Lake Street and Acacia Avenue. As seen on Exhibit 31 for Existing Gas and Electric, several 12,000 volt overhead service lines exist throughout the project site with one 66,000 volt overhead transmission line located in Edwards Street and Garfield Avenue. Only one underground service line exists in the vicinity and that is a 12,000 volt line in Yorktown Avenue at the south end of the project boundary. The existing oil well pumps throughout the project area are currently the primary consumers of electricity. The City requires that all new electrical service lines installed throughout the City to be underground, and they are currently working with SCE to achieve the undergrounding of existing service lines. All transmission lines are to remain overhead. Telephone Telephone service is provided to the City of Huntington Beach by General Telephone Company (GTE). The service facility closest to the project site is located at _. . Goldenwest Street just north of Ellis Avenue. The majority of the existing telephone lines which are scattered throughout the site, as shown on Exhibit 32 for Existing Telephone/Cable TV, are smaller overhead lines. As also shown, some smaller underground cables exist throughout the Seacliff Village Shopping Center and in Edwards Street near Ellis Avenue. The single major underground conduit within the July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422\02.009 4.16-8 project runs in Main Street from the project's south boundary, north to Garfield Avenue, and then north in Gothard beyond the project's north boundary. The City requires that all new telephone lines be installed underground, and they are currently working with GTE on the undergrounding of existing lines. Cable TV Cable television service is provided to the City of Huntington Beach by Rogers Cable TV. The existing cable lines throughout the project site are minimal as seen on Exhibit 32 for Existing Telephone/Cable TV. The majority of the existing lines are overhead. As with all other utilities, the City is currently coordinating with the cable company on the undergrounding of existing lines. Storm Drains For a detailed discussion, please refer to the Hydrology section in this EIR. 4.16.2 IMPACTS Fire Protection Development of the project site will create a need for additional fire protection services. In the event of the development of the Bolsa Chica area, an additional fire station is proposed at the south end of the Springdale Street. Capacities, completion dates and sources of revenue have not been determined at this time. The Fire Department expressed concerns regarding east-west road connections into the Bolsa Chica area. They recommended re-alignment of Ellis Avenue to connect to Talbert Avenue and extension of Garfield Avenue into the Bolsa Chica cross gap connector. July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422\02.009 4.16-9 Since the Gothard Fire Station does not provide paramedic services, current response standards for the paramedic unit at the Lake Fire Station may not meet the goals of the Huntington Beach Fire Department for the project. This impact to service response standards will be significantly mitigated with the construction of the proposed fire station on Springdale. Therefore implementation of the proposed mitigation will reduce project specific impacts to a level of insignificance. Any ongoing oil production in and around the site will require the provision of access roads. Police Services Development within the project area will adversely impact the level of police services presently provided. Unless additional personnel are provided for the proposed area, the level of service needed will decrease in both response time and quality of service. According to the proposed plan, approximately nine additional police officers would be needed to serve the project areas. Implementation of the proposed mitigation measures will reduce this project specific impact to a level of insignificance. Community Services The Department of Community Services indicated that the addition of new residents to the area will create a need for expanded park facilities and library facilities. The Department recommends that a neighborhood park to be planned for each quarter- section or planning area. The Department also requested that equestrian trails be considered in the area west of Goldenwest Street. The GPA proposes a comprehensive amendment of the Open Space/Conservation & Recreation Elements of the City's General Plan. The major landowner has proposed an agreement to dedicate lands for the Bolsa Chica Linear Park and four neighborhood parks. As part of the implementation phase of the General Plan Amendment 40 acres are planned adjacent to Central Park. Therefore no significant July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422k02.009 4.16-10 impacts on parks are anticipated. While actual demand for park acreage is only 59 acres, 89 acres of parks and open space are being provided. A trail system is planned for the Ellis-Goldenwest quarter section which will provide connections to the linear park as well as Huntington Central Park. For further discussion of parks, please refer to the Recreation section of this EIR. Library Development of the surrounding area will impact the Central Library, which is already overcrowded with both patrons and material. Parking is inadequate. The residential development proposed by the project may additionally increase the use and demand on the services of the Main Street branch. Due to the existing demands, the Central Library is currently planning an expansion costing approximately $5-7 million. Funding is still being worked out and construction will be phased with available funding. If the Central library is expanded by 50,000 square feet, then it should adequately handle the surrounding development. However additional personnel will also be required to staff the facility. The library suggested, that the community enrichment fee be increased from five to fifteen cents to help fund the expansion and that Talbert be realigned between Goldenwest and Gothard Street to create additional parking. After the implementation of library construction fees, no impacts to library services are anticipated. Schools Elementary Studies conducted by the Huntington Beach Elementary School District indicate a student generation factor of 0.21 for single-family dwellings and .12 for multi-family dwellings. July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422\02.009 4.16-11 The proposed project will increase enrollment beyond current capacities in both the elementary and high school districts. Using generation factors noted above, the proposed project will generate a total of*1,217 students which includes elementary, intermediate and high school. The existing General Plan would generate approximately 1,208 total students for the area. Development of project area in accordance with the proposed Land Use Plan will generate approximately 678 elementary students, which will impact elementary school facilities by generating students in excess of school capacity. It will create the need for a new school to serve the project area; preferably a new K-5 school for approximately 600 students and a staff of 20 teachers. At this time there are no revenues budgeted for such an expansion. The school district has requested the dedication of a school site with this project, which is tentatively planned to be provided north of Garfield in the Ellis-Golden west quarter section. The exact location of this school site requires for the discussion with the school district. The specific location and transfer process will be identified at the time of tentative mapping of this area. The Huntington Beach Elementary School District proposes developer fees to pay for construction of the school. Fees are determined based upon $1.50/ S.F. of residential and $.25/S.F. of commercial. High Schools Increases in enrollment in the Union High School District beyond the capacity may require the re-drawing of district boundaries to shift enrollment to less crowded schools. The Huntington Beach Union High School District reports a student generation factor of 0.26 for single-family dwellings and .04 for multi-family-- dwellings. Therefore, the project will generate approximately 539 high school students. The project will not require a new school site, but will require reconstruction of the existing facilities to house additional students beyond capacity of 2,651. July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422\02.009 4.16-12 The District Master Plan had previously accounted for this build-out of the acreage and is in the process of developing construction/reconstruction plans for the District in order to meet the needs of the community. The school district advises the coordination of project phasing in conjunction with the school expansion process and the requirement of developer fees to finance school construction/ reconstruction. After implementation of the mitigation measures, no impacts to schools are anticipated. Hospitals The proposed project is not anticipated to adversely impact Pacifica Community Hospital services, nor will it create the need for expansion of facilities or staff. The hospital has current plans to replace the existing facility in order to increase bed capacity, and upgrade the technology and services provided. Funding is available for this facility replacement and the completion date is estimated to be 1992. The project is not anticipated to impact the level of service provided by Humana Hospital. However, 60 additional full time employees are expected to be needed to serve increased demands. The current plans for hospital growth include a 35 bed expansion by the year 1991. Funding for this expansion will be provided by their corporate office in Kentucky. Solid Waste Disposal Development of the proposed land use will generate approximately 22,932,000 pounds of solid waste per year. The solid waste disposal firm is operating below capacity, and consequently the proposed land use is not expected to significantly or adversely impact the present level of service. New facilities are not anticipated to be required to serve the project. Rainbow Disposal has purchased six new semi-trucks which will easily accommodate project demands. Their current plans include the closing of Coyote Canyon landfill (April 1989) and the subsequent opening of Santiago Canyon landfill. While no significant or adverse impacts are expected from development of the project site, there could be potential impacts to facilities and services due to an increase in July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422\02.009 4.16-13 the amount of solid waste generated by the project. This amount may be reduced with proper measures. Mitigation is provided to reduce any potential impacts to a level of significance. Gas The SCG Company has indicated that gas service to the project site could be serviced from the existing high pressure mains located within the site without any significant impact on the environment. Upon complete development of the proposed project, it is approximated that 2,063,500 cubic feet of natural gas would be consumed annually by the residents. This estimate is based on a system area average of a gas consumption factor of 1,095 cubic feet per dwelling unit per year. Estimates of gas usage for non-residential projects are developed on an individual basis and may vary drastically for each project. The gas company therefore does not have consumption factors for non-residential projects. The gas company states that the lines which are to service non-residential projects will be adequately sized to meet most non- residential consumption demands. The availability of natural gas service is based upon present conditions of gas supply and regulatory policies. The service would be in accordance with the company's policies and extension rules on file with the California Public Utilities Commission. The SCG Company anticipates that the increased demands for gas service can be accommodated from existing mains with proper planning and installation of smaller service lines without any adverse impacts. However, the development of the project could potentially impact the conservation and planning efforts of the SCG in providing gas utility services throughout the area. Mitigation measures are provided to reduce any potential impacts to a level of significance. Electricity The SCE Company has indicated that the electric loads of the project are within the parameters of the overall projected load growth which it has been planning to meet. Thus, it appears that electrical service to the project could be supplied without any significant impact on the environment. Based upon the electrical consumption rate July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422\02.009 4.16-14 of 5,838 kilowatt hours (KWH) per dwelling unit per year, as recognized by the South Coast Air Quality Management District, the approximate annual consumption of electricity by the residents of the complete site development would be 25,768,400 KWH. Existing consumption of electricity would be curtailed with the removal of existing oil well pumps and thus existing usage can offset some of the additional demands from development. The service provided by SCE would be in accordance with the company's policies and extension rules on file with the California Public Utilities Commission. The SCE Company anticipates that the increased demands for electrical service can be accommodated from the existing electrical generating capacity facilities. However, new underground electrical service lines shall be required throughout the site and the improvement/undergrounding of existing service lines shall be necessary. All 66,000 volt transmission lines are to remain overhead. Additionally, the project could potentially impact Southern California Edison's conservation and planning efforts. Mitigation is provided to reduce these impacts to a level of significance. Telephone The GTE Company has indicated that the proposed development of the project site will not adversely impact the level of service they currently provide. All service to the project site will be provided using standard GTE practices and will be from underground lines. The telephone company anticipates that the increased demands for service to the occupants of the complete development of the site could be accommodated from their existing service facility near the site. All major lines and several smaller service lines throughout the site shall be required which shall be installed underground. While no significant or adverse impacts are expected, development of the project could potentially impact GTE's service delivery and planning efforts. Mitigation is provided to reduce these potential impacts to a level of insignificance. July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422\02.009 4.16=15 Cable TV Rogers Cable TV Company is not anticipating the need for the expansion of facilities to service the site; only the need to run cable lines throughout the site to the proposed residents. TV service for the project area will be from required new underground lines. The cable TV company has indicated that cable service to the residents of the complete development could be achieved without any significant impact on the environment. While no significant impacts are expected, development of the project could potentially impact service delivery and planning efforts. Mitigation measures are provided to reduce these potential impacts to a level of insignificance. Storm Drains For a detailed discussion, please refer to the hydrology section in this EIR. 4.16.3 MITIGATION MEASURES Fire Protection 1. Access roads to oil production areas should be provided where appropriate and kept unobstructed to prevent adverse impacts on fire protection due to ongoing oil production. 2. Measures to eliminate or reduce fire and safety risks from existing and abandoned oil production facilities and disposal areas are discussed in the Human Health and Safety section of this EIR. 3. The Huntington Beach Fire Department should review all developments-within the area for adequate emergency vehicle access and water pressure. July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422\02.009 4.16-16 Police Services 4. The City should budget for additional officers to correspond with phasing of development in the project area. Community Services 5. The City should enter into an agreement with major landowners to dedicate designated parklands prior to or concurrent with development in each Planning Area. 6. The City should adopt a plan for acquisition and development of land within the Central Park expansion area north of Ellis Avenue. 7. The City should create a special assessment district(s) for the development and maintenance of public trails and parklands within the project area. Library 8. With future development, the community enrichment fee should be paid to help fund the library expansion program. Schools 9. The GPA designates a site for a new elementary school to serve students generated by residential development within the project area. 10. The school district and major landowner should enter into an agreement for acquisition or lease of the site as part of implementation of this GPA. -- - 11. Developers should pay school impact fees to finance construction of necessary school facilities. July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422\02.009 4.16-17 12. The Huntington Beach Union High School District should coordinate its expansion plans with phasing of development within the project area and surrounding areas. Solid Waste Disposal 13. To reduce the proposed projects impacts on waste disposal facilities, project designs should develop a means of reducing the amount of waste generated both during construction and when the project is in use. Potential ways of reducing project waste loads include implementation of recycling programs, and utilization of low water use landscaping. 14. The developer should contact the solid waste disposal firm during the design stage to ensure the most efficient and economical means for rubbish removal. The design should include rubbish enclosures, projected travel areas, and turnabouts where necessary. Provisions for recycling should be included in future project designs. Gas and Electricity 15. Building construction should comply with the Energy Conservation Standards set forth in Title 24 of the Californian Administrative Code. 16. It is strongly recommended that developers consult with the Southern California Gas Company and the Southern California Edison Company for further energy conservation measures. 17. Developers should submit to SCG and SCE planning divisions all tract maps and improvement plans for the project so that proper planning, phasing and sizing of needed mains and service lines can be designed. July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422\02.009 4.16-18 Telephone and Cable TV 18. Building construction should comply with the standards and specifications of the General Telephone Company and Rogers Cable TV Company. 19. Developers should submit to GTE and Rogers Cable TV Company all tract maps and improvement plans for the project so that proper planning, phasing, sizing and material ordering for service lines can be made. 4.16.4 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE Approval and development of the proposed project in conjunction with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects will contribute to an incremental increase in public services and utility demands particularly cumulative impacts to library and school facilities. After mitigation, the project's contribution to the project-specific and cumulative demand increase in public services and utilities is not considered significant. July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422\02.009 4.16-19 HOLLY - SEACLIFF GPA Water Facilities CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 4.17 4.17 WATER FACILITIES The Water Facilities Section of this EIR is based upon the "Sewer and Water Facilities Report" prepared by Walden and Associates. This report may be found under separate cover in Volume II. 4.17.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS All of the existing domestic and fire protection water facilities which service the City of Huntington Beach are operated and maintained by the City of Huntington Beach Public Works Department, Water Division. The City's existing water supply is a combination of both ground water wells and imported water from Metropolitan Water District (MWD). Approximately 70% of the City's water is supplied by nine active wells and 30% from three import water connections to MWD. The water division also maintains emergency connections with the cities of Seal Beach, Westminster and Fountain Valley. The Water System Master Plan, prepared by Boyle Engineering Corporation in June 1988, and adopted by the City Council, has identified deficiencies in existing water storage capacity, supply, and fire flow throughout the entire City service area. The City's present capacity is not sufficient to meet existing peak hour demands for adequate pressure requirements and fire flow requirements. With the present maximum operating capacity at approximately 72,700 gallons per minute (gpm), and the existing peak hour demand of approximately 90,400 gpm, there exists a deficiency of 17,700 gpm at peak hour demand. Therefore, with existing development and with existing water sources and facilities, the City may not deliver a sufficient water supply to the City to meet existing peak hour demands. The majority of the project area lies within the Reservoir Hill Assessment District. This Assessment District and its water system is not an independent system with its own water sources, it operates as part of the City's entire water system. Although development is currently minimal throughout this district, main lines and July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.17-1 transmission lines to service this entire area for ultimate development have been installed or are near completion. These lines are shown on the Water Facilities Map, Exhibit 33, as existing. The Reservoir Hill water system is in a closed pressure zone which operates in a higher pressure zone than what is required for the rest of the City's water system. Due to the higher elevations within the site, this higher pressure zone is required to meet the peak demands and fire flow requirements necessary to service this area. Currently, water is pumped from the City's main system into the higher pressure zone by the temporary booster station located near the intersection of Clay Avenue and Goldenwest Street. The booster station generally pumps water from both of the Overmeyer reservoirs which are located near the water division building. This booster station is operating at capacity and would be deficient in meeting additional demand within this project area. Plans have been made, and the design near completion, for the construction of a new booster pump station near Huntington Street and Garfield Avenue to accommodate the future development needs. The existing 42" line in Garfield Avenue and Edwards Street is a transmission line which is owned and operated by the City. As with all transmission lines, they cannot be tapped into and, therefore, cannot be directly utilized to service the project development. 4.17.2 IMPACTS With increased development in the Reservoir Hill assessment area, the current water system cannot provide the necessary service to the area. However, the City's Water System Master Plan indicates that the newly constructed major transmission and main lines in arterial streets should provide adequate capacity and fire flow throughout the projected area for ultimate development, providing the improvements listed.in the Master Plan are constructed. The Plan also indicates that the City is aware of, and is planning for, the required increase of storage capacity and boosting abilities required to service the City system. The booster station is anticipated to be in operation within 2-3 years. The storage capacity should be increased when proposed July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.17-2 I LEGEND u 9 c a EXISTING WATER LINES Ellis Avenue — — — EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT '2{w 12* ;I ,•w j �•w i_ �� PUMP STATION -9 w do �° j, i • � � PROJECT BOUNDARY 12' „orn PROPOSED WATER LINES NOTE: DEVELOPER LINES WITHIN LARGER AREAS WILL BE DEPENDENT a t (I ON INTERIOR STREET ALIGNMENTS lz„ I ' ( AND WILL VARY FROM 8'-6'LINES. JI— Av 3 ' / � �--- -- �----- - — w' I jgl+lfea en i Ilz' 3 r' le• _�_ I i PROPOSED PUMP eQ • +o �- Iw ( STATION LOCATION 1 / F1oY AvAvenue a EXISTING TEMPORAR PUMP STATION e R `• ' LOCATION C ve i lo•w �, York own�CSenue llell J EXHIBIT 33 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH EXISTING AND PROPOSED WATER. FACILITIES iftOLLY-SEACUFF IY,TES � 0 0 WALDEN AND ASSOCIATES reservoirs are constructed in the Sunset Heights and southeast City areas which will free up additional storage capacities of the two Overmeyer reservoirs. This increase in storage capacity should be sufficient to provide adequate supply to meet peak demands, pressures and fire flows in this area and parts of the City. However, there still remains a concern for additional water supplies in the near future as development progresses due to the lack of available sources. The Master Plan does identify the additional facilities necessary to increase the City's water supply. These consist of additional wells, reactivating the inoperative wells, reservoirs and water conservation measures. Based upon the proposed General Plan, to properly service the project site, some additional water lines (12", 10" and 8" in diameter) shall be required to complete interior looped systems throughout the project. These proposed lines are shown on Exhibit 33 as proposed. Other water lines will also be necessary in local interior streets within the project to provide service to internal lots. These lines will normally be designed and installed in phases as development occurs. Approximately 1,250 gallons per minute (GPM) will be utilized by the proposed completed project. This figure is determined by use of historical annual demand coefficients established by Land Use Classification (GPM/acre). The City used peak flow demands for the ultimate build-out of the existing General Plan when designing the sizes and locations of the recently constructed major transmission and main lines and when designing the soon to be constructed booster pump station. This peak flow demand the City used for their design was 1,516 GPM. Therefore, the proposed Land Use plan in complete build-out has a 21% reduction of water use from that of the complete build-out of the existing General Plan. Thus, the proposed land use should / not significantly impact the level of service for which facilities have previously been planned and designed for throughout the Reservoir Hill Assessment District Vicinity. However, given the uncertain source of future water supplies, the project will have project specific and cumulative impacts to the City's water supply. July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.17-4 4.17.3 MITIGATION MEASURES With the implementation of the following mitigation measures, the major impacts to the City's water system can be reduced significantly. 1. Development of the proposed project should occur concurrently with development of the City's water system improvements to allow for adequate water service to the site. 2. All proposed development should comply with the phasing and design of water facilities as shown on the water facilities map so as to provide adequate looped systems to service the adjoining properties. 3. As future development occurs prior to the issuance of Use and Occupancy permits, developers should construct the necessary water service lines to individual residences and lots. 4. As future development occurs, no permits for Use and Occupancy should be issued until the Reservoir Hill booster pump station and the increase in storage capacity are complete and operating to the satisfaction of the City Water Division so as to provide adequate water service to each development. 5. The following water conservation measures shall be implemented by developers as required by state law and by the City Water Division: a. Low-flush toilets. b. Low-flow showers and faucets. C. Insulation of hot water lines in water recirculating systems. d. Compliance with water conservation provisions of the appropriate - plumbing code. July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.17-5 6. Irrigation systems which minimize water waste should be used to the greatest extent possible. Such measures should involve such features as the following: a. Raised planters and berming in conjunction with closely spaced low volume low angle (22-1/2 degrees) sprinkler heads. b. Drip irrigation. C. Irrigation systems controlled automatically to ensure watering during early morning or evening hours to reduce evaporation losses. 7. Developers and the City should provide information to occupants regarding benefits of low water use landscaping and sources of additional assistance for domestic and irrigation water conservation procedures. 8. Landscaping should use only low water demand (drought-tolerant species) and irrigation systems designed to minimize water waste. The use of mulch extensively in all landscaped areas is strongly recommended. 9. Minimize use of lawns and utilize water season, drought tolerant grasses. 10. Use pervious paving material whenever feasible to reduce surface water runoff and aid in groundwater recharge. 11. Control slopes and grades to discourage water waste through runoff. 12. As future development occurs, no permits for Use and Occupancy should be issued until additional water supplies as detailed in the 1988 Water Master Plan are implemented by the City Water Division so as to provide adequate water supplies to each development. 13. Developers should consult the City Water Division during design and construction phases for further water conservation measures to review irrigation designs and drought tolerant plant use. July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.17-6 14. As development occurs,"prior to approval of future building permits, complete landscape and irrigation plans should be submitted to and approved by the Water Division. 15. In order to connect to the Orange County Water District's "Green Acres" system of reclaimed water (as described and detailed in the 1988 City of Huntington Beach Water System Master Plan), the project developer should at the time of development construct a reclaimed water system for on-site irrigated areas and equestrian trails. Utilization of such dual water system shall take place when the system becomes operable. 4.17.4 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE Implementation of proposed mitigation measures for water service will reduce the potential impacts associated with the development of the proposed project. The mitigation measures require proper planning, phasing and implementing of facilities to reduce the impacts from unavoidably significant to insignificant. Given the availability of adequate water supplies, the project's impact upon the City's ability to deliver water from the source to the project area is reduced to a level of insignificance through mitigation and implementation of the booster station and ® reservoirs. With the uncertainty of water supplies in Southern California becoming a major concern, even with the implementation of the water mitigation measures, cumulatively, the projects' contribution to the increased demands for water supplies is considered an unavoidable adverse impact. This impact can be reduced depending upon the steps the City Water Division takes toward future water supply alternatives, (e.g. buying more imported water, developing new well sources) but still not to an insignificant impact level. July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.17-7 HOLLY - SEACLIFF GPA Sewer Facilities CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 4.18 4.18 SEWER FACILITIES The Sewer Facilities Section of this EIR is based upon the "Sewer and Water Facilities Report" prepared by Walden and Associates. This report may be found under a separate cover in Volume II. 4.18.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS The existing sewer facilities for the project area are serviced by two agencies: 1) The City of Huntington Beach, Public Works Department; 2) The Sanitation Districts of Orange County, Districts Nos. 3 and 11. The Sanitation Districts of Orange County are the responsible agency for the treatment of waste water generated within the project boundary. This waste water is processed at treatment plants located in Fountain Valley and Huntington Beach. The Districts are operating under an N.P.D.E.S. permit issued by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board and the United States Environmental Protection Agency. This permit has a set discharge limit for biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and suspended solids (SS). Currently, the BOD in t'.ie Districts' discharge is close to the limit. At the present time, the most northwesterly developed portion of the site, approximately between Trotter Drive to Ellis Avenue and the west City Limits to Goldenwest Street, is serviced by the existing private and City sewer system as shown per the sewer facilities map Exhibit 34. The public 10" sewer line, which conveys the existing flows within this area to an off-site 15" line, is over-designed for the current discharge. With the complete development of this portion under the existing General Plan, the existing 10" and 15" public lines are adequately sized to accommodate the increased discharge from the entire tributary area. The sewer system, for this portion of the site, ultimately joins the O.C.S.D. No. 3 sewer system July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.18-1 and enters the County Slater Avenue Pump Station just north of the project site. The Slater Avenue Pump Station is presently operating near capacity. Currently, the existing sewer facilities beyond the project boundary to the north and northeast of the project site are collected and brought to existing City Pump Station #14 located on Gothard Street just south of Ellis Avenue as shown on the Exhibit 34. From this pump station the sewerage is discharged through a 14" force main approximately 1,000 feet southeasterly to the 24" O.C.S.D. trunk line in Gothard Street. At the present time, the 14" force main is adequately designed and the 24" line is over-designed to convey the existing flows. The 24" line would still be over- designed for the ultimate development under the current General Plan of the northeast portion of the project which is tributary to it. The sewerage from north and northeast of the site is currently generated in O.C.S.D. No. 3 and pumped south into O.C.S.D. No. 11, thus creating interdistrict flow problems. There exist several independent operators of oil production throughout the north portion of the project site. These operators discharge large amounts of waste water into the City's public sewer system. This discharge ultimately drains to the County's Slater Avenue Pump Station and contributes to the near capacity situation of the pump station. Presently the majority of sewerage from the developed property within the project limits is collected in City sewer lines which connect to either the 24" O.C.S.D. trunk line in Ernest Avenue or the 12" City line in Garfield Avenue at Goldenwest Avenue as shown on Exhibit 34. Both lines come together at Garfield Avenue and Crystal Street and continue easterly in Garfield Avenue to the Newland-Delaware Trunk Sewer located in Delaware Street. Currently, the Newland-Delaware Trunk sewerline is near capacity. The primary source of sewerage conveyed in the Garfield line which drains to the Newland-Delaware Trunk is generated by the Chevron Company's oil production facilities within the area. The Chevron Company is operating numerous oil wells within the project boundary which produce large amounts of waste water which is discharged into the 24" O.C.S.D. sewer system in Garfield Avenue. Based on readings from Chevron's main plant, the July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.18-2 '6 _ LEGEND C -� '' j EXISTING TEMPORARY Q FROM PROJECT _ LIFT STATION w h i SITE = 0.226 MGD _I Q FROM OFF SITE E r ° 9 NOT AVAILABLE y �.�•• •—_ _= @-°� — .' ___ •••••o [EEJ is J TRIBUTARY RUNOFF DIRECTION r =� ihs Avenue EXISTING SEWER SYSTEMS j�•• PROPOSED LIFT (/ E� PROPOSED (ALTERNATIVE) SEWER SYSTEMS f•- y •........ STATION •.• 'O•""' I a �� •••.•' ; I o MAJOR TRIBUTARY AREA TO SLATER P.S. ! -- �•; •••.• ; \,� � THROUGH ELLIS-GOLDENWEST QUARTER SECTION TO CITY 15" LINE r ) ....... MAJOR TRIBUTARY AREA THROUGH ................. �,—... ... �j .... "SEACLIFF" 10" STUB k � MAJOR TRIBUTARY AREA TO COUNTY 24" � � ��• �_ � +' T �� i LINE IN GARFIELD TO DELAWARE TRUNK .• .� MAJOR TRIBUTARY AREA TO RELOCATED • PUMP STATION AT ELLIS AND TO SLATER P.S. ••• ' 10 10 ra 24 07 MGD .• 8=1.9 ' • _ f Ji w, Garfield Avenue / I� PROJECT BOUNDARY $� 71 —Al — ` - ! PEAK SEWERAGE DISCHARGE FOR ULTIMATE DEVELOPMENT Y Avenue � � Clay Avenue T ft '• ,�• rl i'• '•''••'• 4 /"—Yorklown Avenue - - f ,� d H .a o - O� o� CITY OF EXHIBIT 34 HUNTINGTON BEACH EXISTING AND PROPOSED SEWER FACILITIES AMENDMENT ENDU V ENT k��ENERAL Ll L1YJ V Rxr�a, WALDEN AND ASSOCIATES current discharge to the sewer line is approximately 1.72 Million Gallons per Day (MGD). Therefore, waste water from this oil production constitutes most of the discharge within the existing 24" O.C.S.D. facility. The remaining portion of the project site is the "Seacliff" area in the southwest portion of the project. This area currently has no existing development and no sewer service. The topography of this area generally slopes to the south. 4.18.2 IMPACTS The City's Master Plan of Sewers indicate that four major trunk lines and one City pump station will be required to ultimately collect and convey sewerage from the project area at ultimate development. These major lines will convey the sewerage beyond the project boundary and downstream to three County collection locations; the Slater Avenue Pump Station to the north; the extension of the Coast Trunk Sewer, or a pumping alternative, to the south; and the Newland-Delaware Trunk Sewer to the east. The proposed pipe sizes and suggested pipe alignments required to accommodate sewerage from the project area for the proposed Land Use Plan (and Land Use alternatives) are shown on Exhibit 34. All sewer flows calculated in this report have been determined by utilizing the "Recommended Unit Flow Generators for Average Dry Weather Flows" as provided by the City Public Works Department. The proposed project area has four primary tributary drainage areas which correspond to the existing tributary drainage areas. The first primary tributary drainage area is the proposed development of the northwest portion of the project site. This area is bounded by the west City Limits to the north/south street just west of Goldenwest Street and by Garfield Avenue to Ellis Avenue. The peak sewer flow generated from the complete development of this area is based upon 383 estate residential dwelling units and is approximately 0.195 MGD. This peak flow shall be collected on-site and discharged at Ellis Avenue into the existing 15" city trunk line which gravity flows north to the Slater Avenue Pump Station. Based on the calculations, the existing public 10" line flowing north to Ellis Avenue from near the center of this area, the existing 8" line flowing north in Saddleback Lane and the existing 15" line flowing north at Ellis Avenue can July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.18-4 accommodate the completed development for this portion of the project. However, development of any area within this portion of the project area will increase sewerage flows from what currently exists and will impact the facilities beyond the project site, specifically the Slater Avenue Pump Station. The Slater Avenue Pump Station is operating at capacity and cannot accommodate an increase in sewer flows. The O.C.S.D. is currently investigating resources for increasing the operating capacity of this Pump Station. Preliminary designs are currently underway and the upgraded pump station should be completed in the near future. The pump station should be capable of handling the sewerage which would be generated from the development of the proposed Land Use Plan which are tributary to facilities that ultimately convey flows to the station. The area tributary to the Slater Avenue Pump Station is primarily within the O.C.S.D. No. 3. O.C.S.D. currently experiences inter-district sewerage flows between Districts No. 3 and No. 11. A portion of District No. 3 sewerage gravity flows to the District No. 11 trunk line in Garfield Avenue and a larger portion of District No. 3 sewerage is pumped to the Garfield trunk by means of City Lift Station No. 14. The O.C.S.D. will continue to accept the inter-district sewerage flows which can gravity flow from District No. 3 to No. 11. However, the sanitation district and the City of Huntington Beach will require the elimination of the pumped inter-district sewerage flows when the Slater Avenue Pump Station is fully improved and can handle the sewerage generated from District No. 3. However, at this time, and until a solution for the pump station is implemented or until a reduction in independent operators of oil production is made, new sewer service cannot be offered to the portion of development which drains to the Slater Avenue Pump Station. The second primary tributary area is the proposed development of the northeast portion of the project site. This drainage area is collected into the same system which collects sewerage into existing City Pump Station No. 14 from off-site areas north and northeast of the project site in District No. 3. From the pump station, sewerage is routed in a 14" force main south in Gothard Street to the 24" O.C.S.D, line in Garfield Avenue. It will be the responsibility of the developers to design and construct the relocation of Pump Station No. 14 to the south side of Ellis Avenue, midway between Goldenwest Street and Gothard Street, redirect the forced flows July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.18-5 west in Ellis Avenue within a new 14" force main to Goldenwest Street and thence northerly in Goldenwest Street within a new gravity line to the Slater Avenue Pump Station. Therefore, the sewerage which is generated in District No. 3 is kept within the district and thus eliminates the interdistrict pumped sewerage flows. The peak sewerage generated by the future development of this proposed area is based upon 478 mixed residential units and 3 acres of park and is approximately 0.226 MGD. The proposed on-site gravity main line required to accommodate this proposed flow is an 8" line from westerly of Goldenwest Street to the relocated pump station. A 15" line from the existing Pump Station No. 14 is proposed to convey the existing off-site flows to the relocated pump station. The alignments are shown on Exhibit 34 and should generally be located within the natural drainage swales to minimize the depth at which the pipes must be buried and to capitalize on gravity flow. The existing 10" to 18" sewer mains flowing north in Goldenwest Avenue is not adequately sized to convey the redirected flows from the entire developed area tributary to the Slater Avenue Pump Station. Therefore, a parallel main in Goldenwest Avenue from Ellis Avenue to 1200' north of Talbert Avenue will be required. The City is currently analyzing existing and future flows for this area and is designing the new gravity line for Goldenwest Street. The construction of-this new line is anticipated to be completed with the City's Goldenwest Street Improvements. As with the first primary drainage area, any on-site development which flows north to the Slater Avenue Pump Station will increase sewerage flows and will further impact the pump station. Therefore, until a solution for the pump station is implemented or until a reduction of oil production from independent operators is made, new sewer service which follows the City's Master Plan cannot be offered to this portion of development; an alternative temporary sewer service concept will need to be implemented. The third primary tributary drainage area is the proposed development of the _. southwest portion of the project site referred to as the "Seacliff Peninsula" area. This area gravity drains south to a 10" stub which was constructed with the development of the Seacliff Golf Course Club House and residential projects. The 10" sewer stub is a "dry" line and has no outlet at this time. The proposed peak sewerage generated from the development of this area is based upon 680 medium and low density July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.18-6 dwelling units 3 acres of park and is approximately 0.307 MGD. Based on this flow rate, the existing 10" sewer stub could accommodate the flows generated by the proposed development. The sewerage from this area will ultimately be discharged into the O.C.S.D. Coast Trunk Sewer at Goldenwest Street and Orange Avenue. The extension of the Coast Trunk Sewer to connect with this 10" line and/or a private lift station are alternatives for this area. The fourth major tributary drainage area is the proposed development adjacent to and fronting Garfield Avenue both north and south, throughout the entire project site. The existing 24" O.C.S.D. sewer main in Garfield Avenue at the east project boundary is the ultimate facility which serves this portion of the project on-site. This 24" main line in Garfield Avenue is reduced to a 12" line upstream at Crystal Street and continues to its termination at Goldenwest Street. A new 10" line will be required to be extended west in Garfield Avenue from Goldenwest Street to near the west side of the project boundary. The peak sewerage generated by the development of this proposed area is based upon the proposed Land Use Plan and comprises a total of 3,050 mixed residential units, 3 acres of park, 91.5 acres of commercial and industrial development and is approximately 1.207 MGD. As oil production is curtailed, a major contribution of sewerage will be eliminated from the existing O.C.S.D. 24" line, thus providing more than adequate capacity for the development of this area. The proposed and existing sewer mains in Garfield Avenue as shown on Exhibit 34 should be sufficient to accommodate the peak sewerage flow generated from this tributary area for any of the proposed Land Use alternatives. In fact, with the elimination of oil production facilities, the ultimate development shall produce approximately 40% less discharge than what currently exists. Generally, sewer lines 8" in diameter and smaller, required for interior streets and individual developments, would be the responsibility of the developer on a project by project basis. July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.18-7 4.18.3 MITIGATION MEASURES The following measures are suggested to mitigate the impacts to the City and County sewer systems. 1. Detailed sewer studies should be prepared by a licensed civil engineer as required by the City so as to precisely calculate the required sewer main sizes. These calculations may be used to adjust the suggested pipe sizes proposed for the E.I.R. and should be completed for each tributary area prior to the approval of Specific Plans. 2. All proposed development should comply with a phasing plan and the design of sewer facilities as shown on the sewer facilities map. This would provide adequate connections to service adjoining and upstream properties. All required easements for sewer facilities should be in place prior to the issuance of a building permit of the subject property. 3. New development should be phased corresponding to the curtailment of waste water discharge from existing oil production as required for adequate pipe capacity flows. 4. Development of the areas tributary to the Slater Avenue Pump Station should be postponed until the pump station improvements are completed or until other interim methods are approved. 5. All industrial and commercial users should take on-site measures to reduce the load strength of their sewerage discharge. 6. Developers should pay the required connection fees to either O.C.S.D. No.3 or O.C.S.D. No. 11, whichever is higher at the time of connection to County Trunk lines. 7. Each development should be responsible for the construction of sewer facilities within their project and/or off-site facilities necessary to serve the July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.18-8 development. If it is required to oversize these facilities so as to serve other future projects, the developer can enter into a reimbursement agreement with the City so that future developers pay their fair share when they develop. This reimbursement procedure is per the City Ordinance Code. 8. Discretionary permits should not be approved for development of an area until adequate sewer service alignments and capacities are demonstrated. 4.18.4 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE The project in conjunction with other past, present and reasonable foreseeable future projects will contribute to an incremental increase in sewer discharge. However, with the implementation of the suggested sewer mitigation measures and with the upgraded Slater Avenue Pump Station, impacts to the City's sewer system are not considered significant. July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 4.18-9 i HOLLY - SEACLIFF GPA FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 5.0 5.0 FISCAL IMPACT (COST/REVENUE) ANALYSIS This section presents an analysis of the potential fiscal impact of the Holly-Seacliff project on the City of Huntington Beach. This section is based upon a "Fiscal Impact Analysis" prepared by Williams-Kuebelbeck & Associates, Inc. This report contains additional information as well as analysis of alternatives. This report may be found under separate cover in Volume 11. The purpose of this study is to determine whether or not the development of the area, as proposed, is consistent with sound fiscal planning for the City. The following analysis addresses the proposed development of 768 acres in central Huntington Beach. The cost/revenue analysis will determine whether or not the public fiscal benefits of the proposed development are greater than the incremental public costs of the development. To the extent that public revenues generated exceed the public costs, there will be a net positive fiscal impact to the City of Huntington Beach. It should be noted that in addition to any fiscal impact, the Holly Seacliff proposal would also have a potential economic impact on the City, especially in areas of construction payrolls, material purchases, employment, household, and visitor spending. General Methodoloav The general methodology used for calculating the average per acre revenue and cost multipliers by land used for the Holly Seacliff Study Area follows: o An interview with the City of Huntington Beach Finance Director to review the structure of the City budget and identify the type of each budget fund such as operating, internal service, capital, and the like. July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 5.0-1 o Analysis of each operating budget fund .to allocate costs and revenues by category to existing development (ongoing operating revenues and costs) and new development (one-time revenues and costs). o Projection of major categories of ongoing operating revenues (property taxes, sales taxes, business license taxes) and costs to those land uses which generate them and calculation of average per unit costs (police costs) by land use for the Study Area based on anticipated development and economic characteristics and expressed in per acre revenues/costs. o Allocation of other categories of ongoing operating revenues and costs to those land uses which generate them and calculation of average per unit (per acres, per capita or per employee) multipliers. It should be noted that general government costs (City administration and public works) are averaged across all land uses assuming each contributes its "share" to these costs. o Aggregation of individual categories of ongoing operating revenues and costs into a single per acre revenue and cost factor for each use. All revenues and costs are presented in constant 1988 dollars. Derivation of Revenue and Costs Factors Average per acre revenue and costs factors were developed for each of the residential density categories and major commercial/industrial land use categories. These factors were developed using a computer model which includes the assumptions, makes the necessary calculations, and derives the projected per acre cost/revenue factors for each use. The schedules and cost/revenue factors presented reflect the densities and land use assumptions of the existing General Plan and the Proposed Land Use Plan for the Holly Seacliff Area. July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 5.0-2 1. Land Use Density Assumptions Projections of property taxes, retail sales taxes, business license taxes, and police operating costs are based on the density of proposed development and appropriate development values, sales generation factors, and other assumptions. Residential densities, expressed in the number of Dwelling Units (DU's) per acre for the existing General Plan and the Proposed Land use are as follows: Table 35 Average DU's Per Acre Residential Category Proposed GPA Existing General PIan Estate 3.06 3.09 Low Density 5.80 NA Medium Density 10.97 14.85 Medium High Density 19.49 NA Planned Community/High Density NA 34.70 The density of commercial and industrial uses are based upon typical parking ratios, parking space sizes, and landscaping requirements for developments in each of the broad categories examines. These assumptions are utilized to estimate an average floor area ratio (FAR) for each use, representing building area expressed as a fraction of total site area. For example, an FAR of 1.0 would mean an acre (43,560 square feet) of site area would accommodate 43,560 of building area. While office densities often exceed a FAR of 1.0, and can be as high as 15.0 for skyscrapers in dense urban environments, office FAR's typically do not exceed 0.5. Similarly, FAR's for other commercial developments with surface parking range from 0.25 to 0.50. July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 5.0-3 The following table indicates the Floor Area Ratios that applies for both the existing General Pian and the Proposed Land Use Plan. Table 36 Floor Area Ratios LAND USE Effective Floor Area Ratio Commercial Convenience/Neighborhood .25 Community .25 Mixed Development (Commercial) .31 Office/Professional .35 Industrial Industrial 1 .41 Industrial 2 .41 Resource Production .00 2. Property Values & Property Tax Revenue The largest share of revenues generated by most urban land uses, except for retail projects, is comprised of property tax revenues. These revenues are based on property values. Residential dwelling unit values are expressed as estimated average home prices. As would be expected, lower density residential developments typically command higher limit values. For commercial and industrial categories, estimated property values are based on estimated current average land values for each use based on market analyses and building construction costs. Estimated building value per square foot is multiplied by estimated building floor area based on the FAR's presented in the preceding section to derive total building value per acre. These building values are then added to estimated land values per acre to derive total property values for each use. This kind of analysis reveals that high-density residential uses and office developments are expected to generate the highest land values and therefore the greater property tax revenues to the City. Resource production uses, low-density July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 5.0-4 residential projects and industrial development generate the lowest property taxes of the private uses, while public property is exempt from local property taxes and hence generates no revenues to the City. A schedule of projected property values and property taxes per acre for both the proposed General Plan Amendment and the existing General Plan according to land use is shown below: Table 37 Projected Property Values and Property Taxes GPA GP (existing) Prop. Tax Prop. Tax to City to City Dwelling of H.B. of H.B. Unit Value Per Acre Per Acre RESIDENTIAL Estate 550,000 2,947 2,976 Low Density 400,000 4,063 NA Medium Density 275,000 5,280 7,146 Medium-High Density 225,000 7,673 NA High Density/Planned Community 175,000 NA 10,626 MIXED DEVELOPMENT Residential 250,000 6,297 NA Commercial 3,097 NA COMMERCIAL Convenience/Neighborhood 2,859 2,859 Community 2,859 2,859 Office/Professional NA 3,488 INDUSTRIAL Industrial 1 3,255 NA Industrial NA 2,790 Resource Production NA 8 RECREATION/OPEN SPACE Neighborhood 0 City-wide 0 0 Linear Park 0 0 PUBLIC FACILITIES Utilities--substation 0 0 July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 5.0-5 2. Retail Sales Tax Revenues The schedule in Table No. 38 presents the projected retail sales tax revenues generated per acre by each of the proposed land uses offered by the Proposed Land Use Plan and under the existing General Plan. These schedules reveal that only retail activities directly generate sales tax revenues. Residential development contributes to a City's retail sales tax potential by injecting additional income, and hence buying power, into a community. For the purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that office and industrial uses generate no retail sales, While industrial uses produce a small amount through on-site sales of retail goods. For residential uses the potential for retail sales generation is based on the estimated income of households residing in each type of development and their propensity to spend on retail expenditures within Huntington Beach. For commercial uses, projected retail sales tax generation is based on square foot sales factors and the density of development. The tables below indicate that while residential uses contribute to a small extent to the City's potential retail sales tax base, commercial uses make the greatest contribution to sales tax revenue. July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 5.0-6 Table 38 PROJECTED RETAIL SALES TAX REVENUES GPA GP (existing) Annual Annual Sales Sales Taxes Taxes LAND USE Per Acre Per Acre RESIDENTIAL Estate 1,056 1,066 Low• Density 1,456 NA Medium Dcnsity 1,892 2,560 Medium-High Density 2,749 NA High Dcnsit%./Planned Community NA 3,807 Mixed Development Residential 2,256 NA COMMERCIAL Convenience:Neighborhood 16,335 16,335 Community NA 13,068 Officc!Profcs,ional NA NA Mixed Development Commercial 20,419 NA INDUSTRIAL Industrial 1 1,250 NA Industrial 2 NA 1,786 Resource Production NA 0 RECREATION/OPEN SPACE Neighborhood 0 0 City-wide 0 0 Linear Park 0 0 PUBLIC FACILITIES Utilities--substation 0 0 July 21. 1969 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GP:t 4221,102.009 :.0-; •4, 4. Business License Tax Revenues Commercial and industrial uses generate business license fees or taxes to the City of Huntington Beach. The license fee schedule for the City is based on the number of employees per business, with a sliding scale such that the larger the business, the lower the fee per employee. The following table presents the projected average business license tax generation for both the proposed and permitted land uses in the Holly-Seacliff area. These projections are based on the estimated number of employees per acre. Table 39 Projected Business License Taxes GPA GP Business Business License License Taxes Taxes LAND USE Per Acre Per Acre COMMERCIAL Convenience/Neighborhood 162 162 Community NA 162 Office/Professional NA 305 Mixed Development (Commercial) 162 NA INDUSTRIAL Industrial 1 255 NA Industrial 2 NA 130 Resource Production NA 30 5. Police Operating Costs As in many cities, the costs of providing police protection comprise the largest single item in the budget for the City of Huntington Beach. Projections of police operating costs by land use were derived from the number of police calls by land use obtained from the City Police Department and an estimated average cost per call. Since the total police budget was used in this calculation, the estimated annual cost per call of $199 includes all labor and overhead expenses. Finally, the estimated annual cost per call was multiplied by the estimated number of calls per acre by land use to derive average annual police service costs per acre. July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 5.0-8 The results of this analysis are shown in the following table. Table 40 Police Operating Cost Assumptions GPA GP (existing) Estimated Estimated Police Police Cost Cost Land Use Per Acre Per Acre RESIDENTIAL Estate 298 301 Low Density 565 0 Medium Density 1,514 2,049 Medium-High Density 2,689 0 High Density/Planned Community NA 3,768 COMMERCIAL Convenience/Neighborhood 934 934 Community NA 788 Office/Professional NA 1,104 MIXED DEVELOPMENT Residential 1,986 0 Commercial 1,168 0 INDUSTRIAL Industrial 1 1,189 NA Industrial 2 NA 1,189 Resource Production NA 0 RECREATION/OPEN SPACE Neighborhood 0 0 City-wide 0 0 Linear Park 0 0 PUBLIC FACILITIES Utilities--substation 0 0 6. Other Operating Cost and Revenue Assumptions Other major items in the City of Huntington Beach operating budget include public works costs and fire protection services. While estimating the costs of each of these items directly by land use would be preferable, the City does not currently have July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 5.0-9 i simplified methods for allocating these costs among the various land uses on a per acre basis. Thus, for these costs, as well as general governmental expenditures, an average multiplier approach was used to allocate certain categories of revenues which are attributable to residential or all land uses. The calculation of the average revenue and cost multipliers is shown in Table No. 41. First, the individual categories of revenues and expenditures in the budget were examined to determine those representing one-time revenues and costs associated with new development. Since these revenues and costs are only incurred when a project is initially developed, they do not represent ongoing operating revenues and costs generated throughout the life of the development. They generate no net impact to the City. The revenues and costs in each broad budget category associated with existing development, and hence representing ongoing revenues and costs, form the basis for the calculation of multipliers in the table. Second, the categories of revenues and costs were examined to determine the primary land uses which generate them. In the absence of more detailed information on the actual contribution of each land use to the generation of these costs, revenues and costs associated with all land uses have been allocated to residential and commercial/industrial uses based on the number of developed acres of each use currently in the City as a ratio of total developed acreage within the City. Residential uses have been allocated 78 percent cf the revenues and costs in those categories generally associated with all "urban" land uses, with commercial/industrial uses accounting for the remaining 22 percent. Third, total revenues and costs attributed to each land use category are translated into per unit multipliers. For residential uses, this is done by dividing total revenues and costs by the current population in the City (estimated at 187,700 persons) to produce per capita revenue and cost multipliers. Higher-density residential __ development is thus appropriately allocated a larger share of population-based costs and revenues than lower-density residential uses. For commercial and industrial uses, total revenues and costs allocated to these uses are divided by the number of developed acres in these uses (estimated at 3,080 acres July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 5.0-10 including institutional uses) to derive per acre multipliers. These multipliers are then adjusted by the ratio of employees per acre for each land use to the estimated average number of employees per acre for all commercial/industrial uses to derive adjusted average revenue and cost multipliers for each use. The purpose of this adjustment is to attempt to account for differences in the intensity of various commercial/industrial land uses, and hence their requirements for municipal services. Revenues from oil licenses are divided by the estimated 126 acres currently in resource production uses to generate a per acre revenue multiplier for this use. The resulting per unit cost and revenue multipliers for these uses are summarized in the following table. Table 41 Estimated Allocation of Cost/Revenues By Land Use Category 1988 Annual Other Operating Costs and Revenue Assumptions Costs/Revenues Res. Comm/Ind Res.Prod Total Revenues Attributed to Land Use 22,554,000 19,394,741 2,359,259 0 Total Per Unit Revenue Multiplier 103.33 765.99 0 Total Costs Attributed to Land Use 46,384,800 37,629,814 8,754,986 0 Total Per Unit Cost Multiplier 200.48 2,842.53 0 7. Total Operating Revenue and Cost Factors Per Acre The final step in the calculation of average fiscal impact factors is to combine the individual revenue and cost factors described previously, also on a per acre basis, into one overall revenue factor and one overall cost factor for each land use. The resulting factors, and the corresponding net revenues/costs per acre derived by subtracting the cost factor from the revenue factor, are summarized in the following table. July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 5.0-11 I Table 42 Revenue & Cost Factors Per Acre Comparison Proposed GPA Existing GP TOTAL TOTAL NET TOTAL TOTAL NET PER ACRE PER ACRE REVENUES/ PER ACRE PER ACRE REVENUES/ REVENUE COST COSTS REVENUE COST COSTS FACTOR FACTOR PER ACRE FACTOR FACTOR PER ACRE RESIDENTIAL Estate 5,038 2,306 2,732 5,086 2,328 2,758 Low Density 7,480 4,371 3,110 NA 0 NA Medium Density 9,630 6,089 3,441 12,897 8,241 4,657 Medium-High Density 13,946 9,526 4,420 NA 0 NA High Density/Planned Community NA NA NA 20,706 15,940 4,766 COMMERCIAL Convenience/Neighborhood 19,947 3,127 16,819 19,947 3,127 16,819 Community NA NA NA 16,680 2,981 13,698 Office Professional NA NA NA 6,128 6,058 ( 930) MIXED DEVELOPMENT Residential 11,402 7,512 3,889 NA 0 NA Commercial 24,464 3,929 20,634 NA 0 NA INDUSTRIAL Industrial 4,626 5,331 ( 704) NA 0 NA Industrial NA NA NA 3,489 3,300 189 Resource Production NA NA NA 267 812 ( 666) RECREATION/OPEN SPACE Neighborhood 0 3,500 (3,500) 0 3,50G ( 3,600) City-wide 0 3,500 (3,500) 0 3,600 ( 3,500) Linear Park 0 3,500 ( 3,500) 0 3,500 ( 3,500) PUBLIC FACILITIES Utilities--substation 0 0 0 0 0 0 July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 5.0-12 IMPLICATIONS OF REVENUE/COST FACTORS A review of the revenue and cost factors shown in the previous table suggests the following preliminary indications about the overall fiscal impacts of each land use proposed for the Holly Seacliff Area: o As expected, commercial retail uses are most beneficial to the City from a fiscal perspective, producing a very large net surplus per acre, due to their sales tax generating potential. o Due to the relatively high development values of anticipated residential development and the correspondingly high property taxes generated, residential uses are considered to generate a positive operating fiscal impact to the City, varying by density of use. High density residential uses, with their lower per unit values and greater municipal service requirements, are the least beneficial from a fiscal standpoint with just better than break-even performance. o Due to fewer revenues and relatively higher municipal service requirements generated by office and industrial 1 (R&D oriented industrial uses), these uses are projected to generate a slightly negative net fiscal impact on the City budget. While lower intensity industrial (Industrial 2) uses generate fewer property tax revenues they also require fewer municipal services, and therefore have a slightly positive net impact on the City. o Despite minimal municipal service requirements, resource production uses generate a slightly negative impact to the City due to their very low land values and property taxes. These projections assume that oil can continue to be extracted from the Study Area at approximately the current rate even if virtually all the property is developed with urban uses, as has occurred in other parts of the City. July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 5.0-13 o It should be noted that the General Plan level of analysis in this report required the formulation of many assumptions and the fiscal impact projections cannot be refined without greater detail on planned development within the Holly Seacliff area. Summary of Findings o The Proposed Land Use Plan and the Existing General Plan are expected to generate a positive net operating impact to the City of Huntington Beach during the development period and at build-out. This operating surplus is projected to increase with each subsequent development phase. Thus, neither of the two plans is anticipated to have a negative impact on the City's ability to provide on going municipal services. The Existing General Plan is projected to generate the highest net operating surplus to the City with $3.0 million annually at build out. The Proposed Land Use Plan is lower in terms of net fiscal impact with an annual surplus of $2.6 million per year. o The greatest variation in revenues between these two plans is found in the category of sales taxes. The Existing. General Plan proposes the greatest amount of commercial development and generates the highest level of sales tax revenues ($2.9 million per year at build-out). The Proposed Land Use Plan contains the smaller share of commercial uses and generates fewer sales tax revenues ($2.2 million annually at build- out). o The Existing General Plan also generates the highest level of property tax revenues, ($3.8 million annually at build-out) due to the greater number of residential dwelling units, and overall highest intensity of development. The proposed Land Use Plan is close behind, generating $3.4 million in property taxes per year at build-out. o On the cost side, the higher intensity of development under the Existing General Plan is associated with higher operating costs (a total of $5.6 July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 5.0-14 million per year at the end of Phase IV). The Proposed Land Use Plan generates $4.9 million annually at build-out. o Since each of these plans are expected to generate a significant positive net operating impact to the City at build-out and throughout the development period, the findings of the fiscal impact analysis suggest that other factors should be given serious consideration in the selection of a preferred alternative. Such factors might include traffic generation, land use compatibility, employment opportunities, and overall desirability of the land use plan. July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 5.0-1 S LONG-TERM IMPLICATIONS OF THE. HOLLY - SEACLIFF GPA PROPOSED PROJECT CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 6.0 6.0 LONG-TERM IMPLICATIONS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT 6.1 THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM USES OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY A majority of the 768-acre project site is presently undeveloped or is utilized for oil operations. Oil activities are expected to be phased out and consolidated as the area is developed. As a result, there will be continued short term use of the land for oil extraction. Since productivity of the wells has been decreasing over the years, the project will not have a long term effect on the overall oil productivity in the region. In fact, the project is a logical land use conversion due to the decline in oil well productivity. Over the long term, this project will have a positive impact on the area as oil facilities are phased out and cleaned up. This area of Huntington Beach will become a more intensively utilized part of the community. The project site is characterized by large areas of under utilized and vacant land. Implementation of the proposed project represents a long-*erm commitment of the land to urban uses. The anticipated 50 to 75 year lifespan of structures represents a short-term 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 will contribute to cumulative impacts related to urbanization, traffic, traffic-related noise levels, changes in topography, loss of open space habitats, runoff rates and volume, ground water recharge, light and glare, cultural resources, population, and public services and utilities. It should be noted that these impacts will be less than what would occur under the existing General Plan. Short-term July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF CPA 422102.009 6.0-1 impacts of the project include localized increases in noise and a temporary decrease in air quality associated with construction activities. The project area represents 4 percent of land area in Huntington Beach, nearly all of which is urbanized at this time. For a more detailed discussion of the level of significance of these impacts, please refer to the appropriate environmental section within this EIR. The development of the project represents a continuation of urban growth and development that is already occurring within the immediate area, in the City of Huntington Beach and Orange County as whole. Lands immediately to the north and west designated as open space will be maintained for long term public use. Major positive long term impacts resulting from the development will include: greater economic productivity from the creation of new sources of revenues and an increased supply of housing for the City of Huntington Beach. Additionally, 89 acres of open space will be provided and the long term aesthetic appearance of the site will be enhanced. 6.2 SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES WHICH WOULD BE INVOLVED IN THE PROPOSED ACTIONS Approval of the proposed General Plan Amendment will allow for the construction of a maximum of 4,410 dwelling units. Buildout of the site under existing General Plan designations would allow for the construction of 5,848 dwelling units. With the proposed development scenario, demands on public services and infrastructure will be less than that allowed under the existing General Plan. Oil production facilities would be consolidated and eventually phased out. Project implementation will irreversibly commit the undeveloped portion of the project site to urban land uses. After the 50 to 75 year structural lifespan of the buildings is reached, redevelopment will take place in the natural cycle of community growth. However, oil production impacts will be reduced or eliminated which will be a positive environmental change. July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 6.0-2 I Several irreversible commitments of limited resources will result from implementation of the proposed project. These resources include wood products, sand and gravel, asphalt, petrochemical construction materials, various metals, and water. The proposed project involves an irreversible commitment of labor and capital investment and an increased demand for social and public maintenance services. The commitment of limited resources will be less than allowed by the existing General Plan. 6.3 GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS According to the CEQA Guidelines, this section is concerned with "... the ways in which the proposed project could foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment." It should not be assumed that growth in any area is necessarily beneficial, detrimental, or of little significance to the environment. Development of the site will convert currently undeveloped land to an urbanized environment. Most of the surrounding area located in the City of Huntington Beach has been developed or is already approved for development. The City of Huntington Beach General Plan designates the project site for residential, commercial, industrial, office and resource production uses. The project is a logical extension of urban development. It is not expected to create new development pressures on undeveloped parcels in the local area or surrounding region. Short-term employment opportunities will be made available by construction activities occurring at the project site. Long-term employment opportunities will be created with the development of industrial and commercial land uses. The proposed GPA decreases potential city employment by nine percent in comparison to the existing General Plan. The project will assist in meeting the areas' housing demands by providing additional housing and recreational opportunities in the City of Huntington Beach. Development of the proposed project will increase housing opportunities within the project area. Buildout of the proposed General Plan Amendment will create 4,410 July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 6.0-3 additional dwellings, housing a population of approximately 10,888 persons. The GPA proposes 25 percent less dwelling units than the existing General Plan which consequently reduces overall growth inducing impacts. This availability of housing- may attract people from outside the local vicinity which would in turn foster economic growth within the City and local community. The project does not foster additional population growth in surrounding areas but is site-specific. In any case, population growth occurring as a result of the project will be less than population growth projected by the City's General Plan. Public service infrastructure will be designed to meet City standards. It is not expected that this extension of infrastructure will facilitate future growth in the area, but serve what has already been planned. The project will not remove major obstacles to population growth which would adversely effect the environment. The growth-inducing impacts of the proposed project are not considered significant. July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 6.0-4 HOLLY - SEACLIFF GPA ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PLAN,. CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 7.0 7.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT The intent of this section is to describe several reasonable alternatives to the proposed project. According to State Guidelines, an EIR should present alternatives which are capable of eliminating any significant adverse environmental impacts or reducing them to a level of insignificance, even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives or would be more costly. The project alternatives analyzed in this chapter are: (1) The No Development Alternative; (2) The No Project Alternative; (3) The Industrial Alternative; and (4) The Residential Alternative. A matrix comparing the environmental impacts of these project alternatives with one another and with the proposed project is contained in the Executive Summary, section 1.0 under the Project Alternatives Matrix. The matrix clearly identifies which areas of impact may be lessened or increased by the implementation of different alternatives. To evaluate what would occur in the project area with changes to employment related uses, the Industrial Alternative (3) and The Residential Alternative (4) were developed. These alternatives were selected based upon input from public workshops and in-depth discussions with the City of Huntington Beach. The Industrial Alternative was developed to test the concept of retaining industrial i uses south on the re-aligned Gothard Street to Garfield Avenue. This would be a continuation of the industrial corridor which is existing presently north of the project area. The intent of this concept is to provide an employment center close to the downtown area. _- The Residential Alternative was developed to test what would occur with the total elimination of industrial uses from the project area. In this alternative, residential uses replaced the industrial uses along realigned Gothard Street. In this alternative, a July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 7.0-1 L E G E N D OPEN SPACE GENERAL PLAN W RECREATION AC2-01- GENERAL ROS-O-CD COMMERCIAL Estate 52un/gac I j N, Estates 3 un/gac E}}is Avenue -CD Estates 4 un/gac E TAT RA-0 EST E 7M, 7 RA-0-CD 5 un/g CIOe 00o co 5 2 Un/ lac M7-01-CD Medium Density _ M1-01 RA-0 LU•D-CD RA-O-CD General Commercial LU-O-CD -- Office Professional RA-O RAC-p1• RA-0-CD 2 General Industrial M2-0 2 O Resource Production 7)-O•8,000 RA-0-CD LU-O-CD RA-O GENERAL a INDUSTRIAL - 0 Recreation Open space ES ATE-5 4 u /gac RA-0 � Planned Community RA-01 RA-O-CD LU-O-CD MI-O ES ATE RA-0 MI-A- Ml-O•CD pp Coastal zone Boundary 52 /gac M1-CD 0?1 MZ-o1 RA-Ot-CZ MI-O7 M7-A- RA-pi E 01-co OPE RA-O-CD OP ZONING SPACE 1-A-C M7-o OP R2 Low Density REC EATIO M�CD 1 M'coO1 RA-O oa R' Residential District _.. _ Medium Density RA- n N.11d Avenue R2 Residential District Z R4 Multi Family 4-0-CZ RA-01-CD M1 R2 OFFICE Residence District c1-o M2-o1 RA-0 MEDIUM PROFESSIONAL RA Agricultural District RESOPRODUURResidential CE -CD DENSITY Mi Light Industrial District RA-0 PLANNED M2-01-CD M2 Industrial District Neighborhood COMMUNITY R2 C' Commercial District Community Business Rt ] C2 District R7-CD OP Office-Professional 2- District Ra-o ; GENE AL C2-p RO� Open Space C O M M E C I A L rc� Civic District CCD L� Limited Use 1°0 `g CZ Coastal Zone Suffix C2-O-CD „` C2 IO/O 1 Off Combining Districts CD o Yorktown Avenue r EXHIBIT 35 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH EXISTING GENERAL PLAN /ZONING HMLlf �Lr—/;�1CL IFIF M LS(�1 LJ lllllllll I I I I __ larger amount of commercial area was assumed to provide employment opportunities and to accommodate the increased residential areas. All four alternatives are further discussed below: No Project Alternative Under the No Project Alternative, the General Plan designation for the site would remain Planned Community, Resource Production, General Commercial, Medium Density, Estate Residential, General Industrial, Professional Office and Open Space Recreational as illustrated in Exhibit 35. This alternative assumes that development takes place with these designations and densities, rather than that the site is left in its present vacant/oil production use. Due to the presence of the surrounding residential and light industrial development and the site's existing designations, the No Project Alternative would probably delay development of the site because these designations are not consistent with demands in the marketplace. The existing industrial designation encourages the present type of industrial to remain and has hampered overall clean-up and transition of the area to different uses. The western portion of the site which accounts for 134 acres of the site is zoned for high density residential at 35 dwelling units per acre, which would result in a significant impact to this portion of the site as surrounding developments are at much lower densities. Development under the General Plan would permit 465 acres of residential, with the majority of that devoted to Estate and Planned Community (Multi-family) development. This translates into a projected total of 5,848 dwelling units. i Commercial and Office/Professional uses would account for 67 and 16 acres of development respectively. Industrial uses would be permitted on 124 acres of the Holly-Seacliff area with 42 acres for Resource Production and 54 acres for Open Space. This alternative would designate less land area for residential development but would provide more residential units due to the underlying R-4 zoning in the Planned Community area as indicated in Table 43. In addition, this alternative would contain July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 7.0-3 more industrial development than the proposed plan. The impacts related to these differences arc discussed below. TABLE 43 General Plan vs Proposed Land Use Plan Land Use General Proposed Net Acre Category Plan Acres Plan Acres Change Residential 465 561 + 96 Mixed Development 0 53 + 53 Commercial 67 11 - 56 Office/Professional 16 0 - 16 Industrial 124 54 -124 Resource Production 42 0 - 42 Open Space 54 89 + 35 Total Acres 768 768 While the impacts to earth resources, and human health and safety would be similar in the No Project Alternative, when compared to the proposed plan, impacts to other resources would be more heavily impacted. These are discussed below. I The No Project Alternative would permit about 25 percent more dwelling units than the proposed plan. This would result in a total of 11,892 persons versus 10,810 persons in the proposed plan. While this does provide for a greater number of housing opportunities in the City, it also creates associated negative impacts. Traffic would be 38 percent greater under the existing General Plan, with a total of 97,281 average daily trips being generated versus 60,368. Consequently, air quality and noise impacts would be also greater than the proposed project. The existing General Plan has several major land use differences from the proposed plan. The No Project Alternative contains a 134 acre parcel in the Seacliff area designated as Planned Community and zoned R-4 which has an allowable density of 35 units per acre. This is inconsistent with land uses surrounding the area. To the north is the Bolsa Chica Wetland area, to the west, the medium density Seacliff golf course community and the low density residential areas just to the south. If this area was developed at this density, there would be greater environmental impacts due to July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 7.0-4 human encroachment into the sensitive Bolsa Chica area where the sensitive wetland and archaeological resources are found along the bluff area and with land use conflicts associated with lower surrounding densities. Another major difference between the two plans is the 124 acres of industrial permitted on the southeastern project area. The proposed plan allows for 54 acres of industrial use focused around the intersections of the major arterials - Garfield Avenue and Goldenwest Street. Development of the No Project Alternative would put industrial uses in close proximity to residential uses east of Huntington Street and would more heavily impact the sensitive landforms in that area due to the grading needs of larger industrial pads. In contrast, the proposed plan would reduce the area for industrial uses which would result in a more focused business area, with a more carefully defined range of uses through Specific Plans to be adopted for those areas. The No Project Alternative only contains 54 acres of open space in the western portion of the project area. Important archaeological resources and the border of the environmentally sensitive Bolsa Chica Wetlands adjoin the project all along the western project boundary. Under the proposed plan and the industrial and residential alternatives, 89 acres of open space are proposed including a linear park which would protect these sensitive elements. Impacts to cultural and biological resources would be greater with this alternative than the proposed project due to development intensity and reduced open space along the bluff top area. The General Plan scenario would significantly increase demands both on the existing circulation system in the area and on City services. Impacts associated with land use, population, cultural and biological resources, aesthetics, hydrology/drainage, natural resources, and light and glare would be greater than the proposed plan due to the higher intensities of residential and industrial development permitted under this- alternative. These impacts are further explained below. LAND USE Increased land use conflicts between adjacent residential and general industrial and between planned community and low density homes along the golf course. July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 7.0-5 WATER RESOURCES More storm drainage run-off created by the existing General Plan (1%). POPULATION/HOUSING 9 percent increase in persons and 25 percent increase in dwelling units. RECREATION 8 percent increase in park demands. TRAFFIC 28 percent increase in average daily trips. AIR QUALITY Increased vehicular and construction equipment emissions by 37.9 to 38.0 percent over proposed project. NOISE Significant increases to potential off-site traffic noise impacts. In excess of 3 dBA along Garfield and Ellis Avenues and Edwards Street versus proposed plan where this increase only occurs along Garfield Avenue. LIGHT AND GLARE Significant increase in light and glare due to 25 percent more dwelling units. CULTURAL/PALEONTOLOGICAL Increase in impact to sensitive resources existing in the western project area due to higher densities adjacent to bluffs. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Same as above. NATURAL RESOURCES 25 percent increase in use of electricity and 27 percent increase in gas use. July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 7.0-6 PUBLIC SERVICES Greater demand on fire, police, and library services. 25 percent increase on the generation of solid waste. WATER AND SEWER 18 percent increase in water demand and 28 percent increase in sewerage generation. All impacts over 10% are considered as potentially significant. In summary, the No Project Alternative would result in environmental impacts greater than those associated with the proposed project. This alternative is not considered environmentally superior. 7.2 No Development Alternative The California Environmental Quality Act requires that all environmental impact reports include comparative evaluation of the "No Development" Alternative. This alternative would retain the site in its existing condition and assumes no further development of the site. In general, this alternative would be environmentally superior to the proposed project. The existing land uses would continue undisturbed within the project area. All conditions associated with the area would remain at current levels and therefore impacts to many resources would be less than the build-out of other alternatives. Specifically the following resources would undergo lesser impacts: LAND USE The land would remain undeveloped and as a result, the vacant areas (approximately 50 percent of the project site) would not be converted to urban uses. AESTHETICS Visual impacts due to the conversion of vacant land to urbanized uses would be eliminated. July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 7.0-7 EARTH RESOURCES Because no changes would be made to the existing topography, impacts to earth resources are expected to be less under this scenario. WATER RESOURCES Impacts to water supply should be less, eliminating the need for an additional demand of 1,041 gallons per minute of treated water. POPULATION/HOUSING This alternative would not contribute the additional 10,810 people or the additional 4,410 dwelling units to the area, which would be a lesser impact than the proposed Land Use Plan. RECREATION The demand for recreational facilities would be greatly reduced with this alternative. The demand for 54 acres of park land would be eliminated. TRANSPORTATION The No Development Alternative would not alter existing traffic conditions, therefore preventing the addition of 60,368 average daily trips onto the circulation system. AIR QUALITY Due to the reduced number of cars travelling in and out of the project area, and the lack of the use of construction equipment, impacts to air quality would be greatly reduced. A total reduction of 5.05 tons per day of particulate matter, approximately 23 pounds per day of carbon monoxide, 99 pounds per day of nitrogen oxides, 10 pounds per day of hydrocarbons, 7.4 pounds per day of sulfur oxides and 6.5 pounds per day of particulates due to construction equipment. Pollutants from vehicular emissions would also be reduced as follows: July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 7.0-8 VEHICULAR EMISSIONS (TONS PER DAY) Co NOx Sox Part. TOG ROG 6.41 0.99 0.18 0.22 0.56 0.50 Co - Carbon Monoxide Part. - Particulates NOx - Nitrogen Oxide TOG - Total Organic Gases SOx - Sulfur Oxides ROG - Reactive Organic Gases Emissions generated from the combustion of natural gas and electrical usage would also be eliminated. NOISE Impacts due to construction and traffic noise would be reduced. The significant impact of the proposed project to the noise level due to off-site traffic noise would be eliminated. In addition noise levels on-site for existing uses would also remain the same rather than increasing levels over 65 CNEL in some cases. LIGHT AND GLARE Potential impacts due to light and glare would be eliminated due to no development being undertaken. CULTURAL RESOURCES Impacts due to the removal of archaeological and paleontological resources would also be removed. The project site contains nine registered archaeological sites, a newly discovered site, numerous shell and lithic scatters which require further evaluation, as well as rock units assigned a paleontologic sensitivity which indicates the potential for fossil discovery. These areas would remain in their present degraded condition under the No Development Alternative. July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 7.0-9 BIOLOGICAL Impacts to biological resources would be less than the proposed plan as the vacant areas which now contain "ruderal annual grassland" and provide habitat for a variety of non-sensitive species would not be eliminated. In addition wetland areas would also be retained in their present condition. NATURAL RESOURCES Impacts to natural resources would also be less than the proposed plan due to the elimination of the demands for 2,063,500 Therms per year of gas and 25,768,386 KWH per year of electricity. PUBLIC SERVICES Impacts to demand for fire protection, police services, library and schools would all be reduced with this scenario. 22,932,000 pounds per year of solid waste would be eliminated. WATER AND SEWER FACILITIES Impacts due to the demand for 1,041 gallons per minute of treated water and 1,141,750 gallons per day of effluent would be eliminated. The no development alternative is considered environmentally superior to the proposed plan and its alternatives. 7.3 Industrial Alternative The Industrial Alternative would provide additional acreage for industrial development than is shown in the proposed Plan. This alternative shows a continuation of the industrial uses south along Gothard Street. Exhibit 36 illustrates the Industrial Alternative land uses. July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 7.0-10 TABLE 44 Industrial Alternative vs Proposed Land Use Plan Land Use Industrial Proposed Net Acre Category Acres Plan Acres Change Estate Residential 193 209 - 16 Low Density Residential 174 174 0 Medium Density Residential 113 139 - 26 Medium High Density Residential 77 39 + 38 Mixed Development 53 53 0 Commercial 7 11 - 4 Industrial 62 54 + 8 Open Space 89 89 0 Development under this alternative would permit residential development at levels very similar to those offered by the proposed plan. This alternative contains 557 acres for residential use, while the proposed plan would offer 561 acres. It would also permit similar mixed use acreage and similar open space acreages along the western edges of the area. This alternative allows an additional 8 acres of industrial development. In providing this acreage, this alternative would decrease commercial areas by 4 acres and adds 4 acres to residential use. This alternative would continue the already established industrial corridor south along Gothard Street from where it stops currently at Ellis Avenue. This would create compatibility with industrial uses to the north and with the existing Police Heliport also to the north and would separate potential industrial and residential traffic along Gothard Street. As previously stated, this alternative provides for total residential development acreage similar to the proposed Plan, but the mix of development would allow higher densities than what is offered under the proposed Plan. These higher densities are most significant along the western and eastern edges of the Holly-Seacliff area. While the proposed plan has 16 acres of Estate Residential development along an area of the bluffs bordering the Bolsa Chica wetlands, the Industrial Alternative would permit 16 acres of Medium Density development. Estate Residential allows development at 3.5 dwelling units per acre in this area while Medium Density Residential would allow up to 12 units per acre. If maximum build-out density under both plans were achieved, almost three and one half times as many dwelling units July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 7.0-11 would be located in this area under the Industrial Alternative than what would be permitted under the proposed Plan. On the eastern edge of the Holly Seacliff Area, next to an existing residential neighborhood, 10 acres of medium-high density residential development is proposed under the Industrial Alternative. The proposed plan designates Medium Density Residential development for this transition area. Medium Density Residential development in this area would allow 8.3 dwelling units per acre while the Medium-High Residential development would allow construction of 20 dwelling units per acre. If build-out under both alternatives were realized, 200 dwelling units would be permitted next to an existing neighborhood under the Industrial Alternative compared with the 83 units under the proposed plan. The distinguishing feature of this alternative is the additional 8 acres of industrial development or 17 percent more than the proposed Plan. However, when the number of employees are compared, this alternative generates 9 percent less than the proposed Plan due to the types of industrial uses planned. This acreage would be located on the corner east of Gothard Street and south of Ellis Avenue. Impacts to Earth Resources, Oil Facilities, Human Health and Safety, would be similar to those of the proposed plan. These higher development densities and uses, along with their locations would create impacts that would be greater than those associated with the proposed Plan as detailed below. AESTHETIC I Greater impact due to higher densities along western project area next to linear park. POPULATION/HOUSING Greater impact due to 5 percent more persons caused by 9 percent more housing than proposed Plan. July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 7.0-12 m W 16 Lu >" OS ; 40 AC c `o • L Ellis Jkl—lea.-IMIL 1 - ' E ' I1 1 1 1 -3.6 DWAC 1 i 1 ---------- 1 AILSUIpII L ------ L 60 AC 19 AC m 1 4 ' .3,ODU MH m 5.2 DUAC 10 AC I 4 ACRE PARK 1 I 20 DWAC 10 '.,,.: E E26 AC 46 AC ) 90 DU \` 140 DU I3.5 DU/AC 3.0 DU/A jam. ------------- I H AC 27 AC / 3 \ --1 r ou Oc 3 PARK J � ' ' a 23 AC ``�� 56 AC 55 C 16 AC I M 165 DU I _ 1 3. DU AC i ' 3 ACRE PARK 10 Dl ISO AC 16 AC 6 AC = 190 DU 12 DU MH !1 /AC ! s AC ` 100 Du 13 AC `` 16.7 DU/A - * Garf MH 4 ield Avenue 18 AC ; 7 AC 22 AC MH 360 DU 330 DU M 1 zo DMACs DwAc 2ao ou M 31 AC 20 AC 20 DU/AC 310 DU 195 DU ,o DWAC 9.8DU/AD STATISTICAL SUMMARY ACRES DU Gj 23 C I 1,AC `\ L 1 M ESTATE 190 585 RESIDENTIAL 150 DU 00 DU 6 AC e 5 DLUAC 7.0 DLI/AC 14 AC 70 DU 1 3 ACRE PARK `\\` 80 U 88 Du/ © LOW DENSITY 174 1010 5 8 DU J RESIDENTIAL 7 W/AC C/qY AVe�Ue Clay Avenue r� MEDIUM DENSITY 113 1255 Iv' I RESIDENTIAL 7-ISW/AG MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY 77 1520 ' J m MID MH RESIDENTIAL M D MIXED DEVELOPMENT 53 475 c • © COMMERCIAL 7 INDUSTRIAL 62 L — Yo}own venue -- 37o DU O S OPEN SPACE 92 5.9 DL VAC TOTAL 768 4845 m 0 i *Potential Alternate Locution For Commercial c 0 g Potential School Site + EXHIBIT 36 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INDUSTRIAL ALTERNATIVE n Q o o 411111111111 I. 1h WATER 6 percent increase in water demand. RECREATION 5 percent increase in parks demand. TRAFFIC/AIR/NOISE One percent greater impact due to higher number of average daily trips. LIGHT AND GLARE Greater impact due to 9 percent more dwelling units. CULTURAL RESOURCES Greater impact due to higher densities in western portion of project. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Greater impact due to higher densities in western portion of project. NATURAL RESOURCES 16 percent increase in gas consumption and 9 percent increase in electricity demand. PUBLIC SERVICES Increased demand for fire safety, police protection, and library services due to 9 percent greater number of dwelling units. 9 percent increase in solid waste generation. WATER AND SEWER 6 percent increase in water demand and 6 percent increase in sewerage loads. Impacts identified above over 10 percent are considered potentially significant. This alternative has been proposed to show an alternative which would offer greater employment opportunities in the Holly-Seacliff area as well as to provide continuity July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 7.0-14 to the existing industrial corridor, promote compatibility and minimize mixing of I industrial and residential traffic along Gothard. Given the negative impacts associated with higher intensity development, and the negative impacts associated with the proposed higher residential development intensities in the western portions of the area, this alternative should be considered environmentally inferior to the Proposed Land Use Plan. 7.4 Residential Alternative The Residential Alternative would provide additional acreage for residential development not provided by the proposed Plan. This plan is proposed as an alternative which contains no industrial areas. Exhibit 37 illustrates the Residential Alternative land uses. TABLE 45 Residential Alternative vs Proposed Land Use Plan Land Use Residential Proposed Net Acre Category Acres Plan Acres Change Estate Residential 209 209 0 Low Density Residential 174 174 0 Medium Density Residential 200 139 + 61 Medium High Density Residential 26 39 - 13 Mixed Development 53 53 0 Commercial 17 11 + 6 Industrial 0 54 - 54 Open Space 89 89 0 Development under this alternative would provide for 4,885 dwelling units which exceeds the proposed Plan by 475 dwelling units, an increase of 11 percent. While 48 additional acres of residential development would be permitted under the Residential Alternative, overall residential densities are similar. The Residential Alternative would provide six (6) additional acres of commercial development, but no acreage devoted to industrial development. Consequently, this alternative would fail to create an employment area in the central part of Huntington Beach and generate 72% less employees than the proposed Plan. Only the 13 acre retail site at the corner of July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 7.0-15 Goldenwest Street and Garfield Avenue along with the 4 acre site at Main and Gothard Streets would provide new employment or revenue opportunities. Like the Industrial Alternative and the proposed plan, no Office/Professional or Resource Production acreage is being proposed, and 89 acres of open space is being proposed. Impacts related to land use, earth and water resources, traffic noise, cultural and natural resources, oil facilities, health and safety and sewer facilities are all anticipated to be similar to the proposed project. Impacts compared to the proposed Plan are detailed below. AESTHETICS Impacts to aesthetic value of area are expected to be less due to the less intense nature of residential versus industrial uses. POPULATION/HOUSING Population increase by 9 percent and number of dwelling units by 10 percent. RECREATION Increase in parks demand of 8 percent. AIR QUALITY Decrease in total emissions due to elimination of industrial uses. LIGHT AND GLARE Impacts expected to be less due to elimination of industrial type uses. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Impacts expected to be less than the proposed Plan. Influx of wildlife back into the area due to the large areas of residential use which provides more landscaped area. PUBLIC SERVICES 10 percent greater rate of solid waste generation. 7 percent decrease in use of natural gas. 10 percent increase in electricity use. July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 7.0-16 0 « '2 - - m a 3 I w N' _ "' OS `a 40 AC U =OI. Ellis� li I _ - I 10 Ac --- -- 2VM- I , 1 3.6 DWAC iNUFAT l ) L 60 AC 310 DU 29 AC 1 — 5.2 DU/AC 240 DU I N I i I I 4 ACRE PARK �' 8.3 DU/AC 11 , � , E 7 AC s 46 AC 60 DU x E \ 140 Du �� DU/AC 26 AC \;\ 3.0 DU/AC I I 90 Du -- 3.5DWAC a fa- I , , -1�OS ; io ac 3 M c s E E eo0 Du 1i DU//AC 10 AC `��� 20 DU/AC 1 56 AC 55 AC M 3 ACRE PARK 165 DU i ; 3.0 5 32 AC =_ 2.9 DWAC ' I 3 ACRE PARK 122 5 i1XJ E I I = MH 5 16 AC 6 AC IDS \ 5 ; 1 3.4 DUI AC a I .7 DU 13 AC I ' M C Garfield Avenue 1sAC I M ; M a Ac o� 12.525 DU 29 AC I 350 DU1 AC M 155 Du 5�ke � `��\- I 1 DWAC I I 22 AC 9.7 DU/AC 265 DU 12DWAC STATISTICAL SUMMARY y�Q - -------------' ACRES DU ' ESTATE 190 585 23LAC I 14 AC METI RESIDENTIAL ,so Du ,00DU \ / L 9nAC a AC 7.o DWAD 14 AC 85 Du 7o Du 6.5 DWAC ; 3ACRE PARK ``\ 80 DU 9.4 DU/AC BB DU/AC LOW DENSITY 174 1010 ' 5.8 DU/AC ; L I RESIDENTIAL A.)W/AC C74 Avenue Clay Avenue Fm MEDIUM DENSITY 113 1255 RESIDENTIAL I �I o MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY 77 1520 m MD FM RESIDENTIAL (/! W 53 AC 10-25 0u/Ac 3 M p MIXED DEVELOPMENT 53 475 c m V°I © COMMERCIAL 7 ti r 63 AIX/C -- INDUSTRIAL 62 EE Yorktown r venue Q$ OPEN SPACE 92 d TOTAL 768 4845 m r N L/ POf w sah Ste C O EXHIBIT 37 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH RESIDENTIAL ALTERNATIVE U�J L�L�11 l� LS[�1 iw w• •o• 7/14/1989 4 percent increase in water use. 2 percent decrease in sewerage generation. Impacts related to land use, earth and water resources, traffic, noise, cultural and natural resources, oil facilities, health and safety and sewer facilities are all anticipated to be similar to the proposed Plan. This alternative would generate the least amount of negative environmental impacts of all alternatives mentioned. From an environmental perspective, the Residential Alternative is considered superior to the Proposed Land Use Plan. i 7.5 Alternative Locations CEQA requires that an EIR address alternative locations for a proposed project. For the purposes of this report, two conditions must be met in order for any alternative location to be considered reasonable. First, an alternative location must be large enough to accommodate the scale of development proposed. Second, that alternative location must be within the City limits of Huntington Beach, since this project is being proposed by the City of Huntington Beach. In an attempt to analyze the alternative locations for this project, only three sites could be considered. However, all three fail to meet the previously specified conditions. The Holly Seacliff area represents the last remaining large section of undeveloped land within the City of Huntington Beach. All other available sites within the City are too small to accommodate development at the level proposed in this project. The Meadowlark Golf Course The Meadowlark Golf Course is located near the corner of Warner and Graham. The site encompasses approximately 90 acres and is utilized as a public golf course. The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the site as open space/recreation. The City has extended a long-term lease for the course. The lease for this property expires in the year 2008. July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 7.0-18 This site has been dismissed from further review for several reasons. At 90 acres, development on-site would have to be many times more intense than that proposed j i for the project site in order to construct the proposed project. Meadowlark Airport The Meadowlark Airport is located near the intersection of Warner and Bolsa Chica Road. The site encompasses approximately 65 acres and is utilized as a small plane airport. The site is designated as Mixed Use (General Commercial and various residential designations), with an underlying zoning of Specific Plan. The Specific Plan for the site has been adopted. Permitted uses within the Specific Plan include approximately 15 acres of general, retail-commercial and 50 acres of mixed residential uses. Approximately 600 dwelling units at varying densities could be built on-site. Like the Meadowlark Golf Course, this site is vastly undersized to accommodate the proposed project. Therefore, these two sites have been dismissed from further consideration because they are not feasible and are therefore not reasonable alternative locations for the proposed project. Bolsa Chica Another potential alternative location is the Bolsa Chica site located west of the project site in unincorporated Orange County. The site encompasses approximately 1,600 acres, of which a majority is considered environmentally sensitive wetlands. It is expected that the site will eventually be annexed into the City of Huntington Beach. This site has an approved development concept plan that would allow for the development of 5,700 dwelling units, a 1,600 slip marina and a possible ocean entrance. Major project elements of the Master Plan include phase-out of a major-oil production facility, identification, programming and allocation for over 1,000 acres of wetland habitat and environmentally sensitive habitat area, and major rerouting of Pacific Coast Highway. July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 7.0-19 The site has been dismissed from further considerations for two reasons. First, no formal applications for annexation to the City of Huntington Beach have been processed to date. Second, the site, if developed would require significant wetland rehabilitation for 915 acres of wetlands. The remaining acreage is large enough to accommodate the project but has been dismissed from further consideration because it is not a reasonable and feasible alternative. Nor is it considered environmentally superior to the proposed project. July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 7.0-20 HOLLY - SEACLIFF GPA ENVIRONMENTAL SUMMARIES CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 8.0 8.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SUMMARIES 8.1 IMPACTS MITIGATED TO A LEVEL OF INSIGNIFICANCE With the implementation of all suggested mitigation measures and applicable City policies, and requirements, the following impacts are mitigated to a level of insignificance. Surrounding Land Uses, Local Land Uses Earth Resources Recreation Light and Glare Cultural Resources Oil Facilities Human Health and Safety Public Services and Utilities Sewer Facilities 8.2 UNAVOIDABLE SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACTS Land Use Approval and development of the General Plan Amendment (GPA) will result in the conversion of 768 acres of land to urbanized uses that are at a much greater degree of development than what is presently existing. Additionally, the GPA will cumulatively impact the goals of the Housing Element by decreasing the housing stock by 25%. These impacts cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance and remains an unavoidable adverse impact. July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 8.0-1 Aesthetics Approval of the proposed project will contribute to a cumulative loss of open space views which is considered an unavoidable adverse impact. Hydrology The proposed project will increase runoff and the resultant hydrologic impacts have the potential to be unavoidable and adverse. Population Housing The proposed project, in comparison to the existing General Plan, would incrementally decrease employment opportunities within the project area by nine percent, contribute to a 25% reduction in the housing stock available to the City and a reduction in affordable housing opportunities. This cumulative impact cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance and remains an unavoidable adverse impact. Traffic/Circulation Approval of the proposed project will create trip generation from access points along Garfield that will impact the intersection of Main and Garfield. Impacts on this intersection are considered significant. Air Ouality The project in conjunction with the past, present reasonably foreseeable projects will contribute to the degradation of regional air quality. Biological Resources The proposed project will result in the loss of a large open space habitat. Additionally, the extension of Garfield Avenue into the Bolsa Chica wetlands will be a cumulative impact. Both of these impacts are considered unavoidable and adverse. July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 8.0-2 Enerev Resources Approval of the proposed project will place an additional demand upon existing natural gas and electrical facilities. However, no expansion of gas electrical facilities other than those already programmed is anticipated. Approximately 2,063,500 therms per year of natural gas and 25,768,000 kilowatt hours of electricity per year will be required to serve the heating, cooling, and electrical needs of the project. Notwithstanding the mitigation measures incorporated into the project to reduce energy consumption, development will result in an increase in the use of energy in this area for the life of the project. Water Facilities After mitigation, the projects' impact on water storage, fire flow requirements and system expansion can be considered insignificant. However, with the uncertainty of water supplies in Southern California becoming a major concern, even with the implementation of water mitigation measures, cumulatively, the projects' contribution to the increased demands for water supplies is considered an unavoidable adverse impact. Noise Project-specific-short term impacts related to noise generated by construction activities can be lessened and restricted to hours acceptable to the City of Huntington Beach. These impacts cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance and are considered unavoidable adverse impacts over the short-term. July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 8.0-3 8.3 MITIGATION MEASURES i Land Use On-Site Land Uses 1. Prior to issuance of building permits for individual tracts, the applicant should demonstrate that service vehicle access to all remaining operating oil wells on- site is monitored through the existing or proposed residential tracts. 2. All potential buyers and renters of on-site residences should be notified of the effects resulting from on-site and off-site oil production activities. The notification should state the frequency and locations of maintenance and service operations. The notification should indicate that noise levels from oil activities may also significantly increase during these times. Ownership 3. The City should adopt a redevelopment plan or other strategy to assemble encyclopedia lots and other non-buildable parcels of land in Planning Areas B, C & E. Surrounding Land Uses 4. Prior to the approval of tentative tracts adjacent to the Seacliff Country Club and golf course, preliminary landscape plans and development /open space edge treatments should be submitted for City approval. These plans should provide for the review of planting compatibility along the relevant south edge of the development. July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 8.0-4 Land Use Policies 5. In order to retain the existing swale character, future specific plans should incorporate policies which specify the amount of slope, cut and fill, improvements for storm drainage and include a schematic design for recreational and open space treatment within drainage swales. 6. Only limited grading activities or development should be allowed within areas encompassing natural swales on-site. This should be limited to changes required to install access roads, utility and storm drainage lines and landscaping to enhance the natural condition of the swale areas. 7. Detailed grading plans for all development on-site should be submitted to and approved by the Planning Department prior to the issuance of grading permits. Such plans should show all natural swales on-site and the areas to be graded. 8. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the Department of Fish and Game should be notified of grading activities on-site that are scheduled to commence in the swales, in order to preclude the possible elimination of wetland areas under the jurisdiction of the Department of Fish and Game as further specified in the Biological Resources section of this EIR. Aesthetics 1. Specific Plans should incorporate policies which specify maximum grade of slope, permitted amount of cut and fill, improvements for storm drainage and a schematic design for recreational and open space treatment within the ravines. 2. The topography of the natural ravines and their associated drainage courses should be preserved in accordance with standards adopted with approval of future Specific Plans. 3. As required in the Public Services and Utilities section of this EIR, new utility lines including but not limited to electric, (excludes SCE 66KV transmission July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 8.0-5 lines) telephone, street lighting and cable television, should be placed underground. The applicant should be responsible for complying with this requirement and should make the necessary arrangements with the utility companies for the installation of such facilities. 4. Landscaping of future projects should be designed so as to minimize visual impacts on adjacent parcels. Special consideration should be given to orientation of the project's residences (i.e. windows and decking) so as to respect the privacy of adjacent and nearby homes. 5. Wherever feasible, oil production facilities on-site should be eliminated or consolidated to reduce their total number. Facilities that remain on-site should be painted, camouflaged, or otherwise screened by perimeter walls, plantings or like treatments to reduce their unsightliness to future residents. 6. Wherever feasible, windrows should be preserved within park sites or replaced to maintain the aesthetic benefits they contribute to the community. Further studies should be completed to assess the health of these trees. 7. As future development occurs, the designated railroad transportation corridor should be preserved for future use as trails or transit. Earth Resources 1. Prior to preparing the final development plan for the property, a detailed preliminary geologic and soils engineering investigation should be completed. The purpose of this subsequent investigation should be to develop specific grading and foundation recommendations for the proposed site development. Local Geology 2. In order to retain the existing swale character, future Specific Plans should incorporate policies which specify maximum grade of slope, permitted amounts of cut and fill, permitted improvements for storm drainage and include a July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF CPA 422102.009 8.0-6 schematic design for recreational and open space treatment within drainage swales. 3. Prior to the issuance of future grading permits, internal collector streets should be aligned around topographical features and avoid crossing the natural swales where possible. Groundwater 4. Subdrains should be installed where necessary. Location and size of subdrains, if any are required, should be determined after preliminary geotechnical and grading information is made available. Seismicity 5. The design of structures should comply with the requirements of the City of Huntington Beach Code and the standard practices of the Structural Engineers Association of California. 6. A detailed geologic fault investigation should be undertaken to delineate any additional active trace of the Newport Inglewood fault. A setback zone should be established to prevent the construction of habitable structures within 50 feet on either side of any active fault trace. Therefore, as is the case in the western portion of the property, where the fault zone as exposed in the sand borrow pit is 80 feet wide, the ultimate setback zone should have a total width of 180 feet. Liquefaction 7. Prior to future development, additional information on particle size, density, and ground water levels should be obtained to accurately assess the potential for liquefaction due to seismic shaking in the alluvial areas. July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 8.0-7 Subsidence 8. As future development occurs, continued subsidence rate monitoring for the region of the subject site is necessary to determine if subsidence rates are declining with current water injection methods being used at operating oil production facilities. 9. The use of post-tensioned slabs should be considered in the foundation design in order to eliminate distress to structures and slabs from minor regional subsidence. Although this measure will provide for a more rigid slab, it will by no means eliminate distress to foundations resulting from the rapid subsidence of the land from continued oil and gas withdrawal. Tsunamis 10. At the time of future development, habitable structures will be located outside of the tsunami risk zone. Other Hazards 11. During and after project construction, adequate surface drainage should be maintained by the applicant, in order to eliminate bluff erosion. Surface water should be carried quickly away from the top of the bluff and not allowed to pond or run down the slope face. Hvdrolo¢v By implementing the following mitigation measures, the significant impacts to both the environment due to run-off and the City storm-drain facilities can be significantly reduced. July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 8.0-8 On-Site 1. Prior to approval of future Specific Plans or grading permits, a detailed area- wide flood control/hydrology/hydraulic study should be prepared by a licensed civil engineer as required by the City and completed by the applicant (per the current County of Orange Hydrology Requirements) to further quantify and detail the combined drainage impacts of development within the watershed area. These detailed studies may be used to adjust the suggested conduit sizes proposed for the EIR and shown on Exhibit 14. A separate detailed study should be completed for each tributary area. These studies shall be completed prior to the approval of future Specific Plans or at the time of grading permit. 2. All future discretionary permits should be consistent in preserving area-wide natural drainage patterns along with preserving and enhancing the goals, objectives and policies of the General Plan Open Space and Conservation Element. The permits should insure that development provide for facilities needed to accommodate runoff from a 100 year storm. 3. Individual projects should be required to construct or upgrade on-site and off- site drainage facilities needed to drain the site according to City requirements. This should include: limited improvements to existing earth swales so as to convey nuisance flows as well as floodwater; required storm drain conduits; storm drain crossings under Goldenwest Street, Ellis Avenue, and other proposed streets; and any other facilities determined as needed in the more detailed hydrology studies. i 4. An additional closed conduit system will be required in Garfield Avenue from Crystal Street easterly to the connection with the existing storm drain line in Delaware Street. This system will be required to accommodate flows generated by development within the study area. 5. The City should be responsible for the construction of upgraded swales, closed conduits and a desilting basin to transport the drainage runoff collected from July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 8.0-9 i the northwest portion of the project site, from north of Ellis Avenue to Huntington Central Park. Off-Site 6. Developers will be required to design and construct all required improvements (swales, conduits, overflow provisions, desiltation, by-pass system) required for flows entering Sully-Miller Lake. Per City Ordinance, the developers may enter into reimbursement agreements. The developer shall be responsible for on-site generated run-off only. 7. It is recommended that final drainage and grading plans be designed to minimize erosion and velocity of surface runoff through proper design of surface drains, appropriate grading, and landscape programs, all to the specification of the City's Department of Public Works. 8. All work should comply with the City of Huntington Beach Public Works Standards and Specifications and any pertinent grading ordinances. Population and Housine 1. 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 as well as the needs identified in the RHNA. Recreation 1. The City should adopt a plan for acquisition and development of land within the Central Park expansion area north of Ellis Avenue. 2. The City shall enter into an agreement with major landowners to dedicate designated parklands prior to or concurrent with development in each Planning Area. July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 8.0-10 i 3. The City should create a special assessment district(s) for the development and maintenance of public trails and parklands within the project area. Transportation The following measures are recommended to ameliorate the potential circulation impacts arising from the development of the proposed Holly Seacliff General Plan Amendment. 1. Arterial links within the project study area shall be improved to their ultimate width, consistent with the proposed Circulation Element for the General Plan Amendment request. A listing of the ultimate arterial widths within the project study area is presented below. Ellis Avenue Edwards Street to Gothard Street primary 4 lane divided arterial Gothard Street to project east boundary secondary 4 lane undivided arterial Garfield Avenue Seapointe Street to Main Street major 6 lane divided arterial Yorktown Avenue Goldenwest Street to Main Street primary 4 lane divided arterial Edwards Street Ellis Avenue to Garfield Avenue secondary 4 lane undivided arterial Goldenwest Street Yorktown Avenue to Ellis Avenue major 6 lane divided arterial Gothard Street Ellis Avenue to Main Street secondary 4 lane undivided arterial July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 8.0-11 Main Street Huntington Street to Yorktown Avenue primary 4 lane divided arterial These improvements should include all necessary curbs, gutters, and median requirements per the City of Huntington's standard plans. In addition, all residential collectors, industrial collectors and residential streets should be improved to their ultimate width consistent with the proposed Circulation Element for the General Plan Amendment project. 2. Intersections within the study area should be constructed to the lane geometrics identified in Table 18. 3. Prior to the first Specific Plan or Tract Map approval, a fair share funding program for the construction of the cross-gap connector from Edwards to Bolsa Chica as a modified secondary arterial and the Sea- pointe Avenue extension from Garfield to Coast Highway should be determined. In the determination of this fair share funding program, a credit should be given for the segment of the cross-gap connector and Seapointe Avenue constructed within the project boundary. 4. The arterial and intersection improvements required to occur commen- surate with Planning Area development a.-e as follows. July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 8.0-12 Planning Area A • Contribute on a fair share basis towards the implementation of all necessary intersection improvements identified as mitigation measures for the proposed project. • Contribute on a fair share basis towards the construction of the cross-gap connector. • Construct the ultimate westerly half section (40 feet, 2 lanes) of Edwards Street from Ellis Avenue to Garfield Avenue. • Construct the ultimate northerly half section (60 feet, 3 lanes) of Garfield Avenue from the project's westerly border to Edwards Street. Planning Area B • Contribute on a fair share basis towards the implementation of all necessary intersection improvements identified as mitigation measures for the proposed project. • Contribute on a fair share basis towards the construction of the cross-gap connector. • Construct the ultimate easterly half section (40 feet, 2 lanes) of Edwards Street from the project's northern border to Garfield Avenue. • Construct the ultimate section (100 feet, 4 lanes) of Ellis Avenue from Edwards Street to Goldenwest Street. July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 8.0-13 • Construct the ultimate northerly half section (60 feet, 3 lanes) of Garfield Avenue from Edwards Street to Goldenwest Street. Planning P1a g AreaC • Contribute on a fair share basis towards the implementation of all necessary intersection improvements identified as mitigation measures for the proposed project. • Contribute on a fair share basis towards the construction of the cross-gap connector. • Vacate the existing Gothard Street from Ellis Avenue to Garfield Avenue and construct the realigned Gothard Street to the west from Ellis Avenue to Clay Street. The realigned segment of Gothard Street should be constructed to its ultimate four lane secondary section from Ellis to Clay. • Construct the ultimate northerly half section (60 feet, 3 lanes) of Garfield Avenue from Goldenwest Street to the project's eastern border. Planning Area D • Contribute on a fair share basis towards the implementation of all necessary intersection improvements identified as mitigation measures for the proposed project. • Contribute on a fair share basis towards the construction of the cross-gap connector. • Construct the ultimate southerly half section (60 feet, 3 lanes) of Garfield Avenue from the project's westerly border to Goldenwest Street. July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 8.0-14 Planning Area E • Contribute on a fair share basis towards the implementation of all necessary intersection improvements identified as mitigation measures for the proposed project. • Contribute on a fair share basis towards the construction of the cross-gap connector. • Construct the ultimate southerly half section (60 feet, 3 lanes) of Garfield Avenue from Goldenwest Street to the project's easterly border. 5. At the time of Specific Plan or Tract Map approval for a given Planning Area or portion thereof, a traffic study shall be completed to determine whether the incremental increase in traffic from the specific plan or tract map area causes any of the intersections under investigation to result in unacceptable levels of service. If unacceptable levels of service result, this traffic analysis shall determine the portion of the ultimate intersection improvements which are required, the phasing of the improvement and the funding source. If the project requires intersection improvements which are greater than the project's fair share, a reimbursable agreement shall be required of those subsequent develop- ments which contribute to the need for said improvement. 6. Prior to Tract Map approval, a signal warrant analysis shall be conducted for any project access points to the major arterial street system. 7. As part of any subsequent Specific Plan or Tract Map that requires access along Garfield Avenue, an operational analysis of said access shall be conducted and submitted for review and approval of the City Traffic Engineer. The access on Garfield Avenue shall be limited to right turn in and out, except one location, mid-block between Edwards Street and Goldenwest Street. A signalized full movement intersection shall be July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 8.0-15 permitted at this location. The access design shall be limited on Garfield Avenue and spread to other parallel arterials, such as Ellis Avenue, Clay Avenue and Yorktown Avenue. 8. Prior to any Specific Plan or Tract Map approval, the Orange County Transit District shall be consulted for the need to construct bus stops, turnouts and shelters. 9. The current Southern Pacific Railroad (SPRR) easement shall be pre- served as a transportation corridor for future use for mass transit and trails. Air Ouality Short-term Impacts 1. To minimize dust generation during grading operations, SCAQMD Rule 403 should be adhered to which will require watering during earth moving operations. To further reduce the emissions, grading should not occur when wind speeds exceed 20 mpg. Long-term Impacts 2. There should be support and compliance with the AQMP for the basin to achieve regional air quality. The AQMP includes improvement of mass transit facilities and implementation of vehicular usage reduction programs. Energy conservation measures are also included. Specific measures which may be appropriate for the proposed project include: o Encourage the use of alternate transportation modes by promoting public transit usage including the designation of the transportation corridor and providing secure bicycle facilities. July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 8.0-16 o Provide public transit accommodations: such as bus turnout lanes, park and ride areas, and bus shelters. o Provide energy conserving street lighting. o Provide traffic signal synchronization where feasible. Odor Control 3. Because it only takes a small amount of material to generate odors, it is important to maintain a very clean operation. Therefore, any oil spilled on the ground should be quickly cleaned up. Well sumps should be pumped out after pulling a well, and periodically in the interim. Maintenance of seals and gaskets on pumps and piping should be performed whenever leaks are evident. General clean up of the site should result in significant improvements in the level of odor found in the area. 4. Appropriately designed, vapor recovery systems which pull the gas off the well casing should be employed, as well as vapor recovery systems for oil transport trucks. A similar system could be employed for any remaining storage facilities on-site. Noise Roadway Noise The following mitigation measures are recommended to minimize any potential noise impacts associated with traffic noise on surrounding roadways. 1. Enforcement of the City of Huntington Beach Noise Ordinance should be implemented which limits the hours of construction to normal weekday working hours. July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 8.0-17 2. Measures should be designed to satisfy the requirement that 65 CNEL not be exceeded in residential outside living areas. Where residential buildings are to be located within these 65 CNEL contours, mitigation measures should be undertaken to reduce noise to acceptable levels. Mitigation through the design and construction of a noise barrier (wall, berm, or combination wall/berm) is the most common way of alleviating traffic noise impacts. The effect of a noise barrier is critically dependent on the geometry between the noise source and the receiver. A noise barrier effect occurs when the "line of sight" between the source and receiver is penetrated by the barrier. A barrier which does not break the line-of-sight is not an affective barrier, while one which just interrupts the line-of-sight achieves a 5 db reduction in noise. The greater the penetration the greater the noise reduction. Increasing building setbacks should also be used to attenuate noise down to acceptable levels. 3. The City of Huntington Beach should require that the housing portion of this project comply with the State of California Noise Insulation standards. The code requires that "interior community noise levels (CNEL) with window closed, attributable to exterior sources shall not exceed an annual CNEL of 45 dB in any habitable room." Any measures, such as window upgrades, can be specified at the time of building permit application. 4. At the time of building permit application, the design should again be reviewed to ensure that sound mitigation is included in the design. Oil Well Operations 5. Noise levels generated by the oil operations should be mitigated to levels consistent with the Huntington Beach Noise Ordinance, by locating consolidation area(s) at least 300 feet from the nearest residential or other sensitive land uses (locating consolidation areas within industrial use areas would be the most desirable from a noise standpoint). The oil wells could be located closer to sensitive land uses if a perimeter wall with a minimum height of 8.0 feet was utilized around the consolidation area(s). The following mitigation measures assume a 100 foot distance to receptor and the mitigation July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 8.0-18 effects of an 8.0 foot sound wall. Additional analysis of the consolidation area(s) will be necessary when phasing plans become available. Oil Well Drilling Operations 6. The results show that in order for the drilling operations to satisfy the Huntington Beach Noise Ordinance outdoor standards, electric motors with acoustic blankets must be used. Diesel motors even when shielded by acoustic blankets will not meet the nighttime Noise Ordinance standards at the on-site and off-site residences, and will not meet the daytime Noise Ordinance standards at the on-site residences. If there are plans to conduct the drilling operations during the nighttime hours, then according to the Oil Code, the operations must be soundproofed. Acoustic blankets as well as a 8.0 foot high masonry wall along the site perimeter will likely reduce the noise levels to below the Noise Ordinance standards. Oil Well Pumping 7. The well pumps used in the consolidation area should be submerged. If other types of well pumps such as ground level electric or diesel pumps may be necessary. Specific mitigation measures should be presented in an additional noise study. Well Pulling, Redrilling, and Service Drilling Operations 8. Well pulling and drilling operations are confined to daytime hours (7 a.m. to 10 p.m.) by the Oil Code. Any redrilling performed at night must provide soundproofing to comply with the Noise Ordinance. The Oil Code prohibits the pulling of wells during the nighttime hours (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.). Well maintenance activities should also be conducted between the hours of 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. only. Although high levels of noise may be generated by routine well maintenance operations, these activities would'occur inside the noise barrier surrounding the consolidation area. July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 8.0-19 9. Service drilling for this project will be conducted during the daytime hours only. Data on service drilling operations indicate that with a diesel powered service rig and an 8 foot high noise barrier, the noise level at 100 feet will likely be 55 dBA which corresponds to the City's daytime Noise Ordinance standard. All servicing of the wells must comply with the noise standards contained in the Huntington Beach code. Truck Operations 10. Truck operations should be limited to daytime hours only (7 a.m. to 10 p.m.) Helicopter Operations 11. Residential development within the helicopter flight corridor should generally be discouraged. 12. All residential buildings to be constructed within the helicopter activity corridor should be designed to achieve a 25 dBA outdoor to indoor noise reduction. 13. Helicopter noise impacts should be addressed in the acoustical assessments for residential uses within the helicopter flight corridor. Any mitigation requirements necessary to reduce helicopter noise impacts should be included in the assessment. 14. A notice (and statement of acknowledgement) to prospective homeowners is required stating that the property is subject to overflight, sight and sound of helicopters associated with the police facility. Light and Glare 1. A phased landscaping program should be developed in conjunction with all future Specific Plans to ensure landscaping commensurate with residential and non-residential occupancy to adequately screen on-site light and glare impacts. 2. All outdoor lighting should be consistent with the standards established by future Specific Plans to minimize off-site light intrusion. July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 8.0-20 3. All outdoor lighting should be hooded and directed downward to minimize direct light and glare impacts on public rights-of-way and surrounding properties. 4. Appropriate types and heights of street lights should be consistently established in future Specific Plans. Street lighting should be standardized throughout the project area. 5. Lighting associated with recreational uses, where applicable, should be designed to minimize light intrusion onto surrounding property and right-of-ways surrounding such uses. 6. Non-residential building materials should be consistent with architectural standards incorporated into future Specific Plans. These standards should address the minimization of glare. Cultural Resources Archaeology 1) It is suggested that the research design be prepared by the Principal Investigator selected to perform the work and that it be reviewed by a second consulting archaeologist. This step will help insure the completeness and viability of the research design prior to its implementation. The involvement of a second professional is viewed as an inexpensive means of insuring that no major elements are overlooked. 2) The archaeological deposits within the Holly-Seacliff study area should be subjected to a program of excavation designed to recover sufficient data to fully describe the sites. The following program is recommended: A. Analysis of the collections made by the Pacific Coast Archaeological Society, Long Beach State University and any community college which has such material. If the collections are properly provenienced and are accompanied by adequate documentation, they should be brought together during this phase and complete analysis performed. Of particular July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 8.0-21 I importance during this phase is the recovery of survey data to be used to determine the exact locations of previous excavation efforts. 13. Prior to the beginning of any excavation effort, a burial strategy should be developed by the archaeologist retained to accomplish the excavation, members of the Native American community and appropriate City Staff. The strategy should address details of the handling and processing of human remains encountered during excavation, as well as the ultimate disposition of such remains. C. Completion of test excavations should be made at each of the archaeological deposits. The information gained from the test excavation will guide the following data recovery excavation. The excavations should have two primary goals: o Definition of site boundaries and depth. o Determination of the significance of the site and its degree of preservation. D. A statistically valid sample of site material should be excavated. The data recovery excavation should be conducted under the provisions of a carefully developed research design. The research questions presented earlier in this report should be incorporated into the research design, other important research questions should be developed from the test excavation data included, and a statement of methodology to be observed must be included. E. A qualified observer appointed by the Principle Investigator/ Archaeologist should monitor grading of the archaeological sites to recover important material which might appear. The monitor will be assigned by the Principal Investigator. This activity may require some minor delay or redirecting of grading while material is being recovered. The observer should be prepared to recover material as rapidly as is consistent with good archaeological practice. Monitoring should be on a full time basis when grading is taking place on or near an archaeological deposit. However, the grading should terminate when the cultural deposit has been entirely removed and clearly sterile deposits exposed. July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 8.0-22 F. All excavation and ground disturbing observation projects should include a Native American Observer. Burials are known to exist at some of the sites, a circumstance which is extremely important to the Native American community. G. A detailed professional report should be prepared which fully describes the site and its place in prehistory. Reports should receive sufficient distribution which includes the City, the County and the UCLA repository for archeology to insure their availability to future researchers. H. Arrangements should be made for proper curation of the collections. It is expected that large quantities of material will be collected during the excavation. Curation should be at an institution which has the proper facilities for storage, display and use by interested scholars and the general public. 3) The shell and lithic scatters should be subjected to test excavation to determine if they are or are not in situ archaeological deposits. If any of the scatters prove to be in situ archaeological material, a site record should be prepared and submitted to the Archaeological Survey, University of California, Los Angeles, and the site should be treated as in mitigation number one. If the sites are shown to be not archaeological in nature or not in situ, then no further action should be taken. 4) Ground disturbing activity within the study area should be monitored by a qualified observer assigned by the Principle Investigator/Archaeologist to determine if significant historic deposits, (e.g. foundations, trash deposits, privy pits and similar features) have been exposed. The monitoring should be on a full time basis but can be terminated when clearly undisturbed geologic formations are exposed. If such exposures occur, appropriate collections should be made, followed by analysis and report preparation. Historic material may be encountered anywhere within the Holly-Seacliff property, but the area around the old Holly Sugar Refinery is probably more sensitive than the balance of the project area. Historical material recovered at the archaeological sites should be treated with those deposits. July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 8.0-23 5) The plaque commemorating oil well Huntington A-1 should be preserved. As development in the area continues, it may be desirable to upgrade this feature. Paleontoloey 6) A qualified paleontologist should be retained to periodically monitor the site during grading or extensive trenching activities that cut into the San Pedro Sand or the Quaternary marine terrace units. 7) In areas where fossils are abundant, full-time monitoring and salvage efforts will be necessary (8 hours per day during grading or trenching activities). In areas where no fossils are being uncovered, the monitoring time can be less than eight hours per day. 8) The paleontologist should be allowed to temporarily divert or direct grading operations to facilitate assessment and salvaging of exposed fossils. 9) Collection and processing of matrix samples through fine screens will necessary to salvage any microvertebrate remains. If a deposit of microvertebrates is discovered, matrix material can be moved off to one side of the grading area to allow for further screening without delaying the developmental work. 10) All fossils and their contextual stratigraphic data should go to an institution with a research interest in the materials, such as the Orange County Natural History Foundation. Bioloeical Resources Several mitigation measures can be implemented which will reduce the significant impacts to levels of insignificance and further reduce the insignificant impacts. Since many project development details have not been proposed, these mitigation measures are discussed on a general level. 1. The setting aside of 92 acres of parks and other open space will partially mitigate the loss of the existing open space and provide some wildlife habitat. July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 8.0-24 2. The Specific Plan should address revegetation on all graded areas where structures or other improvements are not built. In public open space areas, consideration should be given to the use of native or naturalized species which require little irrigation and provide wildlife habitat, with a gradual transition to more ornamental species along the development edge. 3. Following construction of necessary infrastructure in the main drainage swale, i.e. utility lines, sewers, etc., this swale should remain as open space. Mitigation for the loss of cattail marsh habitat (0.5 acres) and willow habitat (0.5 acres) which are depicted on Exhibit 28, will take place such that a minimum of 1.0 acre of riparian vegetation is established in this drainage swale. The plants utilized in the revegetated area will be chosen from the recommended plant palette indicated in Appendix H. 4. Through adoption of future Specific Plans large trees suitable for use by raptors such as the red-shouldered hawk, should be preserved or replaced in accordance with the tree species identified in the plant palette contained in Appendix H. 5. Any grading or filling in the brackish wetlands in the western portion of the project site will be mitigated by restoration of an equal area of coastal wetland at a nearby location in the open space area. 6. Effects upon on-site wetlands within the jurisdiction of the California Department of Fish and Game will require mitigation defined by 1603 permits. 7. Development/use of the linear park (open space areas along the northern and northwest project boundaries) will be limited to passive recreation such as riding and hiking trails. Fencing and vegetative buffers shall be designed to exclude humans and pets from the Bolsa Chica Wetlands areas. The bluffs and other upland areas in the linear park shall be revegetated with native plants which are adapted to coastal environments. 8. The effects of night lighting can be mitigated by the following measures: 1) use of low intensity street lamps at the development edge; 2) use of low elevation lighting poles; and 3) shielding by internal silvering of the globe or internal opaque reflectors. The degree to which these measures are utilized i July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 8.0-25 i should be dependent upon the distance of the light source to the urban edge. Use of private sources of illumination around homes should also be restricted to prohibit area lighting on lots adjacent to open space areas. Natural Resources 1. Building construction should comply with the Energy Conservation Standards set forth in Title 24 of the California Administrative Code. Energy conservation features should include: o Installation of thermal insulation in walls and ceilings which meet or exceed State of California, Title 24 requirements. o Insulation of hot water pipes and duct systems. o Use of natural ventilation where possible. o Use of natural gas for space heating and cooking. o Installation of attic fans or other ventilation devices. o Orientation to sunlight and use of overhangs. o Landscaping with deciduous trees, to provide shade in the summer months and allow sunlight through in the winter months. 2. It is recommended that the developer consult with both the Southern California Gas Company and Southern California Edison during the building design phase for further energy conservation measures. Oil Facilities 1. Future Specific Plan(s) should include an area or areas for the consolidation of oil well facilities. July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 8.0-26 i 2. All new development proposals should be accompanied by: o A plan which addresses the requirements for abandoned wells. o The abandonment plans for existing wells. o The operational plans for any remaining wells and facilities. These plans must satisfy the requirements of the City of Huntington Beach and the Division of Oil and Gas. 3. The criteria for the approval of development plans within oil districts should include: (a) That enough open space has been reserved around the oil operation site to allow existing and future equipment which could reasonably be expected to be used on the site, including any setbacks from new development required by the Fire Chief. (b) That adequate access to all operation sites is provided for portable equipment and emergency vehicles. (c) That reasonable expansion of the existing facilities, if permitted in the oil district, can be accomplished. (d) That any proposed development includes all provisions for soundproofing and fire protection required by the Fire Chief. (e) That screening of oil facilities from any new development is included in the plan. (section 9680.4, Article 968 OIL DISTRICTS, City of Huntington Beach Municipal Code). 4. As future development occurs, continued subsidence rate monitoring for the region of the subject site is necessary to determine if subsidence rates are declining with current water injection methods being used at operating oil production facilities. 5. The use of post-tensioned slabs should be considered in the foundation design in order to eliminate distress to structures and slabs from minor regional subsidence. Although this measure will provide for a more rigid slab, it will by July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 8.0-27 no means eliminate distress to foundations resulting from the rapid subsidence of the land from continued oil and gas withdrawal. 6. All other mitigation measures pertaining to oil contamination, methane gas accumulation and other hazards are contained in other sections of this EIR, as previously noted. Human Health and Safety Surface Oil Contamination 1. Prior to grading and development, a site reconnaissance should be performed including a phased Environmental Site Assessment to evaluate areas where contamination of the surficial soils may have taken place. The environmental assessment should evaluate existing available information pertinent to the site and also undertake a limited investigation of possible on-site contamination. Phase I should include: a. Review of available documents pertinent to the subject site to evaluate current and previous uses. b. Site reconnaissance to evaluate areas where contamination of surficial soils may have taken place. C. Excavation and testing of oil samples to determine presence of near surface contamination of soil. d. Subsurface exploration to determine presence of sumps on-site. Testing of possible drilling fluids for heavy metals. e. Completion of soil gas vapor detection excavations located adjacenf'tb the existing on-site wells. f. Testing of air samples for gas vapor, methane gas and sulfur compounds. July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 8.0-28 2. The actual site characterization and remedial action plan would be developed as part of a later phase: Upon completion of the Environmental Assessment, a Remedial Action Plan can be developed. This plan should address the following items: a. Treatment of possible crude oil contaminated soils. A possible solution to this condition would be aeration of the contaminated soils to release the volatile gases and then incorporation of the treated soils into the roadway fills (subgrade). b. Treatment of possible drilling sumps by either on-site disposal of non- contaminated drilling fluids or off-site disposal of contaminated fluids. C. Treatment of the possibility of the accumulation of methane gas. Methane Gas 3. Prior to development, a thorough site study for the presence of surface and shallow subsurface methane gas should be performed. Any abnormal findings would require a Remedial Action Plan and further studies to assure sufficient mitigation of the hazardous areas prior to building construction. All structures should have a gas and vapor barrier installed underneath the slabs and foundations. Gas collection and ventilation systems should be installed over abandoned wells which are underneath or within ten (10) feet of any structure, and over wells which show evidence of surface emissions of methane gas. Additionally, following construction of structures, an organic vapor analysis should be conducted and the results evaluated to assure that acceptable air quality is maintained within buildings and residences. 4. The presence of methane gas on-site should be the subject of future studies that include the following tasks: a. Drilling of test wells to monitor for subsurface methane deposits and confirm or deny the presence of biogenic methane bearing strata near the surface in the development area. July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 8.0-29 b. Shallow excavation and sampling in areas either known or assumed to be potential drilling-mud sumps; C. Vapor monitoring of shallow vapor probes placed at strategic locations on the site and collection of soil vapor samples; d. Vapor survey areas adjacent to known abandoned oil wells; C. Laboratory analysis of selected soil samples for metals and soil vapor samples for gases. Other Oil Production Related Hazards 5. Oil wells scheduled for abandonment should be completed in accordance with the standards and specifications of the City of Huntington Beach and the California Division of Oil and Gas. Wells which have previously been abandoned must be reabandoned to the most current requirements of the City of Huntington Beach and the Division of Oil and Gas. 6. Existing oil production lines are located throughout the site. Treatment of these lines will depend on proposed land use and development. Utility lines should be relocated and or removed with the trench being filled with compacted fill. Hazardous Materials 7. An inventory of all hazardous materials used and stored by industries locating within the project area should be maintained and recorded for use by the City Fire Department. This inventory should include the location at which each hazardous material is used. 8. The use, storage and disposal of hazardous materials should be enforced by City of Huntington Beach to provide the greatest possible protection to the public from accidental occurrences. 9. Active wells remaining on-site should be secured and screened as required by the City of Huntington Beach. July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 8.0-30 10. Prior to development, a review of available public health records should be performed to evaluate possible public health risk sites in the vicinity of the subject site. Public Services and Utilities Fire Protection 1. Access roads to oil production areas should be provided where appropriate and kept unobstructed to prevent adverse impacts on fire protection due to ongoing oil production. 2. Measures to eliminate or reduce fire and safety risks from existing and abandoned oil production facilities and disposal areas are discussed in the Human Health and Safety section of this EIR. 3. The Huntington Beach Fire Department should review all developments within the area for adequate emergency vehicle access and water pressure. Police Services 4. The City should budget for additional officers to correspond with phasing of development in the project area. Community Services 5. The City should enter into an agreement with major landowners to dedicate designated parklands prior to or concurrent with development in each Planning Area. 6. The City should adopt a plan for acquisition and development of land within the Central Park expansion area north of Ellis Avenue. 7. The City should create a special assessment district(s) for the development and maintenance of public trails and parklands within the project area. July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 8.0-31 Library 8. With future development, the community enrichment fee should be paid to help fund the library expansion program. Schools 9. The GPA designates a site for a new elementary school to serve students generated by residential development within the project area. 10. The school district and major landowner should enter into an agreement for acquisition or lease of the site as part of implementation of this GPA. 11. Developers should pay school impact fees to finance construction of necessary school facilities. 12. The Huntington Beach Union High School District should coordinate its expansion plans with phasing of development within the project area and surrounding areas. Solid Waste Disposal I 13. To reduce the proposed projects impacts on waste disposal facilities, project designs should develop a means of reducing the amount of waste generated both during construction and when the project is in use. Potential ways of reducing project waste loads include implementation of recycling programs, and utilization of low water use landscaping. 14. The developer should contact the solid waste disposal firm during the design stage to ensure the most efficient and economical means for rubbish removal. The design should include rubbish enclosures, projected travel areas, and turnabouts where necessary. Provisions for recycling should be included in future project designs. July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 8.0-32 Gas and Electricity 15. Building construction should comply with the Energy Conservation Standards set forth in Title 24 of the Californian Administrative Code. 16. It is strongly recommended that developers consult with the Southern California Gas Company and the Southern California Edison Company for further energy conservation measures. 17. Developers should submit to SCG and SCE planning divisions all tract maps and improvement plans for the project so that proper planning, phasing and sizing of needed mains and service lines can be designed. Telephone and Cable TV 18. Building construction should comply with the standards and specifications of the General Telephone Company and Rogers Cable TV Company. 19. Developers should submit to GTE and Rogers Cable TV Company all tract maps and improvement plans for the project so that proper planning, phasing, sizing and material ordering for service lines can be made. Water Facilities With the implementation of the following mitigation measures, the major impacts to the City's water system can be reduced significantly. 1. Development of the proposed project should occur concurrently with development of the City's water system improvements to allow for adequate water service to the site. 2. All proposed development should comply with the phasing and design of water facilities as shown on the water facilities map so as to provide adequate looped systems to service the adjoining properties. July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 8.0-33 3. As future development occurs prior to the issuance of Use and Occupancy permits, developers should construct the necessary water service lines to individual residences and lots. 4. As future development occurs, no permits for Use and Occupancy should be issued until the Reservoir Hill booster pump station and the increase in storage capacity are complete and operating to the satisfaction of the City Water Division so as to provide adequate water service to each development. 5. The following water conservation measures shall be implemented by developers as required by state law and by the City Water Division: a. Low-flush toilets. b. Low-flow showers and faucets. C. Insulation of hot water lines in water recirculating systems. d. Compliance with water conservation provisions of the appropriate plumbing code. 6. Irrigation systems which minimize water waste should be used to the greatest extent possible. Such measures should involve such features as the following: a. Raised planters and bcrming in conjunction with closely spaced low volume low angle (22-1/2 degrees) sprinkler heads. b. Drip irrigation. C. Irrigation systems controlled automatically to ensure watering during early morning or evening hours to reduce evaporation losses. 7. Developers and the City should provide information to occupants regarding i benefits of low water use landscaping and sources of additional assistance for domestic and irrigation water conservation procedures. 8. Landscaping should use only low water demand (drought-tolerant species) and irrigation systems designed to minimize water waste. The use of mulch extensively in all landscaped areas is strongly recommended. July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 8.0-34 9. Minimize use of lawns and utilize water season, drought tolerant grasses. 10. Use pervious paving material whenever feasible to reduce surface water runoff and aid in groundwater recharge. 11. Control slopes and grades to discourage water waste through runoff. 12. As future development occurs, no permits for Use and Occupancy should be issued until additional water supplies as detailed in the 1988 Water Master Plan are implemented by the City Water Division so as to provide adequate water supplies to each development. 13. Developers should consult the City Water Division during design and construction phases for further water conservation measures to review irrigation designs and drought tolerant plant use. 14. As development occurs, prior to approval of future building permits, complete landscape and irrigation plans should be submitted to and approved by the Water Division. 15. In order to connect to the Orange County Water District's "Green Acres" system of rcclai-.ned water (as described and detailed in the 1988 City of Huntington Beach Water System Master Plan), the project developer should at this time construct and utilize a reclaimed water system for on-site irrigated areas and equestrian trails. Sewer Facilities The following measures are suggested to mitigate the impacts to the City and County sewer systems. 1. Detailed sewer studies should be prepared by a licensed civil engineer as required by the City so as to precisely calculate the required sewer main sizes. July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 8.0-35 These calculations may used to adjust the suggested pipe sizes proposed for the E.I.R. and should be completed for each tributary area prior to the approval of Specific Plans. 2. All proposed development should comply with a phasing plan and the design of sewer facilities as shown on the sewer facilities map. This would provide adequate connections to service adjoining and upstream properties. All required easements for sewer facilities should be in place prior to the issuance of a building permit of the subject property. 3. New development should be phased corresponding to the curtailment of waste water discharge from existing oil production as required for adequate pipe capacity flows. 4. Development of the areas tributary to the Slater Avenue Pump Station should be postponed until the pump station improvements are completed or until other interim methods are approved. 5. All industrial and commercial users should take on-site measures to reduce the load strength of their sewerage discharge. 6. Developers should pay the required connection fees to either O.C.S.D. No. 3 or O.C.S.D. No. 11, whichever is higher at the time of connection to County Trunk lines. 7. Each development should be responsible for the construction of sewer facilities within their project and/or off-site facilities necessary to serve the development. If it is required to oversize these facilities so as to serve other future projects, the developer can enter into a reimbursement agreement with the City so that future developers pay their fair share when they develop. This reimbursement procedure is per the City Ordinance Code. 8. Discretionary permits should not be approved for development of an area until adequate sewer service alignments and capacities are demonstrated. July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 8.0-36 HOLLY - SEACLIFF GPA ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS CONSULTED CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 9,0 9.0 ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS CONSULTED City of Huntington Beach Department of Community Development Mike Adams Hal Simmons Kelly Main Bob Franklin Department of Public Works Bruce Gilmer Jamal Rahimi Bill Patapoff Jeff Renna Daryl Smith Department of Community Services Jim Engle Fire Department Steve Parker Police Department G.L. Payne Agencies Orange County Sanitation District Tom Dawes Southern California Gas Company Gerald Smith Southern California Edison Ralph Coolidge Rainbow Disposal Richard Timm GTE Manuel Travieso Huntington Central Library Ron Hayden Huntington Beach City School District Dr. Gary Burgner Huntington Beach Union High School District Dave Hagen July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 9.0-1 1 Roger Cable TV Anita Pavitt Humana Hospital Susan Alex Pacifica Hospital Susan Holmes Department of Fish and Game Ester Burquotte The following FORMA personnel participated in the preparation of the EIR: Principal-in-Charge H. Gene Hsieh Senior Director Paul Edwards/ Gary Austin Senior Project Manager Leslie Freeman Research and Analysis Maya Bains Ron Kepford Graphics Scott Bruce Eric Carlisle Shelly Byrd Karen Casey Word Processing Lynn Zachmeyer Kelli Weiffenbach Michele Haddad The following consultants prepared technical studies for the EIR: Traffic/Circulation Ray Moe L.S.A. Associates I Park Plaza, Suite 500 Irvine, CA 92714 Hydrology, Water and Sewer Facilities, David Walden Utilities Walden and Associates 18012 Cowan, Suite 210 Irvine, CA 92714 July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 9.0-2 Geotechnical Feasibility Gary Stoney Stoney-Miller Consultants 14 Hughes, Suite B-101 Irvine, CA 92718 Air Quality/Noise Vince Mestre Mestre-Greve 280 Newport Center Dr. Suite 230 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Biological Resources Art Homrighausen L.S.A. Associates 1 Park Plaza, Suite 500 Irvine, Ca 92714 Cultural Resources/Paleontological Ron Bissell RMW 23352 Madero, Suite J Mission Viejo, CA 92692 Fiscal Impact/Mart.-et Analysis Nora E. Lake Williams, Kuelbeck & Associates 7 Corporate Park, Ste. 260 Irvine, CA 92714 July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 9.0-3 HOLLY - SEACLIFF GPA REFERENCES CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 10.0 10.0 REFERENCES City of Huntington Beach, August 1980, Revised 1984. Coastal Element. City of Huntington Beach, 1984. General Plan. City of Huntington Beach, 1984. Housing Element. City of Huntington Beach, March 1989. Housing Element Update. Administrative Draft Technical Data Report. City of Huntington Beach, March 1989. Revised Draft EIR 82-1 Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan. Michael Brandman Associates, Inc. 1985. Holly Property Planned Community General Plan Amendment 84-1. Prepared for the City of Huntington Beach. Orange County EMA, May 1985. Bolsa Chica Linear Regional Park Boundary Study. STA INC., February 1989. Draft EIR 88-2 - Ellis-Goldenwest Ouartersection. Prepared for the City of Huntington Beach. The following subconsultant reports were incorporated into the EIR: L.S.A. Associates, Inc., May 19, 1989. Biological Evaluation of the Holly-Seacliff Property. L.S.A. Associates, Inc., May 10, 1989. Holly Seacliff General Plan Amendment Traffic and Circulation Analysis. Mestre Greve Associates, May 8, 1989. Air Quality Assessment for the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR. Mestre Greve Associates, May 8, 1989. Noise Assessment for the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR. RMW Paleo Associates, March 10, 1989. Assessment of the Paleontological Resources within the Holly-Seacliff Proiect. RMW Paleo Associates, March 10, 1989. Cultural Resources Reconnaissance of the Holly-Seacliff Property. July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 10.0-1 Stoney-Miller Consultants, Inc., April 1989. Geotechnical Feasibility Investigation. Walden and Associates, May 1989. Hydrology/Drainage Report. Williams-Kuebelbeck and Associates, Inc., April, 1989. Holly-Seacliff General Plan Baseline Fiscal and Market Research. i 1 i i July 21, 1989 J HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 422102.009 10.0-2 J