Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
File 3 of 3 - HOLLY-SEACLIFF MASTER PLAN - Huntington Beach
L HOLLY - SEACLIFF GENERAL PLAN A M E N D M E N T Draft Environmental Impact Report No. 89-1 Volume 2 City of Huntington Beach ' Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment i ' Appendices - Volume II 1 1 1 i t HOLLY - SEACLIFF GPA ' CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH CHAPTER TITLE APPENDICES Volume II TABLE OF CONTENTS Appendix 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 i 1 1 1 t July 21, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF G.P.A. EIR 422102.009 i e pre a 00, �i �a Al co Uri J e V a bQ Chi WI me` " Apperxx A ENVIRONMENTAL O-CCC-15T FORM 1 goc4cgo��ci . I. N'<-me of Proponent City of Huntington Beach 2. Address and Phone Nv mb er of P r opone n t 2000 Main Street ' Huntington Beach, CA 92648 3. Cate of C.`jecklist Submitted December 22, 1988 +. Agency Reqviring Checklist Community Development Department ' S. t,:ome of Proposal, if applicable Holt -Seacl iff GPA ' ll_ E:rvironrnental Imports {E,plc^•onions of elf "/es" cnd ".:ayor" answers ore require•_4 on attccncd ' 1. Ecr-'1. Will tt,c proposal resz.:lt ir.: C. Unsteble earth cor'ditior:s or in & yes in geologic substructures? b. iDisivpticrrts, displocemenrs, conpocr:on or overcovering of the soil? A— C. Change in topogropl-y or grour--d surface relief features? Ik d." The destruction, covering or modification of any un,Que geologic or physical features? C. Any increase in wind or water erosion of ' soils, either on or off the site? f. Changes in deposition or erosion of bench sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a aver or stream or the bad of the ocean or any bay, inlet or loke'. 1 Holly-Scacliff GPA -1- City of Huntington Beach ATTACHMENT 4 Y cs t�lo E�pasv ~ of a^oolc or property to geolo- C�iccrds such cs carthgc,ckes, lams licks, mv4sl�dcs, ground failure, or similar hazards? 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: a. Subsiantial air emissions or deterioration of ombient air quality' b. The cr.-otion of objectionable odors? c_ Alteration of air movement, moisture, or , IC—Oerctur', or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? , 3. Watef. Will the proposal result in: C. C')erres in currents, or the course of di- rection of water moYemen's, in eithr. marine or fresh waters:' b. Chcrx;es in abscrption -ales, droinoge pat- ' terra, or the rate cr-d amount of surface rv:-oft? c. Al:ereticrs to 1`--e course cr flew of flood , waters'. d. Chor,e in the amount of surfoc-z water in wale. body? e. Disschcrge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water Quality, in- cluding but not limited to ten-perotvre, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow i of ground waters? g, Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct odditiorxs or with- drawals, or through interception of m aquifer by cuts or excavations? h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies'. i. E)posure of people or property to water re- lated hazerds such as flooding or tidal waves? Holly-Seacliff GPA -2- City of Huntington Bcach 4. Plant Life_ Will the proposal result ;n: C. Ch or�ge in the diversity of spec iC3, or nurnpCf of ply species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants)? b. Redt-<tion of the rxwrrbers of any unigve, rare or endongered species of plants? C. Introduction of new species of plants into (Yti area, or in a barrier tc the normal replenishment of existing species:' d. R,�duct;on in ocreage of any agricultural crop? S. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: ' a- Chcnge in the diversity of species, or r;urrbers of any species of animals (bir'dS, Icnd onimals including re-ptiles, fish and ' s�cllfish, benthic orgcniurs or insects)? b. Re�(-ct;on of the rKimbers o; any unique, t,�! rcre or enCcnaercd species of mimals? p� C. lr.irodxrticn O: new =t'-C,es of orilrncls ir. o cr-. creo, cc result rn a ber.'let to the M. or movement of animals.? d_ Oe:e-:orct:on to existing fish cx wildlife hcbitat? 6. Noi$c. Will the proposal result in: C. Increases in existing noise levels? b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels'. 7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? 8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in a sub- stontial alteration of the pres-ent or: planned land use of an area? 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in the rate of vse of any natural F resources? - a Holly-Scacliff GPA -3- City of Huntington Bcach Yes No ' b. S�-bstcntiol deletion of any nonrenewable natural resource'. IQ. Ric of Upset. WiII the prcipo�l involve: a. A risk of an explosion or the release , of hez or dour sibs t once s O nc I vd i ng, but not limited to, oil, p4"t;Cide3, C- er ICals of radial ion) in the event of an occident or upset c and i t ions? b. *Passible interference with an errsergency ' response plan or an emergency a eocvat ion plan? I Population_ Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the h imen populct;on of an area? 12. Fiat-wing. Will the proposal affect existirg hous- ing, or create a demcnd for additional hcusing? 13. T: �,--�'ot ion/Circulaiicon. Will the propoxi resin; ir: a. Generation: of ;vbs!cntiel cd�it ioncl vehicular movcrn-r!? t CE.`fr_-:5 on exisli ncrkir,y :ccilllles, Or cemend for new perking? c. Subs!ortial irrpar-'t upon existing tronsrcr- !otion Systems' d. A!tcrGt;0r1S to present patterns of circvlo- , lion or movement of people and/or goods? e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air ' traffic? f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians'. 14. Pvbtic Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered govemmental services in any of the following areos: o. Fire protection'. b. Police protection? , C. Schools? Holly-Scacliff GPA City of Huntington Beach YC3 NO d. Parks or othcr recreatior-al focilitics'. Ole Atioir,t�nanCc of public facilities, includinq r and s f, Othcr govemmentol services:' I S. J=ncrgy. 'Nill the proposal result in: o, Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? ' b. S.-gbstantial increase in demand upon exist- ing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? 16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: ' G. Power or natural gas? b. Comn-"nicotioru systems? rs C. WGter? C. G_eW-' or Sept;e t r 5-, A— C. Storm wa'rr drnir,oge? f. Salk' wcs*,e and di-npcsal? j17. i-'svrnan 1-Iealth. Will the prop sel result in: C. Creation of any health hazard or potential �p health hazard (excluding mental health)? �6 b. Exgosu:e of people to potential health haz ar(is? 18. Aesthetics, Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creotion of on aesthetically offensive site open to public view? ' 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an i mp oc t upon the quality or quantity of ex is t ing recreational opportunities' 20. Cultural Rewurcrs. - a. Will the proposal~result in the alteration ' of or the destruction of a prehistoric oc h is t of is archoeo tog ica l site? Hotly-Scacliff GPA _j- City of Huntington Bcach r • r yes MO two b- W-oll the proposal rrsutt in odverse physicoI ' or oesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure, or object? c_ Does the proposal have the potential to , cause a physical etwige which would affect uniqx ethnic cultural valve? AL d. Mfill the proposal restrict existing religious r or 3ocred uses within the potential irrpaet area? 21. Mandatory Findings of Significance. a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, 1 substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cv.,se a fish or wild- life population to Crop below self sus- toining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the nun-ber or restrict the rer-.gY of a rare or c-ndar+gered plant or onimci or elimincte important examples of the major periods of Celifornic history or prehistory? b. Does the project hove the potential to ' achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long,-term, environme-ital goals? (A s:-iort- term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while lor)q-terra impacts will eridire well into the futureJ C. Does the project have impacts which are r individually limited, but cumulatively con- sideroble'. (A project may irrpoct on two or more separate resources where the imQoct on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those Ic in-pacts on the environment is significant.) d. Does the project have environmental effects which will coos-- substantiol adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? M. Discussion of Env;ronrrnental Evalvation , IV. Determination 1 Dolly-Seacliff GPA -6- ' City of Huntington Beach On the basis of this initiol cvolva160n: ' I find ?hot the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect — on the envirorvr-tcnt. and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that althovgh the proposed project could have a significant effect — on the envirorvrticnt, there will not be a significant effect in ?fiis core —� bctwsc the mitigation measures described on an ottoched sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environ- ment, ornd on ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ( � �Z�2Z�88 ' tc i tore For 1 Holly-Scacliff GPA -7- City of Huntington Bcach EXPLANATIONS TO ' ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM IIOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA 1. Earth b,c,d This proposal will require grading and landform alteration to ' f,g facilitate land use development. Therefore, a geotechnical review of the project area shall be conducted to address grading impacts upon any geologic features, seismic and other hazard-relatcd geotechnical issues, the consolidation of oil production facilities, possibility of soil removal and replacement, possible impact to bluff and Swale areas, and any potential deposition/siltation into Sully Miller Lake. , 2. Air Quality a This proposal may generate emissions from motor vehicles ' and stationary sources (e.g., natural gas for space heating and off-site electricity generators) beyond levels anticipated by the current General Plan. Potentially significant amounts ' of short-term air pollutants may also be generated as a result of construct ion-relatcd activities. The EIR shall therefore analyze the additional air quality impacts associated , with these emission sources and identify measures to mitigate adverse air quality impacts. 3. Water ' b,d,c,g This proposal may result in impacts associated with increased and changed patterns of urban water run-off due to ' the development of impermeable surfaces in the project area. A review of the existing hydrologic data, any proposed changes in rates/amounts of surface runoff and ground water , impacts, the existing and planned drainage facilities and their effect on the Pacific Ocean, Bolsa Chica and/or Sully Miller Lake, if any, and historical flooding patterns in the project ' area shall be included, along with measures to mitigate adverse hydrologic impacts. 4. Plant Life ' a,c This proposal may change the number/diversity of plant species and/or result in introduction of new landscaping which affects the normal replenishment of existing species. A walkover survey of the project area shall be conducted to determine the floral composition of the area.. Special attention shall be given to the mapping of any `sensitive resources. Measures to mitigate any adverse impacts shall be identified in the EIR. Holly-Scacliff GPA -8- , City of Huntington Bcach S. Animal Life a This proposal may result in a change in the diversity or number of species of animals in the project area. A walkover survey of the project area shall be conducted to determine the faunal composition of the area. Special attention should be given to the mapping of any sensitive resources. Measures to mitigate associated adverse impacts shall be identified in the EIR. 6. Noise a The proposal may result in an increase in existing noise levels and may impact sensitive receptors in close proximity. Acoustical analyses shall be conducted to identify CNEL contours, and the EIR shall include a discussion of proposed mitigation measures for any associated impacts. 7. Light and Glare ' Depending on the orientation of proposed to existing land uses, the project may produce new light and glare impacts due to the realigned interface between residential/ commerical/industrial use and traffic generation. An analysis of potential light and glare shall be conducted and the EIR shall include a discussion of proposed mitigation measure for associated adverse impacts. S. Land Use The proposal will revise and update various Elements of the General Plan and hence substantially alter land use in the project area. The EIR will address a number of issues, ' including: o Distribution of planned residential densities; o Location, character, and intensities of commercial, industrial, and other non-residential uses; o Provision of adequate public open space areas, parks, and trails for public use; o Alignments and capacities of arterial highways; o Development of adequate community infrastructure to serve existing and planned development; and o ' Determination of the southern boundary of Gothard Industrial Corridor at potentially Ellis or Garfield, which may result in the reduction or retention of the amount of industrial land use in the General Plan. Holly-Seacliff GPA -9- City of Huntington Beach The EIR shall address the compatibility of this project with ' existing and future land uses adjacent to the project area. A marketing analysis of land uses shall also be conducted to address the following issues: balance of jobs to housing, industrial land use/demand/absorption rates, and costs vs. revenue to the City. 9. Natural Resources a The proposal may increase the rate of use of natural ' resources, both through construction and on-going land use. An evaluation of the potential increased consumption of natural resources and associated mitigations shall be addressed in the EIR. ' 11. Population This proposal may affect existing housing and the variety future of housing types, partly by modifying other land uses in the project area. The EIR shall document impacts on , housing and housing demand within the project area. 12. Housing This proposal may affect the variety of housing types and also modify other land uses in the project area. The EIR shall document impacts on housing and housing demand in the project area. 13. Transportation , a,b,c, The proposal may generate new vehicle movement d,e both on- and off-site. Currently existing and planned transportation systems may be inadequate to serve this ' project. The EIR shall identify impacts and constraints on present and planned internal and external circulation systems including railway service to industrial area, and ' provide mitigation measures and/or alternatives to reduce or eliminate traffic-related impacts. The information shall be evaluated based upon City of Huntington Beach standard engineering requirements and available models/information, ' and the proposed General Plan Amendment. 14. Public Services a,b,c, The proposal may increase the need for police and , d,e fire protection services. Additionally, increased numbers of school-aged children may be generated by the project: New ' parks, recreation facilities, and other public services may be required as part of the proposed project. The EIR shall quantify the demand placed on these public services and discuss measures proposed to mitigate associated impacts. ' Holly-Seacliff GPA -10- , City of Huntington Beach 15. Energy b The proposal may increase the demand upon existing sources ' of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy. The EIR shall quantify the demand placed on these sources and discuss mitigation measures proposed to mitigate associated impacts. 16. Utilities 1 a,c,d, The proposal may result in a need for new utilities e,f systems, or substantially alter power or natural gas, water, sewer, storm water drainage, and solid waster disposal ' systems. The EIR shall identify impacts placed on these systems by the proposed project, and discuss measures to minimize or mitigate associated impacts. 17. Human Health b The proposal may result in the exposure of people to potential health hazards from changes to the Resource Production Area and residential land uses adjacent to oil production facilities. The EIR shall identify any potential ' health hazards associated with abandoning oil production and/or retaining oil production in the project area. Measures shall be proposed to minimize or mitigate associated impacts. 18. Aesthetics The project may impact public views or vistas. The EIR shall examine the scenic vistas and views open to the public, and identify measures to mitigate any impacts ' preserve views both from and of the bluff areas within the project area. I 19. Recreation I ' The proposal may affect the quality/quantity of existing recreation facilities and the potential creation of a linear park along the bluff area and linking of existing equestrian ' trails to Central Park. The EIR shall evaluate these potential impacts, and provide measures to mitigate associated adverse impacts. ' 20. Cultural Resources _ a,b The proposed project may result in the alteration or ' destruction of prehistoric or historic archaeological sites, and/or result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to Holly-Scacliff GPA -11- City of Huntington Bcach prehistoric or historic buildings, structures. or objects. The ' EIR shall include records searches and possible site walkover to identify existing cultural resources within the project area, and propose measures to mitigate associated impacts. , Holly-Seacliff GPA -12- , City of Huntington Beach ' ADDENDUM ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1. Earth ' b,c,d This project will require landform alteration to facilitate f,g development. Therefore, a geotechnical review of the project area should be conducted to address grading impacts upon ' geologic structures, seismic related geotechnical issues, the consolidation of oil production facilities, possibility of soil removal and replacement, possible impact to bluff and swell area, and changes of drainage patterns into Sully Miller La ke. Z. Air Quality ' a This project may generate emissions from motor vehicles and stationary sources (i.e., natural gas for space heating and ' off-sitc electricity generators) beyond levels anticipated by the current General Plan. Potential significant amounts of short-term air pollutants may also be generated as a result of construction-related activities. The E1R shall therefore ' analyze the additional air quality impacts associated with these emission sources. 3. Water b,d,e,g This project may result in impacts associated with increased urban water run-off due to the development of impermeable surfaces on the project site. A review of the existing hydrologic data, the proposed grading plan, the existing and planned drainage facilities and their effect on Sully Miller ' Lakes, and historical flooding patterns in the project area will be included, along with measures to mitigate adverse hydrology impacts. ' 4. Plant Life ' a,c A walkover survey of the project area should be conducted to determine the floral composition of the area. Special attention should be given to the documentation mapping of any sensitive resources. This project may result in an impact ' associated with introduced landscaping which may be a barrier to normal replenishment of existing species. 5. Animal Life a This project may result in a change in the diversity of species, or number of species of animals. A walkover survey _ of the project area should be conducted to determine the fauna composition of the area. Special attention should be given to the documentation mapping of any sensitive resourccs. Environmental Checklist Addendum ' Page 2 6. Noise a The proposed project may result in an increase of existing , and future noise levels and may impact sensitive receptors in close proximity. Acoustical analyses will be conducted to identify CNEL contours and include a discussion of proposed ' mitigation measures. 7. Light.and Glare Depending on the orientation of the project to existing land , uses, the project may produce light and glare due to residential/commercial use and traffic generation. ' S. Land Use The applicant is seeking to revise and update various elements of the General Plan in order to address a number of issues, including: o Distribution of planned residential densities ' o Location, character and intensities of commercial, industrial, and other non-residential uses o Provision of adequate public open space areas, parks, ' and trails for the public's use o Alignments and capacities of arterial highways o Development of adequate community infrastructure to ' serve existing and planned development o Determination of southern boundary of Gothard Industrial Corridor at Ellis or Garfield which will result in reduction or retention in the amount of industrial land use in the General Plan. As part of the EIR, an evaluation addressing the ' compatibility of this project with existing and future land uses surrounding the project are will be provided. Marketing analysis of land uses will also be conducted to address the following issues: balance of jobs to housing, revenue to the City, and Highest and best lanct use. ' 9. Natural Resources a The proposed project may result in an increase in the use of ' natural resources both through site construction and ultimate use. An evaluation of the increased use of natural resources _ will be addressed in the EIR. ' ' Environmental Checklist Addendum Pagc 3 11. Population ' As part of the EIR, an evaluation will be completed to address the compatibility of the project with the most current City adopted policy projections for population and ' housing. 12. Housing ' If approved, this General Plan Amendment may provide a variety of housing types and modify planned land uses in the project area. The EIR will document impacts on housing ' demand and housing policies. 13. Transportation a,b,c, The proposed project may generate new vehicle movement d,e both on- and off-site. Currently existing and planned transportation systems may be inadequate to serve this ' project. The EIR shall identify impacts and constraints on present and planned internal and external circulation systems including railway service to industrial area and provide ' mitigation measures and/or alternatives to reduce or eliminate traffic-related impacts. The information shall be evaluated based upon standard engineering requirements and the proposed Land Use Plan. 14. Public Services a,b,c, The proposed project may increase the need for police and d,c fire protection services. Additionally, increased numbers of school-aged children may be generated by the project. Public utilities and services may be required as part of the proposed project. The EIR shall quantify the demand placed on these services and discuss mitigation measures proposed to i minimize or mitigate associated impacts. 15. Energy b The proposed project mad" substantially increase the demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy. The EIR shall quantify the ' demand placed on these sources and discuss mitigation measures proposed to minimize or mitigate associated impacts. 16. Utilities a,c,d, The proposed project may result in a need for new utilities e,f systems, or substantial alterations to power or natural gas, water, sewer, storm water drainage, and solid waster disposal. Environmental Checklist Addendum ' Page 4 The EIR shall identify impacts placed on these systems from ' the proposed project and discuss mitigation measures proposed to minimize or mitigate associated impacts. 17. Human Health b The proposed project may result in the exposure of people to , potential health hazards from the proposed changes to the Resource Production Area and the impact to residential land uses adjacent to oil production facilities. The EIR will , identify any potential health hazards associated with abandoning oil production or oil production remaining in the study area. Mitigation measures shall be proposed to , minimize or mitigate associated impacts. 18. Aesthetics The proposed project may result in the increase and ' preservation of scenic vistas and views open to the public in the preservation of views from and of the bluff area within , the study area. 19. Recreation The proposed project may result in an increased opportunity , for recreation facilities in the creation of a linear park along the bluff area and linkages of equestrian trails to Central Park. 20. Cultural Resources a,b The proposed project may result in the alteration of or the destruction of prehistoric, or historic archaeological sites. The proposed project may also result in adverse physical or , aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure, or object. The EIR shall identify existing cultural resources and propose mitigation to minimize or mitigate associated impacts. r ' HOLLY - SEACUFF GPA NOP/NOP RESPONSES CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Appendix B H CitY o ngf Hunti ton Beach 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Building Division 536-5241 ' Planning Division 536-5271 December 22 , 1988 Office of the -Governor ' Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse 1400 Tenth Street, Room 121 Sacramento, California 95814 ATTENTION: Keith Lee ' SUBJECT: Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report ' The City of Huntington Beach will be the Lead Agency and will prepare an environmental impact report for the project identified below. We need to know the views of your agency as to the scope and content of ' the environmental information which is germane to your agency' s statutory responsibilities in connection with the proposed project. Your agency will need to use the EIR prepared by our agency when ' considering your permit or other approval for the project . The project description, location, and the probable environmental effects are contained in the attached materials . A copy of the ' Initial Study is attached. Due to the time limits mandated by State law, your response must be ' sent at the earliest possible date but not later than 30 days after receipt of this notice. Please send your response to Hal Simmons, Senior Planner , at the address shown above. We will need the name for a contact person in your agency. ' Project Title: Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment Environmental Impact Report No . 89-1 ' Project Applicant : City of Huntington Beach Reference: California Administrative Code, Title 14 , Sections 15082(a) , 15103, 15375 . Sincerely, .al Simmons ' Senior Planner ( 1823d) 1 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Community Development Department 1 Planning Division 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California 92648 1 NOTICE OF PREPARATION 1 Date: December 22, 1988 Subject: Notice Of Intent To Prepare A , Draft Environmental Impact Report # 89- 1 Project Title: Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment Applicant: -The City of Huntington Beach ' The City of Huntington Beach, Department of Community Development has 1 conducted an Initial Study for the subject project and has determined that an Environmental Impact Report is necessary. The City of Huntington Beach will be the Lead Agency for the subject project and will prepare the EIR. 1 In order for the concerns of your agency to be incorporated into the Draft EIR, we need to know the views of your agency as to the scope and content of the ' environmental information relevant to your agency's statutory responsibilities in connection with the proposed project. Your agency must consider the EIR prepared by the City of Huntington Beach 1 when considering your permit or approval for the project. The project description, location, and an analysis indicating the probable environmental effects of the ' proposed action are contained in the attached materials. Pursuant to Section 21080.4 of CEQA, your response must be sent as soon as ' possible but not later than 30 days after receipt of this notice. If any significant changes in the proposed project occur, we will advise you. If you have need for additional information, contact Hal Simmons of the Planning 1 Division at (714) 536-5271. Submitted by: 1 al Simmons ' Senior Planner City of Huntington Beach , Attachment: Initial Study 1 ' HOLLY-SEACLIFF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 89- 1 LOCATION The project is located in central Huntington Beach and encompasses 768 acres. The project is generally bounded by Ellis Avenue to the north, Huntington Street to the east, Yorktown Avenue to the south, and ' Huntington Seacliff Country Club to the west. Refer to regional location map (Attachment 1). I PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project is a General Plan Amendment for the Holly Seacliff area within the City of Huntington Beach. The proposed project will impact the following existing Huntington Beach General Plan Elements: Land Use Element Circulation Element Recreation and Open Space Element Community Infrastructure Facilities Element LAND USE ELEMENT The proposed project is an update to the existing General Plan, principally in terms of land use mix and locations. A Proposed Community Planning Areas map and statistical summary are attached for your reference (Attachment 2). The existing General Plan map and statistical summary by planning areas are also attached for comparison (Attachment 3). The General Plan Amendment that will be valuated by the EIR ",ill proposed _ be finalized concurrently with the early phases of EIR preparation. It shall ' be composed of land uses and densities which range from the existing General Plan to the proposed Community Planning Areas. The final proposed General Plan Amendment will be determined based on traffic and economic analyses, community goals, physical land restraints, and other environmental and policy factors. I CIRCULATION ELEMENT The proposed project will update and modernize of the circulation system in the area of the project. Road alignments, roadway capacities, and intersection modifications will be incorporated into the project at sufficient detail for amending the Circulation Element. ' RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENT The proposed project will update the Recreation and Open Space Element of ' the General Plan by creating a linear park along the western boarder of the project. The linear park will provide the opportunity for linkages between -i- 1 Bolsa Chica State Park and Central Park. New parks, trails, recreation ' facilities and other public services may be required as part of the proposed project. COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITIES ELEMENT The proposed project may result in a need for new utilities systems, or substantial alteration to electrical, natural gas, water, sewer, storm water ' drainage, solid waste disposal and similar infrastructure systems. The proposed project may increase the need for police and fire protection services. Additionally, increased numbers of school-aged children may be ' generated by the project. The proposed project may result in impacts associated with increased urban water run off. The EIR will address impacts and propose mitigations at a sufficent level of detail for amending the Existing Community Infrastructure Facilities Element. SCOPE OF PROPOSED EIR FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT The Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for this project will include a comprehensive assessment of the impacts to develop land uses within the General Plan Amendment area at a general plan level. Program mitigation ' measures will be developed to accommodate development phasing. The EIR will address the areas of potential impact described in the Environmental Analvsis Checklist and supplemental form (Attachment 4). FUTURE SPECIFIC PLAN AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES The proposed project is a General Plan Amendment. The City anticipates ' that future Specific Plans with additional environmental evaluation will be completed prior to tract maps and other entitlements required for development within the General Plan Amendment area. 1 1 1 r _ F r r -ii- r r r r ��- �,—Y:.. -•.U-.I 1• 1. �rs — JLt ii M.((• Mw•tiO.aE w O.✓•S y - f M. v(vf.Ev Yy�• Y�a� ��oS( co.w. 1•�•. — ,.(.n.a sW.•�« co,• r,..-.7 % ✓ _: .) 1 wNGE ES �� /e't-••�-r►�..:ew(r. Ow.vU" _ ' V % p«;.'ry 1 ..� 'r (...lE 1• - •, Su.S.w.i.cS//'/ l0 "\� ' , I (� •_ KKK ....r'. ;i .(•.+f.w.E ,� ---1-' �a::...a.' ': :� i ram '`-. .` EIf DOwCC\• To.. Y.[ -�4:' _./ /•' Y_ --- —�3-_ •'_�. C�wfSS`�� \` wE�r rt•c« la— , _=; .•;tea'" \ �C PROJECT SITE HUNT INGTON�'v:;;-:i:>'=%�:;::: \ k BEACH - E�iv .f r.•C.' y _ �• _ ATTACHMENT 1 HOLLY SEACLIFF GPA City Of Huntington Beach PROPOSED COMMUNITY PLANNING AREAS STATISTICAL SUMMARY PLANNING AREA A ACRES DU , Low Density 50 AC 350 Units ' Open Space 25 AC 75 AC PLANNING AREA B Estates 160 AC 485 Units Open Space 40 AC 200 AC PLANNING AREA C Low Density 39 AC 195 Uni is Medium Density 94 AC 1140 Units Medium High Density 26 AC Industrial 32 AC 191 AC PLANNING AREA D Low Density 111 AC 600 Units Medium Density 48 AC 715 Units High Density 13 AC 455 Units Commercial 7 AC Open Space 11 AC 190 AC PLANNING AREA E ' Medium Density 24 AC 333 Units ' Medium High Density 42 AC 950 Units Commercial 24 AC Industrial 22 AC 112 AC TOTAL 768 AC 5873 Units ' ATT A C'HMFNT 2 , a L E G E N D , ACRfs DU A PUNNING AREA A ��A.•nue fow DenUly SO !SO Open Space 15 -- Sub total /5 ISO l s I PLANNING AREA B filale 160 AAS Open Space A0 t Sub total 100 eAS B 3 L_`J PLANNING AREA C C g to. Density 39 195 --� i Medium Density 94 1140 AI � /// t ` Medium Nlpn Demny 16 650 I — 11V000///J Industrial !) — I'/ Sub total t9 PLANNING AREA D1 19A5 (! l ( to. Density 111 600 f Medium Density .48 its s High Density IS ISs Commercial 1 — Open Space II — ' GO111�1a Ar�nue ...._�. sub total 190 1770 t PLANNING AREA E Medium Density 21 JJJ Medium High Density /1 950 Commercial N — Eindustrial ` --- - 11-—_ Sub total 112 11AJ D i t r f YOiY IOw� Av�nu� CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH COMMUNITY PLANNING AREAS HOLLY SEACLIFF GPA ' City Of Huntington Beach EXISTING GENERAL PLAN STATISTICAL SUMMARY PLANNING AREA A ACRES DU Estates < 2 Units/GAC 60 -AC 120 Units Open Space/Recreation 6 AC Non Designated 9 AC 75 AC PLANNING AREA B Estates < 3 Units/GAC 40 AC 120 Units Estates < 4 Units/GAC 120 AC 480 Units Open Space/Recreation 30 AC General Commercial 10 AC ' 200 AC PLANNING AREA C :.states < 2 Units/GAC 20 AC 40 Units Estates < 4 Units/GAC 29 AC 116 Units General Industrial 125 AC Office Professional 17 AC 191AC PLANNING AREA D Estates < 2 Units/GAC 1 AC 2 Units Planned Community 141 AC 3990 Units Open Space 8 AC ' Resource Protection 40 AC 190 AC PLANNING AREA E Medium Density 67 AC 1005 Units i General Commercial 45 AC 112 AC t_ F OTAL 768 AC 5873 Units ATTACHMENT 3 ' L E G E N D a OPEN SPACE a GENERAL PLAN b RECREATION COMMERCIAL C_) Estate s 2 un/ooc $ �J Foote 53 un/poc .l f►tote s!un/goc ESTATE ESTATE ( _ ) Medium Density S 3 unlgoc S 2 un/gnc r- , Genera!CommerNal Office Prolesrronol General lndu►tnol 5 Ae►ource Production GENERAL o pecrearlonOpen $pace ESTATE INDUSTRIAL CJ US4 unlgec Planned Community ESTATE coastal Ion*toundory 52 unlgac OPE SPACE REC EATIO G.61.1a OFFICE RESOURCE MEDIUM PROFESSIONAL PRODUCTION DENSITY PLANNED COMMUNITY GENERAL ,! COMMERCIAL To,ki—n A.*— CITY OF HUNT ON BE H GENERAL PLAN rE of CALIFORNIA—BUSINESS AND TRANSPORTATION AGENCY O£ORGE DEUKMEJIAN. Gowmor :PARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TRCT 12 t PULLMAN STREET ,4TA ANA, CA 02705 t c'LjrUilr Hti1 SlMr,K)n Fi le : IGR/C> GSA City of flu'lt. React-, N10P 2000 Main Sti-cc-t. Huntington Beach HUI',t i ngtct•i Br-71C:h . California 92648 S%H# 69010412 Dear Mr . Simmorl Ic CAL.IRANlS has reviewed the Notice of Preparation of a draft EIR for the Amendment t:-t the General Plan , EIR # 89- 1 , and has the following c_or-mr,=!r,ts . W.:- are cc•ncerned with the effect that this project will hNve on t-- te facilities including Route 1 ( Pacific Coast Highway) :111r•{ R;I;It.P .:�+ fP• cti': Blvd ) . The env i t cr:rf;en t a t document should include a traffic study which examlrie exists ?:c end future average traffic volumes (ADT ) , traffic ��er�era4�i ol� , i r.,l ud i ng peak hour ) and any resultant adverse impacts our f a i ? , lies . The cumulative impacts of this and other prc iec:ts planner! for the area should also be addressed . real-lze = that minimizing traffic congestion will require comprehensive and concerted effort by all involved parties . , Alleviating A.r-affic problems will require changes in life styles and r•espor s l b t e local development planning . with this it) mind , we propose, t.h;.it- your investigate the enclosed attachment to mitigate traffic: impactL-> . Coordination steps taken to insure the implementation of proposed mi t•i gat.i or, should be documented in the environmental document. 7f we can be of further assistance , please contact Gene Huey of my staff on ( 71. 4 ) 720-2076 . We look forward to reviewing the draft env i ronmertt.a 1 dot:ument . Sincerely , r RECEIVED� Alfred F E S 2 71989 f•i :h�r rt� i of t `,�-Lnvi ronrne;il.. n :al ysi s Branch DEPARTMENT Of Attachment C7^.1NL� i.r.� �. •T G . Si-i ,h , H0 Planning of Planning and Research TRAFFIC MITIGATION MEASURES ,NEW CONSTRUCTION adopt measures that require- developer contributions for transportation improvements . These monies could be used for building new freeways, widening Freeways and major arterials , constructing separate mass transit and car/van pool Janes, and park-and-ride facilities . - computerize traffic signals and freeway ramp meters. coordinate surface street traffic signals with freeway traffic flow (pre-emptive traffic signals) . - construct separate car/van pool lanes on freeway access ramps . improve the metering system on freeway ramps. improve transit stop locations and Facilities (security, ' fare policies, maintenance, .-etc. ) . TRANSIT MANAGEMENT EFFICIENCY MEASURES - improve the incident response system. -- improve the highway surveillance system ( install video cameras and other electronic devices) . -- improve the driver information system. - improve the enforcement of current traffic regulations . DEMAND MANAGEMENT Alternatives to Single Occupancy Vehicles - encourage ride-sharing. - set-up an independent area wide ride-coodi,nation office . encourage the use of mass transit. expand mass transit to include dial-a-ride and other shuttle/express services . -- adopt ride--sharing policies which encourage employers to raise their person per vehicle average..- Parking -- construct park-and--ride facilities near major existing and 'new residential developments . - construct fewer on--site parking spaces and provide car/van pool vehicles preferential. parking . -- discontinue providing free or low-cost employee parking . adopt a parking pricing scheme which varies with the number of passengers i . e . , the higher the number of passengers , the larger the rate reduction . ' Bicycles I L L No r Cu Reduced Peak-Period Travel - encourage work hour rescheduling (staggered hours, flex- time, 4-day week) . . - adopt measures which minimize truck travel during peak travel periods . ' Land Use Controls - promote policies that encourage the simultaneous development ' of industrial , commercial and entertainment centers with residential communities. - promote policies that encourage mixed-uses and discourage urban sprawl. - adopt policies that allow new development only when transportation facilities can handle the additional ' capacity. � T COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGK COUNTY, CALIFORNIA P.O BOX 8127, FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92728-8127 10844 ELUS. FOUNTAIN VALLEY. CALIFORNIA 92708-7018 (714) 962-2411 ' December 29, 1988 RECEIVED Hat Simmons 1 1988 ,Cenior Planner ity of Huntington Beach oFrARrMgn►7 of Planning Division ,2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 SUBJECT: Response to Notice of Preparation of Draft Environmental Impact Report # 89-1 Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment This is in response to your December 22, 1988 notice regarding the 1Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment. The Holly-Seacliff area totaling some 768 acres is generally bounded by Ellis Avenue on the north, Edwards Street on the west, Garfield and Yorktown Avenues on the south and Main Street on the east . Nearly 6,000 units are within the several planning areas. The study area is located within both County Sanitation Districts (CSD`s) No. 3 and No. 11 and all flow is tributary to the Huntington Beach Wastewater Treatment Plant. A portion of the area drains to the north and will be served by the District No. 11 Slater Avenue Purap Station,_a facility which is at capacity. The remaining portion drains to the southeast and is served by the District No. 11 Newland-Delaware Trunk Sewer. That facility is near capacity. At the present time, sewer service cannot be offered to the portion draining to ' the Slater Avenue Pump Station until such time as that pump station is upgraded. Diversion of drainage area tabled to drain to the SlatL"r Avenue Pump Station to the Newland-Delaware Trunk Sewer cannot be allowed. 1 For the last year and a half, the Sanitation District has studied several options for providing additional sewer ;,lrvice and improvements to the northwest portion of the City of Huntington Beach served by CSD No. 11. Previous ' plans , as you may recall , included the extension of the Coast Trunk Sewer. The current plan, yet to be reviewed by the Directors, is the replacement of the Slater Avenue Pump Station by the construction of a new pump station at essentially the same location along with tributary trunk sewers . The exact timing of these improvements has not yet been determined. COUNTY SAN:TATiDN DISTRICTS of OR41xGE CQJ}.it. rALIUAT41A E'faber 29, 1980 105�-4 E-�ISAi UL� E Page Two ` 0 &0`'�'2' FOUNTAIN VALi-EY.CALW{RNtw 9212s-tl121 t7 I'd 1 Qt2_k4It However, it is recommended that you postpone eny development on the areas tributary to the Slater Avenue Pump Station until such time as the pump station improvements are completed. It is further recommended that the units within CSD No. 3, served by District No. 11 facilities including the Slater Avenue and Newland-Delaware Trunk Sewer, pay the CSD No_- 11 fee when that fee is higher than the connection fee leveed by CSD No. 3. It is also recoaungnded that the Environmental Irip act Report accurat' determine , the drainage areas to each of the District No. 11 facilities and cLmp,,te the flow to each based on the proposed lard use. The EIR should include a_ development time schedule noting when occupancy will take place so %hat the ' District will have ample time to provide the necessary improvements. Fin 1y, we request that the City of Huntington. Beach encourage the developer to eote. into an agreement with the Sanitation Districts to provide the needed funds for the construction of the facilities necessary to serve the development by prepayment of connection fees. Wastewater generated within the District 's service area is processed at =.T•eatn;ent plants located in Fountain Valley and Huntington Beach. The Districts Qi1erate under an NPDES 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). At the present time, the BOO in the Districts ' discharc e is clo_E, to the limit; therefore, significant land use charges will impact the Districts ' facilities and, particularly, industrial and commercial users should take onsite measures to reduce the load strength of the sewage. Thar:k you for the opportunity to comment or. proposed Holly-Seac? iff General Plan Amendment, EIR No. 89-1 project. homas M. Dawes Director of Engineering TMD:jm ' ENGJENVIRON Southern Callfornla Edison Company 7333 BOLSA AVENUE RECEIVED WESTMINSTCR. CALIFORNIA e2683 December 28 , 1988 Jp N n 1 1988 TELtP"ONE U. O. MARTIN (7I41 eras.azea AN�R „UNTINOTUN BLACH DEPARTMENT Of T Hal Si.irruons , Sr . Planner Community Development Dept . ' City of Huntington Beach P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 SUBJECT: Draft Environmental. Impact Report 489-1 Dear Mr. Simmons : This is to advise that the subject property is located within the service territory of the Southern California Edison Company and that the electric loads of the project ' are within the parameters of the overall projected load growth which Edison is planning to meet in this area. Unless the demand for electrical generating capacity exceeds our estimates , and provided there are no unexpected outages to major sources of electrical supply, we expect to meet our ' electrical requirements for the next several years . ' Edison has developed several prograns which may prove extremely helpful to customers in increasing the efficiency of their operations and holding down, energy costs . Included ' among these are a new construction program and off-peak cooling . For more information, call the local Energy Services Department at (714) 755-7367 . Also, please be advised that the Southern California Edison Company owns and operates an electrical distribution substation facility in Planning Area "A This facility is ' part of our overall electrical transmission/distribution system which supplies electrical energy to a large portion of the City of Huntington Beach. The facility, identified as Parcel f11001559, is located on the west side of Edwards IStreet , just south of Ellis Avenue . It is requested that during the planning process , the Southern California Edison Company be contacted as to what ' measures can be taken to protect the integrity of the station and to mitigate potential complaints from future adjacent property owners . Such measures would include , but 1 are not limited to : Adecuate building setbacks , buffer zones , block walls , landscaping/open space , etc . Your consideration in this matter would be appreciated. If you have any questions , please do not hesitate to call rye . Yours truly; j2 I yJ I :ommunity Input � � � V E D , -1A N � 4 1988 ' Name Lorraine Faber H (714 ) 897-3994 r Address 15271 Nottingham Lane B (213) 431-7040 11-3 ' Huntington Beach , Ca. 92647 Please check appropriate bo xes Resident I Property Owner Interested Citizen member of dis-banded Ad-hoc committee to study area , Amigos de Bolsa Chica Executive Bd. E' Please add my name to the mailing list Comments/Input 1 ) Rezoning the industrial properties to residential was studied in the 1970s with a definitive report on file at , City Hall Planning Dept. This report as to small business operations already in business remaining non-conforming to new zoning & need for redevelopment/buy-out down the road should be analyised and noted in new report. Has any factors changed in this regard. (approxi . pg 90 -100) 2)The Bolsa Chica Linear Park, its size, etc. must acknowledge that it is planned to serve the entire 2nd Supervisoral Dist . (5+ cities) with no alternative site mapped. The EIR should quantify the county park deficiency in 2nd Dist. and propose , alternative locations to meet that deficiency if BC Linear Park is down sized or in the alternative ESHA intus�on is allowed. An analysis is needed of the degree of oil production intrusion on the park acreage to determine short range and long range net usable acreages. 3) Impacts on school districts related to industrial land being converted to residential needs to go beyond that of fiscal i considerations. What are the impacts on the children who will have to be bussed out to existing out-of-neighborhood schools. HOLLY - SEACLIFF AREA (please see over) CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 11/30/88 a Faber respose to Holly - Seacliff Area EIR w U Lacking neighborhood schools for open space/play area, how r U will this impact the usual park/openspace requirements for CO the area east of Goldenwest Street . What school facilities will accomod ' 4) What alternate locations can be proposed for the towing storage lots, and oil service companies if residential re-zones force relocation. Will financial assistance from public agencies ' be appropriate to subsidize relocations. What proposal is there for accomodating the Beach Blvd. auto- mobile dealerships' overflow auto & parts storage. Two years ' ago a cooperative storage area or new car auto park was proposed in the acreage proposed for residential re-zone. These auto dealerships make a high contribution through sales tax to the City budget. HB can' t afford to lose them due to lack of expansion space. 5) 'Mere are heavy equipment open storage uses at Goldenwest & Gar- field. The existing operators are rnvners of their properties. If it is proposed that these uses be allowed to remain, what buffers will be appropriate between the encircling residential developments and the existing operations. Wouldn' t this become a classic example of spot zoning? 6) At the initial meeting many nearby residents from the Main S t . area ' expressed their desire to have like housing next to them rather than a different use. That rational is equally relevant in regards to the industrial users who purchased land and developed ' in the middle of a industrial zone who may find themselves , due to rezones, on the edge of the industrial zone with i-ncompat- abilities with adjacent residential uses. (noise, odor, hazard to children, etc. ) The usability of their facilities will be restricted due to proximity to residential uses that they could not foresee at the time they proceeded with their projects. 1 �{� ORANGE COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT Board Members ' William E.Fa-ris C-a—a- Gerald 1_!�l!en --�t .-REC j � E j'� Roger R. Sranion Richard B. Edgar J�► "f,, ( Is88 Don R.Roth January 5, 1989 'rE'yT OF James P Reichert Mr. Hal Simmons Senior Planner City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Hal: SUBJECT: NOP DEIR 89-1 Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment ' We have reviewed the proposed project as described in the NOP and have the following comments: • OCTD currently offers service on two routes in the project area, as shown on the attached route maps and schedules . There are a number of existing stops in the project area as shown on Table 1. • In order to ensure that the residents, employees and visitors to this ' project area are able to access the available transit services , the following amenities should be incorporated in projects as they are approved for development in this General Plan Amendment area: The existing stops should be retained and bus turnouts provided, if determined by the City Traffic Engineer to be necessary based on traffic volumes or speeds. - Paved, lighted and handicapped accessible pedestrian. accessways should be provided between the project buildings and the bus stops. The bus stops should include passenger shelters and benches, on a paved passenger waiting area. • The commercial and industrial land uses in planning areas C, D and E could generate significant traffic volumes. The City may wish to consider requiring developments and employers in these planning areas to participate in an areawide Transportation Management Association, and in the promotion and implementation of ridesharing, ' alternate work schedules and other activities to reduce the traffic impacts of these land uses. As the agency in Orange County for coordinating these types of activities , the District can 11222 Acacia Parxray/PO. Box 3005/Garden Grow'a1!fornia 92642-3005:(714)971-6200 Mr. Hal Simmons January 5, 1989 ' provide services to the City and the area employers and developers for instituting a transportation systems management program in these planning areas. For further information on these services, please contact: Mr. Gary Edson Manager of Commuter Network Orange County Transit District PO Box 3005 ' Garden Grove, CA 93642 (714) 638-9000, extension 3434 We appreciate the opportunity to provide input to this DEIR and would like to receive a copy of the DEIR when it is released for public review. If you have any questions, or require further information, please call me at (714) 638-9000, extension 3401. ' Sincerely, C"s � n'r_ ' Christine Huard-Spencer Senior Transportation Planner Environmental and Land Use Planning Attachments: Route maps and schedules for OCTD routes 25 and 74 Table 1: Existing OCTD Stops in Holly-Seacliff GPA Area i 1 1 1 TABLE 1 EXISTING OCTD STOPS IN HOLLY-SEACLIFF CPA AREA Eastbound Garfield Avenue/Farside Crystal Street Northbound Golden West Street/Farside Yorktown Avenue Northbound Golden West Street/Farside Garfield Avenue Southbound Golden West Street/Nearside Ellis Avenue Southbound Golden West Street/Farside Garfield Avenue Northbound Main Street/ Farside Garfield Street Southbound Main Street/Farside GArfield Avenue , Westbound Yorktown Avenue/Farside Main Street i 1 1 ' ROUTE,,�74 ;SUN EASTBOUND HUNTINGTON BEACH TO IRVINE '�I' � �,•'•ve � ,'� � 7i � � � � � ' !'i 1 ;�;� 'r';�l i:� , �G�i:� �?' i is �` �j_! h` 4� �.i' r +l i � .11 i''I •s .a r 1. i. i.. ,r i • : y1 4? 1'1, j. C memo r r- t3 SANTA ANA• •4 1 , I�. b,804A 817A;,,822A. 827A 835A 043A 849A 651A 855A i1A.fAA.A TRANSIT TlNA11NALAll/A j V • ,�yt,;, ��` i•.', 14 wj �17.AI.AIA.1I.A.M.MA �t &.904 r.917 , 922 •, 927 935 943 949 951 955 t v,04: 1 uA. a.n' ;. 4 • '0} i D, r>t1E>1N a 1 d d 1003 1.1018 y11021 .11029 1038 1043 1049 1051 1055 .....�� •6,,110.1 1 1118 .1121 •1129 1138 1143 1149 1151 1155 •+'c•••.� •! •6G M/,,.aT' ., ''S/! I b 1203P1216P,1221P i,1229P, 1236P 1243P 1249P 1251 P 1255P " - ' ,• I cal b�103gFp,116„t:•121 --129, 136 143 149 151 155 1 ' f :. 1 f 'd,1!� •�� �rT°" + ' u,;� t I, b t 203;�;218 .,221' 229 ., 236 243 249 251 255 t' , 1''I a t . ;�,,w♦ • „y k 6,'•.300• •314 ,..310 `„'327 335 343 349 351 355 "' ' I'1 NEr4' I cl'+ ,i'•flrt t,,., ' b t, . t 19400 /14 4 ' r ♦ ♦ (' 1 6 1 600 $14 519 527 635 643 549 551 555 " '� ALL TRIPS ARE ACCESSIBLE TO THE HANDICAPPED fi •,<� ,�L +,'�),,p. ROUTE:-74 .SUN WESTBOUND ,: JR~VALUT cacao/ , Q Solt......« )! IRVINE TO HUNTINGTON BEACH _:::::,non: } • ♦ • ! wNw. „Z .gyp Tt.r, i �AM� • •♦r f y ' it /r hi 4 i�,o/,;>y f / / ♦•'i I 1 SERVICE T0: r i • Santa Ana 1 II • ,. r'�•. ,o .Z .• .e J c� 3 Y .IRVINE ,,; � j :•� � .. i r o Santa Ana Transit Terminal $ Santa Ana Civic Center I J ♦ a� Tustin ! ;� J.. .►• ,. It; 1 al Irvine ' r © © Irvine Valley College , /I,i�.' Ra('11 xn'ifTf,9Ji1:744'a•1 , 'ft.r ♦♦ ;OA ' 908A 213A '920A 027A 931A 942A Irvine Spectrum Industrial Area Iu,y{; !, N:434,4 R' tEa,.�+ t.N ♦ j1 ) ' ' • 1 b 1000 I'1006 1015 1023 1032 1036 1047 El Toro ]'>•';7:J,r ,:"c+:�n,r4,L r.J `: •♦ �,qA �•� fi ,','•i,Zi b 1100 W 1106' INS 1123 1132 1136 1147 EI Toro Marine Air Slatloh :,.`"!' '9'�!� !'!l:':1,1tL1 S ,:''IT!,' \ "to,IOU" tt 1 r' b'1200P IMP 1215P 1223P 1232P 1236P 1247P Wherry-Namar Housin °.>s +,,:c::: I,: : !!1'•.;*. '4 ♦ +� , EL torso. 106 '• `115 123 132 136 147 El Toro High School LAOUNAHILLS• ♦ }7 I Lake Forest ;' • ° 1.N200 1�2W 1•' 215 223 232 236 2r/ Laguna Hills ILTOrlofl o"k C 10 , , INS t ,, r,,,,rl 1,/1A ns _ D f C& 3M (" 306 r '315 323 3,12 336 347 Laguna Hills Mall I ♦ �� •„ >'„.•...•.••N••••• w � '. brS00'rL•� IL 415 423 532 536 547 addlobackHOs Hospital Y Stt, �'•., �•♦•• ».................. r .{};,�• 400 4J)6 415 413 432 436 447 S P �► ♦ 4 i1 1 T° Laguna Hill*,Transportation Center. 627 631 641 /' d �SSa 1. ,,...: .:.... .:N� t,;; .` ,1 .'�.• ,i;;,• ............. .....r L "ALL'6IPS ARE ACCESSIBLE TO THE HANDICAPPED g11T nr 41�I'r'��J 1pA P^'n t uoi ronruuw •rwre.' ,j I,,,,%ii ,nrl oNlca roINT/ i =nA A. H/1,u n II t ................. ..i /TIII/T/WITH 1111AIf911/NIotw@ POINT@ , eaauLAR R00111• 1 Y//SA04ALTIRNATIROVTMO n, %:'i 1. ;rli.tt ;?11 -1 • �r•Y!r••l.•. ...,....Y .A '�' ,h'•«��.2 3 :`1Lr••I:y.:J.:''. r,1' ^ � ' .....+ `.:.:,) •ROUTE 74 i SAT;EASTBOUND:!',•; 'ROUTE�;�74,;MON',THRU' FRI WESTBOUND � . ' ; • +• o..kDHa..EiAora.r n.0 TIMES Flta.6t1CATE AM 8 BfiPMs '. HUNTINOTON BEACH TO IRVINE j�, K ��;� '• " rt i�•,: a ( '. IRVINE TO HUNi1NGTON BEACH © © O ' ' O . 0..' 0 0 0 0 ' �•t(; JG$ ,, ,. 700A '713A" 71W'' 727A 734A,' 741A 746At'7/8A 752A6� fb5A' 811A':820A 630A 631A 643A 651A ' 600 613 819 827 $34 841 ''1 046 SO 852' c &1635*•11$41 ul'no,i( 7D0 707 713 72/ r LU ' 900 t' 913 °' 919 927 '! 931 DIt 946 918 952' 1' t':T b 1701 141708 ;I•.720 Cr; 730 !..! 740 747 $01 .1&'1731 41'738 cl!'750 3; 000 :', 810 $17 831 & 1000 ' 1013' 1019 1027. '1035 r!:1045 - 1051 31053 1057' 'f f'I ,,1�4•',;,: b't a01 ti!:608'!�820 830 840 847 901 b 1100' 1113 '' 1119"1127 1135 145i .1151 q.t 1153 1157' i! •,.. r i b 1200P 11213P•'1219PC-1227P1 1235P+ 1245P 1251Pt 1253P 1257P b 833'�k!840:t t 851 J ••900 !'+ 909 914 925 „ t; e t 11-261%i;:b t1903;e 910 05 921 ?i2' 930 939 94/ .: 955 I b;' 100 113 119 X 121 :i 135 k, 14S 151 #r 153 157 r, b 200 '`213 219 227, 235 'J•245 ' 251 253 251; 1'01 ±b 2 933'2'.940'1',`951 +1, 1000 : 1009 104 1025 Sr:"&1.1008 r 1015 t,1026 E 1035 1 1044 t049 1100 i.; b t 300 313 't 319�t�l 327 335','�345 f_�351 ►r 353 '" 357 tl 14 t.=p d 11043!','•,1050 tr:1101 t(,1110 '•:1119 1124 t 135 1; 6. '400 413 419.'.t'427 435'iS,•'445 451 ��453 457 ` (�►rl,. . b`I118 112S+,1135 It 1145 1154 1159 1210P A 500 513 'i'519 527 535 ;'5A5 �;'5S1 ''i 1"553" 557 a 141#3 A140 P1158''lr'1209P' 1220P 1230P 1236P 1249 l�,�.,.���b.'1224P.�'.1231Py 124/ Ti 1255 105 111 12/ ALL TRIPS ACCESSIBLE,TO HANDICAPPED 1 Y r'�•�• r t b,1259 1 1 108:!r 119:'. 130 ,•t:140 146 159 ' f„ +C .6,�134 94! 141:Z r 154?0 205 215'. 221 231 1 ;•FI ',1� L, ^•..•1:.5. ! �.H'1?tIf;VYrj';�11(;�:H�'�r,:}+�~,., �� ; J c►s' siis►7 '222.;:3 237;,s 250 '=301 30e . 322 i ROUTE :74'SAT WESTBOUND 1 'a1C 1 b 1250"wY 257'C?:312;':325 336 ' 343 357 i b.`d 325 ISM 332 ;*r 347 ;,C 400 !1411 418 432 j 1 Y,1( IRVINE TO HUNTINGTON BEACH 6:>400r11407'0;422 V436 :>.:446 .453 607 ` q- 11 431 lT•1438'i,454'1 $10 '1:621 $28 541 1;,! :,b•;501 .`1- 508 :i S24 540 ":651 558 '811 t �, r:`.ti,•; b 7:531 538 554 610, '621 628 641 1 « 1 6061:t%614 627 :' '1 640 648' 654 106 .• a J '� A b 5'656,lf t 704 V-, 717 ri 730 ' 738. 744 756 U,ALL',TRIPS ARE ACCESSIBLE TO THE HANDICAPPED {:C".',.}!� •t2 f r' b 802A $09A,• 820A 827A ,'833A 839A 850A 902 909 • 920 927 •• 933 939 950 ' b 1002 . 1009 .1020 ,,1027 rj1033 ( 1039 1050 3 8 1102 1109 „111$ 1127 .•,1135 1140 1152 1202P. 120913.•;1218P.•.1227P. 1235P 1240P, 1252P tStr •, /00 2tr S err e0t & 102 109 1IS 1 ' 162 127 13s sav*!;"0►S act Tss ors eos ; & 202 200 '1"218 227 ' 235 " 240 252 Sec "0►C•. 1•,2CC 1SE err, eOP. ; j, ,A ,302 .,, 309,,E 318'tr 327 338,t1,,340,1,1.352 , b '402 406 411 426'.^ 434 439 450 S a }1f` ' 1 b .502 506 'S 511 �, 526 . 534 ! 539 ' 550 ',..M,:1 .. . 602 008 " 617 626 634 699 650 S$h1I'11t `•., I a ALL TRIPS ACCESS111$LE TO THE HANDICAPPED 210 1 II �•�r�y'',211 ..-, i i : •,4 , ROUTE i74' MON THRU 'FRI'•EASTBOUND ,.( t ,; A HU"NOTON BEACH.Td IRVINE,;;��FACE TIMES INDICATE PEAK HOURS PwA Ilo1►e:Mobley/wr Friday,6/AM d 34`M „', r .� i ,t..i� I Si I I + r ,Y •� •M 1 ty � 1 ;� r .dot .! kFu culvER b 525A '537A I 542A:'550A C 600A'>:610A I(616A'' 619A 623A 555•: 607 't $12 '61620 1.3 630 1c::640 It:646 649 653 b 62S 1 637 B 642 650 9.700''1,1710 it:'716 %'719 723 I' If RN1 v b 650 10 706'A:712 a11!720 Z•0::130,!25740 ie'.747 f- 751 755 72o 736 742•'�:750 . ri. ''= ItE!SW;;i;610 iQ:e17 r,' e21 e25 SANTA ANA+dSY*.• �� •••^•••••••••••t b 745 801 607't�615 1's'625 t':635 )�!6/2~ e46 eso ; I IRVINE• U01101AANE7►LAC( "d h• 5' r BB,f1.I•,16,fBA } b 620 'c 632 r t' 637':t 6/5 r`1:L 65S ' 905 m�912 t •.918. ,'.920 `I• Ft 4.R�e I �AIN O !1 1 Gti L/ p9 •••••••••••�•••••• b 1055 27 1^.1941 +i 10 7 I W 9 1008�3111018 940?+�1023 I+11028 19030 'i l r •4'P VA, • ' 1 • wfoAo. 22 1030 1041 1.1053 1058(:'I 10 1 1105 . /'M hA d P{1� •" '(''B"www•� b 1031 1051 1057 •.;1105•1'•III16::,1126. .1133 fi 1138 1140 r + r IA,A ' •�'I'� f 1 ''I''• °►J b 1112'.t.1126 ''1132'•Z.1140-;.:1151 r '1203P'yII1t 12111 1215P /A I� •/4 r b 1147: .1201P '1207P 1215P .1226P''1236 1243►S 1246 1250 y 11 �, u" 't~ eweww•ww•www•ee••t b 1222P, 1238 ". 1242' '`1250.'I 101 :'7.113 t 118 f'• 121 125 , y M y /OIIfN COAlf/LAIA • ., O../A,f1A n•Be.BwwEE•IWNo/ ww ONLn 114 "! 1211''i 130'�9 142 t:r 152 1'.1 159.1' 203 200 ' ww•l wAE wwwwi it •••r+ '1 1% b 133'. '.1/9 158 Y.205 t1 217 'is 227 .:''234 +ti 23B , r 243 '1:1f., Kr W�. •n COSTA MESA• , . •, 1 b 206 224 231 • '.240 252:1 302 ;'l.309 it 313 ' 318 NAAeoR e�� - :•� ,,� ....... i b 243 1. 259'''306 't 31S !7 327'. '1 337 '. 344 Z;'348 353 c •t , o° Z b 313 329 336 '345 i'357 :A 407 414 t,' 418 423 1 tt ■, SERVICE TO: b 343'1 359 406 ' 415 •I 427 :1437 "444 I 448 4S3 Eucuoif'fA y >B JIB Irvine {' I University of California, Irvine b 413 421 436 445 4S7+': 507 514 51e 523 FOUNTAIN VALLEY♦ John Wayne Airport Shuttle b /43 459 '506 615 S27 I S37 $44 I, 54e 553 b 519 633 SO . 5% 600 ` . 612 618 621 626 Parking y Costa Mesa : 709.t b 621 633 638' . 645 655 •1 703 i. 712 716 1 ' �j •I, .,, ,, ' I South Coast Plaza i rb nA Santa Ana ALL TRIPS ARE ACCESSIBLE TO THE HANDICAPPED t+ ;1': �-, • .- 1i', Fountain Valley MAO r tl •.Ci ' Huntington Beach 1 r � A Huntington Beach Civic Center Five Points Shopping Center 1 HUNTINOTON REACH e 1 � ice..,,•. r CACN NA .�f� ,' II;,•il °ot�� +On (1!-1 117111E T(WITM NUM10(11e INDICATE • III'! 1� t(�Jr1�• � � .�e�1 tMN1f(11►OINT/ i•I ' I It '�;• 208 209 ji i l ROUTL7,5%25AjMONr'THRU FRI-SOUTHBOUND �"`' ' "'. ' I FULLERTON TO HUNTINGTON BEACH'•'r�' 'i .•. :',;;• •I I. BOLD FACE TIMES INDICATE PEAK HOURS '1 HUNTINGTON BEACH TO FULLERTON,', t4�t;�• �};�;�,��4,A 1. ;'y,t' I�,,' Peak 11oon:Mondry ftu Friday,9.9AM 6 3-GPM '- ,f . .F+.�SI1 qYq ,II .: 1 1. ,• 1 1 ��rr•I i, 1� t t � 1, , I a 10 YIn aE m ' 71� r,3 3 W00 (� 1' 0 ; 550A 555A 604A 615A 623A 720A 739A' 750A 758A 807A 81SAh.82/A, 832A 840A ;','.'.,,;;,,,,, " y 550A� 556A '1606A 1 615A '625A 635 640 649 700 708 628 S39 850• 856 !, 907rit 91S 924 932 ,940 ' S3a A 542A,';;;';: ' A' 555 605 619A .622 `630 .. 611 651' 701 711 718 727 739 748 928' 939 ,:•950 ', 955 .1 1o01 1015,r„102/ 1032' 1040 A 624 634 ,.{64l) ^ 651:j.:659 ;710 f 720 .. 730 740 747 756 808 817 i 1029 ' 1039 1050 1058"4 1107 ' 1115 1124 11321 1140 A 654 104 ,;lta g�721 ;;:729 'i 740, -750 .-$00 $10 817 826 838 847 1128. 1139 J150 1156 V 1207P. 1215P 1224P 1232P, 1240P A 725 735 •,.•749��1`752M:y 800, It 811'f+'821 $31 841 $48 857 909 918 t 1228P ,1239P 1250P 125l)P 107 115 '124 132 140 751 807 �qq t ` 8 d•816 ;824,' $3S 845 855 905 912 921 933 9/2 i 12s 139 I'150 l58 v 207; 215 224. 232 240 , 139 •.q ,,.r�: 848,+ir)8 91 54' +901 ' 912 922 932 938 948 1000 1009 228 239 I' 250 25811 307 315 324; 332, ; 340 9t0 9t9 •,'•'';,yl�:926 034,!, 944 952 1002 1012 Iota 1028 1040 1049 328 339 i' 350 356 407 ' 41S 424 '432; '440 950 959 "�`,j•'' :loos�*1014.•'•.1024; '•1032 1042 1052• 1058 1108 1120 1129 ( 42a 437 417 455 503 512 520 526 !'�S36 :.., 1 1030 1040 y.1050 057 1107t''1117 1128 1 S/7 55r`80 612 60 628, 1139 C 6361 3 ;n!;y 1105 1115 'r, ;, t 1125 . .1132 1142 " 1152 1203 P 1214 P 1221 P 1231 P 1244 1253 - • I .. ti• r tiR r 1 15 1150 1200P'.1207P ,1217P_1227P 1238 1249 1256 106 119 128 SATURDAY SERVICE AT FULLERTON PARK N RIDE ALLOWS t, 1115P 1215P•;,.,,'I'1235�1242 i"1252 , 102 .113 124 131 1/1 15/ 203 ' FOR CONVENIENT TRANSFER Of PASSENGERS FROM LINE 25' , 1250 100. ;,.;, ••,110! 117, ti,127 137 U8 159 206 218 229 238 NORTHBOUND TO LINE 26 EASTBOUND. !;, 125 1 ,;,fit 1�r;145' tb2 ':202 .� 212 , 223 234 241 251 304 313 ROUTE 25 SAT:SOUTHBOUND 't ' 200 210 I0 !i+. .+1220•; r 227 237 247 258 302 316 326 339 348 i N.' 1• ! 235 2/5 ,,.,,,, t,•25gn` 302''`;312 ;322 333 34/ 351 401 '414 /23 FULLERTON TO HUNTINGTON BEACH A 314 325 r*34SP 348 ' �359 •'-'.411 421 433 445 451 502 515 523 A 344 355 .,410 ;),/13 ,421'.a_'43L.''. /41 /52 50S S12 523 536 546 l" Y A 419 130 445 1 8' ',,456 •..•'S06 516 527 540 547 558 611 621 A 449 500 ,515, 518.;t 526 536 `� 546 557 610 617 628 641 651 ie B 1a y 530 541 ' ';.551 559 609 819 630 643 650 701 714 724 604 613 622 r 628 638 647 655 704 709 718 729 737 ♦ b 717 726 ':'I� 735 741 751 800 808 811 822 831 842 850Ll >y ~ ! � ., A A. OPERATES ALTERNATE 750A 759A 806A 814A 822A 828A 836A 847A 856A "';',a•,•;�;:, j� 850 859 we 914 922 928 936 947 956 ROUTE SERVING HUGHES 95o l000 loos Will 1027 .1033 1042 1054 1103 d, f. .t •, 1o5o ltoo 1100 Jill) 1127 1133 1142 1154 1203P 1150 J200P 12061) 1218P 1221P 1233P 1242P 1254P 103 125OP 100 10B 118 127 133 112 154 203 .'.• ., t5o 200 .' 206 ': 218 ..227 233 242 254 303 - i••. :,a,�� �' ?' 250 300 308 318 c 321 : 333 342 351 403 t' 350 400 406 418 426 431 439 449„ . 456, , + 450 500 506• 518 526 53, 539 549, 556 •+." '"Sy ,�' 550 600 806 616 626 631 639",.649;; 656 y,attv,' 4y'r 1�• SATURDAY SERVICE AT FULLERTON PARK N RIDE ALLOWS ' t'•' '��+a+Y" ' 4�.;'X„i ;;l i• fOq CONVENIENT TRANSFER OF PASSENGERS FROM LINE 26 ;' 1 WESTBOUND TO LINE 2S SOUTHBOUNO. /1 r ' , � � ''yy'wwiiAs►ifVarw,wln ,. • 't,',r.. {,rl'I'i '!l' "1';.� 1 ['I•n ,�', 1 ,Ir, ,1.1i ��"�L"r,.]IG'';r",'y' „ , Ire •Ir ;, .,,il• �r rYYMr. . .'1•' ;1 , ..'•'..:il'I R'Z II:JJ1'K7'.1.'. 7rm. vlt'tt'vKf NuuaY sYl .lV ►TiKYSL S •1unoN YYiA AY03a3MwrrsLrr •.i• ' ' U�. fi..•rm r•wo,Z ON11n0Y YYlnoaY w•�� .,I';,',' �� )v.•iC, .,, . ' _ . .. .. Y1N10A 1/J/YNrsll , Af Y/N {1Y910N1{YINWnN Him{lasulY Off' �d. 19� • ••.q•.••••.• t 1 '' , ,1• , { S1H10J 1431N0$WI1Q X) OY'YYf �• , o� S ,'Yl'uwsi'sz. `O� 'r/ M "S aONYYO ONY NIs , ` , I I • 1 ' �p► ,s l ��, S ..'............ l , j^ HOV39 N01DNl1NnH* , =n--!�,t y: s, lald Lping uol6ullunH .. N�S� r t'''��1: - ., lalua0 oIMO 409a8 uo16ullunH I,I R. K NM04XWOA t', LalUaO U016u1tunH :,. +1 r ;: 1,+1 ■ v smonii MAWS 31n011 • 31YNl1311Y S31V1i3d0 — V • 0601100)Sam UaploO O00 UO 6U un ;••••••.N.N•H•Nr•; .s ;: u YiNYYM 4 8 1 11 H 1{l 1.1 1►1 •1 . .; fIB1N lalsulwlsaM of NVK'Kv{L ci ; �� o■ . , Ya1N2D Not DN(1M'IH • ' ••• : 9►1 LEl 9aL st1 JalsuiwlsaM .aDa„DO 1faM NaOwO S51, • , Zvi ►CL, 111 OZL I Zll tot ►S9, SW 9c9 tie 919 909 a.�ltAoo l01 6S9• M., S►9: Lee eZ9' ' 519 019 ,. t09 ZSS its OCS UOIUBl$ , db " G Na ow]w ►19' ►o9' ►ss' t/5 US, ON ols• Ls► Sop f ssa�dd0 ! •"`i ■ 1 l"1 909 9SS1 + L►S j 6CS ,+ 6ZS $IS,,, 909 1S1 S►/ Set ZZ► Olt W140LIBUV *1131SNIW1S3M j, YN'N vs,oa i•■ �rih.••.•.r•.r..• i X18d Buena ' ►; 1 ;; 1■ S(AVOID i0N➢Ha3M NI ; 1 1 'AAW 4e / . , v►►'n Esc'sr. its Its. ~1tS ZtS. " ►O5, ` 15/, ►►►; CC► LZl: ' Ot►, 00► L►C SEE Y apld-N�I�gd uouelind I OYOp4OY Y111Nw{1saM nrwualsNrwlsaN 905 95►.; Z/I lerr 611; 6t►I. 60►E •95C;' Lot,'' set, Sze ltC OOC V ICut3dwo011eJajl`dsey6nH �, YD ■ ••••••••••••.•••••• M 91/, liv 'l Lot 6Sc etc ; 6cC+ 91c.• !lc_ Sot sse Zvi 0CZ V ' NOA�7AO"ONiO.,.{.� V ,, 90►. 95C dI/C;K7lCC�j'6ZC'� 61Cj"60c;1:`es? .,.1►Z;1 'see We.,S12- ZIZ We Y e6ap00 UOUa(fnd *3AOIi0 N3oHV0 11 n(�<i Iv1•l■ `'r 80c 65Z '� os?, Zoe" CCZ�" /ZZ�. ►!Z YOl PSI Sol ZCt oil 1 UOU9ffnj uQu816� I ,'�NO1NV18 tv"M064 r,—0 ' eta ate'. oli Zoi ;'cst', „ tot ";►C1 ' ►zt, tit •Sol asZ1 o►ZI :01301AU3S _;.,: ;' „'' va a n,uv>!. ' , r. vSS3UdA3 Cs1 ►►t I' scI' ' Lai, 9II'.;, 601;'. eSZI " e►lt • ecll d%?l dLIZI dSOZt �Ir 1 "T 1 t 1 *W13HY►IY• �',' s►„ro 91t 601 001 ZSat C►Zl`. d►CZI, d►ZZI d►tZI,d►OZt ,SSIt• Zvtl OCIt 1 ,,•, „IYnM�C! P1+. LCZI d6ZZl dtZZ�. dCIZI' d►OZi SSII SKI' 901 9Ztl Lill 901t SSOI ..,a � ■ Y►aDNruo r., 1 r dZOZI ►Sll' '.9►t1' 90V Ult' Odlt'' 011C loll ISOI Z►Ol ICOI OZOI T Dot•A►{'etl-tot C1YKl:j;rc► ►zNwoNrt'r .L„ . 'M 11sc'YC In U%e rst•K• ■ 1,,;•c''r'' i 2 . aour+r>rYrA NotuarYu= i w 1 J J t',�r�{ttl■ ,Y c;.' Leit am lilt, COIL ►Sol SKI scot 9ZOl 9LOt Loot 956 S►6 X �••••••••••••••... •• ZSOI ►YOl 9COt 9ZOl elOt OIOt i pool lS0 t►e ZC8 tm 016. •., nc a NrW,rArt' *HkIVdVN3n9 o ,'�1 —AMA rinlYr� L101 6001 tool CS6 ►►e see:, ,Sze. 916 906 1S9' 9►9 see 1 " '' ^y�Mv ■ . of Ore, ;,�; lee', ota.I we 004' lot. 9to( el9 ol9 Ole 009 ( a 9se Soo' tee see tie t08 list Sol' Set set ol: Soe 0 A y oc iaYowaoNVYo ■ ■ Y uoNYuo ' ... ... .. ; ►i Y M �' �N11Y9MNOWWOJB • r Lte 9Z9, r' 6lQ' 809 •"LSl,,•. 8►1, 9C[' 9L[ '' 11L VOL 9S9 809 - 4 i r I ZN � ill too OSL 9►1; SCI. ►lC sit tot CS9 /►9 See SZ9 5l9 Vttl• ; OZI; 91l'.. 50L:;•159;y 5/9,,f tC9, CL9, /l9, S09SSS S►S V `1 ,•,,y,,�,,,`.,►01 959 VC►9 -:6C9 IC9''. , OZ9 119'' £09 ►SS' Y9►S'.,VO►S .. VOCS V1ZS V YCC9 YSZ9 Y919 V909 VLSS vets VO►S VQOOAUnN lCSS •I tkK yt i{�;.n� ;" `fti� O . 0. . 0 r'; �� ��..0 0' 0 . .0. 0 0 0 = {•'Y{S'{►'C►'K'Ysi'{L; I s. i.•.•. ....�.-••4 1 y1:. Y3UrNWtl.... ........ } .... •'1'' LL' 0 Z i n •r•.•.••..•.•.•.r.•.••• •.••r..pM••..r•.rrr•r... r •, ,• AWdOW 1m3Yn S3MW. w � Ir• I � l ! I ', l{�� F� 'y �� ,�_ 1~ � a ` .} M r...i rt 1 Uwr+re n,dAr r►{ JjWW:Nr N 3 Ol NOl`, A 1 I 1 1 ?IY3dl 53M ^��I al , •', i.lnM l i►rnnatl l ''111,44'nHHl` N01 V5Z) ,TATE 01 CALIFORNIA f3QOfg• Deukmeltan. AIR RESOURCES BOARD 102 0 STREET O. BOX 2815 .CRAMENTO, CA 95812 RECEIVED FE6141989 February 10 1989 dFPART.%AF'.'1T OF ' Mr . Hal blmmons City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street , Huntington Beach , CA 92648 Dear Mr . Simmons : Holly—Seacl_iff General Plan Amendment SCH No . 89010412 We have reviewed your December 22 . 1988 . Notice of , Preparation (NOP ) for the subject Draft Environmental impact Report ( DEIR ) , received here January 9 . 1989 . we thank you for the opportunity to comment . , PROJECT DESCRIPTION : The proposed project Is a general plan amendment for ' the Holly—Seacllff area within the City of Huntington Beach . A total of 768 acres would be affected , with up to 5 , 873 dwelling ' units proposed for development . COMMENTS : The NOP Indicates there may be Impacts on air quality from the project . We agree , as the project will Include site preparation and construction , vehicle trips associated with the ' commercial activities , and growth— inducing effects . To assure a thorough analysis of the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project , the DEIR should ' Include further air quality impact analysis and place emphasis on the Identification of measures to mitigate the project ' s emissions to the maximum extent feasible . Enclosed are our "Guidelines for Air Quality impact Assessment " and also the "Air Quality Handbook" prepared by the ' South Coast Air Quality Management District . These guidelines describe the types of Information which should be contained in the DEIR and Include a list of mitigation measures which we recommend you review for their applicability to this project . ' Please note that mitigation measures chosen to reduce the length and frequency of automobile trips should be designed ' to fit specific project conditions and the potential emission reductions should be quantified . In addition , we recommend that �r . Hal Simmons -2- February 10, 1989 Rhe DEIR Identify who Is to Implement each mitigation measure at various phases of project Implementation , identify needed lnancial commitments and requirements for future tenants or mployees , and include a process for monitoring the Implementation . _ If we can provide additional Information or assistance , lease contact Jon Pederson at (016) 323-8902 . ' Sincerely , I Raymo d E . Menebroker , Chief Project Assessment Branch Stationary Source Division Enclosure 'cc : Garrett Ashley , OPR Jeff Binggham , Caltrans District 7 Srian Farris , SCAQMD Mark Pisano , SCAG Leo 8evon , Southern California Rapid Transit District Mark Brucker , EPA Region IX CAtifORNIA-7Kf RESOURCES AGENCY GEORGf DEUKMfJ AN, ()owmor ' 1 JMENT OF CONSERVATION Of ADMImime'S SP,4D ON RECEIVED Of �.UNES AND pE0{OGr Of 011 AND GAS Of REC`YCLtNG 1a16 Sttwr 1!I F E B 15 1989 SACRAMENTO, CA 9521A Too (916) 324.2333 , DEPARTMENT OF ATSS AS4-2333 I 9 , 1989 (916) 445-8733 I Mr. Hal Simmons, ' City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street ' Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Mr. Simmons: Subject: Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a Draft Environmental , Impact Report (EIR) for the City of Huntington Beach's Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment, BCH# $9010412 ' The Department of Conservation has reviewed the subject NOP and has the following comments on oil well and seismic safety issues. OIL WELL ' The site is located in an extensively-active Huntington Beach oil field project. There are considerable active, idle, injection, and abandoned oil wells in the project site. Division of Oil and Gas map 134 can be used to approximate the location of the recorded wells. Sites C and E are located in anomalously-high known gas seeps (Department of Conservation, Division of Oil and Gas report: "A ' Study of Abandoned oil• and Gas wells and Other Hazardous Gas Accumulations") . Methane gas can accumulate beneath developed areas where concrete and asphalt surfaces prevent the natural ' migration of the methane gas to the atmosphere. If this occurs, and a crack develops in the concrete or asphalt at some later time, the gas could migrate into the interior of the overlying structure and cause an explosion or fire. Therefore, it may be necessary to include a study of the sites to determine: the likelihood of gas accumulation due to development. The appropriate action will be dictated by the findings. ' we recommend that the developer provide- adequate clearance and access to active wells remaining on the sites for workover rig ' equipment. Also, we recommend that the wells and associated equipment, within the project sites, be enclosed by an eight-foot block wall , with barbed wire on the inside at the seven-foot level . ' Hal Sim.'rions bruary 9 , 1989 age Two litable access gates should be provided. The grade within the enclosed areas should be constructed so that potential oil illage will be confined within the enclosure. For public safety, climbable landscaping should be prohibited ound any oil facility, as this would defeat the purpose of the lls and fences. The soil within the project sites should be tested for possible it contamination resulting from old oil field practices. If ntamination is present, the Regional Water Quality Control Board should be contacted for proper soil disposal. i 'o ensure proper review of building projects within the subject sites, the Division has provided the City of Huntington Beach fith a "Construction Project Site Review and Well Abandonment rocedure" packet. The procedures outline the information that a roject developer must submit to the Division for review. Lfany unrecorded wells are uncovered or damaged during cavation or grading, the Division of Oil and Gas shall be notified, and remedial cementing operations may be required. tf any structure is to be located over or in the proximity of a reviously-abandoned well , there is the possibility that the well may need to be reabandoned. Public Resources Cede (PRC) Section l208 . 1 authorizes the State Oil and Gas Supervisor to order the eabandonment of any previously-abandoned well when construction of any structure over or in the proximity of the well could Fesult in a hazard. The cost of reabandonment operations shall e the responsibility of the owner of the property upon which the structure will be located. tlthough future problems from oil and gag wells that have been bandoned or reabandoned to the Division' s current specifications are remote, we, nevertheless suggest that an effort be made to tvoid building over any abandoned well. If construction over an bandoned well is unavoidable, we recommend that an approved gas venting, system, recommended by the Division, be placed over the (ell . ritten approval from the State oil and Gas Supervisor is required prior to plugging or abandoning. any well. The ,operator ' s notice of intent to perform any well operations is reviewed on an engineering and geological basis. The approval of a notice depends primarily on the following: protecting all lsurface hydrocarbons and fresh waters, protection of the enviro=e.nt , -,sing adequate blowout prevention equipment , and Mr. Hal Simmons February 9 , 1989 , Page Three utilizing accepted cementing techniques. The Division must alsobe notified to witness or inspect all operations specified in the approval of any notice. These include tests and inspections of blowout prevention equipment, reservoir and freshwater- ' protection measures , and well-plugging- operations. The scope and content of information that is germane to the ' Division ' s responsibility are contained in Section 3000 et seq. of the PRC, and administrative regulations under Title 14 , Chapter 4 , of the California Code of Regulations. SEISMIC SAFETY Based on our review of the Huntington Beach Seismic Safety , Element and Division of Mines and Geology (DMG) publications pertinent to the project site, the primary geologic/seismic ' hazards potentially affecting the project appear to be: - Ground rupture along traces of the active Newport-Inglewood fault; ' - Very strong ground shaking associated with an earthquake on the Newport-Inglewood fault or other nearby active faults; - Expansive soils ; and ' - Long-tern regional subsidence, due to the withdrawal of oil. As indicated in the NOP, a preliminary geotechnical investigation should be conducted for the project. It is important that the investigation be sufficient to identify any geologic hazards on the site which may impose land use or design constraints on the project, and to allow the determination of feasible and appropri- ate mitigative solutions for project impacts, before the project is approved. Since the City anticipates that additional geotechnical evaluation will be a part of future Specific Plans ' in the project area, the City may wish to include specific guide- lines for these future geotechnical studies in the Draft EIR. The Newport-Inglewood fault zone runs through the site. Portions , of all the proposed Community Planning Areas, except Area "C" , are within an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone (A-P Zone) . Under the Alquist-Priolo Act, development within an A-P Zone is subject to certain requirements and restrictions. DMG Special Publication 42 describes these development constraints. Because of the serious threat to people and property posed by the hazard ' of surface fault rupture within the A-P Zone, the City may wish to consider leaving undeveloped portions of the land within the A-P Zone as open space. U Hal Simons uary 9 , 1989 Page Four d to the site appears to be seismic round The greatest bazar pp 5 haking. The entire project is within one mile of the ewport-Inglewood fault. Ground motion at the site associated ith a large earthquake on the fault may well exceed Uniform Building Code (UBC) criteria for design of earthquake-resistant ltructures . The City may wish to consider structure design and onstruction beyond the minimum standards prescribed by UBC. f you have any .questions regarding these comments, please feel ree to contact me at (916) 322-5873. Sincerely, eD Dennis J. O' Bryant Environmental Program Coordinator Iwo: efh Icc: Mike Stettner, Division of Oil and Gas Zoe McCrea , Division of Mines and Geology RZF£RENCES: IAlquist-Priolo Special Studies zones Map, Seal Beach Quadrangle, Revised July 1, 1986. ' Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zones Map, Newport Beach Quad- rangle, Revised July 1, 1986. Hart, Earl W. , 1985 , Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California; California Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42 . Morton, Paul K. , Miller, Russel V. , Evans, James R. , 1976, Environmental Geology of Orange County, California; California Division of Mines and Geology Open File Report 79-8 . Toppozada, Tousson R. , Bennett, John H. Borchardt, Glenn, Saul, Richard, and Davis , James F. , 1988 , Planning scenario for a Major Earthquake on the Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone; California ' Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 99 . 14 Historic Resources Board l CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ' 6UNTINCTONMACH Post Office Box 190 . Huntington Beach, California 92648 January 18 , 1969 , Hal Simmons Senior Planner City of Huntington Beach RE: Notice of Preparation Draft EIR 89-1 Dear Hal ; Through an oversight, I did not receive this document in time ' to present it to the Historic Resources Board for input. I be- lieve, however, that the members would .approve the following gen- eral comments . Although they are not easily recognised, the cultural re- ' sources located within the plan boundaries may well be among the most significant in the city. I feel confident that a long range program can be developed to ameliorate the impacts on them. ' There are at least three major cultural resources sites within the area: 1 ) The Holly Sugar Plant site. This plant, the first all ' electric one anywhere, was in operation from 1911 to 1921 , and was dismantled during the oil boom. 2) The "Old Field" oil field which contains Huntington A-1, the discovery well; Bolea Chica 01, the gusher of the entire , Huntington Beach Field, and the unique area known as the "Encyclo- pedia Lots . " This oil field is of national importance since it signaled the beginning of the Los Angeles oil boom of the 1920s . 3) The series of prehistoric Native American sites . These are important because some contained human remains . Mitigation measures should include careful walk over inspec- tion by trained observers of the entire area, the presence of both prehistoric and historic archaeologists on site when the subsur- face is broken, thorough review of oil records to locate the original oil pipes and refuge dumps, and possibly on site ex- ' planatory plaques like the one already at Huntington A-1 . Since the proposed land uses will virtually obliterate earlier func- tions, I hope that mitigation can include creation of a public ' interpretative center in the area to display found artifacts and describe the cultural background. Please send me future documents regarding this important de- velopment plan. If the Board members can assist you, do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, , 'arbara Milkovich, Chairman ' t n 1. Z ,� �89 r HOLLY - SEACLIFF GPA PROJECT CORRESPONDENCE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Appendix C 1 1 TO: Mr. Jeff Renna, Huntington Beach Water Department DATE: February 10, 1989 ' SUBJECT: Environmental Impact Questionnaire PROJECT: Holly-SeaCliff General Plan Amendment City of Huntington Beach QUESTIONS: (Attach additional sheets if required) r1. What types of services do you provide? r 2. Please describe where the City's water supply is derived from. I0a� S qf l044— M cJ-A%Lre cqZ. �,w ,,., eA�( oyw v r1cL L4)adc. Lo-e.� " A-�� \m port- Lo aAke.r C o(1 M C4"cd nS- f2> Mw -c�. -Z to q 44'.2r c,j�ks L,.rcc+esr- Como forry c ,-,�vndavct J .30 la r''L 3. List the names and locations of the facilities serving the site (include W� ' existing water mains), their distance from the site, their caracity, and the level at which they are presently operating. .eQ ts.r noc�J o� ►'`�-- ate �.tl L Cst� tZ, t c ¢_✓VF pr�yswr•n.. c�nd �i�c. -�ro�,.� -b `f� h..�r'luv -e-(S.�a�►moo�* s prtser the ►�1-'s- �«x -b 4. What level of service, if an , do you provide to project area at this time? e.&�� �Tp rvt, pea. -- Mv- 5. Approximately how many gallons per minute of water will be utilized by the r project and what is this figure based on? �p�J AenS Al r 3 us e of 32, G f M H 1G {f 3 a G P M (2 35 MAd�L v A-- 3 tr 5 GPM Conlrna�c ta-Q . G P�` t Mid w rr.- L,-(,g�%j ; L(a �, G P t`1 o Page I of 3 ' -1 1`a✓ P►"°j"k- S vf-e l S (aCO3f eCQ. L r LWAAL ► t February 10, 1989 ftS96uxl- -+ a %S+r"t.ck 422/02.004 vn. `mac qt A, w, e w�� rya / K occ r 6. Will the proposed land use adversely impact the level of service you presently provide? AaOC OP ft%A MAL5+-0 LCLLV- C!o 11 CkAr W LV-'--) 7'r a"•. S ple� i rnQro ve-Yy\-Q S 0.S 1 ,a MO-'&a I l vim,p ,+-+ l PV'o}�,C$- a�s�. • �Ihe (a.Ar\c� a j; � -,csL -b y-P•Q� Prro a, vte� �.e�nS i. C r�-ER.✓'tc�, c�.�o c yy►mot.,@ 9� b�. '1�. CA** GHQ t ICLA • to 461ift (0ju,U Xq— usu L trr�Pac -lsuxQ 7. What are the current plans for a pansion of your facilities including phasing SJtc4, of your facilities (include use, location, capacities, and completion dates)? Include any of these which may serve the project site, such as new distribution water mains. i Rutt D�c+rtc�--• w iJU tnsJAN a, #%Ac"n &AA cw mo-L^ 0.:k- Go---(u&d Are . Pr�.55 u.wc. awB �ina.. Mows -ta `4�.� owrov. Ccrv.p�� is S C J,r -2- 1 8. Will the project create a need for the expansion of facilities or the addition of staff? If so, give a brief description of anticipated needs. YVJLCCO-J ; 9. Is there revenue budgeted for such an expansion? If not, what methods would be used to secure capital revenue? �sseoc N%c^zt" &,1s4-r%d- 6 t t A d-� Cv�-t vLo�►°t G J S a u r'c.a� aa� = 'Ff 'k- �fzr' b�2Q. , �p � 1�e¢v� I LM--Q, ¢o�- CA.- ■ Savtrc q- borrowcv. b�-- bamcQ�J. 'C{_t, L000sfeC SicL;-t�� �(CO, b UU���C,fAC9, -t,rov1ly 10. Please explain how you determine service demands (i.e., standard consumption 1 rates). l� �tSrEorccrx.Q- Cc,✓Lr1.tcA.Q ��-i�-t c.uzrt.�S eS-f�zlo(�s!'t�� lei-- 1 L� vssL, C�QQ,ss t c a.�C.O/� C G PH 2) . � o� �< GPM, Ca�ac.�+V a.�y A-LU-0-4-( o n a,^ . 0-�, Page 2 of 3 t CS- c �S d, ' February 10, 1989 Cu ���K��• 422/02.004 1 ll. What problems do you foresee in servicing this project? Identify any particular concerns. eG�s c0.vt� iel s uppLU �S c a-ra U `Vlo V LA k ' 5t1s� ��►�L ��e. sa s �,x pa ram.41�a� (��r� *-Z4 f(avv �..�o�t C Qos F S SO Nu Q Q t o $or vtia c.J �ac,�'�.�'. TJu�`4o hoc �.cr►ti�-f�-cons i.,¢�yoccn5ir�n w:�s tom, � ��'to^aS2..SvPP�d °ib 'a.-'' a,r¢' '•p�`' P�"o�abCa. � sw.6�c.c;f-cv� `Sft�. .e�s�Gi� ' �° 12. What measures can you recommend for mitigating project impacts that may be incorporated into the project? 7 ��'�-f �15e,/VC�-tp� G@,e�J �CQi.1� �,QJ �2y�c� i✓c.e cQ. �o� 5v��_ 1 — t�'�' t S 4e,�vZg !�j c.• ��. -f a wu.r���z..e� ux�,{�2.,�.� �Xt$�, � C0���`Q. �lD��' 0.:��•-J' o�Y1ct�.2�oJ '� ��d C:�`)�'� `�`bti�'�` (tee, vS-,-- co ✓uc laU;U�111 �1 o,- k r r- c�C:R- 1 I 1 1 1 Page 3 of 3 February 10, 1989 422/02.004 1 COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS 50 OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 1 P.O. BOX 8127, FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92728-8127 10844 ELLIS. FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92706-7018 �44C (714) 962-2411 f December 29, 198$ RECEIVED Hal Simmons JA N r) 11988 Senior Planner QFPARTMENT OF f City of Huntingtor: Beach Planning Division 7'qT 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 SUBJECT: Response to Notice of Preparation of r Draft Environmental Impact Report # 89-1 Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment This is in response to your December 22, 1988 notice regarding the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment. The Holly-Seacliff area totaling some 768 acres is generally bounded by Ellis Avenue on the north, Edwards Street on the west, Garfield and Yorktown Avenues on the south and Main Street on the east. Nearly 6,000 units are within the several planning areas. The study area is located within both County Sanitation Districts (CSD's) No. 3 and No. 11 and all flow is tributary to the Huntington Beach Wastewater Treatment Plant. A portion of the area drains to the north and will be served by the District No. 11 Slater Avenue Pump Station,,a facility which is at capacity. The remaining portion drains to the southeast and is served by the ' District No. 11 Newland-Delaware Trunk Sewer. That facility is near capacity. At the present time, sewer service cannot be offered to the portion draining to the Slater Avenue Pump Station until such time as that pump station is upgraded. Diversion of drainage area tabled to drain to the Slater Avenue Pump Station to the Newland-Delaware Trunk Sewer cannot be allowed. i For the last year and a half, the Sanitation District has studied several options for providing additional sewer service and improvements to the northwest portion of the City of Huntington Beach served by CSD No. 11. Previous plans, as you may recall , included the extension of the Coast Trunk Sewer. The current plan, yet to be reviewed by the Directors, is the replacement of the Slater Avenue Pump Station by the construction of a new pump station at essentially the same location along with tributary trunk sewers. The exact timing of these improvements has not yet been determined. 1 1 COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS of ORANGE COUNTY. CALIFORNIA December 29, 1988 108"ELLIS AVENUE Page Two PO BOX e12> FOUNTAIN VALLEY.CALIFORNIA 92728.8127 (714)952-2411 1 However, it is recommended that you postpone any development on the areas tributary to the Slater Avenue Pump Station until such time as the pump station improvements are completed. It is further recommended that the units within CSD ' No. 3, served by District No. 11 facilities including the Slater Avenue and Newland-Delaware Trunk Sewer, pay the CSD No. 11 fee when that fee is higher than the connection fee leveed by CSD No. 3. ' It is also recommended that the Environmental Impact Report accurat,'�, determine the drainage areas to each of the District No. 11 facilities and ccmpl!te the flow to each based on the proposed land use. The EIR should include a development time schedule noting when occupancy will take place so that the District will have ample time to provide the necessary improvements. Finally, we request that the City of Huntington Beach encourage the developer to ' ente, into an agreement with the Sanitation Districts to provide the needed funds for the construction of the facilities necessary to serve the development by prepayment of connection fees. ' Wastewater generated within the District 's service area is processed at treatment plants located in Fountain Valley and Huntington Beach. The Districts operate under an NPDES 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). At the present time, the BOD in the Districts ' discharge 1 is close to the limit; therefore, significant land use changes will impact the Districts ' facilities and, particularly, industrial and commercial users should take onsite measures to reduce the load strength of the sewage. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on proposed Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment, EIR No. 89 1 project. homas M. Dawes Director of Engineering TMD:jm ENG/ENVIRON i 1 TO: I)C� — C:n c5 DATE: i SUBJECT: Environmental Impact Questionnaire PROJECT: Holly-ScaCliff General Plan Amendment City of Huntington Beach QUESTIONS: (Attach additional sheets if required) , 1. What types of services do you provide? 1 L�SZ 2. List the names and locations of the facilities serving the site, their distance ' from the site, their capacity, and the level at which they are presently operating. `Lhe. � -�� iS lb�e� w�-�-�..� bc�Fe�-� �s A 'S tJ o • 3 0-f�LZ � +Vr 16 IA L: ux ev' •a�t.�2 be, se�tte.&- b No.c J �a �t.�cA� .� a� capes. •�. C5 layer' ,ere• ��� � 3. What level of service, if any, do you provide to the project area at this time? �1 Qsz� 4t- 2 , t ,-,-,4e..LLX0a-,- t"-J t,�f ✓� `}P�2� �) $2�1 U t CIL a/\.2�- t5 qr'O c.e.o- Cq' 4. Will the proposed land use adversely impact the level of service you presently 1 provide? A' 4&-¢, PAO OJ� -F-«,.�c. 1 � a. Die C$\an-,�C c_Q O �i�pD) <<^- `+�`-e- aJ ts-hr lC�'s dus C.Q�,►� j�. et.e�,--� �1Pne.� �. , 5. What are the current plans for expansion of your facilities including phasing of your facilities (include use, location, capacities, and completion dates)? ' Include any of these which may serve the project site. S�►vt c e. /ia�lL+urn@' cat s ve�• 1, Cs Page I of 2 February 10, 1989 ,gyp 422/02.004 4� (lam ✓tQ C v Dpr'f t 0^ Arm"vLs Tru.Y:K "v��`�- r�ati Cc�o c,-c 6. Will the project create a need for the expansion of facilities or the addition of staff? If so, give a brief description of anticipated needs. 7. Is there revenue budgeted for such an expansion? If not, what methods would be used to secure capital revenue? -tl�. c�frr c.$' �c%2�fs �a.�'' Y-�e� C.�`�- cs� �tcrt,�z��►¢�,� 8. What problems do you foresee in servicing this project? Identify any particular concerns. A+ WUc p� -h n.-e-J Cep Ccz rt nt" c�� a tca� -fib Cep dr�=c 7v f�a. s(a •^ �}ve _ PO 151X*0-\ ■ � �'� i(l�¢cc)�lL,'� -L1.F��,c�,lc.�^� Ti�wr1� 5.ewe�. Ccr.�.nc�" �-2f a.Q.QOc,�1��., 9. What measures can you recommend for mitigating project impacts that may be incorporated into the project? — po5fPho,,,L 1 ate. ��� �� �b io w, a `Cl1o5e ��►� 'S � N �S� �O 3 , 5�►u�dZ 6t No, j �i�cq I C 5{6_ i A . r(� -S ti 'J'e b1c,") -)to Qazk L7c-strram' Ao. l pl-- OoseoQ. Page 2 of 2 I�Otc- wkv'V UeCc4-"Ou-1C-t- L'oco February 10, 1989 � r1 p(�, t-� � !a �p✓t�q_ ,� 422/02.004 (��51�YlGl4" aj2- ,nea g u i 7`T, eW dL 5,6 �� cP VGx-� TO: Mr. Bill Patapoff Public Works Department DATE: SUBJECT: Environmental Impact Questionnaire PROJECT: Holly-SeaCliff General PIan Amendment City of Huntington Beach QUESTIONS: (Attach additional sheets if required) 1. What types of services do you provide? ' S ew-e � �r'a�h2�t (Cor.\''&-c-k 2ev►vNZ alv��-er SvP�. �or w er Se�vlce e�. 53`-S921 2. List the names and locations of the facilities serving the site, their distance , from the site, their capacity, and the level at which they are presently operating. (Please include those trunk lines which play serve the rojcct). G ew ev : UJ e 5t' �-lwvA awtis Tin,hk t 5 koc-zit" %v. C emXr 0 Park � eov Kfn{ V i eul Es- +- e 3 �Z;. in Ps-r Seer �'�° Seams �S1.ok\j% CY G.+-arse�ld aewer� olden 1�e5� --o&+ CV sAc' ..\ St. Sewer pPg 4 -j% de�a►�S S/+tor.��ra�nyG2.41eA/DP\ rs/e1 �. o&�vrEA �`w_a\ems eZ,+4 We.� e-; &01/� -- Welt y\owlhOt ao `Vle wor �"o l PM�' Coor` { Sati.�}a�tor.�� nc�s �'ocew aeil�-hes 3. What level of service, if any, do you provide to the project area at this time? S�h�er N.t�St o-C -1-\42 aCe.a �s vaeau. �` e ears �hg scwu' a ,J clratn3rte 4. Will the proposed land use adversely impact the level of service you presently provide? Include an estimation of how much sewage (gallons/day) the project would generate. q$s t see N\so 1a�e.c a✓re ��^� C�\' lS ��ow ge�1�Z�1oh C���eha �v -����re )Now vvw 6\ seu)-,%gc. `}fie �role�� wo A& 5 e,ner)-Ae 5. Is this increase in sewage generation compatible with the City's plans for the site? Page 1 of 3 February 8, 1989 422/02.004 6. What are the current plans for expansion of your facilities including phasing of your facilities (include use, location, capacities, and completion dates)? Include any of these which may serve the project site. i 7, Will the project create a need for the expansion of facilities or the addition of staff? If so, give a brief description of anticipated needs. 1 �eS � cxpeMs�or �ac�,�`\les s�owv� ev, mB�S 8. Is there revenue budgeted for such an expansion? if not, what methods would be used to secure capital revenue? T1-�e Fro je.,� -�'at Z.rea develdPers w�\\ Co�n � mos� 0 1-F -It�e 1.`t�,L�e �v" C,O r�. �vNG�to� w t P_lr for a Couple o� `�� �a A-te c-ap:Cz.� tw.pr0VewA-P-rL)� 9. What problems do you foresee in servicing this project? Identify any particular concerns, n yy See rna.�s -�or t-a.c.����eS . Z� a.ow+�s�erw� c�e.ve�opvre-�XS oc.r�r 10. Currently, some oil wells serving the area extract large amounts of waste water which enters the sewer system. Is it advisable to remove these onsite oil wells to reduce theamount of water into the sewer system? the er Page 2 of 3 j February 8, 1989 422/02.004 r 11. What other measures can you recommend for mitigating project impacts that may be incorporated into the project? f Pagc 3 of 3 February 8, 1989 422/02.004 TABLE III-9 RECOMMENDED UNIT FLOW G ENERATOP.S FOR AVERAGE DRY WEATHER FLOWS Land Use Description Unit Flow Factorl ) RI Low Density Residential 230 gpd/Dwelling Unit R2 Medium Density Residential �gpd/Dwelling Unit \S0 1 R3 High Density Residential -1-3& gpd/Dwelling Unit R4 Very High Density Residential $ pd/Dwelling Unit R5 Office-Professional 2000 gpd/Acre RS Mixed Density Residential 160 gpd/Dwelling Unit rRS4 Pacifica Community 3000 gpd/Acre ' C Commercial 2500 gpd/Acre CFE Schools 1500 gpd/Acre �} CFS Community Centers (Parks) 800 gpd/Acre CFR Parks 100 gpd/Acre t11 Light Industrial 3000 gpd/Acre M2 Industrial 3000 gpd/Acre ' MH Mobile Homes 120 gpd/Dwelling Unit 1 ) All Residential Flows are based on 70 gpcd cc:"q:Ar,C:j c2 �sce� l SG aals1 day jroc�m t��,=,. �- ' u 3C� ga ACCOS rfnu��lc�, a�z qkl�r��c 14a�� 1 �,. a. 20 g�s�s�-� d.�, Q peak = 1.704 x (Q average) 0.392 where Q is expressed in million gallons per day and is less than 35mgd. 1 This equation is very similar to the relationship found by the Orange County Sanitation Districts in a previous study of peak to average relationships in sewers. The CSDOC relationship and the relationship determined in this study are compared on Figure III-o. The comparison shows a very close correlation between the two studies . In , computing peak flows in sewers for this study, the above recommended I formula has been used as it was developed exclusively from data collected within the boundaries of the City of Huntington Beach. ' III-24 TO: Mr_ Richard Timm, Rainbow Disposal FEB 1 G 1589 �I DATE: February 10, 1989 FORMA SUBJECT: Environmental Impact Questionnaire PROJECT: Holly-SeaCliff General Plan Amendment City of Huntington Beach QUESTIONS: (Attach additional sheets if required) ' 1. What types of services do you provide? Rubbish Removal Service 2. List the names and locations of the facilities serving the site, their distance from the site, their capacity, and the level at which they are presently operating. RAINBOW DISPOSAL COMPANY INC. & RAINBOW TRANSFER/RECYCLING INC. 17121 Nichols Street, Huntington Beach a C.Gt� a P� 3. What level of service, if any, do you provide to the project area at this time? N/A 4. Will the proposed land use adversely impact the level of service you presently P p Y p Y P Y provide? 5. What are the current plans for expansion of your facilities including phasing of your facilities (include use, location, capacities, and completion dates)? �a-- Include any of these which may serve the project site. 1 IrU ^ n Aa l ( . tubbi� LoUS, lae, dtspo5f_� a ' Page 1 of 2 �• February 10, 1989 422/02.004 1 1 `) 6. Will the project create a need for the expansion of facilities or the addition of staff? If so, give a brief description of anticipated anticipatedneeds. N/A t1O� 0 1 7. Is there revenue budgeted for such an expansion? If not, what methods would be used to secure capital revenue? N/A , r 8. Please explain how you determine service demands (i.e., standard consumption/generation rates, etc.). A-WrI071- +e- too poww�� -,UA6i4\ rue/� N/A Pau ho os� PtA. W-e� 9. What problems do you foresee in servicing this project? Identify an; particular concerns. 10. What measures can you recommend for mitigating project impacts that may be incorporated into the project? _ r �('ryt,�, �v�u-tQ, ►rod S�rtiv� ►^�b L�Ztr �4.�sP�S�' Page 2 y 2 1 S C� CO U S February 10, 1989 422/02.004 1 1 5 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA gqS ' COMPANY j ' ORANGE COUNTY DIVISION P O. BOX 3334, ANAHEIM. CALIFORNIA 92803-3334 February 14, 1989 Forma Planning Design 190 Newport Center Dr. Upper Gallery B- ��/ �.�-( •t` i"� . Newport Beach, CA 92660 Attention: Leslie Freeman, Project Manages Subject: EIR - Holly Seacliff General P1z This letter is not to be interpreted as a contractual commitment to serve the proposed project, but only as an information service. Its intent is to notify you that the Southern California Comas Company has 1 facilities in the area where the above named project is proposed. Gas service to the project could be served from an existing main as shown 1 on the attached atlas sheet without any significant impact on the environment. The service would be in accordance with the company's policies and extension rules on file with the California Public Utilities Commission at the time contractual arrangements are made. The availability of natural gas service, as set forth in this letter, is based upon present conditions of gas supply and regulatory policies. As a public utility, the Southern California Gas Company is under the jurisdiction of the federal regulatory agencies. Should these agencies take any action which affects gas supply or the condi- tion under which service is available, gas service will be provided in ' accordance with revised conditions. Residential (System Area Average) Yearly Single-family 1095 therms/year/dwelling unit Multi-family 4 or less units 640 therms/year/dwelling unit Multi-family 5 or more units 580 therms/year/dwelling unit These estimates are based on gas consumption in residential units served by Southern California Gas Company during 1975 and it should not be implied that any particular home, apartment or tract of homes ' will use these amounts of energy. This is particularly true due to the State's insulation requirements and consumers' efforts toward energy conservation. Estimates of gas usage for non-residential projects are developed on an individual basis and are obtained from a Market Services Staff representative by calling (714)634-3180. We have developed several programs which are available, upon request, to provide assistance in selecting the most energy efficient appliances or systems for a particular project. If you desire further information on any of our energy programs, please contact this office for assistance. Sincerely, � rt Gerald Smith Technical Supervisor > i LA:du attachment ' Southern California Edison Company t P O. BOX 2069 7333 SOLSA AVENUE WESTMINSTER. CALIFORNIA 92683-1 269 Pop, i February 21 , 1989 ' Forma 190 Newport Center Dr. , Upper Gallery Newport Beach, CA 92660 Attention: Leslie Freeman Subject: E.I.R. - Holly Seacliff General Plan Amendment, Huntington Beach Gentlemen: This is to advise that the subject property is located within the service territory of the Southern California Edison Company and that the electric loads of the project are within the parameters of the overall projected load growth which Edison is planning to meet in this area. Unless the demand for electrical generating capacity exceeds our estimates, and provided that there are no unexpected outages to major sources of electrical supply, we expect to meet our electrical requirements for the next several years. Edison has developed several programs which may prove extremely helpful to customers in increasing the efficiency ' of their operations and holding down energy costs. Included among these are a new construction program and off-peak cooling. For more information, call the local Energy Services Department at (714) 755-7367. Very truly yours, R. L. Coolidge Service Planner ' (714) 895-0210 RLC:da DISTRICT OFFICE SERVING CORONA DEL MAR•COSTA MESA•FOUNTAIN VALLEY HUNTINGTON BEACH MIDWAY CITY•NEWPORT BEACH•ROSSMOOR•SEAL BEACH•SUNSET BEACH•WESTMINSTER TO: Mr. Ralph Coolidge, Southern California Edison DATE: February 10, 1989 SUBJECT: Environmental Impact Questionnaire , PROJECT: Holly-SeaCliff General Plan Amendment City of Huntington Beach , QUESTIONS: (Attach additional sheets if required) 1. What types of services do you provide? , ELCCT1ZtcA%- S61ME - 02,10M VaLT ,D157tZ1WT1vA CltckhTs 2. List the names and locations of the facilities serving the site, their distance ' from the site, their capacity, and the level at which they are presently operating. t• sLvirw su&,TAlriow - EDw AWO eLLIS , 4., P1*16 � C�AcuA flPPY 6S"T1uu-L** A A M 3 M IWS SOMA OP 3. What level of service, if any, do you provide to the project area at this time? , 12400/ yf OY 30 PIOt F01 [.AIL W ELL S 4. Will the proposed land use adversely impact the level of service you presently provide? Please approximate the kwh of electricity per year required to serve the proposed project. , wo myeaSE 1mt #cr DEMA0O L0140 OU UTILITY APP90X $/hV lA ' 5. What are the current plans for expansion of your facilities including phasing ' of your facilities (include use, location, capacities, and completion dates)? Include any of these which may serve the project site. N" A PPLI" a L i Page 1 of 2 February 10, 1989 422/02.004 6. Will the project create a need for the expansion of facilities or the addition of staff? If so, give a brief description of anticipated needs. ' NOT APPLICAt3LE 1 ' 7. Is there revenue budgeted for such an expansion? If not, what methods would be used to secure capital revenue? NrdT A�f�.� t Al3t.� ' S. Please explain how you determine service demands (i.e., standard consumption/generation rates, etc.). CdtKUAr!PT�ow I3A�SEo o� 14IS1r4ORJt*L DM ISrANDARD Colds u��Tio w R.�4� ' 9. What problems do you foresee in servicing this project? Identify any particular concerns. POSSIOLE A" #J eBxlsf fal& Ad LE L istE BL"CTe hmp eIRACE-L 013" "T wEC-OV &OwA&M ONO ' loaf,.DE&*(OT ' 10. What measures can you recommend for mitigating project impacts that may be incorporated into the project? Please include any energy conservation techniques that can be applied to this project. i Page 2of2 February 10, 1989 422/02.004 3 February 27 , 1M RC 368Oclv2O L8 . 1A1 Me. L i.s4 A. Benvenut i WALDEN & ASSOCIATES - 18012 Cowan , Suite 210 Irvine . CA 92714 RFI H911V 9.soliit Pi11Jact CUL.Icucr- are Request ) Dear Ms. Benvenutit _ GTE California Inc. . at great expense , provides record maps _ of our communication facilities to each city and county within h,fr oporati>>s territory. This information is _ available to various agencies. Onqe Yiur company rwwwarcned _ this informati.....& and your plans are day4loped . we will. bw h4pRV to verify thmL this information is up to date. We will require a tninitt,um of two sets of your drawings with all future requests or notices originated by your agency. Our intention is to_ be .abl• to return one sot of your drawings with any corrections or additions , and retain the second out for our future reference and action if required. _ We respectfully request your rooperatialo in this matter trhi,J, wiii improve our ability to properly coordinate our work with your project . Should you have any questions . I ' can be reached at ( 714) 891-5321 . Sincerely yours. in Smith = Right of Nay Agent "enclosures t ' TO: Manuel Travieso GTE DATE: February 27, 1989 SUBJECT: Envirorffra-ital LVdct Questionnaire H011y-ScaCliff Cenral Plaa'� ' City of Huntington Beach 1_ What ty*pco of oervicea des YOLL Pjkjv!dk? _ A. Telephone _ 2, List the nos anri 1 ocaticnc of tho facilities serving tlzt 3iLG, Llueii - diStanCG fran the oite, their capacity, a4,d LlLe level at which they are presently operating. A. See letter to Walden & Associated dated February 27, 1989. ' 8. WhaC level of service, if any, do you provido to the project area at this time?, A. 100°1a t - 4. Will the propospd land use adversely inpact the level of service you - presently provide? A. No - S. What are the current plans for expansion of your facilities including - phasing of Your facilities (ihelu& us,;:, l,,„ ,ivLL, "pucA t.i Pg; Rnri f(7Y 1prirm nerve)? Tnnludo my of thanz ,*iak may Zl.= site. A. To be determined upon receipt of tract maps & plans from independent developers. ' 6. Will the project create a need for the expansion of facilities or the addirism of staff? If so, give a brief description of anticipated deeds. A. Unable to dgten.=e withmir. plans and time frznas. 7. Is there revenue budgeted for Such a ex�ansion? If not, what method,; would be used to secure capital revenue. A. We will provide service use ctandard G17E practices �. Pl PL-tF.A Rxpl.,iin hcxo yrnt clotormino r.nr.ri oo dcTn:m.dr (i .0. , ctandard , wnst,Ptim/generation rates, etc. ) . — A. Via developer tract maps & plans 9. what problems do you foresee in servicing this project? Identify any particular concerns. , A. Nome 10. What measures can you recc mend for mitigating project impacts , that may be incorporated into the project? A. None - , I Fiil TO: Anita Pavitt, Rogers Cable TV FEB tDATE: February 10, 1989 FORMA SUBJECT: Environmental Impact Questionnaire PROJECT: Holly-SeaCliff General Plan Amendment City of Huntington Beach ' QUESTIONS: (Attach additional sheets if required) 1. What types of services do you provide? ' CABLE TV FOR RESIDENTIAL UNITS ONLY 2. List the names and locations of the facilities serving the site, their distance from the site, their capacity, and the level at which they are presently operating. ' CABLE FACILITIES ARE LOCATED THROUGHTOUT THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH WHICH RUN AT 350 MHZ. S' 3. What level of service, if any, do you provide to the project area at this time? 45 CHANNEL CAPABILITIES 4. Will the proposed land use adversely impact the level of service you presently provide? IT WILL AFFECT (INCREASE) OUR RESIDENT POTENTIAL i 5. What are the current plans for expansion of your facilities including phasing of your facilities (include use, location, capacities, and completion dates)? Include any of these which may serve the project site. Is there a library master plan for the community? ' ALI; PLANS MUST BE COORDINATED WITH DEVELOPER FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION Page 1 of 2 February 10, 1989 422/02.004 6. Will the project create a need for the expansion of facilities or the addition of staff? If so, give a brief description of anticipated needs. (Identify your space requirements based on minimum number of people per square foot). NO ADDITIONAL PERSONS NEEDED ' SINCE NO LABOR IS PROVIDED, THIS MUST BE COVERED BY ' BUILDER/OWNER 7. Is there revenue budgeted for such an expansion? If not, what methods would be used to secure capital revenue? ' ALL NEW DEVELOPMENTS ARE PROPOSED IN YEARLY BUDGET FOR SECURED CAPITAL , S. What problems do you foresee in servicing this project? Identify any particular concerns. , A PARTICULAR CONCERN WOULD BE A SHORTAGE OF MATERIALS IF ADVANCE NOTIFICATION IS NOT PROPERLY GIVEN FOR RESIDENTIAL NEW CONSTRUCTION ' 9. What measures can you recommend for mitigating project impacts that may be ' incorporated into the project? PROPER ADVANCE NOTICE AND COMMUNICATION TO (CABLE TV) ' COORDINATOR OF CONSTRUCTION SO ALL CAN RUN SMOOTHLY 41 Page 2 of 2 ' February 10, 1989 422/02.004 RECEIVFL © _ 9J FEB 1 ., i�d9 1 FORMA TO: Nlr Steve Parker, Deputy Fire Marshal DATE: ' SUBJECT: Environmental Impact Questionnaire PROJECT: Holly-SeaCliff General Plan Amendment City of Huntington Beach QUESTIONS: (Attach additional sheets if required) 1. What types of services do you provide to the project area? Ezra"c c oF- ScZv%CtS ,htCLi&Di,tC- FfZC �/u1eWCQ If) ,11g2Artp(a5 N1RTCZIAGS . ALSO r�i(SCcccANcC�S PitcVc7NT7oN ;:7>IV1S/0i-/ �7l:CAT_' CFS List the names and locations of stations serving the site, their distance and response times from each location to the site and the s;ze and type of company responding. (For response time, please give two estimates based on using the closest and farthest distances to the project boundary). ;trZs-r AcA�Z-nn 4Z;_SPLnN5C C-o�eo 5--n,T1cN-�s�1 Car11l3,eo� .l m�� f.�.-., •�1,75 ,,,,,a �0`�•�1m1n1 � � �rMESTnICuCDE eNE 3-,�i.anl Eru�.ni� CC+I�PR,J� 11gW.on>PATU4 .. ,. TEi.CSQu,z:�f+A Z-/�'1 Z`7 t Coin PrtNy ' Z mn,N 1�JI�ITTAllficv cnlcY f.�nll1 - Tf�l/ic� Lic.SiJ f_A4e STATfGnI — wlcC<151LST-_ i.9>~+f —a-7n„ � :5.: ,PI,n t>M fj cv�- 3-m.t.y �nt6Hc iu.�,vA.v + •• � �rjN TellK LO TP/yN� ' 3. What level of service, if any, do you provide to the project area at this time? 0 a 4. Will the proposed land use adversely im provide? "'o 0 Page I of 2 /11� February 8, 1989 422/02.004 1 5. What are the c :rreat plans for expansion of your facilities including phasing ' of your facilities (include use, location, capacities and completion dates)? _ Include any of these which may serve the project site.ii; ,r+c�7 Ev�,ui� TrtE DEv�w>EuEtirl Tr-` a�cS►� Gi��C.? ^-OZC,4, At,) APDITloNflu GrFir(cN iS F'20)?CSC—D A 1 Tr+(= �CU77i �,ti� SS�i i�laL� pQr/�. CAPAC�cT[ES a CC'" :fr'd f TItIS-rI",C_ r�OW�v�%[: L�' Nll� xllU Tr1lS -,TF}TC,A: Jgp i QC l� C I..'g4e ST/}I lei S T tJ Ck l Ll� KEt-�S t�0�1 S c i t t i-1 k �Ts • LT��C F�eE /Zr�,�E 1.7m���s/.3. 1 mjN � 4,9/rl1AJ . 6. will the project create a need for the expansion of facilities or the addition ' of staff? If so, give a brief description of anticipated needs. i1tC t;—aH'Tt0.") MC—[u,tcn.EO lf�l-7M6 . '- Is there rcvenuc budgeted for such an expansion? If not, what methods would be ' used to sccnrc capital revenue? — - -- - 8. Please explain hold you determine the increase in service required by the proja_t (Le. officer/population ratio, etc.). 9. What problems do you foresee in servicing this project? Identify any ' particular concerns. • C:,n►CE2uS �ZEFs �:>!�!C— r15�-knS) ��`D CCn�N�LT[ONS iTl-rU 10. What measures can you recommend for mitigating project impacts that may be ' incorporated into the project? a 24;L- A L-[ C iv `u iS Tb car i NII cCT TO T F-}L_f3t: VI r_y 6 N>,. Z:u k E r G ps;Zr,E N-ro ,tC (_H [e 14 c.12o S S- (� A- P Rage 2 of 2 , February 8, 1989 422/02.004 1 1 1 � TO: Ms. Susan Holmes, Pacifica Hospital DATE: February 13, 1989 SUBJECT: Environmental Impact Questionnaire PROJECT: Holly-ScaCliff General Plan Amendment ' City of Huntington Beach QUESTIONS: (Attach additional sheets if required) 1. What types of services does the hospital provide (e.g., general or acute care). 2. List the names and locations of the facilities serving the site, their distance from the site, their capacity, and the level at which they are presently operating. /8800 � y 1 .elauxc,^e, 3. How many beds does your hospital have? 4. What is your average occupancy rate? r5. Is the proposed project within the hospital's service area? What is the distance from the site and emergency response time? r Page 1 of 3 February 10, 1989 422/02.004 1 1 1 1 6. Will the proposed land use adversely impact the level of service you presently 1 provide? 1 7 What are the current plans for expansion of your facilities (include purpose, ' location, capacities, number of beds, and completion dates)? Indicate any of these which may serve the project site. 1 8. Will the project create a need for the expansion of facilities or the addition ' of staff? If so, give a brief description of anticipated needs. 1 9. Is there revenue budgeted for such an expansion? If not, what methods would be 1 used to secure capital revenue? 1 1 � Page 2 of 3 , February 10, 1989 422/02.004 1 10. What problems do you foresee in servicing this project? Identify any particular concerns. 1 1 11. What measures can you recommend for mitigating project impacts that � y g g p � p t may be incorporated into the project? r Page 3 of 3 February 10, 1989 422/02.004 t r M TTO {---y. ' t .LII�attrciLL mawma) S td i . ._ , a WOY ' NO Lre.01 • 11l -'ON-0 r guaw r i � r r N?6 ' r _ ,,!';� __sit _:'�_:_'►�i T O d H0 $ 1NrIH yN WfI :F=: — L T l r•1 t:4 t-4 t:+ H iJ Fa T E C H F1 _ 0 2 FEB-13-'89 14:81 ID:FOR-1A DESIGN INC TEL NO:714-760-96-41 9G74 P12 TO: I& Susan Alt.%, Humana Hospital DATE: February 13, 1989 SLT$JEC71 Environmonfid Impact Questionnaire PROJECT: Holly-SeaCliff General Plan Amendment City of Huntington Beach QUESTION& (Attach additlonal sheets if required) 1. What types of services does the hospital provide (e.g., general or acute care). General and acute care, Coronary & intensive Care Wing, Maternity, Out Patient Surgery, Biological De ession Unit, Children`s Behavioral og gr Centex, Medical & Surgical floors, Paramedic Base Station, 24 hour Emergency bepartm nt. 2. List the Mantes and locations of the facilities serving the Cite, their distance from the site, their capacity, And the level at which they are presently operating. Humana Hospital-Huntington Beach 3. How many beds does your hospital have? i ' 141 beds 4. What is your average occupancy rate? 50% 5. Is the proposed project within the hospital's service area? What is the distance from the site and emergency response time? XeS. one to three miles. Page l of 3 ?abmary 10, 1959 .1,22/02.004 i F R. 1 0 4 : 1 .1 r-i �-. 6'. .--. . , I, . . FEB-13-'89 14:ei ID:FUR lR DESIGN INC TEL tO:714-?60-9641 4674 P13 ' I 6. Will the proposed land use adversely impact the level of service you Presently provide? No. 7. What are the current plans for expansion of your facilities (include purpose, looation, capacities. number of beds, and completion dates)? Indicate any of these whict. may eerie the project site. 35 bed expansion, Medical/Surgical, 1991. S. Will the pcojcct croate a treed for the expansion of facilities or the addition of staff? If so, give a brief description of anticipated needs. 60 additional Full time employees. 9. Is there revenue budgeted for such an expansion? If not, what methods would be ' used to secure capital revenue? Yes. Self funding through Corporate office, Louisville, KY. ' Page 2 of 3 February 10, 1989 422/07-004 S .3 FR I 0 .4 = 1 4 HUriANA HUNT P C H R _ 04 FEB-13-'83 14:02 ID:FOR`A DESIGN INC TEL Np:714-760-9641 U674 P14 ' 10. What probSema do you In servicing that project? Iden tify any particular Concern!. None 11. What measures can you recommend for aaitigating project impacts that may be incorporatel into the project? ' Making sure envirormv�ntal concerns are addressed. ' Past 3 of 3 February 10, 1999 �422/02.004 FAX TRANSMITTAL ' IV � � DATE: G Jag Number of pages including this page n i 1 �.��2bYC(4-e_FOR FROM: Yr t'� �Fii� LOCATION: �4P TO: M A''t Pr A 1+� RECEIVING LOCATION MAKE COPIES FOR: ' SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS : ' 1 31 ID:FORM; DESIut-1 I TEL N0:714-7=2-5E41 75 r_� TO: Mr. Ray Hadden, FHP Hospital ' DATE: February 13, 1999 SUBJECT: Environmental Impact Questionnaire PROJECT: Holly-&&Cliff General Plan Amendment City of Huntington Beach QUESTIONS: (Attach additional sheets if required) I. what types of services does the hospital provide (e.g., general or acute care). Acute tare full. service hospital including 8 bed Neo-:Natal unit. 2. List the names and locations of the facilities serving the site, their distance from the site, their capacity, and the level at which they are presently Operating, Operating Facility Location Distance Level ' Fountain Valiey Med Ctr. 9930 Talbert Ave. F ey Huntington Bch. Sr. H.S. 1} miles 101000 Full Anahei er410 a, Anaheim ' Ana Medical Ce E. 17th St. , Santa Ana Anaheim Medical Cent* 1151 Magnolia, Anaheim Tustin Dental Center 1840 E. 17th St. , Tustin 3. How many beds does your hospital have? 125 4. What is your average occupancy rate? 90% 5. Is the proposed project within the hospital's service area? What is the distance from the site and emergency response time? Hospital is for Member Patients - Project- is approximately 4 miles from hospital; it is not a Trauma Center. ' 'Page 1of3 ebruary 10, 1939 ' 422/02.004 14: 11 iD:=CRMr DESIGN jNC� TE_ NG:?1G-7E -foal uS?5 I 6. Will the proposed land use adversely impact the level of service you presently , provide? No 7. What are the current plane for expansion of your facilities (include purpose, location, capacities, number of beds, and completion dam)? Indicate any of these which may serve the project site. Hospital Expansion Project is planned - Additional 132 beds for Acute care. Construction start date is May 1989. Scheduled completion is December 1990. ' Services in Hospital addition for Member Patients. 8. Will the project create a need for the expansion of facilities or the addition of staff? If so, give a brief description of anticipated needs. None foreseen , 9. Is there revenue budgeted for such an expansion? If not, what methods would be used to secure capital revenue? ' Budget for Hospital Expansion to be included in Capital Expenditure plan for fiscal 89/90 and 90/91. page 2 of 3 , )bruary 10, 1989 .22/02.004 � �y rcts-ai- cw 14: 12 ID:FOPs1A DESIGN :"x. TEL NO:%4-7Sa-5=-41 ME75 r:; r 10. What problems do you foresee in servicing this project? Identify any particular concerns, None, Opportunity for FHP to obtain: additiondl ;membership with increased population growth due to project. 11. What measures can you recommend for mitigating project impacts that may be incorporated into the project? Development of a verycomprehenseive traffic analysis and transportation plan. r � ' )Page 3 of 3 Fobruary 10, 1919 ' 422/02.004 1 i � w w � w � w w w w � w w w � ■� � w I 06-feb-69 TYPE Of O RFGICIM ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP MUM Corporate 162i1-A Sunflower Costa Mesa CA 926Z8 Office l 9900 Talbert Ave. Fountain Valley CA 92M Office 0 .n 18111-15 Brookhurst Fountain Valley CA 92709 Office t 18129 (Prookhirst St. Fountain Valley CA 92708 Office L 18153 Brookhurst St. Fountain Valley CA 92M Office L 18135 Brookhurst St. Fountain Valley CA 92706 Office l 15137 Brookhurst St. Fountain Valley CA 92M Office t 18139 Brookhurat St. Fountain Valley CA 92M Off icoL l 1675 Scenic Costa Mesa CA office l •------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Subtotal --------------•---------------------•--••---------•--------------------------------- StA)total CONSTRUCTION TYPES: Class A Structural steel columns and beans, fireproofed with incoubustible ma Class 8 Reinforced concrete columns and beams. Fire-resistant construction. Class C Masonry or concrete walls with steel, wood, or concrete frame. Class D wood or steel studs in bearing wall, wood or steel frame, pri"rily c Page 2 i 06-Feb-89 -------"--zr==nssz-z-----ascaxc=no_cz-_----azarcc=ss❑=cco===zassan:xcec=_:----��-. TYPE OF RFGION ADDRESS CITY STATC ZIP FACILITY ,� oc_s---•-c_nc=�aysasaasca:a¢ezaz zarc====='zaaca�zaz__a_szz-e-"-z•aiszaz_o_zzzacz:x=: Cal i fornia 1112 N. Magnolia Anaheim CA 92801 Dental 1151 N. MagnoliaM100 Anaheim CA 92801 NH Office 1200 N_ Magnolia Anaheim CA 92801 Medical 1236 N_ Nagnolia Anaheim CA 92801 Medical 2571 U_ La Palma Anaheim CA MOT Optical • 2569 woodland Drive Anaheim CA 9Z801 Adam. Office 818 U. Atendre Blvd. Campton CA 90220 Medical 3303 N_ Harbor RA104 Costa Mesa CA 92626 office 7515 E. Firestone Bl Downey CA 92041 Medical 18109 Brookhurst St. Fountain Valley CA 92705 Office 18113-19 Brookhurst Fountain Valley CA 92708 office 9900 Talbert Ave. Fountain Valley CA 92705 Dental 9920 Talbert Ave. Fountain Valley CA 92706 Hospital 9930 Talbert Ave. Fountain Valley CA 9ZT28 Medico[ 21520 S. Pioneer el. Hawaiian Garden CA 90716 Medical 19066 Magnolia Ave. Huntington Bch CA 92642 Medical 22936 Alcalde Drive taguna Hills CA 92653 Medical 22932 Alcalde Drive Laguna Hills CA 92653 Medical 1000 Studebaker Road Long Beech CA 90815 Office 29ZI Palo Verde Ave. long Beach CA 90815 Training 2925 Palo Verde Ave. Long Beach CA 90915 Medical 832 E. 5th Street tong Beach CA 90802 Annex 500 Alamitos Ave. Lag Beach CA 90802 Medical 62d Alamitos Ave. Long Beach CA 90802 Medical Amu M50 S. Uestern 6101 San Pedro CA 90732 Medical 1002 N. Fairview St Santa Ana CA 92703 Medical 1840 E. 17th St. Santa Ana CA 92701 Dental M0 E. 17th St. N300 Santa Ana CA 92701 Medical 10620 ►ttmbolt Street Los Alamitos CA 90720 lens Lab 5905 Brockton Riverside CA 92506 Medical 13373 Perris Blvd Moreno Valley CA 92388 Medical 8311 Florence Ave. Downey CA 90240 Medical ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Subtotal CONSTRUCTION TYPES: Class A - Structural steel columns and bears, fireproofed with incombustible man Class B - Reinforced concrete colums and beams. Fire-resistant conatruction. Class C - Masonry or concrete watts with steel, wood, or concrete frame. i Class O - wood or steel studs in bearing wall, wood or steel frame, primc+rily u Page I �'I' r r r r r rr rr r rr r� Ir �r rr r �r Ir r r REGIONAL LEASE WOORY (9-23-88) I I I PMT. DUE l I111111 T109 ( TYPE OF ! TYPE Of LOCATION I SOM. l AIDteftiMb ! DATE I DAZE 9 TEAM I LEASE I FACILITY a waa�aaraaasitswraoraaaacwaaaaaaaaYSM�amlYaarrcaarcacaascsaaszzz saltq aaaswaasaaa aca#aa ra aastR 1200 Ka"lis, Anaheim I 21.066 I i 11/1/84-10/31/89 I I Sr. Ctr. 1151 Mspnotia, Annhiew I 670 ! -I I I iwc 3303 A/0i Harbor, CM I 2,979 Office 75t5 f. firestone. Downey! 4.725 ! Msfiam I 5/Zb/86-5/26/91 ! I Medlcai 19066 mte"i ta, Mt ! 25.MO I .I 5/1/87-4/30/92 I I Meateal 215Z0 Pioneer, How.Gardenl 40,999 1 711/86,11/151% I I medical 3r29 Catalina, LAL ! 4.480 ( .) 4/1/86-3/31/91 I I office TOM Kyle, too Alamitos l 1.800 I .i 21/1/85-11/30/88 l 1 Print 628 Atssntoo. Lan! Beach ! 20.000 I .( W. to oo. ( I sr. Ctr. 2925 Palo Verde, t4 25,252 1/1/84-1TJ31/94 ( I m«VDalt 2921-23 Palo Verde. LO I 9,500 andum.I 111195-12011% I I Training TOM Studetoker. 1.11 ! 35.9D0 I .1 8J17/Q3-8/131MI I Office 1000 Stu*bwker. LIT ! 31.606 l I 1/l/86-2/28/90 ( I AAO Parkit 29050 Western, Sen Padre I 11.063 t .1 1/7/85.1o/31/90 I ITwice( MIT E. 17th St., S.A. I 6.600 ! .! 1/l/87-6/30/90 I I Iledicat law E. 17th St., Tustin ( 3,200 I ! 11/20/86-111191911 I Dental 18109 Mroakhurrt. TV ! 2.SOD I Z/1/88-5/31/91 I office 18113 8rooklwrat. Fv ( 1,200 I l 311/46-2/Z6/91 I i office 18119 koothurst, FV ( 1.410 l .1 11/T/85.10/31/88 I 1 office 13373 fo.errls, Moreno Val II 14,800 I 1 11/1/66-10/31/93 I l medical 831T Florence. Powney, CAI 25,579 ( ( 11/1/86-10/31/93 1 1 medical I I I i l 1 t aa:ataaasssaacscscrcessass,zsssa..asanaccsaaizagassaasszaaaczaaazaeez+��az:sxccazcasatsseasscerasas .� sc� 7ru w �9^7 Rt� p'e I I t E CORAORATE LEASE SlNMY CV-23-81) r I I PVNNT, DWI INIYIATII(W I TYPE OF I TYPE OF LOCATION I 9o.FT. I 00. NENT I DAIE J DATE t TERN J LEASE I FACILITY /astar.rraarrraararrrasr�arrrerraaatrarraaasrraararraararrarrrrarwaarra�wsarrsrsrarasaraar.aaararrr 1620 sunflower, CH I 3b.32D ) I I veto Ctr. 16111 lrookburat. FV ( 2,mm ( I I Office 18129 Brookbwst. FV i 1,259 ( I Office 16133 freakmWet. Fv I 700 I ( I Office 18135 irwkbwst. FV ( 535 J { i Office 18137 arookburit, FV I M J I 1 office loco Uth St., w, %VC ddW1 I I office 167$ Scenic. Cents Nees I 14,382 I J INM I Firwoa 18139 grookburst. FV I 1,0" Idm J J Office 1 l I I I ( I 1 I I ( ( I I I l 1 i I I i I i I I I I i I I I t I I I 1 I I I ( I I I I I i 1 I I 1 t I ( I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I l l I I I I I I I l I I I 1 I 1 I I I I t I I I I ( I t ( I l I I s watlis a ttraa was a Xtttwar as atra art Wasi'safwaa.—Sraasatra iolu J so,zc4 1 :51 sa3_s3 1 ( I I • I � � i r 1 T B",H. B. P. L. `11111 11 "fill11111111111111111111F k 'HUNT'I NGTGN BEACH LIBRARY CC) 7111 Tg lb,-- rt A-.- . rn Q Hun-t-- an Broach , CA 92648 ,. c. ' ( 714 ) 960-8839 FAX : ( 714 ) 848--6783 �J CO To: // cL•�� Dept: From: �.yL Date . Time: Comments/Instructions: ' Need a reply by: Total number of pages (including this page): Copies to: i 1 ' :5:e3 i D:FLU L7t5I L-t4 ilk_ «oZ r �.L•. '76 o ~- 9O�q/ TO; Mr, Ron Hayden, Huntington Central Library DATE! SUBJBCT; Invimmental Impact Questioanaire PROJECT: Holly-SeaCUff Oenerat Plan Amendment City of Huntington Beach QUESTIONS; (Attach additional aheeta if required) 1. What types of services do you provide? 2. List the names and locations of the facilities serving the site, their distance from the site, their capacity, and the level at which they are presently ' operating. 3. What level of service, if any, do you provide to the project area at this time? 4. Will the proposed land use adversely impact the level of service you presently provide? ' S. What are the current plant for expansion of your facilities including phasing of your facilities (include use, location, capacities, and completion dates)? Include any of those which may serve the project site. Is there a library master plan for the community? Page 1 of 2 February S. 19119 422/02.004 16:24 I D:r GK`"; :ES i GN INC TE_L 4657 H l t , �. Will the project create a need for the expansion of facilities or the addition ' of staff? If so, give a brief description of anticipated needs. (Identify your space requirements based on minimum number of people per square foot}. ' 7. Is there revenue budgeted for such an expansion? If not, what methods would be used to securc eaptal revenue? i 8. What problems do you foresee in servicing this project? Identify any ' particular concerns. 9. What mcasorts cat) you recommend for mitigating project impacts that may be ' Incorporated into .he project? Page 2 of 2 "" br" 8, 1989 i;2/02.OUU _"W r f The library provides access to material , including books , videos, compact discs, magazines , newspapers, records , cassettes, pamphlets and microforms , as well as optic and data base services. 2 . Immediately adjacent to the site is the Huntington Beach ' Central Library. It is a 72, 000 square foot building, with approximately 400 parking spaces, with one of the highest level of circulation for a public library this size in the ' state. It contains over 350 volumes and has approximately 137, 000 cardholders. Approximately one mile from the site is the Main Street Branch Library, approximately 4, 500 square feet, 24, 000 volumes. It circulates approximately 50, 000 volumes a year, operates with one staff member and volunteers . This use is expected to increase due to local residential and commercial development. Banning Branch is approximately one ' and a half miles from site, has 2,400 square feet, 21,200 volumes, circulates approximately 80, 000 books annually. � 3 . The Central Library provides an extensive level of service, including the circulation of approximately one million items annually. Additionally, we have nonresident use of approximately twenty-one percent. 4 . Development of surrounding area will absolutely impact the Central Library, which is already overcrowded with both patrons and material . The book capacity is at ninety-eight ' percent full and there is no additional space for patron services . Parking is inadequate. If additional residences were included in the area, it would increase the use and demand on ' the services of Central Library and perhaps, Main Street. 5. As a result of the existing demands on the facility and ' services the Central Library is currently planning an expansion, including children' s programs, circulation area, parking, meeting rooms and auditorium, totalling approximately 50 ,000 square feet and costing approximately $5-7 million. Additionally we are planning to increase the Graham Branch by 5, 000 square feet. There is no master plan for the library. 6. If the library is expanded by 50, 000 sq. ft. , then it should adequately handle the surrounding development. If the library is not expanded this will be critical in adding even more demand on the facility and services. The higher the income ' and education, and the closer the library is to residents, the more they will use the library. Because of these factors it is anticipated that there will be a significant use increase of the Central Library. With 5, 873 units in the area, we would expect to add an additional children' s librarian, at a cost of $40 , 000, circulation clerk, at a cost of $30 , 000 and three additional pages at a cost of $30, 000 . This , however, would ' not allow for the increased demand on existing study and material space of the existing building, which is at full capacity. �• L• . L-L 1�.7v �L I V'� -••yrGG .GJ�f vfl lrn v:...... .. v ` 7. For the seven million dollar project there is approximately one million dollars budgeted. we would attempt to build the ' program by phasing in the construction. The project would be funded through city' s general funds , fund raising and perhaps certificates of participation. ' 8 . It is of utmost importance that the library be expanded to facilitate the existing demand. If the surrounding area is further developed it would only increase this demand and , underscore the importance of library expansion. The development of the area without expansion of the facilities and services would result in less personal service to patrons, ' greater turnaround time for material handling, parking space and collection shortages and overall depletion of library services. 9 . In that the library is a vital service for the community, , special construction fund should be augmented for it ' s expansion. Have a special community enrichment fee increase ' from five cents to fifteen cents to cover the expansion cost of this area. Realignment of Talbert Avenue, between Golden West Street and Gothard Street, to create convenient additional parking for the library patrons . ' �rrrrtr t i rr tt�rjr�rr:r Ft '9R V NTINGTON BEACHLIBRARY FORMA 1 1 Av . Hun� ir�gtors Beach , CA 92648 ( 714 ) 960--8839 FAX : ( 714 ) 848-- 6783 To: Leslie Freeman lept: FOPUYLA rat om: Ron Hayden, Huntington Beach Library e: February 22, 1989 Time: _)mmen tslIns truc t i ons: dditional answer for x7 on questionnaire: Create Mello-Roos District which needs �he concurrence or the developer or property owner to impose the additional tax after a local government creates a Community Facilities District on undeveloped land. he City could sell bonds to pay for the improvements. The bonds would then be epaid over a 25-year period by homeowners in the Mello-Roos District. Need a reply by: �ota1 number of pages (including this page) : Copies to: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT Melvin M. bowman, Director I ' (714)63"488 February 13, 1999 , Ms Maya Baines FORMA 190 Newport Center Drive , Upper Gallery Newport Beach, CA 92660 Dear Ms Baines: Re: HOLLY-SEACLIFF EIR Per your February 10, 1999 fax transmittal, I have listed below responses to your ' questions. 1. What types of services do you provide? ' The Community Services Department includes park development, recreation, human ' services, library, cultural arts and beach services. 2. List the names and locations of the facilities serving the site, the distance from the site, their capacity and the level at which they are presently operating. ' Huntington Central Park - Located north of Ellis between Gothard and Edwards. Currently developed are 216 acres; ultimate development will be 390 acres. Area ' immediately north of Ellis and west of Golden West is equestrian trails and undeveloped parkland; a mobile home park and undeveloped parkland including a lake are located north of Ellis and east of Golden West; open grassy play areas with lakes and other recreation amenities are located approximately one-half mile north of Ellis. ' Bolsa Chica Linear Park - Currently county undeveloped park; site located immediately west of the Holly-Seaclif f area at Edwards and Ellis. Huntington Central Library - Located in Huntington Central Park east of Golden a b West and north of Tert. Facility is 72,000 square feet. 3. What level of service, if any, do you provide to the project area at this tirne? Huntington Central Park and Library - As noted above. , •• +.•• !;r_, T;,,m,,.b h)Jruo�ior. Reere•r.:iox and Cfailure.• ' ' ,MS MAYA BAINES FEBRUARY 13, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF EIR PACE TWO 1 i 4. Will the proposed land use adversely impact the level of service you presently provide? Additional park facilities, such as neighborhood parks, should be available for these new residents. To reach existing library or park facilities, it is necessary to cross ' major streets. Equestrian trails and stable issue will have to be addressed in the area west of Golden ' West because that Is an existing land use. The library is near maximum load now, but a project of fund-raising is underway to expand the building by 31,000 square feet. Project completion date for this expansion ' is 1993. 5. What are the current plans for expansion of your facilities including phasing of your facilities (include use, location, capacities and completion dates)? Include any of these which may serve the project site. ' Huntington Central Park - Expand from 216 to 380 acres; expansion date unknown because of lack of funding. Huntington Central Park - Expand Children's Wing and other existing services; total expansion 31,000 square feet; 1993 projected completion date. Bolsa Chica Linear Park - A county project; completion date unknown; current plan is ' primarily for natural area with horse, pedestrian and bike trails. 6. Will the project create a need for the expansion of facilities or the addition of staff? If so, give a brief description of anticipated needs. Many of the lots are oversized west of Golden West, so this may have an impact on reducing park needs; also, the swales will be used for trails and this could offset open ' space needs. Overall, from a department perspective, there should be a neighborhood park in each quarter section. Also in this section, library services would have to be expanded, but this expansion program was already underway as noted previously. 7. Is there revenue budgeted for such an expansion? If not, what methods would be used ' to secure capital revenue? Developer fees for parks would pay for any parks developed in the quarter section. ' Funds currently being sought for library expansion. 8. What problems do you foresee in servicing this project? Identify any particular concerns. Primary concern will be the need for neighborhood parks vs. the proposed trails and swales and adjacent park facilities. The city also prioritizes park development annually based on projected revenues in the Park Acquisition & nevelopment Fund. Other current park projects would be ahead of this one in the priority list; therefore, there may be a delay in the actual building of the park. MS MAYA BAINES FERRUARY 13, 1989 HOLLY-SEACLIFF EIR PACE THREE ' 9. What measures can you recommend for mitigating project impacts that may be ' incorporated into the project? Develop neighborhood parks in each of the quarter sections. Private developments ' could create their own recreation open space facilities as part of the development. If you have any other questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact me at 536-5486. ' Sincerely, JuB. ENGI.E , perintendent rk Development and Recreation JBE:mb ' 3834e ECE , � E � MAR 0 2 1989 �iUN�'2 NCTQN SE.A,CH FG'YY'�`Y sc�aoL TE L E C OPY TRAN SM = TTA L 20451 Craimer Lane ' P.O. Box 71 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 (714) 964-8888 ' TO: (Individual) (Company) C FROM: Gary A. Burgner, Bd.D. , Assistant Superintendent ' of Business Services DATE: ' Total number of pages to be sent (including this sheet) . If you do not .receive the correct number of pages please contact the sender at (714) 964-8888. Telecopier Number: (714) 963-9565 FEBw10-'89 89:05 ID:FCRMA DESIGN INC TEL NO:?14-?6O-5-641 45E3 P14 ' TO. Dr. Gary Burgher, Huntington Beach Elementary School District ' DATE: SUBJECT Environmental Impact Questionaairc ' PROJECT: Holly-SeaCliff General Platt Amendment City of Huntington Bt;ach ' QUESTIONS: (Attach additional ahceta If required) 1. List the names and locations of the District's schools serving the site, their capacity, currant enrollment, and their distance from the site. ' Perry School serves K-5 students. Dwyer School serves grade 6-8 students. Perry is approximately 2 miles from the center of the area. Dwyer is approximately 3 miles. ' 2. State tho school generation factors at tho elementary, intermediate, and secondary Ievels. ' The projected. generation factor for K-5, 6-8 and special ectucation is . 1772 students per household. Commercial generation is 12 students per 1,000,000 square feet of ' retail and 500, 000 square feet of office space. 3. Will the proposed land use adversely Impact the level of service you presently provide? Yes. The generation of students from the proposed develop- ment will exceed school capacity. 4. What arc the current plans for expansion of your facilities including phasing , of your facilities (include use, location. eapagities, and completion dates)? Include any of these which may serve the project site, The proposed development will create a need for a new school , in the project area. page 1 of 3 ' February S. 1989 422/02.004 5. Will the project create a need for the expansion of facilities or the addition of staff? If so, give a brief description of anticipated needs. ' At Least a new K-5 school for approximately 600 students, 20 teachers and support staff will be needed. ' 6. Is there revenue budgeted for such an expansion? If not, what methods would be used to so"ro capital revenue? No. The general plan should call for dedication of a school site (10-15 acres) . The developers should pay for construc- t -- tion of the school through developer fees. 7. Does your school district implement any development foes? if so, how are these fees determined (o.g, per housing unit) and what is their cost? $1. 50/square foot of residential. $ . 25/square foot of commercial. 8. What problems do you foresee in servicing this projCat? Identify any particular concerns, Lack of funds for capital needs to houseethe students generated from the project. The project trust call for ' dedication of a school site. Page 2 of 3 February 3, 19$9 422/02,004 2: 0 i 2 = S I n GL — G — edaL- FES-10-189 09:06 I D:FORMA DESIGN INC r � 9. What measures can you recommend for mitigating project impacts that may be ' incorporated Into the project? See #8. Page 3 of 3 February 8, 1989 422/02,004 ' nH .L S � - t - d t AB-26-1989 15: 14 FPOr1 Huntington Beach U.H.S.D. TO 760-9641 P.al Board of Trustees, tA�l Huntington Beach Union David Wmfieid, president • Jerry Sunivan, Vice President HighSchool District Linda Moulton Patterson. Clerk 10251 Yorktown Avenue • Huntington Beach, California 9264Cnarmayne 6ohman. vltemate dark Bonnie Castrey Lawrence Kemper, Ed.D., Superintendent of Schools F= - .� DATE: Y_ TELEFAX ROUT I N G DESTINATION: D /�f 1'!� ATTENTION: rx__ EXT: TELEFAX NUMBER: �7 Z_pD— NUMBER OF PAGES: (excluding routing sheet) IF YOU NEED A RE-SEND OF ANY PAGE, CALL: ' FAX NUMBER: (714) 963-7684 OFFICE NUMBER: (714) 964-3339 ' Extension 4351 REPLY NEEDED: ( } YES ( /C ) NO SENDER: � 42 v, DEPARTMENT: S 15-Z 7Z �v - u s�,�.fs S 3388P t".Beech westmlvter •Marine•Fountain Valle, Edison • Oce►n View Evening High School 4 Adult School duldanee Center W1141stwr(•COVC600m Center 2 g-19S9 15: 14 FROM Huntington Beach U.H.S.D. TO 760-9641 P.02 ' 1 T0: Mr. Dave Hagen, Huntington Beach Union High School District DATE: SUBJECT: Environmental Impact Questionnaire ! PROJECT: Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment City of Huntington Beach ' QUESTIONS: (Attach additional sheets if required) 1. List thenames and locations f hDistrict'sschools rvin the it 'aesao tescoossE g es e, their capacity, current enrollment, and their distance from the site. Location: Huntington Beach Union High School ' 1905 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Capacity: 2,651 (without portables Curr Enrl : 2,359 Distance: 1/4 to three miles 2. State the school generation factors at the elementary, intermediate, and ' secondary levels. Elementary: Not applicable for HBUHSD ' Intermediate: Not applicable for HBUHSD Secondary: .24 single family .04 multiple family 3. Will the proposed land use adversely impact the level of service you presently provide? Enrollment increases will occur. ' 4. What are the current plans for expansion of your facilities including phasing of your faclities (include use, location, capacities, and ' completion dates)? Include any of these which may serve the project site. Huntington Beach High School was built in 1906. Major renovation is ' needed on the current facilities in order to maintain a large enrollment of 2,400 students. Increased enrollment beyond capacity may require the re-drawing of district boundaries to shift enrollment to less crowded schools. The district currently is leasing facilities to house ' Alternative Education programs and the Central Office Administration. Future plans call for permanent construction to house all district programs. Edison High School will be expanded to house Special Education ' students currently isolated and in violation of Public Law 94-142. Edison will not be able to accept students overflowing from HBHS because of their expansion and new Special Ed enrollment. HBHS will house a portion of the Alternative Education classes. ' �EP-23-1985 15: 1�5 FROM Huntington ?each U.H.S.D. TO 760-9641 P.2-3 5. Will the project create a need for the expansion of facilities or the addition of staff? If so, give a brief description of anticipated needs. ' Reconstruction of facilities will be required to house additional students beyond capacity of 2,651 . One additional teacher will be employed for each 28.5 students generated from development. 6. Is there revenue budgeted for such an expansion? If not, what methods would be used to secure capital revenue? ' The district enrollment projections have forecast an enrollment increase in 1992-93. Current reconstruction needs and future construction needs will be funded through developer fees and certificates of participation ' financing. The district currently is utilizing 64 portable classrooms to house our present enrollment and will need to bring them in compliance with AB 525 by September 1990 which will limit the amount of funds ' available for HBHS expansion. 7. Does your school district implement any development fees? If so, how are these fees determined (e.g. per housing unit) and what is their cost? High School District share of total fee: $.585 per square foot residential (habitable space) ' $.0975 per square foot commercial & industrial 8. That problems do you foresee in servicing this project? Identify any particular concerns. } The district Master Plan recognized the development of the acreage being recommended and is in the process of construction/reconstruction plans for ' HBHS and District office in order to meet the needs of the community. Developer fees will be essential in financing school construction/ reconstruction to house students generated from new community development projects. 9. What measures can you recommend for mitigating project impacts that may be incorporated into the project? Close articulation regarding proposed completion dates of new housing will assist the district as we schedule reconstruction and construction projects. HBHS has experienced parking problems due to current enrollment and the large number of students who currently own or utilize automobiles as their means of transportation. Close articulation with the City and surrounding residents has occurred in order to minimize the problems ' associated with the limit on parking space at HBHS. Continued efforts will need to occur to handle HBHS future parking and facility needs with an increased enrollment. ' 0863J/ FROM:HTG BEACH POLICE DEPT TO:FORMA DESIGN INC FEB 21, 19e9 1:22PM P.01 HUNTINGTON BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT 7 1 FAX Transmittal Form Date : Time : 1 To : Foaj, )+ FAX Telephone # : / 11 --7 (,o (-16t-t Attn : ,( � .� Number of pages transmitted ' � Including this page : 5 Notes : 1 1 If you did not receive all pages transmitted or if you ' require additional information call: / C-e- G r <.- Telephone #: 0.47.1 3G 693D , HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA , POLICE DEPARTMENT (714) 960-8811 ' FAX (714) 536-2895 tROM:HTG BEACH POLICE DEPT TO:FORMA DESIGN INC FEB 21, 19B9 1:22PM P.02 Hoj CITY aF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 P. O. BOX 70 POLICE DEPARTMENT Tel: (714) 960-8811 G. L. PAYNE Chlvf of Polio* ' February 21, 1989 ' Leslie Freeman, Project Manager FORMA 190 Newport Center Drive Upper Gallery ' Newport Beach, CA 92660 ' Dear Leslie; Recently you requested a review of the proposed Holly Seacliff project located here In Huntington Beach. Attached is a copy of the completed Environmental Impact questionnaire. If you have any questions regarding any of the responses, please call me at (714) 536-5930. Sincerely, ' G. L. PAYNE Chief of Police ALICE GERA ' Administrative Aide I GLP:AG:dz r - FROM'HTG BE ACH POLICE DEPT TO:FORMA DESIGN INC FEB 21, 1999 1.22PM P.03 TO: Mr. G. L. Payne, Huntingtoa Beach Polieo Department , DATE: SUBJECT: Bnviroamental Impact Questionnaire PROJECT: Holly-SeaCliff General Plan Amendment ' City of Huntington Beach QUESTIONS: (Attach additional sheets if required) 1. What types of services do you provide to the project arc&? Police patrol , traffic accident investigation, crime investigation, and emergency services as needed. 2. List the names and locations of stations serving the site, their distance and response times from each location to the site and the size and type of company responding. (For response time, please give two estimates based on using the closest and farthest distances to the project boundary). iluntington Beach Police Department located at 2000 Main St . , is approximately . 4 mile to 1 . 3 miles from the site location. However since calls are dispatched to patrolling units , actual distance ' and response time will vary. Maximum distance may be 3 1/2 miles with response time of 15+ minutes , depending upon traffic and call priority . 1. What level of service, if any, do you provide to the project area at this time? ' Same as 91 . 4. Will the proposed land use adversely impact the Ievel of service you presently ' provide? Yes . Currently the area in question receives only an average of 271 calls for service per year, per reporting district . The city average per reporting district is 620 calls for service . Unless additional personnel is provided for the proposed area , the level of service needed will decrease in both response time and quality - , Page t of 2 of service . February 8. 1989 422/02-004 FROM:HTG BEACH POLICE DEPT TO:FORMA DESIGN INC FEB 21, 19e9 1:23PM P.04 5. What are t11e current plans -Tbr expansion of- your facilities including; phasing ' of your facilities (include use, location, capacities and conipletion dates)? Include, any of these which 1110y serve the project site. Future expansion plans for the police facility include a third floor at the current Main St . , location. This expansion was included in the original Civic Center plan to facilitate additional support staff and personnel . Currently there are no expansion plans in the near future . G. Will the project create a need for the expansion of facilities or the addition of staff? If so, give a brief description of anticipated needs. Increase in population and expansion of police services would require police facility expansion as stated above (see ii5) . ' Additional police officers would be needed to maintain service quality and emergency response . According to the proposed plan, 3 . 5 police officers would be needed for this area, excluding Industrial and Commercial buildings . * S additiona a e. ' 7. Is there revenue budgeted for such an expansion f not, what mot hAs would be used to secure capital revenue? 1 Therc arc no current plans for the third floor expansion of the police facility. It is not known at this time what methods would be used to secure capital revenue . 8. Please explain how you determine the increase in service required by the project (i.e. of Moor/population ratio, etc.), Additional increase in personnel for service to this area are as fog low";: RESIDENTIAL - High -nensity 1 call per 1 . 83 units/535 Med . -High Density 1 call per 1 . 64 units/535 ** (Sec additional page . ) 9, What problems do you foresee in servicing this project? Sdcntify any ' particular concerns. As in all areas of the City, an increase in residential and commercial population brings an increase in cringe and traffic related incidents . There appears to be no unique problems servicing this area . However, police and emergency service access to the proposed area should be convenient *** (See additional page . ) 10. What monsures can you recommend for mitigating project impacts that may be- incorporated into the project? Positive community - Police relations that include the safety and security of everyone in the proposed area . Traffic engineering to provide safety for both pedestrians and drivers alike . ' Pago 2 of 2 Pobruary 8. 1989 422/02.004 TO'FGRMA DESIGN INC FEB 21, 1989 1:24PM P.05 , FROM.v;G HEACNi i. t 1P0n U Q EPT ,ruary 8 , 1989 ' /02 . 004 *6 . Since it is unknown at this time the square footage of the intended Industrial and Commercial sites , additional police , personnel for the area has not been included . * *8 . Medium Density 1 call per 1 . 44 units/535 Low Density 1 call per 2 . 04 units/535 INDUSTRIAL - 1 call per 2,986 sq/ft per year/535 COMMERICAL - 1 call per 2, 745 sq/ft per year/535 ' OPEN LAND/PARRS - . 0075 officers per acre/per year , This is based on 1. 1 officers per 1000 population with 535 desired calls per year per officer. This increase does not account for support staff. ***9 . with planned traffic engineering throughout the entire project. r i 'h ?R 'RG 1 r1-i7 nrinn r1FTf rl�r'li I k'LIl Y t R TFI 71 r1-R4�-:7� JGfir n I - b GENERAL 7ELEPHON _ COMP;-NY OF CALIFORNIA FAX MESSAGE TO FOLLOW DATA . 1 DEPARTMENT LOCATION 6 PRGM !r"/�f�//(.� L / �P Yl TEL. NO. l7 27-3 2t102— y!/v ,yr17 % ri �f� ' DE PARTMZNT LOCATION ' TOTAL NUMBER Or PAGES j COVER T ;t 1 FORM:A DES�GN ':NC MAY 2• 'SS= 3;26PM P.al c D=._P FRCM:HTG SEPCH POL.0 IilUT11 N IjjN Ci�T 0�� BH POLICfD E P ART �EiNT FAUX Transmittal Form � RECEIVED MAY 0 21989 _ F X Telephone Nu.tnbE,_-ir of page s t.rdnSm1t.ted 111 ,' ► udznfj this page . If you did not receive all pages tr•ansinitted or if you regt:ire additional information call: `^_ 11c e ��r Telephone 5 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA POLICE DFPARTN1ENT (714) 960-881. 1 , FAX (711) 536-2895_ 1 j � FROM:HTG SEACH POLICE DEFT TC FCRMA DESIGN INC MAY 2. 1969 3:26PM .02 b. CITY OF IF- UN"�'IR GTON BEACH '� 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 9264E ' P. O. BOX 70 POLICE DEPARTMENT Tel: (714) 960.8811 G. L. PAYNE May 2, 1989 Chief of Police Maya Bains FORMA 190 Newport Center Drive ' Upper Gallery Newport Beach, CA 92660 Dear Ms. Bains: ' Per our recent conversation, the following figures are based on updated information received today from your office regarding the Holly — Seacliff EIR project. Officers Oper. Land 92 acres x .0075 officer/acre 0.69 Commercial [(392,040 square foot / 2745)] / 535 0.27 Industrial [(964,418 square foot / 2968)] / 535 0.61 Low Density [(1,650 square foot / 2.04)] / 535 1.51 Medium Density [(1,525 square foot / 1.44)] / 535 1.98 Medium High Density [(760 square foot / 1.64)] / 535 .87 Total Officers 5.93 These figures are based on desired calls for service per patrol officer per year. Please note that the calculations used reflect a model situation and are only an ' estimate of actual need. According to the area population of 10,880, 11.97 additional officers would be needed to maintain the current level of service with 1.1 officer per 1,000 population. It is then recommended that this population information be considered when approximating additional personnel needed. Perhaps the simplest method would be to take an average between land usage and estimated population. This averages out to 8.95 additional officers. If you have any questions regarding this or need additional information, please call ' me at (714) 536--5930. Sincerely, G. L. PAYNE Chief of Police ALICE GERA Administrative Aide GI-P:AG:dz ' HOLLY - SEACLIFF GPA RESPONSE TO COMMENTS CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Appendix D i 1 t 1 1 1 1 1 1 HOLLY - SEACLIFF GPA GEOTECHNICAL FEASIBILITY INVESTIGATION CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Appendix E *t STONEY-MILLER CONSULTANTS, INC. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING&ENGINEERING GEOLOGY May 4 , 1989 (REVISED JUNE 20, 1989) i FORMA Project No: 10275-00 190 Newport Center Drive Report No: 9-0566 Upper Gallery Newport Beach, California 92660 Attention: Ms. Leslie Freeman Subject: GEOTECHNICAL FEASIBILITY INVESTIGATION Holly Seacliff GPA-EIR City of Huntington Beach Reference: See Appendix Gentlemen: In accordance with your request, we have prepared this report, which presents the results of our geotechnical feasibility investigation of the 760-acre Holly Seacliff project, located in the City of Huntington Beach, California. This investigation was performed to provide preliminary geologic and soils engineering information relating to the proposed development, and to assist you in the preparation of the land use plan and environmental impact report for the subject site. For our investigation we were provided with an undated, 200-scale topographic and site ' boundary map, prepared by FORMA. These plans form the base for our Geotechnical Maps, Plates 1 and 2. Based on the results of our investigation, we conclude that the proposed development is geotechnically feasible. Geotechnical constraints that should be considered are discussed in detail in the following sections of the report. SCOPE OF SERVICES The scope of services provided during this geotechnical feasibility investigation included: ' 14 HUGHES, SUITE B-101 IRVINE, CA 92718 (714)380-4886 i l May 4, 1989 Project No: 10275-00 (REVISED JUNE 20, 1989) Report No: 9-0566 Page No: 2 A. Review of published and unpublished geologic, soils engineering and seismological reports and maps pertinent to , the subject site (see Appendix A, References) . B. Analysis of aerial photographs, dated 1927 through 1947, at various scales to evaluate the geologic structure and topography, as well as previous land use of the proposed project site. C. Limited geologic reconnaissance and mapping of the site. D. Geotechnical illustrations were prepared by your office, including the Soils/Geology Map and Oil Facilities Maps, which should be considered a part of this report. E. Preparation of this report presenting our findings, conclusions and recommendations. SITE DESCRIPTION The site is located within the geographic region of Huntington Beach, California, known as the Huntington Beach Mesa, a wedge- shaped, upland area which rises abruptly from sea level approximately 127 feet to its highest point, near the intersection of Goldenwest Street and Clay Street. The geographic and topographic relationship of the site to the surrounding area is shown on the Location Map, Figure 1. Specifically, the site is an irregularly shaped parcel bounded by Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve on the west, Huntington Seacliff Country Club to the south, portions of Main Street and Huntington Street on the east, and Ellis Avenue to the north. 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. At the time of our investigation, the majority of the site consisted of undeveloped vacant fields, while the rest of the site was used predominantly as an operating oil field. Numerous oil wells and associated holding tanks and pipelines were located on-site, and are shown on the Geotechnical Maps, Plates 3 and 4. Many small pipelines, however, are not shown on the plans. We understand that the well, tanks, and other structures associated with the oil field are to be abandoned as part of this project. We further understand that recommendations for treatment and abandonment of these structures will be provided by May 4, 1989 Project No: 10275-00 (REVISED JUNE 20, 1989) Report No: 9-0566 Page No: 3 others as part of an environmental report. These recommendations should be reviewed by the geotechnical consultant to assure the proper coordination with the recommendations of this report. Other man-made features at the site include residences and associated out-buildings, horse ranch and stables, ranch roads and fences, industrial buildings, city streets, and the Seacliff Country Club. ' PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT At this time, proposed development is at the conceptual stage. Land use areas have been proposed and major arterials have been located. The proposed development consists of residential areas of varying density and non-residential areas, including commercial, educational, and recreational uses. Minor portions of the site will not be developed, but will remain as natural areas or open space. 1 GEOLOGIC SETTING The subject site, as well as the entire City of Huntington Beach, is located near the southeastern boundary of the Los Angeles Basin. The Los Angeles Basin is a structural depression filled with a stratigraphic succession of about 14,000 feet of Pliocene, Miocene, and Lower Pleistocene marine clastic sediments, about 200 feet of Upper Pleistocene marine and continental deposits, and recent alluvial and coastal deposits. ' Four primary structural blocks divide the Los Angeles Basin: the northwestern block; the northeastern block; the central block; and the southwestern block. The Newport-Inglewood Structural Zone separates the southwestern and central blocks and trends diagonally through the City of Huntington Beach. The central block is wedge-shaped in plan; it is about 55 miles (88. 5 kilometers) long, from the Santa Monica Mountains at the ' northwest, to and including the San Joaquin Hills at the southeast. It widens from 'about 10 miles (16 kilometers) at the northwest to more than 20 miles (32 kilometers) at the southeast. The dominant structural feature of the central block is the northwest trending, doubly plunging synclinal trough underlying its central part (Randell, et al, 1983) . ' The subject site is located within a geographic region known as the Huntington Beach Mesa. The surface of the Huntington Beach Mesa is divided into three portions, the boundaries of which 1 parallel the coastline. While not scarplike, these boundaries might represent the surface expression of splays of the Newport- Inglewood Fault Zone, the dominant geologic feature of this area, i May 4 , 1989 Project No: 10275-00 (REVISED JUNE 20, 1989) Report No: 9-0566 Page No: 4 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. Description of the rock materials present follows, with the location of each indicated on the Soils/Geology Map. GEOLOGIC UNITS , I A. Artificial Fill (No map symbol) Artificial fill materials are located in relatively minor quantities at various locations throughout the site. 1 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 4 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. Although oil sumps were not identified in our investigation, there is a high probability that there will be an unknown number 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 (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. B. 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 May 4, 1989 Project No: 10275-00 (REVISED JIINE 20, 1989) Report No: 9-0566 Page No: 5 reflects its bedrock source and is generally more expansive than the source, due to weathering of the parent material. ' C. 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. D. 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 Based on information provided in the Orange County Water District Report for 1984-1985, groundwater elevations within the subject property range from near sea level to minus 10 feet below sea level. 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 was not evident during our field reconnaissance, 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. May 4, 1989 Project No: 10275-00 (REVISED JUNE 20, 1989) Report No: 9-0566 , Page No: 6 SEISMICITY - The site is located within the seismically active southern ' California region. Located within the project boundary, as shown on the Soils/Geology Map, lies the active 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. Figures 2 and 3 show the ' geographic relationship of these faults and areas of historic fault rupture to the site. The Newport Inglewood structural zone of folds and faults forms a northwesterly trending line of topographic features which extend from Newport Mesa to beyond the Ballona Gap (Barrows, A. G. , , 1974) . This fault zone has been the subject of numerous studies regarding the seismicity of the metropolitan Los Angeles area. 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 Zone include ' incidents with the following dates and magnitudes: October 22, 1941, magnitude 4 .9 ; June 19, 1944 , magnitude 4. 5; and the damaging March 11, 1933, Long Beach earthquake, magnitude 6.2 (Ziony, J. I. and Yerkes, R. F. , 1985; and Hileman, F. A. , et al, , 1973) . The epicenters of a number of earthquakes with Richter Ve, evolves C—. ------------ O..f.ame 0 6.3 0... ove... -octolhool Wov olowl J*—v* 0.41.C-1 IDU c :v Ivlov)ft. Irl, oo.. N"N' fle ON SITEWove .'4 % el Il aruo9NI A. REGIONAL FAULT MAP JOB NO.. 10275-00 � DATE: March 1989 FIGURE., Figure 2 wanow rr— rr rr rr rr— �r r— +r-- r. rr sir rr — or— r— r— r rr rr I 1,r 1 l�r 11.• �Ir I Ir ,r e Nliw / Al"0Amos1Aa14 N.f•MIfl1 f ..I 1f1.cOY. Ni 11e - le.) ��� 1.1I.OY•11 �I / I *. ` ` 0...',O / K Y �` re.•e..na otf w•w 'n n � . .I. w MR ION, e a N ...:e°.I 1+,o. I°,i wA•i ou in �aoo,•ur 0 ,uw•l. .wo, ` O 4 I I I •I wwelllwOOO s•r / WiLL47 InV° turou.:. LI I ` t q.11. M.O 7E/j d el 5... q ..1 ` wpl•.o �y 1 . .W°Vtl . .O.Y. .... — . l. . Y . .IIIMiI .. _ .e nve , . e • %.oro.. Is — — —J---- h� 7 w.l... LONG not a WIN MZP OMY.M flel.Oe. Cj.(. F..M ° A M... N,.,w. .lMe _ �IN.IIe o° °orowl•w I o,�or � A b b IIn. I .. .!. . b M YY..b .N.w1e0 `� •'"r'.,r \`\ 1 I cf. , .r If i 1.�1.i W�. ••sLS.WHfb N•OI / I( iatf"ul IM.w O EXPLANATION ..,00 W.'s O.1.111.111t,.clnf I.ul1 I Moo .II.OYI ww I OAK.wl.c Am.lwl n0 yWV •w,wr e,.c.n.,.w1.11..mo•K.wr.cc O.)(Ic \ Iw.so 1.1.1..e..w o,..11.o11.1.w eon. °s ME%ICO wcl Ye.1 el••4e9 I.we41t..I 1.11.OY•1111I 0. o o r...,.ul r.,ow.•e..........ON.ew,.c. O .u•Iw.w..mve • • ...• n.• lo• nr nr I.e MAP OF HISTORIC FAULT RUPTURE JOB NO.: 10275-00 DATE: March 1989 FIGURE: Figure 3 May 4 , 1989 Project No: 10275-00 (REVISED JUNE 20, 1989) Report No: 9-0566 Page No: 7 Magnitude 5. 0, or greater, fall within a 60 mile radius of the site. Besides those previously mentioned, additional locations, magnitudes, and dates of historic earthquake epicenters are shown on the attached Figure 4 . 1 EARTHQUAKE EFFECTS A. Settlement of Soils 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 more susceptible to settlement due to earthquake shaking and may undergo some settlement. B. Lictuefaction 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 (Sprotte, E. C. , et al, 1980) . Our site specific field investigation indicates that 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. Additional information on particle size, density, and ground water levels must be obtained to accurately assess the potential for liquefaction due to seismic shaking in the alluvial areas. C. Lurching and Shallow Ground Rupture rBreaking 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. s r� r r r s r�- r■F w r- il� r�- rra . rr ur Ir r rr ri •r .r r x �r �.r I.•• « re.Ill• NI • Is 1i. 1 Il•«al• y(13\ wN rq«ll X some. x .� I % ' x IN. Aor ••N.MMa• INl \ ww_ �\• M..r• � x I Y � ' x faM•CM� ' Iav t � � r•l«lt 1 x r•.•Tr.... ti 4 ' 1 aY.•l1 � I vK1 OYNII \ ..W. �, x 1 t•.trl— 1. r..11�• MII.t.I.Y .•.r1«l��� rlrrM. IE A •.wop..• XM,�r"u x N.wewl 1l • u�.y9111�•r'��. j ��ItN re— X xx •n:a1"i•r _ram. •I � 1•Y * Yr\O_tiwliar ��•.°r°.• / r_ '71-'�'— _"� .__._ __—_ -----•. railwl.•r X N•• -61 w" • X r v.iwl wN„ iuiw •Na.•r. NN - «' X • �( ll Were Mq •l.�.w •.IvrM !. SITE %. Il.l ` o .00 u+cuawnl - � ni t•Y y�.6.-w 'st." L a•rlwl N 1I Nxx � 81. \ 9 0•ra•0 `llc *44.EXPLANATION 1 '�11,1rr� x��` 1—__ •r SYMBOL I MAGNITUDE —' ----- -----'"" I X 5.0-5.9 serIs,.-nar.11 * \\ cl:ito • s o-o.9 \ «o1 8.0 OR GREATER ° j.S A. YOIa tly o.l.•I\roVa.l•IvIY •y 1AEAICO _ .N well 10 Yt 44)LO 1101to x O t•Mf.. OF !t al l•l'!!!W t.ICl MtI•l.►.•OtM1•I! lOC•IIOY .«•�•• ..w••«r•«.••n AYO Y•ONIIVO!V.CI•I.M 10• y MAP OF HISTORIC EARTHQUAKE EPICENTERS, MAGNITUDE > 5.0 JOB NO.: 10275-00 DATE: March 1989 FIGURE: Figure 4 May 4 , 1989 Project No: 10275-00 (REVISED JUNE 20, 1989) Report No: 9-0566 Page No: 8 ' D. Landsliding Because of the minor relief present on-site, no slopes of significant height were encountered. Therefore, it is our opinion that seismically induced landsliding does not pose a significant hazard at the site. E. Tsunamis and Seiches 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 seiche related problems is considered nil. F. Earthcuuake Accelerations We have analyzed the possible earthquake accelerations at the site and determined that, for the intended use, the most significant 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 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. 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. JUL 21 '89 14: ?1 STONEY MILLER. CONSLT P.02 May 4, 1989 Project No: 10275-00 1MYISED JM 20, 29891 Report No: 9-0566 Page No: 9 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 CDMG 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 Harbour. Data presented for first order leveling surveys of 1964-65 and 1968-69 indicated that the most affected area subsided an average of 0.20 feet during that 4-year interval (County of Orange Surveyor Records) , 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 i ' 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, at least in part, to withdrawal of oil and gas from the West Newport, Huntington Beach, Sunset Beach and Seal 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. In conclusion, to minimize the effects on proposed structures as the result of subsidence due to the withdrawal of oil within the subject site, mitigative measures would include continued survey of subsidence rates and water injection operations for operating oil fields within and adjacent to the site. Also, as a mitigative measure to help eliminate distress to structures and slabs from minor regional subsidence, we recommend the use of post-tensioned slabs beneath all structures. 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. ' LMW_$SrZD$B MM EROSION The occurrence of bluff erosion is a distinct possibility along the western portion of the subject site at the transition zone May 4 , 1989 Project No: 10275-00 (REVISED JUNE 20, 1989) Report No: 9-0566 Page No: 10 between the Huntington Beach Mesa and the Bolsa Chica Ecological , Reserve. If surficial runoff is allowed unimpeded to sheet flow over the top of the bluff and down the slope face, significant amounts of erosion are likely to occur. No areas of slope ' instability were observed in the bluff areas. Mitigative measures to eliminate bluff erosion would include maintaining adequate surface drainage both during and after construction so , that surface water will be carried quickly away from the top of the bluff and not allowed to pond or run down the slope face. Minor erosion was observed in areas of sloping ground where " vegetation is not well developed. Erosion in the major drainage ' courses on-site is not significant at this time due to the presence of various types of ground cover. The transportation of surficial materials resulting from wind erosion is considered to ' be insignificant and will not have an impact on proposed development. I EXISTING OIL FACILITIES ' Most of the subject site has been utilized for various aspects of oil production for a number of years. As a result of this ' production, some crude oil contamination of the near surface soils should be anticipated. Additionally, it is likely that a number of drilling mud sumps are located within the site. Both ' of these conditions will require site specific evaluation to determine their impact. In order to determine the extent of potential contamination, , including the presence of methane gas, a phased Environmental Site Assessment should be undertaken. The need for a phased assessment is based on the assumption that additional data ' obtained during the initial study could modify the scope of services necessary to complete the work. The environmental assessment consists of evaluating existing available information ' pertinent to the site as well as a limited evaluation of possible on-site contamination. The actual site characterization and remedial action plan would be developed as part of a Phase II investigation. The specific scope of services for Phase I ' includes: A. Review of available documents pertinent to the subject site ' to evaluate current and previous uses. Items to be reviewed include: 1. Available aerial photographs. , 2 . Available geotechnical and/or environmental site assessment reports for other sites in the vicinity. ' ' May 4, 1989 Project No: 10275-00 (REVISED JUNE 20, 1989) Report No: 9-0566 Page No: 11 ' 3. Available it of Department California De O' and Gas records o p n pertinent to the site. 4. Available groundwater records. 5. Available public health records to evaluate possible public health risk sites in the vicinity of the subject site. ' B. Site reconnaissance to evaluate areas where contamination of the surficial soils may have taken place. C. Preparation of a report presenting findings, conclusions, and recommendations (including graphics) related to possible modification of the Phase II investigation. ' D. Excavation of backhoe pits, flight auger borings, and/or hand auger borings to determine the presence of near surface contamination of soil. Samples of representative soils should be collected in glass jars for possible testing. E. Subsurface exploration to determine the presence of sumps ' on-site. Based on the known intense drilling that has taken place within the project, it is assumed that a number of sumps will be present on-site. F. Completion of soil gas vapor detection excavations (hand auger or flight auger borings) located adjacent to the existing on-site wells. This process includes excavating a ' shallow hole, packing the hole with a screened well casing and with a vacuum pump extracting an air sample for laboratory testing. G. Testing of air samples for gas vapor, hydrocarbon (methane gas) , and sulfur compounds (hydrogen sulfide) . Additionally, some samples should be tested for the suite of gases which include THC, TNMHC, Methane and BTX. H. Testing of representative soil samples from the exploratory excavation for hydrocarbon (crude oil) contamination. The test should be performed by a EPA certified laboratory in accordance with EPA test method 418. 1. ' I. Testing of possible drilling fluids (from sump areas) for heavy metals. The tests should be performed on representative samples obtained during the field exploration of the suspected sumps located on-site. Testing of the drilling fuilds should consist of analyses for a suite of 17 metals (CAM Metals 17) which include heavy metals. JUL 21 'E9 14:32 STONES' MILLER CONSLT F.83 May 4, 1989 Project No: 10275-00 1RBVISED ZYM 20, 1989) Report No: 9-0566 Page No: 12 J. Preparation of a report summarizing findings, laboratory test results, and presenting conclusions and recommendations regarding the site. Included in this report will be recommendations as to the need for subsequent testing and development of a remedial action plan. Upon completion of the Environmental Assessment, a Remedial Action Plan can be developed to treat the possible contaminates identified in the outline investigation. This action plan is likely to address the following items: A. Treatment of possible crude oil contaminated soils. The possible solution to this condition would be to aerate 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. The discussion of this item is covered in the following section. GAR AM POR ACCM4ULKTION The site is located in an extensively-active Huntington Beach oil field and numerous oil production wells and related facilities are currently present on-site. Associated with oil drilling and production sites, both active and abandoned, is the potential for the accumulation of organic and combustible gases and vapors originating from petrogenic sources. This is of particular concern where residential, commercial, and industrial development is planned for previously abandoned oil fields. 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 this occurs, and a crack develops in the concrete or asphalt at some later time, it is likely that gas could migrate into the interior of the overlying structure and possibly result in an explosion and fire. Therefore, prior to development; the source, identification of gas and vapor areas, and analyzation of detectable gases for the presence of organic And combustible vapors is recommended. J I.IL G 1 V •� JG J I V IlG T 1"I1 LLGR 4 V 1`IJL 1 •' '+ May 4, 1989 Project No: 10275-00 i REVISED JUNE 20, 1989 Report No: 9-0566 Page No: 13 ' Potential petrogenic sources include leaky, abandoned wells, residual sump materials, and migration of gas from the oil production zones through the overlying formational materials. At this time, we do not anticipate that sources of methane gas origination will be biogenic in nature because there appears to be no substantial accumulation of organic material or debris to create the necessary conditions within the limits of the site. Methane gas migration may occur for some time after a source is removed. At this time, it is anticipated that potential mitigative measures will require removal of the source, if possible, a passive barrier and venting system in the affected areas, and gas and vapor monitoring, on a periodic basis throughout the lifetime of proposed structures. In order to delineate areas on-site for the presence of methane gas, it is recommended that future studies include as a minimum the following tasks: a) Shallow excavation and sampling in areas either known or assumed to be potential drilling mud sumps; b) Vapor monitoring of shallow vapor probes placed at strategic locations on the site; c) Vapor survey areas adjacent to known abandoned oil wells; d) Collection of soil vapor samples from the shallow vapor probes; e) Laboratory analysis of selected soil samples for asbestos, total recoverable petroleum hydrocarbons, total hydrocarbons, arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, iron, lead and manganese; f) Laboratory analysis of soil vapor samples for hydrogen sulfide, volatile organics, standard gases, alkanes, and alkene; g) 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. Because of the possibility of organic odors emanating from subsurface sources and migrating into the proposed structures, a vapor barrier and ventilation system should be designed and installed beneath the structures. This vapor barrier and venting system should be adequately designed to minimize the vapor ' concentrations in the breathing spaces within the structures. 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 j ' and residences. ' MINERAL RESOURCES ' The most significant mineral resource on-site is the obvious oil production, related to the Huntington Beach oil field, which ' dates back to the 1920's. Due to the long history of production in this area, numerous wells, pipelines and other facilities are May 4, 1989 Project No: 10275-00 , (REVISED JUNE 20, 1989) Report No: 9-0566 Page No: 14 present on-site. The most significant of these is shown on the oil facilities maps. Pipelines between the wells are too numerous to show on these maps. Other mineral resources are limited to low grade sand products developed in several borrow pits on-site. While these products were utilized in the past, there is no evidence of current use. OIL WELL ABANDONMENT 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 re-abandoned to most current requirements of the City of Huntington Beach and the California Division of Oil and Gas. � Existing utility lines (especially the oil production lines) are located throughout the site. Treatment of these lines will depend on proposed land use and development. Generally, the lines to be abandoned should be completely removed prior to development. For utility lines to be left in the place, the trench backfill will likely have to be replaced as compacted fill. ' CONCLUSIONS The proposed development for the subject site appears feasible from the geologic and geotechnical engineering standpoint; there are, however, several geotechnical conditions which should be ' considered in the development of the subject site. These geotechnical conditions may be constraints to development of the site and will require special attention during planning and construction. These conditions are listed in the summary of ' favorable and unfavorable geotechnical conditions in the following sections of this report. The data and recommendations presented in this report are ' intended to aid in the evaluation of the feasibility of utilizing the subject site for residential development. 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 will be to develop specific grading and foundation recommendations for the proposed site development. The following is a summary of favorable and unfavorable geotechnical conditions that should be considered in the preliminary and design stages of the project development. May 4, 1989 Project No: 10275-00 (REVISED JUNE 20, 1989) Report No: 9-0566 Page No: 15 A. Favorable Conditions 1. 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. 2 . 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. 3 . High bearing capacity bedrock and terrace deposit materials are available for foundation support at relatively shallow depths. 4. Natural slopes within the project area are generally very stable. 5. Amounts of sand and gravel deposits are limited, but may be able to contribute to reduced construction costs for earthwork, or be utilized as a commercial materials source on a small scale. B. Constraints ' 1. 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. To determine the actual location of the fault, a detailed geologic fault investigation must be undertaken to delineate the active trace. When the actual width of the zone is determined, as is the case in the western portion of the property, a setback zone will be established to prevent the construction of inhabited structures within the fault zone. Typically, the setback is a zone of 50 feet on either side of the ' known fault zone. 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 will have a total width of 180 feet. May 4, 1989 Project No: 10275-00 (REVISED JUNE 20, 1989) Report No: 9-0566 ' Page No: 16 2. 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. t 3. Areas of relatively high ground water are present within the alluvium located along the western portion of the site off the mesa, and may contribute to potential for liquefaction. If development of this , area is to occur, additional information is necessary to assess the liquefaction potential. 4 . Low lying areas located along the western portion of , the site off the mesa may be subject to Tsunamis, and if development is proposed, mitigative measures should be provided during the design stages of the project. 5. 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, nor will development produce increased erosion or siltation if proper drainage structures are constructed. Subdrains should be installed in all major drainage , courses and canyons which are schedule to receive fill. Location and size of subdrains, if any are required, should be determined after preliminary geotechnical and grading information is made available. 6. Areas of possible soil contamination are present on- site and will require mitigative measures to clean-up or remove to a proper disposal site. 7. 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. 8. Vapor surveys should be conducted to determine the ' nature and concentrations of organic and combustible vapors on-site. 9. Because of the likelihood for the occurrence of methane r gas build-up and migration into proposed structures, a 1 ' May 4, 1989 Project No: 10275-00 (REVISED JUNE 20, 1989) Report No: 9-0566 Page No: 17 vapor barrier and ventilation system should be designed and installed beneath all structures. LIMITATIONS Our services were performed using the degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable geotechnical engineers and geologists practicing in this or similar localities. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the conclusions and professional advice included in this report. ' The observations made are believed representative of the entire project; however, soil and geologic conditions can vary significantly between tested or observed locations. ' The findings of this report are valid as of the present date. However, changes in the conditions of a property can occur with the passage of time, whether they be due to natural processes or the works of man on this or adjacent properties. In addition, changes in applicable or appropriate standards may occur, ' whether they result from legislation or the broadening of knowledge. Accordingly, the findings of this report may be invalidated wholly or partially by changes outside our control. Therefore, this report is subject to review and should not be ' relied upon after a period of three years. May 4 , 1989 Project No: 10275-00 ' (REVISED JUNE 20, 1989) Report No: 9-0566 Page No: 18 This opportunity to be of service is appreciated. If you have any questions, please call. Respectfully submitted, STONEY-MILLER CONSULTANTS, INC. John P. unt ary F. Stoney, C.E.G. 9 8 Project Geologist Pr pal JPH:GFS:sl ' Attachments: Figure 1, Location Map Figure 2, Regional Fault Map ' Figure 3, Map of Historical Fault Rupture Figure 4, Map of Historic Earthquake Epicenters, Magnitude >5.0 ' Appendix, References Distribution: Addressee (10) 1 rREFERENCES ' 1. Barrows, A. G. , 1974, A Review of the Geology and Earthquake History of the Newport-Inglewood Structural Zone, Southern California, California Division of Mines and Geology Special Report, 114. 2. Bolt, B. A. , 1973, Duration of Strong Ground Motion: Proc. ' Fifth World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Paper No. 292, Rome. 3. Evenden, J. F. , and Thomson, J. M. , 1985, "Predicting Seismic Intensities," Evaluating Earthquake Hazards in the Los Angeles Region - An Earth Science Perspective, Ziony, J. ed. , U.S. Geological Survey Prof. Paper 1360, pp. 174-175. 4 . Hileman, J. A. , Allen, C. R. , and Nordquist, J. . M. , 1973, Seismicity of the Southern California Region, 1 Jan. 1932 to 31 Dec. 1972 : Calif. Inst. Tech. Geol. & Planet. Sciences, Contribution #2385, 64 pp. 5. Jennings, C. W. , 1975, Fault Map of California, California Division of Mines and Geology, Geologic Data Map No. 1. 6. Leighton-Yen and Associates, 1974 , Geotechnical Impacts to the City of Huntington Beach Seismic Safety Element. 7. Morton, P. K. , Miller, R. V. , Fife, D. L. , 1973, "Geo- Environmental Maps of Orange County, California" ; California ' Division of Mines and Geology Special Report, 15. 8. Ploessel, M. R. , and Slossen, J. E. , 1974, "Repeatable High Ground Accelerations from Earthquakes, " California Geology, September, pp. 195-199. 9. Poland, J. F. , Piper, A. M. , 1956, "Ground-water Geology of the Coastal Zone Long Beach-Santa Ana Area, California" ; Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 1109. 10. Poland, J. F. , Piper, A. M. and others, 1956, Groundwater Geology of the Coastal Zone, Long Beach-Santa Ana Area, California; Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 1109. 11. Randell, D. H. , 1983, Geology of the City of Long Beach, California; Bulletin of the Association of Engineering Geologists, Volume XX, Number 1, p. 19-25. 12 . Seed, H. B. , Murarka, R. , Lysmer, J. , Idriss, I. M. , 1975, Relationships Between Maximum Acceleration, Maximum ' Velocity, Distance from Source and Local Site Conditions for Moderately Strong Earthquakes: Earthquake Engineering Research Center Report No. 75-17 , Berkeley, California. 13 . Wesnousky, S. G. , 1986: Earthquakes, Quaternary Faults, and ' Seismic Hazard in Southern California; Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 91, No. B12, p. 12, 587-12, 631. , 14. Woodward-Clyde Consultants, January, 1984, Preliminary Evaluation of Surface Faulting, Bolsa Chica Local Coastal Program, Bolsa Chica Planning Unit, Orange County, California. 15. Woodward-Clyde Consultants, October 1987, Evaluation of , Hazards Due to Fault Surface Rupture at Bolsa Chica Mesa and in the Bolsa Chica Lowland, Orange County, California. ERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS , Date Flight No. Frame No. Scale 9-1-47 C-11730 5-109 1"=150' 1938 C-5029 33 1"=660' ' ! 11-3-27 C-135 A15 1"=375' 11-3-27 C-135 A14 1"=375' 1928 C-300 M1266 1"=375' 1927 C-113 632 1"=375' 1927 C-113 631 1"=375' , 10-28-39 C-6120 12 1"=208 ' 1 1 - HOLLY - SEACLIfF GPA HYDROLOGY/DRAINAGE REPORT CITY Of HUNTINGTON BEACH Appendix F �WDEN & 18011 COS{'A SUITE 10 • IRVINF_. CA 92714 7141660-0110 FAX:660-0418 SO C I AT E S CII'11.E%GIVEERS -PIA \"ERS-/..1 SI)SIIN I'EY/)RS HYDROLOGY/DRAINAGE I. EXISTING CONDITIONS The existing hydrology of the project site is shown on Exhibit A. Also shown on this exhibit is the current zoning and current hydrologic tributary drainage areas . As identified, the majority of the site drains as surface flow into natural swales with 4 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 Zoning and Land Use 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 hydrology study obsolete by today' s standards . For a valid basis of comparison we have applied the 1986 Hydrology Manual criteria to the current Zoning and Land Use Plan to give an ultimate discharge . This is shown as Exhibit A. 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 areas with several minor 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 northerly in swales beyond the project limits to Huntington Central Park. The runoff from the existing Land Use Plan for . this northwest tributary area is approximately 200 cfs . The storm drain runoff for a small portion of the far west of the project surface drains weste-rly into the Bolsa Chica area. The second primary drainage outlet consist of flows collected from the northeast portion of the project which cross 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 offsite 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 offsite developed area has been determined by adjusting the flows calculated by L.D. King & Associates to approximate the flows generated under the new 1 County procedures . ) As shown on Exhibit A, this off-project area contributes nearly half of the overall flows which pass under L 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 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 f by ground water 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) , oil fields (on and off the Holly Seacliff property) , a fire station, an automobile repair facility, the police pistol range , horse stables , open space (on the Holly Seacliff property) and residential development (offsite) . 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 2 loading is excessive with the primary source being the manure used at the mushroom farm. Nutrient concentrations of the drain inlet 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 influent 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. 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 desalting 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 land use plan . The tributary ' drainage to this part of the site, based on current Land Use Plans , 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. iII . IMPACTS 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 3 patterns will closely 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 land uses , tributary areas , and the associated runoff volumes are shown on Exhibit B . 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 B. 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 Conservative Element , and 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 Land Use Plan for this area. 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. 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 B . Other impacts to this area could be the need to improve existing drainage swales , 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 . As seen on Exhibit B, 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 Land Use 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 creating ponding and allowing some sedimentation and percolation to occur prior to 4 r 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 meeds to be addressed with respect to positive overflow and potential back water ponding within the proposed project site. A Sully-Miller bypass/detention system should be constructed as mitigating means for collecting sedimentation and conveying low flows and contained contaminants . The third primary runoff area consist of flows collected in the westerly and southwesterly portion of the site. The three 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 Land Use Plan. With proper outlet protection from man-made facilities , there does not appear to be any significant impacts from these areas due to the approximate 10% increase in discharge . The three southwesterly draining areas all discharge through the Seacliff Golf Course . These discharges are within 5% of the existing Land Use flows and all pass through a detention basin at the downstream end of the golf course designed for these flows . Because the existing downstream facilities have been designed to accommodate similar flows to what will be generated from the proposed land uses , there appears to 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 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. 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 Land Use Plan. The proposed land uses should not impact the offsite downstream conditions providing they were properly designed for the build-out of the existing Land Use Plan. However, prior to development , further detailed studies of the offsite downstream conditions should be made to analyze the impact the new Orange County Hydrology procedures have on the existing conduit systems. III . MITIGATION MEASURES By implementing the following mitigation measures , the significant impacts to both the environment due to run-off and the 5 r � 1 city storm drain facilities can be significantly reduced. 1 . Detailed area-wide flood control/hydrology/hydraulic studies shall be prepared by a licensed civil engineer as required by the City (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 B. A separate detailed study should be completed for each tributary area prior to the approval of Specific Plans . 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 Element. The permits should insure that development provide for facilities needed to protect buildings from the 100 year storm. 3 . Individual projects may be required to construct or upgrade onsite and offsite drainage facilities needed to drain the site according to City requirements . This would include : improving existing earth swales so as to convey nuisance water as well as flood water; required storm drain conduits ; storm drain crossings under Goldenwest Street , Ellis Avenue , and other proposed streets; ape: 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 shall 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. 6 . Developers shall be responsible for the design and construction of a desilting basin just upstream of the discharge int Sully-Miller Lake. This desilting basin is to collect sedimentation and to improve the water quality discharge into the lake. As part of the desilting basin construction, a bypass system should be installed at the bottom of the basin to carry silts and debris to its outlet into the Slater Channel at the junction of Talbert Lake . Also, a new overflow outlet system in Sully-Miller Lake should be constructed to replace the existing non-functional system. The city suggests the new system be constructed with 6 a lower inlet than what is existing and that it be connected to the proposed bypass system required for the future desilting basin. 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 shall comply with the City of Huntington Beach Public Works Standards and Specifications and any pertinent grading ordinances . IV. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE The development of the proposed 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 1 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 . 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. However, with the implementation of mitigating measures , the siltation due to construction can be reduced to a level of insignificance . I 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. The City has plans to expand the Huntington Central Park to include the Sullv-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 offsite downstream storm drain systems may occur based upon the adoption 7 1 � 1 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 characteristics 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 significant impact . However , with the construction of new lines and/or by possibly redirecting the increased flows to a downstream system which has adequate capacity, the resultant impacts to the existing systems could range from unavoidably significant to insignificant . , V. UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS The mitigation measures require precise hydrologic and drainage studies to address specific impacts regarding runoff , 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 , the resultant impacts could range from unavoidably significant to insignificant . The proposed General Plan land uses will cumulatively increase the total runoff over the existing General Plan land uses by approximately 1 . 51,. Some of the existing storm drain facilities may be undersized when applying the current edition of the Hydrology Manual criteria to their drainage areas . 8 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 , 1 1 I ! i 1 1 i HOLLY - SEACLIfF 6PA TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION ANALYSIS CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Appendix G i 1 i 1Lsa i HOLLY SEACLIFF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION ANALYSIS PREPARED FOR CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648 PREPARED BY LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. 1 PARK PLAZA, SUITE 500 IRVINE, CA 92714 (714) 553-0666 LSA PROJECT #FOR901 July 18, 1989 i 1 Lsa ' TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Project Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Study Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 jEXISTING CIRCULATION CONDITION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Existing Roadway Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Existing Condition Daily Traffic Impacts . . . . : : : : : : : : : : 10 Existing Intersection Level of Service Analysis 15 PROJECT IMPACTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Trip Distribution and Trip Assignment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN CIRCULATION IMPROVEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 ' FUTURE CONDITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Current General Plan Daily Traffic Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . Proposed Land Use Concept Plan Daily Traffic Impacts . . . . . . . . 35 ' Industrial Alternative Daily Traffic Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Residential Alternative Daily Traffic Impacts 37 Current General Plan Intersection Level of Service Analysis . . . . 40 Proposed Land Use Concept Plan Intersection Level of Service Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Industrial and Residential Alternatives Intersection Level of Service Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 RECOMMENDED LANE IMPROVEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 MITIGATION MEASURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 07/18/89(FOR901) 1 r 1 r is LIST OF FIGURES PAGE- , Figure 1 Holly Seacliff Project Vicinity Map 1 Figure 2 - Holly Seacliff Current General Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Figure 3 - Proposed Land Use Concept Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Figure 4 - Industrial Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Figure 5 - Residential Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Figure 6 - Holly Seacliff Intersection Location Map . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Figure 7 - City of Huntington Beach Bicycle Facilities . . . . . . . . . 10 Figure 8 - Holly Seacliff Existing Condition Average Daily Traffic Volumes and V/C Ratios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Figure 9 - Holly Seacliff Community Planning Areas . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Figure 10 - Holly Seacliff Project Trip Distribution . . . . . . . . . . 26 Figure 11 - County of Orange - Master Plan of Arterial Highways . . . . . 30 Figure 12 - City of Huntington Beach Circulation Plan . . . . . . . . . . 31 Figure 13 - Holly Seacliff Existing General Plan Average Daily Traffic Volumes and V/C Ratios . . . . . . . 34 Figure 14 - Holly Seacliff Proposed Land Use Concept Plan Average Daily Traffic Volumes and V/C Ratios . . . . 36 Figure 15 - Holly Seacliff Industrial Alternative Plan Average Daily Traffic Volumes and V/C Ratios . . . . . . . . 38 Figure 16 - Holly Seacliff Residential Alternative Plan Daily Traffic Volumes and V/C Ratios . . . . . 39 Figure 17 - Holly Seacliff Signal Warrant Analysis Intersection Location Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 r r r r r 07/18/89(FOR901) 11 1 r lsa LIST OF TABLES PAGE Table A - Existing Arterial Condition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Table B - Holly Seacliff Existing Condition ICU Summary . . . . . . . . . 17 Table C - Holly Seacliff Proposed Land Use Element . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Table D - Holly Seacliff Existing General Plan Trip Generation Table 21 Table E - Holly Seacliff Proposed Land Use Concept Plan Trip Generation Table . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 1 Table F - Holly Seacliff Industrial Alternative Plan Trip Generation Table . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Table G - Holly Seacliff Residential Alternative Plan Trip Generation Table . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Table H - Existing Plus Project Daily Traffic Volumes and V/C Ratios 27 Table I - Holly Seacliff Existing Plus Project ICU Summary 29 Table J - Holly Seacliff Committed Intersection Improvements . . . . . . 33 Table K - Future Year Development ICU Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Table L - Holly Seacliff Signal Warrant Analysis Summary Sheet . . . . . 45 Table M - Holly Seacliff Mitigated Intersection Lane Geometrics 48 07/18/89(FOR901) 11 1 lsa HOLLY SEACLIFF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION ANALYSIS INTRODUCTION The following study assesses the traffic and circulation impacts from the proposed Holly Seacliff General Plan Amendment project onto the local inter- section and arterial street system within the project study area. This impact 1 analysis has been conducted for both the existing plus project and General Plan build out scenarios. The existing plus project daily trip analysis is pre- sented to determine the Holly Seacliff traffic impacts to the existing circula- tion system. For purposes of a General Plan level analysis, 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 proposed General Plan, two alternative Land Use Plans are analyzed in both the existing and General Plan build out scenarios. 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. These peak hour intersection impacts are identified for the proposed project and alternative development scenarios on the existing and cumulative General Plan build out scenarios. Project Description The proposed Holly Seacliff GPA project area is located in the northwest section of Huntington Beach (see Figure 1) . The project site is generally bounded to the north by Ellis Avenue, to the east by Huntington Street and Main Street, to the south by Yorktown Avenue and the Seacliff Country Club and to the west by the Bolsa Chica bluffs. The current City General Plan designation for the area calls for a mix of land uses including residential , planned community, general commercial , of- fice/professional , general industrial , resource production and open space/re- creational (See Figure 2) . The primary alternative under consideration for the General Plan Amendment, illustrated in Figure 3, includes a less intense mix of land uses that includes residential , general commercial , industrial and open space. Using the primary alternative as a base, the two alternatives in this i 07/18/89(FOR901) SLATER FrFX; I cc Q i ZCA H a � TALBERT �`00,* CLAY .YORKTOWN 00 LEGEND Major o" Z Primary Secondary ----�- Project Boundary yx m , FIGURE 1 SCALE IN FEET 0 1000 2000 HOLLY SEACLIFF Lsa 13 PROJECT VICINITY MAP OPEN SPACE GENAL fRA-O ECREATION COMMERCIAL Rosa co cz-o 0 AYMMM _CD E�TATE I RA-0-CD \' ro,Am'.c•o- ESTATE M1-01-co RA-0-CD Sf7 UNgBC 6,D°o-Co S Z UR/geC M7.07 ' ,.Uo-col O-CO aA•ol- RA•O•Co co 7)-D•8,000 aA.o-eD LU-O•CD RA-O i M2-O GENERALINDUSTRIAL 9+ 4 up/gecRA-p• �w-o-col RA-0-CD ES ATE RA-0 I -A. °Co Ml-p OP CD S2 gBC M1-CD RA-Ol•CZ u2-ol W.A. M1.Ot RA•Ol RA•Of -co OPE ❑ RA-0-CD OP SPACE I-A-CO■1.0 OP I R2 REC EATIO R"� °° R°A. - C, QwN Aw_ 4-0-CZ R2 OFFICE C1.O M2.01 RA•01-CD Ml RESOD CE A- DENSITY PROFESSIONAL PRODU 1 RA-0 -- PLANNED M2•01-co COMMUNITY R2 R� al co =R40 GENERAL C2.O COMMERCIAL 4 f CcD- V H 3 C2.O•CD C2 S CD - raklo.n Awn 1 ZONING ryf1• Rl R.NWn110(DUfricl a MMlum DensOy L E G E N DR2 R.sldenaalDbinef GENERAL PLAN Rt MY Residence ee DbMot Fj Estate s2 unlgac RA kfontW AD rlef _ aEstates 7 un/Dcc Ml UDOf kMklt al Dlsalof Estate S I un/Dac M2 Indusfriol DbafOf O Medfunt Density C 1 ComrMre� lol ObMd aGeneral commero/o/ C2 D,z=_vy/wNess aOMO.PlGtestlanoi OP Offla.-Pr.tes+sorlal Dbmet General InW+MIDI ROS Recrooffon 5p"A aResource Praducflon CD Cfr/0 0~ aRecreation Open 1,70e. LU larlBed Use OManned Community CZ Coastal Zone 8unfx Coastal Zone Boundary Kill OR camb/n/ng Dbmefs FIGURE 2 ' APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET 0 600 1200 HOLLY SEACLIFF CURRENT GENERAL PLAN �s.--.a. 5/4/89:KF if f'. ., 1 . "- � �J y_ ry1, ek �Lryl �''�.. �:--•-:- \• ' / i +. _ wry,'(".1 I AC ( L 60 AC ` I i M c ' r ° ffw ,.a � D — K aw IA� . Oil ..� E I I E I 00 we °o A11 I. I*Al °mw '6p now.c luac ' _ TsOu•e fKIE wYNt 12 AC T I 1EC �, MH i 6 AC y� ., •�M - C Cwn•a y..rlih,� 1°AC C M .' Ac tfafw t AC o0 a H ,Bp I-AC I ' zi AC I rwle �• 1 _ STATISTICAL SUMMARY . 1n.AC — M 1 FSIAiE __ •%p5, Yj AC 8.0 L p AC M r�NESIU,NUAL 14 AO �•�i/AC °f u� ? Ow DENSIiv 1). 1010 •r \ •`�• II•.• FL NIMIDENTIAI ♦1 \� Av nu ',CIOY�A 0W' � '— r�� MII M IN.�IIv 1.19 1525 4 MEDIUM HIGH DE.NSITv 39 7W 1 AI } {1... • _ M / - 7 1 1 j �. A�. MH RESDENTAI. \'{` I • T 5 _, ° �/ f 1. _ r�S I / 1 MU MI%f'D Df VEI OPMENT 50 .IS \1 1 I ! I L J L .i.(/= .:JT t � . 0 I. .BP BUSINESS PARK 5. Yw uw v�H �, ` N •, �' INI,UIINIAI U s If 1 1\ i��. -- _ I '',.�('.a:� p' y I•,1^A!t.ti(�Sjl�'R �5 I UHF'N SPACE ror.1 _— �N 7,A alo i'� In rI "yi°19 •gyp:.' I ,.r.✓i�•.T� 11 FIGURE 3 PROPOSED LAND USE CONCEPT PLAN �� ®4/28/89:GD � � r r� �r I■�I r�nl� rr ,I� �11 r I. r Ir r r r r � ' lsa analysis assume a greater proportion of industrial land use and residential land use, respectively. These alternatives are presented in Figures 4 and 5. Study Methodology To conduct this traffic analysis, four computer modules were combined to create the overall Holly Seacliff traffic model . These modules included: • Daily and Peak Hour Trip Generation Daily and Peak Hour Traffic Assignment 1 Intersection Impact and Mitigation Signal Warrant Analysis. To this end, daily and peak hour trips were generated for each project alternative, based on trip generation rates from the Institute of Transport- ation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual , Fourth Edition. The trips gener- ated for each alternative were then assigned over the local circulation system based on general trip distribution patterns, as described in the County of Orange Bolsa Chica Subarea Model . To determine the base for comparing alternative circulation impacts, the Bolsa Chica Subarea Model (BCSTM) was used. This model , as described in the Bolsa Chica Subarea Traffic Model , Kunzman Associates, November, 1987, was developed to forecast daily traffic volumes on a regional level for the Bolsa ' Chica area, which includes the Holly Seacliff area. The BCSTM was derived from the County's SOCTAM computer model to forecast traffic volumes associated with the proposed Bolsa Chica Land Use Plan and various alternatives. Close coor- dination with the County of Orange Environmental Management Agency Transporta- tion Planning was undertaken as part of this overall traffic to assure com- patible forecasts. The BCSTM assumes the City and County General Plan build out condition as a base for comparison purposes. Therefore, it was deemed appropriate to use the General Plan assessment as the base for the Holly Seacliff GPA analysis. Because the BCSTM is a regional forecasting tool , however, the land use and trip generation input is coarse in nature. Therefore, in coordination with the County EMA Transportation Planning, refinements were made to the original trip generation data for the Holly Seacliff area to accurately reflect the trip generation potential for the project area. In most cases, these adjustments resulted in greater trips being generated for the project site as compared to the BCSTM. 07/18/89(FOR901) 5 1 ;�✓ L IIJ � � � .:I OSFrF ., GWAwnw i 1 7 AD I. , ,t wAc ! Ta is MH (j 10AD A AD e.OwKI.—A. MH RP za /f ae c I aEA IMF IBP yI AD 14 n I MH i t, 13 ACC �'Y't•+.n--r :x. �.,*y..A'Ar. F^-^P�I7rL":' _f.cYt, � -J _ .._.�.W� �._a ;,� IM \ vic xMc MH} toA� M 3 o M� 20 AD I ----- - , � STATISTICAL SUMMARY 2.AC 1.AC �\ L M L.E Ilf bNt,rvllAl •19. Say ea,mK as We I , a AD 10 -,TV 1)u 1010 o..0u/Ac '�A I L 1 HLIXIDt�N IIAL MLLI UM DI N$'I V 113 I'll Aw,wa I {I I CIW AwL,ua' 1 H[S DEN I IaI ` � H 1 5 AD- / 1 �, A• -....., MO MIRE ODE VEL.HMENI 53 A)5 t �, • .., . - ' 'I BP aI1SINFSS NANM, u] 61 AC ,Wown`Rr'inu.�wr. ;4� { f� rvo sTHul. 1v Tout ,—ne .assILI �.t �1 .. ,. �,.'� I � * FWItlnIIW Mw,wlive LwJWn Fw Cwnmwna, III ' 4 r •i 3 r. v.✓ �l" i, ,'' ,• e' 1, FIGURE 4 Lsa ®4/28/89:GD INDUSTRIAL ALTERNATIVE r +r r rs r r �r r Ir r■r r rr r rr rr rr rr �r r� rr rr rr rlf r r� r� rr ar �r rr Ir rr rr �r �r rr �r �r \ YI • '� _ . , ` os Q AC EYb�� 7AC / I - i I Y- es ec M 20 AC 1 E I 2 c - • E .r 46 AC / 'I xs AC , 26AC �\ E i E 66 Ac os, zo�c xo AC -/ I YR 1.c M ' 20 ou.xc ]w.n]nxnx x2 nC i \y�c j•MH i 6 C M - - C �cam.w�w.nw-✓' 1 AC M M Y AC I A 22 AC STATISTICAL SUMMARY L ta�c .... _....,� \ L -'�';;�---------' 6 Isrnn. xc_ L. 3Y E+6 fY AC e M M L�nl�;n,i Nl�nl 4 AC Ac 6 AC .u , 5: „ e•Au,AC WIII N'IIY I!. 1010 C-J:III.,,II,NIIAI C.,A-- l MI III'll IU NSIIv 2W 2lW \ •, � � ,� .� ilt.,)I' IIAI N D e AL I:N::b IY . .� sx A �.. rMD� Mlxeu of vrLm•Ml.m 1� s c u I ��,� • ,,� � 1 � „� 1:� - ;-. I(�❑�I f:OMMlH61Al I, F. • L ' L 63 AC /' 1 f.3,rxt O],lawn 3.nu ;� , I. • I 1 INIHI5111IAL o �� I ._, OS UI•LN tiPA(;L 32 A FIGURE 5 Lsa [34/2,,,,:,D RESIDENTIAL ALTERNATIVE is The second computer module generates the forecast hour turn volumes p g e etas peak ur to olu for specific intersections. These intersections are illustrated in Figure 6 and are listed below. ' 1. Edwards Street/Ellis Avenue 2. Goldenwest Street/Ellis Avenue 3. Gothard Street/Ellis Avenue 4. Beach Boulevard/Ellis Avenue 5. Edwards Street/Garfield Avenue 6. Goldenwest Street/Garfield Avenue 7. Main Street/Gothard Street/Garfield Avenue 8. Beach Boulevard/Garfield Avenue 9. Goldenwest Street/Yorktown Avenue 10. Main Street/Yorktown Avenue 11. Goldenwest Street/Coast Highway 12. Goldenwest Street/Palm Avenue. The forecast peak hour intersection turn movements are generated based on the existing peak hour turn volumes for those intersections, and the relation- ship between existing and forecast daily traffic volumes. This methodology is described in the National Cooperative Highway Research Board Circular 255. This technique is an iterative procedure that effectively balances the inbound and outbound volumes of a particular intersection, and forecasts approximate turn movements for future conditions. , Based on the forecast peak hour turn movement volumes and forecast lane configurations for the roadways around the project site, Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) values were computed to determine the level of service (LOS) of the intersection in the AM and PM peak hours for the future conditions. For those intersections which are currently unsignalized, a Signal Warrant , Analysis (SWA) was conducted, based on the forecast daily traffic volumes for each development scenario, to determine whether a signal is necessary in the future condition. , EXISTING CIRCULATION CONDITION Existing Roadway Characteristics The existing street system in the vicinity of the study area is presented in Figure 1. Primary north/south circulation in the study area is via Edwards , Street, Goldenwest Street, Gothard Street, Main Street and Beach Boulevard. 07/18/89(FOR901) 8 < SLATER W O C cc 0 Z F d (7 y TALBERT ' ELLIS ` 1 2 3' 4 I < Project Site ' GARFIELD ' • ' •` 5 6 ' 7 8 • �� •/���. CLAY 1 . YORKTOWN ' A A9 ♦ � L , 9 10 LEGEND Y Z Major o Primary 12 Secondary -- Project Boundary 11 � , x m FIGURE 6 SCALE IN FEET o 1000 2000 HOLLY SEACLIFF INTERSECTION LOCATION MAP %:Lsa 135,4/,,:KF lsa 1 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 charac- teristics is illustrated in Table A. Other modes of transportation are also provided for in the study area. , Figure 7 is the City's Master Plan of Bikeways, and illustrates that the major- ity 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 ser- vice 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 #25/25A - Fullerton to Huntington Beach. Existing OCTD stops in the Holly Seacliff GPA area are listed below. Eastbound Garfield Avenue/Farside Crystal Street Northbound Goldenwest Street/Farside Yorktown Avenue ' Northbound Goldenwest Street/Farside Garfield Avenue Southbound Goldenwest Street/Nearside Ellis Avenue Southbound Goldenwest Street/Farside Garfield Avenue ' Northbound Main Street/Farside Garfield Avenue Southbound Main Street/Farside Garfield Avenue Westbound Yorktown Avenue/Farside Main Street. The majority of these stops do not include bus turnouts, benches or shel - ters. 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. Existing Condition Da ly Traffic Impacts The existing 1988-89 average daily traffic (ADT) volumes for the arterials in the vicinity of the project are presented in Figure 8. These volumes have 07/18/89(FOR901) 10 ' 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 ' TABLE A HOLLY SEACLIFF EXISTING ARTERIAL CONDITION Lsa7/18/89:KF ■�o/ EXISTING •t, � , � ",, u1mini PROPosm ��1 • 4 Opp op • J M i�=IIIIIIUIIIII►► SCALE IN FEET FIGURE 7 0 1600 3200 L ALMMEft 114/24/89:KF CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH BICYCLE FACILITIES ar rr rr rr rr r �Ir r rr rr /r �/ rr r� rr rr rr r Ir a o m pn Z N C- r 0) \ _ `* °' rl SLATER U) cc 14.8/0.74 15/0.75 15.7/0.79 18/0.9 W O co p N Q O c9 ` N Q tD w N v, TALBERT ` 5.3/0.44 9.7/0.81 5.8/0.7 o c � r N C N r N N 't ` Ln ELLIS ..�.. 5.3/0.27 16.6/0.8 ` 7/0.58 5.3/0.44 rn NEI 6�\ ` I O co o < Project SiteIn o ' o o ` a ♦ W O N O ` O � .� GARFIELD ' co 15/1.25 21/1.05 �' W 21/1.05 24.5/ ' ' ¢ 1.23 co CLAY f O o IN A q9 ♦ ` ' N ' YORKTOWN ' '4�i �� •> 15/0.75 '1115/0.75 00 ' o LEGEND hy � 6 o• � Major Primary s'�a N Secondary -- Project Boundary �o m FIGURE 8 SCALE IN FEET HOLLY SEACLIFF ' 0 1000 . 2000 EXISTING CONDITION AVERAGE DAILY � TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND V/C RATIOS �L� C37,,,,8,:KF Lsa , been collected from the City of Huntington Beach. Figure 8 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 sys- tem. 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 physi- cal capacity of the facility, but reflect the capacity at level of service (LOS) C. The upper limit of an LOS C value is equivalent to 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 ap- proximately 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: Type of Arterial Daily Volume at LOS C Capacity Major 45,000 Primary 30,000 ' Secondary 20,000 As can be seen in Figure 8, Coast Highway in the project vicinity current- ' ly 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, Gol - denwest Street operates over capacity. Beach Boulevard, north of Ellis, cur- rently 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 under the respective LOS C capacity values. ' Existing Intersection Level of Service Analysis To evaluate the current performance of the study area intersections iden- tified above, existing AM and PM peak hour turn movement counts were conducted at the outset of this study during February, 1989. To represent the summer peak hour traffic activity along Coast Highway, traffic counts from August, ' 1988, are used for the intersections of Goldenwest/Coast Highway and Goldco- west/Palm. 07/18/89(FOR901) 14 r lsa ' To determine peak hour intersection operations, Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) analysis is conducted for the key intersections in the study area. A detailed discussion of the ICU methodology, along with the resulting ICU worksheets, are presented in Appendix A. Briefly, the ICU methodology compares the v/c ratios of conflicting turn movements at an intersection, sums these critical v/c ratios for each intersection approach and determines the overall intersection capacity utilization. The resulting intersection capa- city utilization is expressed in terms of level of service (LOS) , where LOS A represents free flow activity and LOS F is overcapacity operations. For evalu- ation 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 B. As seen in the Table, the intersection of Beach/Ellis currently operates over- capacity in the PM peak hour. All other intersections 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 PM peak hour, while the intersection of Goldenwest/Coast Highway approaches unacceptable operations in the AM peak hour. PROJECT IMPACTS ' Land Use and Trip Generation For purposes of this analysis, specific allowable densities of each Land Use Element have been assumed as a means to assess potential circulation im- pacts associated with each development scenario. Table C provides a detailed listing of the Land Use Elements assumed for the project site. Daily and AM and PM peak hour trips have been generated for each scenario based on the land uses illustrated in Table C. Trip generation for a given ' development is the product of the trip generation rate multiplied by the pro- posed number of development units. The trip generation rates used in the analysis primarily are from the ITE Trip Generation Manual , Fourth Edition, 1985. In recognition of the differential in commercial trip generation by com- mercial center size, representative retail trip generation rates were es- tablished 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) . 07/18/89(FOR901) 15 ---------------------------------------------------------------- EXISTING CONDITION AM PEAK IPM PEAK ' INTERSECTION I ICU I 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(1) 0.51 A 0.58 A 8. BEACH BOULEVARD/GARFIELD AVENUE 0.66 B 0.89 D 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 --- ---------------------------------------------------------------- TABLE B HOLLY SEACLIFFLsa , EXISTING CONDITION ICU SUMMARY ' 5/4/89:KF r r r r r r r r rr r r r r r r r r r r CURRENT PROPOSED LAND USE INDUSTRIAL RESIDENTIAL LAND USES GENERAL PLAN CONCEPT PLAN ALTERNATIVE ALTERNATIVE Residential Estates 878 DU 640 DU 585 DU 640 DU Low Density Residential 1,010 DU 1,010 DU 1,010 DU Medium Density Residential 980 DU 1,525 DU 1,255 DU 2,300 DU Med./High Density Residential 760 DU 1,520 DU 500 DU Planned Community 3,990 DU Mixed Use Medium Density Residential 475 DU 475 DU Med./High Density Residential 475 DU General Commercial 217.8 TSF 272.5 TSF 272.5 TSF General Commercial 730 TSF 120 TSF 76 TSF 185 TSF Office 244 TSF General Industrial 2,965 TSF 964 TSF 1, 107 TSF Open Space 54 Acres 92 Acres 92 Acres 92 Acres Note: DU = dwelling unit TSF = thousand square feet TABLE C HOLLY SEACLIFF PROPOSED LAND USE ELEMENTS Lsa 5/3/89:KF Ls 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 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. ' Due to the size of the project area, the development scenarios' Land Use Elements are aggregated into traffic analysis zones (TAZ) . Traffic analysis ' zones are simply catchment areas for aggregating land uses by number of units, and for assigning the trips to the arterial and intersection network. For this study the five planning areas A through E, identified by the City, have been used as the primary TAZs. These TAZs are illustrated in Figure 9. These five areas do not change between development scenarios. A secondary set of TAZs, also developed for the traffic model , are a function of the specific land uses, access locations and geographical boundaries within each of the five planning ' areas. These secondary TAZs are development scenario specific. Therefore, a TAZ's subset designation may change between alternatives. These TAZs' aggregates of similar land uses are used to determine appro- priate trip generation and distribution patterns. Each TAZ has its own access to the local network hence trips will be distributed, by trip type, according to the relationship of the location of the TAZ and the location of in- ' gress/egress to the project site. The trip generation for each of the dev- elopment scenarios is summarized below. Current General Plan. The current General Plan Land Use Element trip generation for the project site is presented in Table D. Land use units as- sumed for this exercise include the maximum allowable densities of each part- icular land use permitted within the project area. 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 AM and 9,730 PM peak hour trips. Proposed Land Use Concept Plan. The Land Use Concept Plan is comprised of predominantly low density residential , with some commercial and industrial activities. The proposed Land Use Concept Plan is forecast to generate ap- proximately 60,370 daily trips and 4,080 AM and 5,710 PM peak hour trips. The ' Land Use Con-ept Plan results in fewer trips, as compared to the General Plan, 07/18/89(FOR901) 18 ' ♦ t ---- I �1 I I ----------- ------I I I I B C I ' IA ------ 1 � 1 � I I % I ' E I D i I I 1 I 1 I 1 � �i---.I ' FIGURE 9 HOLLY SEACLIFF COMMUNITY PLANNING AREAS �s�a I 3J) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- rrr 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 1o3 (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 DU 354 (4) 10.06 0.20 0.55 0.63 0.37 3,561 72 195 224 132 B.3 General Commercial TSF 120 82.00 1.40 1.30 3.20 3.40 9,823 168 156 383 407 8.4 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 OU 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 D.1 Planned Community DU 3,990 7.44 0.11 0.39 0.41 0.21 29,682 444 1,575 1,630 840 D.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 DU 918 (5) 7.00 0.09 0.47 0.38 0.19 6,426 83 431 349 174 E.2 General 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 D HOLLY SEACLIFF EXISTING GENERAL PLAN Lsa 5/19789:KF TRIP GENERATION TABLE lsa ' (See Table E) . This represents a 38% reduction in gross daily trip generation over the current General Plan. ' Industrial Alternative. The Industrial Alternative is similar to the Land Use Concept except for an increase in square footage of industrial/business park land use. This industrial land use is planned to be located along Goth- ' ard, to extend the existing Gothard industrial corridor. The daily and peak hour trip generation for this alternative is presented in Table F, and indi- cates a daily trip generation of 60,940 ADT and a peak hour generation of 4,300 AM and 5,750 PM peak hour trips. ' Residential Alternative. The Residential Alternative includes predominan- tly low and medium density residential land uses. In addition, some commercial and open space are included. As seen in Table G, this alternative is forecast to generate 62,600 ADT and 3,570 AM and 5,340 PM peak hour trips. Trip Distribution and Trip 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 the BCSTM distribution ' patterns. For illustrative purposes, the generalized distribution percentages are presented in Figure 10. These generalized patterns were refined to reflect the local circulation system, proposed parcel access locations and particular ' land use types. The general distribution patterns were input for each TAZ by specific links to, from, through and within the project site. These routes assume ' logical travel corridors from a given TAZ to the trip destination. Where more than one route was possible, the distribution was split to reflect optional travel patterns. Existing Plus Project Daily Traffic Impacts To assess the arterial impacts of the project area development on the ' existing circulation system, an existing plus project daily traffic analysis has been conducted. This analysis has been prepared for the proposed Land Use Concept Plan, as well as the two alternative plans. The project and alter- natives 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. 07/18/89(FOR901) 21 FrF-- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Proposed Land TRIP GENERATION RATES PROPOSED PLAN TRIP GENERATION TAZ LAND USE UNITS Use Plan DAILY AM IN 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 DU 170 10.06 0.20 0.55 0.63 0.37 1,710 35 94 108 63 B.1 Residential Estates DU 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 8.3 Residential Estates DU 141 (3) 10.06 0.20 0.55 0.63 0.37 1,418 29 78 89 52 B.4 Open Space ACRES 40 C.1 Low Density Residential DU 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 DU 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 OU 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 D.1 Open Space ACRES 13 0.2 Low Density Residential DU 150 10.06 0.20 0.55 0.63 0.37 1,509 31 83 95 56 D.3 Medium Density Residential DU 225 7.00 0.09 0.47 0.38 0.19 1,575 20 105 85 42 D.4 Low Density Residential DU 100 10.06 0.20 0.55 0.63 0.37 1.006 20 55 63 37 D.5 General Commercial TSF 76 82.00 1.40 1.30 3.20 3.40 6,251 107 99 244 259 0.6 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 :1zn 7.60 0.10 0.44 0.46 0.22 1,82E 25 113 119 56 D.8 Low Density Residential DU 6u 10.06 O.[O 0.55 0.63 0.37 805 16 44 51 30 D.9 Low Density Residential DU 370 10.06 0.20 0.55 0.63 0.37 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 DU 85 7.00 0.09 0.47 0.38 0.19 595 8 40 32 16 E.4 Medium Density Residential DU 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 2.795 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (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 E HOLLY SEACLIFF PROPOSED LAND USE CONCEPT PLAN Lsa 6,21/89:KF TRIP GENERATION TABLE ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Industrial TRIP GENERATION RATES PROPOSED PLAN TRIP GENERATION TAZ LAND USE UNITS Alternative DAILY AM IN 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 DU 115 10.06 0.20 0.55 0.63 0.37 1.157 23 63 73 43 A.3 Medium Density Residential DU 190 7.00 0.09 0.47 0.38 0.19 1,330 17 89 71 35 B.1 Residential Estates DU 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 B.4 Open Space ACRES 40 C.1 Low Density Residential DU 310 10.06 0.20 0.55 0.63 0.37 3,119 63 171 196 115 C.2 Medium Density Residential DU 160 7.00 0.09 0.47 0.38 0.19 1,120 14 75 60 30 C.3 General Industrial TSF 286 6.97 0.85 0.12 0.12 0.91 1,991 241 33 35 261 C.4 Med./High Density Residential DU 200 7.00 0.09 0.47 0.38 0.19 1,400 18 93 75 37 C.5 General Industrial TSF 339 6.97 0.ts5, 0.12 0.12 0.91 2,364 287 39 42 310 C.6 Med./High Density Residential DU 600 7.00 0.09 0.47 0.38 0.19 4,200 53 280 226 Ill C.7 General Industrial TSF 482 6.97 0.85 0.12 0.12 0.91 3,360 407 55 60 440 C.8 Med./High Density Residential DU 100 7.00 0.10 0.44 0.46 0.22 700 10 44 46 22 D.J. Open Space ACRES 13 0.2 Low Density Residential DU 150 10.06 0.20 0.55 0.63 0.37 1,509 31 83 95 56 0.3 Med./High Density Residential OU 360 7.00 0.09 0.47 0.38 0.19 2,520 32 168 135 67 D.4 Low Density Residential DU 100 10.06 0.20 0.55 0.63 0.37 1,006 20 55 63 37 D.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 330 7.00 0.09 0.47 0.38 0.19 2,310 29 154 124 61 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 DU 370 10.06 0.20 0.55 0.63 0.37 3,722 75 204 234 138 E.1 Medium Density Residential DU 310 7.00 0.09 0.47 0.38 0.19 2.170 28 145 117 57 E.2 Mixed Use Development ACRES 53 237.51 3.94 3.17 9.19 9.68 12,588 209 168 487 513 E.3 Medium Density Residential DU 133 (4) 7.00 0.09 0.47 0.38 0.19 931 12 62 50 25 E.4 Medium Density Residential DU 70 7.00 0.09 0.47 0.38 0.19 490 6 33 26 13 --- --- ----------------------------------------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------- TOTAL TRIP GENERATION 60,936 1,807 2,493 2,886 2.865 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (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. (Source: Institute of Transportation Engingers, 4th. Edition Trip Generation Manual) TABLE F HOLLY SEACLIFF INDUSTRIAL ALTERNATIVE PLAN k1sa 6/21,89:KF TRIP GENERATION TABLE FrF -- ----------- - ----------- -------------------------- - - - --------------------------------------------------------------Residential TRIP GENERATION RATES PROPOSED PLAN TRIP GENERATION TAZ LAND USE UNITS Alternative DAILY AM IN 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 B.I. Residential Estates DU 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 DU 310 10.06 0.20 0.55 0.63 0.37 3,119 63 171 196 115 C.2 Medium Density Residential DU 385 7.00 0.09 0.47 0.38 0.19 2,695 34 180 145 71 C.3 Medium Density Residential DU 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 0.09 0.47 0.38 0.19 2,800 36 187 150 74 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 DU 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 DU 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 OU 100 10.06 0.20 0.55 0.63 0.37 1,006 20 55 63 37 0.5 Medium Density Residential DU 350 7.00 0.09 0.47 0.38 0.19 2,450 31 163 132 65 D.7 General Commercial TSF 142 82.00 1.40 1.30 3.20 3.40 11,609 198 184 453 481 D.8 Low Density Residential DU 80 10.06 0.20 0.55 0.63 0.37 805 16 44 51 30 D.9 Low Density Residential DU 370 10.06 0.20 0.55 0.63 0.37 3,722 75 204 234 138 E.1 Medium Density Residential DU 265 7.00 0.09 0.47 0.38 0.19 1,855 24 124 100 49 E.2 Mixed Use Development ACRES 53 237.51 3.94 3.17 9.19 9.68 12,588 209 168 487 513 E.3 Medium Density Residential DU 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.4 Medium Density Residential DU 70 7.00 0.09 0.47 0.38 0.19 490 6 33 26 13 --------------------------------- ------ ---- -- - ----- --- -- TOTAL TRIP GENERATION 62,600 1,031 2,538 3,105 2,234 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (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, 4t` Edition Trip Generation Manual) TABLE G HOLLY SEACLIFF RESIDENTIAL ALTERNATIVE PLAN S�a� 5/19/89:KF TRIP GENERATION TABLE SLATER � w 0 35 a 25 ' Z o a � N TALBERT ' ELLIS �,.■��■ Project Site ♦ ` - GARFIELD L CLAY � I ; YORKTOWN oq�y'Q ' LEGEND a Major o a Primary Secondary ----� Project Boundary ' XX Percent Trip Distribution 15 _ ' m FIGURE 10 ' SCALE IN FEET ' 0 1000 2000 HOLLY SEACLIFF Lsa 133/10/89:GD PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION 1 is , The resulting existing plus project daily traffic volume analysis is presented in Table H. Column 1 illustrates the existing daily traffic volumes t and v/c ratios. This is identical to the data presented in Figure 8. Column 2 presents the existing plus Land Use Concept Plan scenario. In this scenario, all links of Garfield Avenue studied exhibit overcapacity conditions assuming the current two lane roadway. Other segments, including Coast Highway, York- , town 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 Land Use Concept Plan on the existing circulation system. In addi- tion, certain arterial segments will 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. Columns 3 and 4 of Table H illustrate the existing plus project daily , traffic volumes for the Industrial and Residential alternatives, respectively. As compared to the existing plus proposed Land Use Concept Plan, the Industrial , and Residential alternatives exhibit similar impacts to the proposed Land Use Concept Plan, with no significant increases or decreases in daily traffic volumes or v/c ratios. 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. Existing Plus Project Intersection Level of Service Analysis ' Peak hour intersection impacts for the proposed Land Use Concept Plan and Industrial and Residential alternatives on the existing circulation system are ' presented in Table I. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) analysis has been conducted assuming the proposed project's and the alternatives' peak hour trip contribution to the existing peak hour traffic and circulation base. Table I also includes the existing peak hour ICU results for comparison pur- poses. As seen in the Table, the intersection of Beach/Ellis, which exhibits overcapacity operations in the existing condition, will continue to deteriorate , in 'avel of service with the addition of the proposed project (or alternatives) 07/18/89(FOR901) 26 -----------------`------------------------------------------- EXISTiNG EXISTING EXISTING CONCEPT + INDUSTRIAL +RESIDENTIAL EXISTING PLAN PLAN PLAN CONDITION CONDITION CONDITION CONDITION - ------- --- --- -- - --- - -------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- ' EXISTING VOLUME V/C VOLUME V/C VOLUME V/C VOLUME V/C LINKS (CAPACITY --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Slater Avenue ' Edwards to Goldenwest 20.0 14.8 0.74 15.0 0.75 15.0 0.75 15.0 0.75 Goldenwest to Gothard 20.0 15.0 0.75 15.2 0.76 15.2 0.76 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 0.90 18.1 0.90 18.1 0.90 Talbert Avenue Edwards to Goldenwest 12.0 5.3 0.44 5.5 0.46 5.5 0.46 5.5 0.46 ' Goldenwest to Gothard 12.0 5.3 0.44 6.1 0.51 6.2 0.51 6.1 0.51 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 0.79 15.9 0.79 15.9 0.79 15.9 0.79 Ellis Avenue Edwards to Goldenwest 12.0 7.0 0.58 9.7 0.81 10.0 0.84 9.7 0.81 ' 6oldenwest to Gothard 12.0 5.3 0.44 7.8 0.65 8.1 0.68 7.7 0.64 Gothard to Beach 20.0 5.3 0.27 7.6 0.38 7.9 0.39 7.6 0.38 East of Beach 20.0 16.6 0.83 22.1 1.11 22.1 1.11 21.3 1 07 Garfield Avenue Edwards to Goldenwest 12.0 15.0 1.25 28.1 2.34 28.9 2.41 24.9 2.08 ' 6oldenwest to Gothard/Main 20.0 21.0 1.05 34.1 1.70 33.7 1.69 34.4 1.72 Gothard/Main to Beach 20.0 21.0 1.05 33.5 1.67 33.3 1.66 27.2 1.36 East of Beach 20.0 24.5 1.23 42.9 2.14 42.9 2.14 41.4 2.07 Clay Avenue Goldenwest to Main 12.0 2.0 0.17 12.7 1.06 12.3 1.03 13.0 1.09 Main to Beach 12.0 2.0 0.17 3.3 0.28 3.3 0.28 3.6 0.30 Yorktown Avenue Goldenwest to Main 20.0 15.0 0.75 19.3 0.97 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 17.8 0.89 East of Beach 20.0 26.2 1.31 27.6 1.38 27.6 1.38 27.8 1.39 ' Coast Highway Vest of 6oldenwest 30.0 36.0 1.20 45.8 1.53 /6.1 1.54 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 14.8 0.74 18.6 0.93 18.8 0.94 18.5 0.92 ' Slater to Talbert 20.0 12.0 0.60 16.0 0.80 16.3 0.81 16.1 0.80 Talbert to Ellis 12.0 12.0 1.00 16.0 1.33 16.5 1.38 16.3 1.36 Ellis to Garfield 12.0 10.7 0.89 14.6 1.22 15.5 1.29 14.7 1.23 Goldenwest Street North of Slater 45.0 30.0 0.67 41.1 0.91 40.9 0.91 40.9 0.91 Slater to Talbert 45.0 24.0 0.53 35.1 0.18 34.9 0.78 34.9 0.78 ' Talbert to Ellis 45.0 20.0 0.44 31.7 0.70 31.5 0.70 31.6 0.70 Ellis to Garfield 45.0 24.0 0.53 34.1 0.76 33.4 0.74 34.3 0.76 Garfield to Yorktown 20.0 22.7 1.14 35.0 1.75 35.5 1.78 35.9 1.80 Yorktown to Coast Highway 20.0 20.7 1.04 32.3 1.62 32.7 1.64 32.9 1.65 Gothard Street ' North of Slater 20.0 19.0 0.95 24.3 1.22 24.6 1.23 24.5 1.23 Slater to Talbert 20.0 16.0 0.80 21.7 1.09 21.9 1.10 21.8 1.09 Talbert to Ellis 20.0 14.5 0.73 21.0 1.05 21.3 1.06 21.1 1.06 Ellis to Garfield 20.0 14.0. 0.70 19.5 0.97 18.9 0.95 23.5 1.18 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 0.62 14.8 0.49 19.2 0.64 South of Yorktown 30.0 12.0 0.40 14.4 0.48 14.5 0.48 14.3 0.48 Beach Boulevard North of Slater 45.0 57.0 1.27 72.0 1.60 72.2 1.61 72.0 1.60 Slater to Talbert 45.0 60.0 1.33 74.6 1.66 74.8 1.66 74.6 1.66 ' Talbert to Ellis 45.0 57.0 1.27 70.0 1.56 70.1 1.56 70.1 1.56 Ellis to Garfield 45.0 44.0 0.98 45.2 1.00 45.3 1.01 45.0 1.00 Garfield to Yorktown 45.0 44.0 0.98 47.1 1.05 47.2 1.05 46.8 1.04 Yorktown to Coast Highway 45.0 25.0 0.56 28.8 0.64 28.9 0.64 29.0 0.64 ------------------------------------ - --------------------------- ' TABLE H ' EXISTING PLUS PROJECT DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND V/C RATIOS �� 7/18/89:KF FrF ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ EXISTIN ION NO USE CEPT PLAN NDUSTRIAL ATIVE INTERSECTION I) ICU EAOSGICOPM P1EAK LA ICU I OS AM 11 ICU PEAKSCINIPM EAK IIIIAM PEAKS ILICUN�EAKS IIR AM ICUD�ELOSLIAIPM PEAK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. EDWARDS STREET/ELLIS AVENUE 0.54 A 0.69 B 0.72 C 0.94 E 0.75 C 0.98 E 0.73 C 0.85 D 2. GOLDENWEST STREET/ELLIS AVENUE 0.50 A 0.59 A 0.70 B 0.80 C 0.70 B 0.81 D 0.69 8 0.79 C 3. GOTHARD STREET/ELLIS AVENUE 0.42 A 0.47 A 0.57 A 0.66 B 0.59 A 0.68 8 0.57 A 0.67 8 4. BEACI' BOULEVARD/ELLIS AVENUE 0.72 C 1.02 F 0.84 D 1.27 F 0.84 D 1.30 F 0.83 D 1.27 F 5. EDWARDS STREET/GARFIELD AVENUE 0.41 A 0.47 A 0.59 A 0.71 C 0.61 B 0.74 C 0.57 A 0.69 B 6. GOLDENWEST STREET/GARFIELD AVENUE 0.52 A 0.59 A 0.79 C 0.89 D 0.80 C 0.90 D 0.78 C 0.86 D 7. MAIN STREET/GARFIELD AVENUE(1) 0.51 A 0.58 A 1.04 F 1.43 F 1.02 F 1.33 F 1.07 F 1.43 F 8. BEACH BOULEVARD/GARFIELD AVENUE 0.66 B 0.89 D 0.89 D 1.41 F 0.86 D 1.38 F 0.85 D 1.40 F 9. GOLDENWEST STREET/YORKTOWN AVENUE 0.64 B 0.80 C 0.87 D 1.08 F 0.88 D 1.09 F 0.90 D 1.12 F 10. MAIN STREET/YORKTOWN AVENUE 0.53 A 0.50 A 0.61 B 0.59 A 0.62 B 0.59 A 0.62 B 0.60 A 11. GOLDENWEST STREET/COAST HIGHWAY 0.88 D 0.84 D 1.40 F 1.33 F 1.41 F 1.35 F 1.40 F 1.34 F 12. GOLDENWEST STREET/PALM AVENUE 0.48 A 0.55 A 0.86 D 1.02 F 0.87 D 1.03 F 0.87 D 1.03 F ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ (1) Intersection includes Gothard Road as the fifth leg. TABLE I - HOLLY SEACLIFF EXISTING PLUS PROJECT ICU SUMMARY Lsa 5/10/89:KF lsa ' to the existing traffic base, assuming no improvements to the existing arte- rials and intersections. In addition, proposed Land Use Concept project re- lated peak hour volumes would create unacceptable operations at seven intersec- tions, 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. These same intersections will be impacted assuming the development of the Industrial ' alternative. The development of the Residential alternative will impact all but one of the seven intersections. In the Residential alternative, Ed- wards/Ellis will not be impacted. ' PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN CIRCULATION IMPROVEMENTS As travel demands increase with the build out of the City and County Gen- eral Plan Land Use Elements, improvements to the transportation network are required to meet these increased demands. The City of Huntington Beach and the County of Orange currently have General Plan Circulation Elements designed to ' accommodate future development. These 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 Figure 11. The City Circula- tion Plan is illustrated in Figure 12. As can be seen in the Figures, the circulation plans differ in many res- pects. The County MPAH calls for Garfield to be extended northwesterly to Bolsa Chica Road. This road, called the "cross-gap connector," would be inter- sected west of the study area by the proposed Seapointe Avenue. While the County MPAH calls for the cross-gap connector to be constructed to 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 align- ments have been supplemented with the assumed modified secondary arterial designation for the cross-gap connector. 07/18/89(FOR901) 29 SUPER STREET y Q N N - MEAOOVL i = A�RPOR! VAAOEA JAW , S1 pTER AV , TAL RERI AV f ✓I 1 In f Qa� ELL'S , �•;r MAW AV' ' .OPK TOvp , h� < N MAJOR �� ■� `t�T, f ■ MODIFIED MAJOR --M- ■ PRIMARY ---- MODIFIED PRIMARY ' SECONDARY ----- , FIGURE 11 SCALE IN FEET 0 2000. 4000 COUNTY OF ORANGE Lsa MASTER PLAN OF ARTERIAL HIGHWAYS 1 AMENDMENTS i PLAN~ cm a 1 � f ,I 1 i LEGEND: 1 FREEWAY STREET CAPACITY I t MAJOR _456000 / PRIMARY_ _30000 O 1 SECONDARY _20,000 O� •qy NOTE: SOLID LINES INDICATE EXISTING RIGHT OF WAYS Y NOT NECESSARILY ULTIMATE RIGHT Of WAY DASHED LINES INDICATE AREAS WHERE NO /I 1 RIGHT OF WAY EXISTS 1 FIGURE 12 1 SCALE IN MILES 0 1/2 ' CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH CIRCULATION PLAN (Lsa 134/24/89:KF 1 Ls i One short range circulation improvement that the City is planning is the ' 9 P Y P 9 widening of Goldenwest Street to its ultimate major arterial status (120 feet, six lanes) from Coast Highway to Garfield Avenue. This arterial improvement is i indicated on both the City and County circulation plans. In addition, discus- sions with City staff indicate that Goldenwest Street will ultimately be a six lane arterial north of Garfield Avenue. Currently, both City and County cir- culation plans show Goldenwest north of Garfield as a primary arterial with 100 ' feet of right of way. However, based on the City's plans for this segment, confirmed by the forecast traffic volumes of this report, Goldenwest warrants six lanes north of Garfield Avenue. Therefore, Goldenwest Street should in- ' clude a major arterial section from Coast Highway to Talbert Avenue, where right of way acquistion is not restricted. North of Talbert, a modified prima- ry arterial , with six lanes in a 100 foot section is recommended due to right ' of way constraints. Intersection improvements are also considered in the future year circu- lation system. Future year intersection geometrics fe, Beach Boulevard are , based on preliminary engineering drawings for the Beach Boulevard Super Streets project. Intersections along Goldenwest Street are assumed to be improved to the Goldenwest Street Widening intersection geometric assumptions. The remain- ' ing study area intersections will be improved according to the proposed Cir- culation 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. The resulting committed, approved or assumed intersection geometrics are il - lustrated in Table J, and are assumed to be part of the future condition cir- culation assessment. FUTURE CONDITIONS ' This section of the traffic study addresses the potential impacts as- sociated with the four future year development scenarios on the future year , circulation base. These scenarios include the development of the proposed Land Use Concept Plan, the Industrial alternative and the Residential alternative. Each of the development scenarios 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. 07/18/89(FOR901) 32 1 1 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NORTHBOUND - SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND - WESTBOUND I-LEFT-ITHROUGHI-RIGHT - -- --------- ------ ......... - - - - - ......... - - - - - INTERSECTION I LEFT ITHROUGH1 RIGHT I LEFT ITHROUGH1 RIGHT-I LEFT ITHROUGH1 RIGHT-I ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 BOULEVARD/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 5. EDWARDS STREET/GARFIELD AVENUE 0 0 0 i 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 J HOLLY SEACLIFF 5/10/89:GD COMMITTED INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS N CO Cf ' c0 O T to _ W G m 00 N SLATER m 17/0.85 16.2/0.81 19.710.99 21/1.05 co Cs ' a 0 Cry o Q O "' ao 0. Cl) � N h r ,�5 i i N TALBERT ` 13.4/0.45 9.6/0.32 12.810.43 17/0.57 , a ` � n aO c T o\J �vj N ` � M ni N ` N Inn 0 ELLIS 17.8/0.59 .9.4/O.3i��- ' 9.8/0.49 18.7/0.9 ' 00 O m �o' LO Project �I Site ' �° r ' \ .� W r M OI 00 M 00 GARFIELD 52/1.73 ' 53/1.77 8 4611.53 18.2/0.6 45.6/1.01 ' � N n � CLAY YORKTOWN 20.6/0.69 20.1/0.67 17.1/0.5 7 ' C LEGEND00 a 1. Major s° ° �,� o Primary �s 17 1 , -- Secondary o ---- Project Boundary S° 1�2 _ m ' FIGURE 13 SCALE IN FEET ' HOLLY SEACLIFF ' 0 1000 2000 EXISTING GENERAL PLAN AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND V/C RATIOS Lsa 135/4/,,,KF ' ' lsa Current General Plan Daily Traffic Impacts ' Forecast average daily traffic volumes for the current General Plan build out scenario are illustrated in Figure 13. This scenario includes 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 (LOS C) ratios are presented. As seen in the Figure, 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 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, under 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. Proposed Land Use Concept Plan Daily Traffic Impacts ' Forecast average daily traffic volumes and associated volume Lo LOS C capacity values for the Proposed Land Use Concept Plan scenario are illustrated in Figure 14. This scenario assumes the replacement of the current General Plan traffic base with the Land Use Concept 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 Figure 14 are lower, with fewer impacts than the current General Plan scenario. Coast Highway is still forecast 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 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. One possible mitigation to be discussed is the widening of Garfield in the segment ' to a major six lane arterial . 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 07/18/89(FOR901) 35 uD N , O O N v SLATER ti , a 17/0.85 15.9/0.79 19/0.95 21/1.05 w J 0 n p�j N N , (4 O O = O Z dO CO) O N TALBERT ' ` 13/0.43 5.8/0.19 9.7/0.32 17/0.57 ' co to _ c o o �n N � ` , O C N M C tD ELLIS ■�■�■ 5.8/0.29 ` 11.7/0.39 5.6/0.19 - 21.4/ 1.07 Vi ■� 2�• 'PO o'o� ;a o Project o N� Site wO "R 2� Cl) � 1`2 0_ GARFIELD - 5.8/1.5 - 32.4/0.72 47.9/1.6 �' 44.9/ 32.7/1.0 ' •` Qs w 1.49 AS 68 �� ��� CLAY 3 20 5I 0• � ki A YORKTOWN A'�i 9(,yf • 13.7/0.46 17.5/0.58 16.6/0.5 00 LEGEND ui Major o ti , •�� 9 Primary co Secondary ' --- Project Boundary ' Ae �6r m , FIGURE 14 SCALE IN FEET HOLLY SEACLIFF PROPOSED LAND USE ' 0 1000 2000 CONCEPT PLAN AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND V/C RATIOS , �sa 13 6/28/89:GD Lsa 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. There- fore, 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. Beach Boulevard will experience overcapacity operation north of the proj- ect site. All other arterial segments, including Gothard Street, will operate under the LOS C threshold. Industrial Alternative Daily Traffic Impacts Figure 15 illustrates the daily traffic impacts associated with the In- dustrial Alternative. This alternative will have impacts similar to the Land Use Concept Plan. The similarities are due to the fact that both the Land Use Concept Plan and Industrial Alternative daily trip generations are similar. Segments of Coast Highway, Beach Boulevard and Garfield Avenue will exhibit v/c ratios over the LOS C threshold. Residential Alternative Daily Traffic Impacts Figure 16 illustrates the daily traffic impacts forecast for the Residen- tial Alternative. Daily traffic volumes from this alternative will have an adverse impact on Coast Highway, less than the current General Plan, but slightly greater than the Land Use Concept Plan and Industrial Alternative. This alternative will also add greater daily traffic volumes to Garfield Avenue west of Main Street than either the Concept Plan or Industrial Alternative, but less than the current General Plan. Beach Boulevard will also exhibit traffic volumes that exceed the LOS C threshold in this alternative. In summary, assuming the arterial link improvements presented previously, ' the current General Plan Land Use Element for the project site will adversely impact the local circulation system. These impacts will occur along Coast Highway, east/west travel on Garfield Avenue and north/south travel along 07/18/89(FOR9O1) 37 00- rn U O N O O p � n n SLATER ic: 1F ,- 17-1/0.85 16/0.8 19/0.95 21.1/1.0 W 6 a n °' N ' 0 Of N O CO Cl) O M 'TALBERT 13.1/0.44 6.4/0.21 10.7/0.36 17/0.57 Ln o n N T Ui `♦ / i�" ELLIS L 6/0.3 ♦ ■■' 1210.4 5.910.2 6 21.4/ 1.07 s° Project Site ' r ♦ M `�, �r• W M O Ln GARFIELD � _ '45.4/1.5 2p` Immiiiiii 0 33.1/0.74 47.4/1.58 6 1.05/ 321 09 1 Cr w �• ♦^�•�. CLAY 3 , 6 20 2'o C M °1 ' YORKTOWN , '� Aqt • 17.4/0.58 18.6/0.62 16.6/ o.ss 0 � 'oy�w LEGEND 9y o 0 Major � o Primary Secondary °s ' ----- Project Boundary A .Z,� s, _y m ' FIGURE 15 , SCALE IN FEET , HOLLY SEACLIFF INDUSTRIAL 0 1000 2000 ALTERNATIVE PLAN AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND V/C RATIOS , �L=sa 136/28/,.:GD I I N 00p uli rn rn a N \M W cp � _ a 0) SLATER ,: oaC 0.17/0.85 15.9/0.8 18.7/0.94 .20.9/ C7 1.04 W < Cl) M CO G ,n n rn Q p r Z C p = � O (/1 p N p M TALBERT 13/0.43 6.4/0.21 10.3/0.34 17/0.57 M t0 N p Ln U') O p N � Ln U ELLIS L.��. r 5.3/0.27 .,, 11.6/0.39 5.5/0.18 20.6/ �8 ' �� ■ °!�� 1.03 cc G � 2 n < 0 Project _o co Site ' Y W Uii p r co U') 00 GARFIELD '145.9/1.5 31.8/0.71 48.3/1.61� ,� �' 44/1.47 31.2/ ' O ♦ Q 1.04 pss�i ,,.rag 69 ♦^��`■ M CLAY -S 2�• � '�' w S , I c J v YORKTOWN 18.2/0.61 19.1/0.64 L 16.6// 0.55 0 .�"_■ oyio `� LEGEND 0' y �' o 1 �■ Major qy A 00�°6 R Primary -- Secondary s' --�--- Project Boundary A 82. 's� Y m FIGURE 16 SCALE IN FEET HOLLY SEACLIFF RESIDENTIAL 0 1000 2000 ALTERNATIVE PLAN AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND V/C RATIOS Lsa C36,2,/,,:GD is Gothard Avenue and Beach Boulevard. The Land Use Concept Plan, due to the less , intense development, will have fewer impacts than the current General Plan. No daily arterial impacts are forecast along Gothard. While the threshold of LOS C is exceeded along segments of Garfield and Beach, the level of significance , is less than anticipated with the development of the current General Plan. Current General Plan Intersection Level of Service Analysis ' The current General Plan peak hour traffic base, added to the future cumulative traffic base and circulation system, is evaluated through an ICU analysis. As this Land Use Plan is the current designation for the project ' site, this analysis is presented as a benchmark for peak hour intersection evaluation of the project and associated alternatives. As seen in Table K, the contribution of peak hour traffic volumes from the , project site's current General Plan Land Use Element will create unacceptable intersection operations at eight locations. These include the intersections of Beach/Ellis, Edwards/Garfield, Goldenwest/Garfield, Main/Garfield, Beach/Gar- field, Goldenwest/Yorktown, Goldenwest/Coast Highway and Goldenwest/Palm. It should be reiterated that this scenario assumes the approved or committed intersection improvements illustrated in Table J. Therefore, mitigation mea- sures in excess of these approved or committed circulation improvements are necessary to accommodate the current General Plan land uses on the project site. Proposed Land Use Concept Plan Intersection Level of Service Analysis ' In a fashion similar to the current General Plan intersection analysis, , the peak hour traffic volumes associated with the Land Use Concept 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 K. The current General Plan scenarios are in- ' cluded for comparative purposes. Due to the less intense development associated with the Land Use Concept Plan, the forecast intersection impacts are much less significant than the current General Plan Land Use Element. The Land Use Concept 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 , current General Plan scenario. These three intersections include Main/Gsr- field, Beach/Garfield and Goldenwest/Coast Highway. As can be seen in Table K, 07/18/89(FOR901) 40 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ CURRENT ERAL PLAN LAID USE CEPT P LAN TRIAL TERNATIVE INTERSECTION ,I ICU EAKSGINIPM PEAK II IAM ELOSCINIPM PEAK IIIICUS+EAK ILIPM PEAK 1IR AM ICUD�ELOSLIALTERNATIVE ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. EDWARDS STREET/ELLIS AVENUE 0.55 A 0.66 B 0.40 A 0.47 A 0.41 A 0.49 A 0.41 A 0.48 A 2. GOLDENWEST STREET/ELLIS AVENUE 0.47 A 0.59 A 0.41 A 0.49 A 0.40 A 0.48 A 0.39 A 0.48 A 3. GOTHARD STREET/ELLIS AVENUE 0.49 A 0.57 A 0.34 A 0.38 A 0.35 A 0.40 A 0.34 A 0.38 A 4. BEACH BOULEVARD/ELLIS AVENUE 0.71 C 1.31 F 0.72 C 0.76 C 0.74 C 0.77 C 0.72 C 0.76 C 5. EDWARDS STREET/GARFIELD AVENUE 0.87 D 1.02 F 0.62 B 0.73 C 0.66 B 0.75 C 0.61 B 0.76 C 6. GOLDENWEST STREET/GARFIELD AVENUE 0.96 E 0.86 D 0.74 C 0.77 C 0.75 C 0.78 C 0.69 B 0.73 C 7. MAIN STREET/GARFIELD AVENUE(1) 1.33 F 1.78 F 1.08 F 1.69 F 0.99 E 1.58 F 1.11 F 1.83 F 8. BEACH BOULEVARD/GARFIELD AVENUE 1.01 F 1.45 F 0.98 E 1.42 F 1.05 F 1.48 F 1.04 F 1.47 F 9. GOLDENWEST STREET/YORKTOWN AVENUE 0.91 E 1.10 F 0.73 C 0.83 D 0.83 D 0.96 E 0.85 D 1.00 E 10. MAIN STREET/YORKTOWN AVENUE 0.79 C 0.71 C 0.63 B 0.52 A 0.67 B 0.61 B 0.69 B 0.63 B 11. GOLDENWEST STREET/COAST HIGHWAY 1.53 F 1.45 F 1.39 F 1.31 F 1.43 F 1.35 F 1.44 F 1.36 F 12. GOLDENWEST STREET/PALM AVENUE 0.79 C 0.95 E 0.74 C 0.88 D 0.75 C 0.90 D 0.75 C 0.90 D 13. GOTHARD STREET/GARFIELD AVENUE 0.43 A 0.60 A 0.40 A 0.52 A 0.41 A 0.52 A 0.41 A 0.51 1 A ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ TABLE K Lsa FUTURE YEAR DEVELOPMENT ICU SUMMARY 5/10/89:KF is most intersections internal to the project site will actually operate below LOS ' C in both peak hours. Therefore, the proposed Land Use Concept Plan will have less impact at selected project study area intersections than the currently ' approved General Plan Land Use Element. Industrial and Residential Alternatives Intersection Level of Service Analysis ' Table K also illustrates the peak hour intersection impacts associated with both Industrial and Residential alternatives. As seen in the Table, both ' alternatives will have less impact on the future year intersection performance than the current General Plan, and will be very similar to the Land Use Concept Plan. In the Industrial alternative scenario, four intersections will be adversely impacted, exhibiting levels of service in excess of the LOS D thres- hold. These intersections include Main/Garfield, Beach/Garfield, Goldenwest/ Coast Highway and Goldenwest/Yorktown. In the Residential alternative, the same four intersections are forecast to be impacted; some will exhibit slightly ' greater ICU values, while other will have slightly lesser ICU values than the Industrial alternative. These minor increases and decreases are not significant, and do not re- present benefits or impacts great enough to make one alternative more attract- ive than the other. Mitigation measures for these alternatives, as well as the proposed Land Use Concept Plan, will be presented in a subsequent section of this report. ' SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS As part of the traffic impact analysis, signal warrants were compared to , the proposed Land Use Concept Plan and alternatives forecast daily traffic volumes. The signal warrants used in this analysis are taken from the Caltrans Traffic Manual , which is based on the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control De- ' vices. The Caltrans Traffic Manual states that installation of traffic signals should be considered if one or more of eight warrants are met. Two warrants were applicable for testing of selected intersections within the project study area. Warrant 1, Minimum Vehicular Volume, is intended for application where the volume of intersecting traffic is the principal reason for consideration of signal installation. Warrant 2, Interruption of Con- tinuous Flow, applies to operating conditions where the traffic volume on a major street is so heavy that traffic on a minor intersecting street suffers excessive delay or hazard in entering or crossing the major street. 07)18189(FOR901) 42 lsa t For this study, 11 intersections were considered for signal warrant analy- sis, as presented in Figure 17. The minimum estimated average daily traffic volume warrants for Warrants 1 and 2, as defined by the Caltrans manual , are ' also presented in Table L. Estimated average daily traffic volumes are based on the information pre- sented in the daily traffic impacts for each project alternative. The actual signal warrant sheets are presented in the Technical Appendix of this study. As seen in Table L, in the current General plan scenario, seven of the eleven intersections meet either one or both signal warrants. ' In the proposed Land Use Concept Plan, seven intersections also meet one or both warrants, the difference being that in the current General Plan scen- ario Gothard/Ellis meets Warrant 1, whereas it is not met in the Land Use ' Concept Plan. However, the traffic volumes Goldenwest/Clay in the Concept Plan do satisfy both warrants, whereas this intersection does not warrant considera- tion of a signal in the General Plan scenario. As in the Land Use Concept Plan, the same seven intersections will warrant signalizat:on in either the Industrial or Residential alternatives. 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 sig- nals has not been addressed, and will require a monitoring of traffic increases to determine the appropriate timing of signal installations. ' RECOMMENDED LANE IMPROVEMENTS To mitigate the circulation impacts identified in the cumulative Land Use Concept Plan build out scenario, the following intersection lane improvements are recommended. r 07/18/89(FOR901) 43 a SLATER ' a a w J 0 cc Q O Q C7 = 2 H Cr O 0. t7 TALB ERT ' 4 5 cc 3 Pro ct I Site � w I G LD 6 • .` 7 8 9 �) CLAY 1 10 11 YORKTOWN 0,9�'yi LEGEND c'yiygy � Major Primary -�— Secondary —•� Project Boundary ' m FIGURE 17 SCALE IN FEET HOLLY SEACLIFF ' 0 1000 2000 SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS INTERSECTION LOCATION MAP ' LSa 135/4/,9:KF rFr --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MINIMUM ESTIMATED AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUME CURRENT GENERAL PLAN PROPOSED L.U. CONCEPT INDUSTRIAL ALTERNATIVE RESIDENTIAL ALTERNATIVE INTERSECTION Warrant 1 Warrant 2 Warrant 1 Warrant 2 Warrant i Warrant 2 Warrant 1 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) 8 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 4. GOLDENWEST (2) 8 ELLIS (2) 9600 3200 14400 1600 YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES S. GOTNARO (2) 6 ELLIS (2) 9600 3200 14400 1600 YES NO NO NO NO NO NO NO 6. SEAPOINTE (2) 6 GARFIELD (2) 9600 3200 14400 1600 YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES 1. EDWARDS (2) 6 GARFIELD (2) 9600 3200 14400 1600 YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES 8. COLLECTOR C (1) 8 GARFIELD (2) 9600 2400 14400 1200 NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO 9. GOTNARD (2) 6 GARFIELD (2) 9600 3200 14400 1600 YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES 10. GOLDENWEST (2) 6 CLAY (2) 9600 3200 14400 1600 NO NO YES YES NO YES NO YES 11. MAIN (2) 6 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. TABLE L HOLLY SEACLIFF SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS SUMMARY SHEET Lsa 519/89:KF is Main Street Garfield Avenue - Construct the intersection• u e t• include two left turn lanes, three through lanes and one right turn lane on all approaches. These improvements will reduce the Land Use Concept Plan scenario ICU values to 0.72 in the AM and 1.06 in the PM peak hours. While the PM peak hour ICU is not mitigated to an acceptable level of service, additional design mitigation measures will be dis- cussed in the Mitigation Measures Section of this report. • Beach BoulevardIGarfield Avenue - Construct the intersection to in- clude 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 Land , Use Concept Plan scenario ICU values to 0.59 in the AM and 0.83 in the PM peak hours. 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 Land Use Concept Plan scenario ICU values to 0.89 in the AM and 0.84 in the PM ' peak hours. The above recommended lane improvements will also mitigate the unaccep- table levels of service for the Industrial and Residential alternatives. As identifies previously, one additional intersection will be impacted assuming the development of either the Industrial or Residential alternative, Main Street/Yorktown Avenue. To mitigate this potential intersection impact, a second westbound left turn lane should be included. This improvement will reduce the PM peak hour ICU to 0.76 and 0.78 in the Industrial and Residential alternatives, respectively. MITIGATION MEASURES The following mitigation measures are recommended to ameliorate the poten- tial circulation impacts arising from the development of the proposed Holly , Seacliff General Plan Amendment project. These mitigation measures are approp- riate for the Land Use Concept Plan, Industrial and Residential alternatives. Arterial links within the project study area shall be improved to their ultimate width, consistent with the proposed Circulation Ele- ment for the General Plan Amendment request. A listing of the ul - ' 07/18/89(FOR9O1) 46 lsa timate arterial widths within the project study area is presented below. Ellis Avenue Edwards to Gothard Primary 4 lane divided arterial Gothard to project east boundary Secondary 4 lane undivided arterial Garfield Avenue Seapointe to Main Major 6 lane divided arterial Yorktown Avenue Goldenwest to Main Primary 4 lane divided arterial Edwards Street Ellis to Garfield Secondary 4 lane undivided arterial Goldenwest Street Yorktown to Ellis Major 6 lane divided arterial Gothard Street Ellis to Main Secondary 4 lane undivided arterial Main Street Huntington to Yorktown Primary 4 lane divided arterial These improvements shall include all necessary curbs, gutters and median requirements per the City of Huntington Beach's standard plans. In addition, all residential collectors, industrial collec- tors and residential streets shall be improved to their ultimate width consistent with the proposed Circulation Element for the Gener- al Plan Amendment project. • Intersections within the study area shall be constructed to the lane geometrics identified in Table M. • 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 shall be determined. In the determination of this fair share funding program, a credit shall be given for the segment of the cross-gap connector and Seapointe Avenue constructed within the project boundary. 07/18/89(FOR901) 47 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NORTHBOUND I SOUTHBOUND -EASTBOUND -WESTBOUND ------ --------------- ------ --------------- ---- --------------- ------ --------------- INTERSECTION LEFT ITHROUGHI RIGHT LEFT ITHROUGH� RIGHT I LEFT ITHROUGHI RIGHT I LEFT ITHROUGHI 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 1. MAIN STREET/GARFIELD 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 HIGHWAY11. GOLDENWEST STREET/COAST 13. GOTHARDEST STREET/GARFIEMDSTEET/PLAVENUE AVENUE 1 I 2 0 + 1 2 0 1 2 , 0 10 2 0 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (1) Indicates intersection lane geometrics identified as recommended lane improvements. TABLE M HOLLY SEACLIFF MITIGATED INTERSECTION LANE GEOMETRICS Sa6/28/89:GD r IIIIIIIII Mrr trl t■ Nr ' lsa • 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. 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. • Construct the ultimate northerly half section (60 feet, 3 lanes) of Garfield Avenue from Edwards Street to Goldenwest Street. 07/18/89(FOR901) 49 is , Planning 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's east- ern border. Planning Area D Contribute on a fair share basis towards the implementation of r 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 Golden- west Street. Planning Area I • 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. 07/18/89(FOR901) 50 Lco • Construct ,the ultimate southerly half section (60 feet, 3 lanes) of Garfield Avenue from Goldenwest Street to the project's east- erly border. • At the time of Specific Plan or Tract Map approval for a given Plan- ning Area or portion thereof, a traffic study shall be completed to determine whether the incremental increase in traffic from the speci- fic plan or tract map area causes any of the intersections under in- vestigation to result in unacceptable levels of service. If unac- ceptable levels of service result, this traffic analysis shall deter- mine 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 I of those subsequent developments which contribute to the need for said improvement. • Prior to Tract Map approval , a signal warrant analysis shall be con- ducted for any project access points to the major arterial street system. • 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, midblock between Edwards Street and Goldenwest Street. A signalized full movement intersec- tion shall be 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. • 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. • The current Standard Pacific Railroad (SPRR) easement shall be pre- served as a possible light rail facility for future planning efforts. 07/18/89(FOR901) 51 I lsa In traffic engineering, the concept of capacity and the relationship between capacity and traffic volumes is generally expressed in terms of levels of service (LOS) . These levels recognize that, while an absolute limit exists as to the amount of traffic traveling through a given intersection (the abso- lute capacity), the conditions which motorists experience rapidly deteri- orate as traffic approaches the absolute. Under such conditions, congestion is experienced. There is general instability in the traffic flow, which means that relatively small incidents (e.g. , momentary engine stall) can cause con- siderable fluctuations in speeds and delays. This near capacity situation is labeled LOS E (levels of services are defined as A through F) . Beyond LOS E, capacity has been exceeded, and ar- riving traffic will exceed the ability of the intersection to accommodate it. An upstream queue will then form and continue to expand in length until the demand volume again reduces. A complete description of the meaning of level of service can be found in the Highway Capacity Manual (Highway Research Board Special Report 87, Highway Capacity Manual ) . The manual establishes levels of service A through F. Brief descriptions of the six levels of service as abstracted from the manual are as follows: LOS DESCRIPTION A No approach phase is fully utilized by traffic and no veh- icle waits longer than one red indication. Typically, the approach appears quite open, turns are made easily, and nearly all drivers find freedom of operation. B This service level represents stable operation where an occasional approach phase is fully utilized and a substan- tial number are approaching full use. Many drivers begin to feel restricted within platoons of vehicles. C This level still represents stable operating conditions. Occasionally drivers may have to wait thorough more than one red signal indication, and backups may develop behind ' turning vehicles. Most drivers feel somewhat restricted, but not objectionable. D This level encompasses a zone of increasing restriction ap- proaching instability at the intersection. Delays to ap- proaching vehicles may be substantial during short peaks within the peak period, however enough cycles with lower lsa demand occur to permit periodic clearance of developing queues, thus preventing excessive backups. E Capacity occurs at the upper end of this service level . It represents the most vehicles that any particular intersec- tion approach can accommodate. Full utilization of every signal cycle is seldom attained no matter how great the demand, unless the street is highly friction free. F This level describes forced flow operations at low speeds, where volumes exceed capacity. These conditions usually result from queues of vehicles backing up from a restric- tion downstream. Speeds are reduced substantially and stoppages may occur for short or long periods of time due to the congestion. In the extreme case, both speed and volume can drop to zero. The methodology used in this analysis to determine intersection peak hour levels of service is referred to as Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) . In essence, this analysis determines a volume/capacity ratio of the intersect- ion by comparing conflicting movements based on peak hour volumes and interse- ction geometrics. The relationship between LOS and ICU is as follows: Intersection Level of Service Capacity Utilization A < 0.6 B 0.6 - 0.7 C 0.7 - 0.8 D 0.8 - 0.9 E 0.9 - 1.0 F > 1.0 , City of Huntington Beach policy requires that generally acceptable inter-- section capacity utilization and level of service is .90, or the upper end of level of service D. EDWARDS STREET/ELLIS AVENUE EXISTING CONDITION HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA LSa C RATIO*VOLUMES V MOVE- / MENT LANE CAPACITY AM PM AM PM NBL 0 0 0 0 0.00 * 0.00 * NBT 1 1600 462 396 0.29 0.25 NBR 0 0 6 7 0.00 0.00 SBL 0 0 90 108 0.06 0.07 SBT 1 1600 495 617 0.37 * 0.45 * SBR 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 EBL 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 * EBT 1 1600 0 0 0.07 * 0.07 ! EBR 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 WBL 0 0 6 8 0.00 * 0.00 WBT 1 1600 3 0 0.07 0. 14 * WBR 0 0 100 210 0.00 0.00 North/South Critical Movements 0.37 0.45 East/West Critical Movements 0.07 0. 14 Right Turn Critical Movements 0.00 0.00 Clearance Interval 0. 10 0. 10 f INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.54 0.69 * Intersection Capacity Utilization is the sum of the critical moves denoted by the asterisk (*) . ! GOLDENWEST STREET/ELLIS AVENUE EXISTING CONDITION HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA LSa MOVE- VOLUMES V/C RATIO* MENT LANE CAPACITY AM PM AM PM NBL 1 160o 27 37 0.07 0.02 NBT 2 3200 828 813 0.27 * 0.27 * NBR 0 0 23 39 0.00 0.00 SBL 1 1600 51 70 0.03 * 0.07 * SBT 2 3200 621 896 0.20 0.29 SBR 0 0 16 24 O.OQ 0.00 EBL 0 0 9 23 0.01 * 0.01 * EBT 1 1600 79 79 0.07 0.07 EBR 0 0 13 14 0.00 0.00 WBL 0 0 29 29 0.02 0.02 WBT 1 1600 71 132 0. 10 * 0. 14 * WBR 0 0 55 65 0.00 0.00 North/South Critical Movements 0.30 0.34 East/West Critical Movements 0. 10 0.16 Right Turn Critical Movements 0.00 0.00 Clearance Interval 0. 10 0. 10 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.50 0.59 * Intersection Capacity Utilization is the sum of the critical moves denoted by the asterisk (*) . j GOTHARD STREET/ELLIS AVENUE EXISTING CONDITION HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA LSa C RATIO*VOLUMES V MOVE- / MENT LANE CAPACITY AM PM AM PM NBL 1 1600 7 6 0.00 0.00 * NBT 1 1600 268 218 0. 17 * 0. 14 NBR 1 1600 4 8 0.00 0.00 SBL 1 1600 55 178 0.03 * 0. 11 SBT 1 1600 154 400 0. 10 0.25 * SBR 1 1600 15 39 0.00 0.00 EBL 1 1600 47 17 0.03 * 0.01 * EBT 1 1600 143 136 0.09 0.09 EBR 0 0 5 5 0.00 0.00 WBL 1 1600 15 12 0.01 0.01 WBT 1 1600 126 162 0.08 * 0. 10 * WBR 1 1600 193 153 0.01 * 0.00 i North/South Critical Movements 0.20 0.25 East/West Critical Movements 0.11 0.11 Right Turn Critical Movements 0.01 0.00 Clearance Interval 0. 10 0. 10 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.42 0.47 * Intersection Capacity Utilization is the sum of the critical moves denoted by the asterisk (*) . BEACH BOULEVARD/ELLIS AVENUE EXISTING CONDITION HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA LSa MOVE- VOLUMES V/C RATIO* MENT LANE CAPACITY AM PM AM PM NBL 1 1600 49 259 0.03 0. 16 * NBT 3 4800 1339 1482 0.30 * 0.34 NBR 0 0 100 146 0.00 0.00 SBL 1 1600 118 251 0.07 * 0. 16 SBT 3 4800 689 1608 0. 14 0.34 * SBR 1 1600 204 330 0.00 0.00 EBL 2 2400 300 533 0. 13 0.22 EBT 2 2400 327 611 0. 14 * 0.25 * EBR 1 1600 16 166 0.00 0.00 WBL 1 1600 107 145 0.07 0.09 WBT 2 3200 363 533 0. 11 * 0. 17 * WBR 1 1600 137 197 0.00 0.00 North/South Critical Movements 0.37 0.50 East/West Critical Movements 0.25 0.42 Right Turn Critical Movements 0.00 0.00 Clearance Interval 0. 10 0. 10 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.72 1 .02 * Intersection Capacity Utilization is the sum of the critical moves denoted by the asterisk (*) . ' EDWARDS STREET GARFIELD AVENUE EXISTING CONDITION HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA LSa C RATIO* VOLUMES V MOVE- / MENT LANE CAPACITY AM PM AM PM NBL 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 NBT 0 0 0 0 0.00 * 0.00 * NBR 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 SBL 1 1600 489 597 0.31 * 0.37 * SBT 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 SBR 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 EBL 0 0 0 0 0.00 * 0.00 * EBT 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 EBR 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 WBL 0 0 0 0 0.00 * 0.00 * WBT 0 0 0 0 0.00 * 0.00 * WBR 1 1600 450 403 0.00 0.00 North/South Critical Movements 0.31 0.37 East/West Critical Movements 0.00 0.00 Right Turn Critical Movements 0.00 0.00 Clearance Interval 0. 10 0. 10 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.41 0.47 * Intersection Capacity Utilization is the sum of the critical moves denoted by the asterisk (*) . GOLDENWEST STREET GARFIELD AVENUE EXISTING CONDITION HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA Lsa MOVE- VOLUMES V/C RATIO* MENT LANE CAPACITY AM PM AM PM M NBL 1 1600 271 240 0. 17 * 0. 15 * NBT 2 3200 758 663 0.24 0.22 NBR 0 0 21 40 0.00 0.00 SBL 1 1600 36 88 0.07 0.07 SBT 2 3200 582 728 0. 18 * 0.23 * SBR 0 0 0 7 0.00 0.00 ' EBL 1 1600 2 10 0.00 * 0.01 * EBT 2 3200 131 210 0.04 0.07 EBR 1 1600 304 325 0.00 0.00 WBL 1 1600 29 29 0.02 0.02 WBT 1 1600 115 171 0.07 * 0. 11 * WBR 1 1600 78 112 0.00 0.00 North/South Critical Movements 0.35 0.38 East/West Critical Movements 0.07 0.11 Right Turn Critical Movements 0.00 0.00 Clearance Interval 0.10 0. 10 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.52 0.59 * Intersection Capacity Utilization is the sum of the critical moves denoted by the asterisk (*) . 1 BEACH BOULEVARD GARFIELD AVENUE EXISTING CONDITION HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA LSa MOVE- VOLUMES V/C RATIO* MENT LANE CAPACITY AM PM AM PM NBL 1 1600 93 216 0.06 0. 14 NBT 3 4800 1183 1467 0.26 * 0.33 NBR 0 0 49 131 0.00 0.00 SBL 1 1600 88 227 0.06 * 0. 14 SBT 3 4800 935 1481 0.21 0.34 SBR 0 0 72 158 0.00 0.00 EBL 1 1600 119 137 0.07 * 0.09 EBT 2 3200 459 540 0. 17 0.21 EBR 0 0 92 127 0.00 0.00 WBL 1 1600 44 176 0.03 0. 11 WBT 2 3200 444 587 0.18 * 0.23 WBR 0 0 123 150 0.00 0.00 North/South Critical Movements 0.31 0.48 East/West Critical Movements 0.25 0.32 Right Turn Critical Movements 0.00 0.00 Clearance Interval 0.10 0. 10 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.66 0.89 * Intersection Capacity Utilization is the sum of the critical moves denoted by the asterisk (*) . GOLDENWEST STREET/YORKTOWN AVENUE EXISTING CONDITION HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA Lsa _ M MOVE VOLUMES V/C RATIO* MENT LANE CAPACITY AM PM AM PM NBL 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 NBT 2 3200 503 638 0.23 * 0.29 * NBR 0 0 246 300 0.00 0.00 SBL 1 1600 363 490 0.23 * 0.31 * SBT 2 3200 550 660 0. 17 0.21 SBR 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 EBL 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 EBT 0 0 0 0 0.00 * 0.00 * EBR 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 WBL 2 3200 263 307 0.08 * 0. 10 * WBT 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 WBR 1 1600 384 357 0.00 0.00 North/South Critical Movements 0.46 0.60 East/West Critical Movements 0.08 0.10 Right Turn Critical Movements 0.00 0.00 Clearance Interval 0. 10 0. 10 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.64 0.80 * Intersection Capacity Utilization is the sum of the critical moves denoted by the asterisk (*) . 1 ' MAIN STR ET Y RKTOWN AVENUE E / 0 EXISTING CONDITION HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA LSa MOVE- VOLUMES V/C RATIO* MENT LANE CAPACITY AM PM AM PM NBL 1 1600 87 131 0.05 * 0.08 * NBT 2 3200 469 319 0. 15 0. 10 NBR 1 1600 99 20 0.00 0.00 SBL 2 3200 57 91 0.02 0.03 SBT 2 3200 355 326 0. 12 * 0. 11 * ' SBR 0 0 33 31 0.00 0.00 EBL 1 1600 102 89 0.06 0.06 EBT 2 3200 304 492 0. 16 * 0. 19 * EBR 0 0 211 116 0.00 0.00 WBL 1 1600 144 25 0.09 * 0.02 * WBT 2 3200 411 312 0. 13 0. 10 WBR 1 1600 76 75 0.00 0.00 North/South Critical Movements 0. 18 0. 19 East/West Critical Movements 0.25 0.21 Right Turn Critical Movements 0.00 0.00 Clearance Interval 0. 10 0. 10 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.53 0.50 * Intersection Capacity Utilization is the sum of the critical 1 moves denoted by the asterisk (*) . GOLDENWEST STREET PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY EXISTING CONDITION HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA LSa ' MOVE- VOLUMES V/C RATIO* MENT LANE CAPACITY AM PM AM PM NBL 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 NBT 0 0 0 0 0.00 * 0.00 * NBR 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 SBL 2 3200 284 239 0.09 * 0.07 * SBT 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 SBR 1 1600 414 195 0.08 * 0.00 ' EBL 1 1600 151 426 0.09 * 0.27 * EBT 2 3200 925 1524 0.29 0.48 EBR 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 ' WBL 1 1600 16 30 0.01 0.02 WBT 2 3200 1508 1034 0.53 * 0.40 * WBR 0 0 173 256 0.00 0.00 North/South Critical Movements 0.09 0.07 East/West Critical Movements 0.62 0.67 Right Turn Critical Movements 0.08 0.00 Clearance Interval 0. 10 0. 10 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.88 0.84 * Intersection Capacity Utilization is the sum of the critical moves denoted by the asterisk (*) . 1 GOLDENWEST STREET/PALM AVENUE EXISTING CONDITION HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA LSa MOVE- VOLUMES V/C RATIO* MENT LANE CAPACITY AM PM AM PM NBL 1 1600 23 52 0.01 * 0.03 ! NBT 2 3200 372 617 0. 12 0.20 * NBR 0 0 4 24 0.00 0.00 SBL 1 1600 61 162 0.04 0. 10 * SBT 2 3200 501 461 0. 18 * 0. 18 ' SBR 0 0 73 127 0.00 0.00 EBL 1 1600 88 96 0.06 * 0.06 * EBT 1 1600 20 29 0.01 0.02 EBR 1 1600 63 29 0.01 * 0.00 WBL 0 0 28 8 0.02 0.01 WBT 1 1600 21 30 0.12 * 0.09 * WBR 0 0 135 100 0.00 0.00 r North/South Critical Movements 0.19 0.30 ' East/West Critical Movements 0. 17 0. 15 Right Turn Critical Movements 0.01 0.00 Clearance Interval 0.10 0. 10 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.48 0.55 * Intersection Capacity Utilization is the sum of the critical moves denoted by the asterisk (*) . MAIN STREET GOTHARD ROAD GARFIELD AVENUE ' EXISTING CONDITION HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA Lsa MOVE- VOLUMES V/C RATIO* MENT LANE CAPACITY AM PM AM PM NEBL 1 1600 196 172 0. 12 * 0. 11 * NEBT 2 3200 371 291 0. 12 0.09 , NEBR 1 1600 97 83 0.00 0.00 SWBL 1 1600 8 15 0.01 0.01 SWBT 2 3200 336 360 0. 11 * 0. 11 * SWBR 1 1600 12 32 0.00 0.00 ' EBL 1 1600 50 78 0.03 * 0.05 EBT 2 3200 151 305 0.05 0. 10 * EBR 1 1600 4 15 0.00 0.00 ' WBL 1 1600 68 50 0.04 0.03 * WBT 2 3200 284 234 0.09 * 0.07 WBR 1 1600 7 1 0.00 0.00 SBL 1 1600 95 216 0.06 * 0. 14 * SBT 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 SBR 1 1600 117 208 0.00 0.00 NE/SW Critical Movements 0.23 0.22 , East/West Critical Movements 0. 12 0.13 South Critical Movement 0.06 0. 14 Right Turn Critical Movements 0.00 0.00 ' Clearance Interval 0.10 0. 10 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.51 0.58 , * Intersection Capacity Utilization is the sum of the critical moves denoted by the asterisk (*) . rr rr rr rr r rr r� rr r rr r� rr r �r rr rr rr r rr INTERSECTION 1 - NORTH/SOUTH ROAD: EDWARDS STREET l EAS1/WEST ROAD: ELLIS AVENUE sa INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS EXISTING PLUS LAND USE CONCEPT PLAN EXISTING PLUS INDUSTRIAL ALTERNATIVE EXISTING PLUS RESIDENTIAL ALTERNATIVE V/C V/C V/C MOVE- VOLUME RATIO* VOLUME RATIO* VOLUME RATIO* MENT LANE CAP AM PM AM PM LANE CAP AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM ------- --------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------- -------------------------------------- NBL 0 0 0 0 0.00 * 0.00 * 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 * 0 0 0.00 * 0.00 NBT 1 1600 750 682 0.47 0.43 1600 775 699 0.49 0.44 759 693 0.48 0.44 NBR 0 0 6 7 0.00 0.00 0 6 7 0.00 0.00 6 7 0.00 0.00 SBL 0 0 109 130 0.07 0.08 0 112 134 0.07 0.08 109 130 0.07 0.08 SOT 1 1600 768 954 0.55 * 0.68 * 1600 805 998 0.58 * 0.71 * 777 965 0.55 * 0.68 SBR 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 4 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 EBL 0 0 0 0 0.00 * 0.00 * 0 0 0 0.00 * 0.00 * 0 0 0.00 * 0.00 EBT 1 1600 0 0 0.00 0.00 1600 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 EBR 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 WBL O 0 6 8 0.00 O.OG 0 8 0.00 0.00 6 8 0.00 0.00 WBT 1 1600 0 0 0.08 * 0.17 * 1600 0 0 0.08 0.18 * 0 0 0.08 * 0.17 WBR 0 0 123 265 0.00 0.00 0 126 272 0.00 0.00 123 266 0.00 0.00 ----------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------- -------------------------------------- N/S Critical Movements 0.55 0.68 0.58 0.71 0.55 0.68 E/W Critical Movements 0.08 0.17 0.08 0.18 0.08 0.17 Right Turn C. M. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Clearance Interval 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 EXISTING PLUS EXISTING PLUS EXISTING PLUS PROPOSED PLAN 0.72 0.94 INDUSTRIAL 0.75 0.98 RESIDENTIAL 0.73 0.95 LEVEL OF SERVICE C E ICU LEVEL OF SERVICE C E LEVEL OF SERVICE C E AM PM _- FORECASTED PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC I.C.U. WILL BE LESS N OR X I X I FORECASTED PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC I.C.U. WILL BE GREATER ATHAN 0490E TO 0.90 * INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION IS THE SUM OF THE CRITICAL MOVEMENTS: * = CRITICAL MOVEMENT INTERSECTION 2 - NORTH/SOUTH ROAD: GOLDENWEST STREET `Csa EAST/WEST ROAD: ELLIS AVENUE INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS EXISTING PLUS LAND USE CONCEPT PLAN EXISTING PLUS INDUSTRIAL ALTERNATIVE EXISTING PLUS RESIDENTIAL ALTERNATIVE V/C V/C V/C MOVE- VOLUME RATIO* VOLUME RATIO* VOLUME RATIO* MENT LANE CAP AM PM AM PM LANE CAP AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM ------- --------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------- -------------------------------------- NBL 1 1600 26 39 0.02 0.02 1600 28 39 0.02 0.02 28 39 0.02 0.02 NBT 2 3200 1,149 1.124 0.37 * 0.36 * 3200 1,128 1,101 0.36 * 0.36 * 1,151 1,126 0.37 * 0.36 NBR 0 0 23 40 0.00 0.00 0 23 40 0.00 0.00 24 40 0.00 0.00 SBL 1 1600 106 147 0.07 * 0.09 * 1600 114 158 0.07 * 0.10 * 102 142 0.06 * 0.09 SBT 2 3200 828 1.196 0.27 0.40 3200 814 1,175 0.27 0.39 832 1,202 0.27 0.40 SBR 0 0 47 70 0.00 0.00 0 50 73 0.00 0.00 45 66 0.00 0.00 EBL 0 0 34 60 0.02 * 0.04 * 0 37 63 0.02 * 0.04 * 32 57 0.02 * 0.04 EBT 1 1600 94 90 0.09 0.10 1600 96 92 0.09 0.11 96 92 0.09 0.10 EBR 0 0 14 14 0.00 0.00 0 14 14 0.00 0.00 14 15 0.00 0.00 WBL 0 0 30 30 0.02 0.02 0 30 30 0.02 0.02 30 30 0.02 • 0.02 WBT 1 1600 83 160 0.15 " 0.21 * 1600 84 165 0.16 * 0.22 * 84 164 0.15 * 0.21 WBR 0 0 124 149 0.00 0.00 0 135 161 0.00 0.00 119 142 0.00 0.00 ----------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------- -------------------------------------- N/S Critical Movements 0.43 0.46 0.43 0.46 0.43 0.45 E/W Critical Movements 0.17 0.25 0.18 0.26 0.17 0.25 Right Turn C. M. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Clearance Interval 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 EXISTING PLUS EXISTING PLUS EXISTING PLUS PROPOSED PLAN 0.70 0.80 INDUSTRIAL 0.70 0.81 RESIDENTIAL 0.69 0.79 LEVEL OF SERVICE B C ICU LEVEL OF SERVICE B D LEVEL OF SERVICE 8 C AM PM �-- -- X I I X I FORECASTED PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC I.C.U. WILL BE LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO 0.90 FORECASTED PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC I.C.U. WILL BE GREATER THAN 0.90 * INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION IS THE SUM OF THE CRITICAL MOVEMENTS: * = CRITICAL MOVEMENT rr �r rr r rr rr rr rr rr rr rr rr rr rr r rr rr r rr INTERSECTION 3 - NORTH/SOUTH ROAD: GOTNARD STREET LSa EAST/WEST ROAD: ELLIS AVENUE INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS EXISTING PLUS LAND USE CONCEPT PLAN EXISTING PLUS INDUSTRIAL ALTERNATIVE EXISTING PLUS RESIDENTIAL ALTERNATIVE V/C V/C V/C MOVE- VOLUME RATIO* VOLUME RATIO* VOLUME RATIO* MENT LANE CAP AM PM AM PM LANE CAP AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM ------- --------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------- -------------------------------------- NBL 1 1600 14 12 0.01 0.01 * 1600 15 14 0.01 0.01 * 14 12 0.01 0.01 * NBT 1 1600 432 346 0.27 * 0.22 1600 441 352 0.28 * 0.22 435 348 0.27 * 0.22 NBR 1 1600 9 23 0.00 0.00 1600 10 27 0.00 0.00 9 23 0.00 0.00 SBL 1 1600 68 231 0.04 * 0.14 1600 67 230 0.04 0.14 67 230 0.04 * 0.14 SBT l 1600 240 636 0.15 0.40 * 1600 244 649 0.15 0.41 * 242 641 0.15 0.40 * SBR 1 1600 17 45 0.00 0.00 1600 17 45 0.00 0.00 18 45 0.00 0.00 EBL 1 1600 58 19 0.04 0.01 * 1600 59 19 0.04 0.01 * 58 19 0.04 0.01 EBT 1 1600 216 206 0.14 * 0.14 1600 227 217 0.15 * 0.14 214 204 0.14 * 0.13 EBR 0 0 11 10 0.00 0.00 0 12 11 0.00 0.00 11 10 0.00 0.00 WBL 1 1600 38 34 0.02 * 0.02 1600 42 38 0.03 * 0.02 37 33 0.02 * 0.02 WBT 1 1600 187 244 0.12 0.15 * 1600 197 256 0.12 0.16 * 185 241 0.12 0.15 NBR 1 1600 252 194 0.00 0.00 1600 252 193 0.00 0.00 251 193 0.00 0.00 ----------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------- -------------------------------------- N/S Critical Movements 0.31 0.41 0.32 0.41 0.31 0.41 E/W Critical Movements 0.17 0.16 0.18 0.17 0.16 0.16 Right Turn C. M. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Clearance Interval 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 EXISTING PLUS EXISTING PLUS EXISTING PLUS PROPOSED PLAN 0.57 0.66 INDUSTRIAL 0.59 0.68 RESIDENTIAL 0.57 0.67 LEVEL OF SERVICE A B ICU LEVEL OF SERVICE A B LEVEL OF SERVICE A B AM PM �-- --- X I I X I FORECASTED PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC I.C.U. WILL BE LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO 0.90 FORECASTED PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC I.C.U. WILL BE GREATER THAN 0.90 * INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION IS THE SUM OF THE CRITICAL MOVEMENTS: * = CRITICAL MOVEMENT INTERSECTION 4 - NORTH/SOUTH ROAD: BEACH BOULEVARD l EAST/WEST ROAD: ELLIS AVENUE sa INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS EXISTING PLUS LAND USE CONCEPT PLAN EXISTING PLUS INDUSTRIAL ALTERNATIVE EXISTING PLUS RESIDENTIAL ALTERNATIVE V/C V/C V/C MOVE- VOLUME RATIO* VOLUME RATIO* VOLUME RATIO* MENT LANE CAP AM PM AM PM LANE CAP AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM ------- --------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------- -------------------------------------- NBL 1 1600 49 264 0.03 0.17 * 1600 50 267 0.03 0.17 * 49 263 0.03 0.16 * NBT 3 4800 1,382 1,526 0.31 * 0.35 4800 1,385 1,528 0.31 * 0.35 1,376 1,520 0.31 * 0.35 NBR 0 0 101 148 0.00 0.00 0 101 148 0.00 0.00 100 147 0.00 0.00 SBL 1 1600 199 389 0.12 * 0.24 1600 186 361 0.12 * 0.23 192 376 0.12 * 0.24 SBT 3 4800 708 1,656 0.22 0.48 * 4800 710 1,658 0.22 0.48 * 705 1,649 0.22 0.48 * SBR 0 0 352 635 0.00 0.00 0 364 665 0.00 0.00 365 657 0.00 0.00 EBL 2 2400 520 902 0.00 0.00 2400 538 929 0.00 0.00 533 921 0.00 0.00 EBT 2 2400 414 810 0.19 * 0.36 * 2400 427 839 0.20 * 0.37 * 396 775 0.19 * 0.35 * EBR 1 1600 16 169 0.00 0.00 1600 16 172 0.00 0.00 16 169 0.00 0.00 WBL 1 1600 108 146 0.00 0.00 1600 108 146 0.00 0.00 107 146 0.00 0.00 WBT 2 3200 467 722 0.12 * 0.18 * 3200 482 744 0.12 * 0.19 * 445 689 0.12 * 0.17 * WBR 1 1600 250 294 0.00 0.00 1600 234 271 0.00 0.00 243 285 0.00 0.00 ----------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------- -------------------------------------- N/S Critical Movements 0.43 0.64 0.43 0.65 0.43 0.64 E/W Critical Movements 0.31 0.54 0.32 0.55 0.31 0.53 Right Turn C. M. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Clearance Interval 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 EXISTING PLUS EXISTING PLUS EXISTING PLUS PROPOSED PLAN 0.84 1.27 INDUSTRIAL 0.84 1.30 RESIDENTIAL 0.83 1.27 LEVEL OF SERVICE D F ICU LEVEL OF SERVICE D F LEVEL OF SERVICE 0 F AM PM - - -----.- X I FORECASTED PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC I.C.U. WILL BE LESS X ( A N EQUAL TO 0.90 FORECASTED PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC I.C.U. WILL BE GREATER THAN 0.90 * INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION IS THE SUM OF THE CRITICAL MOVEMENTS: * = CRITICAL MOVEMENT +■r rr r �r �r rr rr r rr rr rr rr rr rr rr �r rr rr r� rr rr rr rr r rr rr r rr �r rr �r rr rr� r ri r� �r rr INTERSECTION 5 - NORT1f/SOUTH ROAD: EDWARDS STREET l EAST/WEST ROAD: GARFIELD AVENUE sa INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS EXISTING PLUS LAND USE CONCEPT PLAN EXISTING PLUS INDUSTRIAL ALTERNATIVE EXISTING PLUS RESIDENTIAL ALTERNATIVE V/C V/C V/C MOVE- VOLUME RATIO* VOLUME RATIO* VOLUME RATIO* MENT LANE CAP AM PM AM PM LANE CAP AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM ------- --------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------- -------------------------------------- NBL 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 NBT 0 0 0 0 0.00 * 0.00 * 0 0 0 0.00 * 0.00 0 0 0.00 * 0.00 * NBR 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 SBL 1 1600 789 986 0.49 * 0.62 * 1600 820 1,024 0.51 * 0.64 760 944 0.48 * 0.59 * SBT 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 SBR O 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 EBL 0 0 0 0 0.00 * 0.00 * 0 0 0 0.00 * 0.00 * 0 0 0.00 * 0.00 * EBT 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 O 0 0.00 0.00 EBR 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 WBL 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 WBT 0 0 0 0 0.00 * 0.00 * 0 0 0 0.00 * 0.00 * 0 0 0.00 * 0.00 * WBR 1 1600 744 738 0.00 0.00 1600 778 792 0.00 0.00 707 697 0.00 0.00 ----------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------- -------------------------------------- N/S Critical Movements 0.49 0.62 0.51 0.64 0.48 0.59 E/W Critical Movements 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Right Turn C. M. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Clearance Interval 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 EXISTING PLUS EXISTING PLUS EXISTING PLUS PROPOSED PLAN 0.59 0.71 INDUSTRIAL 0.61 0.74 RESIDENTIAL O.SI 0.69 LEVEL OF SERVICE A C ICU LEVEL OF SERVICE B C LEVEL OF SERVICE A B AM PM X I I X I FORECASTED PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC I.C.U. WILL BE LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO 0.90 FORECASTED PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC I.C.U. WILL BE GREATER THAN 0.90 * INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION IS THE SUM OF THE CRITICAL MOVEMENTS: * = CRITICAL MOVEMENT INTERSECTION 6 - NORTII/SOUTIT ROAO:GOLOENWEST STREET lsa EAST/WEST ROAD: GARFIELD AVENUE INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS EXISTING PLUS LAND USE CONCEPT PLAN EXISTING PLUS INDUSTRIAL ALTERNATIVE EXISTING PLUS RESIDENTIAL ALTERNATIVE V/C V/C V/C MOVE- VOLUME RATIO* VOLUME RATIO* VOLUME RATIO* MENT LANE CAP AM PM AM PM LANE CAP AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM ------- --------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------- -------------------------------------- NBL 1 1600 518 462 0.32 * 0.29 * 1600 545 489 0.34 * 0.31 * 496 434 0.31 * 0.27 * NBT 2 3200 1,003 874 0.32 0.29 3200 990 864 0.32 0.29 1,026 893 0.35 0.32 NBR 0 0 28 56 0.00 0.00 0 29 57 0.00 0.00 90 145 0.00 0.00 SBL 1 1600 45 112 0.03 0.07 1600 43 107 0.03 0.07 31 103 0.02 0.06 SBT 2 3200 760 954 0.24 * 0.30 * 3200 750 942 0.23 * 0.30 * 786 988 0.25 * 0.31 * SBR 0 0 0 12 0.00 0.00 0 0 11 0.00 0.00 0 7 0.00 0.00 EBL 1 1600 4 17 0.00 * 0.01 * 1600 3 16 0.00 * 0.01 * 2 10 0.00 0.01 EBT 2 3200 232 378 0.07 0.12 3200 230 377 0.07 0.12 177 301 0.06 * 0.09 * EBR 1 1600 567 615 0.00 0.00 1600 596 649 0.00 0.00 557 604 0.00 0.01 * WBL 1 1600 39 41 0.02 0.03 1600 41 42 0.03 0.03 120 118 0.08 * 0.07 * WBT 1 1600 213 313 0.13 * 0.20 * 1600 211 313 0.13 * 0.20 * 152 253 0.10 0.16 WBR 1 1600 102 145 0.00 0.00 1600 98 140 0.00 0.00 89 135 0.00 0.00 - --------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------- -------------------------------------- N/S Critical Movements 0.56 0.59 0.58 0.60 0.56 0.58 E/W Critical Movements 0.14 0.21 0.13 0.21 0.13 0.17 Right Turn C. M. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 Clearance Interval 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 EXISTING PLUS EXISTING PLUS EXISTING PLUS PROPOSED PLAN 0.79 0.89 INDUSTRIAL 0.80 0.90 RESIDENTIAL 0.78 0.86 LEVEL OF SERVICE C 0 ICU LEVEL OF SERVICE C 0 LEVEL OF SERVICE C 0 �AM I'M X I I X I FORECASTED PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC I.C.U. WILL BE LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO 0.90 FORECASTED PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC I.C.U. WILL BE GREATER THAN 0.9 * INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION IS THE SUM OF THE CRITICAL MOVEMENTS: * = CRITICAL MOVEMENT INTERSECTION 7 - NORTHEAST/SOUTHWEST ROAD: MAIN STREET / SOUTH ROAD: GOTHARD ROAD l EAST/WEST ROAD: GARFIELD AVENUE I sa INIERSEC11ON CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS EXISTING PLUS LAND USE CONCEPT PLAN EXISTING PLUS INDUSTRIAL ALTERNATIVE EXISTING PLUS RESIDENTIAL ALTERNATIVE V/C V/C V/C MOVE- VOLUME RATIO* VOLUME RATIO* VOLUME RATIO* MENT LANE CAP AM PM AM PM LANE CAP AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM ------- --------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------- ------------------------------------- NEBL 1 1600 245 261 0.15 * 0.16 * 1600 208 186 0.13 0.12 * 257 282 0.16 * 0.18 * NEBT 2 3200 879 944 0.31 0.33 3200 619 635 0.23 0.23 921 999 0.32 0.34 NEBR 0 0 108 104 0.00 0.00 0 105 97 0.00 0.00 108 104 0.00 0.00 ;WBL 1 1600 42 101 0.03 0.06 1600 113 206 0.07 0.13 35 85 0.02 0.05 SWBT 2 3200 730 1,014 0.28 * 0.41 * 3200 516 665 0.25 * 0.35 * 765 1,076 0.30 * 0.43 * SWBR 0 0 167 286 0.00 0.00 0 269 450 0.00 0.00 180 306 0.00 0.00 EBL 1 1600 289 314 0.18 * 0.20 * 1600 399 .463 0.25 * 0.29 * 306 333 0.19 * 0.21 * EDT 2 3200 298 490 0.11 0.18 3200 223 388 0.08 0.13 291 483 0.11 0.18 EBR 0 0 53 87 0.00 0.00 0 24 40 0.00 0.00 63 99 0.00 0.00 WDL 1 1600 79 77 0.05 0.05 1600 77 65 0.05 0.04 79 76 0.05 0.05 WBT 2 3200 433 443 0.15 * 0.16 * 3200 354 342 0.15 * 0.17 * 427 433 0.15 * 0.15 * WBR 0 0 54 73 0.00 0.00 0 138 186 0.00 0.00 45 61 0.00 0.00 SBL 1 1600 106 360 0.07 * 0.23 * 1600 105 284 0.07 * 0.18 * 107 291 0.07 * 0.18 * SBT 0 0 2 74 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 SBR 1 1600 150 276 0.00 0.00 1600 147 268 0.00 0.00 149 273 0.00 0.00 ----------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------- ------------------------------------- N/S Critical Movements 0.43 0.57 0.38 0.46 0.46 0.61 E/W Critical Movements 0.33 0.36 0.40 0.45 0.34 0.36 South Critical Movement 0.07 0.23 0.07 0.18 0.07 0.18 Right Turn C. M. 0.11 0.18 0.08 0.13 0.11 0.18 Clearance Interval 0.10 0.10 0,10 0.10 0.10 0.10 EXISTING PLUS EXISTING PLUS EXISTING PLUS PROPOSED PLAN 1.04 1.43 INDUSTRIAL 1.02 1.33 RESIDENTIAL 1.07 1.43 LEVEL OF SERVICE E F ICU LEVEL OF SERVICE E F LEVEL OF SERVICE E F AM PM X I I X I FORECASTED PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC I.C.U. WILL BE LESS FORECASTED PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC I.C.U. WILL BE GREATERATHANN OR EQUAL.90 TO 0.90 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION IS THE SUM OF THE CRITICAL MOVEMENTS: * = CRITICAL MOVEMENT INTERSECTION 8 - NORTH/SOUTH ROAD: BEACH BOULEVARD LSa EAST/WEST ROAD: GARFIELD AVENUE INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS EXISTING PLUS LAND USE CONCEPT PLAN EXISTING PLUS INDUSTRIAL ALTERNATIVE EXISTING PLUS RESIDENTIAL ALTERNATIVE V/C V/C V/C MOVE- VOLUME RATIO* VOLUME RATIO* VOLUME RATIO* MENT LANE CAP AM PM AM PM LANE CAP AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM ------- --------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------- ------------------------------------- NBL 1 1600 93 216 0.06 0.14 1600 93 216 0.06 0.14 93 216 0.06 0.14 NBT 3 4800 1,183 1,467 0.29 * 0.40 * 4800 1,183 1,467 0.28 * 0.38 * 1,183 1,467 0.28 * 0.39 * NBR 0 0 186 444 0.00 0.00 0 170 379 0.00 0.00 161 383 0.00 0.00 SBL 1 1600 167 481 0.10 * 0.30 * 1600 159 425 0.10 * 0.27 * 150 423 0.09 * 0.26 * SBT 3 4800 935 1,481 0.21 0.34 4800 935 481 0.21 0.13 935 1,481 0.21 0.34 SBR 0 0 72 158 0.00 0.00 0 72 158 0.00 0.00 72 158 0.00 0.00 EBL 1 1600 119 137 0.07 0.09 1600 119 137 0.07 0.09 119 137 0.07 0.09 EBT 2 3200 1,002 1,317 0.34 * 0.45 * 3200 932 1.388 0.32 * 0.47 * 943 1.481 0.32 * 0.50 * EBR 0 0 92 127 0.00 0.00 0 92 127 0.00 0.00 92 127 0.00 0.00 WBL 1 1600 98 265 0.06 * 0.17 * 1600 98 265 0.06 * 0.17 * 90 252 0.06 * 0.16 * WBT 2 3200 668 935 0.26 0.36 3200 671 941 0.26 0.36 660 920 0.26 0.35 WBR 0 0 169 206 0.00 U.10 0 172 210 0.00 0.00 182 197 0.00 0.00 ----------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------- ------------------------------------- N/S Critical Movements 0.39 0.70 0.38 0.65 0.37 0.65 E/W Critical Movements 0.40 0.62 0.38 0.64 0.38 0.66 Right Turn C. M. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Clearance Interval 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 EXISTING PLUS EXISTING PLUS EXISTING PLUS PROPOSED PLAN 0.89 1.41 INDUSTRIAL 0.86 1.38 RESIDENTIAL 0.85 1.40 LEVEL OF SERVICE D F ICU LEVEL OF SERVICE D F LEVEL OF SERVICE D F AM PM X I X I FORECASTED PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC I.C.U. WILL BE LESS FORECASTED PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC I.C.U. WILL BE GREATER ATHAN 0.90 N OR 0E TO 0.90 * INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION IS THE SUM OF THE CRITICAL MOVEMENTS: * = CRITICAL MOVEMENT rr rr rye rr ri r rr rr r■ rr rr rr ■r rr rr r r r �r INTERSECTION 9 - NORT11/SOUT11 ROAD: GOLDENWEST STREET lsa EAST/WEST ROAD: YORKTOWN AVENUE 111TERSECTIOII CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS EXISTING PLUS LAND USE CONCEPT PLAN EXISTING PLUS INDUSTRIAL ALTERNATIVE EXISTING PLUS RESIDENTIAL ALTERNATIVE V/C V/C V/C MOVE- VOLUME RATIO* VOLUME RATIO* VOLUME RATIO* MENT LANE CAP AM PM AM PM LANE CAP AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM ------- --------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------- ------------------------------------- NBL 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 NBT 2 3200 902 1,121 0.39 * 0.49 * 3200 922 1,144 0.40 * 0.49 928 1,156 0.40 * 0.50 NBR 0 0 350 435 0.00 0.00 0 348 434 0.00 0.00 352 436 0.00 0.00 SBL 1 1600 433 584 0.27 * 0.37 * 1600 434 586 0.27 * 0.37 463 625 0.29 0.39 SBT 2 3200 979 1,185 0.31 0.37 3200 1.000 1,210 0.31 0.38 1,007 1,216 0.31 0.38 SBR 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 EBL 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 EBT 0 0 0 0 0.00 * 0.00 * 0 0 0 0.00 * 0.00 * 0 0 0.00 * 0.00 EBR 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 WBL 2 3200 375 437 0.12 0.14 * 3200 373 436 0.12 * 0.14 377 441 0.12 * 0.14 WBT 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 WBR 1 1600 460 417 0.00 0.00 1600 461 418 0.00 0.00 492 447 0.00 0.00 ----------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------- ------------------------------------- N/S Critical Movements 0.66 0.85 0.67 0.86 0.69 0.89 E/W Critical Movements 0.12 0.14 0.12 0.14 0.12 0.14 Right Turn C. M. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Clearance Interval 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 EXISTING PLUS EXISTING PLUS EXISTING PLUS PROPOSED PLAN 0.87 1.08 INDUSTRIAL 0.88 1.09 RESIDENTIAL 0.90 1.12 LEVEL OF SERVICE D E ICU LEVEL OF SERVICE D E LEVEL OF SERVICE D F AM PM X I I X I FORECASTED PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC I.C.U. WILL BE LESS THAN OR FORECASTED PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC I.C.U. WILL BE GREATER THAN 0.90L TO 0.90 * INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION IS THE SUM OF THE CRITICAL MOVEMENTS: * = CRITICAL MOVEMENT INIERSECTIOII 10 - NORTH/SOUTH ROAD: MAIN STREET �Sa EAST/WEST ROAD: YORKTOWN AVENUE 1111ERSECTIOII CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS EXISTING PLUS LAND USE CONCEPT PLAN EXISTING PLUS INDUSTRIAL ALTERNATIVE EXISTING PLUS RESIDENTIAL ALTERNATIVE V/C V/C V/C MOVE- VOLUME RATIO* VOLUME RATIO* VOLUME RATIO* MENT LANE CAP AM PM AM PM LANE CAP AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM ------- --------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------- ------------------------------------- NBL 1 1600 117 171 0.07 * 0.11 * 1600 119 173 0.07 * 0.11 * 112 169 0.07 * 0.11 * NBT 2 3200 570 371 0.18 0.12 3200 572 371 0.18 0.12 569 370 0.18 0.12 NBR 1 1600 102 20 0.00 0.00 1600 103 20 0.00 0.00 102 20 0.00 0.00 SBL 2 3200 67 104 0.02 0.03 3200 66 103 0.02 0.03 72 109 0.02 0.03 SBT 2 3200 442 395 0.16 * 0.15 * 3200 442 396 0.16 * 0.15 * 443 395 0.17 * 0.15 * SBR 0 0 74 81 0.00 0.00 0 70 77 0.00 0.00 85 94 0.00 0.00 EBL 1 1600 183 181 0.11 0.11 1600 177 176 0.11 0.11 207 200 0.13 * 0.13 EBT 2 3200 355 567 0.19 * 0.22 * 3200 356 570 0.19 * 0.22 * 369 588 0.19 0.23 * EBR 0 0 260 142 0.00 0.00 0 265 146 0.00 0.00 254 140 0.00 0.00 WBL 1 1600 148 25 0.09 * 0.02 * 1600 148 25 0.09 * 0.02 148 25 0.09 0.02 * WBT 2 3200 490 363 0.15 0.11 3200 492 364 0.15 0.11 512 377 0.16 * 0.12 WOR 1 1600 85 81 0.00 0.00 1600 85 81 0.00 0.00 90 84 0.00 0.00 ----------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------- ------------------------------------- N/S Critical Movements 0.23 0.26 0.23 0.26 0.24 0.26 E/W Critical Movements 0.28 0.24 0.29 0.24 0.29 0.24 Right Turn C. M. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Clearance Interval 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 EXISTING PLUS EXISTING PLUS EXISTING PLUS PROPOSED PLAN 0.61 0.59 INDUSTRIAL 0.62 0.59 RESIDENTIAL 0.62 0.60 LEVEL OF SERVICE 8 A ICU LEVEL OF SERVICE B A LEVEL OF SERVICE B A AM PM -- -------- X I I X I FORECASTED PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC I.C.U. WILL BE LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO 0.90 FORECASTED PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC I.C.U. WILL BE GREATER THAN 0.90 * INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION IS THE SUM OF THE CRITICAL MOVEMENTS: * = CRITICAL MOVEMENT as as at ae as as as a► as as �a a as as as as is as a� INTERSECTION 11 - NORTH/SOUTH ROAD: GOLDENWEST STREET `c...�C�. EAST/WEST ROAD: PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS EXISTING PLUS LAND USE CONCEPT PLAN EXISTING PLUS INDUSTRIAL ALTERNATIVE EXISTING PLUS RESIDENTIAL ALTERNATIVE V/C V/C V/C MOVE- VOLUME RATIO* VOLUME RATIO* VOLUME RATIO* MENT LANE CAP AM PM AM PM LANE CAP AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM ------- --------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------- ------------------------------------- NBL 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 NOT 0 0 0 0 0.00 * 0.00 * 0 0 0 0.00 * 0.00 * 0 0 0.00 * 0.00 * NBR 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 SBL 2 3200 327 291 0.10 * 0.09 * 3200 330 295 0.10 * 0.09 * 346 313 0,11 * 0.10 * SBT 0 0 20 7 0.00 0.00 0 20 7 0.00 0.00 20 8 0.00 0.00 SBR 1 1600 815 437 0.41 * 0.18 * 1600 828 444 0.41 * 0.19 * 813 432 0.40 * 0.17 * EBL 1 1600 351 846 0.22 * 0.53 * 1600 358 860 0.22 * 0.54 * 351 850 0.22 * 0.53 * EBT 2 3200 1.005 1,642 0.31 0.51 3200 1,008 1,647 0.32 0.51 999 1,635 0.31 0.51 EBR 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 WBL 1 1600 21 53 0.01 0.03 1600 21 53 0.01 0.03 21 53 0.01 0.03 WBT 2 3200 1,644 1,118 0.58 * 0.44 * 3200 1,649 1,122 0.58 * 0.44 * 1,642 1,115 0.58 * 0.44 * WBR 0 0 196 283 0.00 0.00 0 198 285 0.00 0.00 211 300 0.00 0.00 ----------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------- ------------------------------------- N/S Critical Movements 0.10 0.09 0.10 0.09 0.11 0.10 E/W Critical Movements 0.79 0.97 0.80 0.98 0.80 0.97 Right Turn C. M. 0.41 0.18 0.41 0.19 0.40 0.17 Clearance Interval 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 EXISTING PLUS EXISTING PLUS EXISTING PLUS PROPOSED PLAN 1.40 1.33 INDUSTRIAL 1.41 1.35 RESIDENTIAL 1.40 1.34 LEVEL OF SERVICE F F ICU LEVEL OF SERVICE F F LEVEL OF SERVICE F F AM PM- X I X I FORECASTED PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC I.C.U. WILL BE LESS A N OR FORECASTED PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC I.C.U. WILL. BE GREATER THAN 0.90L TO 0.90 * INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION IS THE SUM OF THE CRITICAL MOVEMENTS: * = CRITICAL MOVEMENT I INTERSECTION 12 - NORTH/SOUTH ROAD: GOLDENWEST STREET lsa EAST/WEST ROAD: PALM AVENUE INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS EXISTING PLUS LAND USE CONCEPT PLC,:: EXISTING PLUIZ INDUSTRIAL ALTERNATIVE EXiSTINO ?SUS RESIDENTIAL ALTERNATIVE V/C V/C V/C MOVE- VOLUME RAT10" VOLUME RATIO" VOLUME RATIO" MENT LANE CAP AM PM AM PM LANE CAP AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM ------- --------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------- ------------------------------------- NBL 1 1600 85 182 0.05 " 0.11 1600 85 182 0.05 0.11 85 182 0.05 " 0.11 NBT 2 3200 546 905 0.18 0.31 " 3200 556 922 0.18 0.32 561 930 0.18 0.32 " NBR 0 0 16 95 0.00 0.00 0 16 95 0,00 0.00 16 95 0.00 0.00 SBL 1 1600 141 353 0.09 0.22 1600 143 356 0.09 0.22 143 358 0.09 0.22 SBT 2 3200 729 678 0.28 " 0.29 3200 742 691 0.28 0.30 749 696 0.28 " 0.30 SBR 0 0 160 250 0.00 0.00 0 162 253 0.00 0.00 162 254 0.00 0.00 EBL 1 1600 179 201 0.11 " 0.13 " 1600 181 202 0.11 0.13 " 182 204 0.11 " 0.13 " EBT 1 1600 108 166 0.07 0.10 1600 106 164 0.07 0.10 106 163 0.07 0.10 EBR 1 1600 195 105 0.00 0.00 1600 196 105 0.00 0.00 196 105 0.00 0.00 WBL 0 0 97 32 0.06 0.02 0 98 32 0.06 0.02 98 32 0.06 0.02 WBT 1 1600 119 166 0.32 * 0.26 1600 118 164 0.33 ` 0.26 ' 117 163 0.33 0.26 WBR 0 0 301 225 0.00 0.00 0 304 226 0.00 0.00 305 227 0.00 0.00 ----------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------- ------------------------------------- N/S Critical Movements 0.33 0.53 0.34 0.54 0.34 0.54 E.'W Critical Movements 0.44 0.39 0.44 0.39 0.44 0.39 Right Turn C. M. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Clearance Interval 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 EXISTING PLUS EXISTING PLUS EXISTING PLUS PROPOSED PLAN 0.86 1.02 INDUSTRIAL 0.87 1.03 RESIDENTIAL 0.87 1.03 LEVEL OF SERVICE D E ICU LEVEL OF SERVICE D E LEVEL OF SERVICE D E X I I X FORECASTED PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC I.C.U. WILL BE LESS I A A EQUAL TO 0.90 FORECASTED PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC I.C.U. WILL BE GREATER THAN 090 " INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION IS THE SUM OF THE CRITICAL MOVEMENTS: ' = CRITICAL MOVEMENT m m r rr rr rr it rr rr rr r r ■r r� rr rr �r rr ri INTERSECTION 1 - NORTH/SOUTH ROAD: EDWARDS STREET `Sa EAST/WEST ROAD: ELLIS AVENUE INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS CURRENT GENERAL PLAN PROPOSED LAND USE CONCEPT PLAIT INDUSTRIAL ALTERNATIVE PLAN RESIDENTIAL. ALTERNATIVE PLAN V/C V/C V/C V/C MOVE- VOLUME RATIO* VOLUME RATIO* VOLUME RATIO* VOLUME RATIO* MENT LANE CAP All PM AM PM LANE CAP AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM ------- --------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------- --------------------------------- --------------------------------- NBL 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 NBT 2 3200 983 836 0.31 * 0.27 * 3200 603 499 0.19 * 0.16 * 659 550 0.21 * 0.18 636 530 0.20 * 0.17 " NBR 0 0 18 22 0.00 0.00 0 18 26 0.00 0.00 19 26 0.00 0.00 18 24 0.00 0.00 SBL 1 1600 204 244 0.13 * 0.15 * 1600 152 180 0.10 * 0.11 * 115 183 0.07 * 0.11 * 151 179 0.09 * 0.11 SBT 2 3200 1,073 1,337 0.34 0.42 3200 670 836 0.21 0.26 732 913 0.23 0.29 705 879 0.22 0.27 SBR 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 EBL 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 EBT 0 0 0 0 0.00 * 0.00 * 0 0 0 0.00 * 0.00 * 0 0 0.00 * 0.00 * 0 0 0.00 0.00 EBR 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 0100 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 WBL 1 i600 19 26 0.01 * 0.02 * 1600 18 30 0.01 * 0.02 * 20 31 0.01 0.02 * 18 29 0.01 * 0.02 " WBT 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 WBR 1 1600 226 467 0.00 * 0.12 * 1600 166 337 0.00 0.08 * 168 347 0.02 * 0.08 * 164 338 0.00 0.08 " ----------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------- --------------------------------- ---------------------------------- N/S Critical Movements 0.44 0.42 0.29 0.28 0.28 0.29 0.30 0.29 E/W Critical Movements 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.02 Right Turn C. M. 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.08 0.02 0.08 0.00 0.08 Clearance Interval 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 INDUSTRIAL RESIDENTIAL CURRENT GENERAL PLAN 0.55 0.66 PROPOSED PLAN 0.40 0.47 ALTERNATIVE 0.41 0.49 ALTERNATIVE 0.41 0.48 LEVEL OF SERVICE A B ICU LEVEL OF SERVICE A A LEVEL OF SERVICE A A LEVEL OF SERVICE A A AM PM ACITY LIZATION X I I X FORECASTED PHIS PROJECT TRAFFIC I.C.U. WILL BE LESS THAN OR EQUAL I FFORECASlED ORECASTED PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC I.C.U. WILL PROJECT TRAFFIC I.C.U. WITH BE GREATER THAN 0.90 TO 0.90 * MOVEMENTS: ION*CAPCRITICAL I MOVEMENT IS THE SUM OF THE CRITICAL LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO 0.90 INTERSECTION 2 - NORTH/SOUTH ROAD: GOLDENWEST STREET �'a EAST/WEST ROAD: ELLIS AVENUE INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS CURRENT GENERAL PLAN PROPOSED LAND USE CONCEPT PLAN INDUSTRIAL ALTERNATIVE PLAN RESIDENTIAL ALTERNATIVE PLAN V/C V/C V/C V/C MOVE- VOLUME RATIO* VOLUME RATIO* VOLUME RATIO* VOLUME RATIO* MENT LANE CAP AM PM AM PM LANE CAP AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM ------- --------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------- --------------------------------- --------------------------------- NBL 1 1600 58 92 0.04 0.06 * 1600 41 65 0.03 0.04 * 39 62 0.02 0.04 * 44 69 0.03 0.04 NBT 3 4800 1,057 1,021 0.22 * 0.22 4800 994 969 0.21 * 0.21 960 935 0.20 0.20 958 933 0.20 * 0.20 NBR 0 0 13 29 0.00 0.00 0 8 18 0.00 0.00 8 18 0.00 0.00 8 19 0.00 0.00 SBL 1 1600 64 104 0.04 * 0.07 1600 44 73 0.03 * 0.05 48 79 0.03 * 0.05 39 65 0.02 0.04 SBT 3 4800 769 1,106 0.18 0.25 * 4800 720 1,035 0.16 0.23 * 693 997 0.16 0.23 * 699 1005 0.16 0.23 SBR 0 0 73 112 0.00 0.00 0 58 90 0.00 0.00 58 90 0.00 0.00 53 83 0.00 0.00 EBL 1 1600 47 93 0.03 * 0.06 * 1600 40 75 0.03 * 0.05 * 39 74 0.02 * 0.05 * 36 69 0.02 * 0.04 EBT 2 3200 194 197 0.07 0.07 3200 110 107 0.04 0.04 116 114 0.04 0.04 110 109 0.04 0.04 EBR 0 0 31 29 0.00 0.00 0 23 20 0.00 0.00 22 19 0.00 0.00 25 22 0.00 0.00 WBL 1 1600 19 18 0.01 0.01 1600 11 11 0.01 0.01 12 11 0.01 0.01 12 11 0.01 0.01 WBT 2 3200 176 313 0.08 * 0.12 * 3200 97 176 0.05 * 0.07 * 103 187 0.05 0.08 * 98 176 0.05 * 0.07 WBR 0 0 85 81 0.00 0.00 0 59 58 0.00 0.00 64 63 0.00 0.00 53 51 0.00 0.00 ----------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------- --------------------------------- --------------------------------- N/S Critical Movements 0.26 0.31 O.14 0.28 0.?-4 u.27 0.23 0.27 E/W Critical Movements 0.11 0.18 0.07 0.12 0.08 0.12 0.07 0.11 Right Turn C. M. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Clearance Interval 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 INDUSTRIAL RESIDENTIAL CURRENT GENERAL PLAN 0.47 0.59 PROPOSED PLAN 0.41 0.49 ALTERNATIVE 0.40 0.48 ALTERNATIVE 0.39 0.48 LEVEL OF SERVICE A A ICU LEVEL OF SERVICE A A LEVEL OF SERVICE A A LEVEL OF SERVICE A A A11 PM -� --- FORECASTED PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC I.C.U. WILL BE LESS THAN OR CITY IZATION X I I x I FFORECASTED PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC I.C.U. WILL ORECASTED PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC I.C.U. WITH BE ETREATER THAN NL.9OL TO 0.90 * INTERSECTION MOVEMENTS: *APACRITICALL IS THE SUM OF THE CRITICAL MOVEMENT LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO 0.90 rr rrr r r rr r ri r rr r r rr r r r rr rr rr ri INTERSECTION 3 - NORIH/SOUTH ROAD: GOTHARD STREET �Sa EAST/WEST ROAD: ELLIS AVENUE INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS CURRENT GENERAL PLAN PROPOSED LAND USE CONCEPT PLAN INDUSTRIAL ALTERNATIVE PLAN RESIDENTIAL ALTERNATIVE PLAN V/C V/C V/C V/C MOVE- VOLUME RATIO* VOLUME RATIO* VOLUME RATIO* VOLUME RATIO* MENT LANE CAP AM PM AM PM LANE CAP AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM ------- --------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------- --------------------------------- --------------------------------- NBL 1 1600 14 13 0.01 0.01 1600 10 9 0.01 0.01 11 10 0.01 0.01 9 8 0.01 0.01 NDT 2 3200 442 349 0.14 * 0.12 * 3200 300 ' 237 0.10 * 0.08 * 328 260 0.11 * 0.09 * 292 237 0.09 * 0.08 * NBR 0 0 13 34 0.00 0.00 0 8 22 0.00 0.00 9 23 0.00 0.00 5 11 0.00 0.00 SBL 1 1600 82 288 0.05 * 0.18 * 1600 45 164 0.03 * 0.10 * 46 169 0.03 * 0.11 47 163 0.03 * 0.10 * SBT 2 3200 246 657 0.08 0.21 3200 166 443 0.05 0.14 182 484 0.0� 0.16 166 435 0.06 0.15 SOR O 0 13 30 0.00 0.00 0 8 18 0.00 0.00 9 21 0.00 0.00 13 32 0.00 0.00 EDL 1 1600 46 12 0.03 * 0.01 * 1600 29 7 0.02 * 0.00 * 33 8 0.02 * 0.01 * 43 14 0.03 * 0.01 * EBT 2 3200 287 268 0.09 0.09 3200 169 159 0.06 0.05 178 168 0.06 0.06 152 146 0.05 0.05 EBR 0 0 11 10 0.00 0.00 0 8 7 0.00 0.00 9 8 0.00 0.00 7 6 0.00 0.00 WDL 1 1600 51 48 0.03 0.03 1600 34 31 0.02 0.02 35 32 0.02 0.02 20 17 0.01 0.01 WDT 2 3200 242 322 0.17 * 0.17 * 3200 143 190 0.10 * 0.10 * 151 200 0.10 * 0.10 * 133 173 0.10 * 0.10 WBR 0 0 307 228 0.00 0.00 0 178 131 0.00 0.00 184 135 0.00 0.00 179 137 0.00 0.00 ----------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------- --------------------------------- --------------------------------- N/S Critical Movements 0.19 0.30 0.12 0.18 0.13 0.19 0.12 0.18 E/W Critical Movements 0.20 0.18 0.12 0.10 0.13 0.11 0.12 0.11 Right Turn C. M. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Clearance Interval 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 INDUSTRIAL RESIDENTIAL CURRENT GENERAL PLAN 0.49 0.57 PROPOSED PLAN 0.34 0.38 ALTERNATIVE 0.35 0.40 ALTERNATIVE 0.34 0.38 LEVEL OF SERVICE A A ICU LEVEL OF SERVICE A A LEVEL OF SERVICE A A LEVEL OF SERVICE A A AM PM x I I X FORECASTED PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC I.C.U. WILL BE LESS THAN OR EQUAL I FORECASTED PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC I.C.U. WILL FORECASTED PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC I.C.U. WITH BE GREATER THANL0.90 TO 0.90 * INTERSECTION CAPACITY CRITICALUTILIZATION MOVEMENTIS THE SUM OF IIIE CRITICAL LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO 0.90 INTERSECTION 4 - NORTH/SOUTH ROAD: BEACH BOULEVARD EAST/WEST ROAD: ELLIS AVENUE Lsa INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS CURRENT GENERAL PLAN PROPOSED LAND USE CONCEPT PLAN INDUSTRIAL ALTERNATIVE PLAN RESIDENTIAL ALTERNATIVE PLAN V/C V/C V/C V/C HOVE- VOLUME RATIO* VOLUME RATIO* VOLUME RATIO* VOLUME RATIO* MENT LANE CAP AM PM AM PM LANE CAP AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM ------- --------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------- --------------------------------- --------------------------------- NBL 2 3200 163 584 0.05 0.18 * 3200 43 250 0.01 0.08 * 50 279 0.02 0.09 * 40 236 0.01 0.07 NBT 4 6400 1,505 1,524 0.25 * 0.25 6400 1,568 1,763 0.27 * 0.31 1,563 1,744 0.27 * 0.30 1564 1769 0.27 * 0.31 NOR 0 0 73 95 0.00 0.00 0 136 205 0.00 0.00 139 207 D.00 0.00 139 212 0.00 0.00 SBL 2 3200 54 168 0.02 * 0.05 3200 322 122 0.10 * 0.04 352 222 0.11 * 0.07 319 198 0.10 0.06 SBT 4 6400 810 1,801 0.19 0.40 * 6400 795 1,881 0.18 0.35 * 796 1,874 0.18 0.35 * 793 1878 0.18 0.35 SSR 0 0 429 750 0.00 0.00 0 372 372 0.00 0.00 372 372 0.00 0.00 372 352 0.00 0.00 EBL 2 3200 642 1,142 0.00 0.00 3200 161 161 0.05 * 0.05 175 184 0.05 * 0.06 154 161 0.05 0.05 ' EBT 2 3200 484 880 0.35 * 0.63 3200 341 341 0.11 0.11 * 342 342 0.11 0.11 * 354 341 0.11 0.11 EBR 1 1600 56 380 0.00 0.00 1600 14 160 0.00 0.00 16 181 0.00 0.00 13 152 0.00 0.00 WBL 1 1600 86 97 0.00 * 0.00 * 1600 144 204 0.09 0.13 * 148 207 0.09 0.13 * 147 211 0.09 0.13 WBT 3 4800 544 759 0.13 0.18 4800 662 626 0.21 * 0.17 682 632 0.21 * 0.17 652 601 0.21 * 0.19 WBR 0 0 65 123 0.00 0.00 0 346 197 0.00 0.00 345 205 0.00 0.00 346 316 0.00 0.00 ----------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------- --------------------------------- --------------------------------- N/S Critical Movements 0.26 0.58 0.37 0.43 0.38 0.44 0.37 0.42 E/W Critical Movements 0.35 0.63 0.26 0.23 0.27 0.24 0.26 0.24 Right Turn C. M. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Clearance Interval 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 INDUSTRIAL RESIDENTIAL CURRENT GENERAL. PLAN 0.71 1.31 PROPOSED PLAN 0.72 0.76 ALTERNATIVE 0.74 0.77 ALTERNATIVE 0.72 0.76 LEVEL OF SERVICE C F ICU LEVEL OF SERVICE C C LEVEL OF SERVICE C C LEVEL OF SERVICE C C X I I x FORECASTED PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC I.C.U. WILL BE LESS THAN OR I FFORECASTED PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC I.C.U. WILL ORECASTED PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC I.C.U. WITH BE GREATER THAN BE LESS TO 0.90 * (MOVEMENTS: CAPACITY CRITICALUTILIZATION IS THE SUM OF THL CRITICAL MOVEMENT LESS TITAN OR EQUAL TO 0.90 ww w w w w w w� w� �■w �w w w w w w w w ww w rr rr r� r r rr r■ r ■r r rr r r r rr �r r rr r INTERSECTION 5 - NORTH/SOUTH ROAD: EDWARDS STREET 1 EAST/WEST ROAD: GARFIELD AVENUE Lsa INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS CURRENT GENERAL PLAN PROPOSED LAND USE CONCEPT PLAN INDUSTRIAL ALTERNATIVE PLAN RESIDENTIAL ALTERNATIVE PLAN V/C V/C V/C V/C MOVE- VOLUME RATIO* VOLUME RATIO* VOLUME RATIO* VOLUME RATIO* MENT LANE CAP AM PM AM PM LANE CAP AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM ------- --------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------- --------------------------------- --------------------------------- NBL 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 NBT 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 * 0.00 * 0 0 0.00 * 0.00 * 0 0 0.00 0.00 NBR 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 SDL 1 1600 722 904 0.45 * 0.57 * 1600 470 591 0.29 * 0.37 * 458 548 0.29 * 0.34 * 472 566 0.30 * 0.35 SBT 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 SBR 1 1600 372 464 0.00 0.00 1600 221 278 0.00 0.00 321 427 0.00 0.00 306 405 0.00 0.00 EDL 1 1600 341 292 0.21 * 0.18 * 1600 197 168 0.12 * 0.11 * 296 270 0.19 * 0.17 203 255 0.13 0.16 EBT 2 3200 161 418 0.05 0.13 3200 252 413 0.08 0.13 141 349 0.04 0.11 147 363 0.05 0.11 EBR 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 WBL 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 WBT 2 3200 346 580 0.11 * 0.18 * 3200 338 526 0.11 * 0.16 * 292 464 0.09 * 0.15 * 303 483 0.09 * 0.15 WBR 1 1600 662 568 0.00 0.00 1600 420 356 0.00 0.00 405 331 0.00 0.00 422 342 0.00 0.00 ----------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------- --------------------------------- ----------------------------------- N/S Critical Movements 0.45 0.57 0.29 0.37 0.29 0.34 0.30 0.35 E/W Critical Movements 0.32 0.36 0.23 0.27 0.28 0.31 0.22 0.31 Right Turn C. M. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Clearance Interval 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 INDUSTRIAL RESIDENTIAL CURRENT GENERAL. PLAN 0.87 1.02 PROPOSED PLAN 0.62 0.73 ALTERNATIVE 0.66 0.75 ALTERNATIVE 0.61 0.76 LEVEL OF SERVICE D E ICU LEVEL OF SERVICE B C LEVEL OF SERVICE B C LEVEL OF SERVICE B C FORECASTED PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC I.C.U. WILL BE LESS THAN OR EQUAL CITY IZATION X I I X I FFORECASTED PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC I.C.U. WILL BE GREATER ORECASTED PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC I.C.U. WITH MITIGATIONS THANWIL 0.90 i0 0.90 * INTERSECTION MOVEMENTS: *APACRITICALLMOVEMEENTIS THE SUM OF THE CRITICAL LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO 0.90 INTERSECTION 6 - NORTH/SOUTH ROAD:GOLDENWEST STREET EAST/WEST ROAD: GARFIELD AVENUE Lsa INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS CURRENT GENERAL PLAN PROPOSED LAND USE CONCEPT PLAN INDUSTRIAL ALTERNATIVE PLAN RESIDENTIAL ALTERNATIVE PLAN V/C V/C V/C V/C MOVE- VOLUME RATIO* VOLUME RATIO* VOLUME RATIO* VOLUME RATIO* MENT LANE CAP AM PM AM PM LANE CAP AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM ------- --------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------- --------------------------------- --------------------------------- NBL 1 1600 752 436 0.47 * 0.27 * 1600 506 399 0.32 * 0.25 * 520 404 0.33 * 0.25 * 468 380 0.29 0.24 ' NBT 3 4800 900' 743 0.19 0.16 4800 773 623 0.16 0.13 736 588 0.15 0.12 763 625 0.16 0.14 NBR 0 0 5 22 0.00 0.00 0 2 13 0.00 0.00 1 10 0.00 0.00 4 23 0.00 0.00 SBL 1 1600 56 138 0.04 0.09 1600 70 168 0.04 0.11 68 161 0.04 0.10 70 171 0.04 0.11 SBT 3 4800 623 777 0.13 * 0.17 * 4800 535 653 0.11 * 0.15 * 508 615 0.11 * 0.14 539 666 0.11 * 0.15 " SBR 0 0 0 49 0.00 0.00 0 0 58 0.00 0.00 0 69 0.00 0.00 0 34 0.00 0.00 EBL 1 1600 28 67 0.02 0.04 1600 46 78 0.03 * 0.05 * 58 91 0.04 * 0.06 * 24 47 0.02 * 0.03 EBT 2 3200 721 696 0.23 * 0.22 * 3200 452 602 0.14 0.19 449 606 0.14 0.19 448 592 0.14 0.19 EBR 1 1600 421 267 0.00 0.00 1600 350 189 0.00 0.00 371 190 0.00 0.00 368 179 0.00 0.00 WBL 1 1600 70 160 0.04 * 0.10 * 1600 30 90 0.02 0.06 20 70 0.01 0.04 60 87 0.04 0.05 WBT 2 3200 452 603 0.19 0.25 3200 415 522 0.18 * 0.23 * 427 528 0.19 * 0.23 * 388 504 0.18 * 0.23 ' WBR 0 0 147 186 0.00 0.00 0 174 216 0.00 0.00 168 207 0.00 0.00 172 218 0.00 0.00 ----------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------- --------------------------------- --------------------------------- N/S Critical Movements 0.60 0.44 0.43 0.40 0.43 0.40 0.40 0.38 E/W Critical Movements 0.27 0.32 0.21 0.28 0.22 0.29 0.19 0.26 Right Turn C. M. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Clearance Interval 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 INDUSTRIAL RESIDENTIAL CURRENT GENERAL PLAN 0.96 0.86 PROPOSED PLAN 0.74 0.77 ALTERNATIVE 0.75 0.78 ALTERNATIVE 0.69 0.73 LEVEL OF SERVICE E 0 ICU LEVEL OF SERVICE C C LEVEL OF SERVICE C C LEVEL OF SERVICE B C -AM 0I.1 --- - FORECASTED PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC I.C.U. WILL BE LESS THAN OR EQUAL NTERSECTION CITY IZATION X I I X I FFORECASTED PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC I.C.U. WILL ORECASTED PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC I.C.U. WITH BE GREATER MITIGATIONS TO 0.90 * (MOVEMENTS: *APACRITICALLMOVEMENTIS THE SUM OF THE CRITICAL LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO 0.90 r rr r ■r■ r r r r rr r r r� r r■ r rr r r r� INTERSECTION 7 - NORTH/SOUTH ROAD: MAIN STREET �Sa EAST/WEST ROAD: GARFIELD AVENUE INTERSECTION CAPACITY UIILIZAIION ANALYSIS CURRENT GENERAL PLAN PROPOSED LAND USE CONCEPT PLAN INDUSTRIAL ALTERNATIVE PLAN RESIDENTIAL ALTERNATIVE PLAN V/C V/C V/C V/C MOVE- VOLUME RATIO* VOLUME RATIO* VOLUME RATIO* VOLUME RATIO* MENT LANE CAP A14 PM AM PM LANE CAP AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM ------- --------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------- --------------------------------- --------------------------------.. NBL 1 1600 188 406 0.12 0.25 1600 211 386 0.13 0.24 * 233 492 0.15 0.31 * 326 668 0.20 * 0.42 " NBT 2 3200 1,707 2,116 0.53 * 0.66 * 3200 1,605 1,906 0.50 * 0.60 1,376 1,637 0.43 * 0.51 1552 1840 0.49 0.58 NBR 1 1600 48 149 0.00 0.00 1600 192 423 0.00 0.00 127 310 0.00 0.00 179 402 0.00 0.00 SBL 1 1600 163 443 0.10 * 0.28 * 1600 70 230 0.04 * 0.14 89 281 0.06 * 0.18 63 210 0.04 0.13 SBT 2 3200 1,348 2,130 0.42 0.67 3200 1,263 1,986 0.39 0.62 1,085 1,677 0.34 0.52 * 1220 1925 0.38 * 0.60 ' SBR 1 1600 267 496 0.00 0.00 1600 48 148 0.00 0.00 71 188 0.00 0.00 50 149 0.00 0.00 EBL 1 1600 412 435 0.26 * 0.27 * 1600 90 127 0.06 0.08 127 161 0.08 0.10 92 129 0.06 0.08 EBT 2 3200 1,099 1,365 0.34 0.43 3200 1,028 1,251 0.32 * 0.39 * 1,061 1,296 0.33 * 0.41 * 1015 1241 0.32 * 0.39 EBR 1 1600 174 242 0.00 0.00 1600 335 384 0.00 0.00 244 288 0.00 0.00 350 400 0.00 0.00 WBL 1 1600 41 209 0.03 0.13 1600 187 541 0.12 * 0.34 * 120 403 0.08 * 0.25 * 175 518 0.11 * 0.32 WBT 2 3200 1,086 1,508 0.34 * 0.47 * 3200 983 1,279 0.31 0.40 1,020 1,368 0.32 0.43 971 1264 0.30 0.40 WBR 1 1600 220 304 0.00 0.00 1600 109 141 0.00 0.00 135 178 0.00 0.00 99 130 0.00 0.00 ----------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------- --------------------------------- --------------------------------- N/S Critical Movements 0.64 0.94 0.55 0.86 0.49 0.83 0.59 1.02 E/W Critical Movements 0.60 0.74 0.44 0.73 0.41 0.66 0.43 0.71 Right Turn C. M. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Clearance Interval 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 INDUSTRIAL RESIDENTIAL. CURRENT GENERAL PLAN 1.33 -1.78 PROPOSED PLAN 1.08 1.69 PLAN 0.99 1.58 PLAN 1.11 1.83 LEVEL OF SERVICE F F ICU LEVEL OF SERVICE E F LEVEL OF SERVICE E F LEVEL OF SERVICE F F EQUALAM PM FORECASTED PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC I.C.U. WILL BE LESS THAN OR TO 0.90 * INTERSECTION X I I X I FORECASTED PLUS PR JECT TRAFFIC I.C.U. WITH BE GREATERSTH NL BEOMOVEMENTS: CAPACITY UT FORECASTED PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC I.C.U. WILL ILIZATION IS TH E SUM OF THE CRITICAL LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO 0.90 INTERSECTION 8 - NORTH/SOUTH ROAD: BEACH BOULEVARD ��� EAST/WEST ROAD: GARFIELD AVENUE INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS CURRENT GENERAL PLAN PROPOSED LAND USE CONCEPT PLAN INDUSTRIAL_ ALTERNATIVE PLAN RESIDENTIAL ALTERNATIVE PLAN V/C V/C V/C V/C MOVE- VOLUME RATIO* VOLUME RATIO* VOLUNf: RATIO* VOLUME RATIO* MENT LANE CAP AM PM AM PM LANE CAP AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM ------- --------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------- --------------------------------- --------------------------------- NBL 1 1600 251 492 0.16 * 0.31 * 1600 211 465 0.13 * 0.29 * 307 557 0.19 * 0.35 * 309 558 0.19 * 0.35 NBT 3 4800 1,295 1,581 0.28 0.36 4800 1,226 1,528 0.26 0.33 1.230 1,533 0.26 0.34 1,215 1,518 0.26 0.33 NBR 0 0 44 139 0.00 0.00 0 22 77 0.00 0.00 22 76 0.00 0.00 20 70 0.00 0.00 SBL 1 1600 74 232 0.05 0.15 1600 43 146 0.03 0.09 44 149 0.03 0.09 41 139 0.03 0.09 SBT 3 4800 1,023 1,637 0.25 * 0.41 * 4800 971 1,613 0.26 * 0.43 * 974 1,617 0.26 * 0.43 * 962 1,604 0.26 * 0.43 SBR 0 0 182 349 0.00 0.00 0 260 449 0.00 0.00 265 457 0.00 0.00 270 463 0.00 0.00 EBL 1 1600 291 308 0.18 * 0.19 * 1600 395 406 0.25 * 0.25 * 401 413 0.25 0.26 * 408 419 0.26 0.26 EBT 2 3200 929 1179 0.37 0.46 3200 735 963 0.32 0.41 734 962 0.32 0.41 702 923 0.31 0.40 EBR 0 0 239 301 0.00 0.00 0 283 361 0.00 0.00 279 355 0.00 0.00 280 357 0.00 0.00 WBL 1 1600 40 195 0.03 0.12 1600 20 114 0.01 0.07 19 112 0.01 0.07 18 104 0.01 0.07 WBT 2 3200 920 1257 0.32 * 0.44 3200 738 1,019 0.25 * 0.35 738 1,019 0.25 * 0.35 * 707 977 0.24 0.34 WBR 0 0 105 157 0.00 0.00 0 60 102 0.00 0.00 61 104 0.00 0.00 57 97 0.00 0.00 ----------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------- --------------------------------- --------------------------------- N/S Critical Movements 0.41 0.72 0.39 0.72 0.45 0.78 0.45 0.78 E/W Critical Movements 0.50 0.63 0.50 0.60 0.50 0.61 0.49 0.60 Right Turn C. M. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Clearance Interval 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 , 0.10 INDUSTRIAL RESIDENTIAL CURRENT GENERAL PLAN 1.01 1.45 PROPOSED PLAN 0.98 1.42 PLAN 1.05 1.48 PLAN 1.04 1.47 LEVEL OF SERVICE E F ICU LEVEL OF SERVICE E F LEVEL OF SERVICE E F LEVEL OF SERVICE E F FORECASTED PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC I.C.U. WILL BE LESS THAN OR CITY IZATION X I ( x I FORECASTED PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC I.C.U. WILL BE GREATER PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC I.C.U. WITH MITIGATIONS TWILL BE LESS TO 0.90 * INTERSECTION cAPACRITICALLMOVEMENTIS THE SUM OF THE CRITICAL FORECASTED LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO 0.90 INTERSECTION 9 - NORIH/SOUTH ROAD: GOLDENWEST STREET EAST/WEST ROAD: YORKTOWN AVENUE Lsa INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS CURRENT GENERAL PLAN PROPOSED LAND USE CONCEPT PLAN INDUSTRIAL ALTERNATIVE PLAN RESIDENTIAL ALTERNATIVE PLAN V/C V/C V/C V/C MOVE- VOLUME RATIO* VOLUME RATIO* VOLUME RATIO* VOLUME RATIO* MENT LANE CAP AM PM AM PM LANE CAP AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM ------- --------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------- --------------------------------- --------------------------------- NBL 1 1600 0 0 0.00 0.00 1600 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 NBT 3 4800 932 1,147 0.30 * 0.37 * 4800 748 886 0.25 * 0.31 * 715 864 0.27 * 0.33 * 717 874 0.27 * 0.33 NBR 0 0 493 627 0.00 0.00 0 475 622 0.00 0.00 562 727 0.00 0.00 562 723 0.00 0.00 S8L 1 1600 298 404 0.19 * 0.25 * 1600 78 99 0.05 * 0.06 * 141 185 0.09 * 0.12 * 173 231 0.11 * 0.14 SBT 3 4800 1,007 1,232 0.21 0.26 4800 815 1,030 0.17 0.21 773 970 0.16 0.20 775 966 0.16 0.20 SBR 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 EBL 1 1600 0 0 0.00 0.00 1600 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 EBT 2 3200 0 0 0.00 * 0.00 * 3200 0 0 0.00 * 0.00 * 0 0 0.00 * 0.00 * 0 0 0.00 * 0.00 EBR 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 WBL 1 1600 530 605 0.33 * 0.38 * 1600 525 575 0.33 * 0.36 * 609 676 0.38 * 0.42 607 677 0.38 * 0.42 WBT 2 3200 0 0 0.10 0.08 3200 426 0 0.16 0.02 0 0 0.05 0.03 0 0 0.06 0.04 WBR 0 0 319 263 0.00 0.00 0 85 55 0.00 0.00 153 110 0.00 0.00 188 141 0.00 0.00 ----------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------- --------------------------------- --------------------------------- N/S Critical Movements 0.48 0.62 0.30 0.38 0.35 0.45 0.37 0.48 E/W Critical Movements 0.33 0.38 0.33 0.36 0.38 0.42 0.38 0.42 Right Turn C. M. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Clearance Interval 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 INDUSTRIAL RESIDENTIAL CURRENT GENERAL PLAN 0.91 1.10 PROPOSED PLAN 0.73 0.83 PLAN 0.83 0.96 PLAN 0.85 1.00 LEVEL OF SERVICE E F ICU LEVEL OF SERVICE C D LEVEL OF SERVICE D E LEVEL OF SERVICE D E AM PM FORECASTED PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC I.C.U. WILL BE LESS THAN OR EQUAL X ( x I FFORECASTED PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC I.C.U. WILL ORECASTED PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC I.C.U. WITH BE GREATER THAN 0.90 TO 0.90 * (MOVEMENTS: CAPACITY CRITICALUTILIZATION MOVEMENTIS THE SUM OF THE CRITICAL LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO 0.90 INTERSECTION 10 - NORTH/SOUTH ROAD: MAIN STREET 1 EAST/WEST ROAD: YORKTOWN AVENUE sa INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS CURRENT GENERAL PLAN PROPOSED LAND USE CONCEPT PLAN INDUSTRIAL ALTERNATIVE PLAN RESIDENTIAL ALTERNATIVE PLAN V/C V/C V/C V/C MOVE- VOLUME RATIO* VOLUME RATIO* VOLUME RATIO* VOLUME RATIO* MENT LANE CAP AM PM AM PM LANE CAP AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM ------- --------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------- --------------------------------- --------------------------------- NBL 1 1600 48 94 0.03 0.06 * 1600 56 97 0.04 0.06 * 64 114 0.04 0.07 * 63 114 0.04 0.07 NBT 2 3200 807 540 0.25 * 0.17 3200 746 529 0.23 * 0.17 795 541 0.25 * 0.17 785 531 0.25 * 0.17 N11R 1 1600 53 8 0.00 0.00 1600 120 29 0.00 0.00 85 14 0.00 0.00 78 13 0.00 0.00 SBL 2 3200 200 292 0.06 * 0.09 3200 118 196 0.04 * 0.06 139 217 0.04 0.07 146 224 0.05 * 0.07 SST 2 3200 708 557 0.26 0.23 * 3200 595 521 0.20 0.17 * 659 552 0.23 0.20 * 657 545 0.23 0.20 SBR 0 0 119 163 0.00 0.00 0 38 36 0.00 0.00 71 89 0.00 0.00 79 101 0.00 0.00 EBL 1 1600 351 352 0.22 * 0.22 * 1600 130 100 0.08 0.06 224 217 0.14 * 0.14 * 246 242 0.15 * 0.15 EBT 2 3200 349 505 0.15 0.18 3200 288 469 0.14 * 0.17 * 336 513 0.16 0.19 350 527 0.16 0.19 EBR 0 0 128 58 0.00 0.00 0 160 79 0.00 0.00 174 83 0.00 0.0n 171 81 0.00 0.00 WBL 1 1600 92 8 0.06 0.01 1600 2'G 34 0.13 1.02 * 141 16 0.09 0.01 131 14 0.08 0.01 WBT 2 3200 508 357 0.16 * 0.11 * 3200 381 295 0.12 0.09 467 344 0.15 * 0.11 * 489 357 0.15 * 0.11 WBR 1 1600 272 196 0.00 0.00 1600 171 159 0.00 0.00 194 161 0.00 0.00 202 162 0.00 0.00 ----------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------- --------------------------------- --------------------------------- N/S Critical Movements 0.31 0.28 0.27 0.23 0.29 0.27 0.29 0.27 E/W Critical Movements 0.38 0.33 0.27 0.19 0.29 0.24 0.31 0.26 Right Turn C. M. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Clearance Interval 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 INDUSTRIAL RESIDENTIAL CURRENT GENERAL PLAN 0.79 0.71 PROPOSED PLAN 0.63 0.52 PLAN 0.67 0.61 PLAN 0.69 0.63 LEVEL OF SERVICE C C ICU LEVEL OF SERVICE B A LEVEL OF SERVICE B B LEVEL OF SERVICE B B AM PM ECAS110 PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC I.C.U. WILL BE LESS THAN OR EQUAL X I I x I RECASTED PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC I.C.U. WITH MITIGATION THAN S 0t TO 0.90 * INTERSECTION CAPACITY CRITICAL THE SUM OF THE CRITICAL MOVEMENT FO I+ LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO 0.90 INTERSECTION 11 - NORTH/SOUTH ROAD: GOLDENWEST STREET �Sa EAST/WEST ROAD: PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS CURRENT GENERAL PLAN PROPOSED LAND USE CONCEPT PLAN INDUSTRIAL ALTERNATIVE PLAN RESIDENTIAL ALTERNATIVE PLAN V/C V/C V/C V/C MOVE- VOLUME RATIO* VOLUME RATIO* VOLUME RATIO* VOLUME RATIO* MENT LANE CAP AM PM AM PM LANE CAP AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM ------- --------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------- --------------------------------- --------------------------------- NBL 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 NBT 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 * 0.00 * 0 0 0.00 * 0.00 * 0 0 0.00 * 0.00 * NBR 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 SBL 2 3200 421 385 0.13 0.12 * 3200 383 344 0.12 * 0.11 * 373 340 0.12 * 0.11 * 368 335 0.12 * 0.10 * SBT 0 0 12 2 0.00 0.00 0 11 2 0.00 0.00 11 2 0.00 0.00 11 2 0.00 0.00 SBR 1 1600 890 444 0.42 0.16 * 1600 768 379 0.36 * 0.13 * 813 406 0.39 * 0.15 * 818 409 0.40 * 0.15 * EBL 1 1600 350 901 0.22 0.56 * 1600 297 779 0.19 * 0.49 * 318 823 0.20 * 0.51 * 321 827 0.20 * 0.52 * EBT 2 3200 1,124 1.824 0.35 0.57 3200 1,092 1,778 0.34 0.56 1,096 1,776 0.34 0.56 1102 1784 0.34 0.56 EBR 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 WBL 1 1600 13 29 0.01 0.02 1600 13 29 0.01 0.02 13 29 0.01 0.02 13 29 0.01 0.02 WBT 2 3200 1,825 1.259 0.66 * 0.51 * 3200 1.773 1,224 0.63 * 0.49 * 1,772 1,226 0.63 * 0.49 * 1780 1233 0.63 * 0.49 WBR 0 0 275 387 0.00 0.00 0 246 350 0.00 0.00 242 341 0.00 0.00 238 336 0.00 0.00 ----------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------- --------------------------------- --------------------------------- N/S Critical Movements 0.13 0.12 0.12 0.11 0.12 0.11 0.12 0.10 E/W Critical Movements 0.88 1.08 0.82 0.98 0.83 1.00 0.83 1.01 Right Turn C. M. 0.42 0.16 0.36 0.13 0.39 0.15 0.40 0.15 Clearance Interval 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 IFID STRIAL RESIDENTIAL CURRENT GENERAL. PLAN 1.53 1.45 PROPOSED PLAN 1.39 1.31 PLAN 1.43 1.35 PLAN 1.44 1.36 LEVEL OF SERVICE F F ICU LEVEL OF SERVICE F F LEVEL OF SERVICE F F LEVEL OF SERVICE F F AM PM FORECASTED PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC I.C.U. WILL BE LESS THAN OR EQUAL CITY IZATION X I X I FORECASTED PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC I.C.U. WITH MITIGATIONS WATERTHAN H NL BE 0.90 TO 0.90 * INTERSECTION *APA(RITICALLMOVEMENTIS THE SUM OF THE CRITICAL LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO 0.90 I INTERSECTION 12 - NORTH/SOUTH ROAD: GOLDENWEST STREET EAST/WEST ROAD: PALM AVENUE Lsa INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS CURRENT GENERAL PLAN PROPOSED LAND USE CONCEPT PLAN INDUSTRIAL ALTERNATIVE PLAN RESIDENTIAL ALTERNATIVE PLAN V/C V/C V/C V/C MOVE- VOLLJ14E RATIO` VOLUME RATIO* VOLUME RATIO* VOLUME RATIO* MENT LANE CAP AM PM AM PM LANE CAP AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM ------- --------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------- --------------------------------- --------------------------------- NBL 1 1600 46 104 0.03 * 0.07 1600 49 112 0.03 * 0.07 48 110 0.03 * 0.07 48 110 0.03 * 0.07 NBT 2 3200 702 1,165 0.22 0.38 * 3200 597 990 0.19 0.33 * 620 1,027 0.20 0.34 * 619 1,026 0.20 0.34 * NBR 0 0 8 48 0.00 0.00 0 9 53 0.00 0.00 9 52 0.00 0.00 9 52 0.00 0.00 SBL 1 1600 118 313 0.07 0.20 * 1600 112 294 0.07 0.18 * 114 298 0.07 0.19 * 113 298 0.07 0.19 * SBT 2. 3200 946 871 0.34 * 0.35 3200 803 741 0.29 * 0.30 833 769 0.30 * 0.31 832 767 0.30 * 0.31 SBR 0 0 141 244 0.00 0.00 0 132 223 0.00 0.00 134 227 0.00 0.00 134 227 0.00 0.00 EBL 1 1600 169 184 0.11 * 0.12 * 1600 154 170 0.10 * 0.11 * 158 173 0.10 * 0.11 * 157 173 0.10 * 0.11 * EBT 1 1600 41 59 0.03 0.04 1600 47 70 0.03 0.04 46 68 0.03 0.04 46 68 0.03 0.04 EBR 1 1600 125 58 0.00 0.00 1600 130 63 0.00 0.00 129 62 0.00 0.00 129 62 0.00 0.00 WBL 0 0 56 16 0.04 0.01 0 60 18 0.04 0.01 59 17 0.04 0.01 59 17 0.04 0.01 WBT 1 1600 43 61 0.23 0.17 * 1600 50 72 0.22 * 0.17 * 49 70 0.22 * 0.17 * 49 70 0.22 * 0.17 WBR 0 0 261 193 0.00 0.00 0 246 181 0.00 0.00 249 184 0.00 0.00 249 184 0.00 0.00 ----------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------- --------------------------------- --------------------------------- N/S Critical Movements 0.37 0.57 0.32 0.51 0.33 0.52 0.33 0.52 E/W Critical Movements 0.33 0.28 0.32 0.28 0.32 0.28 0.3? 0.28 Right Turn C. M. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Clearance Interval 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 INDUSTRIAL RESIDENTIAL i CURRENT GENERAL PLAN 0.79 0.95 PROPOSED PLAN 0.74 0.88 PLAN 0.75 0.90 PLAN 0.75 0.90 LEVEL OF SERVICE C E ICU LEVEL OF SERVICE C D LEVEL OF SERVICE C 0 LEVEL OF SERVICE C D AM 111 �- FORECASTED PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC I.C.U. WILL BE LESS THAN OR EQUAL X I I x I FFORECASTED PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC I.C.U. WILL ORECASTED PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC I.C.U. WITH BE GREATER THAN H NL0.90 TO 0.90 * INTERSECTION MOVEMENTS: CAPACITY CRITICALUTILIZATION MOVEMENTIS THE SUM OF THE CRITICAL LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO 0.90 INTERSECTION 13 - NORTH/SOUTH ROAD: GOTHARD ROAD EAST/WEST ROAD: GARFIELD AVENUE Lsa INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS CURRENT GENERAL PLAN PROPOSED LAND USE CONCEPT PLAN INDUSTRIAL ALTERNATIVE PLAN RESIDENTIAL ALTERNATIVE PLAN V/C V/C V/C V/C MOVE- VOLUME RATIO* VOLUME RATIO* VOLUME RATIO* VOLUME RATIO* MENT LANE CAP AM PM AM PM LANE CAP AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM ------- --------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------- --------------------------------- --------------------------------- NBL 1 1600 31 26 0.02 * 0.02 1600 32 24 0.02 * 0.02 33 25 0.02 * 0.02 33 25 0.02 * 0.02 NBT 2 3200 70 70 0.03 0.04 * 3200 40 50 0.02 0.03 * 50 50 0.02 0.03 * 40 50 0.02 0.03 * NBR 0 0 40 58 0.00 0.00 0 23 39 0.00 0.00 25 41 0.00 0.00 23 40 0.00 0.00 SBL 1 1600 50 295 0.03 0.18 * 1600 28 215 0.02 0.13 * 30 220 0.02 0.14 * 28 213 0.02 0.13 * SBT 2 3200 80 60 0.06 * 0.08 3200 40 40 0.04 * 0.07 50 40 0.05 * 0.07 40 40 0.04 * 0.07 SBR 0 0 101 193. 0.00 0.00 0 101 194 0.00 0.00 101 197 0.00 0.00 102 199 0.00 0.00 EBL 1 1600 93 32 0.06 * 0.02 * 1600 87 32 0.05 * 0.02 * 88 33 0.06 * 0.02 * 89 33 0.06 * 0.02 * EBT 2 3200 468 561 0.17 0.20 3200 430 529 0.15 0.19 422 517 0.15 0.18 430 530 0.15 0.19 EBR 0 0 63 73 0.00 0.00 0 58 64 0.00 0.00 61 67 0.00 0.00 61 67 0.00 0.00 WBL 1 1600 43 67 0.03 0.04 1600 22 40 0.01 0.03 25 43 0.02 0.03 22 40 0.01 0.03 WBT 2 3200 649 813 0.21 * 0.27 * 3200 594 736 0.19 * 0.24 * 584 722 0.19 * 0.23 * 595 735 0.19 * 0.24 WBR 0 0 7 36 0.00 0.00 0 14 25 0.00 0.00 15 26 0.00 0.00 14 25 0.00 0.00 ----------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------- --------------------------------- --------------------------------- N/S Critical Movements 0.08 0.22 0.06 0.16 0.07 0.17 0.07 0.16 E/W Critical Movements 0.26 0.29 0.24 0.26 0.24 0.25 0.25 0.26 Right Turn C. M. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Clearance Interval 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 INDUSTRIAL RESIDENTIAL CURRENT GENERAL PLAN 0.43 0.60 PROPOSED PLAN 0.40 0.52 PLAN 0.41 0.52 PLAN 0.41 0.51 LEVEL OF SERVICE A A ICU LEVEL OF SERVICE A A LEVEL OF SERVICE A A LEVEL OF SERVICE A A AM PM ------ ECASTED PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC I.C.U. WILL BE LESS THAN OR X I X I FORECASTED PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC I.C.U. WITH BEGREATMITIGATIOR THAN 0.90L TO 0.90 * INTERSECTION *APACRITICALLMOVEMENTIS THE SUM OF THE CRITICAL LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO 0.90 INTERSECTION 7 - NORTH/SOUTH ROAD: MAIN STREET ��� EAST/WEST ROAD: GARFIELD AVENUE INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS WITH MITIGATIONS CURRENT GENERAL. PLAN PROPOSED LAND USE CONCEPT PLAN INDUSTRIAL ALTERNATIVE PLAN RESIDENTIAL ALTERNATIVE PLAN V/C V/C V/C V/C MOVE- VOLUME RATIO* VOLUME RATIO* VOLUME RATIO* VOLUME RATIO* MENT LANE CAP AM PM AM PM LANE CAP AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM ------- --------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------- --------------------------------- --------------------------------- NBL 2 3200 188 406 0.06 0.13 3200 211 386 0.07 0.12 * 233 492 0.07 0.15 * 326 668 0.10 * 0.21 NBT 3 4800 1,707 2,116 0.36 * 0.44 * 4800 1,605 1,906 0.33 * 0.40 1,376 1,637 0.29 * 0.34 1552 1840 0.32 0.38 NBR 1 1600 48 149 0.00 0.00 1600 192 423 0.00 0.00 127 310 0.00 0.00 179 402 0.00 0.00 SBL 2 3200 163 443 0.05 * 0.14 * 3200 70 230 0.02 * 0.07 89 281 0.03 * 0.09 63 210 0.02 0.07 SBT 3 4800 1,348 2,130 0.28 0.44 4800 1,263 1,986 0.26 0.41 * 1,085 1,677 0.2.3 0.35 * 1220 1925 0.25 * 0.40 * SBR 1 1600 267 496 0.00 0.00 1600 48 148 0.00 0.00 71 188 0.00 0.00 SO 149 0.00 0.00 EBL 2 3200 412 435 0.13 * 0.14 * 3200 90 127 0.03 0.04 127 161 0.04 0.05 92 129 0.03 0.04 EBT 3 4800 1,099 1,365 0.23 0.28 4800 1.028 1.251 0.21 * 0.26 * 1,061 1,296 0.22 * 0.27 * 1015 1241 0.21 * 0.26 * EBR 1 1600 174 242 0.00 0.00 1600 335 384 0.00 0.00 244 288 0.00 0.00 350 400 0.00 0.00 WBL 2 3200 41 209 0.01 0.07 3200 187 541 0,06 * 0.17 * 120 403 0.04 * 0.13 * 175 518 0.05 * 0.16 * WBT 3 4800 1,086 1,508 0.23 * 0.31 * 4800 983 1,279 0.20 0.27 1,020 1,368 0.21 0.29 971 1264 0.20 0.26 WBR 1 1600 220 304 0.00 0.00 1600 109 141 0.00 0.00 135 178 0.00 0.00 99 130 0,00 0.00 ----------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------- --------------------------------- --------------------------------- N/S Critical Movements 0.41 0.58 0.36 0.53 0.31 0.50 0.36 0.61 E/W Critical Movements 0.36 0.45 0.27 0.43 0.26 0.40 0.27 0.42 Right Turn C. M. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Clearance Interval 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 INDUSTRIAL RESIDENTIAL CURRENT GENERAL PLAN 0.86 1.12 PROPOSED PLAN 0.72 1.06 PLAN 0.67 0.99 PLAN 0.72 1.13 LEVEL OF SERVICE D F ICU LEVEL OF SERVICE C E LEVEL OF SERVICE B E LEVEL OF SERVICE C F AM PM ��. --------- FORECASTED PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC I.C.U. WILL BE LESS THAN OR EQUAL CITY X I I X I FFORECASTED PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC I.C.U. WILL ORECASTED PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC I.C.U. WITH BE GREATER15THAN 0.90 TO 0.90 * INTERSECTION MOVEMENTS: *APACRITICALLMOVEMENTIS THE SUM OF THE CRITICAL LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO 0.90 r r r r r■ it r� r� ■r r rr rr rr r■ r■� r ri ri r INTERSECTION 8 - NORTH/SOUTH ROAD: BEACH BOULEVARD �S� EAST/WEST ROAD: GARFIELD AVENUE INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS WITH MITIGATIONS CURRENT GENERAL PLAN PROPOSED LA140 USE CONCEPT PLAN INDUSTRIAL ALTERNATIVE PLAN RESIDENTIAL ALTERNATIVE PLAN V/C V/C V/C V/C MOVE- VOLUME RATIO* VOLUME RATIO* VOLUME RATIO* VOLUME RATIO* MENT LANE CAP AM PM AM PM LANE CAP AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM ------- --------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------- --------------------------------- --------------------------------- NBL 2 3200 251 492 0.08 * 0.15 * 3200 211 465 0.07 * 0.15 * 307 557 0.10 * 0.17 * 309 558 0.10 * 0.17 NBT 4 6400 1,295 1,581 0.20 0.25 6400 1,226 1.528 0.19 0.24 1,230 1,533 0.19 0.24 1,215 1,518 0.19 0.24 NBR 1 16U0 44 139 0.00 0.00 1600 22 77 0.00 0.00 22 76 0.00 0.00 20 70 0.00 0.00 SBL 2 3200 74 232 0.02 0.07 3200 43 146 0.01 0.05 44 149 0.01 0.05 41 139 0.01 0.04 SBT 4 6400 1.023 1,637 0.16 * 0.26 * 6400 971 1,613 0.15 * 0.25 * 974 1.617 0.15 * 0.25 * 962 1,604 0.15 * 0.25 SBR 1 1600 182 349 0.00 0.00 1600 260 449 0.00 0.00 265 457 0.00 0.00 270 463 0.00 0.00 E8L 2 3200 291 308 0.09 0.10 3200 395 406 0.12 * 0.13 * 401 413 0.13 * 0.13 * 408 419 0.13 * 0.13 EBT 2 3200 929 1179 0.29 * 0.37 * 3200 735 963 0.23 0.30 734 962 0.23 0.30 702 923 0.22 0.29 EBR 1 1600 239 301 0.00 0.00 1600 283 361 0.00 0.00 279 355 0.00 0.00 280 357 0.00 0.00 WBL 2 3200 40 195 0.01 * 0.06 * 3200 20 114 0,01 0.04 19 112 0.01 0.04 18 104 0.01 0.03 WBT 3 4800 920 1257 0.19 0.26 4800 738 1,019 0.15 * 0.21 * 738 1,019 0.15 * 0.21 * 707 977 0.15 * 0.20 WBR 1 1600 105 157 0.00 0.00 1600 60 102 0.00 0.00 61 104 0.00 0.00 57 97 0.00 0.00 ----------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------- --------------------------------- --------------------------------- N/S Critical Movements 0.24 0.41 0.22 0.40 0.25 0.43 0.25 0.43 E/W Critical Movements 0.30 0.43 0.28 0.34 0.28 0.34 0.27 0.33 Right Turn C. M. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Clearance Interval 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 INDUSTRIAL RESIDENTIAL CURRENT GENERAL PLAN 0.64 0.93 PROPOSED PLAN 0.59 0.83 PLAN 0.62 0.86 PLAN 0.62 0.85 LEVEL OF SERVICE B E ICU LEVEL OF SERVICE A D LEVEL OF SERVICE B D LEVEL OF SERVICE B D AM PM FORECASTED PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC I.C.U. WILL BE LESS THAN OR NTERSECTION CITY IZATION X I I X I FFORECASTED PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC I.C.U. WILL ORECASTED PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC I.C.U. WITH BE GREATER THANL0.90L TO 0.90 * (MOVEMENTS: *APACRITICALLMOVEMENTIS THE SUM OF THE CRITICAL LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO 0.90 INTERSECTION 11 - NORTH/SOUTH ROAD: GOLDENWEST STREET 1 EASI/WEST ROAD: PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY ` sa INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS WITH MITIGATIONS CURRENT GENERAL PLAN PROPOSED LAND USE CONCEPT PLAN INDUSTRIAL ALTERNATIVE PLAN RESIDENTIAL ALTERNATIVE PLAN V/C V/C V/C V/C MOVE- VOLUME RATIO* VOLUME RATIO* VOLUME RATIO* VOLUME RATIO* MENT LANE CAP AM PM AM PM LANE CAP AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM ------- --------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------- --------------------------------- --------------------------------- NBL 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 0,00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 NBT 0 0 0 0 0.00 * 0.00 * 0 0 0 0.00 * 0.00 * 0 0 0.00 * 0.00 * 0 0 0.00 * 0.00 * NBR 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 SBL 2 3200 ,21 385 0.13 * 0.12 * 3200 383 344 0.12 * 0.11 * 373 340 0.12 * 0.11 * 368 335 0.12 * 0.10 * SBT 0 0 12 2 0.00 0.00 0 11 2 0.00 0.00 11 2 0.00 0.00 11 2 0.00 0.00 SBR 2 3200 890 444 0.04 * 0.02 3200 768 379 0.03 * 0.01 813 406 0.04 0.02 * 818 409 0.04 * 0.02 * EBL 2 3200 350 901 0.11 * 0.28 * 3200 297 779 0.09 * 0.24 * 318 823 0.10 * 0.26 * 321 827 0.10 0.26 * EBT 2 3200 1,124 1.824 0.35 0.57 3200 1;092 1,778 0.34 0.56 1,096 1,776 0.34 0.56 1102 1784 0.34 0.56 EBR 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 O 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 WBL 1 1600 13 29 0.01 0.02 I600 13 29 0.01 0.02 13 29 0.01 0.02 13 29 0.01 0.02 WBT 2 3200 1,825 1,259 0.57 0.39 * 3200 1,773 1,224 0.55 0.38 * 1.772 1,226 0.55 * 0.38 * 1780 1233 0.56 * 0.39 WBR 1 1600 Z75 387 0.00 0.00 1600 245 350 0.00 0.00 242 341 0.00 0.00 238 336 0.00 0.00 ----------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------- --------------------------------- --------------------------------- N/S Critical Movements 0.13 0.12 0.12 0.11 0.12 0.11 0.12 0.10 E/W Critical Movements 0.68 0.68 0.65 0.63 0.65 0.64 0.66 0.64 Right Turn C. M. 0.04 0.02 0.03 0.01 0.04 0.02 0.04 0.02 Clearance Interval 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 INDUSTRIAL RESIDENTIAL CURRENT GENERAL PLAN 0.95 0.91 PROPOSED PLAN 0.89 0.84 PLAN 0.90 0.86 PLAN 0.91 0.87 LEVEL 0I SERVICE E E ICU LEVEL OF SERVICE 0 D LEVEL OF SERVICE D D LEVEL OF SERVICE E D -AM PM - -- -- --- FORECASTED PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC I.C.U. WILL BE LESS THAN OR IZATION x I x + FFORECASTED PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC I.C.U. WILL BE GREATER ORECASTED PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC I.C.U. WITH MITIGATIONS TWILL 0.90 MOVEMENTS: TO 0.90 * (MOVEMENTS: CAPACITY CRITICALLMOVEMEENiIS THE SUM OF THE CRITICAL LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO 0.90 r rr rr r �■■ rr r r r r r r r rr rr rr rr rr� r r INTERSECTION 9 - NORTH/SOUTH ROAD: GDLDENWEST STREET EASI/WEST ROAD: YORKTOWN AVENUE Lsa INIERSECTI014 CAPACITY IJTILIIATIO14 ANALYSIS WITH MITIGATIONS CURRENT GENERAL. PLAN PROPOSED LAND USE CONCEPT PLAN INDUSTRIAL ALTERNATIVE PLAN RESIDENTIAL ALTERNATIVE PLAN V/C V/C V/C V/C MOVE- VOLUME RATIO* VOLUME RATIO* VOLUME RATIO* VOLUME RATIO* MENT LANE CAP AM PM AM PM LANE CAP AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM ------- --------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------- --------------------------------- --------------------------------- NBL 1 1600 0 0 0.00 0.00 1600 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 NBT 3 4800 932 1,147 0.30 * 0.37 * 4800 748 886 0.25 * 0.31 * 715 864 0.27 * 0.33 * 717 874 0.27 * 0.33 N13R 0 0 493 627 0.00 0.00 0 475 622 0.00 0.00 562 727 0.00 0.00 562 723 0.00 0.00 SBL 1 1600 298 404 0.19 * 0.25 * 1600 78 99 0.05 * 0.06 * 141 185 0.09 * 0.12 * 173 231 0.11 * 0.14 SBT 3 4800 1,007 1,232 0.21 0.26 4800 815 1,030 0.17 0.21 773 970 0.16 0.20 775 966 0.16 0.20 SBR 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 EBL 1 1600 0 0 0.00 0.00 1600 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 EBT 2 3200 0 0 0.00 * 0.00 * 3200 0 0 0.00 * 0.00 * 0 0 0.00 * 0.00 * 0 O 0.00 * 0.00 EBR 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 WBL 2 3200 530 605 0.17 * 0.19 * 3200 525 575 0.16 * 0.18 * 609 676 0.19 * 0.21 * 607 677 0.19 * 0.21 WBT 2 3200 0 0 0.10 0.08 3200 426 0 0.16 0.02 0 0 0.05 0.03 0 0 0.06 0.04 WBR 0 0 319 263 0.00 0.00 0 85 55 0.00 0.00 153 110 0.00 0.00 188 141 0.00 0.00 ----------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------- --------------------------------- --------------------------------- N/S Critical Movements 0.48 0.62 0.30 0.38 0.35 0.45 0.37 0.48 E/W Critical Movements 0.17 0.19 0.16 0.18 0.19 0.21 0.19 0.21 Right Turn C. M. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Clearance Interval 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 INUUSTRIAL RESIDENTIAL CURRENT GENERAL PLAN 0.74 0.91 PROPOSED PLAN 0.56 0.65 PLAN 0.64 0.75 PLAN 0.66 0.78 LEVEL OF SERVICE C E ICU LEVEL OF SERVICE A B LEVEL OF SERVICE B C LEVEL OF SERVICE B C FORECASTED PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC I.C.U. WILL BE LESS THAN OR EQUAL X I I x FFORECASTED PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC I.C.U. WILL ORECASTED PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC I.C.U. WITH BE GREATER THAN 0.90 TO 0.90 * INTERSECTION MOVEMENTS: *APACITY CRITICALLIZATION MOVEMENTIS THE SUM OF THE CRITICAL BE LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO 0.90 I HOLLY - SEACLIfF GPA AIR QUALITY ASSESSMENT CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Appendix H ' AIR OUALITY ASSESSMENT FOR THE HOLLY-SEACLIFF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT EIR 1 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ' Prepared By Paul Dunhoter,Prindpal Kely Vandever MESTREGREVEASSOCL47ES 280 Newport CenterDrive Suite 2W ' Newport Beach,CA 92660 (714)7W-M1 May 24, 1989 ' Rewr edJ"26, 1589 AIR QUALITY ASSESSMENT FOR THE HOLLY-SEACLIFF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT EIR CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 1.0 EXISTING AIR QUALITY 1.1 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 ' above 100 degrees F or below freezing. Daily and seasonal variations about the annual mean temperature of 62 degrees F are small. Winds in the project area are almost always driven by the dominant land/sea breeze circulation system. Regional wind 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 (less than 2 miles per hour) is less than 10 percent. Therefore, there is little stagnation in the ' project vicinity,especially 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 meteorological phenomena. Elevated 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. ' 1.2 Air Quality 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 MGA Page l 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 a strategies designed to improve the transportation system ' throughout the region. This package of measures explores the feasible limits for long range solutions to systemwide air quality concerns. Measures included in the AQMP can be divided into five broad categories; transportation control measures, mobile technological controls, energy conservation, land use, and stationary source controls. 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 of such factors as housing density, the relative ' location of land uses, and the way land uses relate to the transportation system. Improvements in the transportation system recommended 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 (i.e., shopping centers, stadiums, and ' facilities which attract a large number of vehicles). The District is also required to develop further programs and regulations that would increase ridesharing and limit heavy-duty truck traffic on freeways during rush hours. The new SCAQMD programs will be developed during ' 1988,with the implementation following later. 1.3 Monitored Air Quality 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 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 1. MGA page 2 ' TABLE 1 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 1986 0.17 24 1987 0.16 23 ' CO 9 ppm 9 ppm 1984 13 1 for 8 hour for 8 hour 1985 9 5 1986 15 3 ' 1987 8.4 0 NO2 .25 ppm 0.05 ppm 1984 .22 0 ' for 1 hour . annual average 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. 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. All areas of the South Coast Air Basin contribute to the ozone levels experienced at 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. Monitoring of particulate levels at the Costa Mesa station was discontinued in 1981. Levels of particulate monitored previous to 1981 indicated that the levels were low. 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 in 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 notably motor vehicles), and the highest concentrations experienced are directly adjacent to the source. The Costa Mesa station MGA Page 3 is located near Harbor Boulevard, and it is very likely that the carbon monoxide concentrations ' recorded at this station are highly influenced by the motor vehicle activity on this roadway. 1.4 Existing Odor Environment , The project site presently contains 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 "active" wells , are currently being produced, i.e., they are temporarily or permanently shut down but have not been abandoned. The 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. , Background on Odors Malodors are generally regarded as an annoyance rather than a hazard to health. Most ' complaints regarding environmental odors fall into this category, which has been defined as "an effect which may not be demonstrably pathogenic but which involves a negative factor for an individual's comfort and well-being." Not all odors should be considered as simply an ' annoyance. The reaction to foul odors can range from unease, discomfort, irritation, and anger to violent physiological manifestations, including circulatory and respiratory effects, nausea, vomiting, and headache. Psychophysical and other studies are needed to make it possible to ' predict, before a potential odor-emission source is constructed, the degree of odor control that will be needed at the source to avoid community displeasure., Odor assessment is a very complex problem for several reasons. First, the ability to detect odors varies considerably among the population. Some individuals have the ability to smell very minute quantities of substances. Unfortunately, the human nose is the only good odor sensing device known, and it is notoriously undependable. Moreover, different people may ' have different reactions to the same odor. What is offensive to one person may be perfectly acceptable to another. Not only is there marked disagreement as to the offensiveness of selected odors, but also two other problems hinder attempts at odor control. First, unfamiliar odor is ' more easily detected and is more likely to cause complaints than a familiar one. Second, because of a phenomenon known as odor fatigue, given sufficient time a person can become desensitized to almost any odor and be conscious of it only when a change in intensity occurs. Quality and intensity are two properties of any odor. The quality of an odor refers to the nature of the smell experience. For instance, if we describe an odor as flowery or sweet we are describing the quality of the odor. The intensity of the odor refers to the strength of that odor. , For instance, when an odor is described as strong,we are describing the intensity of the odor. Numerous efforts have been made to classify odors and to relate the chemical composition and molecular structure of the odorous substances to their odors. To date, no completely satisfactory relationship has been established. For example, it has been suggested that the odor quality should be classified according to the following system: i MCA page 4 ' ]I. Spicy (e.g., cloves) 2. Flowery (e.g., geranium) 3. Fruity (e.g., oil of orange) 4. Resinous (e.g., turpentine or eucalyptus oil) S. Burnt(e.g., tar) 6. Foul (e.g., sulfuretted hydrogen) ' Odor intensity is the strength of the perceived odor sensation and depends in a complex way on the odorant concentration, with which it should not be confused. When an odorous sample is progressively diluted, the concentration of odorants decreases, and the odor intensity weakens, but not in direct proportion to the extent of the dilution. With further dilution, the intensity eventually becomes so low that detection or recognition of the odor is very difficult. At some point of dilution the "detection threshold" is reached. Somewhat less dilution (i.e., somewhat ' higher odorant concentration) is needed to recognize the odor, this dilution is termed the "recognition threshold." ' The most common devices for ranking the perceived intensity of odors are category scales. A category scale consists of a series of numbers with a definition of their meaning. One of the most widely used is that developed by Katz and Talbert. The odor intensity scale developed is as follows: ' 0 -No odor 1 - Very faint odor ' 2 -Faint odor 3 -Easily noticeable odor 4 - Strong odor ' S - Very strong odor The generally accepted relationship between odor intensity and odorous contaminant concentration is given by the Weber-Fechner equation: (Odor intensity) =D +K log(Concentration) ' In this equation, the constant D is determined from experimentation and depends upon the units in which the odorant concentration is expressed. Values of K have been found to vary from 0.3 to 1.0. This equation is important since one can establish the relationship between diluting the odor containing gas and the resultant decrease in odor intensity. The logarithmic dependence shows that it is necessary for the concentration to increase by almost a factor of 100 to increase the odor intensity by one intensity level. A hundredfold reduction in emissions would be required to improve an odor from "easily noticeable" to "faint," and another hundredfold to make it "very faint." Reduction of odorous emissions by a factor of 2 or 3 would hardly be appreciated. It has been found that the concentration of a typical odorant would have to be changed by more than 50 percent before an observer could distinguish any difference in intensity. Thus the Weber-Fechner law gives us a measure of the size of the problem. When odors are concerned,major efforts are required for improvements. This same concept can be applied to the dilution which occurs as an odorous air mass travels downwind. As one travels downwind from an odor source the concentration of the odor decreases due to atmospheric mixing. However, it is apparent from the above discussion that MGA Page 5 substantial dilution must occur to decrease the perceived odor intensity category. Again a ' hundredfold dilution must occur for the odor intensity category to decrease one level. Odor Regulations In the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection ' Agency was directed to study "the effects on public health and welfare of odors or odorous emissions, the sources of such emissions, and the costs of such technology or measures, and the costs and benefits of alternative measures or strategies abate such emissions." However, ' due to the complexity of the problem, and an unclear link with public health, the federal government has not adopted any standards with regards to odors. The need for some type of regulation is evident. It is estimated that 50 percent or more of the complaints about air pollution deal with exposure to odors. In 1969,estimates of the total number of people affected ' by odors in the United States were made. Some of the conclusions were; *About 1 S million residents would voluntarily state that odors are a , disadvantage to living in their areas of their cities. *More than 5.5 million residents would state that odors are a , continuously serious problem. *About 3 million residents would state that odor pollution has reduced the value of their home property. ' Neither the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency or the California Air Resources Board have established ambient air quality criteria for odors. The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) has adopted a nuisance ordinance which provides some protection to the public from malodors.The SCAQMD Rule 402-Nuisance,reads as follows: A person shall not discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or which endanger the comfort, repose, health or safety of any such persons or the public, ' or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause injury or damage to business or property. The provisions of this rule shall not apply to odors emanating from agricultural ' operations necessary for the growing of crops or the raising of fowl or animals. This rule, according to officials at the SCAQMD, can be difficult to enforce, if challenged by ' the owner. Then the case must be tried in criminal court,requiring a substantial amount of time for prosecution and fees for lawyers. The ruling is often subject to the court's interpretation of ' nuisance and annoyance. However, the rule has been applied successfully to projects generating odors in the past. MGA Page 6 ' On-Site Odors Several odor producing sources presently exist on or adjacent to the project site , including over 300 oil wells, a Shell Gas Plant (located off-site, adjacent to the project), a Chevron Separation Plant, 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. The sump is 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 will 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 really ideal. The major sources of leaks in the system is the rod shaft seal and the storage tanks. Worn seals can allow vapors to escape. According to Mr. Wilkinson of the 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 rises and lowers with the oil level. 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 later. ' 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." 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. ' MGA Page 7 2.0 AIR QUALITY IMPACTS , 2.1 Short Term Impacts Temporary impacts will result from project construction activities. Air pollutants 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 SCAQMD 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, results in an estimate of a particulate generation of 5.05 tons per day. This is a 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. 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 2, 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 2 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 2 ' EMISSION RATES FOR GRADING SCRAPER (grams per hour) ' POLLUTANT EMISSION RATE Carbon monoxide 660 Nitrogen oxides 2820 ' Hydrocarbons 284 Sulfur oxides 210 Particulates 184 MGA Page 8 ' Odors will likely be generated during grading operations. Odorous compounds in the soil will be released during grading. The impact will be substantial during the first three or four days of grading.The impact will be short term. 2.2 Potential for Long P Term Impacts ' The main source of emissions generated by the project will be from motor vehicles. Other emissions will be generated from the combustion of natural gas for space heating and the generation of electricity. The following three tables (Tables 3, 4, and 5) present site-specific ' emissions due to the project. These emissions are summed in the third line of Table 6 where they are compared to cumulative emissions for both the County and Receptor Area 18. 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 Program. The traffic analysis for the project. forecasts the number of trips per day generated by the various land uses for each of the three alternatives. 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 each alternative. The VMT forecasted for each of the three project alternatives are included in Table 3. Emissions for the Current General Plan are presented in the "Total Emissions" section. An average vehicle speed of 25 miles per hour was assumed for the projections. The emissions are ' projected for the year 1992. The projected emissions are presented in Table 3. The emissions are calculated by multiplying the VMT for the project times the emission factor and appropriate conversion factors. (Calculation worksheet is provided as an appendix.) TABLE 3 VEHICULAR EMISSIONS (Tons Per Day) ' Vehicle -----------------------POLLUTANT-------------------------- Alternative Miles Traveled CO NOx sox Part. TOG ROG I ' 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 MGA Page 9 Stationary Sources ' 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 4 for each of the three alternatives. The square footages and emission factors utilized are provided in Appendix - Project Emissions. ' TABLE 4 EMISSIONS FROM THE COMBUSTION OF NATURAL GAS ' (Pounds Per Day) -----------------------POLLUTANT-------------------------- , Alternative CO NOx Sox Part. TOG ROG Proposed Project 16.0 66.9 0.0 0.12 4.2 4.2 , Industrial Alt. 17.4 73.4 0.0 0.13 4.6 4.6 Residential Alt. 16.2 65.6 0.0 0.12 4.3 4.3 , Off-site emissions will be generated due to electrical usage. The generation of electrical energy by the combustion of fossil fuels results in additional emissions off-site. Emissions generated ' by this means are presented in Table 5. Electrical usage rates and emission factors are documented in the Appendix,and are from the Air Quality Handbook. TABLE 5 EMISSIONS GENERATED BY ELECTRICAL USAGE (Pounds Per Day) , -----------------------POLLUTANT-------------------------- Alternative CO NOx Sox Part. TOG ROG , Proposed Project 20.0 115.0 12.0 4.0 1.0 1.0 Industrial Alt. 22.6 130.0 13.6 4.5 1.1 1.1 ' Residential Alt. 17.5 100.5 10.5 3.5 0.87 0.87 MGA Page 10 ' Total Emissions The additional emissions generated by the project are compared to emissions for Orange County in Table 6 for each of the three alternatives. The first two lines of Table 6 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 alternatives are separated by dashed lines. Within each alternative's section, the first line presents the total ' emissions for that alternative, with the following two lines showing the percentage of County emissions and receptor area emissions respectively. The increases in all pollutants for the three alternatives when compared to Orange County emissions will be less than 1.1 percent,with the ' highest increase of 1.01% occurring for the Industrial Alternative. When compared to the receptor area the increase is as great as 3.05% (Industrial Alternative). All three alternatives will result in an increase in receptor area emissions of greater than 2.5% for carbon monoxide and nitrous oxide. The increases for all alternatives are relatively the same, and should be ' considered significant increases when compared to local receptor area emissions. MGA Page 11 TABLE 6 ' 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% , Percent of Receptor Area 18 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1992 Industrial Alternative 6.57 1.11 0.19 0.23 0.58 0.52 Emissions(tons/day) ' Industrial Alternative as a 0.65% 0.64% 1.01% 0.20% 0.16% 0.23% Percent of County Emissions ' Proposed Project as a 3.05% 2.91% N/A N/A N/A 1.34% Percent of Receptor Area 18 , --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1992 Residential Alternative 6.40 1.06 0.19 0.22 0.56 0.50 Emissions(tons/day) Residential Alternative as a 0.63% 0.62% 0.97% 0.19% 0.16% 0.22% , Percent of County Emissions Proposed Project as a 2.97% 2.79% N/A N/A N/A 1.31% , Percent of Receptor Area 18 MGA Page 12 ' TABLE 7 DECREASE 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 - 19 2 10. 1.76 0. 0 0.36 0.91 0.82 C e 9 36 3 Emissions(tons per day) ------------------------------ Proposed Project 38.0% 38.9% 38.4% 38.1% 37.9% 37.9% Decrease in Emissions Industrial Alternative 36.5% 37.0% 36.8% 36.6% 36.5% 36.5% Decrease in Emissions Residential Alternative 38.2% 39.5% 38.9% 38.4% 38.2% 38.2% Decrease in Emissions The decreases in emissions presented in Table 7 show that any of the three project alternatives ' would result in future emissions at least 35% lower than the already adopted land use plan for the site. The AQMP is designed to accommodate growth in the basin consistent with the SCAG-82 Growth Forecasts. This growth forecast is based essentially on the general plans adopted the various municipalities at the time of the development of the forecast. The growth forecasts are not in sufficient detail that consistency of the proposed project with the SCAG-82 document ' can be determined directly. 2.3 Potential Odor Impacts Past experience in Huntington Beach,Torrance, and Costa Mesa indicates that when residential areas are located in or adjacent to oil production operations some complaints are voiced regarding odors. Odors associated with oil production activities can occasionally be significant. An odor has to experience a dilution of 100 times before the odor intensity will decrease 1 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. These measures are discussed in Section 3.0-Mitigation Measures. r MGA Page 13 3.0 MITIGATION MEASURES Construction Impacts 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 emission, grading should not occur when wind speeds exceed 20 mph. Regional Air Quality Support and compliance with the AQMP for the basin is the most important measure to achieve this goal. The AQMP includes improvement of mass transit facilities and implementation of vehicular usage reduction programs. Additionally, energy conservation measures are included. Specific measures which may be appropriate for the proposed project include: 1. Encourage the use of alternate transportation modes by promoting public transit usage and providing secure bicycle facilities. 2. Provide mass transit accommodations; such as bus turnout lanes, park and , ride areas, and bus shelters. 3. Provide energy conserving street lighting. 4. Provide traffic signal synchronization where feasible. Odor Control Several measures exist that will minimize the odor production potential of the on-site i operations.The measures can be separated into two categories; maintaining clean facilities,and vapor recovery systems. It takes only a small amount of material to generate odors. Therefore,it is important to maintain a very clean operation. 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. According to Mr. Bill Sheffield of Aminoil Inc. general clean up of the site can result in significant improvements in the level of odors. Mr. Bill Sheffield was contacted due to his extensive experience in vapor recovery operations for oil field production. Mr. Sheffield has been involved in odor control efforts for Aminoil in the Huntington Beach area. Several measures for controlling odorous gases in the pumping and storage system were discussed with Mr. Sheffield. The most important control measure, according to Mr. Sheffield, is a vapor recovery system for all the storage tanks on-site by the South Coast Air Quality Management District. A similar system could be employed for any ' remaining storage facilities on-site. Aminoil and others have successfully installed such 1KGA Page 14 r r systems. Mr. Sheffield indicates that if the rod seals are well maintained, and the oil field is a low gas producer then additional control measures may not be needed. If needed however, vapor recovery systems which pull the gas off the well casing can be employed, as well as vapor recovery systems for the oil transport trucks. 1 r r r r r r r r r MGA Page 15 ' APPENDIX AIR POLLUTANT EMISSION CALCULATIONS 1 ' MGA 16 '•"""' AIR EMISSIONS •"•'••"' Revision 1/12/88 (includes April 87 Handbook Update) Project: Holly-Seactifl GPA/EIR, Current General Plan Study Year: 1992 VEHICULAR EMISSIONS Vehicle Miles Traveled= 1,099,300 E.F.Source:EMFAC7C•25m h Contaminant 00 NOx sox Particulates TOG R7G Factor (gm/mi) 8.52 1.31 0.24 0.297 0.75 0.67 Emis. (Lb/Dy) 20648.36 3174.81 581.64 719.78 1817.64 1623.76 Emis. Tn/D 10.32 1.59 0.29 0.36 0.91 0.81 •"•'•••• ON SITE EMISSIONS DUE TO NATURAL GAS COMBUSTION Unit Type F13/DU/Mo. DU or Ft2 Gas Use Ft3/De Single Fam. 6665 878 191,865 Mutt. Fam. -c=4 4105 4,970 668,913 Mutt. Fam. :=5 3918 0 0 Ft3/Ft2/Mo. 860,778 Subtot Res. Office 2 244,000 16,000 Shopping Center 2.9 496,000 47,161 Hotel 4.8 0 0 Industrial 3.3 2,965,000 320,803 383,964 Subtot Comm. ' 1,244,742 Total Contaminant 00 NOx Sox Particulates TOG F03 Factor (lbs/10"6 f13) 20 80/120 0 0.15 5.3 5.3 Emis. (Lb/Dy) 24.89 114.94 0.00 0.19 6.60 6.60 Emis. n/D 0.01 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 '•'•""" OFF SITE EMISSIONS DUE ELECTRICAL GENERATION Unit Type KWH/Yr/DU No.DU or Ft2 Elect. Use KWWDa Residential 6081 4,885 81,385 KWH/Ft2/Yr. Office 8.8 244,000 5,883 Restaurant 47.3 0 0 Retail 11.8 496,000 16.035 Food Store 51.4 0 0 Warehouse 3.4 0 0 Elementary School 6.3 0 0 College 11.6 0 0 Hospital 17.9 0 0 ' Hotel/Motel 6.8 0 0 Miscellaneous 12.2 2,965,000 99,104 202.407 Total Contaminant CC) NOx Sox Particulates TOG ROG Factor (lbs/1000KWH) 0.2 1.15 0.12 0.04 0.01 0.01 Emis. (Lb/Dy) 40.48 232.77 24.29 8.10 2.02 2.02 Emis. n/D 0.02 0,12 0,01 0,00 0.00 0,00 ••'•"•"'• TOTAL EMISSIONS •'••""'• ' Contaminant 00 NOx Sox Particulates TOG ACG Emis. (Lb(Dy) 20713.74 3522.51 605.93 728.07 1826.26 1632.38 Emis. (Tn/Dy) 10.36 1.76 0.30 0.36 0.91 0.82 2000 Orange Co. (Tn/Dy) 1010 173 19 118 362 230 Percent Regional 1.025% 1.0111% 1.595% 0.309% 0.252% 0.355% 1987 Receptor 018 (Tn/Dy) 215.51 38.17 N/A N/A NIA 38.60 Percent Receptor Area 4.806% 4.614% N/A NIA NIA 2.114% Page 1 I •••...... AIR EMISSIONS ""••"•' Revision 1112/88 (includes April 87 Handbook Update) Project: Holly-Seacliff GPA/EIR, Proposed Project Study Year: 1992 "•""• VEHICULAR EMISSIONS Vehicle Miles Traveled= 682,210 E.F.Source: EMFAC7C-25m h Contaminant <b NOx Sox Particulates TOG RJG Factor (gm/mi) 8.52 1.31 0.24 0.297 0.75 0.67 Emis. (Lb/Dy) 12814.08 1970.24 360.96 446.69 1128.00 1007.68 Emis. Tn/D 6.41 0.99 0.18 0.22 0.56 0.50 "••'•' ON SITE EMISSIONS DUE TO NATURAL GAS COMBUSTION Unit Type Ft3/DU/Mo. DU or Ft2 Gas Use Ft3/De Single Fam. 6665 1,650 360,566 Mult. Fam. <=4 4105 2,000 269,180 Mult. Fam. >=5 3918 760 97,629 Fl3/Ft2/Mo. 727.375 Subtot Res. Office 2 1.041.000 68,262 Shopping Center 2.9 44,000 4,184 Hotel 4.8 0 0 Industrial 3.3 0 0 72,446 Subtot Comm. 799.821 Total ' Contaminant CD NOx sox Particulates TOG RJG Factor (Ibs/10"6 ft3) 20 80/120 0 0.15 5.3 5.3 Emis. (Lb/Dy) 16.00 66.88 0.00 0.12 4.24 4.24 Emis. n/D 0.01 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 "'•'•"'• OFF SITE EMISSIONS DUE ELECTRICAL GENERATION Unit Type KWH/Yr/DU No.DU or Ft2 Elect. Use KWWDa Residential 6081 4,410 73,472 KWH/Ft2/Yr. Office 8.8 1,041,000 25,098 Restaurant 47.3 0 0 Retail 11.8 44,000 1,422 Food Store 51.4 0 0 Warehouse 3.4 0 0 Elementary School 6.3 0 0 College 11.6 0 0 Hospital 17.9 0 0 Hotel/Motel 6.8 0 0 Miscellaneous 12.2 0 0 99,992 Total Contaminant Go NOx Sox Particulates TOG FCG Factor (Ibs/1000KWH) 0.2 1.15 0.12 0.04 0.01 0,01 Emis. (Lb/Dy) 20.00 114.99 12.00 4.00 1.00 1.00 Emis. Tn/D 0.01 0.06 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 •'•"•••••• TOTAL EMISSIONS ••'•'••••• Contaminant OD NOx Sox Particulates TCG RCG Emis. (Lb/Dy) 12853.08 2152.11 372.96 450.81 1133.24 1012.92 Emis. (Tn/Dy) 6.43 1.08 0.19 0.23 0.57 0.51 2000 Orange Co. (Tn/Dy) 1010 173 19 118 362 230 Percent Regional 0.636% 0.622% 0.981% 0.191% 0.157% 0.220% 1987 Receptor #18 (Tn/Dy) 215.51 38.17 N/A N/A NIA 38.60 Percent Receptor Area 2.981% 2.819% NIA NIA N/A 1.312% Page 1 , AIR EMISSIONS ""'•"" Revision 1/12/88 (includes April 87 Handbook Update) Project: Holly-Seacliff GPA/EIR, Industrial Alternative ' Study Year: 1992 """•' VEHICULAR EMISSIONS Vehicle Miles Traveled= 697.700 E.F.Source: EMFAC7C-25m h Contaminant OD NOx sox Particulates TCG F03 Factor (gm/mi) 8.52 1.31 0.24 0.297 0.75 0.67 Emis. (Lb/Dy) 13105.03 2014.98 369.16 456.83 1153.61 1030.56 Emis. n/D 6.55 1.01 0.18 0.23 0.58 0.52 """•" ON SITE EMISSIONS DUE TO NATURAL GAS COMBUSTION Unit Type Ft3/DU/Mo. DU or Ft2 Gas Use Ft3/Da Single Fam. 6665 1,595 348,547 1 Mult. Fam. <=4 4105 1,730 232.841 Mult. Fam. >=5 3918 1,520 195.258 Ft3/Ft2/Mo. 776,645 Subtot. Res. Office 2 768.000 50,361 Shopping Center 2.9 76,000 7,226 Hotel 4.8 0 0 Industrial 3.3 339,000 36,679 94,266 Subtot Comm. 870,911 Total Contaminant CC) NOx sox Particulates TOG R7G Factor (Ibs/10^6 f13) 20 80/120 0 0.15 5.3 5.3 Emis. (Lb/Dy) 17.42 73.44 0.00 0.13 4.62 4.62 Emis. Tn/D ) 0.01 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 "'•'•" OFF SITE EMISSIONS DUE ELECTRICAL GENERATION Unit Type KWH/Yr/DU No. DU or Ft2 Elect. Use KWH/Da Residential 6081 4,845 80,719 KWH/Ft2/Yr. Office 8.8 763.000 18.516 Restaurant 47.3 0 0 Retail 11.8 76,000 2,457 Food Store 51.4 0 0 Warehouse 3.4 0 0 Elementary School 6.3 0 0 College 11.6 0 0 Hospital 17.9 0 0 Hotel/Motel 6.8 0 0 Miscellaneous 12.2 339,000 11,331 113,023 Total Contaminant OD NOx sox Particulates TOG F1 G Factor (lbs/1000KWH) 0.2 1.15 0.12 0.04 0.01 0.01 Emis. (Lb/Dy) 22.60 129.98 13.56 4.52 1.13 1.13 Emis. Tn/D 0.01 0.06 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 •'•"""" TOTAL EMISSIONS •"'•"'•• Contaminant OD NOx Sox Particulates TOG FOG Emis. (Lb/Dy) 13145.06 2218.40 382.72 461.48 1159.36 1036.31 Emis. (Tn/Dy) 6.57 1.11 0.19 0.23 0.58 0.52 2000 Orange Co. (Tn/Dy) 1010 173 19 118 362 230 Percent Regional 0.651% 0.641% 1.007% 0.196% 0.160% 0.225% ' 1987 Receptor #18 (Tn/Dy) 215.51 38.17 NIA N/A N/A 38.60 Percent Receptor Area 3.050% 2.906% NIA NIA N/A 1.342% Page 1 " AIR EMISSIONS "•....... Revision 1/12/88 (includas April 87 Handbook Update) Project: Holly-Soaclifi C,PA/EIR, Residential Allernative Study Year: 1992 •""•"• VEHICULAR EMISSIONS Vehicle Miles Traveled= 679,960 E.F.Source: EMFAC7C-25m h , Contaminant 01) NOx sox Particulates 703 R,CG Factor (gm/mi) 8.52 1.31 0.24 0.297 0.75 0.67 Emis. (Lb/Dy) 12771.82 1963.74 359.77 445.21 1124.28 1004.36 Emis. Tn/D 6.39 0.98 0.18 0.22 0.56 0.50 "...... ON SITE EMISSIONS DUE TO NATURAL GAS COMBUSTION Unit Type Ft3/DU/Mo. DU or Ft2 Gas Use Ft3/Da Single Fam. 6665 1.650 360,566 Mull. Fam. <-4 4105 2,735 368,104 Mult. Fam. >.5 3918 500 64,230 Ft3/Ft2/Mo. 792,899 SubtoL Res. Office 2 0 0 Shopping Center 2.9 186,000 17,685 Hotel 4.8 0 0 Industrial 3.3 0 0 17.685 SubtoL Comm. 810.584 Total Contaminant OD NOx Sox Particulates 7CG RGG Factor (lbs/10"6 ft3) 20 80/120 0 0.15 5.3 5.3 Emis. (Lb/Dy) 16.21 65.55 0.00 0.12 4.30 4.30 Emis. n/D 0.01 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ......•... OFF SITE EMISSIONS DUE ELECTRICAL GENERATION Unit Type KWH/Yr/DU No.DU or Ft2 Elect. Use KWWDe Residential 6081 4,885 81.385 KWH/Ft2/Yr. Office 8.8 0 0 Restaurant 47.3 0 0 Retail 11.8 186,000 6,013 Food Store 51.4 0 0 Warehouse 3.4 0 0 , Elementary School 6.3 0 0 College 11.6 0 0 Hospital 17.9 0 0 Hotel/Motel 6.8 0 0 Miscellaneous 12.2 0 0 87,399 Total Contaminant 00 NOx sox Particulates T03 FOS Factor (lbs/100aKWH) 0.2 1.15 0.12 0.04 0.01 0.01 Emis. (Lb/Dy) 17.48 100.51 10.49 3.50 0.87 0.87 Emis. Tn/D 0.01 0.05 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 "' TOTAL EMISSIONS """"" Contaminant CD NOx Sox Particulates TOG FM Emis. (Lb/Dy) 12805.51 2129.80 370.26 448.83 1129.45 1009.53 Emis. (Tn/Dy) 6.40 1.06 0.19 0.22 0.56 0.50 2000 Orange Co. (Tn/Dy) 1010 173 19 118 362 230 Percent Regional 0.634% 0.616% 0.974% 0.190% 0.1 56% 0.219% 1987 Receptor #18 (Tn/Dy) 215.51 38.17 N/A N/A N/A 38.60 Percent Receptor Area 2.971% 2.790% N/A N/A N/A 1.308% Page 1 1 i a aw s HOLLY - SEACLIFF GPA NOISE ASSESSMENT CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Appendix 1 ' NOISE ASSESSMENT FOR THE HOLLY-SEACLIFF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT EIR CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ' INTRODUCTION The following report presents the results of an assessment of noise impacts associated with the Holly-Seacliff project in the City of Huntington Beach. There are three alternatives for the project site: (1) the Proposed Project; (2) the Industrial Alternative; and (3) the Residential Alternative. The alternatives are compared to the existing noise environment as well as the existing General Plan. 1 Both on and off-site impacts associated with traffic noise and oil operations are assessed, and the necessary mitigation measures presented. 1.0 EXISTING NOISE ENVIRONMENT The noise environment in the vicinity of the project area is determined primarily by traffic on nearby roadways and existing oil production operations. Oil well drilling and pumping operations and repair/maintenance of the wells on the project site are the significant noise sources associated with the oil production. 1.1 Community Noise Scales Community noise levels are measured in terms of the "A-weighted decibel," abbreviated dBA. A- weighting is a frequency correction that correlates overall sound pressure levels with the frequency response of the human ear. Exhibit 1 provides examples of various noises and their typical A- weighted noise level. The "equivalent noise level," or Leq is the average noise level on an energy basis for any specified time period. The Leq for one hour is the energy average noise level during the hour, specifically, the average noise based on the energy content (acoustic energy) of the sound. It can be thought of as the level of a continuous noise which has the same energy content as the fluctuating noise level.The equivalent noise level has the units of dBA. Another method of characterizing ambient noise levels is the "percent noise level" or L(n). The percent noise level describes the noise level which is exceeded during a certain percentage of the measurement period. For example, L50 is the noise level exceeded 50 percent of the time. 1 Several rating scales have been developed for measurement of community noise. These account for: (1) the parameters of noise that have been shown to contribute to the effects of noise on man, (2) the variety of noises found in the environment, (3) the variations in noise levels that occur as a person moves through the environment, and (4) the variations associated with the time of day. The predominant rating scale now in use in California for land use compatibility assessment is the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL). The CNEL scale represents a time weighted 24 hour average noise level based on the A-weighted decibel. Time weighted refers to the fact that noise that occurs during certain sensitive time periods is penalized for occurring at these times. The evening time period (7 p.m. to 10 p.m.) penalizes noises by 5 dBA, while nighttime (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.) noises are penalized by 10 dBA. These time periods and penalties were selected to reflect people's increased sensitivity to noise during these time periods. Typical noise levels in terms of the CNEL scale for different types of communities are presented in Exhibit 2. MGA Page l SOUND LEVELS AND LOUDNESS OF ILLUSTRATIVE NOISES IN INDOOR AND OUTDOOR ENVIRONMENTS (A-Beak Weighted Sound Levels)OVER-ALL LEVEL LOUDNESS Sound Pressure ;COMMUNITY Human Judgemesa dB(A) Level HOME OR INDUSTRY Approx.0.0002 (Outdoor) ofDWerea4Sound Microbar Levels Military Jet Aircraft Take-Off With After-burner Oxygen Torch(121) 120 dB(A)32 Times as Loud 130 UNCOMFORTABLY From Aircraft Carrier @ 50 PL(130) 120 LOUD Turbo-Fan Aircraft @ Take Off Power Riveling Machine(I 10) 110 @ 200 Ft. (90) Rock-N-Roll Band(108-114) 110 dB(A)16 Times as Loud ' Jet Flyover @ 1000 FL(103) Boeing 707. DC-9 @ 6080 Ft. 100 dB(A)8 Times as Laud 100 Before Landing(106) VERY Bell J-2A Helicopter @ 100 Ft.(100) ' LOUD Power Mower(96) 90 Boeing 737,DC-9 @ 6080 Ft Newspaper ( Press 9 Before Landin¢ (971 � 90 dB(A)4 Times as Loud Motorcycle @25 FL(90) Car Wash @ 20 Ft(89) Food Blender (88) Prop. Airplane Flyover @ 1000 FL(88) 80 Diese]Truck, 40 MPH @ 50 JL(84) Milling Machine(85) 80 dB(A)2 Times asLoud Diesel Train,45 MPH @ 100 FL (83) Garbage Disposal(80) High Urban Ambient Sound(80) MODERATELY Passenger Car,65 MPH @ 25 FL(77) Living Roam Music(76) 70 70 LOUD Freeway @ 50 Ft.From Pavement TV-Audio,Vacuum Cleaner dB(A) Edge,10:00 AM(76+or- 6) Cash Register @ 10 Ft(65-70) Air Conditioning Unit @ 100 Ft. 60 Electric Typewriter @ 10 Pt.(64) 8 ( ) 60 dB(A)12 as Loud 60 Dishwasher(Rinse)@ lO Ft.(60) Conversation(60) 50 QUIET Large Transformers @ 100 FZ.(50) 50 dB(A)1/4 as Loud 40 Bird Calls(44) Lower Limit Urban Ambient Sound(40) 40 dB(A)1/8 as Loud ' JUST AUDIBLE (dB[A]Scale Interrupted) 1 THRESHOLD 1O OF HEARING SOURCE:Reproduced from Melville C.Branch and R.Dale Beland,Outdoor Nose in the MetrcpWitan Environment- Published by the City of Los Angeles,1970,p.2 Exhibit 1 MESTRE GREVE ASSOCIATES Examples of Typical "A" Weighted Noise Levels CNEL Outdoor Location —90- Apartment Next to Freeway 3/4 Mile From Touchdown at Major Airport j _80- Downtown With Some Construction Activity Urban High Density Apartment -70- �'—Urban Row Housing on Major Avenue r —60 —Old Urban Residential Area —50 �— Wooded Residential fAgricultural Crop Land —40- f Rural Residential 1 Wilderness Ambient 1 —30— ' Exhibit 2 IMESTREGREVEASSOCIATES Typical Outdoor CNEL Noise Levels 1.2 Noise Standards The Noise 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 proposed project also specifies the development of commercial and industrial uses. Commercial and industrial land uses are not as sensitive to noise as residential land 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 1 industrial uses, 55 CNEL seems to be a common guideline. The oil production operations are relatively insensitive to noise, and therefore, there are no 1 standards regulating the noise impacting the oil production 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 1 presents the outdoor and indoor noise ordinance standards. TABLE 1 HUNTINGTON BEACH NOISE ORDINANCE STANDARDS NOISE LEVEL NOT MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE TO BE EXCEEDED DURATION OF EXCEEDANCE j ------ 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 MGA Page 2 1 r 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. 1.3 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 ("FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model," FHWA-RD-77-108, December, 1978). The FHWA Model uses traffic volume, vehicle mix, vehicle speed, and roadway geometry to compute the "equivalent noise level." A computer code has been written which computes equivalent noise levels for each of the time periods used in the calculation of CNEL. Weighting these noise levels and summing them results in the CNEL for the traffic projections used. Contours are found by iterating over many distances until the distances to the 60, 65, and 70 CNEL contours are found. For the roadway analysis, worst-case assumptions about future motor vehicle traffic and noise levels have been made and were incorporated in the modeling effort, specifically, no reductions in motor vehicle noise were assumed in spite of legislation requiring quieter vehicles at the time of manufacture. 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 the EIR and are presented in the Appendix. The time and traffic distributions utilized are also presented in the Appendix. These data were complied 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. 1 The distances to the CNEL contours for the roadways in the vicinity of the projxt are given in Table 2 on the next page. These represent the distance from the centerline of the road to the contour value shown. Note that the values given in Table 2 do not take into account the effect of any noise barriers or topography that may affect ambient noise levels. rThe unmitigated noise levels along the roadways servicing the site and the surrounding residential areas range from 65 to 75 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 to below 65 CNEL. r i MGA Page 3 1 r TABLE 2 DISTANCE TO CNEL NOISE CONTOURS FOR EXISTING CONDITIONS r ROADWAY NAME CNEL @ DISTANCE TO CONTOUR 100 ft. 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL , SLATER AVENUE Edwards to Golden West 64.1 40 87 188 , Golden West to Gothard 64.2 41 88 190 Gothard to Beach 64.4 42 91 196 East of Beach 65.0 46 99 214 TALBERT AVENUE Golden West of Gothard 59.6 20 44 95 Gothard to Beach 62.3 31 66 142 East of Beach 64.4 42 91 196 ELLIS AVENUE Edwards to Golden West 60.9 25 53 114 Golden West to Gothard 59.6 20 44 95 Gothard to Beach 59.6 20 44 95 East of Beach 64.6 44 94 203 GARFIELD AVENUE Edwards to Golden West 64.2 41 88 190 Golden West to Gothard 65.6 51 110 237 Gothard to Main 65.6 51 110 237 Main to Beach 65.6 51 110 237 East of Beach 66.3 57 122 263 YORKTOWN AVENUE ' Golden West of Main 62.9 34 73 156 Main to Beach 62.9 34 73 156 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY West of Seapointe 69.7 96 207 446 Seapointe to Golden West 70.1 102 219 473 Golden West of Main 69.5 93 201 433 EDWARDS STREET Garfield to Ellis 61.0 25 54 116 , Ellis to Talbert 61.2 26 55 119 Talbert to Slater 61.2 26 55 119 North of Slater 64.1 40 87 188 GOLDEN WEST STREET r PCH to Yorktown 66.0 54 116 251 Yorktown to Garfield 67.1 64 138 297 , Garfield to Ellis 68.6 80 173 373 Ellis to Talbert 67.5 68 147 317 Talbert to Slater 68.6 81 175 377 North of Slater 69.1 87 188 404 GOTHARD STREET Ellis to Talbert 64.0 40 86 185 Talbert to Slater 64.0 40 86 185 North of Slater 64.4 42 91 196 ' MAIN STREET Garfield to Ellis 64.5 43 93 200 BEACH BOULEVARD PCH to Yorktown 67.5 68 147 317 , Yorktown to Garfield 70.0 99 214 462 Garfield to Ellis 70.0 99 214 462 Ellis to Talbert 71.1 118 255 549 Talbert to Slater 71.3 122 264 568 North of Slater 71.1 118 255 549 1 1.4 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 various storage facilities throughout the site. Off-site 1 oil related operations include the Shell Gas Plant #11, located adjacent to the project 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. A discussion of the measurement survey and the measurement results are presented in the following paragraphs. The measurements were made with a Bruel &Kjaer Type 4427 Noise Level Analyzer of the oil well pumping operations. The system was calibrated before and after each measurement series. ' Measurements were made at three locations. 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. (Not all of the wells on the Holly-Seacliff project site are electric, some are diesel.) The measurement results are presented in Table 5 in terms of the equivalent noise levels (Leq), peak noise levels (Lmax), background (ambient) noise levels (L90), and noise levels exceeded for a percentage of time. In particular,noise ' levels which were exceeded 1 minute/hour (1,1.7), 5 minutes/hour (1,8.3), 15 minutes/hour (1,25), and 30 minutes/hour(1,50)were measured. These time periods correspond with 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 3 NOISE MEASUREMENT RESULTS Distance ' From Well Leq Lmax L 1.7 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 and 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. Observations of on-site noise levels associated with oil operations indicated that a high percentage of the operations are masked by traffic on the nearby roadways. MGA Page 5 1.5 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 85-1" (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 3. The helicopters arrive and depart into the wind. They generally arrive from the north and depart to the south. Most operations are during the daytime,although they can occur during any time of the day or night 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. 1.6 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. MGA Page 6 1 — �,....:... memo ram' ,o.... .« m .. —40► - Alm, 41 _ .y/ r maw i Low a Ms Ll j PROJECT �- SITEdes —. cg � I Exhibit 3 MESTRE GREVE ASSOCIATES CNEL Noise Contours for Police Heliport ' 2.0 POTENTIAL NOISE IMPACTS The potential noise impacts may be segregated 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. 2.1 Im n Adjacent Land e Impacts o d�ac a d 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 any 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, residential land uses are located along Clay Avenue, Garfield Avenue, Huntington Street, Ellis Avenue and Goldenwest. 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. ' 2.1.1 Construction Noise. 1 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(Part 204 of Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations). ' 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 4 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. Threfore, 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 at 75 dBA. 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. 2.1.2 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. The analysis is aimed at identifying the impacts attributable to the project. The traffic data used for the analysis was obtained from the traffic report prepared for the EIR. Traffic and speed data for all scenarios are provided in the Appendix. ' The existing traffic, existing General Plan, and the three alternatives were modeled for several MGA Page 7 ' 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 1 Source: "Handbook of Noise Control," by Cyril Harris, 1979. Exhibit 4 METMGREV EASSOCIATES Construction Equipment Noise roadways in the project vicinity (the same roadways that were modeled in Section 1). The results were used to project the increase in noise levels over existing levels for the General Plan and three alternatives. The results are presented in Table 4. The first column presents the existing CNEL at 100 feet from the roadway centerline. The next four columns present the increase (in A-weighted decibels)for the specified alternatives. ' In community noise assessment changes in noise levels greater than 3 dBA are often identified as significant, while changes less than 1 dBA will not be discernible to local receptors. In the range of 1 to 3 dBA receptors who are very sensitive to noise may perceive a slight change. No scientific ' evidence is available to support the use of 3 dBA as the significance threshold. In laboratory testing situations humans are able to detect noise level changes of slightly less than 1 dBA. However, in a community noise situation the noise exposure is over a long time period, and changes in noise levels occur over years, rather than the immediate comparison made in a laboratory situation. Therefore, the level at which changes in community noise levels become discernible is likely to be some value greater than 1 dBA, and 3 dBA appears to be appropriate for most people. ' The projections presented in Table 4 indicate that the increases in noise generated in future years with the current General Plan would be higher than those increases associated with the three alternatives. With the current General Plan, increases in excess of 3 dBA occur along Garfield ' Avenue, Ellis Avenue and Edwards Street. Garfield Avenue (between Edwards and Goldenwest) would experience an increase in noise of 4.8 dBA with the existing General Plan,and an increase of less than 3.5 dBA for the three alternatives. Choosing any one of the three project alternatives would result in less noise impacts than the current General Plan. To further illustrate the project ' related noise impacts, the three alternatives were compared to the existing General Plan to determine the change in noise levels. Table 5 presents the future CNEL at 100 feet with the current General Plan, and the change in future noise levels due to each alternative. ' The results in Table 5 indicate that the noise levels in future years would decrease by an average of about 0.5 dBA with any of the three alternatives when compared to the current General Plan. The only increase in noise levels over the current General Plan would occur along Main Street between ' Pacific Coast Highway and Yorktown. The noise level increase along this roadway would be less than 0.5 dBA for all alternatives and should be considered insignificant. Overall, the differences in future noise levels between the three alternatives is minimal. In summary, the proposed project results in a significant increase over existing levels. However, the increase in noise for any of the alternatives is less than the increase from the current General Plan. MGA Page 8 TABLE 4 CHANGE IN CNEL NOISE LEVEL FUTURE SCENARIOS VERSUS EXISTING CONDITIONS Increase over Existing CNEL Noise Levels with ROADWAY NAME Existing Current Proposed Industrial Residential CNEL @ 100' General Plan Project Alternative Alternative SLATER AVENUE Edwards to Golden West 64.1 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 Golden West to Gothard 64.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 Gothard to Beach 64.4 1.0 0.8 0.8 0.8 East of Beach 65.0 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.6 TALBERT AVENUE Golden West of Gothard 59.6 2.6 0.4 0.8 0.8 Gothard to Beach 62.3 1.2 0.0 0.4 0.3 East of Beach 64.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 ELLIS AVENUE Edwards to Golden West 60.9 4.2 2.2 2.3 2.2 Golden West to Gothard 59.6 2.5 0.2 0.5 0.2 Gothard to Beach 59.6 2.7 0.4 0.5 0.0 East of Beach 64.6 2.8 1.7 1.1 0.9 GARFIELD AVENUE Edwards to Golden West 64.2 4.8 3.3 3.4 3.3 Golden West to Gothard 65.6 3.9 3.6 3.5 3.6 Gothard to Main 65.6 4.0 3.4 3.3 3.4 Main to Beach 65.6 3.4 3.3 3.3 3.2 East of Beach 66.3 2.4 1.3 1.3 1.0 YORKTOWN AVENUE Golden West of Main 62.9 1.4 -0.4 0.6 0.8 ' Main to Beach 62.9 1.3 0.7 0.9 1.0 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY West of Seapointe 69.7 1.8 1.4 1.5 1.5 Seapointe to Golden West 70.1 1.4 1.2 1.2 1.3 1 Golden West of Main 69.5 1.0 0.8 0.8 0.8 EDWARD S STREET Garfield to Ellis 61.0 3.4 1.4 1.8 1.7 Ellis to Talbert 61.2 3.3 1.3 1.7 1.5 Talbert to Slater 61.2 3.4 1.3 1.6 1.5 North of Slater 64.1 0.4 -1.7 -1.4 -1.6 GOLDEN WEST STREET PCH to Yorktown 66.0 2.8 2.2 2.3 2.3 Yorktown to Garfield 67.1 1.5 0.1 0.1 0.2 Garfield to Ellis 68.6 0.9 0.6 0.4 0.5 Ellis to Talbert 67.5 1.3 0.9 0.8 0.7 Talbert to Slater 68.6 0.6 0.3 0.1 0.1 North of Slater 69.1 1.3 1.0 0.9 0.9 ' GOTHARD STREET Ellis to Talbert 64.0 1.8 -0.1 0.2 0.0 Talbert to Slater 64.0 2.1 1.2 1.4 1.3 North of Slater 64.4 1.6 0.8 1.0 0.9 MAIN STREET Garfield to Ellis 64.5 2.1 1.1 0.8 1.0 BEACH BOULEVARD PCH to Yorktown 67.5 1.5 1.2 1.3 1.3 Yorktown to Garfield 70.0 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.7 Garfield to Ellis 70.0 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 Ellis to Talbert 71.1 1.0 0.7 0.6 0.6 Talbert to Slater 71.3 1.1 0.7 0.7 0.7 ' North of Slater 71.1 1.5 1.0 1.1 1.0 TABLE 5 ' CHANGE IN CNEL NOISE LEVEL FUTURE ALTERNATIVES VERSUS CURRENT GENERAL PLAN Increase / Deer**&* In CNEL Nola* Level ROADWAY NAME Current Over Current General Plan , General Plan Proposed Industrial Residential CNEL 0 100- Project Alternative Alternative SLATER AVENUE ' Edwards to Golden West 64.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 Golden West to Gothard 64.5 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 Gothard to Beach 65.3 -0.2 -0.2 -0.2 East of Beach 65.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 ' TALBERT AVENUE Edwards to Golden West 63.7 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 Golden West of Gothard 62.2 -2.2 -1.8 -1.8 Gothard to Beach 63.5 -1.2 -0.8 -0.9 East of Beach 64.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 ELLIS AVENUE Edwards to Golden West 65.0 -1.9 -1.8 -2.0 Golden West to Gothard 62.1 -2.2 -2.0 -2.3 Gothard to Beach 62.3 -2.3 -2.1 -2.7 ' East of Beach 67.4 -1.1 -1.7 -1.8 GARFIELD AVENUE Springdale to Seapointe 65.5 -0.1 -0.2 -0.4 Seapointe to Edwards 66.1 -0.6 -0.7 -0.7 , Edwards to Golden West 69.0 -1.5 -1.4 -1.6 Golden West to Gothard 69.6 -0.4 -0.4 -0.3 Gothard to Main 69.6 -0.6 -0.7 -0.6 Main to Beach 69.0 -0.1 -0.1 -0.2 East of Beach 68.7 -1.2 -1.2 -1.4 YORKfOWN AVENUE Golden West of Main 64.3 -1.8 -0.7 -0.5 Main to Beach 64.2 -0.6 -0.3 -0.2 East of Beach 63.5 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 ' PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY West of Seapointe 71.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.3 Seapointe to Golden West 71.5 -0.3 -0.2 -0.2 Golden West of Main 70.6 -0.2 -0.2 -0.2 SEAPOINTE STREET PCH to Garfield 64.7 -0.5 -0.5 -0.4 EDWARDS STREET Garfield to Ellis 64.4 -2.0 -1.6 -1.7 Ellis to Talbert 64.5 -2.0 -1.7 -1.8 Talbert to Slater 64.6 -2.1 -1.8 -1.9 North of Slater 64.5 -2.1 -1.8 -2.0 GOLDEN WEST STREET PCH to Yorktown 68.8 -0.6 -0.5 -0.5 Yorktown to Garfield 68.6 -1.5 -1.5 -1.3 Garfield to Ellis 69.5 -0.4 -0.5 -0.5 Ellis to Talbert 68.8 -0.4 -0.5 -0.6 Talbert to Slater 69.3 -0.3 -0.5 -0.6 , North of Slater 70.4 -0.2 -0.4 -0.4 GOTHARD STREET Garfield to Ellis 65.0 -0.6 -0.4 -0.6 Ellis to Talbert 65.9 -1.9 -1.6 -1.8 Talbert to Slater 66.1 -0.9 -0.7 -0.8 , North of Slater 66.0 -0.8 -0.7 -0.7 MAIN STREET PCH to Yorktown 64.5 0.1 0.2 0.1 Garfield to Ellis 66.6 -0.9 -1.2 -1.1 ' BEACH BOULEVARD PCH to Yorktown 69.0 -0.3 -0.2 -0.2 Yorktown to Garfield 70.8 -0.1 0.0 -0.1 Garfield to Ellis 70.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 ' Ellis to Talbert 72.1 -0.3 -0.3 -0.4 Talbert to Slater 72.4 -0.4 -0.4 -0.5 North of Slater 72.6 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 2.2 Potential On-Site Traffic Noise Impacts 1 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 Environment" 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 Tables 6, 7 and 8 for the Proposed Project, Industrial Alternative, and Residential Alternative respectively. They represent ' 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 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 Tables 6, 7 and 8 indicate that the worst case noise exposure for all three alternatives 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 in Tables 6, 7 and 8 except Ellis Avenue would be exposed to exterior noise levels in excess of 65 CNEL (assuming a worst case building setback of 50 feet from roadway centerline). The future noise levels for the proposed residential land uses are as high as 74 CNEL for all three alternatives (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 ' outdoorrndoor 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. Industrial uses planned for the three project alternatives would need less than 20 dBA of outdoor to indoor noise reduction,and most likely would not need additional mitigation measures. 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, land uses planned as part of all three alternatives 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. ' MG A Page 11 g TABLE 6 , DISTANCE TO CNEL NOISE CONTOURS FOR"PROPOSED PROJECTT"ALTERNATE ROADWAY NAME CNEL @ DISTANCE TO CONTOUR 100 ft. 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL ELLIS AVENUE ' Edwards to Golden West 63.1 35 75 161 Golden West 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 Golden West 67.5 68 147 317 ' Golden West to Gothard 69.2 89 191 411 Gothard to Main 69.0 86 185 399 Main to Beach 68.9 85 183 394 YORKTOWN AVENUE Golden West of Main 62.5 32 68 147 Main to Beach 63.6 37 80 173 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 GOLDEN WEST 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 91 196 Ellis to Talbert 63.9 39 85 183 MAIN STREET Yorktown to Garfield 66.7 60 129 278 Garfield to Ellis 65.6 51 111 238 I. TABLE 7 DISTANCE TO CNEL NOISE CONTOURS FOR INDUSTRIAL ALTERNATIVE ' ROADWAY NAME CNEL @ DISTANCE TO CONTOUR 100 ft. 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL ' ELLIS AVENUE Edwards to Golden West 63.2 35 76 163 Golden West to Gothard 60.1 22 47 102 Gothard to Beach 60.2 22 48 103 GARFIELD AVENUE Springdale to Seapointe 65.3 49 105 226 Seapointe to Edwards 65.4 49 107 230 Edwards to Golden West 67.6 69 149 321 Golden West to Gothard 69.2 88 190 408 ' Gothard to Main 69.0 85 184 397 Main to Beach 68.9 85 183 394 YORKTOWN AVENUE Golden West of Main 63.5 37 80 173 ' Main to Beach 63.8 39 84 180 SEAPOINTE STREET PCH to Garfield 64.2 41 88 191 EDWARDS STREET Garfield to Ellis 62.7 33 71 152 Ellis to Talbert 62.8 33 72 154 GOLDEN WEST STREET Yorktown to Garfield 67.1 65 139 300 ' Garfield to Ellis 69.0 86 185 399 Ellis to Talbert 68.3 77 166 357 GOTHARD STREET Garfield to Ellis 64.6 44 94 203 ' Ellis to Talbert 64.2 41 89 192 MAIN STREET Yorktown to Garfield 65.1 47 101 217 Garfield to Ellis 65.3 49 105 227 TABLE 8 ' DISTANCE TO CNEL NOISE CONTOURS FOR"RESIDENTIAL"ALTERNATIVE ROADWAY NAME CNEL @ DISTANCE TO CONTOUR , 100 it. 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL ELLIS AVENUE , Edwards to Golden West 63.0 34 74 160 Golden West to Gothard 59.8 21 45 97 Gothard to Beach 59.6 20 44 95 GARFIELD AVENUE Springdale to Seapointe 65.1 47 102 220 Seapointe to Edwards 65.4 49 107 230 Edwards to Golden West 67.4 67 145 313 ' Golden West to Gothard 69.2 89 192 414 Gothard to Main 69.0 86 186 400 Main to Beach 68.8 84 180 389 ' YORKTOWN AVENUE Golden West of Main 63.7 38 82 178 Main to Beach 64.0 40 85 184 SEAPOINTE STREET PCH to Garfield 64.3 42 90 193 ' EDWARDS STREET Garfield to Ellis 62.7 32 70 150 Ellis to Talbert 62.7 32 70 150 GOLDEN WEST STREET Yorktown to Garfield 67.3 66 143 308 Garfield to Ellis 69.1 87 186 402 Ellis to Talbert 68.2 76 164 354 GOTHARD STREET Garfield to Ellis 64.3 42 90 195 Ellis to Talbert 64.0 40 86 186 , MAIN STREET Yorktown to Garfield 65.3 49 105 226 Garfield to Ellis 65.5 50 108 232 ' 2.3 Potential Off-Site and On-Site Impacts Due to Oil Well Operations ' The oil production operations on the site will decrease with the proposed project. However, additional drilling will be necessary as part of the removal and 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 terrn 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 are presented and 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. 2.3.1 Huntington Beach Oil Code ' The Huntington Beach Oil Code establishes limitations, safeguards, and controls for present and future operations related to drilling for and production of oil and gas within the city. In Sections 15.20.100, 15.20.110, and 15.20.220 the code states: ' (a) It shall be unlawful for any person to engage in any work whatsoever on any oil operation site within 300 feet of a dwelling unit except: 1. When such work is conducted between the hours of 7 a.m.to 10 p.m.; or ' 2. Where the work being so conducted is soundproofed and such soundproofing is approved by the fire chief. ' (b) Where operations are conducted beyond a distance of 300 feet from a dwelling unit, the fire chief may, in cases of disturbance such as excessive noise,require the oil operator to: ' 1. Enclose all drilling machinery used in connection with the drilling,redrilling, or reworking operations with fire resistant soundproofing material including the drilling mast or derrick,which shall be so enclosed on a minimum of three sides to a height of 20 feet, and conduct no operations between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. with the exception of circulation of fluids and well logging. The fire chief may allow other phases of the operation to continue during the restricted hours if, in his opinion, the noise is minimal. ' (c) It shall be unlawful to do any work between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. in connection with pulling a well which is within 200 feet of any residential building, except where circulation in the well must be maintained. (d) Where an oilfield recovery heater is operated in a developed area,the fire chief may, in cases of disturbance such as excessive noise,require the operator to: 1. Enclose the heater with afire-resistant,soundproofing material which shall be maintained in a serviceable condition. ' 2.3.2 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 i MGA Page 15 acoustic enclosures as required by the Huntington Beach Oil Code which will reduce emissions is ' 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 9 and are based on well drilling operations in Orange County. ' TABLE 9 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. , 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 10. TABLE 10 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 38.3 39.5 The data in Table 10 show that in order for the drilling operation to satisfy the Huntington Beach Noise Ordinance outdoor standards 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). If there are plans to conduct the drilling operations during the nighttime hours, then according to the i MGA Page 16 ' 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. 2.3.3 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 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. 2.3.4 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 redrill operations have been conducted on a 24 hour basis. The noise levels generated by drilling are discussed in Section 2.3.1. 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 been 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 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. 2.3.6 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 located on the truck. The noise levels generated by these trucks is expected to be typical of trucks passing through any residential area. To minimize annoyance truck access should be limited to daytime hours (i.e., 7 a.m. to 10 p.m.). 2.3.7 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 sites, 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. i MGA Page 17 1 2.4 On-site Impacts From the Police Facilities ' Aircraft noise contours for heliport operations were presented previously in Exhibit 3. The ' contours can be considered representative 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 and helicopter activity area are developed. Mitigation measures are recommended in the Mitigation section. 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. 2.5 S.C.E. substation Noise levels associated with the Southern California Edison Substation were presented previously ' in Section 1.6. 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 its 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 lanai uses. 3.0 MITIGATION MEASURES 3.1 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 that 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 can 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. The greater the penetration the greater the noise reduction. A barrier which does not break the line-of-sight is not an effective barrier, while one which just interrupts the line-of-sight achieves a 5 dB ' reduction in noise. Increasing the building setback and/or the construction of a i MGA Page 18 noise barrier would attenuate the noise 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 (California Administrative Code, Title 24, Part 6, Division T25, Chapter 1, Subchapter 1, 1 Article 4, Section 725-28). The code requires that "interior community noise levels (CNEL) with windows 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. 3.2 Oil Well Operations The impact analysis indicates that noise levels generated by the oil operations can be mitigated to levels consistent with the Huntington Beach Noise Ordinance. Any consolidation area(s) should be located 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 a mitigation effects of an 8.0 foot sound wall. Additional analysis of the consolidation area(s)will be necessary when phasing plans become available. 3.2.1 Oil Well Drilling Operations t 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. i3.2.2 Oil Well Pumping Operations It is suggested that the well pumps used in consolidation areas be submerged. If other types of well pumps such as ground level electric or diesel pumps are to be used, then additional mitigation will be necessary. Specific mitigation measures can be presented in an additional noise study. 3.2.3 Well Pulling, Redrilling, and Service Drilling Operations ' 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 MGA Page 19 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. 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. 3.2.4 Truck Operations Truck operations should be limited to daytime hours only (7 a.m. to 10 p.m.). 3.2.5 Helicopter Operations Residential development wthin the helicopter flight corridor should generally be ' discouraged. All residential buildings to be constructed within the helicopter activity corridor should be required to achieve a 25 dBA outdoor to indoor noise reduction. 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. 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. ' MGA Page 20 N 0� QO C 0. Q .Q V lz 1 r Table A-1 TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PER TIME OF DAY IN PERCENT OF ADT ARTERIALS ' PERCENT OF ADT DAY EVENING NIGHT 1 Automobile 75.51 12.57 9.34 Medium Truck 1.56 0.09 0.19 Heavy Truck 0.64 0.02 0.08 r r r r r r ' r MGA Page .22 1 ' Table A-2 AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC AND SPEED DATA ROADWAY NAME AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES (,000) Proposed Industrial Residential Speed Existing Existing GP Project Alternative Alternative SLATER AVENUE Edwards to Golden West 14.8 17.0 17.0 17.1 17.0 45 Golden West to Gothard 15.0 16.2 15.9 16.0 15.9 45 Gothard to Beach 15.7 19.7 19.0 19.0 18.7 45 East of Beach 18.0 21.0 21.0 21.1 20.9 45 TALBERT AVENUE Edwards to Golden West 13.4 13.0 13.1 13.0 45 Golden West of Gothard 5.3 9.6 5.8 6.4 6.4 45 Gothard to Beach 9.7 12.8 9.7 10.7 10.3 45 East of Beach 15.8 17.0 17.0 17.0 17.0 45 ELLIS AVENUE Edwards to Golden West 7.0 18.3 11.7 12.0 11.6 45 Golden West to Gothard 5.3 9.4 5.6 5.9 5.5 45 Gothard to Beach 5.3 9.8 5.8 6.0 5.3 45 East of Beach 16.6 31.4 24.4 21.4 20.6 45 GARFIELD AVENUE Springdale to Seapointe - 20.5 20.0 19.5 18.8 45 Seapointe to Edwards - 23.3 20.2 20.0 20.0 45 Edwards to Golden West 15.0 45.6 32.4 33.1 31.8 45 Golden West to Gothard 21.0 52.0 47.9 47.4 48.3 45 Gothard to Main 21.0 53.0 45.8 45.4 45.9 45 Main to Beach 21.0 46.0 44.9 44.9 44.0 45 East of Beach 24.5 42.7 32.7 32.7 31.2 45 YORKTOWN AVENUE Golden West of Main 15.0 20.6 13.7 17.4 18.2 40 Main to Beach 15.0 20.1 17.5 ' 18.6 19.1 40 East of Beach - 17.1 16.6 16.6 16.6 40 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY West of Seapointe 33.0 49.9 45.3 46.1 46.5 55 Seapointe to Golden West 36.0 50.1 47.1 47.9 48.2 55 Golden West of Main 40.0 50.4 48.3 48.1 48.2 50 SEAPOINTE STREET PCH to Garfield 22.8 20.5 20.2 20.6 40 EDWARDS STREET Garfield to Ellis 7.2 15.7 10.0 10.8 10.6 45 Ellis to Talbert 7.5 16.1 10.2 )11 10.6 45 Talbert to Slater 7.5 16.4 10.2 10.8 10.6 45 North of Slater 14.8 16.3 10.1 10.7 10.3 45 GOLDEN WEST STREET PCH to Yorktown 17.6 33.4 29.2 30.1 30.0 50 Yorktown to Garfield 22.7 32.3 23.0 23.0 24.0 50 Garfield to Ellis 32.0 39.7 36.6 35.3 35.7 50 Ellis to Talbert 25.0 33.5 30.8 29.9 29.5 50 Talbert to Slater 32.4 37.6 34.7 33.3 32.8 50 ' North of Slater 36.0 48.5 45.8 44.4 43.9 50 GOTHARD STREET Garfield to Ellis - 18.0 15.8 16.6 15.6 45 Ellis to Talbert 14.5 22.2 14.2 15.3 14.6 45 ' Talbert to Slater 14.5 23.5 19.1 19.8 19.5 45 North of Slater 15.8 23.0 19.0 19.8 19.6 45 MAIN STREET PCH to Yorktown - 16.1 16.5 16.8 16.5 45 Yorktown to Garfield - - 26.6 18.4 19.5 45 Garfield to Ellis 16.2 26.0 21.1 19.6 20.3 45 BEACH BOULEVARD PCH to Yorktown 25.0 35.1 33.0 33.9 33.8 50 Yorktown to Garfield 44.0 53.1 51.7 52.5 51.8 50 Garfield to Ellis 44.0 51.8 51.6 51.9 51.5 50 Ellis to Talbert 57.0 71.2 66.8 65.9 65.5 50 Talbert to Slater 60.0 78.0 70.5 70.7 70.0 50 North of Slater 57.0 80.8 72.5 72.7 71.8 50 j i 1 HOLLY - SEACLIFF GPA CULTURAL RESOURCES RECONNAISSANCE CITY Of HUNTINGTON BEACH Appendix J Revised Version: Cultural Resources Reconnaissance of The Holly-Seacliff Property, 760 Acres in Huntington Beach, Orange County, California PREPARED FOR: Forma 190 Newport Center Drive, Upper Gallery Newport Beach, California 92660 PREPARED BY: RM W Paleo Associates 23352 Madero, Suite J Mission Viejo, California, 92691 (714) 770-8042 AUTHOR: Ronald M. Bissell 27 February 1989 Revision: 21 June 1989 MANAGEMENT SUMMARY The Holly - Seacliff study area contains numerous 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. The archaeological sites represent a very long span of occupation and are expected to contain data required to address many important research questions. However, the sites are under serious threat from primary, secondary and natural impacts and the future promises to only increase the threats since oil industry security is being removed and the local population is increasing. It is recommended that a phased program of excavation be undertaken to recover as much data as possible from the sites before they are destroyed 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. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Management Summary ii Acknowledgements iv Introduction 1 Index Map 2 Cultural Setting 3 Chronology Table 8 Cultural Resources Research 12 Discussion 20 Conclusions 24 Recommendations 24 References Cited 28 Appendix I: Archaeological Site Record Appendix II: Native American Observer's Report iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author expresses his gratitude to all those who provided assistance during the course of this project. Mrs. Alicia Wentworth and Mr. Bill Holman were most generous with their time and were most helpful. The field crew consisted of Joan Brown, Steve Wakefield, Blanche Schmitz, Ken Becker and Chris Crespin. The latter served as Native American Observer. A brief report by Crespin is contained in Appendix II. i iv INTRODUCTION The Holly-Seacliff study area consists of approximately 760 acres in the City of Huntington Beach in southwestern Orange County, California. The project area is contained within portions of Sections 34 and 35, Township 5 South, Range 11 West and Sections 2 and 3, Township 6 South, Range 11 West. The approximate boundary of the study area is depicted on the Index Map which appears on page 2 of this report. The northern, western and southwestern portions of the property are on bluffs overlooking major area drainages and the B olsa Chica wetlands. Southeastward from the bluff tops the elevation gradually increases to near the intersection of Clay ■ Avenue and Goldenwest Street. �1 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. The study area probably hosted a lush growth of coastal sage scrub vegetation in prehistoric times. The Santa Ana River has repeatedly changed its course and at one time it drained through the channel along the western part of the study area and into the Bolsa Chica. The resources available to the prehistoric inhabitants would have varied in accordance with the river drainage, sea stand and other factors. Nevertheless, it is known that the coastal sage scrub and the ecological 1 i/':.r7•�i C� �;., t l Y+ ) �' / ,/ + t'.. •� a- IJ i_S S S � .Ili rr o b../� ; / ,/ `�;• l I '2 - r�l.—_�_ __ ►] .�� n;� a � ,ram✓ y T....�... `I' J i A � ��'• . + ��\�M\\ ^'Qa/�`` � .,,mil, Y,' '';- / .:� 7• j�'� �1,i'o. `O .o;l \n �• I—I .. ci III'T, .... ....... • o ",�'^'• i°•✓/� /Q/� r� (I/I/ n�(1 n �9 /°/ 1Ir �/ o �2i��.�� L� -`�',I I I' �� I lu/ '�.�-'—_� T TF! I. /.� ,(��/•• �,Vi/T'0, %,��\ \ �°p 1\; '!.,-• r\i,LS' IVI l)�5�..� `n,; i.ib' (. ;�� i �� ' L"' It- __ll P13 le�.�y/y �, lDx_ � ,^ I . w,•.•/���Oo �✓� n\�^.f�o�/o� 1}!•,. Q/ u)'..,1,`)• 1� Ia roy 0 *rp1 \I° )/ �I 1,1 ��.` r.. -... --1 XD CO Ol Gl � °• •iO//^�e� b �e//'/ (: � ,(r,2 �e�' � � e \\`\,.� � ,la. �1 1 ..� I �� �.� � a x i6�Q . ....'. a.\�j� _ _f, �, � ..� i sd'v 6�d � �S'�. ►Lc� �t '� ,.�t� �. �.Q � � \�� ° ice' /�/„ 1 " � � ) I '�(i /lI"'��• •� 0• .�'.�•� �y b '�� l��l�'1 / !' � I �••�I �•; o^ /./ A _'�� �I I o l /,�,„ �•y 0 1 .')�I n �.� ( �: � I( ,,\�\ o .d.✓' �SI—{ lr l P -a 0 �... lyo 1 AlN- .,�..,fi�_� o< °-gisr....fc. �,o�lT•• Ilf-� 'I ' '' �� ! �\ I ./,i I�t ZIP ° CD tn •�vel{—I . °° _ Jf k`'A <, -+- T) SS S7 r� lI• ..T=�1� 0 j °�_ ��•_ j 9 i1 ) \.\_ /(� JJ•` Ij� 'I I �• 0 0 oc- ..a. C o 0 0 0 ••. � N °° - I �� ••.�.• o ° 1 1 ! 2 o o :3°o°oq_,,for � i W• � I 1 0 0 ° �\... • � Il°�`y" RIDIR!�'_J '4� .ul.• �ib � ! • �• �����_ hod .�ww.�x � � �. •�� •i � 3 c \ ° � p) ld�- \ y r T •'�i�•••. � `•_� ;_i � ..aif:a.e ( 4 i.rn. � � _ + •U�•1��.•'II I,i '� • •��•II I .1• • �• •'•I AN! :II!!._y�)I•: ,••� �'--r"'••I��I \2l _�.,•�'•-�'1. communities associated with the coastal region would have provided all of the resources required by an aboriginal hunter gatherer society (Drover, Koerper and Langenwalter 1983). CULTURAL SETTING The Archaeological Era: The Holly-Seacliff property lies in the prehistoric area of a Native American group which has come to be known as the Gabrielino (Bean and Smith 1978) . The name "Gabrielino" identifies those people who were under the control of the Spanish Mission San Gabriel. Therefore it does not identify a specific ethnic or tribal group. The names the native groups used to identify themselves have, for the most part, been lost. The Gabrielino and the Chumash to the north and west were very advanced. For example, both groups had mastered 'the technology required to regularly cross expanses of open ocean to reach and colonize all of the Channel Islands. The Gabrielino language was derived from the Takic family, part of the Uto-Aztecan linguistic stock. This feature was shared with the Juaneno and Luiseno, tribal groups very similar to the Gabrielino, located to the south in Orange and northern San Diego Counties. By contrast, the Chumash language is derived from Hokan stock of the Yuman language family, representing an origin quite different from that of the Gabrielino. The Chumash share this trait with groups located south of the Luiseno. The Yuman family of languages is derived from the American southwest while the Takic family can be traced to the Great Basin area (Driver 1969). Linguistic analysis has established that the Hokan speakers of Ventura and San Diego Counties were separated some time after 500 B.C. The implication is that the entire southern California coastal region was once filled with Hokan speakers who were gradually separated and displaced by Takic speaking migrants from the Great Basin area. The timing, extent and impact on local societies of the migration is not 3 well understood, and any data related to it represents an important contribution to the understanding of local prehistory. The archaeological heritage of California is quite rich, probably more so than any other North American region north of Mexico. However, the archaeology of California is not well known. There are two major reasons for this state of affairs. First, the California Native Americans were generally quite peaceful and did not offer warlike resistance to European settlement. Consequently, they did not gain any great notoriety during the settlement period. The second reason the original Californians are not well known is that they were first under the control of the Spanish and only later, after most of their culture had been destroyed by disease and displacement, did they come under the control of the United States. There was only a minor Native American presence remaining in California when it became a United States possession. Consequently, very little interest in the natives and their prehistory was generated. It was many years later when the size, complexity and extent of archaeological deposits in the state became apparent that interest in the archaeological record was kindled. Chartkoff and Chartkoff (1984) have recently summarized what is known of California archaeology. The following discussion M draws heavily on their work. Man has been present in the New World since perhaps 10,000 to 11,000 years B.C. There is some evidence that humans were present long before that date, but the evidence of earlier occupation is not conclusive and has not been generally accepted by most archaeologists. The Chartkoffs identify the earliest portion of the archaeological sequence, which persisted until about 9,000 B.C. as the Paleo-Indian Period. No Paleo-Indian Period sites are known in the vicinity of the study area. This may be due to destruction of the sites by later human activity, drowning as ocean levels changed, or perhaps the Paleo-Indians simply did not utilize the southern California coastal region. 4 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 isuch as scrapers and choppers. The distributions of these tools argues that Paleo-Indian subsistence was based on hunting of the large game animals associated with the Pleistocene. Encampments were never permanent, and were probably sited near a major kill. Occupation would have lasted only until the resources of that kill were exhausted. The encampment would then be moved to take advantage of the next major kill. Such an economy, which used only a very small fraction of the available resources would not have supported a large population. It is probable that the ' Paleo-Indians lived in groups no larger than extended families and that contact with other such groups was infrequent. However, it is apparent that such contact did occur. The Paleo-Indian remains are remarkably similar, regardless of where they are found in the New World. The best explanation of the similarity is the passing of successful techniques from family group to family group. Certainly there were other reasons for Paleo-Indian groups to occasionally meet. Marriages could not take place within an extended family, so meetings to locate spouses had to be as frequent as young people arrived at marriageable age. The Pleistocene came to an end sometime around 9,000 B.C., and the large game animals became extinct. This major change in resource availability forced a major change in subsistence strategy, recognized today as the beginning of the Archaic Period. The Early Archaic Period, 9,000 B.C. to around 6,000 B.C. is poorly defined in the study area vicinity. However, the San Dieguito Tradition from the coastal regions to the south has tbeen studied in some detail. The San Dieguito people gained their subsistence primarily from the plants and animals associated with the chaparral ecological community. They did not, however, take advantage of the hard seeds associated with 5 the chaparral. Hunting played a major subsistence role, but the target animals were smaller and more plentiful in a given area in comparison to the earlier, larger animals associated with tie Pleistocene. The distinctive artifacts from the San Dieguito are large, rather crude projectile points, scrapers and choppers; crescent shaped objects of uncertain utility and other tools such as gravers. Bone awls appear near the end of the Early Archaic, perhaps indicating that basketry was then being produced. By the Middle Archaic, 6,000 to about 4,000 B.C. the Native Americans had learned to take advantage of the hard seen resources of the coastal sage scrub and chaparral ecological. communities. The tools used for processing the hard seeds, r manos and metates, appear in large numbers for the first time and are the hallmarks of the Encinitas Tradition. Large shell mounds in the coastal regions may also be traced to the Encinitas. The Encinitas persisted in essentially unchanged form until the close of the Late Archaic, around 2,000 B.C. Local minor differences in traits are apparent during the Encinitas, and these have led to the identification of several sub groups within the Encinitas. In Orange County, in the area which would later be identified as Gabrielino territory, the sub group is known as the Milling Stone Horizon. The minor differences between the Milling Stone and surrounding cultures were probably the result of increasing isolation. The total population was larger, as were the groups in which people lived. However, the strategy of utilizing hard seeds and ocean resources meant that a given group could follow the same general route from year to year as resources in different areas ripened and became available. This and the fact that groups were now large enough for marriages to be arranged internally led to increased isolation from nearby groups and eventually to noticeable differences in artifact typology. It is worthwhile to note that the Encinitas people were the first 6 to colonize the Channel Islands in large numbers. The Pacific Period began around 2,000 B.C. and persisted until Spanish contact. During the Early Pacific the local Tradition is known as the Campbell, which persisted until about A.D. 500. The major difference between the Campbell and earlier Traditions was the introduction of the mortar and pestle, a tool technology which allowed the exploitation of the acorn as a food resource. Evidence of trade is pronounced during the Campbell. Steatite from the Channel Islands and obsidian from areas far inland are found in most sites. The Canalino Tradition began in the years around A.D. 500 and lasted until Spanish contact. The Canalino is marked by large populations with some coastal camps containing as many as 1,500 persons. Apparently, many of these settlements were permanent, in the sense that they were occupied throughout the year rather than seasonally. Art flourished during this time and many striking objects of stone, bone, wood and shell were manufactured. It will be recalled that during the time of the Canalino Tradition migrants from the Great Basin appeared in the Los Angeles and Orange County area. Apparently, these people were very quick to adopt most of the Canalino traits, for it is difficult to separate the migrant deposits from those of the indigenous people on the basis of artifact typology alone. The Chartkoff's chronology is not the only one in use and, in fact, is somewhat generalized since the work addresses the entire state of California. The latest chronology to appear which has gained wide local acceptance is that of Koerper and Drover (1983). The Koerper and Drover chronology is based on extensive work at CA-Ora-119-A, a large multi-component site near the University of California, Irvine campus. CA-Ora-119-A contained evidence from very early times to the historic period. A summary of the Koerper and Drover chronology is given on the following two pages. 7 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. Milling Stone 7500 B.C. +/- ? 1. Predominance of manos and or Encinitas to 1000 B.C. metates. +/- 250 2 . Ornaments made of stone. 3. Large and often crude projectile points. 4. Cogstones and discoidals. 5. Charmstones. 6. Some mortars and pestles near end of period. 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. Both the Chartkoff and Koerper and Drover names are give for the various periods, with the Koerper and Drover names appearing first. 8 Intermediate 1000 B.0 +/- 1. Bone ornaments. or Campbell 250 to A.D. 750 2. Wide use of mortars and +/- 250 pestles along 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. 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 or Shoshonean contact metate 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. 1 9 i i The Historic Era: The first Europeans to see what would become Orange County were members of the 1542 expedition of Juan Rodriguez Cabrillo. Cabrillo sailed along the coast and did not explore inland, but he and his crew undoubtedly saw portions of the current study area. Europeans did not return to the Orange County area until 1769 when Gaspar de Portola led an overland expedition from San Diego to Monterey. This expedition of 63 persons passed far to the northeast of the study area. The first permanent settlement in Orange County came when San Juan Capistrano was selected as the site for a Mission in the spring of 1775. The Mission did not become operational until November, 1776. The first Orange County settlers described the Native American population as very backward and crude, wearing little clothing and subsisting marginally on small game, seeds and berries (Morgan 1973). It is now realized that this picture of the native population is very distorted. The Spanish settlers were describing a population which had been decimated by imported diseases. What remained was only a pitiful remnant of what was once a flourishing and well advanced culture. On 22 May 1834 a portion of the vast Spanish possessions known as the Nietos Grant was given by Mexican Governor Jose Figueroa to Catarina Ruiz, a widow of one of the Nietos. This grant was named Las Bolsas (the pockets) and included some 21 square miles which now contain the Cities of Huntington Beach, Westminster and Garden Grove. Nietos had died in 1804, but it was not until 30 years later that the original grant was divided at the request of some of his heirs. Seven years after the first division a parcel of some six square miles in the northwest of the Las Bolsas was granted to Joaquin Ruiz. This grant was known as the Bolsa Chica (little pocket) (Wentworth 1986a). By the early 1860s both the Las Bolsas and the Bolsa Chica had become the property of Abel Stearns. Stearns was born in 10 Massachusetts in 1789, but by 1829 he had become a merchant and shipper in Los Angeles. He soon began to acquire property and by the late 1850s was one of the largest land owners in the southern part of the state. By the late 1860s financial reverses forced Stearns to begin selling off his property (Cleland 1941). Stearns made a provision in many of his sales which greatly impacted the later history of many areas, including the current study area. Stearns provided that strips of land 30 feet in width on either side of a section line be devoted to road construction. Smaller strips were provided along the quarter section lines. These provisions eventually led to the current excellent streets in the study area (Larkin 1968). The Mexican War ended on 2 February 1848 with the signing of the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. The treaty established California as a United States possession. During the rest of the century the area of Huntington Beach was used primarily for grazing and agriculture. The city which would become Huntington Beach came into existence in 1901 when a syndicate formed by P. A. Stanton purchased and subdivided property in the area. The new city was named Pacific City and it was hoped it would become a western counterpart of Atlantic City. In 1902 Stanton sold out to Henry E. Huntington, owner of the Pacific Electric Railway. Huntington extended his rail line to the city and built a hotel. These developments greatly spurred development and in 1904 the city was renamed as Huntington Beach to honor Huntington's contribution. The original city included 3.57 square miles and included only portions of the southern part of the study area. Various later annexations brought the balance of the study area within the city limits. Growth was slow in Huntington Beach until the 1920s when the oil boom began. The discovery of oil led to great increases in population and much construction 'in the area. The growth continues to the present day. 11 CULTURAL RESOURCES RESEARCH During prehistoric times the marshland of the Las Bolsas and B olsa Chica extended much farther inland than is the case today. These marshlands and the immediately adjacent coastal strand would have provided abundant resources for any prehistoric population subsisting through a hunting and gathering strategy. The high ground along the bluffs bordering the marshlands would have provided ideal places for encampments. It is therefore no surprise that the portions of the study area along the bluff tops have great archaeological sensitivity. Numerous archaeological deposits are known in these areas. The locations of deposits discussed in the following section are shown on the Index Map on page 2 of this report. This section is based primarily on information gained from a literature review conducted at the Archaeological Survey, University of California, Los Angeles, (ASUCLA) the official repository for archaeological information from Orange County. The results of the current field inspection are given immediately following each description of prior research. This allows all information regarding one deposit to be presented in one place and , hopefully , will make this report more comprehensible. C A-Ora-142: Archaeological site CA-Ora-142 was located to the west of the intersection of Goldenwest Street and Talbert Avenue. This location is, of course, 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. The presence of the cogstones argues that the site dated to at least the Milling Stone Period. No detailed excavation work was performed at CA-Ora-142 before it was destroyed in the 1960s, the material being used for freeway ramp construction. It is impossible to estimate the loss represented by the 12 1 destruction of CA-Ora-142. This site is mentioned here to illustrate two points. First, site CA-Ora-142 clearly reveals the fate of archaeological deposits which are located in developing areas when adequate controls are not in place. Secondly, according to the brief site descriptions which are available, CA-Ora-142 is very similar to many of the deposits known to exist within the study area. Proper management of the study area deposits will not only increase our knowledge of the past, but will partially offset the loss of CA-Ora-142. 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 was recorded on 8 October 1959 by Dixon, who described the site as a rich shell midden with manos and bowl fragments in evidence. Dixon felt the site was approximately 150 meters by 80 meters in size with a depth approaching 1.5 meters. CA-Ora-82 is one of the few sites in the vicinity which has been subjected to some reported excavation . Weide (1967a, b) completed an excavation at CA-Ora-82 using students from California State University, Long Beach. Two reports were generated as a result of this work. W eide's 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. No radiometric dating was accomplished. Based primarily on the negative evidence, Weide placed the site in the Intermediate Cultures Period, with an approximate period of occupation from 3,000 B.C. to A.D. 1. Weide pointed out that this age assignment was very Itentative. The second report dealt exclusively with the seasonality of harvest of Pismo clams based on shells collected during the excavation. Weide concluded that the site was occupied each winter for about two months. Additional excavation work was accomplished at CA-Ora-82 by community college classes and by the Pacific Coast Archaeological Society (PCAS). The data from these excavations 13 is unpublished, excepting only some brief notes in the PCAS publication Smoke Signals. Hammon (1986) is preparing a reporrt of this work. A radiocarbon date from one of the deeper parts of the deposit yielded a date range of 2563 B.C. to 3095 B.C. This date correlates well with Weide's assessment of site age. The PCAS excavations were apparently in a different part of the deposit from the Weide excavations, so the relationship cannot be considered as firmly established. It should also be noted that burials were encountered by PCAS at CA-Ora-82. However, the number, condition and disposition of these remains are unknown. CA-Ora-82 was visited during the current project. The :site has been considerably damaged by oil field activity and road construction, but significant portions remain intact. The site appears to extend over a somewhat larger area than is depicted on the master maps at ASUCLA. In particular the site appears to extend farther to the southwest. However, it must be kept in mind that surface indications of an archaeological site can often be misleading, with the site extending much farther than visible remains indicate. It is also possible that some surface remains are the result of dislocation by modern disturbance and that the site is smaller than surface remains indicate. The only method to truly determine the boundary of a given deposit is through carefully designed and executed test excavation. 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 prior 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 1960s work. Even though much shell and thermally modified stones were 14 visible at the site, it was observed that few, if any, of the shells were burned. Apparently, the shellfish were collected, brought to the site and shucked before being cooked or preserved. This observation may indicate that the shellfish were actually transported away from the site before being consumed, the shucking being a way of reducing the weight which had to be transported. . Otherwise, it would appear most economical to cook the shellfish in the shell. This supposition should be scientifically tested during future excavation, since it has important implications for our understanding of past settlement and use patterns. This observation, much shell and thermally modified stone, was found to be true of most of the Holly-Seacliff archaeological sites. 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 the bluff. The deposit was recorded by McKinney in January 1963. The site was described as a shell midden containing metates, manos and a cogstone. McKinney described the site as being some five acres in extent, but no dimensions or depth were given in the site record. The plot of the site on the master maps at ASUCLA indicate an area far larger than five acres. 1 No excavation work has been reported for CA-Ora-88. However, the author is aware through personal contacts that PCAS conducted some excavation at the site during the 1960s. 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. The original plot of CA-Ora-88, as depicted on the ASUCLA master maps appears to be far too large. The site appears to be 15 confined to the immediate bluff top and to taper off rapidly as one moves to the east. However, the large northeastward extension of the site could not be evaluated because this area is currently completely covered with sawdust and imported material. The noting by McKinney of a cogstone at CA-Ora-88 is an important observation, since it places the site in Milling Stone time, or somewhat earlier than CA-Ora-82, but contemporary with C A-Ora-142. This is mentioned as a demonstration of the value of even limited information in the time ordering of deposits. Carefully designed and controlled excavation could develop a complete chronology for the project area which would be most useful to future regional archaeological studies. CA-Ora-365: This large site, located a few hundred meters to the south of CA-Ora-88, was recorded by Martin and Cooley on 13 September 1972. The deposit was described as being some 200 by 100 meters in extent with a depth of about 1.2 meters. The site was interpreted as a shell midden with broken grinding tools and chert flakes in evidence. Scientific Resource Surveys (SRS 1985) completed test excavations at CA-Ora-365. Very little was found in the subsurface of the site. Of 40 recovered artifacts, 35 were found on the surface. Some historic material in the form of glass and ceramic fragments was also recovered. The SRS report does not reach any conclusions regarding the time or length of occupation of the site. Van Bueren and Sorenson visited the site in 1988 and gave a description similar to that in the original site record. They also found a cogstone and a historic component. The cogstone is important since it is time sensitive and indicates that the site dates to the Milling Stone. The historic component consisted of older glass and ceramic fragments. The nature of the Van Bueren and Sorenson project is not clear. There is no report on file at the Archaeological Survey, 16 i but the site record has been updated. They do not mention the SRS work. The descriptions of the site contained in the site records versus that in the SRS report are quite dissimilar. The reason for this discrepancy is not clear. It is possible that SRS explored only a peripheral area of the site. The current examination indicates that C A-Ora-365 is very similar to the sites located farther to the north. 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. While examining CA-Ora-365 the author met an oil field worker who has thirty three years of local experience. He stated that within his personal knowledge several prehistoric artifacts had appeared during excavation work. One object he described sounds very much like a mortar. If so, this means that the local sites extend far into the Intermediate Period, as well as the earlier Milling Stone. The oil field employee also stated that several older historic trash deposits had been encountered during excavation work. . He described bottles from a very early historic period. He also stated that he knew of no human burials appearing during oil field excavation work. C A-Ora-364: This site is located about 200 meters to the southwest of CA-Ora-365. The site was recorded on 13 September 1972 by Martin and Cooley. The deposit was described as a shell midden. A mano, a chert core and numerous chert flakes were noted. As described in the site record the site is about 280 X 200 meters in surface area, with a depth of about 70 centimeters. However, both the map accompanying the site record and the plot on the ASUCLA master maps are much smaller. 17 Van Bueren and Sorenson visited the site in 1988. They described the site very much as in the earlier site record, but did indicate a somewhat smaller size. There has been no reported excavation accomplished at CA-Ora-364. CA-Ora-364 appears to be mostly intact, with some limited disturbance from oil field activity. The site is very much as was previously described, but the smaller size is indicated by the surface material. C A-Ora-366: This site is located about 400 meters to the west of C A-Ora-364. The site was recorded on 13 September 1972 by Martin and Cooley. The deposit was described as a shell midden with some lithic material in evidence. The site is about 100 X 50 meters in surface area, with a depth of about 60 centimeters. Van Bueren and Sorenson visited the site in 1988. They described the site very much as in the earlier site record. No excavation has been reported for CA-Ora-366. 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 newly discovered deposit is located immediately to the southeast of CA-Ora-364. However, there is a distinct hiatus of material between the two deposits, so they are considered as separate sites. An Archaeological Site Record has been prepared for this site and is contained in the Appendix. A CA-Ora- trinomial has not yet been received for this deposit. 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 18 Holly-Seacliff deposits. Shell and Lithic Scatters: During recent previous work in the southeast quarter of Section 34, several scatters of shell and lithic material were noted (Bissell 1988) . More such scatters were located in Section 35 during the current project. The locations are as shown on the page 2 Index Map. In 1982 the author completed a reconnaissance project along Goldenwest Street and several very similar shell and lithic scatters were noted. However, the context was such that it was decided not to record the deposits as archaeological sites until test excavation could be completed. The test excavations 1 (Bissell 1987) clearly established that the scatters were, in fact, 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. Accordingly, the shell and lithic scatters discovered during the current project have not been recorded as archaeological sites. Recording should take place only after test excavation establishes that the deposits are in situ archaeological material. Holly Sugar Refinery Area: Located in the eastern part of the study area are the remains of a railway siding, a warehouse foundation, some tracks and stands of fully mature eucalyptus trees. The Holly Sugar Refinery was in this area, between the rail siding 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. The rail siding may well have I served the Holly Sugar Refinery as well as other commercial and industrial facilities in the area (Wentworth 1989, Holman 1989). Huntington A-1: This oil well is located a short distance 19 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 (Holman 1989). 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. An oil field worker with many years of local experience stated that such deposits had been seen in excavations made in support of the oil industry. A historic component was described at C A-Ora-365. ' During the current reconnaissance a sherd of older ceramic: material was noted at CA-Ora-82 and shards of older glass were noted at both CA-Ora-365 and the newly discovered archaeological site. DISCUSSION Archaeology: The archaeological deposits within and near the study area are most 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 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. The research opportunities offered by Holly-Seacliff deposits are many and varied. Some examples are given below: 1. Settlement patterns: Does each site represent a i specific time period, or do many of the sites represent continual occupation from early times? The answer has profound implications for our understanding of past population levels. 2. Site use: Were the sites actual living areas, or 20 I merely areas where shellfish were processed for transport elsewhere? The answer to this question could greatly influence our understanding of the seasonal round of activities practiced by the site occupants. There are other implications as well. Cogstones are known from some of the sites, and these objects are not well understood. The favored explanation is that they are some sort of ritualistic or ceremonial object. But, if that is the case, why are they so often found amid household material? 3. Seasonality: One of the Weide studies implies that some of the sites were occupied only for a few months during the 1 winter of each year. This conclusion was based on study of the growth rings of Pismo clams. However, the data could also imply that the occupants were at the sites for longer portions of the year, but only collected the Pismo clams during a short season. Analysis of the total content of the sites could determine which scenario is true. Either way, our understanding of prehistoric life styles would be greatly enhanced. 4. Trade: Since the sites represent such a long span of time they should contain data related to the development of trade. For example, careful dating of the first appearance of steatite would indicate contact with people who had explored and settled the Channel Islands. The first appearance of obsidian would indicate developing trade with inland areas. 5. Migrations: It is known that Shoshoneans from the 1 Great Basin area moved into Orange County during Late Prehistoric times. The Holly-Seacliff sites may well contain 1 data which will help us to understand the timing, extent and circumstances of the migration. Certainly, the above list is not an exhaustive examination of the the research potential of the Holly-Seacliff archaeological deposits, but it does serve to demonstrate the potential for increasing our knowledge of the past. All of the Holly-Seacliff deposits are damaged, some to the 21 point of almost total destruction. However, significant portions of most of the sites remain. Oil field construction activity is responsible for much of the damage to the deposits, but oil field security has also kept the sites from suffering at the hands of illegal collectors. Since the oil field activity is decreasing and residential and commercial construction is on the rise, it is clear that the sites are now under extreme threat. 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 will illegal collecting. Of course, residential and commercial construction within the site areas will cause extensive and irreparable damage. , Burials are known to be present at one of the Holly-Seacliff archaeological sites. Such remains are extremely sensitive, especially to the Native American community. Burials must be t treated in a manner which is respectful, dignified and causes the least possible disturbance. Correct procedures for burials are dependent on a number of factors, including the number present, their condition, their relationships and the desires of the Native American community. Prior to any excavation a burial strategy should be devised which is based on input from the archaeologist, owner's representatives, the City and the Native American Community. Archaeological deposits are nonrenewable resources. Once destroyed they can never be replaced. Under federal and state guidelines the favored method of treating archaeological deposits which have a high probability of increasing our knowledge of the past is preservation. Preservation is preferred since controlled archaeological excavation is also destructive, and sites dug in the future will yield more data than if dug today because of advances in methodology. For example, a simple reduction in screen size adopted by local 22 archaeologists a few years ago has greatly increased the data return for a given amount of effort. 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 rthese 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. However, it must be understood that such excavation must be extensive, completed to exacting archaeological standards and ' completely finished before construction is permitted in a given site area. The Holly-Seacliff archaeological shell middens are among the last remaining of many such deposits which existed along the Orange County coast. This situation arose because oil field security provided a measure of protection and prevented large scale residential and commercial development, the agencies responsible for the destruction of most shell middens. 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. Historical: It is expected that important historical deposits from early times 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. 23 CONCLUSIONS , 1. The archaeological deposits within and near the Holly-Seacliff project area are important to our understanding of the past since they represent a very long span of time, and undoubtedly contain data relevant to many important research questions. 2. Historical deposits in the area are potentially , most important, but are poorly defined. 3. The threats to the archaeological and historical deposits are already serious and are increasing. 4. Preservation is not a practical solution to the management of the Holly-Seacliff cultural resources deposits. A carefully controlled program of excavation is the best available method of management of the archaeological resources. The only reasonable method available to detect the historical deposits is observation during ground disturbing activity. RECOMMENDATIONS 1 . The archaeological deposits within the i 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 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 24 r the Native American community, owner's representatives 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 at each of the archaeological deposits. The information gained from the test rexcavation will guide the following data recovery excavation. The test excavations should have two primary goals: 1). Definition of site boundaries and depth. 2). Determination of the significance of the site and its degree of preservation. D. Excavation of a statistically valid sample of site material. 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 and included, and a statement of methodology to be observed must be included. 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. E. Grading of the archaeological sites should be monitored by a qualified observer 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. 25 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. 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. Preparation of a detailed professional report which fully describes the site and its place in prehistory. Reports should receive sufficient distribution to insure their availability to future researchers. H . Arrangements 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. 2. The shell and lithic scatters discussed above and located on the page 2 Index Map 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 1, , above. If the sites are shown to be not archaeological in nature or not in situ, then no further action need be taken. 3. Ground disturbing activity within the study area should be monitored by a qualified observer assigned by the , Principal Investigator 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 termineted when clearly undisturbed geologic formations are exposed. If historic exposures occur, appropriate collections should be made, 26 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 will, of course, be treated with those deposits. 4. 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. Ronald M. Bissell ' Archaeologist 27 REFERENCES CITED Bean, John L. and Charles R. Smith 1978 Gabrielino. In Handbook of North American Indians: , California, Robert F . Heizer, editor, Vol. 8, pp. 538-549. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Bissell, Ronald M. 1986 Historical Properties Survey Report, Goldenwest Street Between Warner Avenue and the Pacific Coast Highway, Huntington Beach, Orange County, California. On file at the Archaeological Survey, University of California, Los Angeles. Bissell, Ronald M. 1987 Addendum to: Historical Properties Survey Report, Goldenwest Street Between Warner Avenue and the Pacific Coast Highway , Huntington Beach, Orange County, California, dated 14 September 1986. On file at the Archaeological Survey, University of California, Los Angeles. Bissell, Ronald M. 1988 Cultural Resources Reconnaissance of the Ellis-Goldenwest Quarter Section , 160 Acres in Huntington Baech, Orange County, California. On file at the Archaeological Survey, University of California, Los Angeles. Chartkoff, Joseph L. and Kerry K. Chartkoff 1984 The Archaeology of California. Stanford University Press, Stanford California. Cleland, Robert G. 1941 The Cattle on a Thousand Hills. Huntington Library, San Marino, California. Driver, Harold E. ' 1969 The Indians of North America, Second Edition, Revised. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London. Drover, Christopher E., Henry C. Koerper and Paul Langenwalter , 1983 Early Holocene Human Adaptation on the Southern California Coast: A Summary Report of Investigations at the Irvine Site (CA-Ora-64), Newport Bay, Orange County, California. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly, Vol. 19, No. 3 and 4, pp. 1-84. Hammon, Pat 1986 Personal communication. 28 Holman, William 1989 Personal communication. Koerper, Henry C. and Christopher Drover 1983 Chronology Building for Coastal Orange County, The Case from CA-Ora-119-A. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly, Vol. 19, No. 2, pp. 1-34. Larkin, Paul 1986 Personal communication. Morgan, Warren F. 1973 This Was Mission Countr , Orange County, California. The "Reflections in Orange of Merle and Mabel Ramsey. Mission Printing Company, Laguna Beach, California. Scientific Resource Surveys 1985 Cultural Resources Report on Huntington Mesa, Chevron Oil Fields, Signal Landmark Property, in the City of Huntington Beach, California. On file at the ' Archaeological Survey, University of California, Los Angeles. Weide, Margaret L. 1967a Excavations at Ora-82, Spring 1967. On file at the Archaeological Survey, University of California, Los Angeles. rWeide, Margaret L. 1967b The Seasonality of Pismo Clams from Ora-82. On file at the Archaeological Survey, University of California, Los Angeles. Wentworth, Alicia M. ' 1986a City of Huntington Beach Miscellaneous Historical Data. City of Huntington Beach, California. Wentworth, Alicia M. 1986b Personal communication. Wentworth, Alicia M. 1989 Personal communication. 29 j ' APPENDIX I ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE RECORD State of California—The Resources Agency DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION Permanent Trinomial: Supplement ARCHEOLOGICAL SITE RECORD Temporary Number: Page— of 3 Agency Designation: Holly-Seacl i ff 1 1. County: Orange 2. USCSGuad: Seal Beach (7.51 1965 (15.) Photorevised 1981 3. UTM Coordinates: Zone 11 / 040598 Ewing / 372733 Northing t ► 4. Township 6S Range 11W SE x of NE x of NW Y.of x of section 3 Bass(Merl SB ( ► ' 307 426 75 ft. 5. Map Coordinates: mmS mm E(from NW corner of map) 6.Elevation 7. Location: 300 meters from the intersection of Garfield Avenue and Edwards Street on true azimuth 193 degrees. ' 8. Prehistoric X Historic Protohidoric 9. Site Description: Shell mi dden with few lithic artifacts. ' ( t Hap inspection and 10. Area: 210 m(length)x 180 m(width) 37.800m2. Method of Determination:_1)aci nQ. ( r 11. Depth: 120 —cm' Method of Determination: Examination of area disturbance. ( ► 12. Features: Dense shell . ( r II 13. Artifacts: Chipped tools, flakes, hammerstones - few in relation to amount of shell . One base of a Cottonwood Triangular point was seen. _ tt 14. Non•Artifaetual Constitutients: Shell , primarily chione and pecten. . tr 15. Date Recorded: 16. Recorded 8y: Ron Bissell t r RMW Paleo Associates, 23352 fla ero, Suite 17. Affiliation and Address: Mission Viejo, CA 92691, (714) 770-8042 ( r I)"119E IRev E!E71 State of California—The Resources Agency DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION Permanent Trinomial: / MO. y7.. ARCHEOLOGICAL SITE RECORD Temporary Number: Page 2 of 3 Agency Designation: Holly-Seacliff 1 18. Human Remains: None seen. ' ( 1 19. Site Integrity: Site is extensively damaged in places from oil field construction. However, major portions are intact. 20. Nearest Water(type,distance and direction): Bol sa Chi ca Wetlands, 900 meters northwest. 21. Largest Body of Water within 1 km(type,distance and direction): Pacific Ocean. 1.5 01 southwest. ( 1 22. Vegetation Community (site vicinity): Introduced. (Plant List( ) 23. Vegetation Community(on site): Introduced. (Plant List ( )l ( 1 References for above: 24. site soil: Dark mi dden. ( ) 25. surrounding soil: Lighter colored sand. 26. Geology: San Pedro Sand. ( ) 27. Landform: Bluff above marsh. ( 1 28. slope: 1 degree southwest. ( ) 29. Exposure: Southwest. 1 1 30. Landowner(s) (and/or tenants)and Address: Huntington Beach Company, 2110 Main Street, in ton Beach, CA 92648. 31. Remarks: , ( 1 32. References: t 1 ,33. Name of Project: Holly-Seacl i ff. ( 1 , 34. Type of Investigation: Reconnaissance. ( 1 35. Site Accession Number: N/A Curated At: N/A ( 36. Photos: N/A Taken By: N/A ( 1 37. Photo Accession Number: N/A On File At: N/A ( 1 ' DPR 472A fRev.P182) ' State of California—The Resources gency DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION Permanent Trinomial: / MO. yr. ARCHEOLOGICAL SITE LOCATION MAP Temporary Number: Page 3 of 3 Agency Designation: Holly-Seacl iff 1 UL oil, f '/ �i ice' 3 - . ,�' -�.. I .-•..-.� S c• .Ys�`MVIJ� _ i•�•w�'�._.1,. 71 `i • JOR }I+ p _�� \^<' I�lt _f f � co�A— __ ---�-- -'� I - I �c p .♦ ° icn ,1 33 72. INS c 1* _ ��i1 _ �h{ — F�_ 1 ^2�r• ^� aRfIEtD - _ - � ••.i of �o c .o iill..t. � _ � a- --. IMII;:o ° c .HIV• r � c c -'•c_/-. .� .1 .� .(..,/. . tit t� �p°� o c lr :!{••-T•t .,. o .a�C``�• 1'ipor1 95/ -Oc` \ `�7- Oft `�• SO ° °' \ J;� o p b o 0 0 o r a�t c•`. G �'•: � c /� ` 1, 5=' 0 00 o0 0 p o 'CPO °• ° !•• opt - � �;-\tom y -°,��.� ' •� r ) 00 oo.p . i� �_��� fi.: f��'������`'=1'+�I.�.� a♦11f SrAA%p _�!�a ° :•o• - - ••°�/.��ri,�:�o� ,(� .+ ark Is ° - `\� - •`1',:1.y'/tea:,\ .�J..\�a B/j1`{ _ p ° �' p HUNTINGTON BEACH - / ., ` ' NN 1 APPENDIX II 1 NATIVE AMERICAN OBSERVER'S REPORT K.rrVn l NATIVE AMERICAN OBSERV1v1 CAPISTRANO INDIAN COUNCIL OF ORANGE COUNTY, INC. r�. r•" P.O. BOX 204 't• � ,'-�_ ` ' SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO, CA. 92693 1. Location: Huntington Beach, Calif. Southwest Orange County 2. Owner: Holly-Seacliff Property .3. Area Description: 76p APTPC nrti nn of grPa on hl»f fs shove Rol sa—Chi rsa Wetlands, rising elevation eastward toward Golden West Blvd. Much oil drilling 1 activity-Much commercial and residential development 4,. Method Used:: Ground Survey S. Results: Based on the evidence observed it appears that this is a potentially important area in terms of archaeology as it relates .to the early inhabitants of same. ' 6. Artifacts: Much fire cracked rock, important lithic scatter, shell scatter, shell midden in places, the base of a projectile point 7. Remarks: It is quite logical to assume that the increased use of the akle9 ' in question (because of the oil drilling, commercial and residential development) will in time render this area useless insofar as archaeology is concerned. As a Native American I am interested in arcaeology as it pertains to the former inhabitants of the area. I feel that any data that is procured can- not help but enrich the overall study of these early people. It has become ap- parent that the Holly Seacliff Property merits a vroeram of excavation for this ' very purpose-the securing of data/information to add to the present dearth of in- formation we presently have on the early people of the area. As a Native American and student of Indian Studies I deplore the fact that the area has been so dis- �n .. �'. Date: � - / - � � 9•; . r HOLLY - SEACLIFF GPA PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Appendix K REVISED ASSESSMENT OF THE PALEONTOLOGICAL ' RESOURCES WITHIN THE HOLLY-SEACLIFF PROJECT HUNTINGTON BEACH, ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA PREPARED FOR: H. GENE HSIEH FORMA ' 19G NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE UPPER GALLERY NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 PREPARED BY: RMW PALEO ASSOCIATES 23352 MADERO, SUITE J MISSION VIEJO, CA 92691 AUTHOR: DR. FRANCES M. GOVEAN 14 FEBRU ARY 1989 REVISION DATE 22 JUNE 1989 INTRODUCTION The following report presents the results of RMW Paleo Associates ' assessment of the paleontological resources within the Holly-Seacliff Project area. The study site is an ' irregularly shaped parcel of approximately 760 acres that is roughly bounded on the southeast by Main Street, on the north by the Huntington Beach Equestrian Center, on the southwest by the Seacliff Country Club and Golf Course and on the northwest by bluffs (Figure 1 ) . 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 ' Paleontolpgy at the LACM, also was consulted concerning fossil distribution within the project vicinity. No Los Angeles County Museum of Natural History vertebrate localities are recorded 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 what 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 cf fossils within the given rock unit( s ) in the study site and all other exposures of the rock unit( s) . , Five paleontological sensitivity or potential ratings have been , developed based on the criteria described above. NO paleontologic potential is for igneous rocks, such as volcanics and granitics, which will not contain fossils because of their molten origins . A LOW paleontologic potential suggests that ' there is little likelihood that fossils will be encountered during development. A MODERATE paleontologic potential indicates that there is a good likelihood that fossils will be encountered ' during earthmoving activities . A HIGH paleontologic potential indicates that it is very likely that fossils will be encountered during development. . UNDETERMINED paleontologic potential indicates there is insufficient information - a lack of ' scientific study of the paleontologic resources of a given rock . unit( s) - to fully evaluate the likelihood for fossil discovery , during development work. i FIELD SURVEY ' A walkover survey of the property was made during this study. ' 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 (Bissell, 1989) . Clams (Chione) , ' oysters (Ostrea) , pectens and slipper shells (Crepidula) are common elements. Fossilized animal burrows (trace fossils) were , 2 ' I ' observed in the massive sandstone units exposed on the northern edge of the site. No other fossils were located during the field survey. 1 STRATIGRAPHY AND PALEONTOLOGY The study area is underlain by (1 ) the San Pedro Sand and (2 ) a ' thin veneer of Quaternary alluvium overlying unnamed marine terrace deposits ranging in age from +/- 200, 000 to 10, 000 years ' (Rancholabrean Land Mammal Age) (Morton and Miller, 1973) . 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 characteristic of the southern ' California coastal areas . Both vertebrate and invertebrate fossils are commonly found in upper Pleistocene deposits within ' the Los Angeles basin. Miller (1971) reports 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 in the Wintersburg area of Huntington Beach (Section ' 23 , TSS, R11W) where extinct bison and mammoth remains were recovered. Additional collections of scientifically significant ' vertebrate fossils are reported from the San Pedro and Newport Beach areas (Miller, 1971 ) and Govean (1988) . Generally these vertebrate fossils occur in pockets or lenses . The skulls and skeletal remains of mammoths, deer, camels, wolves, cats, tapirs, horses, bison, whales, rodents, snakes, amphibians, sloths, ' turtles, bony fish, sharks and birds (including some extinct species of auk) have been collected from Quaternary marine terrace materials within the Los Angeles basin. ' 3 A large marine invertebrate fauna has also been recovered from the San Pedro Sand and the unnamed terrace deposits . These fossil remains include clams, pectens, oysters, snails , sand dollars , barnacles, crabs , ostracods (micro crustaceans) , ' foraminifera ( single-celled animals with a shell) and trace fossils (the tracks , trails and burrows of animals) . Kennedy (1975) , Valentine and Meade (1961 ) , Valentine (1959 ) and Bruff (1946) give detailed information concerning these marine faunas. ' DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSIONS The Quaternary marine terrace deposits and the San Pedro Sand have a long history of producing both vertebrate and invertebrate ' fossil remains in the Los Angeles basin. These fossils have greatly expanded our knowledge of the animals that lived in this ' area during the late Pleistocene. In addition, significant information on Pleistocene terrestrial and oceanic climatic conditions has been learned from this fossil data base. New or additional fossil finds will aid scientists to further refine these climatic interpretations and our understanding of the evolution of life in southern California. The rock units underlying the Holly-Seacliff Project site are rated as having a High paleontologic potential (Figure 2 ) because grading or other earthmoving activities are very likely to expose fossil remains . However the activities that uncover these ' fossils, will by the same token, destroy them. MITIGATION MEASURES To reduce the negative impact of developmental work on the paleontologic resources of the area to an acceptable level, the following mitigation measures are recommended. These strategies are derived from past efforts at protecting non-renewable ' 4 ' paleontologic resources, while at the same time permitting the timely completion of development projects in Orange County, as well as elsewhere in southern California. 1 . 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 . 2 . In areas where fossils are abundant, full-time monitoring and salvage efforts may 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. 3 . • The paleontologist should be allowed to temporarily divert or direct grading operations to facilitate assessment and salvaging of exposed fossils . 4 . Collection and processing of matrix samples through tine screens will be 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. 5. 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. If you have any questions or if we can be of additional service ' do not hesitate to contact us . ' 5 SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY Bissell, Ronald, 1989 . Archaeologist, RMW Paleo Associates. Bruff, S.C. , 1946 . The Paleontology of the Pleistocene Molluscan Fauna of the Newport Bay Area, CA. , Univ. Calif. Publ. , Bull. Dept. Geol. Sci . V. 27 , N. 6 , p. 213-240 . Govean, F.M. , 1988 . Report on Paleontological Monitoring FY87 New Family Housing Project HO 02 , Los Angeles County, California. Ms . on file RMW Paleo Associates, dated June 1988 . Kanakoff, G.P. and W.K. Emerson, 1959 . Late Pleistocene invertebrates of the Newport Bay Area, California, Nat. Hist. Mus. of Los Angeles County Contrib. Sci . , N. 31 , p. 3- 47 . Kennedy, G.L. , 1975 . Paleontologic Record of Areas. Adjacent to the Los Angeles and Long Beach Harbors , Los Angeles County, California. In Marine Studies of San Pedro Bay, California (Pt. 9 , Paleontology) , Eds . D.F. Soule and M. Oguri . Allan Hancock Foundation and Office of Sea Grant Programs, Univ. Southern Calif . (USC-SG-4-75 ) p. 1-35. Lagenwalter, P.E. , II , 1975 . Chordates --The Fossil Vertebrates of the Los Angeles - Long Beach Harbor Region. In: Marine Studies of San Pedro Bay, California (Pt. 9 , Paleontology) , (Eds. D.F. Soule and M. Oguri) . Allan Hancock Foundation 1 and Office of Sea Grant Programs , Univ. Southern Calif . (USC-SG-4-75 ) p. 36-119 . Miller W.E. , 1971 . Pleistocene Vertebrates of the Los Angeles Basin and Vicinity (Exclusive of Rancho La Brea) , Bull. Los Angeles County Museum Natl. Hist. , Science, N. 10 , 124 pp. ' Morton, P.K . and R.V. Miller, 1973. Geologic Map of Orange County, California . Preliminary Geo-Environmental Maps of Orange County, CA, Calif. Div. Mines and Geology Prelim. Report 15, Plate 1 . Poland, J.F. , Piper A.M. , and others, 1956. Ground Water Geology of the Coastal Zone Long Beach - Santa Ana Area, California. U.S. Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 1109 , 159 pp. Valentine, J.W. , 1959 . Pleistocene Molluscan Notes II . Faunale from Huntington Beach Mesa, California. Nautilus N. 73, p. 51-59 . 7 Valentine, J .W. and R.F. Meade, 1961 . Californian Pleistocene ' Paleotemperatures, Univ. Calif. Paleo. Geol. Sci. , V. 40 , N.1 , 46 pp. Woodford, A.O. , J .E. Schoellhamer, J.G. Vedder, and R.F. Yerkes, 1954, Geology of the Los Angeles Basin, in Jahns, R.H. , (Ed. ) , Geology of Southern California, California Div. of Mines and Geology Bull. 170 , Chap. II , N. 5, p. 65 81 . Yerkes, R.F. , T.H. McCulloh, Schoellhamer, J.E. , and J.G. Vedder, 1965. Geology of the Los Angeles Basin California - An Introduction, U.S.G.S. Prof. Paper 420-A, 57 pp. PERSONS CONTACTED Stewart, Dr. J.D. , Assistant Curator, Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County (213 ) 744-3318 . 1 8 1 i L HOLLY - SEACLIFF GPA BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Appendix L Lsa BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION OF THE HOLLY SEACLIFF PROPERTY PREPARED FOR FORMA 190 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE UPPER GALLERY NEWPORT BEACH, CA 91730 PREPARED BY LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. 1 PARK PLAZA, SUITE 500 IRVINE, CA 92714 (714) 553-0666 LSA PROJECT #FOR902 REVISED JUNE 23, 1989 j 1 IBIOLOGICAL EVALUATION OF THE HOLLY SEACLIFF PROPERTY INTRODUCTION LSA has been retained by FORMA to provide a biological evaluation of the 768 acre Holly Seacliff Master Plan Area. This evaluation is part of an EIR accompanying an amendment to the Huntington Beach General Plan. The amendment proposes additional development of this parcel for primarily residential and commercial uses, with associated widening and extension of major roads and the setting aside of areas for parks and open space. Existing uses include oil production and mixed use, residential/commercial . This evaluation includes documentation of sensitive biological elements present or potentially occurring on the project site, and analysis of the habitats present, their relative values as biological resources, and the overall impacts to these areas as a result of the proposed development. Previous studies of parcels included in the current project boundary have been performed by Michael Brandman Associates (MBA) and STA Inc. (STA) , and information from these studies has been incorporated into this evaluation. METHODS Prior to the field work, a request was made to the California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) for information on sensitive biological elements occurring on the Seal Beach and Newport Beach I 7.5' U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) topographic quadrangles. The project site was inspected on foot and by car on February 21, from 10:30 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. , April 3 from 12:45 to 3:45 p.m. , April 14 from 1:30 to 5:00 p.m. , and April 20 from 3:00 to 5:00 p.m. (all dates in 1989) . Special attention was given to identifying wetlands and inspecting the areas most likely to be utilized by sensitive species. Habitats were mapped using field inspection combined with a black and white aerial photograph at a scale of 1"=200' . RESULTS Mapped habitats are shown in Figure 1. The predominant habitat on-site is ruderal (weedy) annual 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 neighborhoods, industrial buildings and storage yards, a shopping center and a covered reser- voir. Non-native woodland present on-site consists of a comparatively small 05/23/89(FOR902) _ p(` : ' `6 X a I �' ��` �'•SG� -. Y- 1^ p t f .° z`= i Ahk ,:r � r.,S''.'r ..,.:, ';, j//r' _.. i'�.�:s. c 1l r�+r-./.�`' ,,� •+n�. r r t((x � •:T•--R•_T � I s'�..• n *:�,. d ,' r �"f '.". i '�' �•r .r•y !(}.'( Q t a n) _ `{.•'r .6 Y� i}. 6 .�'Y ;{. t "jb .!_ '? ' rY� i• -� �� A": l� ,,.,-•-_.S. 'r / :?r..•/ f �t... Ml-: 'Lir,•.rLa,'• :�..:o-_'�• Kt � y,=�. t q. _ °"r,` . � wa z � �.:oar} � •' �� ''< ,..•�' �, f.�sN LEGEND ,y ,r.: s �•..e. { '` '^'-� { I'3'y: _ t R J� ! ./, "\s ,, lS�'S ? \ Y +.�'•.. , t ti s., 1 K r �, / DEV — Developed Area .i z r: <<\h,. F, � ` .'P/ '� �. r.F� �� �' � r .a-,•,fir�`� NNW — Non—native Woodland 'J a / RAG - Ru eral d Annual Grassland �' / ; --•- - - t PsDS — Palustrine, shrub, Deciduous, Salix _ r Pb — Palustrine unconsolidated bottom FM PePD — Palustrine, emergent, Persistent, Distichlis R„y: PePS Palustrine, emergent-, Persistent, Salicornia 'f' '"�'��,, }, r ':,��`"`\�„ ���'� f%ts '�'� ....-��: �.1 - `-��.�--..0 _y -_:,,,, �t_� ..., �'.,,�•. PePT Palustrine, emergent, Persistent, yp a y4 , , - - - Y s Pa a t T h _. , ..r... sue. {, ', y .'=:�, Pu - Palustrine, unconsolidated shore ice•` �. r�'.�=i s..'1 _���:. �,,,, - l _ r _ __ �� _ ,• ; ,H, -.4, t '\ �' �� '1 7! �� Xi _ I � ,�r7• - �sy.M�Y^- .• +4 1' (g r r L .y�t { :; PuVC - Palustrine, unconsolidated shore, Vegetated, -.''•a•+....:+./:`/r, `�. . •�a ¢ a t<'\ .�� R. , i :\ _ 4,._DE7�`.. ems' /.It' -rw���� '�` Conyza <? T� Y{ S - �� _� _ /J•t .l`AMI!1/ �' � � / /.t'� ;� '-r�6 - a i) i•� JF 9 r 1 M y ;• �, r wF •.�. r ,,�' t; '"•'� R�IT C t { , � i 5*^, br )' If.. a� , z �!!: mow:? t ", V 'r V a e.. `. .,. ,q l:�•• t� qq �' � >.! �• 't _ "� is , 4MV5 r\ '`�a' ? _ �a��y{� •��\g. � t-,,.(Z�{ Y s �'} 1 c - :.b « tr 1 r�t,wf, �++•�' ZAP✓ �' ,`yam !'T ;� �n"3({ -kf j,e ivt� _ /�'T'!,a�.w•� - _1i.o.l d- � .a_,f y �rt i "•�' � r�� .i :tft�i, r ,��, � Ii"M} +.,�, }� � •: �! � �K�•t- _ ,'�'TT�•.... ,�I�ss .�C,,t K IL-•�. ! �.r 1 t r 3 7 `rr•••-'afr'_}� i J y r +�.. ^ky,� r t�_ �' t o t _ , r; a A. 10 � � 'eyes �.� f �i 1 � �''�` �� xt.,: 7� +y�{�,���";' ^`�r,''��M�'7+hY'..- \�• RHI ', _y� �(� i'�'',`� v ��.4`'�`'� ��. -%.. � �[ .�i: r: f—�r �. \�<�tp' 1�+.t�J [� �J'•y+n.J '7aJ ,:•. ,�` .•i n7 .��•\�f µ i .,t. ^�,•' _. .�,y,'iT?t s i t a l'', /v'r,. 'cr ;<�i• y',,'7 [,f+1t`�•r t.:t�� 'A zr_: " 14 „�j• s F �Yw I ,� •zI y ✓:. ? ,* �t �y,�'�.,�� '�` 'Ct, Yf .,',, ,i _ f `p1r('l+i (� �•-e5- � ( < _ a, t,;� �- t,sue'+..a� ! '" w, - 1 7- 7 tF, FIGURE .1 SCALE IN FEET 5 HABITAT MAP 0 400 800 i PLAN AREA 9�89:ICF HOLLY SEACLIFF SPECIFIC P A EA 1 Lsa variety of ornamental species planted in residential yards, around urban struc- tures and in fields. Wetland habitats, areas which contain water and/or are dominated by wetland plant species as classified by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), are very limited on the site. Freshwater palustrine emergent wetlands are fairly degraded, and occur in the northern portion of the project site. The western boundary lies adjacent to Bolsa Bay, and a limited area of salt marsh (called brackish palustrine emergent wetland) occurs here. plant Communities/ Habitat Types The wetland habitat types discussed in this report are classified according to the USFWS document, Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States (Cowardin et al , 1979) . Brackish Palustrine Emergent Wetlands. These habitats occur only in two small areas, totalling 3.1 acres, which are near or below sea level on the western project boundary next to Bolsa Bay. Coastal wetlands are productive and important habitats which were formerly quite extensive throughout the state. The filling and development of these wetlands has threatened several species which rely on these habitats exclusively. The sites are described as follows: Palustrine. Emergent, Persistent. Distichlis (PePD). This is the habitat code for the easterly site, which measures 1.4 acres and is strongly dominated by saltgrass (Distichlis s icata) . This site is separated from the other wetland by a raised oil company road and apparently receives its water from runoff and tidal fluctuations in the water table. It is not as healthy or diverse as the westerly site. Palustrine. Emergent, Persistent. Salicornia (PePS) . This is the habitat code for the westerly site, measuring 1.7 acres. This area is wetter than the easterly site and exhibits more complex structure. It is dominated by pickleweed (Salicornia sp.) , hyssop-leaved bassia (Bassia hvssopifolia), rush (Juncus sp.) and saltgrass. This wetland probably receives its water from the same sources as the PePD site, and may also receive direct tidal surface flow from the channel directly to the west of the site. Belding's savannah sparrow (Passerculus sandwichensis beldingi) is a locally common resident in the pickle- weed marsh of Bolsa Bay, and may utilize this site (please see Sensitive Biologi- cal Elements section) . However, in the four surveys completed by LSA biologists, three of which were in the spring when activity is generally greatest, no individuals were noted in this wetland or anywhere in the immediate vicinity. 05/23/89(FOR902) 3 i j Lsa Freshwater Palustrine Emergent Wetlands. 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 areas are heavily disturbed and de- graded, and are consequently of less biological value than is typical for such areas. As they occur on-site, the most important functions of these areas in the local ecology is as a water supply for wildlife and as nesting habitat for a limited variety of birds. Freshwater wetlands cover 2.2 acres within the project boundary. The wetlands have been divided into separate categories based on the presence of standing water and type/presence of vegetation. These habi- tats are described as: Palustrine, Unconsolidated Bottom (Pb). This classification in this study refers to a pond or drainage which is usually inundated with standing water and whose shores are not dominated by wetland indicator plant species. Much of the stretch of drainage just south of Ellis Avenue designated Pb is heavily vegetated with sweet fennel (Foeniculum vul are) , a species not considered a wetland indicator by the USFWS. This habitat covers 0.5 acres on-site. Palustrine, Emergent, Persistent, Tvpha (PePT) . This cattail marsh is found in three areas. The most extensive example of this community is in the drainage which emerges from the residential neighborhood at the corner of Edwards Street and Ellis Avenue. Several male red-winged blackbirds (Agelaius phoenicius) were observed performing territorial displays here on the April 20 survey. The cattail marsh just west of Goldenwest Avenue had been disturbed prior to the April 3 survey, apparently as a weed abatement measure. On the project site, this community covers 0.5 acres. Palustrine, Unconsolidated Shore (Pu) . For the purposes of this project, this refers to an area not believed to hold standing water the year round but which is seasonally wet. The only location identified as such is a wet, weedy area adjoining the PePT marsh just west of Goldenwest Avenue. This area was also disturbed prior to the second survey, leaving the area dry. Prior to this disturbance, this area covered 0.2 acres. Palustrine. Unconsolidated Shore, Vegetated, Conyza (PuVc). This habitat is found on the west bank of the drainage (Pb) just south of Ellis Avenue. A wetland indicator species, horseweed (Conyza canadensis) occurs in a dense stand interspersed with another wetland species, mulefat (Baccharus glutinosa) , in an area covering 0.4 acres. Palustrine. Shrub, Deciduous, Salix (PsDS) . Willow trees (Salix spp.) are quite limited on the project site, with four small stands associated with 05/23/89(POR902) 4 lsa the channel (Pb) in the northeast corner of the site, and two isolated indi- viduals located elsewhere--one within a swale just west of this channel and the other in a depression within an oil field in the southwest corner of the site. Although these two areas support single willows, a wetland indicator species, ' this reflects a very local moisture regime, not the presence of a larger wetland system. Historically, willow woodland formed extensive stands along stream- courses throughout Southern California, providing breeding habitat for a number of bird species formerly considered fairly common or common here (e.g. willow flycatcher, least Bell 's vireo) but whose link to this habitat has led to their decline in the region. The total amount of this fragmented habitat on-site is 0.50 acres, sufficient to provide only minimal habitat for wildlife. Non-native Woodland/Developed Areas. Planted ornamental trees are scat- tered throughout the project site, often in association with existing devel- opments, and are utilized primarily by those species most adaptable to human presence. Eucalyptus, mostly red gum (Eucalyptus camaldulensis), 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 (Olea euro ea) , pine (Pinus sp.), myoporum (Mvo porum lae- tum), fig (Ficus carica) and fan palm (Washingtonia sp.) . Ruderal Annual Grassland. This is a disturbed habitat dominated by non- native grass species such as slender wild oats (Avena barbata) , red brome (Bromus rubens) , abu-mashi (Schismus barbatus) and bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon) , and weedy herbaceous species such as red-stemmed filaree (Erodium cicutarium), wild mustard and sweet-clover (Melilotus albus) . Scattered individuals of some of the non-native woodland species also occur in portions of this habitat. In addition to those species of passerine birds which inhabit grasslands, raptor species utilize this habitat as primary foraging areas due to the relative abu- ndance of reptiles and mammals which inhabit it and the lack of protective cover it provides these prey species. Most of the undeveloped land on the project site falls under this category. Wildlife Amphibians. No amphibians were recorded on-site during the field survey, but in moist locales Pacific treefrog (Hula regilla) and bullfrog (Rana cate- beiana) 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, western fence lizard (Scelogorus occidentalis), was recorded in annual grassland. Other species likely to occur in this and other habitats include side-blotched lizard O5/23/89(FOR9O2) 5 i Lsa (Uta stansburiana) , southern alligator lizard (Gerrhonotus multicarinatus), common kingsnake (Lampropeltis getulus), common garter snake (Thamnophis sir- talis) and western rattlesnake (Crotalus viridis) . Birds. Birds are common inhabitants of all areas of the project site. Although species composition varies somewhat between habitats, there is con- siderable overlap of habitats utilized. In pickleweed marsh (PePS) , American wigeon (Anas americana) , soya (Porzana caroling), black-necked stilt (Himantopus mexicanus) , black phoebe (Sayornis nigricans), northern rough-winged swallow (Stell idopteryx serrinennis) , common yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas) and song sparrow (Melospiza melodia) are typical species. Belding's savannah sparrow (Passerculus sandwichensis beldingi) could also utilize this area (please see Sensitive Biological Elements Section) . The freshwater wetlands (Pb, PePT, Pu and PuVC) on-site have different characters, and therefore will support somewhat different mixes of species. Since willow woodland is so limited on the project site, this habitat is con- sidered as part of the major contiguous drainage (Pb and PuVC) . 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 (Nycticorax nycticorax) may be found feeding on-site, as well as dabbling ducks such as the mallard (Anas platyrynchos) . Additionally, species more typical of other habitats use these areas as a water source for drinking and bathing. Terrestrial species expected around the freshwater wetlands include black-chinned hummingbird (Archilochus alexandri), ash-throated flycatcher (Myarchus cinerascens), house wren (Troglodytes aedon), common yellowthroat, orange-crowned warbler (Vermivora celata) , brown towhee (Pipilo fuscus) , brown-headed cowbird (Molothrus ater) and house finch (Cargodacus mexicanus) . Non-native woodland/developed areas are utilized by a variety of birds for nesting, foraging, roosting and perching. In association with developed areas, these ornamental plantings are usually frequented by common passerines such as Anna's hummingbird (Calvate anna) , scrub jay (Aghelocoma coerulescens) , bushtit (Psaltriparus minimus) , American robin (Turdus migratorius) , northern mockingbird (Mimus golvglottos), European starling (Sturnus vulgaris), hooded oriole (Icterus cucullatus), house sparrow (Passer domesticus) and house finch. Where human presence is not as immediate, large eucalyptus trees are often utilized by raptors such as red-tailed hawk (Buteo .iamaicensis) and red-shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus) for perching and perhaps nesting, while the common barn owl (Tvto alba) frequently lives in large fan palms. 05/23/89(FOR902) 6 Lsa Ruderal annual grassland is utilized by a variety of species, most con- spicuously the large birds of prey. However, during the four surveys very few raptors were seen on the project site, despite efforts to locate them. The large expanses of grasslands on-site suggested that red-shouldered (Buteo lineatus) and red-tailed hawks, American kestrel (Falco sparverius), and perhaps other, less common, species would be present and relatively easy to locate, but only one red-shouldered hawk and two red-tailed hawks were seen in the four surveys. As rodents appeared to be plentiful , the conspicuous human presence (in the form of development) in the area probably explains this local scarcity. Other expected ruderal grassland species include killdeer, turkey vulture (Cathartes aura), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), Say's phoebe (Savornis sava), loggerhead shrike (Lanius Iudovici anus) , water pipit (Anthus spinoletta) , western meadowlark (Sturnella neglecta) and white-crowned sparrow (Zonotrichia leuco- phrvs) Mammals. In ruderal annual grassland, Virginia oppossum (Didelphis vir- iniana), black-tailed hare (Lepus californicus) , Audubon cottontail (Svlvilag- us audubonii) and Beechy ground squirrel (Otospermophilus beechevi) were sight- ed during the field survey, while the holes of the Botta pocket gopher (Thomomvs bottae) were noted. Other mammals expected on the project site include deer mouse (Peromvscus maniculatus) , red fox (Vulpes fulva) and striped skunk (Meph- itis mephitis) . Sensitive Biological Elements Plants and animals listed by federal , State, or private agencies as being rare, endangered, threatened or declining on a local , regional or global level may be considered "sensitive biological elements". Although no such elements were encountered in the field, the CNDDB lists several for areas in and near the project site. Please see Appendix A for definitions of classifications. Ventura marsh milk vetch (Astragalus avcnostachvus lanosissimus) is believed to be extinct. It was formerly found in the coastal marshes of Orange, Los Angeles and Ventura counties. The last sighting of this species anywhere was in 1967 at the mouth of the Santa Clara River in Ventura. It is listed by the USFWS/federal government as a Category 1 candidate species (see Appendix A) and is designated B1.1 by the CNDDB (Appendix A) . It is not listed by the State of California. In the vicinity of the project site, it was last noted at "La Bolsa" (assumed to be Bolsa Bay) in October, 1882. Salt marsh bird's beak (Cordvlanthus maritimus) is found in coastal salt marshes throughout Southern California. It is listed as endangered by both the federal and State governments, and designated B1.2 by the CNDDB. Its California 05/23/89(FOR902) 7 I I lsa Native Plant Society R-E-D Code is 2-2-2 (see legend) . It was recorded at "Bolsas Marsh" (assumed to be Bolsa Bay) in 1981, but the CNDDB believes it to be extirpated from this site. For this reason, it is not expected to occur on j the project site. California brackishwater snail (Trvonia imitator) is found in coastal lagoons and brackish water stream mouth habitats. The federal government lists it as a Category 2 candidate species and the CNDDB designates it A2.2. It is not State listed. There is a record based on empty shells found at Bolsa Chica State Beach in 1968, but no live specimens have been sighted. If this species occurs on-site, it would be in the brackish emergent wetland areas. Two sensitive species of tiger beetle (Cincindela gabbi and C. latesignata) , have been recorded at Bolsa Bay and Huntington State Beach. C. latesignata is a Federal Category 2 species, while C. Qabbi is a California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) Special Animal , "closely associated with a habitat that is declining in California at an alarming rate" (e.g. wetlands) . According to the CNDDB, these populations are believed to have been extirpated. Black-shouldered kite (Elanus caeruleus) is a CDFG "fully protected" species. Although none were sighted during the surveys, the project site contains a significant amount of appropriate winter foraging habitat for this species (i .e. , ruderal annual grassland, brackish emergent wetland) , and small numbers regularly winter at Bolsa Bay. The few breeding locations for this species in Orange County are well documented, and nesting is not to be expected on-site. Northern harrier (Circus cvaneus) is a CDFG Second Priority Bird Species of Special Concern (see key), but is otherwise unlisted. The status of this species in the region and on the project site is very similar to that of the black shouldered kite, above, although the harrier is somewhat rarer and is not a confirmed nesting species in the Orange County at present. It is an uncommon winter resident in the County, foraging in coastal wetlands, grasslands and coastal sage scrub. It is rare in summer, possibly breeding in a small number of known coastal locations, none near the project site. It was not noted during the surveys, although there is appropriate foraging habitat on the project site. American peregrine falcon (Falco peregrines anatum) is a rare, fairly regular visitor to Bolsa Bay, mostly in winter but with several summer records. It is a federal and State endangered species and a CDFG "fully protected" species on the "Special Animal List". There are no recent nesting records in the County. This species favors salt marshes for hunting and could conceivably utilize the 05/23/89(FOR902) 8 Lsa brackish emergent wetlands on the project site as a very minor part of its foraging territory. Burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) primarily inhabits short grassland or other open areas which have an abundance of ground squirrel holes, its preferred nesting site. Although once fairly common throughout the area, the species has declined significantly over much of its range in California, due to conversion of grasslands and pasture lands to agriculture, and destruction of ground squir- rel colonies (Remsen, 1978) . This species is considered a California Second Priority Bird Species of Special Concern by CDFG (see key) , but is not otherwise listed. Although conditions appear to be suitable for its presence on the project site, it was not noted during the field surveys and is presently not likely to be utilizing the area. Light-footed clapper rail (Rallus longirostris levipes) is a rare and sporadic winter (non-breeding) visitor to Bolsa Bay, where it is found in pickleweed marsh. Destruction of this habitat and predation by the introduced red fox has made it a federal and State endangered species and a CDFG "fully protected" species on the "Special Animal List". The last major populations are in Anaheim Bay to the north and Upper Newport Bay to the south, and there was formerly a population at Bolsa Bay. Plans are being made by CDFG to reintroduce this species to Bolsa Bay once its requirements for survival are fully understood (Ron Jurek, pers. comm.) . The pickleweed marsh (PePS) would potentially be suitable habitat for this species were such a plan implemented. California least tern (Sterna antillarum) is a summer resident and breeder at Bolsa Bay. It is designated as endangered by both the federal and State governments, and the CNDDB lists it as B2.1. There are no suitable nesting sites within the project boundaries. It is not likely that this species util- izes the small pool of open brackish water on-site as a foraging area, as this area probably does not support any prey for least terns. Black swift (Cypseloides niger) nests on coastal cliffs or on protected cliffs near waterfalls. It is not listed by the federal or State governments, but is designated B2 by the CNDDB. This species does not breed in coastal Southern California. There was one sighting in the project vicinity during the breeding season (June 10, 1981) , but this is during the species' normal spring migration period. This species is a very rare spring and fall transient in Orange County and does not breed here. Bank swallow (Ri aria ri aria) was formerly a regular breeder at coastal localities in Orange County but has been extirpated as a breeder here. It is not listed by the federal government. It is a candidate for listing by the 05/23/89(FOR902) 9 Lsa State of California and is designated B3.1 by the CNDDB. This species formerly bred at Huntington Beach State Park (egg collection, ca. 1918) . It is current- ly a rare spring and fall transient in coastal Southern California. While individuals could conceivably forage over the small area of brackish emergent wetland, this would be a very minor hunting area for them. Belding's savannah sparrow (Passerculus sandwichensis beldinai) is an inhabitant of southern California's coastal salt marshes. It is a federally designated Category 2 species, listed as endangered by the State of California and B2.1 by the CNDDB. It is a common resident and breeder in the pickleweed marsh found in Bolsa Bay. Although not recorded on-site during the field surveys, it may utilize the brackish emergent wetland for foraging, cover and possibly as a breeding site. IMPACTS The project impacts are generally the same for the two project alternatives. Minor, qualitative differences in the impacts are noted in the discussions below. Project 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 Plan areas which are proposed for development. The existing open areas will be converted to residential , commercial and (for the Industrial Alternative) a small area of industrial 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, while the more mobile species, such as larger mammals and birds, will be displaced to ad- jacent 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 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, has lessened the importance of the project site as upland raptor foraging habitat, and no use of the site by raptors from the wetlands area, e.g. northern harrier, was noted. 05/23/89(FOR902) 10 Lsa Upon completion of the project, many species which can coexist with humans I will repopulate 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. The influx of wildlife back into the area after de- velopment will be higher under the Residential Alternative, since the larger areas of residential use and lower residential density will provide more land- scaped area. Due to the low value habitat on-site and the absence of any sig- nificant occurrence of sensitive elements in the proposed development area, this overall impact of conversion of the site should be considered biologically insig- nificant. However, since the site is the one of the 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 CDFG and USFWS, 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 Plan area provides potential habitat for the Beld- ing's savannah sparrow and other coastal wetland species. Therefore, any impact to this area should be considered potentially significant. The westerly exten- sion of Garfield Avenue would impact this area and development in the open space, e.g. recreation facilities could also potentially impact this wetland. 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 1 and augment the foraging habitat in the surrounding grasslands. Therefore, the potential impacts to these isolated wetland areas, in the context of the overall development, should be considered biologically insignificant. However, any impact to wetland habitat, such as cattail marsh or willow trees is considered significant by 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 to the west of the project. One of these impacts is the potential for 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 will be slightly greater for the 05/23/89(FOR902) 1 1 Lsa Industrial Alternative, since it provides for higher residential density along the western portion of the project. This is a potentially significant impact. 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. RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES Several mitigation measures can be implemented which will reduce the significant impacts to levels of insignificance and further reduce the insig- nificant impacts. Since many of the details of project development have not been proposed, these mitigation measure are necessarily general . • 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. • 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 natural- ized species which require little irrigation and provide wildlife habitat, with a gradual transition to more ornamental species along the development edge. • Following construction of necessary infrastructure in the main drain- age 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) will take place such that a minimum of 1.0 acre of riparian vegetation is established in this drainage swale. The plantings for this riparian habitat should be selected from the following recommended plant palette: 05/23/89(FOR902) 12 lsa Common Name Scientific Name Trees Arroyo willow Salix lasiolepis Red willow S. laevigata Golden willow S. lasiandra Sandbar willow S. hindsiana Sycamore Platanus racemosa White alder Alnus rhombifolia Coast live oak Ouercus agrifolia California bay Umbellularia californica California walnut Juglans californica Tall shrubs Elderberry Sambucus mexicana Laurel sumac Rhus laurina Sugarbush R. ovata Toyon Heteromeles arbutifolia Coyote brush Baccharis pilularis var. consanguinea Low shrubs and vines California rose Rosa californica California blackberry Rubus ursinus Fuschia-flowered gooseberry Rites speciosum Catalina currant R. viburnifolium Golden currant R. aureum Bush monkeyflower Diplacus longiflorus Poison oak Toxicodendron diversilobum I California grape Vitis californica I Herbaceous plants and grasses Mugwort Artemisia douglasiana Giant wildrye Elvmus condensatus Cattail Typha spp. Tule Scirpus spp. The plans for this restoration should be reviewed with the appropriate resource/permitting agencies and will be used as part of the applica- tions for any necessary agreements and/or permits. Establishment of more than 1 .0 acre of riparian vegetation may be accomplished as a project amenity. 05/23/89(FOR902) 13 Lsa • Any grading or filling in the brackish wetlands in the western por- tion 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. • Development/use of the linear park (open space area along the north- , ern 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. • 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. 05/23/89(FOR902) 14 Lsa REFERENCES California Department of Fish and Game, 1980. At the Crossroads 1980, The Resources Agency, California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA. 152 pp. California Department of Fish and Game, 1983. Supplement to At the Cross roars; 1980, The Resources Agency, Sacramento, CA. California Department of Fish and Game, 1985. Amendments to the California M and Game Code, sections 2050-2095. California Natural Diversity Data Base, 1988. Request for Data Base information for Newport Beach I 7.5' USGS topographic quadrangle. California Natural Diversity Data Base, 1989. Request for Data Base information for Seal Beach 7.5' USGS topographic quadrangle. California Natural Diversity Data Base, 1989. Astragalus pycnostachyus lanosissimus, Rare Plant Status Report. California Natural Diversity Data Base, 1989. Cordylanthus maritimus maritimus, Rare Plant Status Report. Cowardin, Lewis M. et al . , 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. FWS/OBS - 79/31 . 131 pp. Garrett, K. and J. Dunn, 1981 . Birds of Southern California: Status and Distri- bution, Los Angeles Audubon Society, Los Angeles, CA. 408 pp. Ingles, Lloyd G. , 1965. Mammals of the Pacific States, Stanford University Press, Stanford, California, 506 pp. 1 Jureck, Ron, CDFG. Personal communication, 14 March 1989. Munz, P.A. , 1974. A Flora of Southern California, University of California Press: Berkeley, CA. National Geographic Society, 1983. Field Guide to the Birds of North America, Chief Consultants: Jon L. Dunn and Eirik A.T. Blom, National Geographic Society, Washington, D.C. 464 pp. 05/23/89(FOR902> 15 lsa Reed, P.B. Jr. 1988. National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands: California (Region 0) . USFWS Biol . Rep. 88(26.10) . 135 pp. Remsen, Jr. , J.V. , 1978. Bird Species of Special Concern in California, Non- game Wildlife Investigations, Wildlife Management Branch Administrative Report No. 78-1. Report prepared for the California Department of Fish and Game. Smith, J.P. and R. York, 1984. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California. California Native Plant Society, Spec. Pub. No. 1 (3rd edition), Berkeley, CA. Stebbins, R.C. , 1966. A Field Guide to Western Reptiles and Amphibians, Houghton Mifflin; Boston. Thorne, R.F. , 1976. "An Overview of Southern California Plant Communities", in Plant Communities of Southern California, ed. by June Latting. California Native Plant Society Spec. Publ . No. 2 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1985a. "Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; review of plant taxa for listing as endangered or threatened species; notice of review", Federal Register Vol 50. No. 188. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1985b. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; review of vertebrate taxa for listing as endangered or threatened species; notice of review", Federal Register Vol 50. No. 181. Williams, D.F. , 1986. Mammalian Species of Special Concern in California, Wildlife Management Division Administrative Report 86-1. Report prepared for the California Department of Fish and Game. 05/23/89(FOR902) 16 lsa APPENDIX A KEY TO SPECIES CLASSIFICATIONS FEDERAL Category 1 candidate species - Enough data are on file to support the federal listing. Category 2 candidate species - Threat and/or distribution data are insufficient to support federal listing. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME BIRD SPECIES OF SPECIAL CONCERN Highest Priority Faces immediate extirpation of its entire California popula- tion or their California breeding population if current trends continue. Second Priority - Definitely on the decline in a large portion of its range in California, but populations are still sufficiently substantial that danger is not immediate. Third Priority - Not in any present danger of extirpation and populations within most of its range do not appear to be declining seriously; however, simply by virtue of its small populations in California, it is vulnerable to extirpation should a threat materialize. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME FULLY PROTECTED SPECIES Fish and Game code sections relating to fully protected animals state that fully protected birds, mammals, reptiles and amphibians, and fish or parts thereof, may not be taken or possessed at any time and no provision of this code or any other law shall be construed to authorize the issuance of permits or licenses to take any fully protected (animal) and no such permits or licenses heretofore issued shall have any force or effect for any such purpose; except that the commission nay authorize the collecting of such species for necessary scientific research and may authorize the live capture and relocation of such species pursuant to a permit for the protection of livestock. Legally imported fully protected (animals) or parts thereof may be possessed under a permit issued by the department. 05/23/89(FOR902) A - 1 lsa CALIFORNIA NATURAL DIVERSITY DATA BASE A1.1 Extremely rare, endangered and unprotected species A1.2 Extremely rare and threatened species A2.1 Very rare, endangered and unprotected species A2.2 Very rare and threatened species B1.1 Rare and endangered species or extremely rare, endangered or threatened subspecies B1.2 Rare and endangered species or very rare, endangered or threatened sub- species B2.1 Uncommon and threatened species or rare and endangered subspecies B2.2 Rare and not threatened, or peripheral and endangered in California only, species or rare and threatened subspecies , B3.1 Uncommon and declining, or peripheral and threatened in California only, species or uncommon threatened, or peripheral and endangered in California only, subspecies B3.2 Widespread and declining species or uncommon declining, or peripheral and threatened in California only, subspecies BU Possibly threatened, needs more information Information sources of status descriptions are derived from the California Natural Diversity Data Base. CALIFORNIA NATIVE PLANT SOCIETY R-E-D CODE R (Rarity) 1 - Rare, but found in sufficient numbers and distributed widely enough that the potential for extinction or extirpation is low at this time. 2 - Occurrence confined to several populations or to one extended population. 3 - Occurrence limited to one or a few highly restricted populations, or present in such small numbers that it is seldom reported. E (Endangerment) 1 - Not endangered 2 - Endangered in a portion of its range 3 - Endangered throughout its range D (Distribution) 1 - More or less widespread outside California 2 - Rare outside California 3 - Endemic to California 05/23/89(FOR902) A - 2 1 ! Lsa APPENDIX B PLANT SPECIES LIST The following native and introduced species were observed on the project site during the surveys performed as part of this and/or previous studies. + native species * observed by LSA biologists # observed by MBA biologists STA did not indicate which species were actually observed GYMNOSPERMAE CONE-BEARING PLANTS Pinaceae Pine family * Pinus sp. Pine ANGIOSPERMAE: DICOTYLEDONAE DICOT FLOWERING PLANTS Aizoaceae Carpet weed family *# Carpobrotus edulis Hottentot-fig *# Gasoul crystallinum Ice plant * Gasoul nodiflorum Slender-leaved ice plant Amaranthaceae Amaranth family *# Amaranth albus Tumbleweed Apiaceae Carrot family *# Foeniculum vul are Sweet fennel Apocynaceae Dogbane family # Nerium oleander Oleander Asteraceae Sunflower family + # Ambrosia psilostachya Western ragweed + *# Baccharis emoryi Emory baccharis + *# is glutinosa Mulefat *# Carduus pycnocephalus Italian thistle *# Centaurea melitensis Tocalote *# Cirsium sp. Thistle + *# Convza canadensis Horseweed + # Corethrogvne filaginifolia Cudweed aster 05/23/89(FOR902) B - 1 lsa # Cotula coronopifolia Brass-buttons + # Gnaphalium beneolens Fragrant everlasting + # Gnaphalium chilense Cotton-batting plant + # Helianthus annul Common sunflower + *# Hemizonia fasciculata Tarweed + # Heterotheca grandiflora Telegraph weed # Lactuca serriola Wild lettuce # Sonchus asper Bristly ox-tongue # Sonchus oleraceus Common sow-thistle # Xanthium spinosum Spiny clotbur # Xanthium strumarium Cocklebur Boraginaceae Borage family + # Heliotropium curassavicum salt heliotrope Brassicaceae Mustard family *# Brassica geniculata Wild mustard *# Brassica ni ra Black mustard *# Raphanus sativus Wild radish # Sisvmbrium altissimum Tumbling-mustard Chenopodiaceae Goosefoot family * Atriplex semibaccata Australian Saltbush + *# Atriplex ap tula Spear saltbush *# Bassia hyssopifolia Five-hooked bassia *# Beta vulgaris Sugar beet *# Chenopodium ambrosioides Mexican-tea + * Salicornia sp. Pickleweed * Salsola iberica Russian-thistle Euphorbiaceae Spurge family *# Ricinus communis Castor-bean Fabaceae Pea family * Acacia retinodes Water wattle + * Luoinus bicolor Bicolored lupine * Melilotus albus Sweet-clover Frankeniaceae Frankenia family * Frankenia grandifolia Alkali heath 05/23/89(FOR902) B - 2 lsa Geraniaceae Geranium family * Erodium cicutarium Red-stemmed filaree 1 Lamiaceae Mint Family *# Marrubium vu_ lgare Horehound Malvaceae Mallow family + # Sida leprosa Alkali-mallow Myrtaceae Myrtle family *# Eucalyptus camaldulensis Red gum # Eucalyptus rudis Blue gum Myoporaceae Myoporum family *# Myoporum laetum Myoporum Oleaceae Olive family *# Olea europea Common olive Oxalidaceae Oxalis family * Oxalis pes-caprae Bermuda-buttercup Polygonaceae Buckwheat family *# Rumex crispus Curly dock Salicaceae Willow family * Populus sp. Ornamental poplar + *# Salix goodingii Black willow + *# Salix lasiolevis Arroyo willow Solanaceae Nightshade family * Datura meteloides Jimson weed *# Nicotiana glauca Tree tobacco ANGIOSPERMAE: MONOCOTYLEDONAE MONOCOT FLOWERING PLANTS Agavaceae Agave family *# Yucca aloifolia Spanish bayonet Alismataceae Water-plantain family + # Sagittaris calycina California arrow-head 05/23/89(FOR902) B - 3 Lsa Cyperaceae Sedge family * Carex sp. Sedge + *# Scirpus olne i Olney bulrush + *# Scirpus validus Soft-stemmed bulrush Lemnaceae Duckweed family + #* Lemna sp. Duckweed Juncaceae Rush family * Juncus sp. Rush Palmaceae Palm family *# Phoenix sp. Date palm *# Washingtonia sp. Fan palm Poaceae Grass family * Arundo donax Giant reed *# Avena barbata Slender wild oat # Avena fatua Common wild oat *# Bromus diandrus Ripgut grass # Bromus mollis Soft chess *# Bromus rubens Red brome *# Cortaderia atacamensis Pampas grass *# Cynodon dactvlon Bermudagrass * Digitaria sanguinalis Crabgrass + *# Distichlis spicata Saltgrass + # Leptochloa uninervia Sprangletop *# Lolium perenne multiflorum Italian ryegrass # Paspalum dilatatum Dallas grass *# Polvpogon monspeliensis Beardgrass *# Vulpia megalura Foxtail fescue Typhaceae Cattail family + *# Tvpha sp. Cattail Nomenclature follows Munz, 1979. 05/23/89(FOR902) B - 4 Lsa APPENDIX C ANIMAL SPECIES LIST This is a list of species that occur or are likely to occur on-site. Presence may be noted if a species is seen or heard, or identified by tracks, scat or other signs. * noted by LSA biologists + noted by MBA biologists # noted by STA biologists AMPHIBIA AMPHIBIANS Hylidae Treefrogs and Allies Hvla regilla Pacific treefrog Ranidae True Frogs Rana catesbeiana Bullfrog REPTILIA REPTILES Sceloporus Spiny Lizards * SceloRorus occidentalis Western fence lizard Uta stansburiana Side-blotched lizard Anguidae Alligator Lizards and Allies Gerrhonotus multicarinatus Southern alligator lizard Colubridae Colubrid snakes # Masticophis flagellum Coachwhip Pituophis melanoleucus Gopher snake Lamgropeltis getulus Common kingsnake Thamnophis sirtalis Common garter snake Viperidae Vipers Crotalus viridis Western rattlesnake AVES BIRDS Ardeidae Herons * Nycticorax nvcticorax Black-crowned night-heron + Ardea herodias Great blue heron i 05/23189(FOR902) C - 1 lsa Anatidae Swans, Geese, Ducks * Anas platvrvhnchos Mallard Anas americana American wigeon Anas cyanoptera Cinammon teal Rallidae Rails, Gallinules, Coots Rallus limicola Virginia rail Porzana carolina Sora Fulica americana American coot Recurvirostridae Stilts and Avocets Recurvirostra americana American avocet * Himantopus mexicanus Black-necked stilt Charadriidae Plovers * Charadrius vociferus Killdeer Cathartidae Vultures * Cathartes aura Turkey vulture Acciptridae Kites, Hawks, Eagles and Ospreys Elanus caeruleus Black-shouldered kite Circus cvaneus Northern harrier * Buteo .iamaicensis Red-tailed hawk * Buteo lineatus Red-shouldered hawk Falconidae Falcons *# Falco sparverius American kestrel Columbidae Pigeons and Doves *#+ Columba livia Rock dove *# Zenaida macroura Mourning dove *#+ Streptopelia chinensis Spotted dove Tytonidae Barn-Owls Tvto alba Common barn-owl Strigidae Owls , Bubo virginianus Great horned owl 05/23/89(FOR902) C - 2 Lsa Trochilidae Hummingbirds 1 Archilochus alexandri Black-chinned hummingbird Calvpte costae Costa's hummingbird *#+ Calypte anna Anna's hummingbird Selasphorus rufus Rufous hummingbird Selasphorus sasin Allen's hummingbird Picidae Woodpeckers Colaptes auratus Common flicker Tyrannidae Tyrant flycatchers * Tvrannus verticalus Western kingbird * Tvrannus vociferans Cassin's kingbird yarchus cinerascens Ash-throated flycatcher *# Savornis nigricans Black phoebe * Savornis saya Say's phoebe Hirundinidae Swallows Stelgidoptervx serriaennis Northern rough-winged swallow * Hirundo pvrrhonota Cliff swallow Corvidae Jays, magpies and crows # Aphelocoma coerulescens Scrub jay *# Corvus brachyrhvnchos American crow ' * Corvus corax Common raven Aegithalidae Bushtits ' *# Psaltriparus minimus Bushtit Troglodytidae Wrens Thryomanes bewickii Bewick's wren Troglodytes aedon House wren Muscicapidae Thrushes Regulus calendula Ruby-crowned kinglet Polioptila caerulea Blue-gray gnatcatcher Sialia mexicana Western bluebird Catharus minimus Hermit thrush Turdus migratorius American robin Laniidae Shrikes ' *# Lanius ludovicianus Loggerhead shrike 05/23/89(POR902) C - 3 U0 Mimidae Mimic Thrushes *#+ Mimus polyglottos Northern mockingbird Motacillidae Pipits Anthus spinoletta Water pipit Bombycillidae Waxwings Bombvcillia cedorum Cedar waxwing Sturnidae Starlings *#+ Sturnus vulg_aris European starling Vireonidae Vireos Vireo ig'lvus Warbling vireo Emberizidae Sparrows, Warblers, Blackbirds and Orioles Vermivora celata Orange-crowned warbler * Dendroica coronata Yellow-rumped warbler * Geothlvais trichas Common yellowthroat *# Pi ilo fuscus Brown towhee Pipilo erythropthalmus Rufous-sided towhee Passerculus sandwichensis beldinQi Belding's savannah sparrow Passerculus sandwichensis nevadensis Savannah sparrow *# Melosaiza melodia Song sparrow Junco hyemalis Dark-eyed junco * Zonotricha leucophrys White-crowned sparrow Zonotricha atricapilla Golden-crowned sparrow Melosaiza lincolnii Lincoln's sparrow *+ Sturnella neglecta Western meadowlark *# Agelaius phoeniceus Red-winged blackbird + Euaha4us cyanocephalus Brewer's blackbird Molothrus ater Brown-headed cowbird * Icterus ag lbula Northern oriole Icterus cucullatus Hooded oriole Piranga ludoviciana Western tanager Passeridae Weavers *#+ Passer domesticus House sparrow 05/23/89(FOR902) C - 4 1 1 1 Lsa Fringillidae Finches *#+ Carpodacus mexicanus House finch * Carduelis psaltria Lesser goldfinch # Carduelis tristis American goldfinch MAMMALIA MAMMALS Didelphidae New World Oppossums * Didelphis virginiana Virginia oppossum Leporidae Hares and Rabbits * Lepus californicus Black-tailed hare *# SylvilaQus audubonii Audubon cottontail Sciuridae Squirrels *+ Otospermophilus beecheyi Beechey ground squirrel Geomyidae Pocket gophers *+ Thomomys bottae Botta pocket gopher tCricetidae New World Rats and Mice Reithrodontomys megalotis Western harvest mouse Peromyscus_ maniculatus Deer mouse Canidae Dogs, Coyotes and Wolves Urocvon cineroargenteus Gray fox ' Vulpes fulva Red fox Mustelidae Weasels, Skunks and Otters Mustela frenata Long-tailed weasel Spilogale gracilis Western spotted skunk Mephitis mephitis Striped skunk Nomenclature follows Dunn and Blom (1983) , Ingles (1966) and Stebbins (1966) . 05/23/89(FOR902) C - 5 1 HOLLY - SEACLIFF GPA SEWER/WATER FACILITIES AND UTILITIES REPORT ' CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Appendix M 18 ANALDEN & 18012 COWAN. SUITE210 • IRVINE. CA 92714 SSOCIATES 714;660-0110 FAX: 1.4%1) I C�11/L E�4/REF R.S--Pl..�%�F.RS- /.A vA S(K I"F i'!)HS SEWER FACILITIES I . EXISTING CONDITIONS � The existing sewer facilities for the project area are serviced by two agencies : 1 ) The Citv 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 the 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 A. The public 10" sewer line , which conveys the existing flows within this area to an offsite 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 I area . The sewer system, for this portion of the site , ultimately joins the O.C . S .D. No. 3 sewer system 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 A. 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 inter-district flow problems . There exist several independent operators of oil production throughout the north portion of the project site . These operators 1 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 A. 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 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. II . IMPACTS The Citv' 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 A. 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 , 2 ' 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 onsite 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 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 offsite 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 3 ' 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 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 inter- district 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 onsite 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 offsite flows to the relocated pump station. The alignments are shown on Exhibit A 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 lines flowing north in Goldenwest Avenue , are 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 onsite 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 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. 4 , 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 onsite. 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 business park development and is approximately 1 . 207 MGD. A proposed increased residential alternative for this area shows a ' peak flow based on 3 , 525 mixed residential units , 3 acres of park, 43. 5 acres of commercial and business park development and is approximately 1 . 180 MGD (an overall approximate sewerage decrease of 2.3%) . A proposed increased industrial alternative for this area shows a peak flow based on 3 , 243 mixed residential , 3 acres of park, 81 .6 acres of industrial , commercial and business park development and is approximately 1 . 522 MGD (an overall approximate sewerage increase of 26 . 1%) . 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 A 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 . III . 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 the phasing ' plan and the design of sewer facilities as shown on the sewer facilities map. This would provide adequate connections to 5 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 onsite , 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 shall be responsible for the construction of sewer facilities within their project and/or offsite 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. IV. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE ' Implementation of proposed mitigation measures for sewer 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 . The development of the north portion of the project site which is tributary to the Slater Avenue Pump Station would ' adversely impact the pump station in its current state. Therefore, unless independent operators of oil production reduce their waste water discharge, or unless proposed flows are temporarily pumped and redirected to the south and east into the Newland-Delaware Trunk Sewer, new development should be restricted in this area until such time as the Slater Avenue Pump Station is upgraded. ' 6 ' iThe Newland-Delaware Trunk Sewer currently has capacity to adequately facilitate all future sewerage which may be generated by development and which can gravity flow to its system. However , due to oil production, the trunk does not currently have capacity to accept sewerage which might be pumped from the north as a temporary solution for the development of the north portion of the project prior to the upgrading of the Slater Avenue Pump Station. Past development on the project site was approved by the City ' on the condition that the discharge from onsite oil production be reduced. Removal of the oil production discharge would significantly reduce the amount of waste water currently discharging into the Newland-Delaware Trunk Sewer. Oil well discharge that was eliminated from the sewer system could be replaced with an equivalent sewerage discharge from development of the project. This would apply not only to the current portion of the project that gravity drains to the Newland-Delaware Trunk, but also opens up an interim solution for those areas draining to the Slater avenue Pump Station. The sewerage generated from the build-out of Seacliff Peninsula area based upon the proposed Land Use Plan is consistent ' with the sewerage flows anticipated for this area under the build- out of the existing General Plan. Sewer service for this area would require the extension of the Coast Trunk Sewer, in some form, or the construction of a sewer lift station. V. UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS ' The project in conjunction with other past , present and reasonably 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 is not considered significant . 7 LDEN &- 18011 COWAA'. SUl'-E 10 • lRITVF_. CA 9?71: AA : 7141660-01/0 FAX:660-0418 SS O C I AT E S Cl I//.F%GIVKERS - X%"f'RS-- Sl'K1'F.1'/)RS WATER FACILITIES I . EXISTING CONDITIONS All of the existing domestic and fire protection 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. Currently, two additional existing wells are not operating due to excessive color and odor concentrations . The Water System Master Plan, prepared by Boyle Engineering Corporation in June 1988 , has identified deficiencies in existing water storage capacity, supply potential and fire flows throughout the City' s water system. The City' s present inflow capacity is not sufficient to meet existing peak hour demands . 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 cannot 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 minimal throughout this district at this time, main lines and distribution 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 B, 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 1 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, this line cannot be tapped into and, therefore, cannot be directly utilized to service the project development . II . IMPACTS With additional development in the Reservoir Hill Assessment area, the current water system cannot provide the necessary service to the area. The City' s Water System Master Plan indicates that the newly constructed distribution and main lines in arterial streets should provide adequate capacity and fire flow throughout the project 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 boosting abilities and increase of storage capacity necessary to service development within the Reservoir Hill Assessment District. The booster station is anticipated to be in operation within 2-3 years . The storage capacity should be ' increased when proposed reservoirs are constructed in the Sunset Heights area and the southeast city area 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 B 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 distribution and main lines and for the designing of the 2 i soon to be constructed booster pump station. This peak flow demand the City used for their design was 1 , 516 GPM. Therefore, r 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. The main concern, however, will remain as to the possibility of future water supply for the entire City. III . 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 . 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 . rC. Insulation of hot water lines in water recirculating systems . d. Compliance with water conservation provisions of the appropriate plumbing code. 4 . Irrigation systems which minimize water waste shall 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 3 1 evaporation losses . 5. Developers and the City shall provide information to ' occupants regarding benefits of low water use landscaping and sources of additional assistance for domestic and irrigation water conservation procedures .6. Landscaping shall 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. 7 . Minimize use of lawns and utilize water season, drought tolerant grasses . 8. Use pervious paving material whenever feasible to reduce ' surface water runoff and aid in groundwater recharge. 9. Control slopes and grades to discourage water waste through runoff . 10 . As development occurs , no permits for Use and Occupancy shall 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 . 11 . As development occurs , no permits for Use and Occupancy shall 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 . 12. As development occurs , developers shall construct the necessary water lines required to serve interior streets and lots . 13. Developers shall consult the City Water Division during design and construction phases for further water conservation measures and to review irrigation and landscape designs . 14 . As development occurs , prior to approval of future building permits , complete landscape and irrigation plans ' shall 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 developers shall at this time construct and utilize a reclaimed water system for ' onsite irrigated areas and equestrian trails . 4 iIV. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE The Master Plan identifies the additional facilities necessary to increase the City' s water supply and storage capacity. These consist of additional wells , reactivating the two inoperative wells , additional reservoirs and additional booster pump stations. As these are long term projects , the City will continue to experience some water deficiencies for the next few years. The extent of these deficiencies is directly determined by the increased demand upon the existing facilities . The development of the proposed project, which lies within the Reservoir Hill Assessment District Service Area, will contribute to a cumulative impact on water supply demands . Although the demands for this area are similar to what the City has planned for servicing, the shortage of water throughout ' Southern California is very much apparent. Unless mitigating measures are implemented, the cumulative impact of development on the existing water supply is considered to have a high level of ' significance. The development of the proposed project should not have a cumulative impact on the existing water facilities providing the new booster pump station and the additional reservoir are constructed on a timely schedule . Provisions to service the project site have been made with the recent construction of several major distribution and main water lines and should be complete with the construction of the new booster pump station and the new reservoir which shall increase storage capacity. V. UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS 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 projects 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 , which are stated in the City Water Master Plan, such as , buying more imported water, or developing new well sources , but still not to an insignificant impact level . 5 UTILITIES I . EXISTING CONDITIONS A) 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 for Existing Gas/Electric. The City requires that all gas lines are to be underground. B) 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 Citv. ' 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 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 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 1 1 undergrounding of existing service lines . All transmission lines are to remain overhead. C) 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 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 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 . D) 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 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 . II . IMPACTS , A) 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 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 2 does not have consumption factors for non-residential projects . The gas company states the 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 increase demands for gas service can be accommodated from existing mains with proper planning and installation of smaller service lines without any adverse impacts. B) 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 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 increase 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 transmission lines are to be overhead. ' C) 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 3 standard GTE practices and will be from underground lines . The telephone company anticipates that the increase ' 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. ' D) 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 . III . MITIGATION MEASURES A) GAS AND ELECTRICITY ' 1 . Building construction should comply with the Energy ' Conservation Standards set forth in Title 24 of the California Administrative Code . 2 . It is strongly recommended that developers consult with the Southern California Gas Company and the Southern California Edison Company for further energy conservation measures . ' 3 . 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. B) TELEPHONE AND CABLE TV 1 . Building construction should comply with the ' standards and specifications of the General Telephone Company and Rogers Cable TV Company. 2. 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 IV. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS The proposed project would result in the development of ' approximately 760 acres of primary undeveloped property. This development will increase the demand on natural gas , electricity, telephone and cable TV service . This increase ' shall result in the addition of new utility mains and service lines throughout the project site. ' Because the City of Huntington Beach is an underground district , all proposed lines and the majority of existing utility lines shall be placed underground. None of the utility companies have indicated any difficulty in meeting project level demands . Also, each utility company anticipates that the increase demands for service can be ' accomplished without any significant impact on the environment . ' V. UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS Approval of the proposed project will place an additional demand upon existing natural gas and electrical facilities and upon telephone and cable TV services . However , no expansion of gas and electric facilities , other than those already programmed, is anticipated. and, telephone and cable TV should have no difficulty expanding their lines to service this project . Project construction represents a long-term commitment of energy resources to meet the on-going needs of future project residences. With the implementation of energy conservation measures and with the coordination of planning with the utility companies , as identified in the mitigation measures , project-specific impacts to public utilities will be mitigated to a level of insignificance. 1 5 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 1 � 1 1 1 HOLLY - SEACLIFF GPA FISCAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Appendix N FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS 1 HOLLY SEACLIFF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT June 22, 1989 Prepared For: FORMA Prepared By: WILLIAMS-KUEBELBECK & ASSOCIATES, INC. Real Estate Economic, Financial and Management Consultants 7 Corporate Park, Suite 260 Irvine California 92714 (714) 474-1606 ` TABLE OF CONTENTS Paee I. INTRODUCTION 1 II. FISCAL REVENUE AND COST FACTORS 2 A. General Methodology 2 B. Derivation of Revenue and Cost Factors 2 C. Implications of Revenue/Cost Factors 6 D. Escalation Rates 7 III. FISCAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED LAND USE 17 PLAN A. Proposed Land Uses and Development Phasing 17 B. Projected Property Taxes 17 C. Projected Sales Tax Revenues 18 D. Projected Business License Tax Revenues 18 E. Projected Police Operating Costs 18 F. Projected Total Annual Revenues and Costs 18 IV. FISCAL IMPACTS OF THE RESIDENTIAL 29 ALTERNATIVE A. Proposed Land Uses and Development Phasing 29 B. Projected Property Taxes 20 C. Projected Sales Tax Revenues 30 D. Projected Business License Tax Revenues 30 E. Projected Police Operating Costs 30 F. Projected Total Annual Revenues and Costs 30 V. FISCAL IMPACTS OF THE INDUSTRIAL 41 ALTERNATIVE A. Proposed Land Uses and Development Phasing 41 B. Projected Property Taxes 41 C. Projected Sales Tax Revenues 42 D. Projected Business License Tax Revenues 42 E. Projected Police Operating Costs 42 F. Projected Total Annual Revenues and Costs 42 (Continued . . .) TABLE OF CONTENTS PPUe VI. FISCAL IMPACTS OF THE EXISTING GENERAL 53 PLAN A. Proposed Land Uses and Development Phasing 53 B. Projected Property Taxes 53 C. Projected Sales Tax Revenues 54 D. Projected Business License Tax Revenues 54 E. Projected Police Operating Costs 54 F. Projected Total Annual Revenues and Costs 54 VIl. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS: COMPARISON OF 64 FOUR LAND USE ALTERNATIVES APPENDIX A 66 PER ACRE COST AND REVENUE FACTORS: ' RESIDENTIAL LAND USE ALTERNATIVE APPENDIX B 76 PER ACRE COST AND REVENUE FACTORS: INDUSTRIAL LAND USE ALTERNATIVE APPENDIX C 86 PER ACRE COST AND REVENUE FACTORS: EXISTING GENERAL PLAN APPENDIX D 96 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH BUDGET BREAKDOWN FOR REVENUE/COST PROJECTIONS APPENDIX E 100 CITY OF HUNTINGBEACH LAND USE STATUS BY GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION ii ' LIST OF TABLES No. Ege_ 1 Commercial/Industrial Floor Area Ratios 8 2 Projected Property Taxes Per Acre 9 3 Projected Retail Sales Taxes Per Acre 10 4 Projected Business License Taxes Per Acre 11 5 Police Operating Costs Per Acre 12 ' 6 Other Operating Cost and Revenue Multipliers 13 7 Total Operating Revenue Factors Per Acre 14 8 Total Operating Cost Factors Per Acre 15 9 Summary of Per Acre Operating Revenue and 16 Cost Factors by Land Use 10 Study Area Development Program,Proposed 19 Land Use Plan 11 Projected Development Phasing by Planning 20 Area,Proposed Land Use Plan 12 Summary of Projected Development Phasing, 21 Proposed Land Use Plan 13 Cumulative Development Phasing(Acres), 22 Proposed Land Use Plan 14 Cumulative Dwellings,Population and Building 23 SF, Proposed Land Use Plan 15 Projected Property Taxes (000's),Proposed 24 Land Use Plan 16 Projected Sales Tax Revenues (000's), Proposed 25 ' Land Use Plan 17 Projected Business License Tax Revenues (000's), 26 Proposed Land Use Plan 18 Projected Police Operating Costs(000's), 27 Projected Land Use Plan (Continued . . .) iii LIST OF TABLES (Continued) N 19 Projected Total Annual Revenues and Costs, 28 Proposed Land Use Plan 20 Study Area Development Program,Residential 31 Alternative 21 Projected Development Phasing by Planning 32 Area,Residential Alternative 22 Summary of Projected Development Phasing, .33 Residential Alternative 23 Cumulative Development Phasing (Acres), � Residential Alternative 24 Cumulative Dwellings,Population and Building 33 SF,Residential Alternative 25 Projected Property Taxes (000's), Residential '36 Alternative 26 Projected Sales Tax Revenues (000's), Residential 37 Alternative 27 Projected Business License Tax Revenues (000's), 3. Residential Alternative 28 Projected Police Operating Costs (000's), 39 Residential Alternative 29 Projected Total Annual Revenues and Costs, 4D Residential Alternative 30 Study Area Development Program,Industrial 43 Alternative 31 Projected Development Phasing by Planning 44 Area,Industrial Alternative 32 Summary of Projected Development Phasing, 43 Industrial Alternative 33 Cumulative Development Phasing (Acres), 46 Industrial Alternative (Continued . iv LIST OF TABLES (Continued) No Eage 34 Cumulative Dwellings,Population and Building 47 SF,Industrial Alternative 35 Projected Property Taxes (000's),Industrial 48 Alternative 36 Projected Sales Tax Revenues (000's), Industrial 49 Alternative 37 Projected Business License Tax Revenues (000's), 50 Industrial Alternative 38 Projected Police Operating Costs (000's), 51 Industrial Alternative 39 Projected Total Annual Revenues and Costs, 52 Industrial Alternative 40 Study Area Development Program,Existing 55 General Plan 41 Summary of Projected Development Phasing 56 Existing General Plan 42 Cumulative Development Phasing (Acres), 57 Existing General Plan 43 Cumulative Dwellings,Population and Building 58 SF,Existing General Plan 44 Projected Property Taxes (000's),Existing 59 General Plan 45 Projected Sales Tax Revenues (000's),Existing 60 General Plan 46 Projected Business License Tax Revenues (000's), 61 1 Existing General Plan 47 Projected Police Operating Costs (000's), 62 Existing General Plan 48 Projected Total Annual Revenues and Costs, 63 Existing General Plan (Continued . . .) . v LIST OF TABLES (Continued) No• Page 49 Comparison of Annual Net Fiscal Impacts 65 (000's),Four Land Use Alternatives APPENDIX A 1 Commercial/Industrial Floor Area Ratios 67 2 Projected Property Taxes Per Acre 68 3 Projected Retail Sales Taxes Per Acre 69 4 Projected Business License Taxes Per Acre 70 5 Police Operating Costs Per Acre 71 6 Other Operating Cost and Revenue Multipliers 72 7 Total Operating Revenue Factors Per Acre 73 8 Total Operating Cost Factors Per Acre 74 9 Summary of Per Acre Operating Revenue and Cost Factors By Land Use 75 APPENDIX B 1 Commercial/Industrial Floor Area Ratios 77 2 Projected Property Taxes Per Acre 78 3 Projected Retail Sales Taxes Per Acre 79 4 Projected Business License Taxes Per Acre 80 5 Police Operating Costs Per Acre 81 6 Other Operating Cost and Revenue Multipliers 82 7 Total Operating Revenue Factors Per Acre 83 8 Total Operating Cost Factors Per Acre 84 9 Summary of Per Acre Operating Revenue and Cost Factors By Land Use 85 (Continued . . .) vi LIST OF TABLES (Continued) No. Laa APPENDIX C 1 Commercial/Industrial Floor Area Ratios 87 2 Projected Property Taxes Per Acre 88 3 Projected Retail Sales Taxes Per Acre 89 4 Projected Business License Taxes Per Acre 90 5 Police Operating Costs Per Acre 91 6 Other Operating Cost and Revenue Multipliers 92 7 Total Operating Revenue Factors Per Acre 93 8 Total Operating Cost Factors Per Acre 94 9 Summary of Per Acre Operating Revenue and Cost Factors By Land Use 95 APPENDIX D D-1 City of Huntington Beach Budget Breakdown for 97 Revenue/Cost Projections APPENDIX E E-1 City of Huntington Beach Land Use Status by General 101 Plan Designation,April 1988 vii I. INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of a fiscal impact analysis of four alternative development programs for the Holly Seacliff Study Area. Conducted as part of the ongoing Holly Seacliff General Plan Amendment Study and Environmental Imact Report, this analysis projects the annual fiscal impacts of each land use alternative on the City of Huntington Beach during the development period and at build-out. The four alternative development plans vary in terms of the distribution of residential, commercial and industrial land uses, proposed densities, and phasing. The purpose of the study is to provide information to assist the City in selecting the most beneficial development program for the community. The remainder of this report is divided into four chapters. Chapter II describes the derivation of average per acre revenue and cost factors for each of the major land use categories proposed for development in the Holly Seacliff Study Area under the four land use plans. This chapter describes the methodology and major assumptions used in preparing the fiscal impact projections. Chapter III presents the projected fiscal impacts of the Proposed Land Use Plan on the City, based on the cost and revenue factors and the land use distribution presently designated for the Holly Seacliff area. Chapter IV displays the projected impacts of development under the Residential Alternative. Chapter V presents the findings for the the Industrial Alternative, while Chapter VI contains the projections for the Existing General Plan. Finally, Chapter VII presents a summary of findings comparing the fiscal impacts of the four different land use plans and providing conclusions and recommendations derived from the analysis. Many of the development and fiscal impact assumptions utilized in this study were formulated by WK&A through a market analysis of the proposed uses. The findings of this market report are presented under a separate cover. i j i II. FISCAL REVENUE AND COST FACTORS This chapter presents the methodology and assumptions leading to the derivation of average per acre revenue and cost factors for each of the land uses being considered for the Holly Seacliff Study Area. These cost factors form the basis of the fiscal impact projections for each of the four land use alternatives presented in subsequent chapters of this report. A. GENERAL METHODOLOGY The general methodology for calculating the average per.acre revenue and cost multipliers by land use for the Holly Seacliff Study Area involved the following steps: • Interview with City of Huntington Beach Finance Director to review structure of the City budget and identify the type of each budget fund (operating, internal service,capital). • 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). • Projection of major categories of ongoing operating revenues (property taxes, sales taxes, business license taxes) and costs (police costs) by land use for the Study Area based on anticipated development and economic characteristics and expressed in per acre revenues/costs. • Allocation of other categories of ongoing operating revenues and costs to those land uses which generate them and calculation of average per unit (per acre, or per capita) multipliers. It should be noted that general government costs (City administration and public works) are averaged across all land uses assuming each contributes their "share" to these costs. • 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. B . DERIVATION OF REVENUE AND COST FACTORS Average per acre revenue and cost 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 lays out the assumptions, makes the necessary calculations, and derives the projected per acre cost/revenue factors for each use. The following sections describe the steps and major assumptions involved in this process, and present the computer schedules leading to the final cost/revenue factors. The cost/revenue factors presented in this chapter reflect the residential densities of the Proposed Land Use Plan for the Holly Seacliff Study Area. The cost/revenue factors for the Residential Alternative, Industrial Alternative, and Existing General Plan are presented in Appendices A through C,respectively. 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 are based on the proposed number of dwelling units and total acreages for each Planning Area, averaged across each residential land use category. These densities are presented in the following section. 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 examined. 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 an FAR of 1.0, and can be as high as 15.0 for skyscrapers in dense urban environments, where land prices and the market result in low-rise buildings and surface parking, 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. It is assumed that planned community uses would consist of 100 percent high-density residential development at the above density level. The assumptions and resulting FAR's used in this analysis for commercial/industrial uses are presented in Table 1 of the computer model print-out. 2. Property Values and Property Tax Revenues The largest share of revenues generated by most urban land uses,except for retail projects, is comprised by property tax revenues. Table 2 of the computer output displays the development value assumptions and resulting projections of property taxes per acre generated by each of the land uses proposed for the Study Area. Residential dwelling unit values are expressed as estimated average home prices by density category based on the findings of the market analysis of competitive residential projects in the City of Huntington Beach. As would be expected, lower density residential developments typically command higher unit values given they generally include larger home and lot sizes and more extensive amenities. Per dwelling unit prices are multiplied by the average number of dwelling units per acre, also shown in Table 2, to derive total assessed property valuation per acre. For commercial and industrial categories,estimated property values are based on estimated current average land values for each use based on the findings of the market analysis and typical building construction costs. The estimated building value per square foot is multiplied by the estimated building floor area,based on the FAR's presented in Table 1, to derive total building value per acre. Building values are then added to estimated land value per acre to derive total estimated property values for each use. For resource production uses, the property values shown represent a rough estimate of land values given that there is not an active "market" for such property in the area at this time, and considering that much of the property currently in oil production has not been sold for a long time and hence has a low assessed valuation at this time (since the passage of Proposition 13, assessed property values can only increase at 2 percent annually unless the property is sold, at which time the assessed value is increased to the sale price). 3 As is evident from the figures in Table 2, high-density residential uses and office developments are expected to generate the highest land values, and therefore the greatest property tax revenues to the City. Resource production uses, low-density 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 such revenues to the City. 3 . Retail Sales Tax Revenues , Table 3 presents the projected retail sales tax revenues generated per acre by each of the proposed land uses. This table reflects the fact that although 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 the community.For the purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that office and industrial uses generate no retail sales, although in actuality office and industrial developments may include a small retail component (generally less than 5 percent) in the form of eating establishments or other retail activities. As shown, for residential uses the projected retail sales generation potential of each density category is based on the estimated income of households residing in that type of development and their propensity to spend that income on retail expenditures within the City of Huntington Beach. For convenience/neighborhood and community commercial uses,projected retail sales tax generation is based on typical square foot sales factors and the assumed density of development for each use. As shown in the table, while residential uses contribute to a small extent to the City's retail sales tax potential, commercial uses make by far the greatest contribution to local sales tax revenues. 4 . Business License Tax Revenues Commercial and industrial uses also generate annual business license fees or taxes to the , City of Huntington Beach. The business 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. Table 4 presents the projected average business license tax generation per acre for each of the proposed commercial/industrial land uses in the Holly Seacliff Study Area. These projections are based on the assumed density of buildings per acre,the estimated number of employees per square foot of building space,and hence per acre,and the estimated average number of employees per business. It should be noted that the factor of greatest significance in these projections is the resulting number of employees per acre, since the business license fee per employee varies only slightly except for very large establishments. 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 (estimated actual cost of$21.9 million for FY 1987/88). 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. First,the number of police calls per acre was derived from per dwelling unit figures for residential uses and per square foot figures for commercial/industrial uses based on the development density assumptions described earlier. The estimated cost per call was calculated by dividing the total police budget in 4 1988 by the desired number of police officers in 1988 (based on 1.1 officers per 1,000 population and a City population of 187,700), and then dividing the result by the desired number of calls per police officer (obtained from the City). 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. These calculations are shown in Table 5. 6 . Other Operating Cost and Revenue Assumptions Other major items in the City of Huntington Beach operating budget include public works costs ($16.5 million) and fire protection services ($11.9 million). While estimating the costs of each of these items directly by land use would be preferable, the City does not currently have simplified methods for allocating these costs amongst 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 wherein costs are allocated across the land uses which share in their generation on a per unit basis (generally per acre, per capita, or per employee). A similar 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 6. 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 (such as plan check fee revenues and the costs of providing plan check services). 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. Moreover, since the fees for these services are set to cover the costs of providing the service, at least theoretically, they generate to 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 Table 6. These revenues and costs are detailed by category in Appendix D. Second, the categories of revenues and costs were examined to deternne the primary land uses which generate them. For example, cigarette taxes represent a revenue from the State which are tied to population in a community, and thus associated with residential uses. On the other hand, utility taxes for gas and electric services are generated by residential, commercial and industrial uses. Similarly, all land uses could be considered responsible for a share of general governmental services (such as administration and the City treasurer). 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. Thus, since information from the City Planning Department indicates that there are currently approximately 11,023 acres of developed residential uses in the City and 3,080 of developed commercial,industrial and institutional property (for a total of 14,103 developed acres in these urban uses uses), residential uses have been allocated 78 percent (11,023 divided by 14,103) of the revenues and costs in those categories generally associated with all "urban" land uses, with commercial/industrial uses accounting for the remaining 22 percent. The land use distribution on which these allocations are based is contained in ' Appendix E. 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 5 the current population in the City (estimated at 187,700 persons) to produce per capita revenue and cost multipliers. In this way, higher-density residential development is 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 including institutional uses) to derive per acre multipliers. These per acre average 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. For example, industrial land uses are generally considered to require a lower level of municipal services than office land uses because of their lower intensity. The relative employment generation of each use is one method of measuring this variation, based on the assumptions that a use that generates higher employment also generates increased demands on roadways and other public services. Clearly, this is not a fully accurate method of distinguishing the costs between these uses,for example industrial uses tend to generate more truck traffic which increases maintenance costs for street surfaces, but this was considered the most reasonable method available to generate average cost and revenue multipliers which attempt to account for the differences in land use intensity. Revenues from oil license 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 shown in Table 6. C. IMPLICATIONS OF REVENUE/COST FACTORS A review of the revenue and cost factors for the Proposed Land Use Plan shown in Table 9 (as well as the revenue/cost factors for the other land use alternatives in Appendices A through c) suggests the following preliminary indications about the overall fiscal impacts of each land use proposed for the Holly Seacliff Study Area: • 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. • Due to the relatively high development values of anticipated residential development in the Study Area, and the correspondingly high property taxes generated,residential uses are considered to generate a significant positive operating fiscal impact to the City. • Due to the fewer revenues and relatively higher municipal service requirements generated by office and R&D-oriented industrial uses (Industrial 1), these uses are projected to generate a slightly negative net fiscal impact on the City budget. While lower intensity industrial uses (Industrial 2) generate fewer property tax revenues, they also require fewer municipal services, and therefore have a slightly positive net impact on the City. 6 ' • 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. • It should be noted that the General Plan level of analysis in this report requires the formulation of many assumptions and the fiscal impact projections cannot be refined without greater detail on planned development within the Holly Seacliff area. D. ESCALATION RATES ' The per acre cost and revenue factors described above are presented in 1989 dollars and reflect the estimated fiscal impact of the various land uses at the current time. In actuality, the build-out of the Holly Seacliff Study Area will occur over a number of years, with the development period varying somewhat depending on the amount of each land use proposed. In order to examine the fiscal impacts of Study Area development over time and at future build-out, the costs and revenues to the City are inflated over time at projected escalation rates. This analysis permits an examination of the estimated phasing and absorption of the area on the City's ability to provide municipal services. In addition, this method considers the impacts of Proposition 13 on the fiscal impacts to the City. Since Proposition 13 limits the escalation of assessed valuation for existing, unsold property to 2 percent annually, if inflation is greater than 2 percent the result will be a real decline in property tax revenues over time. The projections in the following chapter assume a general inflation rate of 4 percent annually applied to all development and operating costs and revenues except the assessed valuation of unsold, existing development. The latter is escalated at 2 percent annually as per the Proposition 13 limit. 7 Holly Seacliff General Plan Amendment 4, 3 2-0lplup Fiscal Impact Analysis Table 1: Commercial/Industrial Floor Area Ratios %of Site in EFFECTIVE Parking SF Per Pedestrian FLOOR Type of Avg. Bldg. Spaces/ Parking Circulation& AREA LAND USE Parking Stories 1,000 SF Space(1) Landscape(2) RATIO(FAR) COMMERCIAL Neighborhood Surface 1 5 350 30% 0.25 Community Surface N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Office/Professional Surface N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Mixed Development(Commer.portion) Surface 1 5 350 30% 0.31 INDUSTRIAL Industrial Surface 1.7 4 350 18% 0.41 Industrial Surface N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Resource Production Surface N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 00 Ti-) Includes vehicle circulation. (2) Includes plaza areas,walkways,etc.(and outside storage areas for industrial uses). Source: Williams-Kuebelbeck&Associates,Inc. M = M = M � r M M rr M M r M M r M r rr r r r r r� r� �► r� r� �• r� r m rn = Holly SeacliffGeneral Plan Amendment p u Fiscal Impact Analysis Table 2: Projected Property Tares Per Acre TOTAL ASSESSED SHARE PROP.TAX Average INVD PROP.TAX TO CITY Dwelling DU's Per LAM Value Lard Value Bldg.Value Floor Area Bldg Area Bldg Value VALUE PROP.TAX TOCITY OF H.B. LAND USE Unit Value Awe Per Sq.Ft. Per Acre Per SF(1) Ratio(FAR) Per Awe Per Acre PER ACRE RATE OF H.B. PER ACRE RESIDENTIAL Fatate $550,000 3.06 $1,684211 1.0% 17.5% $2,947 Low Density $400,000 5.80 $2,321,839 1.0% 17.5% $4,063 Medium Density $275,000 10.97 $3,017,086 1.0% 17.5% $5280 Medium-High Darsity $225,000 19.49 $4,384,615 1.0% 17.5% $7,673 High Density $175,000 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Planned Community $175,000 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A COMMERCIAL Neighborhood $25.00 $1,089,000 $50 0.25 10,890 $544,500 $1,633,500 1.0% 17.5% $2,859 Community $25.00 $1,089,000 $50 N/A #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! 1.0% 17.5% #VALUE! Office/Prohasionsl N/A N/A NIA N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A MIXED DEVELOPMENT Residential Portion $250,(M 14.39 $3,598,485 1.0% 17.5% $6297 Commercial Potion $25.00 $1,089,000 $.50 0.31 13,613 $680,625 $1,769,625 1.0% 17.5% $3,097 INDUSTRIAL Industrial) $14.00 $609,840 $70 0.41 17,860 $1250,172 $1,860,012 1.0% 17.5% $3255 Industrial N/A N/A NIA N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Resource Production N/A NIA NIA N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A RECREATION/OPEN SPACE Neighborhood $0 City-Wide $0 Linear Put $0 NOTES: -Resource production land values based on actual assessed value of proposed resource production parcels. Public property is exempt from local property taxes. Source: Williams-Kuebelbeck&Associates,Inc. Holly SeacliffGeneral Plan Amendment 4,E3pup Fiscal Impact Analysis Table 3: Projected Retail Sales Taxes Per Acre ANNUAL HH Income Propensity Annual %of Retail Retail Sales Annual Sales SALES Dwelling As a%of Household To Spend on Retail Sales Made in City Taxes Per Households TAXES LAND USE Unit Value Home Price income Retail Items Expenditures in City of HB of FIB HH(1) Per Acre PER ACRE RESIDENTIAL Estate $550,000 33.00% $181,500 38.00% $68,970 50.0% $34.485 $345 3.06 $1,056 Low Density $400,000 33.00% $132,000 38.00% $50,160 50.0% $25,080 $251 5.80 $1,456 Medium Density $275,000 33.00% $90,750 38.00% $34,485 50.0% $17,243 $172 10.97 $1,892 Medium-High Density $225,000 33.00% $74.250 38.00% $28,215 50.0% $14,108 $141 19.49 $2,749 High Density N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Planned Community N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Mixed Development(Residential Portion) $250,000 33.00% $82,500 38.00% $31,350 50.0% $15,675 $157 14.39 $2,256 ANNUAL Annual SALES Floor Area Bldg.SF Retail Sales Retail Sales TAXES Ratio(FAR) Per Acre Per SF Per Acre PER ACRE COMMERCIAL Neighborhood 0.25 10,890 $150 $1,633,500 $16,335 Community N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Office/Professional N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A o Mixed Development(Commercial Portion) 0.31 13,613 $150 $2,041,875 $20,419 INDUSTRIAL Industrial 0.41 17,860 $7 $125.017 $1,250 Industrial N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Resource Production N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A RECREATION/OPF,N SPACE Neighborhood $0 City-Wide $0 Linear Park $0 (1) Sales taxes to City at 1%of total retail sales. Source: Williams-Kuebelbeck&Associates,Inc. m or r = m m r r r r m m � r rrr rr r rr r� r rr �r ■r rr �r rr r rr �r �r rr �r Holly eaclif General PlanAmendment 4, 06 -Olplup Fiscal Impact Analysis Table 4: Projected Business License Taxes Per Acre Business Average License Floor Area Bldg. SF Bldg SF Per Employees Employees Tax Per LAND USE Ratio(FAR) Per Acre Employee Per Acre Per Business Employee(1) COMMERCIAL Neighborhood 0.25 10,890 400 27 15 $6 Community N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Office/Professional N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Mixed Development(Commercial Portion) 0.31 13,613 400 34 20 $6 INDUSTRIAL Industrial 0.41 17,860 350 51 20 $5 Industrial N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Resource Production N/A N/A (1)Annual business license tax per employee by number of employees from City of Huntington Beach. Source: Williams-Kuebelbeck&Associates,Inc. Ifolly SeactiffGeneral Plan Amen&nent pup Fiscal Impact Analysis Table 5: Police Operating Costs Per Acre ESTIMATED 1988 Desired AVERAGE DU's Average SF Annual 1988 Desired Police Annual P()LICE Per Artnual DU's Per Per Annual Bldg.SF Police Calls Police Police Calls Per Cost Per COST LAND USE Police Call Acre Police Call Per Acre Per Acre Budget(1) Officers(2) Officer(2) Call(3) PER ACRE RESIDENTIAL Estate 2.04 3.06 1.50 $21,901,200 206 535 $199 $298 Low Density 2.04 5.80 2.85 $21,901,200 206 535 $199 $565 Medium Density 1.44 10.97 7.62 $21,901.200 206 535 $199 $1,514 Medium-high Density 1.44 19.49 13.53 $21,901.200 206 535 $199 $2,689 High Density 1.83 N/A NIA NIA N/A N/A N/A N/A Planned Community 1.83 N/A N/A N/A N/A NIA N/A N/A COMMERCIAL Neighborhood 2,316 10,890 4.70 $21,901,200 206 535 $199 $934 Community N/A N/A WA N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Office/Professional N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A MIXED DEVELOPMENT Residential Pbrtion 1.44 14.39 10.00 $21,901,200 206 535 $199 $1.986 Commercial Pbrtion 2,316 13,613 5.88 $21,901,200 206 535 $199 $1,168 INDUSTRIAL Industrial 2,986 17,860 5.98 $21,901.200 206 535 $199 $1,189 tv Industrial N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Resource Production N/A RECREATION/OPEN SPACE Neighborhood $0 City-Wide $0 Linear Part $0 (1) From City budget;estimated cost 1987/88. (2) From City Police Department;officers based on 1.1 officers per 1,000 population and 1988 population of 187,700. (3) Includes overhead and administration;equals total police costs divided by number of officers divided by number of calls per officer. Source: Williams-Kuebelbeck&Associates,Inc. �r �r rr � � ,r .� rr � r � � �. �• .r ar r rrr � re r. r� rr rr rr r� rr r rr rr rr ■r � r � r r. �r Holly SeacliffGeneral Plan Amendment p u Fiscal Impact Analysis Table 6: Other Operating Cost and Revenue Maki pliers 1988 Estimated Allocation of Cost/Revenues Estimated Per Unit Cost/Revenue Annual Costs/ B Lend Uu Category(2) Multiplier By Land Use Category(3) Revenues(1) �csidential om/1nd. Res. o �� identi on/net. es.3 REVENUES Transient Occupancy Tax $366.000 $366,000 $0 $0 $1.95 $0.00 $0.00 Cigarette Tax $560,000 $560,000 $0 $0 $2.98 $0.00 $0.00 Utility Taxes $9,090,000 $7,104,805 $1,985,195 $0 $37.85 $644.54 $0.00 Franchise Fees $1,022,800 $799A27 $223,373 $0 $4.26 $72.52 $0.00 Licenses-Oil Wells(4) $800,000 $0 $0 so $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Fines/Forfeits/Penalties $2,285,000 $2,285,000 $0 s0 $12 17 $0.00 $0.00 Motor Vehicle In Lieu $6,170,000 $6,170,000 $0 $0 532.87 50.00 $0.00 State Public Library Funds $155,000 $155,000 $0 $0 $0.83 $0.00 $0.00 C"eTV $320,000 $320,000 $0 $0 $1.70 $0.00 $0.00 Real Property Transfer Tax $600,000 $468.%4 $131,036 $0 $2.50 $42.54 $0.00 Charges for Recreation/LibraryServices $1,004,300 $1,004,300 $0 $0 $5.35 $0.00 $0.00 Other Revenue(Library,etc.) $90,900 $90,900 $0 $0 $0.48 $0.00 $0.00 Other Revenue(Tmffic/Sum Maint.Charges) $90,000 $70,345 $19,655 $0 $0.37 $6.38 $0.00 Total Revenues Attributed to Land Use $22,554,000 $19,394,741 $2,359,259 $0 Total Per Unit Revenue Multiplies(3) $103.33 $765.99 $0.00 COSTS Fire&Paramedic $11,902,000 $9,302,684 $2,599,316 $0 $49.56 $843.93 $0.00 City Council $139,700 $108.409 $30,291 $0 $0.58 $9.83 $0.00 Nan-Departmental $8,618,700 $6,736,434 $1,882,266 $0 $35.89 $611.13 $0.00 w Administration $1,000,400 $781,919 $218,481 $0 $4.17 $70.94 $0.00 City Treasurer $286,200 $223,696 $62,504 $0 $1.19 $20.29 $0.00 City Attorney $978,300 $764,646 $213,654 $0 $4.07 $69.37 $0.00 City Clerk $259,800 $203,061 $56,739 $0 $1.08 $18.42 $0.00 Business license Administration $141,600 $0 $141,600 $0 $0.00 $45.97 $0.00 Other Administrative Services $2,970.100 $2,321,450 5648,650 $0 $12.37 $210.60 $0.00 Housing&Community Development $2,017,300 $2,017,300 $0 $0 $10.75 $0.00 $0.00 Planing $1,206,600 $943,087 $263,513 $0 $5.02 $85.56 $0.00 Community Services $4,714,700 $4,714,700 $0 $0 $25.12 $0.00 $0.00 Library Maintenance $71,400 $71,400 $0 $0 $0.38 $0.00 $0.00 Other Public Works $12,079,000 $9,441,028 $2,637,972 $0 $50.30 $856.48 $0.00 Total Costs Attributed to Lamd Use $46,384,800 $37,629,814 $8,754.986 $0 Toad Per Unit Cost Multiplier(3) $200AS $2,842.53 $0.00 (1)Estimated revenues/coats for 1987/88 from City Budget as shown in Appendix A. (2) Where costs/revenues attributed to all"urban"land uses(developed residential,commercial,industrial,institutional properties), allocation between residential and commercial industrial uses based on respective shares of total developed acreage; (11,023 developed residential acres; 3,080 commercial/industrial/institutional acres from City of Huntington Beach). (3) Residential costs/revenues translated into per capita multiplier based on 1988 City population of 187,700 from the Calif.Dept of Finance. Resource production revenues translated into per acre multiplier based on 126 acres currently in this use in the City. Commercial/industrial revenues and costs translated into per acre multipliers based on estimated current total of 3,080 acres in this use from the City Planning Department(Appendix B). (4) Oil tax revenues generated within the study area generally independent of land use(oil production can continue even after development of new uses)and therefore estimated as a total for the study area rather than by land use. Sauce: Williams-Kuebelbeck&Associates,inc. Holty Seactiffener an Amendment plup Fiscal Impact Analysis Table 7: Total Operating Revenue Factors Per Acre Total Total Per Com./Ind. Total TOTAL PER Capita Per Capita- Per Acre Rev. Resource Prop.Tax Sales Tax Bus.Lic. ACRE DU's Per Persons Per Persons Per Revenue Based Revert. Multiplier-- Prod.Acre Revenues Per Revenues Tax Reven. REVENUE Acre DU Acre Multiplier Per Acre Empl.Adj.(1) Multiplier Acre Per Acre Per Acre FACTOR RESIDENTIAL Estate 3.06 3.27 10.01 $103.33 $1,035 $0 $2,947 $1,056 $0 $5,038 Low Density 5.80 3.27 18.98 $103.33 $1'%1 $0 $4,063 $1,456 $0 $7,480 Medium Density 10.97 2.08 22.82 $103.33 $2,358 $0 $5,280 $1.892 $0 $9,530 Medium-High Density 19.49 1.75 34.10 $103.33 $3,524 $0 $7,673 $2,749 $0 $13,946 High Density N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Planned Community N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A COMMERCIAL Neighborhood $591 $0 $2,859 $16,335 $162 $19,947 Community N/A N/A NIA N/A N/A N/A Office/Professional N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A MIXED DEVELOPMENT Residential Portion 14.39 1.92 27.56 $103.33 $2,848 $0 $6,297 $2,256 $0 $11,402 Commercial Portion $744 $0 $3,097 $20,419 $204 $24,464 INDUSTRIAL Industrial $1,116 $0 $3,255 $0 $255 $4,626 Industrial N/A N/A N/A N/A NIA N/A Resource Production N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A RECREATION/OPEN SPACE Neighborhood $0 $0 $0 $0 so City-Wide $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Linear Park $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 (1) Per acre revenue multiplier from Table 6 adjusted by land use based on ratio of employment per acre for land use category (from Table 4) to average employment for retail/offrceJR&D/general industrial land uses of 35.0 emp/acre.The purpose of this adjustment is to account for higher revenues associated with higher-intensity land uses(i.e.office)relative to lower-intensity uses(i.e.industrial). Source: Williams-Kuebelbeck&Associates,Inc. � � r � ar �■r � � � r r r it � it a � r � Holly Seacliff Generalan Amendment 4,10062-01pup Fiscal Impact Analysis Table 8: Total Operating Cost Factors Per Acre Total Total Per Com./Ind. TOTAL Capita Per Capita- Per Acne Cost PER ACRE DU's Per Persons Per Persons Per Cost Based Costs Multiplier-- Police Costs COST LAND USE Acre DU Acre Multiplier Per Acre Empl.Adj.(1) Per Acre FACTOR RESIDENTIAL Estate 3.06 3.27 10.01 $200.48 $2,007 $298 $2,306 Low Density 5.80 3.27 18.98 $200.48 $3,805 $565 $4,371 Medium Density 10.97 2.08 22.82 $200.48 $4,575 $1,514 $6,089 Medium-Iligh Density 19.49 1.75 34.10 $200.48 $6,837 $2,689 $9,526 High Density N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Planned Community N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A COMMERCIAL Neighborhood $2,193 $934 $3,127 Community N/A N/A N/A Office/Professional N/A N/A N/A MD[ED DEVELOPMENT Residential Portion 14.39 1.915 27.56 $200.48 $5,526 $1,986 $7,512 Commercial Portion $2,761 $1,168 $3,929 INDUSTRIAL Industrial $4,142 $1,189 $5,331 Industrial N/A N/A N/A Resource Production N/A N/A N/A RECREATION/OPEN SPACE Neighborhood $0 $3,500 City-Wide $0 $3,500 Linear Park $0 $3,500 (1) Per acre cost multiplier from Table 6 adjusted by land use based on ratio of employment per acre for land use category (from Table 4) to average employment for retail/office/R&D/general industrial land uses of 35.0 emp/acre.The purpose of this adjustment is to account for higher revenues associated with higher-intensity land uses(i.e.office)relative to lower-intensity uses(i.e.industrial). (2) From Parks and Recreation Department;average cost for all park lands. (3) Assumes utility would pay operating/maintenance costs. Source: Williams-Kuebelbeck&Associates,Inc. Holly Seacliff Generalan Amendment p uP Fiscal Impact Analysis Table 9: Summary of Per Acre Operating Revenue and Cost Factors By Land Use NET REVENUE COST REVENUES/ FACTOR FACTOR COSTS LAND USE PER ACRE PER ACRE PER ACRE RESIDENTIAL Estate $5,038 $2,306 $2,732 Low Density $7,480 $4,371 $3,110 Medium Density $9,530 $6,089 $3,441 Medium-High Density $13,946 $9,526 $4,420 High Density N/A N/A N/A Planned Community N/A N/A N/A COMMERCIAL Neighborhood $19,947 $3,127 $16,819 Community N/A N/A N/A Office/Professional N/A N/A N/A MIXED DEVELOPMENT Residential Portion $11,402 $7,512 $3,889 _ Commercial Portion $24,464 $3,929 $20,534 INDUSTRIAL Industrial 1 $4,626 $5,331 ($704) Industrial 2 N/A N/A N/A Resource Production N/A N/A N/A RECREATION/OPEN SPACE Neighborhood $0 $3,500 ($3,500) City-Wide $0 $3,500 ($3,500) Linear Park $0 $3,500 ($3,500) Source: Williams-Kuebelbeck&Associates,Inc. ■. err rs � � � .� � � r �. r. �. a� � � � r s� III. FISCAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED LAND USE PLAN ' This chapter presents the findings of the fiscal impact analysis for the Proposed Land Use Plan for the Holly Seacliff Study Area. The fiscal impact projections presented in this chapter are based on the assumptions, methodology, and per acre operating revenue and cost factors described in Chapter II. These factors are applied to the land use distribution and development phasing for the Proposed Land Use Plan provided by FORMA Design, Inc., as described in the paragraphs below. ' A. PROPOSED LAND USES AND DEVELOPMENT PHASING Table 10 presents the Study Area development program under the Proposed Land Use Plan. As shown, this alternative includes a total of 561 acres of residentially-zoned property and 53 acres of residential uses in the mixed-development category, for a total of 4,410 dwelling units. The plan also calls for 11 acres of neighborhood commercial ' development, 20 acres of additional commercial development within the mixed- development category, and 54 acres of business park uses. A total of 89 acres of open space uses is proposed, including 13 acres of neighborhood parks, 40 acres of city-wide parks (a portion of Central Park), and 36 acres of linear park uses. Table 10 also illustrates the projected square footage of commercial/industrial building space based on anticipated development intensities. The anticipated development program for each of the four land use alternatives has been divided into three phases. Assuming that development begins in 1990, these phases are expected to be completed in 1992, 1995,and 1998 respectively. Table 11 presents projected development phasing by each of the Planning Areas within the Holly Seacliff Study Area. Total acreage, land use designation, and anticipated development by phase (in terms of dwelling units for residential uses and acres for all other uses) are shown in the table. Table 12 aggregates across Planning Areas to summarize anticipated development phasing by land use category. The figures shown in Tables 11 and 12 represent the number of new dwelling units or acreage completed during each phase. As shown, the majority of development is expected to take place in Phase II, with pre- development preparation and the initial stages of development occurring in Phase I, and completion of build-out occurring during Phase III. Table 13 presents cumulative development phasing for the Study Area, showing total cumulative development anticipated by the end of each phase. For residential uses, dwelling units have been translated into acreage based on the residential densities shown in Table 10. Table 14 presents cumulative dwelling units,population and building square footage under the Proposed Land Use Alternative. Population is projected based on the household sizes for each residential type shown previously in Table 7. B . PROJECTED PROPERTY TAXES Table 15 presents projected assessed valuation and property taxes to the City of Huntington Beach under the Proposed Land Use Plan. Development values are based on the per acre factors described previously in Chapter II. As per the limitations of Proposition 13, unsold existing development is escalated at an annual rate of 2 percent, while new development and sold property is escalated at a projected general inflation rate of 4 percent. ' 17 Given anticipated development phasing, total assessed valuation under the Proposed Land Use Plan is expected to increase from$455.9 million at the end of Phase I, to $1.9 billion upon build out in 2001. Based on the average 17.5 percent of total property taxes received ' by the City of Huntington Beach, annual property tax revenues to the City will increase from$797.8 thousand at the end of Phase I to$3.4 million upon completion. C. PROJECTED SALES TAX REVENUES ' Table 16 presents projected sales tax revenues to the City of Huntington Beach from development of the Holly Seacliff Study Area according to the Proposed Land Use Plan. ' Sales tax revenues generated by each use are based on the per acre sales tax generation factors described previously in Chapter H. As shown, total sales tax revenues to the City are expected to increase from $301.9 thousand at the end of Phase I to $2.2 million annually at build-out. D. PROJECTED BUSINESS LICENSE TAX REVENUES Table 17 displays anticipated business license tax revenues from development of the , commercial and industrial uses within the Holly Seacliff Study Area. These projections are based on the per acre factors described in Chapter II. As shown, business license taxes are expected to be a relatively minor source of revenues, increasing from$1.7 thousand in Phase I to $27.9 thousand at build-out under the Proposed Land Use Plan. E. PROJECTED POLICE OPERATING COSTS , Table 18 shows projected police operating costs to the City of Huntington Beach from development of the Holly Seacliff Study Area under the Proposed Land Use Plan. As shown, police operating costs are expected to increase from $143.5 thousand upon completion of Phase I to$910.1 million at build-out of Phase III. Residential uses account for the largest share, by far, of projected police operating costs. F. PROJECTED TOTAL ANNUAL REVENUES AND COSTS , Table 19 summarizes the fiscal impact projections from development according to the , Proposed Land Use Plan. The table includes the revenue sources described above, as well as the additional categories of operating revenues based on the per acre factors derived in Chapter II. Total revenues to the City of Huntington Beach are expected to increase from $1.4 million at the end of Phase I to$7.4 million at build-out. Table 19 also displays projected total operating costs to the City,including costs for police protection and the other municipal services discussed in Chapter II. Total operating costs are expected to increase from$857.2 thousand at the end of Phase I to$4.9 million at build out. Based on the projections of operating revenues and costs, the Proposed Land Use Plan is expected to generate a positive net fiscal impact to the City of Huntington Beach during each phase of development. Net operating revenues are expected to increase from$585.0 thousand in Phase I to$2.6 million in Phase III. , 18 ' Holly Seacliff GeneralPlan Amendment 1p up Fiscal Impact Analysis Table 10: Study Area Development Program Alternative: Proposed Land Use Plan ' DU's Per Total Floor Area Total Bldg. Land Use Acres Acre DU's Ratio(FAR) Square Feet ' RESIDENTIAL Estate 209 3.06 640 Low Density 174 5.80 1,010 Medium Density 139 10.97 1,525 Medium-High Density 39 19.49 760 High Density N/A N/A N/A Planned Community N/A N/A N/A Subtotal—Residential 561 3,935 ' COMMERCIAL Neighborhood 11 0.25 119,790 Community N/A N/A N/A Office/Professional N/A N/A N/A Subtotal--Commercial 11 119,790 MDCED DEVELOPMENT Residential Portion 33 14.39 475 Commercial Portion 20 0.31 272,250 Subtotal—Mixed Development 53 475 272,250 ' INDUSTRIAL Industrial 1 54 0.41 964,418 Industrial N/A N/A N/A Resource Production N/A N/A N/A ' Subtotal--Industrial 54 964,418 RECREATION/OPEN SPACE Neighborhood 13 City-Wide 40 Linear Park 36 Subtotal--Recreation/Open Space 89 TOTAL 768 4,410 1,356,458 Source: Table 1; FORMA Design,Inc.; Williams-Kuebelbeck&Associates,Inc. ' 19 Holly Seacliff General Plan Amendment 4, 2- 6plup Fiscal Impact Analysis Table M: Projected Development Phasing By Planning Area Alternative: Proposed Land Use Plan Projected Development Phasing Total Land Use Proposed Unit o At Planning Area Acres(1) Designation Use Measure Build-Out Phase I (2) Phase Ii Phase III A 75 OS Linear Park Acres 23 23 E SFD DU's 170 65 105 B 200 OS Central Park Acres 40 40 E SFD/School/Park DU's 470 390 80 C 191 L SFA/Park DU's 310 120 190 BP Industrial Acres 32 6 18 8 M TII/Park DU's 725 140 390 195 MH Apt. DU's 500 200 300 ry D 190 OS Linear Park Acres 13 13 o M TH DU's 490 150 340 L SFA/SFD/Park DU's 700 110 330 260 C Neigh.Com. Acres 7 7 M11 Apt. DU's 260 90 170 E 112 BP Industrial Acres 22 16 6 MD Commercial Acres 20 20 TH DU's 475 475 pt. s 310 95 1 C Neigh.Com. Acres 4 4 Total Acreage 768 Total Residential Dwelling Units: 4,410 Acres: 561 Total Commercial(Acres) 11 Total Industrial 1(Acres) 54 Total Industrial 2(Acres) 0 Total Mixed Development(Acres) 53 Total Open Space(Acres)(1) 89 (1) Includes neighborhood park acreages as follows: B--3 acres;C--7 acres; and D--3 acres. (2) Includes existing development. Soutm- FORMA Demp,tttu,;Williams-Kuebelbttk&Assmrt;igin,ttie, Holly Sea eneeral Plan Amendment ]pup Fiscal Impact Analysis Table 12: Summary of Projected Development Phasing Alternative: Proposed Land Use Plan Total 1992 1995 1998 Land Use At Build-Out Phase I Phase H Phase III RESIDENTIAL (DWELLING UNITS) Estate 640 390 145 105 Low Density 1,010 230 520 260 Medium Density 1,525 235 695 595 Medium-High Density 760 200 390 170 High Density N/A N/A N/A N/A Planned Community N/A N/A N/A N/A Mixed Develop.(Resid.Portion) 475 0 0 475 Subtotal—Residential 4,410 1,055 1,750 1,605 COMMERCIAL (ACRES) Neighborhood 11 0 11 0 Community N/A N/A N/A N/A Office/Professional N/A N/A N/A N/A Mixed Develop.(Com.Portion) 20 0 0 20 Subtotal--Commercial 31 0 11 20 INDUSTRIAL (ACRES) Industrial 54 6 34 14 Industrial N/A N/A N/A N/A Resource Production N/A N/A N/A N/A Subtotal--Industrial 54 6 34 14 OPEN SPACE (ACRES) ' Neighborhood 13 10 3 0 City-Wide 40 0 40 0 Linear Park 36 0 36 0 Subtotal--Recr./Open Space 89 10 79 0 Source: FORMA Design,Inc.;Williams-Kuebelbeck&Associates,Inc. 21 r i HollySeaciff ner n Amendment 4.E3062-Olplup Fiscal Impact Analysis Table 13: Cumulative Development Phasing (Acres) Alternative: Proposed Land Use Plan Total 1992 1995 1998 At Build-Out Phase I Phase II Phase III RESIDENTIAL Estate 209 127 175 209 Low Density 174 40 129 174 Medium Density 139 21 85 139 Medium-High Density 39 10 30 39 High Density N/A N/A N/A N/A Planned Community N/A N/A N/A N/A Mixed Develop.(Resid.Portion) 33 0 0 33 Subtotal—Residential 594 199 419 594 COMMERCIAL Neighborhood 11 0 11 11 Community N/A N/A N/A N/A Office/Professional N/A N/A N/A N/A Mixed Develop.(Com.Portion) 20 0 0 20 Subtotal--Commercial 31 0 11 31 INDUSTRIAL Industrial 54 6 40 54 Industdal2 N/A N/A N/A N/A Resource Production N/A N/A N/A N/A Subtotal--Industrial 54 6 40 54 ' RECREATION/OPEN SPACE Neighborhood 13 10 13 13 City-Wide 40 0 40 40 , Linear Park 36 0 36 36 Subtotal—Rec./Open Space 89 10 89 89 TOTAL ACRES 768 215 559 768 Source: Table 12; Williams-Kuebelbeek&Associates,Inc. 22 Plan eac i ener - 1p up Fiscal Impact Analysis Table 14: Cumulative Dwellings, Population and Bldg. SF Alternative: Proposed Land Use Plan ' Taal 1992 1995 1998 At Build-Out Phase I Phase H Phase III DWELLING UNITS Estate 640 390 535 640 Low Density 1,010 230 750 1,010 Medium Density 1,525 235 930 1,525 Medium-High Density 760 200 590 760 High Density N/A N/A N/A N/A Planned Community N/A N/A N/A N/A Mixed Develop.(Resid.Portion) 475 0 0 475 TOTAL DWELLING UNITS 4,410 1,055 2,805 4,410 POPULATION Estate 2,093 1,275 1,749 2,093 Low Density 3,303 752 2,453 3,303 Medium Density 3,172 489 1,934 3,172 Medium-High Density 1,330 350 1,033 1,330 High Density N/A N/A N/A N/A Planned Community N/A N/A N/A N/A Mixed Develop.(Resid.Portion) 910 0 0 910 TOTAL POPULATION 10,807 2,866 7,169 10,807 BUILDING SQUARE FEET Commercial Neighborhood 119,790 0 119,790 119,790 Community N/A N/A N/A N/A Office/Professional N/A N/A N/A N/A Mixed Develop.(Com.Portion) 272,250 0 0 272,250 ' Industrial Industrial 964,418 107,158 714,384 964,418 Industrial N/A N/A N/A N/A ' TOTAL BUILDING SQ.FT. 1,356,458 107,158 834,174 1,356,458 Source: Table 10; Table 13; Williams-Kuebelbeck&Associates,Inc. 1 23 Holly SeacliffGeneral PlanAmendment Ip up Fiscal Impact Analyse Table IS: Projected Property Taxes (000's) Alternative: Proposed Land Use Plan 1992 1995 1998 Land Use Phase I Phase II Phase III RESIDENTIAL Estate $214,500.0 $294,250.0 $352,000.0 , Low Density $92,000.0 $300,000.0 $404,000.0 Medium Density $64,625.0 $255,750.0 $419,375.0 Medium-High Density $45,000.0 $I32,750.0 $171,000.0 High Density N/A N/A N/A Planned Community N/A N/A N/A Mixed Develop.(Resid.Portion) $0.0 $0.0 $118,750.0 Subtotal--Residential $416,125.0 $982,750.0 $1,465,125.0 COMMERCIAL ' Neighborhood $0.0 $17,968.5 $17,968.5 Community N/A NIA N/A Office/Professional N/A N/A NIA Mixed Develop.(Corn.Portion) $0.0 $0.0 $35,392.5 Subtotal--Commercial $0.0 $17,968.5 $53,361.0 INDUSTRIAL Industrial $11,160.1 $74,400.5 $100,440.6 Industrial N/A N/A N/A Resource Production N/A NIA N/A Subtotal--Industrial $11,160.1 $74,400.5 $100,440.6 RECREATION/OPEN SPACE ' Neighborhood $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 City-Wide $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 Linear Park $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 TOTAL ASSESSED VALUE(CURRENTS) $427,285.1 $1,075,119.0 $1,618,926.6 TOTAL ASSESSED VALUE(FUTURE$)(1) $455,904.1 $1,224,321.5 $1,968,261.5 TOTAL PROPERTY TAXES TO CITY(2) $797.8 $2,142.6 $3,444.5 (1) Escalation rate for new development value: 4.0% Sold existing property escalated at general inflation rate: 4.0% As per Proposition 13,unsold existing assessed value escalated at maximum of 2%annually. Residential turnover rate: 10.0% Commer.Md.turnover rate: 1.0% Weighted average turnover rate: 9.1% (2) Based on 1%property tax rate and the following share to the City of Huntington Beach: 17.5% Source: Table 2; Table 13; Williams-Kuebelbeck&Associates,Inc. 24 o y eoc i enera nAmendment 4 1p up Fiscal Impact Analysis Table 16: Projected Sales Tax Revenues (000's) Alternative: Proposed Land Use Plan 1992 1995 1998 Land Use Phase I Phase II Phase III RESIDENTIAL ' Estate $151.3 $233.4 $314.1 Low Density $64.9 $238.0 $360.5 Medium Density $45.6 $202.9 $374.3 Medium-HighDensiry $31.7 $105.3 $152.6 High Density N/A N/A N/A Planned Community N/A N/A N/A Mixed Develop.(Resid.Portion) $0.0 $0.0 $106.0 Subtotal--Residential $293.5 $779.7 $1,307.5 COMMERCIAL Neighborhood $O.0 $227.4 $255.7 Community N/A N/A N/A Office/Professional N/A N/A N/A Mixed Develop.(Com.Portion) $0.0 $0.0 $581.2 Subtotal--Commercial $0.0 $227.4 $837.0 INDUSTRIAL Industrial $8.4 $63.3 $96.1 Industrial N/A N/A N/A Resource Production(1) N/A WA N/A Subtotal--Industrial $8.4 $63.3 $96.1 ' TOTAL SALES TAX REVENUES $301.9 $1,070.3 $2,240.6 Note: Retail sales escalated at an annual rate of: 4.0% ' Source: Table 3; Table 13; Williams-Kuebelbeck&Associates,Inc. 25 Holly SeacliffGeneral Plan Amendment - p up Fiscal Impact Analysis Table 17: Projected Business License Tax Revenues (000's) Alternative: Proposed Land Use Plan 1992 1995 1998 Land Use Phase I Phase II Phase III COMMERCIAL Neighborhood $0.0 $2.3 $2.5 ' Community N/A N/A N/A Office/Professional N/A N/A N/A Mixed Develop.(Com.Portion) $0.0 $0.0 $5.8 Subtotal--Commercial $0.0 $2.3 $8.3 ' INDUSTRIAL Industrial $1.7 $12.9 $19.6 Industrial N/A NA N/A ' Resource Production(1) N/A N/A N/A Subtotal--Industrial $1.7 $12.9 $19.6 TOTAL BUSINESS LICENSE REVENUES $1.7 $15.2 $27.9 Note: Business license revenues escalated at an annual rate of: 4.0% Source: Table 4; Table 13; Williams-Kuebelbeck&Associates,Inc. , 26 , 1 1 ' Holly Seac iffGeneral Plan Amendment 4 Ip up Fiscal Impact Analysis Table 18: Projected Police Operating Costs (000's) Alternative: Proposed Land Use Plan 1992 1995 1998 Land Use Phase I Phase II Phase III ' RESIDENTIAL Estate $42.7 $65.9 $88.7 Low Density $25.2 $92.4 $140.0 Medium Density $36.5 $162.4 $299.5 Medium-High Density $31.0 $103.0 $149.3 ' High Density N/A N/A N/A Planned Community N/A N/A N/A Mixed Develop.(Resid.Portion) $0.0 $0.0 $93.3 Subtotal--Residential $135.5 $423.8 $770.9 ' COMMERCIAL Neighborhood $0.0 $13.0 $14.6 Community N/A N/A N/A Office/Professional N/A N/A N/A Mixed Develop.(Com.Portion) $0.0 $0.0 $33.2 Subtotal--Commercial $0.0 $13.0 $47.9 INDUSTRIAL Industrial $8.0 $60.2 $91.4 Industrial N/A N/A N/A Resource Production(1) N/A N/A N/A Subtotal--Industrial $8.0 $60.2 $91.4 TOTAL POLICE OPERATING COSTS $143.5 $497.0 $910.1 Note: Police costs escalated at an a:mual rate of: 4.0% Source: Table 5; Table 13; Williams-Kuebelbeck&Associates,Inc. r r r r r r r 27 Holly SeacliffGeneral Plan Amen&nent pup Fiscal Impact Analyse Table 19: Projected Total Annual Revenues and Costs (000's) Alternative: Proposed Land Use Plan 1992 1995 1998 Cost/Revenue Category Phase I Phase II Phase III REVENUES Property Taxes $797.8 $2,142.6 $3,444.5 Sales Taxes $301.9 $1,070.3 $2,240.6 Business License Tax $1.7 $15.2 $27.9 Subtotal--Property,Sales and Business Taxes $1,101.5 $3,228.0 $5,713.0 Transient Occupancy Tax $5.6 $14.0 $21.1 Cigarette Tax $8.6 $21.4 $32.2 Utility Taxes $145.9 $491.2 $904.6 Franchise Fees $16.4 $55.3 $101.8 Licenses-Oil Wells(4) $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 ' Fines/Forfeits/Penalties $34.9 $87.3 $131.6 Motor Vehicle In Lieu $94.2 $235.7 $355.2 State Public Library Funds $2.4 $5.9 $8.9 Cable TV $4.9 $12.2 $18.4 Real Property Transfer Tax $9.6 $32.4 $59.7 Charges for Recreation/Library Services $15.3 $38.4 $57.8 Other Revenue(Library,etc.) SIA $3.5 $5.2 Other Revenue(Traffic/Street Maint.Charges) $1.4 $4.9 $9.0 Subtotal-Other Revenues $340.7 $1,002.0 $1,705.6 , TOTALREVENUES $1,442.2 $4,230.0 $7,418.6 COSTS , Police $143.5 $497.0 $910.1 Fire&Paramedic $171.7 $539.8 $936.0 City Council $2.0 $6.3 $10.9 Non-Departmental $124.3 $390.9 $677.8 , Administration $14.4 $45.4 $78.7 City Treasurer $4.1 $13.0 $22.5 City Attorney $14.1 $44.4 $76.9 City Clerk $3.7 $11.8 $20.4 Business License Administration $1.6 $10.1 $21.8 ' Outer Administrative Services $42.8 $134.7 $233.6 Housing&Community Development $30.8 $77.0 $116.1 Community Development Administration $17.4 $54.7 $94.9 Community Services $72.0 $180.1 $271.5 Library Maintenance $1.1 $2.7 $4.1 , Other Public Works $174.2 $547.8 $949.9 Park Operating/Maintenance $39.4 $394.1 $443.4 TOTALCOSTS $857.2 $2,949.8 $4,868.5 ANNUAL NET FISCAL IMPACT $585.0 $1,280.2 $2,550.1 , Note: Unless noted otherwise,operating revenues escalated at an annual rate of: 4.0% Unless noted otherwise,operating costs escalated at an annual rate of: 4.0% ' Source: Williams-Kuebelbeck&Associates,Inc. 28 ' IV. FISCAL IMPACTS OF THE RESIDENTIAL ALTERNATIVE This chapter presents the findings of the fiscal impact analysis for the Residential Alternative for the Holly Seacliff Study Area. The fiscal impact projections presented in this chapter are based on the assumptions, methodology, and per acre operating revenue ' and cost factors described in Chapter II. These factors are applied to the land use distribution and development phasing for the Residential Alternative provided by FORMA Design,Inc., as described in the paragraphs below. A. PROPOSED LAND USES AND DEVELOPMENT PHASING Table 20 presents the Study Area development program under the Residential Alternative. As shown,this alternative includes a total of 609 acres of residentially-zoned property and 53 acres of residential uses in the mixed-development category, for a total of 4,885 dwelling units. The plan also calls for 17 acres of neighborhood commercial development, and 25 acres of additional commercial development within the mixed-development category. A total of 89 acres of open space uses is proposed, including 13 acres of neighborhood parks, 40 acres of city-wide parks (a portion of Central Park), and 36 acres of linear park uses. Table 20 also illustrates the projected square footage of commercial/industrial building space based on anticipated development intensities. The anticipated 12-year development program for each of the four land use alternatives has been divided into three phases. Assuming that development begins in 1990, these phases are expected be completed in 1992, 1995, and 1998,respectively. Table 21 presents projected development phasing by each of the Planning Areas within the ' Holly Seacliff Study Area. Total acreage, land use designation, and anticipated development by phase (in terms of dwelling units for residential uses and acres for all other uses) are shown in the table. Table 22 aggregates across Planning Areas to summarize anticipated development phasing by land use category.The figures shown in Tables 21 and 22 represent the number of new dwelling units or acreage completed during each phase. As shown, the majority of development is expected to take place in Phase II, with pre- development preparation and the initial stages of development occurring in Phase I, and completion of build-out occurring during Phase III. Table 23 presents cumulative development phasing for the Study Area, showing total ' cumulative development anticipated by the end of each phase. For residential uses, dwelling units have been translated into acreage based on the residential densities shown in Table 20. Table 24 presents cumulative dwelling units,population and building square footage under the Proposed Land Use Alternative. Population is projected based on the household sizes for each residential type shown previously in Table 7. B . PROJECTED PROPERTY TAXES Table 25 presents projected assessed valuation and property taxes to the City of Huntington Beach under the Residential Alternative. Development values are based on the per acre factors described previously in Chapter II. As per the limitations of Proposition 13, unsold existing development is escalated at an annual rate of 2 percent, while new development ' and sold property is escalated at a projected general inflation rate of 4 percent. 29 Given anticipated development phasing, total assessed valuation under the Residential , AIternative is expected to increase from$464.7 million at the end of Phase I,to$2.0 billion upon build out in 2001. Based on the average 17.5 percent of total property taxes received by the City of Huntington Beach, annual property tax revenues to the City will increase from$813.3 thousand at the end of Phase I to$3.6 million upon completion of Phase III. C. PROJECTED SALES TAX REVENUES Table 26 presents projected sales tax revenues to the City of Huntington Beach from ' development of the Holly Seacliff Study Area according to the Residential Alternative. Sales tax revenues generated by each use are based on the per acre sales tax generation factors described previously in Chapter II. As shown, total sales tax revenues to the City are expected to increase from $307.1 thousand at the end of Phase I to $2.4 million annually at build-out. D. PROJECTED BUSINESS LICENSE TAX REVENUES Table 27 displays anticipated business license tax revenues from development of the , commercial and industrial uses within the Holly Seacliff Study Area. These projections are based on the per acre factors described in Chapter 11. As shown, business license taxes are expected to be a relatively minor source of revenues, increasing to a maximum of$9.7 thousand at build-out under the Residential Alternative. ' E. PROJECTED POLICE OPERATING COSTS Table 28 shows projected police operating costs to the City of Huntington Beach from i development of the Holly Seacliff Study Area under the Residential Alternative. As shown, police operating costs are expected to increase from $146.3 thousand upon completion of Phase I to $920.0 thousand at build-out. Residential uses account for the largest share, by far, of projected police operating costs. F. PROJECTED TOTAL ANNUAL REVENUES AND COSTS ' Table 29 summarizes the fiscal impact projections from development according to the Residential Alternative. The table includes the revenue sources described above, as well as ' the additional categories of operating revenues based on the per acre factors derived in Chapter II. Total revenues to the City of Huntington Beach are expected to increase from $1.5 million at the end of Phase I to$7.8 million at build-out. Table 29 also displays projected total operating costs to the City,including costs for police protection and the other municipal services discussed in Chapter II. Total operating costs are expected to increase from $864.9 thousand at the end of Phase I to $4.9 million at build-out. Based on the projections of operating revenues and costs, the Residential Alternative is expected to generate a positive net fiscal impact to the City of Huntington Beach during each phase of development. Net operating revenues are expected to increase from $605.5 thousand at the end of Phase I to$2.9 million in Phase M. r r 30 r HollyeacGeneral Amendment resr Fiscal Impact Analysis Table 20: Study Area Development Program Alternative: Residential Alternative DU's Per Total Floor Area Total Bldg. Land Use Acres Acre DU's Ratio(FAR) Square Feet RESIDENTIAL ' Estate 209 3.06 640 Low Density 174 5.80 1,010 Medium Density 200 11.30 2,260 Medium-High Density 26 19.23 500 High Density N/A N/A N/A Planned Community N/A N/A N/A Subtotal—Residential 609 4,410 COMMERCIAL Neighborhood 17 0.25 185,130 Community N/A N/A N/A Office/Professional N/A N/A N/A ' Subtotal--Commercial 17 185,130 MDCED DEVELOPMENT Residential Portion 28 16.96 475 Commercial Portion 25 0.25 272,250 Subtotal—Mixed Development 53 475 272,250 INDUSTRIAL Industrial N/A N/A N/A Industrial N/A N/A N/A Resource Production N/A N/A N/A ' Subtotal--Industrial N/A N/A RECREATION/OPEN SPACE Neighborhood 13 City-Wide 40 Linear Park 36 Subtotal--Recreation/Open Space 89 TOTAL 768 4,885 457,380 Source: Table 1; FORMA Design,Inc.; Williams-Kuebelbeck&Associates,Inc. ' 31 HollySeacliff General Plan Amendment ,C - rest( Fiscal Impact Analysis Table 21: Projected Development Phasing By Planning Area Alternative: Residential Alternative Projected Development Phasing Total Land Use Proposed nit of Total At Planning Area Acres(1) Designation Use Measure Build-Out Phase 1 (2) Phase 11 Phase III A 75 OS Linear Park Acres 23 23 E SFD DU's 170 65 105 B 200 OS Central Park Acres 40 40 E SFD/School/Park DU's 470 390 80 C 191 L SFA/Park DU's 310 120 190 M TII/Park DU's 1,110 210 605 295 MII Apt. DU's 500 200 300 D 190 OS Linear Park Acres 13 13 M TII DU's 575 500 75 w L SFA/SFD/Park DU's 700 110 330 260 N C Neigh.Com. Acres 13 13 E 112 M TiI/A t. DU's 575 95 345 135 MD ommcrcr Acres Tli DU's 475 475 Neigh. om. Acres Total Acreage 768 Total Residential Dwelling Units: 4,885 Acres: 609 Total Commercial(Acres) 17 Total Industrial 1(Acres) 0 Total Industrial 2(Acres) 0 Total Mixed Development(Acres) 53 Total Open Space(Acres)(1) 89 1 Includes neighborhood k es as follows: B--3 acres;C--7 acres;and D-3 acres. O B par acreages (2) Includes existing development. Source: FORMA Design,Inc.;Williams-Kuebelbeck&Associates,Inc. Hollyeac ener Amendment resi ' Fiscal Impact Analysis Table 22: Summary of Projected Development Phasing Alternative: Residential Alternative Total 1992 1995 1998 Land Use At Build-Out Phase I Phase II Phase III RESIDENTIAL (DWELLING UNITS) ' Estee 640 390 145 105 Low Density 1,010 230 520 260 Medium Density 2,260 305 1,450 505 Medium-High Density 500 200 300 0 High Density N/A N/A N/A N/A Planned Community N/A N/A N/A N/A Mixed Develop.(Resid.Portion) 475 0 0 475 Subtotal—Residential 4,885 17125 2,415 1,345 COMMERCIAL (ACRES) Neighborhood 17 0 4 13 Community N/A N/A N/A N/A Office/Professional N/A N/A N/A N/A Mixed Develop.(Com.Portion) 25 0 0 25 Subtotal--Commercial 42 0 4 38 INDUSTRIAL (ACRES) Industrial1 N/A N/A N/A N/A Industrial N/A N/A N/A N/A Resource Production N/A N/A N/A N/A ' Subtotal--Industrial N/A N/A N/A N/A OPEN SPACE (ACRES) Neighborhood 13 10 3 0 City-Wide 40 0 40 0 Linear Park 36 0 36 0 Subtotal--Recr./Open Space 89 10 79 0 Source: FORMA Design,Inc.;Williams-Kuebelbeck&Associates,Inc. ' 33 i Hollyeac iGeneral Amendment rest Fiscal Impact Analysis Table 23: Cumulative Development Phasing (Acres) Alternative: Residential Alternative Total 1992 1995 1998 ' At Build-Out Phase I Phase II Phase III RESIDENTIAL Estate 209 127 175 209 Low Density 174 40 129 174 Medium Density 200 27 155 200 Medium-High Density 26 10 26 26 High Density N/A N/A N/A N/A Planned Community N/A N/A N/A N/A Mixed Develop.(Resid Portion) 28 0 0 28 Subtotal—Residential 637 204 485 637 COMMERCIAL , Neighborhood 17 0 4 17 Community N/A N/A N/A N/A Office/Professional N/A N/A N/A N/A Mixed Develop.(Com.Portion) 25 0 0 25 Subtotal--Commercial 42 0 4 42 INDUSTRIAL ' Industrial N/A N/A N/A N/A Industrial N/A N/A N/A N/A Resource Production N/A N/A N/A N/A Subtotal--Industrial N/A N/A N/A N/A , RECREATION/OPEN SPACE Neighborhood 13 10 13 13 City-Wide 40 0 40 40 Linear park 36 0 36 36 Subtotal—Rec./Open Space 89 10 89 89 TOTAL ACRES 768 214 578 768 Source: Table 22; Williams-Kuebetbeck&Associates,Inc. 34 ' Holty SeaclWGeneral Amendrnent resr Fiscal Impact Analysis Table 24: Cumulative Dwellings, Population and Bldg. SF Alternative: Residential Alternative Total 1992 1995 1998 At Build-Out Phase I Phase II Phase III ' DWELLING UNITS Estate 640 390 535 640 Low Density 1,010 230 750 1,010 Medium Density 2,260 305 1,755 2,260 Medium-High Density 500 200 500 500 High Density N/A N/A N/A N/A Planned Community N/A N/A N/A N/A Mixed Develop.(Resid.Portion) 475 0 0 475 TOTAL DWELLING UNM 4,885 1,125 3,540 4,885 POPULATION Estate 2,093 1,275 1,749 2,093 Low Density 39303 752 2,453 3,303 Medium Density 4,701 634 3,650 4,701 Medium-High Density 875 350 875 875 High Density N/A N/A N/A N/A Planned Community N/A N/A N/A N/A Mixed Develop.(Resid.Portion) 910 0 0 910 TOTAL POPULATION 11,881 3,0 22 8,727 11.881 BUILDING SQUARE FEET Commercial Neighborhood 185,130 0 43,560 185,130 Community N/A N/A N/A N/A Office/Professional N/A N/A N/A N/A Mixed Develop.(Com.Portion) 272,250 0 0 272,250 Industrial IndustrialI N/A N/A N/A N/A Industrial N/A N/A N/A N/A TOTAL BUILDING SQ.FT. 457,380 0 43,560 457,380 Source: Table 20; Table 23; Williams-Kuebelbeck&Associates,Inc. 35 Hollyeac iGeneral Plan Amendment rest Fiscal Impact Analysis Table 25: Projected Property Taxes (000's) Alternative: Residential Alternative 1992 1995 1998 Land Use Phase I Phase II Phase III RESIDENTIAL Estate $214,500.0 $294,250.0 $352,000.0 Low Density $92,000.0 $300,000.0 5404,000.0 Medium Density 583,875.0 5482,625.0 5621,500.0 Medium-High Density 545,000.0 5112,500.0 $112,500.0 High Density N/A N/A N/A Planned Community N/A N/A N/A Mixed Develop.(Resid.Portion) $0.0 $0.0 $118,750.0 Subtotal—Residential 5435,375.0 51,189,375.0 $1,608,750.0 COMMERCIAL Neighborhood $0.0 $6,534.0 $27,769.5 Community N/A N/A N/A Office/Professional N/A N/A N/A Mixed Develop.(Com.Portion) $0.0 $0.0 $40,837.5 Subtotal--Commercial $0.0 $6,534.0 $68,607.0 INDUSTRIAL ' Industrial N/A N/A N/A Industrial N/A N/A N/A Resource Production N/A N/A N/A Subtotal--Industrial N/A N/A N/A RECREATION/OPEN SPACE Neighborhood $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 City-Wide $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 Linear Park $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 TOTAL ASSESSED VALUE(CURRENT$) $435,375.0 $1,195,909.0 $1,677,357.0 TOTAL ASSESSED VALUE(FCII'URE$)(1) $464,726.8 $1,363,020.9 $2,041,937.3 TOTAL PROPERTY TAXES TO CITY(2) $813.3 $2,385.3 $3,573.4 (1) Escalation rate for new development value: 4.0% Sold existing property escalated at general inflation rate: 4.0% As per Proposition 13,unsold existing assessed value escalated at maximum of 2%annually. Residential turnover rate: 10.0% Commer./Ind.turnover rate: 1.0% Weighted average turnover rate: 9.8% (2) Based on 1%property tax rate and the following share to the City of Huntington Beach: 17.5% Source: Table 2; Table 23; Williams-Kuebelbeck&Associates,Inc. 36 HollyeacGene r Amendment 4 1 resid ' Fiscal Impact Analysis Table 26: Projected Sales Tax Revenues (000's) Alternative. Residential Alternative 1992 1995 1998 Land Use Phase I Phase 11 Phase III RESIDENTIAL Estate $151.3 $233.4 $314.1 Low Density $64.9 $238.0 $360.5 Medium Density $59.2 $382.9 $554.6 Medium-High Density $31.7 $89.3 $100.4 High Density N/A N/A N/A Planned Community N/A N/A N/A Mixed Develop.(Resid.Portion) $0.0 $0.0 $106.0 Subtotal-Residential $307.1 $943.6 $1,435.7 COMMERCIAL Neighborhood $0.0 $82.7 $395.2 Community N/A N/A N/A ' Office/Professional N/A N/A N/A Mixed Develop.(Com.Portion) $0.0 $0.0 $581.2 Subtotal--Commercial $0.0 $82.7 $976.5 INDUSTRIAL Industrial N/A N/A N/A Industrial N/A N/A N/A Resource Production(1) N/A N/A N/A ' Subtotal--Industrial $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 TOTAL SALES TAX REVENUES $307.1 $1,026.3 $2,412.2 Note: Retail sales escalated at an annual rate of: 4.0% Source: Table 3; Table 23; Williams-Kuebelbeck&Associates,Inc. ' 37 HollyeacGeneral Anw nt resr Fiscal Impact Analysis Table 27: Projected Business License Tax Revenues (000's) Alternative: Residential Alternative 1992 1995 1998 Land Use Phase I Phase 11 Phase III COMMERCIAL Neighborhood $0.0 $0.8 $3.9 Community N/A N/A N/A Office/Professional N/A N/A N/A Mixed Develop.(Com.Portion) $0.0 $0.0 $5.8 Subtotal--Commercial $0.0 $0.8 $9.7 INDUSTRIAL Industrial N/A N/A N/A Industrial N/A N/A N/A Resource Production(1) N/A N/A N/A Subtotal--Industrial $0.0 50.0 $0.0 ' TOTAL BUSINESS LICENSE REVENUES $0.0 $0.8 $9.7 Note: Business license revenues escalated at an annual rate of: 4.0% ' Source: Table 4; Table 23; Williams-Kuebelbeck&Associates,Inc. 38 ' HollyeacGeneral Amendment 4 I m 72 Fiscal Impact Analysis Table 28: Projected Police Operating Costs (000's) Alternative: Residential Alternative 1992 1995 1998 Land Use Phase I Phase II Phase III RESIDENTIAL Estate $42.7 $65.9 S88.7 Low Density $25.2 $92.4 $140.0 Medium Density $47.3 $306.5 $443.9 Medium-High Density $31.0 $87.3 $98.2 High Density N/A N/A N/A Planned Community N/A N/A N/A Mined Develop.(Resid.Portion) $0.0 $0.0 $93.3 Subtotal-Residential S146.3 $552.1 $864.2 COMMERCIAL ' Neighborhood $0.0 $4.7 $22.6 Community N/A N/A N/A Office/Professional N/A N/A N/A Mixed Develop.(Com.Portion) $0.0 S0.0 $33.2 ' Subtotal--Commercial $0.0 $4.7 $55.9 INDUSTRIAL IndustrialI N/A N/A N/A Industrial2 N/A N/A N/A Resource Production(1) N/A N/A N/A Subtotal--Industrial $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 TOTAL POLICE OPERATING COSTS $146.3 $556.9 $920.0 Note: Police costs escalated at an annual rate of: 4.0% ' Source: Table 5; Table 23; Williams-Kuebelbeck&Associates,Inc. ' 39 Hollyeac iGeneral Plan Amendnzent 4 resid ' Fiscal Impact Analysis Tabk 29: Projected Total Annual Revenues and Costs (000's) Alternative: Residential Alternative 1992 1995 1998 , Cost/Revenue Category Phase I Phase II Phase III REVENUES ' Property Taxes $813.3 $2,385.3 $3,573.4 Sales Taxes $307.1 $1,026.3 $2,412.2 Business License Tax $0.0 $0.8 $9.7 Subtotal--Property,Sales and Business Taxes $1,120.3 53,412.4 $5,995.2 , Transient Occupancy Tax $5.9 $17.0 $23.2 Cigarette Tax $9.0 $26.0 $35.4 Utility Taxes $146.7 $534.2 $916.7 ' Franchise Fees $16.5 $60.1 $103.1 Licenses-Oil Wells(4) $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 Fines/Forfeits/Penalties $36.7 $106.2 $144.6 Motor Vehicle In Lieu $99.0 $286.9 $390.5 State Public Library Funds $2.5 $7.2 $9.8 ' Cable TV $5.1 $14.9 $20.3 Real Property Transfer Tax $9.7 $35.3 $60.5 Charges for Recreation/Library Services $16.1 $46.7 $63.6 Other Revenue(Library,etc.) $1.5 $4.2 $5.8 Other Revenue(Traffic/Street Maim.Charges) $1.5 $5.3 $9.1 , Subtotal--MerRevenues $350.1 $1,144.0 $1,782.6 TOTAL REVENUES $1,470.4 $4,556.4 $7,777.9 ' COSTS Police $146.3 $556.9 $920.0 ' Fire&Paramedic $171.7 $573.7 $927.1 City Council $2.0 $6.7 $10.8 Non-Departmental $124.3 $415.4 $671.4 Administration $14.4 $48.2 $77.9 City Treasurer $4.1 $13.8 $22.3 ' City Attorney $14.1 547.2 576.2 City Clerk $3.7 $12.5 $20.2 Business License Administration $1.2 $7.7 $18.4 Other Administrative Services $42.8 $143.2 $231.4 ' Housing&Community Development $32.4 $93.8 $127.7 Community Development Administration $17.4 $58.2 $94.0 Community Services $75.7 $219.2 $298.4 Library Maintenance $1.1 $3.3 $4.5 Other Public Works $174.2 $582.2 $940.9 ' Park Operating(Maintenance $39.4 $407.4 $458.3 TOTAL COSTS $864.9 $3,189.3 $4,899.6 ANNUAL NET FISCAL DMACT $605.5 $1,367.1 $2,878.3 ' Note: Unless noted otherwise,operating revenues escalated at an annual rate of: 4.0% Unless noted otherwise,operating costs escalated at an annual rate of: 4.0% ' Source: Williams-Kuebelbeck&Associates,Inc. 1 40 , V. FISCAL IMPACTS OF THE INDUSTRIAL ALTERNATIVE ' This chapter presents the findings of the fiscal impact analysis for the Industrial Alternative for the Holly Seacliff Study Area. The fiscal impact projections presented in this chapter are based on the assumptions, methodology, and per acre operating revenue and cost factors described in Chapter II. These factors are applied to the land use distribution and development phasing for the Industrial Alternative provided by FORMA Design, Inc., as described in the paragraphs below. A. PROPOSED LAND USES AND DEVELOPMENT PHASING Table 30 presents the Study Area development program under the Industrial Alternative. As shown,this alternative includes a total of 557 acres of residentially-zoned property and 53 acres of residential uses in the mixed-development category, for a total of 4,845 dwelling units. The plan also calls for 7 acres of neighborhood commercial development, and 25 acres of additional commercial development within the mixed-development category. A total of 89 acres of open space uses is proposed, including 13 acres of neighborhood parks,40 acres of city-wide parks (a portion of Central Park), and 36 acres of linear park uses. Table 30 also illustrates the projected square footage of commercial/industrial building space based on anticipated development intensities. The anticipated development program for each of the four land use alternatives has been ' divided into three phases. Assuming that development begins in 1990, these phases are expected to be completed in 1992, 1995,and 1998,respectively. ' Table 31 presents projected development phasing by each of the Planning Areas within the Holly Seacliff Study Area. Total acreage, land use designation, and anticipated development by phase (in terms of dwelling units for residential uses and acres for all other uses) are shown in the table. Table 32 aggregates across Planning Areas to summarize ' anticipated development phasing by land use category.The figures shown in Tables 31 and 32 represent the number of new dwelling units or acreage completed during each phase. As shown, the majority of development is expected to take place in Phase II, with pre- development preparation and the initial stages of development occurring in Phase I, and completion of build-out occurring during Phase III. Table 33 presents cumulative development phasing for the Study Area, showing total ' cumulative development anticipated by the end of each phase. For residential uses, dwelling units have been translated into acreage based on the residential densities shown in Table 30. Table 34 presents cumulative dwelling units,population and building square footage under the Proposed Land Use Alternative. Population is projected based on the household sizes for each residential type shown previously in Table 7. B . PROJECTED PROPERTY TAXES Table 35 presents projected assessed valuation and property taxes to the City of Huntington Beach under the Industrial Alternative. Development values are based on the per acre factors described previously in Chapter II. As per the limitations of Proposition 13, unsold existing development is escalated at an annual rate of 2 percent, while new development and sold property is escalated at a projected general inflation rate of 4 percent. ' 41 Given anticipated development phasing, total assessed valuation under the Industrial ' Alternative is expected to increase from$414.5 million at the end of Phase I,to$2.1 billion upon build out in 2001. Based on the average 17.5 percent of total property taxes received by the City of Huntington Beach, annual property tax revenues to the City will increase , from$725.3 thousand at the end of Phase I to$3.6 million upon completion. C. PROJECTED SALES TAX REVENUES Table 36 presents projected sales tax revenues to the City of Huntington Beach from development of the Holly Seacliff Study Area according to the Industrial Alternative. Sales tax revenues generated by each use are based on the per acre sales tax generation factors ' described previously in Chapter II. As shown, total sales tax revenues to the City are expected to increase from$278.0 thousand at the end of Phase I to$2.2 million annually at build-out. D. PROJECTED BUSINESS LICENSE TAX REVENUES ' Table 37 displays anticipated business license tax revenues from development of the ' commercial and industrial uses within the Holly Seacliff Study Area. These projections are based on the per acre factors described in Chapter II. As shown, business license taxes are expected to be a relatively minor source of revenues, increasing to a maximum of ' $26.5 thousand at build-out under the Industrial Alternative. E. PROJECTED POLICE OPERATING COSTS Table 38 shows projected police operating costs to the City of Huntington Beach from ' development of the Holly Seacliff Study Area under the Industrial Alternative. As shown, police operating costs are expected to increase from $123.5 thousand upon completion of ' Phase I to$1.0 million at build-out . Residential uses account for the largest share, by far, of projected police operating costs. F. PROJECTED TOTAL ANNUAL REVENUES AND COSTS ' Table 39 summarizes the fiscal impact projections from development according to the Industrial Alternative. The table includes the revenue sources described above, as well as ' the additional categories of operating revenues based on the per acre factors derived in Chapter II. Total revenues to the City of Huntington Beach are expected to increase from $1.3 million at the end of Phase I to$7.7 million at build-out of Phase III. ' Table 39 also displays projected total operating costs to the City,including costs for police protection and the other municipal services discussed in Chapter II. Total operating costs are expected to increase from $771.1 thousand at the end of Phase I to $5.1 million at ' build-out . Based on the projections of operating revenues and costs, the Industrial Alternative is ' expected to generate a positive net fiscal impact to the City of Huntington Beach during each phase of development. Net operating revenues are expected to increase from $538.0 thousand at the end of Phase I to$2.5 million upon completion of Phase III. 42 ' Holty Seacl#fGeneral Amendment 4,E3062-Olind ' Fiscal Impact Analysis Table 30: Study Area Development Program Alternative: Industrial Alternative DU's Per Total Floor Area Total Bldg. Land Use Acres Acre DU's Ratio(FAR) Square Feet RESIDENTIAL ' Estate 193 3.03 585 Low Density 174 5.80 1,010 Medium Density 113 11.11 1,255 Medium-High Density 77 19.74 1,520 High Density N/A N/A N/A Planned Community N/A N/A N/A Subtotal—Residential 557 4,370 ' COMMERCIAL Neighborhood 7 0.25 76,230 Community N/A N/A N/A Office/Professional N/A N/A N/A Subtotal--Commercial 7 76.230 MD(ED DEVELOPMENT Residential Portion 28 16.96 475 Commercial Portion 25 0.25 272,250 Subtotal—Mixed Development 53 475 272,250 INDUSTRIAL Industrial 1 43 0.41 767,963 Industrial 2 19 0.41 339,332 Resource Production N/A N/A N/A ' Subtotal--Industrial 62 1,107,295 RECREATION/OPEN SPACE Neighborhood 13 City-Wide 40 ' linear Paris 36 Subtotal—Recreation/Open Space 89 'DOTAL 768 4,845 1,455,775 Source: Table 1; FORMA Design,Inc.; Williams-Kuebelbeck 11 Associates,Inc. 1 43 Holly Seacliff General Plan Amendment 4,6062-06ind Fiscal Impact Analysis Table 31: Projected Development Phasing By Planning Area Alternative: Industrial Alternative Projected Development Phasing Total Land Use Proposed Unit o At Planning Area Acres(1) Designation Use Measure Build-Out Phase I(2) Phase If Phase III A 75 OS Linear Park Acres 23 23 E SFD DU's 305 65 240 B 200 OS Central Park Acres 40 0 E SFD/School/Park DU's 470 390 80 C 191 L SFA/Park DU's 310 120 190 BP Industrial Acres 43 7 26 10 M TH/Park DU's 160 80 80 MH Apt. DU's 900 200 500 200 I Industrial Acres 19 4 10 5 D 190 OS Linear Park Acres 13 13 M11 TH/Apt. DU's 950 330 620 L SFA/Park DU's 700 110 330 260 C Neigh.Com. Acres 7 7 E 112 M TH/A t. DU's 575 65 335 175 mmercial Acres TH DU's 475 475 Total Acreage 768 Total Residential Dwelling Units: 4,845 Acres: 557 Total Commercial(Acres) 7 Total Industrial 1(Acres) 43 Total Industrial 2(Acres) 19 Total Mixed Development(Acres) 53 Total Open Space(Acres)(1) 89 (1) Includes neighborhood park acreages as follows: B--3 acres;C--7 acres; and D--3 acres. (2) Includes existing development. Source: FORMA Design,Inc.;Williams-Kuebelbeck&Associates.Inc. HoI&SeacliffGeneral Amendment 4,E3062-Olind ' Fiscal Impact Analysis Table 32: Summary of Projected Development Phasing Alternative: Industrial Alternative ' Total 1992 1995 1998 Land Use At Build-Out Phase I Phase II Phase III RESIDENTIAL (DWELLING UNITS) ' Estate 585 390 145 50 Low Density 1,010 230 520 260 Medium Density 1,255 65 415 775 Medium-High Density 1,520 200 830 490 High Density N/A N/A N/A N/A ' Planned Community N/A N/A N/A N/A Mixed Develop.(Resid.Portion) 475 0 0 475 Subtotal—Residential 4,845 885 1,910 2,050 COMMERCIAL (ACRES) Neighborhood 7 0 7 0 Community N/A N/A N/A N/A Ot'fce/Professional N/A N/A N/A N/A Mixed Develop.(Com.Portion) 25 0 0 25 Subtotal--Commercial 32 0 7 25 INDUSTRIAL (ACRES) Industrial 43 7 26 10 Industrial 19 4 10 5 Resource Production N/A N/A N/A N/A ' Subtotal--Industrial 62 11 36 15 OPEN SPACE (ACRES) Neighborhood 13 10 3 0 1 City-Wide 40 0 40 0 Linear Park 36 0 36 0 Subtotal--Recr./Open Space 89 10 79 0 Source: FORMA Design,Inc.;Williams-Kuebelbeck&Associates,Inc. 45 HollyeacGeneral Ame nt 4.E3062-Olind Fiscal Impact Analysis Table 33: Cumulative Development Phasing (Acres) Alternative: Industrial Alternative Total 1992 1995 1998 At Build-Out Phase I Phase II Phase III ' RESIDENTIAL Estate 193 129 177 193 Low Density 174 40 129 174 Medium Density 113 6 43 113 Medium-High Density 77 10 52 77 High Density N/A N/A N/A N/A Planned Community N/A N/A N/A N/A ' Mixed Develop.(Resid.Portion) 28 0 0 28 Subtotal—Residential 585 184 401 585 COMMERCIAL Neighborhood 7 0 7 7 Community N/A N/A N/A N/A Office/Professional N/A N/A N/A N/A Mixed Develop.(Com.Portion) 25 0 0 25 Subtotal--Commercial 32 0 7 32 INDUSTRIAL Industrial 43 7 33 43 Industrial 19 4 14 19 Resource Production N/A N/A N/A N/A Subtotal--Industrial 62 11 47 62 RECREATION/OPEN SPACE Neighborhood 13 10 13 13 City-Wide 40 0 40 40 Linear Paris 36 0 36 36 Subtotal—Rec./Open Space 89 10 89 89 TOTAL ACRES 768 205 544 768 Source: Table 32; Williams-Kuebelbeck&Associates,Inc. ' 46 Hollyeac ener Amtendmtent 4,E3G62-01ind Fiscal Impact Analysis Table 34: Cumulative Dwellings, Population and Bldg. SF Alternative: Industrial Alternative Total 1992 1995 1998 At Build-Out Phase I Phase II Phase III DWELLING UNITS Estate 585 390 535 585 Low Density 1,010 230 750 1,010 Medium Density 1,255 65 480 1,255 ' Medium-High Density 1,520 200 1,030 1,520 High Density N/A N/A N/A N/A Planned Community N/A N/A N/A N/A Mizell Develop.(Resid.Portion) 475 0 0 475 ' TOTAL DWELLING UNITS 4,845 885 2,795 4,845 POPULATION Estate 1,913 1,275 1,749 1,913 Low Density 3,303 752 2,453 3,303 Medium Density 2,610 135 998 2,610 Medium-High Density 2,660 350 1,803 2,660 High Density N/A N/A N/A N/A Planned Community N/A N/A N/A N/A Mixed Develop.(Resid.Portion) 910 0 0 910 TOTAL POPULATION 11,396 2,513 7,003 11,396 BUILDING SQUARE FEET Commercial Neighborhood 76,230 0 76,230 76,230 Community N/A N/A N/A N/A Office/Professional N/A N/A N/A N/A Mixed Develop.(Com.Portion) 272,250 0 0 272,250 1 Industrial Industrial 767,963 125,017 589,367 767,963 Industrial 335,760 67,966 246,462 335,760 TOTAL BUILDING SQ.FT. 1,452,203 192,884 912,059 1,452,203 Source: Table 30; Table 33; Williams-Kuebelbeck&Associates,Inc. ' 47 Holly SeacliffGeneral Plan Amendment to Fiscal Impact Analysis Table 33: Projected Property Taxes (000's) Alternative: Industrial Alternative 1992 1995 1998 Land Use Phase I Phase II Phase III RESIDENTIAL Estate $214,500.0 $294,250.0 S321,750.0 Low Density $92.000.0 $300,000.0 $404,000.0 Medium Density $17,875.0 $132,000.0 $345,125.0 Medium-High Density $45,000.0 $231,750.0 S342,000.0 High Density N/A N/A NIA Planned Community N/A NIA NIA Mixed Develop.(Resid.Portion) $0.0 $0.0 $118,750.0 ' Subtotal--Residential $369,375.0 $958,000.0 $1531,625.0 COMMERCIAL Neighborhood $0.0 $11,434.5 $11,434.5 Community N/A N/A N/A Office/Professional N/A N/A NIA Mixed Develop.(Com.Portion) $0.0 $0.0 $40,837.5 Subtotal--Canmercial $0.0 S11,434.5 $52,272.0 , INDUSTRIAL Industrial $13,020.1 $61,380.4 $79,980.5 Industrial $6,058.3 $22,001.3 $29,972.8 Resource Production N/A N/A N/A Subtotal--Industrial $19,078.4 $83,381.7 $109,953.3 RECREATION/OPEN SPACE Neighborhood $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 City-Wide $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 Linear Park $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 TOTAL ASSESSED VALUE(CURRENT$) $388,453.4 $1,052.816.2 $1,693,850.3 ' TOTAL ASSESSED VALUE(FUTURE$)(1) $414,456.1 $1,198,832.3 S2,059,111.5 TOTAL PROPERTY TAXES TO CTTY(2) $725.3 $2,098.0 $3,603.4 ' (1) Escalation rate for new development value: 4.0% Sold existing property escalated at general inflation rate: 4.0% As per Proposition 13,unsold existing assessed value escalated at maximum of 2%annually. Residential turnover rate: 10.0% Commer.Md.turnover rate: 1.0% Weighted average turnover rate: 9.0% (2) Based on 1%property tax rate and the following share to the City of Huntington Beach: 17.5% Source: Table 2; Table 33; Williams-Kuebelbeck&Associates,Inc. 1 1 ' Holly SeacliffGeneral Amendment 47TR - rn Fiscal Impact Analysis Table 36: Projected Sales Tax Revenues (000's) Alternative: Industrial Alternative 1992 1995 1998 Land Use Phase I Phase II Phase III RESIDENTIAL Estate $151.3 $233.4 $287.1 Low Density $64.9 $238.0 $360.5 Medium Density $12.6 $104.7 $308.0 Medium-High Density $31.7 $183.9 $305.2 ' High Density N/A N/A N/A Planned Community N/A N/A N/A Mixed Develop.(Resid.Portion) $0.0 $0.0 $106.0 Subtotal-Residential $260.5 $760.0 $1,366.8 COMMERCIAL Neighborhood $0.0 $144.7 $162.7 Community N/A N/A N/A Office/Professional N/A N/A N/A Mixed Develop.(Com.Portion) $0.0 $0.0 $581.2 Subtotal--Commercial $0.0 $I44.7 $744.0 INDUSTRIAL Industrial $9.8 $52.2 $76.5 Industrial $7.6 $31.2 $47.8 Resource Production(1) N/A N/A N/A Subtotal--Industrial $17.5 $83.4 $124.3 TOTAL SALES TAX REVENUES $278.0 $988.1 $2,235.1 ' Note: Retail sales escalated at an annual rate of: 4.0% Source: Table 3; Table 33; Williams-Kuebelbeck&Associates,Inc. 1 1 1 1 49 Hollyeac i ener n Amendment 4.E3062-Olind Fiscal Impact Analysis ' Table 37: Projected Business License Tax Revenues (000's) Alternative: Industrial Alternative 1992 1995 1998 Land Use Phase I Phase 11 Phase III COM IERCIAL Neighborhood $0.0 $1.4 $1.6 Community N/A N/A N/A O8'ice/Piofessional N/A N/A N/A Mixed Develop.(Com.Portion) $0.0 $0.0 $5.8 Subtotal--Commercial $0.0 $1.4 $7.4 INDUSTRIAL Industrial $2.0 $10.6 $15.6 Industrial $0.6 $2.3 $3.5 Resource Production(1) N/A N/A N/A Subtotal--Industrial $2.6 $12.9 $19.1 TOTAL BUSINESS LICENSE REVENUES $2.6 $14.4 $26.5 Note: Business license revenues escalated at an annual rate of: 4.0% Source: Table 4; Table 33; Williams-Kuebelbeck&Associates,Inc. 50 HollyeacGeneral n Amendment 4,E3062-Olind Fiscal Impact Analysis Table 38: Projected Police Operating Costs (000's) Alternative: Industrial Alternative 1992 1995 1998 Land Use Phase I Phase II Phase III RESIDENTIAL Estate $42.7 $65.9 $81.1 Low Density $25.2 $92.4 $140.0 Medium Density $10.1 $83.8 $246.5 Medium-High Density $31.0 $179.9 $298.6 High Density N/A N/A N/A Planned Community N/A NIA N/A Mixed Develop.(Resid.Portion) $0.0 $0.0 $93.3 Subtotal-Residential $109.1 $422.1 $859.5 COMMERCIAL Neighborhood $0.0 $8.3 $9.3 Community N/A N/A N/A Office/Professional N/A N/A N/A Mixed Develop.(Com.Portion) $0.0 $0.0 $33.2 Subtotal--Commercial $0.0 $8.3 $42.6 INDUSTRIAL Industrial $9.4 $49.6 $72.7 Industrial $5.1 $20.8 $31.8 Resource Production(1) N/A N/A N/A Subtotal--Industrial $14.4 $70.4 $104.5 TOTAL POLICE OPERATING COSTS $123.5 $500.7 $1,006.6 Note: Police costs escalated at an annual rate of: 4.0% ' Source: Table 5; Table 33; Williams-Kuebelbeck&Associates,Inc. r51 HollyeatGeneral nt - m Fiscal,mPactAnalysLr Table 39: Projected Total Annual Revenues and Costs (000's) Alternative: Industrial Alternative 1992 1995 1998 Coat/Revenue Category Phase I Phase II Phase III ' REVENUES Property Taxes $725.3 $2,098.0 $3,603.4 Sales Taxes $278.0 $988.1 $2,235.1 Business License Tax $2.6 $14.4 526.5 Subtotal--Property,Sales and Business Taxes 51,005.9 53,100.4 $5.865.1 Transient Occupancy Tax $4.9 $13.7 $22.2 Cigarette Tax 57.5 $20.9 $34.0 Utility Taxes $131.8 $478.6 $943.7 Franchise Fees $14.9 $53.9 $106.2 Licenses--Oil Wells(4) $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 Fines/Forfeits/Penalties $30.6 $85.3 $138.7 Motor Vehicle In Lieu $82.6 $230.2 $374.6 State Public Library Funds $2.1 $5.8 $9.4 Cable TV $4.3 $11.9 $19A Real Property Transfer Tax $8.7 $31.6 $62.3 Charges for Recreatlon/library Services $13.4 $37.5 $61.0 Other Revenue(Library,etc.) 11.2 $3A 15.5 Other Revenue(Traffic/Street Maint.Charges) $1.3 $4.7 $9.3 Subtotal--Other Revenues 5303.3 5977.4 $1,786.4 TOTALREVEIvM $1,309.1 $4,077.9 $7,651.4 COSTS Police $123.5 $500.7 $1,006.6 Fite&Paramedic $155.6 $525.7 $973.6 City Council $1.8 $6.1 $11.3 Non-Departmental $112.7 $380.7 $705.0 Administration $13.1 $44.2 $81.8 City Treasurer $3.7 $12.6 $23.4 City Attorney $12.9 $43.2 $80.0 City Clark $3.4 $11.5 $21.3 Business License Administration $1.7 $9.7 $22.3 Other Administrative Services $38.8 $131.2 $243.0 Housing&Community Development $27.0 $75.3 $122.5 Community Development Administration $15.8 $53.3 $98.7 Community Services $63.1 $175.9 $286.2 ' Library Maintenance $1.0 $2.7 $4.3 Other Public Warns $157.9 $533.5 $988.1 Park Operating/Mainieaance S39A $407.4 $459.3 TOTAL COSTS 5771.1 12,913.8 $5,126.5 ANNUAL NET FISCAL IMPACT $538.0 $1,164.0 $2,525.0 Note: Unless noted otherwise,operating revenues escalated at an annual rate of: 4.0% Unless noted otherwise,operating costs escalated at an annual rate of: 4.0% Source: Williams-Kuebelbeck&Associates,Inc. 52 VI. FISCAL IMPACTS OF THE EXISTING GENERAL PLAN This chapter presents the findings of the fiscal impact analysis for the Existing General Plan for the Holly Seacliff Study Area. The fiscal impact projections presented in this chapter are based on the assumptions, methodology, and per acre operating revenue and cost factors described in Chapter 11. These factors are applied to the land use distribution and development phasing for the Existing General Plan provided by FORMA Design, Inc., as described in the paragraphs below. A. PROPOSED LAND USES AND DEVELOPMENT PHASING Table 40 presents the Study Area development program under the Existing General Plan. As shown, this alternative includes a total of 465 acres of residentially-zoned property, for a total of 5,848 dwelling units. The plan also calls for 10 acres of neighborhood commercial, 57 acres of community commercial, 16 acres of office/professional, and 166 acres of industrial uses. A total of 54 acres of open space uses is proposed, including 9 acres of neighborhood parks, 29 acres of city-wide parks (a portion of Central Park), and 16 acres of linear park uses. Table 30 also illustrates the projected square footage of commercial/industrial building space based on anticipated development intensities. The anticipated development program for each of the four land use alternatives has been divided into three phases. Assuming that development begins in 1990, these phases are expected to be completed in 1992, 1995, and 1998,respectively. Table 41 presents projected development phasing by each of the Planning Areas within the Holly Seacliff Study Area. Total acreage, land use designation, and anticipated development by phase (in terms of dwelling units for residential uses and acres for all other uses) are shown in the table. Table 42 aggregates across Planning Areas to summarize anticipated development phasing by land use category.The figures shown in Tables 41 and 42 represent the number of new dwelling units or acreage completed during each phase. As shown, the majority of development is expected to take place in Phase II, with pre- development preparation and the initial stages of development occurring in Phase I, and completion of build-out occurring during Phase III. Table 43 presents cumulative development phasing for the Study Area, showing total cumulative development anticipated by the end of each phase. For residential uses, dwelling units have been translated into acreage based on the residential densities shown in Table 40. Table 44 presents cumulative dwelling units,population and building square footage under the Proposed Land Use Alternative. Population is projected based on the household sizes for each residential type shown previously in Table 7. B . PROJECTED PROPERTY TAXES Table 45 presents projected assessed valuation and property taxes to the City of Huntington Beach under the Existing General Plan. Development values are based on the per acre factors described previously in Chapter II. As per the limitations of Proposition 13, unsold existing development is escalated at an annual rate of 2 percent, while new development and sold property is escalated at a projected general inflation rate of 4 percent. ' i 53 i Given anticipated development phasing,total assessed valuation under the Existing General Plan is expected to increase from$540.8 million at the end of Phase I,to$2.2 million upon build out in 2001. Based on the average 17.5 percent of total property taxes received by the City of Huntington Beach, annual property tax revenues to the City will increase from $946.4 thousand at the end of Phase I to $3.8 million upon completion. C. PROJECTED SALES TAX REVENUES Table 46 presents projected sales tax revenues to the City of Huntington Beach from development of the Holly Seacliff Study Area according to the Existing General Plan. Sales tax revenues generated by each use are based on the per acre sales tax generation factors described previously in Chapter II. As shown, total sales tax revenues to the City are expected to increase from $591.7 thousand at the end of Phase I to $2.9 million annually at build-out. D. PROJECTED BUSINESS LICENSE TAX REVENUES Table 47 displays anticipated business license tax revenues from development of the commercial and industrial uses within the Holly Seacliff Study Area. These projections are based on the per acre factors described in Chapter II. As shown, business license taxes are expected to be a relatively minor source of revenues, increasing from$11.5 million at the end of Phase I to a maximum of$47.1 thousand at build-out of the Existing General Plan. E. PROJECTED POLICE OPERATING COSTS Table 48 shows projected police operating costs to the City of Huntington Beach from development of the Holly Seacliff Study Area under the Existing General Plan. As shown, police operating costs are expected to increase from $242.6 thousand upon completion of Phase I to$1.2 million at build-out. Residential uses account for the largest share, by far, of projected police operating costs. F. PROJECTED TOTAL ANNUAL REVENUES AND COSTS Table 49 summarizes the fiscal impact projections from development according to the Existing General Plan. The table includes the revenue sources described above, as well as the additional categories of operating revenues based on the per acre factors derived in Chapter II. Total revenues to the City of Huntington Beach are expected to increase from $2.0 million at the end of Phase I to$8.7 million at build-out of Phase III. Table 49 also displays projected total operating costs to the City,including costs for police protection and the other municipal services discussed in Chapter II. Total operating costs are expected to increase from$1.1 million at the end of Phase I to$5.6 million at build-out. Based on the projections of operating revenues and costs, the Existing General Plan is expected to generate a positive net fiscal impact to the City of Huntington Beach during each phase of development. Net operating revenues are expected to increase from $827.7 thousand at the end of Phase I to$3.0 million upon completion of Phase M. 54 o ty Sea—cliff GeneralSea—cliffAmendment 4,113062-01 exst Fiscal Impact Analysis Table 40: Study Area Development Program Allerrzativr: Existing General Plan DU's Per Total floor Area Total Bldg. Land Use Acres Acre DU's Ratio(FAR) Square Feet RESIDENTIAL Estate 284 3.09 878 Low Density N/A N/A N/A Medium Density 66 14.85 980 Medium-High Density N/A N/A N/A High Density N/A N/A N/A Planned Community 115 34.70 3,990 Subtotal—Residential 465 5,848 COMMERCIAL Neighborhood 10 0.25 108,900 Community 57 0.25 620,730 Office/Professional 16 0.35 243,936 Subtotal--Commercial 83 973,566 MDIED DEVELOPMENT Residential Portion N/A N/A N/A Commercial Portion N/A N/A N/A Subtotal—Mixed Development N/A N/A N/A INDUSTRIAL Industrial N/A N/A N/A Industrial 2 124 0.41 2,214,590 Resource Production 42 N/A N/A Subtotal--Industrial 166 2,214,590 RECREATION/OPEN SPACE Neighborhood 9 City-Wide 29 Linear Park 16 Subtotal--Recreation/Open Space 54 �1 TOTAL 768 5,848 3,188.156 Source: Table 1; FORMA Design,Inc.; Williams-Kuebelbeck&Associates,Inc. 55 o ty Seacliff GeneralPlan Ame nt - lexst Fiscal Impact Analysis Table 41: Summary of Projected Development Phasing Alternative: Existing General Plan Total 1992 1995 1998 Land Use At Build-Out Phase I Phase II Phase III RESIDENTIAL (DWELLING UNITS) Estate 878 400 160 318 Low Density N/A N/A N/A N/A Medium Density 980 180 450 350 Medium-High Density N/A N/A N/A N/A High Density N/A N/A N/A N/A Planned Community 3,990 800 1,500 1,690 Mixed Develop.(Resid.Portion) N/A N/A N/A N/A Subtotal—Residential 5,848 1,380 2,110 2,358 COMMERCIAL (ACRES) Neighborhood 10 0 5 5 Community 57 15 15 27 Office/Professional 16 4 6 6 Mixed Develop.(Com.Portion) N/A N/A N/A N/A Subtotal--Commercial 83 19 26 38 INDUSTRIAL (ACRES) Industrial N/A N/A N/A N/A Industrial 124 41 41 42 Resource Production 42 42 0 0 Subtotal--Industrial 166 83 41 42 OPEN SPACE (ACRES) Neighborhood 9 0 9 0 City-Wide 29 0 29 0 Linear Paris 16 0 16 0 Subtotal--Recr./Open Space 54 0 54 0 Source: FORMA Design,Inc.;Williams-Kuebelbeck&Associates,Inc. 56 o ty Seacliff Z;eneralPlan Amendment 4.E3062-Olexst Fiscal Impact Analysis Table 42: Cumulative Development Phasing (Acres) Alternative: Existing General Plan Total 1992 1995 1998 At Build-Out Phase I Phase II Phase III RESIDENTIAL Estate 284 129 181 284 Low Density N/A N/A N/A N/A Medium Density 66 12 42 66 Medium-High Density N/A N/A N/A N/A High Density N/A N/A N/A N/A Planned Community 115 23 66 115 Mixed Develop.(Resid.Portion) N/A N/A N/A N/A Subtotal—Residential 465 165 290 465 COMMERCIAL Neighborhood 10 0 5 10 Community 57 15 30 57 Office/Psofessional 16 4 10 16 Mixed Develop.(Com.Portion) N/A N/A N/A N/A Subtotal--Commercial 83 19 45 83 INDUSTRIAL Industrial N/A N/A N/A N/A Industrial 0 41 82 I24 Resource Production 0 42 42 42 Subtotal--Industrial 0 83 124 166 RECREATION/OPEN SPACE Neighborhood 0 0 9 9 City-Wide 0 0 29 29 Linear Park 0 0 16 16 Subtotal—Rec./Open Space 0 0 54 54 TOTAL ACRES 548 267 513 768 Source. Table 41; Williams-Kuebelbeck&Associates,Inc. 57 Holty SeacliffGeneral Amendment exst Fiscal Impact Analysis Table 43: Cumulative Dwellings, Population and Bldg. SF Alternative: Existing General Plan Taal 1992 1995 1998 At Build-Out Phase I Phase II Phase III DWELLING UNITS Estate 878 400 560 878 Low Density N/A N/A N/A N/A Medium Density 980 180 630 980 Medium-High Density N/A N/A N/A N/A High Density N/A N/A N/A N/A Planned Community 3,990 800 2,300 3,990 Mixed Develop.(Resid.Portion) N/A N/A N/A N/A TOTAL DWELLING UNITS 5,848 1,380 3,490 5,848 POPULATION Estate 2,871 1,308 1,831 2,871 Low Density N/A N/A N/A N/A Medium Density 2,038 374 1,310 2,038 Medium-High Density N/A N/A N/A N/A High Density N/A N/A N/A N/A Planned Community 6.983 1,400 4,025 6,983 Mixed Develop.(Resid.Portion) N/A N/A N/A N/A TOTALPOPULATION 11,892 3,082 7,1 77 11,892 BUILDING SQUARE FEET Commercial Neighborhood 108,900 0 54,450 108.900 Community 620,730 163.350 326,700 620,730 Office/Professional 243,936 60,984 152,460 243,936 Mixed Develop.(Com.Portion) N/A N/A N/A N/A Industrial Industrial N/A N/A N/A N/A Industrial 2,214,590 732.244 1.464,487 2,214,590 TOTAL BUILDING SQ.FT. 3,188,156 956,578 1,998.097 3,188,156 Source: Table 40; Table 42; Williams-Kuebelbeck&Associates,Inc. I 58 HollyeacGeneral n Ainendfnent exst Fiscal Jmpact Analysis Table 44: Projected Property Taxes (000's) Alternative: Existing General Plan 1992 1995 1998 Land Use Phase I Phase 11 Phase III RESIDENTIAL Estate 5220,000.0 5308,000.0 $482.900.0 Low Density N/A N/A N/A Medium Density $49,500.0 $173,250.0 $269,500.0 Medium-High Density N/A N/A N/A High Density N/A N/A N/A Planned Community $140,000.0 $402,500.0 $698,250.0 Mixed Develop.(Resid.Portion) N/A N/A N/A Subtotal—Residential $409,500.0 $883,750.0 $1,450,650.0 COMMERCIAL Neighborhood $0.0 $8,167.5 $16,335.0 Community $24,502.5 $49.005.0 $93,109.5 Office/Professional $7.971.5 $19,928.7 $31,885.9 Mixed Develop.(Com.Portion) N/A N/A N/A Subtotal--Commercial $32,474.0 $77,101.2 $141,330.4 INDUSTRIAL Industrial N/A N/A N/A Industrial $65,366.1 $130.732.3 $197,692.7 Resource Production $201.7 $201.7 $201.7 Subtotal--Industrial $65,567.8 $130,934.0 $197,894.4 RECREATION/OPEN SPACE Neighborhood $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 City-Wide $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 Linear Park $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 TOTAL ASSESSED VALUE(CURRENT S) $507,541.8 $1,091,785.2 $1,789,874.8 TOTAL ASSESSED VALUE T TI'URE$)(1) $540,824.2 $1,239.951.8 $2,167,093.6 TOTAL PROPERTY TAXES TO CITY(2) $946.4 $2,169.9 $3,792.4 (1) Escalation Haze for new development value: 4.0% Sold existing property escalated at general inflation rate: 4.0% As per Proposition 13,unsold existing assessed value escalated at maximum of 2%annually. Residential turnover rate: 10.0% Commer./Ind.turnover rate: 1.0% Weighted average turnover rate: 6.9% (2) Based on I%property tax rate and the following share to the City of Huntington Beach: 17.5% ,Source: Table 2; Table 42; Williams-Kuebelbeck&Associates,Inc. 59 HollyeacGeneral n Amendmeni 4.E3062-Olexst Fiscal Impact Analysis Table 45: Projected Sales Tax Revenues (000's) Alternative: Existing General Plan 1992 1995 1998 Land Use Phase I Phase 11 Phase III RESIDENTIAL Estate $155.2 $244.4 $430.9 Low Density N/A N/A N/A Medium Density $34.9 $137.4 $240.5 Medium-High Density N/A N/A N/A High Density N/A N/A N/A Planned Community $98.7 $319.3 $623.1 Mixed Develop.(Resid.Portion) N/A N/A N/A Subtotal-Residential $288.8 $701.1 $1,294.6 COMMERCIAL Neighborhood $0.0 $103.3 $232.5 Community $220.5 $496.1 $1,060.2 Office/Professional $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 Mixed Develop.(Com.Portion) N/A N/A N/A Subtotal--Commercial $220.5 $599.4 $1,292.7 INDUSTRIAL Industrial N/A N/A N/A Industrial $82.4 $185.3 $315.2 Resource Production(1) $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 Subtotal--Industrial $82.4 $185.3 $315.2 TOTAL SALES TAX REVENUES $591.7 $1,485.8 $2,902.5 Note: Retail sales escalated at an annual rate of: 4.0% Source: Table 3; Table 42; Williams-Kuebelbeck&Associates,Inc. 60 l Holly eac t ener Amendment 4,E3062-Olexst Fiscal Impact Analysis Table 46: Projected Business License Tax Revenues (000's) Alternative: Existing General Plan 1992 1995 1998 Land Use Phase I Phase II Phase III COMMERCIAL Neighborhood $0.0 $1.0 $2.3 Community $2.7 $6.1 $13.1 Offioe/Pmfessional $1.4 $3.9 $6.9 Mixed Develop.(Com.Portion) N/A N/A N/A Subtotal--Commercial $4.1 $11.0 $22.4 INDUSTRIAL Industrial i N/A N/A N/A Industtial2 $6.0 $13.5 $22.9 Resource Production(1) $1.4 $1.6 $1.8 Subtotal--Industrial $7.4 $15.1 $24.7 TOTAL BUSINESS LICENSE REVENUES $11.5 $26.1 $47.1 Note: Business license revenues escalated at an annual rate of: 4.0% Source: Table 4; Table 42; Williams-Kuebelbeck&Associates,Inc. 61 Holty SeacliffGeneral Amendment exst Fiscal Impact Analysis Table 47: Projected Police Operating Costs (000's) Alternative: Existing General Plan 1992 1995 1998 Land Use Phase I Phase 11 Phase III RESIDENTIAL Estate $43.8 $69.0 $121.7 Low Density N/A N/A N/A Medium Density $27.9 $110.0 $192.5 Medium-High Density N/A N/A N/A High Density N/A N/A N/A Planned Community $97.7 $316.0 $616.7 Mixed Develop.(Resid.Portion) N/A N/A N/A Subtotal-Residential $169.5 S495.1 $930.9 CONWERCIAL Neighborhood $0.0 $5.9 $13.3 Community $13.3 $29.9 $64.0 Office/professional $5.0 $14.0 $25.1 Mixed Develop.(Com.Portion) N/A N/A N/A Subtotal--Commercial $18.3 $49.8 $102.4 INDUSTRIAL Industrial N/A N/A N/A Industrial $54.8 $123.3 $209.8 Resource Production(1) $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 Subtotal--Industrial $54.8 $123.3 $209.8 TOTAL POLICE OPERATING COSTS $242.6 $668.2 $1,243.1 Note: Police costs escalated at an annual rate of: 4.0% Source: Table 5; Table 42; Williams-Kuebelbeck&Associates,Inc. 62 Hollyeac+ General Amendment 4,E3062-Olexst Fiscal Impact Analysis Table 48: Projected Total Annual Revenues and Costs (000's) Alternative: Existing General Plan 1992 1995 1998 Cost/Revenue Category Phase I Phase 11 Phase III REVENUES Property Taxes $946.4 $2,169.9 $3,792.4 Sales Taxes $591.7 $1,485.8 $2,902.5 Business license Tax $11.5 $26.1 $47.1 Subtotal--Property,Sales and Business Taxes $1.549.6 $3,681.9 $6,742.0 Transient Occupancy Tax $6.0 $14.0 $23.2 Cigarette Tax $9.2 $21.4 $35.5 Utility Taxes $194.4 $532.3 $1,056.3 Franchise Fees $21.9 $59.9 $118.9 Licenses-Oil Wells(4) $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 Fines/Forfeits/Penalties $37.5 $87.2 $144.8 Motor Vehicle In Lieu $101.3 $235.6 $390.9 State Public Library Funds $2.5 $5.9 $9.8 Cable TV $5.3 $12.2 $20.3 Real Property Transfer Tax $12.8 $35.1 $69.7 Charges for Recreation/Library Services $16.5 $38.3 $63.6 Other Revenue(Library,etc.) $1.5 $3.5 $5.8 Other Revenue(Traffic/Street Maint.Charges) $1.9 $5.3 $10.5 Subtotal--Other Revenues $410.8 SI,050.7 $1,949.2 TOTALREVENUFS $1.960.5 $4,732.6 $8,691.2 COSTS Police $242.6 $668.2 $1,243.1 Fire&Paramedic $233.6 $593.7 51,109.7 City Council $2.7 $6.9 $12.9 Non-Departmental $169.1 $429.9 $803.5 Administration $19.6 $49.9 $93.3 City Treasurer $5.6 $14.3 $26.7 City Attorney $19.2 $48.8 $91.2 City Clerk $5.1 $13.0 $24.2 Business License Administration $4.4 $13.0 $28.3 1 Other Administrative Services $58.3 $148.1 $276.9 Housing&Community Development $33.1 $77.0 $127.8 Community Development Administration $23.7 $60.2 $112.5 Community Services $77.4 $180.0 $298.7 Library Maintenance $1.2 $2.7 $4.5 Other Public Works $237.1 $602.5 $1,126.2 Park Operating/Maintenance $0.0 $239.1 $269.0 TOTAL COSTS $1,132.7 $3,147.3 S5,648.5 ANNUAL NET FISCAL IMPACT $827.7 S1,585.3 $3,042.7 Note: Unless noted otherwise,operating revenues escalated at an annual rate of: 4.0% Unless noted otherwise,operating costs escalated at an annual rate of: 4.0% Source: Williams-Kuebelbeck&Associates,Inc. i 63 VII. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS: COMPARISON OF FOUR LAND USE ALTERNATIVES Table 49 provides a summarycomparison of the annual operating revenues and costs and the net fiscal impacts to the ity of Huntington Beach from the our land use alternatives being considered for the Holly Seacliff Study Area. The figures shown represent annual revenues and costs from cumulative development at the end of each phase, and are escalated to the projected year of occurrence. A review of the table suggests the following conclusions regarding the relative fiscal impacts of the four alternatives on the City of Huntington Beach: • Each of the alternatives is 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,none of the alternatives is anticipated to have a negative impact on the City's ability to provide ongoing 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 Residential Alternative is expected to produce the second highest net operating surplus to the City at build-out of the development program, with $2.9 million annually. • The Proposed Land Use Plan is third in terms of net fiscal impact with an annual surplus of$2.6 million per year, followed closely by the Industrial Alternative at $2.5 million. • The greatest variation in revenues between the alternatives is found in the category of sales taxes. The Existing General Plan proposes the greatest amount of commercial development and generate the highest level of sales tax revenues ($2.9 million per year at build-out). The Proposed Land Use Plan and Industrial Alterntaive contain the smallest share of commercial uses and generate the fewest sales tax revenues ($2.2 million annually at build-out). • 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 other three alternatives are close behind, generating from$3.4 to$3.6 million in property taxes per year at build-out. • 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 million per year at the end of Phase IV). The Industrial Alternative ranks second in total annual operating costs ($5.1 million), followed by the Proposed Land Use Plan and Residential Alternative($4.9 million each). • Since each of the four land use alternatives is 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. 64 Hollyeac i ener Amendment 4,e3O62-07sum Fiscal Impact Analysis Table 49: Comparison of Annual Net Fiscal Impacts (000's) Four Land Use Alternatives (l) 1992 1995 1998 Study Area Land Use Alternative Phase I Phase II Phase III Proposed Land Use Plan Revenues $1,442.2 $4,230.0 $7,418.6 Costs $857.2 $2,949.8 $4,868.5 Net Fiscal Impact $585.0 $1,280.2 $2,550.1 Residential Alternative Revenues $1,470.4 $4,556.4 $7,777.9 Costs $864.9 $3,176.0 $4,884.6 Net Fiscal Impact $605.5 $1,380.4 $2,893.2 Industrial Alternative Revenues $1,309.1 $4,077.8 $7,651.5 Costs $771.1 $2,900.5 $5,111.5 Net Fiscal Impact $538.0 $1,177.3 $2,539.9 Existing General Plan Revenues $1,960.5 $4,732.6 $8,691.2 Costs $1,132.7 $3,147.3 $5.648.5 Net Fiscal Impact $827.7 $1,585.3 $3,042.7 (1) Figures represent annual fiscal impacts from cumulative development at the end of each phase. Source: Williams-Kuebelbeck&Associates,Inc. 65 APPENDIX A PER ACRE COST AND REVENUE FACTORS: RESIDENTIAL LAND USE ALTERNATIVE 66 Holly,eac if General Plan Amendment 4, _062-0 1 resid Fiscal Impact Analysis Table l: Commercial/Industrial Floor Area Ratios %of Site in EFFECTIVE Parking SF Per Pedestrian FLOOR Type of Avg. Bldg. Spaces/ Parking Circulation& AREA LAND USE Parking Stories 1,000 SF Space(1) Landscape(2) RATIO(FAR) COMMERCIAL Neighborhood Surface 1 5 350 30% 0.25 Community Surface 0 0 0 0% 0.00 Office/Professional Surface 0 0 0 0% 0.00 Mixed Development(Commer.portion) Surface 1 5 350 30% 0.25 INDUSTRIAL Industrial Surface 0 0 0 0% 0.00 Industrial Surface 0 0 0 0% 0.00 Resource Production Surface 0 0 0 0% 0.00 m V ---------- (1) Includes vehicle circulation. (2) Includes plaza areas,walkways,etc.(and outside storage areas for industrial uses). Source: Williams-Kuebelbeck&Associates,Inc. Holly SeacliffGenerat Plan AmendOwnt rear Fiscal lnrpact Analysis Table 2: Projected Pro err Tares Per Acre Share of PROP.TAX Average Assessed Land Property Tax TO CITY Dwelling DU's Per Land Value Lard Value Bldg.Value Floor Area Bldg Area Bldg.Value Value Property to the City OF H.B. LAND USE Unit Value Acre Per Sq.R. Per Acre Per SF(1) Ratio(FAR) Per Acre Per Acre Per Acre Tax Rate of Hunt.Beach PER ACRE. RESIDENTIAL Estate $550,000 3.11 $1,708,738 1.0% 17.5% $2,990 Low Density 5400,000 5.80 $2,321,839 1.0% 17.5% 54.063 Medium Density 5275,000 11.30 $3,107,500 1.0% 17.5% $5,438 Medium-High Density $225,000 19.23 S4,326,923 1.0% 17.5% $7 572 High Density $175,000 NIA N/A NIA N/A N/A Planned Community $175,000 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A COMMERCIAL Neighborhood $25.00 51,089,000 $50 0.25 10,890 $544500 $1,633500 1.0% 17.5% $2,859 Community N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A NIA N/A N/A NIA N/A OfficeRrofessional N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A NIA MIXED DEVELOPMENT Residential Portion $250,000 16.96 $4,241.071 1.0% 17.5% $7,422 Commercial Portion $25.00 $1,089,000 $50 0.25 10,890 5544500 SI,633500 1.0% 17.5% $2,859 WDUSTRIAL Industrial N/A N/A NIA N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Industrial N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A NIA N/A N/A all Resource Production N/A N/A N/A N/A NIA N/A NIA NIA N/A N/A Oo RFCRFATIONIOPFN SPACE Neighborhood SO City-Wide SO Linear Park $0 NOTES: •Resource production land values based on as actual seaeed value of proposed resource production parcels. •Public properly is exempt from local property taxes. Source: Williams-Kuebelbeck tk Associates,Inc. r� m r m ram► m m ■r " �• +� r r r� rr +rM it ]Toffy SearliffGeneral Plan Amendment 4,hrest l�iscal Impact Analysis Table 3: Projected Retail Sales Taxes Per Acre ANNUAL I Ill Income Propensity Annual %of Retail Retail Sales Annual Sales SALES Dwelling As a%of Household To Spend on Retail Sales Made in City Taxes Per Households TAXES LAND USE Unit Value Home Price Income Retail Items Expenditures in City of I1B of Iill fill(l) Per Acre PER ACRE RESIDENTIAL Estate $550,000 33.00% $181,500 38.00% $68,970 50.0% $34,485 $345 3.11 $1,071 Low Density $400,000 33.00% $132,000 38.00% $50,160 50.0% $25,080 $251 5.80 $1,456 Medium Density $275,000 33.00% $90,750 38.00% $34,485 50.0% $17,243 $172 11.30 S1,948 Medium-High Density $225,000 33.00% $74,250 38.00% $28,215 50.0% S14,108 $141 19.23 $2,713 High Density N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Planned Community N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A WA N/A N/A Mixed Development(Residential Portion) $250,000 33.00% $82,500 38.00% $31,350 50.0% $15,675 $157 16.96 $2,659 ANNUAL Annual SALES Floor Area Bldg.SF Retail Sales Retail Sales TAXES Ratio(FAR) Per Acre Per SF Per Acre PFR ACRE. COMMERCIAL Neighborhood 0.25 10,890 $150 $1,633,500 $16,335 �p Community 0.00 0 $120 $O $O Offioe/Professionat 0.00 0 $o $0 $0 Mixed Development(Commercial Portion) 0.25 10,890 $150 $1,633,500 $16,335 INDUSTRIAL Industrial 0.00 0 $7 $0 $0 Industrial 0.00 0 $10 $0 $0 Resource Production 0.00 0 $0 $0 $0 RECREATIONIOPEN SPACE Neighborhood SO City-Wide $0 Linear Park $0 (1) Sales taxes to City at 1%of total retail sales. Source: Williams-Kuebelbeck&Associates,Inc. Holly SeacWGeneral Plan Amendment 4, lres�d Fiscal Impact Analysis Table 4: Projected Business License Taxes Per Acre Business BUSINESS Average License LICENSE Floor Area Bldg. SF Bldg SF Per Employees Employees Tax Per TAXES LAND USE Ratio(FAR) Per Acre Employee Per Acre Per Business Employee(1) PER ACRE COMMERCIAL Neighborhood 0.25 10,890 400 27 15 $6 $162 Community N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Office/Professional N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Mixed Development(Commercial Portion) 0.25 10,890 400 27 20 $6 $162 INDUSTRIAL Industrial 0.00 0 350 0 20 $5 $0 Industrial 0.00 0 700 0 20 $5 $0 Resource Production 0 100 $3 $0 V o (1)Annual business license tax per employee by number of employees from City of Huntington Beach. Source: Williams-Kuebelbeck&Associates,Inc. rc �. r Nr i. rr +�. �r «. r � � .ir ■r �.�► rr r. r �r Holly SeacliffGeneral Plan Amen&nent 4JO 7Fiscal Impact Analysis Table 5: Police O eratin Costs Per Acre ESTIMATED 1988 Desired AVERAGE DU's Average SF Annual 1988 Desired Police Annual POLICT Per Annual DU's Per Per Annual Bldg.SF Police Calls Police Police Calls Per Cost Per COST LAND USE Police Call Acre Police Call Per Ave Per Acre Budget(1) Officers(2) Officer(2) Call(3) PER ACRE RESIDENTIAL Estate 2.04 3.11 1.52 $21,901,200 206 535 $1" $303 Low Density 2.04 5.80 2.85 $21,901,200 206 535 $199 $565 Medium Density 1.44 11.30 7.85 $21.901,200 206 535 $199 $1,559 Medium-High Density 1.44 19.23 13.35 $21,901.200 206 535 $199 $2,654 High Density N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Plarmed Community N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A COMMERCIAL Neighborhood 2,316 10,890 4.70 $21,901.200 206 535 $199 $934 Community N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A WA Office/Professional N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A NIA MWED DEVELOPMENT Residential Portion 1.44 16.964285714 11.78 $21,901,200 206 535 $1" $2,341 Commercial Portion 2,316 10,890 4.70 $21.901,200 206 535 $1" $934 V INDUSTRIAL Industrial N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Industrial N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A NIA N/A Resource Production N/A RECREATIONIOPEN SPACE Neighborhood S0 City-Wide a0 Linear Park a0 (1) From City budget;estimated cost 1987/88. (2) From City Police Department;officers based on 1.1 officers per 1,000 population and 1988 population of 187,700. (3) Includes overhead and administration;equals total police costs divided by number of officers divided by number of calls per officer. Source: Williams-Kuebelbeck dt Associates,Inc. Holly SeacliffGeneral Plan Amendment rear Fiscal Impact Analysis . Table 6: Other Operating Cost and Revenue Multi tiers 1988 Estimated Allocation of Cost/Revenues Estimated Per Unit Cost/Revenue Annual Costs/ By Land Use Category(2) Multi tier By Land Use Category(3) Revenues(1) esn Ua om nd. es, o es�idcnti� or n es. o . REVENUES Transient Occnpanncy Tax $366,000 $366.000 $0 $0 $1.95 $0.00 $0.00 Cigarette Tax $560,000 $560,000 $0 $0 $2.98 S0.00 $0.00 Utility Taxes $9,090,000 $7,104,805 $1.985,195 $0 $37.85 $644.54 $0.00 Franchise Fees $1.022,800 $799,427 $223,373 $0 $4.26 $72.52 $0.00 Licenses--Oil Wells(4) $800,000 $0 $0 $0 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Fines/Forfeits/Penalties S2,285,000 $2,285,000 $0 $0 $12.17 $0.00 $0.00 Motor Vehicle In Lieu $6,170,000 $6,170.000 $0 $0 $32.87 $0.00 $0.00 State Public Library Funds $155,000 $155,000 $0 $0 $0.83 S0.00 $0.00 Cable TV $320,000 $320,000 $0 $0 $1.70 $0.00 $0.00 Real Property Transfer Tax $600,000 $468,964 $131,036 $0 $2.50 $42.54 $0.00 Charges for Reaeation/LibraryServices $1,004,300 $1,004.300 $o $0 $5.35 $0.00 $0.00 Other Revenue(Library,etc.) $90.900 $90,900 $0 $0 $0.48 S0.00 $0.00 Other Revenue(Traffic/Street Maint.Charges) $90,000 $70,345 $19,655 $0 $0.37 $6.38 $0.00 Total Revenues Attributed to Land Use $22,554,000 $19,394,741 $2,359.259 $0 Total Per Unit Revenue Multiplier(3) $103.33 $765.99 $0.00 v COSTS N Fire&Paramedic $11,902,000 $9.302,684 $2,599,316 $0 $49.56 $843.93 $0.00 City Council $138,700 $108,409 $30,291 SO $0.58 $9.83 $0.00 Noe-Departmental $8,618,700 $6,736,434 $1,882,266 $0 $35.89 $611.13 $0.00 Administration $1,000,400 $781.919 $218,481 $0 $4.17 $70.94 $0.00 City Treasure $286,200 $223.696 $62,504 $0 S1.19 $20.29 $0.00 City Attorney $978,300 $764,646 $213,654 $0 $4.07 S69.37 $0.00 City Clerk $259,800 $203,061 $56.739 $0 $1.08 $19.42 $0.00 Business License Administration $141,600 $0 $141,600 $0 $0.00 $45.97 $0.00 Other Administrative Services $2,970.100 $2,321,450 $648,650 $0 $12.37 $210.60 $0.00 Housing&Community Development $2,017,300 $2,017,300 $0 $0 $10.75 $0.00 $0.00 Planning $1,206,600 $943,087 $263,513 $0 $5.02 $85.56 $0.00 Community Services $4,714,700 $4,714,700 $0 $0 $25.12 $0.00 $0.00 Library Maintenance $71,400 $71.400 $0 $0 $0.38 $0.00 $0.00 Other Public Works $12,079,000 $9,441,028 $2,637,972 $0 $50.30 $856.48 $0.00 Total Costa Attributed to Land Use $46,384,900 $37,629,814 $8,754,986 $0 Total Per Unit Cost Multiplier(3) $200.48 $2,842.53 $0.00 (1)Estimated revenies/costs for 1987/88 from City Budget as shown in Appendix A. (2) Where costs/revenues attributed to all"urban"land uses(developed residential,commercial,industrial,institutional properties), allocation between residential and commercial industrial uses based on respective shares of total developed acreage; (11,023 developed residential acres; 3,080 commercialrindustrialInstitutional acres from City of Huntington Beach). (3)Residential costs/revenues translated into per capita multiplier based on 1988 City population of 187,700 from the Calif.Dept. of Finance. Resource production revenues translated into per acre multiplier based on 126 saes currently in this use in the City. Cornrnercial/mdustrial revenues and costs translated into per acre multipliers based on estimated current total of 3,080 acres in this use from the City Plarming Department(Appendix B). (4) Oil tax revenues generated within the study area generally independent of land use(oil production can continue even after development of new uses)and therefore estimated as a total for the study area rather Than by land use. Source: Williams-Kuebelbeck&Associates,Inc. M M M ari W ■s rr tart air M M M M err Sri Ifolly SeacWGeneralan nw nt 4,0062-01resid Fiscal Impact Analysis Table 7: Total Opqating Revenue Factors Per Acre Total Total Per Corn./Ind. Total Capita Per Capita- Per Acre Rev. Resource Prop.Tax Sales Tax Bus.Lic. DU's Per Persons Per Persons Per Revenue Based Revert. Multiplier— Prod.Acre Revenues Per Revenues Tax Revere. Acre DU Acre Multiplier Per Acre Empl.Adj.(1) Multiplier Acre Per Acre Per Acre RESIDENTIAL Estate 3.11 3.27 10.16 $103.33 $1,050 $0 $2,990 $1,071 $0 Low Density 5.80 3.27 18.98 $103.33 $1,961 $0 $4,063 $1.456 $0 Medium Density 11.30 2.08 23.50 $103.33 $2,429 $0 $5,438 $1,948 s0 Medium-High Density 19.23 1.75 33.65 $103.33 $3,477 $0 $7,572 $2,713 s0 High Density N/A N/A NIA N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Planned Community N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A COMMERCIAL Neighborhood $591 $0 $2,859 $16,335 $162 Community N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Ofrwe/Professional N/A N/A N/A N/A NIA MIXED DEVFLOPMENT Residential Portion 16.96 1.92 32.49 $103.33 $3.357 $0 $7.422 $2,659 $0 Commercial Portion $591 $0 $2,859 $16,335 $162 INDUSTRIAL Industrial N/A N/A N/A NIA N/A V Industrial N/A N/A N/A NIA NIA W Resource Production N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A RECREATION/OPEN SPACE Neighborhood $0 $0 $0 $0 City-Wide $0 $0 $0 $0 Linear Part $0 $0 $0 $0 (1) Per acre revenue multiplier from Table 6 adjusted by land use based an ratio of employment per acre for land use category (from Table 4) to average employment for retaftfrwe/R&D/general industrial land uses of 35.0 emp/ace.The purpose of this adjustment is to account for higher revenues associated with higher-intensity land uses(i.e.office)relative to lower-intensity uses(i.e.industrial). Source:Williams-Kuebelbect&Associates,Inc. Holly Seacliff ner an Amendment 4resr Fiscal Impact Analysis Table 8: Total Operating Cost Factors Per Acre Total Total Per Com./Ind. TOTAL Capita Per Capita- Per Acre Cost PER ACRE DU's Per Persons Per Persons Per Cost Based Costs Multiplier-- Police Costs COST LAND USE Acre DU Acre Multiplier Per Acre Empl.Adj.(1) Per Acre FACTOR RESIDENTIAL Estate 3.11 3.27 10.16 $200.48 $2,037 $303 $2,339 Low Density 5.80 3.27 18.98 $200.48 $3,805 $565 $4,371 Medium Density 11.30 2.08 23.50 $200.48 $4,712 $1,559 $6,271 Medium-Iligh Density 19.23 1.75 33.65 $200.48 $6,747 $2,654 $9,401 High Density N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Planned Community N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A COMMERCIAL. Neighborhood $2,193 $934 $3,127 Community N/A N/A N/A Office/Professional N/A N/A N/A MIXED DEVELOPMENT v Residential Portion 16.96 1.915 32.49 $200.48 $6,513 $2,341 $8,854 J-- Commercial Portion $2,193 $934 $3,127 INDUSTRIAL Industrial N/A N/A N/A Industrial N/A N/A N/A Resource Production N/A N/A N/A RECREATION/OPEN SPACE Neighborhood $0 $3,500 City-Wide $0 $3,500 Linear Park $0 $3,500 (1) Per acre cost multiplier from Table 6 adjusted by land use based on ratio of employment per acre for land use category (from Table 4) to average employment for retail/office/R&D/general industrial land uses of 35.0 emp/acre.The purpose of this adjustment is to account for higher revenues associated with higher-intensity land uses(i.e.office)relative to lower-intensity uses(i.e.industrial). (2) From Parks and Recreation Department;average cost for all park lands. (3) Assumes utility would pay operating/maintenance costs. Source: Williams-Kuebelbeck dt Associates,Inc. ■r r r 00 r �r .r rrr �r ar sr rr �► r �r +rr err Ifolly Seacliff Generalan Amen ment resr Fiscal Impact Analysis Tabk 9: Summary of Per Acre Operating Revenue and Cost Factors B hand Use NET RF,VFNUE COST REVENUES/ FACTOR FACTOR COSTS LAND USE PER ACRE, PER ACRE PER ACRE RESIDENTIAL Estate $5,111 $2,339 $2,772 Low Density $7,480 $4,371 $3,110 Medium Density $9,815 $6,271 $3,544 Medium-High Density $13,762 $9,401 $4,362 High Density N/A N/A N/A Planned Community N/A N/A N/A COMMERCIAL Neighborhood $19,947 $3,127 $16,819 Community N/A N/A N/A Office/Professional N/A N/A N/A V %-n MD(ED DEVELOPMENT Residential Portion $13,438 $8,854 $4,584 Commercial Portion $19,947 $3,127 $16,819 INDUSTRIAL Industrial N/A N/A N/A Industrial 2 N/A N/A N/A Resource Production N/A N/A N/A RECREATION/OPEN SPACE Neighborhood $0 $3,500 ($3,500) City-Wide $0 $3,500 ($3,500) Linear Park $0 $3,500 ($3,500) Source: Williams-Kuebelbeck 8t Associates,Inc. APPENDIX B PER ACRE COST AND REVENUE FACTORS: INDUSTRIAL LAND USE ALTERNATIVE 76 M AM r m r as ow = ova IM r M ■r M M IM = Na m Holly Seaclj Generalan Amendment _ - land Fiscal Impact Analysis Table l: CommereiallIndustrial Floor Area Ratios %of Site in EFFECTIVE Parking SF Per Pedestrian FLOOR Type of Avg. Bldg. Spaces/ Parking Circulation& AREA LAND USE Parking Stories 1,000 SF Space(1) Landscape(2) RATIO(FAR) COMMERCIAL Neighborhood Surface 1 5 350 30% 0.25 Community Surface N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Office/Professional Surface N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Mixed Development(Commer.portion) Surface 1 5 350 30% 0.25 INDUSTRIAL Industrial Surface 1.7 4 350 18% 0.41 Industrial Surface 1 2 350 30°l0 0.41 Resource Production Surface N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A V V _ (1)'Includes vehicle circulation. (2) Includes plaza areas,walkways,etc.(and outside storage areas for industrial uses). Source: Williams-Kuebeibeck&Associates,Inc. lfolly SeactiffGeneral Flwi Amendownt 4,E3062-01 indl Fiscal)Impact Analysis Table 2: Projected Property Terser Per Acre Share of PROP.TAX Average Assessed I.A nd Property Tax TO CITY Dwelling DU's Per Land Value Land Value Bldg.Value Floor Area Bldg Area Bldg.Value Value Property to the City OF H.R. LAND USE Unit Value Ale Per Sq.H. Per Ace Per SF(1) Ratio(FAR) Per Acre Per Acre Per Acre Tax Rate of Nunt.Reads PER ACRE RESIDENTIAL Fatale $550,000 3.09 $1,693,421 1.0% 17.5% $2,%3 Low Density 5400,000 5.80 $2,321,839 1.0% 17.5% $4,063 Medium Density $275,000 11.11 $3,054,204 1.0% 17.5% $5,345 Medium-High Density $225,000 19.74 S4,441,558 1.0% 17.5% $7,773 High Density $175,000 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Planned Community $175,000 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A COMMERCIAL Neighborhood 525.00 $1,089,000 $50 0.25 10,890 SW,500 $1,633,500 1.0% 17.5% $2.959 Community N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Office/Professionel N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A MIXED DEVE WPMENP Residential Potion 52501000 16.96 $4,241,071 1.0% 17.5% S7,422 Commercial Partin WAD S1,089,000 S50 0.25 10,890 S544,5W $1,633,500 1.0% 17.5% $2,859 NWSIRIAL Industrial 514.00 5609,840 $70 0.41 17,860 Sla%,172 $1,860,012 1.0% 17.5% $3,255 Industrial 2 S12.O0 $522,720 $60 0.41 17,860 $1,071,576 $1.594,296 1.0% 17.5% $2,790 V Resource Production N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 00 RECREATION/OPEN SPACE Neighborhood SO city-wide SO Lenew Part So NOTES: -Resource production land values bond on actual assessed value of proposed resource production parcels. -Public property is exempt from local property taxes. Sources WRlisms-Ruebelbeclt&Associates,Lnc. Holly SeacliffGeneral Plan Amendnwnt 4,E - In Fiscal Impact Analysis Table 3: Projected Retail Salts Taxes Per Acre ANNUAL HH Income Propensity Annual %of Retail Retail Sales Annual Sales SALES Dwelling As a%of Household To Spend on Retail Sales Made in City Taxes Per Households TAXES LAND USE Unit Value Home Price Income Rctail Items Expenditures in City of f JB of JIB HH(1) Per Acre PER ACRE RESIDENTIAL Estate $550,000 33.00% $181,500 38.00% S68,970 50.0% $34,485 S345 3.08 $1,062 Low Density $400,000 33.00% $132,000 38.00% $50,160 50.0% $25,080 $251 5.80 $1,456 Medium Density $275,000 33.00% $90,750 38.00% $34,485 50.0% $17,243 $172 11.11 S1,915 Medium-High Density $225,000 33.00% $74,250 38.00% $29,215 50.0% $14,108 $141 19.74 $2,785 High Density N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A NIA N/A N/A NIA Planned Community N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A WA Mixed Development(Residential Portion) $250,000 33.00% $82,500 38.00% $31,350 50.0% $15,675 $157 16.96 $2,659 ANNUAL Annual SALES Floor Area Bldg.SF Retail Sales Retail Sales TAXES Ratio(FAR) Per Acre Per SF Per Acre PER ACRE COMMERCIAL 0.25 10,890 $150 $1,633,500 $16,335 Community N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Cornrnunity Office/Professional N/A N/A N/A N/A WA Mixed Development(Con mescial Portion) 0.25 10,890 $150 $1,633,500 $16,335 INDUSTRIAL Industrial 0.41 17,860 $7 $125,017 $1,250 Industrial 0.41 17,860 $10 $178,596 $1.786 Resource Production N/A N/A NIA N/A N/A RECREATION/OPEN SPACE Neighborhood $0 City-Wide SO Linear Park $0 (1) Sales taxes to City at 1%of total retail saps. Source: Williams-Kuebelbedt&Associates,Inc. Holly Seacl4f Generalan Amendment - 1 and Fiscal Impact Analysis Table 4: Projected Business License Taxes Per Acre Business BUSINESS Average License LICENSE Floor Area Bldg.SF Bldg SF Per Employees Employees Tax Per TAXES LAND USE Ratio(FAR) Per Acre Employee Per Acre Per Business Employee(1) PER ACRE COMMERCIAL Neighborhood 0.25 10,890 400 27 15 $6 $162 Community N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Officc/Professional N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Mixed Development(Commercial Portion) 0.25 10,890 400 27 20 $6 $162 INDUSTRIAL Industrial 0.41 17,860 350 51 20 $5 $255 Industrial 0.41 17,860 700 26 20 $5 $130 Resource Production N/A N/A N/A N/A eD C> (1)Annual business license tax per employee by number of employees from City of Huntington Beach. Source: Williams-Kuebelbeck&Associates,Inc. I Ifolly eaci ,enera an Amendment - m Fiscal Impact Analysis Table 5: Police Operating Operafing Costs Per Acre ESTIMATED 1988 Desired AVERAGIi DU's Average SF Annual 1988 Desired Police Annual POLICE Per Annual DU's Per Per Annual Bldg.SF Police Calls Police Police Calls Per Cost Per COST LAND USE Police Call Acre Police Call Per Acre Per Acre Budget(1) Officers(2) Officer(2) Call(3) PER ACRE RESIDENTIAL Estate 2.04 3.08 1.51 $21,901,200 206 535 $199 $300 Low Density 2.04 5.80 2.85 S21,901,200 206 535 $199 $565 Medium Density 1.44 11.11 7.71 $21,901,200 206 535 $199 $1,533 Medium-High Density 1.44 19.74 13.71 $21.901,200 206 535 $199 $2,724 High Density N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Planned Community N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A NIA N/A COMMERCIAL Neighborhood 2,316 10,890 4.70 $21.901,200 206 535 $199 $934 Community N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Of-we/Professional N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A MD(ED DEVELOPMENT Residential Pbrtion 1.44 16.96 11.78 $21,901.200 206 535 $199 $2,341 Commercial Portion 2,316 10,890 4.70 $21,901,200 206 535 $199 $934 INDUSTRIAL Industrial 2,986 17,860 5.98 $21.901,200 206 535 $199 S1,189 Industrial 2,986 17,800 5.98 $21,901,200 206 535 $199 $1.189 Resource Production $0 RECREATIONIOPEN SPACE Neighborhood $0 City-Wide S0 Linear Park $0 (1) From City budget;estimated cost 198788. (2) From City Police Department;officers based on 1.1 officers per 1,000 population and 1988 population of 187,700. (3) Includes overhead and administration;equals total police costs divided by number of officers divided by number of calls per officer. Source: Williams-Kuebelbeck&Associates,Inc. Holly Seactiff GeneralAmendment m Fiscal Impact Analysis Table 6: Other Operating Cost and Revenue Muft tiers 1988 Estimated Allocation of Cost/Revenues Estimated Per Unit Cost/Revenue Annual Costa By Land['se Category(2) Multiplier By Land Use Category(3) Revenues(1) -Restdenti tom/nJ. es. esiJcntial our/n es. od- REVENUES Transient Occupancy Tax $366.000 $366,000 $0 $0 $1.95 $0.00 $0.00 Cigarene Tax $560,000 $560,000 $0 $0 $2.98 $0.00 $0.00 Utility Taxes $9,090.000 $7,104,805 $1,985,195 $0 $37.85 $644.54 $0.00 Franchise Fees $1,022,800 $799,427 $223,373 $0 $4.26 $72.52 $0.00 Licenses-Oil Wells(4) $800,000 $0 $0 $0 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Fines/Forfeits/Penaltiea $2,285,000 $2,285,000 $0 $0 $12.17 $0.00 $0.00 Motor Vehicle In Lieu $6,170,000 $6,170,000 $0 $0 $32.87 $0.00 $0.00 State Public Library Funds $155,000 $155,000 $0 $0 $0.83 $0.00 $0.00 Cable TV $320,000 $320,000 $0 $0 $1.70 $0.00 $0.00 Real Property Transfer Tax $600,000 $468,%4 $131,036 $0 $2.50 $42.54 $0.00 Charges for Rectestion/Library Services $1,004,300 $1,004,300 $0 $0 $5.35 $0.00 $0.00 Other Revenue(Library,etc.) $90,900 $90,900 $0 $0 $0.48 $0.00 $0.00 Other Revenue(TrafficiStreet Maint.Charges) $90,000 $70,345 $19,655 $0 $0.37 $6.38 $0.00 Total Revenues Attributed to Land Use $22,554,000 $19,394,741 $2,359,259 $0 Total Per Unit Revenue Multiplier(3) $103.33 $765.99 $0.00 COSTS Fro&Pme odic $11,902,000 $9.302,694 $2,599,316 $0 $49.56 $843.93 $0.00 00 City Council $138,700 $108,409 $30,291 $0 $0.59 $9.83 $0.00 N Non-Dapwun=W $8,618,700 $6,736,434 $1,882.266 $0 $35.89 $611.13 $0.00 Administration $1,000,400 $781,919 $218,481 $0 $4.17 $70.94 $0.00 City Treasurer $296,200 $223,696 $62,504 $0 $1.19 $20.29 $0.00 City Attorney $978,300 $764,646 $213,654 s0 $4.07 $69.37 $0.00 City Clerk $259.800 $203,061 $56,739 $0 $1.08 $19.42 $0.00 Business License Administration $141,600 $0 $141,600 $0 $0.00 $45.97 $0.00 Other Administrative Services $2,970,100 $2,321,450 $648,650 $0 $12.37 $210.60 $0.00 Housing&Community Development $2,017,300 $2,017,300 $0 $0 $10.75 $0.00 $0.00 Planning $1,206,600 $943,087 $263,513 $0 $5.02 $85.56 $0.00 Community Services $4,714,700 $4,714,700 $0 $0 $25.12 $0.00 $0.00 Library Maintenance $71,400 $71,400 $0 $0 $0.38 $0.00 $0.00 Other Public Works $12,079,000 $9,441,028 $2,637,972 $0 $50.30 $856.48 $0.00 Total Casts Attributed to Land Use $46,384,800 $37,629,814 $8,754,986 $0 Total Per Unit Cost Multiplier(3) $200.48 $2,942.53 $0.00 (1)Estimated revcnucs/costs for 1987/88 from City Budget as shown in Appendix A. (2) Where costs4revenues attributed to all"urban"land uses(developed residential,commercial,industrial,institutional properties), allocation between residential and commercial industrial uses based on respective shares of total developed acreage; (11,023 developed residential acres; 3,080 commercial/industriaVinsdwtional saes from City of Huntington Beach). (3) Residential costs/mvenues translated into per capita muhiplier bard on 1988 City population of 197,700 from the Calif.Dept. of Finance. Resource production revenues translated into per acre multiplier based on 126 acres currently in this use in the City. Commesciallindustrial revenues and costs translated into per acre multipliers based on estimated current total of 3,080 acres in this use from the City Planning Department(Appendix B). (4) Oil tax revenues generated within the study area generally independent of land use(oil production can continue even after development of new uses)and therefore estimated as a total for the study area rather than by land use. Source: Williams-Kurebelbeck A Associates,Inc. ,rs +r �. rr rir r r► rr �r r� it rr r�► r� r Mr rr r rir �r rr r r rr r err r r �r �r �r rr r� �r +rr rr r� ■r HollyeatGeneral an Aawndmw to Fiscal Impact Analysis Table 7: Total Operaling, Revenge Factory Per Acre Total Total Per Com./Ind. Total TOTAL PER Capita Per Capita- Per Acre Rev. Resource Prop.Tax Saki Tax Bus.Lic. ACRE DU's Per Persons Per Persons Per Revenue Based Reven. Multiplier-- Prod.Acre Revenues Per Revenues Tax Revere REVENUE Acre DU Acre Multiplier Per Acre Empl.Adj.(1) Multiplier Acre Per Acre Per Acre FACTOR RESIDENTIAL Estate 3.08 3.27 10.07 $103.33 $1,040 $0 $2.963 $1,062 $0 $5,066 Low Density 5.80 3.27 18.98 $103.33 $1,961 $0 $4,063 $1,456 s0 $7,480 Medium Density 11.11 2.08 23.10 $103.33 $2,387 $0 $5,345 $1,915 s0 $9,647 Medium-High Density 19.74 1.75 34.55 $103.33 $3,570 $0 $7,773 $2,785 $0 $14,177 High Density N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A NIA NIA N/A Planned Community N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A NIA N/A N/A NIA N/A COMMERCIAL Neighborhood $591 $0 $2,859 $16,335 $162 $19,947 Community N/A N/A N/A N/A NIA N/A OfftwTImfessional N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A MDi3D DEVELOPMENT Residential Portion 16.96 1.92 32.49 $103.33 $3,357 $0 $7,422 $2,659 $0 $13,438 Commercial Portion $591 $0 $2,859 $16,335 $162 $19,947 INDUSTRIAL Industrial $1,116 $0 $3,255 $0 $255 $4,626 OD Industrial2 $569 $0 $2,790 $0 $130 $3,489 W Resource Production N/A N/A N/A $0 N/A $0 RECREATIONIOPEN SPACE Neighborhood $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 City-Wide $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Linear Park $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 (1) Per acre revenue multiplier from Table 6 adjusted by land use based on ratio of employment per acre for land use category (from Table 4) to average employment for retail/oflice/111k.D/general industrial land uses of 35.0 emp/acre.The purpose of this adjustment is to account for higher revenues associated with higher-intensity land uses(i.e,office)relative to lower-intensity uses(i.e.industrial). Source:Williams-Kuebelbeck llt Associates,Inc. Holly Seacliff Generalan Amendownt rn Fiscallmpact Analysis Table 8: Total O eratin Cost Factors Per Aen Total Total Per Com./Ind. 70TAL Capita Per Capita- Per Acre Cost PER ACRE DU's Per Persons Per Persons Per Cost Based Costs Multiplier— Police Costs COST LAND USE Acre DU Acre Multiplier Per Acre Empl.Adj.(1) Per Acre FACTOR RESIDENTIAL Estate 3.08 3.27 10.07 $200.48 $2,018 $300 $2,318 I.ow Density 5.80 3.27 18.98 $200.48 $3,805 $565 $4,371 Medium Density 11.11 2.08 23.10 $200.48 $4,631 $1,533 $6,164 Medium-Iligh Density 19.74 1.75 34.55 $200.48 $6,926 $2,724 $9,650 Iligh Density N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Planned Community N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A COMMERCIAL Neighborhood $2,193 $934 $3,127 Community N/A N/A N/A Office/Professional N/A N/A N/A MIXED DEVELOPMENT 00 Residential Portion 16.96 1.915 32.49 $200.48 $6,513 $2,341 $8,854 Commercial Portion $2,193 $934 $3,127 INDUSTRIAL Industrial $4,142 $1,189 $5,331 Industrial $2,112 $1,189 $3,300 Resource Production N/A N/A N/A RECREATION/OPEN SPACE Neighborhood $0 $3,500 City-Wide $0 $3,500 Linear Park $0 $3,500 (1) Per acre cost multiplier from Table 6 adjusted by land use based on ratio of employment per acre for land use category (from Table 4) to average employment for retail/of oe/R&D/general industrial land uses of 35.0 emp/acre.The purpose of this adjustment is to account for higher revenues associated with higher-intensity land uses(i.e.office)relative to lower-intensity uses(i.e.industrial). (2) From Parks and Recreation Department;average cost for all park lands. (3) Assumes utility would pay operating/maintenance costs. Source: Williams-Kuebelbeck&Associates,Inc. Ifolly Seacliff Generalan Amendment 4,10062-01ind Fiscal Impact Analysis Table 9: Summary of Per Acre Operating Revenue and Cost Factors By Land Use NET REVENUE COST REVENUES/ FACTOR FACTOR COSTS LAND USE PER ACRE PER ACRE PER ACRE RESIDENTIAL Estate $5,066 $2,318 $2,747 Low Density $7,480 $4,371 $3,110 Medium Density $9,647 $6,164 $3,483 Medium-High Density $14,127 $9,650 $4,477 High Density N/A N/A N/A Planned Community N/A N/A N/A COMMERCIAL Neighborhood $19,947 $3,127 $16,819 Community N/A N/A N/A Office/Professional N/A N/A N/A 00 MVMD DF,VELOPMFWr Residential Portion $13.438 $8,854 $4,584 Commercial Portion $19,947 $3,127 $16,819 INDUSTRIAL Industrial 1 $4,626 $5,331 ($704) Industrial 2 $3,489 $3,300 $189 Resource Production N/A N/A N/A RECREATION/OPEN SPACE Neighborhood $0 $3,500 ($3,500) City-Wide $0 $3,500 ($3,500) Linear Park $0 $3,500 ($3,500) Source: Williams-Kuebelbeck dt Associates,Inc. APPENDIX C PER ACRE COST AND REVENUE FACTORS: EXISTING GENERAL PLAN i 1 1 1 1 i86 11olly Seacliff Generalan Amendment lexst Fiscal Impact Analysis Table 1. Commercial/Industrial Floor Area Ratios %of Site in EFFECTIVE Parking SF Per Pedestrian FLOOR Type of Avg. Bldg. Spaces/ Parking Circulation& AREA LAND USE Parking Stories ],000 SF Space(1) Landscape(2) RATIO(FAR) COMMERCIAL Neighborhood Surface 1 5 350 30% 0.25 Community Surface 1 5 350 30% 0.25 Office/Professional Surface 1.7 4 350 30% 0.35 Mixed Development(Commer.portion) Surface N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A INDUSTRIAL Industrial Surface N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Industrial Surface 1 2 350 30% 0.41 Resource Production Surface 0 0 0 0% 0.00 00 V (1) Includesvehiclecirculation. (2) Includes plaza areas,walkways,etc.(and outside storage areas for industrial uses). Source: Williams-Kuebelbeck&Associates,Inc. ff^�eachffGeneraf Plot Anwndnwnt 4,006MIex. Fiscal Impact Analysir Table 2: Projected Property Tares Per Acre TOTAL ASSFSSED SHARE PROP.TAX Average LAND PROP.TAX TO CPTY Dwelling DU's Per I.vd Value Lad Value Bldg.Value Floor Ara Bldg Area Bldg.Value VALUE PROP.TAX TOCTIY OF H.B. LAND USE Unit Value Acre Per Sq.Ft. Per Acre Per SF(1) Ratio(FAR) Per Acre Per Acre PER ACRE RATE OF H.B. PER ACRE RFMDFIgML Estate $550,000 3.09 $1.700.352 1.0% 17.5% $2,976 Low Density N/A N/A NIA N/A N/A N/A Medium Density S275,000 14.85 S4,083,333 1.0% 17.5% $7,146 Medium-High Density N/A N/A N/A NIA N/A N/A High Density N/A N/A N/A NIA N/A NIA Planned Community S175,000 34.70 $6,071,739 1.0% 17.5% $10,626 COMMERCIAL Neighborhood $25.00 $1,089,000 $50 0.25 10,890 SS44,SW S1,633,500 1.0% 17.5% $2,859 Community $25.00 $1,089,000 S.50 0.25 10,890 $544,500 $1,6334W 1.0% 17.5% $2,859 Office~CssiorW $16.00 $696.960 $85 0.35 15,246 $1,295,910 $1,992,970 1.0% 17.5% $3,488 MIXED DEVELOPMENT Residential Portion NIA N/A N/A N/A N/A NIA Commercial Portion NIA NIA N/A WA N/A NIA NIA N/A N/A NIA DWSTRIAL Industrial N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A NIA NIA N/A NIA Industrial $12.00 $522,720 SW 0.41 17,860 $1,071.576 $094.296 1.0% 17.5% $2.790 OD Resource Production $0.11 S4,802 $0 0.00 0 $0 S4,802 1.0% 17.5% $8 00 RECREAMON/OPEN SPACE Neighborhood $0 City-Wide SO Linear Ark $0 NOTES: -Resource production land values based on actud assessed value of proposed resource production parcels. -Public property is exempt from local property taxes Source: Williams-Kuebelbeck R Associates,Inc. I � � r � r r rr �r +rf rr rr +r r� �r r■� r� � r r [folly eac i enera an Amendment east Fiscal Impact Analysis Table 3: Projected Retail Sales Taxes Per Acre ANNUAL HH Income Propensity Annual %of Retail Retail Sales Annual Sales SALFS Dwelling As a%of Household To Spend on Retail Sales Made in City Taxes Per Households TAXES LAND USE Unit Value Home Price Income Retail Items Expenditures in City of HB of IIB HH(1) Per Acre PER ACRE RESIDENTIAL Estate $550,000 33.00% $181,500 38.00% $68,970 50.0% $34,485 $345 3.09 $1.066 Low Density N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A NIA NIA N/A N/A Medium Density $275,000 33.00% $90.750 38.00% $34.485 50.0% $17,243 $172 14.85 $2,560 Medium-High Density N/A NIA N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A NIA N/A N/A High Density N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A NIA N/A N/A Planned Community $175,000 33.00% $57,750 38.00% $21,945 50.0% $10.973 $110 34.70 $3,807 Mixed Development(Residential Portion) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A NIA NIA NIA NIA N/A ANNUAL Annual SALES Floor Area Bldg.SF Retail Sales Retail Sales TAXiiS Ratio(FAR) Per Acre Per SF Per Acre PER ACRE COMMERCIAL 00 Neighborhood 0.25 10,890 $150 $1,633.500 $16.335 Community 0.25 10,890 $120 $1,306,800 $13,068 Office/Professional 0.35 15,246 $0 $0 $0 Mixed Development(Commensal Portion) NIA N/A N/A NIA N/A INDUSTRIAL Industrial N/A N/A N/A NIA N/A Industrial 0.41 17,860 $10 $178,596 $1,786 Resource Production 0.00 0 $0 $0 $0 RECREATION/OPEN SPACE Neighborhood S0 City-Wide S0 Linear Ptak $0 (1) Sales taxes to City at 1%of total retail sales. Source: Williams-Kuebelbeck dt Associates,Inc. Holly Seacliff General'PlanAme men) 4,E3062751exst Fiscal Impact Analysis Table 4: Projected Business License Taxes Per Acre Business BUSINESS Average License LICENSE Floor Area Bldg. SF Bldg SF Per Employees Employees Tax Per TAXES LAND USE Ratio(FAR) Per Acre Employee Per Acre Per Business Employee(1) PER ACRE COMMERCIAL Neighborhood 0.25 10,890 400 27 15 $6 $162 Community 0.25 10,890 400 27 15 $6 $162 Office/Professional 0.35 15,246 250 61 20 $5 $305 Mixed Development(Commercial Portion) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A INDUSTRIAL Industrial N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Industrial 0.41 17,860 700 26 20 $5 $130 Resource Production 10 100 $3 $30 w C> (1)Annual business license tax per employee by number of employees from City of Huntington Beach. Source: Williams-Kuebelbeck&Associates,Inc. rr ■r rr r rr rr +r rr ■r rr rr +r rr ar rr �r irr rr rr HollySeactiffGene'.1 Plan Amendment 4,E3exit Fiscal Impact Analysis Table S: Police Operating Costs Per Acre ESTIMATED 1988 DesinA AVERAGE DU's Average SF Annual 1988 Desired Police Annual POLICE Per Annual DIJ's Per Per Annual Bldg.SF Police Calls Police Police Calls Per Cost Per COST LAND USE Police Call Acre Pbl ice Cal I Per Acre Per Acre Budget(1) Officers(2) Officer(2) Call(3) PER ACRE RESIDENTIAL Estate 2.04 3.09 1.52 $21,901,200 206 535 $199 $301 Low Density N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Medium Density 1.44 14.85 10.31 $21,901,200 206 535 $199 $2,049 Medium-Iligh Density NIA NIA N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Iligh Density N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Planned Community 1.83 34.70 18.96 $21,901,200 206 535 $199 $3,768 COUNIMCIA Neighborhood 2,316 10,890 4.70 $21,901,200 206 535 $199 $934 Community 2,745 10,890 3.97 $21,901,200 206 535 $199 $788 OfficeA"rofessional 2,745 15,246 5.55 $21.901,200 206 535 $199 $1,104 MIXED DEVELOPMENT Residential Portion N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Commercial Portion N/A NIA NIA NIA N/A N/A N/A N/A INDUSTRIAL Industrial 1 N/A N/A NIA N/A N/A N/A N/A NIA Industrial 2.986 17,860 5.98 $21,901,200 206 535 $199 $1.189 Resource Production $0 RECREATION/OPEN SPACE Neighborhood S0 City-Wide $0 Linear Park $0 (1) From City budget;estimated cost 1987/88. (2) From City Police Department;officers based on 1.1 officers per 1,000 population and 1988 population of 187.700. (3) Includes overhead and administration;equals total police costs divided by number of offices divided by number of calls per officer. Source: Williams-Kucbelbeck&Associates,Inc. Holly SeaclyffGeneral Plan Amembneng ex. Fiscal Impact Analysis Table 6: Other Operating Cost and Revenue Multipliers 1989 Estimated Allocation of Cost/Revenues Estimated Per Unit Cost/Revenue Annual Costa By I nd Use Category(2) Multiplier By Lend Use Category(3) Revenues(l) Rest end- 'omI nd. es. esidcntial om!nd. es.'r . REVENUFS Transient Occupancy Tax $366,000 $366,000 $0 $0 $1.95 $0.00 $0.00 Cigarette Tax $560,000 $560,000 $0 $0 $2.98 $0.00 $0.00 Utility Taxes $9,090,000 $7,104,805 $1,985,195 $0 $37.85 $644.54 $0.00 Franchise Fees $1,022,800 $799,427 $223,373 $0 $4.26 $72.52 $0.00 Licenses-Oil Wells(4) $800,000 so $0 $0 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Fines/Fofeits/Penalties $2,285,000 $2,285,000 $0 $0 $12.17 $0.00 $0.00 Motor Vehicle In Lieu $6,170,000 $6,170,000 $0 $0 $32.87 $0.00 $0.00 State Public Library Funds $155,000 $155,000 $0 $0 $0.83 $0.00 $0.00 Cable TV $320,000 $320,000 $0 $0 $1.70 $0.00 $0.00 Real Property Transfer Tax $600,000 $468,964 $131.036 s0 $2.50 $42.54 $0.00 Charges for Recreation/Library Services $1,004,300 $1,004,300 $0 $0 $5.35 $0.00 $0.00 Other Revenue(Library,etc.) $90,900 S90,900 $0 $0 $0.48 $0.00 $0.00 Other Revenue(Traffic/Street Maint.Charges) $90,000 $70,345 $19,655 $0 $0.37 $6.38 $0.00 Total Revenues Attributed to Land Use $22,554,000 $19,394,741 $2,359,259 $0 Total Per Unit Revenue Multiplier(3) $103.33 $765.99 $0.00 COSTS Fire&Paramedic $11,902,000 $9,302,694 $2,599,316 $0 $49.56 $843.93 $0.00 City Council $138,700 $108,409 $30,291 $0 $0.58 $9.83 $0.00 N Nan-Departmental $8,618,700 $6,736.434 $1,882,266 $0 $35.89 $611.13 $0.00 Administration $1,000,400 $781,919 $218,481 $0 $4.17 $70.94 $0.00 City Treasurer $296,200 $223,696 $62,504 $0 $1.19 $20.29 $0.00 City Attorney $978,300 $764,646 $213,654 $0 $4.07 $69.37 $0.00 City Clerk $259,800 $203,061 $56,739 so $1.08 $18.42 $0.00 Business LicenseAdministratioe $141,600 $0 $141,600 $0 $0.00 $45.97 $0.00 Other Administrative Services $2,970,100 $2,321,450 $648,650 $0 $12.37 $210.60 $0.00 Housing do Community Development $2,017,300 $2,017.300 $0 $0 $10.75 $0.00 $0.00 Planning $1,206,600 $943,087 $263,513 $0 $5.02 $85.56 $0.00 CommemityServicea $4,714,700 $4,714,700 $0 $0 $25.12 $0.00 $0.00 Library Maintenance $71,400 $71.400 $0 $0 $0.38 $0.00 $0.00 Other Public Worts $12,079,000 $9,441,028 $2,637,972 $0 $50.30 $856.49 $0.00 Total Casts Attributed to Land Use $46,384,800 $37,629,814 $8,754,986 $0 Total Per Una Cost Multiplier(3) $200.48 $2,942.53 $0.00 (1) Estimated revenues/costs for 1997/88 fora City Budget as shown in Appendix A. (2) Where cosuftvenues attributed to all"urban"land uses(developed residential,commercial,industrial,institutional properties), allocation between residential and commercial industrial uses based on respective shares of total developed acreage; (11,023 developed residential acres; 3,080 commercial/industri&Vinstitutional acres from City of Huntington Beach). (3) Residential costs/n venues translated into per capita multiplier based on 1988 City population of 187,700 from the CaliE Dept. of Finance. Resource production revenues translated into per acre multiplier based on 126 acres currently in this use in the City. Commercial/industrial revenues and costs translated into per acre multipliers based on estimated current total of 3,080 acres in this use from the City Planning Department(Appendix B). (4) Oil tax revenues generated within the study area generally independent of land use(oil production can continue even after development of new uses)=4 therefore estimated as a total for the study area rather than by land use. Source: Williams-Kuebelbeck&Associates,Inc. Ifolty Seacliff Generalan Amendmarat exs Fiscal Impact Analysis Table 7: Total Operating Revenue Factors Per Acre Total Total Per Com./Ind. TOTAL PER Capita Per Capita- Per Acre Rev. Prop.Tax Sales Tax Bus.Lic. ACRE D h Per Persons Per Persons Per Revenue Baud Reven. Multiplier-- Revenues Per Revenues Tax Reven. REVENUE Acre RFSIDEN'fIAL DU Acre Muhipticr Per Acre Fmpl.Adj.(1) Acre Per Acre Per Acre FACTOR Gsute 3.09 3.27 10.11 $163.33 $1,045 $2,976 $1,066 $0 $5,086 Low Density N/A NIA N/A N/A N/A NIA N/A N/A N/A Median Density 14.85 2.08 30.98 $103.11 $3,191 $7,146 $2.560 $0 $12,897 Medium-Iligh Density N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Iligh Density N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A NIA N/A N/A N/A Planned Community 34.70 1.75 60.72 $103.31 $6,274 $10,626 $3,807 $0 $20,706 COMMERCIAL Neighborhood $591 $2,859 $16,335 $162 $19,947 Community $591 $2,859 $13,068 $162 $16,680 Officelpmfessional $1,335 $3,488 $0 $305 $5,128 Mole DEVELOPMI]VT Residential Portion N/A N/A N/A NIA N/A N/A N/A NIA NIA Commercial Portion N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A INDUSTRIAL IndustrialI NIA N/A N/A NIA NIA %_O lndustrial2 $569 $2.790 $0 $130 $3,489 Resource Production $219 $8 $0 $30 $257 RECREATION/OPEN SPACE Neighborhood $0 $0 $0 $0 City-Wide $0 $0 $0 s0 Linear Park $0 $0 $0 $0 (1) Per soe revenue multiplier from Table 6 adjusted by land use based on ratio of employment per acre for land use category (from Table 4) to avenge employment for retail/office/R&D/general industrial land uses of 35.0 emp/acre.The purpose of this adjustment is to account for higher revenues associated with higher-intensity land uses(i.e.office)relative to lower-intensity uses(i.e.industrial). Source:Williams-Kuebelbeck dt.Associates,Inc. Holly Seacliff Generalan Amendment east Fiscal Impact Analysis Table 8: Total Operating Operadng Cost Factors Per Acre Total Total Per Com./Ind. TOTAL Capita Per Capita- Per Acre Cost PER ACRE DU's Per Persons Per Persons Per Cost Based Costs Multiplier-- Police Costs COST LAND USE Ace DU Acre Multiplier Per Acre Empl.Adj.(1) Per Acre FAC'MR RESIDENTIAL Estate 3.09 3.27 10.11 $200.48 $2,027 $301 $2,328 Low Density N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Medium Density 14.85 2.08 30.88 $200.48 $6,192 $2,049 $8,241 Medium-Iligh Density N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A High Density N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Planned Community 34.70 1.75 60.72 $200.48 $12,173 $3,768 $15,940 COMMERCIAL Neighborhood $2,193 $934 $3,127 Community $2,193 $788 $2,981 Office/Professional $4,954 $1,104 $6,058 MOM DEVELOPMENT Residential Portion N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Commercial Portion N/A N/A N/A INDUSTRIAL Industrial N/A N/A N/A Industrial $2,112 $1,189 $3,300 Resource Production $812 $0 $812 RECREATION/OPEN SPACE Neighborhood $0 $3,500 City-Wide $0 $3,500 Linear Park $0 $3,500 (1) Per acre cost multiplier from Table 6 adjusted by land use based on ratio of employment per acre for land use category (from Table 4) to average employment for tetail/office/R&D/gerwral industrial land uses of 35.0 emp/acre.The purpose of this adjustment is to account for higher revenues associated with higher-intensity land uses(i.e.office)relative to lower-intensity uses(i.e.industrial). (2) From Parks and Recreation Department;average cost for all park lands. (3) Assumes utility would pay operating/maintenance costs. Source: Williams-Kuebelbeck&Associates,Inc. HollySeacliff Generalan Amendment exst Fiscal Impact Analysis Table 9: Summary of Per Acre Operating Revenue and Cost Factors By Land Use NET REVENUE COST REVENUES/ FACTOR FACTOR COSTS LAND USE PER ACRE PER ACRE PER ACRE RESIDENTIAL Estate $5,086 $2,328 $2,758 Low Density N/A N/A N/A Medium Density $12.897 $8,241 $4,657 Medium-IGgh Density N/A N/A N/A Iligh Density N/A N/A N/A Planned Community $20,706 $15.940 $4,766 COMMERCIAL Neighborhood $19.947 $3,127 $16,819 Community $16,680 $2,981 $13,698 Office,/Professional $5,128 $6,058 ($930) to MrAED DEVELOPMENT Residential Portion N/A N/A N/A Commercial Portion N/A N/A N/A INDUSTRIAL Industrial 1 N/A N/A N/A Industrial 2 $3,489 $3,300 $189 Resource Production $257 $812 ($555) RECREATION/OPEN SPACE Neighborhood $0 $3,500 ($3,500) City-Wide $0 $3,500 ($3,500) Linear Park $0 $3,500 ($3,500) Soiree: Williams-Kuebelbeck dt Associates,Inc. ' APPENDIX D CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH BUDGET BREAKDOWN FOR REVENUE/COST PROJECTIONS 96 TABLE D-1 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH BUDGET BREAKDOWN FOR REVENUE/COST PROJECTIONS UNITS OF MEASURE ("1' Indicates Appropriate Unit) BUDGET BUDGETAMOUNT Resource Commer./ CATEGORY METHOD OF PROJECTION FOR MULTIPLIERS Per Capita Urban Acre Prod.Acre Ind.Acre REVENUES Property Taxes Direct Other Local Taxes Sales&Use Taxes Direct Occupancy Tax Multiplier $366.000 1 Cigarette Tax Multiplier $560,000 1 Franchise Fee Multiplier $1,022,800 1 Utility Taxes Multiplier Water $420,000 1 Ga; $1.350,000 1 Telephone $3,020,000 1 Electricity $4,300,000 1 Licenses--Oil Wells Multiplier $800,000 1 Subtotal $11,838,800 $926,000 $10,112,800 $800.000 $0 Fines, Forfeitures, Penalties Multiplier $2,285,000 1 ---- ------ -------- ------------------ ' Subtotal $2,285,000 $2,285,000 $0 $0 $0 Use of Money and Property N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Rev.from Other Agencies Motor Vehicle in Lieu Multiplier $6,170,000 1 State Public Library Funds Multiplier $155,000 1 Real Property Transfer Tax Multiplier $600.000 1 Cable Systems TV Multiplier $320,000 1 Subtotal $7,245,000 $6,645,000 $600.000 $0 $0 Charges for Current Services Library Services Multiplier $40,000 1 ' Sanitation Dist Collection (II & III) Multiplier $88,000 1 School Dev.Fee Admin.Cost Reimb. Multiplier $54,800 1 City Gym&Pool Multiplier $5,000 1 Adult Sports Multiplier $250,000 1 Youth Sports Multiplier $24,000 1 Adventure Playground Multiplier $11,500 1 Contract Classes Multiplier $260,000 1 Aquatics Multiplier $87,000 1 Special Events Multiplier $14,000 1 Day Camps Multiplier $24,000 1 ' Clubhouses Multiplier $30,000 1 Tennis Multiplier $55,000 1 Murdy Park Comm.Center Multiplier $29.000 1 Edison Park Comm.Center Multiplier $32,000 1 ------- ------- --------- ------------- ' Subtotal $1,004,300 $1,004,300 $0 $0 $0 Other Revenue Emergency Response Billings Multiplier $13,000 1 Library Copy Machines Multiplier $42,000 1 Library Vending Machines Multiplier $4,000 1 Street Materials--Major Multiplier $40,000 1 Traffic Signal Maint. Charges Multiplier $50,000 1 Library--Lost Books Multiplier $8,300 1 Records and Cassettes Multiplier $23,600 1 ' Subtotal $180,900 590,900 $90,000 $0 -$0 TOTALREVENUES $22,554.000 $10,951,200 $10,802,800 $800,000 $0 i 4,e3062-04 97 TABLE D-1 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH BUDGET BREAKDOWN FOR REVENUE/COST PROJECTIONS UNITS OF MEASURE r 1' Indicates Appropriate Unit) BUDGET BUDGETAMOUNT Resource Commer./ CA7E30RY MEfHODOFPRLUECTION FOR MULTIPLIERS Per Capita Urban Acre Prod. Acre Ind.Acre ' COSTS City Council Multiplier $138,700 1 , Non-Departmental Multiplier $8.618,700 1 Administration Multiplier $1,000,400 1 City Treasurer Multiplier $286.200 1 City Attorney Multiplier $978,300 1 City Clerk Multiplier $259.800 1 ----- ------ ------ ------------- Subtotal $11,282,100 $0 $11,282,100 $0 $0 Administrative Services ' Administration Multiplier $219,000 1 Accounting&Records Multiplier $498.800 1 Business License Multiplier $141,600 1 Budget&Research Multiplier $114,400 1 Information Systems Multiplier $807,100 1 Central Svs./Purchasing Multiplier $535,500 1 Personnel Multiplier $534,700 1 Print Shop Multiplier $164,900 1 Word Processing Multiplier $95,700 1 Subtotal $3,111,700 $0 52,970,100 $0 $141,600 I Community Development Administration Multiplier $202,700 1 Planning Multiplier $1,003,900 1 , Housing&Community Development Multiplier $2,017,300 1 ------- --------- -------------------------- Subtotal $3,223,900 $2,017,300 $1,206,600 $0 $0 Fire Department Multiplier $11,902,000 -------- 1 Subtotal $11,902.000 $0 $11.902,000 $0 $0 Police Deparment Direct N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Community Services ' Administration Multiplier $371,100 1 Recreation, Parks Supervision Multiplier $247,100 1 Community Centers Multiplier $263.700 1 City Gym&Pool Multiplier $130,900 1 Tennis Multiplier $47,800 1 Adult Sports Multiplier $190,800 1 Youth Sports Multiplier $24,500 1 Adventure Playground Multiplier $10,600 1 Instructional Classes Multiplier $208,900 1 Aquatics Multiplier $79,800 1 Special Events Multiplier $24,600 1 Day Camps Multiplier $25,700 1 Seniors'Center Multiplier $84,300 1 ' Oakview Center Multiplier $91.400 1 Clubhouses Multiplier $21,800 1 Seniors'Outreach Multiplier $199,100 1 Arts & Cultural Affairs Multiplier $79,600 1 Exhibitions/Performances Multiplier $31,800 1 ' Library Supervision Multip.ier $896,000 1 Library Adult Services Multiplier $606,200 1 Library References Multiplier $361,300 1 Children's Library Multiplier $154,700 1 , Library Technical Services Multiplier $345,100 1 Library Media Multiplier $97,100 1 Library Extentions Multiplier $120,800 1 ----- -------- ------------------- Subtotal $4,714,700 $4,714,700 $0 $0 $0 4,e3062-04 98 ' ' TABLE D•1 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH BUDGET BREAKDOWN FOR REVENUE/COST PROJECTIONS UNITS OF MEASURE ('1' Indicates Appropriate Unit) BUDGET BU IGETAMOUNT Resource Commer./ CATEGCRY METHOD OF PROJECTION FOR MULTIPLIERS Per Capita Urban Acre Prod. Acre Ind.Acre Public Works Park Maintenance Direct N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Administration Multiplier $235,900 1 Traffic Maintenance Multiplier $429,900 1 Maintenance Administration Multiplier $3,995,800 1 Fleet Management Multiplier $428,600 1 Equipment Maintenance Multiplier $782,800 1 Vehicle Body Shop Multiplier $180,500 1 Building Maintenance Multiplier $499,400 1 ' Central Warehouse Multiplier $117.900 1 Maintenance,Bldg.and Grounds Multiplier $80,000 1 Bldg Maint, Painting Multiplier $284,100 1 Bldg. Maint, Electrical Multiplier $264,300 1 Street& Special Lighting Multiplier $118,500 1 Civic Center Services Multiplier $456,100 1 Central Library Maint Multiplier $69,500 1 Satellite Library Maint. Multiplier $1,900 1 Fire Station Bldg. Maint. Multiplier $11,300 1 Corp.Yard Bldg. Maint. Multiplier $6,000 1 Street Maint Multiplier $1,502,800 1 Bridge&Channel Maint Multiplier $14,500 1 Street Sweeping Multiplier $327,400 1 Sewer/Storm Drain Maint. Multiplier $227,500 1 Landscape Administration Multiplier $224,800 1 Landscape Maintenance Multiplier $375.100 1 Street Tree Maintenance Multiplier $738.300 1 Pesticide Maintenance Multiplier $238,300 1 Weed Abatement Multiplier $61,500 1 Flood Control Multiplier $477,700 1 ----- --------- -------------------------- Subtotal $12,150,400 571.400 $12,079,000 $0 $0 TOTALCOSTS $46.384.800 $6,803.400 $39,439,800 $0 $141,600 Source City of Huntington Beach Annual Budget, FY 1988/89;Williams-Kuebelbeck& Associates, Inc. 4,e3062-04 99 APPENDIX E CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH LAND USE STATUS BY GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION ' 100 TABLE E-1 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH LAND USE STATUS BY GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION ' April 1988 (In Acres) Total Developed Vacant Percent Acreage Acreage Acreage Vacant Land Use Designation ' Residential Estate 287 80 207 72.1% ' Low 8,645 8,572 73 0.8% Medium 1,968 1,766 202 10.3% Medium High 42 42 0 0.0% High 603 560 43 7.1% ' Senior 3 3 0 0 Sub-Total 11,548 11,023 525 4.5% ' Commercial General 1,059 1,006 53 5.0% Office-Professional 75 54 21 28.0% Visittor Serving 82 65 17 20.7% Sub-Total 1,216 1,125 91 7.5% Mixed Uses Mixed Development 95 75 20 21.1% Office/Residential 51 42 9 17.6% Comm./Support Recreation 29 29 0 0.0% Sub-Total 175 146 29 16.6% ' Industrial General 1,432 1,158 274 19.1% Resource Production 126 126 0 0.0% Industrial Production 133 116 17 12.8% Solid Waste Facility 5 5 0 0.0% Sub-Total 1,696 1,405 291 17.2% Open Space Water 245 245 0 0.0% Conservation 143 143 0 0.0% Recreation 1,213 1,213 0 0.0% Sub-Total 1,601 1,601 0 0.0% Other Uses Public,Quasi-Public 641 550 91 14.2% Planned Community 275 80 195 70.9% Planning Reserve 22 0 22 100.0% Sub-Total 938 630 308 32.8% ' Total 17,174 15,930 1,244 7.2% Source: City of Huntington Beach Planning Department;Williams-Kuebelbeck&Associates,Inc. 2,e3062-30.WK1 ' 101