The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPublic Hearing - Proposed Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Plan REQUEST FO EDEVELOPMENT AWNCY ACTION RH 87-13 March 6, 1987 Date ygD BY CITY CO Honorable Chairman and Redevelopment Agency Members Submitted to: /, ?Submitted by: 19 ' ` Charles W. Thompson, Chief Executive Officer �• �� .s'w .. Douglas N. La Belle, Deputy City Administrator/Redevelop �iT Prepared by: . PUBLIC HEARING - BEACH BOULEVARD PLAN ADOPTION DRAFT Subject: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT'REPORT Consistent with Council Policy? ) Yes [ ] New Policy or Exception Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions, Attachments: f STATEMENT OF ISSUE: The Draft, Environmental Impact Report for the Proposed Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project Area Adoption has been transmitted to all interested parties. It is now time for the Redevelopment Agency, as "Lead Agency" for this effort, to conduct a public hearing and receive comments on the draft document. RECOMMENDATION: 1. Open a public hearing on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Proposed Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project Area Adoption. 2. Receive public comments on the document. 3. Close the public hearing. 4. Direct staff and the Environmental Impact Report consultants to consider the public comments in the preparation of the final draft docunent. ANALYSIS: The principle documents necessary for the processing of the Proposed Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project Area are now complete in draft form. The Redevelopment Agency has received and authorized distribution of the Redevelopment Plan, Preliminary Report, and Draft Environmental Impact Report. These documents have, or will soon be, transmitted to the Planning Commission, the Project Area Committee, affected taxing agencies, and other interested parties. In order to provide the public with adequate opportunity to comment on the Dra Environmental Impact Report it is now necessary for the Redevelopment Agency, acting as the "Lead Agency," in this environmental review procedure to conduct a public hearing. . 3 C PI O/1/85 42H 87-13 March 6, 1987 Page Two All comments received at the public hearing will become part of the public record and will be considered by the City Council and the Redevelopment Agency at a scheduled joint public hearing on the proposed project area in July, 1987. There is a 45-day review period (February 17 to April 4, 1987), of the draft E.I.R. During this period, comments received by the Agency at the public hearing, as well as comments received from the Planning Commission, PAC, and other interested parties, will be incorporated into the final E.I.R. document. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: Do not conduct a public hearing at this time, this will end or delay the Beach Boulevard Plan Adoption process. FUNDING SOURCE: Plan Adoption is a Redevelopment Agency administrative expense. ATTACHMENTS: Draft EIR previously transmitted to Agency Members for February 17, 1987. CWT/SVK:sar 1082r Huntington Reach Fountain Valley �� Q Board of REALTORS' Inc. R E A LTO R. 8101 Slater Avenue • Huntington Beach, CA 92647 • (714) 847.609:3 March 16, 1987 The Honorable Jack Kelly, Mayor and Members of--the- City Council City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 RE: City/Redevelopment Agency Meeting, Agenda REF-3c Beach Boulevard Plan Adoption/ Draft Environmental Impact Report Dear Mayor Kelly and Councilmembers: As President of the Huntington Beach/Fountain Valley Board of REALTORS@, I would like to express my support in concept for the Draft Environmental Impact Report which has been prepared for the proposed Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project Area. I believe that the development of this initial report covering all environmental aspects of this area is a very positive step toward the comprehensive planning that is needed to insure that our community will benefit from the proposed improvements on Beach Boulevard. I realize that the specifics of the redevelopment plan still requires input from the property owners in the area and from the Project Area Committee. We, too, are in the.process of reviewing the Draft E.I.R. in detail and will provide you with a written response and specific recommendations if we have any concerns prior to your April 4, 1987 deadline for comment. Meanwhile, I urge the Council- to adopt the Draft E. I. R. and move this project forward through the public process, and continue the progress made thus far. Sincerely, 10 Lila Nowell, President LN/JAS OFFICERS LILA NOWELL, President• FRANK C. HORZEWSKI, First Vice President JAN SHOMAKER, Second Vice President/MLS Chairman• JAMES RIGHEIMER, Secretary/Treasurer DIRECTORS R.L. "KIRK" KIRKLAND• BETH DUNCOMBE• PHYLLIS RHYAN• LOU STAN• TOM VAN TUYL WILL WOODS, Executive Vice President• JUDITH SEVERY, Vice President/Public Affairs Authorized to Publish Advertisements of all kinds-including public notices by Decree of the Superior Court of Orange County, California, Number A-6214, dated 29 September, 1961, and A-24831, dated 11 June, 1963. STATE OF CALIFORNIA County of Orange Public Notice Advertising covered by this atlldevit is set in 7 point ritil 10 pica column ridth I am a Citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the below entitled matter. I am a principal clerk of the Orange Coast DAILY PILOT, with which is combined the NEWS-PRESS, a newspaper of general circulation, printed and published in the City of Costa Mesa, County of Orange, State of California, and that a Notice of Public Hearing of which copy attached hereto is a true and complete copy, was printed and published in the Costa Mesa, Newport Beach, Huntington Beach, Fountain Valley, Irvine, the South Coast communities and Laguna Beach issues of said newspaper for two times consecutive weeks to wit the issue(s) of February 20 7 198 March 2 7 198 198 198 19fi 1 declare, under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on March 2 198 7 at Costa Mesa, C ifornia r 0 Signature PROOF OF PUBLICATION PUBLIC NOTICE I PUBLIC NOTICE PUBLIC NOTICE I PUBLIC NUII E REDEVELOPMENT" ENGY PUBLIC HEARING • NOTICE OF COMPLET106 AND AVAILABILITY OF DRAFT O , ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR HUNTINGTON BEACH— BEACH BOULEVARD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT, AND PUBLIC HEARING THEREON TO ALL INTERESTED PARTIES,GROUPS AND PERSONS: THIS WILL SERVE AS NOTICE THAT the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency (Lead Agency)has completed a Draft Environmental Impact Report(Draft EIR)on the following project in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act: I Project Title: Redevelopment Plan for the Huntington Beach-Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project. I � Project Location: I Within the City of Huntington Beach,County of Orange;involves properties adjoining both sides of Beach Boulevard from Edinger Avenue on the north southerly to Atlanta Avenue on the south, as shown on the map accompanying this notice. Project Description: The project consists of the adoption and implementation of a proposed Redevelopment Plan for the Beach Boulevard Project,which encompasses approximately 500 acres and contains a mixture of land uses, primarily commercial. The primary objective of the Project is to eliminate blighting Influences currently preventing full and effective use of the land.This will include providing new and i upgraded public Improvements and taking other actions, including potential site assembly and disposition, to promote private investment and revitalization and to facilitate development and redevelopment of under-utilized and blighted properties to more productive uses. A PUBLIC HEARING will be held by the Redevelopment Agency on the Draft EIR on March 16, 1987 at 7:00 p.m.,or as soon thereafter as possible,in the City Hall Council Chambers,2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach,California 92648. The Draft EIR is on file at the address below and Is available for public examination in the Office of the City Clerk,second floor, between the hours of 8:00 a.m.and 5:00 p.m.,except holidays. All interested agencies,groups and persons wishing to comment on the Draft EIR are invited to do ' so by appearing at the above-set public hearing and/or by submitting written comments at the address below on or before April 4, 1987. CHARLES THOMPSON, Executive Director, Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency, 2000 Main Street,Huntington Beach,California 92648 Telephone(714)536-5575 Published Orange Coast Daily Pilot February 20, March 2, 1987 FM418 ` U W F— ..��pN11NG/p�:B.. u c z UJ 'Ls ,jam N CD I�CO oo 2 FP,I, - N- EDINGER ' WARNER TALBERT Y O O C c0 GARFIELD A ADANS `C O,gJT y�Cyy9 ATLANTA I _ Pubi,sh alda L 3/2- REDESOPMENT AGENCY PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE OF COMPLETION AND AVAILABILITY OF DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR HUNTINGTON BEACH - BEACH BOULEVARD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT, AND PUBLIC HEARING THEREON TO ALL INTERESTED PARTIES, GROUPS AND PERSONS: THIS WILL SERVE AS NOTICE THAT the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency (Lead Agency) has completed a Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) on the following project in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act: Project Title: Redevelopment Plan for the Huntington Beach-Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project. Project Location: Within the City of Huntington Beach, County of Orange; involves properties adjoining both sides of Beach Boulevard from Edinger Avenue on the north southerly to Atlanta Avenue on the south, as shown on the map accompanying this notice. Project Description: The project consists of the adoption and implementation of a proposed Redevelopment Plan for the Beach Boulevard Project, which encompasses approximately 500 acres and contains a mixture of land uses, primarily commercial. The primary objective of the Project is to eliminate blighting influences currently preventing full and effective use of the land. This will include providing new and upgraded public improvements and taking other actions, including potential site assembly and disposition, to promote private investment and revitalization and to facilitate development and redevelopment of under-utilized and blighted properties to more productive uses. NOTICE OF COMPLETION AND AVAILABILITY OF DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR HUNTINGTON BEACH - BEACH BOULEVARD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT, AND PUBLIC HEARING THEREON Page Two A PUBLIC HEARING will be held by the Redevelopment Agency on the Draft EIR on March 16, 1987 at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as possible, in the City Hall Council Chambers, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California 92648 The Draft EIR is on file at the address below and is available for public examination in the Office of the City Clerk, second floor, between the hours of 8:00 a.m, and .5:00 p.m., except holidays. All interested agencies, groups and persons wishing to comment on the Draft EIR are invited to do so by appearing at the above-set public hearing and/or by submitting written comments at the address below on or before April 4, 1987. CHARLES THOMPSON, Executive Director Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California 92648 Telephone (714) 536-5575 Publish: February 20 and March 2, 1987 (Publish copy of attached map with this notice) 0922r i OLSA CHICA �`�aa %•� S INGDALE ao OLDENWEST p , BEACH BLVD • I m v MAGNOLIA � m BROOKHURST . n a m r G REQUEST FO%REDEVELOPMENT AIMENCY ACTION RH 87-05 February 6, 1987 Date Honorable Chairman and Redevelopment Agency NXmbers Submitted to: Charles W. Thompson, Chief Executive Offic Submitted by: Douglas N. La Belld, Deputy City Administrator Redevelopment Prepared by: APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION RECEIVING BEACH BOULEVARD Subject: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ON PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN 10 Consistent with Council Policy? W Yes [ ] New Policy or Exception. Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions, Attachments: STATEMENT OF ISSUE: The Environmental Impact Report for the Beach Boulevard Corridor is now complete. It is recommended that the Redevelopment Agency acknowledge receipt of the EIR and authorize its transmittal to interested parties through adoption of the attached resolution. RECOMMENDATION: Approve and authorize the Agency Clerk to execute the attached resolution receiving the EIR on the Proposed Redevelopment Plan for the Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project Area and authorizing its transmittal to affected taxing entities. ANALYSIS: As we continue with the adoption of a Project Area for the Beach Boulevard Corridor, several significant steps have been achieved. The Planning Commission adopted a Preliminary Plan and established boundaries for the proposed project area in October, 1986. Subsequently, the Redevelopment Agency received this plan and the City Council called for the formation of a Project Area Committee. At its regular adjourned meeting of Monday, January 5, 1987? the City Council certified the representative nature of the Project Area Committee that had been constituted for the. Beach Boulevard Project Area. On January 20, 1987, the Agency received and authorized transmittal of the draft Redevelopment Plan. The Preliminary Report is also complete and transmitted to the Agency this date for receipt and authority to transmit to interested parties. The next step in this process of adoption of a new Redevelopment Project Area is the distribution of the EIR on the proposed Redevelopment Plan. The attached resolution officially acknowledges receipt of the EIR by the Redevelopment Agency and authorizes its transmittal to those interested groups that will review the plan documents prior to the City Council/Agency public hearing later this year. PI O/1/65 �� RH 87-05 February 6, 1987 Page Two It is important to note that adoption of the attached resolution in no way endorses or approves the EIR on the Proposed Redevelopment Plan, but acknowledges receipt of the E.I.R. and authorizes its transmittal to interested parties. FUNDING SOURCE• Administrative costs of the Beach Boulevard Adoption Process is a Redevelopment Agency budget item. ALTERNATIVE ACTION: Do not approve the attached resolution. This will impair the progress of the adoption of the Beach Boulevard Project Area. ATTACHMENTS• 1. Resolution No. 13� 2. Environmental Impact Report. CWT/DLB/SVK:sar 0958r RESOLUTION NO. 138 i A RESOLUTION. OF THE HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY RECEIVING AND AUTHORIZING CIRCULATION OF DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE HUNTINGTON BEACH-BEACH BOULEVARD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AND SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING THEREON AND AUTHORIZING PUBLICATION OF NOTICE OF COMPLETION AND AVAILABILITY OF DRAFT EIR AND PUBLIC HEARING THEREON WHEREAS, the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency has prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) for the Huntington Beach-Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act , the State EIR Guidelines, and local procedures adopted pursuant thereto. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency as follows : 1 . The Draft EIR for the Huntington Beach-Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project is hereby found by the Agency to be sufficient to permit adequate evaluation and review of the environmental impact of the Project . 2 . The Draft EIR, in the form attached hereto, is hereby received by the Agency as the Agency 's Draft EIR for said Project for purposes of circulation for review and comment by public agencies and members of the public . Such comments shall be received by the Agency at its office until 5: 00 p.m. on April 4, 1987. 3. A public hearing to receive comments on the Draft EIR is hereby set for Monday, March 16, 1987 at 7: 00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Huntington Beach City Hall, Huntington Beach, California . 4. The Executive Director of the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency is hereby authorized and directed to: 1 . a) file a Notice of completion with State i Clearinghouse in accordance with Section 15085 of the State CEQA 1 Guidelines (California Administrative Code ) ; b ) provide for the distribution of the Draft EIR for comment from public agencies and others, including the Project Fiscal Review Committee, .if created, as applicable with respect to the Project ; and c ) This Notice shall be published at least twice in a newspaper pub- lished and printed in the county, and circulated in the city of Huntington Beach, advising the public of the completion and availability of the Draft EIR for review and comment by the public, and of the public hearing thereon for such purpose . Copies of the Draft EIR shall be maintained for public inspection during the comment period from February 18, 1987 through April 4 , 1987 at the Agency ' s office and the City libraries . PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency at a regular meeting thereof held on the 17th day of February 1987. >big-A/sl ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Clerk Agency Counsel REVIEWE APPROVED: I TIATED AND APPROVED: City . Administ for Dep y City Administrator Red elopment 1861L/2-4-87 2. ReONo. 138 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH) I , ALICIA M. WENTWORTH, Clerk of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach, California, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing resolution was duly adopted by the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach at a meeting of said Redevelopment Agency held on the day of February 17 19 87 , and that it was so adopted by the following vote: AYES: Members: , Winchell, Mays, Finley, Kelly, Erskine, Green, Bannister NOES: Members: None ABSENT: Members: None Clerk of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach, Ca. . j t i ' CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK 2000 MAIN STREET ' HUNTJNGTOW. BEACH,CALL&9264$ r Draft Environmental Impact Report r r r Redevelopment Plan for the Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project 1 r City of Huntington Beach State Clearinghouse No. 86111216 Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency r January 19 87 Cotton/Beland/Associates, Inc. 1 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 1 REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE BEACH BOULEVARD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NUMBER 8611216 City of Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency January, 1987 1 I Cotton/Beland/Associates, Inc. 1028 North Lake Avenue, Suite 107 Pasadena, California 91104 1. TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 Page Executive Summary vi Introduction xviii 1. Description of Proposed Project 1 ' 2 . Description of Environmental Setting 17 3 . Environmental Impact Analysis 19 3 . 1 Earth 20 3 .2 Air 25 3 . 3 Water 40 3 .4 Plant Life 44 3 .5 Animal Life 45 3 . 6 Noise 46 3 .7 Light and Glare 57 3 . 8 Land Use 58 3 .9 Natural Resources 69 3 . 10 Risk of Upset 69 3 . 11 Population 70 3 . 12 Housing 74 3 . 13 Transportation/Circulation 77 3 . 14 Public Services 100 3 . 15 Energy 109 3 . 16 Utilities 110 3 . 17 Human Health 125 3 . 18 Aesthetics 126 3 . 19 Parks and Recreation 127 3 . 20 Historical and Cultural Resources 131 4 . Alternatives to the Proposed Project 134 5. Analysis of Long-Term Effects 138 5. 1 Cumulative and Long-Term Impacts 138 of the Proposed Project Which Affect the Environment 5. 2 Significant Irreversible Environ- 145 mental Changes Which Would Be Involved in the Proposed Project, If It Were Implemented 1 5. 3 Growth Inducing Impacts of the 147 Proposed Project ' 6. Persons/Organizations Consulted 148 Appendices Appendix A Initial Study A-1 Appendix B Traffic Projections B-1 i LIST OF FIGURES Page Figure 1 Regional Location 2 2 Project Vicinity 3 3 Project Boundary 4 4 General Plan Amendment Locations 10 5 Fault Zones 22 6 Earthquake Hazard Special Study Zone 23 7 Flood Zones 39 8 Interpretation of Community Noise Levels 47 9 Typical Sound Levels 48 10 Noise Contours 50 11 Year 2005 Noise Contours 52 12 Construction Equipment Noise Ranges 54 1 13 Existing Generalized Land Use 60 14 Existing Zoning 62 15 Proposed Land Use 64 16 Regional Statistical Areas 71 17 Existing Traffic Volumes 79 18 Traffic Distribution and Volumes 86 19 Proposed Project Trip Distribution 91 20 GPA Alternative Trip Distribution 92 21 Neighborhood Park Service Areas 128 22 Related Projects 141 ii LIST OF TABLES Table Page A Environmental Impact Summary xiv 1 Current General Plan Land Use 6 2 Maximum Development Potential 7 3 Development Potential Comparisons 9 4 Public Improvements 16 5 Number of Days State Air Quality 27 Standards Were Exceeded and Annual Maximum Hourly Average During 1984 6 Number of Days Federal Air Quality 28 Standards Were Exceeded During 1984 7 Number of Days State Air Quality 29 Standards Were Exceeded and Annual Maximum Hourly Average During 1985 8 Number of Days Federal Air Quality 30 Standards Were Exceeded During 1985 9 Air Pollution Effects 32 10 Composite Moving Exhaust Emission Rates 33 Year 1986 11 Composite Moving Exhaust Emission Rates 34 Year 2000 12 Project Air Pollution Emissions 35 13 Carbon Monoxide Concentrations 36 �. 14 Comparisons of Project Emissions to 37 Source/Receptor Area 18 Total Emissions 15 Population, Housing, and Employment 73 Projections for Huntington Beach Housing/Employment Market Area 1 1984 to 2010 16 Existing and Projected Traffic Volumes 78 17 Operating Conditions for Levels of Service 82 18 Intersection Level of Service 83 i iii LIST OF TABLES (Continued) Page 19 Trip Generation by Zone and Land Use 87 20 Proposed Project Estimated Trip Generation 89 21 GPA Alternative, Estimated Trip generation 90 22 Traffic Volume Comparison 93 �. 23 Projected Volume/Capacity Ratios With and 94 Without Project Improvements for Existing and Year 2005 24 Proposed Intersection Mitigation Measures 98 �. 25 Proposed Midblock Mitigation Measures 99 26 Daily Water Consumption 111 27 Projected Average Sewer Flow 115 28 Project Peak Sewer Flow 115 29 Projected Annual Electrical Energy Usage 117 30 Projected Monthly Natural Gas Usage 119 31 Solid Waste Generation 122 32 Related Projects 139 33 Cumulative Traffic Impacts 143 34 Cumulative Consumption/Generation Rates 144 35 Cumulative Air Quality Impacts 144 1 1 iv 1 I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Project The proposed Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Location and Project in the City of Huntington Beach is Characteristics located along Beach Boulevard from Edinger Avenue south to Atlanta Avenue. The project area is approximately 512 acres and contains parcels along both sides of Beach Boulevard. The five-mile project area consists mainly of commercial retail and auto dealerships , with interspersed office uses . A small portion of the project area is mixed development, and approximately 175 residential units are within the project boundaries . Thirty acres within the project are designated as recreation/open space and approximately 32 acres are presently vacant. The proposed project, through the 35-year time frame of the redevelopment plan and various land use alternatives, could ultimately include between 4 .07 and 4 .60 million square feet of commercial retail, auto dealership, mixed development, and office space along with approximately 479 to 871 residential units incorporated in planned developments . Environmental A determination was made by City staff that Impacts an EIR should be prepared for this project pursuant to Section 15065 of the State 1 "Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act. " The site of the proposed project is located along a major commercial corridor in the City of Huntington Beach. The proposed project includes recycling and intensification of existing uses through land acquisition and consolidation, and the construction of improvements to encourage such development. Significant Impacts This EIR identifies three potentially significant adverse environmental impacts from the implementation of the proposed redevelop- ment plan. These three impact areas are: ° Land Use; ° Air Quality; and ° Transportation/Circulation. vi i Land Use. The proposed project would result in more intensive use of the site than the no project case. This increased development may not, at some locations, be compatible with adjoining residential use and may generate conflicts at the residential/commercial interface. However, the project is consistent with the current General Plan, except in four areas where General Plan Amendments have been requested, and is expected to result in more efficient use of available land and to result in the elimination of unattractive, dilapidated, and poorly maintained structures and land uses which prevent further improvement of the area. The City's zoning ordinance contains development standards for the development of individual parcels for commercial and office uses. Any plans for development would require approval through Planning Commission, the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach, the Board of Zoning Adjustment, Design Review Committee, and/or other appropriate boards or commissions. These development ' standards are intended to reduce potential impacts on surrounding areas. Air Quality. The proposed project would have direct and significant impacts on the air quality of the area, according to the suggested standards of the South Coast Air 1 Quality Management District. The impact on air quality may be partially mitigated by instituting a Transportation System Management Program and by reducing consumption of natural gas and electricity. Transportation/Circulation. Projected traffic would result in significant adverse impacts on Beach Boulevard and major east west arterials. Some intersections within the project area are currently operating at unacceptable levels during the peak hours and increased development would contribute to this situation. Measures to reduce this impact include intersection widening, restriping, signal modification/coordination, parking restrictions, and Transportation System Management plans included in the Air Quality Management Plan. These measures would assist in reducing impacts on Beach Boulevard and arterials, but are not expected to provide full mitigation. 1 vii 1 Adverse, But Not Significant Impacts Earth. Being located in Southern California, the project exposes itself to the potential for groundshaking. Soils in the area have been identified by Soil Conservation Service reports as having moderate to severe limitations for development. A portion of the project area lies within an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone. Standard building code provisions and approved engineering con- siderations provide a satisfactory degree of protection from groundshaking and soil defi- ciencies and reduce this impact to an insigni- ficant level. Surface and Groundwater . The project would result in coverage of the project area with impervious surfaces which would increase the amount and speed of runoff during storms . Portions of the project area currently have drainage deficiencies . Mitigation measures include requiring private developments to provide adequate drainage, installation of storm drains , and the current construction of the Bartlett Retarding Basin in the Huntington Beach channel by the County Flood Control District to provide a higher level of ' protection. These measures would reduce this impact to a level of insignificance. Noise. Project generated traffic would result ' in minor increases in ambient noise levels in this area. Sound insulation for all new multi-family construction in noise impact areas is required by the Huntington Beach building code and State law. Mitigation measures should reduce noise impacts in new residential construction to an insignificant level . During construction periods, construction- related noise may reach significant levels . Restricting equipment use to daytime hours would make this impact insignificant. ' Light and Glare. The project is located in a developed urban area. Lighting in the area includes street lights , interior, exterior, 1 parking and security lighting. Increased lighting, both in terms of amount and intensity, would result from implementation of viii 1 1 the proposed project. The City' s design review of all private projects includes review of lighting plans to minimize illumination of adjacent areas and direct viewing of light sources. This would reduce potential adverse lighting impacts to an insignificant level. Water. Water is supplied to the project area from City-owned wells and MWD supplies. New development would result in increased consumption and demand on the City water system. This development, in conjunction with other development in other areas of the City, may require the City to drill additional wells. Replacement of substandard lines within the project area and encouraging water conservation measures would reduce this impact. Sewer. Sewage generated in the project area is collected by the Orange County Sanitation District. Proposed development would put additional demand on County treatment facilities. The installation of additional sewer lines and measures that reduce the volume and load strength of effluent would reduce this impact. Storm Drainage. Portions of the project area 1 are located within the Federal Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) designated 100 year flood zone. Increased development is expected to generate additional runoff and expose structures to potential flooding. The installation of storm drains, requiring private developments to pro- vide adequate site drainage or retention, and current County improvements to storm channels are expected to reduce this impact. Schools. Additional housing, employment generation, and Redevelopment Agency requirements to use 20% of tax increment funds on additional housing or improving existing housing may put increased demand on existing school services. Additional housing, through redevelopment funds, may also include senior housing which would not create an impact on 1 schools. One current operating school site may be recycled to alternative uses as a result of the proposed project. In this case, the District ix 1 would provide transportation of these students to other schools within the district. In addi- tion, a closed school site is located within one-quarter mile of the project which could be reopened if a demand exists . School enrollment has continually declined over' the years, and the .potential new students generated from the project are not considered significant. Risk of Upset. The .project itself does not represent an unusual or unique risk of explosion or release of hazardous substances beyond that risk typical of other similar commercial , office, or residential developments . Regulations by other agencies regulating the storage and use of hazardous substances would provide an adequate level of safety. iPopulation. The proposed project has the potential to provide an additional 3000 to 4040 jobs . The population increments expected to be generated from this project are a small percentage of regional growth and the impact would not be significant. Housing. The proposed project would have a direct impact on housing in the project area. Approximately 175 residential units, most of which represent non-conforming uses, exist within the project area. It is anticipated that through the lifetime of the redevelopment 1 plan, these units would be recycled to alternative uses . The proposed project is also expected to include development of ' approximately 47.8 to 781 units contained in planned developments . The projected housing needs could be accommodated within the project and the existing vacant homes within the City and this impact is not considered significant. Parks and Recreation. Project development may result in the removal of a local Little League baseball field. Additional park development by the Redevelopment Agency would reduce this impact to an insignificant level. Cultural Resources . Potentially significant archaeological sites have been identified in the project area and development in or near undisturbed sites may cause a potential l x 1 rc-b-0) Executive Summary i i timpact. Development should avoid damage to these archaeological sites wherever feasible. Measures included in Appendix K of the CEQA Guidelines shall be incorporated where avoidance is not feasible . This would reduce the impacts on cultural resources . ' Impacts Considered, But Not Found To Be Significant This EIR determined that the proposed project would not have a significant impact on plant and animal life, natural resources, energy, police and fire protection, libraries, solid waste disposal, natural gas, electrical power, telephone, human health, aesthetics , and ' historic resources . Beneficial Impacts Portions of the project area currently exhibit signs of blight and blighting influences including deterioration and dilapidation of ' structures, and poorly maintained lots . This condition creates an undesirable environment for continued growth and development in the i area. The project area also contains irregular or substandard lot sizes that further hamper development. Implementation of the proposed redevelopment plan would allow the Redevelop- ment Agency to provide improvements, con- solidate parcels , and incorporate thematic signage and landscaping that would create a i more suitable environment to encourage private development. Alternatives This Environmental Impact Report considered To The five alternatives to the proposed project: Proposed Project ° No Project - Some new development may occur in the project area but without the assistance of the Redevelopment Agency. No redevelopment plan would be adopted; public improvements included in the plan are not expected to be undertaken by the City for some time. ° Development based on the current General Plan - The redevelopment plan would be adopted and development would be based on current General Plan potential . xi ° Development Based on the General Plan with Approved General Plan Amendments - The redevelopment plan would be implemented with the approval of the four Redevelopment Agency General Plan Amendments (GPAs) . Development would be 1 based on amended General Plan potential . ° Reduction of the Project Area - Proposes the reduction of the project area by eliminating potential parcels from the redevelopment plan. The linear ' configuration and the linkage with the other redevelopment areas within the City would be maintained. ° Reduced Intensity of Project Area - Proposes elimination or reduction of development intensity within portions of the project area. The "No Project" alternative would reduce or avoid environmental impacts associated with the proposed project. However, benefits to the City of Huntington Beach in terms of increased tax revenue, increased employment, and secondary impacts would not be realized. In addition, abandoned and obsolete commercial , office and residential facilities would be expected to continue to exist in the project area, continuing an undesirable environment for the development of new businesses and delaying the improvement of the area. Development at current General Plan and General Plan with GPAs potential would result in increased development and impacts compared to the proposed project. This would include increases in traffic, air quality, water, sewer, natural gas , and public services. Residential development at current General Plan potential could allow more units than the proposed project, while the General Plan with GPAs alternative would allow fewer units . Reduction of the project area would result in fewer impacts compared to the proposed project, but is expected to have increased impacts over the no project case. It is xi.i r anticipated that parcels outside the project area may develop at a slower rate due to a lack of improvements, financing, or .restricted lot size or configuration. The reduced intensity alternative is considered the environmentally superior alternative. This alternative would allow the entire proposed project area to benefit from ' the proposed improvements but would have fewer impacts associated with increased development compared to the proposed project. However, since the proposed project proposes total ' development that is less than the current General Plan, further reduction would prevent the land from reaching its full development potential . Reduced development would also lower employment and revenue generating potential . xiii TABLE A ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT SUMMARY ------ --- ------ ---------------------- -------- ---- ------- - Impact — Environmental_Setting Potential Environmental_Impact-...... Mitigation Measures 1. Environmental Impacts Found—To Be Significant Air Project is located in an area that does Some increases in local pollutant emissions Regional mitigation measures through not meet National Ambient Air Quality and concentrations. Minor increases in Air Duality Management Plan. Local standards. regional pollutant levels. mitigation measures through required TSM actions by private users and "Super Streets" improvements by the Redevelopment Agency. Land Use Project area encompasses approximately Significant increase in intensity of develop- Project review by the City and City 512 acres consisting of commercial ser- ment and commitment of land to urban uses. development code would reduce impacts vice and retail, office and 180 residen- on adjacent uses. C t i a l units. Traffic/ Project located along designated State Project would contribute to increased traffic Measures identified in "Super Streets" Circulation Highway with an average daily volume and congestion in the area. program available for project funding ranging from 13,200 to 80,900 vehicles. including intersection widening, re- striping, parking restrictions, and signal modification would reduce ----- — --- — ---------------- _.Impacts. Il. Environmental Impacts That_Can_Be Avoided_Or Mitigated Earth No unique geological or seismic problems Exposure of people and property to earthquake Building code and approved engineering in area. Exposed to potential ground- hazards. practices provide adequate level of shaking. Soils have moderate to severe safety. Limitations for building site develop- ment. ■r r r r r r rr r r r rr rr r r rr r rr r r TABLE A ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT SUMMARY (continued) ImeactA 1 Environmental Setting Potential_Environmental lmeact _ Mitigation_Measures !I. Environmental Impacts That Can Be_Avoided_Or Mitigated (continued) Surface and Area has drainage deficiencies. Up to approximately 95% of project area would Adequate site drainage will be require Ground Water be covered by impervious surfaces. Increased by developers. Project may include the runoff to deficient channels installation of storm drains by Redevelopment Agency if revenues are sufficient. County is presently improving flood control channel to higher level of protection. Noise Area generates traffic noise. Residen- Increased traffic noise in adjacent areas. Sound insulation required in new multi- 'tial areas located in and around project Construction noise short-term. family construction. area are noise sensitive land uses. Light and Project area now has some building, Parking lot, building, street and security Project review will include review of Glare street, parking and security lighting. lighting would be added by new development. lighting plan to minimize glare and offsite illumination. Water Water supplied to project area from New development would result in increased con- Project plans include replacement of City wells and MWD supplies. sumption and demand on City water system. substandard lines within the project Drilling additional wells as a result of area to the extent redevelopment funds increased development throughout the City are available. Additional measures may be necessary. are identified to encourage water conservation. Sewer Sewage generated in the project area is Increased development would put additional Project plans include the installation collected by the Orange County Sanita- demand on County treatment facilities. of additional sewer lines to the extent tion Districts No. 3 and No. 11. redevelopment funds are available. Measures that reduce the total volume and load strength of effluent will �r rr �r �r r r r r r r r rr rr rr r rr rr. rr rr TABLE A ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT SUMMARY (continued) Impact I Environmental Setting -----Potential_Environmental Impact — Mitigation Measures 11. Environmental Impacts That_Can_Be Avoided Or Mitigated (continued) Storm Portions of the project are located Project would result in increased coverage of Project plans include the installation Drainage within the designated 100 year flood area with impervious surfaces. Increased rate storm drains to the extent redevelop- zone. Drainage deficient in some areas. amount of runoff expected. ment funds are available. Permits will be required .for hook-up to Countesystem. _ Schools Two school sites within project area. Increased population and housing in the area Elementary school presently closed has Additional sites within close proximity. may increase student generation. The potential to be re-opened if demand potential closure of the Crest View School exists. District transportation x would displace about 540 students. programs could be expanded. C — - w Risk of Project area does not have hazardous No unique or unusual risks posed by the Regulations of City and other agencies Upset use now. Surrounding uses do not pose project. regarding storage and use of hazardous unusual risk. materials would result in acceptable Level of risk. Population Project area could currently provide Between 3,000 and 4,150 additional jobs could Sufficient housing available to meet an estimated 5,_160 lobs. _— --be-provided in the_proiect_area. demand. _— Housing 180 residential units exist in project Development in the project area is expected to 20% of redevelopment tax increment area, most of which represent non- result in the recycling of the existing homes. income required to be spent to benefit conforming use with the current General The proposed project could result in 479 to low- and moderate-income housing. Plan. _---___--_— _781 new homes. —___--__--- _— Parks and Ten neighborhood parks located in or Project development may result in the Collection of cash in lieu of fees for Recreation around project area. removal of some recreation area. additional park development paid by the Redevelopment Agency would reduce this ------- ---------------------—----- --------------- — TABLE A ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT SUMMARY (continued) — -- --- -------------- -- -- ------------ Impact�- Environmental Setting ----- _ Potential_Environmental Impact _--_---Mitigation Measures II. Environmental Impacts That Can Be_Avoided_Or Mitigated_(continuedj Cultural Potentially significant archaeological Development in or near undisturbed sites may Development should avoid damage to Resources sites identified within project cause a potential impact. archaeological resource wherever boundaries. feasible. If avoidance is not feasible site shall be evaluated and measures included in Appendix K of the CEOA — ---------- _ Guidelines incorporated_in project. III. Impacts Considered. But Not-Found To Be. Significant X Plant and Animal Life, Natural Resources, Energy, Police Protection, Fire Protection, Libraries, Solid Waste Disposal, C Natural Gas, Electrical Power, Telephone, Human Health Aesthetics.-and-Historic Resources. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Introduction INTRODUCTION Legal This Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was Requirements prepared in accordance with the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) published by the Resources Agency of the State of California (California Administrative Code Sections .15000 et . seq. ) . This report was prepared by professional planning consultants under contract to the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach which is the lead agency for this project, ' and following its hearing and adoption will represent the findings and conclusions of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington ' Beach. Background In order to define the scope of the investigation of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) , the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach notified, with a Notice of Preparation, all City agencies, other public ' agencies and any interested private organi- zations and individuals to identify city and public concerns regarding potential impacts of ' the proposed project. Availability The Environmental Impact Report is available for ' of Reports public inspection and copying at the City of Huntington Beach, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California 92648 . Copies are available to the public on payment of a reasonable charge for reproduction. Circulating copies are available at the Huntington Beach Public Library. ' EIR an This Environmental Impact report is intended to Information provide information to public agencies and the Document general public regarding the environmental ' impact from potential development on those sites discussed in the EIR, together with the public improvements which may be constructed. Under the provisions of the California Environmental ' Quality Act, "The purpose of an Environmental Impact Report is to identify the significant effects of a project on the environment, to ' identify alternatives to the project, and to indicate the manner in which such significant xviii effects can be mitigated or avoided. " Thus , ' the EIR is an information document for use by decisionmakers, public agencies and the general public. It is not a policy document which sets forth City or Agency policy about the desira- bility of any of the potential developments discussed. The EIR in the The EIR will be used by the City in assessing Development impacts of the proposed project. During the Process development process, alternatives and mitigation ' measures identified in the EIR may be applied to specific projects by City or Redevelopment Agency restrictions on projects . ' Comments Comments of all agencies and individuals are Requested invited regarding the information contained in the EIR. Where possible, those responding ' should endeavor to provide that additional information they feel is lacking in the EIR, or indicate where the information may be found. ' Following a period for circulation and review of the EIR between 30 and 90 days from the date of publication, all comments and responses to them will be incorporated in a Final Environmental Impact Report prior to certification of the document by the City of Huntington Beach. ' xix ' 1. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT Background The City of Huntington Beach, Beach Boulevard ' Redevelopment Project is proposed by the City of Huntington Beach to aid in improving the ' use of the project area through the elimination of blighting influences currently preventing the full and effective use of the land. Elimination of blight and blighting influences includes providing upgraded public facilities and services, road improvements, development of proper parcelization for new development, and the assistance and encourage- ment of new private commercial, office, and residential development. ' Project Figure 1 on the following page shows the -. Location location of the Beach Boulevard Redevelopment ' Project area in the Los Angeles/Orange County urbanized region. Huntington Beach is located in northwestern Orange County along the Pacific coast, surrounded by Seal Beach and ' Westminster to the north and Fountain Valley, Costa Mesa, and Newport Beach to the east and south, respectively. Figure 2 shows the project vicinity. The project area starts at Edinger Avenue, just south of the San Diego Freeway (I-405) ' and continues south with parcels included on both sides of Beach Boulevard (S.R. 39) to Atlanta Avenue. The entire project length is approximately five miles -and the project includes approximately 509 acres of land. Figure 3 shows the project area boundary. ' Proposed The proposed area evaluated in this EIR Land Uses consists of approximately 509 acres of retail commercial, auto dealerships, office, ' residential, recreation, and mixed use developments. Development within the project area would generally be consistent with. the ' General Plan and Preliminary Redevelopment Plan. Several General Plan amendments are currently being processed to incorporate proposed development at specific sites. The ' EIR considers both the existing General Plan designation and the proposed amendment for such sites. Because the Redevelopment Plan adopts General Plan land uses by reference, the Redevelopment Plan may include any or all of the proposed General Plan amendments at the ' time of its approval by the Agency and City Council. 1 p,H_EL�.,ES G.ou N 1 " 4,y ' o � `c H► -4.( 9 l a Anaheim 3 1 1A1, HI,IY 2Z- Santa Ana ngto L. w:. 'cos 1 Huntin �., Beach 1 Project ti Location II»II� San Juan ICJ 4 Capistrano North 1 scale in miles ' each Boulevard Redevelopment Project Figure 1 Regional Location 1 2 E � C • N >% C Brookhurst . +-' O LL U_�= °' ♦. cts . � U •O O c� •O 0---� Magnolia L ■ a. L. �. ..1 ■ • II �■ googol 1111811 log'all Islas googol Illegal googol �� Beach Blvd allsell■ googol ■oleo •�� Igloos �� ■�■�� ■��■ ��■ lose . ` .. mCID m Gib c � � w 3 r Goldenwest +• U ■ � m O ch o m a G00 C Sprin Idale � ,moo E CL ' a°~ • m T O CO Bolsa Chica r W o O U 0 I ' c !b L a L r 01 O O E m Z � N C t � U . T CUP c • o m 30 Edinger Avenue 7L7— r _ Heil Avenue CF•E N W Warner Avenue -A 1 t Cw-E Slater Avenue ea .H An �w. I 1 Talbert Avenue C/-E J' I� North T' 0 2000 scale In feet Ellis Ave ' Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project North Half Figure 3 Project Boundaries 4 ■ ■�� _uanrv� '_ �.i min Iow _ ■■ = �•u pia�_■ �oE '=�=se� � i c- • - • 1 Land uses and acreages within the project area, based on the current General Plan is shown in Table 1. Approximately 307 acres of the project area are zoned commercial, 66 acres residential, 15. 6 acres office use, 30 acres recreation, 4 . 3 acres planned development, and 1.2 acres mixed development. TABLE 1: BEACH BOULEVARD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT CURRENT GENERAL PLAN LAND USE COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL OTHER Gross Roads Net Area Block # Location Acres Acres Acres Acres Acres Density_ Units Acres Use 1 Edinger-Heil 33.5 8.5 25.0 25.0 0.0 0.0 2 Heil-Warner 82.0 8.5 73.5 53.5 20.0 Low 140 0.0 3 Warner-Stater 36.0 8.5 27.5 24.2 3.3 med 40 0.0 4 Slater-Talbert 48.0 8.5 39.5 23.9 0.0 15.6 ofc 5 Talbert-Ellis 61.5 8.5 53.0 38.5 13.8 Low 97 0.0 - 0.7 high 25 6 Etlis-Garfield 50.4 8.5 41.9 40.7 0.0 1.2 mixed 7 Garfield-Yorktown 59.5 8.5 51.0 43.1 7.9 med 119 0.0 8 Yorktown-Adams 85.5 8.5 77.0 47.0 0.0 30.0 rec 9 Adams-Indianapolis 32.0 8.5 23.5 11.2 8.0 med 150* 4.3 PD 10 Indianapolis-Atlanta 20.4 8.5 11.9 0.0 11.9 med 210* 0.0 ' TOTAL 508.8 85.0 423.8 307.1 65.6 781 51.1 Source: Cotton/Beland/Associates r *Includes 25% Density Bonus. 6 ' Ultimate buildout potential based on the current General Plan with the pending General Plan Amendments is shown in Table 2 . ( It should be noted that the auto dealership category is not indicated in the General Plan; however, fifteen individual dealerships exist in the project area, all of which have significantly less site coverage than a typical commercial development. This use 1 comprises ten percent of all non-residential uses and was separated in order to prevent overestimation of building space. ) The entire project area could accommodate an ultimate build-out development of 4 .60 million square feet and 479 residential units under the General Plan. TABLE 2 MAXIMUM DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL (Based on current General Plan with General Plan Amendments) 1' Development Site Area Potential Non-Residential Coverage Acres ( 000s s .ft . ) Commerciall 30% 30.0 .7 3 , 969 Auto Dealership 18% 42 .5 333 Office 40% 15 .6 272 Mixed 30% 1 .2 16 Recreation 1% 30 .0 7 NON-RESIDENTIAL TOTAL 390 .0 4 ,596 Density Area Development Residential (DU/Acre) Acres Potential Low 7 9 .0 63 units Medium 15 19 .8 339 units2 High 35 0 .7 25 units Planned Development 12 4 .3 52 units RESIDENTIAL TOTAL 33 .8 479 units Source: Cotton/Beland/Associates 1 Assumes additional office space would be allowed in this category 2 Includes a 25% density bonus for site at Atlanta and Beach. ' 7 Proposed Existing Uses. Existing uses in the project Development area include a mix of older. and more recent commercial , office, and residential uses . ' Some of the older buildings and structures exhibit signs of dilapidation and/or deterioration. Total square footage for existing uses was estimated from aerial photos and a windshield survey of the project area. Current uses include 1060 businesses in the ' project area totaling approximately 1. 72 million square feet of commercial space, approximately 508 ,800 square feet of office space, 43 acres of auto dealerships, 175 residential units , and approximately 30 acres of open space. Approximately 32 acres within the project area are vacant. IProposed Use. The proposed redevelopment plan is based on a 35-year time frame and proposes increased development of commercial, office and residential uses over existing conditions . The proposed project may ultimately consist of 4 .07 million square feet to 4 .60 million square feet of total development and between 479 and 781 residential units depending on the approval of the GPAs. Development is expected to include a mix of commercial and office space with continued auto dealerships in the central portion of the project area. Two planned unit residential developments are proposed in the southern portion of the project area. Increased and improved development, through direct Agency assistance, in the project area over the lifetime of the proposed redevelopment plan would result in the acquisition and displacement of some businesses within the project area. The 175 existing residential units within the project area, almost all of which represent non-conforming uses, are anticipated to be phased out and replaced with conforming uses over the lifetime of the redevelopment plan. Some of these units may be displaced as a result of direct Agency action. Based on the ' Department of Finance, January 1 , 1986 , estimate of 2 .7 persons per household, approximately 486 people would be displaced by the removal of the existing 175 units . ' 8 Any properties acquired ro erties and businesses or house- holds holds displaced as a result of Redevelopment Agency acquisition have specific legal rights, which include but are not limited to, payment of fair market value for the property and addi- tional relocation benefits . Generally, the Redevelopment Plan proposes development at a lesser intensity than both the current General Plan and the General Plan assuming approval of the GPAs, while at a greater intensity than existing conditions . Table 3 compares these development scenarios . TABLE 3 BEACH BOULEVARD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL COMPARISONS Estimated Max. Buildout Max. Buildout Redevelopment Current General Plan Existing Plan General Plan with GPAs sq.ft. Acres / sq.ft. Acres/sq.ft. Acres / sq.ft. NON-RESIDENTIAL (0001s) (000's) (0001s) (0001s) Commerciall 1716 294 3132 268 3588 304 4029 Office 508 16 572 16 272 16 272 Auto Dealership 2 333 44 347 43 333 43 333 Mixed 16 1 16 1 16 1 16 Recreation3 0 30 7 30 7 30 7 TOTAL 2573 385 4074 358 4216 393 4396 RESIDENTIAL Units Units Units Units 180 41 567 66 781 34 479 1 This category includes additional office space not listed in columns 2, 3 and 4. 2 Not a General Plan category 3 Bartlett Park Source: Square footages based on aerial photos, surveys, site coverage and General Plan designations provided by the Huntington Beach Planning Department. The Redevelopment Agency has requested four General Plan Amendments within the project area in order to allow proposed development at these locations to conform to the General Plan. Figure 4 shows the locations of these four GPAs ' that are currently being processed. ■ 9 I _�•�.��jy �i� .nxwt.rue�iC w•. • - • • • • I�II�•Ir -- ••�■ qii�.. li/le �� i •T.ww HIM NNxx- Nix - —�a==_�_ !''_,� ■ _ .iKIYi .�� .7 ■� tlI1M11� �: iL_ illZii: •�� wa ��=rl�'w..T w.xTN ilaU.x.xxs . • . _ . Mll r.•�irwl•.•--i:xwwwlu r- Y� 1 , ®■tom � .,...... - INAWIM MPI aS � �•e�e !� L e ■ -_�■_�_ lima, +E /•�_•___ • j�c =■��2•of �— _ �r Project The project is intended to meet the following Objectives objectives: 1 . The elimination and prevention of blight and deterioration and the redevelopment of the Project Area in accord with the General Plan, specific plans , the Redevelopment Plan and local codes and ordinances. 2 . The elimination or amelioration of certain environmental deficiencies , including substandard vehicular circulation systems and other similar public improvements , facilities and utilities deficiencies adversely affecting the Project Area. 3 . The achievement of an environment reflecting a high level of concern for architectural, landscape, and urban design and land use principles appropriate for attainment of the objectives of the Redevelopment Plan. 4 . The enhancement of a major, region-serving g g thoroughfare to provide a quality design identity and smooth, safe circulation. 5 . The replanning, redesign and development of undeveloped/vacant areas which are stagnant or improperly utilized. 6 . The encouragement of investment by the private sector in the development and redevelopment of the Project Areas by eliminating impediments to such development and redevelopment. 7 . The provision for increased sales, business license, hotel occupancy and other fees, taxes and revenues to the City. S . The expansion of the community' s supply of housing, including opportunities for low- and moderate-income households . �. 9 . The establishment and implementation of performance criteria to assure high standards for site design, environmental 12 i quality, and other design elements which provide unity and integrity to the entire Project. 10 . The promotion of the creation of new local employment opportunities . 11 . The encouragement of .uniform and consistent land use patterns . 12 . The provision of a pedestrian and vehicular circulation system which is coordinated with land uses and densities and adequate to accommodate projected traffic volumes . 13 . The encouragement of the cooperation and participation of residents , business owners , public agencies and community organizations in the development and redevelopment of the area. 14 . The encouragement of the development of a commercial environment which positively relates to adjacent land uses and to upgrade and stabilize existing commercial uses . 15 . The facilitation of the undergrounding of unsightly overhead utility lines . 16 . The provision of adequate off-street parking to serve current and future uses within the Project Area. Project Changes in land use in the Project Area will Actions be brought about through a combination of public and private action. Redevelopment Agency Actions . Direct Redevelopment Agency action, including property acquisition, relocation of existing businesses and residences, site preparation, and resale for private development, may be used where necessary to convert existing blighted areas to higher and better use. Problems such as improper parcelization, inadequate site size, and value of existing r uses may prevent private revitalization of certain parts of the project area. 13 Private Action. Some of the conversion of land uses in the project area to higher and better use is expected to come about in the private marketplace in response to Redevelopment Agency action to eliminate blighting influences and to provide adequate infrastructure for development. Public A number of public improvements will be Improvements required to serve the project area should the proposed project be approved by the Agency. These improvements are directly related to the project and include street and sidewalk improvements , driveways and utility improvements , and other improvements as outlined in Table 4 . The costs of these public improvements may be borne in part by private developers, or by the Redevelopment Agency through tax increment financing or by the City through the City General Fund or from highway formula grants , federal revenue sharing or other sources . of all the potential street improvement alternatives identified in the "Super Streets" program, only those which would involve project funding are discussed in this EIR. This is not meant to suggest that additional measures are not feasible. 14 These improvements may be constructed as necessary to assist in project implementation. Implementation phasing and financing of any of these projects will depend on the nature and phasing of private development in the project area and the availability of tax increment and other funds for their construction. None of these public improvements is assured as part of implementation of the proposed project. Action and The -following responsible agencies are Responsible expected to use the information contained in Agencies this EIR with respect to their approvals of actions related to or involved in the implementation of this project. Agency Project/Action Huntington Beach Redevelopment Plan Adoption. Redevelopment Agency Approval of Disposition and (Lead Agency) Development Agreements Sale of Tax Increment Revenue Bonds Funding and approval of public improvements construction Acquisition and Sale of property Relocation of residents and businesses Other actions incidental to implementation of the above actions Approval of private development City Agencies Street, utility and other (City Council, infrastructure improvements . Planning Commission, Approval of private development plans City Departments ) including variances and conditional use permits . Approval of zone changes and General Plan amendments which may be necessary to implement development alternatives for specific sites within the project area. South Coast Air Quality Review of emission permits . Management District 15 TABLE 4 PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS BEACH BOULEVARD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT "Super Street" Improvements, Atlanta to Edinger - Signal Coordination and Modification New Signals - Access Controls - Parking Restrictions - Restriping Travel Lanes and Intersections - Intersection Widening, including New Right-Of-Way - Bus turnouts, Including Right-of-Way Storm Drain and Sanitary Sewer Improvements - South of Aldrich. Stark to Sher 2 , 200 ft. of 24" and 18" storm drain. - Beach Blvd. between Atlanta and Indianapolis, east side one-half mile 48" wide storm drain. - Beach Blvd. between Atlanta and Indianapolis (west side) 48" and 36" wide storm drain. - Sanitary sewer - Adams to Yorktown 2, 700 feet of 12" line Waterline Improvements -- 8" water main east and west side of Beach Blvd. , complete loops and replace 6" - 20" casing steel, boring and jacking for 12" water main, crossing every 1/2 mile. Locations: Heil, Warner, Slater, Talbert, Ellis-Main, Garfield, Yorktown, Indianapolis, Atlanta. 200 ' length per crossing. Utility Undergrounding - Entire length Beach Blvd. 1 Landscaping and Streetscape -- Median and frontage road landscaping, Atlanta to Edinger - Theme signage, street furniture, decorative street lights Recreation and Park Improvements & Historic Preservation - Bartlett Park Source: Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency 16 2. DESCRIPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL .SETTING The project is located in Huntington Beach, a city with a population of approximately 1 184, 300 and encompassing approximately 29 square miles along the Southern California coast in the County of Orange. The project area runs along Beach Boulevard, including parcels on both sides and public right-of-way, from Edinger Avenue south to Atlanta Avenue. The area is served by an extensive freeway and arterial street network and county bus system. The San Diego Freeway is near the northern terminus of the project boundary. The J ro 'ect area is located on a low lying project coastal plain from five feet to fifty-five feet above sea level. The historic floodplain scarp of the Santa Ana River crosses the southern portion of the project. Existing commercial, auto dealership, office and residential development in the area has resulted in a flat, level topography. Geographically, a major portion of coastal Southern California is in the South Coast Air Basin. The basin consists of the metropolitan areas of Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, and Riverside Counties. Located along the coast, Huntington Beach experiences mild temperatures influenced by onshore ocean breezes. These breezes also bring clean air and tend to push pollutants farther inland. As a result, Huntington Beach enjoys somewhat better air quality than other areas of the basin, although the entire basin is considered a "non-attainment" area. A non-attainment area is any area that exceeds any national ambient air quality standard for one or more pollutants for which there are national standards. The Orange County area depends largely on imported water for residential , industrial and architectural uses. Importing water has high energy and environmental costs which will continue as long as water is imported. 17 The Orange County urbanized region is expected to depend increasingly on external sources of electrical power from coal and nuclear generating stations. Use of these power sources results in significant risks of 1 various types (such as risks of mining and transportation accidents, radiation leaks, terrorist activity) , consumption. of large quantities of cooling water and water for coal transport, pollution of the air in areas not now exposed to such pollution, degradation of water quality, excavation of large areas for recovery of coal and coverage of additional areas by mine waste. These elements of the economic and environmental system on which development of the Orange County region depends are important in considering the impacts of, and development in, the region. The effect of a given development at nearly any site in the Orange County region has similar effects on the more remote elements of the system. The environmental setting of those environmental factors whose potentially significant project impacts are foreseen is discussed in greater detail in the Environmental Impact discussion following. 18 1 1 i i i 1 1 Environmental Impact Analysis 3. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS This section outlines the environmental . setting, environmental impacts, and mitigation measures for those environmental factors on which the proposed project may have significant effects. Impacts on the physical environment from the project include modifications in the storm drainage system as a result of increased construction and paving, increases in local and regional air pollution emissions over existing conditions, and irreversible conversion of undeveloped land to urban uses. No significant impacts on the biological environment of the project area or surrounding areas are anticipated. Impacts on the man-made environment include increases in traffic and resulting noise levels, increases in demand for sewer and water services and potential increases in population and housing demand in the project's housing/employment market area. More detailed discussion of these impacts is found in the following Sections 3 . 1 through 3 . 18 . Specific references to literature used in this .report are denoted by a letter and ' a number within parentheses. A listing of these references can be found in Section 6: Persons and Organizations Consulted of this report. 19 3. 1 Earth Environmental The project area is situated on the Huntington Betting Beach mesa alongside the western edge of the Santa Ana River Basin. A portion of the project area from Adams Avenue south to Atlanta Avenue is within the' Santa Ana River Basin. The elevation of the project area ranges from five feet to fifty-five feet. The Santa Ana River Basin forms a steep escarpment up to twenty-five feet in a north-south direction generally to the east of the project area. The escarpment has been graded where it crosses Beach Boulevard. Nine different soil types have been identified within the project area (A-1) . These soil series are included in three general soil associations, the Hueneme-Bolsa association, the Myford association, and the Alo-Bosanko association. These associations are briefly described below. Hueneme-Bolsa Association. This association is mainly on flood plains. It extends from Seal Beach southeast to the Santa Ana River and about 10 to 12 miles inland from the coast. The soils formed in deep alluvium. Soils within .this association are more than 1 sixty inches deep and poorly to somewhat poorly drained. Most of these soils . have altered drainage and a water table deeper than ' five feet. Runoff is generally slow, and erosion hazard is slight. Myford Association. This association is mainly along the coastline up to five miles inland and along lower edges of foothills. The soils formed in sandy sediments mostly on marine terraces. Myford soils are moderately well drained. The surface layer is pale brown and pinkish gray sandy loam. The subsoil is brown and light brown sandy clay and sandy clay loam. If the soil is bare, runoff is medium and erosion is moderate. Alo-Bosanko. This association covers a small portion of the project area in the vicinity of Talbert Avenue. The soils formed in material weathered from calcareous sandstone and shale. These soils are well drained with a clay surface layer, and weathered shale or sandstone or both are found at 22 to 40 inches. If the soil is bare, runoff is medium and erosion is moderate. 20 The Soil Conservation Service, Soil Survey of Orange County and Western Part of Riverside California, 1974, indicates that most of the soils within the project area have moderate to severe limitations for building site develop- ment. Reasons for this include wetness, flooding, low strength and shrink-swell potential. Faults within the- City of Huntington Beach determined to be geologically active and expected to be associated with ground rupture at .some time in the future are the North Branch, Bolsa-Fairview, and South Branch Faults; all of these are within the Newport- Inglewood Structural Zone as shown in Figure 5. Surface rupture has apparently not occurred within the past 9, 000 years on these faults in the Huntington Beach Area (A-2) . This presumed fact indicates that the probability is relatively low that surface rupture will occur within the next 100 years, even though one or more moderate-sized earthquakes may occur (A-2) . A portion of the project area is included in an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone. This zone was recently identified in the July, 1986 California Division of Mines and Geology Special Study Zone Map. The zone is approxi- mately one-quarte mile wide and crosses the project area at Adams Avenue. Figure 6 shows the location of the Special Study Zone. The tsunami (seismic sea wave) hazard is considered to be very low for the higher elevations within the Huntington Beach Mesa and for other areas within the City limits located more than one mile from the coast. Environmental The project would result in minor grading of Impact building sites and excavations for utilities and intersection improvements. The project area soils have been identified as not being particularly well suited for grading and development, although current approved engineering practices can overcome this deficiency. Liquefaction potential, erosion hazard, and landslides are considered slight and do not represent significant geotechnical constraints on-site. 21 G) 0 a m m m - Bolsa 0° � a �• o •cn Edinger. � • n a : • Warner �. :. eo�s Project Location Tfalbart Obi ' ,' ►:.: .�,c .o ♦♦ OG �N AVE O ♦G� „9,9 # `s�9/, Adams s'ti� y'9 O/gNq�O �N6'r y M. / '4:: • Hamilton • Buried Fault Trace Highest Seismic Risk (Greatest Surface Rupture Potential) • North 1 _2 1 scale i's C0'5b) SOURCE:. Huntington Beach Planning Department. 'Geotechnical Inputs'. 1973 Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project Figure 5 Fault Zones 22 0 • o a m m m s ' Bolsa •�, CD a Edinger� • d 7 • m Warner . r' Project •� - Location O n : " I Coun o Talbert I Garfield T-i c+ • Adams C0� - a a� m ® m o o • Hamilton SOURCE: • SOURCE: California Division of Mines and Geology lth North 0 112 1 1 scale In miles Figure .6 Earthquake Hazard Special Study Zone 23 i I The proposed project would result in exposure of additional people to ground shaking from an earthquake due to increased employment and residential development in the project area. The potential ground shaking is similar throughout the region and no unique or unusual risk is posed by the proposed project. Mitigation Standard building code provisions and Measures accepted, approved engineering practices would correct the soil deficiencies to an insigni- cant level. Building code provisions would also provide a satisfactory degree of protection from ground shaking. These mitigation measures are included in the proposed project and reduce this impact to an insignificant level. i 1 i 1 i 1 1 1 1 i 1 24 3.2 Air Environmental Huntington Beach is located along the Pacific Setting Coast and within the South Coast Air Basin. Generally, air pollution in the basin is a regional problem. Pollution levels in Huntington Beach are a result not only of local emissions, but also those in other parts of Orange and Los Angeles Counties. Coastal cities generally experience ocean-cooled onshore breezes during the daytime hours and reverse flowing offshore breezes during the nighttime. This cold mass of ocean air often becomes trapped under a blanket of warmer land ' air creating an inversion layer and allowing pollutants to accumulate within this layer. Air quality is generally better near the coast as the clean ocean breezes push pollutants farther inland, however, the entire South Coast basin is considered a "non-attainment" area. A "non-attainment" area is any area that exceeds national ambient air quality standards for those pollutants for which national standards have been set. Tables 5 through 8 summarize air quality for selected pollutants at the nearest monitoring station in Costa Mesa and surrounding areas. Concentrations reflect a slow decline over the past 15 years as motor vehicle pollution controls become more stringent and apply to larger portions of the vehicle fleet. The main source of air pollutant emissions in the project area is generated by mobile sources. Stationary sources within Huntington ' Beach that produce significant pollutants include oil refinery and recovery operations, and electrical power generation facilities. . No large scale facilities exist in the project area. Because of low average wind speeds in the summer and a persistent daytime temperature inversion, emissions of hydrocarbons and oxides of nitrogen have an opportunity to combine with sunlight in a complex series of reactions producing photochemical oxidant 25 r (smog) . The National Ambient Air Quality Standard for ozone is expected to be the most difficult of the standards to achieve in the region. Pollutants emitted in the Huntington Beach area contribute to the regional oxidant problem. The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) and the South Coast Air Quality Management District have prepared an Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) which has been forwarded through the State of California as part of the State Implementation Plan for compliance with the Clean Air Act. ' The AQMP does not project compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards by 1987 for all pollutants under the development projections of the SCAG-82 Growth Forecast Policy. Achievement of emission reductions forecast by the AQMP will require institution ' of a large number of control measures included in the Air Quality Management Plan, including: ° Additional restrictions on vehicle emissions. ' . Annual inspection and maintenance program for light and medium duty vehicles. ' . Transportation control measures including encouragement of high occupancy vehicles, physical improvements to roadways and transit system improvements. ° Additional stationary source controls. r Environmental Project Emissions. The proposed project would Impact result in increased levels of primary pollutant emissions and concentrations than the no project case. In general, any development in the South Coast Air Basin would result in higher levels of air pollution than would be the case without such development. 1 r 26 1 TABLE 5 RDMER OF DAYS STATE AIR QUALM STANDARDS WERE EXCEEDED AVID ANNUAL HAXD= DOURLY AVERAGE DURING 1984 Monitoring Station 0zone5 1 Carbon Monoxide2 Sulfur Dioxide Nitrogen Dioxide4 Location Days Max. Days Max. Days Max. Days Max. Long Beach 32 0.27 4 14 0 0.32 5 0.35 ' Los Alamitos 32 0.19 NM NM 0 0.06 NM NM Costa Mesa 29 0.25 1 13 0 0.04 0 0.22 Anaheim 65 0.25 4 18 0 0.08 0 0.24 E1 Toro 61 0.30 0 8 NM NM NM NM 1 Maximum concentration in all categories in parts per million, 1-hour average 2 Days carbon monoxide exceeded 9.1 PPM, 8-hour average 3 Days sulfur dioxide exceeded 0.05 PPM, 24 hour period 4 Days nitrogen dioxide exceeded .25 PPM, 1-hour average 5 Days ozone exceeded .10 PPM, 1-hour average NM Pollutant not monitored Source: South Coast Air Quality Management District, Air Quality Data, 1984 27 r r TABLE 6 N[UER OF DAYS FEDERAL AIR QUAUTTY STANDARDS WERE EXCEED® DURIIaG 1984 1 Monitoring Ozone Carbon Monoxide Sulfur Dioxide Location Long Beach 13 3 0 Los Alamitos 12 NM 0 Costa Mesa 29 1 0 Anaheim 37 4 0 El Toro 26 0 0 1 Days ozone exceeded 0.12 parts per million, 1-hour average 2 Days carbon monoxide exceeded 9.3 parts per million, 3 8-hour average ' Days sulfur dioxide exceeded 0.14 parts per million, 24-hour average - NM Pollutant not measured ' Source: South Coast Air Quality Management District, Air Quality Data, 1984 i 1 1 1 1 ' 28 TABLE 7 NUMBER OF DAYS SPATE AIR QLA LTTY SnUMARDS WERE EXCEEDED AMID ANNUAL NAXEMUK HOURLY AVERAGE DURING 1985 Monitoring Station Ozone Carbon Monoxide2 Sulfur Dioxide3 Nitrogen Dioxide4 Location Days Max. Days Max. Days Max. Days Max. Lang Beach 29 0.23 6 19 0 0.08 4 0.35 rLos Alamitos 30 0.19 NM NM 0 0.02 NM NM OOsta Mesa 33 0.21 5 19 0 0.05 0 0.24 Anaheim 70 0.25 4 19 0 0.03 2 0.28 ' El Toro 61 0.28 0 10 NM NM NM NM 1 Maximum concentration in all categories in parts per million, 1-hour average 2 Days carbon monoxide exceeded 9.1 PPM, 8-hour average ' 3 Days sulfur dioxide exceeded 0.05 PPM, 24-hour period _ 4 Days nitrogen dioxide exceeded .25 PPM, 1-hour average 5 Days ozone exceeded .10 PPM, 1-hour average ' NM Pollutant not measured Source: South Coast Air Quality Management District, Air Quality Data, 1985 1 1 1 29 1 TABLE 8 ' NUMBER OF DAYS FEDERAL AIR QUALITY STANDARDS WERE EXCEEDED DURING 1985 u . Monitoring Ozone 1 Carbon Monoxide 2 Sulfur Dioxide3 Location Long Beach 11 6 0 Los Alamitos 11 NM 0 Costa Mesa 17 4 0 1 Anaheim 35 3 0 E1 Toro 30 0 0 1 Days ozone exceeded 0. 12 parts per million, 1-hour average ' 2 Days carbon monoxide exceeded 9. 3 parts per million, 3 8-hour average Days sulfur dioxide exceeded 0. 14 parts per million, 1 24-hour average NM Pollutant not measured Source: South Coast Air Quality Management District, Air Quality Data, 1985 1 i 1 1 1 1 30 1 Table 13 summarizes project air pollution emission levels and contributions to local and regional air pollution levels. Project air pollution emissions come from three principal sources: on-site combustion of natural gas for space heating, water heating and cooking; local and regional emissions from vehicles traveling to and from the project site; and ' combustion of fuels at power plants to produce electrical power used on the project site. Carbon Monoxide Concentrations. Table 14 shows estimated carbon monoxide concentrations from motor vehicle traffic along the project corridor. Continued development of more ' efficient internal combustion engines and street improvements to improve traffic flow and decrease idling time would result in incremental decreases in carbon monoxide concentrations, in spite of increased volume, compared to existing conditions. However, these levels are still above State standards ' and the impact is considered significant. Construction Emissions. Construction emissions include emissions from motor vehicles used during construction, and emissions of dust and particulates resulting from project ' construction. Because the project would be developed over many years, grading at any given time is not expected to be sufficient to result in unusually high emissions of dust, ' and this effect is not considered significant. On a regional scale, the proposed project in conjunction with other redevelopment projects in the area would result in increased primary pollutant emissions and concentrations. .31 TABLE 9 AIR POLLUTION SOURCES AND EFFECTS ------------ Pollutant Type __—Description Effects _Sources_______ ' Carbon Colorless, odorless, toxic Passes through lungs into Gasoline-powered Monoxide (CO) gas produced by incomplete bloodstream. Deprives sensi- motor vehicles combustion of carbon- tive tissue of oxygen. Not containing substances. known to have adverse effects ' — — on vegetation, visibility or ------- material objects. Oxides of Two types, Nitric Oxide Irritating to eyes and Motor vehicles Nitrogen (NO), and Nitrogen Dioxide respiratory tract. Colors primary source. (NOx) (NO2). NO is a colorless, atmosphere reddish-brown. Other sources: odorless gas formed when petroleum combustion takes place refining opera- under high pressure and/or tions, industrial temperature. NO2 forms by sources, ships, combustion of NO and railroads, air- oxygen. Participants in craft. photochemical smog reac- tions. lions.----- Sulfur Dioxide Colorless, pungent gas Irritates upper respiratory Fuel combustion ' (S02) formed by combustion of tract; injurious to lung primary source. sulfur-containing fossil tissue. Can yellow the Other sources: fuels. leaves of plants, destructive chemical plants, . to marble, iron and steel. sulfur recovery Limits visibility and reduces plants, and sunlight. metal process- ing. ' Photochemical Consists primarily of ozone. Common effects are damage to Motor vehicles Oxidant (Ox) Created in atmosphere, not vegetation and cracking of major source of emitted directly, during untreated rubber. High emission of NOx photochemical process, concentrations can directly and reactive Ozone is a pungent, color- affect Lungs, causing irri- hydrocarbons. ' ----_---- Less toxic gas. t a l i on. --- -----�-- Particulates Made up of finely-.divided May irritate eyes and Dust and solids or liquids such respiratory tract. Absorbs fume-producing as soot, dust, aerosols, sunlight, reducing amount of industrial and fumes, and mists. solar energy reaching the agricultural earth. Produces haze and operations, limits visibility. Can construction, ' damage materials. combustion products including exhaust, atmospheric photo- chemical reactions. Natural activities such as wind- raised dust and ocean spray. -- — ------- — ---- ------------- ----------------- ' Hydrocarbons Includes the many compounds Not known to cause adverse Motor vehicles and Other consisting of hydrogen and effects in humans. May major source. Organic carbon, found especially in damage plants. Other sources: Gases fossil fuels. Some highly petroleum refin- ' photochemicalLy reactive, ing, petroleum marketing opera- tions, and evapor- ation of organic _ solvents. -- ---- — -------- ------------------ Source: South Coast Air Quality Management District, "Air Quality Handbook for Environmental Impact Reports", Revised Dec., 1983. ' 32 Table 10 CALIFORNIA COMPOSITE MOVING EXHAUST EMISSION RATES CALENDAR YEAR 1986 Emissions in Grams per Mile % -of ------------------------------------------------ Speed Miles CO THC NMHC NOx Sox Part IDLE 1% 2.62 0.24 0 .21 0.07 - - 5 1% 71 . 13 6.42 5 .55 2.34 0.24 0.34 10 2% 38.74 3 .53 3 .06 2.04 0.24 0.34 ' 1.5 3% 27 .69 2.51 2. 17 1 .93 0.24 0.34 20 3% 22.22 2 .00 1 .73 1 .94 0.24 0.34 25' 8% 18.52 1 .66 1 .44 2:00 0. 24 0.34 ' 30 20% 15 .65 1 .40 1 .21 2.08 0.24 0.34 35 25% 13 .51 1 .20 1 .04 2. 16 0. 24 0.34 40 22% 12 .15 1 .07 0.92 '2.25 0.24 0.34 45 15% 11 .53 1 .00 0.86 2.37 0. 24 0:34 50 0% 11 .33 0.96 0. 83 2.56 0.24 0.34 55 0% 10. 84 0.90 0.78 2.89 0.24 0:34 60 0% 9 .00 0.76 0.66 3 .46 0 .24 0.34 eighted 1 .00 15 .40 1 .37 1 . 18 2.15 0 .24 0.34 verage rankcase Blowby: 0.003 0.003 Diurnal .Emissions : (Grams/day) 4.44 4.44 (Grams/mile) 0. 18 0. 18 of Soak: (Grams/soak) 2. 01 2.01 (Grams/mile) 0.30 0.30 ROTAL 15 .40 1 .85 1 .67 2. 15 0. 24 0.34 Assumptions : Ambient temperature 75 degrees fahrenheit . 1peration percentage: Vehicle mix percentage of total: Cold Start : 21% Light duty auto: 77 .4% Hot Start: 27% Light duty truck: 10.6% Hot Stabilized: 52% Medium duty truck: 5 .5% Heavy duty gas truck: 2:0% Heavy duty diesel truck: 3 .8% ' Motorcycle: 0.9% �ource: South Coast Air Quality Management District. "Air Quality Handbook for Environmental Impact Reports" . December 1983 Based on California Air Resources Board EMFAC6D Rates ' 33 Table 11 CALIFORNIA COMPOSITE MOVING EXHAUST EMISSION RATES CALENDAR YEAR 2000 Emissions in Grams per Mile ' % of ------------------------------------------------ Speed Miles CO THC NMHC NOx Sox Part IDLE 1% 1 .89 0.17 0. 15 0.04 - - ' S 1% 45 .66 4.83 4.14 1 .63 0. 24 0.32 10 2% 24.78 2.66 2.29 1 .39 0.24 0.32 15 3% 17 .91 1 .89 1 .63 1 .31 0.24 0.32 ' 20 3% 14.54 1 .51 1 .30 1 .31 0.24 0.32 25 8% 12. 20 1 . 25 1 .07 1 .35 0. 24 0.32 30 20% 10.31 1 .04 0.90 1 .41 0.24 0.32 35 25% 8.89 0.89 0.77 1 :48 0. 24 0.32 40 22% 7 .99 0.79 0.68 1 .55 0.24 0.32 45 15% 7 .58 0.73 0.63 1 :64 0.24 0.32 50 0% 7 .46 0.70 0.60 1 .79 0.24 0 .32 ' 55 0% 7 .04 0.66 0.57 2.05 0. 24 0.32 60 0% 5 .60 0.55 0.47 2.49 0.24 0.32 --------------------------------------------------------- Weighted 1 .00 10. 10 1 .02 0.88 1 .47 0 .24 0.32 Average Crankcase Blowby: 0.000 0.000 ' Diurnal Emissions : (Grams/day) 1 . 17 1 . 17 (Grams/mile) 0.05 0.05 Hot Soak. (Grams/soak) 0.67 0.67 ' (Grams/mile) 0 . 10 0.10 TOTAL 10. 10 1 . 17 1 .03 1 .47 0. 24 0.32 Assumptions: Ambient temperature 75 degrees fahrenheit . Operation percentage: Vehicle mix percentage of total: ' Cold Start : 21% Light duty auto: 77 .4% Hot Start: 27% Light duty truck: 10.6% Hot Stabilized: 527. Medium duty truck: 5 .57 ' Heavy duty gas truck: 2.0% Heavy duty diesel truck: 3 .8% Motorcycle: 0.9% ' Source: South Coast Air Quality Management District "Air Quality Q y g Q y Handbook for Environmental Impact Reports" . December 1983 ' Based on California Air Resources Board EMFAC6D Rates ' 34 1 TABLE 12 BEACH BOULEVARD AIR POLLUTION EMISSIONS EXISTIM Emissions in pounds per day Source Usage CO HC NOx Sox Part. Gas Consumption 0.29 mcf 5.8 2.3 34.7 0.0 0.0 Electric Power 90.4 mwh 19 12 190 127 16 Mobile Source 292 thous mi 9961 886 1391 155 220 TOTAL 9986 900 1615 282 236 PROPOSED PF40JECT Emissions in pounds per day Source Usage 00 HC NOx Sox Part. Gas Consumption 0.49 mcf 9.8 3.9 59.0 0.0 0.1 ' Electric Power 137.2 mwh 29 18 288 192 25 Mobile Source 432 thous mi 9647 974 1404 229 306 ' TOTAL 9658 996 1751 421 330 GIIMAI, PLAN WITH GPAs Emissions in pounds per day Source Usage CO HC NOx Sox Part. Gas Consumption 0.56 mcf 11.1 4.5 66.9 0.0 0.1 ' Electric Power 165.8 mwh 35 22 348 232 30 Mobile Source 473 thous mi 10576 1068 1539 251 335 TOTAL 10622 1094 1954 483 365 Emissions factors based on "South Coast Air Quality Management District Air Quality Handbook for Environmental Impact Reports", revised December, 1983, adjusted by Cotton/Beland/Associates for land uses in Huntington Beach General Plan. Existing traffic figures obtained from Orange County Transportation Commission, "Super Streets Demonstration Project Final Program EIR", March, 1986. Natural gas and electrical power consumption figures obtained from Table 29 and 30 of this report. ' 35 1 TABLE 13 CARBON MONO IDE C 10NGENPRAMONS Averaging Distance From Roadway Ambient Total Concentration Time 15 Meters 75 Meters Level 15 Meters 75 Meters ' Existing 1-hour 10.0 2.4 19.0 29.0 21.4 8-hour 6.2 1.5 13.3 19.5 14.8 ' Proposed Project 1-hour 6.9 1.7 19.0 25.9 20.7 8-hour 4.3 1.0 13.3 17.6 14.3 General Plan (with pending GPA's) 1-hour 8.0 1.9 19.0 27.0 20.9 ' 8-hour 5.0 1.2 13.3 18.3 14.5 ' Ambient level CO concentrations obtained from South Coast Air Quality Management District and represent highest recorded level during 1985 for given time period. ' Traffic Volumes obtained fran City of Huntington Beach; Orange County Transportation Commission. ' State standard for one hour = 20 ppm; for 8 hrs = 9.0 ppm. Federal standard for one hour- 35 ppm; for 8 hrs = 9.0 ppm. Composite emission factors used for 1986 = 15.4 gWmi; 2000 = 10.1 gm/mi Assumptions: ' Composite emission factor: 10.1 gm/mi Stability CLass F (Very Stable) 1-hour Max Ambient CO, 1984 19.0 ppm Mixing Height 1000 Feet Reference concentrations, Distance (meters) 4000 vehicles/hour, Wind 10 gm/mi emission factor Angle 15.0 24.0 30.0 45.0 60.0 75.0 0.0 2.14 0.46 0,20 ' 10.0 3.20 2,04 1.60 0.77 0,28 0.07 20.0 2A 4 1,65 1.45 1,15 0,94 0,72 30.0 1.80 1.36 1.20 0.98 0,85 0.77 45.0 1.25 1.16 1.00 0.82 0,73 0.83 ' solo 1.12 0.92 0.82 0.70 0.80 0.54 Maximum 3,20 2,04 1.60 1.15 0,94 0.77 Reference concentrations from "Caline 3- A graphical Solution Procedure for Estimating Carbon Monoxide (CO) Concentrations Neer Roadways", Federal Highway Administration, 1980. Traffic Volumes: highest average hourly volume for averaging period. 10% of 24-hour volume ' for peak hour, 31% of 24-hour volume for peak 8 hours. ' 36 Cumulative Impact. Table 14 below compares project impacts to anticipated total emissions in the source/receptor area in which the project is located. Huntington Beach is ' located in Source/Receptor Area 18 in the South Coast Air Quality Management District emissions inventory. This area includes surrounding areas of Westminster, Seal Beach, ' Fountain Valley, Costa Mesa, and Newport Beach. The total emissions from the proposed project represent approximately 1. 6% of the ' total emissions from the source/receptor area in which the project is located. Project area emissions represent approximately 0. 05% of the ' regional total emissions. Although the project contributes only a small amount to local and regional total emissions, when considered with other projects in the region, the project contributes to non- attainment of the national ambient air quality standards in the region. TABLE 14 ' COMPARISON OF PROJECT EMISSIONS TO SOURCE/RECEPTOR AREA 18 TOTAL EMISSIONS (Tons Per Day) 1 ' CO NOx Hydrocarbons Proposed Project 3 .46 0. 73 0. 36 ' Source/Receptor Area 18 215. 51 38. 17 38-. 60 % of Area 18 1. 6% 1. 9% 0.9% ' Basin Total 6, 227.74 958 . 96 1002 .41 % of Basin Total 0. 05% 0. 08% 0. 04% ' Source: South Coast Air Quality Management District, "Air Quality Handbook for Environmental Impact Reports, Revised December 1983 . 37 Mitigation Although the project itself is. not expected to ' Measures contribute significantly to regional pollution levels, the total of projects constructed in the South Coast Air Basin in the next 10 to 20 ' years has the potential to adversely affect air quality. Measures to reduce. air pollution emissions in the region may be adopted as part of the Air Quality Management Plan. Some of ' these measures cannot be assured at this time because they depend on regional policies and other actions which are outside the jurisdiction of the City of Huntington Beach. Measures that will reduce the number and length of single occupancy vehicle trips will reduce air pollution emissions. ' The following mitigation measures are included in the proposed project: ° Improvement of existing streets and parkways where only partial improvements exist to the extent redevelopment funds are available and private development takes place in the project area. This ' mitigation measure will reduce dust emissions from unpaved and unimproved streets and sidewalks in the project area. ' Improvement of traffic flow through improvement of existing streets in the project area to higher standards. to the extent redevelopment funds are made available from the proposed project for such improvements. ' Street improvements included in the Super Streets Demonstration Project approved by Huntington Beach will be implemented in ' the project. Some of these improvements include restriping, intersection widening, bus turnouts and signal modification at ' selected intersections. ° Transportation System Management (TSM) measures to reduce tripmaking including: - Features to encourage walking and the use of bicycles which may include ' marked bicycle lanes, shorter walking distances from loading and unloading ' 38 zones to shops, outdoor eating ' facilities, covered shelters for loading and unloading. These measures will be implemented by the developer ' with design review by the City;- Transit use incentives; ' - Continued service by the Orange County Transit District although this is beyond the control of the City. The ' Transit District currently has 46 stops along Beach Boulevard within the project area. ' - Initiating employee need surveys for child care facilities; - Instigate the alteration of the normal daily truck delivery routes to avoid congestion at peak hours; - Other measures which may be possible to incorporate on a project-by-project basis. ' The Master Plan of Countywide Bikeways depicts two regional Class II (on road, striped lane) ' bikeways crossing Beach Boulevard in the project area. These bikeways are established . along .Garfield Avenue and Slater Avenue. In addition, local Class II bikeways are ' established along Yorktown, Talbert, and Heil Avenues at Beach Boulevard. Signing and striping plans with adequate provisions for ' bicycle travel through these intersections should be provided. These measures are aimed at reducing traffic congestion and air ' pollution by encouraging the use of bicycles as an alternative mode of transportation. Not all of these mitigation measures may be ' applicable because the nature of private development that will take place in the project area is not known at this time, and ' specific mitigation measures cannot be identified. However, these mitigation measures should be considered by the ' Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach and private developers. ' 39 ' 3.3 Water Environmental The City of Huntington Beach is part of the Setting Santa Ana River Basin hydrologic system. The ' Santa Ana River Basin area encompasses approximately 3,200 square miles and includes western portions of San Bernardino and Riverside Counties in addition to all of Orange County. The river flows to the east of the project area through a leveed sand- bottomed channel to the ocean between ' Huntington Beach and Newport Beach. The City of Huntington Beach has participated ' in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) since 1971. This program, among other things, aids cities in identifying areas prone to ' flooding. Drainage and flooding have always posed a problem for the community. The flood plain in Huntington Beach covers 50 percent of the City and is already 90 percent developed. ' A significant portion of the City has been identified on the 1983 Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) as being within the 100 year flood zone. A 100-year flood is that amount of flooding projected to occur in the event of the magnitude of a storm, which, based on historical records for a given area, may be expected to occur once every 100 years. In the case of Huntington Beach, the 100-year flood would result in the overflow of the Santa Ana River downstream of Prado Dam. ' The flooding predicted by the government study would result from the extremely high (essen- tially uncontrolled) water release rates from Prado Dam which would be necessary to prevent ' dam overflow in the event of the 100-year flood. The government study predicts that such rates (50, 000 cubic feet per second) ' would cause breakout from the Santa Ana River channel in Anaheim with water flowing down beside the channel and eventually ending up in Huntington Beach (A-3) . Two areas within the project boundaries have been identified on the FIRM map as being ' within the 100 year flood zones. These areas are generally from Edinger Avenue south to ' 40 ' Heil Avenue and Adams Avenue south to Atlanta Avenue. Figure 7 shows the areas within the 100 year flood zone. Generally, these areas could expect flood water depth from one to ' three feet. Public water supply and storm drainage issues ' are discussed in Section 3 . 16 Utilities. Environmental Substantial coverage of the project area with Impact impervious surfaces already exists and additional development in the project area would result in some increases in coverage. This coverage of the land with impervious ' surfaces results in increased amount and speed of runoff during storms compared to land in its natural state. A goal of the City is to 1 reintroduce vegetation and open areas through landscaping and tree plantings to reduce runoff. ' The current inadequacy of upstream impoundments and channelization will continue to have a significant impact on flooding potential on portions of the project area. The Prado Dam, originally designed for the standard project flood, is barely capable of containing 35-year floods (A-3) . However, the ' Orange County Flood Control District (OCFCD) is currently improving the Huntington Beach Channel (DO1) with the construction of the ' Bartlett retarding basin. This improvement will adequately contain projected 100 year flood levels. Completion is scheduled for early 1987. Approximately 70 percent of the project area is within an area of minimal flooding and this impact is not considered significant in these areas. ' That portion of the project area approximately 600 feet north of the Atlanta Avenue intersection has been identified as being within the designated Coastal Zone. Because no widening or grade separation is proposed for that portion of Beach Boulevard located ' within the Coastal Zone no significant impact is expected. ' Mitigation Private developments constructed in the Measures project area will be required to provide adequate site drainage to the storm drain system at the time of construction. Storm drain improvements may also be constructed by 41 G) 0 ' a m NU m m m m ■ I oIsa Co ■ a NJ 45 • . : m - ■ n r . r •' T @ - - 'P ro1ec t Location Oran e : - 1 County Talbert r o Adams �, .,. ::fir;:::i�:`� ��'':�'•` `: ::::::.�: ::> #: :........... Hamilton SOURCE. Fed eral Em ergency encY Ma nagement e n Agency,e nc Y 19 83 Areas of 100 Year Flood 1 North 19 /2 1 ' scale In miles ' Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project Figure 7 Flood Zones 42 the Redevelopment Agency. These mitigation measures will reduce project impacts to on-site drainage to an insignificant level. In terms of large scale flooding, the City's Subdivision Ordinance and adoption of the Uniform Building Code provide adequate mitigation. The Federal Flood Insurance Administration (FIA) may require additional mitigation measures to. qualify for Federal insurance programs including requirements that all structures built within the flood hazard area must have the first habitable floor elevated above the surface level of flooding and demonstrating that the cumulative impact of proposed development will not raise the depth of flooding by more than one foot at any point in the community. Additional improvements to upstream flood control facilities would provide further mitigation however, these improvements are beyond the jurisdiction of the City. 1 ' 43 3.4 Plant Life ' Environmental The project area is located in an urban area Setting that is substantially developed. The native vegetation in these areas has largely been replaced by imported species. Approximately 30 acres within the project area are designated as recreation in the General Plan. This parcel, Bartlett Park, is located on the east side of Beach Boulevard between Yorktown Avenue and Adams Avenue, behind the ' Newland Center. This area is part of the Santa Ana River basin floodplain scarp and steep slopes are present. Native trees, shrubs and grasses are abundant on this property. Some homes within the project area contain large mature trees in their yards. An ecologically sensitive wetlands area exists south of the project area on the northeast corner of Beach Boulevard and Pacific Coast Highway. This wetlands area supports a variety of marsh plant species. No known rare or endangered species are known to exist within the project area. No land is presently used for agricultural purposes within the project area. Environmental The proposed project would result in the Impact introduction of additional landscaping to the ' project area which could increase the amount of existing vegetation. The implementation of the proposed project would result in the removal of residential units within the project area. It is assumed that the removal of some mature trees would also be necessary. This is considered an adverse impact on plant life. Mitigation Requiring replacement planting with City Measures approved trees and shrubs for those trees requiring removal, and requiring landscaping plan approval prior to individual project approval would reduce this impact to an insignificant level. Thematic landscaping of the median strips along Beach Boulevard after ' street improvements would provide additional vegetation and enhance the visual quality of the roadway. ' 44 3.5 Animal Life Environmental The project is located in a developed urban Setting area. Animal species currently found within the area are those capable of living within close proximity to man. The 30-acre open space area, Bartlett Park, located behind the Newland Center provides a variety of habitat types which in turn provide. food, cover, and water for wildlife. Due to the surrounding urbanization that has occurred, this area is important for maintaining wildlife in an urban setting. The sensitive wetlands area south of the project area hosts a variety of animal life including gulls, terns, shorebirds, raptors, ' mice, rabbit, and reptiles. One State endangered bird, Beldings Savannah Sparrow, inhabits this wetlands area. No known threatened or endangered species are known to exist within the project area. Environmental The project is likely to further reduce the Impact potential habitat for animals in the project area. In addition, preliminary plans include the development of Bartlett Park behind the Newland Barn. These plans include basketball and volleyball courts, open turf for recreation and additional parking. Areas unsuitable for development would be retained as open areas. Because no threatened or endangered species are involved in the project area, this impact is not considered significant. Mitigation Any development of Bartlett Park that may ' Measures occur should maintain as much natural open area as is feasible in order to provide suitable habitat for wildlife. No additional mitigation measures are required. 45 3.6 Noise ' Environmental Noise levels in the project area are Setting determined primarily by the level of vehicular traffic on Beach Boulevard, a designated State 1 highway, and to a lesser extent by vehicular traffic along the major east-west arterials through the project area. Community noise levels are commonly expressed in decibels on a scale which averages noise levels over a 24-hour period and accounts by a ' weighting or penalty factor for the greater importance of noise intrusions at night. The two such noise measures in common use in California are the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) and day-night level (Ldn) . These two measures are numerically equivalent within 0. 5 decibel (dB) for most urban traffic noise ' situations. Figure 8 summarizes the significance of various community noise levels based on standards and guidelines of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Environmental Protection Agency and many other Federal and State agencies. Figure 9 shows examples of typical sound levels. In general, all streets with traffic exceeding 10, 000 vehicles per day have sufficient traffic to result in noise levels at the ' property line greater than 65 decibels CNEL or Ldn. Such levels are normally unacceptable for construction of residential units under U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development standards and are not eligible for FHA loans. Under California law, a special sound insulation study and additional sound insulation are required when multiple family residences are constructed that will be exposed to noise levels exceeding 65 dB CNEL. 1 Residential units currently exist at some locations along Beach Boulevard and residential areas abut portions of the project ' area. Environmental For a typical roadway configuration, Impact automobile/truck mix and day-night vehicle mix, any street serving more than 10, 000 46 COMMUNITY NOISE EXPOSURE LAND USE CATEGORY Ldn OR CNEL,dB 55 60 65 70 75 80 RESIDENTIAL — LOW DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY,DUPLEX, MOBILE HOMES RESIDENTIAL—MULTI. FAMILY 1 TRANSIENT LODGING— MOTELS, HOTELS SCHOOLS,LIBRARIES, ' CHURCHES,HOSPITALS, NURSING HOMES AUDITORIUMS,CONCERT HALLS,AMPHITHEATRES SPORTS ARENA,OUTDOOR SPECTATOR SPORTS PLAYGROUNDS, NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS GOLF COURSES,RIDING STABLES,WATER RECREATION, :�::. :•:v•. CEMETERIES OFFICE BUILDINGS,BUSINESS COMMERCIAL AND PROFESSIONAL INDUSTRIAL,MANUFACTURING UTILITIES,AGRICULTURE 1 INTERPRETATION NORMALLY ACCEPTABLE NORMALLY UNACCEPTABLE Specified land use is satisfactory,based New construction or development should upon the assumption that any buildings generally be discouraged. If new construction involved are of normal conventional or development does proceed,a detailed analysis construction,without any special noise of the noise reduction requirements must be insulation requirements. made and needed noise insulation features included in the design. CONDITIONALLY ACCEPTABLE New construction or development should CLEARLY UNACCEPTABLE be undertaken only after a detailed analysis New construction or development should of the noise reduction requirements is made generally not be undertaken. and needed noise insulation features included' in the design. Conventional construction,but with closed windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning will normally suffice. Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project Figure 8 Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments 47 OVER-ALL LEVEL LOB Sound Pressure ftessom dB(A) Level COMMUN[lY Hanson SOME OR INDUSTRY Dufa�t� Apprm 0.0002 (OnyOW) Mlcrobar Iwals Military]a Aircraft TeksOR With After-burther Or48ne Tarch(121) 120 dB(A)32 Times as Lad 130 UNCOMFORTABLY Prom Aircraft Curie @ 30 R(130) 1 120 LOIJD Ttrbt.Pas Aircraft @ Tdz ORPowa Rivelin8 Machine(110) 110 dB(A)16 Tins ea Land 110 1200 R (90) Rust-N-Roll Band(106-114) Jet Flyover @ 1000 R(103) Basing 707. DC-8 @ 6080 R 100 4B(A)8 Thms s Lad 100 VERY BdQeLanding(106) Bell J-2A Helicopter @ 100 R 000) LOUD Power Mower(%) 90 Boeing 737,DC-9 @ 6090 FL }1-Vqa prs(97) 90 dB(A)4 Timm es Land Before Landiss (971 Moturycle @25 R(90) Car Wash @ 20 PL(89) Food Blinder(88) Prop. Airplane Plyover @ 1000 Ft.(88) 80 Diesel Trani,40 MPH @ SO Ft.(84) Milling Maine n5) 80 dB(A)2 Timm es land Diesel Train,43 MPH @ 100 R (83) Garbage Disposal(80) High Urban Ambient Sound(80) MODERATELY Passenger Car,63 MPH @ 23 Ft.(77) Living Room Music(76) 70 dB(A) 70 LOUD Aaeway @ 30 R Pram Ps vaned TV-Audio.Vacuum C1eanQ Edge.10 00 AM C76+or- 6) Cash Register @ 10 R(63-70) Electric Typewriter @ 10 Ft.(64) Air Conditioning Unit @ 100 R(60) Dishwasher(Rise)@ 10 Ft.(60) 60 dB(A)1R as Lead Conversation(60) s0 QUIET Large Trasfarmse @ 100 FL(30) So dB(A)1/4 sa Lad 40 Bed Cats(44) Lower Limit Ur Ambient Sound(40) 40 dB(A)1/8 as Loud ban JUST AUDIBLE (dB(A)3s lWanVtod 1 THRESHOLD 10 OP HEARING SOURCE: Cotton/Beland/Associates. Inc. IC-5 1 Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project Figure 9 ' Examples of Typical Sound Levels 48 1 vehicles per day (higher than a local street, but typical for an urban collector street) 1 will result in some area of private property exposed to greater than 65 dB CNEL, the . "Normally Unacceptable" noise level for residential development. With a typical single-family home setback of 25 feet from the property line, the structure itself will be included in the 65 dB CNEL zone for traffic volumes greater than 15, 000 vehicles per day, as is the case for Beach Boulevard which has an existing average daily traffic volume ranging from 13 , 200 near Atlanta to 80, 000 at Edinger. Figures 10 and 11 show the existing and year 2005 noise contours for the project area based on traffic volumes obtained from the Orange County Transportation Commission. Future arterial traffic volumes are based on the assumption of a 1.5% annual increase in traffic. These contours do not include the barrier effect of buildings fronting the streets have on structures located behind them. Since sound is directional, noise levels at these locations may be significantly reduced. Noise levels from arterial traffic may result in a requirement for sound insulation in new residential units constructed in the vicinity of the project area. California law requires ' a sound insulation study for such sites to identify appropriate insulation levels. Noise level increases from increased volume in the project area are expected to rise by 0.2 dBA to 1. 6 dBA over existing conditions. Construction-related noise impacts may exceed acceptable levels and would have potentially significant impacts on the adjacent residential units. Construction equipment would generate significant levels of noise, ranging from 70 dB to 105 dB immediately adjacent to construction sites. Figure 12 shows noise ranges for typical construction equipment measured at 50 feet. Although construction activities would represent a ' temporary significant impact on ambient noise levels, they would end upon completion of the project. 49 1 � 1 �• 'p I unl uu uu u� � 1 ' • v I q � � ��.- I'1ji �!'' l ol, ' .,Y�1� � 1 1e 1 � I I IIj • I', A�.::�� ,1 11 .�,1 ;"yy�Y VS�Y��!��O��Y��I V I I• f ,., 1 lr•� � f /'��' 7 1 1 11 1/ +R GI 11 mtrttttttf 1t .li A• ••�•111 flotilla I� ' '• 1 �4i f �111 8161 111 lltl 11 1 + ■IIIII I/IIIt11 � ■ Ill�iiili ii�l� h 4., �� a° s 11 IIHII b s I'11 a7ii e3 0� 1 111 - �' IIIIW ,yI +1 j1 � Ily1a f ,�1�� •IIIIII I •'yp1 G`� � aja IIIIII �• I }?y NIY 1��/ �{r i�i ae 1• ' Ii! •f ::S��III. a- ..'� I III=1111I 1 '111�1 1 gIS'i�'l`C■rn'i pII••;'=Z .==I==�=� In+ I :i v+,.,.. ._ :., III�1=7 .. •'I in � I = i __ Li'I•� .qli.... [I li• � ��, _ I � q=_�' p le�FF � r:. !!' � ■u1�il i �iSSiA 111701•.rwrw � ::�a�� !1111 4'. +.�! lQ �y •ram i7:�in:jl I II:i7tit'-+ :I� x;a�rp� n III♦ :. ■-: � °r.nr.F. �M _ 'III 11 ISM 31�.GIR117_ w� I < 'RbAWt01601[ Samilil ��ryy�{1{�y��yryytw0dju V AIR Nu'1'N�l4•'il1�li 1�11 V' � t$••�� `:.. ' M I {1 Oy�y 1 � DI �at� t':.�::::• � IIIlIF 11t1'�„11F1�F�M''� 1.,'+ �{,. '�6�1,L''4i,g.,St •_RQli I i tl ! }ij're;,yi !__ y n " '�:f'•.1iv .-,-.--.-ter wuw,wu tl�■ii i 1 Yfil�`u :��_,m ..' ''� 11 d��' �� Y'I' -t.ti�� rl�11•fl —H. 1 �• ; •� ��, $ � I •. �t � �� t�of �■_� ICE ' �€9� � '3= ,j,;i�,� 1 x ' .: a"' ILA_,.. ;:1 C llnl 1+� • pp■� \�: . !� ��, ��r1III{a �� '. `I I�°�� III •=r..�,11�1.j. 1' IN it •■i 11 1� � .'�0\;' 1 w 3`'�IIIIr' r•, t I 1{II{{IIIII' fii11 � L �iiL1S''�11Iu11 t , 1 ' i. ��NII :�TII.=nu�,7 0 ;�111111111111111111_�� '� II I—I �"�ill��l i 1iw111,nn`um �< �NII I■IIIIInNI II I I .,..�■� I,IIIIIIIII II III I 11 IIIIII uuuouulo � �� "�■ urwer�l�, �111, t �� 1� ail ,ll, I iii■ii%-� ■ � : .w 111111��uI1N' ! �C'IIVlllll{III! lul'.,.,,I„�iii■iii i i1 / • ,.. 7i _t Nog 1:oil )�.LO11 f•[i��Ytir�eo�•eely1??F� uw�i• RPR ■ rsr`� � w'- n € _- roc ��'��.i:•�+ r•w�„� C. Mal of - 11 TIME r. � ��•�,��.Mw111V�Y .-a •..- 1 '_�•no-• R':=g x$LI C CDC- —m mu.n...r- �iI -- iil i Yew Zg 7 i�� 1'l�'i �I l WA fx: T • .) 4 r ' ! -_ ,�-�---�=wry 7L. a,an.ow v,t-�y'• �^-W. & ,0 '•"" rim MMIOeIO!i ,,331INMMMA ••wu -.M•.1.1•�r m.•hYAU 1 • �'E - ss 190001i000$�{<i>CC'i y�-'_• �• • - ---- • IlR1688.815 . , i • _./ _� �• r ...au.. •n:wxrwo• _ Al Xi •��d•u w�i: �._ 6 ��MLL: _t� xx �o f� .. _ b=Em ml SIUM rim • • • I log .'"^_'+ers •u_•�i _ ti almar •■•••� ��•�pl�•� W. we go �.� ■..• _ Y -. ®� :• -�b e. WIN c U"1S$'.i1502 ' NOISE LEVEL(ddA)AT BO FT 60 70 o 90 100 IIO COMPACTERS (ROLLERS) ' FRONT LOADERS W = u u = OACKNOES ' W c F TRACTORS a V, C m W SCRAPERS, GRADERS S Ou PAVERS a a TRUCKS ' W f Z Z CONCRETE MIXERS � J m � 2 c a CONCRETE PUMPS W = 0 Ni 3 a CRANESIMOVABLE) W n � _ CRANES(DERRICK) W a a PUMPS 0 0 _0 W GENERATORS F a COMPRESSORS ►- PNEUMATIC WRENCHES �z uW nn JACK HAMMERS AND ROCK DRILLS 0i PILE DRIVERS(PEAKS) W VIBRATOR . S o SAWS Note: Based on Limited Available Data Samples ' SOURCE: U.S. Department of Commerce CGS ' Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project Figure 12 ' Construction Equipment Noise Ranges 54 Mitigation Three mitigation measures are commonly used to ' Measures reduce traffic noise impact. Reduction in traffic volume can have some impact on noise levels, but large reductions in traffic are required to bring about significant noise reduction. To reduce perceived noise by 10 decibels, or by about ' one-half the perceived annoyance, requires a tenfold reduction in traffic. For example, a traffic volume of 10, 000 vehicles would need to be reduced to 1, 000 vehicles to halve the perceived annoyance. Cutting traffic in half produces a noticeable but small 3-decibel decrease in noise level. Cutting traffic on arterials to levels sufficient to result in measurable reductions in noise level is not considered a feasible mitigation measure and ' is not included in the proposed project. Barriers between the noise source and the noise-sensitive area can be effective in situations where barriers can be constructed, such as along freeway frontages or around clusters of dwellings. This strategy is in general infeasible in developed areas along arterial streets because of the need to maintain access to the street. ' Sound insulation of new or existing residences is an alternative method of dealing with noise impacts along arterial streets in built-up areas where it is no longer possible to use berms and setbacks to reduce noise impact. Sound insulation of existing residences is in general prohibitively expensive, on the order of 25% to 50% of the value of the unit for typical single-family homes ("Final Report: Home Soundproofing Pilot Project for the Los Angeles Department of Airports" , Wyle Laboratories, E1 Segundo, California, 1970) . ' Although sound insulation from urban traffic may involve less expenditure because the sound is directional, significant sound insulation in existing residences is difficult and expensive. Some sound insulation, which may compensate for the 0.2 to 1. 6 dB increase in sound level resulting from the proposed ' project, may result from weather sealing around windows and doors, and installation of 55 storm windows or double glazing at relatively ' low cost. However, because of the minor effect and difficult administration of such a program for the number of units affected, such a program is not recommended. ' Sound insulation of new multiple family residences can be particularly effective in ' solving traffic noise problems at relatively low cost. Multi-family residences can be designed to provide a built-in barrier between ' the street and interior open spaces, with heavy insulation and double windows protecting from traffic noise. Sound insulation has both beneficial and adverse energy impacts. Sound insulation requires closing the unit, requiring ' forced-air ventilation or air conditioning. If windows are opened for natural ventilation, the sound insulation benefit is lost. ' However, sound insulating construction is in general more weather-tight and better insulated against heat gain and loss. Sound insulation for all. new multi-family residences in noise impact areas is required by Huntington Beach building code and State ' law. Mitigation measures should reduce noise impacts in new residential construction to an insignificant level. A potentially significant short-term increase in noise as a result of construction-related activities is anticipated. In order to reduce ' the- construction-related noise levels to an acceptable level, the following mitigation measures are recommended: ' 1. All noise-intensive construction activity will be restricted to the hours of 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. Monday through Saturday; ' . 2 . To the extent feasible, construction activities will be screened from adjacent noise-sensitive land uses using fencing. ' 56 1 3.7 Light and Glare ' Environmental The project is located in a developed urban Setting area. Lighting in the project area includes street lights, commercial and office interior and exterior lighting, parking, and security lighting. Undeveloped sites in general have low levels of lights. Portions of the project ' area adjoin residential areas. These areas are sensitive to direct light at high levels during nighttime hours. Environmental The private developments constructed in the Impact project area would include lighting for parking, security, exteriors, and interiors for commercial and office uses. Increased lighting, both in terms of amount and intensity, would result from the proposed ' project. New and replacement street lighting may be constructed as part of the public improvements constructed by the City as part of the proposed project. Street lighting levels are generally low, and street lighting impact on adjacent residential areas is considered insignificant. ' Mitigation Because the details of lighting plans for Measures anticipated private developments are not known at this time, special mitigation measures cannot be identified. The City's design ' review of all private projects include review of lighting plans to minimize illumination of adjacent areas and direct viewing of light ' sources. This mitigation measure will reduce potential adverse lighting impacts to an insignificant level. 57 1 3.8 Land Use Environmental The project is linear in nature extending for Setting approximately five miles in a north-south direction between Edinger and Atlanta Avenues. The project area encompasses approximately 509 acres. ' Beach Boulevard is a major arterial within the City, and commercial uses predominate within the project area, although office, residential and open space exist to a lesser extent. Approximately 1.71 million square feet of commercial building space currently exists along with approximately 508, 000 square feet ' of office space, 43 acres of automobile dealerships, 30 acres of recreation/open space, and 180 residential units. Approxi- mately 32 acres of the project area is vacant. The Huntington Beach General Plan has identified three multi-story nodes along Beach Boulevard within the project area. These nodes are at Warner, Talbert and Ellis and multi-story buildings would be involved at these locations. Residential areas of differing densities ' ranging from low to high flank both sides of the project area. Figure 13 on the following pages illustrates existing generalized land uses in the project area. Figure 14 on pages 62 and 63 shows existing zoning in and around the project area. The ' majority of land within the project area immediately adjacent to Beach Boulevard is zoned for highway commercial and community business districts. Most parcels behind ' frontage property are zoned for residential uses. The proposed project may require zone changes for specific sites. Figure 15 on page 64 and 65 illustrates the proposed land use for the project under current general plan policy. Most of the proposed development is consistent with the current General Plan. However, a general plan amendment is currently being 58 requested by the Redevelopment Agency to bring some proposed land uses for certain sites into conformance with the General Plan. The proposed general plan amendment areas are: ' Rancho View School and Bus Maintenance Facility: Low density residential to general ' commercial. 1 1 59 1 rj� •��•�-'7Orn YYYwwnrYn•1• r•rwr�- � •::i:i� •Mm1•e••n�. rrri•• I ui; I ��r �• - iu-•u�.�ro rww••wa•n�� \rMr G Rd ME Mr. E-c ZE • __ _ iMtr•Y••ni.I.pr• __I�-�w•MMni•wTT _____ IwM _ ___ - • ■—i wo =1 Hill =1 all • =i�11111 r '��"�' � � f • �� IAIiI�tc 5_5'T '::::: —__'—■'"■'o—.—off ".:: --��w—_�=�'± I_ �_ . - I --'�.WM�•jj / •:.: .: ::: NNN-•.... .N.• 14 mc ::.i �.-- __-. - .��.�y-_ fir• . •�•�QQ•.•�•�•�•� a .. .. • 6i is'�pLL _ -�m L7 __ ...! '":. •`—�"� q t Q -' ��fie. N 1 � .L-' ...1•N....•M f... ' / :::.:.• Nam_ � .•p•• � 1M� IMM mom l". __ 1.-� _ -_ •• - ••••• • - g C • - ...........• .� _�i 4 •.. ............ • _ • . __ii _,_g am• ........... N— Y�eA■ • __S _ ILI Nil • '.tea --r IRMB;:MIR Hopp moms" a- •:::::: ��i:�/I` ::��: `-�71�'��'M�' a i.�w'•C_ r iff ------ _I_ �..W.,=��• r: 1 •i` :-r,•�..NI�n.IrL•wn.:- P.W - • 1 .111 IrAA•.._. = - � �� Iw.B��u� �.uniWW.�.ni•. _ E=. L- .159- B IBil /•••rrrrrM f. • rtoo - nr• �{y{1 w�L A.•l•YO ` • _ � Harr::: •��I�_-�, �� 3.F' •�.�11��I�.��.•MM•0=� UEE • �_��• �- -- Y4_O_H+��_ _loss• _ •�•�---�� _ram•. .• l'/ �/m__-l.. ,:is tlgagl••fan - - r•r -_ -_�_-`� _ -- ... Fes. LE Li •i S� ��•i■m 1!0 �� c � alm _10 T • 1 • 111 • ° Warner to Blaylock between A and B Streets: Medium density residential to general commercial ' • Crest View School: Low density residential to general commercial ' • Memphis to Knoxville: Medium density residential to general commercial These amendments to the General Plan would allow proposed development plans to be consistent with the General Plan. The Redevelopment Agency has proposed a planned unit development for the Memphis to Knoxville property. This property is currently zoned residential and these development plans would be consistent with this designation. However, the proposed general plan amendment, if approved, would change this use to commercial and therefore make current residential development plans inconsistent with the General Plan. The proposed project may or may not include any of the requested General Plan Amendments '. pending action by the City Planning Commission and City Council. Impacts that assume approval of all four GPAs are included in this ' EIR for comparative analysis. Because the Redevelopment Plan adopts the General Plan by reference rather than with special land use designations, the Redevelopment Plan will be consistent with the General Plan in effect at the time it is adopted. The project area includes a number of commercial and office uses that are abandoned or vacant, or show a low level of property maintenance. Some of the developed properties and residential units are in need of minor repairs. Environmental n al The proposed project is expected to encourage I Impact the development of new commercial retail and office uses along with residential uses on vacant sites and sites now occupied by low intensity and dilapidated commercial, office and residential uses. The land use changes as a result of the ' proposed project area are, in general, considered to be beneficial impacts. The 66 project is expected to result in more efficient use of available land for more intensive development, and to result in the elimination of unattractive, poorly maintained structures and land uses which prevent the further improvement of the area. The land use change to a higher and better use is a key element to the proposed redevelopment project. Impacts discussed throughout the EIR are the direct and indirect environmental impacts of these changes in land use. 1 over the project lifetime, the project is expected to result in the removal or upgrading �. of a number of visually unattractive land uses. In addition, new structures will be constructed to higher standards of construction, energy conservation, and fire protection. The level of maintenance in the project area is expected to be improved as investment in the area increases. Development of vacant parcels in the project area would result in the irreversible commitment of these sites to urban uses. High quality development of land uses and increases in intensity in the project area are expected to result in some secondary impacts on land uses in other areas of the City. These indirect impacts are discussed under population effects in Section 3. 11 and housing impacts in Section 3 . 12 . Mitigation Changes in land use to a higher and better use Measures are a key element of the proposed project. The entire EIR deals with the impacts of this change in land use, and mitigation measures throughout the. EIR are intended to deal with the direct and indirect effects of this change. The City's zoning ordinance contains development standards for the development of individual parcels for office and commercial uses. These development standards are intended to reduce impacts of development on adjacent parcels to insignificant levels. Compliance with the provisions of the zoning ordinance and the City's design review of major projects are expected to reduce impacts 67 r of development on adjacent land uses. In addition, the Agency may choose to exercise additional control over development through adoption of a design for development for the proposed project area, parts of the proposed project area or specific development parcels. r r r 1 68 3.9 Natural Resources Environmental Potential natural resources impacts include Setting increasing the rate of use of any natural resource or substantial depletion of non- renewable natural resources. Environmental The proposed project would result in the Impact commitment of materials and energy to project construction. Vehicles used by workers to and. from project construction would also result in non-renewable fuel consumption. The use of these resources is an insignificant portion of the available resources and such impacts are considered insignificant. Mitigation None Required. Measures 3.10 Risk of Upset Environmental Risk of upset includes risk of explosions, Setting release and transport of hazardous substances in the event of accident or upset conditions. An eight acre parcel within the project area is presently oil encumbered. ' Environmental The project itself does not represent an Impact unusual or unique risk of explosion or release of hazardous substances beyond that risk typical of other similar commercial, office, and residential developments. The preliminary redevelopment plan is considering a planned unit development based on existing General Plan designations of 150 residential units on the presently oil r encumbered site. It has not been determined at this time whether the equipment on-site will be removed prior to this development. The majority of the site is presently vacant, and .if the equipment is not removed, situating residential homes at this location may increase the potential hazard in the unlikely event of an accident. Mitigation Regulations by other agencies regulating the Measures storage and use of hazardous substances are expected to reduce the potential risk of upset to an insignificant level. 69 1 3.11 Population Environmental The Southern California Association of Setting Governments (SLAG) has projected population increases for 55 Regional Statistical Areas (RSA) in the six-county Southern California region from the year 1984 to the year 2010. The City of Huntington Beach is in the West Coast Regional Statistical Area, Number 38 (Figure 16) . The 1980 population of Huntington Beach was estimated by the Department of Finance to be 170, 486 compared to 115,960 in 1970, a 47% increase for the decade. The 1985 population of Huntington Beach was 181,900, a 6.7% increase from 1980. Huntington Beach's contribution to the West Coast RSA in 1984 was 54%, 8.7% of the county total, and 1.4% of the SCAG region total population. Huntington Beach comprises over fifty percent of the West Coast RSA and additional substantial growth within the City .may have an impact on regional growth and development. Environmental The proposed project has the potential to Impact encourage population growth in the project's housing and employment market area by providing additional jobs in the project area that would otherwise locate elsewhere in Southern California. Approximately 2 .57 million s�are feet of non-residential building space currently exists within the project area. Based on the estimate of 2 employees per 1, 000 square feet of building space, the project area could currently employ approximately 5160 people. However, some vacant buildings do exist within the project area, and although their square footage is not excessive, current employment figures cannot be accurately determined. The proposed project could result in a range of development from 4 . 07 million square feet to 4 . 60 million square feet of building space. Using the factor of 2 employees per 1, 000 square feet of building space, the proposed project could employ between 8150 to 9200 people, an increase of 58% to 78% over estimated existing conditions. ' 70 10 8 LOS ANGELES 14 1 1 30 12 vAZ 13 SA N BERNARDINO 24 rat ' 25 27 17 �a�►.,i �, 28 29 nno►rtia45 .{avE;cstc� 21 • �'"' q B _ • .GoKanvk • � �UUGfiTGN r- RIVE I Tare 20 41 '• 19 .L" •'3 5 �1°7 C • M" 3 •42 47 MOW terra 44 8 `� ORANGE '• • �TO;�D elhlAlD}C>r NEw�o►cr• 39 43 Huntington Beach 49-�%VLA 40 .._---� SAN DIEGO North no scale Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project Figure 16 jRegional Statistical Area 71 This increase in employment is expected to occur gradually throughout the 35-year plan as development increases. To the extent that the proposed project represents employment that would otherwise not locate in the SCAG region if the project were not undertaken, the project represents additional population impacts for the region. In general, the proposed project is expected to be a substitute for employment that would otherwise be provided elsewhere in the region, and this effect is minimal. Table 15 shows population, housing and employment projections for the West Coast RSA and surrounding RSAs. The projectes employment growth represents 13 .5% of the projected employment growth for RSA 38 and 1. 2% of the employment growth in the primary and secondary housing/employment market areas, and is considered within SCAG projections. Currently there are 175 residential units within the project area. The proposed project, including direct Redevelopment Agency assistance, could result in the construction of up to 781 residential units. The existing residential units,most of which are non-conforming uses, are expected to be eventually phased out over the lifetime of the project. With a City average of 2 .7 persons per household (Department of Finance, January 1985) , the project area could provide housing for an estimated 2110 people. This represents less than one percent of the City's population. Mitigation The incremental population increase to be Measures generated by this project will result in higher levels of traffic and increase demands on municipal agencies. Measures to reduce such impacts include various programs to increase services to the area. Others are discussed elsewhere in the EIR. 72 TABLE 15 POPULATION, HOUSING, AND EMPLOYMENT PROJECTIONS FOR HUNTINGTON BEACH HOUSING/EMPLOYMENT MARKET AREA 1984 TO 2010 Regional (In Thousands) Statistical Population Housing Employment Areas 1984 2010 1984 2010 1984 2010 38 . West Coast 332 379 123 154 103 133 Total Primary 332 379 123 154 103 133 Jobs/100 people 31. 35 37 . Anaheim 356 378 128 147 165 211 39 . Central Coast 181 235 78 116 166 236 42 . Santa Ana 401 465 134 160 240 335 35. Buena Park 159 165 53 60 62 86 20. Long Beach 437 510 187 226 212 278 Total Secondary 1 534 1 753 580 709 845 1 146 r i i Jobs/100 people 55 65 SCAG Region Total 12,383 15,944 4,648 61520 51781 81377 Jobs 100/people 46 52 Source: SCAG-82 Modified Forecast, adopted February, 1985 73 3.12 Housing Environmental The West Coast Regional Statistical Area which Setting includes the City of Huntington Beach is projected to increase the total number of housing units from approximately 123 , 000 in 1984 to 154, 000 in 2010, a 25.2 percent increase (SCAG-82 Modified Growth Forecast Policy) . The projected increase in housing units over the same time period for Orange County is 48.8% and is 40.2% for the entire SCAG region. The most current Department of Finance estimate (January 1, 1986) of housing _units in Huntington Beach is 68, 686. This is an increase of 11.9% from the 1980 census estimate of 61, 332 housing units. Huntington Beach accounts for approximately 500 of the housing units in the West Coast Regional Statistical Area. One hundred and eighty residential units are currently within the project boundaries. Most 1 of these units represent a non-conforming use and it is anticipated that these homes would be removed over the lifetime of the project. Environmental The proposed project would result in the Impact eventual removal of 180 dwelling units within the project boundaries and would have a direct impact on those residents. The Department of Finance estimates the City of Huntington Beach to have 2 .76 persons per household which correlates to the direct displacement of ' approximately 495 people from the project area. The implementation of the proposed project would result in increased employment in the project area and would create a need for additional housing to accommodate the anticipated increase in population. According to the 1980 U.S. Census, the total civilian labor force in Huntington Beach was 94, 139. The U.S. Census further indicates that 19, 855 people or 21% of the civilian labor force both lived and worked in Huntington Beach. Section 3 . 11 of this EIR estimated that current employment figures in the project area 74 at 5160 people with the potential for 3000 to 4040 additional employees. Using the figures above, approximately 629 to 850 additional employees would require housing in the City of Huntington Beach. With a regional average of 1.35 members of the civilian labor force per dwelling unit, the proposed project would require approximately 465 to 629 additional homes to accommodate these employees. Including the removal of the existing 175 units, the proposed project would create a demand for approximately 640 to 809 additional homes. The vacancy rate for Huntington Beach as of January 1, 1986 (Department of Finance) was 3 . 21 percent, or 2146 dwelling units. These vacant units could supply the additional 1 housing demand generated by the proposed project. In addition, the proposed project includes the construction of approximately 479 to 781 additional units which could also be occupied by project generated population increases. Because th demand is expected to be distributed throughout the project's 35 year life, the incremental demand is not expected to have a significant impact on the local housing market. Secondary impacts as a result of residential development include those on schools, population, traffic, libraries, parks, public services, and utilities. These impacts are discussed further in other sections of this EIR. The income level of the residential developments is not known at this time, but mitigation measures to benefit low and moderate income housing are required. These 1 mitigation measures would make the impact on the local housing market insignificant. The increase in housing on a regional level is not considered significant. Mitigation Under California redevelopment law, Measures redevelopment agencies are required to set aside 20% of all tax increment revenue for use to benefit low- and moderate-income housing. For those housing units displaced by direct 75 agency action, law requires the agency to pay 1 fair market value for the units, and to pay relocation costs and differential costs of finding an equivalent unit and financing. State law requires that 20% of the housing construction in the project area shall be for low and moderate income residents. State law further requires that one half of this 20% low and moderate income housing be specifically for low income residents. Those people between 80% and 120% of the county median income are considered moderate income and those below 80% of the county median income are considered to be low income. State law requires that all units removed by direct agency action be replaced on a one-for-one basis. l 1 r t 76 3.13 Transportation/Circulation Environmental Beach Boulevard (State Route 39) is classified Setting as a major arterial on the Master Plan of Arterial Highways, and is currently on the State Freeway and Expressway Plan. The roadway generally consists of six through travel lanes plus a median between Pacific Coast Highway and Manchester Avenue. 1 Twelve major east-west arterials intersect Beach Boulevard and distribute traffic along the project area. These major arterials, from north to south, are: Edinger Avenue, Heil Avenue, Warner Avenue, Slater Avenue, Talbert Avenue, Ellis Avenue, Garfield Avenue, Yorktown Avenue, Adams Avenue, Indianapolis 1 Avenue, and Atlanta Avenue. Pacific Coast Highway is the southern terminus of Beach Boulevard and the San Diego Freeway (I-405) is just north of the project area. ' The City of Huntington Beach has recently approved the Beach Boulevard Corridor Super Streets Demonstration Project Final Report submitted by the Orange County Transportation Commission (OCTC) in March, 1986. This report and the associated technical memorandums evaluate the existing and projected conditions of Beach Boulevard, including that section within the project area boundaries, and provide approved measures to help alleviate future traffic-related congestion. The "Super Streets" report and related technical memorandums are hereby incorporated by reference in this EIR. Pertinent sections of the "Super Streets" report will be summarized in this section. Copies of the "Super Streets" report are available for 1 public review in the Huntington Beach Planning Department located at 2000 Main Street. Existing and future (Year 2005) projected traffic volumes along Beach Boulevard were provided by OCTC staff and are summarized in Table 16. Traffic volume projection methodology is included in Appendix B of this report. 77 1 Traffic volumes in Year 2005 are expected to increase by approximately 2.5% at Edinger to 44% at Atlanta. tTABLE 16 BEACH BOULEVARD RIDEVELOPMM PRWECT EXISTIM AMID PFCaECTED TRAFFIC wLLS (Existing 1985) Projected (2005) North- South- North- South- Beach Blvd. Between bound bound Total bound bound Total 1-405/Edinger 33,700 47,200 80,900 34,600 48,400 83,000 ' Heil/Warner 30,900 31,900 62,800 35,400 36,600 72,000 Talbert/Ellis 27,800 28,800 56,600 32,400 35,600 66,000 Yorktown/Adams 17,300 18,500 35,800 21,700 23,300 45,000 Atlanta/Pacific Coast Hwy. 6,300 6,900 13,200 9,100 9,900 19,000 Source: Orange County Transportation Commission, Super Streets Demonstration Project, Beach Boulevard Corridor, March, 1986. Figure 16 illustrates existing traffic volumes within the project area along Beach Boulevard and the major arterials. Traffic volumes along arterial streets were obtained from the City of Huntington Beach traffic flow maps. Level of Service. Level of Service (LOS) is a qualitative measure of the effect of a number of factors including speed and travel time, traffic interruptions, freedom to maneuver and safety that may occur on a given roadway when it is accommodating various traffic volumes. Six Levels of Service have been designated by letters to represent the best condition ("A" 1 free flowing) to the worst ("F" forced flow at very low speeds) . Level of Service is commonly expressed as the ratio of the demand volume or service volume to the capacity (V/C) . Service volume is further defined as the maximum number of vehicles that can pass over .a given section of a lane or roadway during a specified time period while operating conditions are 78 1 ��p Ir11M•Nr1.O�- ��. r -TY. r_•I�.narw•n-� n� �� - � � rp.alr•ranwa �� _ orlrr.mrrrrnw_ - .� s'' v ��-:lww•�--r•n•w.ra�-r 7�� •e• ra1•r +y�l-ram::_ _ � pp • - �"'_ g__= .` ■ KIM pm mum _ - vy S T•Gam.�.I w E� S = _ _ i Td� -- � ■ -w ffMjy. .fin~ M T , :1 maintained corresponding to the selected level of service. Table 17 defines the operating conditions for the six Levels of Service. Existing and projected (Year 2005) LOS for Beach Boulevard within the project area were calculated by OCTC in the "Super Streets" 1 report and are shown in Table 18. The Level of Service calculations were based on the Critical Movement 'Analysis procedure documented in Circular 212 of the Transportation Research Board using peak hour turning movement counts, the existing intersection lane geometry, signal phasing, truck percentages, OCTD bus frequencies, and peak hour factors. It should be noted that with the exception of adopted State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) and FAU projects, no signalization or capacity improvements were added to existing conditions: as a result, the projected volume/capacity ratios at several intersections are significantly above 1. 0. r . r ' 81 TABLE 17 OPERATING CONDITIONS FOR LEVELS OF SERVICE Level of Service A: (V/C=0. 01-0. 60) This is a condition of free flow, accompanied by low volumes and high speeds. Traffi density will be low, with uninterrupted flow speeds controlled by driver desires, speed limits, and physical roadway conditions. There is little or no restriction in maneuverability due to the presence of other vehicles, and drivers can maintain their desired speeds with little or no delay. ,. Level of Service B: (V/C=0. 61-0.70) This occurs in the zone of stable flow, with operating speeds beginning to be ' restricted somewhat by traffic conditions. Drivers still have reasonable freedom to select their speed and lane of operation. Reductions in speed are not unreasonable, with a low probability of traffic flow being restricted. Level of Service C. (V/C=0.71-0.80) This is still in the zon of stable flow, but speeds and maneuverability are more closely controlled by the higher volumes. Most of the drivers are restricted in their freedom to select their own speed, change lanes, or pass. A relatively satisfactory operating speed is still obtained, with service volumes suitable for urban design practice. Level of Service D: (V/C=0.81=0.90) This level of service approaches unstable flow, with tolerable operating speeds being maintained, though considerably affected by changes in operating conditions. Fluctuations in volume and temporary restrictions to flow may cause substantial drops in operating speeds. Drivers have little freedom to maneuver, and comfort and convenience are low. These conditions can be tolerated, however, for short term periods of time. Level of Service E: (V/C=0.91-1. 00) This cannot be described by speed alone, but represents operations at lower operating speeds, typically, but not always, in the neighborhood of 30 miles per hour, with volumes at or near capacity of the highway. Flow is unstable, and there may be stoppages of momentary duration. This level of service is associated with operation of a facility at capacity flows. Level of Service F: (V/C=1. 01 and greater) This describes a forced-flow operation at low speeds, where volumes are below capacity. In the extreme, both speed and volume can drop to zero. These conditions usually result from queues of vehicles backing up from a restriction downstream. The section under study will be serving as a storage area during parts or all of the peak hour. Speeds are reduced substantially and stoppages ' may occur for short or long periods of time because of the downstream congestion. Source: Cotton/Beland/Associates 82 TABLE 18 BEACH BOULEVARD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE (WITHOUT IMPROVEMENTS) Existing (1985) Projected (2005) Intersection of AM AM PM PM. AM AM PM PM ' Beach Blvd. With: V C LOS V C LOS V C LOS V C LOS Edinger Avenue 0.85 D 1. 02 F 0.97 E 1. 13 F Heil Avenue 0. 62 B 0. 84 D 0.74 C 0.97 E Warner Avenue 1. 01 F 1.24 F 1. 25 F 1.49 F ' Slater Avenue 0. 67 B 0.81 D 0.81 D 0.95 E Talbert Avenue 0. 61 B 0.72 C 0.73 C . 1. 12 F Ellis/Main Street 0. 69 B 0.91 E 0.91 E 1. 18 F ' Garfield Avenue 0.42 A 0.59 A 0. 56 A 0.78 C Yorktown Avenue 0. 47 A 0.57 A 0. 61 B 0.72 C Adams Avenue 0. 54 A 0.72 C 0. 70 B 0.94 E Atlanta Avenue 0. 26 A 0. 50 A 0. 32 A 0. 61 B V/C: Volume/Capacity Ratio LOS: Level of Service Source: Orange County Transportation Commission, Super Streets Demonstration Project, Beach Boulevard Corridor, March, 1986 Environmental Determining the traffic impact of this project Impact on Beach Boulevard and the contributing arterials included compiling existing OCTC L data, developing a trip distribution model based on existing flow data, and determining whether trip generation from this project falls within OCTC projections. The existing situation within the project area includes Level of Service F conditions for some intersections during peak hours. Mitigation measures included in the "Super Streets" program, and to a lesser extent this project, would not completely alleviate this problem. Therefore, any additional traffic generated in this area is considered to have a significant impact. 83 1 Continued population growth in the region, ' increasing employment opportunities, and increased development all would result in additional-sources of trip production- attraction and would increase the volume of traffic along Beach Boulevard. The continued increase in vehicular volume ' would result in continued degradation in the Level of Service (LOS) at major intersections along the project length unless compensating improvements in capacity are made. The major arterials north of Ellis Avenue, except Talbert Avenue, are currently operating at LOS D or worse during the afternoon peak hour. By Year 2005, it is projected that all of the major intersections, except Atlanta Avenue, Yorktown Avenue, and Garfield Avenue, would all be operating at LOS E or F without the improvements identified in the "Super Streets" report. This is considered a significant ' impact on the road system. Trip Distribution. The direction drivers come from and go to is a function of the overall pattern of development in the surrounding urban areas. The project area consists predominantly of commercial areas that create trip attractions. Trips to and from the retail areas are projected to be primarily shopping trips by the residents of the surrounding area within approximately three miles. Office trips include a substantially larger proportion of employee trips from greater distances. ' For purposes of developing a trip distribution model, the project area was divided into three L distinct, separate zones. Zone 1 includes Edinger south to the mid-block of Talbert and Ellis between Gothard Street and Newland; Zone 2 includes mid-block Talbert and Ellis south to the mid-block of Yorktown and Adams between Gothard And Newland; and Zone 3 includes Yorktown and Adams south to mid-block of Atlanta and Hamilton between Main and Newland. The distribution model assumes that trips occurring within each zone along the arterial ' network have three options. First, trips would occur internally without using Beach ' 84 Boulevard and would remain within that zone. Second, trips would occur internally, remain within the zone and use Beach Boulevard (assumed to be 15% of trips generated in that block) . And third, trips would extend beyond the zone in all directions utilizing Beach Boulevard or the major arterials, or both. ' Using existing traffic volumes and directional flow data provided by the City of Huntington Beach and OCTC, in conjunction with surrounding land uses, traffic distribution was assigned to each compass quadrant. Each major arterial was further assigned a ' percentage of the total volume within that quadrant based on existing volumes and flow characteristics. Trip Generation. Trip generation was obtained by calculating the acreage of the various land uses within the zones from the current General ' Plan Land Use map and multiplying these acreages by trip generation rates published by the Orange County Environmental Management Agency. Table 19 shows the estimated daily trip generation by zone and land use. The total trips generated by each zone were ' then incorporated into the trip distribution model to estimate the daily volumes along the major arterials. Figure 18 depicts traffic distribution and estimated volumes within the project vicinity. Estimated trip generation within the project ' area was calculated based on the proposed project and full development under the General Plan Amendment scenario for comparison. Trip ' generations are included in Tables 20 and 21. Figures 19 and 20 show estimated traffic volumes along Beach Boulevard and the major arterials based on these two scenarios. Table 22 compares estimated traffic volumes along the project area. The proposed project is expected to generate approximately 73% more trips within the project area compared to existing conditions. This would result in increased volumes along Beach Boulevard and major arterials over existing conditions and would contribute a significant 85 11.5% 52289 ' 10981. y� 9549 0.8% a w 0.6% ' 3765 - - 2980 6.8% 2.1% = _ - _ l' ......_. 2.2% 6.8% 31373 9726 P.BIo6ck% 1 :� { 10039 31373 71785 1.0% 1 1.0% 4863 _- 4863 2980 =_' 3765 22% 0.7% Oft A- 1.8% 24% 101247 3064L == 8428 112470 --� lock 2 „ 9% = <_ 8.4% 2.7% ` �-= 42997 J. --j 2% 8.4% 3. ' 38309 12258 = -< _ 2% 38309 - _ 4557 2.0%9194 Y' Aw 3.0% __ 3.3% 13791 ' 15324 ...... 3.8% 5.6% 17189 T- - 25494 _ 0_ .Tloc 3 -iJl 6.5% 30452 9.0% '° �� _ 42788 z�. 31565 7 88 �;:0 _ '`' 8642 ' r 1 � 1i _ e—z m = — ;. r '� 1.6% �-M-�- 1.9% 7188 __ 8642 ' U Volumes Based on North 9.5% 43210 Current General Plan Buildout 0 112 1 ' scale in miles Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project Figure 18 ' Traffic Distribution and Volumes 86 TABLE 19 ' TRIP GENERATION BY ZONE AND LAND USE (Based on Current General Plan Buildout) ' Generation Total ZONE 1 Land Use Rate Acres Trips- Commercial 4001 213 85, 200 ' Office 240 16 3 , 840 Public 50, 40 2 , 000 Residential Low 12/du 267 22,428 Medium 10/du 270 40, 500 High 7/du 369 64,575 ' Zone 1 Total 1, 175 218, 543 ZONE 2 ' Commercial 400 154 61, 600 Office 240 22 5, 280 Recreation 6 17 102 ' Residential Low 12/du 320 26, 890 Medium 10/du 398 59,700 High 7/du 98 17, 150 Zone 2 Total 1, 009 170, 712 ZONE 3 Commercial 400 30 12 , 000 Recreation 6 13 78 Residential Low 12/du 391 32 , 844 ' Medium 10/du 484 72 , 600 High 7/du 4 700 PD 7/du 65 6, 825 ' Zone 3 Total 987 125, 047 Total Acres 3 , 171 1This has been adjusted to accommodate office uses which have a . reduced trip generation rate. Generation factors from the Orange County Environmental Management Agency, "Daily Trip Generation Rates, " August, 1982 87 ' portion of OCTC future projections. Impacts of the proposed project on the circulation network are expected to be fewer than the GPA alternative: The proposed project is ' estimated to generate 14, 654 fewer trips per day compared to the GPA alternative. ' Not all of the trips generated within each zone are expected to use Beach Boulevard as the primary north-south corridor. Some vehicles are expected to use Gothard Street on ' the west and Newland on the east, along with other minor collector streets to avoid the congestion along Beach Boulevard during the ' peak hours. Zone generated traffic, based on current General Plan buildout, falls within the high range of current OCTC projections for Zone 1 and Zone 2 . However, estimated volumes in Zone 3 exceed current OCTC projections for that segment of Beach Boulevard. Estimated volumes in Zone 3 exceed current OCTC projections by approximately 60%. With the exception of Adams Avenue, which is projected to have a V/C ratio of 0.94 in year 2005 with project improvements, the remaining intersections have relatively low V/C ratio (0. 61-0.72) projections. The estimated increase in traffic volumes would result in the further lowering of the levels of service at those intersections, even with the proposed improvements. The project area accounts for approximately 12% of the total area of all three blocks and approximately 26% of the total area of all three blocks and approximately 26% of total trip generation. This higher trip generation ' is due to the predominance of non-residential uses with higher trip generation rates compared to residential uses. ' Table 23 compares projected volume/capacity ratios with and without project improvements for existing and Year 2005 conditions. It can be seen in this table that continued degradation in the level of service is expected along all intersections, even with ' the implementation of project related improvements. However, project improvements would significantly .lower volume/capacity ' ratios at some intersections and would help alleviate some congestion. ' 88 TABLE 20 ' P!m► Wr AREA PROPOSED PROJECT SCENARIO TED TRIP GENERATION Generation Building Total ZONE 1 Land Use Rate Space Acres Trips ComTercial 40/ksf 1,818 ksf 155 72,720 Office 15/ksf 272 ksf 16 4,080 Residential Law 12/du 9 756 Medium 10/du 0 0 ' High 7/du 0 0 Zone 1 Total 2,090 ksf 180 77,556 ZONE 2 Commercial 40/ksf 1,494 ksf 123 59,760 Office 15/ksf 0 ksf 0 0 Recreation 6 17 acre 17 102 Residential Medium 10/du 0 0 High 7/du 1 175 Zone 2 Total 1,494 ksf 141 60,037 ZONE 3 ' Commercial 40/ksf 345 ksf 29 13,800 Recreation 6/ksf 13 acre 13 78 Residential ' Medium 10/du 20 3,000 PD 7/du 4 336 ' Zone 3 Total 345 ksf 66 17,214 Total Square Footage 3,929 Total Acres 387 Source: Generation factors from the Orange County Environmental Management Agency, "Daily Trip Generation Rates," August, 1982 ' 89 M%= 21 ' PROJEC.r AREA GPA AIa FMViTIVE SCENARIO ESTIMATED TRIP GFNERATIC N Generation Building Total- ZONE 1 land Use Rate Space Acres Trips Commercial 40/ksf 2,079 ksf 155 83,160 Office 15/ksf 272 ksf 16 4,080 Residential Law 12/du 9 756 Medium 10/du 0 0 High 7/du 0 0 Zone 1 Total 2,351 ksf 180 87,996 ZONE 2 ' Commercial 40/ksf 1,515 ksf 123 60,600 Office 15/ksf 0 ksf 0 0 Recreation 6 17 acre 17 102 ' Residential Medium 10/du 0 0 High 7/du 1 175 ' Zone 2 Total 1,515 ksf 141 60,877 ZONE 3 ' Commercial 40/ksf 486 ksf 37 19,440 Recreation 6/ksf 13 acre 13 78 Residential ' Medium 10/du 0 0 PD 7/du 16 1,344 Zone 3 Total 486 ksf 66 20,862 Total Square Footage 4,352 Total Acres 387 Source: Generation factors from the Orange County Environmental Management Agency, "Daily Trip Generation Rates," August, 1982 ' 90 15488 ' 3232 _ '- •— 2693 ' 1077 _ _, """•' .808 � =y 2828 = I_' -�-M-•- 2963 Block 1 ' ' r = 21549 1347 - _ - -- - 1347 808 :f : 1077 I 942 _ _ � ' Eft A— 2424 Block 2 3636 12121 4309 2694 4040 •°��• 4444 1,lhr,' ,:-- ��Block 3 _._8754 2154 �eT = ~� •�•- 2559 , Percentages for 2154 = ', . 2559 1 _ Arterial Traffic Same as in Figure l�f North 12795 0 1momwwwwm6 scale in miles I`5 ' Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project Figure 19 Proposed Project Trip Distribution 91 ' 16982 3544 -- w - 2953 ' 1 181 - — _.w�-�- 886 -z ' 3101 = - __' •--�-�- 3248 Block 1 _ 23627 1476 1476 886 - T~A - 1181 A. 1033 2658 L -Block 2 -- 13290 " -=j ' 3987 = �^M-�- 4725 2953 _P +� 0 crY�j� 4430 4873 ' 5611 #-. — 8269 Block 3 - ' 9598 a 2362 eop ' a —~•-�- 2805 Percentages for 2362 2805 Arterial Traffic ' Same as in Figure _ = A J ' X / Oao� ... ..... l�f North 14028 0 112 1 ' scale in miles ' Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project Figure 20 GPA Alternative Trip Distribution ' 92 I TABLE 22 ' PRJ = AREA TRAFFIC VOID COMPARISON" (vehicles/day) Proposed Proj eat GPA Alternative Net Change Major East West East West East West Zone Arterial Side Side Side Side Side Side Zone 1 North of Edinger 15,488 16,982 1,494 Edinger 2,693 3,232 2,953 3,544 260 312 Heil 808 1,077 886 1,181 78 104 Warner 2,963 2,828 3,248 3,101 285 273 ' Slater 1,347 1,347 1,476 1,476 129 129 Talbert 1,077 808 1,181 886 104 78 Internal 21,549 23,627 2,078 Zone 1 Sub-Total 8,888 37,037 9,292 9,744 40,609 10,188 856 3,572 896 Total All Trips 55,217 60,541 5,324 I Zone 2 Ellis 2,424 942 2,658 1,033 234 91 ' Garfield 4,309 3,636 4,725 3,987 416 351 Main 2,694 2,953 0 259 Yorktown 4,444 4,040 4,873 4,430 429 390 Internal 12,121 13,290 1,169 Zone 2 Sub-total 11,177 12,121 11,312 12,256 13,290 12,403 1,079 1,169 1,091 Total All Trips 34,610 - 37,949 3,339 Zone 3 Adams 7,542 5,118 8,269 5,611 727 493 Indianapolis 2,559 2,154 2,805 2,805 246 651 Atlanta 2,559 2,154 2,805 2,805 246 651 IInternal 8,754 9,598 844 South of Atlanta 12,795 14,028 1,233 Zone 3 Sub-'Total 12,660 21,549 9,426 13,879 23,626 11,221 1,219 2,077 1,795 Total All Trips 43,635 48,726 5,091 ISUB-TOTAL PROJECT AREA 32,725 70,707 30,030 35,879 77,525 33,812 3,154 6,818 3,782 ' TOTAL PROJECT AREA 133,462 147,216 13,754 93 TABLE 23 PR UE= VOLUM/C&PACITY RATIOS WITH AMID WITmn PrTDC.'T ROVEMENTS FOR EXISTIM AND YEAR 2005 Project VOLUME/CAPACITY RATIOS- Mitigation Existirig Year 2005---- Intersection Measure W/O Imp. W/Imp. W/O Imp. W/Imp. Edinger Signal Coordination 1.02 0.79 1.13 0.96 Bus Turnouts Intersection Widening (new ROW) ' Heil Signal Coordination 0.84 0.75 0.97 0.97 Bus Turnouts Warner Signal Coordination 1.20 0.82 1.49 1.02 Bus Turnouts Access Control Intersection Widening (new ROW) ' Slater Signal Coordination 0.81 0.75 0.95 0.95 Bus Turnouts Talbert Signal Coordination 0.72 0.64 1.12 1.12 ' Bus Turnouts Ellis Signal Coordination 0.91 0.82 1.18 0.91 ' Signal Modification Bus Turnouts Access Control Intersection Widening (new ROW) Garfield Signal Coordination 0.59 0.59 0.78 0.78 ' Yorktown Signal Coordination 0.57 0.57 0.72 0.72 ' Adams Signal Coordination 0.72 0.72 0.94 0.94 Bus Turnouts Atlanta Signal Coordination 0.50 0.50 0.61 0.61 Note: See Table 17 for V/C definitions ' Source: Orange County Transportation Commission, "Super Streets Demonstration Project Final Report" March, 1986 94 Accidents. Accident data included in the "Super Streets" were provided by CalTrans. The Statewide average for total accidents on a six-lane arterial in an urban area is 4. 1 accidents per million vehicle miles. The Statewide average for fatal plus injury accidents for the same roadway configuration ' in an urban area is 1. 6 accidents per million vehicle miles. The rates reported along Beach Boulevard are significantly higher than the Statewide averages. Maintenance. Increased traffic volumes, especially truck-related traffic from increased commercial development, would be expected to contribute additional wear on the road surface. However, mitigation measures aimed at improving traffic flow, including intersection widening, would result in a general improvement of the existing road surface and this impact is not considered ' significant. Mitigation The "Super Streets" report identifies a Measures wide range of improvement options for intersections and mid-block sections along Beach Boulevard. The options range from low cost improvements such as signal coordination, ' restriping to provide additional lanes and signal modifications to selected capital intensive improvements such as intersection ' grade separations. Mitigation measures discussed in this EIR will be limited to those identified as being a part of the proposed project and identified by the Redevelopment Agency for project funding. The primary objective of these mitigation measures is to identify specific improvements needed to provide reasonable capacity for the ' existing and projected (Year 2005) traffic volumes on Beach Boulevard. Following is a brief summary of each proposed intersection and mid-block modifications for the project area. Signal Coordination: Improved traffic ' signal coordination for traffic along Beach Boulevard at each intersection in the project area. 95 ° Signal Modification: Where the existing or projected intersection level of service analysis indicated that additional signal phasing might be required to accommodate turning volumes, ' the necessary signal modifications would be installed. ' • Bus Turnouts: Where OCTD bus routes presently stop at an arterial street intersection with existing or projected heavy traffic volumes, bus turnouts on Beach Boulevard are included if no such turnouts already exist. ° Access Control: Several locations indicate that turning movement restrictions or median closures might improve intersection operation. • Intersection Widening With New Right-of-Way: Where the intersection level of service analyses indicate that intersection widening would improve the level of service, but the existing ' right-of-way does not appear to be sufficient to accommodate such widening, additional right-of-way would be ' required. Restriping With Parking Restrictions: This measure is included in areas of existing or projected heavy peak period traffic volumes, where additional travel lanes could be provided by imposing peak ' period parking restrictions. Tables 24 and 25 identify the specific ' mitigation measures included in the proposed project and their locations. These measures would help reduce impacts on traffic caused by the proposed project. However, these mitigation measures alone are not expected to relieve the existing congestion problems and the impact on traffic would still be ' considered significant. Funding for these improvements would be paid, in part, by the Redevelopment Agency. ' The Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency has identified an additional mitigation measure outside of the project area aimed at relieving 96 traffic volumes on Beach Boulevard. This would include the extension of Gothard Street to connect with Hoover to the north of the I-405 Freeway. This would provide additional north-south travel opportunities. This information is included in the City of Huntington Beach, Gothard Street Extension Draft Report, August, 1986. Onsite parking requirements for individual projects will be determined by the Huntington Beach Zoning Ordinance and Development Code to ' reduce the potential impact along side streets and Beach Boulevard. 1 1 97 TABLE 24 BEMI BOULEVARD REDEVELOPKM PR33EC.'T PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURES Intersection Intersection Of Beach Signal Signal Bus Access Widening With Coordination Modification Turnouts Control New Edinger XX XX ' Heil XX XX Warner XX XX XX ' Slater XX XX Talbert XX XX Ellis XX XX XX XX Garfield XX Yorktown XX Adams XX XX Indianapolis XX XX Atlanta XX Source: Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency, OCTC 1 1 98 TABLE 25 BEACH BOULEVARD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT PROPOSED MIDBLOCR MITIGATION MEASURES ' Intersection Restriping of Beach Signal Parking With Milepost Coordination Restrictions Edinger 5. 6 at McDonald XX ' Heil 5. 1 XX Warner 4 . 6 XX Slater 4. 1 at Newman XX Talbert 3 .6 XX Ellis 3 . 1 XX Garfield 2 . 6 Yorktown 2. 1 Adams 1.6 at Indianapolis Atlanta 0. 6 Source: Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency, OCTC 99 3.14 Public Services Law Enforcement Environmental The City of Huntington Beach Police Department Setting provides law enforcement services to the project area. The Police Department operates from a central station located at 2000 Main ' Street. Police Department personnel indicate that the ' City presently has 206 sworn officers, or 1. 1 officers per 1, 000 persons. The City's objective is to meet the Department of Justice national standard of 2 . 0 officers per 1000 population. Motorized equipment maintained by the police force include marked and unmarked patrol - cars, vans, all-terrain vehicles (ATV' s) for beach patrol, and a helicopter unit. Typical response times are based on a priority level rating system: Priority-one calls average five-minute response times, priority- .two calls average seven minutes, and priority- three calls average 8.8 minutes. The City is divided into reporting districts assuring uniform response by patrolling units. The project area involves approximately 24 reporting districts. Environmental The Huntington Beach Police Department has Impact developed formulas for determining manpower needs for development. These formulas include commercial and residential land uses and are based on several factors including square footage, dwelling units, and the desired number of calls per patrol officer on an annual basis. Using these formulas, existing development in the project area requires approximately 1.9 police officers to provide 1 adequate protection. This does not include officers for traffic related incidents. The proposed project would result in increased commercial, office and residential development: compared to existing uses. This increased development would also result in increased police manpower requirements in order to provide adequate service and protection. Using the same formulas as above, the project 100 1 . area could expect approximately 3 . 3 officers upon complete development of the project area. This does not include additional manpower that may be needed for traffic related incidents. Beach Boulevard is a designated State Highway and would normally come under the jurisdiction 1 of the California Highway Patrol. However, all of Beach Boulevard within the City limits of Huntington Beach is patrolled by the City. The proposed project would not have a signifi- cant impact on CHP activities. Mitigation Additional manpower needs and requirements are Measures based on an on-going workload analysis program and service level determined by the City Council. Additional positions and equipment will be added as necessary to maintain an adequate level of service. 1 l 1 . 1 101 Fire Environmental Fire Protection to the project area is Setting provided by the Huntington Beach Fire Department. Additional services are provided by the cities of Westminster and Fountain Valley in an automatic aid agreement between these cities. Four stations within Huntington Beach provide fire protection to the project area with ' response times under five minutes. These four stations are the Murdy Station, Gothard Station, Lake Station, and the Bushard Station. The equipment maintained at each station is as follows: Murdy - One truck company, one engine company, one medic unit; Gothard - Two engine companies, one chief officer; Lake - One truck company, one engine company, one medic unit; Bushard - one engine company. The manpower at each station includes three men per engine company, four men per truck company, two men per medic unit, and two men ' at battalion headquarters. The Insurance Services Office (ISO) has set up a nationwide rating based on existing fire protection capabilities to set insurance standards for businesses. These capability ratings are based on manpower, equipment, response times, and fireflows, and range from one to ten with one being the highest rating. The Huntington Beach Fire Department has an ISO Class 2 rating. Orange County maintains an Emergency Hazardous Material Response Team (HAZMAT) to deal with accidents involving hazardous or potentially hazardous materials. The Gothard Station is the home base for one of three Type 1 HAZMAT units maintained by the County. Environmental Fireflows within the project area have been Impact continually upgraded over the years. The City has adopted the Uniform Building Code and a 102 sprinkler ordinance which set requirements for fire flow and internal fire protection for all major structures as approved by the Huntington Beach Fire Department. The proposed project, together with other development in the City, may result in added manpower and equipment needs to serve City-wide demands. Such needs are evaluated annually based on experience of the Fire Department. Mitigation The following mitigation measures are expected Measures to reduce potential fire protection system impacts to an insignificant level. 1. All designs and plans for construction on the project will be reviewed by the Fire Department prior to approval by the City. 2 . Structures to be constructed will be provided with fire detection and supression systems as required by the Uniform Building Code and the City sprinkler ordinance. 3 . The proposed development will be required to have installed water mains and hydrants providing fire flow and access distances as required by the Fire Department. ' 4 . Any proposed developments will be required to provide adequate access for fire equipment to all structures on the project site as required by the Fire Department. 103 Schools Environmental Three School Districts, the Ocean View School Setting District, Huntington Beach City School 1 District, and the Huntington Beach Union High School District provide elementary, junior and high school education to the project area. Two school sites are located within the project area. Both of these schools, Rancho View and Crest View, are part of the Ocean ' View School District. Rancho View is currently inactive and used as administrative offices. The District has set the site aside for a long-term commercial lease. The Crest View School is currently open with an enrollment of 537 students, grades kindergarten through eight. District plans for this school include continued educational use for five to ten years, with a potential commercial lease option afterwards. ' Environmental Elementary student (K-8) enrollment throughout Impact Huntington Beach has experienced a general decline from 14 , 000 in 1976 to 8, 500 presently and, as a result, several school sites in the City have been closed or converted to other uses. However, current projections indicate that this trend is leveling off and enrollment may experience a slow increase. The Huntington Beach Union High School ' District has seven school sites in Westminster, Huntington Beach and Fountain Valley, four of which are located in ' Huntington Beach. These schools are Ocean View High, Huntington Beach High, Edison High, and Marina High. High School enrollment for 1 the District reached a maximum of 21, 200 in 1978 and has declined to about 17, 000 presently. The high schools now average between 2600 and 2800 students. Even with noticeable decline, the District indicates that classroom space is near capacity. However, California State Lottery monies have allowed the District to hire more teachers to help alleviate the overcrowding. 1 Because the Rancho View school is currently closed, and District plans include a long-term commercial lease, recycling this site to a commercial use would not have a significant 104 1 impact. The recycling of the Crest View School at some later date would have an adverse impact on students using the school and would require the District to transport ' these students to other schools. The District has an established transportation program, and although some additional costs would be incurred, transporting these students would ' reduce this impact. The Huntington Beach City School District has ' identified five schools that may be potentially impacted by the proposed project. These schools are Dwyer, Perry, Kettle, Smith and Sowers. The Peterson School, located less than one-tenth of one mile from from the project area between Indianapolis and Atlanta, is presently closed. The Huntington Beach City School District has indicated that enrollment is currently at or near capacity for operating schools. Residential development within the project area and additional employment generated by the project would be expected to add additional school-aged children to the area. According to 1980 U.S. Census Bureau data, there were 40, 193 children enrolled in school ' in the City and 61, 322 dwelling units. Based on this, the housing required for the proposed project could generate approximately 304 to 412 additional children of school age. Redevelopment law requires the Redevelopment Agency to use up to 20% of the tax increment money to benefit low- and moderate-income housing. This may result in additional housing which may have an impact on schools in the area. However, the law further states that this may be in the form of providing additional housing or improving on existing housing, which would not result in additional 1 impacts on schools. Furthermore, the Redevelopment Agency is not required to spend this allocation within the project area boundaries. This money may also be used towards senior housing projects and the Redevelopment Agency has historically been .an active participant in this area. The Redevelopment Agency was involved in the development of a 164-unit senior housing 105 project which it now owns. Any additional senior housing projects benefitting from the 20% tax increment funding from the proposed project would not have an impact on the -school system. The increase in employment generated by the proposed project is insignificant on a regional level and it is expected that a percentage of the labor force to be employed by the project already reside within the ' school district boundaries. Mitigation The Ocean View School District will provide Measures transportation to other schools in the City of Huntington Beach for those students that may be displaced as a result of the closure of Crest View school. This would reduce this impact to a level of insignificance. No additional mitigation measures are required. If .the Redevelopment Agency decides to use 200 ' of the tax increment money required by law to benefit low- and moderate-income housing, it may do so in an area of the City where the school district is experiencing less overcrowding, if such an area exists. The Redevelopment Agency may also use all or a portion of this money to improve existing housing or provide senior housing, both of which would have an insignificant impact on the school system. 1 The Huntington Beach City School District could also open the presently closed Petersen ' School site which is located within . one-quarter mile of the proposed residential developments in the project area. The school districts should continue to acquire, to the extent available, California State Lottery monies for additional teaching staff to reduce student-teacher ratios. The California legislature- has changed the rules governing school facilities financing by authorizing school districts to directly levy school impact fees, dedications, or other requirements for temporary or permanent facilities construction. This legislation (Assembly Bill 2926, 1986 Stats. Ch. 887) also allows school districts to impose "any other form of requirement" on developers, including the formation of a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District. ' 106 i 1 This legislation (which became effective January 1, 1987) does, however, place a ceiling on the cumulative amount of developers fees which can be levied for school facilities. Residential development fees are capped at $1. 50 per square foot, and commercial and industrial fees at $0.25 per square foot. These caps will be annually ' adjusted to reflect inflation. However, the- full impacts of this newly passed legislation cannot be accuratey assessed at this time. These measures would further reduce any ' potential impacts on the school system resulting from the proposed project. 1 107 Libraries Environmental The City of Huntington Beach maintains a Setting central library with three additional annexes, Mainstreet, Banning and Grand. This library system consists of 82 , 100 square feet of building space and a book volume of 364 , 500 titles. The closest library to the project area is the Main Street Annex library located at 525 Main Street. ' Environmental The Huntington Beach Library system is Impact currently nearing 95% capacity of available book space and is experiencing overcrowding and parking deficiencies. Additional population increases are expected to increase the demand for library services. The proposed project, in conjunction with additional growth in the City would have an adverse impact on library services. Mitigation Future plans for the library system already Measures include expansion of building space and parking at the Central Library and building expansion of the Banning and Grand annexes to ' accommodate increased patrons and volumes. These measures would reduce the impact on this service to a level of insignificance. No ' additional mitigation measures are required. ' 108 1 3.15 Energy ' Environmental The importance of energy conservation has been Setting made clear to the public in recent years as a 1 result of increases in the price of energy, recognition of the national interest in reducing dependence on foreign energy sources and increasing concern with the environmental impact of coal and nuclear sources on which the U.S. will depend for expansion of generating capacity. ' Environmental Because the growth anticipated as a result of Impact the project is a small proportion of regional growth and does not represent a significantly different energy use compared to growth in other locations in the region, the impact of this growth increment on regional energy resources is not expected to be significant. However, all unnecessary energy use is of concern and mitigation measures should be considered to ' reduce energy consumption. (Estimates of energy usage by the proposed project are discussed . under Section 3 . 16, Utilities. ) ' Mitigation The following mitigation measures are included Measures in the proposed project to reduce energy consumption: 1. Compliance with California Energy Commission Standards for energy-conserving construction ' techniques in all new construction. 2 . Attention to measures to reduce vehicle miles traveled and encourage use of ' high-occupancy vehicles in all large single-tenant projects as outlined under circulation mitigation measures. 109 3.16 Utilities ' Water Environmental Water is provided to the project area by the Setting Huntington Beach Water Department. ' The Huntington Beach Water Department purchases water from the Municipal Water District and supplies its own water from eight operating City-owned wells. Several water mains transect the project area. Along the major east-west arterials, a 20-inch main runs along Warner and 12-inch mains are located along Edinger, Yorktown, Adams and Atlanta Avenues. The remaining arterials contain eight-inch mains. The main lines along Beach Boulevard are mostly eight inches, however there are uncompleted sections in the southern portion of the project area. ' Environmental The proposed project would result in increased Impact water consumption and demand on the City water system. Table 26 identifies the estimated water consumption of the proposed project. ' Currently, the project area is estimated to use approximately 327, 000 gallons per day. The proposed project is expected to result in ' the consumption of approximately 629, 000 gallons per day, an increase of 92 percent. ' Both the current General Plan and GPA alternatives would result in increased water consumption compared to the proposed project. This represents a significant increase in consumption and the Huntington Beach Water Department indicates that this project, along ' with other development, would have an adverse impact on existing water sources. The transmission system in portions of the project area is inadequate to supply future increased development and would require upgrading. However, development plans include upgrading of the water system to increase capacity to accommodate the proposed project and provide suitable fire hydrant locations and adequate fire flow requirements. ' Water supplied to the project area is monitored and tested in accordance with applicable State and local requirements and meets all Federal and State Drinking Water Standards. 110 TABLE 27 DAILY WATER CONSUMPTION (million gallons per day) Gallons/day Existing Proposed GPA Alternative ' —Land Use -- per unit Units Usage Units Usage Units Usage (m d) (mgd) Commercial 100.0 2053 ksf 0.205 3779 ksf 0.378 4302 ksf 0.430 ' Office 100.0 508 ksf 0.051 272 ksf 0.027 272 ksf 0.027 Mixed 100.0 16 ksf 0.002 16 ksf 0.002 16 ksf 0.002 Recreation 100.0 0 ksf 0.000 7 ksf 0.001 7 ksf 0.001 Residential ---- 390.0 — 180 units 0.070 567 units 0.221 —479 units 0.187 TOTAL 0.327 0.629 0.647 -- -------- ksf: Thousand square feet MGD: Million gallons per day Source of Generation Factors: City of Los Angeles EIR Manual for Private Projects, 1976. Mitigation Mitigation measure included in the development Measures plan regarding the transmission system include the construction and replacement of all ' substandard lines along Beach Boulevard with eight-inch mains and complete loops to the extent Redevelopment funds are available. Additional construction would involve the upgrading to twelve-inch mains at Heil, Warner, Slater, Talbert, Ellis-Main, Garfield, Yorktown, Indianapolis, and Atlanta. ' Additional improvements will be reviewed on a project-by-project basis. ' In order to supply additional future water requirements, the Huntington Beach Water Department may be required to drill additional ' wells or construct an additional connection to MWD sources. At this time, drilling an additional well or wells appears to be the most feasible. In the event well contamination is identified, the Water Department would be required to ' obtain water from other sources. The following mitigation measures are offered to encourage wat1dr conservation: 111 r 1 1. The use of shrubbery and vegetation with ' minimal water requirements wherever possible; 2 . Using automatic sprinkler systems to ensure landscape watering during early morning hours or during the evening, reducing the amount of water normally rlost through evaporation; 3 . Install low volume toilet tanks to reduce water consumption; ' 4 . Install plumbing fixtures designed to reduce water loss from leakage due to ' faulty or damaged washers; 5. Install flow control devices to reduce 1 water flow from faucets. These mitigation measures would reduce potential water service impacts. 1 _ 1 1 i i 1 1 1 112 1 ' Sanitation Environmental Sewage collection from the project area is Setting provided by the Orange County Sanitation Districts No. 3 and No. 11. Generally, everything south of Garfield Avenue goes to District No. it and everything north goes to District No. 3 . These Districts have lines. in the area including a large trunk line along Pacific Coast Highway. However, no County facilities currently exist from Atlanta to Talbert in the project area. The Slater Pump station in District 3 is nearing capacity and has created some capacity deficiencies for ' this district. The proposed coast trunk sewer would accept some flows from this area and would help alleviate some of the current deficiencies, if implemented. The effluent collected from the project area goes to either Treatment Plant No. 1 in Fountain Valley or Treatment Plant No. 2 located in Huntington Beach. These plants have a combined capacity of approximately 245 ' million gallons per day. Treatment Plant No. 1 provides full secondary treatment and Treatment No. 2 provides partial secondary ' treatment. The project area is currently sewered. The City system consists mostly of eight inch lines with some reaches up to ten and twelve inches. ' Environmental The Sanitation District currently operates Impact under a NPDES permit issued by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board. This permit has a set discharge limit for biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and suspended solids for treated water. For every million gallons of water the facilities treat, one ' milligram of BOD is added to the system. The District has indicated that it is nearing this permit limit and all additional effluent treated impacts this system. In addition, the Slater Pump station near Ellis and Golden West is at capacity and any additional effluent generated in that network creates an ' impact. Because no County facilities currently exist ' between Atlanta and Talbert, most of the effluent in this area would be collected at ' 113 1 Pacific Coast Highway. Since the majority of vacant land is located south of Garfield Avenue, proposed development would be expected to have a greater impact on District No. 11 than District No. 3. Projected sewer flows from the project area ' are presented in Table 27. The project area is estimated to generate approximately 256, 000 gallons per day currently and would be expected to generate approximately 504, 000 gallons per day upon completion, a 97% increase. These figures were generated from factors supplied by the Sanitation District. ' The peak sewer flow is estimated to be 1.84 cubic feet per second, which represents a 53% increase over existing conditions. The current General Plan and General Plan amendment alternatives would generate higher flows than the proposed project. ' With expansion potential limited at the two treatment facilities, the expected increase in sewer flows is considered to have an adverse impact on the existing County system. Mitigation Measures that reduce the total volume and load Measures strength of effluent entering the County system will reduce the impact on the BOD level at the treatment facilities. Typical mitigation measures to reduce this impact include low-flow showers, water saving toilets and other conservation efforts. Source control measures at food processing businesses such as grease traps, land disposal of foodstuffs, or recycling foodstuffs for animal feed would reduce the BOD potential to some extent. Treating on-site prior to collection by the County system would also provide mitigation. Most of these measures would need to be implemented on an individual project basis. Improvements to the City system included in the proposed project, to the extent Redevelopment funds are available, include the installation of approximately 2700 feet of twelve inch line from Yorktown Avenue to ' Adams Avenue. All hook-ups will require permits through the City of Huntington Beach and any use ' generating industrial flows will require permits from the County Industrial Waste Division. ' 114 TABLE 27 PROJECTED AVERAGE SEWER FLOW (millions gallons per day) Existing Proposed GPA Alternative gat/day Flow Flow Flow ' Land-Use -- unit/1 Units (mgd) Units _-(mgd) -Units -Y (mgd)- Commercial 75 2053 ksf 0.154 3779 ksf 0.283 4302 ksf 0.323 Office 75 508 ksf 0.038 272 ksf 0.020 272 ksf 0.020 Mixed 75 16 ksf 0.001 16 ksf 0.001 16 ksf 0.001 Recreation 4.6 0 ksf 0.000 7 ksf 0.000 7 ksf 0.000 ' Residential--�- 350 180 units 0.063 567 units 0.198 479 units 0.168 TOTAL 0.256 0.504 0.512 KSF Thousand Square Feet MGD: Million Gallons Per Day Generation factors modified by Cotton/Beland/Associates from Orange County Sanitation District figures. TABLE 28 PROJECT PEAK SEWER FLOW ---- (cubic feet per second) cubic ft./ second Existing Proposed GPA Alternative Land Use per unit Units Flow Units Flow Units Flow (cfs) c f s) (cfs)_ Commercial 0.00038 2053 ksf 0.780 3779 ksf 1.436 4302 ksf 1.635 Office 0.00075 508 ksf 0.381 272 ksf 0.204 272 ksf 0.204 Mixed 0.00038 16 ksf 0.006 16 ksf 0.006 16 ksf 0.006 Recreation 0.00016 0 ksf 0.000 7 ksf 0.001 7 ksf 0.001 Residential 0.00015 180 du's 0.029 567 du's 0.085 479 du's 0.072 ' ~TOTAL _ 1.196 1.732 1.918 ' KSF: Thousand Square Feet CFS: Cubic Feet Per Second Source of generation factors: modified by CBA from City of Los Angeles EIR Manual for Private Projects, 1976. ' 115 Electrical Power Environmental Electrical power service is provided by Setting Southern California Edison Company. Power is presently supplied to the project area by overhead lines along Beach Boulevard and major cross streets. ' Environmental Increased development in the project area Impact would result in increased electrical consumption and would create an impact upon ' the energy supply in the region. Table 29 presents the estimated annual electrical energy consumption of the project area. ' Presently, the project area is estimated to use approximately 32 .7 million kilowatt hours per year. The proposed project, upon completion, is expected to use approximately ' 53 .3 million kilowatt hours, a 62% increase over existing conditions. tnless the demand for electrical generating capacity exceeds Southern California Edison's current estimates, and provided there are no unexpected outages to major sources of electrical supply, SCE expects to meet its electrical requirements for the next several years. The Southern California Edison Company already has plans to underground the existing overhead lines along Beach Boulevard from Warner Avenue to Garfield Avenue. Construction is expected to start in late 1987 and be completed by 1990. Impacts ' associated with undergrounding include potential pole relocation during construction, and minor traffic delays. These impacts would be short term and are not considered significant. ' On a long-term basis undergrounding these lines would provide a beneficial impact on the visual quality of the project area by removing unsightly overhead lines. However, on the short-term, secondary impacts associated with construction-related activities would result. 116 TABLE 29 PROJECTED ANNUAL ELECTRICAL ENERGY USAGE (million kilowatt hours per year) ' Existing Proposed GPA Alternative kwh/year Usage Usage Usage Land Use sg.ft./du Units Millions Units Millions Units Millions_ ' Commercial 12.3 2053 ksf 25.3 3779 ksf 46.5 4302 ksf 52.9 Office 12.2 508 ksf 6.2 272 ksf 3.3 272 ksf 3.3 Mixed 12.3 16 ksf 0.2 16 ksf 0.2 16 ksf 0.2 Recreation 4.4 0 ksf 0.0 7 ksf 0.0 7 ksf 0.0 Residential 5838.0 180 du 1.1 567 du 3.3 479 du 2.8 ' TOTAL 32.7 53.3 59.2 ' Source of Generation Factors: South Coast Air Quality Management District, "Air Quality Handbook for Environmental Impact Reports revised December, 1983". Mitigation Widespread energy conservation measures ' measures provide the greatest mitigation potential. Those measures include, but are not limited to, retrofitting to solar systems, construction requirements included in the California State building standards under Title 24 of the California Administrative Code, using major appliances during off-peak ' hours, and utilizing energy efficient appliances and equipment. ' Public improvements associated with the proposed project include the undergrounding of utility lines within the project area to the extent redevelopment funds are available. 117 1 Natural Gas Environmental Natural gas service is provided to the. project Setting area by Southern California Gas Company. Gas t lines presently transect the project area along Beach Boulevard and along major cross streets. No known significant problem areas presently exist in the project area and the supply of gas to the area is sufficient to meet the ' expected growth of the project. However, the availiability of natural gas supplies can be affected by external influences of the global political arena and may not always be accessible. Shortages of natural gas on the West Coast have occurred in the past. Environmental Increased development would result in Impact increased demand for natural gas. Current and projected consumption figures are shown in Table 30. Natural gas consumption for commercial buildings will vary depending on the type of energy system incorporated into ' the building design and the degree of its usage as a primary energy source. Assuming reliance on natural gas as a primary energy source, additional commercial and residential ' development in the project area may be expected to consume approximately 13 . 9 million cubic feet per month, or 159 million ' cubic feet per year, a 78% increase over existing conditions. Southern California Gas company representatives have indicated that the proposed project can be serviced from facilities in the area. 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 agreements are made. Since natural gas is a non-renewable, depletable resource, proposed development increases would result in more rapid consumption of natural gas reserves. With growth occurring throughout the County as a whole this would have an impact on a regional . level. Continued conservation practices and technological advances may result in incremental decreases in natural gas consumption. 118 ' TABLE 30 PROJECTED MONTHLY NATURAL GAS USAGE (million cubic feet per month) ' Existing Proposed GPA Alternative cf/month Usage Usage Usage Land Use _ sg.ft./du Units (mcf) Units (mcf) Units (mcf)___ ' Commercial 2.9 2053 ksf 6.00 3779 ksf 10.96 4302 ksf 12.48 Office 2.0 508 ksf 1.02 272 ksf 0.54. 272 ksf 0.54 Mixed 2.9 16 ksf 0.05 16 ksf 0.05 16 ksf 0.05 Recreation 0.5 0 ksf 0.0 7 ksf 0.00 7 ksf 0.00 Residential 4100.0 180 du 0.74 567 du 2.32 479 du 1.96 TOTAL 7.8 7.8 13.88 15.03 ksf: Thousand Square Feet mcf: Million Cubic Feet Source of generation factors: South Coast Air Quality Management District, "Air Quality Handbook for Environmental Impact Reports revised December, 1983". Mitigation Continued conservation practices, ' Measures construction requirements involved' in the California State building standards under Title 24 of the California Administrative Code, retrofitting existing structures, considering solar installations to supplement water heating requirements, and utilizing energy efficient equipment provide adequate mitigation. Individual building design review will be done on a project-by- project basis. Any expansions to the existing service system will be done by the Southern California Gas Company. 1 119 Telephone Service ' Environmental General Telephone provides telephone services Setting to the project area via overhead and underground lines throughout the project area and to those individuals whom request this service. ' Environmental Increased development in the project area Impact would require additional connections to the General Telephone network. No unique problems are foreseen in providing quality telephone service to the area and this impact is not considered significant. Undergrounding the telephone lines in the project area is included in the redevelopment plan. On the long-term, these improvements would enhance the visual quality of the area by removing unsightly overhead lines. On a short-term basis, undergrounding the ' telephone lines would result in additional construction, traffic and air quality impacts. However, these impacts would be short-term and not considered significant. Mitigation No mitigation measures are required. Measures ' 120 Solid Waste Disposal Environmental Solid waste disposal for the project area is Setting provided by the Rainbow Disposal Company. Solid wastes are taken to the Coyote Canyon Landfill located in Coyote Canyon in the City of Irvine. The Coyote Canyon Landfill is the responsibility of the Orange County Sanitation District. This landfill site is a Class III site which allows only municipal wastes and does not allow liquids, chemicals or hazardous wastes. This site is expected to reach capacity in 1988 at which time it will close. Permits are currently being processed to open a new site, Bee Canyon Landfill located in Irvine, to be used upon closure of Coyote Canyon. The Bee Canyon site is anticipated to have a life-expectancy of 20 to 25 years. There are no Class I hazardous waste disposal sites within Orange County. The two nearest ' sites currently accepting hazardous wastes are located in Casmalia in Santa Barbara and Kettleman Hills in Kern County. Environmental Solid waste generated by the project area is Impact shown in Table 31. Currently, the project area generates approximately 259, 000 pounds of solid waste per day. The proposed project is expected to increase the amount of solid waste generated daily to approximately 410, 500 pounds, a 58 percent increase. This level of solid waste represents a small percentage of the total solid waste capacity available in the county, and would have an insignificant impact on solid waste on a regional level . However, as the capacity of the County's landfill sites become exhausted, all ' generators of solid and liquid waste would create a negative impact. Hazardous waste disposal poses a regional problem. With no facilities in the entire County, and only two available regionally, a large demand is being placed on these ' facilities. Any generators of hazardous waste/materials in the project area would result in incremental filling of licensed disposal sites. Based on current zoning, most ' uses in the project area are not major ' 121 1 1 ,1 TABLE 31 1 SOLID WASTE GENERATION (Pounds Per Day) y Existing Use Proposed Use GPA Alternative Lbs/day Total Total Total Land Use Unit Units (Lbs) Units (Lbs) __ Units (Lbs)___ Commercial 0.1 2053 ksf 205300 3779 ksf 377900 4302 ksf 430200 Office 0.1 508 ksf 50800 272 ksf 27200 272 ksf 27200 Mixed 0.1 16 ksf 1600 16 ksf 1600 16 ksf 1600 Recreation 0.01 0 ksf 0 7 ksf 70 7 ksf 70 Residential 6.6 180 du's 1188 567 du's 3742 479 du's 3161 TOTAL 258888 410512 462231 _] Source: Brian J. Smith, Solid Waste Generation Factors in California Solid Waste Management Board, Technical Information Series-BulLetin No. 2 (Sacramento, California: Office of the State 1 Printer, July 8, 1974). ' generators of hazardous waste and are not expected to have a significant impact on 1 hazardous waste disposal. Mitigation Minimizing the quantity of waste going to Measures landfill sites will require reduction in the volume generated at the source. This may be accomplished through treatment of more efficient processing or manufacturing 1 -processes. To offset solid waste generated by the proposed project, businesses and retail centers should provide source separation for recyclable materials such as compaction and binding of cardboard boxes or can and bottle only bins. Any generators of hazardous waste may consider treatment on-site as a mitigation 1 measure that complies with all State safety codes and regulations pertaining to hazardous waste. Any existing or proposed underground 1 tanks storing hazardous material/waste will require a permit from the County. 1 122 1 Storm Drainage Environmental As previously discussed in Section 3 . 3 , Setting portions of the project area are located within the designated 100 year flood zone. As recently as 1983, portions of Huntington Beach experienced extensive flooding, including portions of the project area. ' The Orange County Flood Control District (OCFCD) maintains three flood control channels -in or near the project area which would ultimately collect and transport runoff from the project area. These three channels are: The East Garden Grove-Wintersburg (CO5) Channel which travels southwesterly across the project area at Heil Avenue; the Ocean View Channel (CO6) which parallels Warner Avenue to the north and connects with C05 west of Beach Boulevard; and the Huntington Beach Channel (DO1) which parallels Beach Boulevard south of Adams Avenue. The City maintains a system of storm drains throughout the project area with pipe sizes ranging from 18 inches to 36 inches. These drains are located along both sides of Beach Boulevard for the most part, and at most of the major cross-streets. The County DO1 channel in the Adams Avenue area currently is inadequate to contain the projected 100 year storm event. However, the OCFCD is currently improving this channel with the Bartlett retarding basin which is scheduled to be completed early next year. This improvement will allow this channel to adequately contain the runoff expected from the 100 year storm event. The County C05 channel, Iaccording to the OCFCD, has not posed significant problems in handling high runoffs. The same is reported for the C06 channel. Environmental The proposed project would result in the Impact ultimate coverage of a large percentage of the project area with impervious surfaces. Approximately 32 acres of the site are undeveloped and development of these areas plus the intensification of other areas would result in increased speed and amount of runoff. 123 Current and future improvements by the County, including the Bartlett retarding basin, and improvements to the City storm drain system included in the proposed project are expected to adequately contain additional runoff generated by the proposed project. Improvements to the City system include the installation of 2,200 feet of 18-inch and 24-inch pipes from Stark to Sher, a 48-inch pipe on the east side between Atlanta and Indianapolis, and 48-inch and 36-inch drains on the west side from Atlanta to Indianapolis. The proposed project is not expected to add significant additional amounts of runoff to the C05 channel northeast of the Beach t Boulevard undercrossing since this area is already developed. �. Mitigation Mitigation measures included in the Measures development plan would reduce the impact on the storm drain system. Additional mitigation measures include proper hook-up to City drains in accordance with the City of Huntington Beach regulations governing this activity, and any direct hook-ups with the OCFCD channels will be in accordance with County regulations. Further review will be required on an individual project basis and may require City or County on-site retention requirements. Permits will be required for the connection, extension, enlargement, or modification to any storm drain facilities maintained by the County. Redevelopment Agency participation could be required for any improvements to County storm drain facilities within the project area. These measures should reduce this impact. 1 124 3.17 Human Health Environmental Potential human health impacts include the Setting creation of any hazard, and the exposure of people to potential health hazards. No I significant health hazards are known to exist in the project area. Environmental The project is not expected to result in the Impact exposure of people to additional health hazards. The exposure of people to environmental noise is discussed in Section 3 . 6. Mitigation None. Measures I M1 1 . 125 t 3.18 Aesthetics Environmental The project area consists mainly of strip Setting commercial developments and auto dealerships and to a lesser extent, office space and residential homes. The project area is a linear configuration five miles long with a mixture of older and newer developments. There is little cohesion or similarity of design or landscaping between developments. There are developments, both commercial and residential, within the project area that appear vacant. Others show signs of dilapidation and are in need of repair. These blighted and blight-influenced areas result in lower property values and a reduced tax base for the City. Environmental The implementation of the proposed project Impact would result in an overall beneficial impact to the area. Redevelopment Agency improve- ments and land acquisitions would alleviate irregular and undersized lots and allow �. consistent, appropriate development while eliminating blighting and blight-influencing conditions. Beach Boulevard is a heavily traveled arterial and a concentrated commercial area. . Throughout the entire project area, a distinct lack of visual unity in design, landscaping and architecture is evident among the commercial retail and office centers. The proposed project would further improve the visual quality of the area by incorporating median landscaping, street furniture and theme signage. Mitigation Design review by the City on a project-by- Measures project basis prior to private development approval would reduce this impact to an insignificant level. r 126 3.19 Parks and Recreation Environmental The Huntington Beach General Plan Recreation Setting Element identifies ten neighborhood parks within approximately one mile of the project area. Of these ten parks, two are within the project area boundaries. The National Recreation and Park Association considers a neighborhood park to have a service area of one-quarter to one-half -mile radius to serve up to 5, 000 residents (A-5) . Figure 18 shows the approximate service areas for the nearby neighborhood parks. The Rancho View School site is a shared park facility that contains the local Little League home field. The field is within the project area and is anticipated to be removed for commercial development. The remaining park within the project area is Bartlett Park located on the east side of Beach between Yorktown and Adams. This 30-acre park, which ' includes the Newland Barn and House, and the historic Santa Ana River floodplain and escarpment, is presently undeveloped and in a natural state. The large 300-acre Huntington Beach Central Park is located approximately two-thirds of a mile to the east on Gothard Street between Slater and Ellis Avenues and provides recreational opportunities for the entire City. Huntington State Park is within one-half mile from the southern portion of the project area. Environmental Existing residential development is sporadi- Impact cally located along the length of the project and does not rely on a single park site for recreation. Anticipated residential development would occur in the southern portion of the project, south of Adams Avenue. Only one of these areas is within a neighborhood park service area; however, the 190 acre Central Park is within two miles, and Huntington State Park is within one-half mile. Because of the close proximity of the regional park, the incremental increase in population anticipated from the proposed project is not considered significant. 127 r // • r u to Ir a eee■eee r" 1 U'" IwtNhi'1\ •.y • 1' \ �+Ir''1 it 91. \1`�. \ e fee■�e�' �!�,a b`►1��►�� 1", ' _� �__ 111 ..1.1 ' �w■�■■\�� I��I _il w'• 1 \\`\\, 11�IAa'Iv1,► 1 \_,11!Iai��_\\i`\\"\�1�� •�1, ► .4 1 ice+ uum unnum • A.h�lllll�_�1-0711'11: N:o.�.�eY vi___ • r •u1,1 1 1. •�I' � I tinL�� 1�1� t�; ` �'!�► \ \\ \ jl�l`\�'�t K EU'i�lii4'�'1 •Ti+1i � n '\'� `I �r111Y �,1 •' I I � j+,�i,�• 1\��\\�� ,kl�\ . ► :- .1ti,111 ski! +!. -- • .{dbf1��'$ $� I■�t 1111111t 1�►811,it \ ►t�\ \ !►\�iw7►1.►\��\�! E'1i.11!! 11i I! \ ••--- �\ 1� .f i l l Ihl 1 1 kh1 1 • ;, a.�E E ��1 1lk3'►11 � 1 1 ��. / ► 1 1 1 1( 11 1 1 I k I 411'b;"li . !1 1 1 1111y 111�11.11111z 1 �`IEaj'9�- � ��_•• I i„+\\�1 !�'��\\I � \\, �1�11!11�111'•I�hl►k i lik•�` "- s � 1 111 ,1 w�\\\ w91� ��•�w'1'al� ►\� \d .., !111'+1,11\ 1 �\\1 'unm,,,EE-1u� 11111 11 1�` \�'1� '� �h�,•1YI1�11�1•!==1 \I ;�ti''►' •`il�,�• � �\I�__ Ich n1 u r iFi 1 • il��1 il, / !?� \ \V 1`kj,ll \\� \Tiii �u 1 1� r yNj ►y1, ,w,\ 1i11i1t► „ � \1\► \ `.I 1 1 r pp ar,. r• I Ii it 1 V. 1� ` I I,,` � ►\'�\�� `►,Ik \ $ �� III marl s I I\ �.�5 �► � 1 , � 1 1• � .• • 7 i N 1 1 II 1 ,Ik 1 11 4i` +@ 1 ,u ■I .•r w•. `ir?,i�1.1.►.L1►1! a li.tl ��i..T� S Yr,tl�1 �V s��..`. 1 • 11 ml� 1`.•f '� s— `I�I I r \ \ 1..►1►4\IL I, 1�l� I/1 . 1 \`► • 14'*`a\( hql''+1`a.♦' 1 �L 1 �►l.�sI\`A�• •. • , fy�`,!�■II�F:■ �.�\\�=,Iw�, I, �,'\`, Ili,ll•1 It/�\ •� ��' r ,i i t 1`�-�• •��:� �� _`�� i d►==��1_A.•., ` 11 i_!a \�w Inn m. t►am I %IL In� M."L' i. • ,r O.fa!\`\1 1 i:�i 1. • �i�111�1► ��►,i\\\,'�\\�iti.NW, +! • 11.,i:'t \ � �r�� .� ��►i'•1;11�As1.'11\�► .+: Idlyl,k 1�`\�1 �I�ia��\�1��04� t`I 1�a+lb.�u,s,.n.'1 c ��Y`•i•1 ``- eh" ►Q..� !1 t1iyly 1' E, ttil ir.lr.i. �t�ylk�ill'6rk�.lt 1 ` IS �}(' '1 ltt.�.711j11'111��►� it ,�►i.1�1*q�t.11'�Ight.\, • �.1.1 ..�1 ► 1;`� w,1i,41''i� Jr'It ►Il+i+i4�+ ,t...1.1.1.1. t 1 i 4V+�1 1 1 i! !1!. \ I t►_•siY • ��'O.� it►'+q�ii y\\I. ( hiNVi\\N1,41\�ti�pLh�i+11l1..,•%i � �\ Il ;i�1 11 it l \ ••,1 . • 1' t 114. Z` .�1 �' 1\, \+1!• '1 �1':�' 'R\ ►1 ► 14 1•1 ui �1 '��r! it 1• ►s L'i. 1� ! I,,h 1 ' 1 1 t�� ►.1 1•Ir ! . ! 1'1 t1R to 1 ! t ! • 10 1"�;1 1 41' 'ti �� \�Mw'l'4.III1�`i ►•• R �1 1►►.: \''a i�y� 1 1 .�r��4�,{T l + 1.Ir 1 / 'R•+1.1_��'A1��ai1;,1 ��. 11\ (� I�,N.M,1�,� \ 16. 1 , •V 11\`� +y\II'1 1 1=i�1 r.0 unu v ti j •t ,�.-r�� IIti11 ��' Ia (1�► 0 1� t 1 1 1 1 h.i1:1. y' 1p11i I - h'o�'i:,' ��•. `17� 1,A. 14.py\ Soo y1 +•�Ik..1�s,, y+l 1111 1 T.��1 HIM • r�yti, +,-��11;.t r I>a� `� IjI • 1i 1y1 1 14'��.: ,• 1�1 1�11:t�1!1' i li h 1' '� 1 1 �In "''Z.- ?N''11`II`�1 A 1� �1 `1,0.r.1 1 1.i. 1 y 1 1 1� 1 1.1►1 11.•TY.•p•1.• � 1 1 ! �� •�. 1 d4 s dl: 'NX, \I.� !bra. l: _•`_!_v:tisavr.v�dad�.l•',1, 11�� 1{4 hj �1 11 to — 1 C,'�`11'1��"k`O�`�wk`�`I�`�, � 1ik��``�'0. 'ti''�'�'RII�►"q�h�,� itl;i.+;11 111 1+ 1 I...yl.. IL It �!�+1 I 1 1t, '� � k*N 1 � 1�, !t L,,1 kh 11.1 11t:1y1k1►�_ ' � ,... ' 6,� t h 1, 1 �vi�ji +''11`�►: . 11L1 1�L�`r 1'0 �1r, 111.• a �'! L 1 1 e 1 • e Y ► el\ �1�t�M,1}' ,L•� 1`itY 1 I; = G��• �, i•Y.♦ I�i1V1�111 ` 1. 1lllfl It Yi111 i i 1 1 �► :t L �' 1 li f p, 1 1, i '�1 !1 1 1 f 't�'t i� � ,ll Y 1IC,1�1� ,Y i 01 ►Y`'1 ` Y Y ist 1 v t '� e a 1 1 6 1 Iliiil 1 1 - S ` ►+.�• 1 \ �! 1;1i l 1 1 1 11 1•'14s41 1\ 1 `,1 1 11 1 lifw4o' f 1�++ 1 1 1'�l �!! 1 1 . \ 1 1 `�y �„•,'1' t'a„ 111 111111►, 1 11 1 L!h 1,' 11,11. 1''' 11 it I.,„/�0 t11 eih1� Hlllil IAltnl IY: il.l`lt't.ii�,11��1 Le Lvifn�lai li +1� Y 11t,!t�4iL' 1 11. 1•.�:e 1 1,•1�ill ;� YTnnw'nnenY�l w ` \� j1S1`h Y1.. U f o.w.•Y.•Y.•Y.•'`4i•q v 1 1, 4• Y ► i f 1 �• e � \ ► ! 1 !�l tit�i ual:►:le.,\ "1I�Yiil 1la.11l.�lq;:Yl�1liv1fll;ltf111 1;1 ;Vi11�. 1 ��M, 1 r �►f'.'i,l - 1• 1 �� 1!1 t S' �SY�la1i+l�4•__+� Y!,11 �.1►Iltiltl, 'l'1ei�i� 1:! 11!''i 1 11 1,1�IIY.1 1t a';1 1 1 1 1 0 b �� ► ?t ►�.a;.�.: 4.� p�. 1 1 �► Y , . ! tlwwl ' '�-1 ►! 1 1 i 1 i`1�` _l.d► I • vl'11 ,1 Yvl it YIY ►.Y I Ii L 1' I �,�1 1�;ly�i�lY.i1�Y.� `�iY.►..IY.I�:N�.�i.��.41IR.:�! i 1 ! iY!�l 1 1�1 l�1i\\F.� *11Y1 1 1 1►1 �6�ii11,. '►4�' � 1 P•■ •� . „ew•.. �� I,1►••. � �11:,.1>,.�t`\il•�1111�1`f�l s`O,YQiIl+I I;i�4''14►�i'�y(11 Y��i1 Yh�.� �,111111:e.,11/'lilyl•a�!1 _ �_ 11 �� lY ! Is \' 1 1 1i1 ►1.11` t.4 i Y 1 }11i11t1.. i, 1 In �i Mi 11r;1111111 111 l!tY�_Y_L.1ie , act 1 r' Y F' �•. •/fit••. M I It.4,"';11� �.?.`•—�ylr`tt`i Y.,11 �fj 11'1111Y 1 \��, ix�4l<l llll li eil'Y.Y Y Y . ii:, ��, 11 1 1 1i1.'i:elv%,IN, �i $may • • • � +. � 1 t 1 a S� �i'i (� 1\'1'yi 41 1:1,�! ` •1 1,f'1 a 6 Y i w• �i wuYw`wYe�wYw �'\\I`\;�I�;I�I,�il=f i!il�{ti 1�`!1�'��►+\1:��`` e.h.\+,�,{„1j �` �iiO��`\� u u L� L �® � 1!1 1 lie •1.�., f �etknit i A 1 11� \ ` �Ilt�1��{11,{►1'll �r 1`�` YOB 1 •. • "AN,Y. ` 1\I`;11\, \I'rl111 �` .Y r�,b.�1 IZi y r Y ��.'r'�� ,�� `�'L�� Y. ��•. �� ter.• _ • ,/� 1�11�\l`I��\`\vs`►11 \��a 1►'14.N:111\,,ll``•\\��`iYl��v. \�� _ 1 wii 1 w - Y. 1 `'�LI\1 • � �p 1�4\ \ `� I.IIL�\�i ,Ra V!'o I�vl 1 W` � ��1111111�\_\\\�!\1'.• 1 ��' `` ' 11, �1 \�'tl 1`. !a`.1► Y line i � . • h 4:Y1 A�Y ,L�N:xiiia��0,_1 \>,'a4�`.�;1` It•`u` v czc=_�!�• 1 W a l,1'}it rua1T�41.1` 1=1 q,w,u4.Id un /� i,,►`�♦` �• v nlge �� ■,Y.►\.:Q.1 1 �.�1 �`�� fio�l►► q 11►vk•Yi�Lu:6:�;. ' .;I�-Ll! ® \�;1\\` � iJYu a 1 ,Iv 'il ` y!?u.vinau,.,►lilo,. Y1 ` If.v.I.p�1.+11� �'� e,�■1� ..i�.+\`►\L'.vlllll�►ih�1 �1�1.�\_=�1' '��+ ' � x.�G 1 ` � �� n ,.s h:i.•w•':,.u� IY;:'•n 1 In."a,wi a.•` v.•:a.•�Y r n ,,,,. — ii`�Y?►�•...'h�,lino 1•, _ice.` w... :f:� :nY. -� ■>t j , w,al10I'•1`,.oI0l k Yn.vl r` v•velY YYIIII YxuY �•�1"r.Tl:'ir1\�Ii�w1�:,Y1a••+av��pcl:v�l.�Ya enn Yuel Ilr i • w.v�w,• �'1 1►��w•Lv:q.w•v��•YL I�Yiy aigr gw luulleir uua __ • Illllllls anal meal au41i'iw�i:va a ►•�1►�. �ia►1.r11sv+w�r.w1.•�n'1:YI: r.irn.wl� �,� �"2.� 1 1 � 11 �Ywl�v'.•111��...•1•,!Ijo;��,�—:��'Y �� / • „ ��,e.'�1,_i��; �1, - �� 71LII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIi 'ab;'an:'a' �Y.ani•.'Y'��1�� . L;y�r.wW.'Y I 1 n +1,.4,•'-� xxY ai.Y miiiilul.� h� `l,T�`��I,;VY•`W�'\Yi-YY'U �i:i . .. i w`) 1�,, �e.. ■ling iYa�i 1.YY +; 4�•� �� i�� IYYY...�g�Y14'f 'IT"�''iYY',IIf�V,YY.v1�,�,1,f`�,,\,,., q,oNY�. '•1.•li a IYu.�`,• ��x�` .� , . 11,41:\.1 h:�6�1 1'1+t►'VII`,``.,r.+��E;lines,��y`'i� '�.i •n� �i~w w• .� ;1 its • 11 • Y Implementation of the proposed project would result in the removal of the existing home field for the local Little League and would have a temporary impact on baseball activities until a replacement field location could be found. Mitigation Mitigation measures for the baseball field Measures include the relocation of the existing facility to another acceptable area of the City. The Redevelopment Agency would not be required to pay cash in-lieu fees for this site, but the developer may be required to provide an adequate site as a condition for development. Preliminary development plans have been made for Bartlett Park to provide additional recreational opportunities for anticipated- increases in population in the area. The preliminary plans include a basketball court, volleyball court, .children' s sand area with play equipment, natural areas, open turf for general recreation and additional parking. Additional improvements at the Newland Barn for historical artifacts are also included in the preliminary plans. Redevelopment funds, to the extent available, will be used for development at this site along with funds from the City of Huntington Beach Parks and Recreation Department. These measures would reduce this impact to an insignificant level. 130 3.20 Historic and Cultural Resources Historical Resources Environmental The historical and cultural resource section Setting of the Orange County Transportation Commission (OCTC) Super Streets Demonstration Project Draft Program Environmental Impact Report, December, 1985, is hereby incorporated by reference (A-4) . Copies of this document are available for review at the Huntington Beach Planning Department, 2000 Main. This report includes an historical survey of Beach Boulevard from the Pacific Coast Highway north to the San Diego Freeway. The report indicated that the area immediately adjacent to Beach Boulevard has undergone continual change and development. No major contiguous historic districts or neighborhoods exist within the project area. There are no listed National Register and/or California State Historic Landmarks within the project area. However, the Newland House, located between Yorktown and Adams on the east side of Beach Boulevard, is listed as an historic site in the City. This 1-1/2 story Queen Anne style structure is potentially eligible for listing as either a State Historic Landmark or on the National Register. The home is situated approximately 150 feet from the right-of-way near the Santa Ana River floodplain scarp. Environmental The Newland House is located to the south and Impact rear of the Newland Shopping Center. Antici- pated development is not expected to increase significantly at this location and would not have a significant impact on this structure. Street improvements for this area include bus turnouts and intersection widening. The historic building is set back substantially from the existing right-of-way and these improvements would not have a significant impact. Mitigation No mitigation measures are required. Measures 131 1 Archaeological Resources Environmental The OCTC Super Streets EIR had an Setting archaeological resources search performed by the University of California at Los Angeles Institute of Archaeology for Beach Boulevard. This search found three sites along Beach Boulevard within the project area. The first site (ORA 358) was found near Beach Boulevard and Indianapolis Avenue. Some prehistoric artifacts have been recorded. No excavation has been performed and the site has been disturbed. The second site (CA ORA 183) is associated with the Newland House which is located on Beach Boulevard near Adams Avenue. A 1983 report for the Huntington Beach Historical Society has recommended that two areas be set aside for future investigations as the site has yielded important aboriginal information. The third site (ORA 296) is adjacent to Beach Boulevard between Newman and Slater Avenues. No excavation has been done. Environmental For those sites that have already been Impact disturbed, the impact of increased development would not be significant. For undisturbed sites, development into these areas has the potential to create an adverse impact. Mitigation Development should seek to avoid damaging Measures effects on an archaeological resource whenever feasible. If avoidance is not feasible, the importance of the site shall be evaluated and mitigation measures included in Appendix K of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines shall be incorporated in the project. In general, these guidelines require the following: ° Preservation of sites in places as the preferred manner of avoiding damage to archaeological resources. ° Development and implementation of an excavation plan for sites which cannot be preserved in place. 132 i 1 Payment by the developer of one-half the cost of mitigating significant effects on important archaeological resources, not to exceed one-half of one percent of the projected project cost. Stopping of excavation in the event of discovery of human remains, until the coroner has determined that no investigation of the cause of death is required; or, if the remains are of native American origin, descendants have made a recommendation to the owner regarding proper disposal of the remains, or descendants failed to make a recommendation with 24 hours of notification. If no recommendation is received, remains are to be reinterred with appropriate dignity on the property in a location not subject to future development.- 133 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 rc-Ra) Altemativ es 4. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT The following discussion considers alternative development scenarios for the site of the 1 proposed project, including the various impacts associated with each scenario. Through comparison of these alternatives to the proposed project, the advantages and disadvantages of each can be weighed and analyzed. State CEQA Guidelines require a range of alternatives "governed by 'rule of reason' that requires the EIR to set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice" (Section 15126 (d) ) . Alternative A: No Project This alternative considers projected development in the proposed project area based on current land use regulations and development trends, but without the adoption of the redevelopment plan. Any development that may occur would be expected to take place at a slower rate in the project area than would be the case with the adoption of the redevelopment plan. The "No Project" alternative would result in fewer impacts on urban systems, compared to the proposed project, including traffic, water, sewer, solid waste disposal, and I utilities. However, because redevelopment tax increment financing would not be available to pay for necessary public improvements in the project area, this alternative would place a heavier burden on the City for support of the land use in the project area. Additionally, benefits to the residents and City of Huntington Beach in terms of increased tax revenue, increased employment, and secondary benefits would not be realized. Under this 1 alternative, abandoned, obsolete and unattractive commercial and residential facilities would be expected to continue to exist in the project area, maintaining an undesirable environment for the development of new businesses and delaying the improvement of the area. 134 i 1 Alternative B: Development Based on the Current General Plan This alternative considers development within the project area consistent with the current General Plan assuming no General Plan Amendments are approved. Potential impacts associated with this alternative have been discussed in previous sections of this EIR. This alternative would result in increased commercial and office development and approximately 200 more residential units compared to the proposed project. Benefits resulting from this alternative include increased tax revenue, increased employment, additional housing for City residents, and secondary impacts above existing conditions. Because the alternative proposes additional commercial, office and residential development, compared to the proposed project, potential impact areas including public service, public utilities, population, housing, schools, and land use are expected to be relatively more significant than the .proposed project. Increased traffic and resultant air pollution emissions are also expected with this alternative, although this situation would also occur with the proposed project. Alternative C: Development Based on the ' General Plan with Approved General Plan Amendments This alternative considers maximum development within the project area consistent with the General Plan assuming approval of all four Redevelopment Agency location requests for General Plan Amendments. Approval of these sites would allow proposed development included in the proposed project to be 1 consistent with the General Plan. However, the total development proposed by the project at these locations is generally less than what could be allowed at maximum buildout of the General Plan. This alternative considers maximum buildout in the entire project area. This alternative could allow greater commercial and office development that the proposed project, but would allow fewer 135 r r residential units than the proposed project. Benefits to the City and its residents resulting from this alternative include additional tax revenue, increased employment opportunities to the area, and additional available housing compared to existing conditions. Under this alternative, abandoned, obsolete, and unattractive commercial and residential facilities are expected to be removed and replaced with additional improvements creating a desirable environment for new business. Because this alternative proposes more intense development of commercial and office space than the proposed project, anticipated impacts are expected to be greater with this alternative. These impacts would be offset, to some degree, by the reduced residential- development of this alternative compared to the proposed project. However, the potential impacts on public services, public utilities, traffic, air quality, land use, population, and employment are expected to be greater than the proposed project. Alternative D: Reduction of the Project Area This alternative considers a reduction in the size of the project area by reducing the number of parcels included in the redevelopment plan. Parcels that might potentially be considered to be removed from the project area include some parcels not directly adjacent to Beach Boulevard, the Crest View School and the Huntington Intercommunity Hospital offices or new development centers. It is anticipated that parcels outside of the project area would develop at a slower rate due to lack of improvements, financing, or restricted lot size than those within the project area. This alternative would result in increased impacts on traffic, water, sewer, utilities and population compared to the No Project alternative. However, the impacts from this alternative are expected to be fewer than the proposed project. By eliminating parcels from the project area, the entire area would not be expected to benefit from redevelopment and pockets or 1 136 sections along Beach Boulevard would continue to be undesirable for new development creating visual and land use conflicts. By reducing the size of the project area while still maintaining the linear configuration, the proposed project would still provide a link to all the existing redevelopment areas in the City. This would allow the Redevelopment Agency to unify its planning for projects and improvements within these areas. Alternative E: Reduced Intensity of Project Area This alternative considers the elimination or reduction of development intensity within portions of the project area. This alternative would result in fewer impacts on traffic at the major intersections along with fewer impacts associated with public services and utilities, land use and air quality ' compared to the proposed project while still benefitting the City with increased tax revenues, increased employment and secondary ' benefits associated with the redevelopment plan. This is the environmentally superior alternative. Development within the project area that might be considered for reduced development intensity include those areas near major intersections experiencing deteriorating vehicle level of service until such time that improvements can be made to alleviate existing congestion. Proposed development is already below that which may occur under the General Plan designations in some instances. Further reduction of these areas would prevent the land from reaching its full value and development potential. Additionally, reducing development intensity would lower employment and revenue generating potential. 137 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 Long-Term Effects 1 S. ANALYSIS OF LONG-TERM EFFECTS 5.1 Cumulative and Long-Term Impacts of the Proposed Project Which Affect the Environment ' 1. Cumulative Impacts The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines define cumulative effects as "two or more inividual effects that, when considered together, are considerable. or which compound or increase other environmental impacts. " The Guidelines further note that the individual effects can be the various changes related to a single project or the change involved in a number of othe closely. related past, present, and reasonaable foreseeable future projects (Section 15355, 21-83) . The cumulative effects associated with the implementation of this proposed redevelopment project have been evaluated based on the information summarized in Table ' 32 which includes a broad description of related projects in the vicinity of Beach Boulevard. The related projects identified in this EIR ae additional redevelopment areas for the Cities of Huntington Beach and Westminster. Figure 22 shows the location of the redevelopment areas considered. The ' proposed project accounts for approximately 60% of all recently completed, approved, or proposed development within these ' redevelopment areas. Land Use. The proposed project, in conjunction with other redevelopment projects, would result in an overall recycling and intensification of land uses. Vacant parcels within these areas would ultimately be committed to urban uses. Circulation. The implementation of the proposed project, in conjunction with the "related projects" would result in 138 i r TABLE 32 RELATED PROJECTS Redevelopment Project City Location Description Status ' Beach Boulevard Huntington Beach Beach Blvd. between 1.5 million sq. ft. Proposed Edinger and Atlanta additional commercial and office space; 479 to 781 residential units Proposed Huntington Center Huntington Beach West of Beach Blvd. 176,000 sq. ft. Complete between Edinger and expansion on Center McFadden Avenue 90,000 sq. ft. Complete mini-storage 5,600 sq. ft. bank Complete 224 room Holiday Inn Under ' Construction 192,000 sq. ft. Under office building Construction ' Oak View Huntington Beach West side of Beach 210,850 sq. ft. Complete Blvd. between Slater office building and Warner 21,500 sq. ft. Complete commercial r 24,800 sq. ft. Complete restaurants ' 42,000 sq. ft. Complete health spa 31,300 sq. ft. Complete cinema complex Talbert Huntington Beach West of Beach Blvd. 314 senior housing/ Complete between Talbert and condominium complex Taylor ' Main Pier Huntington Beach Main St., Walnut Av., 87,500 sq. ft. Approved Second St., and beach retail commercial side of Pacific Coast Hwy. from Lake to 1 Golden West r 139 i - TABLE 32 RELATED PROJECTS (continued) ' Redevelopment Pr2ject_1_ City Location Description Status___ Subarea 2 of Westminster 25 acres, east side 305,250 sq. ft. Complete Project Area 1 of Beach Blvd. retail commercial between Edinger and Heil Avenue ' Source: Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency; City of Westminster Planning Department. 140 0 0 a m • ' CD m m 0 1 BolsaCL °D 1 fi ::: • ' •�• o Ed ig.. . ■ m - �o A m . � ■ Warner - r" ------� = Project Location Orange i County Talbe ::ee:eee L ::...... Garfield i Huntington Center - - • A ,d • � Oakview c�i' � � • �c Adams ® Coe CD m o Talbert-Beach � o • Sub-area 2 of Area 1 f'::•. Hamilton Main-Pier 'ti:• / Beach Boulevard • Redevelopment Project Area (generalized) North 0 112 1 ' scale in mile c's Beach Boulevard- Redevelopment Project Figure 22 ' Related Projects ' 141 1 1 significant increases of vehicular traffic on the local arterial network. The projected traffic the related projects are anticipated to generate is summarized in ' Table 33. The information summarized in Table 33 indicates the proposed, project would account for approximately 63% of the total traffic anticipated to result if all of the related projects are implemented. The ' cumulative traffic impacts would be significant. on the existing circulation system with major reductions in operating levels. Major street improvements are proposed along Beach Boulevard in conjunction with the proposed project which would provide some mitigation. ' However, complete mitigation of project related and non-related traffic is not expected. In addition to the local street system, a proportion of the traffic would be ' directed towards the nearby freeway system. Portions of the freeway would experience a decline in operating levels during the peak-hour periods as a result ' of these cumulative impacts. Population. The implementation of the ' proposed project, in conjunction with other "related projects" would result in an incremental increase in the area's population. This increase is within SCAG population growth forecast for Huntington Beach. ' Public Services. The implementation of the "related projects" with the proposed project could expect to generate approximately 1,435 students, some of whom are already within the potentially impacted school system. ' Utilities. The construction of additional commercial and office building space, along with residential units, would result ' in increased usage, demand, and treatment capacity of electrical power, natural gas, water, sewer, and solid waste requirements. Table 34 estimates the consumption/generation rates if all the "related projects" are implemented. ' 142 ' TABLE 33 CUMULATIVE TRAFFIC IMPACTS ' -Related Potential Daily AM Peak Hour -�PM Peak Hour Project ,___ Development_ Trip Ends Total Total ---- ' Huntington Center commercial 176,000 sq. ft. 8,800 880 792 mini-storage 90,000 sq. ft. 450 45 41 savings 5,600 sq. ft. 364 36 33 office 192,000 sq. ft. 2,880 288 259 hotel 224 rooms 2,240 224 202 Oak View office 210,850 sq. ft. 3,163 316 285 health spa ' 42,000 sq. ft. 840 84 76 commercial 21,500 sq. ft. 1,075 108 97 ' Talbert housing 314 units 1,570 157 141 Main Pier commercial 87,500 sq. ft. 4,375 438 394 ' Sub-area 2 of Project Area 1 commercial 305,250 sq. ft. 15,263 1,526 1,374 ' RELATED PROJECTS SUBTOTAL 41,019 4,102 3,692 Beach Boulevard commercial/office 4,074,000 sq. ft. 67,600 6,760 6,084 residential 576 units 4,032 403 363 BEACH BOULEVARD SUBTOTAL 71,632 7,163 6,447 TOTAL 112,651 11,265 10,139 Generation factors from the Orange County Environmental Management Agency "Daily Trip ' Generation Rates", August, 1982.. AM peak hour assumed to be 10% or 24 hour total; PM peak hour 9% of AM peak hour. 143 TABLE 34 ' CEMLATIVE OOTMM.IPTION/GEN RATION RATES (Total Potential Development of All Projects) Water Sewer Natural Gas Solid Waste Electricity ' Land Use mcf rtp tons da million kah Commercial 0.442 0.328 12.82 221 54 ' Office 0.068 0.035 1.35 34 6 Hotel 0.022 0.022 0.04 11 3 Other 0.002 0.001 0.02 4 0 ' Residential. 0.344 0.308 3.61 3 10 Total 0.877 0.695 17.84 267 73 Air Quality. The proposed project, in conjunction with the "related projects" would result in continued incremental degradation of local, and ' to a lesser extent regional, air quality. The cumulative air quality impacts anticipated to result from the implementation of all identified "related projects" would be significant considering the area is currently considered a ' "non-attainment" area that exceeds State and Federal Air Quality Standards. TABLE 35 MOMATIVE AIR QiA MTY IKPAC 'S Emissions in Pounds Per Day Emission Source CO HC NOx SOx Part. Gas Consumption 11.7 4.7 70.0 0.0 0.09 Electric Power 53 33 531 354 46 ' Mobile Source 12,638 1,490 1,814 185 262 12,702 1,527 2,415 539 308 144 Noise. The noise impacts resulting ' from the implementation of all the "related projects" identified in this section of the report would result in increases in ambient noise levels over ' a long period of time. Much of the increased noise would be generated by the increased volumes of traffic that ' would result from the implementation of the projects identified in this section. 2. Long-Term Effects The proposed project does not compromise long-term productivity for short-term gain. The proposed project has the potential to improve the long-term potential of the proposed project area through the elimination of blighting influences and providing improvements to encourage development. The area is expected to have long-term potential for commercial and office uses, as well as residential in selected areas, because of its geographic location along a major commercial corridor and its good regional access. The project is considered justified now because it is considered unlikely that substantially different alternatives would be selected in the future. The proposed project is intended to support the long-term viability of uses in the proposed project area and its immediate vicinity. ' 5.2 Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes Which Would Be Involved in the Proposed Project, If It Were Implemented State CEQA Guidelines define "significant effect" as a "substantial adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project. " Impacts are not considered "significant adverse impacts" if potential effects can be mitigated to acceptable levels. 145 1 Three significant environmental impacts as ' a result of the approval of this proposed project have been identified in this EIR. These three impacts include land use, air ' quality, and transportation/circulation. Land Use. The proposed project would result in a more intensive use of the site ' than would be the case in the no project alternative. Development of the existing vacant land represents an irreversible commitment of the site to urban uses. The development of these sites as proposed would preclude other development options for the life of the structures constructed on the site. The more intensive development areas may not be compatible with adjacent residential development and could generate conflicts in these areas. Air Quality. The proposed project would have direct and significant impacts on the air quality in the area and, to a lesser extent, the entire South Coast Air Basin as air pollution emissions in the basin continue to exceed State and Federal standards. The proposed project's contribution to air pollution levels may be incremental on a regional level, however, the cumulative impact of additional development in the region along with this project is considered significant. Transportation/Circulation. Intensifica- tion of development would bring additional employees to the project area, and increasing traffic on local arterials and the regional circulation system in the vicinity of the proposed project. This increased traffic would increase levels of congestion and reduce the level of service ' on arterial streets to the extent that traffic system improvements are not adequate to compensate for this increase. ' Some such measures are included in the proposed project and in the City's regular program of transportation system management and street system improvements, ' but some adverse impacts would result from the proposed project. 146 Approval of the project would require that the Redevelopment Agency, as Lead Agency, adopt a "Statement of Overriding Considerations. " This document is a public statement that balances the ' benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental costs. If the benefits are found to outweigh the costs, ' the adverse environmental impacts may be deemed acceptable. 5.3 Growth Inducing Impacts of the Proposed ' Project This section considers the ways development in ' accordance with the proposed project could encourage economic or population growth, either directly or indirectly. ' The project is specifically intended to provide for the orderly growth of Huntington Beach. Capital improvements are intended to ' insure that adequate facilities are available to serve this development. Mitigation measures are included in the City's ' development ordinances to insure that development occurs in the method and at the proper time that it can be accommodated. Huntington Beach is part of a large urbanized region. The proposed projects role in promoting growth in this region is relatively ' small in a regional context. A total of 3000 to 4040 additional jobs are ' anticipated to be provided in Huntington Beach in a variety of job categories as a result of the proposed project. By providing jobs at the project area, the project would increase ' housing demand in the project's housing market area. ' 147 (c-� Persons and Organizations Consulted 1 1 6. PERSONS/ORGANIZATIONS CONSULTED ' The following literature, persons and organizations were consulted in the prepara- tion of this Environmental Impact Report: A. References: ' A-1 USDA, Soil Conservation Service, Soil Survey of Orange County and Western Part of Riverside County, ' California, September, 1978. A-2 Leighton-Yen and Associates, Geotechnical Inputs, February, 1974 for the Huntington Beaach Seismic- Safety Element of the General Plan. ' A-3 Huntington Beach Planning Department, Flood Hazard Study, April, 1974 . ' A-4 Orange County Transportation Commission, Final Program EIR: Super Streets Demonstration Project, ' December, 1985. A-5 National Recreation and Park Association, Recreation, Park, and ' Open Space Standards and Guidelines, 1983 . ' B. Persons and Organizations 1. California Department of Finance Population Research Unit (916) 322-4651 1 2. California Department of Transportation "Traffic" Litton (714) 620-3513 3 . Huntington Beach Central Library Ron Hayden (714) 960-8836 ' 4 . Huntington Beach City School District Gary Burgner, Assistant Superintendent (714) 964-8888 ' 5. Huntington Beach Engineering Department Les Evans, City Engineer (714) 536-5435 ` Bill Patapoff, Principal Engineer ' (714) 536-5431 Bruce Gilmer, Traffic Engineer (714) 536-5525 ' Bill Waddell, Traffic Engineer (714) 536-5525 ' 148 1 . 6. Huntington Beach Fire Department ' Chief Fred Heller (714) 536-5563 7. Huntington Beach High School District Lee Eastwood, Assistant Superintendent 8. Huntington Beach Planning Department Hal Simmons, Associate Planner ' (714) 536-5550 Florence Webb, Environmental Review (714) 536-5552 ' 9. Huntington Beach Police Department Sgt. Jim Moore (714) 536-5943 Sgt. Bruce Kelly (714) 536-5667 Sgt. Stuart, Watch Commander (714) 960-8809 Sgt. Davidson, Traffic Division (714) 536-5667 10. Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency Thomas Adrusky, Project Manager (714) 536-5583 Steven Kohler, Senior Community Develop- ment Specialist ' (714) 536-5582 11. Huntington Beach Water Department ' Stan Farber (714) 536-5528 Ed Barkley (714) 536-5424 Sylvia Hill (714) 536-5528 ' 12. Ocean View School District Monte McMurray, Assistant Superintendent (714) 847-2551 ' 13 . Orange County Flood Control District Marty Price (714) 834-6397 Bob Talafus (714) 834-4369 1 14. Orange County Sanitation District Hillary Baker (714) 540-2910 ' Rich Von Langen (714) 540-2910 Po Wang, Solid Waste Division (714) 834-8100 Fred Gaggilo, Environmental Health Section (714) 834-7601 149 1 1 15. Orange County Transportation Commission Lisa Mills, Manager of Highway & Transit Programs (714) 834-7581 Christine Huard-Spencer, Environmental 1 Coordinator (714) 971-4343 Nick Jones, Traffic Operations (714) 620-5468 1 16. Rainbow Disposal Company Wendy Ericson (714) 847-3581 ' 17 . Southern California Edison Company Ralph Coolidge (714) 973-5491 18 . Southern California Gas Company 1 Lou Hurlbutt (714) 634-3119 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 150 1 1 U_ .0 C N a a Q L NOTICE OF PREPARATICK T0: Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 1 ' SUBJECT: Notice of Preparation of a Draft Rnviromental Impact Report Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency will be the bead 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 X is, is not, 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 Tom Andrusky at the address shown above. We will need the name for a contact person in your agency. 1 Project Title: Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project ' Project Applicant, if any: PATE October 31, 1986 Signature k4,4 _ GL�� ' Title Redevelopment Project Manager ' Telephone (714) 536-5583 r 294 ' INITIAL STUDY BEACH BOULEVARD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT October 21, 1986 City of Huntington Beach Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California 92648 i ' Cotton/Beland/Associates 1028 North Lake Avenue Pasadena, California 91004 ' #402 1 Description of the Proposed Project The redevelopment project under consideration by the City of Huntington Beach includes the following actions: 1 ) Approval of the Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Plan by the ' Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency. Approval of plans for redevelopment of approximately 513 acres of land. Development will be based on existing General Plan designations. ' Approximately 446 acres of the project area is designated as commercial, approximately 15 acres as office professional, approximately 21 acres residential (14 acres medium density, 1 . 5 acres medium high density, 1 acre high density, and approximately 4 . 3 acres planned community) , and approximately 30 acres recreation. Anticipated final development may include up to 5 .8 million square feet of commercial space 290,000 square feet of ' office, and approximately 675 units of residential. 2) Upgrading landscaping along centerline and frontage roads, theme signage, street furniture and decorative street lighting as. necessary. ' 3 ) Undergrounding of utilities wihin the project area. 4) "Super street" concept improvements including signal modification, new signals, access control, parking restrictions, ' restriping, intersection widening, and bus turn outs as necessary . 5) Upgrading sewer , storm drainage, and water lines within the ' public right-of-way as necessary. 6 ) Assembly by the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency of development sites if appropriate and necessary, demolition .of existing structures and sales to private developers under a disposition and development agreement . It is anticipated that relocation of some existing business and residents may be necessary. 7 ) Approval of private developers plans including conditional ' use permits, zone changes or other permits required to implement to redevelopment plan. Figure A-1 shows the location of the proposed project . Figure A-2 shows the current General Plan designations within the project area. Table A-1 lists public improvements included in the proposed project . A-1 1 ' 1 - 1 �. .. ,� j � _ __ - _.__ �-��• ,r Edinger Avenue 1 � — al � cFE... 1' r;!!j e0 J : ::c Heil Avenue --- - Cf 1 s,. 10 C 0- Warner Avenue l� '1�(( �� is �' • A �.. y y `.c I '�' I Slater Avenue ! a 11 —; '2 o Talbert Avenue I IiI, 1 tv•E � +4 �U J North �177, scale in feet '.r;JIf 1 �G 1 �_��:.:• _ _ Ellis Ave MATCH LINE ' Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project North Half 1 A_2 FLi A-I --_MATCH NE —_ _ ..- Ellis Avenue II 0`A I !�� j �• C-j Il - fl !i4 Garfield Avenue 21 in CF-E — . � �i --�I __... " •"1'= "'` _ ''�'`�'� Yorktown !.venue I ��t�;,ALL '• Adams Avenue �n 11(II( I. . li I- j j�jL- ice.(n� fT1 fT q Ty x —_��! (I!LJ I..l H I.R . .` '._'� ' Indianapolis Avenue C � ll.l li i;lam'S/ �F_E L M : _. I it zq :.1 — Atlanta Avenue North 2000 O i - I Hamilton Avenue :..al.s in feet II iChc11 ' ' Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project South Half A-3 F�t,a,re 4- l r r TABLE A-1 rPUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS ' BEACH BOULEVARD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT 1. Landscaping ' - Centerline and frontage roads along existing medians from Edinger to Atlanta r - Theme signage, street furniture, decorative street lights r2 . Undergrounding of Utilities Entire length of Project 3 . Super street Improvements - Signal modification - Ellis Avenue r - New signals - MacDonald, Newman - Access control - Ellis Avenue, Warner Avenue - Parking restrictions - Restriping Intersection widening, New right-of-way r - Bus turnouts 4 . Storm Drain and Sanitary Sewer Improvements Storm Drainage 2200 feet of 24" and 18" storm drain from Stark to Sher, south of Aldrich ' One-half mile of 48" storm drain on west side of Beach Boulevard between Atlanta and Indianapolis ' - Sewer 2700 feet of 12" line from Adams to Yorktown 1 1 A-4 5. Water Line Improvements ' - 20,900 feet of 8" main on east and west side of Beach Boulevard, complete loops and replace 6" line - 1800 feet of 20" casing steel, boring and jacking for 12" main, crossing every one-half mile at Heil Avenue, Warner Avenue, Slater Avenue, Talbert Avenue, Ellis-Main, ' Garfield Avenue, Yorktown Avenue, Indianapolis Avenue, and Atlanta Avenue ' 6. Potential Land and Parcel Consolidation - 12.4 acres on northeast corner of Beach Boulevard and Warner Avenue ' - 6.7 acres on northwest corner of Beach Boulevard and Warner Avenue ' - 4 .8 acres on southeast corner of Beach Boulevard and Warner Avenue ' - 4 acres on west side of Beach Boulevard from Cypress south to strip shopping center ' - 2 . 0 acres on northwest corner of Beach Boulevard and Garfield Avenue - 12 . 1 acres on southeast corner of Beach Boulevard and Garfield Avenue 1 A-5 Environmental Setting ' Beach Boulevard extends from Pacific Coast Highway (SR-1) to the San Diego Freeway (I-405) in the City of Huntington Beach. Beach Boulevard is located on the coastal plain of Orange ' County. The topography is characterized by flat terrain with slopes between zero and two percent. The soil is generally alluvium principally deposited by overflows from the Santa Ana ' and San Gabriel Rivers. These soils are generally deep and rich sandy loams that could provide prime agricultural land if they were not already urbanized. ' The project area is seismically active and the Newport-Inglewood fault is within the project area. Portions of the project are ' identified as being within the 100 year flood zone. No rare or endangered species of pants or animals are known to exist within the project corridor. ' No properties within the project area are either listed on or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. The Newland House near Adams Avenue is listed as a historic site in the city. In addition, three known identified archaeological sites exist within the project corridor. ' Probable Environmental Effects The environmental effects of the land development ' considered will be discussed in the Environmental Impact Report. Impacts discussed in the EIR will include cumulative impacts on air quality, noise, light and ' glare, land use, population, housing, traffic and circulation, public services, utilities, aesthetics and construction impacts. The redevelopment project EIR will also consider any historic or culturally significant ' structures identified in the project area. Potential environmental impacts of the project are ' further detailed in the Environmental Checklist Form attached. 1 A-6 Land Use Categorles RESIDENTIAL 5a [_]Estate <_2unAW LlEstate s3ungoc Estate s4urVgoc „ .....�• — -- f..-I low Densf�tyne :., ",r••c .rn ,:j _• /-•. � =MedRun fy ,• ..+•, x+.� ti __� ....---1:. .00 •.!"c+!r __"-..-....-' ^'/�.' r. C]Medium High Density :: +• s' ova, - MHigh Density M Senior Residential COMMERCIAL General ®Visitor-Serving EM o as, .,,, ..,... ..,• - a.,.•, „,: :::., .. Officeof essional ar-u i:'• :i K %.� i \ MIXED USES .. ............. ..::... :::..! ' : 1 M,ed Development \ (=]Olrce/Residential I. ... .. .. ®Corm,ercial/SupportRecreation ;_.: :: : INDUSTRIAL General c� •� ResourceProduction \ 1' y\/ on atrial EnergyProduct ion ' Industrial OPEN SPACE Water [=.]Conservation > Jp,+ C Racr¢ation A OTHER USES V "rO �+ p� []Public.Qia&i-PubliC.listitutIOW Solid Waste Facility UJ Planned Community \. E�Planning Reserve r —Coastal Zone Boundary / \ [:]Conservation Overlay j i AL PLAN �':.. HUNTINGTON BEACH CALIFORNIA LAND EnUS DIAGRAM PLANNING DIVISION sdoped December 1976 _. Revised AINE 1986 4rc -Z A-7 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM I. BACKGROUND 1. Name of Proponent Huntington Re-rh uoaeuelpp^ nt Age%ey---- t 2 . Address and Phone Number of Proponent: 9n00 MainrFluntingtnn Rporh- CA (714) 936 55RI 3 . Date of Checklist: 4 . Agency Requiring Checklist: Huntington Beach Planning Dept. 5. Name of Proposal, if applicable Beach Blvd_ Redeveln m n Pro]ert II. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets. ) ' YES MAYBE NO 1. Earth. Will the proposal result in: ' a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substruc- tures? X b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil? X ' c. Change in topoography or ground surface relief features? X ' d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? X e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? X f. Change in deposition or erosion ' of beach sands or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? _— g. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? X CEQA Guidelines, California Office of Planning and Research, January, 1984. ' A-8 1 YES MAYBE NO 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or ' deterioration of ambient air quality? .X_ ' b. The creation of objectionable odors? _X— c. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? X '. 3 . Water. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements, in either marine ' or fresh waters? X b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns or the rate and amount of surface runoff? X C. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? X d. Changes in the amount of surface ' water in any water body? X e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface ' water quality, including but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? _X ' f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? X g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or ' through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? X ' h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? X ' A-9 YES' MAYBE NO i. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? X ' J . Significant nificant changes in the temperature, flow, or chemical content of surface thermal springs? X 4 . Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants) ? X ' b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique rare or endangered species of plants? X c. Introduction of new species of ' plants into an area, or result in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing X species? ' d. Reduction in acreage of any agriculture crop? X ' 5. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species ' of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms or insects) ? X b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? X c. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? X d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? X 1 A-10 YES MAYBE NO 6. Noise. Will the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? x b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? x 7 . Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? x 8 . Land Use. Will the proposal result in substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? x 9. Natural Resources: Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? X b. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource? X _ ' 10. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involve: a. A risk of an explosion or the release* of hazardous substances (including but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? x b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan? 11 . Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human popula- tion of an area? X_ 12. Housing. Will the proposal affect ' existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? x - A 11 YES MAYBE NO 13 . Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: ' a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? x b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? X c. Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems? X d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? X e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? x f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? X 14 . Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? b. Police protection? X___ C. Schools? x d. Parks or other recreational facilities?. x e. Maintenance or public facilities, including roads? x f. Other governmental services? x 15 Energy. Will the proposal result in.. a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? X A-12 t YES MAYBE N b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of X new sources of energy? 16. utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? X b. Communications systems? X c. Water? X- d. Sewer or septic tanks? X e. Storm water drainage? X f. Solid waste and disposal? X 17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? X b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? X 18 . Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation ' of any aesthetically offensive site open to public view? X 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational ' opportunities? X 20. Cultural Resources. ' a. Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? X A-13 YES MAYBE NO 1 b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure, or object? X c. Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? X d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? X 21. Mandatory Findings of Significance. a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? X b. Does the project have the . potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short- term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time �. while long-term impacts will endure well into the future. ) X c. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resoure is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant. X A-14 YES MAYBE NO d. Does the project have environ- mental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly ' or indirectly? x III. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION IV. DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant * effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have significant effect on the environment, there will not a significant effect in this case because the mitigat. measures described on the attached sheets have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED.. x I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPAC, REPORT is required. Date ignature) Name: Thomas Andrusky Title: Redevelopment Project Manager A-15 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 1. Earth b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of soil. The project will result in coverage of approximately 90% to 95% of the site with impervious surfaces. Current flood control measures anticipate ultimate urbanization of this area and this impact is not considered signi- ficant. c Change in .topography or ground surface relief features. Grading for individual developments within the project site may result in minor changes to topography. This impact is not considered significant. e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site. The project will expose soils to erosion during construction. Because of the lack of slope to the site, t impact during the construction period is expected to be minimal, and is not considered significant. g. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards. tActive faults are known to exist within the proximity of the project site. The geographic location of the project site anywhere in Southern California allows exposure to potential groundshaking. Building codes will make this impact insignificant. 2 . Air a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality. Increased traffic generated by development in the project area will result in increased vehicle pollution emissions. The significance of this impact cannot be determined at this time and will require further analysis and will be included in the EIR. Potential impacts from construction activities will also be included. A-16 3 . Water b. Changes in absorption rates, drainages patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff. Coverage of the area will increase the rate of runoff from the area during storms. Adequate site drainage will be required. Portions of the project area have been identified as having inadequate storm drainage. At these locations the impact may be significant. In the other portions of the project, this impact is not considered significant. i. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or tidal waves. Portions of the project area are within the 100 year flood zone. Mitigation measures in these zones will be required to reduce the impact to an insignificant level . The impact to the remaining project area is not considered significant. 4 . Plant Life a,c. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of plants including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species. The project will result in the introduction of additional number and species of plants, shrubs and trees for landscaping. This impact is not considered significant. 6. Noise a. Increase in existing noise levels. Project traffic will result in increases in noise on local streets which will be considered in the EIR. Potential impacts from construction activities will also be included. 7 . Light and Glare Will the proposal produce new light and glare? Portions of the project will be lighted for security and safety. Lighting will not cause unusual or unique problems A-17 i I for surrounding uses, and this impact is not considered potentially significant. 1 8 . Land Use IWill the proposal result in a substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area. The project will result in more development than currently exists in the project area. A general plan amendment is currently being processed to bring the proposed land uses for certain sites into conformance with the General Plan. The project will be consistent with the General Plan and preliminary redevelopment plan for the area, and this change in land use is therefore not considered significant, secondary impacts of the land use change are considered elsewhere in this analysis. 10. Risk of Upset Ia. A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions. Some materials considered hazardous may be used in conjunction with normal construction activities or business uses locating in the project area. However, no unique hazards or risks associated with the project are known or anticipated. 11. Population IWill the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area. The addition of employment at this location may induce demand for housing and population growth throughout the City I with diminished effect as distance from the site increases. This employment growth is consistent with regional employment projections and this impact is not considered significant. 12 . Housing ' Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing. The project may induce demand for housing within an area of potential employee residential locations. The project will A-18 i not result in large demands in a concentrated area and should not result in significant market pressures on availability or prices. The proposed project could result in the need to relocate aproximately 80 residences. Due to the size of the project some of these residences can be accommodated within the project area. 13 . Transportation/Circulation The project will result in significant additional traffic on the local street network, demand for additional parking, and require street improvements . These impacts will be discussed in the EIR to be prepared for this project. Potential impacts from construction activities will also be included. 14 . Public Services Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: a, c. Fire and Police Protection The additional development in the project area may result in additional police and fire demands. There are no unique or unusual hazards presented by the project, and these increases are not considered significant in the normal growth of police and fire service. d. Parks and Other Recreational Facilities. The General Plan identifies a recreation area within the project area. The impact of develpoment on this area will be considered in the EIR. e . Maintenance of Public Facilities, Including Roads The project may change maintenance requirements . Improvements included in the proposed project may reduce costs from increased traffic loads, and this impact is not considered significant . f. Other Governmental Services The project will result in additional planning and building reviews as necessary. This is not considered significant . 16'. Utilities Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: i A-19 c. Water The project will result in increased demand on the existing water supply and system. -Plans include improvements to portions of the existing water system, and this impact is not considered significant. d. Sewer or Septic Tanks The -project will result 'in increased demand on the existing sanitary sewer system. Development plans include improvement to the sanitary sewer system and this impact is not considered significant. e. Storm Water Drainage The project will result in increased demand on the storm drain system during heavy rains. This impact will be considered in the EIR. 19. Recreation Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities. See answer 14d. 20. Cultural Resources a. Will the proposal result in the alternation of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeologic site. Several locations along Beach Boulevard have been identified as archaeological sites. Because most of the area has already been developed or disturbed, the impact is not considered significant. b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure, . or object. A historic building has been identified within the proposed project. The building is set back a distance from the street and the impact on this building is not considered significant. A-20 j� e r/ t APPENDIX B YEAR 2005 TRAFFIC PROJECTIONS i t . 1 1 1 1 PNGE CO D � NATION GOB ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION tiay 23, 1985 To: Beach Boulevard Super Street Demonstration Project File From: Rob McCann Subject: Final Traffic Projections For Year 2005 This report documents the development of year 2005 traffic ' projections for the Beach Boulevard Super Street Demonstration Project. While the focus of this project is on improving existing conditions, these traffic projections will be used in the development of long-range super-street improvements for Beach Boulevard and in the accompanying environmental impact analysis. BACKGROUND On January 8, 1985, OCTC staff met with Caltrans District 7 staff to discuss the future traffic volumes to be used for the Super Street study. After reviewing the needs of OCTC and Caltrans' Environmental Planning, Transportation Planning, and Traffic Operations Branches, it was agreed that the forecast year 2000 traffic volumes developed for OCTC's Beach Boulevard Corridor Study (BBCS) would be acceptable for use in the current study. This determination was based on the following: 1-The network detail of the BBCS travel demand modeling will provide future volumes for all arterial highways that intersect Beach Boulevard. ' 2-The LARTS volumes are understated in the section of Beach Boulevard between Route 22 and I-405. It was also agreed at this meeting that year 2005 volumes could be developed by applying growth factors to the BBCS year 2000 volumes. Although Ron Helgeson (Caltrans Environmental Planning Branch) indicated that year 2000 volumes would be adequate for the preparation of a CEQA environmental document, 20-year forecasts are desirable in order to satisfy NEPA requirements. A NEPA document would be required should Federal funds be used for any super street improvements to Beach Boulevard. 1055 NORTH MAIN SUITE 516 SANTA ANA, CA 92701 (714) 834-7581. B-1 DEVELOPMENT OF GROWTH FACTORS AND YEAR 2005 TRAFFIC° PROJECTIONS The development of traffic forecasts for year 2005 involved the following tasks: 1-Comparison of BBCS year 2000 socioeconomic data to the most recent year 2000 data available from the Orange County Administrative Office's Forecast and Analysis Center (FAC) to determine the need to update the BBCS data. 2. A link-by-link comparison of BBCS year 2000 volumes with recent ground counts to determine the need for any adjustments to the BBCS volumes. �. 3-Calculation of the percent change between year 2000 and 2005 for population, employment, and vehicle trips generated. 4-Using the percent changes, between year 2000 and 2005 as a guide, develop appropriate growth factors and apply them to the BBCS year 2000 traffic volumes to derive volumes for year 2005. Task 1 Year 2000 BBCS population,dwel ling unit and employment data was aggregated to the Multi-Modal Transportation Study (M MTS) zone level and . compared to the most recent data (sorted by M MTS zone) available from the FAC. This recent data is used by the Orange County Environmental Management Agency (OCEMA) for travel demand modeling purposes (dataset name=SE.00TAM.Y2000.00P3.MASTER). Although some minor differences (less than 1.0%) existed for many zones, the overall totals for the Beach Boulevard Corridor differed by only 0.04%. Because of this close correlation, it was determined that the BBCS socioeconomic data is still valid for this study. Task 2 The County of Orange's 1984 Traffic Flow Map was updated with the 24-hour count data collected for Beach Boulevard by PBQ&D on April 9 and 10, 1985 (Figure 1) . BBCS year 2000 volumes (Figure 2) were compared with the existing traffic volumes for Beach Boulevard and each cross-street link immediately east or west of Beach Boulevard. Several links, both on . Beach Boulevard and the cross-streets, were assigned lower than existing volumes by the BBCS model. These links are circled on Figure 2. ' Volumes on these links were manually adjusted to reflect the year 2000 travel demand increase expected in the Beach Boulevard Corridor. The manual adjustments were made using screenline volumes as control totals. This method assumes that the total trips assigned by the BBCS model across a given screenline are reasonable, but that the distribution of the trips resulted in some links being assigned volumes lower or higher than expected. To provide consistency to the analysis, screenlines crossing links that were assigned higher than existing .volumes were checked to ensure that other links along the screenline were not B-2 assigned lower than existing volumes. Figure 3 shows the adjusted traffic volumes for Beach Boulevard and the cross-streets. The adjusted year 2000 volumes provide the" base volumes for deriving year 2005 traffic volumes. Task 3 Year 2000 BBCS socioeconomic data aggregated to MMTS zones was compared to year 2005 data sorted by MMTS zones. Year 2005 data was extracted from the report Orange County Demographic Projections 1980-2005 for Transportation Stu i� a andProjecFIons of Jobs for MMTS Zones in Orange County 1980-2020. Because the latter report only contains data for 2000 and 2010, a straight line interpolation was used to develop. year 2005 data. The socioeconomic data for 2000 and 2005 was loaded into a computer spreadsheet program which was used to calculate the percent change in population, employment, and vehicle trips generated in the Beach Boulevard Corridor over the 5-year period. Vehicle trips were calculated using OCEMA's trip generation rates of 12 trip ends per day for single-family dwelling units and 7 trip ends per day for multi-family dwelling units. Trip attractions were not calculated in this analysis. Typically, in the travel demand modeling chain, trip attractions are calculated and then normalized zone-by-zone to equal total productions. Since this analysis is concerned only with overall growth in the Beach Boulevard Corridor, it was assumed that trip productions equalled trip attractions in the study area. ' Based on these calculations, the projected increase between 2000 and 2005 is 4.8% for population, 4.2% for employment, and 3.6% in vehicle trips generated. These growth rate increases are summarized by three subareas (I=Route 90/Route 91, II=Route 91/Route 22,III=Route 22/Route 1) in Table 1. TABLE 1 Population, Employment, and Trip End Growth (Year 2000-2005) 1 Subarea I (Route 90-Route 91) — Year 2000 Year' 2005 % Change Population 192, 386 200, 382 4. 16 Employment 97, 305 100, 350 3. 13 Trip Ends 681, 011 698, 326 2. 54 Subarea II (Route 91-Route 22) i Year 2000 Year 2005 % Change Population 302;467 317, 137 4.85 Employment 123, 639 128, 033 3. 55 Trip Ends 1, 036, 393 1, 073, 452 3. 58 Subarea III (Route 22-Route 1 ) Year 2000 Year 2005 % Change Population 378, 563 397, 445 4. 99 Employment 115, 121 121, 620 5.65 Trip Ends 1, 402, 821 1, 459, 509 4.04 B-3 Corridor Totals Year 2000 Year 2005 % Change Population 873,416 914, 964 — 4. 76 Employment 336, 065 350, 003 4. 15 Trip Ends 3, 120, 225 3, 231, 287 3. 56 ' Task 4 Growth factors for this analysis were originally developed based ' on the overall population and employment growth projected in the Beach Boulevard Corridor between 2000 and 2005. The application of a 1.0% annual growth factor to year 2000 traffic volumes appeared reasonable in developing traffic projections for 2005. However, the higher-than-average growth rates in Subarea III (Route 22/Route 1) suggested that a 1.0% annual growth rate might underestimate the actual traffic increase in the area. The employment growth rate is almost double the rate in Subarea I. Because of these higher growth rates, a 1.5% annual growth factor appeared reasonable for application to the year 2000 traffic volumes south of Route 22. A 1.0% annual growth factor would be appropriate for traffic volumes north of Route 22. Compounding these factors annually would result in a 5-year increase in traffic volumes of 5.1% north of Route 22 (Subareas I and II) and 7.7% south of Route 22 (Subarea III) These 5-year factors were applied to the adjusted year 2000 BBCS volumes (Figure 3) to derive year 2005 volumes shown in Figure 4. Since the above method is somewhat subjective, a second set of growth factors based on the increase in trip ends was developed. The growth factors applied to each subarea were the percent increases in trip ends shown in Table 1. The year 2005 volumes shown in Figure 5 were developed using these growth factors. Because the increase in trip ends provides a less subjective basis for analysis, the volumes shown in Figure 5 will be used in the current study for identifying long-range super street improvement alternatives for Beach Boulevard. Technical Advisory Committee Review Prior to using the year 2005 volumes for the long-range improvements analysis, members of the Super Street Demonstration Project Technical Advisory Committee were requested to review ' this report and the year 2005 traffic volumes. Receipt. of comments was requested by May 22, 1985. Neal Thompson (City of Westminster) felt the year 2005 volumes on Beach Boulevard between I-5 and Stage Road were low, since they were only slightly higher than the existing volumes. OCTC staff reviewed the volumes at this location and determined that they are reasonable since, by the year 2000, Stanton Avenue will be completed between Malvern Avenue and Artesia Boulevard. This connection will provide a parallel route one-half mile east of Beach Boulevard and is projected to carry approximately 20, 000 B-4 vehicles per day. No other comments were received during the review period. - In OCTC staff's final review of the hand adjustments made in Task 2 of this analysis, minor refinements were made in the following locations : Location 2000 Adjusted Final Yr 2000 Beach n/o Edinger 80, 000 82, 00 Beach n/o Garden Grove 58, 000 63, 000 Beach n/o La Palma 52, 000 56, 000 ' These final adjustments have been incorporated into Figures 3, 4, and 5 of this report. The year 2005 volumes shown in Figure 5 - will be used for the long-range improvement analysis of the Beach Boulevard Super Street Demonstration Project study. B-5 C • .r I]. •T�"rl.—Ja-1:7It '; Iw .,,r, e 111 t IMF-I/� Figure 1. • ' i"�,...�+ •�,, County .of Orange ' 11 +•\� _ . -��•�'� 1 e ' 1984 Traffic Flow Map with updated 1' ,� •'k+.--r=a.—»—'- _..-{ - •' Beach Blvd. volumes ��, !)_�1••�*.77�) a-•t Yj ,iT[fH2 .y -�:J♦•72•`-7a T S. Y tf�1: GSJ • -• .�. ._, 11 L i 'GI ` 1: AIL r7 lar r i _<�:. i,.1�\ -- •�:.-S:r e� W L j-,7f�•� .A�J.KL;; :t [. y:a-tf•Z-U T �' � I 1 S '_[KI• 3 CkAl I� �� i s. + r• , • a1D�1.-1-1•-'��i33 �1 yr� a`:: u •ice 77=:• �:1 Y :a.rl D�1ts ' •. ` '{ » • in 1 j n !:. .. i 1°�a'-+n » rv). !. 'rt)wrc a )Lu-u a K )c.Lrsla= ,$) c ,,. IGS ,T p, PD—16.�T i 1,7(::: �•`t>. j::.i^ / II rIn Rfl.—f A. 33 77 II�� I -/ ilr� \�✓� 17 b' 71 `.S ,• 1ayA 17TIII<I { 11 1i t• .�wG�K 4-14!,-TI)-•,-1<-�`\� ' [ q !) ,. 117�Y 1 I 13'.. .n-�-u 1Tmp 1 It I! x + \ ) ��, !• s^ u�-Ln i ' Kam:. . :. D U •f M • L �f-ra f ll r s If� )� �n��l{'}:f• -tf t . 1} TI 1T1 i q ,,.�lt[�-;-D41+ " 1 •� • )! �,. � \,f )'LJII�. i •]y�l \�•\ -+-1. IG .a�t i 7� , 1< r• ]I R rsr'� 'I�i'C" 1, i ,c ttss.IY`• - 7��I K In In^�17-�-a �, !s • i o,o•', 1) ^1`��.s„ Pf� t !dd-} Ib� tLL�.r{ 1.+ 1 f t° d tt T„ ) ) u q soe ro II i { a t� '+13 �-'�" �U 21•-0 )y rp N ..1�•It.�\ ]7,.�N�+i+L�I�H-!r�)ti�!••1)_�IY-rlil y '•! 2�\ Sf ••,, • 137 1 70 Lu; {11 u K !, ,-„•li .K. �yi 11 I\, ,i•s { .a��i-'(3)f`3S.' :G t• 7!-�1IIWn- LZ Is 75 n �'-u+ : . . q n a „t. I 1 ,f 1 1 . — .V In K+I) 11.+t1+n+1•r'• �, !, �{ 35\�. ��`• �,•�•;evil { t,]-,'lit —N�]7+ ( rf 1! h "T T r i4 7 ��` • 1 ) i ` U ]' 1 �4 Ibl)� 71 7 1� lY )-$t N !'L L L 7 • K ,•J..71{7G117: .. �� K �•• b3 �• J�11u�tt_jam"•=jar u-1 1,+.T 1...�71 1'\��p S� b •i �1 1]•t to V2 I! 2. WI• 21 1 �•N I ��) • }-7"1`I� J GIG 1x7il: U. 7 �,ll- y j {- 7 7 -f-{ q u• ua ch yam-m=uc �� U 11-+-11�:, • 7 •a1lOF lt)4rJ]7 ]' ••��-�r 7 1' >• � 11 YI.1 �" 17ro.c � � s9 t 7+N r r�]� 37f�L� !-� +rafl�:7�K „I��f�• r'-r �•I l 76 17 t,l nuf+ �i-a •� is ]]179 lip»J \�{3 �,.i--�•_f-{-S Ni IG1 S1{G t, N Y 1 �1' =k�-)]�)]TI�� 3f • „ MI 61 ,• 14 S•� ,I-, ]]•K. {-r 112: t T T iK. ZZ r) Z<L7r i7 ])�ii—Ir t.J..�.�.�.� ,� d -+- + .) • K.u -11 t,.lt trtt t ' 1 -• '�° 1111 is I \\'• •I MIMD 1- f-�-'7 7�f�• 11•\\�7)J'J] 71 AD ••D * �,Y�) T' u is 1 7{ 1 .i „ • l, n-T:)yv�'1�3'jr•�,i�pJ 1• ^n \ gV"9]eM� ,,=�If-4-N 11,-�N rllUl� .1 fT. 1 .��{Tll-�• 1` uu_I 1;1) i1• `,i n• �-{-r I{ 17 K\•�, 61 1•� '] �,]-rtx'-}"II -�-17 13 �'�N 1„[,t„�"1_ �'L._•li'-i i7 'c7 •e•7:t• 1 � J. 7 1f f]f �33 T 'N 1! i11� U K �5�1 - T: u 1 • 16 WIIv,P I--� • „1 1)�-1)-�It~ ..1•-4-11�"�1{�u �K Ll,�,.�1D�tt.,.�37�1•-1�� j !L7 Ju a TI gaQ !, �••,.~�. I)-5-.7 u• ��' '\�,\ s ,1 e1°' 1 ) » 1-11 d1• uI3,� iu3 t+ a• �" , -• 1 •+'-T•\\\ a .i :) 111 ), i �� II -U1�K• 117A. �fIS Is Vt+ � 7f-r 7t H \•'N 77 1]7 7f i,� \ .1 / 7 1i o!1 DK• y ' -i�r:�:1 S: I N 72 r 1••[.1 -1 li Is 1) 33 s:,r u „ ), sort s•ell i1is e 3 .rj •►r. • { CI. 71•K. • IJ 1.�1]� II •n[M`w71�r1:�"7r T•:�+ /'\, r � •,,., F ! -}to-l_is \\ -� ��L 1 � •` 1 � t•lNn T� s-` ,{• ]) 7f f�iMa ]'! M.• ) �•• ,` � J 11 r a 3 s +� -'j -<r' q �.—• „�:,a`s—�— 7 -. i�• r r.::f h .+-s Imo" I- u:J `, ��C�r�, it �+ � \\': ° d-, s :7 -cw� o '< rF.�•i l— IJ•-\_� '1:` :i NI.o �T�r' �•�°� 31 -f_L. S`�'7 A. 'u 7s s;4' �.�.e_1 ni •c'\ la r1- r� i x, ,., 'r.cr.io + I is 17 •`.t •r-Is11- 17 •r. /% � ,•i:" \: B-6 '� •,s °'1/a j:'. t s sR-eo SR-67 28 Whittier Blvd - 30 ZO La He . Blvd 5 24 M Lampert RQ 32 37 c�° 5 _ M O N imperial Hwy=_ Rc evens Ava /7 Bastanehury Rd - b t % I to3 2. I � ' A rteals Blvd 17 I. I 2501 Commonwealth Ave Oranpethorps Ave • 0 24M 23� 3z 30� 35 . `s %D 20 �C%A 30 La Palma Ave o SRSt fq M 39 3 36 35 Lincoln Ave r Z¢N Z 2 23� 23M H Ball Rd 01 > Tq o 29N 3 �o .90 H m Karelia Ave a W tV me N pp Nz a e o t2N /7 a 17 20 m ZOhW s Chapman Ave • `1�e{ M � I Zo /6`} Z SR-22 Gartlen Grove Blvd m e 22 25 27�I'Z -ZZ Wsetminater•Avs , Dee u N ` N SO1-b c 17 23 25* 23 9 ^e N90 Balsa St ,..�/7 IB (/Sl c" i5 /$ N. Z N r• K1 Edtnper Ave so 20 26 42 37 34 39 Warner Ave h _ JD IY I(o I N Talbert Ave 2` 16N 2�N 8 ' OQ AVERAGE DAILY TRAM ►_ N N o, )-ADS- (IN THOUSANDS) Oj y ZoH 32 Adams Ave Volumes circled are loa7e.L than existing volumes ! � i Figure 2. • FORECAST YEAR 2000 Pacific Coast Nwy HIGHWAY TRIP ASSIGNMENTS B-7 C ' • i Le "WAS " h■.rRT 1 al Fi ure 3 sS a",ML 77 Year 0 volumes (adjusted) � /9Refrr■.w Rr ST.or .:��"• 1\ � N.LrrRM ' eaOCOWFALTM ig 9 .fnornium 30 18 - 1-70 Tw N 1 uZ 30 PALM - A 1 arscr4T 16 .r LlRMR 3 36 .r IAMOMW .r r3 = I e g '"u Z7 R. 3o .+R.L .■rrlu CID -1 lrORfO r y IM r IS 23 04R0l4 DRevr I _ r �s �p TfRT■� tt�A 4r ,37- t r Q S .r MRtuf F saLM � z y .r 1 B—a L�waM Jej Date[» NOVI, A T I r° rt.tt tt i E p L MUGU � Ye F fTM fT ttlL.f. q r lip44 ar >r 10 ,a 31 ,rn �~ w .r I � 1 11 A 37 wnt fL.m I e 13 1 i 9 T.uTttr I� tr TMU atn R� 8 3 [LLtf .r plftrlt!Le !0 �l tt OTtLLt .. CLIO ' tr a I 10 rettT of ,^ Iz + .r 41 M " ♦ Irete t.Llf t1 9r oo FAIR anA .r WTLSON g IT tc tlICTnt. .T S WWJLt nr ear I" JfTM fT 3� tr Figure 3 (cont.) Year 2000 volumes (adjusted) �� '•.• 'y ` •A •� e i C ' B-9 ' Lt ~ MRsta U1Ma[RT 3 ti 58` tw[RrRI Figure 4 ear 2005 volumes using population ' and employment growth factors 1 20RoorrRaM! A aN N`Planck aY Maw MALYTRW ar } R�TtttR 20 At CMa CMKMWIXIL- ' I I _ .• 8 T" IR a C raR,a ' -- - -- Lm25 �i raaR A ratrcMT IS ar LrRenR 3S\O - Li �+ • teaMtr - I ar! - v IF Gall 41 Ra►nLa 32- v Se . ' R 23- LI r+wrwaR L&W-lea IN `0 iZ I� Z� dltD[M tHtoK 67 /Se 0 ttTtt�Tn aT Y p � E MataRD t01„M B-10 g e^� ' LRMYfa I e aixf overt ri ` c2- t`t 156q r Q�, t i� Mugu 1 N �a iT11 IT// r r BoLlso all M � IRi1KY WAS - IiiRItCR Rr O v a! (D TR it r �`� M txu Lf tei � MIS r r• Oli►/nf II ,s •r OfiLrA - of o ' eLR. to .. �.4' P. RRYifeN AV 11 teen Ar .s e` MCM1YI�l: f� TYfI ►eLff it yr rR1R E RTLAWTA RV I YttfeY of rltTeilR IT .93 Q fa IYo 1fTM IT I O RV ' Figure 4 (cont.) si i �a II , B-11 w w u rAaA i ' LRRf[Rt i 3g � � 6 liPtR1AL Fi�ure�5 Year 2005 volumes using trip end ' growth factors ` \31 �9 w NV PINE e�t� AY fTNX MALKRN AV r �90 o eeRRaevtRLTM e.a�otrxee►[ 3 29 . Tin LA2S .urf w " ttT7t[MT /S / AY ' LIMMx 3'i 37 AV w feeAaeRT GRIMM 13 r BALL 28 Rf 31 GALL e9RT,GA 16 17 ' o 0 H \0' ZY WIN" OROYt 17 TT►fittTTtf At y ► E� AY � E MAlM, _ N AY B-12 -�, fAA110C110ot CMMrAR lAra►ROr o a pARDEN OROVT A s 33 29 E i LOU 8 M iTN tT u ► r KOLM Z ^ Z I e AI 2 ►Attar 19 IN At 73 Re- AV NEIL o AV t Y 38 rRR rRR14R Rr - 1LRTER TALKRT I5 ~ TMr am ' ` ee 3 ELLt1/ A. w � olTrrcu it !8 Ar DIALER RT ' e r AV BAKER NAr110M RT 1 .DRAT A. l" 4 Q NERRIg9e At i` 91 v lrtT ►DLit A. 9r FAIR 1 as `� 9 ►3 ATLANTA AT YTL10N g IT �� Ti[TOtIA 1T ' G NANTLT AY 7� 1Rr Ira i1TN 1T Figure 5 (cont.) V C C B-13 `