Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSeapoint Street Extension Study 3/7/94 L �� ' CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH F INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH TO: Mike Dolder, Fire Chief G FROM: Connie Brockway, City Clerk (b RE: Citizen's Request to be Notified Re: Seapoint Extension DATE: May 25, 1994 Per our phone conversation on May 23, 1994 I've attached the list of persons to be notified regarding the Seapoint Street Extension Council Committee. cc: Pat Dapkus, Management Assistant/Administration Melanie Fallon, Community Development Director g:cc\cbmemldolder 1 j RECEIVES LERK— _ r !TY'DF HUNTINGT k BEACH,CALIF. . list 1i�L� . -ems- CJrtC.t, ,A MY CLERK CITY Or RUNTINGTON $E CIi, CALIF. 'MEMORANDUM 5-17-94 ter ZO 9 59 An '9q Subject: POSITION IN FAVOR OF PUBLIC ACCESS OF SEAPOINT TO P.C.H. To: Honorable Mayor, City Council Members, City Administrator, Fire Department, Police Department, Planning Department From: Gerry and Mary Lou Galleher with endorsements from Summer Breeze Neighbors Copy: Huntington Seacliff Homeowners Association, Attn: Jeff Metzel THIS MEMORANDUM DOCUMENTS OUR POSITION AS A RESIDENTS OF THE SEACLIFF DEVELOPMENT SUPPORTING PUBLIC ACCESS OF SEA POINT TO P.C.H. INCLUDED ARE ISSUES AND CONCERNS ASSOCIATED WITH RELIABILITY/LOGISTICS AND COST IF GATING IS EMPLOYED ALSO ATTACHED ARE ENDORSEMENTS FROM AFFECTED SEACLIFF ' NEIGHBORS Overview On May 16, my wife and I watched the council proceedings on television. A coalition of Seacliff homeowner associations presented the viewpoint that a public automobile thrl..Iwa.y of Seapoint to P.C.H. would significantly and negatively impar.-t f'ieir quality of life. I AM a Seacliff homeowner living at the same residence since 1970 who has exactly the opposite view. If Seapoint doesn't go through, then my quality of life and that of my immediate neighbors will be further degraded. There was a lot of rhetoric regarding "on-command" gating, however nothing that approaches a cost effective, reliable and logistically feasible solution was described other than "it shouldn't be a problem." This letter attempts to surface some issues associated with this "no problem." Background Last night, I was reminded of " the man who had no shoes and complained, until he met a man who had no feet" approximately 625 square feet. This included as much acoustic damping material in the walls as could be accommodated as well as double paned windows throughout. Following permit approval, this add-on was accomplished in 1983. Later came complete forced air conditioning throughout the house since I could no longer open the windows to enjoy the cool ocean summer breezes. The cost of this upgrade was double the original cost of the home. Although this has greatly improved the livability of this home, it has not improved it to the level of 1970. AND now, if the coalition has its way, they would like to shove their inconvenience my way. Now do I go for triple paned windows, double the thickness of the stucco walls. Enough is enoughl I've waited 24 years for Edwards to be cut though. How much patience and further cost will you ask of me ? Seapoint Gating Concerns As a mitigation to the public safety issue, assuming that Seapoint does go through, it was suggested that gating could be provided for emergency vehicular traffic only, thus inhibiting public automobiles. It was noted that if we can go to the moon, we surely should be able to solve this gating problem. I should point out that I am a senior avionics design engineer at McDonnell Douglas Astronautics, Huntington Beach, and for the past 32 years have participated or led design teams for many high technology space programs. I absolutely assure you that the technology to accomplish this task is in place. What is of concern is the cost and logistics to reliably maintain whatever system is selected. Potential approaches: a. 24 hour gatekeeper similar to Pacific Ranch CONCERN Cost and who pays. Seapoint residents I hope.?? b. Remote transmitter in every emergency vehicle similar to a garage door opener. CONCERN What and whose vehicles get equipped ? All HB police or some? All HB fire and ambulances.? Sheriff, Highway Patrol, Seal Beach, H.B maintenance dept., etc., etc? Who administers this program, provides repair and maintenance and logistic support. I can also tell you these are very easy to clone, encryption or not, and not that much trouble to become available to any "hacker" �r I should also tell you that my garage door opener works most of the time. Is that good enough? Will the receiver and gate mechanism work in the event of earthquake, power failure, power interruption etc., when the system may be most needed. What is the cost and will there be back-up system in place. c. Magnetic Cards that the driver inserts into a reader. CONCERN Probably requires the driver of large vehicles to leave the vehicle to reach the reader. Reliability is a problem. Cards are easily damaged or lost. Many of the same problems as item b. d. Key pad at the gate. CONCERN Won't take long before the code is known to everyone. May as well post it at the gate. Many of the same problems as item b. w Y e. Hardline or microwave command from police dispatcher triggers gate. CONCERN Probably most expensive to implement and maintain but most secure. Who pays? Is this fair to all the tax payers to appease a select group of residents. Many of the same problems as item b. There are probably many other variations of the above basic techniques. The technology is available. The logistics to administer, support and cost to maintain is questionable. The cost of getting to the moon wasn't cheap either. Conclusion IT IS UNFAIR TO ASK ME OR MY NEIGHBORS TO BE BURDENED WITH MORE NOISE. WE HAVE ALREADY PAID OUR FAIR SHARE. GATING DEVICES HAVE INHERENT RELIABILITY CONCERNS WHEN THE DEVICE MAY BE MOST NEEDED, THERE ARE LOGISTICS CONCERNS RELATING TO COST. WE URGE YOU TO ALLOW PUBLIC VEHICULAR ACCESS OF SEAPOINT TO P.C.H. WITHOUT FURTHER DELAY. ENDORSEMENT We as concerned neighbors whose homes are directly bounded on the east by Goldenwest, specifically at or near the Goldenwest/Yorktown intersection, strongly resent the intrusion of added traffic resulting from the denial of public vehicular access of Seapoint to P.C.H. We, in the past years have paid our fair share in co-existing with the noise and pollution presently on Goldenwest. It is only fair now that others share this burden. We find it grossly unfair that we be asked to accept additional noise. We urge your encouragement, support and vote in allowing public vehicular access to P.C.H. v NAME ADDRESS TEL ow`� v • .�, 19 4 S.Z s �•-� s3 6 — 67 `� 4 oe REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION . /- Date: February 6, 1995 Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL Submitted by: Michael T. Uberuaga, City Administrator ` a2—iK 1 Prepared by: Michael P. Dolder, Fire Chief crry CIXRK Ronald E. Lowenberg, Chief of Police 7 Melanie S. Fallon, Community Developm Diector IY7""��- . Les M. Jones, Director of Public Works ' \` Subject: RESULTS OF SEAPOINT STREET STUDIES CONCERNING PUBLIC SAFETY RESPONSE, TRAFFIC IMPACTS, AND NOISE ATTENUATION IMPACTS Consistent with Council Policy? [X] Yes [ ] New Policy or Exception V4 A95' Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions, Attachments:eW �y1o¢ioh % nlQyot �/v �i°D�at A T,i.s* Fame �v Me& ,'44 �e reside a� -&tie ear/,'est ossI;ble �inl� to Gone u� u��fti a /ls�",1/ /'eeair mends fi ors tb m�`ti ate atw( Hof &,w, 1 _ate STATEMENT OF ISSUE: eOb smp����s -j sp j�%�Q/, do"bie/'4�e� sp�ec0 Consideration of reports on the necessity and impacts of closing Seapoint Street to Pacific Coast Highway relative to public safety, traffic impacts and noise attenuation impacts. RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: Accept staff recommendation to proceed with the extension of Seapoint Street to Pacific Coast Highway as required in Tract Maps 14134 and 14135. ANALYSIS: . As a result of concerns raised by some residents regarding Seapoint Street the City Council directed staff, with the help of consultants where necessary, to perform three (3) studies to evaluate the necessity of extending Seapoint Street to Pacific Coast Highway (PCH). Following this direction three separate reports were prepared which include: 1. Police and Fire Emergency Response Study by Hunt Research Corporation. 2. Traffic Impact Study by Robert Kahn, John Kain and Associates, Inc. 3. Noise Attenuation Impact Study by Robert Kahn, John Kain and Associates, Inc. A summary of the findings and conclusions from each report are presented as follows: Public Safety Impacts Hunt Research Corporation analyzed the public safety impacts relating to the construction of the Seapoint Street extension from Palm Avenue to PCH which is required as a condition for approval for Tracts 14134 and 14135. The Executive Summary of this report(Attachment 1) concludes: Results of Seapoint Street-ucudies February 6, 1995 Page 2 • Seapoint extension to PCH must be constructed for purposes of public safety. • Seapoint extension to PCH must be an open, unobstructed, public road for purposes of emergency response and evacuation. • The Fire code and Vehicle code prohibit gating of a public road. • A local Fire station is currently needed in this area due to response deficiencies. • The cross gap connector would assist in emergency response and evacuation, in certain scenarios. • A gate system is feasible,but costly and prone to failure. • The City could be found liable for inadequate provision of emergency routes should an emergency occur. • The developer has a vested, approved Tract Map not withstanding installation of a gate. Fire officials envisioned an open, ungated, road as mitigation for response deficiencies, when conditions of approval were drafted. City Attorney should review ramifications of requiring mitigation's or prohibiting construction. • From a public safety perspective the pros and cons of gating Seapoint weigh heavily towards no gate (See Table 11 on Page 47 of complete report). In addition, conceptual gate and construction drawings were developed if findings for gating Seapoint Street are established (see pages 53 to 61 of complete report). A copy of the complete report is on file in the City Clerk's office. The one time cost for the gate system is estimated to be $96,360. Ongoing annual operating costs for a gate are estimated to be $9,350 per year, which includes component replacement. A public safety gate does not provide the required second exit for Oceancrest or the area in general. The Chief of Police and Fire Chief concur with the report's findings and agree that Seapoint Street should be connected and left as an ungated public road for the benefit of public safety response and resident evacuation. Traffic Impact Study Existing traffic volumes (Attachment 2) and future traffic volumes on Seapoint Street, Palm Avenue, and Golden West Street have been counted or projected, as appropriate. The consulting traffic and acoustical engineering firm of Robert Kahn, John Kain and Associates was retained to prepare a traffic modeling forecast of future traffic volumes on Seapoint Street, Palm Avenue, and Golden West Street with the Seapoint Street connection(Attachment 3) and without the Seapoint Street connection J Results of Seapoint Street studies February 6, 1995 Page 3 (Attachment 4) between Palm Avenue and PCH. This information was presented to the Seapoint Extension City Council subcommittee on August 5, 1994. In general traffic volumes on Seapoint Street are higher with the extension, but traffic volumes on Palm Avenue and Golden West Streets are lower with the extension. Intersection Levels of Service (LOS) (Attachment 5) will remain at acceptable levels of service for all of the local intersections with the exception of the intersection of Golden West Street and Pacific Coast Highway. If Seapoint Street between Palm Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway(PCH) is not constructed and PCH between Beach Boulevard and future Seapoint Street remains a four lane facility (two lanes in each direction), then the Golden West intersection will operate at LOS E, which is unacceptable per adopted City and County standards. If PCH between Beach Boulevard and future Seapoint Street is operated as a six lane facility (three lanes in each direction) and Seapoint Street between Palm Avenue and PCH is not constructed, the future LOS for the Golden West intersection will be D or better, which is acceptable per adopted City and County standards. If Seapoint Street between Palm Avenue and PCH is constructed, all local area intersections will operate at an acceptable LOS without PCH operating as a six lane facility. Noise Attenuation Impact In response to concerns expressed regarding extending Seapoint Street to PCH by residents who reside in the vicinity, staff researched the noise attenuation requirements for the Seacliff IV residential project and hired an acoustical engineer to prepare a noise report. The Seacliff IV condominium project was approved by the Planning Commission on January 16, 1979. Two (2) conditions were imposed on the project which required a noise attenuation report be submitted with the construction plans which substantiated project compliance with the City's requirement of Ldn 45 interior and CNEL 60 exterior noise levels along Seapoint Street. The building permits for the condominiums located adjacent to Seapoint Street were issued on May 16, 1984. The plan check file references a noise attenuation report, but the files does not contain the report. Since the project was reviewed and inspected per the conditions of approval we have to assume that the report was submitted and the project constructed per the standard in that report. It was standard practice not to retain the noise report after issuance of the building permits since state law did not require it and storage space was at a premium. In order to evaluate the situation, staff directed Robert Kahn, John Kain and Associates, Inc. to prepare a noise impact report which analyzes existing and future noise impacts with and without Seapoint Street extending to PCH. A copy of the complete report is on file in the City Clerk's office. The report was prepared using the standards outlined in the current State Law and the Huntington Beach Noise Element. Based on traffic projections for Seapoint Street, the report concludes that whether Seapoint Street connects or does not connect to PCH, the structures where noise readings were taken will not meet the minimum noise attenuation standards. The existing standards are exceeded primarily when the windows were tested in open position. Therefore, with or without the Seapoint Extension the difference in noise levels is negligible. n Results of Seapoint Street studies February 6, 1995 Page 4 Additional Considerations: The extension of Seapoint Street to PCH is a condition on two (2) Tract Maps; one phase of one map has already been recorded and development has commenced. The Government Code does provide a method for modifying a final map. However, as the City Attorney describes in her April 29, 1994 memo (Attachment 6), the amendment of a final map is complex and a difficult undertaking. To amend a recorded final map, the City must first adopt an enabling ordinance which allows for the modification. The City must then hold public hearings and make findings that: a. Changed circumstances make any or all map conditions no longer appropriate or necessary, and b. The modifications do not impose an additional burden on the existing fee owner; and C. The modifications do not alter any right, title, or interest in the property shown on the recorded map; and d. The modified map does not contain any of the grounds for denying a map under the Government Code. Based on the public safety need, the second exit requirement of the tracts and egress needs of neighboring developments, circumstances have not changed and finding "(a)" cannot be made. Therefore, since all four (4) findings cannot be made the tract map cannot be modified. FUNDING SOURCE: No appropriation is necessary if Seapoint Street remains an open public road as specified in Tract Maps 14134 and 14135. However, if findings for a gated road can be made, one time funding of$96,360 and ongoing appropriations of$9,350 per year will be required. ALTERNATIVE ACTION: Direct staff to prepare an enabling ordinance allowing for modification of a Tract Map and hold subsequent public hearings to make the necessary findings. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Executive summary of Seapoint Extension Study by Hunt Research Corporation. 2. Existing average daily traffic volumes. 3. Future average daily traffic volumes with Seapoint Street extension. 4. Future average daily traffic volumes without Seapoint Street extension. 5. Summary of intersection analysis. 6. City Attorney's April 29, 1994 memo Re: Changes to Tract Maps. 7. March 7, 1994 Request for Council Action. 8. May 16, 1994 Request for Council Action. MTU/MPD/MSF/LMJ/REL/sr a:095003 ATTACHMENT 1 ATTACHMENT 1 Seapoint Extension Study . Executive Summary The Hunt Research Corporation was retained by the City of Huntington Beach Fire and Police Departments to analyze the public safety impacts relating to the construction of the Seapoint extension from Palm to Pacific Coast Highway (PCH). Conditions of approval for Tracts 14134 and 14135 (the Surfcrest and Oceancrest developments) require the developer to construct Seapoint Street between tract boundary and Pacific Coast Highway. James W. Hunt, Principal, with 31 years experience as a Fire Protection professional in Southern California,conducted the study. Maps of the study area are provided at the end of the Introduction section,of this study. Emergency responders are in a race against time to save lives and property. A fire doubles in intensity every minute. A residence or other structure can become fully involved in fire within five minutes of ignition,destroying the structure and all occupants. A-person, whose heart has stopped or otherwise ceased to circulate blood has a 25% chance of recovery after 5 minutes. A criminal seeking to enter a residence can move quickly,especially at night, and terrorize innocent occupants. To combat these everyday risks to the citizenry,response must not be hindered in any manner, as an inherent delay has already occurred in the discovery,reporting and dispatching phase of an emergency. Therefore, the extension of Seapoint has been the assumption of every major planning decision concerning south/central Huntington Beach over the last 15 years. In fact,Seapoint is proposed as a primary arterial highway. The Fire and Police Departments have taken the position that for purposes of public safety, Seapoint must be an open,public road from Garfield to PCH. The connection of Seapoint to PCH is an integral part of the Fire, Police and Emergency Medical Protection Plan for the Surfcrest .and Oceancrest developments, as well as the surrounding area. Tract approvals by the Fire Department were based upon this assumption. Apparently, some citizens living adjacent to Seapoint Street believe that connecting Seapoint Avenue to PCH will cause traffic congestion, noise, and ---------------- HR 505 Page 1 October 14,1994 Seapoint Extension Stud_ other undesirable conditions. These citizens want Seapoint closed to through traffic, and wish to have Seapoint gated for use by public safety responders and pedestrians only. The future residents of Surfcrest and Oceancrest developments need a second means of egress similar to the one provided to the residents of "Seacliff on the Greens" and the "Estates", when Seapoint and Garfield were connected. This second means of egress would also provide critical access for Fire, Police and Emergency Medical units via a signalized intersection at Pacific Coast Highway. It is also apparent that the Seapoint area is currently deficient in Fire Station coverage, notwithstanding the Seapoint connection. A fire station should be provided as soon as possible, to serve the Seapoint area. Such station may also serve the Bolsa Chica area if the cross gap connector is built. This study focuses on the impacts of dosing Seapoint and how the closure would effect public safety response as well as evacuation of developments in the Seapoint area. The study area was identified by the Fire Department as that area between Goldenwest,and Seapoint,from Garfield to PCH. This study is limited to focusing on the public safety issues and not other potential issues of noise,routine traffic,or other environmental issues,if any. In order to conduct an objective study, the consultant carried out the following tasks: • Prepared a work plan for approval of the Fire and Police Departments. • Carried out the tasks agreed to in the work plan, which included: L Determine if there is a public safety response imyact caused by not building the Seapoint extension, or by gating the extension. HR 505 Page 2 October 14,1994 Seapoint Extension Study Observations: It is the opinion of the consultant that gating, or not constructing, the Seapoint extension results in a potential response impact upon the Fire and Police Departments. Response times currently do not meet the response standards of either department. Incident demands will continue to increase with growth. Public safety response to this area is currently deficient, and would improve if Seapoint was an open, ungated, road to PCH, thus, enhancing the ability to protect lives and property in this area. Refer to this report for more detail. A fire station is currently needed to support this area. Such a station should be located in the general area of Garfield and Edwards. If the cross gap connector is built, the location could move to the Springdale area 2. Identify Rotential risks from emergencies. and the impacts upon evacuation of tracts and the egress of residents in area of Palm and Seapoint, if road is gated or not built. Observations: The potential inability to utilize Garfield, Palm, or Clay to exit to Goldenwest due to physical damage, hazardous materials releases, or smoke from fires, validates the need for a secondary, unobstructed exit route to a normally upwind position, i.e. Seapoint to PCH. If the cross gap connector is built,, a percentage of residents of the Bolsa Chica area may benefit from an unobstructed exit route to PCH, and Seapoint area residents may also benefit from an open evacuation route to the west via the cross gap connector. Evacuation routes must not be hindered by obstructions such as gates. Gates can fail, and will slow egress and ingress due to the creation of a "bottleneck condition" at the gate. Evacuation of the Seapoint area would be impacted by gating, or not constructing the Seapoint extension. IR 505 Page 3 October 14,1994 Seapoint Extension Study 3. Identify potential impacts upon response or evacuation. if Palm and Seapoint are blocked due to accidents. Observations: Seapoint extension between Palm and PCH should be an open, ungated road, to allow unhindered egress, and response during an emergency which includes a blocked intersection at Palm and Seapoint. 4. Review response and egress routes assuming Palm and/or Garfield and/or Clay were unusable due to a plume from a gas release or fire. Observations: An unexpected closure of Palm, Garfield, or Clay due to the affects of a hazardous materials release, fire, or earthquake, results in the need for Seapoint and the cross gap connector to be open and unobstructed roads, in order to provide an escape path from, and response route to, the Seapoint area. 5. Provide recommendations regarding gates, gate activation devices, and gate locations, in the event the City Council decides to allow a gate on Seapoint. Observations: A construction grade drawing of a gate, and supporting information, are provided in the Appendix. Gating is not recommended by the consultant,from a public safety standpoint, due to the impact upon emergency operations, and the potential for failure. Gating, or any other obstruction of Seapoint, would further exacerbate an already deficient public safety problem. --------------- HR 505 Page 4 October 14,1994 Seapoint Extension Study 6. Review development agreement for public safety deficiencies and issues if road is gated. Observations: Consultant reviewed the development agreement between City, Pacific Coast Homes and Seacliff Partners. Consultant also reviewed the City Attorney's opinion, dated 4129194, regarding abandoning or limiting Seapoint. The developers agreement does not expressly mention the Seapoint extension to PCH, or put any expressed obligation on developer to extend Seapoint (per City Attorney letter). Deletion does not violate the Holly SeacliDevelopment Agreement, per City Attorney. The extension of Seapoint is a condition of Tracts 14134 and 14135, and probably cannot be deleted from the final nal tract maps. However, in approving the tracts, the Fire Department based it's approval on the assumption that Seapoint would be extended to PCH, as an ungated public road. The Fire and Police .Departments are opposed to gated roads from an emergency ingress and egress standpoint. The conditions of approval for Tracts 14134 and 14135 do not speck that the road is to be ungated, only that it be constructed. However, the developer is required to comply with "applicable provisions" of the Fire Department and of the Fire code. Page 31 of developers agreement requires compliance with the Cite Fire code. The City Flue code prohibits the gating of a public road. Applicable provisions of the Fire Department can be interpreted by the FIre Department as an ungated public road, or can be a requirement for sufficient mitigations, as necessary, to protect the tracts. Section 10.501 b of the City Flue code allows such mitigations to be imposed. The California Vehicle Code, Section 21101.6, prohibits the placement of gates or other selective devices, which deny or restrict access of the public, on any public street. Apparently, the developer has, in good faith, agreed to the conditions of approval. It therefore seems that if the City Council decides to ------------------------------- IR 505 Page 5 October 14,1994 Seapoint Extension Study --------------- allow gating of Seapoint, or elimination of the extension, that the Fire Department and the developer will need to agree upon necessary mitigations to the closure, as the developer has an approved project. According to Fire officials, such approval by the Fire Department envisioned an open road and did not include a provision for gating or other obstructions. This issue will need careful review by the City Attorney for potentials of City liability. Details supporting the information in this Executive Summary are provided in the body of this report. Information was obtained through interviews, observations, research, and analysis of .data as provided by the City. The. consultant is grateful for the assistance of Captain Howard Hubert of the Fire Department, Lt. Bruce Kelly and Jim Moore of the Police Department, as well as Division Chief Poe,Fire Chief Dolder,and other City personnel. The observations, conclusions and recommendations in this report represent.the opinions of the consultant based upon 31 years experience in emergency planning and response in Southern California, and are limited to issues of public safety impacts. All who read this report, and make decisions on the matter,must remember that Fire and Police Departments are in a race against time to protect life and property, which is a most basic mission and purpose of government. A delay of 45 seconds.or more to stop and attempt to open a gate can seem like a lifetime when a fire is spreading in a house, a person is having a heart attack, or a criminal is breaking in. Such response must not be delayed. The information, and opinions,set forth in this report are the result of interviews, data collection, observations, and.research and are prepared with the objective of improving public safety in a community which can be proud of it's current public safety delivery systems, and it's fine record of providing good Fire-and Police protection. The report is only for the use of the City of Huntington Beach in their decision making process. The report is not intended for the use, or interpretation,by any third party. Any such use is at such party's own risk. DR 505 Page 6 October 14,1994 Seapoint Extension Study Table 1 Summary of Conclusions Current Fire and Police response to the study area is deficient when compared to department standards and the dynamics of emergencies. • Seapoint extension to PCH must be constructed for purposes of public safety. • Seapoint extension to PCH must be an open, unobstructed, public road for purposes of emergency response and evacuation. • The Fire code and Vehicle code prohibit gating of a public road. • A local Fire station is currently needed in this area due to response deficiencies. • The cross gap connector would assist in emergency response and evacuation, in certain scenarios. • A gate system is feasible, but costly and prone to failure. • The City could be found liable for inadequate provision of emergency routes should an emergency occur. The developer has a vested, approved Tract Map notwithstanding installation of a gate. Fire officials envisioned an open, ungated, road as a mitigation for response deficiencies, when conditions of approval were drafted. City Attorney should review ramifications of requiring mitigations or prohibiting construction, • From a public safety perspective the pros and cons of gating 77. Seapoint weigh heavily towards no gate(see Table 11 on Page 41 HR 505 Page 7 October 14,1994 ATTACHMENT 2 r , I 'EXIST-ING AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADTI VOLUMES---- - = _ _ ._ _-- -- -_=---- 1 ATTACHMENT 2 Q 9.0 3 0 GARFIELD AVE. 8.0 2.0 SEPPp\N� 5� Y RKTOWN AV . A� 2.0 ��� 20.0 .ycj� po 'c 34.0 O,9�T ti� I 21.0 14.0 F LEGEND: 32.0 = AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (1000-S) 0 SEAPOINT STREET EXTENSION i. �nrt TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS Huntington Beach, California EXHIBIT c P Robert Kahn John Kain 14 & Associates, Inc. ATTACHMENT 3 FUTURE AV AGE DAILY T FFIC ( ADT➢ VOLUMES WITH SEAPOINTYX-T-ENSI-ONATTHMENT 3 LO 16.5 29.3 3 o GARFIELD AVE. 21.5 32.4 .13.8 c�'(• 29.1 SEPPO\N� 45.5 YORKTOWN AV .0 20.0 411 4.8 29.8 9c�c 3.8 G 41.9 l yiyy 1.8 16.3 15.0 C�. 15.9 - 6.2 9LF LEGEND: 39.6 39.6 = AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (1000'S) y SEAPOINT STREET EXTENSION g opt TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS m Huntington Beach, California EXHIBIT F Robert Kahn , John Ka 6n 19 & Associates, Inc. ATTACHMENT 4 FUTURE AVFSAGE DAILY Tr %FFIC (ADT) VOLUMES WITHOUT SEAPOINT EXTENSION ATTACHMENT 4 I a 16.8 30.0 3 � o ``' GARFIELD AVE. 16.9 28.9 ' 9.6 30.3 1 I I 43.6 Y RKT WN AVF. 23.7 I 7.1 �1, 34.6 ! 4.3 ! 47.8 '�ryy 4.0 j 21.3 i 14.13 O 4 22.9 6.5 F9`� 40.3 LEGEND: 40.3 = AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (1000'S) A d SEAPOINT STREET EXTENSION 4 ort TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS p Huntington Beach, California EXHIBIT J Robert Kahn John Kain & Associates, Inc. ATTACHMENT 5 AT ACUMENT 5 i i TABLE 1 SUMMARY OF INTERSECTION UTILIZATION ANALYSIS' EXISTING FUTURE WITH FUTURE WITHOUT (EXISTING LANES) SEAPOINT STREET SEAPOINT STREET AM PEAK PM PEAK AM PEAK PM PEAK AM PEAK PM PEAK INTERSECTION ICU, LOSS ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS Seapoint St. INS) at: • Pacific Coast Hwy. (EW) - - - - 0.61 B 0.70 B - - - - Golden West St. INS) at: - • Pacific Coast Hwy. (EW) -General Plan Lanes - - - 0.68 B 0.71 C 0.73 C 0.82 D -Existing Lanes 0.77 C 0.69 B 0.84 D 0.84 D 0.89 D 0.94 E • Orange Ave. (EW) 0.31 A 0.36 A 0.30 A 0.43 A 0.39 A 0.47 A • Palm Ave. (EW) 0.40 A 0.42 A 0.79 C 0.64 B 0.84 D 0.67 B • Garfield Ave. (EW) 0.44 A 0.56 A 0.44 A 0.62 B 0..44 A 0.62 B • Yorktown Ave. (EW) 0.47 A 0.77 C 0.61 B 0.76 C 0.64 B 0.79 C Edwards St.-(NS) at: IL • Garfield Ave. (EW) 0.41 A 0.43 A 0:56 A 0.75 C 0.66 B 0.73 C ' Assumes General Plan Intersection Geometrics unless otherwise noted. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) a Level of Service (LOS) 2 r ATTACHMENT 6 ATTACHMENT 6 J& CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH TO: Honorable Linda Moulton-Patterson, Mayor, and Members of the City Council FROM: Gail Hutton, City Attorney DATE: April 29; 1994 SUBJECT: Seapoint Street RLS 94-215, 94-219, 94-249 1. BACKGROUND As we understand the facts, Seapoint Street is proposed to extend south from Palm Avenue to Pacific Coast Highway. The extension of Seapoint has been a basic assumption of every major planning decision concerning south/central Huntington Beach over the last 15 years. Seapoint is proposed as a primary arterial highway,with capacity of approximately 30,000 trips per day. - - It has now been suggested that the Seapopint Street extension be abandoned or-limited; this memo is intended to discuss some of the legal implications of not extending Seapoint. Two questions-have been posed. I. Q. Can the extensions of Seapoint be deleted from the final tract maps (TT14134, 14135)? A. Probably not. 2. Q. Does deletion of Seapoint violate the Holly Seacliff Development Agreement?_ A.. No. 2. MAP ACT The extension of Seapoint is a condition on two Tract Maps; one phase of one map has been recorded. These conditions should be removed from the maps if Seapoint is not to be - extended—The Government Code provides a method-for modifying a final map. The amendment of a final map is a complex and difficult undertaking, and should not be commenced-without serious deliberation. 4\s\Opin:Seapoint\04/29/94 Mayor and Members of the City Council April 29, 1994 Page 2 To amend a recorded final map,the City must first adopt an enabling ordinance which allows the modification of final maps. (Government Code § 66472.1) The city must then hold a public hearing and make certain findings as specified by the Government Code. (Id.) Except for minor amendments to correct measurement or descriptive errors, a recorded final map may only be amended-if the city finds that: . (a) Changed circumstances make any or all map conditions no longer appropriate or necessary; and (b) The modifications do not impose an additional burden on the existing fee owner; and (c) The modifications do not alter any right, title, or interest in the property shown on the recorded map; and (d) The modified map does not contain any of the grounds for denying a map under Government Code § 66474. (Government Code § 66472.1; Curtain and Merritt, California Subdivision Map Act Practice_ , Sections T36 to 1.39.) While it is legally possible to amend a recorded map, it appears unlikely that-the City would be able to make the factual findings required by the statute. There do not appear to be any facts to support the finding of changed circumstances since the approval of the map. Finally, a modification that deletes a primary arterial highway from public use will almost certainly require additional environmental review.- 3. CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS The non-extension of Seapoint will not breach any contractual obligations. Specifically, the failure to complete Seapoint will not breach the Holly-Seacliff Development Agreement. The Development Agreement contains no express-obligation on-either party as to the completion of Seapoint. 4\s\Opin:Seapoint\04/29/94 Mayor and Members of the City Council April 29, 1994 Page 4 C. Police and Fire Response Times. In various public documents, including the Growth Management Policy,the City has adopted goals and standards relating to emergency services and response times. The non-extension of Seapoint will negatively impact the adopted goals and standards for response times, and they will need to be re-analyzed for possible revision. 7. CONCLUSION As discussed herein,the non-extension of Seapoint will have many legal ramifications. These include:. The difficult, and probably unfruitful, attempt to amend recorded final maps;the. need to process amendments to several elements of the General Plan; non-compliance with the County's Master Plan of Arterial Highways; vested rights to developer; and other implications as identified above. We recommend that the Council fully consider the legal issues discussed herein before embarking on the complex and difficult process of undoing nearly two decades of planning decisions and approvals concerning the extension of Seapoint Street.. 4z��, GAIL HUTTON City Attorney c: Michael T. Uberuaga, City Administrator Melanie Fallon, Director of Community Development Lou Sandoval, Director of Public Works 4\s\Opin:Seapoint\04/29/94 ATTACHMENT 7 ATTACH IMENT 7 REQU,�,.T FOR CITY CO Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council ZrW t Submitted by: Michael T. Uberuaga, City Administrator Prepared by: Otuis F. Sandoval, Director of Public Works -0 A, Ronald E. Lowenberg, Chief of Police Michael P. Dolder, Fire Chief Subject: SEAPOINT STREET E/X`T�ENSION STUDY Consistent with Council Policy? [XI Yes 9 �.� 4/ 3/7/9 yc - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Statement of Issue,Recommended Action,Analysis,.Funding Source,Environmental Status,Alternative Action,Attachments: --------- --4-,�7jF. -------------------------------------------------------------------- STATEMENT OF ISSUE: At the request of the City Council, the Department of Public Works, along with the Police Department and the Fire Department, has prepared a preliminary study of the impacts of eliminating the previously approved extension of Seapoint Street from Palm Avenue to Pacific Coast Highway. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Accept the Staff recommendation to proceed with the previously approved extension of Seapoint Street from Palm Avenue to Pacific Coast Highway. ANALYSIS: Introduction: Staff has prepared a preliminary study of the impacts of eliminating the approved extension of Seapoint Street from Palm Avenue to Pacific Coast Highway (PCH), as directed by the City Council, Based on the findings of the preliminary study, elimination of the Seapoint Street extension is not recommended. The bases for this conclusion and recommendation are presented in the following subsections. Specific action steps necessary to accomplish the elimination of the Seapoint Street extension are presented in the "Alternative Action" Section. A summary of the procedural steps that would be required in order to eliminate the Seapoint Street extension is as follows: 1. Project Study Report by Staff. 2. Agreement with Seacliff Partners to amend recorded tract map. 3. Modification of conditions of approval for tentative tracts 14314 and 14315. � Request for City Council Action Seapoint Street Extension Study March 7, 1994 Page 2 of 6 4. Environmental impact report. 5. Amendments to Coastal Element, Circulation Element, Scenic Highways Element and Growth Management Element of General Plan. 6. Amend County Master Plan of Arterial Highways. Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Service Impacts of Eliminating the Seapoint Street Extension: The Seapoint Street extension is an integral part of the fire and emergency medical protection plan for the future Surfcrest and Oceancrest developments, as well as for the Holly Seacliff Specific Plan area. Mitigation measures required for development of the Holly Seacliff area are included as developer obligations in the Holly Seacliff Development Agreement.Those mitigation measures were based on the presumption that the Seapoint Street extension would be completed, and without the Seapoint Street extension these mitigation measures are not adequate. In order to adhere to policies contained in the City's Growth Management Policy and in the Insurance Services Office's Fire Suppression Rating Schedule #560, in providing fire protection to these areas, the Seapoint Street extension is needed. Details of the impacts to fire protection and emergency medical service are contained in a memorandum from Michael P. Dolder to Steve May, dated December 17, 1993 (Attachment 2). Police Service Impacts of Eliminating the Seapoint Street Extension: The Police Department considers the Seapoint Street extension to be of vital importance to providing efficient access for patrolling and emergency.response. The Seapoint Street extension will reduce the travel distance from PCH to the Surfcrest/Seapoint area by three miles, and will provide for shorter response times for Police units in either area responding to the other area. The extension will also provide an additional escape route in the event of natural disaster. Details of the impacts to Police service are contained in memoranda from G. Meza to E. Mc Erlain, dated February 2, 1994 (Attachment 3), and from B. Kelly to Steve May, dated December 16, 1993 (Attachment 4). Traffic Impacts of Eliminating the Seapoint Street Extension: Elimination of the Seapoint Street extension would reduce traffic on the segment of Seapoint Street from Palm to Garfield, at ultimate build-out. However, there would be increased traffic on Palm Avenue and Goldenwest Street. Projected traffic volume on Goldenwest Street would be between 40,000 and 45,000 vehicles per day, which would result in a level of service of C or D. Elimination of the Cross Gap Connector, which is a possibility, would likely result in level of service D on Goldenwest Street. The increased traffic on Goldenwest Street would also increase response times for Police and Fire Services. Request for City Council Action RECEIVED Seapoint Street'Extension Study CITY CLERK March 7 1994 CITY OF NUNTINGT01i E„CH,CALIF. Page 3 of 6 HAPR 16 10 os All 194 Land Planning, Issues: The extension of Seapoint Street is included as a primary arterial highway in the County Master Plan of Arterial Highways and the City's Circulation and Coastal Elements of the General Plan. It is also designated as a local scenic route in both the Scenic Highways and Coastal Elements of the City's General Plan. Elimination of the Seapoint Street extension would require amendments to the County Master Plan of Arterial Highways and the City's General Plan. A precise alignment of Seapoint Street between Garfield Avenue and PCH was adopted by the City Council on July 16, 1990. An appeal of the City's approval of the alignment and construction project was filed with the California Coastal Commission and denied by the Commission on September 12, 1990. Construction of the Seapoint Street extension is also included in conditions of approval of Tentative Tract No. 14134 and Tentative Tract No. 14135. One final map has already been recorded on Tentative Tract No. 14134. Elimination of the Seapoint Street extension would require modification of the conditions of approval for both tentative tracts, and would require an agreement with the owner of the recorded tract, Seacliff Partners. Modified conditions of approval must include acceptable mitigation for impacts on public safety response and emergency egress, in accordance with the City's Growth Management Policy. Current Status of Construction of The Seapoint Street Extension: In compliance with the above planning directives, Seacliff Partners has expended approximately $179,000 'for design, preliminary grading, right-of-way acquisition and utilities relocations for the Seapoint Street extension. Most of this cost is reimbursable to Seacliff Partners from the City's Traffic Impact Fund. Utility relocations now in progress are scheduled to coincide with planned Shell Oil shutdowns so that Shell Oil's operations will not be effected by the utility relocations. If utility relocations were halted by Council action, then the cost of those utility relocations, if done at another time, could be increased by $100,000 to $200,000 due to impacts on Shell Oil operations. The total construction cost to complete the Seapoint Street segment is estimated to be $1,440,000. Conclusion: The benefits of eliminating the extension of Seapoint Street from Palm Avenue to PCH are outweighed by the negative impacts to Fire and Emergency Services response capabilities, Police response capabilities, emergency ingress and egress in the event of natural disaster,scenic highway, and traffic impacts to Palm Avenue and Goldenwest Street. Therefore, Staff recommends that the previously approved extension of Seapoint Street be completed as planned and initiated. Request for City Council Action Seapoint Street Extension Study March 7, 1994 Page 4 of 6 ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS Recommended Action: The Recommended Action does not constitute a "project" as defined by Cal. Gov. Code, Section 15378, and is not subject to provisions of CEQA. Alternative Action: The alternative action does not constitute a "project" and is not subject to provisions of CEQA. However, the objective of the alternative action would be to proceed with elimination of the Seapoint Extension; that subsequent action would require the preparation of an environmental impact report. FUNDING SOURCE: Recommended Action: No funds are required. Alternative Action: Funds for consultant costs are available in the unreserved, undesignated Traffic Impact Fund and General Fund; This item is not budgeted. Staff costs are included in the approved FY 1993/94 Budget. ALTERNATIVE ACTION: 1. Approve an amendment to the current year budget by appropriating $19,000 for consultant costs involved in the preparation of a traffic model and evaluation of public safety impacts of the elimination of the extension of Seapoint Street from Palm Avenue to Pacific Coast Highway. AND, 2. Direct Staff to proceed with a Phase 1 Program for The Deletion of The Seapoint Street Extension, and to prepare a project study report of the elimination of the extension of Seapoint Street from Palm Avenue to Pacific Coast Highway. Discussion: Elimination of the previously approved Seapoint Street extension would be accomplished in two steps, outlined as follows: Request for City Council Action Seapoint Street Extension Study March 7, 1994 Page 5 of 6 1. Phase 1 Program for the Deletion of The Seapoint Street Extension. This phase would involve preparation of a project study report which would include a more detailed .analysis of impacts, procedures and costs of the proposal. The "Alternative Action" 'above includes direction to proceed with this Phase 1 Program. The proposed scope of work, schedule and cost estimate for this Phase 1 Program are presented in sections below. 2. Phase 2 Program for the Deletion of The Seapoint Street Extension. Upon approval of the project study report by the City Council, and upon Council approval of additional expenditures to be specified in the project study report, the action steps necessary to r delete the Seapoint Street extension from the City's General Plan and the County's Master Plan of Arterial Highways would be carried out. A request for authorization to proceed with the Phase 2 Program would be presented to the City Council on June 6, 1994, or soon thereafter. Scope of Work for Preparation of A Preliminary Study Report: 1. Prepare Consultant Contracts: Staff will prepare consultant contracts for preparations of a traffic model and evaluation of public safety impacts of the elimination of the Seapoint Street extension from Palm Avenue to PCH. 2. . Prepare Traffic Model and Public Safety Impact Analysis: The City's consultant, Robert Kahn, John Kain Associates, will prepare a traffic model of traffic conditions without the Seapoint Street extension from Palm Avenue to PCH, and a public safety consultant will analyze impacts to Fire Department and Police Department service capabilities. 3. Prepare Project Study Report: Staff will prepare a project study report to the City Council which will identify the following items for the proposed elimination of the extension of Seapoint Street from Palm Avenue to PCH: a. Fire protection and emergency medical service impacts. b. Police service impacts. c. Traffic impacts. d. Growth Management Plan mitigation measures. e. Procedural outline. f. Phase 2 Program costs. 4. Prepare and Agendize RCA: Staff will prepare an RCA with findings and recommendations. Request for City Council Activi,. - Seapoint.Street Extension Study March 7, .1994 Page 6 of 6 Schedule for Preparation of A Preliminary Study Report: Based on .the following time allocations, a project study report could be presented to the City Council on� Fig 1994 without significantly impacting previously approved staff tasking. ", 1. Prepare consultant contract amendment: 1 weeks 2. Prepare traffic model (consultant): 3 weeks 3.' Prepare Preliminary Study Report: 6 weeks 4. Prepare and agendize RCA: 1 weeks . . TOTAL TIME ALLOWANCE = 11 WEEKS Cost Estimate for Preparation of A Preliminar} Study Report: 1. Consultant Cost = $19,000 2. Staff Cost = $ 4,141 . (see attached Breakdown of Costs) 3. Expenses = 200 (see attached Breakdown of Costs) TOTAL PHASE 1 COST = $23,341 ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location Map 2. Memo from Michael P. Dolder (Fire Dept.), dated December 17, 1993 3: Memo from G. Meza (Police Dept.), dated February 2, 1994 4. Memo from B. Kelly (Police Dept.), dated December 16, 1993 5. Breakdown of costs for the Phase 1 Program - - -, dated February 18, 1994 6. Fiscal Impact Study 7. Memo from Jim Otterson (Engineering Div.), dated December 17, 1993 S WM:swm u=eyV„V=%apt.oz CQ W Q04 L] � u GARFIELD AVENUE GITY BOUNDARY 5 ROJEGT YORKTOWN AREA AVENUE 4C�Fic . C04S q ICI G NO SCALE LOCATION MAP Attachment 1 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION To: Steve May, Public Works From: Michael P. Dolder, Fire Department Date: December 17, 1993 SUBJECT: FIRE DEPARTIMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR SEAPOINT CONNECTING TO PACIFIC COAST HIGHIVAY The Fire Department required the Seapoint to Pacific Coast Highway connection in the Surfcrest and Oceancrest tract maps for the following reasons: 1. The City's Growth Management Policy adopted by the City Council establishes a Fire Department response standard of five (5) minutes eighty percent(80%) of the time for both fire engines and paramedic services. The Seacliff area, specifically district 327, is one of the poorest response time areas of the City. 2. The Insurance Services Office(ISO)states in its Fire Suppression Rating Schedule 9560, "The built upon areas of the City shall have a first due engine company within 1-112 miles and a ladder company within 2-112 miles." Currently, the closest fire stations, Station 5-Lake, is approximately 2-1/2 miles away, Station 7-Wamer,which is approximately the same distance away geographically, is the seventh company scheduled to arrive in that area due to the lack of access. 3. The future residents of the Surfcrest and Oceancrest developments need a second means of egress similar to the one provided to the residents of Seacliff on the Greens and the Estates when Seapoint and Garfield were connected. This second means of egress also provides critical access to fire and emergency medical equipment through a signalized intersection at Pacific Coast Highway. 4. When the linear park is developed on the west side of Seapoint public access/egress should be augmented by the Pacific Coast Highway connection. This would reduce the public travel through the residential community. The connection of Seapoint to Pacific Coast Highway is an integral part of the fire and emergency medical protection plan for the Surfcrest and Oceancrest developments as well as the surrounding area. The Pacific Coast Highway connection is another piece of the puzzle needed to complete the City's Fire Master Plan in providing the same levels of fire services to all areas of the community. MPD/cgs A:mpd93127.004 c: Lou Sandoval, Public Works Director Tom Poe, Fire Marshal Howard Hubert, Deputy Fire Marshal/Development do Attachment. 2 J. 4 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINCTON BEACH TO: E. ffC ERLAIN, CAPTAIN FROM: G.. MEZA, SERGEANT UNIFORM .DIVISION COMMANDER TRAFFIC BUREAU SUBJECT: SEAPOINT EXTENSION DATE: 212194 After reviewing the plans and giving the project due consideration, it is the Traffic Bureau's position that the extension of Seapoint Street to Pacific-Coast Highway is of vital importance and should be completed for the following reasons: - 1. This will allow units from the northwest and east areas of the city direct access to-this -portion of the development via Pacific. Coast Highway. This will reduce the need for emergency vehicles to access the area via Palm Avenue. This will improve response times from three to five minutes. 2. It will allow units from the north area of the city direct access to Pacific Coast Highway. This will reduce approximately three miles of the route and improve response times for emergency calls on Pacific Coast Highway- by approximately three to five minutes. 3. It would add an additional evacuation route to residents _ in this area in the event of a natural disaster.' Residents could evacuate by going north on Seapoint to Garfield, east on Palm to Goldenwest or south on Seapoint to Pacific Coast Highway, 4 . It would allow residents an additional access to Pacific Coast Highway. . This would reduce traffic along Palm to Goldenwest. As this area continues to develop, traffic congestion on Palm will only increase and this will provide needed relief. Because of these reasons, we support this project and a it proceeds. / Z 7ly Attachment 3 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH �`�•, INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION' _ HUNINCION BEACH - 161,e TO: STEVE MAY, Principal Engineer FROM: KELLY, LIE ENANT PUBLIC WORKS TRAFFIC/AE BUREAU CDR SUBJECT: SEAPOINT EXTENSION DATE: DECEMBER 16, 1993 After reviewing the plans with you and giving the project due consideration, it's the Police De- partments position that the extension of Seapoint to the Pacific Coast Highway is of vital impor- tance and should be completed as soon as possible. This extension will provide another route for emergency vehicles to access, not only the resi- dences in the area, but also the Bolsa Chica area. By having another route into and out of the area, response time could be reduced. Responding units would not have to use Golden West to enter the area, thus saving several miles of driving. It will also provide another escape route for the residents in the event of a natural disaster. Because of these reasons we can only support the project and hope that it proceeds quickly. cc: Chief Lowenberg Capt McErlain Attachment 4 •J' CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Department of Public Works BREAKDOWN OF COSTS FOR THE PHASE 1 PROGRAM FOR EVALUATION OF THE ELIMINATION OF THE SEAPOINT STREET EXTENSION FROM PALM AVENUE TO PCH March 11, 1994 Task 1: Prepare Consultant Contract Amendment: Deputy City Attorney 0.5 @ $59 = $ 30 Principal Engineer 1.0 @ $53 = $ 53 Clerical 2.0 @ $23 = 46 SUBTOTAL = $ 129 Task 2 : Prepare Traffic Model & Impact Analysis: Traffic Consultant L.S. = $ 9,000 , Public Safety Consultant L.S. = $10,000 Traffic Engineer 1.0 @ $57 = $ 57 Associate Traffic Engineer 4. 0 @ $50 = $ 200 SUBTOTAL = $19#257 Task 3 : Prepare Preliminary Study Report: Traffic Engineer 8. 0 @ $57 = $ 456 Principal Engineer 24. 0 @ $53 = $1,272 Associate Traffic Engineer 8.0 @ $50 = $ 400 Senior Planner 4.0 @ $49 = $ 196 Associate Planner 8.0 @ $43 = $ 344 Engineering Assistant 8. 0 @ $42 = $ 336 Computer Drafting Technician 8.0 @ $35 = $ 280 Clerical 8.0 @ $23 = 184 SUBTOTAL = $3,468 Task 4: Prepare and Agendize RCA: Principal Engineer 4.0 @ $53 = $ 212 Administrative Assistant 1.0 @ $29 = $ 29 Clerical 2 .0 @ $23 = $ 46 Printing L.S. 200 SUBTOTAL = $ 487 TOTAL COST = $23,341 Note: 1. Hourly rates include an overhead, and fringe benefits cost factor of 1. 5 2 . Incidental time of senior administrative personnel is considered to be included in the overhead cost factor. SWM:swm \may\rca\seaptcos.001 Attachment 5 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH •� INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH - TO: MICHAEL T. UBERUAGA, City Administrator FROM: ROBERT J. FRANZ, Deputy City Administrator SUBJECT: REQUESTED APPROPRIATION FOR PROFESSIONAL. SERVICES ASSOCIATED WITH- SEAPOINT STREET EXTENSION, FIS 94-33 DATE: MARCH 14, 1994 As.required by Resolution. 4832, a Fiscal Impact Statement has been prepared for the proposed appropriation of $19,000 for Consultant Services in the eventuality that the City Council chooses to pursue an Alternative Action with respect to the Seapoint Street Extension Project, culminating in the elimination of the Seapoint Extension. Upon approval of the City Council, the balance of the unreserved, undesignated Measure I'M" Fund would be reduced by $9,000 to $309,000 w ile that of the General Fund would be reduced by $10,000 to $7,4 3,000. E NZ Depu City Ad inistr or RJF:skd Attachment 6 ATTACHMENT 8 ATTACHMENT 8 REQUEST FOR CITY COL Date: May 16, 1994 Submitted to: Honorable Mayor.and City Council Men hers Submitted by: Michael T. Uberuaga, City Administrator Prepared by: Melanie Fallon, Director of Comm velopment Ron Lowenberg, Chief of Police V Michael Dolder, Fire Chief Lou Sandoval,Director of Public Works Subject: SEAPOINT STREET STUDY Consistent with Council Policy? [X] Yes [ ] New Policy or Exception Statement of Issue,Recommendation,Aq si; Funding Source,Alternative Actions,Attachments: STATEMENT OF ISS As directed by the City Council on April 4, 1994,the Department of Community Development, in cooperation with the City Attorney, Fire, Police and Public Works Departments, has prepared additional information regarding deleting.the currently adopted segment of Seapoint Street between Palm Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway for public access. The additional information addresses contractual obligations which has been prepared by the City Attorney. The Community Development Department has prepared additional information regarding land use, coastal and circulation impacts associated with prohibiting public access on Seapoint Avenue between Palm Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway. The Public Works Department has prepared an interim access plan(Attachment 4)which could provide emergency access only from the southern terminus of Seapoint Street to Pacific Coast Highway. The Fire.Chief has prepared additional information regarding the interim emergency access plan. RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: "Retain Seapoint Street as a primary arterial highway as designated in the City's General Plan and the County's Master Plan of Arterial Highways." . f I ANALYSIS: Contractual Obligations On April 4, 1994, the City Council continued the Seapoint Street Study and directed staff to provide additional information regarding any contractual obligations relating to prohibiting public access on Seapoint Street between Palm Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway. City imposed conditions of approval for Tentative Tract Nos. 14134 and 14135 require Seapoint Street to be completed for public and emergency access from Palm Avenue to Pacific Coast Highway. The City Attorney has prepared an opinion(attachment 1)which states that the property owner must agree to the removal of a condition on a recorded tract map. On April 18, 1994, Seacliff Partners transmitted a letter to Mayor Linda Moulton-Patterson which provides very definitive opposition regarding the deletion of public access on Seapoint Street from Palm Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway (attachment 2). The City Attorney has also prepared an opinion as to whether deleting public access from the Seapoint Street segment between Palm Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway is consistent with the Holly Seacliff Development Agreement No. 90-1. Development Agreement No. 90-1 was approved by the City Council on November 25, 1990 and is a contract with Seacliff Partners and the City. In order to delete the Seapoint Street segment between Palm Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway from the City's Master plan of Arterial Streets and Highways,the City should initiate a General Plan Amendment to the Circulation Element. Land Use Impacts As discussed in the March 7, 1994 Report to City Council (attachment 3), deleting public access on Seapoint Street between Palm Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway will require various amendments to the City's General Plan. Section 65300.5 of the Government Code requires the City's General Plan to be internally consistent. In other words, each Element(Land Use, Circulation, Safety, etc.) of the General Plan must be consistent with each of the mandatory seven(7) Elements. In addition to internal consistency,the City's General Plan must be consistent with Federal, State (Coastal Act of 1976) and Regional Planning (Growth Management Plan, Orange County Master plan of Arterial Streets and Highways, Congestion Management Plan, etc.) mandates. For example, to delete public access on Seapoint Street from Palm Avenue to Pacific Coast Highway,the proper process would require a General Plan Amendment to the City's Circulation Element. The proposed amendment would require examining land use impacts, safety and access impacts and possible fiscal impacts to the City. Since this portion of Seapoint Street is located in the City's Coastal Zone, any proposed amendment would also require a Local Coastal Program amendment which is subject to California Coastal Commission approval. The County would need to also review any proposed amendments for consistency with County policies and adopted plans. seapoint general holly 05/09/94 2 Land use is directly affected by the traffic capacities and congestion levels of the existing, approved circulation system. If streets or segments of streets are removed from the City's circulation system, the congestion levels on surrounding streets will increase as travelers take alternative routes. In essence, the removal of portions of the circulation system may create a significant negative impact on other areas of the City. Currently, projections of the existing General Plan densities at maximum build out indicate that many intersections and roadway segments, as they exist today, will be at a critical level of service by the year 2010. The projections for residential, commercial and industrial build out are based upon the existing, approved circulation system and existing development standards. The General Plan Advisory Committee has been reviewing staff s work on the forthcoming General Plan Update and has been discussing the relationship of land use densities and circulation. The Committee has reviewed and voted on a number of land use designations throughout the City based on a traffic model which assumes the Seapoint Street segment will provide public access to Pacific Coast Highway. A revision to the existing circulation system will impact existing circulation patterns and may require a subsequent review of some of the General Plan Update Committee's work. As an alternative to an amendment to the City's Circulation Element of the General Plan, the City Council could direct staff to prepare a focused study, as outlined in the March 7, 1994 Report to City Council (attachment 3), which would focus on retaining the segment of Seapoint Street as identified on the adopted Master plan of Arterial Streets and Highways and analyze the traffic impacts of not improving the Seapoint Street segment to primary arterial street width and postpone public access. Preliminary traffic studies indicate that the estimated vehicular trips anticipated for Seapoint Street would be shifted to Golden West Street. Staff, in the numerous reports which culminated with the March 7, 1994 report to City Council, has repeatedly expressed the need to complete Seapoint Street for public and emergency access. In order to conduct the focused traffic study, the City Council could direct staff to initiate the focused study and appropriate the funds to cover the associated costs. The Fire Department has indicated that the estimated cost of the study should be increased from $23,341 to $33,341 ($10,000 increase). Interim Emergency Access Plan As directed by the City Council on April 4, 1994, staff has prepared an interim emergency access plan for Seapoint Street between Pacific Coast Highway and the southwestern edge of Tract Nos. 14134 and 14135 (attachment 4). The layout has been reviewed by the Fire (Attachment No. 5) and Police Departments and the City's Traffic Engineer for technical requirements. In lieu of full street improvements for public access,the interim plan provides adequate emergency access which should not be considered permanent. Environmental Status: Retaining the Seapoint Street segment between Palm Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway does not constitute a project and is not subject to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. The deletion of the Seapoint Street segment will require an amendment to the City's seapoint general holly 05/09/94 3 certified Circulation Element which is a portion of the General Plan and Local Coastal Program. An amendment will require further environmental study which will probably require an environmental impact report. FUNDING SOURCE: Funds necessary for staff to initiate an amendment to the City's Circulation Element have not been allocated in the approved FY 1993/94 Budget. ALTERNATIVE ACTION: Motion to: A. "Direct staff to initiate an amendment to the City' Circulation Element to delete the Seapoint Street segment from Pacific Coast Highway to Palm Avenue from the City's Master plan of Arterial Streets and Highways and appropriate funds to accomplish the task." or B. "Direct staff to initiate a focused study which will analyze prohibiting public access on Seapoint Street from Pacific Coast Highway to the southwestern edge of Tract Nos. 14134 and 14135 as outlined in the Report to City Council dated March 7, 1994, design a long term public safety access road, and appropriate $33,341 from the General Fund balance to accomplish this task." ATTACHMENTS: 1. Legal Opinion dated April 29, 1994 prepared by the City Attorney 2. Seacliff Partners letter to the Mayor dated April 18, 1994. 3. City Council Report dated March 7; 1994. 4. Interim Emergency Access Plan dated April 20, 1994 prepared by Public Works. 5. Memo from Fire Department dated April 25, 1994 MTU:MF:RLF:lp seapoint general holly 05/09/94 4 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION MI WINGTON BEACH TO: Honorable Linda Moulton-Patterson,Mayor, and Members of the City Council FROM: Gail Hutton, City Attorney DATE: April 29, 1994 SUBJECT: Seapoint Street RLS 94-215, 94-219, 94-249 1. BACKGROUND As we understand the facts, Seapoint Street is proposed to extend south from Palm Avenue to Pacific Coast Highway. The extension of Seapoint has been a basic assumption of every major planning decision concerning south/central Huntington Beach over the last 15 years. Seapoint is proposed as a primary arterial highway,with capacity of approximately 30,000 trips per day. It has now been suggested that the Seapopint Street extension be abandoned or limited; this memo is intended to discuss some of the legal implications of not extending Seapoint. Two questions have been posed. 1. Q. Can the extensions of Seapoint be deleted from the final tract maps (TT14134, 14135)? A. Probably not. 2. Q. Does deletion of Seapoint violate the Holly Seacliff Development Agreement? A. No. 2. MAP ACT The extension of Seapoint is a condition on two Tract Maps; one phase of one map has been recorded. These conditions should be removed from the maps if Seapoint is not to be extended. The Government Code provides a method for modifying a final map. The amendment of a final map is a complex and difficult undertaking, and should not be commenced without serious deliberation. 4\s\Opin:Seapoint\M9/94 Mayor and Members of the City Council April 29, 1994 Page 2 To amend a recorded final map,the City must first adopt an enabling ordinance which allows the modification of final maps. (Government Code § 66472.1) The city must then hold a public hearing and make certain findings as specified by the Government Code. (Id.) Except for minor amendments to correct measurement or descriptive errors,a recorded final map may only be amended if the city finds that: (a) Changed circumstances make any or all map conditions no longer appropriate or necessary; and (b) The modifications do not impose an additional burden on the existing fee owner; and (c) The modifications do not alter any right,title, or interest in the property shown on the recorded map; and (d) The modified map does not contain any of the grounds for denying a map under Government Code § 66474. (Government Code § 66472.1; Curtain and Merritt, California Subdivision Map Act Practice, Sections 7.36 to 7.39.) While it is legally possible to amend a recorded map, it appears unlikely that the City would be able to make the factual findings required by the statute. There do not appear to be any facts to support the finding of changed circumstances since the approval of the map. Finally, a modification that deletes a primary arterial highway from public use will almost certainly require additional environmental review. 3. CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS The non-extension of Seapoint will not breach any contractual obligations. Specifically, the failure to complete Seapoint will not breach the Holly-Seacliff Development Agreement. The Development Agreement contains no express obligation on either party as to the completion of Seapoint. 4\s\0pin:SeapoinA04/29/94 Mayor and Members of the City Council April 29, 1994 . Page 3 4. HOLLY SEACLIFF EIR-NIITIGATION MEASURE The completion of Seapoint was contemplated by the parties when the Development Agreement was negotiated. The Holly-Seacliff final Environmental Impact Report No. 89-1 (EIR)clearly identifies the Seapoint extension. (See City of Huntington Beach Circulation Plan, Exhibit 21 to Holly-Seacliff EIR.) The City identifies it as a"primary arterial, as does the County Master Plan of Arterial Highways. The consequence of not completing Seapoint, as to the Holly-Seacliff Development Agreement, is not that the Agreement will be breached,but rather,that the Agreement itself will have lost one of its major underpinnings. Amgjor traffic impact mitigation will have been removed,leaving unmitigated impacts, As a result,the sufficiency of the EIR itself will be suspect, since the traffic circulation impacts and mitigations identified therein are based on the extension of Seapoint. The EIR may therefore be rendered inadequate by the deletion of Seapoint. 5. VESTED RIGHTS The developer obtains various vested rights under a tract map. If the developer does not consent to the deletion, consideration needs to be given to the extent of vesting and the impact on development rights. 6. OTHER NECESSARY ACTIONS In addition to the ramifications listed above,there are several other items that need to be addressed if Seapoint is not extended. a. The General Plan. The City's General Plan identifies Seapoint, as extended, as a primary arterial highway. (See Huntington Beach General Plan, Circulation Element,p. 57.) If Seapoint is not extended,several elements of the General Plan would have to be amended. Planning Staff has identified these elements in their report. These amendments would require additional environmental study and review. b. Counly of Orange Master Plan of Arterial_Highways. The County's Master Plan of Arterial Highways also designates Seapoint as a primary arterial highway., The non-extension of Seapoint will conflict with the County's Plan. The consequences of the conflict include the possible loss of County funding for street projects,which could be a significant loss in terms of total infrastructure funding. 4\s\Opin:Seapoint\04/29/94 Mayor and Members of the City Council April 29, 1994 Page 4 . C. Police and Fire Response Times. In various public documents,including the Growth Management Policy,the City has adopted goals and standards relating to emergency services and response times. The non-extension of Seanoint will negatively impact the adopted goals and standards for response times, and they will need to be re-analyzed for possible revision. 7. CONCLUSION As discussed herein,the non-extension of Seapoint will have many legal ramifications. These include: The difficult, and probably unfruitful, attempt to amend recorded final maps;the need to process amendments to several elements of the General Plan; non-compliance with the County's Master Plan of Arterial Highways;vested rights to developer; and other implications as identified above. We recommend that the Council fully consider the legal issues discussed herein before embarking on the complex and difficult process of undoing nearly two decades of planning decisions and approvals concerning the extension of Seapoint Street. GAIL HUTTON City Attorney c: Michael T. Uberuaga, City Administrator Melanie Fallon, Director of Community Development Lou Sandoval, Director of Public Works 4ls\Opin:Seapoint\0429/94 ___ _ - 1 1 7- loa� cliff Farriers A till hit lik Cnasi I Inmcs and!)1b'.C.1 XV(kihmeni UIP. �`�, C1 April lief 1994 Mayor Linde Moulton-Patterson CITY OF HWVTI'M21 M BMOH 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Ref Extension of Seapoint Street Qp D R 1 0 1994 Dear Mayor Noul ton-Pattereoni Cary CO, ,1/e Q SSE C h Or. April 4, 1994, the City Council directed staff to prepare an analysis of the ,impacts which would result from the City's failure to complete the construction. of SeNvint Street from Palm Avenue to the Pacific Coast Highway. As background, the connection of Seapoint Street (historically called 38th Street) to Pacific Coast Highway has been a part of the Circulation Element of the City's General Plan since its adoption in December 1976. Seapoint Street is designated as a primary arterial -a four-lane divided highway with a landscaped median and onstrset bicycle lanes - between Garfield Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway with a design capacity of 30,000 vehicles per day. . It is also designated as a ,Local Scenic Route in both the Scenic Highways and Coastal. Elements of the City's General Plan. The Coasted Element also identifies the extension of Seapoint Street as an important component of the City's circulation system, needed to provide public access to coastal resources. We, ae 9eacliff Partners, the developer of the. Surfcrest and Oceanerest residential projects, believe that the City should carefully consider the impacts of the failure to complete the extension of Seapoint Street. We believe those impacts would be detrimental to the public health and safety, adversely affect the public welfare, violate numerous conditions iulposed by the City on Seacliff Partners' projects, and breach the Holly Seacliff Development Agreement between the City and Seacliff Partners. TIffJ MUMS,11LJN W-.MAE= STREET SXQ(ll�d�� CO1lP 1 As noted above, there are a number of reasons why the extension of Seapoint Street should be completed. First, failure to complete the extension of Seapoint Street would be dangerous to the public health and safety. The Council already has before it memoranda prepared by representatives of the City's Fire and Police Departments. Both ,pepartments agree that the failure to co►r>plete the extension of Seapoint Street would increase response time and, as a result, decrease the Department's ability to provide vi tal public safety services to those who will live in the Surfarest tall 52013i-ogdw:a)Y SWUc 100, Same Monica, CA Q0401 (:310) 394-.3379 Pay; (310) :394-6872 *! 23 C oi-poratc Plaza, S .te. 250, Ne.ti-}-)(,rt lieiicli, (.A �)2660 (71.4) 721-9777 Pax (714) 729-1214 J FROM URBAN*WEST*COMM** �,1 PHONE NO. 310 394 3379 Apr. 18 1994 10:33AM P2 Mayor Moulton-Patterson April 16, 1994 Page 2 and ocoancrest projects, as well as existing developments in the Seacliff area. %he Staff Report dated March 7, 1994, summed up the situation when it stated# "The Seapoint Street extension is an integral part of the fire and emergency medical protection plan for the future of Surf crest and the oceancrest developments. . ." "The Police Department considers the Seapoint Street extension to be of vital importance to providing sufficient access for patrolling and emergency response." (Staff Report at 2. ) Second, the failure to complete the extension of Seapoint Street will adversely affect the public welfare. A .failure to complete the extension of Seapoint Street would result in the diversion of traffic to already heavily travelled streets within the City. ". . .eliminating this segment of Seapoint Street [between Palm Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway) will have a negative impact on traffic circulation. . . especially on Golden West Street between Garfield Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway. " (Memorandum dated December 17, 1993, from Jim Otterson to Steve May, attachment 7 to the Staff Report. ) Third, failure to complete the extension of Seapoint Street will violate numerous conditions imposed by the City on Seacliff Partners' approved projects now under Construction. Condition No. 3 imposed at the time of the City's approval of Tentative Tract 14134 required Seacliff Partners to improve Seapoint Street within the Tract and "between the Tract boundary and Pacific Coast Highway. " A ,similar condition was imposed on Tentative Tract 14135. . In order to satisfy these conditions, Seacliff Partners has already completed the construction of Seapoint Street from Doral Drive north to Garfield Avenue .and has spent approximately $500,000 in the preparation of street .improvement plans and the relocation of the Shell Oil Company's pipelines which run under the extension of Seapoint Street. Those funds were expended only because of the imposition of the extension conditions and with the C.i ty's full knowledge. Fourth, failure to complete the extension of Seapoint Street will breach the Development Agreement between the City and Seacliff Partners. The development FROM URBAN*WEST*COMM** PHONE NO. 310 394 3379:' -l Hpr. IU 1':' 4 10:64HM K5 Mayor Moulton-Patterson Apri1 18, 1994 Page ,3 of the Holly Seacliff area is governed by the provisions of Environmental Impact Report 89-1 and the Holly Seacliff Specific Plan which are incorporated .into the Development Agreement entered into between the City and Seacliff Partners. The extension of Seapoint Street was identified as a significant component of the circulation of the traffic in the SIR, and is rewired to fully mitigate the project's and City cumulative traffic impacts. Therefore, the City's approvals of existing developments and future developments subject to the Specific Plan and protected by the Development Agreement Contemplated the extension of Seapoint Street and the traffic mitigation and other benefits associated with that extension.. A failure to complete the extension would not only be in direct conflict_with adopted City Circulation and Local Coastal Program policies and approved project conditions, but would also ,impose additional direct and indirect costs on Seacliff Partners which would force it to seek to recover those costs from the Catty. Conclual If the extension of Seapoint Street is not completed, the impact, as noted above, will be to threaten the safety of those who now, and in the future, will live in the Surfcrest and Oceancrest projects and will also ,substantially increase the amount of traffic and Congestion within the City which would be detrimental to both existing and future residents as well as being a violation of the Development Agreement. For all the foregoing reasons, Seacliff Partners contends that the City should - indeed is obligated to - go forward with the extension of Seapoint Street. Sincerely, BEACLIFP PARTNERS By# New Urban West, Inc.:A40 --Tom Vice President cc, Members of City Council M. Uberuaga R. Silver M. Fallon G. Hutton M. Dolde>r L. Sandoval R. Lowenberg OCEA NCREST ' no �► (TMtq! rP Tract /1135) p� f RACT BOUNDARY C2 �i EMERGENCY ACCESS ROAD ' 1 GA T E SVRFCREST SECTION X-X \ �, (TMtativP Tract 14134) -o w* TRACT BOUNDARYPCH 1 GATE REVISIONS REFERENCES 5[eve� , SEA POINT ST . _- --:_-- — fNERGENCY ACCESS CONCEPT I CITY OF HUNTINNGTON BEACH i CITY OF HUNTINGTONI BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH - rt N TO: Robert Franklin ". � FROM: Howard Hubert, Deputy Fire Marshal 2 6 1994 DATE: April 25, 1994 '-- SUBJECT: SEAPOINT AVENUE EXTENSION TO PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY After review of the conditions of approval for both the Surfcrest and the Oceancrest developments, it is clear that the developer must complete the construction of Seapoint Avenue from Palm Avenue to Pacific Coast Highway. This would mean a clear public access that would have no obstructions such as security gates or any other obstructions. The intent of this condition is to provide for a timely response by emergency vehicles, both fire and police, and to provide a secondary means of escape for the public during emergencies. The interim access plan dated April 20, 1994 is acceptable, however it should not be considered permanent. REQUEST FOR LATE SUBMITTAL OF RCA RCA Department: 06M a . GV Title �. i & J i i Council Meeting Date: Date of This Request: REASON (Why is this RCA being submitted late?): I _ . . EXPLANATION (Why is this RCA necessary to this agenda?): CONSEQUENCES How shall delay of this RCA adversely impact the City?): Signature: I�kApproved O Denied pproved O Denied Initials Required � - De artme Head Ra Silver Michae Ube ru a Request for Late Submittal Requests for Council Action (RCA's) are due and considered late after the City Administrator's deadline which is 5:00 P.M. Wednesday ten days prior to the Council meeting at which the item is to be heard. This deadline reflects the time needed prior to Agenda Review for Administration staff and the City Administrator to review all RCA's and their support material prior to forwarding them to the City Clerk for placement on the preliminary agenda. It also provides time for the City Clerk's office to review the item and add proper wording for the item to the preliminary agenda for discussion at Agenda Review the following Monday. The Request for Late Submittal form provides a vehicle for RCA's to be submitted after the Wednesday, deadline when there are extenuating circumstances .which delayed the item and when action on the item is necessary at the upcoming Council meeting. Late items can agendized only with signed authorization on the Request for Late Submittal form by the Assistant City Administrator or the City Administrator. /-lice RECEIVED FROM /_)ftAvxuc AND MADE APART OF THE R COr t THE COUNCIL MEETING OF "(too L� ,**r OFFICE OF THE CITY CLK TILE SEACLIFF CO4L1770t1� 2-6-95 � ER ONNIE BROOKWAY,CITY CLERK. (Ilomernvv7ersfi-om SeaC.il f via the Greens, The Estates, and Sxrfcrest Honnes) Dr. Richard (Buck) Marrs, 1.9265 Archfield Circle, H.B., 92648 (969-4472) ITEM F-1. REGARDING THE OPENING OF SEAPOINT STREET TO PACIFIC. COAST HIGHWAY FOR ALL '1'R-,XFFIC! The SeaCliff Coalition respectfully requests that Seapoint Street be connected to Pacific Coast Highway for enzergengv vehicles and pedestrians ONLY, for the following reasons: Emergency Police and Fire Vehicles: We do agree that emergency vehicles should have the fastest and easiest access to all parts of Huntington Beach to continue keeping our city the safest in the country. But this should be done within reason without making the SeaCRY area a crime infested community. For the following reasons, we vehemently disagree with the "Emergency Response Study for the Fire and Police Departments" dated October 14, 1994: ** If Seapoint Street is connected to P.C.H. for all traffic, all residents (particularly the new Sur crest residents who live approximately 100 yards from P.C.H. and all other SeaCliff residents who live approximately 100 yards farther) will be subjected to burglars, thieves. rapists, vandals, and vagn•ants occupying the Regional Park who have a very quick entrance and a very quick few seconds ekit to P.C. H. which has autos speeding at 55-65 m.p.h. . Clearly. this will cause residents and the Police Department many problems that are not currently in this area because of its isolation. The Police can still have its own private entrance and exit via a gating system avoiding 14,000 autos per day if Seapoint is not opened to all traffic. homes on Pahn and Seapoint Streets have a five foot wrought iron fence for protection from vehicles and persons on the street that most younger persons c n easily scale. All of SeaCliff homes have 78%glass fronts menty-five feet from Palm and Seapoint streets making us particularly vulnerable to traffic and crime. 'Vl-'e contend that having Seapoint connected to P.C.H. for emergency vehicles and pedestrians ONLY will make the need for Police protection much less! **A new fire station is projected to be built near Garfield and Edwards Streets which is one to two miles and a fcw minutes away from the SeaCliff area. Further, our Fire Chief admits that the Gothard and Lake Stations are also available to serve the SeachlY homes. He wants fast access to the SeaCliff area pia Seapoint and P.C.H. for our Warner Station. as well. (This access will be moot in rainy weather when P.C.H. is closed because of flooding.) We contend that haying emergency fire help can be handled most adequately from the three stations which may never use the P.C.H. to Seapoint entrance. Further, the Warner Station vehicles can use P.C.H. to Seapoint entrance using the same gating system for the Police Department. (The gating systems have functioned well for ten years for residents of the SeaCiff area.) Also, fire vehicles will not have to wade through 1.4,000 vehicles per day on Seapoint if they have their own private entrance. ** Surfcrest homes already have two exits for their development on Palm and Seapoint Streets. The upcoming Oceancrest homes will have two exits; one on Seapoint and the other on the corner of Palm and Seapoint Streets which all exit on Palm. (Please note that The Estates homes have only one entrance and one exit both on Seapoint Street. And, all of the homes in SeaCliff on The.Greens, The Estates, and Surfcrest are Irate guarded where both the Police and Fire Departments have and use their own keved entrances which have worked successfully for year's!) "Our Fire Chief contends that in case of a major disaster, Seapoint Street must be used as an exit for all vehicles. V hat is a major disaster? How many of us built bomb shelters during the A-bomb and communism scares? **_1 traffic signal will not.be needed on the corner of Palm and Seapoint Streets if traffic on Seapoint is limited to emergency vehicles, thusly saviuig the developer S130,000 and the Cite of Huntington Beach $6,000 per year for maintenance indefinitely. *If Citv of Huntington Beach regulations do not allow gating of a public street, then clianae the regulations to maintain the quality of life for the residents! Were The Estates homes considered out of regulation when they were built with only one entrance and exit? *SeaCWon The Greens homes were built with a unique architecture for Huntington Beach with its 78% single pane gLiss fronts facing Patin and Seapoint. The City planners and City Council in the mid 1980's knew full.well.that Seapoint Street was on the 25-year County plan to be connected to P.C.H. , and vet, they approved the out-of-regulation plan to build these homes....to please the developers? Clearly, there can be no doubts that homes on Goldenwest(nith cement block walls.. frith homes facing arviq from Goldenivest traffic, and nith Goldenfi cyst being a large six lane highrvat) are much better suited to live frith excess traffic than can the homes on .S'eapoint!! **The City ordered sound study clearly identifies that decibles on Seapoint and Palm Streets will exceed Cin• regulations with any traffic, and that the sound violations to residents will be further exacerbated if Seapoint Street is opened to P.C.H. for all traffic! Will the City Council again violate its own agreed upon regulations`? ' (It does seemm that this G&has historically prioruized the needs of developers first to the detriment of its citizens!) Indeed, it is time that this City_prioritize FIRST to take care of the quality of life for its citizens and consider the needs of the developers last! We need your protection to keep the SeaCliff area safe from crime and from the obvious traffic sound, noise and air pollution ! We expect no less!! THE CITY COUVCIL H:4 S THE POIVER TO CIIANGE TIIE OlJ 4LITy'OF LIFE FOR SE4CI._IFF IZF_'SIDEN7S"FORE1'ER............ _ OBSERVATIONS OF SOUND STUDY ... DECEIMBER 15, 1994 by Dr. Richard (Buck)Marrs (19265 Archfield Circle, H. B., 92648) On this date, a traffic sound study was done by a consulting firm hired by the City of Huntington Beach in the above home and monitored by Dr. Marrs (the observor). The purpose of this study was to ascertain how the proposed traffic with Seapoint Street connecting to Pacific Coast Highway for all traffic would affect homes on Seapoint and Palm streets. The observor monitored sound instruments used by expert consultants and made the following observations while referring to testimony from the consultants: *The sound decibles were recorded by instrumentation of samples of traffic in six different situations in this residence (with windows closed in the downstairs livingroom, with windows open in the downstairs li-vingroom, with widows closed in the upstairs master bedroom, with windows open in the upstairs master bedroom). Also, sound decibles were recorded on both outside living areas facing Seapoint on the downstairs patio and the upstairs balcony. Each study mentioned above was done for approximately 15-20 minute segments. *There are 119 townhomes from Seacliff on The Greens facing either Seapoint or Palm streets, and eleven homes facing.Seapoint Street from The Estates homes. All of the townhomes are 78% single-paned glass with a 25 foot setback from the street shielded by no more than ornamental iron fences. *By Huntington Beach City estimates, traffic on these streets will increase from approximately 2000 to 13.000.114,000 autos per day if Seapoint is allowed to be open to Pacific Coast Highway for all .traffic. *Acceptable decible limits in living areas according to Huntington Beach City regulations are 45 decibles inside and 60 decibles outside according to consultants. *The observor monitored decible levels for most traffic in each seg vent of this study taking his own notes. Decible levels inside it.ith windowed doors closed were 46-48 for small auto traffic (four cylinder Toyota, Nissan Sentra, etc.) on opposite side of the street and 48-52 for small auto traffic on the same side of the street. Decible levels inside with windoited doors closed were 52-59 for medium-sized auto traffic (ntin-vans, six-cylinder autos like Toyota Caniry) on the opposite side of the street, and 56-64 for autos on the same side of the street. Decible levels inside with windowed doors closed were 55-67 decibles for heavier i)pe traffic (four-wheeled drive vehicles, standard trucks, standard sized vans) and 63-70 decibles for autos on the same side of the street, Decible level for inside with ivindoived door closed for one large truck and trailer similar to a school bus was 81. The results of this shtdyfrom:this observor is that sound decibles on these streets»ill exceed City regulations 41h any traffic. Further, with any combination of Avo vehicles on the street at the same tinge the sound decibles will be even higher. And even worse. norinatizing 13,000 vehicles trm►eyng on these streets during the hours of 6a.m, to 10p.nL will stake these honies unlivable with decibles exceeding 45 (46-70) every 4.4 seconds! : ! 4unnu n Bes4h omomow CAS1708 HUNTINGTON-BEfiCH, CA!IF: CC� t �E8 v 2- 32' p ( 7'14 ) 536-4183 February 4 , 1994 Huntingdon Reach City Council 2000 Main Street untingion Beach , CA 92646 Qnorable Mayor and City Council : i n behailf of the Board of Directors and Members of Huntington each 'tomorrow , I wish to to make the following comments and equest�% with regard to the extension of Seapoint Street , which s scheduled to come before you for consideration on February �I th . n our letters to you of May 15 , and April 4 , 1994 , we indicated rave concerns about the extension of Seapoint Avenue to Pacific ` I cast Highway . As detailed below, we wish to reiterate our ontindod concerns and opposition to this extension , because of he associated significant negative impacts not gust on the learby 'residents and the Linear Park but on the whole community . ' n the basis of the following considerations , we ask that yout take the necessary steps to delete Seapoint form the Orange ounty Master Plan of Arterial Highways ( MPAH); �.; if' absolutely necessary for health and safety , place ppropr ate gates on the currently proposed extension of Seapoint o prov.ide for emergency response , as has been done , for instance- most recently,_ in the Cascade Lane area of the city; and , if absolutely necessary , e .g . there is a feeling on the art of the staff or Council that there must be some circulation eyond that provided for by the Garfield-Seapoint-Palm route and in addition to the Holly-Seacliff traffic which would li therwise be thrown on Gvldenwest Street , do both of the o�lowihjp a . take the steps necessary, to establish a connection to PCH I � bretween Palm and PCH at the entrance to Seacliff Country I ' Club or to Seacliff Estates, using whatever mechanisms are necessary including eminent domain (condemnation ) to provide this connection; b . reduce speed limits to those appropriate for interior residential streets and provide accompanying sign so that 02-06-95 10: 22AM POI -, there is no doubt about speed limits along the Garfield- y Seapoint-P n-PCH link; I'. c . place stop signs alongthis same route at intervals als equivalent to those ( approximately every two blocks ) II recently used in the Rhone Drive to limit the speed of I through traffic and retain the residential character of this neighborhood . d . provide extra speed enforcement for this route until those who travel it become accustomed to obeying the traffic controls . the following are our reasons for asking for the actions ipdicated above . V. SEVERE NEGATIVE IMPACT ON RESIDENTS ' QUALITY OF LIFE . The extension of Seapoint Drive to Pacific Coast Highway will s riously damage or destroy the quality of life for adjacent r sidents , not just those whose houses front directly on Seapoint bit to some significant distance into the Seapoint area . The h uses which front directly on Seapoint were not built to noise andards positioned as necessary to protect residents from the n ise and other impacts of an arterial highway . The noise s. udies which will be presented to you indicate that , with even tie light traffic size which is present on Seapoint now , p. rmissi.ble Huntington Beach noise code levels have been reached 01 exceeded . Increased traffic volumes associated with the e tension will increase the duration of the noise ,impact to 24 h urs a day . The areas most affected are the primary residential 1 Lving areas . T ere has been more than adequate testimony from the current residents to this effect and to the significant negative impacts 0 their quality of life because of the traffic which even now m ves along that street . We ask you to consider what a 50 MPH s. reight shot from Garfield to PCH will do to a quiet residential n ighborhood not built to city noise standards will do to the r sidents who front directly on Seapoint and, we suspect , to r sidents further into the development on an otherwise quiet day a d evening . Would you personally or your family want to live u der these conditions , especially when you had been assured you w uld not have to do so before you bought? We think not . We ask y u to put yourself in the place of the adjacent Seacliff r sidents in making your decision. 2� RESPONSIBILITY OF THE DEVELOPER , LANDOWNER AND CITY T e Huntington Beach Company , the landowner , and Cayman D velopment Company , the developer , knew full well the c nstruction requirements necessary to mitigate noise and other i trusions on residents on arterials yet did not see fit to i stall these protections . Planning Commissions and City C uncils , controlled by these interests , approved the realignment 0 38th Street from an extension of Edwards Street to the Seapoint location . These Commissions and Councils also approved 2 I 02-06-95 10: 22AM P02 d velopment along this arterial without rea— ring incorporation y oF these protect: s . The planning staff di not see to it that t ese protections required by code were required of the developer d ring the planning and approval processes . A residents have indicated previously , since 1984 , the staff ( nd realtors ) , were asked by these residents before they bought a out the future of the street and surrounding areas . They were a sured that the area was going to have the atmosphere of a r sidential neighborhood adjacent to a park , nothing like what w 11 be associated with the currently proposed plan for Seapoint. A a result , these residents agreed to pay a premium for their h mes because of this quiet location and associated view . I T make matters even worse , the City staff knew during the time t e Holly Seacliff development agreement was being negotiated t . at there was concern of the part of Seacliff residents about S apoint and its future and that adjacent residences lacked a equate protection from Seapoint as an arterial . Circulation f r Holly Seacliff development relied on use of Seapoint . K 'owins this the City and the problems of Seapoint , the City went a ead and allowed the density and associated need for circulation along Seapoint without the ability to modify the agreement as needed . Ir summary, the City is responsible , right down the line , for the n ative impact that the currently proposed extension will have o the residents ' quality of life . It is time for the current City Council to assume this responsibility as a moral obligation a to represent the residents of this community first as they have indicated they will do . We are asking you to eliminate , or reduce to the absolute maximum possible , the impact of Seapoint onjthe adjacent residents . 3 .! SEVERE NEGATIVE IMPACTS ON THE LINEAR PARK AND SOLSA CHICA Se point borders the Linear Park . For more than twenty years , th purpose of this park has been to provide a quiet , nature or ented buffer to the Solsa Chica . A 50 MPH raceway from Ga field to PCH or even the volumes of traffic which Seapoint wi 1 carry as an arterial are not conducive to such an an ironment for the park and will , in actuality , destroy much of th original purpose of this park . Further , this is what is left on Huntington Beach Mesa of the supportive riparian habitat for th Solsa Chica wetlands and ecosystem . The impact of such tr ffic characteristics and volumes can be expected to be ma live . Quite aside from the impacts on the nearby residents , t.h' n , the impact on all residents of Huntington Beach and Orange Co my who expect a quiet regional park in this location will be in olerable . We believe residents and citizens do not want this impact and , therefore , want Seapoint to remain as much as possible as it is from a traffic standpoint , 4 . CRIME POTENTIAL AND IMPACT Cr me is of broad public concern . Clearly , the currently pr posed extension of Seapoint and associated enhanced , rapid 3 I I 02-06-95 10: 22AM P03 a Mity for ingress and egress will set the stage for increased c iminal activit in an area which curr tly has level of a tivity associated with other limited acce5.-j residential areas i. i the city . Certainly there will be some increased traffic in tie area generated by the park and , now , the Holly--seacliff . d velopment but simple common sense indicates that the type of r ady access provided by the proposed extension will increase the p ssibility of more Grime , despite statements of some of staff to tie contrary . Ready access will work just as well for the c: I iminal element as it will for emergency services . Elimination oF the extension can be expected to keep criminal access to an a solute minimum . Gating and a southerly Palm to PCH connection plovide 'the next best alternative to controlling criminal a tivity for residents and park users alike . S . POTENTIAL. L.XABILITY OF THE CITY Since the City did not enforce its own development standards in t e construction of the home adjacent to Seapoint , the homeowners h ve retained an attorney to bring litigation on their behalf in with regard to the damage they feel they will suffer if the sj apoint extension is constructed, opened and used as presently p oposed . Should they file litigation , the City will find itself e� broiled in defending such litigation and possibly having to pay d mages to these residents . Considering our fiscal picture and her demands on staff and attorneys ' time with regard to such tters as the Solsa Chica 's potential impact on this city , we ielieve it is not in the best interests of the taxpayers of this city to put this extension through as planned, especially since there may be viable and acceptable alternatives or compromises . I Ian closing , we wish to note that the impacts associated with the extension of seapoint are almost directly equivalent to those ich would be associated with the proposed Santa Ana River ossings . Those impacts led you to support and assist in the cision to delete these crossings . We believe the same tionale applies to the deletion of this extension and dictates he same action be taken . :hank you for your consideration of our comments in this matter °nd your continued efforts on behalf of the quality of life and �he citizens in this city . incerely , f obert E r W,inchell resident , Huntington Beach Tomorrow 4 02-06-95 10: 22AM PO4 s RECEIVED CITY CLERK February 6, 1995 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIF. Mike Jones FEB 6 3 32 PH 195 19267 Archfield Circle Huntington Beach, CA 92648 (714)960-7557 Subject: The Extension of Seapoint Street to Pacific Coast Highway Dear Council Members, My name is Mike Jones and I live at 19267 Archfield Circle. I am writing you this letter to urge you to please stop the extension to Seapoint Street to Pacific Coast Highway! I have been a resident at this location for almost two years and I believe the extension of this street will: * Devastate the delicate ecological equilibrium of the Bola Chica * Make the surrounding areas unsafe for all patrons and natural residents of the Linear Park * Bombard the local homeowners with noise and trash pollution that their homes cannot withstand. Impact to nature In my short time living next to the Bolsa Chica, I have detected the several negative impacts relating to the initiating of construction and to the increase of traffic along Seapoint Street: * Foliage at the perimeter of the Linear Park has receded from the street * A decrease in the number of wild animals and birds along the perimeter of the park * An increase in the number of dead animals lying in the middle of Seapoint . Street While I am not an expert on ecology,I believe this is significant proof that conditions in this area are deteriorating, and will only get worse as the traffic increases. In addition,I am afraid the that the increased presence of dead animals in the roadway is a foreshadow of accidents which will occur as a result of the dangerous conditions created for Linear Park Patrons. Impacts to Local Residents I believe the conditions created as a result of the Seapoint Extension will also destroy the quality of living for residents to live along Seapoint Street. The best evidence of this can be found in the city's own noise analysis. This analysis reveals that the traffic on Seapoint will increase: 488 % without the extension (9,600 cars per day) 745 % with the extension (13,800 cars per day) If the Seapoint is not extended, other streets will experience some impact; however,this burden is less than the burden imposed on Seapoint Residents. The study reveals that projected traffic on Palm and Goldenwest will be effected in the following ways if Seapoint is not extended: Palm will increase 294%to 7,100 cars per day (still 2500 fewer than on Seapoint) Goldenwest will increase only 3.9%North of Yorktown and 14% South of Yorktown While it is not comfortable for any Huntington Beach resident to experience an increase in surrounding traffic,the homes along the existing major thoroughfares are better able to withstand the adverse effects. The homes along Seapoint and Palm, on the other hand, were not made to withstand these stresses. The faces of these homes are covered completely with single- pained windows and are protected only by ornamental iron fences. The city's own noise analysis reveals that at the current traffic levels of 1,633 cars per day,the homes along Seapoint Street already experience the maximum amount of internal noise (Ldn=45 dBA). The study also states that any increase in traffic will increase the amount of noise to levels which violate the city's standards. What is Ldn and dBA and what does it really mean? Ldn is an average noise level which is experienced throughout the a 24 hour period. I have, however, used an instrument similar to the one used by Robert Kahn, John Kain& Associates, Inc. to measure instantaneous sound levels within my house. My analysis shows that while the daily average may be 45 dBA, the instantaneous levels within my bedroom can range from 25 dBA (minimal traffic - currently the norm) to 75 dBA ( a single construction truck) To put this into perspective, an increase in 10 dBA is equivalent to doubling the loudness of the original sound. Therefore,the sound levels in my bedroom can increase over 32 times at any given moment! Unfortunately, this usually occurs in the early in the morning hours between 6:00 am to 8:00 am. w The Best Solution! I hope now you can see the devastating impact that the extension of Seapoint will have on the local community and all of its residents. Fortunately,the Sea Cliff Collation has recommended what I believe to be an excellent solution: * Extend the street for emergency vehicles, pedestrians, cyclists, and equestrians only! While this solution may require some creative thinking to realize, it is a viable option that will meet not only the needs of the city, but also the needs of the natural residents of the Bolsa Chica, the local homeowners, and visitors to the Bolsa Chica Linear Park. In addition, implementation of such a plan verifies to all current and potential residents of Huntington Beach, that the City Government is truly concerned with all of its residents, and will undertake extraordinary measures to our preserve our quality of living, and to maintain that which makes Huntington Beach so unique. Th yo fo your consideration, br �— Mike Jones CITY CLERK FIL ;,d% C(7PY FEBRUARY 6, 1995 SEAPOINT STREET EXTENSION NOISE ANALYSIS RECEIVED TRAFFIC ENGINEERING Huntington Beach, California JAN941995 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA Ln 0 C Q 3 0 ``' GARFIELD AVE. SAP YORKTOWN AVE. qGy 9L� O 0 00 9L� Robert Kahn , JojInc. Kajn & Associates, Robert Kahn , John Kain . & Associates, Inc. Transportation Planning • Traffic/Acoustical Engineering January 24, 1995 Mr. Jim Otterson CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Subject: Seapoint Street Extension Noise Analysis Dear Mr. Otterson: INTRODUCTION The firm of ROBERT KAHN, JOHN KAIN & ASSOCIATES, INC. has completed a noise analysis of existing and future conditions with the Seapoint Street Extension in the City of. H-untington Beach. The purpose of this noise assessment has been (1) to evaluate existing noise conditions both indoor and outdoor at three locations impacted by Seapoint Street, Palm Avenue and Goldenwest Street and (2) to assess future noise impacts at three homes with and without the Seapoint Street Extension. The.Crty=of. Huntington=Beach-:has :initiated this�noise study to- determine-existing -__ conditions and to determine potential impacts with and without the Seapoint Street Extension from Palm Avenue to Pacific Coast Highway. The traffic evaluation of this extension was evaluated in an August 5, 1994 Technical Memorandum addressing the traffic impacts of the Seapoint. Street Extension. That traffic study evaluated the future average daily traffic volumes on Seapoint Street, Palm Avenue and Goldenwest Street with and without the extension of Seapoint Street to Pacific Coast Highway. The general location of the study area is shown in Exhibit A. The three homes where noise measurements were made are as follows: • 19265 Archfield Circle (multi-level condominium) • 6142 Fernwood Drive (multi-level condominium)- • 19472 Summer Breeze Lane (single story single-family detached residential dwelling unit) The precise location of the home at 19265 Archfield Circle is shown in Exhibit B. This multi-level condominium backs up to Seapoint Avenue and includes a lower level large patio at the living room level and a smaller level patio (less than 5 feet deep) on the 4101 Birch Street, Suite 100, Newport Beach, California 92660 ,(714) 474-0809 • FAX (714) 474-0902 LOCATION MAP V V) 0 Q 3 0 GARFIELD AVE. SEPPO\N� S� 19265 .� ARCHFIELD 19472 CIRCLE LSUMMERBREEZE A E YORKTOWN AVE. F142 ERNWOOD DRIVE C' C'0 qti �F ` SEAPOINT STREET EXTENSION 0 ort TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS Huntington Beach, California EXHIBIT A 2 Robert Kahn , John Kai n & Associates, Inc. %ITE LOCATION* 19265 ARCHFIELD CIRCLE 9� IS BJ H U N T I N G T 0 N 6 E A Qk 1927c 5`rT •� 1924s C b1 6�E / '92SS 19265 t t 19215 O ° O, 1920 ;j n 19295 - - C 1 It w � � 4� ``,vFiTTEu7►ASK_ opNF+' _ �Ia ' • ��`� _ �9RkrE178R1ER—ORIVE' ,O � 327 N SEAPOINT STREET EXTENSION 0 a ort TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS Huntington Beach, California EXHIBIT B 3 Robert Kahn , John Kai n & Associates, Inc. 1 1 upper level master bedroom. The upper level balcony would not be considered a typical outdoor living space, because it's depth is less than 5 feet deep. Noise impacts at the home of 19265 Archfield Circle are primarily from Seapoint Avenue and to some degree from the other surrounding roadways such as Palm Avenue and more distant Pacific Coast Highway. This multi-level condominium includes a lower level large patio adjacent to the living room area and a smaller (less than 5 foot) balcony off of the upper level master bedroom. The home at 6142 Fernwood Drive is shown in Exhibit C. This multi-level condominium includes a lower level large patio adjacent to the living room area and a smaller (less than 5 foot) balcony off of the upper level master bedroom. The home at 19472 Summer Breeze Lane is shown in Exhibit D. This home is a typical single-family single story detached residential unit with wood frame construction. The home has an existing 6-foot block wall at the rear of the property adjacent to Goldenwest Street. The home also has a pool in the backyard and 6-foot wood side yard fencing. The measurements for the single-family detached unit on Summer Breeze is only to project the affect of the Seapoint Street either completing the extension or having it end at Palm Avenue. According to City staff, the Uniform Building Code (UBC) which has been adopted by the City specifically exempts single- family detached units from the minimum noise insulation standards (Appendix section _ 3501-Uniform- Building Code). The primary source of noise impacting each of the three homes are the adjacent roadways including Seapoint Street, Palm Avenue and Goldenwest Street. During the nose study .every attempt was made .to isolate the noise impacts directly to the -_ _ _ - - adjoining'roadways-.: `Although-trafficvolumes'on Seapoint Street.and Palm Avenue are relatively low, traffic speeds are relatively high as a result of the uncongested traffic flow and relatively straight alignment. The City of Huntington Beach has commissioned this noise study to identify the existing noise conditions and to determine the future noise impacts with and without the Seapoint Street Extension. In order to establish ambient noise conditions, noise measurements were taken both outside and inside each of the three homes. Noise measurements were made both inside and outside of the home at the lower level and upper level for both a windows closed and windows open (1 foot) condition. In this manner, both the exterior and interior environment could be established for each of the three homes. Since the home at 19472 Summer Breeze Lane is a single story home, noise measurements were not taken at a second story location. 5 OITE LOCATION 6142 FERNWOOD DRIVE ,p 6r A �p�sll` a i Or pQ �v/�Z Fxvk/Oo/� D.P/vE .O SEAPOINT STREET EXTENSION ort TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS p Huntington Beach, California EXHIBIT C 5 Robert Kahn , John Kai n & Associates, Inc. CITE LOCATION 19472 SUMMERBREEZE LANE ' 4 N .1 � n b r� J ti 6701 L4w ^b h ' 6 70 2 ^ 19242 61 I 6 712 `D " 19 4`Ccjy b d 2 - o• o � Po / 262 b ^bti b e a 6701 a 19272 (a �°~ LQu R. ~ n I 6691 AR6 R KEYC 19282 6692 y ^ 19302 r ~q�pti b TOO ° 6702 ° 19312 1 19j1 ti 19291 a P ^ � Po P . 93? G: rP 1 0 0 c n 19322 669 f U f?t : 1930 m I 1 o b f933 A, 19322 ,9331 CHUR H CR. V 6681 9 1\"' 1 193 1932 �. n er ^' t\ OUNTRY CR. ti 1 211 9332 31 1 16682. N ^ ly 92SJ Q I9,9? 1934 U 19312 Ce 19331 6692 o ° `r. J6 P20 . D 1935 1 19352 19341 C' 19362 19351 C'4T r, .yG, ,, b^�. ' 19381 Q GARDEN CR. 698-, b b `O b0ti r` �9 /y/ 1939] 19382 19371 19382 \ _ o �(. O- 19392 `-19381 392 —. 19 - -- - - -= - Q -- 19402 R. 1941 19431 19432 19421 19422 m m m \ 1pg9 ° 0 19441 19442 1944 1914 6�92 S� b0,10� 19451 J 1915`'291511 19452 2 19462 1946 9462 b ti 9 b0 s� ct ! b0~ M11 b0 19122 1918 19472 1 l o 329 SEAPOINT STREET EXTENSION go ort TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS Huntington Beach, California EXHIBIT D 6 Robert Kahn , John Ka in & Associates, Inc. Noise measurements were made with two Larson-Davis Model 700 Sound Level Meters. The meters were calibrated before each of the noise measurements were taken. Noise measurements were made for a minimum of ten minutes each during the hours of 10:00 AM to 3:00 PM. Additionally, a log was kept during the noise monitoring period to identify conditions being monitored and any special events which might have occurred. Every attempt was made to determine existing ambient conditions as a result of the traffic on the adjoining roadways. Simultaneously with the noise measurements, 24-hour machine traffic counts were taken at each of the roadway locations adjacent to the homes. These traffic counts were then utilized to determine the hourly distribution of traffic adjacent to Seapoint Street, Palm Avenue and Goldenwest Street. Based upon the hourly distribution of traffic flow and the measured noise levels Ldn (Day and Night equivalent levels) were estimated (see Appendix "A" for a description of acoustical terms). FINDINGS The following findings have been made for existing and future conditions for the homes in the vicinity of the Seapoint Street extension. 1 . Traffic volumes currently on Seapoint Street are approximately 1 ,600 ADT and are projected to reach 9,600 ADT without the Seapoint Extension and 13,800 ADT with the Seapoint Street extension. Palm Avenue currently has a traffic volume of approximately 1,800 ADT and would increase to approximately 7,100 ADT without the Seapoint Street Extension and would be reduced to 4,800 ADT with the Seapoint Street Extension. Goldenwest Street south of Yorktown presently has traffic-volume of 20,000 ADT.and would increase to___:_, - approximately 30,300 ADT--without the-Seapoint Street Extension and would-- - --- be reduced to 29,100 ADT with the Seapoint Street Extension. Existing and future traffic volumes are shown in Table 1 . 2. Noise measurements were made both outside and inside each of the three homes during the monitoring period. Noise measurements were made at both the lower level (living_ room) and upper level (master bedroom) at the two condominium sites along Seapoint Street and Palm Avenue and at the first floor locations at the single-family detached homes at 19472 Summer Breeze Lane. 3. Existing exterior noise levels at 19265 Archfield Circle indicated an Ldn = 59.6 dBA. . Interior noise levels are currently Ldn = 40.9 dBA for the lower level and 42.9 dBA for the upper area with windows closed. With windows open, the interior level increases to Ldn = 46.5 for the lower level and 45.3 dBA for the upper level. 7 TABLE 1 DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES' EXISTING FUTURE VOLUME FUTURE VOLUME VOLUME W/O SEAPOINT ST. W/SEAPOINT ST. LOCATION (ADT)2 EXTENSION (ADT)' EXTENSION (ADT) • Seapoint St. 1,633 9,600 13,800 • Palm Ave. 1,803 7,100 4,800 • Goldenwest St. -N/O Yorktown 26,148 30,000 29,300 -S/O Yorktown 20,163 1 30,300 29,100 ' All future ADT's rounded to the nearest 100 ADT. 2 Based upon 12/15/94 traffic counts. 3 Based upon technical memorandum Seapoint Street Extension Traffic Impact Analysis, ROBERT KAHN, JOHN KAIN & ASSOCIATES, INC., August 5, 1994. 8 4. The exterior noise levels at 6142 Fernwood Drive, which is impacted by Palm Avenue, is currently Ldn = 57.4 dBA at the lower level and Ldn = 61 .5 dBA at the upper level. The interior noise level is currently Ldn = 40.2 for the lower level and 40.6 dBA at the upper level with windows closed. With windows open, the lower level is currently Ldn = 44.8 and 50.0 dBA in the upper level. 5. The exterior noise levels at 19472 Summer Breeze Lane is currently Ldn = 62.7 dBA in the backyard. The first floor interior noise level Ldn = 43.8 dBA in the master bedroom and 43.4 for first floor kitchen area with windows closed. With windows open, the noise level increased to Ldn = 50.9 dBA in the master bedroom and 51 .0 dBA in the kitchen. Again the measurements on Summer Breeze were only for comparison purposes, since as earlier stated they are exempt from the Uniform Building Code (UBC) minimum noise insulation standards according to City staff. 6. Based upon the increase or decrease in traffic volumes, future noise projections have been made by utilizing the existing ambient conditions and the projected traffic volumes in the future. Future noise level increases over existing conditions is shown in Table 2. 7. The results of the future noise projections are summarized in Table 3. Table 3 indicates both the existing noise levels and future noise levels with and without the Seapoint Street Extension. Exterior noise levels along Seapoint Street would increase slightly with the Seapoint Street Extension from Ldn = 67.3 to 68.9 dBA. Noise levels for the home at 6142 Fernwood Drive will be Ldn = 63.4 dBA without the Seapoint .Street:Extension--and 61:7=dBA WitFi the.Seapoint=Street extension.=Exterior=- - -- noise levels along Summer Breeze Lane would decrease slightly with the proposed Seapoint Street Extension from Ldn = 64.5 dBA without the extension to Ldn = 64.3 dBA with the extension. 8. A summary of both existing and future interior noise levels with and without the Seapoint Street Extension is shown in Table 4. The results of the interior analysis are generally similar to the outdoor analysis which indicates with the Seapoint Street extension, noise levels along Fernwood-Drive would be slightly lower with the extension, whereas along Seapoint Street, noise levels would increase with the extension. Interior noise levels for those homes along Summer Breeze Lane adjacent to Goldenwest Street would not change substantially with or without the Seapoint Street Extension. 9 TABLE 2 FUTURE NOISE LEVEL INCREASES OVER EXISTING CONDITIONS FUTURE INCREASE W/O FUTURE INCREASE LOCATION SEAPOINT EXTENSION (dBA) W/SEAPOINT EXTENSION (dBA) • Seapoint St. +7.7 +9.3 • Palm Ave. +6.0 +4.3 • Goldenwest St. -N/0 Yorktown +0.6 +0.5 -S/O Yorktown +1.8 +1.6 10 TABLE 3 SUMMARY OF OUTDOOR NOISE IMPACTS Ldn (dBA) FUTURE W/O FUTURE RECEIVER SEAPOINT W/SEAPOINT SITE NO. SITE ADDRESS LOCATION ROADWAY EXISTING EXTENSION EXTENSION 1 B 19265 Archfield Circle Lower Level Seapoint St. 59.6 67.3 68.9 Balcony 1 D 19265 Archfield Circle Upper Level Seapoint St. 59.3 67.0 68.6 Balcony' 2B 6142 Fernwood Dr. Lower Level Palm Ave. 67.4 63.4 61.7 Balcony 2D 6142 Fernwood Dr. Upper Level Palm Ave. 61.5 67.6 65.8 Balcony' LB3D2 19472 Summer Breeze Ln.3 1 st Floor Goldenwest 62.7 64.5 64.3 Backyard St. ' Upper level balcony is not normally considered an outdoor living area, because of limited depth of balcony (4 foot 7 inches). 2 Energy average noise level of the two (2) measurement sites at this location. Exempt from Uniform Building Code (UBC) minimum noise insulation standards. 11 TABLE 4 SUMMARY OF INDOOR NOISE IMPACTS Ldn (dBA) FUTURE W/O FUTURE RECEIVER SEAPOINT W/SEAPOINT SITE NO. SITE ADDRESS LOCATION ROADWAY EXISTING EXTENSION EXTENSION 1A 19266 Archfield Circle Lower Level Living Seapoint St. 40.9' 48.6 60.2 Room 1 g 46.62 64.2 56.8 1 C 19265 Archfield Circle Upper Level Master Sespoint St. 42.9 50.6 52.2 Bedroom 45.3 53.0 54.6 SD 2A 6142 Fernwood Dr. Lower Level Living Palm Ave. 40.2 46.2 44.5 Room 2B 44.8 50.8 49.1 2C 6142 Fernwood Dr. Upper Level Master Palm Ave. 40.6 46.6 44.9 Bedroom 50.0 56.0 54.3 2D 3A 19472 Summer Breeze Ln.3 1st Floor Master Goldenwest 43.8 46.6 46.4 Bedroom St. 3B 60.9 62.7 62.5 3C 19472 Summer Breeze Ln.3 1 st Floor Kitchen Goldenwest 43.4 45.2 46.0 61.0 62.8 52.6 ' Upper number is with windows closed. 2 Lower number is with windows open one foot. Exempt from Uniform Building Code (UBC) minimum noise insulation standards. 12 NOISE STANDARDS AND CRITERIA Various noise rating scales, noise standards, community noise assessment criteria and noise mitigation measures are discussed in the following paragraphs. The purpose of this information is to provide a brief overview of how noise is evaluated and various standards used in the City of Huntington Beach and County of Orange. Acoustical terms used this study are further summarized in Appendix "A". Noise Rating Scales A number of noise rating scales are used in California for land use compatibility assessment. These scales are: the Equivalent Noise Level (LEO), the Day Night Noise Level (Ldn), and the Community Noise Equivalent Noise Level (CNEL). These scales are described in the following paragraphs: • A-weighted decibels (dBA) are the most common units used for measuring the loudness of a noise event. The human ear has different sensitivity to different frequencies of sound (noise). A-weighting is an attempt to give the noise monitor the same frequency sensitivity as the human ear. Technically, it is the measurement of the energy being received when listening to (or monitoring) a source of noise. For example, the loudness of a highway may be 65 dBA when measured 50 feet away. The sound decreases as one moves away from the source, and the same highway would have a noise level of 62 dBA at 100 feet. The relationship between how one perceives a sound and the actual sound energy emitted by the source of noise is very complex. However, a good rule of thumb is that if a noise increases 10 dBA, its apparent_ y _ loudness will double. .Therefore;a noise-that is 70 dBA will appear-twice -= as loud as a 60 dBA noise. • The LEO scale represents the energy average noise level over a sample period of time. It represents the decibel sound level that would contain the same amount of energy as a fluctuating sound level over the sample time period. • The Ldn scale represents a time weighted 24 hour average noise level based on the A-weighted decibel. Time weighted refers to the fact that noise occurs during certain sensitive time periods is penalized for occurring at these times. For the Ldn scale the nighttime period (10 p.m. and 7 a.m.) noises are penalized by 10 dBA. This noise rating scale is used by the City of Huntington Beach for highway noise. 13 • The CNEL scale is similar to the Ldn scale except that it includes an additional 5 dBA penalty for the evening time period (7 p.m. to 10 p.m.). The County of Orange utilizes this noise scale. For typical highway noise levels in Orange County the CNEL scale is very close to the Ldn scale (within 0.5 dBA). Noise Standards The City of Huntington Beach has adopted noise standards as part of their general plan noise element. The City of Huntington Beach uses the Ldn scale as the criterion for assessing the compatibility of residential land uses with highway and stationary source noise. The City utilizes the standard of Ldn = 60 dBA for exterior compatibility for residential communities. The City uses a standard of Ldn = 45 dBA for interior noise levels for residential development. For typical southern California standard building construction interior noise levels are reduced by approximately 13 dBA with windows open and 20 dBA with windows closed. Typical outdoor noise levels are shown in Exhibit E. Community Noise Assessment Criteria In community noise assessment changes in noise levels greater than 3 dBA are often identified as significant, while changes less than 1 dBA will not be discernible to the human ear. In the range of 1 to 3 dBA people who are very sensitive to noise may perceive a slight change in noise level. No scientific evidence is available to support the use of 3 dBA as the significance threshold. In laboratory testing situations, humans are able to detect noise level changes of slightly less than 1 dBA. However, in a.community situation the noise exposure is extended over a long time period, and changes in noise levels occur over years, rather than the immediate comparison made_in a laboratory situation. Therefore, the level at which changes in community noise levels become discernible is likely to be some value greater than 1 dBA, and 3 dBA appears to be appropriate for most people. NOISE MONITORING Noise monitoring was conducted at three different homes on December 15, 1994. On-site noise measurements were made during the period of 10:00 AM to 3:00 PM. The purpose of the monitoring during that period was to establish baseline noise levels at the three homes for existing traffic conditions. Simultaneously with the noise measurements, 24-hour machine traffic counts (Appendix "B") were taken on Seapoint Street, Palm Avenue and Golden West Street. The noise monitoring was conducted at three sites as shown in Exhibit A. Noise measurements were made in both the outdoor and indoor living areas with windows open and closed. The data reported during the monitoring period including the site number, start time, Leq, Lmin, Lmax, L2, L8, L25, L50 and comments relative to the events occurring during the 14 TYPICA OUTDOOR COMMUNITY NOISE EQUIVALENT LEVELS CNEL IN DECIBELS OUTDOOR LOCATION 90 ALONG SIDE A BUSY FREEWAY 3/4 MILE FROM TOUCHDOWN AT MAJOR AIRPORT 80 DOWNTOWN WITH SOME CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY URBAN HIGH DENSITY APARTMENT 70 URBAN ROW HOUSING ON MAJOR AVENUE 60 OLD URBAN RESIDENTIAL AREA WOODED RESIDENTIAL - - 50 AGRICULTURAL CROP LAND 40 RURAL RESIDENTIAL WILDERNESS AMBIENT 30 SOURCE: U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, PROTECTIVE NOISE LEVELS. SEAPOINT STREET EXTENSION ort TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS Huntington Beach, California EXHIBIT E 15 Robert Kahn, John Kain & Associates, Inc. monitoring period. Noise measurements were taken for a minimum of 10 minutes at each site to determine the short term noise condition. The detailed results of the noise monitoring for each of the various sites is included in Appendix "C". The purpose of the noise measurements on December 15, 1994 was to determine the existing noise impacts at each of the three homes. A summary of the exterior noise measurements is shown in Table 5, and a summary of interior noise measurements is shown in Table 6 for this monitoring period. As can be seen by Table 5, outdoor noise levels ranged from Ldn = 57.4 to 63.0 dBA. Indoor noise levels varied considerably with windows closed or open. Interior noise levels with windows closed ranked from Ldn = 40.2 to 43.8 dBA and with windows open from Ldn = 44.8 to 51 .0 dBA. Based upon the Leq noise measurements made at each of the homes and the actual 24-hour traffic counts, ROBERT KAHN, JOHN KAIN & ASSOCIATES, INC. was able to then determine daily Ldn values. The percentage of traffic flow during each hour was reviewed and the Leq values were adjusted for each hour based upon the measured data. In this way, 24-hour Ldn levels were determined which correlated directly with the actual traffic counts along Seapoint Street, Palm Avenue and Golden West Street. Detailed calculation sheets showing the project Leq and Ldn levels is shown in Appendix "D". The results of the Ldn projections were compared against theoretical projections based upon the FHWA Noise Projection Prediction Model, and the results correlated very closely. The typically hourly variation in traffic flow is shown in Exhibit F, G and H for each of the streets analyzed. Based upon existing and future projected traffic volumes with and without the Seapoint Street extension, increases -in noise levels. were determined. - The existing and future traffic volumes-have been previously sfiown-m Table 1: -Traffic volumes - -- on Seapoint Street are projected to increase substantially from approximately 1,600 to 9,600 ADT without the Seapoint Street extension and 13,000 ADT with the Seapoint Street extension. Palm Avenue traffic volumes would increase to approximately 7,100 ADT without the Seapoint Street extension and 4,800 ADT with the Seapoint Street extension. Traffic volumes on Golden West south of Yorktown would increase from approximately 20,000 ADT to 30,300 ADT without the Seapoint Street extension and 29,104-ADT with the Seapoint Street extension. Based upon .these increases in traffic volume, future noise level increases over existing conditions were determined and are shown in Table 2. Based upon the baseline measured noise levels and the change in traffic volume on each of the adjoining streets, an increase in noise level is projected-. Future outdoor noise levels without and with the Seapoint Street extension have been determined and are shown in Table 7 and 8, respectively. These tables indicate projected Leq value and Ldn value for each of these locations. It should be noted that for the condominiums on Archfield Circle and Fernwood Drive the upper level balconies are 16 TABLE 5 EXISTING OUTDOOR NOISE LEVELS (dBA) Leq (dBA) RECEIVER Ldn SITE NO. SITE LOCATION LOCATION ROADWAY Leq TIME' (dBA) 1 B 19265 Archfield Cir. Lower Seapoint St. 58.3 1108 59.6 Level Balcony 1 D 19265 Archfield Cir. Upper Seapoint St. 58.0 1 152 59.3 Level Balcony' 2B 6142 Fernwood Dr. Lower Palm Ave. 57.0 1240 57.4 Level Balcony 2D 6142 Fernwood Dr. Upper Palm Ave. 60.3 1313 Level 61.5 Balcony 3B 19472 Summer 1 st Floor Goldenwest St. 60.6 1412 63.0 Breeze Ln.3 Backyard' 3D 19472 Summer 1 st Floor Goldenwest St. 59.9 1449 62.3 Breeze Ln. Backyard ' Time started. Upper level balcony is not normally considered an outdoor living area because of limited depth (4 foot 7 inches). Exempt from Uniform Building Code (UBC) minimum noise insulation standards. Two measurements were made at this location. 17 TABLE 6 EXISTING INDOOR NOISE LEVELS (dBA) Leq (dBA) RECEIVER Ldn SITE NO. SITE LOCATION LOCATION ROADWAY Leq TIME' (dBA) 1 A 19265 Archfield Cir. Lower Seapoint St. 39.62 1050 40.9 Level Liv. 1 B Room 45.23 1 108 46.5 1 C 19265 Archfield Cir. Upper Seapoint St. 41.6 1 139 42.9 Level 1 D Master 44.0 1 152 45.3 Bdrm. 2A 6142 Fernwood Dr. Lower Palm Ave. 39.8 1228 40.2 Level Liv. 2B Room 44.4 1240 44.8 2C 6142 Fernwood Dr. Upper Palm Ave. 39.4 1300 40.6 Level Mstr. 2D Bdrm. 48.8 1314 50.0 3A 19472 Summer 1 st Floor Goldenwest St. 41.4 1400 43.8 Breeze Ln.° Master 36 Bdrm. •48.5 1413 50.9 3C 19472 Summer 1 st Floor Goldenwest St. 41.0 1436 43.4 Breeze Ln.4 Kitchen 3D 48.6 1449 51.0 ' Time started. Upper value is with windows closed. 3 Lower value is with windows open one foot. ` Exempt from Uniform Building Code (UBC) minimum noise insulation standards. 18 DISTRIBUTION DF DAILY TRAGIC VOLUMES SEAPOINT STREET SEAPOINT STREET PERCENT (%) DAILY DISTRIBUTION 10 9 8 U W Q 7 } J 6 a 0 0 5 a\ 4 Z W 3 w a 2 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 1 12 1 14 I 16 1 18 1 20 1 22 1 3. 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 HOUR OF THE DAY SEAPOINT STREET EXTENSION g ort TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS Huntington Beach, California EXHIBIT F 19 Robert Kahn , John Kai n f-----' & Associates, Inc. �DISTRIBUTIONGOF DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES PALM AVENUE PALM AVENUE DAILY TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION 10 9 8 U U- < 7 } -� 6 Q 0 O 5 v 4 Z W UIr 3 w a 2 1 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 1 16 1 18 1 20 22 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 HOUR OF THE DAY 0 SEAPOINT STREET EXTENSION cc ort TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS p Huntington Beach, California EXHIBIT G 20 Robert Kahn , John Kain j----,-,' & Associates, Inc. ,DISTRIBUTIONOOF DAILY TRANFIC VOLUMES GOLDEN WEST STREET GOLDEN WEST STREET DISTRIBUTION OF DAILY TRAFFIC 9 8 U 7 U- U- 6 0 5 0 4 v F Z w 3 U w EL 2 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 HOUR OF THE DAY SEAPOINT STREET EXTENSION Cn 00 �zrt TRAFFIC.. IMPACT ANALYSIS Huntington Beach, California EXHIBIT H zi Robert Kahn, John Kain f----, & Associates, Inc. TABLE 7 FUTURE OUTDOOR NOISE LEVELS W/O SEAPOINT EXTENSION (dBA) Leq (dBA) RECEIVER Ldn SITE NO. SITE LOCATION LOCATION ROADWAY Leq TIME' (dBA) 1 B 19265 Archfield Cir. Lower Seapoint St. 66.0 1108 67.3 Level Balcony 1 D 19265 Archfield Cir. Upper Seapoint St. 65.7 1152 67.0 Level Balcony 2B 6142 Fernwood Dr. Lower Palm Ave. 63.0 1240 63.4 Level Balcony 2D 6142 Fernwood Dr. Upper Palm Ave. 66.3 1313 67.5 Level Balcony' 3B 19472 Summer 1 st Floor Goldenwest St. 62.4 1412 64.8 Breeze Ln.' Backyard' 3D 19472 Summer 1 st Floor Goldenwest St. . 61.7 1449. 64:1 Breeze Ln.' Backyard` ' Time started. 2 Upper level balcony is not normally considered an outdoor living area because of limited depth (4 foot 7 inches),. ' Exempt from Uniform Building Code (UBC) minimum noise insulation standards. ` Two measurements were made at this location. 22 TABLE 8 FUTURE OUTDOOR NOISE LEVELS W/SEAPOINT EXTENSION (dBA) Leq (dBA) RECEIVER Ldn SITE NO. SITE LOCATION LOCATION ROADWAY Leq TIME' (dBA) 1 B 19265 Archfield Cir. Lower Seapoint St. 67.6 1108 68.9 Level Balcony 1 D 19265 Archfield Cir. Upper Seapoint St. 67.3 1152 68.6 Level Balcony' 2B 6142 Fernwood Dr. Lower Palm Ave. 61.3 1240 61.7 Level Balcony 2D 6142 Fernwood Dr. Upper Palm Ave. 64.6 1313 65.8 Level Balcony' 3B 19472 Summer 1 st Floor Goldenwest St. 62.2 1412 64.6 Breeze Ln.' Backyard` 3D 19472 Summer 1 st Floor Goldenwest St. 61.5 1449 63.9 Breeze Ln.3 Backyard° ' Time started. ' Upper level balcony is not normally considered an outdoor living area because of limited depth (4 foot 7 inches). ' Exempt from Uniform Building Code (UBC) minimum noise insulation standards. Two measurements were made at this location. 23 generally not considered outdoor living spaces, because of their minimum depth (less than 5 feet). Projected noise levels at outdoor lower level balconies and first floor/backyard are projected to exceed the City's standard of Ldn = 60 dBA. It should be noted that many agencies utilize a higher outdoor noise standard, typically Ldn or CNEL = 65 dBA, which is more easily able to be achieved. In addition to outdoor noise levels, indoor noise levels with and without windows closed have been calculated with and without the Seapoint Street extension. The results of the future indoor noise level without Seapoint extension is shown in Table 9 and future noise indoor noise levels with Seapoint extension are shown in Table 10. ROBERT KAHN, JOHN KAIN & ASSOCIATES, INC. appreciates this opportunity to provide acoustical engineering services to the CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH. If you have any questions regarding this study or need further review, please feel free to give me a call at (714) 474-0809. Sincerely, ROBERT KAHN, JOHN KAIN & ASSOCIATES, INC. Robert Kahn, P.E. eC 2 �� Principal c No. 20295 EXP. 9130197 _ _ - RK:kgd/4579 - sr JN:485-94-002 CIVI qTf OF..CA��E�� Attachments 24 TABLE 9 FUTURE INDOOR NOISE LEVELS W/O SEAPOINT EXTENSION (dBA) Leq (dBA) RECEIVER Ldn SITE NO. SITE LOCATION LOCATION ROADWAY Leq TIME' (dBA) 1 A 19265 Archfield Cir. Lower Seapoint St. 47.32 1050 48.6 Level Liv. 1 B Room 52.93 1108 54.2 1 C 19265 Archfield Cir. Upper Seapoint St. 49.3 1139 50.6 Level 1 D Master 51.7 1152 53.0 Bdrm. 2A 6142 Fernwood Dr. Lower Palm Ave. 45.8 1228 46.2 Level Liv. ZB Room 50.4 1240 50.8 2C 6142 Fernwood Dr. Upper Palm Ave. 45.4 1300 46.6 Level Mstr. 2D Bdrm. 54.8 1314 56.0 3A 19472 Summer 1 st Floor Goldenwest St. 43.2 1400 45.6 Breeze Ln.° Master 3B Bdrm. 50.3 1413 52.7 3C 19472 Summer 1 st Floor Goldenwest St. 42.8 1436 45.2 _ . Breeze Ln.° Kitchen 3D 50.4 1449 52.8 ' Time started. 2 Upper value is with windows closed. a Lower value is with windows open one foot. Exempt from Uniform Building Code (UBC) minimum noise insulation standards. 25 TABLE 10 FUTURE INDOOR NOISE LEVELS WISEAPOINT EXTENSION (dBA) Leq (dBA) RECEIVER Ldn SITE NO. SITE LOCATION LOCATION ROADWAY Leq TIME' IdBA) 1 A 19265 Archfield Cir. Lower Seapoint St. 48.92 1050 50.2 Level Liv. 1 B Room 54.53 1108 55.8 1 C 19265 Archfield Cir. Upper Seapoint St. 50.6 1139 52.2 Level 1 D Master 53.3 1152 54.6 Bdrm. 2A 6142 Fernwood Dr. Lower Palm Ave. 44.1 1228 44.5 Level Liv. 2B Room 48.7 1240 49.1 2C 6142 Fernwood Dr. Upper Palm Ave. 43.7 1300 44.9 Level Mstr. 2D Bdrm. 53.1 1314 54.3 3A 19472 Summer 1 st Floor Goldenwest St. 43.0 1400 45.4 Breeze Ln.` Master 3B Bdrm. 50.1 1413 52.5 [:: f3D 19472 Summer 1 st Floor Goldenwest St. 42.6 1436 45.Breeze-Ln.° ._Kitchen ` . 50.2 1449 52.6 ' Time started. 2 Upper value is with windows closed. 3 Lower value is with windows open one foot. ` Exempt from Uniform Building Code (UBC) minimum noise insulation standards. 26 APPENDIX A GLOSSARY OF ACOUSTICAL TERMS APPENDIX A GLOSSARY OF ACOUSTICAL TERMS A-WEIGHTED SOUND LEVEL. The sound pressure level in decibels as measured on a sound level meter using the A-weighted filter network. The A-weighting filter de-emphasizes the very low and very high frequency components of the sound in a manner similar to the response of the human ear. A numerical method of rating human judgment of loudness. AMBIENT NOISE LEVEL. The composite of noise from all sources near and far. In this context, the ambient noise level constitutes the normal or existing level of environmental noise at a given location. COMMUNITY NOISE EQUIVALENT LEVEL (CNEL). The average equivalent A-weighted sound level during a 24-hour day, obtained after addition of five (5) decibels to sound levels in the evening from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. and after addition of ten (10) decibels to sound levels in the night before 7 a.m. and after 10 p.m. DECIBEL (dB). A unit for measuring the amplitude of a sound, equal to 20 times the logarithm to the base 10 of the ratio of the pressure of the sound measured to the reference pressure, which is 20 micro-pascals._ dB(A). A-weighted sound level (see definition above). EQUIVALENT SOUND LEVEL (LEQ). The sound level corresponding to a steady noise level over a given sample period with the same amount of acoustic energy as the actual time varying noise level. The energy average noise level during the sample period. L(n). The A-weighted sound level exceeded during a certain percentage of the sample time. For example, L10 in the sound level exceeded 10 percent of the sample time. Similarly L50, L90, L99 etc. NOISE. Any unwanted sound or sound which is undesirable because it interferes with speech and _ hearing 'or is intense enough to damage hearing, or is otherwise annoying. -The State Noise Control - Act defines noise as "...excessive undesirable sound...". PERCENT NOISE LEVELS. See L(n). SOUND LEVEL (NOISE LEVEL). The weighted sound pressure level obtained by use of a sound level meter having a standard frequency-filter for attenuating part of the sound spectrum. SOUND LEVEL METER. An instrument, including a microphone, an amplifier, an output meter, and frequency weighting networks for the measurement and determination of noise and sound levels. SINGLE EVENT NOISE EXPOSURE LEVEL (SENEL). The dB(A) level which, if it lasted for one second, would produce the same A-weighted sound energy as the actual event. APPENDIX B EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES DEC— 1 6-94 F=R I 1 0 : 00 TRAFF= I C CGUI,4TS 7146467231 R _ 02 Tf CODE : HUNTINGTON BEACH 24 HOUR MACHINE COUNTS-BY TRAFFIC COUNTS PAGE: 1 5 Street: SEAPOINT STREET fllE: 094121iT J Street: BET GARFIELD AVE. 6 PALM AVE. DATE: 12/15/94 icnt : RKJK 8 ASSOC. .................................................. N8 . --•-- 58 •-----• -•• COMBINED -- .IN AM PM AM PM -AM - PM :15 -30 2 25 ; 10 7 35 .45 2 9 15 74 3 16 10 42 5 25 25 116 :00 1 13 3 9 4 22 :15 0 10 2 10 2 20 :30 0 20 1 18 1 38 :45 0 1 13 56 0 6 8 45 0 7 21 101 '.:00 2 15 0 9 2 21- ?:15 1 15 1 i6 2 31 ' 0 22 -:30 0 7G 0 8 2 5 14 Sn U 1 17 50 2 6 31 108 ;.Do 0 17 .3 17 0 34 :15 0 16 0 13 0 29 5;30 0 17 U 15 0 32 5.45 0 0 22 72 1 4 6 51 1 1 28 123 +:00 1 19 1 11 2 30 ::15 1 15 1 9 2 24 .30 1 18 U 7 1 25 4:45 3 6 12 (14 4 6 13 40 7 12 25 104 5:00 5 18 7 14 12 32 5:15 4 15 . 4 7 8 22 5:30 3 6 2 8 5 14 5.45 15 27 17 56 12 25 8 37 27 52 25 93 5:00 1 14 5 9 6 23 5:15 2 15 2 6 4. 21 6:30 2 8 S 9 7 17 6:45 6 11 14 51 15 27 7 71 21 38 21 82 7.:00 9 12. -._ 21_ 17 30 29 7:15 8 9 :U 12 28 21 7:30 12 5 15 5 27 10 7:45 8 37 15 41 13 69 4 38 21 106 19 79 0.00 12 3 19 6 31 9 8:15 19 6 21 12 40 18 8:30 14 2l7 rl 41 7 8:45 17 62 7 18 1.1. 81 6 31 31 143 15 49 9:00 17 9 15 5 32 14 9:15 12 4 13 4 25 8 9:30 18 3 8 5 26 8 9:45 4 51 6 22 5 41 3 17 9 92 9 39 ;0:00 6 1 11 1 17 3 '•0:15 15 5 9 2 24 7 10:30 8 4 11 3 19 7 10:45 15 44 8 18 13 44 6 13 28 88 14 31 11:00 11 3 �2 3 23 6 11.15 12 1 16 8 28 9 11:30 16 3 13 $ 1 29 8 11:45 15 54 3 10 12 53 5 2 27 107 a 31 .--....•--. . ........... ---..... ......,�-----••- --•-- T01A15 307 540 416 677 956 ,)AY TOTALS 847 781) 1633 SPLIT % 45.3 56.5 55.1 43.s PEAK HOUR 8:15 12:15 13:00 2:45 8.15 2:45 VOLUME 67 76 at 62 144 126 D.M.F. 0.88 0.76 0-75 O.91 0.88 0.93 DEC— 1 6-9.4 pR 1 1 0 : 00 TRAF=F= I C COUt-4TS 7 IL 46467:2- F= . 0 TE CODE : HUNTINGTON BEACH 24 HOUR MACHINE COUNTS-BY TRAFFIC COUNTS PAGE: I S Street: PALM AVE. FILE: 09412146 v street: BET CAMELSACK & CNEARYMILL DATE: 12/15/94 ient : RXJK & ASSOC. ................................................................................................................................ ME ....... Ea ....... ....... wo ------- ..... C01481NED ..... GIN AM PM AM PM AM PM .......................................... ..................................................................................... -:00 9 24 3 11 12 35 >:ls 2 6 2 21 4 27 1:30 4 12 7 25 6 37 !-45 4 19 14 56 1 8 13 70 5 27 27 126 1:00 2 12 1 19 3 21 1:15 3 11 0 11 3 22 1:30 1 17 0 14 1 31 1:45 0 6 13 53 0 1 18 62 .0 7 31 105 2:00 0 13 1 12 1 25 2;15 1 18 1 12 2 30 2:30 0 14 1 15 1 29 2;45 a 1 16 61 2 5 10 49 2 6 26 110 3:00 3 25 0 16 3 /.1 3-15 0 15 u 16 0 31 3;30 0 12 0 11 0 23 3:45 0 3 14 66 0 0 19 62 0 3 33 128 4:00 1 12 0 10 1 22 4:15 0 17 0 19 0 26 430 1 IS t1 i1 1 26 4:45 0 z 17 61 1 1 11 51 1 3 28 102 5:00 1 16 1 15 2 31 5:15 3 9 0 14 3 23 5;30 6 13 0 17 6 30 5.45 5 15 17 55 4 5 11 57 9 20 28 112 6:00 4 12 1 17 5 29 6:15 13 7 3 19 16' 26 6:30 a 12 3 19 11 31 6:45 12 37 13 44. 8 15 12 67 20 52 25 ill 7:00 22 13 12 is 54 33 7:15 24 10 11 17 35 27 7:30 13 12 11 16 24 28 7:45 15 74 6 46 lu 1.4 13 61 25 118 19 107 8:00 19 6 13 1 32 7 8:15 28 6 17 5 45 11 8:30 34 12 19 ? 53 14 B-45 21 102 6 30 zi 70 1; 13 42 172 11 43 9-00 24 6 is 7 39 13 9:15 22 6 13 6 35 12 9:30 18 L 17 a 35 6 9:45 12 76 a 2t. 19 616 6 21 31 140 14 45 10:00 it. 0 17 1 27 1 10:15 9 3 18 3 27 6 10:30 14 4 12 6 26 10 10:45 8 45 5 12 19 66 6 10 27 101 11 28 11'.00 15 3 10 3 25 6 11:15 19 7 17 2 36 9 11:30 16 4 11 2 27 6 11-.45 13 63 1 is 13 51 1 a 26 Ill. 2 23 .............................................................0.................................................................... TOTALS /643 523 330 537 763 lo"D DAY TOTALS 966 067 SPLIT % 58.1 50.3 43.3 51.6 PEAK HOUR 8:15 2.15 0:15 12:15 8:15 3.00 VOLUME 107 73 72 78 179 128 P.H.F. 0.79 0.73 0.86 0.78 0.84 0.78 DEC- 16-94 FRI 10 : 01 TRAFFIC COUNTS 7146467231 P _ 04 TE Mit HUNTINGTON BEACH 24 HOUR MACHINE rm)NTC-RY TRAFFIC COUNTS PAGE: 1 -S Street: GOLDEN WEST STREET FILE: 09412144 W street: N/O YORKTOWN AVE. lent RKJK 8 ASSOC. DATE: 12/15/94 .ME ....... N8 ------- ....... SO COMBINED ----- :GIN AM PM AM PM AM PM ?:00 27 158 52 160 79 318 ?:15 31 194 4b 164 79 360 ?:30 15 210 41 170 56 380 2:45 15 88 281 843 3U 171 165 661 45 259 446 1504 1:00 16 170 37 171 53 341 1:15 15 152 19 165 34 317 1:30 16 237 17 213 33 450 1:45 16 63 234 793 15 88 211 760 31 151 445 1553 2:00 23 232 17 221 40 453 2:15 15 248 17 234 32 482 2:30 17 205 10 234 27 439 2:45 9 64 258 943 9 53 210 899 18 117 468 1542 3:00 6 364 8 287 14 651 3:15 12 235 7 234 19 469 3:30 11 100 9 199 20 379 3:45 12 41 237 1016 6 30 247 967 18 71 484 1983 4:G0 11 203 8 235 19 438 4:15 10 210 11 258 21 468 4.30 12 212 1i 59 17 471 4:45 18 51 243 15e.8 36 263 1015 30 87 506 1883 5:00 28 238 15 233 43 471 5:15 35 265 16 235 51 500 5:30 66 247 25 276 91 523 5:45 64 193 251 1001 18 74 264 1008 82 267 515 2009 6:00 88 243 30 298 118 541 6:15 85 201 59 268 141. 469 6:30 107 189 94 Z71 201 460 6.45 121 401 196 829 119 302 264 1101 240 703 460 1930 7:00 153 173 231 270 384 443 7:15 213 128 142 214 355 342 730 223 143 167 185 390 323 7:45 248 837 143 587 tu0 720 172 841 428 1557 315 1428 8:00- 245 108 217 175 457 283 8:15 226 106 242 164 468 272 8:30 248 103 266 137 514 240 8:45 220 939 104 423 201 921 166 642 421 1860 270 1065 9:00 198 90 172 151 370 241 9:15 198 100 743 144 341 244 9:30 169 85 127 124 296 _ 209 9:45 156 721 62 357 123 565 131 550 279 1266 213 907 10:00 152 73 15's 125 305 198 1005 164 76 132 106 296 182 10:30 151 94 139 111 290 205 10:45 159 626 66 309 156 580 105 447 315 1206 171 756 11:00 160 SO 142 86 302 136 1105 168 51 162 65 330 116 11:30 168 46 164 59 332 105 11:45 163 659 28 175 158 626 54 264 321 1285 82 439 TOTALS 4683 811.4 4166 9155 8849 17299 OAY TOTALS 12827 13321 26148 SPLIT X 52.9 47.1 41.1 SZ.i PEAK HOUR 7.45 2:15 8:00 5:30 7:45 5:15 VOLUME 967 1075 921 1106 1867 2079 P.H.F. 0.97 0.74 0.87 0.93 0.91 0.96 DEC- 16—y4 FRI 10 : 61 TRAFFIC COUNTS 7146467231 F> . 65 ItE CODE : MUNTINGTON BEACH 24 ROUR MACHINE COUNTS-BY TRAFFIC COUNTS PAGE: 1 S Street: GOLDEN WEST S1REE FILE: 09412145 v street: S/0 YORKTOWN AVE. .lent : RKJK 8 ASSOC. DATE: 12/15/94 .. !ME ....... NB ....... ....... SB ....... COMBINED .. :GIN AM PM AM PM AM PM ':00 '..---•. . . .... ......_130 19 34 87 53 226 2:15 24 140 38 128 6Z 268 2:30 22 184 32 115 54 299 2:45 14 79 170 633 24 128 122 452 38 207 292 1085 1:00 7 121 17 102 24 223 1:15 12 146 17 135 29 281 1:50 12 133 9 126 21 259 1:45 13 44 173 573 11 54 121 484 24 98 294 1057 2:00 18 148 13 107 31 255 2:15 16 145 13 102 29 250 2:30 10 162 9 120 19 282 2:45 3 47 1S3 611 3 3c3 131 460 6 85 284 1071 3:00 4 177 10 157 14 334 3:15 8 168 6 135 14 303 3:30 7 173 6 154 13 327 3:45 6 25 198 716 6 28 164 610 12 53 362 1326 4:00 10 177 2 174 12 351 4:15 6 174 11 182 17 356 4:30 10 171 '/ 173 17 344 4.45 11 37 176 693 11 51 lu. 713 22 68 360 1411 5:00 22 140 i 196 31 386 5:15 25 220 11) 208 44 437 5:30 38 211 10 187 56 398 5:45 33 118 239 869 41_ 87 181 772 74 205 420 1641 6:00 30 196 48 205 548 401 605 67 196 55 185 122• 381 6:30 71 140 83 180 154 320 6.45 83 251 188 720 133 319 206 776 216 1040 394 1496 7:00. 113 144 156 203 269 347 7:15 151 130 178 174 329 304 7:30 183 120 162 155 345 275 7.45 172 619 129 525 173 669 130 662 345 1288 259 1185 8:00 201 98 1';t 143 352 241 8:15 188 86 1/5 1*19 363 225 8:30 196 ?3 t'�1 108 347 181 8:45 200 785 71 PIS 187 664 107 497 387 1449 178 $25 9:00 159 75 143 110 302 185 9:15 161 69 94 92 255 161 9:30 148 73 07 104 235 177 9:45 134 602 66 285 104 428 104 410 238 1030 172 695 10:00 121 74 92 96 213 170 10:15 132 58 95 100 227 158 10:30 137 69 96 77 233 146 10:45 144 534 68 269 116 399 87 360 260 933 155 629 11:00 144 44 88 62 232 106 11:15 123 32 112 62 235 94 11:30 122 51 108 45 230 96 11:45 122 511 28 155 99 407 44 213 221 918 72 368 ...........................� .......---•••---••-. -- TOTALS 3652 6390 3252 6409 7374 12789 DAY TOTALS 10032 9(161 1 SPLIT % 49.5 49.9 44.1 50.1 PEAK HOUR 8:00 5:15 7.00 5.15 8:00 5:15 VOLUME 785 - 875 669 781 1449 1656 P.M.F. 0.98 0.92 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.95 APPENDIX C NOISE MONITORING MEASUREMENTS 4 NOISE LEVEL MEASUREMENTS Project: Date: IUdiSL ANA 'S�E-S Job No.: �g5 - I Lf"ODZ Prepared By: Job Location: _Harr?�on • �` GLe.ss bopp,2 SITE TIME NO. STARTED Leq L,,;,, L_ Lz L� L,. COMMENTS 10, 101,50 51, n5 61,0 6Z,o 51,s g515 16 1[,o 1, 40� �a,5 ,5 61 ,5 52, y6, IC. 51,g 4o,o l,5 61, 0 6q,5 56,5 9,5 cl:S2 g,o 4o,n %5 Am 1 61,0 55,0 4g.5 2a I2122 52.1 qP,0 6115 a- 6315 5 0 216 12. 59,19 4615 5, 61.5 55,0 5ZD 2- tt,00 5 IM 52,0 qI,Q �3.5 6q,n 15r (I1 52,0 Zoo 60 H Q,5 �3 ,5 00 65,0 61'�D 3 b 2; 2- 4 5ru, 5 6Fo 6q.s 6 .o c. 2136 ca,0 1 0,5 �61 , 2'.ql 51m 1 .5 A i 1 0 65,5 63,5 4 1 10, . EE JN:00-93- 0 C JN:00-93-001 '`11� Ji1,y1 1� June 6, 1994 � � �'T" •I�ttt "�'�'}�' T SITE LOCATION MAP: Oawvt) T III z.a ArT -t T� 4W(T �1 �t� II11 II T NOISE LEVEL MEASUREMENTS Project: Ste+Q4 In 4 S+r( r CX1�o5Ion Date: / 7 � nnik,�sl � Job No.: 47 �/ 7 — dOZ ll�S I DE MEA S Prepared By: S D D Job Location: H u n( -I(1 Q roo b (f f r • I � 2�S Arr_h���l � C �rr,�. C Nd � SITE TIME NO. STARTED Leq L,,;,, L,,,,, L, Le L, Lw COMMENTS 10 3 lO y S L.i W rvs -c l b. 4S. z 38 r(7 G I,S S y; •S Z. 0 3 9 S s S RA an -I I d Y i t 1 1� h - i RK:kgd/4131 JN:00-93-001 June 6, 1994 9 //Z SITE LOCATION MAP: 2 9-o✓ Condo I t'��+ I' so �C0'l y Cld Mat all 1 �i.�in' Rn jl 1i,:.c, tr uv moor �88 J J fog or toPl FiAcd,(g/d n X it j M. 6P r aolh 30 - ( Si y 6 g jv�iud Nam, ����f{ rclmo,-� v121iCCI3GrS �I�Io�n�S NOISE LEVEL MEASUREMENTS Project: Date: Job No.: Prepared By: JC� Job Location: (,o `I 1 Fc(n!,)w(l 0(1 U-L � � �u�� i y, r k�;PO( r SITE TIME NO. STARTED nnL,,eq L„ L_ ,yI L2 U I, AL, COMMENTS) I^'r 01 �vi. i r0 O �I I�• ^ 1 � 111 It1o �1 1 - L- WJML A C I( nut✓. r i--r RK:kgd/4131 O 5 ( 1 CCr-�. thcr = S�-f JN:00-93-001 - � � 5/+ June 6, 1994 I o-Grar� to 4 La �-} rj —roM tr Z L9 SG� L.^'8" 6r8\ �'/td Wirrlo� �2:,cIC ��"X 2r rL UL SITE LOCATION MAP: J, G`.td. ��. —WjnAOwSn 2C �}tnloub "'j�Y', u .J yam, �JfrOucatll` ��. P•,b 37 - 39 US -5-13 �mb 'S 6-0Pr^.D 31.j-38 Arab _rlr LeUC L �y =Sb NOISE LEVEL MEASUREMENTS Project: �P('i ;1)DI (l (tt /151Or, Date: /I I ' Job No.: 9`� `00 L .L(V S I UE M f—n Prepared By: Job Location: I "I `1 Z urn rn.c,r F('(Z-r_ Liu— SITE TIME NO. STARTED Leq L_ L, L= L, L2b Lw COMMENTS 3 oo M - S' M r Q"OW5 Oo-�,ed n � ' I � \ ✓ 1 � ,� Ss,0 �p ,S 1 1 -5 ' lrO �C1)I V J l�n G a ' 3' 4� lJ V, q9 .0 'T - J •0 I '> 4n.0It( — (/1�►rl,-� �ri �� i� 4 c( 41,0 �571.-0 T D —i and v,,j H 13 4 (Z RK:kgd/4131 O I sto �om� (>1 (7rsr �in4eW �'6f,1 4rY lLJ p \ JN:00-93-001 (3'6" x I / ��J June 6 1994 SITE L CATION MAP: J F +2 Low r � Kn _.moo 1 N W r D lock 101 C4 t to It SrO FQD 1 005. lf� / n or tt w 1 ndcla o _ � --= i• �i' _, ! ]1L .) �[. �� �In/�km �n n'�� .Cff<< ,r-�i i(1) I n�'C nL nrin�...w.__ �,.iv � r APPENDIX D Leq/Ldn CALCULATIONS 7 Ldn ROADWAY NOISE PROJECTIONS PROJECT: SEAPOINT EXTENSION DATE: 16-Dec-94 LOCATION: SITE 1 B - SEAPOINT OUTDOOR LLL 1 B JN: 485-94-002 TIME % OF ADT HOURLY HOURLY LEQ ADJUSTED BEGINNING LEQ WEIGHTING HOURLY LEQ 0000 1.5 51.9 10.0 61.9 0100 0.4 46.1 10.0 56.1 0200 0.4 46.1 10.0 56.1 0300 0.1 40.1 10.0 50.1 0400 0.7 48.6 10.0 58.6 0500 3.2 55.2 10.0 65.2 0600 2.3 53.7 10.0 63.7 0700 6.5 58.2 0.0 58.2 0800 8.8 59.5 0.0 59.5 0900 5.6 57.6 0.0 57.6 1000 5.4 57.4 0.0 57.4 1100 6.6 58.3 * 0.0 58.3 1200 7.1 58.6 0.0 58.6 1300 6.2 58.0 0.0 58.0 1400 6.6 58.3 0.0 58.3 1500 7.5 58.9 0.0 58.9 1600 6.4 58.2 0.0 58.2 1700 5.7 57.7 0.0 57.7 1800 5.0 57.1 0.0 57.1 1900 4.8 56.9 0.0 56.9 2000 3.0 54.9 0.0 54.9 2100 2.4 53.9 0.0 53.9 2200 1.9 52.9 10.0 62.9 2300 1.9 52.9 10.0 62.9 DAILY TOTAL 100.0 Ldn (d BA) = 59.6 HR. MEASURED: 1100 * MEASURED LEQ: 58.3 * Ldn ROADWAY NOISE PROJECTIONS PROJECT: SEAPOINT EXTENSION DATE: 16 Dec-94 LOCATION: SITE 1 D - SEAPOINT OUTDOOR ULL 1 D JN: 485-94-002 TIME % OF ADT HOURLY HOURLY LEQ ADJUSTED BEGINNING LEQ WEIGHTING HOURLY LEQ 0000 1.5 51.6 10.0 61.6 0100 0.4 45.8 10.0 55.8 0200 0.4 45.8 10.0 55.8 0300 0.1 39.8 10.0 49.8 0400 0.7 48.3 10.0 58.3 0500 3.2 54.9 10.0 64.9 0600 2.3 53.4 10.0 63.4 0700 6.5 57.9 0.0 57.9 0800 8.8 59.2 0.0 59.2 0900 5.6 57.3 0.0 57.3 1000 5.4 57.1 0.0 57.1 1100 6.6 58.0 * 0.0 58.0 1200 7.1 58.3 0.0 58.3 1300 6.2 57.7 0.0 57.7 1400 6.6 58.0 0.0 58.0 1500 7.5 58.6 0.0 58.6 1600 6.4 57.9 0.0 57.9 1700 5.7 57.4 0.0 57.4 1800 5.0 56.8 0.0 56.8 1900 4.8 56.6 0.0 56.6 2000 3.0 54.6 0.0 54.6 2100 2.4 53.6 0.0 53.6 2200 1.9 52.6 10.0 62.6 2300 1.9 52.6 10.0 62.6 DAILY TOTAL 100.0 Ldn (dBA) = 59.3 HR. MEASURED: 1100 * MEASURED LEQ: 58.0 * Ldn ROADWAY NOISE PROJECTIONS PROJECT: SEAPOINT EXTENSION DATE: 16-Dec-94 LOCATION: SITE 2B - PALM AVE OUTDOOR LLL 2B JN: 485-94-002 TIME % OF ADT HOURLY HOURLY LEQ ADJUSTED BEGINNING LEQ WEIGHTING HOURLY LEQ 0000 1.5 50.3 10.0 60.3 0100 0.4 44.6 10.0 54.6 0200 0.3 43.3 10.0 53.3 0300 0.1 38.5 10.0 48.5 0400 0.2 41.6 10.0 51.6 0500 1.1 49.0 10.0 59.0 0600 2.9 53.2 10.0 63.2 0700 6.5 56.7 0.0 56.7 0800 9.5 58.3 0.0 58.3 0900 7.8 57.5 0.0 57.5 1000 5.6 56.0 0.0 56.0 1100 6.3 56.5 0.0 56.5 1200 7.0 57.0 * 0.0 57.0 1300 5.8 56.2 0.0 56.2 1400 6.1 56.4 0.0 56.4 1500 7.1 57.1 0.0 57.1 1600 5.7 56.1 0.0 56.1 1700 6.2 56.5 0.0 56.5 1800 6.2 56.5 0.0 56.5 1900 5.9 56.3 0.0 56.3 2000 2.4 52.4 0.0 52.4 2100 2.5 52.5 0.0 52.5 2200 1.6 50.6 10.0 60.6 2300 1.3 49.7 10.0 59.7 DAILY TOTAL 100.0 Ldn (dBA) = 57.4 HR. MEASURED: 1200 * - MEASURED LEQ: 57.0 * l Ldn ROADWAY NOISE PROJECTIONS PROJECT: SEAPOINT EXTENSION DATE: 16-Dec-94 LOCATION: SITE 2D - PALM AVE OUTDOOR ULL 2D JN: 485-94-002 TIME % OF ADT HOURLY HOURLY LEQ ADJUSTED BEGINNING LEQ WEIGHTING HOURLY LEQ 0000 .1.5 54.4 10.0 64.4 0100 0.4 48.7 10.0 58.7 0200 0.3 47.4 10.0 57.4 0300 0.1 42.7 10.0 52.7 0400 0.2 45.7 10.0 55.7 0500 1.1 53.1 10.0 63.1 0600 2.9 57.3 10.0 67.3 0700 6.5 60.8 0.0 60.8 0800 9.5 62.4 0.0 62.4 0900 7.8 61.6 0.0 61.6 1000 5.6 60.1 0.0 60.1 1100 6.3 60.7 0.0 60.7 1200 7.0 61.1 0.0 61.1 1300 5.8 60.3 * 0.0 60.3 1400 6.1 60.5 0.0 60.5 1500 7.1 61.2 0.0 61.2 1600 5.7 60.2 0.0 60.2 1700 6.2 60.6 0.0 60.6 1800 6.2 60.6 0.0 60.6 1900 5.9 60.4 0.0 60.4 2000 2.4 56.5 0.0 56.5 2100 2.5 56.6 0.0 56.6 2200 1.6 54.7 10.0 64.7 2300 1.3 53.8 10.0 63.8 DAILY TOTAL 100.0 Ldn (dBA) = 61.5 HR. MEASURED: 1300 * MEASURED LEQ: 60.3 * Ldn ROADWAY NOISE PROJECTIONS PROJECT: SEAPOINT EXTENSION DATE: 16-Dec-94 LOCATION: SITE 3B - GLDN WEST OUTDOOR LLL 3B JN: 485-94-002 TIME % OF ADT HOURLY HOURLY LEQ ADJUSTED BEGINNING LEQ WEIGHTING HOURLY LEQ 0000 1.0 53.4 10.0 63.4 0100 0.5 50.3 10.0 60.3 0200 0.4 49.4 10.0 59.4 0300 0.3 48.1 10.0 58.1 0400 0.3 48.1 10.0 58.1 0500 1.0 53.4 10.0 63.4 0600 5.2 60.5 10.0 70.5 0700 6.4 61.4 0.0 61.4 0800 7.2 61.9 0.0 61.9 0900 5.1 60.4 0.0 60.4 1000 4.6 60.0 0.0 60.0 1100 4.6 60.0 0.0 60.0 1200 5.4 60.7 0.0 60.7 130.0 5.3 60.6 0.0 60.6 1400 5.3 60.6 * 0.0 60.6 1500 6.6 61.6 0.0 61.6 1600 7.0 61.8 0.0 61.8 1700 8.1 62.4 0.0 62.4 1800 7.4 62.0 0.0 62.0 1900 5.9 61.1 0.0 61.1 2000 . 4.1 59.5 0.0 59.5 2100 3.4 58.7 0.0 58.7 2200 3.1 58.3 10.0 68.3 2300 1.8 55.9 10.0 65.9 DAILY TOTAL 100.0 Ldn (d BA) = 63.0 HR. MEASURED: 1400 * MEASURED LEQ: 60.6 Ldn ROADWAY NOISE PROJECTIONS PROJECT: SEAPOINT EXTENSION DATE: 16-Dec-94 LOCATION: SITE 3D - GLDN WEST OUTDOOR LLL 3D JN: 485-94-002 TIME % OF ADT HOURLY HOURLY LEQ ADJUSTED BEGINNING LEQ WEIGHTING HOURLY LEQ 0000 1.0 52.7 10.0 62.7 0100 0.5 49.6 10.0 59.6 0200 0.4 48.7 10.0 58.7 0300 0.3 47.4 10.0 57.4 0400 0.3 47.4 10.0 57.4 0500 1.0 52.7 10.0 62.7 0600 5.2 59.8 10.0 69.8 0700 6.4 60.7 0.0 60.7 0800 7.2 61.2 0.0 61.2 0900 5.1 59.7 0.0 59.7 1000 4.6 59.3 0.0 59.3 1100 4.6 59.3 0.0 59.3 1200 5.4 60.0 0.0 60.0 1300 5.3 59.9 0.0 59.9 1400 5.3 59.9 * 0.0 59.9 1500 6.6 60.9 0.0 60.9 1600 7.0 61.1 0.0 61.1 1700 8.1 61.7 0.0 61.7 1800 7.4 61.3 0.0 61.3 1900 5.9 60.4 0.0 60.4 2000 4.1 58.8 0.0 58.8 2100 3.4 58.0 0.0 58.0 2200 3.1 57.6 10.0 67.6 2300 1.8 55.2 10.0 65.2 DAILY TOTAL 100.0 Ldn (dBA) = 62.3 HR. MEASURED: 1400 * MEASURED LEQ: 59.9 Ldn ROADWAY NOISE PROJECTIONS PROJECT: SEAPOINT EXTENSION DATE: 16-Dec-94 LOCATION: SITE 1A - SEAPOINT INDOOR LLL 1A WC JN: 485-94-002 TIME % OF ADT HOURLY HOURLY LEQ ADJUSTED BEGINNING LEQ WEIGHTING HOURLY LEQ 0000 1.5 33.2 10.0 43.2 0100 0.4 27.4 10.0 37.4 0200 0.4 27.4 10.0 37.4 0300. 0.1 21.4 10.0 31.4 0400 0.7 29.9 10.0 39.9 0500 3.2 36.5 10.0 46.5 0600 2.3 35.0 10.0 45.0 0700 6.5 39.5 0.0 39.5 0800 8.8 40.8 0.0 40.8 0900 5.6 38.9 0.0 38.9 1000 5.4 38.7 0.0 38.7 1100 6.6 39.6 * 0.0 39.6 1200 7.1 39.9 0.0 39.9 1300 6.2 39.3 0.0 39.3 1400 6.6 39.6 0.0 39.6 1500 7.5 40.2 0.0 40.2 1600 6.4 39.5 0.0 39.5 1700 5.7 39.0 0.0 39.0 1800 5.0 38.4 0.0 38.4 1900 4.8 38.2 0.0 38.2 2000 3.0 36.2 0.0 36.2 2100 2.4 35.2 0.0 35.2 2200 1.9 34.2 10.0 44.2 2300 1.9 34.2 10.0 44.2 DAILY TOTAL 100.0 Ldn (dBA) = 40.9 HR. MEASURED: 1100 * MEASURED LEQ: 39.6 * Ldn ROADWAY NOISE PROJECTIONS PROJECT: SEAPOINT EXTENSION DATE: 16-Dec-94 LOCATION: SITE 1 B - SEAPOINT INDOOR LLL 1 B WO JN: 485-94-002 TIME % OF ADT HOURLY HOURLY LEQ ADJUSTED BEGINNING LEQ WEIGHTING HOURLY LEQ 0000 1.5 38.8 10.0 48.8 0100 0.4 33.0 10.0 43.0 0200 0.4 33.0 10.0 43.0 0300 0.1 27.0 10.0 37.0 0400 0.7 35.5 10.0 45.5 0500 3.2 42.1 10.0 52.1 0600 2.3 40.6 10.0 50.6 0700 6.5 45.1 0.0 45.1 0800 8.8 46.4 0.0 46.4 0900 5.6 44.5 0.0 44.5 1000 5.4 44.3 0.0 44.3 1100 6.6 45.2 * 0.0 45.2 1200 7.1 45.5 0.0 45.5 1300 6.2 44.9 0.0 44.9 1400 6.6 45.2 0.0 45.2 1500 7.5 45.8 0.0 45.8 1600 6.4 45.1 0.0 45.1 1700 5.7 44.6 0.0 44.6 1-800 5.0 44.0 0.0 44.0 1900 4.8 43.8 0.0 43.8 2000 3.0 41.8 0.0 41.8 2100 2.4 40.8 0.0 40.8 2200 1.9 39.8 10.0 49.8 2300 1.9 39.8 10.0 49.8 DAILY TOTAL 100.0 Ldn (dBA) = 46.5 HR. MEASURED: 1100 * MEASURED LEQ: 45.2 * Ldn ROADWAY NOISE PROJECTIONS PROJECT: SEAPOINT EXTENSION DATE: 16-Dec-94 LOCATION: SITE 1 C - SEAPOINT INDOOR ULL 1 C WC JN: 485-94-002 TIME % OF ADT HOURLY HOURLY LEO ADJUSTED BEGINNING LEO WEIGHTING HOURLY LEO 0000 1.5 35.2 10.0 45.2 0100 0.4 29.4 10.0 39.4 0200 0.4 29.4 10.0 39.4 0300 0.1 23.4 10.0 33.4 0400 0.7 31.9 10.0 41.9 0500 3.2 38.5 10.0 48.5 0600 2.3 37.0 10.0 47.0 0700 6.5 41.5 0.0 41.5 0800 8.8 42.8 0.0 42.8 0900 5.6 40.9 0.0 40.9 1000 .5.4 40.7 0.0 40.7 1100 6.6 41.6 * 0.0 41.6 1200 7.1 41.9 0.0 41.9 1300 6.2 41.3 0.0 41.3 1400 6.6 41.6 0.0 41.6 1500 7.5 42.2 0.0 42.2 1600 6.4 41.5 0.0 41.5 1700 5.7 41.0 0.0 41.0 1800 5.0 40.4 0.0 40.4 1900 4.8 40.2 0.0 40.2 2000 3.0 38.2 0.0 38.2 2100 2.4 37.2 0.0 37.2 2200 1.9 36.2 10.0 46.2 2300 1.9 36.2 10.0 46.2 DAILY TOTAL 100.0 Ldn (dBA) = 42.9 HR. MEASURED: 1100 * MEASURED LEO: 41.6 * Ldn ROADWAY NOISE PROJECTIONS PROJECT: SEAPOINT EXTENSION DATE: 16-Dec-94 LOCATION: SITE 1 D - SEAPOINT INDOOR ULL 1 D WO JN: 485-94-002 TIME % OF ADT HOURLY HOURLY LEQ ADJUSTED BEGINNING LEQ WEIGHTING HOURLY LEQ 0000 1.5 37.6 10.0 47.6 0100 0.4 31.8 10.0 41.8 0200 0.4 31.8 10.0 41.8 0300 0.1 25.8 10.0 35.8 0400 0.7 34.3 10.0 44.3 0500 3.2 40.9 10.0 50.9 0600 2.3 39.4 10.0 49.4 0700 6.5 43.9 0.0 43.9 0800 8.8 45.2 0.0 45.2 0900 5.6 43.3 0.0 43.3 1000 5.4 43.1 0.0 43.1 1100 6.6 44.0 * 0.0 44.0 1200 7.1 44.3 0.0 44.3 1300 6.2 43.7 0.0 43.7 1400 6.6 44.0 0.0 44.0 1500 7.5 44.6 0.0 44.6 1600 6.4 43.9 0.0 43.9 1700 5.7 43.4 0.0 43.4 1800 5.0 42.8 0.0 42.8 1900 4.8 42.6 0.0 42.6 2000 3.0 40.6 0.0 40.6 2100 2.4 39.6 0.0 39.6 2200 1.9 38.6 10.0 48.6 2300 1.9 38.6 10.0 48.6 DAILY TOTAL 100.0 Ldn (d BA) = 45.3 HR..-MEASURED: 1100 * MEASURED LEQ: 44.0 * Ldn ROADWAY NOISE PROJECTIONS PROJECT: SEAPOINT EXTENSION DATE: 16-Dec-94 LOCATION: SITE 2A - PALM AVE INDOOR LLL 2A WC JN: 485-94-002 TIME % OF ADT HOURLY HOURLY LEQ ADJUSTED BEGINNING LEQ WEIGHTING HOURLY LEQ 0000 1.5 33.1 10.0 43.1 0100 0.4 27.4 10.0 37.4 0200 0.3 26.1 10.0 36.1 0300 0.1 21.3 10.0 31.3 0400 0.2 24.4 10.0 34.4 0500 1.1 31.8 10.0 41.8 0600 2.9 36.0 10.0 46.0 0700 6.5 39.5 0.0 39.5 0800 9.5 41.1 0.0 41.1 0900 7.8 40.3 0.0 40.3 1000 5.6 38.8 0.0 38.8 1100 6.3 39.3 0.0 39.3 1200 7.0 39.8 * 0.0 39.8 1300 5.8 39.0 0.0 39.0 1400 6.1 39.2 0.0 39.2 1500 7.1 39.9 0.0 39.9 1600 5.7 38.9 0.0 38.9 1700 6.2 39.3 0.0 39.3 1800 6.2 39.3 0.0 39.3 1900 5.9 39.1 0.0 39.1 2000 2.4 35.2 0.0 35.2 2100 2.5 35.3 0.0 35.3 2200 1.6 33.4 10.0 43.4 2300 1.3 32.5 10.0 42.5 DAILY TOTAL 100.0 Ldn (dBA) = 40.2 HR. MEASURED: 1200 * MEASURED LEQ: 39.8 * Ldn ROADWAY NOISE PROJECTIONS PROJECT: SEAPOINT EXTENSION DATE: 16-Dec-94 LOCATION: SITE 2B - PALM AVE INDOOR LLL 2B WO JN: 485-94-002 TIME % OF ADT HOURLY HOURLY LEQ ADJUSTED BEGINNING LEQ WEIGHTING HOURLY LEQ 0000 1.5 37.7 10.0 47.7 0100 0.4 32.0 10.0 42.0 0200 0.3 30.7 10.0 40.7 . 0300 0.1 25.9 10.0 35.9 0400 0.2 29.0 10.0 39.0 0500 1.1 36.4 10.0 46.4 0600 2.9 40.6 10.0 50.6 0700 6.5 44.1 0.0 44.1 0800 9.5 45.7 0.0 45.7 0900 7.8 44.9 0.0 44.9 1000 5.6 43.4 0.0 43.4 1100 6.3 43.9 0.0 43.9 1200 7.0 44.4 * 0.0 44.4 1300 5.8 43.6 0.0 43.6 1400 6.1 43.8 0.0 43.8 1500 7.1 44.5 0.0 44.5 1600 5.7 43.5 0.0 43.5 1-700 6.2 43.9 0.0 43.9 1800 6.2 43.9 0.0 43.9 1900 5.9 43.7 0.0 43.7 2000 2.4 39.8 0.0 39.8 2100 2.5 39.9 0.0 39.9 2200 1.6 38.0 10.0 48.0 2300 1.3 37.1 10.0 47.1 DAILY TOTAL 100.0 Ldn (dBA) = 44.8 HR. MEASURED: 1200 * MEASURED LEQ: 44.4 * Ldn ROADWAY NOISE PROJECTIONS PROJECT: SEAPOINT EXTENSION DATE: 16-Dec-94 LOCATION: SITE 2C - PALM AVE INDOOR LLL 2C WC JN: 485-94-002 TIME % OF ADT HOURLY HOURLY LEQ ADJUSTED BEGINNING LEQ WEIGHTING HOURLY LEQ 0000 1.5 33.5 10.0 43.5 0100 0.4 27.8 10.0 37.8 0200 0.3 26.5 10.0 36.5 0300 0.1 21.8 10.0 31.8 0400 0.2 24.8 10.0 34.8 0500 1.1 32.2 10.0 42.2 0600 2.9 36.4 10.0 46.4 0700 6.5 39.9 0.0 39.9 0800 9.5 41.5 0.0 41.5 0900 7.8 40.7 0.0 40.7 1000 5.6 39.2 0.0 39.2 1100 6.3 39.8 0.0 39.8 1200 7.0 40.2 0.0 40.2 1300 5.8 39.4 * 0.0 39.4 1400 6.1 39.6 0.0 39.6 1500 7.1 40.3 0.0 40.3 1600 5.7 39.3 0.0 39.3 1700 6.2 39.7 0.0 39.7 1800 6.2 39.7 0.0 39.7 1900 5.9 39.5 0.0 39.5 2000 2.4 35.6 0.0 35.6 2100. 2.5 35.7 0.0 35.7 2200 1.6 33.8 10.0 43.8 2300 a 1.3 32.9 10.0 42.9 DAILY TOTAL 100.0 Ldn (d BA) = 40.6 HR. MEASURED: 1300 * MEASURED LEQ: 39.4 * Ldn ROADWAY NOISE PROJECTIONS PROJECT: SEAPOINT EXTENSION DATE: 16-Dec-94 LOCATION: SITE 2D - PALM AVE INDOOR LLL 2D WO JN: 485-94-002 TIME % OF ADT HOURLY HOURLY LEQ ADJUSTED BEGINNING LEQ WEIGHTING HOURLY LEQ 0000 1.5 42.9 10.0 52.9 0100 0.4 37.2 10.0 47.2 0200 0.3 35.9 10.0 45.9 0300 0.1 31.2 10.0 41.2 0400 0.2 34.2 10.0 44.2 0500 1.1 41.6 10.0 51.6 0600 2.9 45.8 10.0 55.8 0700 6.5 49.3 0.0 49.3 0800 9.5 50.9 0.0 50.9 0900 7.8 50.1 0.0 50.1 1000 5.6 48.6 0.0 48.6 1100 6.3 49.2 0.0 49.2 1200 7.0 49.6 0.0 49.6 1300 5.8 48.8 * 0.0 48.8 1400 6.1 49.0 0.0 49.0 1500 7.1 49.7 0.0 49.7 1600 5.7 48.7 0.0 48.7 1700 6.2 49.1 0.0 49.1 1,800 6.2 49.1 0.0 49.1 1900 5.9 48.9 0.0 48.9 2000 2.4 45.0 0.0 45.0 2100 2.5 45.1 0.0 45.1 2200 1.6 43.2 10.0 53.2 2300 1.3 42.3 10.0 52.3 DAILY TOTAL 100.0 Ldn (d BA) = 50.0 HR. MEASURED: 1300 * MEASURED LEQ: 48.8 * Ldn ROADWAY NOISE PROJECTIONS PROJECT: SEAPOINT EXTENSION DATE: 16-Dec-94 LOCATION: SITE 3A - GLDN WEST INDOOR LLL MB WC JN: 485-94-002 TIME % OF ADT HOURLY HOURLY LEQ ADJUSTED BEGINNING LEQ WEIGHTING HOURLY LEQ 0000 1.0 34.2 10.0 44.2 0100 0.5 31.1 10.0 41.1 0200 0.4 30.2 10.0 40.2 0300 0.3 28.9 10.0 38.9 0400 0.3 28.9 10.0 38.9 0500 1.0 34.2 10.0 44.2 0600 5.2 41.3 10.0 51 .3 0700 6.4 42.2 0.0 42.2 0800 7.2 42.7 0.0 42.7 0900 5.1 41.2 0.0 41.2 1000 4.6 40.8 0.0 40.8 1100 4.6 40.8 0.0 40.8 1200 5.4 41.5 0.0 41.5 1300 5.3 41.4 0.0 41.4 1400 5.3 41.4 * 0.0 41.4 1500 6.6 42.4 0.0 42.4 1600 7.0 42.6 0.0 42.6 1700 8.1 43.2 0.0 43.2 1800 7.4 42.8 0.0 42.8 1900 5.9 41.9 0.0 41.9 2000 4.1 40.3 0.0 40.3 2100 3.4 39.5 0.0 39.5 2200 3.1 39.1 10.0 49.1 2300 1.8 36.7 10.0 46.7 DAILY TOTAL 100.0 Ld n (d BA) = 43.8 HR.-MEASURED: 1400 MEASURED LEQ: 41.4 Ldn ROADWAY NOISE PROJECTIONS PROJECT: SEAPOINT EXTENSION DATE: 16-Dec-94 LOCATION: SITE 3B - GLDN WEST INDOOR LLL MB WO JN: 485-94-002 TIME % OF ADT HOURLY HOURLY LEQ ADJUSTED BEGINNING LEQ WEIGHTING HOURLY LEQ 0000 1.0 41.3 10.0 51.3 0100 0.5 38.2 10.0 48.2 0200 0.4 37.3 10.0 47.3 0300 0.3 36.0 10.0 46.0 0400 0.3 36.0 10.0 46.0 0500 1.0 41.3 10.0 51.3 0600 5.2 48.4 10.0 58.4 0700 6.4 49.3 0.0 49.3 0800 7.2 49.8 0.0 49.8 0900 5.1 48.3 0.0 48.3 1000 4.6 47.9 0.0 47.9 1100 4.6 47.9 0.0 47.9 1200 5.4 48.6 0.0 48.6 1300 5.3 48.5 0.0 48.5 1400 5.3 48.5 * 0.0 48.5 1500 6.6 49.5 0.0 49.5 1600 7.0 49.7 0.0 49.7 1700 8.1 50.3 0.0 50.3 1800 7.4 49.9 0.0 49.9 1900 5.9 49.0 0.0 49.0 2000 4.1 47.4 0.0 47.4 2100 3.4 46.6 0.0 46.6 2200 3.1 46.2 10.0 56.2 2300 1.8 43.8 10.0 53.8 DAILY TOTAL 100.0 Ldn (dBA) = 50.9 HR. MEASURED: 1400 * MEASURED LEQ: 48.5 * Ldn ROADWAY NOISE PROJECTIONS PROJECT: SEAPOINT EXTENSION DATE: 16-Dec-94 LOCATION: SITE 3C - GLDN WEST INDOOR LLL KT WC JN: 485-94-002 TIME % OF ADT HOURLY HOURLY LEQ ADJUSTED BEGINNING LEQ WEIGHTING HOURLY LEQ 0000 1.0 33.8 10.0 43.8 0100 0.5 30.7 10.0 40.7 0200 0.4 29.8 10.0 39.8 0300 0.3 28.5 10.0 38.5 0400 0.3 28.5 10.0 38.5 0500 1.0 33.8 10.0 43.8 0600 5.2 40.9 10.0 50.9 0700 6.4 41.8 0.0 41.8 0800 7.2 42.3 0.0 42.3 0900 5.1 40.8 0.0 40.8 1000 4.6 40.4 0.0 40.4 1100 4.6 40.4 0.0 40.4 1200 5.4 41.1 0.0 41.1 1300 5.3 41.0 0.0 41.0 1400 5.3 41.0 * 0.0 41.0 1500 6.6 42.0 0.0 42.0 1600 7.0 42.2 0.0 42.2 1700 8.1 42.8 0.0 42.8 1800 7.4 42.4 0.0 42.4 1900 5.9 41.5 0.0 41.5 2000 4.1 39.9 0.0 39.9 2100 3.4 39.1 0.0 39.1 2200 3.1 38.7 10.0 48.7 2300 1.8 36.3 10.0 46.3 DAILY TOTAL 100.0 Ldn (dBA) = 43.4 HR...MEASURED: 1400 * MEASURED LEQ: 41.0 * Ldn ROADWAY NOISE PROJECTIONS PROJECT: SEAPOINT EXTENSION DATE: 16-Dec-94 LOCATION:. SITE 3D - GLDN WEST INDOOR L.LL KT WO JN: 485-94-002 TIME %.OF ADT HOURLY HOURLY LEQ ADJUSTED BEGINNING LEQ WEIGHTING HOURLY LEQ 0000 1.0 41.4 10.0 51.4 0100 0.5 38.3 10.0 48.3 0200 0.4 37.4 10.0 47.4 0300 0.3 36.1 10.0 46.1 0400 0.3 36.1 10.0 46.1 0500 1.0 41.4 10.0 51.4 0600 5.2 48.5 10.0 58.5 0700 6.4 49.4 0.0 49.4 0800 7.2 49.9 0.0 49.9 0900 5.1 48.4 0.0 48.4 1000 4.6 48.0 0.0 48.0 1100` 4.6 48.0 0.0 48.0 1200 5.4 48.7 0.0 48.7 1300 5.3 48.6 0.0 48.6 1400 5.3 48.6 * 0.0 48.6 1500 6.6 49.6 0.0 49.6 1600 7.0 49.8 0.0 49.8 1700 8.1 50.4 0.0 50.4 1800 7.4 50.0 0.0 50.0 1900 5.9 49.1 0.0 49.1 2000 4.1 47.5 0.0 47.5 2100 3.4 46.7 0.0 46.7 2200 3.1 46.3 10.0 56.3 2300 1.8 43.9 10.0 53.9 DAILY TOTAL 100.0 Ldn (d BA);_= 51.0 HR. MEASURED: 1400 * MEASURED LEQ: 48.6 * SEAPOINT EXTENTION TO PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY?,,,_4-) ARCHITECTURE OF TOWNHOMES FACING PALM & SEAPOINT WERE DESIGNED TO FRONT A RURAL OR SECONDARY THOROUGHFARE, NOT A PRIMARY HIGH TRAFFIC THOROUGHFARE. CLUB SERIES TOWNHOMES HAVE JUST A 25 FOOT SET BACK. SHIELDED WITH NO MORE THAN ORNAMENTAL WROUGHT IRON. 78% OF THESE BUILDINGS, FACING THE STREET, ARE SINGLE PANE GLASS. I . ALL MASTER BED ROOMS FACE THE STREET. ALL KEY LIVING AREAS, DINETTES AND LIVING ROOMS, FACE THE STREET. j 119 CLUB SERIES TOWN HOMES FACE EITHER PALM OR SEAPOINT. ALL 119 TOWN HOMES, FACING THE STREET, WERE SOLD AT A PREMIUM.. CAYMEN SALES PERSONNEL STATED THAT SEAPOINT WOULD NOT GO THROUGH TO PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY. THE SUBDIVISION PLOT PLAN IN THE SALES OFFICE DID NOT SHOW SEAPOINT GOING THROUGH TO PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY. CITY PLANNING PERSONNEL, IN 1984, ADVISED PROSPECTIVE BUYERS THAT THERE " WERE NO PLANS TO EXTEND SEAPOINT TO PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY. ALL MAJOR THOROUGHFARES IN HUNTINGTON :',' BEACH LEADING TO P.C.H. SHIELD RESIDENCES WITH 6 TO 8 FOOT CEMENT BLOCK WALLS, AND HOMES ALL FACE INWARD & AWAY FROM NOISE! SEE ENCLOSED PHOTOS AND COMPARE................ INCREASING CURRENT TRAFFIC PATTERNS ON SEAPOINT AND PALM WILL DESTROY THE QUALITY OF LIFE FOR ALL 119 FAMILIES FACING SEAPOINT AND PALM, AS WELL AS THOSE LIVING BEHIND THE FRONTAL TOWN HOMES. PLEASE CONSIDER THE 119 TOWN HOME OWNERS, DON'T DESTROY THEIR QUALITY OF LIFE! -z 1� ,�..��1 `,,,�.�� *.may �+'t�;�+\ �1' +x � •.- . r 1T '.1 �. r `; �, 1�'• .",\'If1 h7r'^OI d. 5i�1CiClilYr'i� "s�y.r ...:*ice ii4�':. 'yt�L• .,,.•�y.,b.yHl,` I//;yy,�t��!'ra��w��,tieiwLZ"�."."°• .7J•. .._.';•rr,r..,......... ...r. I�+1it•,�i .rat. T u t 4{•W`Y,t�i'+N$��. Rem:G:�+ �1 r f�'r r i• ry P i4�'P�+•�w. � �G�'s++art x k'rah a . r t� amm f.....................drr r u ' r'•. Y. yy ty �'t�•yM�`C.YfW r.bl7,Ft 2# .�•��yhS ri.�k?iy^. w��Yi } � {•,•1.'n _. 1 rt Y. K'6n•�vr�r�r: � .. { �1 I v�. . - � �► i, -,�;;......:,.r�:, ..,.- .fir ;F� I .t !•�\�l } `fa S.�'��r A .1 ale -, SA�•.,. 'v � '�� ^, tit i'!'t,.. i• M r ' Ai Ull s.. ' r �i _' r v�4•.�d ��S]•.; r� �'" o y,� � :fir` J ��yy`•x�,,a< {\\ , � .1, �. ,a.. '`�� '•yam. t1 y n �' � f�i;rr r � Y: `;�,r tau r•�`�'p..CY-�"1•., ! l `' ii.:4tir4 ff 7,'lt roil<`;.r. r�^ FIL! COPYK FEBRUARY 6, 1995 'I i ���� �L`�Q f y G S I im � �� � Nam-\tea ���' a��` a � -r� .... 0TV a .:: .. . � . : .. ... : ........:!. .... .. ........... ... ::::..::.,..'. - .-::� X ........ .. ......'...... ., .. . .— . ....... ... . ..: -.... .... ....................... � . : ........... -.... ,.......... ................... ............. .......... ...................... ::.::::, ........................ - p ...... ",.����i�:iii�i�i�������]]�]�:���i�i�:�i��!���I .. ,.,::::".,." ...:.:.......::.::-::-::::::- ...'�....:.:.: ...:: .............. .........,......"'.. ..: .:.:.:.::.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:..:��-��:�:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:. .......... ....... ..... . - ...... ....... ....:..,. ..,.. ......... ........... .M..... ..:........:::. .�......... ..... .... .......W.::. . .. .. -......... ... . .... .............����i�i�i����....�������]�i����]��i.."..."..".�"...,.*.... ::.;!:::;: :..,., ..::......:........: ... ......�........-:,. . .......::::......-M...............— ., ........:.:�'.�-.�-.-.-.-..�..-.�.-.-.�.�.�.�.-.�.�.�. ....... ....-.-...-..:::::::::::::::.::.:.:::::::::::::::::::;:;::;:::;:::;:...- .....",.. - .............. ......... ': --.--.-.-:��m ................ ............ ............. , .... ........ ...........�.................. ."'.: � .... ................ ... .......... ....... .,.,..:.,.:.:.,..,%",- I -..... :.:.:.:.:.,.:.,:.: . SAS ......., ...... ............. ..:... ..... ...................... . :.: .:.:.::::. ....... ........:.":.,.:;.,:I.. . . ...:: ...... ....... .... ... "'. ...: ...... ......... ...... ..... ................ :::,:::::..:.:...:... ........... �� ....... it ::::::::i;,:!::Ii:;.]:::::::.:.:::::.:!:::.::: ........ :i:i:��i�.iI ........ ............. .. "',:::""" . �>:-:-:-:-::::.,%,::.:." .:.::��ill��lililllii����i�iii�:���i��iiiiii�i.::::ii�iii��i���i��:.:.:............. :::i:i�:�.! � -..::::::::;,..................... ii - ... ..... , ,�-..... h.% � ....... %�tt p.. ..,..............::::::::::::::.:::------..-.-.-.-.-. :::i:ii:iii ..... ............. :::j:ji:::.! ]�:�:�:�::i:�:�:::�iii�iii�:�i�i�i�.. �� �... � -.-.%-.-. . ... -'...--.',.'-'.-*.'.-.-' ....*,::" ""' :. ,*..........::,..,.,:,*.",:" .:.........:.;.:..:. .. .. .. ... ... ... .... .... .... ,::,i:i:�.,.,�:�:�:�:]:�:::i:�:..*m . -. ........ ..%...........................In...%��. ............. � ......... :. ............... !��: ":.::: .. .. ;&�16��:. "::,.".:�;�m....:...... ::...:.;.-.-��': �� ::::::!. ; . .. :.*a... ::-:-:-.-�:;:��j�j�j�i .. .... ............... .. - , " - ..-. :::im-.*.. 1. . �*W ........ . .. "": -� .,.::: .... .... .. . ... ... . . .......-: -% . :: .::::: :::.qw-..� ... : % , Xm : .. I ..,::___ . W., . - 0 ::.:::::::::::".,., ----. ....... . . ..... .,"""'"""' " ... - ... .:,.:: - .- :. .. ......... .....-....., ........::::",: .......*....:.:.:i:i:::::::::::...::.:...::::.:.:::!�... ......... ..... .... ""...... ............ ,.:..:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: .:::,.:%.. . . . .... ::.::%. .... .. . ...., .........::::.:.. �.........,........,..... ...........:::::":::.:.:.;.:.:::::::::::...... .....,.. .... ..:.::...,....::. ,.,.,..", . .. '' ... ..: .''. ........ :XXV., - .": ,:,,,,,, - ......... . ..... ..:.... .... .. ..... .. .... .. .... .. ... . ............::: '��;�...... .. .. .............. ........ .. :.: ..... ................sX. :::, �... � - :::.:::.:.:,.:.:.: . ....:.,�' .............:.:.::;..:::: ...-. Mi�!�]�]���: �!i��]��]���]�i�]].-�i��.'i ...... .. .. �...... ::; - ... .. ...................... ......... ... . -- . . .... .................y. ....� . .......Y. - :::::.. - ...................... ........ . --l..: ��,:���Ii�.'. ...,!,��........... ,.-:: .:-;;:.:.: ............................ ......... �...... .. ........... .......... .... V. .< :,'' , ,, ,", , , "' .. .., ... .... - �. . ....... :-;:::::::::.:: '-'--'�'----'--'-'-'--------' .............. :::::::,:::.:::::::::..... ::::::::::: ..... .... ::::::::;::::::: .:::: - �......... - . ...... ...... ..::::::::: : ..... ...:.:.:.:.:..- .... ...-...�..........-- ..... ... .. . .... :: ::- ........ .... .. .. ..... ......�............................ ..,.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:-:-:... ......... ..... .. ...�.... .. : .... .... --:-:-:-::-:-::-: :::::::.::::,::: ;::: -...............................::::........ a .... ................::.. ::::::...... ...-.................�........ .. .-.................. ..... ... .. *":... ............... .... .. . : .........� .... - .......-............ ... - .... .:.:: ... ... ............... :::::::;;; .... ...... %...::::::::::: .. .. .... ..... ....: ---...... . .... .:.:..:::.:.:.::: . . ::::::::::::. ...... ... . ... .. .... , ... . . :::,.:... ::: ................... . .. .... ......... "....:.:.:.:. ..........�.���..................................... ... . ............ ..... .....�i��]]:i�i�i����������������]�]� ....: - ......... .............. � . . ........ ... ........... .......................... ... .... .. - .. .. -.........., .:::;:::::::::: ':--:-::-:: . .- ..... -................... -:-: ... . . . ... .......... : ..................... I ..............w..................'..'...... . ... . .......... .... ................. ............ . . .. . .. . .. ................................................. . ........... . ............... ..... .........Y....... ....................�....�..................... ............. . . ... ........ .................. ...........---........ .. .......... .........�...-.......... ............................... : ..................... ... ::.:::::;:::::::::::::::.:.::::::::...........'........... ......... .............:.N. ... ....... .......... : .........�.............. .... ......... .�...... : ... .......,...,.,........----------..........-...... -- - - %.. ... ..... ....... . . ::::..:...":.... .................:.:::.: ..... ........::-:-::.....,...-.-.-.:.:. . . . - -.: . .........................................................� .. ... ... . ;:::":"", ................... - . ........ ..........::::::::::::::::::::::::::" , .......... ..... ::-::::l��:::::: . .. ....- ll.ii�i�i��Iiil:��::::�:�]� .... ........:.:.:: ::.:.:.;.:.::.::::::: ..::....- .. ................- ......... .. ................- . ,%.............-.....�................................:::.......... .......... ...........��... ." " ......... .........-.-... ........... :.::::.:::::::.�.:�:.:::::.;:�::;::�:�:::�:j: .....�.-.... .. -..... ........ .......,....... . ........ . %................ a ...;:::::.,::.:..,.,. .......... .::::::::: :; ...... . ::::::::::::: ...:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:�:.:....................... .I ::::::::::::: ,:::"" -,......,. ........... .:........: . -". - ::::::...:........... . . ����]���i]���������������]�]����;�����i����i��������i...... --�. .......... .................. ...... ....... :.:::: ......... .:.... ..::,:.:.......... :.::. -,:�,-..���....--.�!]�.....��.-.-�i..".i..*'!!���!�i��!i��!Iz :::::::::::::".,..!:::::: :...:::.. ::::::::::::::::::::: --: ;:."i::..'�:.'...'i:::i:i:!:*..!..'..'..'....�:� -'-'-'-,.::,::, .: :::................... :, �li i i+�.a > ::::::::;,:::j:: ::::::::::�:�-j:j..,:�:j:�:�;�: ..:::...... ................ - ::" I .. .........::..�:�:�:::�:�:�:il����������������������������;����;li�����i ' .. . . Y�::::::::.:.-::�i. .......i pi Jii v �Z� e .:. ... .........� ::::..... .... �....,j�..,.,j�i*..��-.�����i�:�������.,...������..,;�����; ... . . �� :".::.*...,.:-'... :- .:,:::,...`..-.- . ....:..:.:.:::.-- ......... '':;: .%-.-.-.-...-:....... .......... :.: , - :.::....� ...... -.:::... ............... X............. ........................... :��:iii:iii:i�i:.:.:.:.:.:ii��i�i�i�:���i.,-",.... .... ::::::::..:.:: ..:,.. , :]:j:]:]:]:]:�:�:�:i,�::,:::,:i:]:i.::.:i::,�:i�;�:!::.:.:.: Ni:ii�i� ..::::.:.:::::::::::: ::::::::::::: .... ..... ... ...... .............:�:�:�:::i:�:::::::::i:�:j:j:j:j:j:j:j�::��:�����::����� : ::::::,.:.,::::::.:::::.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:::::::::::::.-- .. ... i:i:::i::::::,:,i,i,:i:,:::,i,i:::iiiiii.* *]: .".., ,."*,::::::::::::::::: �..................:.:.:.:.::.:::..:.:.:: ..........I.X. ........ :::: .::. ::.:.:.:.:.:.:.:: . . .. �Iii�::i:iiii:i:i:::.:.:.,:,.,:,.,.,:: .:.::::::........ .. .:.:.::"'.....'.. :-:::::: .. �:i�'.:...,.%�.. .... ........ . ..... .:. ,.: : .. , , " .:.. .. X .. .. :::. .%. .............. ::::::::::::::. ::. . . .. .. :�.i -, .:ii ... ...,.......... ... ... ... ... .. . .. .. .. ... . .. : �111 . .. ... Aft . ... :.....'...... .. . MW�iji]i�:�:�i�]]: :' C .I............. .. .. ...... .. . iiiii�]:]�:�::: . . .. .. .... ............... . . . . ,;: ............. ....... .. - .. ... -.... :: :-:�] :: ....... :j :.::..:: ....:.:.:::.....:. .... . - .. :. .. . . Wa . .... . .. .. . . ... ..... .. - - - , �, Ci.--:i".0:: Ill-,----,��:::..... .:. ..... . ::::::::*, . .. �..��... . I ::::::::::: . --:�:�:�:�:i:i:�:�;�:j::;r:i% - . ... -......... ...... �:j::. ..: .. .... ......, .. ... .. :;:."..,:::::::,.... -.. ..... ::;. ..... � - ...::::::.......... -.-:::::::::---,:::,::::::::: F...�-------------d �....I-- ... e .. --v, . , X, .:., .. .. "..:-::-:-:-.: .. ..%.......................is..,..,..,. ........:.....,::: :, . �-... ---.- .......:.:. .::- :: - ---:-:-:-:-:��: .... .:.:.:.:.�.:.�:�i��i:i::.:...:,... .-... .... ........ ....� .......: .... ..::::. ::.::..::::::::..:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:...:.::: i�i��:�i�i��i!i ..... .. .... ..'.................... ........... ........ . , :.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.,.:.:.:.:�, .... ......... ::: ..::.. . - .. .. ;.:.:.:.%.:..... ... ......, ::��:�:.:.., --, .::::::::::::::::...........�.................- ............... -,.---::::.,-.x:: .. . ::::::.. :...:.:::::::: i:i�i�:�ii�i����i��:��i������li:�ii ::.:.. ,........,........ ::.:::..: ....:.:...:::.:::.:... .:::::]:�:::i��:�]��]��:�]�:���]�1]I .:.:.:.:.:;��;���;���������������: .-I"............. - :.::.:..........-.-.-.-.- . ::: . :: : ",.:.:.:,: ... .....: ... - .::. :...*..... ...................... .....: ..............:�:���������i������:�i���]����:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:.:.:.,.:.:.:.::.:.,.:, :: . ............ , ..:... . ... . ��i���i���������i���]�]��]�]���������::::,:::::i:i:i:i:i:i:�:.:.:.:.:.: .... .::::.o......-.-.-.-. . ............... .. . :�:j:j:�:i:::�:]:�:]�:j:j:j:j:j:j:j:�:j: : . ����]��������������������������]]���.'., ::::::: .:,.::..:::.::::i::::�ii�:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::...:.... :;:!:;:;:...::i ........... .. .:::.....:::..:.:.;;.:.-- ..:..:.: .. .1 ::�:::::::i:i:i:i:::�:i:i.::�:i;::::::::i.::i:::i:�:i:::i:i:...V. ................... ............ :......:.::::;:::.::::::::::::.::.::.- ..:::::.:::::::::::::::::.,.,.,.,."...::;::::::::........ .. ..........,...% . :::::.,*.,*., ..... ......... ....................�................... '' ..... .:::::::::::::::::::::::::.:.:.:.:.:.:.:::::::::::�:.,- ....:-:-:-:-:-:--:.;...:......: '-'--.:::..:.:. ................ ::.:.::.:.:.:.:.:.:.::::::.::: .;.... ,:: ........... . .......:. ...::.::::".:.::..:.: .:: : ..... . . ......... .....:*.: I . .............. : .:.: l::::::.--""' ...... X, - ,.::, :::]:::j:::�:�:]:'. -:*i:i*i:. .. - . ..,.M,.. , .%:::::::*" :::::- X . .. - .: .: .% ..:: ......: - - .-.%.-.-.-.-..-...; ........ . . . ........ ......�..............:�...�...... :� i� �� - ........ ......... I :: .....-'...'i�.'......'..'ii�ii�iii����!i .. ...]*�:�:;$i* ,::i�ij:j:�:::j:::j:j .. .. A , ......... 3h' �.�j ��� �jj�h.`£.' *ASK � K � r' ,. H9FU _ :4�' I �' pi gyp//ice �i/i �. .:�� ��`c D /i � ��", �\ � c \� /�'��� ; lei � y)i�� ?��/� 'k`/ �//����« � ��p ����� ��s�� �"� � �%ii� �5 �✓�?���� cc 3� �'�C�c J��a �� . . . . . . .. . . .. � . .. . . .. . . .. - . —, . . I -- I I - '' \ - li %/i/ use � ' ,, S � K �'f� l������]i�������]��111111��:i::.,.,..,....,.,...�..:... ...........-......" :....: .......:::..........................::::::.... , ..,..... ... .... ,"'* ..... . i$iiii!N." ........... . . '' , ... ............. �. ............: - j:m.."-"":",-,- "-'-'-'- ::::: ..-.-.-'- I : .:�:]:�]]]��:�i�i:liiiii::::iiiiii����i�:�:i:�:�i� :,: .. ..,::::::: .................................'............�.......'.............. ... K - ...........................................:::::.:::: , ..:-::: : .. . ...........�.................................................�....�.-...-.-.-..........:.:.::::: i 1::;:i:..: :.:.;::::::�:;'---: , - '. " , "...... ........::.:::.:;:.::X. ..�...........�.................,..........................,......��.....................�........... �...... - .;.:.::::::����:i�..��ii��iiiii�:i��:�:i:�i����ii:ii:�:�:i:l�]�].�..������ -".'. ..... ... ...:..................... :::::...::: ...........�.................,..................................................... :i..�.�.��.......................... ... :.. ......,- , :.:.!!;:::.-...............................;.I.--..%-.-. : .%.....:..:. �,,.:::X,. ..........a ,.:., .,.:::::, ���-.--,�,..�,.:�:..,.....,�:."......, -.%-.%%. ..'..'.,.'.,.'.,..'.' .........:::::: , ... . ..1... ................. - ..........�........................�..............................�..� .�.� :-:.m.:::%.:.:.::::::::::::::::.::::::::::: :::: ...... :;; ,::.,::::::.: . .. ....................................:-.,."",.. ::: .:.:.:.:.: ,ii..'.':im::�:�i�� ......... ...........::::::::::.::::: . . :-:-::-::-::.:. . .::::...:..::::: .... %.::.::.......... .. ." ,::;:;�]i�� -.�111�11�:]��]� ..... , . ......... .. .......... 4�]��]�]�:���i- ..... -'--:::..;,:::.,:: :.:, :,.",.".,.,..,...:. .:.:.: .. ..................................................................... .. .. .. --'--------. :�:-::��]:]�]:�]i�. .........�........-............... ...:.: ::::::::::::: ......... .. . ... ......................�......................... 1 �/� I T ' Seapoint Extension Study -------------------------- Table of Contents Topic I' ' Executive Summary......................................................................................1 1. Introduction ..................................................................................................8 2. Response Criteria........................................................................................13 3. Fire&Police Response Profiles &Deficiencies..........................................19 4. Emergency Scenarios &Evacuation...........................................................31 5. Public Safety Legal Issues...........................................................................41 6. Recommendations .......................................................................................46 ' 7. Appendix.....................................................................................................48 A-1 District Response Maps..................................................................49 A-2 Conceptual Gate Drawings.............................................................53 A-3 Gate Details.....................................................................................57 A-4 Estimated Costs for Gate System....................................................58 A-5 Gate Maintenance, Repair, Replacement........................................59 iA-6 Construction Drawing....................................................................60 A-7 Two Related Fire Department Memos............................................61 ' A-8 Letter From Police Department to Consultant...............................65 A-9 Excerpts from Conditions of Approval: Tracts 14134& 14135.....67 TablelFi re L& Pegg Table 1 Summary of Conclusions............................................................7 ' Figure 1 Study Area................................................................................11 Figure 2 Seacliff Development Plan ........................................................12 Figure 3 Fire Growth vs. Reflex Time.....................................................15 ' Figure 4 Probability of Recovery....................................................... 18 Table 2 Average Actual Fire Department .............................................20 Emergency Response Times Table 3 Fire Department Driving Tests................................................21 Table 4 Police Department Response Times..........................................22 ' Table 5 Police Department Driving Tests.............................................23 Figure 5 Fire/Police Stations...................................................................25 Table 6 Area Population &Dwelling Statistics....................................26 Table 7 Current&Predicted Incident Demands...................................27 Figure 6 Reflex Time vs. Flashover& EMS Recovery(NO GATE) ......29 Figure 7 Reflex Time vs. Flashover& EMS Recovery (GATED)...........30 ' Table 8 Estimated Population to be Evacuated .....................................33 Table 9 Hazard Analysis .......................................................................37 Table10 Fault Map .................................................................................38 Figure 8 Road Patterns - OPEN EXTENSION.....................................39 Figure 9 Road Patterns - NO OPEN EXTENSION..............................40 ' Table 11 Pros & Cons of Seapoint Gate...................................................47 HR 505 Page i ' October 14,1994 ' Seapoint Extension Study y Executive Summary The Hunt Research Corporation was retained by the City of Huntington Beach Fire and Police Departments to analyze the public safety impacts relating to the construction of the Seapoint extension from Palm to Pacific Coast Highway (PCH). Conditions of approval for Tracts 14134 and 14135 (the Surfcrest and Oceancrest developments) require the developer to construct Seapoint Street between tract boundary and Pacific Coast Highway. James W. Hunt, Principal, with 31 years experience as a Fire Protection professional in Southern California,conducted the study. Maps of the study area ' are provided at the end of the Introduction section of this study. ' Emergency responders are in a race against time to save lives and property. A fire doubles in intensity every minute. A residence or other structure can become ' fully involved in fire within five minutes of ignition,destroying the structure and all occupants. A person, whose heart has stopped or otherwise ceased to circulate blood has a 25% chance of recovery after 5 minutes. A criminal seeking ' to enter a residence can move quickly, especially at night, and terrorize innocent occupants. To combat these everyday risks to the citizenry,response must not be ' hindered in any manner, as an inherent delay has already occurred in the discovery,reporting and dispatching phase of an emergency. Therefore, the extension of Seapoint has been the assumption of every major planning decision concerning south/central Huntington Beach over the last 15 years. In fact,Seapoint is proposed as a primary arterial highway. The Fire and Police Departments have taken the position that for purposes of public safety, Seapoint must be an open,public road from Garfield to PCH. The connection of Seapoint to PCH is an integral part of the Fire, Police and Emergency Medical Protection Plan for the Surfcrest .and Oceancrest developments,as well as the surrounding area. Tract approvals by the Fire Department were based upon this assumption. Apparently, some citizens living adjacent to Seapoint Street believe that connecting Seapoint Avenue to PCH will cause traffic congestion, noise, and RR 505 Page 1 October 14,1994 Seapoint Extension Study y ---------------- other undesirable conditions. These citizens want Seapoint closed to through traffic, and wish to have Seapoint gated for use by public safety responders and pedestrians only. ' The future residents of Surfcrest and Oceancrest developments need a second means of egress similar to the one provided to the residents of "Seacliff on the Greens" and the "Estates", when Seapoint and Garfield were connected. This second means of egress would also provide critical access for Fire, Police and Emergency Medical units via a signalized intersection at Pacific Coast Highway. ' It is also apparent that the Seapoint area is currently deficient in Fire Station coverage, notwithstanding the Seapoint connection. A fire station should be provided as soon as possible, to serve the Seapoint area. Such station may also serve the Bolsa Chica area if the cross gap connector is built. 1 This study focuses on the impacts of closing Seapoint and how the closure would ' effect public safety response as well as evacuation of developments in the Seapoint area. The study area was identified by the Fire Department as that area between ' Goldenwest, and Seapoint,from Garfield to PCH. This study is limited to focusing on the public safety issues and not other ' potential issues of noise,routine traffic, or other environmental issues,if any. In order to conduct an objective study, the consultant carried out the following tasks: ' Prepared a work plan for approval of the Fire and Police ' Departments. • Carried out the tasks agreed to in the work plan, which ' included: 1. Determine if there is a public safety response impact caused by not building the Seapoint extension, or by gating the extension. ------------------------------- HR 505 Page 2 ' October 14,1994 Seapoint Extension Study ' Observations: It is the opinion of the consultant that gating, or not constructing, the Seapoint extension results in a potential response impact upon the ' Aire and Police Departments. Response times currently do not meet the response standards of either department. Incident demands will continue to increase with growth. Public safety response to this area is currently deficient, and would improve if Seapoint was an open, ungated, road to PCH, thus, enhancing the ability to protect lives ' and property in this area. Refer to this report for more detail. ' A fire station is currently needed to support this area. Such a station should be located in the general area of Garfield and Edwards. If the cross gap connector is built, the location could move ' to the Springdale area. ' 2. Identifypotential risks from emergencies. and the impacts upon evacuation of tracts and the egress of residents in area of Palm and Seapoint, if road is gated or not built. ' Observations: The potential inability to utilize Garfield, Palm, or Clay to exit to Goldenwest due to physical damage, hazardous materials releases, or smoke from fires, validates the need for a secondary, unobstructed, exit route to a normally upwind position, i.e. Seapoint to PCH. If the cross gap connector is built, a percentage of residents ' of the Bolsa Chica area may benefit from an unobstructed exit route to PCH, and Seapoint area residents may also benefit from an open evacuation route to the west via the cross gap connector. Evacuation routes must not be hindered by obstructions such as ' gates. Gates can fail, and will slow egress and ingress due to the creation of a "bottleneck condition" at the gate. ' Evacuation of the Seapoint area would be impacted by gating, or not constructing the Seapoint extension. HR 505 Page 3 ' October 14,1994 Seapoint Extension Study y 3. Identify potential impacts upon response or evacuation, if Palm and Seapoint are blocked due to accidents. ' Observations: Seapoint extension between Palm and PCH should be an open, ungated road, to allow unhindered egress, and response during an ' emergency which includes a blocked intersection at Palm and Seapoint. 4. Review response and egress routes assuming Palm and/or Garfield and/or Clap were unusable due to a plume from a gas release or fire. Observations: ' An unexpected closure of Palm, Garfield, or Clay due to the affects of a hazardous materials release, fire, or earthquake, results in the ' need for Seapoint and the cross gap connector to be open and unobstructed roads, in order to provide an escape path from, and ' response route to, the Seapoint area. 5. Provide recommendations regarding gates, gate activation devices, and gate locations, in the event the City Council decides to allow a gate on Seapoint. Observations: ' A construction grade drawing of a gate, and supporting information, are provided in the Appendix. Gating is not recommended by the ' consultant,from a public safety standpoint, due to the impact upon emergency operations, and the potential for failure. Gating, or any other obstruction of Seapoint, would further exacerbate an already deficient public safety problem. 1 HR 505 Page 4 October 14,1994 Seapoint Extension Study ' 6. Review development agreement for public safety deficiencies and issues if road is gated. Observations: ' Consultant reviewed the development agreement between City, Pacific Coast Homes and Seacliff Partners. Consultant also reviewed the City Attorney's opinion, dated 4129194, regarding ' abandoning or limiting Seapoint. The developers agreement does not expressly mention the Seapoint extension to PCH, or put any expressed obligation on developer to ' extend Seapoint (per City Attorney letter). Deletion does not violate the Holly SeacliDevelopment Agreement, per City Attorney. ' The extension of Seapoint is a condition of Tracts 14134 and 14135, and probably cannot be deleted from the final tract maps. ' However, in approving the tracts, the Fire Department based it's approval on the assumption that Seapoint would be extended to PCH, as an ungated public road. The Fire and Police Departments are opposed to gated roads, from an emergency ' ingress and egress standpoint. The conditions of approval for Tracts 14134 and 14135 do not sped that the road is to be ungated, only that it be constructed. However, the developer is ' required to comply with "applicable provisions" of the Fire Department and of the Fire code. Page 31 of developers ' agreement requires compliance with the City Fire code. The City Fire code prohibits the gating of a public road. Applicable provisions ' of the Fire Department can be interpreted by the Fire Department as an ungated public road, or can be a requirement for sufficient ' mitigations, as necessary, to protect the tracts. Section 10.501 b of the City Fire code allows such mitigations to be imposed. ' The California Vehicle Code, Section 21101.6, prohibits the placement of gates or other selective devices, which deny or restrict access of the public, on any public street. Apparently, the developer has, in good faith, agreed to the conditions ' of approval. It therefore seems that if the City Council decides to HR 505 Page 5 ' October 14,1994 Seapoint Extension Study -------------------------------- allow gating of Seapoint, or elimination of the extension, that the Fire Department and the developer will need to agree upon necessary ' mitigations to the closure, as the developer has an approved project. According to Fire officials, such approval by the Fire Department ' envisioned an open road and did not include a provision for gating or other obstructions. This issue will need careful review by the City Attorney for potentials of City liability. Details supporting the information in this Executive Summary are provided in the body of this report. Information was obtained through interviews, observations, research, and analysis of data as provided by the City. The ' consultant is grateful for the assistance of Captain Howard Hubert of the Fire Department, Lt. Bruce Kelly and Jim Moore of the Police Department, as well as ' Division Chief Poe,Fire Chief Dolder,and other City personnel. The observations, conclusions and recommendations in this report represent the ' opinions of the consultant based upon 31 years experience in emergency planning and response in Southern California, and are limited to issues of public safety impacts. All who read this report, and make decisions on the matter, must remember that ' Fire and Police Departments are in a race against time to protect life and property, which is a most basic mission and purpose of government. A delay of 45 seconds or more to stop and attempt to open a gate can seem like a lifetime when a fire is spreading in a house, a person is having a heart attack, or a criminal is breaking in. Such response must not be delayed. The information and opinions, set forth in this report are the result of interview p p s, ' data collection, observations, and research and are prepared with the objective of improving public safety in a community which can be proud of it's current ' public safety delivery systems, and it's fine record of providing good Fire and Police protection. ' The report is only for the use of the City of Huntington Beach in their decision making process. The report is not intended for the use, or interpretation, by any ' third party. Any such use is at such party's own risk. 1 --------------- HR 505 Page 6 ' October 14,1994 Seapoint Extension Study ' Table 1 Summary of Conelusions ' Current Fire and Police response to the study area is deficient when compared to department standards ' and the dynamics of emergencies. • Seapoint,extension to PCH must be constructed for purposes of public safety. • Seapoint extension to PCH must be an open, unobstructed, public road for purposes of emergency response and evacuation. • The Fire code and Vehicle code prohibit gating of a public road. • A local Fire station is currently needed in this area due to response deficiencies. • The cross gap connector would assist in emergency response and evacuation, in certain scenarios. • A gate system is feasible, but costly and prone to failure. ' • The City could be found liable for inadequate provision of emergency routes should an emergency occur. • The developer has a vested, approved Tract Map notwithstanding installation of a gate. Fire officials envisioned an open, ungated, road as a mitigation for response deficiencies, when conditions of ' approval were drafted. City Attorney should review ramifications of requiring mitigations or prohibiting construction. • From a public safety perspective the pros and cons of gating Seapoint weigh heavily towards no gate (see Table 11 on Page 47). 1 1 1 1 .HR 505 Page 7 October 14,1994 ' Seapoint Extension Study ' 1. Introduction The Hunt Research Corporation was retained by the City of Huntington Beach Fire and Police Departments to analyze the public safety impacts relating to the ' construction of the Seapoint extension from Palm to PCH. Conditions of approval for Tracts 14134 and 14135 (the Surfcrest and Oceancrest developments) require the developer to construct Seapoint Avenue between tract boundary and ' Pacific Coast Highway. James W. Hunt, Principal, with 31 years experience as a Fire Protection professional in Southern California, conducted the study. Maps ' of the study area are provided at the end of this section. ' Emergency responders are in a race against time to save lives and property. A fire doubles in intensity every minute. A residence or other structure can become ' fully involved in fire within five minutes of ignition,destroying the structure and all occupants. A person, whose heart has stopped or otherwise ceased to circulate blood has a 25% chance of recovery after 5 minutes. A criminal seeking ' to enter a residence can move quickly especially at night, and terrorize innocent occupants. To combat these everyday risks to the citizenry,response must not be ' hindered in any manner, as an inherent delay has already occurred in the discovery,reporting and dispatching phase of an emergency. Therefore, the extension of Seapoint has been the assumption of every major ' planning decision concerning south/central Huntington Beach over the last 15 years. In fact, Seapoint is proposed as a primary arterial highway. The Fire and Police Departments have taken the position that for purposes of public safety, ' Seapoint must be an open, public road from Garfield to PCH. The connection of Seapoint to PCH is an integral part of the Fire, Police and Emergency Medical Protection Plan for the Surfcrest and Oceancrest developments, as well as the surrounding area. ' Tract approvals by the Fire Department were based upon this assumption. Apparently, some citizens living adjacent to Seapoint Avenue believe that connecting Seapoint Avenue to PCH will cause traffic congestion, noise, and other undesirable conditions. These citizens want Seapoint closed to through HR 505 Page 8 ' October 14,1994 ' Seapoint Extension Study ---------------- traffic, and wish to have Seapoint gated for use by public safety responders and pedestrians only. The future residents of Surfcrest and Oceancrest developments need a second means of egress similar to the one provided to the residents of "Seacliff on the ' Greens" and the "Estates", when Seapoint and Garfield were connected. This second means of egress would also provide critical access for Fire, Police and ' Emergency Medical units via a signalized intersection at Pacific Coast Highway. This study focuses on the impacts of dosing Seapoint and how the closure would effect public safety response as well as evacuation of developments in the Seapoint area. ' The study area was identified by the Fire Department as that area between ' Goldenwest, and Seapoint, from Garfield to PCH. The area is shown in Figure 1 and 2. ' This study is limited to focusing on the public safety issues and not other potential issues of noise,routine traffic, or other environmental issues,if any. In order to conduct an objective study of the Seapoint issue, the consultant designed a workplan for approval of the Fire and Police Departments. Upon tapproval of the workplan, the consultant carried out the tasks and submitted an initial report for approval on 8/25/94. Upon approval of that submittal, the ' study continued. The consultant conducted numerous interviews with the Fire and Police officials, ' as well as other City Departments such as Planning and Traffic Engineering. Various studies and correspondence were also obtained and reviewed. In ' addition, numerous timed trials were conducted to ascertain actual driving times by three fire stations (Warner, Lake and Gothard) and by autos, from the Police ' station to Palm and Seapoint. Historical incident and response time data was obtained from the Fire and Police ' Departments, and analyzed. This data was then utilized to project future incident demands in the study area. ' Extensive data on current population, current dwelling units, as well as projected population and dwelling counts was obtained from the Planning Department HR 505 Page 9 ' October 14,1994 ' Seapoint Extension Study ' and the developer. Such data was then analyzed to arrive at the estimated number of residents to be evacuated in a major emergency. A risk assessment was done to determine the potential disasters which could impact the study area. The risk assessment was submitted for Fire Department ' concurrence. The assessment was utilized to determine the adequacy of existing evacuation routes, and to validate if the Seapoint Extension would assist ' evacuation efforts. The consultant reviewed the developers agreement and the conditions of approval for Tracts 14134 and 14135. Consultant also researched various applicable fire safety codes for requirements or prohibitions relative to ' obstruction of public roads. Consultant also reviewed various historical correspondence from the Fire and Police Departments relative to this issue. ' The location of existing Fire stations and the Police station were reviewed as part of this study. The impact of the cross gap connector was included in this review. ' It was found that the Seapoint area is currently deficient in Fire station locations, notwithstanding the Seapoint Extension issue. The provision of the cross gap ' connector would result in adequate coverage to Seapoint from the proposed Springdale Police and Fire Station. If such connector is not built, a Fire station would need to be located in the area of Edwards and Garfield. Such station should include provisions for Police business. ' As part of the contract, consultant reviewed various existing gate systems in Orange County and interviewed gate vendors and designers. Consultant then ' provided a conceptual gate system design and a construction type gate drawing along with estimated costs for installation and maintenance (see Appendix). Provision of such information or drawings. is not to be construed as an ' endorsement by consultant, in any way. as to the advisability or adequacy of any gatingof o Sea in . The remainder of this report provides information and data which supports the conclusions and recommendations presented by the consultant. That conclusion ' is that, in the opinion of the consultant, the Seapoint Extension must be built as an open, public road from Palm and PCH, in the overall interest of public ' safety. Such an extension has been planned for many years as a vital link in the emergency planning of the City of Huntington Beach Fire and Police ' Departments. HR 505 Page 10 ' October 14, 1994 Seapoint Extension Study Figure 1 Study Area ' LU \NU WGOW SLATER C7 _Z � � N dx 3 TALBERT AVENUE a CENTRAL W Tq��^ W PARK 0 ELUS AVENUE ' GARFIELD AVENUE SEp. ...` YORKTOWN AVENUE .:.:.. SCHOOL `CIVIC AVENUE CENTER SFACLIFF ADAMS AVENUE COUNTRY CLUB A -fC" Q W .'� cc > = N Q O G] c -A O�A � H O cc Z = U O = Q Q Y O CaO cc m A/ ti�q y ' HR 505 Page 11 October 14,1994 SEACLIFF PARTNE-03 DEVELOPMENT PLAN '�r Tr ft t U r I 'At COVE 'TW LREAK?!S o AJW CANISIM SEACLIFF PARTNERS A JOINT VENTURE OF PACIFIC COAST MOAAES AND URBAN WEST COMMUNITIES a.111-AIMAL. ' SeaP oint Extension Study 2. Response Criteria The basic purpose of Fire and Police Departments is to attempt to prevent fires ' and crime, and then to respond as quickly as possible to reports of emergencies. The goal is to protect life and property. In fact, this goal is a basic goal of government in general. ' The enemies are Fire ignition and flashover, cessation of breathing or heart beat, trauma,and criminal activity such as burglary,robbery,rape and assault. ' The Insurance Services Office (ISO) recommends that Fire stations be located so as to preferably be within 1 1/2 miles of built upon areas, in order to protect life ' and property by assuring a fast, undelayed, response. Police departments also provide sub-stations at strategic locations throughout a community, and police ' units maintain constant patrols. ' In this section of the study, criteria for response to fires, medical emergencies, and law enforcement emergencies will be explained. • Fire: Fire is a complex chemical reaction accompanied by the evolution of light and heat. ' If a fire is allowed to grow, it will continue to grow in intensity on a geometric scale. In other words, if a fire burns for one minute, and consumes a certain amount of fuel (furniture,drapes, contents,etc.),in the following minute it will double the amount of fuel it consumes. Then, in ' the following minute it will double it's fuel consumption again. At the end of a four or five minute scenario,the fire may be consuming hundreds of times more fuel than it did in the first minute. When the convected and radiant heat in a fire raise the temperature of all ' combustible materials inside the room of fire origin to their ignition temperature (approximately 1100T), the fire will "flashover", and accelerate 10 to 20 times faster than at any previous stage in it's development. The structure is now totally engulfed in fire. This can occur in 5 minutes or less. Once flashover has occurred, it is impossible for 1 HR 505 Page 13 October 14,1994 ' ea oint Extension Stud S p y --------------- ------------ ' anyone to escape alive from the room of origin,or for firefighters to rescue anyone. As a result, the structure and it's occupants are usually destroyed. Refer to Figure 3 for more information regarding the relationship of "reflex time"to flashover. "Reflex time"is that time from ignition until application of extinguishing agent, and includes the ' components of ignition, detection, reporting, dispatching, response to scene, and "set-up". Reflex time can take up to 10 minutes or more, depending upon the elapsed time occurring during each component. As the component of ignition, detection and reporting are difficult to control, ' the dispatch and response times become very critical. The firefighting objective of the Fire Department is to put water on the flame prior to flashover. Hence, the Huntington Beach Fire Department response standard is to arrive within 5 minutes or less of receipt of alarm in the fire station, 80% of the time (1 minute reaction time and 4 minutes driving time). After arrival, it may require up to 5 minutes to prepare ' hose lines, personnel and equipment for entry into the structure. Thus, time is of the essence. The problem is, the average Fire Department response speed in ' Huntington Beach is approximately 22 mph due to traffic and road patterns, especially within a tract. A fire truck can travel 1.46 miles in 4 ' minutes at 22 mph. The Insurance Services Office (ISO),which establishes insurance ratings and costs for fire insurance, recommends that a fire engine be within 1.5 miles of a built upon area, and a ladder truck within 2.5 miles. The ISO standard aims toward the same objective as the HBFD response standard of 5 minutes (including reaction time). • Emergency Medical Services: ' Most Huntington Beach Fire Department calls (68%) are for Emergency Medical Services (EMS), 81% of these are paramedic level calls. The Fire Department is the logical first responder for EMS calls due to training, expertise, equipment and fire station locations (when such locations comply with national and departmental standards). ------------------------------ 1 HR 505 Page 14 October 14,1994 t Seapoint Extension Study ' Figure 3 Fire Growth vs. Reflex Time 6 9 10 _ FLASHOVER �f wcc f-- � - UNRESTRAINED ' ~ FIRE GROWTH cc Q O w a Cc w F- W cr 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Minutes �— Time Varies—i Ignition FIRE SYSTEM RESPONSE TIME Application ' Detection Report Dispatch of of of of Respond to Scene Set E x t i n q u i s h i n g Fite Alarm units Up Agent TIME INDIRECTLY TIME DIRECTLY MANAGEABLE MANAGEABLE BY FIRE SERVICE SYSTEM 1 1 Reflex Time 1 1 - 1 1 HR 505 Page 15 October 14, 1994 Seapoint Extension Study ' In order to provide a 50% chance for recovery of a victim of cessation of heart action, cardiopulmonary resuscitation must begin in 4 minutes of 1 such cessation, and definitive paramedic care must begin within 8 minutes. Thus, the Huntington Beach Fire Department EMS response standard is for a paramedic unit (engine or squad) to arrive within 5 minutes of receipt of alarm in the station, 80% of the time. Again, the speed is assumed to be 22 mph, after a minute of time in the station to react to the call. Refer to Figure 4 to understand the importance of time during a emergency medical response. ' Law Enforcement Activities: Crime can occur at any time and any location. It is more prevalent at ' night under cover of darkness. In areas such as Seapoint, crime can range from vandalism to murder. Crime can be against property or against persons. Areas such as Seapoint invite burglary by those needing money for drug habits, etc. A well planned crime can be executed in minutes. In ' other words, the criminal can enter a residential unit or garage in a matter of minutes and commit the crime. ' Loitering can occur in park areas, such as the new Linear Park. "White collar" crime by door to door solicitors can occur during daytime hours. ' Daylight burglaries can occur in dwellings where occupants are gone. In addition, occurrences such as traffic accidents, graffiti, vandalism, and car theft can occur on the private and public streets. ' Domestic fights and violence are a leading cause of trauma. Such g g ' emergencies require rapid intervention. In order to provide the optimum level of response, the Huntington Beach Police Department strives to respond to priority one emergencies (life threatening),within 5 minutes 85% of the time, including 2 minutes and 8 ------------- HR 505 Page 16 ' October 14, 1994 Seapoint Extension Study ' seconds to receive the call and dispatch a unit. This allows 2 minutes and 52 seconds driving time. Arrival is dependent upon location of the ' responding unit when assigned. For example, such a unit could be on PCH west of Seapoint when the call is received. For priority 2 calls (eminent threat), the Police Department response standard is to arrive within 10 minutes of receipt of alarm by dispatcher, in 85% of the calls. 1 1 1 HR 505 Page 17 1 October 14,1994 Seapoint Extension Study Figure 4 Probability of Reeovery t 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 MINUTES 95% 90% 88% 80°0 ' 751 70i0 P TIME CPR STRRTED us. E PROBRBILITY OF RECOVERY ' R C 60°0 FROM CRROIRC RRREST E N T A E 50% 50% ' R E D s C 40% c 0 e Report t V c of Dispatch Turnout Ra3poud to Scaaa E f Incident o � R n P ' Y 30% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 MINUTES IL 2Si 20% 1 10% 24 �64 I 0% �2 OY lCordioc Arrest Recovery vs. CPR Irvallon role based on A neficon Red Cross 1 HR 505 Page 18 October 14, 1994 Seapoint Extension Study I Fire & Police Response Profiles &Deficiencies Based upon the response standards identified in Section 2 of this report, a comparison can be made utilizing historical emergency response data, and actual ' driving times to determine if the adopted standards are being met. The response standards for the first arriving unit are as follows: • Fire Department: 5 minutes response time from receipt of alarm in station, 80% of the time. Response time includes one minute in fire station to react to alarm and begin response. • Police Department: Respond to life threatening emergencies within 5 minutes of receipt of alarm at dispatch center, 85% of the time. Response time includes 2 ' minutes and 8 seconds to receive call and dispatch a unit. ' In order to evaluate the current response profile, the consultant gathered historical response data from each department and analyzed the data to determine actual response times. In addition, actual field response tests were conducted utilizing fire engines from ' Station 1 - Gothard, Station 5 - Lake, and Station 7- Warner. The engines drove the normally utilized response routes to Palm and Seapoint. Runs were also ' made from Station 7-Warner and Station 5 -Lake via PCH to the location where Seapoint will connect to PCH. Interestingly, it was discovered that Station 7 - Warner would provide the fastest response to Palm and Seapoint once Seapoint is connected to PCH. At present, Station 7 - Warner is not dispatched on initial alarms to this area due to lack of proper road circulation (i.e. Seapoint). An ' actual field test of a gate operation was conducted utilizing the Station 5 - Lake engine crew. Times were also obtained b actual driving tests utilizing a car to simulate a- Y g g Police unit responding from the Police Station. Tables 2 through 5 illustrate the results of the response data reviews and the actual time trials. HR 505 Page 19 iOctober 14,1994 Seapoint Extension Study ---------------------------------------------- Table 2 Average Aetual Hire Dept. Emergency Response Times to Seapoint Area (Distriets 327, 3289 3=) * (per 1992-1994 HBFD data - 2 years) (rounded) .......... .............. ......... ......... ...... . .... .............. ..................... A-me ::::*-,*i-,**.,*: .............. ... .......... . ........... .... ................. ........................................... ......... ............ ..... ......... ... ......... ................. Mg ppw� qf ... .......... .. . ..... .. . ... ........................ .. . .. ...... X .. Ar -d .......... ............................ -h-ut die ....................... ........... ..... . ........ . ..... .................... .................. .................................. ....... ........-.... XXXX.. ... ...... mv . . .........X. X-s:............. T .............. X. ..................... U.........:. :,*,**""'*bfi.i.'i..,.�-'.-.'t--'---..--.---....*'.--"--...".--.".*.'.-...-.."*.'.-. ...9 .1".".,"U-11.1".1".1,11..... .............. ...... ...................... ........ ........ Seapoint/Pahn 327 1 8:00 9:00 Seapoint/Doral 328 1 8:00 9:00 Pahn/Cherryhill to 338 1 6:00 7:00 Goldenwest Average 1 7:00 8:00 Fire Dept. response standard = 5 minutes/80% of calls Standard met zero % of time. Most common call: ALS/EMS. First responder (most cases): Lake ALS recovery rate for cardiac arrest after 8 minutes from start of CPR 2% 98% die). Buildings can flashover to total Fire involvement in 5 minutes from ignition. Refer to District Response Maps in Appendix Section A-1. ------------------------- --------------- HR 505 Page 20 October 14,1994 Seapoint Extension Study --------- -------------- ------------- Table. 3 Fire Department Driving Tests Conducted for this Study Destination: Palm & Seapoint (includes 15 seconds added for driving from PCH to Palm) ........................ ........ ...... . ............................................................:... . ............................................................................................ ........................................................ ... .. ...................... ........... ....... .. . ....... ....... ............... .. ................................................................ ........................ ..................... ........................................................................................... YIII........... ................................-............................... ..aunt .............................. .......... . ................. ................... ..................... ..................... .............. ..... .. ....................... . . ...... .............. . -.............. ..... ................. ........ ...................... .... . ............ ... ... ... .. ... .. ............... . .............. ...... ............... .V A e....... .......... .... ........ ....................................... ............................................................................... ... . ................................... ........ .............: ,."........ ................. .. ..........I .........................I......... ................... .. .... .. .. ... . ................... ................. ............ ................... ..............%...................................... ...........� .1 ............. . ........ .. ...................... ............... . ............... . .. .............%..... . ......... ...........%..%.................. ............... ... .... . ...... . . ............... ........ . .......... .............. . ........... % -,.. : ....... - . .... ................ ......... ... ................................ .. .................................... ........................ ... ........................................................................... ............... �m�iim ,� ....... ....... ...... ........ . .......... ............. . .... .... ... .................. ................................... ............. ................. ... . .. .. .................. .... .. . ................ .!�............ .......... ...................... . . ...................... Station 5 Via Palm 1 5:00 6:00 Lake Via PCH 1 4:35 5:35 Station 1 Via Edwards 1 .6:15 7:15 Gothard Station 7 Via PCH 1 4:15 5:15 Warner Via PCH/Goldenwest/Palm 1 8:30 9:30 Average 1 5:00 6:00 Actual 2 year average response time to District 327 (Seapoint/Pahn) 9 minutes (rounded) Percent of time response standard met = 0 (std = 5 minutes response time -- 80% of time) ---------- HR 505 Page 21 October 14,1994 Seapoint Extension Study ------------------------------- ---------------- -------------- Table 4 Huntington Beach Pollee Department Response Time Comparisons The following tables compare response times by priority for dates May through April, ,1992/93 and 1993/94. Police response time includes dispatch time. Dispatch time for Priority 1 calls is estimated to be 2 minutes and 8 seconds (to receive and dispatch a call). 1992/93 ........... C ... ......... .......... A ............ 'X "A'"i"'i", IM .......... .................... ................ ............. ............... .......... ........... ......... n.fi.................. ....................... . ......... ...... �ft... .............. . ........ .......::....: . . ::::::...................V..........................................M.M.. :t......... . ....... ....... . ......... ........ ........ .... .. ...... . ............................................... . . .....MTN% ......... ....... ........ ...... .................. W ....................... . ........... ................ ........... ............................. ......... . .... ....%................. ...... . ........... minutes' ' 23.17 minutes 7.02 minutes Priority 2 10 minutes 36.02 minutes 11.75 minutes ority 3 20 minutes 57.77 minutes 24.57 minutes 1993/94 .. . ...... .................. ................. ............. ... . ...... .... . . ... .................... ...... .... ... ... .... .......................... .............. ...... ................................. ...........X, ....... .. .31 t ITMV. .0.............. ........... F.tm ............ .......................%......................._%. ............... ....... ....Z.:_ -"...... .................................. xik ................... ................... ................ ........ ......... ........... -A. n xx ..... ...... ................................................ ... .. . ..... ................................................ .:..j 1:1 . .. ... ..... ....... r . . .. ................... ......... .................... .%% ....................%................. ....... .............. ..... .......... M ... :%::::::::::::::::::::::::::::;:�............................................... " *.:.-:!-'..-.* ':. .. ............ ...... ... .. ................. ....... ................. -X ............... ............... ................................. ........ .... ....................................... ......... Priority 1 5 minutes 29.81 minutes 7.28 minutes 'Priority 2 10 minutes 30.08 minutes 11.28 minutes Piority 3 20 minutes 59.38 minutes 24.02 minutes Priority 1 =Life threat emergency Priority 2 =Eminent threat;possible life/property threat Priority 3 =Report call The Objective Times column shows the target response times for each priority within 85% of the time. The Current Times column shows the maximum number of minutes it actually took to respond for each priority. For example, 85% of the time, response time for Priority 1 calls in 1993/94 required 29.81 minutes or less. The Current Average Time column is the average response time for each priority. For comparison, the average Fire Department Response time to emergencies in the Seapoint area districts (327, 328, and 338) for the same years is 8 minutes. This accounts for the faster speed of cars versus trucks and the fact that Police units are responding from various mobile locations. The Police Department response standards are met zero percent of the time. -------------------------------- HR 505 Page 22 October 14,1994 Seapoint Extension Study -------------------------------- ------------------------- Table 5 Simulated Pollee Department Driving Tests Conducted for this Study Destination: Palm & Seapoint (includes 15 seconds for driving from PCH to Palm) ........................... .............. .......... ..................... ............................................................ ...!.:............................................................................ ..............................1. ............... ..... .......................................... .... ........................................................................... .... .... .. ... .......................... .... 1..... ............... ................ . mutes ............. . ......... .UP.. .................... .....T......W...W..................... PCH west of Via PCH to 2:08 3:50 5:58 Seapoint Goldenwest, to Palm, to Seapoint Main St. Via 17th to Palm, to 2:08 3:30 5:38 Police Station Seapoint Main St. Via PCH to Palm & 2:08 3:45 5:53 Police Station Seapoint (Via Seapoint) Conclusion: Police Department standard of 5 minutes response time (85% of the time) is not met based upon reasonable driving times. HR 505 Page 23 October 14,1994 ' Seapoint Extension Study tIt is clear from these studies that neither the Fire Department nor the Police Department are meeting the adopted response standards. In fact, ' response times to areas north of Palm and Seapoint are even more deficient. ' The Fire Station Location Study for the Koll Bolsa Chica project (Hunt Research Corporation; October 1992) and actual time studies by the Fire ' Department (12/92), indicated that the Seacliff area west of Palm and Ofelia and west of Edwards on Garfield, including the various tracts ' accessed therefrom, are in a response deficient area, at this time, based upon ISO standards (1.5 miles) and Fire Department response standards. ' The construction of the Seapoint Extension will not mitigate these deficiencies north and east of the Palm/Seapoint intersection. Future construction of Clay from Goldenwest to Seapoint may assist in timely ' response to some tracts accessed along Clay,but will not solve the overall deficiency. 1 Refer to Figure 5 illustrating current location of Fire and Police stations. ' An additional fire station should be built and staffed in the general area of Garfield and Edwards (or at the location indicated as Station 6, if the cross 1 gap connector is built). The other dimension of emergency response considerations is that of ' incident demands created by the population within a response area. This is done by determining the current call load in an area, divided by ' population in the area, to arrive at a per capita figure. The next step is to determine the projected population of an area, and multiply the ' population times the per capita call generation figure, to arrive at the estimated call volume at build out. Tables 6 and 7 illustrate how the call volume was arrived at. The conclusion is that the study area, at build out, will have estimated population of 6763, living in 1845 units. The estimated call volume will be .9 Fire Department calls per day (1 per day) tand 4 Police Department Priority 1, 2, or 3 calls for service for a total of 5 public safety calls per day. t ---------------- HR 505 Page 24 ' October 14,1994 Seapoint Extension Study ------------------------------ Figure 5 Fire/Poliee Stations U a� o C o Cr p ¢ ¢ o w m U a w 3 r cn z 0-4 ' •.i o SEAL WESTMINSTER BEACH I ¢BOLSA U Y O �, t I ~N%L-q � o 8 z ¢ z _— - ' MOEN 0 1 ........... _ . J I I z'^ �"""" 9EDINGER I ' 2 ' 8.......-_.........;..............__. ............ .............; ^ EIL I i I I I I WAR ER r A ' "r�—���~• I r FOUNTAIN . _ .` __........':._._. LATER -------�s VALLEY A SCE, - ^� TALBERT �- •�O cr 6`�•� 1 it C o OS a x \�`r _ 7......._ ...— _....i:FELTS x Y o l D cc m g Lo ----------- —j ••- •••. ..•--..�-�....-.r......r-•• :r- t.e-ter+, G ARFIE S -._—.... ...........................:...........................;f�YORKTOVYN :c 3: �ADAIV.S - -- — --'--- - rINDIANAPOUS LEGEND I - /ATLANTA City Boundary �\ I Fire Stations Police Stations\\ --••••--'4 '••"••".................. HAMILTON fft Gothard Station FAI Oak View Substation --�'/ BANNING � . 0 Murdy Station © Downtown Substation COSTA Bushard Station © Main Street Station / MESA ' ® Magnolia Station \f� 0 Lake Station 0 Warner Station ' ® Heil Station(To be abandoned) ° I Bolsa Chica Station(proposed) ' 0 Graham Station(proposed) Source: "Technical Background Report,"ENVICOM CO. 1992 FIR 505 Page 25 ' October 14, 1994 ' Seapoint Extension Study ' Table 6 Seapoint Area Population ' Dwelling Unit Statistics 1 This data was obtained from the 1990 census for census tract 993.8, ' from the City of Huntington Beach Planning Department and from the developer. ' (such data should be considered as estimates) ' 1990 population (per census): 2335 1990 housing units (per census): 962 Persons per unit: 2.4 Vehicles per unit (estimate): 3 (range 2-4) Population for tracts since 1990: 4428 ' Housing units from census to buildout: 1845 ' Total population at build out: 6763 Total housing units at build out: 2807 t Median age (1990 census): 43.7 ---------------- RR 505 Page 26 ' October 14, 1994 Seapoint Extension Study Table 7 Current & Predieted Incident Demands 1 Seapoint Area 1 ' (Response districts: 327, 328, 338) Estimated current population (census tract 993.08) = 2335 ' Current total annual Fire Department responses: 35.5 Annual EMS responses: 19 ' Annual Fire responses: (all fires) 3 Annual "other"responses: (investigations,service,etc.) 13.5 Current total annual Police Department responses: 467 (Priority 1, 2, & 3) Total annual public safety responses: 502.5 Per capita Fire Dept. responses: Moll study) .05 Per capita Police calls for service in these Districts: .2 (based upon 467 Priority 1,2, &3 calls for 2,335 population) ' Project annual Fire Dept. responses at build out (6763 popJ.05 per capita): 338/.9 per day ' Projected annual Police responses at build out (6763 popJ.2 per capita): 1353/4 per day Total projected per day (1691 annually- 365): 5 pucans blic ety HR 505 Page 27 ' October 14,1994 ' Seapoint Extension Study These calls are not all life threatening calls, however, they are all calls for emergency service of some type, and if delayed can become threatening to ' life or property. Current response deficiencies validate the need for Seapoint to be an open, ungated, road from Palm to PCH. This is necessary to provide adequate response to tracts 14134 and 14135. In order to provide adequate response to the Seacliff areas north and east of Palm and Seapoint, a local fire station is needed. ' If the Citydecides to install a ate on the Seapoint extension then g P ' response times are increased by at least 45 seconds because the emergency unit must stop, operate the gate (if Opticom fails) and resume speed. ' The race against flashover, death from cessation of heart action, and the threat of violent crime, becomes more difficult when obstructions to ' response occur. ' Despite the installation of the highest quality gate system and multiple manual and automatic actuation devices, gates can fail to operate and can be damaged or blocked. Refer to Figures 6 and 7 in this Section for illustrations of reflex time ' (initiation of an incident to intervention) as compared to flashover and EMS recovery. 1 HR 505 Page 28 October 14,1994 Seapoint Extension Study ------------------------------- ' Figure 6 Reflex Time vs. Flashover & EMS Recovery (NO GATE) 1 1 HR 505 Page 29 ' October 14,1994 HBFD REFLEX TIME - ENGINE Warner Engine Via PCH to Seapoint HELP r - WARNLR.:.... : �i FIRE STATION I1I81?ATCH 000 FIRE CENTltR IIBFD FIRE n- .... Ignition & reporting Dispatch time 27 Reaction (turnout) time; Driving time to Palm & Set up time 5 minutes time _?_ (varies) seconds (receive call & 1 minute per criteria and Seapoint Total: (need to minimise with notify station) per actual as approved by Fire 4 minutes, 13 minutes detectors, sprinklers, data from Fire Dept. (Actual random 15 seconds. 42 seconds & supervised alarms dispatchers. samples indicate 1:29 Note: The 1992IAFC Note Mean time per seconds.) study indicated 35 mph Assumed time = 1992 I Me stud is Note: "Mean"time per is a recognised average y 1992 IAFC study is 51 speed.HBFD speeds 3 minutes 63.69 seconds. seconds for staffed Fire are slower due to traffic, Depts. eta,&average 22 mph. FLASHOVER 1100°F at 5 minutes 13:42 UNRESTRAINED FIRE GROWTH FLAME GROWTH FLAME GROWTH w a a� E~ Minutes 1 2 3 3:15 3:27 4:00 4:27 5 6:37 8:42 13:42 Minutes 95% 88% 75% TBIE CPR STARTED 50% No Gate VS PROBABIIdTY OF RECOVERY FROM CARDIAC ARREST 26% 12% 6% (source: American Red Cross) 2% 0% ' oint Extension Study y Figure 7 Reflex Time vs. Flashover & EMS Recovery (GATED) HR 505 Page 30 ' October 14,1994 HBFD REFLEX TIME - ENGINE Warner Engine Via PCH to Seapoint EL � WARNER _ FIRE STATION ISPATCI] 000 FIRE GENILR...< HBFD HBFD FIRE • : _....__...... Ignition & reporting Dispatch time 27 Reaction turnout time; Drivin time to Palm A Acto l; Im � � (turnout) g track !t operate (lain speed &drive Bet up time 8 minutes time _?_ (varies) seconds (receive call do 1 minute per criteria and Seapoint(late. gate-46 seconds. to Palm do Seapoint Total: (need to minimize with notify station) per actual as approved by Fire 4 minutes, Note:Time will 1 minute+ 15 minutes detectors, sprinklers, data from Fire Dept. (Actual random 15 seconds. vary based 27 seconds dispatchers. samples indicate 1:23 Note: The 1992 IAFC & supervised alarms aeon several Note: Meantime per seconds.) study indicated 36 mph factors; time of 1992]AFC study is Note: "Mean" time per is a recognized average day,weather,mech. Assumed time = 63.69 seconds. 1992 IAFC study is 81 speed. HBFD speeds 3 minutes seconds for staffed Fire are slower due to traffic, failures. blocked Depts. etc., &average 22 mph. FLASHOVER (1100°F) at 5 minutes 13:42 16:27 UNRESTRAINED <•i.".y„>•q�y«�s?<:•'.j•,;.%i E+ FIRE GROWTH X' xy. .:.�`f'% FLAME GROWTH FLAME GROWTH Minutes 1 2 3 3:15 3:27 4:00 4:27 5 6:37 8:42 9:27 10:27 13:42 15:27 95% 88 75 1 1 minute 45 seconds TIME CPR STARTED Gated Road VS 50% PROBABILITY OF RECOVERY FROM CARDIAC ARREST 25% 12% 6% 2% (source: American Red Cross) 0% Seapoint Extension Study ------------------------------- ---------------- ----------------- ' 4. Emergency Scenarios &Evacuation: ' Evacuation: ' Evacuation is a dangerous and time consuming effort, and consists of the sequential events of warning, perception of risk, formulation of family units, preparation to evacuate, and movement. The time it takes to evacuate from an area is a function of many variables ' including mode of transit, loading estimates, traffic network geometry, route choice, direction of the movement,road capacity and demand,vehicle speed,and ' number of vehicles used, as well as the population without vehicles, handicapped, bedridden, or those passing through and not familiar with the ' area, and those refusing to evacuate. The best data regarding mobilization time in a quick onset event (i.e. hazardous ' materials release or fire) suggests that 65% of the population will evacuate after 30 minutes and 90% after 45 minutes from being warned. It has been suggested by those experienced in mass evacuations, that a total time ' of up to 130 minutes for warning and 60 minutes for evacuation is a reasonable estimate for a "normal" scenario. If routes are blocked due to fire, toxic clouds, spills, debris or ground rupture, evacuation times can take much longer and panic can ensue. Evacuation can be impacted by traffic accidents, abandoned or stalled vehicles. Emergency vehicles responding to the emergency can be delayed or stopped due ' to traffic congestion. In a hazardous materials emergency, or a fire, evacuation routes must lead to a safe location upwind of the emergency. If such a route is ' obstructed, or perceived as unstable or unsafe, evacuees may become victims of the emergency. 1 Evacuation of a residential area can be compared to the evacuation of a theater or a large store. People will leave by the way they entered because they feel that is a safe route. They do not tend to use secondary,normally unused, exits. HR 505 Page 31 ' October 14,1994 Seapoint Extension Study ' Blocking of a public street by use of a gate will impact orderly evacuation in several ways: ' Most people will not trust the gated road as an exit route. • The gate is not as wide as the road due to mechanical limitations. Therefore, traffic congestion will increase at that location. • The emergency (i.e. a fire or earthquake) may have caused a power failure. The earthquake may have caused ground movement thus rendering the ' gate inoperable. • The route to the gate may be blocked by parked or abandoned vehicles. ' Emergency response to the area is slowed by the time needed to operate the gate. ' The Seapoint area will have approximately 2807 housing units at buildout. According to the Traffic Engineer, it is estimated each unit could have up to 4 ' vehicles. Estimated population per unit is 2.4 persons (based upon census data). Therefore, at buildout it may be necessary to evacuate up to 6763 persons at night ' (plus guests). ' If one car per unit is used to evacuate (shown in national studies) then approximately 2807 vehicles plus transient traffic would require evacuation. 2807 vehicles, plus transient traffic and responding vehicles will greatly tax the ' main roads in the Seapoint area (Garfield and Palm), as well as roads such as Clay. If the cross gap connector is built, and an evacuation is required from the ' Bolsa Chica area, as well as Seapoint, the number of evacuees could swell by 3,840 persons (50% of expected Bolsa Chica population), which could represent 1,600 additional vehicles (1 per unit x 50% of units). The total number of evacuees could reach 6763 plus 3,840, for a total of 10,603 persons (refer to Table ' 8). This scenario does not consider any evacuees utilizing Seapoint from Garfield east. ' Seapoint Avenue must be an open, unobstructed, road to assist in alleviating traffic jams and in providing a means of egress to an upwind position, under normal wind conditions. ' The cross gap connector should be constructed in order to provide an evacuation route to the west of the study area. --------------- HR 505 Page 32 October 14,1994 SeaP oint Extension Study ' Table 8 ' Estimated Potential Population to be Evacuated 1 Currently ' (1990 numbers) ' 2335 Persons 962 Vehicles (1 per unit) At Build Out 6763 Persons 2807 Vehicles (1 per unit) Add: 50010 of Bolsa Chica residents at buildout = 3840 Persons ' 1600 Vehicles (1 per unit x 50010 of units) ' Grand Total Estimate = 4407 Vehicles 10,603 Persons (2.4 per car) HR 505 Page 33 ' October 14,1994 ' Seapoint Extension Study ' --------------- Scenarios: ' The consultant evaluated the potential risks associated with the subject area. The area is subject to the following potential emergencies; which could necessitate ' evacuation of residents in the Seapoint area. In addition, a hazard analysis matrix, prepared by the Fire Department, is provided at the end of this study, as Table 9. A probability analysis for the scenarios was not conducted. 1. Earthquake: ' Several faults exist in the Seapoint area. An earthquake has the potential for isolating the Seapoint area due to ground rupture, liquifaction, and ' flooding from broken water pipes, affecting vehicle movement on roads such as Seapoint, Goldenwest, Palm, Garfield, Clay, etc., the earthquake could also result in failure of gas and liquid petroleum pipelines located in the area. Petroleum facilities in the area could also be damaged. Such failures could result in major spills, releases and fires which could create further impacts upon residents due to fire, smoke, toxic fumes, etc. Responders, and evacuees, could be hampered by the absence of a viable ' entrance from PCH. Refer to fault map at the end of this section (Table 10). ' 2. Pipeline Ruptures or Leaks: ' Several major liquid and gas petroleum pipelines have been identified by the Fire Department as being in the study area. There may be additional lines which are unknown. Ruptures or leaks can create toxic fumes, ' flammable vapor clouds, fires, or major liquid spills blocking roads, and impacting structures. 3. Hazardous Materials Transportation: ' A Hazardous materials transportation accident (tank truck, etc.) on Goldenwest, Garfield, PCH west of Goldenwest, or on the Shell facility, could result in a smoke or vapor plume which could inundate portions of the area west of Goldenwest and south of Garfield. It could also result in a release of airborne contaminants such as toxic powders or dusts, which ' could necessitate movement of people. HR 505 Page 34 ' October 14,1994 ' Seapoint Extension Study ' 4. Fire at Shell Gas or Oil Facilitr. ' A fire involving gas or oil at the Shell facility could result in a smoke plume moving northeast. This could necessitate evacuation from the ' Seapoint area in a southwesterly direction. Evacuation can be hampered by lack of visibility, breathing difficulties, and toxic products of combustion. 5. Gas Release from Shell Facility: In the event of an offsite plume from the Shell facility, responders may be unable to use Palm Avenue. Additionally, evacuation of various ' residences may be required, until magnitude of the risk is assessed. Evacuation to an upwind location may necessitate use of Seapoint to PCH. 7. Aircraft Crash: Another event would be the crash of a large aircraft enroute to John ' Wayne or Long Beach airports. Such a crash could cause major devastation of the magnitude of the 1994 Pittsburgh(USAir), 1986 Cerritos ' (Air Mexico), or 1982 San Diego (PSA) plane crashes. Access could be cut off to portions of the Seapoint area. ' 8. Structural Conflagration: Structural conflagrations of the type experienced in wildland-urban areas or in areas where a proliferation of wood roofs exists, is not likely. However, an arson caused fire, or an explosion, could precipitate a conflagration. The highest potential for a structural conflagration in this area would be during the framing stage of construction. In case of fire, ' access to and from Goldenwest could be cut off necessitating access to and from Seapoint which is typically upwind. ' 9. Civil Unrest: In the event of urban civil unrest, which, under some future scenarios, could spread to affluent areas, firebombing could occur. Such firebombing could precipitate major structural fires. Such civil unrest ' could also necessitate the need for two distinct means of ingress and egress. HR 505 Page 35 October 14, 1994 ' Seapoint Extension Study y ----------------------------------------------- 10. Water Spout/Tornado: Water spouts and mini-tornadoes have occurred in Huntington Beach and have caused considerable structural damage in tracts and mobile home ' parks near the ocean. Such damage includes flying debris, roofs, trees, fences, etc., and can result in blocked streets which preclude response and evacuation. Depending upon the unpredictable path of such events, ' multiple evacuation and response routes should be provided. ' Figures 8 and 9 illustrate the road patterns available for immediate evacuation and response with an open Seapoint connection and without an open Seapoint connection. Sir : Evacuation could be significantly impacted by the absence of an adequate,unencumbered public road to PCH. If a gate is required, such ' a gate could be obstructed or inoperable at the time of emergency. In addition, operation of such gate must await arrival of emergency ' responders. ' The cross gap connector should be constructed to provide an evacuation route to the west from the study area. A Fire station should be provided in the Seacliff area to improve disaster response. -------------------------------- HR 505 Page 36 ' October 14,1994 ' Seapoint Extension Study ------------------------------- ' Table 9 Hazard Analysis ---------------- 1 RR 505 Page 37 ' October 14,1994 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH HAZARD ANALYSIS Planning Chance of ' Priority Risk Occurrence* Effect** 1 #1 Flood/Storm 9 8 (Dam failure, hurricane, tidal surges) #2 Earthquake 8 10 1 #3 Fire and/or Explosion 6 9 1 #4 Hazardous Chemical Spill 7 8 ' (fixed location or transportation) #5 Tornado/Water Spout 6 6 ' #6 Oil Spill and/or 4 8 Pipeline Breakage ' #7 Riot/Civil Disturbance 7 4 ' #8 Aircraft Accident 3 6 ' #9 Tsunami 2 6 1 #10 War 1 10 ' Chance of Occurrence and Effect numbers are rated from one to ten. Higher ' numbers signify greater chance of occurrence and a greater effect. * Chance of Occurrence is based on Huntington Beach history and potential. ' **Effect is the worst case scenario. City of Huntington Beach Disaster Plan 1/94 ' Sea point Extension Study y Table 10 Fault Map 1 1 HR 505 Page 38 October 14, 1994 CITY OF HUNTINGTON E 'H - EARTHQUAKE FAULTS (Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone) CO s 1�0g11k vy� s�90 �t9'YO w4t� �wtiv A�l4, �G� ST � ^� �`� 4 � �ti,V ®OREATEST SURFACE RUPME POTENTIAL WITHIN cffy EM AREA OF INTENVA SHEAR BIJRED TRACE OF FAULT WTHIN 400'ZONE G m UNCERTAWTY AS M EXISTENCE 601s /• �iPJ, \. OR EXTENSION OF FAULT I lO 1C r •;-- ,.B =�`��'�S~ -;south c►+ _.ems_ r�'t'✓' �' PAC _.CDASZ� MAIM ."N A A60C 9-1.73 PUNNING DEPARTMENT401 FAULT MAP All faults shown are part of the Newport-Inglewood fault zone. This fault has been the source of numerous earthquakes including one of the most destructive in Southern California - the Long Beach Earthquake of March 10, 1933. The 1933 earthquake was a 6.3 magnitude resulting in 120 fatalities and more than $50 million in property damage. The epicenter was off the coast of Pacific Coast Highway and Brookhurst Street. This fault is regarded as one of the more active regions in California and its long history of earthquakes should be enough warning that every citizen in the area should be prepared to deal with earthquakes. SEACLIFF PARTNE DEVELOPMENT PLAN 7y 7�r A 23 E A \ILI EVACUATION ROUTES R, I 'THE SREMEAs TII VLOP0 00% L II IL TE; Jt Comm SEACLIFF PARTNERS A JOINT YENTIJRX OF PACIFIC COAST HOMES NO URBAN WEST CO.-UNITIES .............. AFfrALl 0..01.cf-0.0.tws 1 i • � ��♦ a♦ �i � �1 1 C • Ills oil �� ♦♦♦♦♦`♦ �III♦Q��i���Ii� �i ✓Hi. ,ky Seapoint Extension Study ' 5. Public Safety Legal Issues 1 Development Agreements: Consultant reviewed the development agreement between City, Pacific Coast Homes and Seacliff Partners. Consultant also reviewed the City Attorney's topinion, dated 4/29/94, regarding abandoning or limiting Seapoint. The developers agreement does not expressly mention the Seapoint extension to PCH, or put any expressed obligation on developer to extend Seapoint (per City Attorney letter). Deletion does not violate the Holly Seacliff Development Agreement, per City Attorney. ' The extension of Seapoint is a condition of Tracts 14134 and 14135, and probably cannot be deleted from the final tract maps. ' However,in approving the tracts,the Fire Department based it's approval on the assumption that Seapoint would be extended to PCH, as an ungated public road, in order to help mitigate response deficiencies in the area. The Fire and Police ' Departments are opposed to gated roads, from an emergency ingress and egress standpoint. The conditions of approval for Tracts 14134 and 14135 do not ' specify that the road is to be ungated, only that it be constructed. However, the developer is required to comply with a1plicable provisions of the Fire Department and of the Fire Code. Page 31 of developers agreement requires compliance with the City Fire code. The City Fire Code prohibits the gating of a public road. Applicable provisions of the Fire Department can be interpreted by the Fire Department to be an ungated public road, or provision of sufficient mitigations for protection of the tracts. Section 10.501b of the City Fire code allows such mitigations to be imposed. The California Vehicle Code, Section 21101.6, also prohibits the installation of ' gates on public roads. Case law exists which supports this law (refer to text on Page 43 of this report, and news article on Page 45). Apparently, the developer has, in good faith, agreed to the conditions of approval. It therefore seems that if the City Council decides to allow gating of ' Seapoint, or elimination of the extension, that the Fire Department and the developer will need to agree upon necessary mitigations to the closure, as the developer has an approved project (partly because the Fire Department approval envisioned an open road as a mitigation for response deficiencies). This issue will need careful review by the City Attorney for potential City liability. HR 505 Page 41 ' October 14,1994 1 Seapoint Extension Study ------------- ---------------------------------------------------------- City Fire Code Provisions: The following excerpts from the City Fire code (1991 Uniform Fire Code) relate to the issue of emergency response and gated roads. Closure of Accesswas: Section 10.106(a) General. The chief is authorized to require the installation and maintenance of gates or other approved barricades across roads, trails or other accessways, not including public streets, alleys or highways. When required, gates and barricades shall be secured in an approved. manner. When required to be secured, roads, trails and other accessways ' shall not be used unless authorized by the owner and the chief. (b) Trespassing. Trespassing upon roads, trails and other accessways ' which have been closed and obstructed in the manner prescribed by this section is prohibited. Plans for Access Roa s: Section 10.202. Plans for fire apparatus access roads shall be submitted to the Fire Department for review and approval prior to construction. Re guired Access• Section 10.203. More than one fire apparatus access road shall be ' provided when it is determined by the chief that access by a single road may be impaired by vehicle congestion, condition of terrain, climatic ' conditions, or other factors that could limit access. Obstruction: Section 10.205. The required width of a fire apparatus access road shall not be obstructed in any manner,including parking of vehicles. Minimum ' required widths and clearances established under this section shall be maintenanced at all time. ------------------------------- HR 505 Page 42 ' October 14,1994 Seapoint Extension Study Section 10.501(b) Special Hazards: ' For occupancies of an especially hazardous nature or where special hazards exist in addition to the normal hazard of the occupancy, or where access for fire apparatus is unduly difficult, the chief is authorized to require additional safeguards consisting of additional fire appliance units, more than one type of appliance, or special systems suitable for the protection of the hazard involved. Such devices or appliances may consist of automatic fire alarm systems, automatic sprinkler or water spray systems, standpipe and hose, fixed or.portable fire extinguishers, suitable fire blankets, breathing apparatus, manual or automatic covers, carbon ' dioxide, foam, halogenated or dry chemical or other special fire- extinguishing systems. Where such systems are provided, they shall be ' designed and installed in accordance with the applicable Uniform Fire Code Standards. 21101.6 (Vehicle Code): Local Authority: Placement of Gates Notwithstanding Section 21101, local authorities may not place gates or other selective devices on any s�which deny or restrict the access of certain members of the public to the street, while permitting others ' unrestricted access to the street. This section is not intended to make a change in the existing law, but is ' intended to codify the decision of the Court of Appeal in City of Lafayette v. County of Contra Costa (91 Cal. App. 3d 749). Case Law: By declining to review the case, the State Supreme Court ' upheld earlier rulings that the State Vehicle Code prohibits gates on public streets. The issue involved an exclusive development in Los Angeles. ' Potential_ Mitigations for Gating of f Road: ' If the developer is required to gate the road, then the Fire Department may wish to consider the following mitigations for Tracts 14134 and 14134,utilizing Section 10.501(b) of the code. • Class A,non wood, roofs. ---------------- ------------------------------- ------------------------------- HR 505 Page 43 ' October 14,1994 Seapoint Extension Study ---------------- --------------- ' 24 hour onsite guard service, with capability to patrol developments, report emergencies, monitor dispatch centers, and operate gate. • Remotely supervised burglar, fire and EMS alarm systems in each ' occupancy. • Secondary emergency access road to the north, from Oceancrest tract,bypassing Palm and Seapoint. ' Increased structural construction features to withstand fire and to prohibit infiltration of toxic gases, so that occupancies may be used as safe havens. • Civil defense sirens and loudspeakers for early warning of disaster. • Ongoing training for all occupants regarding fire, EMS and disaster self-help procedures. ' • Statement on CC&R's advising buyers of the potential for obstructed emergency egress and ingress. • Requirement that all persons wanting Seapoint Street gated agree in writing to forever hold harmless, defend and indemnify the City of Huntington Beach, it's officials and representatives from any liability arising from the obstruction of Seapoint Street. ' In summary, the City Attorney must review the existing laws, case law, development agreement and conditions of approval to ascertain if gating, or otherwise obstructing, Seapoint Avenue will result in exposing the City to legal action from the developer or others. One possible legal scenario to consider could be a negligence, or wrongful death, suit against the City for allowing a gated road, thus causing a delayed emergency response which resulted in a death. City Attorney should also review the agreement to ascertain if any ' wording exposes the City to liability if emergency response is affected by gating the road. 1 The legal ramifications of requiring various mitigations for Tract 14134 or 14135 must also be reviewed by the City Attorney, keeping in mind that Fire officials consider an open, ungated, Seapoint Extension as the preferred mitigation to response deficiencies. IR 505 Page 44 ' October 14,1994 Seapoint Extension Study 1 Court says , v 1 residents : t can' gate ' '. . _ 1 streets - LAW: High court lets stand earlier ' rulings barring LA neighborhood : Prom: from.closing off public streets. From staff and news service reports 1 SAN FRANCISCO—The state Supreme Cpi rt Orange County refused Thursday to let an exclusive Los Angeles neighborhood seal itself.off from outsiders by•put- ting up gates.on previously public streets., RegiSter By declining to review the case,the court upheld earlier rplings that the state Vehicle Code prohibits Spring 1994 gates on public streets..- However,the court's action does not affect pri-. vate gated communities,in which residents pay for road construction and maintenance.State law al- lows those arrangements. 1 The potential impact of the court's action on local cities, such as Laguna Niguel, that allow public streets to become private under cert in circum- stances was unclear Thursday. The city of Laguna Niguel allows residents:to gate themselves off from the 1 public-it'_they take possession of the affected streets atsd.agres;-to maintain them and accept liability, traffic cngi- neer Dave Rogers said. "It will be interesting to see if(the ruling} s any effect,", Rogers said, adding that`'andt�l{ter ' neighborhood,El Niguel Heights,recently;4WIXed to fence off.,its.entrance City Attorney Terry Dixon could not be reached for comment: C. In the Loy Angeles case, the city va'60 the street, giving it to the neighborhood association, but continued to pay for maintenance. '° "Although we understand the deep and abiding concern of the city and(the Whitley Heights Civic Association).with crime prevention and historic preseivation; we doubt the Legislature wants.to 1 permit a return to feudal times with each suburb being a fiefdom to which other citizens of the state are denied their fundamental right of access to use public streets," said Justice Fred Woods in a March 23 2nd District Court decision that upheldan 1 earlier Superior Court judge.' Woods said a city can."abandon"a street,allow- ing its conversion to private yse,if it is no.longer needed for traffic or other public purposes.But Los Angeles made no such claims for Whitley Heights streets,Woods said.He also said the city's coingtit- ' ment to pay for maintenance showed that the streets were still"public." "The ruling closes the door with respect toplace- ment of gates on public streets,"said Arthur Hen- derson, a lawyer for Citizens Against Gated 1 Endres, a group of residents near Whitley Heights. The state's high court unanimously denied re- view of the ruling,making it binding on trial courts statewide. 1 In seeking a state Supreme Court review;She Civic Association said the appeals court had udduly limited property,rights. Register staff writer Marla Fisher and The Associated Press ' contributed to this report: --------------- HR 505 Page 45 1 October 14, 1994 ' Seapoint Extension Study ' 6. Recommendations ' Based upon the information contained in this report, the following recommendations are made. These recommendations are based upon the observations and opinions of the consultant. Summary of Conclusions Current Aire and Police response to the study area is deficient when compared to department standards and the dynamics of emergencies. ' 0 Seapoint extension to PCH must be constructed for purposes of public safety. • Seapoint extension to PCH must be an open, unobstructed, public road for purposes of emergency response and evacuation. ' 0 The Fire code and Vehicle code prohibit gating of a public road. • A local Fire station is currently needed in this area due to response deficiencies. ' 0 The cross gap connector would assist in emergency response and evacuation, in certain scenarios. ' 0 A gate system is feasible, but costly and prone to failure. • The City could be found liable for inadequate provision of emergency routes should an emergency occur. • The developer has a vested, approved Tract Map notwithstanding ' installation of a gate. Fire officials envisioned an open, ungated, road as a mitigation for response deficiencies, when conditions of approval were drafted. City Attorney should review ramifications of requiring mitigations or prohibiting construction. • From a public safety perspective the pros and cons of gating Seapoint ' weigh heavily towards no gate(see Table 11 on Page 47). In the event the City Council decides to gate Seapoint, a suggested gate system ' design, and construction drawing, are provided in the Appendix, as a requirement of the consultant's contract. Estimated costs for the gate and maintenance thereof are included. ------------------------------- -------------------- ------------------------- HR 505 Page 46 October 14,1994 Seapoint Extension Study ' Table H ' Public Safety Related Pros & Cons of Seapoint Gate 1 Advantage Weight Disadvantage Weight ' 10 = highest 10 = highest 1 = lowest 1 = lowest Security 4 Response times 10 increased resulting in larger fires, potential deaths & more severe assaults 1 Reduce potential of 3 Evacuation impacts 10 criminals escaping ' via PCH Control public egress 7 Blocked gate or roads 7 ' through gas plant in emergency ' Reduce traffic 2 Gate failure 7 accident potentials ' Slower egress due to 4 40' gate on 80' road Cityliabilitydue to 8 delayed response City liability for non 8 compliance with City Fire Code Total: 16 Total: 54 -------------------------------- IR 505 Page 47 October 14,1994 Seapoint Extension Study APPENDIX ' A-1 Response Maps: Districts 327, 3289 338 A-2 Conceptual-Gate Drawings A-3 Gate Details A-4 Estimated Costs for Gate System A-5 Gate Maintenance, Repair, Replacement A-6 Construction Drawing A-7 Two Related Fire Department Memos A-8 Letter From Police Department to Consultant A-9 Excerpts from Conditions of Approval: ' Tracts 14134 & 14135 ------------------------------- HR 505 Page 48 ' October 14,1994 Seapoint Extension Study A-1 Response Maps: Districts 3279 3289 338 HR 505 Page 49 ' October 14, 1994 Seapoint Extension Study AUG 9 0 32 7 'HK -- tat 317 MY 9 � M NO 3711 . 326 (4 3237 328 1 337 a4S FLAW ' na ' PtAL/PS HEL/ l PA D DOE t K MORN, SSPPCpN 69 c K 5, 63 WHfI�� ,4Q) a� as INCEVU v y HR 505 Page 50 ' October 14,1994 1 Seapoint Extension Study i 318 1 900. NO. r . —U 3712 1 1 O 327 329 cn o 1 328 338 1 W 1 1 GARFIELD 19 Ca,4S PCAMT no fl raw. awr- 22 K FFnre cwrut 43 5� • O� Y K � 1 so � 5^4 r AKB i N who 7) 1 C dos F 1 PRINC"U 7 Y i 1 HR 505 Page 51 October 14, 1994 1 Seapoint Extension Study 1 I O�Vt 13 328 338 CO. NO. 337 4 339 3812 3 3*8 348 1VEENBRIER \ \ �Pv 1 A 21 �J] 22 p nLLE `\\ p r \. DO 23 \ i 31 rSEACUFF COUNTRY CLUB \� \ "T GOLF COURSE 1 \ Y pq� CLUBNOUSE _ 1Ir • PARKI&C � 1 7 6 ., AgL 0 a•� .9 •'j� SCENIC BAY SWLL 023TERN Y p4LM LL • �L+ 78 b r \ r/ i 1 . \ �\ tiny r •�°ti r I HR 505 Page 52 October 14, 1994 Seapoint Extension Study 1 A-2 Conceptual Gate Drawings ' Note: The following gate drawings are presented in sequence for ease of viewing the various components and features. The third drawing illustrates the entire gate system and appurtenances. ' Drawing #1: Conceptual gate location; shows gate, wall, and fence locations. Drawing #2: Partial conceptual gate system; shows gate, wall, fence, know switches, Opticom, controller and generator enclosures, bollards, Shell facility gates, ' call bog, light. Drawing #3: Complete conceptual gate system; ' shows complete gate system and all appurtenances. -------------------------------- HR 505 Page 53 ' October 14,1994 Seapoint Extension Study PALM ' SEAP INT TRACT TRACT ' #14135 #14134 ' EXISTING WALL EXISTING WALL �—80' width > ' ' 44' cente parting. slidin gate Fence with 2' peeing i�►�:�\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ � \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ i�ice, gatetc $ck Wall Block Wall ga 70' ' depth ' 80' dth PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY (signalized intersection) nv~WAa'Gn } ' HR 505 Page 54 October 14, 1994 1 Seapoint Extension Study 1 1 # 2 PALM 1 SEAF INT TRACT flexible bollards TRACT 1 #14135 000000 00000 #14134 Perceiv /denied accei i area 1 (uneveir surface) 000000 00000 flexlbl4 bollards �--80' width 1 -411�—40'_po. 40- GATE C GATE ar ~� 1 1 knot switch Controller & generator & box on flex pole emergency 1 ®call box controller enclosure, ` 4' cent parting, D """ """ elevated k " " " " " " Fence smaller size " " " with i gate 1 ' pening � . \\\\ <' ,riiiiiiii gate WBlock Wall Block Wail g, g e open 4 1 Qstreet light &flashing light elevated bike �� two way track passage Opticom units knox switch on 12'pole 70' & box on depth flex pole 80' dth 000000 00000 1 flexibl bollards PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY (signalized intersection) •-.:x..Y?:eK�:::_hh:..x:::.-::;u�:n. ,;2�" R4k :•y`<_cc ,..,.t� �k' :;:;:;�:+eca:.:.' SiA. i�'-"' `•. ;;M:t:"-:;` %c;::v;;�•,-•\.x..:,;ok: ".-N*.N.-am-m-a.. - ----- ----------- ------------------------------- 1 HR 505 Page 55 October 14, 1994 Seapoint Extension Study 1 1 # 3 PALM 1 SEAP INT ' TRACT#14135 000000 bollardsxible 000 TRACT 00 #14134 light d sign Perceiv /denied s acces area ign ' (uneven surface) EXISTING WALL o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 flexible bollards EXISTING WALL traffic 1 warnin 80' width traffic sign light Q warning 40' sign 1 G_;� p GATE 44 rOw sign F Blight sign block wall 'y wall ' solar small building with knot switch light el knoz switch & door & boz on g • flez pole emergency ® Controller, 1 street light at flashing ®call box emergencygenerator, light ® 44' cent � & phone elevated controller enclosure, slidi gaate parting, D ♦� smaller size 1r7 track with 2' eper ......... ' Fence FLY" gate Block Wall s, Block Wall g tEE opt 0 street light &flashing light elevated bike ♦�4 �� 40two way track passage optfcom units knot switch on 12'pole 1 70' & box on depth flex pole NOT TO SCALE warning sign ' GATE SIGNS NOT SHOWN 80' width ®light reflective sign 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 reflective sign 1 for responders g flexiblell bollards 6for responders PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY 1 (signalized intersection) Ex.•x.::<:::''::5:'ii;::+C+'{.y,,,, "Q •.;�•+"'•lr,`+�t`•:{ -` `•k.:td?:::a:v�-Y, w. >:.n{'"- ---------------- --------------- HR 505 Page 56 ' October 14, 1994 Seapoint Extension Study ' A-3 Gate Details ' The followingis a list of components needed to provide the p p gate system shown on the concept drawing and the construction drawings. 1 The list of components, and their cost, may change during final gate design ' and installation. The gate design, specification and installation is subject to modification by the selected designer and installer of the gate. An architect experienced in gate design, should oversee the design, specification details and installation. The consultant makes no warranties as to the cost, adequacy and/or ' reliability of any gate system or.installation. t 1 HR 505 Page 57 ' October 14,1994 ' Seapoint Extension Study ' A-4 Estimated Costs for Gate System d... o: f ::; < ; Sliding Gates Two 22'wide series 316 stainless California Gate&Entry, $14,700.00 steel gates,including wheels&track 714-842-0900 installed ' (Brian Jorgensen) Gate Activation Two model 111 LS"Hy Security" Hy Security Gate Operator $1WW.00 System gate operators(hydraulic-electric); Co. installed t including timers,safety stop,& 310-643-7590 safety reversing edge. (Vendor: Calif.Gate& Entry) ' 2-Way Opticom Model M-521 bidirectional(2 each @ 3-M Opticom Co. $6,400.00 Detection System $3,200.) 714-454-2028 installed (Rick Massey) Knox Switches 2 each knox#"KS 2 DPDC"key Knox Co. $400.00 operated switches(fire/police entry) 714-252-8181 installed Alarm Call Box Call box;freeway type with phone General Telephone $1,000.00 ' freeway type (ring down)to Fire Dept.dispatch 310-483-6124 installed center (Gloria Beard) Emergency Generator Onan emergency generator 15 KW Penguin Engineering $20,000.00 ' natural gas/propane(model JQ 714-288-1780 installed includes 250 gal.transfer switch& (Dick Cortez) propane tank Natural gas line to Install natural gas line to generator (contractor as specified by $5,000.00 ' generator from gas company source(500' developer) estimated distance) Enclosure for 10'x 10'x 8'structure to house Contractor to be selected $3,000.00 ' generator&other generator,&other mechanical by developer equipment equipment;resistant to weather,fire, vandalism,knox lock on door. Electrical supply& Install electrical power to gate Contractor to be selected $5,000.00 installation system,lights,etc.;run power from by vendor power source(500'est.distance) Note: Due to proximity to a petroleum facility,all electrical equipment my need to be electrically classified for a Class 1,Division 2 area per the City Electrical Code. Thus,costs will be higher. Light poles&lights Install 6 City approved street lights (City Traffic Engineer) $12,000.00 as shown on concept drawing installed ' Traffic Bollards Flexible traffic bollards(as approved (City Traffic Engineer) $5,600.00 by HBPD)160 bollards needed $35.00 Misc.safety signs Various safety&warning signs as (City Traffic Engineer& $2,700.00 ' stipulated by City of Huntington HBPD) Beach(9 signs) Fence Gates: Install two 12'swing gates for Contractor to be selected $1,000.00 ' installation in fence;incl.knox lock by developer installed Subtotal: $87,600.00 Architect/ Provide detailed architectural To be selected by $8,760.00 engineering fees to renderings,engineering drawings, developer (10%) design system& obtain approvals&oversee work oversee work ' I I Estimated Total: $96,360.00 HR 505 Page 58 ' October 14,1994 1 Seapoint Extension Study --------------------- Aw Gate Maintenance, Repair, Replacement ' The following is a list of estimated ongoing operations and maintenance costs for the gate system. (Various estimates provided by Ray Orlando, of Public Works Maintenance ' Department, and Jim Hunt.) ' Weekly inspection &test: $60.00 week/$3,120 Replacement of miscellaneous arts: $600.00 annually Cleaning/painting of components: $350.00 annually ' Bollard repair/re lacement: $200.00 annually Replace actuators every 10 ears: $1,000.00 annually ' Replace generator every 20 ears: $1,000.00 annually Replace O ticom every 5 ears: $1,280.00 annually Replace miscellaneous damage: $1,200.00 annually vandalism/accident Emergency call box phone line lease: $600.00 annually ' Estimated Total Cost: $9,350.00 annually ' The maintenance and inspections would be done by the City Public Works Department. Repair would be done by qualified repair persons. ' A lighting and gate maintenance district should be considered, in order to provide ongoing funding for operation, maintenance repair, and replacement of the system. Sections 1920 and 1921, of the Streets & Highways Code, allow a city to require gates ' and gated streets to be maintained. In the event that the ongoing maintenance, repair, or replacement of gate components is not satisfactorily accomplished to approval of the Fire Department, the gate system and all appurtenances shall be removed forthwith,by the developer, at no cost to the City. HR 505 Page 59 ' October 14,1994 ' Seapoint Extension Study 1 A-S Construction Drawing --------------- HR 505 Page 60 ' October 14,1994 t4 3 THE CITY F 4 f-IL.IITIxNGTOh[:: B.EAC -i: . Map on File N ® m Seapoint Extension Study 1 A-7 Two Related Fire Department Memos 1 1 HR 505 Page 61 ' October 14,1994 1 Seapoint Extension Study ' J� IC CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 1p INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNUNCTO"MACH ' To Michael T. Uberuaga From Raymond C. Picfa _�// City Administrator Fire Chief ' Subject SEAPOINT CONNECTION/ Date May 30, 1990 CROSS-GAP CONNECTOR Recent decisions by the City Council to delay or possibly deny the extension of Seapoint from Garfield to Pacific Coast Highway leaves me with serious concerns for the ' protection of citizens in this area as well as protection for the City.as a whole. In the development of the City's Master Plan, a "Fire Hazard/Fire Protection Study" dated July 1974 (see attached) was undertaken to assure future protection of our citizens. ' This study formed the basic foundation for the fire protection that is in place today. Many of the shortfalls that were brought out in the study have been mitigated through sound planning with management, council, and citizen support. A few of these items are improved building and fire codes that require smoke detection systems in all residential ' occupancies, sprinkler protection in all new buildings over 5,000 square feet, a sophisticated 911 system that aids in reducing response times, a non-combustible roof ordinance, improved safety equipment for our firefighters, and relocation of Warner Fire Station. ' These improvements along with a partial Opticom system (changes traffic signal to green for Code 3 response) have maintained the level of protection to the City while reasonable growth was taking place. ' The Seacliff IV Development has stretched the fire department's ability to respond beyond acceptable limits. At present, there is only one (1) access to the development which is Palm Avenue. The response time under good conditions is in excess of our five (S) minute standard and in many cases in excess of nine (9) minutes. These developments are ' adjacent to oil production which increases the potential for an industrial accident such as a major fire or chemical release. Should this occur, the only egress and access for the citizens and fire department is Palm Avenue. Palm Avenue runs adjacent .to and down wind from the major oil production area. Citizen evacuation from this area will be greatly improved with the connection of Seapoint to both Garfield and Pacific Coast Highway. These streets are essential safety elements placed in the General Plan through analysis and with special intent. ' The fire protection study in 1974 called for a fire.station to be located at Talbert and the Cross-Gap Connector, with Bolsa Chica, Graham, Springdale, Talbert, -and Garfield intersecting the connector. This road system is vital to the protection of the Bolsa ' Chica/Holly-Seacliff, Seacliff IV, and all homes below Warner and west of Edwards. It is also equally important to the existing developments in the north/central and north/western sections of the City. This is the key interlink that ties the five (S) minute response system together for the entire City. 1 • HR 505 Page 62 ' October 14, 1994 Seapoint Extension Study SEAPOINT CONNECTION/ CROSS-GAP CONNECTOR May 30, 1990 Page 2 1 The fire department has placed conditions on the Seacliff Tract 13527(R) development ' that requires the connections of .Seapoint to Garfield before occupancy. This is to allow access to this development from our Gothard facility for fire and medical response. We have also conditioned the development of Tracts.14134 do 14135 to provide a temporary. fire station in the Bolsa Chica area to provide the level of service equal the standard received in other parts of our City; i.e., five(5) minutes eighty percent(80%) of the time. The entire fire/medical protection plan is based on good traffic flow, access and egress of all development, and mutual aid from other communities. All of these factors have been integrated into the General Plan. ' The fire protection study in 1974 stated that the development of the Bolsa Chica would create an imbalance of fire protection that would require a new fire station in the area of Talbert and Bolsa Chica (Cross-Gap Connector) within five (5) to ten (10) years. This new ' station would be coordinated with the move of Heil Station to Graham and Edinger to improve a deficiency in the Huntington Industrial Park and Huntington Harbour areas. This 1974 study and plan is still accurate with the conditions that exist today. ' From a fire/life safety standpoint, the fire department cannot support any future developments or the opening of the developments now under construction without the conditions placed on them being enforced. I request your strong support on these safety issues to assure a safe and well-planned community. RCP/TH/sr Attachment cc: Mike Adams,Community Development Director Richard Barnard, Deputy City Administrator ' Ron Lowenberg, Police Chief Lou Sandoval, Public Works Director Jim Vincent, Fire Marshal Fred Heller, Operations Officer ' Tom Huntley, Deputy Fire Marshal/Development 0380f ' ------ nro-------- - HR 505 Page 63 ' October 14, 1994 Seapoint Extension Study 1 • City of Huntington Beach a �- 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 FIRE DEPARTMENT I September 25, 1992 ' Mr. Tom Zanic, Vice President Urban West Communities 520 Broadway, Suite 100 ' Santa Monica, CA RE: SEAPOINT DRIVE EXTENSION - SOUTH TO PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY ' Dear Mr. Zanic: You have asked me to comment on the importance of the planned extension of Seapoint Drive south from Palm Avenue to Pacific Coast Highway. As conditioned, your approved projects, Surfcrest North and Surfcrest South, will each be responsible for constructing half of the ultimate street improvements of the Seapoint Drive extension, south. As we have previously stated, the connection of Palm Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway is necessary and critical for the Fire Department's response time to adequately deliver emergency service to the Seacliff area of the community. The roadway connection is also necessary to provide the occupants of the-Seacliff area with adequate egress routes should evacuation be necessary. If you have any further questions, please let me know. ' Sincerely, ' Michael P. Dolder Fire Chief MPD/sr c: Michael T. Uberuaga, City Administrator Mike Adams, Community Development Director Lou Sandoval, Public Works Director ' Ron Lowenberg, Police Chief Jim Vincent, Fire Marshal Tom Poe, Battalion Chief/Development ' b:zanic.1tr 1 HR 505 Page 64 October 14, 1994 Seapoint Extension Study ' A-8 Letter From Pollee Department to Consultant 1 1 HR 505 Page 65 October 14,1994 1 Seapoint Extension Study •�, CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 ' P.O. BOX 70 POLICE DEPARTMENT Tel: (714) 960-8811 RONALD E. LOWENBERG Chief of Police August 25, 1994 Hunt Research Corporation P.O. Box 291 Solvang, CA 93464 Dear Mr. Hunt: The police department supports the extension of Seapoint Drive to PCH. However, the proposed design restricts traffic to emergency use only. We prefer full access for all traffic since our primary ' justification for the extension is to provide an evacuation route in the event of an emergency and for improved traffic circulation for the growing numbers of residents in that area of the city. The combination of the Holly/Seacliff and Balsa Chica ' developments may add up to 25,000 residents in this area at build-out. This additional route will help to relieve potential traffic congestion on existing arterials. Also, calls for service are anticipated to increase with population in this area. Southbound police units responding to this area from PCH will reduce response time by a couple of minutes if Seapoint is open and unrestricted. If additional time is required to exit a police vehicle to unlock a gate while responding to an emergency, it will defeat much of the advantage of this access. ' Another consideration as yet unresolved is the possibility that a cross-gap connector will be constructed linking Balsa Chica with Garfield._ If this is approved, a fire and police substation is proposed near the intersection of Springdale and the Connector. In ' this event, a fully accessible extension of Seapoint will be critical for rapid deployment, particularly fire apparatus. This extension could prove invaluable in the event that an evacuation to the south or west from this region becomes necessary. ' Again, unrestricted access will be of critical importance. The proposed plan shows a narrowing of this access at the gate location. Allowing for two-way emergency vehicle traffic and one-way evacuation traffic may cause a bottleneck in this area defeating any advantage of 1 the extension. Sincerely, Ronal E. Lowenb rg, Chief of Police Lt. Bruce Kelly, Tr, fic Bureau Commander HR 505 Page 66 ' October 14, 1994 Sea point Extension Study y ' A-9 Excerpts from Conditions of Approval: Tracts 14134 & 14135 1 1 HR 505 Page 67 October 14,1994 Seapoiol Extension Study -------------------------- ,ONDITIONAL USE PER.._T NO. 89-62 WITH SPECIAL :-RMITS/ TENTATIVE t TRACT NO. 14134/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 89-39/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 89-52 - ' Page Seven ' (3) A landscaping plan shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works and Community Development for approval. Native bluff plant materials shall be utilized in the landscaping of the site where feasible. ' C. A grading plan shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and it must be approved (by issuance of a grading permit) . A plan for silt control for all water ' runoff from the property during construction and initial operation of the project may be required if deemed necessary by the Director of Public Works. d. Hydrology and hydraulic studies shall be submitted for ' Public works approval. e. All applicable Public Works fees shall be paid. ' f. Final Tract Map shall be accepted by the City Council, recorded with the Orange County Recorder and a copy filed with the Department of Community Development. ' g. An Affordable Housing Agreement to provide on-site affordable housing shall be submitted for review and approval by the Community Development Department and City Attorney and recorded with County Recorder's Office. The ' Agreement shall provide for minimum 20 percent of the housing units (23 units) on-site, or the equivalent number off-site within the City, for persons of low and moderate income households pursuant to Section 65590 of the Government Code. The Agreement shall be for assured affordability for the life of the project. h. Perimeter fencing plans for review and approval which depict decorative materials. ' i. The applicant shall work with the Department of Public Works to provide alternate routes for traffic during the construction phase, if necessary. Adequate signage shall be ' provided to warn motor vehicles, bicyclists and pedestrians of construction. 4. Fire Department Requirements are as follows: ' a. Automatic sprinkler systems shall be installed throughout the project to comply with Huntington Beach Fire Department and Uniform Building Code Standards. Shop drawings shall be ' submitted to and approved by the Fire Department prior to installation. 1 HR 505 Page 68 ' October 14, 1994 Seapoint Extension Study -------------------------- -------------- CONDITIONAL USE PER:­'T NO. 89-62 WITH SPECIAL 'kZRMITS/ TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 14134/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 89-39/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 89-52 Page Nine ' j . Street Names. Names of streets must be approved by the Huntington beach Fire Department prior to use. Attached is Fire Department Standard 409 . k. Submit to the Fire Department for approval a Fire Protection Play containing re quirements of Fire Department Specification # .LtLG ' 1. Provide a temporary fire station at the south end of Springdale or other location in the area as approved by the Fire Chief, prior to commencing combustible construction. ' M. Provide temporary paved roads for Fire Department access from temporary fire station to construction site. n. Participate in a funding mechanism for permanent fire station to be located on the cross gap connector. Temporary fire station costs as approved by the Fire Chief to be credited to the developer toward the costs of the permanent fire station. o. Should any abandoned oil wells or tanks be encountered, the Fire Department shall be notified and current standards met as required by Article 15 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. Any abandonment of existing wells must be to current standards as well. p. All oil facilities within the boundaries of the development which are to be removed and abandoned, reabandoned or to remain must meet all existing requirements of the City of Huntington Beach and the State Division of Oil and Gas. Further protective measures may be required, depending upon the conditions and quality of the abandonments and ' reabandonments. 5. The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Ordinance Code, Building Division, and Fire Department. ' 6. All building spoils, such as unusable lumber, wire, pipe, and other surplus or unusable material, shall be disposed of at an off-site facility equipped to handle them. 7. Installation of required landscaping and irrigation systems for the common areas adjacent to a building shall be completed' prior to occupancy of the building. ' 8. There shall be no outside storage of vehicles, vehicle parts, equipment or trailers. 1 ' Ili 505 Page 69 October 14, 1994 Seapoint Extension Study CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 89-62 WITH SPECIAL PERMITS/ TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 14134/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 89-39/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 89-52 Page Eleven ' 17. Should any cultural materials be encountered during the initial site survey or during grading and excavation activities, all activity shall cease and the archaeologist shall determine the ' appropriate course of action. IS. Should 'any human bone be encountered during any construction activities on the site, the archaeologist shall contact the coroner pursuant to Section 5097.98 and 5097.99 of the Public Resources Code relative to Native American Remains. Should the coroner determine the human remains to be Native American, .the Native American Heritage Commission shall be contacted pursuant to State Law SS 297. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - TENTATIVE TRACT 14134 : 1. The tentative tract map received and dated April 24, 1990, shall ' be the approved layout. 2. The applicant/property owner shall be responsible for dedicating land on-site for the proposed Linear Park at the time the final map is accepted by City Council or issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. 3. Public Works requirements are as follows: ' a. Prior to approval of the tentative maps, the security gate configurations shall be approved by the Public Works Department. Stacking, gates, booths, telephone location, etc. shall all be shown in detail. b. Developer shall participate in the proposed traffic impact fee program. ' C. Developer shall construct full street improvements for Seapoint Avenue within the tract boundary, including the installation of signal conduits at the intersection of Palm and Seapoint. The improvement plans shall reflect only one median opening on Seapoint (the westernmost) for project access. d. Developer shall be responsible for the following off-site traffic and street improvements: (1) Construction of Seapoint Avenue between the tract boundary and Pacific Coast Highway. ------------------------------------------------ 1 HR 505 Page 70 ' October 14, 1994 Seapoint Extension Study ' FILE, CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION ' To: Gabrielle Restivo, Planning Division ' From: Steve Parker, Fire Department Subject: SURFCREST NORTH TT 14135 ' Date: February 4, 1992 "Conditions of Approval" are as follows: 1. Automatic sprinkler systems will be installed throughout to comply with Huntington Beach Fire Department and Uniform Building Code Standards. Shop drawings,will be submitted to ' and approved by the Fire Department prior to installation. 2. A Class III wet standpipe system (combination) will be installed to comply with Huntington Beach Fire Department and Uniform Building Code Standards. Shop drawings will be ' submitted to and approved by the Fire Department prior to installation. 3. A fire alarm system will be installed to comply with Huntington Beach Fire Department and Uniform Building Code Standards. Shop drawings will be submitted to and approved by the Fire Department prior to installation. The system will provide the following: Manual Pulls Annunciation ' Water flow, valve tamper Audible Alarms &trouble detection Graphic Display 24 hour supervision Smoke Detectors ' 4. Fite extinguishers tittgutshers will be installed and located in areas to comply with Huntington Beach Fire Code Standards, 5. Fire hydrants shall be installed prior to combustible construction. Shop drawings will be submitted to the Public Works Department and approved by the Fire Department prior to installation. ' 6. Elevators will be sized to accommodate an ambulance gurney. Minimum 6'8" wide by 4'3" deep with minimum of 42" opening. ' 7. Fire lanes will be designated and posted to comply with City Specification#415. 8. Security gat= will be designed to comply with City Specification #403. -------------------------------- HR 505 Page 71 October 14,1994 Seapoint Extension Study SurfcrMst North-TT 14135 February 3, 1992 Page 2 9. Address numbers will be installed to comply with City Specification #428. The size of the ' numbers will be the following: The number for the building will be sized a minimum of ten inches with a brush stroke of one and one-half inches. Individual units will be sired a minimum of four inches with a brush stroke of one-half inch, ' 10. Installation or removal of underground flammable or combustible liquid storage tanks will comply with Orange County Environmental Health and Huntington Beach Fire Department requirements, 11. Fire access roads will be provided in compliance with the Huntington Beach Fire Code and City Specification#401. Include the circulation plan and dimensions of all access roads (24' or 27' fire lanes, turnarounds and 17' by 45' radius turns). 12. Names of streets must be approved by the Huntington Beach Fire Department prior to use. 13. Submit to the Huntington Beach Fire Department for approval a Fire Protection Plan containing requirements of Fire Department Specification #426. 14, The project will comply with all provisions of the Huntington Beach Fire Code and City Specification #422 and a431 for the abandonment of oil wells and site restoration, 15. The project will comply with all provisions of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code Title ' 17.04.085 and City Specification#429 for new construction within the methane gas overlay districts. 16, Developer shall construct roadway to connect Seapoint to Pacifio Coast Highway. A temporary paved emergency access roadway shall be completed prior to commencement of combustible construction. ' 17, Developer to provide funding for a temporary fire station facility at a site to be determined. Funding will occur with a minimum 90 days notice by the Fire Chief. This site for the temporary fine station will be acquired by the City. If you have any questions, please contact me at ext. 5566. SP/sr I i. The:+amrorery �irc: !�fa4torn . acillty i s not ii14rnded +c ' b:restivo.memr duplicate re.quirclre-nts corr+atlned w"-lh:n file �ofly-5eaci ------------------------------------------------- HR 505 Page 72 ' October 14, 1994 APPROVED By CITY COUNCIL 1 C FIR REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION Date: September 19, 1994 Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council Submitted by:Michael T.Uberuaga,City Administrat Prepared by: Ray Silver,Assistant City Administrator,Acting Director of Public Works -eU Subject: Seapoint Street Extension Noise Analysis Consistent with Council Policy? [XI Yes [ ] New Policy or Exception Statement of Issue,Recommendation,Analysis,Funding Source,Alternative Actions,Attachments: STATEMENT OF ISSUE: At the May 16, 1994 City Council meeting staff was directed to investigate the impacts of the potential deletion from the City's Circulation Element of Seapoint Street between Palm Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway. At the August 5, 1994 City Council Subcommittee meeting regarding the traffic impacts of the proposed Seapoint Street Extension, it became apparent that an analysis of the noise impacts of the proposed deletion must also be studied. The Subcommittee members directed staff to investigate the probable costs of the noise analysis and prepare a Request for Council Action for direction regarding the noise analysis. RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION: 1. Direct staff to hire an acoustical engineering consultant for a noise analysis of existing noise levels and develop probable noise levels for two future traffic volume scenarios on Seapoint Street between Chenyhill Lane, Palm Avenue between Seapoint Street and Golden West Street, and Golden West Street between Yorktown Avenue and Palm Avenue. 2. Authorize the expenditure of previously appropriated funds for the subject noise analysis. ANALYSIS: The City has retained the services of Robert Kahn, John Kain and Associates (RKJK) to perform traffic modeling services to determine the potential future traffic impacts of the proposed deletion of Seapoint Street between Palm Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway. Noise is a significant issue to the members of the Seacliff,'Seacliff on the Greens, and Beachwalk Homeowners Associations. This concern was made known to the City Council Subcommittee on the Seapoint Extension at the August 5, 1994 meeting of the Subcommittee. Following the discussion of the probable �� f Seapoint Street Extension Noise Study September 19, 1994 traffic impacts of the proposed deletion of Seapoint Street, the Subcommittee directed staff to investigate the cost of preparing a noise analysis of the two future traffic volume scenarios and measure the existing ambient noise levels at appropriate locations in the effected areas. The primary concern of the subcommittee is the potential for significant increases in ambient noise levels due to increased traffic along Seapoint Street, Palm Avenue, and Golden West Street. If Seapoint Street is deleted between Palm Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway, traffic volumes will increase along Golden West Street, for which the Seacliff and Beachwalk homeowners associations are concerned. If Seapoint Street is constructed between Palm Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway, Seacliff on the Greens Homeowners Association members are concerned about increased traffic volumes and resultant ambient noise level increases. Staff is proposing to have a consulting acoustical engineering firm perform measurements of existing indoor and outdoor noise levels on Golden West Street, Palm Avenue, and Seapoint Street to establish today's ambient noise levels. This will be necessary to determine what future noise levels may be for a particular Seapoint Street construction (or lack of construction) scenario and the resulting future traffic volumes near the effected homes. The acoustical engineering finm will also be directed to evaluate existing and future noise levels as they relate to current City of Huntington Beach and State of California noise level requirements. A consulting engineering firm must be retained for this noise study as city staff does not possess the expertise or equipment to perform a noise analysis. FUNDING SOURCE: Funding is available in Account No. E-AA-PW415-3-90-00 to perform the noise analysis. The funds available in this account were previously appropriated by Council to prepare the traffic analysis of the proposed Seapoint Street Extension Deletion, and sufficient funds remain from this appropriation to retain a consulting acoustical engineering firm for the proposed noise analysis. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: This study is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act, §15061(b)(3), which states that projects that have no potential significant impact on the environment are exempt. This study would determine (through non-destructive or non-intrusive means)the existing noise levels in the study area. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Do not perform the proposed noise analysis. This would leave questions regarding future noise impacts of any Seapoint Street scenarios unanswered and may have future effects on any possible Environmental Impact Report prepared for a given construction scenario. g:/otterson/letters/noise.doc 3 r Seapoint Street Extension Noise Study September 19, 1994 2. Direct staff to perform the noise analysis for the Seapoint Street Extension scenarios as outlined. This will delay the completion of the study as staff procures equipment and experience in the field of acoustical engineering. 3. Provide staff with direction regarding the Council's preferred method of performing the noise analysis of the various Seapoint Street Extension scenarios. ATTACHMENTS: None MTU:RRS:REE:JDO.jdo g:/otterson/lettem/noise.doc Q - J r SEACLIFF ON - ,'HE GREENS `_ /_ Tv A. W. DE LORM Club Series Homeowners Assoc!affon President HONORABLE MAYOR, MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL & MEMBERS OF THE STAFF REFERENCE ITEM E-19 On behalf of the members of the Seacliff Co4lition, we strongly urge the approval and expendture to hire an acoustical consultant, to analyze the adverse impact of noise polutiion resulting from increased levels of traffic from the proposed extention of Seapoint to the Pacific Coast Highway. Architecture facing Seapoint & Palm was not designed to withstand the sound pollution of a primary artery. Compare architectural design of homes facing primary arteries throughout Huntington Beach such as Brookhusrt, Bushard, Magnolia, Newland & Goldenwest versus Seapoint and Palm. Seapoint & Palm homes are just 25 feet away from the street, protected by no more than wrought iron fencing, and the building exposure is made up of over 73% single pane glass. Compare this to the architecture of the streets cited above; here the homes are oriented away from the street facing inward, with eight foot cement block sound barriers shielding the homes from the heavy traffic on the streets. THE SOUND POLLUTION RESULTING FROM THE ILL CONCEIVED EXTENTION OF SEAPOINT TO PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY WILL DESTROY THE QUALITY OF LIFE HERE IN SEACLIFF. REFERENCE F-1 The members of the Seacliff Coalition are adamantly against the preservation of any portion of the Gas Plant as historiclly insignificant as well as esthetically unattractive, contributing nothing to the elements set forth for the Regional Park. THANK YOU FOR YOU CONSIDERATION. RECEIVED FROM ��^' '" AND MADE A PART OF THE RECORD AT THE COUNCIL MEETING OF OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CONME BRO&WAY,CITY CLERK -- bAVC C 19263 Archtield Circle, Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Phone: (714) 969-4134 Fax: (714) 536-4777 REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION Date: May 16, 1994 Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council Me LbersSubmitted by: Michael T. Uberuaga, City Administrat Prepared by: Melanie Fallon, Director of Comm velopment Ron Lowenberg, Chief of Police V Michael Dolder, Fire Chief Lou Sandoval, Director of Public Works Subject: SEAPOINT STREET STUDY Consistent with Council Policy? [XI Yes [ ] New Policy or Exception Statement of Issue,Recommendation,� •V An si;,Funding Source,Alternative Actions,Attachments: a� TS STATEMENT OF ISS : As directed by the City Council on April 4, 1994,the Department of Community Development, in cooperation with the City Attorney, Fire, Police and Public Works Departments, has prepared additional information regarding deleting the currently adopted segment of Seapoint Street between Palm Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway for public access. The additional information addresses contractual obligations which has been prepared by the City Attorney. The Community Development Department has prepared additional information regarding land use, coastal and circulation impacts associated with prohibiting public access on Seapoint Avenue between Palm Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway. The Public Works Department has prepared an interim access plan(Attachment 4)which could provide emergency access only from the southern terminus of Seapoint Street to Pacific Coast Highway. The Fire Chief has prepared additional information regarding the interim emergency access plan. RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: "Retain Seapoint Street as a primary arterial highway as designated in the City's General Plan and the County's Master Plan of Arterial Highways." � I ANALYSIS: Contractual Obligations On April 4, 1994,the City Council continued the Seapoint Street Study and directed staff to provide additional information regarding any contractual obligations relating to prohibiting public access on Seapoint Street between Palm Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway. City imposed conditions of approval for Tentative Tract Nos. 14134 and 14135 require Seapoint Street to be completed for public and emergency access from Palm Avenue to Pacific Coast Highway. The City Attorney has prepared an opinion(attachment 1)which states that the property owner must agree to the removal of a condition on a recorded tract map. On April 18, 1994, Seacliff Partners transmitted a letter to Mayor Linda Moulton-Patterson which provides very definitive opposition regarding the deletion of public access on Seapoint Street from Palm Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway(attachment 2). The City Attorney has also prepared an opinion as to whether deleting public access from the Seapoint Street segment between Palm Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway is consistent with the Holly Seacliff Development Agreement No. 90-1. Development Agreement No. 90-1 was approved by the City Council on November 25, 1990 and is a contract with Seacliff Partners and the City. In order to delete the Seapoint Street segment between Palm Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway from the City's Master plan of Arterial Streets and Highways,the City should initiate a General Plan Amendment to the Circulation Element. Land Use Impacts As discussed in the March 7, 1994 Report to City Council (attachment 3), deleting public access on Seapoint Street between Palm Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway will require various amendments to the City's General Plan. Section 65300.5 of the Government Code requires the City's General Plan to be internally consistent. In other words, each Element(Land Use, Circulation, Safety, etc.) of the General Plan must be consistent with each of the mandatory seven(7) Elements. In addition to internal consistency,the City's General Plan must be consistent with Federal, State (Coastal Act of 1976) and Regional Planning (Growth Management Plan, Orange County Master plan of Arterial Streets and Highways, Congestion Management Plan, etc.)mandates. For example,to delete public access on Seapoint Street from Palm Avenue to Pacific Coast Highway, the proper process would require a General Plan Amendment to the City's Circulation Element. The proposed amendment would require examining land use impacts, safety and access impacts and possible fiscal impacts to the City. Since this portion of Seapoint Street is located in the City's Coastal Zone, any proposed amendment would also require a Local Coastal Program amendment which is subject to California Coastal Commission approval. The County would need to also review any proposed amendments for consistency with County policies and adopted plans. seapoint general holly 05/09/94 2 Land use is directly affected by the traffic capacities and congestion levels of the existing, approved circulation system. If streets or segments of streets are removed from the City's circulation system,the congestion levels on surrounding streets will increase as travelers take alternative routes. In essence, the removal of portions of the circulation system may create a significant negative impact on other areas of the City. Currently, projections of the existing General Plan densities at maximum build out indicate that many intersections and roadway segments, as they exist today, will be at a critical level of service by the year 2010. The projections for residential, commercial and industrial build out are based upon the existing, approved circulation system and existing development standards. The General Plan Advisory Committee has been reviewing staff s work on the forthcoming General Plan Update and has been discussing the relationship of land use densities and circulation. The Committee has reviewed and voted on a number of land use designations throughout the City based on a traffic model which assumes the Seapoint Street segment will provide public access to Pacific Coast Highway. A revision to the existing circulation system will impact existing circulation patterns and may require a subsequent review of some of the General Plan Update Committee's work. As an alternative to an amendment to the City's Circulation Element of the General Plan, the City Council could direct staff to prepare a focused study, as outlined in the March 7, 1994 Report to City Council (attachment 3), which would focus on retaining the segment of Seapoint Street as identified on the adopted Master plan of Arterial Streets and Highways and analyze the traffic impacts of not improving the Seapoint Street segment to primary arterial street width and postpone public access. Preliminary traffic studies indicate that the estimated vehicular trips anticipated for Seapoint Street would be shifted to Golden West Street. Staff, in the numerous reports which culminated with the March 7, 1994 report to City Council, has repeatedly expressed the need to complete Seapoint Street for public and emergency access. In order to conduct the focused traffic study,the City Council could direct staff to initiate the focused study and appropriate the funds to cover the associated costs. The Fire Department has indicated that the estimated cost of the study should be increased from$23,341 to $33,341 ($10,000 increase). Interim Emergency Access Plan As directed by the City Council on April 4, 1994, staff has prepared an interim emergency access plan for Seapoint Street between Pacific Coast Highway and the southwestern edge of Tract Nos. 14134 and 14135 (attachment 4). The layout has been reviewed by the Fire (Attachment No. 5) and Police Departments and the City's Traffic Engineer for technical requirements. In lieu of full street improvements for public access,the interim plan provides adequate emergency access which should not be considered permanent. Environmental Status: Retaining the Seapoint Street segment between Palm Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway does not constitute a project and is not subject to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. The deletion of the Seapoint Street segment will require an amendment to the City's seapoint general holly 05/09/94 3 certified Circulation Element which is a portion of the General Plan and Local Coastal Program. An amendment will require further environmental study which will probably require an environmental impact report. FUNDING SOURCE: Funds necessary for staff to initiate an amendment to the City's Circulation Element have not been allocated in the approved FY 1993/94 Budget. ALTERNATIVE ACTION: Motion to: A. "Direct staff to initiate an amendment to the City' Circulation Element to delete the Seapoint Street segment from Pacific Coast Highway to Palm Avenue from the City's Master plan of Arterial Streets and Highways and appropriate funds to accomplish the task." or B. "Direct staff to initiate a focused study which will analyze prohibiting public access on Seapoint Street from Pacific Coast Highway to the southwestern edge of Tract Nos. 14134 and 14135 as outlined in the Report to City Council dated March 7, 1994, design a long term public safety access road, and appropriate$33,341 from the General Fund balance to accomplish this task." ATTACHMENTS: 1. Legal Opinion dated April 29, 1994 prepared by the City Attorney 2. Seacliff Partners letter to the Mayor dated April 18, 1994. 3. City Council Report dated March 7, 1994. 4. Interim Emergency Access Plan dated April 20, 1994 prepared by Public Works. 5. Memo from Fire Department dated April 25, 1994 MTU:MF:RLF:lp seapoint general holly 05/09/94 4 CITY OF HUNTINGTON . BEACH Leo" INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION MWINGTON BEACH TO: Honorable Linda Moulton-Patterson,Mayor, and Members of the City Council FROM: Gail Hutton, City Attorney DATE: April 29, 1994 SUBJECT: Seapoint Street RLS 94-215, 94-219, 94-249 1. BACKGROUND As we understand the facts, Seapoint Street is proposed to extend south from Palm Avenue to Pacific Coast Highway. The extension of Seapoint has been a basic assumption of every major planning decision concerning south/central Huntington Beach over the last 15 years. Seapoint is proposed as a primary arterial highway,with capacity of approximately 30,000 trips per day. It has now been suggested that the Seapopint Street extension be abandoned or limited; this memo is intended to discuss some of the legal implications of not extending Seapoint. Two questions have been posed. - 1. Q. Can the extensions of Seapoint be deleted from the final tract maps (T714134, 14135)? A. Probably not. 2. Q. Does deletion of Seapoint violate the Holly Seacliff Development Agreement? A. No. 2. MAP ACT The extension of Seapoint is a condition on two Tract Maps; one phase of one map has been recorded. These conditions should be removed from the maps if Seapoint is not to be extended. The Government Code provides a method for modifying a final map. The amendment of a final map is a complex and difficult undertaking, and should not be commenced without serious deliberation. 4\s\0pin:Seapoint\04/29/94 Mayor and Members of the City Council April 29, 1994 Page 2 To amend a recorded final map,the City must first adopt an enabling ordinance which allows,the modification of final maps. (Government Code § 66472.1) The city must then hold a public hearing and make certain findings as specified by the Government Code. (H) Except for minor amendments to correct measurement or descriptive errors,a recorded final map may only be amended if the city finds that: (a) Changed circumstances make any or all map conditions no longer appropriate or necessary;and (b) The modifications do not impose an additional burden on the existing fee owner; and (c) The modifications do not alter any right,title,or interest in the property shown on the recorded map; and (d) The modified map does not contain any of the grounds for denying a map under Government Code § 66474. (Government Code § 66472.1; Curtain and Merritt, California Subdivision Map Act Practice, Sections 7.36 to 7.39.) While it is legally possible to amend a recorded map,it appears unlikely that the City would be able to make the factual findings required by the statute. There do not appear to be any facts to support the finding of changed circumstances since the approval of the map. Finally,a modification that deletes a primary arterial highway from public use will almost certainly require additional environmental review. 3. CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS The non-extension of Seapoint will not breach any contractual obligations. Specifically, the failure to complete Seapoint will not breach the Holly-Seacliff Development Agreement. The Development Agreement contains no express obligation on either party as to the completion of Seapoint. 4\s\Opin:Seapoint\04/29/94 Mayor and Members of the City Council April 29, 1994 Page 3 4. HOLLY SEACLIFF EIR-MITIGATION MEASURE The completion of Seapoint was contemplated by the parties when the Development Agreement was negotiated. The Holly-Seacliff final Environmental Impact Report No. 89-1 (EIR)clearly identifies the Seapoint extension. (See City of Huntington Beach Circulation Plan, Exhibit 21 to Holly-Seacliff EIR.) The City identifies it as a"primary arterial, as does the County Master Plan of Arterial Highways. The consequence of not completing Seapoint,as to the Holly-Seacliff Development Agreement, is not that the Agreement will be breached,but rather,that the Agreement itself will have lost one of its major underpinnings. Amajor traffic i=act mitigation will have been removed, leaving unmitigated impacts. As a result,the sufficiency of the EIR itself will be suspect, since the traffic circulation impacts and mitigations identified therein are based on the extension of Seapoint. The EIR may therefore be rendered inadequate by the deletion of Seapoint. 5. VESTED RIGHTS The developer obtains various vested rights under a tract map. If the developer does not consent to the deletion, consideration needs to be given to the extent of vesting and the impact on development rights. 6. OTHER NECESSARY ACTIONS In addition to the ramifications listed above,there are several other items that need to be addressed if Seapoint is not extended. a. The General Plan. The City's General Plan identifies Seapoint, as extended, as a primary arterial highway. ( et Huntington Beach General Plan, Circulation Element,p. 57) If Seapoint is not extended, several elements of the General Plan would have to be amended. Planning Staff has identified these elements in their report. These amendments would require additional environmental study and review. b. County of Orange Master Plan of Arterial Highways. The County's Master Plan of Arterial Highways also designates Seapoint as a primary arterial highway., The non-extension of Seapoint will conflict with the County's Plan. The consequences of the conflict include the possible loss of County funding for street projects,which could be a significant loss in terms of total infrastructure funding. 4\s\Opin:Seapoint\04/29/94 y � Mayor and Members of the City Council April 29, 1994 Page 4 . .c. Police and Fire Response Times. In various public documents, including the Growth Management Policy,the City has adopted goals and standards relating to emergency services and response times. The non-extension of Seapoint will negatively impact the adopted goals and standards for response times, and they will need to be re-analyzed for possible revision. 7. CONCLUSION As discussed herein,the non-extension of Seapoint will have many legal ramifications. These include: The difficult, and probably unfruitful, attempt to amend recorded final maps;the need to process amendments to several elements of the General Plan;non-compliance with the County's Master Plan of Arterial Highways;vested rights to developer; and other implications as identified above. i We recommend that the Council fully consider the legal issues discussed herein before embarking on the complex and difficult process of undoing nearly two decades of planning decisions and approvals concerning the extension of Seapoint Street. GAIL HUTTON City Attorney c: Michael T. Uberuaga, City Administrator Melanie Fallon, Director of Community Development Lou Sandoval,Director of Public Works 4\s\Opi n:Seapoint\04/29/94 FROM URBAN*WEST*i_-OMM* ' PHONE NO. 310 394 3379 Apr. 19 1994 10:32AM P1 7,C41k.4-rta ( V dV Seadiff Paivers April 18, 1994 i ton-Pat tararon yovon- Ti-irida AIL ul CA 92646 pe? Ex toil gsl on r!' APR L, 1994�lQ D9 "U -Fatcersont 2tan i 0/v COL.Nck OFF, �ACH ICE 4, 1994, the City Council directed staff to prepare an analysis of the '�h.ftrh would result from the City'o fAilUrtl tA ooiV. Iete �h4. e'Instruction. of Scapolne. Street fram Palm Avenue to 'Che Pacific Coast Highway, .'.& 15aA7kyround, �vai-irecvlon of Seapoint Street (historically called 38th ,Street) Lo Pacific -;4t J-; ,7. hjjway beer) a parr of the Circulation Element of the City's General Pl& s_'nc!e- Inq cdopt;Jcin in P,3ceid)er 1976. SeaPOInt Street Is designated as a 'c.""ma V �Irt'lrxa" .-& fom1-r_Unr,,i divided highway with a 1&ridi median and r>qkl- t ;'i '.Yol Y" -- beel"Wean Carfleld Avenue and Pacific Cv4— Highway with oapacity o'l, 30'em? Vlhicles Per day. . It is also desifmated as a Zocal -onte In tv­ h tjio Scenic Highways and Coastal. Slami?nts of the city,s Y :ran. Tile Coastal Element also Identifies the extension of SoN-Vint Of the Citt 's circulation system, nodded to 'vc-cest3. w coa,&tal resources, ';ii-aol"ff Partners, the developer of the $ur:0cr&-st and Ocaanox-est Nilleve that VJ10 Cl'tY should consider the Jqp&ots Lhe exi"Cension of Seapoint Street. we believe those be detrlzentAl to the Public health ap.d safety, adversely affect 'pl.fhl ,c era."fyr&' Violate nwnerous conditions used by the City on Seecliff projects, and breach the dolly Seacliff Development Agream-,,nt between C.;.Cj? and Sea riff. Partziers. As noted above, there are a number of reasons why the extension of Seapoint Street should be completed, First, failure to complete the extension of Seapoint Street would be dangerous to the public health and safety. The Council already has before it memoranda prepared by representatives of the City's Fire and Police DeparMents. Both Departments agree that the failure to complete the extension of Sea ant Street'Po would increase response time and, as a result, decrease the Department's ability to provide vital public safety seMce$ to those who Will live in the .9urforest 520 SWL(-- 100, Santa MoniCit, CA Q0401 (310) 304-3370 Fzix (310) 391-6872 2 3 Coq)oi-,itc P1.11R 1; (711-) 721-9777 Nix (714) 729-12111, FROM UREAN*WEST*COMM** PHONE NO. 310 794 3379 Apr. 18 1994 10:33AM P2 to � Mayor Moulton-Parterson Apl-11 18, 1994 Page 2 and Oceancrest projects, as well as existing developments in the Seacliff area. The Staff Report: dated tiarch 7, 1994, 6UMAWi 9 LIF, the. situation when it stateds "The Seapoint Street extension is an integral part of the fire and emergency medical protection plan for the future of Surferest and the OceanGrest developments. . . " "The Police Department considers the Seapoint Street extension to be of vital importance to providing sufficient access for patrolling and emergency response." (Staff Report at 2. ) Second, the failure to coMplete the extension of Seapoint Street will adversely affect the public welfare. A failure to complete the extension of .Seapoint Street would result: in the- d4version of traffic to already lheavily travelled streer_s within the City. ". . .eliminating this segment of Seapoint Street [between Palm Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway) will have a negative impact on traffic (:irculation. . . especially on Golden West Streit between Gartiold Avenue and Pacific (;oast Highway.'" (M4smoraiidum dated December 17, 1993, from Jim Otterson to ;Oteve May; attachment 7 to the staff Report. ) Third, failure to complete the extension of Seapoint Street will violate numerous conditions imposed by the City on Seacliff Partners' approved projects now under construction. Condition No. 3 Impo,ed at the time of the City's approval Of Tentative Tract 14134 requlred Seacliff Partners to improve Seapoint Street within the Tract and "between the Tract boundary and Pacific Coast Highway, " A similar condition was imposed on Tentative Tract 14135. In order to satisfy there conditions, Seacliff Partners has already completed the construction of Seapoint Street from Doral Drive north to Garfield Avenue and has spent approximately $500,W0 in the preparation of street: Jgprotrement pans and the relocation of the Shell Oil Company's pipelines which run under the extension of Seapoint Street. Those funds were expended only because of the Imposition of the extension conditions and with the City's full knowledge. Fourth, failure to complete the extension of Seapoint ,street will breach the Development Agreement between the City and Seacliff Partners. The development FROM URBAN*WEST*COMM** PHONE NO. 310 394 3379 Apr. 18 1994 10:34AM P3 L lisyvr �lnial f:orr-�'attarson April 18, 1994 !'hde 3 of the Hol Ly- SeACllff area is governed by the provisions of Environmet:tal Impact Repoit 89•-1 and the Holly Seacliff Specific Flan which are incorporated into the Development Agreement entered .into between the City and Seacliff Partners. The extension of Seapoint Street was Identified as a significant component of the of the traffic in the EIR, and is required to fully mitigate the ,,-+r• ljlect. 's and (-'ity cumulative traffic Impacts. '!her:atur&' ,".lt•Y`s approvals of existing developments and future developments subject to the Specific Plan and protected by the Development Agreement rortai4)latFd the extension of Seapoint Street and the traffic mitigation and other bctnefits associated t+►.ith that extension. A failure to complete the ekcens:lou, ;r;uld not only be In direct conflict with adopted City Circulation and Local Coa:t;a.l Program policies and approved project conditions, but would also Impose additlonal direct and indirect costs on -508cliff Partners which would for co it: 4•a ,^7ek to recover those costs from the City, wi of. Seapoint Street is not corpleted, the impact, a� t7rJQad &bOve1� `. .-a threaten the safety of those who now.. and in the future, will live in Sur..fax-est and OceancrLiRt projects ;-tid will also substantially Increase the =ter; :;X L' 01, 0 and c-ongosr..lon '41 t h i n th,,' L-1 t.}.• which would be de l>owt e�Xi�,CYr. ajid f-ur..ure ,'exNidents :a.-; gall as being tg v of the Di9velol-vinent Agreement. For all the t=orrgoing reasonw, Seacliff Partners contends Chat the City should - indeeti Is obligorpl ro - go .foa.-wat•d `,';th of Seapoint Streer. S !icer illy, WIA01J..PF PARTATaRS By, New t,7l'ban We,-t., Inc. Tom z4il i c vice President rc► members of City Coun-11. H. Uberuaga R. Silver Y, Fallon G. Hutton U. Dolder L. Sandoval R. Lowenberg REQIUrST FOR CITY COUNCu, ACTION �o Date: March 7, 1994 Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council Aaid, t Submitted by: Michael T. Uberuaga, City AdministratorVl I c �� At- Prepared by: # uis F. Sandoval, Director of Public Works *V% . Ronald E. Lowenberg, Chief of Police Michael P. Dolder, Fire Chief Subject: SEAPOINT STREET EXTENSION STUDY Consistent with Council Policy? [XI Yes ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------=---7------------------------------------------------- Statement of Issue,Recommended Action,Analysis,.Funding Source,Environmental Status,Alternative Action,Attachments: - ------------------------------- -Ab STATEMENT OF ISSUE: At the request of the City Council, the Department of Public Works, along with the Police Department and the Fire Department, has prepared a preliminary study of the impacts of eliminating the previously approved extension of Seapoint Street from Palm Avenue to Pacific Coast Highway. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Accept the Staff recommendation to proceed with the previously approved extension of Seapoint Street from Palm Avenue to Pacific Coast Highway. ANALYSIS: Introduction: Staff has prepared a preliminary study of the impacts of eliminating the approved extension of Seapoint Street from Palm Avenue to Pacific Coast Highway (PCH), as directed by the City Council. Based on the findings of the preliminary study, elimination of the Seapoint Street extension is not recommended. The bases for this conclusion and recommendation are presented in the following subsections. Specific action steps necessary to accomplish the elimination of the Seapoint Street extension are presented in the "Alternative Action" Section. A summary of the procedural steps that would be required in order to eliminate the Seapoint Street extension is as follows: 1. Project Study Report by Staff. 2. Agreement with Seacliff Partners to amend recorded tract map. 3. Modification of conditions of approval for tentative tracts 14314 and 14315. p Request for City Council Action Seapoint Street Extension Study March 7, 1994 Page 2 of 6 4. Environmental impact report. 5. Amendments to Coastal Element, Circulation Element, Scenic Highways Element and Growth Management Element of General Plan. 6. Amend County Master Plan of Arterial Highways. Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Service Impacts of Eliminating the Seapoint Street Extension: The Seapoint Street extension is an integral part of the fire and emergency medical protection plan for the future Surfcrest and Oceancrest developments, as well as for the Holly Seacliff Specific Plan area. Mitigation measures required for development of the Holly Seacliff area are included as developer obligations in the Holly Seacliff Development Agreement.Those mitigation measures were based on the presumption that the Seapoint Street extension would be completed, and without the Seapoint Street extension these mitigation measures are not adequate. In order to adhere to policies contained in the City's Growth Management Policy and in the Insurance Services Office's Fire Suppression Rating Schedule #560, in providing fire protection to these areas, the Seapoint Street extension is needed. Details of the impacts to fire protection and emergency medical service are contained in a memorandum from Michael P: Dolder to Steve May, dated December 17, 1993 (Attachment 2). Police Service Impacts of Eliminatingthe a Seapoint Street Extension: The Police Department considers the Seapoint Street extension to be of vital importance to providing efficient access for patrolling and emergency response. The Seapoint Street extension will reduce the travel distance from PCH to the Surfcrest/Seapoint area by three miles, and will provide for shorter response times for Police units in either area responding to the other area. The extension will also provide an additional escape route in the event of natural disaster. Details of the impacts to Police service are contained in memoranda from G. Meza to E. Mc Erlain, dated February 2, 1994 (Attachment 3), and from B. Kelly to Steve May, dated December 16, 1993 (Attachment 4). Traffic Impacts of Eliminating the Seapoint Street Extension: Elimination of the Seapoint Street extension would reduce traffic on the segment of Seapoint Street from Palm to Garfield, at ultimate build-out. However, there would be increased traffic on Palm Avenue and Goldenwest Street. Projected traffic volume on Goldenwest Street would be between 40,000 and 45,000 vehicles per day, which would result in a level of service of C or D. Elimination of the Cross Gap Connector, which is a possibility, would likely result in level of service D on Goldenwest Street. The increased traffic on Goldenwest Street would also increase response times for Police and Fire Services. Request for City Council Actiwi RECEIVED Seapoint Street Extension Study r±TY CLERK March 7, 1994 HUNTING CITY �OF., Page 3 of 6 NR s OE Ail g9q Land Plannine Issues: Tle'-,extension of Seapoint Street is included as a primary arterial highway in the County Master Plan,of Arterial Highways and the City's Circulation and Coastal Elements of the General Plan. It is also designated as a local scenic route in both the Scenic Highways and Coastal Elements of the City's General Plan. Elimination of the Seapoint Street extension would require amendments to the County Master Plan of Arterial Highways and the City's General Plan. A precise alignment of Seapoint Street between Garfield Avenue and PCH was adopted by the City Council on July 16, 1990. An appeal of the City's approval of the alignment and construction project was filed with the California Coastal Commission and denied by the Commission on September 12, 1990. Construction of the Seapoint Street extension is also included in. conditions of approval of Tentative Tract No. 14134 and Tentative Tract No. 14135. One final map has already been recorded on Tentative Tract No. 14134. Elimination of the Seapoint Street extension would require modification of the conditions of approval for both tentative tracts, and would require an agreement with the owner of the recorded tract, Seacliff Partners. Modified conditions of approval must include acceptable mitigation for impacts on public safety response and emergency egress, in accordance with the City's Growth Management Policy. Current Status of Construction of The Seapoint Street Extension: In compliance with the above planning directives, Seacliff-Partners has expended approximately $179,000 for design, preliminary grading, right-of-way acquisition and utilities relocations for the Seapoint Street extension. Most of this cost is reimbursable to Seacliff Partners from the City's Traffic Impact Fund. Utility relocations now in progress are scheduled to coincide with planned Shell Oil shutdowns so that Shell Oil's operations will not be effected by the utility relocations. If utility relocations were halted by Council action, .then the cost of those utility relocations, if done at another time, could be increased by $100,000 to $200,000 due to impacts on Shell Oil operations. The total construction cost to complete the Seapoint Street segment is estimated to be $1,440,000. - Conclusion: The benefits of eliminating the extension of Seapoint Street from Palm Avenue to PCH. are outweighed by the negative impacts to Fire and Emergency Services response capabilities, Police response capabilities, emergency ingress and egress in the event of natural disaster, scenic highway, and traffic impacts to Palm Avenue and Goldenwest Street. Therefore, Staff recommends that the previously approved extension of Seapoint Street be completed as planned and initiated. Request for City Council Actiun - Seapoint Street Extension Study March 7, 1994 Page 4 of 6 ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS Recommended Action: The Recommended Action does not constitute a "project" as defined by Cal. Gov. Code, Section 1537 , and is not subject to provisions of CEQA. Alternative Action: The alternative action does not constitute a "project" and is not subject to provisions of CEQA. However, the objective of the alternative action would be to proceed with elimination of the Seapoint Extension; that subsequent action would require the preparation of an environmental impact report. FUNDING SOURCE: Recommended Action: No funds are required. Alternative Action: Funds for. consultant costs are available in the unreserved, undesignated Traffic Impact Fund and General Fund; This item is not budgeted. Staff costs are included in the approved FY 1993/94 Budget. ALTERNATIVE ACTION: 1. Approve an amendment to the current year budget by appropriating $19,000 for consultant costs involved in the preparation of a traffic model and evaluation of public safety impacts of the elimination of the extension of Seapoint Street from Palm Avenue to Pacific Coast Highway. AND, 2. Direct Staff to proceed with a Phase 1 Program for The Deletion of The Seapoint Street Extension, and to prepare a project study report of the elimination of the extension of Seapoint Street from Palm Avenue to Pacific Coast Highway. Discussion: Elimination of the previously approved Seapoint Street extension would be accomplished in two steps, outlined as follows: Request for City Council Action Seapoint Street Extension Study March 7, 1994 Page 5 of 6 1. Phase 1 Program for the Deletion of The Seapoint Street Extension. This phase would .involve preparation of a project study report which would include a more detailed ,analysis of impacts, procedures and costs of the proposal. The "Alternative Action" 'above includes direction to proceed with this Phase 1 Program. The proposed scope of work, schedule and cost estimate for this Phase 1 Program are presented in sections below. 2. Phase 2 Program for the Deletion of The Seapoint Street Extension. Upon approval of the project study report by the City Council, and upon Council approval of additional expenditures to be specified in the project study report, the action steps necessary to delete the Seapoint Street extension from the City's General Plan and the County's Master Plan of Arterial Highways would be carried out. A request for authorization to proceed with the Phase 2 Program would be presented to the City Council on June 6, 1994, or soon thereafter. Scope of Work for Preparation of A Preliminary Study Report: 1. Prepare Consultant Contracts: Staff will prepare consultant contracts for preparations of a traffic model and evaluation of public safety impacts of the elimination of the Seapoint Street extension from Palm Avenue to PCH. 2. Prepare Traffic Model and Public Safety Impact Analysis: The City's consultant, Robert ;Kahn, John Kain Associates, will prepare a traffic model of traffic conditions without <';the Seapoint Street extension from Palm Avenue to PCH, and a public safety consultant will analyze impacts to Fire Department and Police Department service capabilities. 3. Prepare Project Study Report: Staff will prepare a project study report to the City Council which will identify the following items for the proposed elimination of the extension of Seapoint Street from Palm Avenue to PCH: a. Fire protection and emergency medical service impacts. b. Police service impacts. c. Traffic impacts. d. Growth Management Plan mitigation measures. e. Procedural outline. f. Phase 2 Program costs. 4. Prepare and Agendize RCA: Staff will prepare an RCA with findings and recommendations. Request for City Council Act..,,i Seapoint Street Extension Study March 7, 1994 Page 6 of 6 Schedule for Preparation of A Preliminary Study Report: Based om'the following time allocations, a project study report could be presented to the City Council on�3_tW 6' 1994 without significantly impacting previously approved staff tasking. �y , 1. Prepare consultant contract amendment: 1 weeks 2. Prepare traffic model (consultant): 3 weeks 3. Prepare Preliminary Study Report: 6 weeks 4. Prepare and agendize RCA: 1 weeks TOTAL TIME ALLOWANCE = 11 WEEKS Cost Estimate for Preparation of A Preliminary Study Report: 1. Consultant Cost = $19,000 2. Staff Cost = $ 4,141 (see attached Breakdown of Costs) 3. Expenses = 200 (see attached Breakdown of Costs) TOTAL PHASE 1 COST = $23,341 ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location Map 2. Memo from Michael P. Dolder (Fire Dept.), dated December 17, 1993 3. Memo from G. Meza (Police Dept.), dated February 2, 1994 4. Memo from B. Kelly (Police Dept.), dated December 16, 1993 5. Breakdown of costs for the Phase 1 Program - - -, dated February 18; 1994 6. Fiscal Impact Study 7. Memo from Jim Otterson (Engineering Div.), dated December 17, 1993 SWM:swm \may\= pt.oz t_ _g OCEA NCREST 01�� (Tontat i ve Tract 14135) Pp t RACT BOUNDARY C2 EMERGENCY r \ ACCESS ROAD X ,r GATE 61 4 SURFCREST SECTION X—X Y (TentatiVe Tract 14134) "9 \ . TRACT BOUNDARY OA T E PCH a REVISIONS REFERENCES SteveMay - SEA POI N T J T . - ------_ EMERGENCY ACCESS CONCEPT CITY OF.H„UN a1NGTON BEACH t CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH TO: Robert Franklin APR 2 6 1994 FROM: Howard Hubert, Deputy Fire Marshal DATE: April 25, 1994 SUBJECT: SEAPOINT AVENUE EXTENSION TO PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY 4, After review of the conditions of approval for both the Surfcrest and the Oceancrest developments, it is clear that the developer must complete the construction of Seapoint Avenue from Palm Avenue to Pacific Coast Highway. This would mean a clear public access that would have no obstructions such as security gates or any other obstructions. The intent of this condition is to provide for a timely response by emergency vehicles, both fire and police, and to provide a secondary means of escape for the public during emergencies. The interim access plan dated April 20, 1994 is acceptable, however it should not be considered permanent. OIL W Q W 3 � o � - �' GARFIELD AVENUE CITY BOUNDARY 5 ROJEGT YORKTOWN AREA AVENUE �4C�F/C co4ST � VO NO 5GALE LOCATION MAP Attachment 1 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION To: Steve May, Public Works From: Michael P. Dolder, Fire Department Date: December 17, 1993 ` SUBJECT: FIRE DEPARTINIENT REQUIREMENTS FOR SEAPOINT CONNECTING TO PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY The Fire Department required the Seapoint to Pacific Coast Highway connection in the Surfcrest and Oceancrest tract maps for the following reasons: 1. The City's Gro-,vth Management Policy adopted by the City Council establishes a Fire Department response standard of five (5) minutes eighty percent(80%) of the time for both fire engines and paramedic services. The Seacliff area, specifically district 327, is one of the poorest response time areas of the City. 2. The Insurance Services Office (ISO) states in its Fire Suppression Rating Schedule 4560, "The built upon areas of the City shall have a first due engine company within 1-112 miles and a ladder company within 2-112 miles." Currently, the closest fire stations, Station 5-Lake, is approximately 2-1/2 miles away, Station 7-Warner,which is approximately the same distance away geographically, is the seventh company scheduled to arrive in that area due to the lack of access. 3. The future residents of the Surfcrest and Oceancrest developments need a second means of egress similar to the one provided to the residents of Seacliff on the Greens and the Estates when Seapoint and Garfield were connected. This second means of egress also provides critical access to fire and emergency medical equipment through a signalized intersection at Pacific Coast Highway. 4. When the linear park is developed on the west side of Seapoint public access/egress should be augmented by the Pacific Coast Highway connection. This would reduce the public travel through the residential community. The connection of Seapoint to Pacific Coast Highway is an integral part of the fire and emergency medical protection plan for the.Surfcrest and Oceancrest developments as well as the surrounding area. The Pacific Coast Highway connection is another piece of the puzzle needed to complete the City's Fire Master Plan in. providing the same levels of fire services to all areas of the community. MPD/cgs A:mpd93127.004 c: Lou Sandoval, Public Works Director Tom Poe, Fire Marshal Howard Hubert, Deputy Fire Nlarshal/Development do Attachment 2 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH " TO: E. MC ERLAIN, CAPTAIN FROM: G.--MEZA, SERGEANT UNIFORM .DIVISION COMMANDER TRAFFIC BUREAU ". SUBJECT: SEAPOINT EXTENSION DATE: 212194 'After reviewing the plans and giving the project due consideration,- it is the Traffic Bureau's position that the extension of Seapoint Street to Pacific_Coast Highway is of vital importance and should be completed for the following reasons: 1. This will allow units from the northwest and east areas of the city direct access to-this .portion of the development via Pacific Coast Highway. This will reduce the need for emergency vehicles to access the area via Palm Avenue. This will improve response times from three to five minutes. 2:. It will allow units from the north area of the city " direct access to Pacific Coast Highway. This will reduce approximately three miles of the route and improve response times for emergency calls on Pacific Coast Highway by approximately three to five minutes. 3 . It would add an additional evacuation route to residents in this area in the event of a natural disaster.' Residents could evacuate by going north on Seapoint to Garfield, east on Palm to "Goldenwest or south on Seapoint to Pacific Coast Highway. 4 . It would allow residents an additional access to Pacific Coast Highway. This would reduce .traffic along Palm to Goldenwest. As this area continues to develop, traffic congestion on Palm will only increase and this will provide needed relief. Because of these reasons, we support this project and e it proceeds . Attachment 3 I� CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH i INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION' HUNTI!.GTON BEACH TO: STEVE MAY, Principal Engineer FROM: KELLY, LIE ENANT PUBLIC WORKS TRAFFIC/AE BUREAU CDR SUBJECT: SEAPOINT EXTENSION DATE: DECEMBER 16, 1993 After reviewing the plans with you and giving the project due consideration, it's the Police De- partments position that the extension of Seapoint to the Pacific Coast Highway is of vital impor- tance and should be completed as soon as possible. This extension will provide another route for emergency vehicles to access, not only the resi- dences in the area, but also the Bolsa Chica area. By having another route into and out of the area, response time could be reduced. Responding units would not have to use Golden West to enter the area, thus saving several miles of driving. It will also provide-another escape route for the residents in the event of a natural disaster. Because of these reasons we can only support the project and hope that it proceeds quickly. cc: Chief Lowenberg Capt McErlain �O Attachment 4 •J J CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Department of Public Works BREAKDOWN OF COSTS FOR THE PHASE 1 PROGRAM FOR EVALUATION OF THE ELIMINATION OF THE SEAPOINT STREET EXTENSION FROM PALM AVENUE TO PCH March 11, 1994 Task 1; Prepare Consultant Contract Amendment: Deputy City Attorney 0.5 @ $59 = $ 30 Principal Engineer 1. 0 @ $53 = $ 53 Clerical 2.0 @ $23 = 46 SUBTOTAL = $ 129 Task 2 ; Prepare Traffic Model & Impact Analysis: Traffic Consultant L.S. _ $ 9,000 Public Safety Consultant L.S. _ $10, 000 Traffic Engineer 1.0 @ $57 = $ 57 Associate Traffic Engineer 4. 0 @ $50 $ 200 SUBTOTAL = $19,257 Task 3 ; Prepare Preliminary Study Report: Traffic Engineer 8.0 @ $57 = $ 456 Principal Engineer 24. 0 @ $53 = $1,272 Associate Traffic Engineer 8.0 @ $50 = $ 400 Senior Planner 4.0 @ $49 = $ 196 Associate Planner 8. 0 @ $43 = $ 344 Engineering Assistant 8.0 @ $42 = $ 336 Computer Drafting Technician 8.0 @ $35 = $ 280 Clerical 8.0 @ $23 = 184 SUBTOTAL = $3,468 Task 4 ; Prepare and Agendize RCA: Principal Engineer 4.0 @ $53 = $ 212 Administrative Assistant 1. 0 @ $29 = $ 29 Clerical 2.0 @ $23 = $ 46 Printing L.S. = 200 SUBTOTAL = $ 487 TOTAL COST = $23,341 Note: 1. Hourly rates include an overhead and fringe benefits cost factor of 1.5 . 2 . Incidental time of senior administrative personnel is considered to be included in the overhead cost factor. SWM:swm \may\rca\seaptcos.001 Attachment 5 • CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINCTON BEACH TO: MICHAEL T. UBERUAGA, City Administrator FROM: ROBERT J. FRANZ, Deputy City Administrator SUBJECT: REQUESTED APPROPRIATION FOR PROFESSIONAL. SERVICES ASSOCIATED WITH SEAPOINT STREET EXTENSION, FIS 94-33 DATE: MARCH 14, 1994 As required by Resolution 4832, a Fiscal Impact Statement has been prepared for the proposed appropriation of $19,000 for Consultant Services in the eventuality that the City Council chooses to pursue an Alternative Action with respect to the Seapoint Street Extension Project, culminating in the elimination of the Seapoint Extension. Upon approval of the City Council, the balance of the unreserved, undesignated Measure "M" Fund would be reduced by $9,000 to $309,000 w ile that of the General Fund would be reduced by $10,000 to $7,4 3,000. E NZ Depu City Ad inistr or RJF:skd Attachment 6 E �� ' CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Lo" INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH To: Steve May, Principal Engineer, E gineering Services Section From: Jim Otterson, Traffic Engineer Subject: Seapoint Street Between P 1n�Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway Date: December 17, 1993 r/ In response to Councilman Ralph Bauer's request, 1 have performed a cursory investigation of the impacts of not completing Seapoint Street between Palm Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway. In general I believe that eliminating this segment of Seapoint Street would have a negative impact on traffic circulation in the Holly-Seacliff/Seacliff area, especially on Golden West Street between Garfield Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway. As this request has been given to me with a very short response time frame, I have not had the opportunity to run the City Traffic Model to determine the effects of this proposed roadway deletion. Current Holly- Seacliff traffic forecasts for the Seapoint Street extension show 20,500 vehicles per day on this roadway segment. The Holly-Seacliff traffic projections include the Bolsa Chica Extension ("the Cross Gap Connector") as it is shown on the current Master Plan of Arterial Highways. Elimination of the Seapoint Street connection to Pacific Coast Highway will likely result in Golden West Street operating with 40,000 -45,000 vehicles per day when the Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan is built out, which translates to approximately LOS C-D. If the Cross Gap Connector and the Seapoint Street Extension are not constructed, it is very likely that Golden West Street will operate at LOS D or worse. Please note that this may cause problems with compliance with the Congestion Management Plan (CMP) and Measure M. I would like to emphasize that this is a "seat of the pants' estimate of traffic volumes, but I'm pretty good at estimating these types of scenarios. cc: Louis F. Sandoval, Director, Public Works Department Robert Eicliblatt, City Engineer Attachments: Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan Proposed Land Use Concept Average Daily Traffic Volumes, Exhibit 23 Attachment (7) O Qf N O � � .� m h _ to SLATER CY 17/0.85 15.9/0.79 19/0.95 21/1.05 C7 W J N Q O n Of N Z N W! IL I C.) C7 N TALB ERT ` 13/0.43 5.8/0.19 9.7/0.32 17/0.57 co c r N C O 6 N OT M � m ELLIS 11.7/0.39 5.6/0.19 / ' 5.8/0.29 21.4/ _ 1.07 'P` w *- / 1 I s�. O/��� o Project o N� SIte ' ,�►.'`� c �`.0'?` GARFIELD —�5.8/1.5 �• 32.4/0.72 47.9/1.6 ' 0� 44.911.49 2.7/1.0 ° w vS•�i 5I0 cc CLAY 65 ' `• •�1-`� ' .J a � s, Li 5 • `O o Co M N A 1 YORKTOWN 13.7/0.46 N%a17.5/0.58 16.6/0.5 oy/oUl LEGEND CO o Major 9 < o Primary --- Secondary -- Project Boundary m SCALE IN FEET HOLLY SEACLIFF PROPOSED LAND USE 0 1000 2000 CONCEPT PLAN AVERAGE DAILY , TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND V/ C RATIOS , Lsa C3 ,/2,/,,:GD EXHIBIT 23 Attachment (7) a �LNI uy;xarox icicon i'r 'mu YJ-%. WAGNER & LICHMAN Attorneys at Law 5 PARK PUZA surrE 1000 !— Nt.e eow:r 1=��1• . ff(ME,CAUFORNIA 92714 9er NU 4 E.L aLLUIui,Ph.D. Telephone(714)474-6967 Direct Dial(714)474-6965 Telecopler(714)833-0192 June 29, 1994 L� S C BY FACS:LMILE AF ,S.__MAIL Linda Moulton-Patterson Mayor. m City of 'iuntingtori BeachCO c/o Conn% a Brockway -� Cite C.' ark ,-i!.y' .x 1.,- cc� 2r) - - L 7-1 Street L Hur,'_ --, o on Beach, CA 92648 Re : Extension of Seapoint Street Dear Mayor Patterson: we represent the Seacliff Estates Coalition, comprised of The Estates, Seacliff on the Greens and Huntington Seacliff Homeowners Association, as well as individual residents, both within and outside those associations ( "Coalition" ) . It has come to our attention that significant progress has been made on the extension of Seapoint Street from Palm Avenue to Pacific Coast Highway through the Oceancrest project. That progress appears to include grading of the street to its maximum width, as well as construction of curbs. It may also include the laying of utility lines under the street. Such activity runs directly contrary to the decision made by the City Council at its May 16, 1994 meeting, ordering a halt to all construction activities on the extension pending the outcome of a focussed study, to determine the feasibility of improving Seapoint Street to secondary street width, and/or eliminating it from the General Plan. If the current activity is allowed to continue, the considered decision of the City Council will be rendered moot, as will the focussed Tidy. The Coalition depended upon the City Council not only tc: mare a reasonable decision, which we believe Jl aid, l,ut cilmu Lu enforce that decision. At tnls point, it -)ears that no such is taking place. Therefore, the ►_tj.on urges the ui{ f _ i, , in the 6trongest possible _. i;ns, to direct the �` .,E opmeng 'apartment to issue a StNI uy;Xerox lelecopier 'lU1U 'iU—y4 ;1U;bbAM 3'141bb'1;#i 3 WAGNER & LICHMAN stop work order, halting all activity on the Seapoint extension, pending the outcome of the focussed study, scheduled to be made public on 4%;gUSt 5, 1994. We 1nnk forward to a oommuni+catsan from the Cvuuuuulty Development Department with regard to this matter no later than July 61 1994, including an explanation of activities already performed, on the extension, and a description of the measures that will be taken to prevent any further construction or improvement of the proposed extension pending consideration and decision on the focussed study. F- We thank you in advance for your cooperation in this matter. sincerely, A Barbara E. Lichman BEL/sb cc: Chairman Detloff Planning commission Melanie Fallon Director, Community Development Department Richard and Barbara Marrs John Rohring Al DeLorm Jeffrey Metzel StNI UY:xerox lelecopier na '-3U-y4 + 1U;bbAM 114d3���1y2-� 3'141bb'!� 1 LAW OFFICES OF WAGNER & LICHMAN Suite 1000 S Park Plaza Irvine, California 92714 Telephone: (714) 474-6967 Facsimile: (714) 833-0192 TELECOPY TO THE FOLLOWING NUMBER: (714)374-1557 THE FOLLOWING IS FOR: Linda Moulton-Patterson c\o Connie Brockway, City Clerk FIRM/COMPANY NAME: City of Huntington Beach DOCUMENT SENT: Letter dated .Tune 29, 1994. COMMENTS: FROM: Barbara E. Lichman NUMBER OF PAGES INCLUDING THIS COVER SHEET: _3_ IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL THE PAGES PLEASE CALL BACK IMMEDIATELY AT 714/474-6967. FARENEREBY ION CONTAINED IN THIS FACSIMILE MESSAGE IS ATTORNEY PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION ONLY FOR THE USE 0 THE INGIVIWAL uk EW71yi Kw itu woum it imc KtAutK Ur 1K15 MtsZAUb is NUi RECIPIENT, OR THE EMPLOYEE OR AGENT RESPONSIBLE TO DELIVER IT TO THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU OTIFIED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION OR COPYING OF THIS COMMUNICATION IS STRICTLY IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY US BY TELEPHONE, DATE: June 29, 1994 ATTORNEY NAME: Barbara E. Lichman CI.,IENT/MATTER: Seacliff/Street FILE NUMBER: 0008,003 A" vLe ur, u/�et-s Ca�ssd�sr+c.✓ , %�6� � t CITY CLERK CITY OF MEMORANDUM HUNTINGTON BFd"h, CALIF. 5-17-94 MAY.20 9 s9 'gq Subject: POSITION IN FAVOR OF PUBLIC ACCESS OF SEAPOINT TO P.C.H. To: Honorable Mayor, City Council Members, City Administrator, Fire Department, Police Department, Planning Department From: Gerry and Mary Lou Galleher with endorsements from Summer Breeze Neighbors Copy: Huntington Seacliff Homeowners Association, Attn: Jeff Metzel THIS MEMORANDUM DOCUMENTS OUR POSITION AS A RESIDENTS OF THE SEACLIFF DEVELOPMENT SUPPORTING PUBLIC ACCESS OF SEA POINT TO P.C.H. INCLUDED ARE ISSUES AND CONCERNS.ASSOCIATED WITH RELIABILITY/LOGISTICS AND COST IF GATING IS EMPLOYED ALSO ATTACHED ARE ENDORSEMENTS FROM AFFECTED SEACLIFF NEIGHBORS Overview On May 16, my wife and I watched the council proceedings on television. A coalition of Seacliff homeowner associations presented the viewpoint that a public automobile thruway of Seapoint to P.C.H. would significantly and negatively impact their quality of life. I AM a Seacliff homeowner living at the same residence since 1970 who has exactly the opposite view. If Seapoint doesn't go through, then my quality of life and that of my immediate neighbors will be further degraded. There was a lot of rhetoric regarding "on-command" gating, however nothing that approaches a cost effective, reliable and logistically feasible solution was described other than "it shouldn't be a problem." This letter attempts to surface some issues associated with this "no problem." Background Last night, I was reminded of " the man who had no shoes and complained, until he met a man who had no feet." approximately 625 square feet. This included as much acoustic damping material in the walls as could be accommodated as well as double paned windows throughout. Following permit approval, this add-on was accomplished in 1983. Later came complete forced air conditioning throughout the house since I could no longer open the windows to enjoy the cool ocean summer breezes. The cost of this upgrade was double the original cost of the home. Although this has greatly improved the livability of this home, it has not improved it to the level of 1970. AND now, if the coalition has its way, they would like to shove their inconvenience my way. Now do I go for triple paned windows, double the thickness of the stucco walls. Enough is enoughl I've waited 24 years for Edwards to be cut though. How much patience and further cost will you ask of me ? Seapoint Gating Concerns As a mitigation to the public safety issue, assuming that Seapoint does go through, it was suggested that gating could be provided for emergency vehicular traffic only, thus inhibiting public automobiles. It was noted that if we can go to the moon, we surely should be able to solve this gating problem. I should point out that I am a senior avionics design engineer at McDonnell Douglas Astronautics, Huntington Beach, and for the past 32 years have participated or led design teams for many high technology space programs. I absolutely assure you that the technology to accomplish this task is in place. What is of concern is the cost and logistics to reliably maintain whatever system is selected. Potential approaches: a. 24 hour gatekeeper similar to Pacific Ranch CONCERN Cost and who pays. Seapoint residents I hope.?? b. Remote transmitter in every emergency vehicle similar to a garage door opener. CONCERN What and whose vehicles get equipped ? All HB police or some? All HB fire and ambulances.? Sheriff, Highway Patrol, Seal Beach, H.B maintenance dept., etc., etc? Who administers this program, provides repair and maintenance and logistic support. I can also tell you these are very easy to clone, encryption or not, and not that much trouble to become available to any "hacker" I should also tell you that my garage door opener works most of the time. Is that good enough? Will the receiver and gate mechanism work in the event of earthquake, power failure, power interruption etc., when the system may be most needed. What is the cost and will there be back-up system in place. c. Magnetic Cards that the driver inserts into a reader. CONCERN Probably requires the driver of large vehicles to leave the vehicle to reach the reader. Reliability is a problem. Cards are easily damaged or lost. Many of the same problems as item b. d. Key pad at the gate. _ CONCERN Won't take long before the code is known to everyone. May as well post it at the gate. Many of the same problems as item b. e. Hardline or microwave command from police dispatcher triggers gate. CONCERN Probably most expensive to implement and maintain but most secure. Who pays? Is this fair to all the tax payers to appease a select group of residents. Many of the same problems as item b. There are probably many other variations of the above basic techniques. The technology is available. The logistics to administer, support and cost to maintain is questionable. The cost of getting to the moon wasn't cheap either. Conclusion IT IS UNFAIR TO ASK ME OR MY NEIGHBORS TO BE BURDENED WITH MORE NOISE. WE HAVE ALREADY PAID OUR FAIR SHARE. GATING DEVICES HAVE INHERENT RELIABILITY CONCERNS WHEN THE DEVICE MAY BE MOST NEEDED, THERE ARE LOGISTICS CONCERNS RELATING TO COST. WE URGE YOU TO ALLOW PUBLIC VEHICULAR ACCESS OF SEAPOINT TO P.C.H. WITHOUT FURTHER DELAY. ENDORSEMENT We as concerned neighbors whose homes are directly bounded on the east by Goldenwest, specifically at or near the Goldenwest/Yorktown intersection, strongly resent the intrusion of added traffic resulting from the denial of public vehicular access of Seapoint to P.C.H. We, in the past years have paid our fair share in co-existing with the noise and pollution presently on Goldenwest. It is only fair now that others share this burden. We find it grossly unfair that we be asked to accept additional noise. We urge your encouragement, support and vote in allowing public vehicular access to P.C.H. v NAME ADDRESS TEL 19 4 9�z S 53 6 9 ,2'L- `- \i Now 40 RECEJYED \ „ CITY CLERK CITY OF HUNTINCTCh ° EkCfi,CALIF. Huntingt/ni BAaeh'gomorrow Box 865 tluntinginii Bouch CA'?2648 1 C n May 15 , 1994 P•+ i. !I 1...!•r'-I:i 1_. .ji!e1 .(.:• C, <nd i_ ity [:our!(_•a 1 r_1 ! E (;�_ :�r'i 'i cim<� i eiw wishes to make the f<_>: .11- igi nr c , -: 0 rSi.Sw; w .. ,. 1': r egt-3rd t.o t-he I ern F -.i c;e�r:c ..nt. St-r ;=. 1.Y i t .A � � ) .+!, i ice, _ `m�� Ss:�_I...`1' i' y -. .. 1 U i'♦�f I©l 0 r! C. I"- m a l i,C;t fr'•1 ., i. t r.e-r tc) you o' !4rl .. }. 1994 WP a. !')fJ Qrr3V 3 Xt.f?rl .-Cs11 01 C--'.if '`- 1"lt. Avenue toPisCif 1C cuIst. )h •,n`r i,l?se C-QI! Q' i-1 rne.. rl I:?ut:- leave 1 1:.. "fed iP.(I l i 1,1 i i5F`• .J:F' i�l;f it 1 F'll% f,,11 i 11. !. I_.i h]T" i il'.I ii � r^'•I Jn rIll,i .� I'S for t`I. w`-1'. '-I i 1•I' i c t1 n t. ij C:; 1; i!.:.:T it ;.� f- F- i'F,s clents t. c. r1 t .�, w h0l e C-QrT1rWJ D.1 v . nr)w beilteve that the exf-engion ! f.. Seapoint �G t =,�:tN rt` �i .,1,,a S 1 q l,i e;l C' a ?a�d:- CA n d e v e�r'I d e t T co 4 ¢ , / t ,:l ;, Y � Y .!1.. qua, � i t... J U W �: f"��'r" - 1 it o n t-s a d._1 a:v C i i t t 0 [ y.}:) i_'i:L t a'. �_'-I f i l l t 1 T 1 C1._s-a1lco inside_ l r, c?aC1_f Cir eenS an.(: Se n. if41' r` ;' (�ixteris`1en a iG he j:s.`-,awe of (:1ec. , raiG1�)% fC:1.. 1- 1_ c,nL::a and (,hi1Cirer and th r,C'rca:."-+ed in 1!:i1i-1t'/ fC�'i` C,I' . 111`': cl1'!(:1 -.1nde'si a 1 e e1efn e n t s to ti;).t er tI"ii;= aYe-a . ' r . t?e1?eve th-at What wa- at. Posed to b( � glrir .. }��; t LU er are-a for the SoIsL, wetland-,;: And tI'nnt=is "r`_r1.','onmerlt- itse"s]_fi will. be sovC;e`.'` 1Y by t1hr ao- v<ili•=h t he rE'�l de.nts wl i.1 Tac:e Wit.-! 'ne 1 nt r(:)dU(: i ;'>i, nT ';nrly .0 ,ee00 vcvhi.t;Ie per day ( 19i6:; f.JsaU.l'o; ) at ca.oa%:if. 7'r!C^ CC_,nsr•CtL.i4rfCC95 of f he SAX t't:?i1.CJTl W-,.1._t. therCf`,,ror Inc- tflf-1 ti�?struction of a quiet noiuhi'e `hood which had no fr„'ewarn nq, 0� Giese impacts, before they purChAssed t.he•i.r hnmes , irato1.F'r'ab:_f� . ./'�iJ ]. ' ci r:.71. C' r3Ci intrusion { t^0me 1 e:. '•].dor,t.� �,.0 >c3 t.I1C C1'i E ! I c)wc-Id the deve1c)Per to bu11C'• U'ia.w hcimfw, t. a <_71'H�+ ,::T �rc�'ij.t � S. I 1.v e s w;.t.I�(.:iut i•I'!stal1.i'at.ion ,}f� .1 r �f(:i r?"i !iij t ! a r �s _d I` i,aatlo7 rlr•-as�,r�., cir; 110!-c!lliate _ntruF%, '!-1 into t•!1'at hay: male now re.dUced 't-O 2 `-,t- f > 1 ctT'K i">•�C-. l.t e CST C '' _ ed �r>f'i z"ate. Uii f:G d: ,Vrelr•)pe v Y' ^ of :.a 1, 1 1 - clavel,oper c1f S :crest to nave t •-e Pxtens i deleted as well I . ! :;D 11) q e arid unconq*st.t1,,(.1 since deletion wQjln 00d ui t , ma k i r- !y,e- iiore attractive both AS a i) I a n e to I i ve. and Fi -.a i a I .y ; r.a prospective buyers IS 5 -oros .- - v- d.w)Lh a C. n( - - - -EL.. N,-,nently- the (:-V,1!j1-,t tl%,;:I*k- t-he a x t e 1-1 C-A� number i.ves O mc;J--e. Of Ell—Millat-e the nood for a x t e r-,z i In u,Q h a;s - dc�-� t i o,0,a I Qe-,-L " !;a or 1nC11 Cas . eV r cF rind L 8-)-y jr. presart and future -JaVe o P,,,-,a n t s ; 2 h a a d-1-4 1on c,f roalwayS 4nL6- najjy and Periphe,',-�Ily in the Sur4c'-05t. t ar�c South dove I opme nts , Of n I rs x r.e nsio affif, Ca Y'I-Y-J 110 area for emergency 8CCeZF�Sl, 4 ) redW� -- --i - Cap8city ; and 5 ) which will result in Offset any <,-u t, t j,,r Ou g h I c k-oq rtt Highway to a of i significantly Y Ll j V, I e des, 4 r A. -aiq -- c,.&Ce - n � L L �, e -)f a sti hr Shot a] O,)U $eapo� T Should it not be possible tee aelete the extension , we L=1 aDsci -LU a indicated Y- _hft SL r fu we Wi8n -,O note that t' e im c;pactR &Sso . ii,ed witn the extensio- of ;qapojnt are almost directly equivaiont to those W me associated with the proPosed Santa 4n. a �zi var C s S i n 5 V;10-50 imp-�Ict C. s led Y -U 110 SUODO, t - J i .I 4- 0 T) �,j L"e.,i i a ve t,h6 S r, -o he!��e c Y o s s'i n.0 S ; - - - r a ti o ria Io applies 4- the Oaj;�,T i- on of t i- L)arls� 11 'ind d i t, I the same act._4 or we ta k6 n - T "lank you for your cc)nsideratjon of our cofimerts in tnis matter -ts an Y fa A n ,R nod -,,our c-coitinUed eff r -z 0 na ililCflreA-y , Fco- the 13oard of DlreCtclf'S af)d Huntington Beach TOMO',-)-Ow on e Tia# 2 7- � z,z i , - )7� 7V k£C.EiVE CITY CLERK �e CITY OF 14UNTINGTON n.EACH,i,41,IF, I ' THE RESIDENTS OF MAY « 812 AN '94 ! SEACLIFF ON THE GREENS SEACLIFF ESTATES THE ORIGINAL SEACLIFF HOMES (A Homeowner's Coalition) Vehemently Oppose Seapoint Street Connecting To Pacific Coast Highway For All Vehicular Traffic! ! ! * 25,000-30 , 000 -autos a day motoring Seapoint to and from- the -beach will create intolerable levels of noise and toxic air pollution for all wildlife in the Bolsa Chica Wetlands and in the .soon to be constructed Regional Linear Park on Seapoint. * Residents along Seapoint and Palm streets will suffer a greatly diminished quality of living with the increase . in noise, trash, and Air pollution. * Unsafe traffic levels will occur at complex entrances. * . Diminished security for all residents will- be assured. - * Invasion of privacy for perimeter homes on Seapoint and Palm streets will also decrease property values and tax bases for all homes . * The architecture of homes on Seapoint and Palm (open front, all glass , with no barrier to the street) is not adequate to withstand the noise and toxic pollution of heavy traffic. ALTERNATIVE PROPOSALS ***A. WE WANT SEAPOINT CONNECTED TO PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY FOR EMERGENCY VEHICLES, PEDESTRIANS, AND BICYCLES ONLY! ! ! ! ***B. SEAPOINT CAN BE GATED AT STRATEGIC PLACES ON SEAPOINT BEFORE PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY FOR EMERGENCY AND RESIDENTIAL (SURF CREST AND OCEAN CREST) VEHICLES, PEDESTRIANS, AND BICYCLES ONLY! ! ! ! (These propoals are supported by Huntington Beach Tomorrow, The Bolsa Chica Land Trust, and The Sierra Club. ) 1 4 Hl m i !g!An Beaell omormw Huntingtori Hoach. CA 92648 714 536-4163 April 2 . M/1 Hunting= Beach city Council 2000 Main Street. HU= KgtQn Boach , On 1?0" Honorable Mayor and City Council : Mntington Reach Tomorrow wishes to make the following CoMmenU_; and requems with regard to the item F-1 , GenpoinL Avreet Ewypnsinn Qudy ( ROA RQ ) , Wkinh Nil ! ho before YOU UH An ' K 4 , � 04 . . We believe ths' the excension of SwaPoint Drive to Phnific Coast miqnw8y will Qqnificant ) y decrease the quality of lire in We SeaWiffe area by allow n ig larow traffic volumes adponaL t(; YvAdertial developmnnt which was not designed to witnswno the. Kferzs of these valumeo . an arterial street in this vicinity which would have connonted to Edwards Street has teen an the Cou"ty Master Plan of nrtoyial Highways for 5ome years . Thin arterial was to pass to the east throuoh develapmentR which were Projected for this are Had that arterial been so locate& , it would have been Cleor 013 concevned that Lho vclumy of traffic on the arterial w. -Q�C' raqvired design to buffer these developments frnm the noi ono congestion associated Wh the arterial , Mwever . when Sea ciiffe was developed , the Huntington &,anh company , in order to maxim , ze their developmont return . wuuld , ut route this arterial as originally planned and the then ciny council majority allowed this arterial to be rerouted to tR-4 west much nearer the edge of Lhe bluff Lo US Preeent POCKDO as Reapointe Avenue . In the Process , the council aisc allowna developer to develop without incorporating the ds5ign oid buffers neoessary to shield thRt residentLal area from the effestu of a high volume arterial , it is no lonper feasible or aiv , therefore , to subjett the re3idents of LhAs area to impacts which will significantly a&crevne the quality of their life ny dumping large tyaffic volumes onto sespotot Avenue . W, nqaest , tharmfurs , Lhat Snw, inv Avenue not be extendmd t''.1 . , 3fio Cnaot Hiqhwa� r , instead and in order to meet pniential emergency police �—j fire, needs the area and mocked off with a barrier similar to the one used in the Cascade Lane area , which COU"I'd giake the Seacliffe, arr,81 in the event of a mnjor on)&rq' oncy . We also request that- the a.'reti not. needed for ac-coss be added to the adjac*)nt Pa)- k i,;, an attempt to restore that acreage, , even though it, i.s srial.j , to the park, and to add to the Park acceSs to the, beach envisionod fol' ti)(a park . Thank you for your oonsidoratiol1 of our Comments In fna t t e r y C"u T- C--0 -1 t f�. i ----s.:134- U'r the of li- O and 7 n, i n this ci L. c s wi tic FC V,h F:ly d 1"itymo 7671 I., 4V Dapt. tau HS TofNGlLS t 41 Fax# re w qzl i t3EFE►YEC CINEC'fi1986 t CUTr'DERK HUNTtNGTQA1Y73FH. EALIF. REALTOR* -M- HUHTMGTrf t , CALIF. �l QO W �� Voice Mail Pager: (31-0) 987-8971 o , c:x N Fax: (310) 799-8358 i y� J #1 PRODUCER 1991. -1992 tC.. !'.393 March 21., 94 � �I C'<-rjnci.I- J*Rgx�r.. . Tze i F-3 itc-M i non. Public karing f }a r t' i-ounCi1: �. my huc;,-)anJ and 1 a e ix,iab1-- 'tc> i,,Ueml t-j;e tztc i u�g tc r.2i.cTl�t t< to xp-, cSSS our c onset n:F to you i-egard-ing t1•e I sL2:ect to P�C1fic Crast Highway. We _ue new residents Of SeaCliff and paid a great deal extra to Xiave- the marvelous relaxing view of Seapoi:nt. � k ^_-he t-r_-affie. or. Seapoilit is so fast and loud ncw. any extra will, be anly!ar?X e �mcl zt f-f: LCt (Y' r-It-r ,.'er, and P7-'C Tutr lv-SSb_uict i.;; a doctnr- and 1 is-mi tr.is re0,tay- zu-0. it cn-,i i.,--y al life will be seriously affected if this. street gets any siNr. The hemes are very open and have alot of glass and �xe de- finitely not suited to traffic noise. W. need sex lity and not anv unbearable noise. Vje have been very .impressed with :tM Planning :Ccwis ion's willing- ness to listen to the hcmeowers aid hope ycra will give us that respect also. PLEASE PIMASE vote against the ext-nsiQn of Seapoin to PCH. e Thank you, t7r. Mrs. Richax0 Dirl inscn 1.9221 ;eabrcr.�k. TTB. 92648 1 714 374-2055 uswi n11NCAN &ASSOCIATES _ _ - TS:2T b6, TE JUW TOO PSS JAN D. VANDERSLOOT,•D. DIPLOMATE AMERICAN BOARD OF DERMATOLOGY 8101 NEWMAN, SUITE C HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA 92647 (714)848-0770 April 4, 1994 Mayor Linda Moulton-Patterson, and 2=8. X Huntington Beach City Council members, 2000 Main Street, -� z Huntington Beach, CA 92648 rn ,: <�- c7 R1 Re: City Council meeting April 4, 1994 Items continued from 3/21/94 n F-1 Seapoint Street Extension Study Recommend: Eliminate previously approved extension of Seapoint Street from Palm Avenue to Pacific Coast Highway Dear Mayor Moulton-Patterson, and Huntington Beach City Council members, recommend elimination of the extension of Seapoint Street from Palm Avenue to Pacific Coast Highway for the following reasons: 1. The right -of-way can be used to expand the acreage of the Bolsa Chica Linear Park. 2. Seapoint Street can be used to provide parking for the Linear Park, red-lining of the curb can be avoided, and the Huntington Beach Mesa can be spared the imposition of an asphalt and concrete parking lot on the park. 3. The residential community on Seapoint will be spared the safety hazards and noise of a high speed arterial. If the extension is approved and built, expect never-ending complaints from the residential community about traffic speed and volumes. 4. The extension will primarily serve as a short cut for cut-through traffic , adding to the complaints from the residential community, especially if the cross-gap connector across Bolsa Chica is not built. 5. If Huntington Beach reduces its General Plan entitlements similar to Newport Beach in 1988 and Costa Mesa in 1992, this extension, and other traffic problem areas, may be able to be eliminated because the perceived need for this extension is based on future growth projections. It would be wise to consider the extension during the General Plan Update, rather than now, Or JAN D. VANDERSLOOT," D. DIPLOMATE AMERICAN BOARD OF DERMATOLOGY 8101 NEWMAN, SUITE C HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA 92647 (714)848-0770 because the General Plan deliberations will coming up soon. Although I do not live in the area affected by the extension, I do have experience with traffic problems in residential areas, and I believe the proposed extension is a bad idea, will cause many problems in the future, and the right -way can be used for better purposes. Thank you for considering this recommendation. As I mentioned at the public hearing on March 21, 1994, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. You will be avoiding a lot of future problems, and solving current problems with the Linear Park, by eliminating the extension of Seapoint. Sincerely, Jan D. Vandersloot, M.D.