HomeMy WebLinkAboutSeabridge Specific Plan - SE corner of Beach Blvd and Adams (19) r '
.j Action Engineering Consultants --7-
550-050
M}
� Differential Settlement: The possibility of differential
1 '
settlement as a result of earthquake forces is considered
�:• modarate because of the presence of saturated peat deposits
beneath the property.
Tsunamis : The site is located approximately 3. mile from the
'd ocean, with numerous structures, and residences situated be-
tween. Such a position effectively preclmdes it from the
t i effects of a seismic sea wave.
. r
CONCLUSIONS
The probability of ground surface rupture is considered
slight because the faults known to undexly the site are not con-
1 sidered active . The risk from potential liquefaction, and dif-
ferential compaction, however, is felt to be relatively hiqh and
1�
the soils engineer should make re cc immendat ions to -mitigate this
potential hazard. Provided this is accomplished , it is concluded
that the proposed site development is feasible from the engineering
geology point of view.
Puaspcctfully submitted,
BASELINE CONSULTANTS
At
WI-chard WI-chard P. aousineaul CEG . 1
xrr/jrn
(5) A,-:tioij Engineering Consultants
TABLE ONE
Active Faults in Southern California
Closest Point
Date of Most Distance From
Fault Recent Activity Intensi,::v Site (miles)
Elsinore 1938 5. 5 25
Newport/Inglewood 1933 6. 3 0. 1.
Norwalk 1929 4.7 (estimated) 15
San Andreas 1948 6. 5 51
sa,n �tacinto 1940 7. 1 50
San Fernando 1971 6. 4 55
Raymond KU11 (?) (?) 33
Whittier 1971 3. 2 21
TABLE 7.110
Faults Considered Potentially Active in Southern .California
Closest Point
Distance From
Fault Site (miles)
.�alibu ^` + 50
Palos Verdes 11
Santa Monica 35
Sierra Madre 35
nor
FiGUU 3- 2
%t-\hI,%1U1i PROBABLE AND CREDIBLE EARTHQUAKES
CITY OF HUN'TI NGTON BEACH
hpproxiMnte Probable P'aximem*
Distance to Maximum Rupture Length Corresponding"
City of Estimated Magnitude For Rai.ge of Maximum m2ximur
Huntington Total Fault of aiaximu+ti Maximum Probable Credible
Bead,. Length Historical Earthquake Earthquake Earthquake Larthgaaxt
one tni Earthquakes (km) Magni tt:des Magnitude Magni tudc
.• :.per: :. - 0- 3 90_t_ 6. 3 45 or less 6 . 6- 7 . 6 6. 6 7. 6
, ngleuuod (1933)
:. - Itt i er 21+ 103+ 3 . 2 51 or less 6. 8-7 . 7 6. 8 7. 7
(197=)
sinore 25+ 1 R0+ 5. 5 9C or less 7 . 2-8 . 0 7. 2 8 . 0
(1939)
.iac- itit 7 . 1 155 or less 7 . S-8. 2 7. 5 8. 7
-- - (1940"
(Seven quakes
of M ,greater
than 6 . 0
since 1918)
S:;n Andreas 5,5 4�:+ 6. 5 225 or less 7. 7-8 . 4 7. 7 8. 4
(from Garlock (1948)
Fouls S/1' )
fin T b r. by 1 l bee and Smith (1966) that the primary causal rupture at depth for the
n:�r itill :• e ?: ;�1:1 w1li c h ran. hP generated or. a given fault ha:, a maximi:n length of less than half
fit GU}t1- 3- 3
ESTTNIATED GROUND A411 HAS; ROC,'; MOTION CHARACTERISTICS
MAXIM(fM PROWUII.E E-ARTHQUA&KIES
CITY OF HUNT I NGTO;. BEACH
Estimated(1) Estimaced(2) Pred-#- -.,Lnant (3) Probable (4)
Distance from Maxinun Maxinun Period of Duration of
assative Causative Estimated Base Rock Ground Base Rock Strong
'arthquake Fault Magnitude Acceleration Acceleration <tot on Shaking
Fault (Miles ) (Ric1:tcr) (g) W (Seconds) (Seconds)
Newport- Inglewood 0- 1 6 . 6 0 . 65+ 1 . 0 0 . 30+ 1S
0 .9 (4) -
�.::iTticr 21 + 6 . 3 0 . 21 0 . 30 0 . 30+ 22
llsinore 25+ 'r . ? 0 . 20 0 . 35 0 . 35+ 30
Jacinto SG+ 7 . 5 0 . 10 0 . 16 0 .3 5.+ 40
Sa- :'Ladreas 53+ 7. 7 0 . 10 0 . 20 0 . 50+ 46
Schnab3c and Seed , 1972
;:attl�iesCn : et a , I ':
(3) Sced , et al . 15,69
(4) Geological Survey Circular 672 , 1972
FIGURE 3-4
= TINW'ED PEAK GROUND MOTION FOR 1933, MAGNITUDE 6 . 3
LONG BEACH EARTHQUAKE
IN CITY OF HUN7INGTON BEACH
Modified Peak Ground* Weak Ground
Mercalli Velocity Acceleration
Location Intensity In Sec. (g)
Lowy areas within Sunset Beach, IX 15 0 . 6+ **
holsa and Sant: Ana Gaps within _
one mile* of coast and areas of 0. 3S to 0 . 70 ***
peat and organicsoils .
0 . 53+t
5. Inland areas of recent alluvium YIT -lX 7-15 0. 3 to 0 . 6
more than one mile from coast
with intensity decreasing with 0 . 15 to 0 . 70 ***
increasing distance from coast .
0 . 27 to 0 . 53 t
Higher elevations of Bolsa Chica VIII 7 0 . 3+ **
Mesa and Huntington Beach Mesa.
0.15 to 0. 35 '�**
0. 27+t
* Esteva and Rosenblueth (1964) .
** Modified values based on Matthieser.., et al (1972) .
Taken from :Nuclear Reactors and Earthquakes , TID-7024 , .
United States Atomic Energy Commission, 1963.
T .':Clll�I:111r (1954) .
r
1
./ ••�oow + `r • n r . �f �• S: J:., ! 1�•w1IwI.NS. 1 � r�! �1 'S 1 .-•'
a. , s1 c •!' '!•� �� � • .Z �C • ,. ( cot
VICINITY MIAP
!`fib•:+ •!' ! ; .. . �... l•--•.. I v,
{%lr w�r��• • s��C��e �i/ty w1 =' I!'anl1:,• 1, .r .1 .... _ 1
Imo( 1' d••''a�=�+•_ el
• i•• ` _ 407V �.yy,�l 11 •. •.•r Iy t tl r�� �� �1 , "l.a,:..d.•r•=
Gap-,
►I• •r ''f� • :••7.As�T•s;•/ � ' .•, I I r � � i i � •f 1'.yw.+•_.-•.w..+.,�. w •�!
- rf�„ y:M •�•'•'�t• 6;1 rty ! r " 11 J 1I `rr• ' [
46
Y. !• Ij„ /} •• •r�r� .^^a3r r�w `l 1 1 1 i v ., a_ _ r.!� , ' .•.,.• 1 t {
-.�• '�'C ,7,ll t, ' T'�-• u r •YMI► ' w ...,. L
A.
,1,1;r:r "••�.�1 •r u'�V4•ti`'�1. J�•'=•w��._._ __ _:�Y '_`i!%w..+•�r...�r�. .r-s.r.n� r __« �,- . ... _ 1
! I Ci� 7- 1 IAr(rr%�IIn'. . fl
�� - -• , t 1 / � '� •� i'M{f null ! • S r�.l r ..sL'• ` • I
01
'• rCr Lr , wr ■a.•%It'. �_ •� I �� 1 r .'' �4V�.1 �" I-
.- ';HUNTINGTOIN BL:1C:`i 1 ��� .. " . ._ ' -� ' � � ;'- a•f
1.''L o,I -- Ij _�!°r�•�s�:r-ev ++v __.1 . �TL fY1 lr w�___ � ii _ --A1rA44
'�:�_ -• •.I.
y i� u •, • 1 rr+.•:1�IJ1111 '1 I' � 1 1 �.._r�.J ' j•.r...r.�. � ,".. .-1• .
Pat
I+(4.11 t � .1 {' •b{ t i { ` 1.�. t �• i .w1...A+.w�.•+ �... • ��
o :Z:• a
•cam r.,.r, � � � - `i M ,� r r ... .. _. ,. 4
� � f Vw�••. w 113 '!-... _:1:::s:•N�`S C�i.l .:: ' 1~ —/� .1�� ._.. ... . ►•..
•.\ ►� `Jl •Itu rllpTi ) ►1,a.1,)A.>'bti y� - �r�� .AYC _ _ ••
*..'y:' ' �. i O '� 0
ate 1 •
t t ,t
,trip L '
F41a Development Property JOB N2 550 050
Huntington Beach, CA.
I PLA i E `
r !! ai\
�.11r,
-MBASELI
r
RECEIVED,
j
0c T 2 V 1981
EDAW INC.
ADDENDUM TO PRELIMINARY SOILS REPORT NErrMRt REACH ;
INVESTIGATION FOR ALTERNATIVE
FOUNDATION DESIGN, +55 ACRE SITE
� ? SOUTHEAST CORNER OF ADAMS
AND BEACH BOULEVARDS
HUNTI NGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA
r•�
it
CONDUCTED FOR:
KOLA DEVELOPMENT
417 MAIN STREET
WNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA
3
•
ACTION
ENGINEERING
CONSULTANTS
CF011-2*6' 21
SOIL ENGINEERING AND GEOLOGY402•A Commercial Drive Huntington Beach, California 92649 Phones: ( (213) 598.8579
March 19, 1981 _ W.O. 265102
Mola Development
417 Main Street
Huntingtv:l Beach , California
Subject: Addendum to Preliminary Soils
Report, Investigation for Alternative '
Foundation Design , +55 Acre Site
Southeast Corner of Adams and
Beach Boulevards i
Huntington Beach , California
Gentlemen:
s
i
Pursuant to your request, a supplemental investigation Has performed at the
subject site. The purpose of the investigation was to determine the general �
P P 9
engineering characteristics of the soils at depth and to provide specific
recommendations for design of timber pile foundations for the purpose Gf ele-
vating living areas above flood plain elevation.
Our Preliminary Soils Report, W.O. 265101 , dated May 31 , 1980, was available
for reference.
I
FIELD INVESTIGATION
A field investigation was performed on January 20 and 21 , 1981 , consisting of
the excavation of a total of thirteen (13) exploratory test borings by truck-
mounted continuous flight auger equipment to a maximum depth of forty-four
(441 ) feet. As the test borings were advanced, the soils were visually classiffed
i by the Field Fnglneer. the soils encountered are consistent with those as
described in wur above referenced report. logs of the borings are. shown on
Table I.
Undisturbed samples for detailed testing ;n our laboratory were obtained by
pushing or driving a sampling spoon into the material . A solid barrel -type
spoon was used having an inside diameter of 2.50 inches with a tipered cutting
' tip at the loner end and a ball valve at the upper end.
' Mol a� Development N.0. 265102
Page 2
The barrel is lined with thin brass rings , each one (111) inch in length . The
spoon penetrated into the soil below the depth of boring approximately twelve
(12") inches. The central portion of this sample was retained for testing. All
samples in thetr natural field condition were sealed in air-tight containers
and transported to the laboratory.
t NATURAL CONDITIONS
Natural ground encountered below a depth of twenty (201 ) feet, which is the .
subject of this report, classifies as SAND, fine, silty, and CLAY, silty. Soil
conditions as encountered appear uniform.
Ground water was encountered in all of the- test borings at a shallowest depth of
x thirteen (13 ' ) feet, as shown in the Boring Logs.
w
No caving a:curred in any of the excavations .
LABORATORY TESTING
Shear tests were made with a direct shear machine of the strain control type
in which the rate of strain is 0.05 inches. per minute. The machine is so
designed that tests may be performed ensuring a minimum of disturbance from
the field conditions. Saturated specimens were subjected to shear under various
normal loads. The results of tests based on ultimate values are presented on
Plate A.
Consolidation tests were performed on in-Situ moisture and saturated specimens
of typical soils . The consolidometer, like the direct shear machine, is designed
to receive the specimens in the field condition . Porous stones , placed at the
top of the specimen:;, permit the free flow of water into or, from the specimens
during the test. Successive load increments were applied to the tap of the
specimen and progressive and final load settlements under each increment were
recorded to an accuracy of 0.0001 inch. The final settlements so obtained are
plotted to determine the curves sh--wn on Plate B.
Expansion tests were performed on typical specimens of natural sofls . These
tests were performed fn accordance with the procedure outlines in U.B.C. Standard
29-2. Results of these tests are presented in Table 11 and indicate the sail
1.
to have a high expansion potential .
i
1A
_ Mina Development K.O. 265102
Page 3
RECOMMENDATIONS
On the basis of our investigation, the proposed alternative timber pile foundation
! design is considered feasible provided that the recommendations stated herein
are incorporated in the design of foundation systems and are implemented in the
field.
t _
FOUNDATIONS
The proposed structures may be supported by driven timber fric"ion piles. Design
values are given on the pile capacity chart on Plate A. Uplift forces may be
considered as one-half (112) of pile load. Lateral support for piles may be
4 t�
E; provided by crass-bracing with adjacent piles .
The recommendations of this report are based upon the assumption that the soil
JJ conditions do not deviate from those disclosed in the borings. If any variations
t or undesirable conditions are encountered during construction, or if the proposed
construction will differ from that planned at the present time, ACTION ENGINEERING
CONSULTANTS should be notified so that supplemental recommendations can be given.
This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of
the owner, or of his representative, to ensure that the information and recomm-
endations contained here are tailed to the attention of the Architects and
Engineers for the project and incorporated into the plans and that the necessary
steps are taken to see that the Contractors and Subcontractors carry out such
recommendations in the field.
This report is subje.t to review by the controlling authorities for the project.
We appreciate thisopportunity to be of service to you .
Respectfully submitted;
ACCTION ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC. `f. --2
NORMAN B. THORNHILL PAUL S . RICE
PRESIDENT STAFF ENGINEER►
ReviewW By: BRUCE A. PACKARD RCE 13801
VICE PRESIDENT - ENGINEERING
PSA:sb .
rl�-
SUMMARY OF SHEAR TEST DATA
W. 0.
}
ci n
z �.
I °
cn
41
art
J
�x
I a
Q
lz
OL
o
4
SHEAR STRENGTH IN L8S.! SO. I'T.
%viswii �• aw<it nyswl : .r-.a. �Ma,e %m "soma.-
AV
tv zo �o sa tc
14,
1�pS /off
eAl �SfG:
non I
so
MEN
MEN
wool
mom
wool
�i wass'smnu
0 wool
son
NONE
n ,
t 1 •
. i
9
R k
l
� 6 �
4 3
BORING$
APPROXIMATE laCATlON Of E�(�'LaR TORi�
BORING
; + P'RRPARIED FOR
(W
•► ;�t�bO11�IR�1�11�Q
� C�N�I,tl�iilT#
• Nola Develop t W.0. 266102
'FABLE I
Log of Test Borings
• Test Boring 11
0.0 - 5.0 SAND, very fine, silty, moist - TAN
5.0 - 9.0 CLAY, silty, wet - BROWN
9.0 - 19.0 CLAY, silty, wet - GREY
19.0 - 22.0 SAND, coarse, sea bottom debris, verywet - GREY
22.0 -• 27.0 CLAY, silty sea bottom debris, very wet - GREY
27.0 - 37.0 SAND, fine, silty, sea bottom debris , very wet - GREY
37.0 - 38.0 CLAY, silty, sea hottom debris, very wAt - GREY
Water at 19' -
Test Boring fZ
0.0• - 5.0 SAND, very fine, silty, moist - TAN
5.0 - 13.0 CLAY, silty, wet - BROWN
144 13.0 - 21 .0 CLAY, silty, wet - GREY
21.0 - 32.0 CLAY, silty, sea bottom debris , very wet - VEY
32.0 - 40.0 SAND, fine, silty, sea bottom debris, very wet GREY
Water at 151 2
i
• Test Boring 03 !
i
�+ 0. 0 - 10.0 SAND, very fine, silty, moist - TAN
10.0 - 14.0 CLAY, silty, wet - BROWN
l 14.0 - 22.0 CLAY, silty, wet - GREY
22.0 - 36.0 CLAY, silty, sea bottom debris, very wet - GREY
36.0 - 41.0 SAND, fine, silty, sea bottom debris, very wet - GREY
Water at 14'
' Test Boring 14
0.0 - 11 .0 SAND, very fine. silty, moist - TAN
11.0 - 26.0 CLAY, silty, wet - GREY
26.0 - 38.0 CLAY, *ilty, sea bottom debris , very wet - GREY
38.0 - 40:0 SAND, fine,, silty, sea bottom debris , very wit - GREY
Ma ter at 15, .,
4
Mete Develo�a�eat lt.4. Z65YL)Z ,
TABLE I '
(Continued) `
Test boring 15 s
0.,0 - 8.0 SAND, very fine, silty, moist TAN
8.0 - 11.0 CLAY„ silty, wet - BROWN
1.1 .0 - 24. 0 CLAY, silty, wet - GREY . Irm
24.0 - 37.0 CLAY, silty. sea bottom debris, very wet GREY
37.0 - 4.1 .0 SAND, fine, silty. sea bottom debris , very wet - GREY �
Water at 151
P
Test Boring 06 .
0.0 - 5.0 SAND, very fine, silty, moist - TAN +�
5.0 - 10.0 CLAY, silty, wet - BROWN r
10.0 - 26.0 CLAY, silty, wet GREY r
26.0 - 35. 0 CLAY, silty, sea bottom debris. very wet - GREY �
35.0 - 41.0 SAND, fine, silty, sea bottom debris , very wet - GREY
Water at 15'
Test Boring 17 r
0.0 - 6.0 SAND, very fine, silty, moist - TAN �
6.0 - 8.0 CLAY , silty, ;yet - BROWN
8.0 - 24.0 WY, silty, wet - GREY
24.0 - 36.0 CLAY, silty, sea bottom,debri s , very wet - GREY ,
36.0 - 41.0 SAND, fine, silty with sea bottom debris, very wet - GREY �...
Water at 15'
Tes t Bart nq /8 j
0.0 - 6.0 ShMD, very fine, silty, moist TAN
6.0 - 9.0 CLAY, silty, wet - BROWN :
9.0 - 27 .0 CLAY, silty, wet - GREY
27.0 - 38.0 CLAY, silty, sea bot tom debris , very wet - GREY
38.0 - 40.0 SAND, fine, sit ty, sea bottom debris, very wet - GREY
Water at 13'
A
M011k Developeent W.d. 26S102
TAR.
I (Continued)
I
Test Boring 19
0.0 - 4.0 SAND, very fine, silty, moist - TAN
4.0 - 5.0 CLAY, slightly sandy, organic debris, moist - BROWN
5.0 - 27 .0 CLAY, silty, wet - GREY
27.0 38.0 CLAY, silty, sea bottom debris , very Net - GREY
38.0 - 40.0 SAND, fine, silty, sea bottom debris, very wet - GREY
Water at 14'
Test Boring 010
0.0 - 5.0 SAND, very fine, silty, moist - TAN
5.0 - 5.5 CLAY, slightly sandy, organic debris , moist - BRUN
5.5 - 11.0 CLAY, silty, wet - BROWN
11 .0 -- 27.0 CLAY, silty, wet - grey
27.0 - 39. 5 CLAY, silty, sea bottom debris, very wet - GREY
39.5 - 424 SAND, fi,nn , silty, sea bottom debris , very wet - GREY
Water at 15'
Test Boring Ill
0.0 5.0 SAND, very fine, silty, moist - TAN
5.0 - 12.0 CLAY, silty, wet - BROWN
12.0 - 33.0 CLAY, silty, wet - GREY
33.0 -- 39.0 CLAY, silty, sea bottom debris, very wet - GREY
39.0 -- 41 .0 SAND, fine, silty, sea bottom debris, very wet GREY .
Water at If,'
Test Boring 112
0.0 - 6.0 SAND, very fine, silty, moist - TAN
5.0 - 8.0 CLAY, silty, wet - BROWN
8.0 - 31 .0 CU,Y, silty, wet - GREY
31 .0 - 38.0 CLAY, silty, sr.* bottom debris , very wet - GREY
. 38.0 + 44.0 SANDo coarse, sea bottom debris - GREt'
water at 10,
A-LA
M «Nola Oor�tiopnt W.O. 265102
TABLE I .
(Continued)
. Test Boring 013 .
0.0 - 5.0 SAND, very fine, silty, moist - TAN
I . 1
5.0 - 12.0 CLAY 4 silty, wet - BROWN
12.0 - 28.0 CLAY, silty, wet -- GREY
28.0 - 30.0 CLAY, silty, Sea bottom debris, very wet - GREY
30.0 - 39.0 SAND, fine, silty, sea bottom debris , very wet - GREY
39.0 - 43.0 SAND, coarse, sea bottom debris - GREY
Water at 12'
TABLE II
Vest goring Depth in Expansion Expansion
"No. Feet Index Potential
1 23 93 Nigh
4 35 98 Nigh
9 26 101 Nigh
i
11 30 106 high
li 12 40 55 Medium
r
r
salaac*; almip m Jo on
M
` c
got
� 1
µ.1
FI
� 1
lw
WILDLIFE LIST
The following Is a list of birds observed at the pond nn-site between 1/29/77 and
10/15/80. The list, compiled by Chris Schumacher and Jean Shiffer, was provided in e
letter to the Community Services Commission, City of Kintington Beach on 12/4/80.
Although over time additions could be made to the list, it is on accurate listing of
"representative" birds and the diversity of species expected to use the site.
Eared Grebe Common Egret Forster's Tern
a Pied-billed Grebe Snowy Egret Caspian Tern
! Double-crested Cormorant Great Blue Heron Mourning Dove
Mallard American Coot Rock Dove
Pintail Americon Avocet Belted Kingfisher
American Widyeon Black-necked Stilt Common Crow
Shoveler Semi-palmated Plover Mockingbird
Blue-winged Teal Killdeer Loggerhead Shrike
+ Cinnamon Tea! Solitary Sandpiper Starling
i Green-winged Teal Willett Audubal's Warbler
Convosback Greater Yellowlegs House Sp irrow
Bufflehead Lesser Yellowlegs Western Meadowlark
Ruddy duck Black Phoebe Red-winged Blackbird
Hooded Merganser American Bittern Brewer's Blackbird
White-tolled Kite Long-billed Gowitcher House Finch
Sharp-shinned hawk Knot 01te-crowned Sparrow
rs Red-toiled hawk Western Sandpiper American Goldfinch
Osprey Wilson's Phalarope Savannah Sparrow
Merlin Common Snipe Song Sparrow
14 American Kestrel California Gull
w.
LU �=
X �g
.Q
r VIRONMF.NTAL IMPACT EVALUATION: Archaeological Assessment of
the Mola Development on the
Southeast. Corner of Adams
Avenue and Reach Boulevard
in Huntington Beach, Ca9.iforniat
r+a
j4
f4
M
by: Christopher R. Drover Ph. D.
Consulting Archaeologist
SDAW Inc.
F4 Design Plaza, Suite 20
Newport beach, CA. 92660
1 14
for: The City of Huntington Beach
Mol.a Development
Septamber 1901
1�
-• Management Summary
An archaeological records search anti walk--over survey
were undertaken on 10 September for approximately 60 acres
of land comprising the Mola Development located on tho
southeast corner of Adams Avenue ind Beach noulevard in
Huntington Reach, California. These procedures were designed
to ascertain whether any cultural resources might be
impacted by the eventual residential, attached and condominium
land use proposer: for the parvel . A surface survey conducted
on the subject property and a check of the archaeological
records on file Pvt California State University, Fullorton
f
by the author were accomplished. This work was undertaken
in accordance with the City of Huntington Beach ' s desire
to record an.1 protect cultural resources.
. r While n few specimens of marine shell were recovered
from the top of a small bluff in the southwestern corner
4 1
of the property, no direct evidence of permanent prehistoric
human utilization coald be demonstrated for the project area.
The majority of the subject property lies in the Santa Ana
w. River flood plain and includes an active drainage with an
associated fresh--salt water estuary. Such an area is not
readily conducive to human occupation prehistorically.
Due to the sensitivity of surroundinq bluffs to prehistoric
•M
human occupation and the existence of archaeological site
ora-350 immediately south of the subject property, it in
suggested that archaeological gradinq observat.Lon acco"ny
any earth movinq activities on the bluff tops in the south-
western portion of the parcel.
R
0%2-
Field Procedures
Field techniques consisted of an on--site, systematic
survey conducted by the author on 10 September 1981. The
property was inspected utilizing north to south transacts a .
approximately 50--100 feet apart. While as much as 501 of w�
the topographically lower portion of the property was
obscured duc to dense , low plat growth, the bluff-ton * '
(area of most probable prehistoric use) was readily observ-
able.
x
Effective Environment
The project area in question is located on the
westernmost edge of the SaiNta Ana River floodplain at
p,.
the transition between the lower topography of, the floodplain
and the higher topography of the river terrace. A small
pt►rtion of the river terrace is included in the Louthweatern
corner of the property. Tr3 lower portion of the project
area is transected north to south by ra channelized stream
drainage. This lower area also includes oil well platforms,
some of which appear active and locations of top soil dumping.
One area adjacent to the bluff mentioned above appears to
be an active fresh and salt water marsh which may still be
affected by tidal fluctuations . The area of standing rater
and stud wam not surveyed. Dense, introduced grasses also
made obnervaticn of the ground surface difficult in this
area of lower topography. Cart-tail (fie lratifo�) were
in evidence near the marsh area indicating the pratsencer of
a partial fresh Mat^r environment.
-3-
Plant growth on the bluff-top consisted of soap
introduced weeds (Composites) and Eucalyptus Trues (HucaDTtus
up. ) . The low grasses (Gramineae) of the lower topography
were not present to obocure the obsevation of the bluff- top.
Results
Highly fragmented shellfish, abalone (Naliotin opp. )
and Pismo Clam (Tivela stultorum) were four.3 in very small
!numbers on the top of the bluff. Sever:,�l fragments of
historic ceramic fragments and chunks of asphalt were also
observed. While the shell fragments and ceramic fragments
might seem to indicate human habitation of the bluff, the
degree to which the bluff-top has been disturbed in recent
years may indicate these items were introduced. Evidence
0 exists (broken concrete and asphalt) to nuggest the area
has been used ,as a dump which has been summarily disced
by heavy equipment for weed control. No remnants of historic
house foundations or discolored soil which might suggest
prehistoric occupations were found. The highly distrubed
nature of soil combined with only minimal, fragmented
shell specimens and no observations of lithics (culturally
modified stone) would suggest that significant cultural
deposits do not exist on the site. However, the preeenae
of shell fragments , the proximity of a registered site
s
(Ora-358) and the sensitivity to such topography to Local
prehistoric occupation warrant future grading observation.
's Reconwoendations
+ It is recommended that a qualified archaeologist be
r
w�w
present in the initial phases of any proposed grading
activities on the bluff-top. Such observation would! allow �
for a direct determination as to whether any prehistoric
r
habitation occurred on the bluff-top during the exposure ' M
of subsurface soils. Such grading observation activtie■ s9
could likely be accomplished in one man/day depending
on the grading schedule and should not exceed
9 9 approximately
$150. 00 .
M-
Rr.
IG
Ttao 3.1lkrbaza Zoos Ang.�1165 San Diego D erts X. Amorina Vests 1?.�.
Hors 1%9 wuca F vmx"A Koriirlty K.J. Rog Wallace Willey am Mute
5 �1 6%
mute-.to Historic :umui- DiegusF:a II Dleguel o
Shoahonean Lulee�a Prehistoric '
=
Classic
Harism IV Yttwan- 'F
t` Prahistar .0 ►hashoamn
Laaa�.i$�o Leto Classic �
1000 � Prehiaturi Yhoahonsar� �:�rbaa� � e
F�orisarj II Amrgo"
2000 IntGaediat -
! Foratira
i tied
Rating _ c .
j Casp c` u La Jolla II Pinto
I�pO; Hariaoo II I,z dollaa o
jhtlli�toe 4
i Lw Jolla II
oaa - Itromic
Oak IZ (bum" bes
Gsvxa Harison i = �1tiT.;s�+al hun t
urly Man HIATIM
TOCC Macinitas Z� Jolla► I
Ia4s U""
San &=IA= lioer
a
eri
Ilitguito .`'`"
fteguito
Q S San
Diegttit�� .y�tlii a
Pre- III bout -
San
Die�:iy ? oollicti
000
LOOM .
F
• r
Ar b"cloSical Rewarch Facility
.��rr 1� irrrr rl.lY/ rr � rrwr�r.r Mi�rrrr���• I Y rwr��y�
Museum of Anthropakgy
Caliiornis Mate thdveMty
Fullerton, Callfornia 926M
Christopher E. D►rwer, Ph.D. R719) 773.3977, 773-3976
Consulting Archasologlat
18142 berets Way
Tustin, CA 9268o
September 17, 1981
Dear Chris;
At your request, a records search was conducted for property
located on the southeast corner of Adams Avenue And Beach Boulevard in
Huntington Beach, using the archaeological reco ds on File In the Anthro-
pology Museux at California State University, Fullerran.
While no archaeological sites have been previovaly registered, on
the subject property, this 60 acre parcel. appears to be below the bluff
line, along which lies an almost: continuous string of sites.
Ora-558 3s directly south of the subject property And, while it is
heavily disturbed, it is registered as partially extant. Surface arti-
facts noted include flakes and cores and one piece of worked red glass.
Directly to the north of the subject property Is the large, multi-
component Ora-188. The only part still intact is that which is within
the historle Newland douse yard.
Almost the entire City of Huntington isvach is archaeologically
sensitive and only the elevation of the subject: property aatght preclude
finding uurface artifacts. Several sub-surface remains have turned up
In the Santa Ana River flood plain during grading activity and that:
remains a viable possibility.
If you need any further information, don't hcsitate to call.
Constanct Cameron, Curator
Museum of! Anthropology
••� 1 •••�f••.+ .,r`�`•r-ter`-•"••.y .. � '�f rr 1 �.
r, •
r r
� 1• .w�•1•i • '4 ,_`,� +•r ••if s_le.+_fin, •'• �,
car
11 '
•
' .
rw� I1' >•,w• 1 ••-ri }••r<e 1 �'{{•r•.-...•.nV1L� Ij aMrR/ i� • r. •
i�t
+ " 01 1!: •OI �i7M� u ,••�•ria■sl• iw ...r-
--- � ..AXis
rt—
K.F.l::.:....1 .,..
�404 MP
Alb
y
LP to Sol
try j '�liDyt,
■■, :.W�JRo.�.•w,e�.•-.t>-�pry�,nrr •�•—�. -. _ ,_.` r.. rr•.1Li�d7ill,r.w�f ri}•re1.-...T•�•.u...san•rw•r.,sw a�a.
,r
N
X M •1
�.tt:._:It._a..•ct:= ,x'.s:..cs:..-• r z � j �,� .o �:�,,...�-., � .r+. r) ii ~ • .�
�KI rMM•=w• •1�'• - �••ice r �I '���.� 1 ra.+ • • , •r K`
• :• ... ..
r... •r':'•r•�� rZ''j� 1 •� .we,,,lr.�i..� r{!r � ,..0 rwl�s� •+ 1!*i if I r
'r • ��r � - P lilfff r rt �Jr „ram
to
.2 sit
..i�: •• • •. •� •► •• • 1••• • •�• • •••K • 1 Qat to C)•`!' •l _ •� ...,•,.•„ • /'•1• w1
•11A LIP
T • �J,SO
��.w• 1 I) O H ` 1•
aw of
•
*l�i1I 91r7�I
r
q A M
u a7 P,
or 1
.� %4 Y1
A 1h an
I:C F
Traffic Analysts
r
.Y
•
i
• , i
BASMACIYAN-DARNELI, RIC.
PrAN UNG AXv Maw
43 Can"&afv%Sw%S.1 N wpo" ft Cam,. "60
July !; loll
i� Mr. xtnnith !le,Ylenr
Danielian and Associates
3849 CWus Drive -
Suite 210
i•
Newport Beach , CA 42660
Subject: Traffic Deport for Nola Development Project locattd
at Beach Boulevard and Adams Avenue in Huntington
Beach
M
Dear Xr. Mullane :
In accordance with your authorization, we have prepared this
letter report for the subject protect. The report provides a
10 summary of traffic generation to/from the project area►, trip
di st ribuf:ion and assignment, an-site ci rc zlaition, and a din -
30 cussion of impacts on the adjacent street system.
fl
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
kola Development proposes the construction of 800 multiple family
M residential units on a 60 acre parcel of land located at the
d :southeast corner of the intersection of Beach Boulevard and
Adams Avenue . Figure 1 shows the location of the project site
and the surrounding street system.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
The site proposed for development is vacant. Access to the
project is proposed via a new roadway through the site with an
intersection at beach Boulevard and an intersection with Adam
Avenue, The proposed roadway traverses the project site pro-
viding a 11 nk between the two intersections. In addition to
the new intersections, sight turn in and right turn out access
is proposed at two locations on Beach boulevard ar,d at one
location on Mama avenue.
ftad ►ay„`Ch!Eeteri$tics
beach Boulevard and Adams Avtnue constitute tM primrr 00"S AW
vehicular circulation in the i:ewediate vicinity of the pV*J* .
fit**
Roo" Dvsrlaward (#tit&' ft"te 32) is calrttrac as a $-Iwo
MJW arterial h1shlar with a raised wedice Up xqadwf &*
i
n AVE
a
Ns� 5"�•
aM
SCItZMJ1TYC OYLX
(not to realo)
w
� ADAMS AVE.
�n.
�pt SITE �
1 SITE
a
ai
Ns
FIGURE I
LOCATION KAP
7 IML
4wftw"Mrs 9Ar M �.
ob"Memak aftm
dub jest a Traffic Report for Nola Deve►lepseent Project located at
beach, boulevard and Adam Avenue in Huntington beeacb
Jttl�t .!, 1�51
a taqr• 2
r
fully Improved with pavaeiven't, curb, gutters and left turn naets
at intersections. County of Orange Master plan of Arterial sigbF
�y ways (HPA ) classifies this roadway as a Major Arterial. Match
boulevard servers as a north-south oriented vehicular corridor prow
vidin access to the beach apeas as well as a eamuter route foe
inl destinations within the County. Yn the Lowdiaeter vicialty
of the project the intersection of Reach Boulevard and Atlases
► Avenue is controlled by a fully actuated g-phase traffic signal.
�• Adams Avenue is classified on the MPAR as a Major Arterial, i-lase
divided, between beach Boulevard and Brookhurst Street and as a
Frfseary Road westerly of S each Boulevard. ramediately east of
the project site Adams Avenue is fully improved with curbs` gutters,
sidewalk, asphaltic paving and a painted awdian. Adjacent to the
e't project the roadway improvements consist of asphaltic paving to
provide two travel lanes in each direction.
*� Land Use
The surrounding land use is depicted on Figure 2. Adjacent to the
project site in a service station on the corner of' $each BouUvaxd
and Adams -Avenue. To the south and east of the project site
,M single family residential exists and to the north the property
is vacant but has recently been approved for construction of the
Newland Center (a neighborhood shopping center complex) . Approval
of the Newland Center project included the following mitigation
t measures :
Fully improve the northerly half of Adams Avenue east
Rs
'69
of Beach Boulevard adjacent to the project site.
Mr ,
Prohibit parking on all approaches to the Beach
Boulevard and Adams Avenue intersection.
Modify Beach Boulevard to provide left turning lanes
or southbound Beach Boulevard to eastbound Adwa t Avenue.
1 .
Daily Traffic
+ ' Xxisting daily traffic volumes on. beach Boulevard and Adam Avenue
were estimated from the 1978 traffic flaw leap for Huntington Beracb.
Traffic volumes on 'Beach Boulevard were eaetinat*d to be ap o�-
nately IS percent higher while the growtA CA Ads" "Avan*O 3s wsti-
Rated to• bar • 12 percer►'. higher. These peL•centages and! r*sulting
rr IM88 were -discusser:: with the CritY staff-
in additioo to the estiwateed daily volumes sbw+n on
recent tuyrniaq scow eat counts were obtained frm WO
this Later s:ct 00 of bleach boulevard send "a" Arr+sWeee. ' 'seises►
J• '
�sJ
AM Mae
�Q!I�Y►TxC �dJ1LY �
(Not to Ocala) o
Newland -
Ln Center i
Service
lWECT
51TZ
stations
� fIT
Single Family y
N
Residential Housing
E3 "
0
it
lfilc ■
LEGEND
XX,XXX Daily Traffic Volume
r �
rJOUAE 2
BUSTING 1AND VU .
�. D
Mir ,Mri1 i DAILY TpArfic VCIAMS
Subjects Traffic Plaperrt for Nola Uer+elopsMsnt Project laeitid at
Hach boulevard and .Ada" Avenue in Huntington Beach
� dwly �, lldl
Page 1
of these counts with HDI estimated volumes showed bh accuracy
within two percent.
Intersection Capacitor
The capacity of Beach Boulevard and Adams Avenue was calculated
using the Intersection Capacity Utilisation method. This swrthod
provides for the determination of the Level of Service (W$) or
volum-to-capacity ratio. The Levels of Service range from LOS
.. W to LOS *]►". A discussion on ICU and LOS is contained in the
attachment to this letter. The analysis performed for the inter-
section utilised existing PH peak hour turning movement counts
obtained from the City of Huntington Beach. A copy of those
traffic counts can be found in the Appendixe
♦•
The results of this analysis show the intersection of Beach
Boulevard and Adams Avenue has an existing ICU of 0. 71. This
ICU value correspones3 to a LOS of "C". With the addition of the
proposed Newland Center traffic and the associated roadway improve-
. mentsp the intersection is antic.-'. gated to have an ICU value of
0, 75, LOS "C" . A copy of the ICU worksheets is contained in the
` attachment to this letter.
PROJECT-RELATED TRAFFIC
Trip Generation
Trip generation characteristics for the proposed residential
development are sumarized in Table 1 . The trip veneration rates
used were taken from the Institute of Traffic Engineers Handbook
oti Trip Generation. These rates were discussed with the City
staff and adjusted accordingly to raflec- local variations in
trip making characteristics.
1
r •
.f
• Subjects' Traf A z F*Vort for Moia Developmot .Project located wt
5racb boulevard and Ad &ns Avenue in 1hmt MgtDe
July !, 190X ..
t tays 4
Tablo 1
SUMQARY OF TRIP GEt+ZMTION CRhRACTJMIBTXCS .
Trip Generation states
Residential Rates - Condaminims
Daily 9. 4 trip ends per dwelling unit
A34 Peak Hour OR
Yn 0. 2 trip ands per dwelling unit ►;
Out 0. 5 trip ends per dwelling unit
PM Peak dour ar
In 0 . 5 trip ends per dwelling unit
out 0 . 3 trip ands per dwelling unit
Trip Generation Summary
Daily 7520 strip ends
AM.Peak Hour
In 160 trip ends
Out 400 trip ends
PM Peak Hour
In 400 trip ends
Out 240 trip ends
A■•trip end is a cane-way movement either towards or away from a
residence.
,. Trip Distribution and Assignment
Trip distribution characteristics to/from the project Baer• esti-
mated considering the various land uses in the vicinity and
similar projects in the area. The estimated trip distribution �•
characteristics for this project are depicted on Figure 3+
Traffic to/frco the project was then allocated to the adjacent
street system in accor3ance .with the W atTibution pattern. The
resulting daily and PH pan): hour traffit to/frm the project is
shows, on Figure 4 .
rra j*ct- alaUd facts
!b eicew►im the impaota +1f this project the project-related
traffic volweos wse addwd to t Mti cipatsd "w1 and C*nter •-
traffic 404 tbsm 10"oritpe►sed ter the exi stiog traffic volviess
M tJW at". Tba results of this Malysis are depiated 40
a
lit
�O d
i
R An.
rr�
SCIl MATsr ONLY
(not to rceifl
0
v .
w►
11HS AVE.
15
oaxCr
xsr�
L
m
M
m
LEGEND •
1st
XXt - Trip Distribution
• Percentage
F I GURE 3
TRIP DISTRIBUTION PATTERN
"Soo
Subject: Traffic fcepart for Nola Develar""t project lcwd4ed at
Mrach doulovara and J ftas Uonim in 11cuntirb9ton ve,aab
Page. g ...
The Utersoction tapac.�ty UtrLlis Lion ; (ICU) moth" wits %U'%*4 to
INVAlUst• UND l+0t*nti1Al •iwpacts boy' th• Intersection of Rack
boulevard, and Mom 4v env►o, The aoalyeir assumes that far
ihtersectlion iwpxuvwA=ts refquireed for Beewland Center would be --
I ted an�,•�.n � �.% � Thee,-resulting tCU for the ta%o4rseotlan
is d.90.. ''''his. ICU"4alir corrtopmdo to a - Level',of iorvtoa "C"
hawed an ,a rtviev of the anticipated project-related traffic �.
and superrimposin of project-�re�lat+ad traffic on existing t�raffia '
voluws no aapac ty and/or congestion problesas uoulft be antici-b
pateeda # w
ACCdlS AVO 06- EPITZ CIRCUUTIOH
Access �
Access tee/frcv, they project site hate-been reviewed and• det*rWinod
to be adequate for the proposed developiwnt. This conclusion
assumes, that full access to/from beach boulevard 'and Adams Avenue -�
will be, pornit'ted at the new intersections . The geometries for
each of i:hase intersections assumes two lane& exfting arid -
one lane entering the project eito. *`
• a
an-Site dirculation
The: prerliminary site plan for the proposed project has been +'j �►�
reviewed and has been determined to be Adequate,.
Traffic Control •.
Qn-site circulation has been reviewed in terms of the need for
6n-site treiffic control. After xaviewing the on-site circulation '
patterns wee would recommend that stop signs be. installed at each �-
entrance to the main roadway. The installsti6n of the stop signs'
will, provide for positive control, at these lorcatians. The need
for traffic signals at the new intersections on Beach Boulevard ._
and Adams Avenue was analyzed. The analypis was condurcted using.
the CUTIU&NO estimated daily traffic volwoe warrants. Based on
this analysis the access location on Adams Avenue: will not warrant �
a traffic signal. Howevverr a stop sign should be installed on •:`
Cho exit frqu the property.
The access location on Reach Boulevard Wi gne:d w:ith laimphis Avert a)
Is estimated to warrant the installation, of a, traffic signal uporx
full deveelopsent of the project. Thee signal installation should
Include ;left .turn phasing and be intercoiuiactod with the traf flC
signals on Mach boulevard. A copy of t1lis tra►fftc' signal warrant
+workshosts site contained in the aettachmerit to this tetttir,,
/ pibioct s Troths fort ter Holm Oe►wl S 1099 j"t 19"ke d at
• sewdh xOM aai "A" Avehae in oMU"t you*
Page
am
i
sty ,
Tho proposed deev*lQVMt Olt 0:J4 residential d"J.1ing
• units to anticipated to loserarte 7510 daily idle
trip ends. our the ,!'It ask ! $40 t L will be
wOrwrated (400 ie baund'•�rehi peak
and 340 outhomad S
Whin project-related iraffi.t is added to the existum
w
traffic: plus the Newland Center traffic, capacity
• and/or congestion problwo would not be anticipated.
Access to/from the Project site has been review" and
no problems are anticipated.
On-site cirevlation ham Imeen• revise 4 and detesa fined
t�+a be adaqua tee for the pxopoied project.
Stop 'signs are recaaaowndad -at the entrance b to the.
interior roadway from each of the off-site- parking
arilta/. .
A iraf fic signal will be varran6 •d at they eA jor access
on Beach Boulevard whereas a traffic signal at the major
interseectlon on Adams Airenlae will not be warranted aril/
+� at needed. .
1 Please call mee if you have any questions or need additioAml
information, •
. •b3ricerreif, .
BAS
MACxYU-DAMMLLe INC.
(Nvf
BED:hh •
Attac?xmsntd
. '
f '
� 'i
•
w
rar .
M ,
rw .
M` .
M�
f
ONO
? A..i ACfiMNT
Level of Sax-rice
Beach Boulevard and Adams Avenue
Turning movownt Counts .
Traffic Signal Warrant NWorksheats
..
w. ,
IP ONO!
«•� , . �e�Iie�r g'raffia waxily'. �!' �� • _
rw .of nominal
U* Vh Iw ash high *perils s ap " hot irett riahed 0.00 - 0."
by atber vemal"I a'.! signal crelos cl+e= with
r'
r• roo vehicles waitI%q ,thtagb a tAalt one signal '
6 Operating speeds beginning to be affected by
Wwr traffics beween am mind t.en'percent of 0.70
the signal cycles have one or more vehicles
•• which wait through wore than' one signal cycle
durin
g peak traffic periods.
C Operating speeds and maneuverability, closely .
rvntr lied by other traffics between 11 and 30
04 percent of the signal cycles hav* vne or more 0.71 - 0.80
vehicles which wait through more than one signal
�. cycle during peak traffic periods; rscommended
ideal design standard. .
D ,•' Tolerable operating speedsi 31 to 70 percent of
the signal cycles have one or more vehicles
w which wait through more than one signal cycle 0.61 - 0.90
during peak traffic periods s often used as
design standard in urban areas.
is ClInacityl ' the,Maxitataa trafffc� volume an Inter--
i. s ction can aicosnodatei restricted •pesilsr 71
6 to 100 percent of the signal cycles have one or 0.91 1.00
more vehicles which walk through more than one
signal cycle during peak traffic periods..
bw f Long queues of traffiri unstable flow; stoppages
of Yong duration; traffic volume and traffic ,
1
sp." can drop to ittros traffic vtiluwws will be Mlol 1Manl.r4lul
it less than the volume which occurs at Level of
Service is.
dP
•
TURNING MOVEMENT COUNT FORM
GATE - -81 _ TIME AM PEAK?:45- 45 _. Phil A�AK.4:3o .
COUNTED BY WEATHER NB VOL. E3 i NO 'VOL '10+
SAW AM INC. CITY OF Av& S@ VOL- 41'� S8 VOL 119
4M C DOW.SOW 11•1 M-S STREET j& SCS& E8 �-_ 5Q E8 VOL. 7Z,6
E_W STREETS A��-� 1H@ VOL. S4�
YIt@ VOL !04U
lrl7fAL VOL. Z•?O _ ?' TAt VOL. ;�$?; _...�
�JOtr.:hf DO�J�3� L�vND � �ctruD w
�
FtriM To
11 V4 131 1 q� 4 1/O 3 '457
1tr7 (¢ 135 ZZ 1 to3 3 . two Zo 151 2? 59 3 8R
!A- IS 114 1� 1 c5a 3f� $4 � 11q 43 tt?
7.45 goo 1 101 ?� .Z3 °� 1 zb 191 Zl 130 155 S s
g '39 Q6. t In i Z+ 2Ab •7 110 23 1 t0'1 Z, 1 Z4 2� 52. 7 1!A l 1 t
0 g 14L 16 1� t o 1'7t� ZZ Zi-1 vi 90 (9 116 ao 0 13Z &ZI
01245 i 3 14 t 10 kk4 J I Z15 zo Z" Z3 (.41 f0 44 -7 1 Z3
$= - i L. 14'L 8 i to Zm�k -La -71 5
=�J TO �h
:43 TO
A110 t ft: 21 9 ' 7,6 ?A6 `1 115 ?eta 2.41 10 fAt p 144 f �?
15 Tom!91 t4 Lt* 7,ti 2 i 23 220 35' e3 0 ) a 12t 60 132 2 Z
AL 1'R9 11- Z31 1' Z479 2eL 30$ 11 lob 16cp 47 234 ?A ZCA
4:4S is 1'1 II1q-
2.t% Z 2sa .10 Zl 106 t<I 2 VS . 33. 20 C) '3a. ? 191s
24 1191 Zts I5 Zoo t 3cXr L'� !2 g I 'S� I93 30 9i.
549 T 1 L !"11 Zo Zo5 t o 's"1 5 3c�3 I �13 1'3'� (� �'t. i Zlo
',. ' -r iiP• .- L IL rep .!. L. °1 A r Zr Ar'1 l !02w \■ AP/OW ■ .� _ _
INTERSECTlOM 4A AC Cr U! ILIZATEOM ANALYSIS
Intersecti on�, A��►►�g
• C Exlsti" traffic volumes Oasts an Average daily Traffic winter/Spring 19,�
Loan CO, lww CN. 046V44ti 14ti• �vrnd urlm" ow
M
NL I(OW 84 0. B4 0.0
-71
SL o; a 1 �5 29 U
(0 01 Me Z 15 1 I B"6MOWN SR
1�3
Vi
EL R000 51 0. 4 7.o 601 ,1 d5* 001
M ET 324o (O00 ,w . V, p.
mu
Ea 4 "�
tip. Ik6M o�► .07 •15 L o.De trot.
14 WT 3 3 0 9 8o I o.
wa o
til! rEltOWTIME
74U
&
•,�� t� ���� .� Mo�� wee �T .�-r ; ��,�,..,� a
f
Q Projected plus project traffic I .C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90
ii •
•Projected plus. project traffic I .O.U. will be greater than 0.90
�] Projected plus project traffic I .O.U. with systems improvement will be
less than or equal to 0. 90
r
r r � � � a r .{ � � • � � � � r .- r R i r 1 1• • i r Y • r Y � i � w r r w
Description of system improvement:
---- -• — ---------�._ _ -...�__ DATE : i�1
w..
TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS
(Boom so IsolooW AMess0s Deg I Tf.Nle - U9 MNe 31
--.-..w•. �.�•.�rww��+w� +
. Miwifttwtl R.0;ffrssswt�
EI,IDT .
1. Mlisi�rr YA14vlsf
Ss►Ns/1RRR� Mist SNisfied Vehicles !sr &I M w*N V�ridsi~jwir�isiri�•
s~(sstrl of book w�wts�itsrf.stMs�N rrRN1r
s fsst~ss� cow sa sn sdh
Number of Issws for moving try:flis to sysl~ sptfeeck . .
Meier Stroeet Miaow forest Urban Moral Uti�.w Rsl+sl
1 . . . . . . . . . . . .. . i . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I'm 51600 29 400 ' 10 Mi
2 at wsto . . . . . . . . i . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90640 6j7M 2,400 1.60
2 of Rots . . . . . . . . 2 of wro . . . . . . . . . . . l,600 i,720 2
1 . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2.01 were . . . . . . . . . . .
2. 1r�f.fnrptiee sf CofttlR�we�s Trisffic •. i
vehiclos !or dey on major Y+irid#s per Aq an NOW. �
Soo sfiw llrt sstisNW x strut (tot*l of both volwn v:fwf.sttsst siI
o►t + ++1 (wss games"0 i
f4vm6ref isnos for moving trsffieon orch oppresA r
Major Strw Miser Suit Uriw 160e1 Unto Runts i
1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12,000 8,400 1,300 up M
2 at ■eon . . . . . . . . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14400 10,000 1.200 $S0
_2 or "ors, . . . . . . . . 2 of were . . . . . . . . . . 1 A,,II10 14.000 1,i40 '1,11D 0
1 . . . . . . . . . . . . .. if were . . . . . . . . . . .
•
3. C mbinsfiM
3rti s fi�1 --......�•— Met $a"sii W x
z w.f,.Nes 21�effssts
He one wairmt setislioJ iwt I6114wiRs werre"ts
6110104 0%or stint___ �_ •..•—•. '
1 2 sw
140TE:
1. Loft turn weve■wents 1+ew Ike major str•s't fey be iRCINJ.4 with Reiner street relwMes 11 s sip4tetr ..+
signal pbese is to be pfsvided fist die, IA-turn fsoreaw+t.
2. To b* us" *Wy lot NEW IMTEItSECTIOMS or outer t*isfions whoft setvel trsf g w► mms tsawst
ie eisntwl. •r
TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT WORKSHEET
WMA VAM-DARNELL, INC ; FOR
dw 0wnpw 001%soft wt ADAMS VENUE AT COLDWATER LAM
M41 some
• TRAFFIC $IQMAL WARRANT3
Mead *a V-itisaMed Avoiter 04Y TWMg See 1400 21
URBAN...............RURALwo M•• ........
1♦ Miglls�ryrs Vofticnl.r
SatltN�rl...�.......•.�..•.� X VOlricloi hety .� ssris►r VJtidosrr�rstrbl�rw�
0~(spt•1 of 6* •�Iwrmi�awsiwews�g.rtis
s> rge.d�es) (oft ig.et#crt f1wr)
MowMt of Imes lot Navigrf traffic so each sppeacb
Motor Strut Minor Street Urww Rer.l UrbMt Rrral
1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $too S.600 20 M 1,M
2 of meet . . . . . . . . 1 . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . !,m 60730 2rAN 1,40
2 or meto 2 or Pot* 960 i 20 %200 2i
{'� 2. fetOrr.'tiow of Co+ttinwres 1`reHic '
t� Vohialos itw der ON Mwisr vemdes Per &Y so WOW.
S"lAw X ,.Not Ssti siiv strew (total of 61h volow minoo,w"w
Nvffl6t6f lanes lermoving Traffic so voch uppteach
t Major Street Miner Street Urban Rrrrd uAda IStnel
i . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12,000 S,ACO 1,Sd0 r30
2 or mote . . . . . . . . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14,400 )0,000 1,200 iS0
2 or mom . . . . . . . . I at mom . . . . . . . . . . . 14,A00 10.060 1 600
1 . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2 or xw re . . . . . . . . . . . 12,M 1,400 ,600 ,
TX
3♦ COar1ir.otien
S�rti s 0 od met satisfied 2 Wer "#$ S worrvals
me ogre •�srront satisfied byt follow1mv .Tenants
hrlfii1M1147i •t w+rO..._ ...�.�.... ..-.—�----
MOM
i. Leh torn merowe"fs Rests dw moi•r sure! Mr+1► be 1raely4oJ .rith Dinar $119 t "'Alum" 11 o s"w"ti
signal ph.se is to w pwviJW lirr *• loh•trrn wevomont.
2. To w ss+d •trey for NEW INTEItSECTIOMS Or Other lecstions wirer* •oval 4"k v9I004's ssomt
be cow fee
\B TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT 14ORKSKEET
FOR
MAF�tA *YAN••DAI�NEL4,lfiC. .
4X2 cam" v tw,sots♦1
t WACIf BOULEVAM AT NDWHIS AVXNUd
%""a tip,co t"teem
• � I'w t
` ,
M610 *09 Jae 0
s; 10,290
MOO
.. Adsr JIB.
• �'700
i tr�a•) (1620) (112i1) OR
id a ... J
64
r
SCM M TIC OWLY
(nat to scald
i�
y
LEGEND
XX xxx Cumulative Am -.
w
%=phiis xx XXX Existing AM -Jett- ted)
Ave' (X,XXX) Mdlp. Devela rtt .AM
X,Xxx Newland Center AM
amommmemomemem Imam gloom om9msm9mog4
a
worw4
FIGURE s
EXISTING PLUS FRWZCT-REL# "w
i11 IrA �11RMF�.i,Mom. TRA"I C VOLUMS
I�NrMi�iy i'i�s�r IMF
J- 1
Ave.
.0-r 1is/1T
198/19 3"/II
165/11
re lbw .r► .
195 21•�
PW 6�0/66
,l r-
1� CT -
> 0
.,y .•r
hA �
255/16
rM -
e•� t
in
in
P N
4 r
SCREMATLC ONLY ~
(not to scale)
M� ■
.,' 62/4
mon
A � P4
r, N
Memphis Ave. �'-� 1201/77
... Nam — . r+ 1116/7 5 LEGEND
XXX 7Y De i lY/pM iOO Hour
•
Traffic Volume
�.. u 4r � e�ss�lereRR�e,i11��e�R�Rdrs���sARiRe�R���
a t-% r4
•~ FIGURR 4
PltDJECT—RE!ATZD TPMPXC
DAILY AND PH PZAX NWR
dw004s aft `ir 04
�1�*IMr
AN
lbl a ""10prnot..dp Page I
YINCENT ME SIRE ASSOCIATES
NOISE ASSESSMENT FOR MOLA DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
CITY OF NUNTINCfON BEACH
I . EXISTING POISE ENVIRONMENT
Introduction
Pe proposed Nola perelop*ent Project is a 60-acre residential project
locatod in the City of Huntington Beach. The project calls for the
developarent of $00 multi family residential units. the project site is
located at the southeast corner of Adams Avenue and beach Boulevard. These
two streets are the only major noise sources affecting the site. Existing
,r residential developments Are situated on all sides of the project site.
04 This noise study will - analyze the noise impact of the project on
adjacent land uses and will determine the ultimate noise levels that may
.1 exist on the property. These levels will then be compared with applicable
ra City!State noise criteria and , if necessary, potential mitigation measures
will be suggested.
a Noise Criteria
Several rating scales have been developed for measurement of co Wnity
noise. These account for;
The parameters of noise that have been shown
to contribute to the effects of noise on man.
The variety of nc'ses found in the
environment.
The variations in noise levels that occur as
a person naves throigh the environment.
The variations associated with the time of
day.
the predominant rating scale now in use in California for land use
coefatibiiity assessment is the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL). The
CNEL scale is based on the A-weighted. decibel . A-weighting is a frequency
correction that correlates overall sound Pressure levels with the frequency
response of the human ear.
Kola Development... Nage t .-
CNEL is a 24-hour, tin-weighted annual average noise lancet .
Time-weighted refers to the fart that noise which occurs during certain
sensitive time periods is penalized for occurring at these times,. The ,
everting time period (7 p.m. to, 10 p.m.) penalizes noises by 5 d6, while
nighttime 10 p.m. to 7 a.m..) noises are nalized by 10 dB. Them tiweperiod•, aJ penalties were selected to refleceoples sensitivity to noise V
as a function of activity _ •.:��.
The criterion used to assess the tcceptabi l i ty of conrauni ty not se. covet s
car, vary with the municipality. Most comaaunities use 55 CNEL as the crfticai
criterion for assessing the compatibility of residential land uses with noise
sources. The Noise Element of the General Plan for the City of Nuntfngton
Beach requires that exterior living areas (yards and patios) for r"eesidtfttial
land uses do not exceed 65 CNEL. In addition , for multi-family residential
developments such as this project , the California Noise lrosulaticm Standard
(California Administrative Code, Title 25, Chapter 1 , Subchapter 1 , Article ip
4) requires that interior ' noise levels in the residential living spaces do Is
not exceed a CNEL of 46. The standards to be used for analysis in this
report are the exterior noise residential standard of 65 CNEL and the
interior noise residential standard of 45 CNEL. Rv
Noise Model
The noise levels projected in the next sections of this report were
computed using the Highway • Noise Model published by the Federal Highway . �
Administration ("FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Modtl ,"
FHWA-RD-77-108 , December 1978) . The FHWA Model uses traffic volume, vehicle
mix , vehicle speed , and roadway geometry to compute the "equivalent noise i
level . " A computer code has been written which compdtes equivalent noise
levels for each of the time periods t•sed in CNEL. knighting these noise
levels and summing them results in the CREW for the traffic projections used.
CNEL tong-.!rs are found by iterating ovL.' many distances until the distances
to the 60, 65, and 70 CNEL contours are f and . o
at
. op
YN
Mo14 Devei Wit... 1►age S
Exi sti n,_Noi se Level s
Existing noise levels in the vicinity of the project were established in
-o terms ' df the -CMEL index by modeling the roadways for current traffic and
speed characteristics. The roadways that were modeled for existing
conditions include roadways adjacent to the project and those that wi l l
ultimately serve as access streets for the project. The existing noise
envi roment was modeled in order to establish a baseline noise level to which
the future proj.^ct alternative can be compared.
Traffic data used to project the existing noise level are shown in Table
A. These data are derived from the traffic study in the EiR. The traffic
mixes and time distributions are presented in Table B. The traffic mix data
are based on measurements for roadways in Orange County (Oran a County
Traffic Census 1975, Compiled by EMA Development Traffic Engineering and are
considered typical for arterials in this area. '
Distancgs to CNEL contours for roadways in the vicinity of the project
are given in Table C. These represent the distance from the centerline of
the road to the contour values shown. The results show that the noise levels
on the project site are affected by roadway traffic. The 65 CNEL contour for
Beach Boulevard extends 108 feet from the roadway centerline on to the
project site.
w�
r
wM
w
.• Mp►ii11i1iprliMAt�. p"s
TABLE A
. TRAFFIC DATA USED TO PROJECT
EXISTING NOISE LEVELS j4Jir,.w
' ww.wwwwa awr••�ww/wwwwNYww.ra�r/wr•wwwr•aw MYi woo+r�.ywri y••yyii�i wrr..Yiw/wlNlww 7 � .
ROADWAY SEGMENT EXISTING VEHICLE SPEED ..
ADT (w")
ww aw woo ww wwww L..r•rrr.w+••.r.•r.r+.rr--b000+•wi..+www i•iyFwwwwr•Nr�..+ww/I•iawMiiw
SEMN WULEVARO
North of Adams 35600• 40
South of Adams 28750 40
ADWS AVENUE �
Mcs t. of Beach 7700 40
East of Beach 16400 40
wan wMwwwwwwa.•r wrw.. ••w Ab.% MMoo—ww 40 w w Mwwww wlww w woo
TABLE B
TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PER TYNE OF DAY
IN PERCENT OF ADT
wrwwwawww noonwwawwwwww wawwwwrawwwawAMrrarw for
PERCENT OF ADT
VEHICLE TYPE DAY EVENING NIGHT
wwwwrwwwwawwwwwwwwwwwrrw•w w�•ww�wr••wwnwwww
Automobile 75.51 12,57 2.34
Medium Truck 1.56 0.09 0.19
Nervy truck 0.64 0.02 O,OS
w•.wwarawwawwwwwwwwwww moon wwwwwwwwwwwMwwwww
• M
rr�.
• '
!b1� "Vol Oat.., 04+30 6
TABLE C
"' .. CKEL WISE. LEVELS FOR EXISTING
.. TRAFF-IC CONDITIOIIS
w+ wwr.�dwrwwrarw♦r.�tirrr•wN Ywl�rww.l.wrrw-+.rrwwrMwwrwwrwww wirr.�M11 Y.rrrrrwr AWrrwrww
DISTANCE TO CXEL CONTOUR
ROADWAY SEGMENT FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE (FEET)
60-CNEL 65-CREL 70-CMEL
�r rwwr�rrwiwrwwrawll.�rrrr-w rwiwwwaMwrwrwr ar-rr.rwrww♦wr•�Ma1M�Yr--r.��i..rriw
BEACH BOULEVARD
North of Adams 269 135 58
Sou`.h of Adams 233 108 So
ADAMS AVENUE
(lest of Beach 97 44 +
East of Beach 160 74 34
w-NyrrrrM Awrwwrwrar+rr-www rwwwrrwra�wo.wwwwrw--wi+i�r rrwrrw.rir. r�•+�lwwwr•
* denotes that contour does not extend past roadway edge,
r+
rr
�M
J
At
Holm Development.,. Page 6 �-
J
. r
II. POTENTIAL. NOISE IMPACTS
Three types of noise impacts may arise from the, project.- • (1)
construction noise may impact surrounding land uses, (Z) project related
traffic may increase noise levels on properties located along primary access
routes and J31 roadway noise may adversely impact the exterior and inte►riotnoise levels o he proposed residential homes.
Construction Noise e+
Construction noise represents a short-term impact on ambient noise
levels. Noise generated by construction equipment and construction 64
activities can reach high levels. Noise-sensitive land use adjacent to the ,
project includes existing residential homes on all boundaries of the site.
Adherence to the City's noise ordinance that limits the hours of construction
to normal weekday hours should minimize any potential noise impacts.
Im ac is on Surrounding Land Uses A
An important part of a noise analysis is the identification of
noise-sensitive land uses that: may be impacted by the proposed project. This
would include any residential properties, schools , hospitals , or other
noise-sensitive land user; situated along roadways that will carry
project-generated traffic. In the case of the Mal& Development Project,
existing roadways that will serve as primary access streets for the project '
include Beach Boulevard and Adams Avenue. Existing residential homes are
located along sections of both these streets.
The impact of the project on these "and uses is assessed by determining
the existin noise levels on these roadways both with and without the
project. The difference in noise levels ►could be due to the increase in the
project traffic. The project-related traffic data used to estimate these
noise levels are shown in the first column (project only traffic) of Table D.
Table E indicates the existing CNEL noise levels at 100 feet from the
centerline of the modeled roadways both with and without the project. Table .,
E also gives the increase in noise levels along these roadways due to the
project only. The results show that the noise levels will incroasa by less
than 0.4 dii. These projected increases fa noise levels are not significant
when one considers that the human eat• is just barely able to discern a noise
change of 3 dBA. Therefore, traffic generated by the project will not
adversely impact land uses adjacent to these roadways.
�• twig awl qww e e top' ?
r+ TABLED
. ;.
TRAFFIC DATA USED TO EST114ATE IM IMPACT OF THE PRW ECT
• AND FUTURE NOISE LEVELS
+wrrw. �wr�.�....wr+w�•w..wwwr.�.►rw�wwwr�w.A�r. r.�r.�rw�r�►+ • .
•,. ROADWAY SEGMENT PROJECT ONLY' ULTIMATE
TRAFFIC TRAFFIC
.�wrwi Awww ww�.rrwwww w++wrMwwwrww wrl�w+r rwwrprMr,+Y rwrrww�
SEACH BOULEVARD
rp North of Adams 3760 43900
South of Adams 2950 33640
WHS AVENUE
West of Beach * (Awl 10290
East of Beach. 1620 20610
• wMwwwww w,/.iwrw wNwrKN•Yw.lrw Yw•w��rwwwwAW�ww Mww�rl�yrF.ww
k•t
N•
�w
At
I.•V1 f ,. 'TABLE E '• i •' ';1+ , •' > 1I:r1 .
- ; INCREASE IN EXISTI NG NOISE LEVELS
DUE TO THE PROJECT
w.�.r�yi.rrw•..rw.ra.�.wow.��..www�.�wwr..w�r�wwwr.owwwrw�wwwrww.www�►w�wwww...rwywwwwr.w .
EXISTING CNEL. NOISE LEVEL AT 100 FT INCREAU �
ROADWAY SEGMENT Without With 0M TO
Project Project PRWECir '
•Y.wil.•wwww rwwwwwrYwr r.i...w r w...w.w.wwwwwra.ww•,rrYw�.iwww�w�..i�wwwwrrwl..rwwwi
BEACH BOULEVARD '►
North of Adams 66.4 66.8 ' *0A
South of Adams 65.5 65.9 t0.4 e,
AaAPtS AVEMJE
(lest of Beach fi9.8 $9.8 O . ,►,.
Easi of beach 63.1 63.5 +0,4 ,
www.r..rw...���wwwwrwwi.•.�w..wrww..ww .wftft-* wrwftwwrM 0 MOD W4aK+M�IM��ww���M�
e
• �R
tw-
• w«
Iola DevelOpment. .. page 9
Raise Levels at the project Site
Future noise levels at the project site and all streets in ths.
vicinity of the project were determined using future traffic volumes for
the surrounding roadways and the FKM Highway Traffic Noise Prediction
Model (described in the *Existing Noise Erwirorment" section). The traffic
data . used to project future noise levels are shown in the second column
(future traffic of Table 0. Future traffic volumes were derived from the
traffic study in the EIR and include traffic from the project and a number
of other nearby proposed projects. Vehicle speeds , traffic mixes, and time
distributions are assumed to be the same asfor existing conditions.
The distances to the CNEL contours for these roadways are given in
Table F. They represent the distances from the centerline of the road to'
the contour values shown. Note that the values given in Table F do not
take into account the effect or any noise barriers or topography that may
affect ambient noise levels. Ir.. addition, existing legislation is expected
to reduce noise levels fram future vehicles by 3 d8A or more. 'This
reduction is not included in the!:e estimates.
The 65 CNEL contour for these roadways will extend onto the property
of the proposed project. In order to comply with the City's 65 CNEL noise
criterion , mitigation measures to reduce the impact from the roadway noise
levels may be required.
Interior Noise Levels
The proposed residential land uses are subject to meeting the 45 CREL
interior noise level as specified in the California Noise Insulation
Standard. Using the results from Table F. and the preliminary site plan, a
23 d6A indoor/outdoor building attenuation will be needed to met the
Interior noise level criterion from roadway noise. Normal building
construction practices should achieve the required indoor/outdoor
attenuation.
. Nola Bevel t ort... P� t0 •
TABLE F
CNEL NOISE LEVELS FOR ULTIMATE
TRAFFIC CONDITIONS .
ii.ryfYyw�iYrYiYdYii•iYMiii�iYwMYii•YYiNiYiiiMiYYYiiii iY..i YY�Yiliii��r .
0 STANCE TO CNEL COIL =
ROADWAY SEGMENT FROM ROWDWAY CENTERLINE (FEET) _
60-CNEL 65-CIIEL 70-M
•.•�M���r�iw��►iww�.�•Yi�.riw��i wYYiiYY ww.�ilYligw/ r.rN/iwi�•i.i�iMir��yM.ii�;w��1�i�•A .
BEACH BOULEVARD
North of Adams 309 143 66
South of Adams 257 119 55
ADANS AVENUE
West of Beach 117 54
East of Beach 187 87 40• 1�
r MM t����i�w i.•Mr�.iw.YMMr.•ri�iiiMr�iri��.�i iwYwww.�w�wi�iw�AiirrWiAl�ilw•Yii�7A+
* Denotes that contour does not extend past roadway edge.
•.A
• V
w
Nola D evtl o�pment... ft" 11
III. MITIGATION MEASURES ,
Exterior Noise Levels
Ilith proper , site `des*ij "the site can accarrmodate residential tad uses
and , be compatible with the Noise Element of the General Plan for the City, of
Wntington leach, Measures must . be - designed to satisfy the Ciy!s
requirwent that 65 CNEL not be exceeded in outside -living areas. : if
residential buildings are to be located within these 65 CNEL- corstours, ,•t•hien
mitigation measures that can be undertaken include building setbacks
construction of a noise barrier or orientation of the buildings themselves
to act as a barrier. Mitigation through the design and construction of a
noise barrier (wall , berm, or combination wall/berm) is the most coma on way
of alleviating traffic noise impacts. The effect of a noise barrier is
critically dependent on the geometry between the noise source and the
receiver. A noise barrier effect occurs when the "line of sight" between the
source and receiver is penetrated by the barrier. The greater ' the
penetration, the greater the noise reduction. Building setback or a noise
barrier would easily attenuate the noise down to acceptable levels.
A noise barrier must be of solid construction with no holes or cracks
and have a surface density of at least 4 pounds per square foot. The barrier
must be long enough to prevent sound from flanking around the ends of the
barrier and degrading the performance of the barrier. At the tune a sr iific
site design and grading plan is developed , the noise levels should again be
reviewed to ensure that adequate mitigation has been incorporated into the
pru ect.
Second-story patios are also subject to meeting the 65 CNEL exterior
noise criterion. Thus, any second-story patios within the 65 CNEL contour
should be oriented away from the roadway or may be required to be enclosed by
a five foot high glass enclosure. This would apply only to any residential
buildings immediately adjacent to the roadways.
Interior Noise Levels
The California State noise Insulation Standards and the City of
Huntington Reach require that the interior noise levels for residential units
be no greater than 45 CNEL. Since no specific plans have been proposed for
this site, the indoor/outdoor noise reduction requirements cannot be
determined. The required noise reduction will depend on the strategies
selected for exterior noise reductions (e.g. , sound barriers) , architectural
details of the buildings , and orientation of the individual units.
" • s MIA 84w1 a6w"t... page 12
Southern California dwellings with windows closed typically produce a 25
d9 indoor/outdoor attenuation for highway noise, `"TM data preumted in Table
F indicates that 66 CNEL is worst-case txposure, without any barrier, ,..- .
cons1der4tioas and 'siting the buildings directly adjacent to the 'roadways.'
Designing , the - buildings to achieve 25 dB attenuation will reduce 'interior
noise level's to 45 CNEL. Such a building design is easily realized given the e+
energy i nsul ati on re qui ceoents. At the tiaAe of tut 1 di erg perei t app i cati on
the architectural plans should be reviewed to ensure that interior noise
levels - do not exceed 45 CHEL. it additional attenuation is necessary, �a
eersures (increase in window glass thickness, reduction of winder area,
and/or location of attic vents away from the roadways) can be specified at
that time.
f