Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Huntington Beach Senior Center Project Final Environmental I
A� CITY OF HUNTINGTON EACH Inter Office Communication Planning Department TO: Distribution FROM: Jennifer Villasenor, Associate Planne DATE: December 4, 2007 SUBJECT: HUNTINGTON BEACH SENIOR CENTER PROJECT FINAL.ENVIRONMENTAL, IMPACT REPORT(EIR 07-002) Thank you for your cooperation in expediting your review of the Huntington Beach Senior Center EIR No. 07-002. With assistance from City staff, PBS&J Associates recently completed the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR No. 07-002) and we are distributing the Final EIR at this time. On September 17, 2007 you received a copy of the Draft EIR for this project. The attached Final EIR consists of Response to Comments received on the draft document as well as text changes necessary as a result of the Draft EIR comment period and Planning Commission study session meetings. If you require an additional copy of the entire document for review,please let me know. For your information, copies of the document were also distributed to the Planning Commission, City Council and other agencies that commented on the Draft EIR. Other copies are available for public review at the Planning and Zoning Counter and the Huntington Central Library. The document can also be viewed and downloaded in searchable format from the City's website. A public hearing before the Planning Commission is scheduled for December 11, 2007. Thank you for your cooperation in review of the document. If you have any questions,please contact meat x1661 Distribution: Penelope Culbreth-Graft,City Administrator(Memo Duane Olson,Fire Chief(Memo only) only) Paul Emery,Deputy City Administrator(1 copy) Ken Small,Chief of Police(1 copy) Scott Hess,Director of Planning(Memo only) Jim Engle,Director of Community Services(i copy) Mary Beth Broeren,Principal Planner(Memo only) Dave Dominguez,Community Services Manager(1 copy) Travis Hopkins,Director of Public Works(1 copy) Stanley Smalewitz,Director of Economic Development (Memo only) Bob Stachelski,Transportation Manager(1 copy) Ross Cranmer,Director of Building and Safety(Memo only) Terri Elliott,Principal Civil Engineer(1 copy) —;-Joari-L,Flynn,City Clerk=(i=copy)- Debbie DeBow,Senior Civil Engineer(1 copy) Lee Caldwell,Fire Development Specialist(1 copy) GAVillasenorASenior Center\CEQA\FinalEIRDistribution.DOC Resn�i6ie pq �Cornoarice cYO MNgafflon Measure i(,a rifir r1fin Si nature' Date u Iturall'R esourpes M M 4.4-1(a) (This MM incorporates Measures Archaeology-3, Proof of retention of Verify retention of Plan check Planning Archaeology-4, Historical-1, and Paleontology-1 from the Central archaeological and qualified monitors prior to Park Master Plan EIR) paleontological monitor issuance of The City shall arrange for a qualified professional archaeological grading permit and paleontological monitor to be present during all project- related ground-disturbing activities, including the potential Periodic field check Throughout Planning disturbance of soils on adjacent slopes. In addition, all to ensure monitors ground- construction personnel shall be informed of the need to stop are present disturbing work on the project site in the event of a potential find, until a activities qualified archaeologist or paleontologist has been provided the opportunity to assess the significance of the find and implement appropriate measures to protect or scientifically remove the find. Construction personnel will also be informed that unauthorized collection of cultural resources is prohibited. Huntington Beach Senior Center Mitigation Monitoring Program 7 0 0 0 • • • •e b O • • b • O b 0 b k Implementation Responsible Compliance Mfi ation Measure Documentation Monitorin ,Activ' riming_ Monitor Verficahon Si nature;; Date MM 4.4-1(b) (This MM incorporates Measures Archaeology-6,7 Notes on grading plans Review and Plan check Planning and 8, Historical-2 and 3, Paleontology-2,3 and 4, from the approve grading prior to Central Park Master Plan EIR) plans for inclusion issuance of If archaeological or paleontological resources are discovered grading permit during ground-disturbing activities, all construction activities within 50 feet of the find shall cease until the Research design and Review and Throughout Peer review by archaeologist/paleontologist evaluates the significance of the recovery plan, if approve research ground- three County- resource. In the absence of a determination, all archaeological required design and disturbing certified and paleontological resources shall be considered significant. If recovery plan activities professionals the resource is determined to be significant, the archaeologist or paleontologist, as appropriate, shall prepare a research design for recovery of the resources in consultation with the State Office of Historic Preservation that satisfies the requirements of Section 21083.2 of CEQA. The archaeologist or paleontologist shall complete a report of the excavations and findings, and shall submit the report for peer review by three County-certified archaeologists or paleontologists, as appropriate. Upon approval of the report,the City shall submit the report to the South Central Coastal Information Center at California State University, Fullerton, and keep the report on file at the City of Huntington Beach. MM 4.4-1(c)(This MM incorporates Measure Archaeology-5 from Proof of retention of Verify retention of Plan check Planning the Central Park Master Plan EIR) Native American qualified monitor prior to The City shall arrange for a qualified Native American monitor or monitor issuance of a rotation of monitors from the interested bands to be present grading permit during all project-related ground-disturbing construction activities, including the recompaction of soils on the adjacent hillside. Periodic field check Throughout Planning Should project personnel discover any previously unknown to ensure monitor ground- cultural resources in the absence of an archaeological monitor, a is present disturbing qualified archaeologist should be notified immediately to evaluate activities the significance of the find and make recommendations for treatment. 8 City of Huntington Beach o Impt pb e Compliance ementdhon Respon h V, Mitigation Measure Documentation Monftodnq AdWity Timing Monitor VerificationVerificationSignature DateMM 4.4-3 In the event of the discovery of a burial, human bone, Notes on grading plans Review and Plan check Orange County or suspected human bone, all excavation or grading in the approve grading prior to Coroner vicinity of the find shall halt immediately,the area of the find shall plans for inclusion issuance of &Planning be protected,and the Developer shall immediately notify the City grading permit and the Orange County Coroner of the find and comply with the provisions of P.R.C. Section 5097. If the human remains are Throughout determined to be prehistoric, the Coroner will notify the NAHC, ground- which will determine and notify a Most Likely Descendent(MLD). disturbing The MLID shall complete the inspection of the site within 24 hours activities of notification, and may recommend scientific removal and non- destructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials. GeologyS and,, Us MM 4.5-1 Detailed design measures contained within the Notes on rough/mass Review and Plan check Public Works Geotechnical Evaluation prepared for the project shall be grading plan and approve grading prior to implemented, including those related to: earthwork, seismic building plans and building plans issuance of a design consideration, foundations, building floor slabs, retaining for inclusion of rough/mass wall,exterior flatwork,shoring,corrosion;concrete, site drainage, soils and grading permit Building and storm drain infiltration system,and preliminary pavement design. geotechnical Safety recommendations MM 4.5-2 In order to mitigate the erosion potential of the slopes Notes on rough/mass Review and Plan check Public Works adjacent to the site, the near surface soils shall be compacted grading plan and approve grading prior to along the northern slope face (earthen berm) where the site building plans and landscaping issuance of a improvements encroach upon the existing slopes. The slope plans for inclusion rough/mass shall then be covered with an appropriate erosion protection of soils and grading permit device and drought tolerant plants. Surface water runoff must be geotechnical and prior to diverted away from the top of the slope to reduce the likelihood recommendations approval of of surficial sliding and erosion. and plant material landscape plan MM 4.5-4(a) Oversize materials, more than approximately four Notes on grading and Review and Prior to Public Works inches in size, such as concrete rubble shall be disposed of off building plans approve notes on issuance of site. Trash and other debris shall be selectively removed and grading building grading and disposed off site. plans building permit I I Planning Huntington Beach Senior Center Mitigation Monitoring Program k Y ' Implementafion Res onsible i,� .""��,"p Compliance Miff afion Measure DocumehWon Monitoring Activity Monitor Verification Signature Date MM 4.5-4(b)(This MM incorporates Measure Geology-2 from the Soils report Review and Prior to fill Fire Central Park Master Plan EIR) documenting fill approve soil import Remedial grading to remove compressible soils and replace properties sampling report them with appropriately compacted fill shall occur in order to Notes on grading Prior to Public Works address potential settlements. Fill soils to be used for backfill plans issuance of a around utilities shall be compacted to 90 percent relative grading permit compaction. MM 4.54(c)(This MM incorporates Measure Geology-6 from the Soils report with Review and Prior to Building and Central Park Master Plan EIR) corrosion engineer approve notes on issuance of Safety Corrosivity testing of the on-site soils should be performed during recommendations building plans building permit the design phase. Corrosivity testing may also need to be considered for soils that are imported for use as fill during construction. MM 4.5-5 (This MM incorporates Measure Geology-5 from the Notes on rough/mass Review and Plan check Building and Central Park Master Plan EIR) grading plan and approve grading prior to Safety The soil expansion potential shall be evaluated in detail prior to building plans and building plans issuance of a issuance of grading permits. If expansive soils are present near for inclusion of rough/mass design grades, potential for heaving or cracking of rigid soils and grading permit structures shall be addressed through soil removal, chemical geotechnical and building treatment,or other equivalent measures. recommendations permit 10 City of Huntington Beach Responsible Cofii66ance Date IVIM 4.6-11(a) (This MM incorporates Measure Hazards-15 from Risk Management Plan Review and Plan check Fire the Central Park Master Plan EIR) & approve any prior to In the event that previously unknown soil contamination that Site Health and Safety grading plans for issuance of could present a threat to human health or the environment is Plan inclusion any grading encountered during construction, construction activities in the permit immediate vicinity of the contamination shall cease immediately. A risk management plan shall be prepared and implemented that (1) identifies the contaminants of concern and the potential risk each contaminant would pose to human health and the environment during construction and post-development and (2) describes measures to be taken to protect workers and the public from exposure to potential site hazards. Such measures could include a range of options, including, but not limited to, physical site controls during construction, remediation, long-term monitoring, post-development maintenance or access limitations, or some combination thereof. Depending on the nature of contamination, if any,appropriate agencies shall be notified(e.g., City of Huntington Beach Fire Department). A site health and safety plan that meets OSHA requirements shall be prepared and in place prior to the commencement of work in any contaminated area. The developer shall ensure proper implementation of the health and safety plan. If required, contamination shall be remediated in accordance with mitigation measure MM 4.6-1(b). Huntington Beach Senior Center Mitigation Monitoring Program 0 0 0 • a o 0 o e i i • • • O • O • Jm ►ernentafo'n ° "��� � ` Res�'onsible Coin lia'nce Miff afion Measure Documentaffon Monitoring AcHyly riming Monitor Verification Si nature Date MM 4.6-1(b) Closure reports or other reports acceptable to the Closure reports or Review and Plan check Fire HBFD that document the successful completion of required other reports approve closure prior to remediation activities, if any, for contaminated soils, in acceptable to the reports other issuance of accordance with City Specification 431-92, shall be submitted HBFD that document reports acceptable any grading and approved by the HBFD prior to issuance of grading permits the successful to the HBFD that permit for site development. No construction shall occur in the affected completion of required document the area until reports have been accepted by the City. remediation activities successful completion of required remediation activities MM 4.6-1(c) (This MM is Measure Hazards-9 from the Central Documentation of Review and Plan check Fire Park Master Plan EIR) consultation with approve prior to Any unrecorded or unknown wells uncovered during the DOGGR documentation issuance of a excavation or grading process shall be immediately reported to rough grading and coordinated with the City and Division of Oil, Gas and permit Geothermal Resources(DOGGR). In addition, should any known and unexpected landfills be excavated and discovered during the construction phase of the proposed project, construction work will be immediately halted and the Local Enforcement Agency (LEA)will be notified. Further construction operations will resume at the discretion of LEA and upon work approval by LEA. MM 4.6-1(d) Prior to the issuance of grading permits and during Notes on grading and Plan check prior to Prior to Fire construction, the project shall comply with all provisions of the building plans issuance of a issuance of HBMC Section 17.04.085 and HBFD City Specification 429, Methane and Hydrogen rough grading any grading Methane District Building Permit Requirements. A plan for the Sulfide Testing Plan permit permit and testing of soils for the presence of methane gas shall be Review and during prepared. If necessary, measures to reduce levels of gases to approval of testing construction within levels determined acceptable by the HBFD (such as vent plan systems)shall be implemented,if required by the HBFD. 12 City of Huntington Beach Iml M M t � - - - � � � � � . I I Z O r y a V1 V1 V1 Vt Vt V1 V1 V1 Vt V1 V1 V1!/t In 1/t l/t 1/1 lA V1 l/t Vt Vt Vt V1 V1 V1 V1 V1 N V1 V1 V1 V1 Vt Vt V1 Vt Vt Vt I N N Vt V1 l/I lA In V1 l/1 Vt V1 VI Vt V1 VI V1 Vt Vt Vt V1 V1 V1 V1 V1 Vf V1 V1 Vt VI V1(/I V1 V1(/i V1 V1 V1 VI V1 V1 I 3 rt � ,r w M V VVVVVVVVVOl Ot 0101 O1010101 Qt QitAW�In In In yi v,tn v,AAAAAAAAA Vt AWWWWWW W W -NNNNNNNN NI--�I--�I--�I-+I--�NI--�I--�h+N 1p ppv Qi y�A WNI--� (/1 Q 3 'O 'p Ip OOVQ)tnAwNHOtp OOVot v,AWNHOtp OOVOt�nAWNI-+OlO 0oV 01 viA wNl--� O O�DWVOI�nA WNF�OlO 0oV 01tnAwNl-+OIO OOV Ot v�A wNI--�O I p ZED (D c C30H HC HC C I rt rt rt0 NI/1 O n I O X 3 z a H n I m m 0til3 m lD fD 0A W 0 T• 00 X O Z ylC I I I (P O n�C n-Oil V Oc x M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 x W 0000000 O 0000 0 0 0 0000000 00 O 0 0000 000 000 00 0 0 r,F m n In / / /fD 3 X tnlm NHm M'm O vJ vJ vO,j H A A -O 0C 0Ip�tO Z •O 00000000000000000000000000000000000000o m rf o rt o o J z �o000000 00000000 rf o 000000000000000000000000o I m o c n o�•o�•Jlp A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A (.mil N A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A I L1 H VI�t�i1 J J H O 0 o O o O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 A V1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .C) m m�m n H J o O o o O o O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O o O O O O O O O O O O O O D VI O O O O O O O O O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I D w I I to N In(D In\ w N NNNNNNN N N N NNNNNNNN NNNNNNN--N N N N N N N N N N N 3 H N N N N N N N N NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN N 3 H N N N N N N N N mm N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N NIV-N N N IV N IV MM I o N N N N N N N N NNNNNNNN NNN N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N wo I n 1 n m mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm 'z mmmmmmm mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm �z J- s -,an 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 In I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 O O O O O O O O O o 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m,L�L O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m 77JJ D—D w D O S p N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 1 v D N N N N N N N N N NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN N v D —m—m— N ' m �~^' 1 m v C�-c -CM w 1n o W�m°mr�. a HH HH HH HH I m HH o HH HH HH m O1HV u',nl'n nv1�O o 1p 00 p1 vlWN NHlp 00 Q1lnWN N1--�1p 00 tT l.nWN NI�ID Op O1lnWN NI-�IO OJ Qi -�X In N NI--�lp0 CO(T�nWN NH�p pO tT�nWN NHlD pp p�tnWN N1-�lp tb pl�nWN 1p wOow OON Vtp AtD WOO W OON VIp AIp WOOW OJN VIp AIp W Oo w OON VIp AIp WOJ m WOO-VIp Atp wpo w OON VIp AIp WOowWNVID AIp W OOwWN VID Alp wOo wpoNV I mX OJOJ OIDn O H 00 o1w Hip ottnwH0o o1WH,D�LTWF-'0001W F'10011AWH0O QIW F-�lp pll.n Wl--�OO pI V1 WF'1D 01 vIW F'C 0�01 W1-�lO pl V'IW HOO p1W HtD OI�n WI-+W OIW I--�ID OI�n WF-�Wp1W l--�lD pl VI F-`ID HAD c 1 v rf NZ NC NHrt J 5 m o 1 m o 0 0 :. o DOD O rt --W N NNNNNNHHHHHHHHHIp 1p 1p 1p 1p 1p 1p tp 1p po po po pp po po poOt 01010t m 01010101 VItn tnO v,v,v,tnwwwwwwwwwNNNNNNNNN tp,D,D,D 1p tp tDAAAAAAAAAIp 1p 1p 1p 1p 1p tp 1p 1pW WwWWWW00W Oo 0000 A . . . . ww WJ wW w w. . . . . . . . . poNNNN NNN IV NVVVVVVVVV A /W v+tnv„nv,tn tnwwwwwWWWWHHHHHHHHH0000 W OO WOO OJ OO OO QI pt of of pt I v :t OlO MM-WWm WWWWWWHHHHHHHHHIp ID 1p 1p 1p lD tp 1p 1p Ql pl olm o1010t 01 o1 I V ON�<N�<N m ° fD t H�Hv1 H m w 3mm < n mrn O AI AINA J' -im v o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 m<m c o 0 0 0 0 0 otn o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o m m m c O H- 10 vt 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 6• m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N• m o m O O O 0 '^ 1. o 1v w mmmnm o 3mm o v 3mm 0 �o 0 �• w In v, v,v,r--- 1 cHi m n �„rno v,v,v,v1 In W In l„ m H r x ro r ro o ro n N vl v,vl to,n to v„n v,. to to to. . . . In In In In In.n.n In v,�n In v,v,v,v,. ------ In In--In In---In---v,v„n vl vl v,v,v,vl v,v, I -i Lim n Jl/tJ 1J 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 -xj tDn m o 0 0 0 0 0 o,'i O. . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 A N �' 0- OD o rJt N00000000000000000000000000000000000000o v m 0 0000000M H00000000000000000000000000000000o v m o ro D I D 1 3 D o 3 D J J J O V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V H V Z » V V V V V V V D V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V m H r rf rf rf m{H 01010101MMOlotOlm Q)Ol Oto1010)alo1p10t p,pl p,mmm m mm p�p�p�p�mmm m m of .'G{-i 0)0)malalol01W 01p,T p1 p,O,Q,p,O,Q,p,p,p�p�p�pt p�pi pi p,pi O�O�p�p,p�pi p� .� 1 / /N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N W N NNNNNNNNNNN NNNNNNNN--N N N N N N N N N N N I In D D D 3 nIg H HHHHHHH HF-'I-�HHHH HI--�H HHHHHHHYHHYHHHHHHHHHH 1wZ HHHHF-+HI-'IH HF'F'F'HHHF'HI-'HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH -m{NZ. m N H tp m N H w LD H HHHH HI-�HHHHHHHHHrF�!-'F-'!-'rl--`rrl-�rrrrrrl--`I-�I-+�--��-+�-+F--� 1 -{ HHHHF+HHO� HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHF-' A 1 00 of Ol 0l pl Ol Ol 0101 p1 p101m Qt Qt 01 p101 Q1T pl otm m0101610101 o1 of pl of Q7 Ol Ol Ot Ol pl pl � 010t Q101 Ot p1 QlH olplplm of 0101T mptm mplmpl of olQl Ql of pl Ql Ol Ol pl of al al Ol Ql Ol 01 Ol N rf rf rf H In xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx m xxxxxxxi xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx m w w w 0000000000000000000000,' 000 nm" xoxo oxomxxw AA.�AAAAAAAAAAAAAA7J 7J.'o.v AAF.'p.'a.�FA.'LAF.'o I N3 rt rt rt Vt 000000000000000000000000000000000000000 nH OOO0000C Ooo000000000000000000000000000000 nH w w W c T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T TIT T TIT T m T T T T T T m T T T m T T T T T D VI T T T T T T T 3 T T T T T T T T T m T T T T T T T T T T T T T m T T T T T T T T T I D w / / / E3 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r l/t O O O O O O O 3 p 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 p O O O 0 O O o O O O 0 O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O r V1 O O O 3 I {<Z `G {<Z I D rt I rP m ro { 1 m .�.. rx+ rf m o 0 0 n /O / n O O N N :K H H ' D A A D O o n x x c c 1 I 3 3 I D21314.00 Huntington Beach Senior Center CO Analysis_1981_CO_Summary.txt S80 0 0.40022E-02 114.3 129.5 0.0 5.00 7.62 1.16 HROFDY *** VOLUME SOURCE DATA *** NUMBER EMISSION RATE BASE RELEASE INIT. INIT. EMISSION RATE SOURCE PART. (GRAMS/SEC) X Y ELEV. HEIGHT SY SZ SCALAR VARY ID CATS_ (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) BY - s81 0 0.40022E-02 129.5 129.5 0.0 5.00 7.62 1.16 HROFDY S82 0 0.40022E-02 68.6 144.8 0.0 5.00 7.62 1.16 HROFDY S83 0 0.40022E-02 83.8 144.8 0.0 5.00 7.62 1.16 HROFDY s84 0 0.40022E-02 99.1 144.8 0.0 5.00 7.62 1.16 HROFDY s85 0 0.40022E-02 114.3 144.8 0.0 5.00 7.62 1.16 HROFDY S86 0 0.40022E-02 129.5 144.8 0.0 5.00 7.62 1.16 HROFDY S87 0 0.40022E-02 68.6 160.0 0.0 5.00 7.62 1.16 HROFDY S88 0 0.40022E-02 83.8 160.0 0.0 5.00 7.62 1.16 HROFDY 589 0 0.40022E-02 99.1 160.0 0.0 5.00 7.62 1.16 HROFDY S90 0 0.40022E-02 114.3 160.0 0.0 5.00 7.62 1.16 HROFDY S91 0 0.40022E-02 129.5 160.0 0.0 5.00 7.62 1.16 HROFDY s92 0 0.40022E-02 144.8 160.0 0.0 5.00 7.62 1.16 HROFDY S93 0 0.40022E-02 160.0 160.0 0.0 5.00 7.62 1.16 HROFDY S94 0 0.40022E-02 68.6 175.3 0.0 5.00 7.62 1.16 HROFDY S95 0 0.40022E-02 83.8 175.3 0.0 5.00 7.62 1.16 HROFDY 596 0 0.40022E-02 99.1 175.3 0.0 5.00 7.62 1.16 HROFDY s97 0 0.40022E-02 114.3 175.3 0.0 5.00 7.62 1.16 HROFDY S98 0 0.40022E-02 129.5 175.3 0.0 5.00 7.62 1.16 HROFDY S99 0 0.40022E-02 144.8 175.3 0.0 5.00 7.62 1.16 HROFDY 5100 0 0.40022E-02 160.0 175.3 0.0 5.00 7.62 1.16 HROFDY 5101 0 0.40022E-02 68.6 190.5 0.0 5.00 7.62 1.16 HROFDY 5102 0 0.40022E-02 83.8 190.5 0.0 5.00 7.62 1.16 HROFDY s103 0 0.40022E-02 99.1 190.5 0.0 5.00 7.62 1.16 HROFDY S104 0 0.40022E-02 114.3 190.5 0.0 5.00 7.62 1.16 HROFDY 5105 0 0.40022E-02 129.5 190.5 0.0 5.00 7.62 1.16 HROFDY S106 0 0.40022E-02 144.8 190.5 0.0 5.00 7.62 1.16 HROFDY s107 0 0.40022E-02 160.0 190.5 0.0 5.00 7.62 1.16 HROFDY "*= SOURCE IDS DEFINING SOURCE GROUPS *•••• GROUP ID SOURCE IDS ALL sl s2 s3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 510 sll s12 S13 S14 S15 S16 S17 S18 S19 S20 S21 s22 S23 s24 S25 S26 s27 S28 S29 s30 531 s32 s33 s34 S35 s36 s37 s38 S39 s40 S41 s42 s43 S44 S45 S46 S47 s48 s49 s50 S51 s52 s53 S54 S55 s56 S57 s58 S59 s60 Page 3 D21314.00 Huntington Beach Senior Center CO Analysis_1981_CO_Summary.txt S61 s62 S63 s64 s65 s66 s67 S68 S69 s70 S71 s72 S73 S74 S75 S76 S77 S78 S79 s80 s81 s82 S83 S84 S85 s86 s87 s88 S89 S90 S91 S92 S93 s94 595 s96 S97 S98 S99 5100 5101 5102 s103 s104 S105 5106 s107 THE SUMMARY OF HIGHEST 1-HR RESULTS *'** CONC OF CO IN PARTS/PER/MILLION DATE NETWORK GROUP ID AVERAGE CONC (YYMMDDHH) RECEPTOR (XR, YR, ZELEV, ZFLAG) OF TYPE GRID-ID - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ' ALL HIGH 1ST HIGH VALUE IS 0.09758 ON 81120308: AT ( 125.00, 400.00, 0.00, 2.00) DC NA HIGH 2ND HIGH VALUE IS 0.09134 ON 81102209: AT ( 25.00, -225.00, 0.00, 2.00) DC NA *** THE SUMMARY OF HIGHEST 8-HR RESULTS *** ** CONC OF CO IN PARTS/PER/MILLION DATE NETWORK GROUP ID AVERAGE CONC (YYMMDDHH) RECEPTOR (XR, YR, ZELEV, ZFLAG) OF TYPE GRID-ID - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ALL HIGH 1ST HIGH VALUE IS 0.01470 ON 81011016: AT ( 25.00, -225.00, 0.00, 2.00) DC NA HIGH 2ND HIGH VALUE IS 0.01419 ON 81010716: AT ( -225.00, 75.00, 0.00, 2.00) DC NA Page 4 z O N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N I N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N I 3 rt 3 �rt rt �E �DO]VQIInAWNr OiD OOV O1tnAWN�O�DWV01lnAwNH OtD OJV 01 v�A WNr O Oip 00V01tnA WNrOtO OO VO1lnAWNr OCHOW VQ1tnAWNrO��V01inAWNr O Zm mC C30H I H C I H C G Z rf rf rt O N N I n On I r)p 3 Z a.Wn n O m G T T T m N I m I m m rf,a 0Nm m m ro m• 00 n X O z z rttG O i n O< n 9 c n�c Z ll-� 'p T C S m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o I w 0000000 000 0 00 000000 000 O 0 0 0000 0 0 0 0 o O O 0 000 -Dj A w n m N-m Nam MD o 9J V J�O_rfH A A a Z C l0 1O Z ��0 rt 0, O rt O rf O O J Z 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m 0.K G n •O WO WJ l0 vl vl v.v+lfl vl v�vl�n in�n�n in�n�n G1 H lA to vl�n�n�n in v,vl v+vl�n in in in in to In In vl In In In In In In vl vl to in vl in�n vl In In In v+vi vl x H In N to n n n r O N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N .Zl N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N p N rf w rt w rf r c o to to vl to to to to lA In to to vi In In in in in In to�n�n to In vl D N �n in�n�n�n In In to to in�n in vl to to to In In In In In In In In�n in in in to vl to In to In vl vl�n�n in D N N m t/I m UI N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 3 H N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 3 H a a H w- m m m m m m m m m W m m m m m m Oo m m m m m m 00 OJ Oo Oo Oo Oo Oo Oo Oo Oo Oo Oo Oo Oo Oo 00 N O Oo W Oo Oo Oo Oo 00 Oo W W Oo Oo Oo Oo Oo W OJ 00 00 00 00 00 00 Oo Oo Oo Oo W Oo W W 00 00 00 00 Oo O]Oo W W N o I n I n V m m mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm �z mmmmmmm mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm I I I I I I I I I I I I I N I p i l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l N J D D o n •'.O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m O O O O O O o N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m.. N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N v N N N N N N N r N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N I v D m—m r m w J J a N w I m r I m V c�O.c�.c�-rm r A N r In �Otn J A rH H rr rr m rr o rr rr rH m O1rV nN nw�� o lD p0 QltnWN Nr1000 Q1tnwN Nr�DW Q1tnWN Nr�4D O1tnWN NH�D OO QI -Ix �nWN NH�D OJ 01tnWN NHtDW QIInWN NHIOmm—wN Nr lOMm—wl �x /m/m/N lO WOOW OON VIp AID W OOWOON Vlp AlO WOOW O]N VID AIOWWWOON VIp Alp W00 m WOON VIp AIOz WWWWNVtOAWW00W OONVIOAIOWWWOJN VIpA l WwwW I m a.0JpVn x rOOQ1WI--Il001VtWr0001Wriomv,WraornWr�0ltnwl--IW01WrlOQ1WWrWQ1 N Wr1001tnWrJ oornWrlornWwl-+wrnwr�DrnV+wro�rnwrlorn�nwrwrnwrwrn N rmrrorOJ J rt NZ N�NWrt rt O O O m 13 O Z Flo Z O mJ O 0 m rf m rf H r r r r r r r r r r r r r r H m{ O m{ 0 0 + O N N N N N N NHHHrHHHr r l0,0 t0 t0 l0 lD lD to Io OD OOW-----pp pl pltT Q1 Q1 m 01 Q1 Q1 Q1�n�n vlJ In In In In to VI W WWWWWWWWNNNNNNNNN m +D+D+ J lD lD l0 lD lD 1p IDAAAAAAAAAID Ip 1p l0 l0 l0 lD lD lOWWWWWWWWWpp pO pp pp p0 .Zl WWWppWWW WWWWWWOO OOCO 00 00 00 00 00 0]NNNNNNNNNVVVVVVVVV .Tl In In----toWWWWWWWWWrr rrrrrr--I OO OJ 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 01 01 01 0)Ol Iv A 0101 Q101WWWfD WWWWWWrrrrrrrrrlO lO IO IO tO IO IO IO IO Q)6�Q16101 Q1010101 IV N�N��N (p m r D O S w In w vl w n 3mw < I m r D O A lA A t/I A 00000000000000000000000000000000000000o Im<m c o000000m o00000000000000000000000000000000 Im<m c olroi-�o m 00000000000000000000000000000000000000o Iv m 00000008. o0000000000000000000000000000000o Iv m o�o�o J xrxrx o v amm cc n v xz ON wlzwlzw a mHr A m a 13mm c NONON n l0 to vltn v,to to to to v,v,v,�„v,�„�n�„v,tn to vltn v,to to to to vl vltn v,v,v,in v,�„tn v,v,v, in in�„v,�n�n vlin in----to to to------ v,v,-----to-to to to to v,v, m H m n m Nm Nm m m . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . m=m n toJ l0 ln. mSD m r o rt 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00000 0 0 lD/t m O O O O O o o' O o O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 o I x-i N O N O�O m N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 v m O 0000000, r 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 v m O 'f-�z D z D D n o 3 N 3 D ? j j O V V V V V v V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V I N Z rt V V V V V V V D V V V V v V v v V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V v V V V V V V V v v Mi N Hzrt frtD N N D 0101 Ol Q10l Q101 Ql Q1 Q101 Q1 Q1010101 Q10101010101010)Ol Ol Ql Ql Q1 Q1 Q1 Q1 Q10101 Q1010101 I A{-Hi MMO)M0MMN Q1Ql Q10101010101 Gl Ol Q101 Orn o,Qla,Q,Q1 Q101010101010101 Ol Ql Ql 61 MQm x{wi D D D m F-'rrrrrrrV-+r rrrrrrl-+rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr -m{Nz rrrrrr rlr rrrrrrrri--�rrrrrrrrrrrrrrh+rrrrrr rl-�r I MNz m N H D "�rrrrrrF-�F-'1-�I--`rrrrF'!-�f�F-'F�rrrrrrl-'F'I-�rrrrrrF'rrr p Hj 1-�rrrrF-�rW rl-�I-�rrF'rrl--�I--�rl--�r rl--�F-�rl-`1--`rrr rl-•FBI--�I--�rrr rl-�r m � -� r rnrnmrnmmrnrnmmrnmmrnrnrnrnrnmrnrnmrnrnmrnrnrnrnrnmmrnmrnrnmrnrn .N. Q1Q1Q1Q101Q101H mrnrnrnmrnrnmc�rnmmmmrnrnmmmrnrnmmmmrnrnrnrnrnrnmm v rr �+ f: Iz •< Iz xxxxxxxxzxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx m xxxxxzxN xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx m a a a fi FAA7DF."�FAA.'�FA,�AA.�A.�.T A.�."a F."o,v AAAA."oAAAAAA.a.� N3 FX xx Ax AFFAAAAA. .'o."a.�.v.vAAAAAAAAAa,v,v.'O,vFAA.'D N3 rf rf rf 000000000000000000000000000000000000000 nH O000000N 000000000000000000000000000000000 nH a a a N T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T I D N T T T m m T m C T T T T T T T T m T T T T T T T T T T T T T m T T m T T T T m T m D H popopppopppppppppppp00000pppppppppppppp rN ppppppp3 ppppppppppopoopppppppppppppoopppp rN p p o a DH DH 3 (A Z Z w.-O O N N N a D77JJ I {Dz fD m m `< { It X A rt m rt {m O O O rt n O 0 O N N N r r m W w I I m r r I I N A A D O O I I D O O N I I n x x c c rt rf D21314.00 Huntington Beach Senior Center NO2 Analysis_1981_NO2_Summary.txt 580 0 0.52528E-02 114.3 129.5 0.0 5.00 7.62 1.16 HROFDY ** VOLUME SOURCE DATA *** NUMBER EMISSION RATE BASE RELEASE INIT. INIT. EMISSION RATE SOURCE PART. (GRAMS/SEC) X Y ELEV. HEIGHT SY SZ SCALAR VARY IO CATS. (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) BY S81 0 0.52528E-02 129.5 129.5 0.0 5.00 7.62 1.16 HROFDY 582 0 0.52528E-02 68.6 144.8 0.0 5.00 7.62 1.16 HROFDY 583 0 0.52528E-02 83.8 144.8 0.0 5.00 7.62 1.16 HROFDY S84 0 0.52528E-02 99.1 144.8 0.0 5.00 7.62 1.16 HROFDY S85 0 0.52528E-02 114.3 144.8 0.0 5.00 7.62 1.16 HROFDY S86 0 0.52528E-02 129.5 144.8 0.0 5.00 7.62 1.16 HROFDY 587 0 0.52528E-02 68.6 160.0 0.0 5.00 7.62 1.16 HROFDY 588 0 0.52528E-02 83.8 160.0 0.0 5.00 7.62 1.16 HROFDY S89 0 0.52528E-02 99.1 160.0 0.0 5.00 7.62 1.16 HROFDY S90 0 0.52528E-02 114.3 160.0 0.0 5.00 7.62 1.16 HROFDY S91 0 0.52528E-02 129.5 160.0 0.0 5.00 7.62 1.16 HROFDY S92 0 0.52528E-02 144.8 160.0 0.0 5.00 7.62 1.16 HROFDY 593 0 0.52528E-02 160.0 160.0 0.0 5.00 7.62 1.16 HROFDY S94 0 0.52528E-02 68.6 175.3 0.0 5.00 7.62 1.16 HROFDY S95 0 0.52528E-02 83.8 175.3 0.0 5.00 7.62 1.16 HROFDY 596 0 0.52528E-02 99.1 175.3 0.0 5.00 7.62 1.16 HROFDY 597 0 0.52528E-02 114.3 175.3 0.0 5.00 7.62 1.16 HROFDY S98 0 0.52528E-02 129.5 175.3 0.0 5.00 7.62 1.16 HROFDY S99 0 0.52528E-02 144.8 175.3 0.0 5.00 7.62 1.16 HROFDY S100 0 0.52528E-02 160.0 175.3 0.0 5.00 7.62 1.16 HROFDY S101 0 0.52528E-02 68.6 190.5 0.0 5.00 7.62 1.16 HROFDY 5102 0 0.52528E-02 83.8 190.5 0.0 5.00 7.62 1.16 HROFDY 5103 0 0.52528E-02 99.1 190.5 0.0 5.00 7.62 1.16 HROFDY 5104 0 0.52528E-02 114.3 190.5 0.0 5.00 7.62 1.16 HROFDY 5105 0 0.52528E-02 129.5 190.5 0.0 5.00 7.62 1.16 HROFDY 5106 0 0.52528E-02 144.8 190.5 0.0 5.00 7.62 1.16 HROFDY 5107 0 0.52528E-02 160.0 190.5 0.0 5.00 7.62 1.16 HROFDY *** SOURCE IDS DEFINING SOURCE GROUPS GROUP ID SOURCE IDS ALL S1 S2 53 S4 S5 56 S7 S8 S9 510 Sil 512 S13 S14 5l5 S16 S17 S18 S19 s20 S21 S22 523 524 S25 S26 S27 S28 S29 S30 531 532 533 S34 S35 S36 S37 538 S39 S40 S41 S42 543 544 S45 S46 S47 S48 S49 550 S51 S52 S53 S54 S55 556 S57 S58 S59 S60 Page 3 D21314.00 Huntington Beach Senior Center Not Analysis_1981_NO2_Summary.txt S61 S62 563 S64 S65 566 S67 S68 S69 S70 S71 572 S73 S74 575 S76 S77 S78 S79 580 581 582 S83 584 585 S86 587 588 589 590 S91 592 593 594 S95 596 597 S98 $99 S100 S101 S102 S103 5104 S105 5106 5107 *** THE SUMMARY OF HIGHEST 1-HR RESULTS *** ib* CONC OF NO2 IN PARTS/PER/MILLION DATE RK GROUP ID AVERAGE CONC (YYMMDDHH) RECEPTOR (XR, YR, ZELEV, ZFLAG) OF TYPE GRID-ID O - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ALL HIGH 1ST HIGH VALUE IS 0.00889 ON 81120308: AT ( 125.00, 400.00, 0.00, 2.00) DC NA HIGH 2ND HIGH VALUE IS 0.00832 ON 81102208: AT ( 25.00, -225.00, 0.00, 2.00) DC NA Page 4 z 0 VVVVVVVVVVmmmmmmmmmmv+to In In In vl to�n�n tnAAAAAAAAA N AWwwwWW WWWWNNNNNNNNNNrrrrrrrrr rlD OJV m�nAWNr N � 3 � '6 tD OOVm�nAWNrOiO OOV mInAWNr OlO OOVmv+A WNr OlO OOV mvIA WNr O OtD 00V01tnA WNrOtD OOV m�nAWNrOtO OOV mv+A WNrO O Zm m C C30H H C I H C C rt rt rt O N N pn I on uO C m m TIN win/1 I m I m m M3 aHr (D m m m A w m• o0 m J xo1 1 Z -hC m O I n v C I n v C n M C S m DD3 DD3 iom •• •• ••rtca 00000000000000000000000000000000000000o Haw 0000000 00000000000000000000000000000000o Haw n Na Nam moo o LJ V J V O_rtH 1 am z �.0 00000000000000000000000000000000000000o I m o000000 00000000000000000000000000000000o _m occn °.o°•o°•c�z H N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Ll H lA lA VI n n n r O N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 x N rt W rf w rt r 3 0 lD iD iD 1p 1p 1p lD ip ip ip iD tD tp ID lD lD lO lO t0 tO 1p 1p tp ip iD tD lO tD lD tD tp tD l0 t0 tp t0 1p tp tD D N iD lD 1p t0 1p 1p tp lO ID tD lO lO l0 tO ID 1p tD tp tp lO ID lO tD iD iD lD t0 tD ip ID tD lD iD tD tO lO lO lO lO l0 D N N m N m VI\ w 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 H 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 H w w r win N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N O N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N O I n I n V m mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm \Z mmmmmmm0 mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm \z S s \w #O I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I N oo 1 I 00000000000000000000000000000000000000o m� o0000r o0000000000000000000000000000000o ma -�N�N-DVS#r w w w w w w W w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w 1 n w w w w w vm A I vm J J w N r m I O 3 O 3 mrA J OriO O rr rr rr 1-�I I T rF-� rr rr rr m vl nv1 n t/1••Z 100001 V�WN NriO OO mtnWN NrlOW mv,WN NrlO CO mtnWN Nri000m �X NrlO OOm—WN -ix /m/m/A 2 ID WOOW OONVlO AIpWWWOON VIp AIp WOOW�NVIp AIDWWWOON VlD AlO WOJ m WOON VID AIOC WpOW pON VlD Al0 W00 W OONVIp AlOW 00 W OON VID AIDWWWWNV m 030JOWn C roornwr�nmvlwroornwr�omv,wrmrnwr�orn�„wrwmwr�mv,wrwrn I N wr�mvlwrrt oomwr�ominwroomwr�om�nwrcomwr�omv+wrwmwr�m I N rm rm roJ �t I J I v O O O m J O OVO�O :F to 1 m 0 1 m • 3• 3• 0 r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r { j I { 0000 0 0 0 0 3 N NNNNNN-+1-+-�rrrrrrlO lO ID IO IO IO IO lO lO 0OW 0O 0OW 0O 0O 00 00 01 01 01 01 01 m OI OI QI OI�n to vl In In lnWWWWWW Ww---NNNNNNN m + + + lD lD l0 l0 l0 1p lOAAAAAAAAAl0 lD l0 l0 l010101p 1pWWWWWWWWW0000�0000 I a WWOO OOWWWw WWWW00 O]00 00 00 00 00 00 OONNNNNNNNNVVVVVVVVV a /D/a/ w N m N O J 0.0 m In to In In to In tnWWWWWWWWWrrrrrrrrr000D OO OO OO OO 00 OO 00mmmmm IV # mmmmwwww WWWWWWrrrrrrrrrt0 lD l0 l0 l010101p lDmmmmmmmmm Iv Nw NwN w # n 3mw < 13mw < r�rar I m r D O N 1 m l> O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m<m c 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 m<m c OIL OIL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I N m 00000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N m tD i0 0 z Sw2wx J xa o n Iv=a o wlr wlrw n v 3mm c m v I am In c NVNVN m w m H r a J w m H r m m 3 m 3 m J v,---------- I �nm n -------rt In.nv,vlv,---v,----------����wv,v,vl v,v�v,v,�n v,v, 1 m MMD m . . . . . . m m m=y m �.r-�.p� 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 a N I000000, o o O o O O 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o a-i N O N O-i0 N O O O O O O O O O 000000000000000000000000000000 v m Oa .000000 r 0 0 0 0 0 0000000000000 000000000000000 v m 0D -I,D z 3 3 D O 1 1 m H # I m H rt rt rt V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V -j N Z # V V V V V V V D V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V �N Z m m m D I m{H # J mrnrnrna,mmrno,o,o,rnrnrnrnrnrnmrnmmmrna,a,rno,rnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnmma, a � mmmmmmmw rno,rnrnmmrnrnola,molm In ,a,a,o,a,a,mmmmrnrnrnrnrnrnrn x{� # i i i N N N N N N N-N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N--N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N--N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N I N D D D { { I 3 to 3 /J 10 .O VI r r r r r r r r r r r r H r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r H r r r r r r r r r r -mIN z r r r r r r rir r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r �N z W W W r m N H t0 F'rF'rF`rr rl-�I-'!-'rrrrrrF�rrrrrrl--�I-'F-�r rl--�rrrF'1-`4-`r ri--` a -i rrrrrrrW r1-�rrrri--`I--`rl-'rrrrrrl-�I--`r F-�f-`r r•F-�r rl--�I--�rrNrr 1 MN-H� mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm .N. • mmmmmmmr mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm v v 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 C 2 C S S S S S S 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 C S S C S S 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 m S S S 2 2 2 2 r 2 S S S S C 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 C S S C S S C C 2 x 2 2 2 m w0 a a F3' a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a N 3 a a a a a a a 0 a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a I N 3 rt rt rt O 000000000000000000000000000000000000000 nH 0000000 000000000000000000000000000000000 nH w w w m mTTmmmmTmmTmmmTIm TITTTmTmmTTmT1TTIm mTlmmmmm DN TmmmTmmN TTTTmmmTlmmmTlTTTmmmTmTTTTmTTTI TIm TImm I DN 000000000000000000000000000000000000000 rN 0000000c 000000000000000000000000000000000 rN 0 0 0 c {{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{ DH DH 3 {az __ GI 0N N In E3 < {<z N N N Z m x m o o o x rt 3 J rt In o 0 O N N N r r m w w I 1 m r r N A A I I D O O I 1 D o 0 N I I n x x c c I I > > rt rt ' I I T I T T T T T T T T T m T T T T T m T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T m T T T T T T T T V1 V1 V1 Vt VI Vt Vt Vrn Vrn lA Vt l/1 N N(/�l/1 Vf Vf Vf(/I l/rn Vl t/I Vf Vt Vl 1 Vrn Vl In AAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWWNNNNNNNNNNrrrrrr VI rrr r�DWVO)rnnAWNrrrrrrrr r�D l0 lD l0 l0 l01010101OWWWWWWWWW Vrn W vrnA O WNr OtOWVOrntnAwNr OtOWVOrn v+AwNrOtOWVO)vrnA wNrOlOW VO)tnA O wNrO OOOOOOOOiOWVQrnInAwNrOlDWVO)rnnAWNr C O O H I H C V O)w A w N r 0 1 H C I O m 1 0 n 1 p n n m I m I m ' I I z z ' v c lnvc n 00 1 -ixm o00000000000000000000000000000000000000o Ida m o00000000000000000000000000000000000000o I >zw o • a In71 m In1m z v O O 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 m O WW c) WWWWWWwwWWwWWwwwWwWWWWWWWWWy!(.0 I,�J UJ UJ UJW y,)y./W-wW H WWWWWWWWWWWWWNNNNN NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN WW z ��������������°����°WWWWWWWWWWWWOO OO OO OO OOWWWWW P N OO Cp OOWWWWW00000oW 00000000000000000000000000000 F(n O ww I D� rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrHrrrrrrrrrrr I D vrn rrrrrrrrrrrrr�o�o�o�o�o��o Rio io io�io������o io�o�in�o rnn�o io Dtn �o 3 H w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w W w W w w w W w w w w w w W w W w W w w w w w w 3 H w w W w w w w w w w w w w 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 H O W W ' N O W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W OOW W W W W W W W W W W W W I V1 O W W W W W W W W W W W W W N N N N N N N N N NNNNNNNNNNNN N NNNN N V o N mm �z mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm �o z m mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm �z mow I V1 I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 I V1 N I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 In N O O V7� 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N 7 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O F O H Dm A m I m W A 3 O O r I m r r r r r r r r r 3 O r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r m r o - N �X r�WO)VrnWN NrlO WO)InWN NrlO W Q)InWN NrIOW WInWN NrlO W Qrn �X2 rnnWN NrlO W Q)ViWN O)ANrlO WO)O)A NrlO WOrn OrnANr�D WQrnN rrnD WOrnN -{X Hx ViD m AtOWWwWNVIp AIDwWWWNVIOAIDWWWWNVtp AtOWWWWNVtD AIOWW 1 m C WWNVIO A. . . . IVVOAlO AIOwWOA i0 t. WOAI0: I. WIOAIOw WlO 1 m Ac rnv, I � wrwrnwrorn�.+wNoomwrornv+wroornwr�om�,+wrwrnwr�ooi�„wroorn 1 vAi rt wromv,wroomwrom000�.,wrwmocov.wroorn000v,wrwm�.,wrwm� I cAi, wrt 3 O m rt 3 rt 3 < r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r H r r r H r r r r r r H < �W f m< WWWWWWWWW�Qrn Ol O)Orn0)O)Q)ln In In In In to vt v'�InWWWWWWWWWNNNNN m NNNN 10 t0 t0 1p l0 tD tOVVVVVVVOI O)O)O)O)Orn O)A AAAAN m N �W 1 ,� WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW I-� v WWWWWW . . . WWWWWOONNNNN ,il W NNNVVVVVVVVVOOOOOOOIn In In�n to�n rnn0000000AAAAAID .� lOW m N 00 WOo 00 00 00 00 00 00 0101 0tmmOrnmmmWWWWwwww wl-�1-��-+I-+I-+I-+I-+F+I-p olo to�p ip 1� w oho to lommm0lm morn Orn Orn------�nwwwwwww000000000 wooww�n I� v,w n et n S I m�D O l:m tn r I mrw D O 1 mrD O 0 0 I m G m C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 m< m C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m<m C O 0 0 I v m o o o 0 0 o o o o o o o o o 0 o o o o o 0 o o o o o o o o o 0 o 0 0 0 0 o O o o I v o m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I v• m o o w N N xz o xn o =a o n 13 m m c 1 3 m m v m Ca m., 13 m m c m A 3 rr 1 m > n rrrrrrrrrrHrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr I �c)rt Hr mH7 W r. m n rrrrrrrrrrrrr�+�+�+�+wv,v,v,v,v,v,�.,----------��.,�.,v�v, 1 �nm n �,+rt O O Am-{lDn m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ,v In 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Jm-In O l A O o m O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 v -m O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O v m O c,D v D D v D N D D N 3 3 O 3 O m H # m H 4 V V m In 2 w V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V to D Z s V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V -In Z » V D Orn O) 1 F{� O1m OrnW O)O)O)01 Q)O)Qrnm O)O)Q)W Q)m m IT IT IT IT Q)m mQ)mm mo)a)O)m m mm mA<W -i Q)Q)T Orn Q)Q)QrnO)Orn Orn O)OrnO)O)O)O)Ornm Q)Q)Q)Orn�OQI Q)Q)O)Q)Q)W O)Q)Q)m Q)Qrn Q)W Orn 1 A<H OrnW N N I v N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N v N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N-----N N N N N N N N N N N N V) N rr 1 �Inz rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr 1 -m{(/1 Ir z rrrHrrrrrrrrrrrrHrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr 1 -1lz rlr m V H w w p 71 r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r H r r r r r r r A N W r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r 1 A N r W v wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww v r wwwwwwwwwwwwwrnrnrnrnrnm0)mrnrnrnmrnrnrnrnm0)p)m0l ornmmmrnrn v rnr I 1 I 1 I I v v xx m xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx r m xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx m xN AA r)H ocoo 000 c Ooo 0000c000000cooc000 0000cc0000 o 1 V10 3cn3 A O 70 nH 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000 nl H OOO000000000ccoccocc0000000000ccoocc0000 nH of T T 1 D N T T T T m T T T T T T T m T T T T m T T m T T T T T T T T T m T T T T T T T T T 1 D V1 N T T T m T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T m T T T T T T T T T T T T T D l/1 m w p o r to p 0 0 0 0 p p p O O p O O p p p p O 0 0 0 p p p p O O p p O O p p p p O p 0 0 0 r c rnn p 0 0 0 0 0 p p O O p O O p p O p O 0 0 0 p O 0 0 0 p p p p p p O p O 0 0 0 p p r to O c <{ Wpo «{{{{«<{<{{{«{{<{{{«««<{{<{{{««< D3 H ««{{{{{<{{{««<{{<{{{{{{{«<{<{<{{{<{ 1 { z w A 3 z I —o E3 v <<' z 1 < z w DD DK 1 D I < {rt m x m {m x rt I I I 1 I I I I I I I 1 I 1 I I D21314.00 Huntington Beach Senior Center PM10 Analysis_1981_PM10_Summary.txt F56 0 0.38138E-02 22.9 99.1 0.0 1.00 7.62 1.13 HROFDY F57 0 0.38138E-02 38.1 99.1 0.0 1.00 7.62 1.13 HROFDY F58 0 0.38138E-02 53.3 99.1 0.0 1.00 7.62 1.13 HROFDY F59 0 0.38138E-02 68.6 99.1 0.0 1.00 7.62 1.13 HROFDY F60 0 0.38138E-02 83.8 99.1 0.0 1.00 7.62 1.13 HROFDY F61 0 0.38138E-02 99.1 99.1 0.0 1.00 7.62 1.13 HROFDY F62 0 0.38138E-02 114.3 99.1 0.0 1.00 7.62 1.13 HROFDY F63 0 0.38138E-02 129.5 99.1 0.0 1.00 7.62 1.13 HROFDY F64 0 0.38138E-02 7.6 114.3 0.0 1.00 7.62 1.13 HROFDY F65 0 0.38138E-02 22.9 114.3 0.0 1.00 7.62 1.13 HROFDY F66 0 0.38138E-02 38.1 114.3 0.0 1.00 7.62 1.13 HROFDY F67 0 0.38138E-02 53.3 114.3 0.0 1.00 7.62 1.13 HROFDY F68 0 0.38138E-02 68.6 114.3 0.0 1.00 7.62 1.13 HROFDY F69 0 0.38138E-02 83.8 114.3 0.0 1.00 7.62 1.13 HROFDY F70 0 0.38138E-02 99.1 114.3 0.0 1.00 7.62 1.13 HROFDY F71 0 0.38138E-02 114.3 114.3 0.0 1.00 7.62 1.13 HROFDY F72 0 0.38138E-02 129.5 114.3 0.0 1.00 7.62 1.13 HROFDY F73 0 0.38138E-02 7.6 129.5 0.0 1.00 7.62 1.13 HROFDY F74 0 0.38138E-02 22.9 129.5 0.0 1.00 7.62 1.13 HROFDY F75 0 0.38138E-02 38.1 129.5 0.0 1.00 7.62 1.13 HROFDY F76 0 0.38138E-02 53.3 129.5 0.0 1.00 7.62 1.13 HROFDY F77 0 0.38138E-02 68.6 129.5 0.0 1.00 7.62 1.13 HROFDY F78 0 0.38138E-02 83.8 129.5 0.0 1.00 7.62 1.13 HROFDY F79 0 0.38138E-02 99.1 129.5 0.0 1.00 7.62 1.13 HROFDY F80 0 0.38138E-02 114.3 129.5 0.0 1,00 7.62 1,13 HROFDY F81 0 0.38138E-02 129.5 129.5 0.0 1.00 7.62 1.13 HROFDY F82 0 0.38138E-02 68.6 144.8 0.0 1.00 7.62 1.13 HROFDY F83 0 0.38138E-02 83.8 144.8 0.0 1.00 7.62 1.13 HROFDY F84 0 0.38138E-02 99.1 144.8 0.0 1.00 7.62 1.13 HROFDY F85 0 0.38138E-02 114.3 144.8 0.0 1.00 7.62 1.13 HROFDY F86 0 0.38138E-02 129.5 144.8 0.0 1.00 7.62 1.13 HROFDY F87 0 0.38138E-02 68.6 160.0 0.0 1.00 7.62 1.13 HROFDY F88 0 0.38138E-02 83.8 160.0 0.0 1.00 7.62 1.13 HROFDY F89 0 0.38138E-02 99.1 160.0 0.0 1.00 7.62 1.13 HROFDY F90 0 0.38138E-02 114.3 160.0 0.0 1.00 7.62 1.13 HROFDY F91 0 0.38138E-02 129.5 160.0 0.0 1.00 7.62 1.13 HROFDY F92 0 0.38138E-02 144.8 160.0 0.0 1.00 7.62 1.13 HROFDY F93 0 0.38138E-02 160.0 160.0 0.0 1.00 7.62 1.13 HROFDY *** VOLUME SOURCE DATA *** NUMBER EMISSION RATE BASE RELEASE INIT. INIT. EMISSION RATE SOURCE PART. (GRAMS/SEC) X Y ELEV. HEIGHT SY SZ SCALAR VARY ID CATS_ - - (METERS) (METERS) (METERS)-(METERS) (METERS) (METERS) - -BY - - F94 0 0.38138E-02 68.6 175.3 0.0 1.00 7.62 1.13 HROFDY F95 0 0.38138E-02 83.8 175.3 0.0 1.00 7.62 1.13 HROFDY F96 0 0.38138E-02 99.1 175.3 0.0 1.00 7.62 1.13 HROFDY F97 0 0.38138E-02 114.3 175.3 0.0 1.00 7.62 1.13 HROFDY F98 0 0.38138E-02 129.5 175.3 0.0 1.00 7.62 1.13 HROFDY F99 0 0.38138E-02 144.8 175.3 0.0 1.00 7.62 1.13 HROFDY F100 0 0.38138E-02 160.0 175.3 0.0 1.00 7.62 1.13 HROFDY F101 0 0.38138E-02 68.6 190.5 0.0 1.00 7.62 1.13 HROFDY Page 5 D21314.00 Huntington Beach Senior Center PM10 Analysis_1981_PM10_Summary.txt F102 0 0.38138E-02 83.8 190.5 0.0 1.00 7.62 1.13 HROFDY F103 0 0.38138E-02 99.1 190.5 0.0 1.00 7.62 1.13 HROFDY F104 0 0.38138E-02 114.3 190.5 0.0 1.00 7.62 1.13 HROFDY F105 0 0.38138E-02 129.5 190.5 0.0 1.00 7.62 1.13 HROFDY F106 0 0.38138E-02 144.8 190.5 0.0 1.00 7.62 1.13 HROFDY F107 0 0.38138E-02 160.0 190.5 0.0 1.00 7.62 1.13 HROFDY *** SOURCE IDS DEFINING SOURCE GROUPS *** GROUP ID SOURCE IDs ALL Sl S2 S3 S4 55 S6 57 s8 S9 510 S11 S12 i 513 S14 S15 S16 s17 S18 S19 s20 S21 S22 s23 s24 s25 s26 S27 S28 529 s30 531 s32 s33 S34 S35 536 S37 s38 539 s40 541 s42 S43 544 545 S46 S47 548 ; S49 S50 S51 S52 S53 S54 S55 s56 s57 S58 559 S60 s61 s62 S63 S64 565 S66 S67 568 569 s70 S71 572 S73 574 S75 S76 s77 S78 S79 s80 s81 s82 S83 S84 ; S85 586 s87 S88 S89 S90 S91 s92 s93 s94 s95 s96 S97 S98 S99 5100 5101 s102 5103 5104 5105 S106 5107 F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F9 F10 Fll F12 F13 ; F14 F15 F16 F17 F18 F19 F20 F21 F22 F23 F24 F25 F26 F27 F28 F29 F30 F31 F32 F33 F34 F35 F36 F37 F38 F39 F40 F41 F42 F43 F44 F45 F46 F47 F48 F49 F50 F51 F52 F53 F54 F55 F56 F57 F58 F59 F60 F61 F62 F63 F64 F65 F66 F67 F68 F69 F70 F71 F72 F73 F74 F75 F76 F77 F78 F79 F80 F81 F82 F83 F84 F85 F86 F87 F88 F89 F90 F91 F92 F93 F94 F95 F96 F97 F98 F99 F100 F101 F102 F103 F104 F105 F106 F107 *** THE SUMMARY OF HIGHEST 24-HR RESULTS *** Page 6 D21314.00 Huntington Beach Senior Center PM10 Analysis_1981_PM10_Summary.txt ** CONC OF PM IN MICROGRAMS/M**3 "" DATE NETWORK GROUP ID AVERAGE CONC (YYMMDDHH) RECEPTOR (XR, YR, ZELEV, ZFLAG) OF TYPE GRID-ID - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ALL HIGH 1ST HIGH VALUE IS 9.44568 ON 81011524: AT ( -225.00, 75.00, 0.00, 2.00) DC NA HIGH 2ND HIGH VALUE IS 8.85703 ON 81122624: AT ( -225.00, 50.00, 0.00, 2.00) DC NA Page 7 z O a c C H V VVVVVVVVVmmmmmmmmmmv+In In lJ�lll In to to to tnAAAAAAAAA N AWWWWwW WWWWNNNNNNNNNNrrrrHrHrrr�OWVmVtA WNr N 'O 'O Ip OOV mvIA WNrOlDWV6llnAWNrOIO OOVm�AWNr OIp OOV 01tnAWNr O O�ooV mV'IA WNr OlO OOV OItnAWNrOIO OOV OItnAWNrO O Zm/� m(9 C C30H H(_ 1 HC C Z rf rf rf O NN p I p F z w n n 60 C J J J fD N 1 m I m ro-h3 .-�r-i 6 A w 0 In N fD f9 fD m oo m n 0 rff C z z n o n < n n n>c V c rf1 C 2 m DD3 DDa 0000 0000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CC)0 0 0 00000 0000 000 000 0 0 0 -I F W 0000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 F m n n o / / /m w fD n N-imF Nam ro� v�vJvo-JH I F 'to� 'o`rtJo`rtooDz 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m O C n �•O w0�J t� G1H rrF+r rrr HrrrrrrrrrrrHF-'F-'rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrF-' �H VI UI In n n nly l0 lD lD tD tp tD tD iD�D 1p l0 tp t0 t010 l0�D tp tD l0 iD 1p lD 1p tp tO lO lO l0�D�O tp tD�O lD 1p tp lO l0 F N tO l0 iD iD�O tD iD tp�O�O tp tp i0 tp 1p tO lO lO l0 tp tD iD i0 ip lD tp tO 101010 l0 tD tD tp�O 1p l0 l0 tD tD A(Art W rf W rf r F—J O wrrrrrrrrrrrrl-�I�I�1-r-rrrrrrrr�rl�l�l-F�rrrrrrrl� I DN rrF�r �rr wrrrrrrr rl�l�rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr I DN I I I pro,n m,n� w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w 3 H w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w 3 H N n NO <n����W� NO n n VlD m mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm �z mmmmmmmv mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm �z 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 , 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 N N 00000000000000000000000000000000000000o m� o000000r OO000OoOoOO-OO000 oo0OO OO0000O WWW- m7 w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w v w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w v J J w N r m a 1 m c�.c�." A N N l/I O VI O J o 3 O 3 mrA �VO O rr rr rr rr m rr rr rr rH , m �n�n non••� 1D 00m�+WN NriDWmv,WN NrlO OOm�+WN Nr�00001tnWN Nr�000m �X N ,vr u OOm�WN IJr�000m VIWN ,vr tD 00mv,WN N1-�lOW Q1tn WN lO WOOW OONViO AlOW 00 W OON VIDAIp WGOW OON VlO AlD W00 W OON VlO AlO WOo m WOON VID AIo C WOOWWNVl0 Al0 W O]W OONVID Alp W 00 W OON VIDAID WCOW OONV 1 IM m OJOJOAn C F J A NrtNrt N••fD J r wmwr�o m v,w rcomwr�o m�.,wrwrnwr�o m�+w roornwr�o rn�nwrwrn 1 v wr�rnv+w r� oornwr�o m�+wrwrnwr�rnv+wrwmwr�rnv+wr�rnwr-��rn I v rto rro rox j NJ NZ NOOrt tp O3•2V nJ It 3 rt 1 3 O 3 O• rt m o m oNONo o rrrrrrrHrrrrrrrr 1 m{ J -{{ o J N NNNNNNrrrrrrrrl-CIO IO ID�O�D�D ID ID lDW W00 W 0000W WxQ1 m mQ101 m NNNNNNNNN m +>+'1'>+ 1p 1p l0 l0 lOtD tOAAAAAAAAAtO CD(O lO ID Ip LD ID tDWWWWWWWWW0O 0O W OO OO I A WOJ OO OOWWWW WWWWWWOO OOW OO OO OO W OO OONNNNNNNNNVVVVVVVVV I �(] / / / W N n •m mWWW Di N rt 03 OJ p (D to to to to In In lnWWWWWWWWWrrrrrrrrr0000000]OO 00 W 0000mmmmm Iv 3 mmPI WWWWWWrrrF-'F-'r rrrlO lO IO IO IO IO IO lD lD 01 Q1 Q1 Q10101010101 Iv 4 NW LAPIN W :F n 3m W < > < mrD O N I M In, O �mN r fD -Im N r • N• to N 000000000000000000000000000000000000000 1m<m c oO00000j o00000000000000000000000000000000 1m<m c of olo 000000000000000000000000000000000000000 1v m o0000000 000000000000000000000000000000000 1v m o z xoo2 m2 � .-MM O n SF o wlr wlrw n m 1 3 m m c m m 1 3 m m c N m N T N ID W MHr F W mHr F m 3Km?zm 3 ,o�., 1 m n �.,rt to �., N- 1 -j n m n x• c• rt v,v,v,v,v,u,v,v,v,�n v,v,v,u,v,v.u,v,v,v,v,v,v,v,v,v,v,u,u,v,�„v,v,v,�n v,v,v, m x D m v,v,v,v,v,v, v,v,v,v,�,vI v,v,v,v,v,v,v,v,v,v,v,v,v,v,v,v,v,v,�„v,vI vI v,v, m 2 D m r�.p m O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 A 1 N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 F N O N O-10 z N 000000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 v m vD O O O O O o o T r 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 v m D D N D m fD fD N m H V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V N Y V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V -i N Z :F N f D N D m{z D H Yr J rnrno+rna,a,a,rnrnmmrnrna,o+a,aV,a,rnrnrnrnrnrnrnmrna,o,a,rnmmrnrnrnmrnrn z -1 mrnrnrnrnrnmw rnrnrnrnrnmmrnrnmmrnrnrnrnrnrnmmmrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnmm N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N v N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N ,v D D D 1 N 1 Z Z z N 3 m H m H C C C I i I l N Z J a a r m N H 1p m N H rr�rr���r-�������r��rr�r-�NNNNNNNr��rrrrNrrrrr I -� rrrrrrroo rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrl�rrrrrrrrr m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m V m m m m m m mlr m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m v �• Ir v � 3 v O w 3 S S S 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 S S S S 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 S S S 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 S S S S S 2 m 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 N 2 2 2 2 2 S S S S 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 S S S S S 2 2 2 2 2 2 S S S S 2 m w PI W N .oc000cc00000cocc000AA7�7.10000AAAA.0FA."�FA N3 AF7�000ow AAAAAA.0OFF.o000000000000A,TAAA.0000A nH rf rf rt 000000000000000000000000000000000000000 nH ;Mmmmmm 000000000000000000000000000000000 nH IL PI Pr I� T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T I D N T T T T T T T N T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T I D N / / / N O O O O p p p p O 0 0 0 0 0 0 p p p O p O 0 0 v O v O p p p p O 0 0 0 0 0 0 p r N O O O p p O O C p p p O v 0 0 0 0 0 0 p p p v O 0 0 0 0 0 0 p p p p O v v O O p p r H v o C {{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{ D H {{{{{{{3 {{{{{{{{{{[-<{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{ D H 3 m F 0 3 w.�O vI ,n ,n 3 -<<z w {<z a D I <D-{ rt 1 {� rt m x m o o o x rt J J J It O v O N H r 3 w w I IM N A A I D O O I I D O O N , , n 2 S c c I 1 J J rf rf I I I I T T I T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T I T T T T T T T T T T T T T VI Vf l/1 V1 V1 lA Vt l/1 V1 In In l/1 Vl Vl Vl V1 V1 VI VI V1 VI l/1 V1 VI V1 Vt l/1 I In Vf in v� AAAAAAAAAAw Ww WWWWWwwNNNNNNNNNNrrrrrr Vt Wrrr�OWVOItnAwNrrrrF'rrrrlO lO lO l0�0 tD ID iD tD ipWWWWWWWWW l/1 W vIA WNlOWVOI�nAWNr OIOWVAwN rOlOWVOt vIA wNrO�OWVOI vtA p Nr0 OOOOOOOOiOWVQI�nAWNrOlOWVOl v1A WNr p O H ' O O OItn C HC V01 v�AwNrO HC O.T On On n I m 1 m 1 m I 1 I z z z I nvc Inv c Invc 0o I �-Wm o00000000000000000000000000000000000000o I �� m o000000000000000000000000000000000000000 wpm o m A A 0 0 I r-l3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I r-l3 O . r-1 V V 1 G1 H Q H r l0�D A VI l0 iD lD lD�O iD�O tD tp�D iD 1010 tp 1p l0 t0 tD 10101D t0 l0 1p�O tD iD t0 i0 tD�D iD l0 tD l0 t0 l0 1p tD�O F VI t0�O�O�D tD tD lO IO l0lp tp tp i0 tD�O tD i0�O tD�D�D tp tD l0 t0 l0 t010 tp 1p 1p tp 1p i010�D�O tD tp tD ,v V1 l0 0101 I :KH WW-Q1Q1Q101---Q1010101010)010101010101 Q)0101010101010101010101010101 O1 O10) I D H 0)010)OlQl01Q)01 O10101WWWWrr rrr rrrrrrrrr rrrrrr rrrrr I :K n W w w 3 H w w w w w wwwwww w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w 3 H w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w 3 H NN VIO mmmmm mmmmm NN NNNNNN mmmmm NNNNNNm NNNNNNN N O NNNNNNNNNNNNN�n to�n to to V�Vl VI�n V�V�ln to In In In to to vl to to�n to to to�n�n V1O mm �z mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm mmmmmmmm mmmm mmmm �o z mmmm mmmmmm m m mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm �z mo 0I V1 1 1 I I I 1 1 1 1 I i l l l l l l I N N I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I N N o Wm 000000000000000000000000000000008000000o mr z o000000000000000000000000080000000000000 MT or w w v D w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w n w D w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w-w w w w w w I v w w m I vA m m A 3 O I O r i m r r r r r r r r r mm r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r m m r N �X r�W01�nWN Nr�D WOI�n WN Nr� WMWWN NrlO WOItnWN NrlD W01 -IX2 InWN Nr�D W01 lnWN mANr�o WQ101A Nr�O W 01 Q1ANrlO WOlN rlO WOIN -iX r2 Vlp 1 m A. . . .U. . . AIO. . . . . . A. . . . . . . tOA. . . . . . . IOAiDWW m C WWNVlO AIpWWWWNVOAiDAtDWWOAiDAIpWWOAtD AIDW W lO A IOW W Io I m AC A a A 3 Olin 1 Vl Wr0061 rn—wrW61W rW6lW rlL161 VFW rWQlW rm0l—WrWOt 1 N rF WI--`lD 011nWrWOIW rID QIO WtnWrWQIO WvtWrWOIO Wv�WrWOI VFW rW01ln I t!1 Wrt I v C C m 1 m rf 1 m 0 rrrrrrrrrl-'rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr -l< r� tDW m WWWWWWWW010101010101010101tn In In to to vt vt V�tnWWWWWWWWWNNNNN m NNNN 1010101D 1D l0 lDVVVVVVV01010101010101A AAAAN m N tDW 1 A WWWWWCO OO W OOWwWWWWWWwwWWOO OOWWWOO OONNNNN F W VVVV0000000������+�O O OO OOOAAAAA�D 1 A tOW In # (/1 (D # VI !D Noo I.i # oo w oo co wco oo oornrnmrnrnrnmrnmwwwu,u.lwwwwrrrrrr �o�rnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrn������„�„wwu,wwww000000000mm�o��n v,IF n S I < 3m w < mm < M r> O I R1rm D O lr> O to m r 00 m Gm m C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I T< m C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I m<m C O 00 Ivl m o00000000000000000000000000000000000000o Ivl o� m o00000000000000000000000000000000000000o v Iv, m 00 N to I N O —mx O n v 1 3 m m c 1 3 m m v m c 1 3 m m C l D a m.1 x m H J a r m H r to rr �clm n I�rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr --In& m m n rrrrrrrrrrrrr�n�n�n�n--------�+��++��..�..�n�n�n�„�.,�++�,-- 1 rclm n m mX> m mxrD M > m . . . . . . m=D m ro 00 IX-jIn o00000000000000000000000000000000000000o Iz-i-, vl o000000000000000000000000000000000000o00 IX- vw on Aoo Iv m oD o00000000000000000000000000000000000000o Iv v wm n o000000000000000000000000000000000000o00 1v m n ov D N D n D N m 3 n m v I m H # m H # m H V V M V 1 z » V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V A V I D z # V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V -I V I Z %S V D f m<H # m<z H # m<H mm m m m m m m m m m m mmmm m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m a s mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm ow N N I In • N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N V1 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N I x N 13 1 3 ✓� I m vl rr 1 mvlz r1-+rrrrrrrrl�rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr �In�r z m rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrl�rr -{(n2 r�r m N H m N H m N H l0 r r 1 F r r r r r r r r r r N r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r 1 .� W -1 r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r H H r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r F'r r I M r W ww v wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww r wwwwwwwwwwwwwrnmrnOl Ol Ot OI OI Ot OI Ot Ot OI O)010101010101mmrnmmrnQl Otr v v x x I m 2 S x x x x 2 2 2 2 x x x x 2 x 2 S 2 2 c c 2 x 2 x x x S 2 2 x 2 c x 2 x x x x I N m 2 2 2 2 2 2 x x x x x S x x 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 x 2 x x x x S x x x x x S x 2 x 2 x x m x N cc cT II nlDn H3V1 0 0A0T7�07.100000A000000000000cc000 0�0.A0.T0A0A0A0F0F0FA.vIn w H 000000000000.00.T0A0A0000000A0F07�0000000000000000 .0 00 0."�0. 00000000 000 1 r)H 01 TT 1 D VI T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T m T T T T 1 D 1/1 T 0 0 r LI o 0 l7 O o O O O o O O O O O O o o O O O O O O O O O o o O O O o O O O O O O O O r G In O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O o O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O o O O o O O O o O r In 0. <{ I W P O {<{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{<{{{{{{{{<{<< I W A Hp {{{{{{{<<<<{<<{<<{{{{{{{<<<<<<<<<<<<<<{{ I W A Hip <3 1 {<z -< ' z i < z a I D 7J I D AD A• D AD I { 1 <ri -{ I -<-� rf I m (xi m m rxF 1 I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 D21314.00 Huntington Beach senior Center PM25 Analysis_1981_PM25_Summary.txt F56 0 0.79632E-03 22.9 99.1 0.0 1.00 7.62 1.13 HROFDY F57 0 0.79632E-03 38.1 99.1 0.0 1.00 7.62 1.13 HROFDY F58 0 0.79632E-03 53.3 99.1 0.0 1.00 7.62 1.13 HROFDY F59 0 0.79632E-03 68.6 99.1 0.0 1.00 7.62 1.13 HROFDY F60 0 0.79632E-03 83.8 99.1 0.0 1.00 7.62 1.13 HROFDY F61 0 0.79632E-03 99.1 99.1 0.0 1.00 7.62 1.13 HROFDY F62 0 0.79632E-03 114.3 99.1 0.0 1.00 7.62 1.13 HROFDY F63 0 0.79632E-03 129.5 99.1 0.0 1.00 7.62 1.13 HROFDY F64 0 0.79632E-03 7.6 114.3 0.0 1.00 7.62 1.13 HROFDY F65 0 0.79632E-03 22.9 114.3 0.0 1.00 7.62 1.13 HROFDY F66 0 0.79632E-03 38.1 114.3 0.0 1.00 7.62 1.13 HROFDY F67 0 0.79632E-03 53.3 114.3 0.0 1.00 7.62 1.13 HROFDY F68 0 0.79632E-03 68.6 114.3 0.0 1.00 7.62 1.13 HROFDY F69 0 0.79632E-03 83.8 114.3 0.0 1.00 7.62 1.13 HROFDY F70 0 0.79632E-03 99.1 114.3 0.0 1.00 7.62 1.13 HROFDY F71 0 0.79632E-03 114.3 114.3 0.0 1.00 7.62 1.13 HROFDY F72 0 0.79632E-03 129.5 114.3 0.0 1.00 7.62 1.13 HROFDY F73 0 0.79632E-03 7.6 129.5 0.0 1.00 7.62 1.13 HROFDY F74 0 0.79632E-03 22.9 129.5 0.0 1.00 7.62 1.13 HROFDY F75 0 0.79632E-03 38.1 129.5 0.0 1.00 7.62 1.13 HROFDY F76 0 0.79632E-03 53.3 129.5 0.0 1.00 7.62 1.13 HROFDY F77 0 0.79632E-03 68.6 129.5 0.0 1.00 7.62 1.13 HROFDY F78 0 0.79632E-03 83.8 129.5 0.0 1.00 7.62 1.13 HROFDY F79 0 0.79632E-03 99.1 129.5 0.0 1.00 7.62 1.13 HROFDY F80 0 0.79632E-03 114.3 129.5 0.0 1.00 7.62 1.13 HROFDY F81 0 0.79632E-03 129.5 129.5 0.0 1.00 7.62 1.13 HROFDY F82 0 0.79632E-03 68.6 144.8 0.0 1.00 7.62 1.13 HROFDY F83 0 0.79632E-03 83.8 144.8 0.0 1.00 7.62 1.13 HROFDY F84 0 0.79632E-03 99.1 144.8 0.0 1.00 7.62 1.13 HROFDY F85 0 0.79632E-03 114.3 144.8 0.0 1.00 7.62 1.13 HROFDY F86 0 0.79632E-03 129.5 144.8 0.0 1.00 7.62 1.13 HROFDY F87 0 0.79632E-03 68.6 160.0 0.0 1.00 7.62 1.13 HROFDY F88 0 0.79632E-03 83.8 160.0 0.0 1.00 7.62 1.13 HROFDY F89 0 0.79632E-03 99.1 160.0 0.0 1.00 7.62 1.13 HROFDY F90 0 0.79632E-03 114.3 160.0 0.0 1.00 7.62 1.13 HROFDY F91 0 0.79632E-03 129.5 160.0 0.0 1.00 7.62 1.13 HROFDY F92 0 0.79632E-03 144.8 160.0 0.0 1.00 7.62 1.13 HROFDY F93 0 0.79632E-03 160.0 160.0 0.0 1.00 7.62 1.13 HROFDY *** VOLUME SOURCE DATA *** NUMBER EMISSION RATE BASE RELEASE INIT. INIT. EMISSION RATE SOURCE PART. (GRAMS/SEC) X Y ELEV. HEIGHT SY SZ SCALAR VARY - - - -ID - - - CATS_ - - - - (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) BY - - - F94 0 0.79632E-03 68.6 175.3 0.0 1.00 7.62 1.13 HROFDY F95 0 0.79632E-03 83.8 175.3 0.0 1.00 7.62 1.13 HROFDY F96 0 0.79632E-03 99.1 175.3 0.0 1.00 7.62 1.13 HROFDY F97 0 0.79632E-03 114.3 175.3 0.0 1.00 7.62 1.13 HROFDY F98 0 0.79632E-03 129.5 175.3 0.0 1.00 7.62 1.13 HROFDY F99 0 0.79632E-03 144.8 175.3 0.0 1.00 7.62 1.13 HROFDY F100 0 0.79632E-03 160.0 175.3 0.0 1.00 7.62 1.13 HROFDY F101 0 0.79632E-03 68.6 190.5 0.0 1.00 7.62 1.13 HROFDY Page 5 D21314.00 Huntington Beach Senior Center PM25 Analysis_1981_PM25_Summary.txt F102 0 0.79632E-03 83.8 190.5 0.0 1.00 7.62 1.13 HROFDY F103 0 0.79632E-03 99.1 190.5 0.0 1.00 7.62 1.13 HROFDY F104 0 0.79632E-03 114.3 190.5 0.0 1.00 7.62 1.13 HROFDY F105 0 0.79632E-03 129.5 190.5 0.0 1.00 7.62 1.13 HROFDY F106 0 0.79632E-03 144.8 190.5 0.0 1.00 7.62 1.13 HROFDY F107 0 0.79632E-03 160.0 190.5 0.0 1.00 7.62 1.13 HROFDY *** SOURCE IDS DEFINING SOURCE GROUPS *** GROUP ID SOURCE IDS ALL S1 S2 s3 S4 S5 s6 S7 S8 S9 s10 S11 S12 ; S13 S14 S15 s16 S17 S18 S19 s20 S21 S22 s23 s24 s25 s26 S27 s28 S29 s30 s31 s32 s33 s34 S35 s36 S37 s38 s39 s40 S41 S42 S43 S44 s45 S46 S47 s48 S49 S50 S51 s52 s53 S54 s55 s56 S57 s58 s59 s60 s61 s62 S63 s64 S65 S66 s67 s68 s69 S70 S71 s72 S73 S74 S75 S76 s77 s78 S79 S80 s81 s82 s83 S84 ; S85 s86 s87 S88 s89 S90 S91 S92 S93 s94 S95 S96 S97 S98 S99 S100 S101 S102 s103 s104 5105 s106 s107 Fl F2 F3 F4 FS F6 F7 F8 F9 F10 Fll F12 F13 ; F14 F15 F16 F17 F18 F19 F20 F21 F22 F23 F24 F25 F26 F27 F28 F29 F30 F31 F32 F33 F34 F35 F36 F37 F38 F39 F40 F41 F42 F43 F44 F45 F46 F47 F48 F49 F50 F51 F52 F53 F54 F55 F56 F57 F58 F59 F60 F61 F62 F63 F64 F65 F66 F67 F68 F69 F70 F71 F72 F73 F74 F75 F76 F77 F78 F79 F80 F81 F82 F83 F84 F85 F86 F87 F88 F89 F90 F91 F92 F93 F94 F95 F96 F97 F98 F99 F100 F101 F102 F103 F104 F105 F106 F107 *** THE SUMMARY OF HIGHEST 24-HR RESULTS *** Page 6 D21314.00 Huntington Beach Senior Center PM25 Analysis_1981_PM25_Summary.txt .. CONC OF PM IN MICROGRAMS/M*"3 "" DATE NETWORK GROUP ID AVERAGE CONC (YYMMDDHH) RECEPTOR (XR, YR, ZELEV, ZFLAG) OF TYPE GRID-ID - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -ALL HIGH 1ST HIGH VALUE IS 2.31130 ON 81011524: AT ( -225.00, 75.00, 0.00, 2.00) DC NA HIGH 2ND HIGH VALUE IS 2.16656 ON 81122624: AT ( -225.00, 50.00, 0.00, 2.00) DC NA Page 7 M M ,M M M M M M M w w w M M M ® M M Page: 1 11/17/2007 6:16:59 PM Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.2 Combined Winter Emissions Reports (Pounds/Day) File Name: P:\Projects -All Users\D21200.00+\D21314.00 HB Senior Center\Air Quality Data\D21314.00 Huntington Beach Senior Center- Construction.urb9 Project Name: D21314.00 Huntington Beach Senior Center-Construction Project Location: Orange County On-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Off-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 Summary Report: CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO S02 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 PM2.5 CO2 Exhaust 2008 TOTALS(Ibs/day unmitigated) 3.35 28.07 14.69 0.00 50.01 1.41 51.42 10.44 1.30 11.75 2,371.86 2008 TOTALS(Ibs/day mitigated) 3.35 28.07 14.69 0.00 25.91 1.41 27.33 5.41 1.30 6.71 2,371.86 2009 TOTALS(Ibs/day unmitigated) 43.83 18.96 14.95 0.00 0.02 1.50 1.51 0.01 1.38 1.38 2,071.92 2009 TOTALS({bslday mitigated) 43.83 18.96 14.95 0.00 0.02 1.50 1.51 0.01 1.38 1.38 2,071.92 Construction Unmitigated Detail Report: CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Winter Pounds Per Day,Unmitigated ROG NOx CO S02 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 CO2 Page: 2 11/17/2007 6:16:59 PM Time Slice 10/1/2008-12/15/2008 3.35 28.07 14.69 0.00 50.01 1.41 51.42 10.44 130 11.75 2,371.86 Active Days:54 Mass Grading 10/01/2008- 3.35 28.07 14.69 0.00 50.01 1.41 51.42 10.44 1.30 11.75 2,371.86 12/15/2008 Mass Grading Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 50.00 0.00 50.00 10.44 0.00 10.44 0.00 Mass Grading Off Road Diesel 3.31 28.00 13,56 0.00 0.00 1.41 1.41 0.00 1.30 1.30 2,247.32 Mass Grading On Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Mass Grading Worker Trips 0.04 0.07 1.13 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 124.55 Time Slice 12/16/2008-12/31/2008 3.35 2807 14.69 0.00 5001 1.41 51.42 10.44 130 11.75 2,371.86 Active Days: 12 Fine Grading 12/16/2008- 3.35 28.07 14.69 0.00 50.01 1.41 51.42 10.44 1.30 11.75 2,371.86 12/31/2008 Fine Grading Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 50.00 0.00 50.00 10.44 0.00 10.44 0.00 Fine Grading Off Road Diesel 3.31 28.00 13.56 0.00 0.00 1.41 1.41 0.00 1.30 1.30 2,247.32 Fine Grading On Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Fine Grading Worker Trips 0.04 0.07 1.13 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 124.55 Time Slice 1/2/2009-1/15/2009 2.21 18.96 9.38 0.00 0.01 0.93 0.94 0.00 0.86 0.86 1,839.12 Active Days: 10 Trenching 01/02/2009-01/15/2009 2.21 18.96 9.38 0.00 0.01 0.93 0.94 0.00 0.86 0.86 1,839.12 Trenching Off Road Diesel 2.18 18.90 8.32 0.00 0.00 0.93 0.93 0.00 0.86 0.86 1,714.64 Trenching Worker Trips 0.03 0.06 1.06 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 124.48 Time Slice 1/16/2009-9116/2009 4,01 18.05 14.95 0.00 0,02 1.31 1.33 0.01 1.20 1.21 2,071.92 Active Days: 174 Building 01/16/2009-09/16/2009 4.01 18.05 14.95 0.00 0.02 1.31 1.33 0.01 1.20 1.21 2,071.92 Building Off Road Diesel 3.87 17.35 11.50 0.00 0.00 1.28 1.28 0.00 1.17 1.17 1,621.20 Building Vendor Trips 0.04 0,52 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.02 92.21 Building Worker Trips 0.10 0.18 3.05 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.01 358.52 ww "Naftwommawom am noun on mom M M M r = M M M M M M M M A M M M M M Page: 3 11/17/2007 6:16:59 PM Time Slice 9/17/2009-10/16/2009 43.83 0.03 0.54 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 63.66 Active Days:22 Coating 09/17/2009-10/16/2009 43.83 0.03 0.54 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 63.66 Architectural Coating 43.82 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Coating Worker Trips 0.02 0.03 0.54 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 63.66 Time Slice 10/19/2009-11118/2009 3.12 17.81 11.70 0.00 0.02 1.50 1.51 0.01 1.38 1.38 1,628.17 Active Days:23 Asphalt 10/19/2009-11/18/2009 3.12 17.81 11.70 0.00 0.02 1.50 1.51 0.01 1.38 1.38 1,628.17 Paving Off-Gas 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Paving Off Road Diesel 2.81 16.83 9.27 0.00 0.00 1.46 1.46 0.00 1.34 1.34 1,272.04 Paving On Road Diesel 0.06 0.85 0.31 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.04 0.00 0.03 0.03 107.16 Paving Worker Trips 0.07 0.13 2.12 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.01 248.97 Phase Assumotions Phase:Fine Grading 12/16/2008-12/31/2008-Default Fine Site Grading/Excavation Description Total Acres Disturbed:6.5 Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed:5 Fugitive Dust Level of Detail: Default 10 Ibs per acre-day On Road Truck Travel(VMT):0 Off-Road Equipment: 1 Graders(174 hp)operating at a 0.61 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Rubber Tired Dozers(357 hp)operating at a 0.59 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes(108 hp)operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Water Trucks(189 hp)operating at a 0.5 load factor for 8 hours per day Phase: Mass Grading 10/1/2008-12/15/2008-Default Mass Site Grading/Excavation Description Total Acres Disturbed:6.5 Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed:5 Page: 4 11/17/2007 6:16:59 PM Fugitive Dust Level of Detail: Default 10 Ibs per acre-day On Road Truck Travel(VMT):0 Off-Road Equipment: 1 Graders(174 hp)operating at a 0.61 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Rubber Tired Dozers(357 hp)operating at a 0.59 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes(108 hp)operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Water Trucks(189 hp)operating at a 0.5 load factor for 8 hours per day Phase:Trenching 1/2/2009-1/15/2009-Default Trenching Description Off-Road Equipment: 2 Excavators(168 hp)operating at a 0.57 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Other General Industrial Equipment(238 hp)operating at a 0.51 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes(108 hp)operating at a 0.55 load factor for 0 hours per day Phase: Paving 10/19/2009-11/18/2009-Paving Acres to be Paved: 1.62 Off-Road Equipment: 4 Cement and Mortar Mixers(10 hp)operating at a 0.56 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Pavers(100 hp)operating at a 0.62 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Paving Equipment(104 hp)operating at a 0.53 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Rollers(95 hp)operating at a 0.56 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes(108 hp)operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day Phase:Building Construction 1/16/2009-9/16/2009-Building Construction Off-Road Equipment: 1 Cranes(399 hp)operating at a 0.43 load factor for 6 hours per day 2 Forklifts(145 hp)operating at a 0.3 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Generator Sets(49 hp)operating at a 0.74 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes(108 hp)operating at a 0.55 load factor for 8 hours per day w M am = M so M M Im M Page: 5 11/17/2007 6:16:59 PM 3 Welders(45 hp)operating at a 0.45 load factor for 8 hours per day Phase:Architectural Coating 9/17/2009-10/16/2009-Architectural Coating Rule: Residential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 6/30/2008 specifies a VOC of 100 Rule: Residential Interior Coatings begins 7/1/2008 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 50 Rule: Residential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 6/30/2008 specifies a VOC of 250 Rule: Residential Exterior Coatings begins 7/1/2008 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 100 Rule: Nonresidential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Rule: Nonresidential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Construction Mitigated Detail Report: CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Winter Pounds Per Day,Mitigated ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 CO2 Time Slice 10/1/2008-12/15/2008 335 28.07 14.69 0.00 25.91 1.41 27.33 5.41 130 6.71 2,371.86 Active Days:54 Mass Grading 10/01/2008- 3.35 28.07 14.69 0.00 25.91 1.41 27.33 5.41 1.30 6.71 2,371.86 12/15/2008 Mass Grading Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 25.91 0.00 25.91 5.41 0.00 5.41 0.00 Mass Grading Off Road Diesel 3.31 28.00 13.56 0.00 0.00 1.41 1.41 0.00 1.30 1.30 2,247.32 Mass Grading On Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Mass Grading Worker Trips 0.04 0.07 1.13 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 124.55 Page: 6 11/17/2007 6:16:59 PM Time Slice 12/16/2008-12/31/2008 335 28.07 14.69 0.00 25.91 1.41 27.33 5.41 1.30 6.71 2,371.86 Active Days: 12 Fine Grading 12/16/2008- 3.35 28.07 14.69 0.00 25.91 1.41 27.33 5.41 1.30 6.71 2,371.86 12/31/2008 Fine Grading Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 25.91 0.00 25.91 5.41 0.00 5.41 0.00 Fine Grading Off Road Diesel 3.31 28.00 13.56 0.00 0.00 1.41 1.41 0.00 1.30 1.30 2,247.32 Fine Grading On Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Fine Grading Worker Trips 0.04 0.07 1.13 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 124.55 Time Slice1/2/2009-1/15/2009 2.21 18.96 9.38 0.00 0.01 0.93 0.94 0.00 0.86 0.86 1,839.12 Active Days: 10 Trenching 01/02/2009-01/15/2009 2.21 18.96 9.38 0.00 0.01 0.93 0.94 0.00 0.86 0.86 1,839.12 Trenching Off Road Diesel 2.18 18.90 8.32 0.00 0.00 0.93 0.93 0.00 0.86 0.86 1,714.64 Trenching Worker Trips 0.03 0.06 1.06 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 124.48 Time Slice 1/16/2009-9/16/2009 4.01 18.05 14.95 QQQ 0.02 1.31 1.33 0.01 1.20 1.21 2,071.92 Active Days: 174 Building 01/16/2009-09/16/2009 4.01 18.05 14.95 0.00 0,02 1.31 1.33 0.01 1.20 1.21 2,071.92 Building Off Road Diesel 3.87 17.35 11.50 0.00 0,00 1.28 1.28 0.00 1.17 1.17 1,621.20 Building Vendor Trips 0.04 0.52 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.02 92.21 Building Worker Trips 0.10 0.18 3.05 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.01 358.52 Time Slice 9/17/2009-10/16/2009 43.83 0.03 0.54 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 63.66 Active Days:22 Coating 09/17/2009-10/16/2009 43.83 0.03 0.54 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 63.66 Architectural Coating 43.82 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Coating Worker Trips 0.02 0.03 0.54 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 63.66 IM M M ® w Mire m r r r air a M err M r ,r M rr ar r�r r� r Page: 7 11/17/2007 6:16:59 PM Time Slice 10/19/2009-11/18/2009 3.12 17.81 11.70 0.00 0.02 1.50 1.51 0.01 1.38 1.38 1,628.17 Active Days:23 Asphalt 10/19/2009-11/18/2009 3.12 17.81 11.70 0.00 0.02 1.50 1.51 0.01 1.38 1.38 1,628.17 Paving Off-Gas 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Paving Off Road Diesel 2.81 16.83 9.27 0.00 0.00 1.46 1.46 0.00 1.34 1.34 1,272.04 Paving On Road Diesel 0.06 0.85 0.31 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.04 0.00 0.03 0.03 107.16 Paving Worker Trips 0.07 0.13 2.12 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.01 248.97 Construction Related Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measures apply to Phase:Fine Grading 12/16/2008-12/31/2008-Default Fine Site Grading/Excavation Description For Soil Stablizing Measures,the Water exposed surfaces 3x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10:61%PM25:61% The following mitigation measures apply to Phase:Mass Grading 10/1/2008-12/15/2008-Default Mass Site Grading/Excavation Description For Soil Stablizing Measures,the Water exposed surfaces 3x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10:61%PM25:61% Page: 1 11/17/2007 6:13:16 PM Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.2 Combined Summer Emissions Reports (Pounds/Day) File Name: P:\Projects-All Users\D21200.00+\D21314.00 HB Senior Center\Air Quality Data\D21314.00 Huntington Beach Senior Center- Construction.urb9 Project Name: D21314.00 Huntington Beach Senior Center-Construction Project Location: Orange County On-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Off-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 Summary Report: CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO S02 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 PM2.5 CO2 Exhaust 2008 TOTALS(Ibs/day unmitigated) 3.35 28.07 14.69 0.00 50.01 1.41 51.42 10.44 1.30 11.75 2,371.86 2008 TOTALS(Ibs/day mitigated) 3.35 28.07 14.69 0.00 25.91 1.41 27.33 5.41 1.30 6.71 2,371.86 2009 TOTALS(Ibs/day unmitigated) 43.83 18.96 14.95 0.00 0.02 1.50 1.51 0.01 1.38 1.38 2,071.92 2009 TOTALS(Ibs/day mitigated) 43.83 18.96 14.95 0.00 0.02 1.50 1.51 0.01 1.38 1.38 2,071.92 Construction Unmitigated Detail Report: CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Summer Pounds Per Day,Unmitigated ROG NOx CO S02 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 CO2 ® ® M M M W am M iM M M M M M = w Page: 2 11/17/2007 6:13:16 PM Time Slice 10/1/2008-12/15/2008 335 28.07 14.69 0.00 50.01 1.41 51.42 10.44 1.30 11.75 2,371.86 Active Days:54 Mass Grading 10/01/2008- 3.35 28.07 14.69 0.00 50.01 1.41 51.42 10.44 1.30 11.75 2,371.86 12/15/2008 Mass Grading Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 50.00 0.00 50.00 10.44 0.00 10.44 0.00 Mass Grading Off Road Diesel 3.31 28.00 13.56 0.00 0.00 1.41 1.41 0.00 1.30 1.30 2,247.32 Mass Grading On Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Mass Grading Worker Trips 0.04 0.07 1.13 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 124.55 Time Slice 12/16/2008-12/31/2008 335 2807 14.69 0.00 50.01 1.41 51.42 10.44 130 11.75 2,371.86 Active Days: 12 Fine Grading 12/16/2008- 3.35 28.07 14.69 0.00 50.01 1.41 51.42 10.44 1.30 11.75 2,371.86 12/31/2008 Fine Grading Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 50.00 0.00 50.00 10.44 0.00 10.44 0.00 Fine Grading Off Road Diesel 3.31 28.00 13.56 0.00 0.00 1.41 1.41 0.00 1.30 1.30 2,247.32 Fine Grading On Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Fine Grading Worker Trips 0.04 0.07 1.13 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 124.55 Time Slice 1/2/2009-1/15/2009 2.21 18.96 9.38 0.00 0.01 0.93 0.94 0.00 0.86 0.86 1,839.12 Active Days: 10 Trenching 01/02/2009-01/15/2009 2.21 18.96 9.38 0.00 0.01 0.93 0.94 0.00 0.86 0.86 1,839.12 Trenching Off Road Diesel 2.18 18.90 8.32 0.00 0.00 0.93 0.93 0.00 0.86 0.86 1,714.64 Trenching Worker Trips 0.03 0.06 1.06 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 124.48 Time Slice 1/16/2009-9/16/2009 4.01 18.05 14.95 0.00 0.02 1.31 1.33 0.01 1.20 1.21 2,071.92 Active Days: 174 Building 01/16/2009-09/16/2009 4.01 18,05 14.95 0.00 0.02 1.31 1.33 0.01 1.20 1.21 2,071.92 Building Off Road Diesel 3.87 17.35 11.50 0.00 0.00 1.28 1.28 0.00 1.17 1.17 1,621.20 Building Vendor Trips 0.04 0.52 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.02 92.21 Building Worker Trips 0.10 0.18 3.05 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.01 358.52 Page: 3 11/17/2007 6:13:17 PM Time Slice 9/17/2009-10/16/2009 43.83 0.03 0.54 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 63.66 Active Days:22 Coating 09/17/2009-10/16/2009 43.83 0.03 0.54 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 63.66 Architectural Coating 43.82 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Coating Worker Trips 0.02 0.03 0.54 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 63.66 Time Slice 10/19/2009-11/18/2009 3.12 17.81 11.70 0.00 0.02 1.50 1.51 0.01 1.38 1.38 1,628.17 Active Days:23 Asphalt 10/19/2009-11/18/2009 3.12 17.81 11.70 0.00 0.02 1.50 1.51 0.01 1.38 1.38 1,628.17 Paving Off-Gas 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Paving Off Road Diesel 2.81 16.83 9.27 0.00 0.00 1.46 1.46 0.00 1.34 1.34 1,272.04 Paving On Road Diesel 0.06 0.85 0.31 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.04 0.00 0.03 0.03 107.16 Paving Worker Trips 0.07 0.13 2.12 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.01 248.97 Phase Assumotions Phase: Fine Grading 12/16/2008-12/31/2008-Default Fine Site Grading/Excavation Description Total Acres Disturbed:6.5 Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed:5 Fugitive Dust Level of Detail: Default 10 Ibs per acre-day On Road Truck Travel(VMT):0 Off-Road Equipment: 1 Graders(174 hp)operating at a 0.61 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Rubber Tired Dozers(357 hp)operating at a 0.59 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes(108 hp)operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Water Trucks(189 hp)operating at a 0.5 load factor for 8 hours per day Phase:Mass Grading 10/1/2008-12/15/2008-Default Mass Site Grading/Excavation Description Total Acres Disturbed:6.5 Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed:5 M M M M M M M M M M w M ® M M M � � M M Page: 4 11/17/2007 6:13:17 PM Fugitive Dust Level of Detail:Default 10 Ibs per acre-day On Road Truck Travel(VMT):0 Off-Road Equipment: 1 Graders(174 hp)operating at a 0.61 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Rubber Tired Dozers(357 hp)operating at a 0.59 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes(108 hp)operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Water Trucks(189 hp)operating at a 0.5 load factor for 8 hours per day Phase:Trenching 1/2/2009-1/15/2009-Default Trenching Description Off-Road Equipment: _ 2 Excavators(168 hp)operating at a 0.57 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Other General Industrial Equipment(238 hp)operating at a 0.51 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes(108 hp)operating at a 0.55 load factor for 0 hours per day Phase: Paving 10/19/2009-11/18/2009-Paving Acres to be Paved: 1.62 Off-Road Equipment: 4 Cement and Mortar Mixers(10 hp)operating at a 0.56 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Pavers(100 hp)operating at a 0.62 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Paving Equipment(104 hp)operating at a 0.53 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Rollers(95 hp)operating at a 0.56 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes(108 hp)operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day Phase: Building Construction 1/16/2009-9/16/2009-Building Construction Off-Road Equipment: 1 Cranes(399 hp)operating at a 0.43 load factor for 6 hours per day 2 Forklifts(145 hp)operating at a 0.3 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Generator Sets(49 hp)operating at a 0.74 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes(108 hp)operating at a 0.55 load factor for 8 hours per day Page: 5 11/17/2007 6:13:17 PM 3 Welders(45 hp)operating at a 0.45 load factor for 8 hours per day Phase:Architectural Coating 9/17/2009-10/16/2009-Architectural Coating Rule: Residential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 6/30/2008 specifies a VOC of 100 Rule: Residential Interior Coatings begins 7/1/2008 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 50 Rule: Residential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 6/30/2008 specifies a VOC of 250 Rule:Residential Exterior Coatings begins 7/1/2008 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 100 Rule:Nonresidential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Rule:Nonresidential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Construction Mitigated Detail Report: CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Summer Pounds Per Day,Mitigated ROG NOx CO S02 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 CO2 Time Slice 10/1/2008-12/15/2008 3.35 28.07 1469 0.00 25.91 1.41 27.33 5.41 1.30 6.71 2,371.86 Active Days:54 Mass Grading 10/01/2008- 3.35 28.07 14.69 0.00 25.91 1.41 27.33 5.41 1.30 6.71 2,371.86 12/15/2008 Mass Grading Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 25.91 0.00 25.91 5.41 0.00 5.41 0.00 Mass Grading Off Road Diesel 3.31 28.00 13.56 0.00 0.00 1.41 1.41 0.00 1.30 1.30 2,247.32 Mass Grading On Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Mass Grading Worker Trips 0.04 0.07 1.13 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 124.55 gnaw mom m ma m m M M Page: 6 11/17/2007 6:13:17 PM Time Slice 12/16/2008-12/31/2008 3�3r 28.07 14.69 0.00 25.91 1.41 27.33 5.41 130 6.71 2,371.86 Active Days: 12 Fine Grading 12/16/2008- 3.35 28.07 14.69 0.00 25.91 1.41 27.33 5.41 1.30 6.71 2,371.86 12/31/2008 Fine Grading Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 25.91 0.00 25.91 5.41 0.00 5.41 0.00 Fine Grading Off Road Diesel 3.31 28.00 13.56 0.00 0.00 1.41 1.41 0.00 1.30 1.30 2,247.32 Fine Grading On Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Fine Grading Worker Trips 0.04 0.07 1.13 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 124.55 Time Slice 1/2/2009-1/15/2009 2.21 18.96 9.38 0.00 0.01 0.93 0.94 0.00 0.86 0.86 1,839.12 Active Days: 10 Trenching 01/02/2009-01/15/2009 2.21 18.96 9.38 0.00 0.01 0.93 0.94 0.00 0.86 0.86 1,839.12 Trenching Off Road Diesel 2.18 18.90 8.32 0.00 0.00 0.93 0.93 0.00 0.86 0.86 1,714.64 Trenching Worker Trips 0.03 0.06 1.06 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 124.48 Time Slice 1/16/2009-9/16/2009 4.01 18.05 14.95 0.00 0.02 1.31 1.33 0.01 1.20 1.21 2,071.92 Active Days: 174 Building 01/16/2009-09/16/2009 4.01 18.05 14.95 0.00 0.02 1.31 1.33 0.01 1.20 1.21 2,071.92 Building Off Road Diesel 3.87 17.35 11.50 0.00 0.00 1.28 1.28 0.00 1.17 1.17 1,621.20 Building Vendor Trips 0.04 0.52 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.02 92.21 Building Worker Trips 0.10 0.18 3.05 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.01 358.52 Time Slice 9/17/2009-10/16/2009 43.83 0.03 0.54 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 63.66 Active Days:22 Coating 09/17/2009-10/16/2009 43.83 0.03 0.54 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 63.66 Architectural Coating 43.82 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Coating Worker Trips 0.02 0.03 0.54 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 63.66 Page: 7 11/17/2007 6:13:17 PM Time Slice 10/19/2009-11/18/2009 3.12 17.81 11.70 0.00 0.02 1.50 1.51 0.01 1.38 1.38 1,628.17 Active Days:23 Asphalt 10/19/2009-11/18/2009 3.12 17.81 11.70 0.00 0.02 1.50 1.51 0.01 1.38 1.38 1,628.17 Paving Off-Gas 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Paving Off Road Diesel 2.81 16.83 9.27 0.00 0.00 1.46 1.46 0.00 1.34 1.34 1,272.04 Paving On Road Diesel 0.06 0.85 0.31 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.04 0.00 0.03 0.03 107.16 Paving Worker Trips 0.07 0.13 2.12 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.01 248.97 Construction Related Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Fine Grading 12/16/2008-12/31/2008-Default Fine Site Grading/Excavation Description For Soil Stablizing Measures,the Water exposed surfaces 3x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10:61%PM25:61% The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Mass Grading 10/1/2008-12/15/2008-Default Mass Site Grading/Excavation Description For Soil Stablizing Measures,the Water exposed surfaces 3x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10:61%PM25:61% Sam m m uW aM mI ® m m Page: 1 11/17/2007 6:16:24 PM Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.2 Combined Winter Emissions Reports (Pounds/Day) File Name: P:\Projects-All Users\D21200.00+\D21314.00 HB Senior Center\Air Quality Data\D21314.00 Huntington Beach Senior Center- Construction.urb9 Project Name: D21314.00 Huntington Beach Senior Center- Construction Project Location: Orange County On-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Off-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 Summary Report: CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO S02 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 PM2.5 CO2 Exhaust 2008 TOTALS(Ibs/day unmitigated) 3.35 28.07 14.69 0.00 50.01 1.41 51.42 10.44 1.30 11.75 2,371.86 2008 TOTALS(Ibs/day mitigated) 3.35 28.07 14.69 0.00 25.91 1.41 27.33 5.41 1.30 6.71 2,371.86 2009 TOTALS(Ibs/day unmitigated) 43.83 18.96 14.95 0.00 0.02 1.50 1.51 0.01 1.38 1.38 2,071.92 2009 TOTALS(Ibs/day mitigated) 43.83 18,96 14.95 0.00 0.02 1.50 1.51 0.01 1.38 1.38 2,071.92 Construction Unmitigated Detail Report: CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Winter Pounds Per Day,Unmitigated ROG NOx CO S02 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 CO2 Page: 2 11/17/2007 6:16:24 PM Time Slice 10/1/2008-12/15/2008 335 28.07 14.69 0.00 50.01 1.41 51.42 10.44 1.30 11.75 2,371.86 Active Days:54 Mass Grading 10/01/2008- 3.35 28.07 14,69 0.00 50.01 1.41 51.42 10.44 1.30 11.75 2,371.86 12/15/2008 Mass Grading Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 50.00 0.00 50.00 10.44 0.00 10.44 0.00 Mass Grading Off Road Diesel 3.31 28.00 13.56 0.00 0.00 1.41 1.41 0.00 1.30 1.30 2,247.32 Mass Grading On Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Mass Grading Worker Trips 0.04 0.07 1.13 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 124.55 Time Slice 12/16/2008-12/31/2008 3.35 28.07 14.69 0.00 50.01 1.41 51.42 10.44 1.30 11.75 2,371.86 Active Days: 12 Fine Grading 12/16/2008- 3.35 28.07 14.69 0.00 50.01 1.41 51.42 10.44 1.30 11.75 2,371.86 12/31/2008 Fine Grading Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 50.00 0.00 50.00 10.44 0.00 10.44 0.00 Fine Grading Off Road Diesel 3.31 28.00 13.56 0.00 0.00 1.41 1.41 0.00 1.30 1.30 2,247.32 Fine Grading On Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Fine Grading Worker Trips 0.04 0.07 1.13 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 124.55 Time Slice 1/2/2009-1/15/2009 2.21 18.96 9.38 0.00 0.01 0.93 0.94 0.00 0.86 0.86 1,839.12 Active Days: 10 Trenching 01/02/2009-01/15/2009 2.21 18.96 9.38 0.00 0.01 0.93 0.94 0.00 0.86 0.86 1,839.12 Trenching Off Road Diesel 2.18 18.90 8.32 0.00 0.00 0.93 0.93 0.00 0.86 0.86 1,714.64 Trenching Worker Trips 0.03 0.06 1.06 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 124.48 Time Slice 1/16/2009-9/16/2009 4.01 18.05 14.95 0.00 0.02 1.31 1.33 0.01 1.20 1.21 2,071.92 Active Days: 174 Building 01/16/2009-09116/2009 4.01 18.05 14.95 0.00 0.02 1.31 1.33 0.01 1.20 1.21 2,071.92 Building Off Road Diesel 3.87 17.35 11.50 0.00 0.00 1.28 1.28 0.00 1.17 1.17 1,621.20 Building Vendor Trips 0.04 0.52 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.02 92.21 Building Worker Trips 0.10 0.18 3.05 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.01 358.52 M M M Page: 3 11/17/2007 6:16:24 PM Time Slice 9/17/2009-10/16/2009 43.83 0.03 0.54 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 63.66 Active Days:22 Coating 09/17/2009-10/16/2009 43.83 0.03 0.54 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 63.66 Architectural Coating 43.82 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Coating Worker Trips 0.02 0.03 0.54 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 63.66 Time Slice 10/19/2009-11/18/2009 3.12 17.81 11.70 0.00 0.02 1.50 1.51 0.01 1.38 1.38 1,628.17 Active Days:23 Asphalt 10119/2009-11/18/2009 3.12 17.81 11.70 0.00 0.02 1.50 1.51 0.01 1.38 1.38 1,628.17 Paving Off-Gas 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Paving Off Road Diesel 2.81 16.83 9.27 0.00 0.00 1.46 1.46 0.00 1.34 1.34 1,272.04 Paving On Road Diesel 0.06 0.85 0.31 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.04 0.00 0.03 0.03 107.16 Paving Worker Trips 0.07 0.13 2.12 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.01 248.97 PhaseAssumgtions Phase:Fine Grading 12/16/2008-12/31/2008-Default Fine Site Grading/Excavation Description Total Acres Disturbed:6.5 Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed:5 Fugitive Dust Level of Detail: Default 10 Ibs per acre-day On Road Truck Travel(VMT):0 Off-Road Equipment: 1 Graders(174 hp)operating at a 0.61 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Rubber Tired Dozers(357 hp)operating at a 0.59 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes(108 hp)operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Water Trucks(189 hp)operating at a 0.5 load factor for 8 hours per day Phase: Mass Grading 10/1/2008-12/15/2008-Default Mass Site Grading/Excavation Description Total Acres Disturbed:6.5 Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed:5 Page: 4 11/17/2007 6:16:24 PM Fugitive Dust Level of Detail: Default 10 Ibs per acre-day On Road Truck Travel(VMT):0 Off-Road Equipment: 1 Graders(174 hp)operating at a 0.61 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Rubber Tired Dozers(357 hp)operating at a 0.59 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes(108 hp)operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Water Trucks(189 hp)operating at a 0.5 load factor for 8 hours per day Phase:Trenching 1/2/2009-1/15/2009-Default Trenching Description Off-Road Equipment: 2 Excavators(168 hp)operating at a 0.57 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Other General Industrial Equipment(238 hp)operating at a 0.51 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes(108 hp)operating at a 0.55 load factor for 0 hours per day Phase: Paving 10/19/2009-11/18/2009-Paving Acres to be Paved: 1.62 Off-Road Equipment: 4 Cement and Mortar Mixers(10 hp)operating at a 0.56 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Pavers(100 hp)operating at a 0.62 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Paving Equipment(104 hp)operating at a 0.53 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Rollers(95 hp)operating at a 0.56 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes(108 hp)operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day Phase: Building Construction 1/16/2009-9/16/2009-Building Construction Off-Road Equipment: 1 Cranes(399 hp)operating at a 0.43 load factor for 6 hours per day 2 Forklifts(145 hp)operating at a 0.3 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Generator Sets(49 hp)operating at a 0.74 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes(108 hp)operating at a 0.55 load factor for 8 hours per day so M w an M >� = ® ® M M M ® � ® M M M M Page: 5 11/17/2007 6:16:24 PM 3 Welders(45 hp)operating at a 0.45 load factor for 8 hours per day Phase:Architectural Coating 9/17/2009-10/16/2009-Architectural Coating Rule:Residential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 6/30/2008 specifies a VOC of 100 Rule: Residential Interior Coatings begins 7/1/2008 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 50 Rule: Residential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 6/30/2008 specifies a VOC of 250 Rule: Residential Exterior Coatings begins 7/1/2008 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 100 Rule:Nonresidential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Rule:Nonresidential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Construction Mitigated Detail Report: CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Winter Pounds Per Day,Mitigated ROG NOx CO S02 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 CO2 Time Slice 10/1/2008-12/15/2008 3.35 28.07 14.69 0.00 25.91 1.41 27.33 5.41 1.30 6.71 2,371.86 Active Days:54 Mass Grading 10/01/2008- 3.35 28.07 14.69 0.00 25.91 1.41 27.33 5.41 1.30 6.71 2,371.86 12/15/2008 Mass Grading Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 25.91 0.00 25.91 5.41 0.00 5.41 0.00 Mass Grading Off Road Diesel 3.31 28.00 13.56 0.00 0.00 1.41 1.41 0.00 1.30 1.30 2,247.32 Mass Grading On Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Mass Grading Worker Trips 0.04 0.07 1.13 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 124.55 Page: 6 11/17/2007 6:16:24 PM Time Slice 12/16/2008-12/31/2008 335 28.07 14.69 0.00 25.91 1.41 27.33 5.41 130 6.71 2,371.86 Active Days: 12 Fine Grading 12/16/2008- 3.35 28.07 14.69 0.00 25.91 1.41 27.33 5.41 1.30 6.71 2,371.86 12/31/2008 Fine Grading Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 25.91 0.00 25.91 5.41 0.00 5.41 0.00 Fine Grading Off Road Diesel 3.31 28.00 13.56 0.00 0.00 1.41 1.41 0.00 1.30 1.30 2,247.32 Fine Grading On Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Fine Grading Worker Trips 0.04 0.07 1.13 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 124.55 Time Slice 1/2/2009-1/15/2009 2.21 18.96 9.38 0.00 0.01 0.93 0.94 0.00 0.86 0.86 1,839.12 Active Days: 10 Trenching 01/02/2009-01/15/2009 2.21 18.96 9.38 0.00 0.01 0.93 0.94 0.00 0.86 0.86 1,839.12 Trenching Off Road Diesel 2.18 18.90 8.32 0.00 0.00 0.93 0.93 0.00 0.86 0.86 1,714.64 Trenching Worker Trips 0.03 0.06 1.06 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 124.48 Time Slice 1/16/2009-9/16/2009 4.01 18.05 14.95 0.00 0.02 1.31 1.33 0.01 1.20 121 2,071.92 Active Days: 174 Building 01/16/2009-09/16/2009 4.01 18.05 14.95 0.00 0.02 1.31 1.33 0.01 1.20 1.21 2,071.92 Building Off Road Diesel 3.87 17.35 11.50 0.00 0.00 1.28 1.28 0.00 1.17 1.17 1,621.20 Building Vendor Trips 0.04 0.52 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.02 92.21 Building Worker Trips 0.10 0.18 3.05 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.01 358.52 Time Slice 9/17/2009-10/16/2009 43.83 0.03 0.54 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 63.66 Active Days:22 Coating 09/17/2009-10/16/2009 43.83 0.03 0.54 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 63.66 Architectural Coating 43.82 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Coating Worker Trips 0.02 0.03 0.54 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 63.66 M ® ® ® ® M M ® M ® ® ® M ® M M M � Page: 7 11/17/2007 6:16:24 PM Time Slice 10119/2009-11/18/2009 3.12 17.81 11.70 0.00 0.02 1.50 1.51 0.01 1.38 1.38 1,628.17 Active Days:23 Asphalt 10/19/2009-11/18/2009 3.12 17.81 11.70 0.00 0.02 1.50 1.51 0.01 1.38 1.38 1,628.17 Paving Off-Gas 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Paving Off Road Diesel 2.81 16.83 9.27 0.00 0.00 1.46 1.46 0.00 1.34 1.34 1,272.04 Paving On Road Diesel 0.06 0.85 0.31 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.04 0.00 0.03 0.03 107.16 Paving Worker Trips 0.07 0.13 2.12 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.01 248.97 Construction Related Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Fine Grading 12/16/2008-12/31/2008-Default Fine Site Grading/Excavation Description For Soil Stablizing Measures,the Water exposed surfaces 3x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10:61%PM25:61% The following mitigation measures apply to Phase:Mass Grading 10/1/2008-12/15/2008-Default Mass Site Grading/Excavation Description For Soil Stablizing Measures,the Water exposed surfaces 3x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10:61%PM25:61% H ! ' i _ s .L Huntington each Senior Center : = Mitigation Monitoring Program Volume/h Text Chan s and Response to Comments on the Draft EIR 4_ EIR No. 07-02 SCH No: 2007041027 Aim c November 2007 i At tapMtUfBlpd;. pared for: City of Huntington Beach Department of Planning 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach,California 92648 (714) 536-5271 ® Prepared by: PBS&J "• 4h, 12301 Wilshire Boulevard,Suite 430, Los Angeles, California 90025 1. H T 1 T UN Nr-1 B E C H SENIO -KF" CENTEKF"' Final Environmental Impact Report SCH No. 2007041027 Mitigation Monitoring Program Prepared for City of Huntington Beach Planning Department 2000 Main Street, Third Floor Huntington Beach, California 92648 Prepared by PBS&J 12301 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 430 tLos Angeles, California 90025 November 30, 2007 A. INTRODUCTION The Final Environmental Impact Report for the Huntington Beach Senior Center project (State Clearinghouse #2007041027) identified mitigation measures to reduce the adverse effects of the project in the areas of: aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, noise, recreation, transportation/traffic, and utilities & service systems. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that agencies adopting environmental impact reports ascertain that feasible mitigation measures are implemented, subsequent to project approval. Specifically, the lead or responsible agency must adopt a reporting or monitoring program for mitigation measures incorporated into a project or imposed as conditions of approval. The program must be designed to ensure compliance during applicable project timing, e.g. design, construction, or operation (Public Resource Code §21081.6). The Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP) shall be used by the City of Huntington Beach staff responsible for ensuring compliance with mitigation measures associated with the Huntington Beach Senior Center project. Monitoring shall consist of review of appropriate documentation, such as plans or reports prepared by the party responsible for implementation or by field observation of the mitigation measure during implementation. The following table identifies the mitigation measures by resource area. The table also provides the specific mitigation monitoring requirements, including implementation documentation, monitoring activity, timing and responsible monitoring party. Verification of compliance with each measure is to be indicated by signature of the mitigation monitor, together with date of verification. The Project Applicant and the Applicant's Contractor shall be responsible for implementation of all mitigation measures, unless otherwise noted in the table. Huntington Beach Senior Center Mitigation Monitoring Program P i Y • i Y P P Impfementafion Responsible; Compliance • :' Mill ation"Measure ������Documentafion � �°Monitorin Activ Timin � Monitor " �` •Verification Signature Date Aesthetics, MM 4.1-3(a) All exterior nighttime lighting shall be angled down Project building plans Review and Plan check Planning and away from the adjacent open space areas. Prismatic glass approve building prior to coverings and cutoff shields shall be used to further prevent plans for inclusion issuance of spillover off site. of features building permit MM 4.1-3(b) The minimum number of foot-candles deemed Project building plans Review and Plan check Planning necessary by the City to promote effective security while approve building prior to controlling glare and minimizing light spillover onto adjacent plans for inclusion issuance of areas shall be utilized in all lighting fixtures. of features building permit MM 4.1-3(c) Motion-sensitive security lighting shall be used on Project building plans Review and Plan check Planning site. approve building prior to plans for inclusion issuance of of features building permit MM 4.1-3(d)To the extent feasible,the Developer shall use non- Project building plans Review and Plan check Planning reflective fagade treatments, such as matte paint or glass approve building prior to coatings. plans for inclusion issuance of of features building permit MM 4.1-3(e) Trees and barrier-type vegetation should be placed Project landscaping Review and Plan check Planning throughout the site, including along the entire perimeter, to help and building plans approve prior to shield vehicle headlights from adjacent uses. landscaping and issuance of building plans for building permit inclusion of features Air Quality MM-4.2-2(a) (This MM incorporates Measure Air-9 from the Contract language and Review and Plan check Planning Central Park Master Plan EIR) notes on grading and approve contract prior to The project developer(s) shall require by contract specifications building plans specifications, issuance of a that construction equipment engines will be maintained in good grading and grading permit condition and in proper tune per manufacturer's specification for building plans for the duration of construction. inclusion 2 City of Huntington Beach 1;:: awlim Implementation Respon"sible Compliance Mitt afton Measure Documentation z Monflonbg Activffy riming" . `Y� Monitor Verfflc nSignature Date W4.2-2(b) (This MM incorporates Measure Air-12 from the Contract language and Review and Plan check Planning Central Park Master Plan EIR) notes on grading and approve contract prior to The project developer(s) shall require by contract specifications building plans specifications, issuance of a that construction-related equipment, including heavy-duty grading and grading permit equipment, motor vehicles, and portable equipment, shall be building plans for turned off when not in use for more than five minutes. Contract inclusion specification language shall be reviewed by the City prior to issuance of a grading permit. MM-4.2-2(c) (This MM incorporates Measures Air-1 0 and Air-1 1 Contract language and Review and Plan check Planning from the Central Park Master Plan EIR) notes on grading and approve contract prior to The project developer(s) shall encourage contractors to utilize building plans specifications, issuance of a alternative fuel construction equipment(i.e., compressed natural grading and grading permit gas, liquid petroleum gas, electric, and unleaded gasoline) and building plans for low-emission diesel construction equipment to the extent that the inclusion equipment is readily available and cost effective. Contract specification language shall be reviewed by the City prior to issuance of a grading permit. MM-4.2-2(d) The project developer(s) shall require by contract Contract language and Review and Plan check Planning specifications that construction operations rely on the electricity notes on grading and approve contract prior to infrastructure surrounding the construction sites rather than building plans specifications, issuance of a electrical generators powered by internal combustion engines to grading and grading permit the extent feasible. Contract specification language shall be building plans for reviewed by the City prior to issuance of a grading permit. inclusion MM4.2-2(e) The project developer(s) shall require by contract Project building plans Review and Plan check Planning specifications that the architectural coating (paint and primer) building plans for prior to products used would have a VOC rating of 125 grams per liter or inclusion issuance of a less. Contract specifications shall be included in the proposed building permit project construction documents, which shall be reviewed by the City prior to issuance of a building permit. Huntington Beach Senior Center Mitigation Monitoring Program 3 •s • • r r •s • i O i • o • i O Implementations Responsible Coriipfiance� Mfi ation Measure Documentation Monitorin ..c.... rimin Monitor Verification Si nature Biologica[Resources r y MM 4.3-1(a) Nesting habitat for protected or sensitive avian Developer shall submit Review schedule Plan check Planning species: construction schedule and field survey prior to 1) Vegetation removal and construction shall occur between (including grading report,and as issuance of a September 1 and January 31 whenever feasible. activities)as evidence necessary,review grading permit 2) Prior to any construction or vegetation removal between of construction overlap and approve plans February 15 and August 31,a nesting survey shall be with breeding season. indicating conducted by a qualified biologist of all habitats within 500 If construction occurs construction limits feet of the construction area.Surveys shall be conducted no during relevant less than 14 days and no more than 30 days prior to breeding,developer Perform periodic During Planning commencement of construction activities and surveys will be shall present a survey field check to construction conducted in accordance with CDFG protocol as applicable. report(prepared by a ensure compliance If no active nests are identified on or within 500 feet of the consultant approved by construction site, no further mitigation is necessary.This the City)to the City survey can be carried out concurrently with surveys for other prior to issuance of a species provided it does not conflict with any established grading permit. If nests survey protocols.A copy of the pre-construction survey shall are found,developer be submitted to the City of Huntington Beach. If an active shall submit plans nest of a sensitive species is identified onsite(per identifying nest established thresholds)a 250-foot no-work buffer shall be locations and limits of maintained between the nest and construction activity until construction activities. CDFG and/or USFWS approves of any other mitigation measures. 3) Completion of the nesting cycle shall be determined by qualified ornithologist or biologist. 4 City of Huntington Beach Opp, 11p Ml� lrnpWnen on Respnsible Compsance Miti anon Measure Do:unentafion Monitorin Acfiyfl rimin ;,Monitor "X'Vemc �Si nature Date IVIM 4.3-11(b)Burrowing Owl: Developer shall submit Review schedule Plan check Planning 1) Prior to construction activity,focused pre-construction construction schedule and field survey prior to surveys shall be conducted for burrowing owls where (including grading report,and as issuance of a suitable habitat is present within the construction areas. activities)as evidence necessary,review grading permit Surveys shall be conducted no less than 14 days and no of construction overlap and approve plans more than 30 days prior to commencement of construction with breeding season. indicating activities and surveys shall be conducted in accordance with If construction occurs construction limits CDFG burrowing owl survey protocol. during relevant 2) If unoccupied burrows are found during the non-breeding breeding,developer Perform periodic During Planning season,the City may collapse the unoccupied burrows,or shall present a survey field check to construction otherwise obstruct their entrances to prevent owls from report(prepared by a ensure compliance entering and nesting in the burrows.This measure would consultant approved by prevent inadvertent impacts during construction activities. the City)to the City 3) If no occupied burrows are found in the survey area,a letter prior to issuance of a report documenting survey methods and findings shall be grading permit. If nests submitted to the City and CDFG for review and approval,and are found,developer no further mitigation is necessary. shall submit plans If occupied burrows are found,impacts on the burrows shall identifying nest be avoided by providing a buffer of 165 feet during the non- locations and limits of breeding season (September 1 through January 31)or 250 construction activities. feet during the breeding season(February 1 through August 31).The size of the buffer area may be adjusted if a qualified biologist and CDFG determine it would not be likely to have adverse effects on the owls. No project activity shall commence within the buffer area until a qualified biologist confirms that the burrow is no longer occupied. If the burrow is occupied by a nesting pair,a minimum of 7.5 acres of foraging habitat contiguous to the burrow shall be maintained until the breeding season is over. 4) If impacts on occupied burrows are unavoidable, onsite passive relocation techniques approved by CDFG shall be used to encourage owls to move to alternative burrows outside of the impact area. However,no occupied burrows shall be disturbed during the nesting season unless a qualified biologist verifies through non-invasive methods that Huntington Beach Senior Center Mitigation Monitoring Program 5 . . . .. . � Implementafion Responsible Compliance Miff ation.Measure Documentaffon, - .. Monitodng Acttvffv riming Monitor Verification Si nature. Date juveniles from the occupied burrows are foraging independently and are capable of independent survival. Mitigation for foraging habitat for relocated pairs shall follow guidelines provided in the California Burrowing Owl Consortium's April 1995 Burrowing Owl Survey Protocol and Mitigation Guidelines,which ranges from 7.5 to 19.5 acres er air. MM 4.3-2 (This MM is Measure Biological Resources-4 from the The City shall Prepare plans Plan check Planning Central Park Master Plan EIR) determine the location indicating prior to The City shall mitigate for impacts to raptor foraging habitat of 5 acres of suitable enhancement area, issuance of a through dedication as open space, conservation and/or raptor foraging habitat and verify retention grading permit enhancing areas of raptor foraging habitat at a ratio of 1:1 for to be conserved and/or of a qualified acres of impact on raptor foraging habitat to provide suitable enhanced. biologist habitat values and functions for raptors. Mitigation for impacts on The City shall formulate raptor foraging habitat will be accomplished within suitable areas a plan to accomplish Review and Review plan Planning that are City-owned and preferably nearby, such as the areas in the raptor foraging approval of raptor throughout association with the Sully Miller Lake Group Facility, Low habitat enhancement foraging habitat construction Intensity Recreation Area, Semi-Active Recreation Area, and/or activities,including the enhancement plan activities Midden Area/Urban Forest/Trailhead. Enhancement would planting of native trees by qualified include, but not be limited to, the planting of native trees within within and adjacent to biologist and adjacent to conserved areas of raptor foraging habitat. Prior the dedicated area. Implementation to ground disturbance, the City shall identify the particular site or Proof of retention of and completion of Prior to area to be enhanced and shall formulate a Ian to accomplish p Certificate of Qualified p p biologist. enhancement Biologist the raptor foraging habitat enhancement activities.This plan shall activities Occupancy be reviewed for approval by a qualified biologist. 6 City of Huntington Beach 1pl' V .,,Z� ns6le ,Compliance0'Respo IM�I�mentc�q MNgaffonMeasure Documentation Jh Monfl6in Ag I Hydrology and-Water ua i,y MM 4.7-1 (This MM incorporates Measures Water-2 and 3 from Water Quality Review and Plan check Public Works the Central Park Master Plan EIR) Management Plan approve WQMP prior to The project proponent shall prepare and implement a site- and documentation issuance of specific Water Quality Management Plan(WQMP). precise This (WQMP) shall identify specific stormwater BMPs for grading permit reducing potential pollutants in stormwater runoff. BMPs shall be designed in accordance with DAMP requirements and the recommendations of the Geotechnical Report prepared for the proposed project. The WQMP must be approved by the Public Works Department prior to the beginning of construction activities. The WQMP shall include the following BMPs along with selected BMPs to target pollutant removal rates: Waste and materials storage and management BMPs (design and construction of outdoor materials storage areas and trash and waste storage areas, if any,to reduce pollutant introduction) Spill prevention and control BMPs Slope protection and stabilization BMPs Water efficient irrigation practices(Municipal Code 14.52 Water Efficient Landscape;water efficient guidelines and Conceptual Landscape Plan). Permanent erosion and sediment controls(e.g., hydroseeding,mulching, surface covers) The Project Proponent is encouraged to consider the following BMPs: ® Minimize directly connected impervious area, including: pervious concrete(if applicable)or other pervious pavement for parking areas(e.g.,turf block), pervious pavement for paths and sidewalks,and direction of rooftop runoff to pervious areas. • Incorporation of rain gardens or cisterns to reuse runoff for Huntington Beach Senior Center Mitigation Monitoring Program 13 Y! • Y ffi ! f Y ! c- c,V: -d�,�, . Implementation Responsible Compliance Miti afion Measure Dbcu`mentafion Monitoring Acttyly riming Monitor Verification Signature Ddte landscape irrigation ® Alternative building materials ® Site design and landscape planning ® Wet vaults for subsequent landscape irrigation ® Sand filters for parking lots and rooftop runoff ® Frequent street and parking lot sweeping ® Media filter devices for roof top drain spouts(including proprietary devices) ® Biofiltration devices(swales,filter strips,and others) Proprietary control measures(if supporting documentation is provided) ® Drain inlet filters ■ Pet waste station ® The upstream drainage area must be completely stabilized 14 City of Huntington Beach 1 0:11 164plernentafion Responsible C6rnpfiance ation Signature Monitor mfligc,60n" Date Measure Documentation oniforing Acffyi� lirnin MM 4.7-2 (This MM incorporates Measure Utilities-8 from the Hydrology and Review and Prior to Public Works Central Park Master Plan EIR) Hydraulic Report and approve plan and issuance of a The project proponent shall prepare a Project Hydrology and Drainage Plan documentation grading permit Hydraulic Report and Drainage Plan that incorporates stormwater conveyance facilities to provide adequate site drainage and minimize erosive forces. This Hydrology and Hydraulic Report shall include analysis of stormwater runoff peak flow and total volume from the 2-year and 100-year storm events for both existing and developed conditions. Stormwater conveyance and detention features shall be designed and incorporated into the proposed project to reduce runoff forces to non-erosive rates for the 100-year storm events. To the maximum extent practicable, the Drainage Plan shall also reduce post-construction peak runoff rates and timing to existing conditions levels. Off-site road improvements shall be included in the Hydrology and Hydraulic Report and Drainage Plan. The Hydrology and Hydraulic Report shall include a Drainage Plan identifying any additional stormwater quantity BMPs, their locations, and design characteristics, along with the flow dissipation piping, bioswales, and vegetated buffer areas already identified on the Conceptual Grading and Utility Plan (Figure 3-7 in Section 3.0 [Project Description]). Supporting documentation shall be included to show that incorporation of these features will result in post-construction runoff erosive forces that do not exceed existing conditions erosive forces. The Public Works Department shall approve this Hydrology and Hydraulic Report and Site Drainage Plan prior to the issuance of a precise grading permit. It is recommended that the Site Drainage Plan be coordinated with the WQMP to maximize efficiency of stormwater runoff detention/retention and water quality treatment. Huntington Beach Senior Center Mitigation Monitoring Program ImpleirnOntaflon Responsible Complancea N„,,, MAfgatibn Measure ffodr�i�'Actiyify Timing Monitor Verification Si nad&i&�� e Documentation Mon Mac MM 4.7-5 The project proponent shall prepare and implement a Nutrient and Pesticide Review and Prior to Public Works Nutrient and Pesticide Management Program. Management Program approve NPMP issuance of a A Nutrient and Pesticide Management Program (NPMP)shall be grading permit prepared and implemented to minimize the risk of pollutants associated with landscape establishment and maintenance practices in runoff waters. This NPMP shall include guidelines, application regulations, and applicator training, and shall encourage minimization of chemical use. Noise: MM 4.9-1(a) (This MM is Measure Noise-3 from the Central Park Notes on building plans Review and Prior to Planning Master Plan EIR) approve building issuance of a The City of Huntington Beach shall limit grading and construction plans for inclusion building permit activities to daily operation hours between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. (Monday through Friday)and 8:00 a.m.to 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays. Construction shall not take place on Sundays or Federal holidays. IVIM 4.9-1(b)(This MM is Measure Noise-5 from the Central Park Notes on grading plans Review and Prior to Planning Master Plan EIR) and building plans approve grading issuance of a The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has estimated that plans and building grading permit noise levels from construction equipment can be lowered as plans for inclusion and a building much as 13 dBA by implementing noise control features that permit require no major redesign or extreme cost. The City of Huntington Beach shall require that all construction equipment incorporate noise reduction control features. All vehicles and compressors should utilize exhaust mufflers, and engine enclosures as designed by the manufacturer should be in place at all times. 16 City of Huntington Beach . o 0 0 0 0 00 0 Compliance �t Miti ahon Measure Documentation Monitorin Activ' Timinjfi Monitor Verfication Si nature Date Recreation u. a A,. C . MM 4.11-1 (This MM is Measure Recreation-1 from the Central Final building plans and Ensure At least 30 Planning Park Master Plan EIR) project grading plans construction days prior to At least thirty days prior to construction, the City of Huntington schedule signs are construction Beach shall post signs in the vicinity of the project site indicating posted and disc the proposed construction schedule of the senior center facility golf course hole is (including location and hours of operation) and shall complete relocated the permanent relocation of the disc golf course hole located at the southern boundary of the site back to the official disc golf course. Transportation/TrafficAN MM 4.12-2 The project shall provide an additional northbound Street Improvement Review and Prior to City through lane at the intersection of Goldenwest Street and Slater Plans&Traffic Control approval of Street Certificate of Transportation Avenue. This can be provided by restriping the existing Plan Improvement Plans Occupancy Division northbound right turn lane, without any physical roadway &Traffic Control widening. In addition,approximately 300 feet of existing on-street Plan parking from Ford Drive to Betty Drive will need to be removed in order to allow three through lanes northbound. MM 4.12-4 The intersection of Goldenwest Street at Talbert Street Improvement Review and Prior to City Avenue shall be modified to include the project driveway as the Plans&Traffic Control approval of Street Certificate of Transportation west leg, with appropriate corresponding signal modifications Plan Improvement Plans Occupancy Manager and intersection lane improvements. The City Transportation &Traffic Control Manager shall determine the ultimate signal modifications that Plan are most appropriate for the project site. Design recommendations include, but are not limited to,the following: Split phase operations for east-west movements ® Adequate pedestrian green to accommodate a slower walk speed (e.g.,2.8 feet per second) ® Address design site distance ® Increased letter sizes on roadway signs ® Increased signal clearance intervals Huntington Beach Senior Center Mitigation Monitoring Program 17 r r r o o r •e a • O • 8 • O O • • Responsible Compliance ' y, Miff anon Measure u -` ��,,, Do'cumentafion Monitorin Activ Timin IVlon�or Veriflcdtion S' natwe,.:, ,. Date;. .; . . i Utilities„;&Service°Systems . �e MM 4.13-2(This MM is Measure Utilities-7 from the Central Park Green Acres Project Review status of Prior to Public Works Master Plan EIR) Green Acres issuance of a If the Green Acres Project is not yet operational and able to Project and ability grading permit supply water to the program level elements of the Master Plan to supply the prior to the development of final plans and specifications, project additional studies will be undertaken to determine the extent to If Green Acres which one or a combination of the following measures will be Project cannot necessary to reduce impacts to water supply systems for supply water to the program level elements during the interim until water from the project, prepare Green Acres Project is available: study/studies ® Reduce the required irrigable areas by 10 percent; identifying ® Enhance the utilization of existing groundwater systems(i.e., measures to subpotable wells);or reduce impacts to ® Supplement the irrigation supply with water from the water supply systems domestic waters stem. MM 4.13-6 The developer shall install low-flow water devices and Notes on building plans Installation of low- Prior to and Public Works waterless urinals as part of the project. flow water devices during and waterless construction urinals activities MM 4.13-8(This MM is Measure Utilities-9 from the Central Park Electrical load analyses Conduct electrical Prior to Public Works Master Plan EIR) load analyses construction Prior to construction of program level elements, additional activities electrical load analyses shall be undertaken to determine the need for additional electrical transformers. SOURCE:PBS&J 200/ 18 City of Huntington Beach qgo 7IN Rq- I 1 0 HUNTINGTON BEACH i SENIOR CENTER Final Environmental Impact Report SCH No. 2007041027 Volume II: Text Changes and Response to Comments on the Draft EIR Prepared for City of Huntington Beach Planning Department 2000 Main Street, Third Floor Huntington Beach, California 92648 Prepared by PBS&J 12301 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 430 iLos Angeles, California 90025 1 November 30, 2007 � 8 �� � K�h P l .���r'^^~,, � ~�-^^~-. . '` " " ~ ^ -- ---~uw4911 �c Volume 11 —Text Changes and Response to Comments on the Draft EIR CHAPTER Introduction to Final EIR......................................................................................8-1 8] C|l(]A Requirements----------------------------------D-1 82 Public Review Process....................................................................................................8-1 8.3 Contents and Organization of the Final FIR..............................................................8-1 8'4 Use of the Final EID.......................................................................................................8-2 ClI/\P]E|l9 Summary of Additional Air Quality Analysis.........................................................9-1 C{{AlrIEOlO Text Changes........................................................................................................ 10-1 10.1 Format nfText Changes.............................................................................................. ]0-1 -- 10.2 Text Changes-------------------------------------' l0-1 CHAPIElUResponses to Comments.......................................................................................11-1 11.1 Organization of the Responses to Comments......................................................... D-1 11.2 Comments mz the Draft ElR...................................................................................... 11-2 11] Responses to Comments om the Draft EIR........................................................... ll-]4 ~~ 11.3.1 Topical Responses....................................................................................... 11-]4 11.92 State Departments----------------------------- 1|-]5 11.3.3 -------------------------- l1-96 -_�'--_' _-__ `,_--' 11I4Individuals.................................................................................................... ll-4l 11.I5 Verbal Comments ....................................................................................... ll'54 11.I6 I�u6UcCou�u�cotForn�u (Huntington Deuc6ScoiorContezZ)ratt6lD , - Public Meeting, (}cto6cz D, 2007l-------------------.. 11-57 Appendix � (Revised)� Coox�uc�ou��z I}utu 0� -`'�—�-�� — -^--�� Tables Ia6ke11-1 Comment Letters Received During the Draft E\R Comment Period........................... }1-1 N� Huntington Beach Senior Center Fino| BR m �� 8.1 CEQA REQUIREMENTS Before approving a project, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires the Lead Agency to prepare and certify a Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR). The contents of a Final EIR are specified in Section 15132 of the CEQA Guidelines,which states that: The Final EIR shall consist of (a) The Draft EIR or a revision of the Draft (b) Comments and recommendations received on the Draft EIR either verbatim or in summary (c) A list of persons,organizations,and public agencies commenting on the Draft EIR (d) The responses of the Lead Agency to significant environmental points raised in the review and consultation process (e) Any other information added by the Lead Agency The Lead Agency (the City of Huntington Beach) must also provide each public agency that commented on the Draft EIR with a copy of the City's response to those comments at least ten days before certifying the Final EIR. In addition, the City may also provide an opportunity for members of the public to review the Final EIR prior to certification, though this is not a requirement of CEQA. 8.2 PUBLIC REVIEW PROCESS The Draft EIR for the proposed Huntington Beach Senior Center project was circulated for review and comment by the public, agencies, and organizations for a 45-day public review period that began on September 17, 2007 and concluded on October 31, 2007. A public information meeting was held on October 11, 2007 to receive comments on the adequacy of the Draft EIR, in which 28 verbal comments were received. In addition, 12 written letters were received during the review period. .3 CONTENTS AND ORGANIZATION OF TILE FINAL EIR This Final EIR is composed of three volumes. They are as follows: Volume I Draft EIR and 'Technical Appendices—This volume describes the existing environmental conditions on the project site and in the vicinity of the project site, and analyzes potential impacts on those conditions due to the proposed project; identifies mitigation measures that could avoid or reduce the magnitude of significant impacts; evaluates cumulative impacts that would be caused by the project in combination with other future projects or growth that could occur in the region; analyzes growth-inducing impacts; and provides a full evaluation of the alternatives to the proposed project that could eliminate, reduce, or avoid project-related impacts. Text revisions to the Draft EIR 1 Huntington Beach Senior Center Final EIR 8-1 resulting from corrections of minor errors are identified in Volume II, as described below. Volume I also contains Technical Appendices 1 through 11. No text changes were made to the Technical Appendices in preparation of the Final EIR. Volume II Final EIR (Text Changes and Responses to Comments)—This volume contains an explanation of the format and content of the Final EIR; all text changes to the Draft EIR; a complete list of all persons, organizations, and public agencies that commented on the Draft EIR; copies of the comment letters received by the City of Huntington Beach on the proposed project; and the Lead Agency's responses to these comments. The Draft EIR is incorporated by reference into the Final EIR. .4 USE OF THE FIN AL EIR Pursuant to Sections 15088(a) and 15088(b) of the CEQA Guidelines, the lead agency must evaluate comments on environmental issues received from persons who reviewed the Draft EIR and must prepare written responses. The Final EIR allows the public and the City of Huntington Beach an opportunity to review the response to comments, revisions to the Draft EIR, and other components of the EIR, such as the Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP), prior to the City's decision on the project. The Final EIR serves as the environmental document to support approval of the proposed project, either in whole or in part. After completing the Final EIR, and before approving the project, the Lead Agency must make the following three certifications as required by Section 15090 of the CEQA Guidelines: ® That the Final EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA ■ That the Final EIR was presented to the decision-making body of the Lead Agency, and that the decision-making body reviewed and considered the information in the Final EIR prior to approving the project ® That the Final EIR reflects the Lead Agency's independent judgment and analysis Pursuant to Section 15091(a) of the CEQA Guidelines, if an EIR that has been certified for a project identifies one or more significant environmental effects, the lead agency must adopt "Findings of Fact." For each significant impact, the lead agency must make one of the following findings: 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. 2. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. 3. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR. Each finding must be accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for the finding. In addition, pursuant to Section 15091(d) of the CEQA Guidelines, the agency must adopt, in conjunction with the 8-2 City of Huntington Beach ® findings, a program for reporting on or monitoring the changes that it has either required in the project or made a condition of approval to avoid or substantially lessen environmental effects. These measures must be fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures. This program is referred to as the Mitigation Monitoring Program. Additionally, pursuant to Section 15093(b) of the CEQA Guidelines, when a Lead Agency approves a project that would result in significant, unavoidable impacts that are disclosed in the Final EIR, the agency must state in writing its reasons for supporting the approved action. This Statement of Overriding Considerations is supported by substantial information in the record, which includes this Final EIR. Although the project would not result in significant project-specific impacts, implementation of the proposed project could result in significant cumulative impacts. Therefore, the City of Huntington Beach would be required to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations if it approves the proposed project. IThe certifications, Findings of Fact, and the Statement of Overriding Considerations are included in a separate Findings document. The Final EIR will be considered, and, in conjunction with making Findings, the City of Huntington Beach may decide whether or how to approve the proposed project. 1 1 t 1 t 1 Huntington Beach Senior Center EIR 8-3 � s � Since circulation of the Draft EIR, the City of Huntington Beach requested that PBS&J perform dispersion modeling for Localized Significance Thresholds (LSTs) for construction emissions. Although the additional air quality analysis does not substantively affect any conclusions of the Draft EIR, the revisions are summarized below. In the Draft EIR, PBS&J originally relied upon SCAQMD's mass-rate lookup tables for an LST screening-level analysis because the project site is approximately five acres in size, and a detailed ISCST3 dispersion modeling analysis is only recommended for project sites larger than five acres. However, because the access driveway leading to the project site is proposed to be constructed with the new senior center, the ISCST3 dispersion modeling analysis is appropriate to include in the Final EIR in order to identify any potentially significant impacts that may not have been included in the Draft EIR. The LST dispersion model is directly dependent on the output of the mass daily construction emissions for the project. Further, subsequent to the mass daily emissions that were calculated for the project utilizing URBEMIS 2007 (version 9.2.0), a new version of URBEMIS 2007 (version 9.2.2) was released in order to update the emissions factors and correct known errors that were present in the previous version. Thus, because the ISCST3 dispersion modeling is dependent upon the mass daily emissions factors, PBS&J also re-ran the daily construction emissions factors to ensure that data from the latest version of URBEMIS (version 9.2.2) would be input into the dispersion model. The revised maximum daily emissions varied slightly from those included in Table 4.2-4 in the Draft EIR; however, the overall conclusions remained the same because none of the emissions exceeded SCAQMD thresholds using either version of URBEMIS. The revised maximum daily construction emissions data were then input into the ISCST3 dispersion model. With the inclusion of the revised data, including the project access driveway, the ISCST3 dispersion model confirmed that the emissions resulting from construction activities would still not exceed SCAQMD Localized Significance Thresholds. The revised data for both maximum daily construction emissions (URBEMIS 2007 version 9.2.2) and LSTs (Tables 4.2-4 and 4.2-9 in the Draft EIR, respectively) have been updated and are included as text changes within the Final EIR. Additionally, the revised air quality construction emissions data is also included as Revised Appendix 3. Air quality impacts associated with emissions from peak construction activities (Impacts 4.2-2 and 4.2-5) would remain less than significant. The identified updates to the air quality analysis do not result in any modifications to the original impact statements or levels of significance to the Draft EIR. Huntington Beach Senior Center Final EIR 9-1 10.1 FORMAT OF TEXT CHANGES Text changes are intended to clarify or correct information in the Draft EIR in response to comments received on the document, or as initiated by Lead Agency staff. Revisions are shown in Section 10.2 (Text Changes) below as excerpts from the Draft EIR text, with a lifte fhrettgh deleted text and a double underline beneath inserted text. In order to indicate the location in the Draft EIR where text has been changed, the reader is referred to the page number of the Draft EIR. 10.2 TEXT CHANGES This section includes revisions to text, by Draft EIR Section, that were initiated either by Lead Agency staff or in response to public comments. The changes appear in order of their location in the Draft EIR. 1 Page vi, Contents `volume 0I: Environmental Impact Report Appendices Page 2-3, Section 2.5 (Significant and Unavoidable Impacts) There were no project-specific significant and unavoidable impacts identified in this EIR. All of the potentially significant impacts identified in the various issue areas were reduced to less-than-significant levels with the incorporation of mitigation measures and CRs. However_ a significant cumulative impact- associated with aesthetics could occur, As a rcsult. to approves e the roposed project the City of IHuntin�Zton Beach must adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations pursuant to CEOA Guidelines Sections 15043 and 15093. Detailed discussions of project impacts, incl� cumulative impacts, can be found in Section 4 (Environmental Impact Analysis) of this document. Page 2-4, Section 2.7 (Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures) MM 4.1-3(a) All exterior nighttime lighting shall be angled down and away from the adjacent open space areas. Prismatic glass coverings and cutoff shields shall be used where feasi ' to further prevent spillover off site. Huntington Beach Senior Center Final EIR 10-1 s s - ! - a ♦ - Page 2-4, Section 2.7 (Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures) MM 4.1-3(e) Trees and barrier-type vegetation should be placed en throughout the site_ including- along the entire perimeter_ to help shield vehicle headlights from adjacent uses to the f ..th atid setith. Page 2-8, Section 2.7 (Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures) MM 4.3-2 (This MM is Measure Biological Resources-4 from the Central Park Master Plan EIR) The City shall mitigate for impacts to raptor foraging habitat through dedication as open space, conservation and/or enhancing areas of raptor foraging habitat at a ratio of 1:1 for acres of impact on raptor foraging habitat to provide suitable habitat values and functions for raptors. Mitigation for impacts on raptor foraging habitat will be accomplished within suitable areas that are City-owned and preferably nearby, such as the areas in association with the Sully Miller Lake Group Facility, Low Intensity Recreation Area, Semi-Active Recreation Area, and/or Midden Area/Urban Forest/Trailhead. Enhancement would include, but not be limited to, the planting of native trees within and adjacent to conserved areas of raptor foraging habitat. Prior to ground disturbance, the City shall identify the particular site or area to be enhanced and shall formulate a plan to accomplish the raptor foraging habitat enhancement activities,This plan shall be reviewed for atibroval by a qualified biologist. Page 2-10, Section 2.7 (Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures) MM 4.5-2 In order to mitigate the erosion potential of the slopes adjacent to the site, the near surface soils shall be compacted along the northern slope face ( arthen berm)-where the site improvements encroach upon the existing slopes . The slope shall then be covered with an appropriate erosion protection device and drought tolerant plants. Surface water runoff must be diverted away from the top of the slope to reduce the likelihood of surficial sliding and erosion. Page 2-12, Section 2.7 (Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures) MM 4.6-1(c) (This MM is Measure Hazards-9 from the Central Park Master Plan EIR) Any unrecorded or unknown wells uncovered during the excavation or grading process shall be immediately reported to and coordinated with the City and Division of Oil Gas and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR�. In addition, should any known and unexpected landfills be excavated and discovered during the construction phase of the proposed project, construction work will be immediately halted and the Local Enforcement Agency (LEAS will be notified. Further construction operations will resume at the discretion of LEA and upon work approval by LEA. 10-2 City of Huntington Beach Page 2-14, Section 2.7 (Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures) MM 4.7-1 and MM 4.7-2 MM 4.7-5, AM4-4.7 1, and MA4 2 The project proponent shall prepare and implement a Nutrient and Pesticide Management Program. A Nutrient and Pesticide Management Program (NPMP) shall be prepared and implemented to minimize the risk of pollutants associated with landscape establishment and maintenance practices in runoff waters. This NPMP shall include guidelines, application regulations, and applicator training, and shall encourage minimization of chemical use. Page 2-17, Section 2.3 (Summary of Proposed Project) MM 4.12-4 The intersection of Goldenwest Street at Talbert Avenue shall be modified to include the project driveway as the west leg, with appropriate corresponding signal modifications and intersection lane improvements. The City =Trannortation Manager shall determine the ultimate signal modifications that are most appropriate for the project site. Design recommendations include, but are not limited to, the following: ■ Split phase operations for east-west movements ® Adequate pedestrian green to accommodate a slower walk speed (e.g., 2.8 feet per second) ® Address design site distance ® Increased letter sizes on roadway signs Increased signal clearance intervals Page 4.1-15, Section 4.1.3 (Project Impacts and Mitigation) A qualitative assessment of visual impacts was prepared by evaluating the existing visual setting and comparing it to visual conditions assumed to occur under the proposed project. It is important to note that an assessment of visual impacts is not a quantitative analysis but rather qualitative and can be largely u e ti The project site and surrounding uses were observed, and photographs were taken to determine the short- and long-term visual effects of the proposed project. Policies from the City's General Plan and applicable zoning ordinances were identified to determine if the project design was consistent with these adopted plans. Page 4.1-17, Section 4.1.3 (Project Impacts and Mitigation) Views of the project site from the Shipley Nature Center located to the north of the site are presently obstructed by the large earthen berm at-north of the site. ... Huntington Beach Senior Center E!R 10-3 Page 4.1-25, Section 4.1.3 Project Impacts and Mitigation) 9 (Project p g ) M1V14.1 3(a) All exterior nighttime lighting shall be an down and away from the adjacent open space areas. Prismatic glass coverings and cutoff shields shall be used�to further prevent spillover off site. Page 4.1-25, Section 4.1.3 (Project Impacts and Mitigation) AIM 4.1-3(e) Trees and barrier-type vegetation should be place -thrau bout the site, including along the entire erimeter to hep shield vehicle headlights from adjacent uses-AB Page 4.2-16, Section 4.2.3 (Project Impacts and Mitigation) Localized Significance Thresholds for Construction POIRttatits with regard fe pfojeet related etnissiofts are caletttatedidsiftg a separate ffiet the SCAQAID pr-e-vided ffiass r-ftte leektip tables of-Ay applies to pfejeets thfff are 5 ftefes Or- less ifl "i— a n� t-ojeet sites larger �M �p��size, afialysis was perfor-ffied usieg die mass rate lookup tables pfo-,,ided -6-7- SGAQAID In addition to the daily air emission thresholds established by SCAQMD,potential localized impacts for certain criteria pollutants with reV_ard to project related emissions are calculated using a separatte method. Localized Significance Thresholds (LSTs) were developed onse to the SCAOMD Governing Board's Environmental justice Enhancement Initiative -41 The LST methodology T was 12 isionally adopted by the SCAOMD Governing; Board in October 2003 and formally approved by SCAQMD's Mobile Source Committee in February 2005 LSTs represent the maximum emissions from a project that are not expected to cause or contribute to an x eedance of the most stringent applicable federal or state ambient air aunty standard and are developed based on the ambient concentrations of that pollutant for each source receptor area and distance to the nearest sensitive receptor. 10-4 City of Huntington Beach ' LSTs. which are voluntary only pply to CO NO an M,� emissions during construction at the discretion of the lead a�4ency. Screening-level analysis of LSTs is only recommended for project sites that are 5 acres or less The CAOMD recommend that projects over 5 acres should perform air auak aspersion modelin to assess impacts to nearby sensitive receptors. The total size of the proposed project site is approximately 5 acres However, because the access driveway leadinV tom roject site is proposed to be constructed with the new senior center. the I C T3 dispersion modeling is an appropriate method of analysis ISC T3 dispersion modeling was performed to identify CO NOZ PM an PMemissions during construction of the propo project using the BEEST dispersion model Dispersion modeling can be done on a voluntary basis by public to determine whether or not a project may generate significant adverse localized air quality impacts at the nearest sensitive receptors LSTs have been established by the SCAQMD only for construction of projects and do not ap 1p y to emissions during operation as localized concentration cannot be properly quantified during operation due to the variable locations of mobile sources,which make up the largest source of criteria air pollutants under operation of the proposed pro,Je,cL Page 4.2-19, Section 4.2.3 (Project Impacts and Mitigation) Because of the construction time frame and the normal day-to-day variability in construction activities, it is difficult, if not impossible, to precisely quantify the daily emissions associated with each phase of the proposed construction activities. Nonetheless, Table 4.2-4 identifies daily emissions that are estimated to occur on peak construction days. These calculations assume that appropriate dust control measures would be implemented during each phase of development as required by SCAQMD Rule 403—Fugitive Dust, and that all other appropriate mitigation (MM 4.2-2(al through MM 4.2-2(P), such as routine equipment maintenance, has been used. Cut and fill activities would occur to a depth of approximately 10 feet during site grading. However, based on this relatively small amount of cut and fill and the size of the project site, all soil is assumed to be kept on site and will not be hauled on or off site. As shown in Table 4.2-4, construction related daily emissions would not exceed SCAQMD significance thresholds. 1 ' Page 4.2-20, Section 4.2.3 (Project Impacts and Mitigation) Huntington Beach Senior Center EIR 10-5 r a r u On a- a -.p -'t- a _ - •. � - � --._-a -- - - - •. _ • 11 •• 11 W .T. 11 1 11 �� • 11 0• � 1 -���i■ 1 111 11 1 • �� � 1 � _ � • 1 1 � 1 11 � �� 1 •• 2 4 - Estimated Peak Daily.Construction lEmissions AMR t innPounds Pere � .�. 11 . •l.. - •, �•, • •, •�, , •„ .l ..I.MW RPM MIMIM • '•.• - 111 111 111 111 111 111 • - • 11� 11 111 11 111 �� � - • • 1 111 11 11 II 1 ' •. • G�:1i 1 1 1 1 11 1 11 oil �� - • • 1 111m Mail 11 11 1 1 . Page 4.2-21, Section 4.2.3 (Project Impacts and Mitigation) In addition to the standard City requirements listed above, mitigation measures (MM) are recommended by SCAQMD to ensure wee NOS emissions during construction activities would remain below SCAQMD thresholds . Mitigation measures MM 4.2-2(a) through MM 4.2-2(c) also satisfy certain measures identified in the Central Park Master Plan EIR. The language in these measures has been modified to reflect project- specific components of the proposed senior center where necessary, or for compliance with SCAQMD, although their intent remains the same. The original measures from the Central Park Master Plan EIR appear in Table 4-1 of this EIR. Page 4.2-25, Section 4.2.3 Project Impacts and Mitigation) 9 (Project P 9 ) To determine potential criteria pollutant concentrations during construction activities, the SCAQMD has developed LSTs to determine maximum allowable concentrations of CO, NO- PM_, and PM_ construction emissions forjects LSTs do not apply to emissions during operation For projects greater than 5 acres in total area dispersion modeling is recommended to determine worst-case pollutant concentration at sensitive receptors associated with construction of the project Therefore dispersion modeling was conducted for the proposed project to assess potential impacts to nearby sensitive receptors. €fie less ift fofal afea for GO, NO,—, -RM4 -- ej« . Total worst-case construction emissions for the proposed project are included in Table 4.2-4. These emissions were entered into the dispersion model to identify the maximum daily construction emissions at nearby sensitive receptors. Table 4.2-9 compares the total worst-case construction emissions to the LSTs for SRA 18,where the proposed project is located. As shown in Table 4.2-9, the proposed project would not result in substantial pollution concentration at sensitive receptors during construction activities. Since construction of the proposed project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations of criteria pollutants, this impact would be less than significant. CR 4.2-2 and mitigation measure MM 4.2-2 would apply to this impact and ensure that criteria pollutants would not exceed SCAQMD established thresholds. AAexia 9�►{y ti ara ef�eNt�taAt s t Repot - t ,lbrachn - Eg 4.FG ti� n�o 8 Ale 492 n' n'�, o, ' 354�� 8 No P 49 5W9 y -5 74 8 No RM2-5 4-2-. lea 1")6/� 8 Ale r Huntington Beach Senior Center EIR 10-7 • i e O 0 • • O O 0 O e e • i ! ' O O ;Maximum DaiN Quan of Pollutant AirPollutar>t ConslructionEmbsions - CO 1 Hour 0.10 ppmnnm 1 gpm 0 NQ COB-Ho r 1 m 4.93 ppmppm 0 No NO2 0.009 ppm 0.149 ppm 0 No PM,o .4 /m3 10.4 ua/m3 0 No PM .31 ua/m3 10.4 ua/m3 0 SOURCE- ET a division of PBS&I 007 IS ST3 Version 09035)•SCAOMI7 2003 Localized Significance Threshold Methodology.Summarized result calculafions are provided in A1ppendix 1 Page 4.3-21, Section 4.3.7 (Project Impacts and Mitigation) MM 4.3-2 This MM is Measure Biological Resources-4 from the Central Park Master Plan EIR) The City shall mitigate for impacts to raptor foraging habitat through dedication as open space, conservation andlor enhancing areas of raptor foraging habitat at a ratio of 1:1 for acres of impact on raptor foraging habitat to provide suitable habitat values and functions for raptors. Mitigation for impacts on raptor foraging habitat will be accomplished within suitable areas that are City-owned and preferabj nearby, such as the areas in association with the Suly Miller Lake Group Facility, Low Intensity Recreation Area, Semi Active Recreation Area, andlor Midden Areal Urban Forest/Trailhead. Enhancement would include, but not be limited to, the planting of native trees within and adjacent to conserved areas of raptor foraging habitat. Prior to ground disturbance, the City shall identify the particular site or area to be enhanced and shall formulate a plan to accomplish the raptor foraging habitat enhancement activities. This plan shall be reviewed for approval by a gummed biology Page 4.3-22-23, Section 4.3.8 (Cumulative Impacts) This cumulative impact analysis considers development of the proposed project, in conjunction with other development within the vicinity of the proposed project in the City of Huntington Beach. The primary effects of the proposed project, when considered with the past, present, and probable future projects in the vicinity of the project site, would be the cumulative direct loss of undeveloped land and the potential removal of sensitive wildlife and habitat. Loss of sensitive habitat within thtt�eogranhic context t '..,.,.r,�� would further decrease the amount of this habitat -..:thi the ifnffi di fft ftv and add to the cumulative loss of sensitive species in the region. This emulative issue is addressed below and the project's overall contribution to this cumulative impact is anal�ed. If the burrowing owl, nesting raptors, or MBTA-protected species' nests are found to be present within the project site avoidance measures identified in mitigation measures MM 4.3-1(a) and (b) would establish setbacks and permitted activities to ensure active nests are not lost. Although these should be sufficient to avoid substantial impacts, should they be needed, mitigation measures MM 4.3-1 (a) and (b) also identify mechanisms to develop as-needed mitigation measures should the CDFG or USWFS establish the need for them. As such, the proposed project would not contribute to a cumulative loss of 10-8 City of Huntington Beach the burrowing owl or its habitat or nesting raptors, or MBTA-protected species. The p roject's cumulative impacts would be less than significant. The proposed project would represent an incremental loss of raptor foraging habitat; however, per mitigation measure MM 4.3-2, development of the proposed project would require off-site mitigation through dedication, conservation, and/or enhancement of raptor foraging habitat elsewhere within Central Park. While the ruderal vegetative community that would be removed through implementation of the proposed project is not considered sensitive, the raptor foraging habitat and associated avian species that it sustains are considered sensitive. Mitigation measure 4.3-2 would ensure that though raptor foraging habitat would be removed, the local population that is dependent upon it is not displaced and can be maintained at other suitable,localized habitat. As such, the proposed project would not contribute to a cumulative loss of local raptor species. The p roject's cumulative impacts would be less than significant. As noted above, the project site is currently almost completely bare, and does not provide a locally or regionally important wildlife corridor. As such, the proposed project would not contribute to a cumulative loss of a locally or regionally important wildlife corridor. The project's cumulative impacts would be less than significant. Page 4.5-15, Section 4.5.3 (Project Impacts and Mitigation) VIM 45-2 In order to mitigate the erosion potential of the slopes adjacent to the site, the near surface soils shall be compacted along the northern slope face(earthen berm) where the site improvements encroach upon the existing slopes The slope shall then be covered with an appropriate erosion protection device and drought tolerant plants. Surface water runoff must be diverted away from the top of the slope to reduce the likelihood of su i al sliding and erosion. Page 4.5-19, Section 4.5.3 (Project Impacts and Mitigation) Groundwater was recently encountered at a depth of 18 or more feet below the ground surface at the site. Based on historical data provided by CDMG, groundwater may be as high as 10 feet below the ground surface. Cut and fill activities are anticipated to occur to a den h of approx�y 10 feet during 5itc grading. Since groundwater may be shallower or deeper at the time of construction than the depth encountered at the time of subsurface evaluation at the proiect site actual depths will be evaluated in the field during construction to ensure that excavations would not encroach the groundwater table Provided 1 no deep excavations are made (at a depth below the groundwater tablel, groundwater is not anticipated to impact the grading and proposed improvements. Page 4.6-12, Section 4.6.3 (Project Impacts and Mitigation) MI 6-1(c) (This MM is Measure Hazards-9 from the Central Park Master Plan EI K) Any unrecorded or unknown wells uncovered during the excavation or grading process shall be immediately reported to and coordinated with the City and Division of Oil. Gas and Geothermal Huntington Beach Senior Center EIR 10-9 • s - ffi - s s - Kesources /DOGGK). In addition, should any known and unexpected landfills be excavated and discovered during the construction phase of the proposed project, construction work will be immediately halted and Local Enforcement A en cv (L F_A) will be notified. Further construction operations will resume at the discretion of LEA and upon work approval by LEA. Page 4.7-33, Section 4.7.3 (Project Impacts and Mitigation) Implementation of mitigation measure MM 4.7-2 would assure that on-site drainage is adequate to prevent on-site flooding and that peak stormwater runoff rates are reduced to the maximum extent practicable to prevent contributions to off-site flooding. The potential proposed project drainage towards the Shipley Nature Center is speculative; however, mitigation measure MM 4.7-2 would reduce potential impacts of increased runoff and potential effects on the Shipley Nature Center would not be substantial. As required by MM 4.7-2, the DrainasZe Plan will include measures to reduce post-construction peak runoff rates and timing to existing levels as ensured by the City's Public Works Department As a result the proposed proJect would not contribute to future runoff rates on site or to off site areas (including the Shipley Nature Center) above those that currentlyexist. Therefore, potential on-site or off-site flooding impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Page 4.9-18, Section 4.9.3 (Project Impacts and Mitigation) The closest sensitive receptor is located approximately 800 feet to the west of the proposed project site. As such the noise associated with human conversation from special events such as wedding receptions would attenuate at a rate of 6 dBA per doubling of distance to levels of approximately 43 dBA, which would be below the City of Huntington Beach Noise Ordinance Exterior Noise Standards. In addition, special events held at the nroiect site during Zo-aeration could include the use of loudspeakers amplified music and other sources of amplified noise Thee amplified noise sources would be required to comply with the City of Huntington Beach Noise Ordinance exterior note standards shown in Table 4 9-6 In compliance with this regulation and to prevent noise impacts to nearby residences, the noise level of senior center operations as heard from nearby residences would be no greater than 55 dBA from 7:00 A.M. to 10:00 P.M. and 50 dBA from 10 P.M. to 7 A.M.. Therefore, increased noise associated with operation of the senior center. including those associated with special events would lbe bele adhere to the established standards and would be considered less than significant. Page 4.12-38, Section 4.12.3 (Project Impacts and Mitigation) MM 4.124 The intersection of Goldenwest Street at Talbert Avenue shall be modified to include the project driveway as the west leg with appropriate come ponding signal modifications and intersection lane improvements. The City Ti'ae-Engeer Transportation Manager shall determine the ultimate signal modifications that are most appropriate for the project site. Design recommendations include, but are not limited to, the following: ® Split phase operations for east-west movements ■ Adequate pedestrian green to accommodate a slower walk speed(eg., 2.S feet per second 10-10 City of Huntington Beach ® Address design site distance ® Increased letter sides on roadway signs ■ Increased signal clearance intervals ® Page 4.12-39, Section 4.12.3 (Project Impacts and Mitigation) 1� As discussed above, project implementation is anticipated to be consistent with local policies related to transportation, including the City of Huntington Beach General Plan Land Use and Tr-ftnspertati Circulation Elements. Page 4.13-33, Section 4.13.13 (Cumulative Impacts: Water Supply, Solid Waste, Wastewater, Energy) Cumulative growth in the service area could result in the need for additional conveyance infrastructure-, ,; however, due to the developed nature of the service area, it is expected that such expansion of conveyance infrastructure would be minimal. A such, the project's contribution to new or expanded wastewater infrastructure facilities would not be cumulatively considerable. . Page 5-1, Section 5.1 (Significant Environmental Effects That Cannot Be Avoided if the Proposed Project is Implemented) Section 15126.2(b) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR describe any significant impacts that cannot be avoided, even with the implementation of feasible mitigation measures. In such cases where an impact cannot be mitigated to a level considered less than significant, a Statement of Overriding Considerations must be prepared prior to approval of a project, and in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 and 15093. The Proposed Project would result in no project-level impacts that are significant and unavoidable after implementation of available, feasible mitigation measures and with 1 compliance with existing statutory requirements, as discussed in Chapter 4 of this EIR. However a significant cumulative impact to aesthetics could occur. As a result to approv proposed protect the City of Huntington Beach must adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15043 and 15093 , pr-epftr-ed for the proposed projeef. Page 6-4, Section 6.2 (Alternatives Rejected as Infeasible) This alternative suggests development of multiple, smaller-scale senior centers throughout the City. Various locations were assumed to occur on at least two of the nine sites identified within the Huntington Beach Senior Center Feasibility Study, prepared by LPA, Inc. and TSMG, Inc. in 2006. Construction of small-scale centers could accommodate a limited number of facilities, available activities, and patrons at each site, and would also preclude a central focal point for seniors to meet within the City. Instead, most patrons would utilize the nearest facility; thereby reducing the important opportunities for Huntington Beach Senior Center EIR 10-11 . a larger social gatherings and networking. Each site location would have differing environmental constraints. Compared to the proposed project, multiple centers would not have the flexibility to provide for a wide variety of uses simply due to size constraints at each location. In addition, the construction and operation of multiple centers would have a greater potential for cumulative environmental impacts. Further, the City does not own all of the nine sites evaluated in the Feasibility Study, which could lead to acquisition costs that the City would not be able to fund. As stipulated in Section 15126.6 of the CEOA Guidelines_ an EIR should identify any alternatives that were rejected as infeasible and briefly explain the reasons underlying the determination. The alternatives analyzed in an EIR must be potentially feasible. The term "feasible" is defined in the Public Resources Code ection 21061 1 a capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time_ taking into account economic,environmental_ social,and technological factors. As alternatives that are infeasible do not need to be considered as potential alternatives and acquisition costs provide an economic reason for infeasibility -ram~�ep, this alternative was rejected from further analysis. Page 6-26, Section 6.4 (Comparison of Alternatives) No Project/ -" eeConfinuafion of Uses`ABowed ByFxahna Reduced Project Aliernafive Environmental Issue Area General Plan and Mdder.Plan AltemdWe Site= Aesthetics Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology and Soils Hazards and Hazardous Materials Hydrology and Water Quality Land Use - _ - Noise - - + Public Services Recreation - - + Transportation Utilities (-) =Impacts considered to be less when compared with the proposed project. (+) =Impacts considered to be greater when compared with the proposed project. (_)=Impacts considered to be equal or similar to the proposed project. Page 6-26, Section 6.5 (Environmentally Superior Alternative) A comparison of the proposed project with the alternatives analyzed in this section provides the basis for determination of the environmentally superior alternative. Table 6-1 indicates that the ±Ne 10-12 City of Huntington Beach P oje f;'R asonably For-,gib'_ D_.' r_____ t A'_f____w�._ No Project/Continuation of Uses Allowed By Existing General Plan and Master Plan and the Reduced Project Alternative would primarily result in impacts similar to the proposed project, but would also result in some impacts that would be less than the proposed project. The No Project/Continuation of Uses Allowed By Existing General Plan and Master Plan would be the environmentally superior alternative of the two. In terms of the Alternative Site Alternative, this alternative would result in potentially greater impacts to noise and recreation. It is possible that these impacts at the alternative site to noise and recreation could be significant and unavoidable, and as such, this alternative would not be considered the environmentally superior alternative. rPage 6-27, Section 6.5 (Environmentally Superior Alternative) !� Although the Ne nroje ct,/ve usefi ubly Fofes eeab n to Alter-native „ No Project/Continuation of Uses Allowed By Existing; General Plan and Master Plan would reduce many of the impacts of the proposed project, it would not necessarily reduce the significance of the impacts, as detailed above. In addition, this alternative would not achieve many of the project objectives. Nevertheless, because of its reduced intensity, the �`�rejeet,/Reasenably Foreseeable evelopffient Al~« No Project/Continuation of Uses Allowed By Existing `--` Plan and Master Plan is considered to be the environmentally superior alternative. i 1 1 i 1 1 i 1 1 Huntington Beach Senior Center EIR 10-13 11 .1 ORGANIZATION OF THE RESPONSES TO COMMENTS In total, twelve comment letters regarding the Draft EIR were received from two State departments, one regional and/or local agency, and nine individuals. In addition, verbal comments and associated speaker cards were received at the Huntington Beach Senior Center Draft EIR Public Information Meeting that rwas held on October 11, 2007. Table 11-1 provides a comprehensive list of commenters in the order that ® they are presented in this section. No. = __ - Commenter/or anaahon •.. _ Pa e STATE DEPARTMENTS 1 Department of Transportation, Ryan Chamberlain,October 24,2007 rl1-3 2 Native American Heritage Commission, Dave Singleton,September 26,2007 11-4 REGIONAULOCAL AGENCIES 3 City of Huntington Beach, Environmental Board,November 1,2007 11-8 INDIVIDUALS Written Letters 4 Anthony Brine,October 30,2007 11-10 5 Larry Geisse,September 22,2007 11-13 6 Larry Geisse,October 12,2007 11-14 7 Robert Haben,October 3,2007 11-15 8 Pat Kreamer, October 31,2007 11-16 1 9 MaAr ernpc aol.com,September 24,2007 11-18 10 Merle Moshiri,October 4,2007 11-19 11 Eileen Murphy,September 26,2007 11-20 12 Mindy White,October 31,2007 11-23 Verbal Comments Huntington Beach Senior Center Draft EIR Public Meeting,Verbal Comments,October 11,2007 11-26 Speaker Cards Tony Brine, October 11,2007 11-28 Bob Dettloff,October 11,2007 11-29 John McGregor,October 11,2007 11-30 Carol Settimo, October 11,2007 11-31 Mary Siegel, October 11,2007 11-32 Elmer Smith,October 11,2007 11-33 Huntington Beach Senior Center Final EIR 11-1 • O O P 0 This chapter of the Final EIR contains all comments received on the Draft EIR during the public review period, as well as the Lead Agency's responses to these comments. Reasoned, factual responses have been provided to all comments received, with a particular emphasis on significant environmental issues. Detailed responses have been provided where a comment raises a specific issue; however, a general response has been provided where the comment is relatively general. Although some letters may raise legal or planning issues, these issues do not always constitute significant environmental issues. Therefore, the comment has been noted, but no response has been provided. Generally, the responses to comments provide explanation or amplification of information contained in the Draft EIR. 11 .2 COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR This section contains the original comment letters, which have been bracketed to isolate the individual comments, followed by a section with the responses to the comments within the letter. As noted above, and stated in Sections 15088(a) and 15088(b) of the CEQA Guidelines, comments that raise significant environmental issues are provided with responses. Comments that are outside of the scope of CEQA review will be forwarded for consideration to the decision makers as part of the project approval process. In some cases, a response may refer the reader to a previous response, if that previous response substantively addressed the same issues. 11-2 City of Huntington Beach STATE OF CALIFORNIA—BUSINESS TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER,Governor DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION District 12 3337 Michelson Drive,Suite 380 Irvine,CA 92b12-8894 �z Tel:(949)724-2241 Flex your power! Fax:(949)724-2592 'Wq ^ Be energy efficient! October 24,2007 -XAON— 4)\� Jennifer Villasenor File: IGR/CEQA City of Huntington Beach SCH#: 2007041027 2000 Main Street Log#: 1851A Huntington Beach, California 92648 SR-1, SR-39 Subject: Huntington Reach Senior Center Project Dear Ms. Villasenor, Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Huntington Beach Senior Center ]Project. The proposed project involves the construction of a new one-story senior center on an undeveloped portion of Central Park. The project site is located west of the intersection of Goldenwest Street and Talbert Avenue in the City of Huntington Beach. The nearest State routes to the project site are SR-1 and SR-39. Caltrans District 12 is a commenting agency on this project and has no comment at this time. However, in the event of any activity in Caltrans' right-of-way, an encroachment permit will be required. Please continue to keep us informed of this project and any future developments that could potentially impact State transportation facilities. If you have any questions or need to contact us, please do not hesitate to call Marlon Regisford at(949) 724-2241. Sincerely, Ryan`"Chamberlain,Branch Chief Local DevelopmenVIntergovernmental Review C: Terry Roberts,Office of Planning and Research "Caltrans improves mobility across California" STATE QE CALIFO W14 Amalfi Sahwaaeneaaer.f avernor NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION 915 CAPITOL MALL,ROOM 364 SACRAMENTO,CA 96814 �in ton (916)653-6251 �vq 0i vi�n Fax(916)667-SM Web Site www.nahc.ca.goy 2aU� e-mall:ds_ttahc@pacbell.net ��ff �7 September 25,2007 T Ms.Jennifer ViIlasenor,Associate Planner CITY OF HUNTINGTON BIEACH®EPAIRTMENT OF PLANNING 2000 MAIN Street Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Re: SCtt220Q7041027 CEQA Notice of Completion:draft Environmental Impact Report(DEIR)for Huntington Beach Senior Center.City of Huntirmto Beach:Orange County.California Dear Ms.Vllasenor. The Native American Heritage Commission is the state's Trustee Agency for Native American Cultural Resources. The Catifomia Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)requires that any project that causes a substantial adverse change in the significance of an Historical resource,that includes archaeological resources,is a'significant effect requiring the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report(EIR)per CEQA guidelines§15064.5(b)(c). to order to empty with this provision,the lead agency Is required to assess whether the project will have an adverse impact on these resources within the'area of potential effect(APE)',and if so,to mitigate that effect To adequately assess the project related impacts on historical resources,the Commission recommends the following action: 4 Contact the appropriate California Historic Resources Information Center(CHRIS). Contact information for the Information Center nearest you is available from the State Office of Historic Preservation(916/653-7278)/ hgi)://w m.ohp,parks.ca.gov(1068/files/IC%20RosteT.pdf The record search will determine: • If a part or the entire APE has been previously surveyed for cultural resources. • If any known cultural resources have already been recorded in or adjacent to the APE- © tf the probability is low,moderate,or high that cultural resources are located in the APE. • If a surrey is required to determine whether previously unrecorded cultural resources are present 4 If an archaeological inventory survey is required,the final stage is the preparation of a professional report detailing the findings and recommendations of the records search and field surrey, • The final report containing site forms,sibs significance,and mitigation treasurers should be submitted Immediately to the'planning department All information regarding site locations,Native American human 9J A f{C-Z remains,and associated fdinerary objects should be in a"parste conidorrdal addendum,and not be made available for pubic disclosure. • The final written report should be submitted within 3 mrnrfhs after work has been completed to the appropriate regional archaeological Information Center. 4 Contact the Native American Heritage Commission(NAHC)for. A Sacred Lands Fde(SLF)search of ftte project area and information on tribal contacts in the project vicinity that may have additional cultural resource Information.Please provide this office with the following citation format to asaW with the Sacred Lands File search request ►.1Sg r_7.5-mpnift oxuadrangle_btion Zo 11=g,W"t �11 N A N O"3 • The NAHC advises the use of Native American Monitors to ensure proper identification and care given cultural resources that may be discovered_ The NAHC recommends that contact be made with W-bft Arngdann CoaWcAs on the_aftoad_UM to get their input on potential project impact(APE). In some daces,the existence o a Native American cultural resources may be known only to a local tyibe(s). J Lack of surface evidence of archeotcKlicat resources does not preclude their subsurface existence. ® Lead agencies should include in their Itiort plan provisions for the identification and evaluation of accidentally discovered archeologieW resources,per Cah'fomist Environmental Quafpty Act(CEQA)§15064.5(f). In arebls of identified archaeological wmitivity,a certified archaeologist and a culturally affili,8btsd Native American,with knowledge in cultural resources,sh+otuld mondorall ground4sharbing activities. a Lead agencies should include in their mitigation plan provisions for the won of recovered artifacts,in consultation with c lturalty afffplated Native Americans. Lead agencies should include provision for discovery of Native American human remains or unmarked cemetefi in their mitigation plans. CEQA Guidelines,Section 15064.5(d)requires the lead agency to work with the Native Americans identi by this Commission if the initial Study Identifies the presence or WWy presence of Native American human N remains Within the APE_ CEQA Guidelines proOde for agreements with Native American,Identified by the NAHC,to assure the appropriate and digii0ed treatment of Native American human remains and any associatec grave liens. d Health and Safety Code§7050.5,Public Resources Code§5097.98 and Sec.§15064.5(d)of the CEQA Guidelines mandate procedures to be followed in the event of an accidental discovery of any human remains in a location other than a dedicated cemetery. d Leadaaencies should consider avoidance,as defined in&15370 of the CEQA Guidelines,when significant cultural resources are discovered during the course of project Planning and implementation Please feel Iree to contact me at(916)653-6251 if you have any questions. ce , e 'n gol An Program Analy Attachment List of Native American Contacts f Native American Contacts Orange County September 25, 2007 Ti'At Society Gabrlelino/Tongva Council/Gabrielino Tongva Nation Cindi Alvitre Sam Dunlap, Tribal Secretary 6602 Zeixah Avenue Gabrielino 761 7em11nal Street,Bldg 1,2nd floor Gabrielino Tongva Reseda , CA 91335 Los Angeles , CA 90021 calvitre@ ahoo.com office C aff ton atri net (714) 504y2468 Cell (213)489-5D01 - lcer (909) 262-9351 -cell (213)489-5002 Fax Juaneno Band of Mission Indians Acjachemen Nation Juaneno Band of Mission Indians Acjachemen Nation David Belardes, Chairperson Anthony Rivera,Chairman 31742 Via Belardes Juaneno 31411-A La Matanza Street Juaneno san Juan capistrano , CA 92675 San juan Capistrano , CA M75-2674 (949)493-0959 anvera@'uaneno.com (949)493-1601 Fax 949-488-3484 949-488-3294 Fax �I Tongva Ancestral Territorial Tribal Nation Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Tribal Council John Tommy Rosas, Tribal Adminstrator Robert Dorame, Tribal Chair/Cultural Resources 4712 Admiralty way,Suite 172 Gabrielino Tongva 5450 Slauson,Ave,Suite 151 PMB Gabrielino Tongva Marina Del Rey , CA 90292 Culver City , CA 90230 310-570-6567 gtongva@verizon.net 562-761-6417-voice 562-920-9449-fax Gabrieteno/Tongva Tribal Council Juaneno Band of Mission Indians Acjachemen Nation Anthony Morales, Chairperson Joyce Perry, Tribal Manager & Cultural Resources PO Box 693 Gabrielino Tongva 31742 Via Belardes Juaneno San Gabriel CA 91778 San Juan Capiwano , CA 92675 ChiefRBwifeC aol.com (949)493-0959 (626)286-1632 (949)293-8522 Cell (626)286-1758- Home (949)493-1601 Fax (626)286-1262 Fax This Ilst is current only as of the date of this document Distribution of this list does riot relieve any person of statutory responsibility as defined In Section 705"of the Health and Safety Code,Section 5097.94 of the Public Resources Code and Section W97.98 of the Public Raaources Cade. Two tw to cow appocable for contacting local Native American with regard to cultural resotowe for the proposed SCt#2007041W,CEt]A Notice of Completion:draft Environmental trrrpact Report(0m)for fkwdkrgton Beach Senior Center-;City of Huntington Beach;Orange county,cautomia. iNative American Contacts Orange County 1 September 25, 2007 Juaneno Band of Mission Indians 1 Alfred Cruz, Culurai Resources Coordinator P.O. Box 25628 Juaneno Santa Ana , CA 92799 alfredgcruz@sbcglobal.net 714-998-0721 s(fredgcruz @ sbcglobal.net 1 Juaneno Band of Mission Indians Adolph "Bud" Sepulveda, Chairperson 1 P.O. Box 25828 Juaneno Santa Ana , CA 92799 bssepul@?yahoo.net 714-838-3270 i714-914-1812 - CELL bsepul@yahoo.net 1 Sonia Johnston, Tribal Vice Chairperson Juaneno Band of Mission Indians P.O. Box 25628 Juaneno 1 Santa Ana , CA 92799 (714) 323-8312 sonia.johnston C sbcglobal.net 1 1 i 1 1 This list is current only as of the date of this document. 1 Distribution of this list does not relieve any person of statutory responsibility as defined In Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code,Section W97.94 of the public Resources Code and Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code. This list Is only applicable for contacting local Native American with regard to cultural resources ces for the proposed 1 SCH*M7041027;CEQA Notice of Completkm;draft Environmental bnpact Report(DEIA)for tiurdingion Beach Senior Center,City of Huntington Beach;Orange County,California. 1 i ® i CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD November 1,2007 Jennifer Villasenor, Planner City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main St Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Subject:Senior Center-Draft EIR Report (No. 07-02) At our November 1, 2007 meeting the Environmental Board reviewed the Draft EIR Report No. 07-02 for the proposed Senior Center. The following are our comments, concerns and �'�� observations. We understand few of the comments may be applicable to the project CUP and may not be appropriate to address in the draft EIR. Please include the applicable comments where they best fit,either the EIR,CUP. 1. There is insufficient review of the alternatives to the proposed site. The relative environmental impact(positive and negative) of other locations is only briefly addressed. The proposed site at northwest corner of the Ellis Ave. and Golden West St. HSEB 2- intersection appears to be a viable alternative. The report does not satisfactorily assess t and evaluate the Ellis Ave and Golden West St. location for comparison. This information is essential for proper decision making to identify the most suitable location. 2. The EIR report states that the development parcel is designated as Open Space-Parks& Recreation. The report mentions that the proposed Senior Center is an appropriate use as a recreational facility,thus is compatible with its land use designation. However,the current land use is undeveloped open space. The development of thisg open space parcel is a change in its current land use.The result is a permanent loss of open space at an optimum Central Park location. This is significant and should be stated as such in the EIR.The Board recommends that the loss of this open space parcel be mitigated in an appropriate manner. Mitigation for the loss of open space was recommended in the Board's prior project comments. 3. The document mentions an appropriate landscape plan. As was mentioned in the Board's original comments,the City project should be held to a high standard and native drought-tolerant plants should be used on this project along with a smart water efficient irrigation system. It is recommend a plant pallet and landscape design is consistent with the natural area,which includes the Shipley nature center. 4. The document mentions the use of reclaimed (grey) water for irrigation. It also states �' that the city currently does not have a grey water system. The Board suggests that provisions be put into the base design for that system if and when one comes online so this project can be easily retrofitted to accommodate it. 5. The document has proposed hours of operation for Friday and Saturday night until 12 midnight. The EIR report should discuss in more detail potential weekend operation on , (p Saturday and/or Sunday and the impacts during the operation period. 6. The document mentions Irreversible Environmental Effects and briefly discusses energy usage. In the Board's original comments,we recommended that this City project should be held to a high standard (possibly as mitigation for #2 above) than normal projects. �'� The Board recommends the City take a leadership role and achieve a level of LEED certification with the project. Sincerely, CraigJustice,Chair H.B.J Environmen tal 1 Board i i 1 2 r Iluntin ton Beach Senior Center - Draft Environmental Impact Ike ort Comments to EIR- October 30, 2007 Submitted by Antony Brine, P.E., T.E. Chapter 2: Page 2-4: MM 4.1-3(a) ; prismatic glass coverings and cutoff shields should be required, (not where feasible), to prevent lighting spillover off site. MM 4.1-3(e); trees should be placed around the entire parking lot that will shield all 2— headlights to adjacent homes. Page 2-15: MM 4.9-1(a); any construction hours prior to 8:00 a.m. and after 6:00 p.m. are not compatible with the surrounding residential neighborhood. Construction of this facility on Saturdays is certainly not compatible with the immediately adjacent park. Chapter 3: Figure 3-8; Significant landscaping should be placed on the west side of the property to shield �� lighting from buildings and lessen the noise impacts to the adjacent residential neighborhood. Landscaping should be placed at the bottom of the driveway entrance, and i at the end of the southerly drive aisle to shield headlights to adjacent homes. Section 3.3.3 and Table 3-3: The late operating hours (normal hours until 10:00 p.m. on weekdays and weekends) are not appropriate for the surrounding park and residential neighborhood. The hours for special events are especially disturbing. (Until 10:00 p.m. on Sunday through Thursday, and specifically until 12:00 a.m. on Fridays and Saturdays) These hours are simply not �� compatible with the surroundings. If you add the operating hours for a one week period (Monday through Friday), the total hours of use clearly indicate that the center is to be used more often for Community Center type activities, classes etc., than as a Senior Center. This project is being discussed primarily as a"Senior Center", yet the general uses described would suggest otherwise. There needs to be more specific discussion in the EIR regarding the classes and actitivies that are planned for normal operation (daytime and evening). Are these classes available (q to all residents, such as art classes, exercise classes, etc.? Are these the types of classes 1 tpresented in the SANDS ? If there are a significant number of community classes held at the center, then the traffic trip generation rates (which were established based on Senior Center uses only) are not appropriate. The uses and the trip generation rates for a 2_�-OU-7 community center are different from a senior center. Generally trip generation for a community center are generally higher than for a senior center. This needs to be addressed in the Transportation section of the EIR. The EIR should include descriptions of the types of special events that would be held in the multi-purpose room. I anticipate the multi-purpose room will be scheduled for large parties, wedding receptions, large corporate events, etc. Again, special events will generate a different trip generation than a senior center use. There should be more restrictive hours for special events than are shown. This is a new facility, and the uses should be planned based on the fact this is a new project. Any precedents, as far as community uses, should not be a factor in the design of this facility and the proposed 1 uses. This project was voted by the community to be a"Senior Center", a"humanitarian" facility. In fairness to the community, based on the discussion of the project in the ballot Measure T, this project should be designed as a Senior Center, not as a Senior and Community Center. Chapter 4: Page 4.8-5: gRit� �I It should be clearly addressed in the EIR how the project will not impact the existing Shipley Nature Center, including the wildlife that exists within the center, and the migratory wildlife through Central Park. Page 4.9-14: It is discussed that the proposed project"may have a significant impact" if"a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project". I believe that the construction activities specifically, and Q to also potential noise from large events in the community hall, are a temporary and periodic increase in noise above existing noise levels. Page 4.9-18 In this section, it is stated that programs could be extended onto the outdoor patio which adjoins the multi-purpose rooms. What are the programs being considered?Any type of RroQram that includes live or recorded music which is amplified should not be allowed on, or near, the patio. For example, if there is is a wedding reception with live or recorded music, the project should be conditioned to require all amplified noises to be confined indoors and all doors to the patio be closed at all times. This section only discusses noise related to "normal human conversation". The EIR goes on to conclude that"As such the noise associated with special events such as wedding 2 receptions" is less than significant. The information provided in this section would appear to indicate that the only noise studied in the EIR in relation to special events, such as �h Z wedding receptions, is human conversation. Clearly, other noises associated with all of 4 the proposed facility uses, such as amplified music, etc. needs to be analyzed and discussed in more detail in the EIR. Impact 4.9-2 This section discusses the potential for groundborne vibration. Will there be piles driven1�13 as a part of the foundation for the building? If there is this type of construction, then there will be significant noise and vibration impacts to the adjacent residential neighborhood. Page 4.12-2 (Transportation/Traffic) For a project that generates 3,395 daily trips, it is amazing to me that the traffic impact analysis for this project included only three (3) intersections. Based on the project trip distribution, there are other primary intersections in the city that should have been studied. With twenty-five (25) percent of the traffic headed north on Goldenwest, the intersection of Goldenwest/Warner should be studied. This is an intersection that probably has a Level of Service E or F today. Any addition of traffic to that intersection �� will probably cause a significant impact. With twenty(20)percent of the traffic headed south on Goldenwest, then the intersections of Goldenwest/Garfield and Goldenwest/Yorktown should be included. The Yorktown intersection is particulary congested in the AM peak hour with school traffic. This project includes 334 AM peak hour trips. There is a real chance that the project traffic will impact the LOS at this intersection. Page 4.12-14 When the trip rates were developed for this project,the traffic engineer collected counts at the Oasis Senior Center in Newport Beach. Did the traffic engineer discuss with the City of Newport Beach the precentage of seniors that use buses to get to their facility? The Oasis facility is operationally different in a number of ways. Their facility has two separate parking lots that are separated by a secondary roadway. One lot has 97 spaces and the other has 90 spaces. In discussions with their Senior Services department, approximately ten (10)percent of their seniors arrive at the facility by bus or van. (N Another ten(10)percent arrive to the center by walking from their homes in the immediately adjacent Corona del Mar neighborhood. The facility may be similar in nature, but the socio-economic needs of their seniors are different. This effects the trip generation rates of the two facilities. These factors should be discussed and addressed in the EIR. As it relates to trip generation, this is not an"apples-to-apples" comparison. 3 Page 1 of 1 From: Villasenor, Jennifer [JVillasenor@surfcity-hb.org] Sent: Monday, September 24, 2007 7:36 AM To: Nathan, Tamarine J Subject: FW: Senior Center DEIR From: lgeisse@aol.com [mailto:lgeisse@aol.com] Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2007 9:29 PM To: Villasenor, Jennifer Subject: Senior Center DEIR — Hi Jennifer - I think the EIR should also consider the alternate site of the opposite corner of Goldenwest and Talbert. The center could be built at the end of the existing Sports Complex parking lot, which is never used. Since the fields are mostly used in the evenings, the parking lots could easily be shared. I think this would result in a significant savings to the city. The parking lot, and entrances already exist. Ground mitigation has already been done. The area sits empty now. Thanks. Larry Geisse Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free_A_OL Mail! i 1 file://P:\Projects - All Users\D21200.00+\D21314.00 HB Senior Center\EIR\DEIR Com... 10/22/2007 Page I of 2 From: Villasenor, Jennifer [VVlllasenor@surfcity-hb.org] Sent: Monday, October 15, 2007 9:21 AM To: Nathan, Tamarine J; Lau, May Ye Subject: FW: Senior Center From: Igeisse@aol.com [mailto:lgeisse@aol.com] Sent: Friday, October 12, 2007 9:07 PM To: Villasenor, Jennifer Subject: Re: Senior Center Thanks Jennifer, I appreciate the response. Can you send him the last email I sent you, as it contains some reasoning why the site would be better based on the DEIR? Thanks again. Larry The EIR should look at alternative sites. The one most promising would be across the street in the parking lot of the Sports Complex. It is not used now, would offer parking already there, has the soil clean-up completed, has utilities in, and would not requite elevation changes. It would save the city a lot of money to do it there. -----Original Message----- From: Villasenor, Jennifer<JVilaasenor@surfcity-hb.org> To: lgeisse@aol.com Sent: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 9:23 am Subject: RE: Senior Center Larry, Thank you for your comment. I did receive your comment last week and forwarded it to our environmental consultant that prepared the draft EIR. Responses to comments will take place after the end of the comment period (October 31St). Thanks again. From: IgeisseCd)aol.com [mailto:Igeisse(d)aol.com] Sent: Friday, October 12, 2007 7:52 AM To: Villasenor, Jennifer Subject: Senior Center Jennifer - I sent this comment a week or so ago and didn't hear back. The EIR should look at alternative sites. The one most promising would be across the street in die_\ the parking lot of the Sports Complex. It is not used now, would offer parking already there, 2- has the soil clean-up completed, has utilities in, and would not requite elevation changes. It would save the city a lot of money to do it there. Let me know if you are going to include this in suggestions. Thanks. Larry Geisse Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail! file://PAProjects -All Users\D21200.00+\D21314.00 HB Senior Center\EIR\DEIR Com... 10/22/2007 ® Page 1 of 1 From: Villasenor, Jennifer [JVillaseno@surfeity-hb.org] Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2007 1:09 PM To: Nathan, Tamarine J Cc: Dominguez, Dave Subject: FW: Comments on Senior Center Initial Study - Suggestion From: Robert Haben [mailto:habenrl@earthlink.net] _� Seat: Wednesday, October 03, 2007 12:03 PM To: Villasenor, Jennifer Subject: Comments on Senior Center Initial Study - Suggestion Robert Haben habenrl earthlink.net Eartht_ink Revolves Around You. Dear Jennifer, I'm writing to suggest that a pool needs to be added to the Senior Center plan. As one ages, swimming is the best way to keep the bones and muscles working. Huntington Beach needs to plan for the future HARE and not be cheap about providing for seniors. Other cities where I have been have more that craft centers for the aged. Please convey this suggestion to the proper authority. Thank you. Bob and Sue Haben 714- 8461042 16542 Charleyville Circle H.B. 92649 file://P:\Proiects - All Users\D21200.00+\D21314.00 HB Senior Center\EIR\DEIR Com... 10/22/2007 FW HB Senior Center EIR.txt From: villasenor, Jennifer []villasenor@surfcity-hb.org] Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2007 8:46 AM To: Lau, May Ye; Nathan, Tamarine J Cc: Dominguez, Dave subject: FW: HB Senior Center EIR -----original message----- From: patricia kreamer [mailto:pat_kreamer@verizon.net] sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2007 12:41 AM To: villasenor, Jennifer Subject: HB senior Center EIR Dear Ms. villasenor, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the EIR for the senior Center. Pat Kreamer 18111 Lakepoint Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92647 714-625-6750 Aesthetics concerns: The architecture and placement of the designed center does not compliment a park setting. The center appears to be able to take advantage of the beauty of the park, but the park is not looking at something designed to blend in with the park. It looks dropped in. Also, the footprint taken up for parking spaces takes up as much land as the building, and it pushes the actual Center farther into the park, which sets up other issues for EIS. Suggestions: use rarely-used parking spaces across the street bordering Goldenwest, and have handicapped parking on the west side near the Center. There are requirements for having a parking space ratio for a new building, however since this is all city property, extra parking spaces could be applied or shared across the �q street to meet the quota. As for walking distance, I think of the distance people walk from the parking lot at HB City Hall to the different city buildings could be the same distance as walking across the street (Golden west) from the parking lot to a Center. Likewise walking from any parking lot to the segerstrom concert hall . or parking in a mall . Possibly an electric cart could also patrol and shuttle people. Another factor is that if the parking is located west of Golden west, the non-senior public will use the spaces. It is too popular a park and would require parking monitoring. Another thought is building the Center in the Park near Slater next to the verizon parking lot. There are already buildings there, and parking lot, so another building and more parking does not look so out of place. The area is already used by many seniors who walk there. It would be easier to design a building, even two stories with a parking structure, that could architecturally blend in with the environment. "Degrading visual character" seems subjective. The visual character I currently enjoy, in my subjective view, is to be able to look up towards Golden west from the park below and see a large swath of land connect with sky without large obstructio of buildings. I am allowed a sense of looking into the distance. Likewise, driving or walking at Golden west looking towards the park, I see into an uninterrupted distance, or look down into trees and grass and dirt. LIGHT I live near Edwards and Inlet, near the dog park. I can see the lights from the bal fields at night from my home. I'm concerned a Center protruding into the park will have a very negative impact. If I can see the ball park lights, surely the lights from the Center will be unavoidable. There is the nocturnal life in the park to consider, too. I've seen the park serve Page 1 4 t FW HB Senior Center EIR.txt as a corridor for coyotes going back and forth from the meager open space they have on Seapoint to the Nature center and the bushes along Golden West. The coyotes serve a purpose in controlling the rabbits and squirrels, which need to be controlled because of the damage and erosion they cause to the walls of the water canals and KREA waterways. The added light would keep the coyotes away. Particularly motion detector If lights. That would be a negative impact. Also, I've gone at midnight to watch large flocks of migrating birds land in the lake at night because its such an amazing sight would additional light impact their migrating patterns? The existing pale light aimed down from pole lights into the park allows the darkness to dominate the night. Preserving space to walk at night that has an absence of light or minimal light is rare in a city, and should be preserved. If the center were built where it is currently planned, would parking lot lights have to be on all night? would bright security lights have to be on all night? If I walk in the, park, will I see the light spilling across the park casting shadows towards the homes fringing the park where once there was darkness? �J I see the lights from the ball fields from my home. when there are events at the proposed center, will I also see those lights? when cars drive in and out of the parking lot, will their lights beam out across the park? Again, the absence of light at night in a dense cityscape is rare and valuable. once the darkness is lost, will we ever get it back? SOUND From my home I currently hear noise from events at the ball field, and bands from the summer concert series by the library. when events take place in the park below the proposed center, I can hear the music well enough to sing along: If the center has events, the music and noise will come from a hill top, I can't imagine how the K sound will carry. At night time this is not acceptable and would cause an auditory nightmare in a peaceful park. using the Center for events that last into the evening are a source of noise pollution to the community. it would be another example of the Center benefiting from the park but the park not benefiting from the Center. Hydrology K use the parking lot across the street. It is already designed to deal with stormwater runoff that carries contaminants from cars. Other: No matter where the Center is built, is it a LEED building? where will it get its energy? solar panals? K How will it conserve its water? Is the landscaping indigenous and able to survive in a dry desert climate? How will it be heated? will the materials used inside produce off-gasses that may effect sensitive seniors' health? Page 2 Page 1 of 1 From: Villasenor, Jennifer [JVillasenor@surfcity-hb.org] Sent: Monday, September 24, 2007 8:25 AM To: Nathan, Tamarine J Subject: FW: senior center From: Margern@aol.com [mailto:Margern@aol.com] Sent: Monday, September 24, 2007 8:23 AM To: Villasenor, Jennifer Subject: senior center Why is there not a pool for therapy? Most seniors have some arthritis or others types of joint problems that benefit from warm water exercises. It is an insult to our seniors not to offer this type of therapy, as most other cities offer in their senior centers. Thank you for listening. See what's new at AOL.com and Make AOL Your Homepage. file://P:\Projects - All Users\D21200.00+\D21314.00 HB Senior Center\EIR\DEIR Com... 10/22/2007 Page 1 of 1 From: Villasenor, Jennifer [JVilaasenor@surfcity-hb.org] Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2007 3:50 PM To: Nathan, Tamarine J Cc: Dominguez, Dave Subject: FW: Comments on Senior Center From: PARS11@aol.com [mailto:PARS 1 1@aol.com] Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2007 3:45 PM To: Villasenor, Jennifer Subject: Comments on Senior Center 1 The reasons for placing the proposed Senior Center near the Central Park Library do not make sense. 1. The largest concentration of seniors in Huntington Beach is actually in S. E. Huntington Beach. Landmark Senior Living not to mention three mobile home parks located in this section of Huntington Beach would seem to dictate that the new Center might better be placed at the proposed Kettler School site. This site has nearly (VLOSK $3,000,000 in upgrades and remains vacant. Seniors from Landmark could use the stop light at MiraMar and Atlanta to WALK, yes walk, to the center. Improvements and additional structures and walkways could lead directly to Edison Park and the Edison Community Center. Additionally, the Kettler School site is near a well serviced shopping mall containing a Von's Super Market, dry cleaning, a dentist, Hallmark Shop, beauty shop and supply and a bank on the corner. The currently proposed site at the Library is very limited. In fact, the senior would be close to nothing at all. 2. Statistics that are used in support of choosing the current Central Park site are woefully inadequate and prove nothing at all. Even tho 16% of Huntington Beach may be 60 or older, there are NO statistics that say how many senior actually USE the center now available to them. To surmise that a leap from the current Roger's Senior Center to 45,000 sq. feet is defendable is nonsense. Nothing supports that figure, not even (-kpSH your chart of Comparative Standards. Using these standards is sheer speculation on the part of a group of a Z few well placed people in Huntington Beach to want to build a monument to themselves. In my opinion this center has relatively little to do with numbers and use, it has to do with huge egos. 3. LPA, Inc., did a poor job not only in investigating other sites thoroughly, but in writing the report itself. For a fact, the Huntington Beach City School District was NOT notified that it was even the#3 site considered (AD S� except by word of mouth. How many other sites got exactly this same"investigative" insight? 3 They wrote what the Bauer/Detloff group wanted to see. The ballot measure passed by such a small majority, the city does NOT have a mandate to build at this location. It is a clever ruse, or maybe not so clever after all. y The building of this site at Central Park will use all park funds available (Quimby funds) to other parks for muc `�`�10<� needed repairs and up-keep. This may be illegal. 5 1 do not support building the senior center at Central park at such an astonishing cost. I�105l Merle Moshiri �D 8802 Dorsett Dr. Huntington Beach, CA 92646 See what's new at AOL.com and Make AOL Your Homepage. file://P:\Projects - All Users\D21200.00+\D21314.00 HB Senior Center\EIR\DEIR Corn... 10/22/2007 Sept.26,2OO7 City of HB Planning Dept. %Jennifer Villasenior 2000 Main Street HB CA 92648 CitY of Huntington Beach Re: Comments on the DEIR for Senior Center OCT ` 9 Z007 2. 6 Alternatives 1. No project 2. Reduced project 3 Alternate site. Any of these alternatives are preferable to the proposed project of a Mv�� 45,000 square foot building on park land 1 From the Summary 1. 2.3-5ummary of proposed project table 2-1 2. Building height "height of the bldg with architectural features will be for a one story building 46 ft." What is the City's standard for height of a one moo story building? Is there a variance for this height? Z 3. Aesthetics Impact 4-1-1 "implementation of the proposed building would not substantially effect the scenic vista" How could a 49 ft high buildingnot ? Mv(ZP 44. Air quality - 3 Impact 4.2-1 peak construction activities associated with the project could generate emissions that exceed SCAGMD thresholds" Potentially significant. The public recourse is call the person in charge. �'�� I don't feel that's enough of a solution. This DEIR should demand it not exceed the thresholds Impact4.2-3" daily operation of the project would not generate emissions that exceed SCAQMD thresholds. What if it does? MuRI� 5 5. Biological Impact 4.3-1 (2) "---If an active nest of a sensitive species is identif ied on site(per established thresholds) a 250-f oot no work buffer shall be maintained between the- nest and construction activity until the DFG and/or USFWL approves any other mitigation measures. Pict should stop. The birds will not nest and the babies will die MM4.3-1 (b)Burrowing Owl2. If unoccupied,Burroughs are found during the non-breeding season the city may collapse the unoccupied Burroughs or otherwise obstruct their entrances to prevent owls f rotT RVRIP entering or nesting in Burroughs measure would prevent inadvertent 7 impacts during construction. What kind of reason is that to obliterate burrowing owls from nesting so the construction can proceed? MM 4-3-2 Development of the proposed project would have a substantial adverse impact to raptor foraging habitat .Check the VAV P-P reason for Bolsa Chico Lower Bench being saved. Raptors need 9 large open areas for foraging I don't think'°"city owned and preferably nearby "'mitigates the needs 6. Impact4.12-2 Mm The project shall provide an additional northbound- through lane at the intersection of Goldenwest and Slater .This can be provided by restriping the existing right turn lane without any physical rewidening. This is impossible. The Shipley turn-in to their parking: is not mentioned plus seniors driving Goldenwest slow) looking for the senior center which can't be seen 1 from the street is gging to cause innumerable accidents. This MM should not be considered mitigated. _ 7. AIM 4.12-4None of these mitigating recommendations will satisfy. Example Slower pedestrian green to accommodate a slower walk. T This was the reason this senior center was recommended for �v seniors so they could walk over to the library. How long will the to green be for a senior to get across Goldenwest. Try it anyone and time it? Traffic will be tied up all day ; 8. RecreationImpact4.11-2Implementation of the proposed project area would not effect existing passive recreational opportunities. Many W RP it schools in the area use the site and have for years for their cross country practice and meets. I have talked to many coaches who MU�P are against this site being de elopgd. 9. Transportation and traffic 4.12-1 10.Construction of the proposed project would not cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity. Au(Z P How can you think a 46,000 sq. foot Community center won't f� increase traffic when all that was there previously was open space. Traffic should be a mitigation_ problem. 11.Impact4.4-2 and 4.4-3 Native American burials are a distinct possibility here. There are maLiy indigenous people's artifacts and µukp remains in the area. There should be a native American there at 13 all tierces This is not the answer _ 12.1 couldn't find the study for liquefaction which I feel is a high possibility. The water table is so high that Shipley's walking_paths . are flooded out in rainy season. It has to be a problem for ft ng basement and foundation for this 46,000 square foot building 14 Respectfully submitted Ei een Murphy 201 21' Street HB CA 92648 Please submit this to the public record regarding the proposed senior center and the EIR done in support of this project. My comments regarding the draft EIR dated 9/17/2007. The existing land is noted to be "unvegetated, bare landscape". That is due to a pattern of pesticides and mowing by the city landscape department. � �� 1 4.0 The implementation of the proposed project represents a departure from the land use identified for the site in the Central Park Master Plan." It is my belief that your proposed mitigation measures can not preserve intent of the master plan—the park should remain as passive recreation area as indicated in the Central Park Master Plan. 4.1-3 Light and glare impact noted as potentially significant. The EIR notes the introduction of new sources of night lighting and glare to the project area. Currently no such conditions exist for lighting impacts this significant on Central Park West. Further study should be conducted as to the impact on the residences surrounding the proposed site. "The new sources of light could affect nighttime views of adjacent sensitive land uses and result in potential impacts." "With respect to wildlife in the adjacent park and undeveloped open space areas, increased lighting from the project site could cause a substantial adverse change in habitat ( a non-lighted condition to a lighted condition and an unoccupied condition to an occupied condition) that could adversely affect various species>" J�}n'l.�. How can you truly mitigate that? The cumulative impacts of the proposed project on this parkland are not known at this time. "However,the increase in de4velopment intensity of the project site, when compared with current uses, contributes incrementally to the visual degradation of the area in terms of reducing the amount of undeveloped open space within Central park. This would be considered a significant cumulative impact of the proposed project>" The EIR speaks for itself of the issue of park land impact. , 4.2 Air Quality— as the primary source of pollutants that would affect the site are motor vehicle emissions, that impact is also significant and as yet untested given that there MT O will be a significant increase in traffic at that location. 4.3-1 There are noted to be substantial adverse impacts on the sensitive plants, animals, and habitats. Please do all due diligence to be sure that these issues are addressed as WNT-1 1 mitigation doesn't cut it when you are losing habitat. 4.3-2 Of significant importance is the substantial adverse impact to raptor foraging habitat. More specifically, how will the need for 1:1 acreage replacement of raptor foraging habitat be accomplished? The Central park Master EIR notes that �T� the site is intended for low intensity development and the implementation of the proposed project is a departure from the the anticipated uses, which would result in a high intensity use of the site. The proposal must provide 5 acres of raptor ►A it i I-g foraging habitat in the area and Stilly Miller lake does not represent the same V� topography necessary for raptor foraging. Flat open space bordered by tall trees does not exist at the mitigation site. The impact noted by the loss of foraging habitat is a significant piece of the master plan EIR noted for Central Park. 4.3- There is significant adverse impact to wildlife and migration corridors as the impact from the newly restored Bolsa Chica wetlands and its role in the migration corridor for many types of birds and wildlife is not fully known. Central Park is known to be a stopping route for many migratory birds. In closing, the cumulative impacts regarding the environment in Central Park indicate p g g and I quote, "the cumulative direct loss of undeveloped land and the potential removal of sensitive wildlife and habitat. Loss of sensitive habitat within the localized areas would further decrease the amount of this habitat within the immediate area and add to the cumulative loss of sensitive species in the region." WWT tO Don not insult the public to think that you can mitigate away the impacts noted in the City's own report and in direct quotes. Loss of habitat is significant. 4.5-8 Please be sure that studies are addressed regarding the water table—likely reached prior to 10 feet as noted in the EIR, and also on the soil. The expansivity of the � `-1— clay type natural soils is in question and could have costly implications. 4.8-2 The existing site is zoned as a Low Intensity Recreation Area requiring a zoning change to the Central Park Master Plan. This should not be taken lightly and wHT(2 requires due diligence according to regulatory approvals. 4.9 Noise. The residential neighbors surrounding the park and proposed site are already affected by noise levels on days when the park is at capacity, or a sporting event is taking place. The impact on noise levels once the center is used as a rental facility until 10 pm will have an affect on the neighborhood and current noised 3 levels enforced by the city. It is requested that this impact be given more consideration regarding the impact to the residential areas. 4.12 Traffic. This piece is also untested as there is no feasibility study pending as to participant numbers expected to utilize the new center. What numbers exist as to the use when all facilities are at capacity? (i.e. Library, Sports Complex, park, Shipley, Equestrian Center, Disc Golf). The impact to traffic on Goldenwest is significant and will impact emissions from motor vehicles. In addition, the turning of slower moving traffic into the fast moving 6 lanes of Goldenwest will be a safety hazard and was seen as a CON in the original study put forth by the city. In conclusion, the loss of open space in Central Park and its subsequent impact on the environment, as well as residents and park uses will be significant. Therefore, it is w � imperative that all attempts are made by the city and its planners to justify the need for � ,� this project as well to mitigate its impact on the park and its intended uses. Thank you, Mindy White 17762 Carranza Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Senior Center Comment Meeting 10/11/-7 — Summary of comments John McGregor _ • Posed a question regarding the allocation of park money for the senior center V 03 Stan Cohen - • Asked about likelihood of library and sports complex users using the senior center Ve- -F, -2. parking lot Pat Kreamer • Asked for a clarification of alternatives analysis V E"r3 Bob Detloff • Offered comment that an excellent job was done on Draft EIR V �rl Carol Settimo • Offered comment that she is treasurer of Council on Aging and applauded VCR 13-Fj PBS&J/staff on a job well done on Draft EIR Pat Kreamer • Asked if building was going to be LEED certified; • Asked about traffic impacts-wanted to know what's to keep people from parking V U�_ in senior center lot to use picnic tables/park area? • Asked if we need all of the parking spaces that are proposed for project; V C_K6 -9 • Brought up parking and run-off-is there too much impervious surface? Elsner Sn-dth • Are there going to be provisions for new/more restrooms for picnic areas/park V 5K4 -(p area? • Is there going to be a pool? -11 • Brought up use of Kettler School for possible senior center site V 12 Tony Brine • Wanted to make sure that project alternatives are thoroughly analyzed- V specifically reduced use/project alternative; _ • Recreation-concerned about after hours uses/functions-does not believe V i�x 6�I facility will be used solely for seniors; concerned about large community room; 0 Concerned about project hours going until midnight-noise impacts from VM 1;, S community room& amplified music from events-need to be addressed in EIR; • 2 primary concerns: lighting and noise-impacts need to be conditioned on project, such as use of double paned windows, etc. �V15Y`S-1 John McGregor • Kettler School site would be abetter project site vL-e-6 Stan Cohen • Is elevation of parking lot higher or lower than building? Will there need to be V EBB --1 g steps going up or down to get from parking lot to building? • Have provisions been made in floor plan for ADA accessibility-i.e. -extra wide v � hallways, doorways, restrooms? Mary Siegel • Asked about project hours? Made a comment in support of after hours use of building so that seniors that work can take advantage of classes offered at senior vr,(_t3 -� center; glad to see fitness room included in floor plan-wants design and use of building to accommodate younger and more active seniors Ralph Bauer • Likes to go dancing on Fridays and Saturdays-would like to see senior center q/�� open late; • Mentioned reasons why Kettler school would not be viable alternative site for senior center: site was not available at time Measure T was passed; site has contamination; part of site is not usable Pat Kreamer • Concerned about location of new senior center-it is going to be a big change Vag `Z 3 from quiet,peaceful area that is there now; concerned about noise at night; • Wanted to know about approval process-wanted to know if everything about ,Z project has already been decided or when everything will be decided-next steps John McGregor • Mentioned that City should look into how much maintenance/work is required to operate facility at night-said City should look at facilities in other cities to see Ut✓(�g_Z how much work is required Ralph Bauer • Brought up the fact that after Planning Commission public hearing, the project V E12-S _Z rcan be appealed to the City Council Elsner Sn-dth • Mentioned that Kettler school is available now 7 Charlene Bauer • Mentioned that any aspect of the proposed project can be modified by the City Council V U-Kt3-`Z g i Huntington Beach Senior Center Project DRAFT EIR PUBLIC COMMENT FORM Please check this box if you would like to publicly share your comment at tonight's meeting. If you would like to comment on the adequacy of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Huntington Beach Senior Center Project, please fill out the information below. Your comments will be included and addressed in the Final EIR. Please leave this comment form at the sign-in table before you leave tonight, or otherwise mail it in by Wednesday, October 31, 2007 to: Jennifer Villasenor,Associate Planner City of Huntington Beach Department of Planning 2000 Maur Street Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Phone:(714)374-1661 Name(optional) Organization(optional) r f"s�'at e_47` Address City State Zip Phone (optional) Fax (optional) E-mail (optional) Comments (attach additional pages if needed) Note: All comments will become public information. i Huntington Beach Senior Center Project DRAFT EIR P 13LIC COMMENT FORM[ - Please check this box if you would like to publicly share your comment at tonight's meeting. If you would like to comment on the adequacy of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Huntington Beach Senior Center Project, please fill out the information below. Your comments will be included and addressed in the Final EIR. Please leave this comment form at the sign-in table before you leave tonight, or otherwise mail it in by Wednesday, October 31, 2007 to: Jennifer Villasenor,Associate Planner City of Huntington Beach Department of Planning 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Phone: (714)374-1661 Name(optional) 'LITl Organization(optional) Address City State Zip Phone (optional) Fax (optional) E-mail (optional) Comments (attach additional pages if needed) Note: All comments will become public information. i Huntington Beach Senior Center Project DRAFT EIR PUBLIC COMMENT FORM Please check this box if you would like to publicly share your comment at tonight's meeting. If you would like to comment on the adequacy of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Huntington Beach Senior Center Project, please fill out the information below. Your comments will be included and addressed in the Final EIR. Please leave this comment form at the sign-in table before you leave tonight, or otherwise mail it in by Wednesday, October 31, 2007 to: Jennifer Villasenor,Associate Planner City of Huntington Beach Department of Planning 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Phone:(714)374-1661 Name(optional) Organization(optional) Address City State Zip Phone (optional) Fax (optional) E-mail (optional) Comments (attach additional,pages if needed) ( � 2 t/ n ®t/ � Note: All comments will become public information. 1 Huntington Beach Senior Center Project 1 DRAFI` EIR PUBLIC COMMENT FORM Please check this bog if you would like to publicly share your comment ' at tonight's meeting_ If you would like to comment on the adequacy of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Huntington Beach Senior Center Project, please fill out the information below. 1 Your comments will be included and addressed in the Final EIR. Please leave this comment form at the sign-in table before you leave tonight, or otherwise mail it in by Wednesday, October 31, 2047 to: 1 Jennifer Villasenor,Associate Planner City of Huntington Beach Department of Planning 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Phone: (714)374-1661 1 Name(optional) Organization(optional) l . Address �- City State Zip Phone 7 2-0 ?i' (optional) Fax (optional) E-mail (optional) 1 -Ja ' Comments (attach additional pages if needed) /y C..�Llrst.Lt� 1 1 6 , 1 V Note: All comments will bec e public information. 1 Huntington Beach Senior Center ]Project DRAFT EIR PUBLIC COMMENT FORM Please check this box if you would like to publicly share your comment at tonight's meeting. If you would like to comment on the adequacy of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Huntington Beach Senior Center Project, please fill out the information below. Your comments will be included and addressed in the Final EIR. Please leave this comment form at the sign-in table before you leave tonight, or otherwise mail it in by Wednesday, October 31, 2007 to: Jennifer Villasenor,Associate Planner City of Huntington Beach Department of Planning 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Phone: (714)374-1661 Name(optional)- 2rA44� _A i/") Organization(optional) Address City State Zip Phone (optional) Fax (optional) E-mail (optional) Comments (attach additional pages if needed) �-1 f Z 26tz 'v` / S T E63 v Note: All comments will become public information. Huntington Beach Senior Center Project DRAFT EIR PUBLIC COMMENT FORM Please check this boa if you would like to publicly share your comment at tonight's meeting. If you would like to comment on the adequacy of the Draft Environmental Impact Report 1 (EIR) for the Huntington Beach Senior Center Project, please fill out the information below. Your comments will be included and addressed in the Final EIR. Please leave this comment form at the sign-in table before you leave tonight, or otherwise mail it in by Wednesday, October 31, 2007 to: Jennifer Villasenor,Associate Planner City of Huntington Beach Department of Planning 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Phone: (714)374-1661 Name(optional) Organization(optional) Address City State Zip 1 Phone (optional) Fax (optional) E-mail (optional) Comments(attach additional pages if needed) lec�iT` 2e,Z!, sMZ I-I s,(M 1T—Z Note: All comments will become public information. 11 .3 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE ®RAFT EIR 11 .3.1 Topical Responses There were three issues raised in a number of the comment letters: (1) the use of the Kettler School as an alternative site, (2) funding for the proposed project, and (3) the suggestion of a pool. Therefore, topical responses have been prepared that consider the key points of the comments on each of these issue areas and present one consolidated response on each issue. Topical Response-1 The school district board has not yet declared the Kettler School property surplus. Therefore, the City does not have the option to purchase the property under the Naylor Act. Consequently, the Draft EIR did not evaluate this property as an alternative site because the City's ability to purchase it is speculative. Instead, the Alternatives analysis focused on an alternative site located at the northwest corner of Goldenwest and Ellis. This property is already owned by the City, and thus, the known feasibility of developing the site is greater, which provides a more accurate analysis per CEQA standards. Topical Response-2 Funding for the proposed project would be provided by park in-lieu fees, which became available due to an owner/participation agreement (OPA) for a particular downtown development. While the OPA calls for the developer to construct the senior center in-lieu of paying full Quimby fees, any park fee above and beyond that of the senior center's construction costs will be paid to the City. Total park fees have not yet been determined. All developments are,required to comply with the City's park fee regulations. Thus, development of the proposed senior center would not result in the use of all available City park fees from project developments. Topical Response-3 A swimming pool is not part of the proposed project, and is therefore not analyzed within this EIR. Additionally, the provision of such an amenity is not an environmental issue. However, the proposed Senior Center does include other recreational uses serving senior citizens (i.e., group exercise room and fitness room). In addition, the City Gym and Pool is located approximately two miles south of the project site along Palm Avenue. All comments will be forwarded to decision-makers prior to their consideration of whether or not to approve the proposed project. 11-34 City of Huntington Beach 11 .3.2 State ®e artments Department of Transportation (DOT), October 24, 2007 DOT-1 Comment noted. The Department of Transportation, Caltrans District 12 has no comment on the Draft FIR at this time. IM Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), September 25, 2007 NAHC-1 A Cultural Resources Survey and Testing Report and a Paleontological Resources Assessment were prepared for the project site. As part of the report preparation, SWCA Environmental Consultants contacted the South Central Coastal Information Center ® (SCCIC), which is the appropriate California Historic Resources Information Center (CHRIS). NAHC-2 The northern half of the project area lies within the recorded southern portion of prehistoric site CA-ORA-142. Therefore, a records search, Native American consultation, Ipedestrian survey of the property, and subsequent test trenching was performed to assess the presence of cultural resources. The findings are detailed in the Cultural Resources Survey and Testing Report prepared for the proposed project and summarized in Section 4.4 (Cultural Resources) of the Draft EIR. Intact portions of CA-ORA-142 were not identified in the area that would be impacted by the proposed project. While not expected, in the event that an intact portion of CA-OP,,A-142 is identified, it should be evaluated for California Register of Historical Resources eligibility with further management recommendations based on the results of that evaluation. Implementation of mitigation measures MM 4.4-1(a) through (c) require monitoring of construction activities by a qualified professional archaeologist and require the scientific recovery and evaluation of any archaeological resources that could be encountered, which would Iensure that important scientific information that could be provided by these resources regarding history or prehistory is not lost. NAHC-3 According to the Cultural Resources Survey conducted for the proposed project, the California NAHC's Sacred Lands File search indicated the presence of sensitive Native American resources within the vicinity of the project. Representatives from three Native American bands declared that the project area is sensitive for Native American resources including human remains. Representatives from three Native American groups (Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Tribal Council, Juaneno Acjachemen Band of Mission Indians, and Juaneno Band of Mission Indians) have recommended Native American monitoring of ground-disturbing construction activities. As a result, mitigation measure MM 4.4-1(c) requires that the City arrange for a qualified Native American monitor to be present at the project site during all project-related ground-disturbing construction activities,including the recompaction of soils on the adjacent berm. Huntington Beach Senior Center EIR 11-35 f i •W W W ' NAHC-4 Mitigation measures MM 4.4-1(a), MM 4.4-1(b), and MM 4.4-1(c) provide mitigation for impacts associated with archaeological resources. As previously discussed, these mitigation measures require monitoring of construction activities by a qualified professional archaeologist and require the scientific recovery and evaluation of any archaeological resources that could be encountered, thus ensuring that important scientific information that could be provided by these resources regarding history or prehistory is not lost. NAHC-5 Mitigation measure MM 4.4-3 ensures the appropriate examination, treatment, and protection of human remains, including Native American human remains, as required by law. The lead agency would be working with the NAHC to assure appropriate and dignified treatment of Native American human remains and any associated grave liens in the event of the discovery of a burial, human bone, or suspected human bone. NAHC-6 The lead agency has identified appropriate avoidance measures for the discovery of significant cultural resources during the course of project planning and implementation. Mitigation measures identified in Section 4.4 (Cultural Resources) provide mitigation for impacts associated with the discovery of cultural resources, including avoidance measures. Such mitigation includes, but is not limited to, the halt of construction activities within 50 feet of archaeological or paleontological resources discovered during ground- disturbing activities until the archaeologist/paleontologist evaluates the significance of the resource. 11 .3.3 Regional/Local Agency Huntington Beach Environmental Board (HBEB), November 1 , 2007 HBEB-1 Comment noted. This comment contains introductory or general information, and it is not a direct comment on the content or adequacy of the Draft EIR, and does not raise any specific environmental issue. Please refer to specific comments and recommendations below. HBEB-2 This comment states that there is insufficient review of the alternatives to the proposed site. According to Section 15126.6 (d) of the CEQA Guidelines: The EIR shall include sufficient information about each alternative to allow meaningful evaluation, analysis, and comparison with the proposed project. A matrix displaying the major characteristics and significant environmental effects of each alternative may be used to summarize the comparison. If an alternative would cause one or more significant effects in addition to those that would be caused by the project as proposed, the significant effects of the alternative shall be discussed, but in less detail than the significant effects of the proposed project. 11-36 City of Huntington Beach s• - - •• - s s The alternatives analysis presented in Chapter 6 of the Draft EIR presents a comparative evaluation of the environmental issue areas that were analyzed for the proposed project for all three alternatives that were considered, including Alternative 3 (Alternative Site- Northwest Corner of Ellis Avenue and Goldenwest Street). As discussed on page 6-2 of the Draft EIR, Alternative 3 was evaluated "for the purpose of reducing construction-related and operational noise impacts within the park by shifting development from the core of the park to the periphery, adjacent to a more developed environment. It would also preserve open space within the core area of the park and allow for subsequent improvement of the originally proposed project site with low-scale, low-intensity, and primarily passive recreational uses. This location was selected because of the favorable characteristics cited in the Huntington Beach Senior Center Feasibility Study (LPA 2006), the relatively centralized location of the site, and the accessibility provided by Goldenwest Street and Ellis Avenue (two major roadways) and an existing transit stop immediately south of the intersection on Goldenwest Street." As is routinely practiced, due to the nature of such environmental documents, the alternatives discussion does not need to be presented in the same level of detail as the assessment of the proposed project. In Chapter 6 (Alternatives to the Proposed Project) of the Draft EIR, a brief description of the proposed Alternative was provided, which was followed by an analysis of each environmental issue area by threshold as it relates to the proposed Alternative site. In addition, the discussion provided a significance comparison for each potential impact in relation to that of the proposed project. As mentioned on page 6-23 of the Draft EIR, it was determined that implementation of Alternative 3 would result in less significant impacts with respect to land use compared to the proposed project "due to the intended level of development prescribed in the Central Park Master Plan for the alternative site." However, it may result in greater impacts to noise and recreation. As discussed on page 6-23 of the Draft EIR, "Due to the presence of residential structures across Goldenwest Street and Ellis Avenue, which are in closer proximity to the alternative site than the proposed project, certain construction activities could increase vibration levels at nearby residences beyond thresholds established by the Federal Transportation Authority. As such, this impact, although temporary, would be considered potentially significant and greater than the proposed project." In addition, as discussed on page 6-24 of the Draft EIR, "If the senior center were developed on this alternative site, they [the equestrian center], would no longer be able to use the area for that purpose [overflow parking during large horse shows]. Therefore, since existing uses would be displaced and certain intended recreational uses may not be constructed under this alternative [such as the aquatics complex], potential impacts to recreational resources would be greater than the proposed project." All other potential impacts to environmental issue areas are largely similar to the proposed project, as discussed on pages 6-18 through 6-25 of the Draft EIR. A comparison of all three Alternatives was also provided in Table 6-1 to visually illustrate the potential significance of impacts compared to the proposed project (greater than, less than, or equal to). Huntington Beach Senior Center EIR 11-37 Finally, the discussion of alternatives must focus on those capable of either avoiding or substantially lessening any significant environmental effects of the project, and Alternative 3 was not considered the environmentally superior alternative for purposes of the analysis. HBEB-3 The commenter is correct in noting that although there are no currently designed uses for the project site, the Central Park Master Plan EIR analyzed the project site for the future development of passive recreational uses. While this intended use has never been implemented and the site remains undeveloped, the project site's current primary use is its contribution to the low-intensity development character of the area. The potential land use and recreational impacts resulting from development on such an area are analyzed in Section 4.11-2 (Recreation) and summarized in Impact 4.8-1 (Land Use and Planning) of the Draft EIR. In addition, development of a recreational facility such as the proposed project, is a conditionally permitted use within the OS-PR (Open Space—Parks & Recreation) zoning designation according to the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. As stated in Impact 4.11-2 (Recreation), the existing use of the project site qualifies as an undeveloped passive use recreational area, and the site primarily provides access to the formal path located to the west. Informal use occurs as park users walk through the site for access to the developed parkland and pedestrian path just west of the project site. In addition, nearby schools occasionally use the area as part of a larger cross-country route through Central Park, and incidental remote control vehicle use occurs on the site. Development of the proposed project site would change from a vacant area where limited recreational opportunities exist, to a site with a developed senior center where uses would occur during regular weekday hours, as well as occasional nighttime and weekend operations. The site would have more development than other areas west of Goldenwest Street, including McCraken Meadow, the disc golf course, and the Shipley Nature Center. However, the proposed senior center is compatible with adjacent recreational facilities, as it would neither hinder these activities nor detract from their enjoyment. The total acreage for Central Park is 356 acres, of which 125 acres have been developed or planned for active use. These active use areas include the Sports Complex, Central Library, equestrian center, dog park, and the Parks Trees and Landscape yard. Other active use areas included in the total are miscellaneous facilities within Central Park, including the bandstand, amphitheatre, restaurants, the youth shelter and Adventure Playground. The remaining 231 acres of Central Park have been developed or planned for passive uses. As such, Central Park is divided into approximately 65 percent passive use areas and 35 percent active use areas. The loss of 5 acres for the proposed senior center site would only constitute a 2 percent loss of passive use area within the park. Additionally, there are four neighborhood parks within 1 mile of Central Park that are passive in nature. These include Baca Park (10 acres), Terry Park (5.5 acres), Green Park (4 acres) and Discovery Well Park (8 acres). 11-38 City of Huntington Beach With respect to existing incidental uses that occur onsite, development of the proposed project would not preclude nearby schools from utilizing the existing trails throughout Central Park for cross country training, and the proposed project would include an accessible ramp along the new driveway (on the earthen berm) that could be used to access the formal path west of the site. Therefore, because implementation of the proposed project would not affect the existing recreational opportunities that surround the project site, and because development of the proposed project would not result in a substantial impact on passive recreation uses within Central Park, the loss of 5 acres of passive use is considered a less-than-significant impact. HBEB-4 Comment noted. This comment is a project-related comment regarding the landscaping for the proposed project and not a direct comment on the content or adequacy of the Draft EIR. It does not raise any specific environmental issue. However, preliminary landscape plans do show a mix of drought tolerant and native planting materials. Several species that are found at Shipley Nature Center have been included in the plans. All comments will be forwarded to decision-makers prior to their consideration of whether to approve the proposed project. HBEB-5 Comment noted. As discussed on page 4.13-7 of the Draft EIR, the Green Acres Project (GAP) is currently on hold and until such time that the GAP is operational, recycled water would not be available to serve the proposed project. However, a pipe is already located in Goldenwest Street for future use when recycled water does become available. This comment is project-related and suggests that provisions be put into the base design for the recycled water system if and when one comes online so that the project can be easily retrofitted to accommodate it. This is not a direct comment on the content or adequacy of the Draft EIR; nor does it raise any specific environmental issue. All comments will be forwarded to decision-makers prior to their consideration of whether 1 to approve the proposed project. HBEB-6 As discussed in Section 3.3.3 (Proposed Facility Uses) in Chapter 3 (Project Description) of the Draft EIR, the proposed Senior Center would be used for a variety of recreational programs and activities serving senior citizens. Primary uses include recreation and social services, and Seniors Outreach Program (transportation, meals, counseling/visitation). When recreational and social programs are not using the rooms in the center, they could be used for public meetings or receptions. The facility would primarily be used weekdays, from 8:00 A.M. through 4:30 P.M., but could be used until 10:00 P.M. on weekdays and until 12:00 A.M. on Friday and Saturday. 1 The analyses presented in Chapter 4 (Environmental Analysis) are based upon the potential environmental impacts that could result from construction and operation of the proposed project, as identified in Chapter 3, including the proposed hours of operation. Project-specific impacts that could be directly related to operational nighttime and/or weekend hours of operation are primarily based upon aesthetics (light and glare), noise, and traffic issues. Each of these Sections (4.1, 4.9, and 4.12, respectively), as well as all Huntington Beach Senior Center EIR 11-39 other sections in the Draft EIR, provided the most conservative analysis (also referred to as the worst-case scenario). Mitigation measures MM 4.1-3(a) through (e) were provided in Section 4.1 (Aesthetics) to ensure that the lowest levels of illumination would be required, lighting on site would not remain at all times during the nighttime hours, and trees and barrier-type vegetation would be placed onsite to shield vehicle headlights from adjacent uses. These mitigation measures would reduce nighttime light and glare impacts to less-than-significant levels (regardless of the hours of operation). In addition, as reflected in Section 10.2 (Text Changes) of this Final EIR, the text on page 4.9-18 (Noise) has been clarified to reflect that any amplified sources of noise that could occur at the proposed Senior Center (such as special events on the weekend or at night) would be required to comply with the City's Noise Ordinance exterior noise standards. Compliance with this existing City regulation would prevent noise impacts to nearby residences, the closest of which are approximately 800 feet to the west of the project site. Noise levels of senior center operations as heard from nearby residences would be no greater than 55 dBA from 7:00 A.M. to 10:00 P.M. and 50 dBA from 10 P.M. to 7 A.M. Further, the Traffic Report prepared for the proposed project (Appendix 10 of the Draft EIR and summarized in Section 4.12 [Traffic/Transportation]) provided a weekend trip analysis in addition to the typical weekday trip analysis. As discussed in Impact 4.2-2, "On a typical Saturday, the project is projected to generate a total of 1,577 trip-ends per day, with 222 vehicles per hour during the peak hour." As shown in Table 4.12-7 (Intersection Analysis for Interim Year [2012], With and Without Project Weekend Conditions), the Level of Service (LOS) at the study area intersections would remain acceptable (Los A and B at all intersections). Consequently, weekend operations of the proposed project would not result in any significant impacts. Therefore, as shown in the discussion above, the Draft EIR analyzed the potential weekend operation on Saturday and/or Sunday as well as the potential impacts during the operation period, as requested by the comment. HBEB-7 Comment noted. This comment suggests that the project be designed to achieve a level of Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certification. Presently, the proposed senior center is not anticipated to be LEED-certified due to limited funding sources. However, design elements similar to LEED standards will be integrated into the project (e.g., installation of low-flush water devices, waterless urinals, drought-tolerant landscaping, bioswales, and roofing materials), and the proposed project would be required to conform to the energy conservation standards specified in the California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 24. Additionally, this comment suggests that LEED certification could potentially be used as mitigation for the loss of open space. Refer to HBEB-3 for a detailed discussion regarding the loss of open space. As discussed in HBEB-3, the project would not result in a significant impact with regard to the loss of 11-40 City of Huntington Beach passive use areas; thus, no mitigation is necessary (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(a)(3)). Further, per CEQA, there must be a nexus, or a rough proportionality, between the impact and the mitigation measure. The provision of a LEED-certified building would mitigate an impact that was found to be significant in regards to inefficient use of energy. As discussed in Impact 4.13-10 in Section 4.13 (Utilities and Service Systems), conformance with CCR Title 24 requires the enforcement of efficient energy use and would ensure that the proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact with respect to the wasteful or unnecessary use of energy. 11 .3.4 Individuals 1 Antony Brune (BRIN), October 30, 2007 BRIN-1 Mitigation measure MM 4.1-3(a) has been modified as suggested by the commenter. The revision is provided on pages 10-1 and 10-3 in the Text Changes section of the Final EIR (Chapter 10,Volume II) and is as follows: MM 4.9-3(a) All exterior nighttime lighting shall be an down and away from the 1 adjacent open space areas. Prismaticglass coverings and cutoff shields shall be used to furtherprevent spillover off site. BRIN-2 Perimeter landscaping along the west project boundary line, although not reflected in the preliminary landscaping plan (Figure 3-8 of the Draft EIR), will be required as part of the project requirements and conditions. Mitigation measure MM 4.1-3(e) has been modified to clarify that the entire perimeter of the project site will be landscaped with trees. The revision is provided on pages 10-1 and 1 10-3 in the Text Changes section of the Final EIR (Chapter 10, Volume II) and is as follows: MM 4.l-3(e) Trees and barrier-type vegetation should be place *n throughout the site, including alone the entire perimeter, to help shield vehicle headlights in Me from adjacent uses BRIN-3 Mitigation measure MM 4.9-1(a) is Measure Noise-3 from the Central Park Master Plan EIR. The hours of construction, as set forth in this mitigation measure, are more restrictive than the City's Noise Ordinance, which exempts construction noise between 7 A.M. and 8 P.M. on weekdays, including Saturdays. Thus, the City (as set forth in the Central Park Master Plan and carried forward in this mitigation measure), has reduced the permitted construction hours of development within the park in consideration of park patrons and nearby residences. As a result, this mitigation measure ensures that construction hours are compatible with those set forth in the Central Park Master Plan EIR. Huntington Beach Senior Center EIR 11-41 BRIN-4 According to Figure 3-8, the preliminary landscaping plan indicates that a mix of trees and shrubs will landscape the west side of the project site. While the figure is only a conceptual landscaping plan and final landscaping will be determined by the City, a sufficient number of trees in the park's picnic area and along Crestview Drive (where the nearest residences are located) provide landscaping that would also serve as a buffer for potential noise or lighting impacts. In addition, as discussed above in BRIN-2, perimeter landscaping along the west project boundary line, although not reflected in the preliminary landscaping plan, will be required as part of the project requirements and conditions. The entire perimeter of the project site (including the parking lot) will be landscaped with trees, and mitigation measure MM 4.1-3(e) has been modified to reflect this change. BRIN-5 This comment is a project-related comment regarding the hours of operation for the proposed project and is not a direct comment on the content or adequacy of the Draft EIR. Please refer to HBEB-6 for a detailed discussion regarding the potential impacts with respect to operating hours of the proposed project. BRIN-6 Although the type of classes and activities that could be offered at the proposed senior center does not pertain to the environmental analysis in the Draft EIR, the classes offered at the current senior center (and planned for the new center) are specifically designed for older adults. They include dance classes, bridge, martial arts, art classes, etc. These classes are advertised in the quarterly Sands recreation guide. The current senior center offers both social services and recreational activities that are offered during daytime and nighttime hours. Most cities offer classes and activities in the same manner as Huntington Beach at their senior centers and, in fact, often refer to their facilities as "multi- generational." In regard to impacts on the surrounding park for evening activities, the City currently has community centers that operate within the hours mentioned by the commenter. Both centers are within parks and adjacent to residences. Please refer to HBEB-6 for a detailed discussion regarding the potential impacts with respect to operating hours of the proposed project. BRIN-7 Community center activities do occur at the Oasis Senior Center in Newport Beach, which was selected for use in collecting trip generation data for the proposed project. Through discussions with City staff, it was determined that the Newport Beach Oasis Senior Center is the best possible match available because the facility operates in much the same manner as that proposed for the project. Typical senior center classes and activities are held during primary operating hours and the facility can also be used for special events during nighttime hours. As discussed in Section 4.12-3 of the Draft EIR and reflected in Table 4.12-4 and Table 4.12-5, daily project trip generation rates are based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers' peak to daily relationships for community centers. Therefore, appropriate trip generation data were utilized in the Traffic Report prepared for the proposed project. 11-42 City of Huntington Beach GRIN-8 As discussed above, although the type of special events that could be offered at the proposed senior center does not pertain to the environmental analysis in the Draft EIR, ® as discussed in Section 3.3-3 (Proposed Facility Uses) in Chapter 3 (Project Description) i of the Draft EIR, the proposed Senior Center would be used for a variety of recreational programs and activities serving senior citizens. Primary uses include recreation and social services, and Seniors Outreach Program (transportation, meals, counseling/visitation). When recreational and social programs are not using the rooms in the center, they could be used for public meetings or receptions. Please refer to BRIN-7 for a discussion regarding the adequacy of the trip generation rates used for the proposed project. The commenter states that the project should provide more restrictive hours for special events. All comments will be forwarded to decision-makers prior to their consideration of whether to approve the proposed project. BRIN-9 The proposed project would have no direct impact on biological resources within the Shipley Nature Center since the project would not encroach the property. As discussed in Impact 4.3-1, mitigation measures MM 4.3-1(a) and (b) would require surveys for sensitive avian species, raptors and MBTA-protected species, and include impact- avoidance measures to ensure that the substantial loss of these species will not occur. Although implementation of the proposed project would remove approximately 5 acres of existing foraging habitat within the currently-designated Low Intensity Recreation Area, implementation of mitigation measure MM 4.3-2 would ensure impacts to raptor foraging habitat would be mitigated at a ratio of 1:1, as discussed in Impact 4.3-2. Further, as discussed in Impact 4.3-3, the proposed project would not have a substantial adverse impact to the movement of native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species since the project site is not a part of a major or local wildlife corridor/travel route. Consequently, project-specific impacts to biological resources were determined to be less- than-significant as a result of the required mitigation measures. As such, the proposed project would not result in any significant impacts to wildlife that exists within the existing Shipley Nature Center. tBRIN-10 As discussed in Impact 4.9-1, noise from the project's construction activities would not exceed standards established in the Huntington Beach Municipal Code. As discussed in BRIN-3, noise sources associated with construction are exempt from the City's Noise Ordinance between 7 A.M. and 8 P.M. on weekdays, including Saturdays. Mitigation measure MM 4.9-1(a) would limit the hours that construction could occur to standards even more restrictive than the City's Noise Ordinance. Noise generated from the senior center's operations would be required to comply with the City's Noise Ordinance exterior noise standards to prevent potential noise impacts to park patrons and nearby residences. Additional mitigation measures initially identified in the Central Park Master Plan EIR and City requirements (both of which are identified under Impact 4.9-1) would minimize noise impacts associated with construction and operational activities. BRIN-11 Please refer to BRIN-12. Huntington Beach Senior Center EIR 11-43 i f •Y i Y BRIN-12 The EIR has been revised to clarify potential noise impacts associated with operations of the proposed project, specifically, special events. The revisions are provided on pages 10- 3 and 10-4 in the Text Changes section of the Final EIR (Chapter 10, Volume II) and are as follows: The closest sensitive receptor is located approximately 800 feet to the west of the proposed project site. As such the noise associated with human conversation from special events such as wedding receptions would attenuate at a rate of 6 dBA per doubling of distance to levels of approximately 43 dBA,which would be below the City of Huntington Beach Noise Ordinance Exterior Noise Standards. In addition_ special events held at the project site during; operation could include the use of louds eakers amplified music_ and other Sources of amplified noise These amplified noise sources would be required to come with the Cite of Huntington Beach Noise Ordinance exterior noise standards_ shown in Table 4 9-6 above In compliance with this regulation and to prevent noise impacts to nearby residences, the noise level of senior center operations as heard from nearby residences would be no greater than 55 dBA from 7:00 A.M. to 10:00 P.M. and 50 dBA from 10 P.M. to 7 A.N1. Therefore, increased noise associated with operation of the senior center. including those associated with special events, would be hele adhere to the established standards and would be considered less than significant. All development within the City, including the proposed senior center, is required to comply with the City's Noise Ordinance. In order to ensure compliance with the Noise Ordinance, the City could elect to monitor overall noise levels during special events (e.g., loud speakers, live bands, etc.) as a condition of the conditional use permit. All recommendations and comments will be forwarded to decision-makers prior to their consideration of whether or not to approve the proposed project. BRIN-13 Construction activities will not involve pile driving; rather, construction of the proposed senior center would include excavation and recompaction of soils. As discussed in Impact 4.9-2, construction activities associated with the proposed project would not generate or expose persons off site to excessive groundborne vibration. While certain construction activities could potentially generate groundborne vibration, the residential neighborhood located approximately 800 feet west of the project site would not experience vibration levels that would exceed the Federal Transit Administration's threshold for human annoyance. BRIN-14 The traffic study has been reviewed and is considered adequate for the following reasons. For project traffic to impact an intersection, the intersection must have LOS "E" or "F", and the project must change the ICU value by 0.01 or more. A change of 0.01 (or 1 percent) is possible when the volume per lane is 16 vehicles per hour or more. Goldenwest Street has three through lanes in each direction at each of the subject intersections mentioned in the comment. Therefore a contribution of more than 48 new vehicle trips could potentially result in a significant impact. The trip distribution of traffic would disperse at the next available intersection in a manner similar to the patterns shown in the traffic study report, with approximately half of the traffic continuing straight and the remaining traffic fairly evenly distributed to available turning movements. 11-44 City of Huntington Beach f f ' i• i i ' Using this information and the project trip generation data included in the traffic study report,it is possible to evaluate the possibility of a significant project impact for each time frame evaluated in the traffic study report (AM weekday peak hour conditions, PM, weekday peak hour conditions, and weekend mid-day conditions). The project trip generation during the AM weekday peak hour is highest in the outbound direction and therefore has the greatest potential to cause a significant impact. The total 1 outbound project trip generation during the AM weekday peak hour is 274 vehicles per hour. Assuming that the 25 percent of project traffic departing the intersection of Goldenwest Street at Slater Avenue is distributed as 15 percent through traffic and 5 percent turning traffic at the intersection of Goldenwest Street at Warner Avenue (a conservative assumption in that some project traffic would most likely turn before reaching this intersection), only forty-one vehicles would be expected to travel in the potentially critical northbound lanes at Warner Avenue. This is less than the 48 trips required to have any possibility of creating a potentially significant impact. The amount of project traffic distributed to the south is less than the quantity distributed to the north. Therefore, the same conclusion applies to the intersections referenced in the comment to the south. The PM peak hour volume is less than the AM weekday peak hour volume. Again, there is no possibility of a potential project impact at the various more distant intersections during the PM peak hour of weekday traffic for the same reason cited for the AM peak hour of weekday traffic. As shown in the traffic study report, weekend traffic operations are substantially better than weekday peak hour traffic operations. For this reason, no impact is anticipated at more distant locations than those that were evaluated in the traffic study report. BRIN-15 As stated on Page 1-2 of the Traffic Study, "Trip generation based on an existing senior center inherently includes the special public transportation available to senior citizens interacting with the senior center. The traffic reducing potential of more extensive public transit has not been considered in this report. Essentially the traffic projections may be `conservative' in that more intensive public transit might be able to reduce the traffic volumes." The Newport Beach senior center is the best possible match available for the proposed Huntington Beach Senior Center. The location of parking does not effect trip generation. Socio-economic data indicate that residents in Newport Beach are generally wealthier than residents in Huntington Beach. Higher income is known to result in higher trip- making; therefore, the socio-economic factors also indicate this analysis is conservative. Pedestrian access from Goldenwest will be designed to comply with ADA regulations, and the nature of the senior center surrounded by the Huntington Beach Central Park will facilitate walk access. There are residential areas directly adjacent to the park on the Huntington Beach Senior Center EIR 11-45 north and west sides. Additionally, an OCTA bus stop is located within 100 feet of the intersection of Goldenwest at Talbert. Larry Geisse (GEIS), September 22, 2007 GEIS-1 The parking lot area of the Sports Complex was constructed over a section of a former landfill. The subsurface materials would not achieve the level of compaction needed to support a large structure such as the senior center building. Moreover, the building and supporting amenities needed for the proposed project would reduce the number of parking spaces necessary to operate the Sports Complex at full capacity. Larry Geisse (GEIS), October 31 , 2007 GEIS-2 Please refer to GEIS-1. The Draft EIR analyzed an alternative site at the northwest corner of Goldenwest and Ellis. For a summary of the alternative site analysis, please refer to HBEB-2. Robert Haben (HARE), October 3, 2007 HABE-1 Please refer to Topical Res onse-3. P p 11 Patricia (Creamer (ICREA), October 12, 2007 KREA-1 The commenter is concerned about the aesthetic impacts of the proposed senior center. Potential aesthetic impacts are discussed in Section 4.1 of the Draft EIR, and identified as less than significant. Although the proposed project would introduce a structure within an existing undeveloped area, landscaping would provide a visual transition from the developed site out towards the adjacent existing undeveloped area, and distant views of mature vegetation would remain visible beyond foreground views of the proposed development. Implementation of setbacks from Goldenwest Street and the passive recreation area would provide a spatial transition and buffer for adjacent uses. Architecture of the proposed development would be designed to complement and be compatible with existing proximate development (i.e., Central Library) and incorporate design guidelines that would adhere to City standards. As such, the change in visual character from open space to development would not be considered an adverse significant impact. The commenter suggests that the project could use the existing Sports Complex parking lot, and suggests an alternative site for both the senior center and the parking lot in the park next to the Verizon parking lot. While these are project-related comments and not direct comments on the content or adequacy of the Draft EIR, final project plans have not been prepared, and all comments will be forwarded to decision-makers prior to their consideration of whether or not to approve the proposed project. In addition, the 11-46 City of Huntington Beach t 1� alternatives suggested by the commenter would not reduce the level of significance of environmental impacts since all impacts can be mitigated to less-than-significant levels. KREA-2 Comment noted. Please refer to KREA-1. The commenter is correct in stating that the phrase "degrading visual character" is subjective. This is not a direct comment on the content or adequacy of the Draft EIR, and does not raise any specific environmental issue. However, as discussed under Impact 4.1-2, the Draft EIR acknowledges that an assessment of whether visual character of a particular site is appealing or not is largely subjective, and the change in visual character from open space to development would not be considered an adverse significant impact. KREA-3 Mitigation measures MM 4.1-3(a), MM 4.1-3(b), and MM 4.1-3(c) would reduce potential impacts associated with onsite lighting since the lowest levels of illumination will be required, exterior nighttime lighting would be angled downwards and away from adjacent open space areas, and lighting on site would not remain on at all times during the night. In addition, the project site is approximately 16.5 feet lower (at finish grade) in elevation than surrounding uses to the east and south, and much of the lighting from the senior center would not be directly visible to these adjacent uses. In relation to the commenter's 1 concern about the existing ball field lights, the intensity of lighting for a ball field is much different (and far greater) than that for a one-story building. KREA-4 As discussed under Impact 4.3-1, the potential exists for the proposed project, including increased lighting from the project site, to have a substantial adverse impact on wildlife and migratory species. However,implementation of mitigation measures MM 4.3-1(a) and 4.3-1(b) provide avoidance measures to ensure that substantial loss of avian species will not occur. In addition, as discussed under Impact 4.3-3, the project site is not considered a wildlife movement corridor as discussed in Section 4.3.5 of the Draft EIR. KREA-5 Please refer to KREA-3. The commenter is concerned about spillover nighttime lighting. In addition to the mitigation measures provided to reduce potential impacts associated with onsite lighting, landscaping along the perimeter of the entire project site (including the parking lot) will help minimize spillover lighting. KREA-6 The commenter is incorrect in stating that noise from the senior center operations would be coming from a hilltop, as the proposed project is not on a hilltop. As discussed under Impact 4.9-1, noise associated with the operations of the proposed senior center, including special events (i.e., wedding receptions), would be required to adhere to the City's Noise Ordinance Exterior Noise Standards. KREA-7 Comment noted. The commenter suggests using the Sports Complex parking lot. This is not a direct comment on the content or adequacy of the Draft EIR, and does not raise any specific environmental issue. KREA-8 Comment noted. This is not a direct comment on the content or adequacy of the Draft EIR, and does not raise any specific environmental issue. Presently, the proposed senior Huntington Beach Senior Center EIR 11-47 center is not proposed to be Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certified due to limited funding. However, design elements similar to LEED standards would be integrated into the project (e.g., installation of low-flush water devices,waterless urinals, drought-tolerant landscaping, bioswales, and roofing materials), and the proposed project would be required to conform to the energy conservation standards specified in the California Code of Regulations Title 24. As final project plans have not been prepared, all comments will be forwarded to decision-makers prior to their consideration of whether or not to approve the proposed project. Margern@aol.com (MARO), September 24, 2007 NIARG-1 Please refer to Topical Res onse-3. p p Merle Moshiri (MOSb), October 4, 2007 MOSH-1 Please refer to Topical Response-1. In addition, as provided in Chapter 3.0 (Project Description) of the Draft EIR, one of the project objectives calls for a centrally located senior center. The proposed project site meets this objective. MOSH-2 Comment noted. The commenter does not agree with the statistics provided in the feasibility study prepared for the proposed project. This is not a direct comment on the content or adequacy of the Draft EIR, and does not raise any specific environmental issue. MOSH-3 Comment noted. The commenter states that LPA did a poor job of investigating other sites provided in the feasibility study. This is not a direct comment on the content or adequacy of the Draft EIR, and does not raise any specific environmental issue. MOSH-4 This is not a direct comment on the content or Y uac adeq of the Draft EIR, and does not raise any specific environmental issue. However, the commenter is correct in stating that the ballot measure for constructing the senior center was passed by a small majority, and that the City does not have to build at the proposed location. In order to construct the project at the proposed site, the City of Huntington Beach Planning Commission would first need to certify the EIR prepared for the project, and then pending certification, they would deliberate on the merits of whether to approve the proposed project. The project has not yet been approved. Presently, the Planning Commission is anticipated to meet on December 11, 2007 to decide upon these issues. All comments will be forwarded to decision-makers prior to their consideration of whether to approve the proposed project. MOSH-5 Please refer to Topical Response-2. MOSH-6 Comment noted. The commenter is in opposition to the proposed project. This is not a direct comment on the content or adequacy of the Draft EIR, and does not raise any 11-48 City of Huntington Beach specific environmental issue. All comments will be forwarded to decision-makers prior to their consideration of whether to approve the proposed project. Aileen Murphy (MURP), September 26, 2007 MURP-1 Comment noted. The commenter states that any of the alternatives would be preferable to the proposed project. This is not a direct comment on the content or adequacy of the Draft EIR, and does not raise any specific environmental issue. All comments will be forwarded to decision-makers prior to their consideration of whether or not to approve the proposed project. MURP-2 As stated on page 4.8-9 of the DEIR, under Impact 4.8-1 of Section 4.8 (Land Use and Planning), the permitted height limit for the project site is 45 feet, with an additional 10 feet allowed for architectural projections. As the overall height of the senior center building is proposed at approximately 30 feet with architectural projections reaching up to 46 feet, the project would be consistent with the City's building requirements. No variance is required. MURP-3 As discussed under Impact 4.1-1, the proposed project would not substantially affect existing scenic vistas. Development of the proposed project would block existing partial views of Goldenwest Street and the surface parking associated with the Sports Complex. Views from Goldenwest Street towards the project site to the west would also be altered, and long-range views of the passive recreation area would be obscured by the proposed senior center. However, the incorporation of new landscaping associated with the proposed project would provide a visual transition from the developed site out towards the adjacent passive park areas. Therefore, although the project would introduce a structure within an undeveloped area, development would not result in an adverse effect on a scenic vista. MURP-4 The text of Impact 4.2-2 has been clarified, as shown in Chapter 10 (Text Changes) of this Final EIR. As shown in Table 4.2-4 (Estimated Peak Daily Construction Emissions in Pounds per Day) in the Draft EIR, the project would not exceed SCAQMD Thresholds, including VOC emissions. All identified city code requirements (CRs) and mitigation measures, including MM 4.2-2(a) through (e), are still required to ensure that emission levels remain below SCAQMD Thresholds and construction emission impacts would be less than significant. MURP-5 Based on the analysis of daily operational emissions that's been prepared utilizing the 1 computer model recommended by the SCAQMD (URBEMIS 2007), the proposed project would not be anticipated to generate daily emissions that exceed the thresholds of significance recommended by the SCAQMD. The URBEMIS 2007 model reflects the most current on- and off-road emission factors, trip generation rates, and methodologies available. This is currently the preferred method by SCAQMD to calculate project- specific construction and operational emissions impacts. Consequently, because the Huntington Beach Senior Center EIR 11-49 analysis is in line with SCAG's recommendations, the calculations are relied upon to determine the operational emissions of the project. It would be speculative to assume that the project's emissions would exceed those presented in Table 4.2-5 and Table 4.2-6 because there would be no substantiating evidence to suggest such an increase. Therefore, for purposes of the EIR, the project would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds. MURP-6 Mitigation measure MM 4.3-1(a) ensures that nesting habitat for protected or sensitive avian species would be protected. This mitigation measure requires construction activities to occur during non-breeding season whenever feasible. If construction does occur during breeding season, nesting surveys within 500 feet of the construction area will be conducted prior to construction or vegetation removal in accordance with CDFG protocol. As no trees are on site, it is unlikely that there would be nesting on site. However, if active nests of a sensitive species are found onsite, a 250-foot no-work buffer would be maintained between the nest and construction activity until approval of other mitigation is provided by CDFG and/or USFWS. Project construction would be stopped if active nests of sensitive avian species are found on site. MURP-7 The mitigation measure that the commenter is referring to is MM 4.3-1(b). This mitigation measure identifies measures to prevent inadvertent impacts during construction activities, including, but not limited to, the discovery of unoccupied burrows. If unoccupied burrows are found during the non-breeding season, the City may collapse the burrows, or otherwise obstruct their entrances to prevent owls from entering and nesting in the burrows. MURP-8 Mitigation measure MM 4.3-2 ensures that impacts to raptor foraging habitat would be mitigated at a 1:1 ratio through dedication as open space, conservation and/or enhancing areas of suitable habitat. Enhancement would include the planting of native trees within and adjacent to conserved areas of raptor foraging habitat. As a result, impacts to raptor foraging habitat would be less than significant. MURP-9 The turn into the parking lot of the Shipley Nature Center that the commenter refers to is not located at the intersection of Goldenwest Street and Slater Avenue. Mitigation measure MM 4.12-2 requires that an additional northbound through lane at Goldenwest and Slater be provided. This is feasible by removing approximately 300 feet of existing on-street parking from Ford Drive to Betty Drive to allow three northbound through lanes, and restriping the existing northbound right turn lane. In addition, as required by MM 4.12-4, signal modifications would be provided at the intersection of Goldenwest Street and Talbert Avenue, which would be the project access driveway. This new signal would be located south of the Shipley parking lot. MM 4.12-4 would address intersection traffic control timing and the potential sight distance issue related to the uphill grade for southbound traffic on Goldenwest Street. MURP-10 It is not clear from this comment why mitigation measure MM 4.12-4 is not sufficient, as stated by the commenter. The commenter is concerned about traffic congestion; 11-50 City of Huntington Beach . . NINEPIN, NT. , however, MM 4.12-4 that the commenter is referring to specifically addresses safety concerns related to exiting the project site. Since the City Transportation Manager will be responsible for determining transportation design, including signal modifications and intersection improvements, roadway hazards would be less than significant. MURP-11 As discussed in Impact 4.11-2, development of the proposed project would not preclude nearby schools from utilizing the existing trails through Central Park for cross country training. MURP-12 As discussed in Impact 4.12-1 of the Draft EIR, construction activities are not anticipated 1 to result in potential adverse impacts as only minor cut and fill would occur, and thus, minimal truck trips would be associated with soil import/export activities. The proposed project would not cause a substantial increase in traffic in relation to existing traffic during construction because of minimal anticipated truck trips, and construction traffic generally occurring during off-peak traffic periods, consistent with a typical construction work day of 7 A.M. to 3 P.M. Further, as discussed in Impact 4.12-2, operations of the proposed project would not cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to existing traffic load and capacity of the street system. The proposed senior center would contribute to existing deficient traffic operations, which would typically be mitigated by payment of fair-share contributions. However, because the improvements are expected to have minimal cost, mitigation measure MM 4.12-2 would further ensure that operational traffic impacts to the existing traffic load and street system capacity would be less than significant. MURP-13 Mitigation measures MM 4.4-1(a), MM 4.4-1(b), MM 4.4-1(c), and MM 4.4-3 ensure protection of archaeological and paleontological resources in the event that they're discovered during construction activities. In particular, MM 4.4-1(c) requires a qualified Native American monitor to be present during all project-related ground-disturbing construction activities. MURP-14 As shown on Figure 4.5-3 and discussed in Impact 4.5-1 of the Draft EIR, the project site is not located within a liquefaction hazard zone. In addition, mitigation measure MM 4.5-1 ensures that design recommendations identified within the Geotechnical Evaluation prepared for the project (Appendix 6 of the Draft EIR), which included an analysis of liquefaction potential at the project site, would be implemented. Groundwater observations provided in the Geotechnical Evaluation determined that groundwater levels were recently encountered at a depth of 18 or more feet below the ground surface at the project site, and since excavation is anticipated to occur up to 10 feet in depth, development would not be located on potentially unstable soils that would result in on site settlement. Huntington Beach Senior Center EIR 11-51 11 Mindy White (WHIT), October 31 2007 WHIT-1 Comment noted. The commenter states that the existing land use is noted to be unvegetated, bare landscape due to the City's landscape department. This is not a direct comment on the content or adequacy of the Draft EIR, and does not raise any specific environmental issue. WHIT-2 Please refer to HBEB-3. All comments will be forwarded to decision-makers prior to their consideration of whether or not to approve the proposed project. WHIT-3 Mitigation measures MM 4.1-3(a), MM 4.1-3(b), and MM 4.1-3(c) would reduce potential impacts associated with on-site lighting since the lowest levels of illumination will be required, exterior nighttime lighting would be angled downwards and away from adjacent open space areas, and lighting on site would not remain on at all times during the night. In addition, a sufficient number of trees in the park's picnic area and along Crestview Drive (where the nearest residences are located) provide landscaping that would serve also serve as a buffer for potential lighting impacts. WHIT-4 Please refer to KREA-4. WHIT-5 Comment noted. The commenter restates the conclusion of the project's significant cumulative contribution to the visual degradation of the area in terms of reducing the amount of undeveloped open space within Central Park. WHIT-6 Please refer to MURP-5. WHIT-7 The purpose of an EIR is to disclose all potential environmental impacts of a proposed project, and provide mitigation measures to reduce as many potentially significant impacts as possible. Therefore, Section 4.3 (Biological Resources) identifies potential adverse impacts to biological resources and provides mitigation measures to avoid such impacts. Implementation of mitigation measures MM 4.3-1(a) and 4.3-1(b) provide avoidance measures to ensure that substantial adverse impacts to special-status species potentially occurring within the project site (burrowing owl) and migratory avian species and associated habitat will not occur, and mitigation measure MM 4.3-2 ensures the conservation of raptor foraging habitat. WHIT-8 As discussed in Impact 4.3-2 in the Draft EIR, the conversion from a low-intensity use to an active use area is not considered substantial since existing undeveloped conditions of the project site would not remain through the majority of the designated area. Mitigation measure MM 4.3-2 initially set forth in the Central Park Master Plan EIR would ensure that impacts to raptor foraging habitat would be mitigated at a ratio of 1:1 within suitable areas, including the planting of native trees within and adjacent to conserved areas of raptor foraging habitat. Although Sully Miller Lake is one of many areas that could be used for implementation of mitigation measure MM 4.3-2, the City has yet to identify the particular site or area to be enhanced to comply with this mitigation measure. Instead, the 11-52 City of Huntington Beach i i • •i • i mitigation measure requires that a suitable/comparable location be used for enhancement within and adjacent to conserved areas of raptor foraging habitat. WHIT-9 Please refer to WHIT-7. In addition, as discussed under Impact 4.3-3, the project site is not considered a wildlife movement corridor as discussed in Section 4.3.5 of the Draft EIR. WHIT-10 Comment noted. The commenter reiterates the conclusion of the project's significant cumulative contribution to the loss of undeveloped land and the potential removal of sensitive wildlife and habitat. WHIT-11 Data used to evaluate potential geologic and seismic impacts of the proposed project included a preliminary geotechnical evaluation as well as a geotechnical feasibility study prepared for the proposed project. As discussed in Impact 4.5-4 and Impact 4.5-5, groundwater levels are not anticipated to impact grading and proposed improvements, and mitigation measure MM 4.5-5 ensures that development on expansive soil would not occur in a manner that would adversely affect development. All construction activities would be required to adhere to the recommendations presented in the geotechnical report and applicable building and safety codes and regulations. WHIT-12 As discussed in Section 4.8.1 g) an Impact Environmental Setting) d act 4.8-1, the project site ( p 1 has a zoning designation of OS-PR (Open Space-Parks & Recreation), which requires park and recreation facilities to be subject to Conditional Use Permits (CUPs) as approved by the Planning Commission. The commenter is correct in reiterating that implementation of the proposed project would result in a change to the Central Park Master Plan, from low to high intensity uses on site. All projects under jurisdiction of the City adhere to applicable regulatory processes,including the proposed project. WHIT-13 Please refer to BRIN-12 and BRIN-13. WHIT-14 Traffic at the intersection of Goldenwest and Slater is already controlled by a traffic signal. The intersection has been quantitatively analyzed and the conclusion is that there is no safety hazard. A substantial discussion of the characteristics of senior drivers and senior pedestrians has been included in Section 4 of the Traffic Study (Appendix 10 of the Draft EIR). The operations and safety have been evaluated and no significant impact 1 has been found. WHIT-15 Please refer to HBEB-3. All comments will be forwarded to decision-makers prior to their consideration of whether or not to approve the proposed project. Huntington Beach Senior Center EIR 11-53 11 .3.5 Verbal Comments (Huntington Beach Senior Center ®raft EIR Public Meeting (VERB), October 11 , 2007 VERB-1 Please refer to Topical Response-2. p P VERB-2 While there is currently nothing specifically proposed for the project to prevent park visitors from using the senior center parking lot, the parking lot is proposed on the east side of the project site and will not provide the most convenient access to the adjacent park. There are existing parking lots provided north, south, east, and west of the project site to serve users Central Park, including the passive recreation area west of the project site. VERB-3 Chapter 6 (Alternatives to the Proposed Project) analyzes three potential alternatives to the proposed project and their potential impacts. These three alternatives consist of (1) the No Project/Continuation of Uses Allowed by Existing General Plan and Master Plan (Alternative 1), (2) the Reduced Project (Alternative 2), and (3) Alternative Site (Alternative 3) alternatives. Alternative 1 assumes the development level articulated in the City's Master plan of Recreation Uses for Central Park, and evaluates what could reasonably be expected to occur in the foreseeable future, based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community services. Alternative 1 is identified as the environmentally superior alternative due to its reduced intensity and fewer potential environmental impacts as compared to the proposed project. However, it is also important to note that although that this alternative would reduce many of the impacts of the proposed project,it would not necessarily reduce the significance of the impacts. Alternative 2 assumes a reduced intensity and revised configuration of the project elements on the same project site. Under this alternative, the project would be reduced by about one third, and would primarily result in impacts similar to the proposed project, but would also result in some impacts that would be less than the proposed project. Alternative 3 assumes the same development configuration and allocation as the proposed project, only at an alternative site—the northwest corner of Ellis Avenue and Goldenwest Street. This alternative would result in potentially greater impacts to noise and recreation that could be significant and unavoidable. VERB-4 Comment noted. The commenter is in favor of the proposed project and said an excellent job was done on the Draft EIR. This comment does not raise any specific environmental issue. VERB-5 Comment noted. The commenter is in favor of the proposed project and said an excellent job was done on the Draft EIR. This comment does not raise any specific environmental issue. 11-54 City of Huntington Beach •O � i i i i VERB-6 The proposed senior center is not proposed to be Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certified due to limited funding at this time. However, design elements similar to LEED standards will be integrated into the project (e.g., installation of low-flush water devices, waterless urinals, drought-tolerant landscaping, bioswales, and roofing materials), and the proposed project would be required to conform to the energy conservation standards specified in the California Code of Regulations Title 24. VERB-7 Please refer to VERB-2. VERB-8 The commenter suggested that the project may not require as many parking spaces as are proposed. As discussed under Impact 4.12-5 of Section 4.12 (Transportation/Traffic) of the Draft FIR, the City parking requirement for this use classification is determined on a case-by-case basis and is specified by the Conditional Use Permit. LPA, the consultant for the Senior Center Feasibility Study, has extensive experience designing and constructing senior centers. Based upon consultation between the City and LPA, it was determined that the appropriate criteria for the proposed project would be five parking spaces per 1,000 square feet, or 225 parking spaces. As proposed, the project would provide 227 parking spaces, as well as an additional 30 parking spaces for shuttle bus and future parking. Thus, per CEQA, the project is in conformance with the identified parking standard as it would not result in inadequate parking capacity. However, this recommendation and all other comments will be forwarded to decision-makers prior to their consideration of whether or not to approve the proposed project. VERB-9 As shown in Figure 3-7 (Conceptual Grading and Utility Plan) and Figure 3-8 (Preliminary Landscape Plan), on- and off-site storm drains, bioswales, catch basins, and proper landscaping will provide drainage features for the project site. As discussed in Impact 4.7-2, operations of the proposed project would result in a significant change in land use and the potential for increased site runoff, including both peak runoff rates and total storm flow volumes. However, the proposed project would include flow dissipation piping to reduce runoff rates and erosive forces as stormwater leaves the project site. Although there will be an increase in impervious surfaces, mitigation measure 4.7-2 requires the preparation of a Hydrology and Hydraulic Report, as well as a Drainage Plan, to ensure adequate site drainage and minimize erosive forces, thereby reducing potential impacts to increased on-site and off-site runoff. VERB-10 Restrooms will be provided as part of the proposed project, and will comply with Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards. However, the proposed project is not responsible for providing additional restrooms throughout the park. VERB-11 Please refer to Topical Response-3. VERB-12 Please refer to Topical Response-1. Huntington Beach Senior Center EIR 11-55 VERB-13 Please refer to VERB-3. Project alternatives are thoroughly analyzed in Chapter 6 of the Draft EIR, including the Reduced Project Alternative (Alternative 2). VERB-14 Please refer to BRIN-6. After-hour uses and functions will primarily be used to provide classes and activities for seniors, along with other public uses such as public meetings or special events. VERB-15 Please refer to BRIN-12. VERB-16 Please refer to BRIN-1 and BRIN-2. Mitigation measures MM 4.1-3(a) through (e) were provided in Section 4.1 (Aesthetics) to ensure that the lowest levels of illumination would be required, lighting on site would not remain at all times during the nighttime hours, and trees and barrier-type vegetation would be placed onsite to shield vehicle headlights from adjacent uses. These mitigation measures would reduce nighttime light and glare impacts to less-than-significant levels. Please refer to GRIN-10 and BRIN-12 for a discussion of potential noise impacts and applicable mitigation measures. VERB-17 Please refer to Topical Response-1. VERB-18 The elevation of the parking lot would be the same as that of the senior center building. No stairs or ramps will be required to get from the parking lot to the building. VERB-19 All features of the proposed project will comply with ADA standards—including, but not limited to, hallways, doorways, and restrooms. VERB-20 Comment noted. The commenter is in favor of the proposed project, and supports the extended-hour use of the senior center. This is not a direct comment on the content or adequacy of the Draft EIR, and does not raise any specific environmental issue. VERB-21 Please refer to VERB-20. VERB-22 Comment noted. The commenter shared reasons as to why the Kettler School site is not a viable alternative site for the senior center. This is not a direct comment on the content or adequacy of the Draft EIR, and does not raise any specific environmental issue. VERB-23 Please refer to BRIN-12. VERB-24 The Draft EIR for the proposed project is based on preliminary/conceptual plans, so final project components have not yet been decided. Project approval is contingent upon discretionary approval from the City and other regulatory agencies. While certification of the EIR is required for project approval, certification does not guarantee project approval. 11-56 City of Huntington Beach VERB-25 Comment noted. This is not a direct comment on the content or adequacy of the Draft EIR, and does not raise any specific environmental issue. Although this comment is not related to the environmental analysis in the EIR, the City currently operates a senior center as well as multiple recreation facilities throughout the City. Community Services staff has a thorough understanding of the operational aspects, including maintenance requirements, for each' of these facilities. In addition, the Community Services Department does have several facilities that operate after regular business hours and has not indicated that night operations create significant operational or financial impacts. VERB-26 Comment noted. The commenter correctly states that the project can be appealed to the City Council after the Planning Commission's public hearing. This is not a direct comment on the content or adequacy of the Draft EIR, and does not raise any specific environmental issue. VERB-27 Please refer to Topical Response-1. VERB-28 Comment noted. The commenter correctly states that any aspect of the proposed project can be modified by the City Council. This is not a direct comment on the content or adequacy of the Draft EIR, and does not raise any specific environmental issue. 11 .3.6 Public Comment Forms (Huntington Beach Senior Center Draft EIR Public Meeting, October 11 , 2007) Tony Brine (BRAN), October 11 , 2007 BRIN-1 Please refer to VERB-13 through VERB-16. Bob Dettloff (DETT), October 11 , 2007 DETT-1 Please refer to VERB-4. John McGregor (MCGR), October 11, 2007 MCGR-1 Please refer to Topical Res onse-1. P p IN Carol Settimo (SETT), October 11, 2007 SETT-1 Comment noted. The commenter is in favor of the proposed project. This is not a direct comment on the content or adequacy of the Draft EIR, and does not raise any specific environmental issue. Huntington Beach Senior Center EIR 11-57 Mary Siegel SIEG October 11 2007 SIEG-1 Comment noted. The commenter is in favor of the after-hour programs. This is not a direct comment on the content or adequacy of the Draft EIR, and does not raise any specific environmental issue. Elmer Smith (SMIT), October 11, 2007 SMIT-1 Please refer to VERB-10. SMIT-2 Please refer to Topical Response-3. SMIT-3 Please refer to Topical Response-1. SMIT-4 The project site is located in a low-lying area that is generally flat. The elevation of the parking lot would be the same as that of the senior center building. However, as Goldenwest Street is elevated above the site, an ADA-accessible ramp will be provided from the site to the intersection of Goldenwest Street and Talbert Avenue along the project access driveway, as well as from the OCTA bus stop located near the intersection. SMIT-5 As discussed under Impact 4.12-5 of Section 4.12 (Transportation/Traffic) of the Draft EIR, the City parking requirement for this use classification is determined on a case-by- case basis and is specified by the Conditional Use Permit. LPA, the consultant for the Senior Center Feasibility Study, has extensive experience designing and constructing senior centers. Based upon consultation between the City and LPA, it was determined that the appropriate criteria for the proposed project would be five parking spaces per 1,000 square feet, or 225 parking spaces. As proposed, the project would provide 227 parking spaces, as well as an additional 30 parking spaces for shuttle bus and future parking. Thus, per CEQA, the project is in conformance with the identified parking standard as it would not result in inadequate parking capacity. 11-58 City of Huntington Beach