Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Central Park Senior Center - File 1 of 2 – Public Hearing –
City ®f Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street ® Huntington Beach, CA 92648 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK B JOAN L. FLYNN CITY CLERK NOTICE OF ACTION February 7, 2008 Community Services Department City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach CA 92648 Subject: APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 07-002/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 07-039 (HUNTINGTON BEACH SENIOR CENTER) APPLICANT: City of Huntington Beach, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92648 LOCATION: 18041 Goldenwest Street (5-acre site generally located southwest of the intersection of Goldenwest Street and Talbert Avenue) DATE OF ACTION: February 4, 2008 On Monday, February 4, 2008 the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach took action on your application and approved the staff recommendation as amended for Environmental Impact Report No. 07-002 and Conditional Use Permit No. 07-39 with Findings and Conditions of Approval (attached). If you have any questions, please contact Jennifer Villasenor, Associate Planner at (714) 374-1661. incerely, ct-m) e5�/- J49WJ Joan L. Flynn, CMC City Clerk Attachment-. Findings and Conditions of Approval: CUP No. 07-039 c: Scott Hess, Director of Planning Jennifer Villasenor, Associate Planner Mayor Debbie Cook Sister Cities: Anjo, japan ® Waitakere, New Zealand (Telephone:714-536-5227) 0HIntCITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH B er Office Communication Planning Department TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Me , VIA: Paul Emery, Interim City Administrator FROM: Scott Hess, AICP, Director of Planni DATE: January 30, 2008 SUBJECT: HUNTINGTON BEACH SENIOR CENTER— LEED COST ESTIMATES Prior to the December 11th Planning Commission meeting, staff commissioned a LEED Accredited Professional to prepare cost estimates for two levels of LEED certification for the senior center based on the conceptual project plans. When the Planning Commission took action on the project, they included a condition that the proposed senior center achieve LEED certification. Attached, for your information, is an introductory letter and two scorecards, prepared by LPA, that provide construction and design cost estimates for LEED certification for the proposed senior center project. Should you have any questions regarding the attached documents, please contact Jennifer Villasenor, Associate Planner, at extension 1661. S H Jv c: Jim Engle, Director of Community Services Mary Beth Broeren, Planning Manager David Dominguez, Community Services Manager GAAdmLtr\2008\0130jv 1.doc --U4 LP4 s "°� 'E December,ll,'2007 Q O` Jennifer Villasenor CITY OF_HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 Main Street -Huntingtw'Beach, CA 92648" NN_. 'Re: Huntington Beach Senior Center LPA Project No. aLw3 Dear. Ms. Villasenor: There are a,number,of ways that sustainability can be measured:.One of the most common ways to measure a buildings'susfainable quotient is through a rating sys#em developed by the United,:States Green Building Council (USGBC). This rating system is called LE ED.(Leadership in Energy.and Environmental Design): This rating system qualifies projects into 4 categories for their I eve 1.of sustain ability from Certified to Silver,to Gold, and finally Platinum. Cities across the;'country,are taking efforts to apply.``sustainable design practices to their future development of projects. LPA has applied,tiie U56BC's'LEED rating system to the site plan and elevations of the Huntington':Beach:Senior"Center located on Goldenwest Street and Talbert•Avenue with the goal.of studying what itwould take to have the building achieve a LEED Certified Rating and what it would take to have the building'achieve'a LEED Gold Rating. L'PA is a leader in Sustainable Design. 'We have completed,six LEED rated'buildings and currently have another'twenty-one LEED projects in construction,documents and under construction. We look"forward to workingwith you on the Senior Center. Sincerely, LPA, Inc Orange County 0 fice i Jim WNirick, A A LEED AP Jer'my Hrt, Architect .LEED AP -j E t a m 0 c n m �3. c VA n PA MEMORANDUM z a N Q A Date: December 10, 2007 0 .�C V To: Jennifer Villasenor, CoHB ^ Jim Wirick, LPA, Inc. ham= p�oa From: Jeremy Hart ;N a vv`O3 am a3 Project Name: Huntington Beach Senior Center a W 3 Project No.: Regarding: Executive Summary of LEED Scorecards LEED CertifiedScore Card 2Bpoints ol26required—6p6te1711.7/points trac.(red In all cases, the credits selected are the credits that are easiest to achieve and fit most appropriately with the project site and the building type and design. Total cost for the 28 points is estimated to be approximately $330,100 for design and construction/implementation of these points. At a project cost of approximately $15,000,000 this represents approximately 2.2% of the budget. Each point selected for a LEED Certified has been detailed in the attached appendix. LEED Go/dScore Card.•42po/nts ol39reyu/red—7potentia/points tracked In addition to the 28 points selected to achieve a LEED Certified project, an additional 14 points have been selected. The points selected to pursue a LEED Gold rating were chosen in part for the appropriateness for the project and site. Points selected here also complement each other. For example using on site renewable energy increased the buildings energy efficiency. Total cost for these additional 14 points is estimated to be approximately $404,500 for design and construction/implementation of these points. At a project cost of approximately $15,000,000 this represents approximately 2,69% of the budget. Total cost to. implement all 42 points is approximately $734,600 or approximately 4.9% of the project cost. The 14 additional points are also detailed in the attached appendix. HA APPENDIX LEED CertifiedScore Card 2Bpo/tnts nf26required—6poteutia/points trac�fed Sustainable Sites • PREREQ1 — This pre-requisite is covered by the storm water management plan required by the State of California • Credit 4.1 — Requires the project be located within ''/a mile of one or more stops for two or more public bus lines usable by building occupants. No cost to project. • Credit 4.2 — Requires providing bike racks for 5% of building users and showers and changing facilities for 0.5% of Full-Time Equivalent occupants. Assumes 300 building occupants and will require 15 bike racks and two shower and changing rooms. Added cost to project is estimated to be$6,600. • Credit 4.3 — Provide preferred parking for low-emitting and fuel-efficient vehicles for 5% of the total vehicle parking capacity of the site. Added cost to the project is estimated to be$500 for signs. • Credit 4A — Size parking capacity to not exceed minimum local zoning requirements, and provide preferred parking for carpools or vanpools for 5% of the total provided parking spaces. Added cost to the project is estimated to be $500 for signs. • Credit 6.1 — Implement a stormwater management plan to keep post-development stormwater discharge equal to or less than the predevelopment stormwater discharge rate. A retention basin may be required. It could easily be incorporated into the lawn area on the site plan. Added cost to the project is estimated to be $39,500 for development of a retention basin. • Credit 6.2 — Must treat 90% of peak stormwater runoff. This can be achieved through bio-swales. Some bio-swales appear to be shown on the drawings in the parking lot areas. Additional bio-swales may need to be added to help treat stormwater runoff. Added cost to the project is estimated to be$17,500. • Credit 7.1 — Credit is achievable through use of light colored concrete or shade trees to shade asphalt paving. Estimated added cost to the project is $17,500 for larger shade trees to be used in the parking lot. • Credit 7.2 — Must use roofing materials that are light in color. Estimate added cost to the project to be $15,000 to change flat roof areas to a 'cool' or white roof and to specify a high solar reflectance color for the standing seam metal roof. Water Efficiency • Credit 31 — Credit's intent is to maximize water efficiency to reduce burden on municipal water supply and wastewater systems. This credit is achievable through the use of low flow fixtures. Added cost to the project is estimated to be $1,000. • Credit 3.2 — Credit's intent is to further maximize water efficiency to reduce burden on municipal water supply and wastewater systems. This credit is achievable through the use of dual flush valves, low flow faucets, occupancy sensors, and pint flush fixtures. Added cost to the project is estimated to be $1,000. Energy and Atmosphere • PREREQ1 — Fundamental Commissioning of Building Energy Systems. This requires independent verification of the building's energy related systems to verify they are installed, calibrated and performs according to the project requirements. Added cost to the project is estimated to be $75,000.. • PREREQ2 — This credit requires that the project achieves a minimum level of energy efficiency. This pre-requisite is achieved through compliance with Title 24. LP A • PREREQ3 — Zero use of CFC based refrigerants in HVAC&R systems to reduce ozone depletion • Credit 1 — 2 points of 10 achieved through compliance with Title 24. The credit standard is based upon a compliance with and ASHRAE Standard. Title 24 requires more efficient buildings than the ASHRAE Standard. No added cost to the project. • Credit 3— Enhanced Commissioning requires additional commissioning beyond the commissioning requirements of PREREQ1. Added cost to the project is estimated to be $25,000 or a 20%-30% addition to the Fundamental Building Commissioning. Materials and Resources • PREREQ1 — Must provide dedicate areas for the collection and storage of recycled materials • Credit 2.1 — Credit requires the contractor to divert 50% of construction waste from landfills and incinerators and return construction and demolition debris back to the manufacturing process through recycling. Added cost to the project is estimated to be an additional $15,000. • Credit 5.1 — Credit requires a minimum of 10%of materials by cost be extracted, harvested, or recovered as well as manufactured within 500 miles of project site, This credit is achievable with a large amount of concrete site work from local plants and landscape materials from local nurseries. There should be no additional cost to the project. Indoor Environmental Qualm • PREREQ1 — Credit must meet the minimum requirements from ASHRAE Standard for indoor air quality in buildings. There should be no added cost to the project, This pre-requisite is achieved through compliance with Title 24. • PREREQ2 — Prohibit smoking in the building and locate any exterior designated smoking areas at least 25 feet away from building entries, outdoor air intakes, and operable windows. No added cost to the project. • Credit 3.1 — Implement a Construction Indoor Air Quality Management Plan to comply with SMACNA guidelines for Occupied Buildings under Construction, protect stored or installed absorptive materials from moisture damage, and provide filtration for permanently installed air handlers during construction. Added cost to the project is estimated to be$2,500. • Credit 3.2 — Before occupancy perform a building flush-out. After construction ends and prior to occupancy supply a total air volume of 14,000 cu.ft. of outdoor air per sq.ft, of floor area while maintaining internal temperature of at least 6OF and a relative humidity of at least 60%. Added cost to the project is estimated to be $2,500. This can also impact schedule to allow for time to perform the building flush-out. • Credit 4.1 — All adhesives and sealants used on the interior of the building shall comply with the requirements of the South Coast Air Quality Management District for VOC limits. Added cost to the project is estimated to be$1,000. • Credit 4.2 — Paints and coatings on the interior of the building shall not exceed the VOC content limits established by the Green Seal Standard for paints. Added cost to the project is estimated to be $1,000. • Credit 4.3 — All carpet installed in the building interior shall meet the product requirements for the Carpet and Rug Institute's Green Label Plus program to limit VOC content in carpet adhesives. Added cost to the project is estimated to be $1,000. Page 3 of 4 f. Clearly visible signs shall be posted on the perimeter of the site identifying the name and phone number of a field supervisor to contact for information regarding the development and any construction/grading activity. g. All Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance and Municipal Code requirements including the Noise Ordinance. All activities including truck deliveries associated with construction, grading, remodeling, or repair shall be limited to Monday—Friday from 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM and Saturdays from 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM. Such activities are prohibited Sundays and Federal holidays. 6. New structure(s)cannot be occupied, the final building permit(s)cannot be approved, and utilities cannot be released until the following has been completed: a. All improvements shall be completed in accordance with approved plans, except as provided for by conditions of approval. b. All building spoils, such as unusable lumber, wire, pipe, and other surplus or unusable material, shall be disposed of at an off-site facility equipped to handle them. c. A Certificate of Occupancy must be approved by the Planning Department and issued by the Building and Safety Department. 7. Only the uses described in the project narrative received and dated October 17, 2007 shall be permitted, except as modified pursuant to Conditional Use Permit No. 07-039. 8. The Development Services Departments(Building & Safety, Fire, Planning and Public Works) shall be responsible for ensuring compliance with all applicable code requirements and conditions of approval. The Director of Planning may approve minor amendments to plans and/or conditions of approval as appropriate based on changed circumstances, new information or other relevant factors. Any proposed plan/project revisions shall be called out on the plan sets submitted for building permits. Permits shall not be issued until the Development Services Departments have reviewed and approved the proposed changes for conformance with the intent of the Planning Commission's action. if the proposed changes are of a substantial nature, an amendment to the original entitlement reviewed by the Planning Commission may be required pursuant to the provisions of HBZSO Section 241.18. 9. The applicant and/or applicant's representative shall be responsible for ensuring the accuracy of all plans and information submitted to the City for review and approval. 10.Conditional Use Permit No. 07-039 shall not become effective until the ten calendar day appeal period from the final approval of the entitlements has elapsed. 11_ Conditional Use Permit No. 07-039 shall become null and void unless exercised (by commencement of construction)within one year of the date of final approval or such extension of time as may be granted by the Director pursuant to a written request submitted to the Planning Department a minimum 30 days prior to the expiration date. 12.The Planning Commission reserves the right to revoke Conditional Use Permit No. 07-039 pursuant to a public hearing for revocation, if any violation of the conditions of approval, Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance or Municipal Code occurs. 13.The.project shall comply with all applicable requirements of the Municipal Code, Building & Safety Department and Fire Department, as well as applicable local, State and Federal Fire Codes, 4. Ordinances, and standards, except as noted herein. fi« F M fi Page 4 of 4 14. Construction shall be limited to Monday—Friday from 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM and Saturdays from 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM. Construction shall be prohibited Sundays and Federal holidays. 1.5.All landscaping shall be maintained in a neat and clean manner, and in conformance,with the HBZSO and approved plans. Prior to removing or replacing any landscaped areas, check with the Departments of Planning and Public Works for applicable Code requirements. Substantial changes may require approval by the Planning Commission. 16.All permanent, temporary, or promotional signs shall conform to Chapter 233 of the HBZSO. Prior to installing any new signs, changing sign faces, or installing promotional signs, applicable permit(s) shall be obtained from the Planning Department. Violations of this ordinance requirement may result in permit revocation, recovery of code enforcement costs, and removal of installed signs. Q J® HUNTINGTON BEACH PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT HUNTINGTON BEACH PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION CODE REQUIREMENTS DATE: REVISED NOVEMBER 8, 2007 PROJECT NAME: HUNTINGTON BEACH SENIOR CENTER ENTITLEMENTS: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 07-039 PLNG APPLICATION NO: 2007--al DATE OF PLANS: OCTOBER 17, 2007 PROJECT LOCATION: GOLDENWEST ST. (HUNTINGTON CENTRAL PARK) PLANNER: JENNIFER VILLASENOR, ASSOCIATE PLANNER TELEPHONE/E-MAIL: 714-374-1661 /JVILLASENOR@SURFCITY-HB.ORG PLAN REVIEWER: DEBORAH DE BOW, SENIOR CIVIL ENGINEER TELEPHONE/E-MAIL: 714-536-5528/DDEBOW(a-SURFCITV-HB.ORG PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The proposed Senior Center is located on a 5-acre site within a 14-acre undeveloped area in Central Park, southwest of the intersection of Goldenwest Street and Talbert << Avenue. The proposed one-story building is 45,000 square feet and has approximately 227 parking spaces on site. The following is a list of code requirements deemed applicable to the proposed project based on plans as stated above. The items below are to meet the City of Huntington Beach's Municipal Code (HBMC), Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (ZSO), Department of Public Works Standard Plans (Civil, Water and Landscaping) and the American Public Works Association (APWA) Standards Specifications for Public Works Construction (Green Book), the Orange County Drainage Area management Plan (DAMP), and . the City Arboricultural and Landscape Standards and Specifications. The list is intended to assist the applicant by identifying requirements which shall be satisfied during the various stages of project permitting, implementation and construction. If you have any uestions regarding these requirements, please contact the Plan Reviewer or Project Planner. E THE FOLLOWING DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS SHALL BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A GRADING PERMIT: 1. The site plan received and dated August 6, 2007 and the Conceptual Grading & Utility Plan (by Fuscoe Engineering) revised date Sept. 4, 2007; shall be the conditionally approved layouts, with the exception of the following: �y ,.11. MT NO. Page 2 of 6 a. The cul-de-sac design at the westerly terminus of the main driveway to the Senior Center shall be re-designed to a "T" intersection configuration, to allow for future access to the north. J b. A new public water main shall be constructed on-site, and shall have two points of connection to the, 2-inch public water main in Goldenwest St. (ZSO 225.04E). 2. A Precise Grading Plan, prepared by a Licensed Civil Engineer, shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval. (MC 17.05/ZSO 230.84) The plans shall comply with Public Works plan preparation guidelines and include the following improvements on the plan: a. Appropriate sections of curb, gutter and sidewalk along Goldenwest St. shall be removed per Public Works standards to allow for the construction of a new access driveway. (ZSO 230.84) b. A new ADA compliant driveway approach shall be constructed on the west side of Goldenwest St. per Public Works Standard Plan No. 211. The design of this driveway shall allow for a curb-to-curb width of 507ft, allowing for one left turn (egress) lane, and one shared through/right turn (egress) lane (ZSO 230.84) C. ADA compliant access ramps shall be constructed north and south of this driveway approach per Caltrans Standard Plan A88A. (ZSO 230.84, ADA) d. A new sewer lateral shall be installed connecting to the existing main. (ZSO 230.84) e. A separate new domestic water service and meter shall be installed per Water Division Standards, and sized to meet the minimum requirements set by the California Plumbing Code (CPC). The domestic water service shall be a minimum of 2-inches in size, and shall connect to the new public water main. (MC 14.08.020) f. A separate new irrigation water service and meter shall be installed per Water Division Standards. The water service, meter(and backflow protection device)shall be a minimum of 2-inches in size, and shall connect to the new public water main. (ZSO 232) g. A separate new fire sprinkler service line shall be installed, as required by the Fire Dept_, and shall. connect to the new public water main and be constructed per Water Division Standards. , As required by the Fire Dept., on-site fire hydrants shall be installed, connected to the new public water main and constructed to Water Division Standards. (ZSO 230.84) h. A separate backflow protection device shall be installed per Water Division Standards for domestic, irrigation, and fire sprinkler services. (Resolution 5921 and Title 17) i. An ADA compliant pedestrian walkway from Goldenwest St. to the Senior Center. j. Lighting for the Senior Center parking lot and pedestrian walkway. 3. A Street Improvement Plan, prepared by a Licensed Civil Engineer, shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval. (MC 17.05/ZSO 230.84) This plan shall comply with Public Works plan preparation guidelines and include the following improvements on the plan_ a. The landscape median located in the south leg of Goldenwest shall be modified to allow for a northbound left turn lane into the Senior Center. (ZSO 230.84) 4. A signing and striping plan shall be submitted for the intersection of Goldenwest St. and Talbert Avenue/Central Library. (ZSO 230.64) AM G_\VillasenorJlSenior CenterTublic Works-development comments 11-5-07.doe c Page 3 of 6 _ 5. A signing and striping plan shall be submitted for Goldenwest St. from 1000 feet south of Slater Avenue to 1000 feet north of Slater Avenue showing the new third through lane. Any traffic signal/detector.or loop modifications shall be completed so the intersection operates as intended. (ZSO 230.64) 6. The horizontal/vertical curves at the intersection of Goldenwest at Talbert Avenue/Central Library shall be analyzed for stopping sight distance, and shall be formally presented during the design phase. Additional traffic signal equipment, signing and striping or red curb may be required as a result of this analysis. (ZSO 230.64) 7. Any monument signage, hardscape and landscaping at street intersections shall conform to the sight distance requirements per the City of Huntington Beach Zoning Code. (ZSO 230.88). 8. The developer shall submit for approval by the Fire Department and Water Division, a hydraulic water analyses to ensure that fire service connection from the point of connection at the City water main, to the backflow protection device (or fire hydrant) satisfies Water Division standard requirements; and also to verify that pipeline diameter is adequately sized to satisfy fire flow requirements. (ZSO 230) 9. A site lighting plan for pedestrian walkway and parking lot lighting shall be prepared by a licensed electrical engineer and shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval. (ZSO 230) 10. A Landscape and Irrigation Plan, prepared by a Licensed Landscape Architect shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval by the Public Works and Planning Departments. (ZSO 232) a. Plan shall include.the entry median islands in the main driveway from the Goldenwest St. signalized intersection to the Senior Center Parking lot. b. Plans shall include the modification of the landscaping and irrigation system in the median in Goldenwest St. Plans shall include relocating existing palms, removal of, and replacements of existing trees, shrubs, and ground coverings, modifications to the existing irrigation system including modifying sleeving, valves, head .relocations, and moisture sensing devices, and modifications to the existing stamped concrete. C. "Smart irrigation controllers" and/or other innovative means to reduce the quantity of runoff shall be installed. (ZSO 232.04D) d. irrigation plans shall provide main line and control wire stub outs for future connection to water future slope plantings on the project perimeter and entry driveway. e. All landscape planting, irrigation design and installations shall comply with the City Arboricultural and Landscape Standards and Specifications. City Standard landscape code requirements apply. (ZSO 232) 11. Landscaping plans should utilize native, drought-tolerant landscape materials where appropriate and feasible. (DAMP) 1.2. The Consulting Arborist (approved by the City Landscape Architect) shall review the final landscape tree planting plan and approve in writing the selection and locations proposed for new trees. Said Arborist report shall be incorporated onto the Landscape Architect's plans as construction notes and/or construction requirements. The report shall include the Arborist's name, certificate number and the Arborist's wet signature on the final plan. (Resolution-4545) Al a"fie'' `e'A C F tl T NO GAVillasenorASenior CenterTublic Works-development comments 11-8-07.doc Page 4 of 6 13. The applicant shall demonstrate that coverage has been obtained under California's General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction Activity by r J providing a copy of the Notice of Intent submitted to the State Water Resources Control Board and a copy of the subsequent notification of the issuance of a Waste Discharge Identification Number. As required by the permit, a SWPPP shall be prepared and updated as needed during the course of construction to satisfy the requirements of each phase of the development. The plan shall incorporate all necessary Best Management Practices (BMPs) and other City requirements to eliminate polluted runoff until all construction work for the project is completed. (DAMP) 14. A Project WQMP shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and acceptance and shall include the following: a. Addresses Site Design BMPs (as applicable) such as minimizing impervious areas, maximizing permeability, minimizing directly connected impervious areas, creating reduced or"zero discharge" areas, and conserving natural areas b. Incorporates the applicable Routine Source Control BMPs as defined in the Drainage Area Management Plan ( DAMP) C. Incorporates Treatment Control BMPs as defined in the DAMP d. Generally describes the long-term operation and maintenance requirements for the Treatment Control BMPs e. Identifies the entity that will be responsible for long-term operation and maintenance of the Treatment Control BMPs f. Describes the mechanism for funding the long-term operation and maintenance of the Treatment Control BMPs g. Includes an Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Plan for all structural BMPs h. After incorporating plan check comments of Public Works, three final WQMPs (signed by the owner and the Registered Civil Engineer of record) shall be submitted to Public Works for acceptance. After acceptance, two copies of the final report shall be retuned to applicant for the production of a single complete electronic copy of the accepted version of the WQMP on CD media that includes: i) The 11" by 17" Site Plan in .TIFF format(400 by 400 dpi minimum). ii) The remainder of the complete WQMP in .PDF format including the signed and stamped title sheet, owner's certification sheet, Inspection/Maintenance Responsibility sheet, appendices, attachments and all educational material. i. The applicant shall return one CD media to Public Works for the project record file. 15. Indicate the type and location of Water Quality Treatment Control BMPs on the Grading Plan consistent with the Project WQMP. The WQMP shall follow the City of Huntington Beach's Project WQMP Preparation Guidance Manual dated June 2006. The WQMP shall be submitted with the first submittal of the Grading Plan. 16. A suitable location, as approved by the City, shall be depicted on the grading plan for the necessary trash enclosure(s). The area shall be paved with an impervious surface, designed not to allow run-on from adjoining areas, designed to divert drainage from adjoining roofs and pavements diverted around the area, and screened or walled to prevent off-site transport of trash. CHMENT NO. GAVillasenorASenior CenterTublic Works-development comments 11-8-07.doc 6. Page 5 of 6 The trash enclosure area shall be covered or roofed with a solid, impervious material. Connection of trash area drains into the storm drain system is prohibited. If feasible, the trash enclosure area shall be connected into the sanitary sewer. (DAMP) 17. A detailed soils and geological/seismic analysis shall be prepared by a registered engineer. This analysis shall include on-site soil sampling and laboratory testing of materials to provide detailed recommendations for grading, overexcavation, engineered fill, dewatering, settlement, protection of adjacent structures, chemical and fill properties, liquefaction, retaining walls, streets, and utilities. (MC 17.05.150) 18. if soil remediation is required, a remediation plan shall be submitted to the Planning, Public Works and Fire Departments for review and approval in accordance with City Specifications No. 431-92 and the conditions of approval. The plan shall include methods to minimize remediation- related impacts on the surrounding properties; details on how all drainage associated with the remediation efforts shall be retained on site and no wastes or pollutants shall escape the site; and shall also identify wind barriers around remediation equipment. (MC 17.05.150/FD Spec. 431-92) THE FOLLOWING DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS SHALL BE COMPLIED WITH DURING GRADING OPERATIONS: 1. An Encroachment Permit is required for all work within the City's right-of-way. (MC 12.38.010/MC 14.36.030) 2. The developer shall coordinate the development of a truck haul route with the Department of Public Works if the import or export of material in excess of 5000 cubic yards is required. This plan shall include the approximate number of truck trips and the proposed truck haul routes. It shall specify the hours in which transport activities can occur and methods to mitigate construction-related impacts to adjacent residents. These plans must be submitted for approval to the Department of Public Works. (MC 17.05.210) 3. All haul trucks shall arrive at the site no earlier than 8:00 a.m. or leave the site no later than 5:00 p.m., and shall be limited to Monday through Friday only. (MC 17.05) 4. Wet down the areas that are to be graded or that is being graded, in the late morning and after work is completed for the day. (WE-1/MC 17.05) 5. The construction disturbance area shall be kept as small as possible. (California Stormwater BMP Handbook, Construction Erosion Control EC-1) (DAMP) 6. All haul trucks shall be covered or have water applied to the exposed surface prior to leaving the site to prevent dust from impacting the surrounding areas. (DAMP) 7. Prior to leaving the site, all haul trucks shall be washed off on-site on a gravel surface to prevent dirt and dust from leaving the site and impacting public streets. (DAMP) 8. Comply with appropriate sections of AQMD Rule 403, particularly to minimize fugitive dust and noise to surrounding areas. (AQMD Rule 403) 9. Remediation operations, if required, shall be performed in stages concentrating in single areas at a time to minimize the impact of fugitive dust and noise on the surrounding areas. (DAMP) 10. All construction materials; wastes, grading or demolition debris and stockpiles of soils, aggregates, soil amendments, etc. shall be properly covered, stored and secured to prevent transport into surface or ground waters by wind, rain, tracking, tidal erosion or dispersion- (DAMP) x4'sc -cA A R � F HM T NO. GAVillasenorMemor CenterTublic Works-development comments 11-8-07.doc Page 6 of 6 THE FOLLOWING DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS SHALL BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT: 1. A Precise Grading Permit shall be issued. (MC 17.05) THE FOLLOWING DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS SHALL BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF AN ENCROACHMENT PERMIT- 1. Traffic Control Plans, prepared by a Licensed Civil or Traffic Engineer, shall be prepared in accordance with the latest edition of the City of Huntington Beach Construction Traffic Control Plan Preparation Guidelines and submitted for review and approval by the Public Works Department. For all work within or affecting the public street right-of-way. (Construction Traffic Control Plan Preparation Guidelines) THE FOLLOWING DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS SHALL BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO FINAL INSPECTION OR OCCUPANCY: 1. Complete all improvements as shown on the approved grading, street improvement and landscape plans. (MC 17.05) 2. All landscape irrigation and planting installation shall be certified to be in conformance to the City approved landscape plans by the Landscape Architect of record in written form to the City Landscape Architect. (ZSO 232.04D) 3. Applicant shall provide City with CD media TIFF images (in City format) and CD (AutoCAD only) copy of complete City Approved landscape construction drawings as stamped "Permanent File Copy" prior to starting landscape work. Copies shall be given to the City Landscape Architect for permanent City record. 4. Prior to grading or building permit close-out and/or the issuance of a certificate of use or a certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall: a. Demonstrate that all structural BMPs described in the Project WQMP have been constructed and installed in conformance with approved plans and specifications. b. Demonstrate all drainage courses, pipes, gutters, basins, etc. are clean and properly constructed. C. Demonstrate that applicant is prepared to implement all non-structural BMPs described in the Project WQMP. d. Demonstrate that an adequate number of copies of the approved Project WQMP are available for the future occupiers. 5. All new utilities shall be undergrounded. (MC 17.64.060) 6. The Water Ordinance#14.52, the "Water Efficient Landscape Requirements" apply for projects with 2500 square feet of landscaping and larger. (MC 14.52) 7. All applicable Public Works fees shall be paid at the current rate unless otherwise stated, per the Public Works Fee Schedule adopted by the City Council Resolutions 2007-58 and 2007-59. (ZSO 240.06/ZSO 250.16) ATIACHMENT NO. G_1ViltasenorASenior CenterTublic Works-development comments 11-8-07.doe 6 H CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT PROJECT' IMPLEMENTATION RECOMMENDATIONS HUNTINGTON BEACH DATE: October 30, 2007 PROJECT LOCATION: Huntington Central Park PROJECT PLANNER: Jennifer Villasenor PLAN REVIEWER: JAN THOMAS, HUNTINGTON BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT TELEPHONE/E-MAIL: (949) 348-8186 jckthomas@cox.net PROJECT DESCRIPTION: PROPOSED 45,000 SQUARE FOOT HUNTINGTON BEACH SENIOR CENTER The following is a list of recommendations deemed applicable to the proposed project based on plans received and dated 10-17-07. The comments are based on the discipline Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED), which identifies aspects of the development that could benefit through application of crime prevention concepts. Comments are categorized under"Recommendations to enhance the quality of the project" or"Suggested conditions." Comments are intended to assist the applicant by identifying areas that would benefit the users of the property as well as the Huntington Beach Police Department through implementation of the following suggestions. If you have any questions regarding these requirements, please contact the Plan Reviewer. Statistically, seniors have the highest fear of crime compared to other age groups. Lighting, visibility to and from the building, as well as clear definition of the property helps to reduce crime and the fear of crime in its users. Suggested conditions The drive aisle on the east side of the building will be used consistently by pedestrians who park their cars then cross that drive aisle to reach the entrance to the building. Recommendation: Use enhanced pavement or striping in the drive aisle between the east parking lot and the building. This tells motorists to watch for pedestrians crossing from the parking lot to the building entrance. There is little if no visibility looking out to employee parking on south side of building(kitchen and storage/workshop windows appear to be too high to took out). Recommendation: Switch the employee parking spaces with the shuttle parking spaces. The employees should be in a more visible location than the shuttles. Recommendation: This employee parking/shuttle area should be well lighted to attempt to compensate for the lack of visibility in that area. Good lighting in all areas of the property during all hours of darkness is imperative. ATTACHMENT Oa Page 2 of 2 Recommendation: Since the center will be used by other users until 10:00 p.m. on some nights, the highest lighting levels should remain in place until midnight. After that, security level lighting shall take effect. Clear signage allows motorists on Goldenwest to find the drive aisle and turn in quickly without impeding traffic. Recommendation: Ensure that signage at entrance of the driveway off Goldenwest should be clear and large, allowing motorists to see it quickly and easily. Recommendations to enhance the g uality of the project: The senior center windows are vulnerable to burglary. Recommend security glazing on windows. It forms a strong shield that holds broken glass and forms a strong but virtually invisible shield that holds broken glass in place--delaying and deterring perpetrators whose goal is quick entry through shattered windows. For the safety of the people using the facility, all exterior doors should be locked and people enter only through main entrance. This provides more control over activity on the property. ,P".-TACHMENT NC 'zaf J` HUNTINGTON BEACH BUILDING & SAFETY DEPARTMENT HUNTINGTON BEACH PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION CODE REQUIREMENTS DATE: OCTOBER 23, 2007 PROJECT NAME: HUNTINGTON BEACH SENIOR CENTER PROJECT ENTITLEMENTS: EIR No. 07-002/CUP No. 07-039 DATE OF PLANS: OCTOBER 17, 2007 PROJECT LOCATION: HUNTIGTON CENTRAL PARK PLAN REVIEWER: ERIC HAGHANI, PLAN CHECK ENGINEER TELEPHONE/E-MAIL: (714) 374-1589/EHAGHANI@SURFCITY-HB.ORG PROJECT DESCRIPTION: NEW ONE-STORY 45,000 SF BUILDING The following is a list of code requirements deemed applicable to the proposed project based on plans as stated above. The list is intended to assist the applicant by identifying requirements which must be satisfied during the various stages of project permitting and implementation. Compliance is required prior to building permit issuance and all applicable items must meet the Huntington Beach Municipal Code (HBMC) and the California Code of Regulations (CCR or Title 24). Note.The submitted plans are conceptual and a complete review is not possible at this stage. However, the following general information is provided to help facilitate the development by giving upfront information on building code issues, City policies, and other codes or laws as they apply to the project. If you have any questions regarding these requirements, please contact the Plan Reviewer. I. SPECIAL CONDITIONS 1. None If. CODE ISSUES: 1. The codes in effect are the: 2001 California Building Code ('01 CBC), 2001 California Plumbing Code ('01 CPC), 2001 California Mechanical Code ('01 CMC), 2004 California Electrical Code ('04 CEC) and 2005 California Energy Efficiency Standards as adopted by the City. 2. Plans submitted in January 2008 and thereafter shall comply with the 2007 CBC, which is based on the 2006 IBC as amended by the State of California. 3. Plan submittal documents must include "Conditions of Approval". 4. A Certificate of Occupancy application is required for this project. MAME. 1No. 5. Plans must be prepared and stamped and wet signed by a California licensed Architect and/or Engineer. 6. A copy of the approved "Grading Plan" by Panning and Public Works Departments must be attached to the approved sets of construction plans prior to issuance of building permits. 7. The grading plan shall be reviewed and approved by the architect for all site accessibilities. A statement, by the architect, shall be put on the grading plans stating that the plans have been reviewed and approved for all site accessibilities. 8. On the Site Plan show the location of the "collecting and loading of recyclable material'. Check with Public Works, Planning, and Fire Departments for any specific requirements. 9. Plans and details shall show full compliance with all applicable accessibility provisions of the CBC Chapter 11 B. 10_ Soils report required for this site and must include: a. Liquefaction analysis and recommendations b. Show distance to fault(s) and classify fault type and soil type used by the California Building Code©for seismic design c. Report for protection of buried pipe due to corrosion. Recommendations must provide speck method to install protective materials or devices i-TACHMENT NO. Page 2 of 2 HUNTINGTON BEACH FIRE DEPT. PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION CODE REQUIREMENTS HUNTINGTON BEACH DATE: NOVEMBER 4, 2007 PROJECT NAME: SENIOR CENTER— PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW ENTITLEMENTS: PROJECT LOCATION: TALBERT AND GOLDENWEST, HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA PLANNER: JENNIFER VILLASENOR TELEPHONE/E-MAIL: (714) 374-1661 /jvillasenor@surfcity-hb.org PLAN REVIEWER-FIRE: LEE CALDWELL, FIRE DEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST TELEPHONE/E-MAIL: (714) 536-55311 Icaldwell@surfcity-hb.org PROJECT DESCRIPTION: REVIEW OF PRELIMINARY PLANS FOR A NEW SENIOR CENTER. The following is a list of requirements deemed applicable to the proposed project based on a CONCEPTUAL DRAWING received and dated October 18, 2007. The list is intended to assist the applicant by identifying requirements which must be satisfied during the various stages of project permitting and implementation. if you have any questions regarding these requirements, please contact the Plan Reviewer- Fire: LEE CALDWELL, FIRE DEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST. THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS: a. Proof of Soil Compliance or Clean Up is required. All soils shall conform to City Specification #431-92 Soil Clean-Up Standards, and testing results must be submitted, and approved by the Fire Department prior to issuance of a grading or building permit. (FD) b. Soil methane gas test required. Review of existing documentation of soil gas test at the Sports Center site may meet requirement. (FD) C. Building plans shall reference that"All soils shall conform to City Specification#431-92 Soil Clean-Up Standards. (FD) d. Fire Sprinklers are required.An automatic fire sprinkler system is required for buildings over 5000 square feet. Roughly 45,000 square feet is proposed. Separate plans (three sets)shall be submitted to the Fire Department for permits and Fire Department approval. The system shall provide water flow, tamper and trouble alarms, manual pull stations, interior and exterior horns and strobes, and 24-hour central station monitoring. For Fire Department approval, reference that a fire sprinkler system will be installed in compliance with City Specification# 420-Automatic Fire Sprinkler Systems in the building plan notes. (FD) "�a H T Oo -� Page 2 of 5 e. Commercial fire sprinkler systems shall be supplied from a dedicated fire water service installed per Water Division Standards. The dedicated fire water service connection shall be a minimum of four inches (4") in size. Depending on fire sprinkler system demands, larger water service may be required. Separate plans shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for approval and permits, and must be completed prior to issuance of a grading permit. The dedicated fire water service off-site improvements shall be shown on a precise grading plan, prepared by a Licensed Civil Engineer. Contact Huntington Beach Public Works Department (714-536-5431)for offsite water improvement requirements. (FD) f. Fire Department Connection (FDC)to the automatic fire sprinkler system shall be located to the front of the building within 150 feet of a properly rated fire hydrant. Portray FDC location on the site plan. NOTE: Current plans appear to meet this requirement. NOTE: Current plans appear to meet this requirement. (FD) g. New Fire Hydrants (2) must be portrayed on the site plan, and be installed/in service before combustible construction begins (See attached sketch for locations). Shop drawings shall be submitted to the Public Works Department and approved by the Fire Department when additional hydrants are required. Indicate Fire Department sprinkler connections. Reference compliance in the plan notes. NOTE: Current plans appear to meet this requirement. (FD) h_ Class Ill standpipe connection is required (two locations-see attachments). (2 '/" hose , connection).' Shop drawings shall be submitted and approved by the Fire Department prior to system installation. (FD) i. Dumpsters or containers with an individual capacity of 1.5 cubic yards (40.5 cubic feet) or more shall not be stored in buildings or placed within 5 feet of combustible walls, openings or combustible roof eave lines unless protected by an approved fire sprinkler system. HBFC 1103.2.2 For Fire Department approval, reference and demonstrate compliance with HBFC 1103.2.2 NOTE: Current plans appear to meet this requirement. (FD) j. Food Preparation Fire Protection System may be required for this project, dependant on the type of kitchen equipment installed. Plans (three sets) shall be submitted to the Building Department as separate plans for permits.and Fire Department approval. Reference compliance with City Specification #412 Protection Of Commercial Cooking Operations in the plan notes. (FD) k. Fire Extinguishers shall be installed and located in all areas to comply with Huntington Beach Fire Code standards found in City Specification#424. The minimum required dry chemical fire extinguisher size is 2A 10BC and shalt be installed within 75 feet travel distance to all portions of the building. Extinguishers are required to be serviced or replaced annually. For Fire Department approval, reference and demonstrate compliance with City Specification #424— Portable Fire Extinguishers on the plans. (FD) 1►� M `� . s Page 3 of 5 L Commercial Fire Alarm System in compliance with Huntington Beach Fire Code is required. For Fire Department approval, shop drawings shall be submitted to the Building Department as separate plans for permits. The system shall provide water flow, tamper and trouble alarms, manual pull stations, interior and exterior horns and strobes, voice communication, and 24-hour central station monitoring. M. Fire Access Roads shall be provided and maintained in compliance with City Specification #401, Minimum Standards for Fire Apparatus Access. A minimum of 24 foot wide fire access lanes are required for this project. For Fire Department approval, reference and demonstrate compliance with City Specification#401 Minimum Standards for Fire Apparatus Access on the plans. NOTE: Current plans appear to meet this requirement. (FD) n. Fire Access Road Turns and Corners shall be designed with a minimum inner radius of seventeen feet(1 T) and a minimum outer radius of forty five feet(45') per City Specification# .401 Minimum Standards for Fire Apparatus Access. For Fire Department approval, reference and demonstrate compliance with City Specification#401 Minimum Standards for Fire Apparatus Access on the plans. NOTE: Current plans appear to meet this requirement. (FD) o. Fire.Lanes, as determined by the Fire Department, shall be posted, marked, and maintained per City Specification#415, Fire Lanes Signage and Markings on Private, Residential, Commercial and Industrial Properties. The site plan shall clearly identify all red fire lane curbs, both in location and length of run. The location of fire lane signs shall be depicted. For Fire Department approval, reference and demonstrate compliance with City Specification# 401 Minimum Standards for Fire Apparatus Access on the plans. NOTE: Current plans appear to meet this requirement. (FD) p. Main secured building entries shall utilize a KNOA Fire Department Access Key Box, installed and in compliance with City Specification#403, Fire Access for Pedestrian or Vehicular Security Gates& Buildings. Please contact the Huntington Beach Fire Department Administrative Office at(714) 536-5411 for information. Reference compliance with City Specification#403 - KNOX® Fire Department Access in the plan notes. (FD) q. Fire sprinkler system controls access shall be provided, utilizing a KNOX®Fire Department Access Key Box, installed and in compliance with City Specification#403, Fire Access for Pedestrian or Vehicular Security Gates & Buildings. The approximate location of the system controls shall be noted on the plans. Reference compliance in the plan notes. (FD) r. Secured vehicle entries shall utilize KNOX8 activated access switches (Knox switches for automated gates, Knox padlocks for manual gates), and comply with City Specification#403, Fire Access for Pedestrian or Vehicular.Security.Gates & Buildings. Reference compliance in the plan notes. (FD) �l ACHMENT NO Page 4 of 5 S. Exit Signs And Exit Path Markings will be provided in compliance with the Huntington Beach Fire Code and Title 24 of the California Administrative Code. Reference compliance in the plan notes. (FD) t. Decorative Materials shall be in conformance with HBFC sec. 1103.3.3 and shall be flame resistant.(FD) U. Posting of Room Occupancy is required.Any room having an occupant load of 50 or more where fixed seats are not installed, and which is used for assembly purposes, shall have the capacity of the room posted in a conspicuous place near the main exit per HBFC sec. 2501.16.1. (FD) V. Egress Illumination/Emergency Exit Lighting with emergency back-up power is required. Provide means of egress illumination per HBFC 1211.1 and UBC 1003.2.9. (FD) W. Gates and barriers shall be openable without the use of a key or any special knowledge or effort. Gates and barriers in a means of egress shall not be locked, chained, bolted, barred, latched or otherwise rendered unopenable at times when the building or area served by the means of egress is occupied,.and shall swing in the direction of travel when required by the Building Code for exit doors. (FD) X. Address Numbers shall be installed to comply with City Specification#428, Premise Identification. Number sets are required on front of the structure and shall be a minimum of ; six inches (6") high with one and one half inch (1 '/") brush stroke. For Fire Department approval, reference compliance with City Specification#428, Premise Identification in the plan notes and portray the address location on the building. (FD) y. GIS Mapping Information shall be provided to the Fire Department.in compliance with GI Department CAD Submittal Guideline requirements. Minimum,submittals shall include the following: ➢ Site plot plan showing the building footprint. ➢ Specify the type of use for the building ➢ Location of electrical, gas, water, sprinkler system shut-offs. ➢ Fire Sprinkler Connections (FDC) if any. ➢ Knox Access locations for doors, gates, and vehicle access. ➢ Street name and address. Final site plot plan shall be.submitted in the following digital format and shall include the following: ➢ Submittal media shall be via CD rom to the Fire Department. ➢ Shall be in accordance with County of Orange Ordinance 3809. ➢ File format shall be in .shp, AutoCAD,AUTOCAD MAP (latest possible release) drawing file- .DWG (preferred) or Drawing Interchange Fife - .DXF. ➢ Data should be in NAD83 State Plane, Zone 6, Feet Lambert Conformal Conic Projection. TAT No. ` - s Page 5of5 ➢ Separate drawing file for each individual sheet. ➢ In compliance with Huntington Beach Standard Sheets, drawing names, pen colors, and i` layering convention. and conform to City of Huntington Beach Specification#409—Street Naming and Addressing. ➢ Reference compliance with G1S Mapping Information in the building plan notes. (FD) Z. All Fire Department requirements shall be noted on the Building Department plans. (FD) THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MAINTAINED DURING CONSTRUCTION: a. Fire/Emergency Access And Site Safety shall be maintained during project construction phases in compliance with City Specification #426, Fire Safety Requirements for Construction Sites. (FD) OTHER: a. Discovery of additional soil contamination or underground pipelines, etc., must be reported to the Fire Department immediately and the approved work plan modified accordingly in compliance with City Specification#431-92 Soil Clean-Up Standards. (FD) b. Outside City Consultants The Fire Department review of this project and subsequent plans may _ require the use of City consultants. The Huntington Beach City Council approved fee schedule allows the Fire Department to recover consultant fees from the applicant, developer or other responsible party. (FD) Fire Department City Specifications may be obtained at: Huntington Beach Fire Department Administrative Office City Hall 2000 Main Street, 5 t floor Huntington Beach, CA 92648 or through the City's website at www.surfeity-hb.org S:XPreventionll-DevelopmentlCUP's12007 CUP's\Senior Center-Preliminary Plan Review-11-4-07.doc ATTACHMENT #7 ® Cgty I >u>1atIlngton �ea�fl>�tPl�nng>�ng IDepa>rt en h S'I FF REPORT � TO: Planning Commission FROM: Scott Hess, AICP, Director of Planning BY: Jennifer Villasenor, Associate Planner DATE: December 11, 2007 SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 07-002 (HUNTINGTON BEACH SENIOR CENTER) APPLICANT: City of Huntington Beach, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92648 PROPERTY OWNER: City of Huntington Beach, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92648 (LOCATION: 18041 Goldenwest Street (Southwest of intersection of Goldenwest Street/Talbert Avenue in Central Park) STATEMENT OF ISSUE: ® Environmental Impact Report No. 07-002 (EIR No. 07-002): - Analyzes the proposed construction and operation of an approximately 45,000 square foot one-story senior recreation facility on a 5-acre undeveloped site in Central Park. - Documents potential impacts to aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, noise, public services, recreation, transportation/traffic and utilities and service systems. - Evaluates three alternatives to the proposed project. - Concludes that the No Project/Continuation of Uses Allowed By Existing General Plan and Master Plan is the environmentally superior alternative. - Concludes that all potential project impacts can be mitigated to less than significant levels. - Concludes that there will be cumulative significant and unavoidable impacts to aesthetics. Staffs Recommendation: - Certify EIR No. 07-002 because it adequately analyzes the potential environmental impacts associated with the project, identifies project alternatives and mitigation measures to lessen the project's impacts consistent with General Plan policies and has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). PC Staff Report—12-11-07 (07sr58 EIR 07-002) RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: "Certify EIR No. 07-002 as adequate and complete in accordance with CEQA requirements by approving Resolution No. 1618 (Attachment No. 1)." ALTERNATIVE ACTIONN: The Planning Commission may take alternative actions such as: A. "Deny certification of EIR No. 07-002 with findings for denial." B. "Continue certification of EIR No. 07-002 and direct staff accordingly." PROJECT PROPOSAL Environmental Impact Report No. 07-002 represents an analysis of potential environmental impacts associated with the construction and operation of a 45,000 square foot senior recreation facility on a 5-acre site within Huntington Central Park. The 5-acre project site will comprise the senior center building, parking lot and open space area. The approximately 45,000 square foot building consists of a community hall/dining room, group exercise, fitness and dance rooms, multi-use classrooms, a kitchen, a social lounge and administrative offices. The outdoor open area includes a patio with a decorative trellis, an expansive lawn, a garden, a fountain, a barbecue area, benches and a natural meadow. Ingress and egress to and from the site is proposed via a new access driveway with entry gate at the existing Goldenwest Street/ Talbert Avenue intersection. An existing traffic signal at this location will be modified for traffic to enter and exit the project site. The EIR provides a discussion of impacts by issue area and provides mitigation measures, where appropriate. Specific issue areas discussed in the EIR include: 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/traffic and utilities and service systems. An analysis of alternatives to the proposed project and long-term implications resulting from project implementation are also provided. The EIR consists of two volumes. Volume 1 is the Draft EIR and Technical Appendices that were circulated for a minimum 45-day public review period. Volume 2 is titled the Final EIR and includes the comments received during the public review period, responses to those comments and text changes to the Draft EIR (Volume 1) to clarify or correct information in response to comments or as identified as necessary by staff. These volumes are referenced as Attachment No. 2 to this staff report. An analysis of the proposed development of the site is presented in a companion report that will be considered by the Planning Commission after action on the EIR. The companion report reviews the application for Conditional Use Permit No. 07-039. PC Staff Report— 12/11/07 2 (07sr58 EIR 07-002) Background and Site History: The project site was developed with a farm house as early as the 1930s. Sometime in the 1960s, the house was demolished and the land was excavated so that dirt from the site could be used for construction of the 405 freeway. In 1974, the City acquired the land for Central Park and it has remained in its current undeveloped state. Although there are no developed structures or programmed uses of the site, area schools occasionally use the site as part of a larger cross country route through Central Park. In addition, one temporary disc golf hole is located on the project site. Community Services staff has indicated that they have already made provisions with the disc golf operator to relocate the hole. ISSUES: Subiect Property And Surroundinz Land Use,Zoninm And General Plan Des&nations: LOCATION., GENERAI PhAN, ;``ZONING r" LAND USE a .. 5� , Subject Site: OS-P (Open Space— OS-PR(Open Space—Parks Undeveloped,vacant Parks) & Recreation) North of Subject Site OS-P OS-PR Undeveloped area; Shipley (across earthen berm) Nature center East of Subject Site: OS-P OS-PR Sports Complex; Central (across Goldenwest St.) Library South of Subject Site: OS-P OS-PR Disc golf course; equestrian center West of Subject Site: OS-P OS-PR Passive parkland General Plan Conformance: The current General Plan Land Use Map designation on the subject site is OS-P (Open Space—Parks). The EIR is consistent with the Open Space — Parks designation and the goals and objectives of the City's General Plan as follows: A. Air Quality Element Policy AQ 1.8.1: Continue to enforce construction site guidelines that require truck operators to minimize particulate emission. Policy AQ 1.8.2: Require installation of temporary construction facilities (such as wheel washers) and implementation of construction practices that minimize dirt and soil transfer onto public roadways. Standard Code Requirements (CR) and Mitigation Measures MM-4.2-2 (a) through (e) address means by which air emission impacts will be minimized, primarily by complying with the SCAQMD Rule 403 regarding fugitive dust. PC Staff Report— 12/11/07 3 (07sr58 EIR 07-002) B. Circulation Element Policy CE 2.3.1: Require development projects to mitigate off-site traffic impacts and pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular conflicts to the maximum extent feasible. Policy CE 2.3.2: Limit driveway access points and require adequate driveway widths onto arterial roadways and require driveways be located to ensure the smooth and efficient flow of vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians. Policy CE 2.3.4: Require that new development mitigate its impact on City streets, including but not limited to, pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular conflicts, to maintain adequate levels of service. The EIR includes a detailed traffic analysis to document potential impacts associated with the project. Mitigation Measure 4.12-2 requires that the project mitigate impacts to levels of service at the intersection of Goldenwest Street and Slater Avenue by providing an additional northbound through lane on Goldenwest Street. Additionally, impacts to the existing capacity of the street system during construction of the project are considered less than significant. Policy CE 6.1.7: Require new development to provide accessible facilities to the elderly and disabled. MM 4.12-4 requires that design features be incorporated into the project that take into account the special needs of seniors such as slower pedestrian walk speeds and larger roadway signs. C. Environmental Hazards Element Policy EH 1.2.1: Require appropriate engineering and building practices for all new structures to withstand groundshaking and liquefaction such as stated in the Uniform Building Code (UBC). Mitigation Measures 4.5-1 requires that detailed design measures identified in the Geotechnical Evaluation for the project be implemented, including those related to: earthwork, seismic design consideration, and foundations, etc. Obiective EH 3.2: Minimize methane hazards in the identified Methane Overlay District, and other areas outside the Methane Overlay Districts as may later be defined, through the regulation of construction and adherence to the City's Methane Hazard Mitigation Plan. MM 4.6-1(c) is required to address the potential hazards of the accumulation of methane and hydrogen sulfide gas at the project site by ensuring appropriate testing and methods of gas reduction, as required by the Huntington Beach Fire Department. D. Environmental Resources/Conservation Element Policy ERC 2.1.1 D: Conduct construction activities to minimize adverse impacts on existing wildlife resources. PC Staff Report—12/11/07 4 (07sr58 EIR 07-002) MM 4.3-1(a) and (b) will mitigate for the potential loss of wildlife habitat as a result of construction of the proposed project. In addition, MM 4.3-2 requires that five acres of parkland be conserved and/or enhanced for raptor foraging to mitigate the loss of five acres due to the proposed project. E. Historic and Cultural Resources Element Objective HCR 1.1: Ensure that all the City's historically and archaeologically significant resources are identified and protected. The EIR documents all known archaeological sites in the vicinity of the project and recommends Mitigation Measures 4.4-1 (a) through (b) to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. These mitigation measures will ensure that, in the unlikely event that intact cultural materials are encountered during construction, these materials will be identified and scientifically removed and preserved, as appropriate. F. Noise Element Policy N 1.6.1: Ensure that construction activities be regulated to establish hours of operation, to prevent and/or mitigate the generation of excessive or adverse noise impacts through the implementation of the existing Noise Ordinance and/or any future revisions to the Noise Ordinance. The EIR provides acoustical analysis to define noise levels on site. The analysis includes City code requirements and mitigation measures to ensure that noise levels in the exterior activity environments meet City standards, including limiting the hours of construction in accordance with the Huntington Beach Municipal Code. G. Public Facilities and Services Element Objective PF 1.3: Ensure that new developments in Huntington Beach are designed to encourage safety. Policy PF 2.3.3: Ensure that new construction is designed with fire and emergency access and safety in mind. The EIR documents that the proposed project does not impact safety or fire and emergency access. Zoning Compliance: Not applicable. Urban Desi,-n Guidelines Conformance: Not applicable. Environmental Status: In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), EIR No. 07-002 was prepared by PBS&J, an environmental consulting firm, to analyze the potential environmental impacts associated with PC Staff Report—12/11/07 5 (07sr58 EIR 07-002) implementation of the proposed project as well as identify appropriate mitigation measures. The Draft EIR was distributed to the Planning Commission for review at the start of the 45-day public comment period on September 17, 2007. The Final EIR, including the Response to Comments and all text changes as a result of the public comment period, was distributed to the Planning Commission and posted on the City's website on November 27, 2007. The document must be adopted and certified by the Planning Commission prior to any action on Conditional Use Permit No. 07-039. The procedure that was followed during the preparation of EIR No. 07-002 is outlined below: DATE ACTIVITY March, 2007 Staff conducted an initial study and determined that an EIR would be required. April 2, 2007 A Notice of Preparation was filed with the State Clearinghouse to notify public of intent to prepare an EIR. April 5, 2007 to May 4, 2007 Initial Study/Notice of Preparation available for 30 day public review and comment period. April 19, 2007 A Public Scoping Meeting was held to solicit comments and issue areas to be studied in the EIR. September 13, 2007 Notice of Completion filed with the State Clearinghouse. September 17, 2007 to October 31, Draft EIR available for public review and comment for forty-five 2007 days. October 11, 2007 A Public Comment Meeting was held to solicit comments on the adequacy of the Draft EIR. November 13, 2007 Planning Commission Study Session on proposed project. November 27, 2007 Planning Commission Study Session on EIR. November 28, 2007 Final EIR(including Response to Comments on Draft EIR, Text Changes to Draft EIR, Technical Appendix and Comments) made available for public information and sent to Responsible Agencies. (CEQA requires Response to Comments be sent to Responsible Agencies 10 days prior to certification hearing.) December 11, 2007 Public hearing before Planning Commission to Certify EIR No. 07-002. PC Staff Report 12/11/07 6 (07sr58 EIR 07-002) Through the use of appropriate mitigation measures identified in the EIR, all of the potentially adverse impacts associated with the project can be mitigated to a level of insignificance. There is, however, one significant cumulative environmental impact anticipated that cannot be completely eliminated through mitigation measures. The EIR concludes that due to the increase in development intensity of the project site, when compared with current uses, the project contributes incrementally to the visual degradation of the area in terms of reducing the amount of undeveloped open space in Central Park. This results in significant cumulative impacts to aesthetics. Prior to certification and adoption of the EIR by resolution, the Planning Commission may amend the document. However, removal of any of the recommended mitigation measures requires findings and justification. The analysis section of this report contains further discussion regarding the EIR. Environmental Board: The City's Environmental Board reviewed the EIR and provided a comment letter during the public review period. The letter has been responded to in the Response to Comments. In summary, the Board commented on the following: project alternatives, the loss of open space, and green building design. Coastal Status: Not applicable Redevelopment Status: Not applicable. Design Review Board: Not applicable. Subdivision Committee: Not applicable. Other Departments Concerns and Requirements: The EIR was circulated to other Departments for review and comment. All Department comments and recommendations are incorporated into the EIR and its mitigation measures. No conditions of approval apply to the EIR. As development of the proposed project occurs, compliance with mitigation measures will be enforced through the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. Public Notirication: Legal notice was published in the Huntington Beach/Fountain Valley Independent on November 29, 2007, and notices were sent to property owners of record and occupants within a 1,000 ft. radius of the subject property, individuals/organizations requesting notification (Planning Department's Notification Matrix), and other interested parties. As of December 3, 2007, two letters commenting on the EIR have been received and are incorporated with this report (Attachment No. 4). PC Staff Report— 12/11/07 7 (07sr58 EIR 07-002) Application Processin Dates: DATE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: MANDATORY PROCESSING DATEN: Draft EIR: April 5, 2007 Within 1 year of complete application (April 5, 2008) Conditional Use Permit: November 5, 2007 Within 180 days from EIR Certification(October 2, 2008) Funding for the proposed project will be provided by park in-lieu fees from the Pacific City development project through an Owner-Participation Agreement (OPA) between the City of Huntington Beach and the Pacific City developer. The OPA specifies a timeline for the construction of the senior center including the timing for approval of the project. Per the OPA, approval of entitlements and project plans must occur by April 1, 2008. ANALYSIS: The analysis section provides an overview of the EIR and its conclusions, a review of the project alternatives and a summary of the response to comments. EIR Overview The EIR provides a detailed analysis of potential impacts associated with the proposed project. It is intended to serve as an informational document for decisions to be made by the City and responsible agencies regarding the project. The issues discussed in the EIR are those that have been identified in the course of extensive review of all potentially significant environmental impacts associated with the project. The EIR discusses potential adverse impacts in 13 issue areas. The direct, indirect and cumulative impacts of the project are addressed, as are the impacts of project alternatives. A summary of key issues and mitigation measures as a result of the environmental impact report process is provided below. A complete listing of the recommended mitigation measures is provided in the Mitigation Monitoring Program provided as Attachment No. 3. o Aesthetics Implementation of the project will alter views of the area and introduce new sources of light and glare. The EIR analyzes the potential impacts associated with these changes, including an analysis of impacts to and from the existing parkland west of the project site. The EIR concludes that impacts associated with light and glare could be potentially significant and recommends Mitigation Measure (MM) 4.1-3 (a — e), which reduces impacts associated with onsite lighting and restricts the use of reflective materials on fagade treatments. The EIR documents that potential impacts related to scenic resources and views will be less than significant and do not warrant mitigation. However, the project contributes to the overall loss of open space and the cumulative impact is considered significant. PC Staff Report— 12/11/07 8 (07sr58 EIR 07-002) ♦ Air Quality Air quality modeling was completed by PBS&J to assess potential impacts related to construction and operation of the project. Consistent with the South Coast Air Quality Management District's (SCAQMD) recommendations, the EIR analyzed the following emissions: Carbon Monoxide (CO), Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC), Nitrogen Oxides (NO,), Sulfur Oxides (SOX) and Fine Suspended Particulate Matter (PMlo) and (PM2.5). In addition, the EIR examined if localized CO concentrations at nearby intersections would be increased beyond state and national standards as a result of increased vehicle traffic. The EIR concludes that the project results in less than significant impacts for all emissions. The project will have to comply with standard requirements such as SCAQMD's Rule 403 related to fugitive dust during construction. The EIR discusses six standard City code requirements to improve air quality emissions and recommends five mitigation measures to further reduce air quality impacts during construction. ♦ Biological Resources PBS&J conducted a general botanical survey and a focused blooming season survey in addition to a general wildlife survey at the project site for the EIR. A total of twelve plant species and fourteen wildlife species were recorded within the project site during the survey. Other sensitive plant and wildlife species have the potential to occur on the project site. Through incorporation of MM 4.3-1`(a) & (b) impacts to the burrowing owl, a sensitive wildlife species with moderate potential to occur on the site, and protected or sensitive avian species can be mitigated to less than significant levels. These mitigation measures require focused surveys and avoidance measures prior to any ground disturbance activities. To mitigate the loss of five acres of raptor foraging habitat as a result of project implementation, MM 4.3-2 requires that five acres of suitable area be conserved and/or enhanced for raptor foraging. ♦ Cultural Resources The northern half of the project site lies within the recorded southern portion of prehistoric site CA-ORA- 142. As such, a records search, Native American consultation, pedestrian survey of the site and subsequent test trenching was performed to assess the presence of cultural resources within the project site. The records search confirmed destruction of the site and test trench excavations were negative for evidence of CA-ORA-142. Nonetheless, it is possible that intact portions of CA-ORA-142 remain outside the project site but in the vicinity. The EIR recommends MM 4.4-1 (a—c) which would reduce impacts to archaeological resources to less than significant levels by requiring monitoring of construction activities by a qualified professional archaeologist and requiring the scientific recovery and evaluation of any resources that are encountered during construction. ♦ Geology and Soils The EIR includes an analysis of existing geology, seismicity and soil conditions that would be conducive to geological constraints such as liquefaction or expansive soils. The analysis is based on the preliminary geotechnical study completed for the project, which determined that the project is feasible from a geotechnical perspective. The EIR concludes that implementation of the project will require MM 4.5-1 to minimize potential impacts to less than significant levels. MM 4.5-1 requires that detailed design PC Staff Report— 12/11/07 9 (07sr58 EIR 07-002) measures contained within the Geotechnical Evaluation prepared for the project be implemented, including those related to: earthwork, seismic design consideration, foundations etc. MM 4.5-2 requires that the near surface soils of the northern slope, or earthen berm, adjacent to the project site, be compacted and covered with an appropriate erosion protection device to reduce the likelihood of impacts from landslides. ♦ Hazards and Hazardous Materials The EIR analyzes the potential for impacts associated with hazardous materials on existing uses, construction workers and proposed uses. The proposed project, as a senior recreation facility, will not result in the increased likelihood of hazardous materials incidents. Implementation of the proposed project does not pose any constraints to the city's existing Emergency Management Plan. Mitigation measures are proposed to reduce all potentially significant effects associated with the potential exposure of unknown hazardous materials through construction activities to less than significant levels by ensuring remediation of contaminated soils containing hazardous materials prior to development and by providing supplemental procedures in the event of unanticipated discoveries of contaminants. ♦ Hydrology and Water Quality The EIR concludes that impacts to hydrology and water quality are potentially significant but can be mitigated to less than significant levels through MM 4.7-1 which requires a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for the project and shall include specific stormwater BMPs for reducing potential pollutants in stormwater runoff. In addition, MM 4.7-2 reduces impacts to erosion and flooding by requiring a Hydrology and Hydraulic Report and Drainage Plan that incorporates stormwater conveyance facilities to provide adequate site drainage and minimize erosive forces. ♦ Land Use Implementation of the proposed project will not require any General Plan or zoning map amendments. A Conditional Use Permit is required to allow development of a senior recreation facility on the site. The development and its conformance to the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance are analyzed in the companion report for this project. Although the project is consistent with the General Planning land use and zoning designations, the Central Park Master Plan EIR previously identified the site as a Low Intensity Recreation Area. Implementation of the proposed project will require an amendment to the Central Park Master Plan to change the project site from a Low Intensity Recreation Area to a High Intensity Recreation Area to accommodate the proposed development. The EIR concludes that the proposed project is consistent with adjacent developments directly across Goldenwest Street, specifically the Sports Complex and Central Library. Overall, impacts to land use are considered less than significant and no mitigation is proposed. ♦ Noise Potential noise impacts relate to short-term construction activities and long-term changes in ambient conditions related to an increase in traffic. Ambient noise levels were measured at five locations around the project site and roadway noise levels were calculated using data from the traffic study. In terms of the short-term noise impacts from construction, the City's noise ordinance exempts noise associated with construction provided the construction takes place between the hours of 7:00 A.M. and 8:00 P.M. Monday PC Staff Report— 12/11/07 10 (07sr58 EIR 07-002) through Saturday. Despite this exemption, to further reduce less-than-significant impacts the EIR recommends MM 4.9-1(a) to limit the hours and days during which grading and construction can occur to between the hours of 7:00 A.M. and 7:00 P.M. Monday through Friday and 8:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M. Saturdays. The EIR also indicates that noise associated with operation of the senior center, including amplified noise from special events, will be required to comply with the City of Huntington Beach noise Ordinance and impacts are considered less than significant. ♦ Public Services Potential impacts to fire, police, schools and libraries are analyzed in the EIR. The proposed project will not result in the need for any new public services or facilities and therefore, all impacts to public services are considered less than significant. ♦ Recreation The EIR indicates that construction and operation of the proposed senior center would increase the overall level of recreational opportunities in the City. Because development of the project site represents the loss of only 2% of all passive parkland in Central Park, impacts to existing passive recreational opportunities are less than significant. One mitigation measure has been incorporated to require that construction signs be posted in Central Park near the project site at least thirty days prior to construction commencement to give notice to informal users of the site. The mitigation measure also requires that the temporary disc golf hole that is currently on the site be permanently relocated prior to any construction activities. ♦ Transportation/Traffic The EIR examines the potential impacts related to traffic generation, parking demand and access. The analysis takes into consideration the access improvements that will be constructed with the project and the special issues, such as pedestrian needs, that arise with senior drivers. A project specific traffic study was completed that includes an analysis of traffic conditions in Year 2012 and Year 2030 to assess potential impacts at project buildout and the long-term effect of the project in conjunction with other growth within the City. The EIR indicates that the proposed project has the potential to contribute to deficient traffic operation at the intersection of Goldenwest Street and Slater Avenue. To mitigate this potentially significant impact_, MM 4.12-2 requires that an additional northbound through lane be provided at the intersection of Goldenwest Street and Slater Avenue. Implementation of this mitigation measure will not require any physical roadway widening but will require the removal of 12 on-street parking spaces on Goldenwest Street from Ford Drive to Betty Drive. The removal of the on-street parking is considered less than significant because each of the affected residences has access to alternate parking on adjacent streets. Roadway hazards are mitigated through mitigation measures and code requirements that also consider the needs of the seniors using the facility. The EIR shows that the project will not result in any other significant transportation/traffic related impacts. PC Staff Report—12/11/07 11 (07sr58 EIR 07-002) ® Utilities and Service Systems This section of the EIR analyzes potential impacts to water, wastewater, solid waste services and electricity and natural gas utilities. The EIR concludes that implementation of the project could increase the demand for electricity resulting in potentially significant impacts. MM 4.13-8 requires that additional electrical load analyses be undertaken to determine the need for additional electrical transformers. The EIR also concludes that implementation of new stormwater treatment control BMPs could result in potentially significant impacts. CR 4.13-5(a) and CR 4.13-5(b) require that the project prepare and implement a SWPPP (Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan) and that all BMPs described in the Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) are properly installed and implemented. With implementation of the proposed mitigation measures and city code requirements, both of these potentially significant impacts, can be reduced to a less than significant levels. Alternatives to the Proposed Project CEQA requires that an EIR describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project or its location that could feasibly attain the basic objectives of the project, but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant impacts of the project. An EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative to a project; rather, it must consider a range of potentially feasible alternatives that will foster informed decision- making and public participation. An EIR should also evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. Three alternatives were selected for detailed analysis in the Draft EIR: • No Project/Continuation of Uses Allowed By Existing General Plan and Master Plan — Analyzes development on the site as a "low intensity recreation area" with the access driveway, parking lot, restrooms, tot lot and open space. • Reduced Project/Alternative Configuration — Analyzes a reduction in the size of the development with a 30,000 square foot building re-oriented to the southeast corner of the site. ® Alternative Site — Analyzes the alternative site location of the northwest corner of Ellis Avenue and Goldenwest Street. The No Project/Continuation of Uses Allowed By Existing General Plan and Master Plan Alternative 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 Alternative Site Alternative would result in potentially greater impacts to noise and recreation, and it is possible that these impacts could be significant and unavoidable. Although two of the alternatives would result in some impacts that would be less than the proposed project, they would not necessarily reduce the level of significance of the impacts. In addition, these alternatives would not achieve the project objectives to the extent that the proposed project would. Nonetheless, because of its reduced intensity, the No Project/Continuation of Uses Allowed By Existing General Plan and Master Plan Alternative would be the environmentally superior alternative. Statement of Overriding Considerations Environmental impacts associated with implementation of a project may not always be mitigated to a level considered less than significant. In such cases, a Statement of Overriding Considerations must be PC Staff Report 12/11/07 12 (07sr58 EIR 07-002) prepared prior to approval of the project, and in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15091 and 15093. Although the project would not result in significant project-specific impacts, implementation of the proposed project could result in significant cumulative impacts to aesthetics. Therefore, a Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC) is required to describe the specific reasons for approving the project, based on information contained within the Final EIR, as well as any other information in the public record. The SOC is part of the companion report for this project, which analyzes the conditional use permit request. Public Comments on the Draft EIR During the public review period, the City of Huntington Beach received a total of 12 comment letters from two state agencies, one City board and nine individuals, as well as some verbal and written comments at the public meeting held during the comment period. Staff has responded to all comments received in the Response to Comments. The Final EIR includes revised text sections as a result of the comments or as a result of staff requests to clarify information. Any written communication received subsequent to the preparation of this staff report will be forwarded to the Planning Commission under separate cover. SUMMARY: Environmental Impact Report No. 07-002 serves as an informational document with the sole purpose of identifying potential environmental impacts associated with the Huntington Beach Senior Center project, alternatives that minimize those impacts, and appropriate mitigation measures. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission certify EIR No. 07-002 because: ® The EIR has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act; ® The EIR adequately addresses the environmental impacts associated with the proposed project; and The EIR identifies project alternatives and mitigation measures to lessen the project's impacts consistent with General Plan policies. ATTACHMENTS: > includes > EIR Appendiees, Response To Gommet4s and Text Changes previous vta'ed under;yeparate eover not„fta ed) 2 Mitigation Men ter-i ,.. p,- , 4. Letters received regarding the proposed EIR SH:MBB:JV PC Staff Report—12/11/07 13 (07sr58 EIR 07-002) Page 1 of 1 Villasenor, Jennifer From: Murphyeile@aol.com city®f Huntington Beach Sent: Sunday, December 02, 2007 1.14 PM To: Villasenor, Jennifer DEC 0 3 2007 Subject: RE:EIR#07-002/CUP#07-039 Senior Center Jennifer Villasenor-Project Planner The EIR is inadequate as I said in the Public hearing. 1. There should be no building on park land. The developer Makar mitigated not having any Parks in his Pacific City development and gave the City of H8 26 million to improve the parks in the City now. They are woefully in need of upgrading. The City gave him a contract to build a Community Center/Senior Center in Central Park. This fails in any mitigation for improving the passive Park which is what Central Park is. 2. EIR for liquefaction is inadequate. "Groundwater depth is 10 feet they think" Site is included in Zone NO. 4 " which is 400 feet southwest of Huntington Lake which has a potential for landslides and permanent ground displacements." 3 EIR is inadequate for mitigating raptor foraging Chapter 2 "pg 2-8 Impact 4.3-2 "development of the proposed project would have substantial adverse impact to raptor foraging habitat" The mitigation is" through dedication as open space, conservation and/or enhancing raptor foraging on a 1;1 for acres. Mitigation will be accomplished within suitable areas that are City owned and preferably near-by such as Sully Miller Lake,facility" (not feasible),"Low intensity Recreation Area ,Semi-active Recreation Area, and /or Midden Area,Urban Forest /Trailhead,Low intensity."( Sites not appropriate)" Enhancement would include the planting of native trees within and adjacent to conserved area of raptor foraging habitat." The inadequacy of this is what size trees and how long does the development wait to begin until the trees are habitable for the raptors? Raptors need large area of non-human activity. The raptors can not be moved to other areas which already have their own raptors. Eileen Murphy 201 21st Street HB CA 92648 Check out AOL Money & Finance's list of the hottest products and top money wasters of 2007. . ACHMENT NU. 12/3/2007 �ecepqb er 2 2007 ty Of Huntington Beach '^ To: Jennifer Villasenor—Assoc. Planner DEC ® 3 2007 City of Huntington Beach—Planning Dept. 2000 Main St., Huntington Beach, Ca. Re: Huntington Beach Senior Center Project—Mitigation Factor MM 4.12—2 Removal of on-street parking.on Goldenwest St. Ms. Villasenor, First of all, I would like to express my appreciation for the chance to at least partially state my concerns about the above-mentioned Mitigation Measure 4.12—2, as well as meet you at the EIR study session held on Nov. 27. Unfortunately the allotted 4 minutes was insufficient to communicate even half of my concern. As I mentioned at that time, I believe you can probably imagine the inconvenience of having all parking removed in front of our houses(visitors, guests, delivery, service vehicles and personnel, etc.), but I will leave further discussion of this to my neighbors as well as the safety factors that would be compromised with the implementation of this measure (especially those households with small children). This letter shall deal primarily with the current and projected noise pollution that all of these residences are and would be subjected to. Prior to this occasion, I can remember at least two other instances where the removal of the on-street parking between Betty and Ford Sts. was proposed. During the first time, an EIR report showed that the noise pollution already exceeded Federal guidelines for exterior noise. At the Nov. 27 meeting, I also referred to an HB Staff Report from the Community Development Dept. to the Planning Commission dated Dec. 13, 1988 (please find copy of report cover page enclosed—report much too bulky to copy). Among the many aspects and recommendations contained in this report were the following: Currently(1988)vehicles using Goldenwest St. numbered 30,000/day;projected to be 36,000/day by year 2006, if no widening project.—pg. 3 Recommendation on pg. 4 states"On-site parking will continue to be allowed only along the east side of the street, between Warner Ave. and Slater Ave.". This statement is reaffirmed in a later section in the report virtually verbatim. -46 Under NOISE, Sensitive Receptor Anal,pg. 28, paragraph 1, it is stated"A field review of the sensitive noise receptors located adjacent to the Goldenwest St. within the project area indicates exceedances of Federal exterior noise criteria for: 1) 13 residences..." among which our residences are included. 4- Table 18 on page 30 of this section shows that our properties are represented by receptor 44, and the subsequent analysis of the findings and possible mitigation action to correct can be found on pg._ 31, and is as follows: "The noise level measured at site#4 is typical of dwellings with front yard noise impacts shown on Fig. 13 on the east side of Goldenwest St. (between Warner and Slater Aves.). The noise measurement was taken in front of the house (east of AFfACHMENTN , u y Goldenwest St. and north of Ford Dr.) at the edge of the driveway, 26 feet from the Goldenwest St. right-of-way. The noise measurements show exceedances of the Federal exterior noise criteria under existing and future no-mitigation conditions_ Effective noise barriers can be constructed along the right-of-way of these corner lots(north and south of Betty Dr. and Ford Dr.) without creating access or aesthetic problems. Although the four lots facing Goldenwest St. between Betty Dr. and Ford Dr. have rear alley access for vehicles, a 6-foot block wall across the front yard may be undesirable in view of access restrictions and aesthetic considerations." Same Section; pg. 33,#3 —"A noise barrier is feasible in the case of the four houses fronting Goldenwest St. between Warner Ave. and Talbert because the driveways would not interfere with the integrity of the barrier, but it may be undesirable in view of access restrictions and aesthetic considerations." The first point above shows how many cars were using Goldenwest back in 1988 and projections if not widened. Goldenwest St. was widened, of course, and current estimate of vehicle usage is around 50,000/day. The report on"noise analysis"using receptor#4 for our properties showed a noise impact of 70 dba(Leq)back in 1988. Projected noise level for 2006 was 72 dba(Leq), without considering what the impact of the, as then unplanned, Home Depot center at Goldenwest and Warner; or the subsequent construction of HB Central Park Sports Complex!! I am willing to bet that if noise analysis receptors were placed in front of our residences today, the result would be at least 72 dba(Leq) or probably higher. According to an EIR report for the current Senior Center Project, the nearest noise analysis monitor was several hundred feet south of Slater Ave. Our homes are several hundred feet north of Slater, the traffic in front of our houses in slightly more concentrated; and our locations is such that vehicles are winding up their rpms and shifting in front of us, after stopping at or turning onto Goldenwest from Slater. Naturally,the noise levels would be greater where our properties are,then where recent monitor was employed. Again referring to the same recent EIR report re: pg.8; figure 4.9—2 entitled"Land Use Compatibility with Community Noise Environments"- Using the guidelines in this table in your own report,noting our properties would fall into the first category, a noise level of 72 dba(Leq) or more would put us right on the border of"normally unacceptable" and "clearly unacceptable". This is the level we are subjected to currently; think about how much worse it would be by moving this traffic noise even 6 or 7 feet closer to our bedroom windows. The layout of our homes puts a bedroom(in my case, master bedroom)in the front of the house facing the street. To move the traffic closer to us is like saying"his open wound is so painful already,he will barely notice if we rub salt in it". As indicated in the 1988 report,there were several mitigation ideas that were brought up, such as the 6 foot block wall. I ask you to think about that one...not only would we lose the parking, but we would essentially wind up with two backyards, a back/back yard and a front/backyard. Except the front/back yard would have a public sidewalk running through it!! How would anyone (new guest,delivery and service personnel, etc.)find us if never been here before!! How much should I tip the Pizza guy when he has to deliver us from %2 a block away?? How much would such a lovely visage devalue the market price of our CHMENT O. r properties(not to mention loss of parking and/or increased noise)?? Please find enclosed, a copy of another mitigation option that was proposed to us by the city. See the official letter dated November 16, 1990. To save you time, the city was offering to discuss installing/retrofitting all front and side windows of our homes with double-pane sound abating windows, in order to cut down on the noise pollution from Goldenwest St. Lastly, I ask you to consider what removing the parking, increasing the traffic noise, compromising safety factors, etc. would do to the fair market value of our properties. We all knew when we bought our homes where they were located. Based on purchase price and subsequent appraisals(we have lived here since 1978), 1 believe the"discount"of our properties is 5—6% of the fair market price, as things are currently. If we lose the parking, etc. or have a wall put up,then what would the "Goldenwest discount' be?...10%? 12%?? For many homeowners,their property (or equity therein) represents a form of savings plan, whether to use the future equity to move up housewise, collateral for the kids college expenses, as a safety net for approaching retirement, etc. We do not believe that it would be fair for the city to devaluate our properties in this manner, especially without offering due compensation. We thank you for your consideration regarding the above concerns. We look forward to seeing you at the December 1 I'h meeting. Michael &Geri Ames 17332 Goldenwest St. Huntington Beach Ca. 714.336.1832 cell aimames&yerizon.net CC: John Scandura Tom Livengood Blair Farley Fred Speaker Joe Shaw Devin Dwyer Elizabeth Shier-Burnett Scott Hess Leone Mulvihill Herb Fauland F huntington beach departmen. of community do STAff - R EP OR TO: Planning Commission FROM Community Development DATE: December 13, 1988 SUBJECT: COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 88-29 IN CONJUNCTION WITH NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 88-3.4 APPLICANT: City of Huntington Beach DATE ACCEPTED: November 10, 1988 REQUEST: To permit the Goldenwest Street improvement and MANDATORY PROCESSING DATE: widening project. January 9, 1988 LOCATION: The 3.5 mile segment of GENERAL PLAN: Various Goldenwest Street from General Plan land use Warner Avenue to Pacific designations occur along Coast Highway (Route 1) . the 3.5 mile segment of Goldenwest Street from ZONE: Various zoning designa Warner Avenue to Pacific •tions occur along the 3.5 . . Coast Highway (Routed) . mile segment of Goldenwest Street from Warner Avenue EXISTING USE: Goldenwest to Pacific Coast Highway Street is a fully or (Route 1) . partially improved, four- lane roadway except for the segment between Warner Avenue and Rio Vista Drive where it exists as a six-lane road- way. 1.0 SUGGESTED-ACTION: 2 Approve Coastal Development Permit No. 88-29 and Negative Declaration No. 88-34 with findings and conditions of approval. 2.0 GENERAL INFORMATION: Coastal Development Permit No. 88-29 in conjunction with Negative Declaration No. 88=34 is a request to permit the proposed Goldenwest Street improvement and widening project. The proposed project is to make various improvements to the 3.5 mile segment of Goldenwest Street to achieve a fully improved, six lane traffic corridor with striped bike lanes in both directions, painted and raised center medians, left-turn pockets, and concrete curbs and gutters as A-F M-223C J ATTACHMENT NO �, h L j {t > 4 } !• r�4 CITY OF HLJN'i`INGTON BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 REAR.ESTATE SERVICES a November 16, 1990 Michael A. Ames i 17332 Golden West Street Huntington Beach, California 92647 Reference: Golden West Street Right-of-Way Widening CC-575 AP #165-203-14 Sound Attenuation Dear Michael A. Ames: The City of Huntington Beach is in the process of improving the Golden West Street right-of--way from Pacific Coast Highway to Warner Avenue with three lanes each way, including curbs, gutters; raised center dividers, turn lanes and bike paths. A study was made as to sound impact of the added third lane to certain residences within the project. Conclusions were that the increased traffic over the next few years and the traffic being closer to the residences may cause a slight sound increase for certain properties. Your property was found to be in this area. We should note that there will be no widening acquisition or construction effecting your property other than restripping the existing street to create the three lanes each way and increased traffic flow. We would like to set up a meeting, at your convenience, to discuss a mitigation approach to a possible increase in traffic sound where the windows have street frontage. Enclosed is a plat map showing the location of the homes where remediation is suggested. For an appointment to discuss this issue please call Paul Larkin at 714/536-5445. Respectfully, DAN M. BRENNAN Director Real Estate Services DMB/rf 0080U v� r� r.1 / � tVi�= ATTACHMENT #8 HUNTINGTON BEACH SENIO .R CENTER Final Environmental Impact Report SCH No. 2007041027 Volume II: Teat 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 Los Angeles, California 90025 December 10, 2007 vumrnverc � � cf R�por and A�pe �llces throw Volume II—Text Changes and Response to Comments on the Draft EIR CHAPTER 8 Introduction to Final EIR......................................................................................8-1 8.1 CEQA Requirements......................................................................................................8-1 8.2 Public Review Process....................................................................................................8-1 8.3 Contents and Organization of the Final EIR..............................................................8-1 8.4 Use of the Final EIR.......................................................................................................8-2 CHAPTER 9 Summary of Additional Air Quality and Traffic Analyses .....................................9-1 9.1 Air Quality Analysis.........................................................................................................9-1 9.2 Traffic Analysis................................................................................................................9-2 9.2.1 Trip Generation Estimates..............................................................................9-2 CHAPTF--R 10 Text Changes........................................................................................................10-1 10.1 Format of Text Changes.............................................................................................. 10-1 10.2 Text Changes................................................................................................................. 10-1 10.3 Figure Changes..................................................................................:.........................10-18 CI APTER 11 Responses to Comments.......................................................................................11-1 11.1 Organization of the Responses to Comments......................................................... 11-1 11.2 Comments on the Draft EIR...................................................................................... 11-2 11.3 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR...........................................................11-34 11.3.1 Topical Responses.......................................................................................11-34 11.3.2 State Departments........................................................................:..............11-35 11.3.3 Regional/Local Agency..............................................................................11-36 11.3.4 Individuals....................................................................................................11-41 11.3.5 Verbal Comments ..............................................................................I........11-54 11.3.6 Public Comment Forms (Huntington Beach Senior Center Draft EIR Public Meeting, October 11,2007)...........................................................11-57 Appendix Appendix 3 (Revised) Construction Air Quality Data Appendix 10 (Revised) Traffic Data Tables Table 11-1 Comment Letters Received During the Draft EIR Comment Period........................... 11-1 Huntington Beach Senior Center Final EIR 1ii 3.1 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 FIR 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. 3.3 CONTENTS AND ORGANIZATION OF THE 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 Huntington Beach Senior Center Final EIR $'I 4 • •f O 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. 8.4 USE OF THE FINAL 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 (MNIP), 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. 1 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 t t - •t t t t 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 Unust be fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures. This program is referred to as the Mitigation Monitoring Program. Additionally, pursuant to Section 25093(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. The certifications, Findings of Fact, and the Statement of Overriding Considerations are included in a S parate 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. Huntington Beach Senior Center FIR 8-3 A ♦ A s Since circulation of the Draft FIR, additional air quality and traffic analyses were performed for the project. No new significant impacts were found for either issue area, and this section summarizes the additional findings. 9.1 AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS 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, "BS&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 Huntington Beach Senior Center Final EIR 9-1 •• - • s ' s a s • @ • a a • • - 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. 9.2 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS Subsequent to the Planning Commission Study Session that was held on November 27, 2007, Urban Crossroads (EIR Traffic Consultant) and City staff have worked diligently to determine whether any other solution exists in place of the suggested parking removal along Goldenwest Street, between Ford Drive and Betty Drive, as stated in Mitigation Measure MM 4.12-2 of the Draft EIR.As discussed in the Draft EIR, MM 4.12-2 was required to reduce the potentially significant project impact during the AM peak hour at the intersection of Goldenwest Street and Slater Avenue. Based upon discussions with City staff,trip generation in the Draft EIR was found to warrant further evaluation. 9.2.1 Trip Generation Estimates As discussed throughout the Draft EIR and this Final EIR,trip generation rates for the proposed project were based upon traffic counts at an existing, similar senior center in Newport Beach (the Oasis Senior Center). The Newport Beach Oasis Senior Center was found to be 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. The trip generation data collected from this facility are still thought to represent the best match possible; however, it was determined that the AM peak hour data collected from this facility deserved further review. The Oasis Senior Center is available for use prior to 8 ;\.At., whereas the proposed hours of operation of the project would not begin until 8 A.M.Thus, the traffic counts that were collected for the AM peak hour may, not reflect trip generation estimates suitable for the project site. For example, the AM peak hour trips that were collected actually caught a large outbound meeting attendance (a total of 274 trips) with only a comparatively small inbound number (60) of trips. Thus, additional research was performed to determine the appropriate AM peak hour trip generation estimates for the proposed project. Revised trip generation estimates were performed utilizing the baseline data for the existing Rodgers Senior Center to extrapolate trip generation rates for the proposed project. Based on information provided by the Huntington Beach Community Services Department, the maximum average attendance in the AM peak hour is approximately 84 persons. This attendance does not account for the number of "drop-ins" and potential fitness/weight room use but also doesn't reflect how many people may have used buses, carpools, or other means of transportation to get to the site. As such, this represents a fairly accurate estimate for trip generation to the existing site. Because the project site is approximately three times larger than the existing facility, for purposes of trip generation estimates, it is assumed that the proposed project would result in an estimate that is three times as large as the existing senior center.As a result, the projected use in the morning is approximately 252 persons. Though each individual is not expected to arrive via single occupant vehicle, a conservative analvsis includes trip generation of 252 9-2 City of Huntington Beach o • - a a a a • • @ e a a • s - catering vehicles. It is expected that the majority of entering vehicles will remain on-site at least one hour (i.e., attending a morning class or social event), by which time the morning peak commute period will be ovr�r. This analysis makes the conservative assumption that 25 percent of arriving vehicles will depart during the peak hour of adjacent street traffic. This scenario would represent approximately 252 vehicles inbound during the AM peak hour and 63 vehicles outbound during the AM peak hour. The traffic analysis was re-run with the revised estimate (252 trips inbound and 63 trips outbound) during the AM peak hour. This revised analysis results in a less-than-significant impact and no mitigation is rcquired. The revised traffic data are included as Revised Appendix 10 to this Final EIR. Therefore, through this additional traffic analysis, it was concluded that MM 4.12-2 was not necessary and the associated parking on Goldenwest Street will therefore,not be removed as a result of this project. The revised traffic generation data have been updated and are included as text changes within the Final EIR. Huntington Beach Senior Center EIR 9-3 s 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 line thrattgh 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. Page vi, Contents Volume-N=Environmental Impact Report Appendices Page 2-3, Section 2.5 (Significant and Unavoidable Impacts) There were no project-s ecific 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 si�znifi ant c-umulative imps associated with aesthetics could occur. As a result to approve the proposed project, the City of Huntington Beach must adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations pursuant to CEOA Guidelines Sections 15043 and 15093. Detailed discussions of project impacts,includes cumulative im ac s 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 fusible to further prevent spillover off site. Huntington Beach Senior Center Final EIR 10-1 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 eft throughout the site including along the entire perimeter_ to help shield vehicle headlights ift the parking areas and aeeess roads from adjacent uses to the north and sottth. 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 approval 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 _(earthen berml 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 (LEA)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 s • 0 • e - Page 2-14, Section 2.7 (Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures) MMA Z--1 and MM 4 7-2 MM 4.7-5, PAM 4.7 ', and "R"R '' ' ' 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 Transportation Manager shall determine the ultimate signal modifications that are most appropriate for the project site. Design recommendations include,but are riot 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 large 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 northe ft b......aa ff e f the site. ... Huntington Beach Senior Center EIR 10-3 o- Page 4.1-25, Section 4.1.3 (Project Impacts and Mitigation) AM 4.9-3(a) All exterior nighttime lighting shall be angled down and away from the adjacent open ppace areas. Prismatic glass coverings and cutoff shields shall be used whesyfeafil e further prevent spillover off site. Page 4.1-25, Section 4.1.3 (Project Impacts and Mitigation) MNf 4.9-3(e) Trees and barrier type vegetation should be place mt-&mg out the site, includiu akg the entire erisnete_—to heo shield vehicle headlights in from adjacent usese Page 4.2-16, Section 4.2.3 (Project Impacts and Mitigation) Localized Significance Thresholds for Construction 1" addition to the daily fti,- emissieft thresholds established by SGAQNID, potentift! loealized itttpaets fi5f- -tt"M politifftnts with regard to projeet related emissions are eftlediated"Stng ft sel)ft,." thresholds (h-ST-s) were developed in response to the SG-kQPJD Ga-v;eming Board's Febtzuary 2005. LSTs represe"t the —Ofts from a prOjeef that are fiat eNpeeted to eause of eee"ihtife to an emeeedanee of the fnosf stringent applieftble federal or State ambient ai-r-qttality stftfidard, wid are developed based on the affibiew eoneent�-ations of that pelltttattf f4 eaeh sotwee reeepter area the SGtkQMP provided ffiass rate lookep tables only applies to pf-ajeefs that are 5 aeres E)v less in 45,e and are ottly appheable to > 2;Ti -1�4 For i_-�--rsites larger than C - --_., the SCAQ-NID - dispersion fnedeliftg be perfiqrffied > 3i 5 aeres in sii!e, ft sefeening analysis was performed using the ffiftss rate leektip tables pre�vide(4 by In addition to the daily air emission thresholds established by SCAOMD- potential localized impacts for certain criteria pollutants with regard to project-related emissions are calculated using a separate method Localized Significance Thresholds (LSTs) were developed in response to the SCAOMD Governing Board's Environmental Justice Enhancement Initiative (1-4). The LST methodology was provisionally adopted by the SCAOMD Governing Board in October 2003 and formally approved by SCAOMD'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 exceedance of the most stringent applicable federal or state ambient air qualitTstandard 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 FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 07-039 FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL.- CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 07-039: l. Conditional Use Permit No. 07-039 to permit the construction and operation of a 45,000 square foot senior recreation facility will not be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity or detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood. An EIR that analyzed the project's potential to generate detrimental impacts on people and surrounding properties was prepared and concluded that, with mitigation, there are no significant project specific impacts. In addition, being that the project is located in Central Park, the closest adjacent residences are located approximately 800 feet west of the project site. One significant cumulative impact to aesthetics was identified in the EIR and as such, a Statement of Overriding Considerations, which discusses the benefits of the project in relation to the cumulative impact, is required for approval of the project. 2. Conditional Use Permit No. 07-039 will be compatible with surrounding uses because it is consistent with the applicable General Plan Land Use and Zoning designations as noted in previous sections of this report. Although the proposed project will result in the development of a new senior center on existing open space, the project will be compatible with the established recreational land use pattern in the area, specifically existing community facilities such as the Central Library and Sports Complex adjacent to the proposed project site. Within this context, the proposed project is compatible with the surrounding parkland. In addition, the proposed project would add a senior recreation facility on land currently designated for recreational uses but at a greater intensity than what was previously intended for the site. The proposed building features a design with architectural features that minimize the visual bulk and mass of the buildings and provides for compatibility with the surrounding parkland. The project complies with all of the requirements for development in the OS-PR zoning district and provides an adequate number of parking spaces. To integrate the project with the natural setting of the Shipley Nature Center and existing passive parkland west of the project site, substantial landscaping is proposed throughout the site, including surrounding the entire perimeter of the project site. 3. Conditional Use Permit No. 07-039 will comply with the provisions of the base district and other applicable provisions in Titles 20-25 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance, including the Open Space — Parks & Recreation zone permitted uses and minimum setbacks. Parking requirements are determined by the conditional use permit and are specific to the requested use. A sufficient number of parking spaces is provided for the project based on surveys of similar projects. 4. The granting of Conditional Use Permit No. 07-039 will not adversely affect the General Plan. It is consistent with the Land Use Element designation of OS-P (Open Space - Parks) on the subject property. In addition, it is consistent with the following goals and policies of the General Plan: Air Quality Element Policy AQ 1.8.3: Encourage developers to maintain the natural topography, to the maximum extent possible, and limit the amount of land clearing, blasting, grading, and ground excavation operations needed for development. The proposed project anticipates a balanced site with minor cut and fill operations during construction. Policy AQ I.10.1: Continue to require the utilization and installation of energy conservation features in all new construction. As with all new buildings, the proposed project will be required to comply with the energy conservation standards of Title 24, which would ensure that there would be no wasteful or unnecessary use of energy. Circulation Element Policy CE 6.1.7: Require new development to provide accessible facilities to the elderly and disabled. The proposed senior center project will be required to comply with the requirements of the ADA. The proposed project will also provide ADA access to the site via a pedestrian path north of the access driveway. Policy CE 7.1.7: Continue to construct landscaped medians in existing major and primary arterial streets and continue to require the construction of landscaped medians in new developments. The proposed project includes construction of a signalized access driveway at the intersection of Goldenwest Street and Talbert Avenue. The new access driveway includes a proposed landscaped median. Environmental Hazards Element Policy EH 4.1.1: During major redevelopment or initial construction, require specific measures to be taken by developers, builders, or property owners in flood prone areas, to prevent or reduce damage from flood hazards and the risks upon human safety. Although the site is partially located in Flood Zone A, the project site is already a minimum of 4 feet higher than the base flood elevation at its lowest point. A flood elevation certificate will be required for the proposed project. Growth Management Element Goal GM 2: Ensure that adequate transportation and public facilities and public services are provided for existing and future residents of the City. The proposed project does not result in any significant traffic impacts and adequate public facilities and public services will be provided. Hazardous Materials Element Policy HM 1.2.3: Support land use or developments adjacent to or within close proximity of sensitive uses, which do not utilize, store, handle, or contain hazardous materials and/or waste, and which would create an unsafe, unhealthy, or hazardous condition for adjacent uses. Construction and operation of the proposed senior center will not include the use of large quantities of hazardous materials, and any commonly used hazardous materials would be used and stored in accordance with applicable regulations. Implementation of the proposed project would not utilize hazardous materials or waste and would not create an unsafe or hazardous condition for adjacent uses. Land Use Element Policy LU 4.2.1: Require that all structures be constructed in accordance with the requirements of the City's building and other pertinent codes and regulations; including new, adaptively re-used, and renovated buildings. Policy LU 4.2.4: Require that all development be designed to provide adequate space for access, parking, supporting functions, open space and other pertinent elements. Policy LU 4.2.5: Require that all commercial, industrial and public development incorporate appropriate design elements to facilitate access and use as required by State and Federal Laws such as the Americans with Disabilities Act(ADA). The proposed project will be constructed in accordance with existing laws and regulations, including the City's building code and any applicable State and federal law requirements such as ADA. In addition, the project is proposed to be in conformance with the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance and is not seeking any variances to deviate from the code requirements. Adequate access to and from the project site will be provided through the entrance at the Goldenwest Street/Talbert Avenue intersection. Sufficient parking will be provided on site for the senior center use. Recreation and Community Services Element Policy RCS 1.1.1: Provide leisure opportunities through programs and activities that serve the general population as well as the specialized needs of the disabled, children and elderly. Policy RCS 3.1.2: Provide a variety of amenities within recreation areas in order to accommodate persons with different interests. Policy RCS 3.1.7: Design recreational facilities to the accessibility requirements as specified in State and Federal laws such as the Americana with Disabilities Act(ADA) standards for accessibility. The proposed project is a senior recreation facility proposed to be developed in accordance with ADA standards. The senior center and associated amenities will provide the City with expanded recreational resources for senior citizens to meet existing and future demand. The senior center will be accessible to all residents of the City of Huntington Beach. Utilities Element Policy U 3.3.2: Where feasible, utilize natural overland flows, open channels, and swale routings as preferred alignments for components of drainage systems. Policy U 3.3.3: Require that new developments employ the most efficient drainage technology to control drainage and minimize damage to environmental sensitive areas. The proposed project includes bioswales and vegetated buffer areas to treat runoff from the proposed project's impervious areas. Implementation of BMPs and the project's directing of stormwater flows through the park and Huntington Lake will ensure that project implementation would not adversely impact sensitive environments CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 07-039: 1. The project plans received and dated October 17, 2007 shall be the conceptually approved design with the following modifications. a. The gate located at the terminus of the access driveway shall be relocated to the south edge of the reconfigured"T" intersection. b. The number of ADA parking spaces shall be increased to 20. Once the facility is operational, the number of ADA spaces may be revised as determined necessary by the Community Services Department. 2. The project shall strive to achieve LEED certification standards and will be reviewed by the City Council as a non-public hearing item for input on what green building elements/sustainable features will be included in the final project design. A variety of sustainable features shall be used and may include (but are not limited to) those recommended by the U.S. Green Building Council's Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Program certification (http://www.us bg c.org/DisplayPage.aspx?CategooryID=19) or Build It Green's Green Building Guidelines and Rating Systems (http://www.buildit)4reen.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=guidelines). 3. Prior to submittal for plan check, project design, including landscape plans (completed pursuant to conditions 5 and 6), shall be reviewed by the City of Huntington Beach Design Review Board and approved by the Planning Commission as a non-public hearing item. 4. At least 14 days prior to any grading activity, the applicant/developer shall provide notice in writing to property owners of record and tenants of properties within a 500-foot radius of the project site as noticed for the public hearing. The notice shall include a general description of planned grading activities and an estimated timeline for commencement and completion of work and a contact person name with phone number. Prior to issuance of the grading permit, a copy of the notice and list of recipients shall be submitted to the Planning Department. 5. The final landscape plans shall incorporate a variety of tree, shrub and grass species that are currently planted at adjacent uses, including the Sports Complex, Shipley Nature Center and the passive park west of the project site. 6. In the event that an overflow parking area is provided in place of the meadow area depicted on the preliminary landscape plan, meadow grasses shall be planted elsewhere on the project site. The species of meadow grasses should take into consideration the species currently planted at Shipley Nature Center. 7. A public art element, approved by the Design Review Board, Director of Planning, and Director of Huntington Beach Art Center, shall be depicted on the plans. Public Art shall be innovative, original, and of artistic excellence; appropriate to the design of the project; and reflective of the community's cultural identity(ecology, history, or society). 8. The project shall comply with all mitigation measures adopted in conjunction with Environmental Impact Report No. 07-002. INDEMNIFICATION AND HOLD HARMLESS CONDITION: The owner of the property which is the subject of this project and the project applicant if different from the property owner, and each of their heirs, successors and assigns, shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of Huntington Beach and its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action or proceedings, liability cost, including attorney's fees and costs against the City or its agents, officers or employees, to attack, set aside, void or annul any approval of the City, including but not limited to any approval granted by the City Council, Planning Commission, or Design Review Board concerning this project. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and should cooperate fully in the defense thereof. February 4, 2008 —Council/Agency Agenda — Page 4 Lists of the conferences, training, seminars, and other activities generally attended by the City Council, City Administrator, City Attorney, City Clerk, and City Treasurer are included as appendices to the City Budget on pages 321 through 325. The budget is available on the city's website at www.surlcity-hb.org. Exceptions to these lists have been submitted as a report to the City Clerk for inclusion in the record of this meeting. Reports were submitted by Mayor Pro Tern Bohr and Mayor Cook C-2. City Administrator's Report None C-3. City Treasurer's Report C-3a. (City Council) Review and Accept Shari L. Freidenrich, City Treasurer's December 2007 Investment Summary Report Titled City of Huntington Beach Summary of City Investment Portfolio, Bond Proceeds, and Deferred Compensation Activity for December 2007 Communication from City Treasurer Shari L. Freidenrich transmitting the Monthly Investment Report and Summary of Investments for December 2007. Recommended Action: Motion to: Review and accept the Monthly Investment Report. Following review of the report, by motion of Council, accept the Monthly Investment Report entitled Summary of Investment Portfolio, Bond Proceeds, and Deferred Compensation Activity for December 2007, pursuant to Section 17.0 of the Investment Policy of the City of Huntington Beach. PowerPoint presentation titled December Treasurer's"Report is included in the agenda packet. Approved 7-0 C-4. City Attorney's Report of Litigation Filed None D. PUBLIC HEARING Anyone wishing to speak on an OPEN public hearing item is requested to complete the attached pink form and give it to the Sergeant at Arms located near the Speaker's Podium. C 1. (City Council) Public Hearing to Consider an Appeal by Mayor Cook of the anning Commission's Approval of Environmental Impact Report(EIR) No. 07-002 and onditional Use Permit No. (CUP) No. 07-039 for the Construction and Operation of an pproximately 45,000 sq. ft. Senior Center to be Located at 18041 Goldenwest Street, a Acre Site Southwest of the Intersection of Goldenwest Street/Talbert Avenue in Central ark; Adopt Resolution No. 2008-06 Certifying the Final EIR (SCH #2007041027) for the untington Beach Senior Center Project; Approve California Environmental Quality Act EQA) Statement of Findings of Fact with a Statement of Overriding Considerations February 4, 2008 — Council/Agency Agenda — Page 5 Communication from the City Attorney transmitting the following Statement of Issue: NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Monday, February 4, 2008, at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, the City Council will hold a public hearing on the following planning and zoning items: APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 07-002/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 07-039 (HUNTINGTON BEACH SENIOR CENTER) Appellant: Mayor Cook Request: Appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of Environmental Impact Report No. 07-002 and Conditional Use Permit No. 07-039 to permit the construction and operation of an approximately 45,000 square foot senior recreation facility with greater than a 3-foot grade differential on a 5-acre site in Central Park. The environmental impact report analyzes the potential environmental impacts associated with implementation of the proposed project. Location: 18041 Goldenwest Street (5-acre site generally located southwest of the intersection of Goldenwest Street and Talbert Avenue) Project Planner: Jennifer Villasenor NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that EIR No. 07-002 is on file at the City of Huntington Beach Planning Department, 2000 Main Street, and is available for public inspection and comment by contacting the Planning Department, or by telephoning (714) 536-5271. ON FILE: A copy of the proposed request is on file in the Planning Department, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California 92648, for inspection by the public. A copy of the staff report will be available to interested parties at the City Clerk's Office on Thursday, January 31, 2008. ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit evidence for or against the application as outlined above. If you challenge the City Council's action in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to, the public hearing. If there are any further questions please call the Planning Department at 536-5271 and refer to the above items. Direct your written communications to the City Clerk ■ Staff report ■ City Council discussion ■ Open public hearing ■ Following public input, close public hearing **PowerPoint presentation titled Huntington Beach Senior Center in Central Park, Appeal of Planning Commission's Approval of.- Environmental Impact Report No. 07-002, Conditional Use Permit No. 07-039 is included in the agenda packet. February 4, 2008—Council/Agency Agenda— Page 6 Funding Source: Not applicable Planning Commission and Staff Recommended Action: Motion to: 1. Approve Environmental Impact Report No. 07-002 as adequate and complete in accordance with CEQA requirements by approving Resolution No. 2008-06, "Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, Certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report(SCH#2007041027) for the Huntington Beach Senior Center Project." and 2. Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 07-039 with Findings and revised Conditions of Approval. and 3. Approve CEQA Statement of Findings of Fact with a Statement of Overriding Considerations. The City Clerk announced 54 Late Communications 31 Approved as amended to revise Conditional Use Permit No. 07-039 with Findings and revised Conditions of Approval suggested conditional approval on agenda packet page D-1.19, Item 2, to read. The project shall strive to achieve LEED certification standards with City Council input as to what Green Building elements/sustainable features will be included in the final project design. A variety of sustainable features shall be used and may include (but are not limited to) those recommended by the U.S. Green Building Council's Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Program certification (http://www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage.asox?CategorylD=19) or Build It Green's Green Building Guidelines and Rating Systems (http://www.builditgreen.org/index.cgm?fuseaction=guidelines). 5-2(Hardy, Cook No) E. CONSENT CALENDAR All rriatters listed on the Consent Calendar are considered by the.City Council and Redevelopment Agency to be routine and will be enacted by one motion in the form' listed. Recommended Action: Approve all items on, the Consent Calendar by affirmative roll call vote. E-1. (City Council/Redevelopment Agency) Approve Minutes — Motion to: Approve and adopt the minutes of the City Council/Redevelopment Agency regular meeting of January 22, 2008 as written and on file in the Office of the City Clerk. Submitted by the City Clerk. Approved 6-0-1 (Cook abstain) A • Credit 4.4 - Must pay close attention to particle board, plywood, door cores, etc. Composite wood and agrifiber products shall contain no added urea-formaldehyde resins. Added cost to the project is estimated to be$1,000. • Credit 7.1 - Credit requires mechanical ventilation system to be designed to meet ASHRAE Standard for Thermal Comfort for Human Occupancy. No additional cost to implement this credit. • Credit 7.2 - Credit requires an assessment of the building's thermal comfort over time. This can be done through a post-occupancy survey within a period of six to eighteen months after occupancy. There is no direct cost added to the project. • Credit 8.1 - Must provide building occupants a connection between the indoor spaces and the outdoors through daylight and views from regularly occupied spaces. Based upon the layout shown on the plan, this credit should be achievable at no added cost to the project. Innovation and Design Process • Credit 1.1 - Sustainable education program. Through the use of signage and graphics, a point can be achieved by educating the general public about green strategies and practices implemented into the project. Added cost to the project is estimated to be 16,000 for educational signs. • Credit 1.2 - Implement green housekeeping strategies. By developing a plan to use green housekeeping products in the maintenance and cleaning of the facility after occupancy, a credit can be achieved. There should be no added direct cost to the project. • Credit 1.3 - A continuation of Water Efficiency Credits 3.1 and 3.2, by using 40% less water an innovation point can be achieved. This includes using pint flush fixtures, waterless urinals, low flow faucets, and occupancy sensors. Added cost for this credit is built into Credits 3.1 and 3.2. • Credit 2 - One point is achieved for having a LEED Accredited Professional on the project team. Built into this credit is the fee for the LEED AP to manage and document the LEED process with the USGBC. Estimated added cost to manage and document is$80,000. LEED Go/a'Scv�e Card. �l2,oviats of39Iequired-7poteatia/po11its tIac�fred Sustainable Sites • Credit 8 - Credit requires interior lighting does not exit through the windows and exterior lighting only be supplied for safety and comfort. Due to the site's adjacency to the park there will be a significant light level reduction. There should be no added cost to the project to design the lighting system to meet the specified standards by this credit. Energy and Atmosphere • Credit 1 - 4 additional points for a total of 6 of the 10 possible are achieved through the addition of the On-Site Renewable Energy in Credit 2. The added cost for these points can be found in Energy and Atmosphere Credit 2 • Credit 2 - This seeks to reduce dependence on fossil fuels by encouraging the development of On-Site Renewable Energy. By adding Photovoltaic Panels on the roof of the building 3 points for on site renewable energy are achieved. The total cost of the points is estimated to be $355,000. These points form a synergy with the points in Credit 1 of this category. • Credit 5 - Measurement and Verification. This credit requires the installation of metering equipment to measure energy usage to provide an ongoing accountability of the building's energy consumption. The estimated cost for the metering LPA- equipment is$17,500. Materials and Resources • Credit 2.2 —The credit is a continuation of Credit 2.1. It requires an increase of construction waste diverted from landfills from 50% to 75%. To achieve this credit strong participation from the general contractor will be required. Added cost to the project is estimated to be$10,000, Indoor Environmental Quality • Credit 1 — This credit requires the installation of permanent monitoring systems for the ventilation system's performance to ensure that the minimum ventilation requirements are being met. The estimated cost for this credit is$11,000. • Credit 2 — This credit requires an increase in the outdoor air in the ventilation system to improve occupant comfort. There should be no cost impact to implement this credit into the design. • Credit 5 — The purpose of this credit is to minimize and control pollutants in occupied spaces. To achieve these credit permanent walk-off mats will be installed at exterior doors and exhaust systems will be used in rooms with hazardous gasses and chemicals to create a negative pressure in these rooms. Examples of the rooms would be a janitor closet or a copy room. Added cost to the project is estimated to be$10,000. Innovation and Design Process • Credit 1.4 — Credit 1.4 tracks a yet to be identified innovation credit. An allowance of $1,000 has been given to use toward the design of this innovation credit. This credit will likely come from an exemplary performance in a credit already taken advantage of. - - Huntington Beach Senior Centers 7 a ti - 1j l PA",LEADERSHIP IN DESIGIJ, � Project Type:-Greenfield Site with New`Building Structufe Demolition:`0`Sq Ff t ' Project Location:California' - "Paving Demolition 'O Sq Ft n Building Type:lnstifutional` Underground Parking 0:% Building:Structure:Other Building Gross Area .45,000 Sq Ft;- - Geographic Location:California Number of Stories High: 1- Climate Zone:Sage-Brush Number of,Occupants: 0 Author: Total Site Area: 5:0000 Acres Company:LPA, Inc. N N S C Y IL d 16 E T 7 I° i= x Design Construction Total a° a° Costs Costs Costs o TOTALS 8 0 14 $ 11,100 Is 97,000 $ 108,100 P#tERQ 7' Coinstruction Assumes that the engineering fees are:afready► chided to /Actnrit��-�ollutbn`Prevention, � the�eiy�l engineers fee ,' CREDIT 1: Site Selection 1 $ Is $ 0 CREDIT 2: Development Density&Community Connectivity 1 $ Is $ 0 CREDIT 3: Brownfield Development 1 $ Is Is 0 7= . ,, - CREDiT 41°aAlternative Proximity tot bus I66e.-�No additional�costs tTransportotion Public :rTraeisRortation Access CREDIT,4 2 AIfeiha*Uve 1 ssumes 300 occupahtp-maze n m and will egwre 1 .b CeTMW Transpo tation- Bichacks anc'2 shoe Tess ry ; k , Storage hangng o rps, : " -�.. _ a`'"6.bo'0 t. 10-Dec-2007 Page 1 of 9 Huntington ,Beach,Sens®r.Center,, a` LPW LEAq'RSHIP IN DESIGN 6k Ijlff 4 3 A1ternative.. � Provide preffered parking f6r low pm_ mitting:vehlclesyand Trap"'tjort 1owMinitting #` :x fuel eff ent veh' es equlvliant i 5%0 of total king ,a A FueI'E#kient,Vehicles capacity'of the site. Add.Slgnage 7777 3 1 $ $ 500 500` .. x= CRE 4. .`iAl�rnative �` Pr"oxide p�effere parking for ca ools and van ols;for or, Vans orta on asking 5%of total ste parkin ca >ty. 4 #S1 ge Capa -77 cr�y CREDIT 5.1: Site Will require site re-configuration and clear definition to Development: Protect or define limit of work to be disturbed. Site may have too Restore Habitat much grading to be feasable. 1 $ Is Is 0 CREDIT 5.2: Site Like Credit 5.2 will require a clear definition of what the Development: Maximize Open total site area is. Space 1 $ $ $ a CkfEDIT 61: $tormwater ;.= Limit post development_starm'dischasge toequal to or less- Deslgr ,Q ti Control Lf n that pre developtn rafes ;C.`' :xrequlra retentirr ' basins ` w ,r50 $ � 3$.00 $ ,50.0'. C EDt 6 2�-tWAnwater Treatment of�0%of p ak s orrnwate�run t77 D_ igrti'Quality Control systems such-as bios les Some B wales show n r �Qie ting dra gs. $ 3,5`0�0 a DI771 "Heatilslandr� , �Vldill requite li htcolor avin and sade_trees� _ q g c ,gip g . Effect . on- oof Assumed addition of shade trees In pafking logy#Not a ., significant add to the landscape architect scope of work. 5,0 0 $ . 15,0 CFEDFT7 2 =1eatlsladligh stslar r ctancez Staridlrrg Sim fVf"efaZoof "y Effect gRoof:, Cool roof on flat roof areas No cost to change color of Standing Seats►Roof.ai dltlonaI cost change built up =wr " roof to:cool roof,: ,t 1 1 $ '15,00p $ 15,00 CREDIT 8: Light Pollution This credit will require a significant light level reduction Reduction because of ajacent park. There could be a conflict if the city has a security/lighting ordinace. 1 $ Is Is 0 10-Dec-2007 Page 2 of 9 Hu nt'Ington beach Senor Center �i.LPAVLEAPIER§HIP IN DFE IbN N N C C Y d d a X Design Construction Total 0 a° Costs Costs Costs o TOTALS 2 1 5 $ 0 $ 2,000 $ 2,000 CREDIT 1.1:Water Efficient Since reclaimed water is not availible, this could prohibit Landscaping;Reduce by 50% the lawn area to allow for a 50% reduction in landscaping watering. Change will not effect cost. 1 1 $ Is $ 0 CREDIT 1.2:Water Efficient Will require reclaimed water on site. Landscaping: No Potable Water Use or No Irrigation 1 $ $ Is 0 CREDIT 2: Innovative Will require significant measures such as reclaimed water Wastewater Technologies on site, composting toilets. 1 $ Is Is 0 [FR Rf[ T �1 WaterMse ,t ti Gos assocatedKwlt cl ngi� Isti ig fi�ctur s lawfl aa: edu All 2U%° ed coon fixutres CRE 1,T 3 2 W ter Use Pint Flush Fixtures PIxol Flush 1/�alves -Low lov Faucafs .;; Reduction. $0%.Reduction' &,Occu ancy Senso s onTj cet . . N f° C C Y d a F- 16 E T 7 d x Design Construction Total o. a° 2 Costs Costs Costs o TOTALS 13 11 17 $ 100,000 $ 0 $ 100,000 PRERt±( 1, Fined mental nW Requires independant•enficaitiob that the be ldi4g's Commisswnn pf ttie energy reletect;systemare Instatfec cslibratcl an ` Buriding Energ Sys e s perform according to the'ownery's %ject regi xements :c basis of°desi andCorstrutian ocuments. n�:w r. n' .y, $ - 75,000 $ $ 751�000 10-Dec-2007 Page 3 of 9 Hanttngton Beach Seniqu.Center ggN LPr"V1'LEADERSHIP IN DESI PREREQ 2:Minimum Energy A Requires establishmenf:ofthe ninimum level ofengrgy Performance: ciency fgrthe proposed building and;syhstems' . + 0 e=requisite,is achieved withfitle 24 compliance $ ^' '' $ REREQ 3:,Fundamental' Zero,ti6 of CFC 6ased'fefrigerarjt yin H° i, sy ,s Refri erant_Management to:reduce ozone depletion 0 CR IT 1:'Optimize Energy �., 2 poir is achieved t iraugh C" A nce with TitN 24 }°` Performer ce w r r. . . 2 10 s s $ $ 0 CREDIT 2: On-Site Renewable Assumes addition of Photovoltaic Panels for onsite energy Ener y generation. 3 $ Is Is 0 CREDIT=3: Enhanced 20% -3(S%o cost�increase-over'��Prel eq.�3 Fund mental .Commis Toni b=f ! mmissioning of,_the Buildin <Energy,rSystems.' 25,00.0 CREDIT 4: Enhanced Point will hinge upon what type of Air Handling System is Refrigerant Management specified. Point is easier with a Large Air Handler. May not apply to existing design. 1 $ Is Is 0 CREDIT 5: Measurement& Install necessary metering equipment to measure energy Verification usage to provide for the ongoing accountabiltiy of building energy consumption over time. 1 $ Is $ 0 CREDIT 6:Green Power Can be a cost effective point to take advantage of if necessary. Cost associated with this credit will require a long term operation cost commitment. 1 1 $ Is $ 0 4- N N C Y a a H l6 E �+ S a x Design Construction Total a° a° 2 Costs Costs Costs o TOTALS 2 3 13 $ 0 $ 15,000 $ 15,000 10-Dec-2007 Page 4 of 9 Huntington Beach Senior Center t_L LEr?+DERS IIP IN DU16N)i P{REREQ31 -Stprabe;' :Provide Medicated areas fouthe collection and storage of -plleetion"of RecyclA,bles >,,. - recycled materials » x $ :.: $ .,,0' CREDIT 1.1: Building Reuse: Maintain 75% of Existing Walls, Floors& Roof 1 $ Is Is o CREDIT 1.2: Building Reuse- Maintain 951/6 of Existing Walls, Floors& Roof 1 $ Is Is o CREDIT 1.3: Building Reuse: Maintain 50% of Interior Non-Structural Elements 1 $ Is $ o dREDIT 21 s Cons ru ion .Waste.Management: Divert . 566 From Diis osa� CREDIT 2.2: Construction Waste Management: Divert 75% From Disposal 1 $ Is Is o CREDIT 3.1: Materials Reuse: 5% 1 $ Is Is 0 CREDIT 3.2: Materials Reuse: 10% 1 $ Is $ o CREDIT 4.1: Recycled> Achievable with a Steel Frame Building. Track quantities Content: 10% (post-consumer of Fly Ash in the Concrete. If the building is wood framed, +'/2 pre-consumer) this point maybe more difficult to achieve. 1 1 $ $ $ o CREDIT 4.2:°Recycled Content: 20% (post-consumer +7/2 pre-consumer) i i $ Is $ o 10-Dec-2007 Page 5 of 9 Huntington Beach Senior�Center �LPA LEADERSHVIN DESIGN Ni RED1T 51 A`Regfl ionai Achievable with arge"amountf Si#e;Workrough k aterials 10°lo Extracted,- locally supplied concrete;and landscape materials rossed fillanufactureda e !onally 1 $ ax e - CREDIT 5.2: Regional Materials: 20% Extracted, Processed&Manufactured Regionally 1 $ Is Is 0 CREDIT 6: Rapidly Renewable Materials 1 $ Is $ 0 CREDIT 7: Certified Wood This could be a difficult point to achieve in a wood framed building. . 1 1 $ Is $ 0 ® ® ® ® 1 N N C C Y d d H f6 E �+ d x Design Construction Total a° a° M Costs Costs Costs o TOTALS 9 1 15 $ 0 $ 9,000 $ 9,000 IMEREQ 1 Minimum IAQ Establish fa minimum Indoor air quality,performance to t. Ferforrnanc+ hance'tlie i oor air; uali inthe# "uilck gs.°., �# �t�. PR� EQ 2 Environmental, Prohibit smoking in the building and.locate,any exterior Toba, co Smq)I;p(ETS)Control desigr at'ed sr' kin .areas a ;lea t 25 feet�sway from building entries, outdoor air.,intakes and operable windows. 01, CREDIT 1: Outdoor Air Delivery Monitoring 1 $ Is Is 0 CREDIT 2: Increased Ventilation 1 $ Is Is 0 10-Dec-2007 Page 6 of 9 v Huntington Beach Senior Center. � - .I� LP1�VTIEaDERSRiP IN DESIGN . 'CRED T 31 _Constructlon IAQ = t-Develop and implerr,ent,an Indoor Air Quality Management , hayPla� rcstrucfia� d pr e-oecMe ' enfOan. Durng upa ps " a "$ Canstr action ' 2,5 $ T2,50,0 77 CREDITS 2 ons •uctr n°IAQ 'oint can impadt prolect�s educe and bud'g'et•due to" Management°Plan..Before testing and building flush-out: $ Oceupanc � : r F. aC,REDIT Eri itting:", AIY`adhesives artti;sealants used on t eumte ar thee y: ', Materials Adheswes building shall comply with the requirements-of the South „ Se ian fi, ° CoaAirQuality M gementstrl rgOC omits} $' $ l,000 $ 1 000. CREDIT 4 2 Low Emitting Paints and coatings used on the interior of the building Materials Paints$i C.oa ngs shal#riot excee the V66 ntei�t limits eatabiished b} the Green'-Seal Standard for-paints:w-` �" ter.. , SIT 4.3 �Low-fmitt�pg. All carpet insta Ted in the building interior sh"11``tr�eet the Materia s Ca:pet st s s roduct,require ents fort Carpet d Rug IRst tote's h green Label PI�s'prtlgrarrt� limit V ;content rrrcarpet adhesives. 1,000.. CREDIT 4 4: Low-Emitting ;`Must pay close attention to particle board, plywood, door ., F Materials Coin os�te V od h ore%,;etc.. Cv ositeaw.o�'an, gr� ber tiducts sl�ll Agi�fiber Produ" iicts ., conta n no added urea-formalde yde resins 1 � o 0 of$ .x. CREDIT 5: Indoor Chemical& Minimize and control pollutants in occupied spaces Pollutant Source Control through the use of permanent entryway systems designed to capture dirt and particualtes from entering the building,' exhaust rooms with hazardous gasses and chemicals to create negative pressure in those rooms,and provide MERV 13 filtration filters or better for mechanical ventilation system. 1 1 $ s $ 0 CREDIT 6.1: Controllability of Systems: Lighting 1 $ Is $ 0 CREDIT 6.2: Controllability of Systems: Thermal Comfort 1 $ Is $ 0 10-Dec-2007 Page 7 of 9 Hunthigt®n Beach Senior>Cehter " LPWLEADER SHIP. IN,DESIGN �I CREDIT 71 hermal Comfort Deslgngrimechanical ventilation system to mee#the `0esignV �, ,AHRAE Standard for Thermal.Comfort Conditions for - - 'Human"Occuapncy.i $: t0 , .. =T,7,.2-J-hPFmaI-Co"f rt 1 :R. Requires a post cupancy s iey of instated s terns#ation: $ x CRE�IT-IT 8 1. Daylight-&Views Appears attainable based upon the existing layout of the z` ,:a ! . ht5°% ,D CREDIT 8.2: Daylight&Views: Views for 90% of Spaces 1 $ Is $ o 1 0 . ® ® A N C Y d d H l° E a x Design Construction Total 0.0 a° Costs Costs Costs o TOTALS 4 0 5 $ 81,000 $ 15,000 $ 96,000 CREDIT 1 1 Innovati6"A m� . '. Sustainable Education Program $ . 1,.. $,:.= Y5,000 000. 1 `,000• CREDIT 1 2 linovaton in j Imple nt een kiousepl Strat des3°; t �, .' Desi..n R a CREDIT 1 3 [itnovatioli In . Wafer Use Reduction-:to 40% k r ,.:. i 1 ''40� CREDIT 1A Innovation in TBD Design 1 $ Is $ o ,;CEDIT 2 LEER,Accredited ' Pofesslonal � . a . . 7. 8 �'-000.$. 80 pop r 10-Dec-2007 Page 8 of 9 - , � r - - ; Wintington Beach Senior Center l ` ; = o ,t a ._ L �LEADERSHIP IN DESIGN�L� H N C C Y a d H 10 E a x Design Construction Total ° ° 2 a a Costs Costs Costs TOTAL POINTS TAKEN 28 $ 192,100 $ 138,000 $ 330,100 TOTAL POTENTIAL POINTS 6 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 TOTAL COMBINED POINTS 34 1 69 $ 192,100 $ 138,000 $ 330,100 Points Taken Potential Points=- Maximum,ppints ,:Certified =26'1 .Silver- "33 28 6 69 cola 39': Platinum 52' 10-Dec-2007 Page 9 of 9 Huntington Beach ,Senior .Cente' r w PA® i A J� DERSHIP IN DESIGR Project Type:Greenfield Site with New Building :. - :`• Structure Demolition: 0 Sq Ft Project Location:California", rt : Pavingx.Demolition:,-O Sq Ft >.. Building Type:Institutional Underground Parking; 0.% Building Structure:Othe'er ' Building Gross Area:.45,000.Sq Ft, Geographic Location:California Number of Stories High: 1 � Climate Zone:Sage Btush Number=of Occupants: 0 .,Author:. Total Site Area: 5.,0000 Acres Company:LPA, Inc. ` N � r+ S C Y a a F /6 E N d X Design Construction Total V a° a° 2 Costs Costs Costs o TOTALS 9 2 14 $ 11,1001s 97,000 $ 108�100 > RE Bf 1 Construction' ' Assumed that tFi`e engineermg_fees are already "'C' ded In, ,._ r ; .Acttvt °yPtrllut�on P�eenoti the"ciVif engirieer'9-f6e. _6i L$ CREDIT 1: Site Selection 1 $ Is $ 0 CREDIT 2: Development Density&Community Connectivity 1 $ Is $ 0 CREDIT 3: Brownfield Development 1 $ Is Is 0 OCREDIT 41 Alternative x ,Proxirnity,to Z bus lines."No additional;posts rasortafion: Public .Transportation Access *CREDIT 4:2_Alterriative? - M Assurtae300 ocipnts°maXirnuim and I'rquiret 15ilce' .Transpq at on:.BJ Ie .�' � >�� .- •,..� `rack ,n�2�hovu�rs � �. :�;� � ; -; �. torage,,&Changing_Rpos ,fir :3 10-Dec-2007 Page 1 of 9 H"httogton'Beach Seni6r'Center` LPA1 I EAQERS-HIP#N DESIGN- CREDIT 4 3 Alter at ve :.H t Provide.preffered.jparking for low eftlrn =vehiclesands Transportation 'LwErritting v µ_ g, fuel effcient vehicles'equlviiantto 5%of total parking Fuel E,fficierit Vehicles capacity of the site Add Signage : . $ $ , g sbo goo. 'CRED T 4 4 Alternat ye„,,, 4Pr aide preffe� d.p„arking fc c irpools!a, a. u ols for r ;. Trans o ation Parti ng <5%0 of total site. arking.sap cii Add $Ignage : , n . °C00aci >.l 1 CREDIT 5A: Site Will require site re-configuration and clear definition to Development: Protector define limit of work to be'disturbed. Site may have too Restore Habitat much grading to be feasable. � $ Is $ 0 CREDIT 5.2: Site Like Credit 5.2 will require a clear definition of what the Development: Maximize Open total site area is. Space 1 1 $ Is Is 0 CREDIT 6 1 Stormwter Limit post development storm discharge to equal to,or less,. Design: Quantity Con#roi = than pre=developmetn rates Could require a mention basins •; 1 1 4 500 3:5,OQO39 500 CREDtT�'2Stcrmwaer x'f f peak + ugheatmentof 666 ' boswesS e i Deslg ssmuch ow}% C s ' t i 4'existin g,drei ings. 1 1 € r5s'00 $ 25N0 29 !00F REDIT 71. Heat Island .: Will require light.colored&paving and ssiiac a trees . ffct Non-Roof Assumes4add#tion of�sha a trees In parking lot: Not a significant add to the',ian scape arcliitecf scopq of work 2,50.0 $_ 15 00t7 $ ,p ,17°,54Q, fCR DIT 7 2 Heat Island fi High solaf reflectance on�St nding Seam Metal Roof.,; EffectR2�of ±Cool roof`onfla `r'oof areas `ocost to cake cotgr Sfari ingrSeam�Rtoof, a io�nal cost changebutt'-dp ' .- r. roof for cool rpofIlk .= $.5 :CREDIT 8 Lig1 t Paollutio r `, This credit will req�ur signrfic nt gfit leve reeuctiori t eduction r iecause.of aja nt p k: Tl re could b c nfllct if tl,e y: pg u city nas`a secun y/lighting ord nade. 10-Dec-2007 Page 2 of 9 Fiuntl ntiton Beach Senior jCenter LPAxi � � ESIGN�L C1ERSi-eIP IN.DE N N C C Y a a H <0 E w d x Design Construction Total a. a. 2 Costs Costs Costs o TOTALS 1 2 1 5 $ o $ 2,000 $ 2,o00 CREDIT 1.1:Water Efficient Since reclaimed water is not availible, this could prohibit Landscaping, Reduce by 500/6 the lawn area to allow for 50% reduction in landscaping watering. Change will not effect cost. 1 1 $ Is $ o CREDIT 1.2: Water Efficient Will require reclaimed water on site. Landscaping: No Potable Water Use or No Irrigation 1 $ Is Is 0 CREDIT 2: Innovative Will require significant measures such as reclaimed water Wastewater Technologies on site, composting toilets. 1 $ Is Is 0 C D1T 31:VUater:Use Cost associated.wlth changing exlstlrig fixtures'low flow R ucti6,rt==20�0R,educt�orr= 'y fizuties M: oT µ. �Qr L §*� m ,au CREI T 2: Vater Use PiWi6 h Fixtures;Dual Flush Va es;.Low ow Faucefs; Redutio ; 3 % ecctn : t cupandy'Sensorsn Facetstf , , 1° 1 1„ u $ x 1,'0 0A$ l,o ag N N C C E T d x Design Construction Total a° 0- 1 2 Costs Costs Costs o TOTALS 11 1 1 17 $ 132,500 $ 340,000 $ 472,500 APR-EREQ'1:fundamental Required inc7ependant enficaitior thatMthe build) s Comrr> ss ni g c#tf a ..° ene>.gy related systems are InsJalle-,callb to and 13ujldi' Energy Systems perform_according to the owner's project requirements, xi. ' tsasis oftdesi n;.and ciasfrt'ionh'ttacuient :"' �.. 10-Dec-2007 Page 3 of 9 �}- r_ � Huntington,Peach Senior Center IIl � 1: L`E,}d- ER1 INDSI �LL E� Y _j- ' PElEQ 2 Min rmm Energy Requires jestablishmentyof the%mrnrmum{evet=ofnergy f Performance ` efficiency for the,proposed buildir :and.system tr:Preceguisife isachievet(,_wh' itl 24_,corypfi n 0 x' P�2EREQ i. Fuq#am"t l .. Zeno use of CFD ba75'secjve iggrants n:HVAC&R systems �RefrrgerantlVlanagemenf to reduceozone depletion 1, $ 4, '0 CREDIT 1O tr r rgy�. r .Z.pornts achreved'throu compliance with True 24 Other Performances points achieved in conjuration With installatior off `{ Photovoltaic Panes. 7 776 '10 $: $ CREDIT 2 'On-Site Reneinratile Assumes�additionof.PhotovoltaicRanels,f6rz,. .",,e energy 'Ener 3 ;0 0 $ .s° LS 00'0`$ ,. 'I�35,5'.0 0` "CREDIT 3 >Erlthancedy W, f� 4 ,209 30°/�'cost4ncreas ov4r PreReq:p3 F r,nearnenta , Commi si„ n' ..,v y mk o. s.oni rag of#h B adipg Ener1ayx-5y a 's. CREDIT 4: Enhanced Point will hinge upon what type of Air Handling System is Refrigerant Management specified. Point is easier with a Large Air Handler. May not apply to existing design. 1 $ Is Is 0 ;CREDIT51VIeasuremento&. Install ifecssary naetericrguipmerft ttmasure energy; Venficar usage to p rode for the,, ngoing accoutabiltiy of biking � . enegycons pion ov time. . i 1 . , . . . $ $ 2 50,0 $ .. 15,0 :07,50Q CREDIT 6:Green Power Can be a cost effective point to take advantage of if necessary. Cost associated with this credit will require a long term operation cost commitment. 1 1 $ Is Is 0 Ell, N N C C Y d d F 16 E r d x Design Construction Total ° ° 2 a a Costs Costs Costs o TOTALS 3 3 13 $ 0 $ 25,000 $ 25,000 10-Dec-2007 Page 4 of 9 C- -, Huntington, Beach Senior Center LP1•' UFADERSHIRIN DESIGN PREREQ'1 Storage& Pro vide+dedicatediareas for the collection and sforage of Collection of Riec clables recycled materials, .. kr . 0 " v .: _ CREDIT 1.1: Building Reuse: Maintain 75% of Existing Walls, Floors& Roof 11 1 $ Is Is 0 CREDIT 1.2: Building Reuse- Maintain 95% of Existing Walls, Floors& Roof 1 $ Is $ 0 CREDIT 1.3: Building Reuse: Maintain 50% of Interior Non-Structural Elements 1 $ Is 0 qC REDIT 2� 'Construction dlfas Management: Divertx 50% rcrriis osalr . CRED1 2$2. 00 :- mi F egtfires strong participatio 5d cooperation onubel if a," N dste Man agorer :;fiusrt z tie Contractor:r 75o Fr m Pis osat00 . .. CREDIT 3.1: Materials Reuse: 5% 1 $ $ $ 0 CREDIT 3.2: Materials Reuse: 10% 1 $ Is Is 0 CREDIT 4.1: Recycled Achievable with a Steel Frame Building. Track quantities Content: 10% (post-consumer of Fly Ash in the.Concrete. If the building is wood framed, +'/h pre-consumer) this point may be more dificult to achieve. 1 1 $ $ $ o CREDIT 4.2: Recycled Content: 20% (post-consumer +'/2 pre-consumer) 1 1 $ $ $ Or 10-Dec-2007 Page 5 of 9 'Huntington Beach Senior pp"ter [� LP1•' LEADERSHIP IN DESIdN RfDIT 51y Regional Achievable with:a large`�imourit of Site;Woric thro rgh; katerials: 10%_ Extracted,-- r r locally suppled cancroti ar�d landscape materials; O r cessedA,Manrjfacturpd, 2egionallY. 1 1 $ f t , CREDIT 6.2: Regional Materials: 20% Extracted, Processed&Manufactured Regionally 1 $ Is Is 0 CREDIT 6: Rapidly Renewable Materials 1 $ Is $ 0 CREDIT 7: Certified Wood This could be a difficult point to achieve in a wood framed building. 1 1 $ $ $ 0 01 M N N C C Y a a H R E d X Design Construction Total a° a° E Costs Costs Costs o TOTALS 12 0 15 $ 1,000 $ 29,000 $ 30,000 PREREQ 1 MinirndrrtlAQ , x v Establish-aminimumIndoor air quality pedorcr ance to Pirfo`rmance, ,.enhance the:indoor air guality.in theurld n s O PREREQ :'Ervioiirieital'_ Prohibit smoking'in the�buiCdirg`and locate'any exterior . 7ol acco;'Smolce(ETS)Control designated moking areas at iesst 25:feet a qq from 4- ix 'buildin ,,entries,,outdoor air intakes and,operaele:windows..- $.. r. s a CREDIT 1 Outdoor Air m r Install petmajpdt monitoring systems"that P;ravide :Deliaiery Monitoring,-. a feedback on ventilation`system performance to ensure m pyst' s'maintain min imum,ventllati6.ff reguirements. Ty l 1 1 0,0 0 $ 10 0 t 0° $ . ,,1.1,*O,0,0 $ ,CREDIT-2-lr reasetl - Pr"O\Ad additio I outdoor ai r ve'ntt%rla on fo imprave:ind of :Ve.ntilatro x ii qr ality f©r'rnProve upar�domfott:x 77 7 ` 10-Dec-2007 Page 6 of 9 Flunt�ngton��each Sena®r Center { LPW LEADERSHIP IN DESI61N ii CREDIT 31 ;Co strubbdn IAQ peyelo�apd Implerr> nt�an Jndoor Pjr, u ity Manag n t;, R ana ement Plan D'ring Plan for c nstruction ant pie-occupancy chases r GOnSt�UC01 2.500 CREDI 3 2. Construction IAC m Point can rnpact protect schedule and,budget.due to.t Management Plan Befare testing acid building flush=ou# w > . Occupancy _CREpl 4 low Emitting All.,adhe$ives andAe�antsAused n nteri.0®f tie q IMaterials �►dhesrves& building shall comply,frith tie i ctpirements,cif the$ .uth Y.. sealants Coast:Alr Quality Managerr err D strLcj torVO`C imp i 1 CEEDIT4 2 Low Emitting, Paintsan coatgs used o�tlae ulterior'of the;building , IVlate}ria.sat�nts 8�Coatings shall not,exceethe VOA content Ilmitsestablshed by the. Green Seal Standard for a nts,_ 1 1 1 000 l;6ob_ CRE IT 4.3. Low Emitting All Kcarpetjnstalled irr the,build ttg ter or stla meet the YMateals.Carp et�Systems product requretents for4theCrpet alai Fiignstitutes , Green Label lus rogram tO 1pi VOG-content in carpet adhesives. c az $ r ,000 $ �1 r 00 CREDIT 4 4 Low- miffing, Must pay dose attention o particle badplyrood doer s; aterials Composite Wood codes, etc; Corr positevV "a d agrlfrfser r acts shall• Arifrber;Produc#s .;` u . contain no added urea-formaldehyde,resins. �Ciit& 5 lnc1por.Chenrraal,A �n ginir ize,and cantrpl pollutant in ccupied s ac s ,. Polluaat Source.Control s though the use of ermanent nt ay syste .,s designed to capture dirt and articual es ro enferirig�ie"bOding - '` e tiaust rooms wi th hazed s'gass`es r ,hbrni'As'o , "create' egaf a pressure n those;room acid provide • .£_ MERV�:3nfiltr-ation filters*better for mechanical, = ventilation sy tem n . g . CREDIT 6.1: Controllability of Systems: Lighting 1 $ Is $ o CREDIT 6.2: Controllability of Systems: Thermal Comfort 1 $ Is Is o 10-Dec-2007 Page 7 of 9 Huntington Beach'Seni®r Center CfDI 7. T1erm'9l Comfort design mee(ariil tilation.systen 'o etthe DesIgnri ASHRAE Stand.ggd fo Thermal.Comf Conditions .:, HumanOccua n P' Y• - 77 C DIT 7 2 TherinaLComfort Requires a post`occupanc survey of installed4systems Vein#ictid , : .; x . CREDIT 8 1 baylight 8�Views. . Appears attainable based upon the existing layout of the M Payli f., 70 `Saces :` iildrrtg. LL :� ... ati. CREDIT 8.2: Daylight&Views: Views for 90% of Spaces 1 $ Is Is 0 N N C C Y a a H 16 E �+ d x Design Construction Total ° ° 2 a a Costs Costs Costs o TOTALS j 5 0 5 $ 82,000 $ 15,000 $ 97,000 CREDIT�1.1nritvaionin ' "' Su st inahie duration Frogra�� besi n' t v 1,#000 $ 15,000„ REDIT 1 2 tnnova$i6e ''implement Green Housel�eeping Strategies x n ; CREDI 1.S Innovation in 1NaterUse Reduori 40%' De 'gn. `% max. $ $ 0 `CREDI1.4lnovio�vn: TRD . Ces� ri , , . o00 $ $, 1,fl00: CREDIT 2. LEEb Accredited ' Professional F 1 1 $ ll 80,000 $ z. $ 80„ .0.0, 10-Dec-2007 Page 8 of 9 -K.. ;.- Huntington Beach Senior Center I '•..,,�, �i LP tEAUt!7(b W IN DESIGN �l N N 15 C C l0 x Design Construction Total a° a° 2 Costs Costs Costs TOTAL POINTS TAKEN 42 $ 226,600 $ 508,000 $ 734,600 TOTAL POTENTIAL POINTS 7 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 TOTAL COMBINED POINTS 49 69 $ 226,600 $ 508,000 $ 734,600 Points Taken. Potential Points Maximum Points Certified ,26 Silver '33 4'� G(1 Gold 3 g V 7 Platinum 52 10-Dec-2007 Page 9 of 9 Council/Agency Meeting Held: Deferred/Continued to: ov d Co ditionall Ap roved ❑ Deni� it erk' Sig at re Council Meeting Date: 2/4/2008 Department D Number: PL08-01 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCI RS SUBMITTED BY: PAUL EMERY, Interim City Administrator PREPARED BY: SCOTT HESS, Director of Planning`, SUBJECT: APPROVE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 07-002 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 07-039 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF THE HUNTINGTON BEACH SENIOR CENTER (Appeal of Planning Commission's approval) Statement of Issue,Funding Source,Recommended Action,Alternative Action(s),Analysis,Environmental Status,Attachment(s) Statement of Issue: Transmitted for your consideration is an appeal by Mayor Debbie Cook of the Planning Commission's approval of Environmental Impact Report No. 07-002 and Conditional Use Permit No. 07-039 for the construction and operation of an approximately 45,000 square foot senior center with greater than a 3-foot grade differential on a 5-acre site in Central Park. The environmental impact report analyzes the potential environmental impacts associated with implementation of the proposed project. The Planning Commission approved the project on December 11, 2007, with conditions, based on findings that the project is compatible with the surrounding uses, complies with applicable codes, will not have detrimental impacts to residential uses in the vicinity, and is consistent with General Plan goals and policies. Staff and the Planning Commission are recommending that the City Council approve the request with recommended findings and suggested conditions of approval (Recommended Action) based on the following: - General Plan goals, objectives, and policies encourage the establishment of uses that support the needs of existing and future Huntington Beach residents when compatible with, and sensitive to, adjacent uses. - Project provides a centrally located senior and human service recreation facility in the City of Huntington Beach. - Project provides for a new senior center large enough to meet the current and future demands of an increasing senior population. - Project will enhance the community image of the City of Huntington Beach through the design and construction of a high quality development. - Project complies with applicable zoning regulations of the OS-PR zoning designation. REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 2/4/2008 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL08-01 Funding Source: Not applicable. Recommended Action: Motion to: PLANNING COMMISSION AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: 1. "Approve Environmental Impact Report No. 07-002 as adequate and complete in accordance with CEQA requirements by approving Resolution No. 2008-06 (ATTACHMENT NO. 1)." 2. "Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 07-039 with findings and revised conditions of approval (ATTACHMENT NO. 2)." 3. "Approve CEQA Statement of Findings of Fact with a Statement of Overriding Considerations (ATTACHMENT NO. 3)." Planning Commission Action on December 11, 2007: THE MOTION MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECONDED BY SPEAKER, TO CERTIFY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 07-002 BY APPROVING RESOLUTION NO. 1618 CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: DWYER, LIVENGOOD, SCANDURA, SHIER-BURNETT, SPEAKER NOES: FARLEY, SHAW ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE THE MOTION MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECONDED BY SPEAKER, TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 07-039 WITH FINDINGS AND REVISED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AND A CEQA STATEMENT OF FINDINGS OF FACT WITH A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: DWYER, LIVENGOOD, SCANDURA, SPEAKER NOES: FARLEY, SHAW, SHIER-BURNETT ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE NOTIONS PASSED -2- 1/24/2008 8:51 AM REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 2/4/2008 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL08-01 Alternative Action(s): The City Council may make the following alternative motion(s): 1. "Deny Environmental Impact Report No. 07-002 and Conditional Use Permit No. 07-039 with findings." 2. "Continue Environmental Impact Report No. 07-002 and Conditional Use Permit No. 07-039 and direct staff accordingly." Analysis: A. PROJECT PROPOSAL: Applicant/Property Owner: City of Huntington Beach, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Location: 18041 Goldenwest Street (5-acre site southwest of the intersection of Goldenwest Street/Talbert Avenue in Central Park) Conditional Use Permit No. 07-039, as approved by the Planning Commission, represents a request to construct and operate a 45,000 square foot senior recreation facility on a 5-acre site in Central Park pursuant to Chapter 213.06 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (HBZSO). The conditional use permit is also necessary because the project is located on a site with a grade differential greater than 3 feet. The 5-acre project site is located within the 356-acre Huntington Central Park and generally located southwest of the intersection of Goldenwest Street and Talbert Avenue, between the disc golf course, which is at a higher elevation, and the Shipley Nature Center. The 5-acre project site will comprise the senior center building, parking lot, and open space area (ATTACHMENT NO. 4). The approximately 45,000 square foot building consists of a community hall/dining room, group exercise, fitness and dance rooms, multi-use classrooms, a kitchen, a social lounge, and administrative offices. The outdoor open area includes a patio with a decorative trellis, an expansive lawn, a garden, a fountain, a barbecue area, benches, and a natural meadow. The parking area includes a total of 233 parking spaces, including 14 disabled parking spaces and 6 oversized stalls for shuttle buses. The Planning Commission, as a condition of approval, required an additional 6 disabled parking spaces to be provided on the project site. Landscaping is provided throughout the site and consists of a mix of California native and non-native, drought-tolerant vegetation. Ingress and egress to and from the site are proposed via a new access driveway with entry gate at the existing Goldenwest Street/Talbert Avenue intersection. An existing traffic signal at this location will be modified for traffic to enter and exit the project site. -3- 1/24/2008 8:51 AM REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 2/4/2008 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL08-01 B. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AND RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission certified the EIR and approved the project at a public hearing on December 11, 2007, with revised conditions of approval to address final project design and ensure the incorporation of green building practices. Comments at the hearing were received from 14 individuals; 6 spoke in support of the project, and 8 spoke in opposition. The revised conditions of approval included bringing the final landscape plans back to the Planning Commission for review and approval as a non-public hearing item. The Planning Commission also placed a condition requiring the proposed senior center to be a U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) LEED certified project. The complete list of conditions approved by the Planning Commission is provided as ATTACHMENT NO. 2. C. APPEAL: On December 20, 2007, Mayor Cook filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of the proposed project (ATTACHMENT NO. 5). The appeal letter cites concerns regarding project funding, the adequacy of the analysis in the EIR, and land use compatibility issues as the basis for the appeal. D. STAFF ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION: Staff is recommending certification of the EIR and approval of the project based on the suggested findings and subject to the suggested conditions of approval as approved by the Planning Commission. In addition, mitigation measures, incorporated in EIR No. 07-002, ensure that residences in the vicinity will not be detrimentally impacted and that all potentially significant, project-specific environmental impacts can be mitigated to less than significant levels. A complete project analysis and an overview of EIR No. 07-002 are provided in the Planning Commission staff reports (ATTACHMENT NOS. 6 & 7). It should be noted that the Planning Commission staff report for the EIR (Attachment No. 6) discusses potentially significant impacts to traffic/transportation at the intersection of Goldenwest Street and Slater Avenue. The staff report also discusses a mitigation measure requiring an additional northbound through-lane at this intersection that would involve the removal of 12 on-street parking spaces on Goldenwest Street. Prior to the Planning Commission meeting, but after the staff reports went out, additional trip generation analyses were done, and the impacts were found to be less than significant thereby calling for the deletion of the proposed mitigation measure. The Planning Commission was presented with this information at the December 11t" hearing and incorporated revisions to the final EIR and resolution into their actions. -4- 1/24/2008 8:51 AM REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 2/4/2008 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL08-01 The analysis below focuses on the appeal filed by Mayor Cook on December 20, 2007. A brief summary of each appeal issue is presented. CEQA/EIR The appeal letter cites the following areas of the EIR: project description, discussion of alternatives, mitigation measures, impacts to wildlife, loss of open space, and aesthetics. Project Description Section 15124 of the CEQA Guidelines requires that a project description should contain a description of the project's technical, economic and environmental characteristics, the project location, the project's objectives and underlying purpose, the intended use of the EIR, and a list of any other actions or permits the project will require. A project description should not include extensive details beyond what is required for evaluation and review of environmental impacts. The project description in the senior center EIR includes all of the requirements of CEQA in addition to a detailed discussion on the site history and background, the project elements and site improvements including a preliminary site plan and elevations, operational aspects of the proposed senior recreation facility, and a construction scenario including construction timing. No known aspects of the project relevant to environmental analysis were excluded from the project description. Alternatives CEQA requires that an EIR describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project or its location that could feasibly attain the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant impacts of the project. An EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative to a project; rather, it must consider a range of potentially feasible alternatives that will foster informed decision-making and public participation. An EIR should also evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. Three alternatives were selected for detailed analysis in the Draft EIR: ■ No Project/Continuation of Uses Allowed By Existing General Plan and Master Plan — Analyzes development on the site as a "low intensity recreation area" with the access driveway, parking lot, restrooms, tot lot, and open space. ■ Reduced Project/Alternative Configuration — Analyzes a reduction in the size of the development with a 30,000 square foot building re-oriented to the southeast corner of the site. • Alternative Site — Analyzes the alternative site location of the northwest corner of Ellis Avenue and Goldenwest Street. Other alternatives that were also briefly discussed in the EIR but determined to be infeasible included: a no project/no development alternative, construction of a new senior center on the Rodgers Senior Center site, and multiple satellite senior centers throughout the City. -5- 1/24/2008 8:51 AM REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 2/4/2008 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL08-01 The appeal letter does not indicate what aspects of the alternatives analysis are insufficient, but staff believes that the analysis in the EIR meets the requirements of CEQA and provides a thorough discussion of the alternatives. Mitigation Measures Mitigation measures proposed in the EIR ensure that all project-specific impacts will be reduced to less than significant levels. Staff and PBS&J, the environmental consultant that prepared the EIR, believe that all of the proposed mitigation measures can adequately mitigate potential impacts and would be feasible to implement. Also, most of the mitigation measures from the 1999 Central Park Master EIR have been incorporated into the senior center EIR as mitigation measures or code requirements. In addition to Table 2-2 which consists of a summary of impacts and proposed mitigation measures in the draft EIR, a mitigation monitoring and reporting program is required to describe the implementation documentation, the monitoring activity and responsible monitor, and the timing of each mitigation measure to make certain that all mitigation measures are carried out. Impacts to Wildlife PBS&J conducted a general botanical survey and a focused blooming season survey in addition to a general wildlife survey at the project site for the EIR. A total of 12 plant species and 14 wildlife species were recorded within the project site during the survey. Other sensitive plant and wildlife species have the potential to occur on the project site. Through incorporation of mitigation measures, impacts to the burrowing owl, a sensitive wildlife species with moderate potential to occur on the site, and other protected or sensitive avian species can be mitigated to less than significant levels. These mitigation measures require focused surveys and avoidance measures prior to any ground disturbance activities. Additionally, to mitigate the loss of 5 acres of raptor foraging habitat as a result of project implementation, MM 4.3-2 requires that 5 acres of suitable area be conserved and/or enhanced for raptor foraging. The conservation/enhancement plan must be approved by a qualified biologist and completed prior to occupancy of the building. Loss of Open Space &Aesthetics Although the project would not result in significant project-specific impacts, implementation of the proposed project could result in significant cumulative impacts to aesthetics. The cumulative adverse aesthetic impact is a result of the overall loss of undeveloped open space in Central Park. However, the project may still be approved if a Statement of Overriding Considerations is adopted. CEQA requires decision makers to balance the benefits of the proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to approve the project. If the benefits of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the City may consider the adverse environmental effects acceptable. Staff and the Planning Commission believe the benefits of the proposed project outweigh the adverse impact to aesthetics in that the project provides a centrally located, LEED-certified -6- 1/24/2008 8:51 AM REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 2/4/2008 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL08-01 senior center that will be large enough to meet current and future demands of an increasing senior population in the City of Huntington Beach. Furthermore, if the project site was not developed with the proposed senior center, the assumption is that it would be developed with passive recreation uses previously identified in the Central Park Master Plan. These uses include access to the site and a parking lot, a tot lot, picnic shelter, restrooms, and open space. Although the intensity of uses would be reduced, the site would not remain undeveloped. CUP/Land Use Compatibility Although the proposed project will result in the development of a new senior center on existing open space, the project will be compatible with the established recreational land use pattern in the area, specifically existing community facilities such as the Central Library and Sports Complex adjacent to the proposed project site. Within this context, the proposed project is compatible with the surrounding parkland. The nearest adjacent residences are located approximately 800 feet west of the project site. Mitigation measures incorporated in the EIR ensure that residences in the vicinity will not be detrimentally impacted. In addition, the proposed project will add a senior recreation facility on land currently designated for recreational uses but at a greater intensity than what was previously intended for the site. Because the intensity of development is increasing on the project site, the Central Park Master Plan will require an amendment from a low-intensity area to a high-intensity area. The proposed project is consistent with the applicable General Plan Land Use and Zoning designations of Open Space — Parks (OS-P) and Open Space — Parks and Recreation (OS- PR) respectively. The project furthers General Plan goals, objectives, and policies that encourage the establishment of uses that support the needs of existing and future Huntington Beach residents when compatible with, and sensitive to, adjacent uses. A list of applicable General Plan goals and policies is provided in the Planning Commission and staff suggested findings (ATTACHMENT NO. 2). The OS-PR zone permits park and recreation facilities with approval of a conditional use permit. In addition, the project complies with all applicable regulations of the OS-PR zoning designation and exceeds the minimum standards for lot area, lot width, setbacks, and site coverage. Affects to Existing EIR for Pacific City In evaluating impacts to recreational resources, the Pacific City EIR indicates that without provision of parkland and/or payment of park fees, impacts would be potentially significant. Mitigation Measure REC-1 of the Pacific City EIR was incorporated to require that the applicant demonstrate compliance with City parkland requirements identified in Chapter 254.08 (Parkland Dedication) of the HBZSO, which allows for payment of fees. Implementation of Mitigation Measure REC-1 would address park and recreation facilities for the Pacific City project and reduce impacts to less than significant levels. Subsequent to the certification of the Pacific City EIR, the applicant entered into an agreement with the City for the payment of park fees, which included the construction of the proposed senior center. -7- 1/24/2008 8:51 AM REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 2/4/2008 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL08-01 The appeal letter does not indicate specific areas of the Pacific City EIR that are affected, but no other issue area of the proposed senior center project would have a connection to, or effect on, the Pacific City EIR. Consistency with Measure T and Measure C Measure T The language on the November 2006 Measure T ballot read, "Shall a centrally located senior center building, not to exceed 47,000 square feet, be placed on a maximum of five acres of an undeveloped 14-acre parcel in the 356-acre Huntington Beach Central Park, generally located west of the intersection of Goldenwest Street and Talbert Avenue, between the disc golf course and Shipley Nature Center, following City Council approval of all entitlements and environmental review?" The proposed project consists of an approximately 45,000 square foot senior center located on a 5-acre site southwest of the intersection of Goldenwest Street and Talbert Avenue, between the disc golf course and the Shipley Nature Center. The project site is part of a larger 14-acre area within the 356-acre Central Park. This is consistent with the Measure T language that appeared on ballots and was approved by voters. Measure C City Charter Section 612 (Measure C) pertaining to public utilities and parks and beaches stipulates that, "No golf course, driving range, road, building over three thousand square feet in floor area nor structure costing more than $100,000.00 may be built on or in any park or beach or portion thereof now or hereafter owned or operated by the City unless authorized by the affirmative votes of at least a majority of the total membership of the City Council and by the affirmative vote of at least a majority of the electors voting on such proposition at a general or special election at which such proposition is submitted." On July 3, 2006, the City Council approved taking the proposed senior center to a vote of the people on the November 2006 election. They also directed staff to prepare the ballot language and approved making an exception to the minute action of July 11, 1994, which requires all City approvals on a project prior to being submitted to a vote of the people. Since the proposed senior center meets the cost and square footage criteria of Measure C, it was first brought forward to the City Council and subsequently put on the November 2006 ballot as Measure T. The actions that were taken to bring Measure T forward are consistent with City Charter Section 612/Measure C. Project Funding/Financial Uncertainties A discussion of project funding is outside the scope of analysis that would normally be presented as part of a conditional use permit or EIR. Currently, funding for the proposed project is to be provided by park in-lieu fees from the Pacific City development project through an Owner-Participation Agreement (OPA) between the City of Huntington Beach and the Pacific City developer. Details of the project funding, while certainly an important -8- 1/24/2008 8:51 AM REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 2/4/2008 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL08-01 component of the overall project, are not generally a deciding factor in determining the adequacy of an EIR or in making the findings for a conditional use permit. E. SUMMARY: The proposed project furthers General Plan goals, objectives, and policies that encourage the establishment of uses that support the needs of existing and future Huntington Beach residents when compatible with, and sensitive to, adjacent uses. In addition, the project complies with all applicable zoning regulations of the OS-PR zoning designation. Finally, the project provides a centrally located, senior recreation facility large enough to meet current and future demand of an increasing senior population in the City of Huntington Beach. Staff recommends that the City Council certify EIR No. 07-002 because: 1) The EIR adequately addresses the environmental impacts associated with the proposed project, and 2) Identifies project alternatives and mitigation measures to lessen the project's impacts consistent with General Plan policies. Staff also recommends approval of the project based on the suggested findings and subject to the suggested conditions of approval. Strategic Plan Goal: Strategic Plan Goal: Provide quality public services to meet community expectations and needs. The proposed project will provide a new senior center large enough to meet the needs of a growing senior population while incorporating green building practices to minimize the project's impacts on the environment and resources. Environmental Status: The project's potential environmental impacts are analyzed and discussed in Environmental Impact Report No. 07-002. Although the project results in an adverse cumulative impact to the environment that cannot be mitigated or avoided, the City Council may still approve the project if a Statement of Overriding Considerations is approved. CEQA requires decision makers to balance the benefits of the proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to approve the project. If the benefits of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the City may consider the adverse environmental effects acceptable. In this particular case, staff and the Planning Commission believe the benefits of the proposed project outweigh the adverse impact to aesthetics. The cumulative adverse aesthetic impact is a result of the overall loss of undeveloped open space in Central Park. That being said, approval of the project will provide a new state-of- the-art, LEED-certified senior center designed for innovative programming to meet the needs of a multi-generational senior population. The project also provides a centrally located senior center that will be large enough to meet current and future demand of an increasing senior population in the City of Huntington Beach. Development of the project also results in a temporary increase in employment opportunities due to project construction. -9- 1/24/2008 8:51 AM REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 2/4/2008 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL08-01 Prior to any action on Conditional Use Permit No. 07-039, it is necessary for the City Council to review and act on Environmental Impact Report No. 07-002. Staff is recommending that Environmental Impact Report No. 07-002 be certified as adequate and complete with Findings of Fact, a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. Attachments NumberCity c,lerk's Page . Description 1. City Council Resolution No.2008-6 Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, certifying the final environmental impact report for the Huntington Beach Senior Center 2. Planning Commission and Staff Suggested Findings and Conditions of Approval 3. CEQA Statement of Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 4. Project Site Plan and Elevations 5. Appeal Letter From Mayor Cook dated December 20, 2007 6. Planning Commission CUP Staff Report dated December 11, 2007 7. Planning Commission EIR Staff Report dated December 11, 2007 8. Final EIR including Text Changes and Response to Comments. Draft EIR was previously provided under separate cover. 9. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 10. PowerPoint Presentation Slides RCA Author: SH:MBB:JV -10- 1/24/2008 8:51 AM ATTACHMENT # 1 RESOLUTION NO. 2008-06 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH42007041027) FOR THE HUNTINGTON BEACH SENIOR CENTER PROJECT WHEREAS, Environmental Impact Report No. 07-002, State Clearinghouse #2007041027, ("EIR") was prepared by the City of Huntington Beach ("City") to address the environmental implications of the proposed Huntington Beach Senior Center Project (the "Project"). • On April 2, 2007, a Notice of Preparation/Initial Study for the Project was prepared and distributed to the State Clearinghouse, other responsible agencies, trustee agencies and interested parties. • After obtaining comments received in response to the Notice of Preparation, and comments received at the public scoping meeting held on April 19, 2007, the City completed preparation of the Draft EIR and filed a Notice of Completion with the State Clearinghouse on September 13, 2007. • The Draft EIR was circulated for public review and comment from September 17, 2007 to October 31, 2007 and was available for review at several locations including City Hall, the Huntington Beach Public Library, and the City's website; and Public comments have been received on the Draft EIR, and responses to those comments have been prepared and provided to the City Council as a section within a separately bound document entitled `'Final Environmental Impact Report Huntington Beach Senior Center" (the "Responses to Comments"), dated December 2007; and Public Resources Code Section 21092.5(a) requires that the City of Huntington Beach provide a written proposed response to any public agency that commented on the Environmental Impact Report, and the Response to Comments included in the Final Environmental Impact Report satisfies this provision; and The City Council held a public meeting on the EIR on February 4, 2008, and received and considered public testimony. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach as follows: SECTION 1. Consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") Guidelines Section 15132, the Final .EIR for the Project is comprised of the Draft EIR and Appendices, the comments received on the Draft EIR, the Responses to Comments (including a list of persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the Draft EIR), the Text Changes to the Draft EIR (bound together with the Responses to Comments) and all Planning Department Staff Reports to the Planning Commission and City Council, including all minutes, transcripts, attachments and references. All of the above information has been and will be on file 17959 1 Resolution No. 2008-06 with the City of Huntington Beach Department of Planning, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California 92648. SECTION 2. The City Council finds and certifies that the Final EIR is complete and adequate in that it has identified all significant environmental effects of the Project and that there are no known potential environmental impacts not addressed in the Final EIR. SECTION 3. The City Council finds that although the Final EIR identifies certain significant environmental effects that will result if the Project is approved, all significant effects which can feasibly be mitigated or avoided have been mitigated or avoided by the incorporation of Project design features, standard conditions and requirements, and by the imposition of mitigation measures on the approved Project. SECTION 4. The City Council finds that the Final EIR has described reasonable alternatives to the Project that could feasibly obtain the basic objectives of the Project (including the "No Project" Alternative), even when these alternatives might impede the attainment of Project objectives and might be more costly. Further, the City Council finds that a good faith effort was made to incorporate alternatives in the preparation of the Draft EIR and that a reasonable range of alternatives was considered in the review process of the Final EIR and ultimate decisions on the Project. SECTION 5. The City Council finds that no "substantial evidence" (as that term is defined pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15384) has been presented which would call into question the facts and conclusions in the EIR. SECTION 6. The City Council finds that no "significant new information" (as that term is defined pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5) has been added to the EIR after circulation of the Draft EIR. The City Council finds that the minor refinements that have been made in the Project as a result of clarifications in the mitigation measures and additional air quality modeling and traffic analyses (relating to trip generation rates) do not amount to significant new information concerning the Project, nor has any significant new information concerning the Project become known to the City Council through the public hearings held on the Project, or through the comments on the Draft EIR and Responses to Comments. SECTION 7. The City Council finds that the Mitigation Monitoring Program establishes a mechanism and procedures for implementing and verifying the mitigations pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 and hereby adopts the Mitigation Monitoring Program. The mitigation measures shall be incorporated into the Project prior to or concurrent with Project implementation as defined in each mitigation measure. SECTION 8. The City Council finds that the Final EIR reflects the independent review and judgment of the City of Huntington Beach City Council, that the Final EIR was presented to the city Council, and that the City Council reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR prior to approving Conditional Use Permit No. 07-039. SECTION 9. The City Council finds that the Final EIR serves as adequate and appropriate environmental documentation for the Project. The City Council certifies that the 17959 7 Resolution No. 2008-06 Final EIR prepared for the Project is complete, and that it has been prepared in compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and CEQA Guidelines. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 4th day of February , 2008. Mayor REVIE E ND PROVED: INITIA D AN APPROVED: City Administrator Dire or of P annmg APPROVED AS TO FORM: L 2� 17959 3 Res. No. 2008-06 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) I, JOAN L. FLYNN the duly elected, qualified City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of said City, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is seven; that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of at least a majority of all the members of said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on February 4, 2008 by the following vote: AYES: Hansen, Bohr, Coerper, Green, Carchio NOES: Hardy, Cook ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Cit Jerk and ex-officio #erk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California ATTACHMENT #2 SUGGESTED FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 07-039 SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 07-039: 1. Conditional Use Permit No. 07-039 to permit the construction and operation of a 45,000 square foot senior recreation facility will not be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity or detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood. An EIR that analyzed the project's potential to generate detrimental impacts on people and surrounding properties was prepared and concluded that, with mitigation, there are no significant project specific impacts. In addition, being that the project is located in Central Park, the closest adjacent residences are located approximately 800 feet west of the project site. One significant cumulative impact to aesthetics was identified in the EIR and as such, a Statement of Overriding Considerations, which discusses the benefits of the project in relation to the cumulative impact, is required for approval of the project. 2. Conditional Use Permit No. 07-039 will be compatible with surrounding uses because it is consistent with the applicable General Plan Land Use and Zoning designations as noted in previous sections of this report. Although the proposed project will result in the development of a new senior center on existing open space, the project will be compatible with the established recreational land use pattern in the area, specifically existing community facilities such as the Central Library and Sports Complex adjacent to the proposed project site. Within this context, the proposed project is compatible with the surrounding parkland. In addition, the proposed project would add a senior recreation facility on land currently designated for recreational uses but at a greater intensity than what was previously intended for the site. The proposed building features a design with architectural features that minimize the visual bulk and mass of the buildings and provides for compatibility with the surrounding parkland. The project complies with all of the requirements for development in the OS-PR zoning district and provides an adequate number of parking spaces. To integrate the project with the natural setting of the Shipley Nature Center and existing passive parkland west of the project site, substantial landscaping is proposed throughout the site, including surrounding the entire perimeter of the project site. 3. Conditional Use Permit No. 07-039 will comply with the provisions of the base district and other applicable provisions in Titles 20-25 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance, including the Open Space— Parks & Recreation zone permitted uses and minimum setbacks. Parking requirements are determined by the conditional use permit and are specific to the requested use. A sufficient number of parking spaces is provided for the project based on surveys of similar projects. 4. The granting of Conditional Use Permit No. 07-039 will not adversely affect the General Plan. It is consistent with the Land Use Element designation of OS-P (Open Space - Parks) on the subject. property. In addition, it is consistent with the following goals and policies of the General Plan: Air Quality Element Policy A 1.8.3: Encourage developers to maintain the natural topography, to the maximum extent possible, and limit the amount of land clearing, blasting, grading, and ground excavation operations needed for development. The proposed project anticipates a balanced site with minor cut and fill operations during construction. Policy AQ 1.10.1: Continue to require the utilization and installation of energy conservation features in all new construction. As with all new buildings, the proposed project will be required to comply with the energy conservation standards of Title 24, which would ensure that there would be no wasteful or unnecessary use of energy. Circulation Element Policy CE 6.1.7: Require new development to provide accessible facilities to the elderly and disabled. The proposed senior center project will be required to comply with the requirements of the ADA. The proposed project will also provide ADA access to the site via a pedestrian path north of the access driveway. Policy CE 7.1.7: Continue to construct landscaped medians in existing major and primary arterial streets and continue to require the construction of landscaped medians in new developments. The proposed project includes construction of a signalized access driveway at the intersection of Goldenwest Street and Talbert Avenue. The new access driveway includes a proposed landscaped median. Environmental Hazards Element Policy EH 4.1.1: During major redevelopment or initial construction, require specific measures to be taken by developers, builders, or property owners in flood prone areas, to prevent or reduce damage from flood hazards and the risks upon human safety. Although the site is partially located in Flood Zone A, the project site is already a minimum of 4 feet higher than the base flood elevation at its lowest point. A flood elevation certificate will be required for the proposed project. Growth Management Element Goal GM 2: Ensure that adequate transportation and public facilities and public services are provided for existing and future residents of the City. The proposed project does not result in any significant traffic impacts and adequate public facilities and public services will be provided. Hazardous Materials Element Policy HM 1.2.3: Support land use or developments adjacent to or within close proximity of sensitive uses, which do not utilize, store, handle, or contain hazardous materials and/or waste, and which would create an unsafe, unhealthy, or hazardous condition for adjacent uses. Construction and operation of the proposed senior center will not include the use of large quantities of hazardous materials, and any commonly used hazardous materials would be used and stored in accordance with applicable regulations. Implementation of the proposed project would not utilize hazardous materials or waste and would not create an unsafe or hazardous condition for adjacent uses. Land Use Element Policy LU 4.2.1: Require that all structures be constructed in accordance with the requirements of the City's building and other pertinent codes and regulations; including new, adaptively re-used, and renovated buildings. Policy LU 4.2.4: Require that all development be designed to provide adequate space for access, parking, supporting functions, open space and other pertinent elements. Policy LU 4.2.5: Require that all commercial, industrial and public development incorporate appropriate design elements to facilitate access and use as required by State and Federal Laws such as the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The proposed project will be constructed in accordance with existing laws and regulations, including the City's building code and any applicable State and federal law requirements such as ADA. In addition, the project is proposed to be in conformance with the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance and is not seeking any variances to deviate from the code requirements. Adequate access to and from the project site will be provided through the entrance at the Goldenwest Street/Talbert Avenue intersection. Sufficient parking will be provided on site for the senior center use. Recreation and Community Services Element Policy RCS 1.1.1: Provide leisure opportunities through programs and activities that serve the general population as well as the specialized needs of the disabled, children and elderly. Policy RCS 3.1.2: Provide a variety of amenities within recreation areas in order to accommodate persons with different interests. Policy RCS 3.1.7: Design recreational facilities to the accessibility requirements as specified in State and Federal laws such as the Americana with Disabilities Act(ADA) standards for accessibility. The proposed project is a senior recreation facility proposed to be developed in accordance with ADA standards. The senior center and associated amenities will provide the City with expanded recreational resources for senior citizens to meet existing and future demand. The senior center will be accessible to all residents of the City of Huntington Beach. Utilities Element Policy U 3.3.2: Where feasible, utilize natural overland flows, open channels, and Swale routings as preferred alignments for components of drainage systems. Policy U 3.3.3: Require that new developments employ the most efficient drainage technology to control drainage and minimize damage to environmental sensitive areas. The proposed project includes bioswales and vegetated buffer areas to treat runoff from the proposed project's impervious areas. Implementation of BMPs and the project's directing of stormwater flows through the park and Huntington Lake will ensure that project implementation would not adversely impact sensitive environments SUGGESTED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 07-039: 1. The project plans received and dated October 17, 2007 shall be the conceptually approved design with the following modifications. a. The gate located at the terminus of the access driveway shall be relocated to the south edge of the reconfigured "T" intersection. b. The number of ADA parking spaces shall be increased to 20. Once the facility is operational, the number of ADA spaces may be revised as determined necessary by the Community Services Department. 2. The project shall achieve LEED certification. A variety of sustainable features shall be used and may include (but are not limited to) those recommended by the U.S. Green Building Council's Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design(LEED) Program certification (http://www.us bg c org/DisplgyPage_aspx?Categor lam) or Build It Green's Green Building Guidelines and Rating Systems (http://www.builditgreen.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=guidelines). 3. Prior to submittal for plan check, project design, including landscape plans (completed pursuant to conditions 5 and 6), shall be reviewed by the City of Huntington Beach Design Review Board and approved by the Planning Commission as a non-public hearing item. 4. At least 14 days prior to any grading activity, the applicant/developer shall provide notice in writing to property owners of record and tenants of properties within a 500-foot radius of the project site as noticed for the public hearing. The notice shall include a general description of planned grading activities and an estimated timeline for commencement and completion of work and a contact person name with phone number. Prior to issuance of the grading permit, a copy of the notice and list of recipients shall be submitted to the Planning Department. 5. The final landscape plans shall incorporate a variety of tree, shrub and grass species that are currently planted at adjacent uses, including the Sports Complex, Shipley Nature Center and the passive park west of the project site. 6. In the event that an overflow parking area is provided in place of the meadow area depicted on the preliminary landscape plan, meadow grasses shall be planted elsewhere on the project site. The species of meadow grasses should take into consideration the species currently planted at Shipley Nature Center. 7. A public art element, approved by the Design Review Board, Director of Planning, and Director of Huntington Beach Art Center, shall be depicted on the plans. Public Art shall be innovative, original, and of artistic excellence; appropriate to the design of the project; and reflective of the community's cultural identity (ecology, history, or society). 8. The project shall comply with all mitigation measures adopted in conjunction with Environmental Impact Report No. 07-002. INDEMNIFICATION AND HOLD HARMLESS CONDITION: The owner of the property which is the subject of this project and the project applicant if different from the property owner, and each of their heirs, successors and assigns, shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of Huntington Beach and its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action or proceedings, liability cost, including attorney's fees and costs against the City or its agents, officers or employees, to attack, set aside, void or annul any approval of the City, including but not limited to any approval granted by the City Council, Planning Commission, or Design Review Board concerning this project. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and should cooperate fully in the defense thereof. ATTACHMENT #3 HUNTINGTON BEACH SENIOR CENTER ®raft Findings of Fact/ Statement of Overriding Considerations 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 Los Angeles, California 90025 November 28, 2007 Contents CHAPT 1 Introduction........................................................................................................... 1-1 CHAPTER 2 CE QA Findings......................................................................................................2-1 2.1 Introduction.....................................................................................................................2-1 GJAPTER3 Findings Regarding Project Alternatives............................:..................................3-1 3.1 Introduction.... .............................................................................................................3-1 3.2 Project Objectives...........................................................................................................3-1 3.3 Selection of Alternatives.................................................................................................3-2 3.4 Project Alternative Findings........................................ 3.4.1 Huntington Beach Senior Center Alternatives ............................................3-2 C14APTER4 Statement of Overriding Considerations ...............................................................4-1 4.1 Introduction.....................................................................................................................4-1 4.2 Significant Adverse Cumulative Impact.......................................................................4-1 4.3 Findings.............................................................................................................................4-2 4.4 Overriding Considerations............................................. Table Table 2-1 C EQA Findings for the Huntington Beach Senior Center................. Huntington Beach Senior Center EIR Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations iii CHAPTER 1 Introduction This document presents the Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations that must be adopted by the City of Huntington Beach (City) pursuant to the requirements of Sections 15091 and 15093, respectively, of the Calforma Enzironr and Quality Aa Guidelines (CEQA Guidelines) prior to the approval of the Huntington Beach Senior Center(proposed project). This document is organized as follows: Chapter 1 Introduction to the Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations. Chapter 2 Presents the CEQA Findings of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR), including the identified significant cumulative impact. Chapter 3 Presents the alternatives to the proposed project and evaluates them in relation to the findings contained in Section 15091(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines. The City must consider and make findings regarding alternatives when a project would involve environmental impacts that cannot be reduced to a less-than-significant level,or cannot be substantially reduced,by proposed mitigation measures. Chapter 4 Presents a Statement of Overriding Considerations that is required in accordance with Section 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines for significant impacts of the proposed project that cannot be mitigated to a less-than-significant level. The proposed project involves development of a new one-story multi-purpose senior center on undeveloped land in Central Park. The 5 acre development would comprise the senior center, parking areas, vehicular storage, outdoor common areas, and a service area. Open space areas would consist of courtyards, gardens, and landscaping/planting pocket areas. Landscaping around the building and parking lot would be drought-tolerant, low water usage-type vegetation. A new access driveway planned at Goldenwest Street and Talbert Avenue for access/egress to the project site would be designed as part of the proposed project. An existing traffic signal at this location would be modified for traffic to enter the project site. As Goldenwest Street is elevated above the site,an ADA ramp from the site to the intersection as well as from the 0C1A bus stop located near the Goldenwest Street/Talbert Avenue intersection would be provided for pedestrian access. A total of 227 parking spaces would be provided in three main parking lots. In addition, six shuttle bus stalls and an area for future parking expansion would be able to accommodate an additional 24 stalls. Under the proposed project, no significant unavoidable impacts would occur on a project level. However, a significant cumulative impact would occur to aesthetics. In comparison to the alternatives analyzed against the proposed development, the City finds that the No Project/Continuation Continuation of Uses Allowed By Existing General Plan and Central Park Master Plan Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative. The following discretionary approvals by the City of Huntington Beach are required to implement the proposed project: Huntington Beach Senior Center EIR Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations 1-1 Chapter 1 Introduction ® Conditional Use Permit Request—To permit construction of a senior recreation facility in Huntington Beach Central Park with a three-feet grade differential. ■ Design Review approval. ® Central Park Master Plan Amendment—Amendment to the Central Park Master Plan land use designation for the five acre project site from the current low intensity designation to the proposed high intensity designation. 1-2 Huntington Beach Senior Center EIR Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations CHAPTER 2 CEQA Findings 2.1 INTRODUCTION This chapter presents the potential impacts that were identified in the EIR and the findings that are required in accordance with Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines. The possible findings for each significant and/or potentially significant adverse impact are as follows: (a) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project which avoid, substantially lessen, or reduce the magnitude of the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR("Finding 1"). (b)Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the findings. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. ("Finding 2') (c)Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives in the EIR("Finding 3"). CEQA requires that the lead agency adopt mitigation measures or alternatives,where feasible,to avoid or substantially reduce significant environmental impacts that would otherwise occur as a result of a project. Project modification or alternatives are not required, however, where they are infeasible or where the responsibility for modifying the project lies with some other agency (State CEQA Guidelines §15091, subd. (a), [3]). Public Resources Code Section 21061.1 defines "feasible" to mean "capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social and technological factors". State CEQA Guidelines Section 15364 adds another factor. "legal" considerations. (See also Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors [Goleta II] [1990]52 Cal.3d 553, 565 [276 Cal.Rptr. 410].) Only after fully complying with the findings requirement can an agency adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations. (Citizens for Quality Growth v. City of Mount Shasta [1988] 198 Cal.App.3d 433, 442, 445 [243 Cal. Rptr. 727].) CEQA requires the Lead Agency to state in writing the specific rationale to support its actions based on the Final EIR and/or information in the record. This written statement is known as the Statement of Overriding Considerations. The Statement of Overriding Considerations provides the information that demonstrates the decision making body of the Lead Agency has weighed the benefits of the project against its unavoidable adverse effects in determining whether to approve the project. If the benefits of the project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse effects maybe considered"acceptable." The California Supreme Court has stated that, "the wisdom of approving any development project, a delicate task which requires a balancing of interests, is necessarily left to the sound discretion of the local officials and their constituents who are responsible for such decisions. The law as we interpret and apply it simply requires that those decisions be informed, and therefore balanced." (Goleta II, 52 Cal.3d 553, 576 [276 Cal. Rptr.401].) Huntington Beach Senior Center EIR Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations 2-1 Chapter 2 CEQA Findings This document presents the City of Huntington Beach findings as required by CEQA, cites substantial evidence in the record in support of each of the findings, and presents an explanation to supply the logical step between the finding and the facts in the record. (State CEQA Guidelines 515091.).Additional facts that support the findings are set forth in the Draft EIR,the Final EIR, staff reports to the Planning Commission,and the record of proceedings. Table 2-1 (CEQA Findings for the Huntington Beach Senior Center) summarize the potentially significant impacts of the EIR that were reduced to less-than-significance levels with mitigation as well as the significant cumulative impact, as currently proposed for certification and adoption of the proposed project. 2-2 Huntington Beach Senior Center EIR Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations Chapter 2 CEQA Findings JmAactStatrnerrt lrrtpactsummary a- Fmchr „ rcsmpac4.1.3. Implementation of the proposed project would The micro-ecology of the site and adjacent open space areas could Finding 1, The City finds that the identified changes introduce new sources of light and glare into the project vicinity result in potentially significant impacts on sensitive species from or alterations in the project, which would reduce project lighting and activities. However, implementation of mitigation Impact 4.1-3 to less-than-significant levels, are measures MM 4.1-3(a)through (c)would reduce impacts associated hereby incorporated into the project. No additional with onsite lighting as the lowest levels of illumination would be mitigation measures are necessary with the required, and lighting on site would not remain on at all times during implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.1-3 (a) the nighttime hours. through (e). Glare from headlights entering and exiting the site from Goldenwest Street would be momentarily visible to uses across Goldenwest (upon exiting the site) and perhaps, distantly, the residential uses to the west and north on entering the project. With implementation of MM 4.1-3(d) and (e), non-reflective fagade treatments would be used to the extent feasible and substantial landscaping would be provided throughout the site to soften building appearance and glare. Cumulative Aesthetics Impact Given that the project would modify land that is currently Finding No. 3. The City finds that the cumulative undeveloped, the character of Central Park would be altered, which impact is a result of incremental development which would result in a cumulatively considerable impact. Landscaping and reduces the amount of open space within the park. open space would be provided, which would enhance the site's No feasible mitigation is available. visual contribution to the surrounding park lands, and the project would not appear out of character when compared with surrounding land uses. However, the increase in development 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. Air Quality Impact 4.2.2. Peak construction activities associated with the Construction related daily emissions would not exceed SCAQMD Finding 1. The City finds that changes or alterations proposed project could generate emissions that exceed significance thresholds. However, these calculations assume that have been required in, or incorporated into, the SCAQMD thresholds. appropriate dust control measures would be implemented during project, which would reduce Impact 4.2-2 to less- each phase of development as required by SCAQMD Rule 403— than-significant levels. No additional mitigation Fugitive Dust, and that all other appropriate mitigation MM 4.2-2 a measures are necessary with the implementation of Huntington Beach Senior Center EIR Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations 2-3 Chapter 2 CEQA Findings through MM 4.2-2(e)), such as routine equipment maintenance, has CR 4.2-2(a)through (f)and Mitigation Measures 4.2- been used. Thus, all identified city code requirements and mitigation 2(a)through(e). measures are required. Biological Resources Impact 4.3-1. The proposed project could have a substantial Potential direct or indirect impacts to burrowing owls are considered Finding 1. The City finds that the identified changes adverse impact either directly (e.g., habitat loss) or indirectly a potentially significant impact. In addition, project implementation or alterations in the project, which would reduce (e,g., noise effects on wildlife)through habitat modifications,on and construction-related activities may result in the disturbance of Impact 4.3-1 to less-than-significant levels, are any species identified or published as an endangered, nesting species protected by the META, Prior to the onset of ground hereby incorporated into the project. No additional threatened, rare, candidate, sensitive, or special-status disturbance activities, the City shall implement mitigation measures mitigation measures are necessary with the species by CDFG or USFWS, and meets the definition of MM 4.3 1(a) and 4.3-1(b), which entail focused surveys and implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.3-1(a) and Section 15380(b), (c),or(d)of the CEQA guidelines. avoidance measures for the burrowing owl and sensitive nesting and 4.3-1(b). MBTA species, and appropriate agency consultation. Impact 4.3-2. Development of the proposed project would As a result of project implementation approximately 5 acres of Finding 1. The City finds that the identified changes have a substantial adverse impact to raptor foraging habitat. ruderal vegetation that is suitable for use as raptor foraging habitat or alterations in the project, which would reduce would be removed,Although implementation of the proposed project Impact 4.3-2 to less-than-significant levels, are would remove approximately 5 acres of existing foraging habitat hereby incorporated into the project. No additional within the currently-designated Low Intensity Recreation Area, mitigation measures are necessary with the implementation of mitigation measure MM 4.3-2 would ensure implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.3-2. impacts to raptor foraging habitat would be mitigated at a ratio of 1:1. Cultural Resources Impact 4.4.1. Construction of the proposed_project could While not expected, in the event that an intact portion of CA-ORA- Finding 1. The City finds that the identified changes cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of 142 is identified, the potential for damage to or destruction of, these or alterations in the project, which would reduce previously unknown archaeological resources that could be cultural resources would be a potentially significant impact. Impact 4.4-1 to less-than-significant levels, are present on the project site. Implementation of mitigation measures MM 4.4-1(a), MM 4.4-1(b) hereby incorporated into the project. No additional and MM 4.4-1(c) would require monitoring of construction activities mitigation measures are necessary with the by a qualified professional archaeologist and would require the implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.4-1(a) scientific recovery and evaluation of any archaeological resources through (c). that could be encountered, which would ensure that important scientific information that could be provided by these resources regarding history or prehistory is not lost. Impact 4.4-2. Paleontological resources could be present Even though previous activities may have involved excavation or Finding 1. The City finds that the identified changes within rock units on the project site, and could be damaged or other earth-disturbing activities, some paleontologically sensitive or alterations in the project, which would reduce destroyed by earth-moving activities resulting from rock units underlying the project site may not have been disturbed, Impact 4.4-2 to less-than-significant levels, are implementation of the proposed project. despite the possible destruction of surface evidence of their hereby incorporated into the project. No additional presence, Therefore, the impact resulting from damage to, or mitigation measures are necessary with the 2-4 Huntington Beach Senior Center EIR Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations Chapter CEQA Findings destruction of, these resources would be potentially significant, as it implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.4-1(a) and makes biological records of ancient life permanently unavailable for 4.4-1(b). study by scientists. Mitigation measure MM 4.4-1(a),above,requires monitoring of construction activities by a qualified paleontologist, and mitigation measure MM 4.4-1(b) requires implementation of additional provisional measures in the event that paleontological resources are identified. Impact 4.4.3. Construction activities associated with Although not likely, the potential exists for archaeological resources Finding 1. The City finds that the identified changes implementation of the proposed project could result in the to be present and for excavation during construction activities to or alterations in the project, which would reduce disturbance of human remains, including those interred outside disturb these resources, and it is possible that human burials could Impact 4.4-3 to less-than-significant levels, are of formal cemeteries. be associated with potential finds. To reduce this impact, and as hereby incorporated into the project. No additional required by law, mitigation measure MM 4.4-3 reflects provisional mitigation measures are necessary with the measures if human remains are discovered on the project site. implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.4-3. Geology and Soils Impact 4.5-1. The proposed project would not significantly The proposed project site is situated in a seismically active area. Finding 1. The City finds that the identified changes expose people or structures to effects of seismic ground During the design life of the development, strong ground shaking or alterations in the project, which would reduce shaking or liquefaction. may occur. Accordingly, the proposed structures and improvements Impact 4,5-1 to less-than-significant levels, are could be adversely impacted by the seismic ground shaking if proper hereby incorporated into the project. No additional mitigation measures are not implemented. Implementation of mitigation measures are necessary with the mitigation measure MM 4.5-1 would ensure that design implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.5-1. recommendations identified within the Geotechnical feasibility project site implemented. Impact 4.5.2. The proposed project could expose people or There will be some grading along the north side adjacent to the Finding 1. The City finds that the identified changes structures to effects of landslides. proposed access driveway off .Goldenwest Street. Therefore, or alterations in the project, which would reduce surficial sliding and erosion along this slope face could result in Impact 4.5-2 to a less-than-significant level, are damage to the proposed project. Implementation of mitigation hereby incorporated into the project. No additional measure MM 4.5-2 would address these effects, mitigation measures are necessary with the implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.5-2. Impact 4.5.4. Development of the proposed project would be Trash and other debris were not observed in the old fill materials on Finding 1. The City finds that the identified changes located on potentially unstable (compressible and corrosive) site but may be encountered during grading. These materials are or alterations in the project, which would reduce soils,which could result in on site settlement. unsuitable for reuse. If left in the soil, these materials could affect Impact 4.54 to less-than-significant levels, are the integrity of the proposed project. Data pertaining to the hereby incorporated into the project. No additional corrosivity of the on-site soils were not available for review. The mitigation measures are necessary with the corrosion potential of soils will influence the type of construction implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.5-4 (a) materials that may be used for structures and pipelines on the through(c). project. Implementation of MM 4.5-4 a through c would Jddress Huntington Beach Senior Center EIR Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations 2-5 Chapter 2 CEQA Findings potential impacts. Impact 4.5.5. The proposed project could be located on Due to the potential for volume changes with fluctuations in Finding 1. The City finds that the identified changes expansive soil, moisture, expansive soils present a risk of distress to pavement, or alterations in the project, which would reduce foundation elements,and other structures where present. Expansive Impact 4.5-5 to a less-than-significant level, are soils generated from excavations are undesirable for use as fill hereby incorporated into the project. No additional within three feet of slab-on-grade areas, Implementation of mitigation measures are necessary with the mitigation measure MM 4,5-5 would ensure that development on implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.5-5. expansive soil would not occur in a manner that would adversely affect development. Hazards Impact 4.6.1. Implementation of the proposed project could No known hazardous materials or wastes are present within the Finding 1, The City finds that the identified changes create a significant hazard to the public or the environment proposed project site. Although not expected, grading and or alterations in the project, which would reduce through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions excavation activities for the proposed project could result in the Impact 4.6-1 to less-than-significant levels, are involving the release of hazardous materials into the exposure of construction personnel and the public to previously hereby incorporated into the project. No additional environment. unidentified hazardous substances in the soil. Implementation of mitigation measures are necessary with the mitigation measures MM 4.6-1(a), MM 4.6-1(b), and MM 4.6-1(c) implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.6-1(a) would ensure remediation of contaminated soils containing through 4.6-1(d). hazardous materials prior to development of the proposed project and provide supplemental procedures in the event of unanticipated discoveries of contaminants. The project site is located within a designated methane gas overlay district. The City has set minimum requirements for new building construction within the methane overlay districts in order to reduce the hazards presented from accumulations of methane gas by requiring the appropriate testing and mitigation measures for all new buildings within the methane districts, Implementation of mitigation measure MM 4.6-1(d) would ensure appropriate testing and methods of gas reduction,as required by the HBFD. Hydrology and Water Quality Impact 4.7.1. Construction and operation of the proposed During the operational phase of the proposed project, the major Finding 1. The City finds that the identified changes project could increase stormwater pollutant loads or source of pollution in stormwater runoff would be contaminants that or alterations in the project, which would reduce concentrations,which could result in a violation of water quality have accumulated on rooftops and other impervious surfaces, such Impact 4.7-1 to less-than-significant levels, are standards or a substantial degradation of water quality. as parking lots, pedestrian walkways, and the off-site road hereby incorporated into the project. No additional improvement prior to connecting to the storm drain system, mitigation measures are necessary with the Implementation of the existing regulations along with mitigation implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.7-1. measure MM 4.7-1 would reduce potential pollutant loads, assure 2-6 Huntington Beach Senior Center EIR Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations Chapter 2 CEQA Findings that appropriate BMPs are used (e.g., constraints on infiltration-type ' BMPs), that regulatory requirements are met, and any post- construction violation of WDRs or water quality standards would be less than significant. Impact 4.7-2, Implementation of the proposed project would Operation of the proposed project would result in a significant Finding 1. The City finds that the identified changes alter the project site runoff characteristics that could result in change in land use and the potential for increased site runoff; both or alterations in the project, which would reduce more on-site and off-site erosion. peak runoff rates and total storm flow volumes. The proposed Impact 4.7-2 to less-than-significant levels, are project would be required to develop and implement a WQMP hereby incorporated into the project. No additional including post-construction structural and non-structural BMPs for mitigation measures are necessary with the erosion and sediment controls, Implementation of mitigation implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.7-1 and measures MM 4.7-1 and MM 4.7-2 would reduce the potential storm 4.7-2. flow rates to non-erosive conditions, reduce peak runoff rates to existing conditions levels to the maximum extent practicable, assure slope stabilization, and implementation of post-construction erosion and sediment control BMPs, thereby reducing potential impacts associated with on-site or off-site erosion to less-than-significant levels. Impact 4.7.3. Implementation of the proposed project would Operation of the proposed project would result in a significant Finding 1, The City finds that the identified changes alter the project site runoff characteristics that could result in change in land use and the potential for increased site runoff for or alterations in the project, which would reduce more flooding off-site. both peak runoff rates and total storm flow volumes. Higher peak Impact 4.7-3 to less-than-significant levels, are storm flow rates and overall volume could result in off-site flooding in hereby incorporated into the project. No additional the areas down-gradient from the project site. Implementation of mitigation measures are necessary with the mitigation measure MM 4.7-2 would assure that on-site drainage is implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.7-2. 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. As required by MM 4.7-2, the Drainage 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 currently exist. Impact 4.7.5. Implementation of the proposed project may The amount, timing of application, and form of many landscape Finding 1. The City finds that the identified changes provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff during chemicals can affect subsequent transport in stormwater. These or alterations in the project, which would reduce both construction and post-construction phases. activities could also result in additional sources of pollutants in runoff Impact 4.7-5 to less-than-significant levels, are water from the proposed project. Implementation of mitigation hereby incorporated into the project. No additional measure MM 4.7-5, however, would maximize efficiency of mitigation measures are necessary with the Huntington Beach Senior Center EIR Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations 2-7 Chapter 2 CEQA Findings landscape chemical applications and minimize the potential for implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.7-1, 4.7-2, chemicals in runoff water. and 4.7-5. Impact 4.7-6. Implementation of the proposed project may Infiltration structures that are not correctly designed and sited could Finding 1. The City finds that the identified changes otherwise substantially degrade groundwater quality by result in contaminated stormwater leaching into groundwater or alterations in the project, which would reduce allowing infiltration of polluted stormwater. systems and destabilization of fill material, Mitigation measure MM Impact 4.7-6 to less-than-significant levels, are 4.7-2 would prevent implementation of stormwater quality BMPs that hereby incorporated into the project. No additional could contribute to degradation of groundwater resources. mitigation measures are necessary with the implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.7-2. Noise Impact 4.9.1: Construction activities associated with the The residences closest to the project site are located immediately Finding 1. The City finds that the identified changes proposed project would not exceed the standards established west of the site, along Lakeview Drive, approximately 800 feet from or alterations in the project, which would reduce in the Huntington Beach Municipal Code. the site boundary. At this distance, typical daily construction Impact 4.9-1 to less-than-significant levels, are activities(excavation and grading)could reach 62 dBA. Additionally, hereby incorporated into the project. No additional patrons utilizing the passive use park adjacent to the proposed mitigation measures are necessary with the project site could experience noise levels of up to 86 dBA during implementation of CR 4.9-1 (a) and (b) and construction activities, Implementation of mitigation measures MM Mitigation Measure 4.9-1 (a)and(b). 4.9-1(a) and MM 4.9-1(b) as well as CR 4.8-1(a) and CR 4.9 1(b) would help minimize noise generated by construction activities associated with the proposed project to the surrounding sensitive receptors. Transportation/Traffic Impact 4.12-4. The project would not substantially increase In order to address safety concerns related to exiting the project site, Finding 1. The City finds that the identified changes roadway hazards. mitigation measures have been identified that would eliminate this or alterations in the project, which would reduce potentially unsafe movement, These measures would also address Impact 4.12-4 to less-than-significant levels, are the potential sight distance issue related to the uphill grade for hereby incorporated into the project. No additional southbound traffic on Goldenwest Street in this location. mitigation measures are necessary with the Implementation of mitigation measure MM 4.12-4 and CR 4.12-4(a) implementation of CR 4.12-4(a) and (b) and and CR 4.12-4(b) would reduce potential impacts associated with Mitigation Measure 4.12-4. roadway hazards to a less-than-significant level. Utilities and Service Systems Impact 4.13-5: Implementation of the proposed project would The proposed project would involve the construction and operation Finding 1. The City finds that the identified changes include new stormwater treatment control BMPs, the operation of stormwater treatment control Best Management Practices(BMPs) or alterations in the project, which would reduce of which would not result in significant environmental effects. that would be identified in a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Impact 4.13-5 to less-than-significant levels, are (SWPPP), which would be a part of the project's Water Quality hereby incorporated into the project. No additional Management Plan (WQMP). the City has general/standard mitigation measures are necessary with the conditions of approval to protect receiving water quality from short- 2-8 Huntington Beach Senior Center EIR Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations Chapter 2 CEQA Findings and long-term impacts of new development and significant implementation of CR 4.13-5(a)and(b). redevelopment, which include CR 4.13-5(a) and (b). Since stormwater treatment control BMPs must be in conformance with approved plans and specifications of appropriate agencies, operations would not be anticipated to result in significant environmental effects including, but not limited to,vectors or odors. Impact 4.13-8. Implementation of the proposed project could New electrical facilities would have to be constructed on site. Finding 1. The City finds that the identified changes increase the demand for electricity, and could require or result Implementation of mitigation measure MM 4.13-8 would reduce or alterations in the project, which would reduce in the construction of new energy production or transmission potentially significant impacts associated with the anticipated Impact 4.13-8 to less-than-significant levels, are facilities not require or result in the construction of new gas electrical demands of the proposed project to a less than-significant hereby incorporated into the project. No additional production or transmission facilities. level by ensuring availability of electrical facilities. mitigation measures are necessary with the implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.13-8. Huntington Beach Senior Center EIR Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations 2-9 CHAPTER 3 Findings Regarding Project Alternatives 3.1 INTRODUCTION The EIR prepared for the Huntington Beach Senior Center considered three separate alternatives to the proposed project. Pursuant to Section 15126.6(a) of the CEQA Guidelines, the primary intent of an alternatives evaluation is to "describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project,which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives." This chapter describes the project objectives and design criteria used to develop and evaluate project alternatives presented in the Draft EIR A description of the alternatives compared to the proposed project and the findings regarding the feasibility of adopting the described alternatives is presented for use by the City in the decision-making process. 3.2 PROJECT OBJECTIVES Implementation of the Huntington Beach Senior Center is intended to fulfill the following major objectives: e Implement the policies and development standards of the City's General Plan and Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (ZSO) ® Create a development that is compatible with and sensitive to the existing land uses in the project area ® Enhance the community image of Huntington Beach through the design and construction of high quality development consistent with the Urban Design Element of the City's General Plan ■ Ensure adequate utility infrastructure and public services for new development ® Provide a centrally located senior recreation and human service facility within the City ® Build a new facility large enough to meet current and future demand as a result of an increasing senior population ® Provide a state-of-the art senior center designed for innovative programming to meet the needs of a culturally diverse and multi-generational senior population with levels of service comparable to other cities in the area ® Mitigate environmental impacts to the greatest extent possible Huntington Beach Senior Center EIR Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations 3-1 Chapter 3 Findings Regarding Project Alternatives 3.3 SELECTION OF ALTERNATIVES The range of feasible alternatives was selected and discussed in a manner to foster meaningful public participation and informed decision-making. Among the factors that were taken into account when considering the feasibility of alternatives (as described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6[f][1]) were environmental impacts, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries, and attainment of project objectives. As stated in Section 15126.6(a) of the CEQA Guidelines, an EIR need not consider an alternative whose effects could not be reasonably identified, whose implementation is remote or speculative, or one that would not achieve the basic project objectives. The analysis includes sufficient information about each alternative to provide meaningful evaluation, analysis and comparison with the proposed project. 3.4 PROJECT ALTERNATIVE FINDINGS The following is a description of the alternatives evaluated in comparison to the proposed project,as well as a description of the specific economic, social, or other considerations that make them infeasible for avoiding or lessening the impacts. The City finds that the adoption of any of the alternatives to the project is infeasible. The reasons for each finding are provided following the description of the alternative,and are further described in the Draft EIR 3.4.1 Huntington Beach Senior Center Alternatives As shown below and in Chapter 6 (Alternatives) of the Draft EIR, three alternatives were evaluated in comparison to the proposed project. The environmental advantages and disadvantages of each of these alternatives are described. The alternatives that were selected for analysis include: ® Alternative 1: No Project/Continuation of Uses Allowed By Existing General Plan and Master Plan—Consistent with Section 15126.6(e)(3)(C) of the CEQA Guidelines, this alternative assumes the development level articulated in the City's Master Plan of Recreation Uses for Central Park (Central Park Master Plan) (1999), which envisioned development of a portion of a "low intensity recreation area," which would include family picnic shelters, barbeques, a tot lot, a restroom building, an access road from Goldenwest Street, and a parking lot. Because the Central Park Master Plan proposed the recreation area as a program on a total of 16 acres, not all of these elements are likely to be present on the 5-acre project site, and the specific locations of the proposed uses are interchangeable; therefore, this analysis assumes development of the most intensive of these uses, namely, the access road, parking lot, restrooms, tot lot, and some open space. ® Alternative 2: Reduced Project/Alternative Configuration—This altemative assumes a reduced intensity and revised configuration of the project elements in the same project site. Under this alternative, the proposed senior center would be reduced by about one third (15,000 square feet [sf]), and would comprise a 30,000 sf structure, reoriented north/south and located at the southeastern corner of the project site. ® Alternative 3: Alternative Site (Northwest Corner of Ellis Avenue and Goldenwest Street) This alternative assumes development of 45,000 sf of recreational and associated public and administrative uses in Central Park. The general configuration of the site would be maintained. Direct access to the parking lot would be provided by curb cuts on Goldenwest Street and Ellis 3-2 Huntington Beach Senior Center EIR Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations Chapter 3 Findings Regarding Project Alternatives Avenue as identified in the 2006 Huntington Beach Senior Center Feasibility Study. Nevertheless, this alternative would maintain a similar flow of traffic to the proposed project. 11 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Further Evaluation Three additional alternatives were initially considered but were found to be infeasible. These included: No Project/No Development Alternative, Rodgers Senior Center, and Satellite Senior Centers. The No Project/No Development Alternative represents the status quo, or maintenance of the project site in its current state. The site would remain as an underused parcel of land adjacent to the Central Library and would provide no state-of-the-art improvements, in a central location, to meet current and projected needs for recreation and community services for senior citizens in the City. Implementation of the No Project/No Development Alternative would not meet any of the project objectives, as no new uses would be developed. The second alternative that was rejected as infeasible would provide a new state-of- the-art senior center on the site of the existing Rodgers Senior Center. However, due to the known site constraints, lack of available funding to accommodate a new development on this site, and because this would not provide a centrally-located senior center within the City, this alternative was rejected from further analysis. Lastly, the Satellite Senior Center alternative suggests development of multiple, smaller- scale senior centers throughout the City. 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 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. Therefore,this alternative was rejected from further analysis. No Project/ Continuation of Uses Allowed By Existing General Plan and Central Park Master Plan Alternative The No Project/Continuation of Uses Allowed By Existing General Plan and Central Park Master Plan Alternative assumes the development level articulated in the City's Central Park Master Plan (1999), which envisioned development of a portion of a "low intensity recreation area," which would include family picnic shelters, barbeques, a tot lot, a restroom building, an access road from Goldenwest Street, and a parking lot. Because the Central Park Master Plan proposed the recreation area as a program on a total of 16 acres, not all of these elements are likely to be present on the 5-acre project site, and the specific locations of the proposed uses are interchangeable;therefore,this analysis assumes development of the most intensive of these uses, namely, the access road, parking lot, restrooms, tot lot, and some open space. Implementation of the No Project/Continuation of Uses Allowed By Existing General Plan and Central Park Master Plan Alternative would not achieve any of the project objectives listed for the City of Huntington Beach, since the development of a senior center facility would not occur. Huntington Beach Senior Center EIR Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations 3-3 Chapter 3 Findings Regarding Project Alternatives This alternative would result in fewer impacts to aesthetics, air quality, hydrology and water quality, land use, noise, recreation, traffic, and utilities and service systems as compared to the proposed project. This alternative would result in similar impacts on biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, and public services, and would not result in impacts that would be greater than the proposed project. .Although this alternative would reduce many of the impacts of the proposed project, it would not necessarily reduce the significance of the impacts. However, because of its reduced intensity, the City finds that the No Project/Continuation of Uses Allowed By Existing General Plan and Master Plan Alternative is considered to be the environmentally superior alternative. Findings The City hereby finds that the No Project/ Continuation of Uses Allowed By Existing General Plan and Master Plan Alternative is infeasible for the following environmental, economic, social, and other considerations: ® Would not provide a centrally located senior recreation and human service facility within the City o Would not build a new facility large enough to meet current and future demand as a result of an increasing senior population ® Would not provide a state-of-the art senior center designed for innovative programming to meet the needs of a culturally diverse and multi-generational senior population with levels of service comparable to other cities in the area Reduced Project/Alternative Configuration Alternative The Reduced Project /Alternative Configuration Alternative assumes a reduced intensity and revised configuration of the project elements on the same project site. Under this alternative, the proposed senior center would be reduced by about one third(15,000 so, and would comprise a 30,000 sf structure, reoriented north-south and located at the southeastern corner of the project site, as illustrated in Figure 6-1 (Reduced Project/Alternative Configuration).Although this alternative senior center would be reduced in size compared to the proposed project, it would still be more than double the size of the existing senior center to accommodate existing and anticipated program needs, and would be similar in massing and elevations to the proposed project. Screening vegetation separating the senior center from Goldenwest Street and from the disc golf course would be provided. Wide, paved walkways and patios would follow the northern and western perimeters of the center. Under this alternative, the senior center would be constructed on a smaller scale within the same project area, and would not achieve the proposed project objectives of building a new facility large enough to meet current and future demands of a growing senior population, or provide a state-of-the art senior center designed for innovative programming to meet the needs of a culturally diverse and multi- generational senior population with levels of service comparable,to other cities in the area, to the extent of the proposed project. The Reduced Project/Alternative Configuration Alternative would result in fewer impacts to aesthetics, air quality, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, and public services due to its reduced density. This alternative would result in similar impacts on biological resources, cultural resources, 3-4 Huntington Beach Senior Center EIR Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations Chapter 3 Findings Regarding Project Alternatives geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, and public services, and would not result in impacts that would be greater than the proposed project. While this alternative may result in a reduction of most environmental impacts, it would not necessarily reduce the significance of the impacts below those of the proposed project. Findings The City hereby finds that the Reduced Project/Alternative Configuration Alternative is infeasible for the following environmental,economic, social, and other considerations: ® Would not build a new facility large enough to meet current and future demand as a result of an increasing senior population ® Would not provide a state-of-the art senior center designed for innovative programming to meet the needs of a culturally diverse and multi-generational senior population with levels of service comparable to other cities in the area Alternative Site The Alternative Site assumes development of the proposed senior center at an alternate site located at the northwest corner of Goldenwest Street and Ellis Avenue, approximately 1,200 feet south of the proposed project site. The general configuration of the site would be maintained. Direct access to the parking lot would be provided by curb cuts on Goldenwest Street and Ellis Avenue as identified in the 2006 Huntington Beach Senior Center Feasibility Study. Nevertheless, this alternative would maintain a similar flow of traffic as the proposed project. The setback from Goldenwest Street would be the same as under the proposed project, and additionally, a setback from Ellis Avenue would be provided and would be identical to the setback from Goldenwest Street. In all other physical and operational respects, this alternative would remain the same as under the proposed project. The alternative site is occasionally used by the equestrian center for larger shows and storage throughout the year. Therefore, although the site is presently undeveloped, development of this alternative would reduce the existing recreational opportunities that are present. Under this alternative, the senior center would be constructed on a site at Goldenwest Street and Ellis Avenue, and would not achieve the following .proposed project objective of mitigating environmental impacts to the greatest extent possible. While this alternative would result in impacts that are largely similar to the proposed project, it may result in a greater number of potentially significant impacts, including impacts to noise and recreation that could be significant and unavoidable. As such, this alternative could result in impacts that would be greater than the proposed project. Findings The City hereby finds that the Alternative Site is infeasible for the following environmental, economic, social,and other considerations: ■ Would not mitigate environmental impacts to the greatest extent possible Huntington Beach Senior Center EIR Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations 3-5 CHAPTER 4 Statement of Overriding Considerations 4.1 INTRODUCTION Section 15093 of the C EQA guidelines states: (a) C EQA requires the decision-making agency to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve the project. If the specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects,the adverse environmental effects maybe considered"acceptable." (b)When the lead agency approves a project which will result in the occurrence of significant effects which are identified in the final EIR but are not avoided or substantially lessened, the agency shall state in writing the specific reason to support its actions based on the final EIR and/or other information in the record. The statement of overriding considerations shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. (c)If an agency makes a statement of overriding considerations, the statement should be included in the record of the project approval and should be mentioned in the notice of determination. The City of Huntington Beach (City) proposes to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations regarding the significant cumulative aesthetic impact of the proposed project. Although all project level impacts are reduced to less-than-significant levels, this section describes the anticipated economic, social, and other benefits or other considerations of the proposed project to support the decision to proceed with the project even though one identified cumulative impact is not mitigated to a less-than-significant level. 4.2 SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE CUMULATIVE IMPACT The City is proposing to approve the proposed project, with revisions to reduce environmental impacts, and has prepared an EIR required by C EQA. Even with revisions in the project, the following impact is unavoidable because it has been determined that no feasible mitigation is available. Refer to Chapter 2 (C EQA Findings) for further clarification regarding the impact listed below. Aesthetics Given that the project would modify land that is currently undeveloped, the character of Central Park would be altered,which would result in a cumulatively considerable impact. Landscaping and open space would be provided, which would enhance the site's visual contribution to the surrounding park lands, and the project would not appear out of character when compared with surrounding land uses. However, the increase in development 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. Huntington Beach Senior Center EIR Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations 4-1 Chapter 4 Statement of Overriding Considerations 4®3 FINDINGS The City has evaluated all feasible mitigation measures and project revisions with respect to this cumulative aesthetic impact (see Chapter 2, CEQA Findings). The City has also examined a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed project (see Chapter 3, Findings Regarding Project Alternatives). Based on this examination, the City has determined that because of its reduced intensity, the No Project/Continuation of Uses Allowed By Existing General Plan and Master Plan Alternative is considered to be the environmentally superior alternative. Two of the three alternatives listed above would potentially result in less significant environmental impacts than the proposed project. The Alternative Site was found to result in potentially greater impacts than the proposed project. The City fords these three alternatives infeasible and less desirable than the proposed project and has rejected these alternatives from further consideration because they would not achieve the environmental, economic, social, and other considerations outlined in Chapter 3 (Findings Regarding Project Alternatives). 4.4 OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS Specific economic, social, or other considerations outweigh the cumulative aesthetic impact stated above. The reasons for proceeding with the proposed project, even though one identified cumulative impact is not fully mitigated to a less-than-significant level, are described below. Proposed Project Benefits The proposed project would provide a new, centrally located state-of-the-art senior center that would be large enough to respond to the changing needs of the population and simultaneously meet the unique developmental needs and diverse interests of the City's senior residents. L Development of the proposed project would allow the City to serve a higher percentage of its senior population with levels of service comparable to other cities in the area. 2. The proposed project emphasizes compatibility and sensitivity to the existing uses surrounding the site and would include a variety of sustainable features, such as bioswales, drought-tolerant landscaping, waterless urinals, roofing materials, and installation of low-flush water devices. The City is requiring that the project achieve LEED certification. 3. The project will maintain and enhance the community image of Huntington Beach through the design and construction of high quality development consistent with the Urban Design Element of the City's General Plan. 4-2 Huntington Beach Senior Center EIR Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations ATTACHMENT #4 AD " A,, A 5 E.61 1 41 floor -8230 2Q8735 21i C A 0/1 3.1283.0 I PROJECT FOR: HUN reM as M A K A RI 4100 MACARTHUR BLVD ;A W PORT BEACH, PARKING SUMMARY ."B,IT., 12111: T 949.255 1 100 9 14 STIS 1 141— 112. 9 14 ST T�T EMPLA LOT T�T EMPLA LOT 227 ST1 I T.—AES— 24 STALLS • IISLISCHUTILL STAUSPIRMIDED • COUNT MA ACCESSIBLE STALLS. �tA AUV Ar" 'klt W Q� ( U a9 z"k T >f B '} s 1 I ,FA V X" lj 4,11 i�"19 V, Y, 11 '.A, 01, IT, SITE PLAN JULY9,2W7 �7 11A 11111111E TIALLILI-11 1U IIMTO�O�11Y 1110 Ill�1—' o1 ILE -T111 architects IF, y �— p � a P '4 ..*: �\ \ ! ✓I 1 \ I -I (`\. KKE arcInit ci Inc 5]5 E`Colorado Boulevard,"4fh Floor, '1211 91101 't 62b.796.8330 F.b4b.79b.8736 PROJECT FOR: MA_KAR 4100 MACARTHUR BIND. TF. NEWRORT BEACH, CA 92660 U _ ... T 942255.1 Ion F:949 255 1128 I aIta i - 1 1. NORTH ELEVATION _ a I II r! 7. i`5,: 2,1 �`$� •",1.. ..3,'. 5, _2l 2. EAST ELEVATION MATERIALS 1.51ANDING METAL SEAM ROOF Z.STUCCO 3.DRYStACK STONE 4.WOODWETALRAFTERS 5.GLAZWG d.LIGHT FI%TURE 7.WOOD iRflLIS ELEVATIONS 1ULY 9.—1 RAP '..L EgRW1E1 YROAREIEORI IFoaY architects VI "N hit.d..Inc525 E.C.1—d. Pasadena,CA91101 -t*626.7M8230 t.626.796.8735 4ZFK11Ir_1 MIT r R 1'_'?, a ti B��Wd,41�Flo.,; ' N BEACH,CA 0/13.1283.0 1 PROJECT FOR: F_ U LM-A K A R 4100 MACARTHUR PH VC. S THE ..NE.10RT BEACH, C A 11... v'_ Y49 255 1 I1. f2l c. 3.SOUTH ELEVATION I 7 ----7 -— 47W I mil Iffm F 2-2 4.WEST ELEVATION MATERIALS 1.$TA DNG MErAL SEAM ROOF 2 STUCCO 3 DRY SWKSTONE 4 WOOD/METAL RAPERS S. GLAZING 6 UCHTFIXT RE 7.WOOD TRELLIS ELEVATIONS JULY 9,2007 �:E111ALAAl'O'N"ll ILIEll,E.AW.All GIVE11 W 'A lVAL,11ARA—11 All IND� NIWLIEDBI T11 A—ITF11 architects ATTACHMENT #5 L AA CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEAC C 'VED City Council Interoffice Communication 2007 DEC 20 PH 2: 29 V1�_. Co ?•mil To: Joan Flynn, City Clerk CITY CIF" HUNTINGTON BEACH From: Debbie Cook, Mayor Date: December 13, 2007 Subject: APPEAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 07-0021 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 07-039 (HUNTINGTON BEACH SENIOR CENTER) I am hereby appealing the Planning Commission's December 11, 2007, conditional approval of Environmental Impact Report No. 07-002 and Conditional Use Permit No. 07-039 for Huntington Beach Senior Center located in Central Park. The appeal is based,on the following: (1) CEQA certification including but not limited to the project description, discussion of alternatives, mitigation measures, impacts to wildlife, loss of open space, and aesthetics (2) Issuance of the CUP and consistency with land use policies in the General Plan and Central Park Plan (3) Affects to an existing EIR for the Pacific City Project (4) Consistency with Measure T and Measure C (5) Concerns regarding project funding and financial uncertainties DB:SH xc: John Scandurp, Planning Commission Chair Penelope Culbreth-Graft, City Administrator Paul Emery, Deputy City Administrator Scott Hess, Director of Planning Jim Engle, Director of Community Services Mary Beth Broeren, Principal Planner Jennifer Villasenor, Associate Planner ATTACHMENT #6) • City of Hantington.Beach Planning D"artment J� STAFF REPORT a HUNTINGTON BEACH - - - - " �x TO: Planning Commission FROM: Scott Hess, AICP, Director of Planning BY: Jennifer Villasenor, Associate Planner BATE: December 11, 2007 SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 07-039 (HUNTINGTON BEACH SENIOR CENTER) APPLICANT: City of Huntington Beach, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92648 PROPERTY OWNER: City of Huntington Beach, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92648 LOCATION: 18041 Goldenwest Street (southwest of the intersection of Goldenwest Street and Talbert Avenue) STATEMENT OF ISSUE: ♦ Conditional Use Permit No. 07-039 is a request to construct and operate a 45,000 square foot one-story senior recreation facility on a site with a grade difference greater than 3 feet. ♦ Staff s Recommendation: Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 07-039 based upon the following: - General Plan goals, objectives, and policies encourage the establishment of uses that support the needs of existing and future Huntington Beach residents when compatible with and sensitive to adjacent uses. - Project provides a centrally located senior and human service recreation facility in the City of Huntington Beach. - Project provides for a new senior center large enough to meet the current and future demand of an increasing senior population. - Project will enhance the community image of the City of Huntington Beach through the design and construction of a high quality development. - Project complies with applicable zoning regulations of the OS-PR zoning designation. Environmental Impact Report No. 07-002 is being processed concurrently with this entitlement and is addressed under a separate staff report. It is necessary for the Planning Commission to review and act on Environmental Impact Report No. 07-002 prior to action on this entitlement. Based on the EIR analysis, following approval of this entitlement, a CEQA Statement of Findings of Fact with a Statement of Overriding Considerations will be required. RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: A. "Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 07-039 with findings and suggested conditions of approval (Attachment No. I)." B. "Approve CEQA Statement of Findings of Fact with a Statement of Overriding Considerations (Attachment No. 5)." 8 MCF HDQAi®t PROJECT - - SITEffi° weaara ♦ ` a.�seit w rAL3car ♦ CA)"Eo ell ►rOlIxIm N t + IIlDI4NArOi.f3 6— AILAIA KAACW N HAMILdON eANNIPIG 77 .� � ('attTrl4lii7'fYlil) ��' ��-�� 5 acre , "�! i� •. ��:�"`�'�' `��'#�.aV' ems, 4� �- h e✓ �.,,y3 i�ti r Yt VICINITY MAP CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT# 0 7-03 9 (SENIOR CENTER IN HUNTINGTON CENTRAL PARK) ALTERNATIVE ACTIONN: The Planning Commission may take alternative actions such as: A. "Deny Conditional Use Permit No. 07-039 with findings for denial." B. "Continue Conditional Use Permit No. 07-039 and direct staff accordingly." PROJECT PROPOSAL: Conditional Use Permit No. 07-039 represents a request to construct and operate a 45,000 square foot senior recreation facility on a 5-acre site in Central Park pursuant to Chapter 213.06 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (HBZSO). The conditional use permit is also necessary because the project is located on a site with a grade differential greater than three feet and includes a gated entrance to the site. The 5-acre project site is located within the 356-acre Huntington Central Park and generally located southwest of the intersection of Goldenwest Street and Talbert Avenue, between the disc golf course, which is at a higher elevation, and the Shipley Nature Center. The 5-acre project site will comprise the senior center building, parking lot and open space area (Attachment No. 2). The approximately 45,000 square foot building consists of a community hall/dining room, group exercise, fitness and dance rooms, multi-use classrooms, a kitchen, a social lounge and administrative offices. The outdoor open area includes a patio with a decorative trellis, an expansive lawn, a garden, a fountain, a barbecue area, benches and a natural meadow. The parking area includes a total of 233 parking spaces, including 14 disabled parking spaces and 6 oversize stalls for shuttle buses. Landscaping is provided throughout the site and consists of a mix of California native and non-native drought tolerant vegetation. Ingress and egress to and from the site is proposed via a new access driveway with entry gate at the existing Goldenwest Street/Talbert Avenue intersection. An existing traffic signal at this location will be modified for traffic to enter and exit the project site. Promramminz & Hours of Operation The proposed senior center will operate much like the existing Rodgers Senior Center operates today. The new center will be used for a variety of recreational programs and activities serving the City's seniors, although the facility will be accessible to all residents of the City. Primary uses include: recreation and social services, Senior Outreach Program (transportation, meals, counseling/visitation), and public meetings or receptions when not occupied by primary functions. PC Staff Report— 12-11-07 3 (07sr59 CUP 07-039—HB Senior Center) Proposed hours of operation are: Day Proposed Regular Hours of Classes&Activities operation Monday through Friday 8:00 a.m.—4:30 p.m. 4:30 p.m. — 10:00 p.m. Saturday& Sunday None 8:00 a.m. — 10:00 p.m. Special Events in Multi-Purpose Room(w/reservations) Sunday through Thursday Until 10:00 p.m. Friday& Saturday Until 12:00 a.m. With reservations, special events such as wedding receptions or public meetings are proposed to be held in the community hall when it is not being used for recreation or social programs. The current senior center also allows reservations for special events and currently rents the center to a church on Sundays. ISSUES: Subject Property And Surroundinz Land Use, Zoning And General Plan Designations: n.r. LOCATION wGENERAL PLAN ZONING LAND'USE %. s L<< Subject Site: OS-P(Open Space— OS-PR(Open Space-Parks Undeveloped,vacant Parks) &Recreation) North of Subject Site OS-P OS-PR Undeveloped area; Shipley (across earthen berm) Nature center East of Subject Site: OS-P OS-PR Sports Complex; Central (across Goldenwest St.) Library South of Subject Site: OS-P OS-PR Disc golf course; equestrian center West of Subject Site: OS-P OS-PR Passive parkland General Plan Conformance: The current General Plan Land Use Map designation on the subject site is OS-P (Open Space—Parks). The proposed project is consistent with the Open Space — Parks designation and the goals and policies of the City's General Plan as follows: A. Air Quality Element Policy A 1.8.3: Encourage developers to maintain the natural topography, to the maximum extent possible, and limit the amount of land clearing, blasting, grading, and ground excavation operations needed for development. The proposed project anticipates a balanced site with minor cut and fill operations during construction. PC Staff Report—12-11-07 4 (07sr59 CUP 07-039—HB Senior Center) Policy AQ 1.10.1: Continue to require the utilization and installation of energy conservation features in all new construction. As with all new buildings, the proposed project will be required to comply with the energy conservation standards of Title 24, which would ensure that there would be no wasteful or unnecessary use of energy. B. Circulation Element Policy CE 6.1.7: Require new development to provide accessible facilities to the elderly and disabled.. The proposed senior center project will be required to comply with the requirements of the ADA. The proposed project will also provide ADA access to the site via a pedestrian path north of the access driveway. Policy CE 7.1.7: Continue to construct landscaped medians in existing major and primary arterial streets and continue to require the construction of landscaped medians in new developments. The proposed project includes construction of a signalized access driveway at the intersection of Goldenwest Street and Talbert Avenue. The new access driveway includes a proposed landscaped median. C. Environmental Hazards Element Policy EH 4.1.1: During major redevelopment or initial construction, require specific measures to be taken by developers, builders, or property owners in flood prone areas, to prevent or reduce damage from flood hazards and the risks upon human safety. Although the site is partially located in Flood Zone A, the project site is already a minimum of 4 feet higher than the base flood elevation at its lowest point. A flood elevation certificate will be required for the proposed project. D. Growth Management Element Goal GM 2: Ensure that adequate transportation and public facilities and public services are provided for existing and future residents of the City. The proposed project does not result in any significant traffic impacts and adequate public facilities and public services will be provided. E. Hazardous Materials Element Policy HM 1.2.3: Support land use or developments adjacent to or within close proximity of sensitive uses, which do not utilize, store, handle, or contain hazardous materials and/or waste, and which would create an unsafe, unhealthy, or hazardous condition for adjacent uses. PC Staff Report—12-11-07 5 (07sr59 CUP 07-039—HB Senior Center) Construction and operation of the proposed senior center will not include the use of large quantities of hazardous materials, and any commonly used hazardous materials would be used and stored in accordance with applicable regulations. Implementation of the proposed project would not utilize hazardous materials or waste and would not create an unsafe or hazardous condition for adjacent uses. F. Land Use Element Policy LU 4.2.1: Require that all structures be constructed in accordance with the requirements of the City's building and other pertinent codes and regulations; including new, adaptively re-used, and renovated buildings. Policy LU 4.2.4: Require that all development be designed to provide adequate space for access, parking, supporting functions, open space and other pertinent elements. Policy LU 4.2.5: Require that all commercial, industrial and public development incorporate appropriate design elements to facilitate access and use as required by State and Federal Laws such as the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The proposed project will be constructed in accordance with existing laws and regulations, including the City's building code and any applicable State and federal law requirements such as ADA. In addition, the project is proposed to be in conformance with the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance and is not seeking any variances to deviate from the code requirements. Adequate access to and from the project site will be provided through the entrance at the Goldenwest Street/Talbert Avenue intersection. Sufficient parking will be provided on site for the senior center use. G. Recreation and Community Services Element Policy RCS 1.1.1: Provide leisure opportunities through programs and activities that serve the general population as well as the specialized needs of the disabled, children and elderly. Policy RCS 3.1.2: Provide a variety of amenities within recreation areas in order to accommodate persons with different interests. Policy RCS 3.1.7: Design recreational facilities to the accessibility requirements as specified in State and Federal laws such as the Americana with Disabilities Act(ADA) standards for accessibility. The proposed project is a senior recreation facility proposed to be developed in accordance with ADA standards. The senior center and associated amenities will provide the City with expanded recreational resources for senior citizens to meet existing and future demand. The senior center will be accessible to all residents of the City of Huntington Beach. PC Staff Report—12-11-07 6 (07sr59 CUP 07-039—HB Senior Center) H. Utilities Element Policy U 3.3.2: Where feasible, utilize natural overland flows, open channels, and swale routings as preferred alignments for components of drainage systems. Policy U 3.3.3: Require that new developments employ the most efficient drainage technology to control drainage and minimize damage to environmental sensitive areas. The proposed project includes bioswales and vegetated buffer areas to treat runoff from the proposed project's impervious areas. Implementation of BMPs and the project's directing of stormwater flows through the park and Huntington Lake will ensure that project implementation would not adversely impact sensitive environments Zoninm Compliance: The project site is located in the OS-PR (Open Space — Parks & Recreation) zone and complies with the requirements of that zone. The OS-PR zone permits park and recreation facilities with approval of a conditional use permit. The project site is a 5-acre site situated within a 54-acre parcel in Central Park. The proposed project exceeds all minimum standards for lot area, lot width, setbacks and site coverage. The building will be setback approximately 300 feet from Goldenwest Street and is approximately 30 feet in height with architectural projections reaching up to 46 feet in height. The maximum height permitted in the OS-PR zone is 45 feet. However, HBZSO Section 230.72 — Exceptions to Height Limits, allows architectural features to exceed the maximum height limit permitted in the base zoning district by no more than 10 feet. The proposed project complies with this provision of the code. Parkin The HBZSO does not specify a parking ratio for a park and recreation facility. Rather, the parking ratio is determined to be specific to the requested use. In this case, staff relied on consultation with LPA, Inc., a consulting firm that was commissioned to prepare a feasibility study for a new senior center prior to the Measure T election last November. Based on LPA's experience in designing and constructing community buildings such as the proposed senior center, a recommendation of 4-5 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of floor area was suggested. In addition, staff surveyed other senior centers and found that parking ratios for those centers ranged from 1 parking space per 100 square feet to 1 parking space per 300 square feet. It should be noted that the majority of the senior centers surveyed also indicated that parking was sufficient. The proposed senior center project is providing 233 parking spaces at a ratio of just over 5 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet (1 per 193 square feet). This is consistent with both the LPA recommendation and the senior centers that were surveyed. The number of ADA parking spaces required is seven. However, because the proposed senior center may have a higher ratio of disabled drivers, the number of proposed ADA spaces has been increased to 14. Planning and Community Services staff agree that this may not be enough disabled spaces based on feedback that was received from other senior centers. Staff is recommending that the number of ADA parking spaces be increased to 20 with the possibility of further increasing the number of ADA spaces if determined necessary once the facility is operational. PC Staff Report—12-11-07 7 (07sr59 CUP 07-039—HB Senior Center) Landscaping The project proposes substantial landscaping throughout the site. An approximately 20,000 square foot open space area including a 10,000 square foot lawn, is located to the rear of the building. In addition to the lawn, the open space area includes a trellis patio, an area designed for a demonstration or hummingbird garden, a walking path with benches and a barbecue pad. Landscaping is also proposed throughout the parking area, as required by the HBZSO. This landscaping will incorporate bioswales and serve as a natural treatment system for stormwater runoff. The preliminary landscape plan shows a mix of native and non-native drought tolerant vegetation able to support a wide range of climate conditions and soils. As required by code, "smart irrigation controllers" or other technology to reduce runoff will be used for the project. Although the preliminary landscape plans show species that occur at adjacent uses, staff is recommending that the final landscape plans show a variety of tree, shrub and grass species that occur at adjacent uses, such as the Shipley Nature Center and the Sports Complex. An approximately 9,000 square foot natural meadow is also proposed for the northwest corner of the project site. With inclusion of the natural meadow area, the proposed project provides nearly an acre of landscaping on site. However, this area is also designated for future overflow or expansion of parking if deemed necessary. If this area does become an overflow parking area, staff is recommending that meadow grasses be planted elsewhere on the project site. Urban Desi;?n Guidelines Conformance: The Huntington Beach Urban Design Guidelines do not include guidelines specific to park and recreation facilities in the OS-PR zoning district. Notwithstanding, the project generally conforms to the objectives and standards for non-residential projects contained in the Guidelines, including the following: ■ Establish attractive, inviting, imaginative and functional site arrangement of buildings and parking areas and high quality architectural and landscape design which provides for proper access, visibility an identity. ® The designer is expected to employ variations in form, building details and siting in order to create visual interest. In all cases, the selected architectural style should be employed on all building elevations. ■ Buildings should be divided in distinct massing elements. Building facades should be articulated with architectural elements and details. Vertical and horizontal offsets should be provided to minimize building bulk. • Vertical architectural elements such as towers should be used as focal points. ■ Developments should incorporate plazas and courtyards into their design. Courtyards should be buffered from the street, parking areas and drive aisles. Environmental Status: The project's potential environmental impacts are analyzed and discussed in a separate staff report. Prior to any action on Conditional Use Permit No. 07-039, it is necessary for the Planning Commission to review and act on Environmental Impact Report No. 07-002 (separate report). Staff, in its initial study of the project, is recommending that Environmental Impact Report No. 07-002 be certified as adequate and PC Staff Report—12-11-07 8 (07sr59 CUP 07-039—HB Senior Center) complete with mitigation measures, Findings of Fact, a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. Although the project results in adverse cumulative impacts to the environment that cannot be mitigated or avoided, the Planning Commission may still approve the project if a Statement of Overriding Considerations is adopted. CEQA requires decision makers to balance the benefits of the proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to approve the project. If the benefits of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the City may consider the adverse environmental effects acceptable. In this particular case, staff believes the benefits of the proposed project outweigh the adverse impact to Aesthetics. The cumulative adverse Aesthetic impact is a result of the overall loss of undeveloped open space in Central Park. That being said, approval of the project will provide a new state-of-the-art senior center designed for innovative programming to meet the needs of a multi-generational senior population. The project also provides a centrally located senior center that will be large enough to meet current and future demand of an increasing senior population in the City of Huntington Beach. Development of the project also results in a temporary increase in employment opportunities due to project construction. Following approval of the conditional use permit, the Planning Commission must approve a CEQA Statement of Findings of Fact with a Statement of Overriding Considerations (Attachment No. 5). Coastal Status: Not applicable. Redevelopment Status: Not applicable. Design Review Board: The project was preliminarily reviewed by the Design Review Board (DRB) on August 9, 2007. The conditions of approval for the project will require that the final project design be approved by the Design Review Board. Subdivision Committee: Not applicable. Community Services Commission: The Community Services Commission approved the proposed senior center project at their meeting on November 14, 2007. Other Departments Concerns and Requirements: The Departments of Public Works, Fire, Building and Safety and Police have reviewed the project and recommended standard code requirements. A summary of the applicable standard code requirements is included in a letter to the applicant and is provided for informational purposes only (Attachment No. 4). As the project applicant, the Community Services Department has worked closely with Planning staff in coordinating with the Council on Aging (COA) as the voice for senior residents in providing input on the site plan and interior layout of the proposed senior center. PC Staff Report—12-11-07 9 (07sr59 CUP 07-039—HB Senior Center) Public Notification: Legal notice was published in the Huntington Beach/Fountain Valley Independent on November 29, 2007, and notices were sent to property owners of record and occupants within a 1,000 ft. radius of the subject property, individuals/organizations requesting notification (Planning Department's Notification Matrix), and other interested parties. As of December 3, 2007, two letters referencing the proposed project and EIR have been received. The letters are included as an attachment to the EIR report for this project. Application Processing Dates: DATE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: MANDATORY PROCESSING DATEN: Draft EIR: April 5, 2007 Within 1 year of complete application(April 5, 2008) Conditional Use Permit: November 5, 2007 Within 180 days from EIR Certification(October 2, 2008) Funding for the proposed project will be provided by park in-lieu fees from the Pacific City development project through an Owner-Participation Agreement (OPA) between the City of Huntington Beach and the Pacific City developer. The OPA specifies a timeline for the construction of the senior center including the timing for approval of the project. Per the OPA, approval of entitlements and project plans must occur by April 1, 2008. ANALYSIS: Land Use Compatibility The proposed project, as modified by suggested conditions of approval and the mitigation measures contained in EIR No. 07-002, is consistent with the applicable General Plan Land Use and Zoning designations as noted in previous sections of this report. Although the proposed project will result in the development of a new senior center on existing open space, the project will be compatible with the established recreational land use pattern in the area, specifically existing community facilities such as the Central Library and Sports Complex adjacent to the proposed project site. Within this context, the proposed project is compatible with the surrounding parkland. The nearest adjacent residences are located approximately 800 feet west of the project site. Mitigation measures incorporated in EIR No. 07-002 ensure that residences in the vicinity will not be detrimentally impacted. In addition, the proposed project will add a senior recreation facility on land currently designated for recreational uses but at a greater intensity than what was previously intended for the site. To integrate the project with the natural setting of the Shipley Nature Center and existing passive parkland west of the project site, substantial landscaping is proposed throughout the site, including surrounding the entire perimeter of the project site. The proposed landscaping includes species that are currently found at Shipley Nature Center, the Sports Complex and the passive parkland to the west. As discussed in the EIR for the project, the integrity of environmental resources on and surrounding the site will be maintained. PC Staff Report—12-11-07 10 (07sr59 CUP 07-039—HB Senior Center) Central Park Master Plan Because the intensity of development is increasing on the project site, the Central Park Master Plan will require an amendment from a low intensity area to a high intensity area. It is worth mentioning, however, that the project site is part of a larger 14-acre undeveloped area that is identified in the Central Park Master Plan as a low intensity recreation area. An amendment to the Central Park Master Plan will only change the designation of the 5-acre project site leaving the remaining nine acres as a low intensity area. Furthermore, the development footprint of the building is approximately one acre which constitutes less than 10 percent of the total undeveloped area. Grade Differential The 5-acre project site is situated in a relatively low-lying area bordered by ascending slopes on the north, east and south sides. An earthen berm is located north of the project site and will be used for construction of the access driveway to the site from Goldenwest Street. The site is bordered on the east by a slope ascending up to Goldenwest Street and on the south by a slope ascending up to the disc golf course facility. These slopes are at an elevation of approximately 39 feet above mean sea level (MSL). Meanwhile, the project site gradually slopes to the west from an elevation of approximately 26 feet above MSL near the southeast corner of the site to approximately 14 feet above MSL near the southwest corner of the site. Therefore, the adjacent slopes are elevated anywhere from 13 to 25 feet above the project site. According to the conceptual grading plan, at finished grade, the facility will be at an elevation of approximately 22 1/2 feet above MSL. The project is designed with minimal cut and fill such that the surrounding slopes and drainage patterns will not be negatively impacted and are generally maintained as they currently exist. Green Building The proposed project emphasizes compatibility and sensitivity to the existing uses surrounding the site and will include a variety of sustainable features, such as bioswales, drought-tolerant landscaping, waterless urinals, roofing materials, and installation of low-flush water devices. The City is actively pursuing the feasibility of including additional features that would bring the building closer to LEED certification. As such, a standard condition of approval has been incorporated to ensure the consideration of green building elements into the design of the project. Proiect Design and Architecture The proposed project features an architectural design that will blend, to the extent possible, with the park setting of the surrounding area. Materials include an abundance of wood, glass, stone and stucco. The design also incorporates a variety of forms, wall planes, roof lines, offsets, exterior finish materials and decorative architectural elements such as a wood trellis patio and an outdoor fireplace. The proposed standing seam metal roofing material reduces cooling requirements and is energy efficient. Overall, the proposed architectural design provides visual interest and minimizes massing. PC Staff Report—12-11-07 11 (07sr59 CUP 07-039—HB Senior Center) The proposed building is a one-story building with an average height of 30 feet. Parapets, towers and other architectural features reach up to 46 feet in height. However, because the project site is in a low- lying area relative to the adjacent slopes, the average roofline of the proposed-senior center will only project up to 13 Meet higher than the slopes to the south and east. Architectural features could extend an additional 16 feet above the average roofline. Being that the project site is situated at a lower elevation, the mass and bulk of the building, as viewed from Goldenwest Street, are further reduced and distant views of the park beyond the project site can still be captured to some degree. SUMMARY: Staff is recommending approval of the project based on the suggested findings and subject to the suggested conditions of approval. The proposed project furthers General Plan goals, objectives, and policies that encourage the establishment of uses that support the needs of existing and future Huntington Beach residents when compatible with and sensitive to adjacent uses. In addition, the project complies with all applicable zoning regulations of the OS-PR zoning designation. Finally, the project provides a centrally located senior recreation facility large enough to meet current and future demand of an increasing senior population in the City of Huntington Beach. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Suggested Findings a-Rd Canditions of Approval Conditional Use Per-mitNe. 07 039 3. Project Narrative received and dated October 17, 2007 4. Code Requirements Letter dated November 20, 2007 (for informational purposes only) 5. ChQA Statement of Findings of Faet with Statement of Oveffiding Gefisid6r-atiefls EIR No. 07 002 b—Mitigatron Meni-ter-ing Program—EIR Ne. 07 002. 7. Eiw4renmet#al impae-tReps#No. 07-002 Not Attaebed-- See Staff Report No. B !a: SH:MBB:JV PC Staff Report—12-11-07 12 (07sr59 CUP 07-039—HB Senior Center) Project Narrative: Proposed Senior Center - Huntington Central Park The City of Huntington Beach City Council has, as part of its strategic plan, set a goal of building a new senior center to accommodate the growing senior population. This Conditional Use Permit is being initiated to begin the development of this new facility, which will be able to accommodate a growing number of seniors in the Huntington Beach community. Huntington. Beach is anticipating a 64 percent increase in the senior population by the year 2020, bringing the number of Huntington Beach seniors to over 50,000. The City of Huntington Beach Senior Center will provide high-quality, community-based programs for social support, health promotion, volunteer development, information and referral, advocacy, education, outreach, nutritional assistance, and physical activity for the city's senior adults. Approximately 9 permanent and 20 part-time staff members deliver this service to the community. The proposed project site is centrally located and would be contained on an undeveloped five-acre area, immediately north of the existing disc golf z course; east of the group picnic shelter and open group activity area. Further north is the Shipley Nature Center. The site is southwest of the intersection at Goldenwest Street and Talbert Avenue. Goldenwest, is a major arterial within the city which has access to public transportation. There are compatible activities in the park that could be enjoyed by seniors, including Shipley Nature Center and Central Library. The site would provide one acre for an approximately 45,000 square foot building, nearly two acres for 227 parking spaces, and an additional two acres for courtyards and landscaping. The normal facility hours of operation will be Monday through Friday, 8:00 A.M until 4:30 P.M. with classes and activities potentially scheduled until 10:00 P.M. Classes and activities may be scheduled on Saturday and Sunday from 8:00 A.M. until 10:00 P.M., with the possibility of special events being offered on Friday and Saturday nights until midnight through a permit process. ATTACHMENT N . _. City of Huntington Beach 0 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING Phone 536-5271 Fax 374-1540 November 20, 2007 City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Attn: David Dominguez, Community Services Dept. SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 07-039 (HUNTINGTON BEACH SENIOR CENTER) 18041 GOLDENWEST STREET, HUNTINGTON BEACH (SOUTHWEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF GOLDENWEST STREET/TALBERT AVENUE IN CENTRAL PARK) Dear Mr. Dominguez: In order to assist you with your development proposal, staff has reviewed the project and identified applicable city policies, standard plans, and development and use requirements, excerpted from the City of Huntington Beach Zoning & Subdivision Ordinance (HBZSO) and Municipal Codes. This list is intended to help you through the permitting process and various stages of project implementation. It should be noted that this requirement list is in addition to any "conditions of approval" adopted by the Planning Commission. Please note that if the design of your project or site conditions change, the list may also change. The attached project implementation requirements may be appealed to the Planning Commission as a matter separate from the associated entitlement within 10 calendar days of the project approval pursuant to the HBZSO Sec. 248.24. The appeal fee is $494.00. If you would like a clarification of any of these requirements, an explanation of the Huntington Beach Zoning & Subdivision Ordinance and Municipal Codes, or believe some of the items listed do not apply to your project, and/or you would like to discuss them in further detail, please contact me at 714-374-1661 or at jvillasenor@surfcity-hb.org and/or the respective source department (contact person below). Si cerely, JEN IFER VILLASENOR Associate Planner Enclosure cc: Ken Small,Police Chief Debbie DeBow, Public Works Dept. Eric Haghani,Building&Safety Dept_ Lee Caldwell,Fire Dept. Epp- 9 �1 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT ►+uNnNcroN BEnctt PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION CODE REQUIREMENTS DATE: NOVEMBER 20, 2007 PROJECT NAME: HUNTINGTON BEACH SENIOR CENTER ENTITLEMENTS: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 07-039 PROJECT LOCATION: 18041 GOLDENWEST STREET, HUNTINGTON BEACH (SOUTHWEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF GOLDENWEST STREET/TALBERT AVENUE IN CENTRAL PARK) PLAN REVIEWER: JENNIFER VILLASENOR, ASSOCIATE PLANNER TELEPHONE/E-MAIL: (714)374-1661/jvillasenor@surfcity-hb.org PROJECT DESCRIPTION: CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A 45,000 SQUARE FOOT SENIOR RECREATION FACILITY ON A 5-ACRE SITE WITH GREATER THAN A 3-FOOT GRADE DIFFERENTIAL. The following is a list of code requirements deemed applicable to the proposed project based on plans received and dated October 17, 2007. The list is intended to assist the applicant by identifying requirements which must be satisfied during the various stages of project permitting and implementation. A list of conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission in conjunction with the requested K4 entitlement(s), if any,will also be provided upon final project approval. If you have any questions regarding these requirements,please contact the Plan Reviewer. 1. The site plan, floor plans, and elevations approved by the Planning Commission shall be the conceptually approved design with the following modifications: a. Parking lot striping shall comply with Chapter 231 of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance and Title 24, California Administrative Code. b. Depict all utility apparatus, such as but not limited to, back flow devices and Edison transformers on the site plan. Utility meters shall be screened from view from public right-of-ways. Electric transformers in a required front or street side yard shall be enclosed in subsurface vaults. Backflow prevention devices shall be prohibited in the front yard setback and shall be screened from view. c. All exterior mechanical equipment shall be screened from view on all sides. Rooftop mechanical equipment shall be setback a minimum ofl5 feet from the exterior edges of the building. Equipment to be screened includes, but is not limited to, heating, air conditioning, refrigeration equipment, plumbing.lines, ductwork and transformers. Said screening shall be architecturally compatible with the building in.terms of materials and colors. If screening is not.designed specifically into the building, a rooftop mechanical equipment plan showing proposed screening must basubmitted for review and approval with the application for building permit(s). d. Depict the location of all gas meters, water meters, electrical panels, air conditioning units, mailboxes (as approved by the United States Postal Service), and similar items on the site lan and elevations. If located on a building; they shall be architecturally integrated with the de ign of the building, non-obtrusive, not interfere with sidewalk areas and comply with required set s. ;i . TAC MET NOa Page 2 of e. All parking area fighting shall be energy efficient and designed so as not to produce glare on adjacent residential properties. Security lighting shall be provided in areas accessible to the public during nighttime hours, and such lighting shall be on a photo-sensor system. (HBZSO 231.18(C)) f. Bicycle parking facilities shall be provided in accordance with the provisions of HBZSO Section 231.20—Bicycle Parking. g. Loading space shall be provided in accordance with the provisions of HBZSO section 231.04 A. 2. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the following shall be completed: a_ At least 14 days prior to any grading activity, the applicant/developer shall provide notice in writing to property owners of record and tenants of properties immediately adjacent to and across the street/alley from the project site_The notice shall include a general description of planned grading activities and an estimated timeline for commencement and completion of work and a contact person name with phone number. Prior to issuance of the grading permit, a copy of the notice and list of recipients shall be submitted to the Planning Department. b. If any walls are proposed, blockwall/fencing plans(including a site plan, section drawings and elevations, depicting the height and material of all retaining walls,freestanding walls and fences) consistent with the grading plan, shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Department. Double walls shall be prohibited. Prior to construction of any new property line walls or fences, a plan, approved by the owners of adjacent properties, and identifying the removal of any existing wails, shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review and approval. The plans shall identify proposed wall and fence materials, seep holes and drainage. 3. Prior to submittal for building permits Zoning entitlement conditions of approval, code €a requirements identified herein and code requirements identified in separately transmitted memorandum from the Departments of Fire and Public Works shall be printed verbatim on one of the first three pages of all the working drawing sets used for issuance of building permits (architectural, structural, electrical, mechanical and plumbing) and shall be referenced in the sheet index. The minimum font size utilized for printed text shall be 12 point. 4. Prior to issuance of building permits, the following shall be completed: a. An interim parking and building materials storage plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department to assure adequate parking and restroom facilities are available for contractors and construction workers during the projects construction phase and that adjacent properties will not be impacted by their location. The plan shall also be reviewed and approved by the Fire Department and Public Works Department. The applicant shall obtain any necessary encroachment permits from the Public Works Department. 5. During demolition, grading, site development, and/or construction,the following shall be adhered to: a. Construction equipment shall be maintained in peak operating condition to reduce emissions. b. Use low sulfur(0.5%)fuel by weight for construction equipment. c. Truck idling shall be prohibited for periods longer than 10 minutes. d. Attempt to phase and schedule activities to avoid high ozone days first stage smog alerts. e. Discontinue operation during second stage smog alerts. .� NO. �. LSTs:—which are voluntary_ onlya> v to CO- NO, P ,, emissions during construction at th-e discretion of the lead agency Screening-Jeve�1 analysis of LSTs is only recommended for rQect sites that are 5 acres or less. The SCAO recommends that projects over 5 acres should perform air duality dispersion modeling to assess impacts to nearby sensitive receptors. The total size of the 12ro osed roject site is approximately 5 acres. How-ever, because th ce riv wa_ leading to the i2roject site is ro osed to be constructed with the new senior center_ the ISCST3 dispersion modeling is an apl2myriate method of analysis. ISCST3 dispersion modeling was performed to identify CO_NO PM and PM,, emissions during construction of the prop_ sed protect using the BEEST dispersion model. Dispersion modeling can be done on a voluntary basis by public agencies to determine whether or no-La project may venerate significant adverse localized air quality impacts at the nearest sensitive receptors LSTs have been established by the SCAQMD only for construction of Meets and do not app" emissions dui operation as localized concentration cannot b, properly quantified during operation due to the variable locations of mobile sources which make up the largest Source of criteria air pgllutants under operation of the proposed 12rojec 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 (NIM 4.2-2(a) through MM 4.2-2(e)1, 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. Huntington Beach Senior Center EIR 10-5 Page 4.2-20, Section 4.2.3 (Project Impacts and Mitigation) 4.47- 38.4-7 47- 5 - 49 4:84 Q On Road Vehicles 0:00 0,00 0,00 040 040 4.40 Rq a - - - - 5-. 4 44.92 in erg ; 445 440 474 4799 0$4 044 442 A-27 44Z 0.40 SI M 42L." 75-0 400.0 550:0 450:0 45" WO SiipifiiGant ImpaGP No No Ale No Ne No GenstrUGOOR Phase GORMFUGtian Equipment 2 26-7-6 44.64 0 04 44-7 4.4 Asphalt Paying 2:49 44.22 0-44 040 4.47- 407 AmMeGtwal gs 43,93 0-03 0.54 0:00 O o0 0.0 ear a.......,nail„Emiss: 49.43 441 24.9 $.-94 2:64 244 7 0 400.0 550.o 45" 450:0 55 0 Sion+tioant ImpaGP No Ne No No No No o g s o - ! • W Emissioris Source YfK &I L'1lfliu PM `P r; Site Excavation.Grading,and Utility Installation Construction Equipment 3,31 28 00 13.K - 1.41 13D On-Road Vehicles 0 04 m 0_DQ Q.QD Gm Q.QD Fugitive Dusta - - - - 25.91 5.41 Worker Trios Q04 0.07 113 D.40 0.01 Om Maximum Daily Emissions 135 28.07 14.69 am 2 3333 fill SCAQMD Thresholds - 1100 0 55�f Q 1 1 Q 1500 �5-Q Significant Impact? NQ No NQ NQ NQ NQ Construction Phase Construction Equipment 44 18 D5 14 95 4Q7 133 1.21 Asphalt Paving 312 17.81 1110 Om 1,51 to Architectural Coatings 43.83 093 0.54 0M. 0.00 DM Maximum Daily Emissions 50.96 35-U 2L 9 DM 2.H 2.59 SCAQMD Thresholds M 100.0 KD 15U Lau ID 10-6 City of Huntington Beach r r - O O _ � • O • ® O •.IC. _ O g O i Peak Dw b4i6S66s in Pounds per ian&ant Impact? NQ N9 I N_Q I N_Q Na N_Q SC)URCF' EIP AssnnintPs.a division of PBSRJ 2007 C'alc elation sheets are ornvided in Appendix 3 a Assumes waterina of the n nnosed oroieot site wa ild occur three times per day. 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 reduee N8,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) 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 for projects. LSTs do not a lv to emissions during ol2eration. For projects eaer than 5 acres in total area dispersion modeling is recommended to determine worst-case ollutan ) centration at sensitive receptors associated with construction of the i2ro'ect Therefore dispersion modehng was conducted for the prol2osed project to assess potential imnac s to nearby sensitive rece orS. -f-He�-ts 5 aeres or less in fotftl area for GO, ,�I,, - ,. Total worst-case construction emissions for the proposed project are included in Table 4.2-4. These emissions were_&ntered into the dispersion model to identify the maximum daily construction emissions at nearby sensitive rece tors. 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. Huntington Beach Senior Center EIR 10-7 .Go 24 F ai 2� 8 No N82 41 U ay 334IbsldaJ 8 Ne P-ma, & s" 67-4� 8 No P 2-5 4-2- 41�s{�ay 4&uklay A No o • - • • s s • s • • • - • • • - - • • ddaiim3xn ilt ' Quatftr of Foi&1#unt Akfaf&d C'onsifturfin» CU 1-Hour MUM L%Q= Q ND S� i4tfC 9 1 �m 423jmm Q NNQ NO2 Q.999�. U&M Q No P_ M 4 3 12C-u &I Q No PMz.5 2. 1 m3 a4ACJLM=l Q No ySC211Kf E-1 RIP ASCnnlnfeC n divicinn nfPBS81 2007-ISCST4 Version 02035)-SC'AOMr) 9004 1 ncali ed CiQnificancPThreshNrf Methodnfoqv Summarized result calculations nre nmvided in Aonendix 3 Page 4.3-21, Section 4.3.7 (Project Impacts and Mitigation) AM 4.3-2 (This MM is Measure Biological Resources4 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 preferably nearby, such as the areas in association with the Suly Miller Lake Group Facility, Lox Intensity Recreation Area, Semi Active Recreation Area, and/or 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 identi the particular site or area to be enhanced and shall formulate a plan to accoynphsh the rotor foraging habitat enhancement activities. This plan shall be reviewed for approval by a aaa, i&d biologist. 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 this gcQgraphic 10-8 City of Huntington Beach -context-the heal. ed areas would further decrease the amount of this habitat- id-A-- the i---nediate areo and add to the cumulative loss of sensitive species in the region.This cumulative lative issue is addressed below and the proiect's overall contribution to this cumulative impact is analyzed. 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 the burrowing owl or its habitat or nesting raptors, or MBTA-protected species. The project's cumulative irnpacts 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 project'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) 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 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 surfi 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 depth of approximately 10 feet during site 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 project site actual depths will be evaluated in the Huntington Beach Senior Center EIR 10-9 field during construction to ensure that excavations would not encroach the groundwater table Provided no deep excavations are made(at a depth below the groundwater table), groundwater is not anticipated to impact the grading and proposed improvements. Page 4.6-12, Section 4.6.3 (Project Impacts and Litigation) 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 IDOGGR). 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 F forcement nenev ((.l '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 Litigation) 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 Drainage Plan will include measures to reduce nos - onstruction —eak 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 (includjn the Shipley Nature Center) above those that currently exist. 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 Litigation) 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 theproject e during operation could include the use of loudspeakers am hp �f music,and other sources of amplified noise. These amplified noise sources would be required to comely with the City of Huntington Beach Noise Ordinance exterior noise standards. shown in Table 4.946. 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 -u Ni to 10.00 P.M. and 50 dBA from 10 P,yyt to 7 Therefore, increased noise associated with operation of the senior center, including those associated with special events, would be bele adhere to the established standards and would be considered less than significant. 10-10 City of Huntington Beach Page 4.12-12, Section 4.12.2(Regulatory Framework) Consistency Analysis ...As discussed in Section 4.12.3 (Project Impacts and Mitigation), the project would not result in any significant impacts that cannot be mitigated to less-than-significant levels. 3NIhi4e the iiite.seefiett eproposed projeet,implementfttiart Of an additional northbound thi!augh lane at Goldettwest S"eet,'Si Page 4.12-14, Section 4.12.3 (Project Impacts and Mitigation) Project Trip Generation Trip generation represents the amount of traffic attracted to and produced by a development. Because of the unique nature of a senior center, count data were collected at a similar facility in a nearby community (the Oasis Senior Center in Newport Beach) and at the existingers Senior Center in Huntington Beach. `#' E-dition, 209 ). Peak hour trip rates have been calculated from the count data and the size of the center studied. The resulting trip generation rates are included in Table 4.12-4. Weekday Trip Generation Rates,, Peak Hexer Cantltls AA�1 e ...':;Urtiis in Oui„ Tofu 1tt Oui ,T.lvtal Dq*-- . .r Senior Center TSF 4,33 0-09 7A2- 0.89 2.44 3.33 75.45 5M L40 TOO Saturday Trip Generation Ratesa AW-dayPeck Hoke . iandUse tinr7sb . kk G?kA z,,, rofie : DW Senior Center—Saturday TSF 0.4 4.53 4.93 35.05 SOURCE: Oasis Senior Center Count Data and Rodgers Senior(--f r Data b TSF=thousand square feet Daily rates based on Institute of Transportation Engineers(ITE)peak to daily relationships for Community Centers As shown in Table 4.12-5, the proposed senior center is projected to generate a total of approximately 3,395 trip-ends per day on a typical weekday. On a typical weekend, the project is projected to generate a total of 1,577 trip-ends per day. Huntington Beach Senior Center EIR 1U-11 • s - t s - Sol= Weekday Trip Generation Summarya Pea7clOux � . k Land Qse Quarry }{ lJtu7sb Uul 7otcil tn ' ham," i"Tc ► Senior Center 45.0 TSF 60 2522 274-0 3341 40 110 150 3,395 Saturday Trip Generation Summarya Laritl use 04� UW In tout Total.' DCLIVC Senior Center—Saturday 45.0 TSF 18 204 222 1,577 a SOURCE: Oasis Senior Center Count Data b TSF=thousand square feet Daily rates based on Institute of Transportation Engineers(ITE)peak to daily relationships for Community Centers Page 4.12-32, Section 4.12.3 (Project Impacts and Mitigation) Intersection Level of Service Near term (2012) intersection levels of service for with and without project weekday conditions are shown in Table 4.12-6 (Intersection Analysis for Interim Year [2012], With and Without Project Weekday Conditions). All study area intersections except Goldenwest Street at Slater Avenue will experience acceptable levels of service with existing lanes. Although the intersection of Goldenwest Street at Slater Avenue will overate at LOS F conditions during the PM peak hour, this condition will occur even without the pro osed =project. Therefore- because the project does not contribute to the &fis_i�—traffic operations with a change of ICU of 0.01 or greater_ the project would not be required to t�i > tnent antraffic improvements at this intersect on1--ting of eetwerting the 10-12 City of Huntington Beach s: E e •- s - - - o o • • o : tnielsec&n atti tarnes�.: �' teve►Qf No ,.., tnfersedipn. 7ra�ic Ntibound Southkiovnd , ast�cirnd 1Nestbound . Vc�►/ aj�ac Scrs+ie Gottleitvve ,St:(IyS)c� C©nhok t . ''T P t 7': -'fit E i` tt L `_ ::iw PM With Project Conditions Slater Avenue(EW) TS 1 2 1 1 .3 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 08 03 0.920 €L_ E With irnprevements TS 3 0 4 3 4 4 2 4 4 2 4 9.845 0,8N G G Talbert Avenue(EW) TS 1 3 1 1 3 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0.486 0.580 A A Ellis Avenue(EW) TS 1 3 1 1 3 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 0.482 0,607 A B Without Project Conditions Slater Avenue(EW) TS 1 2 1 1 3 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 0.882 0.912 D E with T-9 4 3 0 4 3 4 4 2 4 4 2 4 8a94 0,99 G G Talbert Avenue(EW) TS 0 3 1 1 3 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0.350 0.495 A A Ellis Avenue(EW) TS 1 3 1 1 3 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 0.433 0.590 A A When aright turn is designated,the lane can either be striped or unstriped.To function as a right turn lane there must be sufficient width for right turning vehicles to travel outside through lanes. L=Left,T=Through,R=Right.1=Improvement,>=Right Turn Overlap Phase,>>=Free Right Turn b Crific:al volume/capacity ratio and level of service are calculated using the following analysis software:Traffix,Version 7.8 R5 (2007).Per the City of Huntington Beach standard,critical volume/capacity ratio and level of service are determined using the Intersection Capacity Utilization method for intersections with traffic signal control TS=Traffic Signal Near term (2012) intersection levels of service for with and without project weekend conditions are shown in Table 4.12-7 (Intersection Analysis for Interim Year [2012], With and Without Project Weekend Conditions). All intersections operate acceptably for weekend conditions (for both witli and without project conditions), Huntington Beach Senior Center EIR 10-13 •6 + 01 • • - - • • i • f? • • • i - - O • O i rlilelSeO ItOtleS°> ���y rnte►se hop A� Nodhbound3, soufl dour d E00botund 'West;tl unct vor/Ccipoc . ., 5 me 5 Go esfSt(NS)al<„ Co»rcak t t RA i 7 R ' L T R t T R With Project Conditions Slater Avenue(EW) IS 1 2 1 1 3 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 0.630 B _withrsvernents T9 4 3 0 4 3 4 4 2 4 4 2 4 0364 A Talbert Avenue(EW) TS 1 3 1 1 3 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0.497 A Ellis Avenue(EW) IS 1 3 1 1 3 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 0.448 A Without Project Conditions Slater Avenue(EW) TS 1 2 1 1 3 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 0.614 B T-9 4 3 0 4 3 4 4 2 4 4 2 4 0:549 A Talbert Avenue(EW) TS 0 3 1 1 3 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0.384 A Ellis Avenue(EW) TS 1 3 1 1 3 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 0.421 A -When a right turn is designated,the lane can either be striped or unstriped.To function as a right turn lane there must be sufficient width for right turning vehicles to travel outside through lanes. L=Left,T=Through,R=Right.1=Improvement,>=Right Turn Overlap Phase,>>=Free Right Turn y Critical volume/capacity ratio and level of service are calculated using the following analysis software:Traffix,Version 7.8 R5 (2007).Per the City of Huntington Beach standard,critical volume/capacity ratio and level of service are determined using the Intersection Capacity Utilization method for intersections with traffic signal control TS=Traffic Signal A project impact is defined as a change in ICU of 0.01 or greater, where deficient traffic operations are projected to occur. The project causes an increase of 2 21 (0.882 to 0.908 Q.= during the weekday AM peak hour, and an increase of 0.008 (0.912 to 0.920) during the weekday PM peak hour. 111e project therefore does not results in any potentially significant impact Page 4.12-35, Section 4.12.3 (Project Impacts and Mitigation) Impact 4.12-2 Under Year 2012 conditions, the proposed project would not cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system. As shown in Table 4.12-5, the proposed senior center is projected to generate a total of approximately 3,395 trip-ends per day on a typical weekday. In the AM peak hour the project is projected to generate approximately -3-34 315 vehicles per hour, while Ph1 peak hour trip generation is estimated at approximately 150 vehicles per hour. 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. A project impact is defined as a change in ICU of 0.01 or greater, where deficient traffic operations are projected to occur (i.e., LOS E or F). As illustrated in Tables 4 12-6 and 4 12-7 the project would not result in a change in ICU of 0.01 or greater at any of the project intersections where deficient traffic Qtierations are projected to occur, in either the AM or PM peak hour or during weekend conditions.T4-te 10-14 City of Huntington Beach in a patentially signifieaw impaet during the AM peak hour only at the interseetion of Goldettwest Str A,-,-Shown in Table 4.12-6 (Intersection Analysis for Interim Year (2012),With and Without Project Weekday Conditions),this the intersection of Goldenwest Street (NS) and Slater Avenue (EWl is anticipated to operate at LOS E conditions during the PM peak hour; however, this condition would occur even without the proposed project. Noneth Thms, because the project would not contribute to the deficient traffic operations with a change in ICU of 0.01 or greater, this is considered a less-than-significant impact. No mitigation would be requirel impleffientation of frtifigation measure NIM 4.42 2 would be required to redtiee this impaet. , ,vor4hbe, The on street parldng that watild be reffietmed as part of ...-,ftsttre NIM 4.42 2 is the most —.1ent parking for the six homes that front G oldettwest Street. Primary resident parking is pra-v4d for fi-,�e of the six homes off the alley that parftilels Goldettwest Street. The ret-ftaitting home has drivewfty .1 streets,lternate on ,treet parldng within fteeepfftble walking distattee Oess than 500 fee� is available on neftrby loeft! inelttdi"bg Ford Drive,Nfill Girele,and-Betty Drive.The less of appro��ftfely 4 2 on street parking spae— Page 4.12-36, Section 4.12.3 (Project Impacts and Mitigation) Impact 4.12-3 Implementation of the proposed project would not exceed standards established by the Orange County Transportation Authority. ...The proposed project is anticipated to generate approximately 3,395 trips per weekday, and 1,577 trips per weekend, which would appear to trigger the requirement of a CMP TIA. However, the next step in the CMP analysis is to determine whether or not the project has the potential to impact any CMP facilities with an increase of three percent or more. Because the T4-,e project would not result in an increase in ICU of 0.01 or greater at any study_ area intersection, any increase in traffic volumes resulting from affd the project are expected to dissipate prior to interaction with CNIP intersections. Consequently, this impact would be less than significant. Huntington Beach Senior Center EIR 10-15 Page 4.12-38, Section 4.12.3 (Project Impacts and Mitigation) MNr 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 im provements. The City Transportation Mangur 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 sues on roadway signs © Increased signal clearance intervals Page 4.12-39, Section 4.12.3 (Project Impacts and Mitigation) .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 Ttansportatioft C-Ar ulation 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 fthe service area, it is expected that such expansion of conveyance infrastructure would be minimal.As 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 proiec vel impacts that are significant and unavoidable after implementation of available, feasible mitigation measures and with 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 approve the proposed project the City of Huntington Beach must adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations pursuant to CFOA Guidelines Sections 15043 and 15093. prepftred for the proposed 10-16 City of Huntington Beach 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 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 CEng Guidelines an EIR should id n ifv an�r altPrna iv s were iected as infeasible and brieffiz exi lain the reasons underlvinz the determination The alternatives analyzed in an EIR must be potentially feasible The term"feasible"is defined in the Public Resources Code Section 210 1 1 as enable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time takinlz into account economic_environmental_social_and technological factars. As alternatives that are infeasible do not need to be considered as potential alternatives and acquisition costs Provide an economic reason for infeasibility, "'tee this alternative was rejected from further analysis. Page 6-26, Section 6.4(Comparison of Alternatives) ® • ® - ® ® - 'F NO Pro�ectJ �� Retluced � �M a� eConfinuandn of Uses"4Nowed Bx E�cis/lrid C PXo Cf ,6 °'A�Eilthfive• Envirorimerdat hwe Area .,,•. Efad tmdM6 Aemvtive; Size 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. Huntington Beach Senior Center EIR 10-17 • e - i o - 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 Projeet,'Reasattably Foreseeable Development Alterftative No ProjecdContinuation of Uses Allowed By Existins C'7eneral 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 N-Q 1;? ject/Continuation of Uses Allowed B): 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. Page 6-27, Section 6.5 (Environmentally Superior Alternative) Although the No Project lContinua ion of s 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 No Pro Continuation of Uses Allowed By Existin¢_ General Plan and Master Plan is considered to be the environmentally superior alternative. 10.3 FIGURE CHANGES The following figures changed as result of revised trip generation estimates, as discussed in Chapter 9 (Summary of Additional Air Quality and Traffic Analyses): ® Figure 4.12-10 (Weekday Project Only AM Peak Hour Intersection Volumes) ® Figure 4.12-20 (Weekday Near Term [20121 with Project AM Peak Hour Intersection Volumes) 10-18 City of Huntington Beach 0--4 - �- 0-• VF a N 13! Z uJ O _ TALBERT AV. (HUNTINGTON /UMAL PARK ISRARY) a NORTH Source:URBAN Crossroads.2007. NOT TO SCALE- FIGURE 4.12-10 E Weekday Project Only AM Peak Hour Intersection Volumes - A division of jmsgrr. - ...., D21314.00 Huntington Beach Senior Center EIR ono + O f--25 SLATER AV. o-J -� ' r- 38 fl`b t- N F LU >W Z W J 0 t7 � e moo .._.13 a) ► v 0 TALBERT AV. 32--- 1 A �� (HUNTINGTON 3 " moo CENTRAL PARK 28 .p &LISRARY) SITE mm k--50 r f--0 ELLIS AV. 13 a j ! f" O�► 000 NORTH Source:URBAN Crossroads.2007. NOT TO SCALE .E T P. FIGURE 4.12-10 Revised Weekday Project Only AM Peak Hour Intersection Volumes — Adivision of ::�,...�_ .. ,,,, Dntington Beach Senior Center EIR 21314.00 Hu IietA@9 t 4uq�� m 920a. r — 160-- moo UJ u5 r H s z u, 0 0 0 .�' TALBERT AV. i}k � LJNTINGTON ut TRAL PARK tV RARY) r.Lno !...--106 88--..� Lnrnr. NORTH Source:URBAN Crossroads.2007. NOT TO SCALE E I_P,, FIGURE 4.12-20 _. . Weekday Near Term (2012) with Project N AM Peak Hour Intersection Volumes U A division of D21314.00 Huntington Beach Senior Center EIR 0000 4 NPP —161 �alI�rn --.519 —61 SLATER AV. 86 ' 920— oPr� 189---t o®oo P Vt W Z W q J 0 Ln Nr-* t_-40 —13 14 TAtBERT AV. ...... 33 _ ` A 1> (HUNTINGTON 28� rnmcn CENTRAL PARK &LIBRARY) SITE P oo Wm— a-144 NC1P I --$8 34 ELLIS AV. 59._...., e 193 �u,00 0 88--* uxoce P NORTH Source:URBAN Crossroads.2007. NOT TO SCALE FIGURE 4.12-20 E I P... Revised Weekday Near Term (2012) with Project - AM Peak Hour Intersection Volumes A division of Pasr -,—._ —, n,, D21314.00 Huntington Beach Senior Center EIR ® s v 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 was held on October 11,2007.Table 11-1 provides a comprehensive list of commenters in the order that they are presented in this section. • • - • WIN - - - - - o ® • - ® o • - - • • Mo.. STATE DEPARTMENTS 1 Department of Transportation,Ryan Chamberlain,October 24,2007 11-35 2 Native American Heritage Commission,Dave Singleton,September 26,2007 11-35 REGIONAULOCAL AGENCIES 3 City of Huntington Beach,Environmental Board,November 1,2007 11-36 INDIVIDUALS Written Letters 4 Anthony Brine,October 30,2007 11-41 5 Larry Geisse,September 22,2007 1146 6 Larry Geisse,October 12,2007 11-46 7 Robert Haben,October 3,2007 11-46 8 Patricia Kreamer,October 31,2007 11-46 9 Margem@aol.com,September 24,2007 11-48 10 Merle Moshiri,October4,2007 11-48 11 Eileen Murphy,September 26,2007 11-49 12 Mindy White,October 31,2007 11-52 Verbal Comments Huntington Beach Senior Center Draft EIR Public Meeting,Verbal Comments,October 11,2007 11 54 Speaker Cards Tony Brine,October 11,2007 11-57 Bob Dettloff,October 11,2007 11-57 John McGregor,October 11,2007 11-58 Carol Settimo,October 11,2007 11-58 Mary Siegel,October 11,2007 11-58 Elmer Smith,October 11,2007 11-58 Huntington Beach Senior Center Final EIR 11-1 This chapter of the Final FIR 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 ®RAFT 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 CALWORNIA—BUSINESS,TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY ARNOLD SCHWARZEIMGGER,Governor DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION District 12 d 3337 Michelson Drive,Suite 380 �r Irvine,CA 92612-8894 Tel:(949)724-2241 Fleryourpower! Fax:(949)724 2592 req� A Be energy efficient! October 24,2007 OG� Jennifer Villasenor File:IGRlCEQA City of Huntington Beach SCH#:2007041027 2000 Main Street Log#: 1851A Huntington Beach,California 92648 SR-1,SR-39 Subject:Huntington Beach 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. DOT 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 Development/Intergovernmental Review C: Terry Roberts,Office of Planning and Research . "Caltrans improves mobility across California" STATE OF CAL1EQW1A AMQW$CbWWieneoaer.Governer NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION 916 CAPITOL MALL,ROOM 964 (SACRAO,CA 95814 ) �f �'iun�tngOnit% 0 ' FaX(916)657-SM Web SBe 76oe wmahe.ca.gov gOr1� e-mWh ds_1ahc@pacWl.net S[? 2 7 L VV September 25,2007 Ms.Jennifer Villasenor,Associate Planner CITY OF HUNTiNGTON BLEACH DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING 2000 MAIN Street Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Re: SCUIE2007041027 CEQA Notice of Completion:draft Environmental impact Report(DEIR)for Huntington Beach Senior Cerner.City of Huntington Beach:Orange County,California Dear W.YNasenor. The Native American Heritage Commission is the state's Trustee Agency for Native American Cultural Resources. The Cardomia Environmental Quardy 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 guideanes§15084.5(bxc)_ In order to Comply with this provision,the Need agency is required to assess whether the project will have an adverse N A R C_i es impact on these resourc within therea'a 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 Ca lifomia Historic Resources Information Center(CHRIS). Contact information for the Information Center nearest you is available from the State Office of Historic Preservation(9161653-7278)/ htto://www.ohp,parks.co.gov/1068/filesAC%20Roster.r) 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_ ■ If the probability is low,moderate,or high that cultural resources are located in the APE. ■ If a survey is required to determine whether previously unrecorded cultural resources are present J If an archaeological inventory surrey is required,the final stage is the preparation of a processional report detailing the findings and recommendations of the records search and field survey, ® The final report containing sibs forms,aft significance,and mitigation measurers should be submitted immediately to the planning depatIment, All information regarding site locations,Native American human ti A-HC-L remains,and associated funerary objecds should be in a separate confidential addendum,and not be made available for pubic disclosure_ The final written report should be submitted within 3 months after work has been completed to the appropriate regional archaeological Information Center- 4 Contact the Native American Heritage Commission(NAHC)for. ' A Sacred Lands Fle(SLF)search of the 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 assistwM the Sacred Lands File search request U G 7 5-Wn auadranaW citation with Dare.ZMft MWO wNtom: N A N ■ The NAHC advises the use of Native American Monitors to ensure proper ideniilicartion and care given cultural resources that may be discovered The NAHC recommends that contact be made with Wtivvg Amg[mn Contacts on the attached list to get their input on potential project impact(APE). in some cases,the existence o a Native American cultural resources may be known only to a local tribe(s). 4 Lack of surface evidence of archeological resources does not preclude their subsurface existence. ■ Lead agencies should include in their mitigation plan provision%for the Ider0cation and evaluation of accidentally discovered archeological resources,per California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)§15064.5(f). In areas of identified archaeological wisitivity,a certified archaeologist and a culturally affiliated Native American,with(knowledge in cultural resources,should monitor ail ground-distud;ing activities_ ■ Lead agencies should include in their mitigation plan provisions for the disposition of recovered artifacts,in consultation with culturally affiliated Native Americans. d Lead agencies should include provisions for discovery of Native American human remains or unmarked cemeteri in their mitigation plans. CEQA Guidelines,Section 15064.5(d)respires the lead agency to work with the Native Americans identi by this Commission if the IMW Study identifies the presence or likely presence of Naive American human N . remains within the APE. CEQA Guidelines provide for agreements with Native American,identified by the NAHC,to assure the appropriate and dignified treatment of Native American human remains and any asscidatec grave liens. 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. 4_Lead ageOg-es should consider wQManee.as defined in 415370 of the CeQA Guidelines,when significant cultural resources are discovered during the course of Prolecl:planning and implementation ww � FFll s tv�Ct�J� Please feel Yee to contact me at(916)653-6251 if you have any questions. ce e 'ogle Program Analy Attachment List of Native American Contacts Native American Contacts Orange County September 25, 2007 TI'At Society Gabrielinolrongva Council/Gabrielino Tongva Nation Cindi Alvitre Sam Dunlap, Tribal Secretary 6602 Zelzah Avenue Gabrielino 761 TenTgnal Street;Bldg 1,2nd floor Gabrielino Tongva Reseda , CA 91335 Los Angeles , CA 90021 caIvitre@)yahoo.com office @to vatri net (714)504-2468 Cell (213)489-5001 - leer (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.waft ca is"no , CA 92675 sari.wan capistrano , CA m7s-2s74 (949)493-0959 arivera@'uaneno.cofn (949)493-1601 Fax 94484 949-488-3294 Fax Tongva Ancestral Territorial Tribal Nation Gabriellno Tongva Indians of Califomia 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 PMl3 Gabrielino Tongva Marina Del Rey , CA 90292 Culver City , CA 90230 310-570-6567 Engva@verizon.net 562-761-6417-voice 562-920-9449-fax Gabrieleno/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 jum Capistrarw , CA 92675 ChiefRBwife@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 list is current only as of the daft of this document Distribution of this list does not relieve any person of statutory responsibility as dtthrsd in Section 705"of the iitslltr and Safety Code,Section S097.94 of the Public Resources Corte and Section SM7.98 of the Public Rteoute es Cede. This IW Is only applicable for o *v local Native American with regard to cuilml resources for the proposed . SCH#2007041027;CECIA Noftce of Co ion;draft Environmental kopact Report(oEiR)for wntington Beach Senior Centti.city of tom+Beach;Orange County,California- Native American Contracts Orange County September 25, 2007 Juaneno Band of Mission Indians Alfred Cruz, Culural Resources Coordinator P.O. Box 25628 Juaneno Santa Ana , CA 92799 alfredggcruz@sbcglobal.net 714.998-0721 sifredgcruz@sbcglobal.net Juaneno Band of Mission Indians Adolph "Bud"Sepulveda, Chairperson P.O. Box 25828 Juaneno Santa Ana , CA 92799 bssepul@ ahoo.net 714-838-3270 714-914-1812-CELL bsepul@yahoo.net Sonia Johnston, Tribal Vice Chairperson Juaneno Band of Mission Indians P.O. Box 25628 Juaneno Santa Ana , CA 92799 (714)323-8312 soniajohnston@sbcglobal.net This list is current only as of the date of this document. Distribution of this list does not relieve any person of statutory responsibility as defined In Section 7050.5 of the Health and So"Code,section 5097.94 of the Public Resources Code and Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code. This list Is only applicable for contacting local Native Armen with regard to cuRurW resources for the proposed SCWM7041027;CEQA Notice of Completion;draft Environruetrial Impact Report(DEIR)for Huntington Bench Senior Center,City of Huntington Beach;Orange County,California. ®�� 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 µ � 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. HS'EB 2- intersection appears to be a viable alternative.The report does not satisfactorily assess 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 this I-4�E83 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 VOE6 , 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 sow 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 , (0 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, Craig Justice,Chair H.B.Environmental Board 2 Huntin0on Beach Senior Center -Draft Environmental Impact Report 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 allI�Z 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 FjgN 3 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 ?)W 4 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 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 ��(p to all residents, such as art classes, exercise classes, etc.?Are these the types of classes 1 presented 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 i 0, 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 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: BRItJ�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 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 program that includes live or recorded music which is amplified should not be allowed �1 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 �{��N�2 on to conclude that"As such the noise associated with special events such as wedding Cry 2 AL 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 4� {2 wedding receptions, is human conversation. Clearly, other noises associated with all of 1 P4 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 driven ( �3 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 EPP t4 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. ( } `FJ 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.orgj Sent: Monday, September 24, 2007 7:36 AM To:Nathan, Tamarine J Subject: FW: Senior Center DEIR From: Igeisse@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 �E�S 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 AOL_Mail! file://P:\Projects -All Users\D21200.00+\D21314.00 HB Senior Center\EIR\DEIR Com... 10/22/2007 Page 1 of 2 From: Villasenor,Jennifer [JVillasenor@surfeity-hb.org] Sent: Monday, October 15,2007 9:21 AM To: Nathan, Tamarine J; Lau, May Ye Subject: FW: Senior Center From: Igeisse@aoLcom [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<JVillasenor@surfcity-hb.org> To: Igeisse@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: Igeisse@aoLcom [magto:lgeisse aoLcom] 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 &IE7\S 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://P:\Projects-All Usersl1321200.00+\D21314.00 IIB Senior Center\EIR\DEIR Com... 10/22/2007 Page 1 of 1 From: Villasenor, Jennifer [JVllaasenor@stirfcity-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] Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2007 12:03 PM To: Villasenor,Jennifer Subject: Comments on Senior Center Initial Study -Suggestion Robert Haben habenr{ ,earthlink.net Earth Link 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 HABE 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:\Projects -All Users\D21200.00+\D21314.00 HB Senior Center\EIR\DEIR Com... 10/22/2007 FW HB Senior Center EIR.txt From: villasenor, Jennifer [Jvillasenor@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 street to meet the quota. As for walking distance, I think of the distance people walk from the parking lot at q HB City Hall to the different city buildings could be the same distance as walking t 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 <TEA 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. 1 3 There is the nocturnal life in the park to consider, too. I've seen the park serve Page 1 aA 4 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 KRA 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 ppreserved. If the center were built where it is currently planned, would parking lot li hts 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 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 �n energy? Solar panals? Kam" 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 I From: Villasenor,Jennifer [JVilaasenor@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. �}ltt�Cl— 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: VilIasenor,Jennifer[JVillasenor@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 11@aol.com] Sent:Thursday, October 04, 2007 3:45 PM To: VilIasenor,Jennifer Subject: Comments on Senior Center 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 RDSK $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 your chart of Comparative Standards. Using these standards is sheer speculation on the part of a group of a 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 (A0 SH 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 lmas} - location. It is a clever ruse, or maybe not so clever after all. The building of this site at Central Park will use all park funds available(Quimby funds)to other parks for muc�\M�<� needed repairs and up-keep. This may be illegal. J I do not support building the senior center at Central park at such an astonishing cost. ©S}E Merle Moshiri 8802 Dorsett Dr. Huntington Beach, CA 92646 See what's new at AOL,com and Make.AOL_Your Homepage. file:HP:\Projects-All Users\D21200.00+021314.00 HB Senior Center\EIR\DEIR Com... 10/22/2007 Sept.26,2007 City of HB Planning Dept. %Jennifer Villasenior 2000 Main Street HB CA 92648 QY of h'unungton Beach Re: Comments on the DEIR for Senior Center OCT ` , 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 Mvt?t 45,000 square foot building on park land 1 From the Summary 1. 2.3-Summary 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 MUD story buildings? Is there a variance for this height? 2 3. Aesthetics Impact 4-1-1 "implementation of the proposed building would not substantially effect the scenic vista" How could a 49 ft high building not ? 4. Air quality - 3 Impact 4.2-1 peak construction activities associated with the project (b could generate emissions that exceed SCAGME) 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? µvRe 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-foot no work buffer shall be maintained between the nest and construction activity M�� until the DFG and/or USFWL approves any other mitigation measures. Project should stop. The birds will not nest and the babies will die MM4.3-1 (b)Burrowing Owl 2. 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 ron tWVP 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 o 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 VAUP-P reason for Bolso Chica Lower Bench being, saved. Raptors need g 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 northbounct- through lane at the intersection of Goldenwest and Slater .This can be provided by restriping the existing right -turn lane without anyr physical rewidening. This is impossible. The Shipley turn-in to their parkin is not mentioned plus seniors driving Coldenwest slowly looking. for the senior center which can't be seen from the street is 9ging to cause innumerable accidents. This M should not be considered mitigated. _ 7. MM 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 My P seniors so they could walk over to the library. plow long will the t� green be for a senior to get across Goldenwest. Try it anyone and time it? Traffic will be tied up all day B. RecreationImpact4.11-2lmplementation of the proposed project area µV PIP not effect existing passive recreational opportunities. MQU i[ 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 HUif are against this site being developed. �1 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. How can you think a 46,000 sq. foot Community center won't I� increase traffic when all that was there previously was open space?. Traffic should be a miti ag tion problem. 11.Impact4.4-2 and 4.4-3 Native American burials are a distinct possibility here. There are many indigenous people's artifacts and [�Uv? remains in the area. There should be a native American there at 13 all times This is not the answer 121 couldn't find the study for liquefaction which I feel is a high possibility. The water table is so high that Shipley's walking oaths are flooded out in rainy season. It has to be a problem for diging 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 NMT 1 pesticides and mowing by the city Iandscape department. 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 WR CT 2_ 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 WITS 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>" {��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. E�J 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 WT 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 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 WT9 raptor foraging habitat be accomplished? The Central park Master EIR notes that 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 m g foraging habitat in the area and Sully Miller lake does not represent the same 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 w4 q 9 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 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." V)MT 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 they 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 MT t Z- 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 noise IT 11 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 w MLf 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 imperative that all attempts are made by the city and its planners to justify the need ford-'� 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 V ��.' • Posed a question regarding the allocation of park money for the senior center Stan Cohen- • Asked about likelihood of library and sports complex users using the senior center VET-6'2_ parking lot Pat Kreamer V E�_3 • Asked for a clarification of alternatives analysis 1 Bob Detloff • Offered comment that an excellent job was done on Draft EIR V Carol Settimo • Offered comment that she is treasurer of Council on Aging and applauded VCR PBS&J/staff on a job well done on Draft EIR 6-5 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 VLF 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 -c9 • Brought up parking and run-off-is there too much impervious surface? Elmer Smith • Are there going to be provisions for new/more restrooms for picnic areas/park V i5 g-6-(D area? • Is there going to be a pool? V L-V-6 -11 • Brought up use of Kettler School for possible senior center site Tony Brine • Wanted to make sure that project alternatives are thoroughly analyzed- specifically reduced use/project alternative; • Recreation-concerned about after hours uses/functions-does not believe facility will be used solely for seniors; concerned about large community room; 1 • Concerned about project hours going until midnight-noise impacts from V � 5 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. .1 John McGregor • Kettler School site would be a better project site VE—P-6 — 17 Stan Cohen • Is elevation of parking lot higher or lower than building? Will there need to be V E"-I8 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 -i 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 vs�13 ---O 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 V� 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 lKreamer • Concerned about location of new senior center-it is going to be a big change VET '-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 :2 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 V!✓(L$ Z how much work is required Ralph Bauer • Brought up the fact that after Planning Commission public hearing,the project V Ma _Z can be appealed to the City Council Elmer Smith • Mentioned that Kettler school is available now Charlene Bauer • Mentioned that any aspect of the proposed project can be modified by the City Council V L' B L 8 Huntington Beach Senior Center Project DRAFT EIR PUBLIC COMMENT FORM Ef 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 Viliasenor,Associate Planner City of Huntington Beach Department of Planning 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Phone:(714)374-1661 Name(optional) 70!? — tjry'—' Organization(optional) Lo S at Address City State Zip Phone (optional) Fax (optional) E-mail (optional) Comments(attach additional pages if needed) Note: All comments will become public information_ 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) Note: All comments will become public information. Huntington Beach Senior Center Project DRAFT EIR PUBLIC COMMENT FORM F7 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: s Jennifer ViIlasenor,Associate Planner City of Huntington Beach Department of PIanning 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Phone:(714)374-1661 Name(optional) I T&7y �� Organization(optional) Address City State Zip Phone (optional) Fax (optional) E-mail (optional) Comments(attach additional pages if needed) LIU!;�6 2�/ '40t/j 12� JZ�Z EL R- Note: All comments will become public information. Huntington Beach Senior Center Project DRAFT 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. 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 PIanning 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Phone:(714)374-1661 Name(optional) Organization(optional) i L Address �— city State Zip ZZ V Phone 7 2-0 7i" (optional) Fax (optional) E-mail (optional) Comments(attach additional pages if needed) r _ r/^ L(.Y euti W'e�� 1 � f� a- Note: All comments will bec a public information. Huntington Beach Senior Center Project DRAFT EIR PUBLIC COMMENT FORM LJ 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 3.1, 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) S 7 E6[ IS) -Q-A,4.0�;:T 4. 17--, Z 34 Note: All comments will become public information_ Huntington Beach Senior Center Project DRAFT EIR PUBLIC COMMENT FORM 10 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) _ t ) C� �t3a ,v� ]557MI -1 SM ST-3 Note: All comments will become public information. 11 .3 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT 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 Departments Department ®f Transportation (DOT), October 24, 2007 DOT-1 Comment noted. The Department of Transportation, Caltrans District 12 has no comment on the Draft EIR at this time. 11 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, pedestrian 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-ORA-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 ensure 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 o• - s o - s o - 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, analvsis, and comparison with the proposed project.A matrix displa-,ring 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 o s - •• o a 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 648 through 6-25 of the Draft FIR. 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 MEMEMEME 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 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 d for public meetings or receptions. The facility would primarily be used weekdays, from 8:00.-\.M. through 4:30 P.M., but could be used until 10:00 P.M. on weekdays and until 12:00.1.n-i. on Friday and Saturday. 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 FIR, 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 Antony Brine (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. -3(a) All exterior nighttime lighting shall be an down and away from the a,#acent open space areas. Prismatic glass coverings and cutoff shields shall be used i�ie�hle to further prevent 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 10-3 in the Text Changes section of the Final EIR (Chapter 10, Volume II) and is as follows: MM 4.1-3(e) Trees and barrier type vegetation should be place " throghout the site, inclu&ue along the entire edm-d r. to help shield vehicle headlights in th 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.N1. and 8 im\i. 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 FIR. Huntington Beach Senior Center EIR 11-41 • o - s e o o - 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 Please refer to Chapter 9 (Summary of Additional Air Quality and Traffic Analyses) for a discussion regarding the adequacy of trip generation rate estimates, and Chapter 10 (Text Changes) for clarifications to Section 4.12 (Transportation/Traffic). 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. 11-42 City of Huntington Beach •o - - a o - • • Therefore, appropriate trip generation data were utilized in the Traffic Report prepared for the proposed project. BRIN-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) 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. BRIN-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 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. Huntington Beach Senior Center EIR 11-43 BRIN-11 Please refer to BRIN-12. 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 onver ation 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- sb_ec, events held a he project site duringope ation could include the use of to ids ak s at lifted music- and other sources of amplified noise. These amplified noise sources would be required to comply with the City of LI " gI n Beach Noise Ordinance exterior noise standards shown in Table 4.9-6 above In compliance with this re anon and to 12revent noise impacts to nearby residences th nois level of s for nter oberations as heard from nearby residences would be no greater than 55 dBA from 7:00 A.M. to 10:00 V.M. and 50 dBA from 10 P.M. to 7 A.M. Therefore, increased noise associated with operation of the senior center, cludinl4 those associated with s is gypn s would be 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 Please refer to Chapter 9 (Summary of Additional Air Quality and Traffic Analyses) for a discussion regarding the adequacy of trip generation rate estimates, and Chapter 10 (Text Changes) for clarifications to Section 4.12 (Transportation/Traffic). 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. 11-44 City of Huntington Beach 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. 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 inbound direction and therefore has the greatest potential to cause a significant impact. The total inbound project trip generation during the AM weekday peak hour is 252 vehicles per hour. Assuming that the 25 percent of project traffic entering the intersection of Goldenwest Street at Slater Avenue is distributed as 15 percent through traffic and 5 percent turning traffic from the intersection of Goldenwest Street at Warner Avenue (a conservative assumption in that some project traffic would most likely turn between intersections), only thirty-eight vehicles would be expected to travel in the potentially critical southbound 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 from the south is less than the quantity distributed from 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 Huntington Beach Senior Center EIR 11-45 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 north and west sides. Additionally, an OCTA bus stop is located within 100 feet of the intersection of Goldenwest at Talbert. Lorry 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. Lorry 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. 12 Robert Hoben (HARE), October 3, 2007 FIABE-1 Please refer to Topical Response-3. Patricia Kreomer (KREA), October 12, 2007 KRF__.A-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 are identified as less than significant. 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 subjective. 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 11-46 City of Huntington Beach • a a s - a a - 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 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 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 Huntington Beach Senior Center EIR 11-47 !f - i f i • ' 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 center is not proposed to be Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certified due to limited funding. However, design elements similar to LEER 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. Mcargerra@caol.com (MARL), September 24, 2007 MARG-1 Please refer to Topical Response-3. Merle Moshiri (MOSH), 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 adequacy 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 11-48 City of Huntington Beach sa •s a o - 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 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 Huntington Beach Senior Center FIR 11-49 a s - - s• s s 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 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 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. Please refer to Chapter 9 (Summary of Additional Air Quality and Traffic Analyses) for a discussion regarding the clarifications to traffic discussions in the EIR and Chapter 10 (Text 11-50 City of Huntington Beach Changes) for the associated changes to Section 4.12 (Transportation/Traffic) of the Draft EIR. Mitigation measure MM 4.12-2 has been deleted as the additional analysis presented herein reflects that a significant impact would no longer occur at the intersection of Goldenwest Street and Slater Avenue. No restriping of the lane would be necessary. To address the remainder of the comment, 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; 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 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 to 3 P.m. Please refer to Chapter 9 (Summary of Additional Air Quality and Traffic Analyses) for a discussion regarding the clarifications to traffic discussions in the EIR and Chapter 10 (Text Changes) for the associated changes to Section 4.12 (Transportation/Traffic) of the Draft EIR. Mitigation measure MM 4.12-2 has been deleted as the additional analysis presented herein reflects that a significant impact would no longer occur at the intersection of Goldenwest Street and Slater Avenue. As discussed in Chapter 10 (Text Changes) of this Final EIR, 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 and would not contribute to existing deficient traffic operations. 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 Huntington Beach Senior Center EIR 7-51 ♦ • - i! i Native American monitor to be present during all project-related ground-disturbing construction activities. WRP-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. 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 hIM 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- 11-52 City of Huntington Beach 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 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. WAIT-12 As discussed in Section 4.8.1 (Environmental Setting) and Impact 4.8-1, the project site 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. Huntington Beach Senior Center EIR 11-53 s s - - s e - • s - 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 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. 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. 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 11-54 City of Huntington Beach s o - :• t o - 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. 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 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. 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, Huntington Beach Senior Center EIR 11-55 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. 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 NMI 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 BRIN-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 standardsincluding,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. 11-56 City of Huntington Beach 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. 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 VER13-16. Bob Dettloff (®ETT), October 11, 2007 DETT-1 Please refer to VERB-4. Huntington Beach Senior Center EIR 11-57 •a - o• - a a - John McGregor (MCGR), October 11, 2007 MCGR-1 Please refer to Topical Response-1. 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. IN 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. 11 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 IN r - z O » µ C C H k 4 Y VI In V)VI Vl Ul N VI VI UI V1 In Vl VI VI V1 V1 VI N Vl VI In N VI V1 N VI V1 V1 V1 N V1 VI Vf V1 V1 N VI VI I N Vl In VI VI Vl N W w N N N!n In N N t/I!n N N VI VI VI N I/I VI V1 N N V1 V1 N N V1 VI V1 VI V1 VI VI I 3 rt J b A IF V VVVVVVVVV01T0101010101010101�n In In Vlln VI VI VI vI VIAAAAAAAAA 1 0 0 0 AWWWWWW WWWNNNNNNNNNNI+1+1-+1•+HI•+1-+1-+N1-`1O 00V Ol�nAW NI-I O• 3 O t0 OOV 01 v+AW N1-+O100]VOl V1AWNNOIO OJV OIInAWNF+p 1p p]V OIInAWNN 1000V OltnA WNuOIO COV OI VIAWNNOIO OJV Ol V1AWNF+O Z fU C C3OH H e H C rt rt f1 O N(A l low I OIn11 a I M• s I 0 N fD fG m m Mc= I I N o l nTC DD3 !D N TrCiC A 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 1 �A W o 0 0 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 I -I F m n 0-Im VI-Im fD 1O0 TJTJTo.JH I A A 97,C "ZI7Q, •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 I 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 1 m O a!1 u.O 1.O+•O u.j lJp Z r�3 r`3 I B N N J N J N rt o 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 H A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A 44 AAA A A A A A A A A A A A A A AAA A A A L1 H N In In n n n N 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 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 I/I rt W rt W rt H`J 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 N 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 0 0 I In 1 1 1 In N In N In\ w N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 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 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 VI O I n l n l V!D N mmmmmmmmmmmmmmm m m mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm mm I -z mmmmmmm mmmm mmmmmmm mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm 1 Nz DSDSDon * O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Do O O O O O O O O O O O O O O o O O O O O m 7o O O p 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 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 I n D N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 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 vD �fD AID� N I m w I m V cE•c 3•c rwrm w A N O NOn III Nam• A 1 3 13 OIHv WO N N H H N H N H m H t' O F+H I-11•I r N I m n n In n In..-� o 1p CO pllnWN HIOW O1 viWN NNID CO O1tnWN NN100001IAWN 1-+1D O]T -4X InWN NH10O 0001tnWN NI-+1p OO OltnWN NHl0 WC1tnWN NH1O 0001 VIwN •�X /mE mI N O tp WCpW pIN VIp AIpW OOW OpN VIp A w wwwm-Vl0 Alp W ODW ODN VlO Ato W00 1 m WOJN VIp AIp WOOW OpN VIp AIp WOOW OON VlO AID WOOW CON VIp Atp WOOWWNV I m OJCJ OtOn P 2 x N rt I&NI /D 2 i-+0001 W1-+1001tn Wi-�OO O1W H10011n W1•+0001W NIO OI lnW N0001 W1-+IO OItn WF-�OJ 01 I U1 —1001tnW c I w m F•�fGl- a V J V Nn NZ NI.+m J 1 j I onn #1 1 3 1 3 O• O• » J H HNHHHNHNHNNHN H/-� -ml< O 11< ODODO IC, N NNNNN NI-+I-+I-+I-+I-+1-+I-+1-+1-+lCr 1p tp 1p tp 1p tO lO tp 00 pJ 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 01 01 01 01 01 m Ohm OI--- V�tn to to to VIW WWWWWWWWNNNNNNNNN m +J+w+ O i0 1p lO 1p 1p tp lDAAAAAAAAAIp\O 1p ip lD tp tp tp lOWWWWWwwWW00 00 00 00 00 I N F OO Co 0o COWWWJ WWwWWWOD OOW WOOW OJW OONNNNNNNNNVVVVVVVVV I N OJO�O J vltn V+ln In 111 VIWWWWWWWWWNNNNHNNHN00 DD 0000W WCDW 00 Ol Ot Q101 O1 I V A tr 01 O101WWWW WWWWWWF+F•IH H1•+H1••II•+Hlp tO lO 1p lO lO lO lD l00101(T 01010101 O1 d1 1 V p N�N`<N W a• m r w J r In n+ m •W 11 W w 3m W < n 3mW < HN H'In N n I m r]a O S I mrD O A I A I A S H mUi r -1 mo r N• F+• 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 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 0 0 0 0 0 0 OIn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 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 w oID o V1 F• 3 N A• 3 0}0 owo 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 I v m O O O p O 0 0 J 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 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 21 xIN x On 2A O W O W Ow T 13mm c T I3mm c VI• VI VI w mHr A n w AHr P. m`-mum n IO vi vl vi In v+v+vl vl In In to vi In In vi vi In�n In In In In In vI In v+v+to vi vl vl vl uI to vl In vl vl to I H n m n W-W-r r ar N ID w to w W W v+W to to W to W W w vl W W W In to W to W to In W In In vl W I �n m n VI J H J 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 I F�In O O O O O O 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 0 I A 5In O O O rt 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 m I If, m O O O O O o o o N 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 I m O n 7 •1 1 3 D O 1 3m D > > > 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 1 �In 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 I l V1 Z Y IT, ; N N D I m<H » J I m<H n rt J m olm of olrnol olm olm olm mot o1 o1 o1 o1 elm o1o1o101010101 o1 o1 c1 o1 o1010101010101 a -1 mrnmmmmmw rnmmrnmmmmrnmmmmmmmrno,rn rnrnmmmmolm molrn mo,m z -I / / / u J N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 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 N I VI D D D 1-IrF-II-+I-�HNHNrHrNHNNrH NI-+NN HI-+1-+I-+NI-+1-+1-+I-+1-+1-�I�1-+1-II-I I-IH mN� rHrHHN HIS 1-+1-+rl-+F�I-+1r F�Nl•+F'+F+rl•+1•+NI•+HrrNF+1-+HNrrrrF-'N'NI-+ -mmINH a a w I� . . . . . . . . HHNNHNNHHNHNF-CHI-+1-+rNl-+I-'F-IHrHHNNHHI••�NNHHNHNNH 7J -I NI•�r Nl-�1•�I-�ao NF•`NI••�1••�N rNHF•�H NF-�rV•'rNrF-�I-+F•�F-�NrI-+I-'F-�1-+NI-�I-�1-�H I I m alrnmmrnrnmmmrnrnrnmmmrnmmmmmmo+mmmmmmmmmrnmo+m rnm I v rnmrnrnmm m+-+ rnmmmmrnmmmmrnrnmmmmmmrnmmrnrnmmmrnmmmmmm .o n n xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx m xx2xxxxl xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx2xxxxxxxxx m a a a I AAPAPAAF.T.vA.T F,T Fx1AA]JAAAAAAFFAAAAFAFAAAFF Ina AAAA.T FAIn FAAAAAFAF A-A A.TFAFAFFFPF�TAAAFFF7o.T AA I Ina rt rt rf In 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o o 0 o 0 0 0 o 0 0 n H O O O O O O O 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 n H a a w C T T T T T T T T T m m m m m T T T T T T T T m T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T D In m T T•II T m T 3 T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T m T T T m T T T T T T T T T T T T T D VI / / / 3 O OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO�OO��OOOpOOOOOOOO rIn 00000003 000�00� 0000u00000000000000�0{<00 rN U0 O O O 3 {{{{{«{{{{ aFHO <{{{{«w {{{{{<{ DU <{<{<{{{<{{{{{{{ I mA HO In In In i <<777Dz IT, K I ( �x•F 1 <y fx9 m m O O o 1 1 0 0 0 N N HI 3 w to Iml ~A A D 0 D O o IfI I I n x x C C I Lf D 1 6) 0 1 r 1 0 r 1 0 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 c C r C HHNHHHHH�O�O Ip�O iD tO l0�O t0 l0WWWWWWWWW N 00 I � 1 T T OpOi v+AWNO OO tDWV0ltnAwNHOtOWVWInAWNH 1 HC O I H I H H I O p v o v I m H H I H H I I L1 CI Lf C1 N N N N N N N N N 22 1 22 1 �1 W V W A W N H H 1 V lA W H 1p V In W Z s>3 Owlzwl 0 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 I N m O p I21 H I H H I CI C'1 22I 221 t0 W V Ol W N H N AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA A.A AAAAAAAAA I L1H A W Ol A N O W Ol D D I D D I 0 0 0 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 D 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 3 H N r r l r r l N N N 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 O N cc cc mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm \z m m m l m m l 11 1 1 1 1 I I 108 1 1 1 10 1 10 1 1 I N + v • • - - - o0000000000000000000000000o m� ov H H I M H 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 I V N N NN NN N N N NH N N N N -1 H I l0 OD � OlW W N � W I m W ,VmA I A o HHHH 1 D D O- OIANH�O W OI OIANHlp W 0101ANHt0 WOlNHl0 Wm, HX HO C'1 C1 OAID AIDwWOAt0 Al0wWOAt0 At0w Wt0 AtD wmo m A 0O m Oo m rt + + - C _ _ ` OWv+wHWrnOWv+wHWmOWv+wHwTVIwHWo+v I N we 00 o 00 n H N N N O vl N N N N O H H O n tp�O 1 0 n H W rt A N A A Z O H V Z O O W Ot i+-+• N O W T It H V I n Z w vl n Z O t0O n AW n HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH I -mi< Hn O O rt O .Wwwlp lOVVVVVVV0101 O10101W O�AAAAAN m NO 001 T 00 , T O c OOOOOO OW�/+N �nOOOOOOO.1 to 7,f 1p3 n n 00 n to VI Vt V1l/1 VI VIWWWWWWWOOOOOOOOJ OO OOWOON I�/ D t/IW COW o WW << O H N N N No N N H m A N HH x HH 2 H W V o+ A N 1 w 00 ;v m HH 30 m O tp �I v,n W H l0 V H 3mW G n HH13D ON1 ;DImMD O s OH 0-I N NO vH N VI -ImN r 10 1 o m C N W O m C 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 I m<m c O N H H 2 3 0 0 2 3 N N O p• ; m 0 1 v H D W W 1 H D - - - - - - - c T 0 0 0 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 •••• I z p •••• v Z p O p H N O D D < D D < N N N N, N N N N N n Z 2 p 0 '1 T H w V O m A W H m m H 1 3 m m c a D O D 0 O O W m n a A N 0 W Z m.1 p n t0 r�r� p T r�r•� p T N !D t0 Cl �n to vl vl u+to vl vl to to�n vl to vl�n to v1 vl�n In�n�n vl vl to to vl I C1 m n vl f0 N 1 N 2 VHt 2 r0't 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 I A�N m O rat A V L1 61 M w 0 000000000000000000000000000 1 m vD O r.� p m H 1 p R21 . _ _ _ n _ _ _ . . ^ I—M D n NN 1 \ N NN \ N N N N 00 N N N N N m 3 O m -I� VI 1 ; -I H w V 0 A W H V I m H >F�1 p H �• p H O H l0 V D W W H �O L'1 VVVVVVVVV VVVVVVV VVVVVVVVVVV -I NZ t V D O O m r O O I m r W p • • • • • • • • • • • • 1 m<H O • J 00 n r W 00 n r H J O Oi 0�0�0�010iT 0�01T O�W 01WmOlW Q�OIWO�T O�O�O10�01 p H ma + + I m H - I m H c N N N 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 N-+ l O Z p l O Z p - - - - j . _ . . N I J Ix m I p m N N N N IN N N N N N k 1 m H IN I N I 1 N H 1p W m H A W N W >t H H H r r H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H r 1 H N Z H H N c NJa c O N O mw 01 A N O mNH l0 V N X r N O X p � vl O p -I Y Ol 010�T O�W Ol 0�Ol Ot Ol Ot Ol Ol 01 Qt Q�Ol 01 Ol 0�Ot O�01 Ot O�01 N 017� VI to I- N I- N I 1 v 00 1 •( 00 1 { O O I+ .. I- » N ppp pppppp7opppppppppppp.Tpppp I N3 pN N N N Nc N N N N N 000000000000000000000000000 nH Oc N IN H w W a W N �p TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT TT'�ITTT TTTT 1 DN T3 m m w O W N t0 V W H DOOOvv0000vOvO0vv000v0vo00O rN v3 1 r I r a <<<{<{{{<{{<<<<<<<{{<<<<<<{ 5 H <a OO C 001 < 1 DZ 00 I T 00 1 T • ` ` ` N - <y rt r r N N N N N N N N N m I D I D L1 :t Ct O A N O W Qt A N O I v u W 1 I I 1 N N N N 00 I 00 • - + - - + 0 0 1 0 O O I O I v l H l0 W V A W H I O W W H l0 V tIl W H Ov1 � 001m V I nn T nn T Im I I nz ciz - . _ . _ . _ . ION pm Z Z 1 0 N Z Z 1 0� l0 W V W A N N H D D O D D O 01 1a N O W W A N 1 H p H p ox vx Z O C c 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 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 rt S ri *4 VVVVVVVVVV010101010101016101 Q1N V1�n N VIN VIN In v+AAAAAAAAA N AWWWWWW WWwwNNNNNNNNNNrrr rl-�rrrrr�O COV Ol V1AWNr N 3 •O II lOm V01 V.AWNrOIDmVQ1NAWNrOl0mV01 v+AWNrO�OmVp1tAAWNr Q OtOmVO\lnA WNrOlOmVmtnAWNrOtOmVOl V1AWNr0 O'HC Cn rt rt &OIW I OA I OF 3 Z O_rn m I m m 0113 -NI `7 A w n m IT, m m m• I I M G J I I I N O Z (n z z 0 n < n9c I DDc !C n M V V vAmm 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 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 A 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 0 I -i x m n m J N I Nip I NH.T IIQC TIO 7Io ia�•O rt 0 O rt 0 r 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 1 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 m O c n O W.O u.J IO • • LlM to to• �N VIto V•vl�n to In to In to lA to to Vl Nltn�n to Vf In to to to In to to In�n to�A to to In I C)I U19N nJnJn rO ON N N N N N N N N N N N N N 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 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 N rt W rt W rt r J 0 In In to Vi N In to In Vltn NVl DN N to vltn In vl �n to V1 VI VI VI vtN�n vitnN to In In to Vlln to l/I to VI IA NI VIN NVI VINNIn IN I I NmVIm VI\ mN N N N N N N N N N N N N N 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 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 N N N 0 H a a r m to 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 I N O m m w 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 I N O I n I n I II mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm \z mmmmmmm mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm \z s J• \w * 1 I I I 1 1 1 N 11 1 0 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 I 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 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 m,9 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 mOW N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 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 I m A I m N r VI O N O VI rt J A I.. I.. o mim�m ro• rr tir rr rr I m rr O Nr rr Nr ' m �rV NnI (D " O 1pmmv+wN NrlDm QItAWN rlO m 0ltnWN Nr�Dm 01 VIWN Nr10 m01 -IX vIWN rlO m01 VIWN rlOm OltnwN Nr�Om pl�nWN roomM—WN -,X /m/m/ IOWmWmNVIp AIDWmWmNVtp AIpWmWmNVlO A tpWM,W-1DAlO Wm I m W(w—NAlp2 WmWmNVIOAtOWmWmNVID AtpWmWmNVtp AIOWmWmNV 1 m 07O70Vn 2 ,V C . . . . . . . . . . . r mmWrlO minWrmOlW roc Ol v,WrmmWrlD mtnWrmmWrlO OI VIWrmQI I� WrlO OINWrJ mOlW rl001 VIW rm0lW rtOm vlW rmOlW r�001lnWrmOlW rt001 Iv rm rmrOJ J � NZ N7 NWrt � I O O O m 1 3 10 3 �O�O�u� r...rrrrr r.r rrrrr Nip Ntp lND N 1p 1p 1pAAAAAAAAAtp tp 1p lD lO lD�O Ip IOWWWWWWWWWmmmmm mmmm WWWWWWmmmmmmmmNNNNNNNNNVVVVVVVVV m OVOI mi-< Vo OV * o +D+D+ XI 00TWWWJ O 1m W m J * owowv W NIv+N vtN to v.WwWWWWWWWrrrrrrrrrmmmmmmmmm01 p1m 0101 I�/ * mC,MMWWWm WWWWWWrrrrrrrrrlD l0 l0 1p tp l0 1p 1p 10010101010101010101 * N-�N�N m 3mw < r�•r�•r S I mrD O RRII rD O AIn AVIA H m N r N -i m N r I N O O O O O O O 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 I m G m C O O O O O O O m 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 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I m<m C 01.`0 m A• 3 • A• OtD0 J 00000000000000000000000000000000000000o Iv m o000000�J• o0000000000000000000000000000000o IV m m m m I.-.xz o xz o xm�xw�x o• w m 1 3 m m c n m 13mm c NONON n a A II a m a A H I z mNm Nm m 10 v+�nv+Nv.Nv.vl�n In�n vl In�n Nan vl tnN Vl vi�n�n vitas vltn vl vltn Ntn v+vl�n�n�n N vl I -16)m n Nan to vltn vltnJ t0 v1N vl�nN v+�n to vi In�n vl vltn vl vltn vl v.N vl vltn Nln vlN NvlN�n�n Vl -4 G1m�rI n m. m x D m rt m. Mx D m 00000000000000000000000000000000000000o IA-�N o000000m o0000000000000000000000000000000o Ip N oNo�o n 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 a 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 0 I— D O 12 D m m m O 3 N 3 J J J N 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 m V V V V V V V D V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V I V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V - N Z rt V -{N Z Im N N m * D T TO�O�T O�O�O�Oi OIOt O�OiTO�Q1 m Ohm 0�010101010�01m tr Oi O�OiT O� A -1 m Oim Otma -- O�TTTOI O�O�Ot O�O�O�OI Qtm O�m OI OAS O�O�OlT 0�0�01010�01 Q1010101 F -I / / / * J N N N N N N N N N N N N N N---NNN N N 1 N l O l Z N m H INS I m H .O . p '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 r r r r r r r r r r I m N z r rrrrr r ...r r r r r......r. r. . . r r r r r r r r r r r r. I -4 N z w1 W. �lW Ori Or1 Or1 T Ori�Ori Ori Or1 Gr1 T O~1 T Orl Or1 Orl T T Ori Or1 Orl�Orl Orl Orl Orl Or1 T Ori T Or1 Or1 Or1 0r1 A Qr1 m Orl Orl 'v H Ori Or1 T T T Ori Ori}m+ 01'1 Or1 Or1 Orl Or1 Or1 Orl Or1 Or1 Or1 Orl Or1 Orl Orl Orl Orl Or1 Orl T Or1 Orl Or1 O~1 Orl Orl O~1 Or1 Or1 Orl Orl Qr1 Orl T 1 v H `rtG `rtG `�G I Z z 2 x 2 S 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 x 2 2 x 2 x 2 2 2 x x 2 x S 2 2 2 2 x 2 2 2 2 2 2 I m x x x x s x x O 2 2 2 2 x 2 x 2 x x 2 2 2 x x S x 2 x x x 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 x 2 2 2 x m a d N O AAA.vAAAA.�AAAFAFA.�AAAFFAAAFF7.IAAFAAAAAAAF I N3 FFFF7�A F1 AAAFAAA.�1.'OAFAAFAAA.'o A7�AAAA 0 00 00 I N3 rt rt rt I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 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 r O O O O O O O N 0 0 0 00000 0 0000 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 n r a w w 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 m T T m T T T c T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T m T T m....T m T T"I T T T I D 000ODOp00000 0f70000000000000000000000000 rN 00000003 00000000000000000000000�000000000 rN O O O 3 <{<{<{««««««<{<{<{<{««{«{«{« I wDnO {{{{{{<W WAO In In In W I <<Z I {<py Z N m m `�G m rt m O O o rt I I o 0 0 I I N 1N+ r 3 w w I I m A A I I D O O I I D O O N I I n C C I I D21314.00 Huntington Beach Senior Center NO2 AnalysiS_1981_NO2_Summary.txt S80 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 ID 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 s82 0 0.52528E-02 68.6 144.8 0.0 5.00 7.62 1.16 HROFDY S83 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 S87 0 0.52528E-02 68.6 160.0 0.0 5.00 7.62 1.16 HROFDY S88 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 S93 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 s96 0 0.52528E-02 99.1 175.3 0.0 5.00 7.62 1.16 HROFDY S97 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 S102 0 0.52528E-02 83.8 190.5 0.0 5.00 7.62 1.16 HROFDY S103 0 0.52528E-02 99.1 190.5 0.0 5.00 7.62 1.16 HROFDY S104 0 0.52528E-02 114.3 190.5 0.0 5.00 7.62 1.16 HROFDY S105 0 0.52528E-02 129.5 190.5 0.0 5.00 7.62 1.16 HROFDY S106 0 0.52528E-02 144.8 190.5 0.0 5.00 7.62 1.16 HROFDY S107 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 si s2 s3 S4 s5 s6 s7 58 S9 S10 S11 S12 S13 S14 S15 s16 S17 s18 519 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 Page 3 D21314.00 Huntington Beach senior center NO2 AnalySis_1981_NO2_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 S95 s96 S97 598 S99 SIN S101 S102 S103 S104 S101 S106 S107 **= THE SUMMARY OF HIGHEST 1-HR RESULTS *-* *" CONC OF NO2 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 0.00889 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 o c * c c H M # 4 N N NN N N N N N N N N N N N 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 NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN N 1 3 rt J h u M VVVVVVVOI Ol o�p101 p101 o�0101 vI vl vl vl vl vltn vl to to AAAAAAA AA N AWWWWWW WWWNNNNN NNN NNYYF•`Y F+YY1-'I--'Y l00oV Ol�nAW N1••+ N O' 3 'O a ID O�V OI v+AWNI-Ip�p 0oV O1 v+AWNYOl00�VSNAWNYO�O COV p�tnAW NF+ I HC OIDWVOi v1A WNI-�p tp OpVO�v+AWNI-+OID OOVO�vIAWNF+O 1 HC O� rt rf rFO ONN lx I O Mr o m A-ol13 .mi Fw•I 1 1 I 'mm m m mm• nme I r) c 1'o V M —=M DD3 DD3 mm •• •• ••rtcx 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 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 H A W 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 0 0 A W n VI / / /moo m1 o V J M J V a J H A A '01c 1IOR1a, •O rt o 1 o rt o rt o O J Z 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 1 ^3 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 0 0 _:m o'Cc n m o m o m 1rt 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 H N N N N N N N NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN N L1 H I/I VI N n n n N 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 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 o O O O Do O O O O O O O p N rY W rt W rt Y J 0 tobw W to DN ww'o wwww ������to tD to to tD�bbblD w w w w w ww w w1 wwwwwwo DVI 1 1 1 NmNmyl� w O o 0 0 c o 0 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 o 0 0 0 o 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 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 H a a Y w 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 1 N O N N N N N N N N NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN N N O I n I n I V m m mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm mmm mmm mmmmmmmmmmm mmmm m �z mmmmmmmo mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmTmmmmmmm 'z J' J• �a v 0l i i I I 1 N I N 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 N Dr D D o n 6 N 0000000000000000000000000000000000000o mpp o000000l-I o0000000000000000000000000000000o mA N-IN-��Is>fr� 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 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 1 v D -+m-m-+ w I fH>'I A 1 I m V C�•C�•C ra+N A N N V ONO N J .-. o Y m-sm�m Hl�• o 3 o r s o+HA z mo 0 NH NH NH HY T HY NF•I YY YY I m In nNnN••Z 1p 00 p1 VIWN F-I Ip OJ p1 VIWN 1-+tp 00 Ol vIWN -+w wwwmn NY w-OI �X VIWN NYt02 OO OIInWN F+lO 00 of vIWN NYt00001tnWN NI•-1100001 VtWN -IX /m/m/A S 1p wOJW oON VIOAtpW OJW p]N Vtp AIp WOO W OON VIp Atp w OOW OON VIO AIOWW m I•+ . . . m V oAw IoC WWWOONVIp AIp WQpW OONVIp Atp WOOW opN Vlo Ato w OOw opNV I m 030JOWn C A J A Nrt N/{N••m J Oo OI w�-•�lpmvlw f+ooswi-+�o m�IwF+oomwi-+tom�Iw F+w Olw Ntpm�Iw 1•+wm 1� w�•+�o v+ Y� wmwr+�om vl w i-+aom wF+�om vlw�-+oo Ot w l•+�om u�w t+ooT w�•+lO o� I v I-+m I�+m roJ rt N•S N•�NOrt J O O O m J O OVOvO uZ oW 1 3 1 3 3• 3• rt o Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y I -M" I m-< 0 0 0 0 0 o Y YYNNNNYF-IF-II-,I-�I--II-,NF-I IO tO IO ID tp ID IO Ip lO W000J OJ 000J CO W00 01 01 01 01 01 T Ol Ol 010l Vl to to In I/'I vltn to to WWWWWWWWNNNNNNNNN m . . . 1p 1p to to to to lOAAAAAAAAAtp lD tp 1p 1p 1p tp 1p 1pWWWWWWWWW00 p)%0000 Ix 0000 OO OOWWWW WWWWWW00 OOW 00W WOO OO OONNNNNNNNNVVVVVVVVV I A /D/D/ W VI » • m N # of 0J O m WWVIw vlln tnWWWWWWWWwH HI-+F-UHF-rHI-+F+o0 o0 00 00 00 00 o000 of o101 p10101 I�..� � pl pl pl OlWWWa wwwwwwr+rl-+rF+l�-�1•+I-+N to to tp tp lO to to to�o mo+Olm mC+m Olm IV x Na NaN a v n Ir r�HI-IH n ,3 m m < S 1 3 m W < Iw-I Imo/11W+Imo/I H S r mrD O N I mrD O A-�•A�•A N -ImN r m �mN r vI• In• m 00000000000000000000000000000000000000o Im<m c 000OOoo� o0000000000000000000000000000000o Im<m c of olo A• 3 A• 3 OF'OHO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 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 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 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 o I N m o Z 2}0o+x wx z r =x O n I�2 A O W I Wr W n M 3 m m c m V 13 m m c N 9 N m N m w THr A J a mHr A m3m?cm J O w r HG1m n Wrt b W I - Lnm n J J J rt m .n vl v+v+vlln vl.nwln vl v,In vl vl vlln vl vl vl rarar vl vl vl vl vlln In vlln vl v+In v+vlln m D m vl vlwwwvl m m vlln vl vl vl vl vr�n vlln vlln vl vlln vlln vlw vl vl vl v+v+vl v+v+v+vlw vl v+ m$D m �•r�•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 A N o o o o o 0 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 p 0 0 0 0 I A A N v m OD O O O O o o 0 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 I v m oD H D 13 D O '3 D 7 1- CD V V VV V V�1 VV V�1�V�1�V V V�1�1�1 HIV�1�1�1�1V�1VV VV VV VV VV �NZ R VVVVV V VD V V�IV VVV VV V VVVV V V VVV VV VV VV VVVVV VVV I 4 z * N N N # D m•{H * . . . . . . . J . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 m{H # Z J mmmmmmmmmmrnmmrnrnmrnommrnommmrnmoommmmmmrnmmrn A mornmmmmw mmmmmmmmmmmmmrnommrnornom000mmoomoorn A 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 I N N NNNNNN� N N N N N N N N 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 v VI Z 1 Z N m H I m H a C N F-IF+F+F+F+F+F-IF+I-IV-+F+F•II-+F+YYYYYYYYYYYYYYHYYYF'I-'H F+YYF' I mNz F+NF+F+� YYYYYYYYYYYYYF+YF+F+HYF+YF'F'HF+F+I•-IHF-`F'F'F'F' 1 mNH l4. . YYYYYYYY YI-+YYYYrV-`Y YHYF+I--�F+I--IH F+F+F+F+r F-`H HF+F+4-I FI I-IY I A -I YHYYYYYoo YI-+rF'F'F'HI-+rHl-+1-+F+rF'I-'F'F'F•I F'1-'1-'I-I F'YYF+HrYYYY I A -� � � � 0� 01 o101T01tr 01 Ol p1 p1T TO101 Ol Ol Ol 0l Olo Ol Ol 01 Ol 01 O1O010101T Ol of Ol Ol Ol O1 Ol 01 I� p1010101 p1 p1 p1Y 001010101 Ol Ol OI OI Ol Olm 01016101010101 Ol Ol Ol 01 p101 p101 Ql Ol OI OIm OI I V `f `G �< IY 3 - 0 o O 3 x x x 2 x x 2 x 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 x 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 S 2 2 2 2 2 T x x x 2 2 x x H 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 x 2 2 S 2 2 2 2 2 S 2 m a a a H AAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAA A AAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA I N3 AAAAAAAO AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAAAAA AAAA AA AAA AAAA A N3 rt rt rt O 0000000000000000000000 M ', m0M0Mm00M00M nH 000M—M OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOp000 nH a a a T T m T T m T m m T T o T T m T T T T T T T T m T T m o m m m T T m m m T TM I D N m m m m T T m N T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T m m T m m m m m m m m m T T m m m Do 000o000000000000000000000000000000000 VI o0o00o{{oC o00000000000000000000000000000000 rrN O o 0 c {{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{ IOOFo {{{{ {aIWxo N N 3 I {<Z ' {<7 Z7oo m N m a M x m o• o o x o N ° I I m H H D A A O O I D O O N 1 I n x x c c I I J J 1 I 1 I { I ! N AAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWWNNNNNNNNNNI�HI-�F+F+F+ N F+NF-�F-�Ip OpVOI viAWNy+1+--�1-+1-+I--�I-+ICI-+lD 1p tp 1p 1p 1p 1p 1p 1p 1p pJ 0000 pJ W000000� N 0� V+A O WN1-+O�00o"-1T VIA WNHO�➢OOVT�nAWNy.+O�D 05V 6��nAWNF+O�CWV61�nA 1 O WNF-�O OOO OOOOOIO OOV TVIAW NI•+OQ�VOi vIAW NI-+ O O Ii O F t O A V W VIA W N Y O I p F n n n I m m m I I I z zCC nr� z -1 DD3 IDD 3 IDD3 0o IN�m o00000000000000000000000000000000000000o I �� m o00000000000000000000000000000000000000o IN�m o I F 1 A I A ^3 O . . W W I L1 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 1 N H W W W W W W W W W W W W W N N N 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 G1 H N W W W 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 W A N W 0oW W W W W ooW 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 4 N O YH I DN F-IYF-IF+V-`Y1-+1-+F+HVF'1-`F-`F+F'YI-�F'F-�1-+F+YV-`YYYYYYYYF'YYYYYYY I D 3 H W W W w W W W W W W W W W W W w W WWWW w W W W W W WWWW W W W W w w W W 3 H W W W W w W w w W W W W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 g O 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 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 W W W W W W W W W W W W W W N O W W W W W W W W W W W W W N N N N N N N N N N N N m m N N N N N N N N N N N N N I N O N mm �z mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm �o z mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm �z my N I 1 1 N N I I I I I I I I I I ' 1 N I N O O MA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 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 Y F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 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 O Y N v D N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 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 n W D N N N N N N N N N N N N 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 I n D W W 1 m 1 vA T I vm A I'i O I ri O m o 3 O N 1 -iX YwW p1 tnWN NHIpWmWWN NYtO Co tT V1WN NYtOW OI VIWN NYlp Wpi -!XS ut N NYl00D WtnWN 01ANYtOW 0101A NYlD W OI OIANYtD WptN Ytp W OIN 1 -IX Y2 Vlp m AIOWWWWNVlO AIpWWWWNVIp AIOWWWWNVlO AIOWWWWNVlO AIOWW m C W�NVIp AIOWWWWNVOAIOAIOWWOAIp AtpWWOAtO AIPW WHO AtpW WlO I m AC O�vl I v WI-�W OIW F-`lDm vlW F+m Ornw l-'t00��l wl-+oom wr+�Drn v+w r+oomwf+tD mvlw F+oom 1� J wr+�0o+�n wF+oomwrtpm 000 t+IwF+oomow�rl w�-+oom 000 vlw l-�oom vlwF+oom vl 1 v wrt I J I J q � m rt rt �< 1 �•�3 m YYH HI�F-YHYYYHHHF-H rr✓r+HHH H1--1 �r -j.� r3 1pW m WOaWWWWWW01010�010101W 010�VI ut v+N ut v+Vl ut ViwwWWwWWWWNNNNN m NNNN w w l0 t0 i0 tp lOVVVVVVVpI WWWOWOtAAAAAN m N 1pW F WWWW WWWWWW WWWW W.NW. . . . .NWWWWWW WWWWWNNNNN .T W NNNN.V VV V V VV VOOOOOOOV•W Vl ut ut�tn0000000AAAAAtp .'O tjoW N N rp N % � HW Iv WWWWWWWW0161 Q10�Q101010101WWwWWWWWWF'I-+1•+1•-I V•�HI-+NI-+1p 10�0�D 10 I�./ W lD lO 1p 1p Q1010101010101 Ql Ol Vltn to to In In VIWWWWWWW0000000WWWWWtn Iv ly tAW n S n S 3mW < m W G 3mW < 1rN D O ! ArD O N -i m mIN r m 0 o m<m c O O O O o 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 p 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 1 m<3 m c o 0 0 0 0 0 o a 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 4 0 0 o I m<m c O O O V f3+1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 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 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 VAt m O O N N I v N 2x O 2'n W O xA O n 13mm c 1mmm vm c ix c N W m 11 v m H J P+r A m H r A J O HY t •4 clm n HYHYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYF+YYYYYF+YYYYHF-II-'i-'I--`F'I-+ 1 -�&)rt Ip m n F+rNI-'NF+F-IrF-'HI-'rYVI VI VI VI VI VI VI VI VI VI VI VI VI VI V+VI VI VI VI VI VI VI VI VI VI VI VI I -�L1m n tnrt m2D m mz' mD m mxD m X-I N O.m A O O w m. 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 I v w m D O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O p 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 l u m vD O 13 D 1m O D 1m D 0 V V 1 -N 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 1 -m'I N 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 �N Z V D I m<H .. m{J H rF m•<H • J . . WW A H WWWWW0�01016�O�p�0�0�0�T 0101W W0�0�6i OiS O1W WOl O�O�O�T 0101TWWWWW A GI -I 010�0101 O1 O10iW 01mWm0101 Ol OlWWWO�O�OI OI Ol Ol OiW pi01p10�01 OlW p�OIW WW x -1 Q�N N 1 J J m Y{-+ 1 -{NZ YYHHHHHHHHHV-IHHHHHHHHF+HHHHYHHNHHHHYHHHHHH -m-4 NIH z HHHHHHYHF'HHHHHHHF+1-�HHHHF+HHHF'HHHHHHYHHHI-IHH I I HNZ HY mNH mNl0 H mNH l0 HH A -I HYYYHF-'Y YYYYYYYYF+YYYYYHYYYHHHHHHYHHHHHHHH 1 ,'O W H HHYHNHHHHYHHHHHHHHHHHHF+HHYHHYHF+F+HHHHHHHr I A �1 F+W WW N WWWWWWWWwwwWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW v Y WWWWWWWWWWWWW0101010101010101010101010101010101010'1010101010101 Q101 v • 01H { 1 3 I 3 2 2 m 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 x 2 2 2 2 x 2 2 2 2 x 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 x 2 2 2 2 x H m 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 x 2 2 x 2 x x 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 x x 2 2 2 2 m 2 Y AA 1 N3 AAAW7oo PA]oWA7o 70000 oA AAA 7o]ovAAAA7oF 7000 oFAAA NO H 70000 AAFAA7o.'o W FAFF AA7o J00000 AA7o 7o7oAAAAA AFA Too nH AO 00 nH --Mm00000000000000000mm-....071000000 nl H 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000 nH OI TI T D N T T T T T m T T T T T 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 D N N T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T'rl T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T TI D N TI N �O 0vO00 rN pc : ,*z D K <rt m <m 1 {m x m m x x I I rt I r/ I I I 1 I 1 1 1 I { I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I ! D vL r O MT-, T m T T m T T T 1 T T T T m m T T T m T T T T T m T TIT T m T m m T T m m T T m TIT m T T m T r C rrrrrr rrlD tD tD Ip tD IO N WlD tp tD OO OOW m0000m 0000 OlVVVVVVVVVVmmmmmmmmmm�.,yl yl yl 'O 0�0000 000 tp OOV mtnA I HC NrOID OJVm�AWNHOID OOV m�+AWNrOtO OOV m�++AwNrOtD OOVm O °n I m T m m T m m m m m N N N N N N N N N I lD W V N N r N lD V m A W N H H W m A p pq m A V W r l0 V vl W Z 000000 00000000 1 1 x m 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 p O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q 0 0 I ,v m T m T T T N T W N N N N N N N N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I m O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Q O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 tD V H tp V W m A N O W m A m W 00�00 Oo m m W W W 00 00 00 7�1/I 00 00 00 00 00 0o Co W 0o Co Go W 00 0>0o Go W W 0o Oo W 0o O�Oo OJ 0o W 0o Oo 00 W O�GO 00 00 00 W W rWrrHr rHHrHHrH 1 N rrrrrrrrl-+rrrrrr-Irrrrrrrrr-�r rl•+rrrrrrrrrrr 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 wwwwwwww wwww w w w w w w w w mmmmmm mmmmmm WW 1 NO 000)WWmWW00W mO)00W 00mWmW00mWWmm00m OJ 00mmWOJ 00WmWW00 m mmmmmo mmmmmmmm I N I�z mmmmmmmmmmmmmm m mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm mm mmmmo N i I I I I I N OOp I00000 m OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOH N W 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 W T T T T N T N T m N N N N N N N N W r r W m A r A Ip m V w vl N A 1 T A O Oo m A N O OJ m Ip V r ID V O O O 13 O rrrr rrHr 1m rrrr Hr Hr rH tir p mANrID pot mmANrlp 00m -IX mANrtpWmNrID 00mNHlp OJm vIWN NrIDWmNwN rlDw minWNS O Alp AIp WC DJO AtD AtOWW m OAtp Alp W00 lD AlDWW�Atp W OOWWNVIp AIDWWWpON VID AID WDpW DpNC Iv ODo tnW r00 Q1tnWr0001tAWrOJmWrIDm NlW roomWrlp mtnWr00mWrlD� O tp V w r tp v 00 m m A N O Ou m �t W 13 Ip N r rrrr r r H r�l-+r r r I -mi C 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 J O ID tp tp 1p lD tD lOV V V V V V V m Q101010101 O1 plA AAAANNNNNNNNNrHHrHrHrHIO ID tO ID tO IO tO ID C OOOOOOW Otn vl vl v+vltn vl 1 A OO OOOOAAAAAtO Ip 1p tp tp to to lD tDAAAAAAAA AID ID ID ID ID ID ID ID( n ------P, �WulW wwww I� � 00000000o0 mmm to-------v+wwwwwwwwwF+l-+I-+I-+rrrF+n H T T T T T m T m T N N N N N N N N m n 7- m O O m m A N O m O tp V W r ID V H 3 m m N ° mrD O N 1 m<m 3 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 J j - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .. .. _ _ - C T 0000000 00000000 Iv m OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOQO000000000 7 < T T T T T W m m N N N N N N N VI N f) Z fl 2 A O (1 'a r ID V m A r V r Ip V m N W r m m H ID m 1 3 m m C (p W O O r tD V v: W r tp O O m m A O m Z 2 N m H, A O t0 T W N H Gl Hrr. Hr1 10 rF-:rrrHrH 1 -IL1m n r r r rrrrHrHrrHrHHrrHrrHrrrrrrrrHrrrHHrr� !D . . . . . 2 N F 0m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 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 H C O O O 0 0 0' N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 v m oD 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 p p 0 0 0 9 C _ D m N T T m T vt T m m m N N N N VI N N N N O 13 H r N W m A W N m r tD v m A W r V 1 m H * O N A O m m A N O 0 r ID V vl W r ID F V V V V V V V V V V V V V V 1 m{H p 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 D +' O NmmmmmPl mmmmmmmm A H mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm mmmmmmmmw C N N N N N J 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 J 2 •D `G F N 1l1 1 K N m T T T m vl T W m m N N N N N N N N N n IN I m H N r W Ip m N tp r W m A N N D) :t rrrHrrH rrHHHHHH HNZ W rrrrrrl-IrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrHrrrHHrrr rl� C O r V W r O N O W m A O ID m N H N W W W W W W H W W W W W WW W 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 WY 19 I L! V I m S 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 S 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 S 2 2 2 2 2 2 S 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 H MOm IAmD mm VOT Npu Am A NN 0r H m m � W N Ip 0T0 0m T0 0T T0 m0 NO TF TA TA TA TA mF T.�T7.1 II Dll�/1 N3 00 0 m0 m0 0T m0 m0.0.0.0.0 TO T0 T 0T TF 0m.'D T0 0T m0 m0 0m m0 0m 0m0 m0. m0 m 0T m0 T0 m0 0 w 0m 1NO r ID V W H o0°OooC OOOOOO°O 1�N Oo00o00000000000°0000000000000000ooOooC m < <<<< <<<<<<<< 1 D H <<<<<<{<<<<{<{<{<<{{<{<{<<{{{{<({•(<<<W P z <a< w T T T T m T m T T N N N N N N N N N X 1 <T X r W V VI A twit N r W 0 lD OJ V to A N r ri 1 r+ O W H ID V r A N O 00 m A N O ^J m I 1 m T T m m m T T N N N N N N N N N I m A N O m m A N O W r 1p V W r V 1 1 I tp W V m A H r Ip m V m A W N H V �n w r tp V to W m A N O 00 m A N 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 8.95703 ON 81122624: AT ( -225.00, 50.00, 0.00, 2.00) DC NA Page 7 z O nr VI Vl Vt N Vf VI N VI l/I VI l/I Vl(/1 IA VI 1/f 1/I 1/1 VI IA VI Vr V1 lA V1 VI VI Vf V1 V1 VI VI VI N UI IA VI V1 VI 1 N N VI V1 Vt VI N VI VI N VI V1 VI N VI VI VI VI N V1(/1 VI N Vf VI Vf VI VI VI VI VI VI VI N N N VI Vl VI VI 3 h J t t 4 V VVVVVVVVV01010101010161010101 VItn to to lA to In to to tnAAAAAAAAA Vf AWWWWWW WWWWNNNNNNNNNNrrrrrrrrrrl00]VQ1lnAWNr N 3 'O 'O 1p OOV OIInAWNrO�00JV Q1 vIAWNrOtD OOV p11nAWNrOtO OOV TU+AWNr O OID OJV 01 v,A WNrOIO OOV OI VIAWNrOl0 ODV 01 ulAWNrO 1 O z m!D fD C C3ON IC NC C0 h h hONN low I om o•oc �m wtnit 1 m I m m-ham aw 1 I N N m m m m I -00, I I I ' NC 1nvc IDDc !ON m mnCA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 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 -DI A 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 J to 1/1-I m vl r m m to o V J•9 J m d •N 1 A I A C's C �SO'iO O h 0 Z o h o h 0 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 I _m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 _m o C n W.0—0 u.JIO g . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 '"Um M J N J N h O 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 CI H r r r r r r r r rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr r I 61 H In VI n n n r O N r rrrr�+rl-+rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr 1 In rrrrrrr wrrrt•+rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr I v1 III m�m�\ 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 I w HO 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 M w w r m vl 1 vl0 In In l .Im m m m m mI 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 mm m m-m \Z m m m m m m m o m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m mI m m m m m m m m \Z S S \a x 0 1 1 I 1 1 I N 1 1 1 1 N 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I N > D D O n *N o o 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 o O o o O o 0 0 o 0 o o m o O O O O O O o 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 m 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 I 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 W D �m�m W I m A I Ilri V C�•C�•C,w•tN A ul OIn OIn J tir rr rr tir 1 m rr rr Nr rr m v'Inlnnln• � 1p pJ pl V:WN ri00001,nwN NrtO 0001tnWN Nr�OW OI v,wN rtO 0�01 hx N Nrt02 WOttnWN Nr�00001,nwN r100001 v,WN Nr�000011nWN rX /f0az 2 1p wOOw OpN Vl0 Al0 W OOW CON VIO Atp WOOw OON VIO Atp WOOw OON Vtp Aip WOO IT w00N VlOAtOC OOw pON Vlp AIp WOOW OON VIO AIpW pOW O]N VID AtD WOOw OONV T OJOAn C r N01W rt001 VIW r0001W rt001�nwr0001W r1001tnWr0]01W r10011nW r00O I� Wr�D OltnWrh OO OIW rIO OitAWr0001W r�001,AWr0001W r10 01lnWrwrnWr�c 01 I� rm rNrOJ � N'1 N•�NOOK J O O O IDJ t0 OMOTlO,t, 10 T O m oN ,D# 0 N NNNNrrrrrrF-+rrrr �< J I N{ ovl o,no J N NrrrrrrrrrlO lO t0 t0 l0 ip lO ip tp 00000000 OOW DOW W0101010101 T 010101 O1wwtn to�vl toNN WWWWWWNNNNNNNNN T + + + tp 1p ip lO lO Ip IDAAAAAAAAAIO ID tp IO l0 1p t0 t0 lOWWWWwwwww00 p000W 00 1WIIOOW 00 OJWww� WWWWWW00W 00 OOW CO pO 0000NNNNNNNNNVVVVVVVVV N OJOJO m v,v,v,�.,v,v,,,,wwwwwwwwwrrrrrrrrroo oo o00000000o oo oomrnmmrn I v � m���www� wwwwwwrrrrrrrrrw�,o w arc w�,emmmmmmmrnm I v # �J�J� n 1 3 T W < S 1 m m m < r N A.N r S 1 mrD O N I mr> O A�•A�•A N -I mw r m -1 mo r In• In 00000000000000000000000000000000000000o Im<m c o0c`0000 o0000000000000000000000000000000o Im<m c of olo 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 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 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 m 2 W 2 W x 0• V V W r W r W 13mm c m m 3tmnm C In lv to lVN m w mNr o J a mNr A !D 3(D 3(D J 10 vl to�n to�n vl�n vl In vl v+�n vl vl�n vl v,vl vl to vl ui In�n vl,n,n v,vl�n v,�n v:vl v:,n v„n�n I �Llm n lO,n,nvl,nvl,n---�n vl v,vlv,tnv,tnv,tn to v,vl v,vl vl,n to vl vl,n v,�n,n I -Imm n J J J 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 o�N O to O-10 I 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 O O O O O o 0 D Dr3u 1.-. D m m m N I mm N k m N 4 h h 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 V -I VI 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 -I V1 Z ,F m m !D Y D 1 m<N J m<H 11 N mrno+m mmrnmmmrnmmrnmmmmmmmrno+o+mmrnmmmmrnmrnmo+o+m p r o+o,o,rn o,a,mw tirnrnmrnmmrnmo+rn rnmmmo+rn mmma,mmo,o,mmmo+m morn v r / / / n J III I Z Z l 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 r r r r r r r r r r m N N r r r r r r rl� r rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr r I -m W zz�l PCJt w a . . H 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 o -{ r rrrrrr W r rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr r I o -I �• 00 mmmmmmo+mmrna,rn mmmmmmmmmmrnmmmmmmmo+m mmmmo+mm v mmmmo+rn mlr o,m mmmo+o+m rno+rn o+mmrnrnmmmmmmrnmmmmmrnrno+mrn I v Ir xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx m xxxxxxxN xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx !*I a a a N A A o A A A A A A o A o A A A A o o A A o 0 o A A o 0 o A A o A o o A A A A A 1 A o 0 o o 0 o I N h h h coo o 00OOOOOOOO00000co 0000 Do 0000000 N oOOOoOO1 00000000000000000000000000000o nN w a a I T T T T T T T m T T T T T m T T T T T T m m T m m m m m m m m m m m T T m m m I D N T T T T m T T w m,m m m m m m m.... coo O O OO O coo o OO cocoa Ocoo Ococa OOOOOOOOOO O rN OOOOOOOC OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO rvl O O O C {<{{{{{{{{{{«<{<{{< {({{{{{{{<{{{< DN {{<{{{{3 {{{<{{{<{{{{<{{{{{{{{<{{{<{{{{«{ 1 DN 3 WoO 3 Woo N N N 3 I AA K I DOA u � `G I {rDr m h x m o O O x I I O O N 1 1 to w r 3 w I I IT/1 A A 1 I D 0 0 I I D O O N 1 1 n c c I I rJt h I I I 1 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 I T T T T T T m T T T T T T N N N 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 N VIA I MOC N wNrOIOWVOI VIA WNrOwlOwWWVwWwInwA-wwNwrwOINpNWNVNWINnNANWNNNrNOrIOrWrVrO�rVIrA I MONC rrrrlDWVOI VIAWNrrrrrrrrrlp lD lD lO lO tp ID ID ID IpWWWWWWWWW 1 ON OW V01 VtAWNrp MC Ion Ion Ivy I m I m I m I I I Inv= Inv = IDD3 O O >p 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 0 IDI A Nam N-I m N-Im I A 1 A I A 0 0 1 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 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 0I m O V I L1 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 V V I H V V V V V V V V V V V V V 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 I L1 N r ID ID FN 10101p 101O l0 1p l0 1p lO 1p IO ID IO ID IO ID IO lO IO ID tp IO ID ID ID ID ID lD l0 l0 tD tp t0 tO lO 1p lD 1p lD A N ap IO ID IO IO IO lO IO lD lO IO ID 1p l0 1p tp 1p l01p l01O l0 IO l01O IO IO ID IO IO t0 l01O aD IO IO tp tD ap lO AN l0 OW I DN 010101010101010101010101010101WOl OlTOlWO10101010101010101T 010101010101010101 1 DD N Wmmmrnrnmmmmmmrnl-+rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr DN r 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 M 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 N W NN NO NNNNIVNNNNNNNNN N lVNIVIVNNNNNN NNNNNNNNN I N O N NNN NN NNN NN NNVI<nN ut Vt Vl utN ut ut Vl ut Vt ut ut utHln utln tnN Nln In Nlr 1 NO mm �z mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm,,,mmmmmmmmmmmmmmm �o z mmmmmmmmmmmmm z my 1 I N I I I I I I 1 1 1 I N N I 1 'a 0 10 10 10 10 10 10 01 100 1 10 1 10 1 1 11 1 N N 0o ma o00000000000000000000000000000000000000o mr F o0000000000 0000000000000000000000o m,vp or w w I 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 1 v w a 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 I v D w w I m A m T A O O 3 3 O 3 O r Im r Nr rr rr rr Im Nr rrrr rrrr rrrr rr r Im r N qX rlpW WtnWN rIDW OItnwN NrlO W OIInWN NrlpW minWN NrlO W01 -iX2 ut N F'ID W OIN WN p�ANrl0 W Ol 6�ANrlO W OI OIANrIO W OINrID WOIN �X r2 VIO m AIDwWWWNVtO AIDWWWWNVIp AIpWWWWNVIO A. . . . . . . . .. m C WWNVlp AlOWWWWNVOAIO AIOWWOAtO AIpWWOAtO AIpW WIp AIpW W IO 1 m AC Ol ut N WrW01W rlD pllnWrW0lW rlp 011nWrWOlW rIp OINWrWOIW rID OI VIWrW01 I IN./ rt Wrlp OltnWrWOIW rID OIOWVtWrWOIOWViWrWQtO WInWrW01 VIWrW01 ut I N W J v v O O 3 3 rt 3 rt 1 -md< Im{3 rrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr Imo{ r0 lDW m WWWWWWWWOl pl p1010101 O1 OtONvtIn VI VI. VI ut vllnwwwWwwwWwNNNNN m NNNN 1p l0 1p 1p lO 1p 1pVVVVVVV01 p10101010101AAAAAN m N tp W N W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W IN W IN IN IN IN WIN W W W W W W W W W N N N N N N N N N V V V V V V V V V 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 In to V I N V t ut to O O O O O O O A A A A A l0 I * l0 rW 1�/ » WWWWWWWWrnrnmmmmmrnmwwwwwwwwwrrrrrrrrrlD ID ID ID ID I� w Ir 1p to lD lo IT,rnmmmrnrnmrnv+v,w,v,u,v,I.,wwwwwww0000000WWWWWI,+ Imo/ n vlw n » n n S / S 13mW < - 13m W < 3mW < I mrD O ImrN D O ImrD O N 'MO r m 0 0 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 m G J 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 c 0 7 00 I v 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 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 w m 00 n r 2A NO xn F NO 1 xF NO n S 1 3 m m C 1 3 m m m m C 1 3 m m C a m r r A A H 3 a r A A H r A 3 Ip rr 1 �Llm n rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrl-Il-+rrrrrrrrrr I -In& QM n rrrrrrrrrrrr!-Il/II/II/t Vt Vlln l/t In u'I VI I/tl/I VII/tl/+VI I/t In In l/I I/t Vlln l/t l/t l/I VI I --m n m2D m m m mD m mm> m m O O O O O O O O o 0 0 o o 0 o o c o o o o c o o o o o o o c cl o c o o 0 0 0 0 0 I .S-�N O l D O v m O w m A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 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 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 N IT, v O 1 v N Iv -DI 3 1 3 DIm 1 3 to D 1 3 D N V V N Z �M 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 -•1 N 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 1 -1 N 2 # V a I m<N I m<J M I m<H # 7 Nm A -I mo+mrnmmrnmmrnmrnmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmrnmrnrnmrnrnrnmmmrn F J mmmmrnmrnmmmmmo,mmmo+mmmrnmrno,rnrnmmmrnmrnmmmmmmrnm A -I ma 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 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 I v N-I N V I I I 13 1-Ir I �Nz rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrl-+rrrrrrrrr I -JN�I-t z z r�r mNN mNlp N . . . . . . . . mNH ID Wr I x -1 r r r r r r F-Ir 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 A 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 F+r rl•+r r r X r W W Iv WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW I� WWWWWWWWWWWWW010101 Ol Ol OI OI OI Ol pl 01010101010101 Of OlTOf Ol pl 01 p10)O� I� �Y 3 3 x x m S x x x x x x x x x 2 x x x x 2 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x N m 2 2 2 2 2 x 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 x x x x x 2 x x 2 2 x x 2 2 x 2 S 2 m x N A A I N 3 F F F A A A A F F A F A A D A A A D A A A F F AAA o F A A F A A A F F F F A F I N Vt 3 A F A F F A A A A A FAA A A A A F A F F A A FAA A A F A A F A F F F F F F F I N 3 A VI Do n1•+ 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000 nl Ir 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000 nl-1 O� T T I D 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 T D N 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 T D N T N vv N OV000vOOvvvvO0Ov vvvv vvvvv vvvvvvv vvv Doc rc N vOVOvvvvvvOvvOOvvOvvOVOvvvvvOVOvvOOOVOvv rN vc WAO WF3 O WFO 9 I < z { w z < Z a D I {m {x m I <m x 1 1 rt I rt I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I 1 I I I I 1 I 1 1 I I � I r O 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 T T T T T T T T T T T T T TIT T T T T T T T T T T r C -+1-+I-+I-+I-+I-� r+r+���o�c�o io to io�O�o io woo eow oow woo oowV�I�Iv�IV�VV.lm mmmmmmoirn mu,v,vl�n 000000 OOIDwVO1tnA I O WNHOtDwVw�nAWNI-+OtOwVOi VIPWNF+OtDwVO�vIAWNHO�OwV01 V wInAWN HO HC v Ian I m 1 T T T T T T T T � V1 V1 Vl VI VI Vl V1 ut Ut tp w V O W N H Ip w V w A W N H H I O O O O O O O O O O O O o O I F 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 I N-1A . . . . . . . . . _ 000000 0000000o I _m o0000000000000000000000000000000000000 T T T m � m T T T Uf N N N N VI VI VI VI 3 1p w V O1 N H W IO w V O1 W N H N V VVVV V V VVVVVV V 1 Ll 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 t0 V In W H IO V In w w A N O w 01 A tp tp lO lO lO IO IO tO l0 lD tp lO low FVI IO tp tO IO ID l0 l01O l01O t01O IO t01O IO tp tp lO lO t0l0 1p lO 1p lO l0 t01D IO IO l0 ap IO tO lO tp t0 Oi 01w010101 w0101www01 O1www 1 DVI 01www01w w01w Ot 010101T 010101w010101w 010101w w010101 O101010101www N N N N N N N N N N N N N N VI Q N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N m mmmmmo mmmmmmmm �z mmm mm mm mm mmmmmm mmm m mmmm mmmm mmmmmmmmmmmo _ I I 1 I V1 11 I 1 1 1 1 11 I I I I 1 I 1 N 00000000 mA oOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO w w w w OO- w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w I 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 T T T T � T N T m Vf Vl VI V1 N N VI VI VI' H H H O w 01 A N O w T l0 V In W H l0 V to • O O O 1 3 O HHHH HHHH m HHHH HH HH H!-: HH 01A NI--:1pw2 wOIA NI-�1p w 01 -IX wANI-�1O w 01NH�O wOIN I--I IO w Ot VIWN N{.+1p WWWN NI••:1p w OlNWNx O AIOAIO wC: wOAtO AIOWw I m OAIp AIDW wlO AIOW wtO AlpwwWwN.IOAIOWwWwNVlO AIpwwWwNC _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ - OwwWHwJ OIOwWWi-:w Ol I� OwwWl-+w win WF•+w Oltn Wl+w Ol W1-+IO OI VI W i-+wwWF•'ID OItn WF-:w OIW F+IOJ T T T T vTr T T T � VI to N N � Ut N N N - H O IO V w H t0 V 00 w � A N O w T * to 1 3 N N F�F�I�F�F•F�� F-`F•F`F�F'F�F-'F� 1 -m1{ F-`F'F-:F-`I-•I-�r+F�F`F�F�1�F�F�F�F�F-:H1-:HI-+HHHHHHHHH p tp tO IO IO Ip IO l0.VVVVVV m T010101 Olw OIAAAAANNNNNNNNNI--�F+F+1-+I-+I-+F+I-+I-+lp 1p lO 1p lO tO lO IO � C OOOOOOW O�Iln In to In vlln I A OOOOOOOAAAAAt0 l0 1p t01O IO t01O IOAAAAAAAAAtD ID tD IO IO IO lO IOW OOOOOOOwwwww-l/-to-------WWWWWWWHF•:1••'HHHF-'I-:W H T T T T T T T T T Ut Uf Vf Ut � VI Vl Vl � m !1 L n m O O w O A N O w O t0 V w H Ip V O VI fan r D O � � 000000� o000000o Im<m c o0000000000000000000000000000000000000� 3 O m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 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 P _ _ _ . . . •� T T T T T T T m U1 N VI N VI VI fl Z fl x F O n V H tD V w w H V H tp V A w H w m H !D w 1 m m C N O Z O H IO V In H IO O O w Ol A N O w 3 SV mHr w T W N O Ll HH rt rl•+1•+1••I r l••:H F-' I mL'1D m I-:F+F+•+I-+M+rr+rl••:I••Irrl-+I-+1-+r1-+1-+I�I+I•+r F+I-+F-:1•+I•+r r+rrrr Hl-+rl-+n x N N o o o o 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I A VI 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 C 00000 0 In 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I v m OD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 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 m _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . m W n N T T T T T T T T UI VI VI Vl Vf w H In m 1 3 N w 01 A W w H 1p V Ol A H V I m H :t O O w A N O H lD V In W H x I V V V V V V D -I VI Z 0 l0 * .. . . . ? A W w0101010101W 01010101 O1 w w 01 F{-I Ol Ol 01 O1w O101 O1 mw mm w wT QI'm Q10161 w 01w 01 w010101 ol O1 O1 O1010101wO1O1I- C N N N N N N N NNNNNN 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-1 T T T T T T T N T ut N N ut Vl VI VI Vl Vl * N m H I N H w w T W Ip H t0 w T In A W N w # . . . . . . A O w rl•+F-:Nrl•+I�r+ I -Im ON HZ F+F+F-IrF'I-'rF'rl-'F'F'rl-'rrF+l••:rHrHrF+F+I-'r F'r rl-+1-'rl-'I�rF+F•Ir C O H l0 V w H O N O w w N IO r A HHHF-:N Hw HHHHHHI-+I-� I A �W W W W W W H W W W W W W 10 WF+H WF+WHh'H w—w w w w w w-w WH Wr rW w-w WF-'WN W WHH WF-—w w w WH Wrwr >t I3 1 3 :t 0 0 0 0 0 0 FAAAAAAA I 1n3 )oF.'OAFJ�FFFAF.'�AFAAAAAPA.'O�v AAF71A7�AFFFAFFA,v VI T T T T T T T N T In In VI N 0 w 0 VI v III+ OOOOOOOO (1H OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OI H ID w In A H H l0 w 01 W � w N t0 TTTTTTVI TTTTTTTT I Dln TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTVI O A N O w 01 A N O O w H IO N w H OOOOOOC �OOOQOQO rvl OOOOOOO�QOOOQOOOQQQOOOOO�OOOO OOOQOOOOQC m {{{{{{3 {{{{{{{{ {{{{{{{{3 -< v D t { rt T T T T T T T T VI VI N VI N 0 0 0 VI X m K H lD w V A W N H H 1p w V A w N H r'F I rt O In W H IO V In W H O A N O w w A N O v m 1 I . . . . . . _ _ . _ . . 1 T T T T T T T T Vl U1 Vl V1 N VI V1 VI VI I lD w V T A W N H H t0 w v A W N H I w A N O w O A N O vl W H l0 V In W H V I I I T T T T T T T T T UI VI N Vl VI Ill VI VI ID w V 01 A W N H H t0 w V Ol A W N H V W H l0 V N W w A N O w Ol A N 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 I5 2.16656 ON 81122624: AT ( -225.00, 50.00, 0.00, 2.00) DC NA Page 7 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 C!`L?x CO S,02 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 PM2.5 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 (I`1Ox 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 �35 28.07 14.69 0100 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 14.69 994 50.01 1.41 51.42 1044 1.30 11.75 Z371,86 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 6:16:59 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 10/19/2009-11/18/2009 3.12 17.81 11.70 0.00 0.02 150 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 Assumptions 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 1/2/2009-1/1512009-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 6:16:59 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 tN SQ S02 PM10 Dust PIVI10 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 0100 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 6:16:59 PM Time Slice 12/16/2008-12/31/2008 3.35 . 28.07 14.69 9M 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 Al 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 0101 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 9/17/2009-10/1612009 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 6:16:59 PM Time Slice 10/19/2009-11/1812009 3.12 17.81 11.70 0.00 0.02 1150 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 Mitiaation 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 12006 Off-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 Summary Report: CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO SS02 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 O o NOx Q_Q S02 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 CO2 Page: 2 11117/2007 6:13:16 PM Time Slice 10/1/2008-12/15/2008 3..35 28.07 14 QQQ 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 3135 28.07 1469 0.00 54.Q1 1.41 5142 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 0Q2 1.31 1.33 0101 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 1.5 5i 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 Assumptions 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 6:13:17 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 12131/2040 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 CQ S02 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PP 12.5 Dust PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 C 2 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 6Z1 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 6:13:17 PM Time Slice 12/16/2008-12/31/2008 3.35 28.07 14.69 0100 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 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 0101 1.20 1.21 2.071.92 Active Days: 174 Building 01/1612009-09116/2009 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 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% 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 M SS0202 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 N 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 1 011/2 0 0 8-1 211 5120 08 135 28,07 1469 0.00 50,01 1.41 51.42 10.44 1.0 11_.75 Z371,86 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 1 2/1 612 0 0 8-1 2/3 1/2 00 8 3.35 2807 14.69 0.00 5021 1.4 51 42 1044 1L30 1135 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 01/02/2009-01115/2009 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 14.95 044 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 6:16:24 PM Time Slice 9117/2009-10/16/2009 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_505 1.51 0.01 138 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 Assumptions 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 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 C2 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 LU 28.07 14.69 024 25.91 1.41 27.33 5.41 LaQ 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 Page: 7 11/17/2007 6:16:24 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�. _8 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% • • - • 1 _ vis - • • ® • • { 5{ December 10, 2007 Ms. TJ Nathan PBSU 12301 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 430 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Subject: AM Peak Hour (Revised Trip Generation) Supplemental Analysis Dear Ms. Nathan: Based upon project team discussions, it has been determined that the trip generation in the traffic analysis may not accurately represent the proposed senior center project. The earliest opening of the senior center is governed by the voter approval of the senior center (at 8:00 AM); therefore it is unlikely that significant traffic will enter the site prior to 8:00 AM. This differs from the site surveyed for the analysis, which opens before 8:00 AM and hosts breakfast meetings during the early morning hours. This supplemental analysis therefore considers the potential impacts of the project under a revised AM peak hour project trip generation scenario. Revising the trip generation only affects the findings of the traffic study / environmental analysis with respect to the intersection of Goldenwest Street at Slater Avenue. With the opening of the senior center at 8 AM, the Community Center meetings occurring prior to the start of the business day will not occur, therefore in the morning peak, the future senior center is expected to operate in a manner similar to the existing Rodgers Senior Center. The maximum attendance during.the AM peak hour is currently 84 persons at the Rodgers Senior Center. The proposed project is approximately three times larger, so the projected use in the morning is approximately 252 persons. Though Ms. TJ Nathan PBS&J December 10, 2007 Page 2 we do not expect each individual to arrive via single occupant vehicle, a conservative analysis includes trip generation of 252 entering vehicles. It is expected that the majority of entering vehicles will remain on-site at least one hour (e.g. attending a morning class or social event), by which time the morning peak commute period will be over.. This supplemental analysis makes the conservative assumption that 25% of the arriving vehicles will depart during the peak hour of adjacent street traffic. This results in 63 exiting vehicles (to incorporate drop-offs, etc.) in this analysis. Table 1 compares the resulting trip generation with the trip generation from the traffic study. As shown in Table 1, the traffic is more heavily oriented inbound, and is slightly lower overall than the trip generation used in the traffic study. The published traffic study report indicated that the Interim Year (2012) With Project conditions analysis results in a significant project impact at the intersection during the Weekday AM peak hour only, with an overall intersection capacity utilization (ICU) value of 0.908 and a project contribution of .026. The City standards allow for level of service (LOS) "D" or better as acceptable (an ICU, once rounded to two digits, of less than .91). Therefore, the published traffic study concludes that a potential significant impact may occur (an ICU greater than .905 and a project contribution in excess of .01 is considered to be cumulatively significant). Attachment A to this letter is a revised Weekday AM peak hour Interim Year (2012) With Project conditions analysis worksheets for each intersection analysis location with the revised trip generation. As shown on the worksheet for the intersection of Goldenwest Street at Slater Avenue, the resulting ICU value (using the revised AM peak trip generation) is 0.903 which rounds to .90 (LOS "D"). This is an acceptable level of service per City standards. Therefore, no significant project impact is anticipated during the Weekday AM peak hour for Interim Year (2012) With Project conditions. All other intersections will operate at LOS "A" during the AM peak hour for 2012 with project conditions. Ms. TJ Nathan PBS&J December 10, 2007 Page 3 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Based upon the revised trip generation, no project impact is anticipated at the intersection of Goldenwest Street at Slater Avenue. The revision does not affect the findings or conclusions of the traffic study with respect to other intersections or analysis time frames. Urban Crossroads, Inc. is pleased to provide this supplemental analysis for the subject project. Please feel free to call us at (949) 660-1994 if you have any further questions. Sincerely, Carleton Waters, P`.'F_. arlie Whiteman, P.E. Principal Senior Associate JN:04540-07 xc: Mr. Robert Stachelski, CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Attachment TABLE 1 TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY AM PEAK HOUR LAND USE QUANTITY UNITS' IN I OUT I TOTAL Senior Center(from Traffic Stud ) 45 TSF 60 274 334 Senior Center(from existing) 45 TSF 252 63 315 Difference - - 192 -211 -19 Percent Difference - 320% -77% -6% ' TSF =Thousand Square Feet U:\UcJobs\_04100-04500\_04500\04540\Excel\[TG-Rodgers.xis]T 2 ATTACHMENT A IY aP AM-2012 Mon Dec 10, 2007 12:44:55 Page 2-1 HUNTINGTON BEACH SENIOR CENTER TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS (JN 4540) 2012 Interim Year With Project AM Peak Hour Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length `4) Method (Future Volume Alternative) Intersection 41 Goldenwest .St. (NS) / Slater Av. (EWi Cycle (sec) : 100 Critical Vol./Cap- (X) _ 0.903 Loss Time (sec) : 5 (Y-R=5.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh) : xxx_-= Optima' Cvcle: 88 Level Of Service: 0 Street Name: Goldenwest St. Slater Av. Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R - ------ -- --- -------------- { { ----------------{ { ---------- ---- ! !---------------! Control: Protected Protected Permitted Permitted Right: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 3 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 ------------ j--------------- -------`-'-- ! {--------------- , !--------------- Volume Module: Base Vol: 82 937 73 288 774 38 78 823 137 33 470 146 Growth Aaj : 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.1-0 1.10 1-10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 nir-ial Bse: 91 1035 81 318 855 42 86 920 151 36 519 161 Added Vol: 9 16 6 0 63 0 0 0 38 25 0 0 PasserByvol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 100 1051 87 318 918 42 86 920 189 61 519 161 User Ad! ; 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PH-- Adi : i.00 1.00 1 .00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 100 1051 87 318 918 42 86 920 189 61 519 161 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 100 1051 87 318 918 42 86 920 189 61 519 161 PCE Adj : 1.00 1.00 1-00 1 .00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj : 1.00 1.00 1 .00 1 .00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FlnalVolume: 100 1051 67 318 918 42 86 920 189 61 519 161 _-- -- ------- -------------- - -------------- ! !------------ ---- I1--------------- ! Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 .00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat. : 1600 3200 1600 1600 4800 1600 1600 3200 1600 1600 3200 1600 _. ---------- --------------- --------------- ! { --------------- ! ; ---------------- ! Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.06 0.33 0.05 0.20 0.19 0.03 0.05 0.29 0.12 0.04 0.16 0.10 Crit Moves: **** **** t* xt * Traffix 7.9.0415 (c) 2007 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to URBAN CROSSROADS, IRVINE IY WP AM-2012 Mon Dec 10, 2007 12:44:55 Page 3-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- HUNTINGTON BEACH SENIOR CENTER TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS (JN 4540) 2012 interim Year With Project AM Peak Hour -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection 42 Goldenwest St. (NS) / Talbert Av- (EW) ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec) : 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (X) : 0.474 Loss Time (sec) : 10 (Y+R=5.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh) : xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 60 Level Of Service: A Street Name: Goldenwest St. Talbert Av. Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------ ---------------- --------------- 11 ------- -------- ------ Control: Protected Protected Split Phase Split Prase Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 3 0 1 1 0 2 1 0 _ 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 ------------- I--------------- --------------- ---------------- --------------- I Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 1023 35 58 1010 0 0 0 0 13 0 36 Growth Adj: 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1-10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 Initial Bse: 0 1129 39 64 1115 0 0 0 0 14 0 40 Added Vol: 113 0 0 0 0 126 32 3 28 0 13 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 113 1129 39 64 1115 126 32 3 28 14 13 40 User Adj : 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1-00 PHF Adj : 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 113 1129 39 64 1115 126 32 3 28 14 13 40 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 113 1129 39 64 1115 126 32 3 28 14 13 40 PCE Adj : 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj : 1.00 1 .00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 113 1129 39 64 1115 126 32 3 28 14 13 40 ------------- --------------- --------------- --------------- --------- Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1.600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 2.70 0.30 1.00 0.'-0 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Sat. : 1600 4800 1600 1600 4313 487 1600 155 1445 1600 1600 1600 ------------I --------------- --------------- - - ------------- --------- Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.07 0.24 0.02 0.04 0.26 0.26 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.02 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.9.0415 (c) 2007 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to URBAN CROSSROADS, IRVINE IY WP AM-2012 Mon Dec 10, 2007 12:44:55 Page 4-1 ------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------- HUNTINGTON BEACH SENIOR CENTER TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS (JN 4540) 2012 Interim Year With Project AM Peak Hour ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------ Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #3 Goldenwest St. (NS) / Ellis AST. (EW) ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec) : 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (X) : 0.494 Loss Time (sec) : 5 (Y+R=5.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh) : xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 60 Le,iel Of Service: A Street Name: Goldenwest St. Ellis Av. Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------ ---------------� �--------------- 1 ! -- ---------- � ---- -- Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 3 0 1 1 0 3 0 1. 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 ------------ , ---------------- --------------- --------------- --------------- � Volume Module: Base Vol: 50 1013 71 95 833 21 42 175 80 31 80 85 Growth Adj : 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 Initial Bse: 55 1118 78 105 920 23 46 193 88 34 88 94 Added Vol: 0 50 0 13 13 3 13 0 0 0 0 50 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 55 1168 78 118 933 26 59 193 88 34 88 144 User Ad! : 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 I.-00 PHF Adj : 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PEE Volume: 55 1168 78 118 933 26 59 1.93 88 34 88 144 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: SS 1168 78 118 933 26 59 193 88 34 88 144 PCE Adj : 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj : i .00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 5S 1168 78 118 933 26 59 193 88 34 88 144 ------------ -- ------------- -------------- --------------- --------------- - Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1..00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 .00 Lanes: 1.00 3 .00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Sat. : 1600 4800 1600 1600 4800 1600 1600 3200 1600 1600 1600 1600 ------------ I -- ------------ � � -- ------------- � I --------------- � �----------- -- i Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.03 0.24 0.05 0.07 0.19 0.02. 0.04 0.06 0.06 0.02 0.06 0.09 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.9.0415 (c) 2007 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to URBAN CROSSROADS, IRV= ATTACHMENT #9 HUNTINGTON BEACH 'dab" I= 1L ETC SENIUR Ct: Nir. R 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 Los Angeles, California 90025 December 9, 2007 ni i or 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 e o o e o e s e o MIR Imptemenit:6n - Responsible Comp!Ignce , Miff ation Measure Documentation Monitorin` Acfiv' Timin� r �Mo'nifor"�" Ver�icahon'Sgnafure - 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 facade 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 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 ImitiMENIF e• o • o 0 0 0 0 Im ementafion ' Responsible Compliance ,Miff` Hd►rlVleasure ;Ddcumentation Morntoin "Activ' riming' Monitor y\/er�icat►on S'T nature.;' Date MM-4.2-2(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-10 and Air-11 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 Mitiq;ticikh • • • •e o e • sn- Monitoring ,Program Implementaffon ' Responsi'ble Compliance MiB affon Measure Documentaffon k :Monitorin Achv' Miming: Monitor Ver�►caffon Signature Date 4. i.;,Biological.Resources. 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 o e • e • o 0 0 0 inn lmplemenfation a4.Resporis►ble Compliance Mitt crh6rrlVleasure ;. " Documehfafion . `„ -' Moriilain Ac'` rmin Monitor' Ver�icaBon Signature Date t MIN 4.3-1(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 ddtidfi • 0 • 0 0 O Impfementdfion Responsible compliance MN 'on Measure DocumenhrNon Moniloding Activity Tminj Monitor ; r. Venlricafion 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 per pair. 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 "Wtilg9tion.. a o o a e s ►mplemeniafion Responsible r Compliance Mill afion Measure Documentation. Monito►in A riming •Monflor VeAcafion.Si nature, Date Cultural Resources MM 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 e o e e oring.Ppogrann Implementation Responsible Compliance; NlNgaffdn Measure. Documentafion _MonHcdn Acfiv' r< Timin , Monitor .Verrficafion Sfgnatuie 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 arch aeologistlpaleontologist 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 Miti0'dtio 0 • • •O 0 Mitigation Monitbilifig Program Implerrientation,_ Responsible Compliances" y_ Miff afion Measure Documenfafion Monifodn AcfN' Mrin . Monitor Verificafio&Si nature Date MM 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 MLD 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. PGeolo9Y:and Soils 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 storm drain infiltration system,and preliminary pavement design. geotechnical Building and recommendations Safety 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 Planning Huntington Beach Senior Center Mitigation Monitoring Program 9 •e e • • o •o e ;ImplemenfaHon " ` Responsible Compliance Miti olton Measure Documenfafion Monnodn Achv" riming Monitor. Ve06afion Si nature' Dote 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 Miflb 0 • o o e e o • Im eh plem fafion . � � Respons►ble Compl►ance ra 4 u<. ,tM►l► afion'Measure ', Documenfufion Moriifonn ,4cf►v Tim►n MoniFor Ver►�icaf►on'Signafure sIlk { :s Hazardous.Materials .¢. k"N #.e. Ro "< MM 4.6-1(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 •• • o -• o ee e s, s Implementation ;„ Responsible.. Compliance.,, Mill affon Measure Documentaffon Monftdng A0v' Trmin� Monibr Venncallon Signature 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 A. Implerimentation : Responsible Compliance MN affon Measure - Documentation '' liAonfl&in Acffv' . rmin ,, Monitor VenrcaHon S' nature Date *'Hydrology and'Water 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 lAlfig6MIoW'M6Oitjoflng e e e Implementation Responsible 6rnp►iance Mifi anon Measure Documentafion', Morifting Acqvity riming Monitor V646cafion Si nature Date 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 Mitigati6n.0 itofino og!prny • s • • e • s • o Implementation Responsible Compliance. Mitt'afion Measure Documentafion r Monitorin Ac" Timin " , � Monitor-,'� -:ri,V&&dfion=Si nature Dote 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 15 �gqtlon MeAllforlhq •o e Impiementafion Responsible Compliance Miti afion Measure,,. Docurrient6fion ;'`Monitorin AcKV fty ,` limin . titonitor ` �� 1VenTicafionSi nature ._: Date 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. s.. .Noisee �3 - d 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. MM 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 Mitigation'�,Mqnit6r!ng o e o Mitigation o • • o o e r Implementaflon _ "Responsible' Compliance w Miff aflon.Measure Documentaflon Monitorin g Ac' riming Monitor Venftaflon Si nature Ddte Recreation 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/Traffic I v r a' I 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 Utllitie9 Service'Systems ., - IMM 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 Huntington Beach Senior Center Mitigation Monitoring Program 17 miti ion Monito,��g ogr�afn • o e • e gifro,a • a Implementation , Responsible _ Compliance _ F Mill ation Measure Documentation llilonifain Activ' T t imin 'Monitor'` ``':_erff ation'Signature: Date 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 2007 18 City of Huntington Beach ATTACHMENT # 10 c :sC o= z ',"-"s" k- h s `"" c >?; t #;"„�i `'`F # :n. .c., $�: 4a b" '„ t•' "x } T.".i'i' a # `s'e 5'" ' >;r,:, .k t_ `',:*:"�k yj x:? s �• a ,�kr "'4 :.t c e" # •' e a § .a r ."' a .� *' i k ` f At iaji zz en ul r tin 11""B� : *,IL n a : , n � m w "`� "'�,x.» -;�3`.°. � �. 5%. .yr `� .,k'a> �r'v'— � �a::.`�;*>u"`"': � �,�a„,;a „ •i ":,�.,�. .� ..� �,:a�+ `3 "�-3v 'v..,<,•� ;�*.�+ �k*+?+a„+a x �„•aari' n c,.�s��i.�:., ,�, .53 #e� t,�xrr ;S nr r"�e.+ei a ','A� :c« i��;�""'x'' aL'�; »s »,. �a<' �wt. r.^*"b",..•,.' •y � .?:a�r'm i"t`;*: �S:E' �� ?E_; � R* <�i art �. `,w• ,x y�s:� .y..;+4..; =+m' w r pp„x,.sue' �,r �. s`"#w� ,?':.. ;^x= "~•- .�:�,. ^»a. ,z°t,- ONE -w pn ^s ;sr:::e, ? x - L r -. <t ., zx '"x ,a „t'v:..-,..,:- '� '• +.r 1,,,,; ,,,,,,,.r,< .,�..;y :•TM.�3- .r'w. �. �`r,+ J w:r.+;. � x y ..w, `.� r d .a �„.,r.:.: �...,���" ^-,s- -.e.,, . £t �a 'S' # 3' tb � £ _ �" R'yy" S' '3- 5 8 Y� � U: �? � Y• �k, a „ - � 3 � � x" •,. � g"4x cx. +g':::x,,.nC 5�,+"Pk'3 t't �� � '�' 't�, �-'4-�•x Y„� .;. £'a+,, •�"�„.. '>n„s�* ..� k�' r`""" „m;" Rsv x..k:. "t.. +w.. .hE �' .3;TM.,,+�aY d.:u"'Ykr:..^, '.. ..$�. x. .K. :e:.:.. re�•& d .,yn '�. , :33.. .�+.;. .., :'.4,� ,.�.' x�. ,..�m�,.,«.tx.=„'xk»> ,.'`�:.�. a•`.., .: ..x'"..:..Z. .o ,.„_,. ..�#.:"G ,._.m..:�`.....r,.., ,,..,t: .,.;,,..:: +a��;^-°,r ,. x�>,:#: '"��;:_' :��..-"'` n.>°r., :.�:.: �,. t .. ., �.." ::,y-,: �.�.,. ^� .t' .":ram" .. .<:m �.: :. ,rs. ` '". # ..,c .. '''�,• :'� .,.,. ,..:. �. k,,'� ... h�' ., ..,,. ,.., h�,',=:t�v,. . + ,,.: ..� :`si$ .?}?3 W ::' 4 +:...�''3 ..,:s<•.,.�5 t€ .n?S ...£.:c+r ..... ..3. .. ..:.i�.ro�"�...,.a,�;S�'i 5 .... ,... ",.,.-fi,� ,-:.?.. `t:. .: ...x. .,•x �....,.. ..?§. ..v..:,x .'.a.i.'."'.K.. ': .,X..s .v".. A, £ .:..,..''A..,# ,t r, j.�._ :1' z.^s� �': ''2:.`" #". "$•r,,.4r.. .f#..:. � .y::::. .. �.,:A' ,„ +.. ,,., .#..k ,?.'t }. t. :P,,. ,s. &. .... - #~. :.'" :n>.,s .: ",y.. a�2� :. . .:<�,,,. ..:.....:...:.:.�.. •;:.•k....�. : ,: '.,., .,.#. .",:_£#.,. :r a,e,-:• .., ,. .. `�:i «a , "�.a s. tr., 7.-Rs: x 4.rs; ..• .v:. .�.:a;. ,.�". _,� � �`" ,�.. n - ., a .,i .,.. ;.: ..�,. ;a - „:ty;*,a r'»-.. .:� '� ,...:'�: � a." - a". > .:?a:•,*�`" rerr; ,'-2.::.'.,+*s'' ":.. �v. 7`+ -..k ":raw'. § #.�:' .-. :_ „ :.+, •: ra,.�:,:s.F. .:; ", , .�£:,,.:,.,£. ..-..._, ar.:`srt+ X..a. :x,a�... .:.>,'d� .:# :�:��:T:t..�s ..,�5' ,� ��<. ,1*� .. ",.,�,._ x 'r°"`: ...ram„ >.;, ..:;-:,..,�sz• k,$ ..:". '�# .....,a. �'%' _ �,.": .a.'i. �.�` &.ram'.,.. kF, .yy,. :. '.� ..l� .,,��3`.�, ,'&�•..�':. "�P= ., , .. ,.�<: ,.,.; ,su�+;`� u.: c3,.. ,., '": •? ...r-=+ .w.�w." �4�..-:.'S,.:.u,.�fit.. .,. .,. y: ::..a., ,w •.`�'�...,,.�'. ,ter' ". .:..k�, : ..z+:.: �`'ti a .. =,5.x•,. .,x':-.r. :,,.... ':3:.<:, s�;:'u;..:.?. w.y,u,�'T'.a=�„v. .. �:4" :: `"t%. ... . .c.. :.. :., a... .:..: �� tc;d a,�m.,r-;;m:.h ; ��� �". '• ;"'. ",k. �'���'$8 ,k,;. <..,„�� ., x x.. '�' ..�:...,.:�. W.��,r �' ..,a,^ z'r .<..:.. r ,�. >• ..x..,.:x:+ .. :s'x� 'v,,. , '- ,xa. :: F„ ,f+r,. c.,, a .....rn+�c, .� �::;....�.. .+s;:.c.. ::r�•,.s�.-..d ';:su,. .,.,..:,�. .::,. ,.. .'� &.. ..F,y.w e =,i .ru,;,., .%�.;. :� ' f+tc' ,:. :..a'iP .... a�'', .... . ,�.... �'�• .t ;��.:,m,<�$*• �,.".,..� t�';.....� �#.,<,.� .�.:.,,..�.,<, ^� fir.. �;+ �. :u,. `. .r.t .�':•.,>;- .. ,.`�„" � �,..,,,.:a`�,, ,., m;.:,..:�u:,,ri ...,., �::_��,�". .;q�s. -,'��'..� it ::�;,�� ,»� - ...�-r..,., , h z' .,.i^�9:,. a<' .. s .:. ^� ...: '�` s ,.. .� .'fir z 's° ,r,=.. .; „s. ...ar: s�',"�''as, �" _.�•" . pw,. .�`°.�s"�., `��+."+,' ., :.z:�'a+`. .w..x,�' ..:'�' r�� �.�r... .�. .ate �„.�... ,:.>..:� .;� .,:...�r•., � ,} 'y';' m .._.._.r r. 3x.f r .t. .,^j:. .�•P �'w. ¢ � .;.?'..t ... , �v: ..a �£,r 5�.�.., "K 5`s: � : s:;3•' f., - i nA,�" -t>•,'v... ..&,�Y„ d�,.r?aP?``"�.'.Sa'F ,.:W� r,.' n.�:i`: pkkr�ak����ih,*° .elf,. "�^ ..� "`�t. ,.:zx�.,,;a..„,.,^' ,. � r��a. �s� w: �. .5 :.::.t,.;". :�,•.w s:� � �.- av, .:�. a ,w.., e. ..:... ..r�ys +,k,. -.�, ,. n ,.�,,, ,v •fit;.."..>. :i� s :•c �.. sx� �.��• �,.k:�' .,. .";"am: "r:S.. -;;:.d�,. .„•: :.=3.,.� .*�"' "a"y.F''k^,,.t� "'`vs,.. ?�#�"a� �"*` ?S.'::, �x.��" r�`�`�. �^';,.$ xr�"': h ..'m §st" �„.. -8.1ater Ave-.-T P-JI j 10 ca Central 11i rary 01 _____Seni6r Center- P r6j e" C t S" i-te,L_-/1"' albert Ave. Sports.__-- Complex Disc ...... Golf Huntington Lake course U) Equestrian Co Center LU Mobile H o m 66 Ellis Ave. _A11 EIlZ No . 07-002 ■ Analyzes the potential adverse environmental impacts associated with the construction and operation of a new 45,000 square foot senior center EIR No . 07-002 ■ EIR No. 07-002 analyzed 13 issue areas including : Aesthetics Land Use & Planning Air Quality Noise Biological Resources Public Services Cultural Resources Recreation Geology & Soils Transportation/Traffic Hazards & Hazardous Utilities & Services Materials System Hydrology & Water Quality Impacts ■ All project s ecific imoacts can be reduced .M. to leis than significant levels with the incorporation Of m1.t1gat10I1 111eaSL1reS (MM) and City standard code requirements (CR) ■ Cumulative impacts associated with aesthetics found to be significant ■ Statement of Overriding Considerations is required. Conditional Use Permit ■ Request to construct and operate a senior recreation facility ■ Greater than a 3-foot grade differential k s t r, : k a k ` ,.t k2 Project Description ■ 45,000 square foot building ■ Proposed access driveway from Goldenwest Ste/Talbert Avenue with signalized entrance ■ Floorplan ,p community hall/dining room, fitness area and group exercise room, classrooms, offices, social lounge, lobby ■ Open area/patio Hours of Operation ■ Monday through Friday ■ Regular hours: 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. ■ Classes & Activities: 4:30 p.m. to 10 pm ■ Saturday & Sunday ■ Classes & Activities: 8 a.m. to 10 p.m. ■ Special Events Reservations available Sunday through Thursday until 10 p.m. and Fridays & Saturdays until 12 a.m. Elevations ORNOO M3w L West Elevation — view looping from adjacent park , x r 1 4 t i Fast elevation — view looping from Goldenwest Ste Elevations ; U E IMF 06 t.. 1 721 i i North Elevation — view looking from access driveway m S£ _ tioa;� 3 f C:•yw I. # •` +�-fir"'..' _ 9 South Elevation — view looking from Disc Golf Course I'lannin Commission Action ■ On December 11, 2007: ■ Certified EIR No. 07-002 as adequate and complete in accordance with CEQA requirements ■ Approved CLJI' No. 07-039 With findings and revised conditions of approval ■ Revised conditions of approval require final project design and landscape plans be brought back to Planning Commission for approval ■ Require project to be i,EEI) Certified ■ Approved CEQA Statement of Findings of Fact with a Statement of Overriding Considerations Appeal ■ The appeal letter rases the following issues: ■ EIR — project description, alternatives, m�.tigation measures, impacts to wildlife, loss of opera space & aesthetics ■ CUP & Land. Use Compatibility ■ Affects to Pacific City EIR ■ Consistency with Measure 'I" and Measure C ■ Project Funding Analysis - EIR ® EIR/Project Descri tion: the EIR, including the project description, was prepared in accordance with CE QA guidelines and adequately addresses the environmental impacts associated with the proposed 0 project ® Impacts to Wildlife: MM 4.3®2 requires dedication of 5 acres to be conserved and/or enhanced to mitigate for the loss of raptor foraging on the project site ® Loss of open Space/Aesthetics: Project would result in cumulative aesthetic impact due to the increase in development intensity, when compared with current uses, in contributing to a reduction in the amount of undeveloped open space in Central Park Analysis - EIR ■ Mitigation Measures: mitigation measures proposed in the EIR ensure that all proj ect-specifi c impacts will be reduced to less than significant levels ■ Alternatives: 3 alternatives were considered: No Project/Continuation of Uses Allowed By Existing General Plan and Master Plan; Reduced Project; Alternative Site (nwc of Ellis/Goldenwest) ■ No Project/Continuation of Uses Allowed By Existing General Plan/Master Plan & Reduced Project result in less impacts but would not reduce level of significance of impacts Analysis — CU P/Land Use Compatibility ■ The project is compatible with established recreational land use pattern in area — adjacent uses include Sports Complex and Central Library ■ The proposed project will add a senior recreation facility on land currently designated for recreational uses ■ Consistent with General plan goals and policies; meets requirements of the HBZSO ■ Central Park Master Plan will require an amendment from a low intensity area to a high intensity area Analysis - Measure T & Measure C ■ A review of Measure T ballot language and City Charter Section 612 (Measure C) show that the proposed senior center is consistent with both measures Analysis - Pacific City EIR - Project Funding ■ The Pacific City EIR requires the provision of parkland or payment of park fees in order to mitigate potentially significant impacts to less than significant levels ■ Subsequent to the certification of the Pacific City EIR, the applicant entered into an agreement with the City for the payment of park fees which included the construction of the proposed senior center ■ The project is being funded with park in-lieu fees assessed from the Pacific City development through an OPA between the City and the Pacific City developer Statement of Overriding Considerations ■ EIR No. 07-002 concludes that there will be a cumulative impact to aesthetics ■ Statement of Overriding Considerations is required to approve the project ■ The project will provide a new, centrally located senior center that would be large enough to meet the changing needs of the population and simultaneously meet the unique developmental needs and diverse interests of the City's senior residents ■ Project emphasizes compatibility and sensitivity to existing uses surrounding the site and will include a variety of sustainable features to achieve LEED certification Recommend the following actions: ■ Certify EIR No. 07-002 because it adequately analyzes the potential environmental impacts of the project, identifies alternatives and mitigation measures and has been prepared in accordance with CEQA ■ Approve CUP No. 07-039 with findings and suggested conditions of approval ■ Approve CEQA Statement of Findings of Fact with a Statement of Overriding Considerations RCA ROUTING SHEET INITIATING DEPARTMENT: Planning SUBJECT: Appeal of Planning Commission's approval of EIR 07- 002/ CUP 07-039 (Huntington Beach Senior Center) COUNCIL MEETING DATE: February 4, 2008 RCA ATTACHMENTS STATUS. Ordinance (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Attached ❑ Not Applicable Resolution (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Attached Not Ap licable ❑ Tract Map, Location Map and/or other Exhibits Attached ❑ Not Applicable Contract/Agreement (w/exhibits if applicable) Attached ❑ Signed in full by the City Attorney Not Applicable Subleases, Third Party Agreements, etc. Attached ❑ (Approved as to form by City Attorney) Not Applicable Certificates of Insurance (Approved by the City Attorney) Attached ❑ Not Applicable Fiscal Impact Statement (Unbudgeted, over $5,000) Attached ❑ Not Applicable Bonds (If applicable) Attached ❑ Not Applicable Staff Report (If applicable) Attached Not Applicable ❑ Commission, Board or Committee Report (If applicable) Attached Not Applicable ❑ Findings/Conditions for Approval and/or Denial Attached Not Applicable ❑ EXPLANATION!FOR MISSING ATTACHIVIENTS` REVIEWED RETURNED FORYM RDED Administrative Staff ( ) Deputy City Administrator initial ) City Administrator (Initial) City Clerk EXPLANATION FORRETURN OF ITEM: ® - . Only) RCA Author: SH:MBB:J. Villasenor x1661 December 17, 2007 17911 San Leandro Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Dear Mayor Cook and Members of the Council: My wife and I own a small home directly west of the proposed site for the senior center. We are deeply troubled by the plans to rent out the facility for weddings, bar mitzvahs, and parties, which may run until 10:00 p.m. on weekdays and midnight Friday, Saturday, and Sunday nights. Our fear is that we will have to contend with amplified music being blasted at us at all hours, especially from functions held outdoors on the open patio that faces west. The lay of the land is such that we currently hear noise from events at the nearby equestrian center and summer jazz concerts by the library, noise that is loud enough to penetrate our double pane windows. As I'm sure you know,the slope of the land from the site to the park falls significantly, creating a Hollywood Bowl effect for residents to the west. We attended the meeting of the city planning commission last Tuesday, where we voiced our concern and where I lost track of the number of times I heard the word "mitigation." I don't believe that racket can be mitigated, but it can be simply ended. We are opposed to using park land for the senior center for all the reasons you have heard from others: the destruction of what little open space we still have in the city, the impact on wildlife, the traffic it will create, and its representation to the voters as something other that a rental hall. We urge you to support its construction on a less environmentally sensitive site. If it must be built in the park, we urge to impose some rules we can all live with. Amplified music should stay inside the building where it will be enjoyed only by those who choose to enjoy it. Thank you for all you do on behalf of our city. May your holidays be pleasant ones. Sincerely, Michael D. Sloan (714) 847-8243 msloan@ovhs.info cc: Mayor Pro Tem Keith Bohr Council Member Joe Carchio Council Member Cathy Green Council Member Don Hansen Council Member Jill Hardy Council Member Gil Coerper Esgarza, Patty From: Dapkus, Pat on behalf of Coerper, Gil Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 11:06 AM To: Van Dorn, Kay Cc: Henderson, Sandy; City Clerk Agenda Subject: FW: CLosed Door Meeting regarding Senior Center Pat Dapkus (714) 536-5579 (714) 536-5233 (FAX) -----Original Message----- From: Dorothy Ralphs [mailto:dorothyr@socal.rr.com] Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 9:06 AM To: Hansen, Don; Cook, Debbie; Coerper, Gil; Bohr, Keith; Hardy, Jill; Green, Cathy Subject: CLosed Door Meeting regarding Senior Center Dear Council Members, From Dorothy Ralphs Today I have been reading in the O.C. Register about the closed door meeting regarding the financing of the proposed Senior Center. Since I have met you all personally and know you to be good decent people coming from varied walks of life in Huntington Beach, who, like me, care about this City I have decided to write and ask you to consider very carefully what decisions you make today. I oppose the idea of our City considering bond measures and levying taxes to pay for this center so one man can benefit to the tune of $2. 85 million dollars. Especially since he declines to be interviewed about this proposal. Would these bonds be voted on by H.B. Citizens? The fact the Mr. Maker has built and managed Senior Centers elsewhere means nothing to any of us. The company that built the Sport Center had built other centers for other cities and was found to be lacking in honesty in the end. The City Council has a duty to all of us to follow their usual process of obtaining bids and multiple proposals, and not being persuaded by one man that he alone is the right person for this project. I too am a senior citizen. living about 4 miles from the proposed Senior Center, but i will probably never use that center, I might go there to help others but that would be my only reason. On what basis have you decided it is expedient to spent $23, 000, 000 on a Senior Center? Do we have 23, 000 Seniors in need in Huntington Beach? This is not a poverty stricken City like some, this is a nice bedroom community where most houses sell for over $500, 000, where the majority of families both work to pay for their home and family life style in H.B. I seriously wonder if the major beneficiary of this project is Mr. Maker? Please all think very carefully and listen to all the input from every source plus the Planning Commission voices before you make this decision and later come to regret it. Very Sincerely, Dorothy Ralphs 1 NOTICE OF APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL OF A PLANNING DEPARTMENT ACTION (OR POLICE) Date: 12/20/2007 To: Police Dept(1 Copy) Date Delivered N/A City Attorney(1 Copy) Date Delivered 12/20/2007 Planning D ept(2 Copie s) Date Delivered 12/20/2007 City Council Office(1 Copy) Date Delivered 12/20/2007 Administration (1 Copy) Date Delivered 12/20/2007 Filed By: Mayor Debbie Cook Regarding:Huntington Beach Senior Center Tentative Date for Public Hearing TBD Copy of Appeal Letter Attached: Yes LEGAL NOTICE AND A.P. MAILING LIST MUST BE RECEIVED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE 15 DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING DATE Joan L. Flynn, CIVIC City Clerk (714) 536-5227 Fee Collected: N/A-filed by Mayor Cook Form Completed by: Rebecca Ross, Sr. Deputy City Clerk r It CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH r ,. rg a City Council Interoffice Communication 2007 DEC 20 P M 2, 29 To: Joan Flynn, City Clerk a From: Debbie Cook, Mayor a�� Date: December 13, 2007 Subject: APPEAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 07-0021 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 07-039 (HUNTINGTON BEACH SENIOR CENTER) I am hereby appealing the Planning Commission's December 11, 2007, conditional approval of Environmental Impact Report No. 07-002 and Conditional Use Permit No. 07-039 for Huntington Beach Senior Center located in Central Park. The appeal is based on the following: (1) CEQA certification including but not limited to the project description, discussion of alternatives, mitigation measures, impacts to wildlife, loss of open space, and aesthetics (2) Issuance of the CUP and consistency with land use policies in the General Plan and Central Park Plan (3) Affects to an existing E I R for the Pacific City Project (4) Consistency with Measure T and Measure C (5) Concerns regarding project funding and financial uncertainties DB:SH xc: John Scandura, Planning Commission Chair Penelope Culbreth-Graft, City Administrator Paul Emery, Deputy City Administrator Scott Hess, Director of Planning Jim Engle, Director of Community Services Mary Beth Broeren, Principal Planner Jennifer Villasenor, Associate Planner NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Monday, February 4, 2008, at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, the. City Council will hold a public hearing on the following planning and zoning items: APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 07-002/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 07-039 (HUNTINGTON BEACH SENIOR CENTER) : Appellant: Mayor Cook Request: Appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of Environmental Impact Report No. 07-002 and Conditional Use Permit No. 07-039 to permit the construction and operation of an approximately 45,000 square foot senior recreation facility with greater than a 3-foot grade differential on a 5-acre site in Central Park. The environmental impact report analyzes the potential environmental impacts associated with implementation of the proposed project. Location: 18041 Goldenwest Street (5-acre site generally located southwest of the intersection of Goldenwest Street and Talbert Avenue) Project Planner: Jennifer Villasenor NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that EIR No. 07-002 is on file at the City of Huntington Beach Planning Department, 2000 Main Street, and is available for public inspection and comment by contacting the Planning Department, or by telephoning (714) 536-5271. ON FILE: A copy of the proposed request is on file in the Planning Department, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California 92648, for inspection by the public. A copy of the staff report will be available to interested parties at the City Clerk's Office on Thursday, January 31, 2008. ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit evidence for or against the application as outlined above. If you challenge the City Council's action in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to, the public hearing. If there are any further questions please call the Planning Department at 536-5271 and refer to the above items. Direct your written communications to the City Clerk Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street, 2nd Floor Huntington Beach, California 92648 (714) 536-5227 C:\Documents and Settings\esparzap\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK15B\080204(Senior Center Appeal)(2).DOC NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Monday, February 4, 2008, at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, the City Council will hold a public hearing on the following planning and zoning items: APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 07-002/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 07-039 (HUNTINGTON BEACH SENIOR CENTER) : Appellant: Mayor Cook Request: Appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of Environmental Impact Report No. 07-002 and Conditional Use Permit No. 07-039 to permit the construction and operation of an approximately 45,000 square foot senior recreation facility with greater than a 3-foot grade differential on a 5-acre site in Central Park. The environmental impact report analyzes the potential environmental impacts associated with implementation of the proposed project. Location: 18041 Goldenwest Street (5-acre site generally located southwest of the intersection of Goldenwest Street and Talbert Avenue) Project Planner: Jennifer Villasenor NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that EIR No. 07-002 is on file at the City of Huntington Beach Planning Department, 2000 Main Street, and is available for public inspection and comment by contacting the Planning Department, or by telephoning (714) 536-5271. ON FILE: A copy of the proposed request is on file in the Planning Department, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California 92648, for inspection by the public. A copy of the staff report will be available to interested parties at the City Clerk's Office on Thursday, January 31, 2008. ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit evidence for or against the application as outlined above. If you challenge the City Council's action in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to, the public hearing. If there are any further questions please call the Planning Department at 536-5271 and refer to the above items. Direct your written communications to the City Clerk Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street, 2nd Floor Huntington Beach, California 92648 (714) 536-5227 CADocuments and Settings\esparzap\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK15B\080204(Senior Center Appeal)(2).DOC CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY PUBLIC HEARING REQUEST" SUBJECT: cto� C 07 - ICV-PAla. 07-b DEPARTMENT: MEETING DATE. o� q - 0� CONTACT: � � I ! PHONE: X N/A YES NO ( ) (V� ( .) Is the notice attached? ( ) ( ( ) Do the Heading and Closing of Notice reflect City Council(and/or Redevelopment Agency)hearing? { ) { ( ) Are the date,day and time of the public hearing correct? ( ) (V� ( ) If an appeal, is the appeicant's name included in the notice? (v� ( ) ( ) If Coastal Development Permit,does the notice include appeal language? Is there an Environmental Status to be approved by Council? ( ) (V� Is a map attached for publication? ( ) ( ) (V� Is a larger ad required? Size Is the verification statement attached indicating the source and accuracy of the mailing list? Are the applicant's name and address part of the mailing labels? Are the appellant's name and address part of the mailing labels? { ( ) ( ) If Coastal Development Permit,is the Coastal Commission part of the mailing labels? (01 ( ) ( ) If Coastal Development Permit,are the Resident labels attached? (V� ( ) ( ) Is the33343 report attached? (Economic Development Dept. items only) Please complete the following: I. Minimum days from publication to hearing date I t/ 2. Number of times to be published 3. Number of days between publications fy A NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Monday, February 4, 2008, at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, the City Council will hold a public hearing on the following planning and zoning items: APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 07-002/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 07-039 (HUNTINGTON BEACH SENIOR CENTER) : Appellant: Mayor Cook Request: Appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of Environmental Impact Report No. 07-002 and Conditional Use Permit No. 07-039 to permit the construction and operation of an approximately 45,000 square foot senior recreation facility with greater than a 3-foot grade differential on a 5-acre site in Central Park. The environmental impact report analyzes the potential environmental impacts associated with implementation of the proposed project. Location: 18041 Goldenwest Street (5-acre site generally located southwest of the intersection of Goldenwest Street and Talbert Avenue) Project Planner: Jennifer Villasenor NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that EIR No. 07-002 is on file at the City of Huntington Beach Planning Department, 2000 Main Street, and is available for public inspection and comment by contacting the Planning Department, or by telephoning (714) 536-5271. ON FILE: A copy of the proposed request is on file in the Planning Department, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California 92648, for inspection by the public. A copy of the staff report will be available to interested parties at the City Clerk's Office on Thursday, January 31, 2008. ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit evidence for or against the application as outlined above. If you challenge the City Council's action in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to, the public hearing. If there are any further questions please call the Planning Department at 536-5271 and refer to the above items. Direct your written communications to the City Clerk Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street, 2nd Floor Huntington Beach, California 92648 (714) 536-5227 GALEGALS\CITY COUNCIL\2008\080204(Senior Center Appeal).DOC AMA`d-O�-008-6 uoi ngsui,p a/ 4 l 0 ;uawa6aey-3 ap sua5 ,w096S®,kH3AV IlAege6 ay zesimn wo:)-AjaAe,mm a alpal el zaIInsuo' EJA d 7Z dZ�.� V salad a salpel sailanbi13 Elizabeth Shier-Bumett Elizabeth hies Bumett Elizabeth Shier umett H. B. Planning Commission H. B. Plan ng Commission H. B. Planning mmission 1016 13th Street 1016 13th treet 1016 13th Str t Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington each CA 92648 Huntington Be CA 92648 Joe Shaw Joe Shaw Joe Shaw H. B. Planning Commission H. B. Planni g Commission H. B. Planning mmission 322 3rd Street 322 3rd Stre at 322 3rd Street Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington ach CA 92648 Huntington Be ch CA 92648 Fred Speaker Fred Speak r Fred Speaker c/o S&S Auto c/o S&S Au t c!o S&S Auto 2124.Main St., Unit 160 2124 Main S ., Unit 160 2124 Main St. Unit 160 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington ach CA 92648 Huntington B ach CA 92648 Devin Dwyer Devin Dwyer Devin Dwyer H. B. Planning Commission H. B. Piannin Commission . H. B. Planni Commission 310 22nd Street 310 22nd Str et 310 22nd St t Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington B ach CA 92648 Huntington each CA 92648 Blair Farley Blair Farley Blair Farley H. B. Planning Commission H. B. Plannini I Commission H. B. Plann ng Commission 4702 Madrid Way 4702 Madrid I Vay 4702 Madri Way Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 John Scandura John Scandu6i John Scan ura H. B. Planning Commission H. B. Plannin Commission H. B. Plan ing Commission 17492 Valeworth Circle 17492 Valero rth Circle 17492 Val worth Circle Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington B ach CA 92649 Huntingto Beach CA 92649 Tom Livengood Tom Livengo Tom Live good H. B. Planning Commission H. B. Plannin Commission H. B. PI a ning Commission 5461 Meadowlark 5461 Mead ark 5461 Me owlark Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Be ch CA 92649 Hunting Beach CA 92649 Elizabeth Shier-Bumett / Devin Dwyer John Sca ura B. Planning Commission H. B. Planning Commission H. B. Planning Commission 10 13th Street 310 22nd Street 17492 Va eworth Circle Hun gton Beach CA 92 Huntington Be ch CA 92648 Huntingt0 Beach CA 92649 Blair Farce Joe Shaw Tom Liven ood H. B. Plannin Co mission H. B. Planning mmission H. B. Plan ing Commission 4702 Madrid W 322 3rd Street 5461 Mea owlark Huntington ch A 92649 Huntington Be CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Fred S aker Blair Farley Joe Shaw c/o S Auto H. B. Planning mmission H_ B. Planni g Commission 2124/Main St., Unit 160 4702 Madrid Wa 322 3rd Str t Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Bea CA 92649 Huntington ch CA 92648 T T T wi096S 31VIdW31®�taany asn wi096SpaAH—RAV� , auc j m �(se3aac wadedpaa3, mot-/ ! issue uoinnaisw sac �s I EQ slage3 188d Ase3 E�X. t a?s �Hsct� SeeInstr 4jt, � eet ,for Easy e`'e� ea pure .0965 3� j MA �� }�t+�aj �s Vj ad a sa�i�e;sallanbit* California Coastal ConuYussion 25 Jon M. Archibald 32 Sally Graham 39 Theresa Henry Westminster School District Meadowlark Area South Coast Area Office 14121 Cedacwood Avenue 5161 Gelding Circle 200 Oceangate,loth Floor Westminster CA 92683 Huntington Beach,CA 92649 Long Beach,CA 92802-4302 California Coastal Commission 25 Stephen Ritter 33 Cheryle Browning 39 South Coast Area Office HB Union High School Disrict Meadowlark Area 200 Oceangate,loth Floor 10251 Yorktown Avenue 16771 Roosevelt Lane Long Beach,CA 92802-4302 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92649 Ryan P_Chamberlain 26 34 Hearthside Homes 40 Caltrans District 12 a 6 Executive Circle,Suite 250 3337 Michelson Drive,Suite 380 Irvine,CA 92614 Irvine,CA 92612-1699 c-7/'� Director 27 Goldenwest College 35 Bolsa Chica Land Trust 41 Local Solid Waste EnE Agy_ Attn: Fred Owens 5200 Warner Avenue,Ste. 108 O.C. Health Care Agency 15744 Goldenwest St Huntington Beach,CA 92649 P.O.Box 355 Huntington Beach CA 92647 Santa Ana,CA 92702 New Growth Coordinator 28 OC County Harbors,Beach 36 Bolsa Chica Land Trust 41 Huntington Beach Post Office and Parks Dept Evan Henry,President 6771 Warner Ave_ P.O. Box 4048 1812 Port Tiffin Place Huntington Beach,CA 92647 Santa Ana,CA 92702-4048 Newport Beach,CA 92660 Marc Ecker 29 Huntington Beach Mall 37 Ste Home Chai rson Fountain Valley Elem_School Dist Attn:Pat Rogers-Laude SEHB 17210 Oak Street 7777 Edinger Ave. #300 P_O_ Box 5 6 Fountain Valley CA 92708 Huntington Beach CA 92 ti 647 Huntington Be h,C 926 Dr.Gary Rutherford,Super. 30 Country View Estates HOA OC Sanitation District HB City Elementary School Dist Carrie Thomas 10844 Ellis Avenue 20451 Craimer Lane 6642 Trotter Drive Fountain Valley CA 92708 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 David Perry 30 Country View Estates HOA Eric Pendegraft,Plant Manager 42 HB City Elementary School Dist Gerald Chapman AES Huntington Beach,LLC 20451 Craimer Lane 6742 Shire Circle 21730 Newland Street Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92646 Richard Loy 42 Huntington Beach Girls Softball* 47 AYSO Region 56 47 9062 Kahului Drive Mike Erickson Huntington Beach CA 92646 P_O. Box 3943 Huntington Beach,CA 92605-3943 r I IC John Fly 42 AYSO Region 117 47 ` - 47 22102 Rockport Lane John Almanza i ! Hun n Beach CA 92646 9468 Cormorant Cr r CiYcec� Fountain Valley,CA 92708. ettes fadles b peter + Cons�ilt U ft965 31 sn iii fi�„� ajn ea ad Ase3 jo; jaded A U �+ Mh9 U U C40V4111sul aaS ® �� ° 1 ?t e3 UOI 103' aAB' 11" WA 'AM 10N CtiECKi(ST"B- M NMI t MAILING LABELS March 7,Z007:G: LiMsWPuMic. g President Huntington Harbor POA 10 Sue Johnson 16 H_B.Chamber of Commerce P.O- Box 791 19671 Quiet Bay Lane 19891 Beach Blvd-,Ste.140 Sunset Beach,CA 90742 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Dave Stefanides 2 William D_Holman �11 Orange County Assoc.of Realtors PLC V 25552 La Paz Road 19 Corporate Plaza Drive �tM Laguna Hills,CA 92653 Newport Beach CA 92660-7912 ' i C Ycec President 3 Jeffrey hk Oderman 12 18 Amigos De Botsa Chica RUTAN&TUCKER,LLP Society, Inc- P.Q Box 1563 611 Anton Blvd., 14d,Floor P_O, Box 10926 Huntington Beach,CA 92647 Costa Mesa CA 92626-1950 Costa Mesa,CA 92627 Attw Jane Gothold Sunset Beach Community Assoc. 4 Pres.,I-LB.Hist Society 13 Director 19 Pat Thies,President C/O Newland House Museum O.C. Ping_&Dev.Services Dept PO Box 215 19820 Beach Blvd_ P.O. Box 4048 Sunset Beach,CA 90742-0215 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Santa Ana,CA 927024048 President O Community Services Dept. ® Bryan Speegle 19 Huntington Beach Tomorrow Chairperson O.C. Resources&Develop.Mgt Dept. PO Box 865 Historical Resources Bd- P_O_ Box 4048 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Santa Ana,CA 927024048 Julie Vandeunost 6 Council on Aging Planning Director 20 BIA-OC 1706 Orange Ave. City of Costa Mesa 17744,%y Park Circle,#170 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 P_O_ Box 1200 Irvine CA 92614-4441 Costa Mesa,CA 92628-1200 Richard Spicer 7 Jeff Metzel 16 Planning Director 21 SCAG Seacliff HOA City of Fountain Valley 818 West 7th,12th Floor 19391 Shady Harbor Circle 10200 Slater Ave_ Los Angeles,CA 90017 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Fountain Valley,CA 92708 E.T_L Corral 100 8 John Roe 16 Planning Director 22 Mary Bell Seactiff HOA City of Newport Beach 20292 Eastwood Cir. 19382 Sud"e Lane P.O_ Box 1768 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beads,CA 92648 Newport Beads,CA 92663-8915 Craig Justice Lou Mannone 16 Planning Director 23 Environmental Board Chairman Seacliff HOA City of Westminster 8711 Squires Circle 19821 Ocean Bluff Circle 8200 Westminster Blvd. Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Westminster,CA 92683 V/-Mtoop Planning Director 24 Mary Lou Beckman 31 HB Hamptons HOA 38 City of Seal Beady Ocean View Elementary School Distaict Progressive Community Mgmt 211 Fight St 17200 Pinehurst Lane 27405 Puerta Real,#300 Seal Beach,CA 90740 Huntington Beach CA 92647 Mission Viejo,CA 92691 A2l3At/-09-008-L uoi:pnj}sui,p Iuawa6jey:)ap sua5 ,w096S®Ab3AV 11jege6 ai zasimn worAjane•MMM alpa;el zaIInsuo:) ® jalad a salpe;sallanbi13 Occupant Occupant Occupant 7051 Ellis Avenue, 926 7051 Ellis Avenue, 927 7051 Ellis Avenue, 928 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Occupant Occupant Occupant 7051 Ellis Avenue,#29 7051 Ellis Avenue, 930 7051 Ellis Avenue, #3 l Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Occupant Occupant Occupant 7051 Ellis Avenue, #32 7051 Ellis Avenue, #33 7051 Ellis Avenue, #34 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Occupant Occupant Occupant 7051 Ellis Avenue,#38 7051 Ellis Avenue, 939 7051 Ellis Avenue, #40 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Occupant Occupant Occupant 7051 Ellis Avenue,#35 7051 Ellis Avenue, #36 7051 Ellis Avenue, #37 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Occupant Occupant Occupant 7051 Ellis Avenue,#41 7051 Ellis Avenue, #42 7051 Ellis Avenue, #43 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 /=7,K' D - oo� T....nacc< �'a�.s�n U] T ajn}eaj laad Ase3 jo; jaded paa3T wi0965 31b'1dW31®IGant/asn AM3"-09-008-6 uo!:pnj;su!,p tuawa6aey�ap suas ,w096S®AI113AV I!jege6 al zasimn wog-Ajane'MAW a!!ma}e!zajln"suo:) ® jejed a selpe;sa;lanb!13 Occupant Occupant 7051 Ellis Avenue,#1 7051 Ellis Avenue, 944 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Occupant Occupant Occupant 7051 Ellis Avenue, #2 7051 Ellis Avenue,#3 7051 Ellis Avenue,#4 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Occupant Occupant Occupant 7051 Ellis Avenue, #5 7051 Ellis Avenue,#6 7051 Ellis Avenue, #7 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Occupant Occupant Occupant 7051 Ellis Avenue, #8 7051 Ellis Avenue,#9 7051 Ellis Avenue,#10 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Occupant Occupant Occupant 7051 Ellis Avenue,#11 7051 Ellis Avenue, #12 7051 Ellis Avenue,#13 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Occupant Occupant Occupant 7051 Ellis Avenue,#14 7051 Ellis Avenue, #15 7051 Ellis Avenue,#16 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Occupant Occupant Occupant 7051 Ellis Avenue, #17 7051 Ellis Avenue,#18 7051 Ellis Avenue, #19 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Occupant Occupant Occupant 7051 Ellis Avenue, #20 7051 Ellis Avenue,#21 7051 Ellis Avenue, #22 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Occupant Occupant Occupant 7051 Ellis Avenue, #23 7051 Ellis Avenue,#24 7051 Ellis Avenue,#25 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 - ';' 0600 T �� T ajnjeaj!aad Ase3 jot jaded p093PU wi096S 31t/1dW31 @Ajany ash ! w1096SnAMgA1�1�I/1 ! _____________.__._.___ corm' 1»A acne AMAV-09-008-L uo!;:)nj}su!,p ;uawa6jey:)ap sues "096s 0A83AV I!jege6 ai zesimn worAjane•mAw a!!!nal el zat!nsuo:) a ja!ad a salpe;sananb'13 John&Theresa Morello Amparo Buitrago Michael Ames 17322 Goldenwest St. 17302 Goldenwest St. 17332 Goldenwest St. Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Huntington Beach,CA 92647 Huntington Beach,CA 92647 Scott Peterson John& Martha Bergman Candy Richardson 17342 Goldenwest St. 17352 Goldenwest St. 17292 Goldenwest St. Huntington Beach,CA 92647 Huntington Beach,CA 92647 Huntington Beach,CA 92647 Occupant Occupant Occupant 17322 Goldenwest St. 17302 Goldenwest St. 17332 Goldenwest St. Huntington Beach,CA 92647 Huntington Beach,CA 92647 Huntington Beach,CA 92647 Occupant Occupant Occupant 17342 Goldenwest St. 17352 Goldenwest St. 17292 Goldenwest St. Huntington Beach,CA 92647 Huntington Beach,CA 92647 Huntington Beach,CA 92647 T T ain;ea3 lead Ase3 jol jaded paadT w1096S 31`dldW31 @Ajany ash wi096S®A213AAf��T//J i iaauc uninniisui aac ® — i slage-1 lead Ase3 AHMV-09-008-1 uorPnJISu!,p _ tuawa6je4:)ap sues ,w0965®AH3AV 4!aege6 a!zas!I!;n w03-A.1ane•mmm ap!nal el za}lnsuo:) � _�- jaled e sell,e;sananbl43 Eileen Murphy Marianne Huntley Dave Sullivan 201 21"Street 6521 Segovia Circle 4162 Windsor Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92647 Huntington Beach,CA 92649 Mindy White Patricia M. Goodman Larry Gallup 17762 Carranza Lane 18531 Bentley Lane 3776 Montego Drive Huntington Beach,CA 92647 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92649 Ralph Bauer Don Genet Bob Detloff 16511 Cotuit Circle 6751 Via Angelina Drive 6812 Laurelhurst Huntington Beach,CA 92649 Huntington Beach,CA 92647 Huntington Beach,CA 92647 Candace Bartsch. Juana Mueller Richard&Janed Sax 17772 Beach Blvd. 603 21s'Street 16322 Niantic Circle Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92649 Annette South Ethen Thacher Mark Bixby 19391 Mauna Lane 4100 MacArthur Blvd., Suite 200 17451 Hillgate Lane Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Newport Beach,CA 92660 Huntington Beach,CA 92649 Jim Bartel U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service CA Department of Fish and Game Jules Hooper 6010 Hidden Valley Road San ego, A Avenue 6822 Laurelhurst Carlsbad, CA 92009 San Diego, CA 92123 Huntington Beach,CA 92647 Christine Wilkes Don MacAllister Vic Leipzig P.O. Box 2404 1121 Park Street 17461 Skyline Lane Huntington Beach,CA 92649 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92647 Tony Brine Andrzej M. Podolak Guy Stivers 17882 Carranza Lane 6151 Palisade Dr. Stivers&Associates Huntington Beach,CA 92647 Huntington Beach, CA 92647 160 Centennial Way Tustin,CA 92780 Renee Brown Velda King Pat Kreamer 7221 Mission Glen#310 18111 Lakepoint Lane 18111 Lakepoint Lane Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92647 Huntington Beach,CA 92647 Mary Jo Baretich Tom Livengood 21752 Pacific Coast Highway,#23A 5461 Meadowlark Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92649 aantea3 lead Ase3 ao} jaded paa3� w10965 31`dldIN31®AaaAV asn T wi0965®AU �� T iaaus uo� ! P slagel lead Ase3 !!7 1�n��su�aas ® o AUMV-09-008-L uoipnjlsu!,p luauja6jeW)ap suag ,w096S pAM3A`d l!jege6 a!zas!1!ln wow Ajane-A&fV n a!pal el za4!nsuo:) v aa!ed a sa!pel sananb113 110-210-5 11-391-35 � 11-391-34 Triple w s s Nguyen Loc Van Louie Edmund H 5626 S tia Cany 18555 Garnet Ln 18565 Garnet Lane O n ,C 28694436 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-7003 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 159-393-24 110-210-41 Dubar T mas ou ey Lambert Family Trust Po B 126 6915 Steeplechase Cl Su et B ch, A 90742-1267 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-1569 aSh wi096S®J��J�/��� T aanleaj Pad Ase3 ao} jaded paaJT wi0965 31tl1dW31®l aany sea !L7 .. ; laa4S uo!lmilsul aaS ® v ; td_ slagel aad�(se3 AUAV-09-008-L uoi:Pnatsui,p - 41-—08 juawe6aey:)ap suaS ,w096S )AU3AV jyege6 a1 zasimn w0:)-AGane-AAmrn mina;el zajinsuo:) `c/�O jaiad a salpe;sa;lanbi13 159-381-07 .10-21044 10-210-43 Machado Robert R Sr Kahn Peter Chain-tie Tran James Viet 6812 Hitchingpost Ci 6936 Preakness Dr 6946 Preakness Dr Huntington Beach,CA 92648-1530 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-1568 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-1568 111-391-36 111-391-37 159-371-06 Corral John B Jr& Lee Ann C Isaacs Ivor P& Barbara J Okura Gary M& Frances T 7056 Ashley Dr 7046 Ashley Drive 6842 Hitchingpost Ci Huntington Beach,CA 92648-7002 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-1530 159-371-08 110-21046 110-21045 Holthaus Warren E Wolzinger Keith Barbisan Gerald A&Victoria 6862 Hitchingpost Circle 6896 Preakness Dr 6916 Preakness Dr Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-1567 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-1568 159-393- 110-210-40 110-210-42 Dubar om Cou ey Van Goethen Henry Fay William D Po ox 1 6891 Steeplechase Ci 6941 Steeplechase Ci nset, each, A 90742-1267 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-1570 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-1569 159-393-29 159-393-6 110-210-33 Dubar T Courtney Dubar om Court Y. Miraloma Capital Lie 6741 Shire Cir Po x 1 412 Olive Ave#235 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-1500 S nset ach, 90742-1267 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5142 159-393-58 159-393-57 159-3 -63 Dubar T mas y Dubar T in rtn Po B 1267 Po B 1267 Su et Be h,C 90742-1267 S set B ch,C 90742-1267 159-392tR/orat 13 110-210-54 159-3 71-02 Huntin Es s Triple Crown Estates Chung Sang&Kyoung 4431 s ve 5626 E Santiago Cany 6851 Hitchingpost Ci H , 9 250-1501 Orange;CA 92869-1436 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-1531 159-371-17 111-391-44 110-210-30 Ellis Ce I P Giambone Anthony&Elizabeth Thomas Linda L 505 P k A 7085 Ashley Dr 6741 Pimlico Cir Ne port eacXCA92662-1000, Huntington Beach,CA 92648-7001 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-1539 111-391-39 159-392-08 159-381-1 Goodman Dan&Charlene Rachels Talmadge Ray Ellis is tral 7035 Ashley Dr 6692 Carriage Cif 50 ark e Huntington Beach,CA 92648-7001 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-1501 ewpo Bea ,CA 92662-1000 110-210- 159-371-05 159-371-07 Triple rown tates Gilderman Alexander M Frampton Jon&Dena 562 S ago y 6822 Hitchingpost Ci 6852 Hitchingpost Ci O nge, A 9286 -1436 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-1530 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-1530 T T wan;eat�aad�tse3 ao; �� waded paa3T wi096S 31VIdW31 @AAanV asn wi096S®AU3AVn �r> i ,aanc nnninnun aac ® a ! , slagel laad Ase3 AH3AV-0"08-4 uolI:)nj;sul,p -� '/ —ADO jualua6jeya ap suaS ,w096S®AH3AV t!ae9eb al zaslmn I.uorAjane•MAW alpal el zallnsuo> --06— p salad a salpet sattanbiA 110-210-49 1 10-210-50 1 i 1 91-116 Juliano Maria&Angelo Contractor Rajesh& Usha R Sherwo Neighborhood 6895 Preakness Dr 6911 Preakness Dr 610 Newpo Center D Huntington Beach,CA 92648-1 5 1 5 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1566 Newport Beac ,CA 92660-6498 159-391-05 111-391-75 159-392-09 Central rk 8 Seagate Community Association Sanabria Jorge 505 k A 23 Corporate Plaza D 6681 Carriage Cir N rt eac ,CA 92662-1000 Newport Beach,CA 92660-7944 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-1 50 1 159-3 81-03 159-3 71-03 159-3 71-01 Davis Jeffrey V& Belinda Bliss Con Summers Michael S 6761 Hitchingpost Ci 6841 Hitchingpost Ci 6861 Hitchingpost Ci Huntington Beach,CA 92648-1529 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-1531 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-1 53 1 159-391-07 111-39143 111-39145 Peterson Thomas C Bogott Ross Walter Clay Kabana Charla C 6621 Silverspur Ln 7075 Ashley Dr 7095 Ashley Dr Huntington Beach,CA 92648-1521 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-7001 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-7001 110-210-51 159-393-14 159-393-1 - Robinson Scott E&Marelise Dubar T ourt ;unse ba oma ou y 6921 Preakness Dr Po 126 ox 1 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-1566 nset ac A 90742-1267 eac ,CA 90742-1267 159-393-1 159-392-12 159-3 71-20 Dubar ou ey Barlow Dean A Ellis C trat Par Po x 1 6651 Carriage Cir 50 ark S set each, A 90742-1267 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-1501 ewpo eac ,�A92662-1000 159-381-04 159-381-19 110-210-47 Dubar T C Ellis Cen P Huang Jay Qiang 6762 Hitchingpost Ci 505 P 6882 Preakness Drive Huntington Beach,CA 92648-1529 N po eac ,CA 92662-1000 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 159-392-07 111-391-78 159-3 71- Yeturu Gopal Reddy Sherwood Neighborhood,The As Elli tral P 6682 Carriage Cir 610 Newport Center D �504ark A Huntington Beach,CA 92648-1501 Newport Beach,CA 92660-6498 t each,CA 92662-1000 110-210-32 110-210-31 159-392-16 Caron Wade E&Tammera Lynn Stopnik Scott G&Julie Huntington Beach Estates 18556 Derby Cir 18542 Derby Cir 4431 W Rosecrans Ave Huntington Beach,CA 92648-1565 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1565 Hawthorne,CA 90250-1501 111-391-38 159-381-06 159-381-05 Hughes Richard A Jr&Mary E Foran Lorraine A&Alton P Lemburg Michael 7036 Ashley Dr 6792 Hitchingpost Ci 6772 Hitchingpost Circle Huntington Beach,CA 92648-7002 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-1529 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 T p2Q T ajn;eaj laad Ase3 jo; jaded paadT wi096S 31` IdW31®Ajany aSn wi096S®J�$� Vn i 'Iaauc unn'Innan sac — I Slaael la8A Ase7 AU3Ad-09-008-L uolI:)naisul,p a — �4-0�,00d' ;uawa6aey:)ap suas ,w096S®Aa3Ad}!aeQe6 al zasimn UJOY) ane-MA& n all!nal el zailnsuo:) d ? _.ppIZI ® salad a salpel sauanb!43 110-153-04 110-165-03 110-165-01 Derigo ie P is Wo3nilowicz Stan Reddi Yeturu Rama 807 ain 25545 Calle Becerra Po Box 3114 ntin n Beach,CA 92648-3416 Laguna Niguel, CA 92677 Huntington Beach,CA 92605-3114 110-151-�>7 110-163-16 110-152- Dubar TC rtney Dubar om T st Luo Y onPo B 12 Po x 1 19 2 nc nS set Be ,CA 42-L 267 nset each,CA 90742-1267 Huntington Beach,CA 92646-3651 110-152-0 ti 114-08 110-152-22 Luo Ye nne . S 163 Second Shenk Robert C 196 Cl cy Po Box 4 1735 Stanford Avenue tin on each,CA 92646-3651 Garden Gro CA 92842-4919 Menlo Park,CA 94025 159-381-16 159-391-52 159-393-56 Ellis Central Park Central k Dubar om rtney 505 Park Ave 505 rk e Po 12 Newport Beach,CA 92662-1000 port Beac ,CA 92662-1000 S set eac ,CA 90742-1267 159-392-11 15 92-14 159-392-10 Nguyen Thien Trang T Him on Beach Estates Krauss Robert L&Teri L 6661 Carriage Cir 4431 W R ecrans Ave 6671 Carriage Cir Huntington Beach,CA 92648-1501 Hawthorne, - 90250-1501 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-1 50 1 111-39146 111-391-47 111-391-48 Howes Family Trust Katayama.Victor&Julie Wu Chia jen 7105 Ashley Dr 7115 Ashley Dr 7125 Ashley Dr Huntington Beach,CA 92648-7000 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-7000 Huntington Beach,CA.92648-7000 111-391-49 110-210-52 110-210-53 Faulkner David C Pham Tuan Khai Nguyen William 7135 Ashley Dr 6931 Preakness Dr 6951 Preakness Dr Huntington Beach,CA 92648-7000 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-1566 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-1566 159-371-I 159-3 81-02 159-3 81-01 Ellis C tral ark Pai Aaron Leicht Chris& Linda 505 ark ve 6781 Hitchingpost Ci 6811 Hitchingpost CI wp Be ,CA 92662-1000 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-1529 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-1531 159-371-04 159-391-06 111-391 AO Layton Heather Central rk 8 Rutherford Garrett G&Lynda Po Box 3328 505 ark 7045 Ashley Dr Huntington Beach,CA 92605-3328 ewport eac ,CA 92662-1000 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-7001 111-391A 1 111-391-42 110-210-48 Le Linda.N Wakim Emile P&Sarah Nguyen Kim Anh T 7055 Ashley Dr 7065 Ashley Dr 6881 Preakness Dr Huntington Beach,CA 92648-7001 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-7001 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-1515 T wan}eaj laad�(se3 sot waded paajT wi096S 31`dldW31 @AJOAV asn wi096..A�I�A %f 1n%1 P"r��i 1 — __ I P� siaaen iaaa (sea AH3Ad-09-008-L uolpnatsuyp -A - 'J'0OV, ;uawa6aey:)ap suaS ,w0965 pJlN3AV}!aege6 al zasilan wo:)-Ajane•mmm al!!na;el zallnsuo:) Z�7/rg O 7 ja!ed a salpe;sauanb!13 110-184-04 t10-184-10 t65-355-19 Lee Hs' is & en H Kimball arl Guerre Christopher&Andrew 8 C aill 246 ran ' co 17872 San Leandro Ln wp Co t, CA 92657-0133 S. Fr Cisco,CA 94123-1815 Huntington Beach,CA 92647-6677 165-353-09 165-354-21 165-355-18 Jones Shawn&Sandra Barker S& D Family Trust Wexler Susan Jane 1001 H St 10911 Furlong Dr 17882 San Leandro Ln Centralia,WA 985314827 Santa Ana, CA 92705-2572 Huntington Beach,CA 92647-6677 165-354-22 110-152-14 110-164-15 Webber Joyce Ann Bailey William R Jr Blankenship Glendene 17871 San Leandro Ln 6296 Tecate Dr 2740 Oakvale Ave Huntington Beach,CA 92647-6639 Riverside,CA 925064536 Rosedale,VA 24280-3516 110-164-16 110-164-18 110-183-19 Tilton Kathryn C Scouller William C Maag James R 1509 Via Brisa Del L 8302 Indianapolis Av 32371 Alipaz St Trlr San Marcos,CA 92078-5272 Huntington Beach,CA 92646-5011 San Juan Capistrano,CA 926754146 165-353-08 165-353-10 165-354-20 Grosch Glenn&Sally Anne Karns Martin E& Maria Del So Davis Howard L 17881 Quintana Ln 17896 Carranza Ln 17891 San Leandro Lane Huntington Beach,CA 92647-6673 Huntington Beach,CA 92647-6664 Huntington Beach,CA 92647 165-345-10 165-353-04 165-353-03 Grove Darrin Jorgensen Norman G Hudson Majesta M 17841 Quintana Ln 17852 San Doval Lane 6622 Aracena Dr Huntington Beach,CA 92647-6673 Huntington Beach,CA 92647 Huntington Beach,CA 92647-6611 110-152-20 110-152-23 110-164-21 Bailey William R Jr Bemis Richard C B Derigo Lewie Paris 6296 Tecate Dr 2020 Terraza Pl. 807 Main St Riverside,CA 925064536 Fullerton,CA 92835 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-3416 110-184-17 110-184-16 165-353-07 Mc Quillen Betty Nril Inc Walker Timothy J&Janet L 3800 Boardwalk Blvd Po Box 2209 17871 Quintana Ln Sandusky,OH 44870-7033 Newport Beach,CA 92659-1509 Huntington Beach,CA 92647--6673 165-3 54-03 165-353-11 165-354-04 Di Laura Ronald D Anderson Donald G& Donna Maher Dean 17872 Quintana Ln 17892 Carranza Ln 17882 Quintana Ln Huntington Beach,CA 92647-6678 Huntington Beach,CA 92647-6664 Huntington Beach,CA 92647-6678 110-165-05 110-185-0 110-153-0 Duong Ky Ngoc Mcgo Ro Duon y 6155 Sultana Ave 426 Li ios D 61 Sul VveTemple City,CA 91780-1552 P m rt, 92211-0921 emple ity, 80-1552 T � T aan ea as �(se ao wade as TNJ w1096S 31VIdW31®Aaany ash w,ngtigrN AU=Avr,,rO-I } l 1 d 3 t d P 3 d — — uawa6je a sua ije e6 a zasi i A2J3A�d-09-008-L uol;�nj;sul,p ; y p S ,w0965®A2l3Atf;, q 1 1.}f1 wo:)v(jane-mmr,A alllna;el za;lnsuo:) �j4 07 _DD,:�L, V jalad a salpel sauanbi;3 165-354-23 t65-353-02 165-355-20 Yano Hiroshi Farrow Linda D Sedia Sandra L 17861 San Leandro Ln 6612 Aracena Dr 17862 San Leandro Ln Huntington Beach,CA 92647-6639 Huntington Beach,CA 92647-.6611 Huntington Beach,CA 92647-6677 165-354-02 165-353-06 110-162-06 Masuda Family Trust Beard Claire M Pack Dave R 17862 Quintana Ln 17861 Quintana Ln 9882 Verde Lomas Cir Huntington Beach, CA 92647-6678 Huntington Beach,CA 92647-6673 Villa Park,CA 92861-3126 110-162-05 1VCall 110-151-11 Pack Dave R L g ell en H Turman Gary Brian 9882 Verde Lomas Cir 8 Po Box 307 Villa Park,CA 92861-3126 Nast,CA 92657-0133 Crestline, CA 92325-0307 110-151-05 110/B3 15110 110-163-22 Dubar Thomas Courtney Tu a Raill Richard Allen Po Box 1267 Po 17100 Bear Valley Rd Sunset Beach,CA 90742-1267 CrA 2325-0307 Victorville,CA 92395-5852 110-182-03 110-163-13 110-181- Lee Hsi ian Che Dubar om st Dub o s C rtney 8 Ca �l(on Po 12 Po ox 67 Ne port oast, 92657-0133 set each,CA 90742-1267 unset Beac ,CA 90742-1267 165-347-05 110-163-17 1 -180-01 Burdette John M Buchanan Marquerite Pacific mer Oil Co Corp 17792 San Leandro Ln 800 S Brea Blvd Apt 30110 Cro Valley P Huntington Beach, CA 92647-6640 Brea,CA 92821-5369 Laguna Nigue , CA 92677-2043 110-182-11 165-345-12 165-346-08 Bemis Richard C B Tillman J Earl Sandusky Robert Lee 2020 Terraza Pl. 17821 Quintana Ln 17832 Quintana Ln Fullerton,CA 92835 Huntington Beach,CA 92647-6634 Huntington Beach,CA 92647-6635 110-152-01 110-164-12 110-164-11 Maag J Morton Harold C Rockwell Monida B 32371 Alipaz St Trlr Po Box 1267 939 36th St San Juan Capistrano,CA 926754146 Sunset Beach,CA 90742-1267 Ogden, UT 84403-1113 110-152-0 110-152-08 110-152-07 Lee Hs- si g& en Hsiu Olson Leonard W Harlin Leona 8 ail 56525 Hondo St Po Box 5255 vp Co CA 92657-0133 Yucca Valley,CA 92284-1633 Chula Vista,CA 91912-5255 110-164-06 110-152-04 110-164-07 Kimball Charles B Luo Yevonne Morton old 2460 Francisco St 19632 Clancy Ln Po B 1267 San Francisco,CA 94123-1815 Huntington Beach,CA 92646-3651 S set B ch, 90742-1267 T T ajn;ea3 laad Ase3 j01 jaded paa3T kQ w.L096S 31VldVY331 @)Ajany ash wi096S®AU3AV ® ! iaauc uon�nnsw aac ® s a el laad�(se3 A213AV-0>-008-t uolpnjIsul, d — �—SOD luawaWe W a sua q 1 P 4 P 5 �w0965®�213AV l.je e6 a zasl l}fl worAjane-nl►mm allina}el zallnsuo> /� D _�� ® jalad a salpel sananbl13 159-022-11 {59-011-26 159-022-06 Van Holt Karl A Lucian Richard L& Susan E Olson Matthew& Shelley 18021 Shoreview Cir 18041 Freshwater Cir Huntington Beach,CA 92648-1 124 18052 Shoreview Cir Huntington Beach,CA 92648-1 122 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-1124 159-011-28 159-011-06 Minniti Anthony C Harrison Edward Hogan Po Box 1862 18061 Westlake Cir Mackell MonicaM A Huntington Beach, CA 92647-1862 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-1130 8380 El Arroyo Dr Huntington Beach,CA 92647-7011 159-022-32 165-346-13 165-347-06 Kerwin William F Larsen Jon& Susan Fender Plyllis G 18081 Upperlake Cir 17811 San Leandro Ln 17812 San Leandro Ln Huntington Beach,CA 92648-1129 Huntington Beach,CA 92647-6676 Huntington Beach,CA 92647-6640 165-346-06 165-346-12 165-346-07 Hunt C Separate Prop Trust Dept Of Vets Affairs Of State Snyder David C 17812 Quintana Ln 17821 San Leandro Ln 17822 Quintana Ln Huntington Beach,CA 92647-6635 Huntington Beach,CA 92647-6676 Huntington Beach,CA 92647-6635 165-347-08 159-011-15 159-022-33 Bellino Gloria Saksa William R Gag[ione Judith D 17832 San Leandro Ln 18082 Freshwater Cir 6571 Lakeview Dr Huntington Beach,CA 92647-6640 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-1122 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-1131 165-346-11 - 165-345-11 159-011-31 Anderson William M Rhinehart Rodger W&C A Trus Snodgrass Clark C 17831 San Leandro Ln 17831 Quintana Ln 18091 Freshwater Cif Huntington Beach,CA 92647-6676 Huntington Beach,CA 92647-6634 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-1122 159-022-34 159-011-32 159-011-10 Colliflower Joyce Louise Monroe Nancy L Conley Eugene E 6561 Lakeview Dr 18101 Freshwater Cir 18101 Westlake Cir Huntington Beach,CA 92648-1131 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-1125 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-1114 165-345-09 165-347-09 t65-346-09 Mundine Kyung Hi Thomas Russell E Williams Charles&Janie 17842 San Doval Ln 17397 Santa Suzanne St. 17842 Quintana Ln Huntington Beach,CA 92647-6679 Fountain Valley,CA 92708-3301 Huntington Beach,CA 92647-6635 165-347-07 165-346-10 165-354-24 Miller Wray A&Mary Elizabet Barney Donald W Jr Rickard Darren 17822 San Leandro Ln 17841 San Leandro Ln 17851 San Leandro Ln Huntington Beach,CA 92647-6640 Huntington Beach,CA 92647-6676 Huntington Beach,CA 92647-6676 165-355-21 165-354-01 165-353-05 Miller Bonnie E Trust Narang Kama[K De Lachica Joseph E Jr&Jenn Po Box 1594 4321 Mountain Shadow 17851 Quintana Ln Sunset Beach,CA 90742-1594 Whittier,CA 90601-1723 Huntington Beach,CA 92647-6673 T �1 T aantead laad Ase3 ao; ® jaded paadT w.0965 3ltfldW31®�aany ash w..0965 a0AU�V 1v �I f 1 1 Slaa l laa.!ASe7 AN3AV-09-008-L uo!pnjtsu!, oZ —V—�DOda ;uauaa6je �a sua p y p S ,w0965®A213AV1!jege6 al zas!1!tn iuori(aane•MMM allmai el za}!nsuo:) Ems{ 0 0 p' jalad a salpe j sal4anb'13 159-022-16 .59-011-29 59-022-18 Dept Of Vets Affairs Of State Harmon Nicole Boozan Michael Robert 6601 Lakeview Dr 18071 Freshwater Cir Po Box 207 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-1123 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-1122 Bonsall,CA 92003-0207 159-01 l-30 159-011-27 159-011-17 Berresford Blake Quilico Living Trust Susskind Family Living Trust 18081 Freshwater Cir 18051 Freshwater Cir 18062 Freshwater Cir Huntington Beach,CA 92648-1122 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-1 1 22 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-1122 159-022-41 159-022-17 l 59-01 I-16 Getler Gary A Rawitzer Christopher W Campo Tonya A 18062 Westlake Cir 6591 Lakeview Dr 5311 Chadwick Drive Huntington Beach,CA 92648-1 l 30 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-1121 Huntington Beach,CA 92649 159-02240 159-022-39 159-011-14 Carlson Judi A Chiarenza John A Reaves Jimmie P 18072 Westlake Cir 18082 Westlake Circle 18092 Freshwater Cir Huntington Beach,CA 92648-1 1 30 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-1122 159-011-09 159-022-3 8 159-011-08 Muhs 1992 Partnership Susman John Kenneth Sandler David Joel&Sandra M 6921 Loyola Dr 1797 Peninsula PI 18081 Westlake Cir Huntington Beach,CA 926474055 Costa Mesa,CA 92627-4591 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-1 1 30. 159-011-13 159-022-37 165-3 55-09 Hessley Paula Hague& Michael De Moulin Diane Jennings Mark Stanley 18102 Freshwater Cir 16903 Prince Pine Ct 6711 Calpe Circle Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1118 Houston,TX 77059-3100 Huntington Beach,CA 92647 159-022-35 1597011-12 159-011-11 Oswald Victor M& Sharon L Hayes Ronald A Quinton Jack J 6551 Lakeview Dr 18112 Freshwater Cir 18111 Westlake Cir Huntington Beach,CA 92648-1 1 3 1 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-1 1 1 8 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-1114 159-022-36 165-355-04 165-355-05 Avalon Partnership Bailey James E 3rd Pedigo Jerry L Po Box 207 6642 Luciento Dr 6652 Luciento Dr Bonsall,CA 92003-0207 Huntington Beach,CA 92647-6632 Huntington Beach,CA 92647-6632 110-162-04 159-011-3 3 Miller John Scott Faust Gary&Maricela 159-01 Po Box 14 18111 Freshwater Cir Verdone Andrew J Bondurant,WY 82922-0014 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-1125 nti Freshwater Cir Huntington Beach,CA 92648-1122 159-011-02 159-022-26 159-022-24 Johnson Robert A Mc Cord Carey Linell Sunghera Gloria Delfina 18021 Westlake Cir 18021 Upperlake Cir 18012 Upperlake Cir Huntington Beach,CA 92648-1130 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-1129 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-1129 Y T ajnteal!aad Ase3 ao1 jaded paa3y w1096S 31` IdW31®/UanV ash w1096S®A� �� iaeuc uoivnjisui aat slage-t laad Ase3 A113AV-09-008-1 uo!13nj1su1,p � —�Z — 1uawa6je4:)ap suas ,w0965 GAM3AV I!jege6 al zas!1!;n wordJane•AnnnM all!na;el zatinsuo:) �/� D —D o� ® jalad a salpe;sad.}anb!;3 159-022-08 59-022-01 59-022-44 Isogawa Hirohisa&Kunie Garner Ronald J Simmons Kenneth D 18022 Shoreview Cir 18011 Cliffview Ln 209 Quail Creek Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1 1 24 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-1120 Greenville, SC 29615 159-011-25 159-011-20 159-011-21 Dobie Lori P Barrett John Michael Millar Jeffrey J& Ann-mane 18031 Freshwater Cir 17441 Lido Lane 18022 Freshwater Cir Huntington Beach,CA 92648-1122 Huntington Beach,CA 92647 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-1 1 22 159-022-25 159-022-23 159-022-27 Baecker James Ordibeheshti Jila Pittenger Bonnie 18011 Upperlake Cir 18022 Upperlake Cir 1026 Briarcliff Rd Huntington Beach,CA 92648-1 1 29 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-1 1 29 Monrovia, CA 91016-1704 159-022-22 159-022-07 159-022-04 Carruth Janae Messineo Jo Ann Griffin Charlene G 18843 San Felipe St 18042 Shoreview Cir 18051 Ctiffview Ln Fountain Valley,CA 92708-7400 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-1124 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-1 1 20 159-022-02 159-011-03 159-022-03 Iwamoto Earl lwao&Joyce Lyn Hansen Loren Peter Haaning Patricia M 18021 Cliffview Ln 500 38th St 18031 Ctiffview Ln Huntington Beach,CA 92648-1120 Newport Beach, CA 92663-3221 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-1120 159-022-12 159-011-19 159-011-04 Hale John Kramer White Allan R Madole Kent&Joy 18041 Shoreview Cir 18042 Freshwater Cir 18041 Westlake Cir Huntington Beach,CA 92648-1 1 24 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-1122 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-1130 159-02243 159-022-29 165-352-10 Leyva Manuel Summer Breeze Invest Llc Ward Raymond Eugene 18042 Westlake Cir 18051 Upperlake Cir 6581 Luciento Dr Huntington Beach,CA 92648-1130 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-1129 Huntington Beach,CA 92647-6630 165-352-12 159-022-13 159-022-31 Campbell Curtis D Hall Fred G& Sharon G Budna Debra Bernita 5862 Liege Dr 18051 Shoreview Cir 830 Casitas Ct Huntington Beach, CA 926494643 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-1124 San Luis Obispo,CA 934054727 159-022-28 159-022-21 159-022-05 Hjelmstrom Gordon F Rayburn Robert&Sue Ann Fee Frederick C&Jennifer 18041 Upperlake Cir 18052 Upperlake Cir 18062 Shoreview Cir Huntington Beach,CA 92648-1129 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-1129 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-1124 159-011-18 159-022-14 159-022-19 Turner Timothy P Nimmons Robert K Ganz H Thomas 18052 Freshwater Cir 18061 Shoreview Cir 6621 Beachview Dr Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1122 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-1124 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-2667 T T ajn}eaj laad I(se3 ao; jaded paajT w10965 3ltfldW31®tiaAV asn wi0965 11aa45 uoll-3misul aas slage3!aad Rse3 AM3AV-09-008-L uoi:pnalsui,p a —Z/ of" Iuaua96ae4:)ap suas ,w0965®A2l3AV 3±aege6 al zasimn worAjane'MMAA ap!nal el zaIinsuo:) p 3z—p0 salad a salpel sa;tanbil3 165-355-02 .65-355-03 159-011-05 Hines Jimmie S Ohshima Haruo Marden Family Trust 6612 Luciento Dr 6622 Luciento Dr 18051 Westlake Cir Huntington Beach,CA 92647-6632. Huntington Beach,CA 92647-6632 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-l 130 165-355-12 165-351-15 165-355-11 Whaling Joseph T Chang Ching Song Sanders Rip Allan&Sharlene 6732 Calpe Cir 9069 Mcbride River A 6962 Lawn Haven Dr Huntington Beach,CA 92647-6614 Fountain Valley,CA 92708-6405 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-2 1 2 1 165-355-06 159-022-30 159-022-15 Mc Carty Foster Matt&Lori A Biyth Sheila Anne Smith Daryl D 6662 Luciento Dr 18061 Upperlake Cir 6611 Lakeview Dr Huntington Beach,CA 92647-6632 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-1129 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-1123 159-022-42 165-355-07 165-351-16 Minniti Anthony C&Paula M De La Torre David&Lynette M Ross Thomas E&Kathleen L Po Box 1862 6672 Luciento Dr 6582 Luciento Dr Huntington Beach,CA 92647-1862 Huntington Beach,CA 92647-6632 Huntington Beach,CA 92647-6631 159-022-20 110-185-15 110-186-15 Miller Dennis David Mcgowen Roy E Huntington Beach Co 8614 Blue Bird Ave 42625 Liolios Dr Po Box 1392 Fountain Valley,CA 92708-6201 Palm Desert,CA 922 1 1-092 1 Bakersfield, CA 93302-1392 110-186-14 165-354-19 110-162-03 Harms Herman Grover Genevieve Miller John Scott 5655 116th Pl.Se 17901 San Leandro Ln Po Box 14 Bellevue, WA 98006-3711 Huntington Beach,CA 92647-6639 Bondurant, WY 82922-0014 110-186-16 - 159-011-24 159-011-23 Hughes Alice E Szekeresh Robert Gayler Margo L 18851 Stewart St 18021 Freshwater Cir 18011 Freshwater Cir Huntington Beach,CA 92648-1520 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-1122 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-1122 159-022-10 159-022-46 Wiese Koodrich Robert G Wiese 1-01 Greg J Raia Peter F 18011 Shoreview Circle 18012 Westlake Cir Huntington Beach,CA 92648-1130 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 1801 Westlake Cir Huntington Beach,CA 92648-1130 159-02245 165-352-15 165-355-16 Seastrom James W&Elena V Nelson Joan P Trust Luth Phillip A&Tracy R 18022 Westlake Cir 17911 Carranza Ln 17902 San Leandro Ln Huntington Beach,CA 92648-1130 Huntington Beach,CA 92647-6670 Huntington Beach,CA 92647-6677 165-354-07 165-355-15 159-022-09 Hales Jewel E Owens Margaret P Cook Edwin E 6671 Soria Cir 17912 San Leandro Ln 18012 Shoreview Cir Huntington Beach,CA 92647-6644 Huntington Beach,CA 92647-6677 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-1124 T aanteaj laad�se3 ao} jaded paa3 w,.096S 31VIdW31 a wand asn T w.L096S®A��J/e�© i 1 Y slagelaad Ase3 ;aagg uol�na;sui aaS ® - , 41 AH3"-09-008-t uor}:)najsul,p juawaWeLp ap suas ,w096S @AM3AV 1pege6 al zesinn WOXAJane•nnnnnn allmal el za}lnsuo:) 7 -D�o� ® salad a salpel saytanbl13 110-186-03 t10-186-04 110-186-07 Chirra Lakshmikantha Lee Hsi Hsiang&Chen H Poyyak Patricia G 13200 Dewey St 8 Cavaillon 3916 Cedar Bayou Dr Los Angeles,CA 90066-1 7 1 8 Newport Coast, CA 9265 7-0 1 3 3 Dallas,TX 75244-72 t 7 110-186-08 11 - 6-09 165-354-09 Obert Carl J&Alice M Johnson Gaffney William A&Treva 15271 Shasta Ln 3079 Maiden n 17912 Quintana Ln Huntington Beach,CA 92647-3024 Altadena,CA 9 1-1726 Huntington Beach,CA 92647-6669 ti 165-354-06 165-354-05 165-354-10 Imhoff Timothy A Walker Brian Bowers Curtis&Vee 6681 Soria Cir 6672 Soria Cir 17922 Quintana Ln Huntington Beach,CA 92647-6644 Huntington Beach,CA 92647-6644 Huntington Beach,CA 92647-6669 165-354-18 165-352-17 165-355-14 Sloan Michael D Trust Gomez David& Laura Collier Clark J& Betty J 17911 San Leandro Ln 6572 Colon Cir 6712 Calpe Cir Huntington Beach,CA 92647-6639 Huntington Beach,CA 92647-6667 Huntington Beach,CA 92647-6614 165-354-11 165-354-12 165-355-17 Williams Bryan Metteer Lillian E Angeloni Miriam K Trust 6621 Luciento Drive 6641 Luciento Dr 17892 San Leandro Ln Huntington Beach,CA 92647 Huntington Beach,CA 92647-6672 Huntington Beach,CA 92647-6677 165-3 52-16 16 5-3 54-08 Van Gorder James Dennis Erickson I E& Kenneth G 111-0 55 17891 Carranza Ln 17892 Quintana Ln Huntington Beach,CA 92647-6670 Huntington Beach,CA 92647-6669 165-352-14 165-354-13 165-355-13 Lockwood Doyle E Peterson James Walter Borostyankoi Frank 6421 Myrtle Drive 6651 Luciento Dr 6722 Calpe Or Huntington Beach,CA 92647 Huntington Beach,CA 92647-6672 Huntington Beach,CA 92647-6614 165-354-17 165-354-16 165-352-11 La Salle Brian D Velarde Dina B Brown Laurence A 17921 San Leandro Ln 6681 Luciento Dr 6591 Luciento Dr Huntington Beach,CA 92647-6639 Huntington Beach,CA 92647-6672 Huntington Beach,CA 92647-6630 165-352-13 165-3 54-14 165-354-15 Weber Richard R Gilbert Ronald J Smaw W H 7702 Joel Ave 6661 Luciento Dr 6671 Luciento Dr Stanton,CA 90680-3 1 1 7 Huntington Beach,CA 92647-6672 Huntington Beach,CA 92647-6672 165-355-10 165-355-08 165-355-01 Henderson Larry L Lepp Michael A& Deborah M Burton Diana L&Vernon Peter 6721 Calpe Cir 28855 Half Moon P1 6602 Luciento Dr Huntington Beach,CA 92647-6614 Santa Clarita,CA 91390-5276 Huntington Beach,CA 92647-6632 w10965 31t/1dW31®i(aany asn wi0965®� ��� stagel laad Kse3 ® T ain}eaj 18ad dse3 aol waded pa8JT jaagS uoit�natsul aa5 ® i NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING�� Huntington Beach Independent has been adjudged a newspaper of general BEFORE THE CITY COUNCILOF THE circulation in Huntington Beach and Orange County by Decree of the Superior (ITYOFHUNTINGTON Court of Orange County,State of California,under date of Aug. 24, 1994,case BEACH A50479. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIV-1 EN that on Monday,Feb- ruary 4, 2008, at 6:00' P11®® OF 1 p.m.'in the City Council Chambers, 2000 Main Street, Huntington P�J lvl�BLICATION Beach, the City Council' will hold a public hearing' I on the .following plan ning and zoning items: APPEAL OF THE PLAN- NING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF ENVIRON- STATE OF CALIFORNIA ), N OTAL O IMPACT 0 Y RT' CONDITIONAL USE PER-SS. I MIT NO. 07-039 (Hl1N-1 - I TINGTON BEACH SENIOR COUNTY OF ORANGE ) I CENTER Appellant: Mayor. Cook Request: Appeal of.the Planning Commission's ap- I am the Citizen of the United States and a Impact P,ea Environmental mpact port No. 07-002I resident of the County aforesaid; I am over and Conditional use Permit' r � No; 07-039 to,permit the the age of eighteen years and not a party of anction and operation , of an appioximately to or interested in the below entitled matter. recreation square foot senior recreation facility with I am a principal clerk of the HUNTINGTON greater than a 3-foot grade differential on a 5- site inBEACH INDEPENDENT, a newspaper of Therenvronmentalaimpact, general circulation, printed and published in report analyzes the poten- tial environmental impacts the Cityof Huntington Beach, Count of associated with i proposed g y !tation of the proposed Orange State of California and the (project. Location: 18041 Goldenwest Street (5-acre' attached Notice is a true and complete copy Site generally located southwest of the intersec- tionas was printed and published on the ;arid of lbertwest Street •and Talbert Avenue) following date(s): Project•Planner: Jennifer Villasenor NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that EIR No. 07-002 is on file at the City of Hunting-, ton Beach Planning De- partment, 2000 Main: Street, and is available for public inspection and com-i ment by contacting the i JANUARY 2 4, 2 0 0 8 Planning .Department, or by telephoning (714) 536- 5271. . I ON FILE: A copy of the proposed request is on file in the Planning Depart-, ment, 2000 Main Street,I Huntington Beach, Califor- �nia 92648, for inspection by the public.A copy of the staff report will be available to interested par- ties at the City Clerk's Office.on Thursday, Jan- uary 31,2008. 1 declare, under penalty of perjury, that the ALL INTERESTED PER- foregoing is true and correct. SONS are invited to attend ' said.hearing.and express opinions or submit evi- dence for or against the application as outlined above.if you challenge the Executed on J ANUARY 2 4 2 0 0 8 city Counc a action in court, you may be limited at Huntington Beach, California sues raising only someone ls- I sues you or someone else raised at the public hear- in,g described in this no- tice, or in written cor- respondence delivered to the City-, at, o prior tre the public hearinjn g. If there ® are any further questions please call the Planning Signature Department at 536 5271 and. refer to the above items. Direct your written communications to the City Clerk Joan L.Flynn,City Clerk City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street,2nd' Floor I Huntington Beach, California 92648 (714)536-5227 Published Huntington Beach independent Jan- uary 24,2008 014-276.I NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Huntington Beach Independent has been adjudged a newspaper of general BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL circulation in Huntington Beach and Orange County by Decree of the Superior OF-THE Court of Orange County,State of California,under date of Aug. 24, 1994,case CITY OFHUNTINGTON A50479. I BEACH NOTICE IS HEREBY GIV- EN that on Monday,Feb- ru ary.4,.2008, at 6:00. PROOF O1' p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 2000 Main Street ' Huntington PUBLICATION Beach, the City Council will hold a public hearing on the following plan- ning and zoning items: APPEAL OF THE PLAN- F A APPROVAL OF ENVIRON- MENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO . 07-002 j ) SS. CONDITIONAL USE PER- I MIT NO. 07-039 (HUN- COUNTY OF-ORANGE ) CENTER): BEACH SENIOR � CENTER): i Appellant:, Mayor Cook , Request: Appeal of the I Planning,Commission's ap i I am the Citizen of the United States and a 1 proval of Environmental ! Impact Report No.07-002 resident of the County aforesaid; I am over and Conditional Use Permit No. 07-039 to,permit the the age of eighteen years, and not a party j construction and operation { of an approximately to or interested in the below entitled matter. 45,000 square foot senior recreation, facility with am a principal clerk of the HUNTINGTON greater than a 3-foot i grade differential on a ! BEACH INDEPENDENT, a newspaper of 5-acre site in Central Parka The environmental'impact general circulation, printed and published in report analyzes the poten- tial-environmental impacts the City of Huntington Beach, County of associated with implemen I tation of the proposed Orange, State of California, and the Project. Location: 18041 Goldenwest Street (5-acre attached Notice is a true and complete copy site generally located southwest of the-intersec as was printed and published on the ; tion of Goldenwest Street; and Talbert Avenue) following date(s): Project Planner: Jennifer' Villasenor NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN' that EIR No. 07-002 is on' file at the City of Hunting- ton.Beach Planning De- partment, 2000 Main i Street, and is available for public inspection and com-! JANUARY 2 4 2 0 0 8 ment by contacting the; Planning Department; or by telephoning (714) 536 5271. ON FILE: A copy of the proposed request is.on file in the Planning, Depart- ment, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, Califor- nia 92648, for'inspection by the public. A copy of the staff report will be available to interested pare ties at the City' Clerk,s I declare, under u , that the Office,on Thursday, Tan-. P Y of P er J rY ALL 3INTEEft8 enalt STED PER- foregoing is true and correct. SONS are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or •submit 'evi- dence for or against the application .as outlined above.if you challenge the Executed on JANUARY 2 4 2 O O 8 City .Council's action in r court, you may be limited at Huntington Beach California to raising only these ls- � i sues you or someone else I raised at the public hear- ing described in this no- tice, or in written,cor-. respondence delivered to the City at, or prior to, the public hearing.:lf there are any further.,,questions Signature please call the Planning Department at 536-5271 and refer to .the above items. Direct your written communications .to the City Clerk Joan L.Flynn,City Clerk City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street,2nd ' Floor Huntington Beach, California 92648 (714):53675227 Published Huntington Beach Independent'Jan- I uary 24,2008 . 014-276 Esparza, Patty From: _merry j..k._ rnary.6mjk@hotmaiLcom] Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2008 10:29 AM To: Fikes, Cathy----._.._..__..._ _Subject: New Senior Center, Please! Good Morning Members of the City Council; The approval of the Conditional Use Permit and the Environmental Impact Reports documents, without conditions, pertaining to the new Senior Center is essential. This Senior Center was approved by the Huntington Beach voters to be built in the Central Park as a new home and comunity center for all. When I see the elderly with their walkers and wheel chairs trying to use the uphill cement access walk- ways to get to the inside of the building, and some have to hang on to the railings to pull themselves along, it is very sad. The park area is beautiful for us Seniors to take walks and enjoy the fresh air and wildlife. We want your approval, some day if your lucky, you too will be a Senior Citizen, wanting a lovely place to spend your days that can be pretty empty if you don't have a place to go. Blessings, Mary Kanaske Handy Crafters, Senior Center. Huntington Beach, CA. e/ .v/ J(,L-t.J/C�7_?d1i Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Maria Cal.lerio [logannana@soca-l.-rr.co m. ] d _._ "--------- P-- Sent: �onay, February 04, 2008 9:3 To: Fikes, Cathy Subject: new senior center Members pf the City Council; Please approve the conditional Use Permit and the Environmental Impact Report documents, without conditions, pertaining to the new Senior Center to be built in Central Park as approved by the voters of Huntington Beach We voted for and want a new Senior Center at that location. Maria B. Callerio 20502 Salt Air Cir HB 92646 2/5/2008 Esparza, Patty From: Jewell Chapman_DWpllchapman@verizon.net] Sent: nd MoFebruary 04, 2008 5:40 PM To: Fikes, Subject: Re: Senior's Center Members of the City Council: Please approve the Conditional Use Permit and the Environmental Impact Report documents, without conditions, pertaining to the new Senior Center to be built in Central Park as approved by the voters of Huntington Beach. We voted for and want a new Senior Center at that location. Jewell Chapman 19722 Matsonia Ln, HE, CA 92646 1�-- Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Sent: Monday, February 04, 2008 4:26 PM To: Fikes, Cathy Subject: Senior Center Please approve the Conditional Use Permit and the Environmental Impact Report documents, without conditions, pertaining to the new Senior Center to be built in Central Park as approved by the voters of Huntington Beach. We voted for and want a new Senior Center at that location. Carol Jean Faulkner 5432 Caliente Dr H B 92649 2/5/2008 Esparza, Pat#y From: julespgth@verizon.net Sent: _Monday.,_Fetirua_ry 04, 2008 4:12 PM�� To: Fikes, Cathy Subject: New Senior Center Members of the City Council Please approve the Conditional Use Permit and the Environmental Impact Report documents without conditions, pertaining to the new Senior Center to be built in Central Park as approved by the voters of Huntington Beach. We voted for and want a new Senior Center at that location. Thank You. Jules Hooper 6822 laurelhurst Dr. Huntington Beach r r 1 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: dione bronson [dionebronson@yahoo.com] Sent: Q,Tuesday, February 05, 2008 11.11 AM ~� To: Fikes, Cathy Subject: Plez approve Members of the City Council: I am an active Senior and go to Rogers senior Center often....we could sure use a better and larger place to"play" Please approve the Conditional Use Permit and the Environmental Impact Report documents, without conditions, pertaining to the new Senior Center to be built in Central park as approved by the voters of Huntington Beach. We voted for and want and also need desperately the new Senior Center at that location. Dione Bronson 7172 Ridge Glen Dr #103 Huntington Beach, CA. 92648 Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. r 2/5/2008 Esparza, Patty From: mary j.k. [mary6mjk@hotmail_corn]___ Sent: ay, February 05, 2008 10:29 AM To: Fikes, Cathy Subject: New Senior Center, Please! Good Morning Members of the City Council; The approval of the Conditional Use Permit and the Environmental Impact Reports documents, without conditions, pertaining to the new Senior Center is essential. This Senior Center was approved by the Huntington Beach voters to be built in the Central Park as a new home and comunity center for all. When I see the elderly with their walkers and wheel chairs trying to use the uphill cement access walk- ways to get to the inside of the building, and some have to hang on to the railings to pull themselves along, it is very sad. The park area is beautiful for us Seniors to take walks and enjoy the fresh air and wildlife. We want your approval, some day if your lucky, you too will be a Senior Citizen, wanting a lovely place to spend your days that can be pretty empty if you don't have a place to go. Blessings, Mary Kanaske Handy Crafters, Senior Center. Huntington Beach, CA. 6U (JIt)l Le 7) 1 Page 1 of 2 Esparza, Patty From: Dapkus, Pat Sent: Monday, February 04, 2008 9:05 AM To: City Clerk Agenda Cc: Van Dorn, Kay Subject: FW: OPPOSITION TO SENIOR CENTER PROPOSED LOCATION Pat bapkus (714) 536-5579 (714) 536-5233 (FAX) From: Mary Baretich [mailto:mjbaretich@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2008 10:14 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Subject: OPPOSITION TO SENIOR CENTER PROPOSED LOCATION Dear Members of the Council, Please oppose the Environmental Impact Report and Conditional Use Permit for the Senior Center that is proposed for the Central Park. The Quimby Act "in lieu' funds are being used improperly and possibly illegally. Park "in-lieu" fees through the Quimby Act cannot be used in a way that results in a net decrease in available parkland Melia-Roos funds will be used to pay for this Senior Center. The Community Facilities District will be the Pacific City area. Mella-Roos funds are to be used to finance services within the district that is paying the taxes. This is not the case here. The city needs to take the lead on building energy efficient and environmentally friendly structures. The city should recognize the value of this land. This center does none of these. As proposed, the structure resembles a sterile office building, totally out of character with the surrounding land use. The building needs to fit the contour of the land, and should be covered with grass to minimize its impact on the surrounding park, and leave the invaluable open space at the level of Goldenwest Street unchanged. It should have a LEED certification. The vote in 2006 was only an Advisory Vote and was lased on false voter information. Because the officials of the city need to set an example for the citizens of the community, you need to tighten the budget and not spend this excessive 23 plus million dollars on a building that is not urgently needed. There are other alternative sites to chose from, among them is the rebuilding of the Rogers Senior Center or the purchase (or lease) of Kettler School (or other school site). The Kettler School has been appraised at 8 plus million dollars. The school district just put in 3 million dollars of improvements. Quite a bargain at 35 thousand-plus square feet, for wog , L�? —e Page 2 of 2 on level ground and butting up to Edison Park...all pluses. Sincerely, Mary ]o Baretich 2/4/2008 Esparza, Patsy From: cbrac@dslextreme.com Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2008 10:24 AM To: Fikes, Cathy Subject: New Senior Members of the City Council; Please approve the Conditional Use Permit and the Environmental Impact Report documents, without conditions, pertaining to the new Senior Center to be built in Central Park as approved by the voters of Huntington Beach. As residents of Huntington Beach for over 34 years we have raised our family here and always had pride in the community and the services provided. We even participated in the excellent H.B. Police Academy program. After reaching our senior years we have enjoyed the programs in the existing center but consider the facility a disgrace. As you visit senior facilities in all the surrounding cities the difference is stark. Charles Brac Jean Brac 21362 Pinetree Ln. , Huntington Beach, 92646 1 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: JGBURKE@aol.com Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2008 10:06 AM To: Fikes, Cathy Subject: Support for the new Senior Center Members of the City Council; Please approve the Conditional Use Permit and the Environmental Impact Report documents, without conditions, pertaining to the new Senior Center to be built in Central Park as approved by the voters of Huntington Beach. We voted for and want a new Senior Center at that location. Jane Burke 21102 Poolside Land Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape in the new year. 1/31/2008 Page I of 1 Esparza, Patty From: possumsbus[possumsbus@yahoo.comi Sent: Monday, February 04, 2008 1:13 PM To: Fikes, Cathy Subject: Senior Center February 4, 2008 This is from FOUR voters. Members of the City Council; The voters of this city have spoken regarding the senior center and its location. It would be unconscionable to not approve the Conditional Use Permit and the Environmental Impact Report documents unconditionally. This needs your attention, your approval, and to be put into action as soon as possible for the GROWING number of voting seniors in this city. Thank you for your positive approach to this plan desired by the voters. Michael and Sandra Kistler 9942 Spinnaker Dr Huntington Beach, CA g l and Sherry CogginsHarbor Isle Lnton Beach, CA 7 Please be sure to vote in both the primary and the general elections. Your voice is your freedom. Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. 2/4/2008 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: David & Kathy Crafton [dkcrafton@verizon.net] Sent: Monday, February 04, 2008 12:31 PM To: Fikes, Cathy Subject: Senior Center Support Members of the City Council: Please approve the Conditional Use Permit and the Environmental Impact Report documents, without conditions, pertaining to the new Senior Center to be built in Central Park as approved by the voters of Huntington Beach. We voted for and want a new Senior Center at that location. Thank you. David and Kathy Crafton 16444 Bolsa Chica Street #94 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 2/4/2008 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Roberty O. Dettloff[rodettloff@socal.rr.com] Sent: Monday, February 04, 2008 11:54 AM To: Fikes, Cathy Subject: Senior Center CUP and EIR discussion Dear City Council members; Please vote to APPROVE the CUP and the EIR regarding the new Senior Center location in Central Park. The voters have approved the location in Central Park as a suitable use of park area. While we all wish to have as LEEDS Green a building as possible, please do not allow the design to be overly encumbered with "green" requirements"that reduce the amount of construction funds and design designated for Senior use facilities. The EIR has addressed the concerns of the neighboring homes with regard to light and noise intrusion. Remember, the current location of the Rodger's Senior Center is bounded on three sides,just across the street, by residential units. To my knowledge, there have been no complaints about excessive noise or light problems by the current"after hours" use of the facilities by outside groups. The location of the new Senior Center in Central Park will provide access to the park, to a number of senior residents, that is not currently available to them. This group of seniors are those seniors who do not have automobiles of their own or are handicapped and rely on the City's "Seniors On the Go" transportation to get them around Huntington Beach and other local areas. A Central Park location will provide them with access to the park, Shipley Nature Center, and other close by amenities that they currently do not have. Unfortunately, I will not be able to be at the Council meeting of the 4th at which the CUP and the EIR will be discussed. I will be setting up polling booths for two precincts for the election on the 5th. Sincerely; Robert O. Dettloff � e 2/4/2008 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Pafty From: NANCY DONAVEN [ndonaven@verizon.net] Sent: Monday, February 04, 2008 6:46 AM To: Fikes, Cathy Subject: Approval of Senior Center To the Members of the City Council: You have an opportunity this evening to undo the damage that the Planning Commission has done to our beautiful Central Park. Please vote against approval of the EIR and the CUP. This would be a disaster for our park. And I speak as one who volunteers at Shipley Nature Center regularly. It is difficult to imagine a more damaging type of use for the park. Sincerely, Nancy Donaven No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516/Virus Database: 269.19.19/1256-Release Date:2/2/2008 1:50 PM A)0)e-�-) 2/4/2008 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Fikes, Cathy Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2008 8:24 PM To: CITY COUNCIL; City Clerk Agenda; Cathy Green; Debbie Cook; Don Hansen; Gil Coerper; Jill Hardy; Keith Bohr Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Van Dorn, Kay Subject: FW: February 4, Council Agenda D-1 FYI From: DALE DUNN [mailto:elndalel@verizon.net] Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2008 5:37 PM To: Fikes, Cathy Subject: February 4, Council Agenda D-1 Mayor Debbie Cook and City Council: As a member of the New Senior Center Committee of the Huntington Beach Council on Aging, I wish to make the following points regarding Item D-1 on the February 4, agenda. 1. Recommendations from the Senior Center Committee have included our desire for a"Green"building from our very first meeting. 2. Members of our committee,and other local citizens,visited an outstanding example of a LEED certified building to gain a better understanding of what requirements are necessary to meet certain levels of certification. 3. Our committee requested that a LEED certified architect be a part of the building planning. 4. It is my belief the Planning Commission acted outside it's scope of authority in setting requirements for LEED certification. 5. Since the various levels of certification add significant costs to the project,approval of the EIR and CUP should not be burdened with onerous conditions. Please approve our proposed Huntington Beach Senior Center without additional conditions and delays. Dale L.Dunn 17302 Almelo Lane t C 7 /J 2/4/2008 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Flynn, Joan Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2008 5:06 PM To: 'CINDY EVANS' Cc: Fikes, Cathy; Dapkus; Pat; City Clerk Agenda Subject: RE: Senior Center Cindy, your email has been forwarded as requested and will be included in the late communication packet for the upcoming council meeting. Joan Flynn, City Clerk From: CINDY EVANS [mailto:cindylue5196@msn.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2008 4:34 PM To: Flynn, Joan Subject: Senior Center Could you please forward this to Mrs. Fikes for me. Somehow I have the wrong email address. Thanks. Members of the City Council; Please approve the Conditional Use Permit and the Environmental Impact Report documents, without conditions, pertaining to the new Senior Center to be built in Central Park as approved by the voters of Huntington Beach. We voted for and want a new Senior Center at that location. deliver meals on wheels out of the current senior center which is definitely too small and outdated. Having taken a class at the new Fountain Valley Senior Center, I can really appreciate the difference a large, new facility makes. Are we going to let FV outdo our great Surf City? I sure hope not. Cindy Evans 9312 Sunridge Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92646 C&ay Eva cin�Uie�51 nvbw.ctrvw A truly happy person is one who can enjoy the scenery on a detour. � /,V 1/31/2008 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Robin Garcia [Robing@Rescuedebts.com] Sent: Monday, February 04, 2008 7:59 AM To: Fikes, Cathy Subject: pertaining to the new Senior Center Importance: High Members of the City Council; My Name is Robin Garcia. I would request that you please approve the Conditional Use Permit and the Environmental Impact Report documents, without conditions, pertaining to the new Senior Center to be built in Central Park as approved by the voters of Huntington Beach. We voted for and want a new Senior Center at that location. Kindest Regards, Robin Garcia 19552 Ditmar Lane, Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Thank You, Robin Garcia 800-256-2000 Ext: 241 I'm that 1......Iuke 15 4 6-AI-k--6w/ -- 2/4/2008 Esparza, Patty From: Dapkus, Pat Sent: Monday, February 04, 2008 8:57 AM To: City Clerk Agenda; Van Dorn, Kay Subject: FW: Senior Center EIR and CUP Pat Dapkus (714) 536-5579 (714) 536-5233 (FAX) -----Original Message----- From: Tim Geddes [mailto:timgeddes@msn.com] Sent: Monday, February 04, 2008 1:08 AM To: CITY COUNCIL Subject: Senior Center EIR and CUP Dear Mayor Cook and HB City Council members, The City Council has a duty and a responsibility to closely review the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) regarding the siting of the proposed Senior Center in Central Park, and to reject them or condition them based upon the negative impacts found to affect this project. The Measure T vote did not deal with any negative impacts found in the EIR and CUP, and the public may have an entirely different and dissenting view when the facts are disclosed. There was and is no popular mandate for this project, but a thin majority based upon a flawed, inaccurate, and even deceptive measure rushed to and past our voters without exposure of all the pertinent facts. It is now time to face the facts that have been presented in both the EIR and the CUP, and to address the concerns of the public regarding them. I urge you to reject both the EIR and the CUP. Even Council members who support siting this project must realize that, at the minimum, conditions protecting the public interest are necessary and essential. A previous City Council majority rubberstamped the infamous the Sports Complex EIR and CUP without adequately exploring the problems, downsides, and costs. It was as horrible mistake as environmental expenses skyrocketed the cost of the project way beyond what the public was led to believe was necessary. Please do not make the same mistake. Please do not deceive the Huntington Beach public by pretending problems do not exist in your haste to approve what you perceive as a project with a noble goal. You would be doing our senior citizens a disservice by not diligently performing this investigation. Please remember that you represent all of the citizens of our city and not just those who are clamoring for their own self-interest. Sincerely, Tim Geddes 21802 Windsong Circle Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Connect and share in new ways with Windows Live. http: //www.windowslive.com/share.html?ocid=TXT TAGHM Wave2 sharelife 012008 Esparza, Patty From: Kathryn Goddard [kgoddard@csulb.edu] Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2008 10:14 AM To: Fikes, Cathy Subject: Senior Center Hi, Cathy - It is my understanding that you are responsible for getting the messages to members of the City Council regarding issues before them. I wish to register my support for the passage, without conditions, of the CUP and EIR as recommended by the Planning Commission for the Senior_ Center. The site and impact have been reviewed many times and the conclusion, in my opinion, is that we proceed with the development of the Senior Center as approved by the voters. Thank you, Kathryn E. Goddard 17087 Westport Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92649 i 1 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Jan Graff Dan-chuck@socal.rr.com] Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2008 10:51 AM To: Fikes, Cathy Members of the City Council, Please approve the Conditional Use Permit and the Environmental Impact Report documents, without conditions, pertaining to the new Senior Center to be built in Central Park as approved by the voters of Huntington Beach. We voted for and want a new Senior Center at that location. We have been residents since 1968 and support the building of the new Senior Center. Charles and Janice Graff 16191 Marjan Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92647 (714) 842-2423 1/31/2008 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Fikes, Cathy Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2008 5:28 PM To: CITY COUNCIL; City Clerk Agenda; Cathy Green; Debbie Cook; Don Hansen; Gil Coerper; Jill Hardy; Keith Bohr Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Van Dorn, Kay Subject: FW: Senior Center FYI From: CGriff1716@aol.com [mai Ito:CGriff1716@aol.com] Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2008 5:20 PM To: Fikes, Cathy Subject: Senior Center Please approve the Conditional Use Permit and the Environmental Impact Report documents, without conditions, pertaining to the new Senior Center to be built in Central Park as approved by the voters of Huntington Beach. We voted FOR and want a new Senior Center at that location. Thank You, Carol Griffith 16602 Patricia Lane Huntington Beach Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape in the new year. -77nlo 2/4/2008 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: lamkurd@aol.com Sent: Monday, February 04, 2008 12:05 PM To: Fikes, Cathy Subject: MEmberrs of the citty council; Please approve the conditional use permit and the environmental impact report documents, without conditions, pertaining to the new Senior center to be built in central park as approved by the voters of Huntington Beach. we voted for and want a new Senior Center at that location. Ezzat Heshemati 516 amber Dr Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Who's never won? Biggest Grammy Award surprises of all time on AOL Music. 2/4/2008 Esparza, Patty From: Betty Hickey[bjjhick3@earthlink.net] Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2008 2:05 PM To: Fikes, Cathy Subject: Senior Center Members of the City Council; I am requesting that you please approve the Conditional Use Permit and the Environmental Impact Report documents without conditions, Pertaining to the new Senior Center to be built in Central Park as approved by the voters of Huntington Reach. I voted for it and want a new Senior Center at that location. There is a desperate need for a larger facility to serve the senior population that is growing in Huntington Beach. Thank you for your consideration. Betty J Hickey 4182 Delphi Circle Huntington Beach 92649 1 Senior Center Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Cheri Hoffman [swballoons@verizon.net] Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2008 11:58 AM To: Fikes, Cathy Subject: Senior Center Members of the City Council; Please approve the Conditional Use Permit and the Environmental Impact Report documents, without conditions, pertaining to the new Senior Center to be built in Central Park as approved by the voters of Huntington Beach. We voted for and want a new Senior Center at that location. Please don't let the few change your mind for all of us who voted yes. Let's face the facts they didn't want Home Depot on Warner and Golden west and you can barely find a parking space because so many people are going there. Same thing for Wal mart. We need this senior center let it go thru without a million restrictions. Mr. & Mrs. Hoffman 17411 Jepsen Cir. Huntington Beach, CA 92647 2/4/2008 Esparza, Patty From: Laura [laholde@earthlink.net] Sent: Monday, February 04, 2008 8:53.AM To: CITY COUNCIL; Fikes, Cathy Subject: Senior Center Members of the City Council: Please DO NOT approve the Conditional Use Permit or the Environmental Impact Report documents pertaining to the new Senior Center. The voters were not given clear information during the election. If the people were given an opportunity to improve all the parks for all the people or spend the money on a "sports center" type boondoggle it would have never passed. Laura Holdenwhite 17982 Larcrest Circle Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Greetings ! Laura laholde@earthlink.net 1 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: MegaJoyce@aol.com Sent: Monday, February 04, 2008 9:24 AM To: Fikes, Cathy Subject: Senior Ctr The proposed center is bad idea top to bottom, please rethink. Sincerely, Joyce Hoskinson, resident since 1951. 509 8th St H B,92648 Biggest Grammy Award surprises of all time on AOL Music. (http://music.aol.com/grammys/pictures/never-won-a-grammy? NCID=aolcmp00300000002548) 2/4/2008 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Iadean00@aol.com Sent: Monday, February 04, 2008 8:57 AM To: Fikes, Cathy Subject: Senior Center Central Park Members of the City Council, As a Huntington Beach resident of over 30 years , please approve the Conditional Use Permit and the Environmental Impact Report documents, without conditions, pertaining to the new Senior Center to be built in Central Park as approved by the voters of Huntington Beach. We voted for and want a new Senior Center at that location. Thank you, LaDean Hughes Staff Alzheimer's Family Services Center, Huntington Beach More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail! 2/4/2008 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: surfcityjean@aol.com Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2008 1:52 PM To: Fikes, Cathy Subject: Fwd: Approving the New Senior Center -----Original Message----- From: surfcityjean@aol.com To: cfikes@sufcity-hb.org Sent: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 2:47 pm Subject: Approving the New Senior Center Members of the City Council: Please approve the Conditional Use Permit and the Environmental Impact Report documents, without conditions, pertaining to the new Senior Center to be built in Central Park as approved by the voters of Huntington Beach. We voted for and want a new Senior Center at that location. I have been supporting your city for over 40years. Sincerely, Jean A. Ingram 17652 Gainsford Lane Huntington Beach, Calif 92649 More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail! A/-, 6 - 1 1/31/2008 Page 1 of 1 iEsparza, Patty From: Jfk0480@aol.com Sent: Monday, February 04, 2008 9:37 AM To: CITY COUNCIL Subject: Senior Center Council. Central Park is not the place for a new senior center. To pay for a senior center with funds that should be ear marked for future park development and then on top of that to use park land to build it just does not make any sense. Please vote to uphold Mayor Cook's appeal. Thank you. Jack Kirkorn Who's never won? Biggest Grammy Award surprises of all time on AOL Music. 2/4/2008 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: possumsbus [possumsbus@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, February 04, 2008 1:13 PM To: Fikes, Cathy Subject: Senior Center February 4, 2008 This is from FOUR voters. Members of the City Council; The voters of this city have spoken regarding the senior center and its location. It would be unconscionable to not approve the Conditional Use Permit and the Environmental Impact Report documents unconditionally. This needs your attention, your approval, and to be put into action as soon as possible for the GROWING number of voting seniors in this city. Thank you for your positive approach to this plan desired by the voters. Michael and Sandra Kistler 9942 Spinnaker Dr Huntington Beach, CA Michael and Sherry Coggins 20202 Harbor Isle Ln Huntington Beach, CA Please be sure to vote in both the primary and the general elections. Your voice is your freedom. Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. 2/4/2008 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Don Klein [donklein1@mac.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2008 5:30 PM To: Fikes, Cathy Subject: Senior Center Members of the City Council: Please approve the Conditional Use Permit and the Environmental Impact Report documents, without conditions, pertaining to the new Senior Center to be built in Central Park as approved by the voters of Huntington Beach. We voted for and want a new Senior Center at that location. Our vote dhould count. Donald Klein Member Board of Directors Alzheimer's Family Services Center, Huntington Beach 0 4 - 1 1/31/2008 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Kim Kolpin [kkolpin@,socal.rr.com] Sent: Monday, February 04, 2008 11:03 AM To: Fikes, Cathy Subject: City Council meeting tonight Dear City Council, In regards to the public meeting scheduled for this evening, Monday, February 04, 2008, 1 must support Mayor Cook's position on the new senior center's location in Central Park. The park is one of the last remaining oases for Huntington Beach's wildlife, and another building with a large area for parking just eats away at the small habitat that the park does provide. Please reject the EIR; we do not need more concrete in our open spaces. There are plenty of places in this,city that would be grateful for redevelopment. A forward thinking council uses resources wisely, and does not build for the sake of building. Best regards, Kim Kolpin 5202 Edinger Avenue Huntington Beach, CA 92649 A 2/4/2008 Esparza, Patty From: Holly Kruger[holly@campbellrealtors.com] Sent: Monday, February 04, 2008 10:55 AM To: Fikes, Cathy Subject: Senior Center At a recent meeting of realtors, Mary Beth of the city' s Planning Dept. stated that: I) Only 250 of HB households have children 2) Our city population is aging Preparing for the active baby boomer seniors is essential for this community. The current center is beyond capacity and demand for senior services will continue to increase as our city population ages. The city has done a great deal for the children in our community across from the senior center location at the Sports Center and in other areas of the city. It' s time to focus on needs of the seniors who have helped to make HB a great place to live. Members of the City Council; Please approve the Conditional Use Permit and the Environmental Impact Report documents, without conditions, pertaining to the new Senior Center to be built in Central Park as approved by the voters of Huntington Beach. We voted for and want a new Senior Center at that location. Holly Kruger 706 14th St. , Huntington Beach Holly Kruger, REALTOR 714-815-2233 COLDWELL BANKER - Campbell Realtors 1720 Pacific Coast Hwy. , #101 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 714-536-5394 Fax holly@campbelirealtors.com I 1 Esparza, Patty From: Flynn, Joan Sent: Monday, February 04, 2008 12:39 PM To: City Clerk Agenda; Dapkus, Pat Subject: Fw: Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Environmental Impact Report No. 07-02 and Conditional Use Permit No. 07-039 (Huntington Beach Senior Center) Attachments: Ivy.gif; Ltr to HB Mayor& City Council 2 4 08 1122.0000.pdf Ivy.gif(6 KB) Ltr to HB Mayor& City Council... Joan L. Flynn, CMC Huntington Beach City Clerk ----- Original Message ----- From: Lynne Livingston <lynne@luch.com> To: Flynn, Joan Cc: lgeisse@aol.com <lgeisse@aol.com>; Mark C. Allen, III <mark@luch.com> Sent: Mon Feb 04 12:26:03 2008 Subject: Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Environmental Impact Report No. 07-02 and Conditional Use Permit No. 07-039 (Huntington Beach Senior Center) Attached is a letter from Mark C. Allen III. Lynne Livingston, Secretary to Susan Graham Lovelace and Mark C. Allen III This communication constitutes an electronic communication within the meaning of the Electronic Communications Act, 18 USC 2510, and its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender of this message. This communication may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient and receipt by anyone other than the intended recipient does not constitute loss of the confidential or privileged mature of the communication. Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact sender by return electronic mail and delete all copies of this communication. 1 iJ LAQUER, URBAN, CL.IFFORD & HODGE LLP ATTORNEYS PASADENA, CALIFORNIA MARK C. ALLEN III' 6700 E.PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY,SUITE 287 LAS VEGAS, NEVADA SUSAN GRAHAM LOVELACE LONG BEACH,CALIFORNIA 90803 BELLEVUE, WASHINGTON (562)430-4944 FAX(562)684-4548 www.luch.com FILE N c 1122.0000 RECEIVED FROM 0, AS PUBLIC RECORD FORXOUPCIbMEETING OF g � February 4, 2008 01 CLEF FFI JOAN L FLYNN,CITY CLERK Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Huntington Beach c/o Joan Flynn City Clerk 2000 Main St. Huntington Beach, CA 92648-2702 RE: Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Environmental Impact Report No. 07-02 and Conditional Use Permit No. 07-039 (Huntington Beach Senior Center) Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council: I represent Parks Legal Defense Fund, a non-profit organization dedicated to protecting parks and open spaces, particularly in Huntington Beach. This letter addresses the Staff Report and accompanying documents submitted on February 1, 2008. We will not attempt to provide a line by line analysis of the Report. Instead, this letter will address our primary concerns with the process by which the City has decided to address the referenced project. Overall, we believe that the City has badly misapprehended the relationship among various legal requirements, leading to a process that is seriously flawed. We do not believe the process would be viewed as legal by any California court. The Relationship Between Huntington Beach Charter Section 612 and CEQA As all of you are well aware, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that any project be preceded by an environmental review. Projects that might have significant adverse environmental impacts require a full Environmental Impact Report(EIR). The proposed Senior Center is a project that requires a full EIR. City Charter Section 612 requires most projects in City parks to be subject to a vote of the people before they are approved. City staff has decided to treat these two requirements as if they were fully independent—like separate check boxes on a list. Not so. The two requirements are interrelated. The public, no less than the City Council, must be informed of the environmental consequences of an action it must approve. Perforce, the environmental review completed before, rather than after, the vote is held. I do not think that this requirement is subject to dispute. The Supreme Court in Friends of 119970.1 Honorable Mayor and City Council February 4, 2008 Page 2 the Sierra Madre v. City of Sierra Madre (2001) 105 Cal.Rptr. 2d 214 found that removing historic designations from property by a vote of the people required prior environmental review. The result here is a particularly good example of why this requirement exists. Measure T, the only public vote, took place before any environmental review. The subsequent environmental review shows that the project will have significant adverse environmental impacts, and, moreover, that not building the project would be the"environmentally superior alternative." At best, the indication that an environmental review would take place prior to building the Senior Center was confusing to the voters, and at worst, downright misleading. A reasonable voter would surely think that the environmental review would show that there were no significant adverse environmental impacts by the project rather than, as is the case here, the project is being built in spite of the adverse environmental impacts. In short, the City will be in violation of both CEQA and its own City Charter if it fails to put this project to a vote after the environmental review. The Relationship Between the Availability of School Sites and the EIR On December 3, 2007, the Council approved analysis under the Naylor Act for the purpose of purchase of surplus school property. The City has an opportunity to obtain all, or portions of, school sites at greatly reduced costs. The analysis done by the City is interesting in a number of ways. First, it broke down recreational needs by areas in the City. This clearly indicates that the City analyzes recreational needs on an area-wide, rather than the citywide, basis. Second, the analysis did not include recreational needs for seniors. I can only think of two explanations for this. Either senior recreational needs are not considered to be the type of recreational needs that are appropriate for parks and recreational facilities, or even before approving the EIR, the City had made a preexisting commitment that any senior recreational facilities would be moved to the site at Central Park. This record belies the contention in the staff report here that recreational facilities are determined on a citywide basis. It also shows that the discussion of alternatives in the EIR is inadequate. While the subject of school sites is discussed in a perfunctory way in the EIR, the availability of the sites was "new information" which should have been included in the EIR. At page 13 of the Staff Report (Section 6), the City Council is asked to find (as it must under CEQA) that no significant new information (as defined by CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5) has been added to the EIR. This finding is true only because significant new information—the availability of the school sites—was excluded altogether. This is an error and a serious one. The entire EIR is undercut by the fact that the alternative analysis made false assumptions about alternative sites. The EIR needs to be revised and recirculated. The Relationship Between the Financing Mechanism and CEQA With private projects, the financial viability of the project is rarely a subject for CEQA analysis. Whether a private party is able to make a profit, or even if the project is financially viable is, generally, not a consideration for private projects. The issue is more complex in the case of public projects. While the funding mechanism itself is irrelevant to CEQA analysis, the feasibility of mitigation measures is one of the elements that determines whether an environmental analysis is legally defensible. 119970.1 Honorable Mayor and City Council February 4, 2008 Page 3 The record here is devoid of any meaningful financial analysis. The analysis assumes that funding will be available to build the project as conditioned and, that the project once built, will be financially viable with the conditions in place. Neither of these assumptions are supported by any data whatsoever in the record. The proposed Senior Center is essentially a combination banquet facility, meeting facility, health club and theater. If the project is not financially viable, the City would be financially compelled to eliminate or modify conditions to allow profitable commercial activities to take place on the site. Whether the limitations on use can be put in place at a reasonable cost is the very definition of feasibility under CEQA. Since the EIR only hopes that feasibility exists, rather than determining it, the EIR is inadequate. Relationship Between the Quimby Act and CEQA The Quimby Act is a section of the Subdivision Map Act that requires developers to provide parkland in connection with a new subdivision. The Act places certain restrictions on the amount of exaction that can be required and the provision for handling monies paid in lieu of providing actual land. Among these restrictions is the restriction that the monies must be used to benefit the particular subdivision. The City's enabling ordinance has a parallel requirement. The EIR presupposes that the funding mechanism for the Senior Center will be from the Pacific City Project from"Quimby in lieu" fees. The application of the fees is also addressed in the Pacific City EIR which specifically provided that in lieu fees paid by the developer would be used to provide recreational facilities relating to the subdivision. The Pacific City EIR contemplates that the adverse impacts on parks from the Pacific City Project would be offset by improvements to recreational facilities benefiting the subdivision. The staff has somehow transmogrified that requirement into a belief that as long as the money is spent someplace on some recreational facility benefiting somebody, it complies with both CEQA and the Quimby Act. Neither of these ideas is true. A large development, such as the Pacific City Project, creates significant local recreation burdens. This is the reason that the Act requires in the first instance that the developer provide land in the development itself to satisfy the obligation. The Quimby Act was never thought to create some sort of floating windfall for local agencies to spend as they please. Indeed, both the text and the legislative history of the Quimby Act, demonstrate a concern that the money not be used to fund anything other than parks for the subdivision, albeit with limited exceptions. By the way, the environmental review in the Pacific City EIR was not done based on a citywide analysis, but instead on the impact in the area of the project. This is further supported by the City's own behavior. The City calculates the in lieu fees based on the cost of the land in the area of the development, not a citywide average. Moreover, the City analyzes recreational needs based on specific areas of the City, not citywide. The Relationship Between Financial Analysis and Environmental Analysis CEQA requires a balancing of environmental costs and benefits. This EIR treats the parkland has having zero value. All other sites are treated valuable because they need to be acquired. This biases the analysis in favor of paving over parkland and building buildings on it. Neither the State of California nor the City have taken this position with respect to open space for other purposes. The City itself, for example, has demanded compensation for even the 119970.1 Honorable Mayor and City Council February 4, 2008 Page 4 temporary loss of beaches. Treating the park as valueless creates an invalid and unfair analysis of the cost and benefits of going forward with the proposed project. Loss of passive open space should itself be considered a significant adverse environmental impact and should call for a change in the City's General Plan. Parks are particularly vulnerable to well meaning, civic minded improvements that eliminate such spaces. The argument that"we already own it" will apply to every project that someone thinks ought to be placed in the park. We believe the Council should ask that the analysis be redone expressing some monetary value for passive open space. Conclusion We ask that the Council return this matter to staff to correct the deficiencies in the EIR. We incorporate by reference previous comments, both oral and written, as well as those comments of others. We remain available to discuss these matters both at the hearing and with any of you informally should you have any questions. Very truly yours, LAQUER, RBAN, CLIFFORD &HODGE LLP Mark C. Allen III MCA:ImI cc: Client(via email) Jennifer Villasenor(via email) 119970.1 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: P Mccrea [pmccrea@socal.rr.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2008 4:02 PM To: Fikes, Cathy Subject: H.B. SENIOR CENTER We are very much in favor of approving the new senior center without any restrictions. This city has waited too long to build a new one. Thank heavens it has been voted on, so let's build it soon. Thank you. Phil & Gayle McCrea 8822 Gallant Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92646-4626 (714) 963-4630 /Y) w,_ 1/31/2008 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Marli McGraw [marli@marlimcgraw.com] Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2008 11:17 AM To: Fikes, Cathy Subject: Seniors center, Central Park To Members of the City Council Please approve the Conditional Use Permit and the Environmental Impact Report documents, without conditions, pertaining to the new Senior Center to be built in Central Park as approved by the voters of Huntington Beach. We voted for and want a new Senior Center at that location. Marli McGraw 613 Alondra Drive, Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Marli McGraw, Realtor, a-PRO, SRES STAR Real Estate, Huntington Beach, CA 714-343-7633 Mobile MailTo:Marli(a-)MarliMcGraw.com http://www.MarliMcGraw.com me 'G 2/4/2008 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: MSMSON@aol.com Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2008 9:24 AM To: Fikes, Cathy Subject: senior center Members of the City Council; Please approve the Conditional Use Permit and the Environmental Impact Report documents, without conditions, pertaining to the new Senior Center to be built in Central Park as approved by the voters of Huntington Beach. We voted for and want a new Senior Center at that location. Donna Mason 19335 Brooktrail Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape. http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCI D=aolcmp0O300000002489 1/31/2008 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: JudyAnn Morris Oamorris189@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2008 5:26 PM To: Fikes, Cathy Subject: New Senior Center Please note that I am requesting that the City Council accepts the CUP and the EIR as passed by the Planning Commission. Please do not put such heavy costs and restrictions onto the plan so that it will be impossible to fund or build. The Citizens have voted for a New Senior Center to be built in Central Park and the Seniors of Huntington Beach deserve this facility. Thank You, Judy Ann Morris 21202 Cupar Lane HB, 92646 1/31/2008 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Dapkus, Pat Sent: Monday, February 04, 2008 9:07 AM To: City Clerk Agenda Cc: Van Dorn, Kay Subject: FW: Senior Center Pat bapkus (714) 536-5579 (714) 536-5233 (FAX) From: PARS11@aol.com [mailto:PARS11@aol.com] Sent: Monday, February 04, 2008 9:07 AM To: CITY COUNCIL Subject: Senior Center When the largest contingency of seniors is situated in S. E. Huntington Beach, directly across the street from a recently renovated, empty school, attached to a city park(Edison), the idea of building a monument to a few aging codgers seeking to memorialize themselves in stone to the tune of 22million dollars, is not prudent. The Bauer/Detloff Memorial has gone too far. Let their immortality be left to their genetic imprint they imparted to their children. I will. Merle Moshiri Who's never won? Biggest Grammy Award surprises of all time on AOL Music. �Z o� /3'1� 2/4/2008 i Jan 28,2008 Joan Flynn, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street, 2nd. Floor Huntington Beach, CA 92648 RE: EIR Report No 07-07-002 I am protesting the approval of the EIR for the following reasons. The fact that the Senior Center was voted on before the public had the true facts about this Center. Some of the misinformation. 1.The public was told none of the school sites were available. Actually 4 school sites were available. 2. We were told there wasn't enough room to build a center on the 17th and ®range street site. There is plenty of room for a two story adequate center with an above ground 2 story parking structure. 3.We were never told about the high water table. The water table is extremely high as the EIR shows and liquefaction is a potential problem. 4. Building on park lands is against the law and should never have been voted on without an EIR. 5.We were never told about the grade on the site. The grade is too extreme for a safe and useful Senior center. 6. We were assured the traffic wouldn't be a problem. The traffic for seniors looking for the center is an accident waiting to happen. 7. We were told how centrally this site was for the seniors to walk to the Library. The seniors walking to the Library is a pipe dream. 500 feet uphill from the entrance of the center to Coldenwest then walking across the street and down the hill and up the hill and across the entrance where cars are driving in and out with our books to return. Did anyone ever try to walk that who was a senior? The alternatives were never seriously explored in the EIR Please deny this EIR No.07-002 Respectfully, teen Murphy 201 21st Street HB CA 92648 — - Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Dapkus, Pat Sent: Monday, February 04, 2008 9:15 AM To: City Clerk Agenda Cc: Van Dorn, Kay Subject: FW: Please deny the senior center Item D on the agenda tonight Pat bapkus (714) 536-5579 (714) 536-5233 (FAX) From: Murphyeile@aol.com [mailto:Murphyeile@aol.com] Sent: Monday, February 04, 2008 7:54 AM To: CITY COUNCIL Subject: Please deny the senior center Item D on the agenda tonight This center should be built on one of the alternatives some of which we were told before the election were unavailable. Eileen Murphy 201 21st Street HB CA 92648 Who's never won? Biggest Grammy Award surprises of all time on AOL Music. 2/4/2008 FW: Senior Center Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Cheri Hoffman [swballoons@verizon.net] Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2008 12:02 PM To: Fikes, Cathy Subject: FW: Senior Center Subject: Senior Center Members of the City Council; Please approve the Conditional Use Permit and the Environmental Impact Report documents, without conditions, pertaining to the new Senior Center to be built in Central Park as approved by the voters of Huntington Beach. We voted for and want a new Senior Center at that location. I'm 91 and I know how important the senior centers are to us older people. Mrs. E. Peterson 8566 Fallbrook Cir Huntington Beach, CA 92646 2/4/2008 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Alan Ray [adray@csulb.edu] Sent: Monday, February 04, 2008 8:54 AM To: Fikes, Cathy Subject: No on Senior Center in Central Park Dear City Council: I urge you NOT to approve the Conditional Use Permit and the EIR documents pertaining to the proposed Senior Center in Central Park. While a new Senior Center is needed, Central Park is not the appropriate location. Instead of building on the little remaining open land in Huntington Beach, please consider alternatives such as the properties with vacant buildings (and good public transportation) along the Edinger corridor or other locations. Sincerely, Alan D. Ray 17322 Breda Ln Huntington Beach, CA 92649 alciray@verizon.net 2/4/2008 Glacier Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Fikes, Cathy Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2008 12:18 PM To: CITY COUNCIL; City Clerk Agenda; Cathy Green; Debbie Cook; Don Hansen; Gil Coerper; Jill Hardy; Keith Bohr Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Van Dorn, Kay Subject: FW: Approval of the EIR Report FYI From: carol [mailto:carolsettimo@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2008 8:33 PM To: Fikes, Cathy Subject: Approval of the EIR Report Good evening Members of the City Council, I would like to ask you please approve the conditional Use Permit and the EIR doc's without any conditions, if possible on Monday night. We need to get going on this project so that our Seniors can hang on to the hope they will get to use the new center before they pass on. Working with Seniors as a volunteer, I do hear this comment that they are afraid they will never get to see the new center because of unnecessary delays that can hold up the construction of this long needed project, voted on by the majority of our local citizens. Thank you. Carol Settimo 16542 Cooper Lane Huntington Beach Ca 92647 1/31/2008 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Mary Louise Shattuck[mshattuck@socal.rr.com] Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2008 7:00 AM To: Fikes, Cathy Subject: Approval of Senior Center Conditional Use Permit and Environmental Impact Report Documents Dear Cathy, Would you please forward my strong support of the approval of the Conditional Use Permit and the Environmental Impact Report documents to members of the City Council. Thank you! Members of the City Council: I urge you to approve the Conditional Use Permit and the Environmental Impact Report documents, without conditions, pertaining to the new Senior Center to be built in Central Park as approved by the voters of Huntington Beach. We voted for and want a new Senior Center at that location. Mary Louise Shattuck Vice-Chairman of the Board Alzheimer's Family Services Center Huntington Beach lo � 1/31/2008 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Phil Smith [rhino@socal.rr.com] Sent: Friday, February 01, 2008 5:55 PM To: Fikes, Cathy Cc: 'Roberty O. Dettloff; dsullivan@socal.rr.com Subject: New Senior Center Members of the City Council, Regarding the plans for the new senior center, please APPROVE the Conditional Use Permit and the Environmental Impact Report documents WITHOUT conditions. The majority of voters voted for and wants the new Senior Center to be built in Central Park. Thank you, Philip Smith 19552 Ditmar Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92646 No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516/Virus Database: 269.19.18/1255 -Release Date:2/l/2008 9:59 AM 2/4/2008 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: marion [mjsutton@socal.rr.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2008 4:51 AM To: Fikes, Cathy Subject: Fw: the new Senior Center Please approve the Conditional Use Permit and the Environmental Impact Report documents, without conditions, pertaining to the new Senior Center to be built in Central Park as approved by the voters of Huntington Beach. We voted for and want a new Senior Center at that location. -----Original Message----- From: marion To: cfikes surfcity-hb.org Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2008 4:47 AM Subject: the new Senior Center As a citizen for many years in Huntington Beach, I am very interested in the progress our community has been making and of course the old Senior Center is no longer representative of a fast growing and beautiful city. I'm sure that the area designated for our new center will be a perfect location, near the library and driving distance to the beach and I would like to commend you for your efforts in making this come true. As we know, the Seniors are an active,and growing group in every community,and especially in a lovely place on the beach. We do need this to go forward,and you have our continued support. Marion and Elliott Sutton m,isutton@socal.rr.com and if we can be of any help please call....714 968-3182 and our address is 21041 Red Jacket Circle 92646 �/ /0C,� 1,-50-T70/\J 2 1/31/2008 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Beverly Taylor[btaylor7399@verizon.net] Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2008 5:51 PM To: Fikes, Cathy Subject: new Senior center As a resident of Huntington Beach I am very much in favor of the new Senior Center. Living in the west side of the city it is hard to go to the down town center. I hope that the vote of the people will remain with the city council and the center will be built as planned. You have my vote for the new center. Beverly Taylor a 1/31/2008 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Edward Vackar[evackar@earthlink.net] Sent: Monday, February 04, 2008 9:26 AM To: Fikes, Cathy Subject: senior center To all city council members. am writing in opposition to approval of the documents to allow building of a senior center on park land. I am in the senior category and agree that a new center is needed--but we need to find a different location if the Rodger's Center cannot be expanded. If this issue were to be brought to a citywide vote again, with a fuller and more honest explanation, I feel that it would be rejected. Sincerely, Lois Vackar 6652 Bar Harbor Drive Huntington Beach, CA Edward Vackar evackar@earthlink.net 2/4/2008 Esparza, Patty From: Alfred Wrobel [awrobel@sprintmail.com] Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2008 5:23 PM To: Fikes, Cathy Subject: Senior Center We urge the City Council to approve the Conditional Use Permit and the Environmental Impact Report documents - without any conditions - relating to the voter approved New Senior Center in Central Park. We have lived in Huntington Beach since 1968 - and have been involved in the original bond drive for the Central Park - and we think it is excellent public policy to accommodate the growing needs of the senior population in this city. Al and Olga Wrobel 7091 Moonlight Circle Huntington Beach Alfred J. Wrobel awrobel@sprintmail.com 1 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Pafty From: Dapkus, Pat Sent: Monday, February 04, 2008 2:45 PM To: City Clerk Agenda Cc: Van Dorn, Kay Subject: FW: Sr. Center- Please Oppose Site Pat bapkus (714) 536-5579 (714) 536-5233 (FAX) From: Pat Goodman [mailto:patgoodman@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, February 04, 2008 12:30 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Fikes, Cathy Subject: Sr. Center - Please Oppose Site Dear Mayor Cook and City Council Members, I ask that you please deny the Conditional Use Permit the Environmental Impact Report for the construction of the senior/community center. I don't think that anyone denies the need for a new senior/community center the opposition comes form the proposed location. It seems to me there are several reasons to oppose this project. It does not make sense to build on the proposed site as the city becomes more densely populated open space is more in demand. Pacific City property owners will be funding this project for which they receive little or no benefit; they may pursue litigation to clear them from paying Mello Roos fees. There are also aesthetic, traffic and safety concerns with the proposed site. It may be legal to build on the proposed site but City Council needs to ask the question is it morally correct to jeopardize open park space for future generations. What is the good for all of Huntington Beach? Sincerely, Patricia Goodman 18531 Bentley Ln. Huntington Beach, CA 92648 C, ! 0 > L Pat Goodman T Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage. 2/4/2008 Page 1 of 1 Dapkus, Pat _.._.._.. , .. ___ __ _._------ m_ ._.__. _.... _..........._ ..........._......... ..,.__ ....___.............___.._.___.___ _ .m _..._............ _ From: Chad Holcomb- RE/MAX[chad repro @yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, February 04,2008 1:51 PM To: Fikes, Cathy Subject: Attention City council-- Senior center Members of the City Council; Please approve the Conditional Use Permit and the Environmental Impact Report documents, without conditions, pertaining to the new Senior Center to be built in Central Park as approved ----------------------------- by the voters of Huntington Beach . We voted for and want a new Senior Center at that location. Chad Holcomb 740.2 Coho Dr #1.05 HB, CA 92648 Regards, Chad Holcomb 2/4/2008 Page 1 of 1 Dapkus, Pat From: Alexa McMahan [irishlady86@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, February 04, 2008 2:19 PM To: Fikes, Cathy Subject: SUPPORT appeal of EIR.& CUP for Proposed Senior Center TO: Huntington Beach City Council Members: Mayor Debbie Cook, Jill Hardy, Keith.Bohr,Gil Coerper, Cathy Green, Don Hanson and Joe Carchio FROM: Michael McMahan 4892 Maui Circle Huntington Beach, CA 92649 DATE: Feb. 4, 2008 Dear Mayor Cook and Council Members, I urge you support the appeals to the EIR and CUP for the proposed Senior Center. This multimillion dollar project should be more carefully studied before moving forward. Any and all extra costs should be known, upfront, before final plans are made. The Sports Center became a financial nightmare due to lack of qualified information. Fiscal responsibility is your duty to ALL tax paying citizens of Huntington Beach. Please do not move forward with this Senior Center project without considering all possible consequences. Thank You, Michael McMahan Never miss,a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage. 1 � 1 2/4/2008 RECEIVED FROM AS PUBLIC RECOOF RD °O MEF INC CITY CLE O ICE JOAN L.FLYNN,CITY CLERK PROPOSED CENTRAL PARK CENTER CITY COUNCIL FEB. 4, 2008 PARKS LEGAL DEFENSE The Vote Shall a centrally located senior center building, not to exceed 47,000 square feet,be placed on a maximum of five acres of an undeveloped 14- acre parcel in the 356-acre Huntington Beach Central Park,generally located west of the intersection of Goldenwest Street and Talbert Avenue,between the disc golf course and Shipley Nature Center,following City Council approval of all entitlements and environmental review? The Vote Shall a centrally located senior center building, not to exceed 47,000 square feet,be placed on a maximum of five acres of an undeveloped 14- acre parcel in the 356-acre Huntington Beach Central Park,generally located west of the intersection of Goldenwest Street and Talbert Avenue,between the disc golf course and Shipley Nature Center,following City Council approval of all entitlements and environmental review? 1 The Vote Shall a centrally located senior center building, not to exceed 47,000 square feet, be placed on a maximum of five acres of an undeveloped 14- acre parcel in the 356-acre Huntington Beach Central Park,generally located west of the intersection of Goldenwest Street and Talbert Avenue,between the disc golf course and Shipley Nature Center,following City Council approval of all entitlements and environmental review? The Vote Shall a centrally located senior center building, not to exceed 47,000 square feet,be placed on a maximum of five acres of an undeveloped 14- acre parcel in the 356-acre Huntington Beach Central Park,generally located west of the intersection of Goldenwest Street and Talbert Avenue,between the disc golf course and Shipley Nature Center,following City Council approval of all entitlements and environmental review? The Vote Shall a centrally located senior center building, not to exceed 47,000 square feet, be placed on a maximum of five acres of an undeveloped 14- acre parcel in the 356-acre Huntington Beach Central Park,generally located west of the intersection of Goldenwest Street and Talbert Avenue,between the disc golf course and Shipley Nature Center,following City Council approval of all entitlements and environmental review even if serious environmental issues are discovered? 2 The Vote Shall a centrally located senior center building, not�I to exceed 47,000 square feet,be placed on a rig OThe voters never approved this project 1 4- aCr OThe voters have a legal right to know what (1 CeJ the impacts are before they vote Int(OThe project cannot go forward without a t 'vote Avtnuc,-vcrvve=rr CHU Shipley Nature Center,following City Council approval of all entitlements and environmental review? The Dope The EIR"hopes"that the mitigation measures will be feasible The proponents"hope"the funding will be there The Hope The EIR"hopes" that the mitigation measures will be feasible The proponents"hope"the funding will be there Nothing in the record supports either hope! 3 The Hope Proponents"hope"the funding will be there • The Pacific City cannot fund the Senior Center • Even if it could,not guarantee the money will be there The Hope z Proponents"hope'the funding will be there • The Pacific City cannot fund the Senior Center • Even if it could, not guarantee the money will be there The Hoax The path the City is on will not lead to a Senior Center ❑Hoped-for funds will not be there to build; ❑Even if the fund are there,the operational realities may force the City to use the Center for other,more profitable,uses. 4 TIE HELP • FOUR SCHOOLS SITES • PURCHASE(PARTIAL)APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON DEC. 3 • SENIOR SERVICES PROVIDED • CHEAPER • NO IMPACT ON PARK CONCLUSION • COUNCIL SHOULD UPHOLD THE APPEAL • STAFF SHOULD READDRESS -FINANCIAL ISSUES -ALTERNATIVE USE OF THE FOUR SCHOOL PROPERTIES(OR PORTIONS)THE CTIY HAS ALREADY AGREED TO PURCHASE • NEEDS ANOTHER VOTE 5 PROPOSED CENTRAL PARK CENTER CUP CITY COUNCIL FEB. 4, 2008 PARKS LEGAL DEFENSE The Project Ina The senior center will include multi-purpose rooms/community hall,group exercise room,fitness room,arts/crafts room,mufti-use classrooms,kitchen, dance room,lobby,administrative area,outdoor patio,and outdoor recreation/activity area.Approximately 200 parking spaces will be provided for visitors and City vehicles. The Zoning OS-PR Zone Allows Facilities with a CUP: "Noncommercial parks, playgrounds, recreational facilities, and open spaces" [Chap 204.08 N] 1 k Comparing Zoning with the Project "Noncommercial . . . recreational facilities, and open spaces" community hall group exercise room, fitness room multi-use classrooms Kitchen dance room administrative area Comparing Zoning with the Project "Noncommercial . . . recreational facilities, and open spaces" community hall =club group exercise room,fitness room multi-use classrooms Kitchen dance room administrative area Comparing Zoning with the Project "Noncommercial . . . recreational facilities, and open spaces" community hall =club [Chap. 204.08 B] group exercise room,fitness room multi-use classrooms Kitchen dance room administrative area 2 Comparing Zoning with the Project "Noncommercial.. .recreational facilities,and open spaces" community hall=club[Chap.204.08 B] group exercise room,fitness room=health clubs [Chap.204.08 H] multi-use classrooms Kitchen dance room administrative area Comparing Zoning with the Project "Noncommercial...recreational facilities,and open spaces" community hall=club[Chap.204.08 B] group exercise room,fitness room=health clubs [Chap.204.08 H] multi-use classrooms=school[Chap.204.08 Q] Kitchen dance room administrative area Comparing Zoning with the Project "Noncommercial. . .recreational facilities,and open spaces" community hall=club[Chap.204.08 B] group exercise room,fitness room;=health dubs [Chap.204.08 H] multi-use classrooms=school[Chap.204.08 Q] Kitchen=eating and drinking establishment [Chap.204.08 J.2] dance room administrative area 3 Comparing Zoning with the Project "Noncommercial. . .recreational facilities,and open spaces" community hall=club[Chap.204.08 B] group exercise room,fitness room=health clubs [Chap.204.08 H] multi-use classrooms=school[Chap.204.08 Q] Kitchen=eating and drinking establishment [Chap.204.08 J.2] dance room;commercial and recreational entertainment[Chap.204.08 H] administrative area Comparing Zoning with the Project "Noncommercial. . .recreational facilities,and open spaces' community hall=club[Chap.204.08 B] group exercise room,fitness room=health clubs [Chap.204.08 H] multi-use classrooms=school[Chap.204.08 Q] Kitchen=eatingg and drinking establishment [Chap.204.08 J.2.] dance room=commercial and recreational entertainment[Chap.204.08 H] administrative area=Gov't offices[Chap.204.081] Compare Zoning v. Project Summary: Uses are not compatible with current zoning 4 8 Compare Zoning va Project Summary: Uses are not compatible with current zoning Rezoning and amendment of GP required 5