The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPublic Hearing to Consider Appeal Filed by Charles G. Ball o j., & CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK July 29, 2004 Business Properties Development Company Attn: Charles G. Ball 17631 Fitch Irvine, CA 92614 Re: NOTICE OF FINAL ACTION Dear Mr. Ball: The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at its regular meeting held Monday, July 19, 2004 took action on the following Public Hearing Appeal: Public Hearing to Consider Appeal Filed by Charles G. Ball of the Planning Commission's Approval of Application Filed by John Warren of Conditional Use Permit No. 03-35 (Target Department Store Demolition and Rebuild) Located at 9882 Adams Avenue (s/w Corner of Brookhurst Street and Adams Avenue) The City Council upheld the Planning Commission decision of approval. As part of their approval Council amended the.condition to reduce the number of compact parking spaces to the.greatest extent feasible and relocate any remaining compact spaces to remote areas on the lot. The Action Agenda and amended Findings and Conditions of Approval are enclosed. The July 19, 2004 minutes of the approval of the appeal will be mailed to you following Council approval of the minutes. This is a final decision. You are hereby notified that pursuant to provisions of Section 1094.6 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the State of California you have ninety days from July 19, 2004 to apply to the court for judicial review. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact my office at (714) 536- 5227. Sincerely,: Joan L. Flynn City Clerk Enclosure: Government Code 1094.6 Amended Suggested Findings and Conditions for Approval Action Agenda Pages 8-9 cc: Penelope Culbreth-Graft,City Administrator Jennifer McGrath,City Attorney Howard Zelefsky,Planning Director Herb Fauland,Principal Planner Paul DaVeiga,Associate Planner (Telephone:714.536.5227) jaCITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK JOAN L. FLYNN CITY.CLERK.: - September 30, 2004 John Warren, Pacific Land Services 2151 Salvio St. Ste, 250 Concord, CA 94520 Dear Mr. Warren: Please find enclosed the July 19, 2004 minutes of the regular meetings of the City of Huntington Beach City Council/Redevelopment Agency at which there was action taken regarding the following: _Public Hearing to Consider Appeal Filed by Charles G. Ball of the Planning Commission's Approval of Application (Consistent with the General Plan) Filed by John Warren of . .... ,. Conditional Use Permit No. 03-35 (Target Department Store Demolition and Rebuild). .. Located at 9882'Adams Avenue (s/w Cother-of Brookhur8t Street:and Adams Avenue) Sincerely, Joan L. Flynn City Clerk Enclosure g:/followup/appeal/minute letter 2002.doc (Telephone:714-536-5227) Regular Minutes City Council/Redevelopment Agency City of Huntington Beach Monday, July 19, 2004 S:0 P:M;- Room B=8 .7.00 P:M. Council Chambers Civic Center, 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California 92648 An audiotape of the 5:00 p.m. portion of this meeting and a videotape of the 7:00 p.m. portion of this meeting are on file in the Office of the City Clerk. Call to Order Mayor Green called the regular meetings of the City Council/Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach to order at 5:00 p.m. in Room B-8. City Council/Redevelopment Agency Meeting Roll Call Present: Sullivan, Coerper, Hardy, Green, Boardman, Cook, (Houchen arrived at 5:10 p.m.) Absent: None Public Comments Elmer Smith spoke conceming the�mobile home park he lives in and the purchase by"land developers. In-his opinion, the conversion ordinance is beneficial if fair market value is included: Jim Barker, member of Huntington Beach Mobile Home Owners Association, voiced his concerns regarding the current residents of mobile home parks. He urged Council for fair and reasonable compensation for relocation. Al Caraccia asked Council for assistance with a conversion ordinance with consideration to the residents. Steve Gullage informed Council that the City of Carson's conversion ordinance includes"in place"value. Mr. Gullage urged Council to study and accept his amended version of the ordinance. Barbara.Boskovich reviewed the role of the Mobile Home.Advisory Board.and stated.her.._ :concerns. Mary Jo Baretich spoke in support of Steve Gullage's recommended conversion ordinance. Vickie Talley distributed a copy of the City of Anaheim's conversion ordinance, which includes "in place"value. Ms. Talley cited existing state law and the Huntington Beach City Charter. Joey Racano spoke in support of Mr. Gullage's recommended amendments for a conversion ordinance. John McGregor informed Council of the financial burden to families if residents are forced to leave their Mobile Home Park. Mr. McGregor also informed Council that there is a blocked culvert on the East end of his park. (2) July 19, 2004 -Council/Agency Minutes - Page 2 Kent Lucas asked Council to consider the position of mobile home park residents and to help them financially. Patricia Petrocko spoke about her concerns regarding rent space increases. Ms. Petrocko referred to.what she believes to be.a negative impact of.the Costa Mesa park sales. The Following:Late.Commumcation Was,$ubmitted During tfie Meeting Communication submitted by Vickie Talley titled Chapter 18.92 Mobilehome Park Overlay(MHP) Zone which is a chapter from the Anaheim Municipal Code. (City Council/Redevelopment Agency) Study Session Held -Presentation by Councilmember Connie Boardman Regarding Mobile Home Park Conversions—City Attorney to Prepare Legal Opinion Regarding City Charter Issue— "H" Memo for Second Meeting in August, 2004 (430.60) Council considered a communication from Councilmember Boardman. Councilmember Connie Boardman reviewed the history of her involvement with the Mobile Home Park Conversion Ordinance. Economic Development Assistant Project Manager Steve Holtz presented information contained in the matrix comparing seven California Mobile Home Park Conversion Ordinances. The matrix was included in the agenda packet. There was considerable discussion amongst Council.and staff regacdmg relocation expenses, rad.ius;.market values; depreclatidn values, and the.Clty Charter City Attorney Jennifer McGrath agreed to prepare a legal opinion regarding the City Charter and other relevant legal issues. Council agreed by consensus by all present, none absent to prepare an "H" memo (Council Memo)to discuss a proposed mobile home park conversion ordinance for the second meeting in August. Motion to Recess to Closed Session—Approved A motion was made by Coerper, second Sullivan to recess to Closed Session on the following items. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Sullivan,.Coerper, Hardy,Green. Boardman,Cook, Houchen NOES: None ABSENT: None (City Council) Closed Session—Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6 to meet with its designated representatives: Agency Negotiators: Penelope Culbreth-Graft, City Administrator; William Workman, Assistant City Administrator; Clay Martin, Director of Administrative Services; Jim Engle, Director of Community Services; Kenneth Small, Chief of Police; Duane Olson, Fire Chief; and Steven M. Berliner, Esq. and Bruce Barsook, Esq. of Liebert Cassidy Whitmore regarding labor relations matters—meet and confer with the following employee organizations: MEO, MEA, PMA, FMA, HBPOA, HBFA, MSOA, SCLEA and Non- Associated. Subject: Labor Relations—Meet&Confer. (120.80) (3) July 19, 2004 -Council/Agency Minutes -Page 3 Reconvened City Council/Redevelopment Agency Meeting—7:00 P.M.—Council Chambers. City Council- Redevelopment Agency Roll Call Present Sullivan, Coerper, Hardy, Green, Boardman, Cook, Houch.. Absent. None No Actions Taken Which Require a Reporting Pursuant to Government Code §54957.1(a) (3) (B)). Mayor Green asked City Attorney Jennifer McGrath if there were any actions taken by the City Council or Redevelopment Agency in Closed Session that required a reporting.. City Attorney McGrath responded that there were no actions to report. Pledge of Allegiance—Led by Mayor Cathy Green Invocation —Led by Councilmember Sullivan Mayor Green dedicated tonight's meeting to the late Cheyanne McKean, daughter of Police Officer Scott McKean. The City Clerk Announced Late Communications Pursuant to the.Brown (Open Meetings)-Act, City Clerk Joan L Flynn announced Late Communications regarding agerida items that had been received by:her:office following distribution of the agenda packet: A PowerPoint presentation submitted by the Economic Development Department dated July 19, 2004 titled Sale of 214 Fifth Street July 19, 2004 Agenda Item D-1. Communication submitted by Weston Benshoof Rockefort Rubalcava & MacCuish dated July 16, 2004 titled Re: Appeal From C.U.P. No. 03-035(Demolition and Rebuild of Existing Target Store) in opposition. Communication submitted by Vickie Talley titled Chapter 18.92 Mobilehome Park Overlay (MHP) Zone, which is a chapter from the Anaheim Municipal Code. Communication (non-agendized) submitted by Clint Orr titled The Ultimate Surfing Museum Altemative.Building Site,:Fundraising Proposal8 Business Plan - Communication submitted by`Bob Bolen titled Merchants Against The Business Improvement District, which is a petition in opposition to the formation of a mandatory BID. Presentation - Mayor Cathy Green called on representatives from the Interval House including Sharon Wie, Director of Programs who presented a check for$29,167 to Police Chief Kenneth Small. Chief Small gave an overview of the Interval House Program. (160.40) Presentation - Mayor Cathy Green called on Susan Edwards, Human Services Supervisor of Project Self Sufficiency, who recognized Time Warner Cable's Vice President&General Manager Tad Yo for the donation of two cars to two mothers in the program. (160.40) (4) July 19, 2004 -Council/Agency Minutes - Page 4 Presentation - Mayor Cathy Green called on Art Center Director Kate Hoffman who introduced the Center's newest exhibit by Paul Frank and 'Art at the Beach"summer camp. A volunteer and two summer camp participants presented Council Members with T-shirts. (160.40) Mayor's Award_- Mayor Cathy Green was joined by City Attorney Jennifer McGrath and-.City Administrator Penelope Culbreth-Graft:who;presented the Mayor's award.to.:Office Assistant` Jean Sharpe for hermany years of dedicated service,�her outstanding work ethic& reliability; and her personal touch in recognizing the special events of her co-workers. (160.40) Announcement Mayor Cathy Green announced Verizon's Fiber To The Premises Project and the City of Huntington Beach's status as the first California city to receive this technology. Public Comments Bob Bolen spoke in opposition to a mandatory Business Improvement District for Downtown. Mr. Bolen submitted a Late Communication, which was announced earlier by the City Clerk, of a petition signed by local merchants in opposition. Clint Orr spoke in opposition to relocating the Surfing Museum permanently within Pacific City and about a possible alternative location. Mr. Orr submitted a communication outlining a fundraising proposal and business plan for a site at 120 Pack Coast Highway. Roy Richardson, volunteer Administration Hearing Officer for the City, informed Council that he IS. _ aware of no citations issued in the condominium conversions matter.Mr. Richardson stated his belief that the original owners should be responsible for the fee, and that the Grand Jury should investigate. Clem Dominguez requested Council to give a variance to the citizens who purchased condominium conversions. Mr. Dominguez stated concern about how this is presented in the future. Mike Adams, representing Stewart Title, gave recommendations regarding amendments to the proposed Condominium Conversion Ordinance. Susan Worthy spoke in opposition to the mandatory fee associated with the proposed Downtown Business Improvement District. Carolyn Dick requested Council consideration.of,fair.market value regarding the sale of mobile homes: Steve Stafford spoke regarding what he considers serious health and safety violations in his gated community. Peter Albin! gave his opinion that the fines relating to condominium conversions should be charged to the original owners and the title companies involved. Mr.Albini also inquired about the repaving project on Warner Avenue. (5) July 19, 2004 -Council/Agency Minutes -Page 5 (City Council) Reviewed and Accepted Shari Freidenrich, City Treasurer's May 2004 Report Titled City of Huntington Beach Summary of City Investment Portfolio, Bond Proceeds, and Deferred Compensation Activity (310.20) The City Council considered a communication from City Treasurer Shari Freidenrich transmitting the Monthly Investment Report for May 2004. City Treasurer Freidenrich gave a PowerPoint presentation titled May Treasurer's Report which was included in the agenda packet. A motion was made by Boardman, second Hardy to review and accept the Monthly Investment Report Summary of Investment Portfolio, Bond Proceeds, and Deferred Compensation Activity for May 2004, pursuant to Section 17.0 of the Investment Policy of the City of Huntington Beach. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Sullivan, Hardy, Green, Boardman, Cook, Houchen NOES: None ABSENT: None (Coerper out of the room) The Mayor Recessed the City Council/Redevelopment Agency Meetings and Convened the Civic Improvement Corporation Meeting. (Civic Improvement Corporation) Annual Meeting Held of the Huntington Beach Civic Improvement Corporation (125.20) President_6reen.calledthe.annual meeting of the Huntington.Beach.Ciyic.:Lmprovement: Corporation to order. Civic Improvement Corporation Roll Call Present: Sullivan, Coerper, Hardy, Green, Boardman, Cook, Houchen Absent: None Election of Officers A motion was made by Boardman, second Sullivan to approve the election of Mayor Cathy Green— President, Mayor Pro Tern Jill Hardy—Vice President, and City Clerk Joan L. Flynn— Secretary. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES Sullivan, Coerper, Hardy, Green, Boardman, Cook, Houchen NOES None ABSENT None (Civic Improvement Corporation) Approved and Adopted Minutes A motion was made by Cook, second Coerper to approve and adopt the minutes of the regular meeting held July 7, 2003 as written and on file in the Secretary's Office. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES Sullivan, Coerper, Hardy, Green, Boardman, Cook, Houchen NOES None ABSENT None Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact d) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, 13 ❑ 19 due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland,to non-agricultural use? (Sources: 1,2,12) Discussion: a)—c) The project will not impact properly that was used for agriculture in the past, nor could the subject site be potentially utilized for agricultural purposes in the future based on its current use as a commercial shopping center. No impacts are anticipated. XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment,substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels,threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? (Sources: 1,2,12) Discussion: The proposed project is not situated within or in the vicinity of a wildlife resource habitat. As analyzed in this initial study,the project is located in areas previously developed that do not support any unique,sensitive,or endangered species. No impacts to any habitat or wildlife area are anticipated. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited,but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" 0 means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects,the effects of other current projects,and the effects of probable future projects.) (Sources: 1,2,12) Discussion: The proposed project will result in a net increase of approximately 12,342 square feet of new commercial area. For over 30 years,the City of Huntington Beach has designated and utilized the project site for commercial development. The project is not expected to have significant environmental impacts based on the fact that the property is. currently used in the same capacity and the net increase in floor area would not be cumulatively considerable. c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,either directly or El0 indirectly? (Sources: 1,2,12) Discussion: As discussed above in Sections I through XVI,standard conditions of approval and mitigation measures relative to noise and traffic shall be implemented in order to reduce potential impacts to a level that is less than significant. n5, ry Page ,�.r e t o 'l�i' J XVIII. EARLIER ANALYSIS. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to tiering,program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (c)(3)(D). Earlier Documents Prepared and Utilized in this Analysis: Reference# Document Title Available for Review at: 1 City of Huntington Beach General Plan City of Huntington Beach Planning Dept., Planning/Zoning Information Counter,3rd Floor 2000 Main St. Huntington Beach 2 City of Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance " 3 Suggested Conditions of Approval/Mitgation Measures See Attachment#1 4 Project Vicinity Map See Attachment#2 5 Reduced Site Plan See Attachment#3 6 Project Narrative See Attachment#4 7 Traffic Analysis Report City of Huntington Beach Planning Dept., RK Engineering,Inc. Planning/Zoning Information Counter,3rd Floor 2000 Main St. Huntington Beach Noise Study g RK Engineering, Inc. " 9 City of Huntington Beach Municipal Code " 10 City of Huntington Beach Geotechnical Inputs Report " 11 FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map(June 14,2000) " 12 CEQA Air Quality Handbook " South Coast Air Quality Management District(1993) 13 City of Huntington Beach CEQA Procedure Handbook " 14 Trip Generation Handbook, 5"'Edition,Institute of Traffic " Engineers 15 Airport Environs Land Use Plan for Joint Forces Training " Base Los Alamitos(Oct. 17,2002) 16 Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites List " 17 State Seismic Hazard Zones Map " Attachment No. 1 Suggested Conditions of Approval 1. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the following shall be completed: a. The site plan received and dated September 16, 2003 shall be the approved layout except for the following: 1) The driveway on the south side of the property along Brookhurst Street shall be widened to a minimum of 40-feet in width, to allow for two egress lanes. (PW) 2) A minimum 10-foot sight triangle must be provided at all points on the site, including the building comers. Areas of concern include the northwest corner (at the loading dock) and northeast comer of the building. The sidewalk must also be extended a minimum of four feet west of the building corner. (PW) b. A truck-tracking exhibit, utilizing a WB-50 design vehicle, must be provided to demonstrate that delivery trucks can be accommodated. This truck tracking exhibit must illustrate a truck entering the site, accessing the loading docks and egressing the site. It must be demonstrated that the truck movements will not encroach into opposite directions of roadway traffic nor impact the parking spaces shown. (PW) c. The findings of the Traffic Impact Analysis may result in additional comments and conditions for this project. (PW) d. A pedestrian path of travel in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Title 24 shall be provided from the sidewalks on both Adams Avenue and Brookhurst Street to the building entrances. (PW) e. The name and phone number of an on-site field supervisor hired by the developer shall be submitted to the Departments of Planning and Public Works. In addition, clearly visible signs shall be posted on the perimeter of the site every 250 feet indicating who shall be contacted for information regarding this development and any construction/grading-related concerns. This contact person shall be available immediately to address any concerns or issues raised by adjacent property owners during the construction activity. He/She will be responsible for ensuring compliance with the conditions herein, specifically, grading activities, truck routes, construction hours, noise, etc. Signs shall include the applicant's contact number, regarding grading and construction activities, and "1-8 00-CUTSMOG" in the event there are concerns regarding fugitive dust and compliance with AQMD Rule No. 403. (PW) £ The applicant shall notify all property owners and tenants within 300 feet of the perimeter of the property of a tentative grading schedule at least 30 days prior to such grading. (PW) g. The developer shall coordinate the development of a truck haul route with the Department of Public Works if the import or export of material 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. (PW) h. The applicant shall quitclaim any abandoned portions of the existing water line easement dedicated to the City of Huntington Beach. (PW) Attachment Mo. I-Page 1 i. A Grading Plan, prepared by a Licensed Civil Engineer, shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval. (MC 17.05) The following public improvements shall be shown on the plan: (PW) 1) All driveways on Brookhurst Street and Adams Avenue shall be removed and replaced, and shall be ADA compliant per City Standard Plan No. 211. (ZSO 255.04A) 2) Remove and replace existing curb and gutter in the areas of ponding on Brookhurst Street and Adams Avenue per City Standard Plan No. 202. (ZSO 255.04A) 3) Bus stops with concrete bus pads per City Standard Plan No. 203 shall be provided on the south side of Adams. Avenue and west side of Brookhurst Street, at locations acceptable to Public Works and OCTA. (ZSO 255.04A) 4) A new sewer lateral is required unless the existing sewer lateral is confirmed to be in good condition and the correct size. (ZSO 255.04D) 5) Approximately 1,500 feet of the existing 8-inch on-site public water pipeline (including water appurtenances) shall be abandoned that is impacted by the proposed structure, curb, planters and parking facilities. (ZSO 255.04E) 6) A new 8-inch water pipeline shall be constructed per Water Division standards and shall be clear of all surface features including, but not limited to, structures, walls, parking spaces, trees, curbs, etc. (ZSO 255.04E) 7) A 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 water service shall be a minimum of 2-inches in size. (ZSO 255.04E) 8) A separate irrigation 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 irrigation water service shall be a minimum of 1-inch in size. (ZSO 255.04E) 9) If fire sprinklers are required for the proposed development per Fire Department, it shall have a separate dedicated fire service. 10)Separate backflow protection devices shall be installed, per Water Division standards for domestic water, irrigation and fire water services. (ZSO 255.04E) 11)The existing water services, meters, and fire backflow protection device shall be abandoned . and removed per Water Division standards. (ZSO 255.04E) 12)The Fire Department shall determine the number and location of additional fire hydrants. 13)Existing mature trees that are to be removed must be replaced at a 2 for 1 ratio with a 36" box tree or palm equivalent (13'-14' of trunk height for Queen Palms and 8'-9' of brown trunk). Applicant shall provide a consulting arborist report on all the existing trees. Said report shall quantify, identify, size and analyze the health of the existing trees. The report shall also recommend how the existing trees that are to remain (if any) shall be protected and how far construction/grading shall be kept from the trunk. (ZSO 232) 14)The trash 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. Provide attached Page 2 A� �r"-�S��v 4�n��E�� iN, lids on all trash containers that exclude rain, or roof or awning to minimize direct precipitation. . Connection of trash area drains to a storm drain system is prohibited (DAMP) 15)The garden center area is prohibited to drain to the storm drain system. (DAMP) j. Storm Drain, Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPP) and Water Quality Management Plans (WQMP) conforming with the current National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements, prepared by a Licensed Civil Engineer, shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval. Catch basins shall be grated and not have side openings. (DAMP) (PW) k. 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. The SWPPP shall include treatment and disposal of all de-watering operation flows, and for nuisance flows during construction. (DAMP) (PW) 1. A WQMP shall be prepared, maintained and updated as needed to satisfy the requirements of the adopted NPDES program. The plan shall incorporate water quality measures for all improved or unimproved phases of the project. All structural BMPs shall be sized to infiltrate, filter, or treat the 85-percentile 24-hour storm event or the maximum flow rate of runoff produced from a rainfall intensity of 0.2 inches per hour. (PW) m. Upon approval of the WQMP, three signed copies and an electronic copy on CD (.pdf or .doc format) shall be submitted to the Public Works Department. (DAMP) (PW) n. A soils report, prepared by a Licensed Engineer shall be submitted for reference only. - (MC 17.05.150) (PW) o. 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) (PW) p. The applicant's grading/erosion control plan shall abide by the provisions of AQMD's Rule 403 as related to fugitive dust control. (PW) q. A water utility easement shall be dedicated to and approved by the City of Huntington Beach, covering the public water facilities and appurtenances (new and existing) located within the project site. The easement shall be a minimum total width of 10-feet clear (5 feet either side of the water pipeline or appurtenance), unobstructed paved or landscaped surface, pursuant to Water Division Standards. Where access is restricted or impacted by structures, walls, curbs, etc, the easement width shall be 20 feet to allow for equipment access and maintenance operations. No structures, parking spaces, trees, curbs, walls, sidewalks, etc. shall be allowed within the easement. No modifications to the water facilities and pavement located within the easement shall be allowed without proper notification and written approval from the City in advance. Such modifications may include, but are not limited to, connections to the water system, pavement overlay, parking lot re-striping, and parking lot reconfiguration. Water Division personnel shall have access to public water facilities and appurtenances at all times. (ZSO 253.10) (PW ). tl lipCH M_-I' ' c ._ ...-....—..+--..�.- r. The applicant shall quitclaim any abandoned portions of the existing water line easement dedicated to the City of Huntington Beach. (PW) s. Provide a Fire Department Remedial Action Plan(RAP) for the existing auto service area based on requirements found in the City of Huntington Beach Soil Cleanup Standard, City Specification #431-92.-(FD) t. Installation and/or removal of underground flammable or combustible liquid storage tanks (UST) require the applicant to first obtain an approved Orange County Environmental Health Care UST permit/site plan. This approved plan must be presented to obtain the required Huntington Beach Fire Department Fire Code Permit Application to conduct installation and/or removal operations. (FD) 2. The following conditions shall be complied with during construction and grading operations: a. Water trucks will be utilized on the site and shall be available to be used throughout toe day during site grading to keep the soil damp enough to prevent dust being raised by the operations. (WE-1) (PW) b. All haul trucks shall arrive at the site no earlier than 5:00 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) (PW) c. Wet down the areas that are to be graded or that are being graded, in the late morning and after work is completed for the day. (WE-1/MC 17.05) (PW) d. The construction disturbance area shall be kept as small as possible. (EC 1) (PW) e. 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. (PW) f. 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. (PVC g. Comply with appropriate sections of AQMD Rule 403, particularly to minimize fugitive dust and noise to surrounding areas. (PW) h. Wind barriers shall be installed along the perimeter of the site. (PW) i. 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. (PW) j. 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) (PW) k. Discovery of any contamination/pipelines, etc., must be reported to the Fire Department immediately and the approved work plan modified accordingly. 3. Prior to issuance of building permits,the following shall be completed: a. All landscape planting, irrigation and maintenance shall comply with the City Arboricultural and Landscape Standards and Specifications. (ZSO 232.04B) (PW) b. 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 and the protection measures and locations of existing trees to remain. Existing trees to Page 4 remain shall also be addressed by said Arborist with recommendations/requirements for protection during construction. 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. (ZSO 232) (PW) c. To maintain required emergency access and site safety during project construction phases, submit a Fire Protection Plan in compliance with City Specification#426. (FD) d. Fire access roads shall be provided in compliance with City Specification#401. (FD) e. Fire hydrants must be installed and be in service before combustible construction begins. Shop drawings shall be submitted to the Public Works Department and approved by the Fire Department. Indicate hydrant locations and Fire Department connections. The Fire Department and the Public Works Water Division shall determine the number of fire hydrants. (FD) f. An automatic fire sprinkler system shall be installed throughout. For Fire Department approval, plans shall be submitted to the Building Department as separate plans for permits. (FD) g. A fire alarm system in compliance with Huntington Beach Fire Code is required. For Fire Department approval, shop drawings shall be submitted to Building 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. (FD) h. For Fire Department approval, food preparation fire protection system plans shall be submitted to the Building Department as separate plans for permits. (FD) i. A Class III wet standpipe system shall be installed. Shop drawings shall be submitted and approved by the Fire Department prior to system installation. (FD) j. All Fire Department requirements shall be noted on the building plans. (FD) 4. The 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. The applicant shall enter into a Special Utility Easement Agreement with the City of Huntington Beach, relieving the City of financial responsibility for replacing and restoring any enhanced. surface treatment resulting from the City's operation, maintenance, repair and replacement of the public water system facilities and appurtenances within the water line easement. (PW) b. A three (3) foot wide right-of-way irrevocable offer to dedicate is required along the Adams Avenue frontage per the Circulation Element of the General Plan. (PW) c. Complete all improvements as shown on the grading plan. (MC 17.05) (PW) d. Installation of required landscaping and irrigation systems shall be completed prior to final inspection or within twelve months of Entitlement. (PW) e. 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 prior to the final landscape inspection and approval. (ZSO 232) (PW) f. Applicant shall provide the City with Microfilm copies (in City format) and CD (AutoCAD only) copy of complete City approved landscape construction drawings as stamped "Permanent File Page.i .ATTI.A C,H N.• :eu ; . ;, T _� Copy"prior to starting landscape work. Copies shall be given to the City Landscape Architect for permanent City record. (ZSO 232) (PW) g. Fire extinguishers shall be installed and located in areas to comply with HBFC standards found in City Specification#424. (FD) h. Address numbers shall be installed to comply with City Specification #428. Number sets may be required on front and rear of structure. i. 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. (FD) j. Service roads and fire access lanes, as determined by the Fire Department, shall be posted, marked, and maintained per City Specification#415. Additionally, the site plan shall show all fire lanes. If prior to approved signage fire lane violations occur and the services of the Fire Department are required,the applicant may be liable for related expenses. (FD) k. A KNOX box will be required for emergency Fire Department access. (FD) INFORMATION ON SPECIFIC CODE REQUIREMENTS: 1. Standard landscape code requirements apply. (ZSO 232) (PW) 2. The Water Ordinance #14.52, the "Water Efficient Landscape Requirements" apply for projects with 2500 square feet of landscaping and larger. (MC 14.52) (PW) 3. All existing and new utilities shall be undergrounded. (MC 17.64) (PW) 4. All applicable Public Works fees shall be paid. (PW) 5. Traffic impact fees shall be paid at a rate of$124 per net new added daily trip. (MC 17.65) The initial TIF estimate is as follows: (PW) Proposed store 133,500 square foot Existing Store — 103,458 square foot Additional square feet 30,042 square feet (30,042 square feet) X(46 daily trips/1,000 square feet) = 1382 additional trips (1382 additional trips)X$124*/additional trip)_$171,368 *This calculation is at the current rate of$124 per trip and is subject to adjustment annually. 6. An Encroachment Permit is required for all work within the City's right-of-way. (MC 14.36.020) (PW) Pa,;e 6 ------- Summary of Mitigation Measures Description of Mitigation Measure Impact Potential traffic hazards 1) A traffic signal shall be installed at the intersection of Target Driveway due to driveway 1 at Adams Avenue. The installation will be subject to the City's locations and volume of SYNCHRO analysis. traffic Exposure of persons to 1) Vendor truck deliveries/trash-pickup should be limited to daytime or generation of noise hours. The current delivery schedule for vendor truck deliveries of 8:00 levels in excess of am to 12:00 noon (Monday through Friday) should remain with the new standards established in store. However, Target delivery trucks can be allowed to enter the site the local general plan or no later than 7:00 pm. noise ordinance, or applicable standards of 2) Delivery trucks should not idle their engines while delivering other agencies. merchandise to the Target store. Trucks should turn off their engines Potential noise impacts once they reach their loading dock. due to truck traffic, loading and general 3) The loading dock door opening should include rubber noise seals operations. around the opening of the building. 4) The trash compactor should not be operated before 8:00 am and after 7:00 pm. 5) Every attempt should be made to not operate other on-site equipment (i.e. parking lot sweepers, etc.) directly adjacent to the existing homes after 10:00 pm to minimize noise impacts to the adjoining residential areas. 6) All Target doors facing the residential areas should be closed in the evening. r�<..., n• �,d 2,�v Attachment No. 1- Page 7 ��-��`�� N!n MEN SOON m � s �fl� • � NMI 1. k1 lye t6�4MC' ', i�l'r 'r IL 1 r1q'.,, \ ll zi,�+ .�. Subject lagm :', ite i,, `'�4'�,�yy j�(67A ;�g"ty. .'.a�7'!s�' r�� i -i�li[t�`2�•'`c`Cj.° - a o- "a .4 "TE_ .a �r In I __ = = ____ = ====A-UAM:5--AVENITE===_- ------_-_ ______________ aWX CM I, till 6W 1, I 1, .J 1 niLLLLLnAF 111 I In . Q m �I I DDIPROPO< D TARGET ®STORE 125,400 SF I ' (EXCLUDING GAFDEN :ENTER) ' O ' 1 1 � II , OOrA Jill II ■ o 0 0 � II 11 II II It II 'i II II I 1 El v 1511-J?•41 18XC1 pngineariitg ARGc---i 94 1NOZZ:STUCY,;-iumin;ccn aeac7.=aliiornia (]�',��,] , inc. f'- Fred Sena, PE ! Chris Long, RLA John Warren,AICP Project Narrative Target is proposing to demolish the existing store and garden center located et 93E2 Adams Avenue and replace it with a new store and an attached garden cente.. Tr.e exist-ng store and garden center are 113,058 square feet on an 11.7 acre lot. The store is located on the south side of Adams Avenue and is part of a retail shopping center. The Target is long and narrow building that runs parallel to Adams Avenue. The shape of the existing store does not meet Target's current prototype stores. The proposal is to demolish the existing store and replace it with a more prototypical building at 125,400 square feet with an attached garden center at 8,100sq. ft. for a total of 133,500 square feet. The demolition of the building will take approximately 1 month. The construction of the new building will take approximately 9 months. Site Alignment: The front of the store will face Brookhurst Street and the garden center will be on the south side of the building. The majority of the parking will face the front of the store between the new store entrance and Brookhurst Street. The number of proposed parking stalls is 650 where 643 are required. The Target store will operate in a similar fashion as the existing Target Store. The project impacts will be the same or less than the existing Target Store. This proposed design of the building is more functional for Target's needs and provides better service for Target's guests. Store Operations: The proposed hours of operation will remain the same as the existing store which are Monday through Sunday 8:00 am to 10:00 p.m. Typically, there are 50 employees on any one shift. All products will be purchased inside the store. There will be no customer"pick-up" areas outside or behind the store. Loading Operations: The loading dock operation is designed in a manner to limit visibility from the public and to reduce impacts on the adjacent neighborhood. The existing store requires trucks to travel around the building and load the store in close proximity to the residential neighbors along the South and West property line. The new loading dock is designed to face Brookhurst Street. It will be a recessed dock that will be screened from the public by the Target Store and a screen wall. The dock will have a screen wall along the western side of the dock to block visibility of the truck and to reduce noise exiting the dock to the West. A landscape planter and two commercial buildings will screen the loading dock from Brookhurst Street. The Target building will screen the Eastern view of the loading dock. The loading dock will receive approximately one 62' Target truck per day (two during the holiday season). The trucks will enter the site from the main drive aisle on Adams Avenue. The trucks will be able to deliver products to the dock without having to travel around the building and thus reduce the noise impact for the surrounding neighbors. The deliveries for the Target truck will continue to be restricted to the hours of 8:00 AM to 8:00 PM. No Target truck deliveries are allowed outside this time frame. The store will continue to be re-stocked ENTITLEMENT ENGINEERING LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE 2151 Salvio Street Suite 250 = Concord, Calirornia 94520 (925)680-6406 fax(925)680-6407 Fred Sena, PE .. .�,. • . . Chris Long, RLA John Warren,AICP after hourri from 12:00 AM to 8:00 AM. Target receives sev.ral 24' verde,-truck deliveries per day in the loading area. Vender truck deliveries will continue to bE .'astlicted to 8:00 AM to 12:00 PM. Garden Center: The garden center is located on the South side of the store facing Brookhurst Street. The garden center will be open during store hours. The Garden Center receives approximately 3 deliveries per week during peak season. Garden Center products are delivered in a 24' vender trucks. The truck deliveries occur during daytime hours. The trucks will enter the site at the Southern Driveway along Brookhurst Street. The trucks will exit the site by driving around the building and leaving on Adams The products are rolled into the garden center on racks with a handcart. Soil deliveries that require a forklift occur approximately 1 delivery for every 5 weeks. r Trash: The Target trash removal and recycling operation is a clean and well thought out process that is designed to keep the store in excellent appearance and to maximize recycling opportunities. The trash compactor will be conveniently located in the loading dock. Trash will be loaded from inside the store into the compactor without exiting the store. The compactor is emptied approximately once every two weeks. Target also has an extensive recycling program for cardboard bales. The bales are collected inside the store. Twice a week, the bales are removed for recycling. The City of Huntington Beach issued an award to Target for excellence in recycling. . Surrounding Property: The surrounding uses are a mixture of residential and commercial. To the north and to the east of the site is another shopping center including Mervyns. To the south and to the west are single family residential developments. There.is an existing 8-foot solid masonry wall buffering the Target store from the residences. The Target store is serving the nearby residences and employees in the area. A new retail pad is under construction along the northwest corner of the shopping center that will screen most of the proposed new loading dock. The project will meet and exceed the City of Huntington Beach site design criteria for commercial shopping centers. The Target parcel located at 9882 Adams Avenue is not located in with a Hazardous and Substance site per the Huntington Beach Planning Department. A T TAC ENTITLEMENT ENGINEERING LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE 2151 Salvio Street Suite 250 Concord, California 94520 (925)680-6406 • fax(925)680-6407 Am . »w « `- `�� - e �� m.. . . . . . � .�, BUSINESS PROPERTIES DEVELOPMENT COMPANY 17631 FITCH MVINE,CALIFORNIA 92014-0021 (949)474-8900 FAX(949)474-8936 cb bpQypacbell.net , June 4, 2004 Via Hand Delivery 6-4-04 Honorable Mayor and City Council o Attn: City Clerk CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 D i Re: CUP No. 03-35 (Target) -0 9882 Adams Avenue - C-) Huntington Beach, California s z' Honorable Mayor and City Council: By this notice, we are appealing the May 25, 2004 decision of the Planning Commission denying our appeal of the Zoning Administrator's approval of CUP 03-35 (Target). Attached is a check in the amount of $2,335.00 payable to the City of Huntington Beach. The basis for our earlier appeal to the Planning Commission was the Zoning Administrator's failure to condition the Target project to require signalization of the new primary ingress/egress point on Brookhurst Street. The Planning Commission's action to deny our appeal was "directed"by the Deputy City Attorney who instructed the Commission that it did not have the authority to impose the requested traffic signalization condition. We believe the will of the Commission was to grant our appeal. It is our contention, and that of our attorney, that the Deputy City Attorney's opinion is incorrect and unsupportable. A statement of opinion by our attorney is being prepared and will be submitted under separate cover. It is our contention that the CUP, as conditioned and approved, has a significant environmental deficiency in that the traffic study, upon which the mitigation measures were based, does not properly account for the change in location of the entry into the Target Store nor the major realignment of the parking field toward Brookhurst Street. Vehicular movements into and out of the property have been assigned in accordance with what is indicated for the existing development. Our consulting traffic engineer confirms our conviction that a significant portion of the vehicles entering and exiting the Target property after completion of the proposed changes to the building and to the parking field will shift from Adams Street(currently the primary ingress and egress point) to Brookhurst Street. Had this change been included in the traffic study the impact on traffic on Brookhurst Street would indicate the necessity to provide the requested traffic signal. Without the requested signalization condition, the Target project will create a potentially significant unmitigated traffic impact that would have to be evaluated in an Environmental Impact Report ("BIR"). Honorable Mayor and City Council Via Hand Delivery 6-4-04 Attn: City Clerk June 4, 2004 City of Huntington Beach Page Two Re: CUP No. 03-35 (Target) 9882 Adams Avenue, Huntington Beach, California We relied on the statement of the Zoning Administrator as indicated on page 4 of the Minutes of the Zoning Administrator Meeting of March 31, 2004, which states: "Ms. Broeren continued the request att the applicant's request. She advised that the continuance is not a representation that the request would be approved. She stated that the continuance would give the Zoning -Administrator and.naei hborhiig property mviners sn wopporftr pity to.reviery., suggested conditions of approval that would make the project more amenable to the commnunity". No statement was.made that indicated the approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 03-02 at the March 31, 2004 hearing would in any way, or in any manner, restrict her ability to impose additional conditions of approval that were based on environmental issues. In fact, she did so at the April 15, 2004, hearing at which the CUP was initially approved. Also, the Planning Commission added or amended conditions of approval that were environmentally based in their action of May 25, 2004. We believe that based upon the statements of the Zoning Administrator no appeals based on mitigation conditions were appropriate until all conditions of approval were final and the CUP was approved. Therefore , we request the City Council set aside the action of the Planning Commission and the Zoning Administrator and impose an additional condition of approval on CUP No. 03-35, requiring a traffic signal be installed at the median opening in Brookhurst Street approximately 700 feet southerly of Adams Avenue. In the absence of cooperation by benefiting property owners in the funding for such traffic signal, the condition should require Target to either post bond in sufficient amount to cover at least one-half the estimated cost of such traffic signal or complete the signal with their project with an agreement with the City to be reimbursed costs in excess of Target's fair share at such time as the benefiting property owners obtain entitlements for and commence new development on their property(ies). Very truly yours, BUSINESS PROPERTIES PARTNERSHIP NO. 15 Charles G. Ball CGB:ls cc: Jeffrey Oderman,Esq.,Rutan&Tucker, 611 Anton Blvd., 14`h Floor, Costa Mesa, CA 92626-9035 .r Ni GET �* APPEAL ADAMs AVENUE LES BALL - ,C�ais LA M 1992004 V � �\' 3\\ ON HWES'T' CORNER OF BROOKHURST ET" AND ADAMs AvENUE U Ili D I ICI C S H & EAST: RETAIL, OFFICE AURANT" H & WEST: SINGLE FAMILY Pi .g ENTIAL 1 ! ii tr; -r r rr ff r� 4 v {� E'72 i 4k�($ifve.l6w sr Eta�ar.t➢jt��M6 !1 7t fi r} i r._ � }� z L �✓ �c.,`'W �z - . . • 'fie� .,.. � ray .. {� t i- .'�:�" per_ ,� r`� � } :'!� lI�Y t •_�„d x• S-43! ,Y' o ;c� . x, ,�..�'s�;Lr � *'�'� � .#Mf �l �. •.e'e4tzaf�l:�-. 8Y 3 S ,rg T auz.+ �sE AM k lei 1 i�. s.Gan p' r S ig 1 $ 4 � f f: ��D, nae i ��I�fl �� i Ir�pP�IG�i�n��, ��i�l ri�xr �� .�, '_,. ..-.,.•r- `" �- r...— —..-.a..- HA'L 8t-PE R MIT: MODISH EXISTING BUILDING AND ,. TRUCT A 123,800 SQ. FT. TARGET AND ATTACHED GARDEN CENTER LOW COMPACT PARKIN (9 % TAL NUMBER OF SPACES INC LOT REDESIGN WITH NEW y SCAPE PLANTERS AND NFIC URED PARKIN f s, H I T ICY . I IITIGATEDWEGATIVE ATION APPROVED/ CUP CONTINUED TO 4I04 MEETING; NO APPEALS FILED CUP APPROVED BY THE ZONING TRATOR WITH MODIFICATIONS; APPEAL CHARLES BALL ING COMMISSION ACTIONS : 4 CUP APPROVED BY THE PLANNING SION WITH MODIFICATIONS; APPEAL CHARLES BALL. *0 N IN3PJHOVIIV _F Aft WA, -V S � i�i i� yu�r iu ��." •�j-,may t s?2` y yam, .�— `aw � Y, x R E £ i s 1 Li 'L_:L, my 1 �... �.I lot's0 v k+ ss., at e E y jyy VIM", spa 45* -pay 3 f" �•� •L +` sm`y'"S�r 7�. �, � P f pi l�y � MAW 5 t^ k f t g i an tea • s #� �� iy t k e p' £a q0� e�'r s Wia � jp k Wr- 41 d - ; `k it f jJr 4 a ' !$$ ; �N��l •r� kp °VON 1N3WHDV1.LV ON 11 z " At, low; .WWI n 000 how ) .,--"qr ram.;, �" Tval As- Pon Ad one ' t 5x y� 1 U mi gip. r£ W-ZS v 3 } ry r dO A I VAN y � i%,� L � .✓T 3 G LOADING AREA z . i. , E a f� � a r 3 { 3 ','F .�$. ^,x ✓'tS y ^ y ce a�nza,A, ^�,�- { '� '�' E ',`` � x '�..: '�" �°� '�` ti� �J£ .. `.�� ,.✓,,, ¢�* Y'i P '" t��"� �$Al a .,✓yE,� .�f 37 J�W �aY!a 1� �,,��a �a � �.a" 9 � �& {�a � € 1:.'i � ,:'�h� J� ��aJ Ed6�tk�56 � F w V AL BASED ON THE LACK OF A IC SIGNAL AT THE SECONDARY KHURS'T' ST. DRIVEWAY WAY PROVIDES SECONDARY SS To TARGET STORE IC SICNALS AYEFEE ANALYZED IN ' Rsr PPROVED IVIITICATED NECATIYE RATION NOT APPEALABLE UNDER THE CUP F ikeil9h ESNOTSUPP ORT THE APPEAL lei THE FOLLOWING : PPEALABL E UNDER THE CUP IC GENERATED BY THE OPMEITT DOES NOT WARRANT A IGNAL IONAL SIGNAL WOULD IMPEDE E IC FLOW ON 13ROOKHURST STREET TIAL IMPACTS TO ADJACENT BORS Vi�PIIyI ' ri,llpr$=, �i14 AL BASED ON : STE TT WITH GENERAL PLAN CT COMPLIES WITH ALL DEVELOPMENT ARDS TIBL E WIT'H SURROUNDING LAND E y ING DESKlei MITIGATES POTENT'IAL T'S H IS IH SUBST'ANT'IAL CONFORMANCE H DESIGN �, GUIDELINES RCA ROUTING SHEET INITIATING DEPARTMENT: Planning SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 03-35 (Target Demolition and Rebuild COUNCIL MEETING DATE: July 19, 2004 RCA ATTACHMENTS STATUS Ordinance (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Not Applicable Resolution (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Not Applicable Tract Map, Location Map and/or other Exhibits Not Applicable Contract/Agreement (w/exhibits if applicable) (Signed in full by the City Attorne Not Applicable Subleases, Third Party Agreements, etc. (Approved as to form by City Attorney) Not Applicable J Certificates of Insurance (Approved by the City Attorney) Not Applicable Financial Impact Statement (Unbudget, over $5,000) Not Applicable Bonds (If applicable) Not Applicable Staff Report (If applicable) Attached Commission, Board or Committee Report (If applicable) Not Applicable Findings/Conditions for Approval and/or Denial Attached EXPLANATION FORM ISSI NG ATTACHMENTS: . REVIEWED RETURNED FOR DED Administrative Staff Assistant City Administrator Initial City Administrator Initial City Clerk EXPLANATION FOR RETURN OF ITEM: Only)(Below Space For City Clerk's Use RCA Author: HZ:SH:PD:kjl BUSINESS PROPERTIES DEVELOPMENT COMPA-N-Y 17631 FITCH I IR�ZNE,CALIFORNIA 926 1 4-602 1 �JUN 0 4 2OU4 (949)474-8900 FAX(949)474-8936 cb .bp a pacbell.net June 4, 2004 Via Hand Delivery 6-4-04 Honorable Mayor and City Council o Attn: City Clerk CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 Main Street �- - Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re: CUP No. 03-35 (Target) , ` 9882 Adams Avenue — c Huntington Beach, California - Honorable Mayor and City Council: By.this.notice, we.are appealing the May.25,.2004 decision of the Planning Corrimissiondenying our appeal of the Zoning Administrator's approval of CUP 03-35 (Target). Attached is a check in the amount of $2,335.00 payable to the City of Huntington Beach. The basis for our earlier appeal to the Planning Commission was the Zoning Administrator's failure to condition the Target project to require signalization of the new primary ingress/egress point on Brookhurst Street. The Planning Commission's action to deny our appeal was "directed"by the Deputy City Attorney who instructed the Commission that it did not have the authority to impose the requested traffic signalization condition. We believe the will of the Commission was to grant our appeal. It is our contention, and that of. our attorney, that the Deputy City Attorney's opinion is incorrect and unsupportable. A statement of opinion by our attorney is being prepared and will-be submitted under separate cover. It is our contention that the CUP, as conditioned and approved, has a significant environmental-deficiency in that the traffic study, upon_which the mitigation measures were based, does not properly account for the change in location of the entry into the Target Store nor the major realignment of the parking field toward Brookhurst Street. Vehicular movements into and out of the property have been assigned in accordance with what is indicated for the existing development. Our consulting traffic engineer confirms our conviction that a significant portion of the vehicles entering and exiting the Target property after completion of the proposed changes to the building and to the parking-field will shift from Adams Street (currently the primary ingress and egress point) to Brookhurst Street. Had this change been included in the traffic study the impact on traffic on Brookhurst Street would indicate the necessity to provide the requested traffic signal. Without the requested signalization condition,.the Target project will create.a potentially significant unmitigated traffic impact that would have to be evaluated in an Environmental Impact Report ("EIR"). ATTACHMENT NO. �• _I__ Honorable Mayor and City Council Via Hand Delivery 6-4-04 Attn: City Clerk June 4, 2004 City of Huntington Beach Page Two Re: CUP No. 03-35 (Target) 9882 Adams Avenue, Huntington.Beach, California We relied on the statement of the Zoning Administrator as indicated on page 4 of the Minutes of the Zoning Administrator Meeting of March 31, 2004, which states: "1Is. Broeren continued the request at the applicant's request. She advised that the continuance is not a representation that the request would be approved. She stated that the continuance would give the Zoning NcUnuustrator and neighboring property owners an opportunity to review suggested conditions of approval that would ld inake the project more amenable to the community". No statement was made that indicated the approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 03-02 at the March 31, 2004 hearing would in any way, or in any manner, restrict her ability to impose additional conditions of approval that were based on environmental issues. In fact, she did so at the April 15, 2004, hearing at which the CUP was initially approved. Also, the Planning Commission added or amended conditions of approval that were environmentally based in their action of May 25, 2004. We believe that based upon the statements of the Zoning Administrator no appeals based on - mitigation conditions were appropriate until all conditions of approval were final and the CUP was approved. Therefore ,we request the City Council set aside the action of the Planning Commission and the Zoning Administrator and impose an additional condition of approval on CUP No. 03-35, requiring a traffic signal be installed at the median opening in Brookhurst Street approximately 700 feet southerly of Adams Avenue. In the absence of cooperation by benefiting property owners in the funding for such traffic signal, the condition should require Target to either post bond in sufficient amount to cover at least one-half the estimated cost of such traffic signal or complete the signal with their project with an agreement with the City to be reimbursed costs in excess of Target's fair share at such time as the benefiting property ownerss-obtain entitlements for and commence new development on their property(ies). Very truly yours, BUSINESS PROPERTIES PARTNERSHIP NO. 15 Charles G. Ball CGB:ls cc: Jeffrey Oderman, Esq.,Rutan&Tucker, 611 Anton Blvd., 14`h Floor, Costa Mesa,CA 92626-9035 ATTACHMENT NO. . �' NOTICE OF APPEAL TO PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION F Date of P arming 6mm sioa Action TO: Planning Dept (2 copies) DATE:ur City Attorney: (I copy) FILED.BY v�.. `. o s l C�►'�1 n 1 REGARDING: Tentative Date for Public Hearing Copy of Appeal Letter attached. LEGAL NOTICE AND A.P.DIAILING LIST MUST BE RECEIVED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE 15 DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING DATE City Clerk x5227 -(:) CASH RECEIPT CITY OF hUNTINCA.09 dGAC1t'27:3ZAN, �- P.O.BOX 711 .•� 0• 4 MO 22 it'., W636 '- HUNTIN TON BEACH,CAL!`.HUNTINCTOIII BEAC`t CITUgSURER-SHARI C5 DATE \y'^/ t` y Jhieck ISSUING DEPT. \ __. y 1�t(` �� - t•t A. TELE# RECEIVED FROM S \C�f-cep c L 0 0 rdo0 a 00 Lrn Lnai J l H O M M 1T RECEIVED ❑CASH VCHECK#s<'`'� ❑CREDIT RD v O Ln 1 N CV IED BY RECEIVED BY O i Z r :CT=50000 THRU 90000,FINANCE APPROVAL DATE (Business Unit. . Object . Sub-A count Amount o o M Ei I— .- - - - - - - - - - N �4 r1 O o a N E-I ( : — — — %O O CV o UO z i r - - - V] r =— o z - - - i ¢ � _ - M O ri - 0V, _ - - - a - --. _ w Ill P4 Q � ° U -_ - - -_- - - - w OTAL$ a -� a� CV E-1 H rZ4 - J-) 0 O Q CN I • 0 N >--, H O r_ )Y VI/ L-i/ VN 14.6v fAA LLVV/VLLVV VA/ Vvv MWESTONBENSHOOF ROCHF-FORT RUBALCAVA & MACCUISH LLP ATTORNEYS AT LOW Direct Dial: (213)576-1005 ecasey@wbcounsel.com FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL FROM: Edward J. Casey DATE: July 16r 2004 NUMBER OF PAGES: 6 RECIPIENT FIRM/AGENCY FAX NUMBER CONFIRMATION Paul Daveiga City of Huntington Beach 1 (714)374-1648 (714)374-5394 Leonie Mulvihill, Esq. City of Huntington Beach 1 (714)374-1590 (714)536-5555 MESSAGE Here is Target's reply letter re Monday's appeal. We understand that a copy of our letter will be included in the package to be sent by staff to the Council. Thanks. Please contact our Duplicating Center at(213)576-1195,if there are any questions or problems with this transmission. USER EXT. 1005 o c CLIENT NO. 3897-001 a PLEASE RETURN FAX CONFIRMATION TO: YRamos —0 -Cc- ' M Fr > N; c-) N D PRIVILEGED&CONFIDENTIAL This message is intended only for the use or the individual or entity to which it Is addressed and may contain Information that ie privileged, cOnfldential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient,or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is stelctly prohibited. If you have received this communicatlon in error,please notify us Immediately by telephone and return the original message to us at the above address via the U.S.Postal Service. Thank you. 333 SOUTr•1 I•Iorr:STKEET • SIXT13.hr<H FLOOR a Los ANGELES, C:A 90071 • Ttil. 213 576 1000 • FAX 213 576 1100 2301 TowNSCATL ROAD • SUITE 215 • W" LAKE VILLAGE,CA 91361 • TFL 805 497 9474 • r1Ax 805 497 8804 www.wbcounsel.com V(/LO/V4 14:do rAA LL,)o u.L1VU IILJIVIN P.&INa wr yJuv6ivvv WESTON BENSHOOF ROCHEFORT RUBALCAVA MACCUISH LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW BCd•Cy�wBt•�11681.COT July 16, 2004 VIA IFA.CSEMIL1E AND U.S.MAIL Paul Daveiga Associate Planner City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street, Third Floor Huntington Beach, California 92648 Re: Appeal From C.U.P.No 03-035 (Demolition and Rebuild Of Existins Target Store Dear Mr. Daveiga: This firm represents the Target Corporation in connection with the above- referenced appeal taken by Business Properties Development Company(Appellant) from the May 25, 2004 decision of the Planning Commission on the C.U,P. previously granted by the Zoning Administrator (ZA) for the above-referenced project. This appeal is legally and factually defective for a number of reasons, such as: (1) - The appeal is procedurally barred. The Appellant never provided comments on the project's draft CEQA document (i.e., the environmental review document) during the 30-day public comment period. The Appellant never testified,at the public hearing held on the draft.CEQA document by the ZA. The Appellant never appealed from the ZA's approval of the CEQA document granted at the March 31, 2004 hearing. Accordingly, since the Appellant's claim relates to the adequacy of the review of the project's environmental impacts and mitigation measures provided in the CEQA document, the Appellant,must have -- as a matter of law -- fled an appeal from the ZA's approval of the CEQA document in order to have legal standing to raise its current claim. 333 SOUTH HOPE STREET • SIXTEENTH FLOOR • LOS ANCELES, CA 90071 • TEL 113 576 1000 • FAX 213 576 1100 2801 TOdNSC.ATE ROAD, SUITE 215 • WESTLAKE VILLACC, CA 91361 • TEL 805 497 9474 • FAX 805 497 8804 54916s.1 www.wbcounsel.com VI/1V/V9 19:LJ -r AA LLJJI VLLVV _ t/GJI Vt� IJLi11J"%1Vr �VVV/ VVV Paul Daveiga July 1 G,2004 Page 2 (2) In addition to being legally barred, the Appellant's attack on the study of the project's traffic impacts is factually flawed. For example, the traffic study at issue was fully reviewed and approved by City staff, and no agency submitted any criticisms of the study. The study confirmed that the project's contribution to traffic at the intersection in question will be very minimal, while Appellant's traffic flow, in itself, is the cause of the need for the signal. In addition, Target has already agreed to pay a fee into the City's Traffic Impact Fee in the amount of$120,320, which can be used by the City for various projects (including, if the City sees fit, the traffic signal that Appellant seeks). For all these reasons, Target respectfully requests that the Council deny the appeal. The Anneal is Legally Barred Target seeks to rebuild its existing store at the intersection of Brookhurst Street and Adams Avenue. Appellant claims in its appeal that additional mitigation should be required at the opening of the median in Brookhurst Street approximately 720 feet south of Adams Avenue due to increase traffic along Brookhurst that the new Target store will supposedly generate. There is no other basis for the appeal. Yet, the issue of additional mitigation concerning traffic impacts must have been raised in connection with the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the project- Public notice of the draft prepared for the Target project was provided on January 20, 2004.- -A- full•••30-day•reyiew--p9riod••wasprovided for-all members of the public to - comment on the MND. The projIct's traffic impacts were reviewed in Section VI of the MND. Moreover, Section XVII listed all the prior environmental review and technical reports relating to the project and the MND. The traffic study by RK Engineering ("2003 RK Traffic Study") was one of the documents listed in support of the analysis set forth in the MND. The Appellant never provided comments on the draft MND during the 30- day review period. Although present, the Appellant never testified at the public hearing held on the MND by the (ZA) on March 31, 2004. Finally, and most importantly, the Appellant never appealed from the 7A's approval of the MND granted at the March 31 hearing, ®WhVON BENSHOOF RocHEPORY RUmgyA MACCusH... iGf111Ci 1 - _ U'//ltl/U4 14:94 MA X1OOYV11VU wZaIUS OWNanUur V1luVyf VVo Paul Daveiga July 16, 2004 Page 3 In light of these facts,the appeal is barred as a matter of law for at least two reasons. First, the sole basis for Appellant's claim is unrelated to the conditions and findings set forth in the C.U.P. -from which it now appeals, but, instead, relates to a supposedly unmitigated environmental impact of the project. Indeed, the appeal even refers to the traffic analysis provided in the 2003 RK Traffic Study, which is a technical document supporting the MND. Accordingly, since the Appellant's claim relates to the adequacy of the environmental review provided in the MND, the Appellant must have filed an appeal from the MND. Since the last day to file an appeal from the MND was April 12, 2004 (as indicated in the ZA's Notice of Action dated April 1, 2004) and no such appeal was filed by the Appellant, the Appellant is time-barred from raising its environmental claim at this late stage. The second reason why the appeal is legally infirm is that the Appellant never commented on the MND in any timely or public fashion. We understand that the Appellant may have submitted a letter to the City dated March 26, 2004 that reviews Appellant's concerns with the Brookhurst median. However, that letter was submitted long after the close of the 30-day review and comment period for the MND. The State CEQA Guidelines are quite clear that any comments received after the formal comment period need not be considered by the lead agency. Further, the Appellant failed to testify at the public hearing on the MND. The legal doctrine of"exhaustion of administrative remedies"requires the project opponent to timely raise objections to the CEQA document in the appropriate public fashion. This "rule affords the public agency and applicant an opportunity to receive and respond to articulated factual issues and legal theories before its actions are subjected to judicial review." Leff v. City of Monterey (1990) 218 Ca1.App.3d 674. If Appellant's concerns had been raised at the March 315t hearing, then Target could have promptly informed the ZA of the many reasons why the new Target store will cause no significant traffic impacts that warrant the installation of a traffic signal at the median opening in question. Putting aside the legal rhetoric in its attorney's letter dated July 14, 2004, the Appellant's response to this straightforward rule of law boils down to three untenable arguments. First, Appellant claims that it did not receive adequate notice of the necessity to file an appeal from the ZA's approval of the MND. However, in addition to the ZA's written notice of April 1, 2004 of its approval of the MND, the minutes of the March 31' hearing confirm that the ZA verbally informed the public at the end of March 3 let hearing of the City's rule allowing ten days to file an appeal from its decision approving the NM -- a rule that Appellant failed to follow. ®WEMN BVSKOOf ROCHFFORT Rusgc VQ NucCuisH w At,Oul, t r 540165.1 VI;10/Vq 1�:L4 itlA L1J.7l 011uu npJa Vn DL:aTJnVVr W_.JUVV/VVV Paul Daveiga July 16, 2004 Page 4 Second, Appellant contends that CEQA requires the Council to consider any information or comments raised about the project's potential environmental impacts up to the time that the project is approved. In fact, CEQA says exactly the opposite. State CEQA Guideline 15207 provides that if a person fails to submit comments on a draft CEQA document within the prescribed time period, then "it shall be assumed, absent a request for a specific extension of time, that such agency or person has no comment to make." (Emphasis added.) Third and finally, the Appellant questions the wisdom of the ZA's actions from a policy perspective. However, whether the policy is correct or not simply cannot be the issue on this appeal. Target comVied with all of the City's procedures, and those procedures cannot be changed at the 11 hour. Moreover, it is perfectly understandable why the ZA acted first on the environmental document and deferred its action on the C.U.P. By first taking action on the CEQA document and then allowing the appeal period for challenging the adequacy of that document to run, the ZA was able to take action on the underlying land use approval (the C.U.P.) based on a final and binding environmental review document. For all these reasons,the appeal must be dismissed as a matter of law. The Traffic Study The time to revisit the technical details of the- project traffic study has legally passed. However, there are two key flaws in the Appellant's competing traffic study that Target must bring to the Cotuicil's attention. First, Appellant maintains that Target is responsible for 50% of the traffic impacts that warrant installation of the traffic signal. Yet, the City-approved study confirms that the traffic from the Appellant's existing shopping center is solely responsible for the level of traffic that warrants the signal. Indeed, the proportion of traffic from the two centers at the intersection in question is dramatic. One of the key measures used to determine the need for a.traffic signal is the flow of traffic leaving a facility. At the intersection of driveways at issue Target contributes 9 cars during peak p m hours while Appellant's center contributes 160 cars. The other key flaw in Appellant's traffic analysis concerns its projected trip distribution for the remodeled Target store. It assumes that a significant amount of the existing traffic to and from the Target store will shift to the driveways along Broolchurst. Yet,the market area of the Target store will not change; no existing streets will be closed; no new streets will be built; and there will still be, as there is today, driveways along both ®WWOm Be,-45HOOF ROOIEMRT BWALCAVA MACC171SH w •TTCB%tri AT H1w 540165.1 V((10/V4 ly;Ly raA LLJ.7fV11VV LPQIIJ11VVi' Paul Daveiga July 16, 2004 Page 5 Adams and Brookhurst to the Target store. Therefore, customers will continue to select the Target driveway that is most convenient for them relative to their homes and overall driving patterns. At the end of the day, Appellant is simply seeking to use technical and legal arguments to shift the cost of the signal to Target, when that responsibility solely lies with Appellant. Therefore, Target respectfully requests that the Council deny the appeal. Very truly yours, Edward J. Casey WESTON, BENSHOOF, ROCHEFORT,RUBALCAVA & MacCUIS:H LLP EJC/ysr cc: Leone Mulvihill, Deputy City Attorney (Via Facsimile) ®W69TON BENSHOOF Rowwow RueALCAVA H&4;QISH ♦TTDINM AT"W 54016S.I PROOF OF PUBLICATION STATE OF CALIFORNIA) NOTICE OF PUBII(HEARING I complete redesign of the BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL 'parking area .with in- BEFORE stallation of new pe- SS. OF.THECITYOF. �rimeter, and interior HUNTIN6TO W(H landseapmg, and pe I NOTICE IS HEREBY destriari walkways 'Monday, throughout the.subject County of Orange GIVEN that on July. 19,. 2004,,,at. 7:00 site. Location: 9882 pm mtheCdyCouncil Adams Avenue Chambers;: 2000s Main (Southwest corner of am a Citizen of the United States and a ' Street, .Huntington AdamsBrook urst St. and, Beach, the,-City;Coupcil.: Adams Ave.) Project Planner` Paul Da BY resident of the County aforesaid] I am will:hold.apublic hearing!'I NOTICE IS HEREBY on the following planning GIVEN that the initial . over the-age of eighteen years, and rtot a — — and zoning items:1.-ApPEAL'OF—THE menifor ItetalNo.'I was!ment for Item No.'I was party to or interested In the below I SION'S APPROVAL OF processed and complet entitled matter. I am a principal clerk of CONDITIONAL USE ed in accordance with (� PERMIT, NO, _03-35 the California E ct. i-. P P mental Quality Act. It the HUNTINGTON BEACH INDEPENDENT a ANDGREBUILD�Appel- was determined that r Item No. 1, with miti- lant Charles G. Ball newspaper of general .circulation printed Applicant.. John warren' any s, would not have b I Request To permit the any significant environ- demolition of a 103458 + mental effects and that and pu is ed in the City of Huntington declaration negative square foot retail. declaration is warranted. Beach County of Orange State of I building and,construc- Mitigated Negative Dec- tion of a new, 123;800 laration No: 03-02 is on square foot' Target file.:at the City of Califorriia, and that attached Notice Is a i department=store with Huntington Beach Plan- an 8,100 square foot ning'Department` 2000 true and complete copy as was printed I attached garden center. L_The request includes—a Main - Street and'`is available for. public and published in the Huntington Beach 'inspection-and comment Plan- and Fountain Valley issues of said ning Department, g the or y ring Department, or by telephoning (714) 536 newspaper to wit the issue(s) of: 5271: ON FILE: A copy of the proposed request is on; file in the 'City Clerk's' Office,2000 Main Street,` Huntington-Beach; Cali- fornia '92648,•,for in July 8 , 2004 spection by.the public. i Acopy:-of •.the staff. report,will be available to interested parties at the City Clerk's Office on (Thursday before meeting)July 15,2004. ALL INTERESTED I declare, under penalty of perjury, that i PERSONS are-ininged to attend 'said hearin and express opinions or the foregoing is true and correct. submit evidence for or against the.-applicatiori as outlined above.-If you chal,ienge the City Council'siabtioh in,court;' jj you nay'b limited to. Executed on July 8 , 2004 raising only ose issues:; you or someone .else' at Costa Mesa, California. I raised at' the public hearing described!n`this'', notice or.rJn written; correspondence -cl64 eredt-to•the Cit`q at;:or. I prior' to,' the public hearing.if there are.;any. further questions please call the Planning De partment at '536-5271 and refer'to$he ab'oVe items.. Direct "your written communications i to the City'Clerk. Signature City Clerk City of Huntington Beach I 2000 Main Street, 2nd Floor Huntington Beach, California 92648• (714)53625227 Published' Huntington v Beach Independent July' 8;'2o04' 072-715 PROOF OF PUBLICATION STATE OF CALIFORNIA) NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING .complete redesign of rf,e SS. BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL Parking area with in- s tallation of new pe- OF:WdTYOF rimeter and interior County of Orange ) HUNTINGTON BEACH landscaping, and. pe- NOTICE IS HEREBY destrian walkways GIVEN that on Monday, throughout'the subject July.19,,2004 at.7:00 site. Location: 9882 1 am a Citizen of the United States and a p.m. ini the'City-Council Adams '.Avenue Chambers;::t2000 Maim (Southwest corner of resident of the County aforesaid; I am street, . Huntington Brookhurst St. and Beach, the,City Councils Adams Ave.) Project over_the age-of-eighteen years, and not- a _- will hold a_public.hearing.LPlanner: Paul Do Veiga on,the following planning NOTICE IS HEREBY - ond zoning items: GIVEN that the initial party to or interested in the below )environmental assess 1. APPEAL OF THE merit for Item No. 1 was COMMIS- entitled matter. I am a principal clerk of PLANNING COMMISF processed complet-' SION'S APPROVAL OF i,ed in accordance with CONDITIONAL USE, the California Environ- the HUNTINGTON BEACH INDEPENDENT, a PERMIT`,.NO.. 03735. mental Quality Act. It (TARGET.;DEMOLITION' was determined that newspaper of general circulation, printed AND REBUILD) Appel- Item No. 1, with miti- b lant Charles G. Ball , Apphcarit: John Warren gabon, would not have and pu lished In the City of Huntington any significant environ- Request:.7o,,permit__�the, mental effects and'that Beach County of Orange State of demolition,of;a:103',458' a mitigated negative 1 , square foot' retail California and that attached Notice is a building and construc- declaration is warranted. tion of a new 123,800 Mitigated Negative Dec- square foot Target fate a No. City is on true and complete copy as was printed department store with file at the City ofl an 8,100 square foot Huntington Beach Plan- and published In the Huntington Beach attached garden center,, ning,Department; 2000, (_The request includes .a .Main Street; ,and is' and Fountain Valley issues of said available .for„•public'. inspection and comment' by contacting the'Plan- newspaper to wit the issue(s) of: ning Department, or by telephoning (714) 536- 5271. ON.FILE: A copy of the proposed -request is on file in the.,City Clerk's Office,2000.Main Street,l July 8 r 2004 Huntington-Beach, Cali-I fornia 92648, for in- spection by the public. A copy of ..the staff) report will be available) to,interested,parties at i theeeting)July 15,2004.:_City Clerk's Office on (Thursday. before declare m , under penalty of perjury, that TE PERSONS RE dEto the foregoing is true and correct. attend said hearing and express opinions or submit evidence for or against the application as outlined above.If you challenge the City Executed on July 81 2004 Council'ssaction-in court,. you.may,,.be limited to at Costa Mesa, California. raisingonly those`jssues you''Or 'someone else raised at -th'e public hearing'described inthis notice .or i6 'written4 correspondence- deliv eieA-fo.W97 City-at, or` prior to,, the public hearing: If there are any further questions please call -the Planning De-, partment at 536-5271 and refer to the above items. -Direct. your Signature written communications to the City Clerk., City'Clerk City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street, 2nd Floor Huntington Beach, California'92648 (714)06--M7 Published• Huntington Bea6h.'1ndependent Julys 8,2004 �b72-715 rA T 7/e/ox NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING _ BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Monday, July 19, 2004 at 7:00 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: 1. APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 03-35 (TARGET DEMOLITION AND REBUILD) Appellant: Charles G. Ball Applicant: John Warren Request: To permit the demolition of a 103,458 square foot.retail building and construction of a new 123,800 square foot Target department store with an 8,100 square foot attached garden center. The request includes a complete redesign of the parking area with installation of new .perimeter and interior landscaping, and pedestrian walkways throughout the subject site. Location: 9882 Adams Avenue (Southwest corner of Brookhurst St. and Adams Ave.) Project Planner: Paul Da Veiga NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the initial environmental assessment for Item No. 1 was processed and completed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. It was determined that Item No. 1, with mitigation, would not have any significant environmental effects and that a mitigated negative declaration is warranted. Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 03-02 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 City Clerk's Office, 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 before meeting) July 15, 2004. 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. City Clerk City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street, 2nd Floor . Huntington Beach, California 92648 (714) 536-5227 Legals/Counci I/040719 i CITY COUNCIVREDEVELOPMENT AGENCY PUBLIC HEARING REQUEST SUBJECT: ,&WV;�t_ a F (A i- ►.lv 0 - EB 90 DEP ►J L Kt Lo. MEETING DATE: b CO ACT:„ f&A PHONE: x 39�- N/A YES NO ( ) (✓� ( ) Is the notice attached? ( ) (t ( ) 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? ( ) (✓� ( ) If an appeal,is the appellant's name included in the notice? i ( ( ) ( ) If Coastal Development Permit,does the notice include appeal language? i ( ( ) ( ) Is there an Environmental Status to be approved by Council? Is a map attached for publication? ( ( ) ( ) _ 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 appeilanes name and address part of the maliug labels? If Coastal Development Permit,is the Coastal Commission part of the mailing labels? i ( ( ) O If Coastal Development Permit,are the resident labels attached? ( ( ) ( •) Is the Report 33433 attached? (Economic Development Dept.items only) A. Pleas complete the following. _ 1. Minimum days from publication to hearing date D 2. Number of times to be published 3. Number of days between publications 21 I '41C HEARING NOTIFICATION CHECKLIST ". MAILING LABELS—januarf 6,2004 G.abets\Labels\Public Hearing Planning Director 24 japes Jones 31r3 Harr_t:roas HOA 38 Cir;...of Seal Beach Ocean.View Elementan- ?rogressive Com.nuain-�ISgmm 211 Eight St. `1 School District 27403 Puazm Real,r300 Seal Beach,CA 90740 17200 Pir_ehunr Lane _�Iissio Z-;ee'-o,CA 92691 rin5-on Beach C_A 92641• California Coastal Commission 23 jon A --`irchibald -32 S-�117;G_ihs:t. 39 . Theresa Henry- Westaminster School District _lieadoR;lar;A ea \South Coast Area Office 14121 Cedarwood Avenue 5161 Gelding Circle 200 Oceangate, loth Floor Westminster CA 91_683 Huntington Beach,CA 92649 Lang Beach,CA92802-4302 , 1 California Coastal Commission 25 Patricia Koch 33 Chercle Browning 39 Souch Coast Area Office HB Union High School Districr 1 feadowlark Area 200 bceangate,10th Floor 1025L Yorktown Avenue 16771 Rooseve.It Lane Long Beach,CA 92802-4302 Hunington Beach,CA.92646 Huntington Bea4..C'A 92649 Robert�-oseph 26 CSA,Inc. 34 Hearthside Homes 40 Caltrans District;1 12 Marshall Krupp,President 6 Executive Circle,Suite 250 •3337 NfAelsonlbrive,Suite 380 204 Nata' Irvine, C1 92614 Irvine,C A.9261'2-1699 Newportis$each,C192660 � J Director. 27 Golden-west College 35 Bolsa Cliica Land Trust 1 Local Solid Waste Enf.Agy. A=:Fred Oweris 5200 %x/Qzner Avenue;Ste. 108 O.C.Healthy Care Agency 13744 Goldeawest St. Huntington Beach,CA 92649• P.O.Box 355 Huntington Beach CA 92647 �J Santa Ana;CA 92702 l / 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 Garner Ave.`. P.O.Box 4048 ', F 1312 Port Tiffin Place Huntington Beach,CA 92647 Santa Ana,;CA 92702-4048 Newport Beach,CA 92660 1 ` Marc Ecker 29 Huntington Beach IN'all 37 Ed DeNleulle,Chairperson 42 Fountain Valley Elem,School Dist. Attn:PatlRogers-Laude SEHBNA 172�0,Oak Street 7771 Eduiger Ave #300 9�441 Alit.Cirele . 08 Huntin Fountain Valley C.1 .927gton Beach Cxk 92647 Hunting da Beach,CA 92646 ,1 1 Dr. Gary Rutherford,Super. 30 Counter View Estates HOA 38 �C1C Sanitation District �. 42 BIB City Elementary School Dist. Carrid Thomas 10844 Ellis Avenue 20451 Craimer Lane 6642,Trotter Drive Foun}aia Valley CA 9Z708 =tington Beach,CA 92648 :�iunangton Beach CA 92648 David Perin, 30 C =- Z'iew Estates HOA`.. 38 Ed Blaekforde0resident 42 HB City Elementary School Dist. C-erald Chapman :kE.S Ht�oa Beach,LLC 20451 Craimer Lane i 6742 Shire Circle 21730,Newlaad Street i Huntington Beach,CA 92648 ` �Iundngton Beach CA 92648 Huatigton Beach CA 9264�'-\\ 4 `i F IC HEARING NOTIFICATION CHECKLIST MAILING LABELS-January 6, 2004 G:Iabe1s\Iabe!3\,0 bUc Hearing President L ' Huntington Harbor PO?. 10` !Sue Johnson 16 H.B. Chamber of Commerce `:P.O.Box 791 19671 Quiet Bar La._e 19891 Beach Blvd.,Ste. 140 Sunset Beach,CA 90742 - ,con Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 9261.8 Betty]o Woollen 2 Cvtlliam D.Holman 11 EdraZ.ittlebury 17 Orange Count-,•Assoc.of Realtors PLC�. Gldn'St Nlob.Hm.Owners Leag. `25552 La Paz Road 19 Corporate Plaza Dare 11021'.'Aagnolia Blvd. Laguna Hills,C-1 92653,` New-cort Beach CA 92660-7912 Garden Grove,CA 92642. President\\ 3 &Ln Tom Zanic 12 Pacific Coast Archaeological.' 18 Amigos De Borsa Chica New Urban West Society—,inc. 16531 Bolsa�Chica Street,Suite 312 520 Broadway Sce. 100 P.O. Bo:a:10926 Huntington Beach,CA 92649 Santa Monica CA 90401 r� Costa Mesa,CA 92627 _-1tta:Jane'GothoId Sunset Beach Community 4i ssoc. 4 Pres.,H.B.Mst:';Socety 13 Director 19 Pat Thies,President C/O I\Tewland House-Museum O.C. Plug.&Dev.Services Dept. �/ O Box 215 ti 19820 Beach Blvd:: P.O.Box 4048 1 i� Sunset Beach,CA 90742-0215 _ Huntington Beach,'CA92648 Santa-Ana,CA 92702 4048 President Comanunitp Services Dept 14 Vicky` 'ikon 1% 19 Huntingtoa Beach Tomorrow Chairperson' j O.C.Public.Facilities::&Res.Dept. PO Box 865 Historical Resources Bd.', P. O.Box 4048.-:, Huntington Beach,C.A.92648 r Santa Ana,G1/92702-4848 t t Julie Vandermost ;• 6 Council on aging 15 Planning Director 1'. 20 BLS-OC 1706 Orange Ade. City Of Costa blesa'; \.17744 Skv Park Circle,#170,/ Huntington Beach,CA 92648`4 P. O.Box 1i200 i�vine CA 92614-4441 ;f � `� Costa Mesa,Cif 92628-1200 Richard Spzrer 7 Jeff Nfetzel , 16 Planning.Director 21 SCAG / SeacUfEHO 4 City of Fountain Valley 818 West 7th,,,12th Floor 19391 Shad Harbor Circle 10200 ter:kve. Los Angeles.,CA 9 17 Huntiagtod Beach,CA 92648'...:. ��' Fountain Valley,C.3 92708 1 j � I E.Zonal 100 8 John Roe 16�'. PlaarLg Director 22 ,2Iary Bell Seacliff F•IOA , City of Newport Beach 20292 Eastwood Cir. 19382 S�rfdaleLane +` P.O/Box 1768 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Newport Beach,CA 92663-8915 t t Al Hendricker Lou iviannone 16 Planning Director 23 . Environmental Board Chairman Seacliff HO A City of Westminster 8452 Grace Circle 19821 Ocean Bluff Circle 8200 Westminster Blvd. Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach Ck 92648 /Westminster,CA 92683 W1O965 aasel slagej ssaippV ®A U3A V 12 Charles Ball Business Properties Development Co. 17631 Fitch Irvine,CA 92614-6021 agis J04 widwal asQ ciaanc naa-j mnnme Smooth Feed Sheets TM Use template for 51600 15140608 151 461 01 151 461 02 Robert Soto&Dee Soto Tosbiki Tr Takata Rex Liu&Gina Liu 9202 Santiago Dr 9781 Olympic Dr 9791 Olympic Dr Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach. - 0 CA 91646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 :151461 03 151.461%04 151 461.05.� Lone Mae.GTand'e&Giry Lee_Batchelo Paqira.Malapir r .a: :.-Girard Tr. 9801 Olympic Dr 9812 Olympic Dr 9802 Olympic Dr Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach..CA-92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 151 461 06 15146107- 151 461 08 Roy Hanaoka Dalia Iskander Robert Tr Stebbins 9792 Olympic Dr 9782 Olympic Dr 9781 Rainier Cir Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 15146109 151461 10 151461 11 Malls Shui-chin Tr Chiu Joseph Aguilar Robert Tr Copeland 9791 Rainier Cir 9801 Rainier Cir 9812 Rainier.Cir Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 151461 12 151461 13 151461 14 Douglas Brown&Rebecca Brown Joyce Tr Fidone C William Dahlin&G B Dahlin 9802 Rainier Cir 9792 Rainier:Cir 9782 Rainier Cir, Huntington Beach, CA-92646: Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA. 92646..-.:. 151461 15 151461 16 151461 17 Carl Tr Curtis George&Linda Medina Gil Takashi 9781 Cathay Cir 9791 Cathay Cir 9801 Cathay Cir Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 151461 18 151461 19 151461 20 Chinpyng Wu&Grace Hua Wu Gregory Carcerano&Leslie Carcerano John Tr Gorman Jr. 9812 Cathay Cir 9802 Cathay Cir 9792 Cathay Cir Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 15146111 151461-.22. . 15146124 K.ajita William,&L 2nd&Vermont Associates Ltd Equilod Entrprs Llc 9782 Cathay Cir 4221 Wilshire Blvd#43 0 PO Box 4369 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Los Angeles,CA 90010 Houston,TX 77210 15146126 15146129 153 17101 Rodney Couch Bank Of America Nt&Sa House Plaza Towne 6104 Riverside Ave 750 B St-101500 140 Newport Center Dr Riverside, CA 92506 San Diego,CA 92101 New-port Beach,CA 92660 153 17102 155 051 10 155 181 04 Mark Sork Richard Tr Laventhol Downey Savings&Loan Assn 140 Newport Center Dr 14905 Tercer Verde PO Box 6010 Newport Beach,CA 92660 Del Mar,CA 92014 Newport Beach,CA 92658 MMI, AVERY@ Address Labels C=s Laser 5960"' Smoo�t� �e�� h��.X�Tnn Uset 151 272 11 151 272 12 151 272 13 Kiet Nguyen&Kieutien Tonnu . Marion Solotoff Kelly Ray&Nancy 9392 Kings Canyon Dr 18761 Flagstaff La 9912 Kings Canyon Dr Huntington Beach,CA 92646 _ Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach;CA 92646 151 272-14 151 272 15 151 272 16 Lester Obie*&Flora Mid Obie 7ohnLinder&:Sara Linder.. Jose Grimbera 9922 Kings Canyon Dr _ 9942 Kings Canyon Dr Kings Canyon Dr Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 151 272 17 151 272 18 151 272 19 Doris Gerard Brett Baird&Julie Baird Mohammed Tr Qureshi 9951 Mammoth Dr 9941 Mammoth Dr 4152 Shorebreak Dr Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92649 151 272 20 151272 21 151 272 22 Limbocker&Donald&M Limbocker Seth Daugherty&Sherrie Daugherty Thomas Tat Shiu Tam&Korinna Po-w 9911 Mammoth Dr 9901 Mammoth Dr 9891 Mammoth Dr Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 151 272 23 151 272 24 151 272 26 Donald Jorgensen&Catherine Jorgense Maxine Tr Holsted Mohamad Said Elhurr&Raja Elhurr .9881 Mammoth Dr. . :. _ . 9871.Mammoth Dr 9601..Erskine Dr . .Huntmatgn Beac4I:CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntin ii Beach;CA 92646 a . 151 272 27 151272 28 151 272 29 Arturo Aviles Jr. &Roxana Aviles Kenneth Keane Jr.&Carole D Keane Haj irne Uechi&Mayumi Uechi 9841 Mammoth Dr 9831 Mammoth Dr 9821 Mammoth Dr Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 151 272 30 151401 10 151 401 11 Richard&Nelda Bass Anthony George Evelyn Andamo 9801 Mammoth Dr 9751 Olympic Dr 9761 Olympic Dr Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 151 404 01 151 40402 151 404 07 Jack Aram Tr Saha 'an Steven Kawatski Klianh Do&Huyen Do ' 81 9762 Olympic Dr 9752 Olympic Dr 9751 Rainier Cir Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 151 404 08 15140502 151 405 07 James &Lisa Lim Huang Jr. John&Kati Shinn David Van Winkle&Maureen Van Wi 9 761 Rainier Cir 9752 Rainier Cir 9751 Cathay Cir Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 151 405 08 151406 01 151 406 02 Edward Jackson Chung Ta Tseng&Siew Tseng _ Patrick 13olotin 9761 Cathay Cir 9762 Cathay Cir 9752 Cathay Cir Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 MAVERY@ Address Labels Laser 5960TM S f,00i.R.tts7Y•:.. Use tAmpbate-fax:316a�. . 155 18105 155 18124 155 18127 Downey Savings&Loan Assn Business Properties Partnership.No 15 Business Properties Partnership N o 15 PO Box 6000 Melvin Tr Schantz 17631 Fitch Newport Beach, CA 92658 32 N Vista De Catalina Irvine, CA 92614 Laguna Beach,CA 92651 — - — 155:191.09. .. 155:191. 10.. . . Kenneth Tr Walker. Richard Roupoli&:Joyce R6#oli 20191 Princeton Cir 20181:Princeton Cir Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 John Warren Target Corp. Pacific Land Services 1000-Nicollet Mall 2151 Salvio St. , Ste. 250 Minneapolis 'ITN 55403 Concord CA 94520 QAV I Y® Address Labels Laser 59f 0?""...T.: =. - - - iT� FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 03-35 FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 03-35: 1. Conditional Use Permit No. 03-35 to permit the demolition of a 103,458 sq. ft. retail building and construction of a new 123,800 sq. ft. Target department store with an 8,100 sq. ft. attached garden center 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. The proposed project meets or exceeds all Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance standards. The proposed architecture, colors, and materials are consistent with the Urban Design Guidelines through the use of varied quality building materials such as stone veneer, stucco, and concrete tile roof. The design incorporates multiple plane rooflines and a substantial amount of massing in the design to eliminate the "big-box" appearance of the subject building. Based upon the conditions imposed, the 8,100 square foot garden center will be designed with a solid wall running along its entire length, which will reduce potential noise impacts from garden center activities to adjacent properties. In addition, the loading and unloading area will be designed to minimize potential impacts to adjacent residences. With the implementation of MND No. 03-02 mitigation measures, conditions of approval, and design modifications, the potential impacts of the project have been mitigated to a level of insignificance. 2. The conditional use permit will be compatible with surrounding uses which consist of commercial uses to the north and east, and single-family residences to the south and to the west of the subject site. A noise study was conducted on the subject site and recommended mitigation measures have been incorporated into the conditions of approval. The garden center will be equipped with a solid block wall along its entire length to mitigate any potential noise impacts to nearby residents. The operation of the garden center will be regulated through the conditions of approval and shall not contain any amplified loudspeakers, which would disrupt adjacent residents. Hours of operation for loading and unloading of product have been regulated in the conditions of approval to allow deliveries during daytime hours only. The proposed truck loading will be constructed with sound attenuating material such as solid walls, roof, rubber seals, and sound absorbing material to reduce noise impacts to adjacent residents. In addition, loitering by employees or patrons shall not be allowed behind the subject building and signs shall be posted which prohibit loitering activity. 3. The proposed Conditional Use Permit No. 03-35 will comply with the provisions of the base district and other applica e-provisions in Titles 20-25 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance and-any specific condition required for the proposed use in the district in which it would be located. 4. The granting of the conditional use permit will not adversely affect the General Plan. The project is consistent with the Land Use Element designation of CG-F1 (General Commercial — FAR 0.35) on the subject property. In addition, it is consistent with the following goals and policies of the General Plan: A. Land Use Element Goal LU 1: Achieve development that maintains or improves the City's fiscal viability and reflects economic demands while maintaining and improving the quality of life for the current and future residents of Huntington Beach. (04NOA0525) Attachment No. 1. 1 Goal LU 2: Ensure that development is adequately served by transportation, infrastructure, utility infrastructure, and public services adequately serve development. Goal LU 4: Achieve and maintain high quality architecture, landscape, and public open spaces in the City. Policy LU 10.1.4: Require that commercial buildings and sites be designed to achieve a high level of architectural and site layout quality. Policy LU 10. 1.5: Require that buildings, parking, and vehicular access be sited and designed to prevent adverse impacts on adjacent residential neighborhoods. Policy LU 10.1.6: Require that commercial projects abutting residential properties adequately protect the residential use from the excessive or incompatible impacts of noise, light, vehicular traffic, visual character, and operational hazards. Policy LU 10.1.12: Require that Commercial General uses be designed and developed to achieve a high level of quality, distinctive character, and compatibility with existing uses and development including the consideration of: o Incorporation of site landscape, particularly along street frontages and in parking lots; ❑ Linkage of buildings by common architectural design, landscape and pedestrian systems, to avoid the appearance of independent freestanding structures surrounded by parking; ❑ Siting and design of structures to facilitate and encourage pedestrian activity; ❑ Siting of one or more buildings in proximity to the street frontage to convey a visual relationship to the street and sidewalks; ❑ Architectural treatment of buildings to minimize visual bulk and mass, using techniques such as the modulation of building volumes and articulation of all elevations; and ❑ Inclusion of consistent signage designed and integrated into the building's architectural character. Goal LU 11: Achieve the development of projects that enable residents to live in proximity to their jobs, commercial services, and entertainment, and reduce the need for automobile use.. Policy LU 7.1.6: Accommodate the development of additional jobs-generating land uses that improve the 1992 jobs-to-housing ratio of 0.82 to 1.0 or greater; to meet objectives of the Regional Comprehensive Plan (Southern California Association of Governments) and Air Quality Management Plan. These should capitalize upon existing industrial strengths emphasizing the clustering of similar or complementary industries. The proposed Target store would support the needs and reflect market demand of City residents and visitors. The proposed development improves the project site through the addition of landscape planters along the perimeter of the site and throughout the parking area. In addition, the proposed project would help the City to achieve its goal of enhancing the community image of Huntington Beach through the design and construction of a high-quality, state-of-the-art development; impacts to the surrounding area are mitigated to the greatest extent possible, while still allowing for the market-driven commercial development. The design of the project promotes development of commercial buildings that convey a unified, high-quality visual image and character. The City's Design Review Board has reviewed the proposed architecture, colors, and materials and recommends preliminary approval of the design (04NOA0525) Attachment No. 1.2 concept with minor modifications. Public services are currently available to the project site, as well as the surrounding parcels, and the project includes improvements to existing infrastructure to ensure adequate service after project implementation. With the recommended conditions of approval, the design of the project meets the objectives of the Urban Design Element through the use of massing elements and architectural detailing on all elevations, in conjunction with a varied roof line in order to eliminate the appearance of an overall "big-box" design. Varied use of earth tone colors and quality exterior materials such as stone veneer, split-face block, and other similar materials is incorporated to accent prominent portions of the building fagades. B. Economic Development Element Goal ED 1: Provide economic opportunities for present and future Huntington Beach residents and businesses through employment and local fiscal stability. Goal ED 2: Aggressively retain and enhance the existing commercial, industrial, and visitor- serving uses while attracting new uses to Huntington Beach. Goal ED 3: Enhance Huntington Beach's economic development potential through strategic land use planning and sound urban design practices. The proposed project promotes development in accordance with Huntington Beach's Economic Development Element. The proposed project expands upon an already successful retail commercial development that, with the additional floor area proposed, will broaden and stabilize the City's economic base. New employment opportunities will be created both in the construction of the proposed development and in the long-term operations of the retail establishment. C. Circulation Element Goal CE 1: Provide a balanced transportation system that supports the policies of the General Plan and facilitates the safe and efficient movement of people and goods throughout the City while providing a balance between economic development and the preservation of residential neighborhoods, and minimizing environmental impacts. Goal CE 2: Provide a circulation system which supports existing, approved, and planned land uses throughout the City while maintaining a desired level of service on all streets and at all intersections. Policy CE 2.1.1: Maintain a citywide level of service (LOS) not to exceed LOS "D"for intersections during the peak hours. Policy CE 2.1.2: Maintain a city-wide level of service (LOS) not to exceed LOS "C"for daily traffic, with the exception of Pacific Coast Highway south of Brookhurst Street. Policy CE 2.1.3: Identify and improve roadways and intersections that are approaching, or have reached, unacceptable levels of service. Goal CE 5: Provide sufficient, well-designed, and convenient on- and off-street parking facilities throughout the City. (04NOA0525) Attachment No. 1.3 Goal CE 7: Maintain and enhance the visual quality and scenic views along designated corridors. A traffic impact analysis has been completed by a traffic engineering firm to ensure a balanced transportation system that adequately mitigates the project's potential traffic impacts while still allowing for commercial development to be achieved. The developer will be required to contribute a fair-share payment toward traffic system improvements to mitigate the project's proportionate impacts to certain intersections and roadways. Through the recommended conditions of approval, the project will be required to provide a much-needed traffic signal at one of the most dangerous intersections in the City. The well-designed parking facilities include compact spaces distributed throughout the site, access between existing parcels without re- entering the public street system, reciprocal driveways between uses, parking lot landscape planters, and perimeter landscaping to enhance the view of the parking area from the surrounding street system. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL—CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 03-35: 1. The site plan, floor plans and elevations received and dated March 18, 2004 shall be the conceptually approved layout with the following modifications: a. The loading dock enclosure shall be constructed with sound absorbing material designed to minimize noise impacts associated with loading and unloading activities. Truck loading and maneuvering shall be designed to provide the greatest separation possible from the adjacent residential properties. The architecture colors and materials of the enclosure shall be consistent with the overall building architecture. b. The architecture colors and materials of the garden center shall be consistent with the overall building architecture. c. The design, colors, and materials for the subject building shall be reviewed by the Design Review Board (DRB)following approval by the Planning Commission. 1) Elevations shall be revised to incorporate multiple roof planes and/or a variety of roof slopes to reduce the overall mass and bulk of the building and comply with the Urban Design Guidelines. 2) The overall architectural theme shall reflect a contemporary architectural design consistent with the design concept identified on elevation dated April 14, 2004. Several massing elements, in various volumes, shall be incorporated into the design. Varied use of earth tone colors and quality exterior materials such as stone veneer, split-face block, or other similar material shall be incorporated to accent prominent portions of the building fagades. 3) The design of the garden center shall incorporate an enhanced entry design which shall have the appearance of a secondary storefront. The design of the garden center shall include similar architectural design as the overall building. 4) A public art element shall be integrated and be in a location that is visible to the public within the project site. Public art shall incorporate the following: i) Artistic excellence and innovation ii) Appropriate to the design of the project iii) Indicative of the community's cultural identity (ecology, history, society) (04NOA0525) Attachment No. 1.4 The Design Review Board's recommended public art element shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director, prior to issuance of a building permit for the project. The public art shall be in place at the subject site prior to final building inspection. d. The cart corrals shall be constructed with a durable material such as concrete block. The design of the cart corrals shall be consistent with Sheet 6 of the conceptual plans dated March 18, 2004. The colors and materials used on the cart corrals shall be consistent with the subject building. e. All non-conforming signs shall be eliminated from the subject site, including the one pylon sign along the Adams Avenue frontage and a second pylon sign along the Brookhurst Street frontage. A planned sign program for all signage on the subject property and outlying commercial pads shall be submitted to the Planning Department. Said program shall be approved prior to the first sign permit request. f. Prior to submittal for building permits. The applicant shall submit a copy of the revised site plan, floor plans and elevations pursuant to Condition No. 1 for review and approval, and inclusion in the entitlement file to the Planning Department and submit 8.5 inch by 10 inch colored elevations, materials board, and renderings to the Planning Department for inclusion in the entitlement file. g The parking layout shall be amendetl to reduce the number of compact parking spaces�to the W greatest extent feasible and-relocatelanyr'emaiiing compact- pacesto-remote areasxon the lot: h. All parking that is proposed behind the store, within the access gates, shall be designated as employee-only parking. i. A minimum of two speed bumps shall be provided behind the building, subject to review and approval by the Fire Department. j. All perimeter trees located directly adjacent to residential properties shall be of a species that is non-deciduous and results in minimal impacts in maintenance and upkeep to adjacent properties. 2. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the following shall be completed: a. The site plan received and dated April 14, 2003 shall be the approved layout except for the following: (PW) 1) The driveway on the south side of the property along Brookhurst Street shall be widened to a minimum of 36-feet in width, to allow for two egress lanes. 2) A minimum 10-foot sight triangle must be provided at all points on the site, including the building corners. Areas of concern include the northwest corner(at the loading dock) and northeast corner of the building. The sidewalk must also be extended a minimum of four feet west of the building corner. 3) A truck-tracking exhibit, utilizing a WB-50 design vehicle, must be provided to demonstrate that delivery trucks can be accommodated. This truck tracking exhibit must illustrate a truck entering the site, accessing the loading docks and egressing the site. It must be (04NOA0525) Attachment No. 1.5 demonstrated that the truck movements will not encroach into opposite directions of roadway traffic nor impact the parking spaces shown. 4) A traffic signal shall be constructed at the main driveway entrance on Adams Avenue. This traffic signal shall include the installation of interconnect conduit and cable to the traffic signal controller cabinet at the intersection of Brookhurst Street and Adams Avenue. A traffic signal and maintenance easement shall be provided in the driveway area. The appropriate curb ramp and signing & striping modifications shall be made to accommodate the traffic signal installation. (PW/MM) 5) The applicant shall provide the legal description(s), plat(s), and supporting documents necessary for the City to quitclaim any abandoned portions of the existing water line easement dedicated to the City of Huntington Beach. (PW) 3. Prior to issuance of building permits, the following shall be completed: a. An "Acceptance of Conditions"form shall be properly executed by the applicant and an authorized representative of the owner of the property, recorded with the County Recorder's Office, and returned to the Planning Department for inclusion in the entitlement file. Conditions of approval shall remain in effect in the recorded form in perpetuity, except as modified or rescinded pursuant to the expressed written approval of the City of Huntington Beach. b. The public art element shall be approved by the reviewed by the Design Review Board and approved by the Planning Director. 4. The structure(s) cannot be occupied, the final building permit(s) cannot be approved, and utilities cannot be released for commencement of use and issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy until compliance with all conditions of approval specified herein are accomplished and verified by the Planning Department. 5. The use shall comply with the following: a. Delivery hours for vendor truck deliveries, Target product delivery, and trash pickup shall be limited to Monday through Friday between the hours of 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM. All delivery vehicles, including Target trucks and outside vendors that cannot be accommodated with a typical 9 foot wide by 19 foot deep parking stall shall utilize the enclosed delivery bays for all loading and unloading activities. All other delivery vehicles that are no larger than a typical parking stall size may utilize the parking lot and access the store through the main entrance. Deliveries of any kind shall be prohibited behind the subject building, other than the designated loading and unloading bays. (MM) b. Delivery trucks shall not leave engines idling while delivering merchandise to the Target store. Trucks shall turn-off engines once they reach the loading dock. (MM) c. There shall be no loudspeakers or other amplified devices within the garden center, at any time. d. Rubber noise seals shall be provided around the opening to the building at the location of the loading dock. (MM) e. The trash compactor shall not be operated before 8:00 AM and after 7:00 PM. (MM) (04NOA0525) Attachment No. 1.6 f. All doors along the southerly and westerly facades of the building shall remain closed at all times. (MM) g. The hours of operation for the Target store shall be from 7 a.m. to 12 a.m. The access gates to the rear of the building shall remain closed from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. h. Parking lot lights shall be automatically dimmed to minimal security level lighting one hour after closing. i. The Target Department Store shall be designated as a single user with a maximum of 10 percent of the gross building floor area devoted to an ancillary retail/restaurant tenant. j. Any re-use of the site or request for future demising walls to allow for a new use within the subject building shall require approval of a conditional use permit by the Planning Commission. k. All outdoor display of seasonal, holiday, special events, and temporary outdoor sales events within the parking lot, on sidewalks, or any other portion of the project site shall be subject to the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Code. At no time shall a Temporary Use Permit be granted for the area between the subject building and the southerly or westerly property lines. I. There shall be no outside storage of storage containers or bins, vehicles, vehicle parts, equipment, or trailers. There shall be no outside storage of palettes or other product at any time without the required permits. m. There shall be no loitering by patrons or employees within the parking areas located at the rear of the subject building. Signs shall be posted to indicate that no loitering in all parking areas located behind the subject building. Store managers shall be responsible for regulating all activity occurring at the rear of the subject building at all times. n. A store liaison shall be permanently established and available to assist neighbors and residents with issues regarding the site during construction and after completion of the project when the development is open for business. A sign identifying the store contact and telephone number shall be permanently posted on-site. o. All Mitigation Measures of Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 03-02 shall be adhered to. 6. The Planning Director ensures that all conditions of approval herein are complied with. The Planning Director shall be notified in writing if any changes to the site plan, elevations and floor plans are proposed as a result of the plan check process. Building permits shall not be issued until the Planning Director has reviewed and approved the proposed changes for conformance with the intent of the Zoning Administrator's action and the conditions herein. If the proposed changes are of a substantial nature, an amendment to the original entitlement reviewed by the Zoning Administrator may be required pursuant to the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. 7. 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. INDEMNIFICATION AND HOLD HARMLESS CONDITION: I (04NOA0525) Attachment No. 1.7 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. (04NOA0525) Attachment No. 1.8 (6) July 19, 2004 -Council/Agency Minutes - Page 6 Adjournment By consensus of all present, none absent,the Annual Meeting of the Huntington Beach Civic Improvement Corporation was adjourned. Mayor.Cathy Green lReconvened the City Council/Redevelopment Agency Meetings (City Council/Redevelopment Agency) Joint Public Hearing Held to Consider Sale to Robert Koury, of Agency Owned Property Located at 214 Fifth Street(Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project Main-Pier Sub-Area) -Adopted Resolution No.2004-53 and Agency Resolution No. 349 (650.70) Mayor Green announced that this was the time noticed for an administrative public hearing to consider sale to Robert Koury of Agency-owned property located at 214 Fifth Street (Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project Main Pier Sub-Area). Council considered a communication from the Economic Development Director/Deputy Executive Director-David Biggs and Administrative Services Director Clay Martin. Legal notice as provided to the City Clerk's Office by staff had been published and posted. Director David Biggs gave a PowerPoint presentation titled Sale of 214 Fifth Street July 19,2004 Agenda Item D-1 detailing the events preceding this public hearing,which was announced earlier as a Late Communication by City_Clerk Joan L. Flynn; . Mayor Green declared the public hearing open: City Clerk Joan L. Flynn announced the late communication relating to this hearing is available for viewing at the City Clerk's Office. There being no persons present to speak on the matter and there being no protests filed, either written or oral, the Mayor declared the public hearing closed. Council discussion ensued relating to the proceeds of the sale and the types of projects that could receive funding from these proceeds. A motion was made by Houchen, second Cook to: Adopt.Resolution No.2004-53 entitled "A Resolution of the City-Council of the`City ofHunt/ngton Beach Approving the Sale of Property Located within the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project Area."and Adopt Agency Resolution No. 2004-349 entitled "A Resolution of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach Approving the Sale of Property Located Within the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project Area." The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Sullivan, Coerper, Hardy, Green, Boardman, Cook, Houchen NOES: None ABSENT: None (7) July 19, 2004 -Council/Agency Minutes -Page 7 (City Council) Public Hearing Held - Deny Appeal Filed by Charles G. Ball -Approve as Amended the Planning Commission's Approval of Application (Consistent with the. General Plan) Filed by John Warren of Conditional Use Permit No. 03-35 (Target Department Store Demolition and Rebuild) Located at 9882 Adams Avenue (s/w Corner of Brookhurst Street and Adams Avenue) (420.40) Appellant: Charles G. Ball, Business Properties Development Company Applicant: John Warren, Pacific Land Services Request: To permit the demolition of a 103,458 square foot retail building and construction of a new 123,800 square foot Target department store with an 8,100 square foot attached garden center. The request includes a complete redesign of the parking area with installation of new perimeter and interior landscaping, and pedestrian walkways throughout the subject site. Location: 9882 Adams Avenue (Southwest corner of Brookhurst St. and Adams Ave.) Environmental Status: Initial environmental assessment for this agenda item was processed and completed in accordance with the Califomia Environmental Quality Act. It was determined that this item,with mitigation, would not have any significant environmental effects and that a mitigated negative declaration is warranted. Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 03-02 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. Mayor Green announced that this was the time noticed for a public hearing to consider the appeal filed by Charles.G Ball of the Planning Commission's approval of applicatron fated by John.Warrembf Conditional.Use Permit No: 03-35 Legal notice as provided to the City Clerk's Office by staff had been mailed, published and posted. Associate Planner Paul DaVeiga presented a PowerPoint report titled Target Appeal 9882 Adams Avenue—Appeal of CUP No. 03-35 Applicant: John Warren,Appellant: Charles Ball July 19, 2004, which was included in the agenda packet. Mayor Green declared the public hearing open. Charles Ball spoke regarding his opinion that the appeal was filed in a timely manner. He disagreed with the mitigation measures and believes the traffic study is flawed. Mr. Ball stated his opinion that a traffic signal is necessary on both Adams Avenue and Brookhurst Street. Jeffrey Oderman, attorney for the.appellant,.informed Council of,his support of conditioning the CUP (Conditional Use Permit) for an additional traffic signal for the safety and welfare of the citizens. John Warren informed Council that in his opinion Stater Brothers is responsible mostly for the traffic impact on Brookhurst Street. Mr. Warren urged Council to move forward with the Target remodel project. City Clerk Joan L. Flynn announced the late communication pertaining to this hearing. Ed Casey, attorney for the applicant, referred to the Late Communication submitted to Council stating various reasons why the appeal should be denied. (8) July 19, 2004-Council/Agency Minutes - Page 8 Kareem All urged Council to move forward with the project stating Target has done all that has been asked of them regarding traffic signals on Adams Avenue and Brookhurst Street. Mr. Ali also asked Council to approve revised elevation plans and to clarify operating versus business hours. Robert Kahn informed council he prepared the traffic impact study for Target and reviewed,the reasons for his opinion." Mr. Kahn'asserted his opinion that there would be no major change in travel patterns resulting from the project remodel. James Kawamura, traffic engineer for the appellant, presented technical information in rebuttal to the traffic impact study referred to by the previous speaker. There being no persons present to speak further on the matter and there being no further protests filed, either written or oral, the Mayor declared the public hearing closed. Discussion ensued amongst Council, staff, and speakers regarding the design style of the project, the traffic pattern changes caused by new traffic signals, the value of compact parking spaces, and opinions on which business is the major source of traffic in the vicinity of Brookhurst Street near Adams Avenue. A motion was made by Cook, second Boardman to deny the appeal filed by Charles G. Ball and to approve the application filed by John Warren of Conditional Use Permit No. 03-35 as amended to reduce parking spaces by twelve, to decrease the number of compact spaces to the greatest extent possible, and to locate.the.compact spaces in a re mote:location as possible. The.motion carried.by the following roll call vote: AYES: Sullivan, Coerper, Hardy, Green, Boardman, Cook, Houchen NOES: None ABSENT: None Consent Calendar—Items Removed for Separate Discussion The following items were removed from the Consent Calendar for separate discussion: (Redevelopment Agency) Fifth Implementation Agreement of the Disposition and Development Agreement(DDA) between the Redevelopment Agency and CIM/Huntington LLC for Blocks 104/105 (The Strand) (Main-Pier Redevelopment Sub-area) (City Council) Agreement between the City and.Vllilldan for Development Processing Services Primarily Required to Process the Verizon Fiber-Optic Installation and The'Strand Development (City Council) Resolution of Intention No. 2004-56 to Establish the Huntington Beach Downtown Business Improvement District, Levy an Annual Assessment for Fiscal Year 2004-2005—Public Hearing for August 16, 2004 (City Council) Huntington Beach Hotel/Motel Business Improvement District(BID) 2003-2004 Fiscal Year Annual Report- Resolution of Intention No. 2004-57 to Levy an Annual Assessment for Fiscal Year 2004-2005 - Public Hearing for August 16, 2004 (9) July 19, 2004 -Council/Agency Minutes -Page 9 Consent Calendar—Items Approved On motion by Sullivan, second Coerper Council approved the following Consent Calendar items, as recommended. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES Sullivan, Coerper; Hardy,:Green, Boardman; Cook, Houchen NOES: None-. ABSENT: None (City Council/Redevelopment Agency) Minutes (120.65)—Approved and adopted the minutes of the City Council/Redevelopment Agency Adjourned Regular Meetings of May 24, 2004 as written and on file in the Office of the City Clerk. Submitted by the City Clerk. (City Council) Approved Boeing Sewage Pump Station No. 12 Maintenance, Replacement and Operation Reimbursement Agreement Between McDonnell Douglas Corporation,the City of Huntington Beach, and Burke Huntington Beach LLC (Bolsa Chica Station Located at 14700 Bolsa Chica Street and Skylab West Maintenance) (600.10)—Approved and authorized the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Agreement(Sewage Pump Station No. 12, Bolsa Chica Station, Bolsa Chica Street and Skylab West Maintenance, Replacement and Operation Reimbursement). Submitted by the Public Works Director. Funding Source: Not applicable for the agreement. Funds will be deposited annually into a separate fund to comply with terms of the agreement. (City Council) Approved Reimbursement Public Works Agreement Between the City of :Huntington Beach.and Verizon, Inc..for Costs Incurred for the Fiber to the Premises (MP). Project:;:(600.10) ..Approved and authorized the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Reimbursement;-Public Works Agreement Between the City of Huntington Beach and:Venzon, : Inc. for Costs Incurred for Fiber to the Premises Project. Submitted by the Public Works Director. Funding Source: No net cost to the City. An initial deposit amount of$120,000 will be invoiced against and replenished at established intervals. (City Council) Approved Appointment of Dan Moss as a Member-at-Large and Reappointments of Dr.Allan Pogrund, Brian E. Rechsteiner, and Susie Jones to the Community Services Commission for Terms from July 1, 2004 to Expire June 30, 2008 (110.20)— 1. Appointed Dan Moss to a member-at-large opening on the Community Services Commission for a four-year term. The term will be from July 1, 2004 through June 30, 2008; and 2. Reappointed the following Community Services Commission members: Dr. Allan Pogrund, Ocean View School District representative; Brian E. Rechsteiner, Huntington Beach City School District representative; and Susie Jones, Fountain Valley School District representative:, The term for these reappointments.will be from July 1; 2004 through June 30, 2008.:Submitted by Mayor.Cathy Green and Councilmember Dave Sullivan, Liaisons to.the Community Services Commission. Funding Source: Not applicable. (City Council) Approved Acceptance of Securities (Faithful Performance/Labor and Material Bond, and Monument Bond) and Released the Cash Bond for Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse (420.70)— 1. Accepted Faithful Performance/Labor and Material Bond No. 104313421, and Monument Bond No. 104313422, the securities furnished for installation of the required public improvements, and instructed the City Clerk to file the bonds with the City Treasurer; and 2. Released the Cash Bond No. T21921 and instructed the City Treasurer to issue a refund in the amount of$1,323,750 to Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse, Inc. Submitted by the Public Works Director. Funding Source: Not applicable. (10) July 19, 2004 -Council/Agency Minutes - Page 10 (City Council) Approved Final Tract Map No. 16438 of Tentative Tract Map No. 16438 (Seaside Terrace 10 Numbered/1 Lettered Lot Subdivision)w/s Lochlea Lane at Lomond Drive at 21341 Locklea Lane-Approved Subdivision Agreement with Bonanni Properties and D. S. Products, a California General Partnership (420.60) 1. Approved Final Tract Map No. 16438 and accepted.the.offer of dedication, improvements, and bonds pursuant to findings and requirements (ATTACHMENT NO. 1);'and.2 Approved the Subdivision Agreement By and Between the City of Huntington Beach and Bonanni Properties and D. S. Products fot Tract No. 16438 and authorized execution by the Mayor and City Clerk. (ATTACHMENT NO. 6). Attachment No. 1 - Findings for Acceptance of Final Map(1) Final Tract Map No. 16438 is in conformance with the California Subdivision Map Act, the City of Huntington Beach Subdivision Ordinance and Tentative Tract Map No. 16438 Conditions of Approval, as approved by the Planning Commission. Requirements; (1.) Acceptance of offer of dedication shall be subject to completion of improvements and requirements shown on the final map. (2.) The City Clerk shall file the following bonds with the City Treasurer: (a) Faithful Performance Bond No. 41006655 (Attachment No. 7); (b) Labor and Material Bond No. 41006655 (Attachment No. 7); (c) Monument Bond No. 41006652 (Attachment No. 7). (3.)The City Cleric shall affix her signature to the map and release it for recordation by the County of Orange. Submitted by the Planning Director.'Funding Source: Not Applicable. (City Council) Approved License Agreement between the City and J. M. Hollister, LLC for Video Authorization to Provide Live Feed to Their Clothing and Apparel Stores from the Huntington Beach Pier (600.10)-Approved the License Agreement between the City of Huntington Beach and J. M. Hollister, LLC (a Virginia limited liability company), Hollister Ohio, LLC an Ohio limited.Iiabili, company) and Hollister California, LLC an Ohio limited liability. (_ tY P Y ( . Company)to provide live.video:feed.to,its stores from"the Huntington Beach Pier and authorized the Mayor and City Clerk`to execute said agreement: Submitted by the Assistant City Administrator, Community Services Director and Administrative Services Director. Funding Source: Not applicable. The city will receive $5,000 per month for the license agreement,for a total of$300,000 for the five year base term. (City Council) Approved Equipment Lease Purchase Agreement with Oshkosh Capital for Two Pierce Fire Engines (600.10)-1. Approved and authorized the Director of Administrative Services, per Municipal Code Section 3.02.060, to enter into the Master Lease- Purchase Agreement with Oshkosh Capital for two Pierce fire engines. The total amount of $874,249.70 will come from the FireMed Fund; the maximum term of the agreement is not to exceed five years; and 2. Authorized the Fire Chief to execute all ancillary documents on behalf of the City, without further approval of City Council required, in substantially the same form as the.attached documents. Submitted by the Fire Chief. Funding Source: Funding will be from the FireMed Fund for a..total amount of$8743249.70. .If the proposed lease/purchase is approved; this amount will be paid in annual payments of$174,849.94 over a five-year period beginning in Fiscal Year 2004-2005. The FireMed budgets for Fiscal Year 2003-2004 and Fiscal Year 2004-2005 each include $207,204 for lease/purchase of Fire Department apparatus. (City Council) Adopted Resolution No.2004-54 Establishing Annual Tax Proceeds -Gann Appropriation Limit for Fiscal Year 2004-2005 (340.90)-Adopted Resolution No. 2004-54 - "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Establishing the Appropriation Limit for Fiscal Year 2004l2005"of$481,131,170. Submitted by the Administrative Services Director. Funding Source: Not applicable. (11) July 19, 2004 -Council/Agency Minutes - Page 11 (Redevelopment Agency) Approved Reimbursement Agreement Between the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach and CIM/Huntington LLC for Costs Incurred in the Formation of the Project Known as The Strand (600.30)—1. Approved the Reimbursement Agreement Between the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach and CIWHuntington, LLC.for Costs Incurred for Professional Services.for_the Project as the.Strand for costs relating to the formation of the=Community Facilities; District and authorized the Chairperson and Agency Clerk to sign the agreement:;and 2. Authorized the acceptance of$51,250 deposit funds from CIM/Huntington, LLC into revenue account and appropriated $51,250 from the Redevelopment Fund unappropriated fund balance into account for expenses associated with Professional Services Contracts pertaining to the reimbursement agreement, and authorized the reimbursement to CIM/Huntington, LLC any unspent deposit funds after the termination of the consultant's contracts; and 3. Authorized the Deputy Executive Director to enter into the Professional Services Contracts funded through the Reimbursement Agreement with CIM/Huntington, LLC. Submitted by the Deputy Executive Director. Funding Source: Redevelopment Fund unappropriated fund balance. An equal amount of revenue will be deposited into the Redevelopment Fund. In essence there will not be an impact on the Redevelopment Fund. (See Agenda Item Nos. E-4. and E-8.) (City Council) Approved Huntington Beach Auto Dealers Business Improvement District (BID) 2003-2004 Annual Report -Adopted Resolution of Intention No.2004-55 to Levy an Annual Assessment for Fiscal Year 2004-2005-Scheduled Public Hearing for August 16, 2004 (460.30)— 1:.Approved the Huntington Beach Auto Dealers Business Improvement District Annual Report for Fiscal Year 2003-2004; 2. Adopted City Council Resolution No. .2004-55— "A.Resolution of the City Council.of the.:City of Huntington Beach.Declaring Its Intention to Levy an Annual Assessment for Fiscal Year 2004-2005 to Fund Improvements Within the Huntington Beach Auto Dealers Business Improvement District, and 3. .Directed the ` City Clerk to schedule a public hearing to be held on August 16, 2004, and send copies of the Resolution of Intention, BID Boundary Map, and assessment formula to each business to be assessed. Submitted by the Economic Development Director. Funding Source: Not applicable. (Redevelopment Agency) Approved the Fifth Implementation Agreement of the Disposition and Development Agreement(DDA) between the Redevelopment Agency and CIM/Huntington LLC for Blocks 104/105 (The Strand) (Main-Pier Redevelopment Sub- area) (600.30) Agency Member Boardman requested that this agenda item be removed from the Consent Calendar to seek clarification of the need for implementation of said agreement. Deputy Executive Director.David Biggs responded to her questions, -A motion was made by Boardman, second Green to approve the Fifth Implementation Agreement to Disposition and Development Agreement by and Between Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach, Agency and CIM/Huntington LLC Developer and authorize the Chairperson and Agency Clerk to execute. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Sulllivan, Coerper, Hardy, Green, Boardman, Houchen NOES: Cook ABSENT: None (12) July 19, 2004 -Council/Agency Minutes - Page 12 (City Council) Appropriated Funds and Approved Agreement between the City and Wilidan for Development Processing Services Primarily Required to Process the Verizon Fiber-Optic Installation and The Strand Development (600.10) Councilmember.Coerper requested.that this agenda item be removed from the consent calendar to receive clarification on the funding source:and the project`s:phy icai street impacts such as Bushard Street. Public Works Director Robert F. Beardsley replied to these questions. A motion was made by Coerper, second Sullivan to: 1. Appropriate funds in the amount of $150,000 from the undesignated General Fund balance to Public Works Development Services; and 2. Authorize the expenditure of an additional $270,000 for professional services from Business Unit account; and 3. Approve and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Professional Services Contract Between the City of Huntington Beach and Willdan for Development Processing Services. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Sullivan, Coerper, Hardy, Green, Boardman, Cook, Houchen NOES: None ABSENT: None (City Council) Adopted Resolution of Intention No. 2004-56 to Establish the Huntington Beach Downtown Business Improvement District, Levy an Annual Assessment for Fiscal Year 2004-2005—.Scheduled Public Hearing for August 16, 2004 (460.30) Councilmember Boardman.requested that this item be removed from the consent calendar to receive clarification on the survey`and the Public Hearing protest process:including'ballots an Councils role in'the decision to establish the BID (Business improvement District). r0their.` councilmembers inquired about the frequency of proposed dues and what types of projects would be funded by the dues. Economic Development Director David Biggs responded to these questions. A motion was made by Boardman, second Cook to adopt Resolution No.2004-56— "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Declaring the City's Intention to Create and Establish the "Huntington Beach Downtown Business Improvement District"for the Benefit of all Businesses Located Within the Downtown Business District, and set a Public Hearing Date of August 16, 2004 to Formally Establish said Business Improvement District and Levy Assessments." The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES:. Sullivan, Coerper, Hardy, Green, Boardman, Cook, Houchen NOES: None ABSENT:. None (City Council) Approved Huntington Beach Hotel/Motel Business Improvement District (BID) 2003-2004 Fiscal Year Annual Report-Adopted Resolution of Intention No. 2004-57 to Levy an Annual Assessment for Fiscal Year 2004-2005 -Scheduled Public Hearing for August 16, 2004 (460.30) Mayor Pro Tern Hardy requested that this item be removed from the consent calendar. (13) July 19, 2004 -Council/Agency Minutes - Page 13 A motion was made by Hardy, second Sullivan to: 1. Approve the Huntington Beach Hotel/Motel Business Improvement District Annual Report for Fiscal Year 2003-2004 and 2.Adopt City Council Resolution No. 2004-57— "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Declaring the City's Intention to Levy an Annual Assessment for Fiscal Year 2004-2005 Within the Huntington Beach HoteUMotel Business Improvement District-"and . 3 Direct the City Clerk to.schedule a public hearing to beheld on August 16, 2004, and send copies of the Resolution of Intention and assessment formula to each business.to'be assessed. approve the recommended action. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Sullivan, Coerper, Hardy, Green, Boardman, Cook, Houchen NOES: None ABSENT: None (City Council) .Approved City Council Position on Legislation Pending Before the Federal, State, or Regional Governments as Recommended by the City Council Intergovernmental Relations Committee (IRC) (640.90) The City Council considered a communication from Mayor Pro Tern Jill Hardy, Chair, Intergovemmental'Relations Committee, on behalf of members, Councilmember Gil Coerper and Council member Dave Sullivan transmitting the following Statement of Issue: Should the City Council authorize the Mayor to communicate the City of Huntington Beach's support for or opposition to legislation currently pending before the elected members of the Federal or State Legislatures, a State or regional body or to be put on a ballot for approval by the voters? Mayor.Pro.Tem.-Hardy presented.an.oral report. Mayor Green stated her opposition to-supporting SB 18`(06/28(04) (Burton)Traditional Tribal Cultural—Local Land Use. A motion was made by Boardman, second Coerper to: SUPPORT AB 454 (06/28104) (Yee)—Beaches -Smoking Ban IF AMENDED to remove the exception allowing smoking within 20 feet of an appropriate waste receptacle. and OPPOSE AB 1324 (06/01/04) (Steinberg) —Workers' Compensation—Infectious Diseases and SUPPORT SB 1.8 (0612$/04) (13urton)Traditional Tribal Cultural-Local.Land Use. 1. 4. and OPPOSE SB 1351 (06121/04) (Soto) Political Reform Act— UNLESS AMENDED to reinsert the word "dependent" in the definition of"Immediate Family" The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Sullivan, Coerper, Hardy, Boardman, Cook NOES: Green ABSENT: Houchen (14) July 19, 2004 -Council/Agency Minutes -Page 14 (City Council) Approved for Introduction as Amended Regarding Compliance With Zoning Provision Section 235.08—Insert Date of June 1, 2004.Ordinance No. 3657 Amending Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Chapter 235 (Condominium Conversions) (450.20) Councilmember Cook inquired about.the advantages of attaching a date certain to the amended` ordinance: City Attorney JenniferMcGrath suggested`attaching a-date of June 1, 2004. Council discussion followed regarding the objective of the amendments and notification of affected parties. After the City Clerk read by title, a motion was made by Cook, second Boardman to approve introduction as amended of Ordinance No. 3657—"An Ordinance of the City of Huntington Beach Amending Chapter 235 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Relating to Residential Condominium Conversions.". The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Sullivan, Hardy, Green, Boardman, Cook NOES: Coerper ABSENT: Houchen Council Comments-(Not Agendized) (City Council) Councilmember Boardman Announced Not Seeking Re-election (120.85) Councilmember Connie Boardman announced;that she-would not be seeking re-election She asked her supporters to support Councilmomber Deb bie Cook. Adjournment—City Council/Redevelopment Agency Mayor Green adjourned the regular meetings of the City Council/Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach to Monday, August 2, 2004, at 5:00 p.m., in Room B-8 Civic Center, 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California. City Cler nd ex=officio Clerk of a ity Council df the City of Huntington each and Clerk of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach, California ATTEST: City Clerk-Cler Mayor- man July 29, 2004 Business Properties Development Company Attn: Charles G. Ball 17631 Fitch Irvine, CA 92614 Re: NOTICE OF FINAL ACTION Dear Mr.Ball: The City Council of the City of Hunti gton Beach at its regular meeting held Monday, July 19, 2004 took action on the foll wing Public Hearing Appeal: Public Hearing to Consider Appeal Fi Wing Commission's Approval of Application ( e e n Flled by John Warren of Conditional Use Permit o. arget Depa ment Store Demolition and Rebuild) Located at 9882 Adams Avenue (s/w Corner of Brookhurst Street and Adams Avenue) The City Council upheld the Planning Commission decision of approval. As part of�/ their approval Council amended the condition to reduce the number of compact parking spaces to the greatest extent feasible and relocate any remaining compact spaces to remote areas on the lot. The Action Agenda and amended Findings and Conditions of Approval are enclosed. The July 19, 2004 minutes of the approval of the appeal will be mailed to you following Council approval of the minutes. This is a final decision. You are hereby notified that pursuant to provisions of Section 1094.6 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the State of California you have ninety days from July 19, 2004 to apply to the court for judicial review. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact my office at (714) 536- 5227. Sincerely, Joan L. Flynn City Clerk Enclosure: Government Code 1094.6 Amended Suggested Findings and Conditions for Approval Action Agenda Pages 8-9 cc: Penelope Culbreth-Graft,City Administrator Jennifer McGrath,City Attorney Howard Zelefsky,Planning Director Herb Faulk ar-Ptaftner PP4 ��(�. Paul DaVei`gd, soci er (11) July 19, 2004 -Council/Agency Agenda - Page 11 D-2. (City Council) Public Hearing to Consider Appeal Filed by Charles G. Ball of the Planning Commission's Approval of Application (Consistent with the General Plan) Filed by John Warren of Conditional Use Permit No. 03-35 (Target Department Store Demolition and Rebuild) Located at 9882 Adams Avenue (s/w Corner of Brookhurst Street and Adams Avenue) (420.40) Communication from the Planning Department on a Public Hearing to consider Appeal of the Planning Commission's Approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 03-35 (Target Demolition and Rebuild). Appellant: Charles G. Ball, Business Properties Development Company Applicant: John Warren, Pacific Land Services Request: To permit the demolition of a 103,458 square foot retail building and construction of a new 123,800 square foot Target department store with an 8,100 square foot attached garden center. The request includes a complete redesign of the parking area with installation of new perimeter and interior landscaping, and pedestrian walkways throughout the subject site. Location: 9882 Adams Avenue (Southwest corner of Brookhurst St. and Adams Ave.) Environmental Status: Initial environmental assessment for this agenda item was processed and completed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. It was determined that this item, with mitigation, would not have any significant environmental effects and that a mitigated negative declaration is warranted. Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 03-02 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 City Clerk's Office,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 before meeting)July 15,2004. 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. 1. Staff report 2. City Council discussion 3. Open public hearing 4. Following public input,close public hearing "PowerPoint presentation titled Target Appeal 9882 Adams Avenue -Appeal of CUP No. 03-35 Applicant:John Warren Appellant: Charles Ball July 19, 2004 is included in the agenda packet. "'342-page Communication submitted by Rutan &Tucker dated July 14, 2004 and titled CUP No. 03-34 (Target) 9882 Adams Avenue, Huntington Beach CA in support of the appeal is available for public review in the City Clerk's Office. Recommended Action: PLANNING COMMISSION AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 03-35 with Findings and tConditions of Approval (Attachment No. 1). Associate Planner Paul DaVeiga presented a PowerPoint report. (12) July 19, 2004 -Council/Agency Agenda - Page 12 Appellant spoke regarding his opinion that the appeal was filed in a timely manner. He disagreed with the mitigation measures and believes the traffic study is flawed. Applicant's Attorney spoke and informed Council his support of a traffic signal for the safety and welfare of the citizens. Applicant informed Council that in his opinion Stater Brothers is responsible mostly for the traffic impact on Brookhurst Street. He urged Council to move forward with the Target remodel project. Speaker spoke and referred to the Late Communication submitted to Council stating various reasons why the appeal should be denied. Speaker urged Council to move forward with the project stating Target has done all that has been asked of them regarding traffic signals on Adams Avenue and Brookhurst Street. He also asked Council to approve revised elevation plans and to clarify operating vs. business hours. Speaker who prepared traffic impact study for Target reviewed the reason for his opinion. Speaker presented technical rebuttal re: traffic impact study of previous speaker. Discussion amongst Council, staff and speakers. Motion to: Deny appeal, approve CUP 03-35 as amended by reducing compact parking spaces by 12, decrease compact parking spaces to the greatest extent possible and locate them in a remote location if possible. Approved 7-0 CA Codes (ccp:1084-1097) Board and invoke arbitration proceedings pursuant to a State Bargaining Unit 11 collective bargaining agreement. 1094.6. (a) Judicial review of any decision of a local agency, -other than school district, as the term local agency is defined in Section 54951 of the Government Code, or of any commission, board,. officer or agenti thereof,. may be. had pursuant to section 10.94.5 of this code only if the petition for writ of mandate pursuant..to such section is filed within the time limits specified in this section. (b) Any such petition shall be filed not later than the 90th day following the date on which the decision becomes final. If there is no provision for reconsideration of the decision, or for a written decision or written findings supporting the decision, in any applicable provision of any statute, charter, or rule, for the purposes of this section, the decision is final on the date it is announced. If the decision is not announced at the close of the hearing, the date, time, and place of the announcement of the decision shall be announced at the hearing. If there is a provision for reconsideration, the decision is final for purposes of this section upon the expiration of the. period during which such reconsideration can be sought; provided, that if reconsideration is sought pursuant to any such provision the decision is final for the purposes of this section on the date that reconsideration is rejected. If there is a provision for a written decision or written findings, the decision is final for purposes of this section upon the date it is mailed by first-class mail, postage prepaid, including a copy of the affidavit or certificate of mailing, to the party seeking the -writ. Subdivision (a)- of Section 1013 does not apply,` to` extend the time, following deposit in the mail- of. the .decision or, findings, within which a petition shall be filed. (c) The complete record of the proceedings shall be prepared by the local agency or its commission, board, officer, or agent which made the decision and shall be delivered to the petitioner within 190 days after he has filed a written request therefor. The local agency may recover from the petitioner its actual costs for transcribing or otherwise preparing the record. Such record shall include the transcript of the proceedings, all pleadings, all notices and orders, any proposed decision by a hearing officer, the final decision, all admitted exhibits, all rejected exhibits in the possession of the local agency or its commission, board, officer, or agent, all written evidence, and any other papers in the case. (d) If the petitioner files a request for the record as specified in subdivision (c) within 10 .day.s after the. date the decision becomes final..as provided .in subdivision (b) ; the time within which a petition pursuant to Section 10.9.4.5 .may be filed .shall be extended to not later than the 30th day following the date on which the record is either personally delivered or mailed to the petitioner or his attorney of record, if he has one. (e) As used in this section, decision means a decision subject to review pursuant to Section 1094.5, suspending, demoting, or dismissing an officer or employee, revoking, denying an application for a permit, license, or other entitlement, imposing a civil or administrative penalty, fine, charge, or cost, or denying an application for any retirement benefit or allowance. (f) In making a final decision as defined in subdivision (e) , the local agency shall provide notice to the party that the time within which judicial review must be sought is governed by this section. As used in this subdivision, "party" means an officer or employee http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=ccp&group=O 1001-02000&file=l... 7/29/2004 CA Codes (ccp:1084-1097) who has been suspended, demoted or dismissed; a person whose permit, license, or other entitlement has been revoked or suspended, or whose application for a permit, license, or other entitlement has been denied; or a person whose application for a retirement benefit or allowance has been denied. (g) This section shall prevail over any conflicting provision in any otherwise applicable law relating to the subject matter, unless the conflicting._provision is a state or federal law which provides a shorter statute of .limitations,. in which case the shorter statute. of limitations shall apply. 1094.8. (a) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this chapter, an action or proceeding to review the issuance, revocation, suspension, or denial of a permit or other entitlement for expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution shall be conducted in accordance with subdivision (d) (b) For purposes of this section, the following definitions shall apply: (1) The terms "permit" and "entitlement" are used interchangeably. (2) The term "permit applicant" means both an.applicant for a permit and a permitholder. (3) The term "public agency" means a city, county, city and county, a joint powers authority or similar public entity formed pursuant to Section 65850.4 of the Government Code, or any other public entity authorized by law to issue permits for expressive conduct. protected.by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. (c) .A public agency may; if `it :so. chooses,. designate the permits or entitlements to which this section applies by adopting an ordinance or resolution which contains a specific listing or other description of the permits or entitlements issued by the public agency which are eligible for expedited judicial review pursuant to this section because the permits regulate expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. (d) The procedure set forth in this subdivision, when applicable, shall supersede anything to the contrary set forth in this chapter. (1) Within five court days after receipt of written notification from a permit applicant that the permit applicant will seek judicial review of a public agency's action on the permit, the public agency shall prepare, certify, and make available the administrative record to the permit applicant. (2) Either the public agency or. the. permit applicant may bring an action in accordance with the procedure set forth in. this- s.ection. If the permit applicant brings the action, the action shall be in the form of a petition for writ of mandate pursuant to Section 1085 or 1094.5, as appropriate. (3) The party bringing the action pursuant to this section shall file and serve the petition on the respondent no later than 21 calendar days following the public agency's final decision on the permit. The title page of the petition shall contain the following language in 18-point type: "ATTENTION: THIS MATTER IS ENTITLED TO PRIORITY AND SUBJECT TO THE EXPEDITED HEARING AND REVIEW PROCEDURES CONTAINED IN SECTION 1094.8 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. " (4) The clerk of the court shall set a hearing for review of the petition no later than 25 calendar days from the date the petition is http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=ccp&group=Ol 001-02000&file=l... 7/29/2004 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK JOAN L. FLYNN CITY CLERK September 30, 2004 Charles Ball, Business Properties Development Company 17631 Fitch Irvine, CA 92614 Dear Mr. Ball: Please find enclosed the July 19, 2004 minutes of the regular meetings of the City of Huntington Beach City Council]Redevelopment Agency at which there was action taken regarding the following: Public Hearing to Consider Appeal Filed by Charles G. Ball of the Planning Commission's Approval of Application (Consistent with the General Plan) Filed by John Warren of Conditional Use Permit No. 03-35 (Target_Deparfinent.Store Demolition and Rebuild) . •Located at"9882 Adams`Avenue (s/w`Corner of Brookhurst Street and Adams Avenue) Sincerely, Joan L. Flynn City Clerk Enclosure g:/followup/appeaftinute letter 2002.doc (Telephone:714-536-5227) �► ° 44 � M,) CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH e� =� P tIQ A- , PL-,11� MEETING DATE: July 19, 2004 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL04-12 Council/Agency Meeting Held: - D Deferred/Continued to: Q?�L xA rove ❑ ndi 'onally Approved ❑ Denied Cit r gnatu e Council Meeting Date: July 19, 2004 Department umber: L04-12 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH _ CZ REQUEST FOR ACTION ti o—:" SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS SUBMITTED BY: PENELOPE CUL ET�FT, City AdminiilsfiF r ui PREPARED BY: HOWARD ZELEFSKY, Director of Planning4 D SUBJECT: APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 03-35 (Target Demolition and Rebuild) 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 Charles Ball, representing Business Properties Development Company, of the Planning Commission's approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 03-35. Business Properties Development Company is the owner of the Stater Brothers shopping center to the east of the subject site and Savon shopping center to the northeast of the subject site. This application represents a request by John Warren of Pacific Land Services to demolish an existing 103,458 sq. ft. retail commercial building and to allow for the construction of a new 123,800 sq. ft. Target department store with an attached 8,1.00 square foot garden center including permitting 9% (63 spaces) of the 666 total parking spaces on the Target site to be compact in size. The Planning Commission approved the project and is recommending approval to the City Council. The recommendation is based on the project's consistency with the General Plan and zoning designation of CG (Commercial General) on the subject site; parking on the site exceeds code requirements; complies with the Urban Design Guidelines; compatibility with adjacent residential property based on proper setbacks, noise attenuation, access drive locations, and architectural quality. Staff recommended approval of the project to the Planning Commission and is recommending the City Council approve the request. Funding Source: Not applicable. PL04-12 Target Appeal 7/8/2004 3:06 PM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: July 19, 2004 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL04-12 Recommended Action: PLANNING COMMISSION AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: 1. "Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 03-35 with findings and conditions of approval (ATTACHMENT NO. 1)." Planninq Commission Action on May 25, 2004: THE MOTION MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECONDED BY SCANDURA, TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 03-35, WITH FINDINGS AND MODIFIED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL (ATTACHMENT NO. 1) CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: LIVENGOOD, DAVIS, SCANDURA, RAY NOES: DINGWALL ABSENT: THOMAS ABSTAIN: NONE MOTION PASSED Alternative Action(s): The City Council may make the following alternative motion(s): 1. "Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 03-35 with findings and revised conditions of approval (Appellant's Request)." 2. "Continue Conditional Use Permit No. 03-35 and direct staff accordingly." Analysis: A. PROJECT PROPOSAL: Applicant: John Warren, Pacific Land Services, 2151 Salvio St. Ste. 250, Concord, CA 94520 Location: 9882 Adams Avenue (southwest corner of Brookhurst Street and Adams Avenue) Conditional Use Permit No. 03-35 represents a request to demolish the existing 103,458 square foot Target building and garden center and replace it with a new 123,800 square foot building with an attached 8,100 square foot garden center. The orientation of the building will change to face Brookhurst Street instead of Adams Avenue. The applicant proposes to construct the new building at the southwest corner of the subject site approximately 60 feet from the westerly property line and approximately 40 feet from the southerly property line. The PL04-12 Target Appeal 7/8/2004 3:06 PM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: July 19, 2004 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL04-12 garden center is proposed along the south side of the store and is located approximately 40 feet from the southerly property line, which borders a residential subdivision. The height of the building ranges from 26 feet to 42 feet with the portion of the building nearest to residential at the lower height. The proposed loading dock is located at the northwest corner of the subject building. The new loading dock faces Adams Street and will be enclosed on three sides in order to block visibility and reduce noise impacts to adjacent residential properties. The loading dock will receive approximately one 62-foot Target truck per day and two trucks per day during the holiday season. The trucks will enter and exit the site from the main drive aisle along Adams Avenue without having to travel around the subject building. The entire site will be upgraded including 10-foot wide landscape planters along the perimeter of the subject site and interior landscaping and parking in accordance with the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. The proposal includes a request for 63 compact spaces (9%) distributed throughout the subject site. The proposed uses within the new Target Department store include a 1,708 square foot snack shop, an 8,100 square foot garden center, and 14,438 square feet of storage/stock area, and approximately 107,654 square feet of floor area dedicated to retail sales. The proposed hours of operation will remain the same as the existing store, which are 8:00 a.m. to 10 p.m. Monday through Sunday. C. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: The Planning Commission held a public hearing on May 25, 2004 and approved the conditional use permit on an appeal by Charles Ball. The major discussion item was the signalization of the southerly-most driveway along the Brookhurst Street frontage. The basis for the appeal was the lack of a requirement for a traffic signal at the subject driveway. There were a total of four persons (representing the applicant) who objected to the traffic signal and two persons spoke in support (representing the appellant) of signalization of the subject driveway. The Planning Commission approved Conditional Use Permit No. 03-35 with findings and modified conditions of approval (without the signal), thereby upholding the Zoning Administrator's approval of the project. The modified conditions of approval included limiting the hours of operation for the store from 7 a.m. to 12 midnight and limiting the hours in which the rear access gates are to remain open between the hours of 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. D. APPEAL: On June 4, 2004 Charles Ball, representing Business Properties Development Company, appealed the Planning Commission's approval of Conditional Use Permit No.03-35. The appellant is the owner of the Stater Brothers shopping center located to the east of the subject site and the Sav-On center located to the northeast of the subject site. The appellant has indicated that while they do not object to the proposed project, Target should be required to install a traffic signal at the southerly-most driveway along the Brookhurst Street frontage. PL04-12 Target Appeal 7/9/2004 10:48 AM 3 REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: July 19, 2004 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL04-12 Although the conditional use permit was appealed, the basis for the appeal is the lack of a traffic signal, which was analyzed as part of the mitigated negative declaration. The locations of traffic signals are analyzed by the Department of Public Works based on the amount of traffic generated by the proposed development, standard code requirements mandated by the Traffic Division, and the traffic analysis prepared by the applicant. The mitigated negative declaration did not identify the requirement for a traffic signal at this driveway location as part of the project. The requirement for a traffic signal is not appealable under the conditional use permit. The appellant should have appealed the mitigated negative declaration and the findings and mitigation measures during the 10-day appeal period. The appellant may pursue the installation of a traffic signal at the Brookhurst Street driveway with the Public Works Department and Public Works Commission. The appeal letter also states the appellant's objection to the City Attorney's position that the issue of traffic signalization is not an appealable item. E. STAFF ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION: A detailed analysis of land use compatibility and traffic and circulation is provided in the attached Planning Commission staff report (Attachment No. 2). The following analysis focuses on the issues identified in the appeal letter (Attachment No. 3). The appeal by Charles Ball is based on the issue of traffic signalization at the southerly-most driveway along the Brookhurst Street frontage. The driveway is located approximately 650 feet south of the Adams/Brookhurst intersection and provides secondary access to the Target shopping center and aligns with the main access driveway to the Stater Brothers shopping center. The appellant contends that the re-orientation of the Target building will generate additional traffic at the subject driveway. The appellant indicates in his appeal letter (Attachment No. 3) that the rebuilding of the Target shopping center should trigger the requirement for a traffic signal at the subject driveway. The Public Works Department did not require a traffic signal at the subject driveway because the amount of traffic generated at the driveway is minimal in comparison to the traffic generated by the Stater Brothers shopping center. The nexus between the proposed rebuilding of the Target department store and requiring a traffic signal could not be established. The increase in vehicle trips for the proposed project is negligible in light of the existing trips already generated by the Target store and existing traffic flow on surrounding arterials. Staff does not support an additional traffic signal at this driveway location based on its proximity to the Brookhurst Street/Adams Avenue intersection. The driveway is located approximately 650 feet south of the intersection. However, a new traffic signal has been approved for the driveway along Brookhurst Street, north of Adams Avenue, between the Mervyn's shopping center and Sav-On shopping center. Construction of a third traffic signal at the southerly-most driveway would result in three signals within a 1,200 section of Brookhurst Street. Three signals would result in slower traffic and additional delays for traffic traveling in a PL04-12 Target Appeal Z01 7/9/200411:19 AM y REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: July 19, 2004 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL04-12 northbound or southbound direction on Brookhurst Street. In addition, the subject driveway on the Target property is directly adjacent to single-family homes. The installation of a traffic signal at this location would result in additional noise and air quality impacts for these residents. A traffic signal will encourage patrons to use this secondary access driveway as a main access to the site, thereby increasing the traffic flow directly adjacent to residential properties and resulting in negative noise and air quality impacts. Staff does not support the basis for the appeal since the location of traffic signals were already analyzed and approved under the mitigated negative declaration. In addition, staff does not support the future installation of a traffic signal at the southerly-most driveway based on the potential negative impacts to traffic on Brookhurst Street and noise and air quality impacts to single family residential properties located directly adjacent to the subject driveway. F. SUMMARY As conditioned, the project is consistent with the Commercial General land use designation, therefore, staff recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 03-35 for the following reasons: • The proposed development is consistent with the existing commercial use of the site and can be integrated and be sensitive to the surrounding land uses with adequate buffers, site layout recommendations, FAR limits, and design amenities. • The project, as conditioned and with mitigation measures to reduce potential environmental impacts, will not be detrimental to the general health, welfare and safety to persons working or living in the area, nor detrimental to the value of the property or improvements in the area. • The proposed Target department store will be compatible with the uses and structures on the adjacent surrounding properties because of proper setbacks, noise attenuation, access drive locations, and architectural quality. • The proposed development will increase the potential for taxable sales and provide additional funds to the city to reduce service costs. • The proposed development can mitigate the potential impacts to the surrounding area to the greatest extent possible, while still allowing for a market-driven commercial project. • The project, as conditioned and with mitigation measures to reduce potential environmental impacts, will not be detrimental to the general health, welfare and safety to persons working or living in the area, nor detrimental to the value of the property or improvements in the area. • The proposed project, as conditioned, will provide multiple roof planes, significant building wall articulation, landscaping at the building base, and an enhanced entry to improve the overall aesthetic appearance of the project design consistent with the City's Urban Design Guidelines. The proposed project is consistent with the CG-F1 (Commercial General — FAR .35) Land Use designation of the General Plan. • With the conditions imposed, the project will comply with General Commercial development standards and will not be materially detrimental to surrounding properties or residents. P404-12 Target Appeal 7/9/2004 10:57 AM �J REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: July 19, 2004 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL04-12 I Environmental Status: The project's potential environmental impacts were analyzed under Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 03-02. Staff, in its initial study of the project, determined that the proposed development, with mitigation, would not have any significant environmental effects and that a mitigated negative declaration was warranted. Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 03-02 was approved by the Zoning Administrator on March 31, 2004. No appeal was filed during the 10- day appeal period. Attachment(s): City Clerk's Page Number No. Description 1 Planning Commission Approved Findings and Conditions of Approval — CUP No. 03-35 2 Planning Commission Staff Report Dated May 25, 2004 3 Appeal letter from Charles Ball dated June 4, 2004 4 PowerPoint Presentation RCA Author: PD/HF PL04-12 Target Appeal / 7/8/2004 3:06 PM l.0 �.: .ems= sW_i: �,� :' - ".... -: ,..,=', � -" FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 03-35 FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 03-35: 1. Conditional Use Permit No. 03-35 to permit the demolition of a 103,458 sq. ft. retail building and construction of a new 123,800 sq. ft. Target department store with an 8,100 sq. ft. attached garden center 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. The proposed project meets or exceeds all Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance standards. The proposed architecture, colors, and materials are consistent with the Urban Design Guidelines through the use of varied quality building materials such as stone veneer, stucco, and concrete the roof. The design incorporates multiple plane rooflines and a substantial amount of massing in the design to eliminate the "big-box" appearance of the subject building. Based upon the conditions imposed, the 8,100 square foot garden center will be designed with a solid wall running along its entire length, which will reduce potential noise impacts from garden center activities to adjacent properties. In addition, the loading and unloading area will be designed to minimize potential impacts to adjacent residences. With the implementation of MND No. 03-02 mitigation measures, conditions of approval, and design modifications, the potential impacts of the project have been mitigated to a level of insignificance. 2. The conditional use permit will be compatible with surrounding uses which consist of commercial uses to the north and east, and single-family residences to the south and to the west of the subject site. A noise study was conducted on the subject site and recommended mitigation measures have been incorporated into the conditions of approval. The garden center will be equipped with a solid block wall along its entire length to mitigate any potential noise impacts to nearby residents. The operation of the garden center will be regulated through the conditions of approval and shall not contain any amplified loudspeakers, which would disrupt adjacent residents. Hours of operation for loading and unloading of product have been regulated in the conditions of approval to allow deliveries during daytime hours only. The proposed truck loading will be constructed with sound attenuating material such as solid walls, roof, rubber seals, and sound absorbing material to reduce noise impacts to adjacent residents. In addition, loitering by employees or patrons shall not be allowed behind the subject building and signs shall be posted which prohibit loitering activity. 3. The proposed Conditional Use Permit No. 03-35 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 and any specific condition required for the proposed use in the district in which it would be located. 4. The granting of the conditional use permit will not adversely affect the General Plan. The project is consistent with the Land Use Element designation of CG-F1 (General Commercial — FAR 0.35) on the subject property. In addition, it is consistent with the following goals and policies of the General Plan: A. Land Use Element Goal LUJ: Achieve development that maintains or improves the City's fiscal viability and reflects economic demands while maintaining and improving the quality of life for the current and future residents of Huntington Beach. (04NOA0525) Attachment No. 1. 1 Goal LU 2: Ensure that development is adequately served by transportation, infrastructure, utility infrastructure, and public services adequately serve development. Goal LU 4: Achieve and maintain high quality architecture, landscape, and public open spaces in the City. Policy LU 10.1.4: Require that commercial buildings and sites be designed to achieve a high level of architectural and site layout quality. Policy LU 10. 1.5: Require that buildings, parking, and vehicular access be sited and designed to prevent adverse impacts on adjacent residential neighborhoods. Policy LU 10.1.6: Require that commercial projects abutting residential properties adequately protect the residential use from the excessive or incompatible impacts of noise, light, vehicular traffic, visual character, and operational hazards. Policy LU 10.1.12: Require that Commercial General uses be designed and developed to achieve a high level of quality, distinctive character, and compatibility with existing uses and development including the consideration of: ❑ Incorporation of site landscape, particularly along street frontages and in parking lots; ❑ Linkage of buildings by common architectural design, landscape and pedestrian systems, to avoid the appearance of independent freestanding structures surrounded by parking; ❑ Siting and design of structures to facilitate and encourage pedestrian activity; ❑ Siting of one or more buildings in proximity to the street frontage to convey a visual relationship to the street and sidewalks; ❑ Architectural treatment of buildings to minimize visual bulk and mass, using techniques such as the modulation of building volumes and articulation of all elevations; and ❑ Inclusion of consistent signage designed and integrated into the building's architectural character. Goal LU 11: Achieve the development of projects that enable residents to live in proximity to their jobs, commercial services, and entertainment, and reduce the need for automobile use. Policy LU 7.1.6: Accommodate the development of additional jobs-generating land uses that improve the 1992 jobs-to-housing ratio of 0.82 to 1.0 or greater; to meet objectives of the Regional Comprehensive Plan (Southern California Association of Governments) and Air Quality Management Plan. These should capitalize upon existing industrial strengths emphasizing the clustering of similar or complementary industries. The proposed Target store would support the needs and reflect market demand of City residents and visitors. The proposed development improves the project site through the addition of landscape planters along the perimeter of the site and throughout the parking area. In addition, the proposed project would help the City to achieve its goal of enhancing the community image of Huntington Beach through the design and construction of a high-quality, state-of-the-art development; impacts to the surrounding area are mitigated to the greatest extent possible, while still allowing for the market-driven commercial development. The design of the project promotes development of commercial buildings that convey a unified, high-quality visual image and character. The City's Design Review Board has reviewed the proposed architecture, colors, and materials and recommends preliminary approval of the design (04NOA0525) Attachment No. 1. 2 concept with minor modifications. Public services are currently available to the project site, as well as the surrounding parcels, and the project includes improvements to existing infrastructure to ensure adequate service after project implementation. With the recommended conditions of approval, the design of the project meets the objectives of the Urban Design Element through the use of massing elements and architectural detailing on all elevations, in conjunction with a varied roof line in order to eliminate the appearance of an overall "big-box" design. Varied use of earth tone colors and quality exterior materials such as stone veneer, split-face block, and other similar materials is incorporated to accent prominent portions of the building facades. B. Economic Development Element Goal ED 1: Provide economic opportunities for present and future Huntington Beach residents and businesses through employment and local fiscal stability. Goal ED 2: Aggressively retain and enhance the existing commercial, industrial, and visitor- serving uses while attracting new uses to Huntington Beach. Goal ED 3: Enhance Huntington Beach's economic development potential through strategic land use planning and sound urban design practices. The proposed project promotes development in accordance with Huntington Beach's Economic Development Element. The proposed project expands upon an already successful retail commercial development that, with the additional floor area proposed, will broaden and stabilize the City's economic base. New employment opportunities will be created both in the construction of the proposed development and in the long-term operations of the retail establishment. C. Circulation Element Goal CE 1: Provide a balanced transportation system that supports the policies of the General Plan and facilitates the safe and efficient movement of people and goods throughout the City while providing a balance between economic development and the preservation of residential neighborhoods, and minimizing environmental impacts. I Goal CE 2: Provide a circulation system which supports existing, approved, and planned land uses throughout the City while maintaining a desired level of service on all streets and at all intersections. Policy CE 2.1.1: Maintain a citywide level of service (LOS) not to exceed LOS "D" for intersections during the peak hours. Policy CE 2.1.2: Maintain a city-wide level of service (LOS) not to exceed LOS "C" for daily traffic, with the exception of Pacific Coast Highway south of Brookhurst Street. Policy CE 2.1.3: Identify and improve roadways and intersections that are approaching, or have reached, unacceptable levels of service. Goal CE 5: Provide sufficient, well-designed, and convenient on- and off-street parking facilities throughout the City. (04NOA0525) Attachment No. 1. 3 Goal CE 7: Maintain and enhance the visual quality and scenic views along designated corridors. A traffic impact analysis has been completed by a traffic engineering firm to ensure a balanced transportation system that adequately mitigates the project's potential traffic impacts while still allowing for commercial development to be achieved. The developer will be required to contribute a fair-share payment toward traffic system improvements to mitigate the project's proportionate impacts to certain intersections and roadways. Through the recommended conditions of approval, the project will be required to provide a much-needed traffic signal at one of the most dangerous intersections in the City. The well-designed parking facilities include compact spaces distributed throughout the site, access between existing parcels without re- entering the public street system, reciprocal driveways between uses, parking lot landscape planters, and perimeter landscaping to enhance the view of the parking area from the surrounding street system. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL—CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 03-35: 1. The site plan, floor plans and elevations received and dated March 18, 2004 shall be the conceptually approved layout with the following modifications: a. The loading dock enclosure shall be constructed with sound absorbing material designed to minimize noise impacts associated with loading and unloading activities. Truck loading and maneuvering shall be designed to provide the greatest separation possible from the adjacent residential properties. The architecture colors and materials of the enclosure shall be consistent with the overall building architecture. b. The architecture colors and materials of the garden center shall be consistent with the overall building architecture. c. The design, colors, and materials for the subject building shall be reviewed by the Design Review Board (DRB) following approval by the Planning Commission. 1) Elevations shall be revised to incorporate multiple roof planes and/or a variety of roof slopes to reduce the overall mass and bulk of the building and comply with the Urban Design Guidelines. 2) The overall architectural theme shall reflect a contemporary architectural design consistent with the design concept identified on elevation dated April 14, 2004. Several massing elements, in various volumes, shall be incorporated into the design. Varied use of earth tone colors and quality exterior materials such as stone veneer, split-face block, or other similar material shall be incorporated to accent prominent portions of the building fagades. 3) The design of the garden center shall incorporate an enhanced entry design which shall have the appearance of a secondary storefront. The design of the garden center shall include similar architectural design as the overall building. 4) A public art element shall be integrated and be in a location that is visible to the public within the project site. Public art shall incorporate the following: i) Artistic excellence and innovation ii) Appropriate to the design of the project iii) Indicative of the community's cultural identity (ecology, history, society) (04NOA0525) Attachment No. 1.4 The Design Review Board's recommended public art element shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director, prior to issuance of a building permit for the project. The public art shall be in place at the subject site prior to final building inspection. d. The cart corrals shall be constructed with a durable material such as concrete block. The design of the cart-corrals shall be consistent with Sheet 6 of the conceptual plans dated March 18, 2004. The colors and materials used on the cart corrals shall be consistent with the subject building. e. All non-conforming signs shall be eliminated from the subject site, including the one pylon sign along the Adams Avenue frontage and a second pylon sign along the Brookhurst Street frontage. A planned sign program for all signage on the subject property and outlying commercial pads shall be submitted to the Planning Department. Said program shall be approved prior to the first sign permit request. f. Prior to submittal for building permits. The applicant shall submit a copy of the revised site plan, floor plans and elevations pursuant to Condition No. 1 for review and approval, and inclusion in the entitlement file to the Planning Department and submit 8.5 inch by 10 inch colored elevations, materials board, and renderings to the Planning Department for inclusion in the entitlement file. - g. All-parking that is-proposed behind the store,-within the access gates, shall be designated as employee-only parking. A-MDv.2�©) h. A minimum of two speed bumps shall be provided behind the building, subject to review and approval by the Fire Department. i. All perimeter trees located directly adjacent to residential properties shall be of a species that is non-deciduous and results in minimal impacts in maintenance and upkeep to adjacent properties. 2. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the following shall be completed: a. The site plan received and dated April 14, 2003 shall be the approved layout except for the following: (PW) 1) The.driveway on the south side of the property along Brookhurst Street shall be widened to a minimum of 36-feet in width, to allow for two egress lanes. 2) A minimum 10-foot sight triangle must be provided at all points on the site, including the building corners. Areas of concern include the northwest corner (at the loading dock) and northeast corner of the building. The sidewalk must also be extended a minimum of four feet west of the building corner. 3) A truck-tracking exhibit, utilizing a WB-50 design vehicle, must be provided to demonstrate that delivery trucks can be accommodated. This truck tracking exhibit must illustrate a truck entering the site, accessing the loading docks and egressing the site. It must be demonstrated that the truck movements will not encroach into opposite directions of roadway traffic nor impact the parking spaces shown. 4) A traffic signal shall be constructed at the main driveway entrance on Adams Avenue. This traffic signal shall include the installation of interconnect conduit and cable to the (04NOA0525) Attachment No. 1. 5 traffic signal controller cabinet at the intersection of Brookhurst Street and Adams Avenue. A traffic signal and maintenance easement shall be provided in the driveway area. The appropriate curb ramp and signing & striping modifications shall be made to accommodate the traffic signal installation. (PW/MM) 5) The applicant shall provide the legal description(s), plat(s), and supporting documents necessary for the City to quitclaim any abandoned portions of the existing water line easement dedicated to the City of Huntington Beach. (PW) 3. Prior to issuance of building permits, the following shall be completed: a. An "Acceptance of Conditions" form shall be properly executed by the applicant and an authorized representative of the owner of the property, recorded with the County Recorder's Office, and returned to the Planning Department for inclusion in the entitlement file. Conditions of approval shall remain in effect in the recorded form in perpetuity, except as modified or rescinded pursuant to the expressed written approval of the City of Huntington Beach. b. The public art element shall be approved by the reviewed by the Design Review Board and approved by the Planning Director. 4. The structure(s) cannot be occupied, the final building permit(s) cannot be approved, and utilities cannot be released for commencement of use and issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy until compliance with all conditions of approval specified herein are accomplished and verified by the Planning Department. 5. The use shall comply with the following: a. Delivery hours for vendor truck deliveries, Target product delivery, and trash pickup shall be limited to Monday through Friday between the hours of 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM. All delivery vehicles, including Target trucks and outside vendors that cannot be accommodated with a typical 9 foot wide by 19 foot deep parking stall shall utilize the enclosed delivery bays for all loading and unloading activities. All other delivery vehicles that are no larger than a typical parking stall size may utilize the parking lot and access the store through the main entrance. Deliveries of any kind shall be prohibited behind the subject building, other than the designated loading and unloading bays. (MM) b. Delivery trucks shall not leave engines idling while delivering merchandise to the Target store. Trucks shall turn-off engines once they reach the loading dock. (MM) c. There shall be no loudspeakers or other amplified devices within the garden center, at any time. d. Rubber noise seals shall be provided around the opening to the building at the location of the loading dock. (MM) e. The trash compactor shall not be operated before 8:00 AM and after 7:00 PM. (MM) f. All doors along the southerly and westerly facades of the building shall remain closed at all times. (MM) (04NOA0525) Attachment No. 1.6 g. The hours of operation for the Target store shall be from 7 a.m. to 12 a.m. The access gates to the rear of the building shall remain closed from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. h. Parking lot lights shall be automatically dimmed to minimal security level lighting one hour after closing. i. The Target Department Store shall be designated as a single user with a maximum of 10 percent of the gross building floor area devoted to an ancillary retail/restaurant tenant. j. Any re-use of the site or request for future demising walls to allow for a new use within the subject building shall require approval of a conditional use permit by the Planning Commission. k. All outdoor display of seasonal, holiday, special events, and temporary outdoor sales events within the parking lot, on sidewalks, or any other portion of the project site shall be subject to the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Code. At no time shall a Temporary Use Permit be granted for the area between the subject building and the southerly or westerly property lines. I. There shall be no outside storage of storage containers or bins, vehicles, vehicle parts, equipment, or trailers. There shall be no outside storage of palettes or other product at any time without the required permits. m. There shall be no loitering by patrons or employees within the parking areas located at the rear of the subject building. Signs shall be posted to indicate that no loitering in all parking areas located behind the subject,building. Store managers shall be responsible for regulating all activity occurring at the rear of the subject building at all times. n. A store liaison shall be permanently established and available to assist neighbors and residents with issues regarding the site during construction and after completion of the project when the development is open for business. A sign identifying the store contact and telephone number shall be permanently posted on-site. o. All Mitigation Measures of Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 03-02 shall be adhered to. 6. The Planning Director ensures that all conditions of approval herein are complied with. The Planning Director shall be notified in writing if any changes to the site plan, elevations and floor plans'are proposed as a result of the plan check process. Building permits shall not be issued until the Planning Director has reviewed and approved the proposed changes for conformance with the intent of the Zoning Administrator's action and the conditions herein. If the proposed changes are of a substantial nature, an amendment to the original entitlement reviewed by the Zoning Administrator may be required pursuant to the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. 7. 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. 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 (04NOA0525) Attachment No. 1. 7 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. (04NOA0525) Attachment No. 1. 8 ,,,.,max�-- aa,3�'`� 'x L City of Huntington Beach Planning Department STAFF=�REPORT HUTO: Planning Commission FROM: Howard Zelefsky, Director of Planning BY: Paul Da Veiga, Associate PlDATE: May 25, 2004 SUBJECT: APPEAL OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 03-35 (Target Demolition and Rebuild) APPLICANT: John Warren, Pacific Land Services, 2151 Salvio St. Ste. 250, Concord, CA 94520 APPELLANT: Charles Ball, Business Properties, 17631 Fitch, Irvine, CA 92614-6021 PROPERTY OWNER: Target Corporation, 1000 Nicollet Mall,-Minneapolis, MN 55403 LOCATION: 9882 Adams Avenue (southwest corner of Brookhurst Street and Adams Avenue) STATEMENT OF ISSUE: • Conditional Use Permit No. 03-35 request: - To permit the demolition of a 103,458 sq. ft. retail commercial building and construction of a new 123,800 sq. ft. Target department store with an attached 8,100 square foot garden center. - Allow 9% (63 spaces) of the 666 total parking spaces on the Target site to be compact in size. - Redesign the parking area layout including the installation of new landscaping,pedestrian walkways, and public art. • Staff s Recommendation: Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 03-35, based upon the following: - The proposed development is consistent with the existing commercial use of the site and can be integrated and be sensitive to the surrounding land uses with adequate buffers, site layout recommendations, FAR limits, and design amenities. - The project, as conditioned and with mitigation measures to reduce potential environmental impacts, will not be detrimental to the general health, welfare and safety to persons working or living in the area, nor detrimental to the value of the property or improvements in the area. - The proposed Target department store will be compatible with the uses and structures on the adjacent surrounding properties because of proper setbacks, noise attenuation, access drive locations, and architectural quality. - The proposed development will increase the potential for taxable sales and provide additional funds to the city. ATTACHMENT NO. � _ ,. z IMMEMEM1111 MEMO�■ NEENNE .� OVA Q ` FAQ r t R. p� 1 t � • S p i=�--- t � R 42 suetitill ll 4;11?.,®®�� 1 v I VICINITY s 1 t s • / Conditional Use Pe1 1 9882 Adams BEACHTHE CITY OF HUNTINGTON • Staffs Recommendation (Continued): - The proposed development can mitigate the potential impacts to the surrounding area to the greatest extent possible, while still allowing for a market-driven commercial project. - The proposed project, as conditioned, will provide multiple roof planes, significant building wall articulation, landscaping at the building base, and an enhanced entry to improve the overall aesthetic appearance of the project design consistent with the City's Urban Design Guidelines. - The proposed project is consistent with the CG-F1 (Commercial General—FAR .35) Land Use designation of the General Plan. - With the conditions imposed, the project will comply with General Commercial development standards and will not be materially detrimental to surrounding properties or residents. RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: A. "Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 03-35 with findings and suggested conditions of approval (Attachment No. 1)." ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S): The Planning Commission may take alternative actions such as: A. "Deny Conditional Use Permit No. 03-35 with findings for denial." B. "Continue Conditional Use Permit No. 03-35 and direct staff accordingly." PROJECT PROPOSAL: Conditional Use Permit No. 03-35, pursuant to Section 211.04, Land Use Controls, of the HBZSO represents a request for the following: A. To demolish an existing 103,458 sq. ft. retail commercial building and to allow for the construction of a new 123,800 sq. ft. Target department store with an attached 8,100 square foot garden center pursuant to Section 211.04, Land Use Controls, of the HBZSO. B. To allow 9% (63 spaces) of the 666 total parking spaces on the Target site to be compact in size pursuant to section 231.20 A. Off-street Parking and Loading Provisions of the HBZSO. C. To redesign the parking area layout including the installation of new landscaping and pedestrian walkways throughout the subject site pursuant to Chapter 231 Off-Street Parking and Loading Provisions and Chapter 232.08 C. Off-Street Parking Facilities of the HBZSO. Target Department store requests a conditional use permit in order to demolish the existing Target building and garden center and replace it with a new 123,800 square foot building with an attached 8,100 PC Staff Report—5/25/04 -3- (04sr18 CUP 03-35 Appeal) ATTACHMENT NO. .� square foot garden center. The orientation of the building will change to face Brookhurst Street instead of Adams Avenue. The applicant proposes to construct the new building at the southwest corner of the subject site approximately 60 feet from the westerly property line and approximately 40 feet from the southerly property line. The garden center is proposed along the south side of the store and is located approximately 40 feet from the southerly property line. The height of the building ranges from 26 feet to 42 feet with the portion of the building nearest to residential at the lower height. The proposed loading dock is located at the northwest corner of the subject building. The new loading dock faces Adams Street and will be enclosed on three sides in order to block visibility and reduce noise impacts to adjacent residential properties. The loading dock will receive approximately one 62-foot Target truck per day and two trucks per day during the holiday season. The trucks will enter and exit the site from the main drive aisle along Adams Avenue without having to travel around the subject building. The entire site will be upgraded including 10-foot wide landscape planters along the perimeter of the subject site and interior landscaping and parking in accordance with the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. The proposal includes a request for 63 compact spaces (9%) distributed throughout the subject site. The proposed uses within the new Target Department store include a 1,708 square foot snack shop, an 8,100 square foot garden center, and 14,438 square feet of storage/stock area, and approximately 107,654 square feet of floor area dedicated to retail sales. The proposed hours of operation will remain the same as the existing store, which are 8:00 a.m. to 10 p.m. Monday through Sunday. Zoning Administrator Action The conditional use permit and mitigated negative declaration were considered by the Zoning Administrator at a public hearing held on March 31, 2004. Testimony in support of the request was received from the applicant, architect, and property owner. Three residents from the adjacent residential neighborhood identified concerns regarding the potential for noise impacts within the proposed garden center, loading area, and behind the subject building. Staff recommended denial of the request on the basis that the proposed architectural design was not in compliance with the Urban Design Guidelines and the lack of design features to mitigate potential noise from the garden center and loading area. The Zoning Administrator approved the mitigated negative declaration but continued the conditional use permit application to give the applicant the opportunity to address concerns regarding the design of the proposed structure and potential noise impacts. At the April 149 2004 meeting, the applicant introduced a new contemporary design for the building, which included a solid wall along the entire garden center and an enclosed loading and unloading area to address design and noise concerns. The Zoning Administrator approved the conditional use permit and included conditions of approval requiring the following: ❑ Sound absorbing material within the loading area designed to minimize noise impacts associated with loading and unloading activities. ❑ The design, colors, and materials are subject to the review of the Design Review Board. ❑ Parking along the rear of the store shall be designated for employees only. PC Staff Report—5/25/04 -4- (04sr18 CUP 03-35 Appeal) ATTACHMENT NO � ❑ Two speed bumps shall be provided along the rear drive aisle behind the store to prevent speeding and cut-through traffic behind the store. ❑ Perimeter trees that are located directly adjacent to residential properties shall be of a non-deciduous variety resulting in minimal maintenance impacts to surrounding residents. ❑ The architecture, colors, and materials of the garden center and enclosed loading area shall be consistent with the overall building architecture. ❑ Several massing elements in various volumes shall be incorporated into the design. Varied use of earth tone colors and quality exterior materials such as stone veneer, split-face block, or other similar material shall be incorporated into the buildings exterior to accent prominent portions of the facade. ❑ The design of the garden center shall incorporate an enhanced entry design which shall have the appearance of a secondary storefront. ❑ The cart corrals shall be constructed of durable materials such as concrete block and shall incorporate similar colors and materials as the Target building. ❑ All non-conforming signs shall be eliminated from the subject site, including the pylon sign along the Adams Avenue frontage and a second pylon sign along the Brookhurst Street frontage. Appeal The Zoning Administrator's approval of the conditional use permit was appealed by Charles Ball, representing Business Properties Development Company on April 22, 2003 (attachment No. 4). The appeal was filed on the basis that a traffic signal should be installed at the southerly-most driveway along the Brookhurst Street frontage as a mitigation measure in the mitigated negative declaration. Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 03-02 was approved on March 31, 2004. No appeals were filed during the 10- day appeal period following the approval of the mitigated negative declaration. Although the conditional use permit was appealed, the basis for the appeal is the lack of a traffic signal along the Brookhurst frontage, which was analyzed as part of the mitigated negative declaration. The locations of traffic signals are analyzed by the Department of Public Works based on the amount of traffic generated by the proposed development, standard code requirements mandated by the Traffic Division, and the traffic analysis prepared by the applicant. The mitigated negative declaration did not identify the requirement for a traffic signal at this location as part of the project. The requirement for a traffic signal is not appealable under the conditional use permit. The appellant should have appealed the mitigated negative declaration and the findings and mitigation measures during the 10-day appeal period. The appellant may pursue the installation of a traffic signal at the Brookhurst Street driveway with the Public Works Department and Public Works Commission. The Planning Commission has no jurisdiction in the requirement for a traffic signal as part of this project. PC Staff Report—5/25/04 -5- (04sr18 CUP 03-35 Appeal) ATTACHMENT NO. .� ISSUES: Subiect Property And Surrounding Land Use,Zoning And General Plan Designations: LOCATION GENERAL PLAN ZONING LAND USE Subject Property CG-F1 (Commercial CG-F1 (Commercial Existing Target General-.35 Floor Area General) Dept. Store Ratio) North of Subject CG-F 1 (Commercial CG-F 1 (Commercial Retail Property (across Adams General-.35 Floor Area General) Shopping Ave.. : Ratio) Center South of Subject RL-7 (Residential Low RL(Residential Low Single-Family Property(across Warner Density—7 units per acre) Density) Residential Avenue): East of Subject Property CG-F1 (Commercial CG-F1 (Commercial Retail General-.35 Floor Area General) Shopping Ratio) Center West of Subject RL-7 (Residential Low RL (Residential Low Single-Family Property: Density—7 units per acre) Density) Residential General Plan Conformance: The General Plan Land Use Map designation on the subject property is CG-F1 (Commercial General-0.35 FAR). The proposed project is consistent with this designation and the goals and objectives of the City's General Plan as follows: A. Land Use Element Goal LU 1: Achieve development that maintains or improves the City's fiscal viability and reflects economic demands while maintaining and improving the quality of life for the current and future residents of Huntington Beach. Goal L U 2: Ensure that development is adequately served by transportation, infrastructure, utility infrastructure, and public services adequately serve development. Goal L U 4: Achieve and maintain high quality architecture, landscape, and public open spaces in the City. Policy LU 10.1.4: Require that commercial buildings and sites be designed to achieve a high level of architectural and site layout quality. Policy LU 10. 1.5: Require that buildings,parking, and vehicular access be sited and designed to prevent adverse impacts on adjacent residential neighborhoods. PC Staff Report—5/25/04 -6- (04sr18 CUP 03-35 Appeal) ATTACHMENT NO. - Polic LU 10.1.6: Require that commercial projects abutting residential properties adequately protect the residential use from the excessive or incompatible impacts of noise, light, vehicular traffic, visual character, and operational hazards. Policy LU 10.1.12: Require that Commercial General uses be designed and developed to achieve a high level of quality, distinctive character, and compatibility with existing uses and development including the consideration of: ❑ Incorporation of site landscape, particularly along street frontages and in parking lots; ❑ Linkage of buildings by common architectural design, landscape and pedestrian systems, to avoid the appearance of independent freestanding structures surrounded by parking; o Siting and design of structures to facilitate and encourage pedestrian activity; ❑ Siting of one or more buildings in proximity to the street frontage to convey a visual relationship to the street and sidewalks; ❑ Architectural treatment of buildings to minimize visual bulk and mass, using techniques such as the modulation of building volumes and articulation of all elevations; and ❑ Inclusion of consistent signage designed and integrated into the building's architectural character. Goal LU I1: Achieve the development of projects that enable residents to live in proximity to their jobs, commercial services, and entertainment, and reduce the need for automobile use. Policy LU 7.1.6: Accommodate the development of additional jobs-generating land uses that improve the 1992 jobs-to-housing ratio of 0.82 to 1.0 or greater; to meet objectives of the Regional Comprehensive Plan (Southern California Association of Governments) and Air Quality Management Plan. These should capitalize upon existing industrial strengths emphasizing the clustering of similar or complementary industries. The proposed Target store would support the needs and reflect market demand of City residents and visitors. The proposed development improves the project site through the addition of landscape planters along the perimeter of the site and throughout the parking area. In addition, the proposed project would help the City to achieve its goal of enhancing the community image of Huntington Beach through the design and construction of a high-quality, state-of-the-art development; impacts to the surrounding area are mitigated to the greatest extent possible, while still allowing for the market- driven commercial development. The design of the project promotes development of commercial buildings that convey a unified,high- quality visual image and character. The City's Design Review Board has reviewed the proposed architecture, colors, and materials and recommends preliminary approval of the design concept with minor modifications. Public services are currently available to the project site, as well as the surrounding parcels, and the project includes improvements to existing infrastructure to ensure adequate service after project implementation. With the recommended conditions of approval,the design of the project meets the objectives of the Urban Design Element through the use of massing elements and architectural detailing on all elevations, in conjunction with a varied roof line in order to eliminate the appearance of an overall "big-box"design. Varied use of earth tone colors and quality exterior materials such as stone veneer, PC Staff Report—5/25/04 -7- (04sr18 CUP 03-35 Appeal) split-face block, and other similar materials is incorporated to accent prominent portions of the building fagades. B. Economic Development Element Goal ED ]:—Provide economic opportunities for present and future Huntington Beach residents and businesses through employment and local fiscal stability. Goal ED 2: Aggressively retain and enhance the existing commercial, industrial, and visitor-serving uses while attracting new uses to Huntington Beach. Goal ED 3: Enhance Huntington Beach's economic development potential through strategic land use planning and sound urban design practices. The proposed project promotes development in accordance with Huntington Beach's Economic Development Element. The proposed project expands upon an already successful retail commercial development that, with the additional floor area proposed, will broaden and stabilize the City's economic base. New employment opportunities will be created both in the construction of the proposed development and in the long-term operations of the retail establishment. C. Circulation Element Goal CE 1: Provide a balanced transportation system that supports the policies of the General Plan and facilitates the safe and efficient movement of people and goods throughout the City while providing a balance between economic development and the preservation of residential neighborhoods, and minimizing environmental impacts. Goal CE 2: Provide a circulation system which supports existing, approved, and planned land uses throughout the City while maintaining a desired level of service on all streets and at all intersections. Policy CE 2.1.1: Maintain a city-wide level of service (LOS) not to exceed LOS "D" for intersections during the peak hours. Policy CE 2.1.2: Maintain a city-wide level of service (LOS) not to exceed LOS "C" for daily traffic, with the exception of Pacific Coast Highway south of Brookhurst Street. Goal CE 5: Provide sufficient, well-designed, and convenient on- and off-street parking facilities throughout the City. Goal CE 7: Maintain and enhance the visual quality and scenic views along designated corridors. A traffic impact analysis has been completed by a traffic engineering firm to ensure a balanced transportation system that adequately mitigates the project's potential traffic impacts while still allowing for commercial development to be achieved. The developer will be required to contribute a fair-share payment toward traffic system improvements to mitigate the project's proportionate impacts to certain intersections and roadways. Through the recommended conditions of approval, the project PC Staff Report—5/25/04 -8- (04sr18 CUP 03-35 Appeal) ATTACHMENT NO. �•� will be required to provide a much-needed traffic signal at one of the most dangerous intersections in the City. The well-designed parking facilities include compact spaces distributed throughout the site, access between existing parcels without re-entering the public street system, reciprocal driveways between uses,parking lot landscape planters, and perimeter landscaping to enhance the view of the parking area from the surrounding street system. Zoning Compliance: The proposed project complies with all applicable development standards of the CG (Commercial General) zoning designation. Urban Design Guidelines Conformance: The proposed project has been analyzed for conformance with the Urban Design Guidelines, Chapter 4, General Commercial and-Chapter 6, Special Consideration Commercial Guidelines Big Box Retail. The applicant has completed the Urban Design Checklist for the proposed project and indicates compliance with the majority of the Guidelines. The Urban Design Guidelines recommend specific design criteria for big box retail. In particular, several recommendations are discussed for site planning and for building design. The Urban Design Guidelines for big box building design recommend incorporation of a two foot high building base, durable building materials, multiple roof planes, significant building wall articulations, landscaping at building base on all four sides, and integration of outdoor storage and/or garden center into building design to complement the building architecture. The applicant is utilizing a variety of building materials and design elements, such as split face block, smooth face block, trellises, decorative columns, and a canopy feature at the main entrance to the subject building in order to comply with the Design Guidelines. As recommended by staff on all major commercial and residential projects within the City, staff recommends that a public art element be incorporated into the site design. Specifically, staff recommends that public art be integrated and located within a publicly accessible place within the Target project. Public art shall include art that is: a) Innovative, original, and of artistic excellence; b) Appropriate to the design of the project; and, c) Reflective of the community's cultural identity(ecology, history, society). Target is aware of and has committed to the Public Art component of the project and has selected an artist to design an art piece that meets the criteria listed above. Staff suggests the public art element be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Board prior to issuance of a building permit for the project. The public art shall be in place prior to final inspection. Environmental Status: The project's potential environmental impacts were analyzed under Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 03-02. Staff, in its initial study of the project, determined that the proposed development, with mitigation, would not have any significant environmental effects and that a mitigated negative declaration was warranted. Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 03-02 was approved by the Zoning Administrator on March 31, 2004. No appeal was filed during the 10-day appeal period. PC Staff Report—5/25/04 -9- (04sr18 CUP 03-35 Appeal) ATTACHMENT NO. � .� Coastal Status: Not Applicable Redevelopment Status: Not Applicable Design Review Board: The proposed project was submitted to the Design Review Board(DRB) on January 15, 2004. The Board reviewed the colors, materials, design, and preliminary plans for the proposed Target department store. The Board was informed of staff s recommendations regarding compliance with the Urban Design Guidelines and reviewed photographs of existing Target stores in other cities. The Board expressed concerns regarding the entrance design, design of the garden center, and the need for articulation of all four sides of the building. In summary,the Board expressed concerns regarding the architecture and compliance with the Urban Design Guidelines for general commercial,"big box retail, and for providing unique and rich building materials. The Board recommended that the project be brought back before the Design Review Board following project approval. Subdivision Committee: Not Applicable Other Departments Concerns and Requirements: The Departments of Public Works, Fire, and Building and Safety have recommended conditions that are noted for the applicant as typical code requirements or are incorporated into the conditions of approval if they are unique to the project proposal. The Public Works Department recommends that a traffic signal be installed at the main entrance to the subject site along the Adams Avenue frontage as mitigation for the proposed development. Public Notircation: Legal notice was published in the Huntington Beach/Fountain Valley Independent on May 13, 2004, and notices were sent to property owners of record and tenants within a 300 ft. radius of the subject property, individuals/organizations requesting notification(Planning Department's Notification Matrix), applicant, and interested parties. As of May, 20, 2004, no additional items of communication have been received by staff. Application Processing Dates: DATE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: MANDATORY PROCESSING DATE(S): Conditional Use Permit: December 9, 2003 May 9, 2003 (Within 180 days after application deemed complete)—Approved by Zoning Admin. 4/14/04* Mit. Negative Declaration: December 9, 2003 May 31, 2004 (Within 60 days from adoption date of the Mitigated Negative Declaration—March 31, 2004) * The project was heard by the Zoning Administrator on March 31, 2004, which complies with the State of California Planning, Zoning, and Development Laws relative to mandatory processing times. ATTACHMENT NO. 4-. I t PC Staff Report—5/25/04 -10- (04sr18 CUP 03-35 Appeal) ANALYSIS: As discussed below, there are two major issues for analysis in this proposed retail commercial project. The Target Department Store has been studied with regards to land use compatibility and traffic and circulation. The following is an analysis of the primary issues of the proposed project. Land Use Compatibility: The proposed Target building is separated from residential uses to the south, and west by a six-foot block wall (approx. 8 feet on the residential side), drive aisle, landscaping planters and parking spaces. The setback to the southerly property line is 79 feet to the building wall and 40 feet to the garden center. The setback to the westerly property line is 60 feet. The existing Target building is currently setback 60 feet from the southerly property line and approximately 78 feet from the westerly property line to the nearest portion of the structure. The existing building extends approximately 590 feet along the southerly property line at the current 60-foot setback because of its long, rectangular shape. The newly proposed building is a more proportionate, square design, that extends approximately 312 feet along the southerly property line at a 79-foot setback to the building wall, and a 40-foot setback to the garden center. The proposed shape and placement of the building is superior to the existing configuration and reduces noise and visual impacts to adjacent residents because of the increased setback to the building wall and less expanse of wall along the southerly property line. Although the proposed westerly setback(60 feet) is less than the existing building (78 feet),truck traffic around the rear of the building will be eliminated based on the new location of the loading dock along the northerly elevation, which will reduce noise and air quality impacts to adjacent residential properties. As part of the environmental review process conducted for Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 03-02, an Acoustical Analysis evaluated the potential noise impacts of the proposed project to the existing surrounding noise sensitive residential uses. The noise study indicated that the average noise levels during daytime conditions ranged from 45.6 decibels (dBA) to 48.2 dBA. The maximum decibel level allowed under Chapter 8.40 Noise of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code is 55 dBA. The proposed development will not introduce new noise impacts that do not already occur with the existing Target development. The findings of the noise study accounted for the noise from surrounding arterials,truck deliveries to the site, loading and unloading activities, and parking lot noise. Truck deliveries to the Target Department store will occur via a partially enclosed loading dock located along the northerly frontage of the building, approximately 60 feet from adjacent residential development. The current location of the loading area is at the southwest corner of the subject site and requires that truck traffic travel behind the building, adjacent to single family residences. The new location of the loading area allows deliveries truck to enter the loading dock without having to travel behind the subject building, thereby reducing noise impacts to adjacent residential properties. In addition, the applicant is proposing a loading dock design that is completely enclosed on three sides, and which will incorporate sound absorbing material into its design. Additionally, a mitigation measure requires that rubber noise seals be installed at the openings to the building to create a seal between the trucks and the building in order to ensure minimal noise disturbances to adjacent residences during loading and unloading activities. PC Staff Report—5/25/04 -11- (04sr18 CUP 03-35 Appeal) ATTACHMENT NO. The attached garden center is located along the southerly elevation of the proposed building, and is setback approximately 40 feet from the south property line. The noise study identified sound readings along the southerly property line as being below the maximum allowable decibel level of 55 dBA. A community meeting was held with surrounding neighbors who voiced concerns regarding the location of the proposed garden center based on the current impacts that exist with the existing garden center including excessive noise from loudspeakers and occasionally the voices of patrons shopping. Based on these concerns, additional conditions of approval prohibiting loudspeakers and requiring a solid attenuating wall along the entire side of the garden center are being proposed by the applicant. These conditions will significantly reduce any noise impacts associated with the garden center operation. The following conditions of approval were incorporated into the conditional use permit approval to protect surrounding residents from noise impacts: 1) Delivery hours for vendor truck deliveries, Target product delivery, and trash pickup shall be limited to Monday through Friday between the hours of 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM. All delivery vehicles, including Target trucks and outside vendors that cannot be accommodated with a typical 9 foot wide by 19 foot deep parking stall shall utilize the enclosed delivery bays for all loading and unloading. activities. All other delivery vehicles that are no larger than a typical parking stall size may utilize the parking lot and access the store through the main entrance. Deliveries of any kind shall be prohibited behind the subject building, other than the designated loading and unloading bays. 2) Delivery trucks shall not leave engines idling while delivering merchandise to the Target store. Trucks shall turn-off engines once they reach the loading dock. 3) There shall be no loudspeakers or other amplified devices within the garden center, at any time. 4) Rubber noise seals shall be provided around the opening to the building at the location of the loading dock. 5) The trash compactor shall not be operated before 8:00 AM and after 7:00 PM. 6) All doors along the southerly and westerly facades of the building shall remain closed at all times. 7) The access gates to the rear of the building shall remain closed during times in which the store is closed to the public. 8) There shall be no loitering by patrons or employees within the parking areas located at the rear of the subject building. Signs shall be posted to indicate that no loitering in all parking areas located behind the subject building. Store managers shall be responsible for regulating all activity occurring at the rear of the subject building at all times. 9) .A store liaison shall be permanently established and available to assist neighbors and residents with issues regarding the site during construction and after completion of the project when the development is open for business. A sign identifying the store contact and telephone number shall be permanently posted on-site. PC Staff Report—5/25/04 -12- (04sr18 CUP 03-35 Appeal) ATTACHMENT NO. � 'Z Based on the separation between the site and adjacent properties, existing buffers, and recommended conditions of approval, residential properties are adequately protected from the proposed commercial development and no adverse noise impacts are anticipated. Traffic and Circulation: The proposed project is projected to generate approximately 7,560 trip ends per day, including 132 trips during the AM peak hour and 566 trips during the PM peak hour. The current site generates approximately 6,470 trip-ends per day with 113 trips during the AM peak hour and 484 trips during the PM peak hour. The net increase in floor area between the existing Target store and new store is projected to result in approximately 1,090 new vehicle trips/day(ADT). The existing Average Daily Traffic (ADT) along both Brookhurst Street and Adams Avenue respectively is approximately 45,000 vehicle trips per day according to the General Plan. The anticipated net increase in vehicle trips per day to the subject site represents a slight increase in ADT to the adjacent major arterials. The increase in vehicle trips for the proposed project is negligible in light of the existing trips already generated by the Target store and existing traffic flow on surrounding arterials. The proposed project will not significantly impact the existing-levels of service at the Brookhurst St./Adams Ave. intersection. The current Level of Service (LOS) at the intersection of Brookhurst Street and Adams Avenue is LOS E (at or near capacity) during the AM peak hour and LOS D (high density but stable) during PM peak hour. The proposed project will not further degrade the existing level of service at the subject intersection. However, with the City's planned improvements consisting of right hand turn lanes installed at the intersection of Brookhurst Street and Adams Avenue in the northbound, eastbound, and westbound directions,the LOS E in the AM peak hour will be improved to an LOS D,which is an acceptable level of service to the Traffic Division. In conclusion,the impacts to level of service at this intersection will be less than significant. The traffic analysis reviewed the accident history of the two full access driveways existing on the site. The first full access driveway intersection provides access to the Target center as well as the Mervyn's center to the north of the site. The first driveway is located along Adams Avenue approximately 700 feet west of the intersection of Brookhurst Street and Adams Avenue. The traffic analysis identified 26 traffic accidents within the past 44 months at the subject driveway. Many of the accidents were auto right-of- way violations, involving left turns exiting the site or through vehicle conflicts in the vicinity of the driveway. The Adams Avenue driveway had an accident rate of 0.54 accidents per million entering vehicles which exceeds the expected rate of 0.22 for urban areas. The number of accidents that have occurred at this location meet the Caltrans Warrant 6 for a traffic signal based on five correctible accidents in a year identified at this intersection. In order to mitigate any future traffic impacts to the surrounding street system, a new traffic signal shall be installed at the intersection of the full access driveway located along Adams Avenue in order to correct the existing inadequate access through the subject intersection. The second full access driveway intersection is located along Brookhurst Street, approximately 720 feet south of the intersection of Brookhurst Street and Adams Avenue. There were significantly fewer accidents at this location with a total of eight traffic accidents within the past 44 months. Nearly all of the accidents were auto right of way violation conflicts based on left turn movements through the intersection. The Brookhurst Street driveway had an accident rate of 0.16 accidents per million entering vehicles PC Staff Report—5/25/04 -13- (04sr18 CUP 03-35 Appeal) ATTACHMENT NO. I L- which is below the expected rate of 0.22 for urban areas. The number of accidents at this intersection does not meet Warrant 6 for a traffic signal based on five correctible accidents in a year. In conclusion, the impacts to traffic load and capacity associated with this project will be mitigated based on the proposed improvements required under the conditional use permit, and in conjunction with the City's planned improvements at the intersection of the Brookhurst Street and Adams Avenue. SUMMARY: As conditioned,the project is consistent with the Commercial General land use designation, therefore, staff recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 03-35 for the following reasons: • The proposed development is consistent with the existing commercial use of the site and can be integrated and be sensitive to the surrounding land uses with adequate buffers, site layout recommendations, FAR limits, and design amenities. The project, as conditioned and with mitigation measures to reduce potential environmental impacts, will not be detrimental to the general health, welfare and safety to persons working or living in the area, nor detrimental to the value of the property or improvements in the area. • The proposed Target department store will be compatible with the uses and structures on the adjacent surrounding properties because of proper setbacks, noise attenuation, access drive locations, and architectural quality. - • The proposed development will increase the potential for taxable sales and provide additional funds to the city to reduce service costs. • The proposed development can mitigate the potential impacts to the surrounding area to the greatest extent possible, while still allowing for a market-driven commercial project. • The project, as conditioned and with mitigation measures to reduce potential environmental impacts, will not be detrimental to the general health, welfare and safety to persons working or living in the area, nor detrimental to the value of the property or improvements in the area. • The proposed project, as conditioned, will provide multiple roof planes, significant building wall articulation, landscaping at the building base, and an enhanced entry to improve the overall aesthetic appearance of the project design consistent with the City's Urban Design Guidelines. • The proposed project is consistent with the CG-F1 (Commercial General—FAR .35) Land Use designation of the General Plan. • With the conditions imposed, the project will comply with General Commercial development standards and will not be materially detrimental to surrounding properties or residents. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Suggested Findings and Conditions of Approval—Conditional Use Permit No. 03-35 2. Site Plan, Floor Plans, Elevations, etc. dated April 14, 2004 3. Project narrative dated September 16, 2064 4. Appeal letter dated April 22, 2004 5. Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 03-02 SH:HF:PD:rl PC Staff Report—5/25/04 -14- (04sr18 CUP 03-35 Appeal) ATTACHMENT NO. . �� ATTACHMENT NO. 1 . SUGGESTED FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 03-35 FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 03-35: 1. Conditional Use Permit No. 03-35 to permit the demolition of a 103,458 sq. ft. retail building and construction of a new 123,800 sq. ft. Target department store with an 8,100 sq. ft. attached garden center 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. The proposed project meets or exceeds all Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance standards. The proposed architecture, colors, and materials are consistent with the Urban Design Guidelines through the use of varied quality building materials such as stone veneer, stucco, and concrete tile roof. The design incorporates multiple plane rooflines and a substantial amount of massing in the design to eliminate the "big-box" appearance of the subject building. Based upon the conditions imposed, the 8,100 square foot garden center will be designed with a solid wall running along its entire length, which will reduce potential noise impacts from garden center activities to adjacent properties. In addition, the loading and unloading area will be designed to minimize potential impacts to adjacent residences. With the implementation of MND No. 03-02 mitigation measures, conditions of approval, and design modifications, the potential impacts of the project have been mitigated to a level of insignificance. 2. The conditional use permit will be compatible with surrounding uses which consist of commercial uses to the north and east, and single-family residences to the south and to the west of the subject site. A noise study was conducted on the subject site and recommended mitigation measures have been incorporated into the conditions of approval. The garden center will be equipped with a solid block wall along its entire length to mitigate any potential noise impacts to nearby residents. The operation of the garden center will be regulated through the conditions of approval and shall not contain any amplified loudspeakers, which would disrupt adjacent residents. Hours of operation for loading and unloading of product have been regulated in the conditions of approval to allow deliveries during daytime hours only. The proposed truck loading will be constructed with sound attenuating material such as solid walls, roof, rubber seals, and sound absorbing material to reduce noise impacts to adjacent residents. In addition, loitering by employees or patrons shall not be allowed behind the subject building and signs shall be posted which prohibit loitering activity. 3. The proposed Conditional Use Permit No. 03-35 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 and any specific condition required for the proposed use in the district in which it would be located. 4. The granting of the conditional use permit will not adversely affect the General Plan. The project is consistent with the Land Use Element designation of CG-171 (General Commercial—FAR 0.35) on (04sr18 CUP 03-35 Appeal) Attachment No. 1. 1 ATTACHMENT NO. �z 3`2 - the subject property. In addition, it is consistent with the following goals and policies of the General Plan: A. Land Use Element Goal LU 1: Achieve development that maintains or improves the City's fiscal viability and reflects economic demands while maintaining and improving the quality of life for the current and future residents of Huntington Beach. Goal L U 2: Ensure that development is adequately served by transportation, infrastructure, utility infrastructure, and public services adequately serve development. Goal LU4: Achieve and maintain high quality architecture, landscape, and public open spaces in the City. Policy L U 10.1.4: Require that commercial buildings and sites be designed to achieve a high level of architectural and site layout quality. Policy LU 10, 1.5: Require that buildings, parking, and vehicular access be sited and designed to prevent adverse impacts on adjacent residential neighborhoods. Policy LU 10.1.6: Require that commercial projects abutting residential properties adequately protect the residential use from the excessive or incompatible impacts of noise, light, vehicular traffic, visual character, and operational hazards. Policy LU 10.1.12: Require that Commercial General uses be designed and developed to achieve a high level of quality, distinctive character, and compatibility with existing uses and development including the consideration of: o Incorporation of site landscape,particularly along street frontages and in parking lots; ❑ Linkage of buildings by common architectural design, landscape and pedestrian systems, to avoid the appearance of independent freestanding structures surrounded by parking; o Siting and design of structures to facilitate and encourage pedestrian activity; ❑ Siting of one or more buildings in proximity to the street frontage to convey a visual relationship to the street and sidewalks; ❑ Architectural treatment of buildings to minimize visual bulk and mass, using techniques such as the modulation of building volumes and articulation of all elevations; and ❑ Inclusion of consistent signage designed and integrated into the building's architectural character. Goal LU 11: Achieve the development of projects that enable residents to live in proximity to their jobs, commercial services, and entertainment, and reduce the need for automobile use. Policy LU 7.1.6: Accommodate the development of additional jobs-generating land uses that improve the 1992 jobs-to-housing ratio of 0.82 to 1.0 or greater; to meet objectives of the Regional Comprehensive Plan(Southern California Association of Governments) and Air Quality (04sr18 CUP 03-35 Appeal) Attachment No. 1.2 ATTACHMENT N . Management Plan. These should capitalize upon existing industrial strengths emphasizing the clustering of similar or complementary industries. The proposed Target store would support the needs and reflect market demand of City residents and visitors. The proposed development improves the project site through the addition of landscape planters along the perimeter of the site and throughout the parking area. In addition, the proposed project would help the City to achieve its goal of enhancing the community image of Huntington Beach through the design and construction of a high-quality, state-of-the-art development; impacts to the surrounding area are mitigated to the greatest extent possible, while still allowing for the market-driven commercial development. The design of the project promotes development of commercial buildings that convey a unified, high-quality visual image and character. The City's Design Review Board has reviewed the proposed architecture, colors, and materials and recommends preliminary approval of the design concept with minor modifications. Public services are currently available to the project site, as well as the surrounding parcels, and the project includes improvements to existing infrastructure to ensure adequate service after project implementation. With the recommended conditions of approval,the design of the project meets the objectives of the Urban Design Element through the use of massing elements and architectural detailing on all elevations, in conjunction with a varied roof line in order to eliminate the appearance of an overall "big-box" design. Varied use of earth tone colors and quality exterior materials such as stone veneer, split-face block, and other similar materials is incorporated to accent prominent portions of the building fagades. B. Economic Development Element Goal ED 1: Provide economic opportunities for present and future Huntington Beach residents and businesses through employment and local fiscal stability. Goal ED 2: Aggressively retain and enhance the existing commercial, industrial, and visitor- serving uses while attracting new uses to Huntington Beach. Goal ED 3: Enhance Huntington Beach's economic development potential through strategic land use planning and sound urban design practices. The proposed project promotes development in accordance with Huntington Beach's Economic Development Element. The proposed project expands upon an already successful retail commercial development that, with the additional floor area proposed, will broaden and stabilize the City's economic base. New employment opportunities will be created both in the construction of the proposed development and in the long-term operations of the retail establishment. C. Circulation Element Goal CE 1: Provide a balanced transportation system that supports the policies of the General Plan and facilitates the safe and efficient movement of people and goods throughout the City while (04sr18 CUP 03-35 Appeal) Attachment No. 1. 3 ATTACHMENT NO �• �� providing a balance between economic development and the preservation of residential neighborhoods, and minimizing environmental impacts. Goal CE 2: Provide a circulation system which supports existing, approved, and planned land uses throughout the City while maintaining a desired level of service on all streets and at all intersections. Policy CE 2.1.1: Maintain a citywide level of service (LOS)not to exceed LOS "D" for intersections during the peak hours. Policy CE 2.1.2: Maintain a city-wide level of service (LOS) not to exceed LOS "C" for daily traffic, with the exception of Pacific Coast Highway south of Brookhurst Street. Policy CE 2.1.3: Identify and improve roadways and intersections that are approaching, or have reached, unacceptable levels of service. Goal CE S: Provide sufficient, well-designed, and convenient on- and off-street parking facilities throughout the City. Goal CE 7: Maintain and enhance the visual quality and scenic views along designated corridors. A traffic impact analysis has been completed by a traffic engineering firm to ensure a balanced transportation system that adequately mitigates the project's potential traffic impacts while still allowing for commercial development to be achieved. The developer will be required to contribute a fair-share payment toward traffic system improvements to mitigate the project's proportionate impacts to certain intersections and roadways. Through the recommended conditions of approval, the project will be required to provide a much-needed traffic signal at one of the most dangerous intersections in the City. The well-designed parking facilities include compact spaces distributed throughout the site, access between existing parcels without re-entering the public street system, reciprocal driveways between uses, parking lot landscape planters, and perimeter landscaping to enhance the view of the parking area from the surrounding street system. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL—CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 03-35: 1. The site plan, floor plans and elevations received and dated March 18, 2004 shall be the conceptually approved layout with the following modifications: a. The loading dock enclosure shall be constructed with sound absorbing material designed to minimize noise impacts associated with loading and unloading activities. Truck loading and maneuvering shall be designed to provide the greatest separation possible from the adjacent residential properties. The architecture colors and materials of the enclosure shall be consistent with the overall building architecture. b. The architecture colors and materials of the garden center shall be consistent with the overall building architecture. (04sr18 CUP 03-35 Appeal) Attachment No. 1.4 ATTAWHIR ENT NO. � i$ c. The design, colors, and materials for the subject building shall be reviewed by the Design Review Board (DRB) following approval by the Zoning Administrator. 1) Elevations shall be revised to incorporate multiple roof planes and/or a variety of roof slopes to reduce the overall mass and bulk of the building and comply with the Urban Design Guidelines. 2) The overall architectural theme shall reflect a contemporary architectural design consistent with the design concept identified on elevation dated April 14, 2004. Several massing elements, in various volumes, shall be incorporated into the design. Varied use of earth tone colors and quality exterior materials such as stone veneer, split-face block, or other similar material shall be incorporated to accent prominent portions of the building fagades. 3) The design of the garden center shall incorporate an enhanced entry design which shall have the appearance of a secondary storefront. The design of the garden center shall include similar architectural design as the overall building. 4) A public art element shall be integrated and be in a location that is visible to the public within the project site. Public art shall incorporate the following: i) Artistic excellence and innovation ii) Appropriate to the design of the project iii) Indicative of the community's cultural identity(ecology, history, society) The Design Review Board's recommended public art element shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director, prior to issuance of a building permit for the project. The public art shall be in place at the subject site prior to final building inspection. d. The cart corrals shall be constructed with a durable material such as concrete block. The design of the cart corrals shall be consistent with Sheet 6 of the conceptual plans dated March 18, 2004. The colors and materials used on the cart corrals shall be consistent with the subject building. e. All non-conforming signs shall be eliminated from the subject site, including the one pylon sign along the Adams Avenue frontage and a second pylon sign along the Brookhurst Street frontage. A planned sign program for all signage on the subject property and outlying commercial pads shall be submitted to the Planning Department. Said program shall be approved prior to the first sign permit request. f. Prior to submittal for building permits. The applicant shall submit a copy of the revised site plan, floor plans and elevations pursuant to Condition No. 1 for review and approval, and inclusion in the entitlement file to the Planning Department and submit 8.5 inch by 10 inch colored elevations, materials board, and renderings to the Planning Department for inclusion in the entitlement file. (04sr18 CUP 03-35 Appeal) A T Tn��& '12 � g. All parking that is proposed behind the store, within the access gates, shall be designated as employee-only parking. h. A minimum of two speed bumps shall be provided behind the building, subject to review and approval by the Fire Department. i. All perimeter trees located directly adjacent to residential properties shall be of a species that is non-deciduous and results in minimal impacts in maintenance and upkeep to adjacent properties. 2. Prior to issuance of a grading permit,the following shall be completed: a. The site plan received and dated April 14, 2003 shall be the approved layout except for the following: (PW) 1) The driveway on the south side of the property along Brookhurst Street shall be widened to a minimum of 36-feet in width,to allow for two egress lanes. 2) A minimum 10-foot sight triangle must be provided at all points on the site, including the building corners. Areas of concern include the northwest corner(at the loading dock) and northeast corner of the building. The sidewalk must also be extended a minimum of four feet west of the building corner. I 3) A truck-tracking exhibit, utilizing a WB-50 design vehicle, must be provided to demonstrate that delivery trucks can be accommodated. This truck tracking exhibit must illustrate a truck entering the site, accessing the loading docks and egressing the site. It must be demonstrated that the truck movements will not encroach into opposite directions of roadway traffic nor impact the parking spaces shown. 4) A traffic signal shall be constructed at the main driveway entrance on Adams Avenue. This traffic signal shall include the installation of interconnect conduit and cable to the traffic signal controller cabinet at the intersection of Brookhurst Street and Adams Avenue. A traffic signal and maintenance easement shall be provided in the driveway area. The appropriate curb ramp and signing & striping modifications shall be made to accommodate the traffic signal installation. (PW/MM) 5) The applicant shall provide the legal description(s), plat(s), and supporting documents necessary for the City to quitclaim any abandoned portions of the existing water line easement dedicated to the City of Huntington Beach. (PW) 3. Prior to issuance of building permits, the following shall be completed: a. An"Acceptance of Conditions" form shall be properly executed by the applicant and an authorized representative of the owner of the property, recorded with the County Recorder's Office, and returned to the Planning Department for inclusion in the entitlement file. Conditions of approval shall remain in effect in the recorded form in perpetuity, except as modified or rescinded pursuant to the expressed written approval of the City of Huntington Beach. (04sr18 CUP 03-35 Appeal) V 0 TAC RIP e�e �6 1 ,Z� b. The public art element shall be approved by the Design Review Board. 4. The structure(s) cannot be occupied, the final building permit(s) cannot be approved, and utilities cannot be released for commencement of use and issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy until compliance with all conditions of approval specified herein are accomplished and verified by the Planning Department. 5. The use shall comply with the following: a. Delivery hours for vendor truck deliveries, Target product delivery, and trash pickup shall be limited to Monday through Friday between the hours of 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM. All delivery vehicles, including Target trucks and outside vendors that cannot be accommodated with a typical 9 foot wide by 19 foot deep parking stall shall utilize the enclosed delivery bays for all loading and unloading activities. All other delivery vehicles that are no larger than a typical parking stall size may utilize the parking lot and access the store through the main entrance. Deliveries of any kind shall be prohibited behind the subject building, other than the designated loading and unloading bays. (MM) b. Delivery trucks shall not leave engines idling while delivering merchandise to the Target store. Trucks shall turn-off engines once they reach the loading dock. (MM) c. There shall be no loudspeakers or other amplified devices within the garden center, at any time. d. Rubber noise seals shall be provided around the opening to the building at the location of the loading dock. (MM) e. The trash compactor shall not be operated before 8:00 AM and after 7:00 PM. (MM) f. All doors along the southerly and westerly facades of the building shall remain closed at all times. (MM) g. The access gates to the rear of the building shall remain closed during times-in which the store is closed to the public. h. Parking lot lights shall be automatically dimmed to minimal security level lighting one hour after closing. i. The Target Department Store shall be designated as a single user with a maximum of 10 percent of the gross building floor area devoted to an ancillary retail/restaurant tenant. j. Any re-use of the site or request for future demising walls to allow for a new use within the subject building shall require approval of a conditional use permit by the Planning Department. k. All outdoor display of seasonal, holiday, special events, and temporary outdoor sales events within the parking lot, on sidewalks, or any other portion of the project site shall be subject to (04sr18 CUP 03-35 Appeal) ATTA H ND-i the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Code. At no time shall a Temporary Use Permit be granted for the area between the subject building and the southerly or westerly property lines. 1. There shall be no outside storage of storage containers or bins, vehicles, vehicle parts, equipment, or trailers. There shall be no outside storage of palettes or other product at any time without the required permits. in. There shall be no loitering by patrons or employees within the parking areas located at the rear of the subject building. Signs shall be posted to indicate that no loitering in all parking areas located behind the subject building. Store managers shall be responsible for regulating all activity occurring at the rear of the subject building at all times. n. A store liaison shall be permanently established and available to assist neighbors and residents with issues regarding the site during construction and after completion of the project when the development is open for business. A sign identifying the store contact and telephone number shall be permanently posted on-site. o. All Mitigation Measures of Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 03=02 shall be adhered to. 6. The Planning Director ensures that all conditions of approval herein are complied with. The Planning Director shall be notified in writing if any changes to the site plan, elevations and floor plans are proposed as a result of the plan check process. Building permits shall not be issued until the Planning Director has reviewed and approved the proposed changes for conformance with the intent of the Zoning Administrator's action and the conditions herein. If the proposed changes are of a substantial nature, an amendment to the original entitlement reviewed by the Zoning Administrator may be required pursuant to the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. 7. 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. 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. (04sr18 CUP 03-35 Appeal) ATTACKV JENT No.8 . I , I __ --- ........................ - ADAMS AVENUE. I /r r"''� �s ✓� ( h ^ �r CON-RT...It`• js' I s e .1« "-- -- ---- - - I „ I A I� I I I ,r:,f a M1 �; � � STOflE r w -- - - - r- -_- _-- Ir >_ - j•----_-- ' .p - .. %lt I 1 �I�:::J d i(NOT A PARTI I I "-=J- R.1 .Y� � GAS N(NOT I i aexsEi� AFM i I CONFTRUCTIO14 4kC1 e a r I ` ❑wN�E C.�.� r y IL r.r ®` .wl�Aar. p.Ys u":w® e.s p.s� �v—_'�i—_�✓ s :"a r.ror W �XO"' "-r .�—.. I sr r r -r r� r er.n• •.r r-r I - r errr 't0°� a-r I ?' �. o �'� r.r Ir-eNe�_�i ".r loer-vv _ "•s -- ... I: 1� -- Y+ y 'e. "r I a r— SANK OF lb AMERIC I e d A"-s• "_r ..r . I (NOT A PART): i V FCD LL c c g T•I a r I j[ PROPOSED s � STORE °. •I ��.��: � I 12 800 SF +Tul ., O. } ".r a°-n p.r r-�I�(-""o a Ulu .w A r-r ee Y s (EXCLUDING GARfDEN CENTER) "_ �' I - r s r r _ MCI (4L NUR - - _ I"I eI I.IF• "�" yW^W: „ '-"' r.r s r-rr "_ry r r o e rsr "_ m e r-a r af-1 I Bs d (I I Z m I t g� $TAU � CL GAFEE a CENTM _ m wr r I x.r raffia as a r-:m r S I •-sr .r r r - : 1 1 x nc r•"msrt r"u m iGR PTTIC WHIZ `—I N, �E c 10 s D 7 s 3 z 1 E papTy� E.4jrrN 99 K — k 2 36 00 / 49 44' "+4•. L3 _ STORE NAME +! a TSTOCKROOM HUNTINGTON HE LA L.Aj ¢ 5 30. ILA 6 UNS DATA STORE PROTOTYPE PO4 U) SALES FLOOR MODEL PO4 W TOTAL BLD SF 123,800 fq �: G 0 STOCK SF 14,538 Z ,� 0 FOOD SF 1,70E Q GARDEN CENTER 8.100 J z TOTAL INC GARDEN 131.900 V LAST UPDATED 101231.3 LL y F i 31.30' F U s G1 a � � SALES FLOOR ry t Frl z r c n 27.3 E t m i z � . m a 0 D O j a [ 0 n n �nnn a- ur.. �f dd a aUaa n n n a o Q. 38 50, arts 20.9 s OO i o F rt 1s,..vm:au 20.33 19667E A a ® A i F 2 1 FFLOOR PLAN vs.ra Goa N O H I E T 1 tI ... ..........I .s .� �� E LL T�—i t n+, T I i I +- _ y I , r LU r r Y r�:. a j Jn !� } J TE LIRELLS y� v 20V IWLISE'fE r{T�', yJeD(SPLIT FACE t",r '+ .'. : '.' 5 ( ": 3>y r FAu1T CNANPAGNE' �' } AN02 TARGE7 LETTER, fMINTGt�MID.BgOYM ) R IiETAL GANDPT P fU D<AM TA<'tGEi^ � cnpNr CML VAl_{SRI7 FA' : : ! dam t;: J Pi NI C;in MID SRO@N "STVCCG fO1S 2 --"STUGGLi PAR1T c-11 � t y WSTUI7Cq PAviT WUNi�CNAFtRACF � '8U115^rt y -,. c• ., 74 H HPHARUACF&G11':'' J F#IXTC IPED TYP'':r CREAM '.%: G7G OFF NT1itE I '. 1 t :JC PRD(LF METAL•; W:rO {(�rqt LNU N'ALL(SPLI'TACC " '': STEEL TELLIS yY P0.1R At C(TFlA1 ,i YET L'CORT^F PAINT CNAAWAGYF :' SI AMPA6"+E f Z 9d Ia_ _.K., DAM' r 8 - - , .x`; �',"k �'e ao-� !rh 'C'Y'f''+�c ..r i'C:r+tb ':r',� 9$aa �' a r�•,+ASTy" ESL.' Ts. % 'r�J�' ,a ti,� '+ rdb '�r w ty. '�XW" r d.,�t 8 u r " aeaery 7 v" F �" 4+ : 'x �$" 4� r w r i#• Y :> "'Y:tNI.SIGMAGE r �? PRDFILI METfC E10Ptq dl,.,,CW PN.=b'TER',:;; CMU 8A:J5 SNUDiF<F r e,✓'r+. Z Pt rT STUCCO FAtNT.S'i r. Ur_ �..:FT.ASTERISRI7;FACEI d ..9TrE'+'R�01It.t . .SRCW'P.wi1G700FF TVNIE ..—�__.. 'P..RI.CNAMFAv11E": "'FA.NT,.i0 t7FFa�u.c 'PAINTCYCFFWN:TE ':.:_.. `.."•:,^ FR=it','.TJ OFF T'.NITE ':.`:f-�., :. .,.'W.ir.T CNAMPAW✓F .s .C9D OF.WIUTE DOLURU,Aw" C•i.TTP PROPOSED FRONT ELEVATION AND PLAN ` 11 69r.... r L _ I L 1 I 1 E 1 .lL is t3.1T 9.'. dt.T ... I ? 2 aF .act? ht 'lr A 41 �' OD'A.TARGET ,� s F"t7 DIAR<LL Et Ili i r' 9!L c�Tf.r,,�a5 ',vt, + I r 'I rr I SN1S-TE � ''AnD7 STAR".,Ei IETT'75 '!: V t. SfLY.CO PAINTC II,C�AAt 1 t t x � r its a Fs .F ,+fir r'T r xx LIS(S,a�A sd '.r kT me tT 5"i ,t«S S �' r -s$✓P5 4'`sr'w W Y .'sib"k r a< �.fvlr^*y i.�: TRES11515PJT FAL 1 ... .... •:',:: 4 "'..'T'� ' PAINTC30 CFf W'TE _ .,. _ WDOFFYY11:e•.. ... .. ... , 51)000.PAINT :._....,,_,__.__.,ARTAL=AS PROPOSED RIGHT ELEVATION AND PLAN °'�OTsysaTE TARGET HUNTINGTON BEACH • PRO;J,E',CT N0 ,41608 ;: a 3 1 1 \Mi�• 3 •LCFa i i to �.o i r - fi,r 'r.. .4`q3. by F r�,.^'�.�'F..x�y a.,p r�+^�•y ,y,� ,r'rLr, 'h$;x�X"�S k dk��1r� '�y �"f��'� ��`.J�''„�`�Df� 7'd�b�'k`�a.:;�ii` �;F't 'SC"' �.� c .��3. '.u�. � '. 'r �''� M�.i .'i�"ks�.�r YR J ;.5. .� � l i q„ S ��)�' 'F'S 3'. V 'a' iYt3c'.ii., av Y �x�'..''i�� N ✓r Ca/;Ta`}cri Nf+Ya � �.t�..s� Li 'r✓ �¢. f� g. PROPOSED LEFT ELEVATION AND PLAN ...... ( A R 41 .Jy? r;, v rf y•?. 5c i; .. ... .:: - 7^ a .�^ ^drJ.e oll f>r�:-.`13''dr'* ,� b d w 'gam a.Ay�y,�-'S �`�i'�rJ.��' X.n i5y°.°L t i 'r' �'f ""', �tPe�' F r�«+.y' rw �i• f x '�d v :t;: ' PROPOSED REAR ELEVATION AND PLAN TARGET HUNTINGTON. BEACH a r 19 APRiI 2004 } ° )� PR0JE;Ci NO 4s1600 , 1 Fred Sena, PE :.-�- Chris Long, RLA 3 �+ John Warren,AICP Project Narrative Target is proposing to demolish the existing store and garden centlar iocatsd at 93E2 Adams Avenue and replace it with a new store and an attached garden cente-. Tt,e existing store and garden center are 113,058 square feet on an 11.7 acre lot. The store is located on the south side of Adams Avenue and is part of a retail shopping center. The Target is long and narrow building that runs parallel to Adams Avenue. The shape of the existing store does not meet Target's current prototype stores. The proposal is to demolish the existing store and replace it with a more prototypical building at 125,400 square feet with an attached garden center at 8,100sq. ft. for a total of 133,500 square feet. The demolition of the building will take approximately 1 month. The construction of the new building will take approximately 9 months. Site Alignment: The front of the store will face Brookhurst Street and the garden center will be on the south side of the building. The majority of the parking will face the front of the store between the new store entrance and Brookhurst Street. The number of proposed parking stalls is 650 where 643 are required. The Target store will operate in a similar fashion as the existing Target Store. The project impacts will be the same or less than the existing Target Store. This proposed design of the building is more functional for Target's needs and provides better service for Target's guests. Store Operations: The proposed hours of operation will remain the same as the existing store which are Monday through Sunday 8:00 am to 10:00 p.m. Typically, there are 50 employees on any one shift. All products will be purchased inside the store. There will be no customer "pick-up" areas outside or behind the store. Loading Operations: The loading dock operation is designed in a manner to limit visibility from the public and to reduce impacts on the adjacent neighborhood. The existing store requires trucks to travel around the building and load the store in close proximity to the residential neighbors along the South and West property line. The new loading dock is designed to face Brookhurst Street. It will be a recessed dock that will be screened from the public by the Target Store and a screen wall. The dock will have a screen wall along the western side of the dock to block visibility of the truck and to reduce noise exiting the dock to the West. A landscape planter and two commercial buildings will screen the loading dock from Brookhurst Street. The Target building will screen the Eastern view of the loading dock. The loading dock will receive approximately one 62' Target truck per day (two during the holiday season). The trucks will enter the site from the main drive aisle on Adams Avenue. The trucks will be able to deliver products to the dock without having to travel around the building and thus reduce the noise impact for the surrounding neighbors. The deliveries for the Target truck will continue to be restricted to the hours of 8:00 AM to 8:00 PM. No Target truck deliveries are allowed outside this time frame. The store will continue to be re-stocked ENTITLEMENT ENGINEERING LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE 2151 Salvio Street Suite 250 Concord, California , 94520 a (925)680-6406 • fax(925) 680.6407 Fred Sena, PE j e Chris Long, RLA - John Warren,AICP after hours from 12:00 AM to 8:00 AM. Target receives sev.ral 24' vender truck deliveries per day in the loading area. Vender truck.deliveries will continue to bE •esti icted to 8:00 AM to 12:00 PM. Garden Center: The garden center is located on the South side of the store facing B�ookhurst Street. The garden center will be open during store hours. The Garden Center receives approximately 3 deliveries per week during peak season. Garden Center products are delivered in a 24' vender trucks. The truck deliveries occur during daytime hours. The trucks will enter the site at the Southern Driveway along Brookhurst Street. The trucks will exit the site by driving around the building and leaving on Adams The products are rolled into the garden center on racks with a handcart. Soil deliveries that require a forklift occur approximately 1 delivery for every 5 weeks. Trash: The Target trash removal and recycling operation is a clean and well thought out process that is designed to keep the store in excellent appearance and to maximize recycling opportunities. The trash compactor will be conveniently located in the loading dock. Trash will be loaded from inside the store into the compactor without exiting the store. The compactor is emptied approximately once every two weeks. Target also has an extensive recycling program for cardboard bales. The bales are collected inside the store. Twice a week, the bales are removed for recycling. The City of Huntington Beach issued an award to Target for excellence in recycling. . Surrounding Property: The surrounding uses are a mixture of residential and commercial. To the north and to the east of the site is another shopping center including Mervyns. To the south and to the west are single family residential developments. There is an existing 8-foot solid masonry wall buffering the Target store from the residences. The Target store is serving the nearby residences and employees in the area. A new retail pad is under construction along the northwest corner of the shopping center that will screen most of the proposed new loading dock. The project will meet and exceed the City of Huntington Beach site design criteria for commercial shopping centers. The Target parcel located at 9882 Adams Avenue is not located in with a Hazardous and Substance site per the Huntington Beach Planning Department. ENTITLEMENT ENGINEERING LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE 2151 Salvio Street Suite 250 Concord, California 94520 (925)680-6406 • fax(925)680-6407 BUSINESS PROPERTIES DEVELOPMENT COMPANY 17631 FITCH IRVINE,CALIFORNLI 92614-6021 •�i'.# L< (949)474-8900 _ FA.V(949) 474-8936 �r' :j•lr. ,f t_ .� 3 t cb_bp@pacbe11.net April 22, 2004 HAND DELIVERED Chairperson and Members of the Planning Commission CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach CA 92648 Attn: City Clerk Re: C.U. P. No.03-35(Tareet Demolition and Rebuild) 9882 Adams Avenue Huntington Beach, California Chairperson and Members of the Planning Commission: By this Notice, we our appealing the decision of the Zoning Administrator on the application of Target Stores to demolish and construct a new facility re-oriented from Adams Avenue to Brookhurst Street at the southwesterly corner of that intersection. Enclosed is a check in the amount of$1,540.00 which represents the required fee for this appeal. We are the owners and operators of the Stater Bros. center on the opposite(east) side of Brookhurst Street from this proposed project. Our center was substantially completed and open for business in January 1977. We developed, own and manage four(4) other similar properties in the City of Huntington Beach. It is our belief that the Target project should be conditioned to require mitigation of the traffic impacts due to the opening in the median in Brookhurst Street; approximately 720 feet southerly of Adams Avenue. This median opening was identified in the Traffic Study prepared for the City of Huntington Beach by Kimley-Horn& Associates, dated November 2001, as needing mitigation. This median opening is also identified in Target's Traffic Impact Study prepared by RK Engineering, dated September 29, 2003 as requiring . mitigation. Attached is a copy of a report from our Traffic Consultant, James A. Kawamura,KHR& Associates, dated April 20, 2004. This report resulted from review of the Target consultant's study. We concur with the opinions in this report that the Traffic Impact Study prepared for Target did not give adequate consideration to the"re-orientation" of the AT T PVC"'PH MI.EE 11' N!0. PHOENIX OFFICE 8024 NORTH 24TH AVENUE. SUITE 310, PHOE--N=, ARIZO\*A 85021 - (602) ')95-9113 - FAS(602)995-0809 Chairperson and Members of the Planning Commission April 22, 2004 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH page 2 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach CA92648 major entrance into the new Target facility. Our forty plus years of experience in development and management of retail shopping centers supports the tendency on the part of customers to enter the property from the public right-of-way at the driveway nearest the main entrance of the retail facility, drive to the parking aisles nearest that entrance and then seek the closest parking space. Currently that driveway would be the main entry off of Adams Avenue, but will change to a driveway off of Brookhurst Street after completion of the new facility. Activity at the driveway, identified as Driveway 2 on the Target Traffic Impact Study, will increase significantly over what is currently occurring: When the 20 per cent increase in building area is added, the impacts will be significant. We believe the only satisfactory mitigation for this situation is installation of a traffic signal. This has been our position since we received a Notice from the City of Huntington Beach in March 2002 that the City was taking action suggested under the Traffic Study of Kimley-Horn. We further acknowledge that installation of a traffic signal at that driveway benefits our property and, we are willing to contribute funds for construction and maintenance of the traffic signal of up to one-half of the costs. Very truly yours BUSINESS PROPERTIES PAR SHIP NO. 15 Charles G. Ball cc: L. C. Smull Paul Da Veiga, Target Project Planner, City of Huntington Beach Robert Stachelski, Transportation Manager, City of Huntington Beach \ \ KHR ASSOCIATES CONSULTING ENGINEERS/SURVEYORS/PLANNERS April 20, 2004 Mr. Charles G. Ball Business Properties 17631 Fitch Road Irvine, CA 92623 SUBJECT: REVIEW OF TARGET STORE T-194 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY (HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA) Dear Mr. Ball: Per your request KHR Associates, Irvine, California, has completed its independent review of a traffic impact study report prepared by RK Engineering Group, Inc., Newport Beach, California, for the proposed reconstruction and expansion of an existing Target Store on the southwest corner of Brookhurst Street and Adams Avenue, in the City of Huntington Beach, California. The report, entitled "Target Store T-194 Traffic Impact Study," is dated September 29, 2003, and was prepared for Pacific Land Services, Concord, California. DEFICIENCIES OF STUDY There are notable deficiencies in the subject study conducted by RK Engineering Group, Inc. The following are three of the more glaring shortcomings. 1) The study fails to address or take into consideration the potential "shift" in traffic ingress and egress patterns resulting from the relocation and re-orientation of the main entrance to the Target Store. Presently, the "storefront" faces Adams Avenue and the primary parking field is accessed via the Adams Avenue driveway. The new building configuration indicates that the storefront will face Brookhurst Street, and the primary parking field will be accessed via two driveways along Brookhurst Street. It is suggested that a significant amount of traffic generated by the store will shift from using the Adams Avenue driveway to using one of the Brookhurst Street driveways. 2) The study fails to analyze or account for Saturday traffic conditions that typically include higher traffic generation for shopping centers and many other retail businesses than on weekdays. Since Brookhurst Street and Adams Avenue west of Brookhurst Street are commercial corridors lined with retail businesses, potential Saturday traffic impacts are as important as potential weekday impacts. A comparison of weekday versus weekend traffic conditions should have been made in the study. Furthermore, a discussion about the effects of seasonal variations for retail uses should have been provided. 2355 Main Street- Suite 120 (949) 756-6454Z Irvine, California 92614 Fax (949) 756-6444 Mr. Charles G. Ball April 20,2004 Page 2 3) The study inadequately addresses the impact of the proposed Target Store project on adjacent developments — particularly the shopping center on the southeast corner of Brookhurst Street and Adams Avenue (owned by Business Properties). The operational and economic impacts of closing off left turn egress from this shopping center onto Brookhurst Street will be significant. The "alternative" of restricting access at "Driveway No. 2" on Brookhurst Street is unacceptable, and will only exacerbate traffic congestion on Brookhurst Street and Adams Avenue. If outbound customers of the Business Properties' shopping center cannot make a left turn onto Brookhurst Street to. go south, their only alternatives will be to make a right onto Brookhurst Street then make a u-turn at the intersection of Brookhurst Street and Adams Avenue; or circulate through the center and make a left turn onto Adams Avenue, then make a left turn onto Brookhurst Street. In either case, customers will be unreasonably inconvenienced, and this "traffic strategy" will result in even further deterioration of the unacceptable levels of service at the intersection of Brookhurst Street and Adams Avenue. STUDY FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS The authors of the subject study found that the key intersections examined (i.e., the main driveway on Adams Avenue, the intersection of Brookhurst Street and Adams Avenue, and the "No. 2" driveway on Brookhurst Street) are impacted, and that they all operated at "unsatisfactory" levels of service under every analysis scenario (i.e., existing, project build-out, etc.). Their "solution" included either signalizing the main driveway on Adams Avenue (referred to as "Driveway . No. 1" in the study) and Driveway No. 2 on Brookhurst Street, or restricting access at these to driveways. Restricting access at Driveway No. 2 is unacceptable for reasons noted above. Traffic signalization is an acceptable alternative, and may result in minor improvements to the levels-of service along Brookhurst Street. If the Target Store project is approved, it should be conditioned on the basis of a new traffic signal installation at Driveway No. 2, and Driveway No. 1. IN CLOSING In closing, if there are any questions regarding this report or if additional information is desired, please call me at (949) 756-6440. Sincerely yours, KHR Associates 1 N James H. Kawamura, P.E. rcR.C.E. 30560/R.T.E. 1110 GF e ;` 6=Ks ENS Rjs y-_3Y ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH PLATIl�TING DEPARTM ENT ;ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT77. NO 03 02 1. PROJECT TITLE: Target Demolition and Rebuild Concurrent Entitlements: Conditional Use Permit No. 03-35/ Design Review Board No. 03-22 2. LEAD AGENCY: City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street . Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Contact: Paul Da Veiga, Associate Planner Phone: (714) 536-5271 3. PROJECT LOCATION: 9882 Adams Avenue (Southwest corner of Brookhurst St. and Adams Ave.) 4. PROJECT PROPONENT: Pacific Land Services 2151 Salvio Street, Ste.250 Concord, CA 94520 Contact: John Warren,Project Manager Phone: (925) 680-6406 5. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: CG-Fl (Commercial General—0.35 Permitted Density) 6. ZONING: CG (Commercial General) 7. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Project Backoround The current Target department store is approximately 113,058 square feet in floor area(including the garden center) and is developed on an 11.7 acre lot. Several commercial pads are located along the perimeter of site and include a gas station, auto service center,restaurant,bank, and a one-story retail building. Vehicular access to the site is provided via three driveways along Adams Avenue and three driveways located along Brookhurst Street. Reciprocal vehicular access currently exists between all of the commercial pads and the subject site. Principal local arterials serving the center are Adams Avenue and Brookhurst Street. None of the six driveways are currently traffic signal controlled. Proposed Proiect The applicant has requested a conditional use permit in order to demolish the existing Target building and garden center and replace it with a new 125,400 square foot building with an attached 8,100 square foot garden center. The orientation of the building will change to face Brookhurst Street instead of Adams Avenue. The applicant proposes to construct the new building at the southwest corner of the subject site approximately 60 feet from the westerly property line and approximately 40 feet from the southerly property line. The garden center is proposed along the south side of the store and is located approximately 40 feet from the southerly property line. The height of the building ranges from 26 feet to 42 feet with the portion of the building nearest to residential at the lower height. The proposed loading dock is located at the northwest corner of the subject building. The current location of the loading dock is at the south west corner of the existing building which requires truck traffic to travel around the back of the subject building in order to utilize the loading area. The new loading dock faces Adams Street and incorporates a screen wall along the westerly side ofthe dock in order to block visibility and reduce noise impacts to adjacent residential properties. The loading dock will receive approximately one 62-foot Target truck per day and two trucks per day during the holiday season. The trucks will enter and exit the site from the main drive aisle along Adams Avenue without having to travel around the subject building. The applicant proposes to restrict deliveries to the site between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. The entire site will be upgraded including 10-foot wide landscape planters along the perimeter of the subject site and interior landscaping and parking in accordance with the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. A public art element will be provided on the subject site in accordance with the Citywide Design Guidelines. 8. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND SETTING: The subject property is located in a highly urbanized area. Surrounding uses to the north, south, east, and west are as follows: North: Retail Shopping Center South: Single Family Residential Neighborhood East: Retail Shopping Center West: Single Family Residential Neighborhood 9. OTHER PREVIOUS RELATED ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION: None 10. OTHER AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED (AND PERMITS NEEDED) (i.e. permits, financing approval, or participating agreement): None ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a"Potentially Significant Impact"or is "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated,"as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ❑ Land Use/Planning 0 Transportation/Traffic ❑ Public Services ❑ Population/Housing ❑ Biological Resources ❑ Utilities/Service Systems ❑ Geology/ Soils ❑ Mineral Resources ❑ Aesthetics ❑ Hydrology/Water Quality ❑ Hazards and Hazardous Materials ❑ Cultural Resources ❑ Air Quality 0 Noise ❑ Recreation ❑ Agriculture Resources ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, ❑ and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ❑ ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. 1 find that the proposed project MAY have a"potentially significant impact"or a"potentially significant unless mitigated impact"on the environment, but at least one impact(1)has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and(2)has ❑ been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required,but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects(a)have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and(b)have been avoided ❑ or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Page 3 3 a�H a ' /L • �7� A FAC EN _., This environmental assessment summarizes the appropriate findings of the General Plan EIR, however, some impacts resulting from the proposed development will likely be"peculiar to the parcel or to the project,"therefore,this Initial Study checklist acts as a tool(to identify impacts "peculiar to the project") in conjunction with Section 21083.3 of the Public Resources Code. Based upon the results of the Initial Study checklist and the partial exemption allowed within Section 21083.3, 1 find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A AUTIG D NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. c �200 - Si ature Date Printed Name Title EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EYIPACTS: 1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except"No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact"answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to the project. A"No Impact"answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards. 2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved. Answers should address off-site as well as on- site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate, if an effect is significant or potentially significant, or if the lead agency lacks information to make a finding of insignificance. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact"entries when the determination is made,preparation of an Environmental Impact Report is warranted. 4. Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigated"applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from"Potentially Significant Impact"to a"Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level(mitigation measures from Section XVIII,"Earlier Analyses,"may be cross-referenced). 5. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering,program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). Earlier analyses are discussed in Section XVIII at the end of the checklist. 6. References to information sources for potential impacts(e.g.,general plans,zoning ordinances)have been incorporated into the checklist. A source list has been provided in Section XVIII. Other sources used or individuals contacted have been cited in the respective discussions. 7. The following checklist has been formatted after Appendix G of Chapter 3,Title 14, California Code of Regulations,but has been augmented to reflect the City of Huntington Beach's requirements. (Note: Standard Conditions of Approval -The City imposes standard conditions of approval on projects which are considered to be components of or modifications to the project,some of these standard conditions also result in reducing or minimizing environmental impacts to a level of insignificance. However, because they are considered part of the project,they have not been identified as mitigation measures. For the readers' information, a list of applicable standard conditions identified in the discussions has been provided as Attachment No. 3. Page 4 on v 9 era ;ate`t / _ SAMPLE.QUESTION: Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES(and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: Landslides? (Sources: 1, 6) ❑ �c9 Discussion: The attached source list explains that 1 is the Huntington Beach General Plan and 6 is a topographical map of the area which show that the area is located in a flat area. (Note: This response probably would not require further explanation). x� Page iAi 'k? �'W^�s wry y Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: a) Conflict with any applicable land use plan,policy,or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including,but not limited to the general plan,specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance)adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? (Sources: 1,2) Discussion: The site is designated on the City of Huntington Beach Land Use Plan of the General Plan as Commercial General and has been designated and utilized for commercial land uses since the mid-1960s. Zoning on the subject property is General Commercial. The Commercial General designation anticipates anchor department stores,retail, restaurants,entertainment,and similar commercial uses. The General Plan allows for maximum buildout of the site at a 0.35 FAR. Based on a 0.35 FAR,ultimate development of 178,744 square feet of commercial uses would be allowed on the subject site. The project proposes to demolish the existing 113,058 square foot Target department store and garden center,currently located on the site,and replace it with a new 133,500 square foot building and garden center. The use is consistent with uses allowed under the General Plan's Commercial General designation. Therefore, the demolition and rebuilding of a Target department store on the subject site will not result in any impacts to land use. b) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or ❑ El M natural community conservation plan?(Sources:1) Discussion: The project is proposed within a highly urbanized and commercially developed area. The project involves the demolition and rebuilding of an existing Target department store on 11.72 acres of existing commercial property. The project will not conflict with any environmental plans or policies,habitat conservation plans,or natural community conservation plan of the City of Huntington Beach,as there are no habitat conservation plans or natural community conservation plan within the City boundaries. c) Physically divide an established community? (Sources:l,3) 19 Discussion: The subject property is at the corner of a major commercial intersection. The project does not propose any elements that would divide the physical arrangement of the surrounding community as the proposed redevelopment is similar to the existing development on the site. II. POPULATION AND ROUSING. Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area,either directly Q (e.g.,by proposing new homes and businesses)or indirectly (e.g.,through extensions of roads or other infrastructure)? (Sources:1,2,12) Discussion: The proposed project will result in a net increase of approximately 12,342 square feet of new commercial area. The project is not expected to have a significant effect on the projected population of the City and would not cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections. For over 30 years,the City of Huntington Beach has designated the project site for commercial development. Substantial improvement of the deteriorating Target property could potentially induce additional growth in the area,although growth beyond the scope of development specified in the General Plan is not anticipated. The proposed project will not create a substantial number of new jobs since most of the current employees will be employed at the new store. Therefore,the demolition and rebuilding of a Target department store on the subject site will not induce substantial population growth in the area. b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,necessitating. Q the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Sources:1,2,12) Page 6d Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Discussion: The project site contains retail commercial uses and proposes additional retail commercial uses. No residential uses exist on the subject site. Therefore,the proposed project will not displace existing housing. c) Displace substantial numbers of people,necessitating the El 19 construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Sources:1,2,12) Discussion: No residential uses exist on the subject site. The project site contains retail commercial uses and proposes additional retail commercial uses,therefore,the proposed project will not displace existing people or housing. III.GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects,including the risk of loss,injury,or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault,as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map El issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? (Sources:1,9,16) Discussion: The project site is not located within the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. No impacts from fault rupture would result. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?(Sources: 1,9,16) Discussion: Although the site could be subjected to strong ground shaking in the event of an earthquake,this hazard is common in southern California. The structural risks from ground shaking can be lessened if the proposed buildings are designed and constructed in conformance with current standards set forth in the Uniform Building Code and engineering practices. Compliance with Uniform Building Code construction standards is a standard condition of approval for all proposed development within the City of Huntington Beach. No significant seismic effects are anticipated with implementation of standard City conditions. iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? (Sources: 1,9,16) Discussion: The subject site is located in an area of high to very high potential for liquefaction according to the General Plan(1996). The structural risks from seismic-related ground failure,including liquefaction,can be less than significant if the proposed buildings are designed and constructed in conformance with current standards set forth in the Uniform Building Code and engineering practices.No significant impacts are anticipated. iv) Landslides? (Sources: 1,9,16) El El El Q Discussion: According to the City of Huntington Beach General.Plan,the site is not in an area susceptible to slope instability.There are no known landslides in the vicinity of the site,nor is the site in the path of any known or potential landslides b) Result in substantial soil erosion, loss of topsoil,or changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, El El grading,or fill? (Sources: 1,9,16) Will- Page 7 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Discussion: The project and vicinity are urbanized and have relatively flat topography. The project site has been previously graded and developed with buildings,parking lots,walkways,and landscaped areas. Although the proposed project has the potential to result in erosion of soils during construction activities, erosion will be reduced by compliance with the following condition of approval imposed by the City: Prior to issuance of building permits,an erosion control plan shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works..Implementation of the proposed project would not require significant alteration of the existing topography of the project site. In the event that unstable soil conditions occur on the project site due to previous grading,excavation,or placement of fill materials,these conditions would be identified in the geotechnical study being prepared to evaluate the project site..No significant impact would occur and no mitigation measures would be required. c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that E3 0 would become unstable as a result of the project,and potentially result in on or off-site landslide,lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? (Sources: 1,9,16) Discussion: Refer to Responses III.a)iii)and III.a) iv for discussion of liquefaction and landslides,respectively. Subsidence is large-scale settlement of the ground surface generally caused by withdrawal of groundwater or oil in sufficient quantities such that the surrounding ground surface sinks over a broad area. The project has not been identified as an area for potential for subsidence. In addition,withdrawal of groundwater, oil,or other mineral resources would not occur as part of the proposed project and,therefore, subsidence is not anticipated to occur. d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the El El 0 0 Uniform Building Code(1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? (Sources: 1,9,16) Discussion: Based upon the City's General Plan and Geotechnical Inputs Study, the project site is .located within an area of low clay content according to the Expansive Soil Distribution Map. No impacts are anticipated. e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers El El are not available for the disposal of wastewater(Sources: 1,9,16) Discussion: The City of Huntington Beach Public Works Department indicates that the public sewer system can accommodate the proposed development. No septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems are necessary. IV.HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? (Sources: 1,12,Public Works) Discussion: The project will be designed to drain entirely into the City's storm drain system. The Public Works Department recommends a standard condition requiring a Water Quality Management Plan to be prepared by a Civil or Environmental Engineer in accordance with the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System(NPDES)regulations in order to control the quality of water runoff and protect downstream areas. The NPDES requirements assure compliance with water quality standards and water discharge requirements which reduce impacts to a level that is less than significant (See Standard Conditions on Attachment No.4). b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would LIM be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level(e.g.,the production rate of pre- y Page 3 ,T _ aatH Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted? (Sources: 1,12,Public Works) Discussion: The Water Division of the Public Works Department reviewed the project and did not indicate any concerns regarding substantial impacts to ground water supplies due to the nature of the proposed uses. The subject site is located over a mile from an active ground water well;however,the proposed project will not substantially deplete groundwater supplies and no significant impact is anticipated. The project will be subject to standard conditions of approval requiring implementation of Title 24 conservation measures such as low flow fixtures and use of drought tolerant plant species and drip irrigation. Although the project will contribute to cumulative water usage,the impact to the City is considered insignificant because the proposed development complies with the Commercial General,General Plan land use designation for the site and the proposed development will only result in a net increase of approximately 12,342 square feet of new commercial area. The estimated water demand for the proposed project can be accommodated by the City's water service capacity and does not represent a significant increase in demand. c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river,in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off-site? (Sources: 1,12,Public Works) Discussion: The majority of the site is currently developed with impervious surfaces,consisting mainly.ofA.C.parking and buildings. Runoff from the subject site is currently collected and conveyed via roof and building drains and curbs and gutters,therefore,there are no impacts resulting in substantial erosion,siltation or flooding on or off-site. The proposed demolition and rebuild of the subject site and Target Building will be similar in scope to the existing development and similar methods of drainage as currently exist will be incorporated. Construction activity is anticipated to last approximately seven months during which time drainage patterns may potentially be altered,however,these impacts will be reduced to a level that is less than significant through the incorporation of Best Management Practices during construction and water quality management practices;therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated. d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river,or substantially increase the rate or amount or surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off- site? (Sources: 1,12,Public Works) Discussion: Please refer to discussion in IV.c above. e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the El El E capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? (Sources: 1,12,Public Works) Discussion: The majority of the site is currently developed with impervious surfaces,consisting mainly of A.C.parking and buildings. The existing storm drain system is adequate in accommodating the existing commercial development and the proposed net increase of approximately 12,342 square feet of commercial area will not result in the need for additional facilities. Based on the increased landscaping proposed for the reconstruction of the site,the percentage of impervious surfaces would be reduced by approximately two percent,thereby reducing the amount of run-off from the subject site. Runoff from the subject site would be collected and conveyed using similar methods currently used for the existing building via roof and building drains and curbs and gutters. The project will incorporate Best Management Practices during construction and water quality management practices;therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated. f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? (Sources: 1,12, Q Public Works) Page 9 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Discussion: The Public Works Department recommends a standard condition requiring-a Water Quality Management Plan to be prepared by a Civil or Environmental Engineer in accordance with the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System regulations in order to control the quality of water runoff and protect downstream areas. NPDES requirements assure compliance with water quality standards and water discharge requirements which reduce impacts to a level that is less than significant(See Standard Conditions on Attachment No.4). g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate 0 Map or other flood hazard delineation map? (Sources: 1,12,10) Discussion: The proposed project is entirely commercial and the subject site is designated as Flood Zone X in the Flood Insurance Rate Map(FIRM),which is not subject to Federal Flood Development requirements. No adverse impacts are anticipated. h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which El 11 ri 0 would impede or redirect flood flows? (Sources: 1,12,10) Discussion: The proposed project site is designated as Flood Zone X in the Flood Insurance Rate Map(FIRM),which is not subject to Federal Flood Development requirements. The construction of the new Target building will not be situated within the 100-year flood hazard area as mapped out in the FIRM;therefore the proposed project will not impede or redirect flood flows as none currently exist on the subject site. No adverse impacts are anticipated. i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,injury 11 El Q or death involving flooding,including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? (Sources: 1,12,10) Discussion: See discussion IV(f) and IV(g). In addition, the site is not in the immediate vicinity of a levee or a dam. Therefore,no impacts are anticipated. j) Inundation by seiche,tsunami, or mudflow? (Sources: Q 1,12,10) Discussion: Potential tsunami hazard is considered to be very unlikely for areas more than one mile from the coast. The project site is situated 1.25 miles from the coast. The project site is also not located near any inland water bodies; therefore,no tsunami or seiche impact is expected to occur. V. AIR QUALITY. The city has identified the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district as appropriate to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to 0 an existing or projected air quality violation? (Sources: 1,11,12) Discussion: Short-term: The construction of the project may result in a short-term increase in dust and construction equipment emissions. Emissions are expected from gasoline and diesel powered grading, excavating,and paving equipment. Fugitive dust generated from these activities might occur. With the implementation of standard conditions of approval air pollution impacts from construction will be less than significant. These conditions include,but are not limited to: frequent watering of the site to prevent dust movement,spreading soil binders,wind barriers along the perimeter of the site,street sweeping as necessary,washing trucks that leave the site,use of low sulfur fuel,and discontinuing construction on days where there is a second stage smog alert. Page10 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Long Term: The net increase in square footage between the existing and proposed Target stores will result in approximately 1,090 additional vehicle trips per day above those that currently exist based on a traffic analysis prepared by RK Engineering Group, Inc.. Using data from the 1993 CEQA Air Quality Handbook produced by the South Coast Air Quality Management District(SCAQMD),the proposed operation of a retail store and associated vehicle trips are not expected to produce emissions that will significantly impact air quality. The demolition and rebuild of the Target department store will result in a net increased floor area of 12,342 square feet which falls well below the 50,000 square- foot threshold of potential significance for air quality relating to medium-sized shopping centers, as outlined by the SCAQMD. Because the scale of the project is substantially below the threshold criteria established by the SCAQMD for potentially significant impacts, its contribution is minor in nature. In conclusion, air quality impacts associated with this project will be less than significant. b) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant 0El concentrations? (Sources: Discussion: The project site is located a significant distance away from any potentially sensitive receptors and does not propose any long-term concentration of pollutants. The project is below the threshold identified by AQMD for projects of significance, and construction-related impacts from the proposed development will be less than significant. c) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of ri ❑ El a people? (Sources: 1,11,12) Discussion: The proposed development will replace an existing development containing the same use and similar intensity. Commercial retail uses are generally located within the vicinity of residential uses and are not a source for creating objectionable odors based on the types of products sold which are generally pre-packaged goods and clothing. No impacts are expected. d) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? (Sources: 1,11,12) El El El Discussion: This project is below the AQMD's established threshold for commercial shopping centers that could potentially have significant air quality impacts. As such, the project will not conflict with the implementation of.the applicable air quality plan. e) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment ❑ El 0 under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard(including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? (Sources: 1,11,12) Discussion: Please refer to discussion in V(a)and(d)above. VI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system(e.g., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips,the volume to capacity ratio on roads,or congestion at intersections? (Sources: 1,6,11) Page11 rT'r"'-'E T I',40'� Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Discussion: Vehicle trips estimated for the project were derived using a traffic analysis prepared by RK Engineering Group, Inc. The proposed project is projected to generate approximately 7,560 trip ends per day,including 132 trips during the AM peak hour and 566 trips during the PM peak hour. The current site generates approximately 6,470 trip-ends per day with 113 trips during the AM peak hour and 484 trips during the PM peak hour. The net increase in floor area between the existing Target store and new store is projected to result in approximately 1,090 new vehicle trips/day(ADT). The existing Average Daily Traffic(ADT)along both Brookhurst Street and Adams Avenue respectively is approximately 45,000 vehicle trips per day according to the General Plan. The anticipated net increase in vehicle trips per day to the subject site represents a slight increase in ADT to the adjacent major arterials. The increase in vehicle trips for the proposed project is negligible in light of the existing traffic flow on surrounding arterials and its contribution is minor in nature. The current Level of Service(LOS)at the intersection of Brookhurst Street and Adams Avenue is LOS E•(at or near capacity)during the AM peak hour and LOS D(high density but stable)during PM peak hour. The proposed project will not further degrade the existing level of service at the subject intersection. However,with the City's planned improvements consisting of right hand turn lanes installed at the intersection of Brookhurst Street and Adams Avenue in the northbound,eastbound,and westbound directions,the LOS E in the AM peak hour will be improved to an LOS D, which is an acceptable level of service to the Traffic Division. In conclusion,the impacts to traffic load and capacity associated with this project will be less than significant. The existing site has access to Brookhurst Street at three driveways and has two driveways to Adams Avenue. The traffic analysis reviewed the accident history of the two full access driveways existing on the site. The first driveway is located along Adams Avenue approximately 700 feet west of the intersection of Brookhurst Street and Adams Avenue. The traffic analysis identified 26 traffic accidents within the past 44 months at the subject driveway. The number of accidents which have occurred at this location.would meet the Caltrans Warrant 6 for a traffic signal based on five correctible accidents in a year identified at this intersection. The second driveway is located along Brookhurst Street approximately 720 feet south of the intersection of Brookhurst Street and Adams Avenue. There were significantly fewer accidents at this location with a total of eight traffic accidents within the past 44 months. In order to mitigate any future traffic impacts to the surrounding street system,a new traffic signal shall be installed at the intersection of the full access driveway located along Adams Avenue which will reduce impacts to less than significant(See mitigation measure in Attachment#4). Construction traffic resulting from development of the project may result in short-term interruptions to traffic circulation, including pedestrian and bicycle flow. Based on the scope of the project construction,the short-term interruptions to traffic are not considered to be significant. These potential impacts may be reduced to a level of insignificance through implementation of conditions of approval requiring department of Public Works approval of a construction vehicle control plan. b) Exceed,either individually or cumulatively,a level of service ❑X standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? (Sources: 1,6,11) Discussion: Please refer to discussion item VI(a)above. c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an (� Q increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? (Sources: 1,6,11) Discussion: Although the City is located within the Airport Environs Land Use Plan for Joint Forces Training Base Los Alamitos, the project site is not located within 2 miles of any known public or private airstrip. The proposed project does not propose any structures with heights that would interfere with existing airspace or flight patterns. No impact would occur. d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections)or incompatible uses? Q ice............. � c i i� Page 13 ' > `ill a N-ap.,; � ti . Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact (Sources: 1,6,11) Discussion: Please refer to discussion item VI(a)above. e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (Sources: 1,6,11) Discussion: The site plan will be reviewed by the Fire Department and Public Works Department for adequate emergency access in conformance with the code at the time of submittal. No impacts are anticipated. f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? (Sources: 1,2,6,11) 11 11 El 0 Discussion: No parking variances are proposed at his time. The new Target department store will require a total of 636 parking spaces which will be located on-site in compliance with the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (HBZSO). g) Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation(e.g.,bus turnouts,bicycle racks)? (Sources: El 19 1,6,11) Discussion: The development will not conflict with any established policies supporting alternative transportation. VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect,either directly or through El 19 habitat modifications,on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive,or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S,Fish and Wildlife Service? (Sources:1,12) Discussion: The project site is presently developed and located in a commercial area of the city. It does not support any unique, sensitive, or endangered species and is not shown in the General Plan as a generalized habitat area; therefore, no impacts to any habitat or wildlife area are anticipated. b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans,policies,regulations,or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? (Sources: 1,12) Discussion: The project does not contain any riparian habitat or sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service. The project will not result in any loss to endangered or sensitive animal or bird species and does not conflict with any habitat conservation plans. c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected El 11 13 0 wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including,but not limited to,marsh,vernal pool,coastal,etc.) through direct removal, filling,hydrological interruption,or other means? (Sources: 1,12) Discussion: The project does not contain any wetlands;therefore,no impacts are anticipated. Page 13 e3,°"Fq��e'r J ��e�a�° €:iti�� Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? (Sources: 1,12) Discussion: The project area is surrounded by residential and commercial development. The site does not support any fish or wildlife and should not interfere with the movement of any fish or wildlife species nor impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources,such as a tree preservation policy or ❑ ❑ ❑ ordinance? (Sources: 1,12) Discussion: The site contains some trees which may be considered mature and which could be impacted by construction. Construction of the project will be subject to a standard requirements for the submittal of a landscape plan and the replacement of any existing mature healthy trees to be removed at a 2:1 ratio. f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,Natural Community Conservation Plan,or ❑ ❑ ❑ Q other approved local,regional,or state habitat conservation plan? (Sources: 1,12) Discussion: As discussed above,the project site is presently developed and is located in a commercial district. It does not support any unique or endangered plant or animal species and is not shown in any adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan; therefore,no impacts to any habitat or wildlife area are anticipated. VIU. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource ❑ ❑ ❑ Q that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? (Sources: 1,12) Discussion: The proposed commercial development will not result in the loss of a known mineral resource. The project site is not designated as a known mineral resource recovery site in the General Plan. No impacts are anticipated. b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral ❑ ❑ ❑ Q resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan,or other land use plan? (Sources: 1,12) Discussion: The project site is not designated as an important mineral resource recovery site in the General Plan or any other land use plan. Development of the project is not anticipated to have any impact on any mineral resource recovery. No significant adverse impacts to mineral resources are anticipated. IN.HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: Page 1-4 N rc' r 1� Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment a through the routine transport,use,or disposal of hazardous materials? (Sources: 1,12) Discussion: The proposed project includes the development of a commercial building and associated landscaping and parking and would not introduce any unusual hazardous materials to the area. The proposed project would not include use of large quantities of hazardous materials, and hazardous materials would only be used and stored in accordance with applicable regulations. Proposed construction and operation would comply with CalOSHA(California Occupational Safety and Health Administration)requirements,the Hazardous Materials Management Act(HMMA), and other State and local requirements. Compliance with local, State,and Federal regulations would minimize risks associated with accident conditions involving the release-of hazardous materials into the environment. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated. b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment El ❑ 0 through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? (Sources: 1,12) Discussion: Refer to discussion item IX(a),above. c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely 19 hazardous material,substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? (Sources: 1,12) Discussion: The subject site is not located within one-quarter mile of a school, therefore no significant impacts are _anticipated. d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous ❑ El Q materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and,as a result,would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? (Sources: 1,12) Discussion: The site is not listed on the State's Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List. No impacts are anticipated. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or,where 0 such a plan has not been adopted,within two miles of a public airport or pubic use airport,would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (Sources: 1,12) Discussion: The City of Huntington Beach is included in the Planning Area for the Joint Forces Training Center in Los Alamitos,however,the site is located such that it would not be impacted by flight activity from the center. No impacts are anticipated. e) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,would the 130 project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (Sources: 1,12) Discussion: The project site is not near any private airstrips. No impacts are anticipated. f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an El ElQ adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation Page 15 i; Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact plan? (Sources: 1,12) Discussion: The project has been reviewed by the Fire Department and is designed to be in compliance with fire access and circulation requirements. The proposed development of the site will not interfere or conflict with an adopted emergency response plan or evacuation plan. No impacts are anticipated to any emergency response or evacuation plans. g) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? (Sources: 1,12) Discussion: The project is located in an urbanized area and is not near any wild lands. No impacts are anticipated. X. NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance,or applicable standards of other agencies? (Sources: 1,7,8,12) Discussion: The project will generate short-term noise impacts during construction activities with the use of construction equipment. Chapter 8.40 Noise of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code generally prohibits construction activity between the hours of 8 p.m.and 7 a.m.on weekdays and Saturdays,and all day on Sundays. The project site is relatively flat and does not call for a substantial amount of importlexport of fill,therefore, noise impacts from large grading equipment will be less than significant. During demolition and other construction phases of the project,noise levels on the site may increase from normal construction equipment and machinery. The short-term noise impacts are temporary and will occur over a relatively short period of time during construction activities. Based on a noise study conducted by RK Engineering Group, Inc. the average noise levels during daytime conditions (measured approximately 10 feet from the existing wall along the southerly and westerly property lines)ranged from 48.2 dBA to 52.9 dBA. The average noise level during nighttime conditions is 45.6 dBA to 48.2 dBA. The maximum decibel level allowed under Chapter 8.40 Noise of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code is 55 dBA. Long term noise impacts may occur as a result of the slight increase in vehicular trips and associated noise generated by the store operation; however, the proposed development will not introduce new noise sources to the surrounding area that do not already currently exist with the existing Target store. The existing noise environment in the vicinity of the site is dominated by noise from Adams Avenue and Brookhurst Street and includes truck deliveries to the site, loading and unloading activities, an outside trash compactor,and parking lot noise. The proposed design of the new store will relocate the loading area to the northwest corner of the building which will eliminate truck traffic behind the subject building and thus reduce noise impacts from truck traffic in this area. The new location of the loading area will not have a significant impact on adjacent residential property based on the mitigation measures identified in the noise study and the proposed project improvements including a screen/sound wall which will be placed along the side of the loading area and will aid in attenuating and redirecting noise towards Adams Avenue away from the residences to the west. The new location of building will allow'for a 60-foot buffer from residential uses along the westerly property line and 40-foot buffer from the southerly property line. Although noise impacts associated with the new building will not exceed those existing on the existing site,the noise study identified the following potential mitigation measures to further reduce any potential noise impacts: 1. Vendor truck deliveries/trash-pickup should be limited to daytime hours. The current delivery schedule for vendor truck deliveries of 8:00 am to 12:00 noon (Monday through Friday) should remain with the new store. However, Target delivery trucks can be allowed to enter the site no later than 7:00 pm. 2. Delivery trucks should not idle their engines while delivering merchandise to the Target store. Trucks should turn off their engines once they reach their loading dock. Page 16 h le TP- "-e, h _ Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact 3. The loading dock door opening should include rubber noise seals around the opening of the building. 4. The trash compactor should not be operated before 8:00 am and after 7:00 pm. 5. Every attempt should be made to not operate other on-site equipment(e.g. parking lot sweepers, etc.)directly adjacent to the existing homes after 10:00 pm to minimize noise impacts to the adjoining residential areas. 6. All Target doors facing the residential areas should be closed in the evening. The attached garden center is located along the southerly elevation of the proposed building,and is setback approximately 40 feet from the south property line. The noise study identified sound readings along the southerly property line as being below the maximum allowable decibel level of 55 dBA. A community meeting was held with surrounding neighbors who voiced concerns regarding the location of the proposed garden center based on the current impacts that exist with the existing garden center including excessive noise from Ioudspeakers and occasionally the voices of patrons shopping. Based on these concerns, additional conditions of approval prohibiting loudspeakers and requiring a solid attenuating wall along the entire side of the garden center are being proposed by staff. These conditions will significantly reduce any noise impacts associated with the garden center operation. Based on the current use of the site as a Target store and the mitigation measures identified in the noise study, no significant long-term noise impacts resulting from the new development project are anticipated. b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbome vibration or groundbome noise levels? (Sources: ❑ ❑ ❑X ❑ 1,7,8,12) Discussion: Although construction activities will generate a temporary increase in noise levels as indicated in the discussion above, there will be no significant impacts related to ground bome vibration because of the limited amount of earth movement activity on a site that is relatively flat. No significant additional ground borne vibration is anticipated because the anticipated traffic volume generated by the project is considered negligible and does not significantly impact the level of service on area roadways. No significant impacts are anticipated. c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? ❑ ❑ ❑ (Sources: 1,7,8,12) Discussion: The type of noise to be generated by the project in the longterm will be similar to that generated by the existing development and surrounding development and is not anticipated to increase the ambient noise levels significantly. Noise impacts may occur on an occasional basis as a result of the slight increase in trip-ends and store operation activities. Due to the existing level of traffic generated by the project and the ambient noise from the existing uses,the project generated noise levels are considered negligible.No significant long-term noise impacts are anticipated. d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the ❑ ❑ ❑ project? (Sources: 1,7,8,12) Discussion: Refer to X(a)discussion above. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or,where such a plan has not been adopted,within two miles of a public airport or public use airport,would the project expose people ❑ ❑ ❑ residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (Sources: 1,7,8,12) Fqo�aml�,t�9 : �Page I` talc i u=lt,� ;s.;,;= ,J a Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Discussion: The City of Huntington Beach is included in the Planning Area for the Joint Forces Training Center in Los Alamitos, however, the site is located such that it would not be impacted by flight activity and noise generation from the center. No impacts are anticipated. f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (Sources: 1,7,8,12) Discussion: The site is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip;no impacts are expected XI.PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios,response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a) Fire protection? (Sources:1,12) Discussion: The proposed project is within the five-minute response time area from the Bushard Fire Station and can be adequately served by existing resources. Based on this,no significant impacts are anticipated. b) Police Protection? (Sources: 1,12) 11 El ❑ 0 Discussion: The Police Department reviewed the project and indicated that they have no significant concerns that need to be mitigated. The project can be adequately served with existing Police resources. c) Schools? (Sources: 1,12) M Discussion: The Target store currently exists on the subject site and the new store will be used in the same capacity as a commercial retail use with a slight increase of employees based on the additional 12,342 square feet proposed. The majority of employees at the current store will also be employed at the new store after completion of the project. The applicant will also be required to pay school district fees for the net increase in the floor area proposed. Based on the negligible increase of employees and the requirement for payment of school fees,no significant impacts are anticipated. d) Parks? (Sources: 1,12) M (� Q Discussion: The project is not expected to have any significant impact on park facilities, since it is commercial in nature. The project will be subject to pay a park and recreation fee in compliance with the HBZSO. No significant impacts to park services are anticipated. e) Other public facilities or governmental services? (Sources: Q 1,12) Discussion:- The project has been reviewed by the various City Departments, including Public Works, Building and Safety, Fire, Police, and Planning for compliance with all applicable City codes. With implementation of recommended conditions of approval, and compliance with City specifications, no significant adverse impacts to public services are anticipated. XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the Page 18 A'?-'y 5°' ``-"N 1 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable ri 0 Regional Water Quality Control Board? (Sources: 1,12,Public Works) Discussion: Based on the current use of the site as a Target department store, the reconstruction of the store with additional floor area will result in a negligible increase of waste water. The site is currently designed to accommodate the proposed commercial use and the new store would have minimal potential to generate significant amounts of waste water or water usage above the current volumes that already exist on the subject site. It is anticipated that the project will be adequately served by existing facilities. This will be ensured by a recommended condition of approval requiring on-site improvements as deemed necessary by the Public Works Department, based on review of drainage plans and hydrology studies. No significant impacts to wastewater treatment,water or stormdrain requirements or facilities are anticipated. b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing El facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (Sources: 1,12,Public Works) Discussion: Please see discussion item XII(a). c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water Q13 drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (Sources: 1,12,Public Works) Discussion: Please see discussion item XII(a). d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project Q from existing entitlements and resources,or are new or El 13 13 expanded entitlements needed? (Sources: 1,12,Public Works). Discussion: Based on the current use of the site as a Target department store,the reconstruction of the store with additional floor area will result in a negligible increase in water usage. The site is currently designed to accommodate the proposed commercial use and the new store would have minimal potential to generate significant amounts of water usage above the current volumes that already exist on the subject site. No significant impacts to the City's water supply are anticipated. e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider 0 which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? (Sources: 1,12,PW) Discussion: Please see discussion item XII(a). f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity toEl 11Q13 accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? (Sources: 1,12,Public Works) Discussion: Solid waste collection service for the City of Huntington Beach is provided by Rainbow Disposal, under an exclusive loner term contract with the City. Collected solid waste is transported to a transfer station where the solid waste is sorted and processed through a Materials Recovery Facility where recyclable materials are removed. The remaining j solid waste is transferred to the Frank R. Bowerman Landfill located in the City of Irvine. The landfill has a remaining Page 19 h'�EAN t Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact capacity in excess of 30 years based on the present solid waste generation rates, and the project's net increase of approximately 12,342 square feet of new commercial area is not expected to generate a substantial amount of daily waste products in the long term nor as a result of construction. Based on this and the nature of uses proposed,the project is not anticipated to noticeably impact the capacity of existing landfills that will serve the use. g) Comply with federal,state,and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? (Sources: 1,12,Public Works) Discussion: The project will be served by Rainbow Disposal and will be subject to participation in any solid waste reduction programs presently available in the city. XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 13 11 ❑ 0 (Sources:1,2) Discussion: The proposed project site is not situated adjacent to or in the vicinity of any scenic vista designated by the City or the State. As a result,no impacts are expected. b) Substantially damage scenic resources,including,but not 11 ❑ El 0 limited to,trees,rock outcroppings,and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? (Sources: 1,2) Discussion: The site is not adjacent to a state scenic highway, nor are there any significant trees, rock outcroppings, or historic buildings in the vicinity of the subject site. No impacts will result. c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of 0 the site and its surroundings? (Sources: 1,2) Discussion: The proposed building will be designed and constructed of common materials consistent with commercial development throughout the city. This includes similar colors, mass, and height of commercial structures in the surrounding area. In addition, the project will be reviewed by the Design Review Board to ensure a high level of design, quality of materials, and compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. The project shall be subject to a standard condition of approval requiring an Arborist's report to identify the size and health of existing mature trees on the subject site. The report shall also recommend how the existing trees that are to remain (if any) shall be protected and how far construction/grading shall be kept from the trunk. Any mature trees that may be deleted are required to be replaced at a 2:1 ratio pursuant to a standard condition of approval. In addition, the project will be required to comply with tree planting requirements outlined in the HBZSO which will result in an increase in the number of on-site trees. No significant impacts are anticipated. d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would; adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? (Sources: 0 1,2) Discussion: The site is presently developed with an existing Target store, therefore, development of a new store in its place will be consistent with the manner in which the site has been lit for approximately 30 years. Lighting will be included throughout the project but will be in character with lighting found in typical commercial shopping centers. The project will be subject to a standard condition of approval that requires lighting to be shielded and directed so as to prevent glare and spillage onto adjacent residential properties. The additional lighting on the subject site is considered negligible as the area is already developed.No significant impacts are anticipated. XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: . Page 20 p /T C,r C y Ei E e is i Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a 11 1-1 historical resource as defined in S 15064.5? (Sources: 1,2) b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to 515064.5? (Sources: 1,2) 11 El El z c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site unique geologic feature? (Sources: 1,2) d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of ❑ formal cemeteries? (Sources: 1,2) Discussion: a)—d) The project is not located in the vicinity of any known archeological,historic or other cultural resource. No significant adverse impact are anticipated. XV. RECREATION. Would the project: a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood, El ❑ El Q community and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? (Sources: 1,2,12) b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the 11 ri El Q construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? (Sources: 1,2,12) c) Affect existing recreational opportunities?(Sources: 1,2,12) Discussion: a)—c)The project will replace an existing Target store and result in a net increase in floor area of approximately 12,342 square. This increase is considered negligible and substantially similar to the existing use already in operation on the subject site. Therefore,the project will not increase the use of existing recreational facilities or create a demand for additional facilities. No significant adverse impact are anticipated. XVI. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects,lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model(1997) prepared by the California Dept.of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland,Unique Farmland,or Farmland of riQ Statewide Importance(Farmland),as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency,to non- agricultural use? (Sources: 1,2,12) b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use,or a Q Williamson Act contract? (Sources: 1,2,12) Page 11 AT a5 � 2•S3 Srhaoibr Fehd.S, hkelsTr:" Use t ptififb I 151 271 12 151 271 13 151 271 14 • Robert Cavecche&Trisha Cavecche Wakabayashi Philip Larschan 9781 Kings Canyon Dr 9791 Kings Canyon Dr 9801 Kings Canyon Dr Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 151 271 1 ...151 271.16 151 271.17... . ... Ming-sen Won; Hurtienne ...; Russell Rodrigues&'Kathy Lynn Rodri 1022 Y.Slatei Ave107.. . 9831 Kings Canyon Dr 9841 Kinds Caiiyon'Dr Fountain Valley, CA 92708 Huntington Beach,CA.92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 151271 18 151 271 20 151 271 21 Alvin&Kathleen Austin Sr. Ming Huey Cheng&Wang Fen-chu Ch Francis Arciaga Jr. 9851 Kings Canyon Dr 9871 Kings Canyon Dr 9881 Kings Canyon Dr Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 151 271 22 151 27123 151 271 24 David Bowman Hidetoshi Tr Okada Gerald Whitehead 9891 Kings Canyon Dr 9302 Shadwell Dr 9911 Kings Canyon Dr Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 151 271 25 151 271 26 151 271 27 Bruce&Yoko Kerman Kenneth Iwaihara&Reiko Iwaihara Daniel Marckstadt&Haydee Marckstad 9921 Kings Canyon Dr 9941 Kings Canyon Dr 9951 Kings Canyon Dr Huntington Beach,CA':92646 Huntington Beach,CA,92646 Huntington Beach,CA::92646 151271 28 151 271 29 151 27130 Bruce Bricks Robert Munoz Ron&Pamela Dobson 9961 Kings Canyon Dr 9971 Kings Canyon Dr 20162 Running Springs Ln . Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 151 271 31 151 271 32 151 27201 Gregg&Kerry Myers John Tr Duggan David& Sheryl Hauehg 20172 Running Springs Ln 20192 Running Springs Ln 20222 Morristown Cir Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 151212 02 151 272 03 .151.272 04 Kim Vo_: Yueh-hsia Lai Jeffrey Haiieisen 9792 Kings Canyon Dr 9802 Kings Canyon Dr 9822 Kings Canyon Dr Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 151 272 05 151 272 06 151 27207 Myers Mousa&Eima Hilary K H Tr Chan William Green&Donna Green 9021 Santiago Dr 9842 Kings Canyon Dr 9852 Kings Canyon Dr Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 15127208 151 272 09 151 272 10 Neal Gruber Outman Donald Ward 9862 Kings Canyon Dr 9872 Kings Canyon Dr 9382 Kings Canyon Dr Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 AVERY® Address Lapels Laser 5960TM _sSw,IN wFAWWamns IdIdUMOSTPR 155-181-27 155-181-27 151-461-22 Occupant Occupant Occupant 10090 Adams Avenue 10052 Adams Avenue 9842 4101 Adams Avenue Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 155-181-27 155-181-27 151-461-22 Occupant Occupant' Qccupant 10088 Adams Avenue 10046 Adams Avenue 9842 4102 :Adams Avenue Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 155-181-27 155-181-27 151-461-22 Occupant Occupant Occupant 10086 Adams Avenue 10044 Adams Avenue 9842 #103 Adams Avenue Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 155-181-27 155-181-27 Occupant Occupant 10084 Adams Avenue 10042 Adams Avenue Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 155-181-27 .155-181-26 Occupant Occupant 10.078 Adams Avenue . 10122 %s..Adams Avenue Huntuigton`Beach CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 155-181-27 151-461-26 Occupant Occupant 10076 Adams Avenue 20111 Brookhurst Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 155-181-27 151-461-29 Occupant Occupant 10072 Adams Avenue 20061 Brookhurst Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 155-181-27 151-461-24 Occupant Occupant 20100 Brookhurst 20001 Brookhurst Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 155-181-27 151-461-28 Occupant Occupant 10056 Adams Avenue 9862 Adams Avenue Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 155-181-27 151-461-28 Occupant Occupant 10054 Adams Avenue 9882 Adams Avenue Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 81MERYA Addres s Labels q-��n_s;z�.saja� w 2_s�a��a „� , ,�,f,, 0TM �a rr�SMee,a 4A r� , 155-181-3 155-181-27 155-181-27 • Occupant Occupant Occupant 10036 Adams Avenue 10188 Adams Avenue 10124 Adams Avenue Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 155-181-3 155-181-27 155-181-27 Occupant Occupant Occupant 10038 Adams Avenue . . 10156 Adams Avenue 10122:Adams Avenue Huntington Beach,_CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 155-181-5 155-181-27 155-181-27 Occupant Occupant Occupant 20052 Brookhurst 10158 Adams Avenue 10120 Adams Avenue Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 155-181-4 155-181-27 155-181-27 Occupant Occupant Occupant 20002 Brookhurst 10162 Adams Avenue 10118 Adams Avenue Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 155-181-24 155-181-27 155-181-27 Occupant Occupant Occupant 10142 Adams Avenue 10172 Adams Avenue 10116 Adams Avenue Huntington Beach, CA 92646. Huntington$each, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA-92646 155-181-27 155-181-27 155-181-27 Occupant Occupant Occupant 10136 Adams Avenue 10132 Adams Avenue 10114 Adams Avenue Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 155-181-27 155-181-27 155=181-27 Occupant Occupant. Occupant 10176 Adams Avenue .10130 Adams Avenue 10112 Adams Avenue Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 155-181-27 155-181-27 155-1.81 27: Occupant .. Occupant . up Occ ant- 10178 Adams Avenue 10128 Adams Avenue 10110 Adams Avenue Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 155-181-27 155-181-27 155-181-27 Occupant Occupant Occupant 10180 Adams Avenue 10126B Adams Avenue 10106 Adams Avenue Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 155-181-27 155-181-27 155-181-27 Occupant Occupant Occupant 10184 Adams Avenue 10126A Adams Avenue 10104 Adams Avenue Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 SM" AWRYND & �� TM �® '��,er� labels 1-80®-�C1-AV�3�Y (�6�-�379) w �. eavo 0 153-171-1 153-171-1 153-171-2 Occupant Occupant Occupant 9791 Adams Avenue 19891 Brookhurst 9961 Adams Avenue Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 153-171-1 153-171-1 153-171-2 Occupant Occupant ` Occupant 9795 Adams.Avenue: 19.887 Brookhurst. 9951 Adams Avenue Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 153-171-1 153-171-1 153-171-2 Occupant Occupant Occupant 9803 Adams Avenue - 19885 Brookhurst 9941 Adams Avenue Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 153-171-1 153-171-1 153-171-2 Occupant Occupant Occupant 9807 Adams Avenue 19883A Brookhurst 9971 Adams Avenue Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 15�-171-1 153-171-1 155-051-10 Occupant Occupant Occupant 98.11 Adams Avenue _ 19883B Brookhurst. _ - 10001 Adams Avenue . Huntington Beach, CA 9264.E Huntington Beach;..CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 153-171-1 153-171-1 155-181-3 Occupant Occupant Occupant 9861 Adams Avenue 19883C Brookhurst 10026 Adams Avenue Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 153-171-1 153-171-1 155-181-3 Occupant Occupant Occupant 9881 Adams Avenue 19881A Brookhurst 10028 Adams Avenue Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 153-171-1, 153471=1 155-181 3 Occupant Occupant` Occupant 9891 Adams Avenue 19881B Brookhurst 10030 Adams Avenue Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 153-171-1 153-171-1 155-181 3 Occupant Occupant Occupant 9901 Adams Avenue 19881C Brookhurst 10032 Adams Avenue Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 153-171-1 153-171-1 155-181 3 Occupant Occupant Occupant 19883 Brookhurst 19881D Brookhurst 100-4 Adams Avenue Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 UAVf & Q4 Laser 5960TM E Address Labels 4_a 4*1.ln 4 r%-A%ICDV Id&n-QM JQ% ,e0,A„^ f P^ i ON : P �j MEETING DATE: July 19, 2004 DEPARTMENT RECEIVED SUBJECT: REQUESTING: DATE Economic Dev. 06/03 Sale of Agency Property at 214 Fifth Planning 07/01 Appeal of CUP no. 03-35 (Target Demo & Rebuild) I N C i L_ r - - -:. J c Kv as v' TODAY'S DATE July 1, 2004 VERIFIED BY ADMININSTRATION: APPROVED BY: . enelope Culbreth-Gr ft City Administrator July 1,2004 11:02 AM 7 ,7 1 V A 611 ANTON BOULEVARD, FOURTEENTH FLOOR ORANGE COUNTY COSTA MESA, CKER D RECT ALL MA CA LIFORNIA 9 31 TO: POST OFFICE 1950 SILICON VALLEY COSTA MESA,CALIFORNIA 92628-1950 (408)289-8777 TELEPHONE 714-641-5100 FACSIMILE 714-546-9035 A T T O R N E Y $ A T L A W INTERNET ADDRESS www.rutan.com A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS Jeffrey 1N.Oderman Direct Dial:(714)641-3441 E-mail:joderman@rutan.com July 14, 2004 T o o � C= - Mayor Kathy Green and Members of the City Council City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 n Re: CUP No. 03-35 (Target) 9882 Adams Avenue, Huntington Beach, CA Dear Mayor Green and Members of the City Council: r_ 1 am writing to you on behalf of Business Properties Partnership No. 15 in support of its appeal of your Planning Commission's approval of CUP No. 03-35, the proposed demolition of the existing Target store and rebuilding of a new larger Target store and modified parking lot and driveways at the southwest corner of Adams Avenue and Brookhurst Street in the City of Huntington Beach. I respectfully request that this letter be included in the record of your July 19, 2004, public hearing regarding this project. 1. Introduction; Summary of Appellant's Position. My client's request is that the City Council take one of the following three actions with respect to the Target project: (1) (Preferred Option.) Approve the CUP subject to an additional condition requiring the applicant to signalize the new primary driveway entrance to the Target store on Brookhurst Street(as more fully described hereinbelow); or (2) Direct that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) be prepared prior to final City action on the CUP, which EIR addresses the potentially significant unmitigated traffic and circulation impacts that would result if the Target project were allowed to proceed without signalization of the Brookhurst Street driveway entrance; or (3) Deny the CUP and the project based upon thz, significant unmitigated traffic impacts._, I1578 .01 a0 012 E TAN T CKERI ATTORNEYS AT LAW Mayor Kathy Green and Members of the City Council July 14, 2004 Page 2 Business Properties has previously advised both Target and the City that it is willing to pay one-half of the cost of the needed traffic signal, which will also help to alleviate some of the traffic and circulation problems at the Stater Bros. shopping center owned by Business Properties on the east side of Brookhurst Street. This offer still stands and my client is prepared to enter into an agreement reasonably satisfactory to the City and Target consistent therewith. The City's Transportation Manager, Bob Stachelski, has advised my client that he is "comfortable" with proceeding with a traffic signal at this location so long as the City doesn't have to pay for it; indeed, he properly notes the signal is "a necessity for dealing with the accident problem" in this location (a problem that is discussed further below). (See Exhibit "A" hereto.) As noted below, Target's own traffic engineer acknowledges that the Brookhurst Street driveway entrance meets "warrants" for a signal and he recommends that a signal (or other similar traffic mitigation measures) be installed. When the Target project-was considered by your Planning Commission some of the Commissioners also expressed a strong interest in conditioning the Target project to assure that the signal is provided. Incredibly to us, however, these efforts effectively have been blocked by your City Attorney's office which — incorrectly, we assert—advised your Planning Commission that Business Properties' request came too late in the process and, accordingly, that the Commission had no legal authority under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") to .add the traffic signalization condition or to consider adding any off-site mitigation measures for the Target project beyond those contained in the Zoning Administrator's initial approval. For the reasons set forth in this letter, Business Properties respectfully submits that (i) its evidence and arguments regarding the need for the traffic signal are in fact timely, (ii) the City Council not only has the authority but the duty under CEQA to consider the adequacy of the offsite mitigation measures for the Target project, and (iii) since a fair argument can be made based upon substantial evidence in the record (the professional opinions of two qualified independent traffic engineers retained by Business Properties) that approval of the Target project without a traffic signal at the Brookhurst Street entrance will or may cause a significant traffic impact, the Council must either impose the traffic signalization condition, order the preparation of a full EIR, or deny the project altogether. 2. Background Facts; Inadequacy of Applicant's Traffic Report and Failure to Mitigation Potentially Significant Traffic Impact at Brookhurst Street Driveway Entrance to Target Property. As you know, the Brookhurst/Adams intersection operates at a substandard Level of Service ("LOS") E during the morning peak hour and the intersection is in what the City describes as a "breakdown" LOS F during the PM peak hour period. (See both the November 2001 "Intersection Safety Study for the Intersection of Brookhurst Street/Adams Avenue in the 112/021166-0012 5 13789.01 a07-14/04 E TAN T CKER ATTORNEYS AT LAW Mayor Kathy Green and Members of the City Council July 14, 2004 Page 3 City of Huntington Beach" that was prepared for the City by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. -(the "Kimley-Horn Traffic Report)," a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit `B," at p. 9, and the "Target Store T-194 Traffic Impact Study" dated September 29, 2003, prepared by RK.Engineering Group, Inc. (the "Applicant's Traffic Report"), a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "C," at pp. 1-2, 2-5 to 2-7, and Tables 2 and 7.) Indeed, there are so many traffic accidents at this location, fully 39% of which are broadside collisions, that in 1999 State Farm Insurance Company identified the Brookhurst/Adams intersection as the sixth most dangerous intersection in the entire United States! (Exhibit `B"hereto, at pp. 1, 12.) With particular regard to "Driveway No. 2," the main driveway entrance along the Brookhurst Street side of the Target property with which Business Properties is primarily concerned, the Kimley-Horn Traffic Report notes that the driveway is "just as collision-prone as the Brookhurst-Adams intersection itself." (Exhibit LB" hereto at p. 13.) The Applicant's Traffic Report further acknowledges that this driveway already meets 4 of the Caltrans "warrants"'for a traffic signal even without the new Target project and, based on this situation, the Applicant's Traffic Report recommends repeatedly that the driveway either be signalized or that other traffic improvements be or installed here. (Exhibit "C" at pp. 1-4 (§§ 5), 8-3, 9-1 to 9- 2, and 11-2.) The new Target project will only make matters worse. As noted in the Applicant's Traffic Report, Target is proposing to expand its store at the southwest corner of the Brookhurst/Adams intersection by approximately 17% (19,242 square feet on top of the existing 114,258 square foot store currently in place), which will lead to a corresponding 17% increase in traffic in the vicinity of this heavily traveled and dangerous intersection. (Exhibit "C" hereto, at pp. 1-2, 3-1, and Table 3.) While the Applicant's Traffic Report acknowledges the 17% increase in the total volume of traffic that the new expanded Target store will generate, a critical failing of the Applicant's Traffic Report is its implicit assumption that the distribution of the trips from the new Target store will remain the same as it is for the existing store, and therefore that the incremental burden of the project on Driveway No. 2 and Brookhurst Street (currently only a secondary ingress/egress) will be relatively slight. (See Exhibit "C" at pp. 3-2 and Exhibits H-K thereto.) As Business Properties' traffic consultants have determined— see discussion below and Exhibits "G" and "H" hereto — the re-orientation of the new, expanded Target store and the parking "field" and internal driveway circulation system away from Adams Avenue and toward Brookhurst Street will correspondingly shift a substantial number of vehicle trips from Adams (Driveway No. 1).to Brookhurst (Driveway No. 2). Moreover, the Applicant's Traffic Report simply assumes without any factual basis whatever, and certainly not based on any conditions or mitigation measures imposed on the 112/021166-0012 515789.01 a07/14/04 R TAN T CKER A T T O R N E Y S AT LAW Mayor Kathy Green and Members of the City Council July 14, 2004 Page 4 Target project approval, that the City will in fact install certain "planned improvements" at Driveway No. 2, either a traffic signal or some form of "worm" median treatment that will restrict through and left-turn movements out of the driveway. (Id, at pp. 1-3, 6-1, and 8-1.) In fact, the whole point of my client's expressed concerns and this appeal is that there is no such assurance when or whether the desired traffic signal will be installed. On March 29, 2004, Charles G. Ball submitted a letter to the City's Zoning Administrator on behalf of Business Properties requesting that the Target CUP be conditioned on installation of a traffic signal at Driveway No. 2 on Brookhurst Street and offering on behalf of Business Properties to contribute one-half of the cost. (See Exhibit "D" attached hereto.) The Zoning Administrator considered this request and the concerns of other neighbors regarding Target's project on March 31, 2004. At the conclusion of the March 31 hearing the Zoning Administrator approved the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Target project but she continued consideration of the Target project itself without taking action on Business Properties' request or the CUP in order to "give the Zoning Administrator and the neighboring property owners an opportunity to review suggested conditions of approval that would make the project more amenable to the community." (See Exhibit "E" attached hereto, which consists of an excerpt from the minutes of the March 31, 2004, Zoning Administrator meeting, at p. 4.) No indication was given at the time that the Zoning Administrator's approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration would in any way affect the community's right to appeal her subsequent decision on the project. The Zoning Administrator next considered the Target project and the CUP at her April 14, 2004, meeting (after the administrative appeal period expired with respect to her approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration, according to your City Attorney's office — see below). At that time, the Zoning Administrator approved the CUP and rejected Business Properties' request that approval of the Target project be conditioned on installation of the traffic signal at the Brookhurst Street entrance. Business Properties timely appealed the Zoning Administrator's decision on the CUP to the Planning Commission on April22, 2004, fully expecting that the Planning Commission would have the authority to address all issues pertaining to the project, including the traffic signal. (See Exhibit"F"attached hereto.) Business Properties attached to its appeal letter to the Planning Commission an April 20, 2004, letter report prepared by James H. Kawamura, a traffic engineer with the firm of KHR Associates (the "KHR Traffic Report"). (See the third and fourth pages of Exhibit "F.") The KHR Traffic Report determined that there were "notable deficiencies" in the Applicant's Traffic Report, including the following three "glaring shortcomings": (1) The Applicant's Traffic Report fails to take into consideration the "significant amount of traffic generated by the [Target] store [that] will shift from using the 112/021166-0012 515789.01 a07/14/04 R TAN T CKER AYTOA NETS AT LAW Mayor Kathy Green and Members of the City Council July 14, 2004 Page 5 Adams Avenue driveway to using one of the Brookhurst Street driveways" as a result of the re-orientation of the storefront and primary parking field away from Adams Avenue and toward Brookhurst Street. (2) The Applicant's Traffic Report completely fails to address traffic impacts during periods of time of primary concern for retail projects located along retail corridors — Saturday and seasonal (e.g., Christmas holiday) traffic. (3) The Applicant's Traffic Report fails to address the impact of the proposed Target project on adjacent properties, including the Stater Bros. shopping center owned by Business Properties to the east across Brookhurst Street. In particular, as noted in the KHR Traffic Report, the cumulative impacts of the re-oriented Target project together with the pending plan to close off left turn egress from both shopping centers onto Brookhurst Street would be "significant" and "unacceptable," and would "only exacerbate traffic congestion on Brookhurst Street and Adams Avenue" by forcing more traffic through the intersection and creating"further deterioration of the unacceptable levels of service." Mr. Ball, Business Properties' representative, spoke to the Planning Commission at its hearing and reiterated these same concerns. The Planning Commissioners appeared to be sympathetic to Business Properties' points but to Business Properties' surprise the City Attorney's office nixed any attempt by the Commission to address its legitimate environmental concerns. Instead, the City Attorney's office instructed the Commission that, notwithstanding the fact that the CUP was still open for discussion, the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Target project was somehow final and unassailable and the Commission lacked the legal authority under CEQA to add the requested traffic signalization condition to the CUP (or any other change to offsite mitigation conditions for that matter). Having been precluded from having the Planning Commission even consider its environmental concerns on their merits at the Planning Commission, Business Properties had no choice but to appeal again to the City Council. Business Properties has also obtained two additional reviews of the Applicant's Traffic Report — a June 4, 2004, letter report prepared by Weston Pringle & Associates (the "Pringle Traffic Report") (see Exhibit "G" hereto) and a supplemental July 9, 2004, letter report from KHR (the "Supplemental KHR Traffic Report") (Exhibit "H"hereto).. The Pringle Traffic Report casts even more doubt on the validity of the data and conclusions set forth in the Applicant's Traffic Report, as follows: 112/021166-0012 5 1 5789.01 a07/14/04 R TAN WTI CKER3 A T T O R N E V T A T L A W Mayor Kathy Green and Members of the City Council July 14, 2004 Page 6 (1) As noted in the Pringle Traffic Report, the Applicant's Traffic Report fails to account for 21-28% of the trip generation for the Target project in the critical PM peak hour. (2) The Applicant's Traffic Report totally fails to account for the fact that the re- orientation of the Target store toward Brookhurst Street, the re-orientation of the primary parking field, and building obstructions within the parking lot on the Target site will result in a shift of traffic away from the Adams Avenue entrance toward the Brookhurst Street entrance, thereby requiring "that consideration be given to an improved access on Brookhurst Street which would include signalization." The Supplemental KHR Traffic Report is even more specific, noting that the Target project will cause a "redistribution (or `shift')" in traffic from the Adams Avenue driveway to the Brookhurst Street driveway, resulting in a"significantly greater" impact than identified in the Applicant's Traffic Report and an overall "significant traffic impact" at that location. (Id, at pp. 1 and 3.) In addition, the Supplemental KHR Traffic Report notes that the impact of this traffic "shift" on Driveway No. 2 will be even greater if the other commercial uses at the southeast corner of Brookhurst and Adams are taken into account. (Id.) Business Properties cannot understand why its efforts to assist the City and Target in solving an existing and potentially much greater traffic problem in such a congested and dangerous location is meeting with resistance. When Business Properties communicated with the City's Transportation Manager on this subject back in September of 2003, the Transportation Manager's enthusiastic response was: "Chuck, your timing is great. . . . At this point, I am comfortable with us having a discussion about what needs to happen in order to get the traffic signal in on Brookhurst. . . . I'm considering it a necessity for dealing with the accident problem with the compro- mise being the property owner pay for design and construction and we'll maintain it." (Exhibit"A"hereto; emphasis added.) Since that time, Business Properties has gotten nothing but the run-around. Based on the foregoing, Business Properties respectfully submits that (1) the Applicant's Traffic Report is invalid and understates the cumulative traffic impact of the new Target project at the Brookhurst/Adams intersection and along Brookhurst Street to the south, particularly in light of the absence of a mitigation measure being imposed on the project to install a new traffic signal at the Brookhurst Street driveway entrance to the property; and (2) if the City is not 112/021166-0012 515789.01 a07/14/04 R TAN T CKER ATTORNEYS AT LAW Mayor Kathy Green and Members of the City Council . July 14, 2004 Page 7 prepared at this time to condition the.Target project to alleviate the traffic-impact CEQA requires that an EIR be prepared or that the project be denied. 3. CEQA Analysis. The threshold under CEQA for the need to prepare an EIR is quite low. An EIR must be prepared if a"fair argument"can be made, based upon substantial evidence in the record, that the proposed Target project "may" have a significant effect on the environment, even if the City is presented with other substantial evidence that the project will not have such a significant effect. (Title 14, California Code of Regulations, § 15064(f)(1).) If there is disagreement among expert opinion supported by facts over the significance of a particular effect on the environment (such as any disagreement between the author of the Applicant's Traffic Report, on the one hand, and the authors of the KHR Traffic Report, the Supplemental KHR Traffic Report, and Pringle Traffic Report, on the other hand), the City is required to treat the effect as significant and prepare an EIR. (Id, § 15064(g).) If Aqy aspect of the Target project, either individually or cumulatively, may cause a significant effect on the environment, regardless of whether the overall effect of the project is adverse. or beneficial, the City is required to prepare an EIR. (Id, § 15063(b)(1).) Even if the-Target project's environmental impacts, considered in isolation, are "individually limited," an EIR must be prepared if the impacts are "cumulatively considerable" when viewed in connection with the effects of other current and probable future projects. (Id, § 15064(i)(1).) The Applicant's Traffic Report is deficient. By shifting a significant amount of traffic from Adams Avenue to Brookhurst Street the Target project clearly will have a significant adverse traffic impact along Brookhurst Street. Business Properties' position is not unsubstan- tiated or unqualified speculation — it is supported by the facts and opinions provided by competent independent traffic engineers. The "significance" threshold for preparing an EIR is even lower here because of the existing serious congestion and accident problem in and around the Broolhurst/Adams intersection. See, e.g., Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 718, where the court stated in the context of concerns regarding the air quality impacts of a project in a non-attainment zone: "[t]he relevant question to be addressed . . . is not the relative amount of [pollution] emitted by the project when compared with pre-existing emissions, but whether any additional amount of. . . emissions should be considered significant in light of the serious nature of the [existing] problems in this air basin." Even the Applicant's Traffic Report acknowledges that a change in the level of service (LOS) at an intersection becomes "significant" if greater than 0.01. (Exhibit "C" hereto, Table 8.) In light of the significant shift of traffic from Adams Avenue to Brookhurst Street, a shift the Applicant's Traffic Report simply ignored, the impact in that location is far greater than this "significance"threshold. 1 1 2/02 1 1 6 6-00 1 2 515789.01 a07/14/04 MTAN T CKER ATTORNEYS AT LAW Mayor Kathy Green and Members of the City Council July 14, 2004 Page 8 The City cannot justify a finding of"no significant impact" based on the assumption that a traffic signal may or will be installed at the Brookhurst Street entrance to the Target site at some uncertain future date. Only an express mitigation condition on the Target that commits the City to that course of action will suffice. See, e.g., Federation of Hillside & Canyon Association v. City of Los Angeles (2000) 83 Cal.App.41h 1252, 1261, where the court rejected the sufficiency of the city's proposed Transportation Improvement Mitigation Plan (TIMP) as a mitigation measure for a General Plan amendment, stating that: "The city acknowledged in the TIMP that there was great uncertainty as to whether the mitigation measures would ever be funded or implemented. Although the city adopted the mitigation measures, it did not require that they be implemented as a condition of the development allowed under the [General Plan] and made no provision to ensure that they will actually be implemented or .`fully enforceable' (§ 21081.6, subd. (b)). [Fri. omitted.] We therefore conclude that there is no substantial evidence in the record to support a finding that the mitigation measures have been `required in, or incorporated into' (§ 21081, subd. (a)(1)) the [General Plan] in the manner contemplated by CEQA, and the city failed to provide that the mitigation measures would actually be implemented under the [General Plan] (§ 21081.6, subd. (b))." In conclusion, only by conditioning the Target CUP on Target's commitment to install a traffic signal at the Brookhurst Street entrance to the project site can the City create an enforce- able mitigation measure consistent with CEQA and avoid the necessity to prepare a full EIR for the Target project. 4. The City Council Must Independently Review the Adequacy of the CEQA Documentation for the Target Project. The City Cannot Refuse to Consider Environmental Information or Necessary Mitigation Measures on the Ground That Business Properties Did Not Appeal the Zoning Administrator's Approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Under CEQA, before approving a project for which a negative declaration is prepared, the decision-maker must first consider the negative declaration with any comments received on it and approve the negative declaration. (14 California Code of Regulations § 15074(a) and (b).) The decision-making body may delegate the duties of preparing the initial study and making the initial determination as to whether or not a negative declaration or EIR must be prepared, but if a negative declaration is prepared the decision-making.body "shall not delegate [the function of] [r]eviewing and considering . . . [the] negative declaration prior to approving a project." (Id, § 15025(b)(1).); see also Public Resources Code § 21091(d) and 1 12/021 1 66-001 2 515789.01 a07/14/04 UTAN 7EJCKER ATTORNEYS AT LAW Mayor Kathy Green and Members of the City Council July 14, 2004 Page 9 Your City Attorney's office appears to have come up with a strained interpretation of the City's CEQA procedures that fundamentally violates the letter and spirit of the foregoing requirements of State law. According to your City Attorney's office, the Zoning Administrator's March 31, 2004, approval of the Mitigated.Negative Declaration for the Target project should have been appealed by Business Properties even prior to the time that the Zoning Administrator approved the CUP for the Target project itself on April 14, 2004, and, since Business Properties failed to do so, the CEQA process somehow became "final" even before the Zoning Administrator took action on the underlying entitlement and thereafter none of the environmental issues relating to the Target project may even be considered. Respectfully, this is a bizarre interpretation of the City's CEQA procedures which, if the Council allows it to stand, would not only eviscerate the authority of your Planning Commission and your own City Council to review projects on their merits but would also violate the clear requirements of CEQA that the decision- makers (here, the Councilmembers) fully evaluate the environmental impacts of a project before approving it. It has long been the rule under CEQA that "[n]either the CEQA nor the state [CEQA] guidelines authorize the city council to delegate its review and consideration function to another body. Delegation is inconsistent with the purpose of the review and consideration function since it insulates the members of the council from public awareness and possible reaction to the individual members' environmental and economic values." (Kleist v. City of Glendale (1976) 56 Cal.App.3d 770, 779, recently cited favorably by Division 3 of the Fourth District Court of Appeal in Santa Ana in Vedanta Society of Southern California v. California Quartet, Ltd. (2000) 84 Ca1.App.4t" 517, 526.) In a similar context, the California Supreme .Court has ruled that the lead agency's decision-maker is required to consider and take appropriate action upon all information submitted by the public with regard to the adequacy of environmental documents up through the end of the final public hearing on the underlying project, even if the information is submitted after the public review and comment period on the applicable environmental document has expired. (Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Bd. of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 567-568.) The position taken by your City Attorney's office, if accepted, would also lead to game- playing, confusion, and absurd results. Put yourselves in Business Properties' position. On April 10, 2004, the deadline for filing an appeal of the Zoning Administrator's approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Target project (according to the City Attorney's office), the Zoning Administrator had not yet acted to approve or disapprove the Target project or determine whether the traffic signalization condition would be imposed. What was Business Properties supposed to appeal? If the Zoning Administrator were to later agree that the traffic signal should be required (as seemed a likely eventuality given her comment on March 29 that she was continuing consideration of the CUP for a few weeks to "give the Zoning Administrator and neighboring property owners an opportunity to review suggested conditions of approval that would make the project more amenable to the community"), Business Properties would have had 112/021166-0012 515789.01 a07/14/04 R TALI T CKER3 ATTORN EVS AT LAW Mayor Kathy Green and Members of the City Council July 14, 2004 Page 10 no basis for an appeal and no objection to the use of a Mitigated Negative Declaration. Why should Business Properties or any member of the public be required to appeal the environmental determination-on a project (at considerable expense) before final action is taken on the project itself? What would have happened if Business Properties had appealed the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the appeal had been set for hearing before the Planning Commission before the Zoning Administrator had acted on the underlying project? What could the Planning Commission have done? It would not have had the CUP before it for review and it would not even have had the authority to impose the mitigation condition that Business Properties was seeking. How could the Commission have predicted what the Zoning Administrator might or might not do? CEQA does not even apply to projects which the lead agency disapproves. (14 California Code of Regulations § 15270(a).) What sense would it make to require Business Properties (or other members of the public) to appeal the decision of a lower level administrative official or body on a Mitigated Negative Declaration or EIR when the project itself has not yet been approved and might still be disapproved (or withdrawn)? The only sensible — and legal — interpretation of the City's Zoning Ordinance is that the time period for filing an administrative appeal on a CEQA determination does not commence to run until the underlying project itself is approved and an administrative appeal of a project approval that is subject to CEQA necessarily includes the CEQA determination upon which that project approval is based. If the City Attorney's office's position to the contrary is sustained, the lesson to your Zoning Administrator and Planning Commission will be clear. In the future, they will be incentivized to act first on the CEQA determination and defer action on the project until after expiration of the supposed CEQA "appeal"period (as occurred here), putting anyone who might disagree with the (incomplete) CEQA determination in the quandary of trying to figure whether to appeal the CEQA determination without knowing what the action on the project will be and cutting off objectors' rights to raise environmental issues on appeal if they guess wrong. Business Properties respectfully submits that the City Council must have full discretion to evaluate environmental issues along with other issues at the time it considers and takes action on administrative appeals of projects subject to CEQA. In the hierarchy of the City's decision- making process, the City Council sits above the Zoning Administrator (and Planning Commission), not below. It certainly would be an upside-down and confusing world if your City Council allowed itself to have its legislative discretion constrained by a decision of your Zoning Administrator and you then were required to somehow distinguish in your deliberations between I121021166-0012 515789.01 a07/14/04 R TAN T CKER ATTORNEYS AT LAW Mayor Kathy Green and Members of the City Council July 14, 2004 Page 11 environmental issues_ (which you could not consider de novo) and non-environmental issues (which, whatever they are, presumably, you could review). In addition to the requirements of CEQA, simple common sense and administrative.necessity require that the City.Council retain full discretion with regard to both "environmental" and "non-environmental" issues when dealing with development projects that come before it on appeal. 5. Conclusion. For the reasons set forth above, Business Properties Partnership No. 15 requests that the City Council grant its appeal of CUP No. 03-35 (Target) and condition the project to require construction/installation of a traffic signal at the new primary entrance driveway on Brookhurst Street. Business Properties will continue to cooperate with your staff and Target to make a fair share contribution to the cost.of the signal. Alternatively, if for whatever reason the Council is not prepared to place a condition on the project that will alleviate the potentially significant traffic impact, Business Properties submits that the only legal choices the Council would have are to either (1) order preparation of a full EIR for the project before acting upon it or (2) deny . the project outright. Thank you for your consideration of this request. Very truly yours, RUTAN &TUCKER, LLP le M. Oderman JMO:jh cc: L.C. Smull Charles G. Ball City Attorney Jennifer McGrath 112/021166-0012 S15789.01 a07/14/04 Message Page 1 of 1 From: Stachelski, Bob [bstacheiski c@surfcity-hb.org] Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2003 5:00 PM To: 'cb_bp@pacbell.net' Subject: RE: Stater Bros. Center SEC Brookhurst &Adams Chuck, Your timing is great. I've been in some conversations with Target recently and everything seems to be falling together to get the signalized access (finally). They are primarily concerned with their access on Adams and will be looking at signalizing that location. They are not concerned about access on Brookhurst(same location as today) since it is a secondary driveway serving deliveries and out buildings. They will be evaluating operational impacts of the signal on Adams along with their development proposal. At this point, I am comfortable with us having a discussion about what needs to happen in order to get the traffic signalus rI ot warning-I will want to see some level of operational review of the signa in conjunction with the others along Brookhurst to ensure that it will work. The other issues will involve providing equipment on the Target side, in conjunction with any driveway improvements that they may be required to do. I don't plan on seeking any funds for maintenance of this signal. I'm considering it a necessity for dealing with the accident problem with the compromise being the property owner pay or esign an construction and we maintain Give me a call and we can discuss this further. If we need to meet, I'll be glad to work with you to set something up. Hopefully, your schedule won't require all issues to be worked out by tomorrow. We might have some trouble achieving that. However, if it is just an agreement internal to the property,we may be alright. Sincerely, Bob Stachelski Transportation Manager (714) 536-5523 -----Original Message----- From: Chuck Ball [mailto:cb_bp@pacbell.net) Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2003 2:44 PM To: Bob Stachelski Subject: Stater Bros. Center SEC Brookhurst&Adams Bob: The Design Review Board is reviewing Stater Bros. request to remodel the exterior of their building at subject location tomorrow. Staff is recommending approval with some minor modifications. It is imperative that I combine the traffic signal at the median opening on Brookhurst with Landlord's approval of their remodel in order to have them obligated to participate in the costs of that signal. Has anything happened on Target's revisions? If not I strongly request that we be allowed to signalized the existing location and Target have to live with the location if they ever come in for a remodel. Otherwise,we could be mired in this situation for a long, long time. Sincerely, Chuck file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\Administrator\My%20Documents\P#213 Brookh... 5/25/2004 k :�Y w W �.+. ��' �, �h.e� .. M Iwo � � 4 . ,. A' p < y' ��'" � !!'` ,:,, q::44;'^Y' a ''",' r".4�i0 9, "� �9.,+xy v� f}rv. ' h 3 4 l. �. 'C �� ,i� k, T .97w ,',A 'J� fK-'�� 2 Y Intersection Safety �;t-udy for the Intersection of y of Huntington eaeb Of f-1-t ltington Beach .Public Worillo Department. thin ington Beach, CA Nev=mbu 2001 s5 Kimley.Hors and Associaics,lnc. � � 1 � � TABLE OF CONTENTS � EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ------------------------------------.l � INTRODUCTION -----------------------------------------2 EXISTING PHYSICAL CONDITIONS.........................................................................................2 ` Geometric Analysis.----------------------------.-------.4 � Planned Improvements------_---------------------------.K � Existing Operating Conditions............................................................................................9 ' Existing Bus Operations--------------------------------- |O � PedestrianAnalysis........................................................................................................... lO ' Human Factors Analysis................................................................................................... lO � Existing Collision Datu---------------------------------' I � TRAFFIC CONFLICT SURVEY.................................................................................................. 14 DataCollection................................................................................................................. l5 Analysis ............................................................................................................................ l5 DintrihutiwnofTrufficConflictsbvTvoe-------------------- 15 Spatial Distribution uf Traffic Conflicts.............................................................. 18 Traffic Conflict Frequency---------------------------. l8 Average Hourly Conflicts.................................................................................... l8 Average Hourly Conflicts per Thousand Entering Vehicles...............................20 Conflict __------ 21 --�—'� r--------'--------------� | Average Conflict Severity 6vTvo�.....................................................................2l � Overall Average Conflict Severity -----------------------.22 ' Average Conflict Severity Score of4or More....................................................22 Intersection Conflict Index..................................................................................24 Temporal I}istrihudou.------------.----------------24 Conflict Causes and Interpretation........................................................................25 IDENTIFICATION C>F DEFICIENCIES......................................................................................25 DEVELOPMENT OF COUNTERMEASURES...........................................................................26 Red-light Violations..........................................................................................................26 Rear-end Conflicts with Right Turners.............................................................................27 Full-access Driveway Collision History...........................................................................28 | ECONOMICEVALUATION.......................................................................................................28 � Derivation mf Collision Reduction Benefits.-----------------------3l / Benefit/Cost Analysis of Recommended Improvements..................................................32 ' Measures } and 2�: Increase green time for left turns during mid-day period, and install "tut letale" |iuhts------------------------'32 � � Mcumupc3: Construct right-turn laneu--------------.-------.]2 Measure 4: Construct"Worm~medians ut full-access driveways.......................32 � ACTION PLAN.............................................................................................................................33 Phasel: Short-term...........................................................................................................33 Phuoc2: Long-*ernn,hv others------------------------------33 � � MN | / � :rt INTERSECTION SAFETY STUDY FOR THE INTERSECTION OF y BROOKHURST STREEPADAMS AVENUE - IN THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH v Prepared for: The City of Huntington Beach Prepared by: KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 2100 W Orangewood Avenue, Suite 140 Orange, CA 92868 (714) 939-1030 ©November 2001 C:IW/NDOWMDesktoplBrookhursr AdamslBrookhursr Adams.doc LIST OF FIGURES Figure1: Vicinity Map...................................................................................................................... Figure 2: Existing intersection geometry.........................................................................................5 Figure 3: Assigned observation areas............................................................................................ 16 Figure 4: Traffic Conflict Types (Definition)................................................................................ 17 Figure 5: Spatial Distribution of All Traffic Conflicts...................................................................19 Figure 6: Spatial Distribution of Traffic Conflicts with a Severity Score of 4 or Higher..............23 Figure7: "Worm"treatment..........................................................................................................29 Figure 8: Re-assignment of driveway traffic due to"worn"median............................................30 LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Critical intersection timing parameters.............................................................................7 Table 2: Summary of Intersection Operation...................................................................................9 Table 3: Summary of Collision Data by Year................................................................................ I 1 Table 4: Types and severity of collisions within intersection........................................................ 12 Table 5: Temporal distribution of collisions within intersection...................................................13 Table 6: Ratio of PDO* to injury+fatal collisions.......................................................................13 Table 7: Types and severity of collisions at full-access driveways...............................................14 Table 8: Distribution of Traffic Conflicts by Type........................................................................18 Table 9: Summary of Average Total Conflict Severity for each Conflict Type and Overall Average Conflict Severity.......................................................................................................21 Table 10: Distribution of Traffic Conflicts by Type for Conflicts with Severity Scores of 4 or More........................................................................................................................................24 Table 11: Recommended measures to reduce red-light violations................................................26 Table 12: Recommended measure to reduce rear-end conflicts....................................................27 Table 13: Assumed collision costs.................................................................................................31 Table 14: Collision Costs in the Vicinity of Brookhurst Street/Adams Avenue...........................31 APPENDICES APPENDIX A: Traffic count data APPENDIX B: Collision Diagrams APPENDIX C: Traffic Conflict Procedure Manual APPENDIX D: Traffic Conflict Worksheets APPENDIX E: HCS Worksheets APPENDIX F: Illuminance Calculations s` EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Brookllurst Street and Adams Avenue is a heavily traveled intersection on the east side of Huntington Beach. In 1999, State Farm Insurance released a list of the "top ten most dangerous intersections," which showed this intersection as sixth in the nation, based on extrapolation from their claim history. Subsequently, State Farm Insurance made monies available to study and correct deficiencies that may be contributing to collisions at the intersection. This study analyzes the following: • Existing geometric conditions. • Collision history for the most recent three-year period. • Conflicts, which consists of observation of the intersection to record the number and types of collision near-misses. • Potential countermeasures to address the collision history and observed conflicts, Nvitha benefit/cost analysis of each. 1 The collision history indicates a large number of broadside collisions at the full-access driveways t west and south of the intersection (between the Target and Mervyn's department stores to the west, and between Target and the Stater Brothers grocery store to the south). The recommended measure to correct this collision history is installation of a "worm" median treatment (illustrated in Figure 7), which would restrict through and left movements frotn the driveways but allow left turns from the main streets. This measure has a benefit/cost ratio of 23:1. i The conflict analysis revealed a large number of conflicts associated with left turners"running the red light."The recommended measures to reduce red-light running are: • Modifying the traffic signal timing to allow more time for the left-turn phases during off- �. peak periods. • Installing "tattletale" lights to aid red-light enforcement by the Police Department. Normally, red-light enforcement requires two officers; one to observe the traffic signal and the vehicle running the red light, and the other to pull the driver over. Tattletale lights indicate the status of the traffic signal to an officer past the intersection, so that one officer can observe the violation and then pull the driver over. Brookurst/Adams intersection safety study I These two measures together have a benefit/cost ratio of 4:1. Tile report also discusses reducing congestion at the intersection through the installation of right- turn lanes in three of the four directions, an improvement that is being funded by OCTA and is programmed for construction during fiscal year 02-03. INTRODUCTION Tile signalized intersection of Brookhurst Street and Adams Avenue is located in the City of Huntington Beach approximately two miles south of the San Diego Freeway (1-405). A vicinity map is provided on Figure 1. Kimley-Horn and Associates was retained by the City to prepare an intersection safety study that focused on this intersection. This report addresses the following concerns: ❑ Analysis of existing operating conditions, including collision data ❑ Analysis of existing geometric and traffic equipment conditions ❑ Analysis of data from traffic conflict survey ❑ Recommendations for improvement EXISTING PHYSICAL CONDITIONS Brookhurst Street is a six-lane divided arterial running in a north-south direction on the east side of the City of Huntington Beach. Adams Avenue is six-lane divided arterial running in an east- west direction generally through the center of the City of Huntington Beach. Shopping center uses are located at each quadrant of the intersection, and all four legs of the intersection have one or more driveways into the shopping centers.Parking is prohibited on all legs of the intersection. Some of the driveways are full-access; that is, they align with each other to provide four-way intersections, and all movements are permitted in all directions (left, through, right). Such driveways occur to the north, west, and south of the intersection. These driveways have special significance in this report and are termed "full-access driveways." The intersection and driveway configurations are illustrated later in this report, in Figure 2. Brookurst/Adams intersection safety study 2 - N N.T.S. OAF BOLSA CO MC FADDEN ui J = o EDINGER _ ¢ O Z U 0 z zHEIL �� L O Ln U a m WARNER a ``' o z o w w x SLATER a .0 0 o Q 405 �Cj) TALBERT O m PACIFIC /� t ELLIS 4 GARFIELD _ a C �,` YORK. WN 3 , AD AM S - V 1 b 0 Z INDIANAPOLIS a �9�cF o o ? = ATLANTA a < 00 p a u a ui m m Z HAMILTON OCEAN BANNING --STUDY INTERSECTION Q g FIGURE 1 y VICINITY MAP ❑®0 Kimley—Horn and Associates, Inc. Geometric Analysis Brookhurst Street is a major arterial with 120' of right-of-way. The north and south legs have a curb-to-curb width of 96 feet, with 12-foot parkways on each side. Adams Avenue is a major arterial with a planned right-of-way width of 120 feet. However,the ultimate right-of-way has not yet been acquired on the east leg. The east leg has a right-of-way of 100 feet, with a curb-to-curb width of 84 feet and eight-foot parkways on each side. The west leg has a right-of-way width of 120 feet, with a curb-to-curb width of 96 feet and 12-foot parkways on each side. The intersection of Brookhurst Street and Adams Avenue is signalized with protected left-turn phasing at all approaches. All four approaches to the intersection have two exclusive left-turn lanes, two through lanes; and one shared through/right-turn lane. Left-turn lane widths are tite standard width of 10 feet. Due to right-of-way constraints, through lanes are 10 or 1 I feet wide, which is less than the City's standard of 12, feet for through lanes. The two streets are perpendicular to each other and have no horizontal or vertical curvature approaching the intersection. Horizontal and vertical sight distances are adequate on all legs of the intersection. All traffic signal indications utilize 12-inch sections and are placed in positions to provide sufficient driver visibility to make the proper decision in an ample amount of time. Signs, street lights, and utility power poles are set back behind the curb and do not obstruct the view for any turning vehicles at the intersection. The existing curb returns all have a radius of 40 feet, which exceeds the City's standard of 35 feet and is sufficient for vehicles of all sizes. The existing intersection geometry is illustrated on Figure 2. The Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) serves the area with bus stops in the vicinity of the intersection. Bus stops are located on both sides of Brookhurst Street. On the west side of Brookhurst Street, the bus stop is located approximately 460' south of Adams Avenue. On the east side of Brookhurst Street, the bus stop is approximately 180' north of Adams Avenue. Along Adams Avenue, west of Brookhurst Street, bus stops are located on the north side approximately 330' from the intersection and on the south side approximately 365' from the intersection. The bus stops were placed away from the corners of the intersection to help reduce traffic conflicts and delays for other vehicles while the buses stop. However, conflicts and delays were still observed in the field. Brookurst/Adams intersection safety study 4 i N.T.S. „ FULL-ACCESS DRIVEWAY (NOT HEAVILY USED) MERVYN'S " I r - w r Ln I, , I II II I it it , FULL—ACCESS DRIVEWAY I " I Jill/ ----_--------- 600---' -------ADAMS / AVENUE --- ---- --------- ----------------------------- t I Ln Of II II OII II o l II II i m III „ I I II II I I II II I TARGET FULL-ACCESS DRIVEWAY � 11 11 STATER BROTHERS FIGURE 2 EXISTING LANE GEOMETRY Kimley—Horn and Associates, Inc. Tile posted speed limit on both Brookhurst Street and Adams Avenue is 45 miles per hour (►nplt). A speed survey was recently conducted by the City and indicated an 85"' percentile speed of between 49 and 52 mph for Brookhurst Street in this vicinity, and between 52 and 55 mph for Adams Avenue in this vicinity. According to Caltrans standards, the stopping sight distance for a 50-mph design speed roadway 475 feet. Measurements indicate that intersection sight distance from the stop bars is greater than 475 feet. Four safety (street) lights are provided at the intersection, each of which is 400 watts. An illuminance calculation was performed to check light levels (Appendix F). The calculation indicates that the average maintained illuminance in the intersection is 1.91 foot-candles, which is above the standard of 1.6 foot-candles for this type of facility. The majority of the collisions occur during the daytime (72%). Also, the ratio of collisions per million entering vehicles is similar between day and night time periods (0.44 and 0.46, respectively),which means collisions are occurring at the same rate day and night. This would support the assertion that nighttime luminance is sufficient. The road signs and pavement markings provided at the intersection of Brookhurst Street and Adams Avenue relate to primary vehicular movements. The pavement markings are in the process of being converted from paint plus reflectorized pavement markings (RPM's) to ceramic markers plus RPM's. The signage includes "Signal Ahead" warning signs on all approaches, speed limit signs, and guide signs for the visitor's bureau and chamber of commerce. Pedestrians can legally cross both Brookhurst Street and Adams Avenue via marked crosswalks on all four legs. Audible and visual crossing signals are also provided on each leg of the intersection. The traffic signal timing was inspected for conformance with generally accepted safety standards (specifically, those published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers'Traffrc Signal Design Manual, 2"d Edition). Tile following table summarizes our findings. Brookurst/Adams intersection safety study 6 "Table I: Critical intersection timing parameters j Parameter Movement Parameter Value I properly set? Yellow 5.1 sec Yes E-W through All-red interval 1.7 sec i Yes Minimum green 10 sec Yes Yellow 4.9 sec Yes N-S through All-red interval 1.7 sec Yes Minimum green 10 sec Yes Yellow 3.0 sec Yes All left turns All-red interval 1 2.0 sec Yes Minimum green 3 sec Yes E-W pedestrians Flashing don't walk 18 sec 1'es N-S pedestrians Flashing don't walk 17 sec Yes Yellow clearance interval: The criterion for determining whether the yellow clearance interval is properly set is based on whether a vehicle traveling at or near the 85°i percentile speed can safely decide whether to stop for. a red light. If the driver decides to stop, he/she should be able to decelerate at a comfortable rate. If the driver decides that lie/she cannot stop comfortably in time, then the light should not yet be red when the driver enters the intersection. A calculation is used to determine the length of the yellow clearance interval, which accounts for drivers' speeds and r. preferred deceleration rates, as well as roadway conditions such as grade. It was found that the yellow clearance intervals at this intersection were set in accordance with this calculation. All-red clearance interval: The criterion for determining whether the all-red clearance interval is properly set is based on whether a vehicle traveling at or near the 85"' percentile speed that ;i. (legally) enters the intersection as it turns red can pass through the intersection before opposing ;I vehicles are displayed a green indication. (This vehicle need only get as far as the farthest ! opposing lane, because from that position the vehicle can clearly be seen by the conflicting traffic.) As with the yellow clearance interval, a calculation is used to determine the length of the all-red clearance interval. It was found that the all-red clearance intervals at this intersection were I set in accordance with this calculation. Minimum green: As the name implies, the minimum green interval determines the minimum 1 amount of time the traffic movement will be displayed a green indication before it can be terminated. (The green interval can last longer than the minimum time if traffic demand is present.) The criterion for determining whether this interval is properly set is based on whether Y Brookurst/Adams intersection safety study 7 r, drivers approaching the intersection when the light turns green will be able to proceed through the intersection on green (or yellow). Drivers are trained to scan intersections for conflicts as soon as they know they will be proceeding through the intersection, and may in fact stop paying attention to the traffic signal indications; since they intend to proceed, the indications become irrelevant. When a driver approaching an intersection sees the traffic signal turn green, lie or she will often assume the light will remain green long enough to proceed through it. Violating this expectation can result in collisions as well as driver frustration. Unlike the yellow and all-red clearance intervals, no calculation is used for this parameter. However, this parameter is found to be set in accordance with current City standards for both the through and left-turn movements. Flashing don't walk: This interval is set to allow a person who enters the crosswalk during the "walk" (i.e., walking man) indication to reach to the farthest opposing lane before conflicting traffic is displayed a green indication. The pedestrian's assumed walking speed is four feet per second. As with yellow and all-red clearance intervals, a calculation is used to determine the length of the flashing don't walk interval. It was found that the flashing don't walk intervals at this intersection were set in accordance with this calculation. The traffic signal operates in a coordinated manner during peak periods on weekdays (7-9 AM, 11:30 AM-1:30 PM, and 3-8 PM):The cycle length is I20 seconds. The intersection responds to actuations by the vehicle detectors on all phases, though during coordination the through movement detection is disabled for progression reasons. The phase order (that is, whether left turns or through movements go first)varies, again for progression reasons. At all other times and on weekends, the intersection runs in a "free" or uncoordinated . manner, serving traffic sequentially based upon vehicle detector actuations. Planned Improvements The Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) is funding the installation of right-turn lanes for three legs of the project intersection: northbound, eastbound, and westbound. This project is scheduled for completion in 2002. The lengths of these lanes will be: eastbound, 105 feet; northbound, 250 feet; and westbound, 410 feet. The project will not change the width of the adjacent through lanes. i Brookurst/Adams intersection safety study 8 r• Existing Operating Conditions Morning (7:00 AM to 9:00 AM), midday (1 1:30 ANI to 1:30 PM), and afternoon (4:00 PM to 6:00 PM) peak period traffic counts Were made at the project intersection on Tuesday, May 1, 2001. The morning peak hour began at 7:30 AM, the midday peak hour began at 12:15 PM, and the afternoon peak hour began at 4:15 PM. Traffic counts summaries are provided in Appendix A. The peak hourly delay and level of service (LOS) of the intersection was analyzed using the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodology for signalized intersections. The software is based on the 2000 version of tile HCM. Signal phasing and timing information was obtained from the City of Huntington Beach Engineering Department for use in the analysis. The results of the delay and LOS analysis are provided on Table 2. This table indicates that the intersection of Brookhurst Street/Adams Avenue operates at LOS E during the morning peak hour with a delay of 78.9 seconds per vehicle. During the midday peak (tour, the intersection operates at LOS D with a delay of 50.3 seconds per vehicle. y ti During the afternoon peak hour, the calculation indicates that the intersection operates at LOS D K t with a delay of 51.2 seconds per vehicle. However, the methodology is based on the number of vehicles discharged from the stop bar, which does not account for the long queues that are actually observed in the field. A special field delay measurement would need to be undertaken at �+ this intersection in order to quantify the actual delay conditions at this intersection; such a study was out of the scope of this project. It is clear, however, that since cycle failures occur regularly on the westbound approach during the PM peak period (that is, not all cars clear the intersection { before it turns red),the intersection is in a breakdown, or LOS F, condition during this period. Table 2: Summary of Intersection Operation AM Peak Hour Midday Peak Hour PM Peak Hour 1-= Delay LOS DelEy== LOS Delay LOS 78.9 sec I E 50.3 sec I D 51.2 sec* D* a *—See discussion regarding PM peak period intersection operation 1. Brookurst/AdamS intersection safety study 9 Existing Bus Operations Bus stops are located at the intersection as follows: I. Southbound direction, 460 feet south of intersection 2. Northbound direction, 180 feet north of intersection 3. Eastbound direction, 365 feet west of intersection 4. Westbound direction,330 feet west of intersection As there are no bus turnouts, when buses stop for passengers, motorists tend to stack up behind the bus in the outside lane. The stacked vehicles did not extend into the intersection at any time. A common observation was the tendency of some drivers to swerve around the stopped bus, into the adjacent lane, and on occasion creating traffic conflicts. Pedestrian Analysis Observation during the traffic conflict survey indicated that the pedestrian level was on the order of approximately 20 pedestrians per approach during the peak hours. Pedestrians were not involved to a great degree in the occurrence of traffic conflicts. Observed vehicle/pedestrian conflicts accounted for 9 percent of the total traffic conflicts observed. The primary vehicle/pedestrian conflicts involved vehicles making right turns while a pedestrian was in the crosswalk. Human Factors Analysis Observations indicate that a significant number of drivers traverse the intersection at ahigh rate of speed. As reported previously, the 85"' percentile speeds in the vicinity of-tile intersection range from 49 to 55 miles per hour. Many of these drivers were accelerating to enter the intersection prior to(or even during)the red indication. All four corners of the intersection are fully developed with a variety of retail/commercial uses. Observation indicated that there are no obstacles related to land use or landscaping that would hinder the motorists' line of sight in any direction. Brookurst/Adams intersection safety study 10 Existing Collision Data Traffic collision data diagrams for the intersection of Brookhurst Street and Adams Avenue were obtained from the City of Huntington Beach Police Department for the time period from January 5 1998 to December 2000 (a three-year period). The data include all collisions that occurred within i 900 feet of the intersection. The collision data included the date and time of the collision, the distance from the intersection, the direction of travel, the type of collisions,the primary collision factor, and other data. Tile collision diagrams and descriptions are provided in Appendix B. During the .three-year time period, 125 collisions were reported within 900 feet of the ' intersection. Of the 125 collisions, 26 (21%) of the collisions were between 1 I and 100 feet of the intersection and 12 (10%) of the collisions were actually in the intersection. In this report;` collisions at the intersection are taken to be those within 100 feet of the intersection, including within the intersection. Table 3 summarizes the collision data by year for the intersection of Brookhurst Street and Adams Avenue. The accident history is relatively uniform from year to year. Table 3: Summary of Collision Data by Year Year Number of Collisions Cause of Collision* 900' to 100' to Within Driver Traffic Signals Other than Unknown 101' of l l' of 10' of Behavior or Signs Driver or Ped is Int. Int. Int. 1998 31 13 2 31/11/1 0/0/1 0/1/0 0/1/0 1999 1 28 1 6 1 6 28/6/2 0/0/3 0/0/0 0/0/1 2000 27 It 8 4 26/8/3 0/0/1 0/0/0 1/0/0 Total 87 26 12 86/24/6 0/0/5 0/1/0 1/1/1 *-900' to 100'/ 100' to 0'/within intersection I This table indicates that of the 87 collisions that took place between 101 and 900 feet of the intersection, 86 of the collisions were due to driver behavior (right-of-way violations, driving/biking on the wrong side of the road, unsafe speed, improper turns, following too closely, unsafe starting or backing, unsafe lane changes, driving under the influence, improper passing, and other hazardous movements), and one was due to unknown factors. Of the 26 collisions that took place between 11 and 100 feet of the intersection, 24 of the collisions were due to driver behavior, one was due to a factor other than a driver or pedestrian, and one was due to unknown Brookurst/Adams intersection safety study 11 factors. Of the 12 collisions that took place within the intersection, six of the collisions were due to driver behavior, five were due to traffic signs or signals, and two were due to unknown factors. No pedestrian collisions and four bicycle collisions were recorded at the subject intersection. One of the bicycle collisions was within 100 feet of the intersection. Three of the bicycle collisions were beyond 100 feet of the intersection. No fatalities were recorded over the three-year time period. Injuries were recorded for 33% of the collisions. Thirty-nine percent of all reported collisions were broadside collisions. The main primary collision factor in these collisions was attributed to automobile right-of-way violations. Thirty- five percent of the collisions were rear-end collisions. The main primary collision factor in these collisions was attributed mainly to unsafe speed, but also included factors such as following too closely, improper turns, driving under the influence, unsafe starting or backing, and automobile right-of-way violations. Tables 4 and 7 demonstrate.that the broadside collisions occur away from the intersection at the full-access driveways, and the rear-end collisions occur at the intersection. Table 4 presents the types of accidents occurring at the study intersection (that is, within 100 feet of the intersection, including within the intersection). Table 4: Types and severity of collisions within intersection Number of collisions Collision type PDO* Injury Fatality Total Rear-end 13 7 0 20 Broadside 7 1 0 8 Head-on 2 0 0 2 Sideswipe 4 1 0 5 Hit object 1 1 0 2 Other/not stated 1 0 0 1 Total 28 10 0 38 *—Property Damage Only Table 5 presents the temporal distribution of collisions at the study intersection (that is, within 100 feet of the intersection, including within the intersection). Brookurst/Adams intersection safety study 12 Table 5: Temporal distribution of collisions within intersection Daily :o of total Collisions Time Period volume Collisions collisions /MEV* AM peak (7a-IOa): 18542 5 13% 0.25 Mid-day peak(1 la-2p): 18367 13 34% 0.65 PM peak (3p-6p): 25476 11 29% 0.39 Evening(7p-1 Ip): 13229 5 13% 0.35 Late night(12a-6a): 4798 4 1 1% 0.76 *—Collisions per million entering vehicles This table shows that collisions most often occur during the mid-day peak period, and also that the ratio of collisions per million entering vehicles is higher than average during the mid-day peak period. This ratio is also high late at night,though total collisions at this time are low. } Full-access driveways: The collision data were inspected to determine the number of collisions that were associated with maneuvers in the vicinity of the Target-Mervyn's driveways approximately 600 feet west of the subject intersection, and the Target-Stater Brothers driveways approximately 600 feet south of the study intersection. These driveways allow all movements (left, through, right in all directions), so this report refers to them as the "full-access driveways." It was found that 39 of the collisions involved users of these driveways, which is 31% of all collisions within 900 feet of the study intersection. Sixty-seven percent of these driveway collisions occur at the west driveway (26 to the west vs. 13 to the south). The number of collisions reported at these driveways is the same as the total collisions reported within 100 feet of the intersection (including collisions within the intersection). This means that the driveways are just as collision-prone as the Brookhurst-Adams intersection itself. The ratio of Property Damage Only (PDO) to injury and fatal collisions was calculated the intersection, the driveway areas, and combined. The following table summarizes the results: Table 6: Ratio of PDO* to injury+fatal collisions Location Ratio Within 100' of intersection(including within intersection) 74%PDO,26% injury+fatal Greater than 100' from intersection 59% PDO,41% injury+fatal All collisions 63%PDO, 37% injury+fatal *—Property Damage Only Brookurst/Adams intersection safety study 13 This table shows that the collisions farther away from the intersection (which encompass the full- access driveways)tend to be significantly more severe than the collisions at the intersection. Table 7 summarizes the types and severity of collisions that were observed at the full-access driveways.The majority of these accidents, by far,are broadside collisions. Table 7: Types and severity of collisions at full-access driveways Number of collisions Collision type PDO* Injury I Fatality I Total Rear-end 1 1 0 2 Broadside 17 14 0 31 Head-on 2 1 0 3 Sideswipe 2 0 0 2 Hit object 0 0 0 0 Other/not stated 1 0 0 1 Total 23 16 1 0 1 39 *—Property Damage Only TRAFFIC CONFLICT SURVEY A traffic conflict survey was conducted at the intersection of Brookhurst Street and Adams Avenue in accordance with the Traffic Conflict Procedure Manual (herein referred to as the TCPM) published by G. D. Hamilton Associates Consulting Ltd (November 1996). The manual outlines the methodologies and analyses involved in determining the level of traffic conflicts, as compared to actual collisions, at a particular intersection. A copy of the manual is provided as Appendix C to this report. A traffic conflict is defined as occurring when "two or more road users approach the same point in time and space, and at least one road user takes successful evasive actions to avoid a collision..."In other words, if two drivers are on a collision course and one takes action to avoid the other, a conflict is defined as having occurred. Conflict analysis can supplement collision analysis to identify intersection deficiencies and identify corrective measures. Brookurst/Adams intersection safety study 14 t Data Collection Each approach to the intersection of Brooklturst Street and Adams Avenue was observed for a total of eight hours (three hours during the morning peak period, two hours during the midday peak period and three hours during the afternoon peak period). The observers were positioned as recommended by the TCPM. Their locations and assigned observation points are illustrated in Figure 3. During this time, any observed traffic conflicts were recorded. According to the traffic conflict procedure manual referenced previously, a traffic conflict is defined as "a simple evasive j l I' action by drivers to avoid collisions." The traffic conflict worksheets are provided as Appendix :i D to this report. The traffic conflict worksheets note the time of day, the weather condition, the j+ type of evasive action taken, the Time-to-Collision score, the Risk of Collision score and the total score. Tile types of evasive actions that are represented on these forms are illustrated in Figure 4 (later in this report). Analysis Tile traffic conflict manual outlines seven analysis methods and tools that have been developed to analyze the traffic conflict data. The traffic conflict data collected at the intersection of Brookhurst Street and Adams Avenue will be addressed in the context of these methods and tools. Distribution of Traffic Conflicts by Type The observed traffic conflict types were identified and are summarized in Table 8. The conflict type definitions are shown in Figure 4,which is a re-print of Figure 2.8 from the TCPM. Table 8 ! indicates that rear-end conflicts were most prominent (41%), followed by left-turn crossing conflicts (27%). Obser=ved causes of the rear-end conflicts can be attributed to vehicles slowing to make right turns at the intersection. Observed causes of the left-turn opposing conflicts (and left- turn crossing conflicts, depending on the phasing in effect at the time) can be attributed to vehicles entering the intersection during the all-red phase. Brookurst/Adams intersection safety study 15 0 200' TYP. O O - LEGEND: Q OBSERVER POSITION OBSERVER 1 OBSERVATION AREA OBSERVER 2 OBSERVATION AREA OBSERVER 3 OBSERVATION AREA OBSERVER 4 OBSERVATION AREA FIGURE 3 OBSERVER POSITIONS AND ASSIGNED OBSERVATION AREAS y Cl®❑ Kimley—Horn and Associates, Inc. •i i 1 Left-turn Left-turn Opposing Crossing Crossing Rear-end J�L J L J L L _._.i L_ J f L J L J ! t —1 F —I 1— 7 X(— . 7 F 7 t F —) t f f F- i 1 �LJ J LJ�L J L J L J L J L J �� S J L J L J �L J L J L J1 L J1 L J1 L J L J L J L J�L Jj L J L JI L J L J� L L L L .l 4 E Right-turn Weaving Pedestrian J J L J L J L J L J!J_ J L J L t X J�L J L J L J L —LxL J L J L J XL J L I J L J ; L J L J L � L JJ L J�L U -►x x X J L J L J . L J L J L J J L J L Soure Tro"Ic Conflkt Procedure Manual. 2nd Ed.. HomPton do Amodat" FIGURE 4 CONFLICT TYPES El®® Kimley—Horn and Associates, Inc. Table 8: Distribution of Traffic Conflicts by Type Conflict Type* Number of Total Conflicts Percent of Total Conflicts Rear-end 33 4 I% Left-turn Opposing 22. 27% Left-turn Crossing 10 12% Other 8 10% Pedestrian/Cyclist 7 9% Right turn 1 1% Crossing 0 0% TOTAL 81 100% *—Conflict types are illustrated in Figure 4 Spatial Distribution of Traffic Conflicts A conflict diagram was prepared to summarize the spatial distribution of the observed traffic conflicts. The conflict diagram is presented in Figure 5. Figure 5 illustrates that the majority of conflicts are rear-end conflicts in conjunction with right turns and left-turn opposing and left-turn crossing conflicts. Traffic Conflict Frequency Traffic conflict frequencies can measured by 1) determining the Average Hourly Conflict(AHC) factor and 2) determining the AHC per Thousand Entering Vehicles (AHC/TEV) factor. The following paragraphs describe each factor and assess the intersection of Brooklurst Street and Adams Avenue in terms of these factors. Average Hourly Conflicts The Average Hourly Conflicts (AHC) factor is calculated by dividing the total number of observed conflicts at an intersection by the number of observation hours. Each approach to the intersection of Brookhurst Street and Adams Avenue was observed for 8 hours; therefore, the total number of conflicts observed (81) is divided by the number of observation hours (8), resulting in an AHC of 10.0. Brookurst/Adams intersection safety study 18 I N NOT TO SCALE f1 t� ADAMS AVE, !! JL L L L L k-4- J� J- J-- I. ,rw V/ C3 C3 P4 i FIGURE 5 a SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION OF ALL TRAFFIC CONFLICTS ❑®❑ Kimley—Horn and Associates, Inc. i N NOT TO SCALE ADAMS AVE, fL XXXX J LLLLLx--LLB l Y O O Pal " S FIGURE 6 SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION OF TRAFFIC CONFLICTS y WITH A SEVERITY SCORE OF 4 OR HIGHER Kimley—Hom and Associates, Inc. f ) Table 10: Distribution of Traffic Conflicts by Type for Conflicts «ith Severitv Scores of 4 or More Conflict Type Number of Severe Conflicts i % of Total Conflicts Above 4 1 E Rear-end 8 16% I Left-turn Opposing 21 41% i f Left-turn Crossing 10 19% Other 4 8% I Pedestrian/Cyclist 7 14% Right turn 1 2% F Crossing 0 0% TOTAL 51 100% t 4 Intersection Conflict Index The traffic conflict manual provides an Intersection Conflict Index (ICI), shown on Figure 4.6 of the manual. The ICI correlates the OACS and AHC/TEV values in order to summarize the conflict risk at an intersection. The ICI regions are stratified into five levels of conflict risk, ranging from A to E, similar to Level of Service measures of capacity. Plotting the OACS and the AHC/TEV on the ICI results in an ICI of D for the intersection of Brookhurst Street and Adams s Avenue. Comparing the ICI of D to the ICI summary table provided in the manual (Table 4.1) 1 shows that the conflict risk of the intersection is in the High range. Temporal Distribution l: In this methodology, the AHC and AHC/TEV are recalculated for each peak hour. This analysis t, may identify a particular peak hour where conflicts are more prevalent. 1; L- The AHC for the morning peak hour was found to be -10.0, for the midday peak, 8.5, for the afternoon peak 4.33. This would indicate that the morning peak hour has a higher number of total conflicts per hour than the midday and afternoon peak hours. :1 i; . i� The AHC/TEV for the morning peak hour was found to be 1.86; the AHC/TEV for the midday R'! peak was found to be 2.07; and the AHC/TEV for the afternoon peak was found to be 0.81. This l would indicate that the midday peak hour has a higher number of.conflicts per thousand vehicles ' than the morning and afternoon peak hours. - Brookurst/Adams intersection safety study 24 Conflict Causes and Interpretation Red-light violations: Left-turn opposing conflicts account for 27% of total conflicts and 4 1% of severe conflicts. Left-turn crossing conflicts account for 12% of total conflicts and 19% of severe conflicts at the intersection. These conflicts are caused by left turning vehicles that illegally enter the intersection during the all-red phases of the signal. When the left-turn phase leads, an opposing conflict occurs; when the left-turn phase lags, a crossing conflict occurs. Rear-end conflicts with right turners: Rear-end conflicts account for 41% of the total conflicts at the intersection (but only 16% of severe conflicts). Many of these rear-end conflicts are due to vehicles slowing to make a right turn and following vehicles braking to avoid a rear-end collision. IDENTIFICATION OF DEFICIENCIES As indicated in the traffic conflicts section of this report, the three primary traffic conflicts at the intersection of Brookhurst Street and Adams Avenue are rear-end ,conflicts (41%), left-turn opposing conflicts(27%), and left-turn crossing conflicts(12%). Many of the rear-end conflicts are due to vehicles slowing to make a right turn and following vehicles braking to avoid a rear-end collision. This conflict type will be alleviated by the OCTA project to install right-turn pockets on three of the four approaches to the intersection. It should be noted that per Figure 6, very few severe right-turn conflicts were observed on the southbound approach, so no additional work is proposed at the northwest corner (which is the corner which will not be affected by right-turn lane construction). Left-turn opposing conflicts and left-turn crossing conflicts are caused by vehicles making left turns who turn during the amber or all-red phases of the signal. An observed deficiency related to these conflicts is the relatively short green time allowed for left-turning vehicles during the peak hours, particularly in the eastbound and westbound directions. Brookurst/Adams intersection safety study 25 DEVELOPMENT OF COUNTERMEASURES Red-light Violations The following table summarizes the recommended countermeasures to reduce red-light violations: Table 11: Recommended measures to reduce red-light violations Measure Type of conflict or Expected number Description Purpose collision reduced I reduction 1 Lengthen left-turn green Reduce red-light Left-turn opposing, 10% time running Left-turn crossing Ease enforcement of Left-turn opposing, ° Left-turn crossing 2 Install"tattletale" lights red-light running b 5/° Provide right-turn lanes for Reduce congestion, Left-turn opposing, 3 northbound,eastbound,and thereby reducing red- Left-turn crossing 10% westbound approaches light running Discussion of the proposed measures: 1. Consider lengthening the green time for left-turn movements in order to lessen or eliminate the occurrence of red-light violations. This is expected to reduce the severe left- turn opposing and left-turn crossing conflicts by 10%. The timing change would occur during the mid-day peak period, which is when conflict rates are highest (per the AHC/TEV measurement in the previous section) and when surplus capacity exists. 2. Consider "tattletale" lights on each approach to the intersection to aid red-light enforcement by the Police Department. Normally, red-light enforcement requires two officers; one to observe the traffic signal and the vehicle running the red light, and the other to pull the driver over. Tattletale lights indicate the status of the traffic signal to an officer past the intersection, so that one officer can observe the violation and then pull the driver over. This is expected to reduce the severe left-turn opposing and left-turn crossing conflicts by another 5% (in addition to Measure 1). 3. The main cause of red-light running at the subject intersection is congestion. Reducing congestion during peak periods would reduce the observed left-turn crossing and opposing conflict patterns by reducing the pressure to run red lights. If the severe left-turn opposing and left-turn crossing conflicts were reduced by 15% (the sum of the measures 1 and 2), then total severe conflicts (per Table 10) would be reduced from 51 to 46, a reduction of 9%. Since severe conflicts correlate well with collision rates, we could expect a Brookurst/Adams intersection safety study 26 corresponding reduction in collisions of 9%. Tile observed three-year collision history at this intersection (per Table 3) within 100 feet of the intersection (including the intersection) is 38 collisions, or 13 collisions per year. A 9% reduction equates to one fewer collision per year as a result of these two improvements. It is assumed the type of collision being reduced is property- damage-only, since left-turn.collisions generally occur at low speed. If measure 3 were implemented, then capacity at the intersection would be improved by approximately 8% (as measured by the Intersection Capacity Utilization method) during the PM peak period (the time at which the intersection is most congested). This is expected to reduce severe conflicts due to red-light running by an additional 10% over the previously discussed measures. Thus, severe conflicts would be reduced to 44, an additional 6% reduction over all other measures (including the right-turn pockets described in the next section, which are already programmed for construction). This equates to one fewer collision per year. As with the prior measures, it is assumed the type of collision being reduced is property-damage-only, since left- turn collisions generally occur at low speed. Rear-end Conflicts with Right Turners The following table summarizes the recommended countermeasure to reduce rear-end conflicts: Table 12: Recommended measure to reduce rear-end conflicts Measure Type of conflict or Expected number Description Purpose collision reduced reduction Provide right-turn lanes for Reduce severe conflicts and 3* northbound,eastbound,and collisions between right-turning Rear-end 50% westbound approaches and through vehicles *—Same measure as in previous section This measure is the same as that recommended in the last section to reduce red-light running due to congestion. Eight severe rear-end conflicts were observed at the study intersection.A 50% reduction in severe rear-end conflicts would reduce total severe conflicts at the intersection by 9%. The observed three-year collision history at this intersection (per Table 3) within 100 feet of the intersection (including the intersection) is 38 collisions, or 13 collisions per year. A 9% reduction equates to one fewer collision per year as a result of this improvement. Brookurst/Adams intersection safety study 27 H �1 This countermeasure is already funded and programmed by the City for FY 02-03. as described �! l: earlier in the "Planned Improvements'* section. I� I i Full-access Driveway Collision History II i The collision data indicate a significant number of collisions in the vicinity of the Target- 4 Mervyn's driveways approximately 600 feet west of the intersection, and the Target-Stater Brothers driveway approximately 600 feet south of the intersection (tile"full-access driveways."). E To help prevent future collisions at these driveways, the follo,,vinb measure is recommended: l 4. Consider a median treatment such as a "worm" to preclude through and left movements I out of the full-access driveways to the west and south of the study intersection. f The"worm"treatment described is illustrated in Figure 7. This measure is expected to eliminate all head-on and 75% of broadside collision types. Table 7 ' F showed the collision history of the full-access driveways. Per this table, this corresponds to a reduction of 26 collisions during the three-year collision history, or nine collisions per year. t{ Tile restriction of left and through movements at the two driveways will cause changes in traffic patterns. Figure 8 shows how traffic will be re-assigned as a result of the median construction. The additional traffic at Brookhurst Street/Adams Avenue will increase Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) by 2.3%. The future right-turn lanes will mitigate this impact. I ECONOMIC EVALUATION The economic evaluation consists of a benefit/cost analysis of the recommended safety improvements. The cost of each improvement is based on a planning-level engineering cost estimate. The benefit is based on the amount of collision reduction and type of collision, and was calculated as follows. ' I f Brookurst/Adams intersection safety study 28 II II I I I I II II I I y 1 1 II II i I ( ► REMOVE 4' MEDIAN AND ► INSTALL DOUBLE YELLOW STRIPE (TYP.) ii II I 4, I I I II II I ► ( I fl ► ► I I � I I ► I I -I I I I I ► I I � i I i II II FIGURE 7 "WORM" TREATMENT Kimley—Horn and Associates, Inc. Ln Lo CN ADAIJS +37/+38 119/146 J 56/72 216/866 879/1385 +38/+39� 124/102 r 44/72 ^ r n N D � tr W) V + rl p I- Y O O m LEGEND. 119/146 MID-DAY/PM PEAK PERIOD TURNING MOVEMENT VOLUMES (NOTE: AM VOLUMES AT DRIVEWAYS ARE NOMINAL) N to o_\UD \N\ N co In 59/97 55/1{8 �1 O III N m < o m m I � 1 e P a O FIGURE 8 RE-ASSIGNMENT OF DRIVEWAY TRAFFIC g m y DUE TO "WORM" MEDIAN c. Cam❑ Kimley—Horn and Associates, In Derivation of Collision Reduction Benefits Collision costs were taken from Caltrans data for HES (Hazard Elimination Safety) Program guidelines (Local Assistance Program Guidelines, Page 9-10, "Safety Index Calculation"). The urban values were used for injury and fatal collisions. These values are intended to cover the average societal and insurance costs of the collisions. The following table summarizes the collision costs that were used: Table 13: Assumed collision costs Collision Type Collision Cost Property Damage Only(PDO) $3,200 Fatal+ Injury $24,000 Separate data for injury and fatal collisions are not available. The combined cost for these collision types is based on observed ratios between costs and numbers of injury and fatal collisions in California,which are assumed to hold true for Huntington Beach. The ratios of PDO to injury + fatal collisions were presented in Table 6. Given these ratios and the collision costs above,a table can be constructed showing the overall average cost of collisions in the vicinity of the study intersection: Table 14: Collision Costs in the Vicinity of Brookhurst Street/Adams Avenue Location Ratio(from Table 5) Average Collision Cost At intersection 74%PDO,26%injury+fatal $8,674 At driveways 59%PDO,41%injury+fatal $11,709 All collisions 63%PDO,37%injury+fatal $10,794 This table shows that the average collision cost is higher at the driveways since collisions tend to be more severe there than at the intersection itself. Capital costs must be incurred to construct improvements, but the benefits (in terms of reduced collisions) are accrued over time. It is assumed that any collision reduction benefits would accrue over 20 years. Thus, for example, reducing PDO collisions by one per year would result in a benefit of(20 * $3,200), or$64,000. Brookurst/Adams intersection safety study 31 r Benefit/Cost Analysis of Recommended Improvements Measures I and 2: Increase green time.for left turns during mid-day period, and install "tattletale"lights Cost: For the signal timing change, eight hours of staff time to implement and fine-tune the new timing, @ $90/hour, or$720. For the design and installation of "tattletale" lights: $5,000 to design the improvements, and $10,000 to construct the improvements, for a total cost of $15,000. The total cost of both improvements is $15,720. Benefit: Reduction of one PDO collision per year for 20 years: 20 * $3,200, or$64,000. Ratio: The benefit/cost ratio of implementing Measures 1 and 2 is $64,000 divided by $15,720, or 4:1. Measure 3: Construct right-turn lanes Cost: The cost of designing, acquiring right-of-way, and constructing three additional right-turn lanes at the study intersection is currently budgeted at $871,000. Benefit: Twofold benefit. Congestion reduction estimated to reduce PDO collisions by one per year. Rear-end conflict reduction estimated to reduce collisions within the project intersection by one per year. Benefit equates to 20 * ($3,200 + $8,674),or$237,480. Ratio: The benefit/cost ratio of implementing Measure 3 is $237,480 divided by $871,000,or 0.3°l. Measure 4: Construct "Worm"medians at full-access driveways Cost: The cost of designing and constructing both recommended "worm" medians is $90,000. Benefit: Reduction of nine collisions per year at the driveways for 20 years: 20 * 9 $11,709,or$2,107,620. Ratio: The benefit/cost ratio of implementing Measure 3 is $2,107,620 divided by $90,000, or 23:1. i Brookurst/Adams intersection safety study 32 ACTION PLAN Phase 1: Short-term The recommended short-term improvements are: • Lengthen green time for left turners during mid-day(Measure 1). • Install tattletale lights to aid in red-light photo enforcement(Measure 2). • Install "worm" medians at the.Target-Mervyn's driveways to the west of the intersection and at the Target-Stater Brothers driveways to the south of the intersection (Measure 4). The benefits and costs of the short-term improvements were outlined in the economic evaluation section. The total cost of the recommended measures is $105,720.. Phase 2: Long-term, by others The following measure has a benefit/cost ratio of less than one. Therefore, it does not warrant construction for safety reasons alone. • Installation of right-turn pockets in the northbound, eastbound, and westbound directions to reduce the observed right-turn conflict pattern (Measure 4). This improvement has already been programmed by the City, will be funded by a grant from OCTA, and is scheduled for completion in FY 02-03. Brookurst/Adams intersection safety study 33 II. APPENDICES a t Collision Diagram North/South Street: BROOKHURST STREET From: 01/01/98 TO; 12/31198 Cross Street: ADAMS AVENUE Date Prepared: 5/2312001 05125/98 Unknown 228/98 1 /30/98 -mpropTuO 04/08/98 07/17/98 04/15/98 UnnknoownB 0721/98 uta RAN Auto R/W gs/5i ns 12113191 Auto RAN FoAu.0/11198 /17/98 ' Othr Haz Mvmt RAN Auto RAN Q— �_ 09M3198 Not Drvr/P 1127198 092EIM8 11/ofi198 1120I9B Auto R/W Improp Pass Aulo RAN Unsf Sod 1025/98 12/31/98 0721/98 -<�061t� Auto RAN 04/03/98 Improp Turn ;tmp�r \L�E�J„-��yv, Aulo fiAN Turn OS/02 Unsf Starb utRA r 6/03/98uto R/W o9ro3/se Auto R/W 19ro7re6�� • UnsfSpd 07/01/98 ---�—� Auto RAN 11/07/98 ' 05W,ln,8� Unsf Sod Auto R/W 10/12198 Not Drvaped t221/98 11/04/98 04�98 --�_Yj/T1 Auto RAN Aulo Improp Tu 1�0,/t30/9B 06116/98 Unsf Chg 1229/980 M9198 Auto RAN 198 uto R/W Wronp S' e D Auto toR/jW 7 D � • �II 07 2/98 06/12/98 11 8198 9/98 3198 0 3198 0725/98 0 019 Improp Tutpol Drvr/PkMsf SO Unsf Sod Unsf Start/9bsf Sod DUI Foll2tlose Number of Collisions -gend Right Turn /, Pedestrian ®— Moving Vehicle 27 Property Damage Only � Stopped Vehicle Left Turn Fixed Object --� 19 Injury Collisions Backing Vehicle �— Bicycle Sideswipe DUI 0 Fatal Collisions Ran Off Road �- 46 Total Collisions Movement c:3 — Day Injury ® Unknown Night 0 Fatal Color Legend - Highest Degree of Injury Maroon=Fatal Purple=Severe Injury Green=Other Visible Injury Teal=Complaint of Pain Dark Blue=Property Damage Only Settings Used For Query Parameter Settine Street Name 'Brookhurst Street' Cross Street 'Adams Avenue' Starting Date 01/01/98 Ending Date 12/31/98 Distance from Intersection <=900' for non rear-end collisions <=900' for rear-end collisions City of Huntington Beach Police Department Traffic Collision History Report 05/23/01 Page 1 Location: Brookhurst Street/Adams Avenue Date Range Reported: 1/1/98 - 12/31/98 Date Time Dist. Dir. Type of Motor Veh. Direct,of Movement Direct. of Movement PCF Inj. Kit Collision Involved With Travel 1 Prec:Coll. 1 Travel 2 Prec. Coll.2 4/3/98 20:25 620 West Rear-End Other Motor South Entering Traffic East Proceeding Auto R/W 2 0 Vehicle Straight Violation 4/8/98 12:40 0 In Int. Broadside Other Motor North Making Left South Proceeding Auto R/W 0 0 Vehicle Turn Straight Violation 4/15/98 13:15 0 In Int. Broadside Other Motor West Making Left South Proceeding Traffic Signals 5 0 Vehicle Turn Straight and Signs 4/19/98 14:47 60 South Sideswipe Bicycle North Proceeding South Making Right Wrong Side of 1 0 Straight Turn Road 4/27/98 17:08 150 East Sideswipe Other Motor East Making Right East Proceeding Improper Turning 0 0 Vehicle Turn Straight 5/2/98 18:08 480 North Broadside Other Motor West Entering Traffic North Proceeding Auto R/W 4 0 Vehicle Straight Violation 5/20/98 08:59 108 South Rear-End Other Motor North Slowing/Stoppi North Slowing/Stoppi Following Too 0 0 Vehicle ng ng Closely 5/25/98- 02:40 30 North Rear-End Other Motor South Proceeding South Stopped In Unknown 0 0 Vehicle Straight Road 5/26198 18:35 500 West Broadside Other Motor North Making Left East Proceeding Auto R/W 0 0 Vehicle Turn Straight Violation 613/98 13:56 120 South Rear-End Other Motor North Proceeding North Stopped In Unsafe Starting 3 0 Vehicle Straight Road or Backing 613/98 18:28 634 South Broadside Other Motor West Entering Traffic North Proceeding Auto R/W 2 0 Vehicle Straight Violation 6/9/98 15:54 30 South Rear-End Other Motor North Proceeding North Stopped In Unsafe Speed 0 0 Vehicle Straight Road 6/12198 12:42 39 South Rear-End Other Motor North Not Stated North Not Stated Other Than Driver 2 0 Vehicle or Ped 6/13/98 15:42 30 East Rear-End Other Motor West Stopped In West Stopped In Unsafe Starting 2 0 Vehicle Road Road or Backing 6116198 10:03 648 West Head-On Other Motor West Making Left East Proceeding Auto R/W 4 0 Vehicle Turn Straight Violation � .. ..__.._ .._._......__..._...._.....__..._._.._..,_._..._._........._..,...........:..........:...R:..,.:-.:;...:a•-�.... �._>,.�: .a-'A8!a.4-u<�TJt,. !r.�! .. s ux-aa+ss -....ea::re:c:...,n.n...>.ia �. _...- ...'...�+.�% City of Huntington Beach Police Department Traffic Collision History Report 05/23/01 Page 1 Location: Brookhurst Street/Adams Avenue Date Range Reported: 1/1/98 - 12/31/98 Date Time Dist. Dir. Type of Motor Veh. Direct.of Movement Direct.of Movement PCF Inj. Kil Collision Involved With Travel 1 Prec. Coll. 1 Travel 2 Prec.Coll.2 4/3/98 20:25 620 West Rear-End Other Motor South Entering Traffic East Proceeding Auto R/W 2 0 Vehicle Straight Violation 4/8/98 12:40 0 In Int. Broadside Other Motor North Making Left South Proceeding Auto R/W 0 0 Vehicle Turn Straight Violation 4/15/98 13:15 0 In Int. Broadside Other Motor West Making Left South Proceeding Traffic Signals 5 0 Vehicle Turn Straight and Signs 4/19198 14:47 60 South Sideswipe Bicycle North Proceeding South Making Right Wrong Side of 1 0 Straight Turn Road 4/27/98 17:08 150 East Sideswipe Other Motor East Making Right East Proceeding Improper Turning 0 0 Vehicle Turn Straight 5/2/98 18:08 480 North Broadside Other Motor West Entering Traffic North Proceeding Auto R/W 4 0 Vehicle Straight Violation 5/20/98 08:59 108 South Rear-End Other Motor North Slowing/Stoppi North Slowing/Stoppi Following Too 0 0 Vehicle ng ng Closely 5/25/98 02:40 30 North Rear-End 'Other Motor South Proceeding South Stopped In Unknown 0 0 Vehicle Straight Road 5/26/98 18:35 500 West Broadside Other Motor North Making Left East Proceeding Auto R/W 0 0 Vehicle Turn Straight Violation 6/3/98 13:56 120 South Rear-End Other Motor North Proceeding North Stopped In Unsafe Starting 3 0 Vehicle Straight Road or Backing 6/3/98 18:28 634 South Broadside Other Motor West Entering Traffic North Proceeding Auto R/W 2 0 Vehicle Straight Violation 6/9/98 15:54 30 South. Rear-End Other Motor North Proceeding North Stopped In Unsafe Speed 0 0 Vehicle Straight Road 6/12/98 12:42 39 South Rear-End Other Motor North Not Stated North Not Stated Other Than Driver 2 0 Vehicle or Ped 6/13/98 15:42 30 East Rear-End Other Motor West Stopped In West Stopped In Unsafe Starting 2 0 Vehicle Road Road or Backing 6/16/98 10:03 648 West Head-On Other Motor West Making Left East Proceeding Auto R/W 4 0 Vehicle Turn Straight Violation IL .,;... 'TKuitlrW'D' ..... ..... .. �.. u. ..u..... .. �...�.... Police D -irtment Traffic Collision History Report 05/23/01 Page 2 Location: Brookhurst Street/Adams Avenue Date Range Reported: 111/98 - 12/31/98 Date Time Dist. Dir. Type of Motor Veh. Direct. of Movement Direct. of Movement PCF Inj. Kil Collision Involved With Travel 1 Prec. Coll. 1 Travel 2 Prec. Coll. 2 7/1/98 14:21 25 North Broadside Other Motor East Entering Traffic South Proceeding Auto R/W 0 0 Vehicle Straight Violation 7/2/98 13:37 200 South Sideswipe Other Motor North Other Unsafe North Proceeding Improper Turning 0 0 Vehicle Turning Straight 7/11198 13:14 425 South Broadside Other Motor West Entering Traffic North Proceeding Auto R/W 0 0 Vehicle Straight Violation 7/17/98 11:35 400 East Broadside Other Motor West Entering Traffic East Proceeding Auto RIW 0 0 Vehicle Straight Violation 7117/98 15:22 525 East Broadside Other Motor South Entering Traffic West Proceeding Auto R/W 1 0 Vehicle Straight Violation 7/21198 11:54 400 East Broadside Other Motor South Entering Traffic East Proceeding Auto R/W 1 0 Vehicle Straight Violation 7/21198 20:51 491 West Sideswipe Other Motor South Making Right South Making Right Improper Turning 0 0 . Vehicle Turn Turn 7/22/98 11:00 25 West Broadside Other Motor East Changing East Proceeding Unsafe Lane 0 0 Vehicle Lanes Straight Change 7/25198 23:07 165 South Rear-End Other Motor North Proceeding North Stopped In Driving Under 2 0 Vehicle Straight Road Influence 8/3/98 20:37 75 South Rear-End Other Motor North Proceeding North Stopped In Unsafe Speed 1 0 Vehicle Straight Road 8/28/98 09:45 150 East Hit Object Other West Not Stated West Not Stated Unknown 0 0 9/3/98 07:46 450 West Broadside Other Motor South Making Left East Passing Other Auto R/W 2 0 Vehicle Turn Vehicle Violation 9/3/98 10:40 35 East Other Other West Proceeding Other Than Driver 0 0 Straight or Ped 9/28/98 18:15 220 South Sideswipe Other Motor West Not Stated North Not Stated Improper Passing 0 0 Vehicle 10/7/98 08:00 500 West Rear-End Other Motor East Proceeding East Stopped In Unsafe Speed 1 0 Vehicle Straight Road City of Huntington Beach Police Department Traffic Collision History Report 05/23/01 Page 3 Location: Brookhurst Street/Adams Avenue Date Range Reported: 111198 - 12131/98 Type of Motor Veh. Direct. of Movement Direct. of Movement Date Time Dist. Dir. Collision Involved With Travel 1 Prec. Coll. 1 Travel 2 Prec. Coll. 2 PCF Inj. Kil 10/12/98 14:58 250 South Other Bicycle North Proceeding Other Than Driver 1 0 Straight or Ped 10/25/98 16:01 663 West Broadside Bicycle South Making Left East Proceeding Auto R/W 1 0 Turn Straight Violation 10/30/98 07:56 500 West Broadside Other Motor East Proceeding East Making Left Auto R/W 0 0 Vehicle Straight Turn Violation 10/30/98 13:52 471 North Broadside Other Motor West Making Left North Proceeding Auto R/W 0 0 ht Violation Turn Straight g 11/4/98 13:00 600 West Broadside Other Motor North Entering Traffic East Proceeding Auto R/W 0 0 Vehicle Straight Violation 11/6198 18:10 674 South Broadside Other Motor West Proceeding North Proceeding Auto RNV 2 0 Vehicle Straight Straight Violation 11/7198 19:39 47 West Rear-End Other Motor East Proceeding East Stopped In Unsafe Speed 0 0 Vehicle Straight Road 11/20/98 17:20 100 East Rear-End Other West Proceeding West Stopped In Unsafe Speed 0 0 Straight Road 11/27/98 17:10 276 West Broadside Other Motor North Making Left West Proceeding Auto R/W 0 0 Vehicle Turn Straight Violation 1-1/28/98 12:22 312 South Rear-End Other Motor North Proceeding North Stopped In Unsafe Speed 0 0 Vehicle Straight Road 12/3/98 18:39 634 West Broadside Other Motor West Proceeding East Making Left Other Hazardous 0 0 Vehicle Straight Turn Movement 12/17/98 15:47 367 East Broadside Other Motor West Making Left East Proceeding Auto R/W 2 0 Vehicle Turn Straight Violation 12/21/98 18:10 500 West Head-On Other Motor North Entering Traffic West Proceeding Auto R/W 0 0 Vehicle Straight Violation 12/28/98 17:34 186 North Rear-End Other Motor North Making Right North Parked Improper Turning 0 0 Vehicle Turn 12/29/98 17:37 60 South Broadside Other Motor North Making Left South Proceeding Auto R/W 0 0 Vehicle Turn Straight Violation City of Huntington Beach Color Legend - Highest Degree of Injury Maroon=Fatal Purple=Severe Injury Green=Other Visible Injury Teal=Complaint of Pain Dark Blue=Property Damage Only Settings Used For Query Parameter Setting Street Name 'Brookhurst Street' Cross Street 'Adams Avenue' Starting Date 01/01/98 Ending Date 12/31/98 Distance from Intersection <=900'for non rear-end collisions <=900' for rear-end collisions i Police Department Traffic Collision History Report 05/23/01 Page 4 Location: Brookhurst Street/Adams Avenue Date Range Reported: 111198 - 12/31/98 Date Time Dist. Dir. Type of Motor Veh. Direct. of Movement Direct.of Movement PCF Ini. Kil Collision Involved With Travel 1 Prec. Coll. 1 Travel 2 Prec. Coll.2 12/31/98 16:40 25 North Rear-End Other Motor South Making Right South Proceeding Improper Turning 0 0 Vehicle Turn Straight Total Number of Collisions: 46 Settings Used For Query Parameter Setting Street Name 'Brookhurst Street' Cross Street 'Adams Avenue' Starting Date 01/01/98 Ending Date 12/31/98 Distance from Intersection <=900'for non rear-end collisions <=900'for rear-end collisions Collision Diagram North/South Street: BROOKHURST STREET From: 01/01/99 To: 12/31/99 Cross Street: ADAMS AVENUE ! Date Prepared: 5/23/2001 12/18/99 12/10/99 Auto R/W Unknown i 1 I oat 1/99 UrL4 Spd 02/08/99 05129M Unsf 99 Unsf Spd �._ O6/t0199 tgs/Stgns Imp ' m 03117199 Auto RNJ f'0117=Unsf Lane Chg AulO 0925/99 Unknown 99 Sigs/Signs Unknown Q r R5/99 �9 uto a Unsf sod ! 021219 Unsf sod 0326199 g - Auto Ft/W Foll2tlose ' r7/99op Tum ®--- 0WI SM 08/02/99 Improp Pa Aulo R/W I F212 1 I I Ia.0"tr OSB0/99 Otnr Haz Mvml y04f99 U 7027/99 Sigs/Signs Auto RrW I 17131 FJ9 042719� �. Auto R/W Unsf Apo i 09r26/99 Unsf Line Chg OB/1719 01/02/99 0924E_9 DUI AulO Auto 1 109199 0 /10/99 At RIW tmpr Auto WW Auto R/W 06/14/99 DUI 0326/99 05/14/99 05/30/99 02/25/99 Auto R/W uto RNJ uto RNV Un Spd Un Spd 07 3199 05/4 Unsf Spd Unsf S i Number of Collisions Legend Pedestrian Right Turn �— Moving Vehicle ® Fixed Object ! 24 Property Damage Only � Stopped Vehicle Left Turn 16 Injury Collisions Bicycle 0 F �-3 Backing Vehicle �— Sideswipe Fatal Collisions Ran Off Road ®-- DUI 40 Total Collisions Movement o-- Day Injury Unknown .®—_ Night ® Fatal Color Legend - Highest Degree of Injury Maroon=Fatal Purple=Severe Injure Green=Other Visible Injury Teal=Complaint of Pain Dark Blue=Property Damage Only Settings Used For Query Parameter Settin Street Name 'Brookhurst Street' Cross Street 'Adams Avenue' Starting Date O1/O1/99 Ending Date 12/31/99 Distance from Intersection <=900'for non rear-end collisions <=900'for rear-end collisions i City of Huntington Beach Police Department Traffic Collision History Report 05/23/01 Page 1 Location: Brookhurst Street/Adams Avenue Date Range Reported: 111/99 - 12/31199 Type of Motor Veh. Direct. of Movement Direct. of Movement PCF Inj. Kil Date Time Dist. Dir. Collision Involved With Travel 1 Prec. Coll. 1 Travel 2 Prec. Coll.2 112/99 18:21 750 West Broadside Other Motor North Proceeding East Proceeding Auto R/W 0 0 Vehicle Straight Straight Violation 1/7/99 19:11 488 South Broadside Other Motor West Entering Traffic North Proceeding Auto R/W 2 0 Vehicle Straight Violation 1120/99 10:25 75 East Hit Object Fixed Object East Making Left Improper Turning 1 0 Turn 214/99 19:00 0 In Int. Sideswipe Other Motor North Proceeding South Making Left Traffic Signals 0 0 Vehicle Straight Turn and Signs 2/8199 12:06 0 In Int. Broadside Other Motor North Making Left South Proceeding Traffic Signals 0 0 Vehicle Turn Straight and Signs 2/18/99 17:30 80 East Sideswipe Other Motor West Passing Other West Stopped In Improper Passing 0 0 Vehicle Vehicle Road 2/23/99 21:45 21 East Rear-End Other Motor West Making Right West Stopped In Unsafe Speed 0 0 Vehicle Turn Road 2/25/99 14:39 673 South Broadside Other Motor West Entering Traffic North Proceeding Auto R/W 2 0 Vehicle Straight Violation 2/25/99 17:15 500 South Not Stated Other Motor South Proceeding South Stopped In Unsafe Speed 1 0 Vehicle Straight Road 3117/99 18:14 200 West Sideswipe Other Motor West Changing West Proceeding Unsafe Lane 0 0 , i. Vehicle Lanes Straight Change 3126/99 17:11 585 South Broadside Other Motor West Entering Traffic South Proceeding Auto R/W 0 0 Vehicle Straight Violation 3126/99 17:40 575 South Broadside Other Motor West Making Left South Proceeding Auto R/W 0 0 Vehicle Turn Straight Violation 4/22/99 15:24 190 East Rear-End Other Motor West Proceeding West Stopped In Unsafe Speed 0 0 Vehicle Straight Road 4127/99 10:39 300; East Rear-End Other Motor East Proceeding East Stopped In Unsafe Speed 0 0 Vehicle Straight Road 5/14/99 15:48 600 South Broadside Other Motor West Making Left South Proceeding Auto R/W 0 0 Vehicle Turn Straight Violation t - Police DF rtment Traffic Collision History Report 05/23/01 Page 2 Location: Brookliurst Street /Adams Avenue Date Range Reported: 1/1199 - 12/31/99 Type of Motor Veh. Direct. of Movement Direct. of Movement Date Time Dist. Dir. Collision Involved With Travel 1 Prec. Coll. 1 Travel 2 Prec. Coll. 2 PCF Inj. Kil 5/14199 20:17 225 South Rear-End Other Motor North Proceeding North - Stopped In Unsafe Speed 0 0 Vehicle Straight Road 5/29/99 15:53 364 East Sideswipe Other Motor South Making Right South Stopped In Improper Turning 0 0 Vehicle Turn Road 5/30/99 14:00 100 West Hit Object Fixed Object North Entering Traffic East Proceeding Unknown 0 0 Straight 5/30/99 15:55 156 South Head-On Other Motor South Proceeding North Proceeding Unsafe Speed 2 0 Vehicle Straight Straight 6/10/99 10:45 525 West Broadside Other Motor South Entering Traffic East Proceeding Auto R/W 0 0 Vehicle Straight Violation 6/14199 17:16 648 East Broadside Other Motor North Making Left East Proceeding Auto R!W 1 0 Vehicle Turn Straight Violation 7/23/99 09:55 30 South Rear-End Other Motor North Proceeding North Stopped In Unsafe Speed 1 0 Vehicle Straight Road 8/1/99 15:26 110 West Rear-End Other Motor East Proceeding East Stopped In Driving Under 1 0 Vehicle Straight Road Influence 8/2/99 15:52 450 South Broadside Other Motor West Proceeding South Proceeding Auto R/W 2 0 Vehicle Straight Straight Violation 8/10/99 17:10 0 In Int. Rear-End Other Motor West Proceeding West Stopped In Unknown 0 0 Vehicle Straight Road 8/11199 06:24 0 In Int. Broadside Other Motor North East Driving Under 0 0 Vehicle Influence 8/21/99 23:17 489 North Broadside Fixed Object North Proceeding North Parked Unsafe Speed 1 0 Straight 9/10/99 22:57 500 South Broadside Other Motor West Making Left North Proceeding Auto R/W 0 0 Vehicle Turn Straight Violation 9/24/99 06:54 654 West Broadside Other Motor North Making Left East Proceeding Auto R/W 1 0 Vehicle Turn Straight Violation 9/25/99 01:45 0 In Int. Head-On Other Motor West Proceeding North Making Left Traffic Signals 0 0 Vehicle Straight Turn and Signs City of Huntington Beach Police Department Traffic Collision History Report 05123101 Page 3 Location: Brookhurst Street 1 Adams Avenue Date Range Reported: 111/99 - 12131/99 t)air: Time Disi. 1)ir. Type of Motor Veh. Direct. of Movement Direct. of Movement PCF Inj. Kil Collision Involved Willi Travel I Prec. Coll. 1 Travel 2 Prec. Coll. 2 9/26/99 12:15 54 West Sideswipe Other Motor East Stopped In East . Proceeding Unsafe Lane 0 0 Vehicle Road Straight Change 10/9/99 11:14 800 South Broadside Other Motor West Making Left North Proceeding Auto R/W 1 0 Vehicle Turn Straight Violation 10/9/99 13:14 325 East Rear-End Other Motor West Proceeding West Stopped In Unsafe Speed 2 0 Vehicle Straight Road 10/27/99 19:34 375 South Broadside Other Motor West Making Left East Proceeding Auto R/W 1 0 Vehicle Turn Straight Violation 11/17/99 08:29 371 South Sideswipe Other Motor West Entering Traffic North Stopped In Improper Turning 0 0 Vehicle Road 12/10/99 12:31 150 North Rear-End Other Motor South Proceeding South Stopped In Unknown 1 0 Vehicle Straight Road 12/18/99 11:24 143 North Broadside Other Motor South Entering Traffic South Proceeding Auto R/W 0 0 Vehicle Straight Violation 12/20/99 16:08 400 West Sideswipe Other Motor North Entering Traffic West Proceeding Other Hazardous 0 0 Vehicle Straight Movement 12/20/99 16:32 0 In Int. Rear-End Other Motor West Proceeding West Stopped In Following Too .1 0 Vehicle Straight Road Closely 12/31/99 14:00 654 West Broadside Other Motor North Making Left East Proceeding Auto R/W 0 0 Vehicle Turn Straight Violation Traffic Collis History Report 05/23/01 Page 4 Location: Brool(hurst Street/Adams Avenue Date Range Reported: 111/99 - 12131/99 Type of Motor Veh. Direct. of Movement Direct. of Movement PCF In' I:il Date Time Dist. Dir. Collision Involved With Travel 1 Prec. Coll. 1 Travel 2 Prec. Coll. 2 1' Total Number of Collisions: 40 Settings Used For Query Parameter Settin Street Name 'Brookliurst Street' Cross Street 'Adams Avenue' Starting Date 01/01/99 Ending Date 12/31/99 Distance from Intersection <=900' for non rear-end collisions <=900' for rear-end collisions i Collision Diagram North/South Street. BROOKHURST STREET From: 01/01/2000 TO: 12/31/2000 Cross Street, ADAMS AVENUE Date Prepared:. 5/23/2001 12/19/00 04/23/00 03/19/00 05/14/00 unst Spd Unsf Spd Unsf Spd Unsf Sod ' t l l/ 0/00 0422/00 x Un Spd Auto RM/ 12/14/00 06/09/00 07/18/00 Unsf Spd Unsf�,tarli6k 07/03/00 1 12/04/00 $.gs/Signs Auto RM/ Auto R9 Auto R/f � W r; c I 10/06/00 Unsf Spd —F�10 1 L7 9/00 Unsf Spd 07/24100 0120/00 Aulo RNv 05/01/00 1 Unsf Spd Aulo R/W ' � t ' 03115/00 Unsf Spd -:0�oaloroo Unsf StarV 1023100 � Unst sod Auto R.'W 03/17/00 Unknown 07113f00 Unsf Spd I A t At1 o-_ 10 RM' Di/19/00 12111/O0 ' Auto R/W _ Improp Pa i 02/04/0� Auto RM' ' � 09/07/00 Auto R/W 02112+ Unq Spd 09240 0727/0M00�� Unsf Spd 11/0 /9/ o RI(%8/00 0729/00 to RfW ulo RfW Aulo R/W I' it t t: 06/0 0 06/0 /00 1 0 05 4/00 0 8/ 11 Unsf Lane Olt Lane W StaN9A5f Spd Unsf Sc :i Number of Collisions Le end Pedestrian Right Turn �,— Moving Vehicle ® Fixed Object Stopped Vehicle 31 Property Damage Only � � LeftTum ( 9 Injury Collisions � Backing Vehicle �— � Bicycle 2 Fatal Collisions Sideswipe DUI Ran Off Road �- 40 Total Collisions Movement 4-- Day 0 Injury Unknown .0— Night ® Fatal i i I : I � Color Legend - Highest Degree of Injury Maroon=Fatal Purple=Severe Injure Green=Other Visihlc lujury Teal=Complaint of l'ain Dark Blue=Property Damage Only Settings Used For Query Parameter Settina Street Name 'Brookhurst Street' Cross Street 'Adams Avenue' Starting Date 01/01/2000 Ending Date 12/31/2000 Distance from Intersection <=900' for non rear-end collisions <=900' for rear-end collisions City of Huntington Beach Police Department Traffic Collision History Report 05/23/01 Page 1 Location: Brookliurst Street I Adams Avenue Date Range Reported: 1/1100 - 12/31100 Type of Motor Veh. Direct. of Movement Direct. of Movement PCF Inj. Kit Date Time [list. Dir. Collision Involved With Travel 1 Prec. Colt. 1 Travel 2 Prec. Coll. 2 114/00 16:29 600 West Broadside Other Motor South Making Left West Proceeding Auto R/W 0 0 Vehicle Turn Straight Violation 1/19/00 07:51 583 West Sideswipe Other Motor West Making Left East Passing Other Auto R/W 1 0 Vehicle Turn Vehicle Violation 1/20100 14:29 630 West Not Stated Other Motor South Making Left North Making Left Improper Turning 0 0 Vehicle Turn Turn 2/4/00 14:32 657 West Broadside Other Motor North Making Left East Proceeding Auto R/W 3 0 Vehicle Turn Straight Violation 2/10/00 19:00 240 West Rear-End Other Motor East Proceeding East Stopped In Unsafe Speed 0 0 Vehicle Straight Road 2/23/00 15:25 418 East Rear-End Other Motor West Slowing/Stoppi West Stopped In Unsafe Speed 0 0 Vehicle ng Road 3/15/00 14:37 30 South Rear-End Other Motor West Proceeding West Stopped In Unsafe Speed 0 0 Vehicle Straight Road 3117/00 23:20 200 North Sideswipe Other Motor East Making Left West Making Right Unknown 0 0 Vehicle Turn Turn 3/19100 11:37 413 North Rear-End Other Motor South Proceeding South Stopped In Unsafe Speed 0 0 Vehicle Straight Road 3128100 17:58 130 South Rear-End Other Motor North Proceeding North Stopped In Unsafe Speed 0 0 Vehicle Straight Road 4/10/00 17:01 60 East Rear-End Other Motor West Proceeding West Stopped In Unsafe Starting 0 0 Vehicle Straight Road or Backing 4/22/00 19:56 460 North Broadside Other Motor South Making Left North Proceeding Auto R/W 2 0 Vehicle Turn Straight Violation 4123/00 01:01 40 North Rear-End Other Motor South Proceeding South Stopped In Unsafe Speed 0 0 Vehicle Straight Road 5/1100 16:14 500 West Head-On Other Motor South Proceeding East Proceeding Auto R/W 0 0 Vehicle Straight Straight Violation 5114/00 16:08 20 North Rear-End Other Motor South Proceeding South Stopped In Unsafe Speed 1 0 Vehicle StraJghf Road fifty of Huniingion Beach Police Department Traffic Collision History Report 05123/01 . Page 2 Location: Brookhurst Street/Adams Avenue Date Range Reported: 1/1/00 - 12/31/00 Tyne of Motor Veh. Direct. of Movement Direct. of Movement PCF Ini. Kil Ilan Time Dist. Dir. cullisiun luvulved With Travel 1 Prec. Coll. 1 Travel 2 Fret. Cull. 2 5/24/00 10:52 65 South Rear-End Other Motor North Proceeding North Stopped In ' Unsafe Speed 0 0 Vehicle Straight Road 6/6/00 12:40 0 In Int. Sideswipe Other Motor North Proceeding North Slowing/Stoppi Unsafe Lane 0 0 Vehicle Straight ng Change 616/00 12:40 0 In Int. Sideswipe Other Motor North Proceeding North Slowing/Stoppi Unsafe Lane 0 0 Vehicle Straight ng Change 6/9100 12:30 449 North Broadside Other Motor South Backing East Making Left Unsafe Starting 0 0 Vehicle Turn or Backing 7/3/00 12:20 726 West Broadside Other Motor South Entering Traffic East Proceeding Auto R/W 1 Vehicle Straight Violation 7/13/00 16:03 200 East Sideswipe Motor Vehicle West Proceeding West Stopped In Unsafe Speed 0 0 on Other Straight Road 7/18/00 11:27 0 In Int. Broadside Other Motor North Making Left South Proceeding Traffic Signals 0 0 Vehicle Turn Straight and Signs 7/24100 16:58 628 West Broadside Other Motor South Entering Traffic West Proceeding Auto R/W 1 0 Vehicle Straight Violation 7/27/00 13:04 690 West Broadside Other Motor East Making Left East Proceeding Auto R/W 0 0 Vehicle Turn Straight Violation 7/28100 13:19 173 North Broadside Other Motor East Proceeding South Proceeding Auto R/W 0 0 Vehicle - Straight Straight Violation 8/7/00 15:16 197 East Rear-End Other Motor West Proceeding West Stopped In Unsafe Speed 0 0 Vehicle Straight Road 8/20/00 18:42 492 West Broadside Other Motor North Making Left East Proceeding Auto R/W 0 0 Vehicle Turn Straight Violation 9/7100 07.51 25 West Head-On Other Motor West Making Left East Proceeding Auto R/W 0 0 Vehicle Turn Straight Violation 9121100 07:27 800 West Rear-End Other Motor East Proceeding East Crossed Into Unsafe Speed 0 0 Vehicle Straight Opposing 10/6100 19:35 5 East Rear-End Other Motor West Proceeding West Stopped In Unsafe Speed 0 0 Vehicle Straight Road City of Huntington Beach Police Department Traffic Collision History Report 05/23/01 Page 3 Location: Brookhurst Street I Adams Avenue Date Range Reported: 111/00 - 12/31/00 Type of Motor Veh. Direct. of Movement Direct. of Movement PCF Inj. Kil Date Time Dist. Dir. Collision Involved With Travel 1 Prec. Coll. 1 Travel 2 Prec. Coll. 2 10/23/00 13:20 654 West Broadside Other Motor North Making Left East Proceeding Auto R/W 0 0 Vehicle Turn Straight Violation 11/8/00 09:52 662 South Broadside Other Motor West Making Left South Proceeding Auto RAN 1 0 Vehicle Turn Straight Violation 11/9/00 12:16 651 South Broadside Other Motor North Making Left South Proceeding Auto R/W 2 0 Vehicle Turn Straight Violation 11/10/00 15:15 250 North Other Bicycle North Proceeding North Proceeding Unsafe Speed 1 0 Straight Straight 12/4/00 12:14 624 West Broadside Other Object South Entering Traffic East Proceeding Auto RAN 0 0 Straight Violation 12/11/00 15:40 318 East Sideswipe Other Motor West Changing West Stopped In Improper Passing 0 0 Vehicle Lanes Road 12/14/00 17:17 300 East Rear-End Other Motor West Proceeding West Proceeding Unsafe Speed 0 0 Vehicle Straight Straight 12/19/00 11:10 60 North Rear-End Other Motor South Proceeding South Proceeding Unsafe Speed 1 0 Vehicle Straight Straight 12/19/00 17:58 180 East Rear-End Other Motor West Slowing/Stoppi West Stopped In Unsafe Speed 0 0 Vehicle ng Road 12/22/00 16:37 75 South Rear-End Other Motor North Proceeding North Slopped In Unsafe Starting 0 0 Vehicle Straight Road or Backing ; Police partment Traffic Collision History Report 05/23/01 Page 4 Location: Brookliurst Street I Adams Avenue Date Range Reported: 1/1100 - 12/31/00 Date Time Dist. Dir. Type of Motor Veh. Direct. of Movement Direct. of Movement PCF Inj. Kit Collision Involved With Travel 1 Prec. Coll. 1 Travel 2 Prec. Coll. 2 Total Number of Collisions: 40 Settings Used For Query Parameter Setting Street Name 'Brookhurst Street' Cross Street 'Adams Avenue' Starting Date 01/01/2000 Ending Date 12/31/2000 Distance from Intersection <=900' for non rear-end collisions <=900' for rear-end collisions O . # » �\}� \ ^ �d ».<� ; «« wr 2\ �} \ \� \ �x� C �� \ t © * tJ � engineering group, inc. transportation planning traffic engineering acoustical /air quality studies September 29, 2003 Mr. John Warren PACIFIC LAND SERVICES ' 2151 Salvio Street, Suite 250 Concord, CA 94520 Subject: Target Store T-194 Traffic Impact Study (Revised) Dear Mr. Warren: RK ENGINEERING GROUP, INC. (RK) is pleased to submit the Target Store T-194 Traffic Study. This report provides a summary of the findings, analysis procedures and evaluation of the proposed project with respect to on-site and off-site traffic impacts pursuant to City of Huntington Beach requirements. This traffic impact analysis report includes an evaluation of traffic for existing conditions, existing plus project conditions and Project Buildout (Year 2005) conditions with and without the project. Based upon this review, the project can be accommodated within the planned circulation system, if the recommended improvements are implemented. These recommendations are included in the "Recommendations" section of this report. RK is pleased to assist Pacific Land Services on the Target Store T-194 Traffic Study project and look forward to working with you in the future. If you have any questions regarding this study, or would like further review, please do not hesitate to call us at (949) 474-0809. Sincerely, QppFESS1pNq` RK.ENGINEERING GROUP, �� o�ERT Kgyy Fyc CD m � o. 0555 rn CC EXP. 12/31/05 Robert Kahn, P.E. TR FF�G �` Allison Goedecke, M.B.A. Principal qTF O�CA`�FpQ` Transportation Planner Attachments rk.ag:rd/RK1857-doc 20201 s.\v. hirch street. suite 230 JN.16 i 1-03-02 newport reach, cahiornia 92660 tel 949.47.4 0809 fax 949.4;4.0902 TARGET STORE T-194 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA Prepared for: PACIFIC LAND SERVICES 2151 Satvio Street, Suite 250 Concord, CA 94520 Prepared by: RK ENGINEERING GROUP, INC. 20201 S.W. Birch Street, Suite 250 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Robert Kahn, P.E. Allison Goedecke, M.B.A. September 29, 2003 rk:ag:rd1RK1857.doc JN:7 61 1-03-02 Table of Contents Section Page 1.0 Introduction and Summary..............................:................................... 1-1 1 .1 Purpose of Report and Study Objective 1-1 1 .2 Executive Summary 1-1 g 1 .2.1 Site Location and Study Area 1-1 1 .2.2 Development Description 1-2 1 .2.3 Principal Findings 1-2 1 .2.4 Project Recommendations 1-3 2.0 Area Conditions .................................................... 2.1 Study Area 2-1 2.2 Site Accessibility 2-1 2.2.1 Area Roadway System 2-1 2.2.2 Existing City of Huntington Beach General Plan Circulation Map 2-1 2.2.3 Traffic Volumes and Conditions 2-1 3.0 Project Traffic....................................................................................... 3-1 3.1 Site Traffic 3-1 3.1 .1 Trip Generation 3-1 3.1.2 Trip Distribution 3-1 3.1 .3 Modal Split 3-2 3.1 .4 Trip Assignment 3-2 4.0 Existing Plus Project Traffic Conditions................................................ 4-1 5.0 Project Buildout (Year 2005)'Without Project Conditions.................... 5-1 6.0 Project Buildout (Year 2005) With Project Conditions ......................... 6-1 7.0 Traffic Impact Significance................................................................... 7-1 8.0 Accident Review................................................................................... 8-1 8.1 Driveway Accident Review 8-1 9.0 Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis ............................................................ 9-1 10.0 Traffic Contribution ............................................................................. 10-1 11.0 Recommendations ............................................................................... 11-1 1 1 .1 Site Access 1 1-1 11 .2 Roadway Improvements 11-1 List of Attachments Exhibits LocationMap........................................................................... ........................... A ExistingSite Plan ..................................................................................................... B Proposed Site Plan.............. ................. C Existing Number of Through Lanes and Intersection Controls.................................... D City of Huntington Beach Circulation Element........................................................... E City of Huntington Beach Roadway Cross Sections.................................................... F Existing AM/PM Peak Hour Volumes and Average Daily Traffic (ADT)......................... G Outbound Project Trip Distribution ........................................................................... H Inbound Project Trip Distribution.............................................................................. I Project AM/PM Peak Hour Volumes and Average Daily Traffic (ADT) .......................... J Existing Plus Project AM/PM Peak Hour Volumes and Average Daily Traffic (ADT)....... K Cumulative Projects Location Map ............................................ ....... L ......................... Ralphs/Savon Cumulative Development Outbound Trip Distribution .......................... M Ralphs/Savon Cumulative Development Inbound Trip Distribution ............................. N Other Retail Cumulative Development Outbound Trip Distribution ............................ 0 Other Retail Cumulative Development Inbound Trip Distribution ............................... P Cumulative Development Traffic Volumes................................................................. Q Project Buildout (Year 2005) Without Project AM/PM Peak Hour Volumes and Average Daily Traffic (ADT) ................................................................................ R Project Buildout (Year 2005) With Project AM/PM Peak Hour Volumes and Average Daily Traffic (ADT) ................................................................................ Recommendations ................................................................................................... T Tables ProjectLand Use....................................................................................................... 1 Intersection Analysis for Existing Conditions.............................................................. 2 TripGeneration Rates.................................................................................I............. 3 ProjectTrip Generation............................................................................................. 4 Intersection Analysis for Existing Plus Project Conditions............................................ 5 Cumulative Project Trip Generation....................... ..................................................... 6 Intersection Analysis for Project Buildout (Year 2005) Without Project Conditions...... 7 Intersection Analysis for Project Buildout (Year 2005) With Project Conditions........... 8 Adams Avenue Driveway No. 1 Accident Summary Year 2000 to 2003 (September 10, 3003) .....................................:.......................... 9 Brookhurst Street Driveway No. 2 Accident Summary Year 2000 to 2003 (September 10, 2003) .................. AccidentRates ......................................................................................................... 11 Project Contribution ................. Appendices Level of Service Description....................................................................................... A Traffic Count Worksheets ................................................. ............ B ............................ ICU/HCM Calculations - Existing................................................................................ C ICU/HCM Calculations - Existing Plus Project .............................................................. D ICU/HCM Calculations - Project Buildout (Year 2005) Without Project........................ E ICU/HCM Calculations - Project Buildout (Year 2005) With Project............................. F City of Huntington Beach Collision Data ................................................................... G Traffic Signal Warrant Worksheets............................................................................ H 1 .0 Introduction and Summary 1.1 Purpose of Report and Study Objectives The purpose of this traffic study is to evaluate the proposed reconstruction of the Target Store T-194 from a traffic circulation standpoint. The proposed development is located within the City of Huntington Beach. Study objectives include: (1) documentation of existing traffic conditions in the vicinity of the site; (2) calculation of existing plus project traffic conditions; (3) evaluation of Project Buildout (Year 2005) traffic with and without the project; and (4) determination of off-site improvements and system management actions needed to achieve City of Huntington Beach level of service requirements 1.2 Executive Summary 1.2.1 Site Location and Study Area The project site is located south of Adams Avenue and west of Brookhurst Street in the City of Huntington Beach. Exhibit A illustrates the traffic analysis study area. The study area includes the following intersections: North-South Street East-West Street Brookhurst Street Driveway 2 _—-- -----,-- ,----� Adams Avenue ---,`--- - Driveway 1 Adams Avenue 1-1 1.2.2 Development Description The project site is currently an existing 114,258 square foot Target Store and is generating traffic. The proposed construction would expand the existing Target Store to a total of 133,500 square feet. As shown on Table 1, this will include an additional 19,242 square feet. Exhibit B illustrates the existing project site plan and Exhibit C illustrates the new proposed site plan. The project will have two access driveways to Adams Avenue and 4 three access driveways to Brookhurst Street. 1.2.3 Principal Findings The proposed project is projected to generate approximately 7,560 trip-ends per day with 132 vehicles per hour during the AM peak hour and 566 vehicles per hour during the PM peak hour. The existing site is generating approximately 6,470 trip-ends per day with 113 vehicles per hour during the AM peak hour and 484 vehicles per hour during the PM peak. This yields a net increase of 1,090 additional trips per day with 19 additional vehicles per hour during the AM peak hour and 82 additional vehicles per hour during the PM peak hour. This number of trips would be further reduced by "pass-by" trips of approximately 40%. However, to provide a "conservative" analysis no "pass-by" reduction was made in the analysis. " For existing traffic conditions, the intersections in the vicinity of the site are currently operating at an unsatisfactory level of service (less than Level of Service D) during L the peak hour conditions, as shown in Table 2. For existing plus project traffic conditions, the study area intersections are projected to continue to operate at an unsatisfactory level of service during peak hours, as shown in Table 5. 1-2 The project is expected to be completed in two years; therefore, Year 2005 has been utilized as the Project Buildout. A growth rate of 2% per year for 2 years has been used to estimate Project Buildout (Year 2005) traffic volumes, for a total of 4% of growth. In addition, cumulative projects in the vicinity of the project site have been added to determine Project Buildout (Year 2005) conditions. For Project Buildout (Year 2005) without the project traffic conditions, the study area intersections are projected to operate at an unsatisfactory level of service during peak hours, as shown in Table 7. For Project Buildout (Year 2005) with project traffic conditions, the study area intersections are projected to operate at an unsatisfactory level of service during the weekday AM/PM peak hours, as shown in Table 8. However, with the City's planned improvements, the intersection of Brookhurst Street at Adams Avenue is projected to operate at an acceptable level of service during peak hours. In order to improve level of service at Target Driveways 1 and 2, it will be necessary to install traffic signals or restrict access at these intersections. 1.2 4 Project Recommendations', 1 . Sight distance should be reviewed at each driveway at the time of preparing precise grading and landscape plans pursuant to Orange County Standard Plan 1 1 17. 2. Traffic signing/striping should be implemented in conjunction with detailed construction plans for the project. 3. Proceed with City plans to install ri.gbt-turn-lanes at-the intersection of-BTookhurst- Street.at Adams Avenue in the-nort-h.bou�nd,_eastbound and-westbound directions. - 1-3 4. A traffic.signal should be installed at the intersection of Target Driveway 1 at Adams Avenue as it currently meets six (6) of Caltrans traffic signal warrants for existing conditions and will help to prevent future accidents; however, the installation should be subject to the City's SYNCHRO analysis. If the traffic signal cannot be implemented, then some form of access restriction could be considered (i.e., "worm" median). 5. A traffic signal or restricted access medians should be installed at the intersection of Brookhurst Street at Target Driveway 2, as it meets four (4) of Caltrans traffic signal warrants for existing conditions; however again, the installation should be subject to the City' SYNCHRO analysis. It should be noted that recommendations 3-5 are recommended with or without the reconstruction of the Target store. E 1-4 2.0 Area Conditions 2.1 Study Area The project site is located south of Adams Avenue and west of Brookhurst Street in the City of Huntington Beach. Existing roadways in the study area include Adams Avenue, Brookhurst Street, Indianapolis Avenue and Bushard Street. Exhibit A illustrates the traffic analysis study area. 2.2 Site Accessibility 2.2.1 Area Roadway System Exhibit D identifies the existing roadway conditions for study area roadways. The number of through travel lanes for existing roadways and the existing intersection controls are identified. 2.2.2 Existing City of Huntington Beach General Plan Circulation Map Existing and future roadways are included in the City of Huntington Beach Circulation Element and are illustrated on Exhibit E. This exhibit shows the nature and extent of arterial highways that are needed to adequately serve the ultimate development depicted by the Land Use Element of the General Plan. The City of Huntington Beach Roadway Cross Sections are illustrated on Exhibit F. 2.2.3 Traffic Volumes and Conditions Existing weekday AM/PM peak hour volumes at the study area intersections are shown on Exhibit G. Existing volumes are based upon the traffic data collected by RK 2-1 Engineering Group, Inc. on Tuesday, September 9, 2003. The results of these traffic counts are included in Appendix B. Existing average daily traffic (ADT) for weekdays through the study area are also shown on Exhibit G. ADT volumes are based upon traffic counts collected in September 2003. These ADT counts are also included in Appendix B. The technique used to assess the operation of the signalized study area intersections is Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU). To calculate an ICU the volume of traffic using the intersection is compared with the capacity of the intersection. ICU is usually expressed as a percent. The percent represents that portion of the hour required to provide sufficient capacity to accommodate all intersection traffic if all approaches operate at capacity. An explanation of Level of Service is included in Appendix A. Calculation Method: a. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) for study area intersections; b. Saturation Flow Rate: Saturation flow value of 1,700 vehicles per lane per hour for intersections; no adjustments are used for protection movements with dedicated lanes (including both right and left turns). c. Lost Time: A lost time factor of 5% (.05) is applied to the ICU Calculations. 2-2 d. Level of Service Ranges: The following thresholds are used in assigning a letter value to the resulting LOS: Average Stopped Delay Per Vehicle (Seconds) LOS Signalized A 0.00— 0.60 B 0.61 — 0.70 C 0.71 —0.80 D 0.81 —0.90 E 0.91 — 1.00 F >1.00 e. Peak Periods: Weekday peak-hour analysis periods are defined as follows. 7:00 to 9:00 AM 4:00 to 6:00 PM f. Peak-Hour: The highest one-hour period in both the AM and PM peak periods, as determined by four consecutive 15-minute count periods are used in the ICU calculations. Both AM and PM peak hours are studied. 2-3 g. Peak-Hour Data Consistency: Variations in peak-hour volumes can affect LOS calculations because they vary from day-to-day. To minimize these variations, counts are not taken on Mondays, Fridays, holidays or weekends. h. Right Turn Movements: If the distance from the edge of the outside through lane is at least 19 feet and parking is prohibited during the peak period, right-turning vehicles may be assumed to utilize this "unofficial" right turn lane. Otherwise, all right turn traffic is assigned to the through lane. If a right turn lane exists, right turn activity is checked for conflicts with other critical movements. It is assumed that right turn movements are accommodated during non-conflicting left turn phases (e.g., northbound right turns during westbound left turn phase), as well as non- conflicting through flows (e.g., northbound right turn movements and north/south through flows). - Right turn movements become critical when conflicting movements (e.g., northbound right turns, southbound left turns, and eastbound through flows) represent a sum of V/C ratios, which are greater than the normal through/left turn critical movements. Right turn volumes have been reduced by 15% to account for right turns on red if there is a separate right turn lane. If a free right turn lane exists (right turns do not have to stop for the signal), a flow rate of 1,700 vehicles per hour per lane is assumed. The V/C ratio of the right turn - lane is reported but not included in the sum of the critical V/C ratios. The technique used to assess the operation of the unsignalized study area intersections is Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). 2-4 y The current technical guide to the evaluation of traffic operations is the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM2000). The HCM defines level of service as a qualitative measure which describes operational conditions within a traffic stream, generally in terms of such factors as speed and travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic f interruptions, comfort and convenience, and safety. The criteria used to evaluate LOS (Level of Service) conditions vary based on the type.of roadway and whether the traffic flow is considered interrupted or uninterrupted. The definitions of level of service for uninterrupted flow (flow unrestrained by the existence of traffic control devices) are: • LOS A represents free flow. Individual users are vertically unaffected by the presence of others in the traffic stream. • LOS B is in the range of stable flow, but the presence of others users in the traffic stream begins to be noticeable. Freedom to select desired speeds is relatively unaffected, but there is a slight decline in the freedom to maneuver. • LOS C is in the range of stable flow, but marks the beginning of the range of flow in which the operation of individual users becomes significantly affected by interactions with others in the traffic stream. • LOS D represents high-density but stable flow. Speed and freedom to maneuver are severely restricted, and the driver experiences a generally poor level of comfort and convenience.. • LOS E represents operating conditions at or near the capacity level. All speeds are reduced to a low, but relatively uniform value. Small increases in flow will cause breakdowns in traffic movement. 2-5 • LOS F is used to define forced or breakdown flow. This condition exists wherever the amount of traffic approaching a point exceeds the amount which can traverse the point. Queues form behind such locations. The definitions of level of service for interrupted traffic flow (flow restrained by the existence of traffic signals and other traffic control devices) differ slightly depending on the type of traffic control. The level of service is typically dependent on the quality of traffic flow at the intersections along a roadway. The HCM methodology expresses the level of service at an intersection in terms of delay time for the various intersection approaches. The HCM uses different procedures depending on the type of intersection control. The levels of service determined in this study are determined using the HCM methodology. For signalized intersections, average control delay per vehicle is used to determine level of service. Levels of service at signalized study intersections have been evaluated using the HCM intersection analysis program. Study area intersections which are stop sign controlled with stop control on the minor street only have been analyzed using the unsignalized intersection methodology of the HCM. For these intersections, the calculation of level of service is dependent on the occurrence of gaps occurring in the traffic flow of the main street. Using data collected - describing the intersection configuration and traffic volumes at these locations, the level of service has been calculated. The level of service is determined based on worst individual movement or movements sharing a single lane. The relationship between level of service and delay is different than for signalized intersections. 2-6 The level of services are defined for the various analysis methodologies as follows: Average Stopped Average Total Delay Per Vehicle Control Delay Per (Seconds) Vehicle (Seconds) LOS Signalized Unsi nalized A 0.00 - 10.00 0.00 - 10.00 B 10.01 - 20.00 10.01 - 15.00 C 20.01 - 35.00 15.01 - 25.00 D 35.01 - 55.00 25.01 - 35.00 E 55.01 - 80.00 I 35.01 - 50.00 F >80.01 >50.01 The Level of Service analysis for the intersections in the vicinity of the site is shown in Table 2. Existing analysis is based upon manual AM and PM peak hour turning movement counts made for RK in September 2003 (see Exhibit G). Traffic count worksheets are included in Appendix B. The study area intersections are currently operating at an unsatisfactory level of service during the peak hours. ICU and HCM calculation worksheets for existing conditions are provided in Appendix C. 2-7 i THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 2-8 3.0 Proiect Traffic 3.1 Site Traffic 3.1.1 Trip Generation Trip generation represents the amount of traffic, which is attracted and produced by a development. The site is currently an existing 114,258 square foot Target Store; however, the proposed project will reconstruct the Target Store to include 133,500 square feet. This would result in a net increase of 19,242 square feet of retail space. Trip generation rates for this project are shown in Table 3. The trip generation rates are based upon the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) and previous studies prepared by RK. Daily AM/PM peak hour trip generation for the proposed project are shown in Table 4. The proposed project is projected to generate approximately 7,560 trip-ends per day with 132 vehicles per hour during the AM peak hour and 566 vehicles per hour during the PM peak hour. The current site generates approximately 6,470 trip-ends per day with 113 peak hour inbound trips and 484 peak hour outbound trips. Therefore, there will be a net increase in trip generation of approximately 1,090 trip-ends per day with 19 additional vehicles per hour during the AM peak hour and 82 additional vehicles per hour during the PM peak hour. This number of trips would be further reduced by "pass-by" trips of approximately 40%. However, to provide a "conservative" analysis no "pass-by" reduction was made in the analysis. 3-1 3.1.2 Trip Distribution Trip distribution represents the directional orientation of traffic to and from the project site. Trip distribution is heavily influenced by the geographical location of the site, the proximity to the regional freeway system, residential and commercial development. The directional orientation of traffic was determined by evaluating existing land uses within the community and the General Plan Circulation Map, in addition to existing traffic volumes. Trip distribution for this study has been based upon near-term conditions, based upon those highway facilities, which are in place. The outbound and inbound trip distribution patterns for the project are graphically depicted on Exhibits H and I, respectively. 3.1.3 Modal Split The traffic reducing potential of public transit has not been considered in this report. Essentially the traffic projections are "conservative" in that public transit might be able to reduce the traffic volumes. 3.1.4 Trip Assignment The assignment of traffic from the site to the adjoining roadway system has been based upon the site's trip generation, trip distribution, proposed arterial highway and -" local street systems. Based on the identified project traffic generation and distribution, the project weekday AM/PM peak hour intersection turning movement volumes and average daily traffic are shown on Exhibit J. 3-2 4.0 Existing Plus Project Traffic Conditions Once the project related traffic is assigned to the street network (see Exhibit J) and added to existing volumes in the study area, existing plus project traffic volumes can be assessed. Exhibit K shows the weekday volumes projected for Existing plus project conditions. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) for existing plus project traffic conditions have been calculated and are shown in Table 5. Existing plus project weekday AM/PM turning movement volumes and average daily traffic volumes are shown on Exhibit K. - As shown in Table 5, study area intersections are projected to continue to operate at an unsatisfactory level of service during the peak hour conditions. ICU and HCM calculation worksheets for existing plus project conditions are included in Appendix D. 4-1 . THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 4-2 I 5.0 Project Buildout (Year 2005) Without Project Conditions Project Buildout (Year 2005) without project volumes have been determined by utilizing a growth rate and cumulative area development in addition to existing traffic volumes. An annual growth rate of 2% has been applied to existing traffic in the area based upon previous reports prepared by RK. This growth factor takes into account ambient growth throughout the City. Project buildout is expected to be Year 2005; therefore, a total growth rate of 4% has been applied to include the two-year period. Cumulative projects within the vicinity of the site have been determined for Project Buildout (Year 2005) conditions and are shown on Exhibit L. Table 6 shows the vehicle trips generated by the cumulative projects. The individual cumulative project trip distribution maps follow on Exhibits M through P. Cumulative project trip generation and trip distribution have been utilized, and the resulting projected cumulative project traffic volumes are shown on Exhibit Q. To assess Project Buildout (Year 2005) traffic conditions, existing traffic has been combined with areawide growth and cumulative projects within the vicinity of the site. The traffic volumes for Project Buildout (Year 2005) conditions are shown on Exhibit R. It should be noted that the City plans to construct three (3) right-turn lanes at the intersection of Brookhurst Street at Adams Avenue. This will include the eastbound, westbound and northbound approaches to the intersection. Therefore, these planned lane improvements have been utilized in the Project Buildout (Year 2005) analysis and are included on Table 7 as "planned improvements". For Project Buildout (Year 2005) without project conditions, the study area intersections are projected to operate at an unsatisfactory level of service during peak hours. However, with 5-1 the City's planned improvements, the intersection of Brookhurst Street at Adams Avenue is projected to improve to level of service during peak hours. Table 7 presents the intersection analysis for Project Buildout (Year 2005) conditions with existing geometry and planned improvements. The ICU and HCM calculation worksheets for Project Buildout (Year 2005) without project conditions are included in Appendix E. 5-2 6.0 Project Buildout (Year 2005) With Project Conditions To assess Project Buildout (Year 2005) with project conditions, project traffic has been combined with Project Buildout (Year 2005) without traffic. Project Buildout (Year 2005) with project traffic volumes are shown on Exhibit S. For Project Buildout (Year 2005) with project conditions, the study area intersections are projected to operate at an unsatisfactory level of service during peak hour conditions with existing geometrics. However, with the City's planned improvements, the intersection of Brookhurst Street at Adams Avenue is projected to improve to acceptable level of service ^" during peak hours. In addition, with the implementation of restricted access or the installation of traffic signals at Target Driveways 1 and 2, it is projected that level of service during peak hours will also improve to an acceptable level of service. Table 8 presents the intersection analysis Project Buildout (Year 2005) plus project conditions both with and without improvements. The delays and ICU values shown in Table 8 would be further reduced if the project trip generation was reduced by typical "pass-by" trips. The ICU and HCM calculation worksheets for Project Buildout (Year 2005) with project conditions are included in Appendix F. 6-1 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 6-2 7.0 Traffic Impact Significance The LOS standards and impacts criteria specified in the City of Huntington Beach Traffic Impact Assessment Preparation Guidelines have been used to assess.the significance of the potential traffic impacts associated with the proposed project at City intersections. In order to determine whether an intersection will be significantly impacted by the implementation of the proposed project, performance criteria for significance must be established. The following definitions describe the significance criteria used in this study. Significant Traffic Impacts for intersections: A "Significant" traffic impact for intersections is defined as a project-related V/C ratio value greater than or equal to LOS E (0.905), which requires mitigation by reducing the V/C ratio to LOS D (0.904) or baseline, if the baseline is LOS E or F (greater than or equal to 0.905). Baseline is defined as the existing conditions. For Project Buildout (Year 2005) conditions, project significance has been determined and is shown on Table 8. The difference in WC ratio with project conditions is not shown to be significant based upon a significance level of 0.01, as shown on Table 8. 'J 7-1 G- THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK I 7-2 8.0 Accident Review r•- 8.1 Driveway Accident Review RK has reviewed the accident history at the two full access points to the existing Target Store. The Adams Avenue driveway is a full access located approximately 700 feet west of the intersection of Brookhurst Street and Adams Avenue. This driveway servesboth the Target Store on the south and the Mervyns store on the north_an.d..:provicles full -turning movements. The second driveway is located �et-frTn `fi-e--centediRa--of the:..i.ntersection. oJ.-B-r-oQkb-wisLStreet a-t--Adarms- venue a tb-e_south.end--of-t-he.-Target---store,,--Th-i-s fu.R-accessdriveway"serverthe existing Targe _stQce__arad-the _existing_shopping,..,cgp _u_Lua1e_d_t.o.. h� east--off Brookhurst Street. The intersection of Brookhurst Street at Adams Avenue has been extensively reviewed with respect to traffic safety by the City of Huntington Beach. This has included a traffic safety study for the intersection of Brookhurst Street/Adams Avenue in the City of Huntington Beach, prepared by Kimley Horn & Associates, Inc. in November 2001 . This traffic safety study included an evaluation of accident history at the intersection of Brookhurst Street/Adams Avenue, the adjoining Target/Mervyns driveway on Adams Avenue and the main driveway on Brookhurst Street serving the Target store and adjacent shopping center. The previous traffic safety study recommended the installation of a "worm" median treatment which would restrict thru and left turn movements out of each of these driveways. The study further recommended changing the traffic signal timing to reduce red light running to allow more time for the left turn phases during off peak hours and the installation of "tattletale" lights to aid a red light enforcement by the Police Department. The study also recommended the installation of three separate right a turn lanes at the intersection of Brookhurst Street and Adams Avenue. 8-1 RK has reviewed the latest accident history at the end of the Target/Mervyns driveway on Adams Avenue and the Target/shopping center driveway on Brookhurst Street. The City of Huntington Beach provided RK with the accident history in the - vicinity of these locations for the Year 2000 through September 10, 2003. A complete listing of accident data is included in Appendix G. A summary of the Adams Avenue driveway accidents is shown in Table 9. This table indicates the accident history for the past 44 months (over 3 years) for those accidents in close proximity to the subject driveways. All accidents within 200 feet of the centerline of the driveways are included in Table 9. Table 9 indicates that there were twelve 0 2) accidents at this location during Year 2000, four (4) in Year 2001, four (4) in Year 2002 and six (6) in Year 2003 up to September 10, 2003. Many of these accidents are auto right of way violations, involving left turn or through vehicle conflicts in the vicinity of the driveway. The number of accidents which have occurred at this 5 location would meet the Caltrans Warrant 6 for a traffic signal based on five (5) ? correctible accidents in a year at the intersection. The accident history for the Brookhurst Street driveway for the Target/Commercial Center is shown in Table 10. At this location, there are significantly'fewer accidents than the Adams Avenue driveway as noted in Table 10. During Year 2000 there were two (2) accidents, Year 2001 two (2) accidents, Year 2002 three (3) accidents and Year 2003 one (1) accident up to.September 10, 2003. Nearly all of these accidents were auto right of way violation conflicts between left turn movements in either the north south or east west directions. The accident history at this location does not meet the Caltrans Warrant 6 for five (5) correctible accidents during a year. I The accident history at the two driveway locations has been reviewed with respect to accident rates. Table 11 indicates the summary of number of accidents, intersection approach ADT (Average Daily Traffic) and the expected accident rates based upon similar intersections throughout California. The Adams Avenue at Target/Mervyns driveway had an accident rate of 0.54 accidents per million entering vehicles. The expected rate for suburban conditions is 0.34 accidents per million 8-2 entering vehicles, and 0.22 for urban areas. The accident rate at this location exceeds the expected rate at this type of intersection for stop control on the side streets. The accident rate on Brookhurst Street at the Target store/Commercial Center has been calculated at 0.16 accidents per million entering vehicles. This rate is under the expected accident rate for this type of intersection for both suburban and urban conditions. A review of the accident history at the two full access points indicates that the accident rate at the Target/Mervyns driveway on Adams Avenue is significantly greater than would typically be expected at this type of intersection. Therefore, some type of traffic control should be implemented to improve traffic safety and operations at this location. This could include the installation of a traffic signal, which is currently warranted at this location based upon the accident rates and traffic volumes (see Section 9 of this report) or turn restrictions could prohibit northbound and southbound left turns and through movements. .T-hr-amder+t_rate at t e,.B.r_ookhur-st--Street--lArgei'Commerc"iaT Center drive aw y is u e-e p ted ,, c--dent rate at this type of ntersec for a.,�.ti.etefore, additional..traffic controls from a traffic safety standpoint would not be warranted.._. However,-_thy intersection currently warrants traffic signal based upon traffic volumes coming from -.the commercial center located to the east of Brookhurst Street (see Section 9 of this" report). It should be noted that the traffic volumes from_the Target store are_.nearly one-third volume at the driveway,. A traffic signal warrant analysis for both of these driveways will be reviewed in Section 9 of this report. City of Huntington Beach Collision Data is included in Appendix G. 8-3 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK x 1 8-4 i 9.0 Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis r A traffic signal warrant analysis has been performed at each of the following study area intersections: North-South Street East-West Street Driveway 1 Adams Avenue 'Brookhurst Street Driveway 2 The traffic signal warrant analysis has included performing the following Caltrans Traffic Signal Warrants: Warrant 1 Minimum Vehicular Volume Warrant 2 Interruption of Continuous Traffic Warrant 3 ( Minimum Pedestrian Volume Warrant 4 School Areas Warrant 5 Progressive Movement Warrant 6 Accident Experience Warrant 7 Systems Warrant Warrant 8 Combination of Warrants Warrant 9 Four-Hour Volume Warrant 10 Peak Hour Delay Warrant 11 Peak Hour Volume For existing conditions, the intersection of Target Driveway 1 at Adams Avenue meets the following Caltrans warrants: 9-1 Warrant 2 Interruption of Continuous Traffic Warrant 6 Accident Experience Warrant 8 Combination of Warrants Warrant 9 Four-Hour Volume Warrant 10 Peak Hour Delay Warrant 11 Peak Hour Volume In order to improve operation and safety at the intersection of Target Driveway 1 and Adams Avenue, it is recommended to install a traffic signal subject to the City's SYNCHRO analysis. Access restrictors in the form of a "worm" median can be considered if the traffic signal cannot be implemented. For existing conditions, the intersection of Brookhurst Street at Target Driveway 2 meets the i following Caltrans warrants: Warrant 2 Interruption of Continuous Traffic Warrant 9 Four-Hour Volume Warrant 10 Peak Hour Delay Warrant 11 Peak Hour Volume In order to improve operation at the intersection of Brookhurst Street at Target Driveway 2, it is recommended to either install a traffic signal or implement restricted turning access subject to the City's SYNCHRO analysis. Traffic signal warrant worksheets are included in Appendix H. 1 9-2 Traffic Manual TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING 9-7 �-1996 Figure 9-1 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS 1 '` CALC DATE 3 DIST CO RTE KPM CHK DATE w• 4. Major St: A d S AF v-4 peed p ' Critical Approach S r f�m7f1- Minor St: Critical Approach SpeedIRrrt- 4 o rH Critical speed of major street traffic > or RURAL(R) In built up area of isolated community of < 10,000 pop. - -- - - - - _ - ❑ ❑ URBAN(U) WARRANT 1 - Minimum Vehicular Volume 100% SATISFIED YES ❑ NO 1 80% SATISFIED YES 59 NO ❑ MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS (80%SHOWN IN BRACKETS) APPROACH U 1 R 2 or more _ a _ Q f _ P PHour LANES r0 l l 11 I (^Z 3 --y S Both Apprchs. 50o M 600 o Major Street (aoo) (260) (480) q33§y1439 t�3 z 330 Highest Apprch. 150 200 140 Z �� I�.j d Minor Street (120) (84) (160) (112) 9 J 1zZ- 117 17-0 IS3 WARRANT 2 - Interruption of Continuous Traffic 100% SATISFIED YES 25, NO ❑ F 80% SATISFIED YES NO ❑ MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS (80%SHOWN IN BRACKETS) U R U R APPROACH P P P r LANES1 2ormore ID-11 tl-rJ I�-; -roHour Both Apprchs. 750 525 900 0 G� �q G Major Street (600) (420) (720) 50 1`I7 I (oJ=g j D ! I b ;42y Highest Apprch. 75 10o 70 9 Z 1 bk 13 y l 01 I 1 TO 1�3 Minor Street (60i 42 (80) (56) WARRANT 3 -Minimum Pedestrian Volume 100% SATISFIED YES ❑ NO C� -ed r^ r AJ e r REQUIREMENT FULFILLED Pedestrian volume crossing the major street is 100 or more _ for each of any four hours or is 190 or more during any one Yes ❑ No ❑ hour;AL4Q There are less than 60 gaps per hour in the major street traf- Yes ❑ No ❑ fic stream of adequate length for pedestrians 10 cross;A Q The nearest traffic signal along the major street is greater Yes ❑ No ❑ than 90 m; ANQl The new traffic signal will not seriously disrupt progressive Yes ❑ No ❑ traffic flow on the major street. The satisfaction of a warrant is not necessarily justification for a signal. Delay, congestion, confusion or other - evidence of the need for right-of-way assignment must be shown. -8 TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING Traffic Manual 1996 Figure 9-2 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS WARRANT 4 - School Areas Not Applicable.......................................J. See School Protection Warrants Sheet ❑ WARRANTS - Progressive Movement SATISFIED YES ❑ NO E& MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS DISTANCE TO NEAREST SIGNAL FULFILLED > 3e&Tr-- N — m, S m, E Oa 4�'q;- W I 4 F►: YES [INO ON ONE WAY ISOLATED STREETS OR STREETS WITH ONE WAY TRAFFIC SIGNIFICANCE AND ADJACENT SIGNALS ARE SO FAR APART THAT NECESSARY PLATOONING&SPEED CONTROL WOULD BE LOST - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - ON 2-WAY STREETS WHERE ADJACENT SIGNALS DO NOT PROVIDE NECESSARY PLATOONING AND SPEED CONTROL PROPOSED SIGNALS COULD CONSTITUTE A PROGRESSIVE SIGNAL SYSTEM Ez ❑ WARRANT 6 -Accident Experience SATISFIED YES ❑ NO ❑ REQUIREMENTS WARRANT FULFILLED ONE WARRANT WARRANT 1 -MINIMUM VEHICULAR VOLUME SATISFIED OR - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 80°i° WARRANT 2-INTERRUPTION OF CONTINUOUS TRAFFIC YES ® NO❑ SIGNAL WILL NOT SERIOUSLY DISRUPT PROGRESSIVE TRAFFIC FLOW ® ❑ ADEQUATE TRIAL OF LESS RESTRICTIVE REMEDIES HAS FAILED TO REDUCE ACCIDENT FREQUENCY ❑ C� ACC. WITHIN A 12 MONTH PERIOD SUSCEPTIBLE OF CORR. &INVOLVING INJURY OR ? $500 DAMAGE -- - - -- - -- - - -- - - - - - -- -- - - - - -- - - -- - - -- - - -- - - -- -- MINIMUM REQUIREMENT NUMBER OF ACCIDENTS 5 OR MORE 1p ` o b 3 44 C�, `r a `; ® ❑ �Z=c' / WARRANT 7-Systems Warrant I t !; -Liz 06) SATISFIED YES ❑ NO MINIMUM VOLUME ENTERING VOLUMES-ALL APPROACHES FULFILLED REQUIREMENT DURING TYPICAL WEEKDAY PEAK HOUR 3S L VEH/HR 1000VEH/HR -- - - - - -- ---- -- -- - - --- - - - - - -- -- - - OR DURING EACH OF ANY 5 HRS.OF A SAT.AND/OR SUN. VEH/HR YES C& NO❑ CHARACTERISTICS OF MAJOR ROUTES MAJOR ST. MINOR ST. HWY.SYSTEM SERVING AS PRINCIPLE NETWORK FOR THROUGH TRAFFIC �' IJ O - - - - - - - -- - - - - --- - -- - - - - - - -- -- -- ---- - - - - - - - - -- -- RURAL OR SUBURBAN HWY OUTSIDE OF,ENTERING,OR TRAVERSING A CITY N"O - - -- -- ---- -- -- -- -- -- --- - -- -- - ----- - -- -- - ---- - APPEARS AS MAJOR ROUTE ON AN OFFICIAL PLAN y �� ANY MAJOR ROUTE CHARACTERISTICS MET, BOTH STREETS ❑ The satisfaction of a warrant Is not necessarily justification for a signal. Delay, congestion, confusion or other evidence of the need for right-of-way assignment must be shown. Traffic Manual TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING 9-9 7-1996 Figure 9-3 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS WARRANT 8- Combination of Warrants SATISFIED YES NO ❑ REQUIREMENT WARRANT J FULFILLED TWO WARRANTS 1. MINIMUM VEHICULAR VOLUME SATISFIED 2. INTERRUPTION OF CONTINUOUS TRAFFIC YES Eg NO �] 80% WARRANT 9 - Four Hour Volume SATISFIED* YES �K NO ❑ 2 or P Approach Lanes One more Z' P -S� 'ro Hour Both Approaches - Major Street 1939 Z� 33oJ Highest Approaches - Minor Street 1-2— Refer to Figure 9-6 (URBAN AREAS) or Figure 9-7 (RURAL AREAS) to determine if this warrant is satisfied. WARRANT 10 - Peak Hour Delay SATISFIED YES ® NO ❑ (ALL PARTS MUST BE SATISFIED) 1. The total delay experienced for traffic on one minor street approach controlled by a STOP sign equals or exceeds four vehicle-hours for a one-lane approach and five vehicle-hours for a two-lane approach; AND YES NO ❑ 2. The volume on the same minor street approach equals or exceeds 100 vph for one moving lane of traffic or 150 vph for two moving lanes;AND YES NO ❑ 3. The total entering volume serviced during the hour equals or exceeds 800 vph for intersections with four or more approaches or 650 vph for intersections with three approaches. YES NO ❑ WARRANT 11 -Peak Hour Volume SATISFIED YES C& NO ❑ 2 or P P P Approach Lanes One more ��I "7 - � -6 Hour Both Approaches - Major Street Highest Approaches Minor Street 1S3 * Refer to Figure 9-8 (URBAN AREAS) or Figure 9-9 (RURAL AREAS) to determine if this warrant is satisfied. The satisfaction of a warrant is not necessarily justification for a signal.Delay, congestion,confusion or other evidence of the need for right-of-way assignment must be shown. Traffic Manual TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING 9-13 7-1996 Figure 9-7 FOUR HOUR VOLUME WARRANT (Rural Areas) 400 = 2 OR MORE LANES(MAJOR)2 OR MORE LANES(MINOR) a > = 300 w Q ` 2 OR MORE LANES(MAJOR) &1 LANE(MINOR) � CC OR 1_LANE(MAJOR) & 2 OR MORE LANES(MINOR N Q. a cc a 200 Ow (1939 O = 100 O * _ = 1 LANE(MAJOR) &1 LANE(MINOR) 0 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 MAJOR STREET-TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES -VPH I to 3C� = Y" vpl �nr►^ ..: * NOTE: 80 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACH WITH TWO OR MORE LANES AND 60 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACHING WITH ONE LANE. Traffic Manual TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING 9-15 7.1996 Figure 9-9 PEAK HOUR VOLUME WARRANT (Rural Areas) 500 2 OR MORE LANES(MAJOR) & 2 OR MORE LANES(MINOR) 2 a > 400 = 2 OR MORE LANES (MAJOR) & 1 LANE(MINOR) UQ OR 1 LANE(MAJOR)& 2 OR MORE LANES(MINOR) LU = 300 C o- D a CC w O 2 200 0 (ai3 S" O> dC09`l7 100 1 LANE(MAJOR) & 1 LANE(MINOR) 0 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 MAJOR STREET-TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES-VPH * NOTE: 100 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACH WITH TWO OR MORE LANES AND 75 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACHING WITH ONE LANE. 9-10 TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING Traffic Manual T-,M Figure 9-4 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS (Based on Estimated Average Daily Traffic - See Note) URBAN ......................... RURAL ............................. Minimum RequirementsEADT 1. Minimum Vehicular Vehicles per day on Vehicles per day on Satisfied Not Satisfied X major street (total of higher-volume minor both approaches) street approach (one Number of lanes for moving traffic on each approach direction only) Major Street Minor Street Urban Rural Urban Rural 1 .............. 1 .............. 8,000 5 600 2,400 1,680 2 or mor 3 :Z - 9. -. ....... 9,600 6,720 2,400 136< Zwrfnore 2 or more ........ 9,600 6,720 3,200 ,240 1 ..................................... 2 or more ......................... 8,000 5,600 3,200 2,240 2. lnteruption of Continuous Traffic Vehicles per day on Vehicles per day on Satisfied 14N Not Satisfied major street (total of higher-volume minor both approaches) street approach (one direction only) Number of lanes for moving traffic on each approach Major Street Minor Street Urban Rural Urban Rural 1 �more'..* .................... ..................................... 12,000 8,40 1,200 850 2 .3-7.?. ..... .�.�r.`1 .................. 14,400 080 1,200 50 ..................... 2 or more ......................... 14,400 1,600 1,120 1 ..................................... 2 or more ......................... 12,000 8,400 1,600 1,120 3. -Combination Satisfied Not Satisfied 2 Warrants 2 Warrants No one warrant satisfied,but following warrants fulfilled 80% or more ......... 7 °O /0 0 'a 1 2 NOTE: To be used only for NEW INTERSECTIONS or other locations where it is not reasonable to count actual traffic volumes. s Traffic Manual TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING 9-7 7-1996 Figure 9-1 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS CALC R ,L �`� DATE DIST CO RTE KPM CHK DATE Major St: �-3 Y'O 0 Critical Approach Speed �4 S ! P lcmlFr- Minor St: -I-I- L>w Z Critical Approach Speed ; Y'Critical speed speed of major street traffic > 64 km/h - - - - - - - --- - - or or RURAL(R) In built up area of isolated community of < 10,000 pop. - _- - - _- - - ❑ ❑ URBAN (U) _ WARRANT 1 - Minimum Vehicular Volume 1009/6 SATISFIED YES ❑ NO 80% SATISFIED YES ❑ NO MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS (80%SHOWN IN BRACKETS) U R U R APPROACH 1 2 or more P s-6Hour Both Apprchs. 500 350 600 420 Major Street (400) (280) (,W6 336 Z16 UGC Z4b Zlo�j 2�3 296. E r Highest Apprch. 150 5 200 140 Minor Street (120) (160) (112) 7(a GC (D 11 4 14 f ilia 013 WARRANT 2 - Interruption of Continuous Traffic 100% SATISFIED YES 64 NO ❑ 80% SATISFIED YES NO ❑ MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS (80%SHOWN IN BRACKETS) U R U R APL4NESCH 1 2 or more Hour Both Apprchs. 750 525 900 0 Major Street (600) (420) (720) so Z1fo7i Z Z`b� Zb`�3 2�'33 Z„46J �33 (739 Highest Apprch. 75 100 70 i+ l l`� tic) l(3 Minor Street t (60) 42 (80) (56) WARRANT 3 - Minimum Pedes rian Volume 100% SATISFIED YES ❑ NO [S- REQUIREMENT FULFILLED Pedestrian volume crossing the major street is 100 or more for each of any four hours or is 190 or more during any one Yes ❑ No ❑ hour;A Q! There are less than 60 gaps per hour in the major street traf- Yes ❑ No ❑ fic stream of adequate length for pedestrians to cross;AM The nearest traffic signal along the major street is greater Yes ❑ No ❑ than 90 m; AND The new traffic signal will not seriously disrupt progressive Yes ❑ No ❑ traffic flow on the major street. The satisfaction of a warrant Is not necessarily justification for a signal. Delay, congestion, confusion or other evidence of the need for right-of-way assignment must be shown. 1-8 TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING Traffic Manual •1996 Figure 9-2 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS WARRANT 4- School Areas Not Applicable.......................................� See School Protection Warrants Sheet ❑ WARRANT 5 - Progressive Movement SATISFIED YES ❑ NO MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS DISTANCE TO NEAREST SIGNAL FULFILLED > 3eM Ol � � 4 N =F S �200OTI ae E — m, W -- m. YES ❑ NOJ� ON ONE WAY ISOLATED STREETS OR STREETS WITH ONE WAY TRAFFIC SIGNIFICANCE AND ADJACENT SIGNALS ARE SO FAR APART THAT NECESSARY PLATOONING&SPEED CONTROL WOULD BE LOST - -- -- - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ON 2-WAY STREETS WHERE ADJACENT SIGNALS DO NOT PROVIDE NECESSARY PLATOONING AND SPEED CONTROL PROPOSED SIGNALS COULD CONSTITUTE A PROGRESSIVE SIGNAL SYSTEM ❑ WARRANT 6 - Accident Experience SATISFIED YES ❑ NO REQUIREMENTS WARRANT J FULFILLED ONE WARRANT WARRANT 1 - MINIMUM VEHICULAR VOLUME SATISFIED OR - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - - - 80% WARRANT 2-INTERRUPTION OF CONTINUOUS TRAFFIC YES ❑ NO❑ SIGNAL WILL NOT SERIOUSLY DISRUPT PROGRESSIVE TRAFFIC FLOW ❑ ADEQUATE TRIAL OF LESS RESTRICTIVE REMEDIES HAS FAILED TO REDUCE ACCIDENT FREQUENCY ❑ ACC. WITHIN A 12 MONTH PERIOD SUSCEPTIBLE OF CORR. &INVOLVING INJURY OR > $500 DAMAGE --- - - -- -- - - -- -- - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - -- - --- - - - - - - MINIMUM REQUIREMENT NUMBER OF ACCIDENTS 5 OR MORE 7 ^v O ..p c--a ❑ WARRANT 7- Systems Warrant -7� SATISFIED YES ❑ NO MINIMUM VOLUME REQUIREMENT ENTERING VOLUMES ALL APPROACHES FULFILLED DURING TYPICAL WEEKDAY PEAK HOUR I Z VEH/HR ✓ 1000VEH/HR - - -- -- - - -- - - - - - - -- - - - - - - -- -- -- -- OR DURING EACH OF ANY 5 HRS.OF A SAT.AND/OR SUN. VEH/HR YES NO❑ CHARACTERISTICS OF MAJOR ROUTES MAJOR ST. MINOR ST. HWY.SYSTEM SERVING AS PRINCIPLE NETWORK FOR THROUGH TRAFFIC - -- -- - - -- - - -- -- -- -- - - - - - - -- - - -- -- -- J��- - —�D- - RURAL OR SUBURBAN HWY OUTSIDE OF,ENTERING,OR TRAVERSING A CITY NL Am APPEARS AS MAJOR ROUTE ON AN OFFICIAL PLAN -4J w f o - ANY MAJOR ROUTE CHARACTERISTICS MET, BOTH STREETS ❑ %- The satisfaction of a warrant Is not necessarily justification for a signal. Delay, congestion, confusion or other evidence of the need for right-of-way assignment must be shown. Traffic Manual TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING 9-9 7-1996 Figure 9-3 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS WARRANT 8- Combination of Warrants SATISFIED YES ❑ NO REQUIREMENT WARRANT J FULFILLED TWO WARRANTS 1. MINIMUM VEHICULAR VOLUME �C SATISFIED 2. INTERRUPTION OF CONTINUOUS TRAFFIC i/ YES ❑ NO 80% WARRANT 9 - Four Hour Volume SATISFIED* YES (k NO ❑ 2or P P Approach Lanes One more 'S s- Hour Both Approaches Major Street 17 Highest Approaches Minor Street ~ * Refer to Figure 9-6 (URBAN AREAS) or Figure 9-7 (RURAL AREAS) to determine if this warrant is satisfied. WARRANT 10 - Peak Hour Delay SATISFIED YES 0- NO ❑ (ALL PARTS MUST BE SATISFIED) 1. The total delay experienced for traffic on one minor street approach controlled by a STOP sign equals or exceeds four vehicle-hours for a one-lane approach and five vehicle-hours for a two-lane approach-, AND YES (, NO ❑ 2. The volume on the same minor street approach equals or exceeds 100 vph for one moving lane of traffic or 150 vph for two moving lanes; AND YES NO ❑ 3. The total entering volume serviced during the hour equals or exceeds 800 vph for intersections with four or more approaches or 650 vph for intersections with three approaches. YES [53' NO ❑ WARRANT 11 -Peak Hour Volume SATISFIED YES �L NO ❑ 2or p >P P P - . Approach Lanes One more Z-3 -& S'b -Hour Both Approaches - Major Street Z`/o 33 Z 961 1331 Highest Approaches - Minor Street 1zz I 1 W 1 y y {13 * Refer to Figure 9-8 (URBAN AREAS) or Figure 9-9 (RURAL AREAS) to determine if this warrant is satisfied. The satisfaction of a warrant is not necessarily justification for a signal.Delay, congestion,confusion or other evidence of the need for right-of-way assignment must be shown. Traffic Manual TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING 9-13 7.1996 Figure 9-7 FOUR HOUR VOLUME WARRANT (Rural Areas) 400 = 2 OR MORE LANES(MAJOR) 2 OR MORE LANES (MINOR) a = 300 �1 w G 2 OR MORE LANES(MAJOR)& 1 LANE(MINOR) Cr_ m OR 1 LANE(MAJOR) &2 OR MORE LANES(MINOR Na a o� a 200 zW g J o = 100 ��'� 1 LANE(MAJOR) &1 LANE(MINOR) 0 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 MAJOR STREET-TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES -VPH Va e * NOTE: 80 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACH WITH TWO OR MORE LANES AND 60 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACHING WITH ONE LANE. Traffic Manual TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING 9-15 7-1996 Figure 9-9 PEAK HOUR VOLUME WARRANT (Rural Areas) 500 2 OR MORE LANES(MAJOR)& 2 OR MORE LANES (MINOR) IL > 400 �_- = OR MORE LANES (MAJOR) & 1 LANE(MINOR) a R 1 LANE(MAJOR)& 2 OR MORE LANES(MINOR) Uj ¢ 300 CC a N CL I a CL W z M 200 0 �l,96A 10 0 100 �71 �ir37 1 LANE(MAJOR)& 1 LANE(MINOR) Q E-- 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 MAJOR STREET-TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES-VPH 1 le * NOTE: 100 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACH WITH TWO OR MORE LANES AND 75 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACHING WITH ONE LANE. 9-10 TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING Traffic Manual 7-1"S Figure 9-4 ' TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS (Based on Estimated Average Daily Traffic - See Note) Minimum Requirements URBAN ......................... RURAL ......... ....... EADT 1. Minimum Vehicular Vehicles per day on Vehicles per day on Satisfied Not Satisfied major street (total of higher-volume minor both approaches) street approach (one direction only) Number of lanes for moving traffic on each approach Major Street Minor Street Urban Rural Urban Rural 1 8,000 5.6 2,400 1,680 1 :.% � �,...... .. .,t�.... 1 1�,6r3t� 1.�... .b..................... 9,600 2,400 2 or more ........................ 2 or more ......................... 9,600 6,720 3,200' 2,240 1 ..................................... 2 or more ......................... 8,000 5,600 3,200 2,240 2. lnteruption of Continuous Traffic Vehicles per day on Vehicles per day on Satisfied�� Not Satisfied_ major street (total of higher-volume minor both approaches) street approach (one direction only) 1. Number of lanes for moving traffic on each approach Major Street Minor Street Urban Rural Urban Rural 1. 1 .... 12,000 8,400 1,200 85 2 or Moro..:.17.kY.-... 1 ........... ....................... 14,400 80 1,200 850 2 a7-mate ........................ 2 or more ......................... 14,400 10,080 1,600 1,120 1 ..................................... 2 or more ......................... 12,000 8,400 1,600 1,120 3. Combination Satisfied Not Satisfied 2 Warrants 2 Warrants No one warrant satisfied, but following warrants fulfilled 80%or more ......... —71 �' C 0 ° 1 2 NOTE: To be used only for NEW INTERSECTIONS or other locations where it is not reasonable to count actual traffic volumes. 10.0 Traffic Contribution The project traffic contribution to study area intersections has been assessed and is shown on Table 12. Traffic volume growth has been determined by comparing Project Buildout with project traffic volumes with existing traffic volumes. Project traffic contribution has been determined by calculating the percentage of growth attributed to the net project traffic volumes. The project should contribute to any roadway improvements with a fair- share portion as determined by the project contribution. 10-1 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK .s l 10-2 1� 11 .0 Recommendations 11.1 Site Access The proposed project will have access to Brookhurst Street at three driveways and Adams Avenue at two driveways. Access to the driveways is as follows: D�ivevva . Roadwa I Access 1 Adams Avenue Full Access 2 Brookhurst Street Full Access 3 Brookhurst Street Right-In/Right-Out Access 4 Brookhurst Street Ri ht-In/Ri ht-Out Access 5 Adams Avenue Right-In/Right-Out Access 11.2 Roadway Improvements Project recommendations are shown on Exhibit T. Sight distance should be reviewed at each driveway at the time of preparing precise grading and landscape plans pursuant to Orange County Standard Plan 1117. Traffic signing/striping should be implemented in conjunction with detailed construction plans for the project. Proceed with City plans to install right turn lanes at the intersection of Brookhurst Street at Adams Avenue in the northbound, eastbound and westbound directions. 11-1 A traffic signal should be installed at the intersection of Target Driveway 1 at Adams Avenue as it meet six (6) of Caltrans traffic signal warrants for existing conditions and will help to prevent future accidents; however, the installation should be subject to the City's SYNCHRO analysis. A traffic signal or restricted access medians should be installed at the intersection of Brookhurst Street at Target Driveway 2, as it meets four (4) of Caltrans traffic signal warrants for existing conditions; however again, the installation should be subject to the City's SYNCHRO analysis. 1 1-2 i Exhibits s Exhibit E City 9 Huntington Beach Circulation Element SEAL " WESTMINSTER BEACH U ARGOSY AV' ® m g t 8. ADDEN SINGER •� ® ® ®lob ® HER Si. aRNER FOUNTAIN :s- ._•_ ® 'r VALLEY 405 e s.x a SLATER s� COUNTY OF 0(�BOLSACHICA) `• ® �►e e%TALBERT 0 _.... • as PACIFIC= _ �'�� •J r, ELLIS m GARFIEID s p M.a a e a a ga as YDRKiOWN Y ,c -.T ADAMS • SITE MW APOUS Legend M ,- Y • - iy h Y, e I AI W,IA City Boundary - WETON Principal Arterial Street BANNPIG Major Arterial Street Vehicle Capacity-45,000 ADT = + f - L COSTA 3 ' MESA Primary Arterial Street Vehicle Capacity-30,000 ADT - •4` Secondary Arterial Street Vehicle Capacity-20,000 ADT Collector Arterial Street Vehicle Capacity-10,000 ADT Existing Santa Ana River Bridge N 161 1-03-02(EXE) engineering TARGET T•194 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY,Huntington Beach,California group, inc. Exhibit F City of Huntington Beach Roadway Cross Sections R/W R/W too, 50' I 50' r B' 42• 42' B' 9' 13' 13' 7' 7- 13' IJ• 9• 1 2 J I I I I z 2X 127. J 0.17'--I i — �—0.17' 1 � PRIMARY ARTERIAL STREET R/W R/W 60. 40' I 40• i� 2 J F � �� 2 2 ,.. SECONDARY ARTERIAL STREET R/W R/W _ R/W I 1/2 R/W I 112 R/W 112 P' CK' I 71G I Zx � Z U 0.17' �. I _ y D.I7' 1 COLLECTOR ARTERIAL STREET RAISES OR STRIPED MEDIAN Ir t Ir aa• t4• 4e• S' +a• RM1 RIMY PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL STREET R/W BIKE BIKE R/W I 1 120' 1 1 I 60• 60' I 8' I 52 52' 74 14' It' 13' 7'1 7' 13' it, 14' .17' i 2 JI I I I I I J 2 2R 2R— � .• I ••iBloiz,l 1 1 MAJOR ARTERIAL STREET N 1611-03-02(EXF) engineering TARGET T-194 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY,Huntington Beach.Califomia group, Inc. Exhibit J Project AM/PM Peak Hour Volumes and Average Daily Traffic (ADT) 4: 00! L-0/0 zNo L-0 0 ITT i-4/12 J i-1/3 _ r I/12 �`� 3/3- 11 / -1 o t o _i aoN Adams Ave. 424 rSITE:;,77 /0 y +, LoO - �o b s t0/2-J0 �,ao ca Indianapolis Ave. ------------ Legend: 10/20= AM/PM peak hour volumes 273 =Vehicles per day O =Target driveway number N ' 1611-03-02(EX)) engineering TARGET T.194 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY,Huntington Beach.California group, inc Exhibit 1 Inbound Project Trip Distribution Ln LA f V IO 28 Adams Ave. 15 25 5 SIT 1 V3 N N LM L h ^ N 7 a ~ CO � Indianapolis Ave. 5 5 Legend: 10 = Percent to project -1 I-L 12(EXI) engineerina `.G� 194 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY,HundnRton Beach r.iir.. i. Exhibit H Outbound Project Trip Distribution N Ln 25 15 25 Adams Ave. (' 5 28 s SIT �3 47 5 w « LA C 2 C (V to m 5 5 Indianapolis Ave. Ln — Legend: 10 = Percent from project N 1611-03-02(EXH) engineering TARGET T-194 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY,Huntington Beach,California group, inc. Exhibit G Existing AM/PM Peak Hour Volumes and Average Daily Traffic (ADT) V14N N_ �10/39 00 (-195/370 J 1 (. ~I6/37996 j +1 66/1658 166/232 J 18/72J 2083/803 ,,�r 2235317 61— , 95/122—� �vo / � i r4 N o=v o% .o N 33.7 Adams Ave. m r� Ln J + 17/12" t %SITE Ln 2.4 Ln 72 L Y on o0 0/6-1 f m P N v1 O 07 N _ry �O Indiana olis Ave. -01M135 + L —3/25 0/0-- 1 r 0/8-1 —o Ln fV Legend: 7/29 =AM/PM peak hour volumes 10.0 =Vehicles per day(I000's) 0 =Target driveway number 03 � engineering 77 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY,Huntington Beach.California aroun. inc. Exhibit K Existing Plus Project AM/PM Peak Hour Volumes and Average Daily Traffic (ADT) N u1 T 'LZA -195/370 a3iLn N! LI54/1 T� --489/1666 mq�� 654/1996 CO r i L r20/49 f--167/235 18/72-- ') (� 20 t85%884� I' 2235/1064 0 95/122 ryvo 40/93—i —i = Ln o—v N P-DP P Adams Ave. 34.1 SITE/' f" cc IT L DLn 0/3-J 00/1 LA 0 0-� h O O m m Indianapolis Ave. -------------- Legend: 7/29 =AM/PM peak hour volumes 10.0 =Vehicles per day(I 000's) O =Target driveway number N 161 1.03-02(EXK) engineering - TARGET T-194 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY,Hunung[on Beach,California group, Inc. Exhibit L Cumulative Projects Location Map + O Adams Ave. J �10' i%SITE; fd Y t O N 7 m m Indiana olis Ave. Legend: O = Ralphs/Savon project O = Additional retail building N 161 1-03-02(EXQ engineering TARGET T-194 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY,Huntington Beach,California group, inc. Exhibit M Ralphs/Savon Cumulative Development Outbound Trip Distribution L N ' I l O \1' S 7 23 30 �--- Adams Ave. I 23 20 I ' r%SITE!� � N 'd C N � � Y CC) O O L co Indianapolis Ave. Legend: 10 = Percent from project 0 = Ralphs/Savon project =Additional retail building 7,E 194 T rp" engineering :ET 94 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY,Huntington Beach,California Exhibit N Ralphs/Savon Cumulative Development Inbound Trip Distribution LM N I O � 35 \ c I 65 Q 20 Adams Ave. 30 ✓('Y�/�/,� 15 1%SITE; N H � N m Z 0 o V� 0 L m Ln N Indianapolis Ave. I j� Legend: 10 = Percent from project O = Ralphs/Savon project + O =Additional retail building N 161 1-03-02(EXN) engineering TARGET T-194 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY, Huntington Beach,California group, inc. Exhibit O Other Retail Cumulative Development Outbound TripDistribution N'1 N Ln N 15 30 70 Adams Ave. a/ 28 28 SITE 4 v7 Ln 7 ftl Z O 7 — O D7 � m 5 Indianapolis Ave. L — Legend: 10 = Percent from project O =Additional retail building engineering ' .EPIC IMPACT STUDY,Huntington Beach,California group, inc. Exhibit P Other Retail Cumulative Development Inbound Trip Distribution Ln N 28 Adams Ave. 10 15 30 N V V N 12 O L ,a Y L O � O m m Indianapolis Ave. I n f Legend: 10 = Percent to project O = Additional retail building -� N 1 61 1-03-02(EXP engineering TARGET T-194 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY,Huntington Beach,California group, inc. - Exhibit Q Cumulative Development Traffic Volumes goQOgo L-0�0 Ln L-2%5 f-2/5 I1 t► �/2 2/� a� 1/4- 0/1 -o- - � --o Adams Ave. 272 tiSITE �� IJ 4. N � 'O 7 � L L 0 O j O Co m Indianapolis Ave. Qc.oc L-0/0 J ---0 i /0 � 0/0— t d 0/0� or4o Legend: 10/20=AM/PM peak hour volumes n 100 = Vehicles per day 0 = Target driveway number 03 T ® engineering ET 94 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY,Huntington Beach,California group, inc. . Exhibit R Project Buildout (Year 2005) Without Project AM/PM Peak Hour Volumes and Average Daily Traffic (ADT) LnM CNN 4-10/41 �o�°•0 i50%1729 --682/2082 J + �19/43 J L f-173/243 19/75J 1 4 (' 191/288� (� 2326/1109-- �bc 2095/839 ma0o 38/88-1 W 99/128-1 .n o e�I.�o N —I Q' O Adams Ave. 35.3 Ln Y Y N L bL L 0 O cc m of ' n� -II/140 Indianapolis Ave. u, iC! + L f-/26 � 1C,Ln � ' y Ln Legend: 7/29=AM/PM peak hour volumes 10.0 = Vehicles per day(I 000's) O = Target driveway number 1611-03-02(EXR) engineering TARGET T-194 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY,Huntington Beach,California group, inc. t+l TABLE 1 Project Land Use' Site Building Garden Center Total Proposed Site 125,400 8,100 133,500 Existing Site 103,4581 10,8001 114,258 Difference + 21,942 -2,700 1 + 19,242 ' Measured in square feet is Vktables'vk 1800'vk i 857rb TABLE 2 Intersection Analysis for Existing Conditions Intersection A roach Lane(s)' Level of -- Traffic Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound ICU2/HCM3 Service Intersection Control° L T R L T R L T R L T R AM PM AM PM Target Store Dwy. 1 (NS) at: • Adams Ave. (EW) CSS 1 0.5 0.5 1 0.5 0.5 1 2.5 0.5 1 2.5 0.5 153.53 1248.53 F F Brookhurst St. (NS) at: • Target Store Dwy. 2 (EW) CSS 1 2.5 0.5 1 2.5 0.5 0 1 0 0 1 0 32.93 466.23 D F • Adams Ave. (EW) TS 1 2 2.5 0.51 2 2.5 0.51 2 2.5 0.51 2 2.5 0.5 1 0.9262 0.8612 E D ` I I I f ' When a right turn lane 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 the through lanes. Where 1" is indicated for the through movement and "0"s are indicated for R/L movements,the R and/or L turns are shared with the through movement. L = Left;T = Through; R = Right; > = Right Turn Overlap; >> = Free Right Turn Overlap;4_0 = Improvement z Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU). Analysis Software: Traffix, Version 7.5 R1 (9/14/2002). ICU utilized for signalized study intersections. 3 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM)2000 reports intersection delay in seconds. HCM utilized for unsignalized study intersections. TS = Traffic Signal CSS = Cross Street Stop j:/rktables/rk 1800/RK1857TB.xls ini u>>_nz_m TABLE 3 Trip Generation Rates' Peak Hour AM PM Land Use Project Units In Out In Out Daily Free Standing Discount Store Target TSF 0.65 0.34 2.12 2.12 56.63 Other Cumulative Retail Retail Projects I TSF 0.63 0.40 1.80 1.94 42.92 h �i 9 I, mi I Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers(ITE), Trip Generation, Sixth Edition, 1997, Land Use Categories 813 and 820. Z TSF =Thousand Square Feet •.i�_�i__,_,, nnn,n V.OC7TD..1. TABLE 4 Project Trip Generation Peak Hour AM PM Land Use Quantity Units' In Out In Out Daily Proposed Reconstructed Target Store 133"00 TSF 87 45 283 283 7,560 Less Existing Target Store 114.258 TSF 74. 39 242 242 6,470 Net Trips Generated 13 6 41 41 1,090 ' TSF =Thousand Square Feet i:lrktableslrk 18001RK1857T8.X1s A 1611.03.02 TABLE 5 Intersection Analysis for Existing Plus Project Conditions Intersection A proach Lane(s)' Level of Traffic Northbound southbound Eastbound Westbound ICU'/HCM' Service Intersection Control° L T R L T R L T R L T R AM PM AM PM Target Store Dwy. 1 (NS)at: • Adams Ave. (EW) CSS 1 0.5 0.5 1 0.5 0.5 1 2.5 0.5 1 2.5 0.5 196.53 1646.33 F F Brookhurst St. (NS) at: • Target Store Dwy. 2 (EW) CSS 1 2.5 0.5 1 2.5 0.5 0 1 0 G 1 0 33.33 508.13 D F • Adams Ave. (EW) TS 2 2.5 0.5 2 2.5 0.5 2 2.5 0.5 2 2.5 0.5 0.937' 0.871' E D ' When a right turn lane 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 the through lanes.Where"1"is indicated for the through movement and"0"s are indicated for R/L movements,the R and/or L turns are shared with the through movement. L= Left:T=Through; R = Right; > = Right Turn Overlap; >> = Free Right Turn Overlap;4_0 = Improvement 2 Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU). Analysis Software: Traffix, Version 7.5 R1 (9/14/2002). ICU utilized for signalized study intersections. 3 Highway Capacity Manual(HCM)2000 reports intersection delay in seconds. HCM utilized for unsignalized study intersections. ° TS = Traffic Signal _ CSS =Cross Street Stop i/rktah1P.Vrk1800/RK1857TB.xk TABLE 6 Cumulative Project Trip Generation Location Peak Hour Map AMI PM No. Land Use Quantity Units' In Out In Out Daily 1 Ralphs/Savon' 5 5 15 20 350 2 Other Retail 4 TGLA 3 2 7 8 172 Total 8 7 22 28 522 ' Ralphs/Savon project trip generation is net increase as shown in NE Corner of Brookhurst and Adams Traffic Study. dated July 22, 2003, prepared by Willdan. TGLA = Total Gross Leasable Area ilrktables/rk 1800/RK 1857TB.xls IN:167 1-03-02 TABLE 7 Intersection Analysis for Project Buildout (Year 2005) Without Project Conditions Intersection Approach Lane(s)' Level of Traffic Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound ICU 2/HCM3 Service Intersection. Control° L T R L T R L T R L T R AM PM AM PM Target Store Dwy. 1 (NS) at: • Adams Ave. (EW) CSS 1 0.5 0.5 1 0.5 0.5 1 2.5 0.5 1 2.5 0.5 255.53 2839.13 F F Brookhurst St. (NS) at: • Target Store Dwy. 2 (EW) CSS 1 2.5 0.5 1 2.5 0.5 0 1 0 0 1 0 37.13 670.73 E F • Adams Ave. (EW) ti existing geometry TS 2 2.5 0.5 2 2.5 0.5 2 2.5 0.5 2 2.5 0.5 0.9722 0.902' E E w/planned improvements I TS 1 2 3 11 2 2.5 0.51 2 3 1 1 2 3 1 1 0.8912 0.822' 1 D D i When a right turn lane 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 the through lanes.Where"1"is indicated for the through movement and "0"s are indicated for R/L movements,the R and/or L turns are shared with the through movement. L = Left;T= Through; R = Right; > = Right Turn Overlap; >> = Free Right Turn Overlap;4_0 = Improvement z Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU). Analysis Software: Traffix, Version 7.5 R1 (9/14/2002), ICU utilized for signalized study intersections. 3 Highway Capacity Manual(HCM) 2000 reports intersection delay in seconds. HCM utilized for unsignalized study intersections. TS = Traffic Signal CSS =Cross Street Stop F/rl-ra hlodr4lRM/RK/RS7Tp rlc TABLE 8 Intersection Analysis for Project Buildout (Year 2005) With Project Conditions Intersection A proach Lane(s)' North- South- East- West- Level of Traffic bound bound bound bound ICU2/HCM3 Service Si nificance5 Intersection Control° L T R L T R L T R L T R AM PM AM PM AM PM Target Store ` Dwy. 1 (NS)at: • Adams Ave. (EW) CSS 1 0.5 0.5 1 0.5 0.5 1 IS 0.5 1 2.5 0.5 554.83 44,9.03 F F Brookhurst St. (NS)at: • Target Store CSS 1 2.5 0.5 1 2.5 0.5 0 1 0 0 1 0 67.43 726.03 F F Dwy. 2 (EW) • Adams Ave. (EW) existing geometry TS 2 2.5 0.5 2 2.5 0.5 2 2.5 0.5 2 2.5 0.5 0.9772 0.9072 E E 0.005 No 0.005 No with planned TS 2 3 1 2 2.5 0.5 2 3 1 2 3 1 0.8922 0.8282 D D 0.001 No 0.006 No improvements n at C.: When a right turn lane 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 the through lanes.Where"1"is indicated for the through movement and"0"s are indicated for R/L movements,the R and/or L turns are shared with the through movement. c� L= Left;T=Through;R= Right; > = Right Turn Overlap; >> = Free Right Turn Overlap;4_0= Improvement z Intersection Capacity Utilization(ICU). Analysis Software: Traffix,Version 7.5 R1 (9/14/2002). ICU utilized for signalized study intersections. 3 Highway Capacity Manual(HCM)2000 reports intersection delay in seconds. HCM utilized for unsignalized study intersections. TS =Traffic Signal CSS =Cross Street Stop s The change in level of service with the project is significant if greater than 0.01. j:1rkrableslrk 18001RK1857TB.x1s 1N:1611-03-02 TABLE 9 Adams Avenue Driveway No. 1 Accident Summary Year 2000 to 2003 (September 10, 2003)' Accident Reports Motor vehicle Direction Movement Direction Movement Type of Involved of Precise of Precise No. Date Time Distance Direction Collision With' Travel 1 Collision 1 Travel 2 Collision 2 PCF Injury Kill Year 2000 1 1/4/00 16:29 600 West Broadside OMV I South making Left Turn West Proceeding Straight Auto R/W Violation 0 0 2 1/19/00 07:51 583 West Sideswipe OMV West Making Left Turn East Passing Other Vehicle Auto R/W Violation 1 0 3 1120100 14:29 630 West Not Stated OMV South Making Left Turn North Making Left Turn Improper Turning 0 0 4 2/4/00 14:32 657 West Broadside OMV North Making Left Turn East Proceeding Straight Auto R/W Violation 3 0 5 5/l/00 16:141 500 West Head-On OMV South Proceeding Straight East Proceeding Straight Auto R/W Violation 0 0 6 7/3/00 12:201 726 West Broadside OMV South Entering Traffic East Proceeding Straight Auto R/W Violation 1 0 7 7/24100 16:58 628 West Broadside OMV South Entering Traffic West Proceeding Straight Auto R/W Violation 1 0 8 7/27/00 13:04 690 West Broadside OMV East Making Left Turn East Proceeding Straight Auto R/W Violation 0 0 9 8/20/00 18:42 492 West Broadside OMV North Making Left Turn East Proceeding Straight Auto R/W Violation 0 0 10 9/21/00 07:27 800 West Rear-End3 OMV East Proceeding Straight East Crossed Into Opposing Unsafe Speed 0 0 11 10/23/00 13:20 654 West Broadside OMV North Making Left Turn East Proceeding Straight Auto R/W Violation 0 0 12 1 12/4/00 12:14 624 West Broadside Dither Obiec South Entering Traffic East Proceeding Straiaht Auto R/W Violation 0 0 Year2001 Unsafe Starting :.3 t 3/9/01 11:53 645 West Rear-End OMV South Proceeding Straight South Stopped in Road or Backing 0 0 2 6123/01 13:48 655 West Broadside OMV South I Pro ceeding Straight East Proceeding Straight Auto R/W Violation 2 0 3 9/23/01 17:09 620 West Broadside OMV North I Entering Traffic East Proceeding Straight Auto R/W Violation 1 0 Vehicle- 4 1 1/28/01 635 West Pedestrian Pedestrian South Entering Traffic West Proceeding Straight Ped R/W Violation 1 0 Year 2002 Vehicle- _1 3/26/02 13:43 480 West Pedestrian Pedestrian North Entering Traffic East Proceeding Straight Pedestrian Violation 1 0 2 11/9/02 13:591 640 West Head-On OMV West Making Left Turn East Proceeding Straight Auto R/W Violation 1 0 3 12/9/02 07:541 820 West Broadside OMV West Making Left Turn East Proceeding Straight Auto R1W Violation 1 0 4 12,116/02 10:061 671 West Broadside OMV North Entering Traffic East Proceeding Straight Auto RAN Violation 2 0 Year 2003 1 1/17/03 21:05 635 West Broadside OMV North Making Left Turn West Stopped in Road Auto R/W Violation 5 0 2 2/21/03 17:26 600 West Broadside OMV South Making Left Turn West Proceeding Straight Auto R/W Violation 0 0 3 4/24/03 20:08 840 West Sideswipe Sideswipe West Other Unsafe Turning West Proceeding Straight improper Turning 0 0 ,1 Following Too 4 4/24/03 20:09 800 West -Rear Rear Rear-End West Proceeding Straight West Stopped in Road Closel 0 0 5 W9/03117:051 700 West Broadside OMV North Entering Traffic West Proceeding Straight Auto RAN Violation 0 6 6/18/03117:481 609 West Sideswipe 1 OMV West Making Right Turn West Proceeding Straight Auto R/W Violation 0 0 J+ S r�l Accidents within 200 feet of the driveway. ` OMV = Other Motor Vehicle Accident may not be related to the driveway. j:VktabfesVk 1800Vk 1857tb TABLE 10 Brookhurst Street Driveway No.2 Accident Summary Year 2000 to 2003 (September 10,2003)' Accident Reports vehicle Direction Direction Movement Type of Involved of Movement Precise of Precise No. Date Time Distance Direction Collision With' Travel 1 Collision 1 Travel 2 Collision 2 PCF Injury Kill Year2000 1 1 11/8,100 09:52 662 South Broadside OMV West I Making Left Turn South Proceeding Strai ht Auto R/W Violation 1 0 2 1 1/9/00 12:16 651 South Broadside OMV North Makin Left Turn South Proceedin Strai ht Auto RAN Violation 2 0 Year2001 1 1 7/13/01 13:08 656 South Broadside Bicycle South Proceeding Straight West Entering Traffic Wrong Side of Road 1 0 2 12/18/01 20:21 667 1 South Broadside OMV West Entering Traffic North Proceeding Straight Auto R/W Violation 2 0 Year2002 1 2/8/02 10:05 796 South Broadside OMV West Making Left Turn North Proceeding Straight Auto R/W Violation 1 0 2 8/27/02 16:39 628 South Broadside OMV North Making Left Turn South Proceeding Straight Auto R/W Violation 0 0 3 9/6/02 21:41 600 South Broadside OMV West Entering Traffic South Proceeding Straight Auto R/W Violation 1 0 Year 2003 1 3/8/03 08:26 615 South Broadside OMV West Entering Traffic North Proceeding Straight Auto R/W Violation 0 0 Accidents within 200 feet of the driveway. 2 OMV = Other Motor Vehicle i:\rktable.sVk 1800\rk 1857tb /N:1611-03.02 TABLE 11 Accident Rates Intersection Expected No. of Approach Accident Accident Location Accidents No. of Months ADT Rate' Rate Adams Avenue at Driveway No. 1 26 44 36,091 0.54 0.34/0.22' � Brookhurst Street at Driveway No. 2 8 44 37,397 0.16 0.34/0.222 i ' Accidents per million entering vehicles. Suburban/urban areas. i:VktablesVk 1800Vk 1857tb TABLE 12 ' Project Contribution Project Buildout Net Project With Project Total Project% of Existing Traffic Volumes Volumes Growth Growth Intersection AM PM AM I PM AM 1 PM AM PM AM I PM Target Store Dwy. 1 (NS) at: I • Adams Ave. (EW) 3,010 3,529 11 1 50 3,204 1 3,745 194 ; 216 5.70% 123.10% Brookhurst St. (NS) at: • Target Store Dwy. 2 (EW) 2,736 1 3,060 4 i 21 2,878 3,214 142 154 2.80% 13.60% • Adams Ave. (EW) 1 6,178 1 6,5861 10 42 61499 . 6,923 1 321 I 337 1 3.10% 112,50% j:Jrkta6/es/rk 1800JRK 1857TB.xls JN:1611-03-02 Appendices l i r• Appendix A Level of Service Description r•+ LEVEL OF SERVICE - DEFINITIONS* Service General Freeways Arterlals Level Definition Criteria for measurement: Criteria for measurement: Density(cars per lane-mile) Average travel speed (mph) A Free flow. Individual users are Free flow operations. Average Primarily free flow-operations at virtually unaffected by the pres- travel speeds near 60 mph gen- average travel speeds usually ence of others In the traffic erally prevail on 70-mph freeway within 90 percent of the free flow stream. Freedom to select de- elements. Vehicles are almost speed. Vehicles are completely sired speeds and to maneuver completely unimpeded In their unimpeded In their ability to within the traffic stream is ex- ability to maneuver within the maneuver within the trafflc tremely high. The general level traffic stream. The average stream. Stopped delay at sig- of comfort and convenience pro- spacing between vehicles Is about nalized intersections Is minimal. vided to the motorist, passenger, 440 ft, or 22 car-lengths, with a or pedestrian is excellent. maximum density of 12 cars/ mIAn. The effects of minor Inci- dents or breakdowns are easily absorbed at this level. Although they may cause a deterioration in LOS In the vicinity of the Incl- dent, standing queues will not form, and traffic quickly returns to LOS A on passing the dis- ruption. B Stable flow, but the presence of Reasonably free-flow conditions, Unimpeded operations at average other users in the traffic stream and speeds of over 57 mph are travel speeds usually within 70 begins to be noticeable. Freedom maintained on 70-mph freeway percent of the free flow speed. to select desired speeds is rela- elements. The average spacing The ability to maneuver within tively unaffected, but there Is a between vehicles is about 260 ft, the traffic stream Is slightly slight decline in the freedom to or 13 car-lengths, with a restricted and stopped delays are maneuver within the traffic maximum density of 20 not bothersome. stream from LOS A. The level of cars/mi/In. The ability to comfort and convenience provided maneuver within the traffic Is somewhat less than at LOS A. stream Is only slightly restric- because the presence of others In ted. The effects of minor inci- the traffic stream begins to dents and breakdowns are still affect individual behavior. • easily absorbed, though local deterioration In service would be more severe than for LOS A. C Stable flow, but marks the Stable operations, but flows Stable operations.• Ability to beginning of the range of flow in approach the range In which small maneuver and change lanes In which the operation of Individual Increases In flow will cause midblock locations may be more users becomes significantly substantial deterioration In restricted than In LOS B, and affected by Interactions with service. Average travel speeds longer queues and/or adverse others In the traffic stream. The are still over 54 mph. Freedom to signal coordination may selection of speed Is affected by maneuver within the traffic contribute to lower average travel the presence of others, and stream Is noticeably restricted at speeds of about 50 percent of the maneuvering within the traffic LOS C, and lane changes require average free flow speed. stream requires substantial additional care and vigilance by vigilance on the part of the user. the driver. Average spacings are The general level of comfort and In the range of 175 ft, or 9 car- convenience declines noticeably lengths, with a maximum density at this level. of 30/can/mi/ln. Minor Incidents may still be absorbed, but the local deterioration in service will be substantial. Queues may be expected to form behind any significant blockage. Additional vigilance by driver required for safe operation. D High-density, but stable, flow. Borders on unstable flow. in this Borders on a range on which email Speed and freedom to maneuver range, small Increases In flow increases in flow may cause are severely restricted, and the cause substantial deterioration In substantial Increases In approach driver or pedestrian experiences a service. Average travel speeds of delay and, hence, decrease& in generally poor level of comfort 46 mph or more can still be arterial speed. This may be due and convenience. Small Increases maintained on 70-mph freeway to adverse algnal progteaslon, In traffic flow will generally elements. Freedom to maneuver Inappropriate signal timing, high cause operational problems at this within the traffic stream Is volumes, or some combination of level. severely limited. Even minor these. Average travel speeds are incidents can be expected to about 40 percent of free flow create substantial queuing, speed. because the traffic stream has little space to absorb. disruptions. Average spacings are about 125 tt, or 6 car-lengths, with a maximum density of 42 cars/m Uln. E Operating conditions at or near The boundary between LOS D and Significant approach delays and the capacity level. AU*speeds are LOS E describes operation at average travel speeds of one-third reduced to a low but relatively capacity. Operations in this level the free flow speed or lower. uniform value. Freedom to man- are extremely unstable, because Such operations are caused by euver within the traffic stream is there are virtually no usable gaps some combination or adverse extremely difficult, and It Is In the traffic stream. Vehicles progression, high signal density, generally accomplished by forcing are spaced at approximately 80 ft, extensive queuing at critical a vehicle or pedestrian to "give or 4 car-lengths, at relatively Intersections, and Inappropriate way" to accommodate such man- uniform headways. This, however, signal timing. euvers. Comfort and convenience represents the minimum spacing levels are extremely poor, and at which stable flow can be driver or pedestrian frustration is accommodated. Any disruption to generally high. Operations at this the traffic stream, such as a level are usually unstable, because vehicle entering from a ramp, or a small increases In flow or minor vehicle changing lanes, causes perturbations within the traffic following vehicles to give way to stream will cause breakdowns. admit the vehicle. At capacity, the traffic stream has no ability to dissipate even the most minor disruptions. Any Incident can be expected to produce a serious breakdown with extensive queuing. The range of flows encompassed by LOS E is relatively small compared to other levels, but reflects a substantial deterioration in service. Maneuverability within the traffic stream is extremely limited. Average travel speeds at capacity are approximately 30 mph. F Level-of-service F. Forced or Level F describes forced or Arterial flow at extremely low breakdown flow. This condition breakdown flow. Such conditions speeds below one-third to one- exists wherever the amount of generally exist within queues quarter of the free flow speed. traffic approaching a point forming behind breakdown Intersection congestion is likely at exceeds the amount which can points. Breakdown occurs when critical signalized locations, with traverse the point. Queues form the ratio of actual arrival flow high approach delays resulting. behind such locations. Arrival rate to actual capacity or the Adverse progression Is frequently flow exceeds discharge flow. forecasted flow rate to estimated a contributor to this condition. capacity exceeds 1.00. Operations at such a point will generally be at or near capacity, and downstream operations may be better as vehicles pass the bottleneck (assuming that there are no additional downstream problems). The LOS F operations observed within a queue are the result of a breakdown or bottle- neck at a downstream point. *Source: "Highway Capacity Manual,Special Report 209" TrPnamrtntinn Rmpareh Rnard. WAshinvtnn n.r.. 1985 Appendix B - Traffic Count Worksheets Intersection Turning Movement Prepared by: Southland Car Counters N-S STREET: Entrance #1 DATE: 9/9/2003 LOCATION: City of Huntington Beach E-W STREET: Adams Ave, DAY: TUESDAY PROJECT# 03-1354-001 NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL LANES: 6:00 AM 6:15 AM 6:30 AM 6:45 AM 7:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 411 3 2 122 1 539 7:15 AM 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 478 3 3 146 0 633 7:30 AM 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 598 5 3 159 2 772 7:45 AM 1 0 4 0 0 2 3 539 9 4 162 3 727 8:00 AM 1 0 8 0 0 3 6 562 12 4 181 3 780 8:15 AM 4 0 10 1 0 2 8 536 11 5 152 2 731 8:30 AM 8 0 12 1 0 4 12 520 12 5 160 4 738 8:45 AM 5 0 11 0 0 3 10 493 10 4 144 2 682 9:00 AM 9:15 AM 9:30 AM 9:45 AM 10:00 AM 10:15 AM 10:30 AM 10:45 AM 11:00 AM 11:15 AM 11:30 AM 11:45 AM TOTAL NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER [WL WT WR TOTAL VOLUMES = 20 1 47 2 0 16 41 4137 65 30 1226 17 5602 AM Peak Hr Begins at: 730 AM PEAK VOLUMES = 7 1 23 1 0 8 18 2235 37 16 654 10 3010 PEAK HR. FACTOR: 0.554 0.750 0.948 0.904 0.965 CONTROL: Signalized Intersection Turning Movement Prepared by: Southland Car Counters N-S STREET: Entrance#1 DATE: 9/9/2003 LOCATION: City of Huntington Beach E-W STREET: Adams Ave. DAY: TUESDAY PROJECT# 03-1354-001 NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL LANES: 1:00 PM 1:15 PM 1:30 PM 1:45 PM 2:00 PM 2:15 PM 2:30 PM 2:45 PM 3:00 PM 3:15 PM 3:30 PM 3:45 PM 4:00 PM 16 0 20 2 0 6 9 210 26 8 366 5 668 4:15 PM 20 0 24 2 0 6 7 232 20 11 421 8 751 4:30 PM 19 1 32 4 0 8 9 261 26 12 444 10 826 4:45 PM 15 0 23 5 0 16 25 262 21 8 456 15 846 5:00 PM 13 0 19 3 0 9 14 271 18 4 491 10 852 5:15 PM 25 0 36 8 1 17 14 267 28 13 509 12 930 5:30 PM 15 0 20 4 1 10 19 261 17 12 540 2 901 5:45 PM 11 0 17 2 0 7 13 269 14 10 494 3 840 6:00 PM 6:15 PM 6:30 PM 6:45 PM TOTAL NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL VOLUMES = 134 1 191 30 2 79 110 2033 170 78 3721 65 6614 PM Peak Hr Begins at: 445 PM PEAK VOLUMES 68 0 98 20 2 52 72 1061 84 37 1996 39 3529 PEAK HR. FACTOR: 0.680 0.712 0.985 0.935 0.949 CONTROL: Signalized _ Intersection Turning Movement Prepared by: Southland Car Counters N-S STREET: Brookhurst St. DATE: 9/9/2003 LOCATION: City of Huntington Beach E-W STREET: Adams Ave. DAY: TUESDAY PROJECT# 03-1354-002 NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL LANES: 6:00 AM 6:15 AM ,t= 6:30 AM 6:45 AM 7:00 AM 16 177 76 89 162 11 36 411 10 28 90 39 1145 7:15 AM 20 165 85 108 147 15 42 459 14 30 109 44 1258 7:30 AM 21 230 108 116 222 13 40 531 17 41 114 50 1503 7:45 AM 18 258 115 127 246 13 39 553 18 52 140 54 1633 8:00 AM 28 251 110 122 230 27 49 510 27 42 120 47 1563 8:15 AM 34 252 113 118 233 35 55 419 33 31 112 44 1479 8:30 AM 32 249 96 110 211 28 48 421 29 32 110 45 1411 8:45 AM 33 263 80 107 200 25 43 357 26 30 114 47 1325 9:00 AM 9:15 AM 9:30 AM 9:45 AM 10:00 AM 10:15 AM 10:30 AM 10:45 AM 11:00 AM 11:15 AM - 11:30 AM 11:45 AM �A TOTAL NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL VOLUMES = 202 1865 783 897 1651 167 352 3661 174 286 909 370 11317 AM Peak Hr Begins at: 730 AM PEAK VOLUMES = 101 991 446 483 931 88 183 2013 95 166 486 195 6178 PEAK HR. FACTOR: 0.964 0.973 0.939 0.861 0.946 '� CONTROL: Signalized; Intersection Turning Movement Prepared by: Southland Car Counters N-S STREET: Brookhurst St. DATE: 9/9/2003 LOCATION: City of Huntington Beach E-W STREET: Adams Ave. DAY: TUESDAY PROJECT# 03-1354-002 NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL LANES: 1:00 PM 1:15 PM 1:30 PM 1:45 PM 2:00 PM 2:15 PM 2:30 PM 2:45 PM 3:00 PM 3:15 PM 3:30 PM 3:45 PM 4:00 PM 40 277 21 71 255 22 48 159 24 38 312 73 1340 4:15 PM 44 288 25 80 276 27 52 166 26 44 341 91 1460 4:30 PM 52 294 30 84 266 35 73 174 29 50 367 103 1557 4:45 PM 67 294 30 78 284 32 67 177 43 58 337 83 1550 5:00 PM 59 266 19 79 241 32 64 234 30 54 425 111 1614 5:15 PM 77 309 25' 92 332 36 67 176 14 67 421 93 1709 5:30 PM 72 277 29 70 289 39 75 216 35 53 475 83 1713 5:45 PM 66 252 23 62 243 30 60 206 30 43 452 70 1537 6:00 PM 6:15 PM - 6:30 PM 6:45 PM TOTAL NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR [TOTAL VOLUMES = 477 2257 202 616 2186 253 506 1508 231 407 3130 707 12480 PM Peak Hr Begins at: 445 PM PEAK VOLUMES = 275 1146 103 319 1146 139 273 803 122 232 1658 370 6586 PEAK HR. FACTOR: 0.927 0.872 0.913 0.925 0.961 CONTROL: Signalized; Intersection Turning Movement Prepared by: Southland Car Counters N-S STREET: Brookhurst St. DATE: 9/9/2003 LOCATION: City of Huntington Beach E-W STREET: Dwy. 4 DAY: TUESDAY PROJECT# 03-1354-003 NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL LANES: 6:00 AM 6:15 AM 6:30 AM 6:45 AM 7:00 AM 296 194 0 0 490 7:15 AM 337 245 0 2 584 7:30 AM 421 337 1 2 761 7:45 AM 362 253 2 3 620 8:00 AM 393 283 2 6 684 8:15 AM 348 287 8 6 649 8:30 AM 380 245 15 13 653 8:45 AM 307 218 14 8 547 9:00 AM 9:15 AM 9:30 AM 9:45 AM 10:00 AM 10:15 AM 10:30 AM 10:45 AM 11:00 AM 11:15 AM 11:30 AM 11:45 AM TOTAL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL VOLUMESJNL 0 2844 0 0 2062 42 0 0 40 0 0 0 4988 AM Peak Hr Begins at: 730 AM PEAK VOLUMES = 0 1524 0 0 1160 13 0 0 17 0 0 0 2714 PEAK HR. FACTOR: 0.905 0.868 0.708 0.000 0.892 CONTROL: Signalized Intersection Turning Movement Prepared by: Southland Car Counters N-S STREET: Brookhurst St. DATE: 9/9/2003 LOCATION: City of Huntington Beach E-W STREET: Dwy. 4 DAY: TUESDAY PROJECT# 03-1354-003 NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL LANES: 1:00 PM - 1:15 PM 1:30 PM 1:45 PM 2:00 PM 2:15 PM 2:30 PM 2:45 PM 3:00 PM 3:15 PM 3:30 PM 3:45 PM 4:00 PM 375 302 16 27 720 4:15 PM 335 328 19 26 708 4:30 PM 415 346 22 33 816 4:45 PM 354 321 20 32 727 5:00 PM 388 323 24 27 762 5:15 PM 385 336 25 32 778 5:30 PM 382 348 26 30 786 5:45 PM 337 353 21 24 735 6:00 PM 6:15 PM 6:30 PM 6:45 PM TOTAL NIL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL VOLUMES = 0 2971 .0 0 2657 173 0 0 231 0 0 0 6032 PM Peak Hr Begins at: 430 PM PEAK VOLUMES = 0 1542 0 0 1326 91 0 0 124 0 0 0 3083 PEAK HR. FACTOR: 0.929 0.963 0.939 0.000 0.945 CONTROL: Signalized Intersection Turning Movement Prepared by: Southland Car Counters N-S STREET: Brookhurst St. DATE: 9/9/2003 LOCATION: City of Huntington Beach E-W STREET: Dwy. 3 DAY: TUESDAY PROJECT# 03-1354-004 NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL LANES: 6:00 AM 6:15 AM 6:30 AM 6:45 AM 7:00 AM 296 194 0 0 490 7:15 AM 337 248 0 0 585 7:30 AM 421 336 0 0 757 7:45 AM 362 255 0 0 617 8:00 AM 393 292 0 0 685 8:15 AM 348 295 0 0 643 8:30 AM 380 255 0 0 635 8:45 AM 307 226 0 0 533 9:00 AM 9:15 AM 9:30 AM 9:45 AM 10:00 AM 10:15 AM 10:30 AM 10:45 AM 11:00 AM 11:15 AM 11:30 AM 11:45 AM TOTAL NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL VOLUMES = 0 2844 0 0 2101 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4945 AM Peak Hr Begins at: 730 AM PEAK VOLUMES = 0 1524 0 0 1178 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2702 PEAK HR. FACTOR: 0.905 0.876 0.000 0.000 0.892 CONTROL: Signalized Intersection Turning Movement Prepared by: Southland Car Counters N-S STREET: Brookhurst St. DATE: 9/9/2003 LOCATION: City of Huntington Beach E-W STREET: Dwy. 3 DAY: TUESDAY PROJECT# 03-1354-004 NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL LANES: 1:00 PM 1:15 PM 1:30 PM 1:45 PM 2:00 PM 2:15 PM 2:30 PM 2:45 PM 3:00 PM 3:15 PM 3:30 PM 3:45 PM 4:00 PM 375 361 1 0 737 4:15 PM 352 271 2 1 626 4:30 PM 408 314 4 2 . 728 4:45 PM 355 263 2 1 621 5:00 PM 388 397 2 3 790 5:15 PM 385 426 1 2 814 5:30 PM 382 418 0 1 801 5:45 PM 337 424 0 0 761 6:00 PM 6:15 PM 6:30 PM 6:45 PM TOTAL NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL VOLUMES = 0 2982 0 0 2874 12 0 0 10 0 0 0 5878 PM Peak Hr Begins at: 500 PM PEAK VOLUMES= 0 1492 0 0 1665 3 0 0 6 0 0 0 3166 PEAK HR. FACTOR: 0.961 0.977 0.500 0.000 0.972 CONTROL: Signalized Intersection Turning Movement Prepared by: Southland Car Counters N-S STREET: Brookhurst St. DATE: 9/9/2003 LOCATION: City of Huntington Beach E-W STREET: Dwy. 2 DAY: TUESDAY PROJECT# 03-1354-005 NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND NL NT Nk SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL LANES: 6:00 AM 6:15 AM 6:30 AM 6:45 AM 7:00 AM 2 294 0 2 192 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 491 7:15 AM 2 335 0 3 242 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 584 7:30 AM 4 414 1 3 334 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 756 7:45 AM 1 369 2 4 259 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 639 8:00 AM 2 389 2 4 289 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 686 8:15 AM 10 348 0 3 284 0 0 0 0 2 0 8 655 8:30 AM 10 367 3 6 239 0 0 0 2 3 0 5 635 8:45 AM 4 300 3 8 220 0 0 0 2 3 0 4 544 9:00 AM 9:15 AM 9:30 AM 9:45 AM 10:00 AM 10:15 AM 10:30 AM 10:45 AM 11:00 AM 11:15 AM 11:30 AM 11:45 AM TOTAL NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL VOLUMES = 35 2816 11 33 2059 0 0 0 4 10 0 22 4990 AM Peak Hr Begins at: 730 AM PEAK VOLUMES = 17 1520 5 14 1166 0 0 0 0 3 0 11 2736 PEAK HR. FACTOR: 0.920 0.875 0.000 0.350 0.905 CONTROL: Signalized; Intersection Turning Movement Prepared by: Southland Car Counters N-S STREET: Brookhurst St. DATE: 9/9/2003 LOCATION: City of Huntington Beach E-W STREET: Dwy. 2 DAY: TUESDAY PROJECT# 03-1354-005 NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL LANES: 1:00 PM 1:15 PM 1:30 PM 1:45 PM 2:00 PM 2:15 PM 2:30 PM 2:45 PM 3:00 PM 3:15 PM 3:30 PM 3:45 PM 4:00 PM 4 367 4 17 290 0 . 1 0 2 2 0 22 709 4:15 PM 4 340 8 20 308 0 0 0 0 2 0 26 708 4:30 PM 8 370 10 25 339 2 1 0 1 4 0 35 795 4:45 PM 9 341 14 31 282 8 0 0 5 6 0 40 736 5:00 PM 13 355 10 17 334 2 0 0 1 7 0 34 773 5:15 PM 25 333 7 29 325 2 0 0 1 8 0 26 756 5:30 PM 20 336 6 24 324 0 0 0 2 3 0 24 739 5:45 PM 16 315 6 19 333 1 0 0 0 2 0 20 712 6:00 PM 6:15 PM 6:30 PM 6:45 PM TOTAL NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL VOLUMES = 99 2757 65 182 2535 15 2 0 12 34 0 227 5928 PM Peak Hr Begins at: 430 PM PEAK VOLUMES = 55 1399 41 102 1280 14 1 0 8 25 0 135 3060 PEAK HR. FACTOR: 0.963 0.954 0.450 0.870 0.962 CONTROL: Signalized; _ Average Daily Traffic Volumes Prepared by: Southland Car Counters Volumes for:Tuesday,September 09, 2003 City: Huntington Beach Project #: 03-1355-002 Location: Brookhurst St. &s/o Adams Ave. Client Ref#: 1611-03-02 AM Period NB SB EB WB PM Period NB SB EB WB 12:00-12:15 25 35 12:00-12:15 304 240 12:15-12:30 17 22 12:15-12:30 278 261 12:30-12:45 25 20 12:30-12:45 268 278 12:45-1:00 11 78 13 90 168 12:45-1:00 267 1117 266 1045 2162 1:00-1:15 16 12 1:00-1:15 270 282 1:15-1:30 5 17 1:15-1:30 274 2B0 1:30-1:45 13 15 1:30-1:45 291- 219 1:45-2:00 14 48 14 58 106 1:45-2:00 283 1118 301 1082 2200 2:00-2:15 16 7 2:00-2:15 265 282 2:15-2:30 5 16 2:15-2:30 269 351 2:30-2:45 10 13 2:30-2:45 265 310 2:45-3:00 11 42 5 41 83 2:45-3:00 346 1145 319 1262 2407 3:00-3:15 7 12 3:00-3:15 377 326 3:15-3:30 8 14 3:153:30 319 344 3:30-3:45 9 8 3:30-3:45 344 271 3:45-4:00 22 46 17 51 97 3:45-4:00 325 1365 337 1278 2643 4:00-4:15 16 15 4:00-4:15 375 320 4:15-4:30 21 14 4:15-4:30 352 348 4:30-4:45 39 26 4:30-4:45 391 352 4:45-5:00 40 116 21 76 192 4:45-5:00 355 1473 340 1360 2833 i 5:00-5:15 53 25 5:00-5:15 388 353 5:15-5:30 66 41 5:15-5:30 385 377 5:30-5:45 115 103 5:30-5:45 382 369 5:45-6:00 106 340 72 241 581 5:45-6:00 337 1492 374 1473 2965 6:00-6:15 137 83 6:00-6:15 306 325 6:15-6:30 141 107 6:15-6:30 274 287 6:30-6:45 217 166 6:30-6:45 265 313 6:45-7:00 281 776 177 533 1309 6:45-7:00 273 1118 294 1219 2337 7:00-7:15 296 194 7:00-7:15 246 280 7:15-7:30 337 245 7:15-7:30 195 248 7:30-7:4S 421 337 7:30-7:45 173 230 7:45-8:00 362 1416 293 1069 2485 7:45-8:00 169 783 198 956 1739 8:00-8:15 393 283 8:00-8:15 143 207 6:15-8:30 348 287 8:15-8:30 146 199 8:30-B:45 380 245 8:30-8:45 141 187 8:45-9:00 307 1428 218 1033 2461 8:45-9:00 134 564 161 754 1318 9:00-9:15 267 193 9:00-9:15 108 175 9:15-9:30 258 174 9:15-9:30 90 167 9:30-9:45 246 203 9:30-9:45 121 136 9:45-10:00 258 1029 189 759 1788 9:45-10:00 94 413 126 604 1017 10:00-10:15 248 167 10:00-10:1s 69 104 10:15-10:30 258 212 10:15-10:30 69 98 10:30-10:45 233 189 10:30-10:45 64 82 10:45-11:00 231 970 243 811 1781 10:45-11:00 64 266 41 325 591 11:00-11:15 251 197 11:00-11:15 55 59 11:15-11:30 219 216 11:15-11:30 43 47 11:30-11:45 265 259 11:30-11:45 31 48 11:45-12:00 234 969 238 910 1879 11:45-12:00 23 152 44 198 350 Total Vol. 7258 5672 0 0 12930 11006 11556 0 0 22562 Daily Totals 18264 17228 0 0 35492 Average Daily Traffic Volumes Prepared by: Southland Car Counters Volumes for:Tuesday, September 09, 2003 City: Huntington Beach Project#:,03-1355-001 Location: Adams Ave. &w/o Brookhurst St. Client Ref#: 1611-03-02 AM Period NB 5B EB WB PM Period NB SB EB WB 12:00-12:15 22 20 12:00-12:15 268 211 12:15-12:30 21 26 12:15-12:30 256 216 12:30-12:45 14 18 12:30-12:45 277 222 12:45-1:00 14 71 16 80 151 12:45-1:00 242 1043 206 855 1898 1:00-1:15 11 13 1:00-1:15 240 210 1:15-1:30 10 8 1:15-1:30 218 204 1:30-1:45 9 16 1:30-1:45 254 206 1:45-2:00 3 33 11 48 81 1:45-2:00 228 940 209 829 1769 2:00-2:15 5 10 2:00-2:15 267 210 2:15-2:30 4 5 2:15-2:30 246 211 2:30.2:45 5 3 2:30-2:45 262 251 2:45-3:00 6 20 13 31 51 2:45-3:00 250 1025 242 914 1939 3:00-3:15 7 8 3:00-3:15 292 281 3:15-3:30 4 8 3:15-3:30 254 222 3:30-3:45 5 6 3:30-3:45 236 251 3:45-4:00 6 22 6 28 50 3:45-4:00 264 1046 383 1137 2183 4:00-4:15 9 3 4:00-4:15 256 381 4:15-4:30 19 4 4:1":30 274 440 4:30-4:45 21 11 4:30-4:45 274 473 4:45-5:00 25 74 20 3B 112 4:45-5:00 271 1075 478 1772 2847 5:00-5:15 36 22 5:00-5:15 283 520 5:15-5:30 58 38 5:15-5:30 296 533 5:30-5:45 103 82 5:30-5:45 319 579 5:45-6:00 83 280 61 203 483 5:45-6:00 278 1176 497 2129 3305 6:00-6:15 114 99 6:00-6:15 296 468 6:15.6:30 188 110 6:15-6:30 268 383 6:30-6:45 270 102 6:30-6:45 226 333 6:45-7:00 339 911 116 427 1338 6:45-7:00 203 993 290 1474 2467 7:00-7:15 456 126 7:00-7:15 188 271 7:15-7:30 533 142 7:15-7:30 192 261 7:30-7:45 589 165 7:30-7:45 177 247 7:45-8:00 540 2118 166 599 2717 7:45-8:00 151 708 208 987 1695 8:00-8:15 571 169 8:00-8:15 143 213 8:15-8:30 519 174 8:15-8:30 132 199 8:30.8:45 498 172 8:30-8:45 119 158 8:45-9:00 437 2025 177 692 2717 8:45-9:00 129 523 132 702 1225 9:00-9:15 331 152 9:00-9:15 117 204 9:15-9:30 288 144 9:15-9:30 99 185 9:30-9:45 268 122 9:30-9:45 83 181 �. 9:45-10:00 202 1089 109 527 1616 9:45-10:00 61 360 169 739 1099 10:00-10:15 221 156 10:00-10:15 67 124 10:15-10:30 223 162 10:15-10:30 68 94 10:30-10:45 233 153 10:30-10:45 64 70 10:45-11:00 187 864 144 615 1479 10:45-11:00 49 248 67 355 603 11:00-11:15 249 162 11:00-11:15 43 47 11:15-11:30 223 188 11:15-11:30 29 38 11:30-11:45 218 171 11:30-11:45 24 29 11:45-12:00 228 918 199 720 1638 11:45-12:00 18 114 30 144 258 Total Vol. 0 0 8425 4008 12433 0 0 9251 12037 21288 Daily Totals 0 0 17676 16045 33721 Average Daily Traffic Volumes Prepared by: Southland Car Counters Volumes for: Tuesday,September 16, 2003 City: Huntington Beach Project#: 03-1405-002 /� location: Adams Ave. Dwy south side� Client Ref#: AM m 6D Per SB EB WB PM Period (NB� SB EB WB 0 12:00-12:15 0 0 12:00-12:15 33 26 12:15-12:30 0 0 12:15-12:30 33 28 12:30.12:45 0 0 12:30-12:45 32 24 12:45-1:00 0 0 0 0 12:45-1:00 36 134 32 110 244 1:00-1:15 0 0 1:00-1:15 32 28 1:15-1:30 0 0 1:15-1:30 28 24 1:30-1:45 1 0 1:30-1:45 25 22 1:45-2:00 0 1 1 1 2 1:45-2:00 24 109 24 98 207 2:00-2:15 0 0 2:00-2:15 35 28 2:15-2:30 0 0 2:15-2:30 33 24 2:30-2:45 0 0 2:30-2:45 24 23 2:45-3:00 1 1 3 3 4 2:45-3:00 30 122 18 93 215 3:00-3:15 1 1 3:00-3:15 27 30 3:15.3:30 0 0 115-3:30 33 27 3:30-3:45 2 2 3:30-3:45 25 32 3:45-4:00 1 4 1 4 8 3:45.4:00 32 117 34 123 240 4:00-4:15 1 2 4:00.4:15 42 21 4:15.4:30 0 1 4:15-4:30 41 22 4:30-4:45 0 2 4:30-4:45 54 30 4:45-5:00 0 1 0 5 6 4:45-5:00 33 170 29 102 272 5:00-5:15 0 2 5:00-5:15 35 39 5:15-5:30 1 1 5:15-5:30 40 27 5:30-5:45 0 1 5:30-5:45 40 38 5:45-6:00 1 2 4 8 10 5:45-6:00 38 153 32 136 289 6:00-6:15 0 1 6:00-6:15 25 24 6:15-6:30 2 2 6:15-6:30 17 18 6:30-6:45 1 2 6:30-6:45 20 28 6:45-7:00 3 6 6 11 17 6:45-7:00 14 76 23 93 169 7:00-7:15 4 5 7:00-7:15 20 23 7:15-7:30 5 3 7:15-7:30 11 17 7:30-7:45 4 14 7:30-7:45 11 20 7:45-8:00 5 18 13 35 53 7:45-8:00 11 53 20 80 133 8:00-8:15 12 11 8:00-8:15 5 18 8:15-8:30 10 14 8:15-8:30 8 13 8:30-8:45 14 14 8:30-8:45 3 16 8:45-9:00 13 49 16 55 104 8:45-9:00 2 18 9 56 74 9:00-9:15 15 20 9:00-9:15 4 6 9:15-9:30 12 22 9:15.9:30 2 11 9:30-9:45 15 18 9:30-9:45 3 6 9:45-10:00 20 62 14 74 136 9:45-10:00 7 16 3 26 42 10:00-10:15 15 24 10:00-10:15 9 _ 0 10:15-10:30 18 22 10:15-10:30 3 0 10:30-10:45 17 19 10:30-10:45 4 0 10:45-11:00 25 75 22 87 162 10:45-11:00 1 17 1 1 18 11:00-11:15 16 19 11:00.11:15 8 0 11:15-11:30 27 21 11:15-11:30 1 0 11:30-11:45 25 16 11:30-11:45 0 0 11:45-12:00 15 83 22 78 161 11:45-12:00 1 10 0 0 10 Total Vol. 302 361 0 0 663 995 918 0 0 1913 Daily Totals 1297 1279 0 0 2576 Average Daily Traffic Volumes Prepared by: Southland Car Counters Volumes for: Tuesday, September 16, 2003 City: Huntington Beach Project#: 03-1405-001 /� 1 Location: Adams Ave. Dwy North side Client Ref#: AM Period NB ( SB) EB EB— PM Period - NB SBI EB WB 12:00.12:15 0 0 12:00-12:15 32 32 12:15-12:30 3 1 12:15-12:30 27 17 12:30-12:45 0 0 12:30-12:45 27 23 12:45-1:00 0 3 0 1 4 12:45-1:00 25 ill 17 89 200 1:00-1:15 0 0 1:00-1:15 22 18 1:15.1:30 0 0 1:15-1:30 20 17 1:30-1:45 0 0 1:30-1:45 25 19 1:45.2:00 0 0 0 0 1:45-2:00 28 95 15 69 164 2:00-2:15 0 0 2:00-2:15 30 16 2:15-2:30 0 0 2:15-2:30 36 14 2:30-2:45 0 0 2:30-2:45 34 18 2:45-3:00 1 1 0 0 1 2:45-3:00 22 122 16 64 186 3:00-3:15 0 0 3:00-3:15 19 14 3:15-3:30 0 0 3:15-3:30 32 19 3:30-3:45 1 0 3:30-3:45 24 20 3:45-4:00 0 1 1 1 2 3:45-4:00 22 97 20 73 170 4:00-4:15 0 0 4:00-4:15 26 14 4:15.4:30 1 0 4:15-4:30 26 16 4:30-4:45 1 0 4:30-4:45 24 16 4:45-5:00 1 3 1 1 4 4:45-5:00 18 94 15 61 155 S:00-5:15 1 2 5:00-5:15 14 10 S:15-5:30 0 0 5:15-5:30 16 13 S:30-5:45 1 0 5:30-5:45 16 15 S:45-6:00 0 2 0 2 4 5:45-6:00 26 72 16 54 126 6:00.6:15 1 0 6:00-6:15 10 17 6:15-6:30 1 2 6:15-6:30 15 14 6:30.6:45 2 1 6:30-6:45 10 20 6:45-7:00 5 9 4 7 16 6:45-7:00 18 53 17 68 121 7:00-7:15 7 2 7:00-7:15 8 16 7:15-7:30 8 6 7:15-7:30 16 15 7:30-7:45 5 6 7:30-7,45 8 12 7:45-8:00 3 23 4 18 41 7:45-8:00 5 37 10 53 90 8:00.8:15 10 10 8:00-8:15 8 11 8:15.8:30 12 10 8:15-8:30 7 7 8:30-8:45 10 10 8:30-8:45 6 5 8:45-9:00 11 43 12 42 85 8:45-9:00 8 29 8 31 60 9:00-9:15 18 14 9:00-9:15 5 8 9:15-9:30 8 10 9:15-9:30 5 8 9:30-9:45 13 14 9:30-9:45 0 4 _ 9:45-10:00 19 58 27 65 123 9:45-10:00 0 10 3 23 33 10:00-10:15 19 24 10:00-10:15 2 2 10:15-10:30 9 26 10:I5-10:30 2 3 10:30-10:45 16 22 10:30-10:45 0 0 10:45-11:00 13 57 20 92 149 10:45-11:00 0 4 1 6 10 11:00-11:15 21 28 11:00-11:15 0 1 11:15-11:30 19 35 11:15-11:30 0 1 11:30-11:45 11 23 11:30-11:45 0 1 11:45-12:00 19 70 22 108 178 11:45-12:00 0 0 0 3 3 Total Vol. 270 337 0 0 607 724 594 0 0 1318 Daily Totals 994 931 0 0 1925 Average Daily Traffic Volumes Prepared by: Southland Car Counters Volumes for: Tuesday, September 16, 2003 City: Huntington Beach Project#: 03-1405-004 /+\ Location: Brookherst Dwy West side Cli� Ref#: AM Period NB SB ( EB 1 WB PM Period NB SB ( EB WB 12:00-12:15 0 0 12:00.12:15 1 10 12:15-12:30 0 0 12:15.12:30 0 13 12:30-12:45 0 0 12:30-12:45 1 11 12:45-1:00 0 0 0 0 12:45-1:00 1 3 10 44 47 1:00-1:15 0 0 1:00-1:15 1 8 1:15-1:30 0 0 1:15-1:30 2 7 1:30-1:45 0 0 1:30-1:45 2 5 1:45-2:00 0 0 0 0 1:45-2:00 2 7 6 26 33 2:00-2:15 0 0 2:00-2:I5 2 4 2:15-2:30 0 0 2:15.2:30 2 10 2:30-2:45 0 0 2:30-2:45 2 4 2:45-3:00 0 0 0 0 2:45-3:00 3 9 3 21 30 3:00-3:15 0 0 3:00-3:15 3 6 3:15-3:30 0 0 3:15.3:30 4 6 3:30-3:45 0 0 3:30-3:45 3 5 -- 3:45.4:00 0 0 2 2 2 3:45-4:00 4 14 4 21 35 4:00-4:15 0 0 4:00-4:15 4 4 4:15-4:30 0 0 4:15.4:30 4 6 4:30-4:45 0 0 4:30-4:45 2 3 4:45-5:00 0 0 0 0 4:45-5:00 3 13 16 29 42 5:00-5:15 0 0 5:00-5:15 4 13 5:15-5:30 0 1 5:15-5:30 5 6 5:30-5:45 0 2 5:30-5:45 5 13 .5:45-6:00 0 0 0 3 3 5:45-6:00 3 17 5 37 54 6:00-6:15 1 0 6:00-6:15 3 2 6:15-6:30 0 1 6:15-6:30 3 4 6:30-6:45 1 1 6:30-6:45 4 1 6:45-7:00 0 2 4 6 8 6:4S-7:00 3 13 2 9 22 7:00-7:15 0 1 7:00-7:15 1 0 7:15-7:30 1 4 7:15-7:30 3 4 7:30-7:45 1 2 7:30-7:45 3 1 7:45-8:00 2 4 8 15 19 7:45-8:00 3 10 2 7 17 8:00-8:15 0 4 8:00-8:15 3 5 8:15-8:30 2 6 8:15-8:30 1 2 6:30-8:45 2 6 8:30-8:45 1 3 8:45-9:00 2 6 9 25 31 8:45-9:00 1 6 1 11 17 9:00-9:15 0 4 9:00-9:I5 1 0 9:15-9:30 2 3 9:1S-9:30 0 2 9:30-9:45 1 2 9:30-9:45 1 1 9:45-10:00 3 6 6 15 21 9:45-10:00 1 3 0 3 6 10:00-10:15 1 4 10:00-10:15 0 0 10:15-10:30 4 2 10:15-10:30 0 1 10:30-10:45 1 3 10:30-10:45 0 1 10:45-11:00 1 7 3 12 19 10:45-11:00 0 0 0 2 2 11:00-11:15 2 2 11:00-11:15 0 1 11:15-11:30 5 2 11:15-11:30 0 0 1130-11:45 1 1 11:30-11:45 0 0 11:45-12:00 4 12 1 6 18 11:45-12:00 0 0 1 2 2 Total Vol. 0 0 37 84 121 0 0 95 212 307 Daily Totals 0 0 132 296 428 Average Daily Traffic Volumes Prepared by: Southland Car Counters Volumes for:Tuesday,September 16, 2003 City: Huntington Beach Project#: 03-1405-003 Location; Brookherst Dwy east side Client Ref#: AM Period NB SB ES (9 B PM Period NB SB EB WB 12:00-12:15 0 0 12:00-12:15 30 18 12:15-12:30 0 0 12:15-12:30 18 15 12:30-12:45 1 0 12:30-12:45 25 20 12:45-1:00 0 1 0 0 1 12:45-1:00 23 96 23 76 172 1:00-1:15 0 0 1:00-1:15 27 28 1:15-1:30 1 0 1:15-1:30 20 27 1:30-1:45 0 0 1:30-1:45 22 25 1:45-2:00 0 1 0 0 1 1:45-2:00 27 96 20 100 196 2:00-2:15 0 0 2:00-2:15 32 36 2:15-2:30 0 0 2:15-2:30 -31 32 2:30-2:45 0 0 2:30-2:45 28 27 2:45-3:00 0 0 0 0 2:45-3:00 27 118 25 120 238 3:00-3:15 .0 0 3:00-3:15 28 20 3:15-3:30 0 0 3:15-3:30 31 29 3:30-3:45 0 0 3:30-3:45 24 33 3:45-4:00 0 0 G 0 3:45-4:00 37 120 25 107 227 4:00-4:15 1 1 4:00.4:15 23 29 4:15-4:30 0 0 4:15.4:30 27 21 4:30-4:45 1 0 4:30-4:45 37 34 4:45-5.00 1 3 2 3 6 4:45-5:00 32 119 30 114 233 5:00-5:15 1 0 5:00-5:15 35 33 5:15-5:30 1 0 5:15-5:30 32 33 5:30-5:45 0 0 5:30-5:45 30 32 5:45-6:00 0 2 0 0 2 5:45-6:00 36_ 133 46 144 277 6:00-6:15 1 1 6:00-6:15 37 24 6:15-6:30 1 4 6:15-6:30 32 29 6:30-6:45 2 2 6:30-6:45 32 30 6:45-7:00 4 8 1 8 16 6:45-7:00 26 127 27 110 237 7:00-7:15 4 2 7:00-7:15 27 37 7:15-7:30 4 6 7:15-7:30 14 29 7:30-7:45 10 6 7:30-7:45 8 30 7.45-8:00 9 27 6 20 47 7:45-8:00 8 57 17 113 170 8:00-8:15 5 7 8:00-8:15 10 13 8:15-8:30 9 7 8:15-8:30 12 18 8:30-8:45 10 4 8:30-8:45 11 13 8:45-9.00 12 36 5 23 59 8:45-9:00 2 35 20 64 99 9:00-9:15 10 5 9:00-9:15 7 11 9:15-9:30 8 6 9:15-9:30 6 14 9:30-9:45 6 9 9:30-9:45 8 7 _9:45-10.00 6 30 6 26 56 9:45-10:00 9 30 7 39 69 10:00-10:15 16 10 10:00-10:15 6 5 10:15-10:30 18 11 10:15-10:30 1 1 10:30-10:45 18 10 10:30-10:45 0 2 10:45-11.00 16 68 16 47 115 10:45-11:00 2 9 0 8 17 11:00-11:15 10 12 11:00-11:15 1 4 11:15-11:30 15 15 11:15-11:30 3 3 11:30-11:45 12 14 11:30-11:45 1 2 11:45-12:00 20 57 14 55 112 11:45-12:00 1 6 0 9 15 Total Vol. 0 0 233 182 415 0 0 946 1004 1950 Daily Totals 0 0 1179 1186 2365 r Y.: F' Appendix C ICU/HCM Calculations Existing EXAM Wed Sep 17, 2003 12:23:20 Page 2-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TARGET STORE T-194 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative) Intersection-#1-TARGETRDRLVEWAY :L_AA.ADAMS-BIND Average Delay (sec/veh) : 0.9 Worst Case Level Of Service: F r+rxxrrrx###*+r*x+#*r+*+++*+++xr+x#++##*+x++++rx+r*+++xx+xx++#rrr***#x*x##*+####! Approach: .,.North-.,:Bound Saut -Bound East Bound West Bound'� Movement: L~= T:" '- R L - T R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 2 1 0 Volume Module: >> Count Date: 9 Sep 2003 <c Base Vol: 7 1 23 1 0 8 18 2235 37 16 654 10 Growth 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 Initial Bse: 7 1 23 1 0 8 18 2235 37 16 654 10 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0_ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Put: 7 1 23 1 0 6 18 2235 37 16 654 10 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 : 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 PHF Volume: 7 1 24 1 0 8 19 2304 38 16 674 10 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Final Vol. : 7 1 24 1 0 8 19 2304 38 16 674 10 Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp: 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 xxxx 6.9 4.1 xxxx xxxxx 4.1 xxxx xxxxx FollowUpTim: 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 xxxx 3.3 2.2 xxxx xxxxx 2.2 xxxx xxxxx ------------ --------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------� Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: 2618 3078 787 1518 xxxx 230 685 xxxx xxxxx 2342 xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap. : 12 12 339 83 xxxx 779 918 xxxx xxxxx 214 xxxx xxxxx Move Cap. : 11 11 339 67 xxxx 779 918 xxxx xxxxx 214 xxxx xxxxx ------------ I--------------- � �--------------- � � ---------------� � --------------- I Level Of Service Module: _ Stopped Del:565.7 xxxx xxxxx 59.8 xxxx xxxxx 9.0 xxxx xxxxx 23.3 xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: F * * F * * A * * C x Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap. : xxxx xxxx 152 xxxx xxxx 779 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd StpDel:xxxxx xxxx 33.2 xxxxx xxxx 9.7 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: * * D * * A ApproachDel: 153a5- 15:2 xxxxxx xxxxxx ApproachLOS: FY- _...C- Traffix 7.5.0715 (c) 2002 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to RK ENGINEERING GROUP EXAM Wed Sep 17, 2003 12:23:20 Page 3-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TARGET STORE T-194 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative) +++*++xx++++x*x*#++*xt*#**+****+*#+*****+**+x*x**+**xxxx+xxx+t****x**x+*xxxxxxx+ Intersection #2 BROOKHURST STREET AT TARGET DRIVEWAY 2 Average Delay (sec/veh) : 0.2 Worst Case Level Of Service: D Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------ --------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------) Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 2 1 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 ------------ --------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------� Volume Module: >> Count Date: 9 Sep 2003 « Base Vol: 17 1520 5 14 1166 0 0 0 0 3 0 11 Growth 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 Initial Bse: 17 1520 5 14 1166 0 0 0 0 3 0 11 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 17 1520 5 14 1166 0 0 0 0 3 0 11 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 : 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 PHF Volume: 18 1652 5 15 1267 0 0 0 0 3 0 12 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Final Vol. : 18 1652 5 15 1267 0 0 0 0 3 0 12 Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp: 4.1 xxxx xxxxx 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 6.8 xxxx 6.9 FollowUpTim: 2.2 xxxx xxxxx 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 3 .5 xxxx 3.3 ------------ --------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------� Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: 1267 xxxx xxxxx 1658 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 2145 xxxx 553 Potent Cap. : 555 xxxx xxxxx 394 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 43 xxxx 482 Move Cap. : 555 xxxx xxxxx 394 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 40 xxxx 482 ------------ I --------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------I Level Of Service Module: Stopped Del: 11.7 xxxx xxxxx 14.5 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: B * * B * * * * * * * - Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap. : xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xx,,cx 0 xxxxx xxxx 144 xxxxx f Shrd StpDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 32.9 xxxxx Shared LOS: * * * * * * * * * * D ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx 32.9 ApproachLOS: * * * D Traffix 7.5.0715 (c) 2002 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to RK ENGINEERING GROUP EXAM Wed Sep 17, 2003 12:23:20 Page 4-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TARGET STORE T-194 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Future Volume Alternative) xxr+x»»wrrrrx»»»rxrxrrwxrrrtrxrxx»rwrr»»xx+r»r+rx»»»»»rr+r»+»»»»rtrrrx+»rx+»»x+» Intersection-#5<BROOKHURST STREET-MS AT -;Mg 73LND-'(EW) w»rrr»»+rrrrrtrtrrrtrtrrwrrrx+rrr+rrrrrr+r+txt»trtrx»»rxrxrr+ret»wx»xtr»»rww»rxt» ' Cycle (sec) : 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (X) : 0.936 Loss Time (sec) : 5 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh) : xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 100 Level Of Service: •-- rrrrtrr+r+r+rxrtrr+rrxrw+wrwr»rrrrr»rrr»rrxr»rrxrtr»rrx»xrwt»rx»rx»trrt»rr•+*+r+» Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound - Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------ ---------------1I--------------- --------------- ---------------I 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: 2 0 2 1 0 2 0 2 1 0 2 0 2 1 0 2 0 2 1 0 ------------I --------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------I Volume Module: >> Count Date: 9 Sep 2003 << Base Vol: 101 991 446 483 931 88 183 2013 95 166 486 195 Growth 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 Initial Bse: 101 991 446 483 931 88 183 2013 95 166 486 195 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 101 991 446 483 931 88 183 2013 95 166 486 195 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: 101 991 446 483 931 88 183 2013 95 166 486 195 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 101 991 446 483 931 88 183 2013 95 166 486 195 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 Final Vol. : 101 991 446 483 931 88 183 2013 95 166 486 195 ------------ --------------- --------------- (--------------- ---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 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: 2.00 2.07 0.93 2.00 2.74 0.26 2.00 2.86 0.14 2.00 2.14 0.86 Final Sat. : 3400 3517 1583 3400 4660 440 3400 4870 230 3400 3640 1460 ------------ I---------------II--------------- --------------- ---------------+ Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.03 0.28 0.28 0.14 0.20 0.20 0.05 0.41 0.41 0.05 0.13 0.13 Crit Moves: rrtr »rr» »rrr xrrr wr»rrr»»r»rrrrxrxrrrr»»rxrtt+rrr»rrrrrr»+»wr»rrr»x:»r»+»+»rrrr+»»»»rxrxrx»rr»rrr Traffix 7.5.0715 (c) 2002 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to RK ENGINEERING GROUP EXPM Wed Sep 17, 2003 12:24:22 Page 2-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TARGET STORE T-194 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA ----------------------------------7--------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative) Intersection #1 TARGET DRIVEWAY 1 AT ADAMS BLVD Average Delay (sec/veh) : 39.6 Worst Case Level Of Service: F wx+w++++++++++++++++ww++++++++++w+x++wx+w+w++w+++w+w+++wx+++w++w+++x+++ww+x+++++ Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------I--------------- II ---------------II--------------- II--------------- � Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 2 1 0 ------------I---------------II ---------------II ---------------II--------------- i Volume Module: » Count Date: 9 Sep 2003 << Base Vol: 68 0 98 20 2 52 72 1061 84 37 1996 39 Growth 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 Initial Bse: 68 0 98 20 2 52 72 1061 84 37 1996 39 Added Vol: 0 0' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Put: 68 0 98 20 2 52 72 1061 84 37 1996 39 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 : 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 PHF Volume: 72 0 103 21 2 55 76 1117 88 39 2101 41 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Final Vol. : 72 0 103 21 2 55 76 1117 68 39 2101 41 Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp: 7.5 xxxx 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 4.1 xxxx xxxxx 4 .1 xxxx xxxxx FollowUpTim: 3.5 xxxx 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 xxxx xxxxx 2.2 xxxx xxxxx ------------ --------------- --------------- II--------------- il--------------- I Capacity Module: r Cnflict Vol: 2092 xxxx 416 2723 3556 721 2142 xxxx xxxxx 1205 xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap. : 31 xxxx 591 10 6 374 256 xxxx xxxxx 586 xxxx xxxxx Move Cap. : 11 xxxx 591 6 4 374 256 xxxx xxxxx 586 xxxx xxxxx ------------I---------------II --------------- II--------------- --------------- I Level Of Service Module: Stopped Del: 3030 xxxx xxxxx 2252 xxxx xxxxx 24.9 xxxx xxxxx 11.6 xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: F * * F * * C * * B Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap. : xxxx xxxx 591 xxxx xxxx 82 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd StpDel:xxxxx xxxx 12.4 xxxxx xxxx 114.5 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: * * B * * F ApproachDel: 1248.5 692.3 xxxxxx xxxxxx ApproachLOS: F F Traffix 7.5.0715 (c) 2002 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to RK ENGINEERING GROUP EXPM Wed Sep 17, 2003 12:24:22 Page 3-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TARGET STORE T-194 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY - HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method 4-Fututre VoTume-Alternative) - -' rtxrx*xx+rt*x*wrxxrxxxxr*xrxx+*rr++r*+*rxxwxxxx*r*x**xrr+rwxrxxxx+rr**r**rrwxxxrwx Intersection #2 BROOKHURST-ST-REE-T--AT--TARGE2_DRI.VEWAY-2- _ xrx*xx+x**rrxxrx+rrrxrxrrxxr**xxrxxx*xrxr*rwx*xr*+r*xxrr*xxxrxx*x**rrrxxrwrrxx^*T.. Average Delay (sec/veh) : 13.5 Worst Case Level Of Service: .•. **rw*twrwwxw*rwxrY+#*Y#r##**wrrtrrrxr*#i*xwwx#w**x#rt**rtw**wwww#*+rx*rww#rxrrx*xirt Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------ --------------- --------------- II--------------- ---------------I Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 2 1 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 ------------ ---------------� �---------------� �--------------- � �--------------- � Volume Module: >> Count Date: 9 Sep 2003 << Base Vol: 55 1399 41 102 1280 14 1 0 8 25 0 135 Growth 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 Initial Bse: 55 1399 41 102 1280 14 1 0 8 25 0 135 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 55 1399 41 102 1280 14 1 0 8 25 0 135 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 : 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 PHF Volume: 57 1457 43 106 1333 15 1 0 8 26 0 141 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Final Vol. : 57 1457 43 106 1333 15 1 0 8 26 0 141 Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp: 4.1 xxxx xxxxx 4.1 xxxx xxxxx 7.5 xxxx 6.9 7.5 xxxx 6.9 FollowUpTim: 2.2 xxxx xxxxx 2.2 xxxx xxxxx 3.5 xxxx 3.3 3.5 xxxx 3.3 ------------ --------------- --------------- --------------- --------------- � Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: 1348 xxxx xxxxx 1500 xxxx xxxxx 2153 xxxx 452 2250 xxxx 507 Potent Cap. : 517 xxxx xxxxx 453 xxxx xxxxx 28 xxxx 561 23 xxxx 516 Move Cap. : 517 xxxx xxxxx 453 xxxx xxxxx 15 xxxx 561 17 xxxx 516 ------------ I--------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------� Level Of Service Module: Stopped Del: 12.8 xxxx xxxxx 15.4 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: B * * C Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap. : xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx 112 xxxxx xxxx 94 xxxxx Shrd StpDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 40.0 xxxxx xxxxx 466 xxxxx Shared LOS: * * * * * * * E * * F ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx 40.0 466.2 ApproachLOS: * * E F Traffix 7.5.0715 (c) 2002 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to RK ENGINEERING GROUP EXPM Wed Sep 17, 2003 12:24:22 Page 4-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TARGET STORE T-194 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length W) Method (Future Volume Alternative) wx++x++xxxtwx++x++xxw++wx+++++x+x+++x+xwx+x+x+++xxxxwxxxx++++++++w++++rww+++x++w Intersection #5 BROOKHURST STREET (NS) AT ADAMS BLVD (EW) ++xxxx+x+x+xwx+x+++x+x+w++++wx+++++xw+xxxx+++wx+w+ww+x+xxwxxx++rx+w++++w++++w+++ Cycle (sec) : 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (X) : 0.861 Loss Time (sec) : 5 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh) : xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 69 Level Of Service: D +++wxx+w++w+++x+xxww+w+++w++t+w+++++++xx++w+w++ww+xx+x+xx++wx+++xw+++xxxw++xxx+w Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------I ---------------11 --------------- --------------- 11 ---------------� 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: 2 0 2 1 0 2 0 2 1 0 2 0 2 1 0 2 0 2 1 0 ------------I---------------11--------------- --------------- --------------- � Volume Module: » Count Date: 9 Sep 2003 << Base Vol: 275 1146 103 319 1146 139 273 803 122 232 1658 370 Growth Adj : 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.06 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 275 1146 103 319 1146 139 273 803 122 232 1658 370 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0_ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 275 1146 103 319 1146 139 273 803 122 232 2658 370 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: 275 1146 103 319 1146 139 273 803 122 232 1658 370 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 275 1146 103 319 1146 139 273 803 122 232 1658 370 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 Final Vol. : 275 1146 103 319 1146 139 273 803 122 232 1658 370 ------------ ---------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------� Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 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: 2.00 2.75 0.25 2.00 2.68 0.32 2.00 2.60 0.40 2.00 2,45 0.55 Final Sat. : 3400 4679 421 3400 4548 552 3400 4427 673 3400 4170 930 ------------ ►--------------- ---------------) I--------------- --------------- � Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.08 0.24 0.24 0.09 0.25 0.25 0.08 0.18 0.18 0.07 0.40 0.40 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Traffix 7.5.0715 (c) 2002 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to RK ENGINEERING GROUP Appendix D ICU/HCM Calculations Existing Plus Project EX+P AM Wed Sep 17, 2003 15:37:27 Page 2-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TARGET STORE T-194 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsianalized Method (Future Volume Alternative) - xrr+xx+xrr+rtrrt+xrrrrxrxxrt+rtrrrr+xrrx+rxt++r+rxxrtxrr+rrtr+rrrxr+xrrvrtrtrxtrrxxx Intersection #1 TARGET DRIVEWAY 1 AT ADAMS BLVD .at/lam � +*+xxrrr+r+r+i*trr+*rrrrrtrxtx+r*rtrrr+rirY+x*rt+ir+trrrtrr+++++*++*+*xrrr*+t*ttl.#'��.¢ Average Delay (sec/veh) : 1.3 Worst Case Level Of Service: .. rrtrt+rrtrrrxtrtrxxxxrrtrtt+trt+xrtxartt+rrt+trxr+rrxtrtr+t+rrrxrt***++trr+rtrtrtrrrr.3�rt Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------ I---------------II---------------I (---------------I (---------------I Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 2 1 0 ------------I---------------II ---------------II---------------I ) ---------------I Volume Module: >> Count Date: 9 Sep 2003 << Base Vol: 7 1 23 1 0 8 18 2235 37 16 654 10 Growth 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 Initial Bse: 7 1 23 1 0 8 18 2235 37 16 654 10 Added Vol: 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 3 4 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 9 1 25 1 0 8 18 2235 40 20 654 10 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 : 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 PHF Volume: 9 1 26 1 0 8 19 2304 41 21 674 10 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Final Vol. : 9 1 26 1 0 8 19 2304 41 21 674 10 Critical Gap Module: Critical Go: 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 xxxx 6.9 4.1 xxxx xxxxx 4.1 XXXx xxxxx FollowUpTim: 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 xxxx 3.3 2.2 xxxx xxxxx 2.2 xxxx xxxxx ------------I---------------II ---------------II--------------- 11 ---------------I Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: 2628 3088 789 1526 xxxx 230 685 xxxx xxxxx 2345 xxxx xxxxX Potent Cap. : 12 12 338 82 xxxx 779 918 xxxx xxxxx 213 xxxx xxxxx _ Move Cap. : 11 11 338 64 xxxx 779 918 xxxx xxxxx 213 xxxx xxxxx ------------ I---------------11---------------11--------------- II ---------------I Level Of Service Module: Stopped Del:669.0 xxxx xxxxx 62.0 xxxx xxxxx 9.0 xxxx xxxxx 23.7 xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: F * * F * A * * C Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap. : xxxx xxxx 155 xxxx xxxx 779 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxX Shrd StpDel:xxxxx xxxx 32.9 xxxxx xxxx 9.7 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx Xxxxx Shared LOS: * * D * * A ApproachDel: 196.5 15.5 xxxxxx XxxxXx ApproachLOS: F C Traffix 7.5.0715 (c) 2002 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to RK ENGINEERING GROUP EX+P AM Wed Sep 17, 2003 15:37:27 Page 3-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TARGET STORE T-194 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative) #+##YYxx*Y#xfiYxxYxfi*#*Y#x#xY#fiY#x*YY#*#YYY*YYx**#YY**Y###x##xxxxfix*Y##xxxYxY♦#YY Intersection #2 BROOKHURST STREET AT TARGET DRIVEWAY 2 x#fi*#xxxxYYxxYYxxxfiYYx***#x*x#*YYY**YY#*x*Y#**Y*xY*###YYYY*#**YY*##Y##xY***x**## Average Delay (sec/veh) : 0.2 Worst Case Level Of Service: D" *Y*##Y**YYx*tYx#YxxY*xxfi*x#*YY*xx#xYY##**YYxx#x*x*Y#u*x##Y##Y#xxx*Y*Y###xY*#****. Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West 'Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------I--------------- --------------- { 1 ---------------11 ---------------� Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 2 1 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 ------------I--------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------I Volume Module: >> Count Date: 9 Sep 2003 << Base Vol: 17 1520 5 14 1166 0 0 0 0 3 0 11 Growth 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 Initial Bse: 17 1520 5 14 1166 0 0 0 0 3 0 11 Added Vol: 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 20 1520 5 14 1167 0 0 0 0 3 0 11 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 : 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 .0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 PHF Volume: 22 1652 5 15 1268 0 0 0 0 3 0 12 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Final Vol. : 22 1652 5 15 1268 -0 0 0 0 3 0 12 Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp: 4.1 xxxx xxxxx 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 6.8 xxxx 6.9 FollowUpTim: 2.2 xxxx xxxxx 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 3 .5 xxxx 3.3 ------------ --------------- ---------------11 --------------- ---------------I Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: 1268 xxxx xxxxx" 1658 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 2152 xxxx 553 Potent Cap. : 555 xxxx xxxxx 394 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 42 xxxx 482 Move Cap. : 555 xxxx xxxxx 394 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 40 xxxx 482 ------------I--------------- --------------- 11--------------- ---------------� Level Of Service Module: Stopped Del: 11.8 xxxx xxxxx 14.5 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: B * * B Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT �. Shared Cap. : xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx 0 xxxxx xxxx 142 xxxxx Shrd StpDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 33.3 xxxxx Shared LOS: * * * * * * * * * * D ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx 33.3 ApproachLOS: * * * D Traffix 7.5.0715 (c) 2002 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to RK ENGINEERING GROUP i EX+P AM Wed Sep 17, 2003 15:37:27 Page 4-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TARGET STORE T-194 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA --------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Future Volume Alternative) _ .x.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx**xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx*xxx Intersection #5 BROOKHURST STREET (NS) AT ADAMS BLVD (EW) - xxxxxxxxxxtxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx**xxxxxxxxxxrxxx • Cycle (sec) : 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (X) : 0.937 Loss Time (sec) : 5 (Y+R 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh) : xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 100 Level Of Service: E` *xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx x,txx*xx*xxxxx**x*rxt***xxxxxxx**x*rx**txx*xxxxx*******►xt x*x*** 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 Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 2 0 2 1 0 2 0 2 1 0 2 0 2 1 0 2 0 2 1 0 ------------ I--------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------� Volume Module: >> Count Date: 9 Sep 2003 << Base Vol: 101 991 446 483 931 Be 183 2013 95 166 486 195 Growth 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 Initial Bse: 101 991 446 483 931 Be 163 2013 95 166 486 195 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 2 0 1 3 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 101 991 446 483 933 89 184 2015 95 167 489 195 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: 101 991 446 483 933 89 184 2015 95 167 489 195 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 101 991 446 483 933 89 184 2015 95 167 489 195 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 Final Vol. : 101 991 446 483 933 89 184 2015 95 167 489 195 ------------ I --------------- --------------- --------------- --------------- I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 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: 2.00 2.07 0.93 2.00 2.74 0.26 2.00 2.86 0.14 2.00 2.14 0.86 Final Sat. : 3400 3517 1583 3400 4656 444 3400 4870 230 3400 3646 1454 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.03 0.28 0.28 0.14 0.20 0.20 0.05 0.41 0.41 0.05 0.13 0.13 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** . xxxxxxx#xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxixY*xxxx*xxxx*xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxf v Traffix 7.5.0715 (c) 2002 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to RK ENGINEERING GROUP EX+P PM Wed Sep 17, 2003 IS:38:51 Page 2-1 TARGET STORE T-194 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative) Intersection #1 TARGET DRIVEWAY 1 AT ADAMS BLVD Average Delay (sec/veh) : 56.6 Worst Case Level Of Service: F Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------ --------------- 11--------------- 11 --------------- 11---------------� Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 2 1 0 ------------ --------------- 11--------------- --------------- ---------------� Volume Module: >> Count Date: 9 Sep 2003 << Base Vol: 68 0 98 20 2 52 72 1061 84 37 1996 39 Growth 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 Initial Bse: 68 0 98 20 2 52 72 1061 84 37 1996 39 Added Vol: 10 0 16 0 0 0 0 3 9 12 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 78 0 114 20 2 52 72 1064 93 49 1996 39 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 : 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 PHF Volume: 82 0 120 21 2 55 76 1120 98 52 2101 41 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Final Vol. : 82 0 120 21 2 55 76 1120 98 52 2101 41 Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp: 7.5 xxxx 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 4.1 xxxx xxxxx 4.1 xxxx xxxxx FollowUpTim: 3.5 xxxx 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 xxxx xxxxx 2.2 xxxx xxxxx ------------ --------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------� Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: 2125 xxxx 422 2750 3594 721 2142 xxxx xxxxx 1218 xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap. : 29 xxxx 586 10 6 374 256 xxxx xxxxx 580 xxxx xxxxx Move Cap. : 10 xxxx 586 6 4 374 256 xxxx xxxxx 5B0 xxxx xxxxx ------------I --------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------► Level Of Service Module: Stopped Del: 4034 xxxx xxxxx 2530 xxxx xxxxx 24.9 xxxx xxxxx 11.8 xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: F * * F * * C * * B Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap. : xxxx xxxx 586 xxxx xxxx 77 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd StpDel:xxxxx xxxx 12.7 xxxxx xxxx 130.1 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: * * B * * F ApproachDel: 1646.3 778.7 xxxxxx xxxxxx ApproachLOS: F F Traffix 7.5.0715 (c) 2002 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to RK ENGINEERING GROUP EX+P PM Wed Sep 17, 2003 15:38:51 Page 3-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TARGET STORE T-194 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative) *x*wx**w+**x****x*w**xxwwxxxwxxw**x*xx***ww*xexxw*wx******w*w*x***wwx*x*xww**x*w Intersection #2 BROOKHURST STREET AT TARGET DRIVEWAY 2 *w**ww**xw*wwwxxx*wxww*xwwwwxx*x**w*www**xwa**wxw**wx***wwxww*www**ww***xx****** Average Delay (sec/veh) : 14.7 Worst Case Level Of Service: F Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------ --------------- --------------- --------------- --------------- � Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 2 1 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 ------------ --------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------� Volume Module: >> Count Date: 9 Sep 2003 << Base Vol: 55 1399 41 102 1280 14 1 0 8 25 0 135 Growth 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 Initial Bse: 55 1399 41 102 1280 14 1 0 8 25 0 135 Added Vol: 9 0 0 0 7 1 2 0 2 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 64 1399 41 102 1287 15 3 0 10 25 0 135 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 : 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 PHF Volume: 67 1457 43 106 1341 16 3 0 10 26 0 141 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Final Vol. : 67 1457 43 106 1341 16 3 0 10 26 0 141 Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp: 4.1 xxxx xxxxx 4.1 xxxx xxxxx 7.5 xxxx 6.9 7.5 xxxx 6.9 FollowUpTim: 2.2 xxxx xxxxx 2.2 xxxx xxxxx 3.5 xxxx 3.3 3 .5 xxxx 3.3 ------------I--------------- --------------- --------------- --------------- � Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: 1356 xxxx xxxxx 1500 xxxx xxxxx 2180 xxxx 455 2271 xxxx 507 Potent Cap. : 514 xxxx xxxxx 453 xxxx xxxxx 26 xxxx 558 22 xxxx 516 Move Cap. : 514 xxxx xxxxx 453 xxxx xxxxx 14 xxxx 558 16 xxxx 516 Level Of Service Module: Stopped Del:. 13.1 xxxx xxxxx 15.4 xxxx xxxxx XXX= xxxX xxxxx xxxxx XXXX xxxxx LOS by Move: B * x C * * * * * * * x Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap. : xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx 57 xxxxx xxxx 89 xxxxx Shrd StpDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 87.1 xxxxx xxxxx 508 xxxxx Shared LOS: * * * * * * * F * * F ApprcachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx 87.1 508.1 ApproachLOS: * * F F Traffix 7.5.0715 (c) 2002 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to RK ENGINEERING GROUP EX+P PM Wed Sep 17, 2003 15:38:51 Page 4-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TARGET STORE T-194 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Future Volume Alternative) Intersection #5 BROOKHURST STREET (NS) AT ADAMS BLVD (EW) Cycle (sec) : 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (X) : 0.871 Loss Time (sec) : 5 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh) : xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 73 Level Of Service: D Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------ I--------------- 11--------------- 11 --------------- --------------- � 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: 2 0 2 1 0 2 0 2 1 0 2 0 2 1 0 2 0 2 1 0 ------------I--------------- 11--------------- --------------- ---------------� Volume Module: >> Count Date: 9 Sep 2003 << Base Vol: 275 1146 103 319 1146 139 273 803 122 232 1658 370 Growth 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 Initial Bse: 275 1146 103 319 1146 139 273 803 122 232 1658 370 Added Vol: 0 2 0 0 6 4 8 11 0 3 8 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 275 1148 103 319 1152 143 281 814 122 235 1666 370 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: 275 1148 103 319 1152 143 281 814 122 235 1666 370 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 275 1148 103 319 1152 143 281 814 122 235 1666 370 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 Final Vol. : 275 1148 103 319 1152 143 281 814 122 235 1666 370 ------------ --------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------� Saturation Flow Module: - Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 .1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 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: 2.00 2.75 0.25 2.00 2.67 0.33 2.00 2.61 0.39 2.00 2.45 0.55 Final Sat. : 3400 4680 420 3400 4537 563 3400 4435 665 3400 4173 927 ------------ I --------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------� Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.08 0.25 0.25 0.09 0.25 0.25. 0.08 0.18 0.18 0.07 0.40 0.40 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** *********************************************x*x*******x*****x***********x****x* Traffix 7.5.0715 (c) 2002 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to RK ENGINEERING GROUP Appendix E ICU/HCM Calculations Project Buildout (Year 2005) Without Project OYAM Wed Sep 17, 2003 12:32:50 Page 2-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TARGET STORE T-194 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service -Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative) rs wxx++++x+xwwxrw++xx+xx+xw+++wxxw++wwx+xwxxxwww•xw+x+w+xx++wx+x+xwxxxwx++x++rrw+w Intersection #1 TARGET DRIVEWAY 1 AT ADAMS BLVD Average Delay (sec/veh) : 1.4 Worst Case Level Of Service: F - x+x++++xxxx+++wx++wx+++xx+xxxwww++x++w+++++wxwxwxxxwwwx++++w++x+++w+x++x+wwxxwex Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R - Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 2 1 0 - Volume Module: >> Count Date: 9 Sep 2003 << Base Vol: 7 1 23 1 0 8 18 2235 37 16 654 10 Growth Adj : 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 Initial Bse: 7 1 24 1 0 8 19 2324 38 17 680 10 Added Vol: 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 2 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 8 1 25 1 0 8 19 2326 38 19 682 10 User Adj : 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj : 0.97 0.97 0..97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 PHF Volume: 9 1 26 1 0 9 19 2398 40 19 703 11 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Final Vol. : 9 1 26 1 0 9 19 2396 40 19 703 11 Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp: 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 xxxx 6.9 4.1 xxxx xxxxx 4 .1 xxxx xxxxx FollowUpTim: 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 xxxx 3.3 2.2 xxxx xxxxx 2.2 xxxx xxxxx ------------ I--------------- --------------- ---------------II---------------I Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: 2730 3209 819 1586 xxxx 240 714 xxxx xxxxx 2438 xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap. : 10 10 323 74 xxxx 767 895 xxxx xxxxx 196 xxxx xxxxx Move Cap. : 9 9 323 56 xxxx 767 895 xxxx xxxxx 196 xxxx xxxxx ------------ ►--------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------I Level Of Service Module: Stopped Del:811.5 xxxx xxxxx 70.0 xxxx xxxxx 9.1 xxxx xxxxx 25 .4 xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: F * * F * * A * • D Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap. : xxxx xxxx 134 xxxx xxxx 767 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd StpDel:xxxxx xxxx 38.6 xxxxx xxxx 9.7 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: * * E * * A ApproachDel: 225.5 16.4 xxxxxx xxxxxx ApproachLOS: F C Traffix 7.5.0715 (c) 2002 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to RK ENGINEERING GROUP OYAM Wed Sep 17, 2003 12:32:50 Page 3-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TARGET STORE T-194 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level.Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative) ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Intersection #2 BROOKHURST STREET AT TARGET DRIVEWAY 2 Average Delay (sec/veh) : 0.2 Worst Case Level Of Service: E ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------I---------------11 ---------------I1--------------- 11 --------------- I Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 2 1 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 ------------ I--------------- 11 --------------- --------------- ---------------� Volume Module: >> Count Date: 9 Sep 2003 << Base Vol: 17 1520 5 14 1166 0 0 0 0 3 0 11 Growth Adj : 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 Initial Bse: 18 1581 5 15 1213 0 0 0 0 3 0 11 Added Vol: 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 18 1583 5 15 1215 0 0 0 0 3 0 11 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 : 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 PHF Volume: 19 1720 6 16 1320 0 0 0 0 3 0 12 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Final Vol. : 19 1720 6 16 1320 0 0 0 0 3 0 12 Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp: 4.1 xxxx xxxxx 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 6.8 xxxx 6.9 FollowUpTim: 2.2 xxxx xxxxx 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 3 .5 xxxx 3.3 ------------ --------------- --------------- --------------- --------------- � Capacity Module: - Cnflict Vol: 1320 xxxx xxxxx 1726 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 2233 xxxx 576 Potent Cap. : 530 xxxx xxxxx 371 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 37 xxxx 465 Move Cap. : 530 xxxx xxxxx 371 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 35 xxxx 465 ------------ I--------------- ---------------- --------------- --------------- � Level Of Service Module: Stopped Del: 12.0 xxxx xxxxx 15.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: B * * C Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap. : xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx 0 xxxxx xxxx 128 xxxxx Shrd StpDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 37.1 xxxxx Shared LOS: * * * * * * * * * * E ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx 37.1 -- ApproachLOS: * * * E Traffix 7.5.0715 (c) 2002 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to RK ENGINEERING GROUP OYAM Wed Sep 17, 2003 12:32:50 Page 4-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TARGET STORE T-194 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Future Volume Alternative) .. ftxf*»*x*****xx»x»Y***xtx***xxx***4xfitlxx**f*xxt***fxi**xx*x**x*x***xx♦*xxftxxx Intersection 45 BROOKHURST STREET (NS) AT ADAMS BLVD (EW) Cycle (sec) : 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (X) : 0.972 Loss Time (sec) : 5 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh) : xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 100 Level Of Service: E xxfx*»xxx******»*xfxx*fx**»*xx**+***x***********x*****x*****+**x»x********x***** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------ --------------- --------------- ---------------fl---------------f 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: 2 0 2 1 0 2 0 2 1 0 2 0 2 1 0 2 0 2 1 0 f --------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------� Volume Module: >> Count Date: 9 Sep 2003 << Base Vol: 101 991 446 483 931 88 183 2013 95 166 486 195 Growth Adj : 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 Initial Bse: 105 1031 464 502 968 92 190 2094 99 173 505 203 Added Vol: 1 1 0 0 1 2 1 1 0 0 2 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 106 1032 464 502 969 94 191 2095 99 173 507 203 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: 106 1032 464 502 969 94 191 2095 99 173 507 203 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 106 1032 464 502 969 94 191 2095 99 173 507 203 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 Final Vol. : 106 1032 464 502 969 94 191 2095 99 173 507 203 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 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: 2.00 2.07 0.93 2.00 2.74 0.26 2.00 2.86 0.14 2.00 2.14 . 0.86 Final Sat. : 3400 3518 1582 3400 4651 449 3400 4870 230 3400 3644 1456 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.03 0.29 0.29 0.15 0.21 0.21 0.06 0.43 0.43 0.05 0.14 0.14 Crit Moves: .. - f*xx*xxfx**xxxxx*xxxxxt*+x+xx**f****x*xxt*fx*fff*+r**x*ttxx***xx***x**xxxxf*xx*t I Traffix 7.5.0715 (c) 2002 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to RK ENGINEERING GROUP OYPM Wed Sep 17, 2003 12:33:51 Page 2-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TARGET STORE T-194 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative) Intersection #1 TARGET DRIVEWAY 1 AT ADAMS BLVD Average Delay (sec/veh) : 85.6 Worst Case Level Of Service: F Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------ --------------- ------------ --------------- ---------------� Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 2 1 0 ------------ --------------- --------------- --------------- --------------- � Volume Module: >> Count Date: 9 Sep 2003 << Base Vol: 68 0 98 20 2 52 72 1061 84 37 1996 39 Growth Adj : 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 . 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 Initial Bse: 71 0 102 21 2 54 75 1103 87 38 2076 41 Added Vol: 2 0 4 0 0 0 0 6 1 5 6 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 73 0 106 21 2 54 75 1109 88 43 2082 41 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 : 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 PHF Volume: 77 0 ill 22 2 57 79 1168 93 46 2191 43 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Final Vol. : 77 0 ill 22 2 57 79 1168 93 46 2191 43 Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp: 7.5 xxxx 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 4.1 x.)= xxxxx 4.1 xxxx xxxxx FollowUpTim: 3.5 xxxx 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 xxxx xxxxx 2.2 xxxx xxxxx ------------ --------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------� Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: 2195 xxxx 436 2851 3723 752 2234 xxxx xxxxx 1261 xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap. : 26 xxxx 574 8 5 357 236 xxxx xxxxx 558 xxxx xxxxx Move Cap. : 6 xxxx 574 4 3 357 236 xxxx xxxxx 558 xxxx xxxxx ------------I--------------- ---------------II--------------- ---------------� Level Of Service Module: Stopped Del: 6956 xxxx xxxxx 3263 xxxx xxxxx 27.6 xxxx xxxxx 12.0 xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: F * * F * * D * * B Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap. : xxxx xxxx 574 xxxx xxxx 62 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd StpDel:xxxxx xxxx 12.8 xxxxx xxxx 207.5 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: * * B * * F ApproachDel: 2839.1 1033.3 xxxxxx xxxxxx _. ApproachLOS: F F Traffix 7.5.0715 (c) 2002 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to RK ENGINEERING GROUP OYPM Wed Sep 17, 2003. 12:33:51 Page 3-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TARGET STORE T-194 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative) ... r+x*wrw**+++*+*x*r*xxw*xr*rw*r*r*x+*rxxx*+***+*xrx*x**rxwxrxrxwr*wrx**xx*xrr*+rx intersection #2 BROOKHURST STREET AT TARGET DRIVEWAY 2 *YYx**w+*+++*x*xY+xx*Y*x*x*+*++*w*x**xxx*Yxxxx*4*x*Y*+***xw+rx****x*xx*xwr****x* Average Delay (sec/veh) : 19.1 Worst Case Level Of Service: F Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------ I--------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------f Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes- 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 2 1 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 --------------- 11--------------- --------------- ---------------� Volume Module: >> Count Date: 9 Sep 2003 << Base Vol: 55 1399 41 102 1280 14 1 0 8 25 0 135 Growth Adj: 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04• Initial Bse: 57 1455 43 106 1331 15 1 0 8 26 0 140 Added Vol: 0 5 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 57 1460 43 106 1337 15 1 0 8 26 0 140 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 : 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96" 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 PHF Volume: 60 1521 44 111 1393 15 1 0 9 27 0 146 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Final Vol. : 60 1521 44 111 1393 15 1 0 9 27 0 146 Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp: 4.1 xxxx xxxxx 4.1 xxxx xxxxx 7.5 xxxx 6.9 7.5 xxxx 6.9 FollowUpTim: 2.2 xxxx xxxxx 2.2 xxxx xxxxx 3 .5 xxxx 3.3 3.5 xxxx 3.3 ------------ --------------- ---------------; --------------- ---------------t Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: 1408 xxxx xxxxx 1565 xxxx xxxxx 2248 xxxx 472 2347 xxxx 529 Potent Can. : 491 xxxx xxxxx 428 xxxx xxxxx 23 xxxx 544 20 xxxx 499 Move Cap. : 491 xxxx xxxxx 428 xxxx xxxxx 12 xxxx 544 14 xxxx 499 Level Of Service Module: Stopped Del: 13.3 xxxx xxxxx 16.3 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: B * * C * * * * * * * * Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap. : xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx 92 xxxxx xxxx 78 xxxxx Shrd StpDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 48.5 xxxxx xxxxx 671 xxxxx Shared LOS: * * * * * * * E * * F ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx 48.5 670.7 ApproachLOS: * * E F Traffix 7.5.0715 (c) 2002 Dowling Assoc. .Licensed to RK ENGINEERING GROUP OYPM Wed Sep 17, 2003 12:33:51 Page 4-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TARGET STORE T-194 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Future Volume Alternative) +*++r*xx+xxrx#r*#*+xx#rr*+*w+x*w*xwr+trx*w*xrr*r#xrrx**r+++*x*+x*++wr+rx#**+rr** Intersection #5 BROOKHURST STREET (NS) AT ADAMS BLVD (EW) Cycle (sec) : 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (X) : 0.902 Loss Time (sec) : 5 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh) : xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 88 Level Of Service: E +xw++*rr+rxw#x**x##r++x*w#rxrxxr+rx#++xrrxr*r*xrrrx##wx++x*xx**x*xx**#xxrxx++*x* 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 Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 2 0 2 1 0 2 0 2 1 0 2 0 2 1 0 2 0 2 1 0 ------------ I--------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------� Volume Module: >> Count Date: 9 Sep 2003 << Base Vol: 275 1146 103 319 1146 139 273 803 122 232 1658 370 Growth Adj : 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 Initial Bse: 286 1192 107 332 1192 145 284 835 127 241 1724 385 Added Vol: 1 4 0 0 3 5 4 4 1 2 5 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 287 1196 107 332 1195 150 288 839 128 243 1729 385 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: 287 1196 107 332 1195 150 288 839 128 243 1729 385 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 287 1196 107 332 1195 150 288 839 128 243 1729 385 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 Final Vol. : 287 1196 107 332 1195 150 288 839 128 243 1729 385 ------------ --------------- (--------------- --------------- ---------------� Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.06 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 2.00 2.75 0.25 2.00 2.67 0.33 2.00 2.60 0.40 2.00 2.45 0.55 Final Sat. : 3400 4681 419 3400 4533 567 3400 4426 674 3400 4172 928 ------------ I--------------- ---------------H---------------{ I ---------------� Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.08 0.26 0.26 0.10 0.26 0.26 0.08 0.19 0.19 0.07 0.41 0.41 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Traffix 7.5.0715 (c) 2002 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to RK ENGINEERING GROUP :..J OYAM-W/IMP Wed Sep 17, 2003 13:50:35 Page 4-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - TARGET STORE T-194 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU i(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Future Volume Alternative) Intersection #5 BROOKHURST STREET (NS) AT ADAMS BLVD (EW) Cycle (sec) : 100 Critical Vol./Cap. W : 0.891 - Loss Time (sec) : 5 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh) : xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 82 Level Of Service: D Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound r Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------ --------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------� 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: 2 0 3 0 1 2 0 2 1 0 2 0 3 0 1 2 0 3 0 1 ------------ I--------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------� Volume Module: » Count Date: 9 Sep 2003 << Base Vol: 101 991 446 483 931 88 183 2013 95 166 486 195 Growth Adj : 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 Initial Bse: 105 1031 464 502 968 92 190 2094 99 173 505 203 Added Vol: 1 1 0 0 1 2 1 1 0 0 2 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 106 1032 464 502 969 94 191 2095 99 173 507 203 User Adj : 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 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: 106 1032 394 502 969 94 191 2095 84 173 507 172 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 106 1032 394 502 969 94 191 2095 84 173 507 172 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 Final Vol. : 106 1032 394 502 969 94 191 2095 84 173 507 172 ------------ --------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------� Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 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: 2.00 3 .00 1.00 2.00 2.74 0.26 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 Final Sat. : 3400 5100 1700 3400 4651 449 3400 5100 1700 3400 5100 1700 ------------ I--------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------� Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.03 0.20 0.23 0.15 0.21 0.21 0.06 0.41 0.05 0.05 0.10 0.10 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** +++««#x++xf+x««w+*«x+«««xf*ww«+«++w##**+«x«+«w«xx+«+«x+«x+*+f##+#+#+wfx#+#++*#++ Traffix 7.5.0715 (c) 2002 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to RK ENGINEERING GROUP OYPM-W/IMP Wed Sep 17, 2003 13:52:28 Page 4-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TARGET STORE T-194 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Future Volume Alternative) *xxY+wxw#+#*++*x*+++****++*+++*++***ww*xx+++*#+Y*+*+*++xx*wx+#w*#+x*#*w#x#+x**xx Intersection #5 BROOKHURST STREET (NS) AT ADAMS BLVD (EW) Cycle (sec) : 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (X) : 0.822 Loss Time (sec) : 5 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh) : xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 57 Level Of Service: D #x***++w+wt*+++#x*+w++*+++++w*w**+**ww**w+w**#+***+***w*+*+#+x+++w*w****++*x*#** 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 Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 2 0 3 0 1 2 0 2 1 0 2 0 3 0 1 2 0 3 0 1 ------------ I---------------11--------------- --------------- --------------- � Volume Module: >> Count Date: 9 Sep 2003 << Base Vol: 275 1146 103 319 1146 139 273 803 122 232 1658 370 Growth Adj : 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 r Initial Bse: 286 1192 107 332 1192 145 284 835 127 241 1724 385 Added Vol: 1 4 0 0 3 5 4 4 1 2 5 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 �. Initial Fut: 287 1196 107 332 1195 150 288 839 128 243 1729 385 User Adj : 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 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: 287 1196 91 332 1195 150 288 639 109 243 1729 327 Reduct Vol:. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 287 1196 91 332 1195 150 288 839 109 243 1729 327 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 Final Vol. : 287 1196 91 332 1195 150 288 839 109 243 1729 327 ------------ --------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------� Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 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: 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 2.67 0.33 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 Final Sat. : 3400 5100 1700 3400 4533 567 3400 5100 1700 3400 5100 1700 ------------ I--------------- --------------- --------------- --------------- � Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.08 0.23 0.05 0.10 0.26 0.26 0.08 0.16 0.06 0.07 0.34 0.19 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Traffix 7.5.0715 (c) 2002 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to RK ENGINEERING GROUP Appendix F ICU/HCM Calculations Project Buildout (Year 2005) With Project 77 OY+P AM Wed Sep 17, 2003 16:18:08 Page 2-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TARGET STORE T-194 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative) i xYYxxY!##*#!#Y#!#Yx!#xYY##xYYYYlYY##!#x##YlYx}xx#}###YY##xY#!Y*}xY#Y#xYx##YYY#x Intersection #1 TARGET DRIVEWAY 1 AT ADAMS BLVD Average Delay (sec/veh) : 6.0 Worst Case Level Of Service: F }xxx}}_xxxx*YT##!#YxxlY#}*YYxY#*##xx#xxx##x##x*x}#YYYxx*xxxx*#}!x##xxxY#!}Y#YxlY* Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R i --------------- ---------------+ --------------- ---------------� Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 1 0. 1 0 2 1 0 1 --------------- --------------- Volume Module: >> Count Date: 9 Sep 2003 << Base Vol: 7 1 23 1 0 8 18 2235 37 16 654 10 1 Growth Adj : 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 j Initial Bse: 7 1 24 1 0 8 19 2324 38 17 680 10 Added Vol: 13 0 20 0 0 0 0 9 10 17 6 0 _ PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 20 1 44 1 0 8 19 2333 48 34 686 10, 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 : 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 PHF Volume: 21 1 45 1 0 9 19 2406 50 35 707 it Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Final Vol. : 21 1 45 1 0 9 19 2406 50 35 707 11 Critical Gap Module: _ Critical Gp: 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 xxxx 6.9 4.1 xxxx xxxxx 4.1 xxxx xxxxx FollowUpTim: 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 xxxx 3.3 2.2 xxxx xxxxx 2.2 xxxx xxxxx i ------------I --------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------� Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: 2774 3257 827 1623 xxxx 241 718 xxxx xxxxx 2456 xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap. : 9 9 319 70 xxxx 766 892 xxxx xxxxx 193 xxxx xxxxx �i Move Cap. : 8 8 319 45 xxxx 766 892 xxxx xxxxx 193 xxxx xxxxx ------------I --------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------I Level Of Service Module: Stopped Del: 1706 xxxx xxxxx 86.5 xxxx xxxxx 9.1 xxxx xxxxx 27.7 xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: F F * * A * * D Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap. : xxxx xxxx 163 xxxx xxxx 766 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd StpDel:xxxxx xxxx 35.7 xxxxx xxxx 9.8 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: * * E * * A ApproachDel: 554.8 18.3 xxxxxx xxxxxx ApproachLOS: F C Traffix 7.5.0715 (c) 2002 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to RK ENGINEERING GROUP OY+P AM Wed Sep 17, 2003 16:18:08 Page 3-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TARGET STORE T-194 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative) rxrrrxxrxrrr+txxrrxxxx+rrxrrrrrrxrxrxxxxrrrxxrrxxrrxrrxxrrxxxxxxxrxrrrxxxrrrrrrx Intersection #2 BROOKHURST STREET AT TARGET DRIVEWAY 2 .xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxrx,rxxxxxxxxrxxrxrxrxxrxrxrxrx*x*xxxrrxxrrxrxr*rxrrxxxxrxxxxrr Average Delay (sec/veh) : 0.3 Worst Case Level Of Service: F rrrxrxrrrrrxxtxrxrrxxrxxrxxrxrxrrxrrxrrxxxrrrrxrxrxrxrrxxxxxrrxxxxxxxxxrxxxxrrxx Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------i--------------- ---------------II--------------- 11---------------I Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 2 1 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 ------------I--------------- II --------------- --------------- --------------- � Volume Module: >> Count Date: 9 Sep 2003 << Base Vol: 17 1520 5 14 1166 0 0 0 0 3 0 11 Growth Adj : 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 Initial Bse: 18 1581 5 15 1213 0 0 0 0 3 0 11 Added Vol: 9 5 0 0 13 1 2 0 2 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 27 1586 5 15 1226 1 2 0 2 3 0 11 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 : 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 PHF Volume: 29 1724 6 16 1332 1 2 0 2 3- 0 12 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Final Vol. : 29 1724 6 16 1332 1 2 0 2 3 0 12 Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp: 4.1 xxxx xxxxx 4.1 xxxx xxxx= 7.5 xxxx 6.9 7.5 xxxx 6.9 FollowUpTim: 2.2 xxxx xxxxx 2.2 xxxx xxxxx 3.5 xxxx 3.3 3.5 xxxx 3.3 ------------ I---------------II--------------- II--------------- II---------------I Capacity Module: -. Cnflict Vol: 1333 xxxx xxxxx 1729 xxxx xxxxx 1997 xxxx 445 2260 xxxx 577 Potent Can. : 524 xxxx xxxxx 370 xxxx xxxxx 36 xxxx 566 23 xxxx 465 Move Cap. : 524 xxxx xxxxx 370 xxxx xxxxx 33 xxxx 566 21 xxxx 465 ------------I --------------- II --------------- --------------- ---------------I _. Level Of Service Module: Stopped Del: 12.3 xxxx xxxxx 15.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: B * * C Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT _.. Shared Cap. : xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx 62 xxxxx xxxx 85 xxxxx Shrd StpDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 67.4 xxxxx xxxxx 57.1 xxxxx Shared LOS: * * * * * * * F * * F ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx 67.4 57.1 -- ApproachLOS: * * F F Traffix 7.5.0715 (c) 2002 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to RK ENGINEERING GROUP OY+P AM Wed Sep 17, 2003 17:13:00 Page 4-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TARGET STORE T-194 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Future Volume Alternative) warx++awawaaw+a+r+wax++w+aww+awwrrrr+waaarxwraxaaa+rx+wwaraxr+rrxx++e++raarxwa+r Intersection #5 BROOKHURST STREET (NS) AT ADAMS BLVD (EW) ax+rx++xa+aarxaxwaaa+arxrxww+xra+arrrwaarax+aaawxaaarraraaraxxrwa++xaaxxawa+xwa+ Cycle (sec) : 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (X) : 0.977 Loss Time (sec) : 5 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh) : xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 100 Level Of Service: E x+rxxxr++aax+tarrarawaxwa+a++xrrxrrta+aarxrrwxararr++xaaaar+a++xr►aawrxrx+raaarr 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 Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 2 0 2 1 0 2 0 2 1 0 2 0 2 1 0 2 0 2 1 0 ------------ --------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------� Volume Module: >> Count Date: 9 Sep 2003 << Base Vol: 101 991 446 483 931 88 183 2013 95 166 486 195 Growth Adj: 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 Initial Bse: 105 1031 464 502 968 92 190 2094 99 173 505 203 Added Vol: 1 6 0 0 10 9 12 16 1 5 13 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 106 1037 464 502 978 101 202 2110 100 178 518 203 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: 106 1037 464 502 978 101 202 2110 100 178 518 203 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 106 1037 464 502 978 101 202 2110 100 178 518 203 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 Final Vol. : 106 1037 464 502 978 101 202 2110 100 178 518 203 - ------------ --------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------� Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 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: 2.00 2.07 0.93 2.00 2.72 0.28 2.00 2.86 0.14 2.00 2.16 0.84 Final Sat. : 3400 3523 1577. 3400 4625 475 3400 4870 230 3400 3666 1434 --------------- --------------- I--------------- ---------------� Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.03 0.29 0.29 0.1S 0.21 0.21 0.06 0.43 0.43 0.05 0.14 0.14 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** . -" wxxxaaxxwrxaaxaaa++waxaaxr+xw++rx++xa+axaaraxax+.raxa+w.rr,e"a.*tvrrxw.xxxxar+aaxararx+ Traffix 7.5.0715 (c) 2002 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to RK ENGINEERING GROUP OY+P PM Wed Sep 17, 2003 15:41:14 Page 2-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TARGET STORE T-194 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative) xxrxxxxxxxrxxrrxxrrrxrrxxrxxxxrrrrxxrxxxxrtxtxxxrxrrrxxrxxartrxxxxrrrrrttrrrxrrt Intersection #1 TARGET DRIVEWAY 1 AT ADAMS BLVD txxxrxxxxrrxxrxxxxxrrrxrrrxxtxrxxrrrxrrtrxtrrrxrrrrrxr+rxrxx**rxxr**rxwxtrrxrrrr Average Delay (sec/veh) : 144.2 Worst Case Level Of Service: F xxxxxxxxx,txtxxxxxxtxxxrxxxxxtxy.xxxxxxxxxxtxxxxxxxxrxxrx*xy.x ttxtxr**x*trr.t**xtrrx Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------ --------------- --------------- 11--------------- --------------- � Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 2 1 0 ------------ --------------- --------------- --------------- --------------- � Volume Module: >> Count Date: 9 Sep 2003 << Base Vol: 68 0 98 20 2 52 72 2061 84 37 1996 39 Growth Adj : 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 Initial Bse: 71 0 102 21 2 54 75 1103 87 - 38 2076 41 Added Vol: 13 0 20 0 0 0 0 9 10 17 6 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 84 0 122 21 2 54 75 1112 97 55 2082 41 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 : 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 PHF Volume: 88 0 128 22 2 57 79 1171 102 58 2191 43 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Final Vol. : 88 0 128 22 2 57 79 1171 102 58 2191 43 Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp: 7.5 xxxx 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 4.1 xxxx xxxxx 4.1 xxxx xxxxx FollowUpTim: 3.5 xxxx 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 xxxx xxxxx 2.2 xxxx xxxxx ------------ --------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------� Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: 2228 xxxx 442 2878 3761 752 2234 xxxx xxxxx 1273 xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap. : 24 xxxx 569 8 4 357 236 xxxx xxxxx 552 xxxx xxxxx Move Cap. : 4 xxxx 569 4 3 357 236 xxxx xxxxx 552 xxxx xxxxx ------------I--------------- --------------- --------------- --------------- � Level Of Service Module: Stopped Del:10835 xxxx xxxxx 3664 xxxx xxxxx 27.8 xxxx xxxxx 12.3 xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: F * * F * * D * * B Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap. : xxxx xxxx 569 xxxx xxxx 58 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd StpDel:xxxxx xxxx 13.2 xxxxx xxxx 238.6 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: * * B * * F ApproachDel: 4419.0 1164.3 xxxxxx xxxxxx ApproachLOS: F F Traffix 7.5.0715 (c) 2002 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to RK ENGINEERING GROUP i OY+P PM Wed Sep 17, 2003 15:41:14 Page 3-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TARGET STORE T-194 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA --------------------------------------------------------------'------------------ Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative) Intersection #2 BROOKHURST STREET AT TARGET DRIVEWAY 2 ++++xx+xx+xxxxxxxxxxx+x+++x+t+xxx+xxxxxxxxxxx+xxxt+x++++x++x++x+xxxxx+xxxxxxxxxx Average Delay (sec/veh) : 20.8 Worst Case Level Of Service: F xxx+xx++*xxx+xx+xx+x++++x+++xx+xx+x+++xxx++xx+xxx++xxxxxx++xxx++xxxx+xx+xx+xxxxx Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------ --------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------� Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 2 1 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 ------------ --------------- --------------- --------------- --------------- I Volume Module: >> Count Date: 9 Sep 2003 << Base Vol: 55 1399 41 102 1280 14 1 0 8 25 0 135 Growth Adj : 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 Initial Bse: 57 1455 43 106 1331 15 1 0 8 26 0 ' 140 Added Vol: 9 5 0 0 13 1 2 0 2 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 66 1460 43 106 1344 16 3 0 10 26 0 140 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 : 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 PHF Volume: 69 1521 44 111 1400 16 3 0 li 27 0 146 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Final Vol. : 69 1521 44 111 1400 16 3 0 11 27 0 146 Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp: 4.1 xxxx xxxxx 4.1 xxxx xxxxx 7.5 xxxx 6.9 7.5 xxxx 6.9 FoilowUpTim: 2.2 xxxx xxxxx 2.2 xxxx xxxxx 3.5 xxxx 3.3 3.5 xxxx 3.3 ------------ (---------------II--------------- --------------- ---------------� Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: 1416 xxxx xxxxx 1565 xxxx xxxxx 2274 xxxx 475 2369 xxxx 529 Potent Cap. : 487 xxxx xxxxx 428 xxxx xxxxx 22 xxxx 542 19 xxxx 499 Move Cap. : 487 xxxx xxxxx 428 xxxx xxxxx 11 xxxx .542 13 xxxx 499 ------------ I--------------- --------------- --------------- --------------- I Level Of Service Module: Stopped Del: 13.6 xxxx xxxxx 16.3 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: B * * C Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap. : xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx 47 xxxxx xxxx 74 xxxxx Shrd StpDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 112 xxxxx xxxxx 726 xxxxx Shared LOS: * * * * * * * F * * F ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx 112.4 726.0 ApproachLOS: * * F F Traffix 7.5.0715 (c) 2002 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to RK ENGINEERING GROUP OY+P PM Wed Sep 17, 2003 15:41:14 Page 4-1 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ TARGET STORE T-194 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Future Volume Alternative) Intersection #5 BROOKHURST STREET (NS) AT ADAMS BLVD (EW) Cycle (sec) : 100 Critical Vol./Cap. W : 0.907 Loss Time (sec) : 5 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh) : xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 91 Level Of Service: E Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------ ---------------11 ---------------11 ---------------11 ---------------� 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: 2 0 2 1 0 2 0 2 1 0 2 0 2 1 0 2 0 2 1 0 - ----------- --------------- 11--------------- --------------- ---------------I Volume Module: >> Count Date: 9 Sep 2003 << Base Vol: 275 1146 103 319 1146 139 273 803 122 232 1658 370 Growth Adj : 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 Initial Bse: 286 1192 107 332 1192 145 284 835 127 241 1724 385 Added Vol: 1 6 0 0 10 9 12 16 1 5 13 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 287 1198 107 332 1202 154 296 851 128 246 1737 385 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: 287 1198 107 332 1202 154 296 851 128 246 1737 385 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 287 1198 107 332 1202 154 296 851 128 246 1737 385 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 Final Vol. : 287 1198 107 332 1202 154 296 851 128 246 1737 385 ------------ --------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------� Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 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: 2.00 2.75 0.25 2.00 2.66 0.34 2.00 2.61 0.39 2.00 2.46 0.54 Final Sat. : 3400 4681 419 3400 4522 578 3400 4434 666 3400 4175 925 ------------ ►--------------- --------------- --------------- --------------- � Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.08 0.26 0.26 0.10 0.27 0.27 0.09 0.19 0.19 0.07 0.42 0.42 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Traffix 7.5.0715 (c) 2002 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to RK ENGINEERING GROUP OY+PAM-W/IMP Wed Sep 17, 2003 1S:46:01 Page 4-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TARGET STORE T-194 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Future Volume Alternative) ._ •rrrtra•r••rrxrrr«rrrxrxrrrr«rrtrt«rrr«rxrr«rrrr«r«trrrr«rxxxrrrrr•rx«r«rrxrrxrrxx Intersection #5 BROOKHURST STREET (NS) AT ADAMS BLVD (EW) .. rrxxrrrrr«rrrrrrrr«rrxrrrrrrt«rr«rrrrrr«rrr««rrrrrr«rrxrrrrr««««rrxrr«rrrrrrxrr« Cycle (sec) : 100 Critical Vol./Cap. M : 0.892 Loss Time (sec) : 5 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh) : xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 82 Level Of Service: D «xr«xrrxxrrrrr«rrr«rrrxx«rrr+«x««rrrtrrrrrr«rrr««rr«rrrrrrrxrrxr«rrrxrrrrrxrxxxr Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound - Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R -------------I ---------------11--------------- I1 ---------------11--------------- � 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: 2 0 3 0 1 2 0 2 1 0 2 0 3 0 1 2 0 3 0 1 ------------I ---------------I1 --------------- --------------- ---------------I Volume Module: >> Count Date: 9 Sep 2003 << Base Vol: 101 991 446 483 931 88 183 2013 95 166 486 195 Growth Adj; 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 Initial Bse: 105 1031 464 502 968 92 190 2094 99 173 505 203 Added Vol: 1 2 0 0 3 3 2 3 0 1 4 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 106 1033 464 502 971 95 192 2097 99 174 509 203 User Adj : 1.00 1.00 0.65 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 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: 106 1033 394 502 971 95 192 2097 84 174 509 172 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 106 1033 394 502 971 95 192 2097 84 174 509 172 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 Final Vol. : 106 1033 394 502 971 95 192 2097 84 174 509 172 ------------ --------------- --------------- --------------- --------------- � Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 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: 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 2.73 0.27 2.00 3.00 1.00 2-00 3.00 1.00 Final Sat. : 3400 5100 1700 3400 4648 452 3400 5100 1700 3400 5100 1700 ------------I--------------- ---------------( --------------- ---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.03 0.20 0.23 0.15 0.21 0.21 0.06 0.41 0.05 0.05 0.10 0.10 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** rxrrr«rxrrr*rr««rxrrrrrrx«rrxrrr««rrxr«rrrrrrrr«rrrxrxrrrr«rr««r«r«rr«xrrrrrr««« Traffix 7.5.0715 (c) 2002 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to RK ENGINEERING GROUP OY+PPM-W/IMP Wed Sep 17, 2003 15:46:42 Page 4-1 i -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TARGET STORE T-194 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Future Volume Alternative) xw#wxwwx##xxwxtxxxxwrwxxxwx#x###wwxw#w##www#w#xww##w##xwxxww#w#w###x##w#wwx###ww Intersection #5 BROOKHURST STREET (NS) AT ADAMS BLVD (EW) w wxxx##xx#xwwww###ww#x#xxwwxx#x##xw#wwwww###wwxw##wx###ww##ww#xx#r#w###wxwx##### Cycle (sec) : 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (X) : 0.628 Loss Time (sec) : 5 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh) : xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 59 Level Of Service: D #wxxr#ww+wrxrxwwxrxxwxwwx###wx#wwwwxxx#w+x##w##wxxwww#w#x#ww##x#wx#xx#w##x#w#r## Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L T - R ------------ I--------------- --------------- 11 ---------------11 ---------------� Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 2 0 3 0 1 2 0 2 1 0 2 0 3 0 1 2 0 3 0 1 - ------------ I--------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------� Volume Module: >> Count Date: 9 Sep 2003 << Base Vol: 275 1146 103 319 1146 139 273 803 122 232 1658 370 Growth Adj : 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 Initial Bse: 286 1192 107 332 1192 145 284 835 127 241 1724 385 Added Vol: 1 6 0 0 10 9 12 16 1 5 13 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 287 1198 107 332 1202 154 296 851 128 246 1737 385 User Adj : 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 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: 287 1198 91 332 1202 154 296 851 109 246 1737 327 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 287 1198 91 332 1202 154 296 851 109 246 1737 327 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 Final Vol. : 287 1198 91 332 1202 154 296 851 109 246 1737 327 ------------ --------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------� Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 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: 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 2.66 0.34 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 3 .00 1.00 Final Sat. : 3400 5100 1700 3400 4522 578 3400 5100 1700 3400 5100 1700 ------------ I--------------- --------------- --------------- --------------- � Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.08 0.23 0.05 0.10 0.27 0.27 0.09 0.17 0.06 0.07 0.34 0.19 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Traffix 7.5.0715 (c) 2002 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to RK ENGINEERING GROUP Appendix G City of Huntington Beach Collision Data "7 ��k. 4 .: C Y•-.^^-'---•-r-•rry. .' � '} r.. -µ .{G ':: ^,.Ya'�u-..c�, fi- .i r� vh{.�� z t t{ !.r•,Y :. � '1 t li :7 � u:,+pi17i��.�'a .41t{'T "x�r��'� ,f�'.iT" is - ---- .1�.x"�'� � �(`_ _ kt.-1 f_ r ` f:.-^-�s�-. ; '.""""'� �r.� .4,. • t i r J. _ g S 1. � t�� }.� JtJ� a4 � �� :i1 �t,tr. �b � .��i • �i��.'` t "♦ ..� _ �A _ i f �a .. `-.�1',r-,�yt i- .Y�- �•'•n:.rr F ��:�� .�c i �"r'! � ��.d"'r� /+ r t }' }�, .. � �• }. �'�,' h`r \,IX�L ` 9'} s 1 � �\•ii�.+ �' � .__ ��[..� 1�� .r.JMisrS+ r( N J r r G S ` r r C,}4�r, i W•`:`]Gr � i tl}-•G}.>. �1 r tl cA 1 �• {�Lr t i� ,I`r 7{ �q >�, I� I` J zfk� .fir' Sr ,.,� � Y d . t+j�-.s ..{ � 1 (i'`'• ,� ;,,err tit : { r(is qV� � �1�, -v- + 1{4 , s�q " 1 `�°�v17, ><•4� t �[[i}� r ti�,�tit}J I � ] .'s 4� •s JIIr -;',f+°M. 7 r�•r .f�*ri�irr!"1+'�+of"bt�t`�Sbti +t�AGb'Li9n'xNkM'w• L� rs ..+�•-�1.-.�!.�.er�. 1� �".Lrs.'.d'c= '�..d*+T^' � � �, ,[- ^,d J .7 .. - -'-�"_i'_�ut•i�`i 11 11 r Ir 1� '�r c ' � ��y-�-Fk }'li) ( �1.i irr t�f�9 T�. � , - r , � I 7 ({j�� a _-r i ♦ _I:I r ��'"'�� -1�1 {f �''�� of l I'�:I;dy�i •.�� Y{��t Y �i� { 1 (�} �' Cy"! �.1 � � Y. �.. �r�1�. ��'�"° \1- y _ 17 i a3 - ��qq k F h. c•.� �� I �i, � r � ! ri } �1�t�� +h�.. e,w 9¢:7 a•9�� 1 •,1� �t� � {�� <;: t 71, —1;--•—•-+�. � (-�tir"? I ,'�' ♦� ' ,�t �� Gy �j ,. � �..L �� '�,t.Qy Oil ryY 1 i LLL } T I•_ Fy, tf �. 1 r' 1'. ♦ �.0 S �' .,1. m b '1 [. ek �tJ y:'m�iT,�rit' Ui,;4 J:rdl;t:�lfJ '� .. t ♦ .{3 1 FPr �; , .� y f .rii �G ;} ll..�12,�� ,a� _-1 .�,. � � S�J. "P.� 'r 1:.. , . . �-, � IS�-:;+`� -�uyp�,• t ry l ,� i�1 V�\ y -� r 't:F '� ll.l �.1}•y ;r�i �, a�i Y14 t- OKU y ,.. �awPa.ti .'": %i Ir ,•�� : ,>j� 4s- i� ��.�! �3' c , 1 ra•�}:t r r �ri',: �a•,?' �� t , •il�'uu� ':. l.a ��Yy.. �.• ..�. P. lL `�: rR.; ¢...Tom: ii} 1 ti ALP Pgit id , C• � �• L I _� �J �r .(� J3� SF � �7! \ _ � 161�' i, �b� �1 r � im�' _ ° ' ?'tJ J U®AO "°" yp� �I fi+s ,� -• fu +� a" (G��}}y►�jQt' it � .r s.•3, .I� '.� -rvsr;1 ..o- --rab '.::.17.., }..ur.'•. n.z.��a ➢L lcr1.i - ..•.�}f+.' :; rc�� -_-'�^!r_•-!�ia7 �Y..^lFn�a_. t rs a J r- .R ...1.�_ Hidusky, Robert From: Stachelski, Bob Sent: Monday, September 08, 2003 7:58 AM To: Hidusky, Robert Cc: Janusz, William Subject: FW: Target Store T-194 Renovation- Huntington Beach Bob, Can you handle this? Please put together the accident information being requested using the Crossroads information. I will also be forwarding copies of the two reports for copying. I think I have standard comb bound copies. Please make a copy of each and forward to Bob Kahn by the end of the week. Please let me know if you don't have the time to get to this and I will make other arrangements. Bob -----Original Message----- From: Bob Kahn [mailto:rk@rkengineer.com] Sent: Friday, September 05, 2003 4:36 PM bstachelski@surfcity-hb.org 'John Warren' ,abject: Target Store T-194 Renovation - Huntington Beach Bob Based upon our recent telephone conversation I would like to request several items that will be needed to complete the traffic study for the subject Target Store. I would like to request the following information: 1. Accident history for the two full access driveways to the Target Store (Adams Blvd.and Brookhurst St. ) . All accidents within 200 feet of the driveways for the past three .(3) years. i 2. Copy of the traffic safety study completed by the City for the same area. 3 . Copy of the traffic study for the redevelopment of the NEC of Brookhurst St.and Adams Blvd. Thanks for your assistance in this matter. Bob Kahn )bert Kahn P.E. :.K Engineering Group, Inc. 20201 S.W. Birch St. Suite 250 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Ph. (949) 474-0809 Fax (949) 474-0902 y 05 C, Collision Diagram East/West Street: ADAMS AVENUE From: 1/1/2000 TO: 12/31/2000 Cross Street: BROOKHURST STREET Date Prepared: 9/10/2003 12/19/00 4/23/00 3119100 5/14100 Unst Sod Unsf Sod Unst Sod Unst Spa N Y �( 11/10/00 4122 ,4 V/ Unsf Sod Auto R/W y 12/14/00 6/9/00 7/18/00 Unsf Sod Unsi 7Aan/Bk 7/3/00 1214/00 igs/Signs Auto R/W! Aulo R/W 1/4/00 ® — Auto R/W - 10/6/00 Unst Sod I� �- 12/19/00 Unsf Spd 7124100 120/00 V I 2123/00 Auto R/W 5/1/00 Improp Turn Unst Spd Auto R/W 1, t 3115100 Unsf Sod 4110100 Unsf Start 10/23/00 BMW Spd Auto R/W Unst 3/17/00 Unknown 7/1�31001 Unsf Sod 8120/00 �-- Auto R/W 1/19100 12/11/00 Auto R/W Improp Pa - Auto _ V Auto R/W J' 917/00 Auto R/W 2110/00 Unsl Sod 9/21/0—0—� 77p1,�2�710�0/W Unsf Spd 11191k10 1176/00 Auto/0R/W A Auto R/W Auto JTW „ I� I I 6/6/00 6/6/00 12/22/00 5/24/00 328/00 Unsf Lane Ghd Lane CW Stan/Bbsf Sod Unsf So Number of Collisions L fiend Right Turn R Pedestrian �— Moving Vehicle ® Fixed Object 31 Property Damage Only Left Turn �--a Stopped Vehicle 9 Injury Collisions �� Backing Vehicle .0— Sideswipe �''O Bicycle 0 Fatal Collisions Ran Off Road — a DUI �,. 40 Total Collisions Movement 4--- Day O Injury Unknown -- Night, Qp Fatal Color Legend - Highest Degree of Injury Maroon=Fatal Purple=Severe Injury Green=Other Visible Injury Teal=Complaint of Pain Dark Blue=Property Damage Only Settings Used For Query Parameter Setting Street Name 'Adams Avenue' Cross Street 'Brookhurst Street' Starting Date 1/1/2000 Ending Date 12/31/2000 - Distance from Intersection <=900' for non rear-end collisions <=900' for rear-end collisions j City of Huntington Beach Police Department Traffic Collision History Report 9/1 012 0 0 3 Page 1 Location: Adams Avenue/Brookhurst Street Date Range Reported: 1/1/00 - 12/31/00 Type of Motor Veh. Direct.of Movement Direct.of Movement Date Time Dist. Dir. Collision Involved With Travel 1 Prec.Coll. 1 Travel 2 Prec.Coll.2 PCF Inj. Kil 1 114100 16:29 600 West Broadside Other Motor South Making Left West Proceeding Auto R/W 0 0 Vehicle Turn Straight Violation 1/19/00 07:51 583 West Sideswipe Other Motor West Making Left East Passing Other Auto R/W 1 0 Vehicle Turn Vehicle Violation 1120100 14:29 630 West Not Stated Other Motor South Making Left North Making Left Improper Turning 0 0 Vehicle Turn Turn 2/4/00 14:32 657 West Broadside Other Motor North Making Left East Proceeding Auto R/W 3 0 Vehicle Turn Straight Violation 2110100 19:00 240 West Rear-End Other Motor East Proceeding East Stopped In Unsafe Speed 0 0 Vehicle Straight Road 2/23/00 15:25 418 East Rear-End Other Motor West Slowing/Stoppi West Stopped In Unsafe Speed 0 0 Vehicle ng Road 3/15/00 14:37 30 South Rear-End Other Motor West Proceeding West Stopped In Unsafe Speed 0 0 Vehicle Straight Road 3/17/00 23:20 200 North Sideswipe Other Motor East Making Left West Making Right Unknown 0 0 Vehicle Turn Turn 3/19/00 11:37 413 North Rear-End Other Motor South Proceeding South Stopped In Unsafe Speed 0 0 Vehicle Straight Road 3/28/00 17:58 130 South Rear-End Other Motor North Proceeding North Stopped In Unsafe Speed 0 0 Vehicle Straight Road 4/10/00 17:01 60 East Rear-End Other Motor West Proceeding West Stopped In Unsafe Starting 0 0 Vehicle Straight Road or Backing 4122100 19:56 460 North Broadside Other Motor South Making Left North Proceeding Auto R/W 2 0 Vehicle Turn Straight Violation 4/23/00 01:01 40 North Rear-End Other Motor South Proceeding South Stopped In Unsafe Speed 0 0 Vehicle Straight Road 5/1/00 16:14 500 West Head-On Other Motor South Proceeding East Proceeding Auto R/W 0 0 Vehicle Straight Straight Violation 5/14/00 16:08 20 North Rear-End Other Motor South Proceeding South Stopped In Unsafe Speed 1 0 Vehicle Straight Road City of Huntington Beach Police Department Traffic Collision History Report 9/10/2003 Page 2 1 ocation- Adams Avenue/Brookhurst Street Date Range Reported. 1/1/00 - 12/31/00 Date Time Dist. Dir. Type of Motor Veh. Direct.of Movement Direct.of Movement PCF Ini. Kil Collision Involved With Travel 1 Prec.Coll.1 Travel 2 Prec.Coll.2 5/24/00 10:52 65 South Rear-End Other Motor North Proceeding North Stopped In Unsafe Speed 0 0 Vehicle Straight Road 6/6/00 12:40 0 In Int. Sideswipe Other Motor North Proceeding North Slowing/Stoppi Unsafe Lane 0 0 Vehicle Straight ng Change 6/6/00 12:40 0 In Int. Sideswipe Other Motor North Proceeding North Slowing/Stoppi Unsafe Lane 0 0 Vehicle Straight ng Change 6/9/00 12:30 449 North Broadside Other Motor South Backing East Making Left Unsafe Starting 0 0 Vehicle Turn or Backing 7/3/00 12:20 726 West Broadside Other Motor South Entering East Proceeding Auto R/W 1 Vehicle Traffic Straight Violation 7113/00 16:03 200 East Sideswipe Motor Vehicle West Proceeding West Stopped In Unsafe Speed 0 0 on Other Straight Road 7/18/00 11:27 0 In Int. Broadside Other Motor North Making Left South Proceeding Traffic Signals 0 0 Vehicle Turn Straight and Signs 7/24/00 16:58 628 West Broadside Other Motor South Entering West Proceeding Auto R/W 1 0 Vehicle Traffic Straight Violation 7/27/00 13:04 690 West Broadside Other Motor East Making Left East Proceeding Auto R/W 0 0 Vehicle Turn Straight Violation 7/28/00 13:19 173 North Broadside Other Motor East Proceeding South Proceeding Auto R/W 0 0 Vehicle Straight Straight Violation 817/00 15:16 197 East Rear-End Other Motor West Proceeding West Stopped In Unsafe Speed 0 0 Vehicle Straight Road 8/20/00 18:42 492 West Broadside Other Motor North Making Left East Proceeding Auto R/W 0 0 Vehicle Turn Straight Violation 917/00 07:51 25 West Head-On Other Motor West Making Left East Proceeding Auto R/W 0 0 Vehicle Turn Straight Violation 9/21/00 07:27 800 West Rear-End Other Motor East Proceeding East Crossed Into Unsafe Speed 0 0 Vehicle Straight Opposing 10/6/00 19:35 5 East Rear-End Other Motor West Proceeding West Stopped In Unsafe Speed 0 0 Vehicle Straight Road City of Huntington Beach Police Department Traffic Collision History Report 9/10/2003 Page 3 Location: Adams Avenue/Brookhurst Street Date Range Reported: 1/1/00 - 12/31/00 Type of Motor Veh. Direct.of Movement Direct. of Movement Date Time Dist. Dir. Collision Involved With Travel 1 Prec.Coll. 1 Travel 2 Prec.Coll.2 PCF Inj. Kit 10/23/00 13:20 654 West Broadside Other Motor North Making Left East Proceeding Auto R/W 0 0 Vehicle Turn Straight Violation 11/8/00 09:52 662 South Broadside Other Motor West Making Left South Proceeding Auto R/W 1 0 Vehicle Turn Straight Violation 11/9/00 12:16 651 South Broadside Other Motor North Making Left South Proceeding Auto R/W 2 0 Vehicle Turn Straight Violation I t/10/00 15:15 250 North Other Bicycle North Proceeding North Proceeding Unsafe Speed 1 0 Straight Straight 12/4/00 12:14 624 West Broadside Other Object South Entering East Proceeding Auto R/W 0 0 Traffic Straight Violation 12/11/00 15:40 318 East Sideswipe Other Motor West Changing West Stopped In Improper Passing 0 0 Vehicle Lanes Road 12/14/00 17:17 300 East Rear-End Other Motor West Proceeding West Proceeding Unsafe Speed 0 0 Vehicle Straight Straight 12/19/00 11:10 60 North Rear-End Other Motor South Proceeding South Proceeding Unsafe Speed 1 0 Vehicle Straight Straight 12/19/00 17:58 180 East Rear-End Other Motor West Slowing/Stoppi West Stopped In Unsafe Speed 0 0 Vehicle ng Road 12/22/00 16:37 75 South Rear-End Other Motor North Proceeding North Stopped In Unsafe Starting 0 0 Vehicle Straight Road or Backing City of Huntington Beach Police Department Traffic Collision History Report 9/10/2003 Page 4 Location: Adams Avenue/Brookhurst Street Date Range Reported: 1/1/00 - 12/31/00 Date Time Dist. Dir. Type of Motor Veh. Direct.of Movement Direct.of Movement PCF Inj. Kil Collision Involved With Travel 1 Prec. Coll. 1 Travel 2 Prec.Coll.2 Total Number of Collisions: 40 Settings Used For Query Parameter Setting Street Name 'Adams Avenue' Cross Street 'Brookhurst Street' Starting Date 1/l/2000. Ending Date 12/31/2000 Distance from,Intersection <=900'for non rear-end collisions <=900' for rear-end collisions f i Collision Diagram East/West Street: ADAMS AVENUE From: 1/1/2001 To- 12/31/2001 Cross Street: BROOKHURST STREET Date Prepared: 9/10/2003 1/6/01 1/11101 3/9/01 5/13/01 11/28/01 i DUI Unsf Sod Unsf Start/9hsf Spd Ped R/W If i Q I 111 t: .%1� Cif U N 3119/01 5/1a/01 - - .,r Irrtprop Tuhlnsl Lane Chg D L!� 7/13/01 2/6/01 4/26/01 Wrong Si C ( 31--- Auto Auto R/W rs Unsf t Au o lDl ! Unsf Spd Auto R/Wj j Ol Auto RW 0 y�_70/01 DUI 2/6/O1 Unst Spd 2/2101 Improp Turn 3/6/0 t Unsf Spd 10126/01 Unst Spd 1 5/6/0' Unst Spd i /0-1 v15"' Auto R/W 9123/01 Un one Chg 11/22/01 Auto R/W 1/9/01 Auto R/W 7/3/01 lln� Unsf Spd 101297D7 nown /A1 U sf ne Chg 4� '\ .A 1/21/01 �� Xl DUI A, I I 519/01 1/2 3/01 12/31/0 1 Unsf Sod Unsf Sod Unsf Sod Number of Collisions Legend Right Turn pedestrian �— Moving Vehicle ® Fixed Object 17 Property Damage Only � Stopped Vehicle Left Turn Bicycle 13 Injury Collisions Backing Vehicle Sideswipe 0 Fatal Collisions �— a DUI �--�. Ran Off Road = 30 Total Collisions Movement C— Day O Injury Unknown go— Night (0 Fatal City of Huntington Beach Police Department Traffic Collision History Report 9/10/2003 Page 2 Location: Adams Avenue/Brookhurst Street Date Range Reported: 111101 - 12/31/01 Type of Motor Veh. Direct.of Movement Direct.of Movement Date Time Dist. Dir. Collision Involved With Travel 1 Prec.Coll.1 Travel 2 Prec.Coll. 2 PCF Inj. Kil 5/6/01 17:19 86 East Rear-End Other Motor West Proceeding West Slopped In Unsafe Speed 0 0 Vehicle Straight Road 5/9/01 07:55 102 South Rear-End Other Motor North Changing North Stopped In Unsafe Speed 0 0 Vehicle Lanes Road 5/13/01 16:35 89 North Rear-End Other Motor South Proceeding South Stopped In Unsafe Speed 6 0 Vehicle Straight Road 5/18/01 16:00 150 North Hit Object Non-Collision North Changing North Proceeding Unsafe Lane 0 0 Lanes Straight Change 6/23/01 13:48 655 West Broadside Other Motor South Proceeding East Proceeding Auto R/W 2 0 Vehicle Straight Straight Violation 7/3/01 23:08 317 West Overturne Non-Collision East Slowing/Stoppi Unsafe Speed 1 0 d ng 7/13/01 13:08 656 South Broadside Bicycle South Proceeding West Entering Wrong Side of 1 0 Straight Traffic Road 9/23/01 17:09 620 West Broadside Other Motor North Entering East Proceeding Auto R/W 1 0 Vehicle Traffic Straight Violation 10/26/01 21:49 87 East Rear-End Other Motor West Proceeding West Stopped In Unsafe Speed 1 0 Vehicle Straight Road 10/29/01 13:53 100 South Sideswipe Other Motor South Proceeding South Changing Unsafe Lane 0 0 Vehicle Straight Lanes Change 11/22/01 19:49 0 In Int. Broadside Other Motor West Making Left North Proceeding Auto R/W 4 0 Vehicle Turn Straight Violation 11/28/01 635 West Vehicle- Pedestrian South Entering West Proceeding Ped R/W Violation 1 0 Pedestria Traffic Straight 12/8/01 10:30 201 East Hit Object Fixed Object West Proceeding Driving Under 0 0 Straight Influence 12/18/01 20:21 667 South Broadside Other Motor West Entering North Proceeding Auto'R/W 2 0 Vehicle Traffic Straight Violation 12/31/01 18:09 186 South Rear-End Other Motor North Proceeding North Stopped In Unsafe Speed 1 0 Vehicle Straight Road City of Huntington Beach Police Department Traffic Collision History Report 9/10/2003 Page 3 Location: Adams Avenue/Brookhurst Street Date Range Reported: 1/1/01 - 12/31/01 Type of Motor Veh. Direct.of Movement Direct.of Movement Date Time Dist. Dir. PCF Inl. Kil Collision Involved With Travel 1 Prec. Coll. 1 Travel 2 Prec. Coll.2 Total Number of Collisions: 30 Settings Used For Query Parameter Setting Street Name 'Adams Avenue' Cross Street 'Brookhurst Street' i Starting.Date 1/1/2001 Ending Date 12/31/2001 Distance from Intersection <=900' for non rear-end collisions <=900' for rear-end collisions Collision Diagram East/West Street: ADAMS AVENUE From: 1/1/2002 TO: 12/31/2002 Cross Street: BROOKHURST STREET Date Prepared: 9/10/2003 to 1Z1v02 Unsf S Unsf ptl Unknown Unsl Lane Chg II N 1102 5/30/02 12/18/02 10/25/02 Asleep — Sigs/Signs Auto Fl/W Auto R/W 4/23/02 Unsf Spd - —J 10/30/02 3/14102 ®—�8 r'- •�• Sigs/Signs Auto RfW 6n102 DUI 1212102 11/29/02 �9/02 Unknown Auto RNV Unsf Sptl 3/6/02 9/6/02 Auto R/W Auto R/Vd {/10/02 Unsf Start, n 8/1 vo2 Unsf Spd ---- 12/18/02 , Auto FVW 9/1d/02 -- Unsf Spd 11/9/02 7/28/02 Auto R/W Othproprop Drvg :i 3/26/02 Ped Viol -........... — ...... Auto R/W ,�j Othr lmpr Drvg 8/23/02 Unknown 12/16/02` /02 6/21 _ 2!8/02 Auto R/W A 1/WIN 02 Auto R/W ��"�. 7/4102 �y�6/02 - - —r� DUI 8l27/t� � _ uto R1W R n % 9/2B/02 4 Auto R/W It I 11/13/02 9112102 7/16/02 8120/02 Unsf LaneDhlvtown Foll2clossAuto RA Number of Collisions Legend Right Turn Pedestrian �— Moving Vehicle Fixed Object Stopped Vehicle 19 Property Damage Only � Left Turn 18 Injury Collisions 11 Bicycle .0 Backing Vehicle 4— Sideswipe 0 Fatal Collisions Ran Off Road �— 9 DUI 37 Total Collisions Movement o-- Day O Injury Unknown -- Night (0 Fatal Color Legend - Highest Degree of Injury Maroon=Fatal Purple=Severe Injury Green=Other Visible Injury Teal =Complaint of Pain Dark Blue=Property Damage Only Settings Used For Query Parameter Settin Street Name 'Adams Avenue' Cross Street 'Brookhurst Street' Starting Date _ __ 1/1/2002 Ending Date 12/31/2002 Distance from Intersection <=900'for non rear-end collisions <=900'for rear-end collisions City of Huntington Beach Police Department Traffic Collision History Report 9/10/2003 Page 1 Location: Adams Avenue/Brookhurst Street Date Range Reported: 111/02 - 12/31/02 Date Time Dist. Dir. Type of Motor Veh. Direct.of Movement Direct.of Movement PCF Inj. KII Collision Involved With Travel 1 Prec. Coll. 1 Travel 2 Prec.Coll.2 117/02 17:47 528 North Sideswipe Other Motor South Entering South Proceeding Unknown 0 0 Vehicle Traffic Straight 2/1/02 06:57 570 East Head-On Fixed Object West Proceeding Fell Asleep 0 0 Straight 2/8/02 10:05 796 South Broadside Other Motor West Making Left North Proceeding Auto R/W 1 0 Vehicle Turn Straight Violation 3/6/02 23:16 0 In Int. Sideswipe Other Motor West Other Unsafe South Proceeding Auto R/W 0 0 Vehicle Turning Straight Violation 3/14/02 17:29 500 East Broadside Other Motor East Making Left West Proceeding Auto R/W 1 0 Vehicle Turn Straight Violation 3/26/02 13:43 480 West Vehicle- Pedestrian North Entering East Proceeding Pedestrian 1 0 Pedestria Traffic Straight Violation 4/23/02 10:04 80 West Rear-End Other Motor West Proceeding West Stopped In Unsafe Speed 1 0 Vehicle Straight Road 5/9/02 12:51 105 East Rear-End Other Motor West Proceeding West Stopped In Unsafe Speed 0 0 Vehicle Straight Road 5/10/02 16:10 350 East Rear-End Other Motor West Proceeding West Stopped In Unsafe Starting 2 0 Vehicle Straight Road or Backing 5/19/02 01:40 80 East Hit Object Fixed Object East Making Left Other Improper 1 0 Turn Driving 5/22/02 16:20 34 North Rear-End Other Motor South Proceeding Unsafe Speed 0 0 Vehicle Straight 5/30/02 12:02 0 In Int. Broadside Other Motor North Making Left South Proceeding Traffic Signals 3 0 Vehicle Turn Straight and Signs 6/7/02 23:42 36 East Rear-End Other Motor West Proceeding West Proceeding Driving Under 0 0 Vehicle Straight Straight Influence 6/21/02 17:07 503 East Broadside Other Motor West Making Left East Proceeding Auto IR/W 0 0 Vehicle Turn Straight Violation 7/4/02 22:14 135 West Rear-End Other Motor East Proceeding East Stopped In Driving Under 1 0 Vehicle Straight Road Influence City of Huntington Beach Police Department Traffic Collision History Report 9/10/2003 Page 2 Location: Adams Avenue/Brookhurst Street Date Range Reported: 1/1/02 - 12/31/02 Type of Motor Veh. Direct.of Movement Direct.of Movement Date Time Dist. Dir. Collision Involved With Travel 1 Prec.Coll.1 Travel 2 Prec.Coll.2 PCF Inj. Kil 7116/02 10:44 0 In Int. Rear-End Other Motor North Proceeding North Slowing/Stoppi Following Too 0 0 Vehicle Straight ng Closely 7/28/02 12:09 250 East Rear-End Other Motor East Proceeding East Slowing/Stoppi Other Improper 0 0 Vehicle Straight ng Driving 8/12/02 18:24 228 East Rear-End Other Motor West Proceeding West. Stopped In Unsafe Speed 4 0 Vehicle StraightRoad 8/20/02 14:00 410 South Broadside Other Motor North Entering North Proceeding Auto R/W 1 0 Vehicle Traffic Straight Violation 8/23/02 17:30 0 In Int. Rear-End Other Motor East Stopped In East Proceeding Unknown 1 0 Vehicle Road Straight 8/27/02 16:39 628 South Broadside Other Motor North Making Left South Proceeding Auto R/W 0 0 Vehicle Turn Straight Violation 9/6/02 21:41 600 South Broadside Other Motor West Entering South Proceeding Auto R/W 1 0 Vehicle Traffic Straight Violation 9/12/02 08:45 0 In Int. Rear-End Other Motor North Stopped In North Proceeding Unknown 0 0 Vehicle Road Straight 9/14/02 16:37 33 East Rear-End Other Motor East Proceeding East Stopped In Unsafe Speed 0 0 Vehicle Straight Road 9/28/02 12:32 550 East Broadside Other Motor South Making Left East Proceeding Auto R/W 2 0 Vehicle Turn Straight Violation 10/25/02 19:30 350 North Rear-End Other Motor South Making U Turn South Proceeding Auto RfW 1 0 Vehicle Straight Violation 10/30/02 21:32 0 In Int. Head-On Other Motor West Stopped In East Making Left Traffic Signals 0 0 Vehicle Road Turn and Signs 11/9/02 13:59 640 West Head-On Other Motor West Making Left East Proceeding Auto RAN 1 0 Vehicle Turn Straight Violation 11/13/02 15:57 100 South Sideswipe Other Motor North Changing North Proceeding Unsafe Lane 0 0 Vehicle Lanes Straight Change 11/29/02 20:04 300 North Broadside Other Motor West Entering North Proceeding Auto R/W 0 0 Vehicle Traffic Straight Violation City of Huntington Beach Police Department Traffic Collision History Report 9/10/2003. Page 3 Location: Adams Avenue/Brookhurst Street Date Range Reported: 1/1/02 - 12/31/02 Date Time Dist. Dir. Type of Motor Veh. Direct.of Movement Direct. of Movement PCF Inj. Kit Collision Involved With Travel 1 Prec. Coll.1 Travel 2 Prec.Coll.2 12/2/02 07:45 150 South Sideswipe Other Motor North Stopped In West Entering Unknown 0 0 Vehicle Road Traffic 12/9/02 07:54 820 West Broadside Other Motor West Making Left East Proceeding Auto R/W 1 0 Vehicle Turn Straight Violation 12/12/02 14:29 400 North Sideswipe Other Motor South Changing South Changing Unsafe Lane 0 0 Vehicle Lanes Lanes Change 12/16/02 10:06 671 West Broadside Other Motor North Entering East Proceeding Auto R/W 2 0 Vehicle Traffic Straight Violation 12/16/02 10:21 200 North Broadside Other Motor East Entering South Proceeding Auto R/W 2 0 Vehicle Traffic Straight Violation 12/18/02 13:30 300 East Head-On Other Motor East Making Left West Proceeding Auto R/W 2 0 Vehicle Turn Straight Violation 1211 B/02 20:26 400 West Broadside Other Motor South Entering West Proceeding Auto R/W 0 0 Vehicle Traffic Straight Violation City of Huntington Beach Police Department Traffic Collision History Report 9/10/2003 Page 4 Location: Adams Avenue/Brookhurst Street Date Range Reported: 1/1/02 - 12/31/02 Type of Motor Veh. Direct.of Movement Direct.of Movement Date Time Dist. Dir. Collision Involved With Travel 1 Prec. Coll. 1 Travel 2 Prec.Coll.2 PCF Inj. Kil Total Number of Collisions: 37 Settings Used For Query Parameter Setting Street Name 'Adams Avenue' Cross Street 'Brookhurst Street' Starting Date 1/1/2002 Ending Date 12/31/2002 Distance from Intersection <=900' for non rear-end collisions <=900' for rear-end collisions Collision Diagram East/West Street: ADAMS AVENUE From: 1/1/2003 TO: 9/10/2003 Cross Street: BROOKHURST STREET Date Prepared: 9/10/2003 6/1/03 5/14/03 1/12/03 ,1 Unsf Spd Unsf Spd Unsf Spd 41 Un Spd „--` --; 'lam 3/6/03 4111103 Unsf Starb D I rAl /032l21l03. lo R/W � > �:4lswoii/W 4/26/03 ' Unsf Spd 1/17/03 7/23/03 Auto R/W Auto R/W 4124/03 �Foll2cl�ose — �6/1 3 I 2/3/03 Unsf Spd Auto R/W 6/18/03 uto R/W d- 4/24/03 Improp Turn 7/23/03 .. Unsf Spd a/29l03 Unsf Spd 5/29/03 Auto R/W 4/17/03 7129/03 Sigs/Signs 2/10�1t Unsf Sp tl Auto R/W w�. 4f)/03 6/6/03 Immoo Turlinsf Ste k Number of Collisions Legend Right Turn pedestrian �— Moving Vehicle ® Fixed Object 12 Property Damage Only � Lett Turn � Stopped Vehicle--� 12 Injury Collisions � Bicycle �-3 Backing Vehicle N— Sideswipe 0 Fatal Collisions Ran Off Road �— g DUI 24 Total Collisions Movement 4— Day O Injury Unknown Night Oo Fatal Color Legend - Highest Degree of Injury Maroon=Fatal Purple=Severe In Green =Other Visible Injure Teal = Complaint or Pain Dark Blue=Property Damage Only Settings Used For Query Parameter Se- ttinlZ Street Name 'Adams Avenue' Cross Street 'Brookhurst Street' Starting Date 1/1/2003 Ending Date 9/10/2003 Distance from Intersection <=900'for non rear-end collisions <=900'for rear-end collisions 1 City of Huntington Beach Police Department Traffic Collision History Report 9/10/2003 Page Location: Adams Avenue/Brooktiurst Street Date Range Reported: 111/03 - 9/10/03 Date Time Dist. Dir. Type of Motor Veh. Direct.of Movement Direct.of Movement PCF Inj. Kit Collision Involved With Travel 1 Prec.Coll. 1 Travel 2 Prec.Coll.2 1/12/03 17:47 45 North Rear-End Other Motor South Stopped In South Stopped In Unsafe Speed 1 0 Vehicle Road Road 1/17/03 21:05 635 West Broadside Other Motor North Making Left West Stopped In Auto R/W 5 0 Vehicle Turn Road Violation 2/3/03 17:41 250 North Hit Object Fixed Object West Entering North Proceeding Auto R/W 0 0 Traffic Straight Violation 2/10/03 15:49 600 East Not Stated Other Motor South Making Left East Proceeding Auto R/W 2 0 Vehicle Turn Straight . Violation 2/21/03 17:26 600 West Broadside Other Motor South Making Left West Proceeding Auto R/W 0 0 Vehicle Turn Straight Violation 2/27/03 11:28 300 North Hit Object Fixed Object North Proceeding Unsafe Speed 0 0 Straight 3/8/03 08:26 615 South Broadside Other Motor West Entering North Proceeding Auto R/W 0 0 Vehicle Traffic Straight Violation 3/8/03 15:48 470 North Other Other Motor West Backing West Stopped In Unsafe Starting 1 0 Vehicle Road or Backing 4/7/03 09:16 425 South Sideswipe Other Motor North Changing North Proceeding Improper Turning 0 0 Vehicle Lanes Straight 4/11/03 03:55 0 In Int. Sideswipe Other Motor South Making Left South Making Left Driving Under 0 0 Vehicle Turn Turn Influence 4/17/03 20:06 0 In Int. Head-On Other Motor East ProceedingWest Makin Left Traffic Signals 0 0 9 9 Vehicle Straight Tur n rn and Signs 4/24/03 20:08 840 West Sideswipe Other Motor West Other Unsafe West Proceeding Improper Turning 0 0 Vehicle Turning Straight 4/24/03 20:09 800 West Rear-End Other Motor West Proceeding West Stopped In Following Too 0 0 Vehicle Straight Road Closely 4/26/03 14:37 180 East Rear-End Other Motor West Stopped In West Proceeding Unsafe Speed 1 0 Vehicle Road Straight 4/29/03 07:25 35 West Rear-End Other Motor East Proceeding East Stopped In Unsafe Speed 1 0 Vehicle Straight Road City of Huntington Beach Police Department Traffic Collision History Report 9/10/2003 Page 2 Location: Adams Avenue/Brookhurst Street Date Range Reported: 1/1103 - 9/10/03 Type of Motor Veh. Direct. of Movement Direct. of Movement Date Time Dist. Dir. Collision Involved With Travel 1 Prec.Coll. 1 Travel 2 Prec.Coll.2 PCF Inj. Kit 5/14/03 11:00 60 North Rear-End Other Motor South Proceeding South Stopped In Unsafe Speed 1 0 Vehicle Straight Road 5/29/03 17:05 700 West Broadside Other Motor North Entering West Proceeding Auto R/W 1 0 Vehicle Traffic Straight Violation 6/6/03 11:00 60 South Rear-End Other Motor North Proceeding North Stopped In Unsafe Starting 1 0 Vehicle Straight Road or Backing 6/18/03 17:48 609 West Sideswipe Other Motor West Making Right West Proceeding Auto R/W 0 0 Vehicle Turn Straight Violation 7/23/03 14:43 489 North Broadside Other Motor West Entering North Proceeding Auto R/W 0 0 Vehicle Traffic Straight Violation 7/23/03 18:14 0 In Int. Rear-End Other Motor East Proceeding East Stopped In Unsafe Speed 1 0 Vehicle Straight Road 7/29/03 21:15 63 West Rear-End Other Motor East Slowing/Stoppi East Stopped In Unsafe Speed 1 0 Vehicle ng Road 8/1/0 20:42 84 North Rear-End Other Motor South Proceeding South Stopped In Unsafe 3 g pp Speed 1 0 Vehicle Straight Road 8/18/03 11:35 279 West Rear-End Other Motor West Proceeding West Stopped In Unsafe Speed 2 0 Vehicle Straight Road City of Huntington Beach Police Department Traffic Collision History Report 9/10/2003 Page 3 Location: Adams Avenue/Brookhurst Street Date Range Reported: 1/1/03 - 9/10/03 Type of Motor Veh. Direct.of Movement Direct.of Movement Date Time Dist. Dir. Collision Involved With Travel 1 Prec.Coll.1 Travel 2 Prec.Coll.2 PCF In]. Kil Total Number of Collisions: 24 Settings Used For Query Parameter Setting Street Name 'Adams Avenue' Cross Street 'Brookhurst Street' Starting Date 1/1/2003 Ending Date 9/10/2003 Distance from Intersection <=900' for non rear-end collisions <=900' for rear-end collisions Appendix H Traffic Signal Warrant Worksheets r Exhibit B Existing Site Plan '.%m Vie`,.- - Zawai' _m,..__. jr.. -- - _ _ - -- - -�r� .... PARCEL 2(R1)-7' ��.• �+.. I � . b o d m � � OiLNAk � � I `Ic ➢�� .mom I ,-� � + PARCEL t -� 9T 1i if Me + � 1 1 I .45 I q c r PA R �J �R bNK Y Target T-1 4 BUILDING$OUARE FOOTACE- 103.455.3 „I� P 5(RI (C)-DISTANCE FROM PROPER ROP R LINE TO 1 MorMrt i I :rr FACE OF BIJg:.q 1 I .�+ ^ •, � C ti b 11I �YR�r0 { N 1611-03-02(EXB) engineering TARGETT-194 TRAFFIC IMPACTS STUDY,Huntington Beach,California group, inc. Exhibit A Location Map Adams Ave. �(�_ r%SITE, r IZ' „ L/ V N -2 7 L 0- Indianapolis Ave. Legend: i =Study area intersection O = Target driveway number N 161 1-03-02(EXA) engineering TARGETT-194 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY,Huntington Beath,California arm. inc. Exhibit C Proposed Site Plan 5 -......_.. _�- :__. - - � A D A: Nt_ S A-_V=E _{1t-it E_ / RETAIL ��_• OL MAX GAS / I _ sr T AE�3 w —I •\`�� -.:.:-- —. �_.__. .: �� / _ . �.:�1� I Jll I I I I I I I I I!! i I� ��I - L - - II !iiI! I n N� -.TFFFffT 7F T FFF'--. = A AA L I.IJJJ.I.W11.11LLIJIIL POPO STORE 5125,400GET SF •' �� ~. _ rkE x I?TT.Ti?ll^_ 11HIM C NTER' W11lli1J11JJ1LL•; I I I I I I I I;- - = TTTfTT'I!7TFi7T- T FFFT m ',j !> = i 'JJJJJJl:JJ.1W1L.: !I I I I I I I i :.r7 T..._�. r:-- I 1 i RESTAUR T `✓• _ II,I�iil Iliillill ' ITTT'T-.: ; (NOT A I ' PART) ! T r -IT ITI T Ti FUTI T r, , .. 2 Y71 ._ I Legend: = Target driveway number -03 -EXC, engineering `4 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY,Huntington Beach,California group, inc. Exhibit D Existing Number of Through lanes and Intersection Controls _J r1li-1 L r— _ T -r Adams Ave. 6D 6D 5 1 4 SITE 3 11i 11' z� _A o N N C L o G ca to ill L + Indiana olis Ave. �i cd Legend: =Traffic signal 4 = Number of lanes D = Divided 40 = Full access C = Right in/out access =Target driveway number N = Stop sign 1611-03-02(EXD) engineering TARGET T-194 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY,Huntington Beach,California group, inc, A __ - --- -- -- -- -- - - - - - - .... .. .... o c:.cso � \__-_.._......---i�.• I , .51:.1- �� — !' �� .,��,�,ri L-:�.i-,.ir;��l'.a �S) ,:::,------ R,� G y i r II: g I I I I ,. -- (a.J.L1J.__..I1.1_L11.q s �+•� _- - _- -- 1 -. _ _ _ _ ,�_:; II..l.1.LL.►.L1.1:11J1.11MI I_, ,�— --`� ..n '_4 _ .I �:,, 4 n TI I T UTrri 1 z w(AQ L......I arrr�n.' nra `:t41,,1.w Q O) �._... ...I "Y1t I I �- " 1 n�_� � � ..,,+, Q ..�,�+e in^ ,•'�;:3p:. ,,,` � ��,a,.��'"�F' �,.'.*M°��jJI�X,prr rs.q`�,. r yap� ..: �..,. .' '� � t � .K r .. � x.. r s4,fir .�, ' .'�,� - - w'-'� =li ems. r .. .,, .. - ]BUSINESS PROPERTIES DEVDLOPMENIT COMPANY 17633 7'1TC}3 IR 'lNu,CALII 01MIA 02614-R021 (940)474-8900 I'AX (049)474-8036 cb_bp a.;pacbelI.net March 29 2004 / HAND DELIVERED Zoning Administrator CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH P.O. Box 1.90 Huntington Beach CA92648 Re: CUP 03-35 (Target Demolition and Rebuild) Southwest Corner Brookhurst and Adams Huntington Beach, California To Whom It May Concern: We represent the owners of the commercial centers on the East side of Brookhurst Street on both sides of Adams Avenue. It is our understanding that a request by Target to demolish and rebuild their existing store at the Southwest Corner. of Brookhurst Street and Adams Avenue will be heard on March 31, 2004.. We have reviewed the Planning Department file and Application for this project and request you consider our concern about the lack of mitigation for the median opening on Brookhurst Street South of Adams Avenue which serves both the Stater Bros Center and the Target Center. 1. A Traffic Study was prepared on behalf of the City by Kim1Py-Horn and Associates, dated November 2001, in response to State Farm Insurance Company's list "of locations across the country that would be candidates for study and installation of traffic safety enhancements". That Study recommended the median openings North, South and West of the intersection of Brookhurst and Adams be modified with a "worm" treatment. See Exhibit "B" 2. We were notified in March 2002 by the City that due to the recommendation referenced in item I above, the median opening on.EmDkhurst Street South of Adams Avenue would be modified with the recommend treatment. 3. We notified Robert Stachelski by mail, March 2,6, 2002 in response to the Citv's Notice that we did not agree with the modification and requested a traffic signal be installed as the mediation for the recommendation of the Traffic Study. See Exhibit nO:LO T"n11T.H 15'1'M A'.ENT7,1:. fail':'h ^lil, I'}ir J I•:�: ^-1'.;%rIT.-. C�f _, r,{U�)!1!)•". .i 13.. T:... Zoning Administrator March 29, 2004 CITY OF'HUNTINGTON BEACH page 2 4. A meeting was held with the owners or their representatives from three (3)of the four (4) corners at the intersection with Mr. Stachelski on December 5, 2002. In that meeting it was indicated that signalization of three(3) of the four(4) median opens around the intersection of Brookhurst and Adams was workable and would not reduce the efficiency of the traffic flow through the intersection. 5. CUP 02-31 provides as mitigation of the median opening North of Adams on Brookhurst with a traffic signal and the CUP under consideration (03-35) requires mitigation of the median opening on Adams Avenue West of Brookhurst by requiring a traffic signal. Therefore the median opening on Brookhurst Street South of Adams Avenue is the only remaining opening without mitigation. We believe this opening, left unmitigated, will again be the subject of attempts to close or otherwise modified in order to mitigate traffic problems that will only be acerbated by signalization of the median on Adams Avenue West of Brookhurst. We are willing to pay one-half of the costs of signalization of subject median opening, although use of the median by Target Center customers will probably represent more than one half of the turning movements through that opening. We therefore request that you add as a requirement of approval of CUP 03-35, signalization of the median opening on Brookhurst South of Adams Avenue. If this is not done now as a condition of this new development it will never be a viable option of mitigation. Very truly yours, _ r Charles"GBall Enclosures as noted T cc: L. C. Smull Paul Da Vciga, Ci�y of Huntington Beach Robert Stachelski,City of Huntington Beach � w e.. r' ��u w�*� ��'T�,�^rT ~� � ::A,...,�.. r"�w � 4"`t::h< Paox. wrt"•, � y.�.,,, —cy .„, °�� *.ii �R`' �` ,fir,+ '" � A'''„• .,. .; ^' �. w MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH OFFICE OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR Room B-8 - Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach California WEDNESDAY, MARCH 31, 2004 - 1:30 P.M. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR: Mary Beth Broeren STAFF MEMBER: Paul Da Veiga, Ron Santos, Ramona Kohlmann (recording secretary) MINUTES: NONE ORAL COMMUNICATION: NONE Item 2 was moved to the front of the Agenda. Please note the Minutes will reflect actions taken In their original order. ITEM 1: MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 03-02/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 03-35 (TARGET DEMOLITION AND REBUILD) APPLICANT: John Warren, 2151 Salvio Street, Suite 250, Concord, CA 94920 PROPERTY OWNER: Target Corporation, 1000 Nicollet Mall, Minneapolis, MN 5540 REQUEST: MND: to analyze the potential environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the proposed project; CUP: to permit the demolition of a 103,458 sq. ft. retail building and construction of a new 123,800 sq. ft. Target department store with an 8,100 sq. ft. attached garden center. The request includes a complete redesign of the parking area layout with installation of new perimeter and interior landscaping and pedestrian walkways throughout the parking area. LOCATION: 9882 Adams Avenue (southwest corner of Brookhurst Street-b-'a Adams Avenue) PROJECT PLANNER: Paul Da Veiga Paul Da Veiga, Staff Planner, displayed project plans and stated the purpose, location, zoning, and existing uses of the requested project. Staff presented a review of the proposed project and the suggested findings and conditions of approval as outlined in the executive summary. Staff stated that a mitigated negative declaration was processed by staff, and it was determined that impacts associated with the development would be less than significant with the recommended mitigation measures identified in a traffic and noise study submitted by the applicant. Staff stated that the Design Review Board (DRB) reviewed the project plans and recommended the following: • Redesign the entrance in order to provide a more enhanced entry. • Articulate all four facades consistent with the north and east elevation. • Return to the DRB after the Zoning Administrator or Planning Commission has taken action. Staff stated that based upon the suggested findings for denial in the executive summary, staff does not support the proposed building orientation or architecture. Staff stated that a late communication was received from a property owner to the east of the proposed project questioning the fact that there is no signalization at the southerly most access to the site along Brookhurst Street. Mary Beth Broeren, Zoning Administrator, confirmed with staff that no comments were received concerning the mitigated negative declaration, except those provided by the Environmental Board. Discussion ensued concerning the noise study and the number of truck deliveries. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. John Warren, 2151 Salvio Street, Suite 250, Concord, CA, applicant, displayed exhibits of the proposed project. Mr. Warren presented photographs of similar garden centers stating that they exceed the City's design guidelines and are inconsistent with the City's general plan. He introduced those persons present to speak on behalf of the proposed project. Chris Long, 2151 Salvio Street, Suite 250, Concord, CA, applicant, stated reasons for opposition to staffs suggested findings for denial. Mr. Long stated that the proposed project is in compliance with the City's design guidelines; that the existing site presents constraints; and that the proposed project is in keeping with similar existing sites within the community. Chris Coonan, Target Corporation, 1000 Nicollet Mall, Minneapolis, MN, stated that the proposed architecture is in compliance with the architectural guidelines. Girard Manke, 9802 Olympic Drive, neighboring property owner to the rear of the subject site, voiced objection to the proposed project based upon noise at the loading dock, delivery trucks idling and causing pollution, location of the trash bins, and parking along the back side of the building. Mr. Manke stated that an increase in the height of the block wall would block the sunlight onto his property. Tom Rybolt, 9861 Kings Canyon Drive, neighboring property owner, presented a letter to the Zoning Administrator addressing concerns related to noise from the receiving dock, nighttime. activity such as lighting from the garden shop, encroachment onto bordering properties from landscaping such as overhanging trees, and noise associated with the use of the driveway behind the store. Bob Copeland, 9812 Rainier Circle, neighboring property owner, stated that he supports the comments provided by Mr. Rybolt. Mr. Copeland voiced opposition to further traffic at the rear of the building. ZA Minutes 03/31/04 2 (04=0331) Mark Sork, 9801 Adams Avenue, neighboring property owner, stated that he supports the proposed project. Mr. Sork asked if there would be installation of signalization at the entrance to the subject site on Adams Avenue (facing opposite the Mervyn's Department store), and, if so, would the installation be at the expense of the Target store. Francis Arciaga, Jr., 9881 Kings Canyon Drive, neighboring property owner, voiced concerns related to nighttime lights and noise. Mr. Arciaga expressed a desire that the garden shop remain where it is currently located. Jeanette Arciaga, 9881 Kings Canyon Drive, neighboring property owner, voiced concern related to noise. Ms. Arciaga also expressed a desire that the garden shop remain where it is currently located. THERE WERE NO OTHER PERSONS PRESENT TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THE REQUEST AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Ms. Broeren addressed the concerns voiced by the members in the audience and general discussions ensued. Ms. Broeren confirmed with staff that the Mitigated Negative Declaration is consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act. Ms. Broeren stated that she was going to approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Ms. Broeren addressed the Conditional Use Permit and stated that she visited the subject site. Considerable discussions ensued with the applicant concerning the following: • Enclosure of the loading area and associated operational constraints. • Noise associated with truck unloading at the garden center. • Number of truck deliveries and time restrictions. • Proposed parking layout and the fact that the proposed compact parking does not meet code requirements. • Relocating the store away from residential. • Water quality issues, storm water interceptors and responsibility for drainage. • Poorly designed Craftsman architecture, which is not in keeping with newer developments in the City. • Cross ventilation constraints in opening the roof in the garden center. • Noise study and neighborhood compatibility issues. • Spillage of lighting onto residential at nighttime. • Upgrading noise attenuation materials at the loading dock to better contain the noise. Ms. Broeren stated that alternatives for action today are to deny or continue the request. She stated that she could not consider an action for approval today due to a lack of suggested conditions for approval. Ms. Broeren acknowledged that although the noise study does meet the City's noise standards, the noise is a day-to-day annoyance to the neighboring residents. She stated that primary concerns are based upon compatibility issues within the community, and, in particular, would like the following to be addressed should the applicant choose to continue the item: ZA Minutes 03/31/04 3 (04=0331) • Enclosure of the loading dock. • Better integration of the garden center into the building, and enclosure to the extent that is feasible. • Redistribution of the compact parking to meet code. • A more contemporary architectural style that meets the urban design guidelines. Ms. Broeren continued the request at the applicant's request. She advised that the continuance is not a representation that the request would be approved. She stated that the continuance would give the Zoning Administrator and neighboring property owners an opportunity to review suggested conditions of approval that would make the project more amenable to the community. Ms. Broeren stated that the request would not be re-advertised or re-noticed. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 03-35 WAS CONTINUED TO THE APRIL 14, 2004 MEETING WITH THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED. MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 03-02 WAS APPROVED BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS. THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR STATED THAT THE ACTION TAKEN BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR CAN BE APPEALED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION WITHIN TEN (10) CALENDAR DAYS. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL- MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 03 02: 1. Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 03-02 has been prepared in compliance with Article 6 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. It was advertised and available for a public comment period of thirty (30) days. Comments received during the comment period were considered by the Zoning Administrator prior to action on Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 03-02 and Conditional Use Permit No. 03-35. 2. Mitigation measures, incorporated into the attached conditions of approval, avoid or reduce the project's effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment will occur. 3. There is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the Zoning Administrator that the project, with incorporation of recommended mitigation measures, will have a significant effect on the environment. ZA Minutes 03/31/04 4 (04=0331) i rr+t i"•§ .w��w°:xntY K ;.3� «rk".xx } ':�r,�g..-,+s4��' �r . - a' � cam,„ ,. •'� i� xq 4,�4��#y,'.° d�L 1°y'.;. r, ;�1 .h. s ° } ' r° hS � +'yc"•" !' :w. BUSINESS PROPERTIES CrIUE, DEVELOPMENT COMPANY 17631 PITCH APR 2 3 2004 IRVINE,CALIFORNIA 92014-0021 (040)474-8900 PAX(049)474-8030 cb—bp@pacbell.net April 22, 2004 HAND DELIVERED Chairperson and Members of the Planning Commission CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach CA 92648 Attn: City Clerk Re: C. U. P. N0.03-35(Tareet Demolition and Rebuild) 9882 Adams Avenue Huntington Beach, California Chairperson and Members of the Planning Commission: By this Notice, we our appealing the decision of the Zoning Administrator on the application of Target Stores to demolish and construct a new facility re-oriented from Adams Avenue to Brookhurst Street at the southwesterly corner of that intersection. Enclosed is a check in the amount of$1,.540.00 which represents the required fee for this appeal. We are the owners and operators of the Stater Bros. center on the opposite (east) side of Brookhurst Street from this proposed project. Our center was substantially completed and open for business in January 1977. We developed, own and manage four (4) other similar properties in the City of Huntington Beach. It is our belief that the Target project should be conditioned to require mitigation of the traffic impacts due to the opening in the median in Brookhurst Street; approximately 720 feet southerly of Adams Avenue. This median opening was identified in the Traffic Study prepared for the City of Huntington Beach by Kimley-Horn & Associates, dated November 2001, as needing mitigation. This median opening is also identified in Target's Traffic Impact Study prepared by RK Engineering, dated September 29, 2003 as requiring mitigation. Attached is a copy of a report from our Traffic Consultant, James A. Kawamura, KHR & Associates, dated April 20, 2004. This report resulted from review of the Target consultant's study. We concur with the opinions in this report that the Traffic Impact Study prepared for Target did not give adequate consideration to the "re-orientation" of the PHOENIX OFFICE 8024 NORTH 24TH AVENUE, SUITE 310, PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85021 • (602) 995-9113 • PAX(602) 995-0809 Chairperson and Members of the Planning Commission April 22, 2004 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH page 2 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach CA92648 major entrance into the new Target facility. Our forty plus years of experience in development and management of retail shopping centers supports the tendency on the part of customers to enter the property from the public right-of-way at the driveway nearest the main entrance of the retail facility, drive to the parking aisles nearest that entrance and then seek the closest parking space. Currently that driveway would be the main entry off of Adams Avenue, but will change to a driveway off of Brookhurst Street after completion of the new facility. Activity at the driveway, identified as Driveway 2 on the Target Traffic Impact Study,will increase significantly over what is currently occurring. When the 20 per cent increase in building area is added, the impacts will be significant. We believe the only satisfactory mitigation for this situation is installation of a traffic signal. This has been our position since we received a Notice from the City of Huntington Beach in March 2002 that the City was taking action suggested under the Traffic Study of Kimley-Horn. We further acknowledge that installation of a traffic signal at that driveway benefits our property and, we are willing to contribute funds for construction and maintenance of the traffic signal of up to one-half of the costs. Very truly yours BUSINESS PROPERTIES PARTNERSHIP NO. 15 Charles G. Ball cc: L. C. Smull Paul Da Veiga, Target Project Planner, City of Huntington Beach Robert Stachelski, Transportation Manager, City of Huntington Beach i PPP_llllll�llllllllll� \ \ KHR ASSOCIATES CONSULTING ENGINEERS/SURVEYORS/PLANNERS April 20, 2004 Mr. Charles G. Ball Business Properties 17631 Fitch Road Irvine, CA 92623 SUBJECT: REVIEW OF TARGET STORE T-194 TRAFFIC -IMPACT STUDY (HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA) Dear Mr. Ball: Per your request KHR Associates, Irvine, California, has completed its independent review of a traffic impact study report prepared by RK Engineering Group, Inc., Newport Beach, California, for the proposed reconstruction and expansion of an existing Target Store on the southwest corner of Brookhurst Street and Adams Avenue, in the City of Huntington Beach, California. The report, entitled "Target Store T-194 Traffic Impact Study," is dated September 29, 2003, and was prepared for Pacific Land Services, Concord, California. DEFICIENCIES OF STUDY There are notable deficiencies in the subject study conducted by RK Engineering Group, Inc. The following are three of the more glaring shortcomings. 1) The study fails to address or take into consideration the potential "shift" in traffic ingress and egress patterns resulting from the relocation and re-orientation of the main entrance to the Target Store. Presently, the "storefront" faces Adams Avenue and the primary parking field is accessed via the Adams Avenue driveway. The new building configuration indicates that the storefront will face Brookhurst Street, and the primary parking field will be accessed via two driveways along Brookhurst Street. It is suggested that a significant amount of traffic generated by the store will shift from using the Adams Avenue driveway to using one of the Brookhurst Street driveways. 2) The study fails to analyze or account for Saturday traffic conditions that typically include higher traffic generation for shopping centers and many other retail businesses than on weekdays. Since Brookhurst Street and Adams Avenue west of Brookhurst Street are commercial corridors lined with retail businesses, potential Saturday traffic impacts are as important as potential weekday impacts. A comparison of weekday versus weekend traffic conditions should have been made in the study. Furthermore, a discussion about the effects of seasonal variations for retail uses should have been provided. 2355 Main Street - Suite 120 (949) 756-6440 Irvine, California 92614 Fax (949) 756-6444 Mr. Charles G. Ball April 20,2004 Page 2 3) The study inadequately addresses the impact of the proposed Target Store project on adjacent developments — particularly the shopping center on the southeast corner of Brookhurst Street and Adams Avenue (owned by Business . Properties). The operational and economic impacts of closing off left turn egress from this shopping center onto Brookhurst Street will be significant. The "alternative" of restricting access at "Driveway No. 2" on Brookhurst Street is unacceptable, and will only exacerbate traffic congestion on Brookhurst Street and Adams Avenue. If outbound customers of the Business Properties' shopping center cannot make a left turn onto Brookhurst Street to go south, their only alternatives will be to make a right onto Brookhurst Street then make a u-turn at the intersection of Brookhurst Street and Adams Avenue; or circulate through the center and make a left turn onto Adams Avenue, then make a left turn onto Brookhurst Street. 'In either case, customers will be unreasonably inconvenienced, and this "traffic strategy" will result in even further deterioration of the unacceptable levels of service at the intersection of Brookhurst Street and Adams Avenue. STUDY FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS The authors of the subject study found that the key intersections examined (i.e., the main driveway on Adams Avenue, the intersection of Brookhurst Street and Adams Avenue, and the "No. 2" driveway on Brookhurst Street) are impacted, and that they all operated at "unsatisfactory" levels of service under every analysis scenario (i.e., existing, project build-out, etc.). Their "solution" included either signalizing the main driveway on Adams Avenue (referred to as "Driveway No. 1" in the study) and Driveway No. 2 on Brookhurst Street, or restricting access at these to driveways. Restricting access at Driveway No. 2 is unacceptable for reasons noted above. Traffic signalization is an acceptable alternative, and may result in minor improvements to the levels of service along Brookhurst Street. If the Target Store project is approved, it should be conditioned on the basis of a new traffic signal installation at Driveway No. 2, and Driveway No. 1. IN CLOSING In closing, if there are any questions regarding this report or if additional information is desired, please call me at (949) 756-6440. Sincerely yours, KHR Associates p�.OFE;;/O 4; J=G c N.K.4�yq z U� James H. Kawamura, P.E. R.C.E. 30560/R.T.E. 1110 le F F\C' r�� h; COD'1. �!°q`.�: R ��s .. � :. "-,. �� ,�. '? , ". �� + �k .fir• :�+�'�'�� s�, ?? 06/14/04 08:51 FAX 949 474 8936 BUSINESS PROPERTIES Q 003 FROM :Weston Pringle and Assoc FAX NO. :949 443 5349 Jun. it 2004 02:42PM P2 Y� v P 0* A Weston Pringle & Associates .TRAFFIC &TRAMPORTATION ENGNEERING June 4, 2004 Mr. Charles Ball Business Properties P.O. Box 19586 Irvine, CA 92623-9586 SUBJECT. TARGET TRAFFIC STUDY, HUNTINGTON BEACH Dear Mr. Ball: In response to your request I have reviewed the information provided from the°'Target T-194 Traffic Impact Study" The letter contains my comments and concerns related to the analysis. There appears to be a discrepancy between the estimated project trip generation and trips assigned to the driveways. The following illustrates these differences. TRIPPfENEI7�4TIb�ir able' [AM IN 44 87 AM OUT 35 45 PM IN 223 293 PM OUT 205 283 44 Richmond I-hU • Laguna Niguel. CA 92677 • 949/443.5049 Fax 949/443-5049 06/14/04 08:51 FAX 949 474 8938 BUSINESS PROPERTIES 11004 FROM :Weston Pringle and Assoc FAX NO. :949 443 5049 Jun. 11 2004 02:42PM P3 Some of the differences could be due to use of other access points; however, in the PM peak hour. 21 and 28 percent of the trip generation is not indicated. The analyses of the two principal access driveways indicates no significant impacts due to the project. This is based upon the-incremental traffic increase due to the redeveloped site. On both Adams Avenue and Brookhurst Street the driveway intersections are operating at Level of Service F in the PM peak hour for both existing and future conditions. The site plan indicates that a major portion of the site parking is adjacent to Brookhurst Street. In addition,the store access and garden center access face Brookhurst Street, A bank and restaurant are also along the Brookhurst Street frontage. These factors would make Brookhurst Street south of Adams Avenue an attractive ingreWegress route for Brookhurst Street and Adams Avenue east. The projecttrip distribution assigns 45 percent of inbound trips to Brookhurst Street and only 27 percent of the outbound trips. The site plan is not conducive to driving to or from the Adams Street driveway. All traffic must past the northeast comer of the building which is also the location of the heaviest pedestrian route. An irrtemal intersection exists at this location which further impacts traffic operations and'safety. All of these concerns lead to the consideration of improved access on Brookhurst Street. A signalized access could result in improved operation at the Adams Avenue access,reduce on-site operational and safety concerns with a more balanced traffic pattem,and improved operations at the.Brookhurst Street driveway. Weston Pringle&Associates 2 Target Tratt'ic Study Review City of Hunfington Beach 06/14/04 08:51 FAX 949 474 8936 BUSINESS PROPERTIES fm005 FROM :Weston Pringle and Assoc FAX NO. :949 443 5049 Jun. it 2004 02:43PM P4 Based upon these factors, it is my recommendation that consideration be given to an improved access on Brookhurst Street which would include signalization. I trust that this review will be of assistance to you and the City of Huntington Beach. If you have any questions or require additional information. please contact me. Respectfully submitted. Weston Pringle &Assocfates Weston S. Pringle, r-E. Registered Professional Engineer State of California Plumbers C16828 &TR666 WSP:hk Weston Pringle 8 Associates Target Traffic Study Review 3 City of Huntington Beach j I 4 �. �` vd, x `i .+¢'�';k z ,� r5.y3�' K.: °ra. t al.•' * "F, :' 5 `'� F . x .a `.��3'd9apg�.�.;,.:• . ..'�.:� + ..1�� h` �+�*;n.,, .��,,,�" ,'�y'''"�" °.:�.._.. W..k� s...�.."� ..:.. '� "n�`.' a�� -`'w'�" �. � ,r .,�.,�. A�..� «..,��, 2�r� �� :.� f1��1►► KHR ASSOCIATES CONSULTING ENGINEERS/SURVEYORS/PLANNERS July 9. 2004 Mr. Charles G. Ball Business Properties 17631 Fitch Road Irvine, CA 92623 SUBJECT: ADDITIONAL REVIEW OF TARGET STORE T-194 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY (HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA) VIA FAX Dear Mr. Ball; Per your request, KHR Associates, Irvine, California, has conducted a second review of a traffic impact study report prepared by RK Engineering Group, Inc., Newport Beach, California, for the proposed reconstruction and expansion of an existing Target Store on the southwest corner of Brookhurst Street and Adams Avenue, in the City of Huntington Beach, California. The report, entitled "Target Store T-194 Traffic Impact Study," is dated September 29, 2003, and was prepared for Pacific Land Services, Concord, California. Background As noted in our April 20, 2004 letter to you, one of the major deficiencies of the subject study was its failure to address or take into consideration the potential "shift" in traffic ingress and egress patterns resulting from the relocation and re-orientation of the main entrance to the Target Store. There is strong belief from both traffic engineering and marketing points of view that the new building and parking lot configuration and re- orientation of the storefront to face Brookhurst Street will result in a redistribution (or "shift") in traffic from using the Adams Avenue driveway to using the Brookhurst Street driveway(s) for ingress and egress. For example, the location of the garden center along the south side of the building will likely divert customers from the Adams Avenue entrance to the southerly-most driveway on Brookhurst Street. The result of such a shift could have a significant traffic impact at the southerly-most driveway on Brookhurst Street -- a driveway that is opposite the main entrance driveway into Business Properties' (Stater Bros. market) shopping center. Analysis The "Target Store T-194 Traffic Impact Study," by RK Engineering Group, Inc., notes that the Target Store will generate 7,560 vehicle trip ends per weekday, including 132 vehicle trip ends during the A.M. peak hour, and 566 vehicle trip ends during the P.M. peak hour, However, the study only analyzed the impact of traffic generated by the incremental increase in the size of the Target Store. In addition, the study did not 2355 Mein Street-Suite 120 (949) 756-6440 Irvine,California 92614 Fax(949)756-6444 Z a6�d !tib: li VO-ci.-Inr `•OVb9 99L Eva .`531VI0058V UHA :A6 }ueg Mr.Charles G.Ball July 9,2004 Page 2 quantify traffic generated by the other commercial uses that share the driveways serving the Target Store (e.g., bank, restaurant, express lube, service station, and other retail along Adams Avenue and Brookhurst Street). The incremental increase in traffic for just the Target Store expansion was calculated to be 1,090 additional vehicle trip ends per weekday, including 19 additional vehicle trip ends during the A.M. peak hour, and 82 additional vehicle trip ends during the P.M. peak hour. The study then assumed that the distribution of trips generated is such that 50% of the inbound trips and 65% of the outbound trips use the main driveway on Adams Avenue, while the southern driveway on Brookhurst Street is assumed to account for 25% of the inbound trips and 10% of the outbound trips. The subsequent traffic impact analysis only took into account the incremental increase in traffic during the weekday peak hour — concluding that there would be only 20 vehicles making a northbound left turn into the southern driveway on Brookhurst Street during the A.M. peak hour, and that the incremental increase would only be 3 vehicles. A similar finding was made for the P.M. peak hour with 64 vehicles making a left turn in (representing an increase of 9 more vehicles than under existing conditions). The eastbound left turn exiting movement from the subject driveway onto Brookhurst Street was reported to be even less significant, with 0 left turns during the entire A.M. peak hour, and 3 during the P.M. peak hour. If the assumed trip distribution figures were applied to the trip generation estimates for the entire Target Store, the Brookhurst Street driveway would generate 1,323 trips (inbound and outbound) during a weekday (.5 x 7,560 trip ends x .35), including 23 trip ends during the A.M. peak hour (.5 x 132 trip ends x .35) and 99 trip ends during the P.M. peak hour (.5 x 566 trip ends x .35). These figures take into account only the Target Store and not the other commercial uses on the site. If the assumed trip distribution figures are incorrect, and more traffic shifts from using the Adams Avenue entrance to using the Brookhurst Street entrance, the impact will be significantly greater. If the other commercial uses are taken into account - particularly those along Brookhurst Street - the impact will be significantly greater. Thus, the percentage of the outbound trips from the Target Store site will most likely be higher than the 10% assumed in the traffic study. Traffic can also be diverted if the proposed signaiization of the Adams Avenue entrance fails to provide acceptable levels of service (i.e., drivers will seek alternate routes to and from the Target Store site, such as provided by Brookhurst Street). Since the study apparently did not analyze the level of service for a signalized entrance on Adams Avenue, the potential for traffic diversion cannot be accurately quantified. The study also did not analyze the effects of signalizing the southerly driveway on Brookhurst Street. Such an analysis could have provided additional evidence that the q/g abed 5b 4l hO-ul-Taf`•OVV9 99L 6V6 `•831t/IOOSSd UHA :A9 ;uaS Mr.Charles G. Ball July 9,2004 Page 3 traffic generated by the Target Store site would be diverted from the Adams Avenue entrance to the southerly driveway on Brookhurst Street. IN CLOSING In closing, if there are any questions regarding this report or if additional information is desired, please call me at (949) 756-6440. Sincerely yours, KHR Associates James H. Kawamura, P.E. R.C.E. 30560/R.T.E. 1110 %,,�. , 0. I y/q 06ed `•5v: ll b0 EI inf `•OVVq 9SL 6V6 !S3IVIOOSSV 8HN :A9 lueS i Ckway,Cny1ctern' ' (� \ rntington Beach the City Clerk Box 190 ;.,� Beach, CA 92648 IN „ENT ADDRESS r� z- []ATTEMPTED UNKNOWN `'� C A H h7ETERZ9' = "E []NO SUCH NUMBER 1554 81-27 Occupant - 10158 Adams Avenue I NGTQy // Q / Huntington Beach, CA 92646 LEGAL NQTI�.C.E: PI RAN, >~.1 �; L ' F111111111il111l 1I. IIIslit,i�tts.FTlLMI'ltlisill�_1!titl S IJF * ntington Beach �Z-� , the City-Clerk ...Box 190 Beach, CA 92648 i. A n �¢ h NAIETE ::� 151461 18 Clunpyng Wu&Grace Hua Wu Z: 9812 Cathay Cir �Y� Huntington Beach,CA 92646 j NTH �a LEGAL.NQ C EU EAR G j} 11511:llhill!!1,!l111111t11t!!llFilts�illll'!tllltl'll!?!!!sill y 1 untington Beach �� c`�T o,y U.S.r'es7 .e: 4 the City Clerk fir _. ). Box 190 r ' m '�' Beach, CA 92648 _ :• z ? C A H METER59; 5 ' 481-27 Occupant TING 1 '� 10162 Adams Avenue Huntington Beach, CA 92646 'Krr � LEGAL.N C _ 1jA�yIG - -- - -_-__-_-,--- ) J y ) )) ! J{ !•,{y- �"PE'ST"' .�± E".4-5 Nt11titI]I111111111111111i11111111_It1[11 111itlltllltlllit11 untington Beach us:Po_-� k- )f the City Clerk `L✓ .d �`� �' W I �3 Box 190 -� Pu ^.•t:� �'' "_•.:'.i;-�? �j ��1 ;;•' r r :p Beach, CA 92648 �• r -i`V`'i =' w 1 ! ' y C A "I H METER591'3', t �V .. . • 1 � _ 1 "-181-27 DOccupant 10156 Adams Avenue TING ouHuntington Beach, CA 92646 Ntr ca LEGAL.�NDT1.�C - JQ�1(j�V�G . .—i_--- j l-----!` jj jt ) j. J -----==---------- H.t�.L:.. ��t-w -l;L;;� 4-E Ilflllff(1lllllt:-I£llliFltl111tllilflllliFfll!{111t1111!lfllll I luntington Beach \ �:� �aGT 0'v U.S.r ` )f the City Clerk IBox 190 ,�4 " i Beach, CA 92648 C.a : H METER54 a t 5-181-27 Occupant (INGTpy D� 10184 Adams Avenue B Huntington Beach, CA 92646 aro•„fo � It its NTr LEGAL NOT CE l � .4, untington Beach 6 n \�aGT oN U.S.wvs,,, ;n I the City Clerk ). Box 190 Beach, CA 92648 -� C a H METER5915_.9 • 55-181-27 Occupant 10172 Adams Avenue i1NGT ` D Huntington Beach, CA 92646 �•ro•uf�yBe�' .. s NTr ca LEGAL NQ. E Hs. � x.6 i 4tti[[[[1[i[ii[[ti[[ii!!i[ii[1[[I[iii[illiifl�l[i[[ii[f[lli:il '861H�a�+;6tfy-EIeTk pN A Cq GH iuntington Beach o aG-r o�,� Rc;-•- i.s'` 1`'r,.,+� �f the City Clerk s �" 0. Box 190 � s 0� i Beach, CA 92648 L V ; H METER V 151272 05 Myers Mousa&-Eima SING,, 9021 Santiago Dr H� Huntington Beach, CA 92646 LEGAL 1.0_. , � 90 lilt, If it,,i,,t,l! - -------------d ----- er untington Beach. M Y o,.� I the City Clerk LL/P Box 190j jReach, CA 92648 C A N %IET'ER59IS' j i 155-051-10 Occupant 10001 Adams Avenue IN6Tpy / Huntington Beach, CA 92646 RP"044 d� 11Y �a LEGAL IQ. E- ({9g iuntington Beach 'T°�'� )f the City Clerk 0. Box 190 'i Beach,CA 92648 �_ l� -"""/ • ``i 151 461 02 Rex Liu&Gina Liu (IN6Tp�, 9791 Olympic Dr �•ro.,,,o d�. Huntinaton Beach, CA 92646 LEGAL NO G t"n th I Ms � t j,1r, ;1,��i1, ,1►�r }►j,il,,,,»il � �i�f,.i;�„11�,1t, f1 �jT ofV luntington Beach N )f the Gity`Clerk` , ,, n J. Box 190 it �' 7 `i i Beach, CA 92648 °s 155-1 1 5 Occu t 2005. Brookhurst ,SINGTp Hung gton Beach, CA 92646 roeroe„Fo �9 , INTY �a` LEGAL�N..R10E _ ° I�,1,,,,1,1,li,,,!„If„1,ll,,,,,,l11,1,f1i,,,1,lIIII,,,,,lI Genn*eamckwar ' �..... City of Huntington Beach Office of the City Clerk P.O. Box 1.90 ' F, ,ii1(1 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 :.� C A H METERS':/1113. 155 18124 Business Properties Partnership No 15 Melvin Tr Schantz IN6jp�, 32 N Vista De Catalina =��1110I+1�0 NTY LEGAL NOTICE- PUBLIC HEARING City of Huntington Beach ; � `\`GT 01V lu r-OSTA"A Office of the City Clerk P.O. Box 190 i ;' 4 ,"11.f;J'Q A r) ; : Huntington Beach,CA 92648 CA HMETM59IS r) ant Avenue IM6Tpy �Eiun�' on Beach, CA 92646 19 - C.2 -_ MTY LEGAL NOTICE- PUBLIC HEAA13Jpl 92`4 r