Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACIFIC CITY PROJECT (4 OF 6) Draft Environmental Impact Rep (11) w VOLUME I OCTOBER 2003 41' '%r .,`!r F \ , 3- - --"— 'o'"..i - , ,�y, a�.r'• r, „r+i� u.• ,• .),/ it •� :` t 4 - _ i. . „op w yw I .6 lit� ; ; pe )-n ,.. w' a L . •7r,/ yt %.'r.. ," ,✓ '1; 4�Ir a* r' /,y. - _._y_ -,..., o e . ,.x..,K f.,, ,, illt DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT t'"‘ PACIFIC CITY JJ SCH No. 200301 I024 EIR 02-0 I City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street, P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648 714.536.5271 Prepared by ASSOCIATESI P-- —S www.eipassociates.com 1 2301 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 430 Los Angeles, Ca 90025 310.268.8132 PACIFIC CITY Volume Draft Environmental Impact Report EIR No. 02-01 SCH No. 2003011024 Prepared for City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street , Post Office Box 190 Huntington Beach, California 92648 Prepared by EIP Associates 12301 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 430 Los Angeles, California 90025 >I � 1 October 2003 CONTENTS VOLUME I-DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Executive Summary xv Introduction xv Structure of the EIR xv Summary of Proposed Project xvi Summary of Project Objectives xix Public Involvement xx Classification of Environmental Impacts and Discussion of Mitigation Measures xxi Significant and Unavoidable Impacts xxii Synopsis of Alternatives xxii Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures xxiii Chapter 1 Introduction 1-1 1.1 Overview of the Proposed Project 1-1 1.2 Relationship of Proposed Project to Previous Environmental Documentation 1-1 1.3 Purpose of the EIR 1-2 1.4 Environmental Review Process 1-3 1.5 Intended Use of the EIR 1-5 1.6 Scope of the EIR 1-6 1.7 Project Sponsors and Contact Persons 1-7 1.8 Document Organization 1-7 1.9 Areas of Controversy and Issues to Be Resolved 1-8 Chapter 2 Project Description 2-1 2.1 Project Location 2-1 2.2 Existing Site Characteristics - 2-1 2.2.1 Existing On-Site Land Use 2-4 2.2.2 Surrounding Land Uses 2-4 2.2.3 Existing General Plan/Zoning Designations 2-5 2.2.4 Former Uses of the Site 2-7 2.3 Proposed Project Development 2-8 2.3.1 Visitor-Serving Commercial Center 2-13 • 2.3.2 Residential Village 2-16 2.3.3 Vehicular and Pedestrian Circulation Improvements 2-17 2.4 Construction Scenario 2-26 2.5 Project Goals and Objectives 2-26 Pacific City EIR III Contents 2.6 Intended Uses of the EIR 2-30 <. 2.6.1 City of Huntington Beach 2-30 2.6.2 State and Local Agencies 2-31 2.7 Cumulative Projects 2-32 Chapter 3 Environmental Impact Analysis 3-1 3.1 Aesthetics 3.1-1 3.1.1 Existing Conditions 3.1-1 r 3.1.2 Regulatory Framework 3.1-23 3.1.3 Thresholds of Significance 3.1-29 3.1.4 Project Impacts 3.1-29 ' 3.1.5 Cumulative Impacts 3.1-45 3.1.6 Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts 3.1-46 3.2 Air Quality 3.2-1 3.2.1 Existing Conditions 3.2-1 3.2.2 Regulatory Framework 3.2-5 3.2.3 Thresholds of Significance 3.2-11 3.2.4 Project Impacts 3.2-12 3.2.5 Cumulative Impacts 3.2-18 3.2.6 Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts 3.2-19 3.3 Biological Resources 3.3-1 3.3.1 Existing Conditions 3.3-1 3.3.2 Regulatory Framework 3.3-11 3.3.3 Thresholds of Significance 3.3-18 3.3.4 Project Impacts 3.3-18 3.3.5 Cumulative Impacts 3.3-23 3.3.6 Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts 3.3-24 3.4 Cultural Resources 3.4-1 3.4.1 Existing Conditions 3.4-1 3.4.2 Regulatory Framework 3.4-11 -_ 3.4.3 Thresholds of Significance 3.4-16 3.4.4 Project Impacts 3.4-16 3.4.5 Cumulative Impacts 3.4-18 3.4.6 Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts 3.4-18 3.5 Energy and Mineral Resources 3.5-1 3.5.1 Existing Conditions 3.5-1 3.5.2 Regulatory Framework 3.5-6 3.5.3 Thresholds of Significance 3.5-8 3.5.4 Project Impacts 3.5-9 3.5.5 Cumulative Impacts 3.5-11 3.5.6 Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts 3.5-12 3.6 Geology and Soils 3.6-1 3.6.1 Existing Conditions 3.6-1 3.6.2 Regulatory Framework 3.6-11 iv City of Huntington Beach Contents 3.6.3 Thresholds of Significance 3.6-16 3.6.4 Project Impacts 3.6-16 3.6.5 Cumulative Impacts 3.6-19 - 3.6.6 Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts 3.6-20 3.7 Hazardous Materials 3.7-1 3.7.1 Existing Conditions 3.7-2 3.7.2 Regulatory Framework 3.7-12 3.7.3 Thresholds of Significance 3.7-15 3.7.4 Project Impacts 3.7-15 3.7.5 Cumulative Impacts 3.7-19 3.7.6 Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts 3.7-19 3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality 3.8-1 3.8.1 Existing Conditions 3.8-1 3.8.2 Regulatory Framework 3.8-9 3.8.3 Thresholds of Significance 3.8-16 3.8.4 Project Impacts 3.8-17 3.8.5 Cumulative Impacts 3.8-24 3.8.6 Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts 3.8-26 3.9 Land Use and Planning 3.9-1 3.9.1 Existing Conditions 3.9-1 3.9.2 Regulatory Framework 3.9-3 3.9.3 Thresholds of Significance 3.9-18 3.9.4 Project Impacts 3.9-19 3.9.5 Cumulative Impacts 3.9-22 3.9.6 Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts 3.9-23 3.10 Noise 3.10-1 3.10.1 Existing Conditions 3.10-1 3.10.2 Regulatory Framework 3.10-8 3.10.3 Thresholds of Significance 3.10-14 3.10.4 Project Impacts 3.10-14 3.10.5 Cumulative Impacts 3.10-20 3.10.6 Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts 3.10-22 3.11 Population and Housing 3.11-1 3.11.1 Existing Conditions 3.11-1 3.11.2 Regulatory Framework 3.11-10 3.11.3 Thresholds of Significance 3.11-13 3.11.4 Project Impacts 3.11-13 3.11.5 Cumulative Impacts 3.11-17 3.11.6 Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts 3.11-18 -_ 3.12 Public Services 3.12-1 3.12.1 Existing Conditions 3.12-1 3.12.2 Regulatory Framework 3.12-5 3.12.3 Thresholds of Significance 3.12-9 3.12.4 Project Impacts 3.12-9 Pacific City EIR v Contents 3.12.5 Cumulative Impacts 3.12-13 3.12.6 Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts 3.12-14 3.13 Recreation 3.13-1 3.13.1 Existing Conditions 3.13-1 3.13.2 Regulatory Framework 3.13-4 3.13.3 Thresholds of Significance 3.13-9 3.13.4 Project Impacts 3.13-9 3.13.5 Cumulative Impacts 3.13-12 3.13.6 Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts 3.13-13 3.14 Transportation/Traffic 3.14-1 3.14.1 Existing Conditions 3.14-1 3.14.2 Regulatory Framework 3.14-23 3.14.3 Thresholds of Significance 3.14-27 3.14.4 Project Impacts 3.14-28 3.14.5 Cumulative Impacts 3.14-77 3.14.6 Mitigation Measures and.Residual Impacts 3.14-77 3.15 Utilities and Service Systems 3.15-1 3.15.1 Existing Conditions 3.15-1 3.15.2 Regulatory Framework 3.15-5 3.15.3 Thresholds of Significance 3.15-,12 3.15.4 Project Impacts 3.15-13 . 3.15.5 Cumulative Impacts 3.15-19 3.15.6 Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts 3.15-21 Chapter 4 Alternatives to the Proposed Project 4-1 4.1 Introduction 4-1 4.1.1 Rationale for Selecting Potentially Feasible Alternatives • 4-1 4.1.2 City of Huntington Beach Objectives 4-2 4.1.3 Applicant Objectives 4-2 4.2 Alternatives Analysis 4-3 4.2.1 No Project/No Development Alternative 4-4 4.2.2 Reasonably Foreseeable Development 4-5 4.2.3 Reduced Project Alternative 4-13 4.3 Other Alternatives Considered 4-24 4.3.1 Alternative Site 4-24 4.3.2 Limited Development Alternative 4-25 4.3.3. Reduced Residential Density Alternative 4-26 4.4 Environmentally Superior Alternative 4-26 Chapter 5 Long-Term Implications 5-1 5.1 Growth-Inducing Impacts 5-1 5.1.1 Extension of Public Facilities 5-1 5.1.2 Employment Generation 5-2 5.1.3 Additional Housing Supply 5-3 vi City of Huntington Beach Contents 5.2 Significant, Irreversible, Environmental Changes 5-3 5.3 Significant, Unavoidable Impacts 5-4 1 Chapter 6 List of Preparers 6-1 I ; Chapter 7 References 7-1 7.1 Written References 7-1 7.2 List of Persons and Agencies Contacted 7-6 ' , Figures , i I Figure 2-1 • Project Vicinity&Regional Location Map 2-2 Figure 2-2 Existing Site Overlays and Surrounding Uses 2-3 Figure 2-3a Proposed Site Plan—Floor Plan Street/Podium Level 2-9 Figure 2-3b Proposed Site Plan Floor Plan Level Two 2-10 Figure 2-3c Proposed Site Plan—Floor Plan Level Three 2-11 Figure 2-3d Proposed Site Plan—Floor Plan Level Four 2-12 Figure 2-4 Proposed Building Heights 2-15 Figure 2-5a Common Open Space Diagram 2-18 Figure 2-5b Private Open Space Diagram 2-19 Figure 2-6 Vehicular Access and Circulation 2-24 Figure 2-7 Pedestrian Access and Circulation 2-25 Figure 2-8a Construction Schedule 2-27 Figure 2-8b Construction Phasing 2-28 Figure 2-9 Cumulative Projects 2-34 Figure 3.1-1 Photo Location Map 3.1-4 Figure 3.1-2 Viewpoint 1: View Southwest from Huntington Street 3.1-5 Figure 3.1-3 Viewpoint 2: View Southwest from Intersection of Huntington Street !, and Atlanta Avenue 3.1-6 =` Figure 3.1-4 Viewpoint 3: View South from Atlanta Avenue 3.1-7 Figure 3.1-5 Viewpoint 4: View Southeast from Orange Avenue 3.1-8 Figure 3.1-6 Viewpoint 5:View Southeast from First Street 3.1-9 Figure 3.1-7 Viewpoint 6: View East from PCH, West of First Street 3.1-10 Figure 3.1-8 Viewpoint 7 View Northeast from the Huntington Beach Pier 3.1-11 Figure 3.1-9 Viewpoint 8a: View Northeast from PCH,between First and Huntington Streets 3.1-12 Figure 3.1-10 Viewpoint 8b: View Northeast from Beach Parking Lot,between First and Huntington Streets 3.1-13 Figure 3.1-11 Viewpoint 9: View North from PCH at Huntington Street 3.1-14 Figure 3.1-12 Viewpoint 10: View West from Pacific View Avenue, East of Huntington Street 3.1-15 Figure 3.1-13 Viewpoint 11: View Southwest from Manning Park 3.1-16 Figure 3.1-14 Viewpoint 12: View East from PCH at the Huntington Beach Pier 3.1-17 Figure 3.1-15 Areas Across from Proposed Garage A 3.1-20 Figure 3.1-16 Areas Across for Proposed Garage B 3.1-21 Pacific City EIR vii Contents Figure 3.1-17 Areas Across From Proposed Garage C 3.1-22 Figure 3.1-18 Typical Shadows Cast by Proposed Development 3.1-35 Figure 3.1-19 Worse Case Shadows-Winter Solstice 3:00 P.M 3.1-36 Figure 3.1-20 Proposed Garage and Intersection Locations 3.1-39 Figure 3.1-21 Conceptual Headlight Effects 3.1-42 Figure 3.3-1 On-Site Vegetation Types 3.3-8 Figure 3.5-1 Oil Overlay Districts 3.5-5 Figure 3.6-1 Major Regional Faults 3.6-6 Figure 3.6-2 Local Faults 3.6-7 Figure 3.6-3 On-Site Soil Regions 3.6-9 Figure 3.7-1 Site Investigation/Remediation Status 3.7-8 Figure 3.8-1 Drainage Channels and Pumping Stations 3.8-3 Figure 3.8-2 Vicinity Map & Drainage Areas 3.8-5 Figure 3.8-3 Existing Hydrology 3.8-7 Figure 3.8-4 Moderate Tsunami Run-Up Area 3.8-10 Figure 3.8-5 Proposed Drainage 3.8-22 Figure 3.9-1 General Plan Land Use Map 3.9-6 Figure 3.9-2 Downtown Specific Plan Districts 3.9-15 Figure 3.10-1 Representative Environmental Noise Levels 3.10-2 Figure 3.10-2 Noise Measurement Locations 3.10-6. Figure 3.14-1 Existing Roadway Conditions and Intersection Controls 3.14-5 Figure 3.14-2 Existing A.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 3.14-9 Figure 3.14-3 Existing P.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 3.14-11 Figure 3.14-4 Existing Average Daily Traffic Volumes 3.14-13 Figure 3.14-5 Existing Off-Site Parking Plan 3.14-22 ; Figure 3.14-6 A.M. Peak Hour Project Traffic Volumes 3.14-31 Figure 3.14-7 P.M. Peak Hour Project Traffic Volumes 3.14-33 Figure 3.14-8 Average Daily Project Traffic Volumes 3.14-35 Figure 3.14-9 2008 A.M. Peak Hour Volumes with Project Traffic 3.14-43 Figure 3.14-10 2008 P.M. Peak Hour Volumes with Project Traffic 3.14-45 Figure 3.14-11 2008 Average Daily Volumes with Project Traffic 3.14-47 Figure 3.14-12 2020 General Plan Buildout A.M. Peak Hour Volumes with Project Traffic 3.14-59 Figure 3.14-13 2020 General Plan Buildout P.M. Peak Hour Volumes with Project Traffic 3.14-61 Figure 3.14-14 2020 General Plan Buildout Average Daily Traffic Volumes with Project Traffic 3.14-63 Figure 3.14-15 Proposed Street Parking 3.14-70 Figure 4.14-16 Proposed Site Plan 3.14-73 viii City of Huntington Beach Contents Tables - Table ES-1 Proposed Visitor-Serving Commercial Uses xvii, Table ES-2 Residential Units xvii Table ES-3 Summary of Proposed Roadway Improvements xviii Table ES-4 Summary Impact Table xxiv - Table 2-1 Summary of Existing Site Characteristics 2-1 Table 2-2 Summary of Applicable Design and Development Provisions 2-6 Table 2-3 Proposed Project Uses 2-8 Table 2-4 Summary of Project and Site Characteristics: Visitor-Serving Commercial Center 2-13 Table 2-5 Proposed Commercial Uses 2-13 Table 2-6 Summary of Project and Site Characteristics: Residential Village 2-16 Table 2-7 Residential Units 2-16 Table 2-8 Summary of Proposed Roadway Improvements 2-20 Table 2-9 Cumulative Projects • 2-33 -; Table 3.1-1 General Plan Urban Design Element—Policies Applicable to Aesthetics 3.1-24 Table 3.1-2 General Plan Environmental Resources/Conservation Element— Policies Applicable to Aesthetics 3.1-25 Table 3.1-3 General Plan Coastal Element—Policies Applicable to Aesthetics 3.1-27 Table 3.1-4 Garage Exit and Potentially Affected Residential Use Elevations 3.1-43 Table 3.2-1 Summary of Ambient Air Quality in the Project Vicinity 3.2-4 Table 3.2-2 Existing Localized Carbon Monoxide Concentrations 3.2-6 Table 3.2-3 SCAG Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide—Actions Applicable to Air Quality 3.2-8 Table 3.2-4 General Plan Air Quality Element—Policies Applicable to Air Quality 3.2-9 Table 3.2-5 Estimated Peak Daily Construction Emissions 3.2-13 - Table 3.2-6 Project Daily Operational Emissions 3.2-15 Table 3.2-7 Future (2010)With Project Localized Carbon Monoxide Concentrations 3.2-16 Table 3.2-8 Daily Reduced Operational Emissions, 3.2-19 Table 3.3-1 Plants Observed on the Project Site, 3.3-3 Table 3.3-2 Wildlife Observed on the Project Site 3.3-5 Table 3.3-3 SCAG Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide—Policies Applicable to Biological Resources 3.3-15 Table 3.3-4 General Plan Land Use Element—Policies Applicable to Biological Resources 3.3-15 Table 3.3-5 General Plan Environmental Resource/Conservation Element Policies Applicable to Biological Resources 3.3-16 Table 3.3-6 General Plan Coastal Element—Policies Applicable to Biological Resources 3.3-18 Table 3.4-1 SCAG Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide—Policies Applicable to Cultural Resources . 3.4-12 Table 3.4-2 General Plan Historic and Cultural Resources Element— Policies Applicable to Cultural Resources 3.4-13 Pacific City EIR a , Contents Table 3.4-3 General Plan Coastal Element-Policies Applicable to Cultural Resources 3.4-14 Table 3.5-1 General Plan Utilities Element-Policies Applicable to Energy and Mineral Resources 3.5-6 Table 3.5-2 General Plan Environmental Resources/Conservation Element- Policies Applicable to Energy and Mineral Resources 3.5-7 Table 3.5-3 General Plan Coastal Element-Policies Applicable to Energy and Mineral Resources 3.5-7 Table 3.5-4 Proposed Electricity Demand 3.5-9 Table 3.5-5 Proposed Natural Gas Demand 3.5-10 Table 3.6-1 Relationship between Greatest Measure Intensity and Magnitude 3.6-4 Table 3.6-2 Nearest Regional Faults Affecting the Proposed Pacific City Site in Huntington Beach 3.6-5 Table 3.6-3 SCAG Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide-Policies Applicable to Geology and Soils • 3.6-13 _ Table 3.6-4 General Plan Environmental Hazards Element-Policies Applicable to Geology and Soils 3.6-14 Table 3.6-5 General Plan Coastal Element-Policies Applicable to Geology and Soils 3.6-15 Table 3.7-1 Historical On-Site Uses 3.7-2 Table 3.7-2 Historical Adjacent Uses 3.7-3 Table 3.7-3 Regulatory Database Search Results for Sites within One Mile 3.7-4 Table 3.7-4 General Plan Coastal Element-Policies Applicable to Hazardous Materials 3.7-14 Table 3.8-1 Pre-Development Drainage Conditions (Post-1986 Values) 3.8-6 Table 3.8-2 General Plan Utilities Element-Policies Applicable to Hydrology and Water Quality 3.8-12 Table 3.8-3 General Plan Environmental Hazards Element-Policies Applicable to Hydrology and Water Quality 3.8-14 Table 3.8-4 General Plan Coastal Element-Policies Applicable to Hydrology and Water Quality 3.8-15 Table 3.8-5 General Plan Growth Management Element-Policies Applicable to Hydrology and Water Quality 3.8-16 Table 3.8-6 Summary of First Flush Discharges 3.8-20 Table 3.8-7 Projected Drainage Conditions (in cfs) 3.8-21 Table 3.9-1 SCAG Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide-Policies Applicable to Land Use 3.9-4 Table 3.9-2 General Plan Land Use Element-Policies Applicable to Land Use 3.9-7 • Table 3.9-3 General Plan Coastal Element-Policies Applicable to Land Use 3.9-13 Table 3.10-1 Representative Environmental Noise Levels 3.10-3 Table 3.10-2 Human Response to Different Levels of Groundborne Vibration 3.10-5 Table 3.10-3 Existing Daytime Noise Levels at Selected On- and Off-Site Locations 3.10-5 Table 3.10-4 Existing Roadway Noise Levels On Site 3.10-7 Table 3.10-5 Existing Roadway Noise Levels'Off Site 3.10-8 Table 3.10-6 General Plan Noise Element-Policies Applicable to Noise 3.10-9 Table 3.10-7 City of, Huntington Beach Noise Ordinance Exterior Noise Standards 3.10-13 x City of Huntington Beach Contents Table 3.10-8 City of Huntington Beach Noise Ordinance Interior Noise Standards 3.10-13 Table 3.10-9 Noise Ranges of Typical Construction Equipment 3.10-15 Table 3.10-10 Typical Outdoor Construction Noise Levels 3.10-15 Table 3.10-11 Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment 3.10-16 Table 3.10-12 Predicted Future Roadway Noise Levels On Site 3.10-18 Table 3.10-13 Project Traffic Noise Impacts 3.10-20 Table 3.10-14 Cumulative Project Roadway Traffic Noise Impacts 3.10-21 Table 3.11-1 Population Growth: City of Huntington Beach(1980-2000) 3.11-2 Table 3.11-2 Households in Huntington Beach and Orange County (1990-2000) 3.11-3 Table 3.11-3 City of Huntington Beach Age Distribution in 2000 3.11-4 Table 3.11-4 Housing Stock in the City of Huntington Beach 3.11-4 Table 3.11-5 Total Housing Units: City of Huntington Beach(1990-2000) Defined by Units per Structure 3.11-4 Table 3.11-6 Occupancy Status of Housing Stock in Huntington Beach in 2000 3.11-6 Table 3.11-7 RHNA Needs by Income Category for Huntington Beach (June 1, 1998, through June 30, 2005) 3.11-7 Table 3.11-8 SCAG Population, Households, and Employment Forecast 3.11-7 Table 3.11-9 Residential Sites Inventory 3.11-8 Table 3.11-10 Housing Growth Need and Development Potential by Income Group 3.11-9 Table 3.11-11 SCAG Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide-Policies Applicable to Population and Housing' 3.11-11 Table 3.11-12 General Plan Housing Element-Policies Applicable to Population and Housing 3.11-12 Table 3.11-13 Project Contribution to Population Increases. 3.11-14 Table 3.11-14 Projected Project Employment 3.11-15 Table 3.12-1 Current School Enrollment of the Huntington Beach City School District....3.12-4 Table 3.12-2 Estimated Beach Attendance in Area 1 3.12-5 Table 3.12-3 SCAG Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide-Policies Applicable� P to Public Services 3.12-6 Table 3.12-4 General Plan Public Facilities and Services Element-Policies Applicable to Public Services 3.12-7 Table 3.12-5 General Plan Growth Management Element-Policies Applicable to Public Services 3.12-8 Table 3.12-6 Additional Students Generated by Proposed Project 3.12-12 Table 3.13-1 Huntington Beach Recreational Facilities 3.13-3 Table 3.13-2 General Plan Recreation and Community Services Element-Policies Applicable to Recreation 3.13-5 Table 3.13-3 General Plan Coastal Element-Policies Applicable to Recreation 3.13-8 Table 3.13-4 General Plan Growth Management Element-Policies Applicable to Recreation 3.13-9 Table 3.14-1 Level of Service Definitions for Signalized Intersections (ICU Method) 3.14-16 Table 3.14-2 Level of Service Criteria for Signalized Intersections (HCM Method) 3.14-17 Table 3.14-3 Level of Service Criteria for Unsignalized Intersections (HCM Method) 3.14-17 Table 3.14-4 Existing Year 2001/02 Peak Hour Levels of Service 3.14-17 Table 3.14-5 Roadway Segment Capacities 3.14-20 Pacific City EIR xi 1 Contents Table 3.14-6 Year 2001 Existing Roadway Link Capacity Analysis Summary 3.14-20 Table 3.14-7 SCAG Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide-Policies Applicable to Transportation/Traffic 3.14-23 Table 3.14-8 General Plan Circulation Element-Policies Applicable to Transportation/Traffic 3.14-24 Table 3.14-9 General Plan Growth Management Element-Policies Applicable to Transportation/Traffic 3.14-27 Table 3.14-10 Project Traffic Generation Forecast 3.14-29 Table 3.14-11 Related Projects Traffic Generation Forecast 3.14-39 Table 3.14-12 Year 2008 Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service Summary 3.14-40 Table 3.14-13 Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service Summary-Caltrans(HCM) 3.14-42 Table 3.14-14 Year 2008 Roadway Link Capacity Analysis Summary 3.14-49 Table 3.14-15 Year 2020 General Plan Buildout Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service Summary-w/Hamilton Ext. w/Walnut Alignment w/SARC 3.14-53 Table 3.14-16 Year 2020 General Plan Buildout Roadway Link Capacity Analysis Summary w/Hamilton Ext. w/Walnut Alignment w/Santa Ana River Crossing 3.14-56 Table 3.14-17 Long-Term Parking Plan for Existing Off-Site Parking Spaces 3.14-69 Table 3.14-18 Project Access Driveways 3.14-75 Table 3.15-1 City of Huntington Beach Water Supply and Demand (in acre-feet) 3.15-3 Table 3.15-2 SCAG Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide-Policies Applicable to Utilities and Service Systems 3.15-7 Table 3.15-3 General Plan Utilities Element-Policies Applicable to Utilities and Service Systems 3.15-7 Table 3.15-4 General Plan Coastal Element-Policies Applicable to Utilities and Service Systems 3.15-10 Table 3.15-5 General Plan Growth Management Element-Policies Applicable to Utilities and Service Systems 3.15-11 Table 3.15-6 Projected Water Demands for the Proposed Project 3.15-13 Table 3.15-7 Estimated Water Demand Types for the Proposed Project 3.15-14 Table 3.15-8 Projected Sewer Flows 3.15-17 Table 3.15-9 Proposed Solid Waste Demand 3.15-18 Table 4-1 Reduced Project Commercial Uses 4-14 Table 4-2 Reduced Project Alternative Daily Operational Emissions 4-17 Table 4-3 Comparison of Alternatives to the Proposed Project 4-27 xii City of Huntington Beach Contents VOLUME II—APPENDICES TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Appendices Appendix A Initial Study/Notice of Preparation and Scoping Comments Appendix B Air Quality Data Appendix C Noise Data Appendix D Water and Sewer Materials Appendix E Hazardous Materials Appendix F Specific Plan Conformity Appendix G Drainage Study Appendix H Traffic Appendix I ' Biological Resources Information Appendix J Geotechnical Investigation Appendix K Shade and Shadow Diagrams Appendix L Cultural Resources Pacific City EIR xiii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INTRODUCTION This Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) discusses the environmental impacts associated with the proposed Pacific City project, and related activities. This Draft EIR provides a discussion of impacts by issue area and provides mitigation measures, where appropriate. Specific issue areas discussed in this EIR include 1 ' Aesthetics, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Energy and Mineral Resources, Geology and Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Land Use and Planning, Noise, Population and Housing, Public Services and Utilities, Recreation, Transportation and Traffic, and Utilities and Service Systems. These issue areas were initially evaluated in the Initial Study/Notice of Preparation (IS/NOP) for the proposed project, which is included as Appendix A to this document. An analysis of alternatives to the proposed project and long-term implications resulting from project implementation are also provided. In addition, the public review and approval process for the EIR is outlined. STRUCTURE OF THE EIR This EIR has been designed for easy use and reference. To help the reader locate information of particular interest, a brief summary of the contents of each section of the EIR is provided. The following chapters are contained within the EIR: Chapter 1 Introduction—This section provides an overview of the proposed project, the environmental process, and document organization. Chapter 2 Project Description—This section includes the location and boundaries of the proposed project; project objectives; a general description of technical, economic, and environmental characteristics; and intended uses of the EIR. Chapter 3 Environmental Impact Analysis—This section describes and evaluates the environmental issue areas, including the existing environmental setting, applicable environmental thresholds, environmental impacts (short term, long term, direct, and indirect), policy considerations related to the particular environmental issue area under analysis, and feasible mitigation measures capable of minimizing environmental harm. Pacific City EIR xv Executive Summary Chapter 4 Alternatives to the Proposed Project—This section analyzes feasible alternatives to the proposed project, which include the no project alternative and a reduction in project scale. Chapter 5 Long-Term Implications—This section provides a summary of the proposed project's potential to lead to population growth and the indirect implications of that growth on the. city; summarizes the discussion of cumulative impacts, provides a list of proposed project impacts that are significant and unavoidable by issue area; and identifies the irreversible changes to the natural environment resulting from the proposed project. Chapter 6 List of EIR Preparers—This section identifies all individuals responsible for the preparation of this report. • Chapter 7 References—This section identifies all references used and cited in the preparation of this report and the public and private agencies and individuals contacted during the preparation of this report. SUMMARY OF PROPOSED PROJECT The Pacific City project proposes 10.6 net acres of mixed-use visitor-serving commercial center, 17.2 net acres of residential village, and 3.7 net acres of right-of-way improvements. The visitor-serving commercial component of the project site would include hospitality (i.e., hotel) and commercial facilities, as shown in Table ES-1. The hotel uses within this portion of the site would include hospitality-related facilities, with up to 400 guest rooms; a pool, spa, fitness and yoga center; a restaurant, lounge, and bar; a pool area grille; resort retail shops; and meeting/banquet and conference facilities for a total of 370,000 square feet. The commercial portion of the development is proposed to include a - maximum of 240,000 square feet of retail, restaurant, entertainment, office, and cultural facilities. Structures would range in height from two to eight stories. Eight-story development would be associated with the hotel uses, while retail and office structures would be one to three stories in height. xvi City of Huntington Beach Executive Summary Table ES-1 Proposed Visitor-Serving Commercial Uses Component Square Footage r - Commercial Uses(6.4 net acres) Retail 141,100 sf Restaurants/Clubs 38,900 sf Office 60,000 sf Total 240,000 sf Hotel Uses(4.2 net acres) 400 Guest Rooms 334,000 sf Ballroom 16,000 sf Spa(30 treatment rooms) 15,000 sf Restaurant 5,000 sf Total 370,000 sf SOURCE: Makallon Atlanta Huntington Beach,LLC,July 3,2003a The residential aspect of the development would entail the construction of approximately 516 condominiums at an average of 30 dwelling units per net acre. Development would include two- to four-story structures with a variety of architecture and dwelling unit types and sizes, clustered around recreational amenities to serve the project residents. Additional open space accessible to the public is also proposed. Table ES-2 illustrates the variety of the residential units and the allotted space for each type within the proposed project. -- Table ES-2 Residential Units Unit Type Number of Units Avg.SF Total SF Req.Parking Type 1 1,2&3 BD/2&3 BA 199 999 198,880 395 Type 2 2&3 BD+Den/3 BA 125 2,019 252,320 351 Type 3 2 BD+Den/3 BA 124 2,055 254,870 310 f ! Type 4 2 BD+Den/3 BA 68 1,940 131,920 208 Total Residential All units 516 1,624 837,990 1,264 Common Area&Decks 251,397 Total Building Area 1,089,387 SOURCE: Makallon Atlanta Huntington Beach,LLC,July 3,2003a Parking would,be provided in subterranean garages and in surface parking areas along the interior collector 1 street. Table ES-3 summarizes the proposed roadway improvements necessary for the proposed project. Pacific City EIR xvii Executive Summary Table ES-3 Summary of Proposed Roadway Improvements Roadway Proposed Project Improvements Pacific Coast Dedicate ROW north of centerline Highway Widen PCH on north side for provision of a third westbound through lane and future bike lane Remove parallel parking on north side of roadway and replace on-site Close existing median opening and install median landscaping along a portion of PCH,between First and Huntington Streets Pedestrian site access to commercial component Two at-grade crosswalks at intersections of First and Huntington Streets Grade-separated pedestrian overcrossing over PCH to beach area could be constructed in the future Provide an Orange County Transportation Authority bus turnout on the north side of PCH,west of Huntington Street Atlanta Avenue Dedicate ROW between First Street and Huntington Street,south of centerline Additional eastbound travel lane Sidewalk,curb and gutter,paving,and a landscaped median between First and Huntington Streets Pedestrian access to residential component Huntington Street Dedicate ROW between Pacific View Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway,west of centerline Additional southbound travel lane between PCH and Pacific View Southbound right turn lane at PCH • Provide traffic signal at intersection with Atlanta Avenue Landscaped median between Pacific View Avenue and PCH Vehicular service access to commercial component Vehicular resident-only access to residential component Pedestrian access to residential component First Street Dedicate ROW east of centerline between Atlanta and Pacific View Avenue for an ultimate configuration with a 100-foot- wide right-of-way Additional southbound and northbound travel lane between PCH and Atlanta Additional southbound left-turn lane onto PCH Sidewalk,curb and gutter,paving,and landscaped medians Vehicular service access to commercial component Vehicular resident-only access to residential component Pedestrian access to residential component Pacific View Avenue Extension of roadway,which currently exists only from Huntington Street to approximately 500 feet east along the existing Waterfront Hilton project,through site in a 90-foot right of way,in compliance with the Precise Plan of Street Alignment. Parallel parking on north side of street for the proposed public park One lane of traffic in each direction with a center turning lane,on-street bike lanes and pedestrian crosswalks Angled parking on south side of roadway Sidewalk,curb and gutter,paving,and landscaped medians Three vehicular accesses to commercial component(two public and one service) Two vehicular accesses to residential component(residents and guests) Pedestrian access to residential and commercial components SOURCE: Makellon Atlanta Huntington Beach,LLC,July 7,2003b • xviii City of Huntington Beach Executive Summary It is anticipated that the proposed project would be constructed in several major phases over a six-year period beginning in 2004. The site would be mass graded. Grading would involve the cut and fill of approximately 274,600 cubic yards of soil that would be balanced on site. Residential units would be constructed in three phases, during which time the visitor-serving commercial uses, followed by hotel construction would occur. For additional detail regarding proposed construction phasing, refer to Figures 2- 8a (Construction Schedule) and 2-8b (Construction Phasing) in Chapter 2, Project Description, of this EIR. Construction would be fully completed by 2010. SUMMARY OF PROJECT OBJECTIVES Project objectives have been identified by both the City and the Applicant. The City's project objectives are as follows: • • Assist in the implementation of the City's General Plan, Downtown Specific Plan, and Redevelopment Plan • Enhance the Downtown as a destination for visitors by expanding hotel, retail, and entertainment opportunities • Expand residential opportunities in the Downtown to provide for a greater number and variety of housing options and a stronger base for the commercial sector of the Downtown • Enhance the community image of Huntington Beach through the design and construction of high quality development consistent with the Urban Design Element of the General Plan • Ensure adequate utility infrastructure and public services for new development • Mitigate environmental impacts to the greatest extent possible The Applicant's project objectives are as follows: • Housing. Provide the full number of housing units allowed by the General Plan and Downtown Specific Plan at 30 dwelling units per net acre in order to assist the City of Huntington Beach in meeting its housing goals and the housing allocation determined by the City and the Southern California Association of Government's Regional Housing Needs Assessment, and to meet the purpose of the Downtown Specific Plan District No. 8A. • Economic Growth and Employment. Provide: (a) economic growth opportunities for the community through development of the project dining/retail/entertainment center, consistent with the City's General Plan goals; (b) additional employment opportunities for local and area residents through the visitor-serving commercial uses on site; and (c) residential density at the General Plan designation of 30 dwelling units per net acre, to support the visitor-serving commercial components of Pacific City, the resort areas to the south, and existing Downtown businesses. Pacific City EIR xix Executive Summary • Neighborhood Identity. Reinforce the neighborhood identity of Pacific City and coordinate development -of Districts 7 and 8A, through control of both districts' project design elements such as architecture, landscaping, color, paving, walls, fencing, signage, entry treatment, and roadway design. • Commercial Phasing and Residential Density. Maintain ability to build commercial and residential areas in phases to provide a population base to help support the visitor-serving commercial uses consistent with the purpose of District No. 8A. • Pedestrian Access. Implement a means of pedestrian access through the project via onsite paths consistent with the Specific Plan objectives. As a separate project in the future, provide residents and visitors with safe access to the beach via an elevated crossing of Pacific Coast Highway (PCH) from the project site, including avoiding pedestrian conflicts with the existing PCH Transit Terminal. • Traffic Improvements. Enhance project circulation and the surrounding roadway system by providing efficient vehicular access through the site and connecting the site to the surrounding existing roadway network. • Public View Opportunities. Develop the hotel district to the maximum allowable height(8 stories) under the Downtown Specific Plan, in order to provide ocean view opportunities while maintaining space for amenities on lower floors and retention of ocean vistas. Implement an overall site design that • provides..public view opportunities for visitors and residents. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT The City filed a Notice of Preparation (NOP) with the California Office of Planning and Research on . January 8, 2003, indicating that an EIR would be prepared. In turn, the IS/NOP was distributed to appropriate public agencies for a 30-day public review period, which began on January 10, 2003, and ended on February 10, 2003. Public agencies included affected State agencies and surrounding cities. In addition, the IS/NOP was sent to interested parties, property owners located within 1,000 feet of the project site, and occupants within 300 feet of the site. A scoping meeting was held on January 27, 2003. The purpose of the scoping period, including the scoping meeting, was to solicit comments on the scope and content of the environmental analysis to be included in the EIR. During the scoping period, the City received 28 written comment letters and 9 oral comments on the IS/NOP. The IS/NOP, as well as the scoping comment letters, are included in Appendix A of this EIR. During the preparation of this Draft EIR (DEIR), agencies, organizations, and persons who the City believed may have an interest in this project were specifically contacted. Information, data, and observations from these contacts are included in the DEIR. Agencies or interested persons who did not respond during the public review period of the IS/NOP will have an opportunity to comment during the public review period of the DEIR, as well as at subsequent hearings on the project. xx City of Huntington Beach Executive Summary The Draft EIR is being circulated for a 45-day review period, consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15105. Notice of Availability of the Draft EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15087. Notice was provided to the last known name and address of all organizations and individuals who have previously requested such notice in writing, in addition to publication in a newspaper, and direct mailing to interested parties and to the owners and occupants of property within 1,000 feet and 300 feet of the project site, respectively. A public information meeting will be conducted during the Draft EIR comment period to solicit input on the adequacy of the EIR. CLASSIFICATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND DISCUSSION OF MITIGATION MEASURES Potential environmental impacts have been classified in the following categories: • Less Than Significant (LS)—Results in no substantial adverse change to existing environmental conditions • Significant (S)—Constitutes a substantial adverse change to existing environmental conditions that can be mitigated to less-than-significant levels by implementation of feasible mitigation measures or by the selection of an environmentally superior project alternative • Significant and Unavoidable (SU)—Constitutes a substantial adverse change to existing environmental conditions that cannot be fully mitigated by implementation of all feasible mitigation measures or by the selection of an environmentally superior project alternative Impacts are also classified as direct or indirect. Direct impacts occur both at the same time and the same place as the proposed project. Indirect impacts are also caused by implementation of the project; however, they occur at a later time or are removed in distance. Lastly, cumulative impacts are also analyzed in this environmental document. Cumulative impacts refer to two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts. Where significant impacts are identified, CEQA requires that feasible mitigation measures are discussed to avoid or substantially reduce significant effects. As described in Section 15370 of the CEQA Guidelines, there are generally five categories of mitigation measures, which include • Avoiding the impact by not taking a certain action or parts of an action • Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation • Rectifying the impact by repairing,rehabilitating,.or restoring the impacted environment • Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action Pacific City EIR xxl Executive Summary • Compensating for the impact by replacing_or providing substitute resources or environments In addition, the City of Huntington Beach imposes standard code requirements (CRs) for the purpose of controlling or reducing potential environmental and/or safety issues associated with a proposed project. These CRs may include, but are not necessarily limited to, development standards, infrastructure improvements, and/or operational requirements. In this EIR, standard CRs that are relevant to the environmental analysis are identified along with the discussion of mitigation measures in each resource- specific discussion provided in Chapter 3 of this document. SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS The following are significant, unavoidable adverse impacts that would result from project implementation. A detailed discussion of each of the impacts can be found in Section 3, (Environmental Impact Analysis) of this document. • Air Quality > AQ-1 Peak construction activities associated with the proposed project could generate emissions that exceed SCAQMD thresholds. > AQ-2 Daily operation of the project would generate emissions that exceed SCAQMD thresholds. • Transportation > TR-1 Under Year 2008 conditions, implementation of the proposed project would significantly affect the operating-conditions of the intersection of PCH at Warner Avenue and PCH by increasing traffic volume. SYNOPSIS OF.ALTERNATIVES As required by Section 15126.6(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines and recent court cases, an EIR must: Describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project,or to the location of the project,which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project,and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. Further, Section 15126.6(b) Guidelines state: The discussion of alternatives shall focus on alternatives to the project or its location which are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the project, even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives,or would be more costly. Alternatives evaluated in this EIR include the following: • No Project/No Development Alternative: This alternative assumes maintenance of the project site in its current status, and no changes would occur. �ocii City of Huntington Beach Executive Summary • Reasonably Foreseeable Development: Under this alternative, the proposed project would not be developed,but a reasonably foreseeable use for the project site would occur. • Reduced Project Alternative: This alternative includes a reduction in visitor-serving commercial uses while maintaining the same amount of residential and resort uses as the proposed project. Other alternatives considered included an alternative site, reduced residential density, and a limited development alternative. Each of these three alternatives was not considered feasible, because they either did not meet basic project objectives and/or did not reduce significant project impacts. The Reduced Project Alternative would be considered the environmentally superior alternative to the proposed project. Implementation of this alternative would result in less severe impacts associated with aesthetics, air quality, energy and mineral resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, noise, population and housing, transportation, and utilities. Significant and unavoidable impacts would remain to air quality and transportation. When compared to the proposed project, implementation of the Reduced Project Alternative would result in similar impacts to biological resources, cultural resources, hydrology and water quality, land use, public services, and recreation. While the overall level of significance of impacts to each of these resources would remain the same, the magnitude of impacts would be less than under the proposed project. Under this alternative, most of the project objectives identified by the City of Huntington Beach and the Applicant would be achieved. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Table ES-4 summarizes the environmental impacts of the proposed project, mitigation measures, and level of significance of each impact after mitigation. Impacts are described in detail for each resource in Chapter 3. Pacific City EIR xxiii LI Executive Summary Table ES-4 Summary Impact Table Residual Impact Mitigation Measure Impact Aesthetics Impact AES-1: Implementation of the proposed project would None required. Less than not substantially degrade scenic resources within Pacific Coast significant Highway,a State Scenic Highway. • Impact AES-2: Implementation of the proposed project would None required. Less than not have a substantial effect on the scenic vista. significant Impact AES-3: Implementation of the proposed project would None required. Less than not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality significant of the project site and its surroundings. Impact AES-4: The proposed project would cast shadows on None required. Less than surrounding residential uses. significant Impact AES-5: Structural development would introduce new MM AES-1:To the extent feasible,the Applicant shall use nonreflective facade treatments,such as matte paint Less than sources of light and glare into the project vicinity. or glass coatings. Prior to issuance of building permits for the proposed project, the Applicant shall indicate significant provision of these materials on the building plans. Impact AES-6: Implementation of the proposed project would None required. Less than introduce new sources of vehicle headlight,although they would significant not significantly affect adjacent sensitive uses. The following standard City requirements(CR)would apply to the project. CR AES-A All exterior mechanical equipment shall be screened from view on all sides. Rooftop mechanical equipment shall be setback 15 feet from the exterior edges of the building. Equipment to be screened includes, but is not limited to, heating, air conditioning, refrigeration equipment, plumbing lines, ductwork and transformers. Said screening shall be architecturally compatible with the building in terms of materials and colors.If screening is not designed specifically into the building,a rooftop mechanical equipment plan showing screening must be submitted for review and approval with the application for building permit(s). CR AES-B If outdoor lighting is included,energy saving lamps shall be used.All outside lighting shall be directed to prevent"spillage"onto adjacent properties and shall be shown on the site plan and elevations. CR AES-C 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. CR AES-D Prior to occupancy, all new and existing overhead utilities shall be installed underground in accordance with the City's Underground Utility Ordinance. In addition, all electrical transformers shall be installed underground. Air Quality Impact AQ-1: Peak construction activities associated with the MM AQ-1:The project developer(s)shall require by contract specifications that construction equipment engines Significant proposed project could generate emissions that exceed will be maintained in good condition and in proper tune per manufacturer's specification for the duration of and SCAQMD thresholds. construction.Contract specification language shall be reviewed by the City prior to issuance of a grading permit. unavoidable xxiv City of Huntington Beach Executive Summary Table ES-4 Summary Impact Table Residual Impact Mitigation Measure Impact MM AQ-2:The project developer(s)shall require by contract specifications that construction-related equipment, including heavy-duty equipment,motor vehicles,and portable equipment,shall be turned off when not in use for more than five minutes. Contract specification language shall be reviewed by the City prior to issuance of a grading permit. MM AQ-3:The project developer(s)shall encourage contractors to utilize alternative fuel construction equipment (i.e., compressed natural gas, liquid petroleum gas, and unleaded gasoline) and low-emission diesel construction equipment to the extent that the equipment is readily available and cost effective. Contract specification language shall be reviewed by the City prior to issuance of a grading permit. MM AQ-4:The project developer(s)shall require by contract specifications that construction operations rely on the electricity infrastructure surrounding the construction sites rather than electrical generators powered by internal combustion engines to the extent feasible.Contract specification language shall be reviewed by the City prior to issuance of a grading permit. MM AQ-5: The project developer(s) shall implement dust control measures consistent with SCAQMD Rule 403—Fugitive Dust during the construction phases of new project development.Contract specification language shall be reviewed for inclusion of this language by the City prior to issuance of a grading permit.The following e actions are currently recommended to implement Rule 403 and have been quantified by the SCAQMD as being able to reduce dust generation between 30 and 85 percent depending on the source of the dust generation: • Apply water and/or approved nontoxic chemical soil stabilizers according to manufacturer's specification tcl all inactive construction areas(previously graded areas that have been inactive for 10 or more days) • Replace ground cover in disturbed areas as quickly as possible • • Enclose,cover,water twice daily,or apply approved chemical soil binders to exposed piles with 5 percent or _. greater silt content • Water trucks will be utilized on the site and shall be available to be used throughout the day during site grading to keep the soil damp enough to prevent dust being raised by the operations.Water active grading sites at least twice daily • Suspend all excavating and grading operations when wind speeds(as instantaneous gusts)exceed 25 miles per hour over a 30-minute period • All trucks hauling dirt,sand,soil,or other loose materials are to be covered or should maintain at least two feet of freeboard (i.e., minimum vertical distance between top of the load and the top of the trailer), in accordance with Section 23114 of the California Vehicle Code • Sweep streets at the end of the day • Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto paved roads,or wash off trucks and. any equipment leaving the site each trip on a gravel surface to prevent dirt and dust from impacting the surrounding areas • Apply water three times daily or chemical soil stabilizers according to manufacturers' specifications to all unpaved parking or staging areas or unpaved road surfaces • Post and enforce traffic speed limits of 15 miles per hour or less on all unpaved roads Pacific City EIR xxv Executive Summary Table ES-4 Summary Impact Table Residual Impact Mitigation Measure Impact Impact AQ-2: Daily operation of the project would generate MM AQ-6:The project developer shall include in construction and sales contracts the following requirements or Significant emissions that exceed SCAQMD thresholds. measures shown to be equally effective to reduce project-related stationary and area source emissions: and • Use solar or low-emission water heaters in the residential,office,and visitor-serving commercial buildings unavoidable • Provide energy-efficient heating with automated controls in the residential, office, and visitor-serving commercial buildings ■ Use energy-efficient cooking appliances in the in the residential and visitor-serving commercial buildings ■ If fire places are provided in new residential units, install the lowest-emitting fireplaces commercially available at the time of development • Require that contract landscapers providing services at the project site use electric or battery-powered equipment,or internal combustion equipment that is either certified by the California Air Resources Board or is three years old or less at the time of use. Contract specification language shall be reviewed by the City prior to issuance of a grading permit. MM AQ-7:The project developer shall include in construction and sales contracts for the commercial and offices uses on site that preferential parking spaces be provided for carpools and vanpools. Contract specification language shall be reviewed by the City prior to issuance of a grading permit. A,minimum of 7'2"of vertical clearance shall be provided in the parking structure for vanpool access. Inclusion of the vertical clearance shall be verified on building plans prior to issuance of a building permit. Impact AQ-3:The proposed project would generate increased None required. Less than local traffic volumes, but would not cause localized CO significant concentrations at nearby intersections to exceed national or State standards. Impact AQ-4:The proposed project would provide new sources None required. Less than of regional air emissions, but would not impair implementation - significant • of the Air Quality Management Plan. Impact AQ-5: Implementation of the proposed project could None required. Less than release toxic air contaminants,but not in significant amounts. significant �ocvi City of Huntington Beach Executive Summary Table ES-4 Summary Impact Table Residual Impact Mitigation Measure Impact The following standard City requirements(CR)would apply to the project.CR AQ-A through CR AQ-C shall be completed prior to issuance of a grading permit. CR AQ-A 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 prior to issuance of grading permits.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 "1-800-CUTSMOG"in the event there are concerns regarding fugitive dust and compliance with AQMD Rule No.403. - CR AQ-B 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. CR AQ-C The Applicant shall demonstrate that the grading/erosion control plan will abide by the provisions of AQMD's Rule 403 as related to fugitive dust control,prior to issuance of grading permits. CR AQ-D through CR AQ-F shall be implemented during grading and construction operations: CR AQ-D The construction disturbance area shall be kept as small as possible. _ CR AQ E Wind barriers shall be installed along the perimeter of the site and/or around areas being graded. CR AQ-F 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. Biological Resources - Impact BIO.1: Proposed project implementation may result in MM BIO.1: If before the start of construction, substantial growth of native vegetation or sensitive habitats has Less than impacts on special status plant species, if present on the occurred on the project site as determined by a qualified biologist,then special status plant or habitat surveys significant proposed project site. shall be conducted during the appropriate time of the year prior to construction of the proposed project, to determine the presence or absence of special status plant species or habitats. These surveys shall be conducted during the appropriate blooming period as determined by a qualified biologist. If any of these species are found to be present on the proposed project site,then measures would be developed in consultation with the appropriate resource agencies,if the status of the species and the size of the population warrant a finding of significance.Appropriate measures may include avoidance of the populations,relocation,or purchase of offsite populations for inclusion to nearby open space areas.A City-qualified biologist shall present recommendations to the city for review and approval.Any subsequent avoidance,relocation,or other mitigation strategies required to reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level shall be implemented prior to issuance of a grading permit. Impact BI0-2: Proposed project implementation would not None required. Less than significantly impact special status wildlife species. , significant Impact BIO.3: Proposed project implementation would be None required. Less than consistent with local policies or ordinances protecting biological significant resources. - Impact BI0.4:The project would not have an adverse effect on None required. No impact federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Pacific City EIR xxvii Executive Summary Table ES-4 Summary Impact Table Residual Impact Mitigation Measure Impact Impact BIOS: Implementation of the project would not None required. Less than significantly impact sensitive habitat types, including wetlands significant as defined by the CDFG. Impact BI0-6: Construction activities at the project site would The following mitigation measure is recommended to further reduce less-than-significant impacts: Less than not significantly disturb wildlife in the project site vicinity. MM BIO 2:Grading shall begin at the perimeter,near existing residences,and proceed toward the center of the significant site. Impact BI0-7:An increase in night lighting from the proposed None required. Less than project would not significantly affect behavioral patterns of significant wildlife at the project site. Cultural Resources Impact CR-1: Paleontological resources that could be located MM CR-1`.Monitor grading and excavation for archaeological and paleontological resources: Less than on site would be adversely affected by earth moving activities (a)The Applicant shall arrange foraqualifiedprofessional archaeological and paleontological monitor to be significant that could damage these materials. pp gg p g present during demolition, grading,trenching, and other excavation on the_projectsite.The Applicant shall also contact the appropriate Gabrielino and Juaneno tribal representatives to determine whether either group desires Native American monitoring of grading activities. If Native American monitors are requested, the Applicant shall arrange for the monitoring with tribal representatives. Additionally, prior to project construction, construction personnel will be informed of the potential for encountering significant archaeological and paleontological'resources,and instructed in the identification of fossils and other potential resources. All construction personnel will be informed of the need to stop work on the project site until qualified archaeologist or paleontologist has been provided the opportunity to assess the significance of the find and implement appropriate measures to protect or scientifically remove the find.Construction personnel will also be informed of the requirement that unauthorized collection of cultural resources is prohibited. (b)If archaeological or paleontological resources are discovered_during earth moving activities,all construction activities within 50 feet of the find shall cease until the archaeologist/paleontologist evaluates the significance of the resource.In the absence of a determination,all archaeological and paleontological resources shall be considered significant. If the resource is determined to be significant,the archaeologist or paleontologist,as appropriate, shall prepare a research design for recovery of the resources in consultation with the State Office of Historic Preservation that satisfies the requirements of Section 21083.2 of CEQA.The archaeologist or paleontologist shall complete a report of the excavations and findings,and shall submit the report for peer review by three County-certified archaeologists or paleontologists, as appropriate. Upon approval of the report, the Applicant shall submit the report to the South Central Coastal Information Center at California State University,Fullerton,the California Coastal Commission,and the City of Huntington Beach. (c)Monitored grading at the location of CA-ORA-1582H shall involve the removal of refuse deposit in 15 to 20 cm layers using a skip loader. All materials shall be deposited in small to medium piles for scanning by archaeologists for diagnostic materials. If the resource.encountered consists of complete or nearly complete artifacts from CA-ORA-1582H, then artifacts shall be cleaned and cataloged for curation at a facility acceptable to the City of Huntington Beach for loans to educational institutions,and no further study would be required. xxviii City of Huntington Beach • Executive Summary Table ES-4 Summary Impact Table Residual Impact Mitigation Measure Impact (d)In the event of the discovery on the project site of a burial, human bone, or suspected human bone, all excavation or grading in the vicinity of the find will halt immediately and the area of the find will be protected. If a qualified archaeologist is present,he/she will determine whether the bone is human.If the archaeologist determines that the bone is human, or in the absence of an archaeologist, the Applicant immediately will notify the City Planning Department and the Orange County Coroner of the find and comply with the provisions of P.R.C. Section 5097 with respect to Native American involvement, burial treatment, and reburial. Impact CR-2: Construction of the proposed project would MM CR-2: Scientific recovery of archaeological resources associated with CA ORA 149: The Applicant shall Less than cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of CA- retain a qualified archaeologist (i.e., listed on the Registry of Professional Archaeologists) to develop and significant ORA-149,a prehistoric archaeological site. implement,in consultation with the State Office of Historic Preservation,a research design and recovery plan for remaining elements of CA ORA 149. The recovery plan shall emphasize data collection in Locus A, between Test Units 1:and 2,as well as on.a core area of Locus B,centered around Test Unit 4,and shall be designed to satisfy the requirements of Section 21083.2 of CEQA. Impact CR•3:Construction of the proposed project could cause MM CR-1 as indicated above. Less than a substantial adverse change in the significance of previously significant unknown archaeological resources, including human burials, that could be present on the project site. Impact CR-4: Construction of the proposed project would not None required. Less than cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of CA- -significant ORA-1582H—a historical archaeological dump site. Energy and Mineral Resources Impact EM-1: Implementation of the proposed project would The following mitigation measure is recommended to further reduce less-than-significant impacts: Less than not substantially increase electricity demands beyond available significant supply or result in attracting additional or higher density MM EM•1:The proposed project shall implement an energy conservation plan that could include,but would not development to the project area. be limited to,measures such as energy efficient lighting,and heating,ventilation,and air conditioning systems. (HVAC) controls to reduce the demand of electricity and natural gas. The energy conservation plan shall be subject to review and approval by the City Building and Safety and Planning Departments prior to the issuance of building permits. Impact EM-2: Implementation of the proposed project would The following mitigation measure is recommended to further reduce less-than-significant impacts: Less than not substantially increase natural gas demands beyond MM EM-1 as indicated above. significant available supply or result'in attracting additional or higher - density development to the project area. Impact EM-3: Implementation of the proposed project would None required. Less than not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource significant or the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site. Pacific City EIR xxix Executive Summary Table ES-4 Summary Impact Table Residual Impact Mitigation Measure Impact Geology and Soils Impact GEO-1:Project implementation could expose people or MM GEO.1:The grading plan prepared for the proposed project shall contain the recommendations of the final Less than structures on-site to strong seismic ground shaking and soils and geotechnical analysis prepared pursuant to CR GEO-A, as approved by the City. These significant seismic-related ground failure associated with liquefaction. recommendations shall be implemented in the design of the project, including but not limited to measures associated with site preparation,fill placement and compaction,seismic design features,excavation stability and _ shoring requirements,dewatering, establishment of deep foundations,concrete slabs and pavements,cement type and corrosion measures,surface drainage,erosion control,ground improvements,tsunami protection,and plan review. All geotechnical recommendations provided in the soils and geotechnical analysis shall be implemented during site preparation and construction activities. Impact,GEO.2:Project implementation would locate structures MM GEO-1 as indicated above. Less than on soils that are considered potentially expansive, unstable, significant prone to settlement,and corrosive. Impact GEO.3: Construction activities would temporarily None required. Less than increase soil exposure to wind and water erosion. significant The following standard City requirements(CR)would apply to the project. CR GEO-A Prior to recordation of the final map,a qualified,Licensed Engineer shall prepare a detailed soils and geotechnical analysis.This analysis shall include Phase II Environmental on- site soil sampling and laboratory testing of materials to provide detailed recommendations for grading, chemical and fill properties, liquefaction, foundations, landscaping, dewatering,ground water,retaining walls,pavement sections and utilities. Hazardous Materials Impact HAZ-1: Grading and excavation of the site could MM HAZ-1:Prior to the issuance of a grading permit,a Registered Environmental Assessor shall perform a site Less than expose construction personnel and the public to contamination inspection to identify the potential for presence of PCBs on the site. If the potential for PCBs exists,then the significant present in the soil associated with former on-site uses. Applicant shall,in consultation with the City of Huntington Beach,sample soil surrounding the affected areas to identify the extent of contamination. Contamination shall be remediated in accordance with MM HAZ-3 and HAZ-4. MM HAZ-2: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, sampling shall be performed in the area identified in Figure 3.7-1 as"Area D."The extent of sampling shall be determined by the Huntington Beach Fire Department as that which is appropriate to characterize the extent of any potential contamination in Area D.Contamination shall be remediated in accordance with MM HAZ-3 and HAZ-4. MM HAZ-3:Prior to issuance of a grading permit,the Applicant shall,in consultation with the City of Huntington Beach and other agencies,as required,formulate a remediation plan for further soil contamination that exists on the project site. The plan shall include procedures for remediation of the project site to the City of Huntington Beach standards.Plans shall be submitted to the Planning,Public Works,and Fire Departments for review and approval in accordance with City Specification No. 431-92. The plan shall include methods to minimize remediation-related impacts on the surrounding properties, including processes by which all drainage associated with the remediation effort shall be retained on site and no wastes or pollutants shall escape the site and requirements to provide wind barriers around remediation equipment.Qualified and licensed professionals shall perform the remediation activities and all work shall be performed under the supervision of the City of Huntington Beach. rood City of Huntington Beach i Executive Summary Table ES-4 Summary Impact Table Residual Impact Mitigation Measure Impact MM HAZ-4: Closure reports or other reports acceptable to the City Fire Department that document the successful completion of required r.emediation activities for contaminated soils, in accordance with City Specification 431-92,shall be submitted and approved by the City Fire Department prior to issuance of grading permits for site development.No construction shall occur on-site until reports have been accepted by the City. Closure reports will not be required in the area identified in Figure 3.7-1 as"Area C.until remediation of this area has occurred as part of project construction;.these reports will be required pursuant to MM HAZ-6. If remediation is necessary pursuant to MM HAZ-3,then grading permits for this remediation shall be issued. MM HAZ-5:In the event that previously unknown soil contamination that could present a threat to human health or the environment is encountered during'construction, construction activities in the immediate vicinity of the contamination shall cease immediately.A risk management plan shall Ile prepared and implemented that(1) identifies the contaminants of concern and the potential risk each contaminant would pose to human health and the environment during construction and post-development and(2)describes measures to be taken to protect - workers and the public from exposure to potential site hazards. Such measures could include a range of options, including, but not limited to, physical site controls during construction, remediation, long-term monitoring, post-development maintenance or access limitations,or some combination thereof. Depending on the nature of contamination, if any, appropriate agencies shall be notified (e.g.,City of Huntington Beach Fire -• Department).A site health and safety plan that meets OSHA requirements shall be prepared and in place prior to the commencement of work in any contaminated area.The developer shall ensure proper implementation of the health and safety plan. MM HAZ-6: Closure reports documenting the successful completion of required,remediation activities for(1) . areas adjacent to the existing water main on site and(2)areas of archaeological sensitivity shall be submitted and approved by the City Fire Department prior to issuance of building permits in these areas. Impact HAZ-2:Grading and excavation of the site could result MM HAZ-7:Where construction is proposed over abandoned oil wells,the developer shall consult with DOGGR Less than in damage to existing abandoned oil wells. to determine if plug or replug of wells is necessary.Prior to the issuance of grading permits,the Applicant shall significant submit evidence of consultation with DOGGR indicating wells have been plugged or abandoned to current DOGGR standards. • MM HAZ-8:In the event that abandoned oil wells are damaged during construction,construction activities shall cease in the immediate vicinity immediately. Remedial plugging operations would be required to re-plug the affected wells to current Department of Conservation specifications. Depending on the nature of soil contamination, if any,appropriate agencies shall be notified(e.g., City of Huntington Beach Fire Department). The developer shall ensure proper implementation of the reabandonment operation in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations. Impact HAZ-3: No residual contamination is anticipated that None required. Less than would affect visitors and residents of the proposed project. significant Pacific City EIR mod Executive Summary • Table ES-4 Summary Impact Table Residual Impact Mitigation Measure Impact The following standard City requirements(CR)would apply to the project. CR HAZ-A Prior to issuance of grading permits, the project shall comply with all provisions of the Huntington Beach Fire Code and Fire Dept. City Specifications 422 and 431 for the abandonment of oil wells and site restoration. CR HAZ-B Prior to the issuance of grading permits and during construction,the project shall comply with all provisions of the HBMC Section 17.04.085 and Fire Dept.City Specification 429, Methane District Building Permit Requirements. CR HAZ-C The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Municipal Code, Building Division, and Fire Department as well as applicable local, State and Federal Fire Codes,Ordinances,and standards. Hydrology and Water Quality Impact HYD-1: The proposed project would not violate water None required. Less than quality standards, waste discharge requirements, result in significant substantial sources of polluted runoff,or otherwise substantially degrade water quality. Impact HYD-2:The proposed project would alter the drainage None required. Less than patterns of the site, but not in a manner that would create significant- substantial flooding,erosion,or siltation on or off site,or result _ in substantial additional polluted runoff. - Impact HYD-3: The proposed project would contribute to a None required. Less than reduction of flows to the over-capacity Atlanta Stormwater significant Pumping Station. - Impact HYD-4: The proposed project would result in the MM HYD-1:Prior to the issuance of grading permits,the developer shall submit to the City for approval a plan Less than placement of additional structures in an area of low to moderate outlining specific planning measures to be taken to minimize or reduce risks to property and human safety from significant tsunami risk. tsunami during operation.Planning measures could include but would not be limited to the following: ■ Provision of tsunami safety information to all project residents and hotel guests, in addition to posting in public locations on site ■ Identification of the method for transmission of tsunami watch and warnings to residents, hotel guests and persons on site in the event a watch or waming is issued • Identification of an evacuation site for persons on-site in the event of a tsunami warning • xxodi City of Huntington Beach I - - 4, � .. _ ---, 1 - Executive Summary Table ES-4 Summary Impact Table Residual Impact Mitigation Measure Impact The following standard City requirements(CR)would apply to the project. CR HYD-A Storm Drain,Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans(SWPPP),and Water Quality Management Plans(WQMP)conforming to 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. (a) 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 dewatering operation flows,and for nuisance flows during construction. (b) 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 inch per hour.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. - (c) Location of the BMPs shall not be located within the public right-of-way. Land Use Impact LU-1: The proposed project would be consistent with None required. Less than - applicable land use plans,policies,and regulations. significant Impact LU-2: The proposed project would not substantially None required. Less than conflict with existing adjacent permitted uses. significant Noise Impact N-1: Construction activities associated with the The following mitigation measure is recommended to further reduce less-than-significant impacts: Less than proposed project could generate substantial temporary or MM N-1:Pile driving activities shall be limited to the hours of 8:00 A.M to 6:00 P.M Monday through Friday. significant periodic noise levels, but would not exceed the standards established in the Huntington Beach Municipal Code. Impact N-2: Construction activities associated with the None required. Less than proposed project would not generate or expose persons off site significant to excessive groundbome vibration. Impact N-3: Implementation of the proposed project could MM N-2: Prior to the issuance of building permits for the new multifamily residential units located along First Less than expose new residential land uses on site to noise levels in Street, Atlanta Avenue, and Pacific View Avenue, the project developer(s) shall submit building plans that significant excess of City standards. identify walls or barriers of at least 5.5 feet above the ground surface around each exterior activity area(i.e., private yards, balconies and recreation areas) that face these roadways. This can be accomplished by constructing solid walls that match the building exterior and topping them off with 1.5-inch thick Plexiglas windows or sheets to meet the height requirement of 5.5 feet.,Other means of reducing exterior noise levels to 60 dBA Lao or less within the exterior activity areas may be implemented so long as an acoustical analysis demonstrates that the alternative means would in fact reduce the noise to the required level. Impact N-4: The proposed project would generate increased None required. Less than local traffic volumes, but would not cause a substantial significant permanent increase in ambient noise levels. Pacific City EIR �oociii Executive Summary Table ES-4 Summary Impact Table Residual Impact Mitigation Measure Impact The following standard City requirements(CR)would apply to the project. CR N-A Construction shall be limited to Monday—Saturday 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM.Construction shall be prohibited Sundays and Federal holidays. CR N-B 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. CR N-C 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 prior to issuance of a precise grading permit. CR N-D All haul trucks shall arrive at the site no earlier than 8:00 a.m.or leave the site no later than 5:00 p.m.,and shall be limited to Monday through Friday only. CR N-E Neighbors within 200 feet of major construction areas shall be notified of the construction schedule in writing prior to construction;the project sponsor shall designate a"disturbance coordinator"who shall be responsible for responding to any local complaints regarding construction noise;the coordinator(who may be an employee of the developer or general contractor)shall determine the cause of the complaint and shall require that reasonable measures warranted to correct the problem be implemented;and a telephone number for the noise disturbance coordinator shall be posted conspicuously at the construction site fence and included on the notification sent to neighbors adjacent to the site. Population and Housing Impact P-1: Implementation of the proposed project would not None required. • Less than directly or indirectly induce substantial population growth significant beyond current growth projections established by the City. Impact P-2: Proposed housing would not directly or indirectly MM P-1:The•Applicant shall prepare an Affordable Housing Program to the satisfaction of the City Planning& Less than induce substantial population growth beyond current growth Economic Development Departments.The Program shall detail the provisions for either on-or off-site affordable significant projections established by the City, although the required housing,or a combination of the two that meet the requirements of Community Redevelopment Law and City number of affordable housing units may not be provided on-site requirements. The Affordable Housing Program shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review and by the project. approval prior to submittal of the final map.The agreement shall be executed prior to the issuance of the first building permit for the residential project.The Applicant shall adhere to all provisions of the Program. Public Services Impact PS-1: The current staff and equipment of the HBFD MM PS-1: Provide enclosed,fire-rated stairs to each subterranean level from the exterior every 300'lineal feet Less than would be sufficient to meet the demands of the proposed of the building perimeter significant project, although project design may not provide adequate MM PS-2: Project design shall include ventilation of smoke and products of combustion. Zoned, mechanical emergency access. smoke removal system, with manual controls for firefighters shall be located in the fire control room. An emergency power source is necessary and the system shall also comply with Building Code requirements to exhaust CO and other hazardous gases. MM PS-3:Dedicated rooms for Fire Department exclusive use to observe,monitor and as necessary control all • emergency systems operation shall be provided. A total of three rooms shall be provided as follows: (1) commercial area and the related subterranean parking garage; (2) high-rise hotel; and (3)residential garages and dwellings.Rooms shall be located in an exterior location at grade level and have unrestricted access clear- to-the sky. xrotiv City of Huntington Beach I = — f 1 — -1 _ Executive Summary Table ES-4 Summary Impact Table Residual Impact Mitigation Measure Impact Impact PS-2: The proposed project would add residential and The following mitigation measure is recommended to further reduce less-than-significant impacts: Less than visitor serving uses to the area, and would increase demands MM PS-4: Prior to issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall consult the Huntington Beach Police significant on police protection. Department regarding the provision of adequate Crime Prevention Design measures,and shall incorporate the Department's recommendations into the plan. Impact PS-3:Development of additional residential units would MM PS-5:The developer for the proposed project shall negotiate with the City school districts regarding school Less than result in an increase in the number of students within the school impact fees to address the adverse impacts of the development,thus,ensuring that the new development would significant districts serving the site, and increase demands on school, bear its fair share of,the cost of housing additional students generated. The Planning Department shall be facilities. provided with a copy of the agreement prior to recordation of the final map. Impact PS-4: Existing lifeguard services would be adequate to The following mitigation measure is recommended to further reduce less-than-significant impacts: Less than serve increased use of the beach area resulting from additional MM PS-6:The Applicant shall develop and institute a Beach Safety and Maintenance Awareness Program to be significant residential and visitor-serving uses. reviewed and approved by the Community Services Department. The Program shall include(1) informational disclosures(i.e.,handouts)to all residents and hotel guests and(2)posting of signs on site.Program materials shall include but would not be limited to the following items: • Beach safety guidelines related to swimming,tides,sun exposure,and other potential risks from beach use is City Regulations on the use of beach property,including permissible uses of the beach and appropriate trash =. disposal • Identification of penalties imposed for violation(of City Regulations The City shall ensure strict enforcement of regulations related to beach use and maintenance. The following standard City requirements(CR)would apply to the project. —-. CR PS-A Automatic sprinkler systems shall be installed throughout.Shop drawings shall be submitted and approved by the Fire Department prior to system installation.(FD) CR PS-B Fire hydrants must be installed before combustible construction begins.Prior to installation,shop drawings shall be submitted to the Public Works Department and approved by the Fire Department.(Fire Dept.City Specification 407).(FD) CR'PS-C Prior to issuance of building permits,fire access roads shall be provided in compliance with Fire Dept. City Specification 401. Include the Circulation Plan and dimensions of all access roads.Fire lanes will be designated and posted to comply with Fire Dept.City Specification No.415.(FD) CR PS-D The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Municipal Code,Building Department,and Fire Department as well as applicable local,State,and Federal Fire Codes,Ordinances,and standards. Note:This requirement also applies to other resources such as geology and hazards. - Recreation - Impact REC-1: Project implementation would not provide MM REC-1:The Applicant shall demonstrate compliance with City parkland requirements identified in Chapter Less than adequate recreational facilities to meet increased demands 254.08 of the City of Huntington Beach Municipal Code. Any on-site park provided in compliance with this significant from the project. section shall be improved prior to final inspection(occupancy)of the first residential unit(other than the model homes). Impact REC-2: Construction effects associated with on-site None required. Less than recreational facilities would significantly affect the environment significant over the short term. Pacific City EIR xiocv Executive Summary Table ES-4 Summary Impact Table Residual Impact Mitigation Measure Impact Transportation/Traffic Impact TR-1: Under Year 2008 conditions, implementation of MM TR-1: The Applicant shall contribute a fair share contribution of 22 percent' to the installation of a third Significant the proposed project would significantly affect the operating northbound through lane on PCH consistent with the Orange County MPAH and Caltrans Route Concept Study and conditions of the intersection of PCH at Warner Avenue by for PCH. The County of Orange and Caltrans would complete this improvement. The Applicant's fair share unavoidable increasing traffic volume. contribution shall be paid prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Impact TR-2: Under Year 2008 conditions, implementation of MM TR-2: A second westbound right turn lane shall be added on Seapoint Avenue. The City shall ensure Less than the proposed project would significantly affect the operating completion of this improvement,and the Applicant shall contribute a fair share contribution of 26 percent2 to this significant conditions of the intersection of PCH at Seapoint Avenue by improvement.The Applicant's fair share contribution shall be paid prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. increasing traffic volume under Caltrans Methodology. Impact TR-3: Under Year 2008 conditions,implementation of None required. Less than the proposed project would not significantly adversely affect the significant operating conditions of roadway segments by increasing traffic volume. Impact TR-4:Under the Year 2020 conditions with scenario No. MM TR-2 as indicated above. Less than 1 (with the Hamilton Avenue Extension, Walnut Avenue - significant Alignment, and Santa Ana River Crossings), the proposed project would adversely affect the operating conditions of the intersection of PCH at Seapoint Avenue by increasing traffic volume. Impact TR-5:Under the Year 2020 conditions with scenario No. None required. Less than 1 (with the Hamilton Avenue Extension, Walnut Avenue significant Alignment, and Santa Ana River Crossings), the proposed project would not adversely affect the operating conditions of - roadway segments by increasing traffic volume. Impact TR-6: Project-generated traffic would require the MM TR-3:Install a traffic signal at First Street and Atlanta Avenue prior to issuance of occupancy permits.The Less than addition of traffic signals. • City shall ensure completion of this improvement,and the Applicant shall contribute a fair share contribution of significant 57 percent'to the improvement. Impact TR-7:Implementation of the proposed project would not None required. S Less than adversely affect the operating conditions of nearby facilities or significant streets that are part of the Congestion Management Program Highway System(CMPHS). ' Impact TR-8: The proposed project would provide adequate None required. Less than parking. significant Fair share calculation is provided in Appendix H,Traffic Impact Analysis Report. Z Ibid. 'Ibid. xxxvi City of Huntington Beach �� t — �' �� t� : Executive Summary Table ES-4 Summary Impact Table Residual Impact Mitigation Measure Impact Impact TR-9: The proposed project would provide adequate None required. Less than vehicular access driveways and would not result in inadequate significant emergency access. Impact TR-10: The project would not substantially increase None required. Less than roadway hazards. significant Impact TR-11: The project would not conflict with adopted None required. Less than policies supporting altemative transportation(e.g.,bus turnouts, significant bicycle racks). The following standard City requirements(CR)would apply to the project. CR TR-A During grading and construction,on-site parking shall be provided for all construction workers and equipment unless approved otherwise by the Public Works Department. CR TR-B During grading and construction,the property owner is responsible for all required clean up of off-site dirt, pavement damage and/or restriping of the public rights-of-way as determined by the Public Works Department. • CR TR-C A Transportation Demand Management Plan shall be submitted for review and approval prior to issuance of Certificate of.Occupancy. CR TR-D A traffic control plan for all work within the City right-of-way and Caltrans right-of-way shall be submitted to the Public Works department for review and approval prior to issuance of a grading permit. The City's plans shall be prepared according to the Traffic Control Plan Preparation Guidelines. Plans for Pacific Coast Highway shall he per Caltrans requirements and subject to their review and approval. CR TR-E 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 prior to issuance of a grading permit. CR TR-F Traffic impact fees shall be paid at the rate calculated at the time of payment.The fee shall be based on the trip generation for the actual building square footage,units or rooms as applicable using methodology approved as part of the project traffic impact study. Utilities Impact U-1: Sufficient water supplies would be available from None required. Less than existing entitlements and resources to serve the proposed significant project. Impact U-2: The proposed project would be served with None required. Less than adequate water and fire flows. significant Impact U-3:The proposed project would be adequately served None required. Less than by the wastewater treatment provider, and would not exceed significant wastewater treatment requirements or require the expansion or construction of new wastewater treatment facilities. Pacific City EIR xxxvii Executive Summary Table ES-4 Summary Impact Table Residual Impact Mitigation Measure Impact Impact U-4: Implementation of the proposed project would MM U-1:Prior to issuance of building permits for the first project component,the Applicant shall submit a Solid Less than substantially increase solid waste generation in the area. Waste Management Plan to the City's Recycling Coordinator. This plan shall discuss how the project will significant implement source reduction and recycling methods in compliance with existing City programs.Additionally,this plan shall include how the project will address the construction and demolition-generated waste from the site. These methods shall include,but shall not be limited to,the following: • Provision of recycling bins for glass, aluminum, and plastic for visitors and employees of the proposed project • Provision of recycling bins for glass, aluminum, plastic,wood, steel, and concrete for construction workers during construction phases • Bins for cardboard recycling during construction • Scrap wood recycling during construction • Green waste recycling of landscape materials The following standard City requirements(CR)would apply to the project. CR U-A Prior to occupancy,all building spoils, such as unusable lumber,wire,pipe,and other surplus or unusable material,shall be disposed of at an off-site facility equipped to handle them. CR U-B The Water Ordinance#14.52,the"Water Efficient Landscape Requirements"apply for projects with 2,500 square feet of landscaping and larger. �oacviii City of Huntington Beach ogit s' I ' Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION I `_, 1.1 OVERVIEW OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT The project proposes development of 31.5 gross acres of currently vacant land bound by First Street on the j west, Huntington Street on the east, Atlanta Avenue on the north, and Pacific Coast Highway (PCH) on the r south, in the Downtown area of the City of Huntington Beach. The proposed Pacific City project consists of r a visitor-serving/neighborhood commercial-retail center, "a residential village, and vehicular and pedestrian i .l circulation improvements. Approximately 10.6 net acres of the project site adjacent to PCH would be developed with up to 400 rooms of hospitality (i.e., hotel) and up to 240,000•square feet (sf) of visitor- r serving commercial uses that are proposed to include retail, office, restaurant, cultural, and entertainment y facilities, with approximately 1,543 parking spaces in a subterranean garage. The approximately 17.2-net- acre northeastern portion of the project site would be developed with 516 condominium homes at an u average of 30 dwelling units per net acre, in accordance with density levels set forth in the City of Huntington Beach General Plan and Downtown Specific Plan. A total of 1,341 parking spaces in a subterranean garage and approximately 19 on-site surface parking spaces would be provided to serve this residential component. In addition, pedestrian corridors would be provided through the site to improve pedestrian access between the surrounding residential communities and the proposed residential and commercial components. Several accessways to the beach area south of the project site are also proposed. The proposed project has been designed to conform to,the existing land use and zoning designations in the City of Huntington Beach General Plan and Downtown Specific Plan. For a detailed description of the - proposed project,refer to Chapter 2 (Project Description) of this document. 1.2 RELATIONSHIP OF PROPOSED PROJECT TO PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION This EIR serves as a project EIR, since it analyzes impacts of a specific development project. This EIR also serves as a Subsequent EIR, since development on the project site has been addressed on a programmatic level as part of the analysis included in several Program EIRs prepared by the City of Huntington Beach. 1 These documents include (1) The Huntington Beach Downtown Specific Plan EIR 82-2 and Addendum to SEIR 82-2; (2) The Huntington Beach General Plan Update EIR 94-1; and (3) The Huntington Beach 4 Redevelopment Project EIR 96-2. Each of these documents includes analysis that accounts for development 1 at the project site. The General Plan Update EIR analyzes the theoretical buildout of the entire City, while Pacific City EIR _ 14 Chapter 1 Introduction u � the Redevelopment Project EIR analyzes buildout of the Redevelopment Project Area, which includes 619 acres over five redevelopment sub-areas within the City. The Downtown Specific Plan EIR analyzes 111 buildout of the City's Downtown area, representing the most localized analysis of the area. However, impacts particular to the project site require analysis that was not provided in previous documentation. Therefore, this EIR is considered a Subsequent EIR to the Downtown Specific Plan EIR 82-2. Section 21166 of the CEQA Guidelines requires preparation of a subsequent EIR due to changes in the existing conditions discussed in the Downtown Specific Plan Area and the proposed project description. Implementation of the proposed project is consistent with the zoning and general plan land use designations ,- for the project site. However, changes with respect to the circumstances under which the project is being undertaken (i.e., changes to existing conditions) and new information, in the form of:project details, has r become available since the completion of Downtown Specific Plan EIR 82-2. Therefore, impacts particular to the project site require analysis that was not provided in previous documentation. A subsequent EIR is ti required pursuant to Section 15183(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines, which states: i CEQA mandates that projects which are consistent with the development density established in the existing zoning, community plan, or general plan policies for which an EIR was certified shall not require additional environmental review, except as might be necessary to examine whether there are project-specific significant effects which are peculiar to the project or its site. In addition to the programmatic environmental documents that consider the ultimate development of the site, a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was prepared to address short-term soil export activities from the project site in conjunction with hotel development located east of the site (31 Acre Site Soil Export, Environmental Assessment No. 99-1). Soil removal activities involved the export of approximately 226,000 cubic yards of soil from the project site. This activity occurred independently of the development currently proposed for the project site. Soil export was completed in 1999, and there are no remaining on-site activities associated with this work. 1.3 PURPOSE OF THE EIR This Environmental Impact Report (FIR) has been prepared to meet all of the substantive and procedural requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970 (California Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.), California CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14,Section 15000 et seq.), and the rules, regulations, and procedures for the implementation of CEQA as adopted by the City of Huntington Beach. Accordingly, the City of Huntington Beach has been identified as the Lead Agency for this project, taking primary responsibility for conducting the environmental review and approving or denying the project. 1-2 City of Huntington Beach Chapter 1 Introduction l . This EIR has been prepared to identify any potentially significant environmental impacts associated with the planning, construction, or operation of the project, as well as appropriate and feasible mitigation measures or project alternatives that would minimize or eliminate these impacts. This document is intended to serve as an informational document, as outlined in Section 15121(a) of the CEQA Guidelines: An EIR is an informational document which will inform public agency decision-makers and the public generally of the significant environmental effects of a project, identify possible ways to minimize the significant effects, C0 and describe reasonable alternatives to the project. The public agency shall consider the information in the EIR along with other information which may be presented to the agency. The EIR addresses impacts directly or indirectly associated with the proposed project. No other improvements are included in this analysis. Furthermore, this EIR will provide the primary source of environmental information for the lead, responsible, and trustee agencies to consider when exercising any permitting authority or approval power directly related to implementation of this project. 1.4 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS As a first step in complying with the procedural requirements of CEQA, the City prepared an Initial Study (IS) to determine whether any aspect of the project, either individually or cumulatively, may cause a 5_. significant effect on the environment and, if so, to narrow the focus (or scope) of the environmental analysis. For this project, the IS indicated that an EIR would be the appropriate type of environmental document to address potential environmental impacts resulting from project implementation. After completion of the IS, the City filed a Notice of Preparation (NOP) with the California Office of Planning and Research indicating that an EIR would be prepared. In turn, the IS/NOP was distributed to appropriate public agencies for a 30-day public review period, which began on January 10, 2003, and ended on February 10, 2003. Public agencies included affected State agencies and surrounding cities. In addition, the IS/NOP was sent to interested parties, property owners located within 1000 feet and occupants within 300 feet of the project site. A scoping meeting was held on January 27, 2003. The purpose of the scoping period, including the scoping meeting, was to solicit comments on the scope and content of the environmental analysis to be included in the EIR. During the scoping period, the City received 28 written comment letters and 9 oral comments on the IS/NOP. The IS/NOP, as well as the scoping comment letters, are included in Appendix A of this EIR. During the preparation of this Draft EIR(DEIR), agencies, organizations, and persons who the City believed may have an interest in this project were specifically contacted. Information, data, and observations from these contacts are included in the DEIR. Agencies or interested persons who did not respond during the Pacific City EIR • 1-3 Chapter 1 Introduction public review period of the IS/NOP will have an opportunity to comment during the 45-day public review period of the DEIR, as well as at subsequent hearings on the project. S, o This DEIR has been distributed to affected agencies, surrounding cities, and interested parties for a 45-day review period in accordance with Section 15087 of the State CEQA Guidelines. The DEIR is available for review at the following locations: City of Huntington Beach Department of Planning 2000 Main Street - Huntington Beach, CA 92648 City of Huntington Beach Central Library 7111 Talbert Avenue Huntington Beach, CA 92648 City of Huntington Beach Main Street Library 525 Main Street -� Huntington Beach, CA 92648 City of Huntington Beach City Clerk 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 www.ci.huntington-beach.ca,us/CityDepartments/Planning All documents incorporated by reference in this EIR are available for review at the City. • Written comments on the DEIR should be addressed to Mary Beth Broeren, Principal Planner City of Huntington Beach Department of Planning 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Upon completion of the 45-day public review period, written responses to all environmental comments received by public agencies and the public during the review period will be completed. These comments, and their responses, will be included in the Final EIR (FEIR) for consideration by the City of Huntington Beach Planning Commission, as well as any other public decision-makers. Furthermore, written responses 1-4 City of Huntington Beach _.r1 Chapter 1 Introduction to comments received from public agencies will be made available to those agencies at least 10 days prior to the public hearing at which certification of the FEIR would be considered. It should be noted that environmental impacts may not always be mitigated to a less-than-significant level. When this occurs, they are considered significant and unavoidable impacts. If a public agency approves a project that has significant and unavoidable impacts, the agency shall state in writing the specific reasons for approving the project, based on the FEIR and any other information in the public record for the project. This is termed a"statement of overriding considerations" and is used to explain the specific reasons why the benefits of a proposed project make its unavoidable environmental effects acceptable. The statement is prepared, if required, based upon substantial evidence in the record and in conjunction with the action to approve the project, in accordance with Section 15093 of the .CEQA Guidelines. Following project approval, a Notice of Determination is filed with the State Clearinghouse. 1.5 INTENDED USE OF THE EIR. As previously mentioned, this EIR is intended to provide decision-makers and the public with information that enables them to consider the environmental consequences of the proposed project. EIRs not only identify significant or potentially significant environmental effects, but also identify ways in which,those impacts can be reduced to less-than-significant levels, whether through the imposition of mitigation measures or through the implementation of specific alternatives to the project. In a practical sense,. EIRs function as a technique for fact-finding, allowing an applicant, concerned citizens, and agency staff an opportunity to collectively review and evaluate baseline conditions and project impacts through a process of full disclosure. To gain the most value from this report, certain key points should be kept in mind: • This report should be used as a tool to give the reader an overview of the possible ramifications of the proposed project. • A specific environmental impact is not necessarily irreversible or permanent. Most impacts, particularly in urban, more developed areas, can be wholly or partially mitigated by incorporating conditions of approval and/or changes recommended in this report during the design and construction phases of project development. • This report,'while a summary of facts, reflects the professional judgment of the authors. The EIR was - prepared by consultants retained by'the City and by City staff, and was subject to the independent review and judgment of the City. The City independently reviewed and analyzed the EIR for the proposed project, and the EIR reflects the independent judgment of the City. Pacific City EIR 1-5 it Chapter 1 Introduction , 1.6 SCOPE OF THE EIR This EIR provides a project-specific analysis of the potential environmental effects of the proposed project. The scope of the EIR includes issues identified by the City of Huntington Beach during the preparation of the IS/NOP, comment letters received during the NOP review period, and comments received at the scoping meeting. The environmental issues that are determined to result in potentially significant impacts and, therefore, are addressed in detail in this EIR include the following: • Aesthetics • Air Quality • Biological Resources • Cultural Resources • Energy and Mineral Resources • Geology and Soils • Hazards and Hazardous Materials • Hydrology and Water Quality • Land Use and Planning • Noise • • Population and Housing • Public Services • Recreation • Transportation and Traffic • Utilities and Service Systems Impacts to Agricultural Resources were not identified as significant in the IS (Appendix A). The project site is currently undeveloped, and no environmental changes associated with the proposed project would result in the conversion of farmland to nonagricultural uses. Therefore, in accordance with Section 15128 of the State CEQA Guidelines, this resource is not addressed in this EIR. 1-6 City of Huntington Beach 1 Chapter 1 Introduction 111 1.7 PROJECT SPONSORS_AND CONTACT PERSONS The City of Huntington Beach is the lead agency for the preparation of this EIR. EIP Associates is the environmental consultant to the City and the principal preparer of this EIR. The Applicant for the proposed project is Makallon Atlanta Huntington Beach, LLC. Key contact persons are as follows: Lead Agency City of Huntington Beach Department of Planning 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 (714) 536-5271 Attn: Mary Beth Broeren Project Applicant Makallon Atlanta.Huntington Beach, LLC 4100 MacArthur Boulevard, Suite 150 Newport Beach, CA 92660 (949)255-1100 Attn: Ethen Thacher EIR Consultant EIP Associates 12301 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 430 Los Angeles, CA 90025 (310) 268-8132 Attn: Terri Vitar, Regional Vice President Marianne Tanzer, Project Manager 1.8 DOCUMENT ORGANIZATION This EIR has been designed for easy use and reference. To help the reader locate information of particular interest, a brief summary of the contents of each section of the EIR is provided. The following chapters are contained within the EIR: • Chapter.1 Introduction—This section provides an overview of the proposed project, the environmental process, and document organization. Chapter 2 Project Description—This section includes the location and boundaries of the proposed project; project objectives; a general description of technical, economic, and environmental characteristics; and intended uses of the EIR. Chapter 3 Environmental Impact Analysis—This section describes and, evaluates the environmental issue areas, including the existing environmental setting, applicable environmental thresholds, environmental impacts (short term, long term, direct, and j t Pacific City EIR 17 Chapter 1 Introduction indirect), policyconsiderations related to the particular environmental issue area under l ; analysis, and feasible mitigation measures capable of minimizing environmental harm. Chapter 4 Alternatives to the,Proposed Project—This section analyzes feasible alternatives to the proposed project, which include the no project alternative and a reduction in project scale. Chapter 5 Long-Term Implications—This section provides a summary of the proposed project's potential to lead to population growth and the indirect implications of that growth on the city; summarizes the discussion of cumulative impacts, provides a list of proposed project impacts that are significant and unavoidable by issue area; and identifies the irreversible changes to the natural environment resulting from the proposed project. Chapter 6 List of EIR Preparers—This section identifies all individuals responsible for the preparation of this report. Chapter 7 References—This section identifies all references used and cited in the preparation of this , report and the public and private agencies and individuals contacted during the preparation of this report. 1.9 AREAS OF CONTROVERSY AND ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED The listing of environmental effects, mitigation measures, and alternatives presented in the Executive Summary constitutes the required identification of issues to be resolved and areas of controversy. Areas of controversy and issues to be resolved were raised by agencies or interested parties during the scoping process. The primary issues identified during the scoping process related to the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project on the proposed project site and surrounding area, including changes to existing private views on and through the site from surrounding areas, water quality effects associated with project development, status of oil remediation and cleanup due to previous uses of the site, intersection and roadway impacts due to increased vehicular traffic, potential secondary effects from roadway improvements, changes in land use character from increased development intensity of the area, and short- term construction effects. Appendix A includes all scoping comments received and provides additional information on areas of concern or controversy. f 1-8 City of Huntington Beach , , , f.I ;t . Chapter 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION h I 2.1 PROJECT LOCATION The proposed project is a 31.5 gross-acre parcel of land located north of the Pacific Ocean within the City of Huntington Beach in western Orange County, California. Figure 2-1 illustrates the regional location of the City of Huntington Beach and the location of the proposed project. The site is located immediately inland and north of State Route 1 (also referred to as Pacific Coast Highway [PCH]) and includes approximately 0.25 mile of frontage along this roadway. The site is bounded by PCH on the south, First Street on the west, Huntington Street on the east, and Atlanta Avenue on the north, as ' shown in Figure 2-2. Regional access to the City and the project site is provided by Interstate 405 (the San Diego Freeway), Beach Boulevard, and PCH (State Route 1). ` • 2.2 EXISTING SITE CHARACTERISTICS • Existing characteristics of the project site are summarized in Table 2-1. Table 2-1 Summary of Existing Site Characteristics Component Relevant Information Address 21002 Pacific Coast Highway Applicant/Property Owner Makallon Atlanta Huntington Beach,LLC 4100 MacArthur Boulevard,Suite 150 Newport Beach,CA 92660 (949)255-1100 • Assessor's Parcel Number(APN) 024-271-05 Site Area 31.5 gross acres Existing Land Use Vacant Zoning Designation Downtown Specific Plan Districts 7 and 8A. General Plan Designations CV-F7-sp(Commercial Visitor—maximum floor area ratio of 3.0—Specific Plan)and RH-30-sp (Residential High Density—maximum 30 units/net acre—Specific Plan).The project site is also designated __ as General Plan Subareas 4C and 41. { 1 1 Pacific City EIR 2-1 1 /7 T ' I I 1 REGIONAL LOCATION j I.' YORKTOWN AV '_f LOS ANGELES COUNTY .-� SAN BERNARDINO - . COUNTY s RrvemitleF � • `RIVERSIDE COUNTY 1 / Anaheim . CO Orange I L GeNen 6,ow Fxy _y �,` Tustin •��� ` ORANGE �o , iiik COUNTY O� Site • . �„�_ ` C9 • I �, Huntington Ae " ' Beach n / Plk N. • 0. JO Beach L CO r I �n�O �" �� PAC' - ' Laguna ` VV ♦• C Beach °Me.a .. P. 9,` San Juan caPe.ane •,J ti ♦ SAN DIEGO.COUNTY ♦ � - MO - . .' ,' .-., O ♦ ®. a Count 1 Orange Y , 1,0 A♦ \--"- INDIANAPOLIS AV 414\ 1;• ♦41 L, a ` ® 04 L� FRANKFORT AVE-/ Ico > 734Velitt i O 0 /C 0 U HUNTINGTON /Q Z L t] CITY ° Q Z d'T ♦ QO x BEACH 'yGyr . "� O ATLANTA AV tol Ilp 5 ■ HUNTINGTON4 �� --, BEACH ■ 1'4 c.,,� PIER Project C' , ■ Site 9� a HUNTINGTON CITY BEACH • FIGURE 2-1 Not to Scale . Project Vicinity& Regional Location Map .. ..w......w..:.r..::..:::. ,,.�_ ••IP_._.,... ....:::::::.._....-- .... SOURCE:EIP Associates 2003 $° ,i A x �ozst-oo City of Huntington Beach•Pacific City EIR - i :I ` i IT1H IIIIII : _ i ;_ : _ . .• ■ .� mm Residential I • Medium to It r...P..1...;4..4: :i...e f -...�q...'...i_.• • ....� A- •s4:,_.1.,,,-._"-iI,:,.,.,:,..-..,i.:.1;'li;.::.-l..i/I.:.-.1.t:.::"..-f.::,:::,-„.•-71:,---.:."s7z'f:-1t„:f-1-.it':: .mow .:_:__.. __...._.., _ _ .......... ...,..._ CT : :: `1 ....;....• + 1 • ..,-:. .- M : P: is . tip tom._,_... ', :! t :: t ;..s.... • ;..:_:R _..a.. eside nti ` $ Mixed aE sm hhm,e nsegr,er :..:..: : _may; i —{_.. �jj is 1 i: t i k r r _;__ i �_ i O o 8 O E-: ,Qy si ■ .r , ' , ""'" is - f0. ai r ra s n a 2 s F z %'1 `- sa .� ,Mobile 3 \ ' t i C ba a$ s;g a ., i i t , :Il ' E� se 6::”It 9a,Home Park t,zis 2a swan / , , ,'� / la �j, s�Ot_ r ° ' c °e -� ij d 9i, f , tt '"\ 1 , ', / / tt ` 1 , +s /1 / tt t^ AS�� $ k x xm / / :/, SC° >. z .ra $ max Fg :k* s LEGEND \ , , r ,- t - `s+� - PROJECT BOUNDARY i �- RESIDENTIAL \ i t t _ \ '\ $° , �pet $) e< r �, iiiii MIXED USE , t r ;1 4/ r . 1 .,a sa°> ;9e - :Pie MOBILE HOME PARK -+- ' j - ���� HOTEL ` ', '- . gb ` ") t - . P • \ , -+`S.. 'fey ;' ',`„ r �..y � ..T �♦ BEACH AREA / / • t ` / 0, "•1 RH RESIDENTIAL HIGH DENSITY ', •-, _ • e ' • " - `-, - :f \ i r ... ` t ,\ t t \ • ...•. , t t \ . �� CV COMMERCIAL VISITOR . ' ,I f ,` 1 / .+1 t% / �'l i ,\ P` / `� � �` 1! ■■A A REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT _. - --_/ ' N / • i - •` S '• / i - - ' , ` i AREA 1111111 - t \ \/\ ', t \ ' \/\ ,i t \ ' \/\ ',Q PACIFIC OCEAN `,'y` /"/ • ,'t` /` / ,�t` /` / ,��♦ � 4 '. — '�i / 2. iiii, 11 Note:The entire project site is located within the Coastal Zone boundary.„, - , .- - . - , ;- _- • - •-/ _' • FIGURE 2-2 i' - Existing Site Overlays and Surrounding Uses Not to Scale .I..". .. .. .. _ A&SO CIA:'l3S ` SOURCE:EIP Associates 2003 10261.00 City of Huntington Beach•Pacific City EIR 1 Chapter 2 Project Description -. 2.2.1 Existing On-Site Land Use The project site is vacant, although the southwest corner of the site was recently used as a temporary staging/storage facility for beach cleaning equipment and employee vehicles for the City of Huntington Beach. Oily soil remediation is currently underway pursuant to Conditional Use Permit 00-36/Coastal Development Permit 00-09, and completion of the current effort is anticipated in early 2004. This remediation is occurring as an action independent of the proposed project. Some remediation would occur during project construction as detailed in the remediation plan for the site (Harding ESE 2002b). This is discussed in Section 3.7 (Hazardous Materials). The site has been disced regularly to maintain the site and prevent the growth of unwanted vegetation. The site was most recentlydisced inJuly2003, with additional vegetation removal occurringin September g P 2003. Southern California Edison currently maintains aerial transmission lines along the First Street property boundary and regional 66kV transmission facilities along the Atlanta Avenue site boundary. A variety of former uses have occurred on the site, as described in Section 2.2.4. . 2.2.2 Surrounding Land Uses The project site is located in an area generally described as the City's Downtown. Surrounding land uses and zoning are as follows: • East (across Huntington Street)—Pacific Mobile Home Park, zoned as Manufactured Home Park, and Hilton Waterfront Beach Resort, zoned as Downtown Specific Plan District No.9 • North (across Atlanta Avenue)—Residential uses, zoned as Medium High Density Residential—Small Lot Sub District • West (across First Street)—Various uses: a restaurant, vacant lots, oil production and storage facilities, small apartment units and single-family homes, zoned as Downtown Specific Plan Districts No.3 and No.5 • South (across PCH)—Huntington City Beach, zoned as Downtown Specific Plan District No.11 For additional detail on surrounding land use and zoning designations, refer to Figures 3.9-1 (General Plan Land Use Map) and 3.9-2 (Downtown Specific Plan Districts) in Section 3.9, Land Use, of this EIR. The Pacific Mobile Home Park, across Huntington Street to the northeast of the project site, includes approximately 235 mobile homes and a community center. The Hilton Waterfront Beach Resort, located at 2-4 City of Huntington Beach Chapter 2 Project Description 21100 PCH, immediately east of the project site, is a 12-story facility that includes 290 guest rooms, 24 suites, banquet and meeting rooms, a pool, tennis courts, and two restaurants. The Hyatt Regency Resort opened in January 2003. immediately to the east of the Hilton Waterfront Beach Resort. This resort includes two restaurants, a guest pool and outdoor gathering areas, a retail shopping plaza, 517 guest rooms, and a 52,000-square-foot conference center. A number of residential uses, including a large, three-story residential complex; one-, two- and three-story, single-family residential units; duplexes; and small apartment complexes are located north of the site. To the west, a fast-food restaurant occupies the corner of PCH and First Street. New, for-sale residential units 1-- are under construction east of the project site and immediately north of the Hyatt Regency Resort. Small apartment buildings and vacant lots (some used to store oil production equipment or tanks) occupy the remaining properties along First Street. To the southwest, across PCH, a wide beach with adjacent parking, visitor facilities and a variety of recreational amenities, extends 8.5 miles from the Santa Ana River jetty I through Huntington Beach to Sunset Beach/Surfside. Approximately 0.25 mile north of the project site lays the core of the City's Downtown area. This area ' consists of small lots and short blocks that have been developed in a consistent grid pattern and include bricked, pedestrian-friendly crosswalks on Main Street in the Huntington Beach Pier area. Development is generally one to four stories in height on relatively small parcels, although recent development has consolidated sites ranging from half a block to a full block in size. Development is focused on visitor-serving uses, such as beachwear,restaurants, entertainment(movie theater), and other retail uses. 2.2.3 Existing General Plan/Zoning Designations A number of General Plan and zoning designations are applicable to and/or overlay the project site, as shown in Figure 2-2. In addition to the General Plan designations, the project site is within the Downtown Specific Plan area, the Main-Pier Redevelopment Project Subarea, and the California Coastal Zone. General Plan There are two General Plan land use designations that apply to the site (Figure 2-2): (1) CV-F7-sp floor area ratio of 3.0—Specific Plan) and (2) RH-30-sp (Residential High (Commercial Visitor—maximump g Density—maximum 30 units/net acre—Specific Plan). The project site is also designated as General Plan Subareas 4C and 4I. The General Plan identifies Community Districts and Subareas in the City and provides the intended functional roles of these Subareas, in addition to specific design and development standards that supplement the policies provided for each land use category. Table 2-2 summarizes design and development provisions applicable to the proposed project's Subareas. Pacific City EIR 2-5 Chapter 2 Project Description Table 2-2 Summary of Applicable Design and Development Provisions Subarea Characteristic Standards and Principals 4C Permitted Uses Category:Commercial Visitor("CV") PCH/First Visitor-serving and community:"serving commercial uses,restaurants,entertainment,and other (Lake) uses(as permitted by the"CV"and"CG"land use categories) Street Density/Intensity Category:"-F7" • Height:eight(8)stories Design and Development Category:Specific Plan("-sp") • Establish a unified "village" character, using consistent architecture and highly articulated facades and building masses. ■ Require vertical setbacks of structures above the second floor. • Incorporate,pedestrian walkways,plazas,and other common open spaces for public activity. • Provide pedestrian linkages with surrounding residential and commercial areas. • Establish a well-defined entry from PCH. • Maintain views of the shoreline and ocean. 41 Permitted Uses Category:Residential High("RH") Atlanta First Multifamily residential,parks and other recreational amenities,schools,and open spaces. (Lake) Street Density/Intensity Category:"-30" • Height:four(4)stories Design and Development 'Category:Specific Plan("-so") • Requires the preparation and conformance to a specific or master plan • Establish a cohesive,integrated residential development in accordance with the policies and principles stipulated for"New Residential Subdivisions"(Policies 9.3.1-9.3.4) • Allow for the clustering of mixed density residential units and integrated commercial sites • Require variation in building heights from two(2)to four(4)stories to promote visual interest and ensure compatibility with surrounding land uses. Downtown Specific Plan The City's Implementing Ordinances (Zoning Code and Specific Plans) are the primary implementing measure of the City's Coastal Element (i.e., Land Use Plan) for property located within the Coastal Zone. For the subject property, the Downtown Specific Plan sets forth regulations regarding land use, the development review process, and development standards. The'Downtown Specific Plan includes specific development regulations and zoning standards that are intended to supplement and/or supersede the Zoning Ordinance to promote the unique character of the particular subarea. The project site includes two zoning designations, Specific Plan District No. 7 and Specific Plan District No. 8A, which are separated by the planned extension of Pacific View Avenue through the site. The portion of the site that fronts PCH and extends northeast to'the proposed extension of Pacific View Avenue (Walnut Avenue) is within District No. 7,'"Visitor-Serving Commercial." The Downtown Specific Plan requires that District No. 7 is master planned primarily as a visitor-serving commercial project, which could be implemented over a number of phases. The principal purpose of this District is to provide 2-6 City of Huntington Beach f ; j d Chapter 2 Project Description • 1 commercial facilities to serve seasonal visitors to the beach, as well as to serve local residents on a year- - round basis. This District also'provides a continuous commercial link between the Downtown and the visitor-serving commercial/recreation District near Beach Boulevard. "Visitor-serving commercial uses must be a part of all development proposals in this District, with a minimum requirement that the entire street level be devoted to Visitor-Serving Commercial Uses" (Downtown Specific Plan, 2002). The balance of the site is the area inland of the future Pacific View Avenue extension and is designated as Downtown Specific Plan District No. 8A, "High Density Residential." The purpose of this District is to allow high density residential uses. New residential development would provide a population base to help support the commercial and office uses in the Downtown area. A portion of this district has a Resource r Production Overlay, which provides development standards in order to permit oil production activities on site, if proposed (Downtown Specific Plan, 2002). Other Planning Designations The project site is within the Coastal Zone and is situated within Zone 4 of the Coastal Element of the City of Huntington Beach General Plan. This portion of the Coastal Zone extends from Goldenwest Street south to Beach Boulevard, generally extending along Walnut Avenue to Sixth Street and Hartford and Indianapolis Avenues. The Zone 4 subarea is further defined by several significant mixed-use and commercial-retail projects, one of which is the project site. 7✓ The project site is also within the Main-Pier Redevelopment Subarea. The Main-Pier Redevelopment Subarea is the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency's largest subarea. It includes 336 acres located along the City's beach area and encompasses the Downtown. The Subarea is characterized by a mix of new retail and office development and the preservation and enhancement of older buildings. Precise Plan of Street Alignment (PPSA No. 88-1) and Ordinance 2961 establish the alignment for the extension of Pacific View Avenue through the site. The PPSA provides for a 90-foot right-of-way (ROW) between Huntington and First Streets. 2.2.4 Former Uses of the Site Construction activities on the project site have been documented since the late 1800s. A variety of former uses have occurred on the site, including the following: Southern Pacific Railroad tracks; various branches of the Los Angeles Interurban (Pacific Electric) Railroad; San Pedro Lumber Company Lumberyard and Planning Mill; Huntington Beach Light and Power Facility; Huntington Beach Icehouse; two Federal Supply Company warehouses for oil supplies; Municipal Auto Camp Ground for newly arrived families to Pacific City EIR 2-7 Chapter 2 Project Description Huntington Beach; beach bungalows; tent cabin campgrounds; single-family homes; agriculture; oil production facilities; trailer park; Huntington Shores Motel; and the Grinder Restaurant. Most recently, the Grinder Restaurant.and Huntington Shores Motel were located on the site. These uses were demolished in year 2000. Oil production facilities, which were owned and operated by Chevron Corporation, were also previously located on the site. The majority of these uses were initially abandoned in 1988, although one well was abandoned in 1976 and another in 1979. Oil well reabandonment was completed from 1997 through 1999. The site was also used for soil export to the Hyatt Regency Resort development site to the east at PCH and Beach Boulevard. Soil removal activities involved the export of approximately 226,000 cubic yards of soil from the project site. This activity occurred independent of the development currently proposed for the project site. Soil export was completed in 1999, and there are no remaining on-site activities associated with this work. 2.3 PROPOSED PROJECT DEVELOPMENT The Pacific City project proposes two uses: (1) a mixed-use visitor-serving commercial center; and (2) a residential village. The net acreage dedicated to each of the proposed uses is shown in Table 2-3. The proposed site plan is shown in Figures 2-3a through 2-3d. Other than the hotel towers, which would be eight stories in height, development would be up to four stories in height. Each of these first four floors of development is shown separately in the site plan figures. I Table 2-3 Proposed Project Uses Use Number of Acres Visitor-Serving Commercial.District 10.6 • Residential Village 17.2 ROW Improvements 3.7 Total 31.5 SOURCE: Makallon Atlanta Huntington Beach,LLC,July 7,2003b 2-8 City of Huntington Beach ..., ' , j',/vac`2\ \ ep ■ ■ ■ \ '('� M/ j + ��II At �q•v /' \; .c �' \ �!F � `--, G i� - iLi 15'-0' 28'-0' 15'-0 ` Q�` ,i ht/�\\) )11110 � •I i� �� a ,. 116 Iim++wNl 9w. `. a b. / �� I �,/ 4,v4., o ,/ 4 j'�:-.. '\\ 41' DETAIL-WEST GATE ICJ ®. �►`� .ty,, � �`°4* a0� \ -2 a! I I I \, -- "r‘ •-s(-4004V1111, IMO ., ,,,->..'4,.,.4,, ,, , Alta' ve.`0,: ,a)C/0,..,`t,, • , //01 .9.,, 0...4, k4\ ii, •,-..-iii,'__ 1.,...._,[7,--5.,-;4%-toc,AL), \ -411...--,0\*7 4.3, ,1j� V.,,,s,\x4i6,...,4",,./, „",N,..,41;r>",,A-11111111441/4,4• , ,*---400, 04rojv ..,\., is Imp p 0avj 1 1 ,,,„ =r ma r r r ��,.• . 30 \,.e `I �' � `�• 1. � i�� \a;i !'. ' '� I ill Fill!el A MmP-- / ,•.\ , r. �� ..1:v,e/ + ��� DETAIL-GATE HOUSE OtiYY AY2IS fiu 3, IP • 1 ; -0 II a4/,:r• °� /°'i'*r' may, ♦ \� - I I"i l AI r,:iii=i=1 C7r C.1`� 7 I zul r_ii, ,,_:,. _. .4r.'` _`��,•4 � 'vi.� vv\\, 0W-'L r-I_� 77-9= ❑' .. �;�I�'a 1 11 .1 j •Ec=1 F t ® I �. \� / / ik tp 0 _ _,,,„ •,-,--„A‘-t\ssro c, TAk.*______---- -' I I 71. 111110,111 "-'11-. A 1-, ;\ / t'‘' s lig \*' '01 "‘4116" i I-1 _i I digit QI. L IL' 1�' mill- itt�,� 74�r. S*" 4._ r* rip, =i r13 m1� b �� �fl ::��, ' :: 000 _xt\V_P ,-... ._)-_--,,,,,-:---_____.:,.... ..--- ,.... __,-,„:10•Iii 141$ 11,011 tall tic,- '\ ' il 1 llimmmimr-zrimlillouPP--. , ,_ ,,,,„.,,,o,.._ 1114,1ror_.... ‘ __-___ 0 , tr m.o._ �\ Q IRIIv 1 tar Fiig�i�F RI �F 1_ 1 I 1 _ -itroarsws7. wa.— ¢"m. - V TM N 'I! *�T. -L . ..I I 4 tl+$ 1... gill I • I 1.1 31I _ : .�a r).. i rt.— . • `I.. I J�'j( ifls _ � O iv 1— 0 I . � � • " ��o 1r- as A Ill r •• \' � � ' "3'� � p e � _ - m� 1_ Ii I - gJ: . �T■ r w a c = _ �-Z'- _ _ N _ -_- , fT1J�}}71�tTT � IIIII II � _,a-� 1 I I I I I I I I I:Una- II ._ T FIGURE 2-3a I NottoScale Et—P- Proposed Site Plan - Floor Plan Street/Podium Level tY 9 SOURCE:Makallon Atlanta Huntington Beach,LLC.2003a 10261-00 "'s "'"`'Y Ci of Huntin ton Beath•Pacific CityEIR jam_ 's\ jj,�; �M$\`�� A ;/74,yr #Aeop+, ,,,,,-",1 V \ s„,, -/ 'its"*...**1;./itrar_AIO. 40'''V (71--- \'S• VACIVA010,1 ilium • ):A./. ' 7\ r /iokV\7,.A.-4) ,e, '4 • .. ....• ...4,8.,.. 1 I II <%Nr4•%c*/ 7 /*‘,7 Allii-Priii Vb.' V N% \ i i.,!=i ilk,. _ , ,,,,,,,o - - .is. 0„,. 4.4& A‘, 'o-45 n 11I I\ d.l.../1 ,"• if / , ✓ J� gat Avesnug . - -7--""--I1 , � i 1 V 1*1 k Y44' 4V4 \ li I i.. ��; _ �. ;a' L 1. - °1..� ` � %).\� :▪ i 1 W = "; = 111 \ / ' ,Alk ici , r ..,r----;'"'" A, , ;1 i: ii4i:t.7:11: r „i rug , ., ,inip:II. f.‘i it:tl . iiill 1141111111 _,...------\\ ,----. 7-1- ' 1, ,-.11,I.@ L=1 c=i j 2.1,ti I. lag 41,11•Zio iST_____ _______.--,4A,1 c I .,r_s, ri-i- ,- ,1._.ing-i,.;:iiEriv6,_(____ \_2 ----1..- - `4.---ir: „4,tikv.tioret %oil '1 4. =.•_," "—W‘‘...\: — ..‘ -\11 ,411‘, -. ' - - 3F-111 11111 MAIM `, tit' ,'llIllMF r-irk il 1 _ I iiii im-,--,,,i! ,i'el: , 1.- 61,10 V k °)' 11 ,I- 4' - 1 • ,,,'N., I I, li •117.• •,.. 4 4 '14 la ./CP Alki000,_ litiirk li ® 9 iiIiiiI! ��r e' G a3®• ..,i _----C 1^.v a*". �i' / �� _AIR - _ - - - _ / Arm - --- - y _ - - - �2r — - - - - -®2 4.*- -- c eb.A�Y ._._N� IfiF FIGURE 2-3b Not to Scale E I P'_......... Proposed Site Plan - Floor Plan.Level Two SOURCE:Makallon Atlanta Huntington Beach,LLC.2003a 10261-00 4`'0",A,t., City of Huntington Beach•Pacific City EIR I'-` r----- r-- I r • • i/4., ;;;Titk , 41\ ZA.1.10 e4V‘'4 \ .• , / .c.,441*/#0' ' \ .... i Z.,fle*--,10,4•\v., 444 v,,,, , - ----..._. _--- / ,,,- v. .--. #41P/11%LNki!**' V:•;,\ , , _'.. .\4013c.P4.4k 004 1 011 la lig ..-10, ‘' \ II'Ir^T��� y i:> �. ig* ‘ 6_'''.. -A°4' )111.0.°. ."k • itr' Ai° ''s\ . . b.,. `I • �✓tt � .AArtlP RGUF I �• , I •4 � ( ��0 '04\ _ & III `MI~ ('iL�M ' •` • jf '1\ \1114. 1% � � \ \ _ - iir \-1-_,---- \\\' li: . II:*ram". earn ��� � ,*,�'�0 \ 1 ��I: �u�r ■r�'__ �- ..-^���� �� ���of 1--1 y, !ji�l� �9 Eli emitrI,I ``� �1,11,r•�� ,ols1si 111 ! • 1 1 07%%fir %1 'j"°i�,%': //%`'/ •' ,��I�'I ��I�\ 1I 1 - ///.:-� . / , /,ice' �i 'I'IIIIIIIIIIlO ` l a �i�� / t,[,I'a_• 11 •'Ti is �\ 11 r% /poi - •�•iiiii`ui®uGiGiiiiiiiG 0 t ,I�•..� u ;%�;. -,,--.,,,); \ , Z 0 [��� MR.. � 11 J „--=-__-_ :: . III �� ' 4II:*_� �� ® iRti= !� - _ _ _ - - - �CIIIC--Cb ANY ._--.—___..._.-...._..--..._.. 'FIGURE 2-3c Not to Scale -_ I . ._ .... Proposed Site Plan - Floor Plan Level Three EIS' . "`.s `''"''s City of Huntington Beach•Pacific City BR Makallon Atlanta Huntington Beach,LLC.2003a 10261-00 • . /,'.;:::.41.1P.IN /4:;3.11# ,� jai o•. ,- � _----,, --___ > _ ___..--J,/,. lksp #4,, /A_A'rNi, / L'`,\ _ \ %Iff \ ..'' .0)..- ' ,_ - to :44$4,/:40111 Flo •••••:*3 . ‘ 1 (' ''.1\...\<41-4;+:ok.-:.‘1471%.14 N\7 011.11:Pitt/ .,*'' IA -A„ , : ,,f,t,„,,....,,v7,,,,,,.4..... ,,„,,... ...„.„,,.... _ ,o, .„. . 1 MI I 0�==it ..r��r� r'>• j• S��'o � , .\ \ -..__.„ l / v� •, ate ! � 0/",. 0FA&. [1 Wit- ' y�. ° `rji * ` ,. : , IF ' =I' '1=1Z1111 '1 / :A. -------- . ,„,.1.,446m41.3.....,...iii, , / imi \161. 44 #\104 \ • T T . "V ,/-.-,.. -)c(-..,--r-vii-) 1-st,a):--11/41tVilllY:\' ---- -.--.,_-_-_.-.2.1..-____. ," „ " . ..‘. .):rigigliii.„..... ........„...\ \-\-t , . . 1,,:seli=1. .r=i ma: a' Iftiler sa % \`er !F: ! I . , ` Y� '` r1!1 -- I , - t � 1, 1 im______, .. .§H... ,,,,,,, „it- 11, doo,,,g, .4, __, P-mi. - -kkm-akkkg:_. N- .%:,,00111 . ii11116:„ 4rho '$44-."."4„4.,,,,, ii ., 11 i . 4.N..... •• 4,11"4*W...............0 W .141V4:' ilk 411111% ' '1 it - 1 . des taw ran opt,stj_.__ - ..:_ ._ \ is1::.%, :I opp..piirsb. 0;47...w. tionlilki ° -I wila •..... ..•01"1-.7:'1 111-111.1 --"------- --":---:17:±1'. ; [ lk, 0..411 ,. /11P may_._._.. - - - - - - - lAC1l1C CbA•it FIGURE 2-3d rtoctoScale E - -._....,-. Proposed Site Plan - Floor Plan Level Four SOURCE:Makallon Atlanta Huntington Beath,LLC.2003a 10261-00 ^"Q""r'g City of Huntington Beach•Pacific City EIR y r. ,c Chapter 2 Project Description 2.3.1 Visitor-Serving Commercial Center The visitor-serving commercial component of the project site would be located in District No. 7 as designated in the Downtown Specific Plan, on approximately 10.6 net acres of the site adjacent to PCH. Proposed uses would be consistent with those permitted in this District and include hospitality (i.e., hotel) and commercial facilities. Table 2-4 summarizes the major project features of the visitor—serving commercial component, and Table 2-5 lists the types of uses proposed and the allotted space for each use. Table 2-4 Summary of Project and Site Characteristics: Visitor-Serving Commercial Center Component Site Characteristics Proposed Land Use Hotel uses,retail,restaurant,cultural,entertainment,office(i.e.,visitor-serving commercial uses) Proposed Square Footage Hotel:up to 370,000 square feet,including 400 rooms Commercial:up to 240,000 square feet Total of up to 610,000 square feet Building Height Up to eight stories above grade,with an additional 14 feet for mechanical and elevator height allowances Two levels below grade(subterranean garage) Proposed Parking Spaces Subterranean:1,543 Pacific View Avenue:55 Project Access Vehicular:First Street(service only),Huntington Street(service only),and Pacific View Avenue(service and public) Pedestrian:Pacific Coast Highway and Pacific View Avenue i._ SOURCE: Makallon Atlanta Huntington Beach,LLC,July 3,2003a Table 2-5 Proposed Commercial Uses Component Square Footage Visitor-Serving Commercial Uses(6.4 net acres) Retail 141,100 sf Restaurants/Clubs 38,900 sf Office 60,000 sf !_✓" Total 240,000 sf Hotel Uses(4.2 net acres) 400 Guest Rooms 334,000 sf Ballroom 16,000 sf Spa(30 treatment rooms) 15,000 sf Restaurant 5,000 sf Total 370,000 sf SOURCE: Makallon Atlanta Huntington Beach,LLC,July 3,2003a q-: Pacific City EIR 2-13 Chapter 2 Project Description The hotel uses within this portion of the site will include hospitality-related facilities, with up to 400 guest • rooms; a pool, spa, fitness and yoga center; a restaurant, lounge, and bar; a pool area grille; resort retail shops; and meeting/banquet and conference facilities. The development of District No. 7 is proposed to f include a maximum of 240,000 square feet of retail, restaurant, entertainment, office, and cultural facilities (i.e., visitor-serving commercial uses), with lot coverage of 50 percent. The International Surfing Museum, currently located at 411 Olive Avenue, could be relocated to the site as a component of the cultural amenity. The proposed hotel facility would be located at the easterly end of the visitor-serving commercial area, at the intersection of Huntington Street and PCH. Hotel facilities and amenities would include entertainment lounge and/or lobby lounge, function facilities, food and beverage services, and ocean view plaza with swimming pool and spa. Structures would range in height from two to eight stories, as shown on Figure 2-4. Eight-story development would be associated with the hotel uses, while visitor-serving commercial and office structures would be one to three stories in height. Open space in this portion of the project site would include areas around the buildings, as well as large open space promenades fronting the hotel and visitor-serving commercial uses. Development would be structured around plazas and courtyards that would be connected by pedestrian pathways. Refer to Section 2.3.3, below, for a complete discussion of pedestrian access and circulation. Commercial architecture would comply with the City's Urban Design Guidelines, while the landscape concept for the commercial component would also be consistent with the Downtown Specific Plan and City Urban Design Guidelines, with emphasis on California and Mediterranean plants and materials. Numerous varieties of palms and other large tree species would be planted in addition to groundcover, vines, and shrubs including Aloe, Lavender, and Passion Flower. Entry areas would include street trees and ornamental landscaping, architectural monumentation, and enhanced paving. A sign program, which would meet the objectives of the Downtown Specific Plan and Design Guidelines, would be planned and implemented at a later date through adoption of a Pacific City Sign Program, which would be subject to review and approval by the City Design Review Board. 2-14 City of Huntington Beach LEGEND . -4,-9"Q'.v.,...,..:, .,r----u •p:.,,,Je' 4,',V:,7 )1, N, il r 7',i' 1,•:,: '-:;..,.,,i1 :i ;'"we---,\:!v f'. A,,:i': ;,›J',„•:'' ,'',>.,,-.V>A.,: ,.." ...0 ,,,i -',,,\. „m---4••••N --,' 4i',.{.2, N ::, ; / c:,.;\f ;,,, :)PMZ,.., \..<;'. . •.,,.'\\,").V'' ././.,?..7 4'‘4.-.4.\-1-'\:',.....i''',',,,, `",.:x•t r\'',Nt9 ••:. c-,.Y..44 ';'4",,,41 = 60'HEIGHT LIMITD ""+":'.>::''' 1(N,, ..."-.' ::=,' IkeN,,'' <--\'' • ',..".'-, .',/e =,)-'1'''.11 OK: '',:.'"---,1.'" ,--A--;,{-r-\;::,,,,-, t 0:,..r .;• ;.,.* ,-, ,, --- ,,,,, ,,, (4-STORY UNLESS INDICATED OTHERMSE) '\1,6>',. ::-... , '.' /\,''.....)' ..), .,..;,,e, .?.,('',<,\ V.;',),,,,.:\ 4.L.- ..-.'.,,,.A 11-. ...jr,..:,,,.:',' I t„,..'"x' „r^k.V . ...„,.„.47 „,..0.1,, ,/..,,e,,, t.;‹,./.:( , <i> 5.:, ,,:,.\:<\,/./...,,X ...?".". ..,,.:-,?\\,-V--- *:: :,,.. C.v.,,,-- .., ii?,Nif /....,,,,,,, , ,,,, - •,.......,,,, / r 1 STEPPED BUILDING MASS TO /,/...).., If/.4„.../.41‘...,,d,ts.it.,1,... J./\'.:•./ / -;,„, ‘;,,,-,,,,, ,..,,Ae ,,,t,:,&, K 1‘i.i-1, .',.'„:„.\4-,,,ipiit ,./;'''11" .••••:,,,,,:k \ ..-' 'A COMPLY VV/SLOPE SITE PER‘,.. ‘../1....';' ../..x.Az,..., -4....,,,,, ..,,,,,e--,:',,.,:,,,,.• 5()5' ) N.- „.i:,,,`,,,./ <z.s ,,,>,,,,,., \i•,.;\,,,,,, •,:\.;.)•;,.../ :;.,.//\-•'... - ".--, ,.', ks... ,,,\-_,...rA, .•71---lt,t,1‘,.0-4,k; r,t',::-,:,-. - -.'.." <4- ',: .,. ,..„..,3'.„,,..r,,., . >:.: ,,Af. ,,,,..;>;ELEVATION+/-20: ‘.. /, ...., ,.:., , ...,,-, , )--4,-,,,„_,i, „.,... ..„,„ ,:,,,,,,,,,..--,. - ', -..0 ., , ,,,>.%,..- ,, ,,.>\ \ , -Airr..k4h,...4.N.,,,.,,,= ....,07---(„4-, p:„7.,...,•'', .,.,...,31...,S7,,„5.)"., ..'.',..j,./.,.,2...), ,-...,:,.„i .,,, ,...,..,„ `?, \ ,/,.,, ' s, ',. ..„..;''),,,)' !, .,....,,.r)....;:, 'C't,. :4,Z.,..,,,,.• ,,,,,l 5'\\ V ij:,.... ',-;'4.,..k,,, = 36'HEIGHT LIMIT \,vi1K .../.., ,s ..\-,„\'.... .y,,,...- *1, -..*.r.,,..4-'',,.•,,,../ -,, i,Th•-i.W,,ptim-7-. . .L.:""'"•;,,.,„ -.1..k.-..N:('1),..-";.t.,,S *, ,, %,..,, j...<).....,,...::,. \\,,:,...., \\''14 //\ ' X1, • "C.., .--=.----... ....=...-.,' :,,,,;.,',V---1"''',,,,,t-11-11. .1 -,...'zfx-., .' ',./..-i' '\l ,' ".'<'' '.:2‘V -(: >;,,,""./P`\"‘// — "''''\NV....' '' '''''.'"'''';'':0' ..''' ,>,,>,,N• ''' i',K/" ' e •:!'••5'4 \'. ...: IM 2-STORY . v./,/,‘" '''''1‘1-1•:.' 18 4 //' //•-."',C\', 4---11r.-W2 ''.'N --1r\V4-1k..1.. .9,4 <11r'‘,::::''',.\\,.,...'s1.../1,.,115'0,, :.'4.- '4 ,Y,,,/. •.. "....../..x., 1\ •\'*, -,: ,.\„...: sfo••,/ =•••=.7.r." • 4,41,_ ,,,,v,„,4,..:„,,J,..:.„ ,..., . ...c.! ,,,,,,,,2 .,•.,,.. ,•• , ••• •-e.. ,„ ,„,,,,...•••,:„. ‘-,..•• ,,, ,, • ----,4:....'•'' -\ , <,,;i0,..,..f./.:>''';',1K,'--,•-• -./7e." •=-71=- 7.9. Nilliti, ..<4..„,•\,,ix:::::<-,.r.--iiii:.7 ... .,'''',-)•,,, ..:„...:F," .,'''' "-N. ',...^.0,;',,,A ,,,,,"',"`",,/ rolt.* 3-STORY 1",,--..;:z...., ..\ ..,/, , /... /1,1', s':.-\\•Acii"... -. ..aniimow . ' „111:1„...., 1...;,\N",,.t.:"i14.tn":`p:,...7r•-v.--., ,,,4',.5.:2;:::,y...:.:,' ,„,,,,';\,,,r 44.-,A ',..,,..-:<:„=1,/%1,,,,,, ''':',7 '''-:',5;,'',- W"..:,' "I'e> ',1;'-'' ' .:.kJ)•..--7 S'..i;,•,,,',". ,,,,i 't.---;,- ' '7134 %.*.'&N",-, --m--7K--/' -.<)---;,, --.k.> e -0'.:,\., l .„ , , ED 8-STORY - 1/,',1,„, ",,,, 04;4-,:-.,‘,.,--.1f-r•,,ts., _,,,.„,"'.. -....,,,,ar ...=.,r -...-= , ,-.1........„ .,„.,0, , ,. .cs "./4„., ,....„...:,..... ...„.,,,, ,„,, i,,.....(,. .., ,,,,,,,.. ,..,,,/0„...„, vi,2-----. ...:4 I,44t''''''''''- '''''!"..:;•=."-----,•""#' ,,,,,tie ! - ••• Irr ...,,,.. ..,,, ..,....„, ,0 k...,__ . , ,-/ --44_,....„._A.:-...,7.-:--/ -: - 4,,, 4.—P, ,. Nk" ., -•-••P‘,` -11:,,—:',.--.4.,' ',3-••••,„1 '11' ‘ °•""Th, 1;.T,--- • - ' ------• . € -" " -- ••• - Alik. DENOTES WHERE BUILDING ' i - -,....:•,.,•4 1 ,.„./ '''' -lit" '141*i• 1 '' ... '-.... - '. ' HEIGHT MEASUREMENT IS TAKEN '''' -1.;''''' ' • -71'-'14 ‘...5C.. ,,.", ,.,-./‘ ‘401 FROM IN REFERENCES TO ' -:11,1'1 '‘, / -•:.1--41. = _-.*.ff" '. - 1 I •.„ MAVAICir , ' N9 '',.<•., ' ' .,-N,'I, ,".•-;.:•• i ,-.,', ..., .:',"r*•,,,, : ce•-•?.. •.'" .0',.. ..,... ' .. -•'..-?<,`-' i-- '."-",-- ',• ;,..':',•,-rS'i- t '"1,,...7 ' -,;:' itc'..:,• BUILDING HEIGHT DEFINMONS 4.0.04 IN THE DOINNTOVVN, . ..-.....,.... ,\ '1 1.411' '`„,="n.-T• i,.. 1 ,,Aiii, , '7, 'Ite.„ '1, ,PP110.11", , ,• '111111 \l'. CI:%;:°..f,:1a.,„,‘.'2.•,.c7r-I,•'1.„.),:.2.''':•!•,,, WI/''.. -?;'• SPECIFIC PLAN : ;;Iiljt---,i3 L-1-1 „/.i 1 fAIIIP. • .7,.....i. .....„,., ,,,,,,„. ii e< •.f.,,,.„,.i.,„., -.,..., - .? = = . , - • -. - < . 'veil' ' \ ------',,( ' ' \'''' I - '''',''....11 '' '-'"-- -': ---/ . ` kc' '//z-." .> .,. i t ',... .. ,,,,,•--: ' , , N.I.; 'i,,,,,,W.. t..\\'' j.,&..,?-,,,--tr, :k,•-•r"‘‘. '-,,, •1 :.v,,,:::" :,- ,- '..- e'•-•,. .; ",“.•..;• -../ , ' 4 •=.,..\\,:,—...,r.- ',1.,.,(--;-<•-•-,,,,, ,P,,,,,.... ,, , ,,,,,,,,,, ,\,/,,,,,, -... , ,,,,,,. „, . , ;11 ,-, .„,. •,-,,,,, ..,- -,-, ,- -,...,',-"-•,, t:',':"14.-5:, -0,--4'2,,,,,,/-tr,' .1•:•„,,, 1, ,;,, ..;./ .< ,,,•;::., ille , . ;.-..,,Nf _j.j..,',/ N !.....w.. c•-•::.!\ C' '!,.k!::.1----,1 ‘IN!.• ..7 :""!\ >::' ', ,,,,,,•-!'!:::. N' ! ,-.....i ,•,,,,,, , i! .,‘ i0j ''''.:N,',c'•::-\I'Vst,•,4-''!-:?,\!",....c" r....> ,,,,, /,,,,'?,,,,... OLIVE AVENUE . f'"u.i •. • V • ,, ,,, ‘.. : eN '' 1-t 5 1 . ' ,, . 'lit, 7‘...s.' ...a........-„,:,'se......'0'.•;,'"'/.1':''''‘'‘:\/,.,.''''(:,:'\'''s:,,,...e:;;:',.••"'''' '('-,,r``) \/:::;,1.m...ii.r'.ft-",..:,,,,‘,11,,..., //''...c.,,, 1 0 f ... i......,...„..:2 k. . ,,,„,,,,i i:5. '' r.,--1 4-il • : - ii•: — !. 4111.,_P ... ,....,,,"'''''. ,'''' ''''' •,;,....,,,,,, ,, ,....-s."-frif,„*.0 5 1., -..,...--- ..... . . . - !....- - '. 6 - ' _,,..,<„ .- . .':::','"-S,7. 10.--3.'*".-''-r."''\*,v.. ----°*11‘..../ 1 4 1•'-,---.,;-4::::71; ." E.N.u.s' „;1,- ,••- "'„,:•• "‘..,o-,e,.s : , 7.f„ .,-„,,-----, \'':'<A•\,' i4',L---------- \Ai:V.,- 14 it r<.' ,*4‘f-. r2A-r---,--- - r -- , ... ,v.,., , 1..:„!..... . .-J -,- L......,,, 4. ; i ,- ' , . ELEVATION+/-10* .,,...m. .---, ELEVATION+/-33,'' ,11 . I n. ' ;Illeolleet4 :1 1?1V ,111 -"`' lf•,•:: 0 0,00,..X,1 1. t AIL .,:...' ;,t,1•••••4,,pe.ety.s...we.: ,A,`,.,',1 ii , i A** ..,,,,,.... ,...*LEVATION 4.1-30 1,46,-1..rteOillh 009,111-17.44110,tlett:Sgfe:: ..'s 1 .q. ', fa'::• 11 1 t. .. 1• 7-1. .t p A c 1 F19<-. _m tiegolvo.n...0..:::......... , :r—i -.s.i.,, .„.... F.5•1. 11, , 9.1ylgangtx,p.:,.._,ELEvirrioN+/-;:s.,‘.3o*`., --.,. .-.„,,> lea% ,,....,, .0::.: .74Dwiiff, ' •°41,....s.:::: 13/4 1. 1.i%1 .„ .H 1 I*N.-ici;,,1 ..''',., - , .0%-•••-orin4.4 - ppowil Q••••••••"440 :. ,.....if:ccii:, .0:4/ i Iggiti• /PA Id /A / ..., • • t, -11,.. .,&/:‘''-,.:7` :.1 : ildeadlibbbli 4.401•••• '044444000 C.:1,) i Iiitik: ''!' :$,Yikci: ii il 1,i._,-;:t ms.r., - .):. . ,. 4-7 1 1,,,,,,,L--...'(-::,,, ,-.4.„., • F--w. .='f-,..,-/‘-k,,.,' ' • : 1-0-0-0-0-.-0-0-4 r.peire• 1•••••••••••••• / !i-t..:•:::,. .`..*:;,-*:,. ,,-.1i ;... k L.,:.„,,,:: . ..,.„, ., ,...,,.. .:4„.,:..,_4.,,,,,,_ ___.,,,,, , I.44- -...,..„, \-:..-- - ' 'P11.••••••••••••41 •!t••••••• *•••••••••••••- 1411:°: • ;:kli:::!.:!!! 11 .il 1: ,!!,,,,,,,,, _...,..,,,,,.,--mr,1;•........--z,.,--•_-!::,--- ..,...,;s„.„..!•.:•• --„„,,,44..„,..- ! !!..,!•.::!.,. .,,. .. ....,,-.„,'1,,..t,,\''- ,•V:444444 i 00,,,,•-sk-- • i•-ii...•„•0,-". \, .-..0. ::::3N,:. .,i..' ---.....:-' -,---„....,,„ , .,.....-.... . ,— ":4,--. . 0000000er ...x ..1al-.e.:::,:! _......., ....,_, .. .. . .. ....... ..?... . .--- - - „ .. /It t---5-----;:„".-,,,;:.,-.--- -------7--•.---- *.t... . • • • • IVO, 1• li'00 N. ,,.;i', %e. „ ,,_ 1111. 407.:..]Of) ' •,-",:,,§i:4 i: . ,.d4.14•41f,Lif- . , H - : ., ‘,..... . .: •r..::::.3 . ...4.,.. i., ,r.• • • , .. . ------_.,--- • i ••••••• -- : . ' vat • . '.- . 1'1.: 400.- . „..1-.. , .. .----* ---- .— , ,: r 160400000 ,,,,,--w...-.A .... .. ,,,,'" " ,„, • q, L, iT j f, ' •-0,', t: >. ..... - - 7: '''rn--'''..-------I air— .. ,.. ..„... • ., . t,,,....._ . . , . .,........,,,...,.„,,,„„:„....,...___-- ,,,,---,,, ............_ SG .....,,,....„.„.„.„...........„...........- ."'''.7."Ow' 484 'EttA Kt......,:‘,,,,:•A.,0 . ‘• „3,,,,,:,.:g=Z 0,7,.' "-r HI'7'- „..',- -....".. ::::-,-........... ,....‘,. ..,.m.., ,r.,. ,.„,,,„,s..., ,., .•„.. _,,„.....,, _ „....-,..f.....,H.,..,2.'''„!...-...:..:....,..7.....c ' ..- t..2.,' ,2-... ....:::......„---*'„...77'4".„...,0,7.-.:P ACil,.......zr.F I C„,... ..:V.,..,.," --,1,GO t,..--17-------__-___,..„.„.,........-......jr„.,...- .i.,,,zei,..-rrtinin,, 1.1Thici. 0 i 0, .,..in v,\ \ ; ..,,,,,,,,,,m,,,,,,t . •-m77m ,,.....-• '' ... ,, 0Wk _ i I C) . .....__ FIGURE 2-4 Not F..I P- .- Proposed Building Heights ,., SOURCE:EIP Associates 2003 10261-00 C•f A r r.5 City of Huntington Beach•Pacific City EIR , . Chapter 2 Project Description 2.3.2 Residential Village The residential component of the project site would be located within District No. 8A (High Density Residential) of the Downtown Specific Plan. This project component would occupy the approximately 17.2-net acre northeastern portion of the project site. A total of approximately 516 condominiums would be developed at an average of 30 dwelling units per net acre, with 42 percent lot coverage. Development would include two- to four-story structures with a variety of architecture and dwelling unit types and sizes, clustered around recreational amenities to serve the project residents. Table 2-6 summarizes the site characteristics of the residential component, and Table 2-7 lists the types of residential units proposed. Table 2-6 Summaryof Project and Site Characteristics: Residential Village Component Site Characteristics — Proposed Land Use Condominium Residential Dwelling Units Proposed 516 Building Height Maximum four stories above grade(up to 50 feet) Two levels below grade(subterranean garage) Proposed Parking Spaces Subterranean:per code 1,341 ' Loop Road:approximately 19 -- Open Space Common:9.28 net acres Private:1.78 net acres Total:11.06 net acres Project Access Vehicular:Pacific View Avenue(two access points),-First Street and Huntington Street(two access points) Pedestrian:Pacific View Avenue,First Street,Huntington Street,Atlanta Avenue SOURCE: Makallon Atlanta Huntington Beach,LLC,July 7,2003b Table 2-7 Residential Units Unit Type Number of Units Avg.SF Total SF Req.Parking Type 1 1,2&3 BD/2&3 BA 199 999 198,880 395 Type 2 2&3 BD+Den/3 BA 125 2,019 252,320 351 Type 3 2 BD+Den/3 BA. 124 2,055 254,870 310 Type 4 2 BD+Den/3 BA 68 1,940 131,920 208 Total Residential All units 516 1,624 837,990 1,264 Common Area&Decks 251,397 Total Building Area 1,089,387 SOURCE: Makallon Atlanta Huntington Beach,LLC,July 3,2003a Common open space would include public access corridors and several common recreational areas. Public access corridors would extend from First Street, Atlanta Avenue, and Huntington Street, and connect with the loop road that extends from Pacific View Avenue. Pedestrian pathways would provide access from inland areas to the proposed visitor-serving commercial uses, as well as to the beach. Refer to Section 2.3.3, 2-16 City of Huntington Beach r , 1 � Chapter 2 Project Description below, for a complete discussion of pedestrian access and circulation. Recreational facilities would include five recreational areas, the largest of which is identified as the "Village Green" in the center of the proposed residential area adjacent to the loop road. This',2.5-acre area would be accessible to the public. The four other individual recreational areas would be located throughout the residential component and would primarily serve residents of the proposed project, although.Area 1, at the corner of First Street and Atlanta Avenue, would be publicly accessible. Additional common open space areas would be situated around all the residential buildings, as shown in Figure 2-5a. Private open space would be provided through patios, balconies, and stoops, as shown in Figure 2-5b. Parking would be provided in subterranean garages and in surface parking areas along the interior collector street. A total of 1,360 spaces would be provided for residential uses. A minimum of two parking spaces in the subterranean garage would be provided for each unit. In addition, subterranean and surface parking would be provided to serve guests of the community, as required by the Zoning Code. Residential village architecture would comply with the City's Urban Design Guidelines. The landscape " concept for the residential village district set forth in the Conceptual Master Plan would also be consistent with the Urban Design Guidelines, which strives to achieve compatibility with the existing surroundings. Proposed landscaping would feature prominent evergreen trees such as Jacaranda and Magnolia, as well as several varieties of palms. In addition, various flowering and evergreen shrubs would be planted, including Bougainvillea, agave, and star jasmine, as well as other vines and groundcovers. Affordable Housing is proposed to be provided by a combination of on- and off-site units in compliance with the City's Housing Element and Redevelopment Agency requirements. Fifteen percent, or 78 affordable units, have been identified as the Agency obligation based on the Applicant's proposed 516 units in the submitted site plan and related applications. A total of 39 moderate-income units are proposed on site, with ' the balance of units proposed off site. Section 3.11 (Population and Housing) provides detail on the project obligations for affordable housing. 2.3.3 Vehicular and Pedestrian Circulation Improvements Vehicular and pedestrian access to the project site would be provided by a combination of existing and proposed roadways, as described in,this section. A summary of proposed roadway improvements and project accesses is provided in Table 2-8. Roadway widening proposed by the project would be accomplished by widening onto the project site. Encroachment into property surrounding the site is not proposed as part of the project. Pacific City EIR . 2-17 • \ �> s'\, /\ >y :f \\� \ $ /% COMMON OPEN SPACE AREA \ f/ / ,w 2X\ \V, . ,, ' ' ♦ \. r._ \ E‘ / ,,ce 3:�� rt ,%�i c�\��1 { ! / ,'��/ / 4 \ c& b>i' \ F- r''', k f/' iee: RECREATION AREA l ♦\ .j �r<1 4,..,� �/ tit - ,/�� `, ,✓i \�N ' 'A. ., '' REQUIRED PROVIDED '� �,,\ /:�,v ��.��A V /... , ♦ ! / ® 4\�, ..1 VA• PARCEL-1 209,.81 S.F. 409.28 S.F. 9v / % � .,2 4.81 Acre 9.28 Acre _ / ♦ , ♦ o �� � \ � \ � ` 20'Selbaek Total: I. ..... .lh .�� / ',I �;,/c .: .:i �/e%"> ♦ �, �a .4 / \ / .%� 69,582 S.F./1.59 Aae • £,.;_1 \ i � ��j •, �� , � �✓r'' ` `'\ - Recreation Area Total: • -.. i-- \ a / r i 1 1' \ 1) 6,035 S.F.=0.14 Acre I { 1 \ ,� �/ o ° // //'" g /r9 ‘j i \,1' 2) 4,040 S.F.=0.09 Acre ��� j% 3) 7.562 S.F.=0.17 Acre ...�.� [. �t !,._ ,o ° y^�/'� ! i., r .. '�;,. 4) 9260 S.F.=2.04 Acre :, ;' . `.: � ° 6 v / I 5) 82,745 S.F.=0.06 Acre a ` / > Total:109.642 S.F.=2.50 Acre ,:-:. .� ..,_�.; ........---- .._•' dJ PL ,r .1 4 +y���/tea �v o i0 a,�\'J0\o°n o f°ok. �•��� "�/// a �� ��/jj� u3 rsa aa�uus ii 11;// r. r%p', /' Aig a `oa'� : c o o / �d��e�z ��t/. "✓/\� :s M.,:m: .... :::., .y-'•• .,.........,..,.,_.....�h I 1 /� � r �r o aP J\\\0\f�a /, f v4 a o o °< •; ' ! ♦\ .11 Y ,.,. i - 1 ' �`,.��y ;�% 0 tar o ° a°�� °ooei/,� 4000 .�°; ��� � \ ii .1,17 \\ ......._...._.._._. .t / % o o / �/�a �� �rN% q ' '41- ,.., Fi ''''":" '"'•.'''41i-'?:.'0...i,. '/. ,„;.(ii..."- \\I (fir---7"---,,‘ `.7.'.r- .• -- r% '' 'z f •%/5* i, e�/�/1 ; a o 7•;:.1.,..„ •eAfii\ i'3i w o > :. O >;x ��7/�/� 1� %6! / �= ,, �•� �t , \1 ill 1 1 % i '" .. . . \ �) !{'£ - • "tom �` •►• —' 00111 \ trip 1i I 7.17(rst.) • III ......., \--- 4:1 ' r::::=::; 1 i ...,,k. , Ilk : iiiAllt maii V44, f:, ',1 , 't k, ,..A.,-;,„ a� 1 *.:. iis.----I it.iN'' \‘\\,..' I . lim 0 Ch ?al ''' /*,-,. 16 o r A 1 >: `'..,rr..--.-.5..',. _ ''I,�.` ....iii....iIrri.ii1 t, �, •••••:•.: ii , .ii rk...1 \.,., ,.„4 4,.....<.,...„ , \-7' A� '----.>?7.b <.,y • O ---:- -- -: -.........,,. �l ...:,..„....„,......-0--____________-__-_-_-_-:-_-_-:_i ::_: :3i J rot ( ii t i; O sY ............. ... CIPIC NN�a7 - .. _ � .. -.._ 3,May .�; �'• 't. • • • • rf, •.t,^;r i j'f::.i;.t i ..,.t ��\\ 1 "ter £% s t :i .. .n. yr� .. a.,.., .v.x � vr.....�. S _,_.....:-C,.:....,. ::s. 1 i'i i s:;jai r:. n-:t-i i, :t: �'�\„�' - /�—�s...?_...�......,.rh'="�L,._._..__'3—.__w..__ \ ..... ..-.�C.l .. .: ...:..e, .�t• :r, �� i iP' �.."' '-z'a {h 'i Y Ii •i:.: ..;.;#.,:: ..�:. :#: i :S`£., — ,. - ,:I Ii l� { i.5: t: :i. . .�.,' � _� f:::,f::.::.:,..E::.:.T::: .:iti, ;;Ii33;;1i. ., Y` :.,...:.t-t... ;i: .,..;i :ii;i. t - . ii9" ._. i FIGURE 2-5a Not to Scale 4g) ... "- ' -. Common Open Space Diagram ESP_,., . SOURCE:Makallon Atlanta Huntington Beach,LLC.2003a 10261-00 x s""-' 1 City of Huntington Beach•Pacific City EIR T- I -UPPER LEVEL BALCONIES =-REQUIRED PRIVATE OPEN SPACE AREA ©GROUND LEVEL \g'\ , 0,4 \ REQUIRED PROVIDED . ,`\ ja , s/i�'0� �> \\ PARCEL-1 I 77,590 S.F. I 77,590 S.F. ,`1.\ • /; i/ .i \ 1 • ? MIN. 1 fi / j • �Jli n� I 1 ill��rc.+,1, Ptiv= :elcorire I \ 1 si /J/ ai '�v 71,47, Priv:�.pan space@1st �� ..` -r'yi� y , 4;444 ,•• $/ .Illill►� —al1 ED ,40 r�/ . `e,. > y - �. ' r MIN. Curb lire - w . �rJ � 20' 1 is �.r.....�.�`. / . " a o �- i% / Stoop @ T.H. _%///_//./////. ITT 0 ,� � k' Li j b ter2LL. P'. U. , Wig:.-.ch@1st .. r 'i`Vic" � � � a� ♦ ♦ � :. ��.evx xYi?#tiff d I a - �\ SMe Welk I. ''-1 ti M I, .• ,1 a. \ Pub6c Sheet � r,I , 11, a64'0 �\ `—Calb Lire n • 1 x 4 • \ GROUND FLOOR ti �s �� � DETAIL PLAN ., 1� 6 ,ram - :. n nq ; \ -:._..- 1 1 N kjj . 111.00000111‘ wa err �i \ `74 oroil op tit wit • . ',-.W111111. 11... "1111!" 11.W'r --. ,,...,e,......,0 4,41, ,;,,,,40, ..,... .,„::;, ii‘i 1 .4.. , ir„.w. .. ___ nem 1, 0001 alk ‘ `014,16.W. \I :11 - II lbj= tv: I 01111Alli 4'.4° P ' \,,, ilk:',,, • .,,,,,t • ;4%. iv ::\ 4'0114:§ 4 .60 '' :111 - '4041111119 , \* uuuiii,mm iii7ui.nni O l t i ® �.- == , _ � �1...,Av 00jopii4 `j. . -- . Io �/�--" -- --------- ----- ---- ----- -b,. -. _ - _. ._-- - It1oNwAl ---------------------- ^etrle eeAst • r —_.- • FIGURE 2-5b Not to Scale Private Open Space Diagram SOURCE:Makallon Atlanta Huntington Beach,LLC.2003a t 0261-00 ''0"' t.s City of Huntington Beach•Pacific City EIR Chapter 2 Project Description . Table 2-8 Summary of Proposed Roadway Improvements Roadway Proposed Project Improvements Pacific Coast Dedicate ROW north of centerline Highway Widen PCH on north side for provision of a third westbound through lane and future bike lane Remove parallel parking on north side of roadway and replace on-site Close existing median opening and install median landscaping along a portion of PCH,between First and Huntington-Streets Pedestrian site access to commercial component Two at-grade crosswalks at intersections of First and Huntington Streets Grade-separated pedestrian overcrossing over PCH to beach area could be constructed in the future Provide an Orange County Transportation Authority bus turnout on the north side of PCH,-west of Huntington Street Atlanta Avenue Dedicate ROW between First Street and Huntington Street,south of centerline Additional eastbound travel lane Sidewalk,curb and gutter,paving,and a landscaped median between First and Huntington Streets Pedestrian access to residential component Huntington Street Dedicate ROW between Pacific View Avenue and'Pacific Coast Highway,west of centerline Additional southbdund travel lane between PCH and Pacific View Southbound right turn lane at PCH Provide traffic signal at intersection with Atlanta Avenue Landscaped median between Pacific View Avenue and PCH Vehicular service access to commercial component Vehicular resident-only access to residential component Pedestrian access to residential component First Street Dedicate ROW east of centerline between Atlanta and Pacific View Avenue for an ultimate configuration with a 100-foot-wide right-of-way Additional southbound and northbound travel lane between PCH and Atlanta Additional southbound left-turn lane onto=PCH • Sidewalk,curb and gutter,paving,and landscaped medians Vehicular service access to commercial component Vehicular resident-only access to residential component Pedestrian access to residential component • Pacific View Extension of roadway,which currently exists only from Huntington Street to approximately 500 feet east along the existing Avenue Waterfront Hilton project,through site.in a 90-foot ROW,in compliance with the Precise Plan of Street Alignment - Interim Condition: One lane of traffic in each direction,with a center turning lane,,on-street bike lanes and pedestrian crosswalks Angled parking on south side of roadway Parallel parking on north side of street for proposed public park Ultimate Condition: Primary Arterial Street Four-lane divided cross section within the 90 foot ROW. No angled parking Some on-street parallel parking Parallel parking on north side of street for the proposed public park One lane of traffic in each direction with a center turning lane,on-street bike lanes and pedestrian crosswalks Angled parking on south side,of roadway _ Sidewalk,curb and gutter,paving,and landscaped medians Three vehicular accesses to commercial component(two public and one service) Two vehicular accesses to residential component(residents and guests) Pedestrian access to residential and commercial components SOURCE: Makallon Atlanta Huntington Beach,LLC,July 7,2003b 2-20 City of Huntington Beach Chapter 2 Project Description Off-Site Vehicular Circulation and Parking Pacific Coast Highway. PCH is designated in the Circulation Element of the General Plan as a Major Arterial Li Highway, and the Caltrans Route Concept Report and the County of Orange Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH) set the standards for this roadway. It has an existing 84-foot pavement width, including a 12-foot median and an 8-foot sidewalk on the inland side. There are two lanes of travel in each direction at the eastern end of the project site, and three lanes of travel in each direction at the western end of the project site. In addition, a median break with an eastbound left-turn pocket is located approximately 800 feet from the eastern project boundary (Huntington Street and PCH). Presently, metered parallel parking is provided on both sides of the street, with 27 metered parking spaces located along the north side of PCH fronting the Pacific City project site. As required by Caltrans, PCH will include three travel lanes and an on- street bike lane along the project frontage. These improvements would be implemented by the proposed project and result in the removal of the 27 metered parking spaces along the project.frontage. Project design includes parking spaces to replace the,loss of these parking spaces in the commercial parking structure. An Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) bus turnout will be provided on the north side of PCH, west of Huntington Street. No vehicular access from this roadway would be provided. Atlanta Avenue. This street is currently designated as a Primary Arterial Street in the Circulation Element. Atlanta Avenue has an existing 45-foot pavement width and 63-foot ROW east of Huntington Street and 45- foot pavement width and 58-foot ROW west of Huntington Street. Additional right-of-way would be dedicated and constructed between First Street and Huntington Street, south of the centerline (within the project site) to allow for street improvements as part of the proposed project, including an additional 1 'in eastbound travel lane..Widening of this street would occur; however, no vehicular access to the site from this roadway would be provided to the project site. The exact dedication would vary depending on the location due to the centerline location and the curve in the roadway. As discussed under Huntington Street below, a traffic signal would be installed at the intersection of Huntington Street and Atlanta Avenue. jHuntington Street. Huntington Street, between Atlanta Avenue and Pacific View Avenue, is currently configured as a collector street with a 40-foot pavement width and 10-foot ROW on both sides of the street for sidewalk and parkway improvements. An existing sidewalk.is located on the west side of the street. Huntington Street, between Pacific View Avenue and PCH is designated as.a 4-lane secondary arterial but has a current configuration that includes 32 feet of pavement width-to-curb and 8-foot sidewalk east of the ' centerline and 20 feet of pavement width-to-curb and 10-foot sidewalk west of the centerline. Ten feet of ROW would be dedicated between Pacific View Avenue and PCH, west of the centerline to allow for the full secondary arterial ROW with sidewalks as well as curb and gutter improvements. An additional southbound travel lane between PCH and Pacific View would be provided, as would a southbound right Pacific City EIR 2 21 Chapter 2 Project Description turn lane at PCH. Project accesses from Huntington Street would include a service entrance to the commercial component and two resident-only entrances to the residential component. A traffic signal would be installed at the intersection of Huntington Street and Atlanta Avenue. The need for this signal was established by previous environmental documentation for the Waterfront Development Project, SEIR 82-2. First Street. First Street is designated as a Primary Arterial Street, but has a current configuration that varies with a 75-foot ROW near PCH, which includes 62 feet of pavement curb-to-curb and 6.5 feet of sidewalk and parkway on each side. Near the intersection with Olive, First Street has a 95-foot ROW with 75 feet of pavement curb-to-curb and 10 feet of parkway and sidewalk on each side. Widening would occur on this street, and 16 on-street parking spaces would remain on the east side of the street. The ultimate configuration of First Street would include. a 100-foot ROW, with 42 feet of pavement and 8 feet of parkway and sidewalk on each side of the existing centerline of the street. An additional southbound left- turn lane onto PCH would be provided. Project accesses from First Street would include a service entrance to the commercial component and one resident-only entrance to the residential component. Pacific View Avenue. Pacific View Avenue is designated as a Primary Arterial Street, although the street presently terminates at the southeastern project boundary. Pacific View Avenue would be extended through the site as part of the proposed project, consistent with the Precise Plan of Street Alignment (PPSA No. 88- 1). The alignment would provide for a slight curvilinear design with a 90-foot ROW. In the near term, one lane of traffic would be provided in each direction with a center turning lane, and pedestrian crosswalks. Angled parking would be provided on the south side of roadway in the short term. The ultimate configuration of this roadway would include.a 4 lane divided cross section within the 90-foot ROW. It is anticipated that some on-street parking may be retained with the reconfiguration, though angled parking would not be allowed. Project access from Pacific View Avenue would include' three accesses to the commercial component (two public and one service) and two accesses to the residential component via the loop road. Parking. Off-site parking would only be provided on Atlanta Avenue and First Street. In the short-term, 22 spaces would be provided on Atlanta Avenue and 16 spaces would be provided on First Street. However, the parking spaces on the south side of'Atlanta Avenue would eventually be removed when Atlanta Avenue is fully improved between Huntington Street and Beach Boulevard. Thus, the only long-term, off-site parking would be on First Street, where 16 parking spaces would remain. Approximately 53 existing off-site parking spaces that currently abut the site would be removed as a result of the proposed project, and would be relocated as on-site parking within the parking structure. Refer to Section 3.14 for details on project impacts to off-site parking. 2-22 City of Huntington Beach Chapter 2 Project Description On-Site Vehicular Access, Circulation, and Parking Vehicular access to the visitor-serving uses would be from First Street(service only), the extension of Pacific View Avenue (two visitor and one service access), and Huntington Street (service and employee only). Service entries would be designed to accommodate delivery vehicles and moving vans and trucks. From the westerly access from Pacific View Avenue, motorists would enter the commercial component and directly access the subterranean parking structure from the on-site drive. From the easterly access from Pacific View Avenue, motorists would access the site via an on-site drive and drop off guests at the hotel facility, drop off their vehicles to be valet parked, or access the subterranean parking garage. Proposed vehicular access to the L, site is depicted on Figure 2-6. Service vehicles would be provided with three accesses (First Street, Huntington Street, and Pacific View Avenue) and loading areas that would be separate from visitor access points. All loading and unloading would occur off-street, within designated areas of the project site. No vehicular access is proposed from PCH. Vehicular access to the residential uses would be provided from Pacific View Avenue (two access points), First Street, and Huntington Street (two access points). The residential village includes a private community collector street (loop road) off of Pacific View Avenue that would be gated, and would provide access to residents and guests. The street would be publicly accessible to pedestrians. The First Street and Huntington Street access points would be available for residents only, include security gates, and lead directly to the subterranean parking spaces. Internal to the site, along the loop road, both residents and guests would have access to the subterranean parking garages. Subterranean parking spaces would be provided for each condominium unit with adequate subterranean and surface parking (along the interior loop road) to serve guests of the community, as required by the Downtown Specific Plan. Pedestrian Access Pedestrian access improvements include pedestrian corridors throughout the project site (Figure 2-7). Pedestrian pathways would link the surrounding residential communities and the proposed residential i l component. These pedestrian access ways would then connect to the commercial component and PCH and, ultimately, to the beach parking lot. Pursuant to the Downtown Specific Plan, development in Districts 7 and 8A requires the dedication, or a waiver thereof, of a 20-foot-wide corridor between,Atlanta Avenue and PCH for public access between the southern end of the Pacific Electric ROW and PCH. This public access corridor commences on Atlanta r-n Avenue and aligns with Alabama Street (oriented perpendicular to Atlanta Avenue) to facilitate pedestrian Pacific City EIR 2-23 • a _' ▪ _ �.,, S ♦fir > 'ati`\`�° ,>.'/ a. -g,��{ r p �".f zz' `f rr41. LEGEND :' j .,.` ♦rn`y� F y:: 4 . ♦k/l Q. ' .ii..�s C. s'z.'Xr fr . 1^. .az` .,k ,.3n f."a ta'" m' ,t,' ,., '< v�-1 9"" �` \{ n t` "� � � a� C ! s s� t i fi 7 x VEHICULAR CIRCULATION ,'♦� (i`r!` r = 9s ` q s , s < \Y✓ a , spa � s \..,r.,a .>"',. ; --.Y. _ =k �a a ROUTES F ♦ A / \ 7 / a 4 GARAGE ENTRY `✓/ ,•^ 4 �� /"'\ 1, ,.�',, Ki ! `"�.'z♦s�'`\ :` F£"x .(k E . �� j '*... p t (RESIDENTS ONLYW/SECURRYGA7E/ `,...\\� r,..kt , a\ ;Jul. . a.. , agP�i ! "w ' _. #1 �s :. aE zi` f i `v ;.; s ,t sr ▪ tirt,: !rr � y .r P% „si \ , , a " • </ x GARAGE ENTRY •.-•...,. /' ,<i .' "a { ., '�y, S a ''' ♦ , s''. '< (FOR BOTN GUESTS AND RESIDENTS, �C �' �•./�/r /1 ���,, ��dn •yy�/tr �'y F' 'ry \ z. 4 { z` ♦ '� �/ .,�f � J,.� h SECURITY GATE INSIDE BEYOND QUEST "a. d Y ` II f,, Y'3\ ♦„`,, I p r / „ �'' "'`.' ,� `�. \ 'k a,y ii -,, t: y ' r ..Z Y / :' PARKING) 41.1„ 4 r� !/ .! rf�♦:' ;y �T.,. ' �a rt z • �, 4r GATED VEHICULAR ACCESS t q ,44�'c ' . W�isi. ,/` ,., '" f ! s ./ N. " \``ki,,'L�, J,y\-:.! ./� >t �' k ;, .. w'-*:as-„,., ......,,,,,,, . F ,t r r , /J b \'L f }y t a ♦ • �� SERVICE ENTRY 40 y .s3 c s ^" w �. .y `fi b,,, r Iliii s`` r s, y s 01! r r l s s4 r s t<a"\ �, , sT rki,. ..:,t s• -t s ' v :: z t f , 5 ..iW t r-s p ':: •. i d F "� a!s ?� / r ♦ t � \�,�: I 3 A W j \ \` p s t., € ..."F '▪ ' 'S .r r a:\� �x ✓ ' , - .....A^a E i�� 5 �' fy j sy S ,{ if`' t' /"> r l :Q �. --,,,,,,,:,,,,,,,,„,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,„,„„.:,...*/",-�' d,, `\ * .,s r` Z�--"1 "'Fs 1. S a ? o. . '.,, r . lk " .n--a'A°Li i t"\ ,i s z. �. ` .,� ,,.:.:, ♦ „st F� �%k• <� a s:. 4 .1,.s. ? ✓:,`r C /.,..:',..;.)‹.:,.„ ,� . r 1 ,� .< ' . :.....•,c::.d x,,,,. . :, \ r .; a♦ _ ...r t?� ▪ 1 :/ �✓ t .� x t.., AVENUE•.._...,.,. { �.°' z Al, .v= .a d` a � `'J' a s `#1 �._.,.'/ r � `5 p > / a a �i 11—. ,�\ . ' ri W u `' 3 a\ \� \` ., e. .4 €� z & .. awl • r �r \ \ K, a, '\���,,/ \\�r .\ 9]" sE. ,- € .. / ` .'� LL .. , I „roe r Y I a£.: J S a `FI �VW��VVV"'�s�_ i , ,,,,,,.„.:::., "`i ; PACIFIC - ' .+>T• �,iiir ,-,..,,.,M-<^'., x i I ;` R• �t.,„ ♦. .,.., ...,;.�. - %� „- ..::� xr.0 r , !st 11, y 9 ' T. � �" r '�' a i ..,lo I I I I3 :�,"•� _€ ,rs..• „�,.. §.a aST9.; ."\1 i 1....0.1,1 ( g r .: ' 1 4 E l g ...�,._f"I• t d'^",. _ :...:,F Jat ,y € \��GF F 11 _ ' .F:° } ' ,.....,, .. ;, � .'�N L :s ,-:£ 9 is r / i,� 3 . - moo__ i ''' o. — .. ^a . ., p z ., _ ": ... rl . a""1 F .: "" s ..!A !• .� }�"•� -ACIFIC COAST HIGHW• mvvriltt,'st-s�. z,««�««�,,,,...,w«�: I': :...... - -� : e.."""., ,�ars^'i.';':'eI?R"Fs';; ,: : ?"` <b>#tFF;;<:€YIY.3.s I:,t ;81 w: T< ., . : ..,...._..:_.. n FIGURE 2-6 Not to Scale E I 1`~ Vehicular Access and Circulation SOURCE:Makallon Atlanta Huntington Beach,LLC.2003a 10261-00 `''O"'"' '$ City of Huntington Beach•Pacific City EIR } �� 9'.k j J " r f / ✓ • LEGEND 9 .r J▪ z < s s p xr s. J �9 f r J N 3 ^! \ Sill 20'WIDE PUBLIC ACCESS -......,.. .„.../<..,.,„,,,„7:;:::,.:.:::?,,,.,,;„A„..,.5. -„,,,,,:„..,::,..,,-...,.-?„--:....,..:::: ...,..... ,,::....„,.,.:.„,, ,„;:.„, f\/� ,� b CORRIDOR .:..,,,,':,;:......,:',...;.',,,:,,.,,:,,,,.'..,.-:',.:.,;........ - —. \ • \*: � *� �� x FRONT DOOR TO BUILDING .\ .';;...,':',:,.... , ...: ''''',''''''' 4 -c'-P #' `N I ,,:,,r,_•,,K ,,,i:::.,..,,,i,,,..:;: "":„.,..:.„,-.>:::,-.....:,„.-.:„.,:\ \•.,,,..,,,,.:•,,,,,,....„: SECURED ACCESS / f ;..,,,,.‘......_.,,,....,*,.....,,....,...,...of,.r.,;:„.;.,....,...,....‘„,;,...i.,,,,L,..,,L::-1-;..jill•';5':".`-:.•-•'''•••`:.1:•1\'ll''''••.,,,':,: ..--.'''4.:'....l.l.',':C :4,..:i',..,::,.,/:.,..'',.. � :17;':.' ��� PERIMETER PARKWAY _-•� @• N i/•J r/ -"m M '� ��.. i E r ?. SIDEWALK v: • gt'RgN '" re' fr � /: J �N+)Z r ;, &. y, ••••• INTERIORPARKWAY FN C'F ✓• . SIDEWALK ;.> ---- �� •• `�OyS \ y r ---- PROPOSED PEDESTRIAN AT GRADE CROSSWALK • F� .r EXISTING CROSSWALK ^OLIVE AVENUE I " w II' • ! • a s g 5 /c • • • A i` ) Ti 1 PACIFIC .. ♦ � •le• : } . It;`1- ....... ' ( � } ,it ■ 3 xi • lig. r� -04k s qi.: r����i•�"�x�� CIFIC COAST H1 • ::.. s , It w .H :•Tiai.....1:.,,,....L.J:„.•:,....;,,,,.,,,,,,-:;; ;.:•.,..il.iX.i.'..7. ."L‘,..•••••••::;‘;'7.7•:„..„,,,xx•t,--.:',..:,,I% 11.4 ....„.„..„jii..., ...s.• II II • I I—__i 1 FIGURE 2-7 Nottos�le .....:....-_'E I- - Pedestrian Access and Circulation SOURCE:Makallon Atlanta Huntington Beach,LLC.2003a 10261-00 ''""' 1 Cityof Huntin ton Beach••Pacific CityEIR Chapter 2 Project Description movement to the Downtown area. Public access is provided via the loop road through District No. 8A to Pacific View Avenue, extending through Pacific City District No. 7 to PCH. Pedestrian movement across Pacific View Avenue would be provided at four locations between First Street and Huntington Street. At-grade pedestrian crosswalks would be provided at the intersection of First Street at Pacific View Avenue, the intersection of Huntington Street at Pacific View Avenue, and at two locations on.Pacific View Avenue between Huntington Street and First Street where the loop road intersects with Pacific View Avenue. Pedestrian pathways would connect to the commercial component by intersections and clearly delineated entrances to the visitor-serving commercial and hotel amenities. At-grade crossings are proposed at the existing signalized intersections of PCH and Huntington and First Streets to the beach. In addition, a pedestrian bridge over PCH is proposed as part of the Pacific City Master Plan. This feature is not part of the Tentative Tract Map, and as such, is not proposed to be constructed at this time. However, this element is analyzed in this EIR, since it could be built in the future as part of the project. 2.4 CONSTRUCTION SCENARIO It is anticipated that the proposed project would be constructed in several major phases over a six-year period beginning in 2004. The site would be mass graded. Grading would involve the cut and fill of approximately 274,600 cubic yards of soil that would be balanced on site. Residential units would be constructed in three phases, during which time the visitor-serving commercial uses, followed by hotel construction, would occur. Construction of the 2.5-acre recreational area in the center of the residential component would be constructed as part of the first phase of residential construction. Proposed construction phasing is illustrated in Figures 2-8a and 2-8b. Construction would be fully completed by 2010. 2.5 PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES Project objectives have been identified by both the City and the Applicant. The City's project objectives are as follows: • Assist in the implementation of the City's General Plan, Downtown Specific Plan, and Redevelopment Plan • Enhance the Downtown as a destination for visitors by expanding hotel, retail, and entertainment opportunities 2-26 City of Huntington Beach i -- i } TIMELINE PHASE APPROXIMATE 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 r 2010 DURATION Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 : Construction 6 years -ma* h'""W "'v` M 'x Y '.' Y ./ n.,s'�•�u's.�Y,3£:/..(i�'xk.. ,4Y1-..:..� .:3il. O✓.,..g Grading 4 months z,'3 ` . Public Infrastructure 10 months ,; i =w Y' . `is>eria k•> :.:..< ;: k v:I..,.z. ,.;::,.::. /iz:s.., xF <xs x 9. .. F .:r e ,cs Residential 6 years ? ..�,!<.3;; . ..� x> _;�;�=�€a�,.r., ,;.,,,. �� ;:;»� <,�.....��.,.�E ..� N,.: ;NOW„x Private Loop Road 2 months -=A. £<•-_- • Phase I Residential +[,J ,—" ;!..................... F€=; 14) (68 units) 1 year,6 months • Phase II Residential ,,, ,hy (133 units) 1 year,11 months I ,... x al ' h-•M .• R1 • Phase III Residential 2 years,3 months 9 (180 units) • . ... E £ .,: , Phase IV Residential � M�s, ,s 3�£Y (135 units) 1 year,11 months - Commercial Retail 1 year,6 months VenagiNOMMIMONIStkl , a .. Hotel 1 year,7 months [�,i;-,. £Z-M�ss;Mih;M<:<��:lm -x�... 5 FIGURE 2-8a Not to Scale .. EI.P-- Construction Schedule SOURCE:Makallon Atlanta Huntington Beach,LLC,2003 10261-00 " s '"' City of Huntington Beach•Pacific City EIR ,. ..,,, .,,,,.„,,,,,,.7., :,,,.;.„•-•:,;,:,>)•;.s.,-..".>::::,1,,--,. .,,,, --,,,,. >:>, d j 44'44\ '\-:•:,:zrsN...f,.....-,:.::,!:.'!,:-:...,r.;;q.::.,.:.,f`.:,;:',,,,:;,.: ,./....„:::...,., ,/,..i' \`, .‹,/'i''''' e--'‘, \'''. )'-/-;.-i•••:':.4 75- -\.L <'-. \ ..X::''40f4''' .e. ' \-\:7,..-"''':: .&i::.,c '.f.',',.....,-4::-Z.`,..,..2.N.,"::--. '-',) >....:::.;:, ..,*c...:-., \ .,,,.., 7„4.-,...',4, \ i ',..t-;: r.,),..,,,“'..,\::, \ ..."." / / 410.4iN " ...—j",,:;\445: ",:i.".. .„.,,i8.....-.,.', ''*, •;;:.,...(<,::‘Z---. . ..,,,,,,,,, '. .'.,'w ..,..,..vs..,.,\41 v., ..,:2 ,.,, '...y,.,., ,..,,At ,-;-.. * / ys. • ,c.". .":koc,T.--?..,-"..,\:&, '-; ".-.;—:.:,,, .4':// '.<", ,-• 4 4, 4'a N\---`'''.'\ ''''' .•:'•'',,-.:, •;,,,..':':-‘ ',. 41$, ,. y, ,...;: t. _ , or" " ...k.\ N•',,, '..'-..-....••••':"..,.''....:•,!' s•:.:; ' 2 - OFFSITE -.4 ..,,,,,,,",- „„;;• ,.0 • P •, .: ';•':••'. ,S'.-.K.i..•.;,'17.-'p6•'''';'::.2;:•4:''M''''';.''•t.lWi.•.I,:i4oiiii. • •,....g'r,s-I-/--I.•4;',".,,,1-,",,.',/4,,'%4..,.•4 4'4 4$.0 et.4.••0 1.,1 1 : •11.4 _Iwi4,' "\ l\:''.),**4\isk-*•:\,4\4,.,...,'..N..'-,'',.'.„,:4,'N-,v......;•!,i.'-1',.',•,-•',.".).,.'\,,:.:..•,.:7.:•::,.,,-l.:,-.,l:',,;,.4',",,:.14N."„t,,,,,,*,'4,!.:'-;,'........\<..5<.,",,:''.....s.:'„\- . pPHHAAsSEE Illi:As :RRIMEEPTSRAI DOi rVEnMAELN TS RESIDENTIAL \ ..i• I ' f••••li !a•J \••• ',. 4 "„,• • .. f1;o',i„1ih1:, ...1L:,.-...-.\i i..?e• :.,.. 7;ii':/1 ,.....1.'. , > "/., ,,#f. # * •,..,,,,,.,,.\\r'!'\!.•...'..c 2..4,,.\.,,i..i-:.:':.....1 PHASE IV RESIDENTIAL PHASE V - RESIDENTIAL r I \ PHASENI . HOTEL 0,3_,.._........) .-A..„,!,,,..,.:.:.,.„:,..„„,.,,..• g i: L ,,,,t .1 V N, N.\ \ ''>. 1 it 1 t • N't\ \ i : _ 'i • 1, '1 s 4„ \ )' _ 0:1 1 •.1 I I , ...„.. 1 . 4. -. . ). ... \\:\\,,, ...,........______1 . 1 \ , \ (.-\ \ - ,........_,-,N. 1 En•••••••......10.0,„...„........ ,....; `;. r---.7:1H tit L ,.„. J L ..., .11 ''' 1.. 1 , st . .......,.. .. . , hi . . limit.„ 1/1"----- titt .1. 15.,,,-,•,,j._ _.„,„.... ....77,*.-::'-.. .. ,\ 1 /;,.........................1v. .„....„.„.../,;........,...i.... : ,......... ....\i 1 ,1?. : ,..,,,..----' ,-:"4":' ''',, ' ------- ........* • \ '.......; 1 ,i i '.-*•,4-•-•.. :••••'-- ,, ! ,. ,...:s. sk.,............. :..:'...:•`, ' ' '-- 1 i'',, ' ... .., .,,.. ,;,, ,,,,. '.....,.....-*'"*-- vinii."It ;iiii 7.411111 \ '6 II;i, ....j...1:-......00•___,.., --.`".,‘ ,...,•-•-• ‘'amitg Totlivii • t F.: ' •-, VI,/ .ik. :ki,‘,, ,-, ...--Js:.,-,....,.:,..,......:...,..,L!....s.... ..............a. ......7.7...„..., . 7„...,0,_ ----, ..,,,,- ''" _,----,----- loc. .' Cf..4 --• - law,— ;.: = IT pr'4 1 .; EC)L...................... '',..m ....., , ! 1 - . -. .44.11W• io 401%.4 .P'.. 7. . 11% t ::1,.r....-I•. two,. II. ,i.,-. .--‘,10 . A11111% I . t 1 ---)1•116-4:, ' N'„.. ":"-'3 'i: .•:.-............ 'z 1 '' .....,.... s NOK.NNIk.. 'N'.7.41‘ oion di I 1. 0* 016-7,0-, fili...:‘ !. ,1- , 1111111 ' 1 '%I Vco, re.carat t. ', i.,11. ;.•' .,..., • / top: Airolt, vita 1PO4„,-,* I,, 1 ::'-i-,1....................................... ---fii .;.i: ;-....:t.),k, ''''' ,... -';',- -.',.... 1 1 • i II—B tog , , : _„.....,..„,,,I,..„...„,%.,J.:,.....,:-.„,.,:•::::::::.: .,... ,„. ?,, ....,., - - . -....•:„.„.,..,,,ss.,. ,. 1 1 4-1,7,1 1 C•-• ,741.7.:"..t..7:-.);,-.1 '.i.,>,,, t ,,1" .11 0 '1,,,,,, v , # 4. poy ,-...-- , ....... ..,-;.....0 ::,r- 11...... e..•, ' Ai Pilissa.0 0 IP - • ;,000-iiidr-------,"--- -,-.•:-..-•-•-. f ::i. 0.- . •,, AOC - --,-,-"'' ''... ----------7:n:.....r" .... i i.‘ _.--•::: .. . .. .,........ .. . ,_.....11* ,....m. 0+11' ' ;NW ,....,........7.-: ::::::.7...:;-:-....--.77:•-•........- ,.t ....,.„.. ..,,:g :•;.:'""- '-' (:.•::i:, i , ---••••••, (-.....-11.,,, I gm- g ,0,..4,6, . VAO .i„,„:„.:,,,,,,,....\,, 1, ,,...................... , - :,.:, r law ',':.''' _,„. ,T.,,,--_,-,--7.:-.. -------.:-:-.-7:-::::77,-...-..... ; -1... El i 0 '4411111nrupow.-; 41101116 •''.-.'''':::::::- E-77::-.:--7:---•--•--1*141111W 0 .,'-----..- "..,,,,,,41'41Th; ',i,''"'•'. 4.0::.p:,,,:-, ,,i,.,::.:.:::, 0, ., t. 6 be N 61 -w ..,..,e- strCi''7,71•1 1', ':'-••• • ." n '',,,...-„, ,,.,„„,..: - . - ...........................,. **0i0E1* _.----;--7.7 .EM:: ''Fi.C71''''1:''' ''.. - i ..,., %.1.1, 4'till3;',; ''')•,.zD. vi . ,...• ...------.-::-77.,..,-. 4?*Mt ''''''''''.- .::,:,;0 0.n.g PV-,-,!'''':i.13, '';,''':•. ' ,........._ '-'' ...... ..:,..... _..„--.....,--=.;::--,a,.?,.3:,3, :1--.-.1. 0 '• • _. ,,,, -"'i i'i!:i.......'-'i.i:'•;,.11 .M',0 '4, .1. 'N, . ,-.-------rr;i:::-...---- --, ''':.:................. _ .....,.----,:r.-.-..7'.. -:,,,,.-.4:,.,,,x:3ii,,,,,,'--- ',..1 W',,,• '-••:, .,„.,,,,,„,, ,..vj tii.:in1H.'i,,i','-• • ' ',' X,`.0•.,;4'i:H.,.M,:ZS K -74i - : '••,t• -i 45• 3t1 l , ,, --- 11 ... ..,..,,,-,..w,I1:‘,.o. U-ftt .i.iidA n i i• . ,...„ , ''i i•ill ''''. ''' '' ' FIGURE 2-8b Not Scale . EP--.. Construction Phasing.41: .,1:InYV.S SOURCE:Makallon Atlanta Huntington Beach,LLC.2003a 10261-00 City of Huntington Beach•Pacific City EIR -- - , . ' — Chapter 2 Project Description r • Expand residential opportunities in the Downtown to provide for a greater number and variety of housing options and a stronger base for the commercial sector of the Downtown ■ Enhance the community image of Huntington Beach through the design and construction of high quality, state-of-the-art development • Ensure adequate utility infrastructure and public services for new development • Mitigate environmental impacts to the greatest extent possible The Applicant's project objectives are as follows: • Housing. Provide the full number of housing units allowed by the General Plan and Downtown Specific Plan at 30 dwelling units per net acre in order to assist the City of Huntington Beach in meeting its housing goals and the housing allocation determined by the City and the Southern California Association of Government's Regional Housing Needs Assessment, and to meet the purpose of the Downtown Specific Plan District No. 8A. • Economic Growth and Employment. Provide (a) economic growth opportunities for the community through development of the project dining/retail/entertainment center, consistent with the City's General Plan goals; (b) additional employment opportunities for local and area residents through.the commercial and retail uses on site; and (c) residential density at the General Plan designation of 30 dwelling units per net acre, to support the visitor-serving commercial components of Pacific City, the resort areas to the south and existing Downtown businesses. • Neighborhood Identity. Reinforce the neighborhood identity of Pacific City and coordinate development of Districts 7 and 8A, through control of both districts' project design elements such as architecture, landscaping, color, paving, walls, fencing, signage, entry treatment, and roadway design. • Commercial Phasing and Residential Density. Maintain ability to build commercial and residential areas in phases to provide a population base to help support the commercial uses consistent with the purpose of District No. 8A. • Pedestrian Access. Implement a means of pedestrian access through the project via onsite paths consistent with the Specific Plan objectives. • Traffic Improvements. Enhance project circulation and the surrounding roadway system by providing efficient vehicular access through the site and connecting the site to the surrounding existing roadway network. • Public View Opportunities. Develop the hotel district to the maximum allowable height(8 stories) under the Downtown Specific Plan, in order to provide ocean view opportunities while maintaining space for amenities on lower floors and retention of ocean vistas. Implement an overall site design that provides public view opportunities for visitors and residents. Pacific City EIR 2-29 Chapter 2 Project Description 2.6 INTENDED USES OF THE EIR This EIR is a Project EIR, as defined in CEQA Guidelines 15161, and analyzes the impacts of a specific project—the Pacific City development project, in this instance. This EIR has been prepared to analyze potentially significant environmental impacts associated with the planning, construction, and operation of the project. As previously mentioned, this EIR is intended to provide decision-makers and the public with information that enables them to consider the environmental consequences of the proposed action. EIRs not only identify significant or potentially significant environmental effects, but also identify ways in which those impacts can be reduced to less-than-significant levels, whether through the imposition of mitigation measures or through the implementation of specific.alternatives to the project. In a practical sense, EIRs function as a technique for fact-finding, allowing an applicant, concerned citizens, City staff, and decision makers an opportunity to collectively review and evaluate baseline conditions and project impacts through a ! j process of full disclosure. 2.6.1 City of Huntington Beach This EIR is being prepared by the City of Huntington Beach to assess the potential environmental impacts that may arise in connection with actions related to implementation of the proposed project. The City of Huntington Beach is the Lead Agency for the project and has discretionary authority over the project and project approvals. This EIR will serve as the required environmental documentation for the following discretionary approvals that are required to implement the proposed project: • Commercial Master Site Plan. Approval of a Master Site Plan depicting 10.6 net acres in District No. 7 shall be required. The plan shall show all hotel- and visitor-serving commercial uses; design details; public facilities; open space; pedestrian overcrossing; and phasing requirements. • Conceptual Master Plan. Approval of a Master Plan depicting approximately 17.2 net acres in District No. 8A and the development parameters for high-density residential development shall be required. • Tentative Tract Map. Provide a right to proceed with the project as described on the Tentative Tract Map; subdivision of the property into large lots for conveyance, grading, construction of infrastructure and/or financing purposes; and further subdivide the property for visitor-serving commercial and residential condominium purposes, including construction and sale. • Coastal Development Permits. Approval of a Coastal Development Permit in accordance with the City's Coastal Element will be required for the Tentative Tract Map as well as construction and operation of the project. The permit will address the site plan, floor plans, and architectural building elevations for the visitor-serving commercial and residential development of the project site. 2-30 City of Huntington Beach i - Chapter 2 Project Description • Conditional Use Permit. Site Plan, Floor Plans, and Architectural Building Elevations for the resort/ commercial development site(s); Site Plan, Floor Plans, and Architectural Building Elevations for residential development sites. The Conditional Use Permit also covers development on lot with an existing grade differential equal to or greater than three feet, construction of a parking structure, proposed parking controls and aspects of the commercial component (e.g., carts and kiosks, live entertainment, and alcoholic beverage sales in conjunction with restaurants). • Special Permits. Special permits to allow building encroachment into setback areas on PCH and Pacific View Avenue and to allow the parking garage ramps to exceed the City standard of ten percent. • Design Review Board Approval. Approval of all Site Plans, Floor Plans, Architectural Building Elevations and Landscape Architectural Plans designed in accordance with the Downtown Specific Plan and City Urban Design Guidelines standards and requirements would be required. ■ Redevelopment Agency Approvals. Any Redevelopment Agency actions or activities in furtherance of the Huntington Beach Merged Redevelopment Plan, including an Owner Participation Agreement, Disposition and Development Agreement, affordable housing agreement, or other agreement, if any, which may be considered. 2.6.2 State and Local Agencies In addition to the City of Huntington Beach (the Lead Agency), there are also federal, regional, and State, responsible agencies that have discretionary or appellate authority over the project and/or specific aspects of project. The responsible agencies will also rely on this EIR when acting on such projects. Those federal, State, or local agencies that would rely upon the information contained in this EIR when considering approval include,but are not necessarily limited to, the following: • California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) -Issuance of an encroachment permit for construction of street improvements/street widening, bus stop turnout, closure of the existing median opening, installation of landscaping, and construction of utilities within the State ROW • Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQ,CB)—Issuance of a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Permit (NPDES) for construction activities disturbing more than 1 acre and permit for dewatering during construction • Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG)—Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21083 and Section 21087, SCAG reviews EIRs for consistency with regional plans and is responsible under the Federal Clean Air Act for determining Conformity of Projects, Plans, and Programs to the South Coast Air Quality Management Plan pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 7506. No permit or approval would be required from SCAG • South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD)—SCAQMD shares responsibility with the t_ California Air Resources Board and SCAG for ensuring that all applicable federal and State air quality Pacific City EIR 2-31 4 �• Chapter 2 Project Description standards are achieved and maintained. In addition, SCAQMD issues an Authority to Construct and an Operating Permit for operation of on-site mechanical equipment. 2.7 CUMULATIVE PROJECTS Section 15355 of the CEQA Guidelines defines"cumulative impacts"as"two or more individual effects that, when considered together, are considerable or that compound or increase other environmental impacts." In general, these impacts occur in conjunction with other related development whose impacts might compound or interrelate with those of the project under review. In order to analyze the cumulative impacts of the project in combination with existing development and other expected future growth, the amount and location of growth expected to occur (in addition to the proposed project) must be considered. Section 15130(b) of the CEQA Guidelines allows the following two methods of prediction: "(A) a list of past, present, and reasonably anticipated future projects producing related or cumulative impacts, including those projects outside the control of the agency, or (B) a summary of projections contained in an adopted general plan or related planning document which is designed to evaluate regional or area wide conditions." This EIR primarily uses a list of cumulative projects for the cumulative analysis, because the types of impacts,anticipated from the project are primarily local in nature and would not be affected by regional development. However, where use of regional projections is appropriate for the cumulative analysis of a particular resource, this is specified in the cumulative discussion of that resource in Chapter 3. Table 2-9 summarizes cumulative development projects within the vicinity of the project area; the locations of these projects are shown in Figure 2-9. Cumulative projects include a total of 1,023 residential units, about 830,000 square feet of visitor-serving commercial uses, and 666 hotel rooms, in addition to several other uses as shown below.' • 2-32 City of Huntington Beach Chapter 2 Project Description 1 Table 2-9 Cumulative Projects No. Project Name Major Project Features Project Status 1 Hyatt Regency Resort 517 hotel rooms and 52,000 square feet of conference completed area. 2 Waterfront Residential Development 184-unit residential development approved,under construction 3 The Strand 149-room hotel,135,000 square feet of retail, approved,construction restaurant,and entertainment scheduled for 2003 4 Magnolia Pacific Specific Plan, Specific plan allowing 502 dwelling units on 40 acres preliminary planning phase a.k.a.Ascon/Nesi Landfill 5 Beachside 86 detached,single-family residential condominiums construction completion in 2003 } 6 Poseidon Desalination Plant 50 MGD desalination facility proposed behind AES pending approval facility 7 Seacliff Village 260,000 square feet of commercial use all but 3 pad sites complete and occupied 8 Peninsula Marketplace 95,000-square foot commercial center completed 9 Wal-Mart 135,941-square foot commercial building with 9,800- completed square foot garden center and three retail/restaurant L_ pads ranging in size from 3,500 to 6,000 square feet 10 Lowe's Hardware 135,200-square foot building with 24,100-square foot proposed garden center and 9,000-square foot restaurant pad 11 Walgreen's 15,000-square foot commercial building completed 12 The Boardwalk 188 single-family and 63 multifamily units,3.5-acre construction completion in 2003 neighborhood park SOURCE: Linscott Law&Greenspan 2003a I ' t � 1 �r Pacific City EIR 2-33 " 10 • kil _; WARNER AV I- u) co 0 SLATER AV _w co 0 z I-- O TALBERT AV c ~ z o o g 0 w z ELLIS AV / , • GARFIELD AV , O co 2Q LLf f OC° YORKTOWN AV 05� J ......Ilk ®;A�! pie ADAMS AV •jk..�.... �.:.:�.1 INDIANAPOLIS AV 114� . . Ns II •e©•�:•. O ATLANTA AV LEGEND HUBEACH ■ O BEACH II s PROJECT SITE BOUNDARY PIER j O ® CUMULATIVE PROJECT Prole Site 1 HAMILTON AV Q FIGURE 2-9 Not to Scale :....--EIP—.......... Cumulative Projects SOURCE:EIP Associates 2003 10261-00 City of Huntington Beach•Pacific City EIR 1 Chapter3 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS This section is the primary component of the EIR as it provides information on a project's existing conditions, its potential impacts, and feasible mitigation measures. The existing conditions component defines the environmental conditions as they exist on and near the project site, while project impacts are defined as the project's effect on the existing environment. Mitigation measures are designed to reduce a project's potential impact to less-than-significant levels. Environmental topics addressed in the EIR were defined by the City of Huntington Beach through the IS/NOP process. The purpose of this section is to { inform readers of the type and magnitude of the project's environmental impacts and how such impacts would affect the existing environment. { ; • ti Pacific City EIR 3-1 3.1 Aesthetics 3.1 AESTHETICS This EIR section analyzes the potential for adverse impacts on the existing character and visual quality of the project site and its surroundings resulting from implementation of the proposed project. The Initial Study (Appendix A) identified the potential for impacts associated with the effect on scenic vistas, scenic resources within a state scenic highway, visual quality and character, and light and glare. This section also considers the potential for shade and shadow effects upon neighboring residential development. Data'used to prepare this section were taken from the City's General Plan Coastal Element and Downtown Specific Plan as well as information obtained from site visits and visual simulations. Full bibliographic entries for all reference materials are provided in Chapter 7 (References) of this document. 3.1.1 Existing Conditions Overview of Visual Character of the City The City of Huntington Beach has approximately 10 miles of shoreline along the Pacific Ocean, extending from Anaheim Bay south to the Santa Ana River mouth. Elevations in the eastern portion of the City are within the range of 50 to 60 feet above mean sea level (msl), dropping at Beach Boulevard, and then rising again further inland (City of Huntington Beach 1996). Elevations in the remainder of the City rise abruptly at the shoreline, from sea level to approximately 100 feet above msl at the Huntington Beach Mesa, which encompasses the width of the City and extends from the Bolsa Chica Wetlands south to the project site. Elevation on the project site ranges from about 30 feet above msl in the northwestern portion of the site to about 5 feet above msl in the western and southwestern portion of the site. A sequence of mesas and small bays is found along the portion of the Orange County coast that includes the City. These mesas and bays provide the most notable diversity in local landforms in Huntington Beach, including the Huntington Beach Mesa. These landform features have played a role in the development of the City, affect the aesthetic environment of the City, and are visible from many directions. When viewed from the coast, the bluffs partially mask urban development in northern Orange County. In contrast, broad views of the Pacific coastlines are available from the bluffs of the Huntington Beach and Bolsa Chica mesas, and from portions of the Pacific Coast Highway (PCH). No single urban pattern defines the City of Huntington Beach. The General Plan EIR (City of Huntington Beach 1996) describes three identifiable patterns within the City: town lot, superblock, and planned development communities. The town lot pattern consists of small lots and short blocks that have been developed in a consistent grid pattern. Development and lots were configured to convey a distinct coastal Pacific City EIR- 3.11 Chapter 3 Environmental Impact Analysis village character, which is predominant in the City's Main Street area and vicinity, north and west of the project site. The superblock pattern is defined by arterials developed on a 1-mile grid. Within the grid, single-family housing is developed around a school and/or park. The residential lots are larger and less dense than those in the older town lot configuration. Commercial uses have been developed at the arterial intersections, and in some cases multifamily housing and or commercial uses extend along a portion of the arterial. More recent development has been characterized by the construction of large parcels as "planned development communities." Typically, these contain a mix of residential unit types and densities, community commercial uses, schools, and open spaces. Often, the street pattern is developed with curvilinear streets and cul-de-sacs, with limited access points to surrounding major arterials and/or highways. Visual Character of the Project Area • The project site lies within the City's Downtown district. This district was developed in the town lot pattern, in which lots were configured to convey a distinct coastal village character that is representative of many Southern California coastal communities. This consists of small lots and short blocks that have been developed in a consistent grid pattern with medium- to high-density residential mixed-use projects as well as ocean-oriented and neighborhood commercial development, and include bricked, pedestrian-friendly crosswalks on Main Street in the Huntington Beach Pier area. In addition to Downtown development that contributes"a coastal village theme to the area, two hotel resorts have recently been developed immediately east of the project site, implementing goals and objectives of the General Plan, Local Coastal Plan, and Downtown Specific Plan, along with policies of the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Plan. These developments, with large scale architectural features and master-planned character, have greater mass and bulk than the Downtown development located to.the north. Development surrounding the project to the north and west includes residential uses developed in a town lot pattern. Small-scale oil production uses are scattered among the residential development to the west. Mobile home uses are located to the east, as is waterfront hotel development. The project is a transition site from the Downtown to areas to the east that include hotel development. Nearby development is composed of structures with a variety of exterior treatments, including stucco, siding, and shingles, generally in series of earth-tone colors. The residential development north and west of the project site consists of one-, two-, and three-story, single- and multifamily dwelling units. ' 3.1-2 City of Huntington Beach 3.1 Aesthetics Views of and through the Project Site Viewpoints of and surrounding the project site are identified in Figure 3.1-1. The project site is vacant and currently surrounded by a construction fence approximately 5 feet in height. Therefore, most views of the project site are limited and composed of views of the construction fence. There are 11 viewpoints identified for the analysis of visual resources in this EIR. These viewpoints were chosen as a representative sample of the views available from the project site, as well as short- and long-range views of and through the project site from surrounding uses and the broader project vicinity. The general character of each of these viewpoints is described below, and each of the viewpoints is shown in Figures 3.1-2 through 3.1-14. Viewpoints 1 and 10: Views from areas east of the project site, looking southwest. Foreground and middle ground views from these locations are dominated by the project site. The construction fence surrounding the site is the primary visual characteristic of the site from these viewpoints, although portions of exposed soil and sparse vegetation on site are also intermittently visible due to the rugged on-site topography that has resulted from sand borrow and remediation activities. Pier Colony is a major residential development located to the west of the project site that is visible from some view locations as part of the background view. This development is visually prominent due to-its height and bulk. Background views include Downtown development in the distance, in addition to expanses of open sky. Palm trees are visible beyond the site, as well as limited views of the Pacific Ocean from selected locations. Depending on the precise location, background views become more pronounced in certain locations due to the topography that slopes away from the viewpoint. Viewpoints 2 and 3: Views from areas north of the project site, looking southwest and south. The view composition from areas north of the site is similar to those observed from viewpoints east of the site (viewpoints 1 and 10). Foreground and middle ground views from these locations are dominated by the project site. The construction fence surrounding the site is the primary visual characteristic of the site from these viewpoints, although portions of exposed soil and sparse vegetation on site are also intermittently visible due to the rugged on-site topography that has resulted from sand borrow and remediation activities. A major residential development, Pier Colony, located to the west of the project site, is visible from some locations as part of the middle ground view, and is visually prominent due to its height and bulk. Background views are primarily composed of expanses of open sky. Palm trees are visible beyond the site, as well as intermittent views of the Pacific Ocean from selected locations. Depending on the precise location, background views become more pronounced in certain locations due to the topography that slopes away from the viewpoint. Pacific City EIR 3.1-3 . - 'S 0 °O . 'SsZs N x 4,1 CO' , 0 DETROIT AVE o co o § z Afkk).. 5 0 co , .:). 0 0 ATLANTA AVE . 0 cl, A is . _,,,,. . . HUNTINGTON r I c.) en BEACH c; (4`-°..) 1 1 ,10 Project PIER 0 1 , 1 Site / s CL s s .,' HUNTINGTON --T.-, L-J. CITY 0 ,, BEACH a 0 C.. , . •C'-' , .......TIP-...,.. FIGURE 3.1-1 Not to Scale Photo Location Map SOURCE:EIP Associates 2003 10261-00 A,SOCIATV.5 City of Huntington Beach•Pacific City EIR • , 1 ; — ' , , • '»rrl�, 5 G �'h74 3 "� ''w. .,-.--- ...u».-..--., • • •..* ., x°r:,•, t ,`'a it,:';'':•, w„d • x.. - ,,•. -r,, .-.rk.....• h i'Mie" Ypy�,f� "r J�.' in g'f. Ht"`✓ Y b ,r. pl . ,1 ,".7 r 4 ' 4bik-i ti ...r--bit I.' °Pa .1 („, c t lit i t , - 4• • ;G r, F r. 1>icy'',r! AM _ '• (_ Existing Conditions 'al; 4. . J. oir.„ ,...- Q 416- =AAA i imisii. - - Post-Project Conditions FIGURE 3.1-2 -E--IP----, View Point 1: View Southwest from Huntington Street ASSOCIA1ES SOURCE:Font Design 2003 10261-00 City of Huntington Beach•Pacific City EIR III .."•1'••••••• _, Z S .:ae; M. Existing Conditions . _ r .._ . , ,, , i. . Ar 1 ti i . ) 4 ---4 t . ' I . • 4 , „.• 1,... . ••t"4 It.- 'i'•.°0 , Post-Project Conditions FIGURE 3.1-3 View Point 2: View Southwest from Intersection „ETV of Huntington Street and Atlanta Avenue ASSOCIATES SOURCE:Font Design 2003 10261-00 City of Huntington Beach•Pacific City EIR t . .} Y S 0 . IA f • •; Existing Conditions v * ., kr- •kid f ..-----"... _. ,...'..... t I Jj - .'• ... pri 1 1 , i , ,7- ... . .i. :. )1 : ge....4. ,,ei. 1 .11;11 _ ` y t; % Post-Project Conditions FIGURE 3.1-4 View Point 3: View South ��T 1-1n— from Atlanta Avenue SOURCE:Font Design 2003 0261-00 T City of Huntington Beach•Pacific City EIR • • A t".4G P,C� €. Existing Conditions .71 • k ' "RI' Post-Project Conditions FIGURE 3.1-5 View Point 4: View Southeast —— from Orange Avenue S S 0 SOURCE:Font Design 2003 10261-00 0 T 0 S City of Huntington Beach•Pacific City EIR 1 1 , •- ._ ,.• r 1 .., Argilla;;;;;1111111111L liE.:=10114ff�Ya,.. .. Existing Conditions 0 , ada , : I.. g _. . it 04„... .,.. . „.....0 , , , , • .,“, . «f9 fie, i I'� __. F - • /,.... Y.' .,.- , ifili ♦\i / .., �. 'aid 2• -mot r �, r ,j 1 ,' s c o 1 , ,,,, .. .. ...7. . 1 . . ... • ti i..., . III Post-Project Conditions FIGURE 3.1-6 E I View Point 5: View Southeast from First Street SOURCE:Font Design 2003 10261-00 s f E s City of Huntington Beach•Pacific City EIR l - __-------fir — ilia i • -_ �'`"' I � 1 _ .a... v1r s " • • RF ":'"..—.....-..-� .•,,.:,,.,.--.._:.. :,._w, —......."'-'-."- ' - —,•.- IP 1 my 41111," se Existing Conditions ,... I. ..:-,:-.....i....,42,,,,,... 7 _ . ., . .._, -T , .1- jr 1 - ' pm. , tta 11106 `IF _ 7 . ' r� v o c, t Post-Project Conditions FIGURE 3.1-7 View Point 6: View East from I P_ PCH, West of First Street SOURCE:Font Design2003 �ozs�-oo City of Huntington Beach•Pacific City EIR i w ymm am t Existing Conditions •. V... ... I. • • - . w y p , it ,,,, ,...7„ _Itt t . .... . .... ."-- , • ,, ! .-c--en - '.. ...„ , ,, iwi; ,,,iiiiiiat 4,_:iii-6.20:71-...., ,. ...,w-704..,:,........ ..,..,... ,.....4 .,2 ,,-.I... ,..7,.,,, - .. j..,t a ?. .n • z�_ Post-Project Conditions FIGURE 3.1-8 _E--I P-- View Point 7: View Northeast from Huntington Beach Pier • ASSO CIAi ES SOURCE:Font Design 2003 026,-0o City of Huntington Beach•Pacific City EIR • . T. A .i •+,� 11 t Existing Conditions r ♦ r, ♦ r Ir • , , 4 .,, 1 i'll° ...ti,........1,..... 1 , , ,,.. . . , f.-- a I 1 , I 011401. ' *.1' : a �Alli A. 1��'�� _ t, Post-Project Conditions FIGURE 3.1-9 View Point 8a: View Northeast from PCH, between First and Huntington Streets SOURCE:Font Design 2003 10261-00 s c City of Huntington Beach•Pacific City EIR Ale 11 44.„.4iik ilk 'ft *.., - '''' ,;'a,-,% ; .'-• .......lak: '0- ....'-'>,.i,'• ,,,, .,._ . ,. 1..f.,,... Ili >. . }. A xnyyuw. F'•'�^ N Existing Conditions w r �5. * 9 9 *, .4 ' R , , it-, .. p‘.• i ___, 1 A. .,e.,, iti tlMet .' I t I _ __,..„1„1„mil Post-Project Conditions FIGURE 3.1-10 —E T T)� View Point 8b: View Northeast from Beach Parking 1 j Lot, between First and Huntington Streets • ASSOCIATES SOURCE:Font Design 2003 10261-00 City of Huntington Beach•Pacific City EIR r __ZIE___.3 • lir t. ' ®_.. - - _ } • Ay • rr • .. ♦ f. ^ 'taliY sir •�"'� , �. Existing Conditions 1:1 , Virl"•"•"•M.0 I 1 P. ' i I, • _ t' _ tot: 11112' :)lelikl. II I q i . -ii, 1,,...t. H 1 • ' - -ift.. , ir 1 ,ii; If , m. i-i., )., ., ft, 0 t . Post-Project Conditions FIGURE 3.1-11 n View Point 9: View North from __ SOURCE:Font Design 2003 10261-00 _1� PCH at Huntington Street i ASSOCIATES City of Huntington Beach•Pacific City EIR • , (--- !. • . ... I'' `I _ ..... .... ....... ,...,. . _ ... .: ma�y • .� �• - {!'.N . , . , ., . t. ,. . . 104t.e, ,,, 4 I + : a -+ado - f ram" . '` f"_`'e 3 y AL .. _ .. .. Existing Conditions } a° I - L a1 III S .10 1 .. 114: , - ' - • IP,a )10:41i . - - t r Post-Project Conditions FIGURE 3.1-12 -FIT- View Point 10: View West from Pacific View Avenue, East of Huntington Street s S 0 SOURCE:Font Design 2003 10261-00 0 0 E s City of Huntington Beach•Pacific City EIR -r ut; fi. -y � �� 11�. . •t • • �,/ MANNING PARK 1111 - ED MANNING H.B. MAYOR 1909-1912 -- -- & 1920-1922 • { P '" .A r ,-+ i C „ 41`;tt ..;r hr f;r 1 i ;,i J an .i Existing Conditions 1 r; • + '!• h - „{. ..;r h^ r �"+fit.. ./41( 02-h _ , - _' . MANNING PARK sr" 1.` ED MANNING " j H.B. MAYOR 1909—1912 1 & 1920-1922 f 0 Y." rtiP ` y�xr i ' ° '. ':'. t.S , �+ "" Syr)r 9y .arPr •, ; • , ..4.»•",4-• A yr-, a..• •' ;-r •e-- { J x =' `3r4• Post-Project Conditions FIGURE 3.1-13 View Point 11: View Southwest -- from Manning Park SOURCE:Font Design 2003 10261-00 ASSOCIAIES City of Huntington Beach•Pacific City EIR I .. ue ;40%' • r i�.: i s • IF a i1. � lik I. 1 1 , BIKELA`" 4•.µ. .. - - ....., " . , i) .... ......_ .�� AO ,• . t. ,... . ,. . . ...... . .41148 ___............ .. Existing Conditions I :r T"'=-4 Oh. t r -_ i' ' ..1 ,. !' 1 "� BIKE LA`.r. • II .. ' 1- lir ,7,./...4,.,. . ..'...;,7•.--341 II i . -1—_--:- '7... 1 i. lit 1 N ..........'.""...7.'.- 7.: Lia...'s . ' • Post-Project Conditions FIGURE 3.1-14 --I 1 T T)j View Point 12: View East from PCH at the Huntington Beach Pier •s SOURCE:Font Design 2003 10261-00 City HuntingtonCity of Beach•Pacific EIR Chapter 3 Environmental Impact Analysis Viewpoint 4, 5: Views from north and west of the project site, looking southeast. Foreground views are composed of residential development immediately adjacent to the roadway, in addition to the project site. The Hilton Hotel complex, which includes a 12-story building and smaller two- and three-story buildings, is the prominent feature of background views; background views also include distant palm trees. The Pacific Ocean is not visible from this location. Viewpoint 6, 8a and 8b, 9, 12: Views from generally south of the project site, looking generally north. Foreground views are composed of the wide and heavily used PCH, in addition to beach areas and commercial and hotel development along PCH, depending on the precise location of the viewer. Palm trees that line the roadway are visible throughout the viewshed. The project site, and primarily the existing construction fence surrounding the site, is part of the middle ground view. The contribution of the site to the overall composition of the viewshed from some of these viewpoints is relatively minor due to the prominence of PCH and the physical extent of this use. In addition, background views include some limited views of the upper stories of development beyond the project site. In Viewpoint 12, intervening development obscures views of the project site. Depending on the viewer's angle, the Hilton Hotel Complex is also visible from areas south of the project site. No long-range views are available from most locations. Viewpoint 7: Views from southwest of the project site, looking northeast. Panoramic views from this location are primarily composed of the beach area in the foreground. Palm trees that line PCH and adjacent areas are visible throughout the viewshed. Commercial and hotel development, including the visually prominent Hilton Hotel, along PCH is part of the background view, as is the project site. The contribution of the site to the overall composition of the viewshed is relatively minor due to the prominence of the beach, and intervening development that partially obscures views of the project site. Viewpoint 11: Manning Park, northeast of the project site, looking southwest. This viewpoint demonstrates the potential for long-range views of the project site from off-site locations. Foreground and middle ground views include the park and associated landscaping. The Hilton Hotel tower is visible in the background, in the easterly portion of the view frame, although no other distant development is visible from this location. The project site is not visible from this location. Views from the Project Site The project site includes approximately 1,400 feet of frontage along PCH. Therefore, ocean, beach, and pier views from the project site (currently unavailable due to restricted access to the site) include expansive and unobstructed views of the Pacific Ocean. The entire southwestern portion of the project site that 3.1-18 City of Huntington Beach 3.1 Aesthetics borders PCH has a direct view of the Pacific Ocean, the beach, and the Main Street Pier. Palm trees line the beach side of PCH and are prominent in the view cone (the area visible from a particular point of view) from the project site. The northwestern and northeastern views from the project site consist of residential and hotel uses. All of these views, however, are restricted by a lack of access to the site and by fencing on the site perimeter. Lighting The proposed project would result in garage access points across from existing uses on First Street and Huntington Street that could be affected by vehicular headlights exiting these garages. Thus, the site's surroundings along these streets are described below in terms of existing types of uses, elevations of these uses relative to the street, and associated fencing and vegetation. Uses along the west side of First Street north of Walnut are mixed use in nature and consist of a mixture of residential uses, oil-drilling uses, and vacant land (Figure 3.1-15). The vacant lot directly across from the proposed access is located about 30 feet above msl semi-shielded from view by a mesh-covered chain-link fence. The residential uses along First Street across from a proposed access point are limited to those located at 231 First Street. This residential address contains no substantial fencing at or above window height or vegetation that screens it from view. Residences could be built in the future on the vacant lot in conjunction with a mixed-use project due to its zoning as Mixed Use, although none are proposed at this time. Existing and potential future residential uses range in elevation from 29.6 to 30.9 feet above msl. Residences west of this lot would be over 150 feet away and not affected by vehicular headlight from the project site. Uses along the east side of Huntington Street include the Hilton hotel near PCH and mobile-home residential uses north of Pacific View Avenue. There is sporadic vegetation and a 6-foot-tall wooden fence adjacent to the mobile-homes, screening a portion of these structures from Huntington Street. Areas across from the proposed access points are shown in Figures 3.1-16 and 3.1-17. Mobile homes near Atlanta Avenue are depressed in elevation relative to the proposed project site. Near Atlanta Avenue, elevations range from 11.5 to 18 feet above msl, and near Pacific View Avenue, elevations range from about 10.5 to 4.0 feet above msl. In addition, a solid wall and vegetation is located along the northeastern corner of Huntington Street and Pacific View Avenue, blocking all views to and from the mobile-home uses beyond this wall. This wall is 6.25 feet in height along Pacific View Avenue and 5 feet in height along Huntington Street. Pacific City EIR 3.1-19 • 4 ti fix . •ligig,,ilefle,•40:#0,4NEN.„A'., A f%� fi t '' it ." -. > >: /'"/•, ..k g'' a' to <;T•' �. x S&...M .b3.,,.: ,� ,:%� ,ia' 8 r /.,- F .::. • N. �a � ' ggilf ( I : ry r.r� : (�{hILli t::..• b ' .. � N 1� A . g.;. � �:�'«�� .,, ?_ . ,� . : FIGURE 3.1-15 Not to Scale E I P Areas Across from Proposed Garage A SOURCE:EIP Associates 2003 10261-00 City of Huntington Beach•Pacific City EIR Fj � ,,,.• 1 , C Y , .. .. -" �, - aF� w sea • • FIGURE 3.1-16 Not to Scale E I P Areas Across from Proposed Garage B SOURCE:EIP Associates 2003 1oze,00 "`'` `` City of Huntington Beach•Pacific City EIR 5 �...,.. 'f s t' i € '� E ., t -;- mod& R .5.. • �' a�fir 4�.. ..;,.••:» zs. :;3 ,., ' F,.�.. ...k -'.... _ FIGURE 1 Not to Scale E I P Areas Across from Proposed GarageC m SOURCE:EIP Associates 2003 10261-0o City Of Huntington Beach•Pacific City EIR 3.1 Aesthetics Night Lighting Currently, the lack of any on-site development results in no night lighting. However, surrounding development, including street lighting, vehicular traffic, the adjacent hotel complexes, and residential lighting contribute to night lighting of the area. Lighting from these adjacent sources results in a generally diminished quality of the night sky. '-" 3.1.2 Regulatory Framework There are no federal or State regulations related to aesthetics that apply to the proposed project.. Local Regulations The City of Huntington Beach addresses aesthetics considerations for development in the City in various City documents. Specifically, the Downtown Specific Plan, City of Huntington Beach General Plan, and Urban Design Guidelines contain policies relevant to the aesthetics of the proposed project. As the project site is located within the specific plan area, the Downtown Specific Plan is the existing zoning with policies, development standards, and descriptive maps specifically designed for the Downtown area. Downtown Specific Plan "Village Concept" Located within the boundaries of Districts 7 and 8A of the Downtown Specific Plan, the proposed project is subject to the development standards applicable to these areas. This Specific Plan implements the 1994/95 City Council adopted"Village Concept"for the area. As part of the Specific Plan Amendment that led to the adoption of this concept, District No. 8A was reduced in density from 35 to 30 dwelling units per net acre. The visitor-serving commercial uses of District No. 7 require a maximum building height of eight stories, maximum site coverage of 50 percent of the net site area, a front yard setback of 50 feet from PCH, and remaining rear and side yard setbacks of 20 feet. Additionally, public open space and/or pedestrian access shall be required for development projects in order to ensure a predominantly visitor-serving orientation. District No. 8A allows high density residential uses (30 units per net acre), and specific development standards for this District include a maximum building height of 50 feet, maximum site coverage of 50 percent of the net site area, setbacks of 20 feet, and minimum setbacks of 100 feet from the northern exterior of the property line along Atlanta Avenue for portions of structures that exceed 35 feet in height. t_ ! Refer to Section 3.9 (Land Use) for additional detail on the Specific Plan intent and development envisioned by this plan. Pacific City EIR 3.1-23 Chapter 3 Environmental Impact Analysis General Plan Urban Design Element The Urban Design Element of the Huntington Beach General Plan includes a comprehensive list of urban design issues that must be considered and addressed by new development and presents the goals, objectives, policies, and programs for Urban Design in the City. Explicit design criteria are set forth in order to (a)give developers and the design community clear ideas about how to achieve design harmony in a specified project area and (b) provide specific criteria for use by regulatory bodies in their review of development proposals. As characterized in the General Plan, the project site is located with the Residential High Density and Commercial Visitor Districts. Table 3.1-1 identifies goals and objectives presented in the Urban Design Element of the General Plan related to aesthetics that are potentially relevant to the proposed project. This table also includes an assessment of the proposed project's consistency with the policies adopted in support of these goals and objectives. Table 3.1-1 General Plan Urban Design Element—Policies Applicable to Aesthetics Goal,Objective,or Policy Project Consistency Goal UD 1.Enhance the visual image of Conformance with implementing policies,as discussed below,results in conformance with this goal. the City of Huntington Beach. Policy UD 1.1.2.Reinforce Downtown as The proposed project would construct new housing and visitor-serving commercial uses on a the City's historic center and as a vacant site that has previously been developed and has more recently been used as a sand borrow pedestrian-oriented commercial and site for adjacent development.No historic structures exist on the project site;therefore,none would entertainment/recreation district through: be affected by the proposed project. a. Preserving older and historic structures The project would improve an underutilized site that provides no usable open space or public views b. Requiring new development be of the Pacific Ocean or other scenic resources.The project would include pedestrian-oriented designed to reflect the Downtown's commercial uses along PCH and the proposed Pacific View Avenue,improved pedestrian access to historical structures and adopted the beach,and enhanced views of the Pacific Ocean.The project would be thematically linked to Mediterranean theme; the Downtown area through the consistent use of architectural form and detail and would modulate c. Amending the Downtown Specific Plan the height and massing of the proposed structure in a manner that is consistent with the requirements of the Downtown Specific Plan..Where the project would deviate from these to: requirements(such as with setbacks),the Applicant would be required to obtain Special Permits,as • Coordinate with the Citywide Design allowed under the Specific Plan,and would be required to demonstrate that deviation under these Guidelines Special Permits would provide a significantly greater benefit than the project would have if • Incorporate historic preservation requirements of the.Specific Plan were met. standards and guidelines Because the proposed project would reinforce Downtown as a pedestrian-oriented commercial and d. Coordinating Downtown development entertainment/recreation district and would maintain a thematic link to Downtown,the project would and revitalization with policies and be consistent with this policy. programs of the Historic and Cultural Resources Element . Goal UD 2.Protect and enhance the City's Conformance with implementing policies,as discussed below,results in conformance with this goal. public coastal views and Oceanside character and screen any uses that detract from the City's character. 3.1-24 City of Huntington Beach 3.1 Aesthetics Table 3.1-1 General Plan Urban Design. Element—Policies Applicable to Aesthetics Goal,Objective,or Policy Project Consistency Policy 2.1.1.Require that new No public coastal views are currently provided by the project site;however,the orientation of the development be designed to consider project frontage along PCH allows the provision of enhanced coastal views from the proposed coastal views in its massing,height,and public terraces. site orientation. Additionally,the proposed project would meet the height requirements of the Downtown Specific Plan,particularly in District No.8A,along PCH,where the project proposes only two structures that reach the'maximum height allowed,and these structures would be located on the southernmost portion of the site,adjacent to an existing 12-storyy structure on the adjacent parcel.This arrangement would allow the primary massing of the proposed structures to be confined to a smaller area of the site,and the majority of the uses fronting PCH would reach just over half of the maximum allowed height. r The project would provide enhanced public views on a site for which no such views are currently available and would orient the project in such a manner as to reduce the effects of massing of the proposed structures by placing the tallest structures near adjacent uses of even greater height and allowing reduced massing for structures along the majority of the PCH frontage.The proposed project would,therefore,be consistent with this policy. General Plan Environmental Resources/Conservation Element The Environmental Resources/Conservation Element of the Huntington Beach General Plan includes strategies for .environmental resources, including aesthetic resources. Table 3.1-2 identifies goals and objectives presented in the Environmental Resources/Conservation Element of the General Plan related to aesthetics that are potentially relevant to the proposed project. This table also includes an assessment of the proposed project's consistency with the policies adopted in support of these goals and objectives. Table 3.1-2 General Plan Environmental Resources/Conservation Element Policies Applicable to Aesthetics Goal,Objective,or Policy Project Consistency Goal ERC 4.Maintain the visual quality of Conformance with implementing policies,as discussed below,results in conformance with this goal. the City's natural land forms and water bodies. Objective ERC 4.1.Enhance and Conformance with implementing policies,as discussed below,results in conformance with this M if preserve the aesthetic resources of the objective. City,including natural areas,beaches, bluffs,and significant public views. Pacific City EIR 3.1-25 Chapter 3 Environmental Impact Analysts Table 3.1-2 General Plan Environmental Resources/Conservation Element— Policies Applicable to Aesthetics Goal,Objective,or Policy Project Consistency Policy ERC 4.1.5.Promote the reservation No public view corridors currently exist from or through the project site.View corridors near the project of public view corridors to the ocean and site include First Street and Huntington Street,and neither of these streets would be narrowed as a the waterfront through strict application of result of the proposed project.PCH is also a major view corridor(a State Scenic Highway),and local ordinances,design guidelines,and although the proposed project would encroach into setbacks along this route,the project includes related planning efforts,including defined requests for Special Permits,which are intended by the Downtown Specific Plan to provide flexibility view corridors. regarding design issues in order to promote a better project,when deviations from strict requirements would produce a demonstrably better project than if the project had strictly adhered to design n_ guidelines.Therefore,although the project would deviate from strict development requirements,the attainment of Special Permits and the required demonstration of resulting project improvement would bring the project into consistency with the intent of this policy. A Additionally,the proposed project would allow construction of a pedestrian crossing over PCH to the beach,although this feature is not proposed at this time.Although this would allow the construction of a structure through a scenic corridor,this structure is small,would not significantly affect views of the Pacific Ocean or the Huntington Beach Pier,and would be offset by the provision of enhanced viewing opportunities from the upper-floor terraces proposed along PCH.Views would,therefore,be preserved,and the proposed project would be consistent with this policy. Policy ERC 4.1.6.Require that future The proposed project would require fill for the site to provide useable building pads because portions development be designed and sited to of the site have been used as a sand borrow site for adjacent development.However,the remaining maintain the natural topographic topography of the site,which exhibits a natural downward slope from north to south,would be characteristics of the City including the maintained by terracing development,particularly the residential component of the project,which minimization of the area and height of cuts would span a greater portion of the slope.The proposed project would,therefore,be consistent with and fills. this policy. General Plan Coastal Element The Visual Resources Chapter of the Coastal Element of the City's General Plan identifies the scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas, especially natural landforms along bluffs and cliffs, to be considered and protected as a resource of public importance. Huntington Beach's Coastal Zone includes several visual resources that contribute positively to the aesthetic character of the Coastal Zone, such as the Pacific Ocean and adjacent palm trees, and also includes facilities and sites that negatively impact the visual character of the area and detract from existing assets, such as residual oil production facilities. The Coastal Element is designed to promote policies to protect the assets and mitigate or remove the visual detractors. Table 3.1-3 - identifies goals and objectives presented in the Coastal Element of the General Plan related to aesthetics that are potentially relevant to the proposed project. This table also includes an assessment of the proposed project's consistency with the policies adopted in support of these goals and objectives. 3.1-26 City of Huntington Beach 3.1 Aesthetics I Table 3.1-3 General Plan Coastal Element—Policies Applicable to Aesthetics Goal,Objective,or Policy Project Consistency Goal C 4.Preserve and,where feasible, Conformance with implementing policies,as discussed below,results in conformance with this goal. enhance and restore the aesthetic resources of the City's coastal zone, including natural areas,beaches,harbors, bluffs and significant public views. Objective C 4.1.Provide opportunities Conformance with implementing policies,as discussed below,results in conformance with this within the Coastal Zone for open space as objective. a visual and aesthetic resource. Policy C 4.1.1.The scenic and visual PCH is a major view corridor(a State Scenic Highway)adjacent to the project site,and although the qualities of coastal areas shall be proposed project would encroach into setbacks along this route,the project includes requests for considered and protected as a resource of Special Permits,which are intended by the Downtown Specific Plan to provide flexibility regarding public importance.Permitted development design issues in order to promote a better project,when deviations from strict requirements would shall be sited and designed to protect produce a demonstrably better project than if the project had strictly adhered to design guidelines. public views to and along the ocean and Therefore,although the project would deviate from strict development requirements,the attainment of scenic coastal areas. Special Permits and the required demonstration of resulting project improvement would bring the project into consistency with the intent of this policy. Policy C 4.1.4.Preserve skyward,night The proposed project would be developed in an area that already has significant sources of nighttime time views through minimization of lighting lighting,particularly street lights,vehicular headlights,and exterior lighting from adjacent levels along the shoreline. development.Also,the proposed project would be required to direct exterior lighting onto the project site to prevent spillage.In the residential portion of the site,the project would be required to provide the minimum light levels necessary for safety and security.As further described below in Section 3.1.4,the proposed project would not represent a substantial new source of nighttime lighting., Because the project would not substantially increase lighting,the project would be consistent with this policy. Objective C 4.2.Promote the protection of Conformance with implementing policies,as discussed below,results in conformance with this the Coastal Zone's visual and aesthetic objective. resources through design review and development requirements. Policy C 4.2.1.Ensure that the following Although the proposed project would encroach into setbacks along this coastal route,the project minimum standards are met by new includes requests for Special Permits,which are intended by the Downtown Specific Plan to provide development in the Coastal Zone as flexibility regarding design issues in order to promote a better project,when deviations from strict feasible and appropriate: requirements would produce a demonstrably better project than if the project had strictly adhered to (a)Preservation of public views to and design guidelines.Therefore,although the project would deviate from strict development from the bluffs,to the shoreline and requirements,the attainment of Special Permits and the required demonstration of resulting project ocean,and to the wetlands. improvement would bring the project into consistency with the intent of this policy. 1. (b)Adequate landscaping and vegetation. Additionally,the proposed project would allow construction of a pedestrian crossing over PCH to the of project design regarding beach,although this feature is not proposed at this time.Although this would result in the construction (c)Evaluationrvisualimpact and compatibilityign of a structure through a scenic corridor,this structure is small,would not significantly affect views of the Pacific Ocean or the Huntington Beach Pier,and would be offset by the provision of enhanced (d)Incorporate landscaping to mask oil viewing opportunities from the upper-floor terraces proposed along PCH.Views would,therefore,be operations and major utilities,such as preserved and enhanced,and the proposed project would be consistent with this policy.The project the electrical power plant on PCH would include landscaping in both the residential and commercial components of the project,and would comply with City design guidelines.The vegetation proposed with the project would,therefore, be consistent with this policy. Finally,an evaluation of the aesthetic impacts of the proposed project is provided-in Sections 3.1.4 and 3.1.5,and where impacts are identified,feasible mitigation measures are proposed to reduce impacts.The analysis of the aesthetics impacts of the project has been conducted in accordance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines and would,therefore,be consistent with this policy. Pacific City EIR • 3.1-27 Chapter 3 Environmental Impact Analysis , • Table 3.1-3 General Plan Coastal Element—Policies Applicable to Aesthetics Goal,Objective,or Policy Project Consistency Policy C 4.2.2.Require that the massing, The project would improve an underutilized site that provides no usable open space or public views of height,and orientation of new development the Pacific Ocean or other scenic re"sources.The project would include pedestrian-oriented be designed to protect public coastal views commercial uses along PCH,improved pedestrian access to the beach,and enhanced views of the Pacific Ocean.The project would be thematically linked to the Downtown area through the consistent use of architectural form and detail and would modulate the height and massing of the proposed structure in a manner that is consistent with the requirements of the Downtown Specific Plan.Where the project would deviate from these requirements(such as with setbacks),the Applicant would be required to obtain Special Permits,as allowed under the Specific Plan,and would be required to demonstrate.that deviation under these Special Permits would provide a significantly greater benefit than the project would have if requirements of the Specific Plan were met. Policy C 4.2.3.Promote the preservation The project would improve an underutilized site that provides no usable open space or public views of of significant public view corridors to the the Pacific Ocean or other scenic resources.The project would include pedestrian-oriented coastal corridor,including views of the sea commercial uses along PCH,improved pedestrian access to the beach,and enhanced views of the and the wetlands,through strict application Pacific Ocean.The project would be thematically linked to the Downtown area through the consistent of local ordinances,design guidelines,and use of architectural form and detail and would modulate the height and massing of the proposed related planning efforts,including defined structure in a manner that is consistent with the requirements of the Downtown Specific Plan.Where view corridors. the project would deviate from these requirements(such as with setbacks),the Applicant would be required to obtain Special Permits,as allowed under the Specific Plan,and would be required to demonstrate that deviation under these Special Permits would provide a significantly greater benefit than the project would have if requirements of the Specific Plan were met. Additionally,the proposed project would allow construction of a pedestrian crossing over Pacific Coast Highway to the beach,although this is not proposed at this time.Although this would allow the construction of a structure through a scenic corridor,this structure is small,would not significantly affect views of the Pacific Ocean or the Huntington Beach Pier,and would be offset by the provision of enhanced viewing opportunities from the upper-floor terraces proposed along Pacific Coast Highway. Views would therefore be preserved,and the proposed project would be consistent with this policy. Objective C 4.7.Improve the appearance Conformance with implementing policies,as discussed below,results in conformance with this of visually degraded areas within the objective. Coastal Zone. Policy C 4.7.2.Continue to locate new and As required by the Municipal Code and the Downtown Specific Plan,the proposed project would relocated utilities underground when underground existing utilities across the project site and would also underground proposed possible.All others shall be placed and infrastructure for the project.The proposed project would,therefore,be consistent with this policy. screened to minimize public viewing. , City of Huntington Beach Urban Design Guidelines The guidelines within this document in conjunction with the goals, objectives, policies, standards, and principles set forth in the General Plan are intended to improve the, City's image and strengthen the character of public and private development. The Urban Design Guidelines are less quantitative than mandatory development standards and may be interpreted with some flexibility. The Guidelines are intended to streamline the development review process by providing clear direction to the development community about how to achieve high quality, aesthetically pleasing design solutions that will positively contribute to the City's urban form and character. The proposed project is designed to be consistent with the Urban Design guidelines applicable to the project site. 3.1-28 City of Huntington Beach 3.1 Aesthetics 3.1.3 Thresholds of Significance Project impacts would be considered significant if any of the following would occur: • Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway • Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista • Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings • Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area 3.1.4 Project Impacts Impact AES-1 Implementation of the proposed project would not substantially degrade scenic resources within Pacific Coast Highway,a State Scenic Highway. For the purposes of this analysis, damage to scenic resources within a state scenic highway considers whether the project affects views from a scenic highway through the removal of existing visual elements that enhance the character of the area, obstructs views of scenic elements from the highway, or damages scenic resources within a State Scenic Highway. Project implementation could alter views along PCH, which is designated as a State scenic highway. The project site is located on PCH, with views of the Huntington Beach Pier. As stated in the City's General Plan, the Huntington Beach Pier and Pierside Pavilion are collectively considered a landmark, which is defined as a significant reference point that helps to identify and characterize a particular area within the City. The tallest structures associated with the proposed project would be developed in District No. 7. Three city blocks and the entire. PCH right-of-way would therefore separate the project from the Huntington Beach Pier, which would provide horizontal separation between the project site and the pier that would reduce the visual effect associated with development on the project site. In addition, although not currently proposed as part of the project, a grade-separated pedestrian overcrossing could be constructed in the future, which would be located midway between Huntington Street and First Street to provide a connection from the beach to public areas near the hospitality uses in District No. 7. The section of PCH adjacent to the project site runs parallel and adjacent to the coastline, providing scenic views of the Pacific Ocean and City beaches to pedestrians and commuters. The proposed project would include development limited to the east and north side of PCH and would not affect views of the Pacific Ocean to the south and west from PCH. Currently, the view corridor that includes the project site contains Pacific City EIR 3.1-29 Chapter 3 Environmental impact Analysis a large, vacant lot. The proposed project would change the visual character of the viewshed along PCH, which includes District No. 7, by providing new development that is generally consistent with adjacent and nearby commercial uses along PCH, as discussed in Impact AES-3 below. Development of the proposed project, including the potential construction of the pedestrian overpass to the beach, would alter the scenic vista that includes the pier and the pavilion. The overpass, as proposed in concept, would be light in color and structure, and any blockage that could potentially occur as a result of the stair structure on the south side of PCH would be minimal. The experience of the PCH viewshed is most often by vehicle, such that vehicle speeds would ensure that any blockage is momentary. The beach, the Huntington Beach Pier, and the Pacific Ocean as viewed from PCH—the salient visual resources of the PCH viewshed—would not be affected by the proposed project. The project would not damage scenic resources within a state scenic highway, and this impact would be less than significant. Impact AES-2 Implementation of the proposed project would not have a substantial effect on the scenic vista. For the purposes of this analysis, changes to a scenic vista would be considered substantial if the project results in obstruction of a publicly accessible scenic view, or removal, alteration, or demolition of existing features or elements that substantially contribute to the valued visual character or image of a neighborhood, community, or localized area as viewed from public vantage points. Distant views of the ocean, pier, and waterfront areas are visible to varying degrees from areas north of the project site (Viewpoints 1, 2, 3, and 10). Views from these locations include scenic amenities. However, due to intervening topography and structural development, views are not considered scenic vistas. Project development would result in a loss of views from these locations. As shown in Figures 3.1-2 through 3.1-5,and 3.1-12, views through the project site to the Pacific Ocean, palm trees, and the waterfront would no longer be visible from either First Street or Huntington Street. These long-range views would be replaced by views of existing development. Residential uses adjacent to the project also include views of the waterfront area, and these particular views vary depending on building location, orientation,, and height. These views would be similar to those experienced from surrounding roadways and include views of the waterfront area and Pacific Ocean. Views would also be modified as a result of the proposed project. Existing views would be replaced by views of proposed residential development up to four stories in height, as illustrated in the visual simulations (Figures 3.1-2 through 3.1-6, 3.1-9, and 3.1-12). Waterfront views would no longer be available. Because these views are from private locations, affects to these views would not be considered significant. 3.1-30 City of Huntington Beach 3.1.Aesthetics Existing views of the waterfront area through the site would be lost, although the project would provide additional viewing opportunities. The project includes two large landscaped plazas and upper-level terraces where retail and restaurant uses would be located. These publicly accessible areas adjacent to PCH would provide expansive views of the Pacific Ocean and waterfront area. Access to the Pacific Ocean as a scenic resource from the project site is currently unavailable, and the project would provide access to these viewing opportunities. Therefore, while public views from areas north of PCH would be modified, public viewing opportunities that would be more expansive than those currently existing from adjacent roadways would be provided on site. Impacts on scenic vistas would be less than significant. Impact AES-3 Implementation of the proposed project would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the project site and its surroundings. For the purposes of this analysis, a substantial degradation of the existing visual character or quality of the site would occur if the project introduces a new visible element that would be inconsistent with the overall quality, scale, and character of the surrounding development. The analysis considers the degree of contrast between proposed features and existing features that represent the area's valued aesthetic image, in addition to the degree to which the project would contribute to the area's aesthetic value. The project would implement a high-quality, mixed-use development on an underutilized site with no scenic resources. The proposed project site is currently a vacant lot that is undergoing soil remediation efforts and has been used as a soil borrow area for adjacent development. Development on the project site would introduce new urban uses that are intended to further the intent of the Downtown Specific Plan in providing a visually consistent Downtown and waterfront experience, including landscaping, public open space, and public ocean view opportunities. The project would be thematically linked to the Downtown area through the consistent use of architectural form and detail and would modulate the height and massing of the proposed structure in a manner that is consistent with the requirements of the Downtown Specific Plan. Utility lines, with the exception of the 66-kV electrical lines along Atlanta Avenue, would be placed underground. Six locations throughout the site, two in the residential village and four in the visitor-serving commercial section, are proposed public art locations. The visitor-serving commercial uses and hotel development proposed in District No. 7 would be compatible in massing and character with some existing commercial development in the vicinity, particularly the adjacent 12-story Hilton Hotel immediately east of the project site. The proposed eight-story hotel towers would be within the height limits specified in the Downtown Specific Plan and would be constructed proximate to the adjacent hotel, providing a transition to the lower-scale, three-story commercial development on the western portion of District No. 7, which is more similar in size and massing to Pacific City EIR 3.1-31 Chapter 3 Environmental Impact Analysis commercial development nearer the Downtown core. Side yard setbacks would also be consistent with the Downtown Specific Plan, to provide a buffer from uses on adjacent parcels. Front-yard setbacks would be less than the required 50 and 20 feet in some areas on PCH and Pacific View Avenue, respectively. The location of structures closer to the street has the potential to increase the perceived intensity of development. However, some portions of development would be set back more than the required minimum. This would ensure that any encroachment into the setback area would not alter the visual composition of the site in a manner that would degrade the visual character. The proposed development in District No. 8A would meet the height, density, and use type requirements intended by the Downtown Specific Plan to provide a transition between the commercial development in District No. 7 and lower intensity residential and commercial development to the north, east, and south of the project site. Additionally, development along Atlanta Avenue would be consistent with the upper story setback requirement of 100 feet from the northern exterior property line, which is intended to reduce the apparent massing of project development with respect to the residential uses to the north of the project site, in order to provide visual consistency. Additional visual buffering and relief for the surrounding uses would • be provided by perimeter landscaping. • Overall, the project would add to the amount of development adjacent to and seen from adjacent roadways. The development itself would be a high quality development in conformance with the Specific Plan that would not be visually unattractive. However, the structures would add to the total massing of development in the area. Building variation in height, setbacks, and rooflines would add visual relief as seen from some locations. Other areas within the project site that have higher floor area ratios would result in a visual effect that would be highly prominent. The apparent density of the viewshed would change from an open space lot in the foreground to a major development with a number of multistory structures, exterior landscaping, improved sidewalks, and other accessory project features. Visual simulations were completed for 13 viewpoints adjacent to the site that illustrate post-project conditions. Changes specific to each viewpoint are discussed below: Viewpoints 1 and 2: Foreground views of the vacant site and surrounding construction fence would be replaced by proposed residential development, which would be a primary component of the viewshed. Development would include two- to four-story structures set back between 20 and 26 feet from the roadway. Landscape vegetation including a mix of trees and shrubs would soften the appearance of the building mass, as would variation in building height, setbacks, and rooflines. 3.1-32 City of Huntington Beach 3.1 Aesthetics - Viewpoint 3.Three-story residential structures would be constructed along the roadway. Buildings shown in this simulation have high floor area ratios with limited setbacks of upper stories, and these features would increase the prominence of new development from this viewpoint. Landscaping in the foreground would soften the effect of this development. The landscaped median would add to the amount of landscaping in the viewshed. Viewpoints 4, 5, 8a and 8b. Similar to viewpoints 1 and 2, views of the vacant site and surrounding construction fence would be replaced by development, which would be a primary component of the viewshed. Development would include structures up to four stories set back between 20 and 26 feet from the roadway. Landscape vegetation including a mix of trees and shrubs would soften the appearance of the building mass, as would variation in building height, setbacks, and rooflines. Viewpoint 6. The commercial portion of the development would be visible from this location, changing the viewshed from an open space lot in the foreground to a major commercial development. Two- and three-story structures would be visible along with project signage, outdoor plazas, landscaping, fountains, and accessory features. Visually prominent features of commercial development would include a domed structure at the intersection of First Street and PCH. This structure as shown on the visual simulations would include a green and white colored domed roof on top of the three-story structure. Brightly colored banners and umbrellas at outdoor dining areas would add to the visual distinction of the site. In addition, a project identity feature would be included near this intersection; a 68-foot tall pillar with banners is used to denote its proposed location. Viewpoint 7. Panoramic views of the beach area, the main visual amenity from this location, would remain. The proposed project would be seen as part of the background view from this location, and the project would be a primary contributor to background views. Development in the background currently includes a major development in the western portion of the view corridor and the Hilton hotel in the eastern portion. The project would add continuous development nearly entirely across the viewshed between these two existing developments. Distinct project features including the 8-story hotel towers, the domed roof at First Street and PCH, and project signage would be the most visually apparent portions of the development. The appearance of the coastal area of the City would change due to the project, as the views of the Downtown would be modified from a moderately developed area to a fully developed area with numerous multi-story structures with a variety of types of development (e.g., commercial, hotel, residential). Viewpoint 10. From this viewpoint, the hotel tower would be seen adjacent to the street. Vegetation would step up from the curb to reduce massing effects of development. However, the solid building faces Pacific City EIR 3.1-33 Chapter 3 Environmental Impact Analysis eight stories in height would be a key change in the viewshed. Increased building mass would be most apparent in this location, due to the hotel tower adjacent to the street. Viewpoint 12. The project would add to the amount of development adjacent to and seen from PCH from this location. As the viewer approaches the site from PCH, more structures in comparison to those currently present would be visible. Because project development would be visible west of the adjacent 12- story Hilton hotel, the project would not block views of development beyond the site to the east. Project design, including architectural features, landscaping, and compliance with the Downtown Specific Plan development standards would ensure,that the project would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. Impacts would be less than significant. Impact AES-4 The proposed project would cast shadows on surrounding residential uses. For the purposes of this analysis, casting of shadows on adjacent residential properties or light-sensitive uses for more than three hours during either the summer or winter solstice (June 21 and December 21)between the hours of 9:00 A.M. and 3:00 P.M. would be considered a substantial change. In addition, this analysis considers if the effect of shadows would change the land use of adjacent areas. Project development would have primarily limited shade and shadow effects on adjacent properties. Appendix K provides shade and shadow diagrams that illustrate the shadows that would be cast by proposed structures. The diagrams illustrate shadows during four days during the year: Summer Solstice (June 21), Winter Solstice (December 21), Spring Equinox (March 21), and Fall Equinox ( September 21). These four days during the year represent the most extreme shade and shadow conditions during each season of the year. For each day, shadows during three times of the day were forecast: 9:00 A.M., 12:00 noon, and 3:00 P.M. For a significant impact to occur, shadows would be cast onto off-site light sensitive uses for a period of more than three hours. There are a number of occurrences where structures cast shadows onto the roadway, including during the summer solstice, spring equinox, and fall equinox. An example of the potential for these shadows to occur appears in Figure 3..1-18. This figure shows Spring Equinox 9:00 A.M. conditions. Portions of the sidewalk, and in some instances the roadway, would be shaded by structural development. These uses are not light sensitive. Therefore, impacts from buildings casting shadows onto the adjacent roadways would be less than significant. Light-sensitive uses would be affected during the Winter Solstice, when the days are shortest and the angle of the sun in the sky has the potential to cast the longest shadows. During this period, at 3:00 P.M., shadows would be cast onto mobile homes across Huntington Street, as shown in Figure 3.1-19. These shadows are not present in the 9:00 A.M. or 12:00 NOON diagrams. Thus, shadows of this length would not begin until 3.1-34 City of Huntington Beach `✓ �'y3t,� 'pc% i ` j j ,,E`, �`'\, \ \ :`1?'i 1 )�k`:sr t \as , -'i. ��e� �0 . -C '\�4\, �� /n_.. ; {'` *,4"1( !'� • / f`�, vy�''/),,'/�.\}\\t (\s ' •i 'tt y_' s r(' f ^r`N,a `��\i x. „,,,7,\\. .v ( \, / l' ,\./, \,fie.$^ �'sv;/ t�\/ \ ,, \'-:, ,H.;'t '" t\y �' j� f rt \4° S .:%m.\ ,K a M\ S \ , j✓ r \.1\ fj. .. \v.c " f , `,x ,-• ; 3 / ,A, ;, `� f',� \ /5 � ! '- N ✓ ,:✓ jn . y v.♦, -^'era \\.\` • \ } `c /Ii \ t ,,� ^ •.> i t j �C ¢ or • E v 2: ``:/,/ tlyrf //, \ 4; .46.., `\ ♦, Q S ( \ •j } ', :\\ aF .� • ,t�' \' � 4y- ° fir'` �� f�S�*° \J €4 ~C' f� \ 2,\\. '��? \�!t y lJ(♦. �s •�' j ff, s AR:tra •» .'^ i>r`� - \ fy. ai' _ �fr ` ,�. \ r't d:. f ......ot t 3\ ,I,e .r 'u's: N \\�t i i\,€ :� t > ,€, yJ J,t r °% • si"' ,....�(,.s (# ,t! ,�^^" rH .uw..,.sk,sxi:,';.M rn:y \ �`� F j F f x 5.' � '' s .. ,„ 11 s ,",11,11: ^.. s "�' ./, F ���? c.l„ ".F sf'°^T T'` •? J Yh f \ § .r�j, , v. p *`, . i t a �"t ° \ i `., -'\ ; Fa r,:� , . " vJ ,•C`, \'•, r' "{.„...e'-+ vt-7--eta :..'v„u ��,�.s..-� svw.c... • b �,,n y, S y \ t l '! r } .i Lr-••- t \•f z : .3,,,,.,1 .\\,,, 40.41:„..0.01 .......c,,;','91: :::1:$$1:,:tU:%•• ''''''' '''''' ' \-:.\,. '',-.7.:7,!..1.,......'.:.,-....._„.. • "-447:‘,....„'''-....,,...,•••r-,,,,:..r' -,tr-ir• ••••VrTrics:t,„......,..›- y .,JttLL : �,;,�"' ....ate^.y .- 1 1 i f �' s. _ aM f• }1 .'1: 1 •. ,., """• vd'D° w.+'^'^` •' • it },� t ii C•i. I j ,'. ex,tx,�w, §: €f '� 1:41i:.:4'.:.:::!,':;4:1:;ii,,*:::11i'rri.,::,:711,: .).11'11',111.1''I'il,i1..'1.1:111 ' li 91i......, (` -z r%--_.y \,.y f, €9 !:„ , t 8F ",�.� .� ,,,`ti„ 1. u # .. ti 3% ? .1 II \� r' b :l 11, i 3 [; r-#r.'a•• \\,\ .3 1 i' 3.:. .- ! a3'1.tom°'�S ......•- i E�,, ',,, --.\N, • rk: , \��' �'��i8;'�s `w -a. : •s>ti. �`::5 €\ 1 .M..'`,`' ,,..Ma,a"""m"""^„ :,w.�- rA^.. ..�^v...i"" .;:..:,.,a• t 1� , . ..\ 41 ,, 's. 3'yyF' ,•� .a_��in'• 1• .3 .......• ^^a ...,....1 �y9 ¢ 0 <.. 1.«..._.LL d TM zL I i ! i V >r Y€;€; a-:..ate ' w E: .... „•ma`s-«• ` ' , . i(} t {( rl„..„.,„,,.... ',..........,, ,,,.y^.�. ,1 .iyf I i R �,,,I ., , €€1 j..,,....1, 1 l� .a' ,w>r.:w,u.:w....,�..+.�+ `R.,,w+ _Y ...,,;::<. =^^""`c'. ... ....._ ,y....,. ...:. .... t"^r+ rnim,�T��i t�E��.,,tl=n ::�,t') h..a...s�.^+'x r s-� _ �` 13 .....'... ..a...„n�...x...........g ..a...... .. ..... ., `.ii':i= 'Ei' rFt F.,I.?�. `=..kL,e't:.1`?$'a \,�w,,,p :.... ,„,„._,,,,,,,,,I, "^ FIGURE 3.1-18 Not to Scale - .....-•-I- „.-_,.,... Typical Shadows Cast by Proposed Development SOURCE:EIP Associates 2003 10261 00 °'s ""' s City of Huntington Beach•Pacific City EIR \• ;, '^}` `. ✓\ 3 \z. \\ `! . r" r✓{\ i •';.i ,c - r' f y.N 4 a n i r , / 4 ).. r, \✓r✓r\; \ ✓ r x,e, ?E.\;'' ,/ r-,a f -y>- ! e. x R• .✓ „ !' ,....,\ \ /rr \e;' °•/ .; }<, \o‹: ,//. :,,41 '`^>. 7 ,r .z5 r1yY r.,( ... ,e , \.,: s ' .. - .`f , ',, a 1� ✓, ke " r •▪ ✓ ✓\ \ +'ate h '.v t �a � \ �//i /\ \ \ � .�� Gw„�?':. �r},k'.. \ r++ 'R err ST \>5 , �'c//, ,\R f • [� � �T� } � � � � j 4 `>� :� , ll a'� P § ' '/' �, s s -^ 4 \ \i,EF—'.„r / , i 'c.^-,. • (.s -"---" .,..i / .. , A:/r'Y i.:.� s s;.€ .,z, ss \ ;:',W ✓ ' } ^t > y ', t lG, 1t tk x T g b' ,, - S ✓R )z 7 3 ; 3.. rl�� .� .,. a i '�... s r N( �}`t s ,,/ 3 4 \\ :? , . c: �a t'9 . t a. t l : • t r-. -'4` • o, 1;,� '\ x '7 r g S \.....,s L ' : i° r 1 i z•/• i ... ,zx .r`za' y''a 'a. . .r�' s t:ilk ,i �! r SSt �"`": .� / •( t :,'" `'r ,b s ; z ,,.,,„... �s ,'F `� ' t ` tN. pp "VA: ; � �! E1; 3 #• ,. €,: :, jt ,k'%,L '-s, i `iy mow ur b ." :s, - � / ��` 'r, `"✓ -> :`\ :44 A z ib (€(€ [ggyy ._ ve 3.F - .£, ' ., ,L \ /1,. NBC �.. .::, l! t x'11 _ M �. ° 4. p a F7 F - � �u( # s -" -.'j4� , �. ( \ ` :: x i f ',x �.3 S it I%. 1: 3 E is K ) r 1 w f,._._:......::,._.:m -• ,.._: ti; i yS 3.,i.:;k. ' i' :�` ' �b /111 •• :• F s s'r'f s '. '{{.k ;':i iig„a Acr3t• ,401413i „k�\ ,.141 . t*, µ' 3 \ f— .-E '', is } FFFI t 3 �'' `F''�t^lj� i y'! i... (i I L hkr; pvia . . .�..' 'st I ii 01,: • Y< {E��_�^� s q s �} a° �0 st a ✓ �i i•} {1} i I ..., 11: '; w ''"a�"re: <w' i s R iE 119 t, i i 7..,\ :: 1,....,y-,„, E 3pi{ Ix �` • 1 4 \ t•• fF ;� �"' Ff < :� ti ) I i `�" aL / �% 'IFi"�p( 'i\, A Id ow €t t: }I• i1 i t-rx CL J t 'E' "P"'K‘.:411 •''''''"'" '''''''''':; m'''. - m.1.>. - '''''., ......0,,. ”:;1' ......... ,,.--;:-..„- het ``�is, � ¢k ;; �: `I ,• • ,. .,...,,.,fly 1 <SYSR£ „-•x. S Y",,,S, ,.•...y..-?' i T" 3.: •..<..•-"""' �.NR"lky "'°"^:""°•"°°":'d.R nw • t.(.... £( - �r • . • 1" 3 i k4 <,.... ,•'-"':.�. ,---'-^" Z..' �3:^?w^s.-.•-r:•-.."'d .;(. ii.iiii '' i .�,:2 ;•-,` % Jr „-.....�w..vnYw ,^"'yam ,.. r < ^Y" 17 w.,M-a%'"' E F • .».-, ,x-^S '�`• _ a w �,s. iCiY p3 \ SAY 3f``{ 1TI • 3 . S F t.x . .3.:r E.�.�kl.R.,R$ y�.�+.,. w.vuwA •n6, R- �...,.,y.... .i.. .::.: ...., 5....Nnxi'�"<i 'f:ki i3..,fiE. .ii. .. h > .. { < .K a ;... �.•.-.aoxxsx,wwrxornm�.m:, ._ _..,. •:,N-", w< FIGURE 3.1-19 Not to Scale 0 .:...:.,.:E.I. - Worst Case Shadows —Winter Solstice 3:00 P.M. SOURCE:EIP Associates 2003 10261-00 "s°"'"i's CityOt Huntin ton Beach•Pacific CityEIR 3./Aesthetics after noon. As indicated previously, significant impacts would occur due to the casting of shadows on adjacent residential properties or light-sensitive rises`for more than three hours between the hours of 9:00 A.M. and 3:00 P.M. As no shadows on the mobile homes are present in the 12:00 noon diagram, the shadows cast by the proposed project would have a duration of less than three hours during this period. In addition, with a sunset of about 4:15 'during the Winter Solstice, shadows would not remain at this length for a substantial duration of time. Additional shade would result on a select number of residences during the shortest days of the year. However, shadows cast by proposed development would not result in a significant impact from shading of these residences. Impact AES-5 Structural development would introduce new sources of light and glare into the project vicinity. For the purposes of this analysis, light or glare effects evaluate the change in illumination level as a result of project sources and the extent to which project lighting would spill off the project site and affect adjacent light-sensitive areas. Project implementation would increase overall nighttime lighting in the project area with the introduction of additional street lighting, building exterior lighting, and vehicle headlights. As'described in Section 2.2.2 (Surrounding Land Uses), uses across Huntington Street,south of Pacific View Avenue and across First Street south of Walnut Avenue are hotel and commercial uses, respectively, which are not considered sensitive receptors and would not be adversely affected by increased light in the area. However, some residential uses lie along First Street north of Walnut Avenue, and the Pacific Mobile Home Park is located i ' across Huntington Street, north of the proposed alignment of Pacific View Avenue. These uses would be � r considered sensitive with respect to increases in nighttime lighting. As described above in Section 3.1.1 (Existing Conditions), several sources of"nighttime lighting exist in the project vicinity, and the quality of the night sky has already been diminished. Streetlights provide the majority of light along the streets that surround the project site, particularly PCH. Surrounding uses, particularly the Hilton Waterfront Resort, also provide exterior lighting. The proposed project would introduce nighttime lighting directly onto the project site, as well as into the project vicinity. Consequently, the surrounding residential uses could be exposed to exterior lighting associated with the proposed buildings, particularly the condominium buildings proposed in the northern portion of the project site. However, as a standard condition of approval, the City requires that all outdoor lighting be directed to prevent light spillage onto adjacent properties, with indication of such provision on the final site plans. Additionally, some of this light would be masked by existing street lighting and nighttime vehicular traffic. - Pacific City EIR ' - 3.1-37 Chapter 3 Environmental Impact Analysis Structures would range from two to eight stories in height. Buildings generally three or more stories in height have the potential to include large building faces that could introduce reflective surfaces (e.g., brightly colored building facades, reflective glass) that could increase existing levels of daytime glare. The westward orientation of the primary facade would be subject to and could reflect direct afternoon sunlight. The project could serve as a new source of substantial glare in the area, and impacts would be potentially significant. Impact AES-6 Implementation of the proposed project would introduce new sources of vehicle headlight, although they would not significantly affect adjacent sensitive uses. • Proposed ingress and egress points for the parking garage would be located along the perimeter of the property and internal to the site. Some of these access points would be situated across from residences, and headlights of vehicles could be directed onto residential properties along these streets as vehicles exit the parking garage. In addition, the proposed extension of Pacific View Avenue would create two new roadway intersections at First Street and at Huntington Street. Vehicle headlights at these intersections could affect adjacent residential properties. In total, there are 11 project accesses proposed, in addition to 4 new intersections, as shown in Figure 3.1-20. Vehicular headlight, like all light, travels indefinitely until impeded by an intervening object. This analysis assumes all vehicle headlamp centers for service vehicles would be within the federal and State standard maximum of 54 inches (4.5 feet) in height and residential vehicles would have a headlamp center a maximum of 41 inches (3.4 feet) in height, due to garage clearance. However, typically vehicular headlights would be between two and three feet above ground level for sedans and mid-size truck/sport utility vehicles, respectively. The analysis also assumes that residential vehicles exiting the proposed garages would not be using"high beams"but rather"low beams,"which diffuse light in a manner that primarily limits beam light up to 6 inches above the headlamp center. That is, for vehicles with a headlight center of 3 feet above ground, light would not be spread more than 3.5 feet above ground level, at distances of 40 feet or more. Garage A Garage A would be located on First Street and serve the residential portion of the proposed project. Headlights of residential vehicles exiting Garage A would-be directed primarily onto First Street and the opposite vacant lot owned by the Applicant, shown in Figure 3.1-15. The vacant lot is somewhat shielded from view by a mesh-covered chain-link fence. Since the lot is vacant, it is not considered a light-sensitive use, and the project would not affect the existing conditions. The site could be developed in the future for residential uses, and vehicles exiting the parking garage would have the potential to cast light onto 3.1-38 City of Huntington Beach s'\ /\�� 't:'" ♦ \s/\r / r '•\ r \ �,/,:i2cy., \\\r1`"' '// f .,c rl..,.,:a s .! :4.,sz ,,b r '? ' ''t 'j 7 ✓� C '' s s4; \\,! '▪. i `% '�.` >5' \„\ 1 4.;' \/.•, l,." - a \,- 1 't '+� ".�z•,,`, 4•s `-.-▪ f s S``^�\ rj / ? � .�'ys'� �t� e :/-,^i,a^'/cam,•. r.. 1" � � `^s a s.,. � r, \� ! • r ✓•-: ,3 VP / �,��,y\I`;� / ,� �.\•:...,:)„,.,...,?„,' �, /.'✓"✓\ \ \ 's\.,sue"t. `i- p .zS� # �'`▪F \ fi 4 S - / 1\ 6A4 ` \ f�� • F • h L r Jt , y •,,.,` dc. // , •\ :/ „ \ �'"y� .: '"i ` 3\'� £ ^r..j `��;,. _ `y l -c e r dg r^s \\ k. f'�f,'�` x \ - rr , \\i ,7%- /f,' ,00"` go. r " 'v'z" ti.Fa'3 \ t r\/h �' as 4�'" . %,rf �'\ 0, �✓/ f .:x \ `� ~ T "' €3 r 'r Fz .ram':, '°-..- ,., `�`�///;,, \° �!� s,,. �' \�'r f"r •••`l�' fps W' { !/ •.•/ ,,i `' .'".s ^ �' : -..••�,. "... i\.. `. fi kr•/'`" +,,‹1 ,� �, ' 'i L. s i a'"" .r ,,�''' �v. '+v.\ \ ..,,:.; �"^Z.s ,, arr/1. ,,.., y. t' 2 '`t ✓ wr, e.') ' moray g 'F''t.., iu., r� �Z� \• " ..ram\ r 4 7 \' \�S•,. K ,,%/ ( , sIF' r �y s 4 , • . # ....rt '*, .M P \�d ' , \ \ � "'', , hS`�;,Can t � , '': itris '„ ":-.'ilkil / '','!''I''...... 4,'.4\ NO/ 4''''.' ''i" t.r r / ) F 3 ,1,,,..3 j / , \,,"`\ G ,Ng "i,•i ▪£ 4`r:.."� . 1 1..▪� \`a. t.,,,-,,,,,, r r t j r, 0 ,, , - K.-c, ..,-, 1. I S �i� 3 f is �3 �, ,<.'n., i�"t �£ �W:4%.,?-,i / 0 , .„3^'^ < t> f \ /- E a »� $ ...: i ! :✓ ' -a ,3 fir t'' \:y.'• ` .. < F :.., ,..t"`c. t fie;?`, : F/ \ _P`\ '. 1\\ ▪3 Y. 'S f. 'r o• •>/ t' ':sY g'' .. Y4 x if 1' € . '▪ ,„ F g .. ▪ \ . s "• `* y`L h y zi r���r � 4' ZS M `1,- 3 .'k h# i # € • € .; m i .€ -" g ; ; ;\ 3, s. �m \`' 'q. .,, p.. , „k �, ✓ r.,..h r?>,, �,,\ v Eaili '`•,, S ,,..1.f, r' -a .., ? ,, ,,r 1E t j ,,:_:.:,,/,,:,:;,,,i., ,,,:,.; � p f 3 t b .: , : ,1 ., if ,.:: tot i A nit, ,i: ! ,, ,:-.:"--".-"'"? :',.:1„ ,.,,,,,,,, 1.:::,,,:,z.„,..,.0,;,•,,,,,x,i,:,,,,...,..„..;.: _.,_,....::::,;.,.,,„,:,. ,,_c:.....:"...;::::.:.,,,,,,,:i.t---2:- ..,:::::'.-....::.......-..„----- it,,,,,,t2q41;f1,4.1:5,,,:,:._,._41,41,%40„,-",:s34,7-1:14fr,..47,,..4,tit,illt SR g ; t.) '4,., ''''a.' . LUA'''''.1A A 0.1 0 1.1 1 i ' ,r- 4,,„i N4‘. ''',.‘\, iv if i 4 0.1, i i } 3g ? i✓ r.,, / ... ... ....,..."„".,,_....a € e ..<^"_ > it �`""`�"" § 'jam : *littrii_t C. ..,z r'^•` :-:...^....sue" - 7 i' ... .,....,....&�-- �W.. " -�'- .K':.'�.. ,F^�e"_# .iI MT ��a'sI t&Y� �,�F,..L aft r".�4'�. � �°p'""" ,"' • FIGURE 3.1-20 Not to Scale E"�' .._,..... Proposed Garage and Intersection Locations SOURCE:EIP Associates 2003 10261-00 '''4°C`"'t.? City of Huntington Beach•Pacific City EIR Chapter 3 Environmental Impact Analysis these areas. Development of residential uses if proposed in the future would analyze this condition as part of the entitlement process for that development. Based on this site's location relative to the project, the area could be screened with fencing and vegetation designed to block any vehicular headlight that could reach future residences. An existing residential use is located south of the vacant lot that could be affected by vehicles exiting and turning north on First Street from Garage A. Due to the proposed median, vehicles would be precluded from turning south onto First Street. This residence is located at nearly the same elevation (approximately 30.1 feet above msl) as the proposed garage exit (29.8 feet above msl). The bottom height of this residence's windows is approximately 3.5 feet off the ground or 33.6 feet above msl. The manner in which headlights distribute light is primarily limited to a maximum of 6 inches above the headlamp center and downwards at a distance of 40 feet away or more. With vehicular headlights typically between 2 and 3 feet above ground level, vehicles exiting proposed Garage A would primarily emit light at a height of 32.3 to 33.3 feet above msl and downward, an elevation just below existing visible windows across First Street. As vehicles would be limited to a right turn (northbound) onto First Street due to the proposed median, the potential for the effect is also limited due to the fact that the upper left quadrant of the vehicle headlight lamp would be the portion of the headlight affecting this residence, and this portion of the headlight is typically weaker in intensity compared to the right or lower portions of headlight lamps4. In addition, the proposed median on First Street would be landscaped, further diffusing light from reaching this residence. Therefore, exiting and turning of vehicles from Garage A onto First Street would not result in substantial headlight falling onto existing surrounding residential uses. Headlight impacts on these uses would be less than significant. Garage B ` Garage B would be located on Huntington Street and serve the residential portion of the proposed project. Headlight of residential vehicles exiting Garage B would be directed onto the opposite mobile home uses as well as Huntington Street. The mobile-home residences are primarily shielded from view by a 6-foot, wooden fence and sporadic vegetation growing on the fence as well as between the fence and the residences. Existing mobile homes located across from vehicles exiting and turning from Garage B are located at a slightly lower elevation (ranging from 15.9 to 17.3 feet msl) than the proposed garage exit (19.0 feet above msl. As shown in Figure 3.1-16, no windows facing the street are visible. Mobile home residences would not be substantially affected by vehicle headlights emerging from Garage B, since the existing wooden 4 The.California Department of Motor Vehicles Vehicle Code states that on a straight level road under any condition of loading,none of the high intensity portion of the beam shall be directed to strike the eyes of an approaching driver.This results in a typically weaker light intensity in the upper left quadrant of a vehicle headlight compared to the right or lower portions of headlight lamps. 3.1-40 City of Huntington Beach 3.1 Aesthetics fencing and associated vegetation along the eastern side of Huntington Street would limit headlight from reaching these residences. Therefore, exiting and turning of vehicles from Garage B onto Huntington Street would not result in substantial headlight falling onto existing surrounding residential uses. Headlight impacts on these uses would be less than significant. Garage C Garage C would be located on Huntington Street and serve the residential portion of the proposed project. Headlight of residential vehicles exiting Garage C would be directed primarily onto the opposite mobile home uses as well as Huntington Street(refer to Figure 3.1-17). The mobile home residences are somewhat shielded from view by a 6-foot, wooden fence and sporadic vegetation growing on the fence as well as between the fence and the residences. Existing residential uses located across from vehicles exiting and turning from Garage C are located at a higher elevation (ranging from 7.5 to 8.4 feet above msl) than the proposed garage exit(6.5 feet above msl). Residential windows are typically 3 to 10 feet above floor height, and an existing 6-foot, wooden fence would screen the lower portions of windows. Figure 3.1-21 illustrates the relationship between headlight from vehicles exiting this garage and mobile home residences. With the shielding from the existing fence, windows that would be exposed to headlights would be at 13.5 to 14.4 feet above msl. With vehicular headlights typically between 2 and 3 feet above ground level, headlights would be about 8.5 to 9.5 feet above msl when exiting the garage. The manner in which headlights distribute light is primarily limited to a maximum of 6 inches above the headlamp center downwards at 40 feet away or more. Therefore, vehicles exiting proposed Garage C would primarily emit light at a height of 9 to 10 feet above msl and downward, an elevation below existing visible windows across Huntington Street. Therefore, exiting and turning of vehicles from Garage C onto Huntington Street would not result in substantial headlight falling onto existing surrounding residential uses. Headlight impacts on these uses would be less than significant. Garages D and E Garages D and E would be located on Huntington and First streets, respectively and serve the commercial portion of the proposed project. Headlight of service vehicles exiting Garages D and E could fall onto surrounding uses. Service,vehicles would be exiting these garages with less frequency than assumed with residential garages, but service vehicles could involve trucks with higher headlight spread and reach. Vehicles exiting Garages D and E would be limited to a.right turn (northbound) onto First Street or (southbound) onto Huntington Street due to the proposed medians, which would reduce the areas affected. The proposed landscaped medians on First and Huntington Streets at these portions of the street would Pacific City EIR 3.1-41 „JONOIRIA Aka, ,„,01staisgovaapookk ,,,,,, wro,„ iaPigagtom'egaggamotow„. ...-AAmwmageocaliggnovilasHomes imm,knomplassmoorpdavemaggi; IMPINOWP. Arentira AVIbitie•WM., ear'.Al*ORIPinnElma$4041.k:P. . - Mb IV, -libaabfaiLbliMbbougglaantegh ,E4.04106.1$,MOMEMSENVMM,MMIN, kliellaigmagbillamill1.1401.004INPRI tilpidamisirprovoc.4.timzioxistobt. LOIL•Rionliimilbalmonsaltasommt. ”Aresiolgimmilanaggsmonkg 41141410, „:01....."1:116111161 4,-gRoiricALZ4uvapwor '1401.,,,..vmpoovototteke ••••••,•-„,• •,,,,; mirrACALTAZZg;;/41:ivaA•or,-. mment16,...14041fr L4-4,Mft,X4Netftg%" ,.,0,,g,,,:,,,,i,i,i,i,i,i,i,i,...,,,:c.go: imp,'•'j,'W•ViirAw";4*Mg ::..,,,,,,::mg,?:imn::-A:‘.,-ix,:,&40;,.*fi--4001MMAN• .:!!.:,.ili'!iiii]ii]iggion IAA`145:,,061: fa*/-• -..i.,:v.i:mi :ii:Im•::, 0-- -14....* . :•] :it..mup • 40' • AiiiiirIenk Lill ..r,.:,:i,i,;,:,•,, .:::::..;:;....,:.::. 1E.IE',::;E, Ams iiiiE .......... .............1_..,..... , ..„..,,,,..-- 6.,,,,,:iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiin i grill loomptImpoposistolumposompoga‘rommtgowat: Ar''''''''''...:;'..,Narlc;',,,Ft6pf- - lito 1.,,,kilittittitidit it IF II I 4 !exemommauguitimmismumgcamemilookopos , mk 7,,, 1°.14401010110W .„„:„N \ -......„....„..,...„...,. ::'.::;•;:.• .•:::..•1..•••.%.::...: :.:*:.';:, ::'.:::;:......':7-:.': 7'.'•`:'1*.::.--..•:-;.:..........';—: .•::-'• ::. '''' '.'• •••• ..:1... :::...;%:': ':.Y;:':.:;°'.......°'..: :''.':';:•••• ;.:-....'.:.. . . •••. . ,, • •.• Mean Sea Level Note:Mobile Homes are located more than 40 ft away from the proposed driveway. FIGURE 3.1-21 ....,,,,,.,..ETI?----,... . Scale:1"=80' C on cceitypotfuHaunItinHeadlight acEificffceitycEtisR . ............„.„. .. „ 10261-00 SOURCE:EIP Associates 2003 . .. , ' - - - -- - 3.1 Aesthetics diminish the effects of headlights. Hotel and commercial uses are located directly across from these proposed garage exits and are not considered light-sensitive uses. Therefore, if headlight effects were to occur, headlight impacts on these uses would be less than significant. Garages F, G, and H Garages F, G, and H would be located within the residential portion of the project and serve the proposed residences. Headlight of residential and visitor vehicles exiting Garage F would be directly primarily onto the opposite pedestrian path (which is not a light-sensitive use), and headlight of residential and visitor vehicles exiting Garages G and H would be directed primarily onto the opposite garage exits (which are not considered light-sensitive uses). The turning of vehicles from these three garages onto the loop road could result in headlight falling onto proposed surrounding residential uses. Proposed landscape plans (Makallon Atlanta 2003a) indicate that the proposed residential uses potentially affected by headlight spread and reach would be developed at higher elevations than these garage exits and the street. The 'first floor of the proposed residential uses would be developed with exterior private patio and garden walls/railings ranging I from approximately 11 to 16 feet higher than street level and with'shrubs and trees up to 24 to 36 feet in height at maturity. Table 3.1-4 compares garage exit elevations to the lowest potential elevations of the proposed residential uses that could be potentially affected by vehicular headlight, demonstrating that residential uses located higher than these elevations (due to their location above the proposed residential walls and railings) could potentially be affected by headlight glare. Table 3.1-4 Garage Exit and Potentially Affected Residential Use Elevations Lowest Elevation of Residential Uses Potentially Affected by Garage Exit Garage Elevation(Feet Above Mean Sea Level) Vehicular Headlight(Feet Above Mean Sea Level) F 30.5 42.0 to 41.8 G 29.0 41.0 • H 29.0 41.0 SOURCE: Makallon Atlanta 2003a I As shown in the table, residential uses potentially affected by headlight spread and reach would be over 10 feet above garage elevations. Trees would range from approximately 24 to 36 feet above street level at maturity, further blocking light spread. Therefore, headlight from vehicles exiting and turning onto the street from Garages F, G, and H would not substantially affect adjacent residential uses. Therefore, headlight impacts on these uses would be less than significant. r - j Pacific City EIR 3.1-43 Chapter 3 Environmental Impact Analysis Garages I, J, and K Garages I, J, and K would be located within the commercial portion of the project and serve the commercial and hotel uses. Headlight of hotel and commercial visitor vehicles exiting Garages I and J would be directed primarily onto the opposite garage exits; however, the turning of vehicles from these garages and exiting/turning of vehicles from Garage K onto the internal circulation loop extensions south of Pacific View Avenue could result in headlight falling onto proposed hotel and commercial uses. The uses directly across from these proposed garage exits are not considered light-sensitive uses. Therefore, headlight impacts on these uses would be less than significant. Intersections 1 and 4 Intersections 1 and 4 would be the intersection of Pacific View Avenue extension with First and Huntington streets, respectively. Headlight of proposed hotel, and commercial visitor as well as residential vehicles turning onto First and Huntington Streets from Pacific View Avenue could be directed onto uses adjacent to Intersection 1 (First Street/Pacific View Avenue) and 4 (Huntington Street/Pacific View Avenue). Oil- drilling uses exist across First Street at Intersection ,1 and have fencing blocking most views to and from these uses. Oil-drilling uses are not considered to be light sensitive; thus, potential headlight impact from vehicles turning onto First Street from Pacific View Avenue on these uses would be less than significant. At the intersection of Pacific View and Huntington, a solid wall 6.25 feet in height along Pacific View Avenue east of Huntington Street and 5 feet tall along Huntington Street is located along the northeastern corner of Huntington Street and Pacific View Avenue, blocking all views to and from the.mobile-home uses just beyond this wall. Therefore, headlight from vehicles turning onto Huntington Street from Pacific View Avenue would be substantially blocked from these residential views. Headlight impacts on these uses would be less than significant. Intersections 2 and 3 Intersections 2 and 3 would be the intersection of Pacific View Avenue extension with the internal loop road. Headlight of proposed hotel and commercial visitor vehicles turning onto Pacific View Avenue from the internal circulation loop extension south of Pacific View Avenue could be directed onto the proposed residential uses adjacent to Intersections 2 and 3. The Landscape Concept Plans indicate that the proposed residential uses potentially affected by headlight spread and reach at Intersections 2 and 3 would be developed at higher elevations than the street. The first floor of the proposed residential uses would be developed with exterior private patio and garden walls/railings ranging from approximately 11 to 16 feet higher than street level and with shrubs and trees up to 24 to 36 feet higher than street level at maturity, 3.1-44 City of Huntington Beach 3.1 Aesthetics further blocking light spread. Therefore, headlight from vehicles turning onto Pacific View Avenue from the internal circulation loop extensions south of Pacific View Avenue would be substantially blocked from these . residential views even on the first story. Therefore, headlight impacts on these uses would be less than significant. 3.1.5 Cumulative Impacts As described above, the project site would not result in a significant impact with respect to scenic vistas provided by PCH, a State Scenic Highway. Further, the proposed project would provide public view opportunities on a site where none currently exist. The primary subject of views from PCH is the Pacific Ocean, as well as views of the Hxntington Beach Municipal Pier. Cumulative development proposed along PCH could also affect views from this scenic highway. However, development along the highway, similar to i . the proposed project, would primarily occur north and west of the highway, and would not affect scenic views to the south and east. Construction of some cumulative projects could result in a net loss of view opportunities. However, the proposed project provides additional views on site and would not contribute to a cumulative loss of viewing opportunities. The'proposed project would not substantially degrade the visual quality of the project site or its surrounding area, as described above under Impact AES-3. The project would generally be consistent with the height, massing, and architectural provisions of the Downtown Specific Plan, which are intended to promote compatibility of development in the Specific Plan area with surrounding development. Cumulative projects that would be visible within the vicinity include the Hyatt Regency Resort, Waterfront Residential Development, and the Strand. These projects have been developed consistent with the development standards of the Downtown Specific Plan, to ensure that they would not degrade the visual quality of the area. Because the proposed project together with cumulative development would not result in a degradation of the project site or vicinity, impacts to the visual quality of the area would not be cumulatively considerable. Cumulative impacts would be less than significant. The proposed project would create shadows that would affect neighboring sensitive uses. The creation of shadows has occurred and will continue as development of multi-story structures occurs in proximity to residential development. No development is proposed adjacent to the project that would extend the area affected by the project or duration of these shadows. Cumulative impacts would be less than significant. As described above, the proposed project would introduce new sources of light and glare into the project vicinity. The roadways surrounding the project site are currently lit, and exterior lighting from the neighboring Hilton Waterfront Resort also provides some lighting of the vicinity. Generally, the existing Pacific City EIR 3.1-45 Chapter 3 Environmental Impact Analysis lighting would mask some of the additional lighting provided by the project, particularly with respect to spillage of light onto adjacent sensitive land uses. As described above in Section 3.1.1 (Existing Conditions), nighttime lighting has increased with development and the quality of the nighttime sky has already been diminished, and this diminishment would continue as development progresses in the City, particularly in the Downtown and waterfront area. The addition of the lighting proposed under the project, while minimized with respect to direct effects on neighboring uses and generally consistent lighting levels in the vicinity, would contribute to the overall diminishment of the nighttime sky in the Downtown and waterfront area. With respect to vehicular headlight, this effect would be site-specific and not compounded by development occurring in other locations within the City. Project-specific impacts would be less than significant, and cumulative impacts would also be less than significant. The proposed project would not, with the implementation of Mitigation Measure (MM) AES-1, result in a substantial increase in daytime glare in the project vicinity, as the measure would require the use of nonreflective facade treatments. No other substantial sources of daylight glare exist in the project vicinity, and no cumulative impact would occur with respect to daytime glare. Therefore, the proposed project would not contribute to a cumulative glare impact. 3.1.6 Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts The following standard City requirements (CR)would apply to the project. CR AES-A All exterior mechanical equipment shall be screened from view on all sides. Rooftop mechanical equipment shall be setback 15 feet from the exterior edges of the building. Equipment to be screened includes, but is not limited to, heating, air conditioning, refrigeration equipment, plumbing lines, ductwork and transformers. Said screening shall be architecturally compatible with the building in terms of materials and colors. If screening is not designed specifically into the building, a rooftop mechanical equipment plan showing screening must be submitted for review and approval with the application for building permit(s). CR AES-B If outdoor lighting is included, energy saving lamps shall be used. All outside lighting shall be directed to prevent "spillage"onto adjacent properties and shall be shown on the site plan and elevations. CR AES-C 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. 3.1-46 City of Huntington Beach • 3.1 Aesthetics CR AES-D Prior to occupancy, all new and existing overhead utilities shall be installed underground in accordance with the City's Underground Utility Ordinance. In addition, all electrical transformers shall be installed underground. In addition to the standard City requirements listed above, the following mitigation measure (MM) would be required to address Impact AES-5. MM AES-1 To the extent feasible, the Applicant shall use nonr lective facade treatments, such as matte paint or glass coatings. Prior to issuance of building permits for the proposed project, the Applicant shall indicate provision of these materials on the building plans. Impacts AES-1 through AES-4 and AES-6 would be less than significant, as described above. Incorporation of MM AES-1 would ensure that impacts from light and glare would be reduced to less-than-significant levels. The provision of norireflective facade treatments for structures proposed under the project would ensure that impacts described under Impact AES-5 related to daytime glare would be reduced to a less-than- significant level by reducing the reflective properties of the building materials employed, such as glass, metal, or finished concrete. • Pacific City EIR 3.1-47 3.2 Air Quality 3.2 AIR QUALITY This.EIR section analyzes the potential for adverse impacts on air quality resulting from implementation of the proposed project. The Initial Study. (Appendix A) identified the potential for impacts associated with violation of air quality standards or substantial contribution to an existing or projected air quality violation, conflict with or obstruction of implementation of the applicable air quality plan, exposure of sensitive 1 ' receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, or a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria pollutants for which the project region is not in attainment. Additionally, the Initial Study determined that less-than-significant impacts would occur with respect to the creation of objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. Data used to prepare this section were taken from various sources, including the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) CEQA Air Quality Handbook and the 1997 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP), as amended. Full bibliographic entries for all reference materials are provided in Chapter 7 (References) of this document. 3.2.1 Existing Conditions Climate The City of Huntington Beach is located within the South Coast Air Basin (Basin), named so because its geographical formation is that of a basin, with the surrounding mountains trapping the air and its pollutants in the valleys or basins below. This area includes all of Orange County and the nondesert portions of Los Angeles, San Bernardino, and Riverside Counties. The regional climate within the Basin is considered semi-arid and is characterized by warm summers, mild winters, infrequent seasonal rainfall, moderate daytime onshore breezes, and moderate humidity. The City is located in northern coastal Orange County. The annual average temperature in the City ranges from 54 to 68 degrees Fahrenheit (°F). The area also experiences a typical daily wind pattern that is a daytime onshore sea breeze (from the west) and a nighttime land breeze. This regime is broken only by occasional winter storms and infrequent strong northeasterly (from the northeast) Santa Ana winds from the mountains and deserts north of the Basin. On practically all spring and early summer days, the daily wind patterns flush much of the Basin of high levels of air pollutants. From late summer through the winter months, the flushing is less pronounced because of lighter wind speeds. Pacific City EIR 3.2-1 Chapter 3 Environmental Impact Analysis Air Quality Background Air pollutant emissions within the Basin are generated by stationary and mobile sources. Stationary sources can be divided into two major subcategories: point and area sources. Point sources are usually subject to a permit to operate from the SCAQMD, occur at specific identified locations, and are usually associated with manufacturing and industry. Examples of point sources are boilers or combustion equipment that produce electricity or generate heat, such as heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) units. Area sources are widely distributed and produce many small emissions, and they do not require permits to operate from the SCAQMD. Examples of area sources include residential and commercial water heaters, painting operations, portable generators, lawn mowers, agricultural fields, landfills, and consumer products, such as barbeque lighter fluid and hairspray, the area-wide use of which contributes to regional air pollution. Mobile sources refer to emissions from motor vehicles, including tailpipe and evaporative emissions, and are classified as either on-road or off-road. On-road sources are those that are legally operated on roadways and highways. Off-road sources include aircraft, ships, trains, racecars, and construction vehicles. Mobile sources account for the majority of the air pollutant emissions within the Basin. Air pollutants can also be generated by the natural environment, such as when fine dust particles are pulled off the ground surface and suspended in the air during high winds. Both the federal and State governments have established ambient air quality standards for outdoor concentrations of specific pollutants, referred to as "criteria pollutants," in order to protect public health. The federal and State ambient air quality standards have been set at concentration levels to protect the most sensitive persons from illness or discomfort with a margin of safety. Applicable ambient air quality standards are identified later in this EIR section. The SCAQMD is responsible for bringing air quality within the Basin into attainment with the national and State ambient air quality standards. The criteria pollutants for which federal and State standards have been promulgated and that are most relevant to air quality planning and regulation in the Basin are ozone, carbon monoxide, fine suspended particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, and lead. In addition, toxic air contaminants are of concern in the Basin. Each of these is briefly described below: • Ozone is a gas that is formed when volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and nitrogen oxides (NOx), both byproducts of internal combustion engine exhaust, undergo slow photochemical reactions in the presence of sunlight. Ozone concentrations are generally highest during the summer months when direct sunlight, light wind, and warm temperature conditions are favorable to the formation of this pollutant. • Carbon Monoxide(CO)is a colorless, odorless gas produced by the incomplete combustion of fuels. CO concentrations tend to be the highest during the winter morning, with little to no wind, when 3.2-2 City of Huntington Beach 1 ' 3.2 Air Quality surface-based inversions trap the pollutant at ground levels. Because CO is emitted directly from internal combustion engines, unlike ozone, motor vehicles operating at slow speeds are the primary 1 source of CO in the Basin. The highest ambient CO concentrations are generally found near congested transportation corridors and intersections,. ■ Fine Suspended Particulate Matter (PM10) consists of extremely small, suspended particles or droplets 10 microns or smaller in diameter. Some sources of PMIo, like pollen and windstorms, occur naturally. However, in populated areas, most PMIo is caused by road dust, diesel soot, combustion products, abrasion of tires and brakes, and construction activities. • Sulfur dioxide (SO2) is a colorless, extremely irritating gas or liquid. It enters the atmosphere as a pollutant mainly as a result of burning high sulfur-content fuel oils and coal and from chemical processes occurring at chemical plants and refineries. When sulfur dioxide oxidizes in the atmosphere, it forms sulfates (SO4). Together, these pollutants are referred to as sulfur oxides (SOx). • Lead (Pb) occurs in the atmosphere as particulate matter. The combustion of leaded gasoline is the primary source of airborne lead in the Basin. The use of leaded gasoline is no longer permitted for .on=road motor vehicles, so the majority of such combustion emissions are associated with off-road vehicles such as race cars. Other sources of lead include the manufacturing and recycling of batteries, paint, ink, ceramics, ammunition, and secondary lead smelters. • Toxic Air Contaminants refer to a diverse group of air pollutants that can affect human health, but have not had ambient air quality standards established for them. Existing Regional Air Quality The entire Basin is designated as a national-level extreme nonattainment area for ozone, meaning that national ambient air quality standards are not expected to be met for more than seventeen years, and a nonattainment area for CO and PMIo. The Basin has recently improved from nonattainment to attainment status with respect to the national standard for nitrogen dioxide (NO,), a pure form of NOx. The Basin is a State-level nonattainment area for ozone, CO (Los Angeles County only), and PMIo. It is in attainment of both the national and State ambient air quality standards for SO,and lead. In an effort to monitor the various concentrations of air pollutants throughout the Basin, the SCAQMD has divided the region into 27 source receptor areas (SRAs) in which 31 monitoring stations operate. The City of Huntington Beach is located within SRA 18, which covers the northern coastal area of Orange County. Of the air pollutants discussed previously, only ambient concentrations of ozone, CO, NO,, and SO, are monitored in SRA 18. Table 3.2-1 identifies the national and State ambient air quality standards for relevant air pollutants along with the ambient pollutant concentrations that have been measured within SRA 18 through the period of 2000 to 2002. As shown, national ozone standards were exceeded in SRA 18 on only Pacific City EIR 3.2-3 Chapter 3 Environmental Impact Analysis one day over the last three years. The State 1-hour ozone standard was exceeded two days in three years. National and State CO standards have not been exceeded within SRA 18 during this time. Table 3.2-1 Summary of Ambient Air Quality in the Project Vicinity Year Air Pollutants Monitored Within SRA 18—North Coastal Orange County+ 2000 2001 2002 Ozone Maximum 1-hour concentration measured 0.10 ppm2 0.10 ppm 0.09 ppm Number of days exceeding national 0.12 ppm 1-hour standard 1 0 0 Number of days exceeding State 0.09 ppm 1-hour standard 1 1 0 Maximum 8-hour concentration measured 0.09 ppm 0.09 ppm 0.07 ppm Number of days exceeding national 0.08 ppm 8-hour standard 1 0 0 Carbon Monoxide(CO) Maximum 1-hour concentration measured 8.0 ppm 6.0 ppm NA3 Number of days exceeding national 35.0 ppm 1-hour standard 0 0 0 Number of days exceeding State 20.0 ppm 1-hour standard 0 0 0 Maximum 8-hour concentration measured 6.3 ppm 4.6 ppm 4.3 ppm Number of days exceeding national 9.5 ppm 8-hour standard 0 0 0 Number of days exceeding State 9.0 ppm 8-hour standard _0 0 0 1. Ambient concentrations of PMm,502,and lead are not monitored in SRA 8. 2. ppm=parts by volume per million of air. 3. Data not available at the time this EIR was prepared. SOURCE: SCAQMD 2001,2002;ARB 2003 - Existing Local Air Quality The proposed project site is located in the City's Downtown area, as defined by the Downtown Specific Plan. Land uses in the vicinity of the site include residential, commercial, and recreational uses. Local emissions sources include stationary activities, such as space and water heating, landscape maintenance from leaf blowers and lawn mowers, consumer products, and mobile sources, primarily automobile and truck traffic. Motor vehicles are the primary source of pollutants in the local vicinity. Traffic-congested roadways and intersections have the potential to generate localized high levels of CO. Localized areas where ambient concentrations exceed federal and/or State standards for CO are termed CO "hotspots." Section 9.4 of the SCAQMD's CEQA Air Quality Handbook identifies CO as a localized problem requiring additional analysis when a project is likely to subject sensitive receptors to CO hotspots. The SCAQMD defines typical sensitive receptors as residences, schools, playgrounds, childcare centers, athletic facilities, long-term health care facilities, rehabilitation centers, convalescent centers, and retirement homes. 3.2-4 City of Huntington Beach 3.2 Air Quality The SCAQMD recommends the use of CALINE4, a dispersion model for predicting CO concentrations, as the preferred method of estimating pollutant concentrations at sensitive receptors near congested roadways and intersections. For each intersection analyzed, CALINE4 adds roadway-specific CO emissions calculated from peak-hour turning volumes to the existing ambient CO air concentrations. For this analysis, CO concentrations were calculated based on a simplified CALINE4 screening procedure developed by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District and utilized by the SCAQMD. The simplified model is intended as a screening analysis in order to identify a potential CO hotspot. This methodology assumes worst-case conditions and provides a screening of maximum, worst-case CO concentrations. Maximum existing CO concentrations were calculated for the intersections evaluated in the project traffic impact analysis (included as Appendix B) that have receptors in close proximity to the roadways. For the purpose of this analysis, receptors are any of the sensitive receptor types identified previously, as well as any location where people would be required (as in a work site) to be located for one to eight hours. The results of these calculations are presented in Table 3.2-2 for representative receptor locations at 25, 50, and 100 feet from each roadway. These distances were selected because they represent locations where a person may be living or working for one to eight hours at a time. The National 1-hour standard is 35.0 parts per million (ppm), and the State 1-hour standard is 20.0 ppm. The 8-hour National and State standards are 9.5 ppm and 9.1 ppm,respectively. As shown, under worst-case conditions, existing CO concentrations near the study-area do not exceed national or State 1-hour and 8-hour ambient air quality standards. Therefore, CO hotspots do not exist near these intersections. Existing Site Emissions Although the proposed project site has been developed with various uses since the late 1800s, it is presently t_ vacant and does not support uses that generate air pollutant emissions on a regular basis. ; i 3.2.2 Regulatory Framework Air quality within the Basin is addressed through the efforts of various federal, State, regional, and local government agencies. These agencies work jointly, as well as individually, to improve air quality through legislation, regulations, planning, policy-making, education, and a variety of programs. The agencies responsible for improving the air quality within the Basin are discussed below. I Pacific City EIR 3.2-5 Chapter 3 Environmental Impact Analysis Table 3.2-2 ExistingLocalized Carbon Monoxide Concentrations CO Concentrations in Parts per Millions's 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet Intersection 1-Hour 8-Hour 1-Hour 8-Hour 1-Hour 8-Hour Goldenwest Street&Pacific Coast Highway 10.6 6.4 10.1 6.1 9.5 5.7 17th Street&Pacific Coast Highway 10.0 6.0 9.6 5.7 9.1 5.4 9th Street&Pacific Coast Highway 9.9 6.0 9.6 5.7 9.1 5.4 6th Street&Pacific Coast Highway 9.9 5.9 9.5 5.7 9.1 5.4 Main Street&6th Street 8.5 4.9 8.4 4.8 8.3 4.8 . Main Street&Pacific Coast Highway 9.9 5.9 9.5 5.7 9.1 5.4 First Street&Atlanta Avenue 9.3 5.5 9.0 5.3 8.7 5.1 First Street&Pacific Coast Highway 10.3 6.2 9.9 5.9 9.4 5.5 Huntington Street&Atlanta Avenue 9.4 • 5.5 9.1 5.3 8.7 5.1 Delaware Street&Atlanta Avenue 9.4 5.6 9.1 5.4 8.8 5.2 Huntington Street&Pacific Coast Highway 9.8 5.8 9.4 5.6 9.0 5.3 Huntington Street&Pacific View Avenue 8.4 4.9 8.3 4.8 8.2 4.8 Beach Boulevard&Adams Avenue 11.0 6.7 10.5 6.3 9.8 5.9 Beach Boulevard&Indianapolis Avenue 9.4 5.6 9.1 5.4 8.8 5.2 Beach Boulevard&Atlanta Avenue 9.4 5.6 9.1 5.4 8.8 5.2 - Beach Boulevard&Pacific Coast Highway 10.3 6.2 9.9 5.9 9.4 5.6 - Newland Street&Atlanta Avenue 9.2 5.5 9.0 5.3 8.7 5.1 Newland Street&Pacific Coast Highway 10.3 6.2 9.8 5.9 9.3 5.5 Magnolia Street&Pacific Coast Highway 10.3 6.2 9.9 5.9 9.3 5.5 Magnolia Street&Atlanta Avenue 9.2 5.5 9.0 5.3 8.7 5.1 Pacific Coast Highway&Seapoint Avenue 10.7 6.5 10.1 6.1 9.5 5.7 Pacific Coast Highway&Warner Avenue 14.3 9.0 12.9 8.0 11.5 7.0 Pacific Coast Highway&Brookhurst Street 10.8 6.6 10.3 6.2 9.6 5.7 Main Street&Adams Avenue 9.0 5.3 8.8 5.1 8.5 5.0 Main Street&Utica Avenue 9.1 5.4 8.8 5.2 8.6 5.0 Lake Street&Adams Avenue 9.0 5.3 8.7 5.1 8.5 5.0 Lake Street&Yorktown Avenue 9.0 5.3 8.8 5.1 8.6 5.0 Beach Boulevard&Yorktown Avenue 11.1 6.7 10.5 6.3 9.8 5.9 Beach Boulevard&Garfield Avenue 11.4 6.9 10.7 6.5 10.0 6.0 Beach Boulevard&Ellis Avenue-Main Street 12.2 7.6 11.4 7.0 10.5 6.3 1. National 1-hour standard is 35.0 parts per million.State 1-hour standard is 20.0 parts per million. 2. National 8-hour standard is 9.5 parts per million.State 8-hour standard is 9.1 parts per million. SOURCE: EIP Associates 2003.Calculation sheets are provided in Appendix B. 3.2-6 City of Huntington Beach ;;, 3.2 Air Quality Federal United States Environmental Protection Agency The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is responsible for setting and enforcing the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for atmospheric pollutants. It regulates emission sources that are under the exclusive authority of the federal government, such as aircraft, ships, and certain locomotives. As part of its enforcement responsibilities, the EPA requires each state with federal nonattainment areas to prepare and submit a State Implementation Plan (SIP) that demonstrates the means to attain the national standards. The SIP must integrate federal, State, and local plan components and regulations to identify specific measures to reduce pollution,•using a combination of performance standards and market-based programs within the timeframe identified in the SIP. State California Air Resources Board The California Air Resources Board (ARB), a part of the California Environmental Protection Agency, is responsible for the coordination and administration of both federal and State air pollution control programs within California. In this capacity, the ARB conducts research, sets California Ambient Air Quality Standards, compiles emission inventories, develops suggested control measures, provides oversight of local programs, and prepares the SIP. The ARB establishes emissions standards for motor vehicles sold in California, consumer products (e.g., hairspray, aerosol paints, and barbecue lighter fluid), and various types of commercial equipment. It also sets fuel specifications to further reduce vehicular emissions. Local South Coast Air Quality Management. District The SCAQMD is-the agency principally responsible for comprehensive air pollution control in the Basin. To that end, the"SCAQMD, a regional agency, works directly with the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), county transportation commissions, and local governments and cooperates actively with all federal and State government agencies. The SCAQMD develop's rules and regulations, establishes permitting requirements for stationary sources, inspects emissions sources, and enforces such measures through educational programs or fines, when necessary. The SCAQMD is directly responsible for reducing emissions from stationary (area,and point); mobile, and indirect sources. It has responded to this requirement by preparing a sequence of AQMPs. The most recent - Pacific City EIR 3.2-7 Chapter 3 Environmental Impact Analysis of these was adopted by the Governing Board of the SCAQMD on November 16, 1996. This AQMP, referred to as the 1997 AQMP, was prepared to comply with the federal and State Clean Air Acts and amendments, to accommodate growth, to reduce the high pollutant levels in the Basin, to meet federal and State ambient air quality standards, and to minimize the fiscal impact that pollution control measures have on the local economy. An amendment to the ozone portion of the 1997 AQMP was adopted by the Governing Board on December 10, 1999. Principal control measures of the AQMP focus on adoption of, new regulations or enhancement of existing regulations for stationary sources and implementation/ facilitation of advanced transportation technologies (i.e., telecommunication, zero emission and alternative- fueled vehicles and infrastructure, and both capital and noncapital transportation improvements). Capital improvements consist of high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes; transit improvements; traffic flow improvements; park-and-ride and intermodal facilities; and urban freeway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. Noncapital improvements consist of rideshare matching and transportation demand management activities derived from the congestion management program. The 1997 AQMP comprises the South Coast Air Basin portion of the SIP. The future air quality levels projected in the 1997 AQMP and the 1999 Amendment are based on several assumptions. For example, the SCAQMD assumes that general new development within the, Basin will occur in accordance with population growth and transportation projections identified by SCAG in its most current version of the Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide (RCPG), which was adopted in March 1996..The AQMP also assumes that general development projects will include feasible strategies (mitigation measures)to reduce emissions generated during construction and operation. Southern California Association of Governments SCAG's Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide (RCPG) and. Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) are tools for coordinating regional planning and development strategies in southern California. Core actions contained in the Air Quality Chapter identified by SCAG as relevant to the proposed project are identified in Table 3.2-3, and this table also includes an assessment of the proposed project's consistency with these actions. Table 3.2-3 SCAG Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide—Actions Applicable to Air Quality Action Project Consistency Action 5.11.Through the environmental to document This section of theEIR g evaluates the potential air quality impacts associated with construction review process,ensure that plans at all levels of and operation of the proposed project and recommends measures to reduce the potentially- government(regional,air basin,county, significant air quality impacts. subregional,and local)consider air quality,land use,transportation,and economic relationships to ensure consistency and minimize conflicts. 3.2-8 City of Huntington Beach 3.2 Air Quality City of Huntington Beach Local jurisdictions, such as the City of Huntington Beach, have the authority and responsibility to reduce air pollution through its police power and decision-making authority. Specifically, the City is responsible for the assessment and mitigation of air emissions resulting from its land use decisions. The City of Huntington Beach is also responsible for the implementation of transportation control measures as outlined in the AQMP. Examples of such measures include bus turnouts, energy-efficient streetlights, and synchronized , _, traffic signals. In accordance with CEQA requirements and the CEQA review process, the City assesses the air quality impacts of new development projects, requires mitigation of potentially significant air quality impacts by conditioning discretionary permits, and monitors and enforces implementation of such mitigation. General Plan Air Quality Element The Air Quality Element of the Huntington Beach General Plan includes goals, objectives, and policies for air quality in the City. Table 3.2-4 identifies goals and objectives presented in the Air Quality Element of the General Plan related to air quality that are potentially relevant to the proposed project. This table also includes an assessment of the proposed project's consistency with the policies adopted in support of these goals and objectives. Table 3.2-4 General Plan Air Quality Element—Policies Applicable to Air Quality Goal,Objective,or Policy Project Consistency Goal AQ 1.Improve regional air quality by(a) - Conformance with implementing policies,as discussed below,results in conformance with decreasing reliance on single occupancy vehicular this goal. trips;(b)increasing efficiency of transit; (c)shortening vehicle trips through a more efficient jobs-housing balance and a more efficient land use pattern,and(d)increasing energy efficiency.. Policy AQ 1.1.5.Encourage all new commercial, The project would comply with Section 230.36 of the City Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance, industrial,and residential structures to accommodate which facilitates TDM programs. appropriate trip reducing activities such as alternative work schedules,on-site day-care facilities,on-site automated teller machines,"mail-in" applications,or telecommuting and/or teleconferencing facilities as technology becomes available. - ' Policy AQ 1.2.2.Require developers of employment Bus turnout facilities are proposed as part of the project design. _ centers with 100 or more employees and major - activity centers to include transit amenities and transit access as an integrated part of their projects. Policy AQ 1.2.4.Encourage major-commercial and Bus turnout facilities are proposed as part of the project design.. industrial development projects located along transit routes to include integrated transit access points in the project design. Pacific City EIR - 3.2-9 Chapter 3 Environmental Impact Analysis Table 3.2-4 General Plan Air Quality Element—Policies Applicable to Air Quality Goal,Objective,or Policy Project Consistency Policy AQ 1.3.2.Require that employment centers The current development plans for the project do not identify specific parking spaces for with 100 or more employees increase the availability vans and carpools.This section of the EIR recommends the provision of preferential parking and the"attractiveness"of parking spaces for vans ' spaces for carpools and vanpools to mitigate the air quality impacts of the project. and carpools. Objective AQ 1.5.Reduce the number and shorten The project would comply with section 230.36 of the.City Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance, the distance of vehicle trips through sound land use which facilitates TDM programs.The mixed-use interaction of the proposed project and the planning and improve the City's current 0.89 surrounding land uses would substantially reduce the number of vehicle trips that could jobs/housing ratio. otherwise be generated by the proposed land uses.The effect of these reductions is discussed in this EIR section. Policy AQ 1.5.1.Encourage residential and Conformance with implementing policies,as discussed below,results in conformance with commercial growth to occur in and around existing this objective. activity centers and transportation corridors in accordance with the Land Use Plan Map. • Policy AQ 1.5.3.Encourage commercial-residential The project is proposed as a mixed-use residential and visitor-serving commercial mixed use development in accordance with the Land development. Use Plan Map. Policy AQ 1.5.4.Encourage day-care facilities to be The project would comply with Section 230.36 of the City Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance, located at work sites with 100 or more employees. which facilitates TDM programs. Policy AQ 1.6.3.Encourage all new residential Pedestrian paths are included in the design of the proposed residential uses. developments to incorporate pedestrian paths that link the projects with adjacent developments and transit access points. Policy AQ 1.6.4.Encourage commercial The project would comply with Section 230.36 of the City Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance, developments to provide facilities for employees and which facilitates TDM programs. patrons who bicycle to the site. Policy AQ 1.7.1.Reduce vehicle emissions through ,The proposed project includes street improvements that would improve the traffic flow traffic flow improvements,and use of altemate fuel around the project site. consuming vehicles. Objective AQ 1.8.Reduce particulate emissions Conformance with implementing policies,as discussed below,results in conformance with from paved and unpaved roads,parking lots,and this objective. road and building construction by 50 percent by 2000 as required by Southem Califomia Air Quality - Management District. Policy AQ 1.8.1.Continue to enforce construction This section of the EIR includes measures to reduce the amount of emissions generated by site guidelines that require truck operators to construction equipment. minimize particulate emission. Policy AQ 1.8.2.Require installation of temporary This section of the EIR includes measures to reduce the amount of fugitive dust generated construction facilities(such as wheel washers)and during construction of the proposed project. implementation'of construction practices that minimize dirt and soil transfer onto public roadways. Objective AQ 1.10.Reduce the amount of energy Conformance with implementing policies,as discussed below,results in conformance with consumed by commercial uses by 15 percent by this objective. • 2000 and 30 percent by 2010.Reduce the amount of energy consumed by residential use by 4.5 percent • by 1994 and 30 percent by 2010 as required by Southem Califomia Air Quality Management District. Policy AQ 1.10.1.Continue to require the utilization This section of the EIR includes measures to reduce energy demand of the proposed land and installation of energy conservation features in all uses. new construction. 3.2-10 City of Huntington Beach 3.2 Air Quality 3.2.3 Thresholds of Significance The following thresholds of significance are based on Appendix G of the 2002 CEQA.Guidelines. For li purposes of this EIR, implementation of the proposed project may have.a significant adverse impact on air quality if it would result in any of the following: • Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan • Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation • Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. • Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors) As the agency principally responsible for comprehensive air pollution control in the Basin, the SCAQMD recommends that projects should be evaluated in terms of air pollution control thresholds established by the SCAQMD and published in the CEQA Air Quality Handbook. These thresholds were developed by the SCAQMD to provide quantifiable levels that projects can be compared to. The City utilizes the SCAQMD's thresholds that are in effect at the time that development is proposed in order to assess the significance of quantifiable impacts. The following quantifiable thresholds are currently recommended by the SCAQMD. • { Construction Emissions Thresholds The SCAQMD currently recommends that projects with construction-related emissions that exceed any of ii the following emissions thresholds should be considered significant: . • 550 pounds per day of CO • 75 pounds per day of VOC • 100 pounds per day of NOx • 150 pounds per day of SOx • 150 pounds per day of PMIo ` The City has identified these SCAQMD thresholds as appropriate for the determination of the significance of construction impacts. Pacific City EIR 3.2-11 Chapter 3 Environmental Impact Analysis Operational Emissions Thresholds The SCAQMD currently recommends that projects with operational emissions that exceed any of the following emissions thresholds should be considered significant. These thresholds apply to individual development projects only; they do not apply to cumulative development: • 550 pounds per day of CO i 55poundsperdayofVOC • 55 pounds per day of NOx • 150 pounds per day of SOx • 150 pounds per day of PM,0 The City has identified these SCAQMD thresholds as appropriate for the determination of the significance of operational impacts. In order to assess cumulative impacts, the SCAQMD recommends that projects be evaluated to determine whether they would be consistent with AQMP performance standards and emission reduction targets. If a project shows less than a one percent per year reduction in project emissions of CO, VOC, NOx, SOx, and PM,o, then it would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria pollutants for which the project region is in nonattainment under an applicable national or State ambient air quality standard. - 3.2.4 Project Impacts . Impact AQ-1 Peak construction activities associated with the proposed project could generate emissions that exceed SCAQMD thresholds. • E During construction, two basic types of activities would be expected to occur and generate emissions. First, the development site would be prepared, excavated, and graded to accommodate the new subterranean parking structure, building foundations, and roadways. Second, the buildings and roadways would be constructed and readied for use. Because of the construction time frame and the normal day-to-day variability in construction activities, it is difficult, if not impossible, to precisely quantify the daily emissions associated with each phase of the proposed construction activities. Nonetheless, Table 3.2-5 identifies daily emissions that are estimated to occur on peak construction days, such as when the entire site is being graded and the area for the parking ` structure is being excavated, and when residential and commercial construction is occurring simultaneously. 9 3.2-12 City of Huntington Beach 3.2 Air Quality These calculations assume that appropriate dust control measures would be implemented during each phase - of development as required by SCAQMD Rule 403-Fugitive Dust. As shown, construction related daily emissions would exceed SCAQMD significance thresholds for NOx during the site excavation and grading phase, and VOC and NOx during the peak construction phase. Therefore, this impact would be significant. Table 3.2-5 Estimated Peak Daily Construction Emissions Peak Day Emissions in Pounds per Day Emissions Source CO VOC NO. l SOx PMwo Site Excavation and Grading Phase Construction Equipment 86.9 19.1 254.6 33.2 25.7 On-Road Vehicles1 53.0 6.9 62.6 0.5 2.0 Site Excavation and Grading - - - - 48.0 Total Emissions 140.0 26.1 317.2 33.7 75.7 SCAQMD Thresholds 550.0 75.0 100.0 150.0 150.0 Significant Impact? No No Yes No No Construction Phase , Construction Equipment 81.0 . 17.9 • 161.9 8.4 40.9 On-Road Vehicles1 5.4 0.6 0.6 0.0 0.0 Stationary Equipment - 0.7 . 0.5 - 0.0 Asphalt Paving - 1.3 - - - - Architectural Coatings - 92.5 - - - Total Emissions 86.4 113.0 163.1 8.4 41.0 SCAQMD Thresholds 550.0 75.0 100.0 150.0 150.0 Significant Impact? No Yes Yes No No 1. Includes delivery trucks and construction worker vehicles. SOURCE: EIP Associates,2003.Calculation sheets are provided in Appendix B. Impact AQ-2 Daily operation of the project would generate emissions that exceed SCAQMD thresholds. Operational emissions generated byboth stationaryand mobile sources would result from normal day-to- p g o day activities on the project site after occupation. Stationary area source emissions would be generated by the consumption of natural gas for space and water heating devices, and the operation of landscape maintenance equipment. Mobile emissions would be generated by the motor vehicles traveling to and from the project site. { Chapter 11 of the CEQA Air Quality Handbook identifies a number of measures that can be implemented to reduce the operational impacts of new development projects. Several of these measures are included in the design of the proposed project and would help to reduce the operational emissions that would otherwise be Pacific City EIR, 3.2-13 Chapter 3 Environmental Impact Analysis , generated by the project. Specific measures recommended by the SCAQMD that are characteristics of the proposed project include the following: • Provide a mix of residential and nonresidential uses that encourage pedestrian and bicycle activity between the uses and surrounding environment • Provide transit shelters and/or benches to encourage use of public transit • -` • Provide street lighting to provide safety near public transit stops • Provide route signs and displays at transit stops • Provide bus turnouts • Provide wide sidewalks and/or pedestrian paths, and pedestrian facilities such as benches and attractive settings • Provide direct pedestrian connections • Provide a safe pedestrian and bicycling environment • Provide street lighting to provide safety along pedestrian and bicycle paths • Provide shade trees to shade sidewalks to encourage pedestrian activity on hot days • Provide pedestrian signalization and safety at street and driveway crossings • Provide parking structures and/or small dispersed parking lots to minimize the amount of time that people would otherwise drive around while looking for parking spaces • Provide articulated storefronts and display windows with visual interest to encourage pedestrian activity in commercial areas • Provide bicycle lanes/paths that connect to an existing bikeway system • Provide secure bicycle parking for employees and visitors to commercial areas • Provide commercial services such as food service, banking, and shopping opportunities within walking distance for employees In addition to these measures, the existing environment around the project site provides amenities that would help to encourage non-motor vehicle transportation by future residents, customers, and employees of the proposed project. These amenities include the following: • Sidewalks and walking paths through the surrounding area • Street trees that provide moderate coverage of the sidewalks and pedestrian paths • Most destinations within the vicinity accessible by pedestrians • A large number and variety of visually interesting uses that encourage pedestrian activity 3.2-14 City of Huntington Beach 3.2 Air Quality • • Some streets have enhanced safety for pedestrians (e.g., separations between streets and pedestrian paths • A moderate degree of pedestrian safety from crime • Visually interesting walking paths • Existing transit service within walking distance,of the project site • Moderate coverage of the area with interconnected bikeways • • Some bicycle routes have paved shoulders to provide increased safety • Safe speed limits of 30 mph or less along some bicycle routes • A large number and variety of visually interesting uses that encourage bicycle activity 1 � •-- • A parking ordinance that requires unprotected bike racks at all new commercial uses The analysis of daily operational emissions has been prepared utilizing the URBEMIS 2002 computer model recommended by the SCAQMD. The results of these calculations are presented in Table 3.2-6 and take into consideration the internal trip reduction and mode-shift reduction characteristics of the mixed-use interaction of the proposed project and the surrounding land uses, and the design features of the proposed project discussed above. As shown, the proposed project would generate daily emissions of VOC and NOx that exceed the thresholds of significance recommended by the SCAQMD. Therefore, this is a significant impact. Table 3.2-6 Project Daily Operational Emissions Emissions in Pounds per Day Emissions Source CO VOC NOx SOx PM() Water and Space Heating 3.27 0.59 7.92 0.00 0.01, Landscape Maintenance 1.10 0.13 0.02 0.00 • 0.00 Consumer Products — 25.24 — — — Motor Vehicles 482.76 44.98 51.05 0.34 63.53 Total Emissions 487.13, 70.94 58.99 0.34 63.55 Thresholds(lb/day) 550.00 55.00 55.00 150.00 150.00 Significant Impact No Yes Yes No No SOURCE: EIP Associates 2003.Computer sheets are provided in Appendix B. Impact AQ-3 The proposed project would generate increased local traffic volumes, but would not cause localized CO concentrations at nearby intersections to exceed national or State standards. As was done to assess existing localized CO concentrations, the simplified CALINE4 screening procedure was used to predict future CO concentrations at the study-area intersections in 2010 when the project is Pacific City EIR 3.2-15 i - Chapter 3 Environmental Impact Analysis" expected to be completed. The results of these calculations are presented in Table 3.2-7. As shown, future CO concentrations near these intersections would not exceed national or State ambient air quality , standards. Therefore, CO hotspots would not occur near these intersections in the future, and the . contribution of project traffic-related CO at these intersections would be less than significant. Table 3.2-7 Future (2010)With Project Localized Carbon Monoxide Concentrations CO Concentrations in Parts per Million+•2 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet Intersection 1-Hour 8-Hour 1-Hour 8-Hour 1-Hour 8-Hour Goldenwest Street&Pacific Coast Highway 7.8 6.1 7.4 5.8 7.0 5.5 17th Street&Pacific Coast Highway 7.2 5.7 6.9 5.5 6.6 5.3 9th Street&Pacific Coast Highway 7.2 5.7 6.9 5.5 6.6 5.3 6th Street&Pacific Coast Highway 7.3 5.7 7.0 / 5.5 6.6 5.3 Main Street&6th Street 6.2 5.0 6.1 4.9 6.0 4.9 1! : Main Street&Pacific Coast Highway 7.7 6.0 7.3 5.8 6.9 5.5 First Street&Atlanta Avenue 6.7 5.3 6.5 5.2 6.3 5.1 First Street&Pacific Coast Highway 7:6 6.0 7.3 5.7 6.8 5.4 Huntington Street&Atlanta Avenue 6.8 5.4 6.6 5.3 6.5 5.1 Delaware Street&Atlanta Avenue 6.9 5.4 6.6 5.3 6.4 5.1 Huntington Street&Pacific Coast Highway 7.7 6.0 • 7.3 5.8 6.9 5.5 Huntington Street&Pacific View Avenue 6.5 5.2 6.4 5.1 6.2 5.0 t Beach Boulevard&Adams Avenue 8.0 6.2 '7.6 5.9 7.1 5.6 Beach Boulevard&Indianapolis Avenue 6.9 5.4 6.7 5.3 6.4 5.1 Beach Boulevard&Atlanta Avenue 6.9 5.5 6.7 5.3 6.5 5.2 Beach Boulevard&Pacific Coast Highway 8.0 6.3 7.6 6.0 7.1 5.6 Newland Street&Atlanta Avenue 6.7 5.3 ' 6.5 5.2 6.3 5.0 Newland Street&Pacific Coast Highway 7.4 5.8 7.1 5.6 6.7 5.4 Magnolia Street&Pacific Coast Highway 7.4 5.8 7.1 5.6 6.7 5.4 Magnolia Street&Atlanta Avenue 6.6 5.3 6.4 5.2 6.3 5.0 .- Pacific Coast Highway&Seapoint Street 8.3 6.4 7.7 6.0 7.2 5.6 : Pacific Coast Highway&Warner Avenue 10.4 7.9 9.4 7.2 8.3 6.5 Pacific Coast Highway&Brookhurst Street 8.3 6.5 7.8 6.1 7.3 5.7 Main Street&Adams Avenue 6.5 5.2 6.3 5.1 6.2 5.0 Main Street&Utica Avenue 6.5 5.2 6.4 5.1 6.2 5.0 Lake Street&Adams Avenue 6.4 5.1 6.3 5.0 6.2 4.9 i Lake Street&Yorktown Avenue 6.5 5.2 6.3 5.1 6.2 5.0 Beach Boulevard&Yorktown Avenue 8.0 6.2 7.6 5.9 7.1 5.6 ,- Beach Boulevard&Garfield Avenue 8.1 6.3 7.7 6.0 7.2 5.7 Beach Boulevard&Ellis Avenue-Main Street 8.7 6.7 8.1 6.3 7.5 5.9 First Street&Pacific View Avenue 6.1 4.9 6.0 4.8 5.9 4.8 Beach Boulevard&Pacific View Avenue 6.5 5.2 6.3 5.1 6.2 5.0 1. National 1-hour standard is 35.0 parts per million.State 1-hour standard is 20.0 parts per million. 2. National 8-hour standard is 9.5 parts per million.State 8-hour standard is 9.1 parts per million. SOURCE: EIP Associates 2003.Calculation sheets are provided in Appendix B. 3.2-16 City of Huntington Beach 3.2 Air Quality Impact AQ-4 The proposed project would provide new sources of regional air emissions, but would not impair implementation of the Air Quality Management Plan. The 1997 AQMP, discussed previously, was prepared to accommodate growth, to reduce the high levels of pollutants within the areas under the jurisdiction of SCAQMD, to return clean air to the region, and to minimize the impact on the economy. Projects that are considered to be consistent with the AQMP would not interfere with attainment, because this growth is included in the projections used to formulate the AQMP. Therefore, projects, uses, and activities that are consistent with the applicable assumptions used in the development.of the AQMP would not jeopardize attainment of the, air quality levels identified in the AQMP, even if they exceed the SCAQMD's recommended daily emissions thresholds. Projects that are consistent with the projections of employment and population forecasts identified in the Growth Management Chapter of the RCPG are considered consistent with the AQMP growth projections. This is because the Growth Management Chapter forms the basis of the land use and transportation control portions of the AQMP. The project site is located within the Orange County subregion of the RCPG. SCAG estimates that employment for Orange County will increase from 1,558,000 persons in 2000 to 1,886,000 persons by 2010. The project would contribute an incremental portion to this growth in employment. In addition, SCAG estimates that the population for Orange County will increase from 1,005,000 persons in 2000 to 1,092,000 persons by 2010. As discussed in Section 3.11 (Population and Housing), implementation of the °._ proposed project would not directly or indirectly induce substantial population or employment growth beyond current growth projections established by the City and SCAG. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with the AQMP employment forecasts for the Orange County subregion or City of Huntington Beach, and it would not jeopardize attainment of State and Federal ambient air quality standards in Orange County. Another measurement tool in determining consistency with the AQMP is to determine how a project accommodates the expected increase in population or employment. Generally, a project's planning is = consistent with the AQMP if it minimizes vehicle miles traveled (VMT), within both the project and the community in which it is located, and consequently minimizes air pollutant emissions. The mixed-use nature of the proposed project and project's proximity to other commercial, residential, and tourist uses means that local residents could walk or ride bicycles to and from the project site, guests of the hotel could walk to nearby commercial and tourist areas, thereby reducing the distance that people would otherwise need to drive to and from these areas. Section 3.14 (Transportation/Traffic) indicates that the internal trip reduction and mode-shift reduction characteristics of the proposed project would reduce by 3.247 Pacific City EIR Chapter 3 Environmental Impact Analysis 4,501 the number of potential daily vehicle trips generated by the proposed land uses. The project also includes several design features that are recommended by the SCAQMD to reduce the operational impacts of new development projects. All of these features are consistent with the goals of the AQMP for reducing the emissions associated with the new development. Based on this information, the proposed project would not impair implementation of the AQMP, and this impact would be less than significant. Impact AQ-5 Implementation of the proposed project could release toxic air contaminants,but not in significant amounts. Toxic or carcinogenic air pollutants are not expected to occur in any meaningful amounts in conjunction with operation of the proposed land uses within the project site. Only small quantities of common forms of hazardous or toxic substances, such as cleaning agents, which are typically used, stored, or sold in conjunction with commercial and restaurant/bar uses, would be present. Most uses of such substances would occur indoors. Based on the common uses expected on the site, impacts would be less than significant. 3.2.5 Cumulative Impacts The SCAQMD's CEQA Air Quality Handbook identifies possible methods to determine the cumulative significance of land use projects. These methods differ from the methodology used in other cumulative impact analyses in which all foreseeable future development within a given service boundary or geographical area is predicted and its impacts measured. The SCAQMD has not identified thresholds to which the total emissions of all cumulative development can be compared. Instead, the SCAQMD's methods are based on performance standards and emission reduction targets necessary to attain the federal and State air quality standards as predicted in the AQMP. As discussed previously, the 1997 AQMP was prepared to accommodate growth, to reduce the high levels of pollutants within the Basin, to meet federal and State air quality standards, and to minimize the fiscal impact that pollution control measures have on the local economy. According to the CEQA Air Quality Handbook, projects which are consistent with the AQMP performance standards and emission reduction targets should be considered less-than-significant unless there is other pertinent information to the contrary. Since the proposed project is consistent with the AQMP, cumulative impacts related to this plan would be less than significant. 3.2-18 City of Huntington Beach 1 , 3.2 Al►Quality With respect to operational emissions, the method employed for this analysis is if the project shows a one percent per year reduction in project emissions of CO, VOC, NOx, SOx, and PM10. To demonstrate this, the potential emissions for the proposed uses were calculated without the internal trip reduction and mode- shift reduction characteristics of the mixed-use interaction of the proposed project and the surrounding land uses. These emissions are compared with the daily project emissions identified previously in Table 3.2-6. This comparison is provided in Table 3.2-8. As shown, the reduction of each pollutant type ranges from 27.1 to 38.2 percent. Based on this, project implementation would meet the performance standard for annual emissions reductions and not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard. Therefore, the emissions generated by the proposed project would not be cumulatively considerable. Table 3.2-8 Daily Reduced Operational Emissions Emissions in Pounds per Day Emissions Source CO VOC - NOx SOx PMio Total Unreduced Emissions 787.40 ' 97.29 90.85 0.55 102.91 Total Reduced Emissions 487.13 70.94 58.99 0.34 63.55 Total Reduction 300.27 26.35 31.88 0.21 39.36 Percent Reduction 38.1% 27.1% 35.1% 38.2% 38.2% SOURCE: EIP Associates,2003.Computer sheets are provided in Appendix B. 3.2.6 Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts The following,standard City requirements (CR) would apply to the project. CR AQ-A through CR AQ-C shall be completed prior to issuance of a grading permit. CR AQ-A 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 prior to issuance of grading permits. 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 "1-800-CUTSMOG" in the event there are concerns regarding fugitive dust and compliance with AQMD Rule No. 403. Pacific City EIR 3.2-19 Chapter 3 Environmental Impact Analysis • CR AQB 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. CR AQC The Applicant shall demonstrate that the grading/erosion control plan will abide by the provisions of AQMD's Rule 403 as related to fugitive dust control, prior to issuance of grading permits. CR AQ-D through CR AQ-F shall be implemented during grading and construction operations: CR AQD The construction disturbance area shall be kept as small as possible. CR AQE Wind barriers shall be installed along the perimeter of the site and/or around areas being graded. CR AQF 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. In addition to the standard City requirements listed above, mitigation measures (MM) would be required to address project impacts. The following mitigation measures would be required to address potentially • significant air quality impacts associated with construction activities, as described under Impact AQ-1. MMAQ1 The project developer(s) shall require by contract specifications that construction equipment engines will be maintained in good condition and in proper tune per manufacturer's specification for the duration of construction. Contract specification b language shall be reviewed the City prior to issuance ofa grading yPermit. MM AQ2 The project developer(s) shall require by contract specifications that construction- related equipment, including heavy-duty equipment, motor vehicles, and portable equipment, shall be turned off when not in use for more than five minutes. Contract specification language shall be reviewed by the City prior to issuance of a grading permit. MM AQ3 The project developer(s) shall encourage contractors to utilize alternative fuel - construction equipment (i.e., compressed natural gas, liquid petroleum gas, and unleaded gasoline) and low-emission diesel construction equipment to the extent that the equipment is readily available and cost rective. Contract specification language shall be reviewed by the City prior to issuance of a grading permit. MM AQ4 The project developer(s) shall require by contract specifications that construction operations rely on the electricity infrastructure surrounding the construction sites rather than electrical generators powered by internal combustion engines to the extent 3.2-20 City of Huntington Beach 3.2 Air Quality feasible. Contract specification language shall be reviewed by the City prior to issuance of a grading permit. MMAQ,S The project developer(s) shall implement dust control measures consistent with SCAQMD Rule 403—Fugitive Dust during the construction phases of new project development. Contract specification language shall be reviewed for inclusion of this language by the City prior to issuance of a grading permit. The following actions are currently recommended to implement Rule 403 and have been quantified by the SCAQMD as being able to reduce dust generation between 30 and 85 percent depending on the source of the dust generation: ■ Apply water and/or approved nontoxic chemical soil stabilizers according to manufacturer's specification to all inactive construction areas (previously graded areas that have been inactive for 10 or more days) • Replace ground cover in disturbed areas as quickly as possible ■ Enclose, cover, water twice daily, or apply approved chemical soil binders to exposed piles with 5 percent or greater silt content ■ Water trucks will be utilized on the site and shall be available to be used ' throughout the day during site grading to keep the soil damp enough to prevent dust being raised by the operations. Water active grading sites at least twice daily • Suspend all excavating and grading operations when wind speeds (as instantaneous gusts)exceed 25 miles per hour over a 30-minute period • • All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials are to be covered or should maintain at least two feet of freeboard (i.e., minimum vertical distance between top of the load and the top of the trailer), in accordance with Section 23114 of the California Vehicle Code • Sweep streets at the end of the day • Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto paved roads, or wash'off trucks and any equipment leaving the site each trip on a gravel surface to prevent dirt and dust from impacting the surrounding areas. • Apply water three times daily or chemical soil stabilizers according to manufacturers' specifications to all unpaved parking or staging areas or unpaved road su faces • Post and enforce traffic speed limits,of 15 miles per hour or less on all unpaved roads The following mitigation measures would be required to address potentially significant operational air quality impacts, as described under Impact AQ-2. is Pacific City EIR 3.2-21 Chapter 3 Environmental Impact Analysis MM AQ-6 The project developer shall include in construction and sales contracts the following requirements or measures shown to be equally effective to reduce project-related stationary and area source emissions: • Use solar or low-emission water heaters in the residential, oce, and visitor- serving commercial buildings • Provide energy- cient heating with automated controls in the residential, oce, and visitor-serving commercial buildings • Use energy-eflicient cooking appliances in the in the residential and visitor- serving commercial buildings • If fire places are provided in new residential units, install the lowest-emitting fireplaces commercially available at the time of development • Require that contract landscapers providing services at the project site use electric or battery-powered equipment, or internal combustion equipment that is either certified by the California Air Resources Board or is three years old or less at the time of use. Contract specification language shall be reviewed by the City prior to issuance of a grading permit. MMAQ,7 The project developer shall include in construction and sales contracts for the commercial and offices uses on site that preferential parking spaces be provided for carpools and vanpools. Contract specification language shall be reviewed by the City prior to issuance of a grading permit. A minimum of 7'2"of vertical clearance shall be provided in the parking structure for vanpool access. Inclusion of the vertical clearance shall be verified on building plans prior to issuance of a building permit. These measures would ensure that construction emissions are not greater than predicted in this analysis. They would also reduce the operational emissions of the proposed project by approximately 0.01 pound per day of VOC and 0.17 pound per day of NOx. The daily emissions associated with construction and operational activities, as described under Impact AQ-1 and Impact AQ-2, would remain significant and unavoidable. Impact AQ-3 through Impact AQ-5 would be less than significant, as described above. • 3.2-22 City of Huntington Beach 3.3 Biological Resources 3.3 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES {- This EIR section analyzes the potential for adverse impacts on biological resources, including sensitive plants, animals, and habitats, resulting from implementation of the proposed project. The Initial Study (Appendix A) identified the potential for impacts associated with the effect on candidate, sensitive, or special status species. The Initial Study identified project consistency with local policies or ordinances that are applicable to the site as less than significant; however, this section will address the project's compliance with coastal resource policies of the Coastal Act. Issues scoped out in the in the Initial Study include effects on riparian habitats, other sensitive natural communities, or wetlands; movement of fish or wildlife species or migratory wildlife corridors;_ or conflicts with habitat conservation plans or natural community conservation plans. Data used to prepare this section were taken from the City's General Plan Coastal Element, the Biological Technical Report (included in Appendix I), which involved information from a biological survey of the project site, and taxa information of species currently listed as Threatened or Endangered, proposed for listing, and/or candidates for listing by the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), or California Native Plant Society (CNPS). The information in this section has been reported in accordance with accepted scientific and technical standards that are consistent with the requirements of USFWS and CDFG. Sources used to determine the special status of biological resources include the following: • Plants—Electronic Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California (CNPS 2001); Natural Diversity Database List of Special Plants (CDFG 2001a); various Federal Register notices from the USFWS regarding listing status of plant species • Wildlife—California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) (CDFG 200 lb); List of Special Animals (CDFG 2001c); various Federal Register notices from the USFWS regarding listing status of wildlife species • Habitats—CNDDB (CDFG 2001b) Full bibliographic entries for all reference materials are provided in Chapter 7 (References) of this document. 3.3.1 Existing Conditions • The proposed project site is currently undeveloped. Land uses surrounding the proposed project site include residential and commercial uses. The natural topography of the project site is generally flat with a grade differential of 30 feet and has been disced regularly to maintain the site and prevent the growth of unwanted vegetation. The site was most recently disced in July 2003, with additional vegetation removal occurring in Pacific City EIR 3.3-1 Chapter 3 Environmental Impact Analysis September 2003. The natural topography of the site has been temporarily altered by the recent soil remediation activities, which commenced in 2002 and are anticipated to be completed in early 2004. These activities are permitted by Conditional Use Permit 00-36 and Coastal Development Permit (CDP) 00-09 and involve digging several trenches and pits in the southern section of the site to remove up to 30,000 cubic feet of contaminated soil. The actual digging of each remediation pit occurred sometime after the CDP was approved (May 22, 2002) and before the hazardous materials consultant temporarily halted work (December 2002). Therefore, as of September 2003, these pits have been active between 10 and 17 months. The pits were up to 14 feet deep in places, and allow small amounts of groundwater to seep into the pits when they were deeper than about 5 feet. When a site survey was conducted in September 2003, small amounts of vegetation normally associated with wet soils were located in the remediation pits where -- groundwater was seeping in(see Table 3.3-1). This section addresses special status biological resources observed, reported, or having the potential to occur on the proposed project site. These resources include plant and wildlife species that have been afforded special status and/or recognition by federal and state resource agencies, as well as private conservation organizations. In general, the principal reason an individual taxon (i.e., species, subspecies, or variety) is given such recognition is the documented or perceived decline or limitations of its population size, geographic range, and/or distribution resulting, in most cases, from habitat loss. A number of Special Status plant and wildlife species are known to occur in the region of the project site, as shown in Table 1 and Table 2 of Appendix I. Special status biological resources also include vegetation types and habitats that are - either unique, of relatively limited distribution in the region, or of particularly high wildlife value. These resources have been defined by federal, State, and local government conservation programs. Survey Methods A general survey of plant species was conducted as part of the Biological Technical Report. Plant species were identified in the field or collected for later identification. Plants were identified using taxonomic keys in Hickman (1993), Munz (1974), and Abrams (1923, 1960). Taxonomy follows Hickman (1993) for scientific and common names. Vegetation within the study area was classified into the communities listed in the Habitat Classification System Natural Resources Geographic Information System (GIS) Project, prepared for the County of Orange Environmental Management Agency (Gray and Bramlett 1992). Plant species observed on the proposed project site are included in Table 3.3-1 (Plants Observed on the Project Site). EIP biologists performed an additional survey on September 24, 2003. This survey involved assessing the site for any wetland habitat not previously reported in the 2002 Biological Assessment and documenting additional plant species. 3.3-2 City of Huntington Beach 3.3 Biological Resources Table 3.3-1 Plants Observed on the Project Site ANGIOSPERMAE FLOWERING PLANTS DICOTYLEDONES AIZOACEAE—FIG-MARIGOLD FAMILY Mesembryantheu►ri crystallinum' Crystalline iceplant ANACARDIACEAE—SUMAC FAMILY Rhus integrifolia1 Lemonade berry APIACEAE(UMBELLIFERAE)—CARROT FAMILY Foeniculum vulgarel Sweet fennel ARALIACEAE—GINSENG FAMILY Hedera helix1 English ivy • S- , ASTERACEAE(COMPOSITAE)—SUNFLOWER FAMILY Haterotheca grandiflora1 Telegraph weed Isocoma menziesii1 Coastal goldenbush BRASSICACEAE(CRUCIFERAE)—MUSTARD FAMILY Brassica nigra1 Black mustard CARYOPHYLLACEAE—PINK FAMILY Spergularia marina1 Salt-marsh sand spurry CHENOPODIACEAE—GOOSEFOOT FAMILY Atriplex semibaccata1 Australian saltbush Atriplex lentiformis ssp.lentiformis2 Brewer's saltbrush Bassia hyssopifolia2 Five-horn bassia Suaeda taxifolia2 Woolly sea-blite Chenopodium califomicum2 California goosefoot Salsola tragus& Russian thistle CYPERACEAE—SEDGE FAMILY Cyperus eragrostis2 Tall flatsedge FABACEAE(LEGUMINOSAE)—LEGUMEIPEA FAMILY Acacia sp.) Acacia Pacific City-EIR 3.3-3 Chapter 3 Environmental Impact Analysis Table 3.3-1 Plants Observed on the Project Site FAGACEAE—OAKIBEECH FAMILY Quercus sp.1 Ornamental oak JUNCAGINACEAE—_Arrowgrass family Triglochin concinna2 Arrowgrass MALVACEAE—MALLOW FAMILY Melva parviflora1 Cheeseweed MYRTACEAE—MYRTLE FAMILY Eucalyptus globules1 Tasmanian blue gum OXALIDACEAE—WOOD-SORREL FAMILY Oxalis pes-caprae1 Bermuda buttercup/sour grass POLYGONACEAE—BUCKWHEAT FAMILY Rumex crispus1 Curly dock POACEAE—GRASS FAMILY Cynodon dabtylon1 Bermuda grass Polypogon monspeliensis2 Rabbitsfoot grass Parapholis incurve2 Sicklegrqass Spartina sp.2 Saltgrass 1. Species observed during the December 19,2001,site visit. 2. Additional species observed by EIP Biologist on September 24,2003 SOURCE: Appendix I A general wildlife survey was conducted simultaneously with the general plant survey. Taxonomy and nomenclature for wildlife generally follows American Ornithologist's Union (AOU) (1998) for birds and Laudenslayer et al. (1991) for all other terrestrial vertebrates. The survey included active searches for reptiles and amphibians by lifting, overturning, and carefully replacing rocks and debris where appropriate. Birds were identified by standard visual and auditory recognition. Surveys for mammals included searching for and identifying diagnostic signs, including scat, footprints, scratch-outs, dusting bowls, burrows, and trails. All wildlife species observed on the proposed project site were recorded in field notes and are included in Table 3.3-2, Wildlife Observed on the Project Site. 3.3-4 City of Huntington Beach 3.3 Biological Resources Table 3.3-2 Wildlife Observed on the Project Site Birds Laridae—Gulls&Terns Lams occidentails Western gull Columbide—Pigeons&Doves Zenaida macroura Mourning dove• Corvidae—Jays&Crows Corvus,brachyrhynchos American crow Sturnidae—Starlings Sturnus vulgaris European starling Mammals Leporidae—Hares&Rabbits Sylvilagus audubonii Desert cottontail This.table consists of only those species observed during the December 19,2001,site visit. SOURCE: Appendix Definitions of Special Status Biological Resources Special status habitats are vegetation types, associations, or sub-associations that support concentrations of special status plant or wildlife species, are of relatively limited distribution, or are of particular value to wildlife. Although special status habitats are not afforded legal protection unless they support protected species, potential impacts on them may increase concerns and mitigation suggestions by resources agencies. A federally Endangered species is one facing extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its geographic range. A federally Threatened, species is one likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. The presence of any federally Threatened or Endangered species on a proposed project site generally imposes constraints on development or requires mitigation to offset impacts, particularly if development would result in "take" of the species or its habitat. The term "take"means to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, collect, or attempt to engage V in such conduct. Harm in this sense can include any disturbance to habitats used by the species during any portion of its life history. Proposed species are those officially proposed by the USFWS for addition to,the federal Threatened and Endangered species list. Because proposed species may soon be listed as Threatened or Endangered, these species could become listed prior to or during implementation of a proposed development project. Pacific City EIR 3.3-5 � 1 . Chapter 3 Environmental Impact Analysis The State of California considers an Endangered species as one whose prospects of survival and reproduction are in immediate jeopardy, a Threatened species as one present in such small numbers throughout its range that it is likely to become an Endangered species in the near future in the absence of special protection or , management, and a Rare species as one present in such small numbers throughout its range that it may become Endangered if its present environment worsens. Rare species apply primarily to California native plants. State Threatened and Endangered species are protected against take unless an incidental take permit is obtained from the wildlife agencies (Section 2080-2081.1 of the Fish and Game Code of California). Federal Species of Concern are species (a "term of art" for former Category 2 candidates) with an informal designation by the USFWS for some declining species that are not federal candidates for listing at this time, but are noted as species of concern in the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) (California Department of Fish and Game 2001b). This list has not been updated by the USFWS since 1996 and is included for informational purposes only. California Species of Special Concern is an informal designation used by the CDFG for some declining wildlife species that are not state candidates. This designation does not provide legal protection but signifies that these species are recognized as,special status by the CDFG. Species that are California Fully Protected and Protected include those protected by special legislation for various reasons, such as the mountain lion and white-tailed kite. Fully protected species may not be taken or possessed at any time. California Protected Species include those species that may not be taken or possessed at any time except under special permit from the department issued pursuant to Sections 650 and 670.7 of the California Code of Regulations, or Section 2081 of the Fish and Game Code. A species that is considered a Special Animal is one that is tracked by the CNDDB. Species of Local Concern are those that have no official status with the resource agencies, but are being watched because either there is a unique population or the species is declining in the region. The CNPS is a resource conservation organization that has developed an inventory of California's special status plant species (CNPS 2001). This inventory is the summary of information on the distribution, rarity, and endangerment of California's vascular plants. This rare plant inventory is comprised of four lists. CNPS presumes that List lA plant species are extinct in California because they have not been seen in the wild for many years. CNPS considers List 1 B plants as rare, threatened, or endangered throughout their range. List 2 plant species are considered rare, threatened, or endangered in California but more common in the rest of its range. Plant species for which CNPS needs additional information are included on List 3. List 4 plant species are those of limited distribution in California whose susceptibility to threat appears low at this time. 3.3-6 City of Huntington Beach 3.3 Biological Resources Biological Resources Vegetation Types This section describes the vegetation types that occur on the proposed project site, as shown in Figure 3.3-1 (Vegetation Types). Three vegetation types occur within the proposed project site, none of which are considered native. These vegetation types are ornamental, disturbed, and developed. Ornamental vegetation covers approximately 0.5 acre of the proposed project site. This vegetation is associated with previously developed areas and typically consists of nonnative species planted for their aesthetic values. Ornamental species present within the proposed project site include acacia (Acacia sp.), eucalyptus seedlings (Eucalyptus spp.), English ivy (Hedera helix), crystalline iceplant (Mesembryanthemum crystallinum) and an ornamental oak(Quercus sp.). I Approximately 27.2 acres of disturbed vegetation type is found throughout the proposed project site. This vegetation type is comprised of primarily disced bare ground with ruderal species. These species included black mustard (Brassica nigra), Bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon), sweet fennel (Foeniculum vulgare), telegraph weed (Heterotheca grandylora), cheeseweed (Malva parvylora), sweet clover (Melilotus sp.), sour grass (Oxalis pes-caprae), and Russian thistle (Salsola tragus). This vegetation type also includes areas that consist of bare ground. Approximately 4.5 acres of developed areas consisting of paved parking lots occur on the proposed project site. These areas typically support no vegetation. Small patches within the remediation pits had vegetation that are commonly found in moist to wet soils. These species include tall flat sedge (Cyperus eragrostis), rabbit's foot grass (Polypogon monspeliensis), saltgrass (Spartina sp), woolly sea-blite (Suaeda taxifolia), salt-marsh sand spurry (Spergularia marina), and Arrowgrass (Triglochin concinna). Due to the temporary nature of the pits, and the short duration that they were present (between 10 and 17 months), the vegetation was sparse, poorly developed, and had extremely low to no habitat value. Special Status Vegetation Types The proposed project site contains no special status vegetation types. s : 3.3-7Pacific City EIR ° 1 IL • ATLANTA AVENUE �`� § .k da _: P }z q .• .sa3' u�' r'.3. s -,.fie .:z ?s,� z � M a �1 t � t***tie, t V £ a1 "MP,' a it 1 a ♦44y a N 3 .n4l n a0:1 r • a ♦ x ,,` y« ! rfs• ♦ t . yr jr ^ L aK - E3L ry Z:4>. W .; ' �y£h ; .♦4, G �3 ji w '' bf •.:t c:,, n ; F , .3 K z ., t �9 � , - , A! �r r aYA a�� i � 6,140« O �� S zx � g ` , , • ♦ na s, , : ` c « :c, s wzra�<ctE -• •z 4144,01p r '�t"4 o14 aH a m z'� i`�s:>r 5Ea x ,;- ' f ' a a. . . • �((r- • -• x"'«`ss�s 0i ▪ s s "« M :. `s r M ¢�n$.it, • u E r x ? ': r , y,� ♦•n a « sM ; e ✓+a��"z « ' E ' - z «r•s-„,,� j k• �« i;si , ' '':s •', L (��Q'j 1 r x ..c m s r?y� `3,.C e,{ Y 'r 9 _ ,+ it .. lrE ,t r& ."t '. s `�q s • - Z ♦C mm 5 `�,.5'(>m q y t 4Ehsw a. 1,':, 'W� CRY\C 4�'A. 0, F Y'T.4.'� x` '.✓y ' •xe"5 Z� °a er"Jo . , Z ♦ Lt ,i t re R S �l a X� w p 4 y P �' 2 y▪:4%. a 3 A., S l �ks E a �wr 5. w C. ♦ m 4.44 bg s.s >s a s 4 ;a 4r v c a E¢ us . .1 ♦ ' Ers ,..x 3 raaxwE :".:4,x�:,� z m «r«4.y fly � as• z �x 'c 3,4 z .:sr« i ;ram 4 Y - 1 a r .� x. .. Y. �,> xc n a • :r zx s&E'• I f . W Z ♦. r h s maE L x a m J tax a� G ♦ ; k; t ' { r 448 1 .x L�* ua4 3. E r 44 &m x r 'ire to ♦ M ,,. ma ..,%, Ex .. x„« • t ,ts4 a m•0 c ,,,y tt.� r £`- « m ro x7 : b x" :u., F ♦ sr ar a n ss:,Y,(4 r # ..y i x 4 ¢s' ` .s - ; • ::ems x ♦ a a�� . u«< p b z. ` ass 4 �� ♦ x ';'tom , r '`rt v x s3'.�`MC., M3 z «gas sy,. ,1 S'IM1 44 xa4 v 4��.Mm- 1:W a'1 3- O 1 u cat � roa f Y y * . k▪, ...., x �E,.,n, s„8. °Lr s. - r. i r s . 'a- H ♦ S:x *♦ i z w i s«y 4; 4c m�,a t ..,r 1gIrrm s. P/4 is t:nk �x� - 4 Z ur a :-. rta w ; 4� �\ _.e . .' z.s}> . yLt^iv� - .r; r , ; x.� A E i v 3 « `i _ sh; _ ;',t ft tom« x` ledOt •< s 's• ew s a : 4 r, E r a 1 s s h� E E" s .sK r ''.,,ws H1,1 x.,, i x�Y''d� r. I .rep; . «t ♦ nt y . x ��mca' 03 � 4' . ai rr l¢ xx nc1z"Pc�• a.s �'▪ rwz. 1m ,e y • i S .i r t 4 x` r -. z p, r �x s £ 2,104."z t s 4 Y xy r m rr,„„ `Y : a ' �k � Y P °f t S `S' Y 1 V. - - E 4• 44... v a' "•• ♦ ♦ s% r w4 t r« w s f * t 4' :sz ib ' m • e ` g . . V. • ." z AmE m ,'�aF zi s nm . ggr. I as .A40. • � te rms � i � f M `r £ ' 4l r5 •� " z iu tms ,, t U C` • m, n .��x , a. � . 4 • "' a . i c0 • � qt-, sr • ` __ k F,Q t 4 g •• m it„of iz ti 4410''" '<v aka 4t, -- • Yg��rr...L<Ef y��. yk..'00 .IrK''...,.xtys?;x% • • vs:r;�w�e'¢E.gt`>r�o-,�.. ,r,';c'";y„, .,f '• LEGEND • .-G..`:04Zifirtlig. eEgc •• ••� - ,.a .. PROJECT BOUNDARY ti •.r' "•_� .'>.' RECENTLY DEMOLISHED ••0, STRUCTURES , „� .;>'" DISTURBED AREAS mmipl ORNAMENTAL VEGETATION FIGURE 3.3-1 Not to Scale -...w E I P..._...... . On-Site Vegetation Types SOURCE:Bonterra Consulting 2002 10261-00 City of Iiunfington Beach•Pacific City EIR 3.3 Biological Resources Special Status Plants As previously described, the site consists of disturbed, ornamental, or developed vegetation areas. Undeveloped areas on the site have periodically been disced, as required by City regulations, thus preventing the growth of much vegetation. Prior to the biological surveys conducted on December 19, 2001, the site had recently been disced. The site was most recently disced in July 2003. Three of the 29 special status plant species known to occur in the region have a limited potential to occur on the proposed project site because they are known to occur in disturbed habitats. These species are the southern tarplant j (Centromadia parryi ssp. australis), vernal barley (Hordeum intercedens), and Coulter's goldfields (Lasthenia glabrata ssp. coulteri). Special status plant species known to occur in the proposed project region are summarized in identified in Table 1 of Appendix I. No special status plant species have been identified or are expected to occur on the project site. Wildlife r - The following discussion describes the wildlife species observed or that have potential to occur within the proposed project site. Figure 3.3-1, above, illustrates the distribution of vegetation types representing wildlife habitat of the proposed project site. • No amphibians were detected during the field surveys. Areas of wet ornamental vegetation may provide limited suitable habitat for the Pacific tree frog(Hylla regilla). This species may occupy wet ornamental areas and semi permanent runoff. Ornamental areas occur adjacent to PCH on the proposed project site. An area of run-off that drains from the water detention basin occurs in the southwest corner of the proposed project site. None of these areas provide enough moisture or vegetation to support amphibian species, and they are not expected to occur on the proposed project site. No reptile species were observed during the field surveys. However, the western fence lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis), side-blotched lizard (Uta stansburiana), and southern alligator lizard (Gerrhonotus multicarinatus) are expected to occur on the proposed project site. L _ A variety of bird species are expected to occur on the proposed project site as either migrants, winter visitors,summer visitors, or year-round residents. Species observed on the proposed project site include the western gull (Larus occidentalis), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), and European starling (Sturnus vulgaris). Year-round residents expected to use the proposed project site at least occasionally include Anna's hummingbird (Calypte anna), American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), house finch (Carpodacus mexicanus), and house sparrow (Passer domesticus). Cooper's hawks (Accipiter cooperii) are commonly found within residential Pacific City EIR 3.3-9 Chapter 3 Environmental Impact Analysis areas preying on small birds that frequent backyard habitats. Although a single Cooper's hawk was observed foraging within the residential areas south of the project site, the proposed site lacks suitable nesting and/or roosting sites for this species. Given that the site is devoid of any suitable nesting habitat (tall trees) this species, as well as other raptor species, are not expected to nest on the proposed project site. The proposed project site provides suitable habitat for a few common species that are adapted to urban environments. Small mammals such as the California desert cottontail (Sylvilagus audubonii), California ground squirrel (Spermophilus beecheyi), black rat (Rattus rattus), and California mouse (Peromyscus californicus) are expected to occur on the proposed project site. Medium- to large-sized mammals such as the Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana) and coyote (Canis latrans) are also expected to occasionally occur on the proposed project site. Special Status Wildlife The proposed project site contains very littlenative vegetation, and therefore, has a low potential to support most special status wildlife species. However, 11 of the 51 special status wildlife species known to occur in the proposed project region have the potential to occur on the proposed project site. They include the monarch butterfly(Danaus plexippus), Cooper's hawk, sharp-shinned hawk(Accipiter striatus), northern harrier (Circus cyaneus), white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus), merlin(Falco columbarius), American peregrine falcon(Falco peregrinus), California gull (Larus californicus), California horned lark (Eremophila alpestris actia), loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus) tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor), and large-billed savannah sparrow (Passerculus sandwichensis rostratus). Most of these species are expected to occur briefly on the proposed project site for foraging only and have no potential to nest on the proposed project site. The California horned lark and the loggerhead shrike both have a limited potential to nest on the proposed project site in the disturbed field and in the ornamental vegetation, respectively. Special status wildlife species known to • occur in the proposed project region are summarized in Table 2 of Appendix I. Wildlife Movement Wildlife corridors vary greatly in their overall significance. General information that currently exists on corridors suggests that major drainages, canyon bottoms, and ridgetops, as well as. areas that provide important resources for wildlife, will be the most significant for wildlife movement. In general, two types of corridors exist. Regional corridors are generally those that allow movement between large, often widely separated areas. These may connect National Forests, mountain ranges, or other major wildlife use areas. Local wildlife corridors are those that allow dispersion between smaller, generally more adjacent areas, such as between canyons or ridges, or important resource areas. 3.3-10 City of Huntington Beach 3.3 Biological Resources The proposed project site is not expected to support any appreciable wildlife movement because it is bounded by urban development and Pacific Coast Highway. The surrounding expanses of urban habitats offer poor cover for movement across the site. 3.3.2 Regulatory Framework Numerous regulations protecting biological resources are in place at the federal, State, regional, and local levels. This section discusses the Federal Endangered Species Act, the California Endangered Species Act, and other regulations relevant to the proposed project. Federal Federal Endangered Species Act As defined within the Federal Endangered Species Act of 1973, an endangered species is any animal or plant listed by regulation as being in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its geographical range. A threatened species is any animal or plant that is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable 1 _ future throughout all or a significant portion of its geographical range. Without a special permit, federal law prohibits the"take" of any individuals or habitat of federally listed species. Under Section 9 of the ESA, take is defined as"harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect or attempt to engage in any such conduct." The term "harm" has been clarified to include "any act which actually kills or injures fish or wildlife, and emphasizes that such acts may include significant habitat modification or degradation that significantly impairs essential behavioral patterns of,fish or wildlife." Enforcement of the Federal Endangered Species Act is administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service. Section 404 of the Clean Water Act Section 404 of the Clean Water Act requires that a permit be obtained from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) prior to the discharge of dredged or fill materials into any "waters of the United States" (33 CFR Part 323). The term"waters of the United States" or "jurisdictional waters", has a broad meaning that includes special aquatic sites, such as wetlands. Waters of the United States, as defined by regulation and refined by case law, include: (1) the territorial seas; (2) coastal and inland waters, lakes, rivers, and streams that are navigable waters of the United States, including their adjacent wetlands; (3) tributaries to navigable waters of the United States, including adjacent wetlands; (4) interstate waters and their tributaries, including adjacent wetlands; and (5) all other waters of the United States not identified above, such as some isolated wetlands and lakes, intermittent and ephemeral streams, prairie potholes, and other Pacific City EIR 3.3-11 Chapter 3 Environmental Impact Analysis waters that are not a part of a tributary system to interstate waters or navigable waters of the United States, the degradation or destruction of which could affect interstate commerce. With respect to wetlands, the Corps definition is commonly referred to as a "three parameter definition" because three key parameters—hydrology, soil, and vegetation—must all occur and meet the defined characteristics in order for a location to be classified a wetland. Simply stated, a wetland under the Corps definition should meet all of the following three criteria: 1. More than 50 percent of the dominant plant species at the site must be typical of wetlands (i.e., rated as facultative or wetter in the National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands) 2. Soils must exhibit physical and/or chemical characteristics indicative of permanent or periodic saturation (e.g., a gleyed color, or'mottles with a matrix of low chroma indicating a relatively consistent fluctuation between aerobic and anaerobic conditions) 3. Hydrologic characteristics must indicate that the ground is saturated to within 12 inches of the surface ("normal conditions"grade) for at least five percent of the growing season ,Projects that require Section 404 Permits can require mitigation to offset losses of wetlands and jurisdictional waters. The Corps is required to consult with the USFWS, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), State Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and the CDFG in carrying out its discretionary authority under Section 404. State • California Endangered Species Act In addition to federal laws, the State of California has its own Endangered Species Act (CESA), enforced by the CDFG. The CESA program maintains a separate listing of species beyond the FESA, although the provisions of each act are similar. California Environmental Quality Act—Treatment of Listed Plant and Animal Species The Federal Endangered Species Act and California Endangered Species Act protect only those species formally listed as threatened or endangered (or rare in the case of the State list). However, Section 15380 of the CEQA Guidelines independently defines "endangered" species of plants or animals as those whose survival and reproduction in the wild are in immediate jeopardy and"rare" species as those who are in such - low numbers that they could become endangered if their environment worsens. 3.3-12 City of Huntington Beach 3.3 Biological Resources Sections 1600-1607 of the Fish and Game Code Under Sections 1600-1607 of the California Fish and Game Code, the CDFG regulates activities that would alter the flow, bed, channel, or bank of streams and lakes. The limits of CDFG jurisdiction are defined in the code as "the bed, channel, or bank of any river, stream, or lake designated by the department in which there is at any time an existing fish or wildlife resource or from which these resources derive benefit..." (Section 1601). This broad defmition gives CDFG great flexibility in deciding what constitutes a river, stream, or lake. The CDFG defines streams under'the jurisdiction of Sections 1600-1607 as follows: 1. The term stream can includ&intermittent and ephemeral streams,rivers,creeks,dry washes, sloughs,blue- , line streams (United States Geological Survey [USGS] maps), and watercourses with subsurface flows. Canals, aqueducts, irrigation ditches, and other means of water conveyance can also be considered streams if they support aquatic life,riparian vegetation,or stream-dependent terrestrial wildlife. 2. Biological components of any stream may include aquatic and riparian vegetation, all aquatic animals including fish, amphibians, reptiles, invertebrates, and terrestrial species which derive benefits from the stream system. 3. As a physical system, a stream not only includes water (at least on an intermittent or ephemeral basis),but also a bed or channel, a bank and/or levee,instream features such as logs or snags,and various flood plains, depending on the return frequency of the flood event being considered. 4. The lateral extent of a stream can be measured in several ways depending on a particular situation and the type of fish or wildlife resource at risk. The following criteria are presented in order from the most inclusive to the least inclusive: • The flood plain of a stream can be the broadest measurement of a stream's lateral extent depending on the return frequency of the flood event used. For most flood control purposes, the 100-year event is the standard measurement. However, because it may include significant amounts of upland or urban habitat, in many cases the 100-year floodplain may not be appropriate. • The outer edge of riparian vegetation is generally used as the line of demarcation between riparian and upland habitats and is,therefore,a reasonable and identifiable boundary for the lateral extent of a stream.In most cases, the use of this criterion should result in protecting the fish and wildlife resources at risk. • Most streams have a natural bank which confines flows to the bed or channel, except during flooding. In some instances,particularly on smaller streams or dry washes with little or no riparian habitat,the bank should be used to mark the lateral extent of a stream. • A levee or other artificial stream bank could also be used to mark the lateral extent of a stream. However, in many instances,there can be extensive areas of valuable riparian habitat located behind a levee(CDFG, 1992). In practice, CDFG usually marks its jurisdictional limit at the top of the stream or bank or at the outer edge of the riparian vegetation, whichever is wider. Pacific City EIR . 3.3-13 Chapter 3 Environmental Impact Analysis California Coastal Act—Protection and Management of Wetlands in the California Coastal Zone In the California coastal zone, the California Coastal Commission (CCC), with the assistance of the CDFG is responsible for determining the presence of wetlands subject to regulation under the California Coastal Act of 1976 (CCA) and the federal Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA). Under the CCA, wetlands are defined as "land within the coastal zone which may be covered periodically or permanently with shallow water and include saltwater marshes, freshwater marshes, open or closed brackish water marshes, swamps, mudflats, and fens" (Public Resource Code §30121). However, further precision in wetlands jurisdiction is provided to the Coastal Commission under the -I California Code of Regulations. Under these provisions wetlands are defined as: ...land where the water table is at, near, or above the land surface long enough to promote the formation of hydric soils or to support the growth of hydrophytes, and shall also include types of wetlands where vegetation is lacking and soil is poorly developed or absent'as a result of frequent drastic fluctuations of surface water levels, wave action, water flow, turbidity or high concentration of salts or other substances in the substrate. Such wetlands can be recognized by the presence of surface water or saturated substrate at some during'each year and their location within,or adjacent to vegetated wetland or deepwater habitats. (14 CCR 13577) The CDFG wetland definition and classification system is the delineation methodology generally followed by the CCC. One important difference in the CDFG wetlands definition compared to that under Section 404 of the CWA (Corps definition listed above) is that the CDFG only requires the presence of one attribute (e.g., hydrology, hydric soils, or hydrophytic vegetation)for an area to qualify as a wetland. Local Southern California Association of Governments SCAG's Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide (RCPG) and RHNA are tools for coordinating regional planning and development strategies in southern California. Policies contained in the RCPG identified by SCAG as relevant to the proposed project are identified in Table 3.3-3, and this table also includes an assessment of the proposed project's consistency with these policies. • 3.3-14 City of Huntington Beach 3.3 Biological Resources Table 3.3-3 SC AG Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide— ,- Policies Applicable to Biological Resources Policy Project Consistency Policy 3.20.Support the protection of vital As described above in Section 3.3-1 (Existing Conditions),vegetation on the site consists primarily of resources such as wetlands,groundwater ornamental species and other common species associated with disturbed areas:under normal recharge areas,woodlands,production conditions no sensitive natural communities,such as wetlands,as defined by the Corps,CDFG and/or lands,and land containing unique and the California Coastal Commission,or woodlands,have been observed on the site.Although three endangered plants and animals. special-status plant species—southern tarplant,vernal barley,and Coulter's goldfields—have the potential to occur on the site,consultation with appropriate agencies and implementation of the mitigation measures proposed for the project would ensure that any potential impacts to these species (if present),would be avoided or reduced to,a less-than-significant level. Sensitive wildlife species with the potential to occur on the project site consist of one butterfly and several bird species;however,as described in Sections 3.3.1 (Existing Conditions)and 3.3.3(Impacts and Mitigation Measures),the majority of these species are expected to occur only briefly for foraging, and only two species—California horned lark and loggerhead shrike—have a limited potential to nest on the site,which provides only low-quality habitat that would not be favored by these species.The biological assessment prepared for the project site concluded that a less-than-significant impact would occur with respect to these species.The proposed project would,therefore,be consistent with this policy. { General Plan Land Use Element The Land Use Element includes goals and policies that have been developed to minimize potential impacts to biological resources. Table 3.3-4 identifies goals and objectives presented in the Land Use Element of the General Plan related to biological resources that are potentially relevant to the proposed project. This table also includes an assessment of the proposed project's consistency,with the policies adopted in support of these goals and objectives. Table 3.3-4 General Plan Land.Use Element-Policies Applicable to Biological Resources Goal,Objective,or Policy Project Consistency• Goal LU 5.Ensure that significant Conformance,v.rith implementing policies,as discussed below,results in conformance with this goal. environmental habitats and resources are maintained. Policy LU 5.1.1.Require that development NEPA would not apply to the proposed project;however,this EIR has been prepared for the project in protect environmental resources by accordance with all applicable requirements of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. consideration of the policies and standards contained in the Environmental Resources/Conservation Element of the General Plan and federal(NEPA)and State(CEQA)regulations. Goal LU14.1.Preserve the City's open Conformance with implementing policies,as discussed below,results in conformance with this goal. spaces. Objective LU 14.1.Preserve and acquire Conformance with implementing policies,as discussed below,results in conformance with this open spaces for the City's existing and objective. future residents that provide,maintain,and protect significant environmental resources,recreational opportunities,and visual relief from development. Pacific City EIR- 3.3-15 Chapter 3 Environmental Impact Analysis Table 3.3-4 General Plan Land Use Element—Policies Applicable to Biological Resources Goal,Objective,or Policy Project Consistency Policy LU 14.1.1.Accommodate the The proposed project is not designated for Open Space by the General Plan Land Use Plan map:the development of public parks,water-related site is designated for high-density residential uses and visitor-serving commercial uses. recreational uses,and the conservation of _- environmental resources in areas designated for Open Space on the Land -- Use Plan Map and in accordance with Policy LU 7.1.1. Policy LU 14.1.2.Permit the acquisition The proposed project is not designated for Open Space by the General Plan Land Use Plan map:the and/or dedication of lands for new open site is designated for high-density residential uses and visitor-serving commercial uses. space purposes in any land use zone Mere they complement and are -- compatible with adjacent land Uses and development,contingent on City review and approval. • General Plan Environmental Resource/Conservation Element Goals and Policies listed in the Environmental Resources/Conservation Element of the General Plan have been developed to minimize potential impacts to biological resources. Table 3.3-5 identifies goals and objectives presented in the Environmental Resource/Conservation Element of the General Plan related to biological resources that are potentially relevant to the proposed project. This table also includes an assessment of the proposed project's consistency with the policies adopted in support of these goals and objectives. Table 3.3-5 General Plan Environmental Resource/Conservation Element— Policies Applicable to Biological Resources Goal,Objective,or Policy Project Consistency Goal ERC 2.Protect and preserve Conformance with implementing policies,as discussed below,results in conformance with this goal significant habitats of plant and wildlife species,including wetlands,for their intrinsic values. Objective ERC 2.1.Evaluate,enhance, Conformance with implementing policies,as discussed below,results in conformance with this and preserve the City's important habitat objective. areas. 3.3-16 City of Huntington Beach 3.3 Biological Resources Table 3.3-5 General Plan Environmental Resource/Conservation Element: Policies Applicable to Biological Resources Goal,Objective,or Policy Project Consistency Policy ERC 2.1.9.Preserve the habitat of As described above in Section 3.3-1 (Existing Conditions),under normal conditions no sensitive endangered species,including those listed natural communities or habitats,including wetlands as defined by the Corps,CDFG,and/or California in Table BR-1 of the Technical Background Coastal Commission,have been observed on the site.Although three special-status plant species Report and those which may be have a limited potential to occur on the site,none have been observed,and consultation with considered by the City in the future. appropriate agencies and implementation of the mitigation measures proposed for the project would ensure that any potential impacts to these species(if present),would be avoided or reduced to a less- than-significant level. Sensitive wildlife species with the potential to occur on the project site consist of one butterfly and several bird species;however,as described in Sections 3.3.1 (Existing Conditions)and 3.3.3(Project Impacts),the majority of these species would be expected to occur only briefly for foraging.Only two bird species—California homed lark and loggerhead shrike—have even a limited potential to nest on the site,which provides only low-quality habitat for these species.The biological assessment prepared for the project site concluded that a less-than-significant impact would occur with respect to these species;as no high-quality habitat for these species would be eliminated as a result of the project. Policy ERC 2.1.10.Conduct construction As described below in Section 3.3.3(Project Impacts),the biological resources impact assessment activities to minimize adverse impacts on concluded that some limited loss of common reptiles and mammals would occur as a result Of the loss existing wildlife resources. of low-quality habitat associated with development.However,this impact would be less than significant.Further,all sensitive wildlife species that are considered to have the(very low)potential to occur on the project site are avian;consequently,even if such species are foraging on the project site, they are unlikely to be affected by site clearance activities. i General Plan Coastal Element The City of Huntington Beach General Plan's Coastal Element, updated in 2001, includes goals, objectives, and policies intended to protect and enhance environmentally sensitive habitat areas in accordance with the Coastal Act. Table 3.3-6 identifies goals and objectives presented in the Coastal Element of the General Plan related to biological resources that are potentially relevant to the proposed project. This table also includes an assessment of the proposed project's consistency with the policies adopted in support of these goals and objectives. Several of the policies related to biological resources focus on Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas (ESHAs). The City's Coastal Element identifies two ESHAs within the City: (1) The Huntington Beach wetland areas and (2) the California least tern nesting sanctuary. As neither of these ESHAs occur within or adjacent to the project area,related goals, policies and objectives are not relevant to the project. Pacific City EIR 3.3-17 Chapter 3 Environmental Impact Analysis Table 3.3-6 General Plan Coastal Element—Policies Applicable to Biological Resources Goal,Objective,or Policy Project Consistency - Goal C 7.Preserve,enhance,and restore, Conformance with implementing policies,as discussed below,results in conformance with this goal. _ where feasible,environmentally sensitive habitat areas(ESHAs)in the City's Coastal Zone,including the Bolsa Chica,which is within the City's Sphere of Influence. Objective C 7.1.Regulate new Conformance with implementing policies,as discussed below,results in conformance with this development through design review and objective. permit issuance to ensure consistency with Coastal Act requirements and minimize adverse impacts to identified environmentally sensitive habitats and -- wetland areas. Policy C 7.1.3.Development in areas The proposed project site is not designated and does not have the characteristics of an adjacent to environmentally sensitive environmentally sensitive habitat area and is not located adjacent to an environmentally sensitive habitat areas and parks and recreation habitat area. areas shall be sited and designed to prevent impacts which would significantly degrade those areas,and shall be compatible with the continuance of those habitat and recreation areas. 3.3.3 Thresholds of Significance Project impacts would be considered significant if any of the following would occur: • Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through 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 • Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance • Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected 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 3.3.4 Project Impacts Both direct and indirect impacts on biological resources have been evaluated. Direct impacts are those that involve the initial loss of habitats due to grading and construction. Indirect impacts are those that would be related to disturbance from construction activities (e.g., noise, dust) and use of the proposed project. 3.3-18 City of Huntington Beach 3.3 Biological Resources As stated above, Section 15380 of CEQA indicates that a lead agency can consider a nonlisted species to be Rare or Endangered for the purposes of CEQA if the species can be shown to meet the criteria in the definition of Rare or Endangered. For.the purposes of this discussion, the current scientific knowledge on the population size and distribution for each special status species, was considered according to the definitions for Rare and Endangered listed in Section 15380 of CEQA. Direct Impacts Impact BIO-1 Proposed project implementation may result in impacts on special status • plant species, if present on the proposed project site. As discussed above in Section 3.3.1 (Existing Conditions), the southern tarplant, vernal barley, and Coulter's goldfields have, a limited potential to occur on the site. Although general botanical surveys failed to identify any of these species on site, there is a slight potential for these species to inhabit areas of the site, or become established on site after the' general surveys were performed. As such, construction and operational activities on the project site would have the potential to disturb these resources if present on site. Because these plants are listed as special status species, removal of these plant species would be a potentially significant impact. However, the incorporation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1 would reduce these impacts to less than significant. Impact BIO-2 Proposed project implementation would not significantly impact special status wildlife species. Implementation of the proposed project would result in the loss of potential foraging habitat for special status wildlife species with potential to occur on the project site. In addition, the proposed project site also provides limited suitable nesting habitat for the California horned lark and loggerhead shrike. However, the project site does not provide suitable nesting habitat for any Threatened or Endangered raptor species. Due to the lack of quality natural habitat onsite that would be removed compared to the amount and high quality of habitat available in the region, these impacts would be considered less than significant. Impact BIO-3 Proposed project implementation would be consistent with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. As discussed above, project implementation is anticipated to be consistent with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, including the SCAG Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide and the City of Huntington Beach General Plan Land Use, Environmental Resource/Conservation, and Coastal Elements. Therefore, impacts associated with consistency with local plans or ordinances protecting biological resources are anticipated to be less than significant. Pacific City EIR 3.3=19 Chapter 3 Environmental Impact Analysis Impact BIO-4 The project would not have an adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. As discussed in the Regulatory Setting discussion above, for an area to be considered a wetland under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act it must meet a series of specific criteria. Specifically, the Corps definition(Environmental Laboratory, 1987) states: The following definition, diagnostic environmental characteristics, and technical approach comprise a guideline for the identification and delineation of wetlands. a. Definition: The ACOE (Federal Register, Section 328.3(b), 199.1) and the EPA (Federal Register, Section 230.4(t), 1991)jointly define wetlands as: Those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions.Wetlands generally include swamps,marshes,bogs,and similar areas. b. Diagnostic environmental characteristics: Wetlands have the following general diagnostic environmental characteristics: 1. Vegetation: The prevalent vegetation consists of macrophytes that are typically adapted to areas having hydrologic and soil conditions described in (a) above. Hydrophytic species, due to morphological, physiological, and/or reproductive adaptation(s), have the ability to grow, effectively compete, reproduce,and/or persist in anaerobic soil conditions. 2. Soil: Soils are present and have been classified as hydric, or they.possess characteristics that are associated with reducing soil conditions. 3. Hydrology:The area is inundated either permanently,or periodically at mean water depths<6.6 ft. (^ 2 m), or the soil is saturated to the surface at some time during the growing season of the prevalent vegetation. The period of inundation or soil saturation varies according to the hydrologic/soil moisture regime and occurs in both tidal and non-tidal situations Technical approach for the identification and delineation of wetlands:Except in certain situations defined in this manual, evidence of a minimum of one positive wetland indicator from each parameter (hydrology, soil, and vegetation)must be found in order to make a positive wetland determination. In addition to this definition, the Corps issues Regulatory Guidance Letters (RGLs). The purpose of RGLs is to transmit guidance on the permit program (33 CFR parts 320-330) to its division and district commanders. RGLs were developed.by the Corps as a system to organize and track written guidance issued to its field agencies. RGLs are normally issued as a result of evolving policy,judicial decisions and changes to the Corps regulations or another agency's regulations, which affect the permit program. They are used only to interpret or clarify existing Regulatory Program policy, but do provide mandatory guidance to Corps district offices. RGLs are sequentially numbered and expire on a specified date. However, unless superseded by specific provisions of subsequently issued regulations or RGLs, the guidance provided in RGLs generally . remains valid after the expiration date. Regulatory Guidance Letter 86-09 was issued August 27, 1986, and is currently still valid (refer to Appendix I for the full text of this letter). This RGL, titled, Clarification of"Normal Circumstances"in the Wetland Definition (33 CFR 323.2 (c)) was issued to serve as continued guidance for "situations involving 3.3-20 City of Huntington Beach 3.3 Biological Resources changes in the physical characteristics of a wetland which cause the area to lose or gain characteristics which would alter its status of"waters of the United States" for purposes of the Section 404 regulatory program." Specifically it clarifies that the term "under normal circumstances" is "meant to respond to those areas that are not aquatic but experience an abnormal presence of aquatic vegetation." This RGL stated that the abnormal presence of aquatic vegetation in a nonaquatic area would not be sufficient to include that area within the Section 404 program. It further notes that: "Normal circumstances"are determined on the basis of an area's characteristics and use, at present and in the. recent past. Thus, if a former wetland has been converted to another use (other than by recent unpermitted action not subject to 404(1) or 404(r) exemptions) and that use alters its wetland characteristics to such an extent that it is no longer a "water of the United States", that area will no longer come under the Corps regulatory jurisdiction for purposes of Section 404. Recent uses documented within the project area include a motel, a restaurant, an equipment storage yard, and vacant land. No surface water sources, such as streams or channels, have been documented on site. Although a slight gradient does exist at the site, aerial photos (see Appendix I) document that the topography of the site has been generally flat for many years, which inhibits the retention or ponding of surface water from either precipitation or off-site sources for any significant amount of time.. Further, the depth to groundwater is approximately 5 to 24 feet below ground surface (See Section 3.6 Geology and Soils of this EIR). The lack of suitable hydrology is assumed to also prevent hydric soils from forming in the , first 12 inches of the soil. These conditions would constitute the "normal conditions" of the site. Therefore no areas within the site appeared to have a situation where all three parameters of the Corps wetland 1 I definition would be met. The physical site conditions that exist;after the remediation pits were dug represent non-normal conditions as described above by the Corps RGL 86-09. Although sparse areas of hydrophytic(water loving) vegetation were temporarily established within this area, its presence is directly related to the presence of non-normal circumstances (e.g., groundwater seeping from the remediation pits). As such, in accordance with RGL 86 09, the area would not be considered wetlands,under Section 404 of the CWA. Thus, no impact would occur. Impact BIO-5 Implementation of the project would not significantly impact sensitive habitat types, including wetlands as defined by the CDFG. Wetlands in California are generally defined as sensitive habitat by the CDFG, and the State has adopted a "no net loss" policy to ensure the long-term preservation and/or enhancement of wetlands in the State. As discussed within the Regulatory Setting discussion of this Section, in addition to the Corps definition of wetlands, when development is located within the coastal zones, or could affect coastal zones, the California Coastal Commission (CCC),with the assistance of the CDFG, is responsible for determining the presence of Pacific City EIR 3.3-21 Chapter 3 Environmental Impact Analysis wetlands subject to regulation under the California Coastal Act. The CDFG essentially relies on the USFWS wetland definition and classification system, with some minor changes in classification terminology, as the methodology for wetland determinations. In general, the USFWS wetland criteria used by the CDFG to delineate wetlands states that the areas must: ...have one or more of the following three attributes: (1)at least periodically,the land supports predominantly hydrophytes; (2) the substrate is predominantly undrained hydric soil; and (3) the substrate is nonsoil and is saturated with water or covered by shallow water at some time during the growing season of each year (Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States; USFWS/OBS 79:31; December 1979) One important difference in the CDFG delineation process compared to the USACE process is that the CDFG wetland definition commonly uses a "one parameter" definition, in which only one of three wetland attributes (hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, or wetland hydrology) needs to be present in order for an area to be considered a wetland. As noted under Impact BIO-4 above, soil within the project areas was contaminated and required _ remediation. A remediation plan, which involved the creation and filling of soil remediation pits, was submitted to the City for approval. The City found that the plan was in conformance with the General Plan, including the Local Coastal Plan, and under the regulatory power granted to them by Section 30519 (a) of the Coastal Act, the City approved Coastal Development Permit (CDP) 00-09 and Conditional Use Permit 00-36. The permit did not indicate that sensitive areas such as wetlands were present onsite. Instead, as previously noted, it appears that the hydrophytic vegetation currently located onsite,is the direct result of below-grade groundwater seepage from the remediation pits. However, unlike the Corps RGLs, the CDFG does not provide specific guidance regarding "normal conditions." Therefore, it is up to the discretion of CDFG to determine the "normal circumstances" that exist on the site and to decide if the area meets the definition of a wetland as defined above. Given this broad discretionary authority, and the one-parameter 1 wetland definition used by the CDFG, the area, in its current state, could be considered a wetland due to the presence of hyrophitic vegetation within the remediation pits. However, in order to comply with the laws governing wetland resources as established by the California Fish and Game Code (2003), the Applicant, or the Applicant's designated representative, must review the conditions that exist at the project site after the soil remediation pits have been refilled and before development occurs to evaluate the conditions that exist under natural grade. If potential wetlands are identified at that time, the Applicant would be required to obtain all necessary permits required by the City (as trustee for the CCC) and the CDFG in order to be in compliance with the Fish and Game Code of California and the California Coastal Act. Compliance with these existing laws including the State's no net loss policy would ensure that impacts are less than significant. 3.3-22 City of Huntington Beach 3.3 Biological Resources Indirect Impacts Impact BIO-6 Construction activities at the project site would not significantly disturb wildlife in the project site vicinity. Noise levels at the proposed project site would incrementally increase over present levels during construction activities. Currently, the proposed project site is surrounded by developed land uses typical of an urban environment, and species in the vicinity of the proposed project site are considered to be tolerant of humans. There is a lack of quality habitat onsite for most species, and the increased noise levels associated with project implementation would have limited effects. • In addition to noise,,site disturbance from construction activities at the project site may affect rodents that seek refuge or forage at the site. However, due to the site location and sparse vegetation cover on the project site, it is anticipated that rodent populations would be small. Construction activities including .,. grading and excavation could disturb rodents on-site. Many rodents would be eradicated during grading operations, although those that persist could disperse into adjacent areas (Gary Reynolds 2003). These limited rodent populations may be a temporary nuisance to adjacent uses. Disturbance of the project site resulting from construction activities would be temporary, and rodents would not pose a long-term nuisance. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant. Impact BIO-7 An increase in night lighting from the proposed project would not significantly affect behavioral patterns of wildlife at the project site. Implementation of the proposed project would include visitor-serving commercial and residential uses on site, which would require additional lighting. Lighting of the development can indirectly affect the behavioral patterns of nocturnal and crepuscular (active at dawn and dusk) urban wildlife at the proposed project site. Currently, the proposed project site is surrounded by urban development. Although the ii proposed project would increase existing night lighting, the change would not be substantially different than the current conditions in the proposed project vicinity. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant. 3.3.5 Cumulative Impacts This cumulative impact analysis considers development of the proposed project, in conjunction with other development within the vicinity of the project in the City of Huntington Beach. Biological resources on the site may include site-specific resources,although none are anticipated. If any of these species are found to be present on the proposed project site, then measures would be developed in consultation with the i„ appropriate resource agencies. The project site does not provide important natural habitat or wildlife corridors. Therefore, the project has a limited potential to contribute to cumulative impacts. Other Pacific City EIR 3.3-23 Chapter 3 Environmental Impact Analysis cumulative projects may include disturbance to natural habitat, and projects potentially affecting biological resources would undergo CEQA documentation that would address site-specific impacts. These impacts would not be cumulatively considerable. 3.3.6 Mitigation-Measures and Residual Impacts The following mitigation measure (MM) would be required to reduce impacts to biological resources as described above under Impact BIO-1. MM BIO-1 If before the start of construction, substantial growth of native vegetation or sensitive habitats has occurred on the project site as determined by a qualified biologist, then special status•plant or habitat surveys shall be conducted during the appropriate time of the year prior to construction of the proposed project, to determine the presence or absence of special status plant species or habitats. These surveys shall be conducted during the appropriate blooming period as determined by a qualified biologist. If any of these species are found to be present on the proposed project site, then measures would be developed in consultation with the appropriate resource agencies, if the • status of the species and the size of the population warrant a finding of significance. Appropriate measures may include avoidance of the populations, relocation, or purchase of offsite populations for inclusion to nearby open space areas. A City- qualified biologist shall present recommendations to the city for review and approval. Any subsequent avoidance, relocation, or other mitigation strategies required to reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level shall be implemented prior to issuance of a grading permit. Although Impact BIO-5 is a less-than-significant impact, MM BIO-2 would be recommended to further reduce the potential for nuisance rodent issues. MM BIO 2 To further reduce potential rodent,dispersal to adjacent residences, grading shall begin at the perimeter, near existing residences, and proceed toward the center of the site. MM BIO-1 would.ensure identification of any special status plant species on site prior to construction. If species are identified, appropriate mitigation would be developed to ensure that impacts would be reduced to less than significant. Impact BIO-2 through Impact BIO-7 would result in no impacts or less-than- significant impacts, as described above. Implementation of recommended MM BIO-2 would discourage rodents from dispersing toward nearby residences, instead pushing them toward the center of the site, and would further reduce this less-than-significant impact, discussed in Impact BIO-6. 3.3-24 City of Huntington Beach 3.4 Cultural Resources 3.4 CULTURAL RESOURCES This EIR section analyzes the potential for adverse impacts on cultural resources such as paleontological, archaeological, and historical resources that are known or anticipated to be encountered resulting from implementation of the proposed project. The Initial Study (Appendix A) identified the potential for impacts associated with paleontological resources, as well as prehistoric and historic archaeological resources, which exist on the project site. Issues identified as less than significant include effects on historical structures, as .:- none exist on the project site. Data used to prepare this section were taken from the City's General Plan (City 1996), Paleontologic Resource Impact Mitigation Program Final Report, Test Excavations and Archival Research (PAS 2002), and three reports that include information regarding paleontological resources on the project site (Lander 1998a, 1998b; DeBarros and Roeder 2001). In addition, the Evaluation of Prehistoric Archaeological Site CA-ORA-149 and Historical Archaeological Site CA-ORA-1582H was used to provide site- - specific data on on-site cultural resources. The summary of this report is provided in Appendix L. Due to the sensitivity of the information included in the report with respect to the location of cultural materials, this document is not provided in its entirety. The site-specific technical reports are hereby incorporated in their entirety by reference. Full bibliographic entries for all reference materials are provided in Chapter 7 (References) of this document. 3.4.1 Existing Conditions Paleontology A number of paleontological sites have been identified on the project site. Research on the potential for paleontological resources to be located on site was initially conducted by Lander .(1998a). This research included a review of geologic and paleontological reports and maps that provide coverage of the project site and immediate vicinity. These maps and reports show and describe the rock units that underlie the project site and document the species represented by the fossil remains, if any, that were encountered on the site. A field survey of exposed strata was also conducted to determine the conditions of any previously recorded fossil site in the project site and to document the occurrence of any'previously unrecorded paleontological site. The assessment complies with the 1995 Society of Vertebrate Paleontology standard guidelines for assessing the paleontological sensitivity of an area. Rock Units and Paleontological Sensitivity As shown in Figure 3.6-3 in Section 3.6 (Geology and Soils), two rock units underlie the project site: Quaternary Marine Terrace deposits (Qtm) and undifferentiated Holocene alluvium and colluvium (Qac). Pacific City EIR 3.41 Chapter 3 Environmental Impact Analysis The Qtm deposits underlie all but the southeastern corner of the project site, and are composed of silt, sand, and gravel deposits. The Qac deposits consist of unconsolidated sediments and occupy the • southeastern corner of the project site. At the time the literature survey was completed for the project by Lander (1998b), no paleontological site had been recorded on the project site. However, fossil remains were observed during the field survey, and previous reports included fossil sites that had been recorded near—and in the same rocks units that underlie—the project site. The Qac deposits on the project site have yielded no fossil remains in the vicinity of the project site; • however, investigations at depth in Los Angeles County and other areas of Orange County have yielded fossilized remains of Holocene land mollusks, continental vertebrates, and land plants. These occurrences indicate an undetermined potential for similar fossil remains being encountered at depth on the project site as a result of grading or excavation in the southeastern portion of the site. The type of Qtm deposits on the project site have yielded fossil remains representing a variety of Pleistocene shallow-water marine invertebrates, including coral, worms, snails, clams, crabs, sand dollars, sea urchins, and other types. Fossilized bones and teeth have also been recovered and represent a wide variety of marine and land vertebrates. Most of these remains were collected at sites in Newport Beach, Huntington Beach, and Costa Mesa. Additionally, fossilized shells of unidentified mollusks were observed in exposed marine terrace deposits near the northeastern corner of the project site. These newly recorded fossil occurrences indicate a high potential for similar fossil remains in areas of the project site that are underlain by Qtm • deposits. • Resources Recovered on the Project Site In 2001, a paleontological resource mitigation program was conducted in association with excavation at the sand borrow area on the project site. This was required by the City of Huntington Beach, due to the determination by the Lander report of the paleontological sensitivity of the project site and the consequent recommendation for monitoring of excavation and grading activities. During the course of grading and excavation activities, no fossil remains were recovered from the Qac rock units. Eight paleontological sites were identified in the Qtm deposits underlying the project site, and are described below. • Site 1 yielded a mammoth tusk fragment and a bison vertebra. Both of these remains represent extinct species. 3.4-2 City of Huntington Beach 3.4 Cultural Resources • Site 2 yielded thousands of mollusk specimens, representing seven species of snail, two species of slugs, and one species of clam. Additionally, a sediment sample from the site yielded rare pollen grains of the plant family Chenopodiaceae. • Site 3 contained fragments of large mammal bone. These fragments were saved for use in obtaining radiocarbon dates. • Site 4 provided the richest source of fossils on the project site. Numerous land snails were recovered, along with remains of several small vertebrates (fish, shark, snake, shrew, and rodents). A fragment of calcium carbonate yielded a radiocarbon date range of 22,930 to 24,555 years before present (BP). The site also yielded rare pollen grains representing alder, pine, and Chenopodiaceae. • Site 5 yielded the remains of a mammoth humerus. • Site 6 yielded a large mammal bone fragment. ▪ Site 7 yielded a scapula(shoulder blade) from an extinct species of horse, as well as a bison vertebra. -c • Site 8 yielded several large mammal bone fragments. Analysis of Recovered Data Fossil deposits generally fell into two categories. The first category consists of isolated bones of large, extinct, late-Pleistocene mammals (bison, horse, mammoth, and large mammal), as in Sites 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, and 8. These bones were recovered in sands that are interpreted as coastal dune deposits. The second type consisted of sandy silts that yield primarily land snail species, but also freshwater snails and a clam species. Site 4 also yielded (as described above) remains of reptiles and small land mammals. These silts are interpreted as the flat areas between coastal dunes, and based on the nonmarine mollusk data from Sites 2 and 4, as well as pollen analysis, climatic conditions near the coast at the time of deposition of the Huntington Beach urban center dune deposits (22,000 to 24,000 years BP) resembled central or northern California, with higher rainfall and cooler temperatures. The data were collected only during the course of grading at the soil borrow area, which represents a limited portion of the project site. Consequently, additional paleontological resources are likely to be theproject on other portions of p �ect site. Archaeology . Summary of the Culture History The project site lies within the area considered to have been occupied by the Gabrielino culture group; however, the Santa Ana River drainage area appeared multi-ethnic and multi-linguistic, with extensive intermarriage between the Gabrielino and neighboring Juaneno/Luiseno group, which shared many Pacific City EIR 3.4-3 Chapter 3 Environmental Impact Analysis linguistic and cultural similarities. Consequently, a summary of the literature survey regarding both groups (provided in PAS 2002) is provided in this section. Territory and Language The name Gabrielino is derived from the association of the culture group with the Mission San Gabriel. The Fernandeno, so named by the Spanish for the association of the group with the Mission San Fernando, are also considered to be Gabrielino. Gabrielino territory encompassed the San Fernando Valley, the San Gabriel Valley, portions of the San Bernardino Valley, portions of the Los Angeles-Santa Ana Plain, and three of the California Channel Islands. The extent of the geographic range resulted in an important maritime trade network, using boats constructed of reeds or wooden planks, used primarily in the summer months. The uaneno are generallyconsidered to bepart of the Luiseno culture group. The difference in name J � p results primarily from the affiliations of the groups with different Spanish missions, San Luis Rey and San Juan Capistrano. The Juaneno are associated with coastal areas extending to the vicinity of San Onofre, but the combined area of the Juaneno and Luiseno likely extended to the San Luis Rey drainage in northern San Diego County, running along a line between Escondido and Oceanside. Luiseno territory extended inland to the southern San Bernardino Valley, as well as western Riverside and central San Diego Counties. Subsistence and Technology The Gabrielino and Juaneno/Luiseno were hunter-gatherers with coastal populations that also exploited marine resources. The technical report (PAS 2002) cites two primary points of interest: (1) the importance of marine resources for coastal populations; and (2) the importance of seeds for coastal and inland populations. Food preparation materials included manos and metates (grinding stones and associated hand stones) for seed grinding, mortars and pestles for crushing acorns and other nuts, and basketry winnowing and seed- parching trays. Cooking methods and materials included stone boiling in baskets often sealed with asphaltum (naturally occurring tar-like seepage), the use of stone pots and steatite/soapstone comals (griddles), and roasting in earthen ovens. Food was stored in large baskets or in granaries constructed of brush and twigs, sometimes inside caves or rock shelters. Settlement Patterns and Social Organization The Gabrielino and Juaneno/Luiseno lived in autonomous territories the Spanish called rancherias. Each rancheria contained a village and its associated resource procurement areas. Each rancheria was associated 3.4-4 City of Huntington.Beach • 3.4 Cultural Resources with specific territory and had a principal village that was a permanent, year-round residential base with ceremonial structures and a cemetery. Different groups followed different seasonal migration patterns, which were probably based on seasonal resource shortages. Little is known about Gabrielino movement, but hostility between coastal Gabrielino groups and groups from the San Gabriel Mountains has been recorded, and some groups may have prevented inland areas from reaching the coast. Burial The Gabrielino and Luiseno each practiced both burial and cremation. Archaeological finds of adult burials often consists of a body accompanied by various grave goods. Some indication exists that island groups more frequently practiced burial, and inland groups more commonly cremated remains. Even cremated remains, -. however, were accompanied by grave goods, often consisting of useful belongings that were cremated along with their owner. • Definitions of Historical Resources The National Historic Preservation Act established the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) to recognize resources associated with the country's history and heritage. Structures,and features must usually be at least 50 years old to be considered for listing on the NRHP, barring exceptional circumstances. Criteria for listing on the NRHP, which are set forth in Title 26, Part-63 of the Code of Federal Regulations (36 CFR Part 63), are significance in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, and culture,, as present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association, and that are, (a)associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; (b) associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; (c) embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction; represent the work of a master; possess high artistic values, represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or (d) have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. Criterion D is usually reserved for archaeological and paleontological resources. The California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) was created to identify resources deemed worthy of preservation on a State level and was modeled closely after the NRHP. The criteria are nearly identical to the four criteria of the NRHP listed above, but focus upon resources of statewide, rather than national, significance. The CRHR includes all resources in the State that are listed on the NRHP. Pacific City EIR 3.4-5 Chapter 3 Environmental Impact Analysis Identification of Historical Resources on the Project Site Previous Archaeological Studies of the Project Site Two archaeological sites have been identified on the project site: one prehistoric site (CA-ORA-149) and one historic site with a late prehistoric component (CA-ORA-1582H). Prior to the preparation of the technical report completed for this project (PAS 2002), four known cultural resources investigations had been conducted on the project site. These are discussed below. CA-ORA-149 McKinney 1964 The shell midden site CA-ORA-149 was first recorded by McKinney during a 1964 survey of an area that included a portion of the project site. The east end of CA-ORA-149 had already been destroyed by construction of the mobile home park east of Huntington Street. McKinney estimated that the site was about 200 ft by 100 ft, and described the site as containing"many shell fragments on slope to low bluff," as well as a decorated stone pendant, a few projectile points, and debris associated with stone working. However, no survey report or site map was included with the site form. Douglas 1980 Douglas re-surveyed CA-ORA-149 as part of a survey of the entire project site. The report described the site as a "kitchen site" with abundant shell remains and few artifacts. Douglas mistakenly characterized the site as 1000 m by 100 m in size. Subsequent study (Dillon 1997) estimated the area of intact and smeared midden to 150 m by 210 m. Dillon 1997 Dillon conducted a survey of the project site and mapped CA-ORA-149. He observed no other prehistoric sites or historic features and noted that features, such as the historic rail lines and alignments, had been destroyed during the course of development. Dillon estimated the size of the site to be 2 acres, of which 20 to 30 percent remained undisturbed at the time of the field survey. The intact area encompasses about 7,000 m2 in the central portion of the archaeological site, surrounded by a disturbed outer area of about 14,000 m2, and site depth was estimated to be approximately 50 cm. Dillon reported observing fewer artifacts than McKinney, but also reported abundant fire-cracked rock and burned fragments of medium to large terrestrial mammal bone. Extensive shellfish remains were also observed. -- 3.4-6 City of Huntington Beach i7 3.4 Cultural Resources Dillon suggested that CA-ORA-149 is of "moderate significance," based on the abundant midden, the ( presence of artifacts, the absence of known human remains, probable Late Prehistoric Age (which was later determined to be incorrect), poor,integrity, and moderate uniqueness. The study also concluded that if relatively intact deposits are found,,they would constitute highly significant deposits. Project-Related Archaeological Investigations DeBarros 1998 This study mapped the site, which indicated an intact site area of 5,500 m2 and revealed three types of deposits: • Highly disturbed midden deposits—Areas with some disturbed, surface midden • Shallow midden deposits—Relatively intact deposits estimated to range from 10 to 50 cm in depth ■ Stratified midden deposits—Described by DeBarros as the most interesting at the site, with two midden layers: one measured 15 to 20 cm thick and the second measured 45 to 55 cm thick, though it possibly extended deeper DeBarros recommended fencing the site to prevent further damage, and formal test excavations to evaluate the significance of CA-ORA-149 under Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. The framework for the analysis of CA-ORA-149 describes potential research topics, including ■ Chronology • Subsistence, settlement, environmental change • Environmental correlates of changing subsistence patterns • Procurement of stone and the toolmaking processes • Trade With each of these topics, the discussion includes the data requirements (type and amount) that must be present at the site to allow the study to meaningfully address the topic. Site investigation for ORA-149 included surface collection, as well as excavation with a backhoe of a series - of trenches to refine the excavation strategy, followed by the hand excavation of ten 1 m2 units. Excavated material from the individual units was dry- and wet-screened through '/2-inch wire mesh to recover smaller artifacts, then catalogued by level and sent for appropriate laboratory analysis, based on artifact type. Detailed listings of artifacts and site properties are included in Section 5 of the technical report(PAS 2002). Pacific City EIR 3.4-7 Chapter 3 Environmental Impact Analysis As a result of the study, CA-ORA-149 was evaluated by PAS (2002) for significance under Criterion D (Has yielded, or may likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history) of Section 15064.5(a)(3) of • the CEQA Guidelines, as well as whether the site would be considered a Unique Archaeological Resource • under Section 21083.2 of CEQA. While the majority of the site has either been disturbed or destroyed, deposits associated with two of the three loci identified for the site (Loci A and B1) were determined to • contain sufficient integrity to merit an evaluation of significance. The two loci were considered to have the ability to address the following research topics: Chronology • Both loci contain abundant shellfish remains that permit dates to be assigned to the range. of occupation. • Both loci contain small amounts of obsidian (volcanic glass), which can also be dated and which can help confirm a growing database for calibration of dates from the Coso obsidian source. • Locus B1 contains a Late Millingstone Period component, and the subsistence trends of this component can be studied. • Locus A contains intact early to middle Late Prehistoric Period.components, which are generally absent from this portion of coastal Orange County, especially at Bolsa Chica, and data from this component can help fill an important data gap. Locus B1 also contains an early Late Prehistoric Period component. Subsistence, Settlement, and Environmental Change • Both loci contain significant data on food procurement, includingvertebrate fish and nonfish remains, shellfish remains, groundstone tools, and protein residues on these tools. These data can help the study of changing patterns of adaptation to climatic change in the region and the local area. • Locus A contains evidence of intensification of fishing during the-early to mid-Late Prehistoric Period. • Sufficient data are present to assess site function, especially with a larger sample of excavated data. • The site provides clues as to the relationship between dry and moist climatic periods during the Medieval Climatic Anomaly and changes in animal, fish, and shellfish procurement, particularly at Locus A. • Additional-excavation could confirm the apparent absence of an Intermediate Period Component at the site, although the nearby Bolsa Chica Mesa was continuously occupied during that period. Procurement of Stone and the Toolmaking Process • The site provides baseline data on flaked stone and groundstone materials procurement and toolmaking during the Late Millingstone and early to mid Late Prehistoric Period in this portion of north coastal Orange County. 3.48 City of Huntington Beach ., 3.4 Cultural Resources Trade • The site included Coso obsidian and possibly Franciscan chert (flint), both of which are known trade items. The site also included an oval ring limpet shell ornament, which allows the assignment of a range of dates of use/occupation to the site. Summary Loci A and B1 of CA-ORA-149 qualify the site as historically significant under Section 15064.5(a)(3)(D) of the CEQA Guidelines, because the data that the loci have yielded and/or are considered likely to yield allow scientists to address key research issues, as described above, that are important to prehistory. Discovery of CA-ORA-1582H CA-ORA-1582H, a large, buried historic dump, was discovered in 1999 during geotechnical study trenches on the project site. Based on examination of a sample of bottles recovered from the site, a historical archaeologist preliminarily determined that the dump probably dated to between ca. A.D. 1915 and 1930. Additional trenching was completed to determine the boundaries of the dump. Additional bottles and ceramic artifacts were retrieved, and the depth of the site was estimated to range from 2 to 5 feet in depth. Eight 1 m' units were subsequently excavated by hand, and recovered material was dry- and wet-screened through '/a-inch wire mesh (historic sites tend to contain larger artifacts and fragments than prehistoric sites). Artifacts were then sorted and bagged by level and type. Soil profiles were also drawn of at least one sidewall of each excavation unit. Extensive supporting documentation was provided in the appendices to the technical studies, and is available for review at the City Planning Department. As with CA-ORA-149, the framework for the analysis of CA-ORA-1582H describes potential research topics,along with the data requirements to address these topics. The topics include • Chronology • Status of Huntington Beach residents • Trade network links , • The site as a reflection of the history of Huntington Beach • Activity groups • Horizontal variation(are sections reserved for different purposes?) CA-ORA-1582H was determined, during the course of surface collection and excavations, to contain three components: a historic dump, a prehistoric site component within the dump, and shellfish remains Pacific City EIR 3.4-9 Chapter 3 Environmental Impact Analysis northwest of the dump. Both were evaluated by PAS (2002) for significance under Criterion D (Has yielded, or may likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history) of Section 15064.5(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, as well as whether the site would be considered a Unique Archaeological Resource under Section 21083.2 of CEQA. Although CA-ORA-1582H its a historic site, Criteria A and B do not apply because the site was determined to be a historic dump, which is not associated with specific events, significant patterns of history, or significant persons. Additionally, the site does not qualify under Criterion C because it contains no standing structures. Historic Dump Test excavations of the historic dump produced 27 boxes of historic artifacts. This is a considerable amount of material and attests to the density of cultural refuse present in the dump. The recovered artifacts, including large numbers of complete bottles, have provided much valuable data, including additional details provided in the appendices to the technical report, and the reference data are significant because they provide a baseline for comparison with—as well as interpretation of—residential refuse deposits from the general area. However, the deposits of the site are highly disturbed and do not exhibit any clear differentiation across the site, and additional excavation would be unlikely to produce significant new information other than what the test excavations have yielded. PAS (2002: 304) concluded that the historic component of CA-ORA-1582H is not a historically significant resource under CEQA or the CEQA Guidelines. However, larger samples of whole bottles and other diagnostic artifacts could be valuable as teaching aides for historical societies or academic departments, as well as public displays. Prehistoric Site Component Excavations of this component of the dump yielded a small quantity of shellfish remains, one rabbit bone of unknown age, and one possible stone tool (a stone flake with some possible evidence of use). Two ^" radiocarbon dates indicate that the shell dates to the terminal Late Prehistoric Period (post-A.D. 1400). However, the highly disturbed nature of the context-from which the material was recovered eliminates research value other than the information gained from analysis of the shellfish and the radiocarbon dates. The prehistoric component of CA-ORA-1582H has not yielded, and is not considered likely to yield, information important to history or prehistory, and does not satisfy Section 15064.5(a)(3)(D) of the CEQA Guidelines. Shellfish Remains Northwest of the Dump Test excavations of this site component indicated that the contents consist of redeposited surface materials from elsewhere, as the shellfish remains are underlain by broken asphalt. No intact prehistoric component 3.4-10 City of Huntington Beach 3.4 Cultural Resources exists and the material recovered has no research value. Consequently, this component is not historically significant under Section 15064.5(a)(3)(D) of the CEQA Guidelines. 3.4.2 Regulatory Framework The treatment of cultural resources is governed by federal, State, and local laws and guidelines. There are specific criteria for determining whether prehistoric and historic sites or objects are significant and/or protected by law. Federal and State significance criteria generally focus on the resource's integrity and uniqueness, its relationship-to similar resources, and its potential to contribute important information to scholarly research. Some resources that do not meet federal significance criteria may be considered significant by State criteria. The laws and regulation seek to mitigate impacts on significant prehistoric or historic resources. The federal, State, and local laws and guidelines for protecting historic resources are summarized below. -` Federal The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 The National Historic,Preservation Act of 1966 established the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) : as the official federal list of cultural resources that have been nominated by State Offices for their historical significance at the local, State, or national level. Properties listed in the NRHP, or "determined eligible"for listing, must meet certain criteria for historical significance and possess integrity of form, location, and setting. Significance is determined by four aspects of American history or prehistory recognized by the NRHP Criteria, which are listed in the section entitled "Def`mitions of Historical Resources" on page 3.4-5, above. Eligible properties must meet at least one of the criteria and exhibit integrity, measured by the • degree to which the resource retains its historical properties and conveys its historical character, the degree to which the original fabric has been retained, and the reversibility of changes to the property. State The California Register of Historic Resources State law also protects cultural resources by requiring evaluations of the significance of prehistoric and historic resources in CEQA documents. A cultural resource is an important historical resource if it meets any of the criteria found in Section 15064.5(a) of the CEQA Guidelines. These criteria are nearly identical to those for the NRHP, which are listed in the section entitled "Def`initions of Historical Resources" on page 3.4-5, above. , Pacific City EIR 3.4-11 Chapter 3 Environmental Impact Analysis The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) maintains the California Register of Historical Resources. (CRHR). Properties listed, or formally designated eligible for listing, on the NRHP are automatically listed on the CRHR, as are State Landmarks and Points of Interest. The CRHR also includes properties designated under local ordinances or identified through local historical resource surveys. California Health and Safety Code Sections 7050.5, 7051, and 7054 These sections collectively address the illegality of interference with human burial remains (except as allowed under applicable sections of the Public Resources Code), as well as the disposition of Native American burials in archaeological sites and protects such remains from disturbance, vandalism, or inadvertent destruction; establishes procedures to be implemented if Native American skeletal remains are discovered during construction of a project, treatment of the remains prior to, during and after evaluation, and reburial procedures. California Senate Bill 297 (1982) This bill addresses the disposition of Native American burials in archaeological sites and protects such remains from disturbance, vandalism, or inadvertent destruction; establishes procedures to be implemented if Native American skeletal remains are discovered during construction of a project; and establishes the Native American Heritage Commission to resolve disputes regarding the disposition of such remains. It has been incorporated into Section 15064.5(e) of the State CEQA Guidelines. Local Southern California Association of Governments SCAG's Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide (RCPG) and RHNA are tools for coordinating regional planning and development strategies in southern California. Policies contained in the RCPG identified by SCAG as relevant to the proposed project are identified in Table 3.4-1, and this table also includes an assessment of the proposed project's consistency with these policies. Table 3.4-1 SCAG Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide—Policies Applicable to Cultural Resources Policy Project Consistency Policy 3.21.Encourage the As described above in Section 3.4.1 (Existing Conditions),two archaeological sites and eight implementation of measures aimed at the paleontological resources sites are known on the project site,and one of the archaeological sites(CA- preservation and protection of recorded ORA-149)has been determined to be a unique archaeological site for the purposes of CEQA. and unrecorded cultural resources and Although these resources would be affected by the proposed project,mitigation measures proposed archaeological sites. for the project would ensure that cultural materials that would be affected are identified and scientifically removed and preserved prior to site development,as well as when they are encountered during site development,as appropriate.The proposed project would not,therefore,conflict with this policy. 3A412 City of Huntington Beach 3.4 Cultural Resources General Plan Historic and Cultural Resources Element This element identifies the historical resources of the community, their current designations and community status, and the issues affecting their future., Table 3.4-2 identifies goals and objectives presented in the Cultural Resources Element of the•General Plan related to cultural resources thatare potentially relevant to the proposed project. This table also includes an assessment of the proposed project's consistency with the policies adopted in support of these goals and objectives. Table 3.4-2 General Plan Historic and Cultural Resources Element— Policies Applicable to Cultural Resources Goal,Objective,or Policy Project Consistency Goal HCR 1.To promote the preservation' As described above in Section 3.4.1(Existing Conditions),two archaeological sites and eight and restoration of the sites,structures and paleontological resources sites are known on the project site,and one of the archaeological sites(CA- districts which have architectural, ORA-149).has been determined to be a unique archaeological site for the purposes of CEQA. historical,and/or archaeological Although these resources would be affected by the proposed project,mitigation measures proposed significance to the City of Huntington for the project would ensure that cultural materials that would be affected are identified and Beach. " scientifically removed and preserved prior to site development,as well as when they are encountered during site development,as appropriate.The proposed project would not,therefore,conflict with this policy. Objective HCR 1.1.Ensure that all the As described above in Section 3.4.1 (Existing Conditions),two archaeological sites and eight City's historically and archaeologically paleontological'resources sites are known on the project site,and one of the archaeological sites(CA- significant resources are identified and ORA-149)has been determined to be a unique archaeological site for the purposes of CEQA. protected. Although these resources would be affected by the proposed project,mitigation measures proposed for the project would ensure that cultural materials that would be affected are identified and scientifically removed and preserved prior to site development,as well as when they are encountered during site development,as appropriate.The proposed project would not,therefore,conflict with this policy. Policy HCR 1.1.2 Utilize the Secretary of ,The project site does not contain historic structures,and implementation of the proposed project Interior Standards for Historic would not conflict with this policy. Rehabilitation and standards and guidelines as prescribed by the state Office of Historic Preservation as the architectural and landscape design'standards for rehabilitation,alteration,or additions to sites containing historic resources in order • to preserve these structures in a manner consistent with the site's architectural and landscape design standards for rehabilitation,alteration,or additions to sites containing historic resources in order to preserve these structures in a manner consistent with the sites architectural and historic integrity. • General Plan Coastal Element The Coastal Element identifies significant historical and archeological resources within the Coastal Zone, and sets forth policies to ensure reasonable protection and/or enhancement of such resources. Table 3.4-3 identifies goals and objectives presented in the Coastal Element of the General Plan related to cultural Pacific City EIR 3.413 Chapter 3 Environmental Impact Analysis resources that are potentially relevant to the proposed project. This table also includes an assessment of the proposed project's consistency with the policies adopted in support of these goals and objectives. Table 3.4-3 General Plan Coastal Element-Policies Applicable to Cultural Resources Goal,Objective,or Policy Project Consistency Goal C 5.Promote the preservation of Conformance with implementing policies,as discussed below,results in conformance with this goal. significant archaeological and paleontological resources in the Coastal Zone. Objective C 5.1.Identify and protect,to Conformance with implementing policies,as discussed below,results in conformance with this the maximum extent feasible,significant objective. archaeological,paleontological,and historic resources in the Coastal Zone. Policy C 5.1.2.Where new development As described above in Section 3.4.1(Existing Conditions),two archaeological sites and eight would adversely impact archeological or paleontological resources sites are known on the project site,and one of the archaeological sites(CA- paleontological resources within the ORA-149)has been determined to be a unique archaeological site for the purposes of CEQA. Coastal Zone,reasonable mitigation Although these resources would be affected by the proposed project,mitigation measures proposed. measures to minimize impacts shall be for the project would ensure that cultural materials that would be affected are identified and required. scientifically removed and preserved prior to site development,as well as when they are encountered during site development,as appropriate. Policy C 5.1.3.In the event that any The treatment of human remains is governed by applicable State regulations,including the Health and Native American human remains are Safety Code and State Senate Bill 297,and.the proposed project would be required to treat any uncovered,the County Coroner,the Native human remains,if discovered,according to these regulations.The proposed project would therefore, American Heritage Commission,and the be consistent with this policy. Most Likely Descendants,as designated by the California Native American Heritage Commission,shall be notified.The recommendations of the Most Likely Descendants shall be obtained prior to the disposition of any prehistoric Native American human remains. • 3.4-14 City of Huntington Beach 3.4 Cultural Resources • Table 3.4-3 General Plan Coastal Element—Policies Applicable to Cultural Resources Goal,Objective,or Policy Project Consistency Policy C 5.1.4.A completed archeological As described above Section 3.4.1(Existing Conditions),an archaeological resources technical report research design shall be submitted along was prepared for the proposed project site by PAS and submitted to the City and would be subject to with any application for a coastal peer review,at the City's discretion.The report included a discussion of research topics and the development permit for development within theoretical framework that could be addressed by data from the archaeological sites and evaluated any area containing archeological or the significance of the sites and recovered cultural material using the applicable criteria from the paleontological resources.The research California Register of Historical Resources,which are also included in Section 15064.5(a)of the design shall determine the significance of CEQA Guidelines.The principal investigators for the report also consulted with the Native American any artifacts uncovered and make Heritage Commission and with representatives of appropriate Native American groups. recommendations for preservation. The conclusions and recommendations of the report will be made available to the Office of Historic Significance will be based on the Preservation as a part of the Draft EIR,and the recommendations of the report,in addition to other requirements of the California Register of criteria,and prepared mitigation provided in this EIR,will be included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for Historical ed a Resourcesthe following.criteria: the project,pursuant to Section 15097 of the CEQA Guidelines,and will be fully enforceable.The bproposed project would,therefore,be consistent with this policy. a. Contain a discussion of important research topics that can be addressed; and b. Be reviewed by at least three(3) • County-certified archeologists(peer _ review committee). c. The State Office of Historic Preservation and the Native American Heritage Commission shall review the research design. d. The research design shall be developed in conjunction with affected Native American groups. e. The permittee shall comply with the • requirements of the peer review committee to assure compliance with the mitigation measures required by the archeological research design. Policy C 5.1.5.A County-certified Mitigation measures proposed for the project include provisions for monitoring of earth-disturbing paleontologist/archeologist,shall monitor activities by archaeologists,paleontologists,and a Native American representative,as well as all grading operations where there is a, provisions for cessation of earth-disturbing activities as the significance of any recovered materials is potential to affect cultural or, assessed and subsequent appropriate actions are taken.The project would,therefore,be consistent paleontological resources based on the with this policy. required research design.A Native - American monitor shall also monitor grading operations.If grading operations uncover paleontological/archeological j F resources,the paleontologist/archeologist or Native American monitor shall suspend all development activity to avoid destruction of resources until a determination can be made as to the significance of the paleontological/archeological resources.If found to be significant,the site(s)shall be tested and preserved until a recovery plan is completed to assure the protection of the paleontological/archeological resources. I • Pacific City EIR 3.4-15 Chapter 3 Environmental Impact Analysis 3.4.3 Thresholds of Significance The following thresholds of significance are based on Appendix G of the 2002 CEQA Guidelines. For purposes of this EIR, implementation of the proposed project may have a significant adverse impact on cultural resources if it would • Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines • Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature • Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries 3.4.4 Project Impacts Impact CR-1 Paleontological resources that could be located on-site would be adversely affected by earth-moving activities that could damage these materials. As described above in Section 3.4.1 (Existing Conditions), the project site had previously been determined paleontologically sensitive by Lander (1998a; 1998b), and during previous grading activities, eight paleontological sites were identified in the Qtm rock units that underlie the project site in the sand borrow area. These sites yielded remains of a range of plant and animal species, which in turn provided significant data regarding paleoclimatic conditions on the project site and in the project vicinity. Consequently, DeBarros and Roeder (2001) concluded that because the sand borrow area represented a limited area of the site, additional paleontological resources are likely to be,present on other areas of the site. Further earth- disturbing activities—such as grading and excavation—that could occur on the project site as a result of project implementation could damage or destroy these paleontological resources, which have the potential to yield additional information important in prehistory. Therefore, the impact resulting from damage to or destruction of these resources would be potentially significant. Impact CR-2 Construction of the proposed project would cause a -substantial adverse change in the significance of CA-ORA-149,a prehistoric archaeological site. For the purposes of this analysis, changes in the significance of an archaeological resource are considered significant if the physical characteristics of a historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its inclusion in, or eligibility for, inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources are demolished or materially altered in an adverse manner. As described in Section 3.4.1 (Existing Conditions), CA-ORA-149, a prehistoric archaeological site, is present on the project site. Archaeologists have determined, based on previous studies and test excavations 3.4-16 City of Huntington Beach _� .::1, 3.4 Cultural Resources that yielded abundant information important in prehistory, that CA-ORA-149 qualifies as a historic resource, as defined under Section 15064.5(a)(3)(D) of the CEQA Guidelines. Because only a portion of the site was studied and development under the proposed project would occur on the entire site, the likelihood of encountering additional archaeological resources associated with CA-ORA-149 is considered very high. Also, additional archaeological resources could be present on the project site and earth-disturbing activities associated with project implementation—such as grading and excavation-could damage or destroy these resources. The impact resulting from such damage or destruction would be potentially significant. Impact CR-3 Construction of the proposed project could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of previously,unknown archaeological resources, including human burials,that could be present on the project site. r- , Although investigations at the project site have detected two archaeological sites, archaeological sites can be present without providing surface indications. Because the project site and vicinity are known to be archaeologically sensitive, the potential exists for additional, unanticipated finds of archaeological resources during ground-disturbing activities associated with project implementation. Such resources must be considered significant under the criterion specified in Section 15064.5(a)(3)(D) of the CEQA Guidelines (may be likely to yield information important in prehistory or history). Additionally, although no burials are known to be associated with the known archaeological sites on the project site, the potential for encountering burials in archaeological contexts also exists. Therefore, the potential for damage to or destruction of these cultural resources would be a potentially significant impact. Impact CR-4 Construction of the proposed project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of CA-ORA-1582H—a historical archaeological dump site. As described above, in Section 3.4.2 (Existing Conditions), CA-ORA-1582H—the historical archaeological dumpsite that is present on the project site—was determined not to have sufficient integrity to provide data for the study of research topics regarding the past. Therefore, the site does not meet the criterion specified in Section 15064.5(a)(3)(D) of the CEQA Guidelines (yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in history or prehistory). As described above, criteria A through C are not considered to apply to the site, as no specific historical associations with significant events or people are known, and dump sites do not generally embody the distinctive characteristics a type, period, region, or method of construction. Because CA-ORA-1582H does not satisfy any of the criteria of a historic resource, as defined in Section 15064.5(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, the site is not considered a historic resource, and a less- than-significant impact would result from,the destruction of the site. Pacific City EIR 3.4-17 Chapter 3 Environmental Impact Analysis 3.4.5 Cumulative Impacts This cumulative impact analysis considers development of the proposed project, in conjunction with other development within the vicinity of the project in the City of Huntington Beach. Cumulative development would require grading and excavation that could potentially affect archaeological or paleontological resources, similar to the proposed project. The cumulative effect of these projects is the continued loss of these resources. The potential loss of paleontological and archaeological resources under the,project would contribute to the degradation of the historic fabric of the City of Huntington Beach. However, project specific mitigation would be' implemented as appropriate to reduce the effect of this development by ensuring the evaluation and—where appropriate—scientific recovery and study of any resources encountered, which would ensure that important scientific information that is provided by these resources regarding history and prehistory would not be lost. Similar conditions would be required where cumulative development has the potential to affect these resources. The contribution of the proposed project to the degradation of the historic fabric of the City of Huntington Beach would, therefore, not be cumulatively considerable. Cumulative impacts would be less than significant. - 3.4.6 Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts The following mitigation measure (MM) would be required to address impacts to archaeological and paleontological resources, as described above under Impacts CR-1 and CR-3. MM CR-1 Monitor grading and excavation for archaeological and paleontological resources: (a) The Applicant shall. arrange for a qualified professional archaeological and paleontological monitor to be present during demolition, grading, trenching, and other excavation on the project site. The Applicant shall also contact the appropriate Gabrielino and Juaneno tribal representatives to determine whether either group desires Native American monitoring of grading activities. If Native American monitors are requested, the Applicant shall arrange for the monitoring with tribal representatives. Additionally, prior to project construction, construction personnel will be informed of the potential for encountering significant archaeological and paleontological resources, and instructed in the identification of fossils and other potential resources. All construction personnel will be informed of the need to stop work on the project site until a qualified archaeologist or paleontologist has been provided the opportunity to assess the significance of the find and implement appropriate measures to protect or scientifically remove the find. Construction personnel will also be informed of the requirement that unauthorized collection of cultural resources is prohibited. 3.4-18 City of Huntington Beach 3.4 Cultural Resources _ (b) If archaeological or paleontological resources are discovered during earth moving activities, all construction activities within 50 feet of the find shall cease until the archaeologist/paleontologist evaluates the significance of the resource. In the absence of a determination, all archaeological and paleontological resources shall be considered significant. If the resource is determined to be significant, the archaeologist or paleontologist, as appropriate, shall prepare a research design for recovery of the resources in consultation with the State Office of Historic Preservation that satisfies the requirements.. of Section 21083.2 of CEQA. The archaeologist or paleontologist shall complete a report of the excavations and findings, and shall submit the report for peer review by three County-certified archaeologists or paleontologists, as appropriate. Upon approval of the report, the Applicant shall submit the report to the South Central Coastal Information Center at California State University, Fullerton, the California Coastal Commission, and the City of Huntington Beach. (c) Monitored grading at the location of CA-ORA-1582H shall involve the removal of refuse deposit in 15 to 20 cm layers using a skip loader. All materials shall be deposited in small to medium piles for scanning by archaeologists for diagnostic materials. If the resource encountered consists of complete or nearly complete artifacts from CA-ORA-1582H, then artifacts shall be cleaned and cataloged for curation at a facility acceptable to the City of Huntington Beach for loans to educational institutions, and no further study would be required. (d)In the event of the discovery on the project site of a burial, human bone, •or suspected human bone, all excavation or grading in the vicinity of the find will halt immediately and the area of the find will be protected. If a qualified archaeologist is present, he/she will determine whether the bone is human. If the archaeologist determines that the bone is human, or in the absence of an archaeologist, the Applicant immediately will notify the City Planning Department and the Orange County Coroner' of the find and comply with the provisions of P.R.C. Section 5097 with respect to Native American involvement, burial treatment, and reburial. Implementation of MM CR-1 would reduce Impacts CR-1 and CR-3 to less-than-significant levels by ensuring that paleontological resources and unanticipated archaeological resources, including human burials, would be subject to scientific recovery and evaluation, pursuant to CEQA, which would ensure that important scientific information that could be provided by these resources regarding history or prehistory is not lost. The following mitigation measure would be required to address impacts to archaeological resources, as described above under Impact CR-2. Pacific City EIR 3.4-19 Chapter 3 Environmental impact Analysis MM CR-2 Scientifi'c recovery of archaeological resources associated with CA-ORA-149: The Applicant shall retain a qualified archaeologist (i.e., listed on the Registry of Professional Archaeologists) to develop and implement, in consultation with the State Office of Historic Preservation, a research design and recovery plan for remaining elements of CA-ORA-149. The recovery plan shall emphasize data collection in Locus A, between Test Units 1 and 2, as well as on a core area of Locus B, centered around Test Unit 4, and shall be designed to satisfy the requirements of Section 21083.2 of CEQA. Implementation of MM CR-2 would reduce Impact CR-2 to a less-than-significant level by ensuring that significant elements ;of CA-ORA-149, a prehistoric archaeological site, would be subject to scientific recovery and evaluation, pursuant to CEQA, which would ensure that important scientific information that could be provided by these resources regarding history or prehistory is not lost. Impacts to CA-ORA-1582H, as described above under Impact CR-4 would be less than significant. • 3.420 City of Huntington Beach 3.5 Energy and Mineral Resources 3.5 ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES This EIR section analyzes the potential for adverse impacts on existing energy resources of the City of Huntington Beach and mineral resources located within the project site resulting from implementation of the proposed project. The Initial Study (Appendix A) identified the potential for impacts associated with energy resources, including electricity and natural gas, as well as the loss of availability of a mineral resource. Specifically, the loss of oil is an issue of concern since this resource is prevalent throughout the project site as the site was formally used as an oil field, and this resource could be of value to the region, residents of the state, or delineated as locally-important on a local general or other land use plan. The Initial Study prepared for the proposed project concluded that no effects on other mineral resources would occur, as no other mineral resources have been identified within the project site. Data used to prepare this section was obtained from electrical and natural gas providers regarding available supply, service levels, and current or anticipated constraints; the City's General Plan Environmental Resources/Conservation, Utilities, and Coastal Elements; the Downtown Specific Plan; the Environmental Site Assessment for the Huntington Shores Motel; and the Phase II Investigation Report/Remediation Plan; the Remediation Plan prepared for the site; and the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation prepared by Zeiser Kling Consultants, Inc., for the site (Appendix J). Full bibliographic entries for all reference materials are provided in Chapter 7 (References) of this document. Potential hazards associated with oil operations on site and in the area are discussed in Section 3.7 (Hazards and Hazardous Materials). 3.5.1 Existing Conditions Electrical Service The primary electricity provider for the City of Huntington Beach is Southern California Edison (SCE). Facilities and infrastructure providing service to the project area include transmission, distribution, and communication lines. SCE has approximately 280 miles of electrical lines in the City ranging from household connections to generating station distribution lines. Six SCE substations and a generating station operated by the AES Corporation are also located within the City. The AES generating station is located at 21730 Newland Avenue. The six SCE substation names and locations are as follows: 1. Bolsa-15971 Graham Street 2. Ocean View-8081 Warner Avenue 3. Slater-1875 Edwards Street 4. Wave-730 Lake Street Pacific City EIR 3.5-1 Chapter 3 Environmental Impact Analysis 5. Hamilton-21202 Brookhurst Avenue 6. Ellis-19118 Ward Street The project site is located within the service territory of SGE, which currently maintains aerial transmission lines along the First Street property boundary and regional 66-kV transmission facilities along the Atlanta Avenue site boundary. Currently, no electrical infrastructure exists on the site. SCE has indicated that the current electricity supply for the City is adequate, and that there are no immediate plans to expand or upgrade the existing electricity infrastructure (Lee Dickerhoof 2003, March). Energy Supply Southern California consumers have recently experienced rising energy costs and uncertainties regarding the supply of electricity. The causes of these conditions are under investigation and are the subject of debate. Some of the factors that may have led to the energy shortages experienced in late 2000 and early 2001 in California include a lack of new major power plants, drought conditions, lack of emphasis on energy conservation, and deregulation. While the population in California has increased by an average of 600,000 people per year over the past decade, no new major power plants have been built. In addition, surrounding states that formerly provided up to 20 percent of California's energy have also experienced significant growth, thereby limiting their electricity exports to California. The drought conditions experienced in the Pacific Northwest in 2000 and 2001 also resulted in the reduction of the volume of water available for hydroelectric power generation, which otherwise could have been exported to California as it has in previous years. Further, the increase in energy supplies during the 1980s caused the cost of electricity to decrease, which resulted in less emphasis being placed on energy conservation and efficiency programs. Another factor leading to the recent California Energy Crisis may be the lack of cost controls as a result of deregulation. The law for deregulation went into effect in 1998 with the goal of enhancing competition and consumer choice in electricity generators. Under the law, the transmission and distribution of electricity would remain a regulated monopoly, but the generation of electricity would be opened up to competition. Utilities were encouraged to sell their power plants and were required to purchase all their electricity needs from the wholesale market. However, an electricity supply/demand mismatch occurred as existing utilities sold their power plants but were not responsible for building new ones. The fact that new power plants would take at least a few years to be permitted and constructed, coupled with the economic and population growth in California,resulted in an energy shortage. The California Energy Commission (CEC) is currently considering applications for the development of new power-generating facilities in Southern California and elsewhere in the State. These facilities could supply additional energy to the power supply grid within the next few years. In addition, efforts are being taken to 3.5-2 City of Huntington Beach 3.5 Energy and Mineral Resources modify existing plants and re-power existing sites to improve generation capacity. A broad-ranging effort has also been undertaken by the State to reduce peak electricity demand in California, including actions to encourage voluntary load reduction by customers and to promote incentive programs for demand reducing technologies, energy efficient construction techniques, and the installation of energy-efficient equipment. Natural Gas Service Southern California Gas Company (SCGC) is the primary provider of natural gas for the City of Huntington Beach. The availability of natural gas service is based upon present conditions of gas supply and regulatory policies. As a public utility, the SCGC is under the jurisdiction of the California Public Utilities Commission. SCGC receives its supply of natural gas from several locations, including Southern California, Northern California, and out-of-state suppliers, with the largest source from El Paso, Texas: The natural gas from Texas enters California through transmission lines ranging from 500 to 1,000 pounds per square inch (psi) of pressure. These lines connect to transmission compressor stations, which decrease the pressure and clean the natural gas. From the compressor stations, the natural gas is transmitted through supply lines with gases ranging from 150 to 500 psi of pressure. The supply lines terminate at the distribution stations, where the natural gas pressure is further reduced to approximately 44-psi and then provided to consumers. No natural gas lines currently serve the project site: lines that served the project site in the past have been abandoned. However, existing transmission lines are located within the project area, and natural gas could be provided to the site via extensions from these mains. Specifically, a six-inch gas main runs along Huntington Street, an eight-inch gas main runs along Atlanta Avenue, a 12-inch high-pressure gas main runs along First Street, and a 12-inch high-pressure gas main runs along PCH. SCGC has no immediate plans to update the existing infrastructure or to implement new technologies other than normal maintenance checks and replacements of deteriorating supply lines. Currently, SCGC meets existing natural gas supply demands in the area(James Bevans 2003, February). Oil Well Inventory For the purposes of this report, an oil well is defined as a hole drilled from the surface into the earth for prospecting for or production of oil, natural,gas, or other hydrocarbon substances. This definition also encompasses a well or a hole used for the subsurface injection into the earth of oil field waste, gases, water, or liquid substances, including any well or hole that has not been abandoned and is now in existence. , Pacific,City EIR 3.5-3 Chapter 3 Environmental Impact Analysis California is the fourth largest oil producer in the United States, behind Alaska, Texas, and Louisiana, respectively, making the oil industry not only an integral part of the State's economy, but also a major contributor to the nation's economic health (California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, 1999). According to the Environmental Resources/Conservation Element of the City's General Plan, Huntington Beach has been the site of oil extraction since the 1920s, and large scale oil and gas production continues to the present time. Oil wells in Huntington Beach are scattered throughout much of the City, with most of them concentrated along the coastal areas and mesas. Several oil producing areas underlying the City include the Talbert, Sunset Beach, West Newport, and Huntington Beach oil fields. Recent oil production has decreased due to the expenses incurred in oil extraction, although an estimated 67.5 million barrels remain in reserve. The project site is located within the Huntington Beach Oil Field, which was formerly operated by Chevron. In addition, the portion of the project site designated as District No. 8A by the Downtown Specific Plan is also identified as an Oil Overlay "C" District, with the purpose of the overlay to allow for existing and/or expanded oil production on the property. The Oil Overlay specifications identify conditions that must be met in order for this to occur, and include the minimization of noise, odor, and visual impacts on nearby residences and safe access to the site. Since the Downtown Specific Plan area overlies long-productive oil pools, the City designates zoning for oil production in connection with the underlying base zones, such as commercial or residential districts. Due to the extent of the remaining reserves in the area, the plan allows oil production to continue in of the area. Figure 3.5-1 shows the location of Oil Overlay "C" District on the project site. A review of historical aerial photographs and Munger maps, and a site visit by Harding Lawson Associates for the Phase II Investigation Report/Remediation Plan in 1996, identified 10 aboveground storage tank (AST) settings, former locations of approximately 4,000 feet of pipelines, 20 abandoned oil wells, and one abandoned water well on the project site. Oil well abandonment at the project site occurred over a number of years, beginning in 1976 and occurring through 1999. The majority of on-site wells were initially abandoned in 1988 and subsequently re-abandoned in 1998. All of the abandoned oil well sites have also been remediated; the plugging and abandonment of these oil wells have been conducted in accordance with, and have been determined to meet all of, the requirements of the Resources Agency of California Department of Conservation Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR), as indicated in the report of well plugging and abandonment provided for each well (DOGGR, 1998 and 1999). 3.5-4 City of Huntington Beach LEGEND J PROJECT SITE BOUNDARY ./\ OIL OVERLAY AREA </)N., ), (/)I\ . \\\)\,,, r) . </\<\\,... q . - <, \\").7,2-,)i di 1 \ • , • .c ,..,./:„../..,) ,j7---- / - \ • ,,-\\;\ \ <,..„‹ „.,.,4. .„) . . c•----4):.\\:,%t ,,,,,,,,y-- • , • • - , \\<.-, ,,‘\, 7\, ‹\\) -\\,,a . \\,, - 0- \y\\- kv- , (7:\.. - c,,>\,,,, ,,,c ,,,....„ t,ic\ \\"..„ \-v \ > <" 1 I ,,,,—1— ...,. al- ,_ PALM AVENUE S �r /'k�„ �,\\ \ -.-..-_-1:1..-I--J---II- -----......-<-/-UU _I_ —J.__....L_AUJAlia. ., ,<:,,,A,,z ''\>''5(5., . [1 MT-1- -- - --. T[11 -710- aim ..,,.,7,\\.c>\77>. 0 ,,,.\-<\.c"\\,,,z <- _. 0 F�i_L m_i� _C[_ •CAL]_ �11 _i I _r �� � irf. ... . Jul it 1 i I [Lnfutiu_t_;-...-7-11-ci 1111 11_11. 1 'c.:, , .. ........... ,..„ ...... \\ ....-- ..- C]Di C=Cl C! \-/' \\\\\ ,11 uti tjulli Loll ii :, ilil 11 iffirja[il \ ....,;,-. 1 . I., 1 ..----------------------......__ . • u .....,_I`I f� C— 1, , ~ [�= �1 CD CC �. C� = ' �`� _ ____ -_ -- _ t......1 El F l El .':a I 11 !I E t ...1(y�__�_� �(_�__j{((�__'_'_�(� . C E f ---- -P'R"C1F fC"LD'AST'RIG� _••••••• rr.�. .®•�•—......_• ��; � — � L _- •: ....-.« .._.-.._._ -azr,.,..�:,•..-._.,_..._._.-_..gym a...-.-.�...."..'_"_ _.s-� : PACIFIC OCEAN I FIGURE 3.5-1 Not to Scale SID .........'-..E-I-i- ......,_ Oil Overlay Districts SOURCE:City of Huntington Beach 2002a. 10261-00 ,'.s 0"'"``Y City of Huntington Beach•Pacific City EIR Chapter 3 Environmental Impact Analysis • 3.5.2 Regulatory Framework No federal or State regulations related to energy and mineral resources apply to the proposed project. Local General Plan Utilities Element The City of Huntington Beach General Plan Utilities Element includes strategies that address energy consumption within the City. Table 3.5-1 identifies goals and objectives presented in the Utilities Element of the General Plan related to energy that are potentially relevant to the proposed project. This section also includes an assessment of the proposed project's consistency with the policies adopted in support of these goals and objectives. Table 3.5-1 General Plan Utilities Element—Policies Applicable to Energy and Mineral Resources Goal,Objective,or Policy Project Consistency Goal U5.Maintain and expand service Conformance with implementing policies,as discussed below,results in conformance with this goal. provisions to City of Huntington Beach residences and businesses. Objective U.5.1.Ensure that adequate Conformance with implementing policies,as discussed below,results in conformance with this natural gas,telecommunication and objective. electrical systems are provided. Policy U.5.1.4.Require the review of new Proposed project plans would be subject to review by City Planning and Public Works staff.Further, and or expansions of existing industrial electrical and natural gas transmission line extensions onto the project site would be located and utility facilities to ensure that such underground. facilities will not visually impair the City's coastal corridors and entry nodes. General Plan Environmental Resources/Conservation Element The City of Huntington Beach General Plan Environmental Resources/Conservation Element includes goals and policies that address mineral resources extraction. Table 3.5-2 identifies goals and objectives presented in the Environmental Resources/Conservation Element of the General Plan related to energy that are potentially relevant to the proposed project. This section also includes an assessment of the proposed project's consistency with the policies adopted in support of these goals and objectives. 3.5-6 City of Huntington Beach 3.5 Energy and Mineral Resources Table 3.5-2 General Plan-Environmental Resources/Conservation Element— Policies Applicable to Energy and Mineral Resources • Goal,Objective,or Policy Project Consistency Objective ERC 3.2.Ensure mineral/oil Conformance with implementing policies,as discussed below,results in conformance with this resource extraction areas are properly objective. reclaimed after resource extraction has been terminated. Policy ERC 3.2.1.Review all mineral/oil Reclamation of all oil wells on the project site has already occurred,and has been conducted in reclamation projects under the policies and' accordance with the applicable requirements of the DOGGR and the City of Huntington Beach. procedures of the California Environmental Preparation of this EIR to evaluate impacts associated with the proposed project has occurred in Quality Act and the Surface Mining and accordance with all applicable provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. Reclamation Act. Policy ERC 3.2.2.Require that permits for Reclamation of all oil wells on the project site has already occurred,and has been conducted in mineral/oil reclamation projects specify accordance with the applicable requirements of the DOGGR and the City of Huntington Beach. compliance with State,Federal and local Preparation of this EIR to evaluate impacts associated with the proposed project has occurred in standards and attainment programs with accordance with all applicable provisions ofCEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. respect to air quality,protection of rare, threatened or endangered species, ' conservation of water quality,watersheds and basins,and erosion protection. General Plan Coastal Element The City of Huntington Beach Coastal Element identifies policies that allow for the continuation, and in some cases expansion of, energy-related facilities while ensuring the community's public health and safety, environmental protection, and minimization of negative aesthetic impacts to the maximum extent feasible. Table 3.5-3 identifies goals and objectives presented in the Coastal Element of the General Plan related to energy that are potentially relevant to the proposed project. This table also includes an assessment of the proposed project's consistency with the policies adopted in support of these goals and objectives. • Table 3.5-3 General Plan Coastal Element—Policies Applicable to Energy and Mineral Resources Goal,Objective,or Policy Project Consistency { Goal C 8.Accommodate energy facilities Conformance with implementing policies,as discussed below,results in conformance with this goal. with the intent to promote beneficial effects while mitigating any potential adverse impacts. Objective C 8.1.Continue to pursue and Conformance with implementing policies,as discussed below,results in conformance with this promote interdepartmental coordination objective. between the City,other levels of government and outside agencies. regarding energy related issues affecting the City. Policy C 8.1.9.Through the development As described below in Section 3.5.3(Project Impacts),development of the proposed project would still permit process,ensure that new allow extraction of oil reserves under the project site by slant drilling. development provides for the retention of access to underground oil reserves where needed. Pacific City EIR 3.5-7 Chapter 3 Environmental Impact Analysis Table 3.5-3 General Plan Coastal Element—Policies Applicable to Energy and Mineral Resources Goal,Objective,or Policy Project Consistency Objective C 8.3.Accommodate new Conformance with implementing policies,as discussed below,results in conformance with this energy production facilities while requiring objective. maximum efficiency and mitigation of adverse impacts. Policy C 8.3.3.Encourage development of The proposed project recommends the implementation of an energy conservation plan that would new methods to conserve energy such as reduce the overall demand on electricity and natural gas.The energy conservation plan could include, the following: but would not be limited to,measures such as the installation of energy efficient lighting,and heating, 1. Solar water heating requirements for ventilation,and air conditioning(HVAC)controls to reduce energy consumption.With implementation new developments; of this plan,the proposed project would be consistent with this policy. 2. Solar access and orientation 3. The limited use of conventional fuels for heating swimming pools 4. Requirements for"weatherization"and other minimum conservation measures, and 5. Energy audits of buildings at time of deed transfer. Objective C 8.4.Minimize the safety and Conformance with implementing policies,as discussed below,results in conformance with this aesthetic impacts of resource production objective. facilities on nonresource production land uses. Policy C 8.4.3.Encourage comprehensive The City's General Plan Land Use Map shows that although the project is located within an oil planning for new uses on large oil parcels. extraction area,the uses planned for the site by the City after cessation of oil extraction activities are visitor-serving commercial uses and high-density residential uses.Additionally,the project site is located within the Downtown Specific Plan area,for which comprehensive development standards have been established,taking into account compatibility with surrounding uses and synergy of uses among the different Specific Plan districts.The proposed project has been developed according to this comprehensive planning scheme and the developed standards. 3.5.3 Thresholds of Significance Project impacts would be considered significant if any of the following would occur: Electricity and Natural Gas • Substantially increase demands beyond available supply • Result in the upgrading of existing systems that will result in attracting more or higher density development to an area Mineral Resource • Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state • Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan 3.5-8 City of Huntington Beach 3.5 Energy and Mineral Resources 3.5.4 Project Impacts For the purposes of this analysis, energy impacts resulting from a substantial increase in demand beyond available supply consider whether and when the needed infrastructure was anticipated by adopted plans. The analysis considers if the project requires or results in the construction of new energy production and/or transmission facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. Impact EM-1 Implementation of the proposed project would not substantially increase electricity demands beyond available supply or result in attracting additional or higher density development to the project area. The projected electricity consumption rates for the proposed project are shown in Table 3.5-4. Table 3.5-4 Proposed Electricity Demand Type of Use Generation Rate* Square Feet' Units Demand per Year Hotel 4.8 volt amps/square feet/day 370,000 N/A 648,240 Kilovolt amps(KVA) Retail 7.5 volt amps/square feet/day 240,000 N/A 657,000 Kilovolt amps(KVA) Residential 4.0 kilowatts/unit/day N/A 516 753,360 Kilowatts(KW) * The generation rate represents the estimated peak demand for the type of use " Values represent the maximum amount of square footage that could be used for the proposed project. • SOURCE: SCE 2003 Based upon the rate information, the maximum total electricity demand of the proposed project would be approximately 1,305,240 kilovolt amps per year for the commercial component, and approximately 753,360 kilowatts for the residential component. SCE has indicated that although the proposed project, given the magnitude of its development, could result in a substantial increase in electricity demand, an adequate supply of electricity would be available since the electrical loads of the project are within SCE's parameters of projected load growth in the area. Therefore, the project would not increase energy demands beyond available supply. It is likely, however, that new circuits and lines would need to be erected to provide the electricity supply required to support the proposed project without impairing the level of service to the surrounding area (Lee Dickerhoof 2003). SCE anticipates that its ability to serve all customers' loads in accordance with their rules and tariffs would be adequate during the decade of the 2000's. The project-generated demand for electricity would be negligible in the context of overall demand within Huntington Beach and the State, and thus would not require the upgrading or expansion of existing electricity generating systems. Since"additional circuits and lines would be erected to meet the electricity demand of the project site only, this would not induce more or higher density development in the area. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. • Pacific City EIR 3.5-9 Chapter 3 Environmental Impact Analysts Impact EM-2 Implementation of the proposed project would not substantially increase natural gas demands beyond available supply or result in attracting additional or higher density development to the project area. The natural gas demand rates in cubic feet for the proposed project are shown in Table 3.5-5. Table 3.5-5 Proposed Natural Gas Demand Type of Use Generation Rate Square Feet* Units Cubic Feet Generated per Year Hotel 4.8 cubic feet/square feet/month 370,000 N/A 21,312,000 Retail 2.9 cubic feet/square feet/month 240,000 N/A 8,352,000 Residential 4,011.5 cubic feet/unit/month N/A 516 24,839,208 Total 610,000 516 54,503,208 * Values represent the maximum amount of square footage that could be used for the proposed project. SOURCE: SCAQMD 1993 Based upon the rate information, the total project demand for natural gas would be approximately 53,495,208 cubic feet per year. According to SCGC, the proposed project would likely be served by new natural gas lines that connect to either the gas mains located on Atlanta Avenue or Huntington Street(Kevin Stonesifer, February 2003). SCGC has indicated that an adequate supply of natural gas is currently available to serve the proposed project, and that the natural gas level of service provided to the surrounding area would not be impaired by the proposed project. Depending on the amount of natural gas required by the proposed project, proper-sized natural gas lines would be constructed to provide the necessary loads to the site (James Bevans, February 2003). The service would be in accordance with the company's policies and extension rules on file with the California Public Utilities Commission at the time contractual agreements are made. Since new gas lines would be constructed to serve only the proposed project, this upgrade would not attract more or higher density development to the area. Therefore, natural gas demand associated with the proposed project would be less than significant. Impact EM-3 Implementation of the proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource or the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site. As discussed in Section(3.5.1 (Existing Conditions)., the portion of the project site underlain by mineral resources is identified as an Oil Overlay"C"District by the Downtown Specific Plan. The overlay allows for existing and/or expanded oil production on the property if proposed, although the project does not propose this use. 3.5-10 City of Huntington Beach 3.5 Energy and Mineral Resources The proposed project would result in development of residential uses on a portion of the site underlain by mineral resources. A loss of direct access to mineral resources would result. The HBFD has indicated that slant drilling would be feasible on the project site based on consultation with its petro-consultant. The feasibility of slant drilling is determined by the depth of the resource and distance of the drilling operations from the project site. Resources beneath the project site are located at a depth that it is possible for slant drilling to occur at available off-site locations in order to extract mineral resources from the site (Mel Wright 2003, March). Therefore, existing mineral resources located on the project site would remain accessible despite on-site development. In addition, the City's General Plan EIR addressed buildout of the city, which would have the potential to affect oil reserves in a number of locations in the City. That document did not identify any issues related to the long-term loss of mineral resources. Impacts from the proposed project would therefore not result in the loss of availability of mineral resources. 3.5.5 Cumulative Impacts This cumulative impact analysis considers development of the proposed project, in conjunction with other development within the vicinity of the project in the City of Huntington Beach. Infrastructure capacity for energy is a regional problem due to recent and projected population increases in the Southern California area. This population increase creates additional demand for utility services, which may already be at or near capacity. It has been determined that all project-specific impacts to utility services stemming from the proposed project would not be cumulatively considerable, as discussed in the following sections. Electrical Service Related development would increase demands on electricity. SCE is constantly analyzing the capacity of its systems and projecting and planning for new load growth based on commercial, industrial, and residential customer demand. Southern California consumers have recently experienced rising energy costs and uncertainties regarding the supply of electricity. However, based on current supply and demand assessments, the California Energy Commission has indicated that the supply of energy has improved for the near-term, and during this time long-term policy decisions would be made to address energy demands throughout the state (California Energy Commission 2002). This would ensure cumulative impacts would be less than significant. In the context of statewide demands, cumulative development in and of itself would not be anticipated to substantially increase demands beyond available supply. Therefore, the project would have a less than significant contribution to cumulative impacts. Pacific City EIR 3.5-11 Chapter 3 Environmental Impact Analysis Natural Gas Service • The proposed project would create an ongoing demand for increased natural gas during operations. The service provider anticipates that gas supply and infrastructure are adequate to meet projected demands and that no foreseeable short or long-term cumulative impacts to natural gas are anticipated as a result of the proposed project in combination with regional development. Therefore, the project would have a less than significant contribution to cumulative impacts. Mineral Resources The proposed project would be developed over an area with identified mineral resources. Additional development in the Downtown Specific Plan Area would incrementally contribute to loss of mineral resources. However, it has been determined that slant drilling would be feasible from areas adjacent to the project site. As such, the City of Huntington Beach would not experience a loss of an available mineral resource due to the proposed project. Therefore, the project would have a less than significant contribution to cumulative impacts. 3.5.6 Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts. The following mitigation measure (MM) would be recommended to further reduce less-than-significant impacts associated with energy demand as discussed in Impacts EM-1 and EM-2. This measure is in keeping with practices that would reduce energy demands from new development projects. MM EM-1 The proposed project shall implement an energy conservation plan that could include, but would not be limited to, measures such as energyicient lighting, and heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems (HVAC) controls to reduce the demand of electricity and natural gas. The energy conservation plan shall be subject to review and approval by the City Building and Safety and Planning Departments prior to issuance of building permits. Implementation of MM EM-1 would further reduce less-than-significant impacts identified in Impacts EM-1 and EM-2. 3.5-12 City of Huntington Beach 3.6 Geology and Soils 1-" 3.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS This EIR section analyzes the potential for adverse impacts on existing geologic and soil conditions resulting from implementation of the proposed project. The Initial Study (Appendix A) identified the potential for impacts associated with hazards that-would result from seismic activity, development on an unstable geologic unit or expansive soil,and potential erosion from project construction and operation. Issues scoped out from detailed analysis in the EIR include exposure of people or structures to hazards related to rupture of a known earthquake fault since the project site is not located on an earthquake fault, and landslides since the project site is generally flat in nature and not located within a slope stability hazard zone. In addition, the proposed project would not include septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. Data used to prepare this section were taken from the City's General Plan Environmental Hazards Element and the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation prepared for the project site (Appendix J). The Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation includes review of available data, field exploration, laboratory testing, geotechnical analyses of collected data, and preparation of a report containing general conclusions and recommendations regarding the existing geotechnical conditions and their constraints on the design of the' proposed project. Full bibliographic entries for all reference materials are provided in Chapter 7 (References) of this document. 3.6.1 Existing Conditions Geologic Setting The project site is located in the southern portion of the City of Huntington Beach, California. The general Huntington Beach area, including the project site, lies within the northern/northwestern portion of the Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province of Southern California, which is characterized by northwest- southeast trending faults, folds, and mountain ranges. During the time from the Pliocene period to the Pleistocene period (the past 2 to 3 million years), activities on the Newport-Inglewood Fault (located approximately 0.6 mile from the site), combined with regional tectonic effects (such as uplift), climatic forces, and changes in sea level, have resulted in the formation of the underlying basement materials and structure that underlay and support the project site. The forces that have created the geomorphology of the project site and vicinity are still active today. Much of the regional area of the project site is underlain by terrace deposits, which are unconsolidated sediments (i.e., loose soil materials, such as sand, silt, etc.) left by streams on shore benches cut by the ocean. These deposits were laid in a shallow marine to near,-shore terrestrial environment in the Pleistocene time frame (about 2 million to about 10 thousand years ago). The source of these sediments was erosion of Pacific City EIR 3.6-1 Chapter 3 Environmental Impact Analysis the rocky highlands of San Bernardino, Santa Ana, and other mountain belts. Tectonic forces associated with regional faulting from the Newport-Inglewood, San Andreas, and offshore zones resulted in the uplift of these deposits, thus exposing the terrace materials to erosion that removed much of their cover. In late Pleistocene time, the action of coastal plain rivers/streams dissected the terrace materials and subsequently formed "gaps." As sea levels subsequently rose with the melting of continental ice sheets, sediments filled these gaps. Geomorphically, the site is situated in the northerly/northwesterly fringe of the Talbert Gap (also known as the Santa Ana Gap) and the southerly limit of the Huntington Beach terrace mesa. The Talbert Gap, along with the Bolsa and Los Alamitos Gaps located to the northwest, are the result of the combination of downcutting and subsequent flooding/depositions. The mesas, which are isolated and relatively flat-topped natural elevations formed by these gaps, represent the remaining portions of a now strongly dissected coastal terrace. Terrace materials comprise predominantly fine, relatively well-consolidated to slightly firm marine and oceanic sediments. In contrast, the gap materials are notably less consolidated, contain significant silty fines and zones of peat, and have prevalent groundwater and saturated zones of relatively shallow nature. Subsurface Soil and Groundwater Conditions The northerly and easterly portions of the project site are underlain by consolidated terrace deposits (i.e., soils), which consist of several characteristics. Deposit colors range from reddish-brown to brown and yellowish to grayish. These deposits are generally over-consolidated and are formed by interlayered lenses — of silty to clayey sands and clayey silt and silty clay, with some interbeds of gravel and cobbles. Soils on the project site are generally slightly moist to moist and dense to very dense. The southerly to southwest portion of the project site is underlain by a wedge of softer, less consolidated sediments that include alluvial and lagoonal deposits. Within the site, these materials are characterized by zones of brown to gray sandy clay to sandy silt and clayey sands to clayey silt with zones of silty and poorly graded sands. In addition, artificial fills are found in several areas of the site. These fills generally consist of silty sands, sandy silts, and silty clays. Engineered fills, consisting generally of silty sands to clayey sands, were found within the bottom of or near an area referred to as the "borrow pit" in the northwestern two- thirds of the project site. The borrowpit is the area from where approximately cubic yards of PP Y 200,000 material were exported in 1999 for use as fill for the Hyatt Regency Resort project. The bottom of this pit was backfilled in August 2000 with approximately 2 feet of soil. Freegroundwater was encountered in all the borings conducted aspart of the preliminarygeotechnical g investigation for the project site. Groundwater was encountered at depths ranging from 5 to 24 feet below 3.6-2 City of Huntington Beach 3.6 Geology and Soils the ground surface (bgs) during the geotechnical investigation, which corresponds to approximate elevations of 0.5 foot below to four feet above mean sea level (msl). A subsequent measurement of groundwater levels on July 30, 2001, identified groundwater levels at the project site to be between approximately nine and 20 feet bgs. Localized perched zones and.,areas subject to concentrated climatic effects or surface water channeling may cause localized higher areas of seepage or groundwater. As the surficial/near surface groundwater is essentially an unconfined aquifer system, it may have some response to localized climatic effects (e.g., intense prolonged rainfall, strong prolonged drought) that may temporarily change the water table on a limited basis. Seismic Setting The faulting and seismicity of Southern California is dominated by the San Andreas Fault zone. The San Andreas Fault zone separates two of the major tectonic plates that comprise the earth's crust. West of the San Andreas Fault zone lies the Pacific Plate. This plate is moving in a northwesterly direction relative to the North American Plate, which lies east of the San Andreas Fault zone. This relative movement between the two plates is the driving force of fault ruptures in western California. The San Andreas Fault generally trends northwest/southeast; however, north of the Transverse Ranges Province, the fault trends more in an east/west direction, causing a north/south compression between the two plates. North/south compression in Southern California has been estimated from five to 20 millimeters/year (SCEC 1995). This compression has produced rapid uplift of many of the mountain ranges in Southern California. There are numerous faults in Southern California that are categorized as active,.potentially active, and inactive. A fault is classified as active if it has either moved during the Holocene epoch (during the last 11,000 years) or is included in an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault zone (as established by the California Division of Mines and Geology). A fault is classified as potentially active if it has experienced movement within the Quaternary period (during the last 1.8 million years). Faults that have not moved in the last 1.8 million years are generally considered inactive. Surface displacement can be recognized by the existence of cliffs in alluvium, terraces, offset stream courses, fault troughs and saddles, the alignment of depressions, sag ponds, and the existence of steep mountain fronts. The severity of an earthquake is generally expressed in two ways—magnitude and intensity. The energy released, measured on the Richter scale; represents the magnitude of an earthquake. The intensity of an earthquake is measured by the Modified Mercalli Intensity scale, which emphasizes the current seismic environment at a subject site and measures groundshaking severity according to damage done to structures, changes in the earth surface, and personal accounts. Table 3.6-1 compares the Mercalli scale to the Richter magnitude scale. Pacific City EIR 3.6-3 Chapter 3 Environmental Impact Analysis Table 3.6-1 Relationship between Greatest Measure Intensity and Magnitude Modified Mercalli Richter Magnitude(M) Intensity Scale , Description ,' Detected by only sensitive instruments. 3 I I Felt by a few people at rest III Felt noticeably indoors,but not always recognized as a quake;vibration like a passing truck IV Felt indoors by many and outdoors by few 4 V Felt by most people.Some breakage of windows,dishes,and plaster VI Felt by all;falling plaster and chimneys;damage small 5 VII Damage to buildings varies;depends on quality of construction VIII Walls,monuments,chimneys fall;panel walls thrown out of frames 6 IX Buildings shift off foundations;foundations crack;ground cracks;underground pipes break -- 7 X Most masonry and frame structures destroyed;ground cracks;landslides XI Ground fissures;pipes break;landslides;rails bent;new structures remain standing 8 XII Damage total;waves seen on ground surface;objects thrown into the air SOURCE: City of Santa Monica Planning Department 2002,Table 4-4. Ground motions are often also measured in percentage of gravity (percent g), where g= 32 feet per second per second on the earth. One hundred percent of gravity (1 g) is the acceleration a skydiver would experience during free-fall. An acceleration of 0.4 g is equivalent to accelerating from 0 to 60 miles (0 to 97 km)per hour in approximately seven seconds. In 1997 the State incorporated revisions into the California Building Code (CBC) based on recommendations identified by the Seismology Committee of the Structural Engineers Association of California, which require that the moment magnitude (Mw, identified on Table 3.6-2) of the "characteristic earthquake" be used in geotechnical calculations for design purposes. The new criterion for describing the -- energy release (i.e., the "size" of the earthquake along a particular fault segment) was determined by the Seismology Committee to represent a more reliable descriptor of future fault activity than previously used standards. The proposed project would be required by State law and regulation to comply with all adopted geotechnical design criteria. According to the 1998 CBC, the proposed project site is located in Seismic Zone 4. Seismic Zone 4 also includes those areas that lie within a zone of major historic earthquakes (i.e., Richter magnitude greater than seven) and recent high levels of seismicity. Major damage corresponding to intensities VIII or higher on the Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale should be expected within this zone. 3.6-4 City of Huntington Beach 3.6 Geology and Solis Table 3.6-2 Nearest Regional Faults Affecting the Proposed Pacific City Site in Huntington Beach Approximate Distance from Site Maximum Event Fault Name (miles) (Moment Magnitude)Mw Newport-Inglewood(L.A.Basin) 0.6 6.9 Compton Thrust 4.3 6.8 Newport-Inglewood(Offshore) 6.5 6.9 Palos Verdes 10.0 7.1 Elysian Park Thrust 14.0 6.7 Whittier 20.6 6.8 Chino-Central Ave.(Elsinore) 22.4 6.7 Elsinore-Glen Ivy 24.8 6.8 Coronado Bank 27.0 • - 7.4 San Jose 27.3 6.5 Verdugo 34.1 6.7 Sierra Madre 34.3 7.0 Cucamonga 35.9 7.0 Anacapa-Dume 46.2 7.3 • San Andreas(Southern) 52.5 7.8 SOURCE: Zeiser Kling Consultants,Inc.,2001b. Regional Seismic Conditions Major regional faults are shown in Figure 3.6-1, and local faults are shown in Figure 3.6-2; Table 3.6-2 presents nearest distances of the site from various nearby active faults. Of those listed in Table 3.6-2, the nearest known active fault zones that are considered to be most active are the Newport-Inglewood, Compton Thrust, and Palos Verdes fault zones, located approximately 0.6, 4,3, and 10.0 miles from the site, respectively. Although an active fault is not believed to traverse the site, active traces of the Newport- I Inglewood Fault have been mapped north and northwest of the project site within the Huntington Mesa. As a result, the Fault Rupture Hazard Zone (formerly Alquist-Priolo zone) for the Newport-Inglewood Fault has been established by the State of California approximately 0.5 mile to the north of the site. During the life of the project, seismic activity associated with active faults in the area may generate moderate to strong ground shaking at the site. By performing a search for earthquakes of moment magnitude (Mw, the measure of total energy released by an_earthquake that is calculated on the basis of seismic movement) greater than 5 that have occurred in the past within the project site vicinity, and based on present understandings of the regional tectonic framework, the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation concluded that the largest magnitude earthquake at the project site will most likely be generated by the Newport-Inglewood Fault, with'a 6.9Mw. In addition, Pacific City EIR 3.6-5 o a4 4 449'L viA iigi0eii aa�9eaa` 4 4 i4 4 e4 4 4 44 w4aar i,beiieee Palmdale 0e i 0 aaaeaa � eiii aaa eei eii m i 4 4 eii ii� Newhallpeim • e• ei iieea 4TA3 iee� eeeisgii e -AM- i i .zN i / i i eee}ryAaAM- g1 ERNAN., ii✓�a4,04, ee „��,��F iii4 ee4�4)' 4* i40(/GO *, i Oti ♦4 Woodland Hills a Burbank it* 44,,k4 MAp e 4 a eiie 0 p .0,0 iM o; &bRE.FAULT ZONE >vt GPfAwV* � as ei GPNVo���v+p OPas ce a °m?c?nc?�Iw++b VCpM� "++ 4 eee — ��NE• p\G•0opIL.4-4.----- "HILL FAULT ; C��m�w+'� a+A� ++"t11LL as • ii o° ++*++oy4i� RERAYMOND p eaa ++ +�c Los MALIBU FAULT _,e+�` �• Angeles �a �3�+ as i+s�s.�n�s r an m■e m�rs an_� .,. tin #,* O 4, ojP4, a ,. w,m �# as ,; ". «` ()Santa Monica ..,`: $atria a a MontebelloO „�� Riverside ea Manci�6 # O ea ▪ " .r>: : `" y a. .. a Whittier e aa i (y Cs __� ` "`;, < ' y -in, sa / a'i. ,„, ,,A,-, ? - Oa ak OLynwood a4 te,, t.. r:< ;' x =r'"' ;•;N �j` .,°s. 4•.., Redondo 4 O Compton WALK f e NO *,a ,,;: ;.„.,REDONu .Beach *lib 4a E� ii4Fae Corona._` `„4� °i;?P'.'wAi..; **.+r+< ,.�• Carson0"►go a O x1;: E;> .. .4 a( PROJECT i ``: `, ->: '€ !' € ;:. i ee a Westminster 41, a*G .' .._.. _` ��a� LOCATION < a: "; :: : ae ar 04. O s a41 ▪ A`° _:r,is ,-EsedC• h i,FO Seal O a Oy ' ` Santa Ana o c ::::; ';ii'p � '` '; �.`>? :" Beach nt *444 .,;<... ':G. ,•,_«`.. Costa :,c.. ez4,; m Irvine ef€ �i$< 41,444 x�'� -E • :li. is �. =\is e �a,xr. ,, • tY`� cTi�.E;� '` ",�"? e Mission Viejo E3`: .a. ...... �.,:,:�=,;�i>E`:::.,....>:=:y.Lv."s.r":::=>x•xx\s• .'.s '., ,,., •:'ri • in"• 1 ....,.;x>i▪, sub:=�. `..,,_... _: ..;:.._ , is .� =.x.' .,s;^:r::..:.::...,_, . • ,y,,� <�., a�" a;.,,�,:. Y�:�i=G,.. ,»,�'` ��:e, .Dana Point �y �sYr.T c :__ AN' t:' ,,...,,,.. , is `i.: y.s i.�; ..„.�:>>:.::."„> `� .s:==`•=L ..N:.,. .A"",-' LL.=s�.<L,:3 .C,...V,i�.j' ....kx•� ' ...:n..,.,,.c,"„=,., ,,.".,...<<v..,a ,;.,,... ,..,:�y::.. .;H .EF..: �;.�5,:.=it:F,:'^i`r"`'``�"`; 3 #.:.'•,:,,..xx:'rm�x�s...;:et'Q ;,:=x',. r`;;`,.,,.:.... x.,� a;x04 `: 'a;.3,.... ,3.::.�,,,,,.a..b=r,' ...::r`„ 1,.`r:'c„ .0 \£< :;n(1< s%C:;`:` 'i.> =;: S.k�,.,.. ._;;, „♦♦v^^.^,. ..,,,...^, t ail, "Vs Santa �' " j`s Catalina ,,:*.,..<:,.,, ,. .. �<:, "asp �'.�;.« rr ,.max, —e r•. x: a',.,=.,,.,,:•;., �>:,, ., Lam_",....... Island :.,>., .�,, ., ,, ,.., .., :;:<�•x "`''.;�=', 11. .)... ,. :..,... ;�.:.:...... ...<" .. .... A„. >_... "...€•:•sue.. ... .. ,.._,_... .�<ii.,�;4 '11 ...,.. <==a:^..:♦,L,.. u..:,,.....�:.,.. � elf' a .•.. `>•. .".., a,..:::�:,...;x�b`= s % it' �$�``:% y". . ,..... �•,,`............ ...,,....:...tee. ., ,, � ,.. .....," L: , ,a b• a i, �'�'' %hid: i�i .a, 3 • ..... . ..,Y.>,,..,:x.`,x .`_ •.�.«_.::- ,.,,,. .<..+.>�L�,;�..«`•'=:Y«=;.:_;�„ ?fin` z::�'=" n> _�'����'' :4<' <��� „ ,L, x., A•d `:3:R'33x a:."ems`:: :is F.�'•.. . .,.i« :...,,,may..:,v...'� ::.'.>:iw.i�= ��A, 4x ,4i:�.�:N3iL•sF,:...,..+;..:•"e?'<..?;).s9aPA...,.;:, ,,...o,... ;,,:..:..,ar:«3a>.. ...... .,.> � ,�'L Lu§�: :.hR ,_ ?> .s's',. a^r. x. .y } :"Q=3•" E ...flx:.:.t,+ :. :.,.„< ,::;".:.., ..,.. 'go;� .,k8�; �::j�i "`P.. tA<Y`«:«fat. te..a..., L>s.,..,.>... w,:..�:.e::,:^..si"` ....i...,w ..,,. ...........:....a.,,w,o:.a':a:;":u�"v,.,,�,s:..,\'xe'?:�w"'`,`'.�`,'ni........... a,.,..,..,.. •- 0 5 10 20 FIGURE 3.6-1 1 linnommemmiI Scale In Mileslel _E I p_ Major Regional Faults , SOURCE:EIP Associates 2003 ozei o0 1 s s =e 5 City of Huntington Beach•,Pacific City EIR • 0 \ , ,.•.. , - . i i 1 • LN•t ESTMINSTR ! , i.:SFAi EACH• -- qoasA[ • • • it i 1 ,- 1. i......11. . ' * , . .. .,• . ) , . .. t , ........„......„ ,. , .• . .... .......Figlei .1 '6•:.- . 1 ; ' \"*' ' '''''''' BOXER ....... .•:•••"....,,,\If'. .•,, 41t,eiell'` , i , L--,-1•, fin. . . , .. •\ • : .i-..-• i . .\N-•;;;•,•,!,!.:6 j•-,.. i- _., • . • ' ' V. ‘ 414,t' . .......;.:...: .,......... .. „.., .. ..,., ...,,,..,;„.. 1 1' ' • ' •• -• ........i...„.„,,,........f.wARNER FOUNTAIN • . 4--- --..., I:SAVA• :!•:. :;:;....:*:,...','!: !, 4 t„ V‘ ii'." '' *:40,,..• • 7174^ !A;; ' . -..., , i.TALsERT_.. il; ..: .•-!,!:"..-!!- ..• :.. ..,...,,.!:,;.:::. .. \ ,t,!... ,,...0'441p4Ift,e ,,,„1.7.t..... I I« ,,,, .......;9.• , '''':- -• .....:., ;. '..1;';'::'.....:;.!'...:'::'.• • 't* 4 4t*;;/%4, N. ...t.i... . t • '''' ' M.• ' ' ' .."'". Ar".. ' : l' ' WIELD :. • -... . ,..•:-...,:::::,..;.;-...,-.-,.,...;:::(:,;',!:, ..* ## */ '''''' ''''4$. 4*•'''.'''''.. ".*'': •'• ,..:' ":..':;.!::''''.:'.1:1::.;':'••';;Z:M',::P:'!.P..!:::iV.;!;')!A:,'N.'''. 4,* 46ri.,, -'''':,..,, ',2****.*. ' Y..:.: .,...... '''''',•••... ., . VOOXTOMI :',::":','.;•.:;.;::-....i..:':•';::••;': -:;;';'.'''.2.:.;;;;'''.::17::: ::5,;:.:,,, 0 4:4.4.. .'''',.,.' '.-•:"' : .,...1.z'',.-,410e ::p•-, :::,..,....-. I.., 4, t 404 .... ''';' ,,' • "..'"' !ft . 0 ... • 6,,tott ... ....4‘,674. ''''''''4 LEGEND ...-.::. •.„: ::-....iy:,..„;:,:,.....,, 4-.,.:,.::,;:,„:,..„-:;..,:..,..).,,,, -, • ._ ,.. ..... ...,...„.., .,. . .:. 4 ''' - • ION '4'4' . .. - / . Ate,..t,_, .•.,Rop , ,_ ..,•: ,1! city Bomity v;:!z..--.:,,..,;,.,....,:':::-.,;,.;,-;.....,,••'-,::::::::,,:',.....-,:,;:4';'!",!;:•';•...;:::,,;.,,.:. -, :-:,. .:4'4;;,.0:4•,..'!,".. .:.'77.7:'*•,Q,.:';t.H.- ',7v/4*-1 • ' '"'•'' ' •'''''' •",.:;f::::,;; !:•ii...W.i.a: ,•;,0:E;,:f:ifi..i4.:0;.,,,,,I.rr,..;;.....,.. ... ..-:. ';••• -# • • """ • ... •'% '''''''''' .11*74‘.•...... „ .„. ,..„ 7- 4.'A.41,„i4,, , ''''. .. ,.,:,,,.,;.;.-;.;Rtikt?POLIS ,-- !, ' .''''''''''-'''''''''' AittattPeteb'',,‘;,,:61216Zotte ''''''...E'',.!',',;.,:.'•.;::"..,t,:'1E;..;;.''.;:1•;,•;e:',.!..;i',:a•••.:11-..fg.':::';I:Nliilli';';',,',,.;•::;;,....41*4.',.A. .N.. .,... ,-,.„-: t...fik .-.:, .:7::..,.4_,. .1:11u..NTA.'''i.;';',.:i,'.'P.'ii.;!'..:1!••'..4;!$1.;•,:f;fi'g3.1fggli'lliNit•%iib''''lir ..- *4/1444: . .'--1 ''' : . 1' '''' I -,:.:';'-:•:.:;!,•ii4:1,:l....,,EiNti4i,1 :..ii:,:1;P.V.!1;Z:IP,.,A.,..,ifii..4, '':1#4$:.,:-. ':..-' :.%;,f,:. '-..-.:,,,,i''',:', •' •",,•,,i ifii-si'l' tat*FIB ,_____,L...,,,...• •:si.:.)2.,,,!!..::‘,!..:!ii,.f,!;.:-,i4,,:,',1;,: ,.'.,,I.:;;4,:::!:.!!!:.,.,ii!!;',...m.f ..i.:',.;,:!,,,,,....:!,..: '':., 'f1-..04i;• ::.... ;::,,A ',,..';;:,,.:.7.';-.‘"'-::;,;,.---44* ••1 Nana ',f,-,,,., -.''.'!]:•:soitiliglikoat,,kiductilfstixtditie wsawii, ..-qi,:.•!..;ip-.3:,,!•;,:.',.if,.;‘.,,,.',•::',w:g:.•;.!f,1,,•• ,.;,:g•;.c.:ii-•,:,-,:w..... F.: :‘,..-i•,..:, -• ••••4.'„ ' ,• ' for dimi goctOoodalt.010*.-04104) -.:-' i.i.i.e3i•:-.g:ii!Eg'•••,..i.?..50:-:•05-.1•1.::.:.4,:',1,;:-.F::R-'...--;,.:-.- . ..:''''4'...**,. ' ei'• .'.• --'-',,!• :// elittuilkitiffeitsfetal..,3,,,-,..--;;;ifistuttitet• r•Ri.;t:.!..!,.;:.''.',;:i1,.i.',...'p,,;',.::::::-;::•;.'..4.;'.:,;:;!;.;:;''..:',1..:':;;A.-.i.:.,-..,• . •%,,,..,"' r., :8"146- --1 ,A'-'4,1•I'lt,••••••(•,,,..4,,i'otitoiit ••,..,!,:g.!;-..1.•-!,,„•,,,...i,;.,:i....,,:,...,.]i,•:,::..:.,,‘•..',...,,,..',,',..,.....,:•,•,.,...;..,:::,:..„,''„:„.:::',„;.„, „..,. ,:B.,•‘ ; COSTA - .. . .. „...,_..,.... MESA fer mita!.,.,A inix43RiklatiM•s, • - ' -'''''''''' - '''''''''' ' .,..,..;,,,...,,,,;:;;,:y.:1;E:.,.....,-....,..,.;,?.,,;1:'.::.:-;.%;,.;•-...;;;:,.1.,:.!..,..;:?;•h.(2,„,N, 4, '1*,,,. , . .,.... ... . ,...., .._,........ ..,.. .... '':',-::!;':,.'§.!?•:i•.:1 ....iVil::.,..,?,.1!. •';',.'.:.-:;',5.•{',..t'..-•':::-:',,!,'-‘44'''. 'V' $ PA6i:1 :::;:'.-.i:,....::,''::';. .. : :....".... :i.',::..:' A.k. .4* 0.''''' ;i1 Categ°1 D . ocaot : ..: ::!,;;-:,....f.':':"....- .. ..f:';•,:::r,..‘. V... • t =V ba regited OICIY I ?? 1 Fault.Lincertin - ..,.........„„„:.1 . ...1 Project Site - ..,• FIGURE 3.6-2 Local Faults .._,_.E-I-P-..,. .. Not to Scale City of Huntington Beach•Pacific City EIR 10261-00 SOURCE:City of Huntington Beach 1996b --H , 1',__ Chapter 3 Environmental Impact Analysis active "blind thrust faults" (i.e., faults which lack surface expression, commonly associated with fold belts and compressional deformation) or other potentially active sources (currently not zoned)may be capable of generating earthquakes. Blind thrust faults were responsible for both the 1987 Whittier Narrows (5.9MW) and the 1994 Northridge (6.7Mw) earthquakes. Past Seismic Activity The project region has experienced moderate seismic activity from various regional faults over the past 201 years. Based on analysis of historical seismic events, the maximum-recorded magnitude in the project region was 7.0M,,, which occurred on December 16, 1858, and was caused by the San Andreas Fault. The maximum historic site acceleration in the project region was estimated to be 0.4 g on March 11, 1933, caused by an earthquake of 6.3M,on the Newport Inglewood Fault. Seismic Hazards Groundshaking The major cause of structural damage from earthquakes is groundshaking. The intensity of ground motion expected at a particular site depends upon the magnitude of the earthquake, the distance to the epicenter, and the geology of the area between the epicenter and the property. Greater movement can be expected at sites located on poorly consolidated material, such as alluvium, within close proximity to the causative fault, or in response to an event of great magnitude. Table 3.6-1 above describes the relationship between the Richter Scale Magnitude and the effects of groundshaking. Liquefaction Liquefaction is a seismic phenomenon in which loose, saturated, fine-grained granular soils lose internal shear strength and behave similarly to fluid when subjected to high-intensity ground shaking. Liquefaction occurs when three general conditions, exist: (1) shallow groundwater; (2) low-density, fine, clean, sandy soils; and (3) high-intensity ground motion: From a liquefaction hazard standpoint, the site may be divided into two types of regions: those underlain by competent natural soils (terrace deposits) and those underlain by recent alluvium. Generally, the majority of the site is underlain by terrace and engineered fill, which are, in turn, underlain by terrace deposits. Figure 3.6-3 shows the soil regions on the project site. Based on the dense nature of the terrace and fill materials, and from analysis in the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation report, the potential for liquefaction is considered to be low in these areas. The southeastern corner of the project site, Wi however, is underlain by loose to medium dense alluvial deposits. The potential for liquefaction within the 3.6-8 City of Huntington Beach o 014N.____j 1 I JL__ /L INFATLANTA AVENUE �L.ta11111..ILIlIl.l FLPIII inUM L•I=�ONI W . Mr. it t / 6.4g.2-0,,z Qtm Qtm r: ill ill �4,k# a Qtm , SQ 0 = k 5 •Qtm , , tka, e ram*) ; 1 Z a , Afe/Qtm Qtm ; J /Afem1 . . .. k ° Qal/Qtm •' '-1 na®°m° Qtm .A,ems r moo' m 7::::::::::::,A, a4 -{ ffim. 1 n r: m»�,a,gm Qtm »ffi m�ffi��.o»����me��ffia ' ^'.t*FaY ffi»P»N»m mQ.»nm :• »»�ffis»ffi»m Hm nms.. x"mffix* %ssa»ffi°ffisse.�unmgamm4, Qal f� `team *::::s a m»ffia» �ffi Hsu mm mm ffi mn msm»n®a+ 0 a ' mmmss 1:nm» a SF $mggsaau°a"g"en s, mne ?:. �' a sa»mn�`s:o m�::m»m�, �nffi s ssm ns»»nse» 04" ( w�s„ x mns�amsmsmms AfU/Qel a�»mza ffi affiffi msmms mr... � I r_ »ffim m,b #$�gA3ttz`�`P maTdi»p. 3 �N n,'�mnn Rn m»,m»Y1:14 ffi i »ma»s»hem mmmffimsymsxmsm�ms'" :„ se,. ffirr » 'e6 ffiffiFR s o w I A_ • sm.°04'a`>�n.00.<,003 4°0 esesffia m�3s"mswv s0,°,00*aa» < C o, C +l Om»n:Fa »mmm »ffisam A'b».bx »G im»n»rammmn»m�m_ 3 k £ Q �+ s mmm m ma»s mn»s matt e ffiffi rffis s msm n sa m sn m t' ., E,tj /A/ , mffi:a64.9,,:le:IE8P3 , emw w` f:si:ffi e 0::, �»1s»nu»» 0 C ,r s m. m n»m n zt»s» »ms�c.s r �ara+e m.�m s»n.e®�a e�k ;la ..�' m s ® m n x,s s ffim s m 1 sesffi: s°sa». 'mmmn 1em mmmn : m met: % sr , CO iymmnm mms°»x asm ffis»ffi ffi»» �sm mn ®em»mm mffi . .rm 3 ,9 ,,.ons�n» nsn» sn Fffi. ffi mffi» se ss��� ffim ffits s »»ffim»m2:ffi r min m man a ,» a A.pfP�l:1 » x'm', a b V �' <�sna .n»n»mffis»mom»smffimssm°es"a e"ms�a'm"�^'�� »r<»x»»n. ffi�es»ese�®ne ,,ffi o stases nsmm�vmmm�ffian a»e s�e He it' m'ffi»ffi»ma°ms»n seam ffimsmn sffi /G�`y a»»sea�mm vamces � m°ssn�n° sa��ffiseo- @® a@g s � ca�sm' ffisme s ffim e�$ffima��»a I mm pn ::01Ouffit�u»g�pYrr»iYft�.SrosB 7 tl ep9nat'itt t Vffim�mnn3 ll �P. �4A:O m mmm%"Asb�roi5�ffiffi»C'sh:at sgb,Q&&m&4 � m6a:ffid LEGENDacm»» " °»-sffi"s.mm o�mZm"7seemssxes se.»,$)mm� s'1 �� m#pmn, m»n»C'��.5.�ffi�»g55,gM�p�9mm Rpm��h."mffi9y 5•&a� aG� ,em8!:t% »»mm+em»m Amm»m'n�mmme g�4eA`ttA:V Ga Gam:yd �� PROJECT SITE BOUNDARY � le,nAmffi&ffii,affiffi»sn»sssd'h',mm�asa��xm�,ea;�n"n�s a m tkir, 4,'.›0*,:e$F smffis°04eeusro °0a:soul° SOIL TYPES m 4o N s s o sxs am 8 4 1:1 0 �48 ° 1,.4$m m y 4i: 9ffi:nffim,::%,m'. Lai ENGINEERED FILL SiLgt'AZ:1'�s°m`,1444:c 044. 2., %;; ffisss me»somas ms s s ®mms e&� Lin UNDOCUMENTED FILL ft,''r" am wm m °m 0n.mne�< ALLUVIALILAGOONAL ;:0 Qal DEPOSITS ) Qtm TERRACE DEPOSITS i LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL n (L)LOW POTENTIAL /- (H-M)HIGH TO MEDIUM ( POTENTIAL - (H-VH)HIGH TO VERY HIGH POTENTIAL (VH)VERY HIGH POTENTIAL FIGURE 3.6-3 Not to Scale ... TIP- On-Site Soil.Regions i of HuntingtonEIR SOURCE:Zeiser King Consultants,Inc.2002b 70261.00 City Beach•Pacific City Chapter 3 Environmental Impact Analysts alluvial area, according to the preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, varies from moderate to high to very high, with most of the area designated high to medium potential, as shown in Figure 3.6-3. In addition, these alluvial soils in the southeastern portion of the project site are located within a State of California Seismic Hazard Zone Map for Liquefaction. Ground Lurching, Cracking, or Seismically Induced Spreading The geologic units that underlay the project site are dense to over-consolidated terrace alluvium, and ' medium dense alluvium. The,potential for ground lurching, cracking, or seismically induced spreading or compaction effects within these areas are considered low, especially considering the engineering controls and corrective grading anticipated to be performed for the proposed project. Soil Settlement Soil settlement is the condition where soils deform in a vertical direction when a vertical load is placed on top of it. The compression of the soil bed by the vertical load results from the characteristics of the soil particles that are contained in the soil bed, as the spaces that are filled with either air or water between the soil particles are squeezed out. The southeastern portion of the site is underlain by approximately 15 to 20 feet of settlement-prone alluvial/lagoonal deposits, identified as "Afu/Qal" and "Qal" on Figure 3.6-3.. Under currently proposed fill loads for the project site, settlement of these soils could be on the order of /z- inch for each foot of fill placed over a period of several months. The Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation indicates that the settlement potential of each building should be determined on a case-by-case basis to �y ensure that final project design incorporates all necessary and appropriate engineering features to reduce settlement-related impacts. Subsidence Land subsidence is the condition where the elevation of a land surface decreases due to the withdrawal of fluid. The location of major oil drilling areas and state-designated oil fields are areas with subsidence potential in the City of Huntington Beach. According to the Huntington Beach General Plan, the site is not within an area that has been impacted by long-term subsidence due to local oil extraction. Oil Wells and Methane The project site is located within the Huntington Beach Oil Field operated by Chevron and several abandoned oil wells exist within the site. Although operation of the oil field has been shut down for many years, the former oil drilling activities at the site have resulted in alterations to the previous landform:. 3.6-10 City of Huntington Beach 3.6 Geology and Soils The project site is located within a Methane Overlay District identified in the City's General Plan. As such, the Huntington Beach Fire Department requires the developer to implement a site soils testing plan at the project site (City Specification 429), after the plan has been reviewed by the Fire Department, to determine the presence of methane gas and/or soil contamination. Zeiser Kling Consultants, Inc. indicates that this study was performed by Harding Lawson ESE, Inc. and the results are included in their Remediation Plan, along with recommended remedial grading to be implemented by Chevron and their representatives. This plan, with inclusion of a few Fire Department comments, was approved as Revision 3 on May 22, 2002. Ocean-Related Corrosion Potential The project site is subject to ocean breezes and winds that are considered to be 'corrosive to building materials associated with the proposed structures, due to the site's location approximately 500-feet from the Pacific Ocean. Building materials, such as metal, stucco, plastics, etc., are prone to corrosion and deterioration due to the presence of salts in the air and humidity from the evaporation from the ocean. Storm Surge and Transient Groundwater Storm surge is a phenomenon that occurs primarily during severe storm events. It is a rise above normal water levels along a coastline due to the action of wind stress on the water surface. Because the site is located approximately 500 feet from the ocean and due to the lack of hurricane-like storm conditions in this region, the potential for the site to be impacted by surging is low. The groundwater beneath the project site may be impacted by rises in the ocean tides, water infiltration a4_ during heavy storm events, and surrounding irrigation, thus resulting in transient rises in groundwater. This condition results because the saturated sediments on the project site have interconnected spaces between fairly coarse soil grains, which allow for the passage of high tides, storm water, and irrigation water. The potential hazards associated with tsunamis at the project site are discussed in Section 3.8 (Hydrology and Water Quality). 3.6.2 Regulatory Framework Federal Uniform Building Code The Uniform Building Code (UBC) defines different regions of the United States and ranks them according to their seismic hazard potential. There are four types of these regions, which include Seismic Zones 1 Pacific City EIR 3.6-11 Chapter 3 Environmental Impact Analysis through 4, with Zone 1 having the least seismic potential and Zone 4 having the highest seismic potential. The project site is located in Seismic Zone 4; accordingly, any future development would be required to comply with all design standards applicable to Seismic Zone 4. State California Building Code The State of California provides a minimum standard for building design through the California Building Code (CBC). The CBC is based on the UBC, with amendments for California conditions. Chapter 23 of the CBC contains specific requirements for seismic safety. Chapter 29 of the CBC regulates excavation, foundations, and retaining walls. Chapter 33 of the CBC contains specific requirements pertaining to site demolition, excavation, and construction to protect people and property from hazards associated with excavation cave-ins and falling debris or construction materials. Chapter 70 of the CBC regulates grading activities, including drainage and erosion control. Construction activities are subject to occupational safety standards for excavation, shoring, and trenching as specified in Cal-OSHA regulations (Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations [CCR], as discussed below) and in Section A33 of the CBC. Seismic Hazards Mapping Act CDMG also provides guidance with regard to seismic hazards. Under the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act, seismic hazard zones are to be identified and mapped to assist local governments in land use planning. The intent of this publication is to protect the public from the effects of strong ground shaking, liquefaction, landslides, ground failure, or other hazards caused by earthquakes. In addition, CDMG's Special Publications 117, "Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California," provides guidance for the evaluation and mitigation of earthquake-related hazards for projects within designated zones of required investigations. Local Regulations Southern California Association of Governments SCAG's Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide (RCPG) and RHNA are tools for coordinating regional planning and development strategies in southern California. Policies contained in the RCPG identified by SCAG as relevant to the proposed project are identified in Table 3.6-3, and this table also includes an assessment of the proposed project's consistency with these policies. 3.6-12 City of Huntington Beach 3.6 Geology and Solis Table 3.6-3 SCAG Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide—Policies Applicable to Geology and Soils Policy Project Consistency Policy 3.22.Discourage development,or As described above in Section 3.6.1 (Existing Conditions),the southernmost and southeastern encourage the use of special design portions of the proposed project site are considered to have a high to very high potential for y µ requirements,in areas with steep slopes, liquefaction;however,development on the project site would be subject to the requirements of high fire,flood,and seismic hazards. Chapter 16 of the UBC(as amended)and Chapter 23 of the CBC(as amended),which includes specific design requirements for seismic hazards.Additionally,as described in Impacts GEO-1 and GE0-2,a geotechnical report has been prepared for the project site,and MM GEO-1 requires the incorporation of site preparation and structural design recommendations from the report into the project to ensure that impacts to project structures would be less than significant. Policy 3.23.Encourage mitigation The proposed project includes mitigation measures,where necessary,to reduce potentially significant measures that reduce noise in certain geology and soils impacts to less-than-significant levels:this EIR proposes MM GEO-1 to reduce locations,measures aimed at preservation potential impacts related to seismic hazards to less-than-significant levels,as well as to minimize of biological and ecological resources, earthquake damage,by incorporating applicable site preparation and structural design measures that would reduce exposure to recommendations of the geotechnical report prepared for the project site. seismic hazards,minimize earthquake damage,and to develop emergency response and recovery plans: The City of Huntington Beach advances public safety and welfare in the City through its Environmental Hazards Element and compliance with applicable local regulations in the Huntington Beach Municipal Code. Policies specific to geologic, soil, and seismic hazards are listed in the.Environmental Hazards Element. In addition, site development work in the City of Huntington Beach is required to comply with the CBC and all State requirements pertaining to these hazards. As such, the CBC has been incorporated and adopted into the Huntington Beach Building Code as described below. General Plan Environmental Hazards Element The Environmental Hazards Element identifies various policies addressing natural and human-related hazards and the potential methods to-reduce risks associated with those hazards. Table 3.6-4 identifies goals and objectives presented in the Environmental Hazards Element of the General Plan related to geologic resources that are potentially relevant to the proposed project. This table also includes an assessment of the proposed project's consistency with the policies adopted in support of these goals and objectives. Pacific City EIR 3.6-13 Chapter 3 Environmental Impact Analysis Table 3.6-4 General Plan Environmental Hazards Element—Policies Applicable to Geology and Soils Goal,Objective,or Policy Project Consistency Goal EH 1.Ensure that the number of Conformance with implementing policies,as discussed below,results in conformance with this goal. deaths and injuries,levels of property damage,levels of economic and social disruption,and interruption of vital services resulting from seismic activity and geologic hazards shall be within acceptable levels of risk. Objective EH 1.1.Ensure that land use Conformance with implementing policies,as discussed below,results in conformance with this planning in the City accounts for seismic objective. and geologic risk,including ground shaking,liquefaction,subsidence,soil and slope stability,and water table levels. Policy EH 1.1.4.Evaluate the levels of risk Section 3.6.4(Project Imp'acts)describes the potential geology and soils impacts that could result based on the nature of the hazards and from implementation of the proposed project,and proposes MM GEO-1 and MM GE0-2 to reduce assess acceptable risk based on the these impacts to less-than-significant levels.If,as the Lead Agency,the City decides to certify this human,property,and social structure EIR,it must adopt Findings,as required by Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines,which include a damage compared to the cost of corrective rationale for each significant effect of the project identified in the EIR,and the status(including measures to mitigate or prevent damage. feasibility)of mitigation for each effect.Consideration of this project would,therefore,occur in a manner that is consistent with this policy. Objective EH 1.2.Ensure that new Conformance with implementing policies,as discussed below,results in conformance with this structures are designed to minimize objective. damage resulting from seismic hazards, ensure that existing unsafe structures are retrofitted to reduce hazards and mitigate other existing unsafe conditions. Policy EH 1.2.1.Require appropriate The structures proposed by the project,if the project is approved,would be constructed in accordance engineering and building practices for all with applicable provisions of the UBC and CBC regarding seismic hazards and structural design. new structures to withstand groundshaking Additionally,the project would incorporate MM GEO-1,which requires the incorporation of site and liquefaction such as stated in the preparation and structural design recommendations included in the geotechnical report prepared for Uniform Building Code. the project site. Objective EH 1.3.Enhance emergency Conformance with implementing policies,as discussed below,results in conformance with this preparedness through community objective education;effective emergency response, and efficient post-disaster recovery. Policy EH 1.3.4.Require that earthquake The structures proposed by the project,if the project is approved,would be constructed in accordance survival and efficient post disaster with applicable provisions of the UBC and CBC regarding seismic hazards and structural design. functioning be a primary concern in the Additionally,the project would incorporate MM GEO-1,which requires the incorporation of site siting,design,construction,operations, preparation and structural design recommendations included in the geotechnical report"'prepared for and retrofitting standards for critical, the project site.These measures would ensure that earthquake survivability is a primary concern in __', essential,and high occupancy facilities, the design and construction of the proposed project. including public safety facilities. General Plan Coastal Element The City of Huntington Beach Coastal Element identifies policies that address hazards related to geologic conditions and seismic hazards in particular within the City. Table 3.6-5 identifies goals and objectives presented in the Coastal Element of the General Plan related to geologic resources that are potentially 3.6-14 City of Huntington Beach 3.6 Geology and Soils relevant to the proposed project. This table also includes an assessment of the proposed project's consistency with the policies adopted in support of these goals and objectives. Table 3.6-5 General Plan Coastal Element—Policies Applicable to Geology and Soils Goal,Objective,or Policy Project.Consistency Goal C 10.Minimize risks to life and Conformance with implementing policies,as discussed below,results in conformance with this goal. property in areas of high hazards(e.g., geologic,flood and fire)within the Coastal Zone and ensure stability and structural „ integrity,and neither create nor contribute significantly to erosion,geologic instability, or destruction of the site or surrounding area or in any way require the construction of protective devices,that would substantially alter natural landforms along bluffs and cliffs. Objective C 10.1.Identify potential hazard Conformance with implementing policies,as discussed below,results in conformance with this areas in the City and manage/mitigate objective. ` potential risks and impacts through land use regulation,public awareness and retrofitting where feasible. Policy C 10.1.2.Promote land use Section 3.6.4(Project Impacts)describes and discloses the potential geology and soils impacts(GEO- patterns,zoning ordinances and locational 1 to GEO-4)that could result from the proposed project and includes mitigation measures where criteria that mitigate potential risks posed necessary to reduce such impacts to less-than-significant levels.As discussed in Impacts GEO-1 to by development in hazard areas,or which GEO-4,the proposed project would not,after implementation of the mitigation measures proposed in significantly reduce risk from seismic this EIR,result in any significant geology-or soils-related impacts. hazards. Policy C 10.1.4.Require appropriate The structures proposed by the project,if the project is approved,would be constructed in accordance engineering and building practices for all with applicable provisions of the UBC and CBC regarding seismic hazards and structural design. j ! new structures to withstand ground Additionally,the project would incorporate MM GEO-1,which requires the incorporation of site shaking and liquefaction such as those preparation and structural design recommendations included in the geotechnical report prepared for • stated in the Uniform Building Code. the project site.The project would,therefore,be consistent with this policy. Policy C 10.1.22.Subsidence shall be As described in Impact GE0-4,the proposed project site could be susceptible to subsidence; monitored and groundwater re- however,implementation of MM GEO-1 would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level by pressurization or other methods shall be. requiring the incorporation into the project of site preparation and structural design recommendations used to limit potential subsidence impacts. of the geotechnical report prepared for the project site.The proposed project would,therefore,be consistent with this policy. Municipal Code—Building Code and Grading and Excavation Code Site development in the City of Huntington Beach is required to comply with the California Building Code and all State requirements pertaining to these hazards. As such, the California Building Code has been incorporated and adopted into the Huntington Beach Building Code. The California Building Code, discussed above under State regulations, is adopted by the City as Chapter 17.04, Building Code, of the Municipal Code. The Building Code, as adopted,.includes minor variations to the California Building Code related to minimum slab thickness, fire-extinguishing systems, building security, and methane district regulations. The Grading and Excavation Code sets forth rules and regulations to control excavation, grading, earthwork and site improvement construction and establishes administrative requirements for Pacific City EIR 3.6-15 Chapter 3 Environmental Impact Analysis issuance of permits and approvals of plans and inspection of grading construction. Specifically, the Grading and Excavation Code identifies, defines, and regulates hazardous conditions, plans and specifications, soils and geology reports, fills, setbacks, drainage and terracing, asphalt concrete pavement, and erosion control systems. 3.6.3 Thresholds of Significance Project impacts would be considered significant if any of the following would occur: ' • Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving > Strong seismic groundshaking > Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction • Result in substantial soil erosion, loss of topsoil, or changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill ■ Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse ■ Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code, (1997), creating substantial risks to life or property 3.6.4 Project Impacts For the purposes of this analysis, the evaluation of exposure to seismic effects and geologic stability considers if the project would accelerate geologic hazards and as a result, substantial damage to structures or ti infrastructure, or exposure of people to this risk would result. Impact GEO-1 Project implementation could expose people or structures on-site to strong seismic ground shaking and seismic-related ground failure associated with liquefaction. The project site is located approximately 0.6 mile southeast from the Newport-Inglewood Fault. In addition, active traces of.the Newport-Inglewood Fault have been mapped north and northwest of the project site within the Huntington Mesa, prompting the State of California to establish the Fault Rupture Hazard Zone (formerly Alquist-Priolo zone) for the fault to be approximately 0.5 mile to the north of the project site. Consequently, the proposed project may expose on-site structures and people to substantial -- seismic hazards if an earthquake occurs along this fault. Based upon the regional tectonic framework surrounding the project site, the Preliminary Geotechnical Report prepared for the project site projects that 3.6-16 City of Huntington Beach 3.6 Geology and Soils the largest magnitude earthquake at the project site would likely be generated by the Newport-Inglewood fault, with a 6.9 moment magnitude. Damage from an earthquake of this range in intensity could include j 1 general damage to foundations, shifting of frame structures if not bolted, and breaking of underground pipes. Since the proposed project site is located in Seismic Zone 4 of the 1997 UBC, structures would be designed in accordance with parameters given within Chapter 16 of the current UBC. In addition, as required by - CBC Chapter 33 for the construction of new buildings and/or structures, specific engineering design and construction measures would be implemented to anticipate and avoid the potential for adverse impacts to human life and property caused by seismically induced groundshaking. However, active and potentially active faults within Southern California are capable of producing seismic shaking at the project site, and it is anticipated that the project site would periodically experience ground acceleration as a result of exposure to small and moderate magnitude earthquakes occurring on active distant and blind thrust faults. Therefore, impacts related to seismically induced groundshaking would be potentially significant. As discussed in Section 3.6.1 (Existing Conditions), the potential for liquefaction of the subsurface soils on the majority of the project site, which is underlain by terrace and engineered fill, is considered low. However, the potential for liquefaction is moderate to high in the southeastern corner of the project site, which is underlain by loose to medium dense alluvial deposits (refer to Figure 3.6-3). In addition, the alluvial soils in the southeastern portion of the project site are located within a State of California Seismic Hazard Zone Map for Liquefaction. As such, the potential for liquefaction is present in this portion of the site. The 400-room hotel, which is proposed to be developed in this area, could thus experience substantial damages in the event of an earthquake. Moreover, the largest concentration of persons would be in this area of the site, and could potentially be exposed to these risks. As such, this impact is considered to be potentially significant. Impact GEO-2 Project implementation would locate structures on soils that are considered potentially expansive,unstable,prone to settlement,and corrosive. As discussed in Section 3.6.1 (Existing Conditions), the geologic units that underlay the project site consist of dense to over-consolidated terrace alluvium, and medium-dense alluvium. According to the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation prepared for the project site, the majority of the on-site, near-surface soils exhibit a medium to high potential for expansion. With the consideration that engineering controls and corrective grading would be performed for the proposed project, the potential for ground lurching, cracking, or seismically induced spreading or compaction effects within the project site is considered low. In addition, according to the City of Huntington Beach General Plan, the project site is not located within an Pacific City EIR. 3.6-17 Chapter 3,Environmental Impact Analysis area that has been impacted by long-term subsidence due to local oil extraction. However, the 15 to 20 feet of loose to medium-dense alluvial deposits that are found in the southeastern portion of the site are settlement-prone. Soil settlement resulting from typical foundation loading of new structures on the project site could affect the foundation materials by causing structural and service-related distress to structures. As discussed above, the southeastern portion of the site is underlain by settlement-prone deposits. Under the proposed project, structures that would be located in the southeastern portion of the project site would include the hotel and a portion of the commercial component that includes visitor-serving commercial uses. The building mass of the taller structures, including the hotel towers in particular, coupled with the soil type, would increase the potential magnitude of settlement that could occur. Consequently, structures proposed in this area would require the establishment of deep foundations with enough depth to encounter competent soils. In addition, the project includes development of mid-rise structures of four stories plus subterranean parking within an area of the project site consisting of terrace deposits, generally located in the northern and western portions of the site (Figure 3.6-3). These structures would also require the establishment of deep foundations. In - addition to effects from settlement, existing engineered fill soils that are not compacted properly within the project site could also result in unstable foundations. Therefore, impacts related to soil expansion potential, unstable soils, and settlement would be potentially significant. The on-site soils at the proposed project site also exhibit corrosive effects, and thus it is anticipated that steel components in contact with the on-site soils would have a potential for corrosion. This could affect buried utility lines and other support structures for the proposed project. As such, this would be a potentially significant impact. Impact GEO-3 Construction activities would temporarily increase soil exposure to wind and water erosion. For the purposes of this analysis, erosional effects considers whether or not the effects of project activities would accelerate the natural erosional processes. Currently, the project site is undeveloped and consists primarily of exposed and disturbed vegetation. Proposed development would require the removal and recompaction of soils on site and grading, followed by construction of buildings and landscaping of open spaces. Trenching, grading, and compacting associated with construction of structures, modification/relocation of underground utility lines, and landscape/hardscape installation could expose areas of soil to erosion by wind or water during these construction processes. In addition, grading for the proposed subterranean parking is expected to be substantial and may also result in erosion during construction. Cut and fill operations would include 3.6-18 City of Huntington Beach 3.6 Geology and Soils 274,660 cubic yards of soil balanced on site. As the site is undeveloped, it is currently exposed to the potential for erosion. The addition of paved and landscaped areas would, over the long term, decrease the potential for erosion because fewer exposed soils would exist on site. Since the project site does not contain steep slopes, the potential for erosion by water through surface drainage at the project site during construction would be reduced. Earth-disturbing activities associated with demolition and construction would be temporary and would not result in a permanent or significant alteration of significant natural topographic features that could increase or exacerbate erosion. Specific erosion impacts would depend largely on the areas affected and the length of time soils are subject to conditions that would be affected by erosion processes. Although the potential for erosion on the project site would be limited, exposure of soil to wind and water during construction would still occur. The proposed site is greater than 5 acres in size, and is subject to the provisions of the General Construction Activity Stormwater Permit adopted by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). The developer for the proposed project must submit a Notice of Intent(NOI) to the SWRCB for coverage under the Statewide General Construction Activity Stormwater Permit and must comply with all applicable requirements, including the preparation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), applicable NDPES Regulations, and best management practices (BMP). The SWPPP must describe the site, the facility, erosion and sediment controls, runoff water quality monitoring, means of waste disposal, implementation of approved local plans, control of post-construction sediment- and erosion control measures, maintenance responsibilities, and nonstormwater management controls. Inspection .-of construction sites before and after storms is required to identify stormwater discharge from the construction activity and to identify and implement controls where necessary. In addition, all construction activities would comply with Chapter 29 of the CBC, which regulates excavation activities and the construction of foundations and retaining walls, and Chapter 70 of the CBC, which regulates grading activities, including drainage and erosion control. Compliance with this permit process and the CBC requirements would minimize effects from erosion. Therefore, compliance with the Statewide General Construction Activity Stormwater Permit requirements and the CBC requirements would ensure that erosional impacts resulting from project construction would be less than significant. 3.6.5 Cumulative Impacts This cumulative impact analysis considers development of the proposed project, in conjunction with other development within the vicinity of the project in the City of Huntington Beach. Risks associated with 1 � 1 , Pacific City EIR 3.6-19 Chapter 3 Environmental Impact Analysis geologic hazards are largely site specific.and limited to the project site. As such, the potential for cumulative impacts to occur is limited. The proposed project and cumulative projects would also be exposed to potential geologic hazards related to soil and other conditions and individual building sites, and groundshaking from seismic events on known and unknown faults in the region. These effects would be site specific, and impacts would not be compounded by additional development. Buildings and facilities within the City of Huntington Beach would be sited and designed in accordance with appropriate geotechnical and seismic guidelines and recommendations consistent with the CBC and UBC. The adherence to all relevant plans, codes, and regulations with respect to project design and construction would reduce impacts to the extent feasible, and impacts would not be cumulatively considerable. The project would have a less-than-significant contribution to cumulative effects. Implementation of the proposed project would result in the modification of site conditions to accommodate site development and to provide a stable and safe project. The modification of the project site during the construction phase could expose areas of soil to erosion by wind or water. Development of other cumulative projects in the vicinity of the project site will cumulatively expose and engineer soil surfaces, and this will further alter soil conditions and subject soils to erosional processes during construction. To minimize the potential for cumulative impacts that could cause erosion, the proposed project and cumulative projects in the adjacent area are expected to be developed in conformance with the provisions of applicable federal, State, county,.and City laws and ordinances. It is also anticipated that adequate mitigation will be incorporated into individual projects as a result of current legal requirements for control of erosion storm water discharges. Furthermore, project sites more than 1 acre in size would be required to comply with the provisions of the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System, which would minimize the potential for erosion during construction and operation of the facilities. Compliance with this permit process, in addition to the legal requirements related to erosional control practices, would minimize effects from erosion. Therefore, impacts on erosion would not be cumulatively considerable, and the project would have a less-than-significant contribution to cumulative effects. 3.6.6 Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts The following standard City requirements (CR)would apply to the project. CR GEO-A Prior to recordation of the final map, a qualified, Licensed Engineer shall prepare a detailed soils and geotechnical analysis. This analysis shall include Phase II Environmental on-site soil sampling and laboratory testing of materials to provide detailed recommendations for grading, chemical and fill properties, liquefaction, 3.6-20 City of Huntington Beach 3.6 Geology and Soils foundations, landscaping, dewatering, ground water, retaining walls, pavement sections and utilities. In addition to the standard City requirement listed above, the mitigation measure (MM) listed below would be required to address Impacts GEO-1 and GEO-2. MM GEO-1 The grading plan prepared for the proposed project shall contain the recommendations of the final soils and geotechnical analysis prepared pursuant to CR GEO-A, as approved by the City. These recommendations shall be implemented in the design of the project, including but not limited to measures associated with site preparation,fill placement and compaction, seismic design features, excavation stability and shoring requirements, dewatering, establishment of deep foundations, concrete slabs and pavements, cement type and corrosion measures, surface drainage, erosion control; ground improvements, tsunami protection, and plan review. All geotechnical recommendations provided in the soils and geotechnical analysis shall be implemented during site preparation and construction activities. Establishment of deep foundations, as identified in the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation and MM GEO-1, would require pile driving on at least the southeastern portion of the site. It is possible that cast-in- drilled hole piles may be used in the northwestern portion of the site, although this has not been determined conclusively. The impacts of pile driving from foundation installation are discussed under the evaluation of construction noise impacts in Section 4.10 (Noise). Implementation of MM GEO-1 would reduce Impacts GEO-1 and GEO-2 to a less-than-significant level by ensuring the incorporation of recommendations from the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation into the grading plan for the proposed project, which includes measures to address seismic hazards and foundation design. Impact GEO-3 would be less than significant, as described above. Pacific City EIR 3.6-21 3.7 Hazardous Materials i 3.7 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS This EIR section analyzes the potential for adverse impacts on human health and the environment from exposure to hazardous materials located on site due to previous land uses. A hazardous material is defined as any material that due to its quantity, concentration, physical or chemical characteristics, poses a significant present or potential hazard to human health and safety or to the environment if released into the work place or environment. Hazardous materials include, but are not necessarily limited to, inorganic and organic chemicals, solvents, mercury, lead, asbestos, paints, cleansers, or pesticides that were used in previous activities at the site as well as activities on neighboring sites. Specifically, previous activities at the project site include the operation of former oil or gas wells, and building and grounds maintenance. The Initial Study (Appendix A) identified that the potential for impacts from hazardous materials would be limited to those associated with former uses on site, particularly whether the proposed project would be located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. Issues scoped out from detailed analysis in the EIR include creation of a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials or upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment, as the proposed 7w project would not introduce any unusual hazardous materials to the area, and any commercial uses involving the handling or storing of certain amounts of hazardous materials would be required to comply with local, State, and federal regulations; possible safety hazard resulting from hazardous emissions or hazardous material handling in proximity to a school or airport, as the project is not located within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school or in proximity to an airport or private airstrip; impairment of emergency response plan implementation, as none of the vehicular access points to the project site are located along major thoroughfares, and no constraints to emergency response plans would result from the proposed yX project; and exposure of people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires since the project site is located in an urban area that is not subject to wildland fires. Data used to prepare this section were taken from various sources, including but not limited to documentation from asbestos abatement associated with demolition of The Grinder Restaurant and buildings associated with the Huntington Shores Motel; 1995 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) prepared for the Huntington Shores Motel site; 1996 Phase II Investigation Report/Remediation Plan; 1997 Letter Report regarding the excavation and disposal of lead-impacted soil on the project site; 1998 Phase I ESA for the project,site; 2002 Remediation Plan, Revision 3 (Conditional Use Permit 00-36, Coastal Development Permit00-09); and 2003 regulatory database search for the project site and surrounding area. Appendix E includes a chronology and summary of the reports prepared for the project site, in addition to Pacific City EIR 3.7-1 Chapter 3 Environmental Impact Analysis other information on hazardous materials. Full bibliographic entries for all reference materials are provided in Chapter 7 (References) of this document. 3.7.1 Existing Exi in Conditions The project site is adjacent to the following uses: • North: Atlanta Avenue, beyond which are single- and multifamily residential uses • South: Pacific Coast Highway (PCH), beyond which is the City of Huntington Beach public beach, open space, vehicle parking, and beach-related uses • East: Huntington Street, beyond which is the Hilton Waterfront Beach Resort and the Pacific Mobile Home Park • West: First Street, beyond which.are vacant lots, oil production and storage facilities, small apartment units and single-family homes, and a fast food restaurant Within the general vicinity of the project site, neighboring land uses primarily include mobile homes and single-family homes to the east, the Huntington Beach Pier to the west, the City beach and the Pacific Ocean to the south, and apartment and single-family homes to the north. Historical Review of Project Site and Adjacent Uses ; The Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (available for review at the City) prepared by Aqua Science Engineers in 1998 for the project site included site reconnaissance, and review of files, aerial photographs, and previous environmental documentation to identify former uses on the project site. Past uses of the project site are described in Table 3.7-1. Table 3.7-1 Historical On-Site Uses Dates On-Site Uses Pre 1927 to1958 Railroad tracks extending south from the northwestern corner of the project site curved towards the east to the southern corner of the project site,and two rectangular-shaped buildings located at the northern end of the tracts 1932 to 1958 Several small buildings near the western corner of the project site 1947 to 1986 A mobile home park in the vicinity of where the subsequent Huntington Shores Motel and associated restaurant buildings were located.The mobile home park is later extended to the west from Huntington Street along PCH,immediately north of PCH-fronting commercial area. 1950s to 1990 Oil field facilities are present.Aerial photographs from 1966 show a few above-ground storage tanks(ASTs)located approximately 300 feet west of Huntington Street and approximately 700 feet northeast of PCH.Additionally,the same photographs show that all of the property north of the motel,restaurant,and mobile home park is unpaved and undeveloped with some paved roads for oil fields.Aerial photographs from 1983 show that an AST is observed near the middle of the northern end of the project site. 1958 to at least 1966 Railroad tracks,as indicated above,but no structures at the northern end of the tracks '3.7-2 City of Huntington Beach • - f 3.7 Hazardous Materials Table 3.7-1 Historical On-Site Uses Dates On-Site Uses. 1960 to 2000 The Huntington Shores Motel and associated restaurant buildings are located on the western side of the project site along PCH.Aerial photographs from 1975 shoWthat'a long rectangular-shaped parking lot on the northwestern border of the subject property along First Street is constructed,and that a square-shaped area of approximately 20,000 square feet at the northwestern corner of the subject property is graded.Aerial photographs from 1981 show that the asphalt paved parking lot for the motel and restaurant appear to have been recently paved.Aerial photographs from 1989 show that all of the mobile homes are removed from the project site.Aerial photographs from 1997 show that a large soil pile was formed on the western side of the project site. 1991 to present No ASTs remain on site. The former uses of adjoining properties and surrounding areas were also identified in the 1998 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment through review of historical aerial-photographs and environmental impact reports previouslyprepared. Past uses that once occupied adjoiningproperties and surrounding PP 1' areas are described in Table 3.7-2. Table 3.7-2 Historical Adjacent Uses Dates Adjacent Uses Pre 1960s to present Single-family homes and apartment buildings located in the areas west,northwest,north,and northeast of the project site. Pre 1960s to present Aerial photographs from 1966 show a vacant lot on the northeastern corner of Atlanta Avenue and First Street.The same photograph shows several rectangular-shaped buildings east of the eastern corner of PCH and Huntington Street. Oil wells and above-ground storage tanks on properties west across First Street.Aerial photographs from 1966 show six ASTs located northwest of First Street and north of Walnut Avenue.Aerial photographs from 1981 show nine ASTs located at the same location,approximately 500 feet northeast of PCH. 1960s to present A large mobile home park in the area east of Huntington Street. 1970s to late 1980s A gasoline station on the eastern corner of PCH and Huntington Street.Aerial photographs from 1986 show that the gas station was removed,leaving an unpaved graded lot. ' 1980s to present City of Huntington Beach facilities and parking located south across PCH.Aerial photographs from 1981 show a fast-food restaurant building constructed and located on the eastern corner of PCH and First Street.Aerial photographs from 1983 show a single-family housing tract located east of the mobile home park across Huntington Street.Aerial photographs from 1989 show the northeastern corner of Atlanta Avenue and First Street being graded for construction and the eastern corner of PCH and Huntington Street being excavated.Aerial photographs from 1991 show an apartment complex constructed on the northeastern corner of Atlanta Avenue and First Street.The Hilton Hotel complex is constructed on the eastern corner of PCH and Huntington Street. Database Searches In 2003, Environmental Data Resources, Inc.. completed a search of federal, State, and local regulatory databases to determine if.any known contaminated sites were located on the property. The project site was identified in the Haznet Database, where,data are extracted:from the copies of hazardous waste manifests J received each year by the California Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC). The disposal of asbestos-containing waste as a result of demolition of former structures at the project site warranted its Pacific City EIR 3.7-3 Chapter 3 Environmental Impact Analysis inclusion in this database. In addition, the databases also identified contamination or potential sources of contamination located off site in the vicinity of the project site. These properties include one Resource Conservation and Recovery Act(RCRIS) hazardous waste generator site, two California Hazardous Material Incident Report System (CHMIRS) sites, six Cortese sites, 10 Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) sites, two Underground Storage Tank (UST) sites, two California Facility Inventory Database (CA FID) UST sites, one Historical UST (HIST UST) site, and nine Haznet sites within approximately one mile of the project site. A summary of the listed sites, including the project site itself, generated by the EDR report is shown in Table 3.7-3. The EDR report is provided in Appendix E (Hazardous Materials). Table 3.7-3 Regulatory Database Search Results for Sites within One Mile Proximity to Project Site Facility Name (Miles) Location Database+ -,_ Capitol Pacific Holdings N/A 21002 Pacific Coast Highway HAZNET West Coast Auto Paint Shop 0.13 303 3rd Street RCRIS Huntington Beach Maintenance Yard 0.13 44 Huntington Street CORTESE LUST UST CA FID HIST UST City of Huntington Beach 0.13 44 Huntington Street • LUST Residence 0.13 1301 Monterey Boulevard• UST Pelican Hill Golf Club 0.13 6195 Pacific Coast Highway CA FID Leading Edge Yacht Services 0.13 2439 Pacific Coast Highway HAZNET Black Diamond Marine 0.13' 2439 Pacific Coast Highway HAZNET Leading Edge Yacht Services 0.13 2439 Pacific Coast Highway HAZNET Gray Trust/Wells Fargo Bank 0.13' 2633 Pacific Coast Highway HAZNET Domino Realty 0.13 3333 Pacific Coast Highway HAZNET Newport Imports,Inc. 0.13 3100 Pacific Coast Highway HAZNET Huntington Pier Colony Homeowners Association 0.13 200 Pacific Coast Highway HAZNET Playa Apartments 0.13 401 Atlantic Avenue,No.12 HAZNET HB German Car Import 0.13 303 Third Street HAZNET Not reported 0.25 204 5th Street CHMIRS United States Postal Service 0.25 316 Olive Avenue CORTESE City of Huntington Beach 0.25 122 5th Street CORTESE Huntington Beach Post Office 0.25 316 Olive Street ... LUST Huntington Beach Post Office 0.25 316 Olive LUST City of Huntington Beach 0.25 301 Main Street LUST ; City of Huntington.Beach 0.25 122 5th Street LUST Terry Buick Inc. 0.25 122 5th Street LUST 3.7-4 City of Huntington Beach 3.7 Hazardous Materials • Table 3.7-3 Regulatory Database Search Results for Sites within One Mile Proximity to Project Site. Facility Name (Miles) Location Database+ Wind&Sea Surfboards 0.25 520 Pacific Coast Highway LUST Wind and Sea Surfboard Shop 0.25 520 Pacific Coast Highway LUST Java Jungle 0.25 602 Pacific Coast Highway LUST Not reported 0.50 41411t'Street CHMIRS � Old Lake Fire Station 0.50 704 Lake Street. • CORTESE Arco(Abandon) 0.50 21302 Pacific Coast Highway CORTESE Action Boats 0.50 21622 Coast Highway CORTESE Database acronyms: RCRIS—The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act database includes selected information on sites that generate,store,treat,or dispose of hazardous waste as defined by the act.The source of this database is the U.S.EPA. CHMIRS—The California Hazardous Material Incident Report System contains information on reported hazardous material incidents,i.e.,accidental releases or spills.The source is the California Office of Emergency Services. CORTESE—This database;identifies public drinking water wells with detectable levels of contamination,hazardous substance sites selected for remedial action,sites with known toxic material identified through the abandoned site assessment program,sites with USTs having a reportable release and all solid waste disposal facilities from which there is known migration.The source is the California,Environmental Protection Agency/Office of Emergency Information. LUST—The Leaking Underground Storage Tank Incident Reports contain an inventory of reported leaking underground storage tank incidents.The data come from the State Water Resources Control Board Leaking Underground Storage Tank Information System. UST—The Underground Storage Tank database contains registered USTs.USTs are regulated under,Subtitle I of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act(RCRA). The data come from the State Water Resources Control Board's Hazardous Substance Storage Container Database. CA FID—The Facility Inventory Database contains active and inactive underground storage tank locations.The source is the State Water Resource Control Board. H/ST UST—Historical UST Registered Database. • HAZNET—The data are extracted from the copies of hazardous waste manifests received each year by the DTSC. Data are from the manifests submitted without correction,and therefore many contain some invalid values for data elements such as generator ID,TSD ID,waste category,and disposal method.The source is the Department of Toxic Substance Control. • SOURCE: Environmental Data Resources,Inc.,2003 • As shown in Table 3.7-3, 10 LUST cases are within one mile of the project site. Of these 10 cases, all but one (Java Jungle)has been closed(i.e., the tank has been either replaced or removed, and contamination has been remediated).,A preliminary site assessment is currently underway at the one remaining facility. Other Contaminants on Adjacent Properties The property north of the project' site, located at First Street and Atlanta and currently occupied by } i residential uses, was reportedly occupied by a former gas plant, as identified by an individual interviewed as part of the 1995 site investigation process for the Huntington Shores Motel (HLA 1995). Sanborn Insurance Maps identify the adjacent property as used by Federal Supply Company in 1922 and Richfield Oil Company in 1939 (de Banos and Crull'2002). The map dated 1939 contains buildings indicating,oil uses on the property, but no documentation exists to support the existence of a gas plant. If a gas plant did exist on property adjacent to the project site, toxic contaminants associated with gas condensate from a gas plant could remain in the soil. However, these contaminants would be localized on the site and would not be expected to have migrated across First Street through the soil to the project site. The Phase I ESA for the project site did not identify any potential concerns regarding these possible contaminants. As such, these Pacific City EIR 3.7-5 Chapter 3 Environmental Impact Analysis contaminants are not expected to exist on the northwestern portion of the site or otherwise affect soils on the project site. Contamination at the Project Site --- Environmental concerns at the project site are typical of that of former oil field properties and include residual total petroleum hydrocarbon (oil) contamination in the soil, possible methane (natural gas) emissions, unclosed oil wells, and small quantities of chemical and/or heavy metal-impacted soil. The Phase II Investigation Report prepared in 1996 for the project site identified 10 AST settings, former locations of pipelines and pipeline headers (only one pipeline header was actually found during this field investigation), 20 abandoned oil wells, and one abandoned water well at the project site. In addition, no use, storage, or disposal of hazardous substances or materials was present on the project site at the time the Phase II Investigation Report was prepared. According to the subsequent Phase I analysis prepared in 1998, a site reconnaissance indicated that no USTs and ASTs remained on the project site. Overview of Site Remediation Process As the project site is undergoing remediation, and the site remediation process involves several steps to document contamination, remediation, and site cleanup, this section provides an overview of this process to facilitate an understanding of the previous and current investigations. As a first step, a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) is used for information purposes by identifying potential environmental impacts related to hazardous materials through historical record searches, visual inspection, aerial photograph review, etc. This assessment is conducted in general accordance with E1527-00 — American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) "Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Initial Site Assessment Process." The Phase I ESA must be conducted by a qualified environmental professional (e.g., Registered Environmental Assessor, Registered Geologist, Professional Engineer, etc.). The necessity of further investigation (i.e., a Phase II ESA) is based on the findings of the Phase I ESA. A Phase II ESA consists of analytical testing of potentially contaminated soil, groundwater, or other materials. If contamination is identified, then a project sponsor or property owner would enter into a corrective action agreement with the local oversight agency after confirmation of any identified environmental concerns from the Phase II ESA. The local oversight agency is the City of Huntington Beach Fire Department for this project. Concurrence of appropriate remedial action with the oversight agency must be obtained when impacts to soil, groundwater, or other materials have been identified above acceptable local, State, or federal contaminant levels or preliminary remedial goals. The target cleanup levels for the proposed project site are 1,000 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) total recoverable petroleum hydrocarbons (TRPH) for residential uses and 2,000 mg/kg TRPH for commercial uses. These remediation goals are in 3.7-6 City of Huntington Beach 3.7 Hazardous Materials accordance with City Specification 431-92. Soil remediation generally entails excavation and treatment. Bottom grade soils are then resampled to identify if contamination remains. If results from the samples are below City Specifications, then excavation is halted. If results of the samples exceed City Specifications, then additional soils are excavated and treated. This process is repeated until soil samples are below City Specification criteria. After all contaminated soils have been excavated, areas are backfilled to return the site to grade. Remediation for contaminated groundwater typically involves pumping the water out either for treatment on site or for disposal. The disposal of contaminated groundwater would be carried out in accordance with federal, State, or local regulatory guidelines. Upon completion of the remediation program, approval of a Site Closure Report by the oversight agency is required prior to redevelopment of any site with identified environmental concerns. Oil-Impacted Soils, The Phase II Investigation prepared in 1996 studied and sampled various locations at the project site that were suspected of potentially containing hazardous materials and/or containing large quantities of oily soil. As the property was part of a former oil field operated by Chevron, the Phase II investigated the locations of former ASTs, sumps, pipelines, and wells. During the field investigation, 60 soil samples were collected from pothole excavations and eight soil borings were advanced at the potential oily soil locations to identify the extent of oily soil at the project site. The site investigation revealed the presence of oil-impacted soil with total recoverable petroleum hydrocarbon (TRPH5) levels above allowable limits in several areas. As a result, a soil remediation plan for the project site was prepared. The site investigation and remedial efforts are governed by City of Huntington Beach Specification 431-92, Soil Clean-UpStandard (City Specification 431-92), dated July 30, 1992. The Huntington Beach Fire Department(HBFD) serves as the local oversight agency for soil remediation at the project site. Figure 3.7-1 illustrates the status of the remediation efforts for oil-impacted soils on the project site. Areas on the site are classified as one of the following: (a) remediation complete; (b) remediation underway; (c) remediation to be completed during project construction; or (d)further investigation necessary. These.areas are subsequently referred to in this EIR as areas A through D. Area A includes remediation completed in the northern portion of the sitte.•In 1999 approximately 200,000 cubic yards of soil material was exported from the northern portion of the project site to the area east of the project site for use as fill material. This remediated fill material was used for the development of the nearby Hyatt Regency Resort. During the soil export activities, the area was sampled s TRPH is defined as those hydrocarbons that are recovered using a solvent extraction procedure. Pacific City EIR 3.7-7 ATLANTA AVENUE __ � . , I I • ♦.e0rrr• t" ■ ♦ ♦ .: .•�•: •:i. :i. :�: •:i: ♦i0, i�O� ♦.6A; ..DOea♦♦.♦, ::;EB::.:::%▪ ::>-;:::.::•ARE% • +::':.::•.: ® ■ • ,SA' • ♦�e♦0�.�.•.�.*.A•0�ra♦rillP♦'� ▪ :;..:.;•:'•`� _•.::• ■ •� • q- ♦ 4%4 04,♦♦e♦e♦e♦eel♦♦♦♦�414i ♦♦4 .. .. '•.a'�..,9.. s,•a,.•:.:'. :. ■ 'S • ♦ ••.•♦•••♦aieiea•♦••••0^<O :.�,: I `: i,#.0. 00eDaO♦00i♦i♦i6'h i•4 .';;;: • ♦• ,...aaaa . • eee.ee•••••• i eiei♦i♦i♦i♦i♦i♦i♦i♦i♦i00. ♦ i♦•i♦i ti�♦D♦ea♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦a0♦•♦♦♦• LCFP: W . '00iiiiiaai0040• • ♦♦-4I I- S 4I4 . ,:t•♦Di♦i♦i♦i♦i♦iO�i►9' �� • .. :•......:•.......::' � .Q .04 V ■ z •��i♦♦e�.�0e�.►4di00♦a.♦tI 2>:i�D, ai�OO�♦♦ ♦♦1 ® •`° '::: •• ■ o ♦ i40i♦ie►•i40.0044�♦a •DOi'i`090�'♦e♦• ® .1:•: ` O ■ p • ♦'i iL:♦:♦::OB♦i♦iiir'*♦♦♦��' i0♦►'•4♦'♦♦O♦♦_, t.; ..••.•::` ■ ♦♦•♦♦♦♦09♦♦♦ ♦♦♦♦ O 1 \d.._ ) ■ • .��. ♦e.00 •♦rie. a: Aq ♦♦4,,-- * e♦i♦i�♦i `• ��/oc•,44 �....„ ,.idd• • ® • ■ I y �. ■ k�,4, 0 62 Vb LEGEND ♦♦♦♦ ♦ ♦ ��'�`�� �■ _�`- AREA A: Remediation ♦♦ •® ` ♦ L: =;.., ' Completed - ♦♦ AREA B: "" Currently Underway tion ♦♦♦♦ • • ♦♦ ♦ • ■ ■ NI ce■ AREA C: Remediation to be Completed During Project LEGEND ♦♦♦♦ a. Construction ♦ . • �.�.�.�i AREA D: Further Investigation NI • w • PROJECT BOUNDARY Necessary NOTES: ® OIL WELL LOCATION 3 1.Area C not fully identified in order to protect the . O WATER WELL LOCATION , i • integrity of the archaeologically sensitive resource - areas. O FORMER AST LOCATION 2.Unshaded area includes portions of the site REMEDIATION COMPLETED below levels of concern for contamination and/or 111111111111. THROUGH 2J13198 archaeologically sensitive areas. FIGURE 3.7-1 Not to Scale ......--EIR-........ Site Investigation/Remediation Status r. so r.t.tr r,s SOURCE:Harding ESE 2002b 10261-00 City of Huntington Beach•Pacific City EIR 3.7 Hazardous Materials to identify whether oily soil was present. All affected soil exhibiting concentrations above City Specification 431-92 criteria were either excavated from the.site or mechanically treated to meet the criteria. The excavations were then backfilled with soil that met City Specification 431-92 criteria. As of October er 1999, remediation efforts in this portion of the project site have been completed, although no closure report has been submitted to the local oversight agency. In addition to the soil export to the Hyatt Regency Resort site, Area A also includes limited remediation operations performed by Chevron beginning in 1997 and continuing through February 1998. This remediation occurred in three discrete areas identified on Figure 3.7-1 and involved the surgical excavation of the oil-impacted soil areas identified in the Phase II Investigation. Field personnel were present onsite to provide oversight of the remediation activities. Approximately 20,000 cubic yards of oily soil was excavated from the project site during this timeframe. The oil-impacted soils were then mechanically blended with clean fill soil to achieve TRPH concentrations in compliance with those specified in City Specification No. 431-92. After treatment, these soils were used to backfill the excavated areas. Soil remediation is currently underway by Chevron in the southeastern portion of the site (Area B), and remediation efforts are expected to be completed in early 2004. According to the site investigation history provided by Harding ESE in revision 3 to their remediation plan for the project site, this remediation is the result of additional soil investigation performed on behalf of Chevron from July to September 1999, to evaluate if further soil remediation efforts were required. Trenches were cut, and soil samples were collected at shallow and deep locations within the trenches to test whether their TRPH concentrations were above City Specification 431-92 criteria. Approximately 87 shallow soil and 129 deep soil samples were taken in the southeastern portion of the project site. Of the shallow soil samples taken, 23 samples were identified that exceeded the TRPH concentration standard of City Specification 431-92, where TRPH concentrations ranged from 1,000 mg/kg to 130,000 mg/kg. Of the deep soil samples taken, 17 samples were identified that exceeded the TRPH concentration standard of City Specification 431-92, where TRPH concentrations ranged from 1,200 mg/kg to 68,000 mg/kg. In addition, six of the 17 deep soil samples with contamination consisted of oily soil. The remediation plan estimated a total of 12,686 cubic yards of oily soil to be excavated at the site in order to meet identified remediation goals of 1,000 mg/kg in residential areas and 2,000 mg/kg in commercial areas. Chevron has retained Blasland Bouck & Lee, Inc (BBL)to oversee and complete site remediation. Remediation to be completed during project construction includes locations in Area C, as the current remediation effort does not address all remaining contamination on the site. The areas identified as archaeologically sensitive still require remediation, as does the area surrounding the existing water pipeline Pacific City EIR 3.7-9 Chapter 3 Environmental Impact Analysis located within the site. Remediation of these areas is proposed to occur concurrent with project construction since remediation of the areas would entail grading of the site. The location of the archaeologically sensitive areas is not disclosed in this EIR in order to protect the integrity of the resource. As such, the precise location of this portion of Area C is not identified. The area where further investigation is necessary is Area D, in the southwestern portion of the site, where the former Grinder Restaurant and Huntington Shores motel were located. These areas do not include identified former oil wells or storage tanks. Sampling completed as part of the 1996 Phase II Investigation delineated the areas where remediation was necessary. Test results from that sampling effort did not detect that the contamination on the northern and eastern portions of the site had migrated to this area on the western portion of the site. BBL intends to perform sampling in Area D to ensure that all potential contamination has been identified. According to the 2002 Remediation Plan, further soil investigations were conducted on the project site to evaluate the depth of petroleum hydrocarbon-impacted soils near groundwater. The detailed report (i.e., boring logs, etc.) on this soil investigation has not been completed. Three samples were extended 4 to 5 feet past groundwater in three of the areas previously identified as containing elevated concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbons. In cases where petroleum hydrocarbons in the soil have extended to groundwater, the extent of soil impacted with petroleum hydrocarbons is generally limited to within one to two feet of first encountered groundwater and the petroleum hydrocarbon impacted soil appears to have minimal impact on groundwater (Harding ESE 2002b). As discussed in Section 3.8 (Hydrology and Water Quality), groundwater beneath the project site is also brackish due to saltwater intrusion, and, as such, is not used as potable water by the City. Lead-Impacted Soils Aside from oil-impacted soils, the 1996 Phase II Investigation also indicated the detection of lead-impacted soil in the south-central portion of the project site. In May 1997, approximately 10 cubic yards of lead- impacted soil were excavated to a depth of approximately 4 feet from a 12-foot by 7-foot area at the project site. All soil samples collected from the excavation, following the removal of the impacted soil, contained soluble lead at concentrations below the California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 22 action level of 5 parts per million(ppm). The excavation area was backfilled with clean native soil located on the project site. In June 1997, the excavated lead impacted soil was transported under a non-Resource Conservation and Recovery Act(RCRA)hazardous waste manifest to the Laidlaw Class I Landfill in Buttonwillow, California. Completion of removal of lead-impacted soil has also been documented(BBL 1997). 3.7-10 City of Huntington Beach 3.7 Hazardous.Materials Asbestos The now-demolished Huntington Shores Motel and associated buildings, and the Grinder Restaurant that were formerly located on the project site were constructed in 1960, and the materials used for the construction of these buildings contained asbestos. In year 2000, the asbestos containing materials from these buildings were removed and disposed. Asbestos removal from the Huntington Shores Motel buildings occurred in January and February 2000. All work was performed in accordance with all federal, State, and local regulations, under the supervision of an environmental consultant. Asbestos abatement and removal activities for the Grinder Restaurant began in late 2000, followed by demolition of the restaurant. No residual asbestos contamination remains from these uses. Completion of asbestos abatement is detailed in the final clearance reports (Marcor 2000 and BAS 2000b). PCBs According to the 1998 Phase I ESA, three small transformers mounted on a utility pole located on the western part of the project site could contain polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), but the transformers appeared to be in good condition and not leaking. Additionally, the report identified that a metal electrical enclosure located on the western part of the project site could possibly contain a transformer that could contain PCBs. The metal enclosure was observed partially submerged in standing water, which could corrode any transformer that may be contained inside of the enclosure. The utility poles have been removed by Southern California Edison. The metal enclosure remains on the site, but there is no source of electricity to the enclosure. Other Chemicals and Gases Low concentrations of 2-butanone, acetone, and styrene, which are very odorous volatile organic compounds (VOCs), were detected in soil samples collected in the northern half of the project site during the 1996 Phase II Site Investigation. All three chemicals were several orders of magnitude below the applicable U.S. Environmental Protection Agency preliminary remediation goals (PRGs). The Phase II investigation also collected one soil sample in the southern central portion of the proposed residential component area that had a pH of 4.7, which was not representative of the other samples taken at the project site that ranged in pH values from 7.0 to 9.6. A substance is considered hazardous by virtue of its corrosivity if the pH is less than 2.0 (HLA 1996). Thus,, with a pH of 4.7, this soil sample result is not indicative of hazardous contamination for this sample. Mercury was detected in a soil sample collected from the northeastern portion of the project site, although it was not detected in the extract at or above the laboratory detection limit. As such, the concentration of mercury at the project site was not considered to be hazardous based on standards for detection. Pacific City EIR 3.7-11 Chapter 3 Environmental Impact Analysis The site is also entirely within a methane gas overlay district designated by the City. As such, methane gas, commonly known as natural gas, may underlay the site. Potential hazards associated with methane include fire or explosion due to methane gas accumulations, since it is a highly flammable substance, and human health risks associated with natural gas,poisoning. Special development regulations apply to projects located in methane overlay districts. 3.7.2 Regulatory Framework The management of hazardous materials and hazardous wastes, which includes chemicals, radioactive, and biohazardous materials, is accomplished pursuant to numerous laws and regulations at all levels of government. i Federal Primary federal agencies with responsibility for hazardous materials management include the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Department of Labor (Federal Occupational Health and Safety Administration [OSHA]), Department of Transportation (DOT), and Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). Major federal laws and issue.areas include the following statutes (and regulations promulgated there under): • Resources Conservation and Recovery Act(RCRA)—hazardous waste management • Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments Act(HSWA)—hazardous waste management • Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA)—cleanup of contamination • Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act(SARA)—cleanup of contamination • Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know (SARA Title III)business inventories and emergency response planning State Primary State agencies with jurisdiction over hazardous chemical materials management are the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) and the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Other State agencies involved in hazardous materials management are the Department of Industrial Relations (State Occupational Health and Safety Administration [OSHA] implementation), State Office of Emergency Services (OES—California Accidental Release Prevention implementation), Department of Fish and Game (DFG), Air Resources Board (ARB), Department of Transportation (Caltrans), State Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA—Proposition 65 implementation), and the California Integrated Waste Management Board(CIWMB). 3.7-12 City of Huntington Beach 3.7 Hazardous Materials Hazardous chemical and biohazardous materials management laws in California include the following statutes (and regulations promulgated thereunder): • Hazardous Materials Management Act business plan reporting • • Hazardous Waste Control Act—hazardous waste management • Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (Proposition 65)—releases of and exposure to carcinogenic chemicals • Hazardous Substances Act--cleanup of contamination ' • Hazardous Waste Management Planning and Facility Siting(Tanner Act) • Hazardous Materials Storage and Emergency Response • California Medical Waste Management Act—medical and biohazardous wastes State regulations and agencies that are specifically applicable to the project site include the Hazardous Materials Management Act and the Occupational Health and Safety Administration, which are further described below. Hazardous Materials Management Act A hazardous material is any substance that possesses qualities or characteristics that could produce physical damage to the environment and/or cause deleterious effects upon'human health (Title 22, CCR). The_ Hazardous Materials Management Act(HMMA)requires that businesses handling or storing certain amounts of hazardous materials prepare a Hazardous Materials Business Plan(HMBP), which includes an inventory of • hazardous materials stored on site (above specified quantities), an emergency response plan, and an employee training program. Businesses that use, store, or handle 55 gallons of liquid, 500 pounds of a solid, or 200 cubic feet of a compressed gas at standard temperature and pressure require HMBPs. Plans must be prepared prior to facility operation and are reviewed/updated biennially(or within 30 days of a change). Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) Site safety requirements are generally based on the specifications of Cal-OSHA. Applicable specifications prepared by OSHA related to earth resources consist of Section 29 CFR Part 1926 (Department of Labor 1989), which focuses on worker safety during excavation, shoring, and trenching. Pacific City EIR 3.7-13 Chapter 3 Environmental Impact Analysis Local Regulations General Plan Hazardous Materials Element The City of Huntington Beach General Plan Hazardous Materials Element identifies various policies and programs addressing hazards from hazardous materials and hazardous waste, and the potential methods to reduce risks associated with those hazards. The key goal of the Hazardous Materials Element is to "reduce, to the greatest degree possible, the potential for harm to life, property and the environment from hazardous materials and hazardous waste." Since the site would not use substantial quantities of hazardous materials or generate hazardous waste, none of the goals and objectives in this element would be applicable to the proposed project. General Plan Coastal Element The City of Huntington Beach Coastal Element identifies policies to ensure the community's public health and safety from hazards. Table 3.7-4 identifies goals and objectives presented in the Coastal Element of the General Plan related to energy that are potentially relevant to the proposed project. This table also includes _. an assessment of the proposed project's consistency with the policies adopted in support of these goals and objectives. Table 3.7-4 General Plan Coastal Element—Policies Applicable to Hazardous Materials • Policy Project Consistency Goal C 10 Minimize risks to life and - Conformance with implementing policy,as discussed below,results in conformance with this goal. property in areas of high hazards(e.g. geologic,flood and fire)within the Coastal Zone and ensure stability and structural integrity,and neither create nor contribute significantly to erosion,geologic instability,or destruction of the site or surrounding area or in any way require the construction of protective devices that would substantially alter natural landforms along bluffs and cliffs. Objective C 10.1 Identify potential hazard Conformance with implementing policy, as discussed below, results in conformance with this areas in the City and manage/mitigate objective. potential risks and impacts through land use regulation,public awareness and retrofitting where feasible. Policy C 10.1.9 Maintain and revise as Section 3.7.4 (Project Impacts) discusses potential hazards that could result because of the necessary,standards of construction proposed project's location in a Methane Overlay District. The project would comply with City (consistent with this LCP)within identified specifications necessary to maintain standards of construction required within the Methane Overlay Methane Overlay Districts. District. 3.7-14 City of Huntington Beach iI 3.7 Hazardous Materials City Specification 431-92 The City of Huntington Beach Specification 431-92, Soil Clean-Up Standard (City Specification 431-92), dated July 30, 1992 governs investigation and remedial efforts of contaminated soils. The Huntington Beach Fire Department (HBFD) is the local oversight agency for soil remediation. Depending on the history of a site and other environmental factors submitted, a developer may be required to demonstrate that the soil meets the Soil Clean-Up Standard. If soil remediation is required, a remediation plan is required to be submitted to the City Planning, Public Works, and Fire Department for review and approval in accordance with City Specification No. 431-92. Soil cleanup standards for TRPH-impacted soils are set at less than 500 mg/kg and 1,000 mg/kg for residential and commercial sites, respectively. However, at sites where EPA Test Methods 8015M, 8020 and 8270 are met, as expected at the project site, the soil cleanup standard is less than 1,000 mg/kg for residential sites and 2,000 mg/kg for commercial sites. 3.7.3 Thresholds of Significance Impacts of the proposed project on hazards would be considered significant if the following were to occur: • Project is located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, creates a significant hazard to the public or the environment 3.7.4 Project Impacts Although the site is not on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5, due to the site history, for the purposes of this analysis, hazards to the public would be considered significant if the project construction or operation would increase the frequency or severity of exposure to a health hazard from existing or former on-site or adjacent uses. Impact HAZ-1 ,Grading and excavation of the site could expose construction personnel and the public to contamination present in the soil associated with former on-site uses. Grading and excavation activities associated with project development at the proposed project site could result in the exposure of construction personnel and the public to hazardous substances in the soil. Remediation activities would occur during grading and excavation in the areas of archaeological sensitivity and in the area surrounding the existing water pipeline that would be,relocated as part of the proposed project. Receptors could be exposed to hazardous materials from any of the following: • Potential residual contaminants in areas already remediated or currently undergoing remediation + j Pacific City EIR 3.7-15 Chapter 3 Environmental impact Analysis • Contaminated areas near the water line and archaeological sensitive areas • Potential unidentified contamination in the southwestern portion of the site Exposure pathways include the following: • Direct dermal contact with hazardous materials • Incidental ingestion of hazardous materials (usually due to improper hygiene, when workers fail to wash their hands before eating, drinking, or smoking) • Inhalation of airborne dust released from dried hazardous materials Environmental concerns at the project site primarily stem from previous oil production activities and former structures. As is typical of former oil field properties, construction activities involving grading and excavation could expose workers to contaminated soils and other hazards associated with abandoned oil wells, including the potential presence of methane, which is commonly associated with abandoned oil wells. The standard conditions of approval for the City of Huntington Beach include compliance with all applicable State and local regulations pertaining to abandonment of oil wells and remediation of associated hazards. City of Huntington Beach requirements include City Specification 422, which in addition to all procedures contained therein, requires that an applicant obtain a permit to abandon or re-abandon each oil well from the California Department of Conservation, Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR) prior to commencing any operations (the DOGGR would, therefore, act as a responsible agency for any actions pertaining to oil well abandonment); City Specification 429, which specifies requirements for permits for construction within methane districts (i.e., in the vicinity of abandoned oil wells), including the provision of methane barriers for structures; and City Specification 431-92, which establishes soil cleanup standards. Compliance with all applicable State and local regulations and permit conditions, minimizes risks during construction associated with oil contamination at the project site. As described in Section 3.7.1 (Existing Conditions), asbestos contamination at the project site in the areas where the former Huntington Shores Motel and Grinder Restaurant were located, and lead contamination in the south-central portion of the project site, have been remediated according to federal, State, and local regulations. Furthermore, the presence of low concentrations of three VOCs (2-butanone, acetone, and styrene) in the soil located in the northern half of the project site is not considered an environmental concern, as the concentrations of all three chemicals are several orders of magnitude below U.S. Environmental Protection Agency preliminary remediation goals. In addition, the presence of a low pH in one soil sample and mercury in another soil sample taken from the project site are not considered hazardous by virtue of their levels., As such, impacts during construction associated with soil contamination from - 3.7-16 City of Huntington Beach 3.7 Hazardous Materials asbestos, lead, VOCs, mercury, and low pH levels, with respect to the areas on-site where these contaminants have been identified below regulatory limits, are considered to be less than significant. As discussed in Section 3.7.1 (Existing Conditions), exposure of construction personnel and the public to hazardous substances could occur at :the project site in relation to potential soil contamination from PCBs associated with former transformers and electrical enclosures. As previously discussed, three transformers mounted on a utility pole and a metal electrical enclosure on the western portion of the project site were observed on site. The metal enclosure remains on the site. However, it has not been determined if this enclosure contains a transformer or other unit that could result in PCB contamination. As such, the risk exists for residual contamination of the soil resulting from PCB leakage, and this impact would be potentially significant. Due to the site history, the potential remains for soil contamination to be present. Residual oil could be present in the areas remediated,'and this cannot be confirmed until closure reports have been submitted and accepted by the City Fire Department that verify the site has been satisfactorily remediated. Soil contamination could occur from various sources, although the primary concern is residual oil contamination. As noted above, PCBs may also be present in the soil in the location of the metal electrical enclosure. In addition, full characterization of the soils in the southwestern portion of the site has not been completed. The site cleanup process overseen by the City of Huntington Beach Fire Department would ensure that soils are characterized for potential contamination and that remediation is completed in . compliance with CitySpecification 431-92. Further, once the area to the existingwater main and p ' padjacent areas of archaeological sensitivity have been remediated as part of project construction, verification' of successful remediation in these areas would be necessary. Residual contamination would remain a possibility in these areas until closure reports are submitted that verify the site has been remediated, and impacts would be potentially significant While not anticipated once closure reports have been submitted, the possibility remains for unidentified soil contamination (which were not encountered during the soil sampling activities), or for unidentified underground storage tanks to be encountered during grading or excavation activities associated with the proposed project. It is possible that underground tanks may have been in use at the project site prior to permitting and record keeping requirements. If any unidentified sources of contamination are encountered during grading or excavation, the removal activities required could pose health and safety risks, such as the exposure of workers, materials handling personnel, and the public to tank contents, hazardous materials, or vapors. Such contamination could cause various short-term or long-term adverse health effects in persons exposed to the hazardous substances. In Pacific City.EIR. 3.7-17 Chapter 3 Environmental Impact Analysis addition, exposure to contaminants could occur if these contaminants migrated from the contaminated zone to surrounding areas either before or after the surrounding areas were developed, or if contaminated zones were disturbed by future development at the contaminated location. Although it is not anticipated, due to the extensive testing, characterization and remediation already completed to date, the potential exposure of construction personnel or the public to remnant hazardous substances from former on-site uses and facilities at the project site exists, and this would be a potentially significant impact. Impact HAZ-2 Grading and excavation of the site could result in damage to existing abandoned oil wells. As discussed in Section 3.7.1 (Existing Conditions), 20 abandoned oil wells are located throughout the project site. Wells were re-abandoned in accordance with DOGGR standards between 1997 and 1999. Because development would occur over a majority of these wells with the proposed project, the potential exists for grading and excavation activities to damage these abandoned oil wells during construction of the project. In addition, the proposed underground parking structures serving the project would extend down to approximately 22 feet below ground level. There is the possibility that some abandoned oil wells at the site may be located above the proposed floor grade of these structures. In this case, these abandoned oil wells would need to be cut and reabandoned. If the existing oil wells are damaged, health and safety risks could be posed to construction workers and the public through exposure to well contents (by direct dermal contact and/or ingestion) or vapors, as well as contamination of the soil at the project site. In addition, soil contamination resulting from damage to existing abandoned oil wells could also spread from the contaminated zone to surrounding areas either before or after the surrounding areas are developed. As such, impacts associated with risks from existing abandoned oil wells on the project site are considered to be potentially significant. Impact HAZ-3 No residual contamination is anticipated that would affect visitors and residents of the proposed project. Although remediation of oil-impacted soils at the project site resulting from former oil production activities have mostly been completed, there remains a possibility that some contaminated soil could remain that may not have been detected. Remediation remains underway, and some remediation would occur during project construction in conjunction with monitoring of the areas of archaeological sensitivity and relocations of the existing water pipeline. Due to the migratory nature of oil in the soil, the risk remains for oil contamination to exist in soil areas that have not been previously trenched for sampling and investigation. Impact HAZ-1 identifies risks to construction workers and the public due to potential on-site contaminants. Mitigation measures detailed below would ensure that any remaining contamination risks are addressed during grading and excavation activities. As such, any residual oil contamination remaining in the soil would be detected 3.7-18 City of Huntington Beach 3.7 Hazardous Materials and properly mitigated prior to operation of the proposed project. Therefore, impacts associated with residual oil contamination at the project site during project operations would be less than significant. 3.7.5 Cumulative Impacts This cumulative impact analysis considers development of the proposed project, in conjunction with other development within the vicinity of the project in the City of Huntington Beach. Risks associated with hazardous materials are largely site specific and localized, and are thus limited to the project site. Additionally, site-specific investigations would be conducted at sites where contaminated soils or groundwater could occur to minimize the exposure of workers to hazardous substances. As such, the potential for cumulative impacts to occur is limited. The related development projects in the City of Huntington Beach include uses similar to the proposed project, such as hotel,retail, and residential. Related development in the City and the adjacent communities could result in development on land previously used for oil production activities, and/or the demolition of existing structures, which may contain hazardous materials. Adherence to applicable regulations and guidelines pertaining to abatement of, and protection from, exposure to oil, asbestos, lead, and other hazardous materials would ensure that impacts from those activities would not be cumulatively considerable. Development of cumulative projects could expose construction workers and the general public to potentially hazardous substances. For example, if demolition of existing buildings is required, short-term increases in hazardous materials generation, due to the presence of lead-based paints and asbestos-containing materials in existing facilities could occur. However, projects would be required to comply with applicable federal, State, and local regulations. All demolition activities that would involve asbestos or lead based paint would comply with SCAQMD Rule 1403 and OSHA Construction Safety Orders that would ensure hazardous materials impacts would be less than significant. Site-specific investigations would be conducted at sites where contaminated soils could occur to minimize the exposure of workers to hazardous substances. Adherence to these requirements would ensure that impacts from exposure to substances in the soil would not be cumulatively considerable. Since the proposed project would not require the demolition of any structures on the project site, the project would not contribute to this cumulative impact. 3.7.6 Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts The following standard City requirements (CR)would apply to the project. Pacific City EIR 3.7-19 Chapter 3 Environmental Impact Anatysis CR HAZ-A Prior to issuance of grading permits, the project shall comply with all provisions of the Huntington Beach Fire Code and Fire Dept. City Specifications 422 and 431 for the abandonment of oil wells and site restoration. CR HAZ-B Prior to the issuance of grading permits and during construction, the project shall comply with all provisions of the HBMC Section 17.04.085 and Fire Dept. City Specification 429, Methane District Building Permit Requirements. CR HAZ-C The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Municipal Code, Building Division, and Fire Department as well as applicable local, State and Federal Fire Codes, Ordinances, and standards. In addition to the standard City requirements listed above, mitigation measures (MM) would be required to address project impacts. The following mitigation measures would be required to address potentially significant impacts associated with exposure of construction personnel and the public to contaminated soil, as described under Impact HAZ-1. The overall intent of these mitigation measures is to ensure remediation of contaminated soils prior to proposed development. MM HAZ-1 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, a Registered Environmental Assessor shall pe form a site inspection to identify the potential for presence of PCBs on the site. If • the potential for PCBs exists, then the Applicant shall, in consultation with the City of Huntington Beach, sample soil surrounding the affected areas to identify the extent of contamination. Contamination shall be remediated in accordance with MM HAZ-3 and MM HAZ-4. MM HAZ-2 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, sampling shall be performed in the area identified in Figure 3.7-1 as "Area D."The extent of sampling shall be determined by the Huntington Beach Fire Department as that which is appropriate to characterize the extent of any potential contamination in Area D. Contamination shall be remediated in accordance with MM HAZ-3 and MM HAZ-4. MM HAZ-3 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the Applicant shall, in consultation with the City of Huntington Beach and other agencies, as required,formulate a remediation plan for further soil contamination that exists on the project site. The plan shall include procedures for remediation of the project site to the City of Huntington Beach standards. Plans shall be submitted to the Planning, Public Works, and Fire Departments for review and approval in accordance with City Specification No. 431- 92. The plan shall include methods to minimize remediation-related impacts on the surrounding properties, including processes by which all drainage associated with the remediation tort shall be retained on site and no wastes or pollutants shall escape the site and requirements to provide wind barriers around remediation equipment. 3.7-20 City of Huntington Beach 3.7 Hazardous Materials Q_ualifi'ed and licensed professionals shall perform the remediation activities and all work shall be performed under the supervision of the City of Huntington Beach. MM HAZ-4 Closure reports or other reports acceptable to the City Fire Department that document the successful completion of required remediation activities for contaminated soils, in accordance with City Specification 431-92, shall be submitted and approved by the City Fire Department prior to issuance of grading permits for site development. No construction shall occur on-site until reports have been accepted by the City. Closure --- reports will not be required in the area identified in Figure 3.7-1 as "Area C" until remediation of this area has occurred as part of project construction; these reports will be required pursuant to MM HAZ-6. If remediation is necessary pursuant to MM HAZ-3, then grading permits for this remediation shall be issued. MM HAZ-5 In the event that previously unknown soil contamination that could present a threat to human health or the environment is encountered during construction, construction activities in the immediate vicinity of the contamination shall cease immediately. A risk management plan shall be prepared and implemented that (1) identfi'es the contaminants of concern and the potential risk each contaminant would pose to human health and the environment during construction and post-development and(2) describes measures to be taken to protect workers and the public from exposure to potential site hazards. Such measures could include a range of options, including, but not limited to, physical site controls during construction, remediation, long-term monitoring, post-development maintenance or access limitations, or some combination thereof. Depending on the nature of contamination, if any, appropriate agencies shall be notified(e.g., City of Huntington Beach Fire Department).A site health and safety plan that meets OSHA requirements shall be prepared and in place prior to the commencement of work in any contaminated area. The developer shall ensure proper implementation of the health and safety plan. MM HAZ-6 Closure reports documenting the successful completion of required remediation activities for (1) areas adjacent to the existing water main on site and (2) areas of archaeological sensitivity shall be submitted and approved by the City Fire Department prior to issuance of building permits in these areas. The following mitigation measures would be required to address potentially significant impacts associated with damage to existing abandoned oil wells at the project site, as described under Impact HAZ-2. MM HAZ-7 Where construction is proposed over abandoned oil wells, the developer shall consult with DOGGR to determine if plug or replug of wells is necessary. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the Applicant shall submit evidence of consultation with DOGGR indicating wells have been plugged or abandoned to current DOGGR standards. Pacific City EIR 3.7-21 Chapter 3 Environmental Impact Analysis MM HAZ-8 In the event that abandoned oil wells are damaged during construction, construction activities shall cease in the immediate vicinity immediately. Remedial plugging operations would be required to re-plug the affected wells to current Department of Conservation specifications. Depending on the nature of soil contamination, if any, appropriate agencies shall be notified (e.g., City of Huntington Beach Fire Department). The developer shall ensure proper implementation of the reabandonment _ operation in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations. Implementation of MM HAZ-1 through MM HAZ-8 would address risks during construction due to previous uses of the project site. Impacts associated with hazards and hazardous materials would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. Impact HAZ-3 would be less than significant, as described above. • 3.7-22 City of Huntington Beach 3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality 3.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY This EIR section analyzes the potential for adverse impacts on hydrology or water quality resulting from implementation of the proposed project. The Initial Study (Appendix A) identified the potential for impacts associated with violation of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, degradation of water quality, inundation, and the alteration of existing drainage patterns in a manner which would cause substantial erosion, siltation, or runoff that would lead to flooding, exceeding capacity of stormwater drainage systems, or additional sources of polluted runoff. Issues scoped out from detailed analysis in the EIR include depletion of groundwater supplies or interference with groundwater recharge, as the City's groundwater wells are located a minimum of two miles inland from the project site and the City does not 1-rely on groundwater that close to the ocean due to saltwater intrusion, and exposure of people or structures to a significant risk involving flooding because the construction of levees along the Santa Ana River to reduce anticipated flood levels by 6.5 feet prompted FEMA to revise flood maps to demonstrate the estimated flood level to be below the elevation of the project site. In addition, the proposed project would not place housing or structures within'a 100-year flood hazard area. Data used to prepare this section were taken from the City's General Plan and the Drainage Study Including Preliminary Hydrology Analysis and Water Quality Analysis, prepared by Hunsaker & Associates dated April 14, 2003, portions of which are included as Appendix G. Full bibliographic entries for all reference materials are provided in Chapter 7 (References) of this document. Comment letters on the IS/NOP pertaining to hydrology and water quality were received from the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, the County of Orange Planning& Development Services Department, Orange County Coastkeeper, the California Coastal Commission, and individuals. 3.8.1 Existing Conditions • Regional Hydrology The City of Huntington Beach is located within the Santa Ana River Basin(SARB), a 2,800-square-mile area located roughly between Los Angeles and San Diego. The SARB is a group of connected inland basins and open coastal basins drained by surface streams flowing generally southwestward to the Pacific Ocean. The SARB can be divided into an upper basin and a lower basin. Lower Basin drainage is dominated by the flood control dam at El Prado. The Santa Ana Canyon, which separates Chino Hills from the Santa Ana. Mountains, is the major drainage of Orange County. The lower Santa Ana River has been channelized and modified so that in most years flows do not reach the Pacific Ocean but are used to recharge groundwater. Pacific City EIR 3.8-1 AI - Chapter 3.Environmental Impact Analysis The City is located in the SARB and within the Talbert Watershed District, which includes multiple tributary areas that contribute urban runoff along existing'drainage channels. The Talbert Watershed covers 21.4 square miles straddling the mouth of the Santa Ana River. It includes portions of the cities of Costa Mesa, Fountain Valley, Huntington Beach, Newport Beach, and Santa Ana. Two main tributaries drain this watershed: on the western side, the Talbert and Huntington Beach Channels drain through the Talbert Marsh before emptying into the Pacific Ocean. On the eastern side, the Greenville-Banning Channel empties into the Santa Ana River. Area wide Drainage Facilities The Orange County Flood Control District(OCFCD)is responsible for the design, construction, operation, and maintenance of regional flood control facilities. The County flood channels are maintained annually, and maintenance includes debris and vegetation removal. The existing storm drainage channels were originally designed to accommodate 25-year flood events or less, the standard at the time.' However, when the channels were constructed, they were built to accommodate only 65 percent of the 25-year flood event. The channels were built with restrictive channel bottoms, which reduce the amount of water the channel -- could carry, but which slow the flow rate of runoff water while still enabling the system to remove runoff water. The County now uses 100-year flood event standards for new storm drain construction and drainage improvements, and portions of the channels have been improved to accommodate up to a 100-year storm event. The City of Huntington Beach is responsible for its own subregional and local drainage facilities (refer to Figure 3.8-1). The City owns and operates 15 storm drainage channel pumping stations that pump the runoff water into the channels and to the ocean. The City's channels,,originally designed to accommodate up to 25-year flood events, are constructed at ground level, or at grade. The at-grade channels exacerbate the flooding potential because the amount of water that may be pumped into an at-grade channel is less than a below-grade channel. As a result, those areas flooded in a storm are most likely flooded because the pump stations are unable to pump a sufficient amount of water into the channels. If additional water is pumped, the channels may overflow. 6 Probabilistic assessments are given to define 10-year,25-year,and 100-year flood events.For a 25-year flood,for example,this means a given flood event has a one-in-twenty-five(4 percent)of occurrence in any given year,or a"return period"of once every 25.years.Such assessments are based upon statistical frequency of collected data.In hydrology,there are actually three types of comparative assessments:(1)rainfall within a given time interval;(2)peak stream flow;or(3)volume of flow caused by a single storm event or sequence.Each of these attributes can be measured and counted as discrete data points to provide statistical comparison or frequency analysis.As a consequence,a location could experience a 25-year storm,a 25-year peak flow event,or a 25-year flood,all of which may or may not be independent of one another. 3.8-2 City of Huntington Beach SO .SA AVE.. e 1 to , v"-i vs 1 \ I McFADDEN .. J AVE, `fit .. .. ... ... .,.. .-_ } .. EDINGER . :1 AVE. e 1 f 1 p I 'L ° i AVE. 2 .. .. w I t y.. V7 2 '0 I _, _�_O I tn 8 (WARNER I o ...�. SLA R asiAVE.iiJ zi 6 '� TAL13ERT AVc '/¢ a \\\00y ELLIS. i, AVE. ( 4. I • i GARF1£;E D$ /YORKTOWN, C AVE. CI , �p • t�� ADAMS AVE. t '\ �� \ /�6, / INDANAPOLUS * AVE. °a P ASWPS ., ATLANTA AVE. !co - u w H LEGEND NLTON m AVE. """."' ••. _ CITY CHANNELS ,4� * — CITY PUMP STATIONS •� I *BANNIN9 4d, z IAVE. — COUNTY CHANNELS Gov • t / -- COUNTY PUMP SEAT ON 1 — PROJECT SITE ice__,ram_ 0 1/2 I MALE 1 FIGURE 3.8-1 ,--EIR-, Drainage Channels and Pumping Stations p.:�SO(.IATII.ti iSOURCE:City of Huntington Beach 1996b 10261-00 City of Huntington Beach•Pacific City EIR Chapter 3 Environmental Impact Analysis Drainage Facilities Affecting the Project Site The project site has the potential to affect drainage facilities at the Atlanta Stormwater Pump Station (ASWPS) and the First Street Storm Drain System (FSSDS). Conditions at each of these facilities are discussed below. The ASWPS is located at Atlanta Avenue, just east of Beach Boulevard, northeast of the project site, as indicated on Figure 3.8-2, and has an existing pumping capacity of 551 "cubic feet per second (cfs). Stormwater entering the ASWPS is discharged into the Huntington Beach Channel (HB Channel D01). A large tributary area (618 acres, including the project site) flows into the ASWPS. Current surface runoff flows southerly towards Atlanta Avenue and east into the existing system at Atlanta Avenue and Delaware Street, through ASWPS, to the Huntington Beach Channel. A 100-year storm event yields approximately 1,125 cfs of runoff; consequently the ASWPS, by City estimates,requires a capacity of 1,125 cfs to provide protection for a 100-year storm event, and is therefore currently 574 cfs under capacity. The County of Orange is currently constructing improvements along the Huntington Beach Channel, with an expected completion in the summer of 2004. These improvements will increase the efficiency of the channel to a level capable of accommodating a 100-year storm event. The FSSDS consists of an existing 36-inch pipe located in First Street, from the intersection of Olive t' -' Avenue. This existing drainage line serves the Downtown area and conveys runoff across PCH to the Pacific g '{ Ocean, where the runoff discharges at South Beach via an open ditch. The Downtown drainage area, ~_r consisting of 26.1 acres west of the project site, is approximately bounded by Orange Avenue/Atlanta Avenue to the north, First (Lake) Street to the east, PCH to the south, and Third Street to the west. The City of Huntington Beach is currently planning construction of a new (future Alabama Street storm drain "FASSD") system in First Street to provide improved flood control protection. The new system will provide flood control protection to the Alabama Street drainage area, located north of the project. The FASSD is proposed to be constructed from Alabama Street to First Street, and connect to the existing FSSDS drainage line. The improvements to the First Street storm drain system are proposed and would occur independently of the proposed project. 3.8-4 City of Huntington Beach tj I WARNER AVE 1 AVE 1 a al 11 INf3Ii1NAPCX6 AVE — < ATLANTA " AVE ,t,,,,,,,,o s 4e\ ASWPS , HAMILTON AVE +' n < �, PACIFIC CITY LEGEND PROJECT 00 PROJECT AREA TALBERT VALLEY DRAINAGE WATERSHED N\ \''\'',, ASWPS.DRAINAGE AREA DOWNTOWN, DRAINAGE AREA ALABAMA STREET DRAINAGE AREA FIGURE 3.8-2 Tnn VicinityMap&Drainage Areas Not to Scale w._.�I��l'"'............,... 9 ,_.. "'$°"'"' ., Cityof Huntington Beach•Pacific CityEIR - SOURCE:Hunsaker&Associates Irvine,Inc.2003a 10261-00 9 Chapter 3 Environmental Impact Analysis On-Site Drainage Patterns The on-site drainage area boundary is approximately 34.6 acres and includes the project site as well as approximately 2.9 acres along Huntington Avenue and PCH. All on-site flows are currently directed via sheet flow and a graded ditch to an inlet located at the southeastern end of the site (refer to Figure 3.8-3). This discharge is conveyed to the existing 42-inch reinforced concrete pipe in Pacific View Avenue, through the ASWPS, and eventually to the Huntington Beach Channel. A summary of existing on-site discharges in 25- and 100-year flood events based on current rainfall data obtained from,the 1986 Orange County Hydrology Manual is shown in Table 3.8-1 below. Table 3.8-1 Pre-Development Drainage Conditions (Post-1986 Values) Storm Event(Year) On-Site Area(cfs) 25 48.6 100 67.0 SOURCE: Drainage Study and Hydrology Analysis by Hunsaker&Associates Irvine,Inc.,dated April 14,2003 Water Quality Stormwater pollutants include a wide array of environmental, chemical; and biological compounds from both point and nonpoint sources. In the urban environment, stormwater characteristics depend on site conditions (e.g., land use, perviousness, pollution prevention), rain events (duration or intensity), soil type and particle size, multiple chemical conditions, the amount of vehicular traffic, and atmospheric deposition. The EPA estimates that short-term runoff from construction sites, without adequate erosion and runoff control measures, can contribute more sediment to receiving waters than that deposited by natural processes over a period of several decades. Stormwater quality in the City of Huntington Beach is typical of most urban areas in that it includes a variety of common contaminants. These pollutants consist primarily of suspended sediments, fertilizers and pesticides, animal waste, and contaminants that are commonly associated with automobiles (e.g., petroleum compounds such as oil, grease, and hydrocarbons). In addition, urban stormwater often contains high levels of soluble and particulate heavy metals generated from traffic, industrial facilities, and occasionally, residential sources. These metals are frequently found in concentrations that are harmful to aquatic life and other biota dependent on aquatic life as a food source. Two of the most common metals found in both the water column and sediments are zinc and copper. Zinc tends to exhibit toxicity effects in the fresh water environment; copper exhibits toxicity characteristics in the marine environment. 3.8-6 City of Huntington Beach _._ __ ,._ ____ . „ , , , , , Maio ' _ ' ., _, _ _, ___. _ _ . . .. 4 .... ASWPS .) .6, '. ,-31ff°%:S " Its4:?:144, "((` -: % 4...-5.7--;•,-0.-;91,T541'.,V.,21e, Cli -I A-. ,,... g,,,./44,":///4 40 1 •.idikt tc,,, 4.1.,a, ,t,°, ,.-...(7,,,, ,_ ..„.,./....,„.....„,.......... ,,, ,,,,,,,...,.., „.,....„ , r- c:, ,,, ,.....i.), , .,....,...„,,,,,,". -,,€f tO fis„: ,,,s'' : , , •.,1,.„ LI --1 (N..y---/,,,,,b-Z,„,, -0 4!/,././„...,/,,, , i ,0",',.=;''' .--..• A .-,i, z r-1 LEGEND: ,,._, (-`1„,, ,&• 4,,," /&./.•ev- '.(,"\AV:4 4 4.'040-, ,:.-"N. ,..'." ..;:, ,;(4,-.4 ;/,4 •-• 4 ,,',.' ',ANA'. ,;. sv--...,e` CC l'47-4'''S-'':':•,.,=,4,.......".°4 ' EXISTING DRAINAGE 1 --I /.04,,,',f.,:i...4,:q!, ,,/•-• 4 Cef)4)1,/,c'AV•f„ :45,4k 7.14,`1 1 Z o 2 : BOUNDARY ,-"1 Tri'-, , .1'.?f:----7----•' 5(k',;74,°' , A te i.i./'4.§)>Y:=9' ...,=-M.;.s.\.. (33, fa A € ::,,,,A /;;;3..,. .:.,: t°,6a,'.. ---/-•(//a4`1.1-1,T.t"'"'2-.:"'93'f4'N' x * ? E 0 EXISTING STORM 4 li rl LI V jr ,,4-%.,:\N-:„:,(,,Fq;!.--/",,,, /4.., , ,,•'.'0-,,,/,-:-..,5;,5,1„,„,.,4, - z R:"....' -*-- - DRAIN LINE flp ,- I,,''''• 4:.-_ :,•-•---_,/ ' /4'tv/ft, ev?sot,/, ,r/„Au , 1 ,-p.., EXISTING STORM v,fp,ti ,, 4,pa.,-4,f.--::1"A )47/14Wr4 I'l:-'// ;.)e.;"'';;'.;/,');%, )- 1 I i i i A., ill,.,,,. /., 4 .., \\,'''.!:,,,1(kta44/4,14//0,',,-‘;;I:'/'-'r i'-'3V. ,.. /3. t i 48 13 40. me tvz*mat — EXISTING i.41 , a?(<0.11 ,k1 I (---\.4 i*,:t.......,...$itril:-. ..i<Y41,///:7/7/411?-4 2.6%:\,'"1 4„,k1.1 I 6° DRAIN CHANNEL 3•,..- F7RST STREET-.-..ncil 11 a filt.D.A4,4 , I' \„,tiff& 4*M4"--".„..'01)1/72,4t4 1$I ,..)/1.....,,i/4*\4p'1; 444-1.- •••••*1"` EXISTING DRAINAGE STORM DRAhV',=!.:, f ir,'It 1 n'li te#A1.5' 4 4''''',A •Ver4 ,(1.1/ '''''' 1:-/ .") 44\ PATTERNS 74 4 p•Ill,,,4, ''' .\\‘k,,4:7-,-,s-,s_" ,.,,?),),,,,,z,),,y6;/.,I.:>1,t4.,,,,,‘ 4,—, ja, '.4,s• ,1_, „A4 2.4Naik.,' , ,,, : NI.•,...4)04 ,./‘ 2 ' ' •"/"` 'w,'f-..,\ W 4':'--44' b •" 1 4V:::',"\\4 Y'' 4 4 .•' ,/' NkAfe'''''(/1'4.41: i,'4 ''' ';1•Nk:"\,\ '', t k", ..) ...a. /EXISTING I fl 14149? f . ;.iszls),X' .'s -, 4\.4 4 VA.11'.1?""...:;k0 4 R. S a .:44-..,, ,...'t„ $,••.? "1,r:s• 43 ›. 42"RCP t . 3W ,„.,1 /.1 ,Zk'... ,,,:\ . ,,Ni1/4, 4`7.,,. 7,t 1 ,/ ,,,,,, c\: ,,, =*,,-tvv,,, , := 't 4 -,1 /- . \-,,,I . -,,,,,„ c*,=4..;.' ;''',. '''''..• ; i 4 '''<• CkIN''04 4 01 I i'° ) f•I'' (4 4'''' ‘‘..''''.:1Y.'d\t/71ikd Aid' 7r'''' <4.\14f.)1//'4114 f I'''''.4 .4.'s...,,,,,\<",,.%.c,:k% !:::tA, ,i!Asins..,_, thli t k in, -0 t. -- --,,_—.) , .,, ,r, ,„„ --;.-7,m1a..ftl,;,,,oa.:-,:z•ik,-'4. -.. ..,„ _,:,...,„.) ;,,?,•4, ,... ,..,, 4,, x '''';'' t jfik 4 j 4\-N' '''',,,›,/;..,' "' " kl, ..,, ,_,7,1i.,,p,./.„It4 41174,v,,,,'1,V . "-, A- `,,,, 'Q 4V <3. ,•, 4—gr., (-- ''i '-' / 4 1;:W",•:*trel 4 ''444>-4r-A',4?''''',1%4 '':".:•.*r -,-..S.'''cf44.'%'tg"4fiTif-' .. `',. ,,-.4''' 1,,44,14 N›C .,,,,,,-.11.• i''',--4,1 I;(41,, ,"i4„45Ser4.4'&.1-•-i.% <,''''.',''Air?:k.. V,.40.9V,3• 4 ''''' 'Z... '''''ffrA''''''':4:1';;;4'.°41 ''''''' :\":;•''''i EXISTING INLET ;1 e'''2- ' :!ii Li 'f$7,:,r>.• 4-',44Z4/1Viv:Y1, ',47,c,c.-- '),, —4.,'-..,--1'''•-1-.3,- ,4„, _.0,.3if ) -,, 4,f‘;‘....i,,,;:`. ,..x414.., ,,,,,,s t..,.; e.5.;,.,,‘,„,,,,,e.p.,..4- ,4 ,t,,,,,A54.24,,,..), ...,44, / 4,,Nk,,,,1 "1\4'1:(itifittlifil411;i1.:i:,,:\:"Ai.:4-,,,: (:: :1::,..::\;‘,.;.4 .11i1:4::•;:rilirli\5,t!A: I p - : ,,, , ..,) ---,,,,, •••`•:/.. 4.4g 444,-. % ' `1.,.4A ' 4 3.1"?\•'''' ,d'''A, ;",,,40,05fi''..::Aza,';•'`4'''..a1:1),,_:'..,..‘z.,,;...,4, ,4 ,1•'' ..e...,,,t4 f(,-.1-1<fj,,,,,..„,?•-,-,i ' ...„4-----',A;),'4,7,;,n,'*,,,s-,.. '." al41&e.A.Ves-, ,,,c",,,,,,;.p`%,-.W,,,„,,...,,,,,,,, -4 :3,---, :.. ‘;:,,,k i4..,N tq:atx;r4-iz-----'z ..xik:.."T.T.*w,,,Ag.::A2u.,:,,..:,-,,f,:,.,.,-.„ ss 44 •',„.„4 ",...•• l'.''''1--, 4-4,•'-'1• 1........-••+' ,,. ,.:"7."'"..H.... f.:-.7".. ., ,,,-,-,- ir..,---.4- / •••`*'''''7."7"...:47'l'';'-- 4- ‘,......r... .:7362;-5,,,,,,....`• 4,--1,747•45', 4,;:7*-'.47,-"-• ,.....„:,:fifOAetFk•-ertYOT:;+ll =4• 4PftisrrW7-',,N.4CirliV44 11TR,A74.4.4gkargAMIXIA' §3•04.-e4,4'©...r-‘43,.'..,.,.ar.,-&:,*4,vT,,,,,,,,,•....yE-..,--%73.5.:„. )- tilc,,,.‘;'' --,g,,,,,f. L•..,., ,', ---44-RIleo•,,,:i;11...,,,r-757.7,1,-"',w,-e,'-"".4-eh... :,.', ,,,,,...,•_.t.:-.i.'--L..,. •l..i:'.-----. '___ 4 . ,..._,.............., • FIGURE 3.8-3 Not to Scale '''---E I P-. , _...,... Existing Hydrology City of Huntington Beach•Pacific City EIR A$SOCIAT“ 10261-00 SOURCE:Hunsaker&Associates Irvine,Inc.2003a yl Chapter 3 Environmental impact Analysis I The ASWPS provides water quality protection for urban runoff. During dry weather and low-flow drainage events, the water from the ASWPS is discharged into the Orange County Sanitation District sewer lines. This allows for treatment of nuisance runoff.' The majority of pollutants are transferred from impervious surfaces to receiving waters during nuisance flow conditions. r- Tsunami Tsunamis are seismically generated sea waves caused by sea-floor displacements (faulting or landslides), or similar large-scale, short-duration phenomena, such as volcanic eruptions. The tsunami warning system in the United States is a function of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) National Weather Service. When a large earthquake occurs near the coast in the North Pacific the regional warning q � � system in Alaska, known as the Alaska Tsunami Warning Center (ATWC), determines the location (epicenter) and magnitude of the event. If an earthquake is considered to be great enough to generate a tsunami, the ATWC will issue an immediate "Tsunami Warning" for the area near the epicenter. This warning is issued through state emergency services offices, Coast Guard, military, FAA, National Weather Service, and other agencies. The elevation of the tsunami run-up beyond the initial tidal elevation can be generally estimated from "maximum" past occurrence in California (estimated at 4 or 19 feet) from distant (South Pacific-South America-Alaska) or local (Santa Barbara Channel) earthquakes. The City of Huntington Beach Emergency Management Plan predicts the following wave heights, exclusive of tide and storm-generated wave heights, for a 100-year and 500-year tsunami occurrence: 100-year Occurrence 500-year Occurrence 4.0 feet minimum - 6.8 feet minimum 6.6 feet average 11.4 feet average 9.2 feet maximum 16.0 feet maximum No known tsunami has ever reached the Orange County coast, but in 1964, following the Alaska 8.2 earthquake, tidal surges of approximately four to five feet hit the Huntington Harbor area, causing moderate damage. The tsunami threat to the City of Huntington Beach is considered low to moderate. Because tsunamis result from large offshore earthquakes and ocean landslides, local earthquakes would not generate a tsunami in the City. Because the City of Huntington Beach has southwestern-facing beaches, the City is vulnerable to tsunamis or tidal surges from the south and from the west. According to the City of Huntington Beach A Nuisance flows are those flows occurring primarily during dry weather(non storm drainage)that discharge into the storm drain system,and include runoff from irrigation of landscape,washing of cars,driveways,and sidewalks,etc. 3.8-8 City of Huntington Beach • 3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality General Plan, the eastern portion of the project site is located in a moderate tsunami run-up area (Figure 3.8-4). Of the six Huntington Beach Primary Danger Areas'for tsunamis, which are listed in order of ?_" priority, the project site is located in "Primary Danger Area 4" under the City of Huntington Beach Emergency Management Plan. The suggested evacuation site for a tsunami incident in"Primary Danger Area 4"is Westminster High School, located at 14325 Golden West Street in Westminster. 3.8.2 Regulatory Framework The following subsection is brief summary of the regulatory context under which surface and groundwater resources are managed at the federal, State, and local level. Clean Water Act . The 1972 amendments to the Clean Water Act (CWA) prohibit the discharge of pollutants to navigable waters from a point source (a discharge from a single conveyance such as a pipe) unless the discharge is authorized by a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. In 1987, in recognition i ,, . that diffuse, or nonpoint, sources were significantly impairing surface water quality, Congress amended the CWA to address nonpoint source stormwater runoff pollution in a phased program requiring NPDES permits for operators of municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s), construction projects, and industrial facilities. The purpose of the NPDES program is to establish a comprehensive stormwater quality program to manage urban stormwater and minimize pollution of the environment to the maximum extent practicable (MEP). The NPDES program consists of (1) characterizing receiving water quality, (2) identifying harmful constituents, (3) targeting potential sources of pollutants, and (4) implementing a i a_, Comprehensive Stormwater Management Program (CSWMP). The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) has adopted a statewide General Permit (WQ Order 99-08-DWQ) for stormwater discharges associated with construction activity. These regulations prohibit the discharge of stormwater from construction projects that include 5 acres or more of soil disturbance, unless the discharge is in compliance with the NPDES Phase 1 General Permit. Construction activities 1 subject to this permit include clearing, grading, and other disturbance to the ground, such as stockpiling, or excavation that results'in soil disturbance of at least 5 acres of total land area. In addition, as required by NPDES, because construction on the project site would occur over an area greater than 1 acre, the Ideveloper would be required to submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) to the SWRCB for coverage under the permit and would be required to comply with,all its requirements. 1 1 Pacific City EIR 3.8-9 \ I cc c d-- • • SEAL 1 HEST INSTER BEACH • • - • c • 6 cc I -» ti FADD N in ci >- to 91 t I •®°i ED NGEI� \ � • .. y. Hitt . 1 ( 1 .,,,,• •Vz•,:, " r % 1AtARtdER FQtlD7AlI �' sk Ft141:ii Mel rl Mg** SLATER , • 3 e SWI 4bF'�£:y�:r a i, ut:ReE ��.yy,}. , gan C Ut YC3i _....... I TALBERT `E LSA C I t= Ir l t1:eatilll.1,:,.,47,...:!:::x.i:::::;44).$0.!P ..--•.-...._----• ` ELus 5 • en 0 Cr S y s I ( s;...-I. ,,�.�.It::::\ • S \/ - \\ -- . . �,. \ - j INDIA NAPOLIS 11 PACIFIC ,/`• ii xq� /.. S � p1' OCEAN ,0111.44.0 q �£ �i,, l AT1 AN A . ' P (,w 4 3 � 1~ PIER � ' • I s 24, '---jai HAM?ILTC N i fi q�`Oo: • p,}i.{{{jjj :i ;•RZi i 1 BANNING 1 1 ����`` ,��ram' 1 r Tw 'x �" , 1fj{f COSTA r m >�= f MESA LEGEND . • i .*°'`' City Boundary N• , rs Moderate Tsunami Run-UP Area , ■■■■ Project Site Boundary FIGURE 3.8-4 Not to Scale , ..---EIR-- Moderate Tsunami Run-Up Area SOURCE:Cityof Huntington Beach 1996b T 9 10261-00 _ m City of Huntington Beach•Pacific City EIR ,` 3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality The NPDES General Permit requires all dischargers to (1) develop and implement a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan,(SWPPP), which specifies Best Management Practices (BMPs); (2) eliminate or reduce nonstormwater discharge to storm sewer systems; and (3) develop and implement a monitoring program of { all BMPs specified. The two major objectives of the SWPPP are to (1) help identify the sources of sediment, and other pollutants that affect the water quality of stormwater discharges and (2) to describe and insure the I implementation of BMPs to reduce or eliminate sediment and other pollutants in stormwater as well as nonstormwater discharges. Basin Plan Existing water quality issues have been identified in the watershed planning process and are incorporated in _n the Water Quality Control Plan (WCQP) for the Santa Ana River Basin (Basin Plan). The Basin Plan designates beneficial uses of the waters of the region and specifies water quality objectives intended to 4_,, protect those uses. The Basin Plan also specifies an implementation plan describing actions that are necessary to achieve and maintain water quality standards, and regulates waste discharges to minimize and control their effects. Dischargers must comply with the water quality standards contained in the Basin Plan, and the proposed project would, therefore,be required to be consistent with this plan. Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan In order to ensure that construction sites implement the appropriate pollution control measures, the 2003 Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan(DAMP) details recommended BMPs to be applied to new development and significant redevelopment in Orange County. These regulatory requirements ensure that stormwater quality management is considered during a project's planning phase, implemented during f construction,.and maintained for the life of the project. Routine structural BMPs may function either to minimize the introduction of pollutants into the drainage system or to remove pollutants from the drainage system. Applicable structural and nonstructural BMPs implemented on the site for source control and pollution prevention to minimize the introduction of pollutants into the drainage system would depend on the ultimate configuration of the proposed land use. Appropriate residential and retail/office center nonstructural BMPs listed in the DAMP that may be used on site to control typical runoff pollutants include homeowner/tenant education, activity restrictions, common area. landscape management, BMP maintenance, common area litter and animal waste.control, catch basin inspection, employee training, and private street/lot sweeping. The proposed project would include these BMPs and would therefore be consistent with this plan. Pacific City EIR 3.8-11 Chapter 3 Environmental Impact Analysis City of Huntington Beach General Plan The City of Huntington Beach advances public safety and welfare in the City through its General Plan Elements and compliance with applicable local regulations in the Huntington Beach Municipal Code. The Utilities Element of the Infrastructure and Community Services Chapter of the Huntington Beach General Plan (1996) contains goals, objectives, and policies related to water quality and storm drainage. These policies are set forth below in Table 3.8-2, along with an analysis of the consistency of the proposed project with the specific policies. Table 3.8-2 General Plan Utilities Element—Policies Applicable to Hydrology and Water Quality Policy Project Consistency Objective U 1.2.Ensure that existing and Conformance with implementing policies in the General Plan and NPDES permit requirements new development does not degrade the would result in conformance with this objective. City's surface waters and groundwater basins Goal U3.Provide a flood control system Conformance with implementing policies,as discussed below,results in conformance with this goal. which is able to support the permitted land uses while preserving the public safety; upgrade existing deficient systems;and pursue funding sources to reduce the costs of flood control provision in the City. Objective U 3.1.Ensure that adequate Conformance with implementing policies in the General Plan and NPDES permit requirements storm drain and flood control facilities are would result in conformance with this objective. provided and properly maintained in order to protect life and property from flood hazards. Policy U 3.1.1.Maintain existing storm The proposed project includes improvements to storm drain infrastructure to'adequately serve the drains and flood control facilities,upgrade project.These improvements,in connection with planned improvements to the City storm drain and expand storm drain and flood control system,ensures conformance with this policy. facilities. Policy U 3.1.3.Monitor the demands and The proposed project includes improvements to storm drain infrastructure to adequately serve the manage development to mitigate impacts project.These improvements,in connection with planned improvements to the City storm drain and/or facilitate improvements to the storm system,ensures conformance with this policy. drainage system. Policy U 3.1.4.Design,preserve,and The proposed project includes improvements to storm drain infrastructure to adequately serve the acquire land,as necessary,for storm project.These improvements,in connection with planned improvements to the City storm drain drainage and flood control facilities. system,ensures conformance with this policy. Policy U 3.1.5.Limit new development, The proposed project includes improvements to storm drain infrastructure to adequately serve the when necessary,until adequate flood project.These improvements,in connection with planned improvements to the City storm drain control facilities are constructed to protect system,ensures conformance with this policy. existing development and accommodate new development runoff,or until mitigation is provided in accordance with the Growth Management Element. , Policy U 3.1.6.During development The project site is located outside of the 100-year flood plain.Therefore,substantial flood flows review,determine if any structures meant would not be redirected by placement of structures on the project site.The proposed project would for human habitation are constructed be consistent with this policy. within the 100-year flood plain.If necessary,evaluate the structures'flood , safety,and require remedial actions. 3.8-12 City of Huntington Beach 3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality I ' Table 3.8-2 General `Plan Utilities Element—Policies Applicable to Hydrology and Water Quality Policy Project Consistency Objective U 3.2.Ensure the costs of Conformance with implementing policies in the General Plan and NPDES permit requirements infrastructure improvements to the storm would result in conformance with this objective. drain and control system are borne by those who benefit. Policy U 3.2.1.Require improvements to The proposed project includes,as a condition of approval,improvements to storm drain the existing storm drain and flood control infrastructure to adequately serve the project.The costs of these infrastructure improvements are to '" facilities necessitated by new development be borne by the developer.Therefore,the proposed project is consistent with this objective. be borne by the new development benefiting from the improvements;either through the payment of fees;or by the actual construction of the improvements in accordance with State Nexus Legislation. Objective U 3.3.Ensure that storm drain Conformance with implementing policies in the General Plan and NPDES permit requirements facilities(channels and outputs)do not would result in conformance with this objective. generate significant adverse impacts on the environment in which the facilities traverse or empty.' Policy U 3.3.1.Evaluate any existing The proposed project includes as part of its Water Quality Management Plan installation of filtration environmental degradation or potential and screening devices to promote maximum water quality in stormwater runoff.With implementation degradation from current or planned storm of this plan and BMPs;the proposed project would not be expected to adversely impact wetlands or drain and flood control facilities in other sensitive environments and would be consistent with this policy. wetlands or other sensitive environments. Policy U 3.3.2.Where feasible,utilize The proposed project's infrastructure improvements will connect to the existing City storm drain natural overland flows„open channels, system.No new channels would be constructed as part of the project.Therefore,the proposed and swale routings as preferred project would be consistent with this policy. alignments for components of drainage systems. Policy U 3.3.3 Require that new The proposed project includes as part of its Water Quality Management Plan installation of filtration developments employ the most efficient and screening devices to"promote maximum water quality in stormwater runoff.With implementation drainage technology to control drainage of this plan and BMPs,the proposed project would be consistent with this policy. and minimize damage to environmental sensitive areas. Policy U 3.3.4.In areas of known Storm drains installed as part of the proposed project would conform to City of Huntington Beach ' subsidence,require new development to and Orange County Flood Control standards,and would thus be consistent with this policy. _I minimize the use of cross gutters and utilize technology such as low-flow storm drains. The Environmental Hazards Element of the Hazards Chapter of the General Plan includes policies related to flooding risk, described below in Table 3.8-3. Iw t _ Id Pacific City,EIR 3.8-13 , Chapter 3 Environmental Impact Analysis Table 3.8-3 General Plan Environmental Hazards Element—Policies Applicable to Hydrology and Water Quality Policy Project Consistency Goal EH.4.Eliminate,to the greatest As discussed in the Initial Study,the project is not located within a 100-year flood zone as defined degree possible,the risk from flood hazards by FEMA flood insurance rate maps.Therefore,conformance with;implementing:policies contained to life,property,public investment,and in the General Plan results in conformance with this goal. social order in the City of Huntington Beach. Objective EH 4.1.Ensure that the City's Conformance with implementing policies,as discussed below,results in conformance with this flood prevention standards and practices objective. provide satisfactory safeguards for public and private development. Policy EH 4.1.1.During major The project site is not located within a 100-year flood zone as defined by FEMA flood insurance redevelopment or initial construction, rate maps.The Initial Study identified that the risk from flooding was less than significant and no require specific measures to be taken by further analysis was required in the EIR.Stormwater runoff measures will be implemented as part developers,buildings,or property owners in of the proposed project,which,in conjunction with planned improvements in the City storm drain flood-prone areas to prevent or reduce system,would ensure that stormwater runoff would not significantly increase as a result of the - damage from flood hazards and the risks proposed project.Therefore,the proposed project would be consistent with this policy. upon human safety. Goal EH 5.Protect human life,to the Conformance with implementing policies,as discussed below,results in conformance with this greatest extent feasible,from tsunamis and goal. seiche hazards. Objective EH 5.1.Provide information Conformance with implementing policies,as discussed below,results in conformance with this regarding tsunami,seiche,and tidallmarine objective. hazards,and promote methods to minimize potential damage. Policy EH 5.1.1.Identify tsunami and As noted below,the proposed project is subject to tsunami hazards because the eastern portion of seiche susceptible areas,and require that the project site is located in the designated moderate tsunami run-up area in the General Plan. specific measures be taken by the Although tsunami flooding may pose a hazard to some buildings constructed as part of the project, developer,builder,or property owner, past experience indicates that the potential for tsunami damage in the City is low.In addition,the during major redevelopment or initial risk of tsunami hazards has been accounted for in the City of Huntington Beach Emergency • construction,to prevent or reduce damage Management Plan,which designates the project area as Primary Danger Area 4 and suggests an from these hazards and the risks upon evacuation site for the area in the event of a tsunami incident.Conformance with implementing human safety.(Also refer to Policy C policies results in conformance with this policy. 10.1.19,Natural Resources Chapter, Coastal Element.) • The Coastal Element of the Natural Resources Chapter contains policies pertaining to urban runoff and drainage in the coastal zone. The project site is located in Zone 4 (Downtown) of the coastal designation. Table 3.8-4 describes policies pertinent to the proposed project as well as analyzes project consistency with these policies. 3.8-14 City of Huntington Beach 3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality Y -v Table 3.8-4 General Plan Coastal Element—Policies Applicable to Hydrology and - , Water Quality Policy Project Consistency Policy C 6.1.1.Require that new The proposed project includes as part of its Water Quality Management Plan installation of filtration development include mitigation measures. and screening devices to promote maximum water quality in stormwater runoff.With implementation 1 to enhance water quality,if feasible;and, of this plan and BMPs,the proposed project would be consistent with this policy. at a minimum,prevent the degradation of . water quality of groundwater basins, wetlands,and surface water. Policy C 6.1.25.Require that new Stormwater runoff calculations for the project site indicate that there will be an increase in surface development and redevelopment drainage as a result of the proposed project.The proposed project includes numerous open space minimize the creation of impervious areas and landscaped areas.The project would not alter natural streams or substantially interfere with S~'; and,where feasible,reduce the extent of surface water flows,but would alter surface water flows by diverting the majority of runoff to the First existing unnecessary impervious areas, Street storm drain system.Improvements to the existing City storm drain system in conjunction with and incorporate adequate mitigation to infrastructure improvements constructed by the proposed project ensure that surface runoff would be minimize the alteration of natural streams accommodated within the existing City storm drain system.Therefore,the proposed project would be and/or interference with surface water consistent with this policy. flows. Policy C 10.1.14.During major The project site is not located within a 100-year flood zone as defined by FEMA flood insurance rate redevelopment or initial construction, maps.No encroachments into the floodplain would result from the proposed project.The Initial Study require specific measures to be taken by identified that the risk from flooding was less than significant and no further analysis was required in developers,builders,or property owners the EIR.Stormwater runoff measures will be implemented as part of the proposed project,which,in in flood-prone areas to prevent or reduce conjunction with planned improvements in the City storm drain system,would ensure that stormwater damage from flooding and the risks upon runoff would not significantly increase as a result of the proposed project.Therefore,the proposed ! a human safety.Development shall,to the project would be consistent with this policy. V° maximum extent feasible and consistent with the Water and Marine Resource policies of this Local Coastal Plan,be designed and sited to(a)avoid the use of protective devices;(b)avoid encroachments into the floodplain;and (c)remove any encroachments into the floodplain to restore the natural width of the floodplain. Policy C 10.1.18.Maintain the City's The proposed project includes improvements to storm drain infrastructure to adequately serve the portion of the flood control system at a project.These improvements,in connection with planned improvements to the City storm drain level necessary to protect residents from system,would ensure conformance with this policy. 100-year flood risks.Upgrades to the flood control system shall incorporate the best mitigation feasible. Policy C.10.1.19.Identify tsunami and As noted below,the proposed project is subject to tsunami hazards because the eastern portion of seiche susceptible areas and require that the project site is located in the designated moderate tsunami run-up area in the General Plan. specific measures be taken by the Although tsunami flooding may pose a hazard to some buildings constructed as part of the project, developer,builder,or property owner past experience indicates that the potential for tsunami damage in the City is low.In addition,the risk during major redevelopment or initial of tsunami hazards has been accounted for in the City of Huntington Beach Emergency Management construction to prevent or reduce damage Plan,which designates the project area as Primary Danger Area 4 and suggests an evacuation site from these hazards and the risks upon for the area in the event of a tsunami.Conformance with implementing policies results in human safety.Development permitted in conformance with this policy. tsunami and seiche susceptible areas shall be designed and sited to minimize this hazard and shall be conditioned to prohibit a shoreline protective device. The Growth Management Element contains policies pertaining to urban runoff and drainage in the coastal zone. Table 3.8-5 identifies goals and objectives presented in the Growth Management Element of the Pacific City EIR 3.8-15 Chapter 3 Environmental Impact Analysis General Plan related to hydrology and water quality that are potentially relevant to the proposed project. This table also includes an assessment of the proposed project's consistency with the policies adopted in support of these goals and objectives. _ Table 3.8-5 General Plan Growth Management Element—Policies Applicable to Hydrology and Water Quality Goal,Objective,or Policy Project Consistency Goal GM 7.Provide a flood control system Conformance with implementing policies,as discussed below,results in conformance with this goal. capable of supporting permitted land uses while preserving the public safety;upgrade existing deficient systems;pursue funding sources to reduce the costs of flood control - provision to the City. Objective GM 7.1.Ensure that adequate Conformance with implementing policies,as discussed below,results in conformance with this storm drain and flood control facilities are objective. provided and properly maintained in order to protect life and property from flood hazards. Policy GM 7.1.2.Provide a local storm drain The proposed project would not place housing or structures within a 100-year flood hazard area.The system that will accommodate a 100-year County of Orange is currently constructing improvements along the Huntington Beach Channel,with floodplain storm. . an expected completion in the summer of 2004.The improvements will increase the efficiency of the channel to a level capable of accommodating a 100-year storm event.These improvements,in connection with planned improvements to the City storm drain system,ensures conformance with this policy. 3.8.3 Thresholds of Significance The proposed project would result in significant impacts on hydrology or water quality if it would do any of the following: ■ Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements ■ 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 • 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 • Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff • Otherwise substantially degrade water quality • Result in inundation by tsunami 3.8-16 City of Huntington Beach 3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality 3.8.4 Project Impacts Impact HYD-1 The proposed project would not violate water quality standards, waste discharge requirements, result in substantial sources of polluted runoff, or otherwise substantially degrade water quality. For the purposes of this analysis, effects from violation of water quality standards, waste discharge requirements, or degradation of water quality would be considered significant if discharges associated with ' the project would (1) create pollution, contamination, or nuisance as defined in Section 13050(k) through (m)8 of the California Water Code or (2) cause regulatory standards, as defined in the applicable NPDES stormwater permit number CAS618030, Water Quality Control Plan or the City's Stormwater and Urban Runoff Management Ordinance for the receiving water body, to be violated. Alterations to the existing S ' drainage pattern of the site or area that would result in substantial additional polluted runoff as, defined by Water Code Section 13050(k) through (m), would be considered significant if the project affects the rate or change in the direction of movement of existing contaminants or,expands the area affected by contaminants. Construction Discharges • As discussed in Section 3:6 (Geology and Soils), the proposed site is greater than 5 acres in-size, and is subject to the provisions of the General Construction Activity Stormwater Permit adopted by the SWRCB. One of the purposes of this permit is to ensure minimal water quality effects from stormwater runoff. The j-, developer for the proposed project must submit a Notice of Intent(NOI) to the SWRCB for coverage under the Statewide General Construction Activity Stormwater Permit and must comply with all applicable Ji requirements, including the preparation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), applicable NDPES regulations, and BMPs. ~I; 8 This section of the water code provides definitions for various terms used to discuss water quality,as follows: (k) "Contamination"means an impairment of the quality of the waters of the state by waste to a degree that creates a hazard to the public health through poisoning or through the spread of disease. "Contamination"includes any equivalent effect resulting from the disposal of waste,whether or not waters of the state are affected. (1) (1)"Pollution"means an alteration of the quality of the waters of the state by waste to a degree which unreasonably affects either of the following: (A)The waters for beneficial uses. (B) Facilities that serve these beneficial uses. ^�` (2) "Pollution"may include"contamination." (m)"Nuisance"means anything which meets all of the following requirements: 6 r (1) Is injurious to health,or is indecent or offensive to the senses,or an obstruction to,the free use of property,so as to interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of life or property. (2) Affects at the same time an entire community or neighborhood,or any considerable number of persons,although the extent of the annoyance or damage inflicted upon individuals may be unequal. (3) Occurs during,or as a result of,the treatment or disposal of wastes. Pacific City EIR 3.8-17 Chapter 3 Environmental Impact Analysis The SWPPP is a separate document that is site-specific and provides guidelines to identify impacts on and mitigation of stormwater discharges and water quality during construction. The SWPPP identifies BMPs (stormwater, nonstormwater, and post construction), site monitoring, including reports and revisions, - responsible parties, and training in the implementation of the BMPs. The SWPPP must describe the site, the facility, erosion and sediment controls, runoff water quality monitoring, means of waste disposal, implementation of approved local plans, control of post-construction sediment and erosion control measures, maintenance responsibilities, and nonstormwater management controls. Inspection of construction sites before and after storms is required to identify stormwater discharge from the construction activity and to identify and implement controls where necessary. An outline of the proposed SWPPP for the project can be found in Appendix G of this document. In addition, the project would be required to comply with all NPDES permit requirements during and post construction, which would ensure that impacts with regard to pollution in stormwater discharges would be less than significant. In addition, all construction activities would comply with Orange County guidelines for excavation and grading, the City's Grading Manual, and the Huntington Beach Municipal Code. These guidelines include specifications designed to minimize effects from erosion during construction. For instance, the Municipal Code identifies, defines, and provides,regulation for erosion control systems that are part of construction projects in order to ensure maximum effectiveness. Therefore, compliance with the Statewide General Construction Activity Stormwater Permit requirements and other applicable requirements with respect to excavation and grading would ensure that impacts related to construction stormwater discharge would be less than significant. Operational Discharges The proposed project is required by the City to develop and implement a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)that, upon approval, would serve as the manual to maintain water quality in conformance with the NPDES Permit and County of Orange DAMP. The WQMP would be specific to the expected pollutants that would be present in the stormwater flow from the site after completion of construction. The WQMP would also detail the specific operation and maintenance of each structural and nonstructural BMP. Some of the BMPs may be as simple as street-sweeping on a monthly basis, while other BMPs may include programs to educate the public on the proper disposal of hazardous/toxic wastes, pickup and disposal of animal feces, regulatory approaches, and detection and elimination of illicit and illegal dumping. The WQMP would outline the types of BMPs being used and outline a routine maintenance schedule for each BMP, in compliance with the DAMP and local regulations. The WQMP is established from industry and agency historical data and the best available information or initial concept and design. 3.8-18 City of Huntington Beach 3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality A Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (PWQMP) has been developed for the project and outlines the comprehensive approach that would be used in the attainment of water quality goals required for the proposed project(Appendix G). This plan conforms to the NPDES Permit and current DAMP, and supports the City's commitment to the protection and enhancement of -coastal water quality. The plan also complements the goals and mission statement of the City of Huntington Beach Citywide Water Quality Management Plan Task Force. The PWQMP serves as the foundation of the fmal WQMP and explains the methodology used to determine the types of management practices that,are best suited for the proposed project, to achieve the required water quality levels as detailed by the DAMP and local requirements. The PWQMP includes filtration (treatment of runoff from the site) as a key component of the overall system. Pollutant loads for existing and developed conditions were calculated to determine recommendations and requirements for filtration. These requirements would be achieved on the project site through the use of a series of state-of-the-art pollutant filters incorporated into the storm drain system. rr 1 These filters are described in technical detail in the drainage report prepared by Hunsaker & Associates (Appendix G). In conjunction with these filters, a screening unit is proposed, which would provide additional screening of stormwater and.is primarily focused on the treatment of trash, debris, and larger solids. On-site drainage areas would have first-flush and dry weather flows treated by these systems. After treatment, the first-flush and dry weather flows would be discharged into the storm drain system in Pacific View Avenue, as well as into the drainage system in First Street that is proposed as part of the project, and further discussed in impact HYD-2. If additional treatment of petroleum hydrocarbons is required, specialized filtration inserts can be installed to reduce these pollutants. In addition, as part of the comprehensive stormwater treatment plan, the proposed project would incorporate the requirements of DAMP Section 7, including all feasible recommended BMPs. Other BMPs may include programs to educate the public on the proper disposal of hazardous/toxic wastes, pickup and disposal of animal feces, regulatory approaches, and detection and elimination of illicit and illegal dumping. 1J Plans for grading, drainage, and erosion control would be reviewed by the City Engineer prior to issuance of grading permits. With implementation of these BMPs and the WQMP, all impacts related to water quality would be reduced to the maximum extent practicable, as required by the DAMP and City regulations, and would be considered less than significant. The proposed project does not currently anticipate the need for dewatering for the development. Should site conditions or future project revisions require a dewatering program, the program would be developed in accordance with the California Regional Water Quality. Control Board, Santa Ana Region, Order No. 93-49, NPDES Permit No. CAS618030, and Template Monitoring and Reporting Program No. 98-67. Pacific City EIR - 3.8-19 Chapter 3 Environmental Impact Analysis __` Impact HYD-2 The proposed project would alter the drainage patterns of the site, but not in a manner that would create substantial flooding, erosion, or siltation on or off site, or result in substantial additional polluted runoff. L Alterations to the existing drainage pattern of the site or area that would result in flooding would be considered significant if the project results in or exacerbates existing localized flooding during periodic rainfall, expands the area affected by flooding, or creates or contributes runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems. For purposes of this analysis, the proposed project would have a significant impact if it substantially alters the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner that would create substantial erosion or siltation on or off site. Overview The proposed project would be divided into two separate drainage areas with separate storm drain systems, as illustrated by Figure 3.8-5. The intent of this configuration would be to reduce runoff directed to the ASWPS. The predevelopment drainage area of 34.6 acres, currently tributary to the ASWPS, would be reduced to a 7.7-acre area designated Drainage Area "A." The balance of the site would be designated Drainage Area"B," and would be directed to the proposed project-specific drainage system in First Street, discussed below. Table 3.8-6 compares first flush discharges.pre- and post-development, and Table 3.8-7 summarizes post-development conditions for the discrete drainage areas. First-flush discharges to the ASWPS would be reduced from 5.0 cfs to 1.2 cfs. Discharges to First Street would be 3.8 cfs. The reduction in flows directed to the ASWPS from the reconfiguration of the drainage areas on-site would result in a reduction in 100-year storm flow from 67.0 cfs to 21.8 cfs to the ASWPS. All proposed drainage improvements would be designed and constructed in accordance with the standards set by the City of Huntington Beach and the Orange County Flood Control District. Table 3.8-6 Summary of First Flush Discharges Discharges to: Area"A"(cfs) Area"B"(cfs) ASWPS(existing) Total 5.0 from both areas ASWPS(with project) 1.2 0 First Street(existing) 0 0 First Street(with project) 0 3.8 SOURCE: Drainage Study Including Preliminary Hydrology Analysis and Water Quality Analysis,Hunsaker&Associates,April 14,2003a. 3.8-20 City of Huntington Beach I- I L. 3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality I Table 3.8-7 Projected Drainage Conditions(in cfs) Storm Event Drainage Area`B"—prior to Drainage Area'B"— (Year) Drainage Area"A" detention post-detention 25 16.7 66.1 20.0 100 21.8 85.2 20.0. -- SOURCE: Drainage Study Including Preliminary Hydrology Analysis and Water Quality Analysis,Hunsaker&Associates,April 14,2003a. Drainage Impacts—Area "A" Area "A" would be serviced by a proposed)system of inlets and underground pipe conduits joining the _ ' existing 42-inch storm drainpipe at the intersection of Pacific View.Avenue and Huntington Avenue. With implementation of the proposed project, a maximum of 21.8 cfs would be permitted to be discharged into the existing 42-inch pipe in Pacific View Avenue. Drainage Area "A" has been sized appropriately to this discharge limit for, estimates of a discharge of 21.8 cfs in a 100-year event. The expected discharge to the ASWPS is well below both the designed allowable discharge of 34.4 cfs and the current condition of 67.0 cfs discharged during a 100-year event(refer to Appendix G, Section 1, page 4). 4 ', • Drainage Impacts—Area "B" The storm flows from Drainage Area"B"would flow west to First Street. The project proposes to construct a storm drain line in First Street that would exclusively serve the project site. This line would run parallel to the existing City 36-inch line in First Street. The project-specific storm drain line would then connect to the L._ City's 36-inch South Beach Storm Drain south of PCH. As required by the City Public Works Department, the project would be limited to flows of 20 cfs from Drainage Area "B," based on overall planned pipe _ capacity of the City system. ^, As shown in Table 3.8-7, post.project hydrology of Area"B"would result in runoff of 66.1 cfs in a 25-year �r storm event. As a result, a reduction in discharge of about 46 cfs would be required in order to limit the discharge to 20 cfs. An on-site underground detention basin is proposed to accomplish this reduction. A i — volume of about 0.82 acre-feet is required for the required reduction in discharge. Flows exceeding attenuation limits would be allowed to run off via surface streets, and the drainage study has indicated that , , the volume of this runoff would not impact drainage systems or flood traffic lanes. According to the Orange County-Local Drainage Manual, habitable structures require protection for a 100- year event. The proposed City drainage system.along First Street and the proposed project Area "B" drainage system are designed to convey flows from a 25-year event. For storms above the 25-year event and upthe to 100 ear event, site discharges would be conveyed via surface street flow along First Street, thus Y g meeting flood protection goals. The site is above the 100-year flood elevation defined by FEMA. 1~! Pacific City EIR 3.8-21 . ••\;,‘Y\ V \..., .....„":„. FUTURE .--,--, .7,\\ ,,--;;,r--c-.,1-i \ ii ..,,,' ---' • ....W•wh,. ,-\•,\ ...e '••,,,, REO:7-1,•• •••• . ./.." -4,1..)' • ..4.1:0,00t )1---)0,,, AtASBTMORAM$ IRREAETIN--''' \(:...,\:* .7/;I:r.,._,,e01114,-):,;: . \+ „.„....,-../4,,.,—„,,,.,„..,,,,,s,,,. ,„,, 4 '•..&i:uftw.:,%:,m*,:kaw, ' LEGEND; ...........„....„„_ •)s " ,AbgtelfiEtallaSTORM, '"°,4 •k,,, g-,,.„q-,;••:,,'.-,•:,-"4,mgmmotawooffpi,::* \ . \l„,,,4‘•••:::, s,,.„,./.1 -7.--- ;';,,,,,,,,-;4.,,:k&k.„4,,m*.:..,•w,,,ms,,,,1:14i,v,,,,,,b4,,v0.1,, .. -, . --N"\ 44 ---- --- --1,t--C" .:.•.., ---•>/ -:,...414111,'"45,s.'111111 1,%11110,g--tirliP,,A-4.\\,•::,:\`-',.• ---., .1.7---Kt- _ , ,,-,•-,-;kamko,ow-4:;•.;:ataigafttmg•?ow .amv-aikt.--s, - • • • - -,--;...,,,,,'• ,NoPt•tiene-•.4.,,,,i,,,ig,,w64A;44:tml*:44?,,-qa.amela,,,:y„, ,a, ROT, ''''"\q„.-.....46,.&,,, • •-•-7--- • •....p::•-x,':',N63,:wisolAnnows*ftmagq •mmo,,,,,,,,NIL-..., • , 7.e. ,fsi.„---ostokaimitykongketwesoiamoim,-",,, : tt, ,, • FUTURE • faPPrtO4gt,4VPPtID4P0t1_.,.4.PP,al.b..j, 14,14," --t.:70;41Akfttli STORM ALABAIAA STREET , ;.,:0p1,06440024154.PPW.NAPPAY4PaPPMPIAKWaikM“ \I" i-uTORE-A LARAMA ST--RE-ETTY ...,: ST°RM DRA-1N i i 0/4.061,11.401#01eMOVNOOL-4,12,01.4rAINNOM\ . ...— — — DRAIN INSTALLED BY CITY STORM ilif i6C11011110100.10111.11M14,PeniOlnoSETZ*A\ „,,,... , „„,, „,..,,,::„,,,.,„,...„, , „,„„,,,:,:,,,,,....„.„,„:„...„ , .. ,..,„:„\ STORM DRAIN SYSTEM 1 i'.•1:SOMANWOVV"R530.0. 4M1ANR . Catimmeagg3p4, ,,,,toM,.‘\ - t. emlk.ctragnimenkrafinfok,\A,,z,molow4IMAileattg0F,V.T-?' \ I !f-,f0.:i,:MUM%ONNIMManaptiROSMOSZNOORP.k:' ltag-VRIMRE00 :21;(, ,, ouvE AVE ----‘ ;1416in,00"0,PANLAyaggrammilogr,,,A.,,Aintifigtompitt , -al-'''''''''''llig.:°71'....." INSTALLEDD:RR.AOII:NAA GGELE AREA R4IRS Tr:OpRA:12 I I FIDGRAI;nyillkE --------- ' •-—-.14.,a,.,..:,,,mR14_,:,ilataitqw-AM*.e.OMMt:Mtan*A.V•,:i,:*.",:l'n: ,,vN*,,,,t0 ' En. --- IIP,&:42&1'-1,=J;44,1W1P445TP1MPUPT1patiEn;l' NAlagovarAwg, IMAM )t:1::•fiiiaPPiWA1PegitieraMMAPIPPPORITTR,PIAIPIOPOPOPP,1- 1 CONNECTION TO eq::'41,4*. p4PO4PROPAtgletegil4P41&'-,•1tiliiPttP4IPAPOPWP"41-4- 21.S.CFS ToPILengaZIN 0 A:'66:'IAISIUMSVIVkarg,'nfik.''''404/1ff,., "=,,alli r• '.'.1116-INMIMIAlkai0:1--1.• - ,...% \ S'Fiiii" STREET STORM DRAIN wka:::*:11P44;0141:1mm,''•61.Mir ,mitAr,,,,,.,,,eg:„%.,,,,•,6N0-,NFsrn,E!!,„siN,w•-•R.,,:.. 1 , .s.„,\•1.4\\ EX. STOA:Ms EXISTING CITY OF ilyNT1:GTON BEAcN.1 g '"1,t,.,mibwziot,womo-.ai:0 ,,,,Tatt,i*,,,4.033,',*„,.,_4putt.00:*),%L -4...k..4,,N TO 1 k ,4,....migauggec.uvvNtoppretviiwoms.Rwmire.A.mom,::levemmamtatik,,, 41 1.•P*AugtataWqr.::'"--!'.::,mastatit9NAIN14174DRAIN tjNE tg.ir . :?4147•AtIftt:$44,QPROPRIllieFill ."VIMPTIOSAN•*? A-L-7-iirsik: ------ ---* 4:4 2161004t 100411111PrGiaRglitili kritim,,..-IfMt.t.-±,4z.i,..1/4„, t-4c,--wk VIEW VA E. DETENTION BASIN TO ill.I kititagrittatral,A111,10,111141111411 .ift.:„ .•.-..L.7;r4.7.4•'',7,q,..,4..-11441.,I „_ Fr REGULATING , .. ..:101013!:;a4M1PRP1PkialaillaPERP6WW:itVVe••••02t6 77-''' ''•-'•V*734;°1 k'''\s`j i arc-7"-D;20 CFS MAX 1 qu:i••::i:ZSPARL_RiMespifikpol11PUMNIAWOMMEW:m''''- . ':::,,..,1,-,•••:,P.W..1•1•••:-..:E;:"..:1,::,,b .:141PRftihial /"' SCHEMATIC FLOW OFF-SITE :.rtg.!t., •0A,,!,,,,..,„,,,,,,_.,,, ,Y4?!.w.I.,0, %:mlooto,,,,,..tvg,,,,,,:,;,..:••-,:gif.tm,•-•two.,,,,.::,,,e,,,,T.:.%:,,twmig4-1,4ter• o"..44,, ' 1 1 CFS (20 CFS LIAX: .704::.'t'•n';':::, ..:••..-.--,-.:* :','ZI:=:,„,:,'•''•=4-"•• let.:04 -:•,4•T4tP :IPPVILP,V4V0 10A1k•'', ' i / . ''''•A.4,4,"ThVii, faVATalrI Vent7..'' z:•,,,t,:iika,..& '''':':',E;'.!,:: AriARP:MOW OUNA„CROM:!'69 MEW:A,t•i , ,I.A.K,.;'..:('::VROMAN.RMV;k4*Ntd :-,:;*,*C,,t'MIMI4« :f.'t':':QMENC:aW*0416:6R PV•firi :Vang ,:,:ERMO.:ii I 41 : 4666'CFS ATTENUATED) . 0,711, %:',',".''''"On't1::,,,V,•t110%110...LWAX4,,7•6,,':::;44•41q1P6.MekOMUSNAWONA:ONINORWOM*SNAL I 1 i itia.Mai*Wrg, ifirOMMOOMateittennagiANNORESOROZMINT] r i . ite I I/pi QINSPragi--Witetitilita1111111N114111magilisolmsemputtimaisinuipsigilp I i i.:11 4 igeOuNlifillarlifflommtiebi imatimitailipillselorribillespiphisEt6a :i 1 \ _. ....______ • ..;„ i i ft rumempoetwoms*-5,"twattavywinstauftlimosikv,::ommteatmodestmosei ( tiP1611111010111,01,11111,110110,10412114,110111111111tZliiti 1 ,ii . . frBT STREET i i ppePPAPL,LNOPRAISIWNIPAPP-MailatiPVP,4101AUPr 1 -i-±#441 :7,4-41•71 1. 1,3 STORM DRAIN r!i..4004W'''1 ":WM•VIONPP11,A0111PtaljggiMpe10,WP,M4ett:4044i2ertz-L7,,,f4; ....4::,•>_, j_s-,-4#-/..•.,.. 4,,,,,..-------____ •I •-,?4.,..,01M0:•A4P10141PPAPPMaiiP]•'*24:iR'' k M:,:Ri:Orrte...) EiSTING \;\ : , 1 -7:::;:::::.7:::::1.17.t.:1-1--..:...5.P..7.7.:It•:::414.:"711:.•..17-11T2-C4: *:1";.-1.-------- ‘,44 4'•,.•`•%'t.:r•i9i1N11thPiietr kr1.--"'17'.7-44', -,--1:47'."4:4;:"'"1",--;*j'i-41- 44-4,4„ -1- . :,„4::..-•• v ..."- -71-1,,,,,,.t.,414:-.Z4.47,1717.::-....t.t.4.4:1*.7 7,-4,-_-- 1-., ,..1_,:of:-1-7"..12:47'4.•74-7±,a,,,-4-•••••••• ,'.--------- __•-•- '.<-` -•-1 -r.. ,-..z.,4-4-4,,,..,................„.......... , r . HIGHWAY . 11------ '-'::''.----- ..---.' -7 • • PACIFIC COAST _ :..17.tr"--4------- r EXISTING FIRST STREEr."----16,3/4111 '''•••••,....sou•TH BEACH CITY OF HUNTIN STORM DRAIN I STORM DRAIN NOTE:IPROPOSED00rEAR FLOOD DRAINAGEGroN LEVEL SYSTEMSBEA PCROsitztvrnE0ARONDESDAstmst PLANg tiAFTLL3WrcooOERDITEMANPE RETE,DoR.. it G • t- COUNTY OF ORANGE LOCAL DRAINAGE 0 .......... . .P ,......... A$30C,AYFS 200 ,,. .. 200 100 0 10261-00 Irvine,Inc.2003a GRAPHIC SCALE:1"=200' -.E I Proposed Drainage FIGURE 3.8-5 SOURCE:Hunsaker&Associetes • ., __ . j - -' "! OK ,, , • City of Huntington Bea:I:•PacificCity E IR _ . • , lila • I I L__ 3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality While the proposed project would alter the direction of runoff flows, the drainage alterations to the site and adherence to the requirements of the NPDES permit and the WQMP would not result in exacerbation of localized flooding; in fact, the changes in the drainage patterns, as well as the proposed detention basin, would divert a significant portion of the site's surface runoff from the over•-capacity ASWPS to a new storm drain system, which would be designed to ensure adequate capacity to accommodate stormwater flows from the project site. In order to ensure adequate drainage improvements, all features of the proposed system would be designed and constructed in accordance with the standards set by the City of Huntington Beach and the Orange County Flood Control District. Plans for grading, drainage,,and erosion control would be reviewed by the , City Engineer prior to issuance of grading permits. Therefore, with inclusion of the project features designed to minimize drainage, this impact would be less than significant. Impact HYD-3 The proposed project would contribute to a reduction of flows to the over- capacity Atlanta Stormwater Pumping Station. t_ The ASWPS has a current capacity of 551 cfs, as noted above. The tributary area it services discharges approximately 1,125 cfs in a 100-year event. This indicates a capacity deficiency of about 574 cfs. Currently, approximately 177 cfs is discharged to the ASWPS from the Alabama Street Discharge Area, including the proposed project site. With the proposed City storm drain system along First Street and the proposed project's Area "B" drainage system, approximately 155.2 cfs in a 100-year event would be diverted away from the ASWPS. With implementation of the proposed project, the northerly, easterly, and southerly perimeter area shown as Drainage Area "A" on Figure 3.8-5, or 21.8 cfs, would discharge to the existing 42-inch pipe, located in Pacific View Avenue, that discharges to the ASWPS. This would be a net reduction of about 85 percent. Design flows to.the ASWPS can therefore be reduced from 1,125 cfs to 968.8 cfs as a result of the diversion of flows and the capacity deficiency reduced from 574 to 396 cfs. Thus, a beneficial impact would result from implementation of the proposed project, in that stormwater flows to } the ASWPS would be substantially reduced and fall below the design capacity of the ASWPS. Impact HYD-4 The proposed' project would result ;in the placement of additional structures in an area of low to moderate tsunami risk. Inundation by tsunami would be considered significant if the project would substantially intensify tsunami hazards and as a result, substantial damage to structures or infrastructure, or exposure of people to this risk would result. Due to its location on the coast, the City of Huntington Beach is subject to potential run-up and tsunami damage from both distant and locally generated tsunamis. The eastern portion of the project Pacific City EIR 3.8-23 Chapter 3 Environmental Impact Analysis • site is located in the designated moderate tsunami run-up area in the General Plan and may be subject to tsunami hazards. When a tsunami reaches shallow coastal areas, the incoming tide "runs up" on beaches and into harbors and other narrow inlets. Such an event could damage light-weight or poorly anchored structures. Preceding the initial wave and following each surge, the water withdrawn from these coastal areas often causes structures to be dislodged further, as they are undercut by scour/erosion and pulled seaward. According to the City of Huntington Beach General Plan EIR, the most severe damage associated with a tsunami would be in the Huntington Harbor. Although tsunami flooding may pose a hazard to some buildings constructed as part of the project, past experience indicates that the potential for tsunami damage in the City is low. In addition, policies to address tsunami hazards are included in the City's General Plan. The policies include identification of tsunami- susceptible areas; requiring developers, builders, or property owners to undertake specific measures during initial construction to prevent or reduce damage from tsunami hazards; participation in the National Service 'or other system for local tsunami warnings; and providinginformation to the public Weather y g , regarding tsunami areas and emergency response plans. In addition, the risk of tsunami hazards has also been accounted for in the City of Huntington Beach Emergency Management Plan, which designates the project area as Primary Danger Area 4 and suggests an evacuation site for the area in the event of a tsunami incident. The developer, builder, or property owner of the proposed project would be required to conform to the requirements of the Coastal Element of the City's General Plan by defining and implementing specific measures during initial construction to prevent or reduce damage from tsunami hazards. In the absence of these measures, impacts from tsunamis would be potentially significant. 3.8.5 Cumulative Impacts The cumulative impact analysis considers development of the proposed project, in conjunction with full implementation of the City of Huntington Beach General Plan. As all development is required to comply with applicable federal, State, and local regulations, cumulative development should not violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, and thereby would not result in a significant cumulative impact. Cumulative development within the City of Huntington Beach would generate similar hydrology and water quality impacts to those of the proposed project. Each of these projects would be subject to the basic requirements and mitigation measures as the proposed project to address hydrology and water quality issues. Projects involving construction on sites greater than 1 acre would be required to obtain NPDES ^, permits and construction and operation activities would occur in compliance with the Orange County DAMP. 3.8-24 City of Huntington Beach 3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality As the City of Huntington Beach is within a developed urban setting, it is not expected that full implementation of the City of Huntington Beach General Plan would result in the conversion of large amounts of open space to urban uses, and it is therefore not expected that there would be a significant increase in runoff in the City as a whole. Most of the drainage system in the watershed consists of engineered storm channels and, therefore, is expected to experience little change. Additionally, the proposed project was considered under the City of Huntington Beach's Master Plan of Drainage and, with the planned improvements to the City's storm drain system and project infrastructure, adequate drainage infrastructure would be available. Additionally, future development would be required to comply with stormwater discharge laws and to obtain the proper permits. Consequently, cumulative impacts would be less than significant with regard to this potential impact. The contribution of the proposed project to cumulative impacts on hydrology and water quality is less than significant, because stormwater flows are not expected to increase significantly overall, and because the project would result in a decrease in flows to the Atlanta Stormwater Pumping Station, which would be a beneficial effect. Cumulative development would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the area, including the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in such a manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation, flooding, or the exceedance of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems. Implementation of NPDES Phase I and II requirements are designed to ensure that cumulative development does not result in higher-than-allowed concentrations of pollutants in stormwater discharges, and appropriate stormwater treatment would ensure that discharges into the ocean would not violate water quality standards. Extensive - development is not anticipated in the remaining open spaces in the Talbert Watershed, and it is unlikely that substantial alteration of drainage systems and watercourses in those areas would occur. This indicates that the amount of runoff would not substantially increase, thereby avoiding substantial increases in erosion, siltation, flooding, and preventing the exceedance of capacity of the stormwater drainage system. As a consequence, it is not expected that impacts would be cumulatively considerable, and the project would have a less-than-significant contribution to this effect. Cumulative development is not expected to otherwise substantially degrade water quality. Substantial increases in runoff are not expected to occur, and compliance with NPDES requirements and CEQA mitigation would ensure that water quality in the watershed is not degraded by future development. Additionally, project compliance with NPDES requirements and the small amount of runoff would ensure that the project contribution to cumulative impacts is also less than significant. Cumulative impacts would, therefore, be less than significant. Pacific City EIR 3.8-25 • Chapter 3 Environmental Impact Analysis 3.8.6 Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts • The following standard.City requirements (CR)would apply to the project. CR HYD-A Storm Drain, Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPP), and Water Quality Management Plans (WQMP) conforming to 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. (a)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 dewatering operation flows, and for nuisance flows during construction. (b)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 inch per hour. 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. (c) Location of the BMPs shall not be located within the public right-of-way. Impacts to hydrology as described above under Impacts HYD-1 through HYD-3 would be less than significant. In addition to the standard City requirements listed above, the following mitigation measure (MM) would be required to address impacts associated with tsunami risks as described under Impact HYD-4. MM HYD-1 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the developer shall submit to the City for approval a plan outlining specific planning measures to be taken to minimize or reduce risks to property and human safety from tsunami during operation. Planning measures could include but would not be limited to the following: • Provision of tsunami safety information to all project residents and hotel guests, in addition to posting in public locations on site • Identification of the method for transmission of tsunami watch and warnings to residents, hotel guests and persons on site in the event a watch or warning is issued 3.8-26 City of Huntington Beach {_ 3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality ■ Identification of an evacuation site for persons on site in the event of a tsunami warning —" Implementation of MM HYD-1 would reduce risks associated with tsunamis, as discussed under Impact HYD-4, to less than significant. . l 6 • i � Pacific City EIR 3.8-27 3.9 Land Use and Planning 3.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING This EIR section analyzes the potential for adverse impacts on the existing land use characteristics of the (—, project site and adjacent areas resulting from implementation of the proposed project. The Initial Study L__ (Appendix A) identified the potential for impacts associated with conformity of the proposed project with local land use plans and policies, as well as existing and planned land uses in the project vicinity as less than significant; however, this section will address the project's compliance with applicable land use plans, policies, and regulations: Issues scoped out from detailed analysis in the EIR include physical division of an established community:and conflicts with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community iz conservation plan. Data used to prepare this section were taken from a foot survey of the area, the City's General Plan Land Use and Coastal Elements, and the Downtown Specific Plan. Full bibliographic entries for all reference materials are provided in Chapter 7 (References) of this document. • 3.9.1 Existing Conditions The City of Huntington Beach, located in northwestern Orange County, is a beach community about 35 miles southeast of Los Angeles, immediately adjacent to the Pacific Ocean. The city consists of approximately 17,730 acres, or 27.7 square miles, and contains a variety of land uses: Approximately 98 percent of the City is developed with residential, commercial, industrial, institutional, public uses, and streets/highways. Between 1 and 2 percent of the land within City boundaries is vacant, according to the City of Huntington Beach General Plan(City of Huntington Beach 1996). The proposed project is located in the City's Downtown area, as defined by the Downtown Specific Plan. The project site is a vacant parcel of land located adjacent to the Pacific Ocean and is bounded by Pacific Coast Highway (PCH) on the south, First Street on the northwest, Atlanta Avenue on the north, and Huntington Street on the east, as shown in Figure 2-2. Regional access to the City and the project site is provided by Interstate 405 (the San Diego Freeway), State Route 1 (PCH), and Beach Boulevard. Project Site Characteristics and Land Uses Although the project site is currently vacant, a variety of former uses have occurred on the site, including Southern Pacific Railroad tracks; various branches of the Los Angeles Interurban (Pacific Electric) Railroad; San Pedro Lumber Company Lumberyard and Planning Mill; Huntington Beach Light and Power Facility; -- Huntington Beach Icehouse; two Federal Supply Company warehouses for oil supplies; Municipal Auto Camp Ground for newly arrived families to Huntington Beach; beach bungalows; tent cabin campgrounds; ��� Pacific City EIR 3.9-1 Chapter 3 Environmental Impact Analysis 1 single-family homes; agriculture; oil production facilities; trailer park; Huntington Shores Motel; and the Grinder Restaurant. Construction activities on the project site have been documented since the late 1800s. The Grinder Restaurant and Huntington Shores Motel were the most recent uses located on the site; both were demolished in 2000. Oil production facilities were also previously located on the site. The majority of these uses were initially abandoned in 1988, although one well was abandoned in 1976 and another in 1979. Oil well re-abandonment was completed from 1997 through 1999. Oily soil remediation is currently underway and completion of these efforts is anticipated in early 2004. The project site is vacant, although the southwestern portion of the site was recently used as a temporary staging/storage facility for beach cleaning equipment and employee vehicles for the City of Huntington Beach. The site was also used for soil export to hotel development to the east. Soil removal activities involved the export of approximately 226,000 cubic yards of soil from the project site. Soil export was completed in 1999, there are no remaining on-site activities associated with this work, and this activity occurred independent of the development currently proposed for the project site. _ Southern California Edison currently maintains aerial transmission lines along the First Street property boundary and regional 66kV transmission facilities along the Atlanta Avenue site boundary. Surrounding Land Uses The project site is located in the City's Downtown. Surrounding land uses and zoning are as follows: • East (across Huntington Street)—Pacific Mobile Home Park, zoned as Manufactured Home Park, and Hilton Waterfront Beach Resort, zoned as Downtown Specific Plan District No. 9 • North (across Atlanta Street)—Residential uses, zoned as Medium High Density Residential—Small Lot Subdistrict • West (across First Street)—Various uses: a restaurant, vacant lots, oil production and storage facilities, small apartment units and single-family homes, zoned as Downtown Specific Plan Districts No. 3 and No. 5 • South (across PCH)—PCH and an improved urban beach, zoned as Downtown Specific Plan District No. 11 The Pacific Mobile Home Park lies across Huntington Avenue to the northeast of the project site and includes approximately 235 mobile homes and a community center. The Hilton Waterfront Beach Resort, located at 21100 PCH, immediately east of the project site, is a 12-story facility that includes 290 guest rooms, 24 suites, banquet and meeting rooms, a pool, tennis courts, and two restaurants. The Hyatt 3.9-2 City of Huntington Beach 3.9 Land Use and Planning - Regency Resort opened in January 2003 immediately to the east of the Hilton Waterfront Beach Resort. This resort offers 517 rooms, two restaurants, a guest pool and outdoor gathering areas, a retail shopping plaza, and a 52,000-square-foot conference center. A number of residential uses, including a large, three-story residential complex; one-, two-, and three- story, single-family residential units; duplexes; and small apartment complexes are located north of the site. To the west, a fast-food restaurant occupies the corner of PCH and First Street. Small apartment buildings • and vacant lots (some used to store oil production equipment or tanks) occupy the remaining properties along First Street. To the,southwest, across PCH, a beach with adjacent parking, visitor facilities and a t_J variety of recreational amenities,extends 8.5 miles from the Santa Ana River jetty through Huntington Beach to Sunset Beach/Surfside. • Approximately 0.25 mile north of the project site lays the core of the City's Downtown area. This area consists of small lots and short blocks that have been developed in a consistent grid pattern and include bricked, pedestrian-friendly crosswalks on Main Street in the Huntington Beach Pier area. Development is generally one to four stories in height on relatively small parcels, although recent development has included consolidations of sites from half a block to a full block in size.,Development is focused on visitor-serving uses, such as beachwear,restaurants, and other retail uses. The City's Municipal Pier is also located about 0.25 mile north of the project site,•at the intersection of Main and PCH. The Pier was re-built and opened in 1992 and includes a variety of visitor-serving and recreational amenities, including a restaurant, community access booth, lifeguard tower, and observation and recreational fishing platform. The Pier Plaza has more than eight acres of public space located at the base of the Municipal Pier on the ocean side of PCH, between First and Seventh Streets. The public plaza ( includes a palm court, a 230-seat 'amphitheater, a spectator area, accessways to the beach and lawn, restrooms and concessions, bicycle parking facilities, and automobile parking. Pier 'Plaza was designed as a community focal area where public speaking forums, surfing competitions,foot races, outdoor concerts and similar events are held. 3.9.2 Regulatory Framework There are no federal or State regulations related to land use that apply to the proposed project. Pacific City EIR 3.9-3 it Chapter 3 Environmental Impact Analysis _ Local Southern California Association of Governments SCAG's Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide (RCPG) and RHNA are tools for coordinating regional planning and development strategies in southern California. Policies contained in the RCPG identified by SCAG as relevant to the proposed project are identified in Table 3.9-1, and this table also includes an assessment of the proposed project's consistency with these policies. Table 3.9-1 SCAG Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide—Policies Applicable to Land Use Policy Project Consistency Policy 3.05.Encourage patterns of urban The proposed project would in-fill a site in the City's Downtown,which would minimize costs on development and land use,which reduce infrastructure and make use of existing facilities. costs on infrastructure construction and make better use of existing facilities. Policy 3.09.Support local jurisdictions' The proposed project would in-fill a site in the City's Downtown,which would minimize costs on efforts to minimize the cost of infrastructure infrastructure and make use of existing facilities. and public service delivery,and efforts to seek new sources of funding for development and the provision of services. Policy 3.10.Support local jurisdictions' The project does not interfere with the ability for the City to minimize red tape and expedite the actions to minimize red tape and expedite permitting process. the permitting process to maintain economic vitality and competitiveness. Policy 3.16.Encourage developments in The proposed project would in-fill a vacant site in the City's Downtown,which would minimize costs on and around activity centers,transportation infrastructure and make use of existing transportation corridors and areas needing recycling. corridors,underutilized infrastructure systems,and areas needing recycling and redevelopment. + i Policy 3.18.Encourage planned Due to the large scale of development proposed,the project would result in environmental impacts as development in locations least likely to identified in this EIR.However,the urban location of the site minimizes land use impacts. cause environmental impact City of Huntington Beach General Plan The City of Huntington Beach General Plan (City of Huntington Beach 1996) outlines an order of progress through which the City can grow and maintain economic and environmental integrity. As a policy, the General Plan serves as a guide to the adoption of laws necessary to execute its intent. The General Plan is composed of 16 elements, as follows: • Land Use • Urban Design • Historic and Cultural Resources 3.9-4 City of Huntington Beach 3.9 Land Use and Planning ■ Economic Development • Growth Management ■ Housing r • Circulation • Public Facilities and Services • Recreation and Community Services • Utilities • Environmental Resources/Conservation • Air Quality • Coastal • Environmental Hazards • Noise • • Hazardous Materials The applicable goals, objectives, and policies of each of the above-listed elements is discussed in the section pertaining to the relevant resource in this EIR. General Plan Land Use Element The General Plan-Land Use Element (LUE) provides the primary guidance regarding the use of land within the City of Huntington Beach. It consists of(1)the Land Use Map (refer to Figure LU-1 of the General Plan; ' Figure 3.9-1 [General Plan Land Use Map] includes the relevant portion of this map); (2) technical synopsis regarding distribution of existing land uses, special development areas, and existing land use conflicts, issues, and citywide'land use policies; and (3) implementation programs. The LUE also provides direction for development by providing typical permitted uses, permitted density/intensity, and characteristics/requirements pertaining to various land use categories. _` The LUE designates six broad categories of land uses: Residential, Commercial, Industrial, Public and Institutional, Mixed Use, and Open Space. Within each of these broader categories are more specific designations (e.g., varying densities of residential or commercial uses). I { Pacific City EIR - - 3.9-5 LEGEND LEGEND LEGEND LEGEND PROJECT SITE BOUNDARY OPEN SPACE COMMERCIAL,INDUSTRIAL,MIXED USE 15 Max.15 Units/Net Acre RESIDENTIAL OS-P PARK DENSITY SCHEDULE 25 Max.26 Units/Net Acre RL RESIDENTIAL LOW OS-S SHORE DENSITY PERMITTED DENSITY DENSITY CODE (FLOOR AREA RATIO) 30 30 Units or Greater/Net Acre PUBLIC RM RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM F1 0.36 DENSITY P PUBLIC F6 2.0 RMH RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM P SCHOOL,HOSPITAL CHURCH IUNGERLYINO DESIONATIOIV HIGH DENSITY F7 3.0 4. !i / / \ f. PRH RESIDENTIAL HIGH OVERLAY F8 1.6(MU)-0.36(C)/25 DU/AC \\,‘, DENSITY "'-a AUTO DISTRICT OVERLAY F11 2.0(MU)-2.0(C)125 DUTACpCOMMERCIAL � �'COMMERCIAL \ -d" DESIGN OVERLAY ! F12 3.0(MU)3.0(C)/35 DUTAC C'N NEIGHBORHOOD '''; �P -h HISTORICAL OVERLAY �,. *ONLY INCLUDES RELEVANT O PORTION DESIGNATIONS MAP ♦♦0 4 , �'I \, RMH-25 COMMERCIALOF ] Q ' CG GENERAL /. -sp SPECIFIC PLAN OVERLAY `� SHOWN HERE. �., `{�y • __..,. CV COMMERCIAL VISITOR -pd PEDESTRIAN OVERLAY �'►� CG-F1 _ MIXED USE OS-P �4�,: � .e_.' `��� ` j f MV MIXED USE VERTICAL ' RMH 25-d,• i ''' \ '-I~ M � �AVENUE. , i % / . '%'mi•l /, ,- . ACACIA AV �. � �'': ES����, t"`w' '.. . \'. I � , Fit"--- - 7. RMH 25 d �I s?.,. r ,./. '; •., �� ...•\ . 1 Li _ • LI .,<, {// • . 7 _I . ±si A9'tlr '4 � ,`., N \ '' * / \ e't;•)::,\ /, 2 ,--'''.// , \• '- ,,,,,,/::.' \\\\\,.X ORANGE AVENUE RH 30 i '.. r '`ems r ,...a _- _..-- 1 ._.. p P RL-22 V-F6125-s •d _. ? x ILE \ ,,,,,, -.r la i_'..S €A ..- ( ._1 A' .. Off '1 `�' y_ OLIVE AVENUE - Ct �w tiIIIt O - �+ r ( N e _ = CV F7-sp WAN CV F7 O;' _R.- E EAV-F12-sp- Ep � ._ ' it ..,,_._, -- �� �...__-- ij filJEJ Ef.1 VIL . gall `(i •is; SI" ' ' ` i;ffri El• ¢p1111 I.2 wil.L�"t.1.s..s-a-fs _ " ; ._.- tlNPil __ .11 1; . L MV F8 d-s p PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY •-�,,,__r•- T OS-C -m»zs ='77"'- PACIFIC OCEAN 16FIGURE 3.9-1 Not to Scale General Plan Land Use Map EIP... SOURCE:City of Huntington Beach 1996b. 10261-00 " 5"°`A T's City of Huntington Beach•Pacific City EIR 1 3.9 Land Use and Planning The project site contains one legal lot, with a General Plan Land Use Designation of RH-30-sp and CV-F7- sp. The RH-30-sp designation identifies the allowable land use in this designation as Residential High Density, with 30 units or greater per net acre. Typical permitted uses in the RH land use category include townhomes, garden apartments, and apartments. The CV-F7-sp designation identifies the allowable land use in this designation as Commercial Visitor uses, with a maximum floor area ratio of 3.0. Typical permitted uses in the CV land use category include hotels/motels, restaurants, recreation-related retail sales, cultural uses (e.g., museums), and similar uses oriented to coastal and other visitors to the City. The SP (Specific Plan) overlay on the entire site permits underlying land uses and requires that a Specific or Development _ Plan be formulated for large scale, mixed-use, multi-phased development projects, which provides greater specificity for land use and infrastructure plans, design and development standards, and phasing/implementation. Table 3.9-2 identifies goals and objectives presented in the Land Use Element of the General Plan related to land use that are potentially relevant to the proposed project. This table also includes an assessment of the proposed project's consistency with the policies adopted in support of these goals and objectives. Table 3.9-2 General Plan Land Use Element—Policies Applicable to Land Use Goal,Objective,or Policy Project Consistency Goal LU 1.Achieve development that Conformance with implementing policies,as discussed below,results in conformance with this maintains or improves the City's fiscal viability goal. and reflects economic demands while maintaining and improving the quality of life for the current and future residents of Huntington Beach. Policy LU 1.1.2.Promote development in The proposed project promotes development in accordance with Huntington Beach's Economic accordance with the Economic Development Development Element,as visitor-serving commercial development will broaden and stabilize the Element. City's economic base.The goals and policies of the Economic Development Element are formulated to provide new policy direction for the City and the planning area.The project would provide a range of employment opportunities,through visitor-serving commercial and hotel uses. Goal LU 2.Ensure that development is Conformance with implementing policies,as discussed below,results in conformance with this adequately served by transportation goal. infrastructure,utility infrastructure,and public services. Policy LU 2.1.1.Plan and construct public The project proposes extension of infrastructure to service the site and support land uses infrastructure and service improvements as proposed,as discussed in section 3.15 Utilities. demand necessitates to support the land uses specified in the Land Use Plan(as defined in the Circulation and Public Utilities and Services Elements of the General Plan). Policy LU 2.1.2.Require that the type, The project proposes extension of infrastructure to service the site and support land uses amount,and location of development be proposed,as discussed in section 3.15 Utilities. correlated with the provision of adequate supporting infrastructure and services(as defined in the Circulation and Public Utilities and Services Elements of the General Plan). Pacific City EIR 3.9-7 Chapter 3 Environmental Impact Analysis Table 3.9-2 General Plan Land Use Element—Policies Applicable to Land Use Goal,Objective,or Policy Project Consistency Policy LU 2.1.3.Limit the type,location, The project proposes extension of infrastructure to service the site and support land uses and/or timing of development where there is proposed,as discussed in section 3.15 Utilities.Infrastructure would be in place prior to building inadequate public infrastructure and/or occupancy. services to support land use development. Policy LU 2.1.7.Ensure that development As discussed in section 3.12,Impact PS-3 and MM PS-2,the project would increase demands on shall not occur without providing for adequate schools and would provide school mitigation fees to address these demands. school facilities. Goal LU 4.Achieve and maintain high quality Conformance with implementing policies,as discussed below,results in conformance with this architecture,landscape,and public open goal. spaces in the City. Policy LU 4.1.1.Require adherence to or The proposed project would be consistent with City of Huntington Beach Urban Design Guidelines consideration of the policies prescribed for and would be subject to review and approval by the Design Review Board to ensure consistency. Design and Development in the Huntington Beach General Plan,as appropriate. Policy LU 4.1.2.Require that an appropriate As required by the City Planning Department,a landscape plan for the proposed project will be landscape plan be submitted and submitted prior to discretionary review of the project. implemented for development projects subject to discretionary review. Policy 4.1.6.Require that commercial and The landscape plan is anticipated to include drought-resistant plants and a drought-conscious industrial development incorporate adequate irrigation system that would maintain the health of the landscape. drought-conscious irrigation systems and maintain the health of the landscape. Policy 4.1.7.Require that all commercial and The landscape plan is anticipated to use automatic irrigation systems. industrial landscape be adequately irrigated with automatic irrigation systems. Policy 4.1.8.Use reclaimed water for Reclaimed water is not currently being used by the City.If reclaimed water became available in the irrigation of public and private landscape,as City,then the project could use this source of water where appropriate. feasible. Policy LU 4.2.1.Require that all structures The proposed project would be consistent with City of Huntington Beach building code be constructed in accordance with the requirements.Plan check prior to issuance of permits would ensure compliance. requirements of the City's building and other pertinent codes and regulations;including new,adaptively re-used,and renovated buildings. Policy LU 4.2.4.Require that all development The proposed project provides for adequate access along Huntington and First Streets,parking in be designed to provide adequate space for subterranean garages,supporting functions such as delivery entrances and other pertinent access,parking,supporting functions,open elements.Final circulation plans will be submitted prior to development approval,and will be space,and other pertinent elements. subject to review and approval by the City Planning Department and Public Works Department. Policy LU 4.2.5.Require that all commercial, Development associated with the proposed project would incorporate required design elements industrial,and public development facilitating access and use,including persons with disabilities.Plan check prior to issuance of incorporate appropriate design elements to permits would ensure compliance. facilitate access and use as required by State and Federal Laws such as the American's with Disabilities Act. Goal LU 5.Ensure that significant Conformance with implementing policies,as discussed below,results in conformance with this environmental habitats and resources are goal. maintained. 3.9-8 City of Huntington Beach 3.9 Land Use and Planning Table 3.9-2 General Plan Land Use Element—Policies Applicable to Land Use Goal,Objective,or Policy Project Consistency Policy LU 5.1.1.Require that development All development will comply with the policies and standards of the Environmental protect environmental resources by Resources/Conservation Element of the General Plan and CEQA regulations.The proposed consideration of the policies and standards project would not impact any environmental habitats or resources.Also,refer to Section 3.1.3 contained in the Environmental (Aesthetics,Regulatory Framework)for an evaluation of specific,relevant policies from the Resources/Conservation Element of the Environmental Resources/Conservation Element. General Plan and federal(NEPA)and State (CEQA)regulations. Goal LU 7.Achieve a diversity of land uses Conformance with implementing policies,as discussed below,results in conformance with this that sustain the City's economic viability, goal. while maintaining the City's environmental resources and scale and character. Policy 7.1.1.Accommodate existing uses Development of proposed project visitor-serving commercial/hotel and residential uses are and new development in accordance with the 'consistent with the General Plan and Downtown Specific Plan Land Use and Density Schedules as Land Use and Density Schedules. the proposed uses would continue implementation of the"Village Concept"of visitor-serving uses within the Downtown area(refer to Appendix F).The proposed development would also accommodate surrounding existing uses of beach,residential,and other visitor-serving character. Policy LU 7.1.2.Require that development The project,overall,conforms to the requirements of the Downtown Specific Plan,as demonstrated be designed to account for the unique in Appendix F. characteristics of project sites and objectives for community character and in accordance with the Development"Overlay"Schedule,as appropriate. Policy LU 7.1.5.Accommodate the The proposed project includes a diversity of land uses.Multiple visitor-serving commercial uses development of a balance of land uses that and a 400-room hotel promote beach tourism,thus promoting and sustaining the City's economic maintain the City's fiscal viability and integrity viability.Architecture will be characterized by modern Mediterranean styles and marine motifs, of environmental resources. meshing with existing styles within the Downtown area fronting Pacific Coast Highway.In addition, the site has been previously developed with urban uses.Effects on the City's environmental resources are addressed in detail in this EIR and are mitigated to the extent feasible. Policy LU 7.1.6.Accommodate the The proposed project would result in the development of additional jobs in the form of visitor- development of additional jobs-generating serving commercial and hotel services as well as residential on-site management and security. land uses that improve the 1992 jobs to Office space would also accommodate either existing or new businesses and jobs.The project is housing ratio of 0.82 to 1.0 or greater;to meet anticipated to generate 601 jobs,and would cluster complementary industries by locating the objectives of the Regional Comprehensive proposed hotel adjacent to other hotel uses,and visitor-serving commercial uses would Plan(Southern California Association of complement hotel uses. Governments)and Air Quality Management Plan.These should capitalize upon existing • industrial strengths and emphasizing the. clustering of similar or complementary industries. Goal LU 8.Achieve a pattern of land uses Conformance with implementing policies,as discussed below,results in conformance with this that preserves,enhances,and establishes a goal. distinct identity for City's neighborhoods, corridors,and centers. Pacific City EIR 3.9-9 Chapter 3 Environmental Impact Analysis Table 3.9-2 General Plan Land Use Element—Policies Applicable to Land Use Goal,Objective,or Policy Project Consistency Policy LU 8.1.1.Accommodate land use The proposed project includes mixed uses in accordance with the patterns and distribution of use development in accordance with the patterns and density within the Land Use Plan Map of the City of Huntington Beach General Plan.This and distribution of use and density depicted development would contribute to the network of interrelated activity centers,varied densities,and on the Land Use Plan Map,in accordance linkages among community areas by developing a mix of residential and visitor-serving uses that with the principles discussed below. provides a transition from neighboring residential uses,as well as a continuation of visitor-serving a. Create a network of interrelated activity waterfront commercial uses and linkages to waterfront amenities. centers and corridors through the use of distinct functional roles,activities,and/or through the form and scale of development b. Vary uses and densities along the City's extended commercial corridors,such as Beach Boulevard. c. Increase diversification of community and local commercial nodes to serve adjacent residential neighborhoods. d. N/A e. Intermix uses and densities in large-scale development projects. f. Site development to capitalize upon potential long-term transit improvements. g. Establish linkages among community areas,which may include pedestrian and vehicular paths,landscape,signage,other streetscape elements,open space, transitions in form,scale,and density of development,and other elements. _ Goal LU 9.Achieve the development of a Conformance with implementing policies,as discussed below,results in conformance with this range of housing units that provides for the goal. • diverse economic,physical,and social needs of existing and future residents of Huntington Beach. Policy LU 9.1.1.Accommodate the Development of proposed project residential uses is consistent with the General Plan and development of single-and multifamily Downtown Specific Plan Land Use and Density Schedules,as the proposed uses would continue residential units in areas designated by the implementation of the high-density residential designations for the Downtown area. Land Use Plan Map,as stipulated by the Land Use and Density Schedules. 3.9-10 City of Huntington Beach 3.9 Land Use and Planning Table 3.9-2 General Plan Land Use Element—Policies Applicable to Land Use Goal,Objective,or Policy Project Consistency Policy LU 9.1.3.Require that multifamily Development would include two-to four-story structures with a variety of architecture and dwelling residential projects be designed to convey a unit types and sizes,clustered around recreational amenities to serve the project residents. high level of quality and distinctive Integrated into the project design will be subterranean facilities,which will be screened from street neighborhood character as discussed below; frontage,where pedestrian access will be predominant.Open spaces and courtyards are also a. Design building elevations treatment to maintained as part of the visual character and circulation/access aspect of the residential portion of convey the visual character of individual the project.In addition,as required by the City,a landscape plan for the proposed project will be units rather than singular building mass submitted prior to discretionary review of the project.Therefore,the project would be consistent, and volumes. with this policy. b. Locate the elevation of the first occupiable floor at or in proximity to the predominant grade elevation,'visually screening subterranean parking facilities from the street frontage. c. Include separate and well-defined entries to convey the visual character of individual identity for each residential unit,which may be accessed from exterior facades, interior courtyards,and/or common areas. d. Site and design parking areas and ' facilities that are integrated with but do not -' , dominate the architectural character of the structure. e. Include an adequate landscape setback along the street frontage that is integrated with abutting sidewalks and provides ' continuity throughout the neighborhood. ' Policy LU 9.1.4.Require that recreational The residential portion of the proposed project will include 11.06 net acres of open space(1.78 of and open space amenities be incorporated in which will be private).This common open space would include 2.50 net acres of recreational area. new multifamily developments and that they Residential development will be clustered around the recreational amenities and readily accessible be accessible to and of sufficient size to be to residents. usable by all residents. Policy LU 10.1.17.Require the inclusion of Visitor amenities of the proposed project include the open space and recreational areas, uses and elements that contribute amenities commercial establishments and restaurants,and a hotel with ballroom and spa treatment facilities. for visitors,such as public activity areas and onsite recreational facilities(health clubs, spas,etc.) Policy LU 10.1.18.Encourage the The hotel proposes conference and banquet facilities,in addition to ballroom and spa facilities. incorporation of meeting rooms,conference and banquet facilities,and other uses available to visitors and the City's residents in major visitor-serving development projects. Policy LU 10.1.19.Require that visitor- Visitor-serving commercial architecture will be characterized by modern Mediterranean styles and serving commercial developments be marine motifs,meshing with existing styles within the Downtown area fronting Pacific Coast designed to reflect and be compatible with Highway. their setting and/or function(e.g.design of park buildings avoiding colors,materials,and architectural forms that visually dominate the park setting). The project site is also designated as General Plan Subareas 4C and 4I. The General Plan identifies Community Districts and Subareas in the city and provides the intended functional role of these Subareas, in Pacific City EIR. 3t9=11 Chapter 3 Environmental Impact Analysis addition to specific design and development standards that supplement the policies provided for each land use category. The Subarea 4C designation applies to the commercial-visitor designated portion of the site that fronts PCH and includes the following design and development provisions: establish a unified "village" character, using consistent architecture and highly articulated facades and building masses; require vertical setbacks of structures above the second floor; incorporate pedestrian walkways, plazas, and other common open spaces for public activity; provide pedestrian linkages with surrounding residential and commercial areas; establish a well-defined entry from PCH; and maintain views of the shoreline and ocean. The Subarea 4I designation applies to the residential portion of the project site and includes the following design and development provisions: prepare and conform to a specific or master plan; establish a cohesive, integrated residential development in accordance with the policies and principles stipulated for "New Residential Subdivisions"; allow for the clustering of mixed-density residential units and integrated commercial sites; and require variation in building heights from two to four stories to promote visual interest and ensure compatibility with surrounding land uses. General Plan Coastal Element The California Coastal Act (California State Public Resources Code, Division 20, Sections 30000 et seq.) directs each local government lying wholly or partly within the Coastal Zone, as defined by the Coastal Act, to prepare a Local Coastal Program for its portion of the Coastal Zone. Local Coastal Programs are used to carry out the policies and requirements of the Coastal Act by local governments. Local Coastal Programs must be reviewed and certified by the California Coastal Commission before being implemented by a local government. The Local Coastal Program is divided into two components: (1) a coastal element and (2) an implementation program. The coastal element provides a technical synopsis of the resources located within -the Coastal Zone. The document discusses resources in the context of a coastal zone overview; subarea description and land use plan; shoreline and coastal resource access; public recreational and visitor serving commercial facilities; visual resources; historic and cultural resources; water and marine resources; environmentally sensitive habitats; energy facilities; water, sewer, and drainage facilities; and hazards. Issues, goals, objectives, and policies related to each of these areas are also provided. The Implementation Program provides the mechanism to implement each of the identified policies. The Downtown Specific Plan, along with zoning ordinances for those portions of the City's coastal zone outside the Downtown area, and in conjunction with a Coastal Zone (CZ) suffix (i.e., overlay), are the implementing phase of the Local Coastal Program. Following certification of these ordinances by the State Coastal Commission, permit authority for most new development in the Coastal Zone became the responsibility of the City of Huntington Beach. Table 3.9-3 identifies goals and objectives presented in the Coastal Element of the 3.9-12 City of Huntington Beach 3.9 Land Use and Planning • General Plan related to land use that are potentially relevant to the proposed project. This table also includes an assessment of the proposed project's consistency with the policies adopted in support of these goals and objectives. Table 3.9-3 General Plan Coastal Element—Policies Applicable to Land Use Goal,Objective,or Policy Project Consistency - Goal C 1.Develop a land use plan for the Conformance with implementing policies,as discussed below,results in conformance with this goal. Coastal Zone that protects and enhances coastal resources,promotes public access and balances development with facility needs. Objective C 1.1.Ensure that adverse Conformance with implementing policies,as discussed below,results in conformance with this impacts associated with coastal zone objective. development are mitigated or minimized to the greatest extent feasible. Policy C 1.1.1.With the exception of The proposed project would develop a mix of visitor-serving commercial uses on parcels contiguous hazardous industrial development,new to similar uses in an established,urban,Downtown core area.Public services are currently available development shall be encouraged to be to the project site,as well as the surrounding parcels,and the project includes improvements to located within,contiguous or in close existing infrastructure to ensure adequate service after project implementation,as described in proximity to,existing developed areas able Section 3.12(Public Services)and 3.15(Utilities and Service Systems). to accommodate it,in other areas with adequate public services,and where it will not have significant adverse effects,either individually or cumulatively,on coastal resources. Policy C 1.1.4.Where feasible,locate The proposed project would develop visitor-serving commercial uses in the City's Downtown core visitor-serving commercial uses in existing area,which has been targeted for development as a destination location.Portions of the Downtown - developed areas or at selected points of core have already been established,and include uses generally similar to those proposed by the attraction for visitors. project.The project site is also located near other established points of attraction,including the Huntington Beach Municipal Pier,and is intended to reinforce the vicinity as a major visitor-serving district. Policy C 1.1.5.New residential Residential development includes public access corridors through the site,which would maintain development should be sited and designed access to the coast. in such a manner that it maintains and enhances public access to the coast. Policy C 1.1.7.Encourage cluster Residential development would be clustered around recreational amenities to serve the project development in areas designated for residents and provide appealing circulation patterns. residential use within the Coastal Zone. Policy C 1.1.9.Minimize risks to life and The project is not within a fire or flood hazard area.Geologic hazards would be minimized through property in areas of high geologic,flood, implementation of MM GEO-1 and fire hazard through siting and design to avoid the hazard. Objective C 1.2.Provide a land use plan Conformance with implementing policies,as discussed below,results in conformance with this , that balances location,type and amount of objective. land use with infrastructure needs. Policy C 1.2.1.Accommodate existing According to Table C-1 of the Coastal Element,the density,location,and mix of uses for areas zoned uses and new development in accordance MV(Mixed Use-Vertically Integrated Housing)shall be governed by a Specific Plan.As described with the Coastal Element Land Use Plan above,the Downtown Specific Plan establishes uses and intensity for the proposed project,and the and the Development and Density project complies with the requirements pertaining to the mix of uses and the development intensity. Schedule Table. Pacific City EIR 3.9-13 Chapter 3 Environmental Impact Analysis Table 3.9-3 General Plan Coastal Element—Policies Applicable to Land Use Goal,Objective,or Policy Project Consistency Policy C 1.2.3.Prior to the issuance of a The proposed project would develop a mix of visitor-serving commercial uses on parcels contiguous development entitlement,the City shall to similar uses in an established,urban,Downtown core area.The project includes improvements to make the finding that adequate services existing infrastructure to ensure adequate service after project implementation,as described in section (i.e.,water,sewer,roads,etc.)can be 3.15(Utilities and Service Systems). provided to serve the proposed development,consistent with the policies contained in the Coastal Element,at time of occupancy. Downtown Specific Plan The Downtown Specific Plan was originally prepared in 1983. It includes 336 acres within the Coastal Zone, as shown on Figure 3.9-2 (Downtown Specific Plan Districts). At the time of the Specific Plan preparation, the Downtown area included a variety of residential, commercial, and recreational uses surrounding an older Downtown core, with the Municipal Pier serving as the focal point. The City includes miles of prime public ocean frontage, although numerous vacant and under-utilized parcels existed across from the beach. The purpose of the Downtown Specific Plan is to encourage the revitalization of this area by providing for orderly development and improvement within the Plan area. The Plan promotes a mix of commercial, residential, and recreational uses that maximize the area's proximity to the ocean. In addition, the Plan sets forth development standards and recommends public improvements for the City's Downtown area. The design concept for the Downtown Specific Plan evolves from the ocean as the source and center of the City's vitality. Many existing and potential opportunities in Downtown Huntington Beach have been possible because of this relationship to the ocean. The design concept emphasizes the ocean, ocean activities, forms, shapes, and colors. This relation to the ocean is the theme to serve as a guideline for private and public investment in the Downtown area. The design concept concentrates on the City pier, realizing that all other areas within the Downtown are linked either directly or indirectly to the pier. The level of energy created at the pier-head area needs to be capitalized on and spread through the Downtown core. Pedestrian boardwalks on various levels and the pier itself will offer views of the ocean and ocean activities. The overall form and shape of all development in Downtown Huntington Beach should allow people to see the ocean from as many places as possible. 3.9-14 City of Huntington Beach I LEGEND PROJECT SITE BOUNDARY DISTRICT BOUNDARY 7'i 4 ® DISTRICT NUMBER s„.<\S)v tt ' ,.\\ \\>(.......:60 \\\\\> i (.4'N'''\) Oc../... ' C\S' '' _. ... _:.._ __,.. . ......_ ._ _.}} ^^--��`` tt�^^ PALM AVENUE �;. A [ _ __ ».lL.._ ... .3t_J .1_ .._._1jjt ,Il R ... y Ulu�"XCT7lVENU \\,. ,l Ill=::: -Jr all 1-1-1LIL LIEILL111.1 ,411$ \,,, ,.. ,<,, ,, . ,.. MIMI CEM-- udijui-uwaiii- --- --2- goil \ \\\< <: . \ AI,. i 1.1 .• 7 �.�._ I D JJ[L �� : off.©tNB hi ....... 0,0 1.---1, 1 r—i 1----1 ' ---- ‘117 ——11111411.1111IMIM.N.I_I 111111111 lar __________ ------- __ m I PACIFIC OCEAN � `�,•_' ..,,,_.,,, ' ' _ ...._______,.....,____ __ __ _____...___________ _________. FIGURE 3.9-2 Not to Scale Oil E I- ... Downtown Specific Plan Districts SOURCE:City of Huntington Beach 2002a. 10261 00 "Y,°"'" `Y City of Huntington Beach•Pacific City EIR Chapter 3 Environmental Impact Analysis The intensities of the Downtown core area are intended to be compatible with the adjacent transitional areas and the surrounding residential neighborhoods. The area southeast of the Downtown core, including the project site, is intended to provide additional opportunities for residential and visitor-serving commercial uses. The commercial uses in this area are intended to primarily service the seasonal trade and not compete with the Downtown area. The large consolidated parcels in this area, such as the project site, allow for greater intensities and densities while still providing substantial opportunities for buffering and design controls. Public open space and recreational amenities are envisioned as an integral part of large projects, such as the proposed project. The Specific Plan identifies an overall ocean design theme. Elements of this theme relevant to the project include the following: • Orienting intensive land uses away from established residential neighborhoods • Providing view,light,and air corridors to the ocean • Building architecture to reinforce a modern or contemporary Mediterranean style of architecture... • Streetscape elements should be brightly colored and relate to the ocean theme • Public areas should be integrated into development proposals in key locations... • Establish a framework of landscaping and identify elements to provide interest and character to specific locations. This concept will provide a logical,coherent,unified network of land uses,activities and circulation systems The Specific Plan is divided into 11 Districts, as shown on Figure 3.9-2. Each District is unique in character or in parcel configuration; therefore, each emphasizes different land use and development standards. The -- Specific Plan land use designations and district configurations are intended to anticipate development demands and achieve the optimum potential within the identified design concept. _ The Specific Plan concept for District No. 7 is identified in Section 3.2.3 of the Downtown Specific Plan. That section states that District No. 7 should be master-planned as a primarily visitor-serving commercial project, which could be implemented over a number of phases. Hotel, motel, restaurant, and specialty commercial uses are appropriate. Development in this District is not intended to compete with the Downtown commercial core. The visitor-serving commercial uses in this District are envisioned as seasonal, and this District would serve as a connection link between the Downtown area and District No. 9, which is the site of the recently completed Hilton hotel and Hyatt Regency Resort. The Plan anticipates visitor- serving commercial uses that can be accommodated with a 200-to 400-room hotel. The Specific Plan concept for District No. 8 is identified in Section 3.2.4 of the Downtown Specific Plan. That section states that high-density residential uses are most appropriate for these sites due to their location and unique characteristics. Projects, if properly designed, will be able to maximize view opportunities and 3.9-16 City of Huntington Beach 3.9 Land Use and Planning access to recreational amenities. New residential development adjacent to the Downtown commercial core would provide the proposed visitor-serving commercial uses with the population base necessary to create viable services. The new residential development should also be designed to be compatible with the residential areas to the north. The plan anticipates development in District No. 8A to achieve maximum { ' density, resulting in approximately 1,260 new residential units. Oil uses should also be allowed to continue in selected islands within a portion of the District. In sum, the primary concept emphasizes the provision of seasonal, visitor-serving commercial uses that would serve as a link to the commercial uses in this District. The uses would be of a more seasonal variety, it with the District serving as a link to the Downtown area. In addition, the residential uses are envisioned to provide the necessary population to support nearby commercial uses. The Downtown Specific Plan is intended to implement the land use designations in the Coastal Element of the Huntington Beach General Plan. However, because the Plan is established to guide the development of the area, which is characterized by its unique location, geographic features, land uses, and ownership patterns, it should not be regulated by zoning district standards applicable throughout the City. The Specific Plan replaces the existing zoning with policies, development standards, and descriptive maps specifically designed for the Downtown area. The Downtown Specific Plan Development Standards were revised February 6, 2002, by Ordinance No. 3532. For example, as stated in Sections 4.9 and 4.10 of the revised r-, Downtown Specific Plan, the Visitor-Serving Commercial of District No. 7 allows a floor area ratio (FAR) of 3.0, while District No. 8 identifies the allowable land use in this designation as High Density Residential, with a maximum of 30 units per net acre. Additional, district-specific standards include maximum building j { heights, set backs, site coverage, and open space, which provideguidelines to provide a population base to help support the visitor-serving commercial uses with the site. A detailed comparison of Specific Plan development standards to the proposed project is provided in Appendix F. As demonstrated by the information in that appendix, the proposed project is largely compliant with the Specific Plan requirements. Minor inconsistencies are as follows: • A Special Permit is requested to allow structures within the 50-foot front yard setback from PCH. t_ Setbacks would encroach approximately 30 feet from PCH. • A Special Permit is requested for front yard setbacks from Pacific View Avenue of 15 feet, 1 inch; the _' minimum required front yard setback is 20 feet. • A Special Permit is requested to allow the parking garage ramps to exceed the City standard of 10 percent. Pacific City EIR 3.9-17 Chapter 3 Environmental Impact Analysis Redevelopment Plan for the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project Area The proposed project is located within the Sub-Area 5 of the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project Area (formerly known as the Main-Pier Redevelopment Project Area). The Main-Pier Redevelopment Project Area is located along Main Street, between Palm Avenue and the Huntington Beach Pier, and along PCH, between Goldenwest Street and Beach Boulevard, and includes retail, tourist, recreational, public, and•residential land uses. The boundaries of this project area are shown on Figure 2-2. The Redevelopment Plan does not present a specific plan for the redevelopment, rehabilitation, and revitalization of any area within the Project Area; rather, it establishes a process and framework for implementation. The following are among the goals included in the Plan: • Eliminate and prevent the spread of conditions of blight including underutilized properties and deteriorating buildings, incompatible and uneconomic land uses, deficient infrastructure and facilities, obsolete structures, and other economic deficiencies in order to create a more favorable environment for commercial, office, industrial, residential, and recreational development • Expand the commercial base of the Project Area • Improve public facilities and public infrastructure • Improve inadequate drainage infrastructure • Promote local job opportunities • Encourage the cooperation and participation of residents, businesses, business persons, public agencies, and community organizations in the redevelopment/revitalization of the Project Area • Implement design and use standards to assure high aesthetic and environmental quality, and provide unity and integrity to developments within the Project Area • Promote the rehabilitation of existing housing stock • Increase, improve, and preserve the community's supply of housing affordable to very low, low, and moderate income households 3.9.3 Thresholds of Significance Project impacts would be considered significant if any of the following would occur: • 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 • Substantially conflict with existing adjacent permitted uses 3.9-18 City of Huntington Beach 3.9 Land Use and Planning - 3.9.4 Project Impacts Impact LLI-1 The proposed project would be consistent with applicable land use plans, policies,and regulations. For the purposes of this analysis, conflicts with key applicable plans, polices or regulation specifically refers to inconsistencies with the City General Plan and Downtown Specific Plan goals, objectives, policies, and { adopted land use/density designations. As discussed above in Section 3.9.2 (Land Use, Regulatory Framework), the proposed project would be consistent with applicable Goals, Objectives, and Policies of the Huntington Beach General Plan (specifically, the Land Use and Coastal Elements) and with the Downtown Specific Plan. The Regulatory Framework analysis in each section in Chapter 3 provides an analysis of project consistency with applicable City of Huntington Beach policies to specific resources. The uses proposed on site are consistent with the General Plan land use and zoning designations for the project site. The site has two General Plan designations: (1) CV-F7-sp (Commercial Visitor—maximum floor area ratio of 3.0—Specific Plan)for the area south of the proposed alignment of Pacific View Avenue; and (2) RH-30-sp (Residential High Density maximum 30 units/net acre—Specific Plan) for the areas I north of the proposed alignment of Pacific View Avenue. These two areas are also designated as General Plan Subareas 4C and 4I, respectively, as discussed in detail in Section 2.2.3. The project complies with the commercial visitor and residential high-density designations, and fulfills the intent of General Plan Subareas 4C and 4I. The Downtown Specific Plan regulates the site zoning. As discussed under Regulatory Framework (Section 3.9.2) for the Downtown Specific Plan, the project complies with the requirements of District No. 7, "Visitor-Serving Commercial" and District No. 8A, "High Density Residential." Minor inconsistencies between the proposed project and the development standards would occur with respect to setbacks; and a Special Permit is requested for these variations. The setback encroachments on PCH and Pacific View Avenue would not change the character of the development from that envisioned under the Specific Plan. On PCH and Pacific View, where some structures would be located closer than the required setback, landscaped plazas and other open areas would be located further from the street. This would ensure that the intensity of development along these roadways is not substantially greater than permitted, and the character of the development would be in keeping with that envisioned under previous planning efforts. The project is consistent with the overall intent and uses envisioned on the project site. As previously discussed, development on the project site has been addressed on a programmatic level as part of the analysis included in several Program EIRs prepared by the City of Huntington Beach. These documents include (1) The Huntington Beach Downtown Specific Plan EIR 82-2 and Addendum to Pacific City EIR 3.9-19 Chapter 3 Environmental impact Analysis SEIR 82-2; (2) The Huntington Beach General Plan Update EIR 94-9; and (3) The Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project EIR 96-2. Each of these documents includes analysis that accounts for development at the project site. The Downtown Specific Plan EIR analyzes buildout of the City's Downtown area, representing the most localized analysis of the area. At the time these documents were prepared, the City evaluated and determined that the uses identified for the project site were appropriate for the site and fulfilled the City's objectives for the area. The proposed project would, overall, be consistent with applicable land use plans, policies, and regulations. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. Impact LU-2 The proposed project would not substantially conflict with existing adjacent permitted uses For the purposes of this analysis, conflicts with existing adjacent permitted uses would be significant if differences in land use type and/or intensity of use would result in substantial disruptions to existing uses. Substantial disruptions consider the extent of the area that would be impacted, the nature and degree of the effects, and the types of land use within that area. As discussed above, development of the proposed project conforms to the permitted uses on site and would provide a transition from medium/medium high density residential and commercial uses to more intense uses along PCH. These land use designations were evaluated programmatically in prior environmental documentation. These documents include (1) The Huntington Beach Downtown Specific Plan EIR 82-2 and Addendum to SEIR 82-2; (2) The Huntington Beach General Plan Update EIR 94-1; and (3) The Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project EIR 96-2. Each of these documents includes analysis that accounts for development at the project site. Under these previous analyses, no significant land use incompatibilities at the project site were identified. The Specific Plan EIR concluded that the overall land use impact of the new zoning—which permits the residential and visitor-serving uses proposed at the site— would not be significant. The proposed project is substantially more intense than existing uses on the site, as the site is vacant. The project would result in the filling in of a large, vacant lot with multistory development fronting several major streets, including the heavily used PCH. Structures along PCH would include multiple-structures stepped up from the street with a series of interconnected plazas and walkways designed to provide pedestrian access to the site and implement the Specific Plan Village Concept. There are relatively few structures more that four stories along the waterfront area, and the proposed hotel tower would add an eight-story tower to the waterfront area. These changes would affect the overall character of the area by increasing the quantity of development in the Downtown area. Additional activity on site would be 3.9-20 City of Huntington Beach 3.9 Land Use and Planning generated from hotel visitors and individuals using the retail and restaurant uses on site, approximately 601 employees, and 1,419 residents. The proposed project includes land uses more intense than those surrounding the site and would increase the development density of the area. The northerly portion of the project site would be high-density residential uses. Residential buildings would be oriented in a manner that incorporates the City grid system, thus internally structuring the project into smaller blocks defined by internal walkways and the loop road. Residential uses are similar to and therefore compatible with the single and multifamily residential,uses adjacent to the site. Mobile home park uses to the east are developed at medium density with up to 15 units per acre, half that t of the proposed project. These uses are also generally one story in height. Proposed development along Huntington Street would include some tWo- and three-story areas, in addition to four- story development, as shown in Figure 2-4.Residential uses to the north and west are developed at medium high density with up to 25 units per acre, which is less than proposed development at 30 units per acre. These adjacent uses are generally one to three stories in height, where proposed development would be three and four stories in height. While the intensity of development would increase, in terms of the number of units per acre and the total mass of development, the increased intensity in land use would not result in inherent conflicts with similar, adjacent uses. The proposed hotel on the southeasterly-portion of the site would be similar to adjoining uses to the east,- which include the Hyatt Regency Resort and Hilton hotel. The proposed hotel includes conference;, ballroom, and leisure amenities. Adjacent hotels are also major hospitality developments with similar facilities. ' Proposed visitor-serving commercial uses on the westerly portion of the site at PCH and First Street would be consistent with uses in the Downtown. Commercial uses are located adjacent to the site on the west. The Downtown includes a mix of retail, office, commercial and restaurant uses, similar to those included in the proposed project The placement of hotel,'commercial, and residential uses in proximity to each other raises the issue of compatibility among uses. As discussed above, the project would result in additional visitor-serving commercial and hotel uses in the area, consistent with nearby uses. Proposed commercial and hotel uses would result in placement of these uses in closer proximity to some residences than currently exists. However, existing adjacent residential uses would be separated from nonresidential uses on the west, east; , and north by roadways a minimum of 80 feet in pavement width, landscaping, and screening vegetation. Commercial and hotel uses would be oriented toward the ocean, away from existing residences. On-site residential uses would be separated from hotel and commercial components of the project by Pacific View Pacific City EIR 3.9-21 Chapter 3 Environmental Impact Analysis Avenue, which has a proposed 90-foot right-of-way. Screening vegetation and privacy walls would also be provided at residential areas that abut Pacific View. The orientation of hotel and commercial uses toward PCH would also increase the separation of these uses. Hotel and commercial components would have access points separate from the residential uses, as the hotel and commercial areas would,be south of Pacific View and the residential uses would be north of Pacific View. The site plan is designed in a manner that ensures ! minimal conflict between the project and the existing and proposed residences would result. With respect to project design, both the 1983 and 1995 Downtown Specific Plans and the Downtown Design Guidelines identified a contemporary Mediterranean design theme to be used throughout the Downtown area. The purpose of selecting a uniform design theme is to ensure that all building designs, signage, landscaping,.streetscaping, and lighting are consistent. The.proposed project is consistent with the Mediterranean style. For example, the Hilton Waterfront Beach Resort was constructed as a Mediterranean villa, with terrazzo tile, queen palms, giant ferns, and birds of paradise. The proposed project has been designed in a similar fashion to carry the Mediterranean theme throughout the remainder of the waterfront area. Project design features include palm trees and flowering shrubs throughout the site, stucco buildings in earth tones,'and architectural features, including archways and tile roofs. The proposed project would result in uses that are permitted within the Districts and would be compatible with similar, surrounding land uses. Therefore, impacts.from increased development density on land use would be less than significant. 3.9.5 . Cumulative Impacts This cumulative impact analysis considers development of the proposed project, in conjunction with other development within the vicinity of the project in the City of Huntington Beach. Development of cumulative projects is anticipated to generally conform to the requirements of the City of Huntington Beach and would be subject to review by the City. The proposed project would result in less- than-significant land use impacts due to consistency between the proposed project and permitted uses on the site, and compatibility with adjacent uses. Cumulative land use impacts have the potential to occur where a number of projects have the potential to change the overall land use of an area or affect adjacent existing land uses. As shown in Figure 2-9, most of the projects proposed are at locations distant from,the project site itself. Nearby projects include the Strand to the north, and the Hyatt Regency Resort and Waterfront Residential Development to the south. These projects implement the Downtown Specific Plan, similar to the proposed project. As such, each of these developments individually, and collectively, would increase the intensity of development in the waterfront area. However, the uses proposed are compatible with adjacent 3.9-22 City of Huntington Beach l _ t• 3.9 Land Use and Planning residential and commercial uses, and further, are consistent with the uses identified in the Downtown Specific Plan. Cumulative impacts on land use would be less than significant. 3.9.6 Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts Impacts on land use would be less than significant; therefore, no mitigation measures would be required. I~- I I i I Pacific City EIR. 3.9-23 3.10 Noise 3.10 NOISE This EIR section analyzes the potential for adverse impacts on noise and groundborne vibration resulting from implementation of the proposed project. The Initial Study (Appendix A) identified the potential for impacts associated with a substantial temporary and/or permanent increase in ambient noise levels within or around the project site or exposure of people to excessive noise levels, groundborne vibration, or groundborne noise levels and whether this exposure is in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance. Issues scoped out include proximity to or association with an airport land use plan or airstrip, as the project site is not located within an airport land use plan or affected area near an airstrip. Data used to prepare this section were taken from information obtained by measuring and modeling existing and future noise levels at the project site and in the surrounding area. Full bibliographic entries for all reference materials are provided in Chapter 7 (References) of this document. 3.10.1 Existing Conditions Fundamentals of Sound and Environmental Noise Sound is technically described in terms of amplitude (loudness) and frequency (pitch). The standard unit of sound amplitude measurement is the decibel (dB). The decibel scale is a logarithmic scale that describes the physical intensity of the pressure vibrations that make up any sound. The pitch of the sound is related to the frequency of the pressure vibration. Because the human ear is not equally sensitive to a given sound level at all frequencies, a special frequency-dependent rating scale has been devised to relate noise to human sensitivity. The A-weighted decibel scale (dBA) provides this compensation by discriminating against frequencies in a manner approximating the sensitivity of the human ear. Noise, on the other hand, is typically defined as unwanted sound. A typical noise environment consists of a distant and indistinguishable base of steady "background" noise that is the sum of many guishable noise sources. Superimposed on this background noise is the sound from individual local sources. These can vary from an occasional aircraft or train passing by to virtually continuous noise from, for example, traffic on a major highway. Figure 3.10-1 and Table 3.10-1 list representative noise levels for the environment. Several rating scales have been developed to analyze the adverse effect of community noise on people. Since environmental noise fluctuates over time, these scales consider that the effect of noise upon people is largely dependent upon the total acoustical energy content of the noise, as well as the time of day when the noise occurs. Those that are applicable to this analysis are as follows: Pacific City EIR 3.10-1 QUALITATIVE Noise Level - - DESCRIPTIONS in dBA CNEL OUTDOOR LOCATIONS 90 411 Los Angeles - 3rd floor apartment next to freeway Los Angeles -3/4 mile from touch down at 85 major airport • 80 City Noise 40 Los Angeles - Downtown with some construction (Downtown major activity metropolis) Harlem-2nd floor apartment 75 Very Noisy 70 Boston- Row Housing on major avenue Noisy Urban 65 Watts-8 miles from touch down at major airport Urban 60 Newport-3.5 miles from takeoff at small airport Los Angeles-Old residential area _� C Suburban 55 Small Town& •4i ' Fillmore- Small town cul-de-sac Quiet Suburban 50 San Diego-Wooded residential 45 • - California -Tomato field on farm • 40 • • FIGURE 3.10-1 Not to Scale -E I P� Representative Environmental Noise Levels ASSOCIATES SOURCE:State of California General Plan Guidelines,1998 1oze1-oo City of Huntington Beach•Pacific City EIR 3.10 Noise Table 3.10-1 Representative Environmental Noise Levels Common Outdoor Activities Noise Level(dBA) Common Indoor Activities —110— Rock Band Jet Fly-over at 100 feet -100— Gas Lawnmower at 3 feet —90— Food Blender at 3 feet Diesel Truck going 50 mph at 50 feet —80— Garbage Disposal at 3 feet t' } Noisy Urban Area during Daytime Gas Lawnmower at 100 feet —70— Vacuum Cleaner at 10 feet Commercial Area Normal Speech at 3 feet Heavy Traffic at 300 feet —60— Large Business Office Quiet Urban Area during Daytime —50— ' Dishwasher in Next Room Quiet Urban Area during Nighttime —40— Theater,Large Conference Room(background) Quiet Suburban Area during Nighttime —30— Library Quiet Rural Area during Nighttime Bedroom at Night,Concert Hall(background) —20— BroadcastlRecording Studio —10— Lowest Threshold.of Human Hearing —0— Lowest Threshold of Human Hearing SOURCE: California Department of Transportation 1998 • Leg, the equivalent energy noise level, is the average acoustic energy content of noise for a stated period of time. Thus, the Leg of a time-varying noise and that of a steady noise are the same if they deliver the same acoustic energy to the ear during exposure. For evaluating community impacts, this rating scale does not vary,regardless of whether the noise occurs during the day or the night. • La,,, the Day Night Average Level,is a 24-hour average Leg with a 10 dBA "weighting" added to noise during the hours of 10:00 P.M. to,7:00 A.M. to account for noise sensitivity in the nighttime. • Lm;n, the minimum instantaneous noise level experienced during a given period of time. 1— • Lm„„ the maximum instantaneous noise level experienced during a given period of time. Noise environments and consequences of human activities are usually well represented by median noise levels during the day, night, or over a 24-hour period. Environmental noise levels are generally considered } low when the CNEL is below 60 dBA, moderate in the 60-to 70-dBA range; and high above 70 dBA. Pacific City EIR 3.10-3 + I Chapter 3 Environmental Impact Analysis Examples of low daytime levels are isolated, natural settings that can provide noise levels as low as 20 dBA and quiet, suburban, residential streets that can provide noise levels around 40 dBA. Noise levels above 45 dBA at night can disrupt sleep. Examples of moderate-level noise environments are urban residential or semi-commercial areas (typically 55 to 60 dBA) and commercial locations (typically 60 dBA). People may consider louder environments adverse, but most will accept the higher levels associated with more noisy urban residential or residential-commercial areas (60 to 75 dBA) or dense urban or industrial areas (65 to 80 dBA). When evaluating changes in 24-hour community noise levels, a difference of 3 dBA is a barely perceptible increase to most people. A 5 dBA increase is readily noticeable, while a difference of 10 dBA would be perceived as a doubling of loudness. Noise levels from a particular source decline as distance to the receptor increases. Other factors, such as the weather and reflecting or shielding, also help intensify or reduce the noise level at any given location. A commonly used rule of thumb for roadway noise is that for every doubling of distance from the source, the noise level is reduced by about 3 dBA at acoustically"hard"locations (i.e., the area between the noise source and the receptor is nearly complete asphalt, concrete, hard-packed soil, or other solid materials) and —' 4.5 dBA at acoustically"soft"locations (i.e., the area between the source and receptor is normal earth or has vegetation, including grass). Noise from stationary or point sources is reduced by about 6 to 7.5 dBA for every doubling of distance at acoustically hard and soft locations, respectively. Noise levels may also be reduced by intervening structures; generally, a single row of buildings between the receptor and the noise source reduces the noise level by about 5 dBA, while a solid wall or berm reduces noise levels by 5 to 10 dBA. The manner in which older homes in California were constructed generally provides a reduction of exterior-to-interior noise levels of about 20 to 25 dBA with closed windows. The exterior-to-interior reduction of newer residential units is generally 30 dBA or more. Fundamentals of Environmental Groundborne Vibration Vibration is sound radiated through the ground. The rumbling sound caused by the vibration of room surfaces is called groundborne noise. The ground motion caused by vibration is measured as particle velocity & in inches per second and, in the U.S., is referenced as vibration decibels (VdB). The background vibration velocity level in residential and educational areas is usually around 50 VdB. The 4 j vibration velocity level threshold of perception for humans is approximately 65 VdB. A vibration velocity level of 75 VdB is the approximate dividing line between barely perceptible and distinctly perceptible levels for many people. Most perceptible indoor vibration is caused by sources within buildings, such as operation ro 3.10-4 City of Huntington Beach __ 3.10 Noise of mechanical equipment, movement of people,, or the slamming of doors. Typical outdoor sources of perceptible groundborne vibration are construction equipment, steel-wheeled trains, and traffic on rough roads. If a roadway is smooth, the groundborne vibration from traffic is rarely perceptible. The range of interest is from approximately 50 Vc1B, which is the typical background vibration velocity level, to 100 VdB, which is the general threshold where minor damage can occur in fragile buildings. The general human response to different levels of groundborne vibration velocity levels is described in Table 3.10-2. 1 p Table 3.10-2 Human Response to Different Levels of Groundborne Vibration. Vibration Velocity Level Human Reaction 65 VdB Approximate threshold of perception for many people. 75 VdB Approximate dividing line between barely perceptible and distinctly perceptible.Many people find that transportation- related vibration at this level is unacceptable. 85 VdB Vibration acceptable only if there are an infrequent number of events per day. SOURCE: Federal Railroad Administration 1998 Existing Ambient Daytime Noise Levels Land uses in the vicinity of the proposed project site include residential, commercial, and recreational uses. Although other noise sources occur in the vicinity, vehicular traffic is the primary source of noise at, and around, the project site. Existing ambient daytime noise levels were measured at five selected locations around the project site on February 19, 2003. These locations are identified in Figure 3.10-2. The noise levels were measured using a Larson-Davis Model 814 precision sound level meter, which satisfies the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) for general environmental noise measurement instrumentation. The average noise levels and sources of noise measured at each location are identified in Table 3.10-3. These daytime noise levels are characteristic of an urban environment. Table 3.10-3 Existing Daytime Noise Levels at Selected On-and Off-Site Locations Noise Level Statistics Noise Measurement Location Primary Noise Sources Le, Lmm L,,1 1.Apartment Building Traffic on First Street 62.3 49.3 77.8 2.Single Family Residence Traffic on First Street 62.8 42.1 77.4 3.Single Family Residence Traffic on Atlanta Avenue 64.6 43.1 78.6 4.Mobile Home Traffic on Huntington Street 64.7 41.2 84.3 5.Mobile Home Traffic on Huntington Street 66.5 46.6 85.3 SOURCE: EIP Associates 2003 { Li 1- Pacific City EIR 3.10-5 „ , .,,,,,:. 0 i••••07 ,Y •s.:, s•;„ ,"„"-•?.0 7..,,,' ••5::: ••••l.-....•4 ';' ,..,:,,,,,.,•.,:,,,,,\....„.,/;,,,,,< ,,,,A',, ,v,w,/,'"'",:r.A;;V''\::::cMk•-•.,: -`,' ,rzpq ,.,,,/4\N-ii 'itt'A,...,.••- •:. %,.,...., ,..4,::`,,,,, `.>';'),*",,"../.'„,.•.--.1;•>, .:,.' ''''':.r.”.1 "/ / .,,,.<,\.'....,'N\,,,..7X)tvit '''.:•::,-"" ... .., • '>;,:,: ".. 4W.::ycKi '',...,.4•''' ;'",,(...„ 4 :-..P,fr•-•°,- '1..?„,-/ ( ...-.;',,,4.:°:, .v. .4./ ..., ve ...,",--0,. • -—>k,,,,..,t. sos•-•--°,4 :,i';.;°-,,,, ,N, „„,,,, /7.„. •-r. •,„ ..„ ,,, •-,„4/,,,.,\„- .,,,,,-1,4.7t.,.. 4:„..N-9eN .,:1„....„,..; ...:/•' ,,,,:„.:."-,1,#,:sf.:::,.•„„,./.•›- .,,,,,..:„.;<2,„:,,,,.< <',.„ .,. .:„.-,„,,,.. ,5.&,„/,..„., ,‘,.. .r, )t,,,,„§:z.vt, )„.:,..,,„ ,a, ....,..-... .,, ,,,,,:,.„, i /4„..:. ?,..::$.:4' jef•,....-.. '\'<*'' Wi:: <)\ ) '...1'`1:9N.4./ ''''':. /•••'' ''''''• /<" •`•••\''''Af2 ir'://.6;i'::.,,Tk:S‘‘'N'g'i K:'%,/s,-H-,•'''''''•:.:•, -P.:.",r(^• .h:„'.f, ,/;"`"•si:\'; rr,s'',:'`Z, si? i"'''7•1/.. ,ie ',,-, .., \4\-/-',.., \'`.>`\//•',,,iN" .:,,, /4.-qr s./5,' ' •r :;', ,rs •r•• k ',..<‘‘' ..,,,,e ,0,0'..,..., ;kA:\"...,--P-' Al'gzit..,,,..... :"' L.......g. ,,'• ti•-:,•-•;,•4 ii-:' ,:',..,.„,#0, .-,' /.,:...... ,, , ,..-•-,., , '.-0 / ',. ,.."/K,„,:,-..k 4.''i'::,,,'e,,"\ 1.•,:>6.:'",\".:::' / '',.:. • '>' .\,.,-,/,----''',,,,ls\*-,---.4,,,,,..,-Ae •,,,N1,,,,,,s_i.,,,..'-4,.,,' '4''';4$ l^:.."Iie .$'71 ''','-')*,.. \ ,:c r_ '", :" '''eA,''''1„:.1 \'‘..i, ',,,,•s .;',7.:-.„,/,,''..›./,:‘,., '''' ,N,\ ''',.. ,w;'t,','` . '. \N:...,-.,,,,,,.--,,(s.,.,..3..:$;',., ",.,--Ny',,.yr, 'o,,,,,„,e, ,,,,,,...F.,: /i....., .-i- ..:.V .. •$,., ,b..„ , ,,,, ‹,.,,-r-y.0„,„,..k:•,r,..:\ ,,,J <>;,..::"..,,;_,, ,>,.,‘..7.c.\"...: ,,...,,,,..:, .,..,, ::,,,,,,,.<4:6,,s,!:\:::,.,..,.,.,:i:_,:;;:i‘t:;z:::::::1:Nrr....'f,':.:,,,,,•'1,51::.14':‘J/1.;,;):::: :::::.:,:l';' ,\'''.7;,'1;:;',::::'::kc.::::'s,..1„ :',„ .. , _ 'kEiN,.i.:;74-x$,,,,r,...11.,,,,,,,,-;(1,....1,,,,,,,.4t,../..:1.,,,.',/...:',,,,/\-;..„.::;,\\,,,7.,:-..(^s›.,..,";:::..: •-•\ ,,,, ' • ''''••‘. .N--";2,'"''''.41..-z.f.,, ),...-.!,,:.''.--2r-i-Ti.)''',.?" ,,\<,,...'\;./;\'''.:..',;;'>%',:.:',14',.,..•.:X' \\\ <\'''•<:"1:://74, .. ..',..''':;r: f:'„. "):74,./ s".•••/";t:.+V/ •!:..' ,f . '•. N\N<.\--k>,.\,,,,1,71(:).,ik4.2.it...„..„...:t..'"„)....,kt,...,.-!....)7,.%:,,::;:,Tj:'x-,7>''.<,'.',( ,;(.<::::>:>,„77,',..6:i...,t:;...„,.:..,,,.....,7‘ : ,,:,)'\,,.,.. col loop e \ v...„. ..„.,... N..,,t.„, ,k, k,,, ,,,,,„..).1....„ " , „ . .. Xcr 1-,..,-,,,,,, y",k, %-.,..,` ,-- :%A• .\-,;-•',;.`, ''',/',,,',<." t‘';',`",,,,,r.:',0, 'N'''' ''''' / - ' '‘‘/•',//,'7,›\''':''''''-' '' -•*''. • 'I" ' :- k '''''' •VN,:',, -1,•-•':V\:•-g---:-.1•-•,) 't"•••;•>•'';4> \'&"'s s( I/ ',- % / , ' \• •••' 5--- ,,... ------,, ‘-'.' '4-4 \--„N„-,,,,- ,,,,, •,-,-,-i,-;,v .-4.,-, - . -. , 1.,,--$.' ••••7: 1....•'`'4,2•1/..> 1••.,` ....,‘ ,s's-.1•?,,isl l'''''5','''''' '< %N/•'''''',,, \?kr/..T...1••'/- '''"-,.. '1':•e`••••`‘..r•S' -',•••<';':',7 "' \/.?,/, ir''''',Y„X[4:7 •- : :' •: :• '''i, • •K•••&.\-;;:•-: '••• ,-•-.."•::/ ^-, /•,:::•`/,;r:,, " e•-•-',., i s.1%,.\<'•r\sr.`,,,,,'"•:‘,,, \v":,,,," `•,, , 17.‘, ''''''‘ •0''''''' :,• •''' ''''':\'‘\\ • '"•''' ''..," '' : ., ' ,,,, . `,,,.,....45-;,,:s., 4,' f•el*',.. V\ \j,‘,!,..i ( .."'i 4' '4,:.*-:c`,40.NC"'" ""'-'"'•.'''‘.•%.:::.. .." ..,„:",..L,A, 4 ti ",-.'-'4.,r.V4•,,r,-.Si„...,- 2-gca'er' ,:,/,... , 0: •••• '4 •''';:..1 1/ 4,4'0 _ li-•--"mr‘ .....s. ,2,1;r: •/' ‘::" ' 4000 s. A-1N .:•:.',,,,,;..A, i, Fr ,A...•;,...,/..,v , •,,: •• %,:.0 ,,..., sr,w.,-,• ) ,..,,,,,& :',::::-...., :? 1 --, ...,..,,,,,.',,,.. ,,,, ',. .,...,..,...,), t.20, ,..,' ",..,. -,,--,4& •.,'A,„`:,:, ';'4.‘1, >''',' :,\ ,:r.:: ,'.'>,...,.., P: ;Ii?^'. i '', <er-r•f,s1/0.9 • D ,• ,, . .;,,, .,.: . %.,04;.,,,,11,_.T\`.,t., .1..„,./X,,,m1 5/_„4„„N'.,,,,,11 /:...,,,,r„,„".:;,,k.\44'1, ,y...,::::,<:::.:5,,,,,,..)41,-' ''',`k,., ) .,. \‘',,,„\.,..\\'',,,..i.„1,,,q,,,LK.:1?-_-,:c.,-..,;,,L.4.1,,,i.„..,,,,,....:,•,,,,,,:‘,.?: ,....,„,...,,,/ ,.,,,„.:,....,,„:.,/,„.0.<,,, ,,,,...,,,,,...,,,,4\-...,,,,,,,,„,,,,,-,, . , --,,<, ,,:,- ,,,.: ....-,K..)2. --,,,----14 .,- ,'-',.---*. ',,," z \••••,\N-/- '... ' ' ' \ •-s.;, : .1,,, ,)-1..,..L.J ci ,,, ' ,. . • • , ...... , , . ,.• , -,.. ,,N.ix .,..,. „...,,,,,,,,, ,•,---4.--...„,, '.)'-.4.-i:',---f 1,--.5';..v: -,. ,, '', ',-;',.', .',',.s •• 1.-.'",'\,,. *,,,,,.4.:„ '. . . . ,,,,.......:::„.:,, 7- "<..:,,,:4-4,...-Is...:, i•\,:-..:•••••-•"?,„,-, .i N.:\,/,./ ‘....„1./s`;'''• r,,,,,.... ...-. ••• ',..,'••\''.. .;•,' ,/,.;,.c....\;,‘ ,...,•,'„,- ; :: '{'.____,4„__ , •1:„..ffrr. . il r • tr. s, 113 •:•:'. , :sr:r. / , I .,,, , - , i -,,..i.„::„,--,„.„,,,,„, -,.‘.,,,,,,,,, -:,•,,,,,,,,-,,,,-,,, 'v''' . rrill ..,.',,e,' ' • ' •,,,,...:,:t,:\,,-,,,•c,„:„..0..,,.,,w, „„< 0„ .--k-,,, I OLIVE AVENUE„ '1-01 0 I '''< ''• •,'''''i '' •<'•:‘,•<'•/5kz:\.- ',,-.,+' ,•••,::, s=„..,..,-.!„-, ,' ... , , ,..,„. „.__,..s.„A ,...„- , s.\-- \ ••••:',. x•••• ? • \/- mr; —1 ' , \ •;,,..‘„s„ • s- ,., r,•••„. s - •'7,1:s .._,31. ,1 i1„ .. , \ „ ..• , , , ...-,. rfi r--,-, I , i.w,- r ' ,, .• , 4 " ''. -1 '''N' , ,- ‘..• — - -7" .„:..,,,,:<ii-m.-;,' itt rc2 :,r :p. . ..., ,tg •: • g , : 11,'" -I.j-............-a;- ' , -.. ,--- ,! : , -• , ,,. . ' , ..... . .„,,,,..„,„ •-•••,-,7.--"s .. ....„_.„,,,,,,s„,---*.1.14,...""rrrr ilf,:.-7.1 :,,.., • t[....................1 5*** 1 i;:i ' " : .., :.: . ,<„,..„,„, , , •.$3,...• •pf,, ...,,,,...=.„. . ,,, ,i,,„ .:_, ,,,,,-,°=:-.:::-.,-;.,4,-(*),/t-P-*-4c„„ .,,:, i 1{‘,.,,•„,,,_,„...,,„,„,, . o ''''''vr- .,v,,,.,:t:I., ::1.:1,,s7,..--m'',..:„7, '-1... ...."' 1" ''f'''').:•:.1:14:4: N.4 : *............ ,...: 4' : h'• • , , .- •• • - • '-1-•- \: ..„e 0 • : 1. ow-7. *:-...--...;--•.,...::; li' ' ' „ , , \ ,,•oiog.:.,,„.. •• • • `,>A . tt:.1 6: ' ?: .. \N ,,, i„', kl-0• 0 s: • - ' ----1 , '••• r,'!• I : .., ____. ,„,,,,...,>,:- . :: . ., .., ,. 1.,,,. .,„_,,,,--,„,..,s ,,,ti ,,•.;1 L.i.,._:. .,_ • — I ,&c._,.,:„.„,y..-L.a„, i• i .. 4 , ,., , • c1)173.,..,),.-441?....-111 L1.0,,,l',.--:'-'-'7/.;:l.--;1,,' 1, -, •„, .• ---, Jk'• .; 't • • V.! :1 ,,, 11/4 , , 1:45,1,,,1 ,,,,slii-,;:,,,, ,, , ; t.• : t , , ,,„ ' ... : _•;•,,,,,:::‘, ' '''?:,:ikl:, ._,„:1',11,..0,.:13,,,,,,,,,,,---0,-- _ ,'•„:.-----4t:- _._ „. .,.:;,.....1..„...i.'' ' ..... . , .. ' .- .=A „,.....'1,\••<.'-' :„„...,,z.,-,,,z.-..,,_,..,,,.. -•-:....;;;:-;.,,,,,-,-,r,,,,=.... ',• .< ''4.1.=-L'-'27,,.'t- ..•:?\./,'.,, : (,.: 3•_ ,.. . ,.. . .,`.,, -,•-4.0:.--- ‘.: •I -. .----4 / : '11W111110,:- • .,,,e,----' -- - • .. .....' .,,,,e,•„;;;•-- . ..„--•10* i 1 •'.ly.. 7 i-1.3 1, I '. ••. .... t•A., • :ri.rei;••,•';' ': '1.41 41000° '''''' ''`• ; i„f: ,._ ,.., •' .. , , , ,..,•oz.. 'rx'4`r- ___„,,,..,,Asys,,,-,•• rl ],] i.i • , ..... ,.... ......, .,:.......4 ...„.. '',.,,....,,,..:.:....,'' ...-------------c,—;‘. coxsi z.,,...,HiG,,H.,.. ...-2.:•.,. -..---:-;.. _1:,...„.::17-'',17;1;,r7;•":--";-----4H.:s ,,Tre f:Al•'•F•it , >3*4- 11-rH147'7r1:' : ,..„,. . •,•-.:P A -- - ..--:',::::„-----.." .------ •4t, ..-1r-MTreillHh,'— ' .W“ I w W '''''''''''''''.:'v•;;A.I.,•;••••• ••"""--• 1 ' ,--"--. ::.7r.:.••••••:;;;•:.L'',.:L-1”.,,„=i;lis.,:ts1-,.....,,''''','.7.::::-'•:7;•...''..•••--_.....--'------ „..,-,=;„,„,,-",,,,.r..s':•'•''rrgr:;f7•14,13'n',:i 0'''''' • , ,,,„: i.:ts ';:.‘.11 -,4•111T ••ss.. FIGURE 3.10-2 Not to Scale ..... IP . Noise Measurement Locations City of Huntington Beach•Pacific City EIR __,....„......., Y, <',1n.I.V.3 SOURCE:EIP Associates 2003 10261-00 A 0 „ . / „ •, . _ .. ' •• ' - ; : 1 ", ' - ,_ _ , ._ _ • -._._ _ .. _, _ 3.10 Noise Existing Roadway Noise Levels on Site r Existing 24-hour noise levels have been calculated for various roadways around the proposed project site. This task was accomplished using the Federal Highway Administration Highway Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108) and traffic volumes from the project traffic analysis (included as Appendix C). The model calculates the average noise level at specific locations based on traffic volumes, average speeds, roadway geometry, and site environmental conditions. The average vehicle noise rates (energy rates) utilized in the FHWA Model have been modified to reflect average vehicle noise rates identified for California by Caltrans. The Caltrans data show that California automobile noise is 0.8 to 1.0 dBA higher than national levels and that medium and heavy truck noise is 0.3 to 3.0 dBA lower than national levels. The calculated noise levels are presented in Table 3.10-4 along with the distances to various noise level contours. Table 3.10-4 Existing Roadway Noise Levels On Site Reference La.at Distance to Noise Contour Roadway Roadway Segment 100 Feet' 70 Lan 65 Lan 60 Lai First Street Atlanta Avenue to Pacific Coast Highway 56.0 — — 54 • Atlanta Avenue First Street to Huntington Avenue 57.9 — — .72 Huntington Avenue Atlanta Avenue to Pacific Coast Highway 50.9 — — — Pacific Coast Highway Huntington Avenue to First Street 66.3 57 123 265 1. Distances are in feet from roadway centerline.The identified noise level at 100 feet from the roadway centerline is for reference purposes only as a point from which to calculate the noise contour distances.It does not reflect an actual building location or potential impact location. 2. Noise contour is located within the roadway lanes. SOURCE: EIP Associates 2003.Calculation data and results are provided in Appendix C. • Existing Roadway Noise Levels Off Site Existing roadway noise levels were also calculated for the roadway links in the vicinity of the project site that have noise sensitive uses fronting the roadways. As with on-site noise levels, this was accomplished using the FHWA Highway Noise Prediction Model and traffic volumes from the project traffic analysis (included as Appendix C). The average daily noise levels along these roadway segments are presented in Table 3.10-5. Existing Groundborne Vibration } ' Aside from seismic events, the greatest regular sources of groundborne vibration at the proposed site and immediate vicinity are roadway truck and bus traffic. These trucks and buses typically generate groundborne vibration velocity levels of around 63 VdB. These levels could reach 72 VdB where trucks and buses pass over bumps in the road. 7i Pacific City EIR 3.10-7 Chapter 3 Environmental Impact Analysis Table 3.10-5 Existing Roadway Noise Levels Off Site Roadway Roadway Segment Noise Sensitive Uses dBA 4n Pacific Coast Highway 17th St.to 9th St. Multifamily Residential 67.3 Beach Boulevard Pacific Coast Hwy.to Atlanta Ave. Single-Family Residential 59.7 Atlanta Ave.to Indianapolis Ave. Single-Family Residential 63.1 Indianapolis Ave.to Adams Ave. Single-and Multifamily Residential 64.6 Lake Street Adams Ave.to Indianapolis Ave. Single-Family Residential 60.6 Indianapolis Avenue Beach Blvd.to Newland St. Single-Family Residential 57.6 Atlanta Avenue Newland St.to Beach Blvd. Multifamily Residential 62.3 Beach Blvd.to Delaware St. Single-and Multifamily Residential 64.8 Delaware St.to Huntington Ave. Single-and Multifamily Residential 63.1 Huntington Ave.to 1ST St. Single-and Multifamily Residential 61.3 Main Street Adams Ave.to Palm Ave. Single-Family Residential 58.7 First Street Pacific Coast Hwy.to Atlanta Ave. Single-Family Residential 59.4 Huntington Avenue Pacific Coast Hwy.to Atlanta Ave. Single-and Multifamily Residential 54.4 SOURCE: EIP Associates 2003.Calculation data and results are provided in Appendix C. 3.10.2 Regulatory Framework There are no federal regulations related to noise that apply to the proposed project. State Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations codifies Sound Transmission Control requirements, which establishes uniform minimum noise insulation performance standards for new hotels, motels, dormitories, apartment houses, and dwellings other than detached single-family dwellings. Specifically, Title 24 states that interior noise levels attributable to exterior sources shall not exceed 45 dBA CNEL in any habitable room of new dwellings. Dwellings are to be designed so that interior noise levels will meet this standard for at least ten years from the time of building permit application. Local General Plan Noise Element The California Government Code requires that a noise element be included in the general plan of each county and city in the state. The Noise Element of the City of Huntington Beach General Plan is a comprehensive program for including noise control in the planning process. It is a tool that City planners use to achieve and maintain compatible land uses with environmental noise levels. 3.10-8 City of Huntington Beach • 3.10 Noise The Noise Element incorporates noise standards developed by the Office of Noise Control in the State Department of Health Services as the primary tool the City uses to assess the compatibility between land uses and outdoor noise. As such, the City uses a noise level standard of 60 dBA Ld, for the exterior living areas of new residential land uses, and 45 dBA Ld„for the interior of all new residential uses. Table 3.10-6 identifies goals and objectives presented in the Noise Element of the General Plan related to noise that are potentially relevant to the proposed project. This table also includes an assessment of the proposed project's consistency with the policies adopted in support of these goals and objectives. Table 3.10-6 General Plan Noise Element—Policies Applicable to Noise Goal,Objective,or Policy, Project Consistency Goal N 1.Ensure that all necessary and Conformance with implementing policies,as discussed below,results in conformance with this goal. appropriate actions are taken to protect Huntington Beach residents,employees, visitors,and noise sensitive uses from the adverse impacts created by excessive noise levels from stationary and ambient sources. Objective N 1.2.Prevent and mitigate the Conformance with implementing policies,as discussed below,results in conformance with this adverse impacts of excessive noise objective. exposure on the residents,employees, visitors,and noise sensitive uses of Huntington Beach. Policy N 1.2.1.Require,in areas where This section of the EIR includes MM N-1 to ensure that noise levels in the exterior living environments noise levels exceed an exterior Ldn of 60 of the proposed residential uses meet City standards. dBA and an interior Ldn of 45 dBA,that all new development of"noise sensitive"land • uses,such as housing,health care facilities,schools,libraries,and religious facilities,include appropriate buffering and/or construction mitigation measures that will reduce noise exposure to levels within acceptable limits. Policy N.1.2.2.Require new industrial and The noise levels associated with traffic and mechanical equipment from the proposed project would new commercial land uses or the major not exceed City standards at nearby noise sensitive uses. expansion of existing land uses to demonstrate that the new or expanded use would not be directly responsible for causing ambient noise levels to exceed an exterior Ldn of 65 dBA on areas containing "noise sensitive"land uses as depicted on Figure N-1 [of the General Plan]. Policy N 1.2.3.Require development,in all This section of the EIR concludes that interior noise levels within the proposed buildings would not areas where the ambient noise level exceed 45 dBA Ldn. exceeds an Ldn of 60 dBA,to conduct an acoustical analysis and incorporate special design measures in their construction, thereby,reducing interior noise levels to the 45 dBA La„level. Pacific City,EIR , 3.10-9 Chapter 3 Environmental Impact Analysis Table,3.10-6 General Plan Noise Element—Policies Applicable to Noise Goal,Objective,or Policy Project Consistency Policy,N 1.2.5.Require development that This section of the EIR concludes that proposed project would generate increased local traffic generates increased traffic and volumes,but would not cause a substantial permanent increase in ambient roadway noise levels.No subsequent increases in the ambient noise mitigation measures are required or recommended. levels adjacent to noise sensitive land uses to provide for appropriate mitigation measures in accordance with acceptable 0 limits of the City Noise Ordinance. Objective N 1.3.Minimize the adverse Conformance with implementing policies,as discussed below,results in conformance with this impacts of traffic-generated noise on objective. residential and other"noise sensitive" uses. Policy N 1.3.1.Require all new non- This section of the EIR concludes that proposed project would generate increased local traffic residential development to design and volumes,but would not cause a substantial permanent increase in ambient roadway noise levels. configure on-site ingress and egress points diverting traffic away from nearby"noise- sensitive"land uses to the greatest degree practicable. • , Policy N 1.3.7.Provide for the The proposed project includes pedestrian walkways that link the project site to the area surrounding development of alternate transportation the project site.This could reduce the number of vehicles trips made of residents,employees,and modes such as bicycle paths and visitors of the project. pedestrian walkways to minimize the ' number of noise generating automobile trips. Policy N 1.3.10.Require that mechanical This section of the EIR concludes that mechanical equipment associated with the proposed uses equipment,such as air conditioning units would not exceed City standards at nearby buildings. or pool equipment,comply with the City's Noise Ordinance and Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. Objective N 1.4.Minimize noise spillover Conformance with implementing policies,as discussed below,results in conformance with this or encroachment from commercial and objective. industrial land uses into adjoining residential neighborhoods or"noise- sensitive"uses. Policy N 1.4.1.Require that the The proposed hotel and visitor-serving commercial uses would be located across Pacific View Avenue automobile and truck access of from the proposed residential uses. commercial or industrial land uses abutting residential parcels to be located at the maximum practical distance from the. nearest residential parcels. Policy N.1.4.2.Require that the loading The proposed hotel,and visitor-serving commercial uses would be located across Pacific View Avenue and shipping facilities of commercial and from the proposed residential uses.The loading and shipping facilities would be located below grade industrial land uses abutting residential and would not abut residential uses. parcels to be located and designed to minimize the potential noise impacts upon residential parcels. Policy N 1.4.3.Require that the parking The parking areas for the proposed hotel and visitor-serving commercial uses would be located below areas of all commercial and industrial land grade. uses,which abut residential areas,to be buffered and shielded by walls,fences,or - adequate landscaping. 3.10-10 City of Huntington Beach 3.10 Noise Table 3.10-6 General Plan Noise Element—Policies Applicable to Noise Goal,Objective,or Policy Project Consistency Policy N 1.4.4.Require that the parking The parking areas for the proposed hotel and visitor-serving commercial uses would be located below structures of commercial or industrial land grade. uses be designed to minimize the potential noise impacts of vehicles on the site as well as on adjacent uses. Policy N 1.4.5.Require commercial or The proposed hotel and visitor-serving commercial uses would be located across Pacific View Avenue industrial truck delivery hours to land use from the proposed residential uses.The loading and shipping facilities would be located below grade abutting residential uses to be limited and not abut residential uses. unless there is no feasible alternative of there are overriding transportation benefits. Objective N 1.6.Minimize the impacts of Conformance with implementing policies,as discussed below,results in conformance with this . construction noise on adjacent uses. objective. Policy N 1.6.1.Ensure that construction The hours of construction activities would be limited in accordance with the Huntington Beach activities be regulated to establish hours of Municipal Code. operation,to prevent and/or mitigate the generation of excessive or adverse noise impacts through the implementation of the existing Noise Ordinance and/or any future revisions to the Noise Ordinance. Objective N 1.7.Ensure that buildings are The proposed buildings would be constructed in accordance with the specifications identified in the constructed to prevent adverse noise Huntington Beach Municipal Code. .- transmission between differing uses or tenants located in the same commercial structure and individual dwelling units in multifamily residential structures. Policy N 1.7.1.Rigorously enforce the The proposed buildings would be constructed in accordance with the specifications identified in the, applicable provisions of the Uniform Huntington Beach Municipal Code. Building Code and City of Huntington - Beach Municipal Code which prevent the ' transmission of excessive'and • unacceptable noise levels between individual tenants and businesses in commercial structures and between individual tenants and businesses in commercial structures and between individual dwelling units in multifamily • residential structures. Objective N 1.8.Minimize the generation Conformance with implementing policies,as discussed below,results in conformance with this of excessive noise level impacts from objective. entertainment and restaurant/bar establishments into adjacent residential or "noise sensitive"land uses. Policy N 1.8.1.Require that entertainment The proposed hotel and visitor-serving commercial uses would be located across Pacific View Avenue and restaurant/bar uses take appropriate from the proposed residential uses.Noise generated by entertainment and restaurant/bar uses would steps to control the activities of their be limited and enforced in accordance with the Huntington Beach Municipal Code. patrons on-site,as well as within a reasonable and legally justified distance or proximity to minimize potential noise- - related impacts on adjacent residential } neighborhoods. , Pacific City EIR 3.10-11 Chapter 3 Environmental Impact Analysis Table 3.10-6 General Plan Noise Element—Policies Applicable to Noise Goal,Objective,or Policy Project Consistency Policy N 1.8.2.Discourage the The proposed hotel and visitor-serving commercial uses would be located across Pacific View Avenue development of new nightclubs, from the proposed residential uses.Noise generated by entertainment and restaurant/bar uses would discotheques,and other high noise- be limited and enforced in accordance with the Huntington Beach Municipal Code. generating entertainment uses that may impact residential neighborhoods,schools, health care facilities,or other"noise sensitive"land uses,unless it can be demonstrated that adequate measures can be installed and employed to adequately mitigate the potential impacts of on-site operations and/or off-site customer access and activities of these establishments upon these areas. Objective N 1.12.Ensure any use Conformance with implementing policies,as discussed below,results in conformance with this determined(by the City of Huntington objective. Beach)to be a potential generator of significant stationary noise impacts,be properly analyzed and ensure that the recommended mitigation measures are implemented. Policy N.1.12.1.Require detailed and This section of the EIR concludes that mechanical equipment associated with the proposed uses independent acoustical studies be would not exceed City standards at nearby buildings.No mitigation measures are required or conducted for any new or renovated land recommended. uses or structures determined to be potential major stationary noise sources. Recommended mitigation measures must be successfully implemented and tested, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the land use or structure. Policy N.1.12.2.Encourage major This section of the EIR concludes that mechanical equipment associated with the proposed uses stationary noise generating sources would not exceed City standards at nearby buildings.No mitigation measures are required or throughout the City of Huntington Beach to recommended. install additional noise buffering or reduction mechanisms within their facilities to reduce noise generation levels to the lowest extent practicable prior to the renewal of Conditional Use Permits or business licenses or prior to the approval and/or issuance of new Conditional Use Permits for said facilities. Municipal Code—Noise Ordinance The City of Huntington Beach has also adopted a Noise Ordinance (Chapter 8.40 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code), which identifies exterior and interior noise standards, specific noise restrictions, exemptions, and variances for sources of noise within the city. The Noise Ordinance applies to all noise sources with the exception of any vehicle that is operated upon any public highway, street or right-of-way, or to the operation of any off-highway vehicle, to the extent that it is regulated in the State Vehicle Code, and all other sources of noise that are specifically exempted. 3.10-12 City of Huntington Beach 3.10 Noise The City's exterior noise standards are identified in Table 3.10-7, along with the exterior noise levels that are prohibited. Table 3.10-8 identifies the City's interior noise standards and prohibited interior noise levels. In both cases, if the ambient noise level is greater than the identified noise standards, the noise standard becomes the ambient noise level without the offending noise. Table 3.10-7 City of Huntington Beach Noise Ordinance Exterior Noise Standards Noise Zone Noise Zone Land Uses Noise Level Time Period 1 All Residential Properties 55 dBA Leq 7 A.M.to 10 P.M. 50dBALeq 10P.M.to7A.M. 2 All Professional Office and Public Institutional Properties 55 dBA Leq Anytime 3 All Commercial Properties Except.Professional Office • 60 dBA Leq Anytime 4 All Industrial Properties • 70 dBA Leq Anytime Exterior Noise Levels Prohibited: It shall be unlawful for any person at any location within the incorporated area of the City to create any noise,or to allow the creation of any noise on property owned,leased, t_ occupied,or otherwise controlled,by such person,which causes the noise level when measured on any residential,public institutional,professional,commercial or industrial property,either within or without the City,to exceed the applicable noise standards: --- (a) For a cumulative period or more than thirty(30)minutes in any hour; I (b) Plus 5 dBA for a cumulative period of more than fifteen(15)minutes in any hour; (c) Plus 10 dBA for a cumulative period of more than five(5)minutes in any hour; (d) Plus 15 dBA for a cumulative period of more than one(1)minute in any hour;or (e) Plus 20 dBA for any period of time. In the event the ambient noise level exceeds any of the first four noise limit categories above,the cumulative period applicable to said category shall be increased to reflect said ambient noise level.In the event the ambient noise level exceeds the fifth noise limit category,the maximum allowable noise level under said category shall be increased to reflect the maximum ambient noise level. - SOURCE: City of Huntington Beach 2001 Table 3.10-8 City of Huntington Beach Noise Ordinance Interior Noise•Standards Noise Zone • Noise Zone Land Uses Noise Level Time Period 1 All Residential Properties 55 dBA Leq 7 A.M.to 10 P.M. 45:dBA Leq 10 A.M.to 7 A.M. t,. 2,3,4 All Professional Office,Public Institutional,Commercial,and Industrial 55 dBA Leq Anytime Properties Interior Noise Levels Prohibited: It shall be unlawful for any person at any location within the incorporated area of the City to create any noise,or to allow the creation of any noise on property owned,leased, occupied,or otherwise controlled by such person,which causes the noise level when measured within any other structure on any residential,public institutional,professional, commercial or industrial property to exceed: (a) The noise standard fora cumulative period or more than five(5)minutes in any hour; (b) The noise standard.plus 5 dBA for a cumulative period of more than one(1)minutes in any hour;or (c) The noise standard plus 10 dBA for any period of time. In the event the ambient noise level exceeds any of the first two noise limit categories above,the cumulative period applicable to said category shall be increased to reflect said ambient noise level.In the event the ambient noise level exceeds the third noise limit category,the maximum allowable noise level under said category shall be increased to ' reflect the maximum ambient noise level - SOURCE: City.of Huntington Beach 2001 The Noise Ordinance exempts noise sources associated with construction activities from the City's exterior and interior noise standards provided that a permit has been obtained from the City and that the i construction activities do not occur between the hours of 8 P.M. and 7 A.M. on weekdays and Saturdays, or at any time on Sundays or federal holidays. Pacific City EIR 3.10713 Chapter 3 Environmental Impact Analysis 3.10.3 Thresholds of Significance The following thresholds of significance are based on Appendix G of the 2002 CEQA Guidelines, the Huntington Beach General Plan, and the Huntington Beach Municipal Code. For purposes of this EIR, implementation of the proposed project may have a significant adverse impact on noise if it would result in any of the following: • Expose nearby noise sensitive uses to temporary or periodic noise levels during construction that exceed Huntington Beach Municipal Code standards • Expose nearby sensitive uses to excessive groundborne vibration levels. This analysis uses the Federal Railway Administration's vibration impact thresholds for sensitive buildings, residences, and institutional land uses. These thresholds are 80 VdB at residences and buildings where people normally sleep (e.g., nearby residences and day care facility) and 83 VdB at institutional buildings • Expose the outdoor activity areas of new residential land uses on site to noise levels resulting from public roadways that exceed 60 dBA La„ • Expose the interior areas of new residential or hotel land uses on site to noise levels resulting from public roadways that exceed 45 dBA Ld„ • Violate the City's exterior noise level standards for locally regulated noise sources as identified previously in Table 3.10-7 • Cause a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. For the purpose of this analysis, a permanent increase of 3.0 dBA Ldn over ambient noise levels without the project is considered to be substantial 3.10.4 Project Impacts Impact-N-1 Construction activities associated with the proposed project could generate substantial temporary or periodic noise levels, but would not exceed the standards established in the Huntington Beach Municipal Code. Project development would require the use of heavy equipment for site grading and excavation, installation of utilities, paving, and building fabrication. Development activities would also involve the use of smaller power tools, generators, and other sources of noise. During each stage of development there would be a different mix of equipment operating and noise levels would vary based on the amount of equipment in operation and the location of the activity. The U.S. EPA has compiled data regarding the noise generating characteristics of specific types of construction equipment and typical construction activities. These data are presented in Table 3.10-9 and Table 3.10-10 for a reference distance of 50 feet. These noise levels would diminish rapidly with distance 3.10-14 City of Huntington Beach 3.10 Noise from the construction site at a rate of approximately 6 dBA per doubling of distance. For example, a noise level of 84 dBA measured at 50 feet from the noise source to the receptor would reduce to 78 dBA at 100 feet from the source to the receptor, and reduce by another 6 dBA to 72 dBA at 200 feet from the source to the receptor. Table 3.10-9 Noise Ranges of Typical Construction Equipment Construction Equipment Noise Levels in dBA Leq at 50 feet' Front Loader 73-86 Trucks 82-95 Cranes(moveable) 75-88 Cranes(derrick) 86-89 Vibrator 68-82 Saws 72-82 Pneumatic Impact Equipment 83-88 Jackhammers 81-98 Pumps 68-72 Generators 71-83 Compressors 75-87 Concrete Mixers 75-88 Concrete Pumps 81-85 Back Hoe 73-95 Pile Driving(peaks) 95-107 Tractor 77-98 Scraper/Grader 80-93 Paver 85-88 1. Machinery equipped with noise control devices or other noise-reducing design features does not generate the same level of noise emissions as that shown in this table. • SOURCE: U.S.EPA 1971 Table 3.10-10 Typical Outdoor Construction Noise Levels Noise Levels at 50 Feet Noise Levels at 50 Feet with Mufflers Construction Phase (dBA L,q) (dBA L,U Ground Clearing 84 82 Excavation,Grading 89 86 Foundations 78 77 Structural 85 83 Finishing 89 86 SOURCE: U.S.EPA 1971 Pacific City EIR 3.10-15 Chapter 3 Environmental Impact Analysis The nearest sensitive receptors are the existing residences located west of First Street (approximately 75 feet from the project site), the existing residences located north of Atlanta Avenue (approximately 60 feet north of the project site), and the existing residences located east of Huntington Street (approximately 60 feet from the project site). Construction activities would generate typical noise levels of up to 82 dBA Leg at these residences during ground clearing, and 87 dBA Leg at these residences during excavation, grading and finishing. Most of the types of exterior construction activities associated with the proposed project would not generate continuously high noise levels, although occasional single-event disturbances from grading and construction are possible. The highest potential noise levels would be • associated with pile driving operations that would occur at intermittent times throughout the construction period. Noise from pile driving would be approximately 95 to 107 dBA Leq at 50 feet. The construction activities and their associated noise levels would be limited to between the hours of 7:00 A.M. and 8:00 P.M. on Monday through Saturday in accordance with the Huntington Beach Municipal Code and are temporary in nature. Additionally, the City's Municipal Code exempts construction noise from the requirements of the Municipal Code. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant. Impact N-2 Construction activities associated with the proposed project would not generate or expose persons off site to excessive groundborne vibration. Construction activities that would occur under the proposed project have the potential to generate low levels of groundborne vibration. Table 3.10-11 identifies various vibration velocity levels for the types of construction equipment that would operate at the project site during construction. Table 3.10-11 Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment Approximate VdB Construction Equipment 25 Feet 50 Feet 60 Feet 75 Feet 100 Feet Pile Driver(impact) 104 98 96 94 91 Large Bulldozer 87 81 79 77 75 Loaded Trucks 86 80 78 76 74 Jackhammer 79 73 71 69 67 Small Bulldozer 58 52 50 48 46 `SOURCE: Federal Railroad Administration 1998;EIP Associates 2003 Construction activities would primarily impact the existing residences located west of First Street, north of Atlanta Avenue, and east of Huntington Street. These residences are located at least 60 feet from the edge of the project site. However, roadway construction would occur within 25 feet of the homes for short periods of time. Based on the information presented in Table 3.10-11, vibration levels could reach up to 96 VdB at the properties located across the streets from the project site. This would exceed the 80 VdB threshold for residences and buildings where people normally sleep. However, the construction activities and their , 3.10-16 City of Huntington Beach 3.10 Noise associated noise levels would be limited to between the hours of 7:00 A.M. and 8:00 P.M. on Monday through Saturday in accordance with the Huntington Beach Municipal Code. Therefore, they would not occur during recognized sleep hours for residences. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant. { i Impact N-3 Implementation of the proposed project could expose new residential land - ' uses on site to noise levels in excess of City standards. Future noise levels within the project site would continue to be dominated by vehicular traffic on the adjacent roadways. Other sources of noise would include new stationary sources (such as rooftop heating, ventilation, and air conditioning equipment) and increased activity throughout the site. Table 3.10-12 presents the future average daily exterior and interior noise levels associated with these roadways. Residential Uses As shown in Table 3.10-12, future exterior noise levels at the multifamily units planned along First Street, Atlanta Avenue, and Pacific View Avenue could just barely exceed the City's 60 dBA La„ standard for outdoor activity~areas. In the case of the proposed residential uses, these noise levels would apply to the actual outdoor activity areas (i.e., private yards and balconies) of each residential unit that faces these roadways. This is a potentially significant impact. Exterior roadway noise levels due to traffic would not exceed City standards at the residential units located along Huntington Avenue. This is a less-than-significant impact. As discussed previously, exterior-to-interior reduction of newer residential units is generally 30 dBA or more. With this assumption, Table 3.10-12 indicates that future noise levels associated with the surrounding roadways would not exceed the City's 45 dBA Ld„ interior noise standard for residential uses. Therefore, this is a less-than-significant impact. Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems would be installed for the new residential buildings located within the project site. Residential HVAC systems result in noise levels that average between 40 and 50 dBA Leq at 50 feet from the equipment. These noise levels would not exceed the City's exterior noise level standards for locally regulated noise sources as identified previously in Table 3.10-7. This is a less-than-significant impact. Pacific City EIR 3.10-17 Chapter 3 Environmental Impact Analysis Table 3.10-12 Predicted Future Roadway Noise Levels On Site Noise Levels in dBA La. Assumed Exterior to Future+Exterior City Exterior Interior Noise Future Interior City Interior Roadway Roadway Segment Proposed Land Use Noise Levels2 Noise Standards Reduction Noise Levels Noise Standards First Street Atlanta Ave.to Pacific Coast Hwy. Multifamily(70 feet) 60.1 60.0 30 30.1 45.0 Commercial(70 feet) 60.7 None 25 35.7 None Atlanta Avenue 1st St.to Huntington Ave. Multifamily(80 feet) 60.7 60.0 30 30.7 45.0 Huntington Avenue Atlanta Ave.to Pacific Coast Hwy. Multifamily(45 feet) 59.4 60.0 30 29.4 45.0 Hotel(80 feet) 56.7 None 25 31.7 45.0 Pacific Coast Highway Huntington Ave.to 1st St. Hotel(90 feet) 69.7 None 25 44.7 45.0 Commercial(90 feet) 69.7 None 25 44.7 None Pacific View Avenue Huntington Ave.to 1st St. Multifamily(60 feet) 60.8 60.0 30 30.8 45.0 Hotel(60 feet) 61.0 None 25 36.0 45.0 Commercial(70 feet) 60.2 None 25 35.2 None 1 Future traffic condition is the General Plan with project traffic volumes identified in the Traffic Impact Analysis Report prepared by Linscott Law&Greenspan,2003a. 2 Noise levels are calculated for the edge of the building nearest the roadway noise source. SOURCE: EIP Associates 2003.Calculation data and results are provided in Appendix C. 3.10-18 City of Huntington Beach ; t i , I o � r( 3.10 Noise Hotel and Visitor-Serving Commercial Uses Because the rooms in hotels often provide large windows along the walls that face outdoors, this analysis assumes that the exterior-to-interior noise level reduction for the proposed hotel would be approximately 25 dBA. With this assumption, Table 3.10-12 indicates that future noise levels associated with the surrounding roadways would not exceed the City's 45 dBA Ld„ interior standard for noise sensitive uses. This is a less-than-significant impact. HVAC systems would be installed for the new hotel and visitor-serving commercial buildings located within the project site. Large HVAC.systems can result in noise levels that average between 50 and 65 dBA Leq at 50 feet from the equipment. The HVAC units would be mounted on the rooftops of the proposed buildings and would be screened from view by building features. Therefore, the resulting noise levels would not exceed City standards at nearby buildings. This is a less-than-significant impact. Intermittent noise levels would also occur in association with delivery vehicles and loading dock activities. Some—not all—of these vehicles could use warning devices (beeping tomes) when backing up. Noise monitoring results for another loading dock identified an average noise level of 53.7 dBA Leq at a distance of 45 feet from the loading dock. This noise level occurred with the operation of three delivery trucks, of which one was a lightweight van, one was a medium weight truck, and one was a tractor-trailer. Instantaneous noise levels monitored over two minutes while a tractor-trailer entered the area, turned, and backed-up to the loading dock averaged 62.0 dBA Leq. A small truck using a back-up warning device averaged 70 dBA Leq over the 30-second period that it backed up. The two aboveground loading docks and ramp areas are located east and west of the motor court/porte cochere, one located off of Pacific View and the other off of First Street as shown in Figure 2-3a. They are approximately 160 feet from the nearest proposed residential building and would be screened from view from the residential areas by the commercial buildings. They would also be screened from the main entrances to the commercial uses. Based on this information, the noise levels associated with delivery vehicles and loading dock activities would not exceed City standards at nearby residential or commercial uses. This is a less-than-significant impact. Impact N-4 The proposed project would generate increased local traffic volumes, but would not cause a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels. Locations in the vicinity of the project site could experience slight changes in noise levels as a result of an increase in the on-site population and resulting increase in motor vehicle trips. The changes in future noise levels at the selected noise-sensitive locations along the study-area roadway segments in the project vicinity Pacific City EIR. 3.10-19 Chapter 3 Environmental Impact Analysis are identified in Table 3.10-13. As shown, the proposed project would increase local noise levels by a maximum of 2.4 dBA Ld,;, which is inaudible/imperceptible to most people and would not exceed the identified thresholds of significance. Therefore, this would be a less-than-significant impact. Along..two roadway segments, future noise levels would actually be reduced as a result of changes in local circulation patterns that occur with the project. Table 3.10-13 Project Traffic Noise Impacts Noise.Levels in dBA Lan Future Without Future With Significance Roadway Roadway Segment Project Traffic Project Traffic Increase Threshold Pacific Coast Highway 17th St.to 9th St. 67.9 68.1 0.2 3.0 Beach.Boulevard Pacific Coast Hwy.to Atlanta Ave. 61.0 61.6 " 0.6 3.0 Atlanta Ave.to Indianapolis Ave. 64.0 64.6 0.6 3.0 Indianapolis Ave.to Adams Ave. 65.2 65.7 0.5 '3.0 Lake Street Adams Ave.to Indianapolis Ave. 60.9 61.1 0.2 3.0 Indianapolis Avenue Beach Blvd.to Newland St. 58.1 58.2 0.1 3.0 Atlanta Avenue Newland St.to Beach Blvd. 62.9 63.1 0.2 3.0 Beach Blvd.to Delaware St. 65.2 65.7 0.5 3.0 ' , Delaware St.to Huntington Ave. 63.6 64.3 0.7 3.0 - Huntington Ave.to 1st St. 61.8 61.9 0.1 3.0 Main Street Adams Ave.to Palm Ave. 59.9 58.2 -1.7 3.0 First Street Pacific Coast Hwy.to Atlanta Ave. 56.2 58.6 2.4 3.0 Huntington Avenue 1 Pacific Coast Hwy.to Atlanta Ave: 56.2 55.1 -1.1 3.0 SOURCE: EIP Associates 2003.Calculation data and results are provided in Appendix C. 3.10.5 Cumulative Impacts Cumulative noise impacts would occur primarily as a result of increased traffic on local roadways due to the proposed project and other projects within the study area. Therefore, cumulative traffic-generated noise impacts have been assessed based on the contribution of the proposed project to the future cumulative base traffic volumes in the project vicinity. The noise levels associated with existing traffic volumes, cumulative base traffic volumes without the project, and cumulative base traffic volumes with the project are identified in Table 3.10-14 along with the contribution of traffic noise generated by the proposed project. 3.10-20 City of Huntington Beach 3.10 Noise Table 3.10-14 Cumulative Project Roadway Traffic Noise Impacts , Noise Levels in dBA Lae Existing Traffic Cumulative Base Cumulative+ Cumulative Project Significance Roadway Roadway Segment Volumes Traffic Project Traffic Increase Contribution Threshold Pacific Coast Highway 17th St.to 9th St. 67.3 68.6 68.8 1.5 0.2 3.0 Beach Boulevard Pacific Coast Hwy.to Atlanta Ave. 59.7 62.2 62.7 3.0 0.5 3.0 Atlanta Ave.to Indianapolis Ave. 63.1 65.0 65.4, 2.3 0.4 3.0 Indianapolis Ave.to Adams Ave. 64.6 65.5 66.0 1.4 0.5 3.0 Lake Street Adams Ave.to Indianapolis Ave. 60.6 61.2 61.4 0.8 - 0.2 3.0 Indianapolis Avenue - Beach Blvd.to Newland St. 57.6 59.2 59.3 , ;1.7 0:1 3.0 Atlanta Avenue Newland St.to Beach Blvd. 62.3 63.1 63.2 0.9 0.1 3.0 Beach Blvd.to Delaware St. 64.8 63.6 64.2 -0.6 0.6 3.0 Delaware St.to Huntington Ave. 63.1 63.6 64.3 1.2 0.7 3.0 I Huntington Ave.to 1st St. 61.3 62.5 62.6 1.3 ' 0.1 3.0 Main Street Adams Ave.to Palm Ave. 58.7 60.9 61.3 2.6 0.4 3.0 - First Street Pacific Coast Hwy.to Atlanta Ave. 59.4.. 56.2 57.6_ -1.8 0.6 3.0 Huntington Avenue Pacific Coast Hwy.to Atlanta Ave. 54.4 52.2 54.4 0.0 2.2 3.0 SOURCE: EIP Associates 2003.Calculation data and results are provided in Appendix C. • • • Pacific City EIR 3.10-21 Chapter 3 Environmental Impact Analysis As shown, cumulative development would result in noise level increases of 0.0 to 3.0 dBA La„ along the studied roadways, with the maximum increase occurring along Beach Boulevard from PCH to Atlanta Avenue. The future noise levels along two roadway segments would actually be reduced as a result of changes in local circulation patterns that occur under the Hunting Beach General Plan. The contribution of the proposed project would range from 0.1 dBA to 2.2 dBA. Of the 3.0 dBA increase along Beach Boulevard, the contribution of the proposed project would be 0.5 dBA. The 0.1 dBA to 2.2 dBA ti contribution of the proposed project to future roadway noise levels would not exceed the,identified thresholds of significance and, therefore, would not be cumulatively considerable. 3.10.6 Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts • The following standard City requirements (CR)would apply to the project. CR N-A Construction shall be limited to Monday—Saturday 7:00 A.M.-8:00 P.M. Construction shall be prohibited Sundays and Federal holidays. CR N-B 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. CR N-C 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 prior to issuance of a precise grading permit. CR N-D All haul trucks shall arrive at the site no earlier than 8:00 A.M. or leave the site no later than 5:00 P.M., and shall be limited to Monday through Friday only. CR N-E Neighbors within 200 feet of major construction areas shall be notified of the construction schedule in writing prior to construction;-the project sponsor shall designate a "disturbance coordinator"who shall be responsible for responding to any local complaints regarding construction noise; the coordinator (who may be an employee of the developer or general contractor) shall determine the cause of the complaint and shall require that reasonable measures warranted to correct the problem be implemented; and a telephone number for the noise disturbance coordinator shall be posted conspicuously at the-construction site fence and included on the notification sent to neighbors adjacent to the site. 3.10-22 City of Huntington Beach l- 3.10 Noise In addition to the standard City requirements listed above, mitigation measures (MM) would address impacts. Due to the potential noise level generated by pile driving activities and the proximity of residential receptors to the project site, the following mitigation measure is recommended to further reduce construction noise impacts identified under Impact N-1. MM N-1 Pile driving activities shall be limited to the hours of 8:00 A.M to 6:00 P.M Monday through Friday. The following mitigation measures would be required to address potentially significant operational noise impacts, as described under Impact N-3. MM N-2 Prior to the issuance of building permits for the new multifamily residential units located.along First Street, Atlanta Avenue, and Pacific View Avenue, the project developer(s) shall submit building plans that identify walls or barriers of at least 5.5 feet above the ground surface around each exterior activity area (i.e., private yards, balconies and recreation areas) that face these roadways. This can be accomplished by constructing solid walls that match the building exterior and topping them off with 1.5-inch-thick Plexiglas windows or sheets to meet the height requirement of 5.5 feet. Other means of reducing exterior noise levels to 60 dBA Ldn or less within the exterior activity areas may be implemented so long as an acoustical analysis demonstrates that the alternative means would in fact reduce the noise to the required level. MM N-2 would reduce the noise level impacts of the proposed project as described under Impact N-3 to less-than-significant levels. All other potential noise impacts of the project as described above under Impact N-1, Impact N-2, and Impact N-4 would be less than significant. Pacific City EIR 3.1.0-23 3.11 Population and Housing 3.11 POPULATION AND HOUSING This EIR section analyzes the potential for adverse impacts on population and housing resulting from implementation of the proposed project. The EIR analysis is limited to those socioeconomic issues that could result in a direct change on the physical environment (CEQA Guidelines Section 15131). As such, the effect of the proposed project on property values and its economic effect on surrounding businesses are not considered environmental issues, and would not be analyzed. The Initial Study (Appendix A) identified the potential for impacts associated with the inducement of substantial population growth in the City of Huntington Beach. Issues scoped out from detailed analysis in the EIR include the displacement of any existing housing or people, as the current site is vacant. Data used to prepare this section were taken from the United States Bureau of the Census, the Southern California Association of Governments ("SCAG"), and the City of Huntington Beach General Plan 2000-2005 Housing Element("Housing Element"). It should be noted that the Housing Element was prepared prior to availability of the 2000 U.S. Census data and relies on current data provided by the Department of Finance. Consequently, because the 2000 Census provides the most current information, comparative analysis performed on demographic data in this chapter is based on data from this information source unless otherwise noted. Full-bibliographic entries for all reference materials are provided in Chapter 7 (References) of this document. 3.11.1 Existing Conditions The 31.5-gross-acre proposed project site is currently vacant, with some disturbed vegetation occupying portions of the site. There is no existing housing on the project site. Population, housing, and employment data are available on a city, county,regional, and state level. This EIR uses data collected and provided at the city and county level, in an effortto focus the analysis specifically on the City of Huntington Beach. Population ti According to the 2000 U.S. Census, the City of Huntington Beach has a population of 189,594. The City's 2000-2005 Housing Element estimated the City's 2000 population; using population figures from the State Department of Finance, to be 199,326. For purposes of this analysis, the U.S. Census population total was used. Table 3.11-1 shows the population growth in the City over the past three decades. Based on the 2000 U.S. Census data, the population in the City of Huntington Beach has increased by a total of 10 percent since 1980, which recorded a Census population of 170,505. The City's Census population of 189,594 in 2000 represented 6.7 percent of Orange County's total population (2,846,289). Huntington Beach ranks as Pacific City EIR 3.111 Chapter 3 Environmental Impact Analysis the third most populated city in Orange County, following Anaheim and Santa Ana. However, the population growth rate of 6.46 percent in Huntington Beach between 1990 and 2000 is among the lowest growth rates in the County, and is lower than the Countywide average growth rate of 17 percent. Table 3.11-1 Population Growth: City of Huntington Beach (1980-2000) Average Annual Growth Year Population Decade Increase(%) (persons/year) 1980 170,505 — — 1990 181,519 6.46 1,101 2000 189,594 4.45 808 SOURCE: U.S.Census Bureau,2000. Households A household is defined by the U.S. Census as a group of people who occupy a housing unit. A household differs from a dwelling unit because the number of dwelling units includes both occupied and vacant dwelling units. It is important to note that not all of the population lives in households. A portion lives in group quarters, such as board and care facilities; others are homeless. Household Size y Small households (1 to 2 persons per household [pph]) traditionally reside in units with 0 to 2 bedrooms; family households (3 to 4 pph) normally reside in units with 3 to 4 bedrooms. Large households (5 or more pph) reside in units with 4 or more bedrooms. However, the number of units in relation to the household size may also reflect preference and economics: many small households obtain larger units, and some large families live in small units for economic reasons. Table 3.11-2 compares the number of households in the City of Huntington Beach and the County of Orange for the period 1990-2000. According to Census data, the average household size in the City of Huntington Beach decreased slightly from 2.62 persons per household (pph) in 1990 to 2.56 pph in 2000. The City's 2000-2005 Housing Element, which is based on data obtained from the Department of Finance, identified a rise in average household size from 2.62 persons in 1990 to 2.75 persons in 2000. For the purpose of providing a conservative analysis, the average household size of 2.75 persons in 2000 is used for projections in this EIR. The average household size in Huntington Beach of 2.75 pph is still less than in other areas of Orange County, where the average household size is 3.00 pph, and less than the State of California rate,which is 2.87 pph. 3.11-2 City of Huntington Beach 3.11 Population and Housing Table 3.11-2 Households in Huntington Beach and Orange County(1990-2000) Area 1990 2000 Total Households Huntington Beach 68,879 73,657 Orange County 827,066 935,287 Average Household Size(persons per household) Huntington Beach 2.62 2.56 • (2.75') Orange County 2.87 3.00 • Household figures represent occupied house units. I ! *City of Huntington Beach General Plan 2000-2005 Housing Element,per Department of Finance. SOURCE: U.S.Census Bureau,1990,2000. Housing According to Census data, housing units in Huntington Beach have increased from 72,736 to 75,793 units during the 1990-2000 period. Of the 75,793 housing units in 2000, 2,005 units (2.6 percent) are vacant. According to the Redevelopment Agency's affordable housing status report (May 2002), the Agency's existing housing surplus includes 112 very low-income housing units and 113 low- to moderate-income housing units. Growth Trends { A city's housing market is driven by supply and demand and can be influenced by population growth, income, housing cost, and housing locations. However, age distribution is a key market characteristic because housing demand within the market is influenced by the housing preference of certain age groups: due to limited income, the majority of the young adult population (20 to 34 years old) tends to occupy apartments, low- to moderate-cost condominiums, and smaller single-family units. The 35- to 65-year-old group provides the market for moderate to high cost apartments and condominiums and larger single-family units because, on average, people of this age group have higher incomes and larger household sizes. Housing demand for the elderly population (65'years of age and up) is similar to young adults, but can also include group quarters as housing options. Table 3.11-3 provides age distribution in the City of Hunting Beach in 2000. • Pacific City EIR 3.11-3 Chapter 3 Environmental impact Analysis Table 3.11-3 City of Huntington Beach _- Age Distribution in 2000 Age Group/Year Population %of Total Preschool(0 to 4) 11,728 6.2% School(5 to 19) 34,650 18.3% Young Adults(20 to 24) 11,735 6.2% Prime Working(25 to 54) 93,196 49.2% Retirement(55 to 64) 18,629 9.8% Seniors(65+) 19,656 10.4% Total 189,594 100.10% Percent of Total figure exceeds 100 percent due to rounding. SOURCE: U.S.Census Bureau,2000. Types of Housing Stock Census data show that the housing stock in the City of Huntington Beach increased by 3,057 units between 1990 and 2000, while data derived from the Department of Finance in the City's 2000-20005 Housing Element indicate an increase of 3,412 units between 1990 and 2000. The total housing stock in these two decades is shown in Table 3.11-4. The number of housing units in 199Q and 2000, as defined by units per structure in the City, is shown in Table 3.11-5. Table 3.11-4 Housing Stock in the City of Huntington Beach Year Number of Units 1990 72,736 2000 75,793 (76,148*) • Figure as identified in the City of Huntington Beach 2000-2005 Housing Element. SOURCE: U.S.Census Bureau 1990,2000 _ Table 3.11-5 Total Housing Units: City of Huntington Beach (1990-2000) Defined by Units per Structure Housing Type • Multifamily Mobile Year Single-Family 2 to 4 units 5+units Homes/Other Total Number of Units Occupied Units 1990 43,441 9,487 15,866 3,942 72,736 68,879 2000 46,478 9,681 16,488 3,146 75,793 73,808 SOURCE: US Census Bureau 1990,2000 i 3.11-4 City of Huntington Beach 3.11 Population and Housing The 2000 percentage breakdown for housing by type is (derived from Table 3.11-5) as follows: ■ 61.3 percent single-family • 12.8 percent multifamily(2 to 4 units) ■ 21.8 percent multifamily (5+ units) • 4.2 percent mobile homes/other Vacancy Rates The vacancy rates and affordability of the housing stock are also key elements in the balance between supply and demand in the City's housing market. High vacancy rates usually indicate low demand and/or high prices in the housing market or significant mismatches between the desired and available types of housing. Conversely, low vacancy rates usually indicate high demand and/or low prices in the housing market. However, vacancy rates are not the sole indicator of market conditions. They must be viewed in the context of all the characteristics of the local and regional market and economy. Vacancy rates, which indicate a "market balance" (i.e., a reasonable level of vacancy to avoid local housing shortages, and appropriate price competition and consumer choice), generally range from 1 percent to 3 percent for single-family units, and from 3 to 5 percent for multifamily units. The City's overall vacancy rate decreased to 2.60 percent in 2000, from 5.30 percent in 1990, according to the U.S. Census. It should be noted that the total vacancy rates include vacant units that are not available for rent or sale. This includes units that are for rent for occasional, seasonal, or recreational purposes; units that have been rented or sold, but have not yet been occupied as of the date of the census; and units being held for repairs/modernization or for personal reasons of the owner (i.e., probate). Ultimately, these units should not be included in the vacancy rate because they are not on the market, and are not available for rental or purchase. In 2000, however, there were only 515 vacant units in this category. In addition, the vacant rental units should include both assisted and unassisted living units, as well as units available only to senior citizens. As shown by 2000 census data, approximately 59 percent of the housing stock was owner-occupied, while 38.3 percent of the Huntington Beach housing stock was renter-occupied, and 2.65 percent was vacant. The { homeowner vacancy rate in the City is 0.9 percent; the rental vacancy rate, 2.0 percent. These rates are lower than the statewide averages, which are 3.7 percent for rental units and 1.4 percent for owner- occupied units (5.8 percent overall), and are indicative of the overall high demand for housing within the City. Table 3.11-6 shows the characteristics of the city's vacant housing units per the 2000 Census. Pacific City EIR 3.11-5 Chapter 3 Environmental Impact Analysis - Table 3.11-6 Occupancy Status of Housing Stock in Huntington Beach in 2000 Status No.of Units Occupied 73,657 Vacant 2,005 For Rent 602 For Sale Only 412 Rented or Sold,not occupied 276 For SeasonallRecreational or Occasional Use 515 For Migratory Workers 1 Other Vacant 199 SOURCE: 2000 Census of Population and Housing Housing Needs Assessment California's Housing Element Law requires that each city and county, when preparing its State-mandated Housing Element of a General Plan, must develop local housing programs designed to meet its"fair share" of existing and future housing needs for all income groups, as determined by the jurisdiction's Council of Governments. This "fair share" allocation concept seeks to ensure that each jurisdiction accepts responsibility for the housing needs of not only its resident population, but also for those households who might reasonably be expected to reside within the jurisdiction, particularly lower-income households, were there a variety and choice of housing accommodations appropriate to their needs. In-the six-county southern California region, the agency responsible for assigning these fair share targets to each jurisdiction is the SCAG. As part of the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA), the SCAG determines the five-year housing growth needs for municipalities within its jurisdiction, which includes the City of Huntington Beach. In Orange County, the Orange County Council of Governments (OCCOG) was delegated responsibility for developing the RHNA in coordination with the cities and the County. • The RHNA adopted by OCCOG and SCAG has identified a 1998-2005 future housing need for Huntington Beach of 2,015 units. Table 3.11-7 shows the 1999 RHNA allocation for the City of Huntington Beach. Huntington Beach's RHNA allocation is based, in part, on SCAG's regional growth forecast to 2025, which was prepared for the 2001 Regional Transportation Plan Update. Proposed project housing would be available for occupancy from beginning in 2006. All housing construction would be completed by 2010, at which time a new set of RHNA numbers will be applicable to theCity. The information in Table 3.11-7 provides an overview of the types of housing needs in the City. 3.11-6 City of Huntington Beach 3.11 Population and Housing Table 3.11-7 RHNA,Needs by Income Category for Huntington Beach (June 1, 1998, through June 30, 2005). Income Category RHNA-Identified Need Very Low 388 Low 255 Moderate 400 Upper 972 Total 2,015 SOURCE: 2000 SCAG RHNA Table 3.11-8 shows SCAG's regional growth forecast for the City and Orange County. Table 3.11-8 SCAG Population, Households, and Employment Forecast it 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 Huntington Beach Population 198,915 208,983 216,087 221,279 224,932 228,110 Households 70,516 72,861 74,560 75,683 76,465 77,085 Employment 79,466 85,324 89,931 93,148 96,144 98,646 Orange County Population 2,813,368 3,003,179 3,160,512 3,272,412 3,352,947 3,426,458 Households 917,169 966,122 1,009,370 1,035,379 1,054,849 1,073,131 Employment 1,501,864 1,666,733 1,798,088 1,888,935 1,980,067 2,052,091 SOURCE: SCAG,2001 RTP'Update,small area forecast. Total"construction need"for RHNA numbers is comprised of three components: (1) the number of housing units needed to accommodate future household growth; (2) an additional allowance for'vacant units to ensure a healthy housing market; and (3) a further additional allowance to account for units that will be demolished, converted to nonhousing uses or otherwise removed from the housing stock. The calculation of each component is based on a combination of the method that HCD uses to calculate statewide housing need and past SCAG practice in preparing the RHNA. The construction need totals cover the period of 1998 to 2005, though the Housing Element Planning period is from 2000 to 2005. Thus, the RHNA construction need numbers that are used as a planning target in the City's Housing,Element Update may be reduced by new units produced since January 1, 1998. According to the 2000-2005 Housing Element, the City has already constructed a total of 1,118 units between January 1, 1998, and July 1, 2000. Thus, the City is left with a remaining RHNA of 897 units out of the original projected 2,015 units. I ' Pacific City EIR 3.11-7 Chapter 3 Environmental Impact Analysis Potential Future Housing Development , An analysis of short-term (5-year) residential development potential was completed as part of the City Housing Element, and this analysis identified total potential development of approximately 3,753 units (refer to Table 3.11-9). A vacant land analysis was completed, based on a vacant residential land survey conducted by the City in 1998 and updated by comparing vacant sites to building permits granted since 1998. Site visits were conducted to verify the data. The vacant land inventory excludes sites that could not be developed within the five-year planning horizon due to special circumstances (i.e., contaminated sites). Based on the site analysis, relatively little vacant land suitable for residential development remains in Huntington Beach. Approximately 117 acres (less than 1 percent of the City) of the City's residential land are vacant and have no project entitlements or pending development projects. Under the existing zoning and General Plan land use designations, this acreage could accommodate an additional 2,212 dwelling units. Table 3.11-9 Residential Sites Inventory Land Use Category Acres Total Units Vacant Land with No Entitlements Low(3 to 7 du/ac) 41.74 292 Medium(0 to 15 du/ac) 6.14 92 Medium High(0 to 25 du/ac) 48.53 1,213 High(30+du/ac) 20.50 615 Subtotal 116.91 2,212 Vacant Land Projects with Entitlements N/A 372 Vacant Land Projects Pending Approval N/A 889 • Residential Development Capacity,Downtown Specific Plan 11.54 280 Total 3,753 SOURCE: City of Huntington Beach 2000a In addition to vacant land, residential development potential exists from projects recently approved or pending approval, and development potential in the Downtown Specific Plan area. At the time the Housing Element was prepared, vacant residentially designated properties with entitlements provided for an additional 372 residential units, including 260 market rate and 112 very low- to moderate-income • households, which reflects projects with entitlements that are likely to be built within the near term planning horizon. A total of 889 units were pending approval-275 units for lower income households and 614 market rate units. Aside from development on vacant land, the Downtown Specific Plan also provides for multifamily and mixed-use infill. According to the 2000-2005 Housing Element of the City's General Plan, a total of approximately 280 dwelling units ranging from medium to high density can be provided for in the Downtown core, which excludes the project site. 3.11-8 • City of Huntington Beach 3.11 Population and Housing The City has sufficient capacity to accommodate the projected housing need both in aggregate and by income category. Table 3.11-10 compares the City's remaining RHNA of 897 units with the residential sites inventory, which provides for approximately 3,753 units. The City's zoning can accommodate over 2,480 new units at 25+ units per acre, providing densities appropriate to support lower income development, andin excess ofthe nee well d for 639 lower income units. The City has also provided,for the development of 107 units at densities that should offer affordability to moderate income households, just { short of the RHNA's 146 moderate-income units; however, the City anticipates that a portion of the lower income sites, given their abundance, can compensate for this shortfall. Table 3.1110 Housing Growth Need and Development Potential by Income Group Site Inventory Units Constructed Minimum Density Feasible Units Income Group Total RHNA (1/98-7/00) Remaining RHNA Guidelines Capacity Very Low 388 4 384 >_25 units/acre 2,480 Low 255 0 255 Moderate 400 254 146 a_8,units/acre 107 Above Moderate 972 860 112 <8 units/acre. 1,166 •Total 2,015 1,118 897 3,753 SOURCE: City of Huntington Beach 2000a Affordable Housing - I A key issue facing the City is the affordability of housing to its citizens. The 1990 Census documented a median housing unit value of$287,100 in Huntington Beach, while the 2000 Census documented a median i housing unit value of $311,800. Data from the California Association of Realtors (CAR) indicate that the median sales price of a home in Huntington Beach in the first quarter of 2000 was $285,000. The median monthly rent for the City was $808 in 1990 and $985 in 2000. The median housing unit value in Orange County is one of the highest in the state of California. By targeting II programs and monetary assistance towards households with the greatest need, the City can achieve the goal of assuring the availability of adequate housing for all social and economic segments of Huntington Beach's present and future population. The City has access to a variety of local, State, federal, and private resources that can be used for affordable housing activities. The three most significant funding sources used in Huntington Beach are: (1) Community Development Block Grants (CDBG); (2) the HOME Investment Partnership Program (HOME); and (3) Redevelopment Set Asides. As for the CDBG funds, the City receives an annual CDBG entitlement of approximately $1.8 million from the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for a variety of community development and housing activities Pacific City EIR . ' 3.11-9 Chapter 3 Environmental impact Analysis primarily benefiting lower income households. The HOME Program is a federal program intended to expand and preserve the affordable housing supply for very low— and low-income households. Under this program, the City receives an annual entitlement of approximately $600,000 from HUD, which can be used towards housing rehabilitation, acquisition, new construction, rental assistance, and assistance for first-time homebuyers. The Redevelopment Set-Aside fund stems from redevelopment regulations that require redevelopment agencies to reserve 20 percent of the tax increment collected annually for the purpose of providing affordable housing. Additionally, State community redevelopment law (as outlined in the Regulatory Framework discussion below) requires that Redevelopment agencies allocate 15 percent of the units produced in a Redevelopment Project area for low- to moderate-income households. Because the City of Huntington Beach has merged what were once five separate redevelopment areas in the City into one, the provision of affordable housing could now occur across a larger region to accommodate the housing needs of the City. A Redevelopment Agency Affordable Housing Compliance Plan, adopted by the Redevelopment Agency in December 1999, specifies anticipated contributions to the Redevelopment Set-Aside fund, and how these monies are to be spent. 3.11.2 Regulatory Framework There are no federal regulations related to population and housing that apply to the proposed project. State Community Redevelopment Law The California Community Redevelopment Law contains affordable housing requirements that are applicable to this project because of its location in a Redevelopment Project Area. Specifically, § 33413(b) of the Health & Safety Code, which implements the California Redevelopment Law, contains a provision that at least 15% of all new or rehabilitated dwelling units be available at affordable housing cost to persons of low or moderate income. (Beatty et al. 1995). Units,could be provided either on or off site. If units are provided off site and outside of the Redevelopment Project Area, then the total number of affordable units would need to be provided at a 2:1 ratio at 15 percent of the total on-site units. That is, if 100 units are proposed, 15 units need to be developed as affordable housing as part of the project. If units are provided off-site-in the Project Area, 15 affordable units would satisfy Agency requirements. If units are provided off- site outside the Project Area, then 30 affordable units would be necessary to satisfy Agency requirements. 3.11-10 City of Huntington Beach 3.11 Population and Housing Local The General Plan Housing Element,Huntington Beach Municipal Code, Growth Management Element, and Southern California Association of Governments Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide govern regulations applicable to population and housing for the proposed project. Southern California Association of Governments SCAG's Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide (RCPG) and RHNA are tools for coordinating regional planning and housing development strategies in southern California. State'Housing Law mandates that local governments, through Councils of Governments, identify existing and future housing needs in a RHNA. The Regional. Housing Needs Assessment provides recommendations and guidelines to identify housing needs within cities. It does not impose requirements as to housing development in cities. Policies identified by SCAG as relevant to the proposed project are identified in Table 3.11-11, and this table also includes an assessment of the proposed project's consistency with these policies. Table 3.11.11 SCAG Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide—Policies Applicable to Population and Housing Policies Project Consistency Policy 3.01.The population,housing,and Sections 3.11.4 and 3.11.5,below,employ SCAG's population and employment forecasts to jobs forecasts,which are adopted by determine the significance of potential project impacts with respect to growth,and the SCAG RHNA SCAG's Regional Council and that reflect allocation for the City is also used as a basis for evaluating impacts to affordable housing - local plans and policies,shall be used by opportunities.This analysis has,therefore,been conducted in a manner that is consistent with this SCAG in all phases of implementation and policy. t review. Policy 3.24.Encourage efforts of local As described above,the impact analysis in this section employed SCAG's RHNA allocation for the jurisdictions in the implementation of City to determine whether the proposed project would impede the ability of the City to provide programs that increase the supply and adequate affordable housing.The proposed project would not,as described below,impede this ability. quality of housing and provide affordable In addition,the project would include affordable housing units,as outlined in the On-Site Affordable housing as evaluated in the Regional Housing Program.This environmental analysis and,the proposed project would,therefore,be j Housing Needs Assessment. consistent with this policy: General Plan Housing Element The 2000-2005 Housing Element provides an examination of the City's'housing problems and needs, the opportunities and constraints related to addressing these needs, and formulates policies to address these needs. The Housing Element further addresses housing construction needs to accommodate the City's share of regional growth for the period 1998-2005, including the improvement and provision -of affordable housing. Table 3.11-12 identifies goals and objectives presented in the Housing Element of the General Plan related to population and housing that are potentially relevant to the proposed project. This table also includes an assessment of the proposed project's consistency with the policies adopted in support of these goals and objectives. • Pacific City EIR 3.11-11 Chapter 3 Environmental Impact Analysis Table 3.11-12 General Plan Housing Element—Policies Applicable to Population and Housing Goal,Objective,or Policy Project Consistency Goal HE 2.Provide adequate housing Conformance with implementing policies,as discussed below,results in conformance with this goal. sites. Objective HE 2.1.Provide appropriate Conformance with implementing policies,as discussed below,results in conformance with this zoning and regulatory incentives to objective. facilitate the production of 388 very low, 255 low,400 moderate,and 972 upper income units through this planning period. Policy HE 2.1.2.Facilitate the The proposed project involves a mixed-use project within the Downtown Specific Plan Area.The development of mixed-use projects project combines residential development with visitor-serving commercial development,according to containing residential and nonresidential the requirements of Downtown Specific Plan Districts 7 and 8A. uses,which can take advantage of shared land costs to reduce the costs of land for residential uses through General Plan designation and the Specific Plan process. • Policy HE 2.1.4.Plan for residential land As described below,the proposed projectwould create 601 new jobs and would provide 516 uses which accommodate anticipated residential units.The project would include an On Site Affordable Housing Program designating 39 of growth from new employment the total 516 units on-site as affordable housing units.Although the proposed project does not fully opportunities. balance jobs and housing units,not all employees are anticipated to move to the City:many would likely be drawn from the employment base of adjacent Cities and elsewhere in the County.Further, . the pattern proposed under the project(i.e.,more jobs than new housing units)is consistent with SCAG projections for the City,which anticipate a growing number of jobs with respect to population • and households and the provision of additional employment opportunities for existing and future residents in the City and County. Goal HE 3.Assist in development of Conformance with implementing policies,as discussed below,results in conformance with this goal. affordable housing. LL Objective HE 3.1.Facilitate the Conformance with implementing policies,as discussed below,results in conformance with this development of housing for low and objective. moderate income households which is _ compatible with and complements adjacent uses and is located in close proximity to public and commercial services. • Policy HE 3.1.1.Encourage the provision As described below,the proposed project would provide 516 residential units in the Above Moderate and continued availability of a range of income range,with a range of floor plans and unit sizes.The project would include an On Site -- housing types throughout the community, Affordable Housing Program designating 39 of the total 516 units orr-site as affordable housing units. with variety in the number of rooms and Additionally,as further described in Section 3.11.4,the proposed project would not impede the ability level of amenities. of the City to meet its RHNA allocation for very-low-,low-,and moderate-income housing. Goal HE 5.Provide equal housing Conformance,with implementing policies,as discussed below,results in conformance with this goal. opportunity. Objective HE 5.1.Promote equal housing Conformance with implementing policies,as discussed below,results in conformance with this opportunity for all residents to reside in the objective. housing of their choice. Policy HE 5.1.3.Encourage the provision As described below,the proposed project would provide 516 residential units in the Above Moderate of adequate numbers of housing units to income range,with a range of floor plans and unit sizes.The project would include an On Site meet the needs of families of all sizes. Affordable Housing Program designating 39 of the total 516 units on-site as affordable housing units. Additionally,as further described in Section 3.11.4,the proposed project would not impede the ability of the City to meet its RHNA allocation for very-low-,low-,and moderate-income housing.The proposed project would therefore provide residential units of various sizes and configurations and would facilitate the provision of housing for a range of income groups. 3.1112 City of Huntington Beach 3.11 Population and Housing 3.11.3 Thresholds of Significance ' Project impacts would be considered significant if the following would occur: • Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure) As indicated in the introduction to this section, the Initial Study indicates that the project would not displace any existing housing or households. Therefore, these issues are not analyzed in the EIR. 3.11.4 Project Impacts I-, For the purposes of this analysis, impacts would be considered significant if the inducement of population growth results in increases in population at a level that largely exceeds projected/planned levels for the year of project occupancy/buildout. - Impact P-1 Implementation of the proposed project would not directly or indirectly induce substantial population growth beyond current growth projections • established by the City. As described in Section 2.3.1 (Visitor-Serving Commercial Center), the proposed project would develop a 400-room hotel, up to 240,000 sf of visitor-serving commercial uses, and 516 condominium units. The project also includes the extension of Pacific View Avenue from First Street to Huntington Street. Roadway Extension Roadway extensions, particularly freeways, are often considered to induce growth because the provision of vehicular access to a previously inaccessible site can. facilitate development; however, the extension of Pacific View Avenue through the project site would be consistent with proposed improvements in the City's General Plan Circulation Element (refer to Figure CE-3, Potential for 2010 Circulation Plan of Arterial Highways), as well as Precise Plan of Street Alignment No. 88-1 (refer to Section 2.2.3 of the Project LJ ' Description), and would not provide or improve access to an undeveloped parcel for which development or redevelopment has not previously been evaluated and/or approved by the City. Because the extension of Pacific View Avenue across the project site would not provide access to previously undeveloped parcels other than the project site and would not induce or facilitate development other than the project, no significant growth-inducing impact would occur as a result of this extension. Pacific City EIR 3.11-13 Chapter 3 Environmental Impact Analysis Population Growth New residential uses would increase the City population. Using the most conservative average household size of 2.75 persons per unit (from the 2000-2005 Housing Element), the proposed condominiums would be expected to accommodate 1,419 (516 x 2.75) persons. The population growth has been accounted for in City and regional projections, as housing units on site were identified in the General Plan and the Downtown Specific Plan. The relative proportion of the population growth in comparison to projected population levels is shown in Table 3.11-13. SCAG projections are used for this comparison, since this agency provides data for year 2010; City projections are for year 2005, and the project would not be complete by that time. Assuming that all occupants of the proposed housing are new to the City, this potential population growth would represent an increase of 0.7 percent over the 2000 baseline City population, and an increase of about 0.65 percent over the projected 2010 population. Assuming that all occupants of the proposed housing are new to the County, the project-related population increase would represent an increase of 0.05 percent over the 2000 baseline population and an increase of 0.04 percent over the projected population for 2010. Table 3.11-13 Project Contribution to Population Increases Location Projected Population Project Contribution Project Site 1,419 100% City of Huntington Beach,2000 baseline population 189,594 0.07% City of Huntington Beach,projected 2010 population 216,087 0.065% Orange County,2000 baseline population 2,183,368 0.05% Orange County,projected 2010 population 3,160,512 0.04% The project-related increase would be well within and consistent with SCAG projections for employment in the City and County. As shown in Table 3.11-8, SCAG predicts that the population and households would continue to increase from 2000 to 2020, and the project is consistent with this pattern. Because the potential direct and indirect population increase that could result from the proposed project would not result in growth that has not been planned or could not be accommodated, the direct population increase from additional residential units would be less than significant. Visitor-Serving Commercial Uses and Employment The proposed project would represent an increase of less than one percent in either 2000 or 2010 City employment levels and less than one tenth of one percent of County employment. 3.1114 City of Huntington Beach 3.11 Population and Housing Proposed visitor-serving commercial uses would generate increases in employment opportunities. According to the Applicant's staffing projections for the project, the project would directly generate 476 employees and indirectly generate (through accommodation) 120 additional employees in the proposed office component of the project, according to the pattern shown in Table 3.11-14: These employment opportunities would likely be available beginning in 2005, when the visitor-serving commercial component is completed, and 2007, when the hotel is completed. Table 3.11-14 Projected Project Employment • Use Generation Factor Development Quantities Number of Employees Hotel Guest Rooms. 1 per 2 keys 400 keys 200 Spa 1.5 per spa treatment room 30 treatment rooms 45 Restaurant 1 per 500 sf of restaurant 5,000 sf 10 Retail 1 per 1,000 sf 141,100 142 Restaurant/Club 1 per 500 sf 38,900 78 Office Employees 1 per 10,000 sf 60,000 6 Tenants 1 tenant per 500 sf 60,000 120 Total(includes employees and tenants) 601 SOURCE: CUP Application,on file with City of Huntington Beach. According to SCAG employment projections for the City and County (refer to Table 3.11-8, SCAG Population, Households, and Employment Forecasts the projected employment levels in 2010 are 89,931 -- P )� for the City, an increase of 10,465 jobs, and 1,798,088 for the County, an increase of 296,224 jobs. The proposed project would likely attract employees from this existing employee pool in the City and in the County, and would represent about 0.8 percent of the projected 2010 employment in the City. With respect to the County, the project would contribute about 0.04 percent of the projected 2010 County employment. The proposed project would represent an increase of less than one percent in 2010 City employment levels and less than 0.1 percent of County employment. As shown in Table 3.11-8, SCAG predicts that the number of jobs in the City would increase relative to population and households from 2000 to 2010, providing,additional employment opportunities for a growing population, and the project is consistent,with this pattern. Although the housing component of the project would not necessarily provide 1 housing for the employees of the project, the provision of housing would help to ensure that employment opportunities provided by the project would not result in an unanticipated demand for housing that could not be accommodated in the City or County. Because the employment provided by the project would not result in growth that has not been planned or could not be accommodated, this employment increase would Pacific City EIR 3.1145 Chapter 3 Environmental Impact Analysis not result in a significant impact with respect to population growth. This impact would, therefore, be considered less than significant. Impact P-2 Proposed housing would not directly or indirectly induce substantial population growth beyond current growth projections established by the City, although the required number of affordable housing units may not be provided on-site by the project. The residential uses proposed under the project-516 condominium units—would increase the housing supply in the City and could increase the population in the City. The proposed housing units would be provided at market rate and would be priced in the "Above Moderate" income group. The housing units proposed as part of the project have been anticipated in the General Plan Land Use Element (which allows development of greater than 30 units per acre net on the residential portion of the site) and Downtown Specific Plan (which allows development of up to 30 units per acre). As stated above, the project proposes 516 units, or 30 units per acre on 17.2 acres. The proposed project would not develop housing units in excess of those previously planned in the General Plan and the Downtown Specific Plan, such that housing would directly or indirectly induce substantial population growth beyond current growth projections established by the City. Therefore, impacts, on housing would be less than.significant. Housing would be constructed in three major phases and would be available for occupancy from beginning in 2006. All housing construction would be completed by 2010. The existing RHNA numbers would not be applicable to the project upon completion of construction, since the existing RHNA numbers apply to the 1998-2005 planning period, although it is possible this planning period may be extended to 2006, pending the outcome of current legislation. Nonetheless, the project would contribute 516 units to the housing needs in the City. The provision of"Above Moderate" housing on site would not impede the ability of the City to meet the RHNA allocation for very low—, low-, and moderate-income housing. The proposed project site was not included in the calculations of available land for housing potential in these income categories. In compliance with Community Redevelopment law and city policy, the proposed project would be required to prepare an affordable housing plan that would identify sites for, and assist in the financing of, affordable housing within the City. Assuming all units are provided within the Merged Redevelopment Project Area, a total of 78 units would be required. Affordable housing is proposed through a combination of units on site, and funding of development of units off site. A total of 39 affordable housing units are proposed to be provided on site. The On Site Affordable Housing Program for the proposed project identifies a range of costs of the affordable units, the target buyer, the 3.1116 City of Huntington Beach 3.11 Population and Housing, types of units appropriate for the affordable housing program, options to offset the developer cost, and deed restrictions. A mix of one and two bedroom units is suggested, although the final mix of units has not been determined. The units would be deed restricted for 60 years. This program represents one method of achieving 39 units of affordable housing on site, although the precise strategy of implementation has not been finalized or approved by the City. In order to satisfy affordable housing obligations, the Applicant would contribute towards affordable housing off site. A total of 39, units of affordable housing could be provided off site within the Merged Redevelopment Project Area. Alternatively, affordable housing could be provided outside of the Merged Redevelopment Project Area on a 2:1 basis, such that 78 units would be necessary, in addition to the 39 units on site. The details of the provision of affordable housing units off-site have not been finalized. In the absence of a complete plan that has been approved by the City to provide affordable housing, the project would not be in compliance with applicable Redevelopment Agency requirements with respect to affordable housing. Impacts would be potentially significant. 3.11.5 Cumulative Impacts The proposed project would develop residential and visitor-serving commercial uses that would—in combination with cumulative development—increase population and housing and employment opportunities in the City and could directly or indirectly induce growth in the City and County. As described above in Section 3.11.4, the anticipated growth associated with the project would, even under the most conservative assumptions, be consistent with population, housing, and employment levels anticipated in the Downtown Specific Plan and would be less than the housing intensity anticipated for the site in the General Plan. Cumulative development projects have also been included in City projections, as these projects represent implementation of the City General Plan. Thus, they are consistent with the population projections for the City. The proposed project would, in combination with cumulative development, provide additional housing and employment opportunities. This growth would serve the existing population and help to meet anticipated jobs/housing demand in the City and County. Other cumulative projects within the Merged Redevelopment Project Area would also be required to provide affordable housing. Each of these projects would be required to satisfy City requirements with respect to affordable housing, such that cumulative effects would not be significant. Because cumulative development would be within levels projected by the City, it would not represent a.significant impact with respect to population and housing. The proposed project would not, therefore, result in cumulatively considerable impacts with respect to population, housing, and employment: Pacific City EIR 3.11-17 Chapter 3 Environmental Impact Analysis 3.11.6 Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts Population and employment impacts associated with the proposed project would be less than significant, as described under Impact P-1. The following mitigation measure (MM) would be required to reduce impacts on affordable housing, as described under Impact P-2. MM P-1 The Applicant shall prepare an Affordable Housing Program to the satisfaction of the City Planning &Economic Development Departments. The Program shall detail the provisions for either on- or off-site affordable housing, or a combination of the two that meet the requirements of Community Redevelopment Law and City requirements. The Affordable Housing Program shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review and approval prior to submittal of the final map. The agreement shall be executed prior to the issuance of the first building permit for the residential project. The Applicant shall adhere to all provisions of the Program. Implementation of MM P-1 would ensure that affordable housing requirements of Community Redevelopment Law are met. Impacts would be reduced to less-than-significant levels. 3.11-18 City of Huntington Beach 3.12 Public Services 3.12 PUBLIC SERVICES • This EIR section analyzes the potential for adverse impacts on public services resulting from implementation of the proposed project. The Initial Study (Appendix A) identified the potential for impacts associated with fire protection, police protection, schools, and lifeguard services. Data used to prepare this section were obtained from the Water Supply Assessment report (Appendix D), Domestic Water System Sanitary Sewer System CEQA Support Information report, and information from service providers regarding available service levels and current or anticipated constraints. Full bibliographic entries for all reference materials are provided in Chapter 7 (References) of this document. It should be noted that telephone and cable television services are "on demand" services and were, therefore, not considered in this analysis; electrical and natural gas services are specifically addressed in Section 3.5 (Energy and Mineral Resources); storm drainage facilities are specifically,addressed in Section 3.8 (Hydrology and Water Quality); and park facilities are { specifically addressed in Section 3.13 (Recreation). 3.12.1 Existing'Conditions Fire Protection Fire protection and emergency services in the vicinity of the proposed project are provided by the Huntington Beach Fire Department (HBFD). Two of the eight HBFD stations operate in the vicinity of the proposed project site and would serve the site. These stations are listed below along with staffing and equipment at each station. Station 4 2144-1 Magnolia Street 1 Paramedic Engine Company Staffing-1 Captain, 1 Engineer (all EMTs), and 2 Paramedics Station 5 530 Lake Street 1 Paramedic Engine Company Staffing-1 Captain, 1 Engineer (all EMTs), and 2 Paramedics { 1 Truck Company Staffing-1 Captain, 1 Engineer, and 2 Firefighters 1 Advanced and Basic Life Support Ambulance Staffing-2 Ambulance Operators Pacific City EIR 3.12=1 Chapter 3 Environmental Impact Analysis Station 5 is located less than 0.5 mile from the project site, and would provide first-response service, while Station 4 is located approximately 1 mile from the project site. Stations 4:and 5 have an average emergency response time to the project area of less than five minutes. Criteria for evaluating acceptable levels of service and for determining the thresholds of significance associated with service levels are based on response standards in the Growth Management Element of the Huntington Beach General Plan. The emergency response time objective in the Growth Management Element, including participation by other cities in the automatic aid agreement, is for the first fire or paramedic unit to arrive within five minutes, 80 percent of the time. The nonemergency response time goal is '15 minutes, 85 percent of the time. According to HBFD, the department currently responds to all emergency calls in the City in less than five'minutes. An average of 12,000 calls is responded to by the HBFD annually. There are approximately 41 fire suppression personnel and eight ambulance personnel on- duty each day. In 2001, approximately 65 percent of the calls received by the HBFD were for medical aid, three percent were for fires, and the remaining 32 percent were calls for other types of service. No plans currently exist for immediate or near-future expansion of fire protection facilities, staff, or equipment inventory in the coverage area serving the project site. Additional staff is available to the City, as needed, through mutual aid and automatic aid agreements with Orange County and other cities including Westminster, Santa Ana, Newport Beach, Fountain Valley, and Costa Mesa. The City receives and provides staffing assistance from and to other fire agencies on a countywide and statewide basis through the Office of Emergency Services when a large fire or disaster occurs. Police Protection Police protection at the project site would be provided by the Huntington Beach Police Department (HBPD). HBPD provides police protection services within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Huntington Beach. The Main Station, located at 2000 Main Street, is approximately 1.5 miles from the project site and is responsible for providing first-response service to the project area. Also within 0.25 mile of the project site is the Downtown Substation located at 204 Fifth Street, which is staffed by volunteers and serves as a convenience stop-station for the City's beat officers. The City is served by 234 sworn-officers and 154 nonsworn personnel. The City of Huntington Beach has an approximate population of 200,000 persons. Currently, 234 sworn officers are employed by HBPD, representing an estimated ratio of 1.1 officers per 1,000 residents. According to HBPD, the recommended ratio is 1.2 officers per 1,000 residents, while the State average is 1 3.12-2 City of Huntington Beach 3.12 Public Services currently 1.8 officers per 1,000 residents (Pelletier 2003). Currently the average emergency response time within the City is approximately 7.4 minutes, while the average nonemergency response time is approximately 15.3 minutes. The HBPD indicates that the department now provides a minimum level of service to the City. • , HBPD utilizes the "beat cop" system, which is a new and innovative approach initiated by the City in 2000. The City is divided into twelve beat areas, and each beat is assigned an officer to provide the beat area with 24 hours per day; 7 days per week coverage. Under the Beat Command System, each beat officer is assigned the responsibility of Community Oriented.Policing, which is a philosophy of working and communicating with the community to identify services needed, and problem solving in their respective beat areas. Each beat is also assigned a sergeant to supervise and assist in the Community Oriented Policing activities within the beat. The proposed project site is located in Area 4 of the City's Beat Command System. Depending on time of day and year, this beat system allows for quick response time and specific beat coverage unless officers are called upon by nearby beat officers for backup. Law enforcement services require certain equipment, in addition to staff, in order to maintain an acceptable level of service. HBPD equipment includes vehicles, radios, and mobile data terminals, which HBPD has indicated are currently adequate but are at minimum levels. Currently the HBPD has no plans for expansion. The City is not identified as a particularly high crime area. The California Crime Index (CCI) includes the number of major crimes in the City for a given year; including violent crimes, and offenses such as burglary and motor vehicle theft. The total CCI in 2001 for Orange County was 32,438. For individual cities, the CCI ranges from about 200 for small cities not near major urban centers such as Laguna Hills, to about 5,000 for large cities with high crime rates, such as Santa Ana. The City.of Huntington Beach had a total CCI of 1,892 in the year 2001. This is comparable to the CCI in Irvine, Orange, Buena Park, and other comparably sized cities in Orange County (Department of Justice, 2001), and in keeping with the crime rate expected for a city of its size. _ Schools The City of Huntington Beach is served by one'high school district and•four elementary/junior high school districts. The Huntington Beach Union High School District(HBUHSD), which includes:the entire City and extends slightly into•Westminster and Fountain Valley, operates four high schools serving Huntington Beach students in grades 9 through 12. Enrollment at this district in fall 2002 was approximately 14,200 students, which represented 98 percent of the HBUHSD's capacity. The.project site would be served by Huntington Pacific City EIR 3.12-3 Chapter 3 Environmental Impact Analysis . i Beach High School, which had an enrollment in fall 2002 of 2,322 students that was slightly below the school's capacity of 2,417. An open enrollment policy by the HBUHSD allows parents to choose among the District's schools, provided that there is sufficient capacity for transfers. Currently, the HBUHSD is considering the addition of modular classrooms at two schools, Marina High School and Westminster High School. Four elementary/junior high school districts serve the City and include the Huntington Beach City School District, Westminster School District, Ocean View District, and Fountain Valley School District. The project site is located within the.Huntington Beach City School District, and.would be served by Dwyer Middle School and Kettler Elementary School. Current enrollment of each elementary and junior high school in this District is listed in Table 3.12-1. Presently, the total enrollment at the Huntington Beach City School District is approximately 7,009 students, and the District is operating at full capacity. There are currently no plans for the addition of new schools at the District. Table 3.12-1 Current School Enrollment of the Huntington Beach City School District School Current Enrollment Dwyer Middle School 1,226 Sowers Middle School 1,254 Smith Elementary School 599 Perry Elementary School 535 Eader Elementary School 576 Kettler Elementary School 530 Hawes Elementary School 477 Moffett Elementary School 506 Peterson Elementary School .- 689 Huntington Seacliff Elementary 617 SOURCE: Huntington Beach City School District 2003 Lifeguard Services The City of Huntington Beach Marine Safety Division is responsible for responding to all aquatic emergencies within the City limits, the coastal waters, the Santa Ana River, and, in the case of a mutual aid response, to other aquatic emergencies within Orange County. This division provides lifeguard and marine safety services to the visitors of the 3.5 miles of City beach. There are no approved staffing standards in the field of Marine Safety due to site-specific variations in conditions and usage such as physical conditions of the specific beach (wide expanses of sand, cliffs, etc.), accessibility and proximity to urban populations. During the peak season, approximately 45 recurrent lifeguards are used from 6 am to midnight to maintain beach 3.12-4 City of Huntington Beach 3.12 Public Services and water safety. Daily staffing levels during the winter season consist of a five-person permanent patrol group consisting of one lifeguard per mile of the City's beach (for a total of three lifeguards), one lifeguard on the Huntington Beach Pier, and one lifeguard that is available to provide backup response if called upon. The hours of service by this permanent patrol group in the winter season is from 6 A.M. until dark, which is tl usually between 6 or 9 P.M. Twenty-three lifeguard towers are placed at intervals along the City beach, with 12 towers located on the north side of the Huntington Beach Pier, 10 towers on the south of the Pier, and one observation tower at the Pier. During the summer, the '/2-mile City beach area between the Huntington Beach Pier and Huntington Street is designated as. Area 1/Section 1, and is served by six towers (one of which is the observation tower at the Pier) staffed with a total of 12 lifeguards. The equipment available to s serve Area 1/Section 1 includes one rescue vessel, one personal watercraft (waverunner), and one patrol IN' vehicle (truck). During winter, the 1-mile area between the Pier and Beach Boulevard is designated as Area 1, and is served by the tower on the pier, one patrol vehicle, and one personal watercraft. However, greater attendance at the beach or bigger surf may require reserve staff, which is called as needed. The Marine Safety Division estimated total attendance for the 1-mile section between the Pier and Beach Boulevard (Area 1) as shown in Table 3.12-2. The increase in use of the beach area in summer 2003 can be attributed in part to the opening of the Hyatt Regency Resort, adjacent to the project site, and across from the beach. The Marine Safety Division currently considers its level of service to be adequate. Table 3.12-2 Estimated Beach Attendance in Area 1 Month Attendance July 2001 718,440* August 2001 627,706* July 2002 1,259,675 o y August 2002 995,011 July 2003 1,823,456 August 2003 1,677,051 * Parking closures occurred in 2001 due to reconstruction and,thus,should be factored into beach attendance figure. _ SOURCE: Huntington Beach Marine Safety Division 2003 3.12.2 Regulatory Framework . There are no federal regulations related to public services that apply to the proposed project. Pacific City EIR 3.12-5 Chapter 3 Environmental Impact Analysis State Uniform Fire Code The Uniform Fire Code contains regulations relating to construction and maintenance of buildings and the use of premises. Topics addressed in the,code include fire department access,•fire hydrants, automatic , sprinkler systems, fire alarm systems, fire and explosion hazards safety, hazardous materials storage and use, provisions intended to protect and assist first responders, industrial processes, and many other general and specialized fire-safety requirements for new and existing buildings and premises. The code contains specialized technical regulations related,to fire and life safety. li Regional Southern California Association of Governments SCAG's Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide (RCPG) and RHNA are tools for coordinating regional planning and development strategies in southern California. Policies contained in the RCPG identified by SCAG as relevant to the proposed project are identified in Table 3.12-3, and this table also includes an assessment of the proposed project's consistency with these policies. • Table 3.12-3 SCAG Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide—Policies Applicable to Public Services Policy Project Consistency Policy 3.27.Support local jurisdictions and Impacts to public education;fire protection,and:law enforcement would increase demands on these other service providers in their efforts to resources,although impacts would be less than significant and would not disproportionately affect any develop sustainable communities and one group. provide,equally to all members of society, A total of five common recreational areas(2.50 acres)would be located throughout the residential accessible and effective services such as: portion of the proposed project within the 9.28 acres of proposed common space.The recreational public education,housing,health care, amenities would be open to the general public and readily accessible to city residents. social services,recreational facilities,law enforcement,and fire protection. Local Regulations The General Plan Public Facilities and Services Element as well as the Huntington Beach Municipal Code address the public service regulations that are directly applicable to the proposed project. • General Plan Public Facilities and Services Element The City of Huntington Beach General Plan Public Facilities and Services Element addresses goals, objectives, policies, and programs applicable to public services such as: law enforcement, fire protection, marine safety, education, libraries, and governmental administration. Each section discusses public facility 3.12-6 City of Huntington Beach 3.12 Public Services location, service levels, and service provision constraints or issues. Table 3.12-4 identifies goals and objectives presented in the Public Facilities and Services Element of the General Plan related to public services that are potentially relevant to the proposed project. This table also includes an assessment of the proposed project's consistency with the policies adopted in support.of these goals and objectives. Table 3.12-4 General Plan Public Facilities and Services Element—Policies Applicable to Public Services Goal,Objective,or Policy Project Consistency Goal PF 1.Protect the community from Conformance with implementing policies,as discussed below,results in conformance with this goal. criminal activity,reduce the incidence of crime and provide other necessary services within the City. f— Objective PF 1.3.Ensure that new Conformance with implementing policies,as discussed-below,results in conformance with this goal. developments in Huntington Beach are designed to encourage safety. Policy PF 1.3.1.Ensure that project MM PS-1 requires the Applicant to consult the Huntington Beach Police Department regarding the development site designs provide provision of adequate;Crime Prevention Design measures,and incorporate the Department's "defensible space." recommendations into the plan Policy 1.3.2.Ensure that new The analysis of police services and hazardous materials provided in this EIR ensure that this new development and land use proposals are development is analyzed in terms of the impact of the safety and welfare of the community. analyzed to determine the impact their operators,occupants,visitors or customers may have on the safety and welfare of the community. Goal PF 4.Promote a strong public school Conformance with implementing policies,as discussed below,results infconformance with this goal.; system that advocates quality education. Promote the maintenance and enhancement of the existing educational _ systems facilities,and opportunities for students and residents of the City to enhance the quality of life for existing and a , future residents. Objective PF 4.2.Monitor new Conformance with implementing policies,as discussed below,results in conformance with this goal. development activities within the City and coordinate with local school districts to — meet future educational needs in the undeveloped areas of.Huntington Beach. Policy PF 4.2.2.Require new MM PS-2 requires the project to pay school impact fees. development projects to pay appropriate school impact fees to the local school districts. Policy PF 4.2.3.Ensure that development MM PS-2 requires the project to pay school impact fees that would,in turn,provide adequate school shall not occur without providing for facilities. adequate school facilities. General Plan Growth Management Element The policies listed within the Growth Management Element and applicable to public services are consistent with the Public Facilities and Services Element in its objective to ensure adequate infrastructure for existing Pacific City EIR 3.12-7 Chapter 3 Environmental Impact Analysis and planned land uses while providing for orderly growth in the City. Table 3.12-5 identifies goals and objectives presented in the Growth Management Element of the General Plan related to public services that are potentially relevant to the proposed project. This table also includes an assessment of the proposed project's consistency with the policies adopted in support of these goals and objectives. Table 3.12-5 General Plan Growth Management Element—Policies Applicable to Public Services Goal,Objective,or Policy Project Consistency Goal GM 1.Provide adequate police Conformance with implementing policies,as discussed below,results in conformance with this goal. services to meet the needs of the City's population. Objective GM 1.1.Provide adequate Conformance with implementing policies,as discussed below,results in conformance with this police facilities and personnel to objective. correspond with population and service demands for the entire City. Policy GM 1.1.2.If feasible,provide for a The existing service ratio of 1.1 officers per 1,000 residents is considered adequate by th'e HBPD.The target ratio of a minimum of 1.2 officers per proposed project would result in a slight decrease in the service ratio to 1.09 officers per 1,000 thousand population. residents.However,levels of service for the police department would not be reduced significantly,and the project would continue to meet service demands in the City. Policy GM 1.1.3.Continue to provide a 5- The proposed project would provide adequate law enforcement and would not decrease levels of minute response time for Priority 1 calls for service for this resource. service at least 85%of the time.Calls are considered Priority 1 where there is a threat to life or property. Policy GM 1.1.7.Ensure that new The project would include crime prevention features to maximize site safety.In addition,MM PS-4 development site design incorporates requires the Applicant to consult the Huntington Beach Police Department regarding the provision of measures to maximize policing safety and adequate Crime Prevention Design measures,and incorporate the Department's recommendations , security. into the plan. Goal GM 2.Provide adequate fire and Conformance with implementing policies,as discussed below,results in conformance with this goal. paramedic services to meet the needs of the City's population. Objective GM 2.1.Provide adequate fire Conformance with implementing policies,as discussed below,results in conformance with this and paramedic facilities and personnel to objective. correspond with population and service demands for the entire City. Policy GM 2.1.2.Provide a 5-minute Presently,both fire stations located near the project site have an average emergency response time response time for emergency fire services to the project area of less than 5 minutes,and thus,is consistent with this policy. at least 80%of the time. Policy GM 2.1.3.Provide a 5-minute Presently,both fire stations located near the project site have an average emergency response time response time for paramedic services at to the,project area of less than 5 minutes,and thus,is consistent with this policy. least 80%of the time. Policy GM 2.1.4.Ensure that new Compliance with standard City requirements would ensure that the proposed project would development site design incorporates incorporate fire safety design features,such as fire access roads and fire hydrants.In addition,the measures to maximize fire safety and development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Municipal Code,Building and Safety = ; prevention. Department,and Fire Department as well as applicable local,State,and Federal Fire Codes, Ordinances,and standards,as required by standard City requirements.Further,MM PS 1 through MM PS-3 require project design features such as enclosed,fire-rated stairs to each subterranean level from the exterior as well as smoke ventilation systems and rooms dedicated for the use of the Fire Department to observe,monitor,and control emergency systems. 3.12-8 City of Huntington Beach 3.12 Public Services Municipal Code—Fire Code The California Fire Code, discussed above under State regulations, is adopted by the City as Chapter 17.56, Huntington Beach Fire Code, of the Municipal Code. The Fire Code include regulations concerning building standards, fire truck and apparatus access to structures, fire protection devices such as extinguishers and smoke alarms, and fire suppression training. 3.12.3 Thresholds of Significance In general,project impacts upon public services would be considered significant if existing or planned public service facilities would not be able to provide adequate service to the community as a result of project- . induced population growth or concentration of population. Project impacts would be considered significant if any of the following would occur: Fire/Police/Lifeguard • Require additional emergency response personnel and/or equipment to maintain acceptable levels of service, or if project-related development results in increased response times of service providers to a degree that would adversely impact public health and safety • Require additional staff or equipment to maintain an acceptable le'vel of service (i.e., response time., equipment suitability) r V'' • Interfere with emergency response or evacuation plans Qi Schools ■ Increase the number of students at nearby schools in excess of school capacity 3.12.4 Project Impacts Impact PS-1 The current staff and equipment of the HBFD would be sufficient to meet the demands of the proposed project, although project design may not provide adequate emergency access. The HBFD has indicated that it has sufficient facilities and staff to accommodate the needs of the proposed project and can serve the project without causing service levels to drop below current levels (Division Chief Fire Marshall Chuck Burney, February 2003). Presently, the HBFD employs 10 personnel at Fire Station #5, which is located less than 0.5 mile from the project site and provides first-response service to the project area. Fire Station#4 employs 4 personnel and is located approximately 1 mile from the project site. Both stations have an average emergency response time to the project area of less than five minutes, which is within the established objective of the City's Growth Management Element. Considering the current station Pacific City EIR 3.12-9 Chapter 3 Environmental Impact Analysis _ locations, the population density, and call volume, the Fire Department considers this an acceptable level of staffing and response time. As such, HBFD staff and equipment would be sufficient to respond to the needs of the proposed project. y+ Due to the quantity of development proposed, the project would result in the congregation of large numbers of people on site. In aggregate, the commercial, hotel, and residential uses could result in several thousand persons on the site simultaneously. The site design includes a complex of buildings with subterranean structures, multiple access points, and multiple buildings over the 31-acre property. These project characteristics result in a need for the fire department to observe,monitor and, as necessary, control the on-site emergency systems in order to respond effectively to an emergency, should one arise, on-site. Enhanced communication systems are proposed for the subterranean parking structure that would allow radio communication in the garage. The subterranean garage in particular could be a constrained access point in an emergency situation where vehicles are attempting to exit the facility and emergency response personnel needs to gain entry. Without enhanced fire protection features for the site, impacts on fire protection would be potentially significant. Impact PS-2 The proposed project would add residential and visitor-serving uses to the area,and would increase demands on police protection. As discussed in Section 3.12.1 (Existing Conditions), the existing service ratio of 1.1. officers per 1,000 residents is considered adequate by the HBPD. In addition, equipment required to maintain an acceptable level of service is currently adequate but at minimum levels. Implementation of the proposed project would alter the personnel-to-population ratio. The proposed project would result in a direct population increase of 1,419 persons, and would result in a slight decrease in the service ratio to 1.09 officers per 1,000 residents. Additionally, no plans for expansion of HBPD personnel levels or facilities currently exist. The permanent increase in the City's residential population resulting from the proposed project, in addition to the addition of hotel and restaurant uses that would include nightlife activities could increase the service calls to the HBPD. Future entertainment uses would require a separate entertainment permit to be approved by the Police Department. Security concerns related to these uses would be addressed through the permit process, at which time the Police Department would have the opportunity to review the proposed uses and provide input on necessary security measures. The proposed project does not include any features that would make it particularly susceptible to criminal activity. Residential buildings would be individually secured with gates at courtyard entrances and all entrances into individual buildings. Access to garages on First Street and Huntington Street and to stairs leading into the subterranean parking garages would be gated. Vehicular privacy gates are also proposed at 3.12-10 City of Huntington Beach 3.12 Public Services. 1 both vehicular entrances to the interior loop road. An enhanced communication system would be implemented in the subterranean garages to allow use of police communication equipment in these areas. These project features would ensure safety of private residences, and deter criminal activity. The number of calls from the project in the context of the entire City with a population of nearly 200,000 residents would not substantially affect the level of police protection and service provided by the HBPD. As I Jj the HBPD is currently functioning at minimum levels, the addition of the proposed project could affect the Department resources. However, the City is not considered a high crime area that experiences a disproportionately large number of crimes in comparison to other areas in the region. Persons on-site or elsewhere in the City would not be exposed to increased risks as a result of the additional demands on the - police department. Impacts would be less than significant Although not necessary to maintain sufficient levels of police service, additional personnel and possibly equipment would ensure no change to the ratio of officers to population. The proposed project would contribute funding to the City's general fund in the form of tax revenue, fees, and other ancillary payments. These funds could, in turn, be used by the City to fund additional police officers in order to maintain the existing service ratio of officers to population. No guarantee that funds will be used for these purposes can be made. Nonetheless, as discussed above, impacts would be less than significant and no additional officers or equipment would be required to ensure public safety of persons on site. { Impact PS-3 Development of additional residential units would result in an increase in the number of students within the school districts serving the site, and increase demands on school facilities. The residential component of the proposed project would increase demands on the high school district and elementary/junior high school district serving the project site. Table 3.12-6 summarizes additional students resulting from the proposed project. The HBCSD currently does not use separate student generation factors for middle school students and elementary school students, and identified a standard student generation factor of 0.34 for both categories as appropriate to this type of project (David Perry 2003). The generation factors for all levels of school are generally anticipated to be higher than those expected from the project, ' since the generation factors generally represent students resulting from single-family residential development, and the project proposes multifamily residential development. However, no specific generation rates for multifamily residential development are available, and the analysis represents a conservative estimate of the number of students that would be generated. Deviations to the generation rate that may occur for multifamily residential development would not affect the conclusions of this analysis. Pacific City EIR ' 3.12-11 Chapter 3 Environmental Impact Analysis Table 3.12-6 Additional Students Generated by Proposed Project Student Group Generation Factor Additional Students High School 0.12851 66 Elementary and Middle School 0.342 175 Total N/A 241 1. HBUHSD Student Generation Factor 2. HBCSD Student Generation Factor As'such, development of 516 condominiums would result in the addition of 66 students to the HBUHSD. Although the project site is geographically served by Huntington Beach High School, the HBUHSD's open enrollment policy allows parents to choose among the District's schools, provided there is sufficient capacity ' for transfers. As discussed in 3.12.1 (Existing Conditions), enrollment in the HBUHSD was at 98 percent capacity in fall 2002 and the District has already begun consideration of adding modular classrooms at two high schools (Marina and Westminster). However, the HBUHSD is currently experiencing growth of 2 percent per year due to growth in the school age population living in existing housing. It is anticipated that this growth would soon be served by the remaining capacity in the District's schools. Therefore, the addition of students from the proposed project would further increase demands on the HBUHSD, worsening high school capacity issues. Impacts on the HBUHSD would be potentially significant as a result of project implementation. Dwyer Middle School and Kettler Elementary School are part of the Huntington Beach City School District (HBCSD) and serve the project site. Current enrollment at these schools is 1,226 students and 530 students, respectively. The proposed project would add a total of approximately 175 additional students to the HBCSD. Although no expansion of the schools in the District is planned, transfers within the District are allowed to accommodate additional student enrollment. However, given the magnitude of the potential increase in student enrollment, transfers would not likely accommodate the additional student demands. The HBCSD is currently operating at full capacity, with a total enrollment of approximately 7,009 students. Therefore, the addition of approximately 175 new students from the proposed project would further increase demands on the HBCSD, and impacts would be potentially significant. Impact PS-4 Existing lifeguard services would be adequate to serve increased use of the y ` beach area resulting from additional residential and visitor-serving uses. Project implementation would result in a higher level of activity within the Downtown area of Huntington Beach and a corresponding increase in attendance at the adjacent City beach. A key component of the project is its proximity to the beach. The 1,419 additional residents in addition to guests from the 400-room hotel would increase beach use. The Huntington Beach Marine Safety Division has indicated that no impact is anticipated on the ability of lifeguard services to adequately serve the beach area on a day-to-day basis 3.12-12 City of Huntington Beach 3.12 Public Services (personal communication Jim Engle). Lifeguard staff is adequate to handle the potential for additional beach use due to the proposed project. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a significant adverse impact upon lifeguard and marine safety services within the project vicinity. Impacts would be less than significant 3.12.5 Cumulative Impacts This cumulative impact analysis considers development of the proposed project, in conjunction with other development within the vicinity Of the project in the City of Huntington Beach. Provision of public services is a regional issue due to recent and projected population increases in the Southern California area. This population increase creates additional demand for public services, which may already be at or near capacity. It has been determined that, with implementation of recommended mitigation measures, all project-specific impacts to public services can be reduced to a less-than-significant level. The project, along with other cumulative development, would provide revenue in the form of taxes, fees, and other ancillary payments to the City General Fund. These funds could be used for an expansion of public services. No guarantee that funds will be used for these purposes can be made. However, the City determines how General Fund monies will be spent as part of the annual budgetary process, and through this process provides funds to ensure public service needs of the City are met. This is determined through a number of factors, including population demographics and projected development. Fire Protection HBFD has indicated that additional development-in the project area would not exacerbate demands on fire services for additional personnel or equipment. However, as discussed in Impact PS-1, fire protection features are necessary to ensure adequate fire protection capabilities and response time. This issue is limited to the site itself and would not be affected by cumulative development. Cumulative projects would not create an immediate cumulative impact on fire protection and emergency response and transport services. The proposed project would have a less-than-significant contribution to this cumulative impact. Police Protection Additional development in the project area, in combination with cumulative visitor-serving commercial uses within the area, would increase existing demands. Elevated police workload associated with the increased visitor and residential population of cumulative development within the City of Huntington Beach would result. However, based on the type and location of cumulative development, it is unlikely that increased demands on the police department would result in public safety issues in the City. The proposed project is Pacific City EIR 3.12-13 Chapter 3 Environmental Impact Analysis - not located in a high crime area that would result in unusual demands on police protection. The proposed project's contribution to cumulative impacts on the police would, therefore,be less than significant. Schools Implementation of the proposed project combined with other residential development within the project area would increase the number of students at City schools near the Downtown area. In turn, this increase would affect the demand and service at the high school and elementary/junior high school districts, and worsen existing school capacity issues. Cumulative residential projects include the Waterfront Residential Development, Beachside development, and the Boardwalk, which would add over 300 residential units to the City. The project, along with other foreseeable development, would be required to bear its fair share of the cost of providing additional school services. This can be accomplished through negotiations between the school districts and the developers regarding school impact mitigation agreements to address the adverse impacts of their development. Payment of funds to the school districts would allow additional facilities to be developed, as appropriate. Given the magnitude of student increases from the proposed project combined with cumulative development, impacts would be cumulatively significant. Payment of fees by the project to the affected school districts would ensure the project contribution to these impacts would be less than significant. Lifeguard Services Implementation of the proposed project combined with other visitor-serving and residential development within the area, such as the Hyatt Regency Resort, Strand, and Waterfront developments would increase the number of visitors to City beaches near the Downtown area. Cumulative increased visitation is anticipated. The exact quantity of this increase cannot be projected. However, effects have been more evident in the nonpeak season due to related development. There is the potential for special events to result in increased demands on the lifeguard services department. Impacts from specific event impacts would be addressed through charges to promoters for these events to offset increased demands. The City anticipates that existing resources would meet cumulative increased demands. Project contribution to cumulative demands would be further minimized through the recommended Beach Safety and Maintenance Awareness Program. 3.12.6 Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts The following standard City requirements (CR)would apply to the project. 3.12-14 City of Huntington Beach 3.12 Public Services CR PS-A Automatic sprinkler systems shall be installed throughout. Shop drawings shall be submitted and approved by the Fire Department prior to system installation. (FD) CR PS-B Fire hydrants must be installed before combustible construction begins. Prior to installation, shop drawings shall be submitted to the Public Works Department and approved by the Fire Department. (Fire Dept. City Specification 407)..(FD) CR PS-C Prior to issuance of building permits,fire access roads shall be provided in compliance with Fire Dept. City Specification 401. Include the Circulation Plan and dimensions of all access roads. Fire lanes will be designated and posted to comply with Fire Dept. City Specification No. 415. (FD) CR PS-D The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Municipal Code, Building Department, and Fire Department as well as applicable local, State, and Federal Fire Codes, Ordinances, and standards. Note: This condition of approval also applies to other resources such as geology and hazards. In addition to the standard City requirements listed above, mitigation measures (MM) would be required to address project impacts. Implementation of the following mitigation measures would be required to address impacts on fire protection, as described under Impact PS-1: MM PS-1 Provide enclosed,fire-rated stairs to each subterranean level from the exterior every 300'lineal feet of the building perimeter MM PS-2 Project design shall•include ventilation of smoke and products of combustion. Zoned, ' mechanical smoke removal system, with manual controls for firefighters shall be located in the fire control room. An emergency power source is necessary and the system shall also comply with Building Code requirements to exhaust CO and other hazardous gases. MM PS-3 Dedicated rooms for Fire Department exclusive use to observe, monitor and as necessary control all emergency systems operation shall be provided. A total of three rooms shall be provided as follows: (1) commercial area and the related subterranean parking garage; (2)high-rise hotel;and(3)residential garages and dwellings. Rooms shall be located in an exterior location at grade level and have unrestricted access clear-to-the sky. Implementation of the following mitigation measure is recommended to further reduce less-than-significant impacts on police services, as described above under Impact PS-2: Pacific City EIR 3.12-15 Chapter 3 Environmental Impact Analysis MM PS-4 Prior to issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall consult the Huntington Beach Police Department regarding the provision of adequate Crime Prevention Design measures, and shall incorporate the Department's recommendations into the plan. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would be required to reduce impacts on schools, as described above under Impact PS-3: MM PS-5 The developer for the proposed project shall negotiate with the appropriate City school districts regarding school impact fees to address the adverse impacts of the development, thus, ensuring that the new development would bear its fair share of the cost of housing additional students generated. The Planning Department shall be provided with a copy of the agreement prior to recordation of the final map. Implementation of the following mitigation measure is recommended to further reduce less-than-significant impacts on lifeguard services, as described above under Impact PS-4: MM PS-6 The Applicant shall develop and institute a Beach Safety and Maintenance Awareness • Program to be reviewed and approved by the Community Services Department. The Program shall include (1) informational disclosures (i.e., handouts) to all residents and hotel guests and(2)posting of signs on site. Program materials shall include but would not be limited to the following items: • Beach safety guidelines related to swimming, tides, sun exposure, and other potential risks from beach use ■ City Regulations on the use of beach property, including permissible uses of the beach and appropriate trash disposal • Identification of penalties imposed for violation of City Regulations The City shall ensure strict enforcement of regulations related to beach use and maintenance. Implementation of MM PS-1 through MM PS-3 would ensure adequate emergency access for the fire department, reducing impacts described in Impact PS-1 to less than significant. MM PS-4 and MM PS-6 would further reduce less-than-significant impacts to police protection and lifeguard services during project operation, as discussed under Impact PS-2 and Impact PS-4. Implementation of MM PS-5 would ensure payment of school impact fees to address impacts associated with student overcrowding on the HBUHSD and HBCSD. Per Government Code Sec. 65996, developer impact fees are the exclusive method for mitigating impacts on school facilities. Therefore, impacts on schools as described under Impact PS-3 would be reduced to less than significant. 3.12-16 City of Huntington Beach 3.13 Recreation 3.13 RECREATION This EIR section analyzes the potential for adverse impacts on existing recreational facilities and opportunities and the expansion of recreational facilities resulting from implementation of the proposed project. The Initial Study (Appendix A) identified the potential for impacts associated with increased demands on off-site recreational facilities as well as the expansion of recreational facilities, which could j contribute to adverse physical impacts. Data used to prepare this section were taken from the City's General Plan Recreation, Community Service and Coastal Elements, in addition to the City of Huntington Beach Park Strategy and Fee Nexus Study, Final Report. Full bibliographic entries for all reference materials are provided in Chapter (References) of this document. 3.13.1 Existing Conditions Recreational opportunities in the City can be categorized as three main types of uses: (1) beaches; (2)parks and recreational facilities; and (3) trails and bikeways. The coastal City of Huntington Beach includes approximately 9 miles of scenic, accessible beachfront, and includes one of the largest recreational piers in the world. Additional recreational opportunities consist of public parks, golf courses, and a multi-use trail along the ocean. Beaches Huntington Beach contains approximately 9 miles of sandy beach shoreline area, including the Bolsa Chica and Huntington State Beaches, operated by the California State Department of Parks and Recreation, and the Huntington City Beach, operated by the City. Bolsa Chica State Beach includes 3.5 miles of shoreline between Warner Avenue and Seapoint Avenue. Huntington City Beach includes approximately 1 mile of shoreline between the Municipal Pier and Beach Boulevard. In addition, the City operates 2.5 miles of state- owned beach from the Municipal Pier to Seapoint Avenue. Huntington State Beach consists of the 2-mile shoreline area between Beach Boulevard south to the Santa Ana River, immediately past Brookhurst'Street and north of the boundary of the City of Newport Beach. Together, the beaches total approximately 380 acres, and provide,r.egional recreational opportunities, which include swimming, surfing, bodysurfing,.sunbathing, skin and scuba diving, and sand volleyball. Fire rings are also available for barbeques and evening campfires. Offshore clam beds and a variety of game fish also attract divers and surf fishermen to the area. A Class I Bikeway (paved off-road bike path) extends the length of the shoreline of Huntington Beach and continues south to Newport Beach and north to Seal Beach. This paved bikeway provides for bicycle riding, jogging, rollerblading, walking, and similar activities separated Pacific City EIR. 3.13-1 Chapter 3 Environmental Impact Analysis from vehicular traffic along Pacific Coast Highway (PCH). The beaches, particularly Huntington City Beach near the Municipal Pier, have been the sites of many national and international sporting events, including surfing, volleyball, and skateboarding competitions. Huntington Beach is known as one of the best surfing areas on the west coast, and has earned the nickname "Surf City, USA." Its renowned surf is a result of the shoreline's long, gradually sloped beach,gradient and location in relation to ocean swells. Parks and Recreational Facilities Huntington Beach contains 65 recreational parks, located throughout the City. Manyof theparks have ass � g tY grass and landscaping devoted to sports, picnicking, and general enjoyment of the outdoor environment. The City classifies these parks into four categories, based primarily on their size, as follows: • Mini Park—Consists of less than one acre and intended to serve the immediate neighborhood in which they are located; provides passive open space and buffering from adjacent developments, with walking paths and benches; e.g., Booster Park, French Park, and Tarbox Park. ■ Neighborhood Park—Usually 2.5 to 5 acres in size and are intended to serve a 0.25- to 0.5-mile radius; planned for the activities of children from age 5 to 15; centrally located in a neighborhood and often adjacent to a school; e.g., Arevalos Park, Conrad Park, Lambert Park, Hawes Park, Burke Park, and Wieder Park. ▪ Community Park—Designed to serve several neighborhoods within a 1- to 1.5-mile radius and ranging from approximately 10 to 40 acres in size; planned for youths and adults and hosts a wider range of activities than smaller parks; e.g., Chris Can Park, Gisler Park, Langenbeck Park, and Marina Park. • Regional Park—Larger than 40 acres and serves a large regional area up to a 30- or 40-mile radius; provides special recreational opportunities such as camping, equestrian centers, nature preserves, trails, and lakes; e.g., Huntington Central Park and Blufftop Park. Based on the City's Park Strategy and Fee Nexus Study (Park Strategy Report) completed in December 2001 (City of Huntington Beach 2001b), the City's 69 park assets, four nonpark buildings, and four nonpark special use assets comprise a total of 906.7 acres. Parks alone occupy 83.6 acres, while nonpark buildings occupy 4.6 acres and nonpark special use assets, which primarily consist of Meadow Lark Golf Course occupy 98.5 acres. The General Plan has established a"parkland to population"ratio of five acres per 1,000 persons. The City currently has 4.75 acres of parkland per 1,000 persons, including the City-leased beach and Meadowlark Golf Course. Based on the estimated population in the Park Strategy Report of approximately 190,746 residents, and the City's parkland ratio standard of five acres per 1,000 persons, the present parkland requirement is 955.0 acres. The City's total of 906.7 park acres falls short of the identified ratio requirement by 48.3.acres. 3.13-2 City of Huntington Beach 3.13 Recreation The nearest recreational facilities to the proposed project site include the following: Huntington,City Beach immediately to the south of the site across PCH, the Municipal Pier located approximately 0.5 mile to the west, Huntington State Beach located approximately 0.5 mile to the east, Manning Park located approximately 550 feet to the north, and Lake Park located approximately 1 mile to the northwest. With over 350 acres, Huntington Central Park is the nearest Regional Park, located approximately 4 miles to the north. In addition to City parks, the City includes a number of other recreational facilities as identified in Table 3.13-1. Table 3.13-1 Huntington Beach Recreational Facilities Type Location(s) Description of Facility Huntington Northwest corner of the City. This is a 680-acre residential development oriented around a network of manmade channels Harbour in a marina.The waterways provide significant opportunities for boating,which is the major recreational use of the area.The City operates three boat slips for public use.Public access to the channels is provided in several areas where boats can be rented,and launched.In addition,Huntington Harbour contains four small beaches.Four beaches are contained within;two at the Huntington Harbour entrances.to Davenport and Humboldt Islands,and two are adjacent to the Trinidad and Seabridge parks. Golf Meadowlark Golf Course is located Meadowlark Golf Course is a City-owned,96-acre,18-hole course.Facilities include two Courses on Graham Street,in between Heil putting greens,a lighted driving range,lessons,carts,pro shop,snack bar,restaurant, Avenue and Warner Avenue. banquet facility,and lounge.The entire course was renovated and new buildings Seacliff Country Club is a privately constructed in 1994. owned course located on Palm Seacliff Country Club is a 140-acre,18-hole course.Facilities include,a driving range,two Avenue,north of Golden West Street. putting greens,pro shop,tennis courts,snack bar,lounge,restaurant,and banquet facilities. Municipal The Pier is located at the.intersection The Municipal Pier serves as the focal point of the City's Downtown area.Constructed of Pier and of Main Street and Pacific Coast reinforced concrete,the Pier reopened in 1992,and is approximately 1,800 feet long,30 feet Plaza Highway.Main Pier Plaza is located wide,and 38 feet above mean low water level.A variety of visitor serving and recreational at the base of the Municipal Pier on amenities,including a restaurant,community access booth,bait and tackle shop,public the ocean side of Pacific Coast restrooms,lifeguard tower,and observation and recreational platforms are located on the Highway,between First and Seventh Pier.Visitors use the Pier to sight see,stroll,fish,and dine. Streets. The public plaza includes a palm court,230-seat amphitheater,spectator area,access ways to the beach and lawn,restrooms and concessions,bicycle parking facilities,and automobile parking.Pier Plaza was designed as a community focal,area where public speaking forums, surfing competitions,foot races,outdoor concerts and similar events are held. Recreational The Sunset Vista Camper Facility is The Sunset Vista Camper Facility is a City-operated recreational vehicle camping site Vehicle located on Pacific.Coast Highway in offering 150 spaces from September through May 31.The facility allows camping Camping the Huntington City Beach parking lot immediately adjacent to the beach. at First Street. At Boise Chica State Beach,the State Department of Parks and Recreation allocates 50 Huntington State Beach and Boise spaces for en route overnight camping.The RV spaces available under this program are for Chica State Beach offer similar year-round use.The City Beach also offers a similar program for en route RV camping facilities for overnight camping. between June 1 and September 14,annually. Community Edison Community Center is.located Both community centers are the focal points for the majority of the recreational programs Centers at 21377 Magnolia Street. offered by the City of Huntington Beach.Instructional classes,tennis classes,youth sports, Murdy Community Center is located and adult softball are among the programs conducted at the centers.Both centers are located within community parks.Inside the facilities are meeting halls and game rooms with at 7000 Norma Drive. pool,table tennis,"foosball"and video games,and other table games.Outside areas include tennis,basketball,and volleyball courts,softball/athletic fields,racquetball/handball courts (Edison only),tot play areas,horseshoe pits,and picnic areas.The centers also host extracurricular activities for many of the local schools and civic organizations. j Pacific City EIR 3.13-3 � ti Chapter 3 Environmental Impact Analysis Trails and Bikeways The City has an extensive trail system that can be used by bicyclists, roller bladders, joggers, and strollers. As previously mentioned, a Class I trail (Bike Path)runs the entire length of the beach, parallel to PCH, and is linked to the regional Santa Ana Bikeway, also a Class I trail. These trails are also part of the Orange County Master Plan of Regional Riding and Hiking. Several east/west Class II bikeways (Bike Lanes) run throughout the City as well, connecting to both of the Class I bike paths. Bike lanes provide a striped lane for one-way travel on a street or highway and signs indicating the bicycle route. 3.13.2 Regulatory Framework Government Code Section 66477, known as the Quimby Act, is a State regulation that would be applicable to the proposed project. The Quimby Act allows a City to require the dedication of land or impose a requirement of the payment of fees, for park or recreational purposes as a condition to the approval of a tentative or parcel map. There are no federal regulations related to recreation that apply to the proposed project. Local Municipal Code—Chapter 254.08 Chapter 254.08, Parkland Dedication, of the City's Municipal Code, implements the provisions of the Quimby Act. The park and recreational facilities for which dedication of land and/or payment of an in-lieu fee as required by this Chapter are in accordance with the policies, principles and standards for park, open space and recreational facilities contained in the General Plan. The requirements of Chapter 254.08 will be complied with through the dedication of land, payment of a fee, or both, at the option of the City, for park or recreational purposes at the time and according to the standards and formula contained within this Chapter: The amount and location of land dedicated or the fees to be paid, or both, will be used for acquiring, developing new or rehabilitating existing community and neighborhood parks and other types of recreational facilities. These facilities will be provided in locations that bear a reasonable relationship to the use of the park and recreational facilities by the future inhabitants of the subdivision generating such dedication of land or payment of fees, or both. Chapter 254.08 requires that five acres of property for each 1,000 persons residing within the City be devoted to local park and recreational purposes. 3.13-4 City of Huntington Beach 3.13 Recreation Lands to be dedicated or reserved for park and/or recreational purposes are required to be suitable in the opinion of the Director of Planning and the Director of Community Services in location, topography, environmental characteristics, and development potential as related to the intended use..The primary intent of this Section is to provide land for passive and active recreation, including but not limited to: tot lots, play lots, playgrounds, neighborhood parks, playfields, community.or regional parks, lakes, picnic areas, tree groves or urban forests, and other specialized recreational facilities that may serve residents of the City. General Plan Recreation and Community Service Element The City,of Huntington Beach Recreation and Community Services Element is concerned with identifying, maintaining, and enhancing local parks and recreational services and facilities. Table 3.13-2 identifies goals and objectives presented in the Recreation and Community Services Element of the General Plan related to recreational facilities that are,potentially relevant to the proposed project. This table also includes an assessment of the proposed project's consistency with the policies adopted in support of these goals and objectives. r - Table 3.13-2 - General Plan Recreation and Community Services Element—Policies Applicable to Recreation Goal,Objective,or.Policy Project Consistency . Objective ERC 1.1.Provide a quality Conformance with implementing policies,as discussed below,results in conformance with this goal. open space network that is spatially distributed throughout all areas of the City. Policy ERC 1.1.1.Encourage the ' The project plan includes open space elements,including large public plazas,entry courts,and provision of open space elements within planned development common areas. the larger-scale development projects - including but not limited to public plazas, entry courts,and planned development common areas. . Goal RCS 1.Enrich the quality of life for Conformance with implementing policies,as discussed below,results in conformance with this goal. all citizens of Huntington Beach by providing constructive and creative leisure opportunities. Objective RCS 1.1.Encourage Conformance with implementing policies,as discussed below,results in conformance with this recreational opportunities unique to objective. Huntington.Beach that will enhance visitation and economic development. Policy RCS 1.1.3.Enhance the Pier area The proposed project is located in the immediate vicinity of the Pier area,across from PCH.Project and the surrounding beach area to • development includes a mixed-use visitor-serving commercial center fronting PCH and includes function as the hubs of tourist and pedestrian linkages to the beach.Hotel facilities and amenities would include an entertainment community activity. lounge and/or lobby lounge,function facilities,food and beverage services,ocean view plaza with swimming pool and spa,fitness and yoga center;a restaurant,lounge,and bar;a pool area grille; resort retail shops;and meeting/banquet and conference facilities.Additional visitor-serving commercial uses include a maximum of 240,000 square feet of retail,restaurant,entertainment, office,cultural and recreational facilities.These proposed uses would enhance the Pier area,and the surrounding beach area,which would encourage tourist and community activity.As such,the proposed project is consistent with this policy. Pacific City EIR 3.13-5 Chapter 3 Environmental Impact Analysis Table 3.13-2 General Plan Recreation and Community Services Element—Policies Applicable to Recreation Goal,Objective,or Policy Project Consistency Policy RCS 1.1.4.Encourage and As described above,the proposed project includes a wide variety of uses including residential,hotel facilitate the development of a wide and visitor-serving commercial uses.As discussed above in the Municipal Code requirements,the variety of revenue generating recreational proposed project would also be subject to standard park requirements,at the discretion of the City. activities such as"corporate"picnic Thus,the proposed project would generally be consistent with this policy. facilities,wedding facilities,infant,child, or senior day care,fishing facilities,golf courses,driving ranges,batting cages, roller hockey,sports fields,etc. Goal RCS 2.Provide adequately sized Conformance with implementing policies,as discussed below,results in conformance with this goal. , and located active and passive parklands to meet the recreational needs of existing and future residents,and to preserve natural resources within the City of Huntington Beach and its sphere of influence. Objective RCS 2.1.Create an integrated Conformance with implementing policies,as discussed below,results in conformance with this park system that is complementary to objective. existing and proposed development as well as the natural environment. Policy RCS 2.1.1.Maintain the current Although existing neighborhood and regional parks would be available to the residents of the park per capita ratio of 5.0 acres per proposed project,the increase in population as a result of the project is consistent with the City's „_. 1,000 persons,which includes the beach General Plan and zoning densities for the site.Therefore,the project would not result in increased in the calculation. demand not already anticipated in the City's planning activities.In addition,the proposed project includes common areas on site,including passive open space features to serve project residents and visitors,and would be subject to standard park requirements.For the proposed project,the City would require a combination of park fees and land dedication to satisfy Quimby Act requirements and the City's Municipal Code.A minimum two-acre neighborhood park would be included in a location acceptable to the Community Services Department and Planning Department.The remaining parkland requirement of 4.9 acres would be met through the payment of in-lieu fees.As such,the proposed project would be consistent with this goal. Policy RCS 2.1.5.Provide for the Pedestrian pathways would link the surrounding residential communities and the proposed inclusion of recreational trails in new residential component.These pedestrian access ways would then connect to the commercial developments which link with the existing component and PCH and,ultimately,to the beach parking lot via at-grade intersections and a grade- or planned trails. separated pedestrian bridge,which could be constructed in the future.As mentioned above in. Section 3.13.1,Existing Conditions,a Class I trail runs the entire length of the beach,parallel to PCH.As the proposed project would provide direct access ways to this trail,project implementation would be consistent with this policy. Goal RCS 3.Develop park sites to Conformance with implementing policies,as discussed below,results in conformance with this goal. provide diverse recreational and sports facilities that meet the residents'and - visitors'active and passive recreational needs. Objective RCS 3.1.Incorporate Conformance with implementing policies,as discussed below,results in conformance with this recreation features and facilities objective. responsive to the preferences of the resident population bases that will utilize the services. Policy RCS 3.1.1.Design neighborhood As discussed above,the proposed project is subject to standard park requirements in which there is park features and facilities that are a dedication of land and/or payment of in-lieu fees for park and recreational facilities as required responsive to the recreational under the City's Municipal Code.As such,this project is consistent with this goal. preferences expressed by the park users and local neighborhood residents. 3.13-6 City of Huntington Beach 3.13 Recreation Table 3.13-2 General Plan Recreation and Community Services Element—Policies Applicable to Recreation Goal,Objective,or Policy Project Consistency Policy RCS 3.1.2.Provide a variety of Although still conceptual,the proposed project would include a variety of passive recreational amenities within recreation areas in order amenities within designated recreational areas. to accommodate persons with different interests. Policy RCS 3.1.3.Develop public parks On-site recreational facilities would link to the public access corridor that commences on Atlanta and recreational facilities that link trails Avenue and aligns with Alabama Street and links to other existing recreational facilities. and existing recreational facilities. Policy RCS 3.1.6.Design recreational Recreational facilities would be designed in accordance with all applicable laws,including the facilities to the accessibility requirements American Disabilities Act. as specified in State and Federal laws such as the American Disabilities Act (ADA)standards for accessibility. Goal RCS 5.Provide parks and other Conformance with implementing policies,as discussed below,results in conformance with this goal. open space areas that are efficiently designed to maximize use while providing cost efficient maintenance and _ operations. Objective RCS 5.1.Distribute future Conformance with implementing policies,as discussed below,results in conformance with this developed park and recreation center objective. sites to equitably serve neighborhood and/or community needs while reducing , costs. Policy 5.1.2.Future community and Lands to be dedicated or reserved for park and/or recreational purposes shall be suitable in the neighborhood park and recreation sites opinion of the Director of Planning and Director of Community services in location,topography, shall be located in accordance with the environmental characteristics and development potential as related to the intended use.As such,. Parks and Recreation Master Plan for the recreational facilities would be located in accordance with the Parks and Recreation Master Plan for City of Huntington Beach. the City of Huntington Beach,and project implementation would be consistent with this policy. Goal RCS 7.Operate and maintain City Conformance with implementing policies,as discussed below,results in conformance with this goal. parks and recreation facilities in the most safe,effective,and efficient manner. Objective RCS 7.1.Enhance park and Conformance with implementing policies,as discussed below,results in conformance with this recreation sites in ways which maximize objective. efficiency and minimize maintenance cost. Policy RCS 7.1.1.Design recreation A total of five common recreational areas would be located throughout the residential portion of the facilities and programs that are functional, proposed project.Residential development would be clustered around the recreational amenities and efficient,and affordable. readily accessible to residents,thereby creating functional,efficient,and affordable recreational facilities. General Plan Coastal Element The Coastal Element policies recognize the City's responsibility to balance the need in providing adequate recreational facilities to serve the greater local community, while protecting the resources and character of its Coastal Zone. Table 3.13-3 identifies goals and objectives presented in the Coastal Element of the General Plan related to recreational facilities that are potentially relevant to the proposed project. This table Pacific City EIR 3.13-7 Chapter 3 Environmental Impact Analysis also includes an assessment of the proposed project's consistency with the policies adopted in support of these goals and objectives. Table 3.13-3 General Plan Coastal Element—Policies Applicable to Recreation Goal,Objective,or Policy Project Consistency Goal C 3.Provide a variety of recreational Conformance with implementing policies,as discussed below,results in conformance with this goal. and visitor commercial serving uses for a range of cost and market preferences. Objective C 3.2.Ensure that new Conformance with implementing policies,as discussed below,results in conformance with this development and uses provide a variety of objective. recreational facilities for a range of income groups,including low cost facilities and activities. Policy C 3.2.1.Encourage,where feasible, The project site includes over 9.acres of public recreational areas,and would therefore increase these facilities,programs,and services that uses in the Coastal Zone.. increase and enhance public recreational opportunities in the Coastal Zone. Policy C 3.2.2.Privately-owned recreation The residential portion of the proposed project would include 11.06 net acres of open space(1.78 of facilities on public land shall be open to the which would be private).This common open space would include 2.50 net acres of common public.Encourage privately-owned recreational area.Residential development would be clustered around the recreational amenities and recreation facilities on private land to be readily accessible to residents. open to the public. Policy C 3.2.3.Encourage the provision of As described above,the proposed project includes a mixed-use visitor-serving commercial center, a variety of visitor-serving commercial which includes commercial,retail,hotel uses,entertainment,office,cultural,and recreational facilities. establishments within the Coastal Zone, Thus,the proposed project would generally be consistent with this policy. including but not limited to,shops, restaurants,hotels and motels,and day spas. General Plan Growth Management Element The policies listed within the Growth Management Element and applicable to recreation are consistent with the Recreation and Community Services Element in its objective to ensure adequate recreational facilities for existing and planned land uses while providing for orderly growth in the City. Table 3.13-4 identifies goals and objectives presented in the Growth Management Element of the General Plan related to recreation that are potentially relevant to the proposed project. This table also includes an assessment of the proposed project's consistency with the policies adopted in support of these goals and objectives. 3.13-8 City of Huntington Beach 3.13 Recreation Table 3.13-4 General Plan Growth Management Element—Policies Applicable to Recreation Goal,Objective,or Policy Project Consistency Goal GM 4.Provide adequate`parks and Conformance with implementing policies,as discussed below,results in conformance with this goal. recreational facilities for existing and future residents of the City. Objective GM 4.1.Provide Conformance with implementing policies,as discussed below,results in conformance with this comprehensive,coordinated parks and objective. recreation facilities that fulfill the needs of all areas of the City and.all age groups. Policy 4.1.2.Maintain the current park per A combination of park fees and,land dedication would be required to satisfy Quimby Act requirements capita ratio of 5.0 acres per 1,000 persons, and the City's Municipal Code in a manner that would maintain the current park per capita ratio.As which includes the beach in the such,the proposed project would be consistent with this policy. calculation. 3.13.3 Thresholds of Significance Project impacts would be considered significant if either of the following would occur: • • Increase the use of existing neighborhood, community and regional parks or other regional facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated • Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment For the purposes of this analysis, increased use of existing parks is determined based on the ability for the project to provide parkland on-site at a ratio of 5 acres per 1,000 new residents, or appropriate payment of Quimby fees. 3.13.4 Project Impacts, Impact REC-1 Project implementation would not provide adequate recreational facilities to meet increased demands from the project. Implementation of the proposed project would include the development of 516 residential units, which would directly increase the population on-site by approximately 1,419 residents. In addition, the development of visitor-serving commercial uses would indirectly increase the population by approximately 601 persons: Direct and indirect increases in population would result in an increase in the general use of local and regional recreational facilities. Additional use also increases wear and tear to facilities, which in turn adds to the maintenance costs and shortens some timelines'for facility renovations. Increased demand for recreational programs is also created with a higher population on site, along with the overall cost to deliver those services. • Pacific City EIR 3.13-9 Chapter 3 Environmental Impact Analysis The proposed project would be required to satisfy Chapter 254.08 of the City's Municipal Code, which implements the provisions of the Quimby Act. Specifically., this chapter requires that five acres of property for each 1,000 residents be devoted to local park and recreational purposes. In accordance with the parkland dedication requirements provided in the Huntington Beach Municipal Code, the proposed project would be required to provide 6.9 acres of parkland. This could.be met through a combination of park fees and land j dedication. As proposed, a total of 11.06 net acres of open space would be provided on the project site. This open space would include 1.78 acres of private open space and 9.28 net acres of common open space. The common open space would include five key recreational areas and common areas such as public paseos and open '- space throughout the site, as shown on Figure 2-5a. The five recreational areas would be situated throughout the residential portion of the proposed project for a total of 2.50 acres, the largest of which would total 2.04 acres in the center of the residential development. This area, identified as the "Village Green,"would be owned and maintained by the Pacific City Residential Homeowners Association, but open to the public through four pedestrian paseos. The "Village Green" would not be dedicated to the City as parkland. Therefore, the proposed project would not satisfy the parkland to population ratio requirements of the City. The four additional recreational:areas would primarily serve residents of the proposed project, as the residential units would be clustered around the recreational areas. However, Area 1 at the corner of First Street and Atlanta Avenue would be publicly accessible. The additional common open space would be positioned throughout the project site. Residents and employees of the proposed project may also use existing neighborhood and regional parks, as well as the beach. Residents of the site would most likely use these facilities after typical business hours and on the weekends, while employees at the site would use recreational facilities during lunch breaks, which would typically occur during the day. As such, the recreational facility demand generated by residents and employees would generally be concentrated during different times of the day. The increase in population as a result of the project is consistent with the City's General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, indicating that this population increase was previously assumed to occur in the City's planning activities. Pedestrian corridors would also be provided throughout the project site, as shown in Figure 2-7. Pedestrian pathways would link the surrounding residentialcommunities and pathways, including the public access corridor that commences.on Atlanta Avenue and aligns with Alabama Street (oriented perpendicular to Atlanta Avenue). In,addition, as mentioned previously, four pedestrian paseos would provide access to the proposed "Village Green." These would include (1) pedestrian access from First Street aligned directly 3.13-10 City of Huntington Beach 3.13 Recreation across from Walnut Avenue; (2) pedestrian access from Atlanta Avenue directly across from Alabama Street; (3)pedestrian access from Huntington Street across from the entrance to the Pacific Mobile Home Park; and (4) a 55-foot wide pedestrian access paseo from Pacific View Avenue. Pedestrian access ways would connect the residential and commercial components and PCH and, Ultimately, the beach. Although not proposed in the current tentative tract map, a grade-separated pedestrian overcrossing is part of the Master Plan, which could be constructed in the future. This pedestrian bridge would span midway between Huntington Street and First Street over PCH, providing access to and from tlhe Pacific Ocean to the project site. Pedestrian pathways throughout the site would be publicly accessible at al.11 times. i Residents of the proposed project may use neighborhood, community, and regional parks. The increase in population as a result of the project is consistent with the City's General Plan and zoning densities for the site. Therefore, the project would not result in increased demand not all eady anticipated in the City's planning activities. However, although the proposed project includes common open space areas and recreational opportunities that would be accessible to the general public within the proposed project site, the project does not specifically dedicate the 2.04 acre recreational area as,parkland to the City. Since no parkland dedication is proposed, in-lieu fees could substitute for parklandII' dedication. Without adequate provision of parkland and/or payment of fees, impacts would be potentially significant. i_ ' Impact REC-2 Construction effects associated with on-site l recreational facilities would significantly affect the environment over the short term. The proposed project would result in an overall increase in population in the City of Huntington Beach. Development of the proposed project would result in the addition of 516 dwelling units and a mixed-use visitor-serving commercial center on a currently vacant parcel of land in Downtown Huntington Beach. As described throughout Chapter 3 (Environmental Impact Analysis) of this DEIR, construction and operational activities on the project site would have an adverse impact on various resources. -- I Specifically, construction activities associated with implementation of passive open space features, such as parkland, public access corridors and common recreational facilities would affect environmental resources. As indicated in Impact AQ-1 in Section 3.2 (Air Quality), daily construction activities could generate emissions that exceed SCAQMD thresholds, which would result in a potentially significant impact. In addition, Impact BIO-4 in Section 3.3 (Biological Resources) indicates that construction activities at the project site would increase noise levels above present levels but have a less-than-significant impact on any wildlife that may be in the project site vicinity. Construction of the proposed project would also result in potentially significant impacts to Cultural Resources (Section 3.4) as described in Impacts CR-1 through CR-3. Additionally, construction activities would temporarily increase s Il exposure to wind and water Pacific City EIR 3.13-11 Chapter 3 Environmental Impact Analysis erosion as described in Impact GEO-3 in Section 3.6 (Geology and Soils). Further, grading and excavation activities associated with project development at the proposed project site could result in the exposure of construction personnel and the public to hazardous substances in the soil, as well as possibly resulting in damage to existing oil wells, as depicted in Impacts HAZ-1 and HAZ-2 in Section 3.7 (Hazards and Hazardous Materials). Noise activities would result in short term increases in noise levels, although these levels would.be within allowable limits as discussed in Impacts N-1 and N-2 in Section 3.10 (Noise). As such, the impacts resulting from construction of the project would be considered potentially significant. Implementation of construction-related applicable MM AQ-1 through AQ-5, MM BIO-1, MM CR-1, and MM HAZ-1 through HAZ-3, as described in the above-referenced sections would reduce impacts to a less- than-significant level, with the exception of construction impacts of air quality. Construction impacts for air quality would be significant and unavoidable, due to the size of the site and the amount of development proposed. When considered on their own, development of only the recreational spaces on the project site would not exceed air quality thresholds. Construction would occur as part of the development of the overall site, and that effect on air quality would be significant and unavoidable, as discussed under Impact AQ-1. Effects of construction of recreational facilities, would, however,be less than significant. 3.13.5 Cumulative Impacts This cumulative impact analysis considers development of the proposed project, in conjunction with other development within the vicinity of the project in the City of Huntington Beach. Project development, in combination with other cumulative projects within the City of Huntington Beach such as the Waterfront Development, Beachside, and the Boardwalk, would directly increase the population. Increases in population would generate a higher demand for recreational facilities and programs, and reduce the number of existing parkland per resident. Chapter 254.08 of the City of Huntington Beach Municipal Code requires that five acres of property for each 1,000 persons residing within the City be devoted to local park and recreational purposes. This standard could be provided through park fees, land dedication, or a combination of both. Implementation of MM REC-1, as discussed below, would require that the proposed project complies with city parkland requirements. Similar to the proposed project, cumulative projects proposed in the City, would also be required to comply with Chapter 254.08 of the City Municipal code. Where new residential uses are proposed, the standard of 5 acres per 1,000 residents would be met with implementation of cumulative projects. Cumulative' impacts on recreational resources would not be considerable, and project contribution to these effects would be less than significant. 3.13-12 City of Huntington Beach 3.13 Recreation 3.13.6 Mitigation Measuresand Residual Impacts The following mitigation measure (MM)would be required to reduce Impact REC-1. MM REC-1 The Applicant shall demonstrate compliance with City parkland requirements identified in Chapter 254.08 of the City of Huntington Beach Municipal Code. Any on-site park provided in compliance with this section shall be improved prior to final inspection (occupancy)of the first residential unit(other than the model homes). Implementation of MM REC-1 would address park and recreational facilities for the proposed project, and would reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level. Impact REC-2 would be less than significant, as described above. • • • i - Pacific City EIR 3.1.3-13 _ 3.14.Transportation/Traffic 3.14 TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC This EIR section analyzes the potential for adverse impacts on existing transportation and traffic conditions resulting from implementation of the proposed project. The Initial Study (Appendix A) identified the potential for impacts associated with increased number of vehicle trips and traffic congestion, exceeding established levels of service of the county congestion management agency, increased hazards due to design features, emergency access, and parking capacity. In addition, the Initial Study identified project consistency with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation as less than significant; however, this section will address the project's compliance with alternative transportation policies of the General Plan and the Downtown Specific Plan. Issues scoped out from detailed analysis in the EIR include changes in air traffic patterns as a result of the proposed project. Data used to prepare this section were taken from the City's General Plan Transportation Element and the Traffic Impact Analysis Report prepared for the.project site (Appendix H). Full bibliographic entries for all reference materials are provided in Chapter 7 (References) of this document. The traffic study includes analysis in Year 2008 and 2020 in order to assess the future conditions upon completion of the project and the long-term effect of the project in conjunction with other growth within the City. At the time the traffic study was completed, project completion was estimated to occur in 2008, although estimated construction completion has been revised to 2010 under conservative assumptions. The impacts that are identified to occur in 2008 can reasonably be anticipated to be similar in 2010, due to the traffic growth forecasts and 2008 projected levels of service with and without the project. The 2008 analysis does not identify any intersections or roadway segments that are minimally below thresholds of significance, which may be significant under year 2010 conditions. Therefore, the analysis of 2008 traffic conditions remains applicable to the proposed project. 3.14.1 Existing Conditions This section provides an assessment of existing conditions in the project study area, including a description of the street and highway system, traffic volumes on these facilities, and operating conditions of the selected intersections. Existing Street Network Regional Access The project site is located in the southerly area of the City of Huntington Beach adjacent to PCH and approximately one-quarter mile west of Beach Boulevard. Regional access to this area is provided by the San Pacific City EIR 3.14-1 Chapter 3 Environmental Impact Analysis Diego Freeway (I-405) and PCH (SR-1), which run in a northwest to southeast orientation in the vicinity of the project, and Beach Boulevard (SR-39), which runs in a north to south orientation to the east of the project site. The San Diego Freeway, which is located approximately five miles north of the project site, provides north/south access through the City of Los Angeles and connects the Westside with the San Fernando Valley to the north and the South Bay area to the south. The primary access to the project site from the I-405 is via an interchange at Beach Boulevard. PCH borders the site on the southwest, and is a major highway that extends through Orange County and links Huntington Beach with the neighboring communities of Seal Beach, Long Beach, Costa Mesa, and Newport Beach. • Local Access Principal local arterials,,which are streets that carry the majority, of traffic traveling through the city and are generally developed as commercial corridors, that serve the project site include Beach Boulevard, Main Street, First Street, Huntington Street, Atlanta Avenue, and Pacific View Avenue. The key local area streets serving the project site are described below: Pacific Coast Highway (PCH), also known as State Route 1, is designated as a Major Arterial Highway in the City's General Plan Circulation Element southeast of Goldenwest Street, and the Caltrans Route Concept Report and the County of Orange Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH) sets the standards for this roadway. PCH provides both regional and local access to the project site. PCH is currently configured as a six-lane arterial south of Beach Boulevard, and is striped for six lanes from midway between Huntington Street and First Street to 6th Street, which includes the northwesterly half of the project frontage. Northwest of 6th Street, PCH is configured as a four-lane arterial. Metered parking is currently provided on both sides of PCH except along the southwesterly half of the project frontage and along the southwest side of PCH, which is improved with a transit turnout for bus layovers and boardings. The speed limit along PCH varies from 35 miles per hour (MPH) to 50 MPH in the project vicinity. PCH currently performs as a four-lane Expressway between Warner Avenue and Seapoint Avenue. Beach Boulevard, also known as State Route 39, is designated as a Superstreet/Smartstreet on the Caltrans Route Concept Report and the County of Orange MPAH. Beach Boulevard provides both regional and local access to the project site and currently consists of six lanes between PCH and Ellis Avenue/Main Street and eight lanes north of Ellis Avenue/Main Street. Beach Boulevard begins at PCH in Huntington Beach and continues northward through the study area and cities of Westminster, Garden Grove, Anaheim, Buena Park, and La Mirada before terminating at Whittier Boulevard in La Habra. 3.14-2 City of Huntington Beach 3.14 Transportation/Traffic Atlanta Avenue is designated as a four-lane Primary Arterial Highway in the City's General Plan Circulation Element and Orange County MPAH. The City's General Plan also designates this street as a Landscape Corridor. Atlanta Avenue originates at First Street and continues easterly to its terminus at the Santa Ana River. Atlanta Avenue is currently a two-lane roadway along the project frontage and becomes four lanes from Delaware Street to the Santa Ana River. Parking is permitted along the south side of Atlanta Avenue adjacent to the existing single-family residences and is restricted along the project frontage. Main Street is designated as a four-lane Primary Arterial Highway in the City's General Plan Circulation Element and Orange County MPAH north of 17th Street, and extends from PCH to Beach Boulevard. Main Street is currently a two-lane roadway between PCH and Adams, a four-lane roadway between Adams Avenue and Yorktown Avenue, and a six-lane roadway between Yorktown Avenue and Beach Boulevard. Within the Main Street segment between PCH and Adams, angle parking is located in the Downtown area between PCH and 6th Street. First Street is designated as a four-lane Primary Arterial Highway in the City's General Plan Circulation Element and Orange County MPAH, and extends from PCH to Atlanta Avenue/Orange Avenue. First Street is currently a two-lane roadway and parking is permitted along both sides. The City's General Plan also designates this street as a Landscape Corridor. Huntington Street is designated as a four-lane Secondary roadway from PCH to Pacific View Avenue and a local street north of Pacific View in the City's General Plan Circulation Element and Orange County MPAH. Huntington Street originates at PCH and continues northerly to its terminus at Garfield Avenue. Huntington Street is currently a two-lane roadway with primarily residential frontage north of Atlanta Avenue. Parking is not permitted along either side of Huntington Street adjacent to the project frontage. Delaware Street is designated as a four-lane Secondary roadway in the City's General Plan Circulation Element and Orange County MPAH, and currently extends from just south of Atlanta Avenue to Taylor Drive north of Ellis Avenue. Delaware Street currently varies between a two-lane roadway and four-lane roadway with primarily residential frontage. Parking is permitted along both sides of Delaware Street. Pacific View Avenue is designated as a four-lane Primary Arterial Highway in the City's General Plan Circulation Element and Orange County MPAH. The City's General Plan also designates this street as a Landscape Corridor. Pacific View Avenue existed only from Huntington Street to approximately 500 feet east along the existing Waterfront Hilton project when the counts were'conducted for the proposed project's Traffic Impact Analysis. Pacific View Avenue has been extended easterly to Beach Boulevard in conjunction with current development of the Hyatt Regency Resort, and will be extended westerly to First 3.14-3 Pacific City EIR Chapter 3 Environmental Impact Analysis Street in conjunction with the proposed project. Parking is currently prohibited along the entire length of Pacific View Avenue. Figure 3.14-1 illustrates the existing roadway conditions and intersection controls in the project area, as described above. Study Area Intersections An inventory of key area roadways and intersections for the proposed project vicinity was performed during the preparation of the Traffic Impact Analysis Report. The traffic report analyzed existing and future peak hour traffic conditions upon completion of the proposed project in Year 2008 at the following thirty-two key intersections (thirty of which currently exist) and twenty-five roadway segments (twenty-four of which currently exist): Year 2008 Study Intersections • Goldenwest Street at PCH • 17th Street at PCH • 9th Street at PCH • 6th Street at PCH • Main Street at 6th Street • Main Street at PCH • First Street at Atlanta Avenue • First Street at PCH • Huntington Street at Atlanta Avenue • Delaware Street'at Atlanta Avenue • Huntington Street at PCH • Huntington Street at Pacific View Avenue • Beach Boulevard at Adams Avenue (Congestion Management Plan Intersection) • Beach Boulevard at Indianapolis Avenue •, Beach Boulevard at Atlanta Avenue • Beach Boulevard at PCH (Congestion Management Plan Intersection) • Newland Street at Atlanta Avenue 3.14-4 City of Huntington Beach LEGEND 4 --- =APPROACH LANE ASSIGNMENT +___ =FUNCTIONS AS SEPARATE TURN ''\,,�'' \ LANE,THOUGH NOT STRIPED / '✓ 01 • =TRAFFIC SIGNAL ! e' ... 1 r a =STOP SIGN t S\%,,, • 1 K. (XX) =POSTED SPEED LIMIT(MPH) 6 PHASE 1 r f6 / 4 2 =NUMBER OF TRAVEL LANES SIGNAL �+I 1+ SIGNAL 8p --_ SPLIT E/W "' E D =DIVIDED 45'U =UNDIVIDED '�;a�` 'k �� p =PARKING ��.; -� 8 PHASE - NP =NO PARKING SIGNAL r 2 PHASE v A" . , -I , .5) SIGNAL 1 9 lid �'" :.``8PHASE `� " SIGNAL Iro -Lo `' 5 PHASE r <r, -- 6 PHASE '' SIGNAL t,�'\. ° ' , i' -''\ 5r.c, ' ., ,. (("C\ - SIGNAL ,��' „'' } f *' \ ,a 8 PHASE .. ,,.c " ,, ALL—WAY f , . `� ` '�, �` SIGNAL , 0 \ \ � 4,1\ s �P ALL—WAY �, ' � P ,, '` , _ �- -... .� CHASE Av PHASE \ -- r* • \I 0 0 / c SIGt�AI.. � Na SIGNAL �- PAW ``- 4 d ' `L - � Srt�P----� t (30) �1—WAY 66 * 8 PHASE 3 PHASE 2 lige Ell STOP `�`��S, PHASE • 8 PHASE SIGNAL SIGNAL -, • ,it/2\1,11 .., *Pi, 04 SIGNAL e SIGNAL "_` L _ irimmilirliclii r ..- — .w ALL :.. 4[} FACT i 4 PAS I-- '. L-- 6Ia '-" 6D HWY IIC r EYd �--d 63 ---= _ . -7- , • ,� ...,-r {3---...5} ILCOASt w --- 45} �' p 3 PHASE .�r -- \ 5 PHASE i - - % , k ,. "` / SIGNAL.,,,-/ 1 '"`SIGt AI « "` J "4 a6 PHASE 3 PHASE \ 5 PHASE 6 PHASE \ j1u1ALL_WAY \ 5 PHASE .SIGNAL .b,_ SIGNAL °-.. SIGNAL ''' SIGNAL "--- SioP ' - —SIGNAL FIGURE 3.14-1 Not to Scale 11:!) --E-IP-.._... Existing Roadway Conditions and Intersection Controls SOURCE:Linscott Law&Greenspan 2003a 10261-00 r"S°L,"r F S City of Huntington Beach•Pacific City EIR 3.14 Transportation/Traffic • Newland Street at PCH • Magnolia Street at PCH • Magnolia Street at Atlanta Avenue • PCH at Seapoint Avenue • PCH at Warner Avenue (Congestion Management Plan Intersection) • PCH at Brookhurst Avenue • Main Street at Adams Avenue • Main Street at Utica Avenue • Lake Street at Adams Avenue • Lake Street at Yorktown Avenue • Beach Boulevard at Yorktown Avenue • Beach Boulevard at Garfield Avenue • Newland Street at Ellis Avenue/Main Street • First Street at Pacific View Avenue (Future) • Beach Boulevard at Pacific View Avenue (Future) Year 2008 Study Roadway Segments (Links) • PCH, from Warner Avenue to Seapoint Avenue • PCH, from Seapoint Avenue to Goldenwest Street • PCH, from Goldenwest Street to 6th Street • PCH, from 6th Street to First Street • PCH, from First Street to Huntington Street • PCH, from Huntington Street to Beach Boulevard • PCH, from Beach Boulevard to Newland Street • PCH, from Magnolia Street to Brookhurst Street • Beach Boulevard, from PCH to Atlanta Avenue r • Beach Boulevard, from Atlanta Avenue to Indianapolis Avenue • Beach Boulevard, from Indianapolis Avenue to Adams Avenue • Beach Boulevard, from Adams Avenue to Yorktown Avenue Pacific City EIR 3.14-7 Chapter 3 Environmental Impact Analysis • Beach Boulevard, from Garfield Avenue to Main Street • Atlanta Avenue, from Beach Boulevard to Delaware Street • Atlanta Avenue, from First Street to Huntington Street • Atlanta Avenue, from Huntington Street to Delaware Street • First Street, from Orange Avenue to PCH • Huntington Street, from Atlanta Avenue to Pacific View Avenue • Main Street, from Palm Avenue to Adams Avenue • Lake Street, from Indianapolis Avenue to Adams Avenue • Lake Street, from Adams Avenue to Yorktown Avenue • Adams Avenue, from Beach Boulevard to Newland Street • Indianapolis Avenue, from Beach Boulevard to Newland Street • Atlanta Avenue, from Beach Boulevard to Newland Street • Pacific View (future with project), from First Street to Huntington Street Existing Traffic Volumes and Level of Service Existing Area Traffic Volumes The existing A.M. and P.M. peak hour intersection traffic volumes for the existing 30 study intersections were obtained from manual morning and evening peak period turning movement counts conducted in late August 2001 and May 2002. These intersections were designated for evaluation based on a "select-zone" analysis of the City's Santa Ana River Crossing Cooperative Study (SARCCS) transportation model. These existing A.M. and P.M. peak hour turning movement volumes are illustrated in Figure 3.14-2 and Figure 3.14-3, respectively. The 2001/02 detailed weekday manual peak period traffic count data for the existing thirty of the 32 key study intersections, and the daily traffic counts for seven of the 24 key area roadway segments are provided in Appendix A of the Traffic Impact Analysis Report. The existing average daily traffic (ADT) volumes on the key study roadway segments in the vicinity of the project site were obtained from recent (August 2001) traffic counts and the City's Traffic Flow Map. These existing ADT volumes represent Existing 2001 conditions and are illustrated in Figure 3.14-4. 3.14-8 City of Huntington Beach , li'• ..,At \ - . --- \ / Ntiktb . ..,,- \ i .1.;....>„1-(z, \ ........„ ....." -..." 7.4„ \ , S..* t- i 4tSt ';Ctiit •At 4 '$ / ‘Abt: ti3 de 'kJ, i \ \ / \ \ -,- \ --............ •s*, 1>T7 ..". c.40- 4 " * ,,•-‘. 4 '4.5* 1.- \ it, •1"/ \V '--1 \ \-1,..... \ -It-la 4k 4 14 le et, / 4- - ..... ,x, 7re° / +., 41...S..09 Cr 1 ^X -1 Cli‘ a ' ) 42,-14.,,,,,,‘ 111(... 17t) • "0 _,sifd• 4, A1414- rii, iltt> I i Ir. Oki:Ka Assi" 404 •-•":- ( k -../. .'• .**) („eitt‘ leci 4:Ib OA, 11:11' KKK\ 0 \ .,,' -•.,,,, \> %"-** / -c2,,,". •,, V\ \ \ . / ''''',01,4, \ / 4? \• ) ) 3 41 , 4. 6. ''.... xot• / •,./ -7 \ /i j ...• qP4' i ...0 41: • / 4> k 1.0 •'..7•(-- -61/4" ,1/40 ‘ 4,.." ,....,.. -4.-••„.., AV .,):4"... \ ." -....„... ,..;,/, ,.'• "...„.„..,.. tP)\ 144" — -... • d" '1 „---•. --- 1 ..) 1 isos 1 i ..., 1- o „ < le \ ...„ `5>,- .. 1 ;',.. ., '..\ ,p12 '''' N 1r 4 AV . 6....Z" 0 Z / ...,... ,,„,...* ...." \ 1r 6 9 OLIVE ..--• -..s.„ - — Atc i i wenn .....-- 0 .-c,„ \ oTh / / ..... 0 WALNUr r•-, 6 iips tP,...x. "s.,. ,„- / --- ..., .... 34.1/4._ PACIFIC „, \ .„_.. PACIFIC MEM_------ „,k)0'2,,, ‘••••• 217 )••••-0I-- —6 74 /s1 — 664 HWY 31r6 uts i11 529r'\ io I ,,I-, --444-- 1845— -4-•6 6. ...-• 6, /6 ilk s. -10,..„ --': 80.-1 (1/4 ' ik 2320-- ,4- 2--‘ 2167- - ,,,,,- -----... 1670— -.1/4\ ..1. 38-‘ l'.•••4' 0-0' ..."- ....1/41/4 ,,, .„••• ci 7' \ N - 3---, ..-- ,e.., /7 S \M.' *..... .......4,/ 1 tr,e n Ik.'28 \ ....--."".....-.....„/ .•.'g. _.. ..L, (:,- '''‘ /e. / j ,L., k"- 30 't -^"'-' "N 1 J I,,,j•-•-•34 1 / 'N p , N 1402-- i 1‘... ,„.• NO-- ---..... ......- ..---............. -...... ........ ........„__ •-•-........- --...,....-- FIGURE 3.1 4-2 Not to Scale _'EIP-- Existing AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes SOURCE:Linscott Law&Greenspan 2003a 10281-00 ,x$501." 3ATZS City of Huntington Beach•Pacific City EIR o ,.•1 —:::::..‹...„:::(::..,:ii,s1/41(.0,Atvpi .1.„ tikvi4t„....4.. °fit .- '` .f' �" \ / ,a'r 'F �``�{ -� , ° N { \ ,.� ®it, °, . „.„,,...", "....", sif.:\...."„ ., ' �� t ,: 1:0..., ',' \ts 7 ,. ' . j "' .) `,, i ..�6� ,' \ `) 4, '4,0 \ \ 7 ('‘.,, \ P . ,,,.4 lc s,,,,,,...,..,i,, ‘.. „NO*" \ \ `� �} ---` -- A, / .,rFitt t- is `' 1 AV , ,tom )//„." it.. _ORANGE ------ 1 j isr 1 ,c, 9 OLIVE MEIN z 0 o 'Tr \ 0-^,k '414 / /bil,4 Lam , '�- i85 'ALtdU7 �* '� �. `�' / " 'f �, " 635 16 i 1 0 PAC1Ft t "L—' P i- 547 2080250 tt - t" A2,. IIIIII , °� 137 if ,ram �, �, ....... 0 "e�{�' ip i ,- 35-� sN.iSu,1175— ""`� PROJECT 3 1383--- Iwo 1 f J 0 1 1565 x; i .) 1 - 26 1 / 1 ,- 0 1 t -) 1 ,.-- la I 1 1 / 'N.. f/ 1 156 J ``.,.,.._—-' 1 ins7--4 a ,. ' 1 2 } 1 _ l 1 isa 1,4 x- 1 SITE E o--t d --.. \ f \ / ' l 13^� / \ / t , ./ FIGURE 3.14-3 Not to Scale TM Existing PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes SOURCE:Linscott Law&Greenspan 2003a 10261-00 ASSO' = t s s City of Huntington Beach•Pacific City EIR \ \\ 1 ' - 11 \ 06Y te r V- °Prst,a,o.1„G.•. \/ irit:A\7 \ \tI\\ '-•7 \\ \ r \ \ 4 \ S' .,.c pe' ) ,..„ 44. 4°9 -0 A,, 4 4-% 0 \ f,, iiiiiii‘11‘ Vet_ \ \\\ P ... ,IIN. , ,-- „ -1/4, ALM AV . 4 // --- z. .A.c.., Di e NI,- i 4... t> < 0 S Nr ima°:iimillin \,,i, ...4 vi ouvE 44,0 ......___ _42,000 86000 WALNUT _ __......„. . ............................... ,-- -.Mina 14 .1t?„,%. .,‘" t°MINIM. ild . 0 .- -..---..— PACIFIC HWY ' -... 0-. ......._,..............._-..- FACIFIcoosie VIEW_,..----` ,......_ 37,144 -.4-----..- - 40,000 40,000 37,545 137,000' z. o ' . z f): = PROJECT SITE 1 , FIGURE 3.14-4 Not to Scale ---EIP, , Existing Average Daily Traffic Volumes _ .....„ SOURCE:Linscott Law&Greenspan 2003a 10261-00 s$,O, 3 ATSI City of Huntington Beach.Pacific City EIR 3.14 Transportation/Traffic A majority of the study intersections were counted in August 2001 during the peak summer season. At this time, average daily traffic counts along the four project frontage roadways as well as Atlanta Avenue east of the project site and PCH northwest of 9th Street were also taken. It should be noted that the summer weekday condition represents a "peak" period due to the beach resort character of the Downtown. Consequently, higher levels of traffic are experienced in the vicinity of the proposed project during the summer than during a typical..weekday. Common traffic engineering practice is to mitigate traffic and parking impacts to a typical weekday period, rather than a peak day (such as a holiday weekend, or summer - period). As a result, the summer weekday condition is included in Appendix H to provide a comparison between typical and summer periods. Direct traffic and parking project impacts and mitigation measures have been developed based on typical weekday traffic counts. Existing Intersection Conditions To quantify the existing baseline traffic conditions, the 30 existing study area intersections were analyzed to determine their operating conditions during the morning and evening peak periods. Twenty six (26) of the study intersections are controlled by traffic signals. In conformance with City of Huntington Beach (City) criteria, the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Methodology was employed to investigate the existing A.M. and P.M. peak hour operating conditions for these key intersections. The ICU technique is used for signalized intersections and estimates the volume to capacity (V/C)relationship for an intersection based on individual V/C ratios for key conflicting movements. The ICU numerical value represents the percent of the capacity required by existing or future traffic. The ICU value translates to a Level of Service (LOS) condition, which is a relative measure of the performance of the intersection. There are six Levels of Service that range from LOS A'(free flow with an _i ICU of 0.60 or less) to LOS F (forced flow with an ICU in excess of 1.00). LOS D (ICU of 0.81 to 0.90) is traditionally considered'the maximum acceptable LOS for urban and suburban peak hour conditions.The City of Huntington Beach considers LOS D to be the maximum acceptable LOS for signalized intersections. LOS definitions are provided in Table 3.14-1. In conformance with the current State of'California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)requirements, existing A.M. and P.M. peak hour operating conditions for the 19 Caltrans-operated signalized intersections within the project study area (SR-39 [Beach Boulevard] and SR-1 [PCH]) were evaluated using the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) signalized methodology. Based on the HCM method of analysis, LOS for signalized intersections is defined in terms of control delay, which is a measure of driver discomfort, frustration, fuel consumption, and lost travel time. Pacific City EIR 3.14-15 Chapter 3 Environmental Impact Anatysls Table 3.14-1 Level of Service Definitions for,Signalized Intersections (ICU Method) Level of Service Intersection Capacity (LOS) . ' Utilization Value(V/C) Level of Service Description A 0.00 to 0.60 Free flow;Very low delay,less than 10.0 seconds per vehicle. B 0.61 to 0.70 Rural Design;Delay in the range of 10.1 to 20 seconds per vehicle. C 0.71 to 0.80 Urban Design;Delay in the range of 20.1 to 35 seconds per vehicle. D 0.81 to 0.90 Maximum Urban Design;Delay ranges from 35.1 to 55 seconds per vehicle. E 0.91 to 1.00 Capacity;Delay ranges from 55.1 to 80 seconds per vehicle. F >1.01 Forced Flow;Delay in excess of 80 seconds per vehicles SOURCE: Linscott Law&Greenspan Engineers,Traffic Impact Analysis Report April 2003a The delay experienced by a motorist is made up of a number of factors that relate to control, geometries, traffic, and incidents. Whereas total delay is the difference between the travel time actually experienced and the 'reference travel time that would result during ideal conditions (in the absence of traffic control, geometric delay, roadway incidents, and other vehicles on the road), control delay represents the portion of the total delay that is attributed to the control facility. As such, control delay includes initial deceleration delay, queue move-up time, stopped delay, and final acceleration delay. Under the HCM methodology, LOS criteria for traffic signals are stated in terms of the average control delay per vehicle, which is measured in seconds/vehicle. The six qualitative categories of LOS that have been defined along with the corresponding HCM control delay value range for signalized intersections are shown in Table 3.14-2. In addition,, out of the 32 study intersections for the proposed project, four intersections (First Street/Atlanta Avenue; Huntington Street/Atlanta Avenue; Delaware Street/Atlanta Avenue; and Huntington Street/Pacific View Avenue) are currently unsignalized. In conformance with the City of Huntington Beach requirements, the existing A.M. and P.M. peak hour operating conditions for these four unsignalized intersections were also evaluated using the HCM methodology, which estimates the average - total delay for each of the subject movements and determines the LOS for each movement. Table 3.14-3 defines the six qualitative categories of LOS for unsignalized intersections under the HCM method of analysis. Based on City criteria for unsignalized intersections, LOS D is the minimum acceptable intersection LOS. Table 3.14-4 summarizes the existing service level calculations for the thirty existing study intersections (two of the 32 total study intersections are future intersections with no existing traffic) based on existing traffic volumes and current street geometry. As shown, all thirty study intersections currently operate at LOS D or better, except the intersection of PCH at Warner Avenue, which currently operates at LOS E during the P.M. peak hour. 3.1416 City of Huntington Beach 3.14 Transportation/Traffic i Table 3.14-2 Level of Service Criteria for Signalized Intersections(HCM Method) Level of Service Control Delay Per Vehicle (LOS) (seconds/vehicle) Level of Service Description A <10.0 This level of service occurs when progression is extremely favorable and most vehicles arrive during the green phase. Most vehicles do not stop at all. Short cycle lengths may also I contribute to low delay. B >10.0 and<20.0 This level generally occurs with good progression,short cycle lengths,or both. More vehicles stop than with LOS A,causing higher levels of average delay. C >20.0 and<35.0 Average traffic delays. These higher delays may result from fair progression, longer cycle lengths, or both. Individual cycle failures may begin to appear at this level. The number of vehicles stopping is significant at this level, though many still pass through the intersection without stopping. D >35.0 and<55.0 Long traffic delays.At level D,the influence'of congestion becomes more noticeable. Longer delays may result from some combination of unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths, or high v/c rations. Many vehicles stop, and the proportion of vehicles not stopping declines. Individual cycle failures are noticeable. • E >55.0 and<80.0 Very long traffic delays.This level is considered by many agencies to be the limit of acceptable delay. These high delay values generally indicate poor progression, long cycle lengths, and -- . high v/c ratios.Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences. F >80.0 Severe congestion.This level,considered to be unacceptable to most drivers,often occurs with over saturation,that is,when arrival flow rates exceed the capacity of the intersection. It may also occur at high v/c ratios below 1.0 with many individual cycle failures.Poor progression and long cycle lengths may also be major contributing factors to such delay levels. • SOURCE: Highway Capacity Manual,2000,Chapter 16(Signalized Intersections). Table 3.14-3 Level of Service Criteria for Unsignalized Intersections (HCM Method) Highway Capacity Manual Delay • Level of Service(LOS) Value(sec/veh) Level of Service Description A <10.0 Little or no delay i B >10.0 and<15.0 Short traffic delays l C >15.0 and<25.0 Average traffic delays D >25.0 and<35.0 Long traffic delays E >35.0 and<50.0 Very long traffic delays F >50.0 Severe congestion SOURCE: Highway Capacity Manual 2000 1 . Table 3.14-4 , Existing Year 2001/02 Peak Hour Levels of Service Key Intersection Time Period Control Type ICU/HCM LOS Goldenwest Street at A.M. 0.623 B 1 Pacific Coast Highway- P.M. 8�Traffic Signal 0.721 C - 17th Street at A.M. 0.580 A 2 Pacific Coast Highway P.M. 3�Traffic Signal 0.637 B _ 9th Street at A.M. 0.575 A 3 Pacific Coast Highway P.M. 3 Traffic Signal 0.589 A Pacific City EIR 3.1417 Chapter 3 Environmental Impact Analysis _ Table 3.14-4 Existing Year 2001/02 Peak Hour Levels.of Service Key Intersection Time Period Control Type ICU/HCM LOS 4 6th Street at A.M. 50 Traffic Signal 0.457 A Pacific Coast Highway P.M. 0.504 A Main Street at A.M. 0.206 A 5 6th Street P M 20 Traffic Signal 0.321 A Main Street at A.M. . 0.611 B 6 Pacific Coast Highway P.M. 5�Traffic Signal 0.697 B First Street at A.M. 9.2 s/v A 7 Atlanta Avenue P.M. All Way Stop 10.8 s/v B First Street at A.M. 0.452 A 8 Pacific Coast Highway P.M. 6�Traffic Signal 0.444 A Huntington Street at A.M. 10.7 s/v B 9 Atlanta Avenue P.M. All Way Stop 18.6 s/v C 10 Delaware Street at A.M. Two Wa Sto 3.2 s/v A Atlanta Avenue P.M. y p 5.4 s/v A Huntington Street at A.M. 0.616 B 11 Pacific Coast Highway P.M. 5�Traffic Signal 0.571 A 12 Huntington.Street at A.M. One Wa Sto 3.0 s/v A Pacific View Avenue P.M. y p 2.5 s/v A Beach Boulevard at A.M. 0.580 A • 13 Adams Avenue P.M. 8�Traffic Signal 0.665 B Beach Boulevard at A.M. 0.317 A 14 Indianapolis Avenue P.M. 5�Traffic Signal 0.426 A Beach Boulevard at A.M. 0.349 A 15 Atlanta Avenue P.M. 5�Traffic Signal 0.552 A Beach Boulevard at A.M. 0.518 A 16 Pacific Coast Highway P.M. 8�Traffic Signal 0.684 A Newland Street at A.M. 0.329 . A 17 Atlanta Avenue P.M. 8�Traffic Signal 0.464 A Newland Street at A.M. 0.567 A 18 Pacific Coast Highway P.M. 6�Traffic Signal 0.596 A 19 Magnolia Street at A.M. 60 Traffic Signal 0.565 A Pacific Coast Highway P.M. 0.626 B 20 Magnolia Street at A.M. 80 Traffic Signal 0.371 A Atlanta Avenue P.M. 0.514 A , 21 Pacific Coast Highway at A.M. 30 Traffic Signal 0.661 B Seapoint Avenue P.M. 0.803 C 22 .Pacific Coast Highway at A.M. 80 Traffic Signal 0.886 D Warner Avenue P.M. 0.928 E 23 Pacific Coast Highway at A.M. 80 Traffic Signal 0.683 B Brookhurst Street P.M. 0.729 C 24 Main Street at A.M. 50 Traffic Signal 0.445 A Adams Avenue P.M. 0.618 B 25 Main Street at A.M. 80 Traffic Signal 0.210 A Utica Avenue P.M. 0.308 A 3.14-18 City of Huntington Beach 3.14 TransportatIon/Traffic `- Table 3.14-4 Existing-Year 2001/02 Peak Hour Levels of Service Key Intersection Time Period . Control Type ICU/HCM LOS 26 Lake Street at A.M. 54)Traffic Signal 0.512 A Adams Avenue •P.M. 0.588` A 27 Lake Street at A.M. 24 Traffic Signal 0.328 A - Yorktown Avenue P.M. 0.451 A 28 Beach Boulevard at A.M. 84)Traffic Signal ' 0.632 B Yorktown Avenue P.M. 0.690 B - ' 29 Beach Boulevard at A.M. 84)Traffic Signal . 0.624 B Garfield Avenue P.M. 0.749 C 30 Beach Boulevard at • , A.M. 64)Traffic Signal 0.557 A Ellis Avenue/Main Street ' P.M. 0.669 B 31 First Street at - A.M. N/A N/A N/A + Pacific View Avenue(future) P.M. N/A . „N/A N/A 32 Beach Boulevard at A.M. N/A •N/A N/A Pacific View Avenue(future) P.M. N/A N/A N/A siv=seconds per vehicle(delay) Bold V/C and LOS values indicate adverse service levels based on City LOS Standards ` SOURCE: Linscott,Law&Greenspan 2003a Existing Roadway Segments (Links), In conformance with the City's criteria, existing daily operating conditions for the 24 existing roadway links - have been investigated according to the volume-to-capacity (V/C) of each link. The V/C relationship is used to estimate the LOS of the roadway segment with the volume-based on 24-hour traffic count data and the capacity based in the City's classification of each roadway. Based on the City's General Plan, Orange County's MPAH, Caltrans Route Concept Report, and consultation with City staff, the roadway segment capacities of each street classification are shown in Table 3.14-5. The results of the analysis of existing service levels for the 24 existing study roadway'.segments, based on existing 24-hour traffic volumes and current roadway geometry, are summarized in Table 3.14-6. As shown, only two of the study segments currently operate below the City's maximum V/C criteria of 0.81. Based on the V/C method of analysis, the roadway segments of PCH between Goldenwest y Street/Sixth Street and Huntington Street /Beach Boulevard currently operate at LOS E on a daily basis. The remaining 22 roadway segments in the study area currently operate at LOS C or better. Pacific City EIR 3.14-19 Chapter 3 Environmental Impact Analysis Table 3.14-5 Roadway Segment Capacities LOS A Design LOS B Design LOS C Design LOS D,Design LOSE Design Volume(Vehicles Volume(Vehicles Volume(Vehicles Volume(Vehicles Volume(Vehicles Street Classification Number of Lanes per day) per day) per day) per day) per day) Smartstreet/Principal 8(divided) 45,300 52,500 60,000 67,400 75,100 Expressway 4(divided) 36,500 42,600 48,700 , 54,900 60,800 Expressway 6(divided) 54,600 63,700 72,800 82,000 91,000 Major Arterial 6(divided) 33,900 39,400 45,000 50,600 56,300 Primary Arterial 4(divided) 22,500 26,300 30,000 33,800 37,500 Secondary Arterial 4(undivided) 15,000 17,500 20,000 22,500 25,000 Arterial Collector 2(divided) 10,800 12,600 14,400 16,200 18,000 Collector 2(undivided) 7,500 8,800 10,000 11,300 12,500 SOURCE: Linscott Law&Greenspan Engineers,April 2003a ' Table 3.14-6 Year 2001 Existing Roadway Link Capacity Analysis Summary Existing Arterial LOSE Capacity Lanes 'Daily Volume WC Ratio LOS Pacific Coast Highway 60,800 4 42,000 0.691 B Warner Ave to Seapoint Ave I Pacific Coast Highway 60,800 4 36,000 0.592 A = Seapoint Ave to Goldenwest St Pacific Coast Highway 37,500 4 37,144 0.991 E Goldenwest Street to 6th Street Pacific Coast Highway 56,300 6 37,500 0.666 B 6th Street to First Street Pacific Coast Highway 56,300 6 37,545 0.667 B First Street to Huntington Street Pacific Coast Highway 37,500 4 37,000 0.987 E Huntington Street to Beach Blvd Pacific Coast Highway 56,300 6 40,000 0.710 C Beach Blvd to Newland Street Pacific Coast Highway 56,300 6 40,000 0.710 C Magnolia St to St Beach Boulevard 75,100 6 13,000 0.173 A PCH to Atlanta Ave Beach Boulevard 75,100 6 21,000 0.280 A - Atlanta Ave to Indianapolis Ave Beach Boulevard 75,100 6 29,000 0.386 • A Indianapolis Ave to Adams Ave __ Beach Boulevard 75,100 6 41,000 0.546 A Adams Ave to Yorktown Ave Beach Boulevard 75,100 6 45,000 0.599 A Garfield Ave to Main St 3,14-20 City of Huntington Beach 3.14 Transportation/Traffic Table 3.14-6 Year 2001 Existing Roadway Link Capacity Analysis Summary Existing Atlanta Avenue Beach Blvd to Delaware St 32,000 4 16,000 0.500 A Atlanta Avenue 12,500 . 2 9,267 0.741 C 1st St to Huntington St Atlanta Avenue 18,000 2 10,849 0.603 A Huntington St to Delaware St First Street 12,500 2 5,979 0.478 A Orange Ave to Pacific Coast Highway Huntington Street 18,000 2 1,887 0.105 A Atlanta Ave to Pacific View Ave Main Street 12,500 2 5,000 0.400 A Palm Ave to Adams Ave Lake Street 18,000 2 6,000 0.333 A Indianapolis Ave to Adams Ave Lake Street 18,000 2 9,000 0.500 C Adams Ave to Yorktown Ave Adams Avenue 37,500 4 25,000 0.667 Beach Blvd to Newland St Indianapolis Avenue 25,000 4 7,000 0.280 A Beach Blvd to Newland St Atlanta Avenue 25,000 16,000 .640 B Beach Blvd to Newland St Pacific View(future with project) First Street to Huntington Street Bold VIC and LOS values indicate adverse service levels based on City LOS Standards SOURCE: Linscott,Law&Greenspan 2003a Existing Parking The existing off-site parking plan for the adjacent roadways surrounding the project site is shown in Figure 3.14-5. There are currently 102 parking spaces (98 metered spaces and 100 feet of unrestricted parking, or approximately 4 spaces) on both sides of First Street, Atlanta Avenue, and PCH adjacent to the project site, 69 of which abut the project site. ii Pacific City EIR 3.14-21 Q 2 Q co Q ..41,10010,© ATLANTA AVE. 100' p--...-©-- 116"111O (approx.4 spaces) 4 SpAt CES 2 QLIV E f [ , • t 0 � O 0 M \ Z il- �2y,� \ \ 8 (FU VR E) 12) 1. AVE\ • iiiiiiiiir ----) 01101 , 27 SPACES PACiF�c 0 . - CpAs7. H! 16 sz„, �©� GHWAY LEGEND i • OPARKING METERS 0 R CURBO (NEDO STOPPING ANYTIME) , ONO PARKING ANYTIME(SIGNS) OUNRESTRICTED PARKING FIGURE 3.14-5 Not to Scale 0 ._..__.-.El-P-,..__.. Existing Off-Site Parking Plan SOURCE:Linscott Law&Greenspan 2003a 10261-00 City of Huntington Beach•Pacific City EIR 3.14 Transportation/Traffic 3.14.2 Regulatory Framework Regional Southern California Association of Governments SCAG's Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide (RCPG) and RHNA are tools for coordinating regional planning and development strategies in southern California. Policies contained in the RCPG identified by SCAG as relevant to the proposed project are identified in Table 3.14-7, and this table also includes an assessment of the proposed project's consistency with these policies. • Table 3.14-7 SCAG Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide—Policies Applicable to Transportation/Traffic Policy Project Consistency 4.01.Transportation investments shall be The City considers SCAG Regional Performance Indicators when making transportation investments. based on SCAG's adopted Regional Performance Indicators. 4.02.Transportation investments shall MM TR-1 through MM-TR-3 would mitigate impacts to the extent feasible. mitigate environmental impacts to an acceptable level. 4.03.Transportation Control Measures The project proposes MM TR-3,which requires traffic signal installation. shall be a priority. 4.16.Maintaining and operating the The City considers maintenance of the existing system prior to expansion when making existing transportation system will be a improvements. priority over expanding capacity. Orange County Congestion Management Plan The Congestion Management Plan (CMP)requires that a traffic impact analysis be conducted for any project generating 2,400 or more daily trips, or 1,600 or more daily trips for projects that directly access the CMP Highway System (HS). Per the CMP guidelines, this number is based on the desire to analyze any impacts that will be 3 percent or more of the existing CMP highway system facilities' capacity. The CMPHS includes specific roadways, which include State Highways and Super Streets, which are now known as Smart Streets, and CMP arterial monitoring locations/intersections. Therefore, the CMP traffic impact analysis (TIA) requirements relate to the potential impacts only on the specified CMPHS. The CMP highway system arterial facilities and CMP arterials closest to the proposed project site consists of Beach Boulevard, PCH, and Warner Avenue. The CMP. arterial monitoring locations/intersections nearest to the project site include Warner Avenue at PCH, Beach Boulevard at PCH, and Beach Boulevard at Adams Avenue. Pacific City EIR 3.14-23 Chapter 3 Environmental Impact Analysis Local • General Plan Circulation Element The General Plan Circulation Element for City of Huntington Beach was reviewed for goals and policies that would be applicable to the proposed project. Table 3.14-8 identifies goals and objectives presented in the Circulation Element of the General Plan related- to traffic that are potentially relevant to the proposed project. This section also includes an assessment of the,proposed project's consistency with the policies adopted in support of these goals and objectives. Table 3.14-8 General Plan Circulation Element—Policies Applicable to Transportation/Traffic Goal,Objective,or Policy Project Consistency , Goal CE 2.Provide a circulation system Conformance with implementing policies,as discussed below,results in conformance with this goal. 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. - Objective CE 2.1.Comply with City's Conformance with implementing policies,as discussed below,results in conformance with this performance standards for acceptable objective. levels of service. Policy CE 2.1.1.Maintain a city-wide The proposed project would worsen LOS at intersections projected to operate below LOS D, level of service(LOS)not to exceed LOS although the project itself would not result in the decline of intersection LOS below D. "D"for intersections during the peak hours. Policy CE 2.1.1.Maintain a citywide level The proposed project would worsen LOS at roadways projected to operate below LOS C,although of service(LOS)for links not to exceed the project itself would not result in the decline of roadway LOS below C. LOS"C"for daily traffic with the exception of Pacific Coast Highway south of Brookhurst Street. Objective CE 2.2.Decrease Conformance with implementing policies,as discussed below,results in conformance with this nonresidential traffic on local residential- objective. serving streets. Policy CE 2.2.2.Discourage the creation No major new roadway connections are proposed.The project would extend Pacific View Avenue of new major roadway connections which through the site,consistent with the Precise Plan of Street Alignment. would adversely impact the residential character of existing residential neighborhoods. Objective CE 2.3.Ensure that the Conformance with implementing policies,as discussed below,results in conformance with this location,intensity and timing of new objective.- development is consistent with the provision of adequate transportation infrastructure and standards as defined in the Land Use Element. Policy CE 2.3.1.Require development The project proposes roadway improvements to mitigate traffic impacts to the maximum extent projects to mitigate off-site traffic impacts feasible. and pedestrian,bicycle,and vehicular conflicts to the maximum extent feasible. 3.14-24 City of Huntington Beach 3.14 Transportation/Traffic Table 3.14-8 General Plan Circulation Element—Policies Applicable to Transportation/Traffic Goal,Objective,or Policy Project Consistency Policy CE 2.3.2.Limit driveway access Driveway access points would be provided sufficient to serve the project.Impact TR-8 demonstrates points and require adequate driveway that driveways would ensure a smooth and efficient flow of traffic. widths onto arterial roadways and require driveways be located to ensure the smooth and efficient flow of vehicles, bicycles and pedestrians. Policy CE 2.3.3.Require,where Mutual access and shared driveways to proposed commercial uses and hotel uses would be appropriate,an irrevocable offer of,mutual provided on site. access across adjacent,nonresidential properties fronting arterial roadways and require use of shared driveway access. Policy CE 2.3.4.Require that new The project proposes roadway improvements to mitigate traffic impacts to the maximum extent development mitigate its impact on City feasible. streets,including but not limited to, pedestrian,bicycle,and vehicular conflicts,to maintain adequate levels of service. Goal CE 4.Encourage and develop a Conformance with implementing policies,as discussed below,results in conformance with this goal. transportation demand management (TDM)system to assist in mitigation traffic impacts and in maintaining,a desired level of service on the circulation system. Objective CE 4.1.Pursue transportation Conformance-with implementing policies,as discussed below,results in conformance with this management strategies that can objective. maximize vehicle occupancy,minimize average trip length,and reduce the number of vehicle trips. Policy CE 4.1.1.Encourage A detailed employee incentive plan has not been developed,although the project is envisioned to nonresidential development to provide include employee incentives for alternative transportation.A bus turnout would be provided as part of employee incentives for utilizing the project site. alternatives to the conventional automobile(i.e.,carpools,vanpools, buses,bicycles and walking). Policy CE 4.1.6.Encourage that A TDM plan would be prepared for,commercial uses proposals for major new nonresidential developments include submission of a TDM plan to the City. Goal CE 5.Provide sufficient,well Conformance with implementing policies,as discussed below,results in conformance with this goal. designed and convenient on and off street parking facilities throughout the City. Policy CE 5.1.1.Maintain an adequate Adequate parking to serve project demand would be provided on site,as discussed under impact _ supply of parking that supports the TR-7 present level of demand and allow for the expected increase in private transportation use. Policy CE 5.1.2.Provide safe and Parking would be provided on-site and would be in subterranean structures to minimize impacts. convenient parking that has minimal impacts on the natural environment,the I ! community image,or quality of life. L Pacific City EIR 3.14-25 Chapter 3 Environmental Impact Analysis Table 3.14-8 General Plan Circulation Element—Policies Applicable to Transportation/Traffic Goal,Objective,or Policy Project Consistency Goal CE 6.Provide a city-wide system of Conformance with implementing policies,as discussed below,results in conformance with this goal. efficient and attractive pedestrian, equestrian,and waterway facilities for commuter,school and recreational use. Objective CE 6.1.Promote the safety of Conformance with implementing policies,as discussed below,results in conformance with this bicyclists and pedestrians by adhering to objective. Caltrans and City-wide standards. Policy CE 6.1.2.Link bicycle routes as Pedestrian circulation on-site would connect to the existing Class II bike path on First Street. shown in Figure CE-9 with pedestrian trails and bus routes to promote an interconnected system. Policy CE 6.1.6.Maintain existing The Project would provide a network of pedestrian walkways that would link to citywide routes and pedestrian facilities and require new would allow movement between developments,schools,and public facilities.Specifically,at-grade development to provide pedestrian pedestrian crossings are proposed at the existing signalized intersections of PCH at Huntington walkways and bicycle routes between Street and PCH at First Street to the beach.In addition,although not part of the proposed project,a developments,schools,and public grade-separated pedestrian bridge would be located midway between Huntington Street and First facilities. Street to connect the project site to the beach. To address the potential impacts on pedestrians and bicyclists within the project site associated with the provision of diagonal parking,the proposed project would comply with Municipal Code sections 10.40.200-210 by obtaining a resolution to establish a diagonal parking zone and an exception to allow for diagonal parking on Pacific View Avenue,which is a master plan arterial street. Policy CE 6.1.7.Require new Facilities accessible to the elderly and disabled would be provided,consistent with code development to provide accessible requirements. facilities for the elderly and disabled. Goal CE 7.Maintain and enhance the Conformance with implementing policies,as discussed below,results in conformance with this goal. visual quality and scenic views along designated corridors. Objective CE 7.1.Enhance existing view Conformance with implementing policies,as discussed below,results in conformance with this corridors along scenic corridors and objective. identify opportunities for the designation of new view corridors. Policy CE 7.1.1.Require the roadways, As discussed under Impact AES-1 impacts to the view corridor along Pacific Coast Highway would as shown in Figure CE-12,to be be less than significant.The project would maintain local highways by providing landscaping along improved and maintained as local scenic PCH and at key entry points. highways,major urban scenic highways, minor urban scenic highways,and landscape corridors with key entry points. Policy CE 7.1.5.Require any bridges, As discussed under Impact AES-2 impacts to the visual character would be less than significant.The culverts,drainage ditches,retaining walls retaining walls,and pedestrian bridge that could be constructed in the future and other project and other ancillary roadway elements to features would be architecturally consistent with surrounding development. be compatible and architecturally consistent with surrounding development and any other design guidelines. 3.14-26 City of Huntington Beach 3.14 Transportation/Traffic General Plan Growth Management Element; _ The policies listed within the Growth Management Element and applicable to transportation are consistent with the Circulation Element in,its objective to ensure adequate infrastructure for existing and planned land uses while providing for orderly growth in the City. Table 3.14-9 identifies goals and objectives presented in the Growth Management Element of the General Plan related to transportation that are potentially relevant to the proposed project. This table also includes an assessment of the proposed project's consistency with the policies adopted in support of these goals and objectives. Table 3.14-9 . General Plan Growth Management Element—Policies Applicable to Transportation/Traffic Goal,Objective,or Policy' Project Consistency Goal GM 3.Provide a circulation system Conformance with implementing policies,as discussed below,results in conformance with this goal. that meets the service demands of planned development and minimizes congestion. Objective GM 3.1.Establish minimum Conformance with implementing policies,as discussed below,results in conformance with this policy. standards for traffic circulation and provide a means to ensure that those standards are met and maintained. Policy GM 3.1.2.Maintain a citywide level The proposed project would worsen LOS at roadways projected to operate below LOS C,although the of service(LOS)for links not exceed LOS project itself would not result in the decline of roadway LOS below C. "C"for daily traffic with the exception of Pacific Coast Highway,south of Brookhurst Street. Policy GM 3.1.3.Maintain a citywide level The proposed,project would worsen LOS at intersections projected to operate below LOS D,although of service(LOS)not to exceed LOS"D"for the project itself would not result in the decline of intersection LOS below D. intersections during the peak hours. Policy GM 3.1.8.Promote traffic reduction A detailed employee incentive plan has not been developed,although the project is envisioned to strategies including alternate travel modes, include employee incentives for alternative transportation and would comply with the City's alternate work hours,and a decrease in Transportation Demand Management Ordinance.A bus turnout would be provided as part of the the number of vehicle trips throughout the project site. city. • 3.14.3 Thresholds of Significance Project impacts would be considered significant if any of the following would occur: • 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) • Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways > The City of Huntington Beach Traffic Impact Assessment Preparation Guidelines specify the LOS ( standards and impact criteria to be used to determine whether. an intersection or roadway Pacific City EIR 3.14-27 Chapter 3 Environmental Impact Analysis segment would be significantly impacted. The following performance criteria for significance have been established for the.City: o For intersections: 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 pre-project condition(Year 2008 Background). o For roadway segments: a project-related V/C ratio value greater than or equal to D (0.805), a project-related increase of 0.030, and an adverse intersection service level (LOS E or F) at either of the two adjacent intersections, which requires mitigation by reducing the V/C ratio to LOS C (0.804) or baseline, if the baseline is LOS D, E, or F (greater than or equal to 0.805). Baseline is defined as the pre-project condition (Year 2008 Background).9 > The LOS standards and impact criteria specified by Caltrans for State-controlled intersections are defined as follows: o For Caltrans intersections: a project-related V/C ratio value greater than or equal to LOS E (55.1 sec/veh), which requires mitigation by reducing the intersection delay to LOS D (55.0sec/veh) or baseline, if the baseline is LOS E or F (greater than or equal to 55.1 sec/veh). Baseline is defined as the pre-project condition (Year 2008 Background). • Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses • Result in inadequate emergency access • Result in inadequate parking capacity • Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g.,bus turnouts,bicycle racks) 3.14.4 Project Impacts • Future Traffic Conditions—Without and With the Proposed Project Project Traffic Generation Based on the generation factors and equations found in the Sixth Edition of Trip Generation, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) [Washington D.C., 1997], the traffic generation of the proposed project has been forecasted. The daily A.M. and P.M. peak hour traffic volumes for a "typical" weekday for the proposed project are shown in Table 3.14-10. • • v Absent any specific impact criteria for roadway segments in the Caltrans Traffic Impact Studies Preparation Guide[June 2001],the City's impact criteria was applied to the study segments on Pacific Coast Highway and Beach Boulevard. • 3.14-28 City of Huntington Beach • I ' 3.14 Transportation/Traffic Table 3.14-10 Project Traffic Generation Forecast A.M.Peak Hour P.M.Peak Hour ITE Land Use Code ADT In Out Total In Out Total 310:Hotel(400 Rooms) 3,212 140 88 228 128 116 244 Internal Capture(10%/5%115%) —321 —7 —4 —11 —19 —17 —36 Mode Shift(20%/10%/25%) —642 ' —14 —9 —23 —32 —29 —61 Subtotal , . 2,249 119 75 194 77 70 ' 147 710:General Office(60,000 SF) 896 109 15 124 25 122 147 Internal Capture(15%110%l10%) —134 —11 —1 —12 —3 —12 —15 '- Mode Shift(10%/5°/d5%) —90 —5 —1 —6 —1 —6 —7 Subtotal 672 93 13 106 21 104 125 820:Retail/Restaurant(175,000 SF) 9,769 137 88 225 436 473 909 Internal Capture(8°/0/12%18%) —782 —16 711 —27 —35 —38 —73 Mode Shift(20%/10°/d25%) —1,954 —14 9 23 .109 118 227 Subtotal 7,033 107 68 175 292 317 609 Museum(5,000 SF) Nom. Nom. Nom. Nom. Nom. Nom. Nom. 230:Residential Condominium/Townhouse(516 du) 2,626 31 155 - 186 160 77 237 Internal Capture(12%/8%/13%) —315 —2 —12 —14 —21 —10 —31 Mode Shift(10°/d10°/d15%) —263 —3 —16 —19 —24 —12 —36 Subtotal 2,048 26 127 153 115 '55 170 Net Traffic Generation Forecast 12,002 345 283 628 505 546 1,051 Internal Capture and Mode Shift values are based on the Trip Reduction Flow Diagram contained in Appendix C (X%!Y%!Z%)=Daily/A.M.PeakIP.M.Peak) SOURCE: Linscott,Law&Greenspan 2003a An internal trip reduction and mode-shift reduction was applied to the traffic generation forecast in Table 3.14-10 to account for the trip interaction between the hotel, restaurant, commercial/retail, office, existing/proposed residential, and beach/recreational uses. The trip interaction between the proposed uses • within the project site (internal capture) and the trip interaction between the proposed project uses and the beach and Downtown areas (mode-shift) are presented in the Trip Reduction Flow Diagram in Appendix C of the Traffic Analysis Impact Report for the proposed project (Appendix H of this EIR). As shown in Table 3.14-10, the proposed project, after factoring in the internal trip reduction and mode-shift reduction, would have a trip generation potential of 12,002 daily trips, of which 628 trips (345 inbound, 283 {_. ! outbound) are produced in the A.M. peak hour and 1,051 trips (505 inbound, 546 outbound) are generated in the P.M. peak hour. Project Traffic Distribution and Assignment The geographic distribution of traffic generated by a development is dependent upon several factors such as the distribution of population and employment, other shopping opportunities, accessibility to the site, and existing traffic patterns. The traffic distribution pattern for the proposed project was based primarily on a Pacific City EIR 3.14-29 Chapter 3 Environmental Impact Analysis "select-zone"analysis of the City's transportation model and was adjusted slightly based on knowledge of the area and impact of existing land use and traffic control in•the study area. Based on the traffic model, the anticipated traffic distribution and assignment pattern for the Retail/Restaurant/Office, Residential, and Hotel portions of the proposed project was identified. For the Retail/Restaurant/Office portion, it was determined that a significant percentage of the project-related traffic would be expected to use Beach Boulevard (26 percent), PCH (35 percent), and Atlanta Avenue (19 percent). A significant percentage of the Residential project-related traffic would be expected to use Beach Boulevard (35 percent), PCH (45 percent), and Atlanta Avenue (32 percent). An additional five percent is expected to use Main Street. As for the Hotel component, a significant percentage of the anticipated traffic distribution and assignment pattern for the project-related traffic is expected to use Beach Boulevard (45 percent), PCH (50 percent), and Atlanta Avenue (5 percent). The anticipated weekday A.M. and P.M. peak hour proposed project traffic volumes associated with the proposed project are presented in Figure 3.14-6 and Figure 3.14-7,respectively. Figure 3.14-8 presents the added daily project traffic assignments on the key roadway links in the study area. As shown, Pacific View Avenue is anticipated to carry the greatest amount of project traffic at 7,041 vehicles per day (VPD). Planned Traffic Improvements There are several committed traffic improvements to roadways serving the project site that are included as part of the proposed project, and these improvements were included in the traffic impact analysis performed for both Year 2008 and Year 2020. These improvements include the following: ■ Atlanta Avenue—The south side of Atlanta Avenue would be widened approximately 30 to 35 feet along the project frontage between First Street and Huntington Street. This would allow for an additional eastbound travel lane and a raised median island. The widening would also include a 30- foot property line dedication (60 feet on south side of centerline and approximately 30 feet on the north side [30 feet existing]). The exact dedication would vary depending on the location due to the centerline location and the curve in the roadway. - • First Street—The east side of First Street would be widened approximately 18 feet along the project frontage between PCH and Atlanta Avenue. This would allow for an additional northbound and southbound travel lane and a raised median island as,well as an additional southbound left turn lane at PCH. The widening would also include property line dedication to result in a 100-foot right-of-way 3.1430 City of Huntington Beach 1 , i . v.' — ---, "-'-' / ,4 1 1 i _ A k ----- c., t()_, 4'4' vi " I ' Alt`''' i • i .,,, ./.. cl:\i's.... i `,.... ,..." la 001" A i i A, 0 43" ..." ''‘,.., —. ,,, 4 ' Odr,2 '40'3 CI N1g. 4 j• AP 4° :1. :14k :vi......76 / .........._____ .,/ ,./ 1 If ar 1, 4 -', / A N.... 1.,1, 2 A, 13 0 / 4 / .....-„,\,„ ,.. .. ji61/4 -, 4, i qr.. , , \ op L asua aua ausu au.a*Jana aux....a atau au.name exam soma amo a*ausa aan-1 ',00-4 4, 4 ENLARGED PARTIAL P,LAN 1,- ,,,,c, t• / .,,,,„ NOT TO SCALE 'si" 4, ......" -.., i ,c,‘“• ...., 4:). AFF.. • \P <c \ irS, / ca. i. ,,--—,„N .. ( ,,,,,a i'\ct' ' 0 • 4, ) ,96 / tr' .. .... ) t• *',Q,. te c4crso ‘4, AP c -./ 4z, \ at .....,',AI /i( • •-•,. .../..- ....-- --- ---, -4.,.. ,0" C,71Z1E '1/4.'r\ii iS qr '•••••"••••..... • i ) 1 0 1 -4 > .4. < 45 Vr A- ORANGE 4., 5 z AV di -- ............. ......„ , ./ ,,,....1. w i ------- .....- 0.. ie * 6 En S ouvE O 59- O ,..., aIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII"MIIIIII Air \ .".,„. ..." / ^ '''... 0 k.- WALNUT 1"- ...- 1-10,5°°‘ rdih, PACIFIC ik \ , i ...---- *DS:3 4:2' .,,.... 79 15It'•• —701 HWY r ° 61:1k i r- 0 1 tr ,t 53— lk 1<C 2 ( 93-- ger3-; acyza OTh_ ...„. ...—-....„ ..-^" --,„, ,,,, ,,,,, , , ttN, 00 \ „..„ \ *"«.. 17 / / ,,,,," § 1 1 I ....., \--- - r \...-""i ''',./,'...."— .4/..,.., '.— 1), .'''' ''''''\'' **".'''''''....,, .,••'' N,N, / if , k,.—2 ,'''''' N. it i t ....„ gP5 P ' '''s PROJECT — so A JR,i .16 lit ) 60__ it i , , 4.17 / , It: 14 i 5-- - SEE ENLARGED 63-.- \ CLN, \ / \ 0-‘ / \ 0--% / \ i ‘ 35--,, / --...—.. ' --........ PARTIAL PLAN ABOVE ,..,....... F -- Not to Scale EIR AM Peak Hour Project Traffic Volumes 3.14-6lumes __ A.SOS +AT ZS City of Huntington Beach•Pacific City EIR SOURCE:Linscott Law&Greenspan 2003a 10261-00 ....——.. ....- q .--- Q / s, I .....- ....- ...-- \ ../ 1 w•-• aiN ,•,. 0 d, i tr. / 0 cse''' i i., ,,4' \(s, 1 —\,;->, ‘4. 44 ql, 012,1' .....-)f2 . ,...." , -.... 4 ' „.". / it-4 N.12 'V'le / as as /. .47I 0,k A 53 4.. it,190 / 5 4 It- le 6 if "t- qfe 63 4k 04, 71 4, ti,71,- tv t 0 ...•-• I:1 4, 74 4 2 +14,0 L- Yu..metea.abr...esi 61)7\ (4 / 8' C) Ner% 4 ‘. V, ENLARGED PARTIAL PLAN .- vs-- OF. ts 4.‘ i NOT TO SCALE cs, 0 -,,,, N% I. '''',/% <11,- i t• e'• 41) V'• if 4,,,,... (1 1 j>.' i / it- 1f4tr. ; X = '011' 14. i -...." • \ if ......., --- ...._ AV 0-4-- -..... ---- - .--- ---- CI ----.. s::) -1.> - "-. -- ----.. ,..... I ..,...,i)::, ...„ f--- ...„.. -, c0F ......, iriTte ____L-ir,, 4, / ..,.... ,„....... „,„,..„...._1/4_ \ ,,, ‘ 0--ILC 41 .. ,A I 41')., 1 ti; Lh". ORANGE 3c......--. j 0--, f:-) z AV Affilli4)--1 : r".°1 1 1\ _,/ ---- \ / I to ----,., _ -4116-1 ftcc / i — ..---"--- ".--.. a , 9 OLIVE ir 8 ummaimumillill1111111111M Illial 4), \;-\1,54-'% '''''''. 7 / ,,-- ...-- co ..-4" 1.-- 1111111111111ms \ * . '‘..... 0 1,4.. ''S. C4142,Ce j i k 76 — is L.0 pAcino-140..-- 0 °•.--0 HWY YIT.- 13 .---"' ' ' 41. 1,4-- 7. ---' ILL ,.=-• k k IL k lila ...\• ‘ tUb.• ''''''. zt.Ck‘.... ....... 42 1 -. \c2 107— a a lk, -- 1 ( 141-- ""•-'4C 137--- o 0-‘ "c"-. —---.7 - Cs C2, \ ....44."'T,-....,„/ II 1. •,-. op, , \ 1 lei i —0 PROJECT' SITE .... i \., N ,...,,,,/ ) 1 cc t 9 I r i t 73— ! .- 94-,-- 94— td-ral1 0— 4-100.0 i 1 i \ It-jii‘ i SEE ENLARGED i i \ i 1Th ...." ..,"" %`... ..," N,,,, ...._ , N. . N ,, PARTIAL PLAN ABOVE .,„._ --.........,. ,..,. FIGURE 3.14-7 Not to Scale -II-P- PM Peak Hour Project Traffic Volumes SOURCE:Linscott Law&Greenspan 2003a 10261-00 City of Huntington Beach•Pacific City EIR 4 \\Pvt, \f,_ il � ' • 4-z-\\:7\ r\ Co 40 \ t 1.11;e' 1;41' \tilt .ek ` '*:::)/(41.4:6 4, 9 \ \ ��",...04e:k I IS V).,"' W - ::——17'4.- minsinissiessine a m s ` 6 OLIVE nn PACIFIC c� tc ti41 ''.4.--"''''."..'".....2,17.0 ; 6_ ; '' Is 147Fg �l q�7p7€�i7 3 gPROJECT' SITE FIGURE 3.14-8 Not to Scale Average0 Daily I P ... . Project Traffic Volumes SOURCE:Linscott Law&Greenspan 2003a 10261 ao $s°" s' _ City of Huntington Beach•Pacific City EIR 3.14 Transportatlon/Traffic • Pacific Coast Highway—The north side of PCH would be widened approximately 8 feet alongthe PP Y project frontage between First Street and Huntington Street. The widening would also include a 10- foot property line dedication and installation of an OCTA bus turnout along the north side of PCH west of Huntington Street. The widening would allow for a third westbound through lane to be established on PCH west of Huntington Street, and would provide the ability for the incorporation of a bicycle lane through this section. • Huntington Street—The west side of Huntington Street would be widened approximately 10 feet along the project frontage between PCH and Pacific View Avenue. This would allow for an additional southbound travel lane as well as an exclusive southbound right turn lane at PCH. The widening would also include a 10-foot property line dedication (40-foot half-width). • Pacific View Avenue—Pacific View Avenue would be developed as part of the Pacific City project through the project site from Huntington Street to First Street consistent with the Precise Plan of Street Alignment. However, based on the Year 2008 total daily traffic volume as presented in Exhibit 27 and Exhibit 28 (8,848 VPD), it is recommended that Pacific View Avenue be constructed to a width of 70 feet curb-to-curb. This would allow for one 20-foot westbound through lane, a 14-foot raised landscaped median island, and a 14-foot eastbound through lane and angle parking at 45° (22 feet). The roadway would be dedicated to a width of 90 feet, which would allow for an 18-foot parkway on the north side and a 2-foot parkway on the south side. The ultimate configuration of this roadway would include a 4 lane divided cross section within the 90 foot right-of-way. It is anticipated _ that some on-street parking may be retained with the reconfiguration, though angled parking will not be allowed under this configuration. Appendix K of the traffic report presents a diagram of the proposed layout of Pacific View Avenue. • Pedestrian Pathway—In addition to the widening along Atlanta Avenue, a twenty-four-foot wide pedestrian access easement would be dedicated through the project site extending from the south side of Atlanta Avenue, at Alabama Street, to Pacific View Avenue at the easterly residential access driveway where pedestrians can cross at the all-way stop: Linkages are also proposed from the residential village through the visitor-serving commercial component of the project site. From the visitor-serving commercial area, access is provided to PCH and the beach via at-grade intersections at PCH at First Street and PCH at Huntington Street. Furthermore, as part of the overall Master Plan, a grade-separated pedestrian bridge would also be located midway between Huntington Street and First Street to provide a connection from the beach to the public areas near the hospitality uses located within the visitor-serving commercial area. Future Year 2008 Conditions The proposed project has an assumed completion date of Year 2008. In order to properly evaluate the potential impact of the proposed project on the local streets, it is necessary to develop estimates of the near- term (Year 2008) traffic conditions at the 32 key intersections, which include two future intersections along Pacific View Avenue, and 25 key roadway segments, with and without project-related traffic. Pacific City EIR 3.14-37 Chapter 3 Environmental Impact Analysis Year 2008 Background Traffic Conditions Ambient Traffic The background traffic growth estimates for Year 2008 were-calculated using ambient growth factors, which are intended to include unknown and future cumulative projects in the study area, as well as account for regular growth in traffic volumes due to development of projects outside the study area. Based on buildout traffic volumes and prior studies conducted in the Downtown area, future growth in the traffic volumes at the key study intersections were calculated at 1 percent per year. Upon the application of this growth rate to existing 2001 traffic volumes, it was determined that a 7 percent growth in existing volumes at the 32 key study intersections and 24 key roadway segments would occur by horizon year 2008. Cumulative Projects Traffic Characteristics Based on information provided by the City of Huntington Beach Planning staff, there are fourteen potential planned and/or approved projects, which may generate traffic in the project study area by the Year 2008. Of the fourteen potential cumulative projects, four have been identified as having significant traffic generation potential: These four projects are • The Strand at 5th Street and PCH • The Waterfront Residential development and Hyatt Regency Resort • The Beachside project at Atlanta Avenue and Beach Boulevard • The Boardwalk project at Goldenwest Street and Palm Avenue The corresponding forecast peak hour and daily traffic volumes for each of the four cumulative projects in the City of Huntington Beach are shown in Table 3.14-11. As shown, the total forecast related traffic generation is estimated at 19,882 two-way daily trips with 1,303 A.M. peak hour trips (545 inbound, 758 outbound) and 1,781 P.M. peak hour trips (1,037 inbound, 744 outbound). 3.1438 City of Huntington Beach 3.14 Transportation/Traffic Table 3.1411 Related Projects Traffic Generation Forecast Daily A.M.Peak Hour P.M.Peak Hour Related Project Description 2-Way In Out Total In Out Total Trip Generation Forecast The Strand Retail/Restaurant/Office/Hotel(121,000 SF&149 Rooms) 7,106 220 163 383 324 293 617 Waterfront Ocean Grand Resort Low Density Residential(184 DU) 2,208 40 118 158 129 77 206 Resort Hotel(519 Rooms) 4,515 208 140 348 213 182 395 Subtotal 6,723 248 258 506 342 259 , 601 The Beachside Single-Family Residential(86 DU) 823 16 48 64 56 31 87 The Boardwalk(Area 4B&PLC). Residential(500 DU) 5,230 61 289 350 315 161 476 Total Related Project Trip Generation 19,882 545 758 1,303 1,037 744 1,781 SOURCE: City of Huntington Beach Planning Department 2003;LSA Associates 1998,1999,2002 Intersection Analysis—City Criteria Future Year 2008 Without Proposed Project Based on the traffic generation forecast for the Year 2008 background traffic conditions, the peak hour ICU/HCM Level of Service results at the 32 study intersections were determined. The results are shown in Table 3.14-12, column (1). An analysis of near-term (Year 2008) traffic conditions in Table 3.14-12 indicates that the forecast increase in background traffic would continue to cause one of the 32 study intersections to operate at adverse service levels. The intersection of PCH at Warner Avenue, which currently operates at LOS E during the P.M. peak hour, is expected to operate at LOS F (P.m.) with the addition of background traffic in Year 2008. The remaining 31 key intersections are expected to continue to operate at LOS D or better in both peak hours. Future Year 2008 With Proposed Project As shown in Table 3.14-12, column.(2), the intersection of PCH at Warner Avenue would experience an increase in ICU as a result of the proposed project traffic combined with background traffic (ambient plus cumulative projects),but the intersection would continue to operate at the same adverse service levels (LOS E or F) during the A.M. and P.M. peak hours. The remaining 31 key study intersections have been forecasted to continue to operate at acceptable service levels with the addition of the proposed project traffic during both the weekday A.M. and P.M. peak commute hours. These projected A.M. and P.M. peak hour traffic volumes for the Year 2008 are illustrated in Figures 3.14-9 and 3.14-10,respectively. Pacific City EIR 3.14-39 Chapter 3 Environmental Impact Analysis I Table 3.14-12 Year 2008 Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service Summary (1) (2) (3) (4) Year 2008 Background Year 2008 Background Project Impact/ Year 2008 With _ Time Conditions Plus Project. Significance Mitigation Key Intersections Period ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU Inc. Y/N ICU LOS , 1 Goldenwest Street at A.M. 0.696 B 0.713 C 0.017 N - - Pacific Coast Highway P.M. 0.813 D 0.837 D 0.024 N - - 2. 17th Street at A.M. 0.647 B 0.666 B 0.019 N - - Pacific Coast Highway P.M. 0.725 C 0.755 C 0.030 N - - 3. 9th Street at A.M. 0.647 B 0.667 B 0.02 N - - Pacific Coast Highway P.M. 0.667 B 0.697 B 0.03 N - - 4 6th Street at A.M. 0.540 A 0.553 A 0.013 N - - Pacific Coast Highway P.M. 0.674 B 0.694 B 0.020 N - - 5. Main Street at A.M. 0.257 A 0.269 A 0.012 N - - 6th Street P.M. 0.384 A 0.410 A 0.026 N - - 6 Main Street at A.M. 0.669 B 0.681 B 0.012 N - - Pacific Coast Highway P.M. 0.770 C 0.790 C 0.020 N - - 7 First Street at A.M. 0.284 A 0.300 A 0.016 N - - Atlanta Avenue P.M. 0.315 A 0.367 A 0.052 N - - 8 First Street at A.M. 0.502 A 0.501 A -0.001 N - - Pacific Coast Highway P.M. 0.535 A 0.589 A 0.054 N - - 9 Huntington Street at1 • A.M. 11.72 B 0.355 A N/A N - - Atlanta Avenue P.M. 28.00 D 0.516 A N/A N - - 10. Delaware Street at1 A.M. 3.34 A 3.44 A 0.100 N - - Atlanta Avenue P.M. 6.48 A 10.44 B 3.960 N - - 11. Huntington Street at A.M. 0.701 B 0.717 C 0.016 N - - Pacific Coast Highway P.M. 0.691 B 0.740 C 0.049 N - - , - 12 Huntington Street at1 A.M. 4.76 A 8.89 A 4.130 N - - Pacific View Avenue P.M. 4.62 A 13.38 B 8.760 N - - 13. Beach Boulevard at A.M. 0.651 B 0.678 B 0.027 N - - Adams Avenue P.M. 0.736 C 0.765 C 0.029 N - - 14. Beach Boulevard at A.M. 0.358 A 0.380 A 0.022 N - - Indianapolis Avenue P.M. 0.479 A 0.515 A 0.036 N - - 15. Beach Boulevard at A.M. 0.412 A 0.436 A 0.024 N - - Atlanta Avenue P.M. 0.622 B 0.681 B 0.059 N - - 16. Beach Boulevard at A.M. 0.576 A 0.595 A 0.019 N - - Pacific Coast Highway P.M. 0.794 C 0.839 D 0.045 N - - 17 Newland Street at A.M. 0.360 A 0.362 A 0.002 N - - - Atlanta Avenue P.M. 0.515 A 0.526 A 0.011 N - - 18 Newland Street at A.M. 0.619 B 0.637 B 0.018 N - - Pacific Coast Highway P.M. 0.673 B 0.707 C 0.034 N - - 19 Magnolia Street at A.M. 0.617 B 0.635 B 0.018 N - - Pacific Coast Highway P.M. 0.694. B 0.721 C 0.027 N - - , 20 Magnolia Street at A.M. 0.399 A 0.402 A 0.003 N - - Atlanta Avenue P.M. 0.563 A 0.571 A 0.008 N - - 21 Pacific Coast Highway at A.M. 0.730 C 0.745 C 0.015 N - - Seapoint Avenue P.M. 0.875 D 0.898 D 0.023 N - - 22 Pacific Coast Highway at A.M. 0.966 E 0.981 E 0.015 Y 0.793 C WamerAvenue P.M. 1.021 F 1.043 F 0.022 Y 0.842 D 3.14-40 City of Huntington Beach . 3.14 Transportation/Traffic i1 Table 3.14-12 Year 2008 Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service Summary (1) (2) (3) (4) Year 2008 Background Year 2008 Background Project Impact/ Year 2008 With Time Conditions Plus Project Significance Mitigation Key Intersections Period ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU Inc. Y/N ICU LOS 23. Pacific Coast Highway at A.M. 0.743 C 0.757 C 0.014 N - - Brookhurst Street P.M. 0.809 D 0.845 D 0.036 N - - 24 Main Street at A.M. 0.500 A 0.509 A 0.009 N - - Adams Avenue P.M. 0.703 B 0.729 C 0.026 N - - 25. Main Street at A.M. 0.227 A 0.231 A 0.004 N - - Utica Avenue . P.M. 0.336 A 0.346 A 0.010 N - - 26 Lake Street at A.M. 0.553 A 0.556 A 0.003 N - - Adams Avenue P.M. 0.644 B 0.656 B 0.012 N - - 27. Lake Street at A.M. 0.366 A 0.373 A 0.007 N - - Yorktown Avenue P.M. 0.494 A 0.509 A 0.015 N - - 28 Beach Boulevard at A.M. 0.705 C 0.721 C 0.016 N - - Yorktown Avenue P.M. 0.773 C 0.800 C 0.027 N - - • 29 Beach Boulevard.at A.M. 0.685 B 0.707 C 0.022 N - - Garfield Avenue P.M. 0.830 D 0.858 D 0.028 N - - 30. Beach Boulevard at A.M. 0.610 B 0.621 B 0.011 N - - Ellis Avenue/Main Street P.M. 0.736 C 0.752 C 0.016 N - - First Street at A.M. N/A N/A 2.62 A N/A N - - 31. Pacific Viewt Avenue P.M. N/A N/A 4.34 A N/A N - - (future) 32 Beach Boulevard at A.M. 0.215 A 0.250 A 0.035 N - - Pacific View Ave(future) P.M. 0.252 A 0.284 A 0.032 N - - - 1. LOS indicated as intersection delay in secondslvehicle(sly) Bold V/C and LOS values indicate adverse service levels based on City LOS Standards . SOURCE: Linscott,Law&Greenspan 2003a In addition, the projected ADT volumes, which represent the Year 2008 conditions with the proposed project, are illustrated in Figure 3.14-11. Intersection Analysis-State of California (Caltrans) Methodology As required by the State of California Department'of Transportation (Caltrans), the 19 state route intersections within the project study area [SR-39 (Beach Boulevard)and SR-1 (PCH)] were analyzed on an 1 A.M. and P.M. peak hour basis, for existing and Year 2008 traffic conditions, consistent with the recently published Caltrans Guidefor the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies, [June, 2001]. The peak hour HCM (HCS-2000 for signalized intersections) Level of Service results at the 19 State- controlled study intersections within the study area are shown in Table 3.14-13. Pacific City EIR 3.14-41 Chapter 3 Environmental Impact Analysis _' Table 3.1413 Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service Summary-Caltrans (HCM) (2) (3) (4) (1) Year 2008 Year 2008 Project (5) Year 2001 Existing Background Background Plus Impact/ Year 2008 With Time Conditions Conditions Project Significance Mitigation Key Intersections Period HCM LOS HCM LOS HCM LOS Yes/No HCM LOS 1 Goldenwest Street at A.M. 38.0 D 51.5 D 54.9 ,D No _ _ Pacific Coast Highway P.M. 35.0 C 45.9 D 51.4 D No 2 17th Street at A.M. 19.5 B 21.9 C 22.7 C No - _ Pacific Coast Highway P.M. 18.7 B 24.0 C 30.2 C No 3 9th Street at A.M. 18.5 B 21.6 C 22.8 C No _ _ Pacific Coast Highway P.M. 15.6 B 22.0 C 32.1 C No 4 6th Street at A.M. 21.5 C 23.5 C 23.8 C No - - Pacific Coast Highway P.M. 18.3 B 21.6 C 21.9 C No 5 Main Street at A.M. 21.3 .C 22.1 C 22.6 C No - - Pacific Coast Highway P.M. 22.0 C 23.8 C 24.5 C No , f 6 First Street at A.M. 33.5 C 40.1 D 47.8 D No _ _ ' Pacific Coast Highway P.M. 35.4 D 43.6 D 51.1 D No 7 Huntington Street at A.M. 21.4 C 28.9 C 47.7 D No _ Pacific Coast Highway P.M. 18.8 B 23.1 C 41.4 D No - 8 Beach Boulevard at A.M. 39.1 D 40.9 D 41.4 D No - - Adams Avenue P.M.• 41.5 D 45.4 D 48.5 D No 9 Beach Boulevard at A.M. 26.4 C 26.8 C 27.1 C No - - Indianapolis Avenue P.M. 27.1 C 27.9 C 28.6 C No 10. Beach Boulevard at A.M. 29.3 C 29.6 C 29.6 C No - - Atlanta Avenue P.M. 32.5 C 33.4 C 34.7 C No 11. Beach Boulevard at A.M. 35.0 C 39.7 D 42.3 D No - - Pacific Coast Highway P.M. 25.5 C 33.7 C 46.1 D No 12 Newland Street at A.M. 23.7 C 26.3 C 27.7 C No _ _ Pacific Coast Highway P.M. 23.1 C 25.9 C 28.1 C No • 13. Magnolia Street at A.M. 23.9 C 27.0 C 29.1 C No - Pacific Coast Highway P.M. 25.2 C 29.0 C 32.5 C Na 14 Pacific Coast Highway at A.M. 24.9 C 29.3 C 31.5 C No 29.0 C - SeapointAvenue P.M. 34.6 C 62.8 E 79.4 E Yes 51.5 D 15 Pacific Coast Highway at A.M. 60.7 E 105.2 F 117.3 F Yes 44.9 D Warner Avenue P.M. 204.9 F 293.0 F 319.8 F Yes 42.6 D 16. Pacific Coast Highway at A.M. 32.9 C 37.9 D- 40.6 D No - - ,- Brookhurst Street P.M. 26.5 -C 33.6 C 45.4 D No 17 Beach Boulevard at A.M. 39.8 • D 44.0 D 45.9 D No _ _ - Yorktown Avenue P.M. 39.0 D 46.1 D 52.2 D No 18 Beach Boulevard at A.M. 38.8 D 41.4 D 43.1 D No Garfield Avenue P.M. 42.4 D 49.4 D 54.6 D No 19 Beach Boulevard at A.M. 36.6 D 38.5 D 39.4 D No - Ellis Ave/Main Street P.M. 42.5 D 49.0 D 54.0 D No ' Bold VIC and LOS values indicate adverse service levels based on City LOS Standards SOURCE: Linscott,Law&Greenspan 2003a L. 3.14-42 City of Huntington Beach � ,.4 J it ,0 / ,9 It \\tril'lk-:\ N. ' 4 . / /` , �� 0 . ' \ eL �O 4), \\S4:\ 4 •N / ''' •"› 4- cla \\")) I 4,0 �, �4 \ Kc'sk tto 11%14, ,„ ,v. oltr WtP \ \ # 4> I % ----41) ..,Y-tt, I le In CI 0 OLIVE ts, 86— 4. 170 i , , —1890 I e Ay .Thicin 4 °e / °f u, ,,_ -' �"'-- 36 -° is ion 3 - 1ts26 �» r—� PACIFIC/NEW— �i,•' 9E7� °.�-r `w 1t16Y' setttb PACIFIC __r- 8 1$Sa- ".. �' . `° g ,,• COAST `�j .11 11 f 2$v4 � 2&74 _ i 1.49AN. `� -,) l--- 1532 1 tt i.tea'a.. z'' far .. ; ar .,,,, e.-.0 y;<,, /aYc i ...... 1 #37—� r +' 1 1 t?{1 $ — 1tf9S\ 3 c a1„..... ' I42PROJECT l i c f-- 17 mu— ! / .1 a , 1 - 1 J 1 a� I ll� r- sA 1 ,-- 4 i s J \ / i 1980— �' l ts88"I ! t 1 i r it _, I 143 .4 I SITE FIGURE 3.14-9 Not to Scale 11;!) 2008 AM Peak Hour Volumes with Project Traffic SOURCE:Linscott Law&Greenspan 2003a 10261-00 T$5°is'. T£5 City of Huntington Beach•Pacific City EIR \. art 1 3 ^-4 isa > 4 f �aa (� i / ' 0 s �� 0 c a' %I -k<\'''.' , , 9/ " / y7 ! 3 "t (\ t ) 4:1 4 � f ✓ \ ", ¢fix ,� '* * ,.,. %. „' 4 1 t 2(14 Ate\ ..-. t ',, , , , ` \ \ N. .. -• '� PALM '°----v AV ---,,,,,, 11Ik 'i :` DLiiFE s o— AL. ill,za . /98 WALNUT h +.' ° I '` .......... .°` 0' 88t _J , .' r- -"• 1641 .AV roll i \ ' 268 ,,, r� - ', 239 rw 277t 42 37* iiiiiiiii ( a" ✓ VAST ` 1; r ,r Thi It 1494-- r 1 �.i /,,,-." .' 'k r / ,r `1`� '"� ! , ` R:. 13 9g _�°•,;�c „ 151 3S-ti t.11.4.0 �' ,r'" '""` / fir. — 7 �' 9995 f ,, [3 s' �. ,, ,a ",.-':c+gs k--443, 1 ia — /960 1 i ie # �,e"� 4 a� /i ct°a �. f t.. - t717 1 1 . '�- 4p \ g i1 it 6 / ) 3 19\ z i } '�1757 j ' �d $ PROJECT t�d f .,) $ l ,-- 17 1827 1 i J L 48 1 °� 58— 1 x 28 1 # 1,14 r- 131 r-244 I 1 3 °\ i 1 25--1 1 1 147-3 1 44 t 1 i 1L i 1 215tf ill 1 SITE FIGURE:�.. I 1" 3.14-10 Ili) n Not to Scale ,.� _._. � 2008 PM Peak Hour Volumes with Project Traffic . . " .:... .............„....:.......,.,..,e, SOURCE:Linscott Law&Greenspan 2003a 10267 0o A 5 5""'h r r 5 City of Huntington Beach•Pacific City EIR I i 1 , • C 44.. \ / \ \ Tip \ + \ .c.• •,,z,,,, /a> 4 \\-v \ \ 1 ,..9. /.4 • \\1-i\ -IP ,ch 4:11-0 133 ir _, 5 4 \ sek\> V- 10 Ite 41,t,,,, 0 0,,,l, ))4-,., -....t. 44 .., , V741:4Z, IIi , ."*.s cf 9P vs 6 1 . _ \ Is,1 \ \ 1111110 'INS 'SP \ \ f..? AO.1*.t.' \,.. kV' s';....iki 4,t.. • 4 h'''''' PALM itill#14. sliiiiik a ..."-4-"""....""46.•°a5— •>I(. •...,,,.1.2.5__79_._ c0.0uziL..si-.-s1,i- - OORA NGE 1''' allIlIllIlIllli 4€11#1111111M11— 11111118 WAILT aimii 1k1 1:1111:174)1A17t.I-,1,N,1,4t0l. 5e407 ,Pi91, ep ACEC_ —d(i 41-,- 0"0 11\NI S4C21 PACWIC 1 1 COAST ......---0-- 49,815 . 44,881 .. a a 50,002 z 43,810 47,118 g t PROJECT _ n x . SITE • 1 i FIGURE 3.14-11 Not to Scale Ili!) • -EIP 2008 Average Daily Volumes with Project Traffic SOURCE:Linscott Law&Greenspan 2003a 10261-00 i$50: 1AT FS City of Huntington Beach•Pacific City EIR 3.14 Transportation/Traffic Future Year 2008 Without Proposed Project As shown in Table 3.14-13, the forecast increase in background traffic is expected to result in or continue to operate at adverse service levels at two of the 19 State-controlled study intersections. The intersection of PCH at Warner Avenue, which currently operates at LOS E during the A.M. peak hour and LOS F during i the P.M. peak hour, is expected to operate at LOS F during both A.M. and P.M. peak hours in Year 2008, with the addition of background traffic. The intersection of PCH at Seapoint Avenue, which currently operates at LOS C during both A.M. and P.M. peak hours, is expected to operate at LOS E during the P.M. peak hour in Year 2008, with the addition of background traffic. The remaining 17 State study intersections are expected to continue to operate at LOS D or better in both peak hours. Future Year 2008 With Proposed. Project When the proposed project-related traffic is combined with the background traffic (ambient plus cumulative projects), the same two key study intersections (PCH at Warner and Seapoint Avenues) would experience an increase in HCM, but are expected to.continue to operate at the same adverse service levels. The intersection of PCH at Warner Avenue would still operate at LOS F during both A.M. and P.M. peak hours, while the intersection of PCH at Seapoint Avenue would operate at LOS E during the P.M. peak hour. The remaining 17 intersections are expected to either operate at LOS D or better during the A.M. and P.M. peak hours, with the addition of project traffic. Roadway Segment Analysis • The daily roadway segment Level of Service at the 25 study roadway segments are summarized in Table 3.14-14. Table 3.14-14 Year 2008 Roadway Link Capacity Analysis Summary (1) - (2) (3) (4) (5) Year 2008 Background . Year 2008 with Project LOSE Daily WC WC V/C Arterial Capacity LanesIncrease _ P tY Volume Ratio LOS DailyVolume Ratio LOS Pacific Coast Highway 60,800 4 46,456 0.764 C 48,241 0.793 C 0.029 Warner Ave to Seapoint Ave Pacific Coast Highway 60,800 4 39,794 0.655 B 41,579 0.684 B 0.029 Seapoint Ave to Goldenwest St Pacific Coast Highway 37,500 4 42,711 1.139 F 44,881 1.197 F 0.058 Goldenwest Street to 6th Street Pacific Coast Highway 56,300 6 43,067 0.765 C . 45,237 0.803 C 0.038 6th Street to First Street Pacific Coast Highway 56,300 6 43,810 0.778 C 43,810 0.778 C 0.000 First Street to Huntington Street Pacific City EIR 3.14-49 Chapter 3 Environmental Impact Analysis Table 3.14-14 Year 2008 Roadway Link Capacity AnalysisSumma ry (1) (2) (3) (4) , (5) Year 2008 Background Year 2008 with Project LOSE Daily WC WC WC Arterial Capacity Lanes Volume Ratio LOS Daily Volume Ratio LOS Increase Pacific Coast Highway 37,500 4 43,496 1.160 F 47,118 1.256 F 0.096 Huntington Street to Beach Blvd Pacific Coast Highway 56,300 6 46,612 0.828 D 50,002 0.888 D 0.060 Beach Blvd to Newland Street Pacific Coast Highway 56,300 6 46,477 .0.826 D 49,615 0.881 D 0.055 Magnolia St to Brookhurst St Beach Boulevard 56,300 6 17,636. 0.313 A 20,240 0.360 A 0.047 PCH to Atlanta Ave Beach Boulevard 56,300 6 25,629 0.455 A 29,408 1 0.522 A 0.067 Atlanta Ave to Indianapolis Ave' Beach Boulevard 56,300 6 33,962 0.603 A 37,700 0.670 B 0.067 Indianapolis Ave to Adams Ave Beach Boulevard 56,300 6 46,249 0.821 D 49,382 0.877 D 0.056 Adams Ave to Yorktown Ave Beach Boulevard 56,300 6 50,962 0.905 E 53,608 0.952 E 0.047 Garfield Ave to Main St Atlanta Avenue 25,000 4 17,583 0.703 A 19,445 0.778 B 0.075 Beach Blvd to Delaware St Atlanta Avenue 25,000 4 10,312 0.825 D 10,589 -0.424 A -0.401 1st St to Huntington St Atlanta Avenue 18,000 2 12,004 0.667 B 14,235 0.791 C 0.124 Huntington St to Delaware St First Street 37,500 4 6,753 0.180 A 8,401 0.224 A 0.044 Atlanta Ave to Olive Ave Huntington Street 18,000 2 2,019 0.112 A 4,055 0.225 A 0.113 Atlanta Ave to Pacific View Ave Main Street 12,500 2 6,629 0.530 A 7,502 0.600 A 0.070 Palm Ave to Adams Ave Lake Street 18,000 2 6,420 ' 0.357 A 6,805 0.378 A 0.021 Indianapolis Ave to Adams Ave Lake Street . 18,000 2 9,630 0.535 A 10,015 0.556 A 0.021 Adams Ave to Yorktown Ave Adams Avenue 37,500 4 27,566 0.735 C 28,151 0.751 C 0.016 Beach Blvd to Newland St Indianapolis Avenue 25,000 2 7,788 0.312 A 7,983 0.319 A 0.007 Beach Blvd to Newland St Atlanta Avenue 25,000 4 18,173 0.727 A 18,839 0.754 A 0.027 Beach Blvd to Newland St Pacific View 18,000 2 538 • 0.030 A 7,579 0.421 A 0.391 First Street to Huntington Street Bold VIC and LOS values indicate adverse service levels based on City and/or CMP LOS standards. The roadway capacities in column(2)represent the capacities with project-specific improvements;however,Year 2008 Background LOS are based on existing capacities. SOURCE: Linscott,Law&Greenspan 2003a 3.14-50 City of Huntington Beach • 3.14 Transportation/Traffic Future Year 2008 Without Proposed Project An analysis of future (Year 2008) background traffic conditions in Table 3.14-14 indicates that seven of the 25 study roadway segments are expected to operate at adverse service levels: • PCH: Goldenwest Street to 6th Street(LOS F, V/C = 1.139) • PCH: Huntington Street to Beach Boulevard (LOS F, V/C = 1.160) • PCH: Beach Boulevard to Newland Street(LOS D, V/C = 0.828) • PCH: Magnolia Street to Brookhurst Street(LOS D, V/C = 0.826) • Beach Boulevard: Adams Avenue to Yorktown Avenue (LOS D, V/C = 0.821) • Beach Boulevard: Garfield Avenue to main Street Ellis Avenue (LOS E, V/C = 0.905) • Atlanta Avenue: Huntington Street to First Street(LOS D, V/C = 0.825) The remaining 18 study roadway segments are expected to operate at LOS C or better on a daily basis without the proposed project. Future Year 2008 With Proposed Project When the proposed project-related traffic is combined with the background traffic (ambient plus cumulative, projects), 6 of the 7 study roadway segments identified above (with the Atlanta Avenue segment as the exception)would experience an increase in V/C, but would continue to operate at the same adverse service levels: • PCH: Goldenwest Street to 6th Street(LOS F, V/C = 1.197) • PCH: Huntington Street to Beach Boulevard (LOS F, V/C = 1.256) • PCH: Beach Boulevard to Newland Street(LOS D, V/C = 0.888) • PCH: Magnolia Street to Brookhurst Street(LOS D, V/C = 0.881) • Beach Boulevard: Adams Avenue to Yorktown Avenue (LOS D, V/C = 0.877)- • Beach Boulevard: Garfield Avenue to main Street Ellis Avenue (LOS E, V/C = 0.952) As shown in Table 3.14-14, the' Atlanta Avenue segment would improve to LOS A with the proposed project traffic. This is due to project-specific improvements that would add additional lanes along the Atlanta Avenue project frontage. Each of the 5 adversely' affected study roadway segments would also experience a V/C increase greater than 0.030. However, based on the'City's impact criteria for roadway segments, none of the study roadway segments would have an adjacent study intersection(s) with adverse Pacific City EIR• 3.14-51 Chapter 3 Environmental impact Analysis levels of service with the addition of project traffic. The remaining 18 roadway segments are expected to operate at LOS C or better on a daily basis, with the addition of project traffic. Future Year 2020 General Plan Buildout Conditions The Year 2020 General Plan Build-out condition without and with the proposed project traffic was analyzed at 30 key study intersections and 27 key roadway segments as part of the traffic study. These intersections and roadway segments were based on traffic forecasts using the Santa Ana River Crossings Cooperative Study (SARCCS) traffic analysis model. Due to limitations in the SARCCS traffic analysis model, only 30 of the 32 study intersections were analyzed. The intersections of First Street/Pacific View Avenue and Magnolia Street/Atlanta Avenue were excluded. In order to determine the Year 2020 General Plan Buildout traffic volumes in the project vicinity based on several different potential build-out roadway network scenarios, model runs of the Year 2020 General Plan Buildout SARCCS were conducted without and with proposed project traffic for four roadway network scenarios, listed as follows: 1. With Hamilton Avenue Extension, Walnut Avenue Alignment, and the Santa Ana River Crossings (Current General Plan Circulation Element Network) 2. Without Hamilton Avenue Extension, but with Walnut Avenue Alignment and the Santa Ana River Crossings 3. Without Hamilton Avenue Extension and Walnut Avenue Alignment, but with the Santa Ana River Crossings 4. Without Hamilton Avenue Extension, Walnut Avenue Alignment, and the Santa Ana River Crossings The Hamilton Avenue Extension refers to the potential future connection of Hamilton Avenue between Newland Street and Beach Boulevard through the existing wetland consistent with the General Plan Circulation Element. The Walnut Avenue Alignment refers to the extension of Walnut Avenue between Second Street and First Street to align with future Pacific View Avenue through the proposed project. The Santa Ana River Crossings refer to future bridge crossings of the Santa Ana River channel at Garfield Avenue/Gisler Avenue and Banning Avenue/19th Street to connect Costa Mesa and Huntington Beach. Intersection capacity analyses and roadway segment capacity analyses have been conducted for General Plan Build-out roadway network scenario No. 1 only, which is consistent with the City's current General Plan Circulation Element network. The remaining three General Plan Buildout roadway network scenarios were used to analyze their,effect on Pacific View Avenue through the project site between 1st and Huntington Streets. 3.14-52 City of Huntington Beach 3.14 Transportatlon/Traffic Intersection Analysis under Scenario No. 1 , The peak hour LOS results at the 30 key study intersections for the Year 2020 General Plan Buildout condition under scenario No. 1, without and with the proposed project-related traffic, are summarized in Table 3.14-15. Table 3.14-15 Year 2020 General Plan Buildout Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service Summary-w/Hamilton Ext. w/Walnut Alignment w/SARC (1) (2) (3) (4) Year 2020 Without Year 2020 With Project Project Impact/ Year 2020 With Time Project,Traffic Traffic Significance Mitigation Key Intersections Period ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU Inc. Y/N ICU LOS 1. Goldenwest Street at A.M. _ 0.588 A 0.600 A 0.012 N - - Pacific Coast Highway P.M. 0.728 C 0.746 C 0.018 N - - 2. 17th Street at A.M. 0.624 B 0.638 B 0.014 . N - - Pacific Coast Highway P.M. -0.677 B 0.699 B 0.022 N - - 3. 9th Street at A.M. 0.607 B 0.621 B 0.014 N - - Pacific Coast Highway P.M. 0.596 A 0.618 A 0.022 N - - 4. 6th Street at A.M. 0.641 B 0.654 B 0.013 N - - Pacific Coast Highway P.M. 0.724 C 0.744 C - 0.020 N - - 5. Main Street at A.M. 0.249 A 0.261 A 0.012 N - - 6th Street P.M. 0.424 -A 0.451 ' A 0.027 N - - • 6. Main Street at A.M. 0.778 C 0.790 C 0.012 N - - Pacific Coast Highway P.M. 0.869 D. 0.888 D 0.019 N - - 7 First Street at A.M. 0.210 A 0.226 A 0.016 N - - Atlanta Avenue P.M. 0.267 A 0.318 A 0.051 N - - 8. First Street at A.M. 0.648 B 0.648 B 0.000 N - - Pacific Coast Highway P.M. 0.636 B 0.691 B 0.055 N - - 9. Huntington Street at A.M. 0.242 A 0.266 A 0.024 N - - Atlanta Avenue P.M. 0.338 A 0.353 A 0.015 N - - 10. Delaware Street at A.M. 0.212 A 0.248 A 0.036 N - - Atlanta Avenue P.M. 0.271 A 0.391 A 0.120 N - 1 11 Huntington Street at A.M. 0.634 B 0.685 B 0.051 N - - Pacific Coast Highway P.M. 0.606 B 0.732 B 0.126 N - - 12. Huntington Street at A.M. 0.125 A 0.278 A 0.153 N - Pacific View Avenue P.M. 0.192 A 0.367 A 0.175 N - "' 13 Beach Boulevard at A.M. 0.651 B 0.678 B 0.027 N Adams Avenue P.M. 0.820 D 0.849 D 0.029 N 14 Beach Boulevard at A.M. 0.413 A 0.439 A 0.026 N Indianapolis Avenue P.M. 0.557 A 0.593 A 0.036 N 15. Beach Boulevard at A.M. 0.408 A 0.452 A 0.044 N - Atlanta Avenue P.M. 0.722 C 0.783 C 0.061 N - 16 Beach Boulevard at A.M. 0.693 B 0.712 C 0.019 N Pacific Coast Highway P.M. 0.762 C 0.795 C 0.033 N 17 Newland Street at A.M. 0.329 A 0.333 A . 0.004 N - Atlanta Avenue P.M. 0.512 A 0.523 A 0.011 N 18 Newland Street at A.M. 0.745 C 0.763 C 0.018 N Pacific Coast Highway P.M. 0.665 B 0.699 B 0.034 N Pacific City EIR 3.14-53 , Chapter 3 Environmental Impact Analysis Table 3.14-15 Year 2020 General Plan Buildout Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service Summary-w/Hamilton Ext. w/Walnut Alignment w/SARC (0) (2) (3) (4) Year 2020 Without Year 2020 With Project Project Impact/ Year 2020 With Time Project Traffic Traffic Significance Mitigation Key Intersections Period ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU Inc. Y/N ICU LOS I 19 Magnolia Street at A.M. 0.759 C 0.777 C 0.018 N - - Pacific Coast Highway P.M. 0.782 C 0.809 D 0.027 N - - 20 Pacific Coast Highway at A.M. 0.882 D 0.896 D 0.014 N 0.784 C Seapoint Avenue P.M. 0.952 E 0.974 E 0.022 Y 0.929 E 21. Pacific Coast Highway at A.M. 0.796 C 0.806 D 0.010 N - - Warner Avenue P.M. 0.882 D 0.897 D 0.015 N - - i 22. Pacific Coast Highway at A.M. 0.887 D 0.900 D 0.013 N - - ,- Brookhurst Street P.M. 0.705 C 0.742 C 0.037 N - - • 23 Main Street at A.M. 0.634 B 0.646 B 0.000 N - - Adams Avenue P.M. . 0.718 C 0.740 C 0.012 N - - 24 Main Street at. A.M. 0.626 B 0.632 B 0.006 N - - Utica Avenue P.M. 0.495 A 0.506 A 0.011 N - - 25. Lake Street at A.M. 0.652 B 0.658 B 0.006 N - - Adams Avenue P.M. 0.668 B 0.677 B 0.009 N - - 26 Lake Street at A.M. 0.563 A 0.570 A 0.007 N - - Yorktown Avenue P.M. 0.510 A 0.525 A 0.015 N - - 27. Beach Boulevard at A.M. 0.724 C 0.748 C 0.024 N - - Yorktown Avenue P.M. 0.871 ' D 0.893 D 0.022 N - - 28 Beach Boulevard at A.M. 0.766 C 0.784 C 0.018 N - - Garfield Avenue . P.M. 0.878 D 0.900 D 0.022 N - - Beach Boulevard at A.M. , 0.691 B 0.701 B 0.010 N - - 29. Ellis Avenue/Main P.M. 0.798 C 0.814 D 0.016 N - - Street 30. Beach Boulevard at A.M. 0.468 A 0.506 A 0.038 N - - Pacific View Avenue P.M. 0.669 B 0.696 B 0.027 N - - Bold VIC and LOS values indicate adverse service levels based on City LOS Standards .. SOURCE: Linscott,Law&Greenspan 2003a Future Year 2020 Without Proposed Project As shown in Table 3.14-15, without the proposed project-related traffic, one of the thirty key study intersections (Seapoint Avenue and PCH) would operate at adverse LOS E (V/C = 0.952) during the P.M. peak hour based on the SARCCS traffic model data. The remaining 29 intersections are forecast to operate at LOS D or better during the A.M. and P.M. peak hours. Future Year 2020. With Proposed Project When the proposed project-related traffic is added to' the future Year 2020 General Plan Buildout condition, the same intersection (Seapoint Avenue at PCH) would continue to operate at adverse LOS E during the P.M. peak hour. Although the addition of the proposed project traffic would increase the ICU at 3.14-54 City of Huntington Beach 3.14 Transportation/Traffic this intersection by 0.022, the ultimate level of service would remain the same as the Year 2020 background conditions. The remaining 29 intersections were forecasted to operate at LOS D or better during the A.M. and P.M. peak hours. These projected A.M. and P.M. peak hour traffic volumes for the Year 2020 are illustrated in Figures 3.14-12 and 3.14-13,respectively. In addition, the projected ADT volumes, which represent the Year '2020 conditions with the proposed project, are illustrated in Figure 3.14-14. Roadway Segment Analysis under Scenario No. 1 The Daily Level of Service results at the 27 key roadway segments analyzed for the Year 2020 General Plan Buildout condition under Scenario No. 1, without and with the proposed project-related traffic, are summarized in Table 3.14-16. Future Year 2020 Without Proposed Project As shown, without project traffic for the Year 2020 General Plan Buildout condition, six of the 27 roadway segments are expected to operate at adverse LOS D or worse. These 6 roadway segments with adverse service levels without project traffic include • PCH: Goldenwest Street to 6th Street(LOS D, V/C = 0.881) • PCH: 6th Street to First Street(LOS D, V/C = 0.881) ■ PCH: First Street to Huntington Street(LOS D, V/C = 0.867) • PCH: Newland Street to Magnolia Street(LOS F, V/C = 1.025) • PCH: Magnolia Street to Brookhurst Street(LOS F, V/C = 1.005) • Beach Boulevard: Garfield Avenue to Ellis/Main Avenue (LOS D, V/C= 0.828) - r The remaining 21 roadway segments are expected to operate at LOS C or better on a daily basis, without the proposed project traffic. Future Year 2020 With Proposed Project As shown in Table 3.14-16, when the proposed project traffic is added to the Year 2020 General Plan Buildout condition under Scenario No. 1, the same 6 study roadway segments would continue to operate at the same unsatisfactory LOS. In addition, 3 of the 6 roadway segments would also experience a V/C. increase greater than 0.030, while 1 roadway segment (PCH: First Street to Huntington Street) would experience a decrease in V/C upon addition of the proposed project traffic. However, based on the City's impact criteria for roadway links, none of the study roadway link has an adjacent study intersection with Pacific City EIR 3.14-55 Chapter 3 Environmental Impact Analysis adverse LOS with the addition of project traffic. The remaining 21 roadway links are expected to operate at LOS C or better on a daily basis, with the addition of project traffic. Table 3.14-16 Year 2020 General Plan.BuildoUt Roadway Link Capacity Analysis Summary w/Hamilton Ext.w/Walnut Alignment w/Santa Ana River Crossing General 2020 Without Project 2020 With Project Plan WC Daily WC WC Arterial Capacity Lanes Daily Volume Ratio LOS Volume Ratio LOS Increase PCH WamerAvenuetoSeapoint 91,200 6 50,200 0.550 A 51,985 0.570 A 0.020 Avenue PCH Seapoint Avenue to Goldenwest 91,200 6 45,900 0.503 A 47,685 0.523 A 0.020 Ave PCH 56,300 6 49,600 0.881 D 52,670 0.936 D 0.055 Goldenwest Street to 6th Street PCH 56,300 6 49,600 0.881 D 52,670 0.936 D 0.055 6th Street to First Street PCH 56,300 6, 48,800 0.867 D 47,310 0.840 D -0.026 First Street to Huntington Street PCH, 56,300 6 • 57,700 1.025 F 58,600 1.041 F 0.016 Newland Street to Magnolia Street PCH Magnolia Avenue to Brookhurst 56,300 6 56,600 1.005 F 57,248 1.017 F 0.012 Ave. Atlanta Avenue 37,500 4 12,000 0.320 . A 12,277 0.327 A 0.007 First Street to Huntington Street Atlanta Avenue. Huntington Street to Delaware 37,500 4 12,000 . 0.320 A 14,231 0.379 A 0.059 Street Huntington Street 12,500 2 2,700 0.216 A 2,777 0.222 A 0.006 Atlanta Avenue to Indianapolis Ave Huntington Street 18,000 2 2,400 0.133 A 4,436 0.246 A 0.1.13 Atlanta Avenue to Pacific View Ave Pacific View Avenue 37,500 4 2,100 0.056 A 8,212 0.219 A 0.163 East of Huntington Street Main Street 25,000 4 8,400 0.336 A 9,273 0.371 A 0.035 6th Street to Palm Avenue Main Street 25,000 4 12,000 0.480 A 12,873 0.515 A 0.035 Palm Avenue to Adams Avenue Lake Street 37,500 4 6,900 0.184 A 7,285 0.194 A 0.010 Indianapolis Ave to Adams Avenue Lake Street 37,500 4 8,500 0.227 A 8,885 0.237 A 0.010 Utica Avenue to Yorktown Avenue Indianapolis Avenue 25,000 4 7,700 0.308 B 7,895 0.316 A 0.008 Beach Blvd to Delaware Street Atlanta Avenue 37,500. 4 18,900 0.504 A 19,566 0.522 A 0.018 Beach Blvd to Newland Street 3.14-56 City of Huntington Beach 3.14 Transportatlon/Traffic Table 3.14-16 Year 2020 General Plan Buildout Roadway Link Capacity Analysis Summary w/Hamilton Ext.w/Walnut Alignment w/Santa Ana River Crossing General 2020 Without Project 2020 With Project Plan V/C Daily WC V/C Arterial Capacity Lanes Daily Volume Ratio LOS Volume Ratio LOS Increase Adams Avenue 37,500 4 29,400 0.784 C 29,985 0.800 C 0.016 Beach Blvd to Newland Street Newland Street 25,000 4 9,400 0.376 A 9,498 0.380 A 0.004 Indianapolis Ave to Atlanta Avenue Beach Boulevard 75,100 8 36,600 0.487 A 40,038 0.533 A 0.046 Indianapolis Ave to Adams Avenue Beach Boulevard 75,100 8 31,800 0.423 A 35,579 0.474 A 0.050 Indianapolis Ave to Atlanta Avenue Beach Boulevard 75,100 8 23,400 0.312 A 26,004 0.346 A 0.035 Atlanta Avenue to PCH Pacific View Avenue First Street to 37,500 4 1,447 0.039 A 8,488 0.226 A 0.188 Huntington Street First Street Atlanta Avenue to Pacific View Ave 37,500 4 5,000 0.133 A 6,648 0.177 A 0.044 Beach Boulevard Yorktown Avenue to Adams 75,100 8 48,500 0.646 B 51,633 0.688 B 0.042 Avenue Beach Boulevard 75,100 8 62,200 0.828 D 64,846 0.863 D 0.035 Garfield Avenue to Ellis/Main Street Bold V/C and LOS values indicate adverse service levels based on City and/or CMP LOS Standards SOURCE: Linscott,Law&Greenspan 2003a Year 2020 Pacific View Avenue Traffic Conditions The recommended buildout cross-section for the future section of Pacific View Avenue, located between 1st and Huntington Streets adjacent to the proposed project site, was determined by calculating the Year 2020 General Plan Buildout daily traffic volume forecasts with the proposed project-related traffic for the four (4)roadway network scenarios described above. The results are listed as follows: • Scenario No. 1: 10,978 VPD • Scenario No. 2: 8,488 VPD ; • Scenario No. 3: 8,064 VPD • Scenario No. 4: 8,064 VPD The buildout traffic volumes were forecast based on related project daily traffic, proposed project-related daily traffic, and ambient growth at 1 percent per year applied to the Year 2008 daily forecast as well as reference to the SARCCS traffic model data for each scenario. In addition, it was assumed that 5 percent of the Year 2020 General Plan Buildout daily traffic on PCH at First Street will relocate to Pacific View Pacific City EIR 3.14-57 Chapter 3 Environmental Impact Analysis Avenue with the completion of the current General Plan Circulation Element network (Scenario No. 1) based on the relation between the daily forecast traffic on Pacific View Avenue and PCH without project traffic. Scenario No. 2 assumed no additional relocated traffic because of the discontinuity along Pacific View Avenue as a result of the lack of the Walnut Avenue connection. Scenario No. 3 and Scenario No. 4 assumed 5 percent less traffic than Scenario No. 2, based on the relation of the modeled daily forecast traffic on Pacific View Avenue, with project traffic, between Scenario Nos. 3/4 and Scenario No. 2, which is approximately 5 percent(1,900 vs. 2000). As a result, based on the forecast Year 2020 General Plan Buildout daily traffic volumes for each of the four scenarios, Pacific View Avenue is expected to operate at LOS B or better as a two-lane divided roadway between 1st and Huntington Streets. Identification of Project Impacts • Impact TR-1 Under Year 2008 conditions, implementation of the proposed project would significantly affect the operating conditions of the intersection of PCH at Warner Avenue by increasing traffic volume. City Criteria The Year 2008 peak hour intersection capacity analysis performed using the City criteria, as summarized in Table 3.14-12, shows that the intersection of PCH at Warner Avenue would operate at LOS E and LOS F during the A.M. and P.M. peak hour, respectively. These levels are beyond the acceptable maximum level of service. Table 3.14-12 shows that this intersection would still operate at the same unsatisfactory levels of service during the A.M. and P.M. peak hours without addition of proposed project traffic. An analysis of Year 2008 background conditions, which consist of ambient traffic and cumulative projects traffic, indicates that the forecast increase in background traffic alone would result in LOS E and LOS F during the A.M. and P.M. peak hour at the intersection of PCH and Warner Avenue. The addition of the proposed project traffic would result in an increase in the ICU at this intersection of 0.015 in the A.M. peak hour and 0.022 in the P.M. peak hour and further worsen intersection operations. Therefore, under City criteria, impacts at this intersection would be potentially significant. 3.14-58 City of Huntington Beach ✓' �`�.. !fir° cA �, -- , / i 4"*.c,- ' I— --- kiix.• _.., ....\.,s, 17 ` - 1 )1'11.. ( It, .0‘ / ...••••• 4.) 4- \\:P.2..\\ :-,;:iz,\‘‘. 1 e i ,,,,,,4) <ft, , ,,... q,_ ,„, 0, 0 ,z, , , 41/4' .: :, dry / ) p 0" t. it". V 4>s 'S/"."\)./KStr. ‘ ) %) ds T2' I — — 9..--- ,,,,,, %%4 i „0, „.. ,,r, ,..„ \ 4 \ t ORANGE ,,,,,, (' , .A,. < '.= A _rn. ...., , <,,,, ,,,,,,., ,... , ,,, . i f i i,,..& , ,...1... ‘ H,,,e 4,.... 0 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111.1 --1-7E/ .., 188 `� �A . .....„ / -,(..,-- PA tIr9 Vit , r s 122 .�._ 660 7 - ,''." .`` ✓ '' ✓ - .. , .✓ -' r Z '`N. 23332..-. \ 31 - 32 a,+et,�' _ //' ,/m t,'t.. ; ,-f cr., - Nt ..... 1335 l 1;; _. it c - L. \ t 7 c5`nl �`'1!9£1 ` f M -- 131 �� }`" f ..- 2583 / .� _.,7 ems-- 4 i 2 - . I k 1 ` . / SITE \,` e' 1 / \0-r f \ 1 �' s \ 1,3--,,, i PENDING FUTURE ANALYSIS FIGURE 3.14-12 Not to Scale 0 --E-I•P,......__ 2020 General Plan Buildout AM Peak Hour Volumes with Project Traffic SOURCE:Linscott Law&Greenspan 2003a 10261-00 "s.5°``'` £s City of Huntington Beach•Pacific City EIR • ,44, /° o 'Sir, 0 I.} 1... vs Apt '1 . ‘"")) z �� ( O L ,^ l s A ....." • GI' \ 112 may„ ..,. r C</(1/4 — ,\;) I % `ye��, t` _�`A . •.,( NN. ~°' "ma x ,, fix, �'do 4 � / �� ..� 1:///"S t ` rr '.a �Y -w,s2 . 3\ ' "' �@ V. 1ORANGE At ,,i>, t `�'al' , r, sur ti"70 \,die ,. 4Th /° ,✓ 1 )..'" 'NAr'�.> �''�' f 6_ tr- . "`-- ram, k` ., T. 1 it a AV ill It co 0 csj , 162--, •- `2,/ / - - — 1656 unimmi r,k, . r 2.1 ..ii 1 (,,— 0 eteg 275 N Yak ., ; k. 27fr5 a s "`d eoAsT ) 10 F Ilk, ik �s r •°,044; �� GIs-- -' .-- -� �'�° „' s"-.``` �'" "\ 11 :•...,,: . �# #�-‘ 4�''a` ' /Ric V --- 427 ¢ ..off „— 1 / '�• r'37 , c,, r. 1 w °a-#ad. ***/ ,..„.. s•..2 ! ,- ism° i - J i j �`.'2551 1 \ 28 ---- f I i .3 } �'31.3 1 , ' 1 I J d — ass 1 . ` ' k 32 \ / t 1 /' 1a 177 l 1 a SITE 1632 / N ,,.A 2^315-- ......� ''' Imo— Ilk / 157 +. 292�•- n t * PENDING FUTURE FIGURE 3.14-13 Not to Scale iii!) EI P___ 2020 General Plan Buildout PM Peak Hour Volumes with Project Traffic SOURCE:Linscott Law&Greenspan 2003a 10261-00 A 5 City HuntingtonCity of Beach•Pacific EIR I f \ \ t \ \ \.; ..p \ 7 Aa , .� \ El 1 G �,y1 s q,x, R H ` yi \..\'7' �+ ��A - TS A e Z \\44: 4 . ,.0 ,-,:c ,„, 0\7 • �24 '04 �' PALM AV \ d `� i sANGE mmin_ M ',0,4 4L 7°••', . I E (3/ i ."tR11E r4111 r rEiEV ! r\ilir r!0.@7 1,97"-- ___ PACIFIC VIEW__---_ II ' 8COAST 8,212 8.800 67,248 52,870 x 47,810 a k' PROJECT T SITE * PENDING FUTURE ANALYSIS FIGURE 3.14-14 Not to Scale -SIP . 2020 General Plan Buildout Average Daily Traffic Volumes with Project Traffic , . SOURCE:Linscott Law&Greenspan 2003a 10261-00 A SIC, ' `E SCity HuntingtonCity of Beach•Pacific EIR 3.14 Transportation/Traffic Caltrans Methodology Under the State of California (Caltrans) Methodology, the Year 2008 peak hour intersection capacity analysis, as summarized in Table 3.14-13, shows that the intersection of PCH at Warner Avenue would operate at LOS F during both A.M. and P.M. peak hours, which is an unsatisfactory LOS. Table 3.14-13 shows that this intersection would still operate at the same LOS during the A.M. and P.M. peak hours without addition of proposed project traffic. The Year 2008 background conditions indicate that the forecast increase in background traffic alone would result in the same unsatisfactory LOS at the intersection of PCH and Warner Avenue. The addition of the proposed project traffic would increase the HCM at this intersection and further worsen intersection operations. Therefore, under Caltrans methodology, impacts at this intersection would be potentially significant. Impact TR-2 Under Year 2008 conditions,implementation of the proposed project would significantly affect the operating conditions of the intersection of PCH at Seapoint Avenue by increasing traffic volume tinder Caltrans Methodology. Under the State of California (Caltrans) Methodology, the Year 2008 peak hour intersection capacity analysis, as summarized in Table 3.14-13, shows that the intersection of PCH at Seapoint Avenue would operate at LOS E during P.M. peak hour with the proposed project traffic, which is an unsatisfactory LOS. Table 3.14-13 shows that this intersection would still operate at the same LOS during the A.M. and P.M. peak hours without addition of proposed project traffic. The Year 2008 background conditions indicate that the forecast increase in background traffic alone would result in 'the same unsatisfactory LOS at the intersection of PCH and Seapoint Avenue. The addition of the proposed project traffic would increase the HCM at this intersection and further worsen intersection operations. Therefore, under 'Caltrans methodology, impacts at this intersection would be potentially significant. Impact TR-3 Under Year 2008 conditions,implementation of the proposed project would not significantly adversely affect the operating conditions of roadway segments by increasing traffic volume. Analysis of the Year 2008 roadway segment capacities at the 25 study roadway segments, which is _ f summarized in Table 3.14-14, shows that unsatisfactory LOS would be expected to occur at the following seven roadway segments due to background traffic conditions: 3 • PCH: Goldenwest Street to 6th Street(v/c = 1.139, LOS F) • PCH: Huntington Street to Beach Boulevard(v/c = 1.160, LOS F) • PCH: Beach Boulevard to Newland Street(v/c = 0.828, LOS D) Pacific City EIR- 3.14-65 Chapter 3 Environmental Impact Analysis • PCH: Magnolia Street to Brookhurst Street(v/c = 0.826, LOS D) • Beach Boulevard: Adams Avenue to Yorktown Avenue (v/c = 0.821, LOS D) • Beach Boulevard: Garfield Avenue to Main Street(v/c = 0.905, LOS E) • Atlanta Avenue: First Street to Huntington Street(v/c = 0.825, LOS D) As shown in Table 3.14-14, aside from the Atlanta Avenue segment between First Street and Huntington Street, the other 6 study roadway segments identified above would continue to operate at the same adverse LOS with the addition of the proposed project traffic when compared to the City criteria, and each of these 6 study segments would also experience .a V/C increase greater than 0.030. None of the study roadway segments, however, has an adjacent study intersection(s) with adverse LOS with the addition of project traffic. Therefore, impacts on these roadway segments would be less than significant. Impact TR-4 Under the Year 2020 conditions with scenario No. 1 (with the Hamilton Avenue Extension, Walnut Avenue Alignment, and Santa Ana River Crossings), the proposed project would adversely affect the operating conditions of the intersection of PCH at Seapoint Avenue by increasing traffic volume. The Year 2020 General Plan Buildout Peak Hour Intersection Capacity Analysis under scenario No. 1 (with the Hamilton Avenue Extension, Walnut Avenue Alignment, and Santa Ana River Crossings) at the 30 key intersections without and with the proposed project traffic is summarized in Table 3.14-15. As shown, the - following key study intersection would operate at LOS E under 2020 General Plan Buildout Conditions, while the remaining 29 key study intersections are forecast to operate at LOS D or better during the A.M. and P.M. peak hours: • Seapoint Avenue at PCH (LOS E during P.M. peak hour) The addition of the proposed project traffic would increase the ICU at this intersection by 0.022, and further worsen intersection operations. Therefore, impacts at this intersection would be potentially significant. Impact TR-5 Under the Year 2020 conditions with scenario No. 1 (with the Hamilton Avenue Extension, Walnut Avenue Alignment, and Santa Ana River Crossings), the proposed project would not adversely affect the operating conditions of roadway segments by increasing traffic volume. The Year 2020 General Plan Buildout Daily Roadway Link Capacity Analysis under Scenario No. 1 at the 27 study roadway segments without and with the proposed project traffic are summarized in Table 3.14-16. As 3.14-66 City of Huntington Beach 3.14 Transportation/Traffic shown, the following, 6 roadway segments would operate at unsatisfactory LOS without the proposed project traffic: • PCH: Goldenwest Street to 6th Street(v/c = 0.881, LOS D) • PCH: 6th Street to First Street(v/c = 0.881, LOS D) • PCH: First Street to Huntington Street(v/c = 0.867, LOS-D) � I ■ PCH: Newland Street to Magnolia Street(v/c = 1.025, LOS F) • PCH: Magnolia Avenue to Brookhurst Avenue (v/c = 1.005, LOS F) • Beach Boulevard: Garfield Avenue to Ellis/Main Street(v/c = 0.828, LOS D) When the proposed project traffic is added to the Year 2020 General Plan Buildout analysis under Scenario No. 1, the ultimate LOS at these 6 intersections would still remain the same as compared to the Year 2020 background conditions, although the V/C ratio would increase, and further worsen roadway operations. As shown in Table 3.14-14, the 6 study roadway segments identified above would continue to operate at the same adverse LOS with the addition of the proposed project traffic when compared to the City criteria; 3 of the study segments would also experience a V/C increase greater than 0.030 (PCH—Goldenwest Street to 6th Street; PCH-6th Street to First Street; Beach Boulevard—Garfield Avenue to Ellis/Main Street). None of the study roadway segments, however, has an adjacent study intersection(s) with adverse LOS with rl the addition of project traffic. Therefore, impacts on these roadway segments would be less than significant. Impact TR-6 Project-generated traffic would require the addition of traffic signals. A traffic signal is proposed at Huntington Street and Atlanta Avenue. In order to determine whether any of the other key unsignalized study intersections warrant signalization under existing, background, or background plus project traffic conditions, signal warrant analyses were conducted at the following key unsignalized study intersections: • First Street at Atlanta Avenue (All-Way Stop) • Huntington Street at Pacific View Avenue (One-Way Stop/existing&Two-Way Stops/future) • Pacific View Avenue at First Street(One-Way/future Stop) The detailed warrant analysis worksheets for the analyzed locations are included in Appendix F of the Traffic Impact Analysis Report. The signal warrant analyses were based on criteria presented in the Caltrans Traffic Manual, Chapter 9: Traffic Signals and Lighting. Using the existing hourly and peak hour data collected at these intersections and using future with project peak hour and daily traffic volumes, signal warrant analyses Pacific City EIR 3.14.67 Chapter 3 Environmental Impact Analysis were conducted using the peak hour volume warrant and planning warrant (Caltrans Figure 9.4) at the 3 unsignalized intersections. Based on an analysis of the applicable warrants, Year 2008 conditions without and with proposed project traffic indicated that none of the 3 key unsignalized study intersections satisfy the peak hour traffic signal warrant. In addition, using the planning warrant and Year 2008 and Year 2020 daily traffic at the Huntington Street/Pacific View Avenue intersection, the signal warrant was not satisfied. However, using the planning warrant, the intersection of First Street and Atlanta Avenue satisfied the traffic signal warrant. This intersection would require a traffic signal due to existing traffic with the addition of ambient growth. The proposed project would add to the need for a traffic signal at this location. In the absence of a traffic signal at this location, impacts would be potentially significant. Impact TR-7 Implementation of the proposed project would not adversely affect the operating conditions of nearby facilities or streets that are part of the Congestion Management Program Highway System(CMPHS). As shown in Table 3.14-10,,the proposed project is projected to generate approximately 12,002 daily trip- ends, which meets the criteria requiring a CMP traffic impact analysis. The CMP highway system arterial facilities and CMP arterials closest to the proposed project site consist of Beach Boulevard, PCH, and Warner Avenue. The CMP arterial monitoring locations/intersections nearest to the project site include Warner Avenue at PCH, Beach Boulevard at PCH, and Beach Boulevard at Adams Avenue. Based on project trip generation estimates and trip distribution patterns, the amount of project traffic using these CMP facilities indicates that only 1 of the 3 CMP intersections would exceed the 3 percent threshold established by the CMP. The intersection of Beach Boulevard at PCH is expected to have a 4.5 percent increase. However, projected intersection operations at this intersection would be within acceptable LOS (LOS A in the A.M. peak hour and LOS D in the P.M. peak hour in 2008 under City criteria, and LOS C in the A.M. and P.M. peak hour in 2020). Therefore, impacts to the CMPHS would be less than significant. Impact TR-8 The proposed project would provide adequate parking. The parking conditions associated with the proposed project consist of off-site parking supply and demand adjacent to the project site, and on-site parking supply and demand provided within subterranean parking structures below both the retail/restaurant/office/hotel and residential developments. Off-Site Parking As presented in Figure 3.14-5, there are currently,102 parking spaces (98 metered spaces and 100 feet of unrestricted parking, or approximately 4 spaces) on both sides of First Street, Atlanta Avenue, and PCH 3.14-68 City of Huntington Beach . 3.14 Transportation/Traffic adjacent to the project site. Out of the 102 parking spaces, 69 parking spaces abut the project site (referred to in this discussion as the "off-site parking spaces"). The remaining 33 parking spaces surrounding the j project site would not be reconfigured as a result of project implementation, and thus, are not included as part of this discussion. Figure 3.14-15 indicates the proposed number of off-site parking spaces that would be provided upon implementation of the proposed project. Table 3.14-17 identifies the number of off-site parking spaces provided in the long-term as a result of the proposed project. A total of 27 spaces would be removed along PCH, 22 spaces would be removed along First Street, and four spaces would be removed along Atlanta Avenue, for a total loss of 53 spaces. However, as shown in the table, additional parking spaces would be provided in the subterranean garage to account for this loss. Table 3.14-17 Long-Term Parking Plan for Existing Off-Site Parking Spaces • Street Existing Spaces Post-Project First Street 38 16 it Atlanta Avenue 4 01 • Pacific Coast Highway 27 0 Huntington Street 0 0 Subtotal 69 16 Replacement Spaces in,Garage N/A 532 Total 69 69 1. Atlanta Avenue would have an additional 22,spaces located on the south side west of Huntington Street in the short-term. However, in the long-term when Atlanta Avenue is fully improved pursuant to the General.Plan Circulation,Element,there would be no parking that abuts the project site on Atlanta Avenue. 2. Approximately 53 off-site parking spaces would be eliminated from the project perimeter frontage and would be relocated to within the subterranean parking garage. SOURCE: Hunsaker&Associates.Pacific City Tentative Tract No.16338.July 2,2003. - • 1 Off-site parking after,project implementation would only be provided on Atlanta Avenue and First Street. In the short-term, a total of approximately 38 parking spaces would be provided on these two streets. This would include 16 parking spaces on the east side of First Street. The project would also add 18 spaces on the south side of Atlanta Avenue west of Huntington Street for a total of 22 parking spaces. These parking spaces on the south side of Atlanta Avenue would eventually be removed when Atlanta Avenue is fully improved between Huntington Street and Beach Boulevard. Thus, the only long-term, off-site parking would be on First Street, where 16 parking spaces would remain. No parking spaces would be provided on either side of Huntington Street (consistent with existing conditions) or PCH under the proposed project, thus, eliminating the existing 27 metered parking spaces . Pacific City EIR , , 3.14-69 --------------"'--------:_Q Q m Q J Q ATLANTA AVE. . : • -------Th 1-4-- 100 FEET —00-1 (approx.4 spaces) 22 SPACES 0 U a 41 1 W U '•� 19 SPAC co coES U co Z 0 cc Co 0 16A J Z PqC 18 6 spgCFs 1 = /FjC) . SPACFSF S V/ W sP CGS AVE Q ------) PAC/F/C COAST , N/G 16 SPq HvvAy IFS 17---------------- ._ FIGURE 3.14-15 Note Scale ..... L.I-. -.... Proposed Street Parking A,so c3AT1!i SOURCE:EIP Associates 2003 10261-00 City of Huntington Beach•Pacific City EIR 3.14 Transportation/Traffic ; along the north side of PCH. The existing parking spaces currently abutting the site, as shown in Figure 3.14-5, that are removed as a result of the proposed project would be replaced with on-site parking within the parking structure. On-site street parking would include approximately 55 parking spaces on Pacific View Avenue (16 spaces on the north side and 39 spaces on the south side) and 19 parking spaces on the internal loop road. This is in addition to all required on-site parking that would be provided in the subterranean garages. Shared Parking Analysis The parking demand for the proposed project was calculated by using the shared parking criteria established by the Urban Land Institute (ULI) (Linscott Law_.& Greenspan Engineers 2003b). The basis for using this shared parking .criteria stems from accumulated experience in parking demand..characteristics, which indicates that a mixing of land uses (as proposed under the proposed project) results in an overall parking need that is less than the sum of the individual peak requirements for each land use. Shared Parking calculations recognize that different uses often experience individual peak parking demands at different times of day, or days of the week. When uses share a common parking footprint, the total number of spaces needed to support the collective whole is determined by adding parking profiles (by time of day or day of week), rather than individual peak ratios as represented in the City of Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (Chapter 231—Off-Street Parking and Loading Provisions). The shared parking methodology applicable to the proposed.project because the individual land uses i e. retail, restaurant, isPP � P P P j (�• hotel and office uses) experience peak demands at different times of the day. To account for parking demand interaction with the beach, adjacent resort hotels, surrounding residential neighborhoods, and Downtown parking supply, consistent with the traffic study for the proposed project and information provided in ULI's Shared Parking, which indicates non-auto use ranging from 10 percent to as much as 57 percent, a parking demand reduction was applied to the traffic generation forecast. The following assumptions were utilized in calculating shared parking projections: i • 20 percent City parking code reduction for restaurants to account for parking demand interaction with the 'beach, adjacent resort hotels, surrounding residential neighborhoods, and Downtown parking supply . • 15 percent City parking code reduction for retail to account for parking demand interaction with the beach, adjacent resort hotels, surrounding residential neighborhoods, and Downtown parking supply • 5 percent City parking code reduction for office to account for parking demand interaction with the surrounding residential neighborhoods, and Downtown parking supply it Pacific City EIR 3.14-71 Chapter 3 Environmental impact Analysis • 25 percent non-guest use for hotel signature restaurant • 10 percent non-guest use for hotel spa on weekdays,and 25 percent non-guest use for Hotel Spa on weekends - • 85 percent non-guest use for hotel conference/meeting/banquet rooms on weekdays • 75 percent non-guest use for hotel ballroom/banquet rooms on weekends The Shared Parking Analysis concludes that the peak parking demand for the proposed project during a weekday totals 1,482 parking spaces and occurs at 1:00 P.M. The peak parking requirement for the proposed project during a weekend totals 1,347 parking spaces and also occurs at 1:00 P.M. As a result, with the addition of 53 spaces to be relocated on-site due to loss of off-street spaces, the total parking demand for the visitor-serving component of,the proposed project is 1,535 parking spaces. Thus, with a proposed on-site parking supply of 1,543 parking spaces, a theoretical parking surplus of eight spaces is forecasted at peak demand times. At times other than peak parking demand times, the excess number spaces would be greater than eight spaces. As a result, based on the shared parking demand analysis and with the addition of spaces to be relocated on- site, the total parking demand for the visitor-serving commercial component of the proposed project would be adequately served by the proposed parking supply. The residential parking demand would be based on City code and would, therefore, provide adequate parking within the residential site. The provision of adequate parking on site would ensure that the project would not result in parking demands at off-site locations, and impacts on parking would be less than significant. Impact TR-9 The proposed project would provide adequate vehicular access driveways and would not result in inadequate emergency access. The proposed project site would consist of a.total of ten customer/service access driveways, as illustrated in Figure 3.14-16. The location of these access driveways and their description are as follows: • First Street—Two driveways: > Driveway#9—One right-in/right out for the residential use. > Driveway#1—One right-in/right-out service access for the retail/commercial use. • Huntington Street—Three driveways: > Driveway#8—Full-movement for the residential use. > Driveway#7—Full-movement for the residential use. > Driveway#4—One right-in/right-out service/employee access for the hotel use. 3.1472 City of Huntington Beach - I ./1/)\-/''(\\\ 14, 4 /t4 • `� • r s HOME 4'-ct„ • / l 1 4 PARK ' f ) 40 Ti ♦ i J • 'fit kJ 'S cow €; „ ♦ e r �." .1. r... 1 .7. N (- ♦ :I. w• a IrF '1°'1.10....., '''' ‘itwit . . vt. • era ..• 1 � 04Z,,,,,,p • .... 11 MIMI 1 ,.) A 41:16.r1r :111011 Wir ,.. MMIIIIt ►fir ' i V",111 ' '' * ..op,„,,,,..., ,,,,,,,.._.. ik • .......• . ` _ __._....._ � ,, I,, , r 0 ►s+xe art.*.a tasirs...„feat w ii �p'4,015,1iimmee ...,..,..,,, .°"A. • `� !fir p .......... 1 ___________-- , -0,-,,,,, _ •400 ir- ielio ....4, ,, ... . ............_ v... , ,,,,_ ......_............__., ,••• -f9' ,....„-_-___,---- ...... Cgh9T H9GSsAY . ,,c,,,,c _....,.......„..........__ —... ,.., , —...._—_--.--- FIGURE 3.14-16 Not to Scale .,........-.EIp._- Proposed Site Plan SOURCE:Linscott Law&Greenspan 2003a 10261-00 City 9City ^ s^,:r^,�t.� of Huntington Beath•Pacific EIR Chapter 3 Environmental impact Analysis • Pacific View Avenue—Five driveways: > Driveway#2—Full-movement for the retail/restaurant/office uses > Driveway#3—Full-movement for the retail/restaurant/office and hotel uses. > Driveway#5—Full-movement for the residential use. > Driveway #6—Full-movement for the residential use. > Driveway#10—One right-in/right-out service access for the retail/restaurant uses. All-way stop-control access would be provided along Pacific View Avenue at driveway access #2/#5 and #3/#6. The easterly access on Pacific View Avenue,would be designed as the main retail/commercial/hotel project access with a valet parking zone proposed on site. Intersection capacity analyses conducted at the two proposed all-way stop access locations along Pacific View Avenue, using Year 2008 A.M. and P.M. peak hour project buildout traffic volumes, determined that Driveway access #2/#5 would operate with an intersection stop delay of 7.86 seconds/vehicle (LOS A) and 8.78 seconds/vehicle (LOS A) during the A.M. and P.M. peak hours, respectively, while Driveway access #3/#6 would operate with an intersection stop delay of 8.74 seconds/vehicle (LOS A) and 10.58 seconds/vehicle (LOS B) during the A.M. and P.M. peak hours,respectively. Based on the forecast traffic volumes and the capacity analyses at each of the ten project access driveways, the design features shown in Table 3.14-18 are.proposed to ensure adequate operating characteristics of the project accesses. As shown in Table 3.14-18, Driveways #1, #4, and #10 would provide service access for the commercial component of the proposed project, while Driveways #2 and #3 would provide customer access to the commercial component. Thus, customers accessing the commercial component of the project site would not experience traffic congestion due to loading activities at the loading docks for the commercial uses at the project site. The five access driveways proposed for the residential development would be gate controlled, with the three driveways on First Street, Huntington Street, and the westerly driveway on Pacific View Avenue for residents only, and the easterly driveway for residents and visitors. In addition, the two access drives along Pacific View Avenue into the parking structure for the Retail/Restaurant/Office and Hotel uses would be gate controlled with a ticket dispenser. By using the Crommelin Methodology, which determines the minimum storage reservoir required to provide adequate access and control for major parking facilities, the required storage reservoir at each of the seven gated entries (five residential and two retail/restaurant/office/hotel access driveways) was 3.14-74 City of Huntington Beach 3.14 Transportation/Traffic determined. This ensures that adequate storage capacities would be provided to ensure adequate levels of service of operating characteristics in and around the facility. Each of the five residential access driveways and two retail/restaurant/office/hotel access driveways would have a maximum expected queue of two vehicles, with a storage reservoir length of 44- feet between the gate and back of sidewalk. However, the visitor access driveway on Driveway #6 would require a storage reservoir length of 66 feet between the manned guard house and the back of the sidewalk. Driveway #6 would accommodate both residents and visitors with separate drive aisles for each, and could accommodate three vehicles between the manned guardhouse and the back of the sidewalk. A separate drive aisle would be provided for residents to by-pass visitors queuing at the manned guardhouse: Based on the results of this analysis, adequate driveway and queuing access for the proposed project would be provided, and impacts associated with vehicular access to the project site would be less than significant. Table 3.14-18 Project Access Driveways Driveway No. Access Design Features Service access for Retail/Restaurant uses Right-turn in/right-turn out only with one inbound and one outbound lane 2 Customer access for Full-movement with all-way stop control with one inbound and two outbound lanes Retail/Restaurant/Office uses (left turn and right turn);westbound left turn pocket recommended minimum length of 100 feet on Pacific View Avenue 3 Customer access for Full-movement with all-way stop control;one inbound and two outbound lanes(left Retail/Restaurant/Office and Hotel uses turn and right turn);westbound left turn pocket recommended minimum length of 200 feet on Pacific View Avenue. 4 Service and secondary employee access Right-turn in/right-turn out only;one inbound and one outbound lane. for Hotel use 5 Resident-only access for Residential use Full-movement with all-way stop control;one inbound and one outbound lane; eastbound left turn pocket recommended length of 100 feet on Pacific View Avenue. 6 Resident and visitor access for Full-movement with all-way stop control;two inbound and two outbound lanes(left Residential use tum and right turn);eastbound left turn pocket recommended minimum length of 100 feet on Pacific View Avenue. 7 Resident-only access for Residential use Full-movement with outbound stop control;one inbound and one outbound lane with 44-foot storage reservoir at gate;northbound left turn pocket recommended minimum length of 100 feet on Huntington Street. 8 Resident-only access for Residential use Full-movement with outbound stop control;one inbound and one outbound lane with 44-foot storage reservoir at gate;northbound left turn pocket recommended minimum length of 100 feet on Huntington Street. 9 Resident-only access for Residential use Right-turn in/right-turn out with outbound stop control;one inbound and one outbound lane with 44-foot storage reservoir at gate. 10 Service access for Retail/Restaurant uses Right-turn in/right-turn out only with one inbound and one outbound lane. Impact TR-10 The project would not substantially increase roadway hazards. For the purposes of this analysis, roadway hazards are defined as changes to circulation patterns that could result in unsafe driving conditions. Examples include inadequate vision or stopping distance at Pacific City EIR 3.14-75 Chapter 3 Environmental Impact Analysis ingress/egress points, sharp roadway curves where there is an inability to see oncoming traffic, or - vehicular/pedestrian traffic conflicts. The traffic analysis performed for the proposed project did not identify any roadway hazards. The proposed extension of Pacific View Avenue would be constructed in accordance with the Precise Plan of Street Alignment 88-1. The street would be a two-lane roadway with parking on the south side of the street. Although no sharp curves would be associated with the roadway, the vertical contours of this roadway could present hazards and thus would require design consideration to meet design criteria. The project proposes adherence to the minimum design speed standards and the incorporation of appropriate traffic control P devices in order to ensure no elevated risks associated with operations of this roadway. Street dimensions would also be constructed in accordance with City standards to permit the safe travel of vehicles on streets. Sidewalks would be provided on the north and south side of Pacific View Avenue, and pedestrian pathways on site would ensure separation of vehicular and pedestrian traffic. Parking ramps would be constructed as access points into the subterranean garages for the commercial and residential portions of the proposed project at a grade of 10 percent and 15 percent, respectively. All commercial garage ramps would be designed to the City standard of 10 percent grade. A special permit would be required to allow three of the seven parking garage ramps to the residential uses to exceed the City standard of 10 percent. Ramps designed at 15 percent grade have an approximately 50 percent steeper incline than ramps constructed at 10 percent grade. This steeper incline allows traffic to move faster from one level to the next. Fifteen percent ramps are commonly used in similar residential projects in the region, because these ramps require less ground surface area and, therefore, they are less obtrusive to the architectural design of the building and allow for more open space. The ramps at 15 percent grade would be designed with a three-tiered transition, which would alleviate the steep incline of the ramp by allowing small plateaus to separate what would otherwise be a continuous steep incline. Impacts on roadway hazards would be less than significant. Impact TR-11 The project would not conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g.,bus turnouts,bicycle racks). As discussed above, project implementation is anticipated to be consistent with local policies related to transportation, including the SCAG Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide and the City of Huntington Beach General Plan Land Use and Transportation Elements. The project proposes an Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA)bus turnout on the north side of PCH, west of Huntington Street. Aside from the proposed bus turnout, a bike lane on PCH would be provided. 3.14-76 City of Huntington Beach 3.14 Transportation/Traffic In addition,based on a Huntington Beach Transportation Center Location Study, conducted in January 1980 by the Orange County Transit District, City of Huntington Beach, and PBQ&D, Inc., the following two sites were identified for detailed analysis in terms of being transportation centers: • Goldenwest College/Huntington Center Area • PCH/Lake Street Area10 The Goldenwest College/Huntington Center Area was developed with a transportation center along Gothard Street and provides bus layovers and transfers for the Orange County Transportation Authority { (OCTA) as well as other transportation center facilities. The PCH and Lake Street Area has not been developed as a transportation center,but a 560-foot bus turnout has been installed along the south side of PCH between First Street and Huntington Street, which provide bus layovers and boarding for OCTA. Based on discussions with City Transportation staff regarding the potential for locating a transportation center in the PCH/Lake Street Area, it was determined that the existing bus turnout along the south side of PCH could be upgraded to accommodate additional transportation facilities, which would maximize consistency with City policies. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. 3.14.5 Cumulative Impacts :-' The cumulative analysis considers cumulative projects identified to occur within the vicinity of the project site, in addition to General Plan buildout conditions identified to year 2020. The project-specific traffic analysis considers trips generated by cumulative projects in its development of future baseline conditions. Therefore, the cumulative impact analysis is incorporated into the Year 2008 and 2020 analyses presented in Section 3.14.4. As identified above, impacts would be cumulatively considerable at selected intersections. 3.14.6 Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts The following standard City requirements (CR)would apply to the project. CR TR-A During grading and construction, on-site parking shall be provided for all construction workers and equipment unless approved otherwise by the Public Works Department. CR TR-B During grading and construction, the property owner is responsible for all required clean up of off-site dirt, pavement damage and/or restriping of the public rights-of- way as determined by the Public Works Department. 10 The General Plan identifies this location as a potential site for a transportation center.The Downtown Specific Plan identifies the transportation center as a permitted use at this location. Pacific City EIR 3.14-77 Chapter 3 Environmental Impact Analysis CR TR-C A Transportation Demand Management Plan shall be submitted for review and approval prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy. CR TR-D A traffic control plan for all work within the City right-of-way and Caltrans right-of- __ way shall be submitted to the Public Works department for review and approval prior to issuance of a grading permit. The City's plans shall be prepared according to the Traffic Control Plan Preparation Guidelines. Plans for Pacific Coast Highway shall be per Caltrans requirements and subject to their review and approval. CR TR-E 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 prior to issuance of a grading permit. CR TR-F Traffic impact fees shall be paid at the rate calculated at the time of payment. The fee shall be based on the trip generation for the actual building square footage, units or rooms as applicable using methodology approved as part of the project traffic impact study. In addition to the standard City requirements listed above, mitigation measures (MM) would be required to address project impacts. The following mitigation measures would be required to address impacts to intersection operations, as described above under Impact TR-1, Impact TR-2, and Impact TR-4. MM TR-1 The Applicant shall contribute a fair share contribution of 22 percent11 to the installation of a third northbound through lane on PCH consistent with the Orange County MPAH and Caltrans'Route Concept Study for PCH. The County of Orange and Caltrans would complete this improvement. The Applicant's fair share contribution shall be paid prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. MM TR-2 A second westbound right turn lane shall be added on Sea point Avenue. The City shall ,_ ensure completion of this improvement, and the Applicant shall contribute a fair share contribution of 26 percent'2 to this improvement. The Applicant's fair share contribution shall be paid prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy.. Implementation of MM TR-1 would improve the Year 2008 level of service at the PCH and Warner Avenue intersection, under the City criteria, from LOS E and LOS F during the A.M. and P.M. peak hours, "Fair share calculation is provided in Appendix H,Traffic Impact Analysis Report. 12 Ibid. 3.14-78 City of Huntington Beach 3.14 Transportation/Traffic respectively, to LOS C and LOS D. Under the State of California Methodology, this mitigation measure would improve the Year 2008 level of service at the PCH and Warner intersection from LOS F during both the A.M. and P.M. peak hours to LOS D. This intersection improvement is currently under study by the County of Orange. Feasibility of implementing this improvement has not been determined at this time. In addition, the ultimate implementation of this measure is not under the discretion of the City of Huntington Beach. Under the State of California Methodology, MM TR-2 would improve the Year 2008 level of service at the PCH and Seapoint Avenue intersection from LOS E during the P.M. peak hour to LOS D, while the recommended intersection improvement under MM TR-2 would also serve to offset the impact of the proposed project traffic during Year 2020 at the intersection of PCH and Seapoint Avenue during the P.M. peak hour. Although implementation of MM TR-2 would improve the Year 2008 level of service at this intersection to an acceptable level, it would only reduce the ICU at this intersection by 0.045 during Year 2020. As such, this intersection would still remain at LOS E in Year 2020 upon implementation of MM TR-2. However, the resulting ICU after implementation of MM TR-2 would be reduced below that of the Year 2020 baseline conditions, and intersection operations would be within City thresholds. Therefore, the impact at this intersection from operation of the proposed project in Year 2020 would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. The Applicant would contribute its fair share of 26 percent to this improvement, and the City would be obligated to implement this intersection improvement. The Downtown Specific Plan EIR identified significant impacts to circulation. The impacts to specific intersections were not identified, and these impacts are defined and clarified in this EIR. However, the significant effect on traffic as previously identified in EIR 82-2, in addition to the Statement of Overriding Considerations prepared on that EIR (City Resolution No. 5284) is noted. The impact identified under Impact TR-1 would be significant and unavoidable because implementation of MM TR-1 may not be feasible and implementation of this measure is not under the discretion of the City of Huntington Beach. The impact on the intersection of PCH and Seapoint in Years 2008 and 2020, as discussed under Impact TR-2 and Impact TR-4, respectively, from the proposed project would be less than significant upon p resulting P P P implementation of MM TR-2. The following mitigation measure would be required to address impacts associated with the need for a new traffic signal, as described above under Impact TR-6. MM TR-3 Install a traffic signal at First Street and Atlanta Avenue prior to issuance of occupancy permits. The City shall ensure completion of this improvement, and the Pacific City EIR 3.1479 Chapter 3 Environmental Impact Analysis Applicant shall contribute a fair share contribution of 57 percent13 to the improvement. Implementation of MM TR-3 would ensure efficient traffic flow at the intersection of First Street and Atlanta Avenue. Impact TR-6 would be reduced to less than significant. All other impacts to transportation, as described under Impacts TR-3, TR-5, and TR-7 through TR-11 would be less than significant, as discussed under project impacts. 13 Ibid. 3.1480 City of Huntington Beach 3.15 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS This EIR section analyzes the potential for adverse impacts on utilities and service systems resulting from implementation of the proposed project. The Initial Study (Appendix A) identified the potential for impacts associated with water supply, sewer/wastewater service, and solid waste. Data used to prepare this section were taken from the City's General Plan Utilities Element, the Water Supply Assessment (Appendix D), Domestic Water System and Sanitary Sewer System 'CEQA'Support Information report, and information from'the service providers regarding available service levels and current or anticipated constraints. Full bibliographic entries for all reference materials are provided in Chapter 7 (References) of this document. It should be noted that telephone and cable television services are"on demand"services and are, therefore,not considered in this analysis; electrical and natural gas services are specifically addressed in Section 3.5 (Energy and Mineral Resources); and storm drainage facilities are specifically addressed in Section 3.8 (Hydrology and Water Quality). 3.15.1 Existing Conditions Water Supply ' The City of Huntington Beach provides potable water to the project site. Currently, the City's domestic water'system that serves,the project site includes 12- to 20-inch pipelines located in the streets that border the project site and an 18-inch pipeline running through the site. Specifically, the off-site domestic water system that serves the project site includes the following: • Water availability from the north through a 20-inch pipeline in Lake Street, with a connection to serve the project site through an existing 18-inch pipeline on the project site. The 18-inch water main is part of the water supply for the Hilton Hotel and the Waterfront development, east of the proposed. project. • Additional supply from the north through a 12-inch pipeline in Atlanta Avenue ■ Water supply from the west via a 12-inch pipeline continued in First Street to Pacific Coast Highway (PCH) • Water supply from the south and east through a,12-inch water main in PCH The City of Huntington Beach is currently constructing an extension of the existing on-site 18-inch pipeline to connect to a new 12-inch main in Beach Boulevard. The existing project area water system has sufficient capacity for existing development and the commercial expansion projects east of the project site. Pacific City EIR 3.15-1 Chapter 3 Environmental Impact Analysis The City has a secure and reliable, drought resistant water supply, with water available to the City through two water supply sources: groundwater and imported surface water. The primary water source for the City of Huntington Beach's municipal water supply is groundwater produced from the City's wells in the Santa Ana Groundwater Basin. The City produces groundwater via seven existing domestic water wells that meet or exceed all water quality standards. The remaining water supply is purchased from the Municipal Water District of Orange County, a member agency of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. This imported water is, supplied to the City via three service connections. In addition, the City has emergency mutual-aid water connections with the Cities of Fountain Valley, Seal Beach, and Westminster. Water supply is provided to the City and managed pursuant to a system of institutional arrangements, agreements, permits, licenses, judgments, and 'statutes. The quality of the water available to the City is regulated by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region, and is managed, in part, by the Orange County Water District(OCWD). The quantity and sources of the native surface supply to the Santa Ana River, which naturally replenishes.the Orange County Groundwater Basin, is governed by the terms of judgments entered pursuant to settlement agreements among upper and lower Santa Ana River Basin water users. These and other contractual arrangements have been refined since the formation of the Orange County Water District in 1933, the formation of the. Metropolitan Water District of Southern California in 1928, and the organization of the Municipal Water District of Orange County in 1951. As stated in the Water Supply Assessment (WSA) dated June 6, 2003, prepared for the proposed project and supported in the City's 2000 Urban Water Management Plan, the combined ability of these water importers and regional suppliers can meet the needs of their member agencies, including the City of Huntington Beach. The WSA concludes that the total water supply available,to the City during normal, single dry and multiple dry years within a 20-year projection will meet the projected water demand of the proposed project, as well as the demand of existing and other planned future uses, including agricultural uses. Projected water supply and demand for the City of Huntington Beach is provided in Table 3.15-1. The Urban Water Management Plan projects City water demands in five-year increments up to the year 2020. The Plan is based upon the ultimate land use areas from the City's General Plan. Available water supply for the City of Huntington Beach is projected to exceed the water demand of the City, including the proposed project and other planned future developments, over the next 20 years. In addition to the 2000 Urban Water Management Plan, the City of Huntington Beach also adopted a Water Master Plan in December 2000 to evaluate and plan for adequate water supply at build-out of the General Plan, as amended, and adopted specific plans, including the Downtown Specific Plan, as amended. This Plan 3.15-2 City of Huntington Beach 3.15 Utilities and Service Systems confirms the Urban Water Management Plan's conclusion that water can be provided at full system build- out by Year 2020. Furthermore, according to the City (Rulla 2002), a February '11, 2002 report by the Metropolitan Water District concluded that if all imported water supply programs and local projects proceed as planned, with no change in demand projections,reliability could be assured beyond 20 years. Table 3.15-1 City of Huntington Beach Water Supply and Demand (in acre-feet) Year 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2022 Supply 37,460 38,200 40,075 40,100 40,100 40,100 Demand 34,600 35,526 37,270 37,330 37,330 37,330 Difference 2,860 2,674 2,805 2,770 2,770 2,770 SOURCE: City of Huntington Beach, 2000 Urban Water Management Plan (December 2000), as cited in the Water Supply Assessment for Pacific City Development (Appendix D) Wastewater Service The Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) provides regional wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal services for the City of Huntington Beach. OCSD operates two wastewater treatment plants, Plant 1 and Plant 2, and both perform primary and secondary treatment procedures. Plant 1 is located in Fountain Valley, and Plant 2 is located in Huntington Beach. The two plants receive a total of 234 million gallons per day (mgd), with Plant 1 receiving approximately 83 mgd and Plant 2 receiving the remaining 151 mgd (OCSD 2002). Plant 2 treats most of the. City's 'sewage. No existing capacity issues have been identified, and OCSD has developed engineering plans for plant improvements anticipated to meet area demands to the year 2050. The OCSD discharges treated wastewater offshore approximately 5 miles from the coast, at a depth of 200 feet underwater, just north of the Santa Ana River in Huntington Beach. The OCSD is permitted to discharge this treated wastewater through a permit jointly issued by the Environmental.Protection Agency (EPA). and the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). OCSD treats wastewater through preliminary, advanced primary, and secondary treatment in order to ensure that discharged treated wastewater does not include harmful concentrations of contaminants. The OCSD tracks and evaluates water quality, sediment quality, and sea life from Seal Beach to Corona del Mar to ensure that applicable beach and it water quality standards are being met. During February 2002, routine ocean monitoring detected bacteria often associated with wastewater at shallower depths than previously seen. The amount of bacteria detected did not exceed any applicable water quality standards. However, in order to eliminate the possibility that treated wastewater is adversely affecting'the surf zone or recreational water quality standards, OCSD board of directors directed that all wastewater be disinfected prior to discharge. The short-term disinfection Pacific City EIR 3.15-3 Chapter 3 Environmental Impact Analysis method, which began in August 2002, is a chlorination-dechlorination process. While this method is currently being employed, the OCSD is researching a long-term disinfection method. Currently, there is no sewer infrastructure operating on the project site, as the site is vacant. Existing sewer lines are located in the surrounding streets bordering the project site, including First Street, Atlanta Avenue, Huntington Street, and PCH. An existing 54-inch OCSD trunk sewer is located to the west of the project site along Walnut Avenue. Solid Waste Rainbow Disposal is the exclusive hauler of all solid waste for the City of Huntington Beach. They operate a Transfer Station, located at 17121 Nichols Street within the City of Huntington Beach, and two Materials Recovery Facilities (MRFs) through which all solid waste is processed. One MRF primarily processes residential solid waste, and the other MRF processes residential and quasi-industrial solid waste, including construction and demolition waste. Construction-related waste is processed at various steps including sorting at the site followed by sorting at the tipping deck at the MRF. Thus, construction-related solid waste is processed via a primary and secondary sort, while the majority of solid waste is processed solely through a secondary (or dirty) sort. Additionally, Rainbow Disposal maintains a 63 percent diversion rate from the Orange County landfills, which exceeds the AB939 requirement of 50 percent diversion of solid waste by the Year 2000. Orange County presently owns and operates three active landfills, which have a combined design capacity of 20,000 tons per day. It is anticipated:that the Orange County landfill system will have adequate capacity to operate until 2035. The Frank R. Bowerman Landfill is the closest facility to the site and would likely be the facility that accepts solid waste from the site. The City is under contract to the County's Integrated Waste Management Division to dispose of all waste to the County landfill system (not a particular facility)until the Year 2007. Rainbow Disposal's Transfer Station has a design capacity of 2,800 tons per day, and is currently only at approximately 57 percent utilization. In addition, Rainbow Disposal has indicated that landfill capacity would not be an issue for the City of Huntington Beach for at least 40 years (Jerry Moffat, May 2002). The California Integrated Waste Management Board requires that all counties have an approved Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan (CIWMP). To be approved, the CIWMP must demonstrate sufficient solid waste disposal capacity for at least 15 years, or identify additional available capacity outside of the County's jurisdiction. In addition, Orange County landfill system has a study group and 40-year plan for expansion considering future expansive options for the three county-operated landfills. 3.15-4 City of Huntington Beach 3.15 Utilities and Service Systems 3.15.2 Regulatory Framework There are no federal regulations related to utilities that apply to the proposed project. State Urban Water Management Planning Act (California Water Code, Division 6, Part 2.6, Section 10610 et seq.) The Urban Water Management Planning Act was developed due to concerns for potential water supply shortages throughout the State of California. It requires information on water supply reliability and water use efficiency measures. Urban water suppliers are required, as part of the Act, to develop and implement Urban Water Management Plans to describe their efforts to promote efficient use and management of water resources. Water Conservation Projects Act The State of California's requirements for water conservation are codified in the Water Conservation Projects Act of 1985 (Water Code Sections 11950-11954), as reflected below: 11952. (a) It is the intent of the Legislature in enacting this chapter to encourage local agencies and private enterprise to implement potential water conservation and reclamation projects.... SB 221 (Kuehl Bill) and SB 610 (Costa Bill) Signed into law on October 2001 and effective beginning January 2002, SB 221 and SB 610 serve to ensure that certain land developments in the State must be accompanied by an available and adequate supply of water to serve those developments. Serving as companion measures, SB 610 and SB 221 seek to promote more collaborative planning between local water suppliers and cities and counties. SB 221 requires the legislative body of a city, county, or local agency to include, as a condition in any tentative map that includes a subdivision, a requirement that a sufficient water supply shall be available to serve the subdivision. A "subdivision" is defined as a proposed residential development of more than 500 dwelling units or one that would increase, by at least ten percent, the number of service connections of a public water system having less than 5,000 connections. "Sufficient water supply" is defined as the total water supplies available during normal, single-dry, and multiple-dry years within a 20-year projection that will meet the projected demand of a proposed subdivision. SB 221 ensures that collaboration on finding the needed water supplies to serve a new large subdivision occurs before construction begins. ; �f Pacific City EIR 3.15-5 Chapter 3 Environmental Impact Analysis SB 610 requires additional factors to be considered in the preparation of urban water management plans and -- water supply assessments. SB 610 requires all urban water suppliers to prepare, adopt, and update an urban water management plan that, essentially, forecasts water demands and supplies within a certain service territory. In addition, water assessments must be furnished to local governments for inclusion in any environmental documentation for certain projects (as defined in Water Code 10912(a)) subject to the California Environmental Quality Act. AB 939—California Integrated Waste Management Act In 1989, the Legislature adopted the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989. The Act requires that each county prepare a new Integrated Waste Management Plan. The Plan was required to include a Source Reduction and Recycling Element prepared by each city within the State by July 1, 1991. Each source reduction element included a schedule providing for source reduction, recycling, or composting of 25 percent of solid waste in the jurisdiction by January 1, 1995, and 50 percent by January 1, 2000. SB 2202 (Senate Environmental Quality Committee 2000) made a number of changes to the municipal solid waste diversion requirements under the Integrated Waste Management Act. These changes included a revision to the statutory requirement for 50 percent diversion of solid waste to clarify that local governments shall continue to divert 50 percent of all solid waste on and after January 1, 2000. Local Southern California Association of Governments SCAG's Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide (RCPG) and RHNA are tools for coordinating regional planning and development strategies in southern California. Policies contained in the RCPG identified by SCAG as relevant to the proposed project are identified in Table 3.15-2, and this table also includes an assessment of the proposed project's consistency with these policies. • 3.15-6 City of Huntington Beach 3.15 Utilities and Service Systems Table 3.15-2 SCAG Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide—Policies Applicable to Utilities and Service Systems Policy Project Consistency Policy 7.Encourage water reclamation Reclaimed water is not currently being used by the City.If reclaimed water became available in the throughout the region where it is cost- City,then the project could use this source of water where appropriate. effective,feasible,and appropriate to reduce reliance on imported water and wastewater discharges.Current administrative impediments to increased use of wastewater should be addressed. Policy 3.27.The timing,financing,and As described below in Section 3.15.3(Impacts),water and wastewater providers and systems serving location of public facilities,utility systems, the project site have adequate capacity to provide an acceptable level of service to the proposed and transportation systems shall be used development.Additionally,with implementation of MM U-1 and MM U-2,which would require the by SCAG to implement the region's growth Applicant to provide adequate access for waste haulers and to develop a solid waste management policies. plan to reduce solid waste generation,the proposed project would result in less-than-significant impacts to solid waste hauling services and the County landfill system.Further,as described in Section 3.9(Land Use),the proposed project would be consistent with the development intensities specified in the City General Plan and in the Downtown Specific Plan and would,therefore,be implemented consistently with the growth envisioned in the City and in the region. General Plan Utilities Element The General Plan Utilities Element focuses upon plans and policies applicable to the City's water supply, sanitation treatment (wastewater), storm drainage, solid waste disposal, natural gas, electricity, and telecommunications systems. Table 3.15-3 identifies goals and objectives presented in the Utilities Element of the General Plan related to utilities that are potentially relevant to the proposed project. This table also includes an assessment of the proposed project's consistency with the policies adopted in support of these goals and objectives. 1r Table 3.15-3 General Plan Utilities Element—Policies Applicable to Utilities and Service Systems . Goal,Objective,or Policy Project Consistency Goal U 1.Provide a water supply system Conformance with implementing policies,as discussed below,results in conformance with this goal. which is able to meet the projected water demands;upgrade deficient systems and expand water treatment,supply,and distribution facilities;and pursue funding • sources to reduce the costs of water provision to the City. Objective U 1.1.Maintain a system,of Conformance with implementing policies,as discussed below,results in conformance with this water supply distribution facilities capable objective. of meeting existing and future daily and peak demands,including fire flow requirements in a timely and cost efficient manner. a, l - Pacific City EIR 3.15-7 i ' Chapter 3 Environmental Impact Analysis Table 3.15-3 General Plan Utilities Element—Policies Applicable to Utilities and Service Systems Goal,Objective,or Policy Project Consistency Policy U 1.1.1.Monitor the demands on As described below in Section 3.15.3(Impacts),a water supply assessment(WSA)was completed for the water system,manage the the proposed project,in accordance with State law,to evaluate whether,under the City's current development to mitigate impacts and/or Urban Water Management Plan,sufficient water supplies exist in or are planned for the City to serve facilitate improvements to the water supply the proposed project.As described in Section 3.9(Land Use),the proposed project would be and distribution system,and maintain and consistent with development projections in the City's General Plan and in the Downtown Specific Plan, expand water supply and distribution upon which water demand projections in the Urban Water Management Plan were calculated.In facilities. addition,the WSA concluded that the City possesses sufficient water supplies to serve the proposed project without compromising service to other existing or planned developments within the City. Further,the proposed project includes infrastructure improvements to facilitate delivery of adequate water supplies to the project.The proposed project would,therefore,be implemented in a manner that is consistent with this policy. Policy U 1.1.2.Approve and implement As described above,the proposed project would be consistent with General Plan and Downtown development in accordance with the Specific Plan growth projections for the project site and,with implementation of MM U-1 and MM U-2, standards identified in the Growth would not compromise the ability of utilities providers to maintain adequate service across their Management Element. respective systems. Objective U 1.2.Ensure that existing and Conformance with implementing policies,as discussed below,results in conformance with this new development does not degrade the objective. City's surface waters and groundwater basins. Policy U 1.2.1.Require that new and As described in Section 3.15.3(Impacts),the proposed project would be consistent with General Plan existing development contain safeguards and,Downtown Specific Plan growth projections for the project site and not result in the degradation of and mitigation measures preventing water or wastewater service.Although the proposed project could result in a potentially significant degradation. impact with respect to solid waste transportation and disposal,implementation of MM U-1 and MM U-2,would ensure the provision of adequate access for waste haulers and would reduce the quantity of solid waste entering the disposal stream,thus preventing degradation of the solid waste disposal system. Policy U 1.2.2.Require new developments As described in Chapter 3(Project Description)and in Section 3.15.3(Impacts),the proposed project to connect to the sewer system. includes connections to the sewer system.The proposed project would,therefore,be consistent with this policy. Objective U 1.3.Minimize water Conformance with implementing policies,as discussed below,results in conformance with this consumption rates through site design,use objective. of efficient systems,and other techniques. Policy U 1.3.2.Continue to require the As a condition of approval for the proposed project,the project must include appropriate water incorporation of water conservation conservation features.The proposed project would,therefore,be consistent with this policy. features in the design of all new construction and site development. Policy U 1.3.4.Require the use of Reclaimed water is not currently used by the City.If reclaimed water became available in the City, reclaimed water for landscaped irrigation, then the project could use this source of water where appropriate. grading,and other noncontact uses in the new developments,where available or expected to be available. Objective U 1.4.Ensure the costs of Conformance with implementing policies,as discussed below,results in conformance with this improvements to the water supply, objective. transmission,distribution,storage and treatmentsystems are borne by those who benefit. 3.15-8 City of Huntington Beach 3.15 Utilities and Service Systems • Table 3.15-3 General Plan Utilities Element—Policies Applicable to Utilities and Service Systems Goal,Objective,or Policy Project Consistency Policy U 1.4.1.Require the costs of As described in Section 3.15.3(Impacts),the WSA prepared for the proposed project determined that improvements to the existing water supply the City has adequate water supplies to serve the project without compromising service to existing or and distribution facilities necessitated by planned development.and would not require the construction of additional water supply systems. new development be borne by the new Additionally,the proposed project includes improvements to existing water infrastructure(the development benefiting from the extension of connections)to allow delivery of adequate waster supply to the project site. improvements,either through the payment of fees,or by the actual construction of the improvements in accordance with the State Nexus Legislation. Goal U 2.Provide a wastewater collection Conformance with implementing policies,as discussed below,results in conformance with this goal. and treatment system which is able to support permitted land uses;upgrade existing deficient systems;and pursue { funding sources to reduce costs of wastewater service provision to the City. Objective U 2.1.Ensure the City provides Conformance with implementing policies,as discussed below,results in conformance with this and maintains a wastewater collection and objective. treatment facilities system which adequately conveys and treats wastewater generated by existing and planned development at a maximized cost efficiency. Policy U 2.1.1.Approve and implement As described above,the proposed project would be consistent with General Plan and Downtown development in accordance with the Specific Plan growth projections for the project site and,with implementation of MM U-1 and MM U-2, standards identified in the Growth would not compromise the ability of utilities providers to maintain adequate service across their Management Element. respective systems. Policy U 2.1.6.Require that sewer As described in Section 3.15.3(Impacts),existing sewer system capacity is adequate to serve the capacity is available before building proposed project. permits are issued for new development. Policy U 2.1.7.Design and route As described in Section 3.15.3(Impacts),existing sewer system capacity is adequate to serve the wastewater treatment collection facilities to proposed project,and the proposed project would not require construction of additional wastewater eliminate the need for pump stations where conveyance or treatment facilities,including pump stations. possible. Objective U 2.2.Ensure the costs of Conformance with implementing policies,as discussed below,results in conformance with this - wastewater infrastructure improvements objective. are borne by those who benefit. Policy U 2.2.1.Require the costs of As described in Section 3.15.3(Impacts),existing sewer system capacity is adequate to serve the improvements to the existing wastewater proposed project,and the proposed project would not require construction of additional wastewater collection facilities,which are necessitated conveyance or treatment facilities.. by new development,to be borne by the new development benefiting from the improvements;either through the payment of fees,or by the actual,construction of the improvements in accordance with.the State Nexus Legislation. Goal U 4.Maintain solid waste collection Conformance with implementing policies,as discussed below,results in conformance with this goal. and disposal services in accordance with the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989,.and pursue funding sources to reduce the cost of the collection and disposal services in the City. Pacific City EIR 3.15-9 Chapter 3 Environmental Impact Analysis Table 3.15-3 General Plan Utilities Element—Policies Applicable to Utilities and Service Systems Goal,Objective,or Policy Project Consistency Objective U 4.1.Ensure an adequate and Conformance with implementing policies,as discussed below,results in conformance with this orderly system for the collection services objective. and the disposal of solid waste to meet the demands of new and existing development in the City. Policy U 4.1.2.Investigate the feasibility of As required by MM U-2,the proposed project would be required to prepare and implement a Solid providing trash and recycling receptacles Waste Management Plan to reduce solid waste entering the disposal stream from the project site.The along City streets in pedestrian oriented plan would also include the provision of disposal and recycling bins for construction workers and for commercial areas(i.e.,Downtown,Peter's visitors.Additionally,the residential component of the proposed project would be required to comply Landing,Beach'Boulevard nodes,etc); with all applicable City requirements regarding solid waste disposal and collection. design receptacles to be aesthetically compatible with the district in which they are located. Goal U 5.Maintain and expand service Conformance with implementing policies,as discussed below,results in conformance with this goal. provisions to City of Huntington Beach residences and businesses. Objective U 5.1.Ensure that adequate Conformance with implementing policies,as discussed below,results in conformance with this natural gas,telecommunication and objective. electrical systems are provided. Policy U 5.1.4.Require the review of new As described in Section 3.15.3(Impacts),the proposed project would not require the construction of and or expansions of existing industrial utility facilities that would visually impair the City's coastal corridors or entry nodes. and utility facilities to ensure that such facilities will not visually impair the City's coastal corridors and entry nodes. General Plan Coastal Element The policies listed within the Coastal Element are consistent with the Utilities Element in its objective to ensure adequate infrastructure for existing and planned land uses within the Coastal Zone. Table 3.15-4 identifies goals and objectives presented in the Coastal Element of the General Plan related to utilities that are potentially relevant to the proposed project. This table also includes an assessment of the proposed project's consistency with the policies adopted in support of these goals and objectives. Table 3.15-4 General Plan Coastal Element—Policies Applicable to Utilities and Service Systems Goal,Objective,or Policy Project Consistency Goal C 9.Provide water,sewer,and drainage Conformance with implementing policies,as discussed below,results in conformance with systems that are able to support permitted land uses; this goal. upgrade existing deficient systems;and pursue funding sources to reduce costs of wastewater service provision in the City. Objective C 9.1.Provide and maintain water,sewer As described in Section 3.15.3(Impacts),existing water and sewer system capacity is and drainage systems that adequately serve planned adequate to serve the proposed project. land uses at a maximized cost efficiency. 3.15-10 City of Huntington Beach • 3.15 Utilities and Service Systems General Plan Growth Management Element The policies listed within the Growth Management Element and applicable to utilities are consistent with the Utilities Element in its objective to ensure adequate infrastructure for existing and planned land uses 1 , while providing for orderly growth in the City. Table 3.15-5 identifies goals and objectives presented in the Growth Management Element of the General Plan related to utilities that are potentially relevant to the proposed project. This table also includes an assessment of the proposed project's consistency with the policies adopted in support of these goals and objectives. Table 3.15-5 General Plan Growth Management Element—Policies Applicable to Utilities and Service Systems Goal,Objective,or Policy Project Consistency _ Goal GM 5.Provide adequate water service to all Conformance with implementing policies,as discussed below,results in conformance with areas of the City in a coordinated and cost efficient this goal. manner. Objective 5.1..Maintain a system of water supply Conformance with implementing policies,as discussed below,results in conformance with distribution facilities capable of meeting existing and this objective. future daily and peak demands,including fire flow ( ! requirements,in a timely and cost efficient manner. II Policy GM 5.1.2.Provide water service to all areas in As described below in Section 3.15.3(Impacts),a Water Supply Assessment(WSA)was accordance with the following minimum standards: completed for the proposed project,in accordance with State law,to evaluate whether • Water pressure shall be provided with the' sufficient water supplies exist in or are planned for the City to serve the proposed project. following minimum standards for average and The WSA concluded that the City possesses sufficient water supplies to serve the peak hour demand conditions:minimum pressure proposed project without compromising service to other existing or planned developments =a. —40 psi;maximum pressure—80 psi;average within the City.The proposed project includes infrastructure improvements to facilitate pressure—60-65 psi. delivery of adequate water supplies to the project.The proposed project would,therefore, • Provide fire flow capabilities that meet the Fire be implemented in a manner that is consistent with this policy. Department's requirements. • Provide emergency water supply for a minimum of } one day. is Provide the best quality of water available at the most reasonable cost. • Meet all requests for service in a timely manner. Policy GM 5.1.3.Require the use of reclaimed water Reclaimed water is not currently used by the City.If reclaimed water became available in for landscaped irrigation,grading,and other non- the City,then the project could use this source of water where appropriate. contact uses in new developments,where available or expected to be available. Goal GM 6.Provide a wastewater collection and Conformance with implementing policies,as discussed below,results in conformance with treatment system that is able to support permitted this goal. land uses;upgrade existing deficient systems,and pursue funding sources to reduce costs of wastewater service provision in the City. Objective 6.1.Ensure that the City provides and Conformance with implementing policies,as discussed below,results in conformance with maintains a wastewater collection and treatment this objective. facilities system which adequately conveys and treats wastewater generated by existing and planned development at a maximized cost efficiency. Policy GM 6.1.2.Ensure that new development The proposed project would include infrastructure to provide sewer service to the site.The complies with Orange County Sanitation District project Applicant would coordinate with OCSD as appropriate and comply with applicable requirements. requirements. Pacific City EIR 3.15-11 Chapter 3 Environmental Impact Analysis Municipal Code—Water Management Program and Water Efficient Landscape Requirements The purpose of Chapter 14.18, Water Management Program of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code is to reduce the quantity of water used, for the purpose of conserving water supplies throughout the City. The purpose and intent of Chapter 14.52, Water Efficient Landscape Requirements include the following: (a) promote the values and benefits of landscapes while recognizing the need to invest water and other resources as efficiently as possible; (b) establish a structure of designing, installing, and maintaining water efficient landscapes in new projects; (c)establish provisions for water management practices and water waste prevention for established landscapes; (d) establish a long range goal of water efficiency through proper planning and design, the use of technologically current equipment with proper installation, continued maintenance and monitoring of water use through the designed systems; (e) when used in conjunction with the"Arboricultural Landscape Standards and Specifications"Resolution Number 4545, to give the Landscape Architect and/or owner the tools to provide an individualized landscape improvement to suit the needs of the owner and the requirements of the city; and 09 to provide standards for a finished landscape that is physically attractive, conserves water and is easy to maintain. 3.15.3 Thresholds of Significance In general, impacts upon utilities and service systems would be considered significant if project implementation would exceed the capacity of existing or planned infrastructure serving the community. Project impacts would be considered significant if any of the following would occur: Water Supply • Result in insufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources Sewer/Wastewater • Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board • Cause an increase in wastewater treatment that requires or results in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects • Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that is has inadequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments 3.15-12 City of Huntington Beach 3.15 Utilities and Service Systems Solid Waste . . • Be served by a landfill within insufficient permitted capacity to accommodate'the project's solid waste disposal needs ■ Conflict with federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste 3:15.4 Project Impacts • Impact U-1 Sufficient water supplies would be available from existing entitlements and resources to serve the proposed project. Generation rates that were used to determine the daily water demand of the proposed project are shown in Table 3.15-6. As shown, project implementation would generate a water demand of 393,915 gallons per day (gpd). According to the City's 2000 Water Master Plan, the water system demand for the City in 2000 was approximately 31 million gallons per day (mgd). As such, the water demand of the proposed project would represent an increase of approximately 1.3 percent of the City's year 2000 water demand. Table 3.15-6 Projected Water Demands for the Proposed Project Land Use Quantity Demand Factor Estimated Flow Condominiums 516 Dwelling Units(DU)1 400 gpd/du 206,400 gpd Hotel 400 Rooms 225 gpd/room 90,000 gpd Office 60,000 Square Feet 0.3 gpd/Square Feet 18,000 gpd Restaurant/Clubs 38,900 Square Feet1 1.5 gpd/Square•Feet 58,350 gpd Retail 141,100 Square Feet2 0:15 gpd/Square Feet 21,165 gpd Total N/A N/A • 393,915 gpd 1. The information provided in the WSA(Appendix D)considers a project with 540 dwelling units and 50,000 square feet of restauranticlubs space for the project,as these • intensities was originally contemplated for the proposed project. '2. The information provided in the WSA(Appendix D)considers a project with 130,000 square feet of retail space,as this intensity was originally contemplated for the proposed project.Although this represents a shortfall compared to the proposed project,the additional water flow generated would be negated by the extra water flows calculated for both the condominiums and restaurant/clubs space. SOURCE: Hunsaker&Associates 2003b Per Senate Bills 221 and 610, which require a water provider to furnish substantial evidence that adequate { water supplies would be available to meet the water demands of new and existing customers, through normal, single dry and multiple dry years for'a 20 year period, a Water Supply Assessment was prepared in 2003 for the proposed project. This assessment "relied on information taken from the City's own publications and technical and planning publications of numerous State, regional,and local public agencies, each of which plays some coordinating role in maintaining the reliability of the City's water supply. As - documented in the Water Supply Assessment, which was prepared by Hunsaker & Associates Irvine, Inc. dated May 30, 2003, and supported by the City's 2000 Urban Water Management Plan and Water Master Pacific City EIR. 3.15-13 Chapter 3 Environmental Impact Analysis Plan, an adequate water supply exists to serve the proposed project. The 2000 Urban Water Management Plan, which projected water demands for the Citybased on the ultimate land uses allowed under the City's Y General Plan, concluded that available water supply for the City of Huntington Beach.would exceed the water demands of the City, including the proposed project and other planned future developments, over the next 20 years. The plan projected that a water demand of 37,330 acre-feet would occur in the City of Huntington Beach by year 2022, and that a water supply of 40,100 acre-feet would be available to serve that demand. Provision of this reliable, drought resistant water supply to the City is done through coordination with other local, regional, and state agencies. The two water supply sources available to the City, groundwater from the Santa Ana Groundwater Basin and imported surface water from.the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, are managed pursuant to a system of institutional arrangements, agreements, permits, licenses, judgments, and statues. The water supply provided to the City from water importers and regional suppliers, which are governed by contractual agreements, would provide the City with a secure and reliable water supply over the next 20 years. Therefore, impacts to water supply would be less than significant. Impact U-2 The proposed project would be served with adequate water and fire flows. Based on the design criteria for the City of Huntington Beach and the current proposed development concept, the estimated water demand types for the proposed project are shown in Table 3.15-7. Table 3.15-7 Estimated Water Demand Types for the Proposed Project Water Demand Million Gallons per Day Gallons per Minute Average Day Demand 0.42 292 Maximum Day Demand 0.67 467 Peak Hour 1.05 - 730 Maximum Fire Flow 5.755 4,000 SOURCE: Hunsaker&Associates 2003b In addition, the following water pressure requirements have been determined for the proposed project and within the immediate project area: • Average-Day Simulations—Pressures in the immediate area of the proposed project must not drop by more than 2 psi. Pressures in the area including the proposed project must not drop below 50 psi • Peak-Hour Simulations—Pressures in the immediate area of the proposed project must not drop by more than 4 psi. Pressures in the area including the proposed project must not drop below 40 psi 3.15-14 City of Huntington Beach 3.15 Utilities and Service Systems The City of Huntington Beach Fire Department (HBFD) requires a 4,000-gpm fire-flow rate at the project site using three consecutive hydrants while maintaining a minimum residual pressure of 20 psi at each of the three hydrants. Due to the possibility of a fire occurring on any given day, the required fire flow at the project site must operate with maximum-day demands occurring elsewhere throughout the water system. hi order to accommodate the water demands of the proposed project, including required water and fire flow rates, the project Applicant,has agreed to fund the construction of new water lines on- and off-site to improve the City's distribution system beyond its present capabilities. Specifically, water pipelines to be constructed aspart of the proposed osed project include p P • A new 18-inch water main on Pacific View Avenue between First Street and Huntington Street • A new 12-inch water main in Huntington Street that would connect to an existing 12-inch water main in Atlanta Avenue, an existing water main in Huntington Street, and a new 18-inch water main in Pacific View Avenue • A new 12-inch water main in First Street (in the public right-of-way) that would connect to the existing 12-inch water main in Atlanta Avenue and with the new 18-inch water main in Pacific View Avenue • A new 12-inch water main in First Street that would connect to a new 12-inch water main in PCH and with the new 18-inch water main in Pacific View Avenue These improvements to the water pipeline system in the project area would provide the necessary pressure requirements to meet the average-day demand, peak-hour demand, and fire flow plus maximum-day demand of the proposed project as determined by the City and HBFD. Thus, upon completion of the proposed pipeline realignments and supplemental inter-ties to the adjacent domestic water system infrastructure, the City's domestic water system would be enhanced beyond its current capabilities to I`- provide adequate water supply and fire flows for the proposed project. Impacts related to water and fire flows for the proposed project would be less than significant. Impact U-3 The proposed project would be adequately served by the wastewater treatment provider, and would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements or require the expansion or construction of new wastewater treatment facilities. Regional sewer service to the City of Huntington Beach for the proposed project would be provided through construction of a new sewer connection from the project site to the OCSD's 54-inch diameter Coast Trunk Sewer, which is located at the intersection of Walnut Avenue and First Street. Relocation or modification of the other existing trunk sewers located within the public right-of-way and in the vicinity of Pacific City EIR 3.15-15 Chapter 3 Environmental Impact Analysis the project site would not be required. The new sewer collection system serving the project site would consist of two components: a new public sewer system and a new private sewer system. Owned and operated by the City of Huntington Beach, the-new public sewer system would provide a new sewer connection from the District's Coast Trunk Sewer to an existing OCSD manhole located near the intersection of Walnut Avenue and First Street. From this manhole, additional sewer connections would be made to the other remaining manholes located along Pacific View Avenue. This system would collect wastewater from the visitor-serving commercial component of the proposed project and approximately 42 residential dwelling units located adjacent to Huntington Street. Grease traps would be required on all sewer laterals serving food preparation and entertainment establishments as required by the Building and Safety Department of the City of Huntington Beach. The private sewer system would consist of sewer laterals that are constructed along the looped access road of the proposed project's residential component to serve the remaining residential development that is located north of Pacific View Avenue. The private sewer system would utilize 8-inch sewers that would be constructed in the looped access road to serve the multifamily development. These sewer laterals would collect and deliver wastewater from the residential development to the new public sewer located along. Pacific View Avenue, which ultimately connects to the District's 54-inch diameter Coast Trunk Sewer. The private sewers would be constructed to public sewer standards using manholes in lieu of cleanouts where access to the sewer manholes is available. Maintenance of the private sewer systems would be provided by the residential Home Owner Association(HOA). As the project site is currently vacant, development of the proposed project would increase the amount of wastewater transported by the Coast Trunk Sewer and treated by the OCSD. However, according to OCSD, adequate capacity exists in the Coast Trunk Sewer to serve the proposed project. Based on the design criteria for the City of Huntington Beach, the estimated peak sewer flow for the proposed project is 0.446 mgd,14 while the estimated average sewer flow is 0.222 mgd. The sewer flows for each land use -- within the proposed project are shown in Table 3.15-8,below. 14 The estimated peak sewer flow for the proposed project provided in Appendix M considers a project with 540 dwelling units,50,000 square feet of restaurant/clubs space,and 130,000 square feet of retail space,as these intensities were originally contemplated for the proposed project. 3.15-16 City of Huntington Beach 3.15 Utilities and Service Systems Table 3.15-8 Projected Sewer Flows Land Use Quantity Duty Factor Estimated Flow Condominiums 516 Dwelling Units(DU)I 187.0 gpd/DU 96,492 gpd Hotel 400 Rooms 150.0 gpd/Room 60,000 gpd Office 60,000 Square Feet 0.2 gpd/Square Feet 12,000 gpd Restaurant/Clubs 38,900 Square Feet I 1.0 gpd/Square Feet 38,900 gpd Retail 141,100 Square Feet2 0.1 gpd/Square Feet 14,110 gpd Total N/A N/A 221,502 gpd 1. The information provided in Appendix M considers a project with 540 dwelling units and 50,000 square feet of restaurant/clubs space for the project,as these intensities was originally contemplated for the proposed project. 2. The information provided in Appendix M considers a project with 130,000 square feet of retail space,as this intensity was originally contemplated for the proposed project. Although this represents a shortfall of 1,100 square feet as opposed to the actual project,the additional water flow generated would be negated by the extra water flows calculated for both the condominiums and restaurant/clubs space. SOURCE: Hunsaker&Associates 2002 The OCSD estimates the current flow in the Coast Trunk Sewer to be approximately 6.6 million gallons per day (mgd) and the sewer capacity to be approximately 44 mgd. The proposed project would add an estimated 0.446 mgd of additional wastewater to the Coast Trunk Sewer. As the OCSD estimates that there would be more than 30 mgd of unused peak flow capacity through the year 2020, this excess capacity is more than sufficient to handle the proposed project that is projected to generate peak sewage flows of less than 1 mgd. Therefore, the addition of wastewater from the proposed project would not exceed the capacity of the Coast Trunk Sewer. In addition, all discharges to the sewer from the project site would be required to meet OCSD's Wastewater Discharge Regulations issued by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board. Furthermore, as discussed above in Section 3.15.1 (Existing Conditions), the OCSD has developed engineering plans for plant improvements that are anticipated to meet area demands to the year 2050. Therefore, impacts to sewer/wastewater are anticipated to be less than significant. Impact U-4 Implementation of the proposed project would substantially increase solid waste generation in the area. • The project would generate solid waste during construction and operation. Since the site is currently vacant, no structural demolition would occur, generating substantial sources of refuse. Waste materials would be generating substantial sources of refuse. Waste materials would be generated during construction from construction debris, scrap metals, and shipping materials. A portion of this refuse could be recycled, which would reduce the waste stream to landfills. For project operations, generation rates were employed to calculate the proposed project's solid waste production per year as shown in Table 3.15-9. Pacific City EIR 3.15-17 Chapter 3 Environmental Impact Analysis Table 3.15-9 Proposed Solid Waste Demand Type of Use Generation Rate Quantity Tons Generated per Year Hotel 2.5 pounds/room/day 400 rooms 182.5 Retail 2.5 pounds/day/100 square feet 240,000 square feet 1 1,095.0 Condominiums 6.41 pounds/unit/day2 516 units 603.6 Total N/A N/A 1,881.0 Existing Landfill Capacity N/A N/A 7,300,000.00 tons permitted/year 1. Values represent the maximum amount of square footage that could be used for the type of land use 2. In the absence of standard industry generation rates for solid waste,this value represents a conservative generation rate based on a range of rates presented by the California Integrated Waste Management Board SOURCE: G&G Engineering,Inc.January 2002;California Integrated Waste Management Board 2003 Total solid waste produced by the proposed project would be approximately 1,881 tons per year, which equates to approximately 5.2 tons of solid waste per day. As discussed in Section 3.15.1 (Existing Conditions), Rainbow Disposal has indicated that its Transfer Station has a design capacity of 2,800 tons per day, and that its current transfer/recycling capacity is only at approximately 57 percent utilization. As such, the approximate 5.2 tons of solid waste generated by the proposed project per day would only represent 0.19 percent of the Transfer Station's design capacity, and thus could be accommodated by Rainbow Disposal's existing hauling activities and MRF facilities. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact upon solid waste haulers serving the City of Huntington Beach. The existing permitted capacities for the landfills serving Orange County total 20,000 tons per day. Thus, the approximate 5.2 tons per day generated by the proposed project would represent 0.03 percent of the daily tonnage at these landfills. As discussed in Section 3.15.1 (Existing Conditions), Rainbow Disposal has indicated that the landfill capacity for the City of Huntington Beach would be adequate for at least 40 years. In addition, even though Orange County is looking at future expansive options for the three county- operated landfills, the Orange County Landfill System is planned to operate until 2035 and thus adequate capacity is currently provided by the existing landfills within the County. 'Furthermore, the City is responsible for meeting the requirements of AB939, which include a 50 percent disposal reduction by the start of 2000 and preparation of a solid waste reduction plan to help reduce the amount of solid waste disposed at the landfills. Presently, 63 percent of the solid waste generated by the City of Huntington Beach is diverted by Rainbow Disposal to recycling facilities, which already exceeds the AB939 requirement. In order to ensure continued City compliance with the requirements of AB939, the additional solid waste generated during construction and operation of the proposed project would need to include provisions for recycling. Without recycling of some construction materials and refuse generated during operations, the project may compromise the City's efforts in reducing the amount of waste transported to the landfills. In 3.15-18 City of Huntington Beach 3.15 Utilities and Service Systems the absence of a recycling plan, the generation of solid waste by the proposed project would conflict with the State statute. Impacts associated with solid waste generation would be potentially significant. 3.1.5.5 Cumulative Impacts This cumulative impact analysis considers development of the proposed project, in conjunction with other development within the vicinity of the project in the City of Huntington Beach. Infrastructure capacity for utility services is a regional problem due to recent and projected population increases in the Southern California area. This population increase creates additional demand for utility services, which may already be at or near capacity. Water Supply A Water Supply Assessment prepared in May 30, 2003 by Hunsaker & Associates Irvine, Inc. demonstrated that an adequate supply of water in the City would be available to serve the proposed project. The 2003 Water Supply Assessment factored in the water demands of the proposed project, based on the proposed land uses, and the water demands from existing and other planned future developments in the City. This assessment, supported by the City's Urban Water Management Plan and Water Master Plan, concluded that the total water supply available to the City during normal, single dry and multiple years within a 20-year would meet the projected water demand of the proposed project, as well as the demand of. projection P j P p P j existing and other planned future uses, including agricultural uses. Therefore, the Water Supply Assessment . addresses cumulative water demands and concludes that an adequate water supply would be available to meet those demands. The existing project area water distribution system has sufficient capacity to meet the demands of the existing development and the commercial expansion projects east of the proposed project. Implementation of the proposed construction of five new water mains in the project area would need to be implemented in order to accommodate the water demands of the proposed development. Analysis of water demand using the City's H2Onet hydraulic model of the water distribution system revealed that pressure requirements for average-day demand, peak-hour demand, and fire flow plus maximum-day demand for the proposed project would be met with these piping improvements without affecting the provision of maximum-day demands elsewhere throughout the water system. Therefore, increased water supply demand by the City in the Lfuture would not result in water supply or water pressure deficiencies and impacts on water would not be cumulatively considerable. Pacific City EIR 3.15-19 Chapter 3 Environmental Impact Analysis Wastewater The proposed new public and private sewer system serving the proposed project would add an estimated 0.472 mgd of additional wastewater to OCSD's 54-inch Coast Trunk Sewer, which is estimated to have more than 30 mgd of unused peak flow capacity through the year 2020. As such, this excess capacity is more than sufficient to handle the peak sewage flows of the proposed project. In addition, all discharges to the sewer from the proposed project would be required to meet OCSD's Wastewater Discharge Regulations. Cumulative projects within the vicinity of the proposed project, whose project status ranges from proposed to complete, include eight commercial projects (including hotels), five residential projects, and one - desalination facility. All of these cumulative commercial and residential projects are of either similar or smaller magnitude than the proposed project. Overall, in addition to several other uses, the cumulative projects include a total of 1,023 residential units, 830,000 square feet of commercial uses, and 637 hotel rooms. The OCSD estimates more than 30 mgd of unused peak flow capacity would be available in the Coast Trunk Sewer through the year 2020. As such, the increase in wastewater generation from the identified cumulative projects and the proposed project, when taken together, would not exceed the capacity of the 54-inch Coast Trunk Sewer. In addition, project-specific review would ensure that all discharges to the sewer from the cumulative projects would meet OCSD's Wastewater Discharge Regulations issued by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board. Furthermore, as upgrades occur in association with proposed projects, overall City sewer capacity could increase. As such, impacts on wastewater would not be cumulatively considerable. The project would have a less-than-significant contribution to this effect. Solid Waste Rainbow Disposal, the exclusive hauler of all solid waste for the City of Huntington Beach, has indicated that current landfill capacity is adequate to accommodate the proposed project's solid waste disposal needs. The projected 5.2 tons of solid waste generated per day by the proposed project would represent 0.19 percent of the design capacity of Rainbow Disposal's Transfer Station, which is currently at about 57 percent utilization; Additionally, Rainbow Disposal has indicated that the landfill capacity for the City of Huntington Beach would be adequate for at least 40 years. Thus, solid waste generation from the proposed project and cumulative projects in the City of Huntington Beach would not exacerbate regional landfill capacity issues. Furthermore, the implementation of source reduction measures, such as a recycling plan, that would be implemented on a project-specific basis would partially address landfill capacity issues by diverting additional solid waste at the source of generation. Therefore, development associated with cumulative projects within the City would not be cumulatively considerable. The project would have a less- than-significant contribution to this effect. 3.15-20 City of Huntington Beach 3.15 Utilities and Service Systems . 3.15.6 Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts The following standard City requirements (CR)would apply to the project. CR U-A Prior to occupancy, all building spoils, such as unusable lumber, wire, pipe, and other surplus or unusable material, shall be disposed of at an off-site facility equipped to handle them. CR U-B The Water Ordinance #14.52, the "Water Efficient Landscape Requirements"apply for projects with 2,500 square feet of landscaping and larger. Impacts to utilities as described above under Impacts LI-1 through u-3 would be less than significant. In addition to the standard City requirements listed above, implementation of the following mitigation measures (MM) would be required to address impacts from the additional solid waste generated during construction and operation of the proposed project, as described above under Impact u-4. MM U-1 Prior to issuance of building permits for the first project component, the Applicant Plan to the Cit s RecyclingCoordinator. shall submit a Solid Waste Management a gy This plan shall discuss how the project will implement source reduction and recycling methods in compliance with existing City programs. Additionally, this plan shall include how the project will address the construction and demolition-generated waste from the site. .These methods shall include, but shall not be limited to, the following: ■ Provision of recycling bins for glass, aluminum, and plastic for visitors and employees of the proposed project • Provision of recycling bins for glass, aluminum, plastic, wood, steel, and concrete for construction workers during construction phases • Bins for cardboard recycling during construction • Scrap wood recycling during construction ■ Green waste recycling of landscape materials MM U-1 would ensure implementation of waste minimization programs, and would ensure that the generation of additional solid waste during construction and operation of the proposed project would not bring the City of Huntington Beach out of compliance with AB939. Impacts associated with solid waste, as discussed under Impact u-4, would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. Pacific City EIR 3.15-21 Chapter 4 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 4.1 INTRODUCTION Section 15126.6(a) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project or to the location of the project that could feasibly attain the basic objectives of the project while reducing significant project impacts. An EIR is not required to consider every conceivable alternative to a project; rather, it must consider a range of potentially feasible alternatives that will foster informed decision-making and public participation. In addition, an EIR should evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. Therefore, this chapter sets forth potential alternatives to the proposed project and evaluates them, as required by CEQA. Key provisions of the CEQA Guidelines relating to the alternatives analysis (Section 15126.6 et seq.) are summarized below: • The discussion of alternatives shall focus on alternatives to the project or its location that are capable of,avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the project, even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives, or would be more costly. • The "no project" alternative shall be evaluated along with its impact. The "no project" analysis shall discuss the existing conditions, as well as what would be reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project is not approved. • The range of alternatives required in an EIR is governed by a"rule of reason"; therefore, the EIR must evaluate only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice. The alternatives shall be limited to ones that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project. • For alternative locations, only locations that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project need be considered for inclusion in the EIR. • An EIR need not consider an alternative whose effects cannot be reasonably ascertained and whose implementation is remote and speculative. 4.1.1 Rationale for Selecting Potentially Feasible Alternatives Since the CEQA Guidelines require that an EIR state why an alternative is being rejected, a preliminary rationale for rejecting an alternative is presented, below, in this section. If the City ultimately rejects an alternative, the rationale for the rejection will be presented in the findings that are required to be made before the City certifies the EIR and takes action on the project. Pacific City EIR 4-1 Chapter 4 Alternatives to the Proposed Project The alternatives may include no project, a different type of project,modification of the proposed project, or suitable alternative project sites. However, the range of alternatives discussed in an EIR is governed by a "rule of reason"which CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f) defines as: ...set[ting]forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice. The alternatives shall be limited to ones that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project. Of those alternatives, the EIR need examine in detail only the ones that the lead agency determines could feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project.The range of feasible alternatives shall be selected and discussed in a manner to foster meaningful public participation and informed decision-making. Among the factors that may be taken into account when addressing the feasibility of alternatives (as described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6[fW[1]) are environmental impacts, site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency, other plans or regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries, and whether the project proponent could reasonably acquire, control, or otherwise have access to an alternative site. An EIR need not consider an alternative whose effects could not be reasonably identified, and whose implementation is remote or speculative. Those alternatives found to be infeasible are described in Section 4.3 of this chapter. For purposes of this analysis, the project alternatives are evaluated to determine the extent to which they attain the basic project objectives, while significantly lessening any significant effects of the project. The objectives for both the City of Huntington Beach and the Applicant are stated as follows: 4.1.2 City of Huntington Beach Objectives • Assist in the implementation of the City's Genera Plan, Downtown Specific Plan, and Redevelopment Plan. • Enhance the Downtown as a destination for visitors by expanding hotel, retail, and entertainment opportunities. • Expand residential opportunities in the Downtown to provide for a greater number and variety of housing options and a stronger base for the commercial sector of the Downtown. • Enhance the community image of Huntington Beach through the design and construction of high quality development consistent with the Urban Design Element of the General Plan. • Ensure adequate utility infrastructure and public services for new development. • Mitigate environmental impacts to the greatest extent possible. 4.1.3 Applicant Objectives •. Housing. Provide the full number of housing units allowed by the General Plan and Downtown Specific Plan at 30 dwelling units per net acre in order to assist the City of Huntington Beach in 4-2 City of Huntington Beach • Chapter 4 Alternatives to the Proposed Project meeting its housing goals and the housing allocation determined by the City and the Southern California Association of Government's Regional Housing Needs Assessment, and to meet the purpose of the District No. 8A, Downtown Specific Plan. ■ Economic Growth and Employment. Provide: (a) economic growth opportunities for the community through development of the project dining/retail/entertainment center, consistent with the City's General Plan goals; (b) additional employment opportunities for local and area residents through the commercial and retail uses on site; and (c) residential density at the General Plan designation of 30 dwelling units per net acre, to support the commercial retail components of Pacific City, the resort areas to the south and existing Downtown businesses. • Neighborhood Identity. Reinforce the neighborhood identity of Pacific City and coordinate development of Districts 7 and 8A, through control of both districts' project design elements such as architecture, landscaping, color, paving, walls, fencing,.signage, entry treatment, and roadway design. • Commercial Phasing and Residential Density. Maintain ability to build commercial and residential areas in phases to provide a population base to help support the commercial uses consistent with the purpose of District No. 8A. • Pedestrian Access. Implement a means of pedestrian access through the project via onsite paths consistent with the Specific Plan objectives. Provide residents and visitors with safe access to the beach via an elevated crossing of Pacific Coast Highway (PCH) from the project site, including avoiding pedestrian conflicts with the existing PCH Transit Terminal. • Traffic Improvements. Enhance project circulation and the surrounding roadway system by providing efficient vehicular access through the site and connecting the site to the surrounding existing roadway network. • Public View Opportunities. Develop the hotel district to the maximum allowable height(8 stories) under the Downtown Specific Plan, in order to provide ocean view opportunities while maintaining space for amenities on lower floors and retention of ocean vistas. Implement an overall site design that provides public view opportunities for visitors and residents. 4.2 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS A total of six alternatives were initially identified as alternatives to the proposed project. Three scenarios, representing a range of reasonable alternatives to the proposed project or to the location of the project, were selected for detailed analysis. The goal for evaluating any of these alternatives is to identify ways to avoid or lessen the significant environmental effects resulting from implementation of the proposed project, • while attaining most of the project objectives. Alternatives that did not achieve this goal were not evaluated in detail, and these alternatives are summarized in Section 4.3. Alternatives selected for further analysis include the following: • Pacific City EIR 4-3 Chapter 4 Alternatives to the Proposed Project • No Project/No Development Alternative: This alternative assumes maintenance of the project site in its current status, and no changes would occur. • Reasonably Foreseeable Development: Under this alternative, the proposed project would not be developed, but a reasonably foreseeable use for the project site would occur. • Reduced Project Alternative: This alternative includes a reduction in visitor-serving commercial uses while maintaining the same amount of residential and resort uses as the proposed project. 4.2.1 No Project/No Development Alternative Description The No Project/No Development Alternative represents the status quo, or'maintenance of the project site in its current state. The purpose of examining such an alternative is to allow decision-makers to compare the effects of approving the project with the effects on not approving the project. Currently the project site is vacant and undeveloped, with disturbed or no vegetation occupying most of the site. The southwest corner of the site was recently used as a temporary staging/storage facility for beach cleaning equipment and employee vehicles for the City of Huntington Beach. Since the 31.5-gross-acre project site would not be developed under this alternative, these existing uses and conditions on the property would remain. Attainment of Project Objectives Implementation of the No Project/No Development Alternative would not meet any of the project objectives listed above for either the Lead Agency or the Applicant, as no new uses would be developed. Impacts In general, no new environmental effects would directly- result from the selection of this alternative. Maintenance of the project site in its present state would avoid any environmental impacts associated with aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, energy and mineral resources, geology and soils, hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use, noise, population housing, public services, recreation, traffic, and utilities and service systems that were identified for the proposed project. No changes to view corridors would occur; however, no additional viewing opportunities of the pier and ocean would be provided under this alternative. In addition, although implementation of this alternative would not result in environmental changes to the existing hydrologic or soil conditions at the project site, erosion and siltation may occur due to the current undeveloped nature of the site. In terms of land use, the present state of the project site as a vacant and undeveloped parcel of land would conflict with the City's General Plan land use designations, but would represent a continuation of the existing conditions at the site. The site 4-4 City of Huntington Beach. Chapter 4 Alternatives to the Proposed Project would remain as an underutilized parcel of land adjacent to the ocean. As such, no significant and adverse environmental impacts directly or cumulatively associated with the No Project/No Development Alternative would occur. 4.2.2 Reasonably Foreseeable Development Description The consideration of the Reasonably Foreseeable .Development Alternative is required by Section 15126.6(e)(3)(B) of the CEQA Guidelines and describes the use of the project site if the proposed project were not to occur, but a reasonably foreseeable use for the project site were to occur. For this alternative, the foreseeable uses at the project site are analyzed under a maximum build-out scenario on the property with allowed land uses that are designated in the City's Downtown Specific Plan. Based on the Downtown Specific Plan, which includes development regulations and zoning standards that are intended to supplement and/or supersede the City's Zoning Ordinance, the project site is located in two districts. Specifically, the southwestern portion of the site that fronts PCH and extends northeast to the proposed extension of Pacific View Avenue (Walnut Avenue) is within District No. 7 (Visitor-Serving Commercial), while the balance of the site is within District No. 8A (High Density Residential). The maximum floor area ratio (FAR) allowed for building intensity within District No. 7 is 3.0 with an allowed maximum building height of eight stories. Thus, the 10.6 net acres of land on the project site ' - located within District No. 7 could allow for a maximum of approximately 1.4 million sf of visitor-serving - commercial uses under this alternative, as opposed to the 240,000 sf of visitor-serving commercial development proposed for the project.15 The building height for the commercial development under the proposed project would be the same as the maximum building height allowed within District No. 7, which is eight stories. For District No. 8A, the maximum allowable number of residential dwelling units is 30 units per net acre with an allowed maximum building height of 50 feet. Since the residential component of the proposed project would develop a total of 516 condominiums on 17.2 net acres of land, which represents an average of 30 dwelling units per net acre, the intensity of development within District No. 8A would be the same between the proposed project and this alternative. In addition, the allowed building heights under the proposed project would also be up to 50 feet for the residential component, which is the maximum building height allowed.under District No. 8A. 15 This calculation is based on the size of the commercial component(10.6 acres x 43,560 feet/acre=416,736 sf)x FAR of 3.0= 1,385,280 sf. Pacific City EIR 4-5 Chapter 4 Alternatives to the Proposed Project Attainment of Project Objectives Implementation of the Reasonably Foreseeable Development Alternative would fully meet all of the objectives established for the proposed project, as listed above for the Lead Agency and the Applicant, by providing the maximum utilization of the land uses designated and allowed under the Downtown Specific Plan. Development in District No. 8A under this alternative would be to the same magnitude as that of the proposed project, and would allow for high density residential uses to help provide a population base to support the commercial and office uses in the Downtown area. Development in District No. 7 under this alternative would exceed that of the proposed project, and would allow the maximum amount of development possible to provide visitor-serving commercial facilities to serve seasonal visitors to the area as well as to serve local residents on a year-round basis. Impacts Aesthetics Under the Reasonably Foreseeable Development Alternative, a greater number of structures to accommodate the 1.4 million sf of visitor-serving commercial uses would be developed on the project site. Impacts to aesthetics would overall be greater than under the proposed project. Impacts to scenic resources within PCH would be the same under this alternative. The primary scenic resources visible from PCH near the project site include the beach and Pacific Ocean, and Huntington Beach Pier, located south and west of PCH. The project would develop land east and north of PCH, such that the project would not affect views of these scenic resources. A pedestrian overcrossing could be constructed in the future as part of the project, and similar 'to the proposed project, impacts on scenic resources as a result of this project feature would be less than significant. The substantial increase in building intensity would result in greater building heights and potential changes to views of the ocean and beach area from a number of locations. In addition, the visual character would change due to the sizeable development that would occur on site, which could be out of character with the intensity of surrounding uses. The project would have the potential to create a wall of development along PCH. , Impacts on shade/shadow and light and glare under this alternative would be greater than under the proposed project. The proposed project includes an eight-story hotel tower that would cast shadows on adjacent development during the Winter Solstice, although this would occur for a period of fewer than 3 hours. This alternative would result in additional structures,eight stories in height, resulting in the casting of 46 City of Huntington Beach Chapter 4 Alternatives to the Proposed Project shadows on more structures than the proposed project. However, building heights would be no taller than under the proposed project,.such that the duration of shadows cast on adjacent light-sensitive uses would not increase. - This alternative would result in additional sources of nighttime lighting and glare above those identified for the proposed project and further diminishment of views of the nighttime sky. As the lighting provisions of the Huntington Beach standard conditions of approval require that all outdoor lighting be directed to prevent light spillage onto adjacent properties, the impact of nighttime lighting on the project site and the project vicinity would be less than significant under this alternative. Since the location of project access under this alternative would not change, the impacts related to vehicular headlights on neighboring residences would remain a less-than-significant impact. Due to the scale of development, effects of glare would be greater than under the project due to the larger number of building faces with potentially reflective surfaces (e.g., brightly colored building facades, reflective.glass). Due to the intensity of development and the difference in development intensity on this site, impacts would,be greater than the proposed project. Air Quality Under the Reasonably Foreseeable Development Alternative, the 'current site would be developed to .the. same site coverage but would include a greater intensity (approximately twice as much) of visitor-serving commercial development when compared to the proposed project. Air Quality impacts associated with project construction and operation would thus be greater under this alternative. In addition, the increase in visitor-serving commercial development would induce more operational vehicular trips to the project site by consumers and/or delivery trucks than the proposed project. Therefore, air quality impacts would be greater than those anticipated under the proposed project, and impacts would be significant and unavoidable. Biological Resources Although implementation of the Reasonably Foreseeable Development Alternative would result in additional visitor-serving commercial uses when compared to the proposed project, similar site coverage of vegetation would be present on site. As such, biological resource impacts associated with disturbance to potential special status wildlife and special status plant species that could occur on the site would be the same as under the proposed project. Due to the lack of quality natural habitat onsite, the project site would not provide suitable nesting habitat for any Threatened or Endangered raptor species, and impacts under this alternative would be less than significant. Special status plant species, however, would have the potential to occur on the project site, and thus impacts associated with this alternative would be considered potentially Pacific City EIR 4-7 Chapter 4 Alternatives to the Proposed Project significant. However, incorporation of the identified mitigation measures would reduce this significant impact to a less-than-significant level, identical to the proposed project. In addition, impacts associated with consistency with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, construction effects, and night lighting on biological resources would be the same as the proposed project, and would be less than significant. Cultural Resources Although the intensity of visitor-serving commercial development at the project site would increase, the amount of site coverage and extent of excavation would be similar to the proposed project. As such, the impacts to the two archaeological sites identified on the project site, one prehistoric (CA-ORA-149) and one historic with a late prehistoric component (CA-ORA-1582H), would still occur and be affected to the same extent under this alternative as the proposed project. Impacts to CA-ORA-149, which has been determined to qualify as a historic resource, would be potentially significant, as the likelihood of unearthing archaeological resources associated with CA-ORA-149 is considered very high. Since CA-ORA-1582H does not satisfy any of the criteria of a historic resource, as defined in Section 15064.5(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, the site is not considered a historic resource, and a less-than-significant impact would result from the excavation of the site under this alternative. Impacts to cultural resources would, under this alternative, be similar as those anticipated under the proposed project.The potentially significant impact to CA-ORA-149 could be mitigated to a less-than-significant level with incorporation of the identified mitigation measures. Energy and Mineral Resources As the amount of visitor-serving commercial development would be increased by 790,000 sf, which is more than double what is proposed under the project, increases in the demand for electricity and natural gas would also occur, as well as construction of additional electricity and natural gas infrastructure. Since SCE and SCGC both anticipate load growth in the area according to the City's General Plan land use designations, it is anticipated that the electrical and natural gas loads of the project under this alternative are within SCE and SCGC's parameters of projected load growth in the area. Thus the increase in development would not increase energy demands beyond available electricity and natural gas supply. Impacts under this alternative would be less than significant, but slightly greater when compared to the proposed project. The impact associated with the loss of availability of a known mineral resource or the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource site under this alternative would be to the same extent as the proposed project since the site would be developed to the same site coverage. Similar to the proposed project, the feasibility of slant drilling would ensure that the mineral resources would remain accessible despite 48 City of Huntington Beach Chapter 4 Alternatives to the Proposed Project development on site, and impacts associated with the loss of mineral resources would be less than significant. Geology and Soils • Due to the increase in visitor-serving commercial development on the project site under this alternative, geologic impacts would potentially be greater than those described for the proposed project because more people and structures would be exposed to seismic- and soil-related hazards. Impacts related to development on potentially unstable soils and long-term exposure of persons and property to seismic risks would still be reduced to less-than-significant levels by incorporation of the identified mitigation measures described for the proposed project. Soil erosion as a result of wind and water would occur during project construction, which would be similar to conditions under project implementation. Overall, geology impacts would be reduced to a less-than-significant level under this alternative, but would be slightly greater than those of the proposed project. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Project-related hazardous material impacts would result from the potential exposure of construction personnel and the public to unidentified contamination present in the soil during grading and excavation of the site. In addition, potential damage to existing abandoned oil wells on the site could occur during implementation of this alternative. Although the length of construction would be longer due to the increased square footage of development, the amount of excavation and grading would be similar to the proposed project, and result in less-than-significant impacts with incorporation of mitigation measures. Hydrology and Water Quality Although the intensity of visitor-serving commercial development under this alternative would be greater and more patrons would frequent the site when compared to the proposed project, the building footprints representing impervious surfaces would be similar to the proposed project. It is unknown whether further improvements to the City's storm drain system would be required as a condition of approval for future development, and the impacts to hydrology could potentially be greater than with the proposed project, which provides for specific infrastructure improvements to the storm drain system. The drainage improvements, which allow for freeing up of capacity in the Atlanta Stormwater Pumping Station, could potentially not occur with other development. The effects on water quality and runoff resulting from construction and operation of developmentunder this alternative would still be governed by existing water quality regulations, including the NPDES process. As with the proposed project, implementation of structural and nonstructural best management practices (BMPs) described for the proposed project would Pacific City EIR 4-9 Chapter 4 Alternatives to the Proposed Project ensure that water quality impacts would remain less than significant. Overall, hydrology and water quality impacts would potentially be greater than those of the proposed project, and could be significant depending on the conditions of approval with regard to infrastructure improvements. Land Use and Planning Implementation of this alternative would result in a maximum development scenario that is allowed under the City's existing'General Plan and the Downtown Specific Plan. As such, similar to the proposed project, implementation of this alternative would be consistent with applicable land use plans, and would implement the vision for the site. Although the proposed mix of uses, consisting of residential and visitor-serving commercial, are identical to the proposed project, a much greater intensity of commercial uses would occur on site. As such, although compatibility of the proposed uses under this alternative would be less than significant, impacts would be greater when compared to the proposed project. Noise Since the ultimate development potential would be greater under this alternative, operational vehicle trips • would be increased, and roadway noise impacts would be more intense than those described for the proposed project. The duration of site preparation would be longer, lengthening construction noise impacts to the surrounding uses. As daily construction activities would likely be the same and the duration of the construction period would be lengthened, construction-related impacts would be less than significant, similar to the proposed project. On-site noise impacts related to the increased visitor-serving commercial development of this alternative would be greater than that of the proposed project, with more visitors arriving and departing from the project site. Overall, noise impacts would be more intense under this alternative when compared to the proposed project, although operational noise impacts would not be anticipated to exceed allowable noise levels in the City. Population and Housing Implementation of this alternative would result in the same amount of residential development as the proposed project, while increasing visitor-serving commercial development to the maximum amount allowed under the Downtown Specific Plan. With an identical number of residential units proposed for this - alternative and the proposed project, no changes to direct increases in population would occur. However, with development of 1.4 million sf of visitor-serving commercial space under this alternative, additional indirect growth in population may occur due to development on the project site. Since maximum build-out at the project site under this alternative would consist of land uses that are consistent with the land use designations and zoning under the Downtown Specific Plan, any population growth induced indirectly by 4-10 City of Huntington Beach Chapter 4 Alternatives to the Proposed Project this alternative would be accounted for in the General Plan. Similar to the proposed project, implementation of this alternative would not directly or indirectly induce substantial population growth in _ the area beyond the City's growth projection. Affordable housing would need to be provided, similar to the proposed project, and this could be addressed through the mitigation measure identified for the proposed project. As such, impacts associated with population and housing would be reduced to less than significant, but would represent a greater magnitude in effects when compared to the proposed project. Public Services Public service impacts would result from additional demand for fire, police, and lifeguard services, and school facilities as a result of implementation of this alternative. As the visitor-serving commercial development would increase under the Reasonably Foreseeable Development when compared to the proposed project, more visitors to the project site would occur and impacts associated'with fire, police, and lifeguard services would also be greater. Demands would not be anticipated at levels that would adversely impact the ability for fire, police and lifeguard services to provide a safe environment for the public, although constraints to emergency access could occur. Since the same amount of residential units would occur on the project site under this alternative as the proposed project, the demands on school facilities would be substantially similar. Impacts on public services would be mitigable to less than significant. Recreation No additional population increases would directly result from implementation of this alternative because the same number of residential units would be provided, although indirect increases in population could occur as a result of the additional visitor-serving commercial uses. The project does not propose adequate recreational facilities, although these could be provided through on-site areas and payment of in-lieu fees, as identified in MM REC-1. A similar amount of recreational facilities would be anticipated under this alternative, and, consequently, impacts associated with construction of recreational facilities related to air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology, and hazardous materials would occur, similar to the proposed project. Transportation and Traffic Transportation impacts would occur and could be exacerbated under this alternative, since additional traffic would be generated by more intensive uses. Under 2008 background conditions, PCH and Warner would operate at LOS E (ICU 0.966) and LOS F (ICU 1.043) during the A.M. and P.M. peak hours,respectively under City criteria. Under 2008 background conditions, PCH and Warner would operate at LOS F under Caltrans Criteria. Under this alternative, more Pacific City EIR 4-11 f i Chapter 4 Alternatives to the Proposed Project traffic would be added to the circulation system, and the addition of traffic would worsen impacts at this intersection under the City and Caltrans criteria for this alternative. Under 2020 background conditions, intersection operations at this location would improve due to projected roadway improvements, and significant impacts would not be anticipated. Similar to the proposed project, roadway improvements for the year 2008 condition have been identified under MM TR-1. However, because the feasibility of this alternative cannot be determined, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable at this intersection, as identified under Impact TR-1. The intersection of PCH and Seapoint would operate at LOS E (HCM 62.8) under background year 2008 conditions under Caltrans criteria during the P.M. peak hour. Under this alternative,, more traffic would be added to the circulation system, and the addition of traffic would worsen impacts at this intersection under the Caltrans criteria for this alternative. MM TR-2 would reduce impacts under 2008 conditions, although impacts could remain significant. Under background 2020 conditions, this intersection would operate at - LOS E (ICU 0.952) during the P.M. peak hour, as described under Impact TR-4. Under this alternative, more traffic would be added to the circulation system, and the addition of traffic would worsen impacts at this intersection. MM TR-2 would reduce the ICU at this intersection, although impacts could remain significant. Roadway segments would not be significantly impacted under the 2008 or 2020 conditions under the proposed project, as described under Impact TR-3 and Impact TR-5. Since additional traffic would be generated by more intensive uses under this alternative, it would be anticipated that impacts to roadway segments would be greater in magnitude than the proposed project. Impact TR-6 under the proposed project identifies the need for a traffic signal at the intersection of First Street and Atlanta Avenue. This alternative would also result in the need for a traffic signal at this intersection. Additional intersections may also require signalization under this alternative due to the increase in visitor-serving commercial uses. Impacts described for the proposed project related to parking, access, roadway hazards, and compliance with transportation policies (Impact TR-7 through Impact TR-11) would be the same under this alternative. The increase in visitor-serving commercial uses would increase demands on parking, and a corresponding increase in parking spaces would be provided. The overall site layout, in particular project access and internal circulation, would not change under this alternative. Therefore, impacts to these issues would remain the same as under the proposed project. Project operations that would ensure compliance with transportation policies would also remain unchanged and these impacts would be the same as described for the proposed project. 4-12 City of Huntington Beach Chapter 4 Alternatives to the Proposed Project Utilities and Service Systems Under this alternative, the increase in visitor-serving commercial development would increase the demands on water and wastewater services, and the amount of solid waste generated at the project site. Similar to the proposed project, construction of the necessary water and wastewater lines on- and off-site would be performed to accommodate the demands of the project. In terms of the increased demand on water services, the City's 2000 Water Master Plan, which evaluates and plans for adequate water supply at build-out of the General Plan, as amended, and adopted specific plans, including the Downtown Specific Plan, as amended, concluded that water can be provided at full system build-out by Year 2020. This alternative would be within the allowable intensities for development, and therefore, has been accounted for in the 2000 Water Master Plan. As such, maximum build-out of the project site would not result in significant impacts on water supply. In terms of wastewater service, the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) estimates that there would be more than 30 mgd of unused peak flow capacity for the Coast Trunk Sewer through the year 2020, which • is more than sufficient to handle the peak sewage flows resulting from the project under this alternative. Therefore, the impact of development under this alternative on the Coast Trunk Sewer capacity would be less than significant. In terms of solid waste, the City is responsible for meeting'the requirements of AB939, which includes a 50 percent disposal reduction by the start of 2000 and preparation of a solid waste reduction plan to help reduce the amount of solid waste disposed at landfills. Incorporation of the identified mitigation measures would help minimize this impact, although solid waste impacts would be greater under this alternative. Overall, impacts associated with utilities and service systems would be greater under this alternative than the proposed project, although impacts would be mitigated to less-than-significant levels. 4.2.3 Reduced Project Alternative Description Implementation of the Reduced Project Alternative would result in less visitor-serving commercial uses, while maintaining the same amount of resort and residential uses as under the proposed project. Specifically, this alternative would provide a total of 561,100 sf of visitor-serving commercial uses, which include 112,200 sf of retail uses, 48,900 sf of restaurant/clubs, and 30,000'sf of office space, as shown in Table 4-1, below. These uses under the Reduced Project Alternative would represent a'reduction of 28,900 sf of retail uses and a 30,000 sf decrease in office uses, while increasing restaurant/club uses by 10,000 sf. Commercial Pacific City EIR 4-13 Chapter 4 Alternatives to the Proposed Project structures would be one and two stories in height, instead of one to three stories in height as under the proposed project. Square footage on the first floor would be reduced by 1,000 sf, as compared to the proposed project. However, the overall site coverage would be similar. Table 4-1 Reduced Project Commercial Uses Component Square Footage Visitor-Serving Commercial Uses(6.4 net acres) Retail 112,200sf Restaurants/Clubs 48,900 sf Office 30,000 sf • Total 191,100 sf Hotel Uses(4.2 nel acres) 400 Guest Rooms 334,000 sf Ballroom 16,000 sf Spa(30 treatment rooms) 15,000 sf Restaurant 5,000 sf Total 370,000 sf SOURCE: Makallon Atlanta Huntington Beach,LLC,July 3,2003a The remaining proposed resort and residential uses are identical to the proposed project. A 400-room hotel/resort totaling 370,000 sf would be provided on eight floors. Other resort uses include a 16,000 sf ballroom, a 15,000 sf spa with 30 treatment rooms on two floors, and a 5,000 sf restaurant. The residential component of this alternative would include 516 units totaling approximately 1,089,387 sf, which includes common area and decks. Similar to the proposed project, approximately 1,543 parking spaces would be provided in a subterranean garage as well as approximately 55 on-site surface parking spaces along Pacific View Avenue for the hotel and visitor-serving commercial uses. In addition, approximately 1,341 parking spaces would be provided in a subterranean garage and approximately 19 spaces along the loop road for the residential uses. Attainment of Project Objectives This alternative, by maintaining the same amount of residential development and reducing the amount of visitor-serving commercial development by 48,900 sf, would achieve most of the project objectives --- identified by the Applicant and the City. The reduction in visitor-serving commercial development under this alternative includes reducing the amount of office uses by 30,000 sf and retail uses by 28,900 sf, while increasing the amount of restaurants/clubs by 10,000 sf. Implementation of this alternative would meet the City's objective of enhancing its Downtown as a destination for visitors by expanding hotel, retail, and entertainment opportunities. However, because the extent of visitor-serving commercial development 4-14 City of Huntington Beach Chapter 4 Alternatives to the Proposed Project would not be as great as that allowed under the proposed project, the Applicant's objective of generating economic growth opportunities for the community that is consistent with the City's General Plan goals and creating additional employment opportunities for local and area residents would be achieved to a lesser degree. Impacts •Aesthetics A reduction in retail and office uses under this alternative would,reduce the development intensity on the site. Impacts to scenic resources within PCH, as described under Impact AES-1, would be the same under this alternative. The primary scenic resources visible from PCH near the project site include the beach and Pacific Ocean and Huntington Beach Pier, all located south and west of PCH. The project would develop land east and north of PCH, such that the project would not affect views of these scenic resources. A pedestrian overcrossing could be constructed in the future, and similar to the proposed project, impacts on scenic resources as a result of this project feature would be less than significant. Impacts to scenic vistas, as described under Impact AES-2 for the proposed project, would also be less than significant under this alternative. This alternative would include no 3-story commercial structures, although the overall building footprint would remain the same. Thus, views of the beach area from locations north of PCH would be similarly affected under this alternative, and impacts would be less than significant. Changes to visual character as described under Impact AES-3 for the proposed project would be similar under this alternative. The project would implement- a high-quality mixed-use development on an underutilized site with no scenic.resources. The project would implement the objectives of the Downtown, Specific Plan on the site, and would be compatible in massing and character with adjacent development. The reduction in massing and building height associated with the less intense uses under this alternative reduces the contribution of the project to the overall density of development in the Downtown area. However, this alternative would not change the project effects to the visual character, and impacts under this alternative would remain less than significant. Impacts on shade/shadow and light and glare under this alternative would be similar to the proposed project. The primary contributor to shadows would be the eight-story hotel tower, which would remain a part of this alternative. This project feature would cast shadows onto adjacent residential areas during the Winter Solstice for fewer than three hours. Impacts would be similar to the proposed project, and would be less than significant, as described under Impact AES-4. As discussed under Impact AES-5, the project would result in additional sources of nighttime lighting and glare. As the lighting provisions of the Huntington Beach standard conditions of approval require that all outdoor lighting be directed to prevent light spillage Pacific City EIR 415 Chapter 4 Alternatives to the Proposed Project onto adjacent properties, the impact of nighttime lighting on the project site and the project vicinity would be less than significant under this alternative. However, although there would be a decrease in the amount of gmf visitor-serving commercial development, the project under this alternative may also introduce additional reflective surfaces (e.g., brightly colored building façades, reflective glass) that could increase existing levels of daytime glare, which would potentially constitute a significant, impact. Incorporation of MM AES-1 would reduce this impact associated with daytime glare to a less-than-significant level. Since the location of project access under this alternative would not change, the impacts related to vehicular headlights on neighboring residences would remain a less-than-significant impact, as described under Impact AES-6. Impacts under the Reduced Project Alternative would generally be less severe than the proposed project. Air Quality The reduced project alternative would reduce total site development by 48,900 sf, which would result in a corresponding decrease in vehicular trips, and, therefore, air quality emissions. Air Quality impacts associated with site preparation activities that include excavation and grading, as well as construction of proposed structures, as identified in Impact AQ-1, would be the similar to those under the proposed project. MM AQ-1 through MM AQ-5 would be required to reduce construction emissions. Despite the reduction in the project site, the size of the'site, coupled with the concurrent residential and commercial/hotel construction would result in significant and unavoidable construction air quality impacts. Under project operations, fewer operational trips by consumers and/or delivery trucks would occur, and air quality impacts associated with exceeding SCAQMD thresholds as identified in Impact AQ-2 would be less severe under this alternative than those anticipated under the proposed project. The estimated daily operational emissions associated with the reduced project alternative are presented in Table 4-2 and take _ into consideration the internal trip reduction and mode-shift reduction characteristics of the mixed-use interaction of the proposed project and the surrounding land uses, and the design features of the proposed project. As shown, the reduced project alternative would generate daily emissions of VOC that exceed the thresholds of significance recommended by the SCAQMD. MM AQ-6 and MM AQ-7 would reduce effects, although operational impacts as described under Impact AQ-2 would remain significant and unavoidable. 416 City of Huntington Beach Chapter 4 Alternatives to the Proposed Project Table 4-2 Reduced Project Alternative Daily Operational Emissions Emissions in Pounds per Day Emissions Source CO VOC NOx SOx PM,o Water and Space Heating 3.13 0.57 7.58 0.00 0.01 Landscape Maintenance 1.10 0.13 0.02 0.00 0.00 Consumer Products - 25.24 - - - Motor Vehicles 445.36 41.66 47.09 0.31 58.55 Total Emissions 449.60 67.60 54.69 0.31 58.57 Thresholds'(Ib/day) 550.00 55.00 55.00 150.00 150.00 Significant Impact No Yes No No No SOURCE: EIP Associates,2003.Computer sheets are provided in Appendix B. Implementation of this alternative would also have a less-than-significant impact associated with localized pollutant concentrations as discussed under Impact AQ-3. This alternative would have a less-than-significant impact associated with implementation of the Air Quality Management Plan, similar to the proposed project as described under Impact AQ-4. In addition, similar to the proposed project and as discussed under Impact AQ-5, implementation of the proposed project could release toxic air contaminants, but not in significant amounts. Overall, impacts would be less than the proposed project, but would remain significant and unavoidable. Biological Resources As the current site would be developed to the same site coverage and excavated to similar depths under this alternative, both direct and indirect biological resource impacts associated with project development on the site would be similar when compared to the proposed project. In addition, identical to the proposed project, all existing vegetation would be removed from the site and the vacant site would be replaced with urban uses. As such, impacts associated with special status plant species and special status wildlife species would be similar to conditions under the proposed project as described in Impact BIO-1 and Impact BIO-2. With incorporation of MM BIO-1, which requires that a special status plant survey be prepared, these _'- impacts would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. Implementation of the Reduced Project Alternative would also be consistent with local policies and ordinances protecting biological resources. This would result in a less-than-significant impact, identical under .Impact BIO-3 for the proposed project. Similar to the proposed project, the Reduced Project Alternative would not result in impacts to federally protected wetlands, as described under Impact BIO-4. Indirect impacts.associated with construction effects and nighttime lighting would occur under this alternative, as described under Impact BIO-5 and Impact BIO-6. The overall impacts to biological resources under this alternative would be similar to those anticipated under the proposed project but slightly less severe. Pacific City EIR 4-17 Chapter 4 Alternatives to the Proposed Project Cultural Resources Although the intensity of visitor-serving commercial development at the project site would decrease under this alternative, the result would be the elimination of one building floor that was designated for office use under the proposed project. The amount of site coverage and the extent of excavation and grading activities would be similar to conditions under the proposed project. As such, the impacts associated with documented paleontological resources on-site could occur due to the potential disturbance and degradation of these resources, as described under Impact CR-1. Similar to the proposed project, this impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level with incorporation of MM CR-1. Construction activities under this alternative could also cause substantial adverse change in the significance of a prehistoric archaeological site (CA-ORA-149) or of previously unknown archaeological resources, including human burials, as described under Impact CR-2 and Impact CR-3. Similar to the proposed project, these impacts would be reduced to a less-than-significant level with incorporation of MM CR-1 and MM CR-2. Also similar to the proposed project is that implementation of this alternative would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of CA-ORA-1582H, a historical archaeological dump site, as the site is not considered a historic resource under CEQA, as described under Impact CR-4. This impact would also be less than significant under this alternative. Impacts to cultural resources would, under this alternative, be similar to those anticipated under the proposed project. Energy and Mineral Resources The decrease in the amount of visitor-serving commercial development under this alternative by 48,900 sf, when compared to the proposed project, would result in less demand for electricity and natural gas. Specifically, the increased demands from this alternative would be approximately 128,662 KVA less of electricity and 1,635,600 cubic feet less of natural gas in comparison to those described in Impact EM-1 and Impact EM-2. As a result, implementation of this Reduced Project Development alternative would not increase energy demands beyond available electricity and natural gas supply, and, similar to the proposed project, impacts would be less than significant. Impacts associated with the loss of availability of a known mineral resource or the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource site under this alternative would occur to the same extent as the proposed project as described under Impact EM-3 because the site would be developed to the same site coverage and the same amount of excavation would occur. The feasibility of slant drilling would ensure that the mineral resources would remain accessible despite development on site, and impacts associated with the loss of mineral resources would be less than significant. Overall, impacts to energy and mineral resources 4-18 City of Huntington Beach Chapter 4 Alternatives to the Proposed Project under this alternative would be less severe than those anticipated under the proposed project, since less demand for electricity and natural gas would occur. Geology and Soils Development under this alternative would result in a reduction of visitor-serving commercial uses, with fewer patrons present on the project site. As such, implementation of the Reduced Project Alternative would expose fewer people and structures on-site to strong seismic ground shaking and seismic-related ground failure associated with liquefaction. Impacts would be similar to the proposed project as described,in Impact GEO-1, but less severe. Impacts would be reduced to a less-than-significant level with incorporation of MM GEO-1. Also similar to the proposed project, development under this alternative would result in structures that would be located on soils that are considered potentially expansive, unstable, prone to settlement, and corrosive, as described under Impact GEO-2. .Thus, impacts under this alternative would be 1 potentially significant but reduced to a less-than-significant level with incorporation of MM GEO-1. Soil erosion on the project site resulting from construction activities would occur under this alternative, as described under Impact GEO-3. However,.similar to the proposed project, the development would be t_' required to incorporate the provisions of the General Construction Activity Stormwater Permit adopted by the SWRCB, and be in compliance with Chapters 29 and 70 of the CBC. Erosion impacts would be similar to the proposed project, and be less than significant under this alternative. Overall, geological impacts associated with the Reduced Project Alternative would be similar to but less severe when compared to those under the proposed project. Hazards and Hazardous Materials The extent of excavation and grading under this alternative would be similar to the proposed project. Since there is the potential for unidentified soil contamination to exist on the project site, construction activities under this alternative could expose construction personnel and the public to these hazards, as described under Impact HAZ-1. In addition, these construction activities could also result in damage to existing abandoned oil wells on site, as described under Impact HAZ-2. Similar to the proposed project, incorporation of MM HAZ-1 through MM HAZ-8, which requires preparation of closure reports, sampling iF of the project site in select areas, formulation of a remediation plan, and adherence to the outlined construction protocols in the event contaminated soils are discovered or oil wells are damaged, would be required. As such, these impacts would be reduced to a less-than-significant level, similar to the proposed project. Despite remediation efforts performed on site, development under this alternative could also { expose visitors,and residents to residual oil contamination that may have not been previously detected, as described under Impact HAZ-3. However, the potential for residual oil contamination in the soil is rather Pacific City EIR 4-19 Chapter 4 Alternatives to the Proposed Project remote. Thus, this impact would be less than significant, similar to conditions under the proposed project. Overall, impacts associated with hazards.and hazardous materials under this alternative would be similar but less severe when compared to those of the proposed project. Hydrology and Water Quality Impacts associated with hydrology and water quality under this alternative would be substantially similar to those described.for the proposed project, as the same amount of impermeable surface area would be created despite the decrease in visitor-serving commercial development intensity. The quantity and constituents of stormwater runoff would be anticipated to be substantially similar to the proposed project. New development affecting water quality would occur, and similar to the proposed project, this development would be governed by existing regulations, including the NPDES process. As with the proposed project, implementation of structural and nonstructural best management practices (BMPs) described for the - proposed project would ensure that impacts would remain less than significant, as described under Impact HYD-1. Infrastructure improvements would be required as a condition of approval, and, therefore, impacts to the storm drain system would be substantially similar to the proposed project, as described under Impact HYD-2. This alternative would also contribute to a reduction in flows to the Atlanta Stormwater Pump Station, as discussed under Impact HYD-3. This alternative would result in the placement of additional structures in an area of low to moderate tsunami risk, similar to the project as described under Impact HYD-4, and these impacts would be mitigated through the participation in citywide emergency preparedness plans, as described under MM HYD-1. Overall, hydrology and water quality impacts would be reduced to less than significant and substantially similar to those of the proposed project. Land Use and Planning Similar to the proposed project, implementation of this alternative would not result in conflicts with the City's General Plan, the Downtown Specific Plan, or adjacent uses as described under Impact LU-1 and Impact LU-2. Specifically, the same land uses, which include visitor-serving commercial, resort, and residential uses would be provided under this alternative, although there would be reduction in 48,900 sf of visitor-serving commercial space. Therefore, the project would be consistent with applicable land use plans and adjacent uses. Similar to the proposed project, impacts would be less than significant. Noise Since the ultimate development potential would be reduced under this alternative by 48,900 sf, operational vehicle trips would be reduced, and roadway noise impacts would be less intense'than those described for the proposed project. While less overall development would occur, daily construction activities would be 4-20 City of Huntington Beach Chapter 4 Alternatives to the Proposed Project anticipated to be the same, such that resulting'construction noise levels would be the same as described under Impact N-1 and Impact N-2. Similar to the proposed project, construction-related impacts would be P P P P P less than significant and would be further reduced through MM N-1. On-site noise impacts related to the reduced commercial development of this alternative would be less than that of the proposed project, with less vehicular noise due to fewer cars arriving and departing from'the project site than compared to the proposed project. However, increased noise could still expose new residential land uses on site to noise levels in excess of City standards, as described under Impact`N-3, and this impact would be mitigable to less-than-significant levels by MM N-2. Since the proposed project would not increase ambient noise levels above City requirements, this alternative would also result in noise within allowable levels, as described under Impact N-4. Impacts would be mitigable to less than significant,and overall, noise impacts would be less intense under this alternative than under the proposed project: Population and. Housing Since this alternative would result in the same amount of residential development (516 condominiums) as the proposed project, impacts associated with direct increases in population and housing would be similar under this alternative, as described under Impact P-1 and Impact P-2. 'This increase in population and housing would be consistent with the growth that was assumed to occur under the City's General Plan, and a less-than-significant impact would occur. Implementation of this alternative would result in hotel and visitor-serving commercial uses that would generate increases in employment, and indirectly increase the population of the City. This alternative would result in generation of 513 employees and office tenants, in comparison to 573 employees and office tenants provided under the proposed project. Although commercial uses would be less than under the proposed project, increases in employment, similar to the proposed project, would remain consistent with what was assumed to occur under the City's General Plan. An affordable housing plan would need to be provided in order to meet Redevelopment Agency requirements, and this could be accomplished through implementation of MM P-1. As such, impacts associated with population and housing under this alternative would be mitigable to less than significant and would be less in magnitude when compared to the conditions of the proposed project. Public Services Implementation of this alternative would result in an increase of residents and visitors within the project site, thereby increasing demands for fire protection, police services, school facilities, and lifeguard services. Overall, the demands on public services under this alternative would be largely the same as.the proposed project as described under Impact PS-1,,Impact PS-2, Impact PS-3, and Impact PS-4. The reduction in square footage of office and retail uses would not measurably affect impacts on public services: Constraints Pacific City EIR 4-21 Chapter 4 Alternatives to the Proposed Project - to emergency access could still occur, and these impacts would be addressed through MM PS-1 through MM PS-3. Impacts to police and lifeguard services would be less than significant. MM PS-4 and MM PS-6 would remain recommended in order to further reduce impacts. The same number of additional residents and resulting students as the project would result, and a total of approximately 66 high school, 68 middle school, and 183 elementary students would be generated. Payment of statutory school fees, as identified in MM PS-5, would reduce this impact, and impacts would be reduced to less-than-significant levels. Recreation Since the amount of residential units under this alternative would be the same as the proposed project, the impact related to the City's standard park ratio would be the same as the proposed project, as described under Impact REC-1. The project does not propose recreational facilities that would meet the City parkland requirements, although these could be provided through on-site areas and payment of in-lieu fees, as identified in MM REC-1. The same amount of recreational facilities would be developed under this - alternative, and, consequently, impacts associated with construction of recreational facilities, as described under Impact REC-2, related to air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology, and hazardous materials would occur, similar to the proposed project. Overall, recreational impacts would be the same as the proposed project under this alternative. Transportation and Traffic Less traffic would be generated by the reduction in commercial uses, although impacts to transportation would remain. Under 2008 background conditions, PCH and Warner would operate at LOS E (ICU 0.966) and LOS F (ICU 1.043) during the A.M. and P.M. peak hours, respectively under City criteria, as discussed under Impact TR-1. Under 2008 background conditions, PCH and Warner would operate at LOS F under Caltrans Criteria. With a reduction in visitor-serving commercial uses under this alternative, less traffic would be added to the circulation system. However, as background levels are already projected to operate at unacceptable levels, the addition of traffic would remain significant at this intersection under the City and Caltrans criteria for this alternative. Under 2020 background conditions, intersection operations at this location would improve due to projected roadway improvements, and significant impacts would -not be anticipated. Similar to the proposed project, roadway improvements for the year 2008 condition have been identified under MM TR-1. However, because the feasibility of this alternative cannot be determined, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable at this intersection, as identified under Impact TR-1. 4-22 City of Huntington Beach Chapter 4 Alternatives to the Proposed Project The intersection of PCH and Seapoint would operate at LOS E (HCM 62.8) under background year 2008 conditions under Caltrans criteria during the P.M. peak hour, as discussed under Impact TR-2. With a reduction in visitor-serving commercial uses under this alternative, less traffic would be added to the circulation system. However, as background levels are already projected to operate at unacceptable levels, ( the addition of traffic would remain significant at this intersection under the Caltrans criteria for this alternative. MM TR-2 would reduce impacts under 2008 conditions to a less-than-significant level, similar to the proposed project. The intersection of PCH and Seapoint would operate at LOS E (ICU 0.952) under background 2020 conditions during the P.M. peak hour, as discussed under Impact TR-4. With a reduction in visitor-serving commercial uses under this alternative, less traffic would be added to the circulation system. However, as r background levels are already projected to operate at unacceptable levels, the addition of traffic would remain significant at this intersection. MM TR-2 would reduce impacts at this intersection to a less-than- significant level. Roadway segments would not be significantly impacted under the 2008 or 2020 conditions under the proposed project, as described under Impact TR-3 and Impact TR-5. This alternative would result in less traffic, and would also have a less-than-significant impact on roadway segments. Impact TR-6 under the proposed project identifies the need for a traffic signal at the intersection of First Street and Atlanta Avenue. The reduction in traffic would not eliminate the need for a signal at this location, since a signal would be required due to existing plus•ambient growth. MM TR-3 would reduce this impact to less than significant. Impacts described for the proposed project related to parking, access, roadway hazards, and compliance with transportation policies (Impact TR-7 through Impact TR-11) would be the same under this alternative. The reduction in visitor-serving commercial uses would reduce demands on parking. Under this alternative, the total number of parking spaces provided would be identical to the proposed project. Since less development would occur, there would be fewer demands on parking spaces under this alternative, and the parking spaces provided would exceed demand, based on the shared parking analysis. The overall site layout, in particular project access and internal circulation, would not change under this alternative. Therefore, impacts to these issues would remain the same as under the proposed project. Project operations that would ensure compliance with transportation policies would also remain unchanged and these impacts would be the same as described for the proposed project. Pacific City EIR 4-23 1 i Chapter 4 Alternatives to the Proposed Project Utilities and Service Systems Under this alternative, the decrease in office and retail development would result in fewer demands on water and wastewater services, and the amount of solid waste generated at the project site than as described under Impact LI-1 through Impact LI-4. Overall, utilities and service systems impacts would be less severe under this alternative than the proposed project since less development would occur. The City's 2000 Urban Water Management Plan and Water Master Plan indicated that adequate water supply exists to serve the proposed project. This,alternative would result in fewer additional demands on water. Therefore, impacts associated with sufficient water supply under this alternative would also be less than significant. This alternative is anticipated to result in demands of approximately 406,950 gpd, which is 1,950 gpd less than the proposed project. Additionally, since the project Applicant has agreed to fund the construction of new water lines on- and off-site to improve the City's distribution system beyond its present capabilities, sufficient fire flows would also exist. Adequate capacity exists in the Coast Trunk Sewer and OCSD's existing wastewater treatment facilities to serve the proposed project. This alternative would result in approximately 228,280 gpd of wastewater, which is 7,700 gpd less generation of wastewater compared to the proposed project. Because the existing facilities would adequately serve the project, this alternative, which has a lower wastewater generation, would also be adequately served and this impact would also be less thansignificant. q Y P The reduction in visitor-serving commercial development under this alternative would result in annual solid waste generation at the project site of 1,666 tons, which is approximately 215 tons less than the proposed _ project. Incorporation of MM LI-1 identified for the proposed project would further reduce solid waste impacts under this alternative to a less-than-significant level. 4.3 OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED This section discusses alternatives that were considered but not carried forward for detailed analysis. These alternatives were part of the initial screening process, which identified a range of potential alternatives. Alternatives were not evaluated in detail because they either did not meet project objectives, and/or did not reduce significant project impacts. 4.3.1 Alternative Site An alternative site was reviewed as a potential alternative to the project site. Due to the developed nature of the City, there are a limited number of sites that are at least 31 acres in size and could accommodate the 4-24 City of Huntington Beach Chapter 4 Alternatives to the Proposed Project proposed project components. A site known as the Nesi Ascon Site, located southeast of the project site on the southwest corner of Magnolia Street and Hamilton Avenue within the City, was considered, as it is large enough to accommodate the proposed uses. However, this site is a former landfill that accepted hazardous waste, and usage of this site would require extensive remediation efforts prior to project implementation. In addition, this site is general planned and zoned solely for residential uses, which would not meet the Applicant or City objectives related to generation of employment and strengthening the City as a visitor- serving destination. Thus, this site was not analyzed in detail because it would not meet project objectives and would require extensive remediation. 4.3.2 Limited Development-Alternative An alternative that would result in limited commercial development beyond the Reduced Project Alternative was considered. As previously discussed, the intent of the alternatives analysis is to provide alternatives to the project that would reduce significant project impacts while meeting most of the objectives of the project. Significant and unavoidable impacts would result from operationalair emissions. In addition, one of the significant project impacts is traffic impacts to the intersection of PCH and Seapoint Avenue under 2008 and 2020 conditions. Significant and unavoidable impacts would occur at the intersection of PCH and Warner, although these would occur in the near-term conditions only. The key contributor of roadway trips that result in the significant air quality and traffic impacts is a result of the retail and office components of the project. In order to reduce project contribution to operational air quality emissions and impacts to the PCH/Seapoint intersection to less-than-significant levels without mitigation, the project would need to be reduced to 96,600 sf.of retail uses, with no office or hotel uses contained in the project at all. This reduction would be less than half the commercial development currently proposed and would result in less-than-significant operational air quality impacts and traffic effects. This alternative would fail to satisfy the basic objectives of the project and would likely render the project '~ f infeasible. A key City objective is the implementation of the Downtown Specific Plan, which identifies strengthening the visitor-service services of the area, such as hotel and retail uses. The need for hotels in the Downtown is a key element of the Specific Plan that would bring a critical mass of activity to the waterfront area to support expansion of other services. In addition, the City objectives include enhancement of the Downtown as a destination for visitors by expanding hotel,retail, and entertainment opportunities. None of these project objectives would be met under this alternative. In addition, the Applicant has indicated that without a critical mass of commercial and hotel uses, the project is not feasible to implement from an economic perspective and would not be implemented. Therefore, this alternative is not analyzed in detail. Pacific City EIR . • 4-25 Chapter 4 Alternatives to the Proposed Project 4.3.3 Reduced Residential Density Alternative A reduced residential density alternative was also considered. This alternative would focus on a decrease in the number of condominiums proposed as part of the project. A reduction in the density of residential units would reduce the severity of impacts, but would not lessen any significant impacts to less-than-significant levels. Significant and unavoidable impacts to air quality would result during project construction and operation. Daily construction activities would be the same even with a reduction in density, so this impact would remain. Significant impacts related to operational air emissions are largely a result of vehicular traffic, of which commercial development is the primary contributor. A reduction in density of residential uses would not reduce operational air emissions or traffic impacts below levels of significance. A reduction in density would reduce the changes in the character of the area, as discussed under the aesthetic and land use analyses. Visual changes were determined not to adversely impact the visual quality of the area or the public availability of scenic views, as discussed in Section 3.1. The project would also be compatible with the density of surrounding areas, and with the allowable zoning for the site, such that land use impacts would be less than significant under the proposed project, as discussed in Section 3.9. Therefore, the reduction in density would not address any significant visual or land use impact, since none would result from the proposed project. All other project impacts would be mitigable to less-than- significant levels. A reduced residential density alternative would not reduce significant impacts that could not otherwise be reduced by mitigation measures identified for the proposed project. As such, an analysis of this alternative is not provided in detail. 4.4 ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE A comparison of the proposed project with the alternatives analyzed in this section provides the basis for determination of the environmentally superior alternative. Impacts of each of the alternatives are compared to the proposed project in Table 4-3. Impacts to a particular resource that would be greater than the proposed project are indicated with a plus (+) sign, and impacts to a particular resource that would be less than the proposed project are indicated with a minus (—) sign. Impacts to resources that would be roughly equivalent to the proposed project are indicated with an equals(_) sign in the table below. The No Project/No Development Alternative would be environmentallysuperior to the ro osed project P P P P on the basis of the minimization or avoidance of physical environmental impacts. However, the CEQA Guidelines require that if the environmentally superior alternative is the No Project Alternative, "the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives." 4-26 City of Huntington Beach Chapter 4 Alternatives to the Proposed Project Table,4-3 Comparison of Alternatives to the Proposed Project No Project/No Reasonably Foreseeable Reduced Project ' Environmental Issue Area Development Alternative Development Alternative Alternative Aesthetics — + — Air Quality — + — Biological Resources Cultural Resources Energy and Mineral Resources — + — Geology and Soils - — + — Hazards and Hazardous Materials — + — Hydrology and Water Quality Land.Use — + • _ Noise Population.and Housing — + - -- Public Services Recreation Transportation — + — . Utilities — + — (—)=Impacts considered to be less when compared with the proposed project. (+)=Impacts considered to be greater when compared with the proposed project. (=)=Impacts considered to be equal or similar to the proposed project. The Reasonably Foreseeable Development Alternative would result in impacts that would be greater than the proposed project. Therefore, this alternative would not be environmentally superior. The remaining alternative that is considered feasible and would reduce project impacts is the Reduced Project Alternative. This alternative would meet the overall project objectives. This alternative would reduce environmental impacts on some resources. The resources where impacts would be significant and unavoidable include air quality and transportation. The Reduced Project'Alternative would not reduce impacts to levels of less than significance for either of these resources. This alternative would reduce the number of vehicular trips and associated impacts on air quality and transportation, although impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. The Reduced Project Alternative would reduce environmental impacts to 9 out of 15 resources. Therefore, the Reduced Project Alternative would be considered the environmentally superior alternative to the proposed project. Implementation of this alternative, as shown in the table above, would result in less severe impacts associated with aesthetics, air quality, energy and mineral resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, noise, population and housing, transportation, and utilities. Significant and unavoidable impacts would remain to air quality and transportation. When compared to the proposed project, implementation of the Reduced Project Alternative would result in similar impacts to biological resources, cultural resources, hydrology and water quality, land use, public services, and Pacific City EIR 4-27 Chapter 4 Alternatives to the Proposed.Project recreation. While the overall level of significance of impacts to each of these resources would remain the same, the magnitude of impacts would be less than under the proposed project. Under this alternative, most of the project objectives identified by the City of Huntington Beach and the Applicant would be achieved. 4-28 City of Huntington Beach Chapter 5 LONG-TERM IMPLICATIONS 5.1 GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS Section 15126.2(d) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that this section discuss the ways in which the proposed project could foster economic, population, or housing growth, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment. Growth-inducing impacts are caused by those characteristics of a project that tend to foster or encourage population and/or economic growth. Inducements to growth include the generation of construction and permanent employment opportunities in the service sector of the economy. - A project could also induce growth by lowering or removing barriers to growth or by creating an amenity that attracts new population or economic activity. According to the Section 6.0 of the General Plan EIR (City 1995), incorporated herein by reference, implementation of the General Plan would induce growth, particularly in the associated removal of impediments to growth (e.g., provision of new access to an area) and increased potential for economic expansion. The following activities have the potential to result in growth inducement: • Extension of public facilities, such as roads, electrical lines, gas lines, sewers, and water • Generation of employment opportunities, including short-term, construction employment opportunities • Development of additional housing supply A project's growth-inducing potential does not automatically result in growth, whether it is a portion of growth or actually exceeds projected levels of growth. Growth at the local level is fundamentally controlled by the land use policies of local municipalities or counties, which are determined by the local politics in each jurisdiction. 5.1.1 Extension of Public Facilities The project would require extension of sewer, water, gas, and electrical lines. These facilities would be developed to serve the project site. They would not result in the extension of services to undeveloped areas other than the proposed project. In addition project-related extensions of public facilities have generally been anticipated by the General Plan EIR, and in any case would be provided by the Applicant. Since the visitor-serving commercial and residential components proposed under the proposed project are designed to be compatible with the existing zoning and General Plan land use designations for the project site, no Pacific City EIR 5-1 Chapter 5 Long-Term Implications growth-inducing impacts due to extension of public facilities would result. Service from public facilities would not be beyond the levels envisioned by the City Department of Public Works or the respective service providers, who typically base demand projections on General Plans and also continually update projects as development occurs. Roadway extensions, particularly freeways, are often considered to induce growth because the provision of vehicular access to a previously inaccessible site can facilitate development. The extension of Pacific View Avenue through the project site would be consistent with proposed improvements in the City's General Plan Circulation Element (refer to Figure CE-3, Potential for 2010 Circulation Plan of Arterial Highways), as well as Precise Plan Street Alignment No. 88-1 (refer to Section 2.2.3 of the Project Description), and would not provide or improve access to an undeveloped parcel for which development or redevelopment has not previously been evaluated and/or approved by the City. Because the extension of Pacific View Avenue across the project site would not provide access to previously undeveloped parcels other than the project site and would not induce or facilitate development other than the project, no significant growth- inducing impact would occur as a result of this extension. 5.1.2 Employment Generation The visitor-serving commercial component of the proposed project consists of the construction of a 400- room hotel and up to 240,000 sf of commercial uses. Development of the proposed project would generate short-term, construction-related employment opportunities. These opportunities would occur over the six- year duration of the construction period. Given the supply of construction workers in the local work force, it is likely that these workers would come from within the Orange County area, and no in-migration of workers would be anticipated. Due to the nature of construction activities, the employment opportunities resulting from project construction would not be considered permanent. However, due to the size of the site and the number of employment opportunities that would be created, in addition to the duration of construction, these construction employment opportunities would be considered growth-inducing. Impact P-1 under the discussion of Population and Housing (Section 3.11) discusses the effects on employment from the proposed project. Operation of the visitor-serving commercial component would generate long-term employment opportunities associated with the new retail uses and 400-room hotel. A total of 601 new jobs would be created by the proposed project. Employment generation would not exceed those levels already anticipated and discussed in the General Plan and Downtown Specific Plan. The project would implement the General Plan and Downtown Specific Plan and therefore serve as the catalyst to create new jobs in the area. Due to the number of long-term employment opportunities that would be created, the project would be considered growth-inducing with respect to employment. 5-2 City of Huntington Beach Chapter 5 Long-Term Implications 5.1.3 Additional Housing Supply The residential component of the proposed project consists of 516 condominium homes. Although the provision of 516 new condominium homes would increase the housing supply in the City and could increase j j the population in the City, the zoning under the Downtown Specific Plan for the 17.2-net acre residential component of the project site allows development of up to 30 units per'net acre, and the proposed project is consistent with this intensity. Housing supply would be consistent with those levels already anticipated and discussed in the General Plan and Downtown Specific Plan. The project would implement the General Plan • and Downtown Specific Plan and therefore serve as the catalyst to create new housing in the area. The project would include affordable housing on site as part of the 516 units and fmance-affordable housing off site to meet redevelopment agency requirements; due to the number of new housing units that would be created, the project would be considered growth-inducing with respect to housing. 5.2 SIGNIFICANT, IRREVERSIBLE, ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES Section 15126.2(c) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires a discussion of any significant irreversible environmental changes that the proposed project would cause. Specifically, Section 15126.2(c) states: Uses of nonrenewable resources during the initial and continued phases of the project may be irreversible since a large commitment of such resources makes removal or nonuse thereafter unlikely: Primary impacts, and particularly, secondary impacts'(such as highway improvement which provides access to a previously inaccessible area)generally commit future generations to similar uses. Also,irreversible damage can result from environmental accidents associated with the project. Irretrievable commitments of resources should be evaluated to assure that such current consumption is justified. Section 15126.3(c). The construction and implementation of the proposed project will entail the commitment of energy, human resources, and building materials. This commitment of energy, personnel, and building materials will be commensurate with that of other projects of similar magnitude, and none of these commodities are in short supply. Manpower would also be committed for the construction of buildings and public facilities necessary to support the new development. Ongoing maintenance and operation of the project will entail a further commitment of energy resources in the form of natural gas, electricity, and water resources. Long-term impacts would also result from an increase in vehicular traffic, and the associated air pollutant and noise emissions. This commitment of energy resources will be a long-term obligation in view of the fact that, practically speaking, it is impossible to return the land to its original condition once it has been developed. However, as established in Section 3.5 (Energy and Mineral Resources), the impacts of increased energy usage are not considered significant adverse environmental impacts. Pacific City EIR 5-3 Chapter 5 Long-Term Implications In summary, implementation of the proposed project would involve the following irreversible environmental changes to existing on-site natural resources: • • Commitment of energy and water resources as a result of the operation and maintenance of the proposed development • Alteration of the existing topographic character of the site 5.3 SIGNIFICANT, UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS According to the CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(b), Significant Environmental Effects Which Cannot Be Avoided if the Proposed Project is Implemented. Describe -- any significant impacts, including those which can be mitigated but not reduced to a level of insignificance. Where there are impacts that cannot be alleviated without imposing an alternative design,their implications and the reasons why the project is being proposed,notwithstanding their effect,should be described. Environmental impacts associated with implementation of a project may not always be mitigated to a level considered less than significant. In such cases, a Statement of Overriding Considerations must be prepared prior to approval of the project, and in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15091 and 15093. Because implementation of the proposed project would create significant, unavoidable impacts, as further described, a Statement of Overriding Considerations is required to describe the specific reasons for - approving the project,based on information contained within the Final EIR, as well as any other information in the public record. The following are significant, unavoidable adverse impacts that would result from project implementation. A detailed discussion of each of the impacts can be found in Section 3 (Environmental-Impact Analysis) of this document. • Air Quality • > AQ-1 Peak construction activities associated with the proposed project could generate emissions that exceed SCAQMD thresholds. > AQ-2 Daily operation of the project would generate emissions that exceed SCAQMD thresholds. • Transportation > TR-1 Under Year 2008 conditions, implementation of the proposed project would significantly affect the operating conditions of the intersection of PCH at Warner Avenue and PCH by increasing traffic volume. 5-4 City of Huntington Beach Chapter 6 LIST OF PREPARERS Name Issue Area/Role Lead Agency:City of Huntington Beach Scott Hess Planning Manager Mary Beth Broeren Principal Planner EIR Consultant:EIP Associates Terri Vitar Project Director Marianne Tanzer Project Manager TJ Weule Deputy Project Manager Michael Brown Air Quality,Noise Clifford Nale Hazardous Materials Kelsey Bennett Headlight Impact Analysis John Spranza Biological Resources Terrance Wong,Christy Loper,Neill Brower,Scott Wirtz Section Authors Joel Miller Document Production John Osako Word Processing James Songco Graphics EIR Subconsultants LSA Associates Transportation/Circulation Tetra Tech/Samson&Li Hydrology _ Consultants to Applicant BonTerra Consulting Biological Technical Report Professional Archaeological Services Archaeological Resources Report i ; • Zeiser Kling Consultants,Inc. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Hunsaker&Associates Irvine,Inc. Domestic Water and Sanitary Sewer CEQA Support Information;Water Supply Assessment Harding Lawson Associates Environmental Site Assessment;Phase II Investigation Report/Remediation Plan Harding ESE Remediation Plan Pacific City EIR 6-1 Chapter 7 REFERENCES 7.1 WRITTEN REFERENCES Abrams, L. 1923. Illustrated Flora of the Pacific States, Volumes I, II, and III. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. . 1960. Illustrated Flora of the Pacific States, Volume IV. Stanford, CA: Stanford.University Press. American Ornithologists' Union- (AOU). 1998. Check-list of North American Birds, 7th ed. American Ornithologists' Union, Washington, DC. Aqua Science Engineers, Inc. 1998. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Atlanta Avenue Property, Huntington Beach, California 92648, March 26. Beatty, D. , J. Coomes, Jr., T. Hawkins, E. Quinn, Jr., and I. Yang. 1995. Redevelopment in California 1995 2nd(Second)ed. Solano Press Books. BonTerra Consulting. 2002. Revised Pacific City Biological Technical Report with cover letter, 6 February. Blasland, Bouck & Lee, Inc. 1997. Letter Report—Soil Excavation, Sampling, and Disposal of Lead Impacted Soil, Atlanta Lease, Huntington Beach Ca. Project No. 07942.01, 11 July. Bryan A. Stirrat& Associates (BAS). 2000a. Asbestos Bulk Survey: Former Grinder Restaurant, 21001 Pacific Coast Highway, Huntington Beach, California, October 17. . 2000b.Air Monitoring and Abatement Oversight: Former Grinder Restaurant, 21002 Pacific Coast Highway, Huntington Beach, California, December 14. • 11 California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 2001a. List of Special Plants. Natural Heritage Division, Sacramento, CA,January. . 2001b. California Natural Diversity(RareFind)Database. Natural Heritage Division, Sacramento, CA, October. . 2001c. Special Animals List. Natural Heritage Division, Sacramento, CA,July. California Department of Justice, Office of the Attorney General..2001. California and FBI Crime Index. http://justice.doj.ca.gov/cjsc_stats/prof01/30/11.pdf. Accessed on August 1, 2003. California Department of Motor Vehicles. 2003. California Vehicle Code Division 12—Equipment of Vehicles, Chapter 2. Lighting Equipment, Article 2. Headlamps and Auxiliary Lamps, August. http://www.dmv.ca.gov. Pacific City EIR 7-1 Chapter 7 References California Energy Commission Web site (www.energy.ca.gov/). California Integrated Waste Management Board. 2003. http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/wastechar/ WasteGenRates/WGResid.htm. Accessed on March 24, 2003. California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 2001. Electronic Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants in California. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA. California Public Utilities Commission Web site (www.cpuc.ca.gov/). California, State of. Department of Conservation. Office of Land Conservation. 1999. 1998 Orange County Important Farmland Map. California, State of. Water Code. Section 13050(k)(1) II Christopher A Joseph&Associates. 2002. City of Santa Monica Draft Master Environmental Assessment,January. de Barros, P. and S. Crull. 2002. Evaluation of Prehistoric Archaeological Site CA-ORA-149 and Historical Archaeological Site CA-ORA-1582H, January. . 2001. Paleontologic Resource Impact Mitigation Program Final Report,July. DOGGR (Department of Conservation Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources). 1998 and 1999. Reports of Well Plugging and Abandonment, API Nos.: 059-03308, 059-03309, 059-03310, 059-03312, 059-03313, 059-03314, 059-03315, 059-00122, 059-03316, 059-03317, 059-03318, 059-03319, 059-00123, 059-00124, 059-03311, 059-00125, 059-01938, 059-01905, 059-04162, 059-04164, 059-20894. Environmental Data Resources, Inc. 2003. The EDR Radius Map with GeoCheck. Prepared for the Pacific City Project, 21 February. Federal Emergency Management Agency. [1997] 2002.'Flood Insurance Rate Maps. Orange County, CA (http://mapl.msc.fema.gov/idms/IntraView.cgi?KEY=34534903&IFIT=1), as updated by Letter of Map Revision, 13 February. Flex Your Power Web site (www.flexyourpower.ca.gov/state/fyp/fyp_homepage.jsp). Gray, J., and D. E. Bramlet. 1992. Habitat Classification System Natural Resources Geographic Information System (GIS) Project. Prepared for the County of Orange Environmental Management Agency, Santa Ana, CA. G & G Engineering, Inc. 2002. Preliminary Sewer Study for the Strand, Downtown Huntington Beach, January. Harding ESE. 2001. Revised Remediation Plan,June 15. . 2002a. Additional Information for Atlanta Site, Commercial Property Bounded by PCH, Huntington Street, Atlanta Avenue, and First Street, Huntington Beach, California, January 3. 7-2 City of Huntington Beach Chapter 7 References . 2002b. Remediation Plan, Revision 3, May 22. . 2002c. Revised Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan, July 18. Harding Lawson Associates (HLA). 1995. Environmental Site Assessment(Huntington Shores Motel), 18 October. . 1996. Phase II Investigation Report/Remediation Plan, Atlanta Areas, Huntington Beach Oil Field, Huntington Beach, California, 18 December. Hickman, J. C., Editor. 1993. The Jepson Manual Higher Plants of California. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Hunsaker & Associates Irvine, Inc. 2003a. Drainage Study Including Preliminary Hydrology Analysis and Water Quality Analysis for Pacific City, 14 April. . 2003b. Water Supply Assessment, May 30. . 2002. Domestic Water System and Sanitary Sewer System CEQA Support Information, 27 November. Huntington Beach, City of. n.d. Downtown Design Guidelines for Public and Private Improvements. . n.d. Design Review Checklist. . 1983. Downtown Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report. . 1988. Water ront Ocean Grand Resort Environmental Impact Report. Prepared byLSA Associates. .f P P P . 1989. Main Pier Phase II and Main Street 100 Block Draft Environmental Impact Report. State Clearinghouse No. 89091304. Prepared by STA Planning Incorporated. . [1990] 2003. Municipal Code (www.ci.huntington-beach.ca.us/ElectedOfficials/CityClerk/ MunicipalCode/). As Amended through January 2003. Web site says 7/3/02. . 1991. Main Pier Phase II and Main Street 100 Block Environmental Impact Report Addendum/Response to Comments. State Clearinghouse No. 89091304. Prepared by STA Planning Incorporated. . 1994. Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (www.ci.huntington-beach.ca.us/ElectedOfficials/ C ity C lerk/Z oning C o de/). . 1995a. General Plan Update Draft Environmental Impact Report. State Clearinghouse No. 94091018. Prepared by Envicom Corporation. . 1995b. Downtown Specific Plan. . 1996a. Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project Environmental Impact Report. State Clearinghouse No. 96041075. Prepared by LSA Associates. . 1996b. General Plan. Prepared by Envicom Corporation, 13 May. Pacific City EIR 7-3 Chapter 7 References i . 1998. Waterfront Ocean Grand Resort_Supplemental Environmental Impact Report. Prepared by EIP Associates. . 1999. Mitigated Negative Declaration for the 31 Acre Site Soil Export. Environmental Assessment No. 99-1. . 2000a. City of Huntington Beach General Plan, Community Development Chapter, 2000-2005 Housing Element. . 2000b. City of Huntington Beach Water Master Plan, December. . 2000c. City of Huntington Beach Urban Design Guidelines, 5 September. Adopted by Resolution No. 2000-87. . 2000d. City of Huntington Beach Emergency Management Plan. Emergency Services Office. Updated 1 December. . 2001a. City of Huntington Beach General Plan, Natural Resources Chapter, Coastal Element. . 200lb. City of Huntington Beach Park Strategy and Fee Nexus Study, Final Report. December. . Planning Department. 2001. Notice of Exemption for Coastal Development Permit No. 00-09/Conditional Use Permit No. 00-36 (Filed on March 12, 2001), 14 February. . 2002a. Huntington Beach Downtown Specific Plan "Village Concept."Ordinance No. 3532. Revised 6 February. . 2002b. Block 104/105 Final Environmental Impact Report. Prepared by EIP Associates. • . City of Huntington Beach Web site (www.ci.huntington-beach.ca.us/). Lander, E. B. 1998. Paleontologic Resource Inventory/Impact Assessment, Huntington Beach Urban Center, Huntington Beach, Orange County, California. Paleo Environmental Associates, Inc. Prepared for Professional Archaeological Services. Laudenslayer, W. F., Jr., W. E. Grenfell, Jr., and D. C. Zeiner. 1991. A check-list of the amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals of California. Calif. Fish and Game 77:109-141 Linscott, Law& Greenspan. 2003a. Traffic Impact Analysis Report, Pacific City, 21 April. . 2003b. Parking Demand Analysis, Pacific City, 16 October. Makallon Atlanta Huntington Beach, LLC. n.d. Environmental Assessment No. 02-05. . 2002. Pacific City Project Description, 18 December. . 2003a. Pacific City Project Plans and CUP Application, 3 July. 7-4 City of Huntington Beach Chapter 7 References . 2003b. Pacific City Master Plan, 7 July. MARCOR Remediation, Inc. 2000. Completed Project Document Package: Asbestos Abatement, Huntington Shore [sic] Motel Buildings 1, 2, 3, & 4, 21002 Pacific Coast Highway, Huntington Beach, California 92648, 1 March. Meltebarger, Monte J. 2002. Cover letter dated January 28, 2002, and package of will-serve letters for dry utilities, 28 January. Munz, P. A. 1974.A Flora of Southern California. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Orange, County of. 2002.Airport Environs Land Use Plan for Joint Forces Training Base Los Alamitos, 17 October. Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD). 2002. Factsheets: Orange County Sanitation District Facts and Key Statistics; 301(h)Provision of the Clean Water Act; and Disinfecting Wastewater. Pacific Coast Homes. 1993. Phase I Site Assessment:Atlanta Avenue Property. July. Patricia R. Koch. 2003. Letter from Assistant Superintendent, Business Services of the Huntington Beach Union High School District. February 6. Purkiss Rose-RSI Landscape Architecture Recreation and Park Planning. 2001. South Beach Phase II. Preliminary Site Plan from First Street to Huntington Dr., Huntington Beach, CA, December 17. Reed, Porter B. Jr. 1988. National List of Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands: National Summary. For National Wetlands Inventory, U.S. Department of the Interior. Rulla, Tom. 2002. Memorandom regarding water supply for the Strand Project. May 14. Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board. 1995. Water Quality Control Plan, Santa Ana Basin. Bryan A. Stirrat&Associates. 2000a. Asbestos Bulk Survey (Former Grinder Restaurant), 17 October. . 2000b. Air Monitoring and Abatement Oversight(Former Grinder Restaurant), 14 December. Thomas Bros. Maps. 2003. Los Angeles and Orange Counties. United States Bureau of the Census,. 2000. Web site (http://factfmder.census.gov). United States Department of Agriculture. 1974. Soil Survey of Orange County and the Western Part of Riverside County, CA. United States Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, 1998. High-Speed Ground Transportation Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. Wetland Training Institute, Inc. 1995. Field Guide for Wetland Delineation. 1987 Corps of Engineers Manual. Glenwood, NM: WTI 01-1, 143pp. Pacific City EIR 7-5 Chapter 7 References • Zeiser Kling Consultants, Inc. 2001a. Addendum Report and Response to City Comments on Item No. 10, 14 March. . 200lb. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, 19 November. 7.2 LIST OF PERSONS AND AGENCIES CONTACTED James Bevans. Southern California Gas Company. February 2003. Frank Blonska. Huntington Beach City School District. January 2003. Chuck Burney. Huntington Beach Fire Department. February 2003. Lee Dickerhoof. Southern California Edison Company. March 2003. Dave Dominguez. Huntington Beach Community Services Department. February 2003. • Shawna Krone. City of Huntington Beach Police Department. March 2003. Kyle Lindo. Huntington Beach Marine Safety Division. January and February 2003. Gary Mesa. Huntington Beach Police Department. January 2003. Jerry Moffat. Rainbow Disposal Company. May 2003. Jacques Pelletier. Huntington Beach Fire Department. February 2003. David Perry. Huntington Beach City School District.July 2003. Gary Reynolds. Orange County Vector Control. September 2003. George Rice. Southern California Gas Company. March 2003. Kevin Stonesifer. Southern California Gas Company. February 2003. Mel Wright. City of Huntington Beach Petro-consultant. March 2003. -1 7-6 City of Huntington Beach Chapter 3 Environmental Impact Analysis • Beach Boulevard, from Garfield Avenue to Main Street • Atlanta Avenue, from Beach Boulevard to Delaware Street • Atlanta Avenue, from First Street to Huntington Street • Atlanta Avenue, from,Huntington Street to Delaware Street • First Street, from Orange Avenue to PCH • Huntington Street, from Atlanta Avenue to Pacific View Avenue • Main Street, from Palm Avenue to Adams Avenue • Lake Street, from Indianapolis Avenue to Adams Avenue • Lake Street, from Adams Avenue to Yorktown Avenue • Adams Avenue, from Beach Boulevard to Newland Street • Indianapolis Avenue, from Beach Boulevard to Newland Street • Atlanta Avenue, from Beach Boulevard to Newland Street • Pacific View (future with project), from First Street to Huntington Street Existing Traffic Volumes and Level of Service Existing Area Traffic Volumes The existing A.M. and P.M. peak hour intersection traffic volumes for the existing 30 study intersections were obtained from manual morning and evening peak period turning movement counts conducted in late August 2001 and May 2002. These intersections were designated for evaluation based on a "select-zone" analysis of the City's Santa Ana River Crossing Cooperative Study (SARCCS) transportation model. These existing A.M. and P.M. peak hour turning movement volumes are illustrated in Figure 3.14-2 and Figure 3.14-3, respectively. The 2001/02 detailed weekday manual peak period traffic count data for the existing thirty of the 32 key study intersections, and the daily traffic counts for seven of the 24 key area roadway segments are provided in Appendix A of the Traffic Impact Analysis Report. The existing average daily traffic (ADT) volumes on the key study roadway segments in the vicinity of the project site were obtained from recent (August 2001) traffic counts and,the City's Traffic Flow Map. These existing ADT volumes represent Existing 2001 conditions and are illustrated in Figure 3.14-4. 3.148 City of Huntington Beach