Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACIFIC CITY PROJECT (6 OF 6) Appendices to the Draft Enviro (2) I VOLUME II OCTOBER 2003 ct t 3 old • r XC y sy ()` �_ 1' 1 1 4- 4:..,,N). 4 . # - ,s' "" . 1 ,N.-. - -- ---- _.....-- .7— ,..00-, ' % i ti, R9id A� Ng-..� . ,1 1 \ C ''. 'N. 4. ,.' ' , (N,,' . t; N, i 4 . , ..... .. , 2.._. i ._ .. ,„. -...,,,c,„.. ,,.,, ,,,,„,-„, ,,, ''kti..... , ti,'" 77 —frii-:1161h 1 1 ' ' al• i i.7, 1 _ L II APPEN DICES TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT n)) PACIFIC CITY SCH No. 20030 11024 EIR 02-0 I .. en City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street, P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648 714.536.5271 Prepared by HIV www.eipassociates.com 12301 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 430 Los Angeles, Ca 90025 310.268.8132 i • PACIFIC CITY 1 , Volume II Appendices to the 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 October 2003 i CONTENTS ti 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 11 Appendix J Geotechnical Investigation Appendix K Shade and Shadow Diagrams Appendix L Cultural Resources j - Pacific City EIR iii 1 APPENDIX A INITIAL STUDY/NOTICE OF PREPARATION AND SCOPING COMMENTS Notice of Preparation State Clearinghouse 1400 Tenth Street Sacramento, CA 95814 (916)445-0613 Subject: Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report Lead Agency: Consulting Firm(if applicable): Agency Name: City of Huntington Beach Firm Name: EIP Associates Street Address: 2000 Main Street Street Address: 12301 Wilshire Boulevard,Suite 430 City/State/Zip: Huntington Beach,CA 92648 City/State/Zip: Los Angeles,CA 90025 Contact: Mary Beth Broeren;Principal Planner Contact: Terri Vitar,Regional Vice President Marianne Tanzer,Associate Manager The City of Huntington Beach will be the Lead Agency and will prepare an environmental impact report(EIR) for the project identified below. We need to know the views of your agency as to the scope and content of the environmental information which is germane to your agency's statutory responsibilities in connection with the proposed project. Your agency will need to use the EIR prepared by our agency when considering your permit or other approval for the project. The project description,location,and the potential environmental effects are contained in the attached materials. A copy of the Initial Study(Ei is ❑ is not)attached. Due to the time limits mandated by State law, your response must be sent at the earliest possible date but not later than 30 days after receipt of this notice. Please send your response to Mary Beth Broeren, Principal Planner, at the address shown above. Agency responses to this NOP should include the name,address, and phone number of the person who will serve as the primary point of contact for this project within the commenting agency. A scoping meeting to discuss the environmental issues to be addressed in the EIR for the proposed project will be held on Monday,January 27,2002. The meeting will be held at the Huntington Beach Central Library,7111 Talbert Avenue in the City of Huntington Beach, Rooms C and D on the lower level. The meeting will take place between the hours of 6:00 and 8:00.p.m. it Project Title: Pacific City Project Location: City of Huntington Beach,County of Orange Project Description: The proposed project is a mixed-use visitor-serving commercial center together with a residential village located on a 31.5-acre vacant parcel in the City of Huntington Beach downtown on the inland side of Pacific Coast Highway. Major project components include: • Visitor-serving commercial center: 400-room hospitality component (i.e., hotel) and associated amenities, and up to 240,000 square feet of commercial uses that could include retail, office, restaurant,cultural,and entertainment facilities • Residential village: 516 condominiums • Vehicular and pedestrian circulation improvements Existing On-Site Uses Reference: California Code of Regulations,Title 14(CEQA Guidelines)Sections 15082(a), 15103, 15375. 1 The project site is currently vacant, although construction activities and various land uses on the project site have occurred since the late 1800s. Southern California Edison currently maintains aerial transmission lines along the 1st Street property boundary and regional 66kV transmission facilities along the Atlanta Avenue site boundary. On-site oil facilities have been abandoned and soil remediation is underway,with completion expected in early 2003. Land Use and Planning Designations The General Plan subarea designation of 4C applies to the portion of the site fronting PCH. It specifies visitor-and community-serving commercial uses, development at a maximum height of eight stories, and design/development characteristics for development. The subarea 4I designation applies to the northern portion of the site and specifies multi-family residential and open space uses, development at a maximum height of four stories,and design/development characteristics for development. The Downtown Specific Plan includes development regulations and zoning standards that are intended to supplement and/or supersede the City's Zoning Ordinance. The Specific Plan area is divided into a number of Districts, and the project site is located in two of these districts, the boundaries of which correlate with the General Plan subareas. The southwestern portion of the site that fronts PCH and extends northeast to the proposed extension of Pacific View Drive (Walnut Avenue) is within District 7, "Visitor-Serving Commercial." The balance of the site is the area inland of the future Pacific View Drive extension and is designated as Downtown Specific Plan District 8A, "High Density Residential." The Precise Plan of Street Alignment (PPSA No. 88-1) and Ordinance 2961 establishes the alignment for the extension of Pacific View Drive through the project. The project site is also located within the California Coastal Zone and the Main-Pier Redevelopment Project Area. Project Components • The proposed project is anticipated to be constructed in major phases over a two to ten-year period, depending on prevailing market conditions. Each of the project components is described below. Visitor-Serving Commercial Center This component would occupy approximately 10.6 acres of the site adjacent to PCH and provide hospitality and commercial facilities. Upscale-oriented hospitality(i.e., hotel) facilities would include up to 400 guest rooms, a pool, spa, fitness and yoga center, restaurant, lounge and bar,pool area grille,resort retail shops, and meeting/banquet and conference facilities. Commercial uses would include development of up to 240,000 square feet. Uses may include retail shops, grocery, dining, entertainment facilities, International Surfing Museum, and office uses on the second floor. Development would be - - housed in several structures up to three stories in height, with the exception of the hotel building that would be eight stories in height. The proposed conceptual site plan also includes plazas and courtyards. Parking would be provided in a subterranean garage. Residential Village The residential component would occupy the approximately 17.2-acre northeastern portion of the project site. A total of 516 condominiums would be developed at an average of 30 dwelling units per acre. Development would include 2-to 4-story structures with a variety of architecture,dwelling unit types and sizes, all clustered around recreational amenities to serve the residents of the village. Public open space would also be provided, including a public access corridor that traverses the site. Parking would be 2 provided in a subterranean garage and in surface parking areas along the interior collector street. 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. Affordable Housing would be provided by either on- or off-site units, or some combination thereof, in compliance with the City's Housing Element of the General Plan and redevelopment policies. Vehicular and Pedestrian Circulation Improvements Vehicular and pedestrian access to the project site would be provided by a combination of existing and proposed roadways. Pacific View Drive would be extended through the site in a 90-foot right of way. On Huntington Street,between Pacific View Drive and Pacific Coast Highway,additional right of way would be dedicated west of the centerline to allow for the full secondary arterial right-of-way with sidewalks and curb and gutter improvements. On Atlanta Avenue, between l5`Street and Huntington Street, additional right of way would be dedicated south of the centerline to allow for arterial improvements. Vehicular access to the visitor-serving uses would be from 1st Street (service access only), the extension of Pacific View Drive (two visitor and one service access), and Huntington Street (service and employee access only). No vehicular access is proposed from PCH. Vehicular access to the residential uses would be provided from Pacific View Drive (residents and guests) and First Street and Huntington Street (residents only). The residential village includes a private community collector street off of Pacific View Drive that would be gated for vehicles,but accessible to pedestrians. Pedestrian access improvements include pedestrian corridors throughout the project site, including linkages between the surrounding residential communities and the proposed residential component. Consistent with the Specific Plan, a 20-foot corridor between Atlanta Avenue and PCH (between the southern end of the Pacific Electric right-of-way and PCH) would be dedicated for public access. Pedestrian pathways would also connect,to the commercial component. Several crossings to the beach area to the south are proposed, including two at-grade crossings at the existing signalized intersections of PCH and Huntington and 1st Streets, and a grade-separated pedestrian bridge crossing in the center of the visitor-serving commercial district. Date: January 8,2003 Signature: Ja miry pre �h Sroeren Title: Principal Planner _ Telephone: (714)536-5550 3 �'.: .,-... ..,,:.s-.:._. ..;.�. A �'?3�`-.::.:':`:t•.' __ =i.: L:'•. .C:t''v _ i.�44- _ �3•- S 'Y�i ^�ti.,•C•': .,E+ ,RCR.v4.:,..-fj.,.Y- .1�� '- a•i}1'. =+•i''. ."if y_::. t.... ....+v}u ,_.,:_...:...VYkf b"tr::1. .?., t _ en., .r ,._..n.. ��:' - :ek'> +i><!: �i.�e:�,.,..,':to _3ui.+.::F.':u•^, !t. N.��?':..�:Y;trn:.- ,t ..Y> a''.'s::x •",{:i'v1;,`<..K» R. ''-•.dx:+,.. +,i: �..:^-.`. ..::�2i`e>`:="' mi5 r �; ,.-..,w,s:.: s":'f5t« s. ,�x•. ,.d;. -.'G'0.::t-� a"t. ,f•J.,h ,..Yh-;„ :":. :i'-a r•' - «.,s. ;':�y-., >,��,5=�=' �i•.f.«. �Y'. ar. �:x• ,.."„�:�.,i - '.".e�� ;�•.�c': �_r�-,- ..,P• "t �.. ..+I— "'=S'" k�=..,t^'..vs"k',_�r�:.?a^'�^ :f,5.a=.,,.x::o-.-•a=a•� s;-%�?'!:a��s';�,°5: ;�;�i�,.t�:x_a=�_:,.:.s..�'�"^'e�-" .�1;F,4"`t. •-�:-;=�.xi v .a�t;;_,.�t✓..x},s-. �:'s-Int�uy.,.�:,r:'_�;:u.,t�`•��'::x;; - _v�. .�,t;-.. .��-„ ,.a,,;;x.., -d.i:, �.Y�-.-,`Y ",;�,r_, 2;^n. -5:S•.. .V..tom.. .�• ='L": _:;'i^�S. ;,ur.: - ^.c': :.Y -t. .nY.,..- ..:u�;+'--.:_ '�'+',:r.., ,+ytw- ;::5°r -•t':k".�a .`,tea=' ,.:1'.:':':"'" _ •+-:Y"'w,••,..-.-,f• :Y!U } 7.ti<u- �q — ":�Sh=3 it ,.:i2 - �n a.,?x•f-�;.�rrrxcrr... - by Li .: 1.:- ti•,S._,.K_>.. v.._!sra�+.,-1 :,'a=•e-.,... f'�ur-•. ;t�.,�_c.. . .>r. t,ay,.:e'�:*'j: ':r .x-'•x�i' =-#`si 1��'.r�2 .'t:T:. ..��� '`:?s.. 7,.. „�.:�iF.,„•:, i-�ara'r_;tJ,• `° : -- `' l' +,... ;+ �ri•�:75�"'S'^'a' " ..x�!ui.. :.a� -•+` ':,� _ y ",':�•�,,.. - arv,'��:�tf ;''rcirt`x"`t�R•Y!= `,.,y, -v'y�•' - 't't3.'.'--'+„`:r" eF.. '�7 -j>et See..:./ t _ �`�:.'' i4-e r .,'t-•�'_'i �-��. - - .�x _ �(.• �uY '�`•�o e.+ - 't"$L +-.)�-j,�.,�-•r '. - �.<„r - at aF u-5 - �] ,. _ -e �eC'ei}.,�'�?. W�>•->i�Si- -.4_ - -- _ - _ • - ��a' ':d:,- `ll��—T ':�,�" _ ,: •.., i�::.z..... .*;f.,:h-....' 'w.r'rt: ,.u:-�..:' '-'i'�r :-.xcr ..i�R:;-;;x,:a - '�'vti'Y - ''s'- F,oT _.,C_n.i,v� 1=i:s� "'`,R.,- - '•4-:i':i.s ..3r•i:`''ic�in§,l•' _ .�..,.t.0 �'- �:I-'�a� :-..✓.r2�.-. aiu.R',n+SC'a „�•. `',S..,,.{'.f_=:`v'r.='.'�;,r: 'e'A: 'i:?.�,;h... ar-:r:, �i•;: n.y.=X`.: ,�.,, 7.`L.w �: ` 4�.,>. �-.s-,-.-• :r,. _'*-,J-;:,-` __ ".,'�:y#�.A;i"z�'.,"yk^�•y��...d�xaxi:.�i J .,.._ .af„'+• 4-,•.t yx3-•".;u..- ,.P:.ii'}'Xi•i:.i. 'c:;•`7- -' a,f.7• _ .rt � - .r ...Y Jo...„Z:..{: .S. _ u l..x _ �F.+ ..4- R -R '.}': . .+�*•`�. ._ ..:z. ... _te,,; 4 '{: :^-�•n:^^ '1'N,l - �;'Y i.'f% ?-.-_fill'- ,oi-t+-1'.-:'Y n e s �vaa- �L }d "t'�'=; `,.rr_ji - ,.�' ,,,i`�•:'`f��" �. rP+ -5`i 3!-v::` �.a`�5. ..5.•: -"".��'u• §w,�I' r.�;,i, �`'�:1� , e\"J,� .,� _...�.�"'�"r�°�. ,,:,«:,?.'i^ :�st�:uv?%,i':v.:-+� Y.>Rc=—�,,..�•� `r -htt:.. "'� t' .vr.: - .:.mY�`:'.<,�i:....`?�,_.�. - ,..R y..•„r ,'.ti..fir�.. s�'--'-;•�• -'-d_ - _ '+`o ti�«-,-.- ,7st:.,..,,..�yv?�.�iE....='.:'-^�:r •.! _ 'ri•_ --.},......'k'-xx` t:• 7� 'i`: 4 � :it's':. { G:,ic'D`iStiv':i` - s'�-�^a-�v:..Y! .� .�-, '��..,Lr:»'�� _ =Y -i...• .::—�.,..lr, ', - `i.,•+ §� 4J.�" _ ,�P•ti.. —,.iT.i.3:!1 'h =' =?ice `±:t"4 " +,` -.•�. � `.: '•:ti?:'A.: •,.ice✓'.i x�. „ :ra ..,.- '.-..}sVUa=.q:�.,.�...r�yu'yi i.ra.' �, ,.�",r�Y� _ - �'+ti•_,.v.- ,:x.�u':ht i?a.,•'>t?Yu ^�i.}:.'::.1- .1.P. .'SY�.tci•r3•.v.:S;:,r;'�'%-' t5;^...0 a` ;10 - - -..:xrr :1, ,. . , .. ..._....,, •+ri,.. ;.t t..,�54",:_ a. =. �i ,... ,' ..,. S r, ;?:� t'r,',j�� ..Sf'.ZaGI�;.::;';..+a:��,.s3Y:.Y•,s'u•'"s'. .i��'�:5. t' �' ,'�•A� :<-xtx�•2 -.ie'- vA+• "} •.t� G I r4��Y C Fn_ ®®qq ...w7' h:.Y-.`!3t::.C• -�::f�{''i'r '.•1?6 -'i:'• .-.5+....1:.'�.-_ a'?-,4.:-ru •,�,a fiM.. _ -i:ipr e,S'.. - :':mot_.' `-4 «�.'x'�F -' -Y.i. .u3_r,. ,i.: '1FN_ - Y:•. .i,.r•"- -"y..l, �>.':i�x_. J.z zs:.�.u� _.t'::,'='�=._ �;a..�3.>=2 V S;'- ... i 5__;.,y' .r ,r"i'- v. _; -" ;,"'� A,y,.-::yr - 3) � r:f � u.f'�ar,•,...�x� ._,L-.~•-,.. ,.,,xs..,- � - _'�'-='ra=;�..v -%L,='>•'. ,s•`-w`�`t'ta'.i:t;'Sxri�='�•C`.!ate !�, ...t.:���,�F`1=."P:-^.:a,'•f..�' � ...e:.-^..:': c,S .I. t�!Sii;• -:'�i;l•�, ,`a... -vr ""-`Fa, at"*�'+_,ts:•:� rt r,€�,: t.: -.,�: `7� :.a. r.,., +;•a ,�5%r,.._�., .R `��n. i %�?,'- '.t. Y:c< �._ h:-.t,G a�,..K,t�v .FxhtK r�4'` .�?,a. �.�-•r�}- _ «:Y.� .,-3._ .� i •�,, a,:.:...a,.F,.,:.?wr.s,rr�:`,ra: ,M':N'� ,^"F' .i,.,dY - C_.y•: "'xY.. ,}- :3� - .4. �-: 3>I_u �N.v,u_�•S .iK .Rs. j_., .�dtm;:i't.a: , - ,.4,v.4 3'tr,;"". 5« .rP.,•. �<, y!y .:h".-vq,-.Y''o-*n` • -;l:..t .,1i:�::L-:,.,, �'1. �s:t. ,1 •;-f.' - f,'...z, =J v3a;•iA.sS - '•r, r•`ws.� ,r:t�'� ..7, •"`=--T, n}.i:=�;,;_Y• _n •'�C°:ks:",• .r.. ;S,.R.,'`.=` .o.,. .,=4:.,•„ �.., .....°"i'i�� .,.w.,t. �:Y=I•h:. r,. a«.« ✓ .,.•, • ',r„•,�'", - n.,...,.... 1. PROJECT TITLE: Pacific City Concurrent Entitlements: Commercial Master Site Plan _Master Conceptual Plan Tentative Parcel Map Coastal Development Permit 2. LEAD AGENCY: City of Huntington Beach Department of Planning 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Contact: Mary Beth Broeren, Principal Planner Phone: (714) 536-5550 3. PROJECT LOCATION: Area bounded by 1st Street on the west,Huntington Street on the east, Atlanta Avenue on the north, and Pacific Coast Highway(PCH)on the south. 4. PROJECT PROPONENTS: Makallon Atlanta Huntington Beach, LLC 4100 MacArthur Boulevard, Suite 150 Newport Beach, California 92660 5. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: RH-30-sp (Residential High Density—maximum 30 units/acre—Specific Plan) and CV-F7-sp (Commercial Visitor—maximum floor area ratio of 3.0— Specific Plan). The project site is also designated as General Plan Subareas 4C and 41. 6. ZONING: Downtown Specific Plan—District 8A (High Density Residential),District 7 (Visitor- Serving Commercial). 7. PROJECT DESCRIPTION (Describe the whole.action involved, including,but not limited to, later phases of the project, and secondary support, or off-site features necessary for implementation): The proposed project is a mixed-use visitor-serving commercial center together with a residential village located on a 31.5-acre vacant parcel in the City of Huntington Beach downtown on the inland side of Pacific Coast Highway(Figure 1). Major project components include: G:\ENVIRONM\CHECKLST Page 1 i t REGIONAL LOCATION II YORKTOWN AV LOS ANGELES'COUNTY _-..L. SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY _ •J N. / IIM:s.�+Fwv �, A...fr 4 \RIVERSIDE COUNTY ////// . GYWnU..x•F., D•an. •�� fc0 • n ORANGE ii c' COUNTY \v$ �O�i? Project 4,� _ • �O SI. �I.. . NswaY \ Co Huntington Co •.I� / . Bench Np N. , B•acrr "\ • ® A,9� ` L O .9L As '%o e•acn error. l 1111,1111k A ♦ 4 c:o ry, ♦ ♦ �. ♦ •do SAN DIEGO COUNTY � ♦ sa.a•m••I• '� 1 . . �1 Orange County 44`,. App..r.. *#I 114 INDIANAPOLIS AV 447\ 4W+4 1111 .. Ai, 9' � T FRANKFORT ST ill10** -41011 co A ® cn CS T♦ ®®O ¢ Z coStQHUNTINGTON Qm - —Z CITY 0, zZ CO = BEACH tiy♦ a ATLANTA AV ti 4,-.."°- 1111 �TON 1 i BEACH / P AC/p PIER // Project / C oce Site qy , HUNTINGTON STATE ID BEACH FIGURE 1 Not to Scale ._.f.,E I .____ Project Vicinity& Regional Location Map SOURCE:EIP Associates 10261-00 City of Huntington Beach•Pacific City El • Visitor-serving commercial center: 400-room hospitality component (i.e., hotel) and associated L- amenities, and up to 240,000 square feet of commercial uses that could include retail, office, restaurant, cultural, and entertainment facilities • Residential village: 516 condominiums • Vehicular and pedestrian circulation improvements Existing On-Site Uses The project site is currently vacant, although construction activities and various land uses on the project site have occurred since the late 1800s. Southern California Edison currently maintains aerial transmission lines along the 1st Street property boundary and regional 66kV transmission facilities along the Atlanta Avenue site boundary. On-site oil facilities have been abandoned and soil remediation is underway, with completion expected in early 2003. A portion of the southwesterly corner of the site was recently uses as a staging/storage facility for beach cleaning equipment for the City of Huntington Beach. The site is no longer used for this purpose, although a storage bin remains on the property. -- Land Use and Planning Designations The General Plan subarea designation of 4C applies to the portion of the site fronting PCH. It specifies visitor- and community-serving commercial uses, development at a maximum height of eight stories, and design/development characteristics for development. The subarea 4I designation applies to the northern portion of the site and specifies multi-family residential and open space uses, development at a maximum height of four stories, and design/development characteristics for development. The Downtown Specific Plan includes development regulations and zoning standards that are intended to supplement and/or supersede the City's Zoning Ordinance. The Specific Plan area is divided into a number of Districts, and the project site is located in two of these districts (Figure 2), the boundaries of which correlate with the General Plan subareas. The southwestern portion of the site that fronts PCH and extends northeast to the proposed extension of Pacific View Drive (Walnut Avenue) is within District 7, "Visitor-Serving Commercial." The balance of the site is the area inland of the future Pacific View Drive extension and is designated as Downtown Specific Plan District 8A, "High Density Residential." The Precise Plan of Street Alignment (PPSA No. 88-1) and Ordinance 2961 establishes the alignment for the extension of Pacific View Drive through the project. The project site is also located within the California Coastal Zone and the Main-Pier Redevelopment Project Area. Project Components The proposed project is anticipated to be constructed in major phases over a two to ten-year period, depending on prevailing market conditions. A Conceptual Site Plan is shown in Figure 3, and each of the project components is described below. Visitor-Serving Commercial Center This component would occupy approximately 10.6 acres of the site adjacent to PCH and provide hospitality and commercial facilities. Upscale-oriented hospitality(i.e., hotel) facilities would include up to 400 guest rooms, a pool, spa, fitness and yoga center, restaurant, lounge and bar,pool area grille, resort retail shops, and meeting/banquet and conference facilities. Commercial uses would include development of up to 240,000 square feet. Uses may include retail shops, grocery,dining, entertainment Page 3 1 ' LEGEND Project Site Boundary +r Cl) Cl) C (13 O E a as c cts 1/4. O4%� a Q I eta s� �' Residential . Atlanta Ave Residential .44.44 .4 • Project r Y 2 .4 .- Site 4psi 'o i. 441E—I el, , , _ •ko 44 Mobile . .. �'y Home Park .. •• o 0 .. •• /s iq 4 ,-� /s� , �� 4 •• 6� •.. Pq C/ 94- ,.• A/O! cF 92 1 I FIGURE 2 Not to Scale 401 - --E-I-P Existing Site Overlays and Surrounding Uses SOURCE:EIP Associates 10261.00 City of Huntington Beach•Pacific City EIR LEGEND 9�, + slele / 4.4r4te• — Site Boundary 0im+' a Visitor Serving sc•y,;, NMI IWO Commercial o +\�� � 1 Residential Village • i ( �r`�� �iRESIDENTIAL -'�< . �^��'F OLIVE AVENUE >t C7fUY:e V5 / /-i L`r-- �..��--iy[- --.� • ` • ‘1:- , 1/7.,LIT44,:?4-n).:vii, „...r.tolK\- , \V ,iw . 1 ji.d.L.--- f:)1 [(if E, , ‘,, ,,,—_—_, ‘,, v e.., ..t,,,, ,s g I., ,, • ,r-,-11 k /....; -> 1. 1 i51j1 OS �O ;` ci ,1. rs If 1._ ..1 II L.... . PACIFIC VI_:1-4--.9..-.---;-:...._i:- 1,...,I i:—� ..; ;�► I ....... HOTEL r1 .. , 4'4 i„ _11 ""r,` --1 _ .• OFFICE/ l� —j d F"�F I lr COMMERCIAL/ OFFICE/C.- v RESTAURANT ! V COMMERCIAL .116 , -----�-i ) .--�r —_ __, • :.\—* -\-41111ii _... I ./ •• 1+4 • -- -I-ass ' t G PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY _ -_--.� rr r'irin��lrri�i Trrrc . � n�Yrm ► r,z • #-_ -- I,I w�I'i n 1,,uiu I+rc!l4+�111i n (''{�.�� 5�I4�t141+41�1 a 'I Not to Scale 11011 , E I'P FIGURE 3 1 Proposed Site Plan SOURCE:MVE&Partners 10261-00 ' City of Huntington Beach•Pacific City EIR I facilities, International Surfing Museum, and office uses on the second floor. Development would be housed in several structures up to three stories in height, with the exception of the hotel building that would be eight stories in height. The proposed conceptual site plan also includes plazas and courtyards. Parking would be provided in a subterranean garage. Residential Village The residential component would occupy the approximately 17.2-acre northeastern portion of the project site. A total of 516 condominiums would be developed at an average of 30 dwelling units per acre. Development would include 2- to 4-story structures with a variety of architecture, dwelling unit types and sizes, all clustered around recreational amenities to serve the residents of the village. Public open space would also be provided, including a public access corridor that traverses the site. Parking would be provided in a subterranean garage and in surface parking areas along the interior collector street. 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. Affordable Housing would be provided by either on- or off-site units, or some combination thereof, in compliance with the City's Housing Element of the General Plan and redevelopment policies. Vehicular and Pedestrian Circulation Improvements J Vehicular and pedestrian access to the project site would be provided by a combination of existing and proposed roadways. Pacific View Drive would be extended through the site in a 90-foot right of way. On Huntington Street,between Pacific View Drive and Pacific Coast Highway, additional right of way would be dedicated west of the centerline to allow for the full secondary arterial right-of-way with sidewalks and curb and gutter improvements. On Atlanta Avenue, between 1st Street and Huntington Street, additional right of way would be dedicated south of the centerline to allow for arterial improvements. Vehicular access to the visitor-serving uses would be from 1st Street (service access only), the extension of Pacific View Drive (two visitor and one service access), and Huntington Street (service and employee access only). No vehicular access is proposed from PCH. Vehicular access to the residential uses would be provided from Pacific View Drive (residents and guests) and First Street and Huntington Street (residents only). The residential village includes a private community collector street off of Pacific View Drive that would be gated for vehicles,but accessible to pedestrians. Pedestrian access improvements include pedestrian corridors throughout the project site, including linkages between the surrounding residential communities and the proposed residential component. Consistent with the Specific Plan, a 20-foot corridor between Atlanta Avenue and PCH (between the southern end of the Pacific Electric right-of-way and PCH) would be dedicated for public access. Pedestrian pathways would also connect to the commercial component. Several crossings to the beach area to the south are proposed, including two at-grade crossings at the existing signalized intersections of PCH and Huntington and 1st Streets, and a grade-separated pedestrian bridge crossing in the center of the visitor-serving commercial district. 8. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND SETTING: Existing land uses surrounding the project site include the following: • East (across Huntington Street): The Hilton Waterfront Beach Resort and the Pacific Mobile Home Park Page 6 • North (across Atlanta Street): Sin le- and multi-familyresidential uses g • West (across 1st Street): Vacant lots, oil production and storage facilities, small apartment units and single-family homes, and a fast food restaurant • South (across PCH): Beach, open space, vehicle parking, and beach-related uses -- 9. OTHER PREVIOUS RELATED ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION: The project site has been addressed on a programmatic level as part of the analysis included in several Program EIRs prepared by the City. 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 ER 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 General Plan Update EIR analyzes the theoretical buildout of the entire City. 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 buildout of the City's downtown area. Therefore, the Downtown Specific Plan OR provides the most localized analysis of the area. However, impacts particular to the project site require analysis that was not provided in previous documentation. Therefore, the EIR prepared for the proposed project would be considered a Subsequent ER to EIR 82-2. Section 21166 of CEQA requires preparation of a subsequent EIR due to changes in the existing conditions in the Downtown Specific Plan Area and the proposed project description. 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 become available since the , completion of EIR 82-2. Therefore, impacts particular to the project site require analysis that was not provided in previous documentation. A subsequent ER is required pursuant to Section 15183(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines,which states: 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 orits 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 to the east (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 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. 10. OTHER AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED (AND PERMITS NEEDED)(i.e., permits,financing approval, or participating agreement): Other agencies whose approval may be required include,but are not limited to: • California Department of Transportation (for any encroachment in PCH right of way and/or pedestrian bridge construction); Page 7 • California Regional Water Quality Control Board (permit for dewatering during construction and operation of the subterranean parking structure, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)permit • State Water Resources Control Board (General Construction Activity Stormwater Permit) • South Coast Air Quality Management District(Authority to Construct, Operating Permit) i I Page 8 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,involving at least one impact that is a"Potentially Significant Impact"or is"Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated,"as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. 0 Land Use/Planning 0 Transportation/Traffic 0 Public Services O Population/Housing 0 Biological Resources 0 Utilities/Service Systems 0 Geology/Soils 0 Mineral Resources 0 Aesthetics 0 Hydrology/Water Quality 0 Hazards and Hazardous Matenals 0 Cultural Resources 1__ O Air Quality 0 Noise 0 Recreation ❑ Agriculture Resources 0 Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, ❑ and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on ❑ an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment,and an ❑ ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a"potentially significant impact"or a"potentially significant unless mitigated impact"on the environment,but at least one impact(1)has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and(2)has 0 been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required,but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects(a)have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and(b)have been avoided ❑ or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION,including revisions or mitigation m asures that are imposed upon the proposed project,nothing further is required. �, Jar�uan� 8 aoo3 Signature Date for bet 9foerein Pfnci pal Pta►��er Printed a e Title Page 9 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except"No Impact"answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites-in the parentheses following each question. A"No Impact"answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to the project. A"No Impact"answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards. 2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved. Answers should address off-site as well as on- site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct,and construction as well as operational impacts. 3. "Potentially Significant Impact"is appropriate,if an effect is significant or potentially significant,or if the lead agency lacks information to make a finding of insignificance. If there are one or more"Potentially Significant Impact"entries when the determination is made,preparation of an Environmental Impact Report is warranted. 4. Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigated"applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from"Potentially Significant Impact"to a"Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures,and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level(mitigation measures from Section XVIII, "Earlier Analyses,"may be cross-referenced). 5. Earlier analyses may be used where,pursuant to the tienng,program EIR,or other CEQA process,an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). Earlier analyses are discussed in Section XVIII at the end of the checklist. 6. References to information sources for potential impacts(e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances)have been incorporated into the checklist. A source list has been provided in Section XVIII. Other sources used or individuals contacted have been cited in the respective discussions. 7. The following checklist has been formatted after Appendix G of Chapter 3,Title 14,California Code of Regulations,but has been augmented to reflect the City of Huntington Beach's requirements. (Note: Standard Conditions of Approval -The City imposes standard conditions of approval on projects which are S 'u considered to be components of or modifications to the project, some of these standard conditions also result in reducing or minimizing environmental impacts to a level of insignificance. However,because they are considered part of the project,they have not been identified as mitigation measures.) SAMPLE QUESTION: Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES(and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: Landslides? (Sources: 1, 6) ❑ � � Q Discussion: The attached source list explains that I is the Huntington Beach General Plan and 6 is a topographical map of the area which show that the area is located in a flat area. (Note: This response probably would not require further explanation). Page 10 Potentially - Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: a) Conflict with any applicable land use plan,policy,or regulation El ❑ 0 ❑ of an agency with jurisdiction over the project(including,but not limited to the general plan,specific plan,local coastal program,or zoning ordinance)adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?(Sources: 7, 8, 10, 11) Discussion: The General Plan Overlays and land use designations that apply to the proposed project property include RH-30-sp (Residential High (Density)—maximum 30 units/acre—Specific Plan), CV-F7-sp (Commercial Visitor—maximum floor area ratio of 3.0—Specific Plan), and subareas 4C and 4I. The Downtown Specific Plan designates the portion of the proposed site fronting PCH and extending back to the proposed extension of Pacific View Drive(Walnut Avenue)between Huntington Street and 1st Street as District 7 (Visitor-Serving Commercial). In addition, the area of the project site located inland of the future Pacific View Drive extension is designated by the Downtown Specific Plan as District 8A (High Density Residential). The project is designed to be compatible with the existing zoning and general plan land use designations and is expected to have a less-than-significant impact. However,to ensure compatibility with applicable land use regulations, an analysis of the proposed project's consistency with applicable land use plans,policies, and regulations — will be included in the EIR. b) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan orEl El natural community conservation plan?(Sources: 7,8) Discussion: No habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan includes the project site. No impact would occur, and no further analysis of this issue is required. c) Physically divide an established community? (Sources: 7,9) ❑ ❑X ❑ Discussion: The proposed project would not physically divide an established community. The project involves development of a vacant parcel of land in the city. Project development would include extension of Pacific View Drive through the site, providing an additional linkage between the areas east and west of the project site. In addition, the visitor-serving commercial district access would be provided through proposed service entrances on 1st Street and Huntington Street and visitor entrances on the Pacific View extension. Pedestrian corridors would be located throughout the project to link the surrounding residential communities and to provide access to the beach. As such, the proposed project would not disrupt or physically divide an established community. Impacts would be less than significant,and no further analysis is required. II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area,either directly (e.g.,by proposing new homes and businesses)or indirectly (e.g.,through extensions of roads or other infrastructure)? (Sources: 9) Page II Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Discussion: The residential component of the proposed project consists of the construction of 516 condominium homes, which could result in a direct increase in population growth. In addition, employment opportunities that could indirectly increase population would result from commercial development. The proposed project would be consistent with uses planned for the site, and, as such, population changes associated with the project have been anticipated in growth projections. The proposed project's effect on population and housing projections for the City of Huntington Beach will be evaluated in the EIR. b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,necessitating El ❑ ElQ the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Sources: N/A) Discussion: Thproposed project site is currently vacant and would not result in the displacement of any existing housing. No impact would occur,and no further analysis of this issue is required. c) Displace substantial numbers of people,necessitating the 0 construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Sources: • N/A) Discussion: The proposed project site is currently vacant and would not result in the displacement of any existing households. No impact would occur,and no further analysis of this issue is required. III. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects,including the risk of loss,injury,or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault,as delineated on the � � Q most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault?(Sources: 7,24) Discussion: The City of Huntington Beach General Plan EIR states that fault rupture constitutes a direct impact to affected areas within the City of Huntington Beach. The most likely areas for fault rupture are the more restricted Alquist-Priolo zones, and "engineering,geologic,and geotechnical engineering investigation report requirements are in place to mandate studies as a means of developing mitigation measures(usually avoidance)for construction." The project site is neither located within an identified Alquist-Priolo zone nor any areas in which evidence of a fault exists. No impacts from fault rupture would result;therefore,no further analysis is required. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?(Sources: 7,24) 0 El - Page 12 sl' Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Discussion: The site is located 0.6 mile from the Newport-Inglewood Fault zone. Consequently, the proposed project may expose on-site structures to significant seismic hazards(e.g. shaking) if an earthquake occurs along this fault. Impacts associated with seismic hazards would generally be addressed through adherence to applicable regulations (i.e., Uniform Building Code) and design, grading and structural recommendations identified in the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation performed by Zeiser Kling Consultants,Inc. The EIR will include an analysis of impacts associated with seismic hazards. iii) Seismic-related ground failure,including liquefaction? El El (Sources: 24) Discussion: According to the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation performed by Zeiser Kling Consultants, Inc. for the proposed project site,the alluvial soils that are located in the southeastern corner of the site are located within a State of California Seismic Hazard Zone Map for Liquefaction. While the majority of the site is generally underlain by terrace and engineered fill(which are,in turn,underlain by terrace deposits)and is considered to have a low potential for liquefaction, the southeastern corner of the site is generally underlain by loose to medium dense alluvial deposits that have a moderate to high potential for liquefaction. These risks could generally be addressed through adherence to applicable regulations (i.e., Uniform Building Code) and design, grading and structural recommendations identified in the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation. The EIR will analyze the potential for liquefaction hazards to affect the project. iv) Landslides? (Sources: 24) El 0 0 Discussion: The proposed project site and surrounding area are generally flat and the project site is not located within a State of California-designated Seismic Hazard Zone Map for Slope Stability. Therefore,the potential for seismically induced slope instability is considered low to remote. Therefore,no impact would occur,and no further analysis is required. b) Result in substantial soil erosion,loss of topsoil,or changes in � 0 topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading,or fill? (Sources: N/A) • Discussion: The project site is currently undeveloped and consists primarily of exposed and disturbed vegetation. As such,grading for above-ground project components and excavation at the site would expose soil to erosional processes during construction. Once construction is completed, the site would be fully developed and would include minimal areas of exposed soil. Excavation activities would be required to prepare the site for subterranean parking, which would affect soil stability. These impacts could be addressed through the implementation of Best Management Practices during construction activities and adherence to design,grading and structural recommendations identified in the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation. The EIR will analyze the potential for erosional impacts from construction activities. c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable,or that 0 EJ would become unstable as a result of the project,and potentially result in on or off-site landslide,lateral spreading, subsidence,liquefaction or collapse? (Sources: 24) Page 13 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Discussion: The geologic units at the project site consist mostly of dense,to overconsolidated terrace and fill materials, while the southeastern portion of the site consists of medium dense alluvial deposits. The Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation- concluded that the potential for ground lurching, cracking, or seismically induced spreading or compaction effects within these areas are considered low, with the anticipation that engineering controls and corrective grading would be implemented for the proposed project. As discussed in item III.a.iii.,above,the majority of the site has a low potential for liquefaction, with the exception of the southeastern corner of the site, which has a moderate to high potential for liquefaction. In addition,the project site is not within an area that has been impacted by long-term subsidence due to local oil extraction according to the Huntington Beach General Plan. However,the settlement potential of the buildings exists, and the EIR will address this issue. In addition, the EIR will address the ability for engineering controls to appropriately address geologic stability. d) Be located on expansive soil,as defined in Table 18-1-B of the El E3 Uniform Building Code(1994),creating substantial risks to life ❑ or property? (Sources: 24) Discussion: discussion for Item III.c.,to the above. e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic E3 ❑ 0 tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater(Sources: 18) Discussion: The proposed project would be provided sanitary sewer service by the City of Huntington Beach and no septic tanks or alternative wastewater systems are proposed. No impact would occur,and no further analysis of this issue is required. IV. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge El 0 ❑ requirements? (Sources: 6,7,8) Discussion: Project development would change the character of the site from an undeveloped parcel of land to a mixed-use development with roadways,buildings,paved surfaces,and landscaping. Potential development would potentially result in site characteristics that could cause runoff to adversely affect water quality. The City's Standard Conditions of Approval require the preparation of a water quality management plan pursuant to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System(NPDES)requirements,that would address impacts on water quality. The ability of the project to meet applicable waste discharge and water quality requirements will be addressed in the EIR. Page 14 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere El El Q substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level(e.g.,the production rate of pre- existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted? (Sources: 6,7,8) Discussion: According to City staff, groundwater wells currently supply 75 percent of the City's water; the remaining 25 percent is imported. Project development would increase impervious surfaces,which could reduce groundwater recharge. However,the City's groundwater wells are located a minimum of two miles inland from the project site and the City does not rely on groundwater that close to the ocean due to saltwater intrusion. Therefore,the potential reduction in groundwater recharge would not affect City groundwater wells. Impacts would be less than significant,and no further analysis is necessary. c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or ❑ area,including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river,in a manner which would result in substantial erosion , or siltation on or off-site? (Sources: 6,7,8) Discussion: The project site contains no streams or rivers. The site currently drains via sheetflow due to the lack of any on-site development. Erosion or siltation could occur during construction-related earthmoving activities. Proposed development would result in the introduction of roadways, buildings, paved surfaces, and landscaping, whereby runoff would be collected and conveyed via roof and building drains and curbs and gutters. These impacts could be addressed through the incorporation of Best Management Practices during construction and water quality management practices. However, potential erosion due to changes in drainage patterns will be analyzed in the EIR. d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river,or substantially increase the rate or amount or surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off- site? (Sources: 6,7, 8) Discussion: As the proposed project site is currently undeveloped, development of the proposed project would increase impervious surfaces at the site associated with the addition of roadways, buildings, and other paved surfaces. This, in turn, would modify local drainage patterns and increase the rate and/or volume of surface runoff at the site. As such,the existing storm drainage facilities serving the site may not be adequate to accommodate the project's operation-related surface runoff, leading to flooding either on- or off-site. These impacts could be addressed through incorporation of design features on the project site to control peak discharge. A hydrology report for the project is currently in preparation, and an analysis of potential flooding due to project runoff will be provided in the EIR. e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed theElEl capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? (Sources: 6,7,8) Page 15 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Discussion: The project would comply with all waste discharge requirements and water quality objectives of State and Federal agencies as part of the City's Standard Conditions of Approval. While no uses are proposed that would result in substantial polluted runoff, the proposed project would alter the drainage pattern of the site (as discussed in items N.c. and IV.d. above), which would result in additional runoff that could exceed the capacity of existing stormwater systems. These impacts could be addressed through incorporation of design features on the project site to control peak discharge or infrastructure • upgrades. Potential impacts to the stormwater drainage system will be addressed in the EIR. • f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? (Sources: 6,7, 8) ❑ 0 0 0 Discussion: • Project development would change the character of the site from an undeveloped parcel of land to a mixed-use development with roadways,buildings,paved surfaces,and landscaping. Potential development would potentially result in site characteristics that could cause runoff to adversely affect water quality. The City's Standard Conditions of Approval require the preparation of a water quality management plan pursuant to NPDES requirements, which would address impacts on water quality. The ability of the project to meet applicable waste discharge and water quality requirements will be addressed in the EIR. g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped ❑ on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? (Sources: 14) Discussion: The location of the residential component within the project site is within Flood Zone "X"pursuant to the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map dated January 3, 1997, and revised by Letter of Map Revision dated February 13, 2002, which indicates that it is outside of the 500 year floodplain. As such, the proposed project would not place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area. No impact would occur,and no further analysis of this issue is required. h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which ❑ � � 0 would impede or redirect flood flows? (Sources: 6,7,8, 14) Discussion: The Flood Zone "X"designation, which is given to the project site,applies to areas of minimal to moderate flood hazard (where flood insurance is available but not required by federally regulated lenders). The project site is currently in Zone "X" according to the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map dated January 3, 1997, and revised by Letter of Map Revision dated February 13, 2002,which indicates that it is outside of the 500-year floodplain. Therefore, substantial flood flows would not be redirected by the placement of structures on the project site. No impact would occur,and no further analysis is required. i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,injury ❑ 0 0 ❑ or death involving flooding,including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? (Sources: 6,7,8, 14) Page 16 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Discussion: The flood risk and potential flood level assessments for the City include the possibility of the failure of Prado Dam,which, while located in Riverside County, provides the primary flood protection means for downstream areas. The levees constructed along the Santa Ana River also minimize the flood risks to areas within the City that include the project site. FEMA revised the flood maps for areas within the City of Huntington Beach, including the project site, in 1997 and through 2002 in recognition of the improvements to the Santa Ana River Channel: these revisions actually reduced the anticipated flood level by 6.5 feet,which estimated the flood level below the elevation of the project site. Additionally,the channelization of the Santa Ana River from Weir Canyon Road to the Pacific Ocean has improved the capacity of the channel sufficiently that the channel can convey the water volume associated with a 190-year flood event. Therefore,the possibility of significant risk of loss, injury, or death from flooding would be remote. Impacts would be less than significant,and no further analysis is required. j) Inundation by seiche,tsunami,or mudflow? (Sources: 6,7, 8, 0 24) Discussion: The site is located on a flat area that is not expected to generate or be exposed to mudflows. The tsunami hazard for the City is classified as"very low." However,the site is located within an area of"moderate"tsunami run-up. Due to the lack of land-locked bodies of water (i.e., ponds or lakes), the potential for seiches is considered to be non-existent. Potential impacts from tsunamis on the proposed project will be analyzed in the EIR. ' V. AIR QUALITY. The city has identified the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district as appropriate to make the following determinations. Would the project: ' a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air Q El El El quality plan? (Sources: Project Application,6,7,8) Discussion: The project as proposed would entail substantial earth movement and construction activities. In addition,project operation would result in increased vehicular trips in the area. Increased emissions associated with these vehicular trips and other on-site emissions could potentially conflict with the Southern California Air Quality Management District's (SCAQMD) Air Quality Management Plan. The EIR will address potential project exceedance of the SCAQMD thresholds of significance, which may result in a conflict with or obstruct the implementation of the AQMP, and violation of any local and regional air quality standards during construction and operation. b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an 00 0 existing or projected air quality violation? (Sources: 6, 7, 8) Page 17 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Discussion: Refer to the discussion for item V.a., above. In addition, grading at the project site (including excavation for the subterranean parking) and other construction activities resulting from implementation of the proposed project could result in significant temporary, short-term impacts to air quality due to fugitive dust and construction equipment emissions. Currently the non-attainment pollutants in the South Coast Air Basin, which includes Orange County, are ozone, carbon monoxide (CO), and fine particulate matter (PM10). Construction-related activities and traffic generated by operation of the proposed project could contribute to these existing violations. These impacts to air quality from project construction and operation will be evaluated in the EIR. c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant El El concentrations? (Sources: 6,7, 8) Discussion: Project-generated traffic could contribute to decreased levels of service at nearby intersections, resulting in CO hot spots. The potential for the project to result in these substantial pollution concentrations will be addressed in the EIR. d) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? (Sources: 6,7,8) Discussion: The project does not propose, and would not facilitate,uses that are significant sources of objectionable odors. The only potential source of odor associated with the proposed project may result from construction equipment exhaust during construction activities, the storage of solid waste associated with the commercial and residential uses,and potential odors from restaurant uses. The proposed project is anticipated to be constructed in major phases over a two-to ten-year period. Standard construction requirements would address odors from construction imposed on the applicant, and impacts associated with construction-generated odors are expected to be less than significant. It is expected that any project- generated refuse would be stored in covered containers and removed at regular intervals in compliance with the City's solid waste regulations. Therefore, odors associated with the proposed project would be less than significant, and no further analysis is required. e) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any 0 ❑ criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? (Sources: 6,7, 8) Discussion: Refer to the discussion for item V.a.,above. VI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to 0El El the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system(e.g., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips,the volume to capacity ratio on roads,or congestion at intersections? (Sources: 6,7,8) Page 18 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Discussion: The proposed project is planned to be constructed in several major phases over a two- to ten-year period. During this construction period, impacts on traffic from construction vehicles queuing at and entering and exiting the site could occur. In addition, the project would generate additional vehicular trips that could potentially result in a substantial traffic increase in the area. This increase in traffic would further add to the existing traffic load and would impact the existing capacity of the street system. The potential impacts due to increased trip generation, changes to the volume to capacity 'ratio on roads,and congestion at intersections will be analyzed in the EIR. b) Exceed,either individually or cumulatively,a level of service 0 0 standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? (Sources: 6,7, 8) Discussion: Refer to the discussion for item VI.a, above. Increased trip generation could potentially exceed LOS standards on Congestion Management Program roads,and the EIR will address this potential impact. c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns,including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? (Sources: 22) Discussion: Although the City is located within the Airport Environs Land Use Plan for Joint Forces Training Base Los Alamitos,the project site is not located within 2 miles of any known public or private airstrip. The proposed project does not propose any structures whose height would interfere with existing airspace or flight patterns. No impact would occur, and no further analysis of this issue is required.. d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature(e.g., ❑X El sharp curves or dangerous intersections)or incompatible uses? (Sources: 6,7,8) Discussion: Pacific View Drive would be extended through the 31.5-acre project site. The project design is not anticipated to include any design features that would result in vehicular hazards. Pedestrian corridors would be provided throughout the project site, including linkages between the surrounding residential communities and the proposed residential component and the visitor-serving commercial district. In addition to the above-grade pedestrian overcrossing that is proposed, at-grade crossings are proposed at the existing signalized intersections of PCH and Huntington and 1st Streets to the beach. Potential impacts could be addressed through the implementation of a pedestrian safety plan. Pedestrian safety, particularly related to the interface between pedestrian areas and roadways/project access points, will be evaluated in the EIR. e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (Sources: 6,7,8) 0 Page 19 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Discussion: Vehicular access to the visitor-serving commercial district of the proposed project would be provided by proposed entrances on 1st Street,the Pacific View extension,and Huntington Street. Access to the residential component would be from 1st Street, Huntington Street, and Pacific View Drive. In addition, the residential component includes a private community collector street(loop road)off of Pacific View Drive that would be gated for vehicles. Impacts to access could be addressed through review by the Huntington Beach Police Department and Huntington Beach Fire Department and conformance with the City's emergency access requirements. The EIR will analyze project impacts to emergency access. f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? (Sources: 6,7,8) 0 El 0 Discussion: The proposed project would include parking in conformance with City requirements. In addition, any existing on-street parking that is removed from the adjacent arterial streets in association with City-required street improvements would be replaced on a one for one basis on-site within the project. However,parking constraints could arise if there are competing demands for parking spaces from multiple uses. As such, the operational adequacy of the parking plan to meet demand associated with various on-site uses will be addressed in the EIR. • g) Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative tEl transportation(e.g.,bus turnouts,bicycle racks)? (Sources: 6, 7, 8) Discussion: The proposed project is compatible with and supported by the City's General Plan. The mixed-use visitor-serving commercial district together with a residential component fulfills the designated land uses of the General Plan and Downtown Specific Plan. The proposed project is compatible with regional policies to promote alternative modes of transportation by encouraging a pedestrian-friendly environment. Numerous pedestrian pathways would be provided between the surrounding residential communities and the proposed residential component. These pedestrian pathways would then be connected to the visitor-serving commercial district by intersections and clearly delineated entrances to the retail, entertainment, restaurant, and hospitality amenities. While the project is not anticipated to conflict with policies supporting alternative transportation and impacts are considered less than significant, the EIR will provide an analysis of project compliance with these policies. VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect,either directly or through EltEl El habitat modifications,on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive,or special status species in local or regional plans, policies,or regulations,or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S,Fish and Wildlife Service? (Sources: 3) Page l 0 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Discussion: According to the Biological Technical Report prepared for the proposed project, no special status plant species are expected to occur on the project site. However,three of the 29 special status plant species known to occur in the region have a limited potential to occur on the project site because they are known to occur in disturbed habitats. These species are the southern tarplant(Centromadia parryi ssp.Australis),vernal barley(Hordeum intercedens),and Coulter's golfields (Lasthenia glabrata ssp. Coulteri). In addition, 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. All of these 11 special status wildlife species,with the exception of the monarch butterfly,are birds. However,most of these wildlife species are expected to occur briefly on the site for foraging only and have no potential to nest on the proposed project site. The Biological Technical Report concludes that impacts to special status wildlife species would be less than significant. The potential exists for special status plant species to have occurred on the project site since the completion of the Biological Technical Report(February -- 2002),and impacts to those species,if present on-site,would be potentially significant. Site surveys prior to construction would determine the presence of these species on-site. If special status plant species are identified, impacts could be addressed through avoidance of species on-site, relocation, or purchase of offsite populations. The EIR will include an analysis of potential impacts to special status species. b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or ❑X other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans,policies,regulations,or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? (Sources: 3, 6,7, 8) Discussion: No riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community exists on-site. The project site has been graded various times over the past 100+ years in connection with prior development of the site, which has included commercial, residential, industrial, and agricultural uses. As such, the project would not have any effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities. No impact would occur,and no further analysis of this issue is required. c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected ❑ ❑ El ❑X wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including,but not limited to,marsh,vernal pool,coastal,etc.) through direct removal,filling,hydrological interruption,or other means? (Sources: 6,7,8) Discussion: The project site contains no wetland habitat, as defined by the Clean Water Act or the Fish and Game Code of California. No impact would occur,and no further analysis of this issue is required. d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident � El ® El or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? (Sources: 3) Page 21 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than — Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Discussion: Although the site is currently undeveloped, various developments have occurred at the site over the past 100+years. The site currently consists of ornamental and disturbed vegetation types along with developed areas consisting of paved parking lots. The Biological Technical Report concludes that no wildlife movement is expected on the proposed project site as the surrounding area is urbanized. As such, the proposed project site does not function as a movement corridor and the project would not impact wildlife movement. No impact would occur,and no further analysis of this issue is required. e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting 0 � E biological resources,such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? (Sources: 6,7,8) Discussion: There are currently no biological resources within the project site, which is an infill site in an urbanized area. The proposed project would be consistent with the City's General Plan and zoning designations. However, as a shoreline community with a portion lying within the State's defined Coastal Zone, the City of Huntington Beach is subject to the coastal resource preservation policies of the Coastal Act. Therefore, the EIR will address the project's compliance with coastal resource policies of the Coastal Act. f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat 0 Conservation Plan,Natural Community Conservation Plan,or other approved local,regional,or state habitat conservation plan? (Sources: 6,7,8) Discussion: No habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan affects the project site, therefore, no impact would occur. No further analysis of this issue is required. • VIII. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource 00 that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? (Sources: 9, 13) Discussion: The site was used as an operating oil field by Chevron, containing 21 oil production facilities, although it has been shut down for a number of years. Several abandoned oil wells exist within the site, and oil well abandonment 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. Oil Overlay "C" has been identified on a portion of the site within the Downtown Specific Plan. The purpose of the overlay is 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. However, the proposed project does not propose to renew any oil drilling activities on the subject site. Therefore,the EIR will address the loss of availability of on-site mineral resources. i b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineralEl El El resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan,or other land use plan? (Sources: 14) Page 22 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Discussion: As discussed in item VIII.a.,above,the site is identified as an Oil Overlay"C"in the City's Downtown Specific Plan, and proposed development would result in the loss of availability of this oil overlay area. The EIR will address the loss of this on-site resource. IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment ❑ � a through the routine transport,use,or disposal of hazardous materials? (Sources: 6,7,8) Discussion: The proposed project includes the development of mixed-use (residential and commercial) structures and would not introduce any unusual hazardous materials to the area. Proposed construction and operation would comply with CalOSHA (California Occupational Safety and Health Administration) requirements, the Hazardous Materials Management Act (HMMA), and other State and local requirements. Commercial uses handling or storing certain amounts of hazardous materials would prepare a Hazardous Materials Business Plan (HMBP) consistent with the HMMA, which includes an inventory of hazardous materials stored on-site, an emergency response plan, and an employee training program. Compliance with local, State, and federal regulations would minimize risks associated with accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant,and no further analysis of this issue is required. b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment � ❑ ❑X through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? (Sources: 6,7,8) Discussion: Refer to discussion item IX.a., above. The proposed project would not include use of large quantities of hazardous materials,and hazardous materials would be used and stored in accordance with applicable regulations. The project would include residential, hotel, and commercial uses that typically do not involve handling of hazardous materials in a manner that would result in reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant,and no further analysis of this issue is required. -- c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous material,substances,or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? (Sources: 6,7, 8,22) Discussion: No schools are located within 1/4 mile of the project site. In addition, refer to discussion item IX.a., above. No impact would occur,and no further analysis of this issue is required. Page 23 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous ❑ ❑X � ❑ materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and,as a result,would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? (Sources: 6,7,8, 15, 17) Discussion: The project site is not on the State's Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites List (CORTESE). However, an Environmental Site Assessment prepared for the Huntington Shores Motel,which was formerly located on the project site, revealed that there are two listed properties within 1/8 mile of the site that have had documented Underground Storage Tank(UST)releases: the City of Huntington Beach Maintenance Yard and an ARCO service station. The Maintenance Yard release has been cleaned up and the case is closed, while the ARCO release is currently being remediated. Additionally, there are five listed properties between 1/8 and 1/2 mile of the project site that are on the California Environmental Protection Agency(Cal/EPA) Leaking Underground Storage Tanks(LUST)List. Two of these properties have been cleaned up and the cases are closed. The other three are either being characterized or remediated. Although the project site is currently undeveloped,a number of prior uses have occurred on the site,including agricultural, commercial, and industrial uses. Among the industrial land uses that once occupied the site were 21 oil production facilities. The oil facilities have been abandoned. A Phase II Investigation of the project site was performed in 1996, which resulted in a subsequent soil remediation plan for the project site. Due to the presence of oil-impacted soil at the project site,remediation efforts in the northwestern portion of the project site were completed in 1999. Soil remediation is currently underway in the southeastern portion of the site, and remediation efforts are expected to be completed in early 2003. Remediation at the site is following EPA guidelines and standards, and consists of cleanup of all TRPH-impacted soil. Excavated areas are being backfilled with mechanically treated soil that is within acceptable TRPH concentrations. An estimated total of 12,686 cubic yards of oily soil is projected to be excavated at the site. Aside from soil contamination from oil, the adjacent property north of the Huntington Shores Motel was reportedly occupied by a gas plant, and contaminants such as benzene and toluene may have remained in the soil from the gas condensate. As such,the EIR will assess the potential for discovery of any undetected contamination at the project site in the future upon project implementation. These impacts could be addressed through development of a health and safety plan,as necessary,if contamination is discovered. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or,where El El El1J such a plan has not been adopted,within two miles of a public airport or pubic use airport,would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (Sources: 6,7,8,22) Discussion: Although the project site is located within the Airport Environs Land Use Plan for Joint Forces Training Base Los Alamitos, it is not located within 2 miles of any known public or private airstrip. Additionally, the proposed structures would not exceed heights that require review and approval by the Federal Aviation Administration(FAA)or Airport Land Use Commission(ALUC). The project would not,therefore,result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. No impact would occur,and no further analysis of this issue is required. f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,would the ❑ El Q project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project ro'ect area? (Sources: 6,7,8,22) Page 24 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Discussion: Refer to discussion for item IX.e.,above. No impact would occur,and no further analysis of this issue is required. g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an El ❑ adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (Sources: 6,7, 8) Discussion: With regard to emergency response plans, the project site does not serve a function in any emergency response or evacuation plan (schools are typically employed for this purpose). The project site is located adjacent to PCH, which could serve as a major thoroughfare in an emergency situation. In addition, a portion of the project site borders Atlanta Avenue, a major thoroughfare in the city. However, no project accesses are located along either of these streets. Therefore,no constraints to emergency response plans would result. Impacts would be less than significant,and no further analysis is required. h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,injury, � ❑ or death involving wildland fires,including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? (Sources: 6,7,8) Discussion: The project is not located within the vicinity of any wildland areas. No impact would occur,and no further analysis of this issue is required. X. NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excessEl of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance,or applicable standards of other agencies? (Sources: 8, 11) Discussion: Over the long term, noise would be generated at the proposed project site due to increased traffic during project operation and by activity at the site once it is built and occupied. The noise created by the project could affect residences across 1st Street, Atlanta Avenue, and Huntington Street (the nearest sensitive receptors), the commercial uses along PCH, and other land uses in the Downtown Core area. Noise from mechanical equipment (such as air conditioning systems) associated with operation of the project would be required to comply with the State Building Code requirements pertaining to noise attenuation such that interior noise levels do not exceed 45 dB in any habitable room(including hotels), and with City regulations requiring adequate buffering of such equipment. However,the noise generated by vehicles and human use associated with operation of the site may exceed noise thresholds. This issue will be addressed in the EIR. Page 25 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Temporary increases in ambient noise levels would occur during periods of construction at the project site. Chapter 8.40 of the Municipal Code for Noise Control generally prohibits construction activity between the hours of 8 P.M. and 7 A.M. on weekdays and Saturdays,and all day on Sundays(§8.40.090). Certain after-hours construction is allowed provided that the noise standards (§8.40.050) of the ordinance are met. Daytime noise greater than 75 dBA in residential areas and greater than 80 dBA in commercial areas is prohibited by the ordinance. Additionally, a permit for construction activities (which requires a review of the proposed activities) must be obtained from the City. Reference data for construction equipment noise illustrates that operation of typical heavy equipment would result in noise levels between approximately 75 dBA and 100 dBA when measured 50 feet from the source, depending primarily on the type of equipment in operation. Noise levels from a single piece of equipment tend to drop off at a rate of 6 decibels per doubling of distance; therefore, distance to sensitive receptors would help to reduce the construction noise. Due to the potential equipment mix, noise could still be perceptible in the Downtown Core area, and to the residences across 1st Street, Atlanta Avenue, and Huntington Street. Since the proposed project is anticipated to be constructed over a two-to ten-year period,the duration of noise generated by construction of the proposed project may be considered significant despite compliance with the Noise Control ordinance and other conditions of project approval. This issue will be addressed in the EIR. b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbome El El vibration or groundborne noise levels? (Sources: 6,7,8, 11) Discussion: In the project vicinity, the only existing source of perceptible ground-borne vibration is travel of heavy trucks or buses over bumps on the adjacent streets and the Pacific Coast Highway. Potential impacts could occur due to some construction activities. However, project operation would not include uses that would result in groundboume vibration. Vibration impacts during project construction will be addressed in the EIR. c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the El El project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (Sources: 6,7,8, 11) Discussion: Existing noise levels in the project area are dominated by traffic and by the activities of people throughout the Downtown Core area. As stated above in the discussion for item X.a., the project would contribute to the traffic noise and would cause additional noise from human activity at the project site,operation of mechanical equipment,and other facilities,and increased vehicular traffic. Noise from the project's mechanical equipment would be regulated by the Noise Control ordinance. However, the noise generated by project traffic once the project is built could substantially increase noise levels in the area. Noise increases due to increased human activity and vehicular trips associated with the project will be addressed in the EIR. d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise x levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (Sources: 6,7,8, 11) Discussion: Project construction activities would cause a temporary increase in ambient noise, however the construction noise would be regulated by the Noise Control ordinance as discussed in item X.a, above. As the period of construction for the proposed project could range from between two to ten years, the construction noise generated at the project site may be considered significant. Noise impacts from construction will be addressed in the EIR. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or,where � Q such a plan has not been adopted,within two miles of a public airport or public use airport,would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (Sources: 6,7, 8,21) Page 26 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Discussion: The project site is not located within two miles of a public airport,public use airport,or private airstrip. The project site is about ten miles from the Los Alamitos Armed Forces Reserve Center and the John Wayne Airport. Although the City is included within the Airport Environs Land Use Plan for Joint Forces Training Base Los Alamitos, the project site is outside of the 60 dB CNEL contour for the Los Alamitos Armed Forces Reserve Center. The project would not,therefore, expose people to excessive noise from airports. No impact would occur,and no further analysis of this issue is required. f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,would the El El project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (Sources: 6,7,8,21) Discussion: Refer to discussion for item X.e.,above. No impact would occur,and no further analysis of this issue is required. XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts,in order to maintain acceptable service ratios,response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a) Fire protection? (Sources: 6,7, 8) JjEl ❑ Discussion: The proposed project is located within the Department's 5-minute response time area. Due to the volume of development in the project area, which consists of 516 condominium homes, a 400-room hotel, and up to 240,000 square feet Of commercial uses, the proposed development could result in an increased demand on additional fire protection services. Therefore,an analysis of project demand on fire protection services will be provided in the EIR. b) Police Protection? (Sources: 6,7,8) El ❑ Discussion: Proposed development would include 516 residential units,up to 240,000 square feet of commercial uses,and a 400-room hotel. The addition of these uses to the presently vacant site could increase demands on police protection services in the area. The EIR will provide an analysis of potential impacts to police services resulting from the proposed project. c) Schools? (Sources: Project Application) a El 0 El Discussion: The proposed project includes the development of 516 condominium homes. This would increase population in the area, which would, in turn, increase demands on existing schools. The project site would be served by the Huntington Beach City School District and the Huntington Beach Union High School District, and would be subject to school impact fee requirements. The potential increase in students, and the effect of the project on the existing school system, will be addressed in the EIR. Page 27 - I Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact d) Parks? (Sources: N/A) Ii El o ❑ Discussion: The proposed project includes the development of 516 condominium homes,which would increase population in the area. { This may, in turn, increase demands on existing parks serving the area. The proposed project includes recreational amenities to serve project residents and will be subject to standard park requirements. The ability of on-site parks to meet recreational needs of residents,and potential impacts to neighborhood parks,will be addressed in the EIR. _ e) Other public facilities or governmental services? (Sources: 0 N/A) Discussion: The proposed project includes development of 516 condominium homes and a 400-room hotel. These uses may induce an increase in demand for recreation on the adjacent beach area. Impacts to beach use will be addressed in the EIR. XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable 0 a 0 Regional Water Quality Control Board? (Sources: 6,7, 8) Discussion: The proposed project would change the project site from an undeveloped parcel of land to a mixed-use development with roadways, buildings, paved surfaces, and landscaping. Thus, increased runoff could adversely affect water quality. However,the City's Standard Conditions of Approval require the preparation of a water quality management plan pursuant to NPDES requirements. This plan would address impacts on water quality. The ability of the project to meet applicable waste discharge and water quality requirements will be addressed in the EIR. b) Require or result in the construction of new water or 0 0 wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (Sources: 6,7,8) Discussion: Due to the volume of residential and commercial development in the 31.5-acre project site, the proposed project would ( require incremental extensions of water and wastewater infrastructure to the site, which would be provided by the developer and by respective governmental agencies and utility companies. All utility connections to the proposed uses would be in accordance with all applicable Uniform Codes, City ordinances,Public Works standards,and Water Division criteria. Water and wastewater treatment would be served by existing facilities. While it is expected that impacts could be addressed through either design of the project to control peak flows or infrastructure upgrades, the ability for these facilities to meet increased demand associated with the proposed project will be addressed in the EIR. c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water � il drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (Sources: 6,7, 8) Page 28 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Discussion: Refer to the discussion for Item IV.e, above. The increase in impervious surfaces from development under the proposed project would alter the existing drainage pattern at the site, and would result in additional runoff that could exceed the capacity of existing storm water systems. The potential impacts to the storm water drainage system by the proposed project will be addressed in the EIR. d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project 1:1 El from existing entitlements and resources,or are new or expanded entitlements needed? (Sources: 6,7,8) I_ Discussion: As required by Senate Bill 610,any project exceeding 500 residential units must receive a Water Supply Assessment from the water purveyor prior to project approval to ensure that the available water supply would be sufficient to serve the project. Increased water demands would result from residential,hotel,and commercial uses at the project site. The City's General Plan EIR identifies the cumulative theoretical build-out scenario as exacerbating current inadequacies in water distribution and storage capacity. This issue will be addressed and results of the Water Supply Assessment will be provided in the EIR. e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider 00El which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? (Sources: 6,7, 8) Discussion: Refer to the discussion for Item XII.b.,above. f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to El El accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? (Sources: 6,7,8) Discussion: -- Solid waste collection service for the City of Huntington Beach is provided by Rainbow Disposal. Collected solid waste is transported to a transfer station where the solid waste is sorted and processed through a Materials Recovery Facility where recyclable materials are removed. The remaining solid waste is transported to the Frank R.Bowerman Landfill located in the City of Irvine. The landfill has a remaining capacity in excess of 30 years based on present solid waste generation rates. The proposed project would result in an intensification of land use and increase solid waste generation. The project's potential impacts on landfill capacity will be analyzed in the EIR. g) Comply with federal,state,and local statutes and regulations El El related to solid waste? (Sources: 6,7,8) Discussion: Although participation in City and/or County recycling programs is assumed, design of project features are not yet finalized. Therefore, an analysis of the project's consistency with applicable regulations related to solid waste will be included in the EIR. Page 29 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? (Sources: 0 6,7, 8) Discussion: The project site is located adjacent to Pacific Coast Highway in the vicinity of the Huntington Beach pier. As stated within the General Plan, the Huntington Beach Pier and Pierside Pavilion are considered a "landmark," which is defined as a significant reference point that helps to identify a particular area in the City. In addition,views from areas adjacent to the project site include panoramic vistas of the beach area. The proposed project would result in construction of new commercial and residential facilities that may affect public view points and view corridors from these and other adjacent areas. The potential for the proposed project to modify existing scenic vistas will be evaluated in the EIR. b) Substantially damage scenic resources,including,but not limited to,trees,rock outcroppings,and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? (Sources: 6,7,8) Discussion: PCH is designated by the State of California as a Scenic Highway, containing visual amenities that enhance the visual quality and ambiance of the City. Scenic resources associated with PCH primarily include the Pacific Ocean to the south. The project proposes a grade-separated pedestrian bridge that would cross over PCH. This project component may affect views from PCH. Therefore, the potential for proposed development to affect the overall character of the viewing experience from PCH will be addressed in the EIR. c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of ❑ 0 ❑ the site and its surroundings? (Sources: 6,7,8) Discussion: Proposed development would transform the project site from a vacant parcel of land to a residential and commercial development with most structures from one to four stories in height, with the exception of the hotel that would be eight stories in height. The visual character of the area,including shade and shadows generated by the proposed•development, would be substantially modified due to the increased development density of the area. The EIR will address the potential for these changes to adversely impact the area. d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would 0 ❑ El adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? (Sources: 6,7,8) Discussion: Light impacts could result from new commercial and residential building activities, security lighting, such as along the buildings' perimeter, in the subterranean parking garage, and for surface parking along the interior collector street of the _ residential component. Lighting from the proposed project commercial and residential buildings may be visible from the street or light-sensitive receptors immediately surrounding the project site, including the existing adjacent residences and the Pier,which could be potentially affected by the new lighting system. This issue will be analyzed in the EIR. Glare can result from daytime reflection of sunlight off flat building surfaces. The proposed project may include reflective surfaces (e.g., windows, brightly colored or bare concrete building facade treatments) due to large building faces. The visual impact of glare created by the project site will be addressed in the EIR. Page 30 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of aEl0 El � -- historical resource as defined in 815064.5? (Sources: 1) Discussion: There are no above-ground structures located on the site. The cultural resources report prepared for the project site reported two archaeological sites that had been previously identified on the project site: one prehistoric site (CA-ORA-149)and one historic site(CA-ORA-1582H). CA-ORA-1582H was determined not to be an historical resource under CEQA and any project-related impact to the known components of this archaeological site would be considered less than significant. However,site CA-ORA-149 has been determined to be potentially eligible for the California Register of Historic Resources(CRHR). The Archaeological Evaluation completed for the proposed project concludes that impacts to this site could be addressed through data recovery excavations and construction monitoring. The EIR will include an analysis of potential impacts to on-site cultural resources. b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to 815064.5? (Sources: 1) Discussion: Refer to the discussion for Item XIV.a.,above. c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource El El [3 -- or site unique geologic feature? (Sources: 2,5) Discussion: The proposed project site is underlain by two sedimentary rock units, Pleistocene Marine Terrace Deposits and Holocene Alluvium and Colluvium. A paleontological resources impact mitigation program was conducted during the grading and soil export from the borrow area of the site in 1999. The mitigation program associated with the 1999 soil export activities resulted in the recovery of fossils from eight new sites identified during grading. As such,grading and other earth moving activities associated with the proposed project could result in the loss of scientifically important paleontological resources, such as previously unrecorded fossil sites,fossil remains, and associated geologic and geographic site data. The potential impacts to paleontological resources will be analyzed in the EIR. d) Disturb any human remains,including those interred outside of 0 El forma]cemeteries? (Sources: 1) Discussion: As stated above under item(a), the project site includes two archaeological sites. The potential for discovery for human remains, while not anticipated, could occur due to construction activities on the project site. While this impact could be addressed through construction monitoring,the potential impacts to human remains will be analyzed in the EIR. XV. RECREATION. Would the project: a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood, ❑X ❑ El community and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? (Sources: 6,7,8, 12, 13) Page 31 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Discussion: Population increases associated with development of 516 condominium homes would increase demands on recreational facilities. The project proposes 0.9 acre of recreational and park areas in addition to common open space and would be subject to standard park requirements. Approximately 0.35 acre of park areas would be designated for private use by the residents of the proposed project. Approximately 0.55 acre of park areas on the project site would be accessible to the public. The current park per capita ratio for the City is 5 acres per 1,000 persons. As a result, on-site recreational resources may not adequately serve project residents. The EIR will analyze the potential for increased demands of off-site recreational facilities. In addition, significant impacts from the project could occur if the demand or need for lifeguard services from increased beach use exceeds the capacity of the existing level of service. Intensified development and additional parking could result in improved public access and increased beach use. The existing lifeguard staff and resources may not be sufficient to provide protection for an increased beach user population. Analysis of impacts to beach resources will be included in the EIR. b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the0 construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? (Sources: 6,7,8, 12, 13) Discussion: The proposed project would include park areas that are for both public and private use. See item XV.a., above. The provision of a total of 0.90 acre of parkland on the project site is a component of the proposed project that could contribute to the potential impacts identified in this Initial Study. The provision of parks on-site will be analyzed as part of the overall project analysis included in the EIR. - c) Affect existing recreational opportunities?(Sources: 6,7,8) El Discussion: Population increases associated with development of 516 condominium homes would increase demands on recreational facilities. The project proposes 0.9 acre of recreational and park areas in addition to common open space. The current park per capita ratio for the City is 5 acres per 1,000 persons. As a result, on-site recreational resources may not adequately serve project residents. In addition, the 400-room hotel could increase demands at nearby recreational resources. The EIR will analyze the potential for increased demands of off-site recreational facilities. XVI. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects,lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997)prepared by the California Dept.of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: r mland Unique Farmland,or Farmland of a) Convert Prime Fa qEl El El Q Statewide Importance(Farmland),as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency,to non- agricultural use? (Sources: 4) Page 32 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Discussion: There is no Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance,or Unique Farmland is located on-site. No impact would occur,and no further analysis of this issue is required. b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use,or a 0 ❑ ❑X Williamson Act contract? (Sources: 4) Discussion: The project site is currently zoned as District 7 (Visitor-Serving Commercial) and District 8A(High Density Residential) in the Downtown Specific Plan and is not a Williamson Act contract. No impact would occur, and no further analysis of this issue is required. c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which,due 0 to their location or nature,could result in conversion of Farmland,to non-agricultural use? (Sources: 23) Discussion: Although agricultural uses have once existed on the site in the form of potato crops and livery stables, the site has been graded various times over the past 100+ years in connection with prior development that has also included residential, industrial, and commercial uses, and is not adjacent to active farmland. This site is currently undeveloped. No environmental changes associated with the proposed project would result in the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses.No impact would occur,and no further analysis of this issue is required. XVII.MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the 0 environment,substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels,threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? (Sources: 6,7,8) Discussion: As discussed above in sections IV, V, XIII, VII, XIV, and XV, the proposed project could potentially affect hydrology/ water quality, air quality, aesthetics, biological, cultural resources, and recreation. Additionally, impacts to any of the issue areas described above (for which potentially significant impacts have been identified) could be considered to affect the quality of the environment. These issues will be further analyzed in the EIR. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited,but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" ❑X means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects,the effects of other current projects,and the effects of probable future projects.) (Sources: 6,7,8) Page 33 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): , Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Discussion: Proposed project impacts could contribute to cumulative impacts that would result from related development in the vicinity of the proposed project. The EIR will discuss the potential for cumulative impacts to all resource areas analyzed in the EIR. c) Does the project have environmental effects which will causeEl El substantial adverse effects on human beings,either directly or indirectly? (Sources: 6,7, 8) Discussion: Potential impacts to human beings could occur through the potential environmental impacts on resources identified in this Initial Study. These impacts will be evaluated in the EIR. Page 34 XVIII. EARLIER ANALYSIS. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration (CEQA Guidelines Section 15063 [c][3][D]). The following earlier documents have been prepared and utilized in this analysis and are available for review at the City of Huntington Beach Planning Department: Reference# Document Title 1 Barros, P. and S. Crull. 2002. Evaluation of Prehistoric Archaeological Site CA-ORA-149 and Historical Archaeological Site CA-ORA-1582H. January 2002. 2 Barros, P. and M. Roeder. 2001. Paleontologic Resource Impact Mitigation program Final Report. July 2001. 3 BonTerra Consulting. 2002. Revised Pacific City Biological Technical Report with cover letter. February 6,2002. 4 California, State of. Department of Conservation, Office of Land Conservation. 1998 Orange County Important Farmland Map. 1999. 5 City of Huntington Beach. 1999. Mitigated Negative Declaration for the 31 Acre Site Soil Export. Environmental Assessment No. 99-1. 6 . 1996a. Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project Environmental Impact Report. State Clearinghouse No. 96041075. Prepared by LSA Associates. • 7 . 1996b. General Plan. Prepared by Envicom Corporation. May 13. 8 . 1995a. General Plan Update Draft Environmental Impact Report. State Clearinghouse No. 94091018. Prepared by Envicom Corporation. 9 . 1995b. Downtown Specific Plan. 10 . 1994. Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. www.ci.huntington-beach.ca.us/ElectedOfcials/CityClerk/ ZoningCode/ 11 . 1990. Municipal Code. www.ci.huntington-beach.ca.us/ElectedOfficials/CityClerk/MunicipalCode/ 12 . 1988. Waterfront Ocean Grand Resort Environmental Impact Report. Prepared by LSA Associates. 13 . 1983. Downtown Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report. 14 Federal Emergency Management Agency. 1997. Flood Insurance Rate Maps. Orange County, California. http://mapl.msclema.gov/idins/IntraView.cginCEY=34534903&IFIT=1 15 Harding ESE. 2001. Revised Remediation Plan. June 15,2001. 16 Harding Lawson Associates. 1996. Phase II Investigation Report/Remediation Plan. December 18, 1996. 17 . 1995. Environmental Site Assessment(Huntington Shores Motel). October 18, 1995. 18 Makallon Atlanta Huntington Beach,LLC. 2002a. Pacific City Master Plan. December 17,2002. 19 . 2002b. Pacific City Project Description. December 18,2002. 20 Monte J.Meltebarger. 2002. Cover letter dated January 28, 2002, and package of will serve letters for dry utilities. January 28,2002. 21 Orange, County of. 2002. Airport Environs Land Use Plan for Joint Forces Training Base Los Alamitos. October 17,2002. 22 Thomas Bros.Maps. 2001. Los Angeles and Orange Counties. 23 United States Department of Agriculture. 1974. Soil Survey of Orange County and the Western Part of Riverside County,California. Page 35 Reference# Document Title 24 Zeiser Kling Consultants,Inc2002. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation. November 19,2002. • • Page 36 crnre nc rer icnotin_g�ISINECS TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY- FEB 1 0 200 r AY DAVIS Govomnr __ DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION District 12 3337 Michelson Drive,Suite 380 Irvine, CA 92612-8894 Flex your power! Be energy efficient! FAX & MAIL February 5, 2003 Mary Beth Broeren File: IGR/CEQA City of Huntington Beach SCH#: 2003011024 2000 main Street Log#: 1193 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 SR: PCH Subject: Pacific City Dear Ms. Broeren, Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Notice of Preparation for a Draft Environmental Impact report for the Pacific City Project. The project proposes to develop a 31.5-acre vacant site bounded by Pacific Coast Highway (PCH), 1st Street, Huntington Ave, Atlanta Ave into a mixed-use commercial and residential center including a 400-room hospitality/hotel, 240,000 square feet of retail, office, restaurant, cultural, and entertainment facilities, 516 condominiums, and •improvements to vehicular and pedestrian circulation. Caltrans District 12 status is a responsible agency on this project and has the following comments: 1. The issues of greatest concern to Caltrans are those that may impact traffic circulation and increase demand on state facilities. The DEIR should discuss impacts on local. and regional transportation system in detail and propose mitigations to reduce'the impacts to a level of insignificance. A discussion on funding responsibilities and fair share for the mitigation costs should be included in the DEIR. Further, a discussion of cumulative impacts associated with this and other nearby developments must be included in the DEIR. 2. A detail traffic study for this project should be prepared and include existing and - future average daily traffic volumes, traffic generation including peak hour, traffic distribution, intersection capacity utilization analysis (using Highway Capacity Manual) along with current and projected capacities of local streets, and State highways or freeways that might be impacted. Enclosed fro your consideration is Caltrans Guide for preparation of Traffic Impact Studies (TIS) and a list of Mitigation Measures that may be helpful in planning the project. "Caltrans improves mobility across California" Date: February 5, 2003 Page 2 of 2 3. Mitigation measures should include bike and pedestrian use on PCH. A class II Bike Lane extending from 1st Street to Huntington Street is recommended since the project location is adjacent to an existing Class II Bike Lane between 1st and 7th Streets. The State Senate and assembly have officially designated Pacific Coast Highway as "Pacific Coast Bicentennial Bike Route" in Resolution Chapter 31 and 143. In addition, Caltrans Deputy Directive 64 (DD64) accommodates the need and importance of non-motorized travelers. Following these directives Caltrans is implementing a bicycle program on the 42 miles of Pacific Coast Highway. Where possible we encourage a Class II bike lane implemented or at the minimum a class III bike lane. 4. All activities in Caltrans right of way will require an encroachment permit. Applicants need to plan for sufficient permit processing time, which may include engineering and environmental studies and documentation. Please see the attached Environmental Review Requirements for Encroachment Permits. For specific details, Please refer to Caltrans Encroachment Permits Manual, seventh Edition also available online: WWW.dot.ca.gov/ha/traffops/developersv/permits. Please continue to keep us informed of this project and other future developments, which could potentially impact our transportation facilities. If you have any questions or need to contact us, please do not hesitate to call Maryarn Molavi at (949) 724-2267. Sincerely, Atlad• Robert F. Jo ep , Chie IGR/Community Planning Branch c: Terry Roberts, Office of Planning and Research Ron Helgeson, HQ IGR/Community Planning Saied Hashemi, Traffic Operations FEB .111W • .• _ •• • . .• • e4:1.1 ,T • • GUIDE FOR THE PREPARATION OF TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDIES STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION January 2001 • PREFACE The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) has developed this "Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies"in response to a survey of cities and counties in California. The purpose of that survey was to improve the Caltrans local development review process (also known as the Intergovernmental Review/California Environmental Quality Act or IGR/CEQA process). The survey indicated that approximately 30 percent of the respondents were not aware of what Caltrans required in a traffic impact study(TIS). In the early 1990s. the Caltrans District 6 office located in Fresno identified a need to provide 'better quality and consistency in the analysis of traffic impacts generated by local development and land use change proposals that effect State highway facilities. At that time District 6 brought together both public and private sector expertise to develop a traffic impact study guide. The District 6 guide has proven to be successful at promoting consistency and uniformity in the identification and analysis of traffic impacts generated by local development and land use changes. The guide developed in Fresno was adapted for statewide use by a lean? of Headquarters and district staff. The guide will provide consistent guidance for Caltrans staff who review local development and land use change proposals as well as inform local agencies of the information needed for Caltrans to analyze the traffic impacts to State highway facilities. The guide will also benefit local agencies and the development community by providing more expeditious review of local development proposals. Even though sound planning and engineering practices were used to adapt the Fresno TIS guide. it is anticipated that changes will occur over time as new technologies and more efficient practices become available. To facilitate these changes. Caltrans encourages all those who use this guide to contact their nearest district office (i.e., IGR/CEQA Coordinators) to coordinate any changes with the development team. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The District 6 traffic impact study guide provided the impetus and a starting point for developing the statewide guide. Special thanks is given to Marc Birnbaum for recognizing the need for a T1 S guide and_for his valued experience and vast knowledge of land use planning to significantly enhance the effort to adapt the District 6 guide for statewide use. Randy Treece from District 6 provided many hours of coordination. research and development of-the original guide and should he contnuended.for his diligent efforts. Sharri Bender Ehlert of-District 6 provided much of the technical expertise in the adaptation of-the District 6 guide and her efforts are greatly appreciated. A special thanks is also given to all those Cities, Counties, Regional Agencies. Congestion• Management Agencies. Consultants. and Caltrans Employees who reviewed the guide and provided input during the development of this Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Contents Page Number PREFACE and ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I. INTRODUCTION 1 II. WHEN A TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY IS NEEDED 1 . A. Trip Generation Thresholds 2 B. Exceptions C. Updating An Existing Traffic Impact Study 2 IIl. SCOPE OF TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY 2 A. Boundaries of the Traffic Impact Study 2 B. Traffic Analysis Scenarios '- IV. TRAFFIC DATA 4 A. Trip Generation 4 B. Traffic Counts 4 C. Peak Hours 4 D. Travel Forecasting(Transportation Modeling) • 5 V. TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS METHODOLOGIES 5 • A. Freeway Sections 5 B. Weaving Areas C. Ramps and Ramp Junctions 5 D. Multi-lane Rural and Urban Highways 5 E. Two-lane Highways 5 F. Signalized Intersections 5 G. Unsignalized Intersections 5 H. Transit Capacity 3 I. Pedestrians 5 J. Bicycles 5 K. Caltrans Criteria/Warrants 5 - L. Channelization 5 VI. MITIGATION MEASURES 6 Appendix "A" Minimum Contents of Traffic Impact Study Appendix "B" Methodology for Calculating Equitable Mitigation Measures Appendix "C" Measures of Effectiveness by Facility Type iii - • I. INTRODUCTION : ., Caltrans desires to provide a safe and efficient State transportation system for the citizens of ,- California pursuant to various Sections of the California Streets and Highway Code. This is done in partnership with local and regional agencies through procedures established by the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) and other land use planning processes. The intent of this guide is to provide a starting point and a consistent basis in which Caltrans evaluates traffic impacts to State highway facilities. The applicability of this guide for local streets and roads(non-State highways)is at the discretion of the effected jurisdiction. Caltrans reviews federal., state,and local agency development projects', and land use change proposals for their potential impact to State highway facilities.• The primary objectives of this guide is to provide: ❑ guidance in determining if and when a traffic impact study (TIS) is needed, • consistency and uniformity in the identification of traffic impacts generated by local land use proposals. ❑ consistency and equity in the identification of measures to mitigate the traffic impacts generated by land use proposals. o lead agency-officials with the information necessary to make informed decisions regarding the existing and proposed transportation infrastructure (see Appendix A. Minimum Contents of a TIS) o TIS requirements early in the planning phase of a project (i.e.. initial study. notice of preparation. or earlier) to eliminate potential delays later. ❑ a quality TIS by agreeing to the assumptions, data requirements. study scenarios. and analysis methodologies in advance of beginning the study, and ❑ early coordination during the planning phases of a project to reduce the time and cost of preparing a TIS. II. WHEN A TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY IS NEEDED The level of service' (LOS)for operating State highway facilities is based upon measures of effectiveness (MOEs). 'These MOEs (see Appendix"C-2") describe the measures best suited for analyzing State highway facilities (i.e., freeway sections. signalized intersections.on- or oft-- ramps.etc.). Caltrans endeavors to maintain a target LOS at the transition between LOS "C" and LOS "D-(see Appendix°"C-3-) on State highway facilities.however. Caltrans acknowledges that this may not always be feasible and recommends that the lead agency consult with Caltrans to determine the appropriate target LOS. If an existing State highway facility is operating at less than the appropriate target LOS.the existing MOE should be maintained. "Project"refers to activities directly undertaken by government,financed by government.or requiring a permit or other approval from government as defined in Section 21065 of the Public Resources Code and Section 15378 of the California Code of Regulations. '"Lead Agency"refers to the public agency that has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project. Defined in Section 21165 of the Public Resources Code.the"California Environmental Quality Act. and Section 15367 of the California Code of Regulations. "Level of service"as defined in the latest edition of the Highway Capacity Manual. Special Report 209. Transportation Research Board.National Research Council. A. Trip Generation Thresholds • The following criterion is a starting point in determining when a TIS is needed. When a project: 1. Generates over 100 peak hour trips assigned to a State highway facility — 2. Generates 50 to 100 peak hour trips assigned to a State highway facility—and, affected State highway facilities are experiencing noticeable delay: approaching unstable traffic flow conditions(LOS "C"or"D"). 3. Generates 1 to 49 peak hour trips assigned to a State highway facility—the following are examples that may require a full TIS or some lesser analysis: a. Affected State highway facilities experiencing significant delay; unstable or forced traffic flow conditions (LOS "E" or"F"). b.• The potential risk for a traffic incident is significantly increased(i.e., congestion related collisions. non-standard sight distance considerations, increase in traffic conflict points. etc.). • c. Change in local circulation networks that impact a State highway facility (i.e.. direct access to State highway facility,a non-standard highway geometric design. etc.). -, Note: A traffic study may be as simple as providing a traffic count to as complex as a microscopic simulation. The appropriate level of study is determined by the particulars of a project,the prevailing highway conditions. and the forecasted traffic. B. Exceptions Exceptions require consultation between the lead agency, Caltrans, and those preparing the T1S. When a projects traffic impact to a State highway facility can clearly be anticipated without a study and all the parties involved (lead agency. developer, and the Caltrans district office)are able to negotiate appropriate mitigation,a TIS may not be necessary. C. Updating An Existing Traffic Impact Study A TIS requires updating when the amount or character of traffic is significantly different j from an earlier study. Generally a TIS requires updating every two years. A TIS may require updating sooner in rapidly developing areas and not as often in slower developing areas. In these cases, consultation with Caltrans is strongly recommended. III. SCOPE OF TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY Consultation between the lead agency. Caltrans. and those preparing the TIS is recommended before commencing work on the study to establish the appropriate scope. At a minimum,the TIS should include the following: A. Boundaries of the Traffic Impact Study All State highway facilities impacted in accordance with the criteria in Section II should be studied. Traffic impacts to local streets and roads can impact intersections with State highway facilities. In these cases.the TIS should include an analysis of adjacent local facilities. upstream and downstream. of the intersection (i.e., driveways. intersections. and interchanges) with the State highway. A "lesser analysis"may include obtaining traffic counts.preparing signal warrants,or a focused T1S. etc. • B. Traffic Analysis Scenarios Caltrans is interested in the effects of general plan updates and amendments as well as the effects of specific project entitlements (i.e., site plans,conditional use permits.sub- divisions,rezoning,etc.) that have the potential to impact a State highway facility. The complexity or magnitude of the impacts of a project will normally dictate the scenarios necessary to analyze the project. Consultation between the lead agency, Caltrans, and those preparing the T1S is recommended to determine the appropriate scenarios for the analysis. The following scenarios should be addressed in the TIS when appropriate: 1. When only a general plan amendment or update is being sought.the following scenarios are required: a) Existing Conditions- Current year traffic volumes and peak hour LOS analysis of effected State highway facilities. b) Proposed Project Only with Select Link'-Analysis-Trip generation and assignment for build-out of general plan. c) General Plan Build-out Only-Trip assignment and peak hour LOS analysis. Include current land uses and other pending general plan amendments. d) General Plan Build-out Plus Proposed Project-Trip assignment and peak hour LOS analysis. Include proposed project and other pending general plan amendments. 2. When a general plan amendment is not proposed and a proposed project is seeking specific entitlements (i.e..site plans, conditional use permits, sub-division. rezoning. etc.). the following scenarios must be analyzed in the TIS: a) Existing Conditions - Current year traffic volumes and peak hour LOS analysis of effected State highway facilities. b) Proposed Project Only -Trip generation, distribution,and assignment in the year the project is anticipated to complete construction. c) Cumulative Conditions(Existing Conditions Plus Other Approved and Pending Projects Without Proposed Project) -Trip assignment and peak hour LOS analysis in the year the project is anticipated to complete construction. d) Cumulative Conditions Plus Proposed Project (Existing Conditions Plus Other Approved and Pending Projects Plus Proposed Project)-Trip assignment and peak hour LOS analysis in the year the project is anticipated to complete construction. e) Cumulative Conditions Plus Proposed Phases(Interim Years) - Trip assignment and peak hour LOS analysis in the years the project phases are anticipated to complete construction. In cases where the circulation element of the general plan is not consistent with the land use element or the general plan is outdated and not representative of current or future forecasted conditions.all scenarios from Sections III. B. 1. and 2. should be utilized with the exception of duplicating of item 2.a. ` "Select link"analysis represents a project only traffic model run.where the project's trips are distributed and assigned along the highway network. This procedure isolates the specific impact on the State highway network. 3 IV.TRAFFIC DATA - Prior to any fieldwork. consultation between the lead agency, Caltrans, and those preparing the- TIS is recommended to reach consensus on the data and assumptions necessary for the study. The following elements are a starting point in that consideration. A. Trip Generation The latest edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) TRIP GENERATION report should be used for trip generation forecasts. Local trip generation rates are also acceptable if appropriate validation is provided to support them. 1. Trip Generation Rates—When•the land use has a limited number of studies to support the trip generation rates or when the Coefficient of Determination(R2) is below 0.75. consultation between the lead agency. Caltrans and those preparing the TIS is recommended. ?. Pass-by Trips —Pass-by trips are only considered for retail oriented development. Reductions greater than 15% requires consultation and acceptance by Caltrans. The justification for exceeding a 15% reduction should be discussed in the TIS. 3. Captured Trips2—Captured trip reductions greater than 5%requires consultation and acceptance by Caltrans. The justification for exceeding a 5% reduction should be discussed in the TIS. 4. Transportation Demand Management(TDM)—Consultation between the lead agency and Caltrans is essential before applying trip reduction for TDM strategies. NOTE: Reasonable reductions to trip generation rates are considered when adjacent State highway volumes are sufficient(at least 5000 ADT)to support reductions for the land use. B. Traffic Counts Prior to field traffic counts. consultation between the lead agency. Caltrans and those preparing the TIS is recommended to determine the level of detail (e.g.. location, signal timing. travel speeds.turning movements,etc.) required at each traffic count site. All State highway facilities within the boundaries of the TIS should be considered. Common rules for counting vehicular traffic include but are not limited to: 1. Vehicle counts should be conducted on Tuesdays. Wednesdays, or Thursdays during weeks not containing a holiday and conducted in favorable weather conditions. 2. Vehicle counts should be conducted during the appropriate peak hours (see peak - hour discussion below). 3. Seasonal and weekend variations in traffic should also be considered where appropriate (i.e..recreational routes,tourist attractions, harvest season. etc.). ' C. Peak Hours To eliminate unnecessary analysis. consultation between the lead agency. Caltrans and those preparing the TIS is recommended during the early planning stages of a project. In general. the TIS should include a morning (a.m.) and an evening (p.m.) peak hour analyses. Other peak hours(e.g.. 11:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m.. weekend. holidays. etc.) may also be required to determine the significance.of the traffic impacts generated by a project. "Pass-b.'-trips are made as intermediate stops between an origin and a primary trip destination(i.e..home to%%ork.home to shopping.etc.). "Captured Trips-are trips that do not enter or leave the driveways of a project's boundary within a mixed-use development. 4 • D. Travel Forecasting(Transportation Modeling) The local or regional traffic model should reflect the most current land use and planned improvements (i.e.. where programming or funding is secured). When a general plan build- out model is not available.the closest forecast model year to build-out should be used. If a traffic model is not available.historical growth rates and current trends can be used to project future traffic volumes. The TIS should clearly describe any changes made in the model to accommodate the analysis of a proposed project. V. TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS METHODOLOGIES Typically, the traffic analysis methodologies for the facility types indicated below are used by Caltrans and will be accepted without prior consultation. When a State highway has saturated flows,the use of a micro-simulation model is encouraged for the analysis. Other analysis methods-may be accepted.however. consultation between the lead agency. Caltrans and those preparing the TIS is recommended to agree on the information necessary for the analysis. A. Freeway Sections— Highway Capacity Manual (HCM)* Chapter 3. operational analysis B. Weaving Areas—Caltrans Highway Design Manual (HDM) Chapter 500 C. Ramps and Ramp Junctions—HCM* Chapter 5. operational analysis or Caltrans HDM Chapters 400 and 500. Caltrans Ramp Metering Guidelines (most recent edition) D. Multi-Lane Rural and Urban Highways—HCM* Chapter 7. operational analysis E. Two-lane Highways—HCM* Chapter 8. operational analysis F. Signalized Intersections!—HCM* Chapter 9. Highway Capacity Software**. operational analysis.TRaFFIX'm**. Synchro**. see footnote 8 ti G. Unsignalized Intersections—HCM* Chapter 10. operational analysis. Caltrans Traffic Manual for signal warrants if a signal is being considered H. Transit Capacity —HCM* Chapter 12. operational analysis I. Pedestrians - HCM* Chapter 13 J. Bicycles—HCM* Chapters 14, use operational analysis when applying Chapter 9 and 10 HCM methods to bicycle analysis K. Caltrans Criteria/Warrants—Caltrans Traffic Manual (stop signs, traffic signals. freeway lighting. conventional highway lighting, school crossings) L. Channelization—Caltrans guidelines for Reconstruction of Intersections. August 1985. Ichiro Fukutome *The most current edition of the Highway Capacity Manual. Special Report 209. Transportation Research Board. National Research Council,should be used. **NOTE: Caltrans does not officially advocate the use of any special software. However. consistency with the HCM is advocated in most but not all cases. The Caltrans local development review units utilize the software mentioned above. If different software or analytical techniques are used for the TIS then consultation between the lead agency. Caltrans and those preparing the TIS is recommended. Results that are significantly different than those produced with the analytical techniques above should be challenged. The procedures in the Highway Capacity Manual "do not explicit!) address operations of closely spaced signalized intersections. Under such conditions.several unique characteristics must be considered. including spill-back potential from the downstream intersection to the upstream intersection.effects of downstream queues on upstream saturation flow rate.and unusual platoon dispersion or compression between intersections. An example of such closely spaced operations is signalized ramp terminals at urban interchanges. Queue interactions between closely spaced intersections may seriously distort the procedures in"the HCM. Scope of Manual.page 1-2. Highway Capacity Manual. Special Report 209.updated December 1997. I 5 VI.MITIGATION MEASURES The TIS should provide the nexus [Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, 1987.483 U.S. 825 (108 S.Ct. 314)] between a project and the traffic impacts to State highway facilities. The TIS should also establish the rough proportionality [Dolan v. City of Tigard. 1994. 512 U.S. 374 (114 S. Ct. 2309)] between the mitigation measures and the traffic impacts. One method for - establishing the rough proportionality or a project proponent's equitable responsibility for a project's impacts is provided in Appendix "B." Consultation between the lead agency. Caltrans and those preparing the TIS is recommended to reach consensus on the mitigation measures and who will be responsible. Mitigation measures must be included in the traffic impact analysis. This determines if a project's impacts can be eliminated or reduced to a level of insignificance. Eliminating or reducing impacts to a level of insignificance is the standard pursuant to CEQA and the National Environmental Policy Act(NEPA). The lead agency is responsible for administering the CEQA review process and has the principal authority for approving a local development proposal or land use change. Caltrans. as a responsible agency. is responsible for reviewing the TIS for errors and omissions that pertain to State highway facilities. The authority vested in the lead agency to administer the CEQA process does not take precedence over other authorities in law. if the mitigation measures require work in the State highway right-of-way an encroachment permit from Caltrans will be required. This work will also be subject to Caltrans standards and specifications. Consultation between the lead agency. Caltrans and those preparing the T1S early in the planning process is strongly recommended to expedite the review of local development proposals and to reduce conflicts and misunderstandings in both the local agency CEQA review -- process as well as the Caltrans encroachment permit process. • 6 APPENDIX "A" MINIMUM CONTENTS OF A TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY MINIMUM CONTENTS OF TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY REPORT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY II. TABLE OF CONTENTS A. List of Figures (Maps) B. List of Tables III. INTRODUCTION A. Description of the proposed project B. Location of project C. Site plan including all access to State highways (site plan. map) D. Circulation network including all access to State highways(vicinity map) E. Land use and zoning F. Phasing plan including proposed dates of project (phase) completion G. Project sponsor and contact person(s) H. References to other traffic impact studies IV. TRAFFIC ANALYSIS A. Clearly stated assumptions B. Existing and projected traffic volumes (including turning movements). facility geometry (including storage lengths), and traffic controls (including signal phasing and multi- signal progression where appropriate) (figure) C. Project trip generation including references (table) D. Project generated trip distribution and assignment (figure) E. LOS and warrant analyses- existing conditions, cumulative conditions, and full build of general plan conditions with and without project V. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. LOS and appropriate MOE quantities of impacted facilities with and without mitigation measures B. Mitigation phasing plan including dates of proposed mitigation measures C. Define responsibilities for implementing mitigation measures D. Cost estimates for mitigation measures and financing plan VI. APPENDICES A. Description of how traffic data was collected B. Description of methodologies and assumptions used in analyses C. Worksheets used in analyses (i.e.. signal warrant. LOS. traffic count information. etc.) APPENDIX "B" METHODOLOGY FOR CALCULATING EQUITABLE MITIGATION MEASURES METHOD FOR CALCULATING EQUITABLE MITIGATION MEASURES The methodology below is neither intended as.nor does it establish,a legal standard for determining equitable responsibility and cost-of a project's traffic impact. the intent is to provide: 1. A starting point for early discussions to address traffic mitigation equitably. 2. A means for calculating the equitable share for mitigating traffic impacts. 3. A means for establishing rough proportionality [Dolan v. City of Tigard. 1994, 512 U.S. 374 (114 S. Ct. 2309)]. The formulas should be used when: • A project has impacts that do not immediately warrant mitigation,but their cumulative effects are significant and will require mitigating in the future. • A project has an immediate impact and the lead agency has assumed responsibility for addressing operational improvements NOTE: This formula is not intended for circumstances where a project proponent will be receiving a substantial benefit from the identified mitigation measures. In these cases. (e.g.. mid-block access and signalization to a shopping center) the project should take full responsibility to toward providing the necessary infrastructure. EQUITABLE SHARE RESPONSIBILITY: Equation C-1 NOTE: TE B<T .see explanation for TB below. P P — T Te — Te Where: P = The equitable share for the proposed projects traffic impact. T = The vehicle trips generated by the project during the peak hour of adjacent State highway I'acilit in vehicles per hour. vph. TES = The forecasted traffic volume on an impacted State highway facility at the time of general plan build-out(e.g.. 20 year model or the furthest future model date feasible). vph. Ti. = The traffic volume existing on the impacted State highway facility plus other appro\ed projects that will generate traffic that has yet to be constructed/opened,vph. EQUITABLE COST: Equation C-2 C = P (CT) Where: C = The equitable cost of traffic mitigation for the proposed project. ($). (Rounded to nearest one thousand dollars) P = The equitable share for the project being considered. C r = The total cost estimate for improvements necessary to mitigate the forecasted traffic demand on the impacted State highway facility in question at general plan build-out. ($). NOTES I. Once the equitable share responsibility- and equitable cost has been established on a per trip basis. these values can be utilized for all projects on that State highway facility until the forecasted general plan build-out model is revised. 2. Truck traffic should be converted to passenger car equivalents before utilizing these equations (see the Highway Capacity Manual for converting to passenger car equivalents). . APPENDIX "C" MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS BY FACILITY TYPE MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS BY FACILITY TYPE TYPE OF FACILITY MEASURE OF EFFECTIVENESS Freeways Basic Freeway Segments Density(pc/nv/ln) Weaving Areas Density(pc/mi/ln) Ramp Junctions Flow Rates(pcph) Multi-Lane Highways Density(pc/nu/in) Free-Flow Speed (mph) "Iwo-Lane Highways 1 ime Delay(percent) Signalized Intersections Average Control Delay(sec/veh) Unsignahzed Intersections Average Control Delay(sec/veh) Arterials Average 1 ravel Speed (mph) Transit Load ractor (pers/seat. veh/hr. people/hr) Yedestrians Space (sq. tt./ped) Measures of effectiveness for level of service definitions located in table 1-2. Chapter 1. of the 1997 Highway Capacity Manual. Special Report 209. Transportation Research Board.National Research Council. Transition between LOS "C" and LOS "D" Criteria (Reference 1997 Highway Capacity Manual) Basic Freeway Sections Maximum Minimum Maximum Service Maximum Density Speed Flow Rate Volume/Capacity LOS (pc/mi/ln) (mph) (pcphol) Ratio Free-Flow Speed = 70 mph A 10.0 70.0 700 0.29 g 16.0 70.0 1120 0.47 24.0 68.0 1632 0.68 p 32.0 64.0 2048 0.85 i E 45.0 53.0 2400 1.00 F var var var var Weaving Areas MAXIMUM DENSITY(pc/mi/In) LOS Freeway Weaving Multi-lane and C -D Area Weaving Areas A 10 12 B 20 24 .. --�-- 2$ 32 ., D 35 . 36 E <=43 <=40 F >43 >40 Ramp-Freeway Junction Areas of Influence Maximum Density Minimum Speed LOS (Primary Measure) (Secondary Measure) (pc/milln) (MPH) A 10 58 B 20 56 D 35 46 E >35 42 F a a a Demand'flows exceed limits of table 5-1. Signalized Intersections LOS Control Delay Per Vehicle (sec) A 10 B . 20 �_. 35 .. 55 E 80 F > 80 Dotted line represents the transition between LOS "C" and LOS "D" 3 03/06/02 SUGGESTED TRAFFIC MITIGATION MEASURES NEW CONSTRUCTION 1. Adopt measures that require developer contributions for transportation improvements. These funds could be used for building new freeways, widening freeways and major arterials, construction separate mass transit and car/van pool lanes, and park-and-ride facilities. 2. Computerize traffic signals and freeway ramp meters. 3. Coordinate surface street traffic signals with freeway traffic flow (pre-emptive traffic signals). 4. Construct separate car/van pool lanes on freeway access ramps. 5. Improve the metering system on freeway ramps. 6. Provide bus benches and shelters, and bus turnouts. 7. Improve transit stop.facilities (security, fare policies, maintenance, etc.) TRANSIT MANAGEMENT EFFICIENCY MEASURES 1. Improve the incident response system. 2. Improve the highway surveillance system (install video cameras and other electronic devices). 3. Improve the driver information system. 4. Improve the enforcement of current traffic regulations. DEMAND MANAGEMENT -Alternatives to Single Occupancy Vehicles ' 1. Encourage ride-sharing through outreach, education and incentives. 2. Set-up an independent areas wide ride-coordination office. 3. Encourage the use of buses or mass transit. - 4. Expand mass transit to include dial-a-ride and other shuttle/express services. 5. Adopt ride-sharing policies that encourage employers to raise their person-per-vehicle average. 6. Construct bus turn-outs and bus shelters. 7. Work with local transit providers requesting additional service to specified areas. PARKING 1. Construct park-and-ride facilities near major existing and new residential developments. 2. Construct fewer on-site parking spaces and provide car/van pool vehicles preferential parking. 3. Adopt a parking-pricing scheme which varies with the number of passengers, i.e. the higher the number of passengers, the larger the rate reduction. BICYCLES 1. Install call boxes on bike paths. 2. Construct additional functional bicycle facilities (bike trails, install bike path lighting). 3. Plan and construct bike trails through residential and other community areas that lead to main bike lanes. 03/06/02 REDUCE PEAK-PERIOD TRAVEL 1. Encourage work hour rescheduling (staggered hours, flex-time, 4-day week). 2. Adopt measures which minimize truck travel during peak travel periods. LAND USE CONTROLS 1. Promote policies that encourage the simultaneous development of industrial, commercial and entertainment centers with residential communities. 2. Promote policies that encourage other mixed-uses (such as the construction and maintenance of bike facilities) and discourage urban sprawl. 3. Adopt policies that allow new development only when transportation facilities can handle the additional capacity. • • • • • • 2 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW REQUIREMENTS FOR ENCROACHMENT PERMITS Any Party,outside of Caltrans,that does work on a State Highway or Interstate Highway in California needs to apply for an encroachment permit. To acquire any encroachment permit,environmental concerns must be addressed. Environmental review of encroachment permit applications may take 3 weeks if the application is complete or longer if the application is incomplete. For soil disturbing activities(e.g.geotechnical borings,grading,usage of unpaved roads from which dirt and other materials may be tracked onto the State/Interstate highways,etc.), compliance with Water Quality and Cultural Resources Provisions are emphasized. Surveys may/may not be soil-disturbing activities,depending on the site and survey method. A complete application for environmental review includes the following: 1. If an environmental document(CE, EIR/EIS, ND,etc.)has been completed for the project,copy of the final,approved document must be submitted with the application. 2. Water Quality Provision: All work within the State Right of Way must conform to Caltrans Standard Plans and Standard Specifications for Water Pollution Control including production of a Water Pollution Control Program or Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan as required.The applicant must provide Encroachments with a copy of the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)including Best Management Practices(BMPs)to be implemented for construction activities impacting Caltrans Right of Way,prepared for this as required by the NPDES Statewide Storm Water Permit for General Construction Activities. If no SWPPP has been prepared for this project,then the applicant must follow the requirements described in the attached Water Pollution Control Provisions (please see attachment). • 3. Cultural Resources Provisions: If not included in the environmental document,before permit approval and project construction,the encroachment permit applicant must complete a Cultural Resource Assessment pursuant to Caltrans Environmental Handbook,Volume 2,Appendix B-1,and Exhibit 1,as amended. The Cultural Resources Assessment ascertains the presence or absence of cultural resources within a one-mile radius of the project area and evaluates the impact to any historical/cultural resource. Cultural Resources include"those resources significant in American history, architecture,archaeology,and culture,including Native American Resources"(Caltrans Environmental Handbook,Volume 2, Chapterl,as amended)].The Cultural Resource Assessment must include: a) a clear project description and map indicating project work, staging areas,site access,etc.; b) a Record Search conducted at the South Central Coastal Information Center(SCCIC)located at California State University,Fullerton. For information call(714)278-5395; c) proof of Native American consultation. Consultation involves contacting the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), requesting a search of their Sacred Lands File,and following the recommendations provided by the NAHC. For information call(916)653-4082; d) documentation of any historic properties(e.g.prehistoric and historic sites, buildings,structures, objects,or districts listed on, eligible for,or potentially eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places) within a one mile radius of the project area; e) and a survey by qualified archaeologist for all areas that have not been previously researched. The SCCIC and NAHC have an approximate turn around time of 2 weeks. 4. Bioloctical Resources Provisions: Work conducted within Caltrans Right of Way should have the appropriate plant and wildlife surveys completed by a qualified biologist. If the information is not included in the environmental document, Environmental Planning requests that the applicant submit a copy of the biological study,survey,or technical report by a qualified biologist that provides details on the existing vegetation and wildlife at the project site and any vegetation that is to be removed during project activities.Official lists and databases should also be consulted for sensitive species such as the California Natural Diversity Database and lists provided by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Game.Any impacts that affect waterways and drainages and/or open space during construction,or that occur indirectly as a result of the project must be coordinated with the appropriate resource agencies.As guidance,we ask that the applicant include: a)clear description of project activities and the project site - b)completed environmental significance checklist(not just yes and no answers, but a description should be given as to - the reason for the response), c)staging/storage areas noted on project plans, d)proposed time of year for work and duration of activities (with information available), e)any proposed mitigation (if applicable to the project), f)and a record of any prior resource agency correspondence(if applicable to the project). 610;011::: DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION STATE OF CALIFORNIA RECEIVED January 9, 2003 WAN 1 0 2003 AI3FL48•I .41k•' (ONSERVATION Mary Beth Broeren, Principal Planner DIVISION OF OIL, City of Huntington Beach GAS, & GEOTHERMAL 2000 Main Street RESOURCES Huntington Beach, CA 92648 ■ Subject: Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report, Project Title: 5 8 1 6 CORPORATE AVE. Pacific City, Orange County SUITE 200 CYPRESS The Department of Conservation's Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal CALIFORNIA Resources (Division) has reviewed the above referenced project:•-The 9 0 6 3 0-4 7 3 1 Division supervises the drilling, maintenance, and plugging and PHONE abandonment of oil, gas, and geothermal wells in California. We offer the 9 1 6/8 1 6-6 8 4 7 following comments for your consideration. FAX 916/816-6 8 5 3 The proposed project is located within the administrative boundaries of the Huntington Beach oil field. There are numerous plugged and. abandoned wells within the project boundaries. These wells are identified I NTE R N ET on Division map•135 and records. The Division recommends that all wells consw.ca.yoy within or in close proximity to project boundaries be accurately plotted on ■ future project maps. GRAY DAVIS t _ • GOVERNOR Building over or in the proximity of plugged and abandoned wells should be avoided if at all possible. If this is not possible, it may be necessary to plug or re-plug wells to current Division specifications. Also, the State Oil and Gas Supervisor is authorized to order the reabandonment of previously plugged and abandoned wells when construction over or in the proximity of wells could result in a hazard (Section 3208.1 of the Public Resources Code). If reabandonment is necessary, the cost of operations is the responsibility of the owner of the property upon which the structure will be located. Furthermore, if any plugged and abandoned or unrecorded wells are damaged or uncovered during excavation or grading, remedial plugging . operations may be required. If such damage or discovery occurs, the Division's district office must be contacted to obtain information on the requirements for and approval to perform remedial operations. Mary Beth Broeren, Principal Planner January 9, 2003 Page 2 To ensure proper review of building projects, the Division has published an informational packet entitled, "Construction Project Site Review and Well Abandonment Procedure" that outlines the information a project developer must submit to the Division for review. Developers should contact the Division's Cypress district office for a copy of the site-review packet. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the NOP. If you have questions on our comments, or require technical assistance or information, please calf'me at the Cypress district office: 5816 Corporate Avenue, Suite 200, Cypress, CA 90630-4731; phone (714) 816-6847. Sincerely, • David Curtis Environmental Engineer California Regional Water Quality Control Board Santa Ana Region = : • Winston H.Hickox Internet Address: http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwgcb8 Gray Davis Secretary for 3737 Main Street,Suite 500,Riverside,California 92501-3348 Cnreronnr Environmental Phone(909)782-4130-FAX(909)781-6288 Protection The energy challenge facing California is real. Every Californian needs to take immed tgettt o reduce energy consumption. For a list of simple ways you can reduce demand and cut your energy costs,see ourfWditcr at wwwyyrr'r).ca.gov/rwgcb3. January 28, 2003 Ms. Mary Beth Broeren City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 NOTICE OF PREPERATION (NOP) FOR DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT(EIR) FOR PACIFIC CITY, CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, ORANGE COUNTY/STATE CLEARING HOUSE NUMBER #2003011024 Dear Ms. Mary Beth Broeren: " ' Staff of the Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region (RWQCB), has reviewed the Notice of Preparation for the above referenced project. The project proposes to develop 31.5 acre of vacant land into a mixed-use visitor serving commercial center with a residential village. The project is located in the City of Huntington Beach, Orange County. There is widespread experience that urban development activity impacts water quality. There is the potential that the development of this area will substantially impact the water quality and the associated beneficial uses.Therefore, to lessen impacts to water quality standards and protect beneficial uses, the following principals and policies should be considered for the project: 1. Please be advised that any impacts to Waters of the United States or State require a Section 401 Water Quality Standards Certification or Waste Discharge Requirements from the Regional Board. Impacts to these waters should first and foremost be avoided. Where that is not practicable, impacts to these waters should be minimized. Mitigation of unavoidable impacts must replace the full function and value of the impacted waterbody. Information concerning Section 401 certification can be found at the Regional Board's website, www.swrcb".ca.gov/rwacb8/html/401.html. Impacts to the waters of the United States also require a Clean Water Act Section 404 permit from the United States Army Corps of Engineers and a Streambed Alteration Agreement from the California Department of Fish and Game. Although Isolated Waters may be ruled as non-jurisdictional by the United States Army Corps of Engineers, please be aware that these waters may be considered Waters of the State. The California Water Code (§13260) requires you to file a Report of Waste Discharge with the Regional Board prior to discharging waste (including sediment) into Waters of the State. Failure to provide this report, once the Regional Board requests it may result in the imposition of administrative civil liability of up to $1000.00 for each,day in which the violation occurs (§13261 (b)(1). 2. Avoid impacts to wetlands. Wetlands are known to be effective filters for treating runoff and adjacent waters to protect our bays, rivers, and lakes. Wetlands are also a vital part of the ecosystem providing wildlife habitat and protecting drinking water resources. When an impact is unavoidable mitigation will be necessary. California Environmental Protection Agency ea Recycled Paper Ms. Mary Beth Broeren 2 1/28/03 City of Huntington Beach • 3. Development in this area will increase the amount of area covered with pavement or structures. This will alter the rate and volumes of groundwater recharge and surface water runoff. We encourage the use of pervious materials to retain absorption and allow more percolation of storm water into the ground within the site. The use of pervious materials, such as vegetated basins, permeable/porous pavement, etc.,for all development is strongly encouraged. Any increase in runoff due to development should be mitigated to prevent damage to water quality and beneficial uses downstream. BiologicaVvegetated treatment basins reduce the pollutants in storm or urban water runoff by filtering the runoff through the vegetation and the soil matrix and/or allowing infiltration into the underlying soils. Studies have shown that these wetlands and biofilters-remove marry of the harmful pollutants found in urban runoff, and also help mitigate the increased volume of runoff. Porous pavement is an alternative to standard impervious pavement and should be considered for use in parking areas of the project. One type of porous pavement contains an underlying stone reservoir to temporarily store surface runoff allowing it to infiltrate into the subsoil. • 4. Construction of detention basins or holding ponds and/ or constructed wetlands within a project site to capture and treat dry weather urban runoff and the first flush of rainfall runoff should be utilized if practical. These basins should be designed to detain runoff for a minimum time(e.g., 24 hours) to allow particles and associated pollutants to settle and to provide for natural treatment. • 5. Consider retaining areas of open space to aid in the recharge and retention of runoff. Native plant materials should be-used in replanting and hydroseeding operations. Native plants provide effective slope soil retention, help filter and clean runoff, maintain habitat for native animal species, and have other water quality benefits. 6. The coastal areas adjacent this project are very popular swimming and surfing areas. Avoid impacting these waters. This can be accomplished by minimizing runoff from this project and allowing the runoff that does flow from this project to be treated by several of the practices mentioned above. 7. Post-development storm water runoff flow rates (Q) should not differ from the pre-development Q. Changes in Q, either in a positive or negative manner can lead to erosion or sedimentation. Such a change in Q may create potential downstream impacts affecting 303 (d) listed water bodies as well as flood control facilities. 8. No waste material may be discharged to any drainage areas, channels, streambeds, or streams. Spoil sites must not be located within any streams or areas where spoil material could be washed into a water body. 9. As a result of the proposed construction activity occurring in an area over five acres, a General _ Construction Activity Storm Water Runoff Permit must be obtained by the project proponent. A Notice of Intent (NOI) with the appropriate fees for coverage of the project under the General California Environmental Protection Agency 0 Recycled Paper Ms. Mary Beth Broeren 3 1/28/03 City of Huntington Beach Construction Activity Storm Water Runoff Permit must be submitted to the State Water Resources Control Board at least 30-days prior to the initiation of construction activity at the site. Contact Mark Smythe at (909) 782-4493 or review the Construction Activity General Permit and Fact Sheet on the SWRCB website (www.swrcb.ca.ciov) for information. 10. Appropriate best management practices (BMPs) must be implemented during construction to control the discharge of pollutants, prevent sewage spills, and to avoid discharge of sediments into the streets, storm water conveyance channels, or waterways. 11. A National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for any discharge of wastes to surface waters, or Waste Discharge Requirements for any discharge of wastes to land, is required by the California Water Code. For more information on the construction of the Best Management Practices (BMPs) mentioned above (grassed swales, porous pavement, constructed wetlands, and dry/wet detention ponds) please review the EPA website www.epa.00v/npdes/menuofbmps/post.htm. If you should have any questions, please call me at (909) 782-7960 or Mark Adelson at (909) 782- 3234. Sincerely, Gu4), • David G. Woelfel Planning Section cc: Becky Frank—State Clearinghouse California Environmental Protection Agency 0 Recycled Paper _:... South Coast Air Quality Management District ' Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4182 °N7 P r - 21865 E. Copley Drive, a4lf (909) 396-2000 • http://www.aqmd.gov '�,;, T January 15,2003 Ms. Mary Beth Broeren Principal Planner City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 - Dear Ms. Broeren: r ' Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report for Pacific City The South Coast Air Quality Management District(AQMD)appreciates the opportunity to comment on the above-mentioned document. The AQNID's comments are recommendations - regarding the analysis of potential air quality impacts from the proposed project that should be included in the Draft Environmental Impact Report(EIR). Air Quality Analysis The AQMD adopted its California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)Air Quality Handbook in 1993 to assist other public agencies with the preparation of air quality analyses. The AQMD recommends that the Lead Agency use this Handbook as guidance when preparing its air quality analysis. Copies of the Handbook are available from the AQMD's Subscription Services Department by calling(909)396-3720. . The Lead Agency should identify any potential adverse air quality impacts that could occur from all phases of the project and all air pollutant sources related to the project. Air quality impacts from both construction and operations should be considered. Construction-related air quality impacts typically include,but are not limited to,emissions from the use of heavy-duty equipment from grading, earth-loading/unloading,paving,architectural coatings,off-road mobile sources (e.g., heavy-duty construction equipment)and on-road mobile sources (e.g.,construction worker vehicle trips, material transport trips). Operation-related air quality impacts may include,but are not limited to, emissions from stationary sources(e.g.,boilers),area sources (e.g., solvents and coatings),and vehicular trips(e.g., on-and off-road tailpipe emissions and entrained dust). Air quality impacts from indirect sources,that is, sources that generate or attract vehicular trips should be included in the evaluation. An analysis of all toxic air contaminant impacts due to the decommissioning or use of equipment potentially generating such air pollutants should also be included Ms.Mary Beth Broeren -2- January 15,2003 Mitigation Measures In the event that the project generates significant adverse air quality impacts, CEQA requires that all feasible mitigation measures be utilized during project construction and operation to minimize or eliminate significant adverse air quality impacts. To assist the Lead Agency with identifying possible mitigation measures for the project, please refer to Chapter 11 of the AQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook for sample air quality mitigation measures. Additionally, AQMD's Rule 403 —Fugitive Dust, and the Implementation Handbook contain numerous measures for controlling construction-related emissions that should be considered for use as CEQA mitigation if not otherwise required. Pursuant to state CEQA Guidelines §15126.4 (a)(1)(D),any impacts resulting from mitigation measures must also be discussed. Data Sources AQMD rules and relevant air quality reports and data are available by calling the AQMD's Public Information Center at(909)396-2039. Much of the information available through the Public Information Center is also available via the AQMD's World Wide Web Homepage (http://www.agmd.gov). The AQMD is willing to work with the Lead Agency to ensure that project-related emissions are accurately identified, categorized, and evaluated. Please call Dr. Charles Blankson, Transportation Specialist,CEQA Section, at(909) 396-3304 if you have any questions regarding this letter. Sincerely, - , 6-L1,4 644-Log Steve Smith,Ph.D. Program Supervisor,CEQA Section Planning,Rule Development and Area Sources SS:CB:li LAC030110-01LI Control Number l` SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA February 4,2003 , •a :• -` Ms. Mary Beth Broeren ` .:.� t4 r � " Principal Planner -. ' City of Huntington Beach �'` Fa-' Department of Planning • t, a 2000 Main Street e'°'' Huntington Beach, CA 92648 ASSOCIATION N M E N RE: Comments on the Notice of Preparation for a Draft Environmental GOVERNMENTSS Impact Report for the Pacific City Project—SCAG No.120030003 Main Office 828 West Seventh Street Dear Ms.Broeren: 12th Floor Los Angeles,California Thank you for submitting the Notice of Preparation for a Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Pacific City Project to SCAG for review and comment. As gooi7-3435 areawide clearinghouse for regionally significant projects, SCAG reviews the consistency of local plans, projects, and programs with regional plans. This activity t(213)2364800 — is based on SCAG's responsibilities as a regional planning organization pursuant to f(213)236•1825 state and federal laws and regulations. Guidance provided by these reviews is intended to assist local agencies and project sponsors to take actions that www.scag.ca.gov contribute to the attainment of regional goals and policies. i con: President: First Per Hal We have reviewed the Notice of Preparation, and have determined that the non, Los Angeles • First Vice President: or Bev sari Brea Sm•Second Vire President: Project is regionallysignificant per California Environmental Quality :rvisor Charles Smith,Orange County proposed � g 'j _ :trial County: Hank Kuiper, Imperial Act (CEQA) Guidelines (Section 15206). The proposed Project considers the my•Jo Shields,Bewley construction of more than 500 dwelling units. CEQA requires that EIRs discuss any Angeles County:Yvonne Bradswalte Burke. Angeles County • Zev Yamslarsky. Las inconsistencies between the proposed project and the applicable general plans and des ald •San Gabel•Bruce C Barrows. • regional plans(Section 15125[d]). If there are inconsistencies,an explanation and ry Baldwin. Gabriel• Barrows, at is•George Bass,Bell•Hal Hanson.Los rationalization for such inconsistencies should be provided. ' dues • Km Blackwood. Lomita • Robert rich.Rosemead•Gene Daniels.Paramount• e Dlspen Palmdale t:A •Los Angeles•Eric Judy Dunlap. mood•Rutui h Galannr, Policies of SCAG's Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide and Regional o - - rein. Lou Angeles • Wendy •Janice Los vela •lames Hahn, Los AngelesTransportation Plan, which may be applicable to your project, are outlined in the , in,dra Jos Angle •Nate eoHoT m Los Angeles attachment. We expect the DEIR to specifically cite the appropriate SCAG , ;des•Bonnie Lowenthal.Lang Beach•Keith policies and address the manner in which the Project is consistent with anhy Downey • Cindy Mistikowuki.Los -- teics•Pam O'Connor.Santa Monica•Nick applicable core policies or supportive of applicable ancillary policies. Please xi P r• mAngeles•Alex cs•Beatriceeatri Los Angeles use our policy numbers to refer to them in your DEIR. Also, we would a Party;Lou Angelis• Prop,Pico ea • Ed Reyes, Los Angeles • Eaten encourage you to use a side-by-side comparison of SCAG policies with a Claremont•Did Stanford,Arusa• Y 1 Sykes,Walnut • Paul Talbot.ABumba• discussion of the consistency or support of the policy with the Proposed ley Ader,JL.Pasadena•Tonla Reyes Uanga. $g Beach•Dennis Washburn.Calabasas•Jack Project. M.Los Angeles•Bob Yousetlan.Glendale• , oils P.Zinc,Ion Angeles owe County:Charles Smith,Orange County Please provide a minimum of 45 days for SCAG to review the DEIR when this on Bates,Los Alamitos•An Brown.Buena r•Lou none.Tustin•Cathryn DeYoang• document is available. If you have any questions regarding the attached comments, una Niguel•Richard Dixon.lake forest• please contact me at(213)236-1867. Thank you. s Duke. La Palma • Shirley McCracken. 'helm • Bev Perry, Brea •Tod Ridgeway: upon Beach Sincerely,• County:Bob Buster.Rivenide County Sincerely, ! ,,, ��"� on Lorvidge,Riverside•Jeff Miller.Corona• • y 1 �- :g Pettis. Cathedral City • Ron Roberts. •` tit:7 Ei/,nenrla•Charles White,Moreno Valley '• a / :0.7/_________ s Bernardino County: Paul Diane. San 6,, u nto g•County • Bill Barstow eA Rancho (,,,if ��EFFREY M SMITH,AICP archon a•Lawrence Dale.Barshow••Lee Ann :Ma.Grand Terrace• Susan Longsille.San narditto•Gary Orin.Ontario•Deborah Senior Regional Planner heron.R'a to Intergovernmental Review lieu County:Judy Mikels.Ventura County- n Becerra•Simi Valley•Carl Morehouse.San enavenma•ToniYoung,Port Hueneme remade County Transportation Commission: bin Lowe.Hemet atura Comity Transpoetarioa Con:minion: I Davis.Simi Valley February 4, 2003 Ms. Mary Beth Broeren Page 3 P!'2 '.rt Y'.' .V"":" 'a.Tl'1S(' .?7r^ T:!o'„ ;�� a,�..:;�a;}+t•�!'3'n^-f^yam,. Mtv:r,� .-nx. ,r•: ,7.u:•;•.•E.:l?: `+-'�+.,^;';'d:i`a'.'�' ;'�',,c :.' ;c;�. '•.s,„„',.."rS`'.. s. .t=:l'4"��. ,ti:� •:�:. .�S::vs v �;y�I,a��., :r.,: ::� �•,;£- ;'u.:e'"�.-.u;ii„�,,.-,2M..:"3;. "�:`•�,::. �,,3,.,r .�..,<i. �'�`R5• �a,- �\,=.i> `��s' {,v..,n :..'3"',r 1-;;,liar %r'Cw;>. �s<:;, ui. .r`�., '!�,�rC 9,.�i-,'•„s+�,. :at'S„. .F.^^, •y. •>v;`ily V"_f ww tr.. ',',C� e .q:-^•"-�c'`` 'i, t.�. �t nd _ C7"J.'.•w. .xv.W- e:4 S.!'X., s.•C n v " :';r"`°i i-,.:..$:f'�..;�•Sa,R::: %; �� 4�`:��;F; nr ,+.ra t„ Lek:;:?, "5. :?�v' ,�1......::""'3xn.�:'&.'L��S�T>+,�'�.:,.[3tx'� �+.l'a«" }3:.�'S:°��A� �`�:7w�....+�, iY'e ..n: .. I.._e'. .:.,;.r. I,..'.':' •:.:Ili.'-?j:::.r.'. _ ._. �,,."'"•..a :. �:'S;K= . �"' v c'�yt'•'=n=.w.'�'^..':•: �:,e� 4L�:,�g..onv'r;r �:a,K^...',-,-;.�,rnrs--r,, ^"rs r• .. ,r,,.�.�.�.,. ,.s j'" `•'i• }r, .I.� ;.,•^ �( y^ f�;E YG�YY�j �{Qr 'd�.;S it!'5.��r��,, y'? � r. :r !' �v',12�A'5:.: r22- y "� /'.," IARE L'i...s.�::`h.GIY .''e �l.►'xu tn3sr.t`d!-..t�iT"i t 4Fi�^ :,.,: 1,.3da+{fir..,�vi.:f' ! 'f 'r ,.: -.=. .-Household::;. ��: :�;_;�:;._,.;:,T.l:k�:__.. .-v.-..vimear'.....�Sr.•.."..".((,.. .�t...r:.,•,SE'-�-^t yroi.-",,;'7-T .�.�.^.�. ��.1^r" 'e^�•v.•- (per"�-+' ! .:.�STI"F. !h �Y'.i�ip. ! � '< .�•�ls. .?..T ...,.Mtl. f.��� 'Y�'i.,,ly.r :-;:.-�:.,:r .�,.-,.a.._.. ,s�.'�-i Y� ,�`%-T£.d.� -t .,.re,3 T�• �•. r�3'c. �P t 3::,.s:.. ;' 7 L i:...�,,.�sT`v � ':"a • ;�- a etit-�r:,�K �,�;� 5' �,�s��r�s����5��`5~. ..,���;.�sr8. �2T�;:•;.s+,.�•�.::�-9 �&; � ''�� �.��00:��� ��9�489: • 3.03 The timing, financing, and location of public facilities, utility systems, and transportation systems shall be used by SCAG to implement the region's growth policies. GMC POLICIES RELATED TO THE RCPG GOAL TO IMPROVE THE REGIONAL STANDARD OF LIVING The Growth Management goals to develop urban forms that enable individuals to spend less income on housing cost, that minimize public and private development costs; and that enable firms to be more competitive, strengthen the regional strategic goal to stimulate the regional economy. The evaluation of the proposed project in relation to the following policies would be intended to guide efforts toward achievement of such goals and does not infer regional interference with local land use powers. 3.05 Encourage patterns of urban development and land use, which reduce costs on infrastructure construction and make better use of existing facilities. 3.09 Support local jurisdictions' efforts to minimize the cost of infrastructure and public service delivery, and efforts to seek new sources of funding for development and the provision of services. 3.10 Support local jurisdictions'actions to minimize red tape and expedite the permitting process to maintain economic vitality and competitiveness. GMC POLICIES RELATED TO THE RCPG GOAL TO IMPROVE THE REGIONAL QUALITY OF LIFE The Growth Management goals to attain mobility and clean air goals and to develop urban forms that enhance quality of life, that accommodate a diversity of life styles, that preserve open space and natural resources, and that are aesthetically pleasing and preserve the character of communities, enhance the regional strategic goal of maintaining the regional quality of life. The evaluation of the proposed project in relation to the following policies would be intended to provide direction for plan implementation, and does not allude to regional mandates. February 4,2003 Ms. Mary Beth Broeren Page 4 3.12 Encourage existing or proposed local jurisdictions' programs aimed at designing land uses which encourage the use of transit and thus reduce the need for roadway expansion, reduce the number of auto trips and vehicle miles traveled, and create opportunities for residents to walk and bike. -- 3.13 Encourage local jurisdictions' plans that maximize the use of existing urbanized areas accessible to transit through infill and redevelopment. 3.15 Support local jurisdictions strategies to establish mixed-use clusters and other transit-oriented developments around transit stations and along transit corridors. 3.16 Encourage developments in and around activity centers, transportation corridors, underutilized infrastructure systems, and areas needing recycling and redevelopment. 3.18 Encourage planned development in locations least likely to cause environmental impact. 3.20 Support the protection of vital resources such as wetlands, groundwater recharge areas, woodlands, production lands, and land containing unique and endangered plants and animals. 3.21 Encourage the implementation of measures aimed at the preservation and protection of recorded and unrecorded cultural resources and archaeological sites. 3.22 Discourage development, or encourage the use of special design requirements, in areas with steep slopes, high fire, flood, and seismic hazards. 3.23 Encourage mitigation measures that reduce noise in certain locations, measures aimed at preservation of biological and ecological resources, measures that would reduce exposure to seismic hazards, minimize earthquake damage, and to develop emergency response and recovery plans. GMC POLICIES RELATED TO THE RCPG GOAL TO PROVIDE SOCIAL, POLITICAL, AND CULTURAL EQUITY The Growth Management Goal to develop urban forms that avoid economic and social polarization promotes the regional strategic goal of minimizing social and geographic disparities and of reaching equity among all segments of society. The evaluation of the proposed project in relation to the policy stated below is intended guide direction for the , February 4,2003 Ms. Mary Beth Broeren Page 5 accomplishment of this goal, and does not infer regional mandates and interference with local land use powers. 3.24 Encourage efforts of local jurisdictions in the implementation of programs that increase the supply and quality of housing and provide affordable housing as evaluated in the Regional Housing Needs Assessment. 3.27 Support local jurisdictions and other service providers in their efforts to develop sustainable communities and provide, equally to all members of society, accessible and effective services such as: public education, housing, health care, social services, recreational facilities, law enforcement, and fire protection. REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN The Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) also has goals, objectives, policies and actions pertinent to this proposed project. This RTP links the goal of sustaining mobility with the goals of fostering economic development, enhancing the environment, reducing energy consumption, promoting transportation-friendly development patterns, and encouraging fair and equitable access to residents affected by socio-economic, geographic and commercial limitations. Among the relevant goals, objectives, policies and actions of the RTP are the following: Core Regional Transportation Plan Policies 4.01 Transportation investments shall be based on SCAG's adopted Regional Performance Indicators: Mobility - Transportation Systems should meet the public need for improved access, and for safe, comfortable, convenient, faster and economical movements of people and goods. • Average Work Trip Travel Time in Minutes—25 minutes (Auto) • PM Peak Freeway Travel Speed—45 minutes (Transit) • PM Peak Non-Freeway Travel Speed • Percent of PM Peak Travel in Delay(Fwy) • Percent of PM Peak Travel in Delay(Non-Fwy) Accessibility - Transportation system should ensure the ease with which opportunities are reached. Transportation and land use measures should be employed to ensure minimal time and cost. • Work Opportunities within 45 Minutes door to door travel time (Mode Neutral) • Average transit access time February 4, 2003 Ms. Mary Beth Broeren Page 6 Environment - Transportation system should sustain development and preservation of the existing system and the environment. (All Trips) • CO, ROG, NOx, PM10, PM2.5—Meet the applicable SIP Emission Budget and the Transportation Conformity requirements Reliability— Transportation system should have reasonable and dependable levels of service by mode. (All Trips) • Transit—63% • Highway— 76% Safety- Transportation systems should provide minimal accident, death and injury. (All Trips) • Fatalities Per Million Passenger Miles—0 • Injury Accidents—0 Equity/Environmental Justice - The benefits of transportation investments should be equitably distributed among all ethnic, age and income groups. (All trips) • By Income Groups Share of Net Benefits — Equitable Distribution of Benefits among all Income Quintiles Cost-Effectiveness - Maximize return on transportation investment (All Trips). Air Quality, Mobility, Accessibility and Safety • Return on Total Investment—Optimize return on Transportation Investments 4.02 Transportation investments shall mitigate environmental impacts to an acceptable level. 4.04 Transportation Control Measures shall be a priority. 4.16 Maintaining and operating the existing transportation system will be a priority over expanding capacity. AIR QUALITY CHAPTER CORE ACTIONS The Air Quality Chapter core actions related to the proposed project includes: 5.07 Determine specific programs and associated actions needed (e.g., indirect source rules, enhanced use of telecommunications, provision of community based shuttle services, provision of demand management based programs, or vehicle-miles- traveled/emission fees) so that options to command and control regulations can be February 4,2003 Ms. Mary Beth Broeren Page 7 assessed. 5.11 Through the environmental document review process, ensure that plans at all levels of government (regional, air basin, county, subregional and local) consider air quality, land use, transportation and economic relationships to ensure consistency and minimize conflicts. WATER QUALITY CHAPTER RECOMMENDATIONS AND POLICY OPTIONS The Water Quality Chapter core recommendations and policy options relate to the two water quality goals: to restore and maintain the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the nation's water; and, to achieve and maintain water quality objectives that are necessary to protect all beneficial uses of all waters. 11.07 Encourage water reclamation throughout the region where it is cost-effective, feasible, and appropriate to reduce reliance on imported water and wastewater discharges. Current administrative impediments to increased use of wastewater should be addressed. CONCLUSIONS All feasible measures needed to mitigate any potentially negative regional impacts associated with the proposed project should be implemented and monitored, as required by CEQA. February 4,2003 Ms. Mary Beth Broeren Page 8 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS Roles and Authorities THE SOUTHERN CAUFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS(SCAG) is a Joint Powers Agency established under California Government Code Section 6502 et seq. Under federal and state law,SCAG is designated as a Council of Governments (COG),a Regional Transportation Planning Agency(RTPA), and a Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO). SCAG's mandated roles and responsibilities include the following: SCAG is designated by the federal government as the Region's Metropolitan Planning Organization and mandated to maintain a continuing, cooperative, and comprehensive transportation planning process resulting in a Regional Transportation Plan and a Regional Transportation Improvement Program pursuant to 23 U.S.C. '134, 49 U.S.C. '5301 et seq.,23 C.F.R. '450, and 49 C.F.R.'613. SCAG is also the designated Regional Transportation Planning Agency, and as such is responsible for both preparation of the Regional Transportation Plan(RTP)and Regional Transportation Improvement Program(RTIP)under California Government Code Section 65080 and 65082 respectively. SCAG is responsible for developing the demographic projections and the integrated land use, housing, employment, and transportation programs, measures, and strategies portions of the South Coast Air Quality Management Plan, pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Section 40460(b)-(c). SCAG is also designated under 42 U.S.C.7504(a) . as a Co-Lead Agency for air quality planning for the Central Coast and Southeast Desert Air Basin District SCAG is responsible under the Federal Clean Air Act for determining Conformity of Projects, Plans and Programs to the State Implementation Plan,pursuant to 42 U.S.C.7506. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65089.2, SCAG is responsible for reviewing all Congestion Management Plans (CMPs) for consistency with regional transportation plans required by Section 65080 of the Government Code. SCAG must also evaluate the consistency and compatibility of such programs within the region. SCAG is the authorized regional agency for Inter-Governmental Review of Programs proposed for federal financial assistance and direct development activities,pursuant to Presidential Executive Order 12,372(replacing A-95 Review). SCAG reviews, pursuant to Public Resources Code Sections 21083 and 21087, Environmental Impacts Reports of projects of regional significance for consistency with regional plans [California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Sections 15206 and 15125(b)]. Pursuant to 33 U.S.C. '1288(a)(2) (Section 208 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act), SCAG is the authorized Areawide Waste Treatment Management Planning Agency. SCAG is responsible for preparation of the Regional Housing Needs Assessment, pursuant to California Government Code Section 65584(a). • SCAG is responsible (with the Association of Bay Area Governments, the Sacramento Area Council of Governments, and the Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments) for preparing the Southern California Hazardous Waste Management Plan pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Section 25135.3. Revised July 2001 o — THOMAS B. MATHEWS DIRECTOR County of Orange 300 N. FLOWER ST. SANTA ANA,CALIFORNIA °tom ti� Planning & Development Services Department a�:5 MAILING ADDRESS: I :w•t d: P.O. BOX 4048 r, SANTA ANA,CA 92702-4048 eSy1:1 1/30/2003 RE: NCt, 03-006 Mary Beth Broeren,Principal Planner City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street - Huntington Beach, CA 92648 SUBJECT: Notice of Preparation(NOP) for the Pacific City Project Dear Ms. Broeren: Thank you for the opportunity to review the above referenced project. The proposed project will provide a mixed-use visitor-serving commercial center together with a - residential village located on a 31.5-acre vacant downtown parcel on the inland side of Pacific Coast Highway. The County of Orange has reviewed the NOP for the subject project and offers the comments listed below. Water Quality Because of the recognized significance of the proposed project on water quality it is recommended that the following issues be addressed in the EIR: a) Existing conditions of Receiving Waters as identified in the Water Quality Control Plan—Santa Ana Basin(Basin Plan), with its goals and objectives for surface water quality; b) Water quality impairments in the downstream receiving waters, as reflected in the Clean Water Act 303(d) list and the 1996 California Water Quality Assessment Report; c) The potential surface water quality impacts of the project including but not limited to construction activities, long-term runoff impacts of new impervious surfaces, pesticides and fertilizers applied to landscaping, future spills from accidents and/or improper business management of chemicals, as they relate to a and b; and -1 - d) Mitigations for project water quality impacts, which should include: i. Preparation of a construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan under State NPDES requirements; ii. Development of a long-term post-construction water quality management plan, describing commitments to installation and maintenance of structural facilities and conduct of non- structural Best Management Practices (BMPs) consistent with the Countywide Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP) New Development Appendix. The need for the incorporation of"special"structural BMPs, as defined in the DAMP should be evaluated with respect to the size and nature of the development and the proximity to a waterbody impaired by enterococci. This consideration should include the following resource documents: a) Incorporation of Federal EPA/NOAA guidance measures for coastal nonpoint source pollution; b) Incorporation of other measures from the State Municipal BMP Manual; c) Incorporation of other measures from the State Urban Runoff Technical Advisory Committee Report and Recommendations. Cultural Resources > The checklist analysis addressed the potential impacts to both archaeological and paleontological sites that are known and the possible impacts to unknown resources. Data excavations and construction monitoring are the suggested mitigations that the EIR will provide. In addressing the disposition of any collections that are salvaged from the project, the City should require the developer to prepare materials to the point of identification. > We encourage the City to follow the Board. of Supervisors lead in requiring cultural resources to be offered to a facility within Orange County. ➢ The cultural resources mitigation measures should require the project proponent to pay potential curation fees for the donated artifacts, especially since most suitable institutions require fees and such a policy is proposed for Orange County. Solid Waste Disposal Capacity In order to understand the solid waste capacity issue for Orange County, it is necessary to I - distinguish between refuse disposal capacity and daily capacity (or flow rate). Refuse disposal capacity refers to the available air space capacity at one or more County -2- landfills. Daily capacity refers to the maximum.amount of daily permitted tonnage that may be disposed. The landfill permit establishes these capacities. Refuse Disposal Capacity The County of Orange owns and operates three active landfills. These are the Olinda Alpha Landfill near Brea, the Frank R. Bowerman Landfill near Irvine, and the Prima Deshecha Landfill in San Juan Capistrano. The Frank R. Bowerman Landfill is the closest facility to the project, and will likely be the solid waste facility most often receiving the waste from the subject project. Notwithstanding, the City of Huntington Beach is under contract to IWMD to commit all of its waste to the County landfill system (however,not to a particular facility)until the year 2007. 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 fifteen _ (15) years, or identify additional available capacity outside of the county's jurisdiction. Orange County's CIWMP, approved in 1996, contains, future solid waste disposal demand based on the County population projections previously adopted by the Board of Supervisors. The Orange County landfill system has capacity in excess of fifteen years. Consequently, it may be assumed that adequate capacity for the subject project is. available for the foreseeable future. Daily Capacity In order to ensure that the maximum permitted daily tonnage at a particular site is not exceeded, refuse trucks may have to transport material to one of the other two facilities identified above. Accordingly, your document should address transport of refuse from this project to any of the three active landfills. At this time, the County does not have information on solid waste generation rates in Orange County. Any questions about solid waste generation rates should be forwarded to the California Integrated Waste Management Board in Sacramento. Waste Diversion The City is responsible for meeting the Assembly Bill 939 (AB 939) mandate of 50% disposal reduction, and for preparing AB 939 solid waste planning documents. These documents include the Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE), the Household Hazardous Waste Element(HHWE), and the Non-Disposal Facility Element(NDFE). During the construction of new projects, construction wastes are generated. The proposed project will result in the generation of construction wastes. Construction- generated wastes consist primarily of inert materials that would otherwise take up valuable landfill space. Reducing construction wastes at construction sites conserves landfill space, reduces the environmental impact of producing new materials, and can reduce building project expenses overall through avoided purchase/disposal costs. Wood, drywall, cardboard, metals, brick, plastics and shingles can be reused in other -3- construction projects or recycled. The project applicant should contact the City's recycling coordinator who can provide the names and locations of recycling facilities in the project area that will accept construction wastes. We recommend that a waste reduction plan be prepared for the construction wastes generated from this project. This plan should be coordinated with the City's recycling coordinator to help ensure that AB 939 requirements are properly addressed. If you have any questions,please contact Jerry Mitchell at (714) 834-5389. Sincerely, imothy ager Environments arming Services Division • -4_ OCTA R ern `, :uus BOARD OF DIRECTORS August 20, 2002 Tim Keenan Chairman Gregor 7:Winterbotlom , Ms. Mary Beth Broeren, Principal Planner Vice-Chairman City of Huntington Beach Planning Department . Arthur C Brow) 2000 Main Street DirectorHuntington Beach, CA 92648 Shirley McCracken Director Subject: Huntington Beach Pacific City Notice of Preparation Chris Norby Director Miguel A Pulido Dear Ms. Broeren: Director Ames W Silva The Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) has reviewed the above Director referenced document and has the following comments: Charles V.Smith Director Currently OCTA operates on all the streets bordering the proposed project area. Mi haet word It is recommended that transit amenities such .as turnouts, concrete bus pads, Dip-actor shelters/benches be incorporated into this project. Denis R.3ilodeau Alternate OCTA appreciates the opportunity to review and. comment on this project. Bev perry AlternatePlease. contact me with any questions or concerns at 714-560-5749 or Thomas lN.Wilson cwright@octa.net. Alternate Cindy Own Sincerely, Governor's Ex-DYicio Member / :H!EF EXECUTIVE OFFICE ArthurT Leahy Christopher Wright Chief Executive Officer Associate Transportation Analyst Orange County Transportation Authority 550 South Main Street, F.O.Box 14184/Orange'California 92863-1584/(714)560-OCTA(6282) rre .``,..,,-.,., jy° ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT '' tt '-h° . '''ems t:7; ff 7.: yam...%Y1z^ FEB i I ';il.iJ February 10, 2003 :phone: 1 ai:ssa1, Mary Beth Broeren lingsaddress: Principal.Planner :a:Bpx e•�27 2000 Main Street aliPliilley,CA Huntington Beach, CA 92648 eat.aidrees:. SUBJECT: Notice of Preparation for an Environmental Impact Report for I EIIis:Avenue• Pacific CIfi, aiiArdiley;..CA `�' 32108-70:8 This letter is in response to the above referenced Notice of Preparation (NOP)for the i City of Huntington Beach (City). The 31.5-acre development will provide for ' Member commercial and high-density residential usage. The site is located in downtown .;;'q Agencies. Huntington Beach on the inland side of Pacific Coast Highway(PCH); fronting PCH, • between 1st and Huntington Streets, and extending inland to Atlanta Avenue. The •cities proposed project will be constructed over the next two to ten years and provide for a: '-•Anaheim• ''.:Brea • Visitor Commercial Center-The 8-story, 400-room hotel including pool, spa, Buena ess fitness and yoga center, restaurant, resort retail shops, and conference facilities *mess iritain:balley will be located on approximately 10.6 acres. Commercial uses (dining/ : : "lle�t°n. entertainment facilities, an International Surfing Museum and general office use) 3ddokssi,ove ,gtan,eeach: will be housed in several 3-story structures. ,-;:Irvirie :La-Habra, la.Praline • Residential Village - 516 condominiums (two and four story)and recreational as::Alamitoa amenities will be located on 17.2-acres of the project site. dctaeach ';tOrarige. • ,Placentia • Vehicular/Pedestrian Circulation Improvement Plan - Pacific View Drive will be ;•'San t:Ana extended through the site. Additional right-of-way will beprovided on Huntington�Seai��8eaah g g g - tantad Street and Atlanta Avenue. Several crossings to the beach area are also .Tustin: proposed;two (at-grade)crossings, at the intersection of PCH and Huntington ,. :ilia•park. Yorba..Linda and 1st Streets, and a grade-separated pedestrian bridge crossing in the center t4: " of the proposed commercial district. 0.0k1)range "'' The area is within the jurisdiction of the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD). „ °istM`ts Previous planning has shown primarily medium to-medium-high density residential Costa.Mesa with some commercial usage for this area. The density of the proposed project site is Midway..city considered slightly higher than current planning projections. __ E''Distriats' • `' The flow for the project site appears to be tributary to OCSD's 54-inch diameter wine Raneh Coast Trunk Sewer located on PCH. As noted on Page 28 of the NOP;existing sewer services are available, but will require incremental extensions.of wastewater facilities to the site. Offsite sewer lines will need to be extended by the developer and/or City from the existing local sewer lines to OCSD sewers. Any new City connection to the OCSD trunk sewer system will require a connection permit. Please contact Bob Chenowith at (714) 593-7318. Maintaining World-Class Leadership in Wastewater and Water Resource Management" 4o Nyy SANIT4? . sk m Z�' F „.,.►,r; oa Mary Beth Broeren Page 2 February 10, 2003 Additionally, OCSD owns and maintains several sanitary sewers, ranging in size 18- 54 inches in diameter within the public right-of-way and in the vicinity of the project site. Early consultation with OCSD will be required for utility relocations and/or sewer modifications (bypass/diversion). These trunk sewers are considered sensitive in that they are not easily moved and cannot have foundation piles on or near them. These trunk sewers must be protected at all times. To adequately determine the potential impacts to our facilities, OCSD requests that the City provide the following information in the Draft EIR: • Define where the sewer(s)will connect into the OCSD's collection system. • Conduct a hydraulic analysis of the proposed site to determine whether sufficient capacity presently exists to accommodate the flow; the analysis is to include the cumulative impacts from the proposed project and any ongoing development in the area that may affect OCSD's downstream sewers. • Confirm that the City will construct, own and maintain the sewers to connect to OCSD's collection system. • Describe any planned urban runoff(dry weather)discharge to the OCSD's sewer system. • Provide the projected sewage flows based on the District's unit generation factors provided herein. For your calculations, use flow coefficients listed below: 727 gallons per day per acres (gpd/acre)for estate density residential (0-3 d.u. /acre); 1488 gpd/acres for low density residential (4-7d.u. !acre); 3451 gpd/acre for medium density residential (8-16 d.u./acre); - 5474 gpd/acre for medium-high density residential (17-25 d.u./acre); - 7516 gpd/acre for high density residential (26-35 d.u./acre); 2262 gpd/acre for commercial/office; 3167 gpd/acre for industrial; 2715 gpd/acre for institutional; 5429 gpd/acre for high density industrial/commercial; and 129 gpd/acre for recreation and open space usage. NI kl.. t� Eu Mary Beth Broeren Page 3 February 10, 2003 Any discharge to the sewer(s)from the site is required to meet OCSD's Wastewater Discharge Regulations. Prior to any commercial sewer connection(s), i.e. restaurants, please contact Tom Walker at(714) 593-7440 to determine if a source control discharge permit is required. New construction should incorporate all practical and mandated water conservation measures. All developments should use ultra-low flow water fixtures to reduce the volume of wastewater generated. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed development. If you have any questions regarding this project, please contact Jim Herberg or Angie Anderson at(714), 3-7 10 or 593-7305, respectively. tI ; i..--- Ja es D. Herberg, P.E. Engineering Manager ___ JDH:AA:sa G:\wp.dta\eng1EIRS12002\City of HB NOP for Pacific City.doc c: Adam Nazaroff °AA CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ot' ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD February 8,2003 • r, FEB __, "?On Ms. Mary Beth Broeren City of Huntington Beach Planning Department 2000 Main Street, 3rd Floor Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Subject: Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (Pacific City) Dear Ms.Broeren: The Environmental Board of the City of Huntington Beach is pleased to submit comments and recommendations regarding the subject Notice of Preparation. After reviewing the NOP and discussing it at our February 6, 2003 meeting,the Environmental Board voted to submit comments and recommendations reflecting the issues discussed below. 1. Based upon the number of potentially significant impacts identified, both with and without mitigation,it would be desirable for the applicant to evaluate a other project scope alternatives in the Draft Environmental Impact Report("DEIR")to properly identify a balance between the size of the project and the resulting impacts. 2. Cumulative impacts from other projects, including the Strand and the Hyatt Regency, should be considered in the DEIR along with the impacts from this project. 3. If available, actual information documented during construction of the Hyatt Regency should be used to evaluate construction impacts from this project. For example,traffic impacts,noise levels, emissions, etc. should be used in lieu of estimated data. Yours truly, A.T.Hendricker, Chairman ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD ORANGE rC !LINTY ,,COASTICEEPER . . "•• • '44t Old,NqWpoiil3lv.d.504 1:03 Newport Beach, California 92663 Office;(949):723-5424 Fax::(949).675-7091 Email: coaStkeeperl@parthlink.ne , • intp://***coastkeetterork• • RED rt:0200 : "February .10, 2003 Mary.:Beth titeren Planning pepartMent- :City:.of Huntington Beach, 20.00,Mal*$-fiteet . kiimititiotOn;Beach; k9.2448 • RE Comments to Notice of preparation(NOP)for PacifiCtityDeVelopment Dear MS;; Broaren The Orange County Coastkeeper is a nowprOfit:brOanizatiOniAiotit a mission to. proteckancipreSerye the-marine habitats aniflterSheOS Of Orange County through education, restoration,!poky advocacy, and Our interest ltrthiaproject is to:ensure that AStateciftthe-!artwater AuailtylnanageMent:piaii is designed and implemented 'AdditiOnallY;;We'iniant.tO,Sie aplar;i:irnplerriented*bereby no net' increase of wRbezdigargliFfroftv:tkle.pitetcy.,tht ttecich.across Pacific Coast FIghWay:', We have been rneebno,,With representatives of the:applicantano:in the5e:inftiat,Stagei!Of entitlement'itieyhave been both cooperative and Committed. to develop sucha plan 4:thisiientitierneht goes forward, Orange County C'oastkeeper:has identified issues wefeeliar •iii.,,portant to ftio.deitiopment,of ift:apprptiriatd.water*0114i' management plan Our specific response in agreement with the'applicants.reSpitinSeste:theAnpatts:the project will potentially have on ' tqaterkina10.:and,the:enyiropMent.. 1 ' Wefeet,,-there artissueSitiat,rnust be addressed and components:that must be • included in appropriate*later,qualitylnanagement plan:: • • , • . ,.,• • 1) Talbert Marsh:, If the':IfihaFplan:calls for;rUnoffio:be discharged to the , . „ Talbert Marsh, an,analysis of the treatment capacity of Talbert:Marsh MUST be done 'There;Must.!be assurances that'appropriate,Cleansino • capacity exists, including residence timer in order to ensure true natural: , treatment dS:a:Best:Management Practite, , •, . „ •,• " -• . 4) The applicants project should storm water storage capacity, as a IninitnuntittandardAo nieethe:,85!" percentilereguiretnentof the storm water:pernilf;We feel thei;:qw-and:•;';he applicantshould develop a.:plan that ANexild„,reSpit::ir, oversizing'the..:EirstStreetStornf drains and treatment' facilities to accOmmodate and treatflow.S.for not only the development, but alSoithe,.:SurrOunding devekiped.area,3/4•:ilbecity.jssIttitSing aribpittortunitytO be innovative if Such.,,a,!..10140„:*.nOt negOtiated!,that.WOulddrain.,:dOWntoWn.area filawsthrough.the applicants ttratien facility to improve the.Wateiitlyelity before•discharging it opto the beach, '3)The-ccltyhpORFCarefolly tonSiderthe.potential utilization of the small vaCant. Cityownedlot.at first Street andAlanta.•AVenbe.fpr underground storm • : .'livatei.,:,itorage.‘befOretieatmeOt....„*tyietetedi;.7pOrktng10.t,:'‘courcfea$1kj7e Constructed at grade With;f0istaCility;;.<ithecitysandli*apPliCant,cby mutual agreement, could colleCt.,.StOrttr flows from the...dOwntoWriarea...lherk slowly -relOase:'„the'Water,throughthe.:-appliCant'S.„filtrationfaCilitybefore.-it:is „.,•„. .• „ . tliSchargerk'OntO,thebeaCh.: over.Silind,thefacilities,that.diScharge:to First •• • .• , street,gle,.fcitr.00d the applicarst::400.1,.hat.OW;pOteritial..to,deVel0p.,an arrangement whereby alt parties benefit - The benefits out weigh the •diffiCUltiesO•thiSiOncluatiVepprOaCh., 1, • •N. „I: • •:: 4) . „ v, . . • • ‘• • '.7. :Thit:Wdeterniinedthat the,tow-flows fitin•the project discharged along Atlanta •Are ti.be'divertedto the prange,.-county.Sanitatiori.District,there must be,a ..longAerrri.:agreernent 1;1etinieek"0..pifi and the applicant and/or for such treatment,.,.1k.0,1Ort-t*01.:49,reerpentlyith Orange cpuriti.Witoticri:.„DIStrict to :treat dry weather flow is not sufficient .:.• ,•,.. ,.„ . It is.our strong conviction that.water o*ctiared via First street:storm:drains.. „for 4S0a.tge.optcythe beach MUST.O.e.treatect.to,higher leVeiSthanlhoSe specified perrilit. ALL:Water discharged onto the beach aCrosS:froq.'•Orst street shouldi)e.treatosolhat.common„ pollutants found in urban runoff, such as metals,'hitratek.,.oilS• nd greaser'.,mprtiacteria.it ...*OrrtoOtkVw.peheve wafer.01$664rgect.Orectfr.oiito.,::41 ,Ontritito:the, ocean that 400:ornodate .hoa*::*reotivilat.uses. hOillifrripOltle numeric standar&iethetalifeirfiliTriiiCSAUletill) ftyWestiggest.„'ai.rnpnitoringorpgranlfors.botkConttruction:,and.post. construction phases of the project The applicant should develop aggressive:. torm:•Water'ffi011utiOn.Prevention..0.1anS: SV.VPPP) and the City should:both. -monitor and enforce the: There shOuld be post Contrpction. monitoring for a,..peritdofet feast'three years,:preferably fi:/e.years,„.to ensure.theOetait water quality management plan is effectively working.' ••,.• „:„,... • •• ••.:• „ • , •. . . Finally, as We have previously stated, we find t.„prOblematic that the:City's .entitlement process excludes review and comment by the public of the final. ••• .„ . „ water quality,management plan of development project;Water quality issues . , . . . , , .„ . . haVe:heen..sPOtlihted.',inDrange::Cotinty oVerthe'pastfOUr years,.yet:,:the public • is exciude&frooTcOmmenting\on:the:.final plans Of.,a project TheV.00K:001Y•has opportunity to Comment on the requiternents;atthe:.tentati've'Stage, ' which IS;not sufficient as there:..IS:naplan at that point 'The City should amend .its process to allOWthe,:PUblic.an;OppOrtUnity to both review 000 0)Frimenf in 4. • ,'4, • ' ‘',. , , ,,:, , I ,,,, ... . public hearing on final plans • ", • ,. , ,:, • ' , , ‘.: ; ::: i • ; , ' • . ,. •' • , g , . !' - We realize some of the components we,are suggesting are difnolt:tb,implement• and gcl,'OeYond..What,:current regulations dictate If the City is truly committed to 'Water quality and innovatiorit:Wilfgiveseriout consideration to what.1S2beSt for Huntington:BeackAnd:t.1)*:.Millitiiwwtici.reOtete Ott,th ',1)ea0*s; rather than what is„the,:,i.taxitnUrn*tent practicable"(MEP) ,We.:itsiterpretplEak7,the, leist.:fdr;the,..'Oheape.:si*.f.Y'ThiSbiOject 10:::VirtUaliVOO:ffie4iiiCh;fiat.gliies:inland, , therefore, the standards you aOtgy*Ust.taki into account that these are tilted „. . disCharges"intd:theocean. • ,, ,, •:our conversations with the applicant have certainly given us the impression that -therStand Willing:titleveloPsuCh.a:plani withIhe,OnWcaVeatheing:itiat.the final plan is fair. 14,6'.0aliengeithe city to ova**design a Water quality . management plan that goes the extra mile to ensure coastal watet protectiOn. . :. .. Thank you for your,consideration, • , Sincerely, . ,,.- , , .,•: . :. . . , , i . . . . „., , • . , . .. Garry;BroA , Executie'itectOr . • . . , rRDM : PCG PHONE NO. : 849 459 1620 Feb. 11 2003 09:28F,i'1 P2 • V y P 8 Via DeLai'sesa Rancho Sato Margarita,CA 92688 (949) 233-1814 (949)499-1620 February 10, 2003 Honorable Mayor, and the City Council Members of the Planning Commissioner Marybeth Broeren, Project Manager City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach CA 92648 RE: Notice of Preparation of Environmental Impact Report and Environmental Assessment No.C2-05 for the Pacific City Project Dear City Decision Makers: The Urban Planning Consulting Group, Inc., is a land use and environmental consulting firm providing land use and environmental planning services to clients. The firm is located in the City of Rancho Santa Margarita, Orange County California. On behalf of the Pacific City Action Coalition Group, Urban Planning Consulting Group offers the following comments on the notice of preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report and Environmental Assessment No. 02-05 for the Pacific City Project. The Pacific Action Coalition Group is a coalition of residents within the project site. The Pacific Action Coalition Group would like the City of Huntington Beach, as Lead Agency in preparation of the environmental documents for this project, to consider the following recommendations: Hazards and Hazardous Materials: The Initial Study indicates that the property north of the Huntington.Shores Motel was formerly occupied by a (natural) gas plant. This resulted in the presence of Benzene and Toluene leaking into the soil from the condensate due to processing of the gas. No recent tests have been conducted in this or adjacent areas of the site. The last tests occurred in 1996 and are not current enough (See Phase II Investigation Report/Remediation Plan Atlanta Areas - December 1996). Additional soil gas testing for volatile organic compounds was only conducted in certain portions of the site. With 20 oil wells scattered throughout the property, the likelihood that contamination was limited only to the region tested is remote at best (See Remediation Plan, Rev. 3 Atlanta Site - May 2002). State Division of Oil and Gas records show that the re-abandonment of the oil wells in the late 1990's was necessary to stop leaking gas. They had been previously I Rom : PUS PHONE NO. : 949 459 1629 Feb.. 11 20E13 e9:28AM P3 NOP Draft ER for Pad City Project Enviromeutai Assessment No.02-05 February IA,2063, Page 2 abandoned in the late 1980's. The wells have not been tested by. Oil and Gas since the re-abandonment and the agency states that their tests are only good for a one-year period. Thus the wells must be re-tested to ensure there are no leaks presently. And there remains the question of the extent of any groundwater contamination (See Remediation Plan). Because of a lack of recent extensive soil gas and oil well testing;there is a likelihood that contaminants exist which have not yet been identified exist. Therefore, any additional excavation or movement of the soil would be premature until the site's true soil condition regarding hazardous materials is known. Transportation/Traffic: Residents believe keeping Huntington Street in its present width and alignment except for some curb and sidewalk improvements on Pacific City side will not work. Residents would also like to see some improvements in the entrance and exit of Pacific Mobile Home Park, along with curb improvements or installation of sidewalks, removal of overhead utility poles, and a retaining/sound (and for esthetics) wall on mobile home park side of Huntington Street at developers expense (without removing any homes). • Consideration should be given to relocating the entrance/exit of Pacific Mobile Home Park to present dead-end configuration of Delaware Street, and officially abandoning the Delaware Street extension south of Atlantic Avenue to connect with Huntington Street at Pacific View Avenue. • The City should consider abandoning the extension of Delaware Street, which is currently on the Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH) and Huntington Beach Precise Plan of Street Alignments (PPSA) as this new extended configuration. • The developer should be required to pay for all related traffic improvements, removing of Pacific Mobile Home Park entrance from Huntington Street to Delaware Street, and the installation of curbs, sidewalks, infrastructure improvements, underground utility poles, retaining walls, etc., all around the mobile home park. No.mobile homes should be affected along Huntington Street. Developer should be required to relocate those affected with new Delaware Street entrance back into the park. • Sound walls should be constructed around and on park side because of noise from increased traffic due to Pacific City development. • Consideration should be given to Pacific View Avenue (Walnut Avenue) extension from 1st Street to 6th Street, and Pacific View Avenue (Walnut Avenue extension from Beach Blvd. to connect with Hamilton / Victoria (Costa Mesa) and the 55 freeway. City G1 asis'Cs�.01a Beach—Pacific Los 2 LL The Urban Pla::::SSdi.$Co/13.:Aiem Group FROM : PCG PHONE NO. : 949 459 1620 Feb. 11 2003 09:29AM P4 HOP Draft RR for Pacific City Project Envirenmental Assessment i'eo.02-0S February 30,2003, Page 3 9 The City should consider the possible extension of Delaware Avenue south of Atlantic Avenue. • Residents believe that the parking projections for the Hyatt/Hilton Waterfront Projects may be incorrect because it is based solely on total valet parking. Lessons learned from this development should be applied to the proposed project to avoid the same problems. • The parking garages should be designed to fit hotel tour buses, delivery vans, as well as moving vans and trucks. Moving vans and trucks and delivery vans currently park on Pacific View Avenue because they will not fit into parking garage. • in preparation of the EIR, the City should revisit ail previous reports and findings (EIR) for the Waterfront Resort and/or expansion projects in regards to Pacific -City. Information need to be updated to current standards and conditions, as it appears Pacific City is now exceeding all original projections. • Residential and retail development will likely increase traffic significantly during peak commuter hours, weekends and during the summer. The EIR should consider impacts on traffic flow/congestion in the immediate vicinity of the property and regionally (e.g., Beach Blvd, Goldenwest St., PCB i and freeways). • Irhpacts from traffic/parking needs for site workers, materials/waste delivery to/from site need to be addressed in the EIR to minimize impacts on the neighborhood and ensure access'to adjacent resident sites is not impeded. • Specifics regarding proposed pedestrian access for the public should be stated in the EIR: For example, hours that public access will be available must be stated. Also, since the pedestrian access ways are proposed to be gated, availability of the access to the public should be considered such that public access will not be further restricted than initially proposed. • Bicycle lanes should be maintained on all streets surrounding the site. No non- pedestrian access (e.g., bicycles, skates, etc.) is proposed through the facility. Therefore lanes for safe travel for bicyclists and skaters must be provided on streets surrounding the site. • Since zoning allows higher buildings on the east (Huntington Street) side than on the north (Atlanta St.) and west (First St.) sides, and since the site is surrounded on the east, west and north by residential homes, the City should consider the same height restriction on the west side as for other adjacent residential areas. This would ensure that ordinances for aesthetics (e.g., view, glare, noise, etc.) are appropriately maintained for residents adjacent to the west of the site. Ciq of I/untington Beach—Pacific v 3 The Urban D aj nines Consul:hag Group ROM : PCG PHONE NO. : 949 459 1620 Feb. 11 2003 09:30AM P6 NOP Draft eiii for Pacific City Project Environmental Aeseesseent No.02-0 February 10,2033, Page 4 a Any future traffic studies must take into account peak periods for the region. This is particularly relevant to this project as the new Hyatt Hotel just south of the site hosts an 110,000 square foot convention center, which will bring thousands of business travelers to the area. The Linscott study doesn't appear to address this. a The impact of the increased density of the project on access and service.to existing neighborhoods such as the adjacent Pacific Mobile Home Park, homes along Atlanta and Huntington streets as well as patrons of the commercial and residential parts of the development should be carefully studied. The Linscott study did not seem to address this issue. a Any proposed parking analysis should account for (1) project usage, (2) Hyatt's new convention facility and (3) regional parking during the height of the summer tourist season. • The anticipated increase in residential and retail population as a result of the project will impact already overcrowded parking conditions downtown. The specific number of parking spaces to be provided for residents, guests and commercial vehicles must be provided in the proposal so that the sufficiency of parking proposed can be evaluated based on the estimated demand for resident, guest and commercial visitor parking. The proposal also notes that on-street parking on adjacent streets will be allowed. Currently there is no on-street parking allowed on Atlanta and Huntington since these are single lane roads. Again, this proposal taxes the existing single lane roadways and the proposal does not state that dedicated right of way will be used for additional vehicle and -- bike lanes, or space for on street parking. The proposal only notes that sidewalk and curb and gutter improvements will be made. a How will buses be accommodated along adjacent streets with the increased traffic? a The project is anticipated to Increase traffic on Huntington Street and surrounding streets. Huntington Street is proposed to be widened to a 90-foot right-of-way. Where would the additional ROW be taken from? From the developer property or public and/or residential property? Public Services • • In light of the $7 million City of Huntington Beach deficit due to the current State budget crisis, the Elk should identify project impacts on current public services such as Fire, Police and Lifeguard services. • The EIR should clarify whether the proposed roadways within the residential development would be private or public. Impacts for access for Police and Fire departments in emergency conditions should be analyzed. City of Huatin Conn J�eoch—�aci%ae City - 4 the Urban Plea sni Canswdth(e Group - __�. r ,ems -1 FROM : PCG - PHONE NO. ': 949 459 1620 Feb. 11 2003 09:30RM P5 NOP Draft srn for Pacific City Proje t Environmental Assessment No.02-05 February.O,2003, Page 5 Public Beath Access s While not specifically addressed in the Initial Study, the issue of public beach access is critical for any coastal development. The EIR should identify the project's impacts on beach parking during peak summer months. The Linscott study does not seem to address this•critical peak period. Aesthetics 6 The EIR should address impacts on the elimination of existing ocean views of residents in adjacent neighborhoods along Huntington, Atlanta and First streets, and propose measures easures to preserve the vistas the residents have had for years. • Impacts from shade and shadows, light from both the commercial and residential parts of the project, and glare should be adequately addressed, as they will severely impact surrounding neighborhoods. Recreation • with city park ratios of five acres per 1,000 persons, how is .90 acre for the project's park space allowed? Is one fifth or less of the required space acceptable? There must be both an increase in park space and reduced density to accommodate this guideline. Noise • The EIR must specifically propose mitigation measures to address the issue of excessive noise during the construction phase on neighboring development. In addition, the city should inform the public how compliance with noise regulations will be enforced. • Noise during site operations during/following completion of the construction phase also needs to be addressed. Hotel,• bars, restaurants, and other commercial facilities proposed to operate at the site will create noise that may be a nuisance to neighboring residents. Schedule for Construction and Operations • The construction schedule proposed is basically without restrictions and does not consider the adjacent land use and quality of life of the neighbors. The proposed operating schedule is 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. Mon-Sat. This schedule should be restricted to allow neighbors Frionly, with workinghours 9 restricted to Mon _! morning and evening hours undisturbed by noise. Recommend 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. operating schedule Mon - Fri. The approved schedule should remain in effect for the life of the project or•untii adjacent site uses change. In addition, set-up for C' o 'Hun?in rots Beach-Pacific City The Urban.Platsrsr Consulting Group L ROM : PCG PHONE NO. : 949 459 1620 Feb. 11 2003 09:31AM P7 r��fa'.. Pacific C - MOP Draft �ca..1fic Oty Project Environmental Assessment Sao.02-05 Febraary 10,2003, Page 6 site work should be monitored by the city so that residents are not exposed to excessive noise and ,emissions from idling trucks, and loading/unloading operations at times outside the construction schedule. The timetable for construction should be specific with regard to when public access ways and other facilities (public park space, etc.) are to be constructed. • Provisions should be included that require completion of the promised public facilities to be provided (parks, street improvements, etc.) on a specified schedule. Project Alternatives The City should consider reducing the scope of the project by reducing the number of condominium units and retail space, as this would reduce the project's impacts on the residents, surrounding land uses, and the environment. Conclusion In summary, environmental documents are informational documents required to provide detailed information on proposed developments and recommend adequate mitigation measures along with such disclosure. Based on the concerns expressed by -- nearby residents, the EIR should adequately address these significant concerns. We hope that bringing these issues to your attention at this point would serve as a guide to the preparation of the EIR. We anticipate the preparation and review of the draft EIR upon completion, and we thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, THE URBAN PLANNING CONSULTING GROUP Gabriel Elliott Principal _• City of Huntirs co'.vevith—Pacific Citj 6 The U,frw Plounii'.Consulting Group rro t+ ?tits i 109 Huntington Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 February 10, 2003 Dear Environmental Staff. Our prior submission in the matter of the proposed Pacific City development inadvertently omitted the second page. Herewith are two corrected copies of our submission. • Sincerely, a' . '''1 Paul Cross Carol Cross I RECEPIED FEB I j i 2003 -, Pacific City Environmental Issues My name is Paul Cross, residing at 109 Huntington St. with my wife Carol who joins in this statement. Pacific City is a project that is divisible into two segments. One is a hotel and commercial complex that may be identified as the south. end. The other is a high density multiple family condominium complex identified as the north end. A proposed extension of Pacific View Drive will serve as the dividing line between the two segments. I As to the southern portion of the project, a tall hotel is to be sited very close to Huntington Street. The total distance between the westernmost wall of the existing Hilton Hotel, which is located on the east side of Huntington Street, will be only 120 feet from the easternmost wall of the proposed Pacific City hotel to be located on the west side of Huntington Street. Such a canyon-like effect should not be imposed upon the city's namesake street. There should be a greater degree of separation between the east and west walls of the respective hotel structures. Huntington Beach streets that lead to the ocean offer spacious sightlines to the water. The Pacific City project would disregard that street to ocean connection. The total frontage of the south-end segment of the Pacific City project is in excess of one fourth of a mile. Certainly, there is ample space for movement of the proposed hotel site westward so as to save the ocean end of Huntington Street from debasement. It is important to note that while the proposed hotel will not be as tall as the nearby Hilton Hotel tower, it will be twice as high as the new Hyatt Regency Hotel. In return for added hotel height, Pacific City should be required to maintain an ocean-view line of sight at Huntington Street. It must be observed that Huntington Street bends westward as it comes to an end at Pacific Coast Highway. Also to be noted is that the adjacent Hilton's western wall is that of the ballroom annex, not the hotel tower itself. Nevertheless, coupled with "mounding", the annex rises over 35 feet high and does in fact partially block the view down Huntington Street. The Hilton, presently at least, compensates for this partial blockage by providing 500 feet or more open space between its easternmost wall and the property line of the new Hyatt convention center. The latter itself provides about 150 additional feet of open space adjacent to the Hilton property line, making a total of 650 feet between the building walls of the Hyatt and Hilton. As mentioned, Huntington Street makes a westerly bend as it approaches PCH. The Hilton as the first major hotel on PCH gained extra building space on the western end of its property. Indeed, there is only a 20-foot setback from Huntington Street. However, Hilton's success in pushing its western building line to the maximum limit, does not provide justification for Pacific City to push eastward to the same degree. With added building height or a very large structure, there is an obligation to provide open space in mitigation of the higher or greater building density, as was accomplished by the Hilton on its east end. Moreover the open space need not be viewed as a donation. There are various private uses that the proposed hotel might make of land set aside to preserve the integrity of Huntington Street. Tennis courts or a pool facility come to mind. As well there could be below grade parking spaces. Another possible use could be the capture and treatment of storm water run-off from the completed project. Incidentally, the ocean end of Huntington Street also happens to be at the lowest end of the entire Pacific City project. In light of the foregoing, the eastern building line of the proposed Pacific City hotel should be more than 120 feet from the western building line of the Hilton Hotel. With a wider degree of separation, the new hotel would not block long established view points. Instead, the city's namesake street would retain a visual connection in common with virtually all of the city's "old town" streets. One glaring exception to this commonality exists at 8th Street where the ocean view is blocked by an on-the-sand condominium sited south of PCH. A somewhat similar measure of blockage must not occur on the north side of PCH at Huntington Street. II . As to the northern portion of Pacific City, a condominium complex is proposed with a total of over 500 units on 17.6 acres of land. This is far too dense and would result in 30 condos per acre. That is more than twice the density of an adjacent "mobile home" park located on the east side of Huntington Street between Pacific View Drive and Atlanta Avenue. Pacific Mobile Home Park has 250 units on 19 acres. Without question, approval of a 500 plus density of high-end condos at Pacific City, along with 250 mobile home units will present traffic and other difficulties. As noted, the northern segment of Pacific City consists of 17.6 acres. That area is bounded by the proposed extension of Pacific View Drive on the south, 1st Street on the west, Atlanta Avenue on the north and Huntington Street on the east. The proposed project abuts portions of"old town" Huntington Beach. Such abutment occurs along Atlanta Avenue and along 1st Street. Old town is denoted by a grid-like street layout. The streets are of ample width and provide parking on both sides with two traffic lanes of comfortable dimension. For the most part, there are no walled'in houses, that is, homes are open to and face the street. As well, the streets in old town are tree lined. The collective effect is one of considerable charm. Pacific City's plan does not connect its proposed project to "old town" except notably by internal walkway extending between Pacific View Drive and Atlanta following a path generally south from the end of Alabama Street. (Alabama Street is located in "old town" and is a north-south route street which runs parallel to Huntington Street.) Circumstances have changed greatly in the years after the Pacific City project was conceived many years ago. During the past three years, the residential portion of "old town" has been transformed. Dozens of new homes or "rehabs" of older homes have been completed or are underway. For example,just within one block of the proposed project, along Alabama, Baltimore and Huntington Streets, eight new homes have been built and four homes rehab'd. Also along 2nd Street just one block away from Pacific City, there are five new homes and two rehabs with two more new homes in the offing. Pacific City with its proposed 500 plus condos does not fit the rapidly emerging new face of adjacent "old town". With over 500 units there would be a development equaling the 500 plus rooms of the new Hyatt. Such extreme density will not appeal to year-round residents. Instead, sales will be pitched to second-home owners who typically are absent most days of the year. In this regard, the condos at Pierside Colony produce little in the way of pedestrian traffic, and storefronts adjacent to that condo development appear mostly vacant. It is suggested here that Pierside Colony has added little to the economic base of Huntington Beach. It also is suggested that another vast complex (Pacific City) built for sporadic weekend, summertime only visitors is not needed where better options are available. The proposed Pacific City condos will turn large rear ends (three on Atlanta, three on Huntington and three on lst) toward the city of Huntington Beach. Some condos will have four stories and will be 55 to 60 feet high at the rooftop. The property will be not unlike that of a stadium looking down toward PCH. This is not integration into the city of Huntington Beach. Clearly, the number of condo units should be reduced greatly with an absolute height limitation of 35 feet in common with the adjacent housing. As an example of the viability of an alternative, consider that "narrow-lot" new homes on 2nd Street are for sale at about $900,000 and that as many as 15 or more of these slender homes can be built on an acre of land. Conversely, nearby condos at Pierside Colony sell for half the price of the new homes on 2nd Street. Again, for example, single-family residences (townhomes) are to be constructed behind the new Hyatt Regency. In short, just because the concept of condos at Pacific City appeared attractive years ago is no reason to ignore the changes that have occurred in recent times relative to the sale of ocean-close single family residential dwellings. The residential density at Pacific City thus should be limited to not more than 15 to 20 units per acre. Although the point appears established, a few more examples of the greater viability of reduced density may be given. A complex of single-family homes almost a mile from the ocean on Beach Boulevard recently was completed at sale prices up to $650,000. Even greater sale prices (over 1 million) were realized for housing on Golden West. From either an economic or quality of life point of view, lower density residences better serve and attract year- round residents than do crowded Oceanside condos which are favored by weekend, summer only, second-home owner-visitors. The large financial shortfall facing Huntington Beach is well known. The city, no doubt hopes that Pacific City will be a "cash cow". In this regard, reduced condo density and in lieu thereof added town home construction will bring higher unit sales prices which will offset any loss incurred from a fewer number of units per acre. As well, there will be continuing sales tax benefits flowing to the city as a result of a higher number of year round residents mixing with what still will be a large increase in short- term or weekend visitors. Accordingly, the number of condominiums or other dwelling units at Pacific City should not be more than 15 to 20 per acre, with building heights limited to 35ft above street level. Such height is the norm for nearby dwelling units on Atlanta, Alabama, Baltimore and 2nd Streets. III The north and south segments of Pacific City should stand on their respective merits without cross-subsidization. However, some items such as drainage, sidewalks and landscaping must be viewed in the context of the entire project. Conditions should be imposed that unify the Pacific City development with the city of Huntington Beach. As proposed, Pacific City is a cramped village, isolated from its host community. The following conditions are essential for successful integration of Pacific City into the city of Huntington Beach. 1. Sidewalks should be offset from roadway by at least a 5-foot. green strip. Under this format, there would be street curbing; a 5-foot green strip, sidewalk; and landscaped areas in that order of progression from the roadway to the building line. 2. No walls or fences should be permitted except for the hotel property. Low rise retaining walls for landscaping (not more than 2 or 3 feet) also may be allowed. 3. Bus pullouts should be provided along PCH and Pacific View Drive. Currently 138 buses use Atlanta Avenue between Huntington and 1st Street each weekday. Most make a circuit north up Huntington St, west onto Atlanta Avenue, south onto 1st Street and finally east onto PCH where they await their next run. These buses simply are repositioning and make stops only on PCH and at the extreme south ends of Huntington and 1st Street. These are four separate bus routes, and three of them reposition as described. The fourth bus route actually has a stop on Atlanta-Orange, but that one is west of 1st Street. As'a result, all of the 138 of the daily buses could shorten their runs by about one half a mile via the proposed extension of Pacific View Drive. This fuel- saving, less-polluting route should be mandated by the environmental impact statement. It would be egregiously improper to dismiss this beneficial effect by asserting that the rerouting decision is entirely up to Orange County Transit Authority. The city of Huntington Beach and Pacific City must be required to obtain approval from OCTA for such bus rerouting prior to the commencement of construction. A savings of 18,000 bus miles a year at oceanside Huntington Beach with no diminution of service is more than a trivial issue. At present, Pacific City appears to oppose the presence of OCTA bus stops on Pacific View Drive and seems to insist that all bus riding workers and visitors destined to Pacific City disembark on perimeter streets including most notably the south side of PCH. Trekking • across the highway should not be required of bus passengers. 4. The proposed pedestrian 20ft walkway through the project from the vicinity of Alabama Street south to Pacific View Drive should be granted to the city as a permanent easement, not subject to closure by condo residents or by the city itself, except for temporary repairs or maintenance that may be required from time to time. 5. The power lines along the edges of the project should be placed underground. This presents a particular problem for high voltage lines extending along Atlanta Avenue. A 20ft easement may be required by the power company for burial of the lines. Accordingly, the city should be required to work with Pacific City and the power company in placing the high tension wires in a vault-like conduit under the common property line of Pacific City and the city of Huntington Beach, thereby eliminating a major eyesore., The city, no doubt, wants to keep its water, sewer, and storm drainage separate from power company utility lines. However, the south side of Atlanta Avenue will be expanded.with 8 feet more roadway, a 5ft green strip, a sidewalk of 5 feet area, and a landscape area of at least 10 feet. Thus, it appears that the separateness desired by the city for its own infrastructure would not be seriously compromised. In the interest of removing ugly power lines, the city must be required to cooperate with the developer. Stated differently, the project should not be allowed to go forward without city acceptance of some utility company usage of the city's Atlanta Avenue right-of-way. (As pointed out, the power lines need not be buried in the roadway itself.) It may be argued that conditions cannot be placed on the city. However, conditions can be imposed on the project, and it would be up to the city to decide what to do. Seemingly, the city would cooperate in a no cost-to-itself burial of power lines in accordance with the ongoing effort to reduce the number of utility poles and lines which criss-cross downtown. 6. Atlanta-Orange street between 1st and 2nd streets is a night- mare of asphalt without reason. Actually, Orange Street extends east all the way to 1st Street, but it is referred to here as Atlanta-Orange because Atlanta fuses with Orange at that location.) Pacific city will generate a large increase of traffic on 1st Street, tempting northbound motorists thereon to turn left down Atlanta-Orange in the direction of Main Street. The short funnel-like segment of Atlanta-Orange between 1st and 2nd streets is far too wide and should be made to conform in width to that part of Orange Street at 2nd Street and extending past Main Street into the heart of"old town". This again is not a matter that can be passed-off as a non-project related item. Even without Pacific City, the wide girth of Atlanta-Orange is mostly a matter of confusion and trepidation. With a large number of additional automobiles, traffic deaths along this one-block stretch of no-man's-land are likely. The street must be reconfigured with a pedestrian friendly center island of comfortable width. 7. Finally, there is the matter of storm water run-off. Pacific City proposes to capture and "treat" the storm water coursing through its project. The city itself owns an adjacent slice of land extending along the south side of Atlanta-Orange between 1st and 2nd Streets. The city land actually begins next to residences on 2nd Street. It then curves along Orange- Atlanta to 1st Street and then arcs south down 1st Street for 200 feet, where again there are residences. The city intends to use the slice of land possibly for Pacific City parking and possibly as part of the down-town master parking plan. The city also may plan to use the site as a dual use facility, that is, for underground water capture and treatment and a 30 car, surface parking lot. However, there is no need for duplicate facilities, either for parking or storm water. Pacific City should provide all necessary parking for its project. As well, Pacific City should be able to treat any 1st Street storm water as adequately as the city which currently has no extra funds to spend on new projects. Because there is no apparent need for a 30-car parking lot adjacent to Pacific City, it would be in the interest of all concerned if the sliver of land owned by the city is converted to a pocket park. In return for preservation and the enhancement of view points for its new residential units, Pacific City shuld capture and treat storm water now flowing free down the 1st storm drain of the city of Huntington Beach. There is no reason for the city staff to be in opposition to cooperation with Pacific City in the treatment of storm water run-off other than one of quality control. However, such a concern can be overcome with careful planning and oversight. The city, therefore, should be required to forego its parking lot plan in favor of a park for the indicated slice of land adjacent to Pacific City. At the same time, Pacific City should be required to cooperate fully with the city in the matter of storm water treatment. Conclusion The changes suggested here are not meant to defeat the construction of Pacific City. Carol and I strongly support the plan for a footpath through the project. We look forward to shopping and dining at the proposed new stores and restaurants. Also, a new pedestrian bridge across PCH as called for by Pacific City would be highly beneficial. We also support below grade parking. Nonetheless, the project does implicate substantial environmental considerations as enumerated in Parts I. through III. of this statement. Remedial and mitigating measures are available and we believe that they can be adopted without material consequences for the owners of Pacific City. Equally important such measures add significant benefits to the citizens of Huntington Beach. Paul Cross Carol Cross 109 Huntington Street Huntington Beach January 24, 2003 — RE CE WE ri JAN 3 0 2003 Mary Beth Broeren City of Huntington Beach Planning Department 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 SUBJECT: Pacific City Project—Notice of Preparation I have reviewed the Pacific City Project Notice of Preparation and have the following comments on the Pedestrian Safety Plan. The Pacific City Project is bounded by Pacific Coast Highway, First Street, Huntington Street and Atlanta Avenue. Atlantic Avenue is a main vehicle and pedestrian corridor,.which leads to the Downtown Huntington Beach. The redevelopment of the Huntington Beach Downtown Area has proved to be an attractive enhancement for residents in neighborhoods that surround the . Downtown Area. Some of these neighborhoods are also adjacent to the proposed Pacific City Project. The Downtown redevelopment has encouraged many local residents to walk. The Pacific City Project when developed will further encourage residents of the area to walk to its facilities. Pedestrian circulation is being enhanced within the development and across Pacific Coast Highway. There is no mention of the needed pedestrian improvements to the surrounding neighborhoods where linkages are in need of repair or installation, specifically a sidewalk on the south side of Atlanta Avenue between Huntington Street and Delaware Street. The section of Atlanta Avenue between Huntington Street and Delaware Street, on the south side,is a safety risk for parents and their children. The lack of a sidewalk forces pedestrians to walk in the street or cross busy Atlanta Avenue twice to get to the same point. The alternative is to continue to drive half a mile to the downtown area, even less to the Pacific City project, which _ impacts both the parking and traffic congestion. Just as the Pacific City project will have vehicle traffic impacts on surrounding street intersections,increased vehicle/pedestrian conflicts will also be created on the surrounding roadways. --i Please have the full impact of pedestrian circulation studied and you will conclude that the installation of a sidewalk on the south side of Atlanta Avenue between Huntington Street and Delaware Street is warranted with the initiation of the Pacific City project. Sincerely, 41...."1"4 ..j2mg4 Donald W. Dey 7782 Seaglen Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92648 RECEIVE]) FEB 01003 Date February 10, 2003 Mary Beth Broeren Principal Planner, City of Huntington Beach Subject: WRITTEN COMMENTS TO PACIFIC CITY PROJECT • The Impacts are cumulatively considerable, as compared to past city projects the effects of this project have more potentially significant impact even in comparison with projects that are still under construction or are planed. How will mandatory finding of significance be remedied not to cause substantial adverse effects on the public? Asper EIP Associates pp33&34 Impacts are cumulatively significant on this project. This project will have an environmental effect, impact living conditions, which include, traffic, scenic views, population increase, increase on all public services for not just residents of surrounding area, but all residents of Huntington Beach. Potentially significant impacts are extreme. I know that some of the issues can be resolved, but some of these issues will be left with the residents after the development has finish, profit has been made and Makar Properties are on to their next project. Document Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared to address short- term soil export for Hotel development to the east of the 31 acre site. Did assessment No. 99-1 identify soil condition at that time and/or prior remediation and/or if soil was contaminated at the time of removal. Pagel After development is completed soil could become unstable and could cause landslides, lateral spreading and/or liquefaction. Substantial earth movement and construction will increase emissions from soil, vehicular trips and on site emissions could conflict with SCAQMD. The excessive construction scheduled of days and time of working hours, to a term of 10 years for completion is impact of surrounding areas. Roadways within the Condo area will cause an impact for access for Police and Fire departments in emergency conditions. Will all roadways be public or private? Underground oil and minerals below ground level will result in the loss of availability of known oil and minerals resource that would be value to the region and State of California. How will this effect the project and the surrounding area, if owners of these rights want to export and retrieve their oil/minerals? Did oil well abandonment between 1988-98 meet within the standards of State EPA and Water Board? Since no construction has been made, these conditions must meet today's standards. Noise will be over a long term this will generate significant impact to surrounding residents. How will the construction process meet City code for Dba code standards? Will Public Services, Police and Fire departments need to increase personnel for this project? The condominiums will generate over 1500 new residents, and condominiums that are proposed east of this project will be larger. These needs to be addressed in the new EIR future planed residental will add even more to the over population and traffic conditions, and will cause a greater potentially significant impact. Why is the City making an exception to City standards for park use on this project? The ratio of.9 to 5 acres is extremely below standard. How will this land be kept open for the public? The plans use gates, this parkland is for both private and public. The beach can not be used as part of open land. Density.... High density residental will impact public service, fire, police and public facilities services and will directly effect population in adjoining areas. Traffic effects, Traffic did not regionally addressed thoroughfare traffic that is overcrowded at this time. Did developer prior to project submittal complete traffic study? Huntington Street is not shown enlarged to 90 foot four lane right of way. Huntington Street is used as a main artery route for public buses and fire equipment for direct access to PCH. Huntington Street is heavy use by public now; the project will increase traffic and cause an impact for volume and spread to surrounding streets. Encroachments for infrastructure, roads and right a ways for road improvement will be necessary, Where is this property taken from? Will Property encroachment be given from the developer's property or public and/or residental property? Substantial adverse effect on proposed project would result in effect of public view, view corridors and other adjacent area view. This is a very potentially significant impact..As per the portfolio prospectus, I quote "Intimate terraces will provide places for families and friends to enjoy stunning oceanview vistas." Makar Properties. Our properties have had Vistas and views for over four decades. Was any concern for the residents taken as an issue, or not considered? Four-story condos will leave us with 30 to 40-foot stucco walls. The blocking of natural light will effect living conditions; the addition of night lighting will effect an impact to the residents. Commercial property will generate tax money for the City; Residental will bring in mitigated funds one time, then a small amount of residential tax returned by the State. We do not need more high-density condos. What we need is to help balance the budget, cash registers in commercial building, with hotels, restaurants, and retail that will generate money year after year into the City General Fund. Lets not increase public service and possibly increase city fees. We need to balance the city budget. Ronald and Sally Satterfield 110 Huntington St. Huntington Beach, CA. 92648 714-969-0042 J. Q PACIFIC CITY PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES QUESTIONNAIRE Name: £Vi m ee,e,j-rerj Affiliation (if any): f4,0 •Clialint3eye 1c1 ,%/ ✓/ z# a ep✓eriggAta Address: ) ,5z/1 T City: , 7 r(o 4.J afoled State: ZIP: 926 Phone: 7/c 9160 c'M'/ 1. What environmental issues do you think should be addressed in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR)? kvit",4-6-02(CriW6gdae Aaidle V#5* 2. Are there any additional issues/concerns about the project that you would like to bring to the City's attention? 1flu67 wa ekezm l/ t3eivie5. s G✓/w ER/NC- « 6lz z —. ,f 5 3. Do you have any questions or comments regarding the environmental review process for this project? i yi8,6,r &ritg1G 4LS itlee /MP6 ii i Beer' Tie GiN/ /Ci C epn 1 r✓a&si e7e) o r enasz- tle.59 , Please leave this questionnaire at the sign-in table before you leave tonight, or fold, seal, and mail so that it is received by the City by February 10, 2003. Use additional sheets, if necessary. 1 NOTE: ALL COMMENTS TO QUESTIONS PROVIDED BECOME PUBLIC INFORMATION. PACIFIC CITY PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES QUESTIONNAIRE Name: -or' Cam, ► i4 rsIL Affiliation (if any): Address: 401) LA E City: _ State: C r ZIP: 7Z64/ T Phone: �-14) 160 2.6 g 1 1. What environmental issues do you think should be addressed in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR)? '1 //,� �J� A-1c A+14.1 �yr a /]e i& P iS k Qj FL;11 v /n c,s1�'l eK-f i4 (� R �✓S fro. at-c. �[, / [�G /kti o'1 / ,25et4 /� All /q/OL.�nlii� ck, e '�7�►2- S/7C_1 f�L�L/1�+.. `�l� !.� 4viwit- 4 ` Atha✓,,,'i VIC V�DV ] +V.)SI�� PC,�L,. bee., 4 ,4,,la esfee:,� i 1 4,1. c�rrc•� k iti1KcA Edit Sviileo 2. Are there any additional issues/concerns about the project that you would like to bring to the City's attention? MA) cv ds..6 �� l . Ailaa tc,riAt tj C_e_ eyyaxced CCre-At ! a�.,.rll Lvlf` x eN� aLittj J / tl r-,5i ��C. �✓1'� f3/ab.i) a( JSJ 1c(e-.L 3. Do you have any questions or comments regarding the environmental review process for this project? Please leave this questionnaire at the sign-in table before you leave tonight, or fold, seal, and mail so that it is received by the City by February 10, 2003. Use additional sheets, if necessary. NOTE. ALL COMMENTS TO QUESTIONS PROVIDED BECOME PUBLIC INFORMATION. / I • PACIFIC CITY PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES QUESTIONNAIRE Name: (.2 r 7Ls t//:if Affiliation (if any): Address: j,2 06 g L K j.5i City: a9-t-o14 e State: (>9 ZIP: Phone: ?/9 <6r? - zy 9� 1. What environmental issues do you think should be addressed in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR)? 2. Are there any additional issues/concerns about the project that you would like to bring to the City's attention? /� (-3n , -57` 6�`ra�r-, / 1-a)e2" OJ0.)jU ('T it (I'V et a -eyo,s d /Lleof,'aot, cJi'i& Ito e re et Ic i-N i1 7Z 5__64/ot.) l a� (24-u S z u -1-7'o c�bie_ r y *4 6-ZY- :'4 (AMAd u r- J2.1 L ,`Q Ake. • 3. Do you have any questions or comments regarding the environmental review process for this project? Please leave this questionnaire at the sign-in table before you leave tonight, or fold, seal, and mail so that it is received by the City by February 10, 2003. Use additional sheets, if - necessary. NOTE: ALL COMMENTS TO QUESTIONS PROVIDED BECOME PUBLIC INFORMATION. 1 � ' K •J. ' PACIFIC CITY PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES QUESTIONNAIRE Name: G Q.o.� Affiliation if any) Address: RO ���5<<,, S�a� �tieP s-os City: „ ;,zy " .mad State: 'i ZIP:%ac Y� Phone: 1. What environmental issues do you think should be addressed in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR)? / / 1 Y Y P vti n G J�✓�tA �l�J 1J SS (41eic'74.1- LP.�J CLI',P� ) eZ S G71i`S ! e ft�i 'h 7i./)eA`2- ,m. K 4 i /J9/' iy rf, SLa��e.� 4 "1 -A0,74 s — GrJ t d er1;// 11 P e ?� lly�"e �l�� �u�.`.�r� 7'LLip� lad�T���r-YC.o_,. �i��r�s . 7 ',<" , s ,q ,� v P ,�,� s .tip 9c y--4 t 2. Are there any additional issues/concerns about the project that you would like to bring to the City's attention? / ti /4 tea/ ��QrP�rl 741hLa__V 7`/1 P Aac,',& A/, I;A �70�P ,4,'J'�f�,f��.�`/// �is�J�/eJ 7' 4,'s Ls ' �QPr. '01 LiQo/�! e -- /i,- / t7!/'/`(.— !%/G/S r GCJ ACr /f'12�J��A t GLJ/!P/[ A: /r/N ker dr,/!v; ��� �P AAP �JL�G�eec.1 ram`!-_�L �`-I a 3. Do you have any questions or comments regarding the environmental review process for this project? Please leave this questionnaire at the sign-in table before you leave tonight, or fold, seal, and mail so that it is received by the City by February 10, 2003. Use additional sheets, if necessary. NOTE: ALL COMMENTS TO QUESTIONS PROVIDED BECOME PUBLIC INFORMATION. / • PACIFIC CITY PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES QUESTIONNAIRE Name: 0)q),-/19-Ai r' F� Affiliation (if any): fC-i'Yke Address: ,i & i' -.z Cc A(1 City: fi State: 2/ 9e Phone: 1.1. What environmental issues do you think should be addressed in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR)? 2. Are there any additional issues/concerns about the project that you would like to bring to the City's attention? 44,7_ - /jcJ415 .eeeltd @ 4f(c &-4 fi�kc' 5-tr 0,4 cz l/ 74-�0.#1-- f /ss _ H-Lxi 1)1.1. /s T 5�3 Y. ,i,€e ( -fzf C e _ Alahom.,a ' HV)'1 , Sty. -w0 )-N AJ ; ii b(e.�_ - - mud, krrr%r, w ► access A- 3. Do you have any questions or comments regarding the environmental review process for this project? Please leave this questionnaire at the sign-in table before you leave tonight, or fold, seal, and mail so that it is received by the City by February 10, 2003. Use additional sheets, if necessary. 1 NOTE: ALL COMMENTS TO QUESTIONS PROVIDED BECOME PUBLIC INFORMATION. 13.2 i s FEB 10 2003 PACIFIC CITY PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES QUESTIONNAIRE Name: -Pa.`L.2 X'LL 7tiv i VI: -1147Va.r.'r v Affiliation (if any): Address: 113 -4ii-,z,tifl5I rL _SC . City: -gcziurit: State: a-( . ZIP: `l-2 ' Phone: ('IN ) *ip- 4 717 1. What environmental issues do you think should be addressed in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR)? J /�_ (! _ci Ct .L'•Y L. = 'C1•i L _eh`LG'L li.'Y`1GL G4 l�i� C(f( .,1L'7%✓C'L C'Y1. (/h,.r.')(t.It.2e L • {'1 i�f (!��L iDrt ti.n�� /,+?-1,0 A u7), /i r 1L 76- I u Vb .3. .1/2yr.'ti4,,7.), .c`. .416 tat .j e t(S;��'L.. rr - IT af'2GL 1 [' )C L `r` ._1( ',?41`L'` ('l i l cL .-L h Li--;L,�L� .&' A:le�.'2.L.�.� .t o- -//1'1QG 1- i 1 Lfl4ct- J . .f.•Yvl'/Il G1'lf'� �1 LL i 1 .L' \ _ter .f d"'fi v J- ,/`ALL-L? /ter" .(ifr7G LlCG 2i'� 5Ct 4//! LL Gi.f� ,G•`l ark'C'r eeL vd- .. .%G/.i1'c1 J'1C .1 i�r.i� �-t y:l�;,,•t-���%2, C lak(:T , (/ 2. Are there any additional issues/concerns about the project that you would like to bring to the City's attention? .arA,c>vea a'ic 1 1r{71i.)C .quid' i.-r/i. vite,n4k 7 2 :9te1et . el ...atL Ole ,. .((.'t(':2_r.C1,4.,e7t,g,f.t itic-Z .(7.✓V.0 2110L(_ .(d !"':L ee— (l 7 -1 . 04: re l L'11.0 7 3. Do you have any questions or comments regarding the environmental review process for this project? ,�// d 121. 1,116,1 c'( T1.II ,�Gr 2,thifik _ ',J.( -6t i .`mvx-L.L' , emu 1�t 0 .t'�= ,c/i.o.2 trt'L Y1./i 'CL.2,,D'L- ii lrE17,& 1 -kitL•n Q,fibi `/7t/71 .tad 114.17 .•t7r:/-LC I'/172L1r.7•Lil3 nCi_. i'1 1,c Lzezzit 6'u.pen- 1 .G pr.cY C 4L (2ci-'L•C . aiicL ,t07,te1 :i.'Ll .G/Le 4 id.29CZvtiC(vtO' ./)'1,.L L1l'Li72bXJCG.9 , j� L��cG( LtI c.c.tic l r -W-UILLf't,c-U� &t.0 .i) Lu Ll (*),Z1 L't C(f<ln.r7 %LL'�l L. (AL;t1 ;i�l,� C1'�- :L/G ttLi. (t(!' .61 ( 7)-teturl 17 fJz Please leave this questionnaire at the sign-in table before you leave tonight, or fold, seal, and mail so that it is received by the City by February 10, 2003. Use additional sheets, if necessary. NOTE: ALL COMMENTS TO QUESTIONS PROVIDED BECOME PUBLIC INFORMATION. / • J, PACIFIC CITY PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES QUESTIONNAIRE Name:(' L ) a Affiliation (if any): City: _,� P � / � `� State: �� tyx ZIP: 5.2 �yT Phone: 7/, - JilaC -Jib z- 1. What environmental issues do you think should be addressed in the Environmental Impact Report(.EIR)? /7A--1.� (. T---�J...F..ice¢ .r•QJ/ V 2. Are there any additional issues/concerns about the project that you would like to bring to the City's attention? • 3. Do you have any questions or comments regarding the environmental review process for this project? Please leave this questionnaire at the sign-in table before you leave tonight, or fold, seal, and mail so that it is received by the City by February 10, 2003. Use additional sheets, if necessary. NOTE: ALL COMMENTS TO QUESTIONS PROVIDED BECOME PUBLIC INFORMATION. 1 PACIFIC CITY PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES QUESTIONNAIRE v Name: +`tthr l C I A-- �� CC- Affiliation (if any): Address: C:0 H Ull c�6 City: I '► State: ZIP: qa-6 Phone: 6 11 9 (0 f- 3C D l 1. What environmental issues do you think should be addressed in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR)? -� msc� iLve.c� 0/1 /j-3-_;s:ni.t c) As ro"' `'f) 4r�-Fins o�, / o`er Loi. i t l I -I- - froj1-- to --c-v v\ c ? h (c...,) 4-.as bo-i2 S /*-f 6/1 -Cur- ,30 c rS, }\()Qs G•-FQ S sz 1',r+ I hi.ln fl' 5 �+L1 0Q i QcQin 2. Are there any additional issues/concerns about the project that you would like to Wring to the City's attention? n h i s A L+NSL- C� Wok) I I +o o c 0\ 11 sue- ►( 5 v \J 0 0 � v. `�- �I� � �d� �-f- i I Ia sz- nl�c0 �S Lc�w U r 1-Nr)csL.s fYl Gk. k�I 5pre-Co kr`ot_ Ire L 1,o u 3. Do you have any questions or comments regarding the environmental review process for this project? • LJ o uI Viz -O I f\ ( -o c I t 6C1 1oL C ct in ( kcvnn -S (.1.)I ign _.c.) +fin S - -f-Lo-ez,vi iP G E--I- 4 a Pic I -f a- + G no e� Anna S v n s - -w•'c Pac Fi c Uie w Please leave this questionnaire at the sign-in table before you leave tonight, or fold, seal, and mail so that it is received by the City by February 10, 2003. Use additional sheets, if necessary. NOTE: ALL COMMENTS TO QUESTIONS PROVIDED BECOME PUBLIC INFORMATION. PACIFIC CITY PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES QUESTIONNAIRE Name: roY'k ` 1.\Je S Affiliation (if any): Address: 2(4 4i,c�l�n �An�2- City: 'kuAA.hrV��rn �I� State: E.ti ZIP: /1-C9 L•t ? Phone: 7 k 3L' 4,29 • 1. What environmental issues do you think should be addressed in the Environmental - - Impact Report (EIR)? iCu o tsp� r � 5- Av� I c 061ec lee. e'S e Leh In t ✓4! 1 wicat avi i " 2. Are there any additional issues/concerns about the project that you would like to bring to the City's attention? BOWL? 1tkra `r - o ?use. V,iZ&LIAO JSJ& s e 9 Nogx. . stvix c V-C s e..12,t4kukt-S IA)ith,Q. uo igAt_ tX;SkI v 10 oL �te--( ,&&hii o u ✓ IrQUctkiv (AAA), Suva C)k ✓'.LQ 4 �' Q say\re DES Cas urn. �G�ece� , io n aky\ t, 4 hh 4'1 4� V1iAr6 eat)WY11 Copt., v AOIT (vdcl C pvin 1M ev t,k a;.Q 3. Do you have any questions or comments regarding the environmental review process , for this project? ,0I..1�' by (5 • Akk SIAANLJ Please leave this questionnaire at the sign-in table before you leave tonight, or fold, seal, and mail so that it is received by the City by February 10, 2003. Use additional sheets, if necessary. 1 NOTE. ALL COMMENTS TO QUESTIONS PROVIDED BECOME PUBLIC INFORMATION. tErSV PACIFIC CITY PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES QUESTIONNAIRE Name: k...7F/f�SX-rice e Affiliation (if any): /-�� ! / c�. - /�.�C���,�:/iy�C�.i�C�� ��io� Addressyo ,r>Tc.I'T,,City: / T/ EA�� State: =' ZIP: ?,2 6 Phone: �"� � -�E vim-D ��/..e'&���ofis/�E., A7777 1. What environmental issues do you think should be addressed in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR)? (1)_d77/ •4/ 7ioz/DF'- //9e/Z- J'/TF'/I / a74/e��iV&,%, D7- l ' ame-i"i9.92: s77‘ � lU /9j C9z (RAE i 7`EGj�!C-7/51_& Tffi:2 /f �Tf�ir/ �br Ti CJ 2. Are there any additional issues/concerns about the project that you would like to bring to the City's attention? A/6-a7 Td' 6l//. U ��,177 E-lflGC-/�,T.7Lf/J1,IRi/6-7"/ igr/�/e- G�/ ��gDE,2T�/ ,e2ia' j ZWij3N T. >2F.y. l G'� ./ ' /�Dv�'/lam d/- � :Q 7 Fi7,© Gic 3. Do you have any questions or comments regarding the environmental review process for this project? T //444/6� g/0of0..575-'CO Tv _.5")aeA2/./yoz /G'f //=€ -Ye G� v 7;)'�6; T//..1 --i',U7-",3� e s�,O�orc4"odd l/ o Ti��t Please leave this questionnaire at the sign-in table before,you leave tonight, or fold, seal, and mail so that it is received by the City by February 10, 2003. Use additional sheets, if necessary. - Ah-rr. Ai I COMMENTS TA inIIFST1ANS PROVIDED RMCAMt= 1:211131 or- IAlrrlo6Ae79nM K_ I. in PACIFIC CITY PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES QUESTIONNAIRE Name: KAPILL _ c Affiliation (if any): RE-6 (DE7, ' Address: 'JO "3At-'t7rrnv2 -c- Aver- City: flu Mritu iv c�c i -�° - State: 0 ZIP: 91-La q, Phone: ` r 14- go- 02,24 1. What environmental issues do you think should be addressed in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR)? 4 TM F>✓(t=. 4/JD PileaciA24 //vl,o&&C 15 °Ai ,/e7 vi,09 / /Dj 2. Are there any additional issues/concerns about the project that you would like to bring to the City's attention? 0 1.0 c if f 9 (1 1r 4N y /l e Mo -L IN D p M i Advpeiv-5- O� 1 L`y7 /6 LfM l'1`z 7`U 3 y A /44E/6 i zee. /d2./Yb 'o Cu e—A n •011 e'7Z7 i' CJ.V c J 3. Do you have any questions or comments regarding the environmental review process for this project? Please leave this questionnaire at the sign-in table before you leave tonight, or fold, seal, and mail so that it is received by the City by February 10, 2003. Use additional sheets, if necessary. 1 NOTE' ALL COMMENTS TO QUESTIONS PROVIDED BECOME PUBLIC INFORMATION. / I. PACIFIC CITY PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES QUESTIONNAIRE Name: \( A— a k -\r11 —' Affiliation if any): Address: 'O 0 N. ►ti S Sit City: State: 0 ZIP: 9 Phone: IL/) 3 q- = 1. What environmental issues do you think should be addressed in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR)? W.t.Lt I 2. Are there any additional issues/concerns about the project that you would like to bring to the City's attention? 1011,. — its W t o4_Pir. -rr S4C Yr c :1-ems c, e_ a d a, "N.- 3. Do you have any questions or comments regarding the environmental review process for this project? u,) Iv;J. , _Ate,fr).1-0, ,am eAt, Please leave this questionnaire at the sign-in table before you leave tonight, or fold, seal, and mail so that it is received by the City by February 10, 2003. Use additional sheets, if necessary. NOTE: ALL COMMENTS TO QUESTIONS PROVIDED BECOME PUBLIC INFORMATION. 1 PACIFIC CITY PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES QUESTIONNAIRE Name: PA(ice /f095 0 55 Affiliation (if any): Address: /0 q . U/1/ r✓6 J o /✓ c City: iiiv7//V) !l c]/ State: A ZIP: .2../4. =-4` Phone: 1. What environmental issues do you think should be addressed in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR)? -�f /J�!�/;I J7)J GAY `a A b J J 7A 0 d 4 �'7- - / °' /�A/- f,,i/./ - it A- .J 1 6 d .! i%/r / ri�/5�0 A'O f"`i`/�'-1' 5 77,4/A 4,~vL'y �Evo 4.A/.O it7M f.:-/4I ",v 13 4"/,41/j)J -)74vG 7 z.4 4:v.2 bray ,26 /A, Z. e/7 LiG. - ci f 704/ 5 7-./r4 7T t/ ,�� : ��,r :� S zA 94 /Az 2. Are there any additional issues/concerns about the project that you would like to bring to the City's attention? A rLl .17 47/fA a��� j�G;r'A ' /:eft 2 77- /S •4; .sue 4$// % %% v AAA M '" Tf/S /;I2/,a /wa,s�� d - s�� ra 174Pii 7"/ /fi 4/5 4 7„. i 15/1 / 7fJ S ��i G� J/`% �'�-� �lCi 14/A1�� /n_' ,'1 rt/� 2 44 ,/ d' te. /.02:-' k 2-V A ile--e;At.7if%10n116'L o AJ /,7 5T r, Z--J c ,c/g)i-, > y,'r � k A/6&/ �A�.� 17- /a '7' o,P4 4�cr 5i //4 q,,i7 .2-.4 ) 3. Do you have any questions or comments regarding the environmental review process for this project? ;'l � A T� e i t4. 4'-7 Please leave this questionnaire at the sign-in table before you leave tonight, or fold, seal, and mail so that it is received by the City by February 10, 2003. Use additional sheets, if necessary. 1 NOTE: ALL COMMENTS TO OUESTIONS PROVIDED BECOME PUBLIC INFORMATION. (n p )* Ronal .JG e,r� D f21)flt Pacific City: ( 71 Y) i w -C0 q2 PrvIct-ed aH- pvb1 lc SaopirJ Impacts are cumulatively significant on this project. This project'ill have an environmental effect, impact living conditions, which include, traffic, scenic views, population increase, increase on all public services for not just residents of surrounding area, but all residents of Huntington Beach. Potentially significant impacts are extreme. I know that some of the issues can be resolved, but some of these issues will be left with the residents after the delvolper has fmish their project made there profit and are gone. Density.... High density residental will impact public service, fire, police and public facilities services and will directly effect population in adjoining areas. Traffic effects, Traffic did not regionally addressed thoroughfare traffic that is overcrowded at this time. Did developer prior to project submittal complete traffic study? Huntington Street is not shown enlarged to 90 foot four lane right of way. Huntington Street is used as a main artery route for public buses and fire equipment for direct access to PCH. Huntington Street is heavy use by public now; the project will increase traffic and cause an impact for volume and spread to surrounding streets. Encroachments for infrastructure, roads and right a ways for road improvement will be necessary, Where is this property taken from? From the developer property or public and/or residental property? Substantial adverse effect on proposed project would result in effect of public view, view corridors and other adjacent area view. This is a very potentially significant impact. As per the marking prospectus, I quote "Intimate terraces will provide places for families and friends to enjoy stunning oceanview vistas." Makar Properties. Our properties have had Vistas and views for over four decades. Was any concern for the residents taken in this issue? Four-story condos will leave us with 40 to 50-foot stucco walls, what a change from today. Commercial property will generate tax money for the City; Residental will bring in mitigated funds one time, then a small amount of residential tax returned by the State. We do not need more high-density condos. What we need is to help balance the budget, cash registers in commercial building, with hotels, restaurants, and retail that will generate money year after year into the City General Fund. Lets not increase public service and possibly increase city fees. We need to balance the city budget. Why would the City give an excessive construction schedule ? 10 years G�c i-4 Cop ¢F O w�Z C� / TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH PACIFIC CITY PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES QUESTIONNAIRE VERBAL RESPONSES Taken on Monday, January 27, 2003 , at 6 : 00 p .m. i 1 Transcript of Proceedings, taken before Lisa 2 Moskowitz, a Certified Shorthand Reporter for the State 3 of California, with principal office in'';the County of 4 Orange, commencing at 6 : 00 p .m. , Monday, January 27 , 5 2003 , at the Huntington Beach Library at 7111 Talbert 6 Avenue, Huntington Beach, California . 7 8 9 10 • 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2 DOKICH COURT REPORTERS, INC . (949) 222-1131 (800) 720-9679 1 JOHN SISKER: --The concerns I have -- the precise 2 widening and realignment of Huntington Street, Atlanta 3 Avenue, First Street and then related int'4rsections , 4 which includes all the projected future circulation 5 elements of traffic flow patterns ; the figuration of 6 curbs, gutters , sidewalks, pedestrian paths, bikeways, 7 underground utilities and other infrastructure needs , 8 curb cuts, bus routes, ingress egress into the 9 development and surrounding communities and the needs to 10 be determined for both sides of each street , not just 11 their project, but the other side, the residential and 12 mobile home park and surrounding lands . 13 They refer also to improvements from the center 14 line in certain directions . I want to know if that ' s 15 existing center line of *the street or the center line . is 16 realigned and then from the new center line . Also, the 17 final extension of Delaware Avenue from Atlanta Avenue, 18 which would go south and connect with Pacific View at 19 Huntington Street, the exact time frame . The Pacific 20 View/Huntington Street intersection, when ' s that to be 21 signalized because it ' s geared up for signals and 22 possibly with that Delaware Avenue extension, if it 23 connects in there . 24 The total impact of Pacific Mobile Home Park in 25 regards to Huntington Street, Atlanta Avenue, Delaware 3 DOKICH COURT REPORTERS, INC. (949) 222-1131 (800) 720-9679 1 Street and Pacific View, the final alignment and/or 2 improvements and the mobile home park entrance, how 3 that ' s affected . The total number and identified homes 4 to be displaced, the setback for requirements on the 5 street for traffic flow. In other words , Huntington 6 Street , in particular. They say they ' re not going to 7 widen it yet they' re going to have two parking 8 structures on their property and with increased traffic . 9 So how is the traffic going to slow down, turn into the 10 parking structure once residents come out and make right 11 and left-hand turns into a street that can' t handle that 12 traffic now? 13 10 to 16 foot easement into Pacific Mobile Home 14 Park by Edison parallels Huntington Street, when, in 15 fact, that comes into play. The utility poles, 16 above-ground utility poles along Huntington Street into 17 Pacific Mobile Home Park' s property. The taking through 18 eminant domain of Pacific Mobile Home Park, when and 19 where compensation for the residents and the land owner, 20 the market value, question mark. Do they get a market 21 value? Also any houses taken along the northern edge of 22 Atlanta Avenue, the residential houses along there for 23 the widening of Atlanta and the widening of Atlanta, 24 too, from Huntington Street to Delaware Street and the 25 impact of Pacific Mobile Home Park again. 4 DOKICH COURT REPORTERS, INC . (949) 222-1131 ( 800) 720- 9�79 1 The parking was inadequately addressed by 2 Pacific City Project nor the projected traffic patterns 3 nor the impact on surrounding streets . A4e they going 4 to have valet parking for the hotel? How many total 5 parking spaces , standard spaces or all subcompact 6 spaces? The future tie-in -- or future of Pacific 7 Mobile Home Park, the tie-in to Pacific City and other 8 developers or private enterprises . The upgraded park 9— conditions or change of land use . If the park stays, do 10 the owners of the park intend to upgrade the park to 11 start fitting in with surrounding developments, or would- 12 that site where the mobile home park be a future site 13 for a parking lot or parking structure for the Pacific 14 City Project and/or the Waterfront resort development? 15 I think that ' s it . 16 PATTI GLAMYIMA: I have some major, major concerns 17 with traffic congestion on Atlanta. Right now we have 18 tremendous backup on Atlanta and Huntington, which is a 19 four-way stop . Alabama is impossible to get out of; so 20 if you impact this, Alabama is never going to be able to 21 get out of the street . They have a walkway that comes 22 into Alabama; so we ' re going to have even more 23 tremendous problem with visitors parking on the street, 24 blocking our driveways if all they have to do is park 25 there and walk into this facility. I want to know what 5 DOKICH COURT REPORTERS, INC . (949) 222-1131 (800) 720-9679 1 they' re going to do with the traffic congestion that ' s 2 already .on Atlanta and what they' re going to do with the 3 residents that live on Alabama, Baltimore Chicago, and 4 in that area . 5 LARRY SCIBLO: My concern is that they' re going to 6 need to widen Atlanta east of Huntington Street towards 7 Beach Boulevard. I live in Pacific Mobile Home Park. I 8 live on Fifth Street . There ' s only two houses that can 9 be encroached upon if they were to widen Atlanta, and my 10 concern is that they' re going to take my home when they 11 do that . Now, everybody keeps telling me there are no 12 plans -- there are plans to widen Atlanta . This project 13 does not facilitate the need to widen Atlanta according 14 to their initial environmental impact . I don' t see how 15 theycan have 400 condominium units that ' s goingto add 16 at least over a thousand people easy and not have an 17 impact on the traffic flow down Atlanta Street . 18 SALLY SATTERFIELD: Hi . My first concern is that 19 this meeting was not adequate enough to receive public 20 information and provide positive public forum. It was 21 okay when there were only a few people present , but when 22 the room got crowded, staff -comments and information was 23 diluted. So therefore I really believe that another 24 meeting should be set where it is a public forum where 25 everybody sits down, we all see the same information, 6 DOKICH COURT REPORTERS, INC . (949) 222-1131 (800) 720-9679 1 and we see staff giving us information all at one time . 2 My second concern is looking at this 3 development -- I know it ' s important to 'have a 4 development to bring the revenue we need in order to 5 balance our budget, but I believe that Huntington Street 6 needs to be widened. I ' m concerned about the traffic 7 issues especially at Huntington and Atlanta because I 8 live there at this point . I think the 31 acres -- the 9 amount of activity you' re planning on putting in the 10 31 acres is way too much when you have all the other 11 things going on adjacent to it . I ' m concerned about the 12 sewer system, but the staff has informed me my issues 13 and sewer system in the outskirts of the 31 acres is 14 another issue, and it doesn' t have to do with this 15 project . I really don' t believe that . I think we 16 should deal with what ' s going on outside this project 17 first in the sewer system and then deal with the 18 project . 19 After seeing the new hotel that was just 20 recently built at Atlanta -- Beach Boulevard and P . C .H. , 21 it ' s gorgeous . I think that it is way beyond the 22 Waterfront Hilton, and I really honestly believe that 23 the city forefathers -- if they want revenue, they need 24 to re-think this 31 acres and maybe make it entirely 25 commercial so that those people that attend that hotel 7 DOKICH COURT REPORTERS, INC. ( A1a) 222-1131 (800) 720-9679 1 1 and the Waterfront Hilton will go to this location 2 versus going down to Newport Beach. 3 I just wanted to add the comment °that I felt 4 that the mailer circulation was not large enough. It 5 was only like a thousand feet from - - in other words , it 6 needs to go further out to get to the residents of 7 Huntington Beach. It was too short, too close . It was 8 a trailer park and a few businesses along one side and a 9 few homes adjacent but not to all the people that are 10 impacted. I ' d like to have a bigger area for the 11 mailing of all this information. 12 RICHARD PYLES : Essentially I would like mitigation 13 to the greatest extent that ' s still possible . I ' ll 14 assume obviously the real estate now is in private 15 hands . I don ' t know what options are available to 16 residents in the area, but the density of the downtown 17 area has just become overwhelming as far as population 18 density. It ' s essentially become more like a Manhattan, 19 New York than a each community in Southern California . 20 I think a better model might be something like Seal 21 Beach or Laguna Beach where there are some set-asides 22 for parks that are within proximity of the beach. This 23 doesn ' t seem to be much of the case in Huntington Beach 24 other than the boardwalk trail that is along the cliffs . 25 I 'm concerned as far as -- the first concern 8 DOKICH COURT REPORTERS , INC. (A491 222-1 119 (Rnn) 77n-9F79 1 really is I would love to stop the entire project and do 2 a park, but that ' s probably not possible . So any kind 3 of other mitigation where the developers Arerequired to 4 set aside a percentage of the land to be left in some 5 state of park use, lower density where children and 6 people can use it for quality of life type of 7 experience . We 've been Starbucks ' ed to death. I don ' t 8 know if another Starbucks is going to enhance our 9 quality of life while I think we can enjoy some more 10 green space in proximity to the beach. That ' s point 11 one . 12 Point two, I guess, would be I have a very deep 13 concern about run-off . Again, our water quality in 14 Huntington Beach tends to be problematic . It ' s often 15 the beach has to be closed due to problems with 16 bacterial levels . This will only create an 17 intensification of that process or problem. Again, the 18 use of that land could probably -- not being paved would 19 mean that land as it used to be many years ago as a 20 wetland could help absorb some of the run-off and would 21 enhance water quality, but with this project it ' s going 22 to do quite the opposite, which would mean more beach 23 closures, which would mean less revenue to the City, 24 which would mean problems with our tax base being eroded 25 through the lack of sales taxes and other revenue 9 DOKICH COURT REPORTERS, INC. (949) 222-1131 (800) 720-9679 1 streams . 2 Point number three, I guess., as a resident that 3 lives within a few hundred yards of thisproposed 4 project, it seems fairly late in the game that the 5 citizens are being brought into the process . I really 6 don ' t have a deep understanding of how the review 7 process works . It seems that perhaps an opportunity 8 should have been presented to the residents of the area 9 sooner before this project has gained such a large level 10 of momentum. 11 My suggestion would be perhaps in the future 12 opportunities to be able to perhaps weigh in on these 13 projects before the developments seem to have been put 14 together in such a -- the review process would probably 15 be better served if it were done earlier before the 16 projects are fully fleshed out . 17 MAX WOOD : My name is Max Wood.- I live at First and 18 Atlanta in the Huntington Bay Shore Condos . I was 19 concerned about the -- how many stories would be on 20 First Street - - what are they condos? Townhomes . I 21 wanted to know the height of the townhomes on First 22 Street . Also, I wanted to ask if there was going to be 23 a major grocery store, which there is apparently going 24 to be a market . I 'm assuming it would be more like 25 Gelson' s than a major chain, though. 10 DOKICH COURT REPORTERS, INC. (949) 222-1131 (800) 720-9679 1 The other question or concern was I wonder how 2 many hotels we ' ll end up with. If we have the Hilton 3 and Hyatt, and somebody said there ' s going to be another 4 one between the Hilton and Hyatt, one in this complex as 5 well . I 'm in the hotel business . It ' s good for me, but 6 too many is not good because somebody is not going to 7 make it . That ' s it . 8 RON .SEMON: I am a resident of the city of 9 Huntington Beach and looking at opening a business in 10 the new Pacific City Project . As an answer to No . 1, my 11 only concern is that the soil is properly cleaned or the 12 ER report gives it a clean bill of health so that it can 13 be built upon due to all the past oil wells and so forth 14 that have been there . 15 In terms of No . 2, no, I do not have any 16 concerns about the project, and I think the city should 17 move forward with the project . 18 On No . 3 , I will assume the city hired a 19 reputable firm to do the environmental studies so that 20 shouldn ' t be a concern. I want to make sure they' re 21 aware that I am -- I want to see this project go 22 forward, and as a 15-year resident of the city, I will 23 do everything I need to in order - - in terms of voting 24 to make sure it goes forward. The company is Surf City 25 Partners . That ' s all . 11 DOKICH COURT REPORTERS, INC . (949) 222-1131 (800) 720-9679 1 STEVE SCHULZ : My first concern is the height of the 2 structures . I think three and four stories is not in 3 keeping with that area, that part of tow . It ' s too 4 tall . 5 My second major concern would be access , 6 pedestrian access from the downtown area down towards 7 the beach. Right now there is no access essentially 8 through that area . So if they could have some open ' i 9 pedestrian pathways as they 've shown, those would be 10 highly desirable . 11 My third concern would be the density of the 12 project . It seems really dense for downtown. It ' s 13 already very crowded in that part of town . There ' s a 14 lot of rentals, high density homes, condos, apartments . 15 Another complex of condominiums with that amount of 16 density seems too high for that part of town. Those are 17 my three major concerns . 18 The two eight-story hotels on the corner of 19 Huntington and P . C.H. are just out of place, in my 20 opinion, with the whole development . They seem way too 21 tall , and they, would create sort of an urban environment 22 in the downtown area which is right now a small 23 residential community. 24 CRAIG WOOD : There ' s only one thing that I am 25 concerned about . I am concerned about widening Atlanta 12 DOKICH COURT REPORTERS, INC . (949) 222-1131 (800) 720-9679 I li 1 on the north side and east of Huntington Street . I 2 would prefer that Atlanta be widened on the south side 3 in the mobile home park. We ' re second frgm the corner. 4 If they take that one house -- there ' s talk there ' s 5 actually going to be a house taken -- actually maybe two 6 or three -- in order to widen Atlanta on the north side 7 which I would prefer going on the south side . There ' s 8 still room on the south side where the mobile home park 9 is . 10 (WHEREUPON THE PROCEEDINGS WERE ADJOURNED AT • 11 8 : 00 P .M. ) 12 (CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSITION OFFICER ATTACHED ON 13 FOLLOWING PAGE HEREOF. ) 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 13 DOKICH COURT REPORTERS, INC . (949) 222-1131 (800) 720-9679 1 REPORTER' S CERTIFICATE 2 3 The undersigned Certified Shorthand Reporter 4 licensed in the State of California does hereby certify: 5 That the foregoing deposition was taken before 6 me at the time and place therein set forth at which time 7 the witness was duly sworn by me; 8 That the testimony of the witness and all 9 objections made at the time of the examination were 10 recorded stenographically by me and were thereafter 11 transcribed, said transcript being a true copy of my 12 shorthand notes thereof . 13 That the dismantling of the original transcript 14 will void the reporter' s certificate . 15 I further declare that I have no interest in 16 the outcome of - the action. • 17 In witness whereof, I have subscribed my name 18 this day of T 4 614.' , 2 00- . 19 • 20 i 21 f � v� LISA MOSKOWIT 22 CSR NO. 1081 , RPR 23 24 25 14 DOKICH COURT REPORTERS, INC. ( At n o n 11 .31 1 o n n 1 APPENDIX B AIR QUALITY DATA CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS ESTIMATES SITE EXCAVATION AND GRADING PHASE Project Number: 10261-00 Project Name: Pacific City e ` Construction Equipment Emissions Emissions=A x B x C A B C Hours/ Emission Factors in Pounds per Hour' Emissions in Pounds per Day ' Equipment Type Quantity Day CO VOC NOx SOx PM,0 CO VOC NOx SOx PM,a Generator Sets 0 2 1 479 0.054 0.002 0.0006 0.00025 - - - - - Fork Lift-50 Hp 0 5 0.18 0.053 0.441 0 0.031 - - - - Fork Lift-175 Hp 0 5 0.52 0.17 1.54 0 0.93 - - - - - Water Truck 3 2 1.8 0.19 4.17 0.45 0.26 10.8 1.1 25.0 2.7 1.6 Tracked Loader 3 6 0.201 0.095 0.83 0.076 0.059 3.6 1.7 14.9 1.4 1 1 Tracked Tractor 2 6 0.35 0.12 1.26 0.14 0.112 4.2 1 4 15.1 1 7 1.3 Scraper 6 7 1.25 0.27 3.84 0.46 0.41 52.5 11.3 161.3 19.3 17.2 Wheeled Dozer 3 5 0.572 0.12 0.713 0.35 0.165 8.6 1.8 10.7 5.3 2.5 Wheeled Loader 0 5 0.572 0.23 1.9 0.182 0.17 - - - - - Wheeled Tractor 0 6 3.58 0.18 1.27 0.09 0.14 - - - - - Roller 2 6 0.3 0.065 0.87 0.067 0.05 3.6 0.8 10.4 0.8 /0.6 Motor Grader 4 6 0.151 0.039 0.713 0.086 0.061 3.6 0.9 17 1 2.1 1.5 Miscellaneous 0 6 0.675 0.15 1.7 0.143 0.14 - - - - - Subtotal 86.9 19.1 254.6 33.2 25.7 'Emission Factors from SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook(1993),Tables A9-8-A,A9-8-B,A9-8-C,and A9-8-D. On-Road Vehicle Source Emissions Emissions=Dx E x F x G • D E F G Trips/ Miles/ Emission Factors in Pounds per Mile2 Emissions in Pounds per Day Vehicle Type Quantity Vehicle Trip CO VOC NOx SOx PM,a CO VOC NOx SOx PM,a Haul Trucks 20 2 50 0.025508 0.003362 0.031208 0.000241 0.0'01003 51.0 6.7 62.4 0.5 2.0 Construction Employees 30 3.7 10.6 0.01815 0.001935 0.002014 0.00001 0.000112 2.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 Subtotal 53.0 6.9 62.6 0.5 2.0 2 Emission factors from EMFAC 2002(Year 2003). Site Grading PM,a Emissions=(10.0 lbs per day x H)-13 H I PM,a Acres/ Rule 403 Reduction Emissions Emissions Source Day % lbs (lbs/day) - Site Grading 15 68% 102.0 48.0 3 Emission Factors from URBEMIS 2001. Total Site Excavation and Grading Phase Emissions Emissions in Pounds per Day Emissions Source CO VOC NOx SOx PM,a Construction Equipment 86.9 19.1 254.6 33.2 25.7 1 On-Road Vehicles 53.0 6.9 62.6 0.5 2.0 Site Grading - - - - 48.0 Total 140.0 26.1 317.2 33.7 75.7 SCAQMD Threshold 550.0 75.0 100.0 150.0 150.0 Exceeds Threshold? No No Yes No No Construction AQ Workbook.xls EIP Associates 9/18/03 CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS ESTIMATES DEMOLITION PHASE Project Number: 10261-00 Project Name: Pacific City Construction Equipment Emissions Emissions=A x B x C A B C Hours/ Emission Factors in Pounds per Hour' Emissions in Pounds per Day Equipment Type Quantity Day CO VOC NOx SOx PM,o CO VOC NOx SOx PM,. Generator Sets 0 2 1.479 0.054 0.002 0.0006 0.00025 - - - - - Fork Lift-50 Hp 0 8 0.18 0.053 0.441 0 0.031 - - - - Fork Lift-175 Hp 0 5 0.52 0.17 1.54 0 0.93 - - - - - , Water Truck 0 2 1.8 0.19 4.17 0.45 0.26 - - - - - Tracked Loader 0 6 0.201 0.095 0.83 0.076 0.059 - - - - Tracked Tractor 0 6 0.35 0.12 1.26 0.14 0.112 - - - - - Scraper 0 7 1.25 0.27 3.84 0.46 0.41 - - - . Wheeled Dozer 0 5 0.572 0.12 0.713 0.35 0.165 - - - - - Wheeled Loader 0 5 0.572 0.23 1.9 0.182 0.17 - - - - - Wheeled Tractor 0 6 3.58 0.18 1.27 0.09 0.14 - - - - - Roller 0 6 0.3 0.065 0.87 0.067 0.05 - - - - .- Motor Grader 0 6 0.151 0.039 0.713 0.086 0.061 - - - - - Miscellaneous 0 6 0.675 0.15 17 0.143 0.14 - - - - - Crane 0 4 0.75078 0.25026 1.91866 0.16684 0.12513 - - - - - Backhoe 0 3.5 0.572 0.23 1.9 0.17 0.182 - - - - ' Crushing Equipment 0 4 1.9812 0.29718 2.37744 0.19812 0.14859 - - - _ Subtotal 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 'Emission Factors from SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook(1993),Tables A9-8-A,A9-8-B,A9-B-C,and A9-8-D. On-Road Vehicle Source Emissions Emissions=D x E x F x G D E F G Trips/ Miles/ Emission Factors in Pounds per Milee Emissions in Pounds per Day Vehicle Type Quantity Vehicle Trip CO VOC NOx SOx PM,o CO VOC NOx SOx PM,,, Haul Trucks 0 0 0 0.025508 0.003362 0.031208 0.000241 0.001003 - - - _ , Construction Employees 0 3.7 - 0.01815 0.001935 0.002014 0.00001 0.000112 - - _ Subtotal 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2 Emission factors from EMFAC 2002(Year 2003). Structure Demolition PM,0 Emissions=0.00042 lbs per cubic foot x H/13 H I Milo Cubic Feet Days of Emissions Emissions Source of Bldg. Demolition (lbs/day) Structure Demolition 0 1 0.0 3 Emission Factors from SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook(1993),Table A9-9-H. , Total Demolition Phase Emissions Emissions in Pounds per Day Emissions Source CO VOC NOx SOx PM,o Construction Equipment 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 On-Road Vehicles 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Structure Demolition - - - - 0.0 Total 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 SCAQMD Threshold 550.0 75.0 100.0 150.0 150.0 Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No Construction AQ Workbook.xls EIP Associates 9/18/03 CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS ESTIMATES CONSTRUCTION PHASE Project Number. 10261-00 Project Name: Pacific City Construction Equipment Emissions Emissions=A x B x C '-`" A B C Hours/ Emission Factors in Pounds per Hour' Emissions in Pounds per Day __ Equipment Type Quantity Day CO VOC NOx SOx PM,0 CO VOC NOx SOx PM,o Generator Sets 8 2 1.479 0.054 0.002 0.0006 0.00025 23.7 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 f Fork Lift-50 Hp 7 5 0.18 0.053 0.441 0 0.031 6.3 1.9 15.4 0.0 1.1 Fork Lift-175 Hp 7 5 0.52 0.17 1.54 0 0.93 18.2 6.0 53.9 0.0 32.6 Water Truck 2 2 1.8 0.19 4.17 0.45 0.26 7.2 0.8 16.7 1.8 1.0 Tracked Loader 0 6 0.201 0.095 0.83 0.076 0.059 - - - - - Tracked Tractor 0 6 0.35 0.12 1.26 0.14 0.112 - - - - - Scraper ,0 7 1.25 0.27 3.84 0.46 0.41 - - - - - Wheeled Dozer 0 5 0.572 0.12 0.713 0.35 0.165 - - - - - Wheeled Loader 0 5 0.572 0.23 1.9 0.182 0.17 - - - - - Wheeled Tractor 0 6 3.58 0.18 1.27 0.09 0.14 - - - - - Roller 2 6 0.3 0.065 0.87 0.067 0.05 3.6 0.8 10.4 0.8 0.6 Motor Grader 0 6 0.151 0.039 0.713 0.086 0.061 - - - - - Miscellaneous 0 6 0.675 0.15 1.7 0.143 0.14 - - - - - Crane 2 4 0.75078 0.25026 1.91866 0.16684 0.12513 8.0 2.0 15.3 1.3 1.0 ' Backhoe 6 3.5 0.572 0.23 1.9 0.17 0.182 12.0 4.8 39.9 3.6 3.8 Paving Equipment 1 6 0.675 0.55 1.7 0.143 0.14 4.1 0.9 10.2 0.9 0.8 Subtotal 81.0 17.9 161.9 8.4 40.9 'Emission Factors from SCAQMD CEOA Air Quality Handbook(1993),Tables A9-8-A,A9-8-B,A9-8-C,and A9-8-D. On-Road Vehicle Source Emissions Emissions=Dx E x F x G D E F G Trips/ Miles/ Emission Factors in Pounds per Mile' Emissions in Pounds per Day Vehicle Type Quantity Vehicle Trip CO VOC NOx SOx PM,o CO VOC NOx SOx PM,0 Haul Trucks 12 0 50 0.025508 0.003362 0.031208 0.000241 0.001003 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Construction Employees 80 3.7 10.6 0.01815 0.001935 0.002014 0.00001 0.000112 5.4 0.6 0.6 0.0 0.0 --. Subtotal 5.4 0.6 0.6 0.0 0.0 I 'Emission factors from EMFAC 2002(Year 2003). Stationary Source Emissions Emissions=H x I H I Units or Factors in Pounds per Day' Emissions In Pounds per Day Emissions Source 1,000 sf VOC NOx PM,o VOC NOx PM,0 Stationary Sources 4 0.168 0.137 0.008 0.7 0.5 0.0 'Emission Factors from URBEMIS7G(2000). I Asphalt Paving ROC Emissions=2.62 lbs per acre x J/K' A B ROC Acres of Days of Emissions Emissions Source Paving Paving (lbs/day) Asphalt Paving 0.5 1 1.3 4 Emission Factors from URBEMIS7G(2000). Architectural Coatings VOC Emissions=0.0185 lbs per square foot x L' L Surface VOC Area/ Emissions Emissions Source Day (lbs/day) _ Architectural Coatings 5000 92.5 I'Emission Factors from URBEMIS7G(2000). Total Construction Phase Emissions Emissions in Pounds per Day Emissions Source CO VOC NOx SOx PM,0 r Construction Equipment 81.0 17.9 161.9 8.4 40.9 On-Road Vehicles 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 86.4 113.0 163.1 8.4 41.0 SCAQMD Threshold 550.0 75.0 100.0 150.0 150.0 Exceeds Threshold? No Yes Yes No No , Construction AO Workbook.xls EIP Associates 9/18/03 CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS ESTIMATES __ LANDSCAPING PHASE Project Number: 10261-00 Project Name: Pacific City Construction Equipment Emissions Emissions=A x B x C A B C Hours/ Emission Factors in Pounds per Hour' Emissions in Pounds per Day Equipment Type Quantity Day CO VOC NOx SOx PM,0 CO VOC NOx SOx PM,0 Fork Lift-50 Hp 0 5 0.18 0.053 0.441 0 0.031 - - - - - Fork Lift-175 Hp 0 5 0.52 0.17 1.54 0 0.93 - - - - - Wheeled Dozer 0 5 0.572 0.12 0.713 0.35 0.165 - - - - - Wheeled Loader 0 5 0.572 0.23 1.9 0.182 0.17 - - - - - Wheeled Tractor 0 6 3.58 0.18 1.27 0.09 0.14 , Miscellaneous 0 6 0.675 0.15 1.7 0.143 0.14 - - - - - Subtotal 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 'Emission Factors from SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook(1993),Tables A9-8-A,A9-8-B,A9-8-C,and A9-8-D. i On-Road Vehicle Source Emissions Emissions=Dx E x F x G D E F G , Trips/ Miles/ Emission Factors in Pounds per Mile2 Emissions in Pounds per Day Vehicle Type Quantity Vehicle Trip CO VOC NOx SOx PM,0 CO VOC NOx SOx PM,0 Haul Trucks 0 0 0 0.025508 0.003362 0.031208 0.000241 0.001003 - - - - Construction Employees 0 3.7 - 0.01815 0.001935 0.002014 0.00001 0.000112 - - - - - Subtotal 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2 Emission factors from EMFAC 2002(Year 2003). I, Soil Disturbance PM,.Emissions=(10.0 lbs per day x H)-13 H I PM,o Acres/ Rule 403 Reduction Emissions Emissions Source Day % lbs (lbs/day) Soil Disturbance 0 0% 0.0 0.0 3 Emission Factors from URBEMIS7G(2000). Total Site Landscaping Phase Emissions Emissions in Pounds per Day -- Emissions Source CO VOC NOx SOx PM,o Construction Equipment 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 On-Road Vehicles 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Soil Disturbance - - - - 0.0 Total - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 SCAQMD Threshold 550.0 75.0 100.0 150.0 150.0 Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No Construction AQ Workbook.xls EIP Associates 9/18/03 EXPLANATION OF CHANGES MADE TO DEFAULT SETTINGS IN URBEMIS 2002 Project Number: 10261-00 Project Name: Pacific City 1nanlysis Scenario: Proposed Project The following pages include the printed results of the air pollutant emissions modeling for one of the land use — components of the proposed project. The air emissions modeling was conducted using the URBEMIS 2002 for Windows computer program developed for the Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District in May 2003. URBEMIS 2002 is programmed with EMFAC 2002 emission factors developed by the California Air Resources Board. As part of this analysis,changes have been made to several of the default values programmed into URBEMIS 2002. These changes were made to more accurately reflect the nature of the proposed land use. Each of these changes are discussed below. Vehicle Trip Rates The default vehicle trip rate values were changed to be consistent with the traffic impact analysis prepared for the project. Vehicle Fleet Mix URBEMIS 2001 is programmed with the following state-wide average vehicle fleet mix: State-Wide Vehicle Type Total Automobiles 54.7% Light-Duty Trucks <3,750 pounds 15.2% Light-Duty Trucks 3,751-5,750 pounds 16.2% Medium-Duty Trucks 5,751-8,500 pounds 7.3% Light-Heavy-Duty Trucks 8,501-10,000 pounds 1 1% Light-Heavy-Duty Trucks 10,001-14,000 pounds 0.3% 10.60%Total Truck: Medium-Heavy-Duty Trucks 14,001-33,000 pounds 1.0% Heavy-Heavy-Duty Trucks 33,001-60,000 pounds 0.9% Line-Haul Vehicles 0.0% Urban Buses 0.2% Motorcycles 1.6% School Buses 0.1% Motor Homes 1 4% However,this state-wide average fleet mix is not appropriate for the majority of land use analyses. The project land use assessed in this analysis is identified below along with the total percentage of trucks(medium and heavy)that are expected for this land use. The following vehicle mix was calculated based on the percentage of trucks associated with this land use. The percentage of trucks for each land use were determined from the 3rd,4th,5th,and 6th Editions of the ITE Trip Generation manual. ITE Code Project Land Use: Truck% ADT Truck# 310' Hotel 1.84% 2,249 41 710 General Office 1.84% 672 12 820 Shopping Center 2.10% 7,033 148 MU Museum 0.44% 0 0 230 Residential Condo 0.88% 2,048 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Project Totals: 12,002 219 Project Truck%: 1.83% Vehicle Type Total Automobiles 60.07% Light-Duty Trucks <3,750 pounds 16.69% Light-Duty Trucks 3,751-5,750 pounds 17 79% Medium-Duty Trucks 5,751-8,500 pounds 1.26% Light-Heavy-Duty Trucks 8,501-10,000 pounds 0.19% Light-Heavy-Duty Trucks 10,001-14,000 pounds 0.05% 1.83%Total Truck! Medium-Heavy-Duty Trucks 14,001-33,000 pounds 0.17% Heavy-Heavy-Duty Trucks 33,001-60,000 pounds 0.16% Line-Haul Vehicles 0.00% Urban Buses 0.22% Motorcycles 1 76% School Buses 0.11% Motor Homes 1.54% URBEMIS 2002 Changes-Project EIP Associates 8/27/2003 Page: 1 URBEMIS 2002 For Windows 7.4.2 File Name: C:\Program Files\URBEMIS 2002 For Windows\Projects2k2\Pacific City - Project.urb Project Name: 10261-00 Pacific City - Proposed Project Project Location: South Coast Air Basin (Los Angeles area) On-Road Motor Vehicle Emissions Based on EMFAC2002 version 2.2 i SUMMARY REPORT , (Pounds/Day - Summer) AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 TOTALS (lbs/day,unmitigated) 25.96 7.94 4.37 0.00 0.02 TOTALS (lbs/day, mitigated) 25.96 7.94 4.37 0.00 0.02 OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 TOTALS.(lbs/day,unmitigated) 52.90 60.62 572.79 0.40 75.32 TOTALS (lbs/day, mitigated) 44.98 51.05 482.76 0.34 63.53 SUM OF AREA AND OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 TOTALS (lbs/day,unmitigated) 78.86 68.56 577.16 0.40 75.34 TOTALS (lbs/day, mitigated) 70.94 58.99 487.13 0.34 63.55 ?age: 2 URBEMIS 2002 For Windows 7.4.2 File Name: C:\Program Files\URBEMIS 2002 For Windows\Projects2k2\Pacific City - Project.urb ?roject Name: 10261-00 Pacific City - Proposed Project ?roject Location: South Coast Air Basin (Los Angeles area) )n-Road Motor Vehicle Emissions Based on EMFAC2002 version 2.2 DETAIL REPORT (Pounds/Day - Summer) kREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES (Summer Pounds per Day, Unmitigated) Source ROG NOx CO S02 PM10 Natural Gas 0.59 7.92 3.27 - 0.01 Wood Stoves - No summer emissions Fireplaces - No summer emissions Landscaping 0.13 0.02 1.10 0.00 0.00 Consumer Prdcts 25.24 - - - - TOTALS(lbs/day,unmitigated) 25.96 7.94 4.37 0.00 0.02 • Page: 3 ' _1 UNMITIGATED OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 Condo/townhouse general 12.20 13.74 133.54 0.10 18.12 Hotel 9.97 10.89 101.86 0.07 13.41 Regal shop. center 27.17 31.54 295.10 0.20 37.96 General office building 3.56 4.44 42.29 0.03 5.83 I, , TOTAL EMISSIONS (lbs/day) 52.90 60.62 572.79 0.40 75.32 Includes correction for passby trips. Does not include double counting adjustment for internal trips. OPERATIONAL (Vehicle) EMISSION ESTIMATES Analysis Year: 2010 Temperature (F) : 70 Season: Summer EMFAC Version: EMFAC2002 (9/2002) Summary of Land Uses: Unit Type Trip Rate Size Total Trips Condo/townhouse general 3.97 trips / dwelling units 516.00 2,048.52 Hotel 5.62 trips / rooms 400.00 2,248.00 Regnl shop. center 40.19 trips / 1000 sq. ft. 175.00 7,033.25 General office building 11.20 trips / 1000 sq. ft. 60.00 672.00 Vehicle Assumptions: Fleet Mix: Vehicle Type Percent Type Non-Catalyst Catalyst Diesel Light Auto 60.07 1.10 98.70 0.20 Light Truck < 3,750 lbs 16.69 2.00 96.00 2.00 Light Truck 3,751- 5,750 17.79 1.20 98.10 0.70 Med Truck 5,751- 8,500 1.26 1.40 95.90 2.70 Lite-Heavy 8,501-10,000 0.19 0.00 81.80 18.20 Lite-Heavy 10,001-14,000 0.05 0.00 66.70 33.30 Med-Heavy 14,001-33,000 0.17 0.00 20.00 80.00 Heavy-Heavy 33,001-60,000 0.16 0.00 11.10 88.90 Line Haul > 60,000 lbs 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 Urban Bus 0.22 0.00 50.00 50.00 Motorcycle 1.76 68.80 31.20 0.00 - School Bus 0.11 0.00 0.00 100.00 Motor Home 1.53 7.10 85.70 7.20 Travel Conditions Residential Commercial Home- Home- Home- Work Shop Other Commute Non-Work Customer Urban Trip Length (miles) 11.5 4.9 6.0 10.3 5.5 5.5 Rural Trip Length (miles) 11.5 4.9 6.0 10.3 5.5 5.5 • Trip Speeds (mph) 35.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 % of Trips - Residential 20.0 37.0 43.0 of Trips - Commercial (by land use) Hotel 5.0 2.5 92.5 Regnl shop. center 2.0 1.0 97.0 General office building 35.0 17.5 47.5 Page: 4 MITIGATED OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 Condo/townhouse general 11.10 12.34 119.88 0.09 16.26 Hotel 8.41 8.99 84.12 0.06 11.07 Regnl shop. center 22.40 25.92 242.49 0.17 31.20 General office building 3.07 3.81 36.27 0.03 5.00 TOTAL EMISSIONS (lbs/day) 44.98 51.05 482.76 0.34 63.53 OPERATIONAL (Vehicle) EMISSION ESTIMATES Analysis Year: 2010 Temperature (F) : 70 Season: Summer EMFAC Version: EMFAC2002 (9/2002) Summary of Land Uses: Unit Type Trip Rate Size Total Trips Condo/townhouse general 3.97 trips / dwelling units 516.00 2,048.52 Hotel 5.62 trips / rooms 400.00 2,248.00 Regnl shop. center 40.19 trips / 1000 sq. ft. 175.00 7,033.25 General office building 11.20 trips / 1000 sq. ft. 60.00 672.00 • Vehicle Assumptions: - Fleet Mix: Vehicle Type Percent Type Non-Catalyst Catalyst Diesel Light Auto 60.07 1.10 98.70 0.20 Light Truck < 3,750 lbs 16.69 2.00 96.00 2.00 Light Truck 3,751- 5,750 17.79 1.20 98.10 0.70 Med Truck 5,751- 8,500 1.26 1.40 95.90 2.70 Lite-Heavy 8,501-10,000 0.19 0.00 81.80 18.20 Lite-Heavy 10,001-14,000 0.05 0.00 66.70 33.30 Med-Heavy 14,001-33,000 0.17 0.00 20.00 80.00 Heavy-Heavy 33,001-60,000 0.16 0.00 11.10 88.90 Line Haul > 60,000 lbs 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 Urban Bus 0.22 0.00 50.00 50.00 Motorcycle 1.76 68.80 31.20 0.00 School Bus 0.11 0.00 0.00 100.00 Motor Home 1.53 7.10 85.70 7.20 Travel Conditions ' Residential Commercial Home- Home- Home- Work Shop Other Commute Non-Work Customer Urban Trip Length (miles) 11.5 4.9 6.0 10.3 5.5 5.5 Rural Trip Length (miles) 11.5 4.9 6.0 10.3 5.5 5.5 1 Trip Speeds (mph) 35.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 of Trips - Residential 20.0 37.0 43.0 % of Trips - Commercial (by land use) Hotel 5.0 2.5 92.5 Regnl shop. center 2.0 1.0 97.0 General office building 35.0 17.5 47.5 Page: 5 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS APPLICABLE TO THE PROJECT Pedestrian Environment 3.0 Side Walks/Paths: Complete Coverage 1.0 Street Trees Provide Shade: Moderate Coverage 3.0 Pedestrian Circulation Access: Most Destinations 5.0 Visually Interesting Uses: Large Number and Variety 1.0 Street System Enhances Safety: Some Streets 1.0 Pedestrian Safety from Crime: Moderate Degree of Safety 2.0 Visually Interesting Walking Routes: High Level 16.0 <- Pedestrian Environmental Credit 16.0 /19 = 0.8 <- Pedestrian Effectiveness Factor Transit Service 12.0 Transit Service: 31-60 Minute Bus within 1/4 Mile 12.0 <- Transit Effectiveness Credit 16.0 <- Pedestrian Factor 28.0 <-Total 28.0 /110 = 0.3 <-Transit Effectiveness Factor Bicycle Environment 3.0 Interconnected Bikeways: Moderate Coverage 2.0 Bike Routes Provide Paved Shoulders: Some Routes 1.0 Safe Vehicle Speed Limits: Some Destinations 2.0 Safe School Routes: Primary and Secondary Schools 3.0 Uses w/in Cycling Distance: Large Number and Variety 1.0 Bike Parking Ordinance: Requires Unprotected Bike Racks 12.0 <- Bike Environmental Credit 12.0 /20 = 0.6 <- Bike Effectiveness Factor Page: b MITIGATION MEASURES SELECTED FOR THIS PROJECT (All mitigation measures are printed, even if the selected land uses do not constitute a mixed use.) • Transit Infrastructure Measures % Trips Reduced Measure 15.0 Credit for Existing or Planned Community Transit Service 6.0 Project Density Meets Transit Level of Service Requirements 2.0 Provide Transit Shelters Benches 0.5 Provide Street Lighting 0.5 Provide Route Signs and Displays 1.0 Provide Bus Turnouts • 25.0 <- Totals Pedestrian Enhancing Infrastructure Measures (Residential) Trips Reduced Measure 2.0 Credit for Surrounding Pedestrian Environment 1.0 Provide Sidewalks and/or Pedestrian Paths 1.0 Provide Direct Pedestrian Connections 0.5 Provide Pedestrian Safety 0.5 Provide Street Furniture 0.5 , Provide Street Lighting 0.5 Provide Pedestrian Signalization and Signage 6.0 <- Totals Pedestrian Enhancing Infrastructure Measures (Non-Residential) Trips Reduced Measure 2.0 Credit for Surrounding Pedestrian Environment 1.0 Mixed Use Project (Commercial Oriented) 1.0 Floor Area Ratio 0.75 or Greater 1.0 Provide Wide Sidewalks and Onsite Pedestrian Facilities 1.0 Project Uses Parking Structures/Small Dispersed Lots 0.5 Provide Street Lighting 0.5 Project Provides Shade Trees to Shade Sidewalks 0.5 Project Provides Street Art and/or Street Furniture 0.5 . Provide Pedestrian Safety Designs/Infrastructure at Crossings 0.3 Articulated Storefront(s) Display Windows with Visual Interest 8.3 <- Totals Bicycle Enhancing Infratructure Measures (Residential) Trips Reduced Measure 7.0 Credit for Surrounding Bicycle Environment 2.0 Provide Bike Lanes/Paths Connecting to Bikeway System 9.0 <- Totals • Bike Enhancing Infrastructure Measures (Non-Residential) % Trips Reduced Measure 5.0 Credit for Surrounding Area Bike Environment 2.0 Provide Bike Lanes/Paths Connecting to Bikeway System 1.0 Provide Securre Bicycle Parking 8.0 <- Totals • Operational Measures (Applying to Commute Trips) Trips Reduced Measure 0.0 <- Totals Operational Measures (Applying to Employee Non-Commute Trips) % Trips Reduced Measure 5.0 Many Frequently Needed Services Provided 5.0 <- Totals Operational Measures (Applying to Customer Trips) % Trips Reduced Measure 0.0 <- Totals Measures Reducing VMT (Non-Residential) VMT Reduced Measure 0.0 <- Totals Measures Reducing VMT (Residential) I Page: 1 URBEMIS 2002 For Windows 7.4.2 File Name: C:\Program Files\URBEMIS 2002 For Windows\Projects2k2\Pacific City - No Reduction.ur1 Project Name: 10261-00 Pacific City - Proposed Project with No Mixed-Use Trip Reduction Project Location: South Coast Air Basin (Los Angeles area) On-Road Motor Vehicle Emissions Based on EMFAC2002 version 2.2 SUMMARY REPORT (Pounds/Day - Summer) AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 TOTALS (lbs/day,unmitigated) 25.96 7.94 4.37 0.00 0.02 OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 TOTALS (lbs/day,unmitigated) 71.33 82.92 783.03 0.55 102.89 SUM OF AREA AND OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 TOTALS (lbs/day,unmitigated) 97.29 90.85 787.40 0.55 102.91 • • Page: 2 URBEMIS 2002 For Windows 7.4.2 File Name: C:\Program Files\URBEMIS 2002 For Windows\Projects2k2\Pacific City - No Reduction.urb Project Name: 10261-00 Pacific City - Proposed Project with No Mixed-Use Trip Reduction Project Location: South Coast Air Basin (Los Angeles area) On-Road Motor Vehicle Emissions Based on EMFAC2002 version 2.2 DETAIL REPORT (Pounds/Day - Summer) AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES (Summer Pounds per Day, Unmitigated) Source ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 Natural Gas 0.59 7.92 3.27 - 0.01 Wood Stoves - No summer emissions Fireplaces - No summer emissions Landscaping 0.13 0.02 1.10 0.00 0.00 Consumer Prdcts 25.24 - - - - TOTALS(lbs/day,unmitigated) 25.96 7.94 4.37 0.00 0.02 age: 3 UNMITIGATED OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS ROG NOx_ CO SO2 PM10 .ondo/townhouse general 15.27 17.62 171.21 0.12 23.23 'otel 13.80 15.57 145.54 0.10 19.16 .egn1 shop. center 37.56 43.81 409.86 0.28 52.73 ;eneral office building 4.70 5.92 56.41 0.04 7.78 'OTAL EMISSIONS (lbs/day) 71.33 82.92 783.03 0.55 102.89 .ncludes correction for passby trips. )oes not include double counting adjustment for internal trips. )PERATIONAL (Vehicle) EMISSION ESTIMATES lnalysis Year: 2010 Temperature (F) : 70 Season: Summer MAC Version: EMFAC2002 (9/2002) Summary of Land Uses: Jnit Type Trip Rate Size Total Trips :ondo/townhouse general 5.09 trips / dwelling units 516.00 2,626.44 iotel 8.03 trips / rooms 400.00 3,212.00 2egn1 shop. center 55.82 trips / 1000 sq. ft. 175.00 9,768.50 3eneral office building 14.94 trips / 1000 sq. ft. 60.00 896.40 ' ✓ehicle Assumptions: Fleet Mix: Vehicle Type Percent Type Non-Catalyst Catalyst Diesel Light Auto 60.07 1.10 98.70 0.20 Light Truck < 3,750 lbs 16.69 2.00 96.00 2.00 Light Truck 3,751- 5,750 17.79 1.20 98.10 0.70 , Ked Truck 5,751- 8,500 1.26 1.40 95.90 2.70 Lite-Heavy 8,501-10,000 0.19 0.00 81.80 18.20 Lite-Heavy 10,001-14,000 0.05 0.00 66.70 33.30 Med-Heavy 14,001-33,000 0.17 0.00 20.00 80.00 Heavy-Heavy 33,001-60,000 0.16 0.00 11.10 88.90 Line Haul > 60,000 lbs 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 Urban Bus 0.22 0.00 - 50.00 50.00 Motorcycle 1.76 68.80 31.20 0.00 School Bus 0.11 0.00 0.00 100.00 Motor Home 1.53 7.10 85.70 7.20 Travel Conditions Residential Commercial Home- Home- Home- Work Shop Other Commute Non-Work Customer _ Urban Trip Length (miles) 11.5 4.9 6.0 10.3 5.5 5.5 Rural Trip Length (miles) 11.5 4.9 6.0 10.3 5.5 5.5 Trip Speeds (mph) 35.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40:0 % of Trips - Residential 20.0 37.0 43.0 % of Trips - Commercial (by land use) Hotel 5.0 2.5 92.5 Regnl shop. center 2.0 1.0 97.0 General office building 35.0 17.5 47.5 ?age: 4 :hanges made to the default values for Land Use Trip Percentages f 'I :hanges made to the default values for Area Hie landscape year changed from 2004 to 2010. few mitigation measure :Rsdntl Space Heat. has been added. Vew mitigation measure :Cmrcl Space Heat. has been added. hanges made to the default values for Operations The pass by trips option switch changed from off to on. The light auto percentage changed from 54.7 to 60.07. ' The light truck < 3750 lbs percentage changed from 15.2 to 16.69. The light truck 3751-5750 percentage changed from 16.2 to 17.79. 'The med truck 5751-8500 percentage changed from 7.3 to 1.26. The lite-heavy truck 8501-10000 percentage changed from 1.1 to 0.19. The lite-heavy truck 10001-14000 percentage changed from 0.3 to 0.05. The med-heavy truck 14001-33000 percentage changed from 1.0 to 0.17. The heavy-heavy truck 33001-60000 percentage changed from 0.9 to 0.16. The urban bus percentage changed from 0.2 to 0.22. The motorcycle percentage changed from 1.6 to 1.76. The school bus percentage changed from 0.1 to 0.11. The motorhome percentage changed from 1.4 to 1.53. The operational emission year changed from 2004 to 2010. The operational winter selection item. changed from 3 to 2. The operational summer temperature changed from 90 to 70. The operational summer selection item changed from 8 to 4. The double counting internal work trip limit changed from to 525.288. The double counting shopping trip limit changed from to 334.855. The double counting other trip limit changed from to 1129.3692. The travel mode environment settings changed from both to: both The default/nodefault travel setting changed from nodefault to: nodefault Side Walks/Paths: No Sidewalks changed to: Side Walks/Paths: Complete Coverage Street Trees Provide Shade: No Coverage changed to:Street Trees Provide Shade: Moderate Coverage Pedestrian Circulation Access: No Destinations changed to:Pedestrian Circulation Access: Most Destinations Visually Interesting Uses: No Uses Within Walking Distance changed to:Visually Interesting Uses: Large Number and Variety Street System Enhances Safety: No Streets changed to: Street System Enhances Safety: Some Streets Pedestrian Safety from Crime: No Degree of Safety changed to:Pedestrian Safety from Crime: Moderate Degree of Safety Visually Interesting Walking Routes: No Visual Interest changed to:Visually Interesting Walking Routes: High Level Transit Service: Dial-A-Ride or No Transit Service changed to: Transit Service: 31-60 Minute Bus within 1/4 Mile Interconnected Bikeways: No Bikeway Coverage changed to: Interconnected Bikeways: Moderate Coverage Bike Routes Provide Paved Shoulders: No Routes changed to:Bike Routes Provide Paved Shoulders: Some Routes Safe Vehicle Speed Limits: No Routes Provided changed to:Safe Vehicle Speed Limits: Some Destinations Safe School Routes: No Schools changed to: Safe School Routes: Primary and Secondary Schools Uses w/in Cycling Distance: No Uses w/in Cycling Distance changed to:Uses w/in Cycling Distance: Large Number and Variety Bike Parking Ordinance: No Ordinance or Unenforceable changed to:Bike Parking Ordinance: Requires Unprotected Bike Racks Mitigation measure Project Density Meets Transit Level of Service Requirements:6 has been changed from off to on. Mitigation measure Provide Transit Shelters Benches:2 has been changed from off to on. Mitigation measure Provide Street Lighting:0.5 has been changed from off to on. Mitigation measure Provide Route Signs and Displays:0.5 has been changed from off to on. Mitigation measure Provide Bus Turnouts:1 has been changed from off to on. Mitigation measure Provide Sidewalks and/or Pedestrian Paths:1 has been changed from off to on. Mitigation measure Provide Direct Pedestrian Connections:1 has been changed from off to on. Mitigation measure Provide Pedestrian Safety:0.5 Page: 5 has been changed from off to on. Mitigation measure Provide Street Furniture:0.5 has been changed from off to on. Mitigation measure Provide Street Lighting:0.5 has been changed from off to on. Mitigation measure Provide Pedestrian Signalization and Signage:0.5 has been changed from off to on. Mitigation measure Mixed Use Project (Commercial Oriented) :1 has been changed from off to on. Mitigation measure Floor Area Ratio 0.75 or Greater:1 has been changed from off to on. Mitigation measure Provide Wide Sidewalks and Onsite Pedestrian Facilities:1 has been changed from off to on. Mitigation measure Project Uses Parking Structures/Small Dispersed Lots:l has been changed from off to on. Mitigation measure Provide Street Lighting:0.5 has been changed from off to on. Mitigation measure Project Provides Shade Trees to Shade Sidewalks:0.5 has been changed from off to on. Mitigation measure Project Provides Street Art and/or Street Furniture:0.5 has been changed from off to on. Mitigation measure Provide Pedestrian Safety Designs/Infrastructure at Crossings:0.5 has been changed from off to on. Mitigation measure Articulated Storefront(s) Display Windows with Visual Interest:0.25 has been changed from off to on. Mitigation measure Provide Bike Lanes/Paths Connecting to Bikeway System:2 has been changed from off to on. Mitigation measure Provide Bike Lanes/Paths Connecting to Bikeway System:2 has been changed from off to on. Mitigation measure Provide Securre Bicycle Parking:1 has been changed from off to on. Mitigation measure Many Frequently Needed Services Provided:5 has been changed from off to on. Mitigation measuremitop5: Park and Ride Lots has been changed from on to off. Page: 1 URBEMIS 2002 For Windows 7.4.2 File Name: C:\Program Files\URBEMIS 2002 For Windows\Projects2k2\Pacific City - Project Mitigated.0 Project Name: 10261-00 Pacific City - Proposed Project Mitigated Project Location: South Coast Air Basin (Los Angeles area) On-Road Motor Vehicle Emissions Based on EMFAC2002 version 2.2 SUMMARY REPORT (Pounds/Day - Summer) AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 TOTALS (lbs/day,unmitigated) 25.96 7.94 4.37 0.00 0.02 TOTALS (lbs/day, mitigated) 25.95 7.77 4.29 0.00 0.02 OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 TOTALS (lbs/day,unmitigated) 52.90 60.62 572.79 0.40 75.32 TOTALS (lbs/day, mitigated) 44.98 51.05 482.70 0.34 63.52 SUM OF AREA AND OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 TOTALS (lbs/day,unmitigated) 78.86 68.56 577.16 0.40 75.34 TOTALS (lbs/day, mitigated) 70.93 58.82 486.99 0.34 63.54 I ' ?age: 2 URBEMIS 2002 For Windows 7.4.2 File Name: C:\Program Files\URBEMIS 2002 For Windows\Projects2k2\Pacific City - Project Mitigated.0 ?roject Name: 10261-00 Pacific City - Proposed Project Mitigated ?roject Location: South Coast Air Basin (Los Angeles area) )n-Road Motor Vehicle Emissions Based on EMFAC2002 version 2.2 DETAIL REPORT (Pounds/Day - Summer) AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES (Summer Pounds per Day, Unmitigated) Source ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 Natural Gas 0.59 7.92 3.27 - 0.01 Wood Stoves - No summer emissions Fireplaces - No summer emissions Landscaping 0.13 0.02 1.10 0.00 0.00 Consumer Prdcts 25.24 - - - - TOTALS(lbs/day,unmitigated) 25.96 7.94 4.37 0.00 0.02 AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES Source ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 Natural Gas 0.58 7.15 3.19 - 0.01 Wood Stoves - No summer emissions Fireplaces - No summer emissions Landscaping 0.13 0.02 1.10 0.00 0.00 Consumer Prdcts 25.24 - - - - TOTALS (lbs/day, mitigated) 25.95 7.77 4.29 0.00 0.02 Area Source Mitigation Measures Solar Water Heaters: Rsdntl Water Heat. Percent Reduction(ROG 11% NOx 9.5% CO 4.5% SO2 0% PM10 10e) Solar Water Heaters: Cmrcl Water Heat. Percent Reduction(ROG 0.5% NOx 0.5% CO 0.5% SO2 0.5% PM10 0.5%) R j Page: 3 UNMITIGATED OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 rondo/townhouse general 12.20 13.74 133.54 0.10 18.12 Hotel 9.97 10.89 101.86 0.07 13.41 Regnl shop. center 27.17 31.54 295.10 0.20 37.96 General office building 3.56 4.44 42.29 0.03 5.83 TOTAL EMISSIONS (lbs/day) 52.90 60.62 572.79 0.40 75.32 Includes correction for passby trips. Does not include double counting adjustment for internal trips. OPERATIONAL (Vehicle) EMISSION ESTIMATES Analysis Year: 2010 Temperature (F) : 70 Season: Summer EMFAC Version: EMFAC2002 (9/2002) r Summary of Land Uses: Unit Type Trip Rate Size Total Trips Condo/townhouse general 3.97 trips / dwelling units 516.00 2,048.52 Hotel 5.62 trips / rooms 400.00 2,248.00 Regnl shop. center 40.19 trips / 1000 sq. ft. 175.00 7,033.25 General office building 11.20 trips / 1000 sq. ft. 60.00 672.00 Vehicle Assumptions: I ' Fleet Mix: I__ Vehicle Type Percent Type Non-Catalyst Catalyst Diesel Light Auto 60.07 1.10 98.70 0.20 Light Truck < 3,750 lbs 16.69 2.00 96.00 2.00 Light Truck 3,751- 5,750 17.79 1.20 98.10 0.70 Med Truck 5,751- 8,500 1.26 1.40 95.90 2.70 Lite-Heavy 8,501-10,000 0.19 0.00 81.80 18.20 Lite-Heavy 10,001-14,000 0.05 0.00 66.70 33.30 Med-Heavy 14,001-33,000 0.17 0.00 20.00 80.00 Heavy-Heavy 33,001-60,000 0.16 0.00 11.10 88.90 Line Haul > 60,000 lbs 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 Urban Bus 0.22 0.00 50.00 50.00 Motorcycle 1.76 68.80 31.20 0.00 School Bus 0.11 0.00 0.00 100.00 1 Motor Home 1.53 7.10 85.70 7.20 Travel Conditions Residential Commercial Home- Home- Home- Work Shop Other Commute Non-Work Customer Urban Trip Length (miles) 11.5 4.9 6.0 10.3 5.5 5.5 Rural Trip Length (miles) 11.5 4.9 6.0 10.3 5.5 5.5 Trip Speeds (mph) 35.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 % of Trips - Residential 20.0 37.0 43.0 of Trips - Commercial (by land use) Hotel 5.0 2.5 92.5 Regnl shop. center 2.0 1.0 97.0 General office building 35.0 17.5 47.5 I Page: 4 MITIGATED OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 Condo/townhouse general 11.10 12.34 119.88 0.09 16.26 Hotel 8.41 8.99 84.10 0.06 11.07 Regnl shop. center 22.40 25.91 242.47 0.17 31.19 General office building 3.07 3.80 36.24 0.03 5.00 TOTAL EMISSIONS (lbs/day) 44.98 51.05 482.70 0.34 63.52 OPERATIONAL (Vehicle) EMISSION ESTIMATES i Analysis Year: 2010 Temperature (F) : 70 Season: Summer EMFAC Version: EMFAC2002 (9/2002) Summary of Land Uses: Unit Type Trip Rate Size Total Trips Condo/townhouse general 3.97 trips / dwelling units 516.00 2,048.52 Hotel 5.62 trips / rooms 400.00 2,248.00 Regnl shop. center 40.19 trips / 1000 sq. ft. 175.00 7,033.25 General office building 11.20 trips / 1000 sq. ft. 60.00 672.00 Vehicle Assumptions: Fleet Mix: Vehicle Type Percent Type Non-Catalyst Catalyst Diesel Light Auto 60.07 1.10 98.70 0.20 1 Light Truck < 3,750 lbs 16.69 2.00 96.00 2.00 Light Truck 3,751- 5,750 17.79 1.20 98.10 0.70 Med Truck 5,751- 8,500 1.26 1.40 95.90 2.70 Lite-Heavy 8,501-10,000 0.19 0.00 81.80 18.20 Lite-Heavy 10,001-14,000 0.05 0.00 66.70 33.30 Med-Heavy 14,001-33,000 0.17 0.00 20.00 80.00 Heavy-Heavy 33,001-60,000 0.16 0.00 11.10 88.90 Line Haul > 60,000 lbs 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 Urban Bus 0.22 0.00 50.00 50.00 Motorcycle 1.76 68.80 31.20 0.00 , School Bus 0.11 0.00 0.00 100.00 Motor Home 1.53 7.10 85.70 7.20 Travel Conditions Residential Commercial Home- Home- Home- Work Shop Other Commute Non-Work Customer Urban Trip Length (miles) 11.5 4.9 6.0 10.3 5.5 5.5 Rural Trip Length (miles) 11.5 4.9 6.0 10.3 5.5 5.5 Trip Speeds (mph) 35.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 % of Trips - Residential 20.0 37.0 43.0 % of Trips - Commercial (by land use) Hotel 5.0 2.5 92.5 Regnl shop. center 2.0 1.0 97.0 General office building 35.0 17.5 47.5 Page: 5 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS APPLICABLE TO THE PROJECT Pedestrian Environment 3.0 Side Walks/Paths: Complete Coverage 1.0 Street Trees Provide Shade: Moderate Coverage 3.0 Pedestrian Circulation Access: Most Destinations 5.0 Visually Interesting Uses: Large Number and Variety 1.0 Street System Enhances Safety: Some Streets 1.0 Pedestrian Safety from Crime: Moderate Degree of Safety 2.0 Visually Interesting Walking Routes: High Level 16.0 <- Pedestrian Environmental Credit 16.0 /19 = 0.8 <- Pedestrian Effectiveness Factor Transit Service 12.0 Transit Service: 31-60 Minute Bus within 1/4 Mile 12.0 <- Transit Effectiveness Credit 16.0 <- Pedestrian Factor 28.0 <-Total 28.0 /110 = 0.3 <-Transit Effectiveness Factor Bicycle Environment 3.0 Interconnected Bikeways: Moderate,Coverage 2.0 Bike Routes Provide Paved Shoulders: Some Routes 1.0 Safe Vehicle Speed Limits: Some Destinations 2.0 Safe School Routes: Primary and Secondary Schools 3.0 Uses w/in Cycling Distance: Large Number and Variety 1.0 Bike Parking Ordinance: Requires Unprotected Bike Racks 12.0 <- Bike Environmental Credit 12.0 /20 = 0.6 <- Bike Effectiveness Factor Page: 6 MITIGATION MEASURES SELECTED FOR THIS PROJECT (All mitigation measures are printed, even if the selected land uses do not constitute a mixed use.) Transit Infrastructure Measures Trips Reduced Measure 15.0 Credit for Existing or Planned Community Transit Service 6.0 Project Density Meets Transit Level of Service Requirements 2.0 Provide Transit Shelters Benches 0.5 Provide Street Lighting 0.5 Provide Route Signs and Displays 1.0 Provide Bus Turnouts 25.0 <- Totals Pedestrian Enhancing Infrastructure Measures (Residential) • Trips Reduced Measure 2.0 Credit for Surrounding Pedestrian Environment 1.0 Provide Sidewalks and/or Pedestrian Paths 1.0 Provide Direct Pedestrian Connections 0.5 Provide Pedestrian Safety 0.5 Provide Street Furniture 0.5 Provide Street Lighting 0.5 Provide Pedestrian Signalization and Signage 6.0 <- Totals Pedestrian Enhancing Infrastructure Measures (Non-Residential) • Trips Reduced Measure 2.0 Credit for Surrounding Pedestrian Environment 1.0 Mixed Use Project (Commercial Oriented) 1.0 Floor Area Ratio 0.75 or Greater 1.0 Provide Wide Sidewalks and Onsite Pedestrian Facilities 1.0 Project Uses Parking Structures/Small Dispersed Lots 0.5 Provide Street Lighting 0.5 Project Provides Shade Trees to Shade Sidewalks 0.5 Project Provides Street Art and/or Street Furniture 0.5 Provide Pedestrian Safety Designs/Infrastructure at Crossings 0.3 Articulated Storefront(s) Display Windows with Visual Interest 8.3 <- Totals Bicycle Enhancing Infratructure Measures (Residential) • Trips Reduced Measure 7.0 Credit for Surrounding Bicycle Environment 2.0 Provide Bike Lanes/Paths Connecting to Bikeway System 9.0 <- Totals Bike Enhancing Infrastructure Measures (Non-Residential) % Trips Reduced Measure 5.0 Credit for Surrounding Area Bike Environment 2.0 Provide Bike Lanes/Paths Connecting to Bikeway System 1.0 Provide Securre Bicycle Parking 8.0 <- Totals Operational Measures (Applying to Commute Trips) % Trips Reduced Measure 1.5 Preferential Carpool/Vanpool Parking 1.5 <- Totals Operational Measures (Applying to Employee Non-Commute Trips) Trips Reduced Measure 5.0 Many Frequently Needed Services Provided 5.0 <- Totals Operational Measures (Applying to Customer Trips) Trips Reduced Measure 0.0 <- Totals Measures Reducing VMT (Non-Residential) VMT Reduced Measure 0.0 <- Totals Page: 7 Measures Reducing VMT (Residential) VMT Reduced Measure 0.0 <- Totals Page: 8 Total Percentage Trip Reduction with Environmental Factors and Mitigation Measures Travel Mode Home-Work Trips Home-Shop Trips Home-Other Trips Pedestrian 0.56 2.22 2.22 Transit 6.36 1.40 1.72 Bicycle 5.40 5.40 5.40 Totals 0.00 0.00 0.00 Travel Mode Work Trips Employee Trips Customer Trips Pedestrian 0.76 6.95 6.95 Transit 6.36 0.13 6.36 Bicycle 4.80 4.80 4.80 Other 0.00 0.26 0.00 Totals 0.00 0.00 0.00 Page: 9 Changes made to the default values for Land Use Trip Percentages Changes made to the default values for Area The area souce mitigation measure option switch changed from off to on. The landscape year changed from 2004 to 2010. New mitigation measure :Rsdntl Space Heat. has been added. New mitigation measure :Cmrcl Space Heat. has been added. Changes made to the default values for Operations The pass by trips option switch changed from off to on. The light auto percentage changed from 54.7 to 60.07. The light truck < 3750 lbs percentage changed from 15.2 to 16.69. The light truck 3751-5750 percentage changed from 16.2 to 17.79. The med truck 5751-8500 percentage changed from 7.3 to 1.26. The lite-heavy truck 8501-10000 percentage changed from 1.1 to 0.19. The lite-heavy truck 10001-14000 percentage changed from 0.3 to 0.05. The med-heavy truck 14001-33000 percentage changed from 1.0 to 0.17. The heavy-heavy truck 33001-60000 percentage changed from 0.9 to 0.16. The urban bus percentage changed from 0.2 to 0.22. The motorcycle percentage changed from 1.6 to 1.76. The school bus percentage changed from 0.1 to 0.11. The motorhome percentage changed from 1.4 to 1.53. The operational emission year changed from 2004 to 2010. The operational winter selection item changed from 3 to 2. The operational summer temperature changed from 90 to 70. The operational summer selection item changed from 8 to 4. The double counting internal work trip limit changed from to 409.704. The double counting shopping trip limit changed from to 244.1325. The double counting other trip limit changed from to 880.8636. The travel mode environment settings changed from both to: both The default/nodefault travel setting changed from nodefault to: nodefault Side Walks/Paths: No Sidewalks changed to: Side Walks/Paths: Complete Coverage Street Trees Provide Shade: No Coverage changed to:Street Trees Provide Shade: Moderate Coverage I Pedestrian Circulation Access: No Destinations changed to:Pedestrian Circulation Access: Most Destinations Visually Interesting Uses: No Uses Within Walking Distance changed to:Visually Interesting Uses: Large Number and Variety Street System Enhances Safety: No Streets changed to: Street System Enhances Safety: Some Streets Pedestrian Safety from Crime: No Degree of Safety changed to:Pedestrian Safety from Crime: Moderate Degree of Safety Visually Interesting Walking Routes: No Visual Interest changed to:Visually Interesting Walking Routes: High Level Transit Service: Dial-A-Ride or No Transit Service changed to: Transit Service: 31-60 Minute Bus within 1/4 Mile Interconnected Bikeways: No Bikeway Coverage changed to: Interconnected Bikeways: Moderate Coverage Bike Routes Provide Paved Shoulders: No Routes changed to:Bike Routes Provide Paved Shoulders: Some Routes Safe Vehicle Speed Limits: No Routes Provided changed to:Safe Vehicle Speed Limits: Some Destinations Safe School Routes: No Schools changed to: Safe School Routes: Primary and Secondary Schools Uses w/in Cycling Distance: No Uses w/in Cycling Distance changed to:Uses w/in Cycling Distance: Large Number and Variety Bike Parking Ordinance: No Ordinance or Unenforceable changed to:Bike Parking Ordinance: Requires Unprotected Bike Racks Mitigation measure Project Density Meets Transit Level of Service Requirements:6 has been changed from off to on. Mitigation measure Provide Transit Shelters Benches:2 has been changed from off to on. Mitigation measure Provide Street Lighting:0.5 has been changed from off to on. Mitigation measure Provide Route Signs and Displays:0.5 has been changed from off to on. Mitigation measure Provide Bus Turnouts:1 has been changed from off to on. Mitigation measure Provide Sidewalks and/or Pedestrian Paths:1 has been changed from off to on. Mitigation measure Provide Direct Pedestrian Connections:1 has been changed from off to on. Page: 10 Mitigation measure Provide Pedestrian Safety:0.5 has been changed from off to on. Mitigation measure Provide Street Furniture:0.5 has been changed from off to on. Mitigation measure Provide Street Lighting:0.5 has been changed from off to on. Mitigation measure Provide Pedestrian Signalization and Signage:0.5 has been changed from off to on. Mitigation measure Mixed Use Project (Commercial Oriented) :1 has been changed from off to on. Mitigation measure Floor Area Ratio 0.75 or Greater:1 has been changed from off to on. Mitigation measure Provide Wide Sidewalks and Onsite Pedestrian Facilities:1 has been changed from off to on. Mitigation measure Project Uses Parking Structures/Small Dispersed Lots:l has been changed from off to on. Mitigation measure Provide Street Lighting:0.5 has been changed from off to on. Mitigation measure Project Provides Shade Trees to Shade Sidewalks:0.5 has been changed from off to on. Mitigation measure Project Provides Street Art and/or Street Furniture:0.5 has been changed from off to on. • Mitigation measure Provide Pedestrian Safety Designs/Infrastructure at Crossings:0.5 has been changed from off to on. Mitigation measure Articulated Storefront(s) Display Windows with Visual Interest:0.25 has been changed from off to on. Mitigation measure Provide Bike Lanes/Paths Connecting to Bikeway System:2 has been changed from off to on. Mitigation measure Provide Bike Lanes/Paths Connecting to Bikeway System:2 has been changed from off to on. Mitigation measure Provide Securre Bicycle Parking:1 has been changed from off to on. Mitigation measure Many Frequently Needed Services Provided:5 has been changed from off to on. Mitigation measuremitop5: Park and Ride Lots has been changed from on to off. Page: 1 - i URBEMIS 2002 For Windows 7.4.2 File Name: C:\Program Files\URBEMIS 2002 For Windows\Projects2k2\Pacific City - Reduced Project Alt Project Name: 10261-00 Pacific City - Reduced Project Alternative Project Location: South Coast Air Basin (Los Angeles area) On-Road Motor Vehicle Emissions Based on EMFAC2002 version 2.2 SUMMARY REPORT (Pounds/Day - Summer) AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 TOTALS (lbs/day,unmitigated) 25.94 7.60 4.24 0.00 0.02 TOTALS (lbs/day, mitigated) 25.94 7.60 4.24 0.00 0.02 OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 TOTALS (lbs/day,unmitigated) 48.96 55.89 528.20 0.37 69.39 TOTALS (lbs/day, mitigated) 41.66 47.09 445.36 0.31 58.55 SUM OF AREA AND OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 TOTALS (lbs/day,unmitigated) 74.90 63.49 532.44 0.37 69.41 TOTALS (lbs/day, mitigated) 67.60 54.69 449.60 0.31 58.57 Page: 2 URBEMIS 2002 For Windows 7.4.2 File Name: C:\Program Files\URBEMIS 2002 For Windows\Projects2k2\Pacific City - Reduced Project A; Project Name: 10261-00 Pacific City - Reduced Project Alternative ' Project Location: South Coast Air Basin (Los Angeles area) On-Road Motor Vehicle Emissions Based on EMFAC2002 version 2.2 DETAIL REPORT (Pounds/Day - Summer) AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES (Summer Pounds per Day, Unmitigated) Source ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 Natural Gas 0.57 7.58 3.13 - 0.01 Wood Stoves - No summer emissions Fireplaces - No summer emissions Landscaping 0.13 0.02 1.10 0.00 0.00 Consumer Prdcts 25.24 - - - - TOTALS(lbs/day,unmitigated) 25.94 7.60 4.24 0.00 0.02 Page: 3 UNMITIGATED OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 Condo/townhouse general 12.20 13.74 133.54 0.10 18.12 Hotel 9.97 10.89 101.86 0.07 13.41 Regnl shop. center 25.01 29.04 271.66 0.19 34.95 General office building 1.78 2.22 21.14 0.02 2.92 TOTAL EMISSIONS (lbs/day) 48.96 55.89 528.20 0.37 69.39 Includes correction for passby trips. Does not include double counting adjustment for internal trips. OPERATIONAL (Vehicle) EMISSION ESTIMATES Analysis Year: 2010 Temperature (F): 70 Season: Summer EMFAC Version: EMFAC2002 (9/2002) Summary of Land Uses: Unit Type Trip Rate Size Total Trips Condo/townhouse general 3.97 trips / dwelling units 516.00 2,048.52 Hotel 5.62 trips / rooms 400.00 2,248.00 Regnl shop. center 40.19 trips / 1000 sq. ft. 161.10 6,474.61 General office building 11.20 trips / 1000 sq. ft. 30.00 336.00 Vehicle Assumptions: Fleet Mix: Vehicle Type Percent Type Non-Catalyst Catalyst Diesel Light Auto 60.07 1.10 98.70 0.20 Light Truck < 3,750 lbs 16.69 2.00 96.00 2.00 Light Truck 3,751- 5,750 17.79 1.20 98.10 0.70 Med Truck 5,751- 8,500 1.26 1.40 95.90 2.70 Lite-Heavy 8,501-10,000 0.19 0.00 81.80 18.20 Lite-Heavy 10,001-14,000 0.05 0.00 66.70 33.30 Med-Heavy 14,001-33,000 0.17 0.00 20.00 80.00 Heavy-Heavy 33,001-60,000 0.16 0.00 11.10 88.90 Line Haul > 60,000 lbs 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 Urban Bus 0.22 0.00 50.00 50.00 Motorcycle 1.76 68.80 31.20 0.00 School Bus 0.11 0.00 0.00 100.00 Motor Home 1.53 7.10 85.70 7.20 Travel Conditions Residential Commercial Home- Home- Home- Work Shop Other Commute Non-Work Customer Urban Trip Length (miles) 11.5 4.9 6.0 10.3 5.5 5.5 Rural Trip Length (miles) 11.5 4.9 6.0 10.3 5.5 5.5 ' Trip Speeds (mph) 35.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 % of Trips - Residential 20.0 37.0 43.0 of Trips - Commercial (by land use) Hotel 5.0 2.5 92.5 Regnl shop. center 2.0 1.0 97.0 General office building 35.0 17.5 47.5 Page: 4 Changes made to the default values for Land Use Trip Percentages Changes made to the default values for Area The area souce mitigation measure option switch changed from off to on. The landscape year changed from 2004 to 2010. New mitigation measure :Rsdntl Space Heat. has been added. New mitigation measure :Cmrcl Space Heat. has been added. Changes made to the default values for Operations The pass by trips option switch changed from off to on. The light auto percentage changed from 54.7 to 60.07. The light truck < 3750 lbs percentage changed from 15.2 to 16.69. The light truck 3751-5750 percentage changed from 16.2 to 17.79. The med truck 5751-8500 percentage changed from 7.3 to 1.26. The lite-heavy truck 8501-10000 percentage changed from 1.1 to 0.19. The lite-heavy truck 10001-14000 percentage changed from 0.3 to 0.05. The med-heavy truck 14001-33000 percentage changed from 1.0 to 0.17. The heavy-heavy truck 33001-60000 percentage changed from 0.9 to 0.16. The urban bus percentage changed from 0.2 to 0.22. The motorcycle percentage changed from 1.6 to 1.76. The school bus percentage changed from 0.1 to 0.11. The motorhome percentage changed from 1.4 to 1.53. The operational emission year changed from 2004 to 2010. The operational winter selection item changed from 3 to 2. The operational summer temperature changed from 90 to 70. The operational summer selection item changed from 8 to 4. The double counting internal work trip limit changed from to 359.49218. The double counting shopping trip limit changed from to 179.74609. The double counting other trip limit changed from to 880.8636. The travel mode environment settings changed from both to: both The default/nodefault travel setting changed from nodefault to: nodefault Side Walks/Paths: No Sidewalks changed to: Side Walks/Paths: Complete Coverage Street Trees Provide Shade: No Coverage changed to:Street Trees Provide Shade: Moderate Coverage Pedestrian Circulation Access: No Destinations changed to:Pedestrian Circulation Access: Most Destinations Visually Interesting Uses: No Uses Within Walking Distance changed to:Visually Interesting Uses: Large Number and Variety Street System Enhances Safety: No Streets changed to: Street System Enhances Safety: Some Streets Pedestrian Safety from Crime: No Degree of Safety changed to:Pedestrian Safety from Crime: Moderate Degree of Safety Visually Interesting Walking Routes: No Visual Interest changed to:Visually Interesting Walking Routes: High Level Transit Service: Dial-A-Ride or No Transit Service changed to: Transit Service: 31-60 Minute Bus within 1/4 Mile Interconnected Bikeways: No Bikeway Coverage changed to: Interconnected Bikeways: Moderate Coverage Bike Routes Provide Paved Shoulders: No Routes - changed to:Bike Routes Provide Paved Shoulders: Some Routes Safe Vehicle Speed Limits: No Routes Provided changed to:Safe Vehicle Speed Limits: Some Destinations Safe School Routes: No Schools changed to: Safe School Routes: Primary and Secondary Schools Uses w/in Cycling Distance: No Uses w/in Cycling Distance changed to:Uses w/in Cycling Distance: Large Number and Variety Bike Parking Ordinance: No Ordinance or Unenforceable changed to:Bike Parking Ordinance: Requires Unprotected Bike Racks Mitigation measure Project Density Meets Transit Level of Service Requirements:6 has been changed from off to on. Mitigation measure Provide Transit Shelters Benches:2 has been changed from off to on. Mitigation measure Provide Street Lighting:0.5 has been changed from off to on. Mitigation measure Provide Route Signs and Displays:0.5 has been changed from off to on. Mitigation measure Provide Bus Turnouts:1 has been changed from off to on. Mitigation measure Provide Sidewalks and/or Pedestrian Paths:1 has been changed from off to on. Mitigation measure Provide Direct Pedestrian Connections:1 has been changed from off to on. Page: 5 Mitigation measure Provide Pedestrian Safety:0.5 has been changed from off to on. Mitigation measure Provide Street Furniture:0.5 has been changed from off to on. Mitigation measure Provide Street Lighting:0.5 has been changed from off to on. Mitigation measure Provide Pedestrian Signalization and Signage:0.5 has been changed from off to on. Mitigation measure Mixed Use Project (Commercial Oriented):1 has been changed from off to on. Mitigation measure Floor Area Ratio 0.75 or Greater:1 has been changed from off to on. Mitigation measure Provide Wide Sidewalks and Onsite Pedestrian Facilities:1 has been changed from off to on. Mitigation measure Project Uses Parking Structures/Small Dispersed Lots:l has been changed from off to on. Mitigation measure Provide Street Lighting:0.5 has been changed from off to on. Mitigation measure Project Provides Shade Trees to Shade Sidewalks:0.5 has been changed from off to on. Mitigation measure Project Provides Street Art and/or Street Furniture:0.5 has been changed from off to on. Mitigation measure Provide Pedestrian Safety Designs/Infrastructure at Crossings:0.5 has been changed from off to on. Mitigation measure Articulated Storefront(s) Display Windows with Visual Interest:0.25 has been changed from off to on. Mitigation measure Provide Bike Lanes/Paths Connecting to Bikeway System:2 has been changed from off to on. Mitigation measure Provide Bike Lanes/Paths Connecting to Bikeway System:2 has been changed from off to on. Mitigation measure Provide Securre Bicycle Parking:1 has been changed from off to on. Mitigation measure Many Frequently Needed Services Provided:5 has been changed from off to on. Mitigation measuremitop5: Park and Ride Lots has been changed from on to off. SIMPLIFIED CALINE4 CARBON MONOXIDE ANALYSIS Project Number: 10261-00 Project Title: Pacific City Background Information ' Nearest Air Monitoring Station measuring CO. Costa Mesa-Mesa Verde Drive Background 1-hour CO Concentration(ppm): 8.0 Background 8-hour CO Concentration(ppm): 4.6 , Persistence Factor: 0.7 Analysis Year: 2002 Roadway Data , Intersection: Goldenwest St./Pacific Coast Highway Analysis Condition: Existing Traffic Volumes No.of Average Speed Roadway Type Lanes A.M. P.M. North-South Roadway: Goldenwest Street At Grade 4 15 20 East-West Roadway: Pacific Coast Highway At Grade 6 15 20 A.M.Peak Hour Traffic Volumes P.M.Peak Hour Traffic Volumes N N 260 0 285 166 0 218 W < v > E W < v > E 174 A A 125 288^ A 241 1,402> < 1,316 1,363 > < 1,490 1 v v 16 0v v 16 l < A > < A > 0 0 0 0 0 0 S S Highest Traffic Volumes(Vehicles per Hour) ' N-S Road: 844 N-S Road: 913 E-W Road: 3,153 E-W Road: 3,328 Roadway CO Contributions and Concentrations Emissions=(A x B x C)/100,0001 Ai A2 A3 B C Reference CO Concentrations Traffic Emission Estimated CO Concentrations Roadway 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet Volume Factors' 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet A.M.Peak Traffic Hour North-South Road 2.6 2.2 1.7 844 12.31 0.27 0.23 0.18 East-West Road 6.1 4.9 3.5 3,153 12.31 2.37 1.90 1.36 P.M.Peak Traffic Hour North-South Road 2.6 2.2 1.7 913 9.33 0.22 0.19 0.14 East-West Road 6.1 4.9 3.5 3,328 9.33 1.89 1.52 1.09 1 Methodology and emission factors from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). _ Total Roadway CO Concentrations Peak Hour Emissions=North-South Concentration+East-West Concentration+Background 1-hour Concentration2 8-Hour Emissions=((Highest Peak Hour Concentration-Background 1-hour Concentration)x Persistence Factor)+Background 8-hour Concentration2 A.M. P.M. Peak Hour Peak Hour 8-Hour 25 Feet from Roadway Edge 10.6 10.1 6.4 50 Feet from Roadway Edge 10.1 9.7 6.1 100 Feet from Roadway Edge 9.5 9.2 5.7 2 Methodology from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). 01.Goldenwest St.&PCH.xls ElP Associates 9/22/03 SIMPLIFIED CALINE4 CARBON MONOXIDE ANALYSIS Project Number: 10261-00 j Project Title: Pacific City Background Information Nearest Air Monitoring Station measuring CO: Costa Mesa-Mesa Verde Drive Background 1-hour CO Concentration(ppm): 8.0 Background 8-hour CO Concentration(ppm): 4.6 Persistence Factor: 0.7 Analysis Year: 2002 Roadway Data Intersection: 17th St./Pacific Coast Highway Analysis Condition: Existing Traffic Volumes j 1 No.of Average Speed Roadway Type Lanes A.M. P.M. North-South Roadway: 17th Street At Grade 2 20 20 East-West Roadway: Pacific Coast Highway At Grade 6 20 20 A.M.Peak Hour Traffic Volumes P.M.Peak Hour Traffic Volumes N N 143 0 106 63 0 49 W < v > E W < v > E 97 A A 30 130 A A 45 1,591 > < 1,312 1,510> < 1,638 0v v 0 0v v 0 < A > < A > 0 0 0 0 0 0 S S , Highest Traffic Volumes(Vehicles per Hour) , N-S Road: 376 N-S Road: 287 E-W Road: 3,143 E-W Road: 3,341 Roadway CO Contributions and Concentrations Emissions=(A x B x C)/100,0001 Ai A2 A3 B C Reference CO Concentrations Traffic Emission Estimated CO Concentrations Roadway 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet Volume Factors' 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet A.M.Peak Traffic Hour North-South Road 2.7 2.2 1.7 376 9.33 0.09 0.08 0.06 East-West Road 6.1 4.9 3.5 3,143 9.33 1.79 1.44 1.03 P.M.Peak Traffic Hour North-South Road 2.7 2.2 1.7 287 9.33 0.07 0.06 0.05 East-West Road 6.1 4.9 3.5 3,341 9.33 1.90 1.53 1.09 1 Methodology and emission factors from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). Total Roadway CO Concentrations ' Peak Hour Emissions=North-South Concentration+East-West Concentration+Background 1-hour Concentration2 8-Hour Emissions=((Highest Peak Hour Concentration-Background 1-hour Concentration)x Persistence Factor)+Background 8-hour Concentration2 A.M. P.M. Peak Hour Peak Hour 8-Hour 25 Feet from Roadway Edge 9.9 10.0 6.0 50 Feet from Roadway Edge 9.5 9.6 5.7 I 100 Feet from Roadway Edge 9.1 9.1 5.4 2 Methodology from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). 02. 17th St.&PCH.xls EIP Associates 9/22/03 SIMPLIFIED CALINE4 CARBON MONOXIDE ANALYSIS Project Number: 10261-00 1 Project Title: Pacific City __i Background Information i Nearest Air Monitoring Station measuring CO: Costa Mesa-Mesa Verde Drive r Background 1-hour CO Concentration(ppm): 8.0 Background 8-hour CO Concentration(ppm): 4.6 1 Persistence Factor: 0.7 Analysis Year: 2002 Roadway Data Intersection: 9th St./Pacific Coast Highway Analysis Condition: Existing Traffic Volumes -- No.of Average Speed _ Roadway Type Lanes A.M. P.M. North-South Roadway: 9th Street At Grade 2 20 20 East-West Roadway Pacific Coast Highway At Grade 6 20 20 A.M.Peak Hour Traffic Volumes P.M.Peak Hour Traffic Volumes N N , 34 0 53 20 0 29 W < v > E W < v > E 34 A A 19 23 A A 34 1,680> < 1,365 1,564> < 1,727 1 ' 0v v 0 0v v 0 < A > < A > - 0 0 0 0 0 0 S S Highest Traffic Volumes(Vehicles per Hour) N-S Road: 140 N-S Road: 106 E-W Road: 3,117 E-W Road: 3,354 • Roadway CO Contributions and Concentrations Emissions=(A x B x C)/100,0001 ' At A2 A3 B C Reference CO Concentrations Traffic Emission Estimated CO Concentrations -- Roadway 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet Volume Factors' 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet A.M.Peak Traffic Hour North-South Road 2.7 2.2 1.7 140 9.33 0.04 0.03 0.02 East-West Road 6.1 4.9 3.5 3,117 9.33 1.77 1.43 1.02 P.M.Peak Traffic Hour North-South Road . 2.7 2.2 1.7 106 9.33 0.03 0.02 0.02 East-West Road 6.1 4.9 3.5 3,354 9.33 1.91 1.53 1.10 1 Methodology and emission factors from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). Total Roadway CO Concentrations Peak Hour Emissions=North-South Concentration+East-West Concentration+Background 1-hour Concentration2 8-Hour Emissions=((Highest Peak Hour Concentration-Background 1-hour Concentration)x Persistence Factor)+Background 8-hour Concentration2 A.M. P.M. Peak Hour Peak Hour 8-Hour 25 Feet from Roadway Edge 9.8 9.9 6.0 50 Feet from Roadway Edge 9.5 9.6 5.7 100 Feet from Roadway Edge 9.0 9.1 5.4 2 Methodology from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). 03.9th St.&PCH.xls EIP Associates 9/22/03 SIMPLIFIED CALINE4 CARBON MONOXIDE ANALYSIS Project Number: 10261-00 Project Title: Pacific City Background Information Nearest Air Monitoring Station measuring CO: Costa Mesa-Mesa Verde Drive Background 1-hour CO Concentration(ppm): 8.0 Background 8-hour CO Concentration(ppm): 4.6 Persistence Factor: 0.7 Analysis Year: 2002 Roadway Data Intersection: 6th St./Pacific Coast Highway Analysis Condition: Existing Traffic Volumes No.of Average Speed Roadway Type Lanes A.M. P.M. North-South Roadway: 6th Street At Grade 2 20 20 East-West Roadway: Pacific Coast Highway At Grade 6 20 20 • A.M.Peak Hour Traffic Volumes P.M.Peak Hour Traffic Volumes N N 59 0 38 70 0 34 W < v > E W < v > E 58 A A 28 75 A A 34 1,637> < 1,001 1,383 > < 1,694 0v v 0 0v v 0 A > < A• 0 0 0 0 0 0 S S Highest Traffic Volumes(Vehicles per Hour) N-S Road: 183 N-S Road: 213 E-W Road: 2,755 E-W Road: 3,222 Roadway CO Contributions and Concentrations Emissions=(A x B x C)/100,0001 At A2 A3 B C Reference CO Concentrations Traffic Emission Estimated CO Concentrations Roadway 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet Volume Factors' 25 Feet 50 Feet- 100 Feet A.M.Peak Traffic Hour North-South Road 2.7 2.2 1.7 183 9.33 0.05 0.04 0.03 East-West Road 6.1 4.9 3.5 2,755 9.33 1.57 1.26 0.90 P.M.Peak Traffic Hour North-South Road 2.7 2.2 1.7 213 9.33 0.05 0.04 0.03 East-West Road 6.1 4.9 3.5 3,222 9.33 1.83 1.47 1.05 1 Methodology and emission factors from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). , Total Roadway CO Concentrations Peak Hour Emissions=North-South Concentration+East-West Concentration+Background 1-hour Concentration2 8-Hour Emissions=((Highest Peak Hour Concentration-Background 1-hour Concentration)x Persistence Factor)+Background 8-hour Concentration2 A.M. P.M. Peak Hour Peak Hour 8-Hour 25 Feet from Roadway Edge 9.6 9.9 5.9 50 Feet from Roadway Edge 9.3 9.5 5.7 100 Feet from Roadway Edge 8.9 9.1 5.4 2 Methodology from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). 04.6th St.&PCH.xls EIP Associates 9/22/03 SIMPLIFIED CALINE4 CARBON MONOXIDE ANALYSIS Project Number: 10261-00 Project Title: Pacific City Background Information Nearest Air Monitoring Station measuring CO: Costa Mesa-Mesa Verde Drive Background 1-hour CO Concentration(ppm): 8.0 Background 8-hour CO Concentration(ppm): 4.6 Persistence Factor 0.7 Analysis Year: 2002 Roadway Data Intersection: Main St./6th St. Analysis Condition: Existing Traffic Volumes No.of Average Speed Roadway Type Lanes A.M. P.M. North-South Roadway: Main Street At Grade 2 , 20 20 -- East-West Roadway: 6th St. At Grade 2 20 20 A.M.Peak Hour Traffic Volumes P.M.Peak Hour Traffic Volumes N N 13 75 33 20 69 38 W < v > E W < v > E 8 A A 34 39 A A 57 104> < 109 194> < 240 29v v 10 32v v 9 < A > -- < A > 26 61 6 29 73 13 S S Highest Traffic Volumes(Vehicles per Hour) N-S Road: 224 N-S Road: 296 E-W Road: 296 E-W Road: 554 Roadway CO Contributions and Concentrations -_ Emissions=(A x B x C)/100,0001 At A2 A3 B C Reference CO Concentrations Traffic Emission Estimated CO Concentrations Roadway 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet Volume Factors' 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet A.M.Peak Traffic Hour North-South Road 2.7 2.2 1.7 224 9.33 0.06 0.05 0.04 East-West Road 7.6 5.7 4.0 296 9.33 0.21 0.16 0.11 P.M.Peak Traffic Hour - North-South Road 2.7 2.2 1.7 296 9.33 0.07 0.06 0.05 East-West Road 7.6 5.7 4.0 554 9.33 0.39 0.29 0.21 t Methodology and emission factors from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). - - Total Roadway CO Concentrations Peak Hour Emissions=North-South Concentration+East-West Concentration+Background 1-hour Concentration2 8-Hour Emissions=((Highest Peak Hour Concentration-Background 1-hour Concentration)x Persistence Factor)+Background 8-hour Concentration2 A.M. P.M. Peak Hour Peak Hour 8-Hour 25 Feet from Roadway Edge 8.3 8.5 4.9 50 Feet from Roadway Edge 8.2 8.4 4.8 100 Feet from Roadway Edge 8.1 8.3 4.8 2 Methodology from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). 05.Main St.&6th St.xls EIP Associates 9/22/03 , SIMPLIFIED CALINE4 CARBON MONOXIDE ANALYSIS 1 I Project Number: 10261-00 Project Title: Pacific City Background Information Nearest Air Monitoring Station measuring CO: Costa Mesa-Mesa Verde Drive Background 1-hour CO Concentration(ppm): 8.0 Background 8-hour CO Concentration(ppm): 4.6 Persistence Factor: 0.7 Analysis Year: 2002 Roadway Data Intersection: Main St./PCH Analysis Condition: Existing Traffic Volumes _I No.of Average Speed Roadway Type Lanes A.M. P.M. North-South Roadway: Main Street At Grade 2 20 20 East-West Roadway: Pacific Coast Highway At Grade 6 20 20 A.M.Peak Hour Traffic Volumes P.M.Peak Hour Traffic Volumes . N NI 53 0 451 I 109 0 83 W < v > E W J < v > E 54 A A 51 137 A A 150 1,660> < 975 1,3.59> < 1,565 0v v 0 0v v 0 < A > < A > 0 0 0 0 0 0 S S I Highest Traffic Volumes(Vehicles per Hour) N-S Road: 203 N-S Road: , 479 E-W Road: 2,742 E-W Road: 3,170 Roadway CO Contributions and Concentrations Emissions=(A x B x C)/100,000' Al A2 A3 B C Reference CO Concentrations Traffic Emission Estimated CO Concentrations Roadway 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet Volume Factors' 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet A.M.Peak Traffic Hour North-South Road 2.7 2.2 1.7 203 9.33 0.05 0.04 0.03 East-West Road 6.1 4.9 3.5 2,742 9.33 1.56 1.25 0.90 _ ' P.M.Peak Traffic Hour North-South Road 2.7 2.2 1.7 479 9.33 0.12 0.10 0.08 East-West Road 6.1 4.9 3.5 3,170 9.33 1.80 1.45 1.04 t__ 'Methodology and emission factors from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). Total Roadway CO Concentrations ' Peak Hour Emissions=North-South Concentration+East-West Concentration+Background 1-hour Concentration 8-Hour Emissions=((Highest Peak Hour Concentration-Background 1-hour Concentration)x Persistence Factor)+Background 8-hour Concentrati A.M. P.M. Peak Hour Peak Hour 8-Hour 25 Feet from Roadway Edge 9.6 9.9 5.9 50 Feet from Roadway Edge 9.3 9.5 5.7 100 Feet from Roadway Edge 8.9 9.1 5.4 2 Methodology from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). 06.Main St.&PCH.xls EIP Associates 9/22/2003 SIMPLIFIED CALINE4 CARBON MONOXIDE ANALYSIS Project Number: 10261-00 I Project Title: Pacific City I Background Information Nearest Air Monitoring Station measuring CO: Costa Mesa-Mesa Verde Drive Background 1-hour CO Concentration(ppm): 8.0 Background 8-hour CO Concentration(ppm): 4.6 Persistence Factor: 0.7 ; I Analysis Year: 2002 - Roadway Data Intersection: 1st St./Atlanta Ave. Analysis Condition: Existing Traffic Volumes No.of Average Speed Roadway Type Lanes A.M. P.M. North-South Roadway: 1st Street At Grade 2 10 10 --, East-West Roadway: Atlanta Avenue At Grade 2 10 10 • A.M.Peak Hour Traffic Volumes P.M.Peak Hour Traffic Volumes N N 0 2 3 0 1 3 1 _ W < v > E W < v > E 0^ A 0 1 ^ A 1 123> < 122 185 > < 292 37 v v 204 45 v v 165 21 1 118 36 2 167 S S Highest Traffic Volumes(Vehicles per Hour) N-S Road: 383 N-S Road: 416 E-W Road: 570 E-W Road: 813 I Roadway CO Contributions and Concentrations _ Emissions=(A x B x C)/100,0001 AI A2 A3 B C _. Reference CO Concentrations Traffic Emission Estimated CO Concentrations Roadway 25 Feet 50 Feet .100 Feet Volume Factors' 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet A.M.Peak Traffic Hour North-South Road 2.7 2.2 1.7 383 18.24 0.19 0.15 0.12 East-West Road 7.6 5.7 4.0 570 18.24 0.79 0.59 0.42 P.M.Peak Traffic Hour North-South Road 2.7 2.2 1.7 416 18.24 0.20 0.17 0.13 East-West Road 7.6 5.7 4.0 813 18.24 1.13 0.85 0.59 t Methodology and emission factors from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). ' Total Roadway CO Concentrations 1 Peak Hour Emissions=North-South Concentration+East-West Concentration+Background 1-hour Concentration2 __' 8-Hour Emissions=((Highest Peak Hour Concentration-Background 1-hour Concentration)x Persistence Factor)+Background 8-hour Concentration2 A.M. P.M. Peak Hour Peak Hour 8-Hour _ 25 Feet from Roadway Edge 9.0 9.3 5.5 50 Feet from Roadway Edge 8.7 9.0 5.3 100 Feet from Roadway Edge 8.5 8.7 5.1 2 Methodology from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). 07. 1st St.&Atlanta Ave.xls EIP Associates 9/22/03 I SIMPLIFIED CALINE4 CARBON MONOXIDE ANALYSIS Project Number: 10261-00 Project Title: Pacific City Background Information Nearest Air Monitoring Station measuring CO: Costa Mesa-Mesa Verde Drive Background 1-hour CO Concentration(ppm): 8.0 Background 8-hour CO Concentration(ppm): 4.6 Persistence Factor: 0.7 Analysis Year: 2002 1 Roadway Data Intersection: 1st St./Pacific Coast Highway Analysis Condition: Existing Traffic Volumes No.of Average Speed Roadway Type Lanes , A.M. P.M. -- North-South Roadway: 1st Street At Grade 2 20 15 ' East-West Roadway: Pacific Coast Highway At Grade 6 20 15 A.M.Peak Hour Traffic Volumes P.M.Peak Hour Traffic Volumes N N 77 34 88 77 30 82 W < v > E W < v > E 50 A A 51 77 A A 72 I,. 1,701 > < 919 1,281 > < 1,475 ' 15v v 16 13v v 26 < A > < A . > 26 44 13 20 25 29 S S • Highest Traffic Volumes(Vehicles per Hour) N-S Road: 344 N-S Road: 363 E-W Road: 2,788 E-W Road: 2,965 Roadway CO Contributions and Concentrations Emissions=(A x B x C)/100,0001 Ai A2 43 B C Reference CO Concentrations Traffic Emission Estimated CO Concentrations Roadway 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet Volume Factors' 25'Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet A.M.Peak Traffic Hour North-South Road 2.7 2.2 1 7 344 9.33 0.09 0.07 0.05 East-West Road 6.1 4.9 3.5 2,788 9.33 1.59 1.28 0.91 P.M.Peak Traffic Hour North-South Road 2.7 2.2 1.7 363 12.31 0.12 0.10 0.08 1 East-West Road 6.1 4.9 3.5 2,965 12.31 2.23 1.79 1.28 i 'Methodology and emission factors from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). Total Roadway CO Concentrations Peak Hour Emissions=North-South Concentration+East-West Concentration+Background 1-hour Concentration2 8-Hour Emissions=((Highest Peak Hour Concentration-Background 1-hour Concentration)x Persistence Factor)+Background 8-hour Concentration2 A.M. P.M. Peak Hour Peak Hour 8-Hour 25 Feet from Roadway Edge 9.7 10.3 6.2 50 Feet from Roadway Edge 9.3 9.9 5.9 100 Feet from Roadway Edge 9.0 9.4 5.5 2 Methodology from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). 08. 1st St.&PCH.xls EIP Associates 9/22/03 SIMPLIFIED CALINE4 CARBON MONOXIDE ANALYSIS Project Number: 10261-00 Project Title: Pacific City ; i Background Information Nearest Air Monitoring Station measuring CO: Costa Mesa-Mesa Verde Drive Background 1-hour CO Concentration(ppm): 8.0 Background 8-hour CO Concentration(ppm): 4.6 l Persistence Factor: 0.7 Analysis Year: 2002 - Roadway Data Intersection: Huntington St./Atlanta Ave. Analysis Condition: Existing Traffic Volumes No.of Average Speed Roadway Type Lanes A.M. P.M. North-South Roadway: Huntington Street At Grade 2 10 10 East-West Roadway: Atlanta Avenue At Grade 2 10 10 A.M.Peak Hour Traffic Volumes P.M.Peak Hour Traffic Volumes , N N 34 1 70 32 6 54 W < v > E W < v > E 21 A A 22 25 A A 89 259 > < 278 357> < 451 -,, 2v v 2 7v v 20 < A > < A > 3 4 20 1 5 12 S S Highest Traffic Volumes(Vehicles per Hour) N-S Road: 152 N-S Road: 211 E-W Road: 651 E-W Road: 983 , I Roadway CO Contributions and Concentrations Emissions=(A x B x C)/100,0001 A., A2 A3 B C Reference CO Concentrations Traffic Emission Estimated CO Concentrations Roadway 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet Volume Factors' 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet A.M.Peak Traffic Hour - North-South Road 2.7 2.2 1.7 152 18.24 0.07 0.06 0.05 East-West Road 7.6 5.7 4.0 651 18.24 0.90 0.68 0.48 P.M.Peak Traffic Hour North-South Road 2.7 2.2 1.7 211 18.24 0.10 0.08 0.07 East-West Road 7.6 5.7 4.0 983 18.24 1.36 1.02 0.72 1 Methodology and emission factors from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). Total Roadway CO Concentrations Peak Hour Emissions=North-South Concentration+East-West Concentration+Background 1-hour Concentration2 8-Hour Emissions=((Highest Peak Hour Concentration-Background 1-hour Concentration)x Persistence Factor)+Background 8-hour Concentration2 A.M. P.M. Peak Hour Peak Hour 8-Hour 25 Feet from Roadway Edge 9.0 9.5 5.6 50 Feet from Roadway Edge 8.7 9.1 5.4 100 Feet from Roadway Edge 8.5 8.8 5.1 2 Methodology from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). 09.Huntington St.&Atlanta Ave.xls EIP Associates 9/22/03 ` SIMPLIFIED CALINE4 CARBON MONOXIDE ANALYSIS Project Number: 10261-00 Project Title: Pacific City • Background Information s Nearest Air Monitoring Station measuring CO' Costa Mesa-Mesa Verde Drive Background 1-hour CO Concentration(ppm): 8.0 Background 8-hour CO Concentration(ppm): 4.6 ,; Persistence Factor: 0.7 Analysis Year: 2002 Roadway Data Intersection: Delware St./Atlanta Ave. Analysis Condition: Existing Traffic Volumes No.of Average Speed Roadway Type Lanes A.M. P.M. North-South Roadway: Deleware Street At Grade 4 10 10 ' East-West Roadway: Atlanta Avenue • At Grade 4 10 10 A.M.Peak Hour Traffic Volumes P.M.Peak Hour Traffic Volumes I N N 11 28 25 6 13 33 W < v > E W < v > E 14A A 9 15A A 34 269> < 273 369> < 482 ' 21 v v 44 20 v v 47 < A > < A > - 21 9 52 67 47 65 S S Highest Traffic Volumes(Vehicles per Hour) N-S Road:. 175 N-S Road: 259 E-W Road: 672 E-W Road: 1,030 Roadway CO Contributions and Concentrations Emissions=(A x B x C)/100,0001 Ai A2 A3 B C Reference CO Concentrations Traffic Emission Estimated CO Concentrations Roadway 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet Volume Facto& 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet A.M.Peak Traffic Hour North-South Road 2.6 2.2 1.7 175 18.24 0.08 0.07 0.05 -, East-West Road 7.0 5.4 3.8 672 18.24 0.86 0.66 0.47 ' P.M.Peak Traffic Hour North-South Road 2.6 2.2 1 7 259 18.24 0.12 0.10 0.08 East-West Road 7.0 5.4 3.8 1,030 18.24 1.32 1.01 0.71 Methodology and emission factors from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). Total Roadway CO Concentrations Peak Hour Emissions=North-South Concentration+East-West Concentration+Background 1-hour Concentration 8-Hour Emissions=((Highest Peak Hour Concentration-Background 1-hour Concentration)x Persistence Factor)+Background 8-hour Concentration , A.M. P.M. Peak Hour Peak Hour 8-Hour 25 Feet from Roadway Edge 8.9 9.4 5.6 50 Feet from Roadway Edge 8.7 9.1 5.4 100 Feet from Roadway Edge 8.5 8.8 5.2 2 Methodology from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). 10.Delaware St.&Atlanta Ave.xls EIP Associates 9/22/03 i SIMPLIFIED CALINE4 CARBON MONOXIDE ANALYSIS Project Number: 10261-00 Project Title: Pacific City Background Information Nearest Air Monitoring Station measuring CO: Costa Mesa-Mesa Verde Drive Background 1-hour CO Concentration(ppm): 8.0 Background 8-hour CO Concentration(ppm): 4.6 Persistence Factor: 0.7 Analysis Year: 2002 Roadway Data Intersection: Huntington St./PCH Analysis Condition: Existing Traffic Volumes No.of _ Average Speed Roadway Type Lanes A.M. P.M. North-South Roadway: Huntington Street At Grade 2 20 20 East-West Roadway: Pacific Coast Highway At Grade 6 20 20 A.M.Peak Hour Traffic Volumes P.M.Peak Hour Traffic Volumes N N 48 0 55 42 3 36 W < v > E W < v > E 53A A 61 38A A 105 1,808> < 806 1,265> < 1,609 0v v 1 4v v 6 < A > < A • > .. _ 1 0 2 2 6 5 S S I Highest Traffic Volumes(Vehicles per Hour) N-S Road: 217 N-S Road: 230 E-W Road: 2,733 E-W Road: 3,026 Roadway CO Contributions and Concentrations Emissions=(A x B x C)/100,0001 Ai A2 A3 B C Reference CO Concentrations Traffic Emission Estimated CO Concentrations Roadway 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet Volume Factors' 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet A.M.Peak Traffic Hour North-South Road 2.7 2.2 1.7 217 9.33 0.05 0.04 0.03 East-West Road 6.1 4.9 3.5 2,733 9.33 1.56 1.25 0.89 r P.M.Peak Traffic Hour - North-South Road 2.7 2.2 1.7 230 9.33 0.06 0.05 0.04 East-West Road 6.1 4.9 3.5 3,026 9.33 1.72 1.38 0.99 t Methodology and emission factors from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). ' } Total Roadway CO Concentrations 1 Peak Hour Emissions=North-South Concentration+East-West Concentration+Background 1-hour Concentration2 8-Hour Emissions=((Highest Peak Hour Concentration-Background-1-hour.Concentration)x Persistence Factor)+Background 8-hour Concentration2 A.M. P.M. Peak Hour Peak Hour 8-Hour ' 25 Feet from Roadway Edge 9.6 9.8 5.8 50 Feet from Roadway Edge 9.3 9.4 5.6 100 Feet from Roadway Edge 8.9 9.0 5.3 I 2 Methodology from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). 11.Huntington St.&PCH.xls EIP Associates 9/22/03 SIMPLIFIED CALINE4 CARBON MONOXIDE ANALYSIS ` 1 Project Number: 10261-00 Project Title: Pacific City Background Information Nearest Air Monitoring Station measuring CO: Costa Mesa-Mesa Verde Drive Background 1-hour CO Concentration(ppm): 8.0 Background 8-hour CO Concentration(ppm): 4.6 Persistence Factor 0.7 Analysis Year: 2002 Roadway Data Intersection: Huntington St./Pacific View Ave. - Analysis Condition: ',Existing Traffic Volumes No.of Average Speed Roadway Type Lanes A.M. P.M. North-South Roadway: Huntington Street At Grade 2 10 10 East-West Roadway: Pacific View Avenue At Grade 2 10 10 A.M.Peak Hour Traffic Volumes P.M.Peak Hour Traffic Volumes N N 0 67 34 _ 0 32 7 W < v > E W < v > E 0A A 11 0A A 32 0> < 0 0> < 0 Ov v 38 0v v 38 < A > < A > 0 34 56 0 126 51 S S Highest Traffic Volumes(Vehicles per Hour) N-S Road: 195 N-S Road: 247 E-W Road: 139 E-W Road: 128 Roadway CO Contributions and Concentrations " Emissions=(A x B x C)/100,0001 Al A2 A3 B C Reference CO Concentrations Traffic Emission Estimated CO Concentrations • Roadway 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet Volume Factors 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet A.M.Peak Traffic Hour North-South Road 7.6 5.7 4.0 195 18.24 0.27 0.20 0.14 East-West Road 2.7 2.2 1.7 139 18.24 0.07 0.06 0.04 P.M.Peak Traffic Hour North-South Road 7.6 5.7 4.0 247 18.24 0.34 0.26 0.18 East-West Road 2.7 2.2 1.7 128 18.24 0.06 0.05 0.04 Methodology and emission factors from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). Total Roadway CO Concentrations Peak Hour Emissions=North-South Concentration+East-West Concentration+Background 1-hour Concentration2 8-Hour Emissions=((Highest Peak Hour Concentration-Background 1-hour Concentration)x Persistence Factor)+Background 8-hour Concentration2 A.M. P.M. Peak Hour Peak Hour 8-Hour 25 Feet from Roadway Edge 8.3 8.4 4.9 50 Feet from Roadway Edge 8.3 8.3 4.8 100 Feet from Roadway Edge 8.2 8.2 4.8 2 Methodology from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). 12.Huntington St.&Pacific View Ave.xls ElP Associates 9/22/03 SIMPLIFIED CALINE4 CARBON MONOXIDE ANALYSIS Project Number: 10261-00 Project Title: Pacific City Background Information ti Nearest Air Monitoring Station measuring CO: Costa Mesa-Mesa Verde Drive Background 1-hour CO Concentration(ppm): 8.0 Background 8-hour CO Concentration(ppm): 4.6 / Persistence Factor: 0.7 Analysis Year: 2002 Roadway Data Intersection: Beach Blvd./Adams Ave. Analysis Condition: Existing Traffic Volumes No.of Average Speed Roadway Type Lanes A.M. P.M. North-South Roadway: Beach Boulevard At Grade 6 15 15 East-West Roadway: Adams Avenue At Grade 4 15 15 A.M.Peak Hour Traffic Volumes P.M.Peak Hour Traffic Volumes N N 115 781 351 162 1,000 353 W < v > E W < v > E 160 A A 263 176 A A 419 901 > < 349 496 > < 666 91 v v 76 46 v v 196 < A > < A > - 75 789 166 130 968 107 S S Highest Traffic Volumes(Vehicles per Hour) N-S Road: 2,459 N-S Road: 3,078 E-W Road: 2,106 E-W Road: 2,237 Roadway CO Contributions and Concentrations Emissions=(A x B x C)/100,0001 Ai A2 A3 B C Reference CO Concentrations Traffic Emission Estimated CO Concentrations __ Roadway 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet Volume Factors' 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet A.M.Peak Traffic Hour North-South Road 6.1 4.9 3.5 2,459 12.31 1.85 1.48 1.06 East-West Road 2.6 2.2 1.7 2,106 12.31 0.67 0.57 0.44 P.M.Peak Traffic Hour - North-South Road 6.1 4.9 3.5 3,078 12.31 2.31 1.86 1.33 East-West Road 2.6 2.2 1.7 2,237 12.31 0.72 0.61 0.47 ' Methodology and emission factors from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). Total Roadway CO Concentrations Peak Hour Emissions=North-South Concentration+East-West Concentration+Background 1-hour Concentration2 8-Hour Emissions=((Highest Peak Hour Concentration-Background 1-hour Concentration)x Persistence Factor)+Background 8-hour Concentration2 A.M. P.M. Peak Hour Peak Hour 8-Hour 25 Feet from Roadway Edge 10.5 11.0 6.7 50 Feet from Roadway Edge 10.1 10.5 6.3 100 Feet from Roadway Edge 9.5 9.8 5.9 2 Methodology from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). 13.Beach Blvd.&Adams Ave.xls EIP Associates 9/22/03 SIMPLIFIED CALINE4 CARBON MONOXIDE ANALYSIS Project Number: 10261-00 ' Project Title: Pacific City Background Information Nearest Air Monitoring Station measuring CO: Costa Mesa-Mesa Verde Drive Background 1-hour CO Concentration(ppm): 8.0 Background 8-hour CO Concentration(ppm): 4.6 Persistence Factor: 0.7 Analysis Year: 2002 1 Roadway Data Intersection: Beach Blvd./Indianapolis Ave. Analysis Condition: Existing Traffic Volumes No.of Average Speed Roadway Type Lanes A.M. P.M. North-South Roadway: Beach Boulevard At Grade 6 20 20 East-West Roadway: Indianapolis Avenue At Grade 4 20 20 A.M.Peak Hour Traffic Volumes P.M.Peak Hour Traffic Volumes I, N N 28 765 103 71 814 124 W < v > E W < v > E 113 A A 131 46 A A 144 90> < 43 75 > < 146 22 v v 25 13 v v 26 < A > < A > 9 586 16 36 970 21 S S Highest Traffic Volumes(Vehicles per Hour) N-S Road: 1,726 N-S Road: 2,169 E-W Road: 408 E-W Road: 536 • Roadway CO Contributions and Concentrations Emissions=(A x B x C)/100,0001 Ai A2 A3 B C Reference CO Concentrations Traffic Emission Estimated CO Concentrations { Roadway 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet Volume Factors' 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet 1 A.M.Peak Traffic Hour North-South Road 6.1 4.9 3.5 1,726 9.33 0.98 0.79 0.56 East-West Road 2.6 2.2 1 7 408 9.33 0.10 0.08 0.06 P.M.Peak Traffic Hour North-South Road 6.1 4.9 3.5 2,169 9.33 1.23 0.99 0.71 East-West Road 2.6 2.2 1.7 536 9.33 0.13 0.11 0.09 '-- 1 Methodology and emission factors from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). Total Roadway CO Concentrations Peak Hour Emissions=North-South Concentration+East-West Concentration+Background 1-hour Concentration2 8-Hour Emissions=((Highest Peak Hour Concentration-Background 1-hour Concentration)x Persistence Factor)+Background 8-hour Concentration2 A.M. P.M. Peak Hour Peak Hour 8-Hour 25 Feet from Roadway Edge 9.1 9.4 5.6 50 Feet from Roadway Edge 8.9 9.1 5.4 100 Feet from Roadway Edge 8.6 8.8 5.2 2 Methodology from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). 14. Beach Blvd.&Indianapolis Ave.xls EIP Associates 9/22/03 ' SIMPLIFIED CALINE4 CARBON MONOXIDE ANALYSIS Project Number: 10261-00 Project Title: Pacific City Background Information Nearest Air Monitoring Station measuring CO: Costa Mesa-Mesa Verde Drive Background 1-hour CO Concentration(ppm): 8.0 Background 8-hour CO Concentration(ppm): 4.6 Persistence Factor: 0.7 Analysis Year: 2002 Roadway Data Intersection: Beach Blvd./Atlanta Ave. Analysis Condition: Existing Traffic Volumes No.of Average Speed Roadway Type Lanes A.M. P.M. North-South Roadway: Beach Boulevard At Grade 6 20 20 East-West Roadway: Atlanta Avenue At Grade 4 20 20 A.M.Peak Hour Traffic Volumes P.M.Peak Hour Traffic Volumes N N , 76 522 198 121 419 294 W < v > E W < v > E 95 A " 168 92 A A 241 368> < 214 366 > < 485 40 v v 24 21 v v 28 < A > < A > 1 313 19 66 674 68 S S Highest Traffic Volumes(Vehicles per Hour) N-S Road: 1,372 N-S Road: 1,841 E-W Road: 991 E-W Road: 1,482 Roadway CO Contributions and Concentrations Emissions=(A x B x C)/100,0001 Ai A2 A3 B C Reference CO Concentrations Traffic Emission Estimated CO Concentrations Roadway 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet Volume Factors' 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet A.M.Peak Traffic Hour North-South Road 6.1 4.9 3.5 1,372 9.33 0.78 0.63 0.45 East-West Road 2.6 2.2 1.7 991 9.33 0.24 0.20 0.16 1 P.M.Peak Traffic Hour North-South Road 6.1 4.9 3.5 1,841 9.33 1.05 0.84 0.60 East-West Road 2.6 2.2 1.7 1,482 9.33 0.36 0.30 0.24 .. , 1 Methodology and emission factors from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). 1 Total Roadway CO Concentrations Peak Hour Emissions=North-South Concentration+East-West Concentration+Background 1-hour Concentration2 8-Hour Emissions=((Highest Peak Hour Concentration-Background 1-hour Concentration)x Persistence Factor)+Background 8-hour Concentration2 A.M. P.M. Peak Hour Peak Hour 8-Hour 25 Feet from Roadway Edge 9.0 9.4 5.6 50 Feet from Roadway Edge 8.8 9.1 5.4 100 Feet from Roadway Edge 8.6 8.8 5.2 2 Methodology from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). 15.Beach Blvd.&Atlanta Ave.xls EIP Associates 9/22/03 SIMPLIFIED CALINE4 CARBON MONOXIDE ANALYSIS Project Number: 10261-00 , Project Title: Pacific City Background Information Nearest Air Monitoring Station measuring CO: Costa Mesa-Mesa Verde Drive Background 1-hour CO Concentration(ppm): 8.0 Background 8-hour CO Concentration(ppm): 4.6 Persistence Factor: 0.7 Analysis Year: 2002 Roadway Data Intersection: Beach Blvd./PCH Analysis Condition: Existing Traffic Volumes No.of Average Speed Roadway Type Lanes A.M. P.M. -- North-South Roadway: Beach Boulevard At Grade 6 20 20 East-West Roadway: Pacific Coast Highway At Grade 6 20 20 A.M.Peak Hour Traffic Volumes P.M.Peak Hour Traffic Volumes N N 110 13 452 140 25 270 W < v > E W < v > E 80 A A 217 209 A A 547 1,670> < 753 1,071 > < 1,655 1 4v v 10 17v v 19 < A > < A > 3 3 7 17 24 24 S S _. Highest Traffic Volumes(Vehicles per Hour) . N-S Road: 875 N-S Road: 1,215 E-W Road: 3,109 E-W Road: 3,586 Roadway CO Contributions and Concentrations Emissions=(A x B x C)/100,0001 Ai A2 A3 B C Reference CO Concentrations Traffic Emission Estimated CO Concentrations Roadway 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet Volume Factors' 25 Feet 50 Feet' 100 Feet y A.M.Peak Traffic Hour North-South Road 2.3 2.0 1.7 875 9.33 0.19 0.16 0.14 East-West Road 6.1 4.9 3.5 3,109 9.33 1.77 1.42 1.02 P.M.Peak Traffic Hour North-South Road 2.3 2.0 1.7 1,215 9.33 0.26 0.23 0.19 East-West Road 6.1 4.9 3.5 3,586 9.33 2.04 1.64 1.17 ' Methodology and emission factors from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). Total Roadway CO Concentrations Peak Hour Emissions=North-South Concentration+East-West Concentration+Background 1-hour Concentration2 8-Hour Emissions=((Highest Peak Hour Concentration-Background 1-hour Concentration)x Persistence Factor)+Background 8-hour Concentration2 A.M. P.M. Peak Hour Peak Hour 8-Hour 25 Feet from Roadway Edge 10.0 10.3 6.2 50 Feet from Roadway Edge 9.6 9.9 5.9 100 Feet from Roadway Edge 9.2 9.4 5.6 2 Methodology from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). 16.Beach Blvd.&PCH.xls EIP Associates 9/22/03 SIMPLIFIED CALINE4 CARBON MONOXIDE ANALYSIS Project Number: 10261-00 Project Title: Pacific City Background Information I Nearest Air Monitoring Station measuring CO: Costa Mesa-Mesa Verde Drive Background 1-hour CO Concentration(ppm): 8.0 Background 8-hour CO Concentration(ppm): 4.6 Persistence Factor 0.7 Analysis Year: 2002 Roadway Data , Intersection: NewlandSt./Atlanta Ave. Analysis Condition: Existing Traffic Volumes No.of Average Speed Roadway Type Lanes A.M. P.M. North-South Roadway: Newland Street At Grade 4 20 20 East-West Roadway' Atlanta Ave. At Grade 4 20 20 A.M.Peak Hour Traffic Volumes P.M.Peak Hour Traffic Volumes N N 45 244 85 78 220 99 W < v > E W < v > E 34A A 67 68A ^ 127 472> < 256 477> < 517 ' 183 v v 17 140 v v 55 < A > < A > , 76 129 37 227 396 53 S S Highest Traffic Volumes(Vehicles per Hour) N-S Road: 686 N-S Road: 1,091 E-W Road: 1,066 E-W Road: 1,507 Roadway CO Contributions and Concentrations Emissions=(A x B x C)/100,0001 At A2 A3 B C Reference CO Concentrations Traffic Emission Estimated CO Concentrations _ Roadway 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet Volume Factors' 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet A.M.Peak Traffic Hour North-South Road 2.6 2.2 1.7 686 9.33 0.17 0.14 0.11 East-West Road 7.0 5.4 3.8 1,066 9.33 0.70 0.54 0.38 P.M.Peak Traffic Hour North-South Road 2.6 2.2 1.7 1,091 9.33 0.26 0.22 0.17 East-West Road 7.0 5.4 3.8 1,507 9.33 0.98 0.76 0.53 --, 1 Methodology and emission factors from Bay Area Air Quality Management District.BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). Total Roadway CO Concentrations Peak Hour Emissions=North-South Concentration+East-West Concentration+Background 1-hour Concentration2 8-Hour Emissions=((Highest Peak Hour Concentration-Background 1-hour Concentration)x Persistence Factor)+Background 8-hour Concentration2 A.M. P.M. ' Peak Hour Peak Hour 8-Hour 25 25 Feet from Roadway Edge 8.9 9.2 5.5 50 Feet from Roadway Edge 8.7 9.0 5.3 100 Feet from Roadway Edge 8.5 8.7 5.1 2 Methodology from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). 17. Newland St.&Atlanta Ave.xls EIP Associates 9/22/03 SIMPLIFIED CALINE4 CARBON MONOXIDE ANALYSIS Project Number: 10261-00 Project Title: Pacific City Background Information Nearest Air Monitoring Station measuring CO: Costa Mesa-Mesa Verde Drive Background 1-hour CO Concentration(ppm): 8.0 Background 8-hour CO Concentration(ppm): 4.6. Persistence Factor: 0.7 Analysis Year: 2002 Roadway Data Intersection: NewlandSt./PCH Analysis Condition: Existing Traffic Volumes i No.of Average Speed Roadway Type Lanes A.M. ` P.M. North-South Roadway: Newland Street At Grade 4 20 20 East-West Roadway: Pacific Coast Highway At Grade 6 20 20 A.M.Peak Hour Traffic Volumes P.M.Peak Hour Traffic Volumes . N N 127 0 154 149 0 94 W < v > E W < v > E 88 A A 48 137 A A 250 2,167> < 874 1,235> < 2,089 3v v 1 11 v v 7 < A > < A > 3 0 3 11 24 14 S S Highest Traffic Volumes(Vehicles per Hour) N-S Road: 417 N-S Road: 654 E-W Road: 3,262 E-W Road: 3,689 Roadway CO Contributions and Concentrations Emissions=(A x B x C)/100,0001 Ai A2 A3 B C Reference CO Concentrations Traffic Emission Estimated CO Concentrations Roadway 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet Volume Factors' 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet A.M.Peak Traffic Hour North-South Road 2.6 2.2 1.7 417 9.33 0.10 0.09 0.07 East-West Road 6.1 4.9 3.5 3,262 9.33 1.86 1.49 1.07 P.M.Peak Traffic Hour North-South Road 2.6 2.2 1.7 654 9.33 0.16 0.13 0.10 East-West Road 6.1 4.9 3.5 3,689 9.33 2.10 1.69 1.21 1 Methodology and emission factors from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). Total Roadway CO Concentrations Peak Hour Emissions=North-South Concentration+East-West Concentration+Background 1-hour Concentration2 8-Hour Emissions=((Highest Peak Hour Concentration-Background 1-hour Concentration)x Persistence Factor)+Background 8-hour Concentration2 A.M. P.M. Peak Hour Peak Hour 8-Hour 25 Feet from Roadway Edge 10.0 10.3 6.2 50 Feet from Roadway Edge 9.6 9.8 5.9 100 Feet from Roadway Edge 9.1 9.3 5.5 2 Methodology from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). 18.Newland St.&PCH.xts EIP Associates 9/22/03 SIMPLIFIED CALINE4 CARBON MONOXIDE ANALYSIS Project Number: 10261-00 Project Title: Pacific City Background Information Nearest Air Monitoring Station measuring CO: Costa Mesa-Mesa Verde Drive Background 1-hour CO Concentration(ppm): 8.0 Background 8-hour CO Concentration(ppm): 4.6 Persistence Factor 0.7 Analysis Year: 2002 Roadway Data Intersection: Magnolia St./PCH Analysis Condition: Existing Traffic Volumes No.of Average Speed Roadway Type Lanes A.M. P.M. North-South Roadway: Magnolia Street At Grade 4 20 20 , East-West Roadway: Pacific Coast Highway At Grade 6 20 20 A.M.Peak Hour Traffic Volumes P.M.Peak Hour Traffic Volumes N N 88 31 121 87 34 66 W < v > E W < v > E 43 A A 34 _ 126 A A 223 2,320> < 864 1,175> < 2,259 38 v v 12 35 v v 87 , < A > < A > 13 10 4 22 36 15 S S Highest Traffic Volumes(Vehicles per Hour) N-S Road: 327 N-S Road: 572 E-W Road: 3,366 E-W Road: 3,825 • Roadway CO Contributions and Concentrations Emissions=(A x B x C)/100,000' Ai A2 A3 B C Reference CO Concentrations Traffic Emission Estimated CO Concentrations Roadway 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet Volume Factors' 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet A.M.Peak Traffic Hour North-South Road 2.6 2.2 1.7 327 9.33 0.08 0.07 0.05 East-West Road 6.1 4.9 3.5 3,366 9.33 1.92 1.54 1.10 P.M.Peak Traffic Hour North-South Road 2.6 2.2 1 7 572 9.33 0.14 0.12 0.09 East-West Road 6.1 4.9 3.5 3,825 9.33 2.18 1.75 1.25 'Methodology and emission factors from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). Total Roadway CO Concentrations ' 1 Peak Hour Emissions=North-South Concentration+East-West Concentration+Background 1-hour Concentration2 =_ 8-Hour Emissions=((Highest Peak Hour Concentration-Background 1-hour Concentration)x Persistence Factor)+Background 8-hour Concentration2 A.M. P.M. Peak Hour Peak Hour 8-Hour ' 25 Feet from Roadway Edge 10.0 10.3 6.2 50 Feet from Roadway Edge 9.6 9.9 5.9 100 Feet from Roadway Edge 9.2 9.3 5.5 2 Methodology from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). 19 Magnolia St.&PCH.xls EIP Associates 9/22/03 SIMPLIFIED CALINE4 CARBON MONOXIDE ANALYSIS , -I Project Number: 10261-00 Project Title: Pacific City Background Information Nearest Air Monitoring Station measuring CO: Costa Mesa-Mesa Verde Drive Background 1-hour CO Concentration(ppm): 8.0 Background 8-hour CO Concentration(ppm): 4.6 Persistence Factor: 0.7 Analysis Year 2002 Roadway Data Intersection: Magnolia St./Atlanta Ave. Analysis Condition: Existing Traffic Volumes No.of Average Speed Roadway Type Lanes A.M. P.M. North-South Roadway: Magnolia Street At Grade 4 20 20 ! East-West Roadway: Atlanta Avenue At Grade 4 20 20 A.M.Peak Hour Traffic Volumes P.M.Peak Hour Traffic Volumes N N 53 305 72 97 220 104 W < v > E W < v > E 87A A 77 128A A 114 448> < 205 398 > < 564 100 v v 72 113 v v 115 < A > < A > 47 198 54 150 438 47 S S Highest Traffic Volumes(Vehicles per Hour) N-S Road: 792 N-S Road: 1,101 E-W Road: 940 E-W Road: 1,450 1 Roadway CO Contributions and Concentrations Emissions=(A x B x C)/100,0001 A, A2 A3 B C Reference CO Concentrations Traffic Emission Estimated CO Concentrations Roadway 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet Volume Factors' 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet A.M.Peak Traffic Hour North-South Road 2.6 2.2 1.7 792 9.33 0.19 0.16 0.13 East-West Road 7.0 5.4 3.8 940 9.33 0.61 0.47 0.33 P.M.Peak Traffic Hour North-South Road - 2.6 2.2 1.7 1,101 9.33 0.27 0.23 0.17 East-West Road 7.0 5.4 3.8 1,450 9.33 0.95 0.73 0.51 ._ 'Methodology and emission factors from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). Total Roadway CO Concentrations Peak Hour Emissions=North-South Concentration+East-West Concentration+Background 1-hour Concentration2 8-Hour Emissions=((Highest Peak Hour Concentration-Background 1-hour Concentration)x Persistence Factor)+Background 8-hour Concentration2 , A.M. P.M. Peak Hour Peak Hour 8-Hour 25 Feet from Roadway Edge 8.8 9.2 5.5 50 Feet from Roadway Edge 8.6 9.0 5.3 G 100 Feet from Roadway Edge 8.5 8.7 5.1 2 Methodology from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). 20.Magnolia St.&Atlanta Ave.xls EIP Associates 9/22/03 SIMPLIFIED CALINE4 CARBON MONOXIDE ANALYSIS Project Number: 10261-00 Project Title: Pacific City Background Information Nearest Air Monitoring Station measuring CO: Costa Mesa-Mesa Verde Drive Background 1-hour CO Concentration(ppm): 8.0 Background 8-hour CO Concentration(ppm): 4.6 Persistence Factor: 0.7 Analysis Year: 2002 Roadway Data Intersection: PCH/Seapointe Ave. Analysis Condition: Existing Traffic Volumes No.of Average Speed Roadway Type Lanes A.M. P.M. North-South Roadway: Seapointe Avenue At Grade 4 20 20 East-West Roadway: Pacific Coast Highway At Grade 4 20 20 A.M.Peak Hour Traffic Volumes P.M.Peak Hour Traffic Volumes . N N 314 0 81 226 0 95 W < v > E W < v > E 141 A A 28 336 A A 185 1,645 > < 1,421 1,727> < 1,606 0v v 0 0v v 0 < A > < A > 0 0 0 0 0 0 S S Highest Traffic Volumes(Vehicles per Hour) N-S Road: 564 N-S Road: 842 E-W Road: 3,521 E-W Road: 3,895 Roadway CO Contributions and Concentrations Emissions=(A x B x C)/100,0001 Al A2 A3 B C Reference CO Concentrations Traffic Emission Estimated CO Concentrations Roadway 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet Volume Factors' 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet A.M.Peak Traffic Hour North-South Road 2.6 2.2 1.7 564 9.33 0.14 0.12 0.09 East-West Road 7.0 5.4 3.8 3,521 9.33 2.30 1.77 1.25 , P.M.Peak Traffic Hour North-South Road 2.6 2.2 1.7 842 9.33 0.20 0.17 0.13 East-West Road 7.0 5.4 3.8 3,895 9.33 2.54 1.96 1.38 'Methodology and emission factors from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). '- Total Roadway CO Concentrations Peak Hour Emissions=North-South Concentration+East-West Concentration+Background 1-hour Concentration2 8-Hour Emissions=((Highest Peak Hour Concentration-Background 1-hour Concentration)x Persistence Factor)+Background 8-hour Concentration2 A.M. P.M. Peak Hour Peak Hour 8-Hour 25 Feet from Roadway Edge 10.4 10.7 6.5 50 Feet from Roadway Edge 9.9 10.1 6.1 100 Feet from Roadway Edge 9.3 9.5 5.7 2 Methodology from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). 21.PCH&Seapointe Ave.xls EIP Associates 9/22/03 SIMPLIFIED CALINE4 CARBON MONOXIDE ANALYSIS Project Number: 10261-00 Project Title: Pacific City Background Information Nearest Air Monitoring Station measuring CO: Costa Mesa-Mesa Verde Drive Background 1-hour CO Concentration(ppm): 8.0 Background 8-hour CO Concentration(ppm): 4.6 Persistence Factor: 0.7 Analysis Year: 2002 , Roadway Data Intersection: PCH/Wamer Ave. Analysis Condition: Existing Traffic Volumes No.of Average Speed Roadway Type Lanes A.M. P.M. North-South Roadway: Warner Avenue At Grade 4 15 10 East-West Roadway: Pacific Coast Highway • At Grade 4 15 10 A.M.Peak Hour Traffic Volumes P.M.Peak Hour Traffic Volumes N N 486 77 452 548 36 267 W < v > E W < v > E 6A A 7 36A A 43 1,676> < 1,381 1,834 > < 1,621 264 v v 526 258 v v 692 < A > < A > 8 85 8 18 79 31 S S Highest Traffic Volumes(Vehicles per Hour) N-S Road: 1,113 N-S Road: 1,114 E-W Road: 4,050 E-W Road: 4,488 Roadway CO Contributions and Concentrations i Emissions=(A x B x C)/100,0001 I Ai A2 A3 B C Reference CO Concentrations Traffic Emission Estimated CO Concentrations Roadway 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet Volume Factors' 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet A.M.Peak Traffic Hour North-South Road 2.6 2.2 1.7 1,113 12.31 0.36 0.30 0.23 East-West Road 7.0 5.4 3.8 4,050 12.31 3.49 2.69 1.89 P.M.Peak Traffic Hour North-South Road 2.6 2.2 1.7 1,114 18.24 0.53 0.45 0.35 East-West Road 7.0 5.4 3.8 4,488 18.24 5.73 4.42 3.11 1 Methodology and emission factors from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). Total Roadway CO Concentrations Peak Hour Emissions=North-South Concentration+East-West Concentration+Background 1-hour Concentration2 8-Hour Emissions=((Highest Peak Hour Concentration-Background 1-hour Concentration)x Persistence Factor)+Background 8-hour Concentration2 A.M. P.M. Peak Hour Peak Hour 8-Hour 25 Feet from Roadway Edge 11.8 14.3 9.0 50 Feet from Roadway Edge 11.0 12.9 8.0 100 Feet from Roadway Edge 10.1 11.5 7.0 2 Methodology from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). 22.PCH&Warner Ave.xls EIP Associates 9/22/03 SIMPLIFIED CALINE4 CARBON MONOXIDE ANALYSIS Project Number: 10261-00 Project Title: Pacific City ' Background Information Nearest Air Monitoring Station measuring CO: Costa Mesa-Mesa Verde Drive Background 1-hour CO Concentration(ppm): 8.0 Background 8-hour CO Concentration(ppm): 4.6 Persistence Factor 0.7 Analysis Year 2002 Roadway Data Intersection: PCH/Brookhurst St. Analysis Condition: Existing Traffic Volumes No.of Average Speed • Roadway Type Lanes A.M. P.M. North-South Roadway: Brookhurst Street At Grade 4 20 20 East-West Roadway: Pacific Coast Highway At Grade 6 20 20 A.M.Peak Hour Traffic Volumes P.M.Peak Hour Traffic Volumes N N 85 6 552 128 4 247 W < v > E W < v > E 181 ^ ^ 159 223 ^ A 635 2,365 > < 826 1,094> < 2,390 2v v 4 4v v 7 < A > < A • > 3 4 4 8 7 4 S S Highest Traffic Volumes(Vehicles per Hour) N-S Road: 987 N-S Road: 1,244 E-W Road: 3,910 E-W Road: 4,377 Roadway CO Contributions and Concentrations Emissions=(A x B x C)/100,0001 Al A2 A3 B C Reference CO Concentrations Traffic Emission Estimated CO Concentrations Roadway 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet Volume Factors' 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet A.M.Peak Traffic Hour North-South Road 2.6 2.2 1.7 987 9.33 0.24 0.20 0.16 East-West Road 6.1 4.9 3.5 3,910 9.33 2.23 1.79 1.28 P.M.Peak Traffic Hour _ North-South Road 2.6 2.2 1.7 1,244 9.33 0.30 0.26 0.20 East-West Road 6.1 4.9 3.5 4,377 9.33 2.49 2.00 1.43 - t Methodology and emission factors from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). Total Roadway CO Concentrations Peak Hour Emissions=North-South Concentration+East-West Concentration+Background 1-hour Concentration2 8-Hour Emissions=((Highest Peak Hour Concentration-Background 1-hour Concentration)x Persistence Factor)+Background 8-hour Concentration2 A.M. P.M. Peak Hour Peak Hour 8-Hour 25 Feet from Roadway Edge 10.5 10.8 6.6 50 Feet from Roadway Edge 10.0 10.3 6.2 100 Feet from Roadway Edge 9.4 9.6 5.7 2 Methodology from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). 23. PCH&Brookhurst St.xls EIP Associates 9/22/03 r 1 SIMPLIFIED CALINE4 CARBON MONOXIDE ANALYSIS 1 Project Number: 10261-00 Project Title: Pacific City Background Information Nearest Air Monitoring Station measuring CO: Costa Mesa-Mesa Verde Drive Background 1-hour CO Concentration(ppm): 8.0 Background 8-hour CO Concentration(ppm): 4.6 Persistence Factor: 0.7 Analysis Year: 2002 Roadway Data Intersection: Main St./Adams Ave. Analysis Condition: Existing Traffic Volumes No.of Average Speed Roadway Type Lanes A.M. P.M. North-South Roadway: Main Street At Grade 2 20 20 East-West Roadway: Adams Avenue At Grade 4 20 20 A.M.Peak Hour Traffic Volumes P.M.Peak Hour Traffic Volumes i N N l 5 194 46 _ 4 500 94 W < v > E W < v > E 6A A 27 4A A 58 178 > < 127 150 > < 188 1 11 v v 53 16 v v 137 < A > < A > 8 267 151 1 389 100 S S Highest Traffic Volumes(Vehicles per Hour) N-S Road: 684 N-S Road: 1,143 ' E-W Road: 582 E-W Road: 727 Roadway CO Contributions and Concentrations Emissions=(A x B x C)/100,0001 Ai A2 A3 B C Reference CO Concentrations Traffic Emission Estimated CO Concentrations • Roadway 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet Volume Factors 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet A.M.Peak Traffic Hour North-South Road 7.6 5.7 4.0 684 9.33 0.49 0.36 0.26 East-West Road 2.6 2.2 1.7 582 9.33 0.14 0.12 0.09 P.M.Peak Traffic Hour North-South Road 7.6 5.7 4.0 1,143 9.33 0.81 0.61 0.43 East-West Road 2.6 2.2 1.7 727 9.33 0.18 0.15 0.12 Methodology and emission factors from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). Total Roadway CO Concentrations Peak Hour Emissions=North-South Concentration+East-West Concentration+Background 1-hour Concentration2 8-Hour Emissions=((Highest Peak Hour Concentration-Background 1-hour Concentration)x Persistence Factor)+Background 8-hour Concentration2 A.M. P.M. Peak Hour Peak Hour 8-Hour 25 Feet from Roadway Edge 8.6 9.0 5.3 50 Feet from Roadway Edge 8.5 8.8 5.1 100 Feet from Roadway Edge 8.3 8.5 5.0 2 Methodology from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). 24.Main St.&Adams Ave.xls EIP Associates 9/22/03 SIMPLIFIED CALINE4 CARBON MONOXIDE ANALYSIS Project Number: 10261-00 Project Title: Pacific City i Background Information Nearest Air Monitoring Station measuring CO: Costa Mesa-Mesa Verde Drive Background 1-hour CO Concentration(ppm): 8.0 Background 8-hour CO Concentration(ppm): 4.6 Persistence Factor: 0.7 Analysis Year: 2002 Roadway Data Intersection: Main St./Utica Ave. Analysis Condition: Existing Traffic Volumes • No.of Average Speed Roadway Type Lanes A.M. P.M. North-South Roadway: Main Street At Grade 2 20 20 East-West Roadway: Utica Avenue At Grade 4 20 20 A.M.Peak Hour Traffic Volumes P.M.Peak Hour Traffic Volumes N N 8 274 36 7 828 42 W < v > E W < v > E 6A A 28 5A A 16 1 > < 3 2> < 1 2v v 8 2v v 15 < A > < A > - - 6 397 0 1 593 0 S S Highest Traffic Volumes(Vehicles per Hour) N-S Road: 749 N-S Road: 1,491 E-W Road: 76 E-W Road: 76 Roadway CO Contributions and Concentrations Emissions=(A x B x C)/100,0001 Ai A2 A3 B C Reference CO Concentrations Traffic Emission Estimated CO Concentrations Roadway 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet Volume Factors' 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet A.M.Peak Traffic Hour North-South Road 7.6 5.7 4.0 749 9.33 0.53 0.40 0.28 East-West Road 2.6 2.2 1.7 76 9.33 0.02 0.02 0.01 P.M.Peak Traffic Hour North-South Road 7.6 5.7 4.0 1,491 9.33 1.06 0.79 0.56 East-West Road 2.6 2.2 1.7 76 9.33 0.02 0.02 0.01 'Methodology and emission factors from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). Total Roadway CO Concentrations Peak Hour Emissions=North-South Concentration+East-West Concentration+Background 1-hour Concentration2 8-Hour Emissions=((Highest Peak Hour Concentration-Background 1-hour Concentration)x Persistence Factor)+Background 8-hour Concentration2 A.M. P.M. Peak Hour Peak Hour 8-Hour 25 Feet from Roadway Edge 8.5 9.1 5.4 50 Feet from Roadway Edge 8.4 8.8 5.2 100 Feet from Roadway Edge 8.3 8.6 5.0 2 Methodology from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). 25.Main St.&Utica Ave.xls EIP Associates 9/22/03 SIMPLIFIED CALINE4 CARBON MONOXIDE ANALYSIS Project Number: 10261-00 Project Title: Pacific City Background Information Nearest Air Monitoring Station measuring CO: Costa Mesa-Mesa Verde Drive Background 1-hour CO Concentration(ppm): 8.0 Background 8-hour CO Concentration(ppm): 4.6 Persistence Factor: 0.7 - Analysis Year: 2002 Roadway Data Intersection: Lake St./Adams Ave. -- Analysis Condition: Existing Traffic Volumes No.of Average Speed Roadway Type Lanes A.M. P.M. North-South Roadway: Lake Street At Grade 2 20 20 East-West Roadway: Adams Avenue At Grade 4 20 20 A.M.Peak Hour Traffic Volumes P.M.Peak Hour Traffic Volumes N N 6 94 68 27 153 138 W < v > E W < v > E 2A A 84 6A A 141 398 > < 178 321 > < 351 • 6 v v 64 11 v v 155 < A > < A > 6 125 123 15 178 112 S S Highest Traffic Volumes(Vehicles per Hour) N-S Road: 418 N-S Road: 643 E-W Road: 915 E-W Road: 1,218 _ Roadway CO Contributions and Concentrations Emissions=(A x B x C)/100,0001 i Ai A2 A3 B C Reference CO Concentrations Traffic Emission Estimated CO Concentrations Roadway 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet Volume Factors' 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet A.M.Peak Traffic Hour North-South Road 2.7 2.2 1.7 418 9.33 0.11 0.09 0.07 East-West Road 7.0 5.4 3.8 915 9.33 0.60 0.46 0.32 P.M.Peak Traffic Hour North-South Road . 2.7 2.2 1.7 643 9.33 0.16 0.13 0.10 East-West Road 7.0 5.4 3.8 1,218 9.33 0.80 0.61 0.43 'Methodology and emission factors from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). Total Roadway CO Concentrations Peak Hour Emissions=North-South Concentration+East-West Concentration+Background 1-hour Concentration2 8-Hour Emissions=((Highest Peak Hour Concentration-Background 1-hour Concentration)x Persistence Factor)+Background 8-hour Concentration2 A.M. P.M. Peak Hour Peak Hour 8-Hour 25 Feet from Roadway Edge 8.7 9.0 5.3 50 Feet from Roadway Edge •8.5 8.7 5.1 { 100 Feet from Roadway Edge 8.4 8.5 5.0 2 Methodology from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). 26.Lake St.&Adams Ave.xls EIP Associates 9/22/03 SIMPLIFIED CALINE4 CARBON MONOXIDE ANALYSIS Project Number: 10261-00 Project Title: Pacific City Background Information Nearest Air Monitoring Station measuring CO: Costa Mesa-Mesa Verde Drive Background 1-hour CO Concentration(ppm): 8.0 _- Background 8-hour CO Concentration(ppm): 4.6 Persistence Factor: 0.7 Analysis Year: 2002 Roadway Data , Intersection: Lake St./Yorktown Ave. Analysis Condition: Existing Traffic Volumes No.of Average Speed -- Roadway Type Lanes A.M. P.M. North-South Roadway: Lake Street At Grade 2 20 20 East-West Roadway: Yorktown At Grade 4 20 20 ' A.M.Peak Hour Traffic Volumes P.M.Peak Hour Traffic Volumes N N 41 31 17 23 23 12 W < v > E W < v > E 9 A A 17 50 A A 25 273 > < 284 _ 414 > < 339 97 v v 52 222 v v 91 < A > < A > 147 7 73 214 20 104 S S Highest Traffic Volumes(Vehicles per Hour) 1 N-S Road: 407 N-S Road: 674 E-W Road: 851 E-W Road: 1,262 Roadway CO Contributions and Concentrations Emissions=(A x B x C)/100,0001 i At A2 A3 B C Reference CO Concentrations Traffic Emission Estimated CO Concentrations • Roadway 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet Volume Factors' 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet A.M.Peak Traffic Hour North-South Road 2.7 2.2 1.7 407 9.33 0.10 0.08 0.06 East-West Road 7.0 5.4 3.8 851 9.33 0.56 0.43 0.30 P.M.Peak Traffic Hour North-South Road 2.7 2.2 1.7 674 9.33 0.17 0.14 0.11 East-West Road 7.0 5.4 3.8 1,262 9.33 0.82 0.64 0.45 -- 1 Methodology and emission factors from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). 1 Total Roadway CO Concentrations Peak Hour Emissions=North-South Concentration+East-West Concentration+Background 1-hour Concentration2 8-Hour Emissions=((Highest Peak Hour Concentration-Background 1-hour Concentration)x Persistence Factor)+Background 8-hour Concentration2 A.M. P.M. Peak Hour Peak Hour 8-Hour 25 Feet from Roadway Edge 8.7 9.0 5.3 50 Feet from Roadway Edge 8.5 8.8 5.1 100 Feet from Roadway Edge 8.4 8.6 5.0 2 Methodology from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). 27. Lake St.&Yorktown Ave.xls EIP Associates 9/22/03 SIMPLIFIED CALINE4 CARBON MONOXIDE ANALYSIS , Project Number: 10261-00 Project Title: Pacific City Background Information Nearest Air Monitoring Station measuring CO: Costa Mesa-Mesa Verde Drive Background 1-hour CO Concentration(ppm): 8.0 i Background 8-hour CO Concentration(ppm): 4.6 Persistence Factor: 0.7 Analysis Year: 2002 Roadway Data Intersection: Beach Blvd./Yorktown Ave. i Analysis Condition: Existing Traffic Volumes No.of Average Speed Roadway Type Lanes A.M. P.M. North-South Roadway: Beach Boulevard At Grade 6, 15 15 East-West Roadway: Yorktown Avenue At Grade 4 15 15 A.M.Peak Hour Traffic Volumes P.M.Peak Hour Traffic Volumes N N , 83 1,397 141 189 1,570 224 W < v > E W < v > , E 137 A A 147 142 A A 107 430> < 394 323> < 278 212 v v 93 105 v v 127 < A > < A > 82 1,142 92 160 1,345 145 S S Highest Traffic Volumes(Vehicles per Hour) N-S Road: 3,047 N-S Road: 3,577 E-W Road: 1,338 E-W Road: 1,204 Roadway CO Contributions and Concentrations Emissions=(A x B x C)/100,0001 Ai A2 A3 B C Reference CO Concentrations Traffic Emission Estimated CO Concentrations Roadway 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet Volume Factors' 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet A.M.Peak Traffic Hour North-South Road 6.1 4.9 3.5 3,047 12.31 2.29 1.84 1.31 East-West Road 2.6 2.2 1.7 1,338 12.31 0.43 0.36 0.28 P.M.Peak Traffic Hour North-South Road 6.1 4.9 3.5 3,577 12.31 2.69 2.16 1.54 East-West Road 2.6 2.2 1.7 1,204 12.31 0.39 0.33 0.25 'Methodology and emission factors from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). Total Roadway CO Concentrations Peak Hour Emissions=North-South Concentration+East-West Concentration+Background 1-hour Concentration2 8-Hour Emissions=((Highest Peak Hour Concentration-Background 1-hour Concentration)x Persistence Factor)+Background 8-hour Concentration2 A.M. P.M. Peak Hour Peak Hour 8-Hour 25 25 Feet from Roadway Edge 10.7 11.1 6.7 50 Feet from Roadway Edge 10.2 10.5 6.3 100 Feet from Roadway Edge 9.6 9.8 5.9 2 Methodology from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). 28.Beach Blvd.&Yorktown Ave.xls EIP Associates 9/22/03 ' i SIMPLIFIED CALINE4 CARBON MONOXIDE ANALYSIS Project Number: 10261-00 Project Title: Pacific City Background Information Nearest Air Monitoring Station measuring CO: Costa Mesa-Mesa Verde Drive Background 1-hour CO Concentration(ppm): 8.0 Background 8-hour CO Concentration(ppm): 4.6 Persistence Factor: 0.7 Analysis Year: 2002 Roadway Data Intersection: Beach Blvd./Garfield Ave. Analysis Condition: Existing Traffic Volumes No.of Average Speed Roadway Type Lanes A.M. P.M. North-South Roadway: Beach Boulevard At Grade 6 15 15 East-West Roadway: Garfield Avenue At Grade 4 15 15 , A.M.Peak Hour Traffic Volumes P.M.Peak Hour Traffic Volumes N N 84 1,441 133 136 1,676 215 W < v > E W < v > E 184 A " 181 193 A " 145 538 > < 383 485> < 392 217 v v 108 141 v v 184 < A > < A > 118 1,304 95 202 1,439 113 S S Highest Traffic Volumes(Vehicles per Hour) i N-S Road: 3,327 N-S Road: 3,804 E-W Road: 1,524 E-W Road: 1,549 • Roadway CO Contributions and Concentrations Emissions=(A x B x C)/100,0001 Ai A2 A3 B C Reference CO Concentrations Traffic Emission Estimated CO Concentrations Roadway 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet Volume Factors' 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet 1 A.M.Peak Traffic Hour North-South Road 6.1 4.9 3.5 3,327 12.31 2.50 2.01 1.43 East-West Road 2.6 2.2 1.7 1,524 12.31 0.49 0.41 0.32 P.M.Peak Traffic Hour North-South Road 6.1 4.9 3.5 3,804 12.31 2.86 2.29 1.64 East-West Road 2.6 2.2 1.7 1,549 12.31 0.50 0.42 0.32 'Methodology and emission factors from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). Total Roadway CO Concentrations Peak Hour Emissions=North-South Concentration+East-West Concentration+Background 1-hour Concentration2 8-Hour Emissions=((Highest Peak Hour Concentration-Background 1-hour Concentration)x Persistence Factor)+Background 8-hour Concentration2 A.M. P.M. Peak Hour Peak Hour 8-Hour 25 Feet from Roadway Edge 11.0 11.4 6.9 50 Feet from Roadway Edge 10.4 10.7 6.5 100 Feet from Roadway Edge 9.8 10.0 6.0 2 Methodology from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). 29.Beach Blvd.&Garfield Ave.xls EIP Associates 9/22/03 SIMPLIFIED CALINE4 CARBON MONOXIDE ANALYSIS Project Number: 10261-00 Project Title: Pacific City Background Information Nearest Air Monitoring Station measuring CO: Costa Mesa-Mesa Verde Drive Background 1-hour CO Concentration(ppm): 8.0 Background 8-hour CO Concentration(ppm): 4.6 Persistence Factor: 0.7 Analysis Year: 2002 Roadway Data Intersection: Beach Blvd./Ellis Ave.-Main St. Analysis Condition: Existing Traffic Volumes No.of Average Speed Roadway Type Lanes A.M. P.M. North-South Roadway: Beach Boulevard At Grade 6 15 15 East-West Roadway: Ellis Avenue-Main Street At Grade 2 15 15 • A.M.Peak Hour Traffic Volumes P.M.Peak Hour Traffic Volumes N N 311 1,378 212 564 1,623 318 --- W < v > E W < v > E 336 A A 162 423 A A 165 422> < 298 430 > < 450 88 v v 85 133 v v 117 < A > -- < A > 78 1,461 122 145 1,581 148 S S Highest Traffic Volumes(Vehicles per Hour) N-S Road: 3,860 N-S Road: 4,674 E-W Road: 1,533 E-W Road: 2,145 Roadway CO Contributions and Concentrations Emissions=(A x B x C)/100,0001 At A2 A3 B C Reference CO Concentrations Traffic Emission Estimated CO Concentrations Roadway 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet Volume Factors' 25 Feet 50 Feet' 100 Feet A.M.Peak Traffic Hour North-South Road 6.1 4.9 3.5 3,860 12.31 2.90 2.33 1.66 East-West Road 2.7 2.2 1.7 1,533 12.31 0.51 0.42 0.32 P.M.Peak Traffic Hour North-South Road 6.1 4.9 3.5 4,674 12.31 3.51 2.82 2.01 East-West Road 2.7 2.2 1.7 2,145 12.31 0.71 0.58 0.45 Methodology and emission factors from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). Total Roadway CO Concentrations Peak Hour Emissions=North-South Concentration+East-West Concentration+Background 1-hour Concentration2 8-Hour Emissions=((Highest Peak Hour Concentration-Background 1-hour Concentration)x Persistence Factor)+Background 8-hour Concentration2 A.M. P.M. Peak Hour Peak Hour 8-Hour 25 Feet from Roadway Edge 11.4 12.2 7.6 50 Feet from Roadway Edge 10.7 11.4 7.0 100 Feet from Roadway Edge 10.0 10.5 6.3 2 Methodology from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). 30.Beach Blvd.&Ellis Ave.-Main St.xls EIP Associates 9/22/03 SIMPLIFIED CALINE4 CARBON MONOXIDE ANALYSIS _ Project Number: 10261-00 Project Title: Pacific City Background Information Nearest Air Monitoring Station measuring CO: Costa Mesa-Mesa Verde Drive Background 1-hour CO Concentration(ppm): 5.8 Background 8-hour CO Concentration(ppm): 4 7 Persistence Factor: 0.7 Analysis Year: 2010 Roadway Data Intersection: Goldenwest St./Pacific Coast Highway Analysis Condition: Future Plus Project Traffic Volumes - No.of Average Speed Roadway Type Lanes A.M. P.M. North-South Roadway: Goldenwest Street At Grade 4 20 15 _ East-West Roadway: Pacific Coast Highway At Grade 6 20 15 A.M.Peak Hour Traffic Volumes P.M.Peak Hour Traffic Volumes N N 293 0 r 374 186 0 310 W < v > E W < v > E 190 A A 173 325 A A 343 1,594 > < 1,500 1,592 > < 1,717 -- 1 v v 17 0v v 17 , < A > < A > 0 0 0 0 0 0 S S Highest Traffic Volumes(Vehicles per Hour) N-S Road: 1,030 N-S Road: 1,164 E-W Road: 3,658 E-W Road: 3,979 Roadway CO Contributions and Concentrations Emissions=(A x B x C)/100,0001 Ai A2 A3 B C Reference CO Concentrations Traffic Emission Estimated CO Concentrations Roadway 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet Volume Factors' 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet A.M.Peak Traffic Hour North-South Road 2.6 2.2 1.7 1,030 5.52 0.15 0.13 0.10 East-West Road 6.1 4.9 3.5 3,658 5.52 1.23 0.99 0.71 P.M.Peak Traffic Hour North-South Road 2.6 2.2 1.7 1,164 7.30 0.22 0.19 0.14 East-West Road 6.1 4.9 3.5 3,979 7.30 1.77 1 42 1.02 'Methodology and emission factors from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). ,__� Total Roadway CO Concentrations Peak Hour Emissions=North-South Concentration+East-West Concentration+Background 1-hour Concentration2 8-Hour Emissions=((Highest Peak Hour Concentration-Background 1-hour Concentration)x Persistence Factor)+Background 8-hour Concentration2 A.M. P.M. Peak Hour Peak Hour 8-Hour 25 Feet from Roadway Edge 7.2 7.8 6.1 50 Feet from Roadway Edge 6.9 7.4 5.8 100 Feet from Roadway Edge 6.6 7.0 5.5 2 Methodology from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). 01 Goldenwest St.&PCH.xls EIP Associates 9/22/03 SIMPLIFIED CALINE4 CARBON MONOXIDE ANALYSIS Project Number: 10261-00 Project Title: Pacific City Background Information Nearest Air Monitoring Station measuring CO: Costa Mesa-Mesa Verde Drive Background 1-hour CO Concentration(ppm): 5.8 , Background 8-hour CO Concentration(ppm): 4.7 Persistence Factor: 0.7 Analysis Year: 2010 Roadway Data Intersection: 17th St./Pacific Coast Highway Analysis Condition: Future Plus Project Traffic Volumes No.of Average Speed Roadway Type Lanes A.M. P.M. North-South Roadway: 17th Street At Grade 2 20 20 East-West Roadway: Pacific Coast Highway At Grade 6 20 20 A.M.Peak Hour Traffic Volumes P.M.Peak Hour Traffic Volumes N N 153 0 132 _ 68 0 7.9 W < v > E W < v > E 137 ^ ^ 47 139 ^ A 74 1,832 > < 1,532 1,827> < 1,960 0v v 0 Ov v 0 < A > < A • > 0 0 0 0 0 0 S S . Highest Traffic Volumes(Vehicles per Hour) N-S Road: 469 N-S Road: 360 ' E-W Road: 3,654 E-W Road: 3,994 Roadway CO Contributions and Concentrations Emissions=(A x B x C)/100,0001 - Al A2 A3 B C Reference CO Concentrations Traffic Emission Estimated CO Concentrations Roadway 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet Volume Factors 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet A.M.Peak Traffic Hour North-South Road 2.7 2.2 1.7 469 5.52 0.07 0.06 0.04 East-West Road 6.1 4.9 3.5 3,654 5.52 1.23 0.99 0.71 P.M.Peak Traffic Hour North-South Road 2.7 2.2 1.7 360 5.52 0.05 0.04 0.03 East-West Road 6.1 4.9 3.5 3,994 5.52 1.34 1.08 0.77 Methodology and emission factors from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). Total Roadway CO Concentrations Peak Hour Emissions=North-South Concentration+East-West Concentration+Background 1-hour Concentration2 8-Hour Emissions=((Highest Peak Hour Concentration-Background 1-hour Concentration)x Persistence Factor)+Background 8-hour Concentration2 A.M. P.M. Peak Hour Peak Hour 8-Hour 25 Feet from Roadway Edge 7.1 7.2 5.7 50 Feet from Roadway Edge 6.8 6.9 5.5 100 Feet from Roadway Edge 6.5 6.6 5.3 2 Methodology from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). i 02. 17th St.&PCH.xls EIP Associates 9/22/03 SIMPLIFIED CALINE4 CARBON MONOXIDE ANALYSIS Project Number: 10261-00 Project Title: Pacific City Background Information Nearest Air Monitoring Station measuring CO. Costa Mesa-Mesa Verde Drive Background 1-hour CO Concentration(ppm): 5.8 Background 8-hour CO Concentration(ppm): 4.7 , Persistence Factor: 0.7 Analysis Year: 2010 Roadway Data Intersection: 9th St./Pacific Coast Highway Analysis Condition: Future Plus Project Traffic Volumes No.of __Average Speed Roadway Type Lanes A.M. P.M. North-South Roadway: 9th Street At Grade 2 20 20 East-West Roadway: Pacific Coast Highway At Grade 6 20 20 A.M.Peak Hour Traffic Volumes P.M.Peak Hour Traffic Volumes . N N 36 0 59 21 0 34 W < v > y E W < v > E 36A A 21 25A A 40 1,980> < 1,604 1,911 > < 2,081 Ov v 0 Ov v 0 < A > < A > 0 0 0 0 0 0 S S Highest Traffic Volumes(Vehicles per Hour) N-S Road: 152 N-S Road: 120 E-W Road: 3,664 E-W Road: 4,066 Roadway CO Contributions and Concentrations Emissions=(A x B x C)/100,0001 AI A2 A3 B C Reference CO Concentrations Traffic Emission Estimated CO Concentrations Roadway 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet Volume Factors' 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet A.M.Peak Traffic Hour North-South Road 2.7 2.2 1.7 152 5.52 0.02 0.02 0.01 East-West Road 6.1 4.9 3.5 3,664 5.52 1.23 0.99 0.71 P.M.Peak Traffic Hour North-South Road 2.7 2.2 1.7 120 5.52 0.02 0.01 0.01 East-West Road 6.1 4.9 3.5 4,066 5.52 1.37 1.10 0.79 'Methodology and emission factors from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). Total Roadway CO Concentrations Peak Hour Emissions=North-South Concentration+East-West Concentration+Background 1-hour Concentration2 8-Hour Emissions=((Highest Peak Hour Concentration-Background 1-hour Concentration)x Persistence Factor)+Background 8-hour Concentration2 A.M. P.M. Peak Hour Peak Hour 8-Hour 25 Feet from Roadway Edge 7.1 7.2 5.7 50 Feet from Roadway Edge 6.8 6.9 5.5 100 Feet from Roadway Edge 6.5 6.6 5.3 2 Methodology from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). 03.9th St.&PCH.xls EIP Associates 9/22/03 SIMPLIFIED CALINE4 CARBON MONOXIDE ANALYSIS Project Number: 10261-00 Project Title: Pacific City Background Information Nearest Air Monitoring Station measuring CO: Costa Mesa-Mesa Verde Drive Background 1-hour CO Concentration(ppm): 5.8 Background 8-hour CO Concentration(ppm): 4.7 Persistence Factor: 0.7 Analysis Year 2010 , Roadway Data Intersection: 6th St./Pacific Coast Highway Analysis Condition: Future Plus Project Traffic Volumes No.of Average Speed Roadway Type Lanes A.M. P.M. North-South Roadway: 6th Street At Grade 2 20 20 East-West Roadway: Pacific Coast Highway 4 At Grade 6 20 20 A.M.Peak Hour Traffic Volumes P.M.Peak Hour Traffic Volumes NI N 97 11 100 137 28 142 W < v > E W < v > E 104 A ^ 109 _ 142 A A 153 1,894> < 1,183 1,658> < 1,995 32 v v 44 58 v v 79 < A > < A > 19 15 34 35 18 40 S S Highest Traffic Volumes(Vehicles per Hour) N-S Road: 436 N-S Road: 620 E-W Road: 3,364 E-W Road: 4,067 Roadway CO Contributions and Concentrations Emissions=(A x B x C)/100,0001 Ai A2 A3 B C Reference CO Concentrations Traffic Emission Estimated CO Concentrations Roadway 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet Volume Factors' 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet A.M.Peak Traffic Hour North-South Road 2.7 2.2 1.7 436 5.52 0.06 0.05 0.04 East-West Road 6.1 4.9 3.5 3,364 5.52 1.13 0.91 0.65 P.M.Peak Traffic Hour North-South Road 2.7 2.2 1.7 620 5.52 0.09 0.08 0.06 East-West Road 6.1 4.9 3.5 4,067 5.52 1.37 1.10 0.79 'Methodology and emission factors from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). Total Roadway CO Concentrations Peak Hour Emissions=North-South Concentration+East-West Concentration+Background 1-hour Concentration2 8-Hour Emissions=((Highest Peak Hour Concentration-Background 1-hour Concentration)x Persistence Factor)+Background 8-hour Concentration2 A.M. P.M. Peak Hour Peak Hour 8-Hour 25 Feet from Roadway Edge 7.0 7.3 5.7 50 Feet from Roadway Edge 6.8 7.0 5.5 100 Feet from Roadway Edge 6.5 6.6 5.3 2 Methodology from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). 04.6th St.&PCH.xls ElP Associates 9/22/03 SIMPLIFIED CALINE4 CARBON MONOXIDE ANALYSIS Project Number: 10261-00 Project Title: Pacific City Background Information Nearest Air Monitoring Station measuring CO: Costa Mesa-Mesa Verde Drive Background 1-hour CO Concentration(ppm): 5.8 Background 8-hour CO Concentration(ppm): 4.7 Persistence Factor: 0.7 ' Analysis Year: 2010 Roadway Data Intersection: Main St./6th St. Analysis Condition: Future Plus Project Traffic Volumes No.of Average Speed Roadway Type Lanes A.M. P.M. North-South Roadway: Main Street At Grade 2 20 20 East-West Roadway: 6th St. At Grade 2 20 20 , A.M.Peak Hour Traffic Volumes P.M.Peak Hour Traffic Volumes N N 57 165 9 73 292 42 W < v > E W < v > E 48 A A 14 66 A A 21 65 > < 80 78 > < 74 6 v v 35 14 v v 41 < A > c A .> 11 156 36 10 347 61 S S Highest Traffic Volumes(Vehicles per Hour) N-S Road: 449 N-S Road: 841 E-W Road: 267 E-W Road: 317 Roadway CO Contributions and Concentrations Emissions=(A x B x C)/100,0001 , Ai A2 A3 B C Reference CO Concentrations Traffic Emission Estimated CO Concentrations Roadway 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet Volume Factors' 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet A.M.Peak Traffic Hour North-South Road 7.6 5.7 4.0 449 5.52 0.19 0.14 0.10 East-West Road , 2.7 2.2 1.7 267 5.52 0.04 0.03 0.03 P.M.Peak Traffic Hour North-South Road 7.6 5.7 4.0 841 5.52 0.35 0.26 0.19 East-West Road 2.7 2.2 1.7 317 5.52 0.05 0.04 0.03 'Methodology and emission factors from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). _. Total Roadway CO Concentrations Peak Hour Emissions=North-South Concentration+East-West Concentration+Background 1-hour Concentration2 8-Hour Emissions=((Highest Peak Hour Concentration-Background 1-hour Concentration)x Persistence Factor)+Background 8-hour Concentration2 A.M. P.M. Peak Hour Peak Hour 8-Hour 25 Feet from Roadway Edge 6.0 6.2 5.0 50 Feet from Roadway Edge 6.0 6.1 4.9 100 Feet from Roadway Edge 5.9 6.0 4.9 , 2 Methodology from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). 05.Main St.&6th St.xls EIP Associates 9/22/03 SIMPLIFIED CALINE4 CARBON MONOXIDE ANALYSIS Project Number: 10261-00 Project Title: Pacific City i Background Information Nearest Air Monitoring Station measuring CO: Costa Mesa-Mesa Verde Drive , Background 1-hour CO Concentration(ppm): 5.8 Background 8-hour CO Concentration(ppm): 4.7 Persistence Factor: 0.7 Analysis Year: 2010 Roadway Data Intersection: Main St./PCH Analysis Condition: Future Plus Project Traffic Volumes No.of Average Speed Roadway Type Lanes A.M. P.M. North-South Roadway: Main Street At Grade 2 20 15 East-West Roadway: Pacific Coast Highway At Grade 6 20 15 A.M.Peak Hour Traffic Volumes P.M.Peak Hour Traffic Volumes N N 57 0 48 117 0 89 W < v > E W < v > E 58A A 55 147A A 161 1,985> < 1,246 1,752> < 1,989 0v v 3 0v v 3 < A > < A > 0 0 3 0 0 4 , S' S, Highest Traffic Volumes(Vehicles per Hour) N-S Road: 218 N-S Road: 514 E-W Road: 3,346 E-W Road: 4,005 Roadway CO Contributions and Concentrations Emissions=(A x B x C)/100,0001 Ai A2 A3 B C Reference CO Concentrations Traffic Emission Estimated CO Concentrations Roadway 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet Volume Factors' 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet A.M.Peak Traffic Hour North-South Road 2.7 2.2 1.7 218 5.52 0.03 0.03 0.02 East-West Road 6.1 4.9 3.5 3,346 5.52 1.13 0.91 0.65 P.M.Peak Traffic Hour North-South Road 2.7 2.2 - 1.7 514 7.30 0.10 0.08 0.06 East-West Road 6.1 4.9 3.5 4,005 7.30 1.78 1.43 1.02 'Methodology and emission factors from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). Total Roadway CO Concentrations Peak Hour Emissions=North-South Concentration+East-West Concentration+Background 1-hour Concentration2 8-Hour Emissions=((Highest Peak Hour Concentration-Background 1-hour Concentration)x Persistence Factor)+Background 8-hour Concentration2 A.M. P.M. Peak Hour Peak Hour 8-Hour 25 Feet from Roadway Edge 7.0 7.7 6.0 50 Feet from Roadway Edge 6.7 7.3 5.8 100 Feet from Roadway Edge 6.5 6.9 5.5 2 Methodology from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). 06.Main St.&PCH.xls EIP Associates 9/22/03 SIMPLIFIED CALINE4 CARBON MONOXIDE ANALYSIS Project Number: 10261-00 Project Title: Pacific City Background Information Nearest Air Monitoring Station measuring CO: Costa Mesa-Mesa Verde Drive Background 1-hour CO Concentration(ppm): 5.8 Background 8-hour CO Concentration(ppm): 4.7 Persistence Factor: 0.7 , Analysis Year: 2010 Roadway Data Intersection: 1st St./Atlanta Ave. ' Analysis Condition: Future Plus Project Traffic Volumes No.of Average Speed Roadway Type Lanes A.M. P.M. North-South Roadway: 1st Street At Grade 4 10 10 East-West Roadway: Atlanta Avenue At Grade 4 10 10 A.M.Peak Hour Traffic Volumes P.M.Peak Hour Traffic Volumes N N 0 2 3 0 1 3 W < v > E W < v > E 0" A 0 I A 1 143 > < _ 142 215> < 325 I 75 v v 235 107 v v 204 ' < A > < A > 43 1 142 114 2 204 S S Highest Traffic Volumes(Vehicles per Hour) N-S Road: 498 N-S Road: 632 E-W Road: 665 E-W Road: 952 ' Roadway CO Contributions and Concentrations Emissions=(A x B x C)/100,0001 Ai A2 A3 B C Reference CO Concentrations Traffic Emission Estimated CO Concentrations Roadway 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet Volume Factors' 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet A.M.Peak Traffic Hour ' North-South Road 2.6 2.2 1.7 498 10.78 0.14 0.12 0.09 East-West Road 7.0 5.4 3.8 665 10.78 0.50 0.39 0.27 - , P.M.Peak Traffic Hour North-South Road 2.6 2.2 1.7 632 10.78 0.18 0.15 0.12 East-West Road 7.0 5.4 3.8 952 10.78 0.72 0.55 0.39 Methodology and emission factors from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). Total Roadway CO Concentrations Peak Hour Emissions=North-South Concentration+East-West Concentration+Background 1-hour Concentration2 8-Hour Emissions=((Highest Peak Hour Concentration-Background 1-hour Concentration)x Persistence Factor)+Background 8-hour Concentration2 A.M. P.M. Peak Hour Peak Hour 8-Hour 25 Feet from Roadway Edge 6.4 6.7 5.3 50 Feet from Roadway Edge 6.3 6.5 5.2 100 Feet from Roadway Edge 6.2 6.3 5.1 2 Methodology from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). -" 07. 1st St.&Atlanta Ave.xls ElP Associates 9/22/03 SIMPLIFIED CALINE4 CARBON MONOXIDE ANALYSIS Project Number: 10261-00 Project Title: Pacific City Background Information Nearest Air Monitoring Station measuring CO: Costa Mesa-Mesa Verde Drive Background 1-hour CO Concentration(ppm): 5.8 Background 8-hour CO Concentration(ppm): 4.7 Persistence Factor: 0.7 Analysis Year: 2010 Roadway Data Intersection: 1st St./Atlanta Ave. -- Analysis Condition: Future Plus Project Traffic Volumes _ No.of Average Speed Roadway Type Lanes A.M. P.M. North-South Roadway: 1st Street At Grade 4 10 10 East-West Roadway: Atlanta Avenue At Grade 4 10 10 A.M.Peak Hour Traffic Volumes P.M.Peak Hour Traffic Volumes N N 0 2 3 0 1 3 W < v > E W < v > E 0 A A 0 1 A A 1 143> < 142 215> < 325 • 75 v v 235 107 v v 204 < A > - < A > 43 1 142 114 2 204 S S Highest Traffic Volumes(Vehicles per Hour) N-S Road: 498 N-S Road: 632 E-W Road: 665 E-W Road: 952 Roadway CO Contributions and Concentrations Emissions=(A x B x C)/100,0001 - Al A2 A3 B C Reference CO Concentrations Traffic Emission Estimated CO Concentrations I Roadway 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet Volume Factors 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet A.M.Peak Traffic Hour North-South Road 2.6 2.2 1.7 498 10.78 0.14 0.12 0.09 East-West Road 7.0 5.4 3.8 665 10.78 0.50 0.39 0.27 P.M.Peak Traffic Hour North-South Road 2.6 2.2 1.7 632 10.78 0.18 0.15 0.12 East-West Road 7.0 5.4 3.8 952 10.78 0.72 0.55 0.39 r Methodology and emission factors from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). Total Roadway CO Concentrations Peak Hour Emissions=North-South Concentration+East-West Concentration+Background 1-hour Concentration2 8-Hour Emissions=((Highest Peak Hour Concentration-Background 1-hour Concentration)x Persistence Factor)+Background 8-hour Concentration2 A.M. P.M. Peak Hour Peak Hour _ 8-Hour 25 Feet from Roadway Edge 6.4 6.7 5.3 50 Feet from Roadway Edge 6.3 6.5 5.2 100 Feet from Roadway Edge 6.2 6.3 5.1 2 Methodology from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). 07. 1st St.&Atlanta Ave.xls EIP Associates 9/22/03 SIMPLIFIED CALINE4 CARBON MONOXIDE ANALYSIS Project Number: 10261-00 Project Title: Pacific City Background Information Nearest Air Monitoring Station measuring CO: Costa Mesa-Mesa Verde Drive Background 1-hour CO Concentration(ppm): 5.8 Background 8-hour CO Concentration(ppm): 4.7 Persistence Factor: 0.7 Analysis Year: 2010 Roadway Data Intersection: 1st St./Pacific Coast Highway Analysis Condition: Future Plus Project Traffic Volumes No.of Average Speed Roadway Type Lanes A.M. P.M. North-South Roadway: 1st Street At Grade 4 15 15 East-West Roadway: Pacific Coast Highway At Grade 6 15 15 A.M.Peak Hour Traffic Volumes P.M.Peak Hour Traffic Volumes N N 173 36 94 226 32 88 W < v > E W < v > E 154 A A 55 225 A A 77 1,932> < 1,098 1,530 > < 1,752 16v v 17 14v v 28 , < A > < A > 28 47 14 21 27 31 S S Highest Traffic Volumes(Vehicles per Hour) N-S Road: 559 N-S Road: 675 E-W Road: 3,401 E-W Road: 3,768 Roadway CO Contributions and Concentrations Emissions=(A x B x C)/100,0001 I At A2 A3 B C Reference CO Concentrations Traffic Emission Estimated CO Concentrations • Roadway 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet Volume Factors' 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet A.M.Peak Traffic Hour North-South Road 2.6 2.2 1.7 559 7.30 0.11 0.09 0.07 East-West Road 6.1 4.9 3.5 3,401 7.30 1.51 1.22 0.87 P.M.Peak Traffic Hour - North-South Road 2.6 2.2 1.7 675 7.30 0.13 0.11 0.08 East-West Road 6.1 4.9 3.5 3,768 7.30 1.68 1.35 0.96 1 Methodology and emission factors from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). Total Roadway CO Concentrations , Peak Hour Emissions=North-South Concentration+East-West Concentration+Background 1-hour Concentration2 8-Hour Emissions=((Highest Peak Hour Concentration-Background 1-hour Concentration)x Persistence Factor)+Background 8-hour Concentration2 A.M. P.M. Peak Hour Peak Hour 8-Hour 25 Feet from Roadway Edge 7.4 7.6 6.0 50 Feet from Roadway Edge 7.1 7.3 5.7 100 Feet from Roadway Edge 6.7 6.8 5.4 2 Methodology from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). 08. 1st St.&PCH.xls EIP Associates 9/22/03 SIMPLIFIED CALINE4 CARBON MONOXIDE ANALYSIS Project Number: 10261-00 Project Title: Pacific City i Background Information Nearest Air Monitoring Station measuring CO. Costa Mesa-Mesa Verde Drive Background 1-hour CO Concentration(ppm): 5.8 Background 8-hour CO Concentration(ppm): 4.7 I Persistence Factor: 0.7 Analysis Year: 2010 Roadway Data Intersection: Huntington St./Atlanta Ave. -I Analysis Condition: Future Plus Project Traffic Volumes No.of Average Speed Roadway Type Lanes A.M. P.M. North-South Roadway: Huntington Street At Grade 4 . 10 10 East-West Roadway: Atlanta Avenue At Grade 4 10 10 A.M.Peak Hour Traffic Volumes P.M.Peak Hour Traffic Volumes I N N 36 3 75 34 9 58 -J W < v > E W < v > E 23 A A 24 27 A A 95 297> < 319 414> < 516 9v v 49 17v v 110 < A > < A > 12 5 72 8 9 87 S S 1 Highest Traffic Volumes(Vehicles per Hour) N-S Road: 166 N-S Road: 240 E-W Road: 836 E-W Road: 1,280 Roadway CO Contributions and Concentrations Emissions=(A x B x C)/100,0001 Ai A2 A3 B C Reference CO Concentrations Traffic Emission Estimated CO Concentrations Roadway 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet Volume Factors' 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet A.M.Peak Traffic Hour North-South Road 2.6 2.2 1.7 166 10.78 0.05 0.04 0.03 East-West Road 7.0 5.4 3.8 836 10.78 0.63 0.49 0.34 P.M.Peak Traffic Hour North-South Road 2.6 2.2 1.7 240 10.78 0.07 0.06 0.04 East-West Road 7.0 5.4 3.8 1,280 10.78 0.97 0.75 0.52 'Methodology and emission factors from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). Total Roadway CO Concentrations Peak Hour Emissions=North-South Concentration+East-West Concentration+Background 1-hour Concentration2 8-Hour Emissions=((Highest Peak Hour Concentration-Background 1-hour Concentration)x Persistence Factor)+Background 8-hour Concentration2 A.M. P.M. Peak Hour Peak Hour 8-Hour 25 Feet from Roadway Edge 6.5 6.8 5.4 50 Feet from Roadway Edge 6.3 6.6 5.3 100 Feet from Roadway Edge 6.2 6.4 5.1 2 Methodology from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). 09.Huntington St.&Atlanta Ave.xls EIP Associates 9/22/03 I SIMPLIFIED CALINE4 CARBON MONOXIDE ANALYSIS Project Number: 10261-00 Project Title: Pacific City Background Information Nearest Air Monitoring Station measuring CO: Costa Mesa-Mesa Verde Drive Background 1-hour CO Concentration(ppm): 5.8 Background 8-hour CO Concentration(ppm): 4.7 Persistence Factor: 0.7 Analysis Year: 2010 Roadway Data Intersection: Delware St./Atlanta Ave. Analysis Condition: Future Plus Project Traffic Volumes No.of Average Speed • Roadway Type Lanes A.M. P.M. North-South Roadway: Deleware Street At Grade 4 10 10 East-West Roadway: Atlanta Avenue At Grade 4 10 10 A.M.Peak Hour Traffic Volumes P.M.Peak Hour Traffic Volumes N N 21 30 27 22 14 35 1 W < v > E W < v > E 22A A 10 35A A 36 353> < 353 500 > < 622 • 23 v v 47 21 v v 50 < A > < A > 23 10 56 72 50 70 S S Highest Traffic Volumes(Vehicles per Hour) N-S Road: 189 N-S Road: 277 E-W Road: 846 E-W Road: 1,313 i Roadway CO Contributions and Concentrations Emissions=(A x B x C)/100,0001 Ai A2 A3 B C - Reference CO Concentrations Traffic Emission Estimated CO Concentrations Roadway 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet Volume Factors' 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet A.M.Peak Traffic Hour -- North-South Road 2.6 2.2 1.7 189 10.78 0.05 0.04 0.03 East-West Road 7.0 5.4 3.8 846 10.78 0.64 0.49 0.35 P.M.Peak Traffic Hour North-South Road . 2.6 2.2 1.7 277 10.78 0.08 0.07 0.05 East-West Road 7.0 5.4 3.8 1,313 10.78 0.99 0.76 0.54 'Methodology and emission factors from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). Total Roadway CO Concentrations Peak Hour Emissions=North-South Concentration+East-West Concentration+Background 1-hour Concentration2 8-Hour Emissions=((Highest Peak Hour Concentration-Background 1-hour Concentration)x Persistence Factor)+Background 8-hour Concentration2 A.M. P.M. Peak Hour Peak Hour 8-Hour 25 Feet from Roadway Edge 6.5 6.9 5.4 50 Feet from Roadway Edge 6.3 6.6 5.3 100 Feet from Roadway Edge 6.2 6.4 5.1 2 Methodology from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). 10.Delaware St.&Atlanta Ave.xls EIP Associates 9/22/03 SIMPLIFIED CALINE4 CARBON MONOXIDE ANALYSIS j Project Number: 10261-00 ' Project Title: Pacific City Background Information Nearest Air Monitoring Station measuring CO: Costa Mesa-Mesa Verde Drive Background 1-hour CO Concentration(ppm): 5.8 Background 8-hour CO Concentration(ppm): 4.7 Persistence Factor: 0.7 Analysis Year: 2010 Roadway Data Intersection: Huntington StJPCH Analysis Condition: Future Plus Project Traffic Volumes __ No.of Average Speed Roadway Type Lanes A.M. P.M. North-South Roadway: Huntington Street At Grade 4 15 15 East-West Roadway: Pacific Coast Highway At Grade 6 15 15 A.M.Peak Hour Traffic Volumes P.M.Peak Hour Traffic Volumes N N 1 1 73 0 177 68 3 238 W < v > E W < v > E 81 A A 206 71 A A 311 2,022> < 955 1,483> < 1,872 0v v 1 4v v 6 < A > < A > 1 • 0 2 2 6 5 S S Highest Traffic Volumes(Vehicles per Hour) N-S Road: 537 N-S Road: 697 E-W Road: 3,363 E-W Road: 3,915 Roadway CO Contributions and Concentrations Emissions=(A x B x C)/100,0001 Ai A2 A3 B C Reference CO Concentrations Traffic Emission Estimated CO Concentrations Roadway 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet Volume Facto& 25 Feet 50 Feet' 100 Feet A.M.Peak Traffic Hour North-South Road 2.6 2.2 1.7 537 7.30 0.10 0.09 0.07 East-West Road 6.1 4.9 3.5 3,363 7.30 1.50 1.20 0.86 P.M.Peak Traffic Hour, North-South Road 2.6 2.2 1.7 697 7.30 0.13 0.11 0.09 East-West Road 6.1 4.9 3.5 3,915 7.30 1.74 1.40 1.00 1 'Methodology and emission factors from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). Total Roadway CO Concentrations Peak Hour Emissions=North-South Concentration+East-West Concentration+Background 1-hour Concentration2 8-Hour Emissions=((Highest Peak Hour Concentration-Background 1-hour Concentration)x Persistence Factor)+Background 8-hour Concentration2 A.M. P.M. Peak Hour Peak Hour 8-Hour 25 Feet from Roadway Edge 7.4 7.7 6.0 50 Feet from Roadway Edge 7.1 7.3 5.8 100 Feet from Roadway Edge 6.7 6.9 5.5 2 Methodology from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). 11.Huntington St.&PCH.xls EIP Associates 9/22/03 SIMPLIFIED CALINE4 CARBON MONOXIDE ANALYSIS Project Number: 10261-00 Project Title: Pacific City Background Information Nearest Air Monitoring Station measuring CO: Costa Mesa-Mesa Verde Drive Background 1-hour CO Concentration(ppm): 5.8 Background 8-hour CO Concentration(ppm): 4 7 Persistence Factor: 0.7 Analysis Year: 2010 Roadway Data Intersection: Huntington St./Pacific View Ave. Analysis Condition: Future Plus Project Traffic Volumes -- No.of Average Speed Roadway Type Lanes A.M. P.M. North-South Roadway: Huntington Street At Grade 4 10 10 East-West Roadway: Pacific View Avenue At Grade 2 10 10 A.M.Peak Hour Traffic Volumes P.M.Peak Hour Traffic Volumes N N 40 91 42 57 42 15 W < v > E W < v > E 18A A 18 76A A 40 86 > < 108 135 > < 117 64 v v 99 154 v v 102 < A > < A > "-'- 100 40 123 135 152 102 S S Highest Traffic Volumes(Vehicles per Hour) N-S Road: 517 N-S Road: 687 E-W Road: 476 E-W Road: 674 Roadway CO Contributions and Concentrations Emissions=(A x B x C)/100,000' ' Ai A2 A3 B C Reference CO Concentrations Traffic Emission Estimated CO Concentrations Roadway 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet Volume Factors' 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet , A.M.Peak Traffic Hour North-South Road 7.0 5.4 3.8 517 10.78 0.39 0.30 0.21 East-West Road 2.7 2.2 1.7 476 10.78 0.14 0.11 0.09 P.M.Peak Traffic Hour North-South Road 7.0 5.4 3.8 687 10.78 0.52 0.40 0.28 East-West Road 2.7 2.2 1.7 674 10.78 0.20 0.16 0.12 'Methodology and emission factors from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). Total Roadway CO Concentrations . Peak Hour Emissions=North-South Concentration+East-West Concentration+Background 1-hour Concentration2 8-Hour Emissions=((Highest Peak Hour Concentration-Background 1-hour Concentration)x Persistence Factor)+Background 8-hour Concentration2 A.M. P.M. Peak Hour Peak Hour 8-Hour 25 Feet from Roadway Edge 6.3 6.5 5.2 50 Feet from Roadway Edge 6.2 6.4 5.1 100 Feet from Roadway Edge 6.1 6.2 5.0 2 Methodology from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). 12.Huntington St.&Pacific View Ave.xls EIP Associates 9/22/03 SIMPLIFIED CALINE4 CARBON MONOXIDE ANALYSIS 1 Project Number: 10261-00 1 Project Title: Pacific City Background Information I Nearest Air Monitoring Station measuring CO: Costa Mesa-Mesa Verde Drive Background 1-hour CO Concentration(ppm): 5.8 Background 8-hour CO Concentration(ppm): 4.7 Persistence Factor: 0.7 Analysis Year: 2010 Roadway Data Intersection: Beach Blvd./Adams Ave. i 1 Analysis Condition: Future Plus Project Traffic Volumes No.of Average Speed - Roadway Type Lanes A.M. P.M. North-South Roadway: Beach Boulevard At Grade 6 15 15 East-West Roadway: Adams Avenue At Grade 4 15 15 A.M.Peak Hour Traffic Volumes P.M.Peak Hour Traffic Volumes . N I N i 1 123 1,013 376 174 1,315 378 W < v > E W < v > E 172 " " 282 189" " 449 974 > < 385 547> < 730 101 v v 114 60 v v 263 1 < A > < A > 83 1,007 210 157 1,257 163 S S Highest Traffic Volumes(Vehicles per Hour) N-S Road: 2,973 N-S Road: 3,762 E-W Road: 2,341 E-W Road: 2,530 Roadway CO Contributions and Concentrations Emissions=(A x B x C)/100,0001 Al A2 A3 B C Reference CO Concentrations Traffic Emission Estimated CO Concentrations Roadway 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet Volume Factors 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet A.M.Peak Traffic Hour North-South Road 6.1 4.9 3.5 2,973 7.30 1.32 1.06 0.76 - i East-West Road 2.6 2.2 1.7 2,341 7.30 0.44 0.38 0.29 P.M.Peak Traffic Hour North-South Road 6.1 4.9 3.5 3,762 7.30 1.68 1.35 0.96 East-West Road 2.6 2.2 1.7 2,530 7.30 0.48 0.41 0.31 Methodology and emission factors from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). Total Roadway CO Concentrations Peak Hour Emissions=North-South Concentration+East-West Concentration+Background 1-hour Concentration2 8-Hour Emissions=((Highest Peak Hour Concentration-Background 1-hour Concentration)x Persistence Factor)+Background 8-hour Concentration2 A.M. P.M. 1 Peak Hour Peak Hour 8-Hour 25 Feet from Roadway Edge 7.6 8.0 6.2 50 Feet from Roadway Edge 7.2 7.6 5.9 1 100 Feet from Roadway Edge 6.9 7.1 5.6 2 Methodology from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). 13.Beach Blvd.&Adams Ave.xls EIP Associates 9/22/03 SIMPLIFIED CALINE4 CARBON MONOXIDE ANALYSIS Project Number: 10261-00 Project Title: Pacific City Background Information Nearest Air Monitoring Station measuring CO: Costa Mesa-Mesa Verde Drive Background 1-hour CO Concentration(ppm): 5.8 Background 8-hour CO Concentration(ppm): 4.7 I Persistence Factor: 0.7 Analysis Year: 2010 Roadway Data Intersection: Beach Blvd./Indianapolis Ave. Analysis Condition: Future Plus Project Traffic Volumes No.of Average Speed Roadway Type Lanes A.M. P.M. North-South Roadway: Beach Boulevard At Grade 6 20 20 -- East-West Roadway: Indianapolis Avenue At Grade 4 20 20 I A.M.Peak Hour Traffic Volumes P.M.Peak Hour Traffic Volumes N N 30 1,036 110 76 1,154 137 W < v > E W < v - > E 121 A A 140 49 A A 163 103> < 53 92> < 168 27 v v 42 18 v v 48 < A > < A > 13 851 32 42 1,307 49 S S Highest Traffic Volumes(Vehicles per Hour) N-S Road: 2,268 N-S Road: 2,886 E-W Road: 480 E-W Road: 657 • Roadway CO Contributions and Concentrations Emissions=(A x B x C)/100,0001 I Ai A2 A3 B C Reference CO Concentrations Traffic Emission Estimated CO Concentrations Roadway 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet Volume Factors' 25 Feet 50 Feet 100'Feet r A.M.Peak Traffic Hour North-South Road 6.1 4.9 3.5 2,268 5.52 0.76 0.61 0.44 East-West Road 2.6 2.2 1.7 480 5.52 0.07 0.06 0.05 P.M.Peak Traffic Hour North-South Road 6.1 4.9 3.5 2,886 5.52 0.97 0.78 0.56 East-West Road 2.6 2.2 1.7 657 5.52 0.09 0.08 0.06 Methodology and emission factors from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). Total Roadway CO Concentrations Peak Hour Emissions=North-South Concentration+East-West Concentration+Background 1-hour Concentration2 _ 8-Hour Emissions=((Highest Peak Hour Concentration-Background 1-hour Concentration)x Persistence Factor)+Background 8-hour Concentration2 A.M. P.M. Peak Hour Peak Hour 8-Hour 25 Feet from Roadway Edge 6.6 6.9 5.4 50 Feet from Roadway Edge 6.5 6.7 5.3 100 Feet from Roadway Edge 6.3 6.4 5.1 2 Methodology from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). 14..Beach Blvd.&Indianapolis Ave.xls EIP Associates 9/22/03 1 SIMPLIFIED CALINE4 CARBON MONOXIDE ANALYSIS Project Number: 10261-00 Project Title: Pacific City Background Information Nearest Air Monitoring Station measuring CO: Costa Mesa-Mesa Verde Drive Background 1-hour CO Concentration(ppm): 5.8 Background 8-hour CO Concentration(ppm): 4.7 , Persistence Factor: 0.7 Analysis Year: 2010 Roadway Data Intersection: Beach Blvd./Atlanta Ave. Analysis Condition: Future Plus Project Traffic Volumes No.of Average Speed Roadway Type Lanes A.M. P.M. North-South Roadway: Beach Boulevard At Grade 6 20 .20 East-West Roadway: Atlanta Avenue At Grade 4 20 20 A.M.Peak Hour Traffic Volumes P.M.Peak Hour Traffic Volumes N N 110 707 217 188 704 318 W < v > E W < v > E 143 ^ ^ 182 152 A A 264 416> < 258 440> < 565 46v v 51 26v v 63 < A > < A . > 4 501 42 74 963 100 S S - - - Highest Traffic Volumes(Vehicles per Hour) N-S Road: 1,860 N-S Road: 2,589 E-W Road: 1,166 E-W Road: 1,750 Roadway CO Contributions and Concentrations Emissions=(A x B x C)/100,0001 Ai A2 A3 B C Reference CO Concentrations Traffic Emission Estimated CO Concentrations Roadway 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet Volume Factors' 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet A.M.Peak Traffic Hour North-South Road 6.1 4.9 3.5 1,860 5.52 0.63 0.50 0.36 East-West Road 2.6 2.2 1.7 1,166 5.52 0.17 0.14 0.11 P.M.Peak Traffic Hour North-South Road 6.1 4.9 3.5 2,589 5.52 0.87 0.70 0.50 East-West Road 2.6 2.2 1.7 1,750 5.52 0.25 0.21 0.16 'Methodology and emission factors from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). Total Roadway CO Concentrations Peak Hour Emissions=North-South Concentration+East-West Concentration+Background 1-hour Concentration2 8-Hour Emissions=((Highest Peak Hour Concentration-Background 1-hour Concentration)x Persistence Factor)+Background 8-hour Concentration2 A.M. P.M. Peak Hour Peak Hour 8-Hour 25 Feet from Roadway Edge 6.6 6.9 5.5 50 Feet from Roadway Edge 6.4 6.7 5.3 100 Feet from Roadway Edge 6.3 6.5 5.2 2 Methodology from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). 15. Beach Blvd.&Atlanta Ave.xts EIP Associates 9/22/03 i SIMPLIFIED CALINE4 CARBON MONOXIDE ANALYSIS Project Number: 10261-00 Project Title: Pacific City , Background Information Nearest Air Monitoring Station measuring CO: Costa Mesa-Mesa Verde Drive Background 1-hour CO Concentration(ppm): 5.8 Background 8-hour CO Concentration(ppm): 4.7 ' Persistence Factor. 0.7 , Analysis Year: 2010 Roadway Data Intersection: Beach Blvd./PCH Analysis Condition: Future Plus Project Traffic Volumes No.of Average Speed _ Roadway Type Lanes A.M. P.M. North-South Roadway: Beach Boulevard At Grade 6 15 15 East-West Roadway: Pacific Coast Highway At Grade 6 15 15 A.M.Peak Hour Traffic Volumes P.M.Peak Hour Traffic Volumes . N N I 172 14 516 228 27 319 W < v > E W < v > E 125 " A 260 301 A A 627 1,963 > < 970 1,398 > < 2,035 4v v 11 18v v 20 , < A > < A > _ " 3 3 8 18 26 26 S S Highest Traffic Volumes(Vehicles per Hour) N-S Road: 1,090 N-S Road: 1,528 E-W Road: 3,728 E-W Road: 4,425 Roadway CO Contributions and Concentrations Emissions=(A x B x C)/100,0001 At A2 A3 B C Reference CO Concentrations Traffic Emission Estimated CO Concentrations _ Roadway 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet Volume Factors' 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet ' A.M.Peak Traffic Hour North-South Road 2.3 2.0 1.7 1,090 7.30 0.18 0.16 0.14 East-West Road 6.1 4.9 3.5 3,728 7.30 1.66 1.33 0.95 _ P.M.Peak Traffic Hour ( -- North-South Road 2.3 2.0 1.7 1,528 7.30 0.26 0.22 0.19 East-West Road 6.1 4.9 3.5 4,425 7.30 1.97 1.58 1.13 'Methodology and emission factors from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). Total Roadway CO Concentrations Peak Hour Emissions=North-South Concentration+East-West Concentration+Background 1-hour Concentration2 8-Hour Emissions=((Highest Peak Hour Concentration-Background 1-hour Concentration)x Persistence Factor)+Background 8-hour Concentration2 A.M. P.M. Peak Hour Peak Hour 8-Hour 25 Feet from Roadway Edge 7.6 8.0 6.3 50 Feet from Roadway Edge 7.3 7.6 6.0 100 Feet from Roadway Edge 6.9 7.1 5.6 2 Methodology from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). 16.Beach Blvd.&PCH.xls EIP Associates 9/22/03 SIMPLIFIED CALINE4 CARBON MONOXIDE ANALYSIS ' Project Number: 10261-00 Project Title: Pacific City Background Information Nearest Air Monitoring Station measuring CO: Costa Mesa-Mesa Verde Drive Background 1-hour CO Concentration(ppm): 5.8 1 Background 8-hour CO Concentration(ppm): 4.7 Persistence Factor: 0.7 Analysis Year: 2010 Roadway Data Intersection: NewlandSt.Atlanta Ave. - Analysis Condition: Future Plus Project Traffic Volumes No.of Average Speed Roadway Type Lanes A.M. P.M. North-South Roadway: Newland Street At Grade 4 20 20 East-West Roadway: Atlanta Ave. At Grade 4 20 20 A.M.Peak Hour Traffic Volumes P.M.Peak Hour Traffic Volumes N N 59 262 91 100 236 106 W < % v > E W < v > E 46 A A 72 88 A A 136 542 > < 318 _ 574> < 619 196 v v 18 150 v v 59 < A > < A > 81 138 40 243 425 57 S S ' Highest Traffic Volumes(Vehicles per Hour) N-S Road: 735 N-S Road: 1,170 E-W Road: 1,242 E-W Road: 1,774 Roadway CO Contributions and Concentrations ' Emissions=(A x B x C)/100,0001 Ai A2 A3 B C Reference CO Concentrations Traffic Emission Estimated CO Concentrations Roadway 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet Volume Factors' 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet A.M.Peak Traffic Hour North-South Road 2.6 2.2 1.7 735 5.52 0.11 0.09 0.07 East-West Road 7.0 5.4 3.8 1,242 5.52 0.48 0.37 0.26 I P.M.Peak Traffic Hour North-South Road 2.6 2.2 1.7 1,170 5.52 0.17 0.14 0.11 East-West Road 7.0 5.4 3.8 1,774 5.52 0.69 0.53 0.37 1 Methodology and emission factors from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). Total Roadway CO Concentrations Peak Hour Emissions=North-South Concentration+East-West Concentration+Background 1-hour Concentration2 8-Hour Emissions=((Highest Peak Hour Concentration-Background 1-hour Concentration)x Persistence Factor)+Background 8-hour Concentration2 A.M. P.M. Peak Hour Peak Hour 8-Hour 25 Feet from Roadway Edge 6.4 6.7 5.3 50 Feet from Roadway Edge 6.3 6.5 5.2 100 Feet from Roadway Edge 6.1 6.3 5.0 2 Methodology from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). 17.Newland St.&Atlanta Ave.xls EIP Associates 9/22/03 SIMPLIFIED CALINE4 CARBON MONOXIDE ANALYSIS Project Number: 10261-00 Project Title: Pacific City Background Information , Nearest Air Monitoring Station measuring CO: Costa Mesa-Mesa Verde Drive Background 1-hour CO Concentration(ppm): 5.8 Background 8-hour CO Concentration(ppm): 4.7 Persistence Factor: 0.7 Analysis Year: 2010 Roadway Data Intersection: NewlandSt./PCH Analysis Condition: Future Plus Project Traffic Volumes No.of Average Speed Roadway Type Lanes A.M. P.M. North-South Roadway: Newland Street At Grade 4 20 20 East-West Roadway: Pacific Coast Highway At Grade 6 20 20 A.M.Peak Hour Traffic Volumes P.M.Peak Hour Traffic Volumes N N 166 0 165 193 0 101 W < v > E W < v > E 53A A 51 185A ^ 268 2,654> < 1,115 1,579> < 2,492 41 v v 1 12 v v 8 < A > < A > 14 11 4 12 26 15 S S Highest Traffic Volumes(Vehicles per Hour) N-S Road: 446 N-S Road: 773 E-W Road: 4,043 E-W Road: 4,473 Roadway CO Contributions and Concentrations Emissions=(A x B x C)/100,0001 Ai A2 A3 B C Reference CO Concentrations Traffic Emission Estimated CO Concentrations Roadway 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet Volume Factors' 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet A.M.Peak Traffic Hour North-South Road 2.6 2.2 1.7 446 5.52 0.06 0.05 0.04 East-West Road 6.1 4.9 3.5 4,043 5.52 1.36 1.09 0.78 - P.M.Peak Traffic Hour North-South Road 2.6 2.2 1.7 773 5.52 0.11 0.09 0.07 East-West Road 6.1 4.9 3.5 4,473 5.52 1.51 1.21 0.86 -, 'Methodology and emission factors from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). Total Roadway CO Concentrations Peak Hour Emissions=North-South Concentration+East-West Concentration+Background 1-hour Concentration2 8-Hour Emissions=((Highest Peak Hour Concentration-Background 1-hour Concentration)x Persistence Factor)+Background 8-hour Concentration2 A.M. P.M. Peak Hour Peak Hour 8-Hour _ 25 Feet from Roadway Edge 7.2 7.4 5.8 50 Feet from Roadway Edge 6.9 7.1 5.6 100 Feet from Roadway Edge 6.6 6.7 5.4 2 Methodology from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). " 18.Newland St.&PCH.xls EIP Associates 9/22/03 SIMPLIFIED CALINE4 CARBON MONOXIDE ANALYSIS Project Number: 10261-00 Project Title: Pacific City Background Information Nearest Air Monitoring Station measuring CO: Costa Mesa-Mesa Verde Drive Background 1-hour CO Concentration(ppm): 5.8 Background 8-hour CO Concentration(ppm): 4 7 Persistence Factor: 0.7 Analysis Year 2010 Roadway Data Intersection: Magnolia St./PCH Analysis Condition: Future Plus Project Traffic Volumes ' No.of Average Speed Roadway Type Lanes A.M. P.M. North-South Roadway: Magnolia Street At Grade 4 20 20 East-West Roadway: Pacific Coast Highway At Grade 6 20 20 A.M.Peak Hour Traffic Volumes P.M.Peak Hour Traffic Volumes N N 102 33 130 104 36 71 W < v > E W < v > E 53 A A 36 145 A A 239 2,654> < 1,084 1,494 > < 2,664 41 v v 13 38 v v 93 i < A > < A > 14 11 4 24 39 16 S S Highest Traffic Volumes(Vehicles per Hour) N-S Road: 365 N-S Road: 634 E-W Road: 3,948 E-W Road: 4,577 Roadway CO Contributions and Concentrations Emissions=(A x B x C)/100,0001 Ai A2 A3 B C Reference CO Concentrations Traffic Emission Estimated CO Concentrations i ' Roadway 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet Volume Factors' 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet A.M.Peak Traffic Hour North-South Road 2.6 2.2 1.7 365 5.52 0.05 0.04 0.03 East-West Road 6.1 4.9 3.5 3,948 5.52 1.33 1.07 0.76 P.M.Peak Traffic Hour North-South Road 2.6 2.2 1.7 634 5.52 0.09 0.08 0.06 East-West Road 6.1 4.9 3.5 4,577 5.52 1.54 1.24 0.88 ' Methodology and emission factors from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). Total Roadway CO Concentrations Peak Hour Emissions=North-South Concentration+East-West Concentration+Background 1-hour Concentration2 8-Hour Emissions=((Highest Peak Hour Concentration-Background 1-hour Concentration)x Persistence Factor)+Background 8-hour Concentration2 A.M. P.M. Peak Hour Peak Hour 8-Hour 25 Feet from Roadway Edge 7.2 7.4 5.8 50 Feet from Roadway Edge 6.9 7.1 5.6 100 Feet from Roadway Edge 6.6 6.7 5.4 2 Methodology from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). 19.Magnolia St.&PCH.xls EIP Associates 9/22/03 SIMPLIFIED CALINE4 CARBON MONOXIDE ANALYSIS Project Number: 10261-00 Project Title: Pacific City Background Information Nearest Air Monitoring Station measuring CO. Costa Mesa-Mesa Verde Drive Background 1-hour CO Concentration(ppm): 5.8 Background 8-hour CO Concentration(ppm): 4.7 Persistence Factor: 0.7 Analysis Year: 2010 Roadway Data , Intersection: Magnolia St./Atlanta Ave. Analysis Condition: Future Plus Project Traffic Volumes No.of Average Speed Roadway Type Lanes A.M. P.M. North-South Roadway: Magnolia Street At Grade 4 20 20 - East-West Roadway: Atlanta Avenue At Grade 4 20 20 A.M.Peak Hour Traffic Volumes P.M.Peak Hour Traffic Volumes N N 64 327 77 115 236_ 112 W < v > E W < v > E 99A A 83 150A A 122 508> < 259 480> < 655 107 v v 77 121 v v _ 123 < A > < A > 50 212 58 161 470 50 S S - Highest Traffic Volumes(Vehicles per Hour) - N-S Road: 862 N-S Road: 1,205 -_ E-W Road: 1,087 E-W Road: 1,682 ; Roadway CO Contributions and Concentrations Emissions=(A x B x C)/100,0001 Ai A2 A3 B C Reference CO Concentrations Traffic Emission Estimated CO Concentrations Roadway 25 Feet 50.Feet 100 Feet Volume Factors' 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet A.M.Peak Traffic Hour North-South Road 2.6 2.2 1.7 862 5.52 0.12 0.10 0.08 East-West Road 7.0 5.4 3.8 1,087 5.52 0.42 0.32 0.23 P.M.Peak Traffic Hour North-South Road 2.6 2.2 1.7 1,205 5.52 0.17 0.15 0.11 East-West Road 7.0 5.4 3.8 1,682 5.52 0.65 0.50 0.35 'Methodology and emission factors from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). Total Roadway CO Concentrations Peak Hour Emissions=North-South Concentration+East-West Concentration+Background 1-hour Concentration2 8-Hour Emissions=((Highest Peak Hour Concentration-Background 1-hour Concentration)x Persistence Factor)+Background 8-hour Concentration2 A.M. P.M. Peak Hour Peak Hour 8-Hour 25 Feet from Roadway Edge 6.3 6.6 5.3 50 Feet from Roadway Edge 6.2 6.4 5.2 100 Feet from Roadway Edge 6.1 6.3 5.0 2 Methodology from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). 20.Magnolia St.&Atlanta Ave.xls EIP Associates 9/22/03 ; SIMPLIFIED CALINE4 CARBON MONOXIDE ANALYSIS Project Number: 10261-00 Project Title: Pacific City Background Information Nearest Air Monitoring Station measuring CO: Costa Mesa-Mesa Verde Drive Background 1-hour CO Concentration(ppm): 5.8 !f Background 8-hour CO Concentration(ppm): 4.7 Persistence Factor: 0.7 Analysis Year 2010 Roadway Data --- Intersection: PCH/Seapointe Ave. Analysis Condition: Future Plus Project Traffic Volumes No.of Average Speed Roadway Type Lanes A.M. P.M. North-South Roadway: Seapointe Avenue At Grade 4 . 20 15 East-West Roadway: Pacific Coast Highway At Grade 4 20 15 A.M.Peak Hour Traffic Volumes P.M.Peak Hour Traffic Volumes N N 354 0 87 252 0 102 W < v > E W < v > E 155^ A 30 370 A ^ 198 1,857> < 1,626 1,993 > < 1,841 0v v 0 0v v 0 _ < A > < A > 0 0 0 0 0 0 S S Highest Traffic Volumes(Vehicles per Hour) N-S Road: 626 N-S Road: 922 E-W Road: 3,992 E-W Road: 4,456 Roadway CO Contributions and Concentrations Emissions=(A x B x C)/100,0001 Ai A2 A3 B C Reference CO Concentrations Traffic Emission Estimated CO Concentrations Roadway 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet Volume Factors' 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet A.M.Peak Traffic Hour North-South Road 2.6 2.2 1.7 626 5.52 0.09 0.08 0.06 East-West Road 7.0 5.4 3.8 3,992 5.52 1.54 1 19 0.84 P.M.Peak Traffic Hour North-South Road 2.6 2.2 1.7 922 7.30 0.17 0.15 0.11 East-West Road 7.0 5.4 3.8 4,456 7.30 2.28 1.76 1.24 'Methodology and emission factors from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). Total Roadway CO Concentrations Peak Hour Emissions=North-South Concentration+East-West Concentration+Background 1-hour Concentration2 8-Hour Emissions=((Highest Peak Hour Concentration-Background 1-hour Concentration)x Persistence Factor)+Background 8-hour Concentration2 A.M. P.M. Peak Hour Peak Hour 8-Hour 25 Feet from Roadway Edge 7.4 8.3 6.4 50 Feet from Roadway Edge 7.1 7 7 6.0 100 Feet from Roadway Edge 6.7 7.2 5.6 2 Methodology from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). 21.PCH&Seapointe Ave.xls EIP Associates 9/22/03 SIMPLIFIED CALINE4 CARBON MONOXIDE ANALYSIS Project Number: 10261-00 Project Title: Pacific City Background Information Nearest Air Monitoring Station measuring CO: Costa Mesa-Mesa Verde Drive Background 1-hour CO Concentration(ppm): 5.8 Background 8-hour CO Concentration(ppm): 4.7 Persistence Factor: 0.7 Analysis Year: 2010 Roadway Data Intersection: PCH/Warner Ave. Analysis Condition: Future Plus Project Traffic Volumes No.of Average Speed • Roadway Type Lanes A.M. P.M. North-South Roadway: Warner Avenue At Grade 4 10 10 East-West Roadway: Pacific Coast Highway At Grade 4 10 10 A.M.Peak Flour Traffic Volumes P.M.Peak Hour Traffic Volumes N N 521 83 487 588 107 260 W < v > E W < v > E 564 A ^ 283 742 ^ ^ 277 1,597 > < 1,890 1,827> < 2,050 • 10 v v 5 52 v v 39 ' < A > < A > _ 9 91 6 19 129 33 S S Highest Traffic Volumes(Vehicles per Hour) N-S Road: 2,029 N-S Road: 2,103 E-W Road: 4,591 E-W Road: 5,278 • Roadway CO Contributions and Concentrations Emissions=(A x B x C)/100,0001 A, A2 A3 B C Reference CO Concentrations Traffic Emission Estimated CO Concentrations Roadway 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet Volume Factors' 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet A.M.Peak Traffic Hour North-South Road 2.6 2.2 1.7 2,029 10.78 0.57 0.48 0.37 East-West Road 7.0 5.4 3.8 4,591 10.78 3.46 2.67 1.88 P.M.Peak Traffic Hour North-South Road 2.6 2.2 1.7 2,103 10.78 0.59 0.50 0.39 East-West Road 7.0 5.4 3.8 5,278 10.78 3.98 3.07 2.16 'Methodology and emission factors from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). Total Roadway CO Concentrations Peak Hour Emissions=North-South Concentration+East-West Concentration+Background 1-hour Concentration2 8-Hour Emissions=((Highest Peak Hour Concentration-Background 1-hour Concentration)x Persistence Factor)+Background 8-hour Concentration2 A.M. P.M. Peak Hour Peak Hour 8-Hour 25 Feet from Roadway Edge 9.8 10.4 7.9 50 Feet from Roadway Edge 9.0 9.4 7.2 100 Feet from Roadway Edge 8.1 8.3 6.5 2 Methodology from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). 22.PCH&Warner Ave.xls EIP Associates 9/22/03 SIMPLIFIED CALINE4 CARBON MONOXIDE ANALYSIS Project Number: 10261-00 Project Title: Pacific City Background Information Nearest Air Monitoring Station measuring CO: Costa Mesa-Mesa Verde Drive Background 1-hour CO Concentration(ppm): 5.8 Background 8-hour CO Concentration(ppm): 4.7 Persistence Factor: 0.7 Analysis Year: 2010 Roadway Data \. Intersection: PCH/Brookhurst St. Analysis Condition: Future Plus Project Traffic Volumes No.of Average Speed Roadway Type Lanes A.M. P.M. North-South Roadway: Brookhurst Street At Grade 4 15 15 East-West Roadway: Pacific Coast Highway At Grade 6 15 15 A.M.Peak Hour Traffic Volumes P.M.Peak Hour Traffic Volumes N N 116 6 592 182 4 265 W < v > E W < v > E 215 A A 170 284 A A 681 2,674 > < 1,032 1,356> < 2,771 2v v 4 4v v 8 < A > < A > 3 4 4 9 8 4 S S Highest Traffic Volumes(Vehicles per Hour) N-S Road: 1,103 N-S Road: 1,424 E-W Road: 4,476 E-W Road: 5,085 Roadway CO Contributions and Concentrations Emissions=(A x B x C)/100,0001 At A2 A3 B C Reference CO Concentrations Traffic Emission Estimated CO Concentrations Roadway 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet Volume Factors' 25 Feet 50 Feet• 100 Feet A.M.Peak Traffic Hour North-South Road 2.6 2.2 1.7 1,103 7.30 0.21 0.18 0.14 East-West Road 6.1 4.9 3.5 4,476 7.30 1.99 1.60 1.14 P.M.Peak Traffic Hour North-South Road 2.6 2.2 1.7 1,424 7.30 0.27 0.23 0.18 East-West Road 6.1 4.9 3.5 5,085 7.30 2.26 1.82 1.30 ' Methodology and emission factors from Bay Area Air•Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). Total Roadway CO Concentrations Peak Hour Emissions=North-South Concentration+East-West Concentration+Background 1-hour Concentration2 8-Hour Emissions=((Highest Peak Hour Concentration-Background 1-hour Concentration)x Persistence Factor)+Background 8-hour Concentration2 A.M. P.M. Peak Hour Peak Hour 8-Hour 25 Feet from Roadway Edge 8.0 8.3 6.5 50 Feet from Roadway Edge 7.6 7.8 6.1 100 Feet from Roadway Edge 7.1 7.3 5.7 2 Methodology from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). 23.PCH&Brookhurst St.xls EIP Associates 9/22/03 SIMPLIFIED CALINE4 CARBON MONOXIDE ANALYSIS Project Number: 10261-00 Project Title: Pacific City Background Information Nearest Air Monitoring Station measuring CO: Costa Mesa-Mesa Verde Drive Background 1-hour CO Concentration(ppm): 5.8 _ Background 8-hour CO Concentration(ppm): 4.7 1 Persistence Factor: 0.7 Analysis Year: 2010 Roadway Data Intersection: Main St./Adams Ave. Analysis Condition: Future Plus Project Traffic Volumes No.of Average Speed Roadway Type Lanes A.M. P.M. North-South Roadway: Main Street At Grade 2 . 20 20 East-West Roadway: Adams Avenue At Grade 4 20 20 A.M.Peak Hour Traffic Volumes P.M.Peak Hour Traffic Volumes N' N 5 255 49 4 612 101 ' W < v > E W < v > E 6 A A 29 4 A A 62 194 > < 139 164 > < 205 12 v v 70 17 v v 166 < A > < A > 9 320 172 1 497 125 S S Highest Traffic Volumes(Vehicles per Hour) N-S Road: 838 N-S Road: 1,418 E-W Road: 653 E-W Road: 823 Roadway CO Contributions and Concentrations Emissions=(A x B x C)/100,0001 Ai A2 A3 B C Reference CO Concentrations Traffic Emission Estimated CO Concentrations Roadway 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet Volume Factors' 25 Feet 50 Feet' 100 Feet A.M.Peak Traffic Hour North-South Road 7.6 5.7 4.0 838 5.52 0.35 0.26 0.19 East-West Road 2.6 2.2 1.7 653 5.52 0.09 0.08 0.06 P.M.Peak Traffic Hour - North-South Road 7.6 5.7 4.0 1,418 5.52 0.59 0.45 0.31 East-West Road 2.6 2.2 1.7 823 5.52 0.12 0.10 0.08 1 Methodology and emission factors from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). Total Roadway CO Concentrations Peak Hour Emissions=North-South Concentration+East-West Concentration+Background 1-hour Concentration2 8-Hour Emissions=((Highest Peak Hour Concentration-Background 1-hour Concentration)x Persistence Factor)+Background 8-hour Concentration2 A.M. P.M. Peak Hour Peak Hour 8-Hour _ 25 Feet from Roadway Edge 6.2 6.5 5.2 50 Feet from Roadway Edge 6.1 6.3 5.1 100 Feet from Roadway Edge 6.0 6.2 5.0 2 Methodology from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). 24.Main St.&Adams Ave.xls EIP Associates 9/22/03 SIMPLIFIED CALINE4 CARBON MONOXIDE ANALYSIS Project Number: 10261-00 Project Title: Pacific City Background Information - Nearest Air Monitoring Station measuring CO: Costa Mesa-Mesa Verde Drive Background 1-hour CO Concentration(ppm): 5.8 Background 8-hour CO Concentration(ppm): 4.7 Persistence Factor: 0.7 Analysis Year: 2010 Roadway Data Intersection: Main St./Utica Ave. Analysis Condition: Future Plus Project Traffic Volumes No.of Average Speed Roadway Type Lanes A.M. P.M. North-South Roadway: Main Street At Grade 2 20 20 East-West Roadway: Utica Avenue At Grade 4 20 20 - A.M.Peak Hour Traffic Volumes P.M.Peak Hour Traffic Volumes N N 9 337 39 8 957 45 'W < v > E W < v > E 6A A 30 5A A 17 1 > < 3 2 > < 1 2v v 9 2v v 16 < A > < A > 6 456 0 1 710 0 S S , Highest Traffic Volumes(Vehicles per Hour) N-S Road: 877 N-S Road: 1,742 E-W Road: 82 E-W Road: 81 Roadway CO Contributions and Concentrations Emissions=(A x B x C)/100,0001 Ai A2 A3 B C Reference CO Concentrations Traffic Emission Estimated CO Concentrations Roadway 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet Volume Factors' 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet A.M.Peak Traffic Hour North-South Road 7.6 5.7 4.0 877 5.52 0.37 0.28 0.19 East-West Road 2.6 2.2 1.7 82 5.52 0.01 0.01 0.01 P.M.Peak Traffic Hour North-South Road 7.6 5.7 4.0 1,742 5.52 0.73 0.55 0.38 _ East-West Road 2.6 2.2 1.7 81 5.52 0.01 0.01 0.01 , 1 Methodology and emission factors from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). Total Roadway CO Concentrations Peak Hour Emissions=North-South Concentration+East-West Concentration+Background 1-hour Concentration2 8-Hour Emissions=((Highest Peak Hour Concentration-Background 1-hour Concentration)x Persistence Factor)+Background 8-hour Concentration2 A.M. P.M. Peak Hour Peak Hour 8-Hour 25 Feet from Roadway Edge 6.2 6.5 5.2 50 Feet from Roadway Edge 6.1 6.4 5.1 100 Feet from Roadway Edge 6.0 6.2 5.0 i I 2 Methodology from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). 25. Main St.&Utica Ave.xls EIP Associates 9/22/03 SIMPLIFIED CALINE4 CARBON MONOXIDE ANALYSIS Project Number: 10261-00 Project Title: Pacific City _ Background Information Nearest Air Monitoring Station measuring CO: Costa Mesa-Mesa Verde Drive Background 1-hour CO Concentration(ppm): 5.8 Background 8-hour CO Concentration(ppm): 4.7 Persistence Factor 0.7 Analysis Year: 2010 Roadway Data Intersection: Lake St./Adams Ave. Analysis Condition: Future Plus Project Traffic Volumes No.of Average Speed Roadway Type Lanes A.M. P.M. North-South Roadway: Lake Street At Grade 2 20 20 East-West Roadway: Adams Avenue At Grade 4 20 20 A.M.Peak Hour Traffic Volumes P.M.Peak Hour Traffic Volumes N NI < 6 111 73 29 180 148 ' , W < v > E W v > E 2 ^ A 90 6 ^ ^ 151 440 > < 207 366> < 398 6v v 69 12v v 166 < A > < A > 6 138 132 16 212 120 S S Highest Traffic Volumes(Vehicles per Hour) N-S Road: 462 N-S Road: 726 E-W Road: 1,011 E-W Road: 1,349 • • Roadway CO Contributions and Concentrations Emissions=(A x B x C)/100,0001 Ai A2 A3 B C Reference CO Concentrations Traffic Emission Estimated CO Concentrations Roadway 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet Volume Factors' 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet A.M.Peak Traffic Hour North-South Road 2.7 2.2 1.7 462 5.52 0.07 0.06 0.04 East-West Road 7.0 5.4 3.8 1,011 5.52 0.39 0.30 0.21 P.M.Peak Traffic Hour North-South Road 2.7 2.2 1.7 726 5.52 0.11 0.09 0.07 East-West Road 7.0 5.4 3.8 1,349 5.52 0.52 0.40 0.28 - 'Methodology and emission factors from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). Total Roadway CO Concentrations Peak Hour Emissions=North-South Concentration+East-West Concentration+Background 1-hour Concentration2 8-Hour Emissions=((Highest Peak Hour Concentration-Background 1-hour Concentration)x Persistence Factor)+Background 8-hour Concentration2 A.M. P.M. Peak Hour Peak Hour 8-Hour ' 25 Feet from Roadway Edge 6.3 6.4 5.1 50 Feet from Roadway Edge 6.2 6.3 5.0 100 Feet from Roadway Edge 6.1 6.2 4.9 2 Methodology from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). 26.Lake St.&Adams Ave.xls EIP Associates 9/22/03 SIMPLIFIED CALINE4 CARBON MONOXIDE ANALYSIS Project Number: 10261-00 Project Title: Pacific City Background Information Nearest Air Monitoring Station measuring CO: Costa Mesa-Mesa Verde Drive Background 1-hour CO Concentration(ppm): 5.8 Background 8-hour CO Concentration(ppm): 4.7 Persistence Factor: 0.7 Analysis Year: 2010 Roadway Data Intersection: Lake St./Yorktown Ave. Analysis Condition: Future Plus Project Traffic Volumes No.of Average Speed Roadway Type Lanes A.M. P.M. North-South Roadway: Lake Street At Grade 2 20 20 East-West Roadway: Yorktown At Grade 4 20 20 A.M.Peak Hour Traffic Volumes P.M.Peak Hour Traffic Volumes N N 44 33 18 25 25 13 W < v > E W < v > E 10A A 18 54A A 27 351 > < 333 494 > < 439 108 v v 56 259 v v 98 < A > < A > 168 8 78 245 21 112 S S Highest Traffic Volumes(Vehicles per Hour) N-S Road: 451 N-S Road: 760 E-W Road: 1,014 E-W Road: 1,516 Roadway CO Contributions and Concentrations Emissions=(A x B x C)/100,0001 t - Al AZ A3 B C Reference CO Concentrations Traffic Emission Estimated CO Concentrations Roadway 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet Volume Factors' 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet A.M.Peak Traffic Hour North-South Road 2.7 2.2 1.7 451 5.52 0.07 0.05 0.04 East-West Road 7.0 5.4 3.8 1,014 5.52 0.39 0.30 0.21 P.M.Peak Traffic Hour North-South Road 2.7 2.2 1.7 760 5.52 0.11 0.09 0.07 East-West Road 7.0 5.4 3.8 1,516 5.52 0.59 0.45 0.32 1 Methodology and emission factors from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). Total Roadway CO Concentrations Peak Hour Emissions=North-South Concentration+East-West Concentration+Background 1-hour Concentration2 8-Hour Emissions=((Highest Peak Hour Concentration-Background 1-hour Concentration)x Persistence Factor)+Background 8-hour Concentration2 A.M. P.M. Peak Hour Peak Hour 8-Hour 25 Feet from Roadway Edge 6.3 6.5 5.2 50 Feet from Roadway Edge 6.2 6.3 5.1 100 Feet from Roadway Edge 6.1 6.2 5.0 2 Methodology from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). 27.Lake St.&Yorktown Ave.xls EIP Associates 9/22/03 SIMPLIFIED CALINE4 CARBON MONOXIDE ANALYSIS Project Number: 10261-00 , Project Title: Pacific City Background Information Nearest Air Monitoring Station measuring CO: Costa Mesa-Mesa Verde Drive Background 1-hour CO Concentration(ppm): 5.8 Background 8-hour CO Concentration(ppm): 4.7 Persistence Factor: 0.7 Analysis Year: 2010 Roadway Data Intersection: Beach Blvd./Yorktown Ave. Analysis Condition: Future Plus Project Traffic Volumes No.of Average Speed Roadway Type Lanes A.M. P.M. North-South Roadway: Beach Boulevard At Grade 6 15 15 East-West Roadway: Yorktown Avenue At Grade 4 15 15 A.M.Peak Hour Traffic Volumes P.M.Peak Hour Traffic Volumes N N 95 1,646 151 238 1,915 240 W < v > E W < v > E 179 A A 158 170 A A 115 475> < 428 358> < 316 227 v v 105 113 v v 144 < A > < A > 88 1,396 104 172 1,636 164 S S Highest Traffic Volumes(Vehicles per Hour) N-S Road: 3,625 N-S Road: 4,314 E-W Road: 1,492 E-W Road: 1,367 Roadway CO Contributions and Concentrations Emissions=(A x B x C)/100,0001 Ai A2 A3 B C Reference CO Concentrations Traffic Emission Estimated CO Concentrations Roadway 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet Volume Factors' 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet -, A.M.Peak Traffic Hour North-South Road 6.1 4.9 3.5 3,625 7.30 1.61 1.30 0.93 East-West Road 2.6 2.2 1.7 1,492 7.30 0.28 0.24 0.19 - P.M.Peak Traffic Hour North-South Road 6.1 4.9 3.5 4,314 7.30 1.92 1.54 1.10 East-West Road 2.6 2.2 1.7 1,367 7.30 0.26 0.22 0.17 'Methodology and emission factors from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). Total Roadway CO Concentrations Peak Hour Emissions=North-South Concentration+East-West Concentration+Background 1-hour Concentration2 8-Hour Emissions=((Highest Peak Hour Concentration-Background 1-hour Concentration)x Persistence Factor)+Background 8-hour Concentration2 A.M. P.M. Peak Hour Peak Hour 8-Hour 25 Feet from Roadway Edge 7.7 8.0 6.2 50 Feet from Roadway Edge 7.3 7.6 5.9 100 Feet from Roadway Edge 6.9 7.1 5.6 1 2 Methodology from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). 28.Beach Blvd.&Yorktown Ave.xls EIP Associates 9/22/03 SIMPLIFIED CALINE4 CARBON MONOXIDE ANALYSIS Project Number: 10261-00 Project Title: Pacific City Background Information Nearest Air Monitoring Station measuring CO: Costa Mesa-Mesa Verde Drive Background 1-hour CO Concentration(ppm): 5.8 Background 8-hour CO Concentration(ppm): 4.7 Persistence Factor: 0.7 Analysis Year: 2010 Roadway Data Intersection: Beach Blvd./Garfield Ave. Analysis Condition: Future Plus Project Traffic Volumes No.of Average Speed Roadway Type Lanes A.M. P.M. North-South Roadway: Beach Boulevard At Grade 6 15 15 East-West Roadway. Garfield Avenue • At Grade 4 15 15 • A.M.Peak Hour Traffic Volumes P.M.Peak Hour Traffic Volumes N N 93 1,724 143 146 2,053 231 W < v > E W < v > E 197 A " 194 207 A A 155 577> < 411 520 > < 420 233 v v 127 151 v v 212 < A > < A > 127 1,574 111 217 1,768 136 S S Highest Traffic Volumes(Vehicles per Hour) N-S Road: 3,925 N-S Road: 4,560 E-W Road: 1,638 E-W Road: 1,674 Roadway CO Contributions and Concentrations Emissions=(A x B x C)/100,0001 AI A2 A3 B C Reference CO Concentrations Traffic Emission Estimated CO Concentrations Roadway 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet Volume Factors' 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet A.M.Peak Traffic Hour North-South Road 6.1 4.9 3.5 3,925 7.30 1.75 1.40 1.00 East-West Road 2.6 2.2 1.7 1,638 7.30 0.31 0.26 0.20 P.M.Peak Traffic Hour North-South Road 6.1 4.9 3.5 4,560 7.30 2.03 1.63 1.17 East-West Road 2.6 2.2 1.7 1,674 7.30 0.32 0.27 0.21 t Methodology and emission factors from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). Total Roadway CO Concentrations Peak Hour Emissions=North-South Concentration+East-West Concentration+Background 1-hour Concentration2 8-Hour Emissions=((Highest Peak Hour Concentration-Background 1-hour Concentration)x Persistence Factor)+Background 8-hour Concentration2 , A.M. P.M. Peak Hour Peak Hour 8-Hour 25 Feet from Roadway Edge 7.9 8.1 6.3 50 Feet from Roadway Edge 7.5 7.7 6.0 100 Feet from Roadway Edge 7.0 7.2 5.7 2 Methodology from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). 29.Beach Blvd.&Garfield Ave.xls EIP Associates 9/22/03 SIMPLIFIED CALINE4 CARBON MONOXIDE ANALYSIS Project Number: 10261-00 Project Title: Pacific City Background Information 1 Nearest Air Monitoring Station measuring CO: Costa Mesa-Mesa Verde Drive Background 1-hour CO Concentration(ppm): 5.8 Background 8-hour CO Concentration(ppm): 4.7 Persistence Factor: 0.7 Analysis Year: 2010 Roadway Data Intersection: Beach Blvd./Ellis Ave.-Main St. Analysis Condition: Future Plus Project Traffic Volumes No.of Average Speed Roadway Type Lanes A.M. P.M. North-South Roadway: Beach Boulevard At Grade 6 15 15 East-West Roadway: Ellis Avenue-Main Street At Grade 2 15 15 , ' A.M.Peak Hour Traffic Volumes P.M.Peak Hour Traffic Volumes N N 335 1,608 227 645 1,912 341 W < v > E W < v > E 367^ A 174 454^ ^ 177 459> < 320 465> < 490 94 v v 130 147 v v 176 84 1,706 164 155 1,856 210 S S, Highest Traffic Volumes(Vehicles per Hour) N-S Road: 4,417 N-S Road: 5,385 E-W Road: 1,659 E-W Road: 2,356 Roadway CO Contributions and Concentrations Emissions=(A x B x C)/100,0001 At A2 A3 B C Reference CO Concentrations Traffic Emission Estimated CO Concentrations Roadway 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet Volume Factors' 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet A.M.Peak Traffic Hour North-South Road 6.1 4.9 3.5 4,417 7.30 1.97 1.58 1.13 East-West Road 2.7 2.2 1.7 1,659 7.30 0.33 0.27 0.21 P.M.Peak Traffic Hour - North-South Road 6.1 4.9 3.5 5,385 7.30 2.40 1.93 1.38 East-West Road 2.7 2.2 1.7 2,356 7.30 0.46 0.38 0.29 'Methodology and emission factors from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). Total Roadway CO Concentrations Peak Hour Emissions=North-South Concentration+East-West Concentration+Background 1-hour Concentration2 8-Hour Emissions=((Highest Peak Hour Concentration-Background 1-hour Concentration)x Persistence Factor)+Background 8-hour Concentration2 A.M. P.M. Peak Hour Peak Hour 8-Hour 25 Feet from Roadway Edge 8.1 8.7 6.7 50 Feet from Roadway Edge 7.6 8.1 6.3 100 Feet from Roadway Edge 7.1 7.5 5.9 2 Methodology from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). 30.Beach Blvd.&Ellis Ave.-Main St.xls EIP Associates 9/22/03 SIMPLIFIED CALINE4 CARBON MONOXIDE ANALYSIS Project Number: 10261-00 Project Title: Pacific City Background Information Nearest Air Monitoring Station measuring CO: Costa Mesa-Mesa Verde Drive Background 1-hour CO Concentration(ppm): 5.8 Background 8-hour CO Concentration(ppm): 4.7 Persistence Factor: 0.7 Analysis Year: 2010 Roadway Data Intersection: 1st.St./Pacific View Ave. Analysis Condition: Future Plus Project Traffic Volumes No.of Average Speed Roadway Type Lanes A.M. P.M. North-South Roadway 1st.Street At Grade 2 20 20 East-West Roadway Pacific View Avenue At Grade 2 20 20 A.M.Peak Hour Traffic Volumes P.M.Peak Hour Traffic Volumes N NI ' 171 38 2 168 59 10 W < v > E W < v > E 0A A 15 OA A 80 0> < 0 0> < 0 0v v 80 Ov v _ 131 , < A > - - - < A > 0 135 91 0 177 1181 S S Highest Traffic Volumes(Vehicles per Hour) N-S Road: 361 N-S Road: 494 E-W Road: 188 E-W Road: 339 Roadway CO Contributions and Concentrations Emissions=(A x B x C)/100,0001 Ai A2 A3 B C Reference CO Concentrations Traffic Emission Estimated CO Concentrations . Roadway 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet Volume Factors' 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet A.M.Peak Traffic Hour North-South Road 7.6 5.7 4.0 361 5.52 0.15 0.11 0.08 1 East-West Road 2.7 2.2 1.7 188 5.52 0.03 0.02 0.02 1 P.M.Peak Traffic Hour North-South Road 7.6 5.7 4.0 494 5.52 0.21 0.16 0.11 East-West Road 2.7 2.2 1.7 339 5.52 0.05 0.04 0.03 'Methodology and emission factors from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). Total Roadway CO Concentrations Peak Hour Emissions=North-South Concentration+East-West Concentration+Background 1-hour Concentration2 8-Hour Emissions=((Highest Peak Hour Concentration-Background 1-hour Concentration)x Persistence Factor)+Background 8-hour Concentration2 1 A.M. P.M. Peak Hour Peak Hour 8-Hour 25 Feet from Roadway Edge 6.0 6.1 4.9 50 Feet from Roadway Edge 5.9 6.0 4.8 100 Feet from Roadway Edge 5.9 5.9 4.8 2 Methodology from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). 31. 1st St.&Pacific View Ave.xls EIP Associates 9/22/03 SIMPLIFIED CALINE4 CARBON MONOXIDE ANALYSIS Project Number: 10261-00 , Project Title: Pacific City Background Information Nearest Air Monitoring Station measuring CO: Costa Mesa-Mesa Verde Drive Background 1-hour CO Concentration(ppm): 5.8 Background 8-hour CO Concentration(ppm): 4.7 Persistence Factor: 0.7 Analysis Year: 2010 Roadway Data Intersection: Beach Blvd./Pacific View Ave. Analysis Condition: Future Plus Project Traffic Volumes • No.of Average Speed Roadway Type Lanes A.M. P.M. North-South Roadway: Beach Boulevard At Grade 6 20 20 East-West Roadway: Pacific View Avenue At Grade 2 20 20 A.M.Peak Hour Traffic Volumes P.M.Peak Hour Traffic Volumes N N 111 618 0 215 498 0 W < v > E W < v > E 146A A 0 196A A 0 0> < 0 0> < 0 22 v v 0 23 v v 0 < A > < A > 24 350 0 30 900 0 S, S I Highest Traffic Volumes(Vehicles per Hour) N-S Road: 1,225 N-S Road: 1,809 E-W Road: 303 E-W Road: 464 Roadway CO Contributions and Concentrations Emissions=(A x B x C)/100,0001 At A2 A3 B C Reference CO Concentrations Traffic Emission Estimated CO Concentrations Roadway 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet Volume Factors' 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet A.M.Peak Traffic Hour North-South Road 6.1 4.9 3.5 1,225 5.52 0.41 0.33 0.24 East-West Road 2.7 2.2 1.7 303 5.52 0.05 0.04 0.03 P.M.Peak Traffic Hour North-South Road 6.1 4.9 3.5 1,809 5.52 0.61 0.49 0.35 East-West Road 2.7 2.2 1.7 464 5.52 0.07 0.06 0.04 'Methodology and emission factors from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). Total Roadway CO Concentrations Peak Hour Emissions=North-South Concentration+East-West Concentration+Background 1-hour Concentration2 8-Hour Emissions=((Highest Peak Hour Concentration-Background 1-hour Concentration)x Persistence Factor)+Background 8-hour Concentration2 A.M. P.M. Peak Hour Peak Hour 8-Hour 25 Feet from Roadway Edge 6.3 6.5 5.2 50 Feet from Roadway Edge 6.2 6.3 5.1 100 Feet from Roadway Edge 6.1 6.2 5.0 2 Methodology from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). 32.Beach Blvd.&Pacific View Ave.xls ElP Associates 9/22/03 APPENDIX C NOISE DATA ON-SITE TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS AND NOISE CONTOURS Project Number: 10261-00 Project Name: Pacific City Background Information Model Description: FHWA Highway Noise Prediction Model(FHWA-RD-77-108)with California Vehicle Noise(CALVENO)Emission Levels. Source of Traffic Volumes: Linscott,Law&Greenspan Community Noise Descriptor L . X CNEL. Assumed 24-Hour Traffic Distribution: Day Evening Night Total ADT Volumes 77 70% 12.70% 9.60% Medium-Duty Trucks 87 43% 5.05% 7.52% Heavy-Duty Trucks 89.10% 2.84% 8.06% Design Vehicle Mix Distance from Centerline of Roadway Analysis Condition Median ADT Speed Alpha Medium Heavy Ldn at Distance to Contour Roadway,Segment Lanes Width Volume (mph) Factor Trucks Trucks 100 Feet 70 Ldn 65 Ldn 60 Ldn Existing Traffic Volumes 1st Street . Atlanta Ave,to Pacific Coast Highway 4 12 5,979 35 0.5 1.8% 0.7% 56.0 - - 54 Atlanta Avenue 1st Street to Huntington Avenue 3 12 9,267 35 0.5 1.8% 0.7% 57.9 - - 72 Huntington Avenue Atlanta Avenue to Pacific Coast Highway 3 0 1,887 35 0.5 1.8% 0.7% 50.9 - - - Pacific Coast Highway Huntington Avenue to 1st Street 2 0 37,545 45 0.5 1.8% 0.7% 66.3 57 123 265 Future Without Project Traffic Volumes 1st Street Atlanta Ave.to Pacific Coast Highway 2 0 6,753 35 0.5 1.8% 0.7% 56.4 - - 57 Atlanta Avenue 1st Street to Huntington Avenue 2 0 10,312 35 0.5 1.8% 0.7% 58.2 - 35 76 Huntington Avenue Atlanta Avenue to Pacific Coast Highway 2 0 2,019 35 0.5 1.8% 0.7% 51.1 - - - Pacific Coast Highway Huntington Avenue to 1st Street 2 0 43,810 45 0.5 1.8% 0.7% 67.0 63 136 293 Future With Project Traffic Volumes 1st Street Atlanta Ave.to Pacific Coast Highway 4 12 8,401 35 0.5 1.8% 0.7% 57.5 - - 68 Atlanta Avenue 1st Street to Huntington Avenue 3 12 10,589 35 0.5 1.8% 0.7% 58.4 - - 79 Huntington Avenue Atlanta Avenue to Pacific Coast Highway 2 0 4,055 35 0.5 1.8% 0.7% 54.2 - - 41 Pacific Coast Highway Huntington Avenue to 1st Street 2 0 43,810 45 0.5 1.8% 0.7% 67.0 63 136 293 Pacific View Huntington Avenue to 1st Street 2 0 7,579 45 0.5 1.8% 0.7% 59.4 - 42 91 General Plan Buildout(2020)Without Project Traffic Volumes 1st Street Atlanta Ave.to Pacific Coast Highway 2 0 5,000 35 0.5 1.8% 0.7% 55.1 - - 47 Atlanta Avenue 1st Street to Huntington Avenue 2 0 12,000 35 0.5 1.8% 0.7% 58.9 - 39 84 Huntington Avenue to Delaware Street 2 0 12,000 35 0.5 1.8% 0.7% 58.9 - 39 84 Huntington Avenue south of Atlanta Avenue 2 0 400 35 0.5 1.8% 0.7% 44 1 ' - - - Delaware Street Atlanta Ave.to Pacific Coast Highway 2 0 2,000 35 0.5 1.8% 0.7% 51.1 - - - Pacific Coast Highway Huntington Avenue to 1st Street 2 0 49,800 45 0.5 1.8% 0.7% 67.6 69 148 320 General Plan Buildout(2020)With Project Traffic Volumes 1st Street On-Site Noise Contours.xls EIP Associates 5/12/03 Atlanta Ave.to Pacific Coast Highway 4 12 6,648 35 0.5 1.8% 0.7% 56.5 - - 58 Atlanta Avenue 1st Street to Huntington Avenue 3 12 -12,277 35 0.5 1.8% 0.7% 59.1 - - 87 Huntington Avenue to Delaware Street 2 0 14,231 35 0.5 1.8% 0.7% 59.6 - 44 94 Huntington Avenue south of Atlanta Avenue 2 0 1,014 35 0.5 1.8% 0.7% 48.2 - - - Delaware Street Atlanta Ave.to Pacific Coast Highway 2 0 3,422 35 0.5 1.8% 0.7% 53.4 - - 37 Pacific Coast Highway Huntington Avenue to 1st Street 2 0 47,310 45 0.5 1.8% 0.7% 67.3 67 143 309 Distance is from the centerline of the roadway segment to the receptor location. =contour is located within the roadway right-of-way. • • On-Site Noise Contours.xls EIP Associates 5/12/03 OFF-SITE TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS Project Number: 10261-00 Project Name: Pacific City Background Information Model Description: FHWA Highway Noise Prediction Model(FHWA-RD-77-108)with California Vehicle Noise(CALVENO)Emission Levels. Analysis Scenario(s): Existing and Future Traffic Volumes Source of Traffic Volumes: Linscott,Law&Greenspan Community Noise Descriptor. Ldn: X CNEL. Assumed 24-Hour Traffic Distribution: Day Evening Night Total ADT Volumes 77.70% 12.70% 9.60% Medium-Duty Trucks 87 43% 5.05% 7.52% Heavy-Duty Trucks 89.10% 2.84% 8.06% Traffic Noise Levels Analysis Condition Peak Design Dist.from Barrier Vehicle Mix Peak Hou 24-Hour Roadway Name Median Hour ADT Speed Center to Alpha Attn. Medium Heavy dB(A) dB(A) Roadway Segment Land Use Lanes Width Volume Volume (mph) Receptor Factor dB(A) Trucks Trucks Len Ldn Existing Traffic Volumes Pacific Coast Highway 17th to 9th Multi-Family Residential 4 12 0 37,144 40 75 0.5 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 67.3 Beach Boulevard PCH to Atlanta Single Family Residential 6 12 0 13,000 35 100 0.5 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 59.7 Atlanta to Indianapolis Single Family Residential 6 18 0 21,000 40 100 0.5 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 63.1 Indianapolis to Adams Single and Multi-Family R. 6 18 0 29,000 40 100 0.5 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 64.6 Lake Street Adams to Indianapolis Single Family Residential 2 12 0 6,000 35 50 0.5 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 60.6 Indianapolis Avenue Beach to Newland Single Family Residential 4 0 0 7,000 30 75 0.5 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 57.6 Atlanta Avenue Newland to Beach Multi-Family Residential 4 12 0 16,000 35 75 0.5 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 62.3 Beach to Delaware Single and Multi-Family R. 2 12 0 16,000 35 50 0.5 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 64.8 Delaware to Huntington Single and Multi-Family R. 2 12 0 10,849 35 50 0.5 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 63.1 Huntington to 1st Single and Multi-Family R. 2 0 0 9,267 30 50 0.5 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 61.3 Main Street Adams to Palm Single Family Residential 2 0 0 5,000 30 50 0.5 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 58.7 1st Street PCH to Atlanta Single Family Residential 2 0 0 5,979 30 50 0.5 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 59.4 Huntington Avenue PCH to Atlanta Single Family Residential 2 0 0 1,887 30 50 0.5 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 54.4 Future Without Project Traffic Volumes Pacific Coast Highway 17th to 9th Multi-Family Residential 4 12 0 42,711 40 75 0.5 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 67.9 Beach Boulevard PCH to Atlanta Single Family Residential 6 12 0 17,636 35 100 0.5 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 61.0 Atlanta to Indianapolis Single Family Residential 6 18 0 25,629 40 100 0.5 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 64.0 Indianapolis to Adams Single and Multi-Family R. 6 18 0 33,962 40 100 0.5 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 65.2 Lake Street Adams to Indianapolis Single Family Residential 2 12 0 6,420 35 50 0.5 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 60.9 Indianapolis Avenue Beach to Newland Single Family Residential 4 0 0 7,788 30 75 0.5 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 58.1 Atlanta Avenue Newland to Beach Multi-Family Residential 4 12 0 18,173 35 75 0.5 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 62.9 Beach to Delaware Single and Multi-Family R. 2 12 0 17,583 35 50 0.5 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 65.2 Delaware to Huntington Single and Multi-Family R. 2 12 0 12,004 35 50 0.5 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 63.6 Huntington to 1st Single and Multi-Family R, 2 0 0 10,312 30 50 0.5 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 61.8 Main Street Adams to Palm Single Family Residential 2 0 0 6,629 30 50 0.5 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 59.9 1st Street PCH to Atlanta Single Family Residential 4 0 0 5,000 30 75 0.5 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 56.2 Huntington Avenue PCH to Atlanta Single Family Residential 4 0 0 5,000 30 75 0.5 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 56.2 Off-Site Noise Levels.xls EIP Associates 5/12/03 Future With Project Traffic Volumes Pacific Coast Highway 17th to 9th Multi-Family Residential 4 12 0 44,881 40 75 0.5 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 68.1 Beach Boulevard PCH to Atlanta Single Family Residential 6 12 0 20,240 35 100 0.5 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 61.6 Atlanta to Indianapolis Single Family Residential 6 18 0 29,408 40 100. 0.5 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 64.6 1 ' Indianapolis to Adams Single and Multi-Family R. 6 18 0 37,700 40 100 0.5 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 65.7 , , Lake Street Adams to Indianapolis Single Family Residential 2 12 0 6,805 35 50 0.5 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 61 1 Indianapolis Avenue Beach to Newland Single Family Residential 4 0 0 7,983 30 75 0.5 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 58.2 Atlanta Avenue Newland to Beach Multi-Family Residential 4 12 0 18,839 35 75 0.5 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 63.1 Beach to Delaware Single and Multi-Family R. 2 12 0 19,445 35 50 0.5 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 65.7 Delaware to Huntington Single and Multi-Family R. 2 12 0 14,235 35 50 0.5 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 64.3 ' Huntington to 1st Single and Multi-Family R. 3 12 0 10,589 30 50 0.5 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 62.3 1 Main Street Adams to Palm Single Family Residential 2 0 0 4,502 30 50 0.5 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 58.2 1st Street PCH to Atlanta Single Family Residential 4 12 0 8,401 30 75 0.5 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 58.6 Huntington Avenue PCH to Atlanta Single Family Residential 3 0 0 4,055 30 75 0.5 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 55.1 General Plan(2020)Without Project Pacific Coast Highway 17th to 9th - Multi-Family Residential 4 12 0 50,500 40 75 0.5 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 68.6 Beach Boulevard PCH to Atlanta Single Family Residential 6 12 0 23,400 35 100 0.5 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 62.2 Atlanta to Indianapolis Single Family Residential 6 18 0 31,800 40 100 0.5 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 65.0 Indianapolis to Adams Single and Multi-Family R. 6 18 0 36,300 40 100 0.5 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 65.5 Lake Street Adams to Indianapolis Single Family Residential 2 12 0 6,900 35 50 0.5 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 61.2 Indianapolis Avenue -- Beach to Newland Single Family Residential 4 0 0 10,000 30 75 0.5 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 59.2 Atlanta Avenue Newland to Beach Multi-Family Residential 4 12 0 18,900 35 75 0.5 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 63.1 Beach to Delaware Single and Multi-Family R. 2 12 0 12,100 35 50 0.5 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 63.6 Delaware to Huntington Single and Multi-Family R. 2 12 0 12,000 35 50 0.5 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 63.6 Huntington to 1st Single and Multi-Family R' 2 0 0 12,000 30 50 0.5 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 62.5 Main Street Adams to Palm Single Family Residential 2 0 0 8,400 30 50 0.5 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 60.9 1st Street PCH to Atlanta Single Family Residential 4 0 0 5,000 30 75 0.5 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 56.2 Huntington Avenue ' PCH to Atlanta Single Family Residential 4 0 0 2,000 30 75 0.5 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 52.2 General Plan(2020)With Project Pacific Coast Highway 17th to 9th Multi-Family Residential 4 12 0 52,670 40 75 0.5 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 68.8 , Beach Boulevard PCH to Atlanta Single Family Residential 6 12 0 26,004 35 100 0.5 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 62.7 Atlanta to Indianapolis Single Family Residential 6 18 0 35,579 40 100 0.5 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 65.4 Indianapolis to Adams Single and Multi-Family R. 6 18 0 40,038 40 100 0.5 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 66.0 Lake Street Adams to Indianapolis Single Family Residential 2 12 0 7,285 35 50 0.5 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 61 4 Indianapolis Avenue Beach to Newland Single Family Residential 4 0 0 10,195 30 75 0.5 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 59.3 Atlanta Avenue Newland to Beach Multi-Family Residential 4 12 0 19,566 35 75 0.5 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 63.2 Beach to Delaware Single and Multi-Family R. 2 12 0 13,962 35 50 0.5 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 64.2 Delaware to Huntington Single and Multi-Family R. 2 12 0 14,231 35 50 0.5 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 64.3 Huntington to 1st Single and Multi-Family R. 2 0 0 12,277 30 50 0.5 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 62.6 Main Street Adams to Palm Single Family Residential 2 0 0 9,273 30 50 0.5 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 61.3 1st Street PCH to Atlanta Single Family Residential 4 12 0 6,648 30 75 0.5 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 57.6 Huntington Avenue ' PCH to Atlanta Single Family Residential 3 0 0 3,422 30 75 0.5 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 54 4 Distance is from the centerline of the roadway segment to the receptor location. - , Ott-Site Noise Levels.xls EIP Associates ,- 5/12/03 APPENDIX D WATER AND SEWER MATERIALS City of Huntington Beach Water Supply Assessment for Pacific City Development Prepared for: Makar Properties, LLC 4100 MacArthur Boulevard, Suite 200 Newport Beach, CA 92660-2064 Prepared by: Hunsaker & Associates Irvine, Inc. 3 Hughes Irvine, CA 92618 (949) 583-1010 May 30, 2003 ((\c\wo\2198\13 D11-js.doc) Water Supply Assessment City of Huntington Beach for Pacific City Development Table of Contents Section Page 1. Purpose of Report 1 2. Proposed Project 2 3. Estimated Water Demands for the Proposed Project 3 4. Water Supply, Water Demand, Populations 5 A. Delivery 6 B. Supply 7 C. Water Supply Reliability 11 5. Coordination with Appropriate Agencies 13 6. Water Shortage Plans, Prohibitions and Mandatory Measures 15 7. Conclusion 16 8. Sources Consulted and References 17 9. Appendix 18 JS:wp(f\c\wo\2198\13 D11-js.doc)05-30-03 i Water Supply Assessment Hunsaker&Associates Irvine,Inc. Makar Properties Water Supply Assessment City of Huntington Beach for Pacific City Development List of Tables Table Page Table 1 Water Demand Type 3 Table 2 Water Demands by Land Use 4 • Table 3 Water Supply and Demand 5 Table 4 Water Supply 5 Table 5 City's Service Area Population Projections 5 Table 6 City's Total Water Supply 7 Table 7 Supply Reliability 12 JS:wp(f\c\wo\2198\13 D11-js.doc)O5-30-03 ii Water Supply Assessment Hunsaker&Associates Irvine,Inc. Makar Properties Section 1 — Purpose of Report Makar Properties, LLC is requesting that the City of Huntington Beach approve a new development, known as"Pacific City Development".The water purveyor for this proposed development is the City of Huntington Beach. This Water Supply Assessment is prepared in satisfaction of certain recently enacted requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act,the Water Supply Planning statutes (Water Code sections 10910 et seq.) and the Subdivision Map Act (Government Code section 66473.7), which require that a water provider furnish substantial evidence that adequate water supplies are available to meet the water demands of new and existing customers, through normal, single dry and multiple dry years for a 20 year period. The City of Huntington Beach has prepared and adopted 2000 Urban Water Management Plan (December 2000), which includes discussion and analysis of the City's water sources and supplies, planning for water reliability, its past, current and projected water use, water demand management measures, water shortage contingency plans, and water recycling. The City's 2000 Urban Water Management Plan accounts for the water demand for the proposed Project. Because the 2000 Urban Water Management Plan accounts for the Project's water demand,the City hereby incorporates the information from the Plan in preparing this Water Supply Assessment. In addition,this Water Supply Assessment reviews certain issues that have arisen since the preparation of the 2000 Urban Water Management Plan regarding the reliability of the City's water supply. • JS:wp(f\c\wo\2198\13 D11=1 s.doc)05-30-03 1 Water Supply Assessment Hunsaker&Associates Irvine,Inc. Makar Properties Section 2—Proposed Project The City of Huntington Beach is located in coastal Southern California, approximately 35 miles southeast of Los Angeles, in the County of Orange. The City is predominately residential with approximately 500 industrial businesses,56 parks,and 8.5 miles of Pacific Ocean beach. It is within the South Coast Air Basin.The climate is generally described as Mediterranean,with 10-12 inches of annual precipitation. The City is essentially fully developed;the population within the City's water service area is expected to rise only about 2% over the next 20 years. The proposed project is a mixed-use development for a 31-acre site in the City of Huntington Beach, located at the intersection of First Street and Pacific Coast Highway, bounded on the north by Atlanta Avenue, and on the east by Huntington Street. See site map following this page.' The property is vacant land. Previous uses have included a mobile home park, a restaurant,a motel, and oil production. Those operations have been discontinued and the site has been undergoing remediation. The Makar development will create an additional demand upon the domestic water distribution system. Project engineering is performed by Hunsaker & Associates (H&A), which has estimated waterdemands based on design criteria of the City of Huntington Beach. Source: Hunsaker&Associates Irvine, Inc. JS:wp(f\c\wo\2198\13 D11-js.doc)05-30-03 2 Water Supply Assessment Hunsaker&Associates Irvine,Inc. Makar Properties .,.,..0- 6-cx-ti g IL .r3 a e` p' }1 f/ p • p lr �j ' � I>1 /j d` i • z `' * ' 1 �,-;.,,.. -..i�� • " it �i •mom.. '� 'rn`,r is .fi -/"i`,°`., .,.,r�` � }♦�tl cy d' ptS _:O;R7l¢t:�`AJ 0 , 7 I ; ) -• 1,�. ..,�_ �s...& t:<r �?�..�.._ �.'�,,;w11 _ '. .{�'� •1 r e. 1. (ell miLl l i.F... .f f tl0 �.�s�' s-61; A1 .I@ •0� i 1d 1! w•..,...,,e : .` :.e,:�. L t' rrA,": '/\ 4.; f1 b ' in•`, 4I "{ p g .. ') .� [f • �y `••F c t _ `d• " qN. • T�S v 5` f j :7t: .� S 11:$.^ `... ,:it::,!; mo '?'IV- {(f'"h'k„p ""».n<.e.......-,.+.-. y f'' :q '�4 .11 I t3 ` C) 1 t, I�'. jj A:.o j... '",-1. 1:,..,, 7,40, , -.4 4 4..: . .., uriLLJ, , :,\\,,, .vii., . ..• i -,,.. ,, _ii in . , ,....:,_ \ -, -7--, . ,,,,....:, _.,,,i..„. ...,.....,), = ,*•.:_,...., ,, ..., ,,i . . ., ......,,_ . • . •-1,...,.... ,,:,,,,,,, :3 , t,.. ` Jr., c,'" ' �': r ., 75,orI. ' A. I fi " t::_,Yd,...,.oL.�tt, .r"1,:y •�,-.; . .�ir� i; >_.: f� ,,, I.,,.,-• > �.�...... r: m � P 1 , �][ j 1 L 6 ,,,,„ ,,,„.„, ..r, @ 4_ '6?+'{' _P S �-- * ; 6 Ci ��.i ', ..a•_SY...L.�.d - ..,� __!I IJ.: q ,I.,. dl, . '- ' 4 "r .. = * _ IMP, ° r l C I a `t�, fD, ',- , �, .. ;• .. . :: _= i=4,• it I' ,,,,?',•• ,-- .. A7-71,-f-1 .-y. e.'. - ;,//: - . ......:..--Nc.4- s,:-.. ,.. - , , , 1., : 0.},:,:i3; , : _ [7,1. .,_ c, _,.., 'tipt. 1. r' `J 1 : �• / ,. - 1. [ 2t . ; (: it.itts eac, • • , J:14,0:,..„--,-; ,... . ,..k....4e.-, :i . ,i,..: .:-.:,:,--,,..- .. _ • • �s ,,, ' 1 j�f''' _ 5 `-.� r :r'' _ � y� ems.-7m,.�•.� 'tt,4r:2. aye ' .;',!.7:-I 1. �. I. 13: :! 9'a td: �' .. y_:: i .}[t•�,�; �' 4 t. S '�3'M .�, t:1 Y 1 s • . : f 3'-..-;\1t o ,t1 _JIf.,.' ' 0 7 �, -• t ' tr- `'r, 4R1G 4 t „i't: , l f z-�. . a� 11 • ENE a 4 '� t. \�•t•Iiy^• r• .p. '_� _ i Fj .(€ :� iii •- I1TT � Trailer '- -_-- P f I ft i '�..!.;-•- ^�.. r t C_.. J_ / I _F fD `K 1 'z • 4'. n IIw I I i i Ij 1 '' � R' �,�• 31 b .�,�, _ Iri. �, A= f- , `;1 {g1 ti = tv� g�, j Q$ !i3' t " e ,�\ ,. •ills , t:. . t t 1 j . :.,rA r: 'r, - PROJECT SITE q_, `» :,, �f �,,,,,,.,, a ; ° ' II? • - -- 'N'4;;,`,.'N V / 1 •••••;'':- ',. :' ``°n'ii::.. \.:•:,- V, . iI 3 i��rxi�a�re ..w .off ? �'w'o.a;�:ire,:::r:.�i...__ - Ir PACIFIC CITY PREPARED BY: EXHIBIT# 1 NOT TO SCALE PROJECT LOCATION HUNSAKER & ASSOCIATES DATE. 11/27/02 L1 I R V I N E , YI W.O. 2198--13x PLANNING ■ ENGINEERING 0:\Huntington Beach\Pacific City\Exhibit\SDS-Project-Loc.DWG Three Hughes • Irvine, CA 92618• PH:(949)5813.1010• FX:(949)UR VE 583.0759NG Section 3—Estimated Water Demand for the'Project The water demand for the proposed project was taken into account in the City's 2000 Urban Water Management Plan. The 2000 Urban Water Management Plan was based upon the City's General Plan and zoning for the site,and included a demand projection consistent with land uses allowed under the City's General Plan. The estimated water demands for the proposed project are based on the City of Huntington Beach's design criteria in accordance with the project concept. Tables 1 and 2 break down water usage by demand factors and land use. Table 1 Water Demand Type 'r'<` °'. @m<:trw ;ro','•`R' '•":r •u •-'a,�,;. _ .,s •,�, •'s,-;�'�,•:'r; ,,�. =g' <<.- Uo r CFa `' Gallons iPer-Minute:: r. <F Ue id:Glassca ►in-: MittuiiaG ns'IPe y' Average Day 0.42 292 Maximum Day 0.67 467 Peak Hour 1.05 730 Maximum Fire Flow 5.755 I 4,000 Ii JS:wp(t\c\wo\2198\13 D11-js.doc)05-30-03 3 Water Supply Assessment Hunsaker&Associates Irvine,Inc. Makar Properties • Table 2 Water Demands by Land Use ,",;• " •`7,c*, 4 ;3.! Yl Land Use Quantity'".' poly Flter How • Condominiums 540 DUs 400. gpd/DU 216,000 Hotel 400 Rooms 225. gpd/Room 90,000 Office 60,000 Square Ft. 0.3 gpd/Square Ft. 18,000 Rest./Brewery 50,000 Square Ft. 1.5 gpd/Square Ft. 75,000 Retail130,000 Sq. Ft. 0.15 gpd/Square Ft. 19,500 Total • 418,500 gpd Total 0.42 mgd Max Daily Flow 0.67 mgd Peak Hour Flow 1.05 mgd Water Demand Factors Condominiums: 180 gallons per day x 2.2 people per Dwelling Unit=400 gpd/DU _ 1 Hotel: 150 gpd/room x 1.5 = 225 gpd/DU Office: 300 gpd/1,000 SF = 0.3 gpd/SF Restaurant/Brewery. 1.5 gpd/SF Retail: 0.15 gpd/SF JS:wp(f\c\wo\2198\13 D11-js.doc)05-30-03 4 Water Supply Assessment Hunsaker&Associates Irvine,Inc. Makar Properties Section 4-Water Supply,Water Demand, Populations' Table 3 Water Supply and Demand (Acre Feet) --:s ::.�: M .'' :f,;. 202o:..,,n _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 1 Difference 2,860 2,674 2,805 2,770 2,770 2,770 Table 4 Water Supply; (Acre Feet) > ;tip,. ;s y ''<'"'i`!� jn� �c^.>+f�((���y R. '�.,;w�h Sj�„e�,.; r., �. ,�g g€"Pe:t���„ei 'il +[�(p�f'��j • m �e r .y i-,'2400-Ni::;� '�' `260 !,291'Q Y<t ,2; 2 >5' :-,,, t•'�1,;,,, 0 0'a",',•'A '::',,t;";'a022 •,b"'a �ciK�G ..., .'.�'� ' N' :Ut'o:l•'.,- '�:e �;ey: ,fh tiYum..ffa.;:;.^ ti' >.; ', - Imported 9,365 9,550 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 Ground 28,095 28,250 29,675 29,700 29,700 29,700 1 Reclaimed 0 400 400 400 400 400 Total 37,460 38,200 40,075 40,100 40,100 40,100 • 1 Table 5 City's Service Area Population Projections' ' •?"' ••;Y; 9::!, ��.V..,:•.2.; k k•: . 'r Ls,'r.4 A " . f s' A '.x'< .,"% ,' c as- .'''',;;'•:,y�: ✓'� :d: a. ,,. ' '+ �<" j 'P-ge--'200 P.' ' P ,gN;; 1 'zet Y'44'::' ; 4fYl@f; ' R o , iq;', 1 .r:ate" , .„' . 4,.c..`} ...'d;_4' <, �;,3 . ,F„f�.•st: ,d.r:j; i,yrk r"x° iP"=_"us3,'_ r a.. r.... wu..;:s^Pc, . ^;''fit 206,292 209,203 210,612* 210,021* 210,053 * 210,100 * * Decrease in population due to normal aging of population in a community that is fully developed. 2City of Huntington Beach, 2000 Urban Water Management Plan(December 2000). 31bjd. 4The Center for Demographic Research, California State University, Fullerton. JS:wp 0\c\wo\2198\13 D10-js.doc)11-27-02 5 Water Supply Assessment Hunsaker&Associates Irvine,Inc. Mak, A. Delivery Bulk water supply will be delivered through the City's backbone water supply system. Some off-site pipeline construction will be needed to eliminate some existing, community-wide water distribution system deficiencies. Upon completion of the off-site improvements, water will be delivered to the project through the City's improved domestic water distribution system.The off-site domestic water system includes the following: 1. 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 system to serve the Hilton Hotel and the Water Front developments, east of the Pacific City project. 2. Water supply from the west via a 12-inch pipeline continued in First Avenue to Pacific Coast Highway(PCH). 3. Additional supply from the north through a 12-inch pipeline in Atlanta Avenue. 4. Water supply from the south and east through a 12-inch water main in PCH. 5. The City of Huntington Beach is currently constructing an extension of the 18-inch pipeline to connect to a new 12-inch main in Beach Boulevard. The City's Public Works Department contracted with Tetra Tech., Inc.to perform a computer model hydraulic analysis of water service to the Pacific City project site and the surrounding area based on City planning data, and data provided by Maker Properties. The analysis noted various water distribution system deficiencies resulting from the proposed project,that will require mitigation(in the form of infrastructure improvements), to meet the demands of, and for the benefit of the proposed project and the surrounding area. The proposed improvements are shown on the map in the appendix.' Following is a listing of the proposed improvements. A. A new 18-inch water main on Pacific View Avenue between First Street and Huntington Street. B. A new 12-inch water main in Huntington Street that will connect to an existing 12-inch water main in Atlanta Avenue and with an existing water main in Huntington Street as well as to the new 18-inch water main in Pacific View Avenue. C. A new 12-inch water main in First Street (in the public right-of-way)that will connect to the existing 12-inch water main in Atlanta Avenue and with the new 18-inch water main in Pacific View Avenue. D. A new 12-inch water main in First Street that will connect to a new 12-inch water main in Pacific Coast Highway and with the new 18-inch water main in Pacific View Avenue. 'Source: Hunsaker&Associates Irvine, Inc. JS:wp(f\c\wo\2198\13 D11=)s.doc)05-30-03 6 Water Supply Assessment Hunsaker&Associates Irvine,Inc. Makar Properties I E. A new 12-inch water main in Pacific Coast Highway that will connect with the new 12-inch water main in First Street and with an existing 12-inch water main in Huntington Street. F. The proposed 12-inch water main in Huntington Street should be constructed and put into service prior to taking the 18-inch water main out of service. Upon completion of the proposed improvements, the City's distribution system will be improved beyond present capabilities. . IB. Supply Table 6 IThe City of Huntington Beach's Total Water Supply (Acre Feet) 111 ,q wyrx.y,...,•,n: «.:..,. „^rm�w, --7-,,,,,-,--,,y� . .."""'w'j"^�%�".q '��?v:M ,..t> >�3y ,.:HCekr^ .d.TL:.fit ...._Yy..�: F.Y- .i&°"`'rt"T' ,„ wV i.' s<rt6i J yw.; N sf'Fp. /.N •'»%.;0'4, ,1' z., ;Y' .i °=:2000s ' ;00$1 ,2010 2015 202. '2022 a I MWDOC 9,365 9,550 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 Imported I Groundwater 28,095 28,250 29,675 29,700 29,700 29,700 Production Recycled Water 0 400 400 400 400 400 38,200I 40 100 40 100 Total 37,460 40,07540,100, , IThe data in Table 6 represents a breakdown of the City's total water supply. Quantities are shown in acre feet. 1. Groundwater Supply As shown in Table 6, 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 River Groundwater Basin.6 The City obtains about 75% of its water from groundwater production, and expects to do so for the foreseeable future. This year, however,the City will be able to draw only about 66%of its water from 6 A detailed description of the Santa Ana River Groundwater Basin,including its hydrology,is found in Chapter 3, Master Plan Report, Orange County Water District (April 1999), at pp. 3-1 through 3-14. A description of the recharge facilities used by the groundwater management agency,the Orange County Water District,to replenish the groundwater basin,is also found throughout the Master Plan Report,Orange County Water District.See,for example,Chapter 4,at pages 4-1 through 4-36.The groundwater resources relied on by the city were also described in figures at Page 2-2. "Historic&Projected District Total Water Demands;" Page 3-11. "Available Basin Storage since 1969;"following Page 5-3, "Historic Santa Ana River flows and Wastewater Discharges;" Page 6-4, "Historical Supply Production in the MWD Service Area by Type of Supply; Page 6-5,"Regional Retail Water Demand in MWD;" and Page 6-3,"MWD Total Water Deliveries;" all found in Master Plan Report for the Orange County Water District(April 1999). JS:wp(f\c\wo\2198\13 D11-js.doc)05-30-03 7 Water Supply Assessment Hunsaker&Associates Irvine,Inc. Makar Properties the Basin,due to the impacts of a long-term drought that has depleted the Basin. The City will need to make up the difference with increased imported water. Fortunately, however, Metropolitan has so much water this year that it has terminated its arrangements to purchase and import water from other counties. To review, in brief,the information contained in the 2000 Urban Water Management Plan,the basin underlies the north half of Orange County. It covers an area of approximately 350 square miles and extend over 2,000 feet deep. Total groundwater production from the Basin has increased steadily over the last several years,from about 300,000 acre-feet in 1990,to over 350,000 feet now. By 2020,the Basin could produce 490,000 acre-feet per year,if certain capital improvements to the Basin are made. The groundwater produced by the City of Huntington Beach includes replenishment water imported into the region by Metropolitan Water District of Southern California(discussed in Section 4(B)(2))and discharged recycled water from wastewater discharged to the Santa Ana River by upstream dischargers. } The City of Huntington Beach is one of a number of producers in the Santa Ana River groundwater basin, and has been fully annexed to the special district which manages the groundwater basin, the Orange County Water District.The basin has been managed since 1933 by the Orange County Water District, a special district organized under a special act of the legislature,Water Code Appendix40. • Although the pumping rights of the producers within the basin have not been quantified through the process of basin adjudication, they exist and have not been abrogated by the Act (Water Code Appendix section 40-77). The City of Huntington Beach's rights consist of municipal appropriator's rights.The Orange County Water District's management of the groundwater basin under the Act serves to enforce a statutorily-imposed physical solution involving the restriction on the exportation of pumped groundwater from the basin, and the controlled overdraft and planned replenishment of the basin. The Act empowers the Orange County Water District to impose pump taxes and basin equity assessments on production, registration of wells,and the filing of reports of pumping.On behalf of all of the pumpers,the Orange County Water District acquires and operates groundwater replenishment facilities,operates salt water barriers which particularly benefit the City of Huntington Beach and plans for the future of the District. - The Orange County Water District carefully monitors the groundwater elevations of the basin, and annually projects both basin demands, and basin supplies and publishes its study in an annual engineer's report. Based upon the engineer's report, the Board of Directors determines whether to purchase additional water supplies for percolation into the basin,and what management practices to follow. The basin is managed through a carefully monitored system of controlled overdraft. A description of the management options available to the District,and its historic management practices, is set forth more fully in the Master Plan Report for the Orange County Water District(April 1999). In summary, the District recently has maintained the Basin in slight overdraft, to increase the Basin's capacity for recharge. - The Orange County Water District is expressly prohibited from limiting a municipal appropriator's extractions unless it agrees,and it is required to annually investigate the condition of the Basin,assess overdraft and accumulated overdraft and determine the quantity of water necessary for basin replenishment(Water Code Appendix section 40-26). JS.wvp(f\c\wo\2198\13 D11-js.doc)05-30-03 8 Water Supply Assessment Hunsaker&Associates Irvine,Inc. Makar Properties I - The Orange County Water District has studied the basin replenishment needs and potential projects to address growth in demand through 2020.The study and analysis are described in detail in its Master Plan Report for the Orange County Water District(April 1999).Records of ground water production are available both at the City of Huntington Beach, and at the Orange County Water District. In summary, the Master Plan Report concludes that Orange County Water District can generally maintain its same level of service well into the future. The District will need approximately $212 million to fund capital improvement projects necessary to maintain this level of service while meeting the increased demand. The District has the financial capability to issue the additional long-term debt to fund the future projects that will allow the continuance of its historical level of service. The District charged a replenishment assessment of $94 per acre-foot in 1999. Each $10 increase in the replenishment assessment increases a water consumer's monthly water bill by $0.31. The District forecasts that its replenishment assessment will increase to $192 per acre-foot by the year 2020, or - approximately $3 per month for each water consumer. The City believes that a $3 per month increase in its residents' monthly water bills over the next 20 years,to ensure the continued availability of groundwater from the Orange County Water District, is reasonable. The minimal amount of the increase in monthly water bills, coupled with the District's excellent financial position and the District's demonstrated leadership in continuing to manage the Basin, support the issuance of this water supply assessment. For further information, please see Section 2 of the City of Huntington Beach's 2000 Urban Water Management Plan for a description of groundwater management and availability. The section also contains data about the City's wells. 2. Imported Water Supply The City of Huntington Beach's groundwater supply is supplemented with water purchased from the Municipal Water District of Orange County, a member agency of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California.As a member agency, the Municipal Water District is entitled to purchase water from Metropolitan,as available.Metropolitan has contracts for the delivery,storage and exchange of water, which are discussed more fully in The Regional Urban Water Management Plan for the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California,(December 2000)published by Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, and Report on Metropolitan's Water Supplies, published by Metropolitan Water District of Southern California(March 25, 2003).The water is imported from two major watersheds:the Sierras,and the Rockies.Thus the City of Huntington Beach uses groundwater conjunctively with its purchased surface water supplies. Metropolitan's most recent analysis is very conservative. For example, Metropolitans own regional water demand projections are 6%to 16% higher than the aggregated projections of Metropolitan's member agencies.This difference provides a measure of margin of safety or flexibility to accommodate some delays in local resources development or adjustments in development plans. Metropolitan has found that it has a comprehensive supply plan to provide sufficient supplemental water supplies and to provide a prudent supply reserve over the next 20 years. This projection was made in light of the loss of a substantial amount of Colorado River water. Even though(at the time that Metropolitan prepared the report) California had lost access to more than 35% of its expected JS:wp(f\c\wo\2198\13 D11-js.doc)05-30-03 9 Water Supply Assessment Hunsaker&Associates Irvine,Inc. Makar Properties Colorado River supply,due both to the failure of multi-party negotiations over rights to Colorado River water and to record drought conditions, Metropolitan can continue to deliver an adequate supply of water. More particularly,Metropolitan has documented sufficient currently available supplies to meet 100% of its member agencies' supplemental water demands (a) for 20 years under average-year and wet conditions, (b) for 15 years even under the repeat of the worst multiple dry-year conditions (with 8- , 26% reserve capacity), and (c) for 15 years even under the repeat of the worst single dry-year conditions '(with 8-25% reserve capacity). With the addition of supplies under development, Metropolitan will be able to meet 100%of its agencies'supplemental water needs under all demand conditions through 2030 with 20-25% reserve capacity, even under a repeat of the worst drought. Metropolitan projects that it would have the capacity to reliably meet projected water demands through 2030, if its supply programs were implemented under its comprehensive resource plan and if - current trends for retail demands and local supplies continue.Please refer to Metropolitan's Report on Metropolitan's Water Supplies(March 25,2003), Pages 23-25, Findings,as well as its Regional Urban Water Management Plan(December 2002) for more detailed discussion. In summary,the basis for Metropolitan's findings is the years of work and expense incurred in contingency planning and development of additional resources. Metropolitan's margin of safety in its demand projections and its reserve supplies,together with the fact that the City of Huntington Beach relies on Metropolitan Water District's imported supplies only to supplement its groundwater resources,ensures the highest redundancy in planning for an adequate future supply for the coming 20 years, through dry and multiple dry years. C. Water Supply Reliability From the beginning of the 1900's until the start of the new millennium, providing water to naturally arid Southern California has been a big challenge, successfully met. On a macro level, there is a continually growing gap between Southern California's need for water and its firm supply.In Southern - California, precipitation fluctuates from a low of under 5 inches per year, to more than 36 inches. A key component of supply reliability,particularly in multiple dry-year scenarios, is the groundwater basin from which the City of Huntington Beach and all other basin producers pump.The basin is so vast, it is one of the largest underground water basins in the State, and serves as a supply regulator to smooth out the supply in those years in which local precipitation is below normal. Not only is the basin a source of water, it is also a geological feature which allows for the capture and storage of water, of recycled water produced by wastewater treatment plants, for water surplus to other uses around the state which can be conveyed to Southern California through the Metropolitan conveyance system,and for the sinking and conservation of rainwater and stormwater which flows down the River. See generally,the Orange County Water District's Master Plan Report(April 1999)for a discussion of groundwater and surface water storage programs relied upon by the Metropolitan Water District to enhance supply reliability, please refer to The Regional Urban Water Management Plan for the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California(December 2000), and Report on Metropolitan's Water Supplies(February 2002), particularly Appendices C and D. JS:wp(t\c\wo\2198\13 D11-js.doc)05-30-03 10 Water Supply Assessment Hunsaker&Associates Irvine,Inc. Makar Properties :r ! Table 7 shows projected water demands in the City of Huntington Beach's service area for an average normal water year, a single dry-year, and multiple dry-years; for a 20 year period. Data from the Municipal Water District of Orange County and the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California show that in dry years,urban areas require approximately 8%more water than in normal years. Under alternative scenarios,over the next 20 years,the available water supply exceeds the water demand for the City of Huntington Beach, including the Pacific City Development and other planned future developments. Table 7 Supply Reliability (Acre Feet) • WN ter,rYear,ti ,�.;A =;, �ni£'�e R Y a p:.,; .:I A i I i to D .'Years 35,100 AF Factor 1.08 =37,900 AF Factor 1.08= 37,900 AF Even in light of this reliability, the Orange County Sanitation District and the Orange County Water District have approved and are building a joint project,the Groundwater Replenishment System,to use highly treated sewage water to replenish the groundwater basin. According to the Water District,the project will be on-line in 2007. • 'Ibid. JS:wp(f\c\wo\2198\13 D11-js.doc)05-30-03 11 Water Supply Assessment Hunsaker&Associates Irvine,Inc. Makar Properties Section 5—Coordination with Appropriate Agencies As discussed above,the City of Huntington Beach has been able to secure a reliable,drought resistant water supply through coordination with other local,regional and state agencies.The two water supply sources available to the City, groundwater from the Orange County Groundwater Basin of the Santa Ana River 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 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. In preparing this Water Supply Assessment,jnformation has been taken from not only the City's own publications, but from 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. Those publications include: • The City's 2000 Urban Water Management Plan(December 2000); • Preparing for California's Next Drought,California Department of Water Resources(July 2000); • Emergency Management Plan, Water&Utilities,City of Huntington Beach(December 2000); • Water System Master Plan/Financing Plan- 1995 Update, City of Huntington Beach (March 1995); • Report on Metropolitan's Water Supplies,Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (March 25, 2003); • Regional Urban Water Management Plan,Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (2000); • Integrated Resources Plan Volumes I &2,Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (January 1996); • Water Surplus and Drought Management Plan, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (January 20, 2000); • 2000 Regional Urban Water Management Plan,Municipal Water District of Orange County (December 20, 2000); • Master Plan Report for the Orange County Water District,Orange County Water District(April 1999); • Engineer's Report on Groundwater Conditions, Water Supply and Basin Utilization in the Orange County Water District,Ora ge County Water District(1998-1999); • 2020 Master Plan, Orange County Water District(1998); • Strategic Plan Program EIR;Orange County Sanitation Districts (1999); and • Environmental Impacts Reports adopted by the above agencies. The City has coordinated with the agencies that prepared the reports listed above, as well as state, regional and county planning agencies, to assess projected population growth and housing requirements.See Section 1, 2000 Urban Water Management Plan Update, p. 1, City of Huntington Beach. JS:wp(t\c\wo\2198\13 D11 js.doc)05-30-03 12 Water Supply Assessment Hunsaker&Associates Irvine,Inc. Makar Properties Coordination of pumping from the Orange County Groundwater Basin,and replenishment of the Basin occurs under the management of the Orange County Water District, which is organized under the = Orange County Water District Act, Water Code Appendix section 40-1, et seq. For an in depth discussion of the inter-agency coordination involved in managing a reliable groundwater supply, please refer to Chapter 14, Master Plan Report for the Orange County Water District, Orange County Water District(April 1999). 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.The quality of water is also highly regulated by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board,Santa Ana Region, which regulates the quality of water discharged to the River. The maintenance of the quality of the water supply relied on by the Orange County Water District is also secured by its membership in the Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority, a joint powers authority of each of the parties to one of the key adjudications,which purpose is to plan for and engage in projects to improve the water supply in the Santa Ana River and its basins. For further information about Santa Ana River governance, please review Chapter 5, Master Plan Report for the Orange County Water District, Orange County Water District (April 1999). . These arrangements,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. The combined ability of these water importers and regional suppliers can meet the needs of their member agencies,including the City of Huntington Beach. For additional information,please refer to Section 1,2000 Regional Urban Water Management Plan,Municipal Water District of Orange County (December 20, 2000). As stated in the City of Huntington Beach's 2000 Urban Water Management Plan: The City Water Department Staff coordinated development of this plan with the City Administrator's Office, Public Works Department, Community Development Department, Economic Development Department, and the City Clerk's office. Development of the Plan was also coordinated with the Municipal Water District of Orange County(MWDOC),which serves as the City's wholesaler of water received from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California(MWD),and the Orange County Water District(OCWD), which manages the Santa Ana River groundwater basin; and the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD), which manages wastewater.Appendix A(of the UWMP)lists the numerous references used benefiting development of this plan 8 For descriptions of the coordination efforts of agencies with whom the City of Huntington Beach has coordinated,please refer to Introduction, and Appendix E, Report on Metropolitan's Water Supplies, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (February 11, 2002); and Section 1, 2000 Urban Water Management Plan, City of Huntington Beach, (December 2000), p. 1-1. °Section 1, Urban Water Management Plan. JS:wp(t\c\wo\2198\13 D11-js.doc)05-30-03 13 Water Supply Assessment Hunsaker&Associates Irvine,Inc. Makar Properties Section 6— Water Shortage Plans, Prohibitions and Mandatory Measures Section 6 of the City of Huntington Beach's 2000 Urban Water Management Plan describes how the City will respond to various levels of water shortages. The Orange County Water District, the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California and the Municipal Water District of Orange County have programs in place to manage water shortage conditions.As stated in the City's 2000 Urban Water Management Plan(Section 6), "Any violation of the City's Water Management Program, including the waste of water and excessive use, is a misdemeanor.In addition to any other remedies that the City may have for enforcement service of water would be discontinued or appropriately limited to any customer who willfully uses water in violation of any - provision of the ordinance."' The statewide water systems providing water to Huntington Beach have developed and implemented programs to manage water shortages. The City has enacted its own ordinance to address water shortages,and the provisions of the California Water Code, at section 350, et seq.,provide for public hearings on the adoption of water shortage plans. 'City of Huntington Beach, 2000 Urban Water Management Plan (December 2000). JS:wp(f\c\wo\2198\13 D11-js.doc)05-30-03 14 Water Supply Assessment Hunsaker&Associates Irvine,Inc. Makar Properties i 1 Section 7—Conclusion The City of Huntington Beach can provide adequate water supply for the proposed development,with planned system improvements, in accordance with the adopted Water Master Plan. Similarly, with supplies under development, Metropolitan Water District can reliably meet projected supplemental demands beyond the next 20 years. 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 Pacific City Development,as well as the demand of existing and other planned future uses,including agricultural uses. I it )S:wp(t\c\wo\2196\13 D11-js.doc)05-30-03 15 Water Supply Assessment Hunsaker&'Associates Irvine,Inc. Makar Properties Section 8—Sources Consulted and References 1. California Department of Water Resources,Preparing for California's Next Drought,July 2000 2. City of Huntington Beach, Ordinances, Chapter 14.18, Water Management Program 3. City of Huntington Beach, 2000 Urban Water Management Plan, December 2000 4. City of Huntington Beach, City of Huntington Beach Web Site http:/www.scag.org/homepages/huntington beach/govt.htm, November 2000 5. City of Huntington Beach, Emergency Management Plan, Water& Utilities, 1999 6. City of Huntington Beach, Water System Master Plan/Financing Plan 8 1995 Update, March 1995 7. Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, Report on Metropolitan's Water Supplies, February 11, 2002 8. Metropolitan Water District of Southern California,Regional Urban Water Management Plan, 2000 9. Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, Integrated Resources Plan, Vol. 1 & 2, Report Number 1107,January 1996 10. Metropolitan Water District of Southern California,Water Surplus and Drought Management Plan,January 1999 11. Municipal Water District of Orange County, 2000 Regional Urban Water Management Plan, December 20, 2000 12. Orange County Water District,Master Plan Report for the Orange County Water District,April 1999 13. Orange County Water District, Engineer's Report on Groundwater Conditions, Water Supply and Basin Utilization in the Orange County Water District,1998-1999 14. Orange County Water District,2020 Master Plan, October 1998 15. Orange County Sanitation Districts, 1999 Strategic Plan Program EIR,June 1999 16. Environmental Impact Reports adopted by the above agencies (list available upon request). 1S:wp(f\c\wo\2198\13 D11-js.doc)05-30-03 16 Water Supply Assessment Hunsaker&Associates Irvine,Inc. Makar Properties Section 9—Appendix • Assessment of Water Supply Form • Huntington Beach Website Home Page • City Ordinance Adopting Water Conservation Program • The City of Huntington Beach has a copy of each of the documents listed in Section 8 for public inspection JS:wp(t\c\wo\2198\13 D11-js.doc)05-30-03 17 Water Supply Assessment Hunsaker&Associates Irvine,Inc. Makar Properties • CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ASSESSMENT OF WATER SUPPLY Water Code§10910,et seq. City of Huntington Beach Munidpai Code Chapter 14.18 To: (Lead Agency) .• City of Huntington Beach (Applicant) Makar Properties; LLC 4100 MacArthur Boulevard. Suite 200 Newport Beach, CA 92660-2064 Project Land Use Information Project Title: Water Supply Assessment for Pacific City Development Quantity Duty Factor Flow ❑ Residential: 540 Condominiums 400-apd/DU 216000 Retail: 130.000 sg.ft. .15 apd/sa. ft. 19.500- ® Commerciah 60;000 so.ft. 0:3 aporsa.rt. 18:000-- ® Hotel or motel: 400 Rooms 225.apd/Room 90.000 • ® Restaurant 50.000 so.ft. 1.5 apd/sa. ft. 75.000 ❑ Industrial, manufacturing or • processing. • • ❑ Mbced.use(check and complete all above that aeply): • ❑ other Office 60,000 sq:. ft. 0..3, gpd/sq.._ft ' 18,000 Verification of Assessment of Availability of Water Supply On ,2002,the City of Huntington Beach made the following determination regarding the above-described project: NI The projected water demand for the project was induded in the City of Huntington Beach's most recently adopted urban water management plan. ❑ The projected water demand for the project was not included in the City of Huntington Beach's most recent adopted urban water management plan. Si A sufficient water supply Is available for the project. The total water supplies available to the City of Huntington Beach during normal,single-dry and multiple-dry years with a 20-year project will meet the project water demand of the project in addition to the demand of existing and other planned future uses,including, but not limited to, municipal and industrial uses. ❑ A sufficient water supply is not available for the project. (Plan for acquiring and developing sufficient supply attached. Water Code§ 10911(a)] The foregoing determination is based on the Water Supply Assessment information and supporting information in the records of the Department of Public Works of the City of Huntington Beach,the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California,the Municipal Water District of Orange County, and the Orange County Water District. • �eM�.� Date Title Welcome to Surf City Web Page 1 of 1 -3 L r✓ �' j 3 E z ^ �Y-�S=' ��., t. `"� E &SAi, �,sue } � 3:n�$y ! 1 � tv�..a.'�„Jr• .t IIuntin ton Beach, `alifor i J J = ss ..., �. ,q v (�. ^k 3.. __, .�Al. .Y.Y h. .L f F 'S'a.r� •Jy ->.�''". • a k- ,. 4, � -• �, �} „+ edit 13 A �� x kza k3 G 3{—�` tJa 3 }" �. ��� k 1 � 's t.", ' • + (fit ,.,. S S v v r ,t4 #R �, x i !.L;s x 4'i'�.F-^i Ya f ti���ns ,r �•i� v 4��'' w' !• ^E... ;.. C4rAti.-4-ct Us • i• yn•tl Windows Media"; :.�•a' 4a"'fay« k^'^9 '^^nuM f \��' •S ,��. uiI x.j8•�is n��IK�4x�� Mgi%r Description of Page Header Photos This site is owned and operated by SurfCityWeb.com,copyright(c) 1998/2002-All rights reserved. ,hapter 14.18 Page 1 of 2 I Chapter 14.18 IWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (3104-4/91) 1ections: 14.18.010 Declaration of policy 14.18.020 Findings 14.18.030 CEQA exemption 14.18.040 Application • 14.18.050 Authorization 14.18.060 Mandatory conservation phase implementation 14.18.070 Penalty L4.18.010 Declaration of policy.California Water Code Section 375 et seq. permit public entities which supply water retail to adopt and enforce a Water Management Program to reduce the quantity of water used by the people therein . the purpose of conserving the water supplies of such public entity.The City Council hereby establishes a ;omprehensive Water Management Program pursuant to California Water Code Section 375 et seq.,based upon the Iced to conserve water supplies and to avoid or minimize the effects of any future shortage. (3104-4/91) 14.18.020 Findings.The City Council finds and determines that a water shortage could exist based upon the Iccurrenceof one or more of the following conditions:a)A general water supply shortage due to increased demand or limited supplies. (3104-4/91) I)A major failure of the supply, storage and distribution facilities of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, or of the City occurs. (3104-4/91) LA local or regional disaster which limits the water supply. (3104-4/91) Pe City Council also finds and determines that the conditions prevailing in the Huntington Beach area require that the ater resources available be put to maximum beneficial use to the extent to which they are capable,and that the waste unreasonable use, or unreasonable method of use, of water be prevented and that the conservation of such water courage with a view to the maximum reasonable and beneficial use thereof in the interests of the people of the City d for the public welfare. (3104-4/91) . tt.18.030 CEQA exemption.The City finds that this chapter and actions taken hereafter pursuant to this chapter are pt from the California Environmental Quality Act as specific actions necessary to prevent or mitigate an Eergency pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080(bX4)and the California Environmental Quality Act idelines Section 15269(c). The City.Administrator of the City is hereby authorized and directed to file a Notice of emption as soon as possible following adoption of this chapter.(3104-4/91) It.18,040 Application.The provisions of this chapter shall apply to all persons,customers, and property served by the ty. (3104-4/91) Ip://www.hbsurfcity.com/derk/mcodeltitlel4/mC1418.htm 6/12/2002 chapter 14.18 Page 2 of.2 4,18.050'Auth n The City's Director of Public Works and the CityAdministrator, or their designated orraatio ty � representative, are hereby authorized and directed by the City.Council to implement the provisions of this chapter as herewith shall be confirmed at the earliest practicable time by the City Council. (3104-4/91) f4.18.060 Mandatory conservation phase implementation.The City shall monitor the projected supply and demand or water by its customers. The Director of Public Works shall determine the extent of the conservation required through the implementation and/or termination of particular conservation stages in order for the City to prudently plan or and supply water to its customers. The City Council shall direct the City Administrator to order that the appropriate ttage of water conservation be implemented or terminated at any time it determines appropriate in accordance with the applicable provision of this chapter.However,in case of local emergencies as defined under the Huntington Beach !Municipal Code, the City Administrator shall have the authority to order the implementation of the appropriate stage of 'water conservation subject to ratification by the City Council within seven (7)days thereafter or such order of the Director of Public Works shall have no further force or.effect. (3104-4/91) • 114.18.070 Penalty.Any violation of this chapter is a misdemeanor.In addition to any other remedies which the City may have for the enforcement of this Ordinance, service,of water shall be discontinued or appropriately limited to any fustomer who willfully uses water in violation of any provision hereof. (3104-4/91) 4/91 • • li trr//nnva,hheihrfritu nnm/rlarlrlm dlnir_1d1 R htn 6/12/2002 HUNTING N BEACH, CALIFORN/A WATER LINE EXHIBIT FOR • PACIFIC CITY CONNECTION POINT 77>t \ ,c,-%)--- - \\.. is,o,,,.,,-2r, ''''' ‘k,.,\t, \ CONNECTION POINT , ♦:.r 7 �'` ,,`j� ;\O r -tJ-LLL--'Jj ^> \ 11, 1 _ LEGEND: . \✓' .- J - rM1�` ;� rf .- ,- - „ oc.,,f, ~�S ., n' E%!STING.WATER LINE 1 -- ✓^ y .�Y'� PROPOSED WATER LINE LLLfff '``—il ,.Ij—�-n — Y�1 /T'w ( 0 PROPOSED LIRE HYDRANT"LO^..A1/Of! n�A ' c I LJ'"• f lI/r �N �,. _-« j, NOTE: -t f t ,_ i ____ , '� REFERENCE TO TOOTER ANALYSIS FOR PACIFIC COY- I I ^' r �` �-; \ } OY TETRA TECH.INC. DATED JULY 29,2002 _ till y ' ] I D r '\ ` --> ,.. \iI y Ii I I �� \, ��``;�`\` CONNECTION POINT CONNECTION PORT Jlly ET]-----1 t " j 'EW � m 18-w A. d-.,-.mot\\�\,' 18'W-..___ \ - \�;� E I(11 �1-rL a: _=_-_-_-1-.-Ti 0— T-- .,,. . .;Par. eel ' • ) `*-iritii".= ' C_-1 111. 8-w —e�6-w _l`� 44�'*i;.n .w�E-..irR.em 'J l;�• ! �' I - 1 It =ra' Ilk _ I \ s . _! 1 ��/Y '* _ __ 200 700 0 200 I I \-'rx,^11,4 `_L) `�;� ( . _ i�.__3\ • i� Is -j CONNECTION POINT ^-] L� >��ie `/i:_- ' s\�^'� L-e—, ice— = . 1 1 � —s w GRAPHIC SCALE. "=200' 12^A 6 w Q� Irw _ram _Li : I t —...-.. i PACIFIC COST HIGHWAY I ! �- ` PREPARED BY: PREPARED FOR: 1- HUNSAKER S.ASSOCIATES ATLANTA HUNTINGTON BEACH, LLC I I Y I. N I 1 N C 0100 Ma ARTHUR BLVD.SUITE 200 ney nm�PE,EA MN.rrz aAm aI:rcpAnwm NEWPCRT BEACH,CA 92658 DATE: 11/27/02 (969)622-B400 W.O.21 9B-UX SHEET t OF J SyEE75 L:\PavlicCi:yExhibits\wale,and Sever,Dam Water Imprewaanls.dwg \ m D ,: A. E STiC \A/ATE R SYSTEM A Ni j SA NT TAIY SEWER , SYSTEM cEQA SUPP. RI ANFO 2 , , AIR N . l . ‘,... ...- 4. .:; 1. ,., . . . .., , e.t. . ' * 4 ti ' ‘‘ a f ' °' • my It . 4 . .. n : „ ...4, .. - .. eac - - November 27, 2002 Prepared For: • MAKAR PROPERTIES,. INC 4100 MacArthur Blvd., Suite 150 Newport Beach, CA 92658 Prepared By: IAA HUNSAKER &ASSOCIATES IRVINE, INC. Three Hughes Irvine, CA 92618 (949) 583-1010 W.0.#: 2198-13/H20&SwrCEQAPacific City Domestic Water and Sanitary Sewer CEQA Support Information for Pacific City Development • Prepared for: Makar Properties, LLC 4100 MacArthur Boulevard, Suite 200 Newport Beach, CA 92660-2064 Prepared by: Hunsaker & Associates Irvine, Inc. 3 Hughes Irvine, CA 92618 (949) 583-1010 November 27, 2002 (f\c\wo\2198\13 DO9r3-js.doc) I. GENERAL This memorandum pertains to the domestic water and sanitary sewer elements of the subject project in the City of Huntington Beach. Water and sewer facility recommendations shown on the attached exhibits reflect the current project concept and the design guidelines of the City of Huntington Beach. • JS:wp(f\c\wo\2198\13 D09r3-js.doc)11-27-02 2 CEQA Support Information Hunsaker&Associates Irvine,Inc. Makar Properties -• - ...--5,7•PFIT.7-79: ,77:,,,i' ,,,,. , , ,,.. _ .1 p Itt, , _,..,,,,, . . -w-w---iivitiaTic,.,t,i7-sr--,, e. --4)11 IL (7,. . ,,Tht a ti_)!, e, i w k, tYPz----i,2 ,i 3'. 11 -.....,.. ,1•:**•**.7..0.26 -._!imik* -•r„Ar........ .•-'.-fA -, „N---•,,,',21k.f.: .." 'c-, ,.....,4,1.- , c-1-. ,..,...,., A.:1,,,,,,, , ,r„,........ zii- • -.--,zszt_.-__:,meggc---7-mtvgr-77-' -------_,tr., __Ii.:,.....v---,-..-' -,-,.........,;_y4y,ii ,,, r... „dr •. . c"' .:, ,,-.3.-y: '',:.':•: 41t,kftt- •','-'''' -'1"alt ' 'FFIrt n-1 -6-6 0° 1-0- -ii-c'''tic' .4'f' .11i° 'it-41,,,,_ py .. , ...,- .) 1.....a . fi If p 1 [4 "..•'''%•... e '•., ihrt -- t 2 0 ti ' ' 'it ,__e,--- A 4 0 1,3,`. rt 14_,.....„.,..s.t•c.-.-;Al/ r---' - It %., ti It .1'i ', a v."' ' . . -,„.; \:,,e."4,:*1', \:, ,..,,, 4 - • ..,_,,„., 0.• 2***1.„!.., .t•A Y.'S'----•,-- --7:-/ yr, — • . ii.„,, •.. .,....... !,, „, , ;717* --ft,. 11 ri'f.-1. ii, 0 , I I, .0_ 0, . ....... ......_.L.4: •• 0.1 0 .,r, „r„, ..t.,-,.7.„v 1_,_,„4,..I 1 c,,,1 ''''.'.'t):74,• ''", ‘:, s'''- \le°V; ,, .'‘' E^, .'-II"' --„,, _iik ttc' '''''S'i.11k i/ ..-w' 0 tv'or•-•,-gt,,-:. -1.i.i :f s .'' 1+ -7,7741C1•t.7 77..'r'... /; :v'••-,;0,.')„.44":',,.,,% .(36 1, 1,,,<k 'N".,-;0;, x . .---,,, .,,,,,_ .,,,,..., , 1_4 , I t ,,,,,{..\ ..t. 1 tt li ' 1 i. ,r-•-,'-—11 .1-4 -, '7" ,„ci,-',:z,... l' ie• .'L..,....9.1-,,,,....;_,..f 4/4. Ae...;--t.' \ 0 \\. . 0 f I 1--4.----i, -7,-", Lif, ee' : _ ..:-...-----) ' . '9 ' ' *It`i;!:!1„..„, i,..1' , ',',..vo '''' * 1 :.Ir--- LF-y--1--'1 r --,,,„ .„ , „. 0 0 i •" v, '' .,:.,,,..., -=-1,. ft---9,'- "', , . ' :,", .., tr.p k,'‘ ' ';-7-'-,-ir.' --4-; i. •- --,.....s4'i- '-i----\''' V.-:—:-.7.,•.--=7,-- r---70-7 ''0 7719r;T:T4 1 c \\;.e'-`,.._.„ i . '-' r' zi . *-4,--4,...---, . . i„... -.-.! ''..k...,, , tf.„..,.„....,.,,,0 hi,4 -""tos.-.1t---..----it,,1 ,,,, ,. ,,,,„..,/,,,,p..,,, .4,.,,,... .zet- :„ fo,.. .1‘,-.' . ,7 - --,.. .,„•-x-r,:: ' :I I I: IQ'.4 ,-74,V,ft'-.'0.:"'=“`....,4,, fi 3. 'E '''' ,E'":"•--E-E.41 q:".' 4,t,,,,Sl,„.,,,,,-,rt...,,,,:,::,,,::__J‘_li_,,,...;', k., . :;,..,-,i, ,_, ,Af„.,,, ' #.= ...P..r ' I\ii--- - : :41::',Jw.0 1-.L.-M-a-..L-J''''' Ari • .t ,4,,' i „ „„ ,,,-,, 1 itil. g.,.;, D li .vrei h__-___,,. -Hr--;- - :_- --11 • fr-i--;--,-1 ,I .0 n .. •, ,, .1z • • I ir .1- ft.. fri •iy '4, lry'r 1 II \lit '' ' ''' ,,4 •;NV . - - r., , u..,.„5 ,1•;, iz* .'":1‘,„: ' :.4. -.„,' - '-:` ' # Izi,.. • _ it,, - ,....,..., ,,,,..,...:....., ;„... .,,,,4,...,,, ,,. -,,* -1:21,r -t dile,•;:` , -4.,• . . 4-- y4, 0) '' ' 11,-- 1 —. ' Agri-7' 11' L116 ‘, :-.1.,41e,f___--,R,,,, , c-------;-- ---7-- - - , , . ..t.... i. .., ' e„?,,,,....- (..,..-• /...,17- .. ' i....,.. • .4 - . — '' . = .1 .......,0. Li „=„‘„ 1 § . ,, t___jff""---, • tiri-----"- ,7 ,4i,,,,,.„,,N..';'''''''''''''' ., -:'4--r,:::..., 4 , , i , ,I .40 . Ate ;<L • ,r--- - 4, >PA ' 1 1...L ...--', a- ,......„, , ./.. CIIIMIND 4- I. „i.: 1,1 ,.. ,..,vc:.,., .,, ,r .,•••,..,/ •,.... ., ri, ....,..il ..„,.. , „,,, 1 • • .,..• I 1:31 k , k i :" ^ ' ''‘ r:".\ .1' '.4.-, -. -.•f•-..,• N. ''N '1 ..•••,,,! "4 ' tq , . ,gt.N'''',' 0104 - IF t i .,, -1,,:' [ I /04....--_,---7:7- --- -11 1.1 q' c...,„. .._„.„,;\ ix,. ,‘...2„.;•e„,,-\, ,7•‘, r -, t- .7, , : . , ' ,, - ..1 , iiNit u_.3,14,113t .„ ti, iii ' ,I. ' — -'—' 'Et':-:' • .4 ..\,, , s....,,,i...1 1 .3i. , , v•.'gi-....-•,-,\:' . ,.. .., , 'k.,,,, ;, 1..e:fq , . 0.1 , t-,..„., ,, . , %,. ...., ,. i 1 .,,,-- --4..,.... st i WPS ' ' 41- ' -'n, , ..„,‘ , .. , a =6, ., •• , ,t- li ,, - , ......____,, it I 0.,,-, 1 , , 1 . sti - ' : 6 ,-:- 0, .111_ '''....--,,,,,...--„:, -NN:•,/,.....:( N.,- .c*.0, •,s7..,- ' 1;• -' .- ,1 , AtxtekNIA---J-.-- -..„-,, ---, -.... --...:-- - ,--...---.......,, -....,--- , . .‘... , 1.f.4,..,;.--.:tr,.. -, :7, .:,...., - , , i' ; ,- , g ••Q 6:,, lc t- • . g a ff.rn-to.,..rr-, .1 D 1,^1i ,; 1 ,, ,, , ":',',:::' ,, . , ...91 1. ii, ', '.,:..,l• , 1 all It '-‘, .... .-. --'3,-,••••!:=1;••',\ t., 40. 9,1,-1-- 0 ! i „. ,0 It I . ''''Zi , i I i i ii1 u • - ---. ,!1 4 'Hit , f 1 .,. t__,,,,h—..,. `-,-,:;!=t;4.11'N` ''• , ri - ',;--- f <3 1-,V i -'5,, I, jt DI 91 117--11",r--— ---i ,,.'....44:r ,fi tr i.,- , -,.. ..kt-s- - •-!"-it, .,. 7----- --4, .------.., Ili i, ;,.7. , , Y ,,,,J, 0 1.„4„:„1.,....4.-,..7.7-4,,-17-41 - "'''.--"4:t'''" ,-..„,.. 1:1-W7i._:_„,&7:-____ 1!:---7'-- ',..i. ' ri • ''-''' Cli " 0 't 1- '' \ , ,I i 4,,,,,:z.4,‘:_„1,,, o 4 0 ' ' . 11.; :..Y.4•-• . ...=. ..„. -37.,. . . ••••,--%-..,,,. ",,. a I 4 r r LI_ " i 1 k 11 "'-"--" ' '-----6 f k !-I . ,,,-,, ,lib.\ ,:.„!, e,'‘.,,,::,...,,,,, 0 N ,...1. F7 0 i 0 i ' II,,47.,..t.,) -... If -'1 .**\3S,\ <Iff ' '',,,<-f : , .. 'N•: , 1-;""••• ', -..,,N,Y /,„1 1, ::.,,-,, -,..,:., 1014.,t... Jr , --• , t*,..-::si.• ‘..,..,‘,.%4",, ...,44 lrt %N.:. ain........? ri P.r.h..-.:Tr..!...,---•r- ••• • EXHIBIT#1 , 'NORTH ' PACIFIC CITY PREPARED BY: . . PROJECT LOCATION H, HUNSAKER Ea. ASSOCIATES I\IC- TO SCALE DATE. 11/27/02 (\AIR V I N E , I N C • L WO 2198-13X ift NNIeN CA 92C : 18• ENGINEERING SURVEYING .0 Ex:0S4U9R)V5BEY3.01N75G9 0:\Huntington Beach\Pacific City\Exhibit,,SDS-Project-Loc.DWG Three HughePs •Irvine, II. DOMESTIC WATER SYSTEM Water Supply Assessment A Water Supply Assessment for the Pacific City project has been prepared in accordance with the new State laws referred to as the "Kuehl Bill" (SB 221) and the "Costa Bill" (SB 610). Said assessment demonstrates that the City of Huntington Beach has an adequate water supply for this project. The Water Supply Assessment, dated August 23, 2002, was prepared under the direction of the City of Huntington Beach and submitted under separate cover. Water Distribution System The existing project area water system has sufficient capacity for existing development and the commercial expansion projects east of the Pacific City project. The construction of the Pacific City project will further enhance the City's domestic water system in the area with some off-site water pipeline construction. Upon completion of the off-site water system improvements, the water supply will be delivered to the project through the City's improved domestic water distribution system. The water supply for the project will be delivered to the area through the City's improved backbone water system. The off-site water supply can be described as follows: • A water supply available from the north through a 20-inch pipeline in Lake Street, and the direct connection to the project site through a 18-inch pipeline located on the project site. The 18-inch water main is part of the water supply for the Hilton Hotel and the Water Front development, east of the 31 acre project. • A water supply from the west through a 12-inch pipeline continued in First Street to Pacific Coast Highway (PCH). • Additional water supplies from the north through a,12-inch pipeline system in Atlanta Avenue. • A 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 18-inch pipeline to connect to a new 12-inch main in Beach Boulevard. The City's Water Department staff directed the computer model testing of the proposed 31 acre project be prepared by Tetra Tech, Inc., using the water demands developed in this investigation for the site and planning data for the remaining water system service area. The analysis dated July 29, 2002, recommended the following list of water system pipelines be constructed with the development of the Pacific City project. A. A new 18-inch water main on Pacific View Avenue between First Street and Huntington Street. B. - A new 12-inch water main in Huntington Street that will connect to an existing 12-inch water main in Atlanta Avenue and with an existing water main in Huntington Street as well as to the new 18-inch water main in Pacific View Avenue. JS:wp(f\c\wo\2198\13 D09r3-js.doc)11-27-02 3 CEQA Support Information Hunsaker&Associates Irvine,Inc. Makar Properties C. A new 12-inch water main in First Street (in the public right-of-way) that will connect to the existing 12-inch water main in Atlanta Avenue and with the new 18-inch water main in Pacific View Avenue. D. A new 12-inch water main in First Street that will connect to a new 12-inch water main in Pacific Coast Highway and with the new 18-inch water main in Pacific View Avenue. E. A new 12-inch water main in Pacific Coast Highway that will connect with the new 12- inch water main in First Street and with an existing 12-inch water main in Huntington Street. F. The proposed 12-inch water main in Huntington Street should be constructed and put into service prior to taking the 18-inch water main out of service. • Upon completion of the proposed pipeline realignments and supplemental inter-ties to adjacent domestic water system infrastructure, the City's domestic water system will be enhanced beyond it's current capabilities. Estimated Water Demands The estimated water demands are based design criteria for the City of Huntington Beach and the current project development concept. City peaking factors of 1.6 and 2.5 were applied to the average day demand to estimate maximum day and peak hour demands, respectively . A summary of the principal water demand elements are as follows: Water:'Demand Type ' :Million"Gallons:Per 11►ay,.`. Gallons Per.Minute ,s: Average Day Demand 0.42 292 Maximum Day Demand 0.67 467 Peak Hour 1.05 730 Maximum Fire Flow 5.755 4,000 'land:Use . Qu ntity':" „ Duty' actor . .,... l stiimated'Flow Condominiums 540 DU's 400. gpd/DU 216,000 Hotel 400 Rooms 225. gpd/Room 90,000 Office 60,000 SF 0.3 gpd/SF 18,000 Rest/Brewery 50,000 SF 1.5 gpd/SF 75,000 Retail 130,000 SF 0.15 gpd/SF 19,500 Total 418,500 gpd Total 0.42 mgd Max Day Q 1.6 x Qa 0.67 mgd Peak Hour Q 2.5 x Qa 1.05 mgd JS:wp(f\c\wo\2198\13 D09r3-js.doc)11-27-02 4 CEQA Support Information Hunsaker&Associates Irvine,Inc. Makar Properties Estimated Water Demand Background 1. Condominiums: 180 gpcd x 2.2 people per DU = 400 gpd/DU. 2. Hotel: 150 gpd/room x 1.5 = 225 gpd/DU. 3. Office:300 gpd/1000 SF=0.3 gpd/SF. 4. Restaurant/Brewery:= 1.5 gpd/SF. 5. Retail: 0.15 gpd/SF. The reader will notice the estimated water demands exceed the estimated sewer flows for all proposed land use categories. Typically, each of the unit flows used are standard design approximations for average land use cases. The water demand and sewer flows estimates are not precise by nature of averaging of the type of land use employed. These estimates will however provide a comfortable measure for design purposes for both the water and the sewer system. As an example, the proposed project will include approximately 11 acres of irrigated landscaping. This landscape irrigation will account for a major portion of the estimated flow requirement differences. Makar Properties is committed to the use of current BMPs for water conservation, including residential, commercial and irrigation water uses. All systems will be in accordance with the City's current Urban Water Management Plan. • JS:wp(f\c\wo\2198\13 D09r3-js.doc)11-27-02 5 CEQA Support Information Hunsaker&Associates Irvine,Inc. Makar Properties HUNTINCTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA WATER LINE EXHIBIT FOR PACIFIC CITY CONNECTION POINT \y\ 4., I - \ 1�, ,.. .\ , - 2..W • -------"F>i* _.-.----,e. ''' ,,k.\ ,• CONNECTION POINT .I / A,lloir „4� �• \�\\ Yt. \ �%�\ LEGEND:_ I IN •/ \�\ JI ����t�� \, W El'ISTINL WATER LINE --_ ' 1 \ • W�� PROPOSED WATER IINC B 11 Y. i■j I r R PROPOSED FIRE HYDRANT LOCATION p� < �; NOTE J y I I ■,Th \•AREFER BY ITRA TELN, NCE TO C. DATEDER Y✓ULY 29,2002 IS FOR PACIFIC CITY' n , EIJ J +�C11 L s r / /\ kI v -... . r• ally_ 7 es 401 . Illl�i �\ ■ r \, .,v\ CONNECTION POINT CONNECTION POINT , i ;-fi_ '.-1-' ri-,_ ' j Y !°"' ILLA l6•w = "----- \\,. l,,N TWIN \ m a - _ ' `/lax' -law 1B"-- .Mr. 1 ii — iii�rAelrle rear Arm- ,1 ��.; �� 4.1 , ririmimel _ . riot 001,I Ba.N. ( IL.- BpO4L III 'I 6'W ♦\II II L' 114 1 �A/nue ���e kL. 1 Irom 6'w limo DO , oasem plm vJ pun uJ '�� � , M�' if' \\,,,,,,,\ ,16,*„....wirl. 1,1,0 , �" zao 100 0 200 _— _O i 'I� - ! CONNECTION POINT -�--- —12.w e•w� - WA .—BW GRAPHIC SCALE. 1"=200' - _---_________ 1Sw -_ _ _ - PACIFIC COAST NI "- ---"-- PREPARED BY- PREPARED FOR' '�, HUNSAKER&ASSOCIATES ATLANTA HUNTINGTON BEACH, LLC '&A IRVINE I N C 4100 Mac ARTHUR 9LVO.SUITE 200 FUNNING • WONBIING • EUENDTN6 DATE. I I/27/0) n..N,.. ...EA n...INNEN16lilu•R•BINMOM NEWPOAT OEACH,CA,02658 W.0 2198-15% (9nv)622-8300 L:\PnriliCCily\Eahihils\Wate7 and Sewer\Dam Water Improvemanls.drrg _ SHEET I OF I SLICE OS III. SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM Regional Sewer Capacity The Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) provides regional wastewater collection, treatment and disposal services for the City of Huntington Beach. The OCSD proposes to provide regional sewer service to the City of Huntington Beach for the Pacific City Mixed Use project through a new connection to the District's 54-inch diameter Coast Trunk Sewer. A new public sewer system, owned and operated by the City of Huntington Beach, will provide the connection to the District's Coast Trunk Sewer to an existing OCSD manhole located a the intersection of Walnut Avenue and First Street. Additional private sewer laterals will be constructed from the Pacific City project to the new Huntington Beach sewer at various locations along the new public sewer. By letter dated October 30, 2002, the OCSD has advised the City of Huntington Beach that the District has adequate capacity in the Coast Trunk Sewer to serve the Pacific City project. The OCSD estimates the current flow in the Coast Trunk Sewer to be approximately 6.6 mgd and the sewer capacity to be approximately 44 mgd. The Pacific City project will add an estimated 0.472 mgd to the Coast Trunk sewer. The OCSD estimates there will be more than 30 mgd of unused peak flow capacity through the year 2020. By the discussion above, it can be seen that there will be an "insignificant impact"to the Coast Trunk Sewer capacity. Should construction scheduling interfere with the collection of all or a-portion of the sanitary wastes from the 31 Acre project, an alternative connection to the District's 54-inch sewer could be made along PCH. Construction would require the installation of a steel casing, jacked in-place across PCH to the 54-inch sewer. A new gravity sewer, appropriately sized for the estimated sewer flows to be collected, would be installed in the casing and connected to the 54-inch sewer. Construction of this type would require an Encroachment Permit from Caltrans. Sewer Collection System Public Sewer System:The concept design for the public and private portions of the new sanitary sewer system can be seen schematically on the attached "Sewer Line" exhibit. The public sewer system will begin at the Coast Trunk Sewer manhole in Walnut Avenue and First Street. The City's first manhole is designated as Manhole Number 1 on the attached exhibit. A 12-inch sewer is proposed to be constructed between the Coast Trunk Sewer and Manhole Number 1 and north to Manhole Number 2 at First Street and Pacific View Avenue. A 10-inch sewer is proposed to be constructed between Manhole Numbers 2, 3, 8 and 9. The sewer is proposed as 8-inch diameter from Manhole Number 9 through Manhole Numbers 11 and 12 in Pacific View Avenue. This preliminary design concept proposes that approximately 42 dwelling units from Parcel 3 and the Hotel would be served directly from the public sewer in Pacific View Avenue as would the remaining portion of the mixed used development consisting of office, commercial and food and beverage development. Grease traps will be required on all sewer laterals serving food preparation and entertainment establishments as required by the Building Department of the City of Huntington Beach. The owners of the establishments or the Commercial HOA will be required to service the grease traps on a regular basis in order that the grease traps provide the public sanitary sewer system with the required protection from grease build up. JS:wp(f\c\wo\2198\13 DO9r3-js.doc) 11-27-02 6 CEQA Support Information Hunsaker&Associates Irvine,Inc. Makar Properties i Wastewater Flow Estimates Background 1. Condominiums:85 gpcd x 2.2 people per DU = 187 gpd/DU. 2. Hotel: 150 gpd/room. 3. Office:200 gpd/1000 SF = 0.2 gpd/SF. 4. Restaurant/Brewery:= 1 gpd/SF. 5. Retail: 0.1 gpd/SF. Appendix • "Water Analysis for Pacific City", by Tetra Tech, Inc., dated July 29, 2002 • Orange County Sanitation District response to City of Huntington Beach request for sewer capacity, dated "August 20, 2002". it JS:wp(f\c\wo\2198\13 DO9r3-js.doc)1 1-27-02 8 CEQA Support Information Hunsaker&Associates Irvine,Inc. Makar Properties HUNTINGTON REACH, CALIFORNIA SEWER LINE EXHIBIT FOR PACIFIC CITY PROPOSED• SEWER SYSTEM ;k::; NOTE: MH Elevations Dwelling Qa EQa Qp Reach Pipe Pipe D/d �Qe GREASE TRAPS SHALL BE INSTALLED (ft) Unit (mgd) (mgd) (mgd) & Slope Size 4f IN THE WASTE LINE. LEADING FROM (DU's) Length (7) (in) r::•,,/-_, SINKS, DRAINS, AND OTHER FIXTURES 12 15.7 RIM 42 0.0079 0.0079 0.0206 12-110.4D 8 0.139 �, OR EQUIPMENT IN ESTABLISHMENTS 10.0 INV111'SUCH AS RESTAURANTS, BARS, THE 22.0 RIM 11 10 �•'+ °4 MH#7 4,..41...i, HOTEL AND OTHER ESTABLISHMENTS 11 9.56 INV HOTEL 0.0600 0 0679 0.1498 202' 0.40 8 0.378 ,, .-; ., 4,% \\ WHERE GREASE MAY BE INTRODUCED 29.2 RIM 10-9 `+•,+ "t�, %% \\ INTO THE SEWER SYSTEM IN 10 134 0.0251 0.0251 0.0599 266• ' 3.14 8 0.142 17.2 INV \ ••+... ,„,- �., � \ ACCORDANCE WITH THE STANDARDS 30.0 RIM 9-8 �\`� OF THE CITY OF EIUNIINGTON BEACH. 9 8.65 INV RETAIL 0.0250 0.1179 0.2490 162' 0.40 10 0.361 d\ \\ �' GREASE TRAPS WILL NOT BE BE 34.0 RIM 8-3 ice=" s� li / PROVIDED FOR RESIDENTIAL UNITS. s 7.80 INV RETAIL 0.oz5o o.1a2s o.zs7z 319. 0.40 In 0.397 (,7 ,+ f,�� /" 7 18.5 RIM 7-5 135 :: : ::::: 335' 1.00 8 : :: 6-5J -40 160 INV 86 115' 1 13 8 (- i 5 29.6 RIM 24 0.0045 0.0458 0.1044 5-4 1.59 8 0 220 y + 14.6 INV 207' •^ n:..✓- 5 ..a\ o(S D. 30.3 RIM 4-3 J^ram:,;�,m-r" ,� \ 0 4 59 0.0110 0.0568 0.1273 295' I 48 8 0.247 "-'�t MH#4;`.v ,,_ _, ._ , �� , 11.1 IM/RIM L' OO= j' 33.3 RIM 3-2 _ 3 60 0.0112 0.2110 0.4253 0.40 10 0.485 a•' 3.t r I 1 .` l `�i 10.0 INV 336' -- 1 29.2 RIM 2 1 2 `,,_. 2 RETAIL 0.0250 ::::: ::: 1X U40 1 ::: 6 i8rr..,.. . 0.40 12 i ��'7 , ,,,a '�l 10 I8kA..,,1-7�) - 8 1 ��` r \ \ 3.86 INV -49 ■ 1 I s ( ,) ClgBg 1 27.5 RIM ,? )I 1 n ` MH#12 \ EX 0.2360 0.4715 MH#2 I. j 1 ;� )�I ;' i t* 1I\\'. \ 3.70 INV , �.. '� MH#3 .,II1 )\ l I I +►1rr -.repJ:J�dtia a { j9l'I"o'I l j - ✓1_s ss �5_5� rilI - 059 ,*--4_ � MH#11 LEGEND: lU•59 _fkI ACIFIC view iVIIVOu 7 MH#9I I EXISTING SLWER LINE TO EXISINT OFCONNECT/OL ; MH#1 - iliii 009STO IXISTING OCSD MANHOLE ` • r • &0" � S PROPOSED PUBLIC SEWER LINT 27.5 RIM 'sl, I 'I, am° . I -- PROPOSED PRIVATE SEWER HIVE 3.7 INV 17_"'.S.S 0, �\ --S'--- ----------24-„, I to' r 0.8 INV 54"RCP 3 Orw �r 6�;3 m`aB (4111...1414111r1 I o PROPOSED SEWER MANN01 L ..,,,.. . ,1194 r641 ill , '-Aii.., • _VglrIk { -_ -___ ! -- - �r� --6 95_ 2aa ,as a 2aa -- �-. 2P 24•ss pew, •AC I I Ie NIOMI•A• - - -� kxsol GRAPHIC SCALE.. 1"=200' L - ` - 29'VCP Sp MCP S-54.8CP(OCSD) S PREPARED RY. PREPARED FOR: HUIOSAKEA&ASSOCIATES ATLANTA HUNTINGTON BEACH, LLC SAIL. I 1/27/02 nrs`w•..MANIOC a•uu N�•wvu•lo.Irawwu+mn 4I00 Mac T BEACH.CA.SUITE265 200 W.0 2198-13% • AteiremosWc SURVEYING NEWPORT 622-89°02658 L:\PooficCity\Exhibits\Water and Sewer\Sewer Improvements dog SHEET I OF I SHEETS ______ • • 452 II I, & FR Av Q \ a : \ ( ) / 11 \ 7i0P/P-50,,,.0 kil 1 I -71:)AC IF/C. 1 \--\ ts1\ i ..... ..... ' . l • 1. v• m _----/---------------t-,..1" --:) I '-- ,,- ------- % . 1 1 0„ •11".1 i( i I. A ( -----....._...— .„— -------. DR1` -\\ -A , \ L ., //-.c/ . ' '4 . .. ..... V_S$ 1 III (--, -,,,,...„, -•.. -,,:,,,,,• Al.,..../.., •••••.,..___,„:, • swan , -- 1 i 6 461 •, k...... ,; ! ,>••‹.--,, .• ..> .' /it' -'<,/) / v--. '- k..' ; AlgroN Al6re•-z ,•4 X1 -.1)A C.+) s\ 7/ tier' • % , I ‘`N • 1---- C.A,/..e,...E4/C e.. /,/.7- 1.2 41A x 4 A y N\ "' -,,, .... vi• rr. „.,, 4 EMAN6= /60 9,0AA. 4 -1- coo pic,AA • . "-i,eff 64,14ne..0 111 'N, ".8'-• • iiiitAniESI , Illiallalailliallill \ '-',..1 \ I • 1.11111111111111111111111111 .... -,..,. Maliallailialialiall11.11111 1 ' ,; •.• - REVISIONS memem,........------ • ,. ,.. ,, tar.I. PIN . — CONA‘075 -- 4 62 -@- 472 0 -- —i t9tr - - 1'321 J . _____\____ • \ °' 1.i 10 ■6°°11"",.. .. .,s, I %s310N I \. \ Z9i+ // '" ® jJ ./J it r' ,.n 1i� 1 I 1\ 1(\ 1. _. ' /. %/,./-- '' \ yi _,., -,...;:, Z's,,,,--:„.:--:—.D....,....1.,- --. "....,, 1 <• /` J �. aaa oot es i ,'/ / _\�N,� 31`� /.. F _ram 0a£ . C. ; �l,;.' � / / ,f;Yam.. (pF' • • w\�y 4,+: ./ f \,``�\,^\ 1� 452 . 1 I 1 III - fill II I I—2I \'`• !�� I �,1 Ik1 •- -- 1 J i7` /; `e AVE. l // B 5G WO 2GH 3G0 / •1 t 1� q 1 _mil 1_ }- 1 � ® •� , :1 ® '� n.a.xax �' / u.C..r 'f/ x...,r AVC.�'y1 n,....,o.l / stARRnL x nR. f _ m / vAr[RrALl .•> E / /�p/7oSE6 -s-" .,4 t ii‘,..., 1: ...--;: 5 `IAGLEN ._ . S I )� `'< a 3 .' t 1 -�.�• mum r 'RGGNMIST // y I s v ` CR."' �[i\.V' xx\ : I t I- _ �' VJ:�- SEA- BR .uai I( 1 r S.ABREC �• 1 '\\ /12� '� j > `•='. ANGRGVE CR. I 461 < /r,,• , ' -' 463: (T'� *�, ate\ ,/ / .. \(./ I\ 3 WRISE ^� \ V �/ / \ / yS ' ) I�% s ,' ice\ JEMANQ.S C A \. `�.'r r �`t`• 4v6 O ay = 36.s yP ,�c 8 = 292 yf�nn NOTES! / • 9„., MA, (JAy: Se 4 9p J X 8 p= `�(7 yPn. Mti H/z... .,7W4 M X O = I3O . M� Q ADG= 6g 9P PEA yo�.e: 9/•a 9P �/' P' -/SB ! •RP ✓ MA NZ) : 4,POD ,pmt, d NatE d Ai 1 it .• \Q/ �r�`4 �� C FE E/JC E PY Arr/-/c'.'.E'.'- q Aao= /oo ADD. 7D Spµ ro.4, �• c. J6o 9�° �4, /✓LSD=/ES fAn^ Y y F,r - ZSo"'AU, PHD= /95 9Pno 3 REVISIONS Are v,�oH H T n. ert rrvVn FL,f:Y4 ,y oiEL .• e.n.00 AA(?) CovPOREAocE CE A N. tit m 3 /42E 1�,R-.: ez/sr.,vE \ �/6 6e/R 2 - ,� a°�N/�L// 462 �\ -.., 472 Sewer hydraulic calculations are provided in tabular form on the Sewer Line exhibit. Private Sewer System: A private sewer system will be constructed to serve the mainly onsite development of the remaining residential development located north of Pacific View Avenue. The private sewer concept proposes that 8-inch sewers be constructed in looped access road serving the multifamily development. The sewers would be constructed to "public" sewer standards using manholes in lieu of cleanouts where access to the sewer manholes is available. An additional reach of private sewer constructed to public sewer standards would be provided between Manhole Numbers 7 and 5. All of the sanitary sewers described would be constructed at a minimum slope of 1 percent. In some cases, steeper slopes will be required in order to connect with the public sewer system. Grease traps would not be required for the residential portion of the Pacific City project. • It is assumed that private sewer constructed through the parking structures located under the multifamily development would be constructed at a minimum slope of 2 percent or as modified with the approval of the City Building Department. The Residential HOA would 'provide the necessary maintenance of the private sewer systems. The major sewer line hydraulics are shown in tabular form on the attached Sewer Line exhibit. - - Estimated Sewer Flow Summary • Estimated Average Sewer Flow=0.236 mgd • Estimated Peak Flow= 1.78(Qavg.)^0.92 = 0.472 mgd The quantity of wastewater expected to be generated from the 31 Acre project are shown in the following calculations and are based upon design criteria for the City of Huntington Beach. Estimated Sewer Flows Laird Rise3 Duty-factor Estimated flow>. Condominiums 540 DU's 187.0 gpd/DU 100,980 Hotel 400 Rooms 150.0 gpd/Room 60,000 Office 60,000 SF 0.2 gpd/SF 12,000 Rest/Brewery 50,000 SF 1.0 gpd/SF 50,000 , Retail 130,000 SF 0.1 gpd/SF 13,000 Total 235,980 gpd Total 0.236 mgd Peak Q 1.78(Qa)^0.92 0.472 mgd JS:wp(f\c\wo\2198\13 D09r3-js.doc)11-27-02 7 CEQA Support Information Hunsaker&Associates Irvine,Inc. Makar Properties _ r , TETRA TECH, INC. ` ; Infrastructure Services Group July 29,2002 Ms.Debbie Debow City of Huntington Beach Department of Public Works 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Reference: Water Analysis for Pacific City • — Dear Ms.Debow: Tetra Tech has performed a water analysis for Pacific City,the proposed development in downtown Huntington Beach, as requested by the Water Division of the City, of Huntington Beach's Department of Public Works (City). The purpose of the analysis is to determine what affects new water demands at the proposed development will have on the City's water distribution system and to determine what improvements, if any, will be required to maintain system performance criteria while servicing these new demands. The analysis was conducted using the City's H2Onet hydraulic model of the water distribution system. Estimated average development demands were furnished by the Pacific City developer, Makar Properties (Developer). Estimated fire demands were furnished by the Huntington Beach Fire Department. An existing 18-inch water main runs across the property. The water main proceeds east past Huntington Street and dead ends prior to reaching Beach Boulevard. The 18-inch water main is currently the sole water supply for water users located between Huntington Street and Beach Boulevard. These water users include the Water Front Hilton Hotel, a conference center, which is currently under construction, and the Hyatt Hotel. A project is currently underway to extend the 18- inch water main and connect it to a new 12-inch main that will run in Beach Boulevard. This project is scheduled to be complete prior to the start of construction at the Pacific City site. The 18-inch main within the Pacific City site will need to be,taken out of service by the Developer for some period of time to facilitate development construction. The effects on the water system of having the 18-inch water main out of service were also evaluated in the analysis. Development Location and Description The proposed development is a 31-acre site located in downtown Huntington Beach. The site is bordered by Atlanta Avenue to the north, Huntington Street to the east, Pacific Coast Highway to the south,and First Street to the west. 16241 Laguna Canyon Road.Suite 200.Irvine,CA 9261 8 Tel 949.727.7099 Fax 949.727.7097 www.tetratech.com TETRA TECH, INC. ,243 Infrastructure Services Group Ms.Debbie Debow July 29,2002 _ Page 2 The property is zoned Residential High Density and Commercial Visitor. The proposed development will include 540 condominiums, a 400-room hotel, approximately 60,000 square feet of office space, approximately 50,000 square feet of restaurants and a brewery, and approximately 130,000 square feet of retail space. Demand Estimates and Performance Criteria The Developer estimated the average demand for the proposed development at 292 gallons per minute(gpm). City peaking factors of 1.6 and 2.5 were applied to this average demand to develop maximum-day and peak-hour demands of 467 gpm and 730 gpm, respectively. The Huntington Beach Fire Department estimated a fire flow requirement of 4,000 gpm using three consecutive fire hydrants while maintaining a minimum residual pressure of 20 psi at each of the three fire hydrants. After proposed development demands are input into the hydraulic model, water pressures at the proposed development and within the immediate development area, i.e. the existing area surrounding the proposed development,must meet the following criteria: Average-Day Demand: Pressures in the immediate area of the proposed development must not drop by more than 2 psi. Pressures in the proposed development area including the proposed development must not drop below 50 psi. Peak-Hour Demand: Pressures in the immediate area of the proposed development must not drop by more than 4 psi.Pressures in the proposed development area including the proposed development must not drop below 40 psi. The City of Huntington Beach Fire Department requires a 4,000-gpm fire flow at the proposed development using three consecutive hydrants while maintaining a minimum residual pressure of 20 psi at each of the three hydrants. Because a fire can occur on any given day, the required fire flow at the proposed development was run with maximum-day demands occurring throughout the water system. The City of Huntington Beach Fire Department also requires a 4,000-gpm fire flow at 20 psi residual pressure at the Water Front Hilton Hotel, the Hyatt Hotel, and the conference center. However, it is assumed that a fire would not occur at all three establishments simultaneously. In evaluating water system performance with the 18-inch water main at the Pacific City site taken out of service,a 4,000 gpm fire was placed at the conference center, which will be in operation prior to construction beginning at the Pacific City site, during maximum-day demand. Maximum day demand at the Water Front Hilton Hotel, the conference center, and the Hyatt Hotel is estimated to be 100 gpni, 160 gpm, and 125 gpm,respectively. --, The simulation was run with the new 18-inch water main east of Huntington Street connected to the new 12-inch main in Beach Boulevard. These pipelines are currently under construction. TETRA TECH, INC. 't Infrastructure Services Group .ram; ' t Ms.Debbie Debow July 29,2002 Page 3 Minimum Changes/Improvements Estimated by Developer The Developer has estimated minimum water system improvements that will be required for the proposed development. These are minimum improvements and the results of the water system analysis may determine more extensive improvements. The minimum estimated improvements not including water pipelines inside the development are as follows: • A new 18-inch water main on Pacific View Avenue. • A new 12-inch water main in Huntington Street that will connect to an existing 12-inch'water main in Atlanta Street and with an existing water main in Huntington Street as well as to the new 18-inch water main in Pacific View Avenue. • A new 8-inch water main in First Street that will 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 will connect to a new 12-inch water main in Pacific Coast Highway and with the new 18-inch water main in Pacific View Avenue. • A new 12-inch water main in Pacific Coast Highway that will connect with the new 12-inch water main in First Street and with an existing 12-inch water main in Huntington Street. The initial simulations were run with these minimum improvements in place with one exception. The Developer-proposed 8-inch water main in First Street between Atlanta Avenue and Pacific View Avenue was upsized to a 12-inch water main. This water main must serve fire flow to the portion of the development east of First Street and north of Pacific View Avenue and a 12-inch water main is warranted. Also, this main is located to the east of First Street on the "Water Line Exhibit for Pacific City"prepared for the Developer by their Engineer,Hunsaker&Associates. It is recommended that this main should be located within the public right-of-way on First Street. Analysis Methodology For the analysis with the 18-inch water main at the Pacific City site taken out of service, the model was set up as shown on Figure 1. It is recommended that the proposed 12-inch water main in Huntington Street be constructed and put into service prior to taking the 18-inch water main out of service. Otherwise, only the existing 12-inch water main on Huntington Street would be available to serve water to the remaining 18-inch water main east of Huntington Street. As shown on Figure 1,the simulation was run with the proposed 12-inch water main on Huntington Street in service. For the "normal" average-day demand, peak-hour demand, and maximum-thy demand plus fire flow simulations the minimum improvements as estimated by the Developer (with the lone exception on First Street)were input into the computer model as shown on Figures 2A and 2B. '5'ag"X TETRA TECH, INC. ;,; , Infrastructure Services Group N.Ms.Debbie Debow July 29,2002 Page 4 In malting a model simulation, if the pressure requirements could not be met with only these minimum improvements, then additional pipeline improvements would be made until the pressure criteria was achieved. Analysis Results Maximum-Day Demand with Fire Demand at the Hyatt Hotel and with 18-inch Water Main Out: A simulation was run with the 18-inch water main at the Pacific City site out of service and the proposed new 12-inch water main in Huntington Street in service. Maximum-day demands were located throughout the system and the estimated fire-flow demand of 4,000 gpm was located at the Conference Center. The results showed a residual pressure of approximately 52 psi at the conference center fire hydrant node, which actually symbolizes three consecutive fire hydrants at that location. Pressures at the Hyatt and Hilton Hotels were approximately 51 psi and 53 psi, respectively. Other pressures in the immediate area ranged from 50 to 68 psi. The pressure requirement of a 20-psi residual pressure at the conference center fire hydrant node was met without the need for additional piping improvements. Average Day Demand: Existing pressures in the area of the proposed development during average-day demand range from approximately 63 to 79 psi.A simulation was run with average-day demands located throughout the system and the estimated average-day demand of 292 gpm placed at the proposed development site as shown on Figures 2A and 2B. The results showed pressures of approximately 65 to 76 psi at the proposed development site, with other pressures in the immediate area ranging from 63 to 78 psi, i.e. no noticeable drop from existing pressures. All pressure requirements were met without the need for additional piping improvements. Peak-Hour Demand: Existing pressures in the area of the proposed development during peak-hour demand range from approximately 53 to 70 psi. A simulation was run with peak-hour demands located throughout the existing system and the estimated peak hour demand of 730 gpm placed at the proposed development site as shown on Figures 2A and 2B. The results showed pressures of approximately 54 to 64 psi at the proposed development site, with other pressures in the immediate area ranging from 49 to 68 psi, i.e. a drop of about 2 to 4 psi. All pressure requirements were met without the need for additional piping improvements. Maximum-Day Demand with Fire Demand at the Proposed Development: A simulation was run with maximum-day demands located throughout the system and the estimated fire-flow demand of 4,000 gpm allocated at the proposed development on the proposed 12-inch pipeline on Pacific Coast Highway(at node 8 on Figure 2B,which represents three consecutive fire hydrants). Maximum-day demand was also located at the development as shown on Figures 2A and 2B. The results showed a residual pressure of approximately 57 psi at the fire flow node (during normal maximum-day demand the pressure would be approximately 70 psi), with other pressures in • ry TETRA TECH, INC. ., Infrastructure Services Group C 4 Ms.Debbie Debow July 29,2002 Page 5 the immediate area ranging from approximately 49 to 68 psi. The pressure requirement of a 20-psi residual pressure at the fire flow hydrant was met without the need for additional piping improvements. Recommendations We recommend that the developer be required to design and construct the following improvements to meet the demands of his development: • 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 will connect to an existing 12-inch water main in Atlanta Street and with an existing water main in Huntington Street as well as to the 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 will 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 will connect to a new 12-inch water main in Pacific Coast Highway and with the new 18-inch'water main in Pacific View Avenue. • A new 12-inch water main in Pacific Coast Highway that will connect with the new 12-inch water main in First Street and with an existing 12-inch water main in Huntington Street. • The proposed 12-inch water main in Huntington Street should be constructed and put into service prior to taking the 18-inch water main out of service. Please give me a call if you have any questions. Sincerely, Robert Brandom,P.E. Project Manager RB/tic J:\0600\0015\1001 rgb.doc(300) Attachments 1 Hydqua.rpt City of Huntington Beach Domestic Water System Pacific City Development Hydraulic Modeling Analysis Existing System - Maximum Day Demand w/ 4, 000 gpm Fire Flow Number of Pipes 18767 /8"MAIN our OF JEAN,C ,E Number of Nodes 17459 Number of Tanks 5 • Number of Pumps 8 Number of Valves 7 Headloss Formula Hazen-Williams Hydraulic Timestep 1.00 hrs Hydraulic Accuracy 0. 010000 Maximum Trials 100 Quality Analysis None Specific Gravity 1.00 Kinematic Viscosity 1.10e-005 sq ft/sec Chemical Diffusivity 1.30e-008 sq ft/sec Vapor Pressure 8 .40e-001 ft Total Duration 0.00 hrs • l Hydraulic Convergence at 00: 00 hrs: Trial 1 : 1 .345757 accuracy PRV 30028 switched from OPEN to ACTIVE FCV 30062 switched from ACTIVE to OPEN FCV 30064 switched from ACTIVE to OPEN FCV 30082 switched from ACTIVE to OPEN FCV 30084 switched from ACTIVE to OPEN FCV 30090 switched from ACTIVE to OPEN Trial 2 : 0 .849369 accuracy PRV 30028 switched from ACTIVE to OPEN FCV 30064 switched from OPEN to ACTIVE FCV 30084 switched from OPEN to ACTIVE Pipe 190667 switched from OPEN to CLOSED Pipe 190671 switched from OPEN to CLOSED Trial 3 : 2 . 031191 accuracy PRV 30028 switched from OPEN to CLOSED FCV 30064 switched from ACTIVE to OPEN FCV 30084 switched from ACTIVE to OPEN Trial 4 : 0 .568758 accuracy FCV 30084 switched from OPEN to ACTIVE Trial 5 : 0 . 115807 accuracy — PRV 30028 switched from CLOSED to ACTIVE _ FCV 30062 switched from OPEN to ACTIVE Trial 6 : 0 .049269 accuracy FCV 30062 switched from ACTIVE to OPEN Pipe 190667 switched from CLOSED to OPEN Pipe 190701 switched from OPEN to CLOSED Pump 50127 switched from OPEN to CLOSED Page 1 Hydqua.rpt Pump 50129 switched from OPEN to CLOSED Pump 50131 switched from OPEN to CLOSED Trial 7 : 1. 018394 accuracy FCV 30062 switched from OPEN to ACTIVE Trial 8 : 2 .767167 accuracy PRV 30028 switched from ACTIVE to CLOSED CV 12076 switched from CLOSED to OPEN CV 15809 switched from CLOSED to OPEN CV 15878 switched from CLOSED to OPEN CV 15920 switched from CLOSED to OPEN CV 190323 switched from CLOSED to OPEN Pipe 190667 switched from OPEN to CLOSED Pipe 190701 switched from CLOSED to OPEN CV 3175 switched from CLOSED to OPEN CV 3312• switched from CLOSED to OPEN • Pump 50049 switched from OPEN to CLOSED Pump 50127 switched from CLOSED to OPEN Pump 50129 switched from CLOSED to OPEN Pump 50131 switched from CLOSED to OPEN Trial 9 : 1. 973654 accuracy FCV 30062 switched from ACTIVE to OPEN FCV 30084 switched from ACTIVE to OPEN Trial 10 : 1. 177085 accuracy FCV 30084 switched from OPEN to ACTIVE CV 15809 switched from OPEN to CLOSED CV 15878 switched from OPEN to CLOSED CV 15920 switched from OPEN to CLOSED CV 190323 switched from OPEN to CLOSED Pipe 190667 switched from CLOSED to OPEN Pipe 190701 switched from OPEN to CLOSED Pump 50049 switched from CLOSED to OPEN Pump 50127 switched from OPEN to CLOSED 111 Pump 50129 switched from OPEN to CLOSED Pump 50131 switched from OPEN to CLOSED Trial 11 : 2 . 051219 accuracy FCV 30064 switched from OPEN to ACTIVE FCV 30084 switched from ACTIVE to OPEN Trial 12 : 1.251935 accuracy FCV 30084 switched from OPEN to ACTIVE Trial 13 : 1.157259 accuracy PRV 30028 switched from CLOSED to OPEN Trial 14 : 1. 144264 accuracy PRV 30028 switched from OPEN to ACTIVE FCV 30064 switched from ACTIVE to OPEN FCV 30084 switched from ACTIVE to OPEN Trial 15 : 1. 030890 accuracy FCV 30084 switched from OPEN to ACTIVE Trial 16 : 1.776843 accuracy FCV 30062 switched from OPEN to ACTIVE Trial 17 : 0 .530704 accuracy Trial 18 : 0 .304880 accuracy Page 2 Hydqua.rpt Trial 19 : 0 .148272 accuracy PRV 30028 switched from ACTIVE to OPEN Trial 20 : 0 .089151 accuracy Trial 21 : 0 .026611 accuracy Trial 22 : 0 .006974 accuracy CV 12076 switched from OPEN to CLOSED CV 3175 switched from OPEN to CLOSED CV 3312 switched from OPEN to CLOSED Pump 50127 switched from CLOSED to OPEN Pump 50129 switched from CLOSED to OPEN Pump 50131 switched from CLOSED to OPEN Trial 23 : 0 .101651 accuracy PRV 30028 switched from OPEN to ACTIVE FCV 30062 switched from ACTIVE to OPEN FCV 30084 switched from ACTIVE to OPEN Trial 24 : 0 .635701 accuracy FCV 30062 switched from OPEN to ACTIVE FCV 30084 switched from OPEN to ACTIVE Trial 25 : 1.721811 accuracy Trial 26 : 0 . 000713 accuracy Pipe 190701 switched from CLOSED to OPEN Trial 27 : 0 . 002253 accuracy Trial 28 : 0 .000002 accuracy Hydraulic Status: . Balanced 28 trials (0 . 000002 accuracy) at 0 . 0022 g pm Flow Supplied 28400 .00 gpm Flow Demanded 39117 .23 gpm Flow Stored -10718 .23 gpm Tank 20107 Closed (166.32 ft level) Tank 20109 Emptying (120 .12 ft level) Tank 20111 Emptying (173 .25 ft level) Tank 20115 Emptying (173 .25 ft level) • Tank 20117 •Closed (120.12 ft level) Pipe 10538 Closed CV 12076 Closed CV 15809 Closed • CV 15878 Closed CV 15920 Closed CV 190323 Closed Pipe 190675 Closed Pipe 190699 Closed Pipe 3151 Closed CV 3175 Closed CV 3312 Closed Pipe 3559 Closed Pipe 4815 Closed Pump 50043 Closed (0 .00 setting) Pump 50045 Closed (0 .00 setting) Page 3 , • Hydqua.rpt Pump 50047 Closed (0 . 00 setting) Pump 50049 Open • (1. 00 setting) Pump 50051 Closed (0 . 00 setting) Pump 50127 Open (1. 00 setting) Pump 50129 Open (1 . 00 setting) Pump 50131 Open (1. 00 setting) PRV 30028 Active (75 . 00 psi setting) PRV 30056 Closed FCV 30062 Active (1. 00 gpm setting) FCV 30064 Cannot deliver flow (12000 . 00 gpm setting FCV 30082 Cannot deliver flow (1700 . 00 gpm setting) FCV 30084 Active (1 . 00 gpm setting) FCV 30090 Cannot deliver flow (10000 . 00 gpm setting * Warning: FCV 30064 - Cannot deliver flow at 00 : 00 hrs. * Warning: FCV 30082 - Cannot deliver flow at 00 : 00 hrs . * Warning: FCV 30090 - Cannot deliver flow at 00 : 00 hrs . *************************************** Warning/Error Messages during Run *************************************** ** Retrieving Network Data ** ** Simulating Network Hydraulics ** at time: 00: 00 * Warning: FCV 30064 - Cannot deliver flow at 00 : 00 hrs . * Warning: FCV 30082 - Cannot deliver flow at 00: 00 hrs . * Warning: FCV 30090 - Cannot deliver flow at 00 : 00 hrs . Warnings exist. Please check Output Report for details Page 4 Existin• System -Max.Da Demand w/Fire-Tank Report xf a � yi4 3'r ., , 'E` 9 1Y ,,,.: vy i t 7 ,., Pt 1 I t 7c.1i''!'C..&,.rd. '� y�y- ��r �f�� t : ri '' 1.. ry-1, ti-. jh,: ',-i 5 r ,�, i^ rr, , r' l D i',, i a �. '. l JJ1 . 'q�k+}yy4,i( 1. 4 r 3 c z �' �:^• �(,�+_ -' 0.00 22.91 189.23 72.10 t 5 .-,,�, - • ��j h� _- -10,716.23 61.50 181.62 52.07 -1.00 61.13 234.38 75.10 1 zRA.� T )s -a 1 - j -1.00 60.00 233.25 75.10 ,, ? �� hix `;, 0.00 60.00 180.12 52.07 Date:Monday,July 15,2002,Time: 14:10:00, Page 1 • Existing System-Max.Day Demand w/ Fire Flow -Junc,ultion Report r.s ¢ o f .x ,,3 r,4:z •t a" , 1t�' F , Fe c RGiacle� x ass Y .S. ^':,, �! .. .i. ,s. N .iyY. "'• ,, .Y SyR+-e^c YT�yi��4�. a'�'fY ^iT.. r 'jV 5 '�;' fi 5.45 11.95 127.86 50.25 # �. .. ems : ;ginFy' 5.45 11.92 127.86 50.26 ut ` :' , . ' _ r 0.00 9.50 125.47 50.27 r d :� . t14 5.45 9.49 125.66 50.36 �..; i ". ' �'`��.Y.. ' :` 5.45 9.41 125.68 50.40 ri Y ' _ r e` yams 5.45 9.33 125.66 50.43 r : �s" 5.45 9.87 126.30 50.47 „'jh;� •• ` ).t•*. , 5.45 9.28 125.71 50.47 ', ,4,: 5.45 9.24 125.68 50.48 u r •K x t� x. , ";i� 5.45 9.25 125.74 50.50 'r : ` ,.{ ;7 , ''"• l _> 5.45 9.14 125.71 50.54 " ' ` 130.45 9.00 125.65 50.57 " :. r i, 5.45 9.05 125.74 50.59 .x 0 00 30.27 147.24 50.70 Rr ..{ ,' 0.00 29.63 146.78 50.79 y'. ' "����='w r� .• O49 0.00 29.57 146.78 50.81 r' • ` `.. 1"'i . . 1'; 5.45 8.99 126.54 50.96 ;':�3 .. f '�,+K " 0.00• 30.25 147.91 51.01 ^`f., 7`M 0.00 26.44 144.33 51.11 ' .•.� " .,I• c 0.00 8.61 126.54 51.12 ;,• • .� 0.00 22.86 141.23 51.32 . '•' :rF. ,fir, ° • 4,160.00 5 86 125.22 51.74 r r4 4� 5.45 6.32 126.28 52.00 q R .4 i � ! 5.45 6.31 126.28 52.01 }^`' -a ;, 1' 0.00 5.12 125.48 52.18 ,x,: 100.00 4.28 125.96 52.75 • ` • Ei„ 5.45 6.01 128.16 52.95 - �g, 3�Hr' 4, • + 0.00 29.90 152.19 53.01 f7 �� t 8r . ; 5.45 5.51 128.16 53.17 " '�` �` " '' 5.45 5.44 128.45 53.33 inn '" r Vi• "�" u'a 5.45 5.16 128.45 53.45 M � $ F4 0.00 4.97 128.49 53.55 �� � '- • : "; • .x Q4 0.00 31.57 155.12 53.56 d ,7 ...f-,M1vj 0.00 29.02 152.58 53.57 ` ~ ' :` ate':: <x ;wxr y:: `e Q B 0.00 28.98 152.58 53.58 1%z .�.Wit._ s�, 36 "- " `• l 0.00 31.01 155.12 53.80 r 3` , a5 x wTd�,, 0.00 1.50 126.07 54.00 xtw-'K;,�* :; ' ;: 87x 0.00 1.54 126.22 54.05 i i: :,:ef:. w` 38: ,. :, 54.08 t a,:; 39.: -�� 682'-k 0.00 1.46 126.22 a',; `, -••.40 <^., `-4,„...•., , 0.00 4.45 129.51 54.21 Date: Monday,July 15, 2002,Time: 14:10:35, Page 1 Existing System Day,Demand w/Fire Flow -Junction Report , r y( r.,a Max.x D as 'Su ''aiViti �`�': 'Grak"` I. �'t1'I?i' a�s•'F ,i � 7,x m . _�, ei and 1 IA - 3 %. • 1 _ csssjurel ' nB 0.00 6.50 131.58 54.22 =v _ z '" ii- 0.00 4.45 129.54 54.23 a. �' � 5.45 6.14 131.58 54.38 ,. . • ',, ; t 0.00 6.74 132.21 54.39 ""' - .. = .K `;• ,, 'SZ4i 0.00 3.90 129.51 54.45 ,IVA325Q 0.00 6.50 132.21 54.50 } •4. 8„ 0.00 6.50 132.21 54.50 ' 4 ` ;$..2 0.00 6.50 132.21 U.50 } "' u4 � 1 2.24 26.50 153.87 55.22 .. ;i; , 1...', ' 3 ',4t;'t. "`°,,4,.,,% 0.00 26.50 153.87 55.22 r4n_ y ,,, 0.00 6.52 134.11 55.31 x._ ,.` .. ,_ 1.828f7 0.00 6.50 134.11 55.32 a �5 ,- '".• j= ., 0.00 26.48 154.42 55.46 �54'. r x: 1,t` 2.24 25.41 154.24 55.85 74E1 � 2.24 25.33 154.24 55.88 sit- ,"-i- :'ter t,. 1r 2.24 24.84 154.14 56.05 ,. .w;, ... f733 .,.'r' 0.00 26.07 r r5we r -. 155.49 56.11 � 5:8 �. :„t ' _• tz173103 0.00 26.07 155.49 56.11 ,< r18i 0.00 6.81 136.49 56.22 ,,v,, r 60t:' _:•-s: ' � 1w7. 0.00 6.80 136.49 56.22 ' ^+„ , ' ,� ,7C43 2.24 24.27 154.04 56.26 r d :�s, •y. f;T4 „ 2.24 24.07 154.04 56.34 .:. 'i ii4 : " '� I74t* 2.24 23.90 154.03 56.41 « 49 0.00 24.40 154.55 56.42 i ` 74O8 0.00 25.20 155.49 56.48 }'66 { +• T4 0.00 24.14 154.55 56.53 N'` a''';'a;1 ,-' ;* •''-' -fit%174C 0.00 24.13 154.88 56.68 0.00 24.20 155.49 56.92 f i r i bi Ail S -t� _ „ ikt ,>,_. �: ' j 0.00 21.58 153.17 57.05 � IO; t? -F4 I' ?. 0.00 6.74 138.42 57.08 � ' ' 1 Z'-'_A,,,,,- c 0.00 23.12 154.88 57.12 r` � 72 s � 8 0.00 6.76 138.57 57.14 .. 4 y- ':-fit' 5.45 6.58 138.42 57.15 -_ - 1 i n kzu--;:- t8TO1 0.00 6.69 138.57 57.17 " �7 <i '== :± ci.7-` , 7491 0.00 22.08 154.03 57.20 ►1, ,, ±x r , • :L."'- -1.8042� 0.00 7.51 140.45 57.63 ` 7sa ` ,uz1804x 0.00 7.44 140.45 57.66 - .mF.x' ` 8'• A . ',A 4 - ';� 0.00 9.35 142.92 57.90 ..1749 ,74-- �; 79'y.W ;:`°' 1'., t 7991r«.,: 0.00 8.70 142.46• 5798 E� "'} :80$ ,:- :3 'L1 - 179894 * 0.00 8.63 142.46 58.01 Date: Monday,July 15,2002,Time: 14:10:35, Page 2 F:MgtwSys.t,e.m -Max.. .D7 Demond,„.w4aFi ,,t,,F744,140:-JUotgiln R..etortat, IP ITICINg2 '''"aitIN '4V.r.i4r- .4, . ' , , ....„,(gREI, 44!" 1 0.00 19.27 153.15 58.04 ',- 0 00 • 9.00 142.92 58.06 0.00 19.19 153.17 58.08 , -. ‘-..:4.,,•1i,i;44;i1 -f-p,A,' -...., ''''-':' . ""-12r15 .•4,701.0 0.00 29.41 163.41 58.09 ';'''''''''' ''' •--4a01-?ovi7' r'•. ,5•; ,-- ' 0.00 29.25 163.41 58.16 • .v ,• ,,„ ''--- ,,, , -T,-4,-,,,l-th5' ,-,2-',:•-/.--.Z. 0.00 ',e-czat -%:•,,,t,'gss-•-‘1;,:: ‘•t-r,;11,-'- ,-' -- -------4 11.10 146.41 58.66 ' 11..• 0.00 9.00 144.33 58.67 Vr.,4•_':"'V.-.,-,. ._ . %,.--: , „,, ,,,,,, . `''''-' -, ',-• '-,-,--.4 ,,kof''' -,. !'r- ;•9.T4S °•°° 9.00 144.33 58 67 , 7-4,,.?'.4...,.,'f It.4,,,,t,i--• . lee ' ,•••-!.4-- - '• tic-a4•-•sow 074„.„_._ lotat 0.00 11.07 146.41 58.67 •,....1 . . ,',,ziiit.0 -.,-,=,.. • ' --- '.----i• •-•;;, ".1.4,: ..ots,d,sT,;,:',/OM 0.00 11.36 147.21 58.89 -- wito ,,,,,-4750,0 0.00 rattiosom„ ., w.,,,..., ..: ., . _ 16.85 , 152.88 58.97 '''..541-CA 000 16.49 152.86 59.12 -; mt4'• " '- _ • • iti.,,,,A,---_Awn 0.00 26.52 163.41 59.34 - lityr-,9iv • cf. , itP>. ..., , -§ 0.00 26.50 163.41 59.35 000 26.47 163.41 59.36 tpartiftroMEN ,--...,,,- - " • _PM 4°.41010A58t 0 00 11.44 149.02 59.64 3,.....,4,„-p.4,•,396-, : „ -...-,.. ,a 0 59.91 10.82 149.02 goilimoc: A- _ •••,,-,.„. t ot041. t!.s.:. ,:, v.: , :.,,,rt-Q nz•-•4:',v62,44 0.00 13.00 151.48 60.03 ..4ismA98.z,if,e',4,,i,,o,p,-• ---" - ;_,„ 0.00 12.00 151.48 60.47 piatait,Ift,..7-Z----3-il '' ,A k.- '.•:::-•;, -, 0 op 15.91 155.49 60.51 • ,. 60.63 13.02 152.88 movigiotiolz, #601-57.:P 0.0° 1.4- cum 15.17 , 155.49 60.83 awa no 10 15373 62.30 laidogrAVAI4 1,,,,.. apkr...,,,tti - uu. .01 . 04 1 8.38 152.86 62.63 rvE44ZE,041i:i .' . ' - -744,4a 0 00 -4.42 144.12 64.39 „_ _...• .7,,,.: un.00 -4.45 144.12 64.41 ° .37 4.71 155.49 65 .°.°. iffiaV,ij . . .,.4,•.. • *..4.1*',..;1\al wf._ I 0.0u 4.70 155.49 65.37 Ratik108aek•-f ., , _ ,:.._,,ir.__. °° . 2.46 154.03 6571 ' it -04/4--at .vti- itift..,,.746110_, °• Wg MOO 0 53.71 1 .73 66.33 000 1.50 155.49 66.76 ii..,,,-. ••,4,rl 14440401.1)"s4 4 , _ 4-. :mil:V:4'4'401 1,v14/.., "" 0.00 -3.75 154.03 68.40 • ,r44,,,,,lb,-.4 i•,„ ,11•7452s,_ , Ogrii:0„.,,i',1.:412,_•,.........--„,,,-,..i„4...„ •,,,, ,•-•- , Date: Monday,July 15, 2002,Time: 14:10:35, Page 3 Hydqua.rpt City of Huntington Beach Domestic Water System Pacific City Development Hydraulic Modeling Analysis -- Existing System - Average Day Demand Number of Pipes 18766 Number of Nodes 17459 Number of Tanks 5 Number of Pumps 8 Number of Valves 7 Headloss Formula Hazen-Williams Hydraulic Timestep 1 . 00 hrs Hydraulic Accuracy 0 . 010000 Maximum Trials 100 Quality Analysis None Specific Gravity 1. 00 Kinematic Viscosity 1.10e-005 sq ft/sec Chemical Diffusivity 1.30e-008 sq ft/sec Vapor Pressure 8 .40e-001 ft Total Duration 0 . 00 hrs Hydraulic Convergence at 00 : 00 hrs: Trial 1 : 2 .244286 accuracy PRV 30028 switched from OPEN to ACTIVE FCV 30062 switched from ACTIVE to OPEN FCV 30084 switched from ACTIVE to OPEN Trial 2 : 0.835957 accuracy FCV 30084 switched from OPEN to ACTIVE Pipe 190667 switched •from OPEN to CLOSED Pipe 190671 switched from OPEN to CLOSED Trial 3 : 3 .135891 accuracy Trial 4 : 0.023645 accuracy Trial 5 : 0 .003256 accuracy • Hydraulic Status: Balanced 5 trials (0 . 003256 accuracy) at 0 . 0022 gp m Flow Supplied 20300 . 00 gpm Flow Demanded 22011.25 gpm Flow Stored -1712 .24 gpm Tank 20107 Closed (166 . 32 ft level) Tank 20109 Emptying (120 .12 ft level) Tank 20111 Emptying (173 .25 ft level) Tank 20115 Closed (173 .25 ft level) Tank 20117 Closed (120 . 12 ft level) Pipe 10538 Closed CV 12076 Closed CV 15809 Closed Page 1 Hydqua.rpt CV 15878 Closed CV 15920 Closed CV 190323 Closed Pipe 190675 Closed Pipe 190699 Closed Pipe 3151 Closed CV 3175 Closed CV 3312 Closed Pump 50043 Closed (0 . 00 setting) Pump 50045 Closed (0 . 00 setting) Pump 50047 Closed (0. 00 setting) Pump 50049 Open (1. 00 setting) Pump 50051 Closed (0 . 00 setting) Pump 50127 Open (1. 00 setting) Pump 50129 Open (1. 00 setting) Pump 50131 Open (1. 00 setting) PRV 30028 Active (75 . 00 psi setting) PRV 30056 Closed FCV 30062 Cannot deliver flow (1. 00 gpm setting) FCV 30064 Open FCV 30082 Open FCV 30084 Active (1. 00 gpm setting) FCV 30090 Open • * Warning: FCV 30062 - Cannot deliver flow at 00 : 00 hrs . *************************************** Warning/Error Messages during Run *************************************** ** Retrieving Network Data ** ** Simulating Network Hydraulics ** at time: 00 : 00 * Warning: FCV 30062 - Cannot deliver flow at 00:00 hrs. Warnings exist. Please check Output Report for details Page 2 Existin• System-Avera•e Day Demand-Tank Re•ort a�. zt;'2. t5 'toe ct":{i t t 7•taS.[f�3.s r�`y("Lq4 a1 1 i , ° � 4ay'1s : r J-,77 7.71 , 710t. 0.00 22.91 189.23 72.10 `r- ✓ `` :>H j�"`` 0 y -1,711.24 61.50 181.62 52.07 { ,Y F'". -1.00 61.13 234.38 75.10 'ry„ w I ij 0.00 60.00 233.25 75.10 1 ;; e{9;-t , 0.00 60.00 180.12 52.07 Date: Monday,July 15,2002,Time: 13:42:20, Page 1 1 Existing System-Average Day Demand-Junction Report x= :- r :- ..s' �,91 - s, :: U ,,,;i i3::�'r 4'^s".f"iR:Yoi i"i'ii.'t� r+,r„,,.: _ $ap:.y.,.:.F sw e''�i , ... ,1 .:^'.,�-,.,' $ :.-Ay s W a E1evaffo -1. ;ate,• i e;ta"^r le $Q, �: x i �arxNkx t,�P .', ,.4.'R,,,, `.Tt.�..7T,'wt,:rr '' n _ aiil!' �+_?r+ � wg � 1 „ E ',) f ; 0.00 31.57 177.30 63.17 14S_,� w 31.01 177.30 63.41 1-1, °s` 3 f,•, :•r n,..W 0.00 30.27 176 74 63.50 � .� a .. �,:a )-10. ; - -�r „., •° ::v 0.00 30.25 176J6 63.51 '`�,' sue-yr:;, 0.00 29.41 176.11 63.59 • 3I ,ter y ` 0.00 29.25 176.11 63.66 � : a r 4 9, 0.00 29.63 176.73 63.77 i g a :, ; ,t s z i� � I ,° • 0.00 29.57 176 73 63 79 f{two$/ ,, gr„wz .., ;, ,' 'a 0.00 29.90 177.09 63.81 ,;t0 r , ° `,� :, ' Q.AFC"=; 0.00 29.02 177.12 64.20 ' M 0.00 28.98 177.12 64.22 u. ' ' 0.00 26.52 176.09 64.84 zv' ° 0.00 26.50 176.09 64.85 Fi't. '3'"` 1 -`' a Y i` g 11..Q 0.00 26.47 176.09 64.86 �, � `Y 0.00 26.07 176.09 65.03 i:. «� : ,2 0.00 26.07 176.09 65.03 f :'' r'� f `J• ;;r`°• 7 0.00 26.44 176.64 65.11 r, ` '� 0.00 _ 26.50 T77.22 65.34 max;,>'w,. g _ ?'- ' N, 1.40 26.50 177.22 65.34 s'; ,„' 10;Q , `&` •01: .R_ 0.00 26.48 177.26 65.36 ,.� � 0.00 25.20 176.08 65.40 • yy, a 1 1.40 25.41 177.25 65.82 !i, i' ,,`i �' � ',l 0.00 24.20 176.08 65.84 {- 1 407 1.40 25.33 177.25 65.86 ' h 4 t .. r � .1, ;r ' .. 1.40 24.84 177.25 66.07 � ',,,:;!1,.,z -L.r" .1 0.00 24.40. 177.27 66.27 `' •, " : 'i a:;,�. . ', 1.40 24.27 177.24 66.31 }3 " .M •>�'= �_ ° • 0.00 24.14 177.27 66.38 4" ":o. _ ;. ' �', '°„_" 0.00 24.13 177.28 66.39 �" '' 5fl 1.40 24.07 177.24 66.40 , s : � x.. �, 23.90 177.24 66.47 ' s O87 0.00 22.86 176.53 66.62 ;`33 j S a i d 0.00 23.12 177.28 66.83 , • '''V.. '. ,x'x� c.., : 4- _ . 0.00 22.08 177.24 67.26 . ;,'.; �.f' '- 7 0.00 21.58 177.20 67.46 :. " � q�cc ::,, leg „ '-3-st�j:,.4 0"At .00 19.27 177.20 68.46 : �_' rw '{_: ; :' 43 0.00 19.19 177.20 68.50 1 ';'3g'i ? ; ;7 'ss ; `.ti-.„ ,, 0.00 15.91 176.06 69.43 ?' r 3 .>` "`�a' [ y E9 . 0.00 16.85 177.18 69.51 x " '4Q{ `,.:,� F .Lw r$ :.:2 0.00 16.49 177.18 69.66 Date: Monday,July 15, 2002,Time: 13:50:43, Page 1 Existing System -Average Day Demand-Junction Report �:w c c'' :„::iw't r y *:y• <`"'.�' .�.r'bs�,a!�(•hS.S,`S,ti. : iw �'"yyx���,,.��ltl.;;•,�s�%.a`%, viva`.��, ''•�3+r=`<WV$Si�;'* . `1,�7 - c• k to o•q 4 alloo twig e y I3,ii�e. [,. 71* A a .- +k.`' ` WOO k,r•.•F rr* NW!:g:z,m,, la:•. r . I �5a 0.00 15.17 176.06 69.75 ,,�. '... 624.V 0.00 13.00 177.11 71.14 3.41 11.95 176.10 71.16 - 4 x- : • 0.00 13.02 177.18 71.17 ' ' . 6 3.41 11.92 176.10 71.17 ` .e7 '' -y ., ' ia 0.00 12.00 177.11 71.58 " • < _ a& 0.00 11.36 176.90 71.76 h ,' ', •, t 0.00 11.44 • 176.99 71.77 N! • 4 4 K' "l r` i 4/$b. - 0.00 11.10 176.86 71.86 r 4`r-A-V8701 0.00 11.07 176.86 71.87 :Nti..4.'"4 �,. , '-',V;ItiThOte 3.41 9.87 176.04 72.03 •Y, r '•.,. 4 F ' ( ' 0.00 10.82 176.99 72.04 t, ..,. ', is am.... ti0 0.00 9.50 176.02 72.18 i M ,';, 'F _ m! l 3.41 9.49 176.01 72.19 €'` h , 1:i4 ;, :;_ 3.41 9.41 176.01 72.22 . 1 ,R v ;falgi ,V}F; ;n„:�.a 3.41 9.33 176.01 72.26 i" •'': ,. n '*` 10 u 3.41 • 9.28 176.01 72.28 .. _ 58 0'))..9 3z, 3.41 9.25 176.01 72.29 IS g °# i; .v" ;9:14.3't 3.41 9.24 176.01 72.29 Ltw- �..,a,:.�``i '''` �0 $ 3.41 9.14 176:01 72.34 • xr*f EV; ' ; :10 8' 'F 3.41 9.05 176.01 72.38 * ' 46;` 81.41 9.00 176.01 72.40 . .� r M 1 0' 3.41 8.99 176.05 72.42 .;_ 64t _ 49li'Y 0.00 10.01 177.23 72.49 " 5:: , , ;A. t0 0.00 9.35 176.68 72.54 '� ���..r��... . j' ..�280 411 0.00 8.61 176.05 72.58 tip;r�;. �;i �.� - � 6 " '1n: ,8;8.? 0.00 9.00 176.68 72.69 Imamotaxen icIF =Y'9 0.00 9.00 176.76 72.72 6)4 dA, ''"x:{,` ,`=11,�_�4,141, 0.00 9.00 176.76 72.72 reMniii46060, :k 'G799 0.00 8.70 176.66 72.81 h r;;.:� .i • 9 0.00 8.63 176.66 72.84 `. `: ' 2'. .. PSI* ' 0.00 8.38 177.18 73.18 V. ' ,3 ,' `` ?,ti 0.00 7.51 176.56 73.28 11'��`"''�w '� `,95r: ' ` " 0:4 0.00 7.44 176.56 73.31 ` ,7r,.,es, '" 4 titiditcV 0,00 6.74 176.16 73.44 �, ism- :,s34,,,r ��...,_,... ,; �:�:=�:'- X6:..ir�.:,' .A41.11 & 1~ 4 0.00 6.81 176.37 73.50 �a '" 0.00 6.80 176.37 73.51 j .. Yt'i�,J. :"`AIPOZ&"'' _ D 18241. 0.00 6.50 176.13 73.53 is ::7:i . "79 " ' : ;� `T8254'.;_ 0.00 6.50 176.16 73.55 J':k, ' t 80 - .;, ,i`WX u "•1�!! 25C5= 0.00 6.50 176.16 73.55 Date: Monday,July 15,2002,Time: 13:50:43, Page 2 • Existing,System -Average Day Demand-Junction Report ;� :, k - s Zv i wa.,:,t• ,„.. $ II)R* 1 9• ir. 1825 0.00 6.50 176.16 73.55 i. �. t ` ,g" ax,.,' i O 0.00 6.76 176.47 73.57 : , f .,. `'` � " 3.41 6.32 176.04 73.57 _. ., .:. - •th 0.00 6.74 176.46 73.57 , ' - - 3.41 6.31 176.04 73.58 b" _ Y , $ 0.00 6.52 176.25 73.58 '^`6 + , ' ,41 v`'im '1..` _ 0' 0.00 6.50 176.25 73.54 � �� 8:1, ", 0.00 6.69 176.47 73.60 tr• f `- r ' f 3.41 6.58 176.46 73.64 : 808 3.41 6.01 175.99 73.69 , .. $23 ` 3.41 6.14 176.13 73.69 i ,; 100.00 5.86 176.02 73.76 � a 0 k•:'T80$1 3.41 5.51 175.99 73.91 „ � Q 82r; 3.41 5.44 175.99 73.93 ��'' �;.4` ``i' 1 ; 9►XY 3.41 5.16 175.99 74.05 .., 1 k �=:y = = i .t��72�`��= 0.00 5.12 176.02 74.09 h - ,.v,. - ,' tit...`4'; 0.00 4.97 175.99 74.14 v ' '" � ; $ � $Q " 0.00 4.71 1.76.05 74.28 fvg.° ,,� uy-.:. 0.00 4.70 176.05 74.28 ? QEI ` 4 " 1825 s` 0.00 4.45 175.92 74.33 • G " `' T • 12M 0.00 4.45 175.92 74.33 , 1i0 x s . 147`a 4rt 63.00 4.28 176.03 74.45 [ 4 ! s " `, 18: 0' 0.00 3.90 175.92 74.57 '` '68t� 0.00 1.54 176.04 75.64 �kat-. 1p *+... ` t.,'` OrT42 0.00 1.50 176.00 75.65 .. :F 6Q ►7 0.00 1.50 176.04 75.66 `.: _1 0.00 1.46 176.04 75.68 f 1 • K 7 ; a 0.00 2.46 177.24 75.77 • a ` x 0.00 0.71 177.23 76.52 9 0.00 -3.75 177.24 78.46 '�` _; > : rSTs�' 0.00 -4.42 176.81 78.56 .,wk 2:' SS� "-v x• 1 0.00 -4.45 176.81 78.58 Date:Monday,July 15, 2002,lime: 13:50:43, Page 3 Hydqua.rpt City of Huntington Beach Domestic Water System Pacific City Development Hydraulic Modeling Analysis Existing System - Peak Hour Demand Number of Pipes 18766 Number of Nodes 17459 Number of Tanks 5 • Number of Pumps 8 Number of Valves 7 Headloss Formula Hazen-Williams Hydraulic Timestep 1. 00 hrs Hydraulic Accuracy 0 . 010000 Maximum Trials 100 Quality Analysis None Specific Gravity 1. 00 Kinematic Viscosity 1 . 10e-005 sq ft/sec Chemical Diffusivity 1 . 30e-008 sq ft/sec Vapor Pressure 8 .40e-001 ft Total Duration 0. 00 hrs Hydraulic Convergence at 00 : 00 hrs: Trial 1 : 1.591682 accuracy PRV 30028 switched from OPEN to ACTIVE FCV 30062 switched from ACTIVE to OPEN FCV 30084 switched from ACTIVE to OPEN Trial 2 : 0 .728268 accuracy FCV 30062 switched from OPEN to ACTIVE FCV 30084 switched from OPEN to ACTIVE Trial 3 : 1.784816 accuracy Trial 4 : 0 . 013467 accuracy Trial 5 : 0 . 001559 accuracy Hydraulic Status: Balanced 5 trials (0 . 001559 accuracy) at 0 . 0022 gp m Flow Supplied 35646 . 00 gpm Flow Demanded 55147 . 69 gpm Flow Stored -19502 . 69 gpm Tank 20107 Emptying (166 .32 ft level) Tank 20109 Emptying (120 . 12 ft level) Tank 20111 Emptying (173 .25 ft level) Tank 20115 Emptying (173 .25 ft level) Tank 20117 Emptying (120.12 ft level) Pipe 10538 Closed CV 12076 Closed CV 15809 - Closed CV 15878 Closed Page 1 Hydqua.rpt CV 15920 Closed CV 190323 Closed Pipe 190675 Closed Pipe 3151 Closed CV 3175 Closed CV 3312 Closed Pump 50043 Closed (0 . 00 setting) Pump 50045 Closed (0 . 00 setting) Pump 50047 Closed (0 . 00 setting) Pump 50049 Open (1. 00 setting) Pump 50051 Closed (0 . 00 setting) Pump 50127 Open (1. 00 setting) Pump 50129 Open (1. 00 setting) Pump 50131 Open (1. 00 setting) PRV 30028 Active (75 . 00 psi setting) PRV 30056 Closed FCV 30062 Active (1. 00 gpm setting) FCV 30064 Open FCV 30082 Active (4500. 00 gpm setting) FCV 30084 Active (1. 00 gpm setting) FCV 30090 Open Page 2 Existin• System-Peak.Hour Demand-Tank Report t .s; k.1 ay p i "'-��{ ya�7,, 3 tf spa' r k,,, c.,,1 Us Pt-, '` ._i +r.. 1 , sf r� ,z ;; D 19 h�q'e,,,,,k t., °i ,,:. :�sa n(' ti. l �7 1 r t rli . 9at S i ?,t.1-S.,'p'{ 5 +a ' �',.�, K1 -2: ,t'{ { '' ' '�` F... 21:J. 1 .,r {IS c 7 r"-. r yl�31{'��.. 1 �'9 *i'ft F"' 2.1 i': 1_.:'.c...:. �t ,,,,n. 1 Li.. ,. .w:dila .,.ir...,rt 1 i^. ' 1.:t.�v��s..i._E;,b;. idiu:r°r '; t_..1..R..... .,'3r. :..r r`; ,i ; F`I f , , "y 3V -754.60 22.91 189.23 72.10 `' ��� `•`R' -14.246.09 61.50 181.62 52.07 > ', ; W ' a , ?,z -1.00 61.13 234.38 75.10 A �+` s 1 lid l -1.00 60.00 233.25 75.10 K :,( x� .., `�C �� z a -4,500.00 60.00 180.12 52.07 Date:Monday,July 15, 2002,Time: 13:39:45, Page 1 • Existin• System -Peak Hour Demand-Junction Report .:., { # ; t t °Lx,�-.S'•1 ': . f ..:.�. . s YH". • t y^s� T. 4 �•3•. u. Y t [L,.. • ; ,e;F ( i.'t gi"f Dvt . (ryp^ $ty.of,: g{4 ,-#.. � t ,c-- - -'-, t K4 ' ' vV 0.00 29.41 151.79 53.05 r ;'• ;, ,• Jt 'iM14E 0.00 29.25 151.79 53.12 a , , E , ; .. '' '� ,_'..,:,:*: 0 00 30.27 154.25 53.74 'we .w'. .q¢.-nrs' ., ,.,,,•....tam 7Q45 0.00 30.25 154.29 53.77 t• ti'''"�z,F, ' 0.00 29.63 154.18 53.99 -* '.;.,::-.k . -i'it.,.? '` ` ..i,a! 0.00 29.57 154.18 54.02 -' ` , yx " s- '`` `:4 _ o km• 0.00 26.52 151.71 54.27 - k .. r``y • fQ : .Ot14� 0.00 31.57 156.76 54.27 ' � ,;. . < �� � :' Ea',x = y 0.00 26.50 151.71 54.28 747' .yq y ` . „; 0.00 26.47 151.71 54.29 • w� T : . ben, f Ar• ,} 0.00 26.07 151.69 54.46 s# ,t, P,,,.I�;£y•h ,z:rF `-'.;r„�,, 0.00 26.07 151.69 54.46 .t �. �' a: Seit6 0.00 31.01 156.76 54.51 '" • • ,,,-f Q1`. +: 0.00 29.90 155.85 54.60 i„ 1 ,# , � O8 0.00 25.20 151.64 54.81 '"r ," {.: `4i 77�„ 0.00 29.02 155.99 55.04 ?.. , ^ , ' ..L AA-t ri;J,, 0.00 28.98 155.99 55.06 •, 0057,, 0.00 26.44 153.83 55.22 1; �'� .-',a � 0.00 24.20 151.64 55.24 • _, ,.. .r `'-b;• x ' 0.00 26.50 156.44 56.33 -A` MOW.-�ti ''.17„2681,t 3.49 26.50 156.44 56.33 `• N ,.. ,-" .'�L1 * 0.00 26.48 156.63 56.42 z "• ' ,,-'"F 0.00. 22.86 153.41 56.60 kait,t'il. M- ttlm-•.•.•i.•.-.•:1•,:•••;"4", g 4, • 3.49 25.41 156.60 56.87 _ N '. ' ': r 407 3.49 25.33 156.60 56.90 i k.0:f' k �,.L.c. 4 3.49 24.84 156.58 57.11 'r „ 4 kM .'4.,. . ,, .• 4 0.00 24.40 156.67 57.34 . ., ti ,"_1 • 3.49 24.27 156.56 57.35 p �r.. l• ▪ 3.49 24.07 156.56 57.43 s °! '``" �,k 0.00 24.14 156.67 57.45 = " h°; y 0.00 24.13 156.73 57.48 , „3. '4 3.49 23.90 156.56 57.51 . 1;, 3Z 0.00 23.12 156.73 57.92 6; ' �, 9� 0.00 22.08 156.55 58.29 fi . ` ;,1 Z5 0.00 21.58 156.37 58.43. weA ,y•• y 12493n 0.00 15.91 151.59 58.82 ririlme� 31-' C R4� I7506'a; ? 0.00 15.17 151.59 59.14 �:: ,r:`.,... 0.00 19.27 156.37 59.43 r.q .` 3 L 543 0.00 19.19 156.37 59.47 ti:, r: -v 40..' -.>:5 .,==":'-.17559�..- - 0.00 16.85 156.31 60.46 i%. _ Date: Monday,July 15,2002,Time: 13:51:43, Page 1 1 Existin System-Peak Hour Demand-Junction Report C^ iir �..:. y.� -_ T.c_.n4 yM.kt t' !'!i...:. .d•^✓ `Y4••tshwu...l..nw...m.t{ �',� F. .n.- _ t.:'-,.Iii i. • ii'wr i r ,,yt�{,Q �tire Rwo 3" 8.51 11.95 151.72 60.59 42.::,tv :, ,, T ,V1745.6 8.51 11.92 151.72 60.60 r T �•, ! 0.00 16.49 156.31 60.61 `'y; �> 82 8.51 9.87 151.47 61.38 l . ° .5�) 1 cia, 8.51 9.49 151.34 61.49 H r ) a� 0.00 9.50 151.37 61.50 . `.- �:;;4„elk.. r a ^k` 8.51 9.41 151.34 61.53 n ;A " .4 E^,,-`,:A-:; a Y';:,'F 8.51 9.33 151.34 61.56 A „6:,k'4 i . i 8.51 9.28 151.34 61.58 t '° 8.51 9.25 151.34 61.59 ''Sx s,' ':�.ni� �9�i+�aF sty �r-c• r .�r Buz ' - x -- ,,-- - 8.51 9.24 151.34 61.60 - ;_�. 8.51 9.14 151.34 61.64 - xa. -r, ' �r inert 8.51 9.05 151.34 61.68 • .„ I-•O' 4,6 203.51 9.00 151.33 61.70 ,'?ew N M = :a; r•ra. gi 8.51 8.99 151.50 61.78 r.. :,k `, ` h!;;: , 803; 0.00 8.61 151.50 61.94 r, t':Ya} g' s 1'-- ,, Wfigi 0.00 13.00 156.02 62.00 ' 88- ... g'' 0.00 13.02 156.31 62.12 �:. � p. 8 2�' 0.00 11.36 155.11 62.32 6:c? , : .� i 1 = y ff4,�a� , 0.00 11.10 154.94 62.35 !t ... ,-. rTB?'5 0.00 11.07 154.94 62.37 `'' ``' ` 635 0.00 12.00 156.02 62.43 ``�'� ,•< '� ' 0.00 11.44 155.49 62.45 ' _ y:._.. 0.00 10.82 155.49 62.72 .''ems . r.`. ; r! '9 ' 0.00 9.35 154.20 62.79 w N ' "` ;l tr, . 4 8.51 6.32 151.46 62.92 - 8.51 6.31 151.46 62.92 # " "g* ,...;." ' ,!AR8 0.00 9.00 154.20 62.95 _, �;t- ''.. »a ;8 0.00 6.74 152.01 62.97 j -; , ?"` o"`'075. 8.51 6.01 151.30 62.98 0.00 6.50 151.88 63.02 i *A 444-;4. ? ; 0.00 8.70 154.10 63.03 ,. il le-? ',.. `e.7 i 9a 0.00 8.63 154.10 63.06 _ * .. k:i;.P4 z - < I, ` �'4_ '= 0.00 9.00 154.50 63.07 ' 0.00 9.00 154.50 63.07 ,; 76 -~ �-tN+;„.: i131,41 25 0.00 6.50 152.01 63.08 ;; 14.. ; _" ' �`� p. ;82 5,e,* 0.00 6.50 152.01 63.08 -1-4,1i,VaRia la""' ' 0.00 6.50 152.01 63.08 6,: • r,'t 7.q==°it ,4--. r - : 799 ' 250.00 5.86 151.37 63.08 r.t'��'pa.�;� �. 80�. °' :����fi'82 _"', 8.51 6.14 151.88 63.18 Date: Monday,July 15,2002,Time: 13:51:43, Page 2 i- Existing System -Peak Hour Demand-Junction Report -.r ef,r.Paim A.s-li,v45,,2p_ii..44:1 frieattrzf 4 qi.,. t:fr,-,'-v.. -...-::.. .4,svg' v-&,39Pr.P. ..,,1•v.1.45... -..., :... .:i. :.z. .. ....,!'.4. ,,yatt[aft.744,11k1110'"::-i43toom 8.51 5.51 151.30 63.20 ,, .. ' -. :. !•1'.; • „. ,, iikki...-:. In17:1,::*3.0 8.51 5.44 151.30 63.23 Wigar*ACV. ,..t:'r,•-1,t,•1:';<41i1F--..'' 4ftt 0.00 6.52 152.39 63.23 ___ , ,..,.--„,' 5m, 0.00 6.50 152.39 63.24 Wita 0.00 6.81 152.86 63.31 ,'14:4,‘.1.y;;;'4;;:ly,. .,,4:Q.-.,.. ; -,0111 0.00 6.80 152.86 63.32 8.51 5.16 151.30 63.35 ... , , gm 7.51 153.68 63.36 i itiit-A-Ac*Aiiiiet,,, ,av Ft.,,,,,..(:...::,044. 0.00 7.44 153.68 63.39 .62",..4080 0.00 5.12 151.39 63.41 , EallirrAVAV 0.00 4.97 151.30 63.43 Fir ,--.:,W:7:;•%4 1:1,.T. 749121 0.00 ,,c•., : ,,..... - 10.01 156.49 63.50 - 1:181,001 CLOO 6.74 153.25 63.51 rt'i : '-V;i#0414,14/•` - 11f0M 0.00 6.76 153.28 63.52 0.00 6.69 153.28 63.55 MOO 4.45 151.10 63.57 ,Wilitt97$4110) . -400.541 o.00 4.45 151.10 63.57 MaAtleitriii,:::,.: '' TrAbiivat 8.51 6.58 153.25 63.58 targarOgitalli„..ico.“ ?.140.0-4b 0.00 4.71 151.53 63.65 TOMMiga 46.44,25r41 0.00 4.70 151.53 63.65 . lalitatlitaAtt us 47.1 .4.' 158.00 4.28 151.43 63.79 11; ' - -;Ir "91114110404, 0.00 3.90 151.10 63.81 105.50, 0.00 8.38 156.31 64.13 alOr-42$ MOO 1•50 151.33 64.95 2.t..0741031 MOO 1.54 151.46 64.99 ,'--1-#1045,,S o.00 1.50 151.46 65.01 ,,,t,...... _ OTT .0-., t? : ..4.17, . !6 MOO 1.46 151.46 65.02 0.00 2.46 156.55 66.80 , _ ,Z.ilini0:69.:.44D,1"•,i`,,4., VeilielneS MOO 0.71 156.49 67.53 IW41-1011ii::".-..7 7,-:,-.41.4.-.4.15•T r. MOO -4.42 154.73 68.99 4058.04 0.00 445 154.73 69.00 11-;14t--1,42AiithiT 1-'-J5Tct4'4,452:4!* 0.00 -3.75 156.55 69.49 Date: Monday,July 15, 2002,lime: 13:51:43, Page 3 i _Hydqua.rpt City of Huntington Beach Domestic Water System Pacific City Development Hydraulic Modeling Analysis Proposed System - Average Day Demand Number of Pipes 18773 Number of Nodes 17463 Number of Tanks 5 Number of Pumps 8 Number of Valves 7 Headloss Formula • Hazen-Williams Hydraulic Timestep 1. 00 hrs Hydraulic Accuracy - 0 . 010000 Maximum Trials 100 Quality Analysis None Specific Gravity 1. 00 Kinematic Viscosity 1.10e-005 sq ft/sec Chemical Diffusivity 1.30e-008 sq ft/sec Vapor Pressure 8 .40e-001 ft Total Duration 0 . 00 hrs Hydraulic Convergence at 00 : 00 hrs: Trial 1 : 2 .228774 accuracy PRV 30028 switched from OPEN to ACTIVE FCV 30062 switched from ACTIVE to OPEN FCV 30084 switched from ACTIVE to OPEN Trial 2 : 0.834236 accuracy FCV 30084 switched from OPEN to ACTIVE Pipe 190667 switched from OPEN to CLOSED Pipe 190671 switched from OPEN to CLOSED Trial 3 : 3 . 106798 accuracy Trial 4 : 0. 023514 accuracy Trial 5 : 0.003253 accuracy Hydraulic Status: Balanced 5 trials (0. 003253 accuracy) at 0. 0022 gp m Flow Supplied 20300 . 00 gpm Flow Demanded 22303 .25 gpm Flow Stored -2004 .24 gpm Tank 20107 Closed (166.32 ft level) Tank 20109 Emptying (120 .12 ft level) Tank 20111 Emptying (173 .25 ft level) Tank 20115 Closed (173 .25 ft level) Tank 20117 Closed (120 .12 ft level) Pipe 10538 Closed CV 12076 Closed CV 15809 Closed Page 1 Hydqua.rpt CV 15878 Closed CV 15920 Closed CV 190323 Closed Pipe 190675 Closed Pipe 190699 Closed Pipe 3151 Closed CV 3175 Closed CV 3312 Closed Pump 50043 Closed (0 . 00 setting) Pump 50045 Closed (0 . 00 setting) Pump 50047 Closed (0 . 00 setting) Pump 50049 Open (1. 00 setting) Pump 50051 Closed (0 . 00 setting) Pump 50127 Open (1. 00 setting) Pump 50129 Open (1 . 00 setting) Pump 50131 Open (1. 00 setting) PRV 30028 - Active (75 . 00 psi setting) PRV 30056 Closed FCV 30062 Cannot deliver flow (1. 00 gpm setting) FCV 30064 Open FCV 30082 Open FCV 30084 Active (1. 00 gpm setting) FCV 30090 Open * Warning: FCV 30062 - Cannot deliver flow at 00 : 00 hrs . *************************************** Warning/Error Messages during Run *************************************** ** Retrieving Network Data ** ** Simulating Network Hydraulics ** at time: 00 : 00 * Warning: FCV 30062 - Cannot deliver flow at 00 : 00 hrs. Warnings exist. Please check Output Report for details Page 2 Proposed System-Avera•e Day Demand-Tank Report `0. t.�L� S h t',t( 1, `IUD i. r 4 :�'ar] ' •441 ' 1;1" �u,,_ ;;7 rt e 1 t ` a , r.t.ss r d. ,t , 1 ,? ��.. },.: , a.,— cl' '[. , 1,* f "> a{:i.„ i..''. p -,1 3 �q( ^ { ` r` 4�"t 'r°a ,,,..---1 0.00 22.91 189.23 72.10 > , $g t a zap + rE -2,003.24 61.50 181.62 52.07 u-Lu ' u.. Yi._ I.f f.:.Y -A.4 F-r r , %T t T > -1.00 61.13 234.38 75.10 f t jyq 0.00 60.00 233.25 75.10 s : �•-- -,'rt.M.I ": ..-e%a, _, 0.00 60.00 180.12 52.07 Date: Monday,July 15,2002,Time: 15:03:24, Page 1 Proposed System-Avera•e Day Demand -Junction Report ..,. i s+tT c '.t .%'iry�sa�Y,e u .`„`°"l''{yy3 "i6 ...`.�RI :,,,, .-i E ii 1 = AEin a 49 t�i�9 -fit'..-...,TR... y .1 u . .. . "-z;3' 1' f :tit 8,1:',•, 36.50 31.57 176.18 62.69 ,rT 1:-. '''..'-.: :x `� .` >• VOA 0.00 31.01 176.18 62.93 .? .4.':r;. %� :a`1 � '1 0.00 30.27 176.12 63.23 _•,.....r u. gp - 0.00 30.25 176.15 63.25 r _` ,," t fi ,D5 0.00 29.63 176.11 63.50 ArCi"TE } F i tx 3 :r ,' 0.00 29.57 176.11 63.52 Kt.ni a l.: n:�. K f3 �. � ��7. , ,es.', >1 }.; ..;"„ 1" k,i 1! --4 0.00 29.41 176.01 63.55 s c a6 '�i , ?. " 1N .�N���, ,� � � �, ` ,aA1.4��1 - r 0.00 29.90 176.60 63.59 '.?, „ -7,:;4,,, a -haw � . ; t•,:'qi. 0.00 29.25 176.01 63.62 r'N «^ ' 1 /•,11 P, , a;7 1>< -'a:, 0.00 29.02 176.62 63.98 ., • k iro,,`d r J 0.00 28.98 176.62 64.00 ' t.' jtX l • ya 0.00 26.52 175.99 64.80 ', 'S•} 0. rOrk*a• ; t x 1 4 0.00 26.50 175.99 64.80 V:},'t .. , +- ,'`'' 1;'"'',.; 0.00 26.47 175.99 64.82 1,4 " :!'.. v : t i :r 0.00 26.44 176.02 64.84 `P F'�`4 E-g,4 . %d 36.50 26.20 175.99 64.93 w ,x :'" 1, ;�' ,- ,4, •te•Ck 0.00 26.07 175.99 64.99 E ; - f t� ,tF-4 t r v_ 0.00 26.07 175.99 64.99 :` ; .i . • 4: 0.00 26.50 176.68 65.10 ,� C -' t 4•4..`1, '.- , i;?. ;: 1.40 26.50 176.68 65.10 ` "° sir % 3 �, 0.00 26.48 176.71 65.12 . ` . i 1`, 0.00 25.20 175.97 65.36 r = "xeS ::" • ` i - . •, 1.40 25.41 176.70 65.59 ' .•., ,� e 7"' .� 1.40 25.33 176.70 65.62 C'""` .,, .� w M„ t'"i ,, • � ' 0.00 24.20 175.97 65.79 r.. _,.,,i t ' „ --#. 1.40 24.84 176.70 65.83 r + .I # 5 w.; 0.00 24.40 176.72 66.03 y r P,t 4y'�1 " r " :.4..r' 1.40 24.27 176.70 66.08 fi+l«�,.�, � ., a ; �,. 7C%,. �.:. ,+�`' ' s,t, r. hn* ; t 0.00 24.14 • 176.72 66.14 s 4 / 'zt'S Ah r`" " ;. :` 0.00 24.13 176.73 66.15 !: °, t, ‘6. 1.40 24.07 176.70 66.16 .,a, aa 7 1.40 23.90 176.70 66.24 4x 7€. =rx_ y 3 fir" 36.50 22.86 175.91 66.35•, sag , 7; .' 1• ;`t ,, 1� 0.00 23.12 176.73 66.59 35 .:k .,; :" ..s. 0o0 a 36.50 22.00 175.96 66.74 is "~ , "'n.., ,._.` 0.00 22.08 176.70 67.03 ",` �s3'F.-- i, �;s! ,_.,5:1' 4".: 0.00 21.58 176.67 67.23 �=� 36;,��•_;�.. .,��_ � � � 0.00 19.27 176.66 68.23'i.: `4" 0.00 19.19 176.67 68.27 , `'i,- ` ' : 0.00 16.85 176.65 69.28 Date:Monday,July 15,2002,Time: 15:03:06, Page 1 Proposed System-Average Day Demand-Junction Report 1. �b':. i>. w, ,_'_ �,'.'i:='c3Ak;zi'J;p,s�, -.. !' ' a y 4:4 :;;' W.-....�+..:'"..:'�i?�^.3tSk"-^..( �, 'l^ i 3s: .. •X-:Rerrtan. 0 rr 16,,h r Elssurev ' _'t , ..04ftt 0.00 15.91 175.95 69.38 ifA 2< et, ,• :f, ? ., 0.00 16.49 176.65 69.43 4 , '"-4 i COM 0.00 15.17 175.95 69.70 ' ' 4 -!1`-t -;I, 6 0.00 13.00 176.60 70.92 T:x' 5 0.00 13.02 176.65 70.94 _``-'- i-' ! „'; 3.41 11.95 175.95 71.09 ` -v.; .' tiger ,��-` -, 4 • r 3.41 11.92 175.95 71.11 e - :7` ' t 0.00 12.00 176.60 71.36 ' ';^ .r f 0.00 11.44 176.52 71.56 ', 7' • 2 -1i' "$ 1Ir, s j 0.00 11.36 176.45 71.57 a , i .-V it7A,,' 1_ 8694 •0.00 11.10 176.42 71.67 Want :F , w ',f c 185°.-,.' ,,., 0.00 11.07 176.42 71.68 W :: half 1` ;1:yt _, J 0.00 10.82 176.52 71.83 y' .: _ t N .ac'. MO 39.91 9.87 175.91 71.98 -4, ,.�91 3.41 9.49 175.86 72.12 �r `' ll ° to:WI 0.00 9.50 175.87 72.12 F.''+'. x 1 l /iJ t j pp))y� ' AMON 3.41 9.41 175.86 72.16 ;"�a;l`- . $ ., 01 3.41 9.33 175.86 72.19 3.41 9.28 175.86 72.21 o0s ' +G ,'i,=$. '°. 3.41 9.25 175.86 72.23 "' 1s�@'*-, 7.' :. ,� .10-X41 3.41 9.24 175.86 72.23 [ ,�. ,„� y7V• 0.00 10.01 176.69 72.25 KligiMatit ,, +J D 3.41. 9.14 . 175.86 72.27 ricooProc-: F v 7.928s 3.41 9.05 175.86 72.31 Mitt.$10:.•�'�" ��r�:. x + 'I.40 � 81.41 9.00 175.85 72.33 ,ii¢'r`,.; n4 .44M e O O 3.41 8.99 175.92 72.36 1A07r. °.. *r,.iv7�, Q : 0.00 9.35 176.30 72.37 '- ; • , 9.__':.� 0.00 9.00 176.30 72.52 .',' '. s hy-R- s ,-^.: 7,00,1a 0.00 8.61 175.92 72.53 r. i ":179 ? 0.00 9.00 176.35 72.54 i :x ;' - „ ; ' '49W, 0.00 9.00 176.35 72.54 r '`` : '7'.1 itleftai 0.00 8.70 176.28 72.65 s - .2, 11:0141 0.00 8.63 176.28 72.68 :" '.-' ': r". .20oao : 36.50 8.00 175.91 72.79 i ,_ ' 1r75S5=`�� 0.00 8.38 176.65 72.95 yam' .,,........z e..,..�. f' `r;.=;.==4: .l$042= 0.00 7.51 176.21 73.13 , , o , �`:�Y �' ?�'„�,� � 'i;� j¢i8 0.00 7.44 176.21 73.16 Ctit _ itte f y'" 'T: ' 13279 :'=" 0.00 6.74 175.92 73.34 [��§� _,�' ;�,: A;;::�;.:'=.:18t7`1<�- 0.00 6.81 176.07 73.37 •;,'. ':.?lik• .`° `, r:18170 ; . 0.00 6.80 176.07 73.38 Date: Monday,July 15,2002,Time: 15:03:06, Page 2 , . Pro•osed S stem -_Avera•e Day Demand-Junction Report., --.)op. , 7,172-1p._:w... .,;-,.%!..0.,41.,g,•?.,-___,,, ; ,,R-ti,„,pril v/t t lifeSattiO . at:g,i,ouiwF,Ii , .,.- -ei 1(ft vf-'--'IllWike ltaW1 3 , 1,,,, ..4-.. , 0.00 6.76 176.14 73.43 75-.7• 74:-.1-1:t,i,r2 -&-g,J.- 0.00 6.74 176.13 73.43 0.00 6.50 175.90 73.44 1 .,•-• .....,:-. • ,t.,4, ,,,t... . ,..-, „,:,,,r r ..•„,,,,•4 •[ ' le te7,•''.4.15: • ....q?::3; 0.00 6.50 175.92 73.45 0.00 6.50 175.92 73.45 1 A4,., 4-'• : l'Ina:MV.571.7171744.203 0-00 6.50 175.92 73.45 • P-.1.,,_,,. ..,-- •-•• ,. , ,757,"7.... . -g-ty,-1 . 1•PY - 0.00 6.69 176.14 73.46 ythot.4 ,1:4,,r, • ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,..,,, s., .,„,„,„,..,,,- ..., - _ .• , " "V".'441 i'L-Nr.".4,'^ " ' • .n , 0.00 6.52 175.99 73.46 1 0.00 6.50 175.99 73.47 b.,..K...,,i,,,;0_11,.1,1.,.•'-0,.,,s'sz •-'eeel4F4..44r.t.a., •,......... , 3.41 6.58 176.13 73.50 341 6.32 175.91 73.52 ' ,-.‘,....r.,,, 4,- --!.•., -ft..arlt-,"^-,A ic.„.4.,,-•., , . 4171**7- .:1.;•if..:',.. ?,,.1 V i..--''*Ala 3.41 6.31 175.91 73.52 4,23 o...i,:kb,.;;' -d.,-,-:, •,,,, ..,,,..---, . t, 4tRif '0230 3.41 -,, --t..---- -. 6.14 175.90 73.59 ' 1 'kt,.4-,:-.'"-i",-•Z`54-3.547:45,1FT41:.-;- : a.. ZS 341 6.01 175.82 73.61 100-00 5.86 175.87 73.70 3.41 5.51 175.82 73.83 8stg 3.41 5.44 175.81 , 73.85 .7,-• •r=v1.- , ,,, (Am ..`t''''''',''-4V-.., ..t.1.1 -.4..mpr: 341 5.16 175.81 73.97 0.00 5.12 175.88 74.03 0.00 4.97 175.80 74.06 IMINOTWIMINI,?; Ale**1 0.00 4.71 175.93 74.22 0.00 4.45 175.68 74.23 _ EtigattOOMEM . .110.04-4 0.00 4.45 175.68 74.23 0.00 4.70 175.93 74.23 , ' 41405W:. itiltV.24.. ...• ' „ " ' _ . . 63.00 4.28 175.90 74.40 I _.-11CatiORM4 : . - 0.00 3.90 175.68 74.47 36.50 2.00 175.93 75.40 0.00 2.46 176.70 75.53 ,v,- - MaltitaWat, - ,t9Vitt MOO 1.50 175.85 75.58 ItanNtiffenatt L',,-:If -IgtOW 0.00 1.54 175.91 75.59 IWV7-17---, '"''' .t"70.•Kait',..Yih4,f"-- MOO 1.50 175.91 75.61 rk-4;,-,-...,,,z, ...:,•„iim 0 , ,;.:,,,,.,.,-t, 36.50 1.46 175.91 75.62 0:1 ,409*$ 0.00 0.71 176.69 76.29 , '"`" •,,._. , -._ .-,--- ,''..,. J , worAtwom,,w, Arat4ws,.., 0.00 -3.75 176.70 78.22 - 0.00 -4.42 176.41 78.39 ""k,„,'"g,jilay.,,4412-k-Wkili^ft..439:414_08,(Or_ A 0.00 -4.45 T 176.41 78.40 1 , + ' Date: Monday,July 15, 2002,Time: 15:03:06, Page 3 • Hydqua.rpt City of Huntington Beach Domestic Water System Pacific City Development Hydraulic Modeling Analysis Proposed System - Peak Hour Demand Number of Pipes 18773 Number of Nodes 17463 Number of Tanks 5 Number of Pumps 8 Number of Valves 7 Headloss Formula Hazen-Williams Hydraulic Timestep 1 . 00 hrs Hydraulic Accuracy 0 . 010000 Maximum Trials 100 Quality Analysis None Specific Gravity 1 . 00 Kinematic Viscosity _ 1.10e-005 sq ft/sec Chemical Diffusivity 1.30e-008 sq ft/sec Vapor Pressure 8 .40e-001 ft Total Duration 0 . 00 hrs Hydraulic Convergence at 00 : 00 hrs: Trial 1 : 1.582193 accuracy PRV 30028 switched from OPEN to ACTIVE • FCV 30062 switched from ACTIVE to OPEN FCV 30084 switched from ACTIVE to OPEN Trial 2 : 0.725562 accuracy FCV 30062 switched from OPEN to ACTIVE FCV 30084 switched from-OPEN to ACTIVE Trial 3 : 1.755477 accuracy Trial 4 : 0 . 013642 accuracy Trial 5 : ' 0. 001688 accuracy Hydraulic Status: Balanced 5 trials (0 . 001688 accuracy) at 0. 0022 gp m Flow Supplied 35646 . 00 gpm Flow Demanded 55878 . 09 gpm Flow Stored -20233 . 09 gpm Tank 20107 Emptying (166. 32 ft level) Tank 20109 Emptying (120 . 12 ft level) Tank 20111 Emptying (173 .25 ft level) Tank 20115 Emptying (173 . 25 ft level) Tank 20117 Emptying (120. 12 ft level)— Pipe 10538 Closed CV 12076 Closed CV 15809 Closed CV 15878 Closed Page 1 Hydqua.rpt CV 15920 Closed CV ' 190323 Closed Pipe 190675 Closed Pipe 3151 Closed CV 3175 Closed CV 3312 Closed Pump 50043 Closed (0.00 setting) Pump 50045 Closed (0.00 setting) Pump 50047 Closed (0.00 setting) Pump 50049 Open (1.00 setting) Pump 50051 Closed (0.00 setting) Pump 50127 Open (1. 00 setting) Pump 50129 Open (1.00 setting) Pump 50131 Open (1.00 setting) PRV 30028 Active (75 .00 psi setting) PRV 30056 . Closed FCV 30062 Active (1. 00 gpm setting) FCV 30064 Open FCV 30082 Active (4500.00 gpm setting) FCV 30084 Active (1 .00 gpm setting) FCV 30090 Open • • Page 2 Proposed System-Peak Hour Demand-Tank Re•od _ a i •l e! g• e: a s r° . {6-7W r'/'tiPtile o f o 9 •• i4 •kal� .'. tJl �,it � wry l rr t u: ws P i Y`t v• ' •± ,..' ..�...�.+.`_r'r- • A" 'M. '' Y.�f4 Lr�.i`.,. ,::,::r...._z�� �..sx...w_.a.�•x�..vS.�i._ :` .;.d:.��' 3::J wAG 1 ..•s,.3;c:�=k.... �2C.-+j Y �' •T asp• -879.56 22.91 189.23 72.10 •,r > [� -14,851.53 61.50 181.62 52.07 "� -1.00 61.13 234.38 75.10 as •t t.. • • � '.i {# :' -1.00 60.00 233.25 75.10 ems• -4,500.00 60.00 180.12 52.07 II Date: Monday,July 15, 2002,Time: 15:01:15, Page 1 Proposed System -Peak Hour Demand-Junction Re ort .' t„ .:T -a.,�"+°;-' !lour a'Y�k°�7i�X3?f�:he'4's"'�'�- m.#rp. �.na7' '��� a-, ' -:,*' `` 1"4..44401 91.30 31.57 151.45 51.97 /t,5k ., } '. zr,-4,,� k 9 0.00 31.01 151.45 52,21 r .•. -* •• .1'' = � ,i, 3 0.00 30,27 151.21 52,43 �., wd _ ..•,.: ,, 3:•: ,, 0,00 30.25 151.33 52.49 -- << -v-:' 0,00 29.41 150.73 52.59 2.�- „ `'" ti° • - ..� 5 _:.t, 0.00 29.25 150.73 52.66 E :,-;.•- 2--1•,.-,.. �ii` • ,`4-S 0.00 29.63 151,14 52.67 gi +' `2; t _ '°A' ` "'' 0.00 29.57 151.14 52.70 , �: ;.3.1 '4, �,?� M�' -- r `. 0.00 29,90 153,37 53.52 jar ` . t„ +, ;' c' ' + �� 0.00 26.52 , 150.66 53.81 ••,w ; :f..;,r,. s» t'4P,I a,2; 0,00 26.50 150,66 53.82 a� 1,? µ . x it i a!d0: 0.00 26.47 150.66 53.83 , .05 0.00 26,44 150,78 53,90 v-ti. _-,-,„ ; ' 4,' `°;"ter n`= • 0.00 29.02 153.46 53,94 'k4,i,•'ra4`„-iY_ryl. ` d -i, ,`! .K,o,i`ei,,' , 91.30 . 26.20 150,65 53.95 -saw; . :=;a 0.00 28.98 153.46 53,96 ° `",•. a tt+ ���(��+ ;+'a Al 0.00 26,07 150.63 54.00 �m, � �:, E ,,, • ,N,' ,�y;.,,, 0.00 26.07 150.63 54.00 s , . •• *• 0,00 25,20 150,56 54,34 - .Y ' -' `4 0.00 24.20 150.56 54.78 -,141# 0.00 26.50 153.76 55,17 I . n _ rp, :. �° 3.49 26,50 153.76 55.17 ' „ € 0.00. 26,48 153.89 55.23 "; E&T': 1,q(87A 91.30 22,86 150.33 55,26 �a_am` :-, _� 3.49 25.41 153.86 55.68 T." '` *•s•+ ;Tii-..g 91.30 22.00 150.49 55,70 ; � 44O2 3,49 25.33 153.86 55.72i , A ' r E ,, :0 a , ?-,?'/.• , . ;t�rys _.,� - _ 3.49 24.84 153.85 55.93 yze;fA vf.fq ,19-1" ` .a� P; ,: °41;447 0.00 24,40 153,91 56,14 0.. 3,49 24.27 153.83 56.17 ��:4. . g,, 3.49 24.07 153.83 56.25 -;, ' :r 490 0.00 24.14 153.91 56.26 ' j _ ` • , '' t�; 8'/ 0.00 24.13 153.96 56.28 64 Ma. 1 45 3.49 23.90 153.83 56.33 at -o,.` 4IK 0.00 23.12 153.96 56.72 ,, ` !_ ,„�+ 5 1749..,_, 0,00 22.08 153.83 57.11 twee , 7 - 16 L751`. 0.00 21.58 153.69 57.27 - • ,.YK;.. .,: ,., :r:,, = :.. _''`;.. , ''"'r 0.00 19.27 153.69 58.27 ? ;1 s";�'zTM;3_ :`;74.I754 0.00 19.19 153.69 58.31 = ` p:` * +=t = X7493,-> 0.00 15.91 150.48 58.34 Date: Monday,July 15, 2002,Time: 15:01:35, Page 1 1 Proposed System-Peak Hour Demand -Junction Report hS�(, p a r .r+�,t.,. at a�'� �Z!R:�Y3�. l:�' '4:� 7. .�.sv�.. g, ^'c..ga�..t"rt';; 7; .K :'4 ' , i.,� :l_P 0.00 15.17 150.48 58.66 t��. F ti. ' <.- �'«..1 3 r=- � � 0.00 16.85 153.65 59.30 a�fe- t:•_. .� . Al 0.00 16.49 153.64 59.46 - A", •'1 r :''''' -":ems�'; + •; 8.51 11.95 150.47 60.05 5< ` }Y , <a a1- 6.s.. 8.51 11.92 150.47 60.06 1t:'� •G' :�, i Zl-' ' s 0.00 13.00 153.43 60.87 .;; , . 'F�1 u .-1 t '; µ.. 99.81 9.87 150.30 60.88 yyr ti t. •72 ,.; C'5 4-,-4n 4' } 1 ty `.'.v• 1„ w 8.51 9.49 150.11 60.96 'r -,:.`,0Ai .�'� 0 ; . 0.00 13.02 153.65 60.96 'M : 0.00 9.50 150.15 60.97 Ft•`1- '• `,5`,p .;''�a.4M" _ ' ' ' 8.51 9.41 150.10 60.99 '•-.---P;� St�::�5' , ��''{�".��,;OAS 8.51 9.33 150.11 61.03 "` ` '. 0' 8.51 9.28 150.10 61.05 F 5 --.v :b,%c 8.51 9.25 150.10 61.06 _ �. imr,, . 7fQQ�114 8.51 9.24 150.10 61.06 - .'".t�.4.^-;?: ' i..,R .. 8.51 9.14 150.10 61.11 :'",•'.•_ g 8.51 9.05 150.10 61.14 ;' 4 j' ' r ;',., ot 203.51 9.00 150.08 61.16 '' f '-'. -104111M V t: QO 8.51 8.99 150.32 61.27 '=6 l r . M O 0.00 11.36 152.75 61.29 y 1 ' 430 0.00 12.00 153.43 61.31 ` `62 r 0.00 11.10 152.63 61.35 '� e:w t'l`t ; 0.00• 11.07 152.63 61.36 7. . i r 1 0.00 11.44 153.04 61.38 , r x r ; 0.00 8.61 150.32 61.43 =`'` im. ... 0.00 10.82 153.04 61.65 6T•,7 , " ,,' " $ 91.30 8.00 150.29 61.68 - ;6. i .,- ,,..1,-,-..'-,'.„„ 0.00 9.35 152.08 61.87 0.00 9.00 152.08 62.02 70gale ; Z5 ~.84`.t 0.00 9.00 152.30 62.12 - r a A 1. s •-f 0.00 9.00 152.30 62.12 "- , > y 0.00 8.70 152.00 62.12 + b73; ; ' '' tt=,"as' ' 0.00 8.63 152.00 62.15 ..INOW:44'410i*PrarkIl ,Ittte 0.00 6.74 150.46 62.30 r 0" c.it `.„Vit1t 0.00 10.01 153.78 62.32 76n - ' : •1i8 `'` 0.00 6.50 150.36 62.37 1 I. f; >A`7 x '= T8i.t.: _ 0.00 6.50 150.46 62.41 ti`t` ; :-'< 71 .,1V5 �• =.1 255t�"'t 0.00 6.50 150.46 62.41 1). '= :-79`'s 2_: � .. i t110.,5� < 0.00 6.50 150.46 62.41 is ,- - 4;, -:' ' *, :1:7774`<= 8.51 6.32 150.29 62.41 Date: Monday,July 15, 2002,Time: 15:01:35, Page 2 I Proposed System - Peak Hour Demand -Junction,Report t:"�.`+.Y" ,.r•S1 '.� .�•.p:�:'•Mu> y rwr�4,,.rifr' y,'�.i=Yi�^:t .c �,�.,. - �B�Q�' �EIQ..��O' tXy�,��a•- r a SSUCe 11 w; =• 1ru_ 8.51 6.31 150.29 62.42 8.51 6.01 149.99 62.42 - % 4#422 0.00 7.51 151.69 62.50 �, '-� -4- $ 823 0.00 6.52 150.74 62.52 ;_1", , �9 �r ,,�+ ,. .$� 8.51 6.14 150.36 62.52 r` ,, kl F �'Y r-t"`wh:, 8:C'! y, 0.00 6.50 150.74 62.53 ,. 0.00 7.44 151.69 62.53 -f:';;; . ;'? l i. E tr 51i�... 0.00 6.81 - 151.09 62.54 t ��" i.-,i', ? `�' 8* 0.00 6.80 151.09 62.55 ,,` i 1a ?<.Z 250.00 5.86 150.16 62.55 V{ `'' • '. . - f 0081 8.51 5.51 149.99 62.63 ,; .02Q�0 8.51 5.44 149.95 62.64 ' I ' �r^F, r: , : E y:u., 8' na 0.00 6.74 151.37 62.70 j � .;`< -"--,". M ,.'. •8 ;.. .. 0.00 6.76 151.39 62.70 r "1 ul,>r ' v rtL$ 0.00 6.69 151.39 62.73 91'' ; 7A4;;"`. $ na 8.51 5.16 149.95 62.76 �, g _ '1.;°, 1 8.51 6.58 151.37 62.77 , vI'4'^.li � - A q ,�. :• ., ,~ '.82` 0.00 4.97 149.94 62.85 ' y 1 ..k `J,%PIZ 3 0.00 5.12 150.19 62.89 + µ, " ''' . `.1`'.2 0.00 4.45 149.56 62.91• 4. �+ ' • 0.00 4.45 149.57 62.91 � rm55 0.00 8.38 153.64 62.97 T. �''. ' -7 2`s'.; 4'J882 1a` 0.00 3.90 149.57 63.15 „Y Mt . 17 0.00 4.71 1.50.40 63.16 a'` e l '' ' •M41757411 0.00 4.70 150.40 63.16 - _ `X• '` :;4',__ wAt27 158.00 4.28 150.24 63.27 tt a : � T' �"` ���))) `, ..!.! o 91.30 2.00 150.38 64.32 �� � �`; � �,, . � $$�t����„9� 1 0.00 1.50 150.06 64.40 10•z ••; ` , "°?,; 68 0.00 1.54 150.28 64.48 h° .M1, �F bTi1<_E : ,; ,:. 76s' 0.00 1.50 150.29 64.50 u;`''' Ttte 4:= :-•1 ` 76$ 91.30 1.46 150.28 64.51 • """}.}w`"" �Q3 h,_y{, f 0.00 • I 2.46 153.83 65.62 Ealti.±! I* '�,}k l:Riwt� la��•f.' :+ti w�ii!�_..i+._ '"r' ' `: '" fillUctni 0.00 0.71 153.78 66.36 T. ` • ° 0.00 -4.42 152.56 68.05 " ` °t -4.45 152.56 68.06 s 4 1".t6x� <-T7452` 0.00 -3.75 153.83 68.31 ,.:r�','�' i . :. .w.. '.:.... _....Wit, Date: Monday,July 15, 2002,Time: 15:01:35, Page 3 Hydqua.rpt City of Huntington Beach Domestic Water System Pacific City Development Hydraulic Modeling Analysis Proposed System - Maximum Day Demand w/ 4, 000 gpm Fire Flow Number of Pipes 18773 Number of Nodes 17463 Number of Tanks 5 Number of Pumps 8 Number of Valves 7 Headloss Formula Hazen-Williams Hydraulic Timestep 1 . 00 hrs Hydraulic Accuracy 0 . 010000 Maximum Trials 100 Quality Analysis None Specific Gravity 1. 00 • Kinematic Viscosity 1. 10e-005 sq ft/sec Chemical Diffusivity 1 .30e-008 sq ft/sec Vapor Pressure 8 .40e-001 ft Total Duration 0. 00 hrs Hydraulic Convergence at 00 :00 hrs: Trial 1 : 1.432415 accuracy PRV 30028 switched from OPEN to ACTIVE • FCV 30062 switched from ACTIVE to OPEN FCV 30082 switched from ACTIVE to OPEN FCV 30084 switched from ACTIVE to OPEN FCV 30090 switched from ACTIVE to OPEN Trial 2 : 0 . 84.6781 accuracy FCV 30062 switched from OPEN to ACTIVE FCV 30084 switched from OPEN to ACTIVE Pipe 190671 switched from OPEN to CLOSED. Trial 3 : 1. 878137 accuracy Trial 4 : 0 . 023045 accuracy Trial 5 : 0 .002598 accuracy Hydraulic Status: Balanced 5 trials (0 . 002598 accuracy) at 0 . 0022 gp m Flow Supplied 28400 . 00 gpm Flow Demanded 39584 .43 gpm Flow Stored -11185 .43 gpm Tank 20107 Closed (166 .32 ft level) Tank 20109 Emptying (120 . 12 ft level) Tank 20111 Emptying (173 .25 ft level) Tank 20115 Emptying (173 .25 ft level) Tank 20117 Closed (120 . 12 ft level) Pipe 10538 Closed Page 1 Hydqua.rpt CV 12076 Closed CV 15809 Closed CV 15878 Closed CV 15920 Closed CV 190323 Closed Pipe 190675 Closed Pipe 190699 Closed Pipe 3151 Closed CV 3175 Closed CV 3312 Closed Pump 50043 Closed (0. 00 setting) Pump 50045 Closed (0. 00 setting) Pump 50047 Closed (0. 00 setting) Pump 50049 Open (1.00 setting) Pump 50051 Closed (0 . 00 setting) Pump 50127 Open (1. 00 setting) Pump 50129 Open (1.00 setting) Pump 50131 Open (1. 00 setting) PRV 30028 Active (75 .00 psi setting) PRV 30056 Closed FCV 30062 Active (1. 00 gpm setting) FCV 30064 Open FCV 30082 Cannot deliver flow (1700 . 00 gpm setting) FCV 30084 Active (1.00 gpm setting) FCV 30090 Cannot deliver flow (10000. 00 gpm setting * Warning: FCV 30082 - Cannot deliver flow at 00 : 00 hrs. * Warning: FCV 30090 - Cannot deliver flow at 00 : 00 hrs. *************************************** Warning/Error Messages during Run *************************************** ** Retrieving Network Data ** ** Simulating Network Hydraulics ** at time: 00: 00 * Warning: FCV 30082 - Cannot deliver flow at 00 : 00 hrs. * Warning: FCV 30090 - Cannot deliver flow at 00 : 00 hrs. Warnings exist. Please check Output Report for details Page 2 Proposed System-Max.D• Demand w/Fire Flow-Tank Report ,..,,,,,,,,,,,_,,„1,,,,,.: i 7 t !"a�.") '1 7 r {yu(T+ T.c; '.... t .,, l i r ,�l �f. tt'pJ '���7� cl � r3 �t��_pv� �li� L,°S�b..�S.Zxiii.j �'i � r��L° Ts; -+i�.+�l� ,Y 4 t n �w ,�... LLy V''- ts "' ! f,-, r dry y+: o-S rh '* a [f -yt .HCr 7y- w.�aU tf ra 'tIMr_ayr�"1,�,! "? ? i..d� 1,-; t�c.,:,,y'}' ''•v'�.r {h'+�� '� �i I •, � ,r "�, ,,a-' 0.00 22.91 189.23 72.10 k . r. a,y x t ' •aa;:^ay• 11,183.43 61.50 181.62 52.07 ` = 3 •• �s+�:a -1.00 61.13 234.38 75.10 233.25 75.1060.00' ' -1.009., •. ti rr `I4 Y,r10 C •11 �a - 0.00 60.00 180.12 52.07 1 _ I i Date: Monday,July 15, 2002,Time: 15:58:02, Page 1 I i Proposed System - Max. Day Demand w/Fire Flow-,,Junction Report Ai:::�v�.� .. '.S�f. y"'}.i�J'[".'.. r{;]: iFw .: :1'-e',''.-N Y,`i,•W-i:tF.V.k`Iu•.?=`4�i. ,�_.._�'.. .l.'.. ;,�(�� ,, . ;,� i r, , - ;it e c '+"?EIev ,;v ssure..• =�<,.�y�, :•�`� rx�,�r� £ :� ��� ;.' .��Drr�an :.,..�--��a_ttoi: �;Grade`�;.�,Pre ;:lieKlt• .,7: :' l",li�J"i'`t?':� 4,-,;,‹ "4 '•"t,._w..:7,- ra 1ar,suPrrv.A•,Ni. -A11)..,:-.,4, ,,,v..^`o ... �\!^.i� TdLN : ,Iir ' ._,. `a:;:�;4,: „�, ;r, 1 Z12 0.00 29.41 142.72 49.12 4,, "r r '1�;j�.;t�"bct;':rr:, ::":n,'", ':,,;`k. t'.•7: ,- r vq,:i flif4 F r t71 `' 0.00 29.25 142.72 49.19 14:/t44- =" y��[� ilit•:.y�'`�0000 �?� 58.40 22.00 137.95 50.27 FR+�gY-'tN-+• Y,st�'tih.iih¢:^°.K'�Wir-�v'�t':'��d�. �.+v<•.'.�-.t.... �C'. t�it #+s J�'y,. .:�.r:.,F r;IF 304 r 0.00 26.52 142.60 50.32 P` :`". ?5,1�'s;,r<; = r'lraZa 0.00 26.50 142.60 50.33 w..;, ' ' 1-f300 0.00 26.47 142.60 50.34 >" `4-- 1 a r1 s , 58.40 31.57 147.79 50.38 r. f ,:; .' = '2000E ' 58.40 26.20 142.59 50.46 1.7,7-*.r: =`` 1. 7;3i:O 0.00 26.07 142.59 50.51 �0-:�"', `;1<p ' `.. " 4: .,.3:V 0.00 26.07 142.59 50.51 1 ` ,: ', r ' ` = '.r.699 0.00 31.01 147.79 50.63 f i};iS�t f �.: t .� v, N; :L744 0.00 25.20 142.57 50.88 ''*_ `g ini.. ' ' „054' 0.00 30.27 148.04 51.05 . ' tt 4 g,048i 0.00 30.25 148.17 51.12 rf SU, i '' 0.00 29.63 147.91 51.27 • :1? t= r rx:f ,04 k1 0.00 29.57 147.91 51.30 .. ' WP-t „ WAM 0,47-4- 0.00 24.20 142.57 51.31 A ,Tlt'AVI MI,, < 7p5r' 0.00 26.44 147.18 52.34 El. ". , ;t :"' 0;1< 0.00 29.90 150.65 52.35 it •k' „voary w,-74,z:,iir,ma 0.00 29.02 150.98 52.87 s`.,'�,_'`�,2:1 s x 4 7.06$ 0.00 28.98 150.98 52.89 �'''" 4¢ 2 fi 24kf087 }' 58.40 22.86 146.24 53.48 >"'a' x ',23'-: " •2 k .. � 72& 2.24 26.50 152.07 54.44 ' „ ;iik: 27 0.00 . 26.50 152.07 54.44 s,: 2E ;Y gati .°v,' V35 ; 0.00 26.48 152.54 54.65 v w°2 " 'r4i''!3%-11-74SW'S 00 15.91 142.55 54.90 ,a • ; ` ;;; ,". , 74OI* 2.24 25.41 152.47 55.08 fffag T .'2 '7 4Q7ti 2.24 25.33 152.47 55.12 °'` 0.00 15:17 142.55 55.22 `' ": 3Q 4 !` I7 2.24 24.84 152.44 55.31 RgiNigitSPIMS ` ` � 2.24 24.27 152.40 55.55 ' 2 A eg `f ° .. 747 ii 0.00 24.40 152.67 55.60 r. t �_,, '{ r r ..;.. . 744 2.24 24.07 152.40 55.63 v x' , , :: 3q'..`` -e4 U: ` 45?° 2.24 23.90 152.40 55.70 °"" ` t i'Mi 7.Z.44149,0'" 0.00 24.14 152.67 55.72 ' i° atf.� 0r•.:,4 x..l?7.406�'`u;1 0.00 24.13 152.80 55.78 i v ;``r;;�s> 3T g-Li ".•:;s :: '1;777 5.45 11.95 141.21 56.03 -' :-:a .- :., ;`igeN,:4'.' }7769=LLB 5.45 11.92 141.21 56.05 39 y• `,``T7412 0.00 23.12 152:80 56.22 - s"» 40 5:'' ;•• 200000:; 4,058.40 2.00 132.38 56.52 Date: Monday,July 15, 2002,Time: 15:57:21, Page 1 • Proposed System - Max. Day Demand 't,'Gyg4`w k � . ..T +.,°�;.:•;j• WI=Fire Flow-Junction unction Report n r :_ r&Z 1w�T, Q�.�* �g4- �,� * �"e"k 6VG SVQ*41np -94A= CP± • v y ,t- y �oy yW4 � �}N, M 0"4*ROW l�� 'G'���h��,;-� ,;5�z. ' 44;T.' 0.00 22.08 152.47 56.53 1, ..�_ ''.„..;� 'z' I.. JZ TZ 0.00 21.58 152.16 56.61 ' `r ~ = ,;,%11820;1; 63.85 9.87 140.56 56.66 p .' -0 545 8.99 140.66 57.08 _ r _ IS 803 0.00 8.61 140.66 57.24 atrogol tugg 0.00 19.27 152.15 57.61 -xr, . 0.00 9.50 142.43 57.62 fv. fLeatall 0.00 19.19 152.16 57.64 '` :,� . '. iSfa 1t 5.45 9.49 142.46 57.64 _. t�..rt5•a -^-r ; . . • iZZ!�IC:- 5.45 9.41 142.47 57.68 n K ; :' `; - a 5.45 9.33 142.46 57.71 $ :atet 6,' r 1 Q 5.45 9.28 142.48 57.74 K�'. =_T.�_ ,,;;{ t1:004 545 9.24 142.47 57.75 "n`• 7.417 3 5.45 9.25 142.48 57.76 1 _ r 5.sx w 4 VOA* 5.45 9.14 142.48 57.80 ' Eft. . VOA 5.45 9.05 142.48 57.84 h rr` - 5t `y"�-,,'M ,: ,/y07,40 130.45 9.00 142.57 57.90 psi,rWir4: , t, .1trx6; 5.45 6.31 141.17 58.46 _ s "`ittM ?"• "''"� - ,. 545 6.32 141.19 58.46 t;rf iy;.- :� r"'t^ `,' .EE; 9 ' 0.00 16.85 152.05 58.61 ? ,ele6tO*4 ` :':,.7--`, 560 0.00 16.49 152.05 58.76 lqw4- G200006' 58.40 8.00 144.42 59.14 fz0 i gamma 160.00 5.86 142.50 59.23 - 040 0 `� {L, 80.5 'r . 5.45 6.01 143.11 59.43 -� " " L,}...: 0.00 5.12 142.49 59.55 t ` S ' ;40.00 545 5.51 143.11 59.65 K ' ``"'1 , ° v, 5.45 5.44 143.20 59.72 I.} _ .. .. ten.,•....,,i - taati � `'�,l,'':s. 2zb 0.00 6.74 144.53 59.73 �,,,. x ,,. 1c82!C1* 0.00 6.50 144.30 59.74 Vice , 7 _ ;' 756tv 0.00 4.71 142.53 59.74 r - - `sry 0.00 4.70 142.53 59.75 ,fiat : . `� :'`» :z`,~`�' 18 5& 0.00 6.50 144.53 . 59.84 O a ,`,aw 1 ,-, ,l,24 ;§ 0.00 6.50 144.53 59.84 " ,4 . J1`4 W,!: ;; 1:8254,.„; 0.00 6.50 144.53 59.84 i"a:iy e z.��;�'`�g�.,��`.`��,�r,.x ,�.,..�,��_, ;,_,:�:18w1`: :�'� 5.45 5.16 143.20 59.84 - .` iiii ` ' � ' 7 03020 5.45 6.14 144.30 59.89 Tr ry ,� �'` :." Q » ' 4*: 100.00 4.28 142.49 59.92 ,:� v-b;�.;..�>�, -��': �;� ��:T821'4ri.:� 0.00 4.97 143.21 59.93 Rr 3: O9 =t - V E.� 4 1-76244 0.00 13.00 151.54 60.06 .A: T: t;; 111, ;0 'i 17869'.' 0.00 11.10 , 149.69 60.08 i ' Date: Monday,July 15,2002,Time: 15:57:21, Page 2 - i Proposed System- Max. Day Demand w/Fire Flow-Junction Report f �„ .t7rr. - .. - .:.rc.: to-o.. :i4;` ,a.-��y,-� :;,�+:.._, ,.-n".+;;;�k :.t... �:k.rr:"�`r,=:+-'J'iaj;:.;__ .:yfx7.r..rx:,rr..�Jy,�,.v�x�ea S 1 'ti p-.,':'-dy" .;:�E:''x(� '#� ,�,,,:,...� Y,n„ w ..'. r rr`�+= , , , , ,� `r ,� i .1Der QOc �+F.era#rcr��! Grade;„ APressor ,`w` '},r•. : �r )��y. ,1 y i gif.4 "'.,'may! ^X-t i, r+.-y^vv': <i.iyft- .. f 4 +�ai1b.' '���..�. ! i�i�.' 02.iViT$7(('J[�4{.-1''��"• t•-x4�WRyj,^a' {1.:P3.+aMir�}1 G''. ;Yaki,: �' �N.c• .�.x f �;'h`,�T,•s ,��-: .-.:. ..}:fir..... .F`i,�i`.. 6'a i,n';�}.1ar,+.N•/f�..!,��,x,� �`! y,....f,.. l #RtI .�� <;�' ,���r...�&��;,;, �. �,:1t11,050 0.00 11.07 149.69 60.09 4 wmgigaziggipiep >783z;: 0.00 11.36 149.98 60.09 fir , 5 R =:` 4Jt8238 0.00 6.52 145.21 60.12 . i k01le;: r` �,-.; '.` `1a82 0.00 6.50 145.21 ' 60.13 °$ a�3 18254 0.00 4.45 143.41 60.24 `'t,�`wow-. ., wt.8258 0.00 4.45 143.42 60.24 T"F -.p ' 10. .r 0.00 13.02 152.05 60.27 ti I: '- �,. '�tik" , L 99Q . 0.00 9.35 148.41 60.28 rialkokla = .,1 U1•76 0.00 11.44 150.64 60.34 9E1K% '• -,to atet 0.00 6.81 146.07 60.37 ,. ..,S' . I110 ? 0.00 6.80 146.07 60.37 rintarp` !; }a„r ,y `t981 ,M 0:00.. 9.00 148.41 60.44 to �. a. 0.00 3.90 143.41 60.48 r 9 ,;" : ; 4. 1 , 0.00 8.70 148.24 60.49 - a . .:_a45°'"'��;., 4 # ` }t7'635 0.00 12.00 151.54 60.49 3 .� t �, ,it1017989PP• 0.00 8.63 148.24 60.52 " Kam- w ' 97` :` :r. ` I7 0.00 10.82 150.64 60.61 i " "t8 ` ,4 °....... 0.00 9.00 148.93 60.66 0 "`'" .11193084 0.00 9.00 148.93 60.66 i :.�. . „ O b a ' t1_8 4 ' 0.00 7.51 147.51 60.69 0.4iiititilMkg 0.00 : 6.74 146.77 60.70 I - 00` f�,-�.$102;',` °4 x +aT&flo4P` 0.00 6.76 146.82 60.72 ;f'Q3� ;Ap 1800 ' 0.00 7.44 147.51 60.72 000.tie, 1 iitt01<:i u. 0.00 6.69 146.82 60.75 Y_.= s i ��- � � j:Tp�;.:",.��i�;.�"' +�� ,'1804!9��: 5.45 6.58 146.76 60.77 r,. kW4Tp6.,�-1ArP "- g17687 t 0.00 1.54 142.47 61.09 AnagifititiMAI!' iii7 0.00 1.50 142.50 61.12 *; tiller 43-Wil loOla 58.40 1.46 142.49 61.14 , " ( W §A.4k190742 a' 0.00 1.50 142.66 61.19 �{r'°T t �''''''i4,40 74 4 0.00 10.01 152.37 61.71 li tr t `; 'i<:i `;r, L '17555ri? : 0.00 8.38 152.05 62.28 ' - i 0745. 0.00 2.46 152.47 65.03 ' ,3-`` 0.00 0.71 152.37 65.74 .� - t' ,.._fk.,,'rF .wry y.v.::.- _<~retelt,rref'~.?,-i � ` :175'W' 0.00 -4.42 148.16 66.14 '' ,1 :'.. wr �MTS.; ' >i.Y.r . i 758a ;, 0.00 -4.45 148.16 66.16 • r. r:,'=4 •f. .::a.. ,- :-.`--1745Z,= 0.00 -3.75 152.47 67.72 • . i Date: Monday,July 15, 2002,Time: 15:57:21, Page 3 I MEMORANDUM • r , DATE: November 27, 2002 TO: Mary Beth Broeren, Senior Planner CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH FROM: James H. Smith, P.E. HUNSAKER & ASSOCIATES IRVINE, INC. RE: Response to Comments from City of Huntington Beach "Pacific City Offsite/Onsite Water/Sewer Analysis &Water Supply Assessment". The following is our response to comments from the City of Hunting Beach "Domestic Water and Sanitary Sewer CEQA Support Information for Pacific City". Our responses are listed in bold under each comment. SEPTEMBER 26,2002 INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMUNICATIONS WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT • 1. Paragraph 2 on page 4 states the "present land use is for oil production". This operation has been discontinued and the site has been undergoing remediation. The paragraph should be revised to reflect oil production as a previous land use, and identify the existing use as vacant with the land use designation currently shown in the general plan. This paragraph also needs to explain how the project was anticipated in the City's water assessment study. Paragraph 2, Page 4 has been revised to better reflect history of property and how City anticipated the Pacific City project in water assessment study. 2. The facilities described on page four need to be identified as existing, proposed by the development and proposed by the city or currently under construction by the city. The associated facilities map in the Appendix should also show these designations. The facilities map also needs to show the facilities being constructed by the city, and the reach to Beach Blvd. The City staff has deleted this remark as referenced graphic shows all water lines to be constructed as a result of the Pacific City project. 3. On page 7 of the study, reference is made to "newspaper clips, treatises, articles and miscellaneous oral and written reports presented during conferences and elsewhere". I could not find any of these documents or references in the study. Additionally, recent news articles in local papers have drawn attention to overdraft of the basin by the OCWD and concerns have been raised about addressing this problem. However, nowhere is this -1‘ Mary Beth Broeren CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Re: Response to Comments November 27, 2002 Page 2 addressed in the Water Supply Assessment. This issue needs to be addressed in the report to complete the analysis. All references to "newspaper clips, treatises, articles and miscellaneous oral & written reports" have been deleted. Newspaper articles are commonly in error and represent the slant of the writer rather than fad. SANITARY SEWER ANALYSIS 4. The Sanitary Sewer System Analysis is not acceptable. Although it does identify estimated flows from the project, there is no analysis to quantify the proposed facilities as adequate by sizing or gradient on a preliminary basis. There need to be an estimate of flows'for each reach of the system to satisfy this requirement to substantiate the proposed line sizing. Additionally, a comparison should be made between existing flows in the County system and the flows being added by this project so that a finding of "insignificant impact" can be made. The Orange County Sanitation District has revised their letter, now dated • October 30, 2002, to show estimated trunk sewer capacity, existing sewer flows and impact of Pacific City flows on trunk sewer system. A preliminary sewer system design is presented with the engineering analysis, showing preliminary sewer elevations, pipe sizes, pipe slopes, estimated sewer flows,and estimated D/d ratios by sewer reach 5. The first paragraph of page 6 is not correct in concept. The connection to the existing 54-inch line at Walnut and First will be made to a City facility. Per the letter from the District,the actual connection to the County facility is made by the City as applicant. The construction of the connection is paid for by the developer. This paragraph needs to be revised to reflect correctly how the connection to the County facility will be handled. Also not covered in the analysis is the requirement for grease traps in restaurant systems to address water quality concerns. The location of the facilities for maintenance access also needs to be addressed. 1. Sewer connection description has been revised. - 2. Grease traps are referenced on Sewer Line Exhibit. 6. To supplement the findings of the analysis, the applicant will need to submit final design hydraulics, sizing analysis, phasing (if necessary for interim conditions), proposals for installation of grease trap facilities with sizing calculations with final improvement plans for the onsite and offsite systems. Mary Beth Broeren FAACITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 'I Re: Response to Comments November 27, 2002 Page 3 A full set of engineering design calculations will be submitted when final plans are submitted to.the City for approval. OCTOBER 2, 2002 INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMUNICATIONS 1. The last paragraph of page 4 should be revised. A suggestion revision could be: "The City's Public Works Department contracted with Tetra Tech, Inc. to perform a computer model hydraulic analysis of water service to the PACIFIC CITY project site and the surrounding area, based on City planning data, and data provided by Makar Properties. The analysis noted various water distribution system deficiencies resulting from the proposed project, that will require mitigation (in the form of infrastructure improvements), to meet the demands of, and for the benefit of the proposed project and the surrounding area. The proposed improvements are shown on the map in the Appendix " Suggested wording for hydraulic analysis preparation inserted in WSA. 2. It is suggested that a boundary line be added to Exhibit #1 of the WSA, • (location between pages 4 and 5), to define the project limits. Approximate project boundaries shown in Exhibit 1. 3. Last sentence on WSA page 5: the words "realignments are inter-ties" should be replaced with the word "improvements." WSA wording describing"improvements"substituted in WSA. • 4. Tables 1 and 2 on page 6 of the WSA are not consistent with the actual demands utilized in the TT-HA. For example, WSA Table 1 indicates a maximum day demand of 709 gpm; the TT-HA indicates 467 gpm. WSA Table 1 indicates a peak hour demand of 917 gpm; the whereas the TT-HA uses a peak hour demand of 730 gpm. (See page 2, TT-HA) This is because the peaking factors indicated in the WSA are out of date, as we indicated in our previous comments concerning the WSA. These discrepancies will not �' t effect the conclusions of either report, however, in the interest of accuracy; the WSA should be revised as necessary to be consistent with the TT-HA. Water demands were changed to match Tetra-Tech report. 5. WSA Table 5, page 9 shows population projections that- we noted as "questionable" in our previous review. This WSA does not address this comment. We request that there be some discussion of the City's endorsement of these figures, if applicable. A decrease in population projections from 2010-2020 as shown, could be significant. We discuss population decrease from 2010 to 2020 in WSA. Mary Beth Broeren FAA_ CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Re: Response to Comments November 27, 2002 Page 4 6. The first sentence on page 15 reads: "The City of Huntington Beach has an adequate supply of water to serve both the projected and existed customers of the City." We suggest that this sentence should be replaced with the following: "The City of Huntington Beach can provide adequa e water ~ supply for the proposed development with planned system improvements,, in accordance with the adopted Water Master Plan. Similarly, with supplies under development, Metropolitan Water District can reliably meet projected supplemental demands beyond the next 20 years." Suggested wording used in WSA. 7. Page 24, code section 66473.7© formerly indicated WSA status "satisfied", and now reads, "To Be Satisfied." Please Explain. "To Be Satisfied" means City action required. 8. Page 24, code section 66473.7(d) formerly indicated WSA status "satisfied", and now reads, "To Be Satisfied." Please Explain. The above paragraph refers to a private water system and the City's water system is public so the correct answer is "N/A" (Not Applicable). • JS:wp xc: Jim Smith, H&A W.O. 2198-13X (f\c\wo\2198\13 M09-js.doc) • OGT-07-2002 NON 12:02 PM MAKAR PROPERTIES FAX NO. 9492551129 P. 04 • • �J J. • C•,��..y • P. F• i [J N`T;I N G,T.O•N B E A C . , • . : �' 1TR,D. .p,AR'i•MENTAL C'OMMU•'•NIC'ATID'N ' • ±„ .At;. • ;'';:'`i raeren Principal Flaii�ier'• ' • • ' `Z"O.. 1VIary Beth,B. • p..' • •.• I :'; • • FROG.• . •. Terri Ei]i•ottx::Principal• .ginee• i ' . ;. •• oci o 22 Q2. . DATE. October 2,2002 Pacific Ci Water Sup ly Assessment' •• , ' 3.•., •` u 1 Assessment needs to be'.i icorporated'into:the•. ' Tfie•••••E w tig,coisiriient:.fay the•Water S pp • .;,•.: .,: •end• oda'ted,Se'tember 25;2Q02:':;, :'`. • :, :: • ro`vedl l draul c:AAnal'sis'fo•••-e prole t;. '•e iiii ikis ei ere ;i't:°cot form anee'w•tl the app.,.,. ,y • �+ ; :;-•: (:e :;submitted b ii:Petra Tech.,• , nc:„dated'.July 2 �2OO2x•here n referenced aas TT-IAA,= • `ca1<stand poi•nt,the•subject•W•r.SA•wiI:su flciently'address•th:e:requi`rements•of. , • • e • .":: S$221��szid.:$Bfi10..;.I�al gal' ' . �xev1 f fu• r ; • 'evcr:isnecessaz�+r:tliat�_is ob�iiousl}��e�oiYd�.the�scApe..o =;auk:review bonuneiits for the subjectWater Supply.•Assessment are;.relativ e.::::inor, .. • rwi on could•be.::"The • �~ '•t;� • ��h''Qf'''a••e��4•:should'be�. 'evsed:.��;sugge'sted 1, ••, 'The .;.I? :,,•P . ,: ...�,••;. :... . • • • •' eira Teck Incto ei'orris a'computer ' . • • Ci s'I�lc��l��z'kr,,A'epartme�t:cgntracted;;vit�i•�' p. ,�"�• , • . . . `'•.'mad•e!h d•rau`lic.anaiysrs a, .water service'i'o'the PACIFIC•CI Yp•: -It`st e•atnd the: • ' :'su roun4ing area;,`based"o1.,..- ity planni%•i••a, an•d•dataprovided iubOirk.!r.'• ?roper es ' • - •' 'v. ' '• 'tedyarrowwater..:•distributiorr.system defciencie'resultingfrom`the...: ••: . oseaf p o�ect,•thr�rim• gre::,.• ;iiiijigution:(iri`r.?e f iitfig.1:•!-ras, , :-n••pr .thot,14th`e ' •andc�o .and'•a„r th'e�benefit of..tFie•proposed;arotect and ,. 'iin�ro arpr s !-•i• .:, dem. • ::.' • :area. •Thep' ro pose'improvements:,area,shown+on t..•• .ti :.i.•-te e; „ :the; 'Oeilind•4g P '•p, .,. ;t. •�.#,.. ,ge ;,.:' ; . • ,e WSA,.(locatedbetween•', `� ;•Y �,:su�ge•stod'tiat:a;lsoiiadaryliiie.tie added:to•Eir�ibit.#�2�.•b£.ih' i cs4 and;5);::to'de inee tfie,project li•mits:: ,;.. . •• . ;per . .,:: •\;.`. n SA ' e:5:.the: words � eal gnments:and inter=,ties".shq•utdbe;' .e • ts.•• •�;� :Ye Iaced'.w P.,. • ,... `a'`e.5 C.17 ttie•:WSA are,uot,cpnsistentwit i•the actual demanu'tiliz.ed:. 4 :°Tables:l:i.,4*. ois,.p.g . . . :.. • , . - . • \ .example, :V SA;Table'1,.... ."cates a' mum day;demand:of 709.;' , • 1'T ,A:•indicotes 467 ni ::WS.A'table f 7-4 tes a:peak hnur.de d'of;9.17 ••' • va cgs the:'I"T-EA uses apea ''ho�,+r demand of 73n:gpzn.(See'page?� `HA:) • This;i's'because the peakmg�factors iadicated.••in'the; S 4:are out of date,'as:'ho indicated • ' 'pia,our: tevious oom ne�ats'coinceramgt40'W'SA..';These discrepancies:will,not effect t''.... :: • 3 Y�m :. ' • : .coiiclisions of either;r.'ePbtt;1iQw er;in . ev '�•tlie.iuteresti df accilraC , e'V�SA�sfiould:•be;. • .', �revisedas:necesithei=�beconsistentvIith••the.TT TA. '' • 31;• ::`.. �':;• "• .:,..•:. ,_ i6 .,:, ,.. `'••'„ri: .. .. '. �5..,'••••'SA.Tabl• e S,..page 9.show•s•population`projectionstTiat'we noted:as,.questionable:,::in :•ouFp evious:review. This. `'VitS•A does•not address:this.comme• nt.'We request that there'•pe. ; some d sc iiw•n•,of the:.City's endorse •ment:of these figures,if applicable.,:IV decrease in population'projections:fcom'2010-202a asshown,eouid be significant 00T-07-2002 MON 12:03 PM MAKAR, PROPERTIES FAX NO. 9492551129 P, 05 • • • • • • • l ' • 6' ;Tbe.:;first'sentence;on page 1�5'reads: ``The'City• of 1Iutltington Beach'h.as'ant•'adequiate, , "'` . +" d existin` customers.of the:Cits''°'.,rWE,::,.: • - • ,'suppl ♦ofeater (Iserve,bot, . ,. ,prof.., . :an �' ,:,:.; . , suggest that this sentelice.should`be•replaced.with the following,` "The•City'o Hunfin 'troii Beach.On provide ad e1♦w upply.for'the pro• nr� sed' _,' , • . . . ater's ' • •.derelopment;;with planned•system..fmprov�inenih in accordance with'heado t d Water, ;1 ait.er:,Flart Similarly''with.cuynlies'u'nder:develoen 1G1 olitan•Wate! pistriot :can"r�elta•• ..meet'prnjec.tedsuppleme�,ntal demands beyng�•'the•nexx�t'20 years: ; ' .•7 '•Pa e... .cod•e'section'66473:7• (6)formerly�i idicated:WSA•statu• s"Satisfie•d",aandnow ' ' ' ' . .. . '..`"To'Be'Satisfi'ed"',Please•explaui: .., ' , i: 'Pa eel code section b6473•.7'(4.)formerly indicated•WSA stat•us"Satisfied'",and now' , • reads '" 'o=Be:Saatisfieid." PIesse:explain.: , •' ' . • • • • • •G:IE ,ne\Blli tt\31 Acres1Water Sunnly A==•••�•n nt ` ' OCT-07-2002 MON 12:02 PM MAKAR PROPERTIES FAX NO, 9492551129 P. 02 Sep 27 02 04:21p p.2 ;.� �. • • . CI+TY. O-F HUNTINGTO'N• BEACH INTERDEPARTMENTAL. COMMUNICATION • • TO: . Mary'Beth BrOeren,Prindpal Planner • FROM: Terri Elliott,Civil Engineer principal f& ltet • Robert Righetti, Project Review • SEp 2 1 . • SUBJECT: Pacific City—Offsite/Onslte WateriSewer Analysts • • DATE: September 26,2002 • • • • • We have completed our review of the Overall OffsitelOrisite Water/Sewer analysis for the Pacific City(31 Acres)development and find that the Water System Analysis is satisfactory for a general evaluation of the mitigation requirements for the project.We would recommend, however,that the systems exhibit be revised to match the one revised and used for the Water Supply Assessment. As for the other two reports,some revisions are required for the Water Supply Assessment report ' and the Sanita• ry Sewer System Analysis. • Water Supply Assessment • Paragraph 2 on page 4 states the"present land use is for oil production.°This operation has been discontinued and the site has been undergoing remediation.The paragraph should be revised to reflect oil production as a previous land use,and Identify the abating use as vacant with the land use designation currently shown in the general plan.This paragraph also needs to explain how the project was anticipated in the City's water assessment study. The facilities described on page four need to be identfied as existing,proposed by the development and proposed by the city or currently under construction by the city.The associated facilities map in the Appendix should also show these designations.The facilities map also needs to show the facilities being constructed by the city,and the reach to Beach Blvd. On page 7 of the study,reference Is made to'newspaper clips,treatises,articles and miscellaneous oral and written reports presented during conferences and elsewhere."I could not find any of these documents or references in the study.Additionally,recent news articles in local papers have drawn attention to overdraft of the basin by the OCWD and concerns have been raised about addressing this problem.However, nowhere is this addressed in the Water Supply Assessment.This issue needs to be addressed In the report to complete the analysis. Sanitary Sewer System Analysis The Sanitary Sewer System Analysis is not acceptable.Although it does identify estimated flows from the project,there Is no analysis to quantify.the proposed facilities as adequate by sizing or gradient on a preliminary basis.There needs to be an estimate of flows far each reach of the system to satisfy this requirement to substantiate the proposed line sizing.Additionally,a comparison should be made between existing flows in the County system and the flows being added by this project so that a finding of insignificant impact"can be made. -7 The first paragraph of page 6 is not correct in concept The connection to the existing 54-inch line at Walnut and First will be made to a City facility.Per the latter from the District,the actual 7` connection to the County facility is made by the City as applicant.The construction of the 1 CT-07-2002 MON 12:02 PM MAKAR PROPERTIES FAX NO, 9492551129 P. 03 P-a Sap 27 02 04:22p . • .. ..• • , " ; • •• " • •• . .'••• ••" ••••• .• : • • . • • . . •'••"1;:r.rl CitY " • • : " ". .". • •• • VIM ROVICIW Setgalibtr 26*ZOO • • . • • Page2 • • • • connection Is paid for by the developer.This paragraph needs to be revised to reflect correctly how the connection to the County facility will be handled. Also not covered in the analysis is the requirement for grease traps In restaurant systems to address water quality concerns.The location of the facilities for maintenance access also needs to be addressed. To supplement the findings of the analysis,the applicant will need to submit final design hydraulics,sizing analysis,phasing(if necessary for interim conditions),proposals for installation of grease trap facilities with sizing calculations with final Improvement plans for the onsite and offsite systems. If you have any questions about the submitted study or the project design requirements, please feel free to contact me at 374-1731. cc: file David Webb,City Engineer Tom Rulla,Principal Civil Engineer Debbie De Bow,Associate Civil Engineer Liii Tom,Civil Engineer Assistant a—Elliott/31 acnbsiwateesewir memo ,, 12,, ��, ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT .. ' raw - , October 30, 2002 • phone: 14l 962-2411 _ fax: Bob Righetti 14)962-0356 City of Huntington Beach ww.oced.com Department of Public Works Ring address: 2000 Main Street ?a•box 8127 P.O. Box 190 train Valley,CA 92729-8127 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 r st'addrees: E Ellis Avenge Subject: Capacity for Proposed Connection to 54-Inch Coast ' tairValley,CA 1 P Y P Existing ' 9270e-7019 Trunk Sewer `3�'- Member Agencies This letter is to provide additional information regarding flow capacity in = .rii-,•- the Orange County Sanitation District's (District) 54-inch diameter Coast y,;`,`°.:daces ..f''s,_•. Trunk Sewer to serve the proposed 31-acre development by Makar 64neheim 9uenaP w Properties LLC., located between Atlanta Avenue, Huntington Street, t- eras .,'•,�'' ark Pacific Coast Highway (PCH) and First Street in the City of Huntington r ' Cypress ' iuntain•Valley Beach. - `Fullerton �, 3arden Grove mgton,eeaph• Information provided by Hunsaker Associates indicates that the estimate eb0 .�e• peak sewer flow from the development is 0.472 mgd. The District s ;Palma : master plan estimates that the peak wet weather flow in the Coast Trunk •:s emitos: eea'vb_ Sewer is 6.6 mgd compared to the peak sewer capacity of 44 mgd. These P::_'": 'orange projections indicate that there will be more than 30 mgd of unused peak 101adentia ' r. r>t�t,4rie+ capacity through the year 2020. This excess capacity is more than 6Beech s sufficient to handle the proposed development that is projected to ' si� eak sews a flows of less than 1 m d. �'`S lla Park generateP g 9 . ?o,bs da • WI. If you have any additional questions, please contact Jim Herberg, eytn-otM'n�.Ari!oge Planning Manager at 714-593-7310.Jll , „pistol., . Vif�s,.''�'1 S�}nlF�'.. w Costa.AAesa �. 4•:5•.i 4.4.42.„..ii.;,.: :sr'Dlstrlces :sr David A. Ludwin, P.E. Irvine Ranch Director of Engineering DAL:JDH:sa C:\FileNetWIP\makar coast trunk capacity letter.doc C: Jim Smith, Hunsaker Associates - To maintain world-class leadership in wastewater and water resource management. APPENDIX E HAZARDOUS MATERIALS INFORMATION APPENDIX E SUMMARY OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS INVESTIGATIONS ON THE PROJECT SITE INTRODUCTION The following discussion presents a chronology and summary of the investigations and actions undertaken with respect to soil and groundwater contamination resulting from previous oil extraction and related activities on the Pacific City project site, as well as the presence of asbestos and other potential hazardous materials in the buildings that formerly occupied the site. The intent of this summary is to provide an overview of the information provided in these technical reports. To date, fourteen reports have been prepared for the project site. Chapter 7 (References) of the EIR includes complete references for all reports cited and summarized herein, and all of these reports are available for public review at the City of Huntington Beach Planning Department. • CHRONOLOGY OF INVESTIGATION AND REMEDIATION ACTIVITIES July 1993: Phase I Site Assessment, Atlanta Avenue Property As part of the disposition of the property from Huntington Beach Co. (Chevron) to Shea, a Phase I Site Assessment was prepared by Pacific Coast Homes in July 1993. The Phase I Report states that Surface Abandoned Reports (SAR) were found for 14 of the 20 oil wells and those SARs reported no visually contaminated soils. SARs for the remaining six wells were not prepared because those wells were abandoned prior to the requirement of SARs as part of the oil well abandonment procedure. SAR preparation was adopted by Chevron in the latter part of 1989. SARs were also performed for the tanks on the site. Soil testing near Atlanta Wash Tank #1 showed elevated hydrocarbon levels; the soil was removed and the area was retested confirming that the soil had been removed. In June 1988, a surface soil sample was collected from an oil stained area near one of the wells; the test results reported lead from this sample exceeded the Soluble Threshold Limit Concentration (STLC) under Title 22. In December 1988, nine oil stained areas around wells were tested and two of the samples (areas between wells 10 and 12 and between wells 7 and 11) exceeded the STLC for lead. In January 1989, to further define the area impacted by lead, four additional samples were collected near wells 10, 12, 141, and 7. Only the sample near well 7 exceeded the Total Threshold Limit Concentration (TTLC)for lead. 1 Shortly after well abandonment was completed, gas was discovered around well casings 8, 14, 15, and 141; however, Chevron was confident the oil wells were abandoned properly and suspected that the gas resulted from natural organic decomposition. Tests confirmed the gas from Wells 14 and 15 was not petroleum-related. Gas around Well 141 also did not appear to be petroleum related, and Well 8 did not generate sufficient gas to sample. The report also identified transformers on the project site, and weathered crude oil was detected on the surface in an old tank location. The report concluded that the oil-producing portion of this property has the greatest potential for contaminated soil. The production facilities previously on the property have all been removed, but some crude oil around the former tank settings may require additional remediation. The report also proposed additional test of the lead-contaminated soil to determine whether remediation would be required and recommended further testing to verify the origin of the gas around Wells 8 and 141. Testing for PCB contamination in areas around the existing transformers was also recommended. October 18, 1995: ESA for multiple Chevron properties, including the Huntington Shores Motel The Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) was prepared for Chevron Land and Development (CLD) Company by Harding Lawson Associates (HLA) for five sites, including the portion of the project site formerly occupied by the Huntington Shores Motel (HSM), in support of the characterization of existing and potential environmental conditions at the properties before Chevron sold the sites. All properties in the report were part Chevron's oil fields, and oil wells were present on all the properties. HLA interviewed Mr. Rick Sailor of the Huntington Beach Company / Chevron (HBC) who stated that a natural gas plant was on the adjacent property to the north. In addition, Mr. Sailor reported that radioactive isotope injector (tracer) was conducted on the gas plant property to evaluate groundwater flow and gradient. No further information was available regarding when or how the test was conducted or the results of the test. The tests are typically conducted using low levels of tracer isotopes that degrade and do not impact the groundwater. Mr. Sailor also stated that gas condensate residues from the gas plant may remain along the northwest edge of the adjacent property. The condensate could contain chemical byproducts that could leach into the soil, and Mr. Sailor was not aware of any environmental sampling or remediation in that area. 2 In a review of aerial photographs from- 1953 to 1995, HLA identifies various uses including oil production, on the HSM site and also notices a square pond or area of discolored soil (source unknown) on the northeast corner of the site (Atlanta and Huntington Streets), which later is covered by a tank in 1978. HLA personnel also toured the site. During the site walk, HLA toured the Grinder Restaurant and Huntington Shores Motel. No spills were observed on the site walk, but typical chemicals for landscape and pool maintenance were identified. Asbestos-containing materials (ACM), including ceiling material and the linoleum floors, were identified in both buildings: the materials were in good condition at the time of the site visit. No transformers that might contain PCBs were observed onsite. Fluorescent light tubes that contain small amounts of mercury were observed. Lead-based paints were also mentioned as a possibility, but the interior and exterior coatings were in good condition. • The conclusion and recommendations for the ESA state: (1) No evidence of contaminated groundwater or soil was found as a result of the assessment, but it is possible that some petroleum hydrocarbons are present in the soil because of historical oil production onsite. (2) Oil wells on site were abandoned starting in 1960 and it is likely that several wells were abandoned in accordance with the pre-1970 standard and would need to be re-abandoned if significant excavation that revealed the upper well plug were to occur. (3) Asbestos, lead, and PCB concerns on the Grinder Restaurant & Huntington Shores Motel sites (which was abated and demolished). (4) The adjacent property to the north was "reportedly" occupied by a gas plant and if so, contaminants such as benzene and toluene may remain in the soil from gas condensate. The adjacent property to the northeast had oil wells and a radioactive isomer test was conducted on the property. It is unknown whether activities on these adjacent properties have impacted the HSM site. (5) No conclusive evidence of onsite contamination resulting from onsite or neighboring activities was found as a result of the ESA. However, several properties upgradient and within 1/4 mile of the site have minor to significant groundwater contamination, which may have migrated beneath the site. Potential onsite contamination could not be fully evaluated because no onsite soil and groundwater sampling investigations were performed as a part of this analysis. July 1996: Phase II Investigation Plan, Atlanta Areas, Huntington Beach Oil Field, Huntington Beach, California In July 1996, HLA prepared a Phase II investigation for the Atlanta portions of the Huntington Beach Oil Field for MS Vickers II, LLC. The Phase II was prepared as a basis for pending soil 3 • remediation at the various Huntington Beach Oil Field properties. HLA's strategy was to implement a limited investigation program in each of the areas (including the HSM site) to allow for the discovery and removal of both oily soil and/or hazardous materials. HLA anticipated that the extent of oily soil and/or hazardous materials would be further delineated and removed as part of this investigation phase because excavation and treatment of the oily soil would be faster and less costly than conducting the work under a series of additional investigative programs. The Phase II Investigation was intended to accomplish three objectives including: 1) Obtain information sufficient to characterize the property for remediation purposes; 2) Estimate the volume of oily soil and specific areas of soil containing hazardous substances through field investigation; and 3) Ensure that the information obtained is sufficient to satisfy the City\of Huntington Beach's requirements for a Phase II investigation and to facilitate the permitting process. The Phase II Investigation Plan divided the project site into Areas 1 (District 7, 9.9 acres) and 2 (District 8A, 21.4 acres). As part of the Phase II Investigation, HLA developed a sampling plan that included a sampling and analytical effort to investigate the presence of hazardous materials and areas suspected of containing large amounts of oily soil. Locations potentially containing oily soil (e.g. aboveground storage tanks [AST] settings, sump and other features, large pipeline headers, shipping lines, and wells) are discussed in the report. Review of historical aerial photographs identified 10 AST settings; no sumps/impoundments (other than drilling sumps); 4,000 feet of pipeline; and 21 wells along with the assumption that a sump or mud pit was constructed for the installation of each well. Various methods of obtaining soil samples were recommended for the ASTs, pipelines, and oil wells including backhoe trenching, drilling, and/or potholing. In delineating and remediation of hazardous waste, HLA recommended that if analytical results from the initial investigative program showed that hazardous waste was present in any particular location, the area would be marked with caution tape and Chevron would be notified and would direct a separate investigation and remediation of those areas. HLA recommended that oily soil identified during the field investigation be excavated and stockpiled for subsequent remediation. HLA also recommended that those portions of the property located away from known facilities, but that could have contributed to the amount of oily soil as a result of unknown leaks, be assessed during the oily soil excavation. -This investigation would be undertaken by ripping the near-surface soils, then collecting soil samples based on field observations (e.g. staining, odor, organic vapor readings); HLA estimated that 30% of the area would need additional sampling and up to 4 samples per acre be taken. 4 The analytical program recommended by HLA for analysis of hazardous waste and oily soil identification included analysis of all samples for Total Recoverable Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TRPH) and select samples for analysis of TPH, California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 22 Metals, pH, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), polynuclear aromatics (PNAs), and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). HLA recommended that samples to be tested for TRPH be analyzed based on Soil Cleanup Standards Specification 431 of the Huntington Beach Fire Code Section and Soil Cleanup Standards codified in City Specification 431-92. HLA assumed that fifty percent of the samples would require this cleanup procedure. December 1996: Phase II Investigation Report/Remediation Plan, Atlanta Areas, Huntington Beach Oil Field, Huntington Beach, California This document summarizes the July 1996 Phase II Site Investigation for the Pacific City site. The Phase II investigation fieldwork was performed between August 5 and 16, 1996 in accordance with the July 1996 Phase II Investigation Plan, which was approved by the Huntington Beach Fire Department on August 2, 1996. The field program consisted of a "significant"sampling and analytical effort to investigate the presence of hazardous materials and areas suspected of containing more than incidental quantities of oily soil. Features located on site, potentially containing oily soil, (e.g. AST settings, sump and other features, large pipeline headers, shipping lines, and wells) were investigated during the field investigation and sampled; HLA collected over 60 soil samples from pothole excavations and advanced 8 soil borings at the potential oily soil locations. Based on the results of the field investigation, oil impacted soil was generally confined to four locations with the largest area of oily soils discovered in the southeastern corner of the site. However, the areas for field investigation were selected based on a review of historical records, drawings, aerial photographs, and through field inspections; therefore, additional oily soil may exist that was not detected during limited field investigation. HLA recommends two methods of oily soil remediation including surgical excavations and onsite soil blending with clean soil to achieve TRPH concentrations in compliance with those specified in City Specification 431-92. The Phase II Investigation Report identifies the potential for additional oily soil to be found during grading operations, which will be addressed at that time. Lead impacted soil was detected in the southeastern portion of Area 1 (District 7) in the vicinity of one of the AST sample locations. HLA recommended further investigation and remediation by Chevron of the lead impacted soil. 5 The Phase II investigation also notes-several soil samples that detected potentially hazardous materials. This includes one sample, in Area 2 (District 8A) that included a pH of 4.7, which was not representative of the other 59 samples, which ranged in pH values from 7.0 to 9.6. However, HLA states in the report that a substance is considered hazardous by virtue of its corrosivity if the pH is less that 2.0; therefore the results are still within the standards of residential development. Another soil sample in the northeast corner of the project (Huntington Street and Atlanta) included concentrations of mercury; HLA extracted the sample and analyzed it for mercury by EPA method 7470 and the mercury content was not detected at or above 0.002 mg/L. In Area 2 (District 8A) low concentrations of 2-butanone were found in one soil sample, styrene in four soil samples, and acetone in four soil samples. 2-Butanone and acetone are common laboratory contaminants. The origin of the styrene is unknown. While these three chemicals were present above laboratory detection limits, all three chemicals were several orders of magnitude below US EPA preliminary remediation goals. Additional sampling was conducted in the vicinity of the oily soil area in Area 2 by drilling to determine the vertical extent of the oily soil. Soil samples indicated that TRPH concentration was below laboratory detection limits for samples from 10 feet below ground surface. Hand-auger borings were also advanced to further delineate the extent of lead-impacted soil in the southeastern portion of Area 1. Soil samples were analyzed for lead only and indicated that the TTLCs were close to and greater than ten times the maximum STLC; respectively, the samples were extracted, and the STLC extracts were analyzed for lead utilizing EPA Method 6010. This method revealed lead concentration in the STLC extract that exceeded the maximum STLC concentration for - lead of 5.0 mg/L. The maximum expected volume of lead-impacted soil was documented as approximately 10 cubic yards, based on the hand-auger sample locations and a conservative 3- foot depth. It was stated that further investigation and remediation of the lead-impacted soil would be conducted by Chevron and would be documented in a separate report. Phase II Investigation conclusions report that(1)remediation is necessary in limited locations in Areas 1 and 2 and that (2) surgical excavations and onsite soil blending of these limited areas of oil-impacted soil to achieve TRPH concentration in compliance with those specified in City Specification No. 431-92 constitute the recommended remediation approach. This remediation plan was superceded by the revised remediation plan submitted on June 15, 2001. 6 July 1997: Letter Report-Soil Excavation, Sampling, and Disposal of Lead Impacted Soil, Atlanta Lease, Huntington Beach, California Project # 0794201 Chevron Land & Development(CL&D)retained Blasland, Bouck& Lee (BBL) on May 5, 1997 to perform the removal and disposal of lead impacted soil (in excess of the soluble threshold limit concentration [STLC] of 5 ppm) located on the southwestern portion of the site identified in the Phase II Investigation Report/Remediation Plan prepared by HLA in 1996. Prior to excavation and transportation of the soil to the disposal facility, Laidlaw Environmental Services (the disposal contractor) requested that an additional soil sample analysis be performed to determine if the soil was classified as RCRA-listed hazardous waste. BBL collected one soil sample and submitted it to Del Mar Analytical for analysis; the sample was analyzed for Total Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) and was non-detect for lead by TCLP, hence the soil was classified as a non-RCRA hazardous waste for disposal purposes. On May 6, 1997 BBL - supervised the excavation of the contaminated soil. Approximately 10 cubic yards of impacted soil were excavated from this area. Four samples were collected from the open excavation and, per analysis for soluble lead (STLC) according EPA Method 6010, all four contained soluble lead at concentrations below the Title 22 action level of 5 ppm (the samples ranged from 0.11 ppm to 3.7 ppm). The open excavation was backfilled with clean soil from the site and the bins with the lead impacted soil were loaded onto trucks and transported to Laidlaw's Class I Landfill located in Buttonwillow, California. A non-RCRA hazardous waste manifest was obtained documenting the transport of the soil. December 1997: Blasland, Bouck & Lee, Inc. Letter Report-Soil Excavation, Sampling, and Disposal of Lead impacted Soil, Atlanta Lease, Huntington Beach, California This letter/report was prepared by Blasland, Bouck & Lee (BBL), Inc for Chevron Land & Development to document the excavation, disposal and confirmatory sampling of an area of contaminated soil located in the south-central portion of the Atlanta Lease Property. The contaminated area was identified previously in a report by Harding Lawson & Associates (HLA), concerning previous shallow soil sampling performed at the subject property. In this report, a small area containing concentrations of lead in excess of the soluble threshold limit concentration (STLC) of 5 ppm was identified. The impacted area was defined by several HLA hand auger locations drilled in a circular pattern. The depth of the impacted soil was reportedly limited to approximately 3 feet below ground surface. On April 25, 1997, BBL personnel collected an additional soil sample designated from the impacted area to determine if the soil 7 classified as RCRA-listed hazardous waste. The sample, designated Atlanta-1, was analyzed for lead and was found to be non-detect for this contaminant. As a result the soil was classified as a non-RCRA hazardous waste for disposal purposes. On May 6, 1997, BBL personnel supervised the excavation of the contaminated soil at the subject property. The dimensions of the excavation were approximately 12 feet long, 7 feet wide and 4 feet deep. Approximately 10 cubic yards of impacted soil were excavated from this area. A total of four confirmatory samples were collected from the open excavation following the removal of the impacted soil. The excavation was backfilled with clean native soil located on the subject property. The confirmatory samples were analyzed for soluble lead (STLC) consistent with EPA analytical methods. All samples contained soluble lead at concentrations below the regulatory action levels (5 ppm). The lead impacted soil was loaded into bins and disposed of at a Class I landfill. March 26, 1998: Aqua Science Engineers Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Atlanta Avenue Property, Huntington Beach This Phase I was prepared by Aqua Science Engineers (ASE) for Capital Pacific Holdings in 1998 as a requirement for the acquisition of the Pacific City property. The majority of the information in the report is based on review of the previous documents summarized above. However, some new information was provided. In the Former Uses of Adjoining Properties section, a gasoline station was identified as a former use (early 1970's to late 1980's) adjacent to the property, located on the eastern corner of PCH and Huntington Street (site of Hilton Hotel). ASE also conducted an interview with Hazardous Management Consulting (HMC) in March 1998. HMC stated that both they and HLA were contracted by Shea to complete a site assessment and remediation [plan] for the property in accordance with Huntington Beach Specification 431-92 for redevelopment of the property. HMC stated that most of the remaining soil remediation would be conducted during site grading and soil compaction operations associated with the future residential development and that "considerably more soil" remains to be cleaned up on the site. HMC also stated that oil impacted soil previously stockpiled onsite and additional oily soil to be uncovered during site grading will be remediated by mixing with clean soil on site until concentrations of TPH are within City Specification 431-92 limits. HMC also commented on potential environmental concerns in groundwater beneath the property stating that RWQCB is not concerned with this property, because it is located on the seaward side of the Talbert Groundwater Barrier and that 8 the water on the site is non-beneficial due to high TDS (total dissolved solid salt), associated with historical salt water injection during oil production and natural salt water intrusion. ASE also conducted a site reconnaissance and identified transformers on utility poles and a metal electrical enclosure, partially submerged in water; ASE's concern is that the transformers on the utility poles could contain PCBs and that the metal enclosure could contain transformers with PCBs and that it could be a shock hazard submerged in water. ASE also identified possible asbestos in the motel and restaurant, which was also abated for asbestos and demolished in 2001. Also during the site reconnaissance in 1998, ASE observed a gas (as in 1993), possibly methane, bubbling up from the exposed casing of well PE141, and a concrete building foundation with friable vinyl floors that could contain asbestos. June 2, 1999: Export of 226,000 cubic yards of soil to Hyatt Regency site Fill soil for the Hyatt Regency site was excavated from the sand borrow area of the project site. Excavations were monitored by a paleontologist and by Harding ESE environmental technicians. The technicians performed visual inspections of the bottom and sidewalls (where applicable) of each excavation and submitted confirmation samples to either a mobile or off-site laboratory for testing to ensure that total recoverable petroleum hydrocarbons (TRPH) were below the criteria specified in City Specification 431-92. Samples that required further analysis were excavated and treated until the applicable criteria were met. Excavations were subsequently backfilled with soil that met City Specification 431-92 criteria. Fill samples were collected from each fill deposit and analyzed for TRPH to ensure the suitability of the fill (Harding ESE 2002b). July—September 1999: Additional soil investigations by HLA According to the site investigation history provided by Harding ESE in Revision 3 to their remediation plan for the project site, which is provided in its entirety in this appendix (Harding ESE 2002b), Harding Lawson Associates performed additional soil investigations on the site from July to September 1999. These investigations focused upon evaluating the remediation requirements for the site. Soil samples, both shallow and deep, were collected from a series of trenches and submitted'to a mobile laboratory for analysis of TRPH levels. TRPH levels in some soil samples exceeded City Specification 431-92 criteria. A subsequent report that will be submitted with site closure documents will include further details regarding this investigation. 9 March 2000: Asbestos Abatement, Completed Document Package, Huntington Shores Hotel, Buildings 1,2,3, &4 This completed project document package for asbestos abatement was prepared for Capital - Pacific Homes, Inc. (CPH) in 2000, by MARCOR Remediation, Inc. (MARCOR). MARCOR was retained to remove and dispose of 5,800 square feet of acoustic ceiling, 2,400 square feet of duct insulation, 1,250 square feet of mastic, 40 square feet of tape/sealant transite, and 10 square feet of HVAC "flex joint" connector. Work on the asbestos phase began on January 31, 2000. During removal of ACM, air sampling was performed. Final air sampling results were all below the EPA clearance level of 0.01 fibers per cubic meter. Asbestos waste was hauled by BDC Special Waste Services and transported to Azusa Land Reclamation for proper disposal. All work was performed in conformance with all federal, State, and local regulations, under supervision of AGRA Earth & Environmental, Inc., an environmental consultant, and completed by February 16, 2000. April 2000: Groundwater Well Installation and Monitoring In April 2000, Harding ESE (2002a) collected groundwater samples from three wells located on the project site. Laboratory analysis of these samples identified the presence of 0.67 milligrams per kilogram diesel-range petroleum hydrocarbons in Well W-2, which is not located in one of the proposed remediation zones. Groundwater samples did not contain detectable concentrations of analytes from EPA test methods for oil and grease, TRPH, volatile fuel hydrocarbons, VOCs, semi-volatile organic compounds, pesticides, or PCBs. October 17, 2000: Asbestos Bulk Survey, Former Grinder Restaurant Bryan A. Stirrat and Associates (BAS) performed a pre-demolition bulk survey for ACM in the former Grinder Restaurant structure. The survey consisted of inspecting accessible areas and collecting samples from homogenous materials suspected of containing asbestos. Sampling did not include inaccessible areas such as inter-wall spaces; however, BAS attempted to sample all wall system layers and inspect crawl spaces and attic areas. The survey focused on three categories of suspect ACM: surfacing materials (sprayed or troweled onto building components), thermal system insulation (insulating covers or layered materials on piping, fittings, ducts, or other components), and miscellaneous materials, such as floor and ceiling coverings, roofing tiles, transite products, and sheetrock/joint compound. The visual inspection evaluated these materials based on physical condition, water damage, accessibility, vibration, and friability of the materials, and also allowed the inspector to develop 10 an inventory of suspect materials where samples were collected or where asbestos was assumed to occur. A total of 42 bulk samples were collected and sent for polarized light microscopy analysis to Micron Environmental Labs in Arcadia, California. Laboratory results indicate that asbestos was detected in plaster walls, exterior stucco, roofing mastic, and transite pipe. The plaster walls and exterior stucco materials were reported to contain less than one percent asbestos and are, therefore, considered asbestos-containing construction materials (ACCM) and regulated as such by the California Occupational Health and Safety Administration (Cal-OSHA). The California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Part 1529 requires, if the asbestos content of a wall system is between 0.1 and one percent, that the employer comply with the registration and reporting requirements of Sections 341.6 to 341.14. Removal or disturbance of 100 square feet or more of friable or non-friable ACM must be performed by a contractor that is registered with the Division of Occupational Safety and Health to conduct asbestos-related work and certified by the California Contractors' State License Board. Also, Rule 1403 of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) requires specific procedures during renovation or demolition, as well as a ten-working-day notification to the SCAQMD prior to initiation of such work. BAS also recommended that if ACM or ACCM is encountered during demolition activities, the materials should be characterized prior to resumption of demolition activities. BAS also recommended that contractors be made aware of the potential for hidden ACM or ACCM and be required to develop contingency provisions for ACM discovery or handling(BAS 2000). December 2000: Air Monitoring and Abatement Oversight, Former Grinder Restaurant The Air Monitoring and Abatement Oversight report was prepared for Capital Pacific Homes (CPH) in December 2000, by Bryan A. Stirrat & Associates (BAS). The report summarizes air monitoring and asbestos abatement oversight activities that were conducted by BAS at the site of the former Grinder Restaurant. The oversight activities took place on November 13 through 17, 2000. Tri-State Restoration, Inc., the asbestos abatement contractor for the project, was retained by the building owner under a separate contract. The contractor was responsible for the proper abatement and disposal of ACM, which included transite pipe and roofing material. Work area isolation containment barriers were constructed of wood, plastic sheeting, and duct tape prior to any ACM removal. These barriers served to isolate the work area and prevent contamination of the outside environment. Access to the operation area was provided by 11 means of a two-stage decontamination unit. Air samples were taken and analyzed at Micron Environmental Labs using Phase Contrast Microscopy according to the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) Method 7400, "A" counting rules. All work was performed in compliance with applicable local, State, and federal regulations. Oversight activities involved air sampling and analysis during and after removal of ACM and visual inspection for completeness of abatement (i.e., inspected for presence of residue on surfaces from which ACM was removed). Based on these samples and inspections, BAS concluded that work practices observed were performed properly. June 15, 2001: Revised Remediation Plan, Atlanta Site, Property Bounded by PCH, Huntington Street, Atlanta Avenue, and First Stree't, Huntington Beach, California. Conditional Use Permit 00-36, Coastal Development Permit 00-09 This document is the first revision to the soils remediation plan for the project site prepared in December 1996 and summarized above. This document was superceded by Revision 3 of the remediation plan, which is included in this appendix in its entirety. October 23, 2001: Commencement of Remediation of approximately 30,000 cubic yards of soil under CDP 00-99/CUP 00-36 This task was granted a categorical exemption under Section 15330 of the CEQA Guidelines. The work is in the southeastern portion of the site and will avoid the archaeological site, which will be fenced. Remediation began in October 2001 and has not yet been completed. As such, no closure report has yet been prepared. February 2002: Additional Soil Investigation Harding ESE performed additional soil investigation in February 2002 to evaluate the depth of soils affected by petroleum hydrocarbons near groundwater, and these results are summarized in Remediation Plan Revision 3. Three core borings were excavated four to five feet past groundwater. Results indicated that where hydrocarbons in soil have extended past groundwater (brackish, no city wells), the soil impacted is within one to two feet of first encountered groundwater. Not all impacted areas extend to groundwater. A subsequent report that will be submitted with site closure documents will include further details regarding this investigation, which were only included in summary format in the remediation plan (Harding ESE 2002a, 2002b). 12 Remediation Plan, Rev. 3 Atlanta Site Property Bounded by PCH, Huntington Street, Atlanta•Avenue, and First Street Huntington Beach, California Conditional Use Permit 00-36 Coastal Development Permit 00-09 (PW 01-023, L01-158) - 1 Harding ESE MACTEC fib, . Remediation Plan, Rev. 3 Atlanta Site Property Bounded by PCH, Huntington Street, Atlanta Avenue, and First Street Huntington Beach, California Conditional Use Permit 00-36 Coastal Development Permit 00-09 (PW 01-023, L01-158) Prepared for Chevron Land & Development Company 3100 South Harbor Boulevard, Suite 340 Santa Ana,California 92704 Harding ESE Project No. 51911-1 Stephanie Chute Senior Project Toxicologist ,`Nui`•s'= . `Sa ‘148Za ' No 48 23 . PA . Richard W. Blackmer, P.E. * Expq Principal Engineer \ r�`f ��`�" ,� i Equipoise Corporation �oi Cat �N May 22,2002 • 2171 Campus Drive,Suite 100 Harding ESE Irvine,CA 92612 A ue�rrr,/'n..on.,v Phone(949)224-0050 • CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 2.0 BACKGROUND 2 2.1 Phase II Investigation 2.1.1 Remediation Field Activities— 1997/1998 2.1.2 Sand Export Activities— 1999 3 2.1.3 Soil Investigation— 1999 3 2.1.4 Soil Investigation—2002 4 3.0 REMEDIATION PLAN 5 I +. 3.1 Target Remediation Goal 5 3.2 Site Preparation 5 3.3 Remediation Approach 6 4.0 COMPLIANCE WITH CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 11 PLATES Site Status 2 Soil Investigation Shallow Results 3 Soil Investigation Deep Results 4 Soil Remediation Plan APPENDIXES A COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO.00-09/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 00-36 B 30-DAY NOTIFICATION LETTER TO SURROUNDING NEIGHBORS 1; [Includes a list of addresses within 300 feet of the property as provided by First American Title Company(Subject property identified as assessor's parcel number 024-271-05)] I . DISTRIBUTION. ,. pAHLATHEv- B‘Docv wTL err .,,v,.aa Harding ESE, Inc. ii 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report presents the remediation plan for the area bounded by Pacific Coast Highway (PCH), Huntington Street,Atlanta Avenue, and First Street in Huntington Beach,California(the Atlanta Site). Laboratory -- results from a soil investigation performed by Harding ESE,Inc. (Harding ESE, formerly Harding Lawson Associates [HLAJ),have been used to evaluate the lateral and vertical extent of oily soil at the Atlanta Site. Proposed development for the Atlanta Site, also known as Areas 1 and 2, includes a mixed use of residential and commercial development. Area 1 will be developed for commercial purposes. Area 2 will be developed for residential purposes. This site totals approximately 31 acres and is located within the Huntington Beach purchased this property from Chevron Land and Development Company Oil Field. MS Vickers II, LLC, p p p p (CL&D) as one of a group of properties in Huntington Beach. MS Vickers subsequently sold the property and the current owner is Makar Properties, formerly known as Capital Pacific Holdings (CPH). Investigation and remedial efforts are governed by City of Huntington Beach Specification 431-92, Soil Clean-Up • Standard(City Specification 431-92), dated July 30, 1992. The Huntington Beach Fire Department(HBFD) is the local oversight agency for soil remediation. The Huntington Beach soil cleanup standards for all total recoverable petroleum hydrocarbons(TRPH)- impacted soil for residential and commercial sites are less than 500 milligrams per kilogram(mg/kg) and 1,000 mg/kg, respectively. However, at sites where the EPA Test Method 8015M (termed Table I analyses) and EPA Test Methods 8020 and 8270 (termed Table II analyses)criteria are met,the soil cleanup standard is less than 1,000 mg/kg for residential sites and 2,000 mg/kg for commercial sites. Activities discussed in this remediation plan are in response to Conditions of Approval specified in the Coastal Development Permit No. 00-09/Conditional Use Permit No. 00-36 which is provided as Appendix A. P:\HL. Ci EV-W DOCU NTAILA►rrA\atk ap3.aac Harding ESE, Inc. 1 • 2.0 BACKGROUND 2.1 Phase II Investigation HLA presented its plan for investigating the Atlanta Site in the Phase IlInvestigation Plan,Atlanta Areas,' Huntington Beach Oil Field, Huntington Beach, California, dated July 26, 1996. HLA's strategy was to implement a limited investigation program in each of the areas to allow for the discovery and removal of oily soil and hazardous materials. The plan detailed HLA's intent to investigate locations suspected of containing hazardous material and/or containing large quantities of oily soil. The locations targeted were former aboveground storage tanks, sumps,pipelines,and wells identified during a Phase I assessment. The extent of oily soil was determined by laboratory analysis and visually in the field with limited backhoe potholing, trenching,and drilling. The Phase II investigation fieldwork was performed between August 5 and 16, 1996. A remedial action plan was developed based on the results of the field investigation. Results of the Phase II investigation and the remedial action plan are presented in the HLA report Phase II Investigation Report/Remediation Plan,Atlanta Property(Areas 1 and 2), Huntington Beach Oil Field, Huntington Beach, California, dated December 19, 1996, and approved by the HBFD. Based on this Remediation Plan,the remedial activities described below were implemented. 2.1.1 Remediation Field Activities— 1997/1.998 HLA obtained grading permits from the City of Huntington Beach Department of Public Works. Beginning in 1997 and continuing through February 1998, limited remediation operations were performed at the Atlanta Site at locations identified on Plate 1. These excavated areas were backfilled with mechanically treated soil that was within acceptable TRPH concentrations outlined in City Specification 431-92. A detailed description of remediation efforts conducted at the site will be presented in a subsequent closure report. Oily soil was removed from the remediation areas described above using scrapers, backhoes, and/or excavators(whichever technically feasible soil removal technique was the most cost effective). Field personnel were present onsiteao provide oversight of the remediation activities. Field personnel documented the remediation activities and collected bottom grade, interim (screen and treatment), confirmation, and backfill samples. P:vua v- DOCc VATLAN A 3.do« Harding ESE, Inc. 2 Background Approximately 20,000 cubic yards of oily soil was excavated from the Atlanta Site during this timeframe. Soil was separated into stockpiles based on TRPH concentrations and visual observation. Soil with TRPH _ concentrations greater than those specified in City Specification 431-92 was mechanically treated by discin_ and/or screening TRPH concentrations were below those specified in City Specification 431-92. 2.1.2 Sand Export Activities — 1999 In 1999,the property owner(CPH)allowed implementation of a grading plan developed by Fuscoe Engineering to export approximately 200,000 cubic yards of sand material from the Atlanta Site. The sand material was removed from locations identified on Plate 1. During sand export activities, visual observation by Harding ESE's environmental technicians was performed to identify whether oily soil was present. Visual inspection was conducted in conjunction with confirmation sampling from the bottom and sidewalls (where applicable)of each excavation. Confirmation samples were submitted to either a mobile laboratory or an offsite laboratory for analysis by EPA Test Method 418.1 to ensure that TRPH concentrations in the soil remaining in place are below City Specification 431-92 criteria. Samples requiring further analysis according to Table I criteria met Table II criteria or the affected soil was excavated or mechanically treated until it did meet the criteria. The excavations were backfilled with soil that met City Specification 431-92 criteria. Excavations were backfilled with soil where needed(i.e.,not in anticipated future"cut"areas)and • compacted in lifts. Soil was placed in 2-foot-thick lifts, sampled,and compacted. This procedure was continued for successive lifts until the excavation was returned to planned final grade. Fill samples were collected from each lift and analyzed for TRPH by EPA Test Method 418.1 to ensure that the fill was suitable for use as backfill; these data will be presented in a subsequent closure report. 2.1.3 Soil Investigation— 1999 HLA performed additional soil investigation at the Atlanta Site from July to September 1999 to evaluate soil remediation requirements. Trenches were cut and soil samples were collected and submitted to a state- certified mobili:laboratory for analyses of TRPH using EPA Test Method 418.1. Soil samples were collected at shallow and deep locations within the trenches, and results of this investigation are presented on • Plates 2 and 3, respectivel4: More details regarding this soil investigation will be presented in a subsequent report. PAHLA CHEV-RMOCUMENTIATLANTALadanarrap3.doc Harding ESE, Inc. 3 Background Plate 1 illustrates the archeological exclusion areas,the location of the sand export excavations based on Fuscoe Engineering's grading plan,the former structures on the property, and the results of the 1999 soil investigation. 2.1.4 Soil Investigation —2002 Harding ESE performed an additional limited soil investigation at the Atlanta Site in February 2002 to evaluate the depth of petroleum hydrocarbon impacted soils near groundwater. Three continuous core borings were extended 4 to 5 feet past groundwater in three of the areas previously delineated as containing elevated concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbons. Based on observations of the continuous cores and subsequent review of analytical data associated with samples collected from these cores,it appears that in cases where petroleum hydrocarbons in soil have extended to groundwater(considered to be brackish due to salt water intrusion),the extent of soil impacted with petroleum hydrocarbons is generally limited to within 1 to 2 feet of first encountered groundwater. Please note that based on observations during the 1999 trenching_ investigation and substantiated by this limited sampling event,not all impacted areas were observed to extend to groundwater. More details regarding this soil investigation will be presented in a subsequent report. 1—I I ij run.& v-HBOOCUMENTATL UlTAV.no.,.p3.da Harding ESE, Inc. 4 3.0 REMEDIATION PLAN 3.1 Target Remediation Goal As previously stated,the planned use for the Atlanta Site is mixed use of residential and commercial, and a -- target cleanup level of less than 1,000 mg/kg TRPH for residential sites(Area 2)and less than 2,000 mg/kg TRPH for commercial sites(Area 1)will be used(assuming EPA Test Method 801 5M and Table II analyses criteria are met). 3.2 Site Preparation The site has been surveyed to identify elevations and locations of important landmarks and general topographic surfaces. Survey crews will stake out outlines of areas requiring remediation, the existing City of Huntington Beach 18-inch water line,and the 10-foot water line setback zone. In addition, survey crews will measure the final depth of excavations as well as the final elevation of the compacted backfill at the Atlanta Site. Prior to excavation, Harding ESE will obtain grading permits from the City of Huntington Beach Public Works Department. The soil remediation plan is presented on Plate 4 and includes the estimated limits of excavation and volume calculations. Impacted soil will be excavated only within the surveyed property lines;therefore, activities related to the excavation will not encroach upon the public right- of-ways. Work will be conducted in accordance with Harding ESE's site safety plan(SSP) for the Huntington Beach Oil Field parcels. Considerations for storm water pollution prevention are also identified on the soil remediation plan (Plate 4). These considerations include placing sandbags and filter fabric around the existing storm drain catch basin located on the southeastern portion of the site, protecting the existing drainage swale,and providing a wheel shaker grid and crushed rock pad at the site access point on Huntington Street to minimize the amount of site soils leaving the site via vehicle tires. Please note that engineering plans for additional erosion control facilities(as requested by the City of Huntington Beach Public Works Department and prepared by the property owner's engineer, Hgnsaker&Associates)have been submitted as a separate attachment!. A more 'Interim Erosion Control Plan for Pacific City Property.dated March 19,2002.was submitted by the property owner(Ethen Thacher.on behalf of Makar Properties)to Terri Elliott of the Public Works Department on March 26,2002. Based on comments received by the City.the plan was , revised and resubmitted on May 7,2002. A copy of the revised plan is included in the SWPPP prepared by Harding ESE.May 2002. r Ira.,►tctmv-14B1noctnMEK tTLANTA w.p3.mc Harding ESE, Inc. 5 • Remediation Plan detailed discussion of storm water management can be found in the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), prepared by Harding ESE (May 2002). 3.3 Remediation Approach • • The remediation approach for oily soil at the Atlanta Site will be similar to remedial plans previously completed for remediation of other oil field sites within Huntington Beach with one notable exception: since groundwater is present between 5 and 15 feet below ground surface at the Atlanta Site, the depth of excavation is limited without extensive dewatering operations. City Specification 431-92 allows for limitations associated with the depth of excavation as indicated on page 3 within the section entitled"Depth of Contaminated Soil Removal"which states, "soil contamination in excess of the Tables 1 and 2 criteria extending deeper than twenty(20) feet below ultimate finished grade or within five(5) feet of the groundwater table, whichever is shallower,and not exhibiting characteristics of material considered hazardous for disposal purposes may be considered for non-remediation." We had originally proposed that excavation as close as practical to groundwater(say within 1 foot) would satisfy and exceed the minimum requirements of City Specification 431-92. Therefore, soil excavation activities were initially proposed to stop when groundwater was present less than 1 foot below the bottom of the excavation. However, because petroleum hydrocarbon impacted soil appears to have minimal impact into groundwater,we are modifying our plan to include excavation of impacted materials, which will avoid having to complete a request for nonremediation for any oily soils immediately above groundwater. Soil excavation activities will stop prior to encroachment on the City of Huntington Beach 18-inch water line setback zone(identified on Plate 4). Please note that future development plans for the site are currently being drafted. If the plans indicate that the 18-inch water line will be relocated, oily soil within the setback zone will be removed during construction activities related to the water line relocation. If the plans indicate that the 18-inch water line will remain in its current location,a nonremediation request will be submitted to the HBFD with regard to any oily soil to remain in place within this setback zone. Standard operating procedures(SOPs) for the excavations and remedial actions are as follows(for oily soils present at or above 1 foot above groundwater): • Step la. Observe excavation activities. Excavate until no visual evidence of oily soil is present or until groundwater is present less than 1 foot below the bottom of the excavation. Oily soils will be segregated I PANT-.WITEv.Hamada,Iarnwn-avraAsdmnaan3.dce Harding ESE.Inc. 6 Remediation Plan and placed on another area of the site that is designated for mechanical treatment by discing(shown on Plate 4). Water trucks will be used to mitigate fugitive dust and minimize remediation-related impacts. If the depth of excavation reaches 1 foot above groundwater and oily soils are still present, excavation will continue into groundwater until no visual evidence of oily soil is present(however, SOPs will follow those listed as lb through 5b below). • Step 2a. Collect bottom grade soil samples and analyze for TRPH using EPA Test Method 418.1 to evaluate the soil conditions. • Step 3a. If TRPH results of the testing of bottom grade soil samples are below City Specification 431-92 criteria,then analyze for total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) using EPA Test Method 8015M. If TPH results of the testing of bottom grade soil samples are below City Specification 431-92 criteria,then halt excavation(for soil remediation purposes). The bottom of the excavation will be surveyed at this time. • Step 4a. If results of the testing of bottom grade soil samples exceed City Specification 431-92 criteria, then excavate additional soil and resample the bottom grade. If results from the samples are below City Specification 431-92 criteria, then halt excavation. If results from the samples exceed City Specification 431-92 criteria,then excavate an additional lift and resample the bottom grade. SOPs for excavation and remedial action are as follows for oily soils not completely remediated by the above SOPs(e.g., for those oily soils that extend to within 1 foot of groundwater or below): - • Step lb. Continue to observe excavation activities. If the depth of excavation reaches 1 foot above groundwater and oily soils are still present,'excavation will continue into groundwater until no visual evidence of oily soil is present: however,the size of the excavation working area will be reduced to allow for excavation and subsequent backfill of a geotechnically competent material. Oily soils will be segregated and placed on another area of the site that is designated for mechanical treatment by discing(shown on Nate 4). rAxi.x..c v.impocumENnAT.Axrn ti .a« Harding ESE, Inc. T _ Remediation Plan • Step 2b. Collect bottom grade soil samples and analyze for TRPH using EPA Test Method 418.1 to evaluate the soil conditions. Based on survey markers at the site,the Harding ESE field technician will measure the depth of actual excavation. • Step 3b. Collect bottom grade samples and immediately backfill the excavation, if warranted by field observations, to an elevation equivalent to the top of groundwater_ Lateral delineation of the excavation , will be surveyed upon completion of a particular remediated zone. Due to the reduced size of the excavations,only minimal excavations into groundwater will be open at any one time to prevent the need for dewatering. In other words, a given area requiring remediation will require a series of small excavation working areas followed by immediate backfilling (if warranted by field observations) to an elevation equivalent to the top of groundwater. The lateral extent of the remediation will be surveyed upon completion of connected excavations in a given area. Backfill material will likely consist of Class II type mix(a sandy gravel aggregate base)and will be confirmed based on approval of the developer's geotechnical engineer and the city inspector. Geotechnical oversight will be provided during backfill operations to certify that backfill has been placed to at least 90 percent or better relative compaction. • Step 4b. If TRPH results of the testing of bottom grade soil samples are below City Specification 431-92 criteria, then analyze for TPH using EPA Test Method 8015M. If TPH results of the testing of bottom grade soil samples are below City Specification 431-92 criteria,then the soil remediation for the excavation associated with the bottom samples will be deemed complete. Once soil remediation is deemed complete in a given area, the excavation area will be backfilled with additional Class II type mix backfill material to bring the backfill elevation to at least 1 foot above groundwater. _ • Step 5b, If results of the testing of bottom grade soil samples exceed City Specification 431-92 criteria. then reexcavate the small excavation working area associated with the bottom grade sample to include removal of an additional lift of soil, and collect another bottom grade sample. (Steps 2b through 4b above will be implemented again.) r\a\cHEv_aewocv+?v'nATLANTA1wan,a-np3 doc Harding ESE, Inc. 8 Remediation Plan Soil with TRPH concentrations greater than those specified in City Specification 431-92 are to be mechanically treated onsite until TRPH concentrations below those specified in City Specification 431-92 for residential (Area 2)and/or commercial (Area 1)properties are obtained. Excavated soil will be mechanically treated by discing and sampled to assess concentrations of TRPH and placed in stockpiles that do not exceed a maximum height of 8 feet. Water will be used to minimize remediation-related impacts on surrounding properties. If necessary,polymer binder may be applied to stockpiled soil. Samples will be collected from each layer in the stockpiles and analyzed for TRPH by EPA Test Method 418.1. Soil with concentrations exceeding City Specification 431-92 will undergo additional mechanical treatment by discing and be resampled prior to use as backfilI material. Due to the potential for wet soils following excavation of soils into groundwater,any soil deemed to be too wet for mechanical treatment will be placed in a separate stockpile for dehydration prior to transfer to the treatment stockpile. If mechanical treatment by discing cannot achieve the TRPH concentration requirements of City Specification 431-92,then soil screening equipment will be utilized for additional mechanical treatment. Samples will be collected from screen material stockpiles and analyzed for TRPH by EPA Test Method 418.1. Screened soil will be mechanically treated by discing and sampled to assess concentrations of TRPH prior to use as backfill material. Please note that site soil (e.g., nonimpacted overburden or soils having undergone mechanical treatment) used for backfill will occur only at elevations of 1 foot or higher above encountered groundwater. Any backfill in or within the first foot above groundwater will consist only of Class II type mix(a sandy gravel aggregate base)(as approved by the developer's geotechnical engineer and the city inspector). Geotechnical oversight will be provided during backfill operations to certify that backfill has been placed to at least 90 percent or better relative compaction. SOPs for the backfill and associated compaction are as follows: • Step 1•. Once remediation required to remove oily soils is complete, backfill the excavations with the excavated soils,which include nonimpacted overburden and may include soils that have undergone mechanical treatment,such that the resulting soil is below levels specified by City Specification 431-92. PAHLA V-HMDOCUMErmna.0 TA 3.aoc Harding ESE, Inc. 9 • Remediation Plan • Step 2. Place soil in 2-foot lifts, collect samples (at a minimum sampling density of 1 sample per 500 L cubic yards), and compact the fill. Compaction tests will be performed on each lift to ensure a minimum compaction of 90 percent of maximum dry density per ASTM 1557-91 and will be documented in a separate report. Analyze samples by EPA Test Methods 418.1 and 8015M for TRPH and TPH, respectively,to ensure the suitability of the fill material for use as backfill. Continue this procedure fo'r successive lifts until the excavation is returned to final grade. If a confirmation soil sample is found to have a concentration above the City Specification 431-92 target cleanup level,then reexcavate the area and resample until the target cleanup level is achieved. f-- PAHLA1Cer4MDOcuM,vnan.A.,rrn ..v3.doe Harding ESE, Inc. 10 4.0 COMPLIANCE WITH CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL The following section discusses compliance with conditions of approval for Coastal Development Permit No. 00-09/Conditional Use Permit No. 00-36 with the Permit Condition stated first and Harding ESE's response presented in italics: 1. The site plan, received and dated November 1,2000 shall be the conceptually approved layout,as modified by the applicant on November 9, 2000 to exclude the N.A.P. area as well as to specifically - identify the Archeological issue No. 1 area by the assigned ORA number. The site plan described above is included as Plate 1. 2. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the following shall be completed: a. A remediation plan shall be submitted to the Planning, Public Works,and Fire Departments, for review and approval in accordance with City Specification No.431-92 and the conditions of approval. The plan shall include methods to minimize remediation-related impacts on the surrounding properties as deemed necessary, including but not limited to application of polymer binder on stockpiled soil areas. (PW) This document(and Plate 4 in particular) constitutes the remediation plan mentioned above. b. The name and phone number of a field supervisor hired by the developer who is onsite shall be submitted to the Departments of Planning and Public Works. In addition, clearly visible signs shall be posted on the perimeter of the site every 250 ft. indicating whom to contact 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 ad):acent property owners during the construction activity. He/she will be responsible for ensuring compliance with the conditions herein, specifically, grading activities,truck routes, construction haws, noise etc. Signs shall include the number of the applicants activities contact. City contact(Ms. Sudi Shoja, 714-536-5517)regarding grading and construction activities, and PAHLATHEV-HBOOCUMENDATLAMAViluro-np3.doc Harding ESE, Inc. 11 Compliance With Conditions of Approval 1 "1-800-CUTSMOG" if there are concerns regarding fugitive dust and compliance with AQMD Rule No.403.(PW) Following contractor selection and prior to implementation of the soil remediation plan, the name and phone number of a field supervisor hired by the developer who will be onsite will be submitted to the Departments of Planning and Public Works. In addition. clearly visible signs shall be posted on the perimeter of the site every 250 feet indicating whom to contact for information regarding this development and any construction and/or grading-related concerns. c. The applicant shall notify all property owners within 300 ft. of the perimeter of the property of a tentative grading schedule at least 30 days prior to such grading. (PW) CL&D will notify all property owners within 300 feet of the perimeter of the property of the tentative remediation schedule. A copy of the notification letter(to be distributed via United States Postal Service) and the list of addressees is presented in Appendix B. The notification will be distributed upon City approval of the remediation plan, at which time afield schedule will be developed and will constitute at least a 30 day notice. d. The applicant's grading/erosion control plan and remediation operations shall comply with AQMD Rule No.403 regarding fugitive dust. (PW) Remediation activities will comply with AQMD Rule No. 403 regarding fugitive dust. The Soil Remediation Plan will be implemented between April 15th and October 15th to eliminate the need to implement an erosion control plan. However, several pollution control measures (as noted on the Soil Remediation Plan) will be in place to prevent runoff in the event of a storm. Additionally, an Erosion Control Plan developed by the property owner's engineer that addresses drainage on the southeastern portion of the Site will be implemented by the property owner. e. If the import or export of soil is required, the applicant shall coordinate with the Public Works Department in developing a truck haul route plan. This plan shall include the approximate number of trips,the proposed truck haul routes, and the site access locations. It shall specify the hours in which transport activities can occur and the methods to mitigate construction related PAHLa v-r17ADOC MENTArtarrra rar3.att Harding ESE,inc. 12 Compliance With Conditions of Approval impacts to adjacent residents and businesses. These plans must be submitted to the Public Works Department Traffic Division for approval. (PW) The remediation approach does not call for import or export of soil. If necessary, the soil may be screened to facilitate remediation, and the potential exists that the screen reject material may require offsite disposal. If this option becomes necessary, a truck haul route plan that includes the approximate number of trips, the proposed truck haul routes, hours of operation, and the site access locations will be prepared and submitted to the Public Works Department Traffic Division for approval. f. A plan shall be prepared and submitted to both the Planning and Public Works Departments identifying wind barriers and screening around remediation equipment and materials.(PW) • The location where soil screening equipment and associated wind barriers will be placed, if used, is identified on the Soil Remediation Plan(Plate 4). g. A plan shall be prepared and submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval that details how all drainage associated with the remediation efforts shall be retained on site and no wastes or pollutants shall escape the site.(PW) The soil remediation area shall be kept as small as possible, and excavation activities will comply with AQMD Rule No. 403 regarding fugitive dust. The Soil Remediation Plan will be implemented between April 15th and October 15th to eliminate the need for implementation of an erosion control plan and alleviate drainage associated with the remediation efforts. However, several pollution control measures (as noted on the Soil Remediation Plan) will be in place to prevent runoff in the event of a storm. In particular, these include placing sandbags and filter,fabric around the existing storm drain catch basin located on the southeastern portion of the Site,protecting the existing drainage swale, and providing wheel shakers and a crushed rock pad at the site access point to prevent site soils from leaving the Site by wheel tracking. Additionally, an erosion control plan developed by the property owner's engineer that addresses drainage on the southeastern portion of the site will be implemented by the property owner. A moredetailed discussion of storm water management can befound in SWPPP prepared g by Harding ESE(May 2002). PAHLA v-teWOCU An.,wra\aWma..ap3 aoc Harding ESE, Inc. 13 • Compliance With Conditions of Approval h. An existing 18" diameter PVC public water main crosses the site between Huntington Street and First Street and appears to be located within areas shown for soil remediation. This water main shall be protected in place or relocated in accordance with the requirements of the Public Works et Department Water Division and Fire Department. (PW) An existing 18"diameter PVC public water main crosses the Atlanta Site, and its location is identified on Plate 1. This water main shall be protected in place during soil remediation activities and as shown on the Soil Remediation Plan (Plate 4). i. Any existing mature trees that are to be removed shall be replaced at a.2 to 1 ratio with a 36-inch box tree or palm equivalent. As an alternative,trees may be moved to another location onsite and maintained for relocation compatible with the ultimate site development plan. (PW) Trees existing prior to remediation (as documented in a pre job videotape) shall be protected in place during soil remediation activities. 3. During grading and/or remediation the following shall be adhered to: a. Stockpiling of dirt onsite shall not exceed eight(8) ft. in height. (PW) Maximum height of stockpiles will be 8 feet. b. Water trucks shall be utilized and shall be available to be used throughout the day during remediation operations to keep the soils damp enough to prevent dust from being raised by the activities. (PW) Water truck(s) will be utilized throughout the day during remediation operations to keep the soils damp enough to prevent dust from being raised by the activities. c. Wet down the remediation areas in the late morning and after work is completed for the day. (PW) pvnav-HB1uocvME.�nwnaxra1sul.M.- .da Harding ESE,Inc. 14 Compliance With Conditions of Approval Water truck(s) will be utilized to wet down the remediation areas in the late morning and after work is completed for the day. d. Use low sulfur fuel (.05%) by weight for construction equipment. (PW) Construction equipment will use low-sulfur fuel(.05%) by weight as specified in the Soil Remediation Plan. e. Attempt to phase and schedule remediation activities to avoid high ozone days(first stage smog alerts),and discontinue operations during second stage smog alerts. (PW) Remediation activities will be scheduled to avoid high ozone days (first-stage smog alerts), and operations discontinued during second-stage smog alerts. f. All haul trucks shall arrive at the site no earlier than 8:00 a.m., or shall leave the site no later than 5:00 p.m., and shall be Iimited to Monday through Friday only. (PW) If necessary, haul trucks shall arrive at the site no earlier than 8:00 a.m. or shall leave the site no later than 5:00 p.m. and shall be limited to Monday through Friday only, as specified in the Soil Remediation Plan. g. Hours of operation for all remediation activities associated with the proposed use shall be limited to Monday through Friday 7:00 a.m.—6:00 p.m.only. Hours of operation for all remediation activities shall be limited to Monday through Friday 7:00 a.m. —6:00 p.m. only, as specified in the Soil Remediation Plan. h. The construction disturbance area shall be kept as small as possible. (PW) The soil remediation area shall be kept as small as possible. i. All haul trucks shall be covered or have water applied to the exposed surface prior to leaving the site to prevent dust from impacting the surrounding areas.(PW) P.\HI.AACHEV-FIDRDOCumEN AT1 TA\atlanu p3.doc Harding ESE, Inc. 15 Compliance With Conditions of Approval .; ;:aul trucks are used, then thz.•shall be covered or have water applied to the exposed surface prior to leaving the site to prevent dust from impacting the surrounding areas. j. Prior to leaving the site all haul trucks shall be washed off onsite on a gravel surface to prevent � i dirt from leaving the site and impacting public streets.(PW) If haul trucks are used,prior to leaving the site all haul trucks shall be washed off onsite on a gravel surface to prevent dirt from leaving the site and impacting public streets. k.— Comply with appropriate sections of AQMD Rule No.403, particularly to minimize the fugitive dust and noise to surrounding areas. (PW) Remediation activities will comply with AQA'ID Rule No. 403 regarding fugitive dust. 1. Wind barriers shall be installed along the perimeter of the site. (PW) A fence with appropriate slats has been installed along the perimeter of the site. m. The remediation operations shall be performed in stages concentrating in single area at the time to minimize the impact of fugitive dust and noise to the surrounding areas. (PW) The soil remediation area shall be kept as small as possible, and excavation activities will comply with AQA'ID Rule No. 403 regarding fugitive dust. 4. Prior to final inspection and approval all required clean up of offsite dirt,pavement damage and/or restriping of the streets shall be completed. (PW) Required cleanupofo si ,,dirt, repair o pavement damage, and/or restriping ofthe streets will be 9 .� � P of S P S completed prior to final inspection: Initial conditions of surrounding infrastructure will be documented in a pre job video recording. Offsite dirt will be minimized through the use of a wheel shaker grid and a crushed rock pad for all vehicles leaving the Site. P:vua v-HEOnoCUMENT n.AxrAW,n+.. .mc Harding ESE, Inc. 16 Compliance With Conditions of Approval 5. The applicant shall obtain the necessary permits from the South Coast Air Quality Management District and submit a copy to Planning Department - Air monitoring has been performed during previous soil remediation activities and no AQMD-defined volatile organic compounds have been observed during these operations. Therefore, no Rule 1166 permit will be required for this remediation plan. The contractor will comply with AQMD Rule -103 specifications regarding fugitive dust. 6. Compliance with all conditions of approval specified herein shall be accomplished and verified by the Planning Department. Compliance with this condition is a Huntington Beach Planning Department action item. 7. All building spoils, such as unusable lumber, wire,pipe, and other surplus or unusable material,shall be disposed of at an offsite facility equipped to handle them. Remediation activities will be performed in an undeveloped field and no building spoils should be encountered If debris is encountered, it shall be stockpiled onsite, and this material will be the responsibility of the property owner to manage. - 8. The use shall comply with the following: • a. The applicant shall obtain a Fire Department approved remediation plan prior to commencing any site activity. (FD) This document constitutes the remediation plan mentioned above and has been submitted to the HBFp for approval. b. Fire access road§shall be provided in compliance with City Specification No.401. The circulation plan'and dimensions of all access roads shall be subject to review and approval by the Fire Department. (FD) PAHLATHEV-HB\DOCUMENTATLAN Mallon-wP3.doc Harding ESE, Inc. 17 Compliance With Conditions of Approval • There are no improvements or structures on the Atlanta Site. There are multiple access points to the undeveloped field c. The project shall comply with the provisions of the Huntington Beach Fire Code and.City Specification No. 422, Well Abandonment. (FD) No oil wells will be abandoned as part of this remediation plan. The oil wells onsite have been re-abandoned within the last few years. d. The project shall comply with all provisions of the Huntington Beach Fire Code Section 17.04.085 and the City Specification 429, Methane District Building Permit Requirements. (FD) No buildings will be constructed as part of this remediation plan. e. Installation and/or removal of underground flammable or combustible liquid storage tanks shall comply with Orange County Environmental Health and Huntington Beach Fire Department requirements. Treatment areas may require conformance to City Specification No.431,Gas Fired Appliances.(FD) No installation or removal of underground storage tanks will be conducted as part of this remediation plan. f. Site closure shall meet conditions specified in the City's soil cleanup standard, City Specification No. 431-92. (FD) Environmental remediation activities will be performed to achieve conditions presented in City Specification No. 431-92. g. Security gates shall be secured with KNOX hardware. (FD) Security gates shall be secured with KVOX hardware. • r:11IL,, V-HBWOcv ,wnAxrn �- Harding ESE, Inc. 18 _ Compliance With Conditions of Approval 9. The Planning Director ensures that all conditions of approval herein are complied with. The Planning Director shall be notified in writing if any changes to the site plan, elevations and floor plans are proposed as a result of the plan check process. Building permits shall not be issued until the Planning Director has reviewed and approved the proposed changes for conformance with the intent of the Zoning Administrator's action and the conditions herein. If the proposed changes are of a substantial nature. an • amendment to the original entitlement reviewed by the Zoning Administrator may be required pursuant to the HBZSO. Compliance with this condition is a Huntington Beach Planning Department action item. • { P\H A\CHEV-HB1000UMEN[IATLANrAlaWnu-rp3.doc Harding ESE, Inc. 19 \ i \ / \ / /\ \ \ \ \ ', ff' �. ,p er. 2.noe\ / \ '\ \ \ x \ \ \ \//.\ \ a? n - � --r--=_�� i \ \ / P. \ ..11., ._ \\\\ ,�� /\\\\\\\/ /'\\\\ \\\,� ° '.Rn )1 / 2 \\/ /\\\\ \\ �;'`.\\\ - (1 SANDS �` uL- - . . ,.-, .. ' ' ����\\\\`�\/f<N\\\\'\\ ' / ter' _ Am ��:- w:_. Y �. 4 - �• '''�,� \ R N c /'/ 4 ,3 \ //\\\\ \\\\/ f - . t:. £ • Wi ''' I '- ID q[ /\ / "\ \\ .. .•; f ...ate ;`r_.�'- t=3 J r*•:-''a„�.'_ T- 1 .3 /< / \ \G \\ ram/ ' • \ i--'M .. _ i AREA IDEunFICATau MAP \\l / \ \ / i � 1 , - ,,,,/,/ „„„4--''''" ,g-015-1--.3-30 • ' 1 ,i,\\ \ ......_ ...... , „ , \ �t ,/ A� 111 »�' 1 . , / No cp 4/. i / / � `�, i , '� tiili � ;,...5,,,,_ \ .." l aid Zi �% ✓� //r°, / �. �- < :.RSA ,. ..• ,ass C •• SR O %' : ...: ' '/7�� . -MOTEL := RESTAAURf� -",",� , �,,� ; ; � r I, s r i:z, O ION walla,OCaai •(-\ ?ARKING A fi T : 1 _ 7c � ^\ t �� i I t a r © .. ;. . ^�$ + SCR.Ell maim viy .,X�,,, .y ;� s"z' <a.z,,,+;,, #j' M/ , ;�Jt �'•• •,. i r • , 1 - Q Wan AST 10fA®1 �\ �� TO DA . 'm 4 ,,' \,. � Efro "' \ `a _'F, w=- 3 . •",. `;I- iI / /N, ' ..,' ':.., ' - I —'''''," ty IV „,. Anin .-'' 4.-'''' ,,,,,,,, i/ - I 1 auEEnas �.. 'r.'6�3177;--1,\/4 ::'ti 6;.: �� •`...__.1 ,ax M: �YOW ma maim 2Avos • '� `\, - 111 .;M�,{ ' ,-'t. / �j •/ i. • T , s ■ CIS ESCFkLaa mY BlgR+mOa tT,-�Qa6511Q CEPPUI�� .7, om r• _/' .v.) ..tt `.\ r `9 3�1\a\� \ ,, e v\ ',s i,�Y= "_r s`', �/ilk ;• \6:1.,1 sas Elmua COY s�rml an ee aarea-WAR MANE \y, \'• \ '�:•�' ''''Cr. - Li.£: \ •�` 4`�` `� +• 'N .1 f %, EaWaa�Iaw01 or stoos+e Re Imwa1LL MEOW 1 _ \\,. ----N ' -- , - ,::, ' ,1 ,„, 7,,i „ Alp kiro,..+Ir," L— . . • -• ors.4„ -414\ ��\. t." te e t ► !s " ,t.&y 1 S f) s ... + & ,. / i 4. % -...... t .4111k } N \N \!,\, ,., ,add _ _, 4 P ; $FORME:R TRAILER PARK FOOTPRINT (UNKNOWN ��•�\� ~�`� : ��. � �:�' • �" SUBSURFACE UTILITY NI ~�"'' -`' "�`` CONDITIONS) ask' `\``'a:,\ SCAM N FEU apl 1 �•' as -r : Karim Lunn Associates n� 7 ' — .ecawr 0. oNa0 mtd SITE STATUS aatm '. A al Serviem is m osalae Kra■=.m Ewldtngton Beach an Flew ATLANTA SITE I, 153400110.10130 1a.naa 1p®a n OM W` �' P m�o�I�° XuMI Beach.Califomla 000 ,Woo . \:,\.\\ I - , /-‘ Ifr ‘.... \ //Ai/7 7 \.\)‘'\ / N ___\ ,\\\ (/ �`, /'\ ,\� 41, \---...„,,r ____::717-::_„,,,,,,, \ \t'Y a _ (i ';',,,' / 71--) i _ i___ 1 ,..„1 i (,,,„„1„..,, \i/ \.\ /2 < 111 — 1 1 ./NNN\C-\\ rliii •..�. ._°..19 _._._..- µ ;\7,11A7 .c''' , —ICI fi f ._ _ r,_____.,—j. v, I11 ;re 9 / / / . - / [A@ //-/// 6I3 N 'U} •1rFF � .�, `,' 'Gz E.,.---J, i) i F • l p Ea 1 9 , ,aY fi t "- '��n M ,r; ,„...��+i' \ \\`N'.'•`\ j r� ir.�: a (1.. "gib ,� tjoie/ IVA i.,7.,t v‘m a k*: . , .7 / • \ (� . 1111 / I , 110711111r NI'V7 \ L 11 F ..,„ . , ii..›. 1 _ ,,..„ .4- /00,00,0001Weit., ;.,,, c ) .s. ,( ) ( 1/- < /, __ \\ ' ,, et\,.. �,� v, ' ,,1 "77-10* '''' (''1 / , 9. /0 / r I; I/ Lifii.VT , lItr„...ss's N. ' A\:4L4'11:,, / 4,4iii -... ‘,.:-,-) , • pi,. ..,,,,,, / (An - It !�:, tom'! x ; €a, /, w 1 r �.. ` l5 III // 4 r1�„ alp d 1 't (x \ f ,Fit, �° �` \ t ,', 11 _ . / r v ' /-.., st, * *,• ' ,,,,,:..\<s',',4'rr \\ lig f,;:,,,, % \ \ ....1. II i S it"11 M '� \ a ' t:t ,,\ ,„„iiiro„, a+ ~ `.�l W \ i 1 1 i, � iw` » ii o *\\. \ W., a,,� 4•.. ..' ._T -..........._.•..,,,,,,,.,,,,,„., . .,:"' �. ",'^aw'� �y; •_ _... - - - _ i� Min_. HUNINGTON T ET m�Y � 2p f.. -`..'t„swe_.._.._,. esxx.e:m. wmxx�x...ssv:�.:9..�_•.a,:.,,x..ac�a.,. -c...:r:�,...s._..:: ., _..._ ................____".__ "•y. ka ' S,t li ' i w I m ... /N-zo*,. 1 a. 1 a } F / //p tc ,, r)ri. I \\N . /r/ 7/',,,,074,,, •\'‘ Ar:‘ • Ir - --)/PA • /y- J L/ J ` : .__\„?..) /41, k. ,,K 2-- . ,,, , 0 N 7\/, ,,,,,,, N, /7/ / GN N (., /iv'). .„ .\,..N. . 1 . 1 ), , , / ., , ! ( ' \. <.ii . ili, d I -,r \ f Ij � s: < -, .l .. \ if • _drkz, 7„,,,....,:am* :'*-- . * ', 'I- . At RI t 11 ii 1 I 3::. ' -ii 6.)1::7 s s., , s-.) I\:\-1:/\,<s 1:N›I\: :1, i , I 48.RI i I: / 4, 4 + / . \.‘ >„___,,,/ ._. , -, i as t o ,c\ '" i 1 .-§! Ki .i / 'fri / '''''.":.: ';',;i!'' . _,....--' '10' -Ea%. C'' '''). :,; �! % \\r; a. tHE . r :Ierpor.,/:,..,..04e:/ ;;.!,:,,,,) ; c r v . S is i1. ,:c_,::.;.—:::11,! 7_11 xJ , s (:::......'i4:21.;.,,.:": 3 t�. f u . _- .., „. _ ._ .... _ �Qf/ c i tj 1 lit. it.' , ; , /, i,,,,,,Ii/ 1,00,,,AV110,...4•00r-, t . f ) ,3 , 11.1:- l ; LL-� '�'t l • jol I i 'fit E , w'#,,,,,t; ./,..?: ',/ V l'i ''''Y s... Vb< rs t \\\\\ ;,.() w +++ ,Wei 04,... �l4 , . E. h) ✓ / �l g ' � III!' f � fi -‘,,,,, V • \� • :•,L ;. "4wE '7.j e y a ;u c � ` I i . .--. � _/ ` 7' / ..... y' Ac+ . f 13 \\ _ - i . , — ; i �`Yy.:.^ •_ S.s wxr.ma.. E2 �u��live c�rE� i� . .r_T_ .. __: .. I i 1 t #s F E 9 i g 1 go / -. %. It • ElE@ AIONA AKA wA 1 , Lm�a ma NAL ww N W AAAA t YiAwMICmQwxRrOMIN00�1�®1e • / V 10 CM WA IN AIWA,' -.., _ ArO MAYr !t , r.= _.... .-.. __ __ —_ _ _ __�, mauAKA aeoiWRINBA NUM WM MAW RN IMAM CCUr MA RAC o�imr�v rl�ws S•DU WM wow®nwr Jr ----� -- -'[ T ---- -- -- MMAw A.WAAR WE sI WAY WOWS AR A WilA •ERICA/ - I • r- , -.� 1--1 -- 1 AN MOW ilia w MAI el COM•ARAM SALM N �R IWAWA�wlt WM Win IA WM Ke®w0 •, ` . Mil YY III I�®1�lNW®6QOII IIIB 1n 1e 7@. RAM AO ANNA RA�IQ V RA AWL xwAws • • , AAIAA�N�OMA. wtMKwlAO vr¢nmoer®nowS[mn®wwwa `," I // ` 1 —--- �- /NZxmA All S GS AR Sills.Sus FARM NON54 0 ®arNRUA.A MWOW AAW WW1 Ai WAIL Ill Mil WM 2 'i I 4 �R �� sn®aAwWAsrws®Amairewmwsnm AAuwawm NEW AAswwn< �"" •\ �w� ',—":, \r� MIN RAS mnm��oos CA MAAS�ro a WEA mouiA,nstmoar. I, IMI A Oil A LAM v A uooA AO AAa w UMW Aw w . .. ) �` f iF.,,ern--„,-,::,. ®t • 110 AC NM MIA WM II IAWAKE ion U[AMD •IAO vxlLA a WWI MEAN WnIR aN j' RA WM MI MILO ADA WM AIM MIA VE W a MARE MI AO W iAS•WAWA f Ax�.t• \• as mawAs mosawrs somas AND ooWf■•amAA M▪ AR MAIM NxlAws at:•ewArwwwl YANO wow f?91 i M!>OWAMA IA AMA OM N®AelYiAll�ArATANlODn Ai)wAx=A1 ' . 11 • Al IKAZ• /" 1 it `D V 1 V II Aa▪ar WM N A RAMA MAC NEW rMAea AY IRO // 1 ams a MAIM aA1leAaa a mows LeIA♦Am AS w AREA /. / Ai•ANAll MAN MAW WAWA ��LraAl®AIA.IA®MAR iwxAAM ,/: L i // a�wttun ai®itli AMINE NR 011111A6t WI RR AO a A76Tf YAE NAIL awI Awnr a®L MA6 MAMAS ► N fir/ i A SCOW AIIftr AMC ALL AAA OW AA w xP�l 2 f/ r\ ��� •LLlwe o�All AL MUM Awe lr Mwl Nave MIA �: ' L AICTI M5L maaO1 AIA CT N NAIaAw AN MS OHM AMAM SD9AO Aw x CMA A�NM WOW NEW SA - / /'\� -v. 10 r �r� 1, / 1 iAt ArmAw nA�is Yx eas wmA nwew Asao�s•1issa°ADEi°IwO1m�A®RAilora�2AAIt�o AREA IDENTIFICATION MAP S I I �Y 16 All f aAlA110GA Man news M A soNfAfleN auAAA>m AA w[M 1MILsxaK /� e� r�5 xA/AApeNa ntramalR wAaAs l>Q�A111 Y.WM MOM WAS OA N Ada r WM AA V Ar AME ;:ii ti4 ( O P 11 I _ I{ tile AISK OE w9L�rSPRtO®®61n AAir ii r�wCIli�A�SA i� ®�1iA�lWo� !i694. LCjr I , I I ....4. xfA]<�R PM KM.MA01/W few l 1 011 WWII. A MI a A WWI ws. ( l wAIIA1 WA KW NIA COMM-CIO MINI a L aaaiA A Aec�®awms is s i AL AO r CROSS-SECTION 1: HYPOTHETICAL CROSS-SECTION OF MATERIALS �\ N N - / I 111 ! s f 99-10 % MOWN •�6d111 rsawx61MAWK:TACO REQUESTED FOR NON-REMEUTATION DUE TO PUBUC WORKS DEPARTMENT I 1 CLAW®ill•WE M I Ai IOW-co)�s a i`.'s'll`Im 1�'.w MOM 41.1 isw m n REQUIREMENT FOR 10-FOOT WIDE SETBACK ZONE SURROUNDING 18-INCH �. -• v / I ) // � '� I i wt usv®vao rasomafuwAc YA WARM AANIAC IlaA1 NtA AA06 Y AAAIsiNAAfIA I1O AA OICIWA WATER UNEI . I ••RR SALiA0911os1.MIMEVDOF OL.AAC A"E°A6e!LmAe<mi.A. Y Nfwarsaslxaemauos.rxae.mOWMOW / I �.... ws AOlAearL mA<oa•wNomLAASAweALLaAm Amaxuraxfnsvmswlr - A' :t v,4 / '% I ,.iL sumo A RAM um x MACAW O x CM v Mil A r1 tif AA1 AI AAA Coalm WOW=u/-A SW WA Ai u A RP Awl A AWE A INIA let Ain Lr WIa�IA FFElRE(1NaMf 6 I.cowl) .' i r AWNS NW Graf AA AIL AA OS tWAA M786 w CAL NOW wm MA A ANAL �10' to BAgDNmMvsece ADI BE ) ��� • OLaR�O 41�L I�A➢R■YAllw ua ASirlaANa®AAA ' +� / I LDeAtaAAa■wANArA RASE Is NDAawAMKrx Y•AwmAAw AIL®fw®aSaMao Asa / I / AWN Italia WI ID 1SM Ail WOAD WWI oIY s/!1/al / �� /% ll Y IC WI A_®SW MN w Al ww IS AllCAA WArA WM :,.;::;j•�'•v /�/\\/\/\/\/ • \\/\� / • j��� (I I NO Me wRAAw1 AAt rM1ALAKwMaselNx N WAWA VW AA IA A CAME WI w®s Am AA AAA •" ::%%/A• p-/A'/'/'/','���,'� /-/'�` �+ ...m SAw:w SmAmAaa Mvur A,Ao r WINE/As �\',3;,,; `.• .`'.. \ ,W..'.\'j W,�%bj`,,,, / % •'' I AmaA016 T IIC�aA AI Oa aAtwlAa •'•,•, • /// /////.'///////♦ ! Y AAA Ata CAN 0AMA A®1•WI wL••MA W= y< ��\`/`j`\`j�✓\ ti�j/ \`�`\�\`/`\I`` ' '%I ••�•\ 30 5 { AWL rm.A°sAa�r`11a mmmrfr OW KM W On�IC®1�1o"`®wA�frsc®wA�aaA+"A \/`//\`✓/`J�`�/\`//\`//`�/�/`//\`/\`/\J\`//`�/`�/`//\`�/�`I`/`�/\�Q\ It, ,, 2 II �I �A NM xsm MEAN AM sA s x o m®1 A Au la s1 AAa AAmL s a A: • MO AA twat WA Y xAiAH WImxASAAfOAAf AAIANIwN1s AtA�N awww iOAQ AA AA:Am Aa\// �/�j\/\////�I/\//\ //i�j\�//\/�//\//\//\/ ans a aea f ODA MAN ARM NO A i WAS AK AA MAUL \\\\\\V \\\\\\ J Y®AALLwLwaAAS AAm®LfuA AAA \ /f��\//�\/I/����\��/�/I/I /1����/�/� ` Iy �I W; tvaemA. ®iMA'ALIAMAMAsmoa • \\j\.*.*;\;;/'j/;`j/;`j/;;\�j `�j\;j/\;j\\j/ �. ;� // / ,`: ,, a�, -cJ , a maiOel aAR CAA MA aIADlAm slm MAW • l0 ■AO NM i OAL x CONK=NNLas•AI WM IBM AI NC AMON AN AAA as OIAAL•AAA ALL AA IAs at a a as ammo d t AL wt AN®NL LAwooLIAMr IS rael U[ N. a ,,,,a I ~Il' WAWA AvsAAlsiAas srla AMruaIAA CITES.um ICLCm9iAl Rases A�wAS r ME AAYO NA A PAM W x m fAAw■xAwEE was ROEL FEGU_ED BY \• / /�, ` a. _ INEEDINIZELAMILEMECOS i�=WM MI OEM M SIC t is I A SWIM II RUMEN hTiaN R91C ARe6- •\ ��\ % . ,, x r LAY=Cr A A11WWW IAA'PIS NAMAAS SON a AAr�uly wY t A ARA AA Warm PO EYGIWIION PFiroem 1\ ` �� a9AAJli WPM r/AAI•AIM Ai mxel OF aA ._ AMER iD 116 201E 6 IRIIm ••\ I1 / \ W. aI ''\ �t �fCE iFR IA A Dei UMW MI6 MIN A MN FM 71E a AMAr AA AA A EOM w AA AAmi tD.to SLOE 1 w� �'I 25 , ,iii, .�` \d, LO Ail ABM wmwn�i u�A aA CSC u�mA m1 WAIL M� \ / . , 1 >01 // I '��,, it.l i� I, \ I� IL Wei"TEAS AisA01aa1ENN IEWK �1A6w AF�AAAAKA A•AA•SO IL m-4O i .� I---- LsswAao AsxwoAa tAsv,MlAsasnAsc //( ''11 `'--' _ a, affix Ari�Aswir�c�AMa'mw amwA�m ABM rA1MA• '�// " \� �_' BARB �'- i4 •�, r�-` i - M iA6DCV W W ATm.AAOa AIRS AAA MO ANC AA 5(AO 1Ai1W.ISM N A AC NM BARIOER 4t055 ffC110N , •�'-'• - / Z ANAs•axAAwsrvuaotrxlfAatAAaA samtwAAf AMAmw■M�wxan AMAAs II��t [ 1. / Awff • NMo�.AAOA tfMa'OI Star®It AA SAAO AMAAA OW WAWA WM F o ramai-„t,■ i - •� - '- �,• /- Sximwiam�s arira t:l�ea7NAmAA.Mrimpio r eroloAcof A �5.� 1 _ . 1 'I `(, _`•.4. ..�- `\ _� '�1 �,'`..�L. `',,a ji / /4 , Nx Ys mANWYQIJawAA>ti Iw[NSISMAWMA(N . / �\ ''S ' /�� . InWa.McAOSa®au.ADI ;1 r 1 - \� / / WAWA AAA r0 w A Awl AAA AA MD COMA oOAAMA ` ,�' / I T 1nali<asslfAAx Alava9AACA1vM1A}6r. r , osrxoAaA}� r AD x fNL AAAY �1 T.i51e"_ �A IIOeY _ , r ff sraE t' 1�' , N Aax — A AImA\ uY'' AAALDAR.wR il@S 1n""1' s 5 \I tO1Dl4 ®A IN BwIN AAAC n01 x IDIaAAA N AtNMAYAL �'✓ y v T REPwED et ttusAVR a su KNEW N x WO a to ewm 1 1 � �1 r e �. v � rrRD.�sa A •1? y iRiRfO.�AFii 1101•0 IOW MID 1111f NC .�i ♦ I l]`` f y/. 1 �A •r ■ NA A AROA[ A UM - r - • MOM ROWS ifs NA AL FOIL AY • -T SV i II lT1,i'r ■• � NSAi®wmAmia°1rl."�1W..somQrxun6 1. ■��t�n�R�,- I f �.Ert �Y' L yy,�. U . 0=4 4. MinUlLlijalEgLIIMCerk.S01 NOTE MEDI SOIL lE MOD=CGS MEDI DEARER /lc—l- w s t 3l" •-_z y,� •:'"y � ..' j/// I o WM AO )YR A HOOT INC feH DUST Flpl WPM sit. I V L_V A _:_. r410 .- . 1 ri r // 'N.,.,1 �� ,' r j /Cj I 11 COO AM "��1 1'!.. y �`"• , /v /�////// � m MA 1m11 CM wn ft ::::::r.::z:: ► , %i/ L'd0a•' �///', j j /-4' 0=4It Lr D=5/��/�i i. •Z: =• /!'/ , • I f�oA ar�sMl[SNrt lsLlu ANA[saes m.xas®1 �,...� Nik. IG AR� �t �, /%j" "//% j% , / u AAA Iw AMA 110 nN CAI CA0a AA'Aaai's fD NM v'` 0.EEIL lalml-FEIBADam Iml-2mD \ • { •• / j%/,/i i,. t #- /c4j Ito LOOM r IA55Me. • lie_-- , % S\ 0 /�� IR3tFaD1C O04 tAO.-NOT A PYRE �' /// % :.w:NA610 -:�:::. // 16IWC fOQR IE)L IADOION /, // liE]Cl /' M Aw_ v"� (/ a AOERIE IIINf 2lOFA06-''� j. ®fwAi-m•ANA M{rllnF6DDAa.aa•nNw!oas su�q 1D BE AaMraED m OAR IN �Av '\.j \ a. /, 'J r`S FED(A2sEA01EEK* . 14b4 4O' • - I OicIxv�To u�aNxA1 ski o.m 1 R M�oarili�a,aA1I1NaaY,•/ I�IaBK \ \\ 2 ^' , , /// '.� I FED BY 12 FEED �' _ KOWISI I Q x COMM IN WA if WM A0 A.AAAmOI W A ." / \� .. SEW mii NEM NW x MAW AaC01 a�1 NA FpRE11 AA mom \ 'Y / " t OsalD tAOI i I �i O ••�•.\ + ,, ! \` // / PAD tY i ! tMffkR:[atRD 3JR k.'T:'Y WE _ MIL ENO •.� RIM(TO `C 4WR oIA ► LE PdR I tlt I OEM OP CURRENT RnEslrrnt \ 1 ftE FEOD gr MDx SANDBAG DUSTING STORM DRAIN CATCH !wfAr m s Mm wl A MN >s M B NA®A.n IMAM i '' 15 �/, , ON �, 2D ':. '::. Ipa! 1m AAAeNsmrrrms Afa6m Mr PEN FRE 0)5aA-KOUT N R/C0 ' aA+M+!� \ ,4' , '•su w ` WITH FILTER BASIN AND FABRIC PROTECT. WRAP SANDBAGS I I.Nee I•am►m-� wrnMr�il ma mui LIMITS OF S� `°' _ i _ IRomAN nu MUM 2/ts/Pe i, 'N f' %/ji.:41),*, , / � PROPERTY BASIN PROTECTION AS STORM a ismms� rr EMYs�M! INVESTIGATION '/�,►ga �11i '%► �T//% !� `` ,naA_rA AARMOAO NAA_ j/ SOlS FRaF116 OTT SPECIMEN MAR aABD1 �mow Rfas IC a ADOM m A/ \ ,�� /// 1 %/./.:" �� -PRA62 MEM=KEA Or mom A AN meoi N 1 %%T • %%I'//%h' //�� t SHOWN IN INTERIM EROSION CONTROL Arc n ou sae a AN TOM EC L A A AII1 r®sn°� /i' i/ //%iriii j i/ii/�% PLAN FOR PACIFIC CiTY PROPERTY DATED Ar~� or n aa�taa a®Ntam EC ALAsr AAIA® / \ '� \ % /' t0 FDA MOM 201E/RCM t0 KO VEER IRE Ai w AAP M WA AL II11 A AI il WM WI AI a o'er t • / y' \\ '/�7 /% / t f MAY 2002 AND PREPARED BY HUNSAKER w`�m �V. /ii//j IEarEn to MEMO'Baal Fnl:ltc sass CLEMENT OEM) cosecs AA A As As. \.I—$—, � ��- j �iiiii/ji•' :k ASSOCIATES) SUBMITTED SEPARATELY • ).� k/////iiai j/ TO DEPARTMENT OF PUBUC WORKS PW -FS F M NI R 5➢FDPAWII N O COME �' ' �� PI✓OP03D AMI FOB ELTION MOOED d11 TO F N SETBACK OF E ' / / /. FEOIIR)RR Nos-sDtri WiRWFD A WM wart FNtf oasER / / ''' / �j/; E 01-023 L 01-158). [CMS q a DE FM) /i 1 '''. WATER MAIN °% cmRD.NO. 462 - � ,%�% . FORMER TRAILER PARK • .%! POEM COMM Q'SWaOEE FOR IEawrlE.1WAIEM �Il[m M OI WAKEN 1v wAas Ai t �.. \ 9_�// %j/j asw[¢ON s'mom MP 00-20/COP WNW Lk CO -06 CITY 6 tPM!KIOM TIME RAMP TREE aNC R NA®AM Ai R/AN[ DOOM EMT �' IMOrAMwIWAAAONNMAsaAi //� ool j�,:r FOOTPRINT (UNKNOWN 1AA,aN�I�a�AY,e N� AMAwf IL ORaANOw.t ALLA / III MLAIO®mM®C SCAM 1M16 NA D=5' M DO M EMCEED t0 a s REF BM AAAa Al WS o IRE EA OWUWWFR W ASneED 1D Af Ana AcwANa meAnAAA RAW MaA ! SUBSURFACE UTILITY ! ° °� CO FEET ION sGNDEFOR RRpDgs6 CLAIM Ai NANO rx PAS wAZwex N - '\{L MAD rIFxsaVa®1v ' F37RWaC F20aF010110FP111 1a-IR IAN IWAL A Ali AWL A ON Aar \ " DB W MU NNE AL OSA WON COMMA AWN ICE SEMPLE SVDU IE,�AM GOITER mono x aNA It IMAM.rAAG MAW IC 1 � � , CONDITIONS) `•`Ass""` fa-IRNAA IA AL dw w A AIM LOAM AA IrrFit FOR 016t fD SOa DEEM i IEA.S.SIRY. w ONAll wW A AL A AfARD A x Ai iN Brm vim-.. 1 AA AY SaA AWN PM OWNS WAX AA - ICONO m IV 01-023 m!m IA . mmcarvANO As aA: L Ot-158 InEron SALE M FIY , / xa.L fim INI EN ..A 1'asd 4. .onoESE I., ex�v�a,acew s€w.4.4..ro 4 IT WARS NAC Mt IA a— ^ „E•,-q0'y -- Ai C•WE }•SIG YJtt-t • • • APPENDIX A COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 00.09/ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 00-36 • • OFFICE of the ZONING ADMINISTRATOR CITY OF HUNTLNGTON BEACH • CALIFORNIA P.O. BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 714) 536-5271 NOTICE OF ACTION )ecember 14, 2000 • 'ETITION DOCUMENT: COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 00-09/ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 00-36 .PPLICANT: Chevron Environmental`Management'Co.,3100 South Harbor Blvd. Suite 340 Santa Ana, CA 92704 'ROPERTY OWNER: Atlanta Huntington Beach LLC., 4100 MacArthur Blvd. Suite 200, Newport Beach, CA 92660 .EQUEST: To excavate, temporarily stockpile, and remediate on-site approximately 30,000 cubic yards of contaminated soil (crude oil stained soil). The maximum height for the temporary stockpiles of soil is limited to 8 ft. ,OCATION: 21000 Pacific Coast Highway(east side of PCH between Lake St. and Huntington St.) 'ROJECT PLANNER: Amy Wolfe :OASTAL STATUS: NON-APPEALABLE )ear Applicant: 'our application was acted upon by the Zoning Administrator of the City of Huntington Beach on )ecember 13, 2000, and your request was Conditionally Approved. Included in this letter are the :onditions of Approval for this application. 'rider the provisions of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance, the action taken by the :oning Administrator is final unless an appeal is filed to the Planning Commission by you or by an iterested party. Said appeal must be in writing and must set forth in detail the action.and grounds by rhich the applicant.or interested party deems himself aggrieved. Said appeal must be accompanied by a iling fee of Two Hundred Dollars ($200.00) if the appeal is filed by a single family dwelling property wner appealing the decision on his own property and Six Hundred Ninety Dollars ($690.00) if the appeal s filed by any other party. The appeal shall be submitted to the Secretary of the Planning Commission rithin ten (10) calendar days of the date of the Zoning Administrator's action. I . \co evelopment Permit No. 00-09/ ia! Use Permit No. 00-36 last foranpayingthe thea v i The day o filingappeal and filing fee for above noted application is December 26, 2000. Provisions of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance are such that any application becomes null and void one (1) year after the final approval, unless actual construction has begun. FINDINGS FOR PROJECTS EXEMPT FROM CEQA: The Zoning Administrator fords that the project will not have any significant effect on the environment and is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)pursuant to section 15330 of the CEQA Guidelines, because the proposal consists of clean up activities to eliminate the release or threat of release of a hazardous substance and involves actions costing $1 million or less. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL- CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 00-36: 1. Conditional Use Permit No. 00-36 for the excavation, temporarily stockpiling, and remediation on-site of approximately 30,000 cubic yards of contaminated soil (crude oil stained soil), as modified by conditions of approval, will not be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity or detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood. The maximum height for the temporary stockpiles of soil is limited to 8,ft. The remediation activities are temporary in nature and will be properly mitigated to prevent any impacts, including fugitive dust and noise, to adjacent properties. 2. The conditional use permit will be compatible with surrounding uses. The proposed remediation does • not include any substantial permanent change to the current vacant state of the property. 3. Conditional Use Permit No. 00-36 will comply with the provisions of the base district and other applicable provisions in Titles 20-25 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance and any specific condition required for the proposed use in the district in which it would be located. 4. The granting of the conditional use permit will not adversely affect the General Plan. It is consistent with the Land Use Element designation of Residential High Density and Commercial Visitor on the subject property. In addition, it is consistent with the following goals and policies of the General • Plan: HM 1 - Reduce, to the greatest degree possible, the potential for harm to life, property and the environment from hazardous materials and hazardous waste. AQ 1.8.2 - Require installation of temporary construction facilities (such as wheel washers) and implementation of construction practices that minimize dirt and soil transfer onto public roadways. Development Permit No. 00-09/ Zal Use Permit No. 00-36 . N 1.6.1 - Ensure that construction activities be regulated to establish hours oftperation,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. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL- COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 00-09: 1. Coastal Development Permit No. 00-09 for the development project, as modified by conditions of approval, conforms with the General Plan, including the Local Coastal Program. The proposed excavation, temporarily stockpiling, and remediation on-site of approximately 30,000 cubic yards of contaminated soil (crude oil stained soil) is consistent with the Land Use Element designation of Residential High Density and Commercial Visitor on the subject property. 2. The project is consistent with the requirements of the CZ Overlay District, the base zoning district, as well as other applicable provisions of the Municipal Code. The proposed remediation activities will conform with all applicable City Codes as allowed by the conditional use permit. 3. At the time of future occupancy, development on the property can be provided with infrastructure in a manner that is consistent with the Local Coastal Program. All infrastructure will be installed upon construction of any structures on site. The subject proposal does not involve construction of any structures. 4. The development conforms with the public access and public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act. The proposed soil remediation activities will not permanently impact views or access to costal resources. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL— COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 00-09/ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 00-36: • . The site plan, received and dated November 1, 2000 shall be the conceptually approved layout, as modified by the applicant on November 9, 2000 to exclude the N.A.P. area as well as to specifically identify the Archeological issue No. 1 area by the assigned ORA number. 2. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the following shall be completed: a. A remediation plan shall be submitted to the Planning, Public Works, and Fire Departments, for -review and approval in accordance with City Specification No. 431-92 and the conditions of approval. The plan shall include methods to minimize remediation-related impacts on the surrounding propertiesoas deemed necessary, including but not limited to application of polymer binder on stockpiled soil areas. (PW) b. The name and phone number of a field supervisor hired by the developer who is on-site shall be submitted to the Departments of Planning and Public Works. In addition, clearly visible signs Coastal Development Permit No. 00-09/ Conditional Use Permit No. 00-36 Page 4 shall be posted on the perimeter of the site every 250 ft. indicating whom to contact for information regarding this development and any construction/grading related concerns. This contact person shall be available immediately to address any concerns or is'sites 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 number of the applicants activities contact, City contact (Jack Miller(714) 536-5517)regarding grading and construction activities, and "1-800- CUTSMOG" if there are concerns regarding fugitive dust and compliance with AQMD Rule No. 403. (PW) c. The applicant shall notify all property owners within 300 ft. of the perimeter of the property of a tentative grading schedule at least 30 days prior to such grading. (PW) d. The applicant's grading/erosion control plan and remediation operations shall comply with AQMD Rule No. 403 regarding fugitive dust. (PW) • e. If the import or export of soil is required, the applicant shall coordinate with the Public Works Department in developing a truck haul route plan. This plan shall include the approximate number of trips, the proposed truck haul routes, and the site access locations. It shall specify the hours in which transport activities can occur and the methods to mitigate construction related impacts to adjacent residents and businesses. These plans must be submitted to the Public Works Department Traffic Division for approval. (PW) f. A plan shall be prepared and submitted to both the Planning and Public Works Departments identifying wind barriers and screening around remediation equipment and materials. (PW) g. A plan shall be prepared and submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval _ that details how all drainage associated with the remediation efforts shall be retained on site and no . - wastes or pollutants shall escape the site. (PW) h. An existing 18"diameter PVC public water main crosses the site between Huntington Street and First Street and appears to be located within areas shown for soil remediation. This water main shall be protected in place or relocated in accordance with the requirements of the Public Works • Department Water Division and Fire Department. (PW) i. Any existing mature trees that are to be removed shall be replaced at a 2 to 1 ratio with a 36-inch box tree or palm equivalent. As an alternative, trees may be moved to another location on-site and maintained for relocation compatible with the ultimate site development plan. (PW) 3. During grading and/ or remediation the following shall be adhered to: a. Stockpiling of dirt on-site shall not exceed eight (8) ft. in height. (PW) Coastal Development Permit No. 00-09/ , Conditional Use Permit No. 00-36 Page 5 b. Water trucks shall be utilized and shall be available to be used throughout,the day during remediation operations to keep the soils damp enough to prevent dust fronf'being raised by the activities. (PW) c. Wet down the remediation areas in the late morning and after work is completed for the day. (PW) d. Use low sulfur fuel (.05%) by weight for construction equipment. (PW) e. Attempt to phase and schedule•remediation activities to avoid high ozone days (first stage smog alerts), and discontinue operations during second stage smog alerts. (PW) f. All haul trucks shall arrive at the site no earlier than 8:00 a.m., or shall leave the site no later than 5:00 p.m., and shall be limited to Monday through Friday only. (PW) g. Hours of operation for all remediation activities associated with the proposed use shall be limited to Monday through Friday 7:00 a.m. - 6:00 p.m. only. h. The construction disturbance area shall be kept as small as possible. (PW) i. All haul trucks shall be covered or have water applied to the exposed surface prior to leaving the site to prevent dust from impacting the surrounding areas. (PW) j. Prior to leaving the site all haul trucks shall be washed off on-site on a gravel surface to prevent dirt from leaving the site and impacting public streets. (PW) 'k. Comply with appropriate sections of AQMD Rule No. 403, particularly to minimize the fugitive dust and noise to surrounding areas. (PW) 1. Wind barriers shall be installed along the perimeter of the site. (PW) m. The remediation operations shall be performed in stages concentrating in single areas at the time to minimize the impact of fugitive dust and nose to the surrounding areas. (PW) 4. Prior to•final inspection and approval all required clean up of off-site dirt, pavement damage and /or restriping of the streets shall be completed. (PW) 5. The applicant shall.obtain the necessary permits from the South Coast Air Quality Management District and submit a copy-.to Planning Department. 6. Compliance with all conditions of approval specified herein shall be accomplished and verified by the Planning Department. Coastal Development Permit No. 00-09/ Conditional Use Permit No. 00-36 Page 6 • 7. All buildingspoils,such as unusable lumber,wire, pipe, and other o r surplus or unusable material, shall be disposed of at an off-site facility equipped to handle them. 8. The use shall comply with the following: a. The applicant shall obtain a Fire Department approved remediation plan prior to commencing any site activity. (FD) b. Fire access roads shall be provided in compliance with City Specification No. 401. The circulation plan and dimensions of all access roads shall be subject to review and approval by the Fire Department. (FD) c. The project shall comply with the provisions of the Huntington Beach Fire Code and City Specification No. 422, Well Abandonment. (FD) d. The project shall comply with all provisions of the Huntington Beach Fire Code Section 17.04.085 and the City Specification 429, Methane District Building Permit Requirements. (FD) e. Installation and/or removal of underground flammable or combustible liquid storage tanks shall comply with Orange County Environmental Health and Huntington Beach Fire Department requirements. Treatment areas may require conformance to City Specification No. 431, Gas Fired Appliances. (FD) f. Site closure shall meet conditions specified in the City's soil cleanup standard, City Specification No. 431-92. (FD) g. Security gates shall be secured with KNOX hardware. (FD) • 9. The Planning Director ensures that all conditions of approval herein are complied with. The Planning Director shall be notified in writing if any changes to the site plan, elevations and floor plans are proposed as a result of the plan check process. Building permits shall not be issued until the Planning Director has reviewed and approved the proposed changes for conformance with the intent of the Zoning Administrator's action and the conditions herein. If the proposed changes are of a substantial nature, an amendment to the original entitlement reviewed by the Zoning Administrator may be required pursuant to the HBZSO. INFORMATION ON SPECIFIC CODE REQUIREMENTS: 1. Coastal Development Permit No. 00-09/ Conditional Use Permit No.00-36 shall not become- effective until the ten calendar day appeal period has elapsed for the Coastal Development Permit Coastal Development Permit No. 00-09/ Conditional Use Permit No. 00-36 Page 7 2. Coastal Development Permit No. 00-09/Conditional Use Permit No.00-36 shall become null and void unless exercised within one year of the date of final approval which is December 13, 2001 or such extension of time as may be granted by the Director pursuant to a writteriAgquest submitted to the Planning Department a minimum 30 days prior to the expiration date. 3. The Zoning Administrator reserves the right to revoke Coastal Development Permit No. 00- 09/Conditional Use Permit No.00-36, pursuant to a public hearing for revocation, if any violation of these conditions or the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance or Municipal Code occurs. 4. All applicable fees from the Building, Public Works, and Fire Departments shall be paid prior to the issuance of Building Permits. • 5. 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 -Noise Ordinance inclusive-,and standards, except as noted herein. 6. Construction shall be Iimited to Monday - Saturday 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM. Construction shall be prohibited Sundays and Federal holidays. 7. The applicant shall submit a check in the amount of$43.00 for the posting of the Notice of Exemption at the County of Orange Clerk's Office. The check shall be made out to the County of Orange and submitted to the Planning Department within two (2) days of the Zoning Administrator's action. The Planning Department will perform a comprehensive plan check relating to all Municipal Code requirements upon submittal of your completed structural drawings. Please be advised that the Zoning Administrator reviews the conceptual plan as a basic request for entitlement of the use applied for in relation to the vicinity in which it is proposed. The conceptual plan should not be construed as a precise plan reflecting conformance to all Code requirements. It is recommended that you immediately pursue completion of the Conditions of Approval and address all requirements of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code in order to expedite the processing of your total application.;, Coastal Development Permit No. 00-09/ Conditional Use Permit No. 00-36 Page 8 I hereby certify that Coastal Development Permit No. 00-09/Conditional Use Permit No.00-36 was Conditionally Approved by the Zoning Administrator of the City of Huntington B'eh,-California, on December 13,2000, upon the foregoing conditions and citations. Very truly yours, =_ • Mary Beth Broeren Zoning Administrator MBB:AW:rrnk xc: Property Owner APPENDIX B 30-DAY NOTIFICATION LETTER TO SURROUNDING NEIGHBORS Chevron Chevron Dear Huntington Beach Neighbor. Within the next two to four months,Chevron Land and Development Company will be cleaning up the 31-acre oilfield bounded by Pacific Coast Highway, Huntington Street,Atlanta Avenue, and First Street. The property is being cleaned up so that the landowner, Makar Properties, can develop the property in the near future. Work performed by Chevron's contractors will be conducted pursuant to Coastal Development Permit No.00-09/Conditional Use Permit 00-36, in conformance with the City of Huntington Beach Soil Clean- Up Standard(City Specification 431-92),and under the supervision of the Huntington Beach Fire and Public Works Departments. The work will include: • Minimal grading necessary to excavate and mechanically screen soils containing crude oil. • Soil sampling to ensure compliance with City of Huntington Beach oilfield cleanup standards. • Minimal grading to place and compact remediated soil as fill. As a result of work with construction equipment,dust may be unavoidably produced. A plan to control dust will be implemented to ensure that dust does not leave the property boundaries as required by the South Coast Air Quality Management District. For information or questions concerning the work, please contact any of the following: Harding ESE(Chevron's onsite environmental consultant)—(949)224-0050 ext. 246 Chevron Land and CompanyDevelo ment427-1215 P —(714) Makar Properties—(949)622-8400 City of Huntington Beach Department of Public Works—(714)536-5431 South Coast Air Quality Management District—(800)CUT-SMOG • IT I P 411-MCHEV-HEMOCIIMENINATLANTAtRantaiiation Plan&Othv Replanning ltamtDear Huntington Beach Neighbor.doe Smooth'Feed SheetsTM Use template for 5160e 024 16101 024 161 06 024 1'61 07 Alfred Palladino Gary Haas Marian Dart 106 Olive Ave 302 2Nd St 310 2Nd St Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 _ 1 • 024 161 11 024 161 12 024 161 14 Gerald Walsh Jr. John&Alice Parnakian Gina Palladino 78-7234 Puuloa Rd Parnakia 308 2Nd St Kailua Kona,HI 96740 205 1St St Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 024 161 15 024 161 16 024 162 01 Michael William&Roberta Diane Rusi Gina Palladino Cap Pac Llc 304 2Nd St 308 2Nd St 4100 Macarthur Blvd#200 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Newport Beach,CA 92660 024 162 02 024 162 03 024 162 04 Harold Tomkins Harold Tonkin Luba Galkin 76-580 California Dr 76-580 California Dr 101 Huntington St Palm Desert, CA 92211 Palm Desert,CA 92211 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 024 162 05 024 162 06 024 162 07 Velma Goebel Velma Goebel . Mary Donley 2017 W Martha Ln 2017 W Martha Ln PO Box 3234 Santa Ana,CA 92706 Santa Ana,CA 92706 Crestline,CA 92325 024 162 08 024 162 09 024 162 13 Charles Cather Charles Cather Emada&Viola Samuel 800 E Wardlow Rd#B 800 E Wardlow Rd#B 5732 Serene Dr Long Beach, CA 90807 Long Beach,CA 90807 Huntington Beach,CA 92649 024 162 16 024 162 17 024 162 19 Jovand Sunghera&Delhi Winn Carmel Ling Mitchell Alden Decatur&Parker Marti_ 217 Portland Ave 5401 Mesagrove Ave Heather La Mitchell Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Whither,CA 90601 Situs Na ,CA 024 162 20 024 162 21 024 162 22 Gloria Redman&REDMAN GLORIA Angelo Rinaldi&Dewey Davide Jovand Sunghera&Delhi Winn 43846 Cedar Ave PO Box 911 217 Portland Ave Lancaster,CA 93534 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 024 16 2 2 23 0 4 162 24 024 162 25 Alice Pamakian&Revoca Parnakian Genevieve Vanian Thomas&Diana Dallape 205 1St St :4" 2405 Kenilworth Ave Family Trust Dallape Huntington Beach,CA 92648 ''''`'.{ Los Angeles,CA 90039 PO Box 879 Corona,CA 92878 024 162 26 024 162 28 024 162 29 Leslie Alsenz L C Barot&Ingrid Barot Neil&Jennifer Edmonds 234 2Nd St 624 Goldenwest St 238 2Nd St Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Smooth Feed SheetsTM use template Tor 5161Y- )24 162 30 024 163 01 024 163 02 3arry Stewart City Of Huntington Beach Capital Pacific Holdings Llc 136 2Nd St PO Box 190 4100 Macarthur Blvd#200 -, 3untington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Newport Beach,CA 92660 _ 1 )24163 03 024 163 08 024 163 09 Ralph Peck T K Fastgrill Incorporated Ralph Peek L 3404 Lexington Rd 110 Coast Hwy 8404 Lexington Rd Downey,CA 90241 Huntington Beac, CA Downey,CA 90241 324 163 12 024 163 13 024 163 14 Allen Nelson Allen Nelson First National Bank 3404 Lexington Rd 8404 Lexington Rd 102 Ocean Ave Downey,CA 90241 Downey,CA 90241 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 324 163 15 024 204 01 024 204 03 Atlanta Huntington Llc Jaimes&Ismael Santos Patrick White 4100 Macarthur Blvd#200 119 Huntington St 105 Huntington Newport Beach,CA 92660 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Irvine,CA 92620 D24 204 04 024 204 08 024 204 12 Luba Galkin Jeffrey&Lori Fisser Janine Walkup 101 Huntington St 206 Baltimore Ave 209 Atlanta Ave Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 024 204 13 024 204 14 024 204 15 Kenneth Breeding Janice Nelson De Vane Craig 110 Alabama St 106 Alabama St 201 Atlanta Ave Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 ' 024 204 16 024 204 17 024 204 18 Mary Dolan E Conlon Julie Kerlin&Randall Alan Smith 112 Alabama St 500 Pacific Lumber Camp Rd 218 Baltimore Ave Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Eureka, CA 95503 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 024 204 19 024 204 21 024 204 23 George Lee&Roberta O'Connor Alonzo Dale Carter Haiasdan Terzian 220 Baltimore Ave 216 Baltimore Ave 2378 Catherine Rd Huntington Beach,CA. 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Altadena,CA 91001 024 204 24 -- 024 204 25 024 204 26 Ronald&Jennifer Brown - J&L Fisser Raymond Allan Butterfas - 710 12Th St 212 Baltimore Ave 111 Huntington St Huntington Beach,CA 92648 't Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 024 204 27 024 204 28 024 204 29 - John Sledge&Tracey Stiles Sledge Paul Konovalov Paul Cross&Carol Cross 115 Huntington St 113 Huntington St 8021 S 34Th P1 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Phoenix,AZ 85042 inTM A% IWIlb a ea*n ,e r+ee I ,itie 1 acr Com Smooth.Feed SheetsTM Use template for 5160® D24 206 13 024 206 17 024 206 20 City Of Huntington Beach Steve Emil Marion Peter Doyle&Janet Doyle -' PO Box 190 105 Alabama St 6941 Church Cir Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 - 1 024 206 21 024 206 22 024 206 23 Steven Borren Daniel Regan Peter Glamuzina 113 Alabama St 901 California St 109 Alabama St Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 024 206 26 024 206 42 024 206 43 Kenneth Skolyan&Mary Skolyan Ty Kern Loren Mcrae 121 Alabama St 119 Alabama St 117 Alabama St Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 D24 207 01 024 252 02 024 253 02 City Of Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency City Of Huntin Redevelopment Agency City Of Huntin PO Box 190 660 Newport Center Dr 200 Main St Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Newport Beach,CA 92660 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 024 261 11 024 261 12 024 261 13 Frankie Hankins Ruth Simon Forrest Lewis 120 Huntington St 331 N Colorado P1#1 112 Huntington St Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Long Beach,CA 90814 ' Huntington Beach,CA 92648 I 024 261 14 024 261 15 024 261 16 - Ronald Satterfield Matthew&Adele Lamb Wood 110 Huntington St 106 Huntington St 616 20Th St Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 , Huntington Beach,CA 92648 024 261 17 024 261 18 024 261 19 Steven Emil Marion James Brown&Nobuko Brown James Brown&Nobuko Brown 105 Alabama St 311 Atlanta Ave 311 Atlanta Ave Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 024 261 20 024 261 21 024 261 24 James Brown&Nobuko Brown Christopher Button Playa Casa 311 Atlanta Ave 9242 Christine Dr PO Box 19528 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Irvine,CA 92623 1 024 281 02 •-- 024 281 10 024 281 14 - City Of Huntington Beach - , City Of Huntington Beach City Of Huntington Beach PO Box 190 - . -e PO Box 190 PO Box 190 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 ``" Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 i 024 281 15 024 281 16 024 291 16 Huntington Beach Co Atlanta Huntington Beach Llc First America PO Box 285 4299 Macarthur Blvd#107 2161 San Joaquin Hills Rd Houston,TX 77001 Newport Beach,CA 92660 Newport Beach,CA 92660 Smooth Feed SheetsTM Use template for 5i6O'' )24 291 19 024 29120 939 502 36 :ay Of Huntington Beach City Of Huntington Beach Claujean Tan PO Box 190 PO Box 190 430 Lake St#101 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 - )39 502 37 939 502 38 939 502 39 Donald Mayer Robert&Leslie Sweeney William-Allen&Gloria Rankin 130 Lake St#102 362 Claremont Ave 430 Lake St#104 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Long Beach,CA 90803 Huntington Beach,CA.92648 -- )39 502 40 939 502 41 939 502 42 Fulieann Brogan Lisa Stitt Joseph Caughey ! E 130 Lake St#105 430 Lake St#106 430 Lake St#107 _' Huntington Beach.CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 • )39 502 43 939 502 44 939 502 45 .obert&Linda Slingsby James&Sherry Marlar John&Brenda Hopton Jr. __ 130 Lake St#108 430 Lake St#201 430 Lake St#202 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 )39 502 46 939 502 47 939 502 48 3regory Mccaughey Leopold&Catherine Ferrante Charles Cashmere $30 Lake St#203 1036 Fortune Way 430 Lake St#205 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Los Angeles,CA 90042 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 II )39 502 49 939 502 50 - 939 502 51 Viartin Boyd Gary&Susan Scapellati Jimmy Yanez 130 Lake St#206 430 Lake St#207 5438 E Suncrest Rd Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648, Anaheim,CA 92807 - )39 502 52 939 502 53 939 502 54 William Bonilla William Winter Brunelli 1994 Trust; 130 Lake St#301 18322 Edgewood Ave 5782 Shasta Cir 'Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Villa Park,CA 92861 La Palma,CA 90623 )39 502 55 939 502 56 939 502 57 - ..itteral 2001 Edward Eisman Peggy Smookler 130 Lake St#304 430 Lake St#305 PO Box 4943 , Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Scottsdale,AZ 85261 )39 502 58 50 9 6 939 2 59 39 502 0 :.:orby Michael Bacco Alan Emerson Shawn Rozdal t20 Lake St#102 420 Lake St#103 420 Lake St#104 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 )39 502 61 939 502 62 939 502 63 Ryan Hopkins Gerald&Joyce Bustrum Rosemary Bostaph 120 Lake St#105 1918 Pine St 420 Lake St#107 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 I n., �. a ■ ■ _L_ _ 1 rnL ATM Smooth:Feed SheetsTM Use template for 5160® 939 502 64 939 502 65 939 502 66 Jon&Deborah Dickinson Thomas&Joan Cash Carrie Williams 420 Lake St#201 420 Lake St 420 Lake St#203 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 - 939 502 67 939 502 68 939 502 69 Frank Dispalatro Kishore Karnik&Nilima Karnik Albert Gasparian 420 Lake St#204 420 Lake St#205 420 Lake St#206 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 r 939 502 70 939 502 71 939 502 72 Frank Lee Michael Corrao Laura Ecker 420 Lake St#207 420 Lake St#301 420 Lake St#302 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 939 502 73 939 502 74 939 502 75 Laurie Gaw Mark&Linda Webber James Paulus 420 Lake St#303 420 Lake St#304 420 Lake St#305 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 939 502 76 939 502 77 939 502 78 Scott&Colleen Kline Peggy&James Gallagher Harold Montoya 628 8Th St 410 Lake St#102 9702 Melinda Cir Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 939 502 79 939 502 80 939 502 81 Ray&Patricia Shackleford Jr. Glenn&Virginia Leveque Peter Kelley 410 Lake St#104 410 Lake St#105 410 Lake St#106 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 • 939 502 82 939 502 83 939 502 84 Donald Stonebraker Carlos Rios Terry Krukoff - 410 Lake St#107 • 410 Lake St#201 410 Lake St#202 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 ' 939 502 85 939 502 86 939 502 87 1 Thomas Kotiranta Michael Goldberg David&Diane Yrisarri 410 Lake St 410 Lake St#204 410 Lake St#205 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 t,, 939 502 88 939 502 89 939 502 90 Ernest&Chatherine Pepe , . Frederick Clark Jr. Gregory Stiff 410 Lake St#206 410 Lake St#207 410 Lake St#301 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 ''t Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 939 502 91 939 502 92 . 939 502 93 John Shanks John Mcmillan James Rice 1 410 Lake St#302 410 Lake St#303 410 Lake St#304 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 I -tea -.. Smooth feed SheetsTM Use template for 516O 939 502 94 939 502 95 939 502 96 David Bloom James Poer Wj &Loretta Vantilborg 19093 Beach Blvd 400 Lake St#101 400 Lake St#102 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 - 939 502 97 939 502 98 939 502 99 Lisa Kooyenga Nidal Ibrahim Samuel 4.phyllis Cooper 400 Lake St#103 400 Lake St#104 9842 Dragon Cit. Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA.92646 939 503 00 939 503 01 939 503 02 Neelima Kabre Kevin&Annette Costello Jon&Helen Bernadette Miller 9551 Castine Dr 416 Lake St#107 Kar Ahrens Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 400 Lake St#108 - Huntington Beach, CA 92648 ' 939 503 03 939 503 04 ,939 503 05 Bruce Albert Wareh Gene&Neta Ann Norvell Shanon&Joann Christiansen 400 Lake St#109 400 Lake St#110 400 Lake St#201 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 939 503 06 939 503 07 939 503 08 ' Carolyn&Eduardo Mariano Toshiya Katsuyama Roberta Royce Mc Gregor Thompson Berniece 400 Lake St#203 400 Lake St#204 400 Lake St#202 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 939 503 09 939 503 10 939 503 11 Barbara Mccall&Autumn McCall Phillip&Stacey Brown Gina Mago 1163 Aviemore Ter 17530 Page Ct 400 Lake St#207 Costa Mesa,CA 92627 Yorba Linda,CA'92886 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 939 503 12 939 503 13 939 503 14 Chris Abad Anthony Lanza Jo Christian 400 Lake St#208 400 Lake St#209 400 Lake St#210 _! Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 939 503 15 939 503 16 939 503 17 Joan Hill Raymond Ari Schmidler Ronald Irvin 16731 Oleander Cir 400 Lake St#302 400 Lake St#303 11 Fountain Valley,CA 92708 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 939 503 18 939 503 19 939 503 20 Gary&Rhonda Walker Richard Lisi Jr. Ruth Cheney&Ruth Cheney 400 Lake St#304 ,e 400 Lake St#305 400 Lake St#306 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 939 503 21 939 503 22 939 503 23 Maria Larrea Christopher&Kristen Garberg Thomas&Maureen Kelleher i ; 400 Lake St#307 320 Lake St#101 9923 Atlantic Ave Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 South Gate,CA 90280 I . eM ZAGATM Smooth feed SheetsTM Use template for 5160® 939 503 24 939 503 25 939 503 26 Dustin Kuhn George Schwartz John&Sandra Hayes 320 Lake St#103 320 Lake St#104 Maria Ter Dispalatro Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 320 Lake St#105 - ' Huntington Beach, CA 92648 939 503 27 939 503 28 939 503 29 ' Kevin Smith Robert Nulton&Dolores Nulton Arlen Pantel 320 Lake St#106 -320 Lake St#107 320 Lake St#108 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 939 503 30 939 503 31 939 503 32 Bill&Joy Ann Martineau Ross Reyes Donn&Bonnie Brooks , ' 320 Lake St#109 320 Lake St#110 Donn&Bonnie Brooks Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 320 Lake St#201 ' Huntington Beach,CA 92648 939 503 33 939 503 34 939 503 35 James Smith&Thomas Walsh Williamj &Linda Engstrom Beverly Loob 1194 N Ridgeline Rd 20841 Shell Harbor Cir 320 Lake St#204 Orange,CA 92869 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 939 503 36 939 503 37 939 503 38 Gary&Linda Peterson Mary Cruise David Crockett L Rick 320 Lake St#206 320 Lake St#207 320 Lake St#205 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 - - 939 503 39 939 503 40 939 503 41 Eugene Lim Jr. Philip Barth George Stooke&Pamela Rodriguez 320 Lake St#208 320 Lake St#209 320 Lake St#210 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 939 503 42 939 503 43 939 503 44 Leonid&Basya Kogan Todd Stitt Wesley Sasano&Family Trust Sasano 320 Lake St#301 320 Lake St#302 320 Lake St#303 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 , 939 503 45 939 503 46 939 503 47 John Douglas Steinberg Allen&Diane Craig Jason Macdonald 320 Lake St#304 Scott Craig 320 Lake St#306 '` Huntington Beach,CA 92648 320 Lake St#305 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 939 503 48 .. 939 503 49 939 503 50 , ' Irene Sjo -- • .ce Daniel Edward Michael Pontrelli 320 Lake St#307 . ' '' 320 Lake St#308 242 Colton St _ Huntington Beach,CA 92648 `'' Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Newport Beach,CA 92663 939 503 51 939 503 52 939 503 53 Joseph Rice&Linda Kay Rice Ron Sarabi G Richard Gilliam 310 Lake St#102 16532 Grimaud Ln#103 310 Lake St#104 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92649 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Smooth Feed SheetsTM Use template for 5160e 1 )39 503 54 939 503 55 939.503 56 klan&Lenda Davis Radrnacher John Cunningham 110 Lake St#105 9542 Featherhill Dr 310 Lake St#107 iuntington Beach,CA 92648 Villa Park, CA 92861 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 _ )39 503 57 939 503 58 939 503 59 'essica Pizano-Cruz Ernest Mayer Max Wood 310 Grant St 13970 Morrison St 310 Lake St#202 3ettendorf,IA 52722 Sherman Oaks,CA 91423 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 )39 503 60 939 503 61 939 503 62 foseph&Eileen Shults Marie Quinn Mindi Berke 110 Lake St#203 310 Lake St#204 310 Lake St#205 -- Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 , )39 503 63 939 503 64 939 503 65 lean Perrin Evelyn Romualdo Robert Hoida • - 110 Lake St#206 310 Lake St#207 310 Lake St#208 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 ' )39 503 66 939 503 67 939 503 68 fohn&Sandra Peterson Ellen Kruger Weston Chandler Larry&Jo Taylor 310 Lake St#302 310 Lake St#303 ,--i 1846 Main St Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 )39 503 69 939 503 70 939 503 71 1 , Herbert Lee Filkoff Daniel Hsu Raquel Strange 310 Lake St#304 310 Lake St#305 310 Lake St#306 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 - )39 503 72 939 503 73 939 503 74 David Perry Howard Gollay&Anne Gollay Brian Letoumeau&Sherry Edwards 310 Lake St#109 6372 Royal Grove Dr 310 Lake St#111 Eiuntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 )39 503 75 939 503 76 939 503 77 3abriel&Claudia G N White Mark Cunningham Tetsuya Fukami 310 Lake St#112 310 Lake St#113 2045 Phalarope Ct Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Costa Mesa,CA 92626 - )39 503 78 939 503 79 939 503 80 Jacob&Angela Kringen Michael Mutrie Kevin&Amy Tollefson 310 Lake St#115 - ` 310 Lake St#116 9775 Mesa Springs Way Eluntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 San Diego,CA 92126 )39 503 81 939 503 82 939 503 83 William Mcclain Mark Rosen Conrad&Tia Gilbert 4008 Callelouisa 310 Lake St#211 310 Lake St San Clemente,CA 92672 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 WS _________ -JJ____ ■ _L-a_ I ftieer ca4nT"I Smooth•Feed SheetsTM Use template for 5160® ', )39 503 84 939 503 85 939 503 86 Prakash Kabre Tom Williams&Yvette Hampton Rustin Guild )551 Castine Dr 310 Lake St#214 310 Lake St#215 Euntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 _ , )39 503 87 939 503 88 939 503 89 Vick Jay Bogroff Douglas Burnett Mary Kay Shanahan 310 Lake St#216 310 Lake St#307 310 Lake St#308 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 )39 503 90 939 503 91 939 503 92 Larry Johnson Michael Huh Marvin&Karen Martin 310 Lake St#309 310 Lake St#310 310 Lake St#311 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 )39 503 93 939 503 94 3andi Martin Bryan Hopkins&Danielle Christian 310 Lake St#312 310 Lake St#313 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 • I ` DISTRIBUTION ' Remediation Plan,Rev. 3 Atlanta Site Property Bounded by PCH,Huntington Street,Atlanta Avenue, and First Street Huntington Beach,California May 22,2002 Copies 1-3: City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach,California 92648 Copies 4-6: Mr.Michael Stafford Chevron Land&Development Company 3100 S.Harbor Boulevard, Suite 340 Santa Ana,California 92704 Copy 7: Mr.Ethen Thacher Makar Properties 4100 MacArthur Blvd., Suite 200 Newport Beach, California 92658-7150 Copies 8-9: Harding ESE Project File SC/RWB/hk P'\HLAICHEV-HB DOCUMENT\A1LAMA\adaon-rap3.dee Ely®; Environmental . : Data Resources, Inc. The EDR Radius Map with GeoCheck® Huntington Beach-Pacific City 21002 Pacific Coast Hwy Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Inquiry Number: 930624.1s The Source For Environmental Risk Management Data February 21, 2003 3530 Post Road Southport, Connecticut 06890 Nationwide Customer Service Telephone: 1-800-352-0050 Fax: 1-800-231-6802 Internet: www.edrnet.com FORMJIM TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE Executive Summary_ _ ES1 Overview Map_ 2 Detail Map 3 Map Findings Summary 4 Map Findings_ 6 Orphan Summary 43 Government Records Searched/Data Currency Tracking GR-1 GEOCHECK ADDENDUM Physical Setting Source Addendum_ A-1 Physical Setting Source Summary_ A-2 Physical Setting Source Map_ . A-7 MapFindings_Physical Setting Source g _ A-8 Physical Setting Source Records Searched_ A-22 Thank you for your business. Please contact EDR at 1-800-352-0050 with any questions or comments. Disclaimer Copyright and Trademark Notice This report contains information obtained from a variety of public and other sources. NO WARRANTY EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, ' IS MADE WHATSOEVER IN CONNECTION WITH THIS REPORT. ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES INC.SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIMS THE MAKING OF ANY SUCH WARRANTIES,INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION,MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR USE OR PURPOSE ALL RISK IS ASSUMED BY THE USER. IN NO EVENT SHALL EDR BE LIABLE TO ANYONE, WHETHER ARISING OUT OF ERRORS OR OMISSIONS,NEGLIGENCE,ACCIDENT OR ANY OTHER CAUSE,FOR ANY LOSS OR DAMAGE,INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION,SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL,CONSEQUENTIAL,OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES. Entire contents copyright 2003 by Environmental Data Resources,Inc. All rights reserved. Reproduction in any media or format,in whole or in part,of any report or map of Environmental Data Resources,Inc.,or its affiliates,is prohibited without prior written permission. EDR and the edr logos are trademarks of Environmental Data Resources,Inc.or its affiliates. All other trademarks used herein are the property of their respective owners. TC930624.1 s Page 1 i I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A search of available environmental records was conducted by Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR). The report meets the government records search requirements of ASTM Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments, E 1527-00. Search distances are per ASTM standard or custom distances requested by the user. TARGET PROPERTY INFORMATION ADDRESS 21002 PACIFIC COAST HWY HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA 92648 COORDINATES Latitude(North): 33.655503-33°39'19.8" Longitude(West): 117.996776-117°59'48.4" Universal Tranverse Mercator: Zone 11 UTM X(Meters): 407576.1 UTM Y(Meters): 3724212.2 USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP ASSOCIATED WITH TARGET PROPERTY Target Property: 2433117-F8 NEWPORT BEACH(DIGITAL),CA Source: USGS 7.5 min quad index TARGET PROPERTY SEARCH RESULTS The target property was identified in the following government records. For more information on this property see page 6 of the attached EDR Radius Map report: Site Database(s) EPA ID CAPITOL PACIFIC HOLDINGS HAZNET N/A 21002 PACIFIC COAST HWY HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA 92648 DATABASES WITH NO MAPPED SITES • • No mapped sites were found in EDR's search of available ( "reasonably ascertainable ") government records either on the target property or within the ASTM E 1527-00 search radius around the target property for the following databases: FEDERAL ASTM STANDARD NPL National Priority List Proposed NPL Proposed National Priority List Sites CERCLIS Comprehensive Environmental Response,Compensation,and Liability Information System CERC-NFRAP CERCLIS No Further Remedial Action Planned CORRACTS Corrective Action Report _ RCRIS-TSD Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System RCRIS-LOCH Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System ERNS Emergency Response Notification System STATE ASTM STANDARD AWP Annual Workplan Sites TC930624.1s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Cal-Sites Calsites Database Notify 65 Proposition 65 Records Toxic Pits Toxic Pits Cleanup Act Sites SWF/LF Solid Waste Information System WMUDS/SWAT Waste Management Unit Database CA BOND EXP.PLAN_ Bond Expenditure Plan VCP Voluntary Cleanup Program Properties INDIAN UST Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land __ FEDERAL ASTM SUPPLEMENTAL CONSENT Superfund(CERCLA)Consent Decrees ROD Records Of Decision Delisted NPL National Priority List Deletions FINDS _Facility Index System/Facility Identification Initiative Program Summary Report HMIRS " Hazardous Materials Information Reporting System MLTS Material Licensing Tracking System MINES Mines Master Index File NPL Liens Federal Superfund Liens PADS PCB Activity Database System RAATS _RCRA Administrative Action Tracking System IRIS Toxic Chemical Release Inventory System TSCA_ Toxic Substances Control Act SSTS Section 7 Tracking Systems FITS FIFRA/TSCA Tracking System-FIFRA(Federal Insecticide, Fungicide,& Rodenticide Act)/TSCA(Toxic Substances Control Act) STATE OR LOCAL ASTM SUPPLEMENTAL -- AST Aboveground Petroleum Storage Tank Facilities CLEANERS Cleaner Facilities CA WDS Waste Discharge System DEED List of Deed Restrictions CA SLIC Spills, Leaks, Investigation&Cleanup Cost Recovery Listing Orange Co.Industrial Site List of Industrial Site Cleanups EDR PROPRIETARY HISTORICAL DATABASES Coal Gas _Former Manufactured Gas(Coal Gas)Sites BROWNFIELDS DATABASES VCP Voluntary Cleanup Program Properties SURROUNDING SITES:SEARCH RESULTS Surrounding sites were identified. Elevations have been determined from the USGS 1 degree Digital Elevation Model and should be evaluated on a relative (not an absolute) basis. Relative elevation information between sites of close proximity should be field verified. definition of a site with an elevation equal to the target property includes a tolerance of +/- 10 feet. Sites with an elevation equal to or higher than the target property have been differentiated below from sites with an elevation lower than the target property(by more than 10 feet).Page numbers and map identification numbers refer to the EDR Radius Map report where detailed data on individual sites can be reviewed. Sites listed in bold italics are in multiple databases. Unmappable(orphan)sites are not considered in the foregoing analysis. TC930624.1s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FEDERAL ASTM STANDARD 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. A review of the RCRIS-SQG list,as provided by EDR,and dated 09/09/2002 has revealed that there is 1 RCRIS-SQG site within approximately 0.25 miles of the target property. Equa/Higher Elevation Address Dist/Dir _ Map ID Page WEST COAST AUTO PAINT SHOP 303 3RD ST 1/8-1/4NW D17 15 STATE ASTM STANDARD 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. A review of the CHMIRS list,as provided by EDR,and dated 12/31/2001 has revealed that there are 2 CHMIRS sites within approximately 1 mile of the target property. Equal/Higher Elevation Address Dist/Dir Map ID Page Not reported 204 5TH ST 1/4-1/2 NW 23 24 Not reported 414 11TH ST. 1/2-1 NW 31 38 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. A review of the Cortese list,as provided by EDR, has revealed that there are 6 Cortese sites within approximately 1 mile of the target property. Equal/Higher Elevation Address Dist/Dir Map ID Page HUNTINGTON BCH MAINTENANC 44 HUNTINGTON 1/8-1/4SE A3 6 UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE 316 OLIVE AVE 1/4-1/2NW D20 21 HUNTINGTON BEACH,CITY OF 122 5TH ST 1/4-1/2WNW E24 25 OLD LAKE FIRE STATION 704 LAKE ST 1/2-1 N 29 33 ARCO(ABANDON) 21302 PACIFIC COAST HWY 1/2-1 SE 30 36 ACTION BOATS 21622 COAST HWY 1/2-1 SE 32 40 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. A review of the LUST list,as provided by EDR,and dated 01/06/2003 has revealed that there are 10 LUST sites within approximately 0.5 miles of the target property. Equal/Higher Elevation Address Dist/Dir Map ID Page j } HUNTINGTON BCH MAINTENANC 44 HUNTINGTON 1/8-1/4SE A3 6 TC930624.1s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Equal/Higher Elevation Address Dist/Dir Map ID Page CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 44 HUNTINGTON 1/8-1/4SE A5 9 HUNTINTON BEACH POST OFFICE 316 OLIVE ST 1/4-1/2NW D19 19 HUNTINGTON BEACH POST OFFICE 316 OLIVE 1/4-1/2 NW D21 22 HUNTINGTON BEACH,CITY OF 301 MAIN ST 1/4-1/2 NW 22 22 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CITY OF 122 5TH ST 1/4-1/2WNW E24 25 TERRY BUICK INC 122 5TH ST 1/4-1/2 WNW E25 28 WIND&SEA SURFBORADS, 520 PACIFIC COAST HWY 1/4-1/2WNW E26 28 WIND AND SEA SURFBOARD SHOP 520 PACIFIC COAST HWY 1/4-1/2WNW E27 29 JAVA JUNGLE 602 PACIFIC COAST HIGHW 1/4-1/2WNW 28 31 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. A review of the UST list,as provided by EDR,and dated 01/06/2003 has revealed that there are 2 UST sites within approximately 0.25 miles of the target property. Equal/Higher Elevation Address Dist/Dir Map ID Page HUNTINGTON BEACH MNTNCE YARD 44 HUNTINGTON ST 1/8-1/4SE A6 10 RESIDENCE 1301 MONTEREY BLVD 1/8-1/4NW D18 16 CA FID: The Facility Inventory Database contains active and inactive underground storage tank locations.The source is the State Water Resource Control Board. A review of the CA FID UST list,as provided by EDR, has revealed that there are 2 CA FID UST sites within approximately 0.25 miles of the target property. Equal/Higher Elevation Address Dist/Dir Map ID Page HUNTINGTON BEACH MNTNCE YARD 44 HUNTINGTON AVE 1/8-1/4SE A2 \ 6 PELICAN HILL GOLF CLUB 6195 PACIFIC COAST HWY 1/8-1/4W C13 14 HIST UST: Historical UST Registered Database. A review of the HIST UST list,as provided by EDR,and dated 10/15/1990 has revealed that there is 1 HIST UST site within approximately 0.25 miles of the target property. Equal/Higher Elevation Address Dist/Dir Map ID Page BEACH MAINT.YARD 44 HUNTINGTON ST 1/8-1/4SE A4 9 STATE OR LOCAL ASTM SUPPLEMENTAL HAZNET: The data is extracted from the copies of hazardous waste manifests received each year by the DISC. The annual volume of manifests is typically 700,000-1,000,000 annually, representing approximately 350,000-500,000 shipments. Data from non-California manifests & continuation sheets are not included at the present time. 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,&disposal method.The source is the Department of Toxic Substance Control is the agency A review of the HAZNET list,as provided by EDR,has revealed that there are 9 HAZNET sites within approximately 0.25 miles of the target property. TC930624.1s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4 S _ EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Equal/Higher Elevation Address Dist/Dir Map ID Page LEADING EDGE YACHT SERVICES 2439 PACIFIC COAST HWY 1/8-1/4W B7 10 BLACK DIAMOND MARINE 2439 PACIFIC COAST HWY 1/8-1/4W B8 11 LEADING EDGE YACHT SERVICES 2439 PACIFIC COAST HWY 1/8-1/4W B9 12 GRAY TRUST/VVELLS FARGO BANK 2633 PACIFIC COAST HIGH 1/8-1/4W B10 13 DOMINO REALTY 3333 PACIFIC COAST HWY 1/8-1/4W B11 13 NEWPORT IMPORTS, INC 3100 PACIFIC COAST HWY 1/8-1/4W B12 13 HUNTINGTON PIER COLONY HOMEOWN 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY 1/8-1/4W C14 14 PLAYA APTS 401 ATLANTIC AVE NO 12 1/8-1/4NE 15 14 HB GERMAN CAR IMPORT 303 THIRD STREET 1/8-1/4 NW D16 15 • TC930624.1s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 5 � 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Due to poor or inadequate address information,the following sites were not mapped: Site Name Database(s) LEWIS CLEANERS • CLEANERS SEACLIFF VILLAZE CLEANERS CLEANERS SANDBLAST&METALLIZING CERC-NFRAP BOLJA CHICA SITES 1 AND 2 IDS(213 SWF/LF CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH LANDFILL SWF/LF WINALL STATION#19(SHELL) LUST, UST ARCO LUST TEXACO SERVICE STATION LUST VACANT AREA LUST ABC PROPERTIES LUST ROGER'S CABLE COMPANY(FORMER) LUST THE PLAZA-HUNTINGTON BEACH UST BEACH MAINTENANCE FACILITY UST OCEAN VIEW MUSHROOM GROWERS UST CHEVRON U S A INC UST RELIABLE WHOLESALE LUMBER INC UST WARNER FIRE STATION HIST UST CANNERY STREET D WMUDS/SWAT SULLY-MILLER CONSTRUCTION COMP WMUDS/SWAT HANUS AUTO BODY HAZNET CHEVRON LAND&DEVELOPMENT HAZNET BROWNS AUTOMOTIVE HAZNET O S 1HR PHOTO HAZNET TEXACO REFINING AND MARKETING INC HAZNET CHEVRON LAND DEVELOPMENT COMPANY HAZNET SHELL HAZNET HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY SCHOOL DISTR HAZNET HERITAGE COMMUNITIES HAZNET THE ELLIS APARTMENTS HAZNET DIVERSIFIED MOLDS&MOLDING HAZNET CUSTOM MERCHANDISING DISPLAYS HAZNET FLORIDA GARDENS APTS HAZNET 1X BUSINESS PROPERTIES HAZNET THE PAINT SHOP HAZNET HYPER-THERM INC HAZNET J K ENGINEERING CO HAZNET HYPER-THERM INC HAZNET ELDERDING FAMILY TRUST HAZNET COLICH&SONS HAZNET PIERSIDE DENTISTRY HAZNET HALL PHOTOGRAPHY HAZNET HOME SAVINGS OF AMERICA HAZNET DANIEL JAFFE DDS HAZNET CHEVRON LAND&DEVELOPMENT CO HAZNET CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH HAZNET SPECIALIZED AUTO HAZNET CUSTOM PAINTING&RESTOR BY GO HAZNET SPEED GARAGE HAZNET ZINK ENGINEERING INC HAZNET TORACK INC RESTORATION AND COLLISI HAZNET CHERVRON LAND DEVELOPMENT COMPANY HAZNET HOME SAVINGS OF AMERICA HAZNET ORCHARD HARDWARE SUPPLY NO 0051 RCRIS-SQG, FINDS CHEVRON CHEM CO RCRIS-SQG, FINDS AERA PLATFORM ELLY ELLEN COMPLEX RCRIS-LQG AERA PLATFORM EMMY FINDS, RCRIS-LQG AERA PLATFORM EUREKA FINDS, RCRIS-LQG CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Orange Co. Industrial Site SEABRIDGE VILLAS CA SLIC TC930624.1s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 6 • EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CAL RESOURCES LLC( FORMER SHELL W CA SLIC • TC930624.1s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 7 OVERVIEW MAP - 930624.1s- EIP Associaow -I. AlOvirlifilillrmi moltes ,l , „iiii, lig. ',. 11 .0. _ voz-1-•---r-,...iiiimms_. 4 e 6'4tts,. -4,6 .1•_,Itrd-0•1•!ffErImp-an.__ _* ilit, ./:,/,: / ,,,,iii -44. Opipii 1� ♦ '�111111 ;4 I �I � ICI �i11111i111i1 �® 2. , — ► ' ir I�O1PalialillillIp?.if n — :•411j � li k 111 lifirmitm. I hajil 11' • //'/,' • • . i--R,c,, 99 4eS401111111110 11111115.91 1 PIA e, (1 % • '•:.•i• 4, 4 *fr ;LIN ' .....:, , ..- 61111K-Atimasmiii RAI ; : ;.— f ' '' - .'' .: . . : : s4:: . \I , ffillig„,„, ' . 1 Elk. - ..... small: ' , , i 1 ' . • !: ::4,''.*• :,,,, ' 'A'i //' It/ ' j go f • • #j �� ,rr,�a- P9'f/ 'N. •/, l/,, . ilik - I J'l 111 WI `016.11, EMU oy, j i � • . :.. l • ,/ N47.-.4. 44 • • Target Property 0 1/4 in i Muss A Sites at elevations higher than or equal to the target property Al Power transmission lines a Areas of Concern • Sites at elevations lower than /tj Oil&Gas pipelines the target property ,•, 100-year flood zone A Coal Gasification Sites National Priority List Sites 500-year flood zone Landfill Sites ra Wetlands TARGET PROPERTY: Huntington Beach-Pacific City CUSTOMER: EIP Associates ADDRESS: 21002 Pacific Coast Hwy CONTACT: Kelsey Bennett CITY/STATE/ZIP: Huntington Beach CA 92648 INQUIRY#: 930624.1s LAT/LONG: 33.6555/117.9968 DATE: February 21,2003 5:25 pm Capyrlght0 2003 EDR,Inc.0 2003 GOT,Inc.ReL 07/2002.NI Rights Reserved. DETAIL MAP-930624.1 s- EIP Associates �G� . 14444 g� EANRSFOI$E GA,/ ,''�/ `// .4/ e• 09 , O �y1 o 4. K /' / y y) flALTIMOREIWE',_ / / Z% / r D ; /. . // /' 5 /j// . %.kt. `0.' ;9 itiCiA11ED STREET %',/' /;: /; y~ 4C 15 / •/ '; '/ / j :A11ANTAAVEi /, ,/. , • : oli: , 7 „ / C . z ' / //i •/ / /' / // Sc ? AST/ UT'., {AS /"r / - - , / •.., ,/,'-/ /,./ / :.- , ,4„,/,:,,,,, :p,.. ,;/„.,'„V,,,,,,s,-,/y,,//////'- ,/, // e,/ rw.f -, /,,�,/-,/ ,,., //%,'"//.,ram/;/, ,•/ ',;/..,' ^,r`f�//,j//,r''„ :,/�';,/!/� '',"/ ! , f ,•/,/,, �/`, /r'" x,r,//'`, y/F 551 E /, ,, EI / / � 1 _* / . ,�• /lfi,/,„/ , fy , ," / /' �� 'ir, Far ,sTj �' •. //' /./„',/ /',(`r/"`,5!y`'< `,° '/', !r/`".�',,F` ram°° s� `�/f;PEST! / '% /' �/ / f /! //�n , /�/gyp,:;'nl -F 4%',r /.f /,..f/ Y' /, '' /,,,('' �/ `/` , • r / ..e !////// ' ' , 'i"/,/n '%' ,/// `f,,�1? y , f//l g ' ` a�,�`/ /,' //ri/ ,//r ' ''''I7r;/1.?7, Z" /./;:', ." ///:( • ' " ./7,',/20'.././.,2,/, ,/,'/ l'7" ,"? .7,.,.. ti;////2/ ,,'''''/,';(1/.9,,e,(////1 /'/ /,' i'/ ' . • . :,S " /14//:',- / ;"/'',/ /:; ''/ /o' ,S011:7 , //// 2 ,//„, / '., ,, / , / .. '''' ' ';'/<' /'./ '7, '/// 7/77 / ,, /.. „ , / , - _.. ///''/, / /`/ / j % / / 0 1/16 1A1 1/4 Mks Target Property i Sites at elevations higher than or equal to the target property N Power transmission lines ® Areas of Concern • Sites at elevations lower than Af Oil&Gas pipelines the target property ,i; 100-year flood zone A Coal Gasification Sites it Receptors 500-year flood zone National Priority list Sites iiiVA Wetlands i (] Landfill Sites TARGET PROPERTY: Huntington Beach-Pacific City CUSTOMER: EIP Associates ADDRESS: 21002 Pacific Coast Hwy CONTACT: Kelsey Bennett CITY/STATE/ZIP: Huntington Beach CA 92648 INQUIRY#: 930624.1s LAT/LONG: 33.6555/117.9968 DATE: February 21,2003 5:26 pm Copyright 0 2003 EDR,Ine.0 2003 013T,Inc ReL 07/2002.All Rights Reserved. . - MAP FINDINGS SUMMARY:.'-',' r ;b. f Search Target Distance Total Database Property (Miles) <1/8 1/8-1/4 1/4-1/2 1/2-1 >1 Plotted FEDERAL ASTM STANDARD NPL 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0 Proposed NPL 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0 CERCLIS 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0 CERC-NFRAP 0.250 0 0 NR NR NR 0 CORRACTS 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0 RCRIS-TSD 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0 RCRIS Lg.Quan.Gen. 0.250 0 0 NR NR NR 0 - RCRIS Sm.Quan.Gen. 0.250 0 1 NR NR NR 1 ERNS TP NR NR NR NR NR 0 STATE ASTM STANDARD AWP 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0 Cal-Sites 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0 j CHMIRS 1.000 0 0 1 1 NR 2 Cortese 1.000 0 1 2 3 NR 6 Notify 65 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0 Toxic Pits 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0 State Landfill 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0 WMUDS/SWAT 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0 LUST 0.500 0 2 8 NR NR 10 I- CA Bond Exp.Plan 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0 UST 0.250 0 2 NR NR NR 2 VCP 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0 INDIAN UST 0.250 0 0 NR NR NR 0 CA FID UST 0.250 0 2 NR NR NR 2 HIST UST 0.250 0 1 NR NR NR 1 FEDERAL ASTM SUPPLEMENTAL CONSENT 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0 ROD 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0 Delisted NPL 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0 FINDS TP NR NR NR NR NR 0 HMIRS TP NR NR NR NR NR 0 MLTS TP NR NR NR NR NR 0 MINES 0.250 0 0 NR NR NR 0 NPL Liens TP NR NR NR NR NR 0 PADS TP NR NR NR NR NR 0 RAATS TP NR NR NR NR NR 0 TRIS TP NR NR NR NR NR 0 TSCA TP NR NR NR NR NR 0 SSTS TP NR NR NR NR NR 0 FITS TP NR NR NR NR NR 0 STATE OR LOCAL ASTM SUPPLEMENTAL AST TP NR NR NR NR NR 0 TC930624.1s Page 4 MAP FINDINGS.::SUMMARY -, . ,,..;m Search Target Distance Total Database Property (Miles) <1/8 1/8-1/4 1/4-1/2 1/2-1 >1 Plotted CLEANERS 0.250 0 0 NR NR NR 0 CA WDS TP NR NR NR NR NR 0 DEED TP NR NR NR NR NR 0 CA SLIC 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0 HAZNET X 0.250 0 9 NR NR NR 9 Orange Co. Industrial Site TP NR NR NR NR NR 0 EDR PROPRIETARY HISTORICAL DATABASES Coal Gas 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0 BROWNFIELDS DATABASES VCP • 0.500 ' 0 0 0 NR NR 0 NOTES: AQUIFLOW-see EDR Physical Setting Source Addendum TP=Target Property NR=Not Requested at this Search Distance Sites may be listed in more than one database r__ TC930624.1 s Page 5 Map ID MAP;FINDINGS- Direction ;<r. .. . .c... :; . Distance Distance(ft.) EDR ID Number Elevation Site Database(s) EPA ID Number Coal Gas Site Search:No site was found in a search of Real Property Scan's ENVIROHAZ database. 1 CAPITOL PACIFIC HOLDINGS HAZNET S105087132 Target 21002 PACIFIC COAST HWY N/A Property HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA 92648 HAZNET: Gepaid: CAC002291329 Tepaid: CAD009007626 Gen County: Orange Tsd County: Los Angeles Tons: 29.4980 Category: Asbestos-containing waste Disposal Method: Disposal,Land Fill Contact: CAPITOL PACIFIC HOLDINGS Telephone: (949)622-8400 Mailing Address: 4100 MCARTHUR BLVD SUITE 200 NEWPORT BEACH,CA 92658 County Orange Gepaid: CAC002291329 Tepaid: CAD009007626 Gen County: Orange Tsd County: Los Angeles • Tons: 29.4980 Category: Asbestos-containing waste Disposal Method: Not reported Contact: CAPITOL PACIFIC HOLDINGS • Telephone: (949)622-8400 Mailing Address: 4100 MCARTHUR BLVD SUITE 200 NEWPORT BEACH,CA 92658 County Orange A2 HUNTINGTON BEACH MNTNCE YARD CA FID UST 1000413396 SE 44 HUNTINGTON AVE N/A 1/8-1/4 HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA 92648 731 ft. Higher Site 1 of 5 in cluster A FID: Facility ID: 30005943 Regulate ID: Not reported Reg By: Active Underground Storage Tank Location Cortese Code: Not reported SIC Code: Not reported Status: Active Facility Tel: (714)536-5287 Mail To: Not reported 2000 MAIN ST ATTN:DON KI HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA 92648 Contact: Not reported Contact Tel: Not reported DUNs No: Not reported NPDES No: Not reported Creation: 10/22/93 Modified: 00/00/00 EPA ID: Not reported Comments: Not reported A3 HUNTINGTON BCH MAINTENANC LUST S102431569 SE 44 HUNTINGTON Cortese N/A 1/8-1/4 HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA 92648 731 ft. Higher Site 2 of 5 in cluster A TC930624.1 s Page 6 Map ID - MAP FINDINGS Direction Distance Distance(ft.) EDR ID Number Elevation Site Database(s) EPA ID Number HUNTINGTON BCH MAINTENANC (Continued) S102431569 State LUST: Cross Street: PACIFIC COAST HWY Qty Leaked: Not reported Case Number 083000062T Reg Board: Santa Ana Region Chemical: Waste Oil Lead Agency: Local Agency Local Agency: 30000L Case Type: Other ground water affected Status: Case Closed County: Orange Abate Method: Excavate and Dispose-remove contaminated soil and dispose in approved site Review Date: Not reported Confirm Leak: Not reported Workplan: Not reported Prelim Assess: Not reported Pollution Char. Not reported Remed Plan: Not reported Remed Action: Not reported Monitoring: Not reported Close Date: 2/25/1987 Release Date: 9/22/1986 Cleanup Fund Id:Not reported Discover Date: 1/1/1965 Enforcement Dt: Not reported Enf Type: Not reported Enter Date: 12/31/1986 Funding: Not reported Staff Initials: LL How Discovered: Tank Test How Stopped: Not reported Interim: Not reported • Leak Cause: Structure Failure Leak Source: Tank MTBE Date: Not reported Max MTBE GW: Not reported MTBE Tested: Not Required to be Tested. Priority: Not reported Local Case#: 86UT140 Beneficial: Not reported Staff: PAH GW Qualifier: Not reported Max MTBE Soil: Not reported Soil Qualifier: Not reported Hydr Basin#: Not reported Operator: KIDD,ERNEST Oversight Prgm: Local Oversight Program UST Oversight Prgm: LOP • Review Date: 2/9/1987 Stop Date: 8/25/1986 Work Suspended Not reported Responsible PartyCITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH RP Address: 17371 GOTHARD STREET,HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA 92647 Global Id: T0605900049 Org Name: Not reported Contact Person: Not reported MTBE Conc: 0 Mtbe Fuel: 0 Water System Name: Not reported Well Name: Not reported TC930624.1 s Page 7 Map ID MAP FINDINGS, ' Direction Distance Distance(ft.) EDR ID Number Elevation Site Database(s) EPA ID Number HUNTINGTON BCH MAINTENANC (Continued) S102431569 Distance To Lust: 0 Waste Discharge Global ID: Not reported Waste Disch Assigned Name:Not reported LUST Region 8: Region: 8 Substance: 12035 Cross Street: PACIFIC COAST HWY Regional Board: 08 Local Case Num: 86UT140 Facility Status: Case Closed Staff: PAH Lead Agency: Local Agency -- Local Agency: Orange County Health Care Agency Abate Method: Excavate and Dispose-remove contaminated soil and dispose in approved site Qty Leaked: Not reported County: Orange Review Date: Not reported Confirm Leak: Not reported Workplan: Not reported Prelim Assess: Not reported Pollution Char. Not reported Remed Plan: Not reported Remed Action: Not reported Monitoring: Not reported Close Date: 2/25/87 Cleanup Fund Id:Not reported Discover Date: 01/01/1965 Enforcement Dt: Not reported Enf Type: Not reported Enter Date: 12/31/1986 Funding: Not reported Staff Initials: LL How Discovered: Tank Test How Stopped: Not reported Interim: Not reported Lat/Lon: 33.6543814/-1 17.994616 Leak Cause: Structure Failure Leak Source: Tank Beneficial: Not reported MTBE Date: Not reported MTBE Tested: NRQ Max MTBE GW: Not reported GW Qualifies: Not reported Max MTBE Soil: Not reported Soil Qualifies: Not reported Hydr Basin#: Not reported Operator: KIDD,ERNEST Oversight Prgm: LOP Priority: • Not reported Work Suspended Not reported Responsible PartyCITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Well name: HOLTZ-DESTROYED Distance From Lust: 12881.6639968043251596217 Waste Disch Global Id: W0605910053 MTBE Class: • Waste Disch Assigned Name: 06S/11 W-01 A01 S Case Type: 0 Global ID: T0605900049 How Stopped Date: 8/25/1986 Organization Name: Not reported Contact Person: Not reported TC930624.1 s Page 8 --. f ' Map ID MAP FINDINGS:` Direction Distance Distance(ft.) EDR ID Number Elevation Site Database(s) EPA ID Number HUNTINGTON BCH MAINTENANC (Continued) S102431569 RP Address: 17371 GOTHARD STREET,HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA 92647 MTBE Concentration: 0 MTBE Fuel: 0 Case Number: 083000062T Water System Name: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Summary: Not reported CORTESE: - Reg Id: 083000062T Region: CORTESE Reg By: Leaking Underground Storage Tanks A4 BEACH MAINT.YARD HIST UST 0001577217 SE 44 HUNTINGTON ST N/A 1/8-1/4 HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA 92646 731 ft. Higher Site 3 of 5 in cluster A UST HIST: Facility ID: 27888 Tank Num: 1 Container Num: 1 Tank Capacity: 5000 Year Installed: 1982 Tank Used fon PRODUCT Type of Fuel: UNLEADED Tank Construction:Not reported Leak Detection: Visual,Stock Inventor Contact Name: ERNEST KIDD Telephone: (714)536-5429 j f Total Tanks: 3 Region: STATE Facility Type: 2 Other Type: AND REPAIR FACILITY Facility ID: 27888 Tank Num: 2 Container Num: 3 Tank Capacity: 350 Year Installed: 1982 Tank Used for. WASTE Type of Fuel: WASTE OIL Tank Construction:Not reported Leak Detection: Stock Inventor Contact Name: ERNEST KIDD Telephone: (714)536-5429 Total Tanks: 3 Region: STATE Facility Type: 2 Other Type: AND REPAIR FACILITY Facility ID: 27888 Tank Num: 3 Container Num: 2 Tank Capacity: 2000 Year Installed: 1968 Tank Used fon PRODUCT Type of Fuel: DIESEL Tank Construction: Not reported Leak Detection: Visual,Stock Inventor Contact Name: ERNEST KIDD Telephone: (714)536-5429 Total Tanks: 3 Region: STATE Facility Type: 2 Other Type: AND REPAIR FACILITY A5 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH LUST S102427996 SE 44 HUNTINGTON N/A 1/8-1/4 HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA 92646 731 ft. Higher Site 4 of 5 in cluster A � I TC930624.1 s Page 9 Map ID MAP FINDINGS-- ; Direction Distance Distance(ft.) EDR ID Number Elevation Site Database(s) EPA ID Number CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH (Continued) S102427996 LUST Region OR: Facility Id: 86UT140 Site Number: R00001737 Region: ORANGE Case Type: Not reported Chemical: Diesel Date Closed: 06/23/1987 Current Status: Inactive and Non Billable Facility Status: Case Closed A6 HUNTINGTON BEACH MNTNCE YARD . UST U003783580 SE 44 HUNTINGTON ST N/A 1/8-1/4 HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA 92648 731 ft. Higher Site 5 of 5 in cluster A f State UST: Facility ID: 5960 Total Tanks: 1 Region: STATE Local Agency: 30000 B7 LEADING EDGE YACHT SERVICES HAZNET S105087057 West 2439 PACIFIC COAST HWY#103 N/A 1/8-1/4 NEWPORT BEACH,CA 92663 826 ft. Higher Site 1 of 6 in cluster B HAZNET: Gepaid: CAC002289401 Tepaid: CAD099452708 Gen County: Orange Tsd County: Los Angeles Tons: .1668 Category: Waste oil and mixed oil Disposal Method: Recycler Contact: RICHARD YORK - Telephone: (949)722-0639 Mailing Address: 2439 PACIFIC COAST HWY#103 NEWPORT BEACH,CA 92663 County Orange Gepaid: CAC002289401 Tepaid: CAD028409019 Gen County: Orange Tsd County: Los Angeles Tons: 4.1700 Category: Unspecified oil-containing waste Disposal Method: Not reported Contact: RICHARD YORK Telephone: (949)722-0639 Mailing Address: 2439 PACIFIC COAST HWY#103 NEWPORT BEACH,CA 92663 County Orange TC930624.1 s Page 10 Map ID • . " MAP FINDINGS" ' ' Direction : r Distance Distance(ft.) EDR ID Number Elevation Site Database(s) EPA ID Number LEADING EDGE YACHT SERVICES (Continued) S105087057 Gepaid: CAC002289401 Tepaid: CAT080022148 Gen County: Orange Tsd County: San Bernardino Tons: .1459 Category: Unspecified solvent mixture Waste Disposal Method:Transfer Station Contact: RICHARD YORK Telephone: (949)722-0639 Mailing Address: 2439 PACIFIC COAST HWY#103 NEWPORT BEACH,CA 92663 County Orange. Gepaid: CAC002289401 Tepaid: CAT080022148 Gen County: Orange Tsd County: San Bemardino Tons: .0208 Category: Unspecified oil-containing waste Disposal Method:Transfer Station Contact: RICHARD YORK Telephone: (949)722-0639 Mailing Address: 2439 PACIFIC COAST HWY#103 NEWPORT BEACH,CA 92663 County Orange Gepaid: CAC002289401 Tepaid: CAT080013352 Gen County: Orange Tsd County: Los Angeles Tons: 4.1700 Category: Unspecified oil-containing waste Disposal Method: Recycler Contact: RICHARD YORK Telephone: (949)722-0639 Mailing Address: 2439 PACIFIC COAST HWY#103 NEWPORT BEACH,CA 92663 County Orange B8 BLACK DIAMOND MARINE HAZNET S103952775 West 2439 PACIFIC COAST HWY#102 N/A 1/8-1/4 NEWPORT BEACH,CA 92663 826 ft. Higher Site 2 of 6 in cluster B HAZNET: Gepaid: CAL000146586 Tepaid: CAR028409019 Gen County: Orange Tsd County: 0 • Tons: .3544 Category: Tank bottom waste Disposal Method:Treatment,Tank Contact: MIKE BRESEDESKI Telephone: (000)000-0000 Mailing Address: 2439 PACIFIC COAST HWY#102 NEWPORT BEACH,CA 92663 County Orange TC930624.1 s Page 11 Map ID =MAP FINDINGS , Direction Distance Distance(ft.) EDR ID Number Elevation Site Database(s) EPA ID Number BLACK DIAMOND MARINE (Continued) S103952775 Gepaid: CAL000146586 Tepaid: CAP028409019 Gen County: Orange Tsd County: 0 - Tons: .3544 Category: Tank bottom waste Disposal Method: Not reported Contact: MIKE BRESEDESKI Telephone: (000)000-0000 Mailing Address: 2439 PACIFIC COAST HWY#102 NEWPORT BEACH,CA 92663 County Orange Gepaid: CAL000146586 Tepaid: CAD028409019 Gen County: Orange Tsd County: Los Angeles Tons: .3127 Category: Tank bottom waste Disposal Method:Treatment,Tank Contact: MIKE BRESEDESKI Telephone: (000)000-0000 Mailing Address: 2439 PACIFIC COAST HWY#102 1 NEWPORT BEACH,CA 92663 County Orange Gepaid: CAL000146586 Tepaid: CAD028409019 Gen County: Orange Tsd County: Los Angeles Tons: .3127 Category: Tank bottom waste Disposal Method: Not reported Contact: MIKE BRESEDESKI Telephone: (000)000-0000 Mailing Address: 2439 PACIFIC COAST HWY#102 NEWPORT BEACH,CA 92663 County Orange B9 LEADING EDGE YACHT SERVICES HAZNET S105083630 West 2439 PACIFIC COAST HWY#103 N/A 1/8-1/4 NEWPORT BEACH,CA 92663 826 ft. Higher Site 3 of 6 in cluster B HAZNET: Gepaid: CAC001439416 Tepaid: CAD028409019 Gen County: Orange Tsd County: Los Angeles Tons: 3.2943 Category: Tank bottom waste • Disposal Method:Treatment,Tank Contact: MIKE BRESEDESKI Telephone: (949)722-0639 Mailing Address: 2439 PACIFIC COAST HWY#103 NEWPORT BEACH,CA 92663 County Orange TC930624.1 s Page 12 Map ID MAP FINDINGS Direction Distance Distance(ft.) EDR ID Number Elevation Site Database(s) EPA ID Number LEADING EDGE YACHT SERVICES (Continued) S105083630 Gepaid: CAC001439416 Tepaid: CAD028409019 Gen County: Orange Tsd County: Los Angeles Tons: .0375 Category: Other organic solids Disposal Method:Transfer Station Contact: MIKE BRESEDESKI Telephone: (949)722-0639 Mailing Address: 2439 PACIFIC COAST HWY#103 NEWPORT BEACH,CA 92663 County Orange B10 GRAY TRUST/WELLS FARGO BANK HAZNET S102797124 West 2633 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY 'N/A 1/8-1/4— NEWPORT BEACH,CA 92663 842 ft. Higher Site 4 of 6 in cluster B HAZNET: Gepaid: CAC000911008 Tepaid: CAT080013352 Gen County: Orange Tsd County: Los Angeles Tons: .4170 Category: Waste oil and mixed oil Disposal Method: Recycler Contact: JOSHUA ONG Telephone: (714)996-5151 Mailing Address: 2030 MAIN STREET IRVINE,CA 92714 County Orange B11 DOMINO REALTY HAZNET S104569413 West 3333 PACIFIC COAST HWY WA 1/8-1/4 NEWPORT BEACH,CA 92663 875 ft. Higher Site 5 of 6 in cluster B HAZNET: Gepaid: CAC002110144 Tepaid: CAD099452708 Gen County: Orange Tsd County: Los Angeles Tons: 0.417 Category: Unspecified oil-containing waste Disposal Method: Recycler Contact: DOMINO REALTY Telephone: (310)712-1700 Mailing Address: 9990 SANTA MONICA BLVD BEVERLY HILLS,CA 90212 County Orange B12 NEWPORT IMPORTS,INC HAZNET S100940719 West 3100 PACIFIC COAST HWY N/A 1/8-1/4 NEWPORT BEACH,CA 92663 901ft Higher Site 6 of 6 in cluster B TC930624.1 s Page 13 MapID MAP,FI DINd N Cis Direction ..... .. Distance Distance(ft.) EDR ID Number Elevation Site Database(s) EPA ID Number NEWPORT IMPORTS,INC (Continued) S100940719 HAZNET: Gepaid: CAC000975088 Tepaid: CAD028409019 Gen County: Orange Tsd County: Los Angeles Tons: .5629 Category: Hydrocarbon solvents(benzene,hexane,Stoddard,etc.) Disposal Method:Treatment,Tank Contact: LELAND WEST Telephone: (000)000-0000 Mailing Address: 3000 W PACIFIC COAST HWY NEWPORT BEACH,CA 92663 County Orange C13 PELICAN HILL GOLF CLUB CA FID UST S101609594 West 6195 PACIFIC COAST HWY WA 1/8-1/4 NEWPORT BEACH,CA 92663 1035 ft. Higher Site 1 of 2 in cluster C C14 HUNTINGTON PIER COLONY HOMEOWNERS ASSOC HAZNET S103639659 West 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY N/A 1/8-1/4 HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA 92648 1140 ft. Higher Site 2 of 2 in cluster C HAZNET: Gepaid: CAC000768888 Tepaid: CAD089446710 Gen County: Orange Tsd County: Los Angeles • Tons: 1.2000 Category: Off-specification,aged,or surplus organics Disposal Method:Transfer Station Contact: HUNTINGTON PIER COLONY HOME- -- Telephone: (000)000-0000 Mailing Address: 7400 CENTER AVE,#205 • HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA 92647 County Orange 15 PLAYA APTS HAZNET S102811180 NE 401 ATLANTIC AVE NO 12 N/A 1/8-1/4 HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA 92648 1162 ft. Higher HAZNET: Gepaid: CAL000029181 Tepaid: CAT000646117 Gen County: Orange Tsd County: Kings Tons: .5899 Category: Asbestos-containing waste Disposal Method: Disposal,Land Fill Contact: IPS GEN PARTNERSHIP JERROLD A Telephone: (714)862-6200 Mailing Address: PO BOX 19528 TC930624.1 s Page 14 Map ID MAP FINDINGS' Ny Direction Distance Distance(ft.) EDR ID Number Elevation Site Database(s) EPA ID Number PLAYA APTS (Continued) S102811180 IRVINE,CA 92623-9528 County Orange Gepaid: CAL000029181 Tepaid: CAL000027741 Gen County: Orange Tsd County: 5 Tons: .5056 Category: Asbestos-containing waste Disposal Method: Disposal,Land All Contact: IPS GEN PARTNERSHIP JERROLD A Telephone: (714)862-6200 Mailing Address: PO BOX 19528 IRVINE,CA 92623-9528 County Orange Gepaid: CAL000029181 Tepaid: CAD009007626 Gen County: Orange Tsd County: Los Angeles Tons: 0.8428 Category: Asbestos-containing waste Disposal Method: Disposal,Land Fill Contact: IPS GEN PARTNERSHIP JERROLD A Telephone: (714)862-6200 • Mailing Address: PO BOX 19528 IRVINE,CA 92623-9528 County Orange D16 HB GERMAN CAR IMPORT HAZNET S103967456 NW 303 THIRD STREET WA 1/8-1/4 HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA 92648 1306 ft. Higher Site 1 of 6 in cluster D HAZNET: Gepaid: CAL000021849 Tepaid: CAT080013352 Gen County: Orange Tsd County: Los Angeles Tons: .4170 Category: Aqueous solution with 10%or more total organic residues Disposal Method: Not reported Contact: BROOKS LEWIS Telephone: (000)000-0000 Mailing Address: 303 THIRD ST HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA 92648 County Orange D17 WEST COAST AUTO PAINT SHOP RCRIS-SQG 1000391648 NW 303 3RD ST FINDS CAD981652811 1/8-1/4 HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA 92648 1309 ft. Higher Site 2 of 6 in cluster D TC930624.1s Page 15 1 Map ID ,MAP FINDINGS.- . .;. , Direction Distance Distance(ft.) EDR ID Number Elevation Site Database(s) EPA ID Number WEST COAST AUTO PAINT SHOP (Continued) 1000391648 RCRIS: Owner: FRED GARZA (415)555-1212 EPA ID: CAD981652811 Contact: ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGER (714)960-3337 Classification: Small Quantity Generator Used Oil Recyc:No TSDF Activities: Not reported Violation Status:No violations found FINDS: Other Pertinent Environmental Activity Identified at Site: Facility Registry System(FRS) Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Information system(RCRAINFO) D18 RESIDENCE UST 0003782347 NW 1301 MONTEREY BLVD N/A 1/8-1/4 HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA 92648 1309 ft. Higher Site 3 of 6 in cluster D State UST: Facility ID: 3163 Total Tanks: 1 Region: STATE Local Agency: 30000 UST San Francisco County: Facility ID: 3163 Case Number: Not reported Tank ID: Not reported Owner Name: Not reported Receive Date: 2/5/98 Close Date: 2/27/98 Certified Date: 3/6/98 Mailing Address: Not reported Care Of Address:Not reported Number Of Tanks:1 Type Of Action: Not reported Location Within SiteNot reported - - Local Tank Id: Not reported Tank Manufacturer Not reported Compartmentalized Tank: Not reported Date Tank Installed: Not reported Tank Capacity: Not reported #Of Tank Compartments: Not reported Additional Desc: Not reported Tank Use: Not reported Petroleum Type: Not reported Common Name: Not reported Type Of Tank: Not reported Tank Material-Primary Tank: Not reported Tank Material-Secondary Tank: Not reported Tank Interior Lining/coating: Not reported Tank Int Lining Install Dt: Not reported Other Tank Corrosive Protection: Not reported Date Tank Corrosive Protection Install: Not reported Year Spill And Overfill Installed: Spill Containment: Not reported Drop Tube: Not reported --- Striker Plate: Not reported Type Of Spill Protection: Spill Containment: Not reported Drop Tube: Not reported TC930624.1 s Page 16 Map ID MAP FINDINGS Direction - Distance Distance(ft.) EDR ID Number Elevation Site Database(s) EPA ID Number RESIDENCE (Continued) U003782347 Striker Plate: Not reported Year Overfill Protection Equipment Installed: Alarm: Not reported Ball Float: Not reported Fill Tube Shut: Not reported Exempt: Not reported Tank Leak Detection(Single Wall): Visual(Exposed Portion): Not reported Automatic Tank Gauging: Not reported Continuous Atg: Not reported Statscl Invntry Reconciliation&Biennial Tank Test: Not reported Manual Tank Gauging: Not reported Vadose Zone Tank Leak Detection: Not reported Groundwater: • Not reported Tank Testing: Not reported Other Detection: Not reported Tank Leak Detection(Double Wall): Visual(Single Wall In Vault Only): Not reported Continuous Interstitial Monitoring: Not reported Manual Monitoring: Not reported Estimated Date Last Used: Not reported Estimated Qty Of Substance Remaining: Not reported Tank Filled With Inert Material: Not reported Piping System Type(Underground): Pressure: Not reported Suction: Not reported Gravity: Not reported Piping System Type(Aboveground): Pressure: Not reported Suction: Not reported Gravity: Not reported Piping Construction(Underground): Single Wall: Not reported Double Wall: Not reported Lined Trench: Not reported Unknown: Not reported Other: Not reported Piping Manufacturer(Underground): Not reported Piping Construction(Aboveground): Single Wall: Not reported Double Wall: Not reported Unknown: Not reported Other: Not reported Piping Manufacturer(Aboveground): Not reported Piping Mat.And Corrosion Protection(Underground): Bare Steel: Not reported Stainless Steel: Not reported Plastic Compatible With Contents: Not reported Fiberglass: Not reported Steel W/coating: Not reported FRP Compatibld W/100%Methanol: Not reported Galvanized Steel: Not reported Flexible(HDPE-High Density Polyethylene): Not reported Cathodic Protection: Not reported Unknown: Not reported Other: Not reported Piping Mat.&Corrosion Protecn(Aboveground): TC930624.1s Page 17 • Map ID MAP FINDINGS Direction Distance Distance(ft.) EDR ID Number Elevation Site Database(s) EPA ID Number RESIDENCE (Continued) 0003782347 Bare Steel: Not reported Stainless Steel: Not reported Plastic Compatible With Contents: Not reported --- Fiberglass: Not reported Steel W/coating: - Not reported Frp Compatible W/100%Methanol: Not reported Galvanized Steel: Not reported - - Flexible(HDPE-High Density Polyethylene): Not reported Cathodic Protecn: Not reported Unknown: Not reported Other: Not reported Piping Leak Detection(Underground-Single Wall): Electronic Line Leak Detector/Auto Shutoff/Alarms:Not reported Monthly 0.2 Gph Test: Not reported Annual Integrity Test: Not reported Daily Visual Monitmg,Trienn Integrity Test: Not reported Self Monitoring: Not reported Biennial Integrity Test: Not reported Piping Leak Detection(Secondarily Contained): Sump Sensor,Alarms,Auto Shutoff For Leaks: Not reported Sump Snsr,Alrm,Auto Shutoff For Leaks,Failure,&Disconnect: Not reported Sump Sensor,Alarms,No Auto Shutoff: Not reported Pressure,Auto Leak Detctr,Flow Shutoff Or Restricn Not reported Annual Integrity Test: Not reported • Suction,Gravity,Sump Sensor,Alarms: Not reported Piping Leak Detection(Emergency Generators): Sump Sensor W/O Auto Shutoff/Alarms: Not reported Auto Leak Detector W/O Flow Shutoff Or Restrcn: Not reported __ Annual Integrity Test: Not reported Piping Leak Detecn Abvegmd-Emrgncy Gen-Daily Visual Chk:Not reported Pipe Integrity Test,Underground: Not reported Piping Leak Detection(Aboveground-Single Wall): Electronic Line Leak Detector/Auto Shutoff/Alarms: Not reported Monthly 0.2 Gph Test: Not reported Annual Integrity Test: Not reported Single Wall,Pressure Daily Visual Check: Not reported Single Wall,Suction- Daily Visual Monitoring: Not reported Triennial Integrity Test: Not reported Self Monitoring: Not reported Single Wall,Gravity- Daily Visual Monitoring: Not reported Biennial Integrity Test: Not reported Piping Leak Detection(Aboveground-Secondarily Contained) Sump Sensor,Alarms,Auto Shutoff For Leaks: Not reported Piping Leak Detection(Underground-Secondarily Contained) Sump Snsr,Alrm,Auto Shutoff For Leaks,Failre&Disconct: Not reported Sump Sensor,Alarms,No Auto Shutoff: Not reported Pressure-Auto Leak Detctr,Flow Shutoff/Restrctn: Not reported Annual Integrity Test: Not reported Suction/gravity-Sump Sensor,Alarms: Not reported Piping Leak Detection Underground(Emergency Generators) Sump Sensor Without Auto Shutoff,Alarms: Not reported Auto Leak Detector W/o Flow Shutoff Or Restrctn: Not reported , Annual Integrity Test: Not reported • Daily Visual Check: Not reported Pipe Integrity Test,Aboveground: Not reported Date Dispenser Containment Installed: Not reported Dispenser Containment Type: Not reported TC930624.1 s Page 18 Map ID MAP•FINDINGS: r Y Direction Distance Distance(ft.) EDR ID Number Elevation Site Database(s) EPA ID Number RESIDENCE (Continued) 0003782347 Date Certified(Tank Unit): Not reported Owner/Operator Name(Tank Unit): Not reported Owner/Operator Title(Tank Unit): Not reported Permit Number: Not reported Permit Approved By: Not reported Permit Expiration Date: Not reported Last Annual Monitoring Cert: Not reported Secondary Containment Test: Not reported Spill Containment Present: Not reported Drop Tube Present: Not reported Striker Plate Present: Not reported Alarm Present: Not reported Ball Float Present: Not reported Fill Tube Present: Not reported Other Tank Leak Detection Present: Not reported D19 HUNTINTON BEACH POST OFFICE LUST S102770009 NW 316 OLIVE ST N/A 1/4-1/2 HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA 92648 1360 ft. Higher Site 4 of 6 in cluster D State LUST: Cross Street: Not reported Oty Leaked: Not reported Case Number 083001625T Reg Board: Santa Ana Region Chemical: Diesel Lead Agency: Local Agency Local Agency: 30000L Case Type: Soil only Status: Case Closed County: Orange Abate Method: Excavate and Dispose-remove contaminated soil and dispose in approved site Review Date: Not reported Confirm Leak: Not reported Workplan: Not reported Prelim Assess: Not reported • Pollution Char: Not reported Remed Plan: Not reported Remed Action: • Not reported Monitoring: Not reported Close Date: 9/18/1990 Release Date: 8/13/1990 Cleanup Fund Id:Not reported Discover Date: Not reported Enforcement Dt: Not reported Enf Type: Not reported Enter Date: 9/16/1990 Funding: Not reported Staff Initials: LL How Discovered: Not reported How Stopped: Not reported Interim: Not reported Leak Cause: Not reported Leak Source: Not reported MTBE Date: Not reported Max MTBE GW: Not reported MTBE Tested: Not Required to be Tested. Priority: Not reported Local Case#: 90UT192 Beneficial: Not reported TC930624.1 s Page 19 Map ID MAP FINDINGS ' • Direction Distance Distance(ft.) EDR ID Number Elevation Site Database(s) EPA ID Number HUNTINTON BEACH POST OFFICE (Continued) S102770009 Staff: PAH GW Qualifier: Not reported Max MTBE Soil: Not reported Soil Qualifier: Not reported Hydr Basin#: Not reported Operator: Not reported Oversight Prgm: Local Oversight Program UST Oversight Prgm: LOP Review Date: 10/10/1990 Stop Date': Not reported Work Suspended/lot reported Responsible PartyU.S.POSTAL SERVICE RP Address: 316 OLIVE STREET,HUNTINGTION BEACH CA 92648 Global Id: T0605901233 Org Name: Not reported Contact Person: Not reported MTBE Conc: 0 Mtbe Fuel: 0 Water System Name: Not reported Well Name: Not reported Distance To Lust: 0 Waste Discharge Global ID: Not reported Waste Disch Assigned Name:Not reported LUST Region 8: Region: 8 Substance: 12034 Cross Street: Not reported Regional Board: 08 Local Case Num: 90UT192 Facility Status: Case Closed Staff: PAH Lead Agency: Local Agency Local Agency: Orange County Health Care Agency Abate Method: Excavate and Dispose-remove contaminated soil and dispose in approved site Qty Leaked: Not reported County: Orange Review Date: Not reported Confirm Leak: Not reported Workplan: Not reported Prelim Assess: Not reported Pollution Chan Not reported Remed Plan: Not reported Remed Action: Not reported Monitoring: Not reported Close Date: 9/18/90 Cleanup Fund Id:Not reported Discover Date: Not reported Enforcement Dt: Not reported Enf Type: Not reported Enter Date: 09/16/1990 Funding: Not reported Staff Initials: LL How Discovered: Not reported How Stopped: Not reported Interim: Not reported Lat/Lon: 33.6583302/-1 1 7.9992772 Leak Cause: Not reported - Leak Source: Not reported Beneficial: Not reported MTBE Date: Not reported MTBE Tested: NRQ TC930624.1 s Page 20 Map ID <. MAP FINDINGS Direction Distance Distance(ft.) EDR ID Number Elevation Site Database(s) EPA ID Number HUNTINTON BEACH POST OFFICE (Continued) S102770009 Max MTBE GW: Not reported OW Qualifies: Not reported Max MTBE Soil: Not reported Soil Qualifies: Not reported Hydr Basin#: Not reported Operator: Not reported Oversight Prgm: LOP Priority: Not reported Work Suspended Not reported Responsible PartyU.S.POSTAL SERVICE Well name: HOLTZ-DESTROYED Distance From Lust: • 12227.8024303869918789142 Waste Disch Global Id: W0605910053 MTBE Class: Waste Disch Assigned Name: 06S/11 W-o1A01 S Case Type: S Global ID: T0605901233 How Stopped Date: Not reported Organization Name: Not reported Contact Person: Not reported RP Address: 316 OLIVE STREET,HUNTINGTION BEACH CA 92648 MTBE Concentration: 0 MTBE Fuel: 0 Case Number: 083001625T Water System Name: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Summary: Not reported D20 UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE HAZNET S103652198 NW 316 OLIVE AVE Cortese N/A 1/4-1/2 HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA 92648 1360 ft. Higher Site 5 of 6 in cluster D HAZNET: Gepaid: CAC001265112 Tepaid: AZD049318009 Gen County: Orange Tsd County: 99 Tons: .0185 Category: Unspecified organic liquid mixture Disposal Method: Transfer Station Contact: USPS Telephone: (714)667-6765 I Mailing Address: PO BOX 21184 SANTA ANA,CA 92711 -7184 County Orange Gepaid: CAC001265112 Tepaid: AZD049318009 Gen County: Orange Tsd County: 99 Tons: .0050 Category: Other empty containers 30 gallons or more Disposal Method:Transfer Station Contact: USPS Telephone: (714)667-6765 Mailing Address: PO BOX 21184 SANTA ANA,CA 92711 -7184 County Orange TC930624.1 s Page 21 Map ID MAP•FINDINGS Direction Distance • -- Distance(ft.) EDR ID Number Elevation Site Database(s) EPA ID Number I UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE (Continued) S103652198 CORTESE: Reg Id: 083001625T Region: CORTESE Reg By: Leaking Underground Storage Tanks D21 HUNTINGTON BEACH POST OFFICE LUST S102431571 NW 316 OLIVE N/A 1/4-1/2 HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA 92648 1360 ft. Higher Site 6 of 6 in cluster D LUST Region OR: Facility Id: 90UT192 Site Number: RO0001503 Region: ORANGE Case Type: Soil only Chemical: Diesel Date Closed: 09/18/1990 Current Status: Inactive and Non Billable Facility Status: Case Closed 22 HUNTINGTON BEACH,CITY OF LUST S101307780 NW 301 MAIN ST N/A 1/4-1/2 HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA 92648 1628 ft. Higher State LUST: Cross Street: OLIVE Qty Leaked: Not reported Case Number 083002148T Reg Board: Santa Ana Region Chemical: Gasoline Lead Agency: Regional Board Local Agency: 30000L - Case Type: Aquifer affected • Status: Case Closed County: Orange Abate Method: AS Review Date: 5/22/1992 Confirm Leak: 5/22/1992 Workplan: Not reported Prelim Assess: Not reported Pollution Char: Not reported Remed Plan: Not reported Remed Action: Not reported Monitoring: Not reported Close Date: 7/17/1997 Release Date: 6/2/1992 Cleanup Fund Id:Not reported Discover Date: 5/22/1992 Enforcement Dt: Not reported Enf Type: Not reported Enter Date: 12/22/1992 Funding: Not reported Staff Initials: LL How Discovered: Not reported How Stopped: Not reported Interim: Not reported Leak Cause: Not reported Leak Source: Not reported MTBE Date: Not reported -- TC930624.1 s Page 22 Map ID • '-. .MAP FINDINGS,''• : ' Direction Distance — Distance(ft.) EDR ID Number Elevation ' Site Database(s) EPA ID Number HUNTINGTON BEACH,CITY OF (Continued) S101307780 Max MTBE GW: Not reported MTBE Tested: Site NOT Tested for MTBE.Includes Unknown and Not Analyzed. Priority: Not reported Local Case#: Not reported Beneficial: Not reported Staff: CAB GW Qualifier: Not reported Max MTBE Soil: Not reported Soil Qualifier: Not reported Hydr Basin#: Not reported Operator: Not reported Oversight Prgm: RB Lead Underground Storage Tank Oversight Prgm: UST Review Date: 12/29/1997 Stop Date: Not reported • Work Suspended Not reported Responsible PartyHUNTINGTON BCH,REDEVELOPMENT RP Address: 16001 BALLANTINE CIRCLE,HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 Global Id: T0605901587 Org Name: Not reported Contact Person: Not reported MTBE Conc: 0 Mtbe Fuel: 1 Water System Name: Not reported Well Name: Not reported Distance To Lust: 0 Waste Discharge Global ID: Not reported Waste Disch Assigned Name:Not reported LUST Region 8: Region: 8 Substance: 8006619 Cross Street: OLIVE Regional Board: 08 Local Case Num: Not reported Facility Status: Case Closed Staff: CAB Lead Agency: Regional Board Local Agency: Orange County Health Care Agency Abate Method: Air Sparging Qty Leaked: Not reported County: Orange Review Date: 05/22/1992 Confirm Leak: 05/22/1992 Workplan: Not reported Prelim Assess: Not reported Pollution Chan Not reported Remed Plan: Not reported Remed Action: Not reported Monitoring: Not reported Close Date: 7/17/97 Cleanup Fund Id:Not reported Discover Date: 05/22/1992 Enforcement Dt: Not reported Enf Type: Not reported Enter Date: 12/22/1992 • Funding: Not reported Staff Initials: LL How Discovered: Not reported How Stopped: Not reported Interim: Not reported Lat/Lon: 33.6588652/-118.0001272 Leak Cause: Not reported TC930624.1 s Page 23 tl Map ID MAP FINDINGS: Direction Distance Distance(ft.) EDR ID Number Elevation Site Database(s) EPA ID Number HUNTINGTON BEACH,CITY OF (Continued) S101307780 Leak Source: Not reported Beneficial: Not reported MTBE Date: Not reported MTBE Tested: NT Max MTBE GW: Not reported GW Qualifies: Not reported Max MTBE Soil: Not reported Soil Qualifies: Not reported Hydr Basin#: Not reported Operator: Not reported Oversight Prgm: UST Priority: Not reported Work Suspended Not reported Responsible PartyHUNTINGTON BCH,REDEVELOPMENT Well name: HOLTZ-DESTROYED Distance From Lust: 12197.7764483648097605949 Waste Disch Global Id: W0605910053 MTBE Class: Waste Disch Assigned Name: 06S/11 W-01 A01 S Case Type: A Global ID: T0605901587 How Stopped Date: Not reported Organization Name: Not reported Contact Person: Not reported RP Address: 16001 BALLANTINE CIRCLE,HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 MTBE Concentration: 0 MTBE Fuel: 1 Case Number: 083002148T Water System Name: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Summary: LEAD TRANSFERED TO RB 6/3/93 5/8/96-APPROVED LIMITED AS 7/2/96-CLARIFY STATUS FOR UST CLEANUP FUND 28 CHMIRS S105676064 NW 204 5TH ST WA 1/4-1/2 HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA 0 1939 ft. Higher CHMIRS: OES Control Number: 01-1705 DOT ID: Not reported DOT Hazard Class: Not Reported Chemical Name: Raw Sewage Extent of Release: Not reported CAS Number: Not reported Quantity Released: 200 Environmental Contamination: None Reported Property Use: Not reported Incident Date: Not reported Date Completed: 3/21/01 Time Completed: Not reported Physical State Stored: Not reported Physical State Released: Not reported Release Unit: Not reported Container Description: Not reported Container Type: Not reported Container Material: Not reported Level Of Container: Not reported Container Capacity: Not reported Container Capacity Units(code): Not reported Extent Of Release(code): Not reported Agency Id Number: Not reported Agency Incident Number: Not reported TC930624.1 s Page 24 Map ID • • •MAP FINDINGS 4 ! Direction Distance Distance(ft.) EDR ID Number Elevation Site Database(s) EPA ID Number (Continued) S105676064 OES Incident Number: 01-1705 Time Notified: Not reported Surrounding Area: Not reported Estimated Temperature: Not reported Property Management: Not reported More Than Two Substances Involved?: Not reported Special Studies 1 : Not reported Special Studies 2: Not reported Special Studies 3: Not reported Special Studies 4: Not reported Special Studies 5: Not reported Special Studies 6: Not reported Responding Agency Personel#Of Injuries: 0 Responding Agency Personel#Of Fatalities: 0 Resp Agncy Personel#Of Decontaminated: Not reported Others Number Of Decontaminated: Not reported • Others Number Of Injuries: Not reported Others Number Of Fatalities: Not reported Vehicle Make/year: Not reported Vehicle License Number: Not reported Vehicle State: Not reported Vehicle Id Number: Not reported CA/DOT/PUC/ICC Number: Not reported Company Name: Not reported Reporting Officer Name/ID: Not reported Report Date: Not reported Comments: Not reported Facility Telephone Number: Not reported Waterway Involved: No Waterway: Not reported Spill Site: Other Cleanup By: Reporting Party Containment: Yes What Happened: Police Substation is located in an old house and the main line from the toilet was leaking under the house.Leakage was contained under the house and has been cleaned out and the dirt will be disposed of. DateTme: 3/21/01 1545 Evacuations: 0 Type: SEWAGE Other: Not reported Chemical 1 : Not Reported Chemical 2: Not Reported Chemical 3: Not Reported E24 HUNTINGTON BEACH,CITY OF LUST S105024144 WNW 122 5TH ST Cortese WA 1/4-12 HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA 92647 1991 ft. Higher Site 1 of 4 in cluster E State LUST: Cross Street: Not reported Qty Leaked: Not reported Case Number 083001578T Reg Board: Santa Ana Region Chemical: Waste Oil Lead Agency: Local Agency Local Agency: 30000L TC930624.1 s Page 25 Map ID 3 ;,., ' °MA1 FINDINGS .` - Direction Distance Distance(ft.) EDR ID Number Elevation Site Database(s) EPA ID Number HUNTINGTON BEACH,CITY OF (Continued) S105024144 Case Type: Soil only Status: Case Closed County: Orange Review Date: Not reported Confirm Leak: Not reported Workplan: 7/3/1990 Prelim Assess: 7/3/1990 Pollution Char. Not reported Remed Plan: Not reported Remed Action: Not reported Monitoring: Not reported Close Date: 12/4/1990 Release Date: 7/2/1990 Cleanup Fund Id:Not reported • Discover Date: 6/21/1990 _ Enforcement Dt: 1/1/1965 Enf Type: None Taken Enter Date: 7/2/1990 Funding: Not reported Staff Initials: LL How Discovered: Not reported How Stopped: Not reported Interim: Not reported Leak Cause: Not reported Leak Source: Not reported MTBE Date: Not reported Max MTBE GW: Not reported MTBE Tested: Not Required to be Tested. -- Priority: Not reported Local Case#: 90UT164 Beneficial: Not reported Staff: PAH GW Qualifier: Not reported Max MTBE Soil: Not reported Soil Qualifier: Not reported Hydr Basin#: Not reported Operator: Not reported • Oversight Prgm: Local Oversight Program UST Oversight Prgm: LOP Review Date: 12/4/1990 Stop Date: Not reported Work Suspended Not reported Responsible PartyCITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH • RP Address: 17371 GOTHARD STREET,HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA 92647 Global Id: T0605901202 Org Name: Not reported Contact Person: Not reported MTBE Conc: 0 Mtbe Fuel: 0 Water System Name: Not reported Well Name: Not reported Distance To Lust: 0 Waste Discharge Global ID: Not reported Waste Disch Assigned Name:Not reported LUST Region 8: Region: 8 Substance: 12035 Cross Street: Not reported Regional Board: 08 Local Case Num: 90UT164 Facility Status: Case Closed Staff: PAH TC930624.1 s Page 26 Map ID MAP FINDINGS Direction Distance Distance(ft.) EDR ID Number Elevation Site Database(s) EPA ID Number HUNTINGTON BEACH,CITY OF (Continued) S105024144 Lead Agency: Local Agency Local Agency: Orange County Health Care Agency Qty Leaked: Not reported County: Orange Review Date: Not reported Confirm Leak: Not reported Workplan: 7/3/90 Prelim Assess: 7/3/90 Pollution Char. Not reported Remed Plan: Not reported Remed Action: Not reported Monitoring: Not reported Close Date: 12/4/90 Cleanup Fund Id:Not reported Discover Date: 06/21/1990 Enforcement Dt: 1/1/65 Enf Type: None Taken Enter Date: 07/02/1990 Funding: Not reported Staff Initials: LL How Discovered: Not reported How Stopped: Not reported Interim: Not reported Lat/Lon: 33.7210713/-118.0015353 Leak Cause: Not reported Leak Source: Not reported Beneficial: Not reported MTBE Date: Not reported MTBE Tested: NRQ - Max MTBE GW: Not reported GW Qualifies: Not reported Max MTBE Soil: Not reported Soil Qualifies: Not reported Hydr Basin#: Not reported Operator: Not reported Oversight Prgm: LOP Priority: Not reported Work Suspended Not reported Responsible PartyCITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Well name: WELL 06 Distance From Lust: 1876.43100509382512268250 Waste Disch Global Id: W0605910053 I ,J MTBE Class: ` Waste Disch Assigned Name: 05S/11 W-23F02 S Case Type: S Global ID: T0605901202 How Stopped Date: Not reported Organization Name: Not reported Contact Person: Not reported RP Address: 17371 GOTHARD STREET,HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA 92647 MTBE Concentration: 0 MTBE Fuel: 0 Case Number: 083001578T Water System Name: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Summary: Not reported CORTESE: Reg Id: 083001578T Region: CORTESE Reg By: Leaking Underground Storage Tanks TC930624.1 s Page 27 Map ID MAP FINDINGS{ Direction Distance Distance(ft.) EDR ID Number Elevation Site Database(s) EPA ID Number E25 TERRY BUICK INC LUST 0003784091 WNW 122 5TH ST UST N/A 1/4-1/2 HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA 92648 1991 ft. Higher Site 2 of 4 in cluster E LUST Region OR: ' Facility Id: 90UT164 Site Number. R00000916 Region: ORANGE Case Type: Soil only Chemical: Waste Oil Date Closed: 12/04/1990 Current Status: Inactive and Non Billable Facility Status: Case Closed Facility Id: 90UT164 Site Number: R00000916 — Region: ORANGE Case Type: Soil only Chemical: Gasoline Date Closed: 12/04/1990 Current Status: Inactive and Non Billable Facility Status: Case Closed State UST: Facility ID: 7309 Total Tanks: 1 Region: STATE Local Agency: 30000 E26 WIND&SEA SURFBORADS LUST 0003805201 WNW 520 PACIFIC COAST HWY UST N/A 1/4-1/2 HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA 92648 2075 ft. Higher Site 3 of 4 In cluster E -- LUST Region OR: Facility Id: 91 UT030 Site Number. R00001590 Region: ORANGE Case Type: Ground water Chemical: Waste Oil Date Closed: 09/30/1997 Current Status: Inactive and Non Billable Facility Status: Case Closed Facility Id: 91 UT030 Site Number. R00001590 Region: ORANGE Case Type: Ground water Chemical: Gasoline Date Closed: 09/30/1997 Current Status: Inactive and Non Billable Facility Status: Case Closed State UST: Facility ID: 12060 Total Tanks: 1 Region: STATE Local Agency: 30000 TC930624.1s Page 28 I Map ID MAP FIND ; Direction Distance Distance(ft.) EDR ID Number Elevation Site Database(s) EPA ID Number E27 WIND AND SEA SURFBOARD SHOP LUST S102441322 WNW 520 PACIFIC COAST HWY N/A 1/4-1/2 HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA 92648 2075 ft. Higher Site 4 of 4 in cluster E State LUST: Cross Street: 5TH Qty Leaked: Not reported Case Number 083001792T • Reg Board: Santa Ana Region Chemical: Gasoline Lead Agency: Local Agency Local Agency: 30000L Case Type: Soil only Status: Case Closed • • County: Orange Review Date: Not reported Confirm Leak: Not reported Workplan: Not reported Prelim Assess: Not reported Pollution Char. Not reported Remed Plan: Not reported Remed Action: Not reported Monitoring: Not reported Close Date: 9/30/1997 Release Date: 2/28/1991 Cleanup Fund Id:Not reported d Discover Date: 1/1/1965 Enforcement Dt: Not reported Enf Type: Not reported Enter Date: 3/18/1991 Funding: Not reported Staff Initials: LL How Discovered: Subsurface Monitoring How Stopped: Not reported Interim: Not reported Leak Cause: Not reported Leak Source: Not reported MTBE Date: Not reported Max MTBE GW: Not reported MTBE Tested: Site NOT Tested for MTBE.Includes Unknown and Not Analyzed. Priority: Not reported Local Case#: 91 UT030 Beneficial: Not reported Staff: CAB GW Qualifier: Not reported Max MTBE Soil: Not reported Soil Qualifier: Not reported Hydr Basin#: Not reported Operator: Not reported Oversight Prgm: Local Oversight Program UST Oversight Prgm: LOP Review Date: 12/29/1997 Stop Date: Not reported Work Suspended Not reported Responsible PartyClTY OF HUNTINGON BEACH • RP Address: 2000 MAIN STREET,HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 Global Id: T0605901342 Org Name: Not reported Contact Person: Not reported MTBE Conc: 0 Mtbe Fuel: 1 TC930624.1 s Page 29 Map ID r.MAPR'FINDINQS . „ Direction Distance Distance(ft.) EDR ID Number Elevation Site Database(s) EPA ID Number WIND AND SEA SURFBOARD SHOP (Continued) S102441322 Water System Name: Not reported Well Name: Not reported Distance To Lust: 0 Waste Discharge Global ID: Not reported Waste Disch Assigned Name:Not reported LUST Region 8: r ' Region: 8 Substance: 8006619 Cross Street 5TH Regional Board: 08 Local Case Num: 91UT030 Facility Status: Case Closed Staff: CAB Lead Agency: Local Agency Local Agency: Orange County Health Care Agency Qty Leaked: Not reported County: Orange Review Date: Not reported Confirm Leak: Not reported Workplan: Not reported Prelim Assess: Not reported Pollution Chan Not reported Remed Plan: Not reported Remed Action: Not reported Monitoring: Not reported Close Date: 9/30/97 Cleanup Fund Id:Not reported Discover Date: 01/01/1965 Enforcement Dt: Not reported Enf Type: Not reported Enter Date: 03/18/1991 Funding: Not reported • Staff Initials: LL How Discovered: Subsurface Monitoring How Stopped: Not reported -- Interim: Not reported Lat/Lon: 33.6574623/-118.0028293 Leak Cause: Not reported Leak Source: Not reported Beneficial: Not reported MTBE Date: Not reported MTBE Tested: NT Max MTBE GW: Not reported GW Qualifies: Not reported Max MTBE Soil: Not reported Soil Qualifies: Not reported Hydr Basin#: Not reported Operator: Not reported Oversight Prgm: LOP Priority: Not reported Work Suspended Not reported Responsible PartyClTY OF HUNTINGON BEACH Well name: HOLTZ-DESTROYED Distance From Lust: 13076.251 70601 24231 831 1 43 Waste Disch Global Id: W0605910053 MTBE Class: Waste Disch Assigned Name: 06S/11W-01A01 S Case Type: S Global ID: T0605901342 How Stopped Date: Not reported Organization Name: Not reported Contact Person: Not reported TC930624.1 s Page 30 Map ID '° MAP FINDINGS , Direction Distance Distance(ft.) EDR ID Number Elevation Site Database(s) EPA ID Number WIND AND SEA SURFBOARD SHOP (Continued) S102441322 RP Address: 2000 MAIN STREET,HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 MTBE Concentration: 0 MTBE Fuel: 1 Case Number: 083001792T Water System Name: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Summary: Not reported 28 JAVA JUNGLE LUST S105624566 WNW 602 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY N/A 1/4-1/2 HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA 92649 2324 ft. Higher State LUST: Cross Street: Not reported Qty Leaked: Not reported Case Number 083003931T Reg Board: Santa Ana Region Chemical: Gasoline Lead Agency: Local Agency Local Agency: 30000L Case Type: Other ground water affected Status: Preliminary site assessment underway County: Orange Review Date: Not reported Confirm Leak: Not reported Workplan: 5/31/2001 Prelim Assess: 5/31/2001 Pollution Char. Not reported Remed Plan: Not reported Remed Action: Not reported Monitoring: Not reported Close Date: Not reported Release Date: 9/6/2002 Cleanup Fund Id:Not reported Discover Date: 5/31/2001 Enforcement Dt: Not reported Enf Type: Not reported Enter Date: Not reported Funding: Not reported Staff Initials: STE How Discovered: SAS How Stopped: • Not reported Interim: Not reported Leak Cause: Not reported Leak Source: UNK MTBE Date: Not reported Max MTBE GW: Not reported MTBE Tested: Site NOT Tested for MTBE.Includes Unknown and Not Analyzed. Priority: Not reported Local Case#: 02UT017 Beneficial: Not reported Staff: CAB GW Qualifier: Not reported Max MTBE Soil: Not reported Soil Qualifier: Not reported - Hydr Basin#: Not reported Operator: Not reported Oversight Prgm: Not reported Review Date: Not reported Stop Date: Not reported Work Suspended Not reported Responsible PartyEMAD SAMUEL ti TC930624.1 s Page 31 Map ID f• MAP"fINDING8 Direction .. - Distance Distance(ft.) EDR ID Number Elevation Site Database(s) EPA ID Number JAVA JUNGLE (Continued) S105624566 RP Address: 5732 SERENE DRIVE 1 Global Id: T0605990211 Org Name: Not reported Contact Person: Not reported MTBE Conc: 0 Mtbe Fuel: 1 • Water System Name: Not reported Well Name: Not reported Distance To Lust: 0 Waste Discharge Global ID: Not reported Waste Disch Assigned Name:Not reported LUST Region 8: Region: 8 Substance: 8006619 Cross Street Not reported Regional Board: 08 Local Case Num: 02UT017 Facility Status: Preliminary site assessment underway Staff: CAB Lead Agency: Local Agency Local Agency: Orange County Health Care Agency Qty Leaked: Not reported County: Orange , Review Date: Not reported Confirm Leak: Not reported Workplan: 5/31/01 Prelim Assess: 5/31/01 Pollution Char: Not reported Remed Plan: Not reported Remed Action: Not reported Monitoring: Not reported Close Date: Not reported Cleanup Fund Id:Not reported Discover Date: 05/31/2001 Enforcement Dt: Not reported Enf Type: Not reported Enter Date: / / Funding: Not reported Staff Initials: STE How Discovered: SAS How Stopped: Not reported Interim: Not reported Lat/Lon: 0/0 Leak Cause: Not reported Leak Source: UNK Beneficial: Not reported MTBE Date: Not reported MTBE Tested: NT Max MTBE GW: Not reported GW Qualifies: Not reported Max MTBE Soil: Not reported Soil Qualifies: Not reported Hydr Basin#: Not reported Operator: Not reported Oversight Prgm: Not reported Priority: Not reported Work Suspended idot reported Responsible PartyEMAD SAMUEL Well name: Not reported Distance From Lust: Not reported Waste Disch Global Id: Not reported MTBE Class: TC930624.1 s Page 32 i-' Map ID MAP FINDINGS Direction Distance Distance(ft.) EDR ID Number Elevation Site Database(s) EPA ID Number JAVA JUNGLE (Continued) S105624566 Waste Disch Assigned Name: Not reported Case Type: 0 Global ID: T0605990211 How Stopped Date: Not reported Organization Name: Not reported Contact Person: Not reported RP Address: 5732 SERENE DRIVE MTBE Concentration: 0 MTBE Fuel: 1 Case Number: 083003931T Water System Name: Not reported Summary: GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION DISCOVERED DURING PHASE II SITE INVESTIGATION LUST Region OR: Facility Id: 02UT017 Site Number: R00003071 Region: ORANGE Case Type: Other ground water affected Chemical: Gasoline Date Closed: Not reported Current Status: Active and Billable Facility Status: Preliminary Assessment 29 OLD LAKE FIRE STATION LUST U001577340 North 704 LAKE ST Cortese N/A 1/2-1 HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA 92648 UST 2743 ft. HIST UST Higher State LUST: Cross Street: INDIANAPOLIS Qty Leaked: Not reported Case Number 083000301T • Reg Board: Santa Ana Region Chemical: Waste Oil Lead Agency: Local Agency Local Agency: 30000L Case Type: Soil only Status: Case Closed County: Orange Review Date: Not reported Confirm Leak: Not reported Workplan: Not reported Prelim Assess: Not reported Pollution Chan Not reported Remed Plan: Not reported Remed Action: Not reported Monitoring: Not reported Close Date: 11/4/1986 Release Date: 9/22/1986 Cleanup Fund Id:Not reported Discover Date: 1/1/1965 _ Enforcement Dt: Not reported Enf Type: Not reported Enter Date: 12/31/1986 Funding: Not reported Staff Initials: LL How Discovered: Tank Closure How Stopped: Not reported Interim: Not reported Leak Cause: UNK Leak Source: UNK MTBE Date: Not reported { TC930624.1 s Page 33 i � Map ID MAP FIND INGS - Direction Distance Distance(ft.) EDR ID Number Elevation Site Database(s) EPA ID Number OLD LAKE FIRE STATION (Continued) 0001577340 Max MTBE GW: Not reported MTBE Tested: Not Required to be Tested. Priority: Not reported Local Case#: 86UT139 Beneficial: Not reported Staff: PAH GW Qualifier: Not reported Max MTBE Soil: Not reported Soil Qualifier: Not reported Hydr Basin#: Not reported Operator: Not reported Oversight Prgm: Local Oversight Program UST Oversight Prgm: LOP Review Date: 7/11/1988 Stop Date: 5/1/1986 Work Suspended 11ot reported Responsible PartyCITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH RP Address: 17371 GOTHARD STREET,HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA 92647 Global Id: T0605900237 Org Name: Not reported Contact Person: Not reported MTBE Conc: 0 Mtbe Fuel: 0 Water System Name: Not reported Well Name: Not reported Distance To Lust: 0 Waste Discharge Global ID: Not reported Waste Disch Assigned Name:Not reported LUST Region 8: Region: 8 Substance: 12035 Cross Street INDIANAPOLIS Regional Board: 08 Local Case Num: 86UT139 Facility Status: Case Closed Staff: PAH Lead Agency: Local Agency Local Agency: Orange County Health Care Agency Qty Leaked: Not reported County: Orange Review Date: Not reported Confirm Leak: Not reported Workplan: Not reported Prelim Assess: Not reported Pollution Chan Not reported Remed Plan: Not reported Remed Action: Not reported Monitoring: Not reported Close Date: 11/4/86 Cleanup Fund Id:Not reported Discover Date: 01/01/1965 Enforcement Dt: Not reported Enf Type: Not reported Enter Date: 12/31/1986 Funding: Not reported Staff Initials: LL How Discovered: Tank Closure How Stopped: Not reported Interim: Not reported Lat/Lon: 33.6628811/-117.9975591 Leak Cause: UNK Leak Source: UNK TC930624.1s Page 34 Map ID ' MAP FINDINGS Direction . . , ....... Distance Distance(ft.) EDR ID Number Elevation Site Database(s) EPA ID Number OLD LAKE FIRE STATION (Continued) U001577340 Beneficial: Not reported MTBE Date: Not reported MTBE Tested: NRQ Max MTBE GW: Not reported GW Qualifies: Not reported Max MTBE Soil: Not reported Soil Qualifies: Not reported Hydr Basin#: Not reported Operator: Not reported Oversight Prgm: LOP Priority: Not reported Work Suspended Not reported Responsible PartyCITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Well name: HOLTZ-DESTROYED Distance From Lust: 10545.5742279569588830202 Waste Disch Global Id: W0605910053 MTBE Class: ` Waste Disch Assigned Name: 06S/11W-01A01 S Case Type: S Global ID: T0605900237 How Stopped Date: 5/1/1986 -,I Organization Name: Not reported Contact Person: Not reported RP Address: 17371 GOTHARD STREET,HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA 92647 MTBE Concentration: 0 MTBE Fuel: 0 Case Number: 083000301T Water System Name: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Summary: TANK ABANDONED BY CITY IN 1982. LUST Region OR: Facility Id: 86UT139 • Site Number. RO0001711 Region: ORANGE Case Type: Not reported Chemical: Waste Oil Date Closed: 10/28/1986 Current Status: Inactive and Non Billable n , Facility Status: Case Closed CORTESE: Reg Id: 083000301T Region: CORTESE Reg By: Leaking Underground Storage Tanks UST HIST: Facility ID: 27863 Tank Num: 1 Container Num: OL-1 Tank Capacity: 1500 Year Installed: Not reported Tank Used for. PRODUCT Type of Fuel: PREMIUM Tank Construction:Not reported Leak Detection: None Contact Name: TOM SHAW Telephone: (714)536-5411 Total Tanks: 0 Region: STATE Facility Type: 2 Other Type: FIRE STATION Facility ID: 27863 Tank Num: 2 Container Num: OL-2 Tank Capacity: 1000 Year Installed: Not reported TC930624.1 s Page 35 Map ID MAP FINDINGS' ' Direction Distance Distance(ft.) EDR ID Number Elevation Site Database(s) EPA ID Number OLD LAKE FIRE STATION (Continued) U001577340 Tank Used fon PRODUCT Type of Fuel: DIESEL Tank Construction: Not reported Leak Detection: None Contact Name: TOM SHAW Telephone: (714)536-5411 Total Tanks: 0 Region: STATE Facility Type: 2 Other Type: FIRE STATION Facility ID: 27863 Tank Num: 3 Container Num: OL-3 Tank Capacity: 100 Year Installed: Not reported • Tank Used fon WASTE Type of Fuel: WASTE OIL Tank Construction: Not reported Leak Detection: None Contact Name: TOM SHAW Telephone: (714)536-5411 Total Tanks: 0 Region: STATE Facility Type: 2 Other Type: FIRE STATION State UST: Facility ID: 5947 Total Tanks: 1 Region: STATE Local Agency: 30000 30 ARCO(ABANDON) LUST S100230740 SE 21302 PACIFIC COAST HWY Cortese N/A 1/2-1 HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA 92648 2806 ft. Higher • State LUST: Cross Street: HUNTINGTON Qty Leaked: Not reported Case Number 083000948T • Reg Board: Santa Ana Region Chemical: Gasoline Lead Agency: Local Agency Local Agency: 30000L Case Type: Other ground water affected Status: Pollution Characterization ' County: Orange Abate Method: Excavate and Dispose-remove contaminated soil and dispose in approved site,Enhanced Biodegradation-use of any available technology to promote bacterial decomposition of contaminants,Vapor Extraction Review Date: Not reported Confirm Leak: Not reported Workplan: 8/23/1988 Prelim Assess: 8/23/1988 - Pollution Chan Not reported Remed Plan: Not reported Remed Action: Not reported Monitoring: Not reported Close Date: Not reported Release Date: 6/4/1985 Cleanup Fund Id:Not reported Discover Date: 1/1/1965 Enforcement Dt: Not reported Enf Type: Not reported Enter Date: 6/20/1988 Funding: Federal Funds Staff Initials: LL How Discovered: Subsurface Monitoring How Stopped: Not reported Interim: Yes TC930624.1 s Page 36 Map ID MAP`FINDINGS` Direction - Distance -- Distance(ft.) EDR ID Number Elevation Site Database(s) EPA ID Number ARCO(ABANDON) (Continued) S100230740 Leak Cause: UNK Leak Source: UNK MTBE Date: Not reported Max MTBE GW: Not reported MTBE Tested: Site NOT Tested for MTBE.Includes Unknown and Not Analyzed. Priority: Not reported Local Case#: 84UT009 Beneficial: Not reported Staff: VJJ GW Qualifier: Not reported Max MTBE Soil: Not reported Soil Qualifier: Not reported Hydr Basin#: Not reported Operator: Not reported Oversight Prgm: Local Oversight Program UST Oversight Prgm: LOP Review Date: 11/23/1992 Stop Date: Not reported Work Suspended Not reported Responsible PartyARCO PETROLEUM PRODUCTS CO. RP Address: 17315 STUDEBAKER ROAD,CERRITOS,CA 90701 Global Id: T0605900753 Org Name: Not reported Contact Person: Not reported MTBE Conc: 0 Mtbe Fuel: 1 Water System Name: Not reported Well Name: Not reported Distance To Lust: 0 Waste Discharge Global ID: -Not reported Waste Disch Assigned Name:Not reported LUST Region 8: Region: 8 Substance: 8006619 Cross Street: HUNTINGTON Regional Board: 08 Local Case Num: 84UT009 Facility Status: Pollution Characterization Staff: VJJ Lead Agency: Local Agency Local Agency: Orange County Health Care Agency Abate Method: Excavate and Dispose-remove contaminated soil and dispose in approved site,Vapor Extraction,Enhanced Biodegradation-use of any available technology to promote bacterial decomposition of contaminants Qty Leaked: Not reported County: Orange Review Date: Not reported Confirm Leak: Not reported Workplan: 8/23/88 Prelim Assess: 8/23/88 Pollution Char. Not reported Remed Plan: Not reported Remed Action: Not reported Monitoring: Not reported Close Date: Not reported • Cleanup Fund Id:Not reported Discover Date: 01/01/1965 Enforcement Dt: Not reported Enf Type: Not reported Enter Date: 06/20/1988 Funding: Federal Funds Staff Initials: LL TC930624.1 s Page 37 Map ID MAP FINDINGS Direction Distance Distance(ft.) EDR ID Number Elevation Site Database(s) EPA ID Number ARCO(ABANDON) (Continued) S100230740 How Discovered: Subsurface Monitoring How Stopped: Not reported Interim: Yes Lat/Lon: 33.6531124/-117.995494 Leak Cause: UNK Leak Source: UNK Beneficial: Not reported MTBE Date: Not reported MTBE Tested: NT Max MTBE GW: Not reported GW Qualifies: Not reported Max MTBE Soil: Not reported Soil Qualifies: Not reported Hydr Basin#: Not reported Operator: Not reported Oversight Prgm: LOP Priority: Not reported Work Suspended Not reported Responsible PartyARCO PETROLEUM PRODUCTS CO. Well name: HOLTZ-DESTROYED Distance From Lust: 13410.8452508544518535913 Waste Disch Global Id: W0605910053 MTBE Class: Waste Disch Assigned Name: 06S/11 W-01 A01 S Case Type: 0 Global ID: T0605900753 How Stopped Date: Not reported Organization Name: Not reported Contact Person: Not reported RP Address: 17315 STUDEBAKER ROAD,CERRITOS,CA 90701 MTBE Concentration: 0 MTBE Fuel: 1 Case Number. 083000948T Water System Name: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Summary: DESTROYED ALL MONITORING WELLS DURING HOTEL CONSTRUCTION. UGTS REMOVED IN 1984.CONTAMINATION DETECTED IN(1985) DURING REDEVELOPMENT.SOIL REM. INCLUDED VES+BIOREMED., ('NUTRIENT ENHANCED BIODEGRAD.&BLOWER-DRIVEN SOIL VENT.') CORTESE: Reg Id: 083000948T Region: CORTESE Reg By: Leaking Underground Storage Tanks 31 CHMIRS S105668407 NW 41411TH ST. N/A 1/2-1 HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA 3936 ft. Higher CHMIRS: OES Control Number. 00-1308 DOT ID: Not reported DOT Hazard Class: Not Reported Chemical Name: Raw Sewage Extent of Release: Not reported CAS Number. Not reported Quantity Released: 400 Environmental Contamination: None Reported Property Use: Not reported Incident Date: Not reported Date Completed: 3/19/00 Time Completed: Not reported TC930624.1 s Page 38 Map ID - MAP:FINDINGS`., 11 Direction Distance Distance(ft.) EDR ID Number Elevation Site Database(s) EPA ID Number (Continued) S105668407 Physical State Stored: Not reported Physical State Released: Not reported Release Unit: Not reported Container Description: Not reported Container Type: Not reported Container Material: Not reported Level Of Container: Not reported Container Capacity: Not reported Container Capacity Units(code): Not reported Extent Of Release(code): Not reported —' Agency Id Number: Not reported Agency Incident Number: Not reported OES Incident Number: 00-1308 Time Notified: Not reported Surrounding Area: Not reported Estimated Temperature: Not reported Property Management: Not reported More Than Two Substances Involved?: Not reported ( Special Studies 1 : Not reported Special Studies 2: Not reported Special Studies 3: Not reported Special Studies 4: Not reported Special Studies 5: Not reported Special Studies 6: Not reported Responding Agency Personel#Of Injuries: 0 Responding Agency Personal#Of Fatalities: 0 Resp Agncy Personal#Of Decontaminated: Not reported • - Others Number Of Decontaminated: Not reported Others Number Of Injuries: Not reported Others Number Of Fatalities: Not reported li Vehicle Make/year: Not reported Vehicle License Number: Not reported Vehicle State: Not reported Vehicle Id Number: Not reported CA/DOT/PUC/ICC Number: Not reported Company Name: Not reported Reporting Officer Name/ID: Not reported Report Date: Not reported Comments: Not reported Facility Telephone Number: Not reported Waterway Involved: Yes Waterway: Storm Drain Spill Site: Road Cleanup By: City Public Works Containment: Yes What Happened: Some blockage in a line causing the sewage to come up out of a manhole cover. Storm Drain dumps onto the beach,they sent a crew out and it is clear so far. ****This is the same spill at 00-1307,it is in Huntington Beach and not Seal Beach.**** DateRme: 3/19/00 1947 Evacuations: 0 Type: SEWAGE Other: Not reported Chemical 1 : Not Reported Chemical 2: Not Reported Chemical 3: Not Reported � I TC930624.1 s Page 39 Map ID • L ; =MAP'FINDINGS ` , Direction Distance Distance(ft.) EDR ID Number Elevation Site Database(s) EPA ID Number 32 ACTION BOATS LUST S101126318 SE 21622 COAST HWY Cortese N/A 1/2-1 HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA Orange Co.Industrial Site 5130 ft. Higher State LUST: Cross Street: Not reported Qty Leaked: Not reported Case Number 083001747T Reg Board: Santa Ana Region Chemical: Gasoline Lead Agency: Local Agency Local Agency: 30000 Case Type: Soil only Status: Preliminary site assessment workplan submitted County: Orange - _' Review Date: Not reported Confirm Leak: Not reported • Workplan: Not reported Prelim Assess: Not reported Pollution Chan Not reported Remed Plan: Not reported Remed Action: Not reported Monitoring: Not reported Close Date: 8/6/1993 Release Date: 2/14/1991 Cleanup Fund Id:Not reported Discover Date: 1/1/1965 Enforcement Dt: Not reported Enf Type: Not reported Enter Date: 3/1/1991 Funding: Not reported Staff Initials: Not reported How Discovered: Subsurface Monitoring How Stopped: Not reported Interim: Not reported Leak Cause: Not reported Leak Source: Not reported MTBE Date: Not reported Max MTBE GW: Not reported MTBE Tested: Site NOT Tested for MTBE.Includes Unknown and Not Analyzed. Priority: Not reported Local Case#: 891C30 _ Beneficial: Not reported Staff: VJJ GW Qualifier: Not reported Max MTBE Soil: Not reported Soil Qualifier: Not reported Hydr Basin#: Not reported Operator: RAY GUY Oversight Prgm: OTHL Oversight Prgm: OTHL Review Date: 3/1/1991 Stop Date: Not reported Work Suspended Not reported Responsible PartyACTION BOAT BROKERS RP Address: 21622 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY,HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA 92646 Global Id: T0605901314 Org Name: Not reported Contact Person: Not reported MTBE Conc: 0 Mtbe Fuel: 1 TC930624.1 s Page 40 Map ID MAP FINDINGS. Direction Distance Distance(ft.) EDR ID Number Elevation Site Database(s) EPA ID Number ACTION BOATS (Continued) S101126318 Water System Name: Not reported Well Name: Not reported Distance To Lust: 0 Waste Discharge Global ID: Not reported Waste Disch Assigned Name:Not reported LUST Region 8: Region: 8 Substance: 8006619 Cross Street: Not reported Regional Board: 08 Local Case Num: 891C30 Facility Status: Preliminary site assessment workplan submitted Staff: VJJ Lead Agency: Local Agency Local Agency: Orange County Health Care Agency Qty Leaked: Not reported, County: Orange Review Date: Not reported Confirm Leak: Not reported Workplan: Not reported Prelim Assess: Not reported Pollution Chan Not reported Remed Plan: Not reported Remed Action: Not reported Monitoring: Not reported Close Date: 8/6/93 Cleanup Fund Id:Not reported Discover Date: 01/01/1965 Enforcement Dt: Not reported Enf Type: Not reported Enter Date: 03/01/1991 Funding: Not reported - Staff Initials: LL How Discovered: Subsurface Monitoring How Stopped: Not reported Interim: Not reported Lat/Lon: 33.6487996/-1 17.9884559 Leak Cause: Not reported Leak Source: Not reported Beneficial: Not reported MTBE Date: Not reported MTBE Tested: NT Max MTBE GW: Not reported GW Qualifies: Not reported Max MTBE Soil: Not reported Soil Qualifies: Not reported Hydr Basin#: Not reported Operator: RAY GUY Oversight Prgm: OTHL Priority: Not reported Work Suspended Jot reported Responsible PartyACTION BOAT BROKERS Well name: HOLTZ-DESTROYED Distance From Lust: 14275.7879383374334214724 Waste Disch Global Id: W0605910053 MTBE Class: Waste Disch Assigned Name: 06S/11 W-01 A01 S Case Type: S __ Global ID: T0605901314 How Stopped Date: Not reported Organization Name: Not reported Contact Person: Not reported TC930624.1 s Page 41 it Map ID MAP FINDINGS ^ Direction Distance Distance(ft.) EDR ID Number Elevation Site Database(s) EPA ID Number ACTION BOATS (Continued) S101126318 RP Address: 21622 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY,HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA 92646 MTBE Concentration: 0 MTBE Fuel: 1 -- Case Number: 083001747T Water System Name: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Summary: Not reported CORTESE: Reg Id: 083001747T Region: CORTESE Reg By: Leaking Underground Storage Tanks Industrial Site: Case ID: 891C30 Open Date: 08/17/89 Closed Date: 08/06/93 Haz Mat: Waste(or slop)Oil(T) Region: ORANGE • • TC930624.1 S Page 42 GOVERNMENT°RECORDS SEARCHED/ DATA CURRENCY TRACKING. To maintain currency of the following federal and state databases,EDR contacts the appropriate governmental agency on a monthly or quarterly basis,as required. Elapsed ASTM days: Provides confirmation that this EDR report meets or exceeds the 90-day updating requirement of the ASTM standard. FEDERAL ASTM STANDARD RECORDS NPL: National Priority List Source: EPA Telephone: N/A National Priorities List(Superfund).The NPL is a subset of CERCLIS and identifies over 1,200 sites for priority cleanup under the Superfund Program.NPL sites may encompass relatively large areas.As such,EDR provides polygon coverage for over 1,000 NPL site boundaries produced by EPA's Environmental Photographic Interpretation Center (EPIC)and regional EPA offices. Date of Government Version:10/24/02 Date of Data Arrival at EDR:11/04/02 Date Made Active at EDR:12/09/02 Elapsed ASTM days:35 Database Release Frequency:Semi-Annually Date of Last EDR Contact:02/04/03 NPL Site Boundaries Sources: 1 EPA's Environmental Photographic Interpretation Center(EPIC) Telephone:202-564-7333 EPA Region 1 EPA Region 6 Telephone 617-918-1143 Telephone:214-655-6659 EPA Region 3 EPA Region 8 Telephone 215-814-5418 Telephone:303-312-6774 EPA Region 4 Telephone 404-562-8033 Proposed NPL: Proposed National Priority List Sites Source: EPA Telephone: N/A Date of Government Version:10/24/02 Date of Data Arrival at EDR:11/04/02 Date Made Active at EDR:12/09/02 Elapsed ASTM days:35 Database Release Frequency:Semi-Annually Date of Last EDR Contact:02/04/03 CERCLIS: Comprehensive Environmental Response,Compensation,and Liability Information System Source: EPA Telephone: 703-413-0223 CERCLIS contains data on potentially hazardous waste sites that have been reported to the USEPA by states,municipalities, private companies and private persons,pursuant to Section 103 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,Compensation, and Liability Act(CERCLA).CERCLIS contains sites which are either proposed to or on the National Priorities List(NPL)and sites which are in the screening and assessment phase for possible inclusion on the NPL. Date of Government Version:12/13/02 Date of Data Arrival at EDR:12/26/02 Date Made Active at EDR:01/15/03 Elapsed ASTM days:20 Database Release Frequency:Quarterly Date of Last EDR Contact: 12/26/02 CERCLIS-NFRAP: CERCLIS No Further Remedial Action Planned Source: EPA Telephone: 703-413-0223 As of February 1995,CERCLIS sites designated"No Further Remedial Action Planned"(NFRAP)have been removed from CERCLIS.NFRAP sites may be sites where,following an initial investigation,no contamination was found, contamination was removed quickly without the need for the site to be placed on the NPL,or the contamination was not serious enough to require Federal Superfund action or NPL consideration.EPA has removed approximately 25,000 NFRAP sites to lift the unintended barriers to the redevelopment of these properties and has archived them as historical records so EPA does not needlessly repeat the investigations in the future.This policy change is part of the EPA's Brownfields Redevelopment Program to help cities,states,private investors and affected citizens to promote economic redevelopment of unproductive urban sites. TC930624.1s Page GR-1 .,GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED:I DATA CURRENCY TRACKING, Date of Government Version:12/13/02 Date of Data Arrival at EDR:12/26/02 Date Made Active at EDR:01/15/03 Elapsed ASTM days:20 Database Release Frequency:Quarterly Date of Last EDR Contact:12/26/02 CORRACTS: Corrective Action Report Source: EPA Telephone: 800-424-9346 CORRACTS identifies hazardous waste handlers with RCRA corrective action activity. Date of Government Version:09/29/02 Date of Data Arrival at EDR:10/15/02 Date Made Active at EDR:12/26/02 Elapsed ASTM days:72 Database Release Frequency:Semi-Annually Date of Last EDR Contact:12/09/02 RCRIS: Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System - Source: EPA/NTIS Telephone: 800-424-9346 Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System.RCRIS includes selective information on sites which generate, transport,store,treat and/or dispose of hazardous waste as defined by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act(RCRA). Date of Government Version:09/09/02 Date of Data Arrival at EDR:09/24/02 Date Made Active at EDR:10/28/02 Elapsed ASTM days:34 Database Release Frequency:Varies Date of Last EDR Contact:12/26/02 ERNS: Emergency Response Notification System Source: National Response Center,United States Coast Guard Telephone: 202-260-2342 Emergency Response Notification System.ERNS records and stores information on reported releases of oil and hazardous substances. Date of Government Version:12/31/01 Date of Data Arrival at EDR:07/02/02 Date Made Active at EDR:07/15/02 Elapsed ASTM days:13 Database Release Frequency:Annually Date of Last EDR Contact:01/27/03 FEDERAL ASTM SUPPLEMENTAL RECORDS BRS: Biennial Reporting System Source: EPA/NTIS Telephone: 800-424-9346 The Biennial Reporting System is a national system administered by the EPA that collects data on the generation and management of hazardous waste.BRS captures detailed data from two groups:Large Quantity Generators(LQG) and Treatment,Storage,and Disposal Facilities. Date of Government Version:12/31/99 Date of Last EDR Contact:12/17/02 • Database Release Frequency:Biennially Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact:03/17/03 CONSENT: Superfund(CERCLA)Consent Decrees Source: EPA Regional Offices Telephone: Varies Major legal settlements that establish responsibility and standards for cleanup at NPL(Superfund)sites.Released periodically by United States District Courts after settlement by parties to litigation matters. Date of Government Version:N/A Date of Last EDR Contact:N/A Database Release Frequency:Varies Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact:N/A ROD: Records Of Decision Source: EPA Telephone: 703-416-0223 Record of Decision.ROD documents mandate a permanent remedy at an NPL(Supertund)site containing technical and health information to aid in the cleanup. TC930624.1s Page GR-2 ORPHAN SUMMARY City EDR ID Site Name Site Address Zip Database(s) HUNTINGTON 1004676604 ORCHARD HARDWARE SUPPLY NO 0051 19330 GOLDEN W ST 92648 RCRIS-SQG,FINDS HUNTINGTON BCH S103670084 HANUS AUTO BODY 712 YORKTOWN#12 / 13 92648 HAZNET HUNTINGTON BEACH S105678193 BOLJA CHICA SITES 1 AND 2 IDS(213 2-SITES-AT WEST END SEAPOIN SWF/LF HUNTINGTON BEACH S103678620 CHEVRON LAND&DEVELOPMENT EAST 1ST ST / PCH 92648 HAZNET HUNTINGTON BEACH S105030744 LEWIS CLEANERS 204 ADAMS AVE 92648 CLEANERS HUNTINGTON BEACH S104582496 BROWNS AUTOMOTIVE 7311 AUTO PK DR 92648 HAZNET HUNTINGTON BEACH S104549224 SEABRIDGE VILLAS N/A BEACH BOULEVARD CA SLIC HUNTINGTON BEACH 0003832050 THE PLAZA-HUNTINGTON BEACH 17011 BEACH BLVD 826 UST HUNTINGTON BEACH 0003785053 WINALL STATION#19(SHELL) 19472 BEACH BLVD#19 92648 LUST,UST HUNTINGTON BEACH S105696079 ARCO 19971 BEACH 92648 LUST HUNTINGTON BEACH S103638448 O S 1HR PHOTO 19092 BEACH BOULEVARD SUITE S 92648 HAZNET HUNTINGTON BEACH S103637757 TEXACO REFINING AND MARKETING INC 18502 BEACH / ELLIS 92648 HAZNET HUNTINGTON BEACH S105696078 TEXACO SERVICE STATION 18502 BEACH 92646 LUST HUNTINGTON BEACH S1 0236 1 43 9 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH LANDFILL BETWEEN GOTHARD AND GOLDENWEST SWF/LF HUNTINGTON BEACH S103678324 CHEVRON LAND DEVELOPMENT COMPANY BLOCK OF PROMENDE PKWY,SEAGATE 92648 HAZNET HUNTINGTON BEACH S105126513 SHELL 16001 BOLSA CHICA/EDINGER HAZNET HUNTINGTON BEACH S103674985 HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY SCHOOL DISTR 8800 BULCREST AVE 92648 HAZNET HUNTINGTON BEACH S1 01 1 2631 4 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH MC CALLEN PARK Orange Co.Industrial Site HUNTINGTON BEACH S103442591 CANNERY STREET D CANNERY / HAMILTON STS WMUDS/SWAT HUNTINGTON BEACH S103967640 HERITAGE COMMUNITIES CORNER OF MAIN ST / E GARFIE 92648 HAZNET HUNTINGTON BEACH 0003831966 BEACH MAINTENANCE FACILITY 8669 EDISON AVE UST HUNTINGTON BEACH 1003878043 SANDBLAST&METALLIZING 8671 EDISON 92648 CERC-NFRAP HUNTINGTON BEACH S103442640 SULLY-MILLER CONSTRUCTION COMP ELLIS / GOLDEN WEST WMUDS/SWAT HUNTINGTON BEACH S105085521 THE ELLIS APARTMENTS 7811 ELLIS AVE APT 1 92648 HAZNET HUNTINGTON BEACH S103960862 DIVERSIFIED MOLDS&MOLDING 18392 ENTERPRISE LANE UNIT 3 92648 HAZNET HUNTINGTON BEACH S102823914 CUSTOM MERCHANDISING DISPLAYS 118211 ENTERPRISE#A 92648 HAZNET HUNTINGTON BEACH S100862252 FLORIDA GARDENS APTS 18832 FLORIDA AVE NO 1 92648 HAZNET HUNTINGTON BEACH S1 055021 1 1 CAL RESOURCES LLC(FORMER SHELL W 2010 W GOLDEN CA SLIC HUNTINGTON BEACH U003804907 OCEAN VIEW MUSHROOM GROWERS 18196 GOLDEN WEST 92648 UST HUNTINGTON BEACH 0003804551 CHEVRON U S A INC 20031 GOLDEN WEST 92648 UST HUNTINGTON BEACH S100925788 1X BUSINESS PROPERTIES 12356 GOLDENWEST HAZNET HUNTINGTON BEACH S104580111 THE PAINT SHOP 18291 GOTHARD ST_STE 102 92648 HAZNET HUNTINGTON BEACH S103969625 HYPER-THERM INC 18411 GOTHARD ST UNIT B / C 92648 HAZNET HUNTINGTON BEACH S103637630 J K ENGINEERING CO 18411 GOTHARD UNIT B/C 92648 HAZNET HUNTINGTON BEACH S103637631 HYPER-THERM INC 18411 GOTHERARD ST UNIT B C 92648 HAZNET HUNTINGTON BEACH S104570831 ELDERDING FAMILY TRUST 13117 HUNTING BLVD HAZNET HUNTINGTON BEACH S102803475 COLICH&SONS INTERSECTION OF GOLDENWEST / HAZNET HUNTINGTON BEACH 1000287725 AERA PLATFORM ELLY ELLEN COMPLEX LAT 34 10 47N LO 119 28 05W 92648 RCRIS-LOG HUNTINGTON BEACH 1000287724 AERA PLATFORM EMMY LAT 33 39 44N LO 188 02 37N 92648 FINDS,RCRIS-LQG HUNTINGTON BEACH 1000287723 AERA PLATFORM EUREKA LAT 33 33 49N LO 118 06 59W 92648 FINDS,RCRIS-LQG HUNTINGTON BEACH S105696092 VACANT AREA 301 MAIN 92648 LUST HUNTINGTON BEACH S105696091 ABC PROPERTIES 122 MAIN 92648 LUST HUNTINGTON BEACH S105030792 SEACLIFF VILLAZE CLEANERS 19431 MAIN ST STE 102 92648 CLEANERS TC930624.1s Page 43 __ ORPHAN WAIIA*Fr?.:--, . z.',.‘1',,,. ^:•''1:, , City EDR ID Site Name Site Address Zip Database(s) HUNTINGTON BEACH S104581087 PIERSIDE DENTISTRY 501 MAIN ST STE A 92648 HAZNET HUNTINGTON BEACH S103967115 HALL PHOTOGRAPHY 2223 MAIN STREET STE 40 92648 HAZNET HUNTINGTON BEACH 1000434389 CHEVRON CHEM CO 2223 44 MAIN ST 92648 RCRIS-SQG,FINDS HUNTINGTON BEACH S103666792 HOME SAVINGS OF AMERICA 6107 MIDDLETON ST HAZNET HUNTINGTON BEACH S104581112 DANIEL JAFFE DDS 305 ORANGE AVE STE C 92648 HAZNET HUNTINGTON BEACH S102435995 ROGER'S CABLE COMPANY(FORMER) PACIFIC COAST HWY 92648 LUST HUNTINGTON BEACH S103955934 CHEVRON LAND&DEVELOPMENT CO PARCEL#83-562 92648 HAZNET HUNTINGTON BEACH S103956987 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH POLICE HELIPORT 92648 HAZNET HUNTINGTON BEACH U003879870 RELIABLE WHOLESALE LUMBER INC 7600 REDONDO CUR 92648 -UST HUNTINGTON BEACH S104583186 SPECIALIZED AUTO 18101 REDONDO CIRCLE STEM 92648 HAZNET HUNTINGTON BEACH S103637145 CUSTOM PAINTING&RESTOR BY GO 18081 REDONDO CIRCLE UNIT D 92648 HAZNET HUNTINGTON BEACH S105093425 SPEED GARAGE 7880 TALBERT UNIT G 92648 HAZNET HUNTINGTON BEACH S105089514 ZINK ENGINEERING INC 7602 TALBERT UNIT 15 92648 HAZNET HUNTINGTON BEACH S103671764 TORACK INC RESTORATION AND COLLISI 7680 TALBERT AVE STE C 92648 HAZNET HUNTINGTON BEACH U001577347 WARNER FIRE STATION 3031 WARNER AVENUE 92648 HIST UST HUNTINGTON BEACH S103647750 CHERVRON LAND DEVELOPMENT COMPANY 264 FT WEST HOLLY ST / 73 FT 92648. HAZNET WESTMINSTER S103640178 HOME SAVINGS OF AMERICA 202 HOSPITAL CIRCLE DRIVE 92648 HAZNET TC930624.1s Page 44 . ,, , _ GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED/.DATA:CURRENCY"TRACKING Date of Government Version:12/21/01 Date of Last EDR Contact:01/07/03 Database Release Frequency:Annually Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact:04/07/03 DELISTED NPL: National Priority List Deletions Source: EPA Telephone: N/A The National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan(NCP)establishes the criteria that the EPA uses to delete sites from the NPL.In accordance with 40 CFR 300.425.(e),sites may be deleted from the NPL where no further response is appropriate. Date of Government Version:10/18/02 Date of Last EDR Contact:02/04/03 Database Release Frequency:Quarterly Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact:05/05/03 FINDS: Facility Index System/Facility Identification Initiative Program Summary Report Source: EPA Telephone: N/A Facility Index System.FINDS contains both facility information and'pointers'to other sources that contain more detail.EDR includes the following FINDS databases in this report:PCS(Permit Compliance System),AIRS(Aerometric Information Retrieval System),DOCKET(Enforcement Docket used to manage and track information on civil judicial enforcement cases for all environmental statutes),FURS(Federal Underground Injection Control),C-DOCKET(Criminal Docket System used to track criminal enforcement actions for all environmental statutes),FFIS(Federal Facilities Information System),STATE(State Environmental Laws and Statutes),and PADS(PCB Activity Data System). Date of Government Version:10/10/02 Date of Last EDR Contact:01/06/03 Database Release Frequency:Quarterly Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact:04/07/03 HMIRS: Hazardous Materials Information Reporting System Source: U.S.Department of Transportation Telephone: 202-366-4555 Hazardous Materials Incident Report System.HMIRS contains hazardous material spill incidents reported to DOT. Date of Government Version:07/31/02 Date of Last EDR Contact:01/23/03 Database Release Frequency:Annually Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact:04/21/03 MLTS: Material Licensing Tracking System Source: Nuclear Regulatory Commission Telephone: 301-415-7169 MLTS is maintained by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and contains a list of approximately 8,100 sites which • possess or use radioactive materials and which are subject to NRC licensing requirements.To maintain currency, EDR contacts the Agency on a quarterly basis. Date of Government Version:10/21/02 Date of Last EDR Contact:01/06/03 Database Release Frequency:Quarterly Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact:04/07/03 MINES: Mines Master Index File i r Source: Department of Labor,Mine Safety and Health Administration Telephone: 303-231-5959 Date of Government Version:09/10/02 Date of Last EDR Contact:01/03/03 Database Release Frequency:Semi-Annually Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact:03/31/03 NPL LIENS: Federal Superfund Liens Source: EPA , Telephone: 205-564-4267 Federal Superfund Liens.Under the authority granted the USEPA by the Comprehensive Environmental Response,Compensation and Liability Act(CERCLA)of 1980,the USEPA has the authority to file liens against real property in order to recover remedial action expenditures or when the property owner receives notification of potential liability. USEPA compiles a listing of filed notices of Superfund Liens. TC930624.1s Page GR-3 � I � � I GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED/DATA CURRENCY TRACKING Date of Government Version:10/15/91 Date of Last EDR Contact:11/25/02 Database Release Frequency:No Update Planned Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact:02/24/03 PADS: PCB Activity Database System Source: EPA Telephone: 202-564-3887 PCB Activity Database.PADS Identifies generators,transporters,commercial starers and/or brokers and disposers of PCB's who are required to notify the EPA of such activities. Date of Government Version:09/20/02 Date of Last EDR Contact:02/10/03 Database Release Frequency:Annually Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact:05/12/03 RAATS: RCRA Administrative Action Tracking System Source: EPA Telephone: 202-564-4104 RCRA Administration Action Tracking System.RAATS contains records based on enforcement actions issued under RCRA pertaining to major violators and includes administrative and civil actions brought by the EPA.For administration -- actions after September 30,1995,data entry in the RAATS database was discontinued.EPA will retain a copy of the database for historical records.It was necessary to terminate RAATS because a decrease in agency resources made it impossible to continue to update the information contained in the database. Date of Government Version:04/17/95 Date of Last EDR Contact:12/10/02 Database Release Frequency:No Update Planned Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact:03/10/03 TRIS: Toxic Chemical Release Inventory System Source: EPA Telephone: 202-260-1531 Toxic Release Inventory System.IRIS identifies facilities which release toxic chemicals to the air,water and • land in reportable quantities under SARA Title III Section 313. Date of Government Version:12/31/00 Date of Last EDR Contact:12/26/02 Database Release Frequency:Annually Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact:03/24/03 TSCA: Toxic Substances Control Act Source: EPA Telephone: 202-260-5521 Toxic Substances Control Act.TSCA identifies manufacturers and importers of chemical substances included on the TSCA Chemical Substance Inventory list.It includes data on the production volume of these substances by plant site. Date of Government Version:12/31/98 Date of Last EDR Contact:12/10/02 Database Release Frequency:Every 4 Years Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact:03/10/03 FITS INSP: FIFRA/TSCA Tracking System-FIFRA(Federal Insecticide,Fungicide,&Rodenticide Act)/TSCA(Toxic Substances Control Act) Source: EPA Telephone: 202-564-2501 Date of Government Version:10/24/02 Date of Last EDR Contact:12/26/02 Database Release Frequency:Quarterly Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact:03/24/03 SSTS: Section 7 Tracking Systems Source: EPA Telephone: 202-564-5008 Section 7 of the Federal Insecticide,Fungicide and Rodenticide Act,as amended(92 Stat.829)requires all registered pesticide-producing establishments to submit a report to the Environmental Protection Agency by March 1st each year.Each establishment must report the types and amounts of pesticides,active ingredients and devices being produced,and those having been produced and sold or distributed in the past year. Date of Government Version:12/31/00 Date of Last EDR Contact:01/21/03 Database Release Frequency:Annually Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact:04/21/03 TC930624.1s Page GR-4 GOVERNMENT.RECORDS-SEARCHED/'DATA,CURRENCY TRACKING ' •H FITS: FIFRA/TSCA Tracking System-FIFRA(Federal Insecticide,Fungicide,&Rodenticide Act)/TSCA(Toxic Substances Control Act) Source: EPA/Office of Prevention,Pesticides and Toxic Substances Telephone: 202-564-2501 _ FITS tracks administrative cases and pesticide enforcement actions and compliance activities related to FIFRA, TSCA and EPCRA(Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act).To maintain currency,EDR contacts the Agency on a quarterly basis. Date of Govemment Version:10/24/02 Date of Last EDR Contact:12/26/02 Database Release Frequency:Quarterly Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact:03/24/03 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ASTM STANDARD RECORDS AWP: Annual Workplan Sites Source: Califomia Environmental Protection Agency Telephone: 916-323-3400 Known Hazardous Waste Sites.California DTSC's Annual Workplan(AWP),formerly BEP,identifies known hazardous substance sites targeted for cleanup. Date of Government Version:01/06/03 Date of Data Arrival at EDR:01/06/03 Date Made Active at EDR:01/28/03 Elapsed ASTM days:22 Database Release Frequency:Annually Date of Last EDR Contact:01/06/03 CAL-SITES: Calsites Database Source: Department of Toxic Substance Control Telephone: 916-323-3400 The Calsites database contains potential or confirmed hazardous substance release properties.In 1996,California EPA reevaluated and significantly reduced the number of sites in the Calsites database. Date of Government Version:11/21/02 Date of Data Arrival at EDR:12/09/02 Date Made Active at EDR:01/15/03 Elapsed ASTM days:37 Database Release Frequency:Quarterly Date of Last EDR Contact:12/09/02 CHMIRS: California Hazardous Material Incident Report System Source: Office of Emergency Services Telephone: 916-845-8400 California Hazardous Material Incident Reporting System.CHMIRS contains information on reported hazardous material incidents(accidental releases or spills). Date of Government Version:12/31/01 Date of Data Arrival at EDR:12/02/02 Date Made Active at EDR:01/15/03 Elapsed ASTM days:44 Database Release Frequency:No Update Planned Date of Last EDR Contact:11/25/02 CORTESE: "Cortese"Hazardous Waste&Substances Sites List Source: CAL EPA/Office of Emergency Information Telephone: 916-323-9100 The sites for the list are designated by the State Water Resource Control Board(LUST),the Integrated Waste Board(SWF/LS),and the Department of Toxic Substances Control(Cal-Sites). Date of Government Version:04/01/01 Date of Data Arrival at EDR:05/29/01 Date Made Active at EDR:07/26/01 Elapsed ASTM days:58 Database Release Frequency:No Update Planned Date of Last EDR Contact:01/31/03 NOTIFY 65: Proposition 65 Records Source: State Water Resources Control Board Telephone: 916-445-3846 Proposition 65 Notification Records.NOTIFY 65 contains facility notifications about any release which could impact drinking water and thereby expose the public to a potential health risk. i f TC930624.1 s Page GR-5 GOVERNMENT RECORDS,SEARCHED/DATA CURRENCY TRACKING - Date of Government Version:10/21/93 Date of Data Arrival at EDR:11/01/93 Date Made Active at EDR:11/19/93 Elapsed ASTM days:18 Database Release Frequency:No Update Planned Date of Last EDR Contact:01/20/03 TOXIC PITS: Toxic Pits Cleanup Act Sites Source: State Water Resources Control Board Telephone: 916-227-4364 Toxic PITS Cleanup Act Sites.TOXIC PITS identifies sites suspected of containing hazardous substances where cleanup has not yet been completed. Date of Government Version:07/01/95 Date of Data Arrival at EDR:08/30/95 Date Made Active at EDR:09/26/95 Elapsed ASTM days:27 Database Release Frequency:No Update Planned Date of Last EDR Contact:02/03/03 SWF/LF(SWIS): Solid Waste Information System Source: Integrated Waste Management Board Telephone: 916-341-6320 Active,Closed and Inactive Landfills.SWF/LF records typically contain an inve ntory of solid waste disposal facilities or landfills.These may be active or i nactive facilities or open dumps that failed to meet RCRA Section 4004 criteria for solid waste landfills or disposal sites. ; Date of Government Version:12/16/02 Date of Data Arrival at EDR:12/17/02 Date Made Active at EDR:01/15/03 Elapsed ASTM days:29 Database Release Frequency:Quarterly Date of Last EDR Contact:12/17/02 WMUDS/SWAT: Waste Management Unit Database Source: State Water Resources Control Board Telephone: 916-227-4448 Waste Management Unit Database System.WMUDS is used by the State Water Resources Control Board staff and the Regional Water Quality Control Boards for program tracking and inventory of waste management units.WMUDS is composed of the following databases:Facility Information,Scheduled Inspections Information,Waste Management Unit Information, SWAT Program Information,SWAT Report Summary Information,SWAT Report Summary Data,Chapter 15(formerly Subchapter 15)Information,Chapter 15 Monitoring Parameters,TPCA Program Information,RCRA Program Information,Closure Information,and Interested Parties Information. Date of Government Version:04/01/00 Date of Data Arrival at EDR:04/10/00 Date Made Active at EDR:05/10/00 Elapsed ASTM days:30 Database Release Frequency:Quarterly Date of Last EDR Contact:12/10/02 LUST: Leaking Underground Storage Tank Information System Source: State Water Resources Control Board Telephone: 916-341-5740 Leaking Underground Storage Tank Incident Reports.LUST records contain an inventory of reported leaking underground storage tank incidents.Not all states maintain these records,and the information stored varies by state. Date of Government Version:01/06/03 Date of Data Arrival at EDR:01/08/03 Date Made Active at EDR:02/04/03 Elapsed ASTM days:27 Database Release Frequency:Quarterly Date of Last EDR Contact:01/08/03 CA BOND EXP.PLAN: Bond Expenditure Plan Source: Department of Health Services Telephone: 916-255-2118 Department of Health Services developed a site-specific expenditure plan as the basis for an appropriation of Hazardous Substance Cleanup Bond Act funds.It is not updated. Date of Government Version:01/01/89 Date of Data Arrival at EDR:07/27/94 Date Made Active at EDR:08/02/94 Elapsed ASTM days:6 Database Release Frequency:No Update Planned Date of Last EDR Contact:05/31/94 TC930624.1s Page GR-6 GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED I DATA CURRENCYTRACKING CA UST: UST: Active UST Facilities Source: SWRCB Telephone: 916-341-5700 Active UST facilities gathered from the local regulatory agencies Date of Government Version:01/06/03 Date of Data Arrival at EDR:01/08/03 Date Made Active at EDR:01/28/03 Elapsed ASTM days:20 Database Release Frequency:Semi-Annually Date of Last EDR Contact:01/08/03 VCP: Voluntary Cleanup Program Properties Source: Department of Toxic Substances Control Telephone: 916-323-3400 Contains low threat level properties with either confirmed or unconfirmed releases and the project proponents have request that DTSC oversee investigation and/or cleanup activities and have agreed to provide coverage for DTSC's costs. Date of Government Version:12/30/02 Date of Data Arrival at EDR:01/06/03 Date Made Active at EDR:01/28/03 Elapsed ASTM days:22 Database Release Frequency:Quarterly Date of Last EDR Contact:01/06/03 INDIAN UST: Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land -Source: EPA Region 9 Telephone: 415-972-3368 Date of Government Version:N/A Date of Data Arrival at EDR:N/A Date Made Active at EDR:N/A Elapsed ASTM days:0 Database Release Frequency:Vanes Date of Last EDR Contact:N/A CA FID UST: Facility Inventory Database Source: Califomia Environmental Protection Agency Telephone: 916-445-6532 The Facility Inventory Database(FID)contains a historical listing of active and inactive underground storage tank locations from the State Water Resource Control Board.Refer to IocaVcounty source for current data. Date of Government Version:10/31/94 Date of Data Arrival at EDR:09/05/95 Date Made Active at EDR:09/29/95 Elapsed ASTM days:24 Database Release Frequency:No Update Planned Date of Last EDR Contact:12/28/98 HIST UST: Hazardous Substance Storage Container Database Source: State Water Resources Control Board Telephone: 916-341-5700 The Hazardous Substance Storage Container Database is a historical listing of UST sites.Refer to IocaVcounty source for current data. Date of Government Version:10/15/90 Date of Data Arrival at EDR:01/25/91 Date Made Active at EDR:02/12/91 Elapsed ASTM days:18 Database Release Frequency:No Update Planned Date of Last EDR Contact:07/26/01 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ASTM SUPPLEMENTAL RECORDS AST: Aboveground Petroleum Storage Tank Facilities Source: State Water Resources Control Board Telephone: 916-341-5712 Registered Aboveground Storage Tanks. Date of Government Version:11/20/02 Date of Last EDR Contact:02/03/03 Database Release Frequency:Quarterly Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact:05/05/03 TC930624.1s Page GR-7 :',GO VERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED-/ DATA CURRENCY TRACKING` CLEANERS: Cleaner Facilities Source: Department of Toxic Substance Control Telephone: 916-225-0873 A list of drycleaner related facilities that have EPA ID numbers.These are facilities with certain SIC codes: power laundries,family and commercial;garment pressing and cleaner's agents;linen supply;coin-operated laundries and cleaning;drycleaning plants,except rugs;carpet and upholster cleaning;industrial launderers;laundry and garment services. Date of Government Version:03/18/02 Date of Last EDR Contact:01/10/03 Database Release Frequency:Annually Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact:04/07/03 CA WDS: Waste Discharge System Source: State Water Resources Control Board Telephone: 916-657-1571 Sites which have been issued waste discharge requirements. Date of Government Version:12/23/02 Date of Last EDR Contact:12/26/02 Database Release Frequency:Quarterly Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact:03/24/03 DEED: List of Deed Restrictions Source: Department of Toxic Substances Control Telephone: 916-323-3400 The use of recorded land use restrictions is one of the methods the DTSC uses to protect the public from unsafe exposures to hazardous substances and wastes. Date of Government Version:01/03/03 Date of Last EDR Contact:01/06/03 Database Release Frequency:Semi-Annually Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact:04/07/03 HAZNET: Hazardous Waste Information System Source: California Environmental Protection Agency Telephone: 916-255-1136 Facility and Manifest Data.The data is extracted from the copies of hazardous waste manifests received each year by the DTSC.The annual volume of manifests is typically 700,000-1,000,000 annually,representing approximately 350,000-500,000 shipments.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. Date of Government Version:12/31/00 Date of Last EDR Contact:02/10/03 Database Release Frequency:Annually Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact:05/12/03 LOCAL RECORDS ALAMEDA COUNTY: Local Oversight Program Listing of UGT Cleanup Sites Source: Alameda County Environmental Health Services • Telephone: 510-567-6700 Date of Government Version:12/02/02 • Date of Last EDR Contact:01/27/03 Database Release Frequency:Semi-Annually Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact:04/28/03 Underground Tanks Source: Alameda County Environmental Health Services Telephone: 510-567-6700 Date of Government Version:11/26/02 Date of Last EDR Contact:01/27/03 Database Release Frequency:Semi-Annually Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact:04/28/03 TC930624.1s Page GR-8 GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED./'DATA CURRENCY TRACKING CONTRA COSTA COUNTY: Site List Source: Contra Costa Health Services Department Telephone: 925-646-2286 List includes sites from the underground tank,hazardous waste generator and business plan/2185 programs. Date of Government Version:06/05/02 Date of Last EDR Contact:12/02/02 Database Release Frequency:Semi-Annually Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact:03/03/03 FRESNO COUNTY: CUPA Resources List Source: Dept.of Community Health Telephone: 559-445-3271 Certified Unified Program Agency.CUPA's are responsible for implementing a unified hazardous materials and hazardous waste management regulatory program.The agency provides oversight of businesses that deal with hazardous materials, operate underground storage tanks or aboveground storage tanks. Date of Government Version:01/24/03 Date of Last EDR Contact:01/24/03 Database Release Frequency:Semi-Annually Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact:05/12/03 KERN COUNTY: Underground Storage Tank Sites&Tank Listing Source: Kern County Environment Health Services Department Telephone: 661-862-8700 • Kern County Sites and Tanks Listing. Date of Government Version:06/01/02 Date of Last EDR Contact:12/02/02 { ` Database Release Frequency:Quarterly ' Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact:03/03/03 LOS ANGELES COUNTY: List of Solid Waste Facilities Source: La County Department of Public Works Telephone: 818-458-5185 Date of Government Version:10/28/02 Date of Last EDR Contact:11/21/02 Database Release Frequency:Varies Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact:02/17/03 City of El Segundo Underground Storage Tank - Source: City of El Segundo Fire Department Telephone: 310-607-2239 Date of Government Version:11/01/02 Date of Last EDR Contact:11/18/02 Database Release Frequency:Semi-Annually Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact:02/17/03 City of Long Beach Underground Storage Tank Source: City of Long Beach Fire Department Telephone: 562-570-2543 Date of Government Version:05/30/02 Date of Last EDR Contact:11/25/02 Database Release Frequency:Annually Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact:02/24/03 TC930624.1s Page GR-9 GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED! DATA CURRENCY-TRACKING. :: • City of Torrance Underground Storage Tank Source: City of Torrance Fire Department Telephone: 310-618-2973 Date of Government Version:08/01/02 Date of Last EDR Contact: 11/18/02 Database Release Frequency:Semi-Annually Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact:02/17/03 City of Los Angeles Landfills Source: Engineering&Construction Division Telephone: 213-473-7869 Date of Government Version:03/01/02 Date of Last EDR Contact: 12/17/02 Database Release Frequency:Varies Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact:03/17/03 HMS:Street Number List Source: Department of Public Works Telephone: 626-458-3517 Industrial Waste and Underground Storage Tank Sites. Date of Government Version:11/27/02 Date of Last EDR Contact: 11/18/02 1 Database Release Frequency:Semi-Annually Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact:02/17/03 Site Mitigation List Source: Community Health Services Telephone: 323-890-7806 Industrial sites that have had some sort of spill or complaint. Date of Government Version:02/28/02 Date of Last EDR Contact:11/18/02 Database Release Frequency:Annually Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact:02/17/03 San Gabriel Valley Areas of Concern Source: EPA Region 9 Telephone: 415-972-3178 San Gabriel Valley areas where VOC contamination is at or above the MCL as designated by region 9 EPA office. Date of Government Version:12/31/98 Date of Last EDR Contact:06/29/99 Database Release Frequency:No Update Planned Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact:N/A MARIN COUNTY: Underground Storage Tank Sites Source: Public Works Department Waste Management Telephone: 415-499-6647 Currently permitted USTs in Marin County. Date of Government Version:08/06/02 Date of Last EDR Contact:02/03/03 Database Release Frequency:Semi-Annually Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact:05/05/03 NAPA COUNTY: Sites With Reported Contamination Source: Napa County Department of Environmental Management Telephone: 707-253-4269 Date of Government Version:09/30/02 Date of Last EDR Contact:12/30/02 Database Release Frequency:Semi-Annually Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact:03/31/03 Closed and Operating Underground Storage Tank Sites Source: Napa County Department of Environmental Management Telephone: 707-253-4269 TC930624.1s Page GR-10 I 1 "- "GOVERNMENT'RECORDS SEARCHED I.DATA,CURRENCY TRACKING Date of Government Version:09/30/02 Date of Last EDR Contact:12/30/02 Database Release Frequency:Annually Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact:03/31/03 ORANGE COUNTY: List of Underground Storage Tank Cleanups Source: Health Care Agency Telephone: 714-834-3446 Orange County Underground Storage Tank Cleanups(LUST). Date of Government Version:11/04/02 Date of Last EDR Contact:12/09/02 Database Release Frequency:Quarterly Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact:03/10/03 List of Underground Storage Tank Facilities Source: Health Care Agency Telephone: 714-834-3446 Orange County Underground Storage Tank Facilities(UST). Date of Government Version:11/27/01 Date of Last EDR Contact:12/09/02 Database Release Frequency:Quarterly Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact:03/10/03 List of Industrial Site Cleanups Source: Health Care Agency Telephone: 714-834-3446 Petroleum and non-petroleum spills. Date of Government Version:10/24/00 Date of Last EDR Contact:12/09/02 Database Release Frequency:Annually Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact:03/10/03 PLACER COUNTY: Master List of Facilities Source: Placer County Health and Human Services Telephone: 530-889-7312 List includes aboveground tanks,underground tanks and cleanup sites. Date of Government Version:02/03/03 Date of Last EDR Contact:12/26/02 Database Release Frequency:Semi-Annually Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact:03/24/03 RIVERSIDE COUNTY: Listing of Underground Tank Cleanup Sites • Source: Department of Public Health Telephone: 909-358-5055 Riverside County Underground Storage Tank Cleanup Sites(LUST). Date of Government Version:09/26/02 Date of Last EDR Contact:01/20/03 Database Release Frequency:Quarterly Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact:04/21/03 Underground Storage Tank Tank List Source: Health Services Agency Telephone: 909-358-5055 Date of Government Version:09/04/02 Date of Last EDR Contact:01/20/03 Database Release Frequency:Quarterly Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact:04/21/03 TC930624.1s Page GR-11 GOVERNMENT`RECORDS SEARCHED /•DATA.CURRENCY TRACKING: ti SACRAMENTO COUNTY: CS-Contaminated Sites Source: Sacramento County Environmental Management Telephone: 916-875-8406 Date of Government Version:10/25/02 Date of Last EDR Contact:02/03/03 Database Release Frequency:Quarterly Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact:05/05/03 ML-Regulatory Compliance Master List Source: Sacramento County Environmental Management Telephone: 916-875-8406 Any business that has hazardous materials on site-hazardous material storage sites,underground storage tanks, waste generators. Date of Government Version:.11/05/02 Date of Last EDR Contact:02/03/03 Database Release Frequency:Quarterly Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact:05/05/03 • SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY: Hazardous Material Permits Source: San Bernardino County Fire Department Hazardous Materials Division Telephone: 909-387-3041 This listing includes underground storage tanks,medical waste handlers/generators,hazardous materials handlers, hazardous waste generators,and waste oil generators/handlers. Date of Government Version:01/16/03 Date of Last EDR Contact:12/30/02 Database Release Frequency:Quarterly Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact:03/10/03 SAN DIEGO COUNTY: Solid Waste Facilities Source: Department of Health Services Telephone: 619-338-2209 San Diego County Solid Waste Facilities. Date of Government Version:08/01/00 Date of Last EDR Contact:11/25/02 Database Release Frequency:Varies Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact:02/24/03 Hazardous Materials Management Division Database Source: Hazardous Materials Management Division Telephone: 619-338-2268 The database includes:HE58-This report contains the business name,site address,business phone number,establishment 'H'permit number,type of permit,and the business status.HE17-In addition to providing the same information provided in the HE58 listing,HE17 provides inspection dates,violations received by the establishment,hazardous waste generated,the quantity,method of storage,treatment/disposal of waste and the hauler,and information on underground storage tanks.Unauthorized Release List-Includes a summary of environmental contamination cases in San Diego County(underground tank cases,non-tank cases,groundwater contamination,and soil contamination are included.) Date of Government Version:03/31/02 Date of Last EDR Contact:01/09/03 Database Release Frequency:Quarterly Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact:04/07/03 SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY: TC930624.1s Page GR-12 GOVERNMENT RECORDS'SEARCHED/ DATA.CURRENCY TRACKING: Local Oversite Facilities Source: Department Of Public Health San Francisco County Telephone: 415-252-3920 Date of Government Version:12/11/02 Date of Last EDR Contact:12/09/02 Database Release Frequency:Quarterly Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact:03/10/03 Underground Storage Tank Information Source: Department of Public Health Telephone: 415-252-3920 Date of Government Version:12/11/02 Date of Last EDR Contact:12/09/02 Database Release Frequency:Quarterly Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact:03/10/03 SAN MATEO COUNTY: Fuel Leak List Source: San Mateo County Environmental Health Services Division Telephone: 650-363-1921 Date of Government Version:10/28/02 Date of Last EDR Contact:01/27/03 Database Release Frequency:Semi-Annually Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact:04/28/03 Business Inventory Source: San Mateo County Environmental Health Services Division Telephone: 650-363-1921 --1 List includes Hazardous Materials Business Plan,hazardous waste generators,and underground storage tanks. Date of Government Version:05/01/02 Date of Last EDR Contact:01/13/03 Database Release Frequency:Annually Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact:04/14/03 SANTA CLARA COUNTY: Fuel Leak Site Activity Report Source: Santa Clara Valley Water District Telephone: 408-265-2600 Date of Government Version:01/08/03 Date of Last EDR Contact:12/30/02 Database Release Frequency:Semi-Annually Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact:03/31/03 Hazardous Material Facilities Source: City of San Jose Fire Department Telephone: 408-277-4659 Date of Government Version:01/03/02 Date of Last EDR Contact:12/09/02 Database Release Frequency:Annually Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact:03/10/03 SOLANO COUNTY: Leaking Underground Storage Tanks Source: Solano County Department of Environmental Management Telephone: 707-421-6770 Date of Government Version:12/20/02 Date of Last EDR Contact:12/16/02 Database Release Frequency:Quarterly Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact:03/17/03 Underground Storage Tanks Source: Solano County Department of Environmental Management Telephone: 707-421-6770 TC930624.1s Page GR-13 GOVERNMENT.RECORDS°SEARCHED/`DATA-CURRENCY'_TRACKING,. - .: Date of Government Version:12/18/02 Date of Last EDR Contact:12/16/02 Database Release Frequency:Quarterly Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact:03/17/03 SONOMA COUNTY: Leaking Underground Storage Tank Sites Source: Department of Health Services Telephone: 707-565-6565 Date of Government Version:01/01/03 Date of Last EDR Contact:01/27/03 Database Release Frequency:Quarterly Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact:04/28/03 SUTTER COUNTY: Underground Storage Tanks Source: Sutter County Department of Agriculture Telephone: 530-822-7500 Date of Government Version:07/01/01 Date of Last EDR Contact:01/06/03 Database Release Frequency:Semi-Annually Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact:04/07/03 VENTURA COUNTY: Inventory of Illegal Abandoned and Inactive Sites Source: Environmental Health Division Telephone: 805-654-2813 Ventura County Inventory of Closed,Illegal Abandoned,and Inactive Sites. Date of Government Version:09/01/02 Date of Last EDR Contact:01/13/03 Database Release Frequency:Annually Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact:04/14/03 Listing of Underground Tank Cleanup Sites Source: Environmental Health Division Telephone: 805-654-2813 Ventura County Underground Storage Tank Cleanup Sites(LUST). Date of Government Version:09/04/02 Date of Last EDR Contact:12/17/02 Database Release Frequency:Quarterly - Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact:03/17/03 Underground Tank Closed Sites List Source: Environmental Health Division Telephone: 805-654-2813 Ventura County Operating Underground Storage Tank Sites(UST)/Underground Tank Closed Sites List. Date of Government Version:10/21/02 Date of Last EDR Contact:01/31/03 Database Release Frequency:Quarterly Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact:04/14/03 Business Plan,Hazardous Waste Producers,and Operating Underground Tanks Source: Ventura County Environmental Health Division Telephone: 805-654-2813 The BWT list indicates by site address whether the Environmental Health Division has Business Plan(B),Waste Producer(W),and/or Underground Tank(T)information. Date of Government Version:09/13/02 Date of Last EDR Contact:12/17/02 Database Release Frequency:Quarterly Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact:03/17/03 TC930624.1s Page GR-14 :`. GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED/°DATA CURRENCY,TRACKING -., YOLO COUNTY: Underground Storage Tank Comprehensive Facility Report Source: Yolo County Department of Health Telephone: 530-666-8646 Date of Government Version:10/28/02 Date of Last EDR Contact:01/20/03 Database Release Frequency:Annually Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact:04/21/03 California Regional Water Quality Control Board(RWQCB)LUST Records LUST REG 1: Active Toxic Site Investigation Source: California Regional Water Quality Control Board North Coast(1) Telephone: 707-576-2220 Del Norte,Humboldt,Lake,Mendocino,Modoc,Siskiyou,Sonoma,Trinity counties.For more current information, please refer to the State Water Resources Control Board's LUST database. • Date of Government Version:02/01/01 Date of Last EDR Contact:11/25/02 Database Release Frequency:No Update Planned Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact:02/24/03 LUST REG 2: Fuel Leak List Source: California Regional Water Quality Control Board San Francisco Bay Region(2) Telephone: 510-286-0457 Date of Government Version:10/01/02 Date of Last EDR Contact:01/13/03 Database Release Frequency:Quarterly Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact:04/14/03 LUST REG 3: Leaking Underground Storage Tank Database Source: California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Coast Region(3) Telephone: 805-549-3147 Date of Government Version:11/18/02 Date of Last EDR Contact:11/18/02 Database Release Frequency:Quarterly Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact:02/17/03 LUST REG 4: Underground Storage Tank Leak List Source: California Regional Water Quality Control Board Los Angeles Region(4) Telephone: 213-266-6600 Los Angeles,Ventura counties.For more current information,please refer to the State Water Resources Control Board's LUST database. Date of Government Version:08/09/01 Date of Last EDR Contact:12/30/02 Database Release Frequency:No Update Planned Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact:03/31/03 LUST REG 5: Leaking Underground Storage Tank Database Source: California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region(5) Telephone: 916-255-3125 Date of Government Version: 10/01/02 Date of Last EDR Contact:01/06/03 Database Release Frequency:Quarterly Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact:04/07/03 LUST REG 6L: Leaking Underground Storage Tank Case Listing Source: California Regional Water Quality Control Board Lahontan Region(6) Telephone: 916-542-5424 For more current information,please refer to the State Water Resources Control Board's LUST database. - Date of Government Version:01/01/03 Date of Last EDR Contact:01/06/03 Database Release Frequency:No Update Planned Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact:04/07/03 TC930624.1s Page GR-15 GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED I DATA CURRENCY TRACKING, LUST REG 6V: Leaking Underground Storage Tank Case Listing Source: California Regional Water Quality Control Board Victorville Branch Office(6) Telephone: 760-346-7491 Date of Government Version:01/24/03 Date of Last EDR Contact:01/06/03 Database Release Frequency:Quarterly Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact:04/07/03 LUST REG 7: Leaking Underground Storage Tank Case Listing Source: California Regional Water Quality Control Board Colorado River Basin Region(7) Telephone: 760-346-7491 Date of Government Version:07/02/02 Date of Last EDR Contact:12/30/02 Database Release Frequency:Semi-Annually Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact:03/31/03 r LUST REG 8: Leaking Underground Storage Tanks Source: California Regional Water Quality Control Board Santa Ana Region(8) Telephone: 909-782-4498 California Regional Water Quality Control Board Santa Ana Region(8).For more current information,please refer to the State Water Resources Control Board's LUST database. - Date of Government Version:12/02/02 Date of Last EDR Contact:02/10/03 Database Release Frequency:No Update Planned Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact:05/12/03 _ ; LUST REG 9: Leaking Underground Storage Tank Report Source: California Regional Water Quality Control Board San Diego Region(9) Telephone: 858-467-2980 Orange,Riverside,San Diego counties.For more current information,please refer to the State Water Resources Control Board's LUST database. Date of Government Version:03/01/01 Date of Last EDR Contact:01/20/03 Database Release Frequency:No Update Planned Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact:04/21/03 California Regional Water Quality Control Board(RWQCB)SLIC Records SLIC REG 1: Active Toxic Site Investigations Source: California Regional Water Quality Control Board,North Coast Region(1) Telephone: 707-576-2220 Date of Government Version:02/01/01 Date of Last EDR Contact:11/25/02 Database Release Frequency:Semi-Annually Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact:02/24/03 SLIC REG 2: Spills,Leaks,Investigation&Cleanup Cost Recovery Listing Source: Regional Water Quality Control Board San Francisco Bay Region(2) Telephone: 510-286-0457 Any contaminated site that impacts groundwater or has the potential to impact groundwater. Date of Government Version:10/01/02 Date of Last EDR Contact:01/13/03 Database Release Frequency:Quarterly Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact:04/13/03 SLIC REG 3: Spills,Leaks,Investigation&Cleanup Cost Recovery Listing Source: California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Coast Region(3) Telephone: 805-549-3147 Any contaminated site that impacts groundwater or has the potential to impact groundwater. Date of Government Version:11/18/02 Date of Last EDR Contact:11/18/02 Database Release Frequency:Semi-Annually Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact:02/17/03 SLIC REG 4: Spills,Leaks,Investigation&Cleanup Cost Recovery Listing Source: Region Water Quality Control Board Los Angeles Region(4) Telephone: 213-576-6600 Any contaminated site that impacts groundwater or has the potential to impact groundwater. TC930624.1s Page GR-16 ',GOVERNMENT-RECORDS SEARCHED!:DATA CURRENCY TRACKING,:` Date of Government Version:08/01/02 Date of Last EDR Contact:01/27/03 Database Release Frequency:Quarterly Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact:04/28/03 1 ' SLIC REG 5: Spills,Leaks,Investigation&Cleanup Cost Recovery Listing Source: Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region(5) Telephone: 916-855-3075 Unregulated sites that impact groundwater or have the potential to impact groundwater. Date of Government Version:01/01/03 Date of Last EDR Contact:01/06/03 Database Release Frequency:Semi-Annually Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact:04/07/03 SLIC REG 6V: Spills,Leaks,Investigation&Cleanup Cost Recovery Listing Source: Regional Water Quality Control Board,Victorville Branch Telephone: 619-241-6583 Date of Government Version:07/19/01 • Date of Last EDR Contact:01/06/03 Database Release Frequency:Semi-Annually Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact:04/07/03 SLIC REG 8: Spills,Leaks,Investigation&Cleanup Cost Recovery Listing Source: California Region Water Quality Control Board Santa Ana Region(8) Telephone: 909-782-3298 • Date of Government Version:06/01/02 Date of Last EDR Contact:01/06/03 Database Release Frequency:Semi-Annually Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact:04/07/03 SLIC REG 9: Spills,Leaks,Investigation&Cleanup Cost Recovery Listing Source: California Regional Water Quality Control Board San Diego Region(9) Telephone: 858-467-2980 Date of Government Version:03/01/02 Date of Last EDR Contact:12/02/02 Database Release Frequency:Annually Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact:03/03/03 EDR PROPRIETARY HISTORICAL DATABASES l i - Former Manufactured Gas(Coal Gas)Sites: The existence and location of Coal Gas sites is provided exclusively to EDR by Real Property Scan,Inc. ©Copyright 1993 Real Property Scan,Inc. For a technical description of the types of hazards which may be found at such sites,contact your EDR customer service representative. • Disclaimer Provided by Real Property Scan,Inc. I i The information contained in this report has predominantly been obtained from publicly available sources produced by entities other than Real Property Scan. While reasonable steps have been taken to insure the accuracy of this report,Real Property Scan does not guarantee the accuracy of this report. Any liability on the part of Real Property Scan is strictly limited to a refund of the amount paid. No claim is made for the actual existence of toxins at any site. This report does not constitute a legal opinion. STATE OF CALIFORNIA BROWNFIELDS DATABASES RECORDS VCP: Voluntary Cleanup Program Properties Source: Department of Toxic Substances Control Telephone: 916-323-3400 Contains low threat level properties with either confirmed or unconfirmed releases and the project proponents have request that DTSC oversee investigation and/or cleanup activities and have agreed to provide coverage for DTSC's costs. • Date of Government Version:12/30/02 Date of Last EDR Contact:01/06/03 Database Release Frequency:Quarterly Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact:04/07/03 TC930624.1s Page GR-17 GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED`/.DATA CURRENCY TRACKING' `: : ;- OTHER DATABASE(S) Depending on the geographic area covered by this report,the data provided in these specialty databases may or may not be complete. For example,the existence of wetlands information data in a specific report does not mean that all wetlands in the area covered by the report are included. Moreover,the absence of any reported wetlands information does not necessarily mean that wetlands do not exist in the area covered by the report. Oil/Gas Pipelines/Electrical Transmission Lines: This data was obtained by EDR from the USGS in 1994. It is referred to by USGS as GeoData Digital Line Graphs from 1:100,000-Scale Maps. It was extracted from the transportation category including some oil,but primarily gas pipelines and electrical transmission lines. Sensitive Receptors: There are individuals deemed sensitive receptors due to their fragile immune systems and special sensitivity to environmental discharges. These sensitive receptors typically include the elderly,the sick,and children. While the location of all ' sensitive receptors cannot be determined,EDR indicates those buildings and facilities-schools,daycares,hospitals,medical centers, and nursing homes-where individuals who are sensitive receptors are likely to be located. Flood Zone Data: This data,available in select counties across the country,was obtained by EDR in 1999 from the Federal Emergency Management Agency(FEMA). Data depicts 100-year and 500-year flood zones as defined by FEMA. NWI: National Wetlands Inventory. This data,available in select counties across the country,was obtained by EDR in 2002 from the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service. j I STREET AND ADDRESS INFORMATION ©2003 Geographic Data Technology,Inc.,Rel.07/2001.This product contains proprietary and confidential property of Geographic Data Technology,Inc.Unauthorized use,including copying for other than testing and standard backup procedures,of this product is expressly prohibited. TC930624.1s Page GR-18 GEOCHECK®- PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE,ADDENDUM TARGET PROPERTY ADDRESS HUNTINGTON BEACH-PACIFIC CITY 21002 PACIFIC COAST HWY HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA 92648 TARGET PROPERTY COORDINATES Latitude(North): 33.655502-33*39'19.8" Longitude(West): 117.996773-117'59'48.4" Universal Tranverse Mercator: Zone 11 UTM X(Meters): 407576.1 UTM Y(Meters): 3724212.2 EDR's GeoCheck Physical Setting Source Addendum has been developed to assist the environmental professional with the collection of physical setting source information in accordance with ASTM 1527-00,Section 7.2.3. Section 7.2.3 requires that a current USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Map(or equivalent,such as the USGS Digital Elevation Model)be reviewed. It also requires that one or more additional physical setting sources be sought L when(1)conditions have been identified in which hazardous substances or petroleum products are likely to migrate to or from the property,and(2)more information than is provided in the current USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Map(or equivalent)is generally obtained,pursuant to local good commercial or customary practice, to assess the impact of migration of recognized environmental conditions in connection with the property.Such additional physical setting sources generally include information about the topographic,hydrologic,hydrogeologic, and geologic characteristics of a site,and wells in the area. Assessment of the impact of contaminant migration generally has two principle investigative components: 1.Groundwater flow direction,and 2.Groundwater flow velocity. Groundwater flow direction may be impacted by surface topography,hydrology,hydrogeology,characteristics of the soil,and nearby wells.Groundwater flow velocity is generally impacted by the nature of the geologic strata. EDR's GeoCheck Physical Setting Source Addendum is provided to assist the environmental professional in forming an opinion about the impact of potential contaminant migration. I TC930624.1 s Page A-1 1 I ' • • GECCHECK' - PHYSICAL SETTING:SOURCE•SUMMARY:'., • GROUNDWATER FLOW DIRECTION INFORMATION Groundwater flow direction for a particular site is best determined by a qualified environmental professional using site-specific well data.If such data is not reasonably ascertainable,it may be necessary to rely on other sources of information,such as surface topographic information,hydrologic information, hydrogeologic data collected on nearby properties,and regional groundwater flow information(from deep aquifers). TOPOGRAPHIC INFORMATION Surface topography may be indicative of the direction of surficial groundwater flow. This information can be used to assist the environmental professional in forming an opinion about the impact of nearby contaminated properties or, should contamination exist on the target property,what downgradient sites might be impacted. USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP ASSOCIATED WITH THIS SITE Target Property: 2433117-F8 NEWPORT BEACH(DIGITAL),CA Source:USGS 7.5 min quad index GENERAL TOPOGRAPHIC GRADIENT AT TARGET PROPERTY Target Property: General SSE Source:General Topographic Gradient has been determined from the USGS 1 Degree Digital Elevation Model and should be evaluated on a relative(not an absolute)basis.Relative elevation information between sites of close proximity should be field verified. HYDROLOGIC INFORMATION Surface water can act as a hydrologic barrier to groundwater flow. Such hydrologic information can be used to assist the environmental professional in forming an opinion about the impact of nearby contaminated properties or,should contamination exist on the target property,what downgradient sites might be impacted. Refer to the Physical Setting Source Map following this summary for hydrologic information(major waterways and bodies of water). FEMA FLOOD ZONE FEMA Flood Target Property County Electronic Data ORANGE,CA YES-refer to the Overview Map and Detail Map Flood Plain Panel at Target Property: 06059C0045E • Additional Panels in search area: Not Reported NATIONAL WETLAND INVENTORY NWI Electronic NWI Quad at Target Property Data Coverage COSTA MESA YES-refer to the Overview Map and Detail Map HYDROGEOLOGIC INFORMATION • Hydrogeologic information obtained by installation of wells on a specific site can often be an indicator of groundwater flow direction in the immediate area. Such hydrogeologic information can be used to assist the environmental professional in forming an opinion about the impact of nearby contaminated properties or,should contamination exist on the target property,what downgradient sites might be impacted. TC930624.1s Page A-2 - • GEOCHECI -.PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE,SUMMARY' Site-Specific Hydrogeological Data`: _i Search Radius: 2.0 miles Status: Not found AQUIFLOW® • Search Radius:2.000 Miles. • EDR has developed the AQUIFLOW Information System to provide data on the general direction of groundwater flow at specific points.EDR has reviewed reports submitted by environmental professionals to regulatory authorities at select sites and has extracted the date of the report,groundwater flow direction as determined hydrogeologically,and the depth to water table. LOCATION GENERAL DIRECTION MAP ID FROM TP GROUNDWATER FLOW A2 1/4-1/2 Mile WNW NE A3 1/4-1/2 Mile WNW W B6 1 -2 Miles NNE Not Reported B7 1 -2 Miles NNE Not Reported B8 1 -2 Miles NNE Not Reported B9 1 -2 Miles NNE NE B10 1 -2 Miles NNE NE C11 1 -2 Miles East NNW C12 1 -2 Miles ESE Not Reported 13 1 -2 Miles East SW • D14 1 -2 Miles NE Not Reported D15 1 -2 Miles NE Not Reported D16 1 -2 Miles NE Not Reported For additional site information,refer to Physical Setting Source Map Findings. GROUNDWATER FLOW VELOCITY INFORMATION Groundwater flow velocity information for a particular site is best determined by a qualified environmental professional using site specific geologic and soil strata data.If such data are not reasonably ascertainable,it may be necessary to rely on other sources of information,including geologic age identification,rock stratigraphic unit and soil characteristics data collected on nearby properties and regional soil information.In general,contaminant plumes move more quickly through sandy-gravelly types of soils than silty-clayey types of soils. GEOLOGIC INFORMATION IN GENERAL AREA OF TARGET PROPERTY Geologic information can be used by the environmental professional in forming an opinion about the relative speed at which contaminant migration may be occurring. ROCK STRATIGRAPHIC UNIT GEOLOGIC AGE IDENTIFICATION Era: Cenozoic Category: Stratifed Sequence System: Quaternary Series: Quatemary I Code: Q (decoded above as Era,System&Series) i I Geologic Age and Rock Stratigraphic Unit Source:P.G.Schruben,R.E.Amdt and W.J.Bawiec,Geology of the Conterminous U.S.at 1:2,500,000 Scale-a digital representation of the 1974 P.B.King and H.M.Beikman Map, USGS Digital Data Series DDS-11 (1994). •996 s si a Edr aeotenlel Raspog"a 9"ptCEIEalldlertsilIn InW SIsl a d,(Wk At i lose even.AO of the hitormatlon and opinions presented we those of the cited EPA report(s),Wdch ware completed under TC930624.1s Page A-3 r.., GEOCHECIe PHYSICAL SETTING`;SOURCE SUMMARY`_ DOMINANT SOIL COMPOSITION IN GENERAL AREA OF TARGET PROPERTY The U.S.Department of Agriculture's(USDA)Soil Conservation Service(SCS)leads the National Cooperative Soil Survey(NCSS)and is responsible for collecting,storing,maintaining and distributing soil survey information for privately owned lands in the United States.A soil map in a soil survey is a representation of soil patterns in a landscape.Soil maps for STATSGO are compiled by generalizing more detailed(SSURGO)soil survey maps. The following information is based on Soil Conservation Service STATSGO data. Soil Component Name: URBAN LAND Soil Surface Texture: variable Hydrologic Group: Not reported Soil Drainage Class: Not reported Hydric Status:Soil does not meet the requirements for a hydric soil. Corrosion Potential-Uncoated Steel: Not Reported Depth toBedrock Min: >10 inches Depth to Bedrock Max: >10 inches Soil Layer Information Boundary Classification Layer Upper Lower Soil Texture Class AASHTO Group Unified Soil Permeability Soil Reaction Rate(in/hr) (pH) 1 0 inches 6 inches variable Not reported Not reported Max: 0.00 Max: 0.00 Min: 0.00 Min: 0.00 OTHER SOIL TYPES IN AREA Based on Soil Conservation Service STATSGO data,the following additional subordinant soil types may appear within the general area of target property. Soil Surface Textures: sandy loam gravelly-sandy loam silt loam clay sand gravelly-sand fine sandy loam fine sand Surficial Soil Types: sandy loam gravelly-sandy loam silt loam clay sand gravelly-sand fine sandy loam fine sand Shallow Soil Types: fine sandy loam gravelly-loam TC930624.1s Page A-4 GEOCHECK® -PHYSICAL�SETTING SOURCE SUMMARY- - ; sandy clay sandy clay loam clay sand silty clay Deeper Soil Types: gravelly-sandy loam sandy loam stratified very gravelly-sandy loam weathered bedrock silty clay loam , gravelly-fine sandy loam clay loam sand very fine sandy loam ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL RECORD SOURCES According to ASTM E 1527-00,Section 7.2.2,"one or more additional state or local sources of environmental records may be checked,in the discretion of the environmental professional,to enhance and supplement federal and state sources... Factors to consider in determining which local or additional state records, if any,should be checked include(1)whether they are reasonably ascertainable,(2)whether they are sufficiently useful,accurate,and complete in light of the objective of the records review(see 7.1.1),and(3)whether they are obtained,pursuant to local,good commercial or customary practice." One of the record sources listed in Section 7.2.2 is water well information. Water well information can be used to assist the environmental professional in assessing sources that may impact groundwater flow direction,and in forming an opinion about the impact of contaminant migration on nearby drinking water wells. WELL SEARCH DISTANCE INFORMATION DATABASE SEARCH DISTANCE(miles) Federal USGS 1.000 • Federal FRDS PWS Nearest PWS within 1 mile State Database 1.000 FEDERAL USGS WELL INFORMATION LOCATION MAP ID WELL ID FROM TP No Wells Found FEDERAL FRDS PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM INFORMATION LOCATION MAP ID WELL ID FROM TP 1 CA3000820 1/4-1/2 Mile NNW Note:PWS System location is not always the same as well location. TC930624.1 s Page A-5 .GEOCHECI - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE-<SUMMARY STATE DATABASE WELL INFORMATION LOCATION MAP ID WELL ID FROM TP 4 6124 1/4-1/2 Mile SSW 5 6347 1/2-1 Mile NNW TC930624.1s Page A-6 PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE MAP -930624.1s Jr I -1 .11 =111 mf1 �O D m fil _ ._ a o — m I YORKTOWN AVE o� r EADAMSAVE AOAMSAVE \ / LAW ;4„:.9� F9iF. 4i,,,„ N "Ire � ATLANTAAVE Ai / \. '\.,,, II,/ CA , +Iaalan... N County Boundary D 1/2 t 2 Was N Major Roads N Contour Lines © Earthquake epicenter,Richter 6 or greater Earthquake Fault Lines (BD Closest Hydrogeological Data la Water Wells • Oil,gas or related wells © Public Water Supply Wells f Groundwater Flow Direction (--) Indeterminate Groundwater Flow at Location (—) Groundwater Flow Varies at Location • Cluster of Multiple Icons TARGET PROPERTY: Huntington Beach-Pacific City CUSTOMER: EIP Associates ADDRESS: 21002 Pacific Coast Hwy CONTACT: Kelsey Bennett CITY/STATE/ZIP: Huntington Beach CA 92648 INQUIRY#: 930624.1s LAT/LONG: 33.6555/117.9968 DATE: February 21,2003 5:26 pm CopyrIght 0 2003 EDR,In 0 2003 OD7.In.Rat.07/2002.All Rights Rsarvad. GEOCHECK®-PHYSICALSETTING SOURCEMAP-.FINDINGS". Map ID Direction Distance Elevation Database EDR ID Number 1 NNW FRDS PWS CA3000820 1/4-1/2 Mile Higher PWS ID: CA3000820 PWS Status: Active Date Initiated: 8404 Date DeactivatedNot Reported PWS Name: OLD PIRATE LANE WATER CO OLD PIRATE LANE WATER CO 5451 OLD PIRATE LN HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92649 Addressee/Facility: System Owner/Responsible Party OLD PIRATE LANE WATER CO 5451 OLD PIRATE LANE HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92649 Facility Latitude: 33 39 37 Facility Longitude)17 59 53 City Served: Not Reported Treatment Class: Untreated Population: 00000059 PWS currently has or had major violation(s)or enforcement: Yes Violations information not reported. j ENFORCEMENT INFORMATION: System Name: OLD PIRATE LANE WATER CO Violation Type: Initial Tap Sampling for Pb and Cu Contaminant: LEAD&COPPER RULE Compliance Period: 1993-07-01-2015-12-31 Analytical Value: 0000000.000000000 Violation ID: 95V0001 Enforcement ID: Not Reported Enforcement Date: Not Reported Enf.Action: Not Reported — System Name: OLD PIRATE LANE WATER CO Violation Type: Initial Tap Sampling for Pb and Cu Contaminant: LEAD&COPPER RULE Compliance Period: 1993-07-01 -2015-12-31 Analytical Value: 0000000.000000000 Violation ID: 95V0001 Enforcement ID: Not Reported Enforcement Date: Not Reported Enf.Action: Not Reported System Name: OLD PIRATE LANE WATER CO Violation Type: Initial Tap Sampling for Pb and Cu Contaminant: LEAD&COPPER RULE Compliance Period: 1993-07-01 -2015-12-31 Analytical Value: 0000000.000000000 Violation ID: 95V0001 Enforcement ID: Not Reported Enforcement Date: Not Reported Enf.Action: Not Reported System Name: OLD PIRATE LANE WATER CO Violation Type: Initial Tap Sampling for Pb and Cu Contaminant: LEAD&COPPER RULE Compliance Period: 1993-07-01-2015-12-31 Analytical Value: 0000000.000000000 Violation ID: 95V0001' Enforcement ID: Not Reported Enforcement Date: Not Reported Enf.Action: Not Reported System Name: OLD PIRATE LANE WATER CO Violation Type: Initial Tap Sampling for Pb and Cu Contaminant LEAD&COPPER RULE Compliance Period: 1993-07-01-2015-12-31 Analytical Value: 0000000.000000000 Violation ID: 95V0001 Enforcement ID: Not Reported Enforcement Date: Not Reported Enf.Action: Not Reported TC930624.1s Page A-8 GEOCHECK®-PHYSICAL-,SETTING'SOURCE MAP FINDINGS-, .,. ENFORCEMENT INFORMATION: System Name: OLD PIRATE LANE WATER CO Violation Type: Initial Tap Sampling for Pb and Cu Contaminant LEAD&COPPER RULE Compliance Period: 1993-07-01-2015-12-31 Analytical Value: 0000000.000000000 Violation ID: 95V0001 Enforcement ID: Not Reported Enforcement Date: Not Reported Enf.Action: Not Reported A2 Site ID: 083001792T WNW Groundwater Flow: NE AQUIFLOW 50970 1/4-1/2 Mile Shallow Water Depth: 25 ft Higher Deep Water Depth: _ 27 ft Average Water Depth: Not Reported Date:' 06/27/1997 A3 Site ID: 083000557T WNW Groundwater Flow: W AQUIFLOW 65324 1/4-1/2 Mile Shallow Water Depth: 25 Higher Deep Water Depth: 30 Average Water Depth: Not Reported Date: 09/15/1997 4 SSW CA WELLS 6124 1/4-1/2 Mile Higher Water System Information: Prime Station Code: 05S/09W-09J02 S User ID: TEE FRDS Number: 3010046002 County: Orange District Number: 08 Station Type: WELL/AMBNT/MUN/INTAKE/SUPPLY Water Type: WeIVGroundwater Well Status: Active Raw Source Lat/Long: 333900.01180000.0 Precision: 1 Mile(One Minute) Source Name: BENETA System Number: 3010046 System Name: CITY OF TUSTIN Organization That Operates System: P.O.BOX 466 TUSTIN,CA 92680 Pop Served: 52100 Connections: 13628 Area Served: TUSTIN Sample Information: •Only Findings Above Detection Level Are Listed Sample Collected: 08/15/1989 Findings: 1.600 PCl/L Chemical: GROSS ALPHA COUNTING ERROR Sample Collected: 08/15/1989 Findings: 130.000 UMHO Chemical: SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE Sample Collected: 08/15/1989 Findings: 7.700 Chemical: PH(LABORATORY) Sample Collected: 08/15/1989 Findings: 162.000 MG/L Chemical: TOTAL ALKALINITY(AS CACO3) Sample Collected: 08/15/1989 Findings: 162.000 MG/L Chemical: BICARBONATE ALKALINITY Sample Collected: 08/15/1989 Findings: 378.000 MG/L Chemical: TOTAL HARDNESS(AS CACO3) TC930624.1s Page A-9 I , :. GEOCHECK®;;,PHYSiCAL SETTING SOURCE MAP FINDINGS Sample Collected: 08/15/1989 Findings: 110.000 MG/L Chemical: CALCIUM Sample Collected: 08/15/1989 Findings: 25.000 MG/L Chemical: MAGNESIUM + Sample Collected: 08/15/1989 Findings: 78.000 MG/L Chemical: SODIUM Sample Collected: 08/15/1989 Findings: 2.200 MG/L Chemical: POTASSIUM Sample Collected: 08/15/1989 Findings: 145.000 MG/L Chemical: CHLORIDE i Sample Collected: 08/15/1989 Findings: .230 MG/L Chemical: FLUORIDE(TEMPERATURE DEPENDENT) Sample Collected: 08/15/1989 Findings: 138:000 UG/L I Chemical: BARIUM , Sample Collected: 08/15/1989 Findings: 778.000 MG/L Chemical: TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS Sample Collected: 08/15/1989 Findings: 44.300 MG/L Chemical: NITRATE(AS NO3) 1 Sample Collected: 06/20/1990 Findings: 2.100 PCl/L Chemical: GROSS ALPHA Sample Collected: 06/20/1990 Findings: 1.600 PCl/L Chemical: GROSS ALPHA COUNTING ERROR Sample Collected: 02/06/1992 Findings: 21.300 C Chemical: SOURCE TEMPERATURE C Sample Collected: 02/06/1992 Findings: 8.000 UNITS Chemical: COLOR Sample Collected: 02/06/1992 Findings: 1010.000 UMHO ' 1 Chemical: SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE Sample Collected: 02/06/1992 Findings: 7.300 Chemical: FIELD PH Sample Collected: 02/06/1992 Findings: 7.600 Chemical: PH(LABORATORY) Sample Collected: 02/06/1992 Findings: 181.000 MG/L Chemical: TOTAL ALKALINITY(AS CACO3) Sample Collected: 02/06/1992 Findings: 181.000 MG/L Chemical: BICARBONATE ALKALINITY Sample Collected: 02/06/1992 Findings: 391.000 MG/L Chemical: TOTAL HARDNESS(AS CACO3) Sample Collected: 02/06/1992 Findings: 112.000 MG/L Chemical: CALCIUM Sample Collected: 02/06/1992 Findings: 27.000 MG/L Chemical: MAGNESIUM Sample Collected: 02/06/1992 Findings: 59.000 MG/L - Chemical: SODIUM Sample Collected: 02/06/1992 Findings: 2.000 MG/L - Chemical: POTASSIUM Sample Collected: 02/06/1992 Findings: 123.000 MG/L Chemical: CHLORIDE Sample Collected: 02/06/1992 Findings: .220 MG/L Chemical: FLUORIDE(TEMPERATURE DEPENDENT) TC930624.1 s Page A-10 GEOCHECK®-PHYSICAL"SETTING-SOURCE MAP FINDINGS Sample Collected: 02/06/1992 Findings: 1.100 UG/L Chemical: CADMIUM Sample Collected: 02/06/1992 Findings: 170.000 UG/L Chemical: IRON Sample Collected: 02/06/1992 Findings: .020 UG/L Chemical: FOAMING AGENTS(MBAS) Sample Collected: 02/06/1992 Findings: 694.000 MG/L Chemical: TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS Sample Collected: 02/06/1992 Findings: 39.600 MG/L ` Chemical: NITRATE(AS NO3) Sample Collected: 02/06/1992 Findings: .100 NTU Chemical: TURBIDITY(LAB) Sample Collected: 07/14/1993 Findings: 55.780 MG/L Chemical: NITRATE(AS NO3) Sample Collected: 07/14/1993 Findings: 2.030 PCl/L Chemical: GROSS ALPHA Sample Collected: 07/14/1993 Findings: 1.270 PCl/L Chemical: GROSS ALPHA COUNTING ERROR Sample Collected: 09/22/1993 Findings: 61.500 MG/L Chemical: NITRATE(AS NO3) :_ Sample Collected: 10/20/1993 Findings: 66.800 MG/L Chemical: NITRATE(AS NO3) —1 Sample Collected: 10/20/1993 Findings: 2.030 PCl/L , Chemical: GROSS ALPHA Sample Collected: 10/20/1993 Findings: 1.270 PCl/L Chemical: GROSS ALPHA COUNTING ERROR Sample Collected: 01/25/1994 Findings: 2.030 PCl/L Chemical: GROSS ALPHA Sample Collected: 01/25/1994 Findings: 1.270 PCl/L Chemical: GROSS ALPHA COUNTING ERROR Sample Collected: 04/12/1994 Findings: 55.800 MG/L Chemical: NITRATE(AS NO3) Sample Collected: 04/12/1994 Findings: 12600.000 UG/L Chemical: NITRATE+NITRITE(AS N) Sample Collected: 04/12/1994 Findings: 2.030 PCl/L Chemical: GROSS ALPHA Sample Cdllected: 04/12/1994 Findings: 1.270 PCl/L Chemical: GROSS ALPHA COUNTING ERROR Sample Collected: 07/26/1994 Findings: 63.600 MG/L Chemical: NITRATE(AS NO3) Sample Collected: 07/26/1994 Findings: 14400.000 UG/L Chemical: NITRATE+NITRITE(AS N) Sample Collected: 11/16/1994 Findings: 46.100 MG/L Chemical: NITRATE(AS NO3) Sample Collected: 11/16/1994 Findings: 10400.000 UG/L Chemical: NITRATE+NITRITE(AS N) Sample Collected: 01/26/1995 Findings: 1180.000 UMHO Chemical: SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE Sample Collected: 01/26/1995 Findings: 191.000 MG/L Chemical: TOTAL ALKALINITY(AS CAC03) TC930624.1s Page A-11 1 , i GEOCHECKe-.PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE-MAP:FINDINGS. . . ID Sample Collected: 01/26/1995 Findings: 233.000 MG/L Chemical: BICARBONATE ALKALINITY Sample Collected: 01/26/1995 Findings: 475.000 MG/L Chemical: TOTAL HARDNESS(AS CACO3) Sample Collected: 01/26/1995 Findings: 142.000 MG/L Chemical: CALCIUM Sample Collected: 01/26/1995 Findings: 59.600 MG/L Chemical: SODIUM Sample Collected: 01/26/1995 Findings: 148.000 MG/L Chemical: CHLORIDE Sample Collected: 01/26/1995 Findings: .180 MG/L Chemical: FLUORIDE(TEMPERATURE DEPENDENT) Sample Collected: 01/26/1995 Findings: 710.000 MG/L Chemical: TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS Sample Collected: 01/26/1995 Findings: 42.600 MG/L Chemical: NITRATE(AS NO3) Sample Collected: 01/26/1995 Findings: 9630.000 UG/L Chemical: NITRATE+NITRITE(AS N) Sample Collected: 07/24/1996 Findings: 1180.000 UMHO Chemical: SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE Sample Collected: 07/24/1996 Findings: 8.200 , , Chemical: • PH(LABORATORY) Sample Collected: 07/24/1996 Findings: 182.000 MG/L Chemical: TOTAL ALKALINITY(AS CACO3) Sample Collected: 07/24/1996 Findings: 222.000 MG/L Chemical: BICARBONATE ALKALINITY Sample Collected: 07/24/1996 Findings: 440.000 MG/L Chemical: TOTAL HARDNESS(AS CACO3) Sample Collected: 07/24/1996 Findings: 130.000 MG/L Chemical: CALCIUM Sample Collected: 07/24/1996 Findings: 136.000 MG/L Chemical: CHLORIDE ' Sample Collected: 07/24/1996 Findings: .200 MG/L Chemical: FLUORIDE(TEMPERATURE DEPENDENT) Sample Collected: 07/24/1996 Findings: 11.000 UG/L Chemical: SELENIUM Sample Collected: 07/24/1996 Findings: 734.000 MG/L Chemical: TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS Sample Collected: 07/24/1996 Findings: 48.000 MG/L Chemical: NITRATE(AS NO3) Sample Collected: 07/24/1996 Findings: 10900.000 UG/L Chemical: NITRATE+NITRITE(AS N) Sample Collected: 10/29/1996 Findings: 54.440 MG/L Chemical: NITRATE(AS NO3) Sample Collected: 01/29/1997 Findings: 54.520 MG/L Chemical: NITRATE(AS NO3) Sample Collected: 04/29/1997 Findings: 47.670 MG/L Chemical: NITRATE(AS NO3) 1 1 TC930624.1 s Page A-12 'GEOCHECK. PHYSICAL:SETTING:SOURCE`MAP FINDINGS Map ID Direction Distance Elevation Database EDR ID Number NNW CA WELLS 6347 1/2-1 Mile Higher 1 Water System Information: Prime Station Code: 05S/11 W-23F02 S User ID: TEE FRDS Number: 3010053010 County: Orange District Number: 08 Station Type: WELL/AMBNT/MUN/INTAKE/SUPPLY Water Type: WeIVGroundwater Well Status: Active Untreated Source Lat/Long: 334000.01180000.0 Precision: 1 Mile(One Minute) Source Name: WELL 06 System Number: 3010053 System Name: City of Huntington Beach Organization That Operates System: PO BOX 190 HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA 92648 Pop Served: 192000 Connections: 49209 Area Served: HUNTINGTON BEACH • Sample Information: 'Only Findings Above Detection Level Are Listed Sample Collected: 07/02/1987 Findings: 403.000 UMHO Chemical: SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE Sample Collected: 07/02/1987 Findings: • 8.070 , Chemical: PH(LABORATORY) Sample Collected: 07/02/1987 Findings: 152.000 MG/L Chemical: TOTAL ALKALINITY(AS CACO3) Sample Collected: 07/02/1987 Findings: 186.000 MG/L Chemical: BICARBONATE ALKALINITY Sample Collected: 07/02/1987 Findings: 115.000 MG/L , Chemical: TOTAL HARDNESS(AS CACO3) Sample Collected: 07/02/1987 Findings: 37.900 MG/L Chemical: CALCIUM Sample Collected: 07/02/1987 Findings: 5.000 MG/L Chemical: MAGNESIUM Sample Collected: 07/02/1987 Findings: - 49.600 MG/L Chemical: SODIUM Sample Collected: 07/02/1987 Findings: 2.200 MG/L t , Chemical: POTASSIUM Sample Collected: 07/02/1987 Findings: 16.000 MG/L Chemical: CHLORIDE Sample Collected: 07/02/1987 Findings: .400 MG/L ' Chemical: FLUORIDE(TEMPERATURE DEPENDENT) Sample Collected: 07/02/1987 Findings: 272.000 MG/L Chemical: TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS Sample Collected: 07/02/1987 Findings: .390 NTU Chemical: TURBIDITY(LAB) Sample Collected: 07/06/1989 Findings: 598.000 UMHO Chemical: SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE Sample Collected: 07/06/1989 Findings: 7.780 i Chemical: PH(LABORATORY) TC930624.1 s Page A-13 i ,2 GEOCHECK® PHYSICALSETTING SQURCE:MAP FINDINGS - , .> ' Sample Collected: 07/06/1989 Findings: 183.000 MG/L Chemical: TOTAL ALKALINITY(AS CACO3) Sample Collected: 07/06/1989 Findings: 223.000 MG/L , Chemical: BICARBONATE ALKALINITY Sample Collected: 07/06/1989 Findings: 245.000 MG/L Chemical: TOTAL HARDNESS(AS CACO3) Sample Collected: 07/06/1989 Findings: 79.000 MG/L Chemical: CALCIUM Sample Collected: 07/06/1989 Findings: 12.000 MG/L Chemical: MAGNESIUM Sample Collected: 07/06/1989 Findings: 39.000 MG/L Chemical: SODIUM Sample Collected: 07/06/1989 Findings: 3.000 MG/L Chemical: POTASSIUM , Sample Collected: 07/06/1989 Findings: 35.000 MG/L , Chemical_ CHLORIDE Sample Collected: 07/06/1989 Findings: .380 MG/L Chemical: FLUORIDE(TEMPERATURE DEPENDENT) Sample Collected: 07/06/1989 Findings: 398.000 MG/L Chemical: TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS Sample Collected: 07/06/1989 Findings: 2.600 MG/L Chemical: NITRATE(AS NO3) Sample Collected: 07/06/1989 Findings: .180 NTU Chemical: TURBIDITY(LAB) Sample Collected: 08/08/1989 Findings: 465.000 UMHO Chemical: SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE Sample Collected: 08/08/1989 Findings: 8.100 Chemical: PH(LABORATORY) Sample Collected: 08/08/1989 Findings: 144.000 MG/L Chemical: TOTAL ALKALINITY(AS CACO3) Sample Collected: 08/08/1989 Findings: 144.000 MG/L Chemical: BICARBONATE ALKALINITY Sample Collected: 08/08/1989 Findings: 125.000 MG/L - Chemical: TOTAL HARDNESS(AS CACO3) Sample Collected: 08/08/1989 Findings: 40.000 MG/L i_ Chemical: CALCIUM Sample Collected: 08/08/1989 Findings: 6.200 MG/L , Chemical: MAGNESIUM Sample Collected: 08/08/1989 Findings: 52.000 MG/L Chemical: SODIUM Sample Collected: 08/08/1989 Findings: 2.200 MG/L Chemical: POTASSIUM Sample Collected: 08/08/1989 Findings: 24.000 MG/L Chemical: CHLORIDE Sample Collected: 08/08/1989 Findings: .530 MG/L -J Chemical: FLUORIDE(TEMPERATURE DEPENDENT) Sample Collected: 08/08/1989 Findings: 21.000 UG/L ' Chemical: ARSENIC Sample Collected: 08/08/1989 Findings: 284.000 MG/L Chemical: TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS - TC930624.1s Page A-14 I GEOCHECK®•PHYSICAL SETTING:SOURCE'MAP,FINDINGS . Sample Collected: 08/08/1989 Findings: .400 NTU Chemical: TURBIDITY(LAB) Sample Collected: 08/22/1989 Findings: 4.000 PCl/L Chemical: GROSS ALPHA Sample Collected: 08/22/1989 Findings: .600 PCl/L Chemical: GROSS ALPHA COUNTING ERROR Sample Collected: 10/02/1989 Findings: 2.600 PCl/L Chemical: GROSS ALPHA Sample Collected: 10/02/1989 Findings: 1.500 PCl/L Chemical: GROSS ALPHA COUNTING ERROR Sample Collected: 01/04/1990 Findings: 3.200 PCl/L Chemical: GROSS ALPHA Sample Collected: 01/04/1990 Findings: 1.300 PCl/L Chemical: GROSS ALPHA COUNTING ERROR Sample Collected: 04/10/1990 Findings: 5.000 PCl/L Chemical: URANIUM Sample Collected: 04/10/1990 Findings: 4.400 PCl/L Chemical: GROSS ALPHA Sample Collected: 04/10/1990 Findings: 1.600 PCl/L Chemical: GROSS ALPHA COUNTING ERROR Sample Collected: 04/10/1990 Findings: 5.000 PCl/L Chemical: URANIUM Sample Collected: 07/31/1990 Findings: 1.800 PCl/L j Chemical: GROSS ALPHA Sample Collected: 07/31/1990 Findings: 1.100 PCl/L Chemical: GROSS ALPHA COUNTING ERROR Sample Collected: 07/31/1990 Findings: 3.000 PCl/L Chemical: URANIUM Sample Collected: 04/11/1991 Findings: - 530.000 UMHO Chemical: SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE Sample Collected: 04/11/1991 Findings: 8.200 Chemical: PH(LABORATORY) Sample Collected: 04/11/1991 Findings: 176.000 MG/L Chemical: TOTAL ALKALINITY(AS CACO3) J `_ Sample Collected: 04/11/1991 Findings: 176.000 MG/L Chemical: BICARBONATE ALKALINITY Sample Collected: 04/11/1991 Findings: 189.000 MG/L ' Chemical: TOTAL HARDNESS(AS CACO3) Sample Collected: 04/11/1991 Findings: 64.000 MG/L Chemical: CALCIUM Sample Collected: 04/11/1991 Findings: 7.100 MG/L Chemical: MAGNESIUM Sample Collected: 04/11/1'991 Findings: 35.000 MG/L Chemical: SODIUM Sample Collected: 04/11/1991 Findings: 2.900 MG/L —. Chemical: POTASSIUM Sample Collected: 04/11/1991 Findings: 39.000 MG/L ' ' Chemical: CHLORIDE Sample Collected: 04/11/1991 Findings: .460 MG/L Chemical: FLUORIDE(TEMPERATURE DEPENDENT) TC930624.1 s Page A-15 i • GEOCHECK® PHYSICAL SETTING`SOURCE MAP FINDINGS ` '- • i Sample Collected: 04/11/1991 Findings: .100 UG/L Chemical: FOAMING AGENTS(MBAS) Sample Collected: 04/11/1991 Findings: 356.000 MG/L Chemical: TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS Sample Collected: 04/11/1991 Findings: 3.100 MG/L Chemical: NITRATE(AS NO3) Sample Collected: 04/11/1991 Findings: .100 NTU Chemical: TURBIDITY(LAB) Sample Collected: 07/01/1992 Findings: 494.000 UMHO Chemical: SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE Sample Collected: 07/01/1992 Findings: 7.720 Chemical: PH(LABORATORY) Sample Collected: 07/01/1992 Findings: 158.000 MG/L Chemical: TOTAL ALKALINITY(AS CACO3) Sample Collected: 07/01/1992 Findings: 192.000 MG/L Chemical: BICARBONATE ALKALINITY Sample Collected: 07/01/1992 Findings: 148.000 MG/L Chemical: TOTAL HARDNESS(AS CACO3) Sample Collected: 07/01/1992 Findings: 49.000 MG/L Chemical: CALCIUM Sample Collected: 07/01/1992 Findings: 6.200 MG/L Chemical: MAGNESIUM Sample Collected: 07/01/1992 Findings: 47.000 MG/L Chemical: SODIUM • Sample Collected: 07/01/1992 Findings: 2.300 MG/L Chemical: POTASSIUM Sample Collected: 07/01/1992 Findings: 21.000 MG/L Chemical: CHLORIDE Sample Collected: 07/01/1992 Findings: .450 MG/L Chemical: FLUORIDE(TEMPERATURE DEPENDENT) Sample Collected: 07/01/1992 Findings: 293.000 MG/L Chemical: TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS Sample Collected: 07/01/1992 Findings: .050 NTU Chemical: TURBIDITY(LAB) Sample Collected: 07/01/1993 Findings: 475.000 UMHO Chemical: SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE Sample Collected: 07/01/1993 Findings: 7.780 Chemical: PH(LABORATORY) Sample Collected: 07/01/1993 Findings: 160.000 MG/L Chemical: TOTAL ALKALINITY(AS CACO3) Sample Collected: 07/01/1993 Findings: 195.000 MG/L Chemical: BICARBONATE ALKALINITY Sample Collected: 07/01/1993 Findings: 160.000 MG/L Chemical: TOTAL HARDNESS(AS CACO3) Sample Collected: 07/01/1993 Findings: 52.000 MG/L Chemical: CALCIUM Sample Collected: 07/01/1993 Findings: 7.600 MG/L Chemical: MAGNESIUM Sample Collected: 07/01/1993 Findings: 47.000 MG/L Chemical: SODIUM ,_ TC930624.1s Page A-16 QEOCHECK®'= PHYSICAL SETTING,S©URCE.MAP FINDINGS, Sample Collected: 07/01/1993 Findings: 1.600 MG/L Chemical: POTASSIUM Sample Collected: 07/01/1993 Findings: 43.000 MG/L "Chemical: CHLORIDE Sample Collected: 07/01/1993 Findings: .450 MG/L Chemical: FLUORIDE(TEMPERATURE DEPENDENT) Sample Collected: 07/01/1993 Findings: 266.000 MG/L ' Chemical: TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS Sample Collected: 07/01/1993 Findings: .020 NTU i Chemical: TURBIDITY(LAB) Sample Collected: 07/21/1993 Findings: 5.200 PCl/L Chemical: GROSS ALPHA Sample Collected: 07/21/1993 Findings: 1.630 PCl/L Chemical: GROSS ALPHA COUNTING ERROR Sample Collected: 07/21/1993 Findings: 5.410 PCl/L Chemical: URANIUM 1, Sample Collected: 07/21/1993 Findings: .230 PCl/L Chemical: URANIUM COUNTING ERROR Sample Collected: 09/23/1993 Findings: 2.100 MG/L Chemical: NITRATE(AS NO3) i Sample Collected: 10/01/1993 Findings: 5.200 PCl/L Chemical: GROSS ALPHA Sample Collected: 10/01/1993 Findings: 1.630 PCl/L Chemical: GROSS ALPHA COUNTING ERROR Sample Collected: 10/01/1993 Findings: 5.410 PCl/L Chemical: URANIUM Sample Collected: 10/01/1993 Findings: .230 PCl/L Chemical: URANIUM COUNTING ERROR Sample Collected: 01/19/1994 Findings: 5.200 PCl/L i I Chemical: GROSS ALPHA Sample Collected: 01/19/1994 Findings: 1.630 PCl/L Chemical: GROSS ALPHA COUNTING ERROR Sample Collected: 01/19/1994 Findings: 5.410 PCl/L 1 Chemical: URANIUM Sample Collected: 01/19/1994 Findings: .230 PCl/L Chemical: URANIUM COUNTING ERROR Sample Collected: 04/26/1994 Findings: 450.000 UG/L Chemical: NITRATE+NITRITE(AS N) Sample Collected: 04/26/1994 Findings: 5.200 PCl/L Chemical: GROSS ALPHA Sample Collected: 04/26/1994 Findings: 1.630 PCl/L Chemical: GROSS ALPHA COUNTING ERROR _ Sample Collected: 04/26/1994 Findings: 5.410 PCl/L Chemical: URANIUM - Sample Collected: 04/26/1994 Findings: .230 PCl/L Chemical: URANIUM COUNTING ERROR Sample Collected: 07/19/1994 Findings: 430.000 UG/L Chemical: NITRATE+NITRITE(AS N) Sample Collected: 01/03/1996 Findings: 491.000 UMHO Chemical: SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE TC930624.1 s Page A-17 i GEOCHECK_}-'PHYSICAL SETT' SOURCE MAP FINDINGS., Sample Collected: 01/03/1996 Findings: 8.100 Chemical: PH(LABORATORY) Sample Collected: 01/03/1996 Findings: 149.000 MG/L Chemical: TOTAL ALKALINITY(AS CAC03) Sample Collected: 01/03/1996 Findings: 182.000 MG/L Chemical: BICARBONATE ALKALINITY Sample Collected: 01/03/1996 Findings: 132.000 MG/L Chemical: TOTAL HARDNESS(AS CAC03) Sample Collected: 01/03/1996 Findings: 49.700 MG/L Chemical: ,SODIUM Sample Collected: 01/03/1996 Findings: .380 MG/L Chemical: FLUORIDE(TEMPERATURE DEPENDENT) Sample Collected: 01/03/1996 Findings: 298.000 MG/L Chemical: TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS Sample Collected: 01/24/1996 Findings: 488.000 UMHO Chemical: SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE __ Sample Collected: 01/24/1996 Findings: 8.200 Chemical: PH(LABORATORY) Sample Collected: 01/24/1996 Findings: 153.000 MG/L Chemical: TOTAL ALKALINITY(AS CAC03) Sample Collected: 01/24/1996 Findings: 121.000 MG/L Chemical: TOTAL HARDNESS(AS CAC03) Sample Collected: 01/24/1996 Findings: 39.800 MG/L Chemical: CALCIUM Sample Collected: 01/24/1996 Findings: 5.300 MG/L Chemical: MAGNESIUM Sample Collected: 01/24/1996 Findings: 48.000 MG/L Chemical: SODIUM Sample Collected: 01/24/1996 Findings: 2.000 MG/L Chemical: POTASSIUM Sample Collected: 01/24/1996 Findings: 25.700 MG/L Chemical: CHLORIDE Sample Collected: 01/24/1996 Findings: 298.000 MG/L Chemical: TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS Sample Collected: 01/23/1997 Findings: 2.530 MG/L Chemical: NITRATE(AS NO3) B6 Site ID: 083000264T NNE Groundwater Flow: Not Reported AQUIFLOW 54846 1-2 Miles Shallow Water Depth: Not Reported Higher Deep Water Depth: Not Reported Average Water Depth: 11.5 Date: 02/10/1987 B7 Site ID: 083001931T NNE Groundwater Flow: Not Reported AQUIFLOW 39001 1-2 Miles Shallow Water Depth: 11 Higher Deep Water Depth: 24 Average Water Depth: Not Reported Date: 03/07/1997 TC930624.1 s Page A-18 GEOCHECK®-PHYSICAL SETTING.SOURCE MAP FINDINGS, - Map ID Direction Distance Elevation Database EDR ID Number B8 Site ID: 083001931T NNE Groundwater Flow: Not Reported AQUIFLOW 39002 1-2 Miles Shallow Water Depth: 11 Higher Deep Water Depth: 24 Average Water Depth: Not Reported Date: 03/07/1997 B9 Site ID: 083002370T NNE Groundwater Flow: NE AQUIFLOW 51967 1-2 Miles Shallow Water Depth: Not Reported Higher Deep Water Depth: Not Reported Average Water Depth: 15.36 Date: 08/14/1995 B10 Site ID: 083002370T NNE Groundwater Flow: NE AQUIFLOW 51968 1-2 Miles Shallow Water Depth: Not Reported Higher Deep Water Depth: Not Reported Average Water Depth: 15.36 Date: 08/14/1995 C11 Site ID: 083000990T East Groundwater Flow: NNW AQUIFLOW 38933 1-2 Miles Shallow Water Depth: Not Reported Higher Deep Water Depth: Not Reported Average Water Depth: 8 Date: 09/23/1988 C12 Site ID: 083001698T ESE Groundwater Flow: Not Reported AQUIFLOW 54993 1 -2 Miles Shallow Water Depth: 5.5 Higher Deep Water Depth: 9 Average Water Depth: Not Reported Date: 04/04/1994 13 Site ID: 083002152T East Groundwater Flow: SW AQUIFLOW 51944 1-2 Miles Shallow Water Depth: 5.5 Higher Deep Water Depth: 11 'Average Water Depth: Not Reported Date: 12/12/1994 D14 Site ID: 083000449T NE Groundwater Flow: Not Reported AQUIFLOW 50977 1 2 Miles Shallow Water Depth: Not Reported Higher Deep Water Depth: Not Reported Average Water Depth: 5-12 Date: 06/18/1999 TC930624.1 s Page A-19 , GEOCHECKQP:! PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE MAP-FINDINGS;',,;:. Map ID Direction Distance Elevation Database EDR ID Number D15 Site ID: 083000657T NE Groundwater Row: Not Reported AQUIFLOW 38998 1- Mil" Shallow Water Depth: 6 Higher Deep Water Depth: 8 Average Water Depth: Not Reported Date: 07/01/1996 D16 Site ID: 083000657T NE Groundwater Flow: Not Reported AQUIFLOW 38997 1-2 Miles Shallow Water Depth: 6 Higher Deep Water Depth: 8 Average Water Depth: Not Reported Date: 07/01/1996 TC930624.1s Page A-20 1 GEOCHECK®- PHYSICAL;SETTING SOURCE MAP'FINDINGS RADON AREA RADON INFORMATION Federal EPA Radon Zone for ORANGE County: 3 Note:Zone 1 indoor average level>4 pCi/L. :Zone 2 indoor average level>=2 pCi/L and<=4 pCi/L. :Zone 3 indoor average level<2 pCVL. Federal Area Radon Information for ORANGE COUNTY,CA Number of sites tested:30 Area Average Activity %<4 pCVL %4-20 pCi/L %>20 pCi/L Living Area-1st Floor 0.763 pCVL 100% 0% 0% Living Area-2nd Floor Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Basement Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported TC930624.1 s Page A-21 PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE RECORDS SEARCHED, HYDROLOGIC INFORMATION Flood Zone Data: This data,available in select counties across the country,was obtained by EDR in 1999 from the Federal Emergency Management Agency(FEMA). Data depicts 100-year and 500-year flood zones as defined by FEMA. NWI: National Wetlands Inventory. This data,available in select counties across the country,was obtained by EDR in 2002 from the U.S.Ash and Wildlife Service. HYDROGEOLOGIC INFORMATION AQUIFLOWR Information System Source: EDR proprietary database of groundwater flow information EDR has developed the AQUIFLOW Information System(AIS)to provide data on the general direction of groundwater flow at specific points.EDR has reviewed reports submitted to regulatory authorities at select sites and has extracted the date of the report,hydrogeologically determined groundwater flow direction and depth to water table information. GEOLOGIC INFORMATION Geologic Age and Rock Stratigraphic Unit Source:P.G.Schruben,R.E.Amdt and W.J.Bawiec,Geology of the Conterminous U.S.at 1:2,500,000 Scale-A digital representation of the 1974 P.B.King and H.M.Beikman Map,USGS Digital Data Series DDS-11 (1994). STATSGO: State Soil Geographic Database The U.S.Department of Agriculture's(USDA)Soil Conservation Service(SCS)leads the national Cooperative Soil Survey(NCSS)and is responsible for collecting,storing,maintaining and distributing soil survey • information for privately owned lands in the United States.A soil map in a soil survey is a representation of soil patterns in a landscape.Soil maps for STATSGO are compiled by generalizing more detailed(SSURGO)soil survey maps. ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL RECORD SOURCES FEDERAL WATER WELLS PWS: Public Water Systems Source: EPA/Office of Drinking Water • Telephone: 202-564-3750 Public Water System data from the Federal Reporting Data System. A PWS is any water system which provides water to at least 25 people for at least 60 days annually. PWSs provide water from wells,rivers and other sources. PWS ENF: Public Water Systems Violation and Enforcement Data Source: EPA/Office of Drinking Water Telephone: 202-564-3750 Violation and Enforcement data for Public Water Systems from the Safe Drinking Water Information System(SDWIS)after August 1995. Prior to August 1995,the data came from the Federal Reporting Data System(FRDS). USGS Water Wells: In November 1971 the United States Geological Survey(USGS)implemented a national water resource information tracking system. This database contains descriptive information on sites where the USGS collects or has collected data on surface water and/or groundwater. The groundwater data includes information on more than 900,000 wells,springs,and other sources of groundwater. TC930624.1 s Page A-22 PHYSICAL.SETTING SOURCE RECORDS SEARCHED STATE RECORDS California Drinking Water Quality Database Source: Department of Health Services Telephone: 916-324-2319 The database includes all drinking water compliance and special studies monitoring for the state of California since 1984.It consists of over 3,200,000 individual analyses along with well and water system information. California Oil and Gas Well Locations for District 2,3,5 and 6 Source: Department of Conservation Telephone: 916-323-1779 RADON Area Radon Information Source:USGS Telephone: 303-202-4210 The National Radon Database has been developed by the U.S.Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)and is a compilation of the EPA/State Residential Radon Survey and the National Residential Radon Survey. The study covers the years 1986-1992.Where necessary data has been supplemented by information collected at private sources such as universities and research institutions. EPA Radon Zones Source: EPA Telephone: 202-564-9370 Sections 307&309 of IRAA directed EPA to list and identify areas of U.S.with the potential for elevated indoor radon levels. OTHER Epicenters: World earthquake epicenters,Richter 5 or greater Source: Department of Commerce,National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration California Earthquake Fault Lines: The fault lines displayed on EDR's Topographic map are digitized quatemary fault lines, prepared in 1975 by the United State Geological Survey. Additional information(also from 1975)regarding activity at specific fault lines comes from California's Preliminary Fault Activity Map prepared by the California Division of Mines and Geology. I f -, TC930624.1 s Page A-23 APPENDIX F SPECIFIC PLAN CONFORMITY ANALYSIS DISTRICT 7 ZONING CONFORMANCE MATRIX Downtown Specific --Plan— Section# Criteria Permitted Uses Intended Development 4.2.01; Permitted Uses The following list of visitor-serving commercial uses are allowed in District 7. Potential uses may include: 4.9.01 Other visitor-serving uses that have the same parking demand as the uses set forth below may be allowed subject to the approval of the Director. o Art galleries ©Bakeries o Art galleries a Banks and savings and loan branch offices(not to exceed 5,000 square feet) o Bakeries a Beach, swimming,and surfing equipment sales, rentals, and repairs o Banks and savings and loan branch offices(not to exceed 5,000 sq.ft.) o Bicycle sales, rentals,and repairs o Beach,swimming,and surfing equipment sales, rentals and repairs o Boat and marine supplies o Bicycle sales, rentals and repairs o Bookstores o Boat and marine supplies o Carts and kiosks, pursuant to HB Municipal Code§230.94 o Bookstores o Clothing stores o Carts and kiosks, pursuant to HB Municipal Code §230.94 o Delicatessens/specialty food stores o Clothing stores a Florists o Delicatessens o Groceries(convenience) o Florists a Ice cream parlors o Groceries(convenience) a Museums o Ice cream parlors o Newspaper and magazine stores and stands o Laundromats and laundries a Outdoor dining, pursuant to the Downtown Specific Plan§4.2.33. a Meat and fish markets a Photographic equipment sales and processing a Museums a Professional office(not to exceed 50 percent of total floor area) o Newspaper and magazine stores and stands a Shoe stores o Outdoor dining,pursuant to the Downtown Specific Plan§4.2.33. o Sporting goods o Photographic equipment sales and processing o Tourist-related public and semi-public buildings,services, and facilities o Professional office(not to exceed 50 percent of total floor area) o Travel agencies o Public transportation services a Shoe stores o Sporting goods o Tourist-related public and semi-public buildings,services and facilities o Travel agencies In accordance with the Downtown Specific Plan,all street-level uses will be visitor-serving commercial uses and will be a part of the overall development of District 7. 4.9.01 Conditionally o Automobile service stations Potential uses may include: Permitted Uses a Dancing and/or live entertainment o Health and sports clubs and spas o Dancing and/or live entertainment a Hotels and motels 0 Health and sports clubs and spas o Liquor stores 0 Hotels • DISTRICT 7 ZONING CuNFORMANCE MATRIX Downtown Specific Plan Section# Criteria Permitted Uses Intended Development ' • Permanent parking lots,subterranean,semi-subterranean and above- • Subterranean parking structures - ground parking structures. • Restaurants • Restaurants • Taverns • Taverns • Live entertainment theaters • Movie and live theaters — Accessory None identified. Accessory buildings and uses where related and ancillary to the primary uses Building Uses subject to the provisions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. Uses may include but are not limited to maintenance/storage structures/buildings. 4.2.02; Minimum No minimum parcel size;master site plan is required. District 7 includes a Hospitality Parcel that is 4.20 acres and a retail promenade 4.9.02 Parcel Size parcel that is 6.40 acres. Master Plan has been submitted for District 7. 4.2.03; Maximum 3.0 Floor Area Ratio(FAR),calculated on net acreage for all of District 7. District 7 is 10.6 acres(461,736 sq ft),which would allow an FAR of 1,385,208 4.9.03 Intensity General Plan—3.0 FAR sq ft of floor area. Pacific City is proposing up to 610,000 sq ft. See Lot Coverage Exhibit in the Conditional Use Permit Pacakge 4.2.04; Maximum 8 stories Maximum building height for the Hospitality use is 8 stories;the retail 4.9.04 Building Height 4.2.04(a): Additional 10 feet permitted for roofline treatment and promenade will have a maximum height of.3 stoires;roofline treatments, architectural features architectural treatments,and elevator equipment may exceed the 8 story height 4.2.04(b): Additional 14 feet allowed for elevator equipment. limit, but will be within noted height restrictions of Section 4.2.04(a)and 4.2.04 Increased height subject to a Special Permit. (b). Use of hotel rooftop is requested to allow for future uses such as pool, music, food and beverage related activities(i.e.rooftop bar/lounge). 4.2.05; Maximum Site 50 percent of the net site area;any part of the site covered by a roof, Site coverage for District 7 will not exceed requirement. 4.9.05 Coverage including covered walkways, patios and carports is included in coverage. Deviation subject to a Special Permit. Subterranean&semi-subterranean parking: Less than 42 inches in-height above adjacent grade are subject to provisions of Section 4.2.13(b). 4.2.06; Minimum 50 feet from Pacific Coast Highway for all structures exceeding 42 inches in Special Permit is requested for a minor deviation from front yard setback from 4.9.06 Setback: Front height;no projection into or over a public right-of-way. ' Pacific Coast Highway in order to better articulate the frontage along Pacific Yard Deviation subject to a Special Permit. Coast Highway. 4.2.07; Minimum 20 feet Consistent with requirements. 4.9.07 Setback: 10 feet for parking lots and above grade parking structures Exterior Side Deviation subject to a Special Permit. Yard 4.2.08; Minimum 20 feet from Pacific View Avenue Special Permit is requested for minor deviation from rear yard setback from 4.9.08 Setback: Rear Deviation subject to a Special Permit. Pacific View Avenue to create a more storefront pedestrian friendly experience Yard to Pacific View Avenue. 4.2.09; Minimum Not applicable to District 7. Not applicable. 4.9.09 Setback: Upper Story DISTRICT 7 ZONING CONFORMANCE MATRIX Downtown Specific Plan Section# Criteria Permitted Uses Intended Development 4-2.11; -Open-Space Public-open-space-and/or-pedestrian-access_is_required_No_specific size oL Open space will be provided in District 7 in the form of the retail promenade that 4.9.10 public open space is described. will include plazas for sitting,gathering, and public view opportunities. 4.9.11 Corridor Dedication of a 20-foot-wide public access corridor between Atlanta Avenue The 20 foot public access corridor is proposed through District 8A(Residential Dedication and Pacific Coast Highway, unless condition waived by City. Village)and across Pacific View Avenue up to District 7. The 20 foot easement requirement is being proposed to be waived within District 7 as it is unnecessary with the proposed retail promenade. 4.2.13; Parking All parking to be provided on the site. The parking for District 7(Visitor Serving commercial)will be based on a shared Huntington Commercial business (retail,office, restaurant)participation in the City's in- parking analysis as outlined in the Conditional Use Permit. The proposed Beach lieu parking program is subject to a Conditional Use Permit. shared parking analysis is included within the narrative submitted with the Ordinance Hotel Parking 1.1 space/room Pacific City Conditional Use permit. Up to approximately 1,543 subterranean Code Retail 1 space/200 sq.ft. parking spaces can be provided for District 7. Please see the July 3,2003 Restaurant 1 space/100 sq.ft. Linscott Law&Greenspan Parking Demand Analysis for the Pacific City Visitor Office 1 space/250 sq.ft. Serving Commercial Project. 4.2.14 Downtown Not applicable to District 7. District 7 is not within the Downtown Master Parking Plan Parking Master Plan 4.2.15; Landscaping Emphasis on California and Mediterranean landscapes, hardscapes, Conceptual landscape plan submitted as a part of CUP application. Huntington furniture/design details and lighting. Native planting,vines,flowering plants, Beach arbors,trellises and container planting are encouraged. Design Guidelines Site Entry—Main Entry Drive: a)A median with a minimum 10-foot-wide Chapters 4 landscaped area between the street and first bisecting parking aisle;b) and 5 minimum 5-foot-wide sidewalk on each side of driveway;c)minimum 10- foot-wide landscaped parkway on each side of driveway;d)minimum 20- foot-wide decorative paving band. Use a three-tiered planting system: 1)grasses and ground covers;2)shrubs and vines;3)trees. Tree placement:a)minimum 8 feet between center of trees and edge of driveway and 6 feet from water/gas meter and sewer laterals;b)minimum 25 feet between center of trees and intersection of edge of driveways and streets or sidewalks;c)minimum 15 feet between center of trees/large shrubs to utility poles/street lights;d)minimum 8 feet between center of trees/large shrubs and fire hydrants/fire department sprinklers/standpipe connections Landscape and irrigation plan is required. Street tree plan: Figure 1 of the Huntington Beach Design Guidelines Chapter 5 DISTRICT 7 ZONING CONFORMANCE MATRIX Downtown Specific Plan Section# Criteria Permitted Uses Intended Development 4.2.16 Street Not applicable to Pacific City District 7 project. Not applicable Vacations 4.2.17 Access Ways 4.2.17(a): 24-foot-wide alleys; no more than%of total alley dedication 4.2.17(a): No alleys planned. from one side. No new automobile curb cuts on Pacific Coast 4.2.17(b): Consistent with requirements. Highway. 4.2.17(c): Not applicable. 4.2.17(b): All access ways to be free and clear of any and all structures 4.2.17(d): Not applicable. including but not limited to trash enclosures, utility devices or storage areas. 4.2.17(c): Not applicable to District 7. 4.2.17(d): Not applicable to District 7. 4.2.18 Lighting Provide onsite lighting system on all vehicular access ways and along major A lighting plan will be prepared for Pacific City that will include lighting for all walkways. vehicular access, along major walkways including the 20 foot wide pedestrian Provide lighting within all covered/enclosed parking areas. easement,and in all parking areas. Prepare lighting plan to Director. 4.2.20 Sewer and Designed to City standards. Sewer and water systems will be based on the Pacific City EIR technical reports Water Systems Located underneath streets, alleys or drives. prepared for sewer and domestic water. 4.2.21; City Signs Conform to the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. Signage program will be prepared. of 4.2.21(a): Address numbers will be in a uniform location throughout Huntington development; Director approval required. Beach 4.2.21(b): When appropriate, install onsite street name signs at Design intersections of access ways;City Engineer approval Guidelines: required; Director approval for design and type. Must be Chapter 5 consistent with Design Guidelines. 4.2.22 Refuse Enclosed/screened by masonry walls. Refuse collection areas for District 7 will be included within the three enclosed Collection Area Sited to minimize noise and visual intrusion on adjacent property and service areas located on 1st Street, Pacific View Avenue, and Huntington Street. eliminate fire hazard to adjacent structures. 4.2.23 Vehicle Boat,trailer, recreational vehicle,and similar vehicle storage permitted within Boat,trailer, recreational vehicle,and similar vehicle storage are not proposed Storage specifically designated areas on final development map and included in within the Pacific City project. association's CC&Rs. Must be enclosed by 6-foot-high masonry wall and landscaped. 4.2.24 Antennas Antennas will be consistent with zoning requirements. Consistent with requirements. 4.2.25 Utility Lines All utility lines will be underground where possible. Utility lines abutting the project boundary are proposed to be relocated underground with the exception of the 66kv lines located on Atlanta Avenue. 4.2.26 Bus Turnouts Dedication required for a bus turnout,as recommended. Incorporate into A bus turnout is proposed along Pacific Coast Highway near the intersection development plan. with Huntington Street. 4.2.27 Orange County Locate transit center within proximity of downtown area. No transit center is proposed within the Pacific City project. Existing major bus Transit turnout is located on the south side of Pacific Coast Highway, between 1st Authority Street and Huntington Street. Center • DISTRICT 7 ZONING CONFORMANCE MATRIX Downtown Specific - Plan Section# Criteria Permitted Uses Intended Development 4.2.28 Homeowner's Not applicable to District 7. Not applicable. 1 or Community— Association 4.2.29; City Coastal Zone Located in Coastal Zone 4-Downtown. Land use designation and general Consistent with requirements. of (CZ)Suffix plan overlay: Huntington CV-F7-SP: Commercial Visitor,3.0 FAR,Specific Plan Beach Overlay General Design District 4C: Permitted Uses:visitor-serving and Plan Draft community-serving commercial uses, Coastal restaurants,entertainment and other uses Element as permitted by the CV and Commercial General(CG)land use categories. CV:hotels/motels,restaurants,recreation- related retail sales,cultural uses(e.g., museums)and similar uses oriented to coastal and other visitors to the City. CG:Retail commercial,professional offices, eating and drinking establishments, household goods,food sales,drug stores, building materials and supplies,personal services,recreational commercial,overnight accommodations,cultural facilities, institutional,health,government offices and other similar uses. Height:8 stories Design and Development:a)Requires a Specific Plan or Master Plan;b)establish a unified"village"character;required vertical setbacks above second floor; c) incorporate pedestrian walkways, plazas, and common open space;d)provide pedestrian linkages with surrounding residential and commercial areas;e) establish well-defined entry from Pacific Coast Highway;f)maintain views of shoreline and ocean. Downtown Specific Plan Comply with Downtown Specific Plan overall and District 7 requirements. 4.2.30 Affordable Not applicable to District 7. Please refer to the affordable housing plan prepared by Mary Erickson Housing Community Housing as part of the Pacific City Conditional Use Permit submittal. 4.2.31 School Provide school facilities impact mitigation and reimbursement agreement. The District 7 oroiect will comply with the requirements of the school districts DISTRICT 7 ZONING CONFORMANCE MATRIX Downtown Specific Plan Section# Criteria Permitted Uses Intended Development Facilities Condition can be waived by Planning Commission. serving the District 7 site and enter into a School Facilities Mitigation Condition does not apply to affordable housing projects. Agreement,as required by such districts. 4.2.32 Historic Not applicable to District 7. Not applicable. Properties • 4.2.33 Outdoor Dining Location and Design Criteria:a)extension of eating establishment on Outdoor dining will be provided within District 7 as shown on the Pacific City contiguous property; b)permitted on public right-of-way sidewalk areas;c) Conditional Use Permit. minimum 8-foot-wide clear passage for pedestrian access for outdoor dining in sidewalk area of public right-of-way;d)not applicable to District 7;e) establishments not serving alcohol and on public property must be separated from public sidewalk/pedestrian walkway by temporary cordon and removed when not in use;f)establishments serving alcohol must have a 36-inch-high physical barrier around outdoor eating area that will prohibit passage of alcohol through barrier;g)remove tables,chairs and umbrellas when not in use;h)minimum8-foot-wide clear passage(or permanent cordon and five- foot-wide clear passage)for pedestrian access in private sidewalk areas. Operating Requirements, Provisions and Conditions:a)obtain license agreement; b)enter into Maintenance Agreement with City;c)provide a public liability insurance policy;d)prohibit food and beverage sales to occupant or rider of motor vehicles or bicycles;e)alcohol beverages in glass containers only;f)pay all fees and deposits as required by the Huntington Beach Municipal Code;g)applicable provisions of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code and Zoning and the Subdivision Ordinance; h)applicable provisions regarding alcohol beverages; I)conditional use permit may be transferred. Parking:Comply with Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. Findings:a)as set forth for the Zoning Administrator; b)no obstruction of building entryways;c)pedestrian traffic volumes are not inhibited;d) handicapped accessibility is provided as required. Ilk DISTRICT 8A ZONING CONFORMANCE MATRIX - - _ __ - _ Downtown Specific Plan Section# Criteria - Requirements Proposed - 4.2.01; Permitted Uses Permitted Uses,for example: Permanently attached residential uses;including condominiums. 4.10.01 Permanently attached residential uses;including multi- Parks and other recreational amenities such as swimming facilities and tot lots. family housing,condominiums,stock-cooperatives,and apartments. Guardhouses or automatic gates at project entries. Subterranean parking structures and surface parking on private loop road. — Accessory — Accessory buildings and uses where'related and ancillary to the primary residence { Building Uses are subject to the provisions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. Uses may include covered patios,maintenance/storage structures/buildings within parking structure,onsite vehicle storage,spas,gazebos,and recreation facilities(indoors and outdoors). 4.2.02; Minimum Parcel No minimum parcel size;conceptual site plan is Same as requirements. 4.10.02 Size required. 1 4.2.02 Minimum Unit TVDe Min. Floor Area(sq.ft.Z • Residential Village condominiums meet or exceed requirements. Condominium units Residential range from 1 to 3 bedrooms with square footages ranging in size from approximately Floor Area Bachelor&Single 450 850 square feet to 2,450 square feet. Requirements One bedroom 650 Two bedrooms 900 I Three bedrooms 1,100 Four bedrooms 1,300 4.2.03; Maximum 1 du/1,452 sq.ft.of net lot area or 30 du per net acre. Residential Village parcel is 17.23 acres and includes 516 units with an average of 30 1 4.10.03 Density dwelling units per acre. 4.2.04; Maximum 50 feet General Plan—4 Stories Maximum building height for residential village is 50 feet;roofline treatments, , 14.10.04 Building Height 4.2.04(a): Additional 10 feet permitted for roofline architectural treatments,and elevator equipment may exceed the 50 foot height limit, treatment and architectural features but will be within noted height restrictions of Section 4.2.04(a)and 4.2.04(b). 4.2.04(b): Additional 14 feet allowed for elevator equipment. Increased height subject to a Special Permit. 4.2.05; Maximum Site 50 percent of the net site area;any part of the site Maximum site coverage does not exceed 50%of the net site area for the Pacific City 4.10.05 Coverage covered by a roof,including covered walkways,patios, Residential Village. and carports is included in coverage. Deviation subject to a Special Permit. Subterranean&semi-subterranean parking:Less than 42 inches in height above adjacent grade are subject to provisions of Section 4.2.13(b). • • —Downtown -_ � _ _ _ __ - __. ' Specific Plan Section# Criteria Requirements Proposed 4.2.06; Minimum 20 feet: All structures exceeding 42 inches in height; Decks/balconies encroach into front and side setbacks,but the deck/balcony 4.10.06 Setback:Front no projection into or over a public right-of-way. structures are below 42 inches in height. ZSO Chapter 230 allows. Yard 10 feet: Parking lots;structures below 42 inches in height are not subject to provision. 5 feet: Subterranean&semi-subterranean parking Deviation subject to a Special Permit. 4.2.07; Minimum 20 feet Decks/balconies encroach into front and side setbacks,but the deck/balcony 4.10.07 Setback: 10 feet for parking lots and above grade parking structures are below 42 inches in height. ZSO Chapter 230 allows. Exterior Side structures Yard Deviation subject to a Special Permit. 4.2.08; Minimum 20 feet Consistent with requirements. 4.10.08 Setback:Rear Deviation subject to a Special Permit. - Yard 4.2.09; Minimum 100 feet from northern exterior property line(along Consistent with requirements;the residential buildings fronting Atlanta Avenue will 14.10.09 Setback Upper Atlanta Avenue)for that portion of structure exceeding not exceed 35 feet in height for 100 feet inward from the northern exterior property Story 35 feet line(along Atlanta Avenue). Deviation subject to a Special Permit. 4.2.10 Minimum 10 feet between detached buildings Consistent with requirements. Building Separation 4.2.11(a) Common Open 25%of the floor area of each unit with a minimum Based on the 25%floor area requirement,the Pacific City Residential Village is Space dimension of 20 feet. Deviation subject to a Special required to provide 225,805 square feet(5.18 acres)of common open space; Pacific Permit. City Residential Village will included 341,737 square feet(7.85 acres). 4.2.11(b) Private Open Unit Tyne Min.Area(sq.ft.) Min.Dim.(ft.) Consistent with requirements. Space—Ground Floor Bachelor,single, 200 10 Or one bedroom Two bedrooms 250, 10 Three bedrooms 300 10 Four bedrooms 400 10 4.2.11(b) Private Open Unit Type Min.Area(sa.ft.) Min.Dim.(ft.1 Consistent with requirements. Space—above ground floor Bachelor,single, 60 10 - Or one bedroom Two bedrooms 120 6 Three bedrooms 120 6 Four bedrooms 120 6 , , _ , ilk DISTRICT 8A ZONING CONFORMANCE MATRIX . --- — — - - - Downtown - j Specific - . Plan - Section# Criteria Requirements I Proposed 1 I 4.10.10 Public Open None required. Public areas proposed include a public access corridor through District BA(High- Space Density Residential)extending from Atlanta Avenue to the proposed extension of Pacific—View-Avenue. 4.10.11 Corridor Dedication of a 20-foot-wide public access corridor The 20-foot wide public access corridor starts at Atlanta Avenue directly across from Dedication between Atlanta Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway, Alabama Street extending through the residential village to the interior loop road,then i unless condition waived by City. runs along the west side of the interior village loop road along the pedestrian parkway extending across Pacific View Avenue,where it splits into two 10-foot corridors that run parallel on both sides of the commercial parking garage entry and around the commercial event lawn joining together again at the Pacific Coast Highway public sidewalk. 4.10.12; Resource Conceptual site plan for overlay area required prior to The conditional use permit is intended to serve as a reuse plan for the reuse of Oil 4.14.03 Production project development or subdivision of land. Overlay"C"as the proposed residential village. Overlay 14.2.13; Parking All parking to be provided on the site. Parking in District 8A(Residential Village)will be per code as shown in the Huntington Exceptions apply to affordable housing. Conditional Use Permit. A special permit will be requested for 15%parking garage 1 Beach ramps in four locations in order to enhance common open space areas. - Ordinance Code 1 4.2.15; Landscaping One 36-inch box tree or the equivalent thereof per unit. A preliminary landscape plan is included in the Pacific City Conditional Use Permit. Huntington 75%of requirement will be 36-inch box trees&25%.will - 1 Beach be 24-inch box trees at a ratio of 1-inch for 1-inch. I Design Landscape and irrigation plan is required. Guidelines Deviation subject to a Special Permit. - _ Chapter 3 ,4.2.17 Access Ways 4.2.17(a): Not applicable to District 8A. 4.2.17(a): Not applicable. 4.2.17(b): All access ways to be free and clear of 4.2.17(b):Consistent with requirements. any and all structures including but not limited to trash enclosures, utility devices,or storage areas. 4.2.17(c): Private access ways:minimum 28 feet of 4.2.17(c):Consistent with requirements; private loop road meets or exceeds 28 foot paved width. width requirement. 4.2.17(d): Private access ways exceeding 600 feet: 4.2.17(d):Consistent with requirements;private access way is a loop road. j 4.2.18 Lighting Provide onsite lighting system on all vehicular access A lighting plan will be prepared for Pacific City that will include lighting for all vehicular 1 ways and along major walkways. access,along major walkways including the 20 foot wide pedestrian easement, and in Provide lighting within all covered/enclosed parking all parking areas. areas. Prepare lighting plan for review and approval of Director. Downtown _ _. Specific - - i Plan Section# Criteria Requirements Proposed 4.2.19 Outdoor Attached garage or minimum 100 cubic feet of outdoor Outdoor storage space will be provided within the residential units and/or within the Storage Space storage space per unit. parking structure. 4.2.20 Sewer and Designed to City standards. Sewer and water systems will be based on the Pacific City EIR technical reports Water Systems Located underneath streets,alleys,or drives. prepared for sewer and domestic water. No individual dwelling unit sewer lines or mains can extend underneath another dwelling unit. 4.2.21 Signs Conform to the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. A signage program will be prepared. 4.2.21(a): Address numbers will be in a uniform location throughout development; Director approval required. 4.2.21(b): When appropriate,install onsite street name signs at intersections of access ways;City Engineer approval required;Director approval for design and type. Must be consistent with Design Guidelines. 4.2.22 Refuse Within 200 feet of dwelling units being served. Consistent with requirements. Collection Area Enclosed/screened by masonry walls. Sited to minimize noise and visual intrusion on adjacent property and eliminate fire hazard to adjacent structures. 4.2.23 Vehicle Storage Boat,trailer,recreational vehicle,and similar vehicle Boat,trailer,recreational vehicle,and similar vehicle storage are not proposed within i storage permitted within specifically designated areas the Pacific City project. on final development map and included in association's CC&Rs. Must be enclosed by 6-foot-high masonry wall and landscaped. 14.2.24 Antennas Antennas will be consistent with zoning requirements. Consistent with requirements. i 4.2.25 Utility Lines All utility lines will be underground where possible. Utility lines abutting the project boundary are proposed to be relocated underground 1 with the exception of the 66kv lines located on Atlanta Avenue. '4.2.26 Bus Turnouts Not applicable to District 8A. Not applicable. 4.2.27 Orange County Locate transit center within proximity of downtown area. No transit center is proposed within the Pacific City project. Existing major bus Transit Authority • turnout is located on the south side of Pacific Coast Highway, between 15t Street and Center Huntington Street. 4.2.28 Homeowner's or Development approval subject to submission of legal Legal instrument(s)establishing a plan or manner of permanent care and Community instrument(s)establishing a plan or manner of maintenance of open space,recreational areas,and communal facilities will be j Association permanent care and maintenance of open space, submitted to the City for review and approval. recreational areas,and communal facilities. City ! Attorney approval required; Department of Community Development approval required for use of open areas. DISTRICT 8A ZONINC, ...-AFORMANCE MATRIX Downtown Specific Plan Section# Criteria Requirements Proposed 4.2.29 Coastal Zone Located in Coastal Zone 4-Downtown. Land use Consistent with requirements. (CZ)Suffix designation and general plan overlay: RH-30-SP: Residential High Density,Greater than 30 units per net acre,Specific Plan Overlay Design District 41: Permitted Uses:multi-family residential,parks and other recreational amenities,schools, and open spaces Density/Building Height:4 stories Design and Development:a)Requires a Specific Plan or Master Plan;b)Follow policies and principles for"New Residential Subdivisions"(Policies 9.3.1-9.3.4); c)allows clustering of mixed density residential units and integrated commercial sites;d) requires variation of building heights from 2 to 4 stories Downtown Specific Plan: Comply with Downtown Specific Plan overall and District • 8A requirements. • !4.2.30 Affordable Where project offers 50%of units for 30 years to Please refer to the affordable housing plan prepared by Mary Erickson Community Housing persons and households earning between 80%and Housing as part of the Pacific City Conditional Use Permit submittal. 100%of Orange County Median Income,the following reductions in development standards may apply: Guest Parking: Up to 100%waiver if adequate excess public parking available Common Open Space: Up to 70%reduction if replaced by private open space,including roof decks Site Coverage: Up to 75% Height: Maximum four stories Density: Maximum 1.0 FAR or applicable density. Minimum Unit Size: Studio:400 sq.ft. Downtown Specific Plan Section# Criteria Requirements - I Proposed - 1 bedroom:600 sq.ft. _ 2 bedrooms:800 sq.ft. 4.2.31 School Facilities Provide school facilities impact mitigation and The District 8A project will comply with the requirements of the school districts serving reimbursement agreement. the District 8A site and the developer will enter into a School Facilities Mitigation Condition can be waived by Planning Commission. Agreement,as required by such districts. Condition does not apply to affordable housing projects. 4.2.32 Historic Not applicable to District 8A. Not applicable. Properties 4.2.33 Outdoor Dining Not applicable to District 8A. _ Not applicable. t -' APPENDIX G DRAINAGE STUDY INCLUDING PRELIMINARY HYDROLOGY ANALYSIS AND WATER QUALITY ANALYSIS FOR PACIFIC CITY DRAINAGE STUDY INCLUDING PRELIMINARY HYDROLOGY ANALYSIS AND WATER QUAUTY ANALYSIS FOR PACIFIC CITY City of Huntington Beach QRpFE�S��� PREPARED UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF: o w NO 56820 c rn * d Exp 630/05 = P rick L. Pagadu n, R.C.E. 56820 Exp. 6/30/05 Cry iL ��\P FOF CAL�F� 474 0--/c)_, Date (f\c\wo\2198\13 D03-js.doc) Drainage Study including Preliminary Hydrology Analysis and Water Quality Analysis for Pacific City Table of Contents Section Page Discussion. Section 1 Exhibit 1 —Vicinity Map & Drainage Areas Exhibit 2 — Location Map & ASWPS Drainage Areas Exhibit 3 —Existing Hydrology Exhibit 4 —Proposed Hydrology Exhibit 5 —Proposed Drainage. Exhibit 6 —Storm Drain Facilities Hydrology Calculations. Section 2 Existing On-Site Area—25 and 100-Year Study Proposed On-Site Area "A"—25 and 100-Year Study Proposed On-Site Area "B"—25 and 100-Year Study Hydrology Maps. Section 3 Hydrology Map (Existing Condition) Preliminary Hydrology Map Soils Group Map Appendix. Section 4 Low-Flow Calculations Preliminary Storm Drain Alignment (Plan and Profile) Preliminary Hydraulic Calculations JS:wp(f\c\wo\2198\13 D03-js.doc)4-14-03 i Drainage Study/Hydrology Analysis Hunsaker&Associates Irvine,Inc. Makar Properties Reference Plans. — Section 5 The Waterfront (Tract 13045) Storm Drain Improvements Sheet 8 Of 11, by Fuscoe, Williams, Lindgren & Short City f Huntington Beach Drainage Atlas Maps Recommended Water Quality Mitigation Post Construction Best Management Practices. Section 6 Appendix A Tab A Appe dix B Tab B Appe dix C Tab C Storm Wa er Pollution Prevention Plan. Section 7 Notice of reparation Responses. • Section 8 California oastal Commission. California egional Water Quality Control board County of iP range—Planning and Development Services Orange Co nty Sanitation District Orange Co nty Sanitation District Orange Co nty Coastkeeper Southern California Association of Governments. IY JS:wp(f\c\wo\2198\13 D03-js.doc)4-14-03 ii Drainage Study/Hydrology Analysis Hunsaker&Associates Irvine,Inc. Makar Properties Sections 2,3,4,5,8,and tabs 6A,6B,and,6C of the Hydrology and Water Quality Analysis are not included in this version of the document and are available for review at the City of Huntington Beach and City of Huntington Beach Central and Main libraries. - Introduction The proposed Pacific City project subsequently known as "The Project" is a mixed-use visitor- serving commercial center together with a residential village located on a 31.5-acre vacant parcel on the inland side of Pacific Coast Highway. The Project is located at the intersection of First Street and Pacific Coast Highway (PCH). Residential streets bound the project to the north (Atlanta Avenue), to the east (Huntington Street) and to the west (First Street) and the State of California Highway to the South (Pacific Coast Highway). The Project falls within the City of Huntington Beach's (The City) Downtown Specific Plan (DSP), Districts 7 & 8. The project location is shown on Exhibits 1 & 2. The project is proposed to include approximately 240,000 square feet of mixed commercial use facilities and a 400-room hotel along PCH to serve visitors and a residential village of approximately 515 multi-family: homes. The City filed a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) in January of 2003, which is consistent.with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). NOP responses were received from the following agencies, California Coastal Commission (CCC); California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB); County of Orange — Planning and Development Services (OCPDS); Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD); Orange County Coastkeeper (OCC); and Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). This report of. the drainage and water quality analysis was created to provide necessary background information, site characteristics, and flow patterns before development and post- development describing overall impacts and mitigation measures to convey compatibility with each respective agency's requirement to substantiate the findings and recommendations of the DEIR publication. Purpose This study will define and evaluate the pre-development and post-development stormwater flow, conveyance systems, water quality impacts and related mitigation measures and Best Management Practices (BMP's) to comply with local and regional goals set-forth by various agencies \and permits. The following list of items outline the scope and definitions of this study: 1. Estimate the tributary area and peak flow rate discharges for the on-site and off-site areas, as they interrelate to existing and future condition based on completion of current City/County improvement projects. 2. Demonstrate that the proposed drainage facilities to be constructed with the Pacific City project will reduce the amount of urban runoff to the Atlanta Storm Water Pump Station (ASWPS) and evaluate the pre-developed and post-developed flows (Q's1) for their differential impacts on the Talbert Valley Drainage Watershed (TVDW). 3. Estimate the volume of on-site first-flush', or 85th percentile runoff targeted to satisfy water quality requirements. 4. Identify any related construction permits required. This includes pre-development and PP requirementsg post-development from various agencies. -- JS:wp(f\c\wo\2198\13 D03-js.doc)4-14-03 1 Drainage Study/Hydrology Analysis Hunsaker&Associates Irvine,Inc. Makar Properties 5. Dem nstrate that there is no net increase of pollutants from the site to receiving bodies of wate or wetland areas. A discussion of existing structural Best Management Practices (BMP's) that are currently installed within the TVDW system to promote water quality befor entering receiving waters. 6. Ident fy and analyze site-specific attenuation alternatives. Backgro nd A Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a DEIR was submitted by the City to various agencies as previously entioned. Each agency addressed multiple issues relating to the final DEIR. The points of int rest from the various agencies that are relevant to this report, generally relate to stormwater r n-off, flow patterns and water quality. The respondents to the NOP requested a detailed disc ssion in the DEIR of the pre-development and post-development stormwater run-off effects on th downstream areas and drainage systems with a main goal to improve and maintain the integrity of the receiving water while achieving site specific water quality objectives. The respondents Iso requested additional discussion regarding the implementation of structural and non-structur I BMP's for the project as it relates to the Countywide Drainage Area. Management Plan (DAMP) The Talbert alley Watershed District (TVDW) has an overall area of 7,855-acres and is comprised of multiple tr butary areas that contribute urban run-off along existing drainage channels as shown on Exhibit 1 The Project is a 31-acre portion of one of the larger tributary areas (618 acres) directed tow rd the Atlanta Stormwater Pump Station (ASWPS) yielding approximately 1,125 CFS during a 10 -year storm, which is then discharged into the Huntington Beach Channel (HB Channel DO ). The ASWPS has an existing capacity of 551 CFS3. The County of Orange is currently co structing improvements along the Channel DO1 with an expected completion in the summer of 2004. The improvements will increase the efficiency of the channel to a 100—year storm capaci y. The ASWPS, by City estimates, needs a capacity of 1,125 CFS for protection from a 100-year st rm event4, therefore the ASWPS is currently 574 CFS under capacity. The ASWPS 'so provides a level of water quality protection to the urban run-off. During dry weather and low flow drainage events the water from the ASWPS is discharged into the Orange County Sanit tion District sewer lines. This allows for further treatment of nuisance runoff. The majority of t e pollutants are transferred from impervious surfaces to receiving waters during nuisance flo conditions. In order to pr vide improved flood control protection and relief to the ASWPS, the City is currently planning for the construction of a new storm drain system in First Street. This new 42 inch line will divert flows away from the ASWPS, thus reducing the current pumping capacity deficiency. This new storm dr in has undergone complete environmental review, funding has been obtained, and construction s scheduled to occur prior to the summer of 2003. A portion of the preliminary plans of this ystem have been included in Section 5. The initial purpose of the First Street Storm Drain System (FSSDS) is to provide flood control protection to the Alabama Street drainage area (see Exhibit ). The development of the 31 acre project will complete the construction of the FSSDS as sho n on Exhibit 6. JS:wp(f\c\wo\21 8\13 D03-js.doc)4-14-03 2 Drainage Study/Hydrology Analysis Hunsaker&Also iates Irvine,Inc. Ma kar Properties Methodology The hydrology calculations used for this preliminary hydrologic analysis are based on the 1986 Orange County Hydrology Manual and Addendums as incorporated in the Advanced Engineering Software (AES) Rational Method Hydrology Computer Program Package. The 1986 County manual uses a modified rational method equation which incorporates factors which include: land uses, rainfall intensity, infiltration rates and pervious area ratios to calculate storm discharges. The 1986 Manual updated the historic rainfall data, which resulted in an increase in design runoff volumes that were greater than those shown in earlier studies. Design Criteria The Project will generate storm water flows from two separate drainage areas labeled on Exhibit 4 as Drainage area "A" and "B". The subsequent discussions will explain the discharge from each area and their impact on the surrounding drainage systems (pre and post-development). Drainage Area "A" (shown in green on Exhibit 4) in the post development condition is proposed to discharge only- - small portion of the site storm water into the existing Pacific View Avenue storm drain system, well below the maximum allowable discharge rate previously established for the existing system by previous studies, in order to provide relief to the ASWPS. Drainage Area "B" (shown in yellow on Exhibit 4) is proposed to discharge the remainder of the site storm water to the First Street storm drain system. As with any project design, the on-site structures need to be protected from a theoretical design storm event. In this case, the design storm event is a 100-year storm as outlined in the City of Huntington Beach Standard Plan 300, and the County of Orange Local Drainage Manual criterion. The proposed structures are protected by adhering to the mitigation requirements and elevating the structures above the 100 year flood level. In addition, city design criteria requires one travel lane to be protected from a 25-year storm events in a sump condition'. The proposed City storm drain project on First Street has been designed to accept flows from the Project to maintain protection of the on-site streets from a 25-year storm event. The design of the proposed on-site storm drain system introduces an underground detention basin to limit the flowrate from the project to comply with the First street storm drain design capabilities (See Preliminary Hydraulic Analysis for discussion of storm events and drainage design). Existing Drainage Patterns The existing on-site drainage currently discharges through the ASWPS to the HB Channel DO1 and contributes the flows shown on the following table for Pre-Development conditions. The flows have been re-calculated based on the revised and updated rainfall data as presented in the 1986 Orange County Hydrology Manual. Exhibit 3 details the Existing Hydrology and surface flows. Pre-Development Conditions (Post 1986 Values) Storm Event On-Site Area (Year) (CFS) 25 48.6 100 67.0 JS:wp(f\c\wo\2198\13 D03-js.doc)4-14-03 3 Drainage Study/Hydrology Analysis Hunsaker&Associates Irvine,Inc. Makar Properties i 1 Proposed Drainage Patterns The Project area is proposed to be divided into two separate drainage areas with separate storm drain systems. The intent will be to reduce runoff directed to the ASWPS. The "Predevelopment" drainage area of 34.6 acres, currently tributary to the ASWPS, will be reduced to 7.7 acres (Drainage Area "A"). The result will be a reduction in 100-year storm flow of 67.0 CFS to 21.8 CFS to the ASWPS. The storm flows from drainage Area "B" will be diverted away from the ASWPS • to the City's FSSDS. The estimated 100-year storm flows from Drainage Area "B" is approximately 85.2 CFS however, the addition of an underground detention basin will limit these flows to 20 CFS, as directed by the City Public Works Department. The proposed project storm drain system will improve the storm flow protection for the ASWPS drainage area. A summary of the proposed on-site discharges in the 25 and 100-year events are shown on Exhibit 4 and the table below: Post-Development Conditions (Post 1986 Values) Storm Event Drainage Area "A" Drainage Area "B" (Year) 7.7 Acres 26.9 Acres (CFS) (CFS) 25 16.7 66.1 100 21.8 85.2 Drainage Impacts from Development Area"A" Per the included plan by Fuscoe, Williams, Lindgren & Short, titled "Phase I Improvement Plans, (Section 5) the Waterfront Hilton (Tract 13045) Storm Drain Improvements", sheet 8 of 11, the existing storm drain system in Pacific View Avenue (pipe size is 42" RCP) was assigned a future allowable discharge of 34.4 CFS for a 25-year event. The discharge was limited here in order to reduce the v lume conveyed to the Atlanta Pump Station (see "Drainage Study, The Waterfront Hilton, Huntington Beach", prepared by Fuscoe Engineering — San Diego, Inc., July 1998, and "Hydrology nd Hydraulics Calculations for Mayer Corporation—Waterfront Hilton Phase I Hilton Hotel", prep red by Fuscoe, Williams, Lindgren and Short, Inc., dated February 1989). In the post-d veloped condition, a maximum of approximately 21.8 CFS will be permitted to be discharged i to the existing 42" RCP in Pacific View Avenue because it cannot flow to First Street without pum ing. Therefore, the Project drainage area "A" has been sized appropriately to this discharge limit for estimates a discharge of 21.8 CFS. for the 100-year event. The expected discharge to the ASWPS is well below the previously designed allowable discharge of 34.4 CFS. Area "B" In the develgqped condition, Area "B", a 25-year storm will generate approximately 66.1 CFS to First Street Without flood routing. Flood routing through an underground detention basin is proposed in prder to limit the discharge to 20 CFS. This area, currently being conveyed to the JS:wp(f\c\wo\2198\13 D03-js.doc)4-14-03 4 Drainage Study/Hydrology Analysis Hunsaker&Associates Irvine,Inc. Makar Properties existing storm drain system in Pacific View Avenue, will no longer be discharged to the Atlanta Storm Water Pump Station. A tabular representation of pipe flow storm pre and post-development discharges are shown on Exhibit 5 and summarized below: Summary of Pipe Flow Discharges Discharges to: Area "A" Area "B" (CFS) (CFS) ASWPS (pre-development) (total 67.0 in 100-year event in both areas) ASWPS (post-development) 21.8 0 First Street(pre-development) 0 0 First Street (post-development) 0 20 CFS max. (for all storm events) Existing on-site storm flows from both areas (approximately 67.0 CFS for the 100-year event) currently discharge to the existing 42" storm drain system in Pacific View Avenue. In the developed condition, only the northerly, easterly and southerly perimeter area shown as Drainage Area "A" (shown as the color green) on Exhibit 4 and 5 (approximately 21.8 CFS for the 100-year event) will discharge to the existing 42" pipe located in Pacific View Avenue. On the same exhibits, Drainage Area "B" (shown as the color yellow) is proposed to limit its maximum discharge to 20 CFS in the 25-year storm event to the City storm drain in First Street. This results in a net reduction of 45.2 CFS, or about 67% of the flow to ASWPS. Preliminary Hydraulic Analysis The proposed drainage systems for this site shall be designed to meet 100-year flood level protection as outlined per the City of Huntington Beach Standard Plan 300, and the County of Orange Local Drainage Manual criterion. Design pipe flow discharges are detailed in the Summary of Pipe Flow Discharge table located in the previous section and shown with the preliminary storm drain alignments on Exhibit#6. Area "A" will be serviced by a proposed system of inlets and underground pipe conduits joining the existing 42" storm drain pipe at the intersection of Pacific View Avenue and Huntington Avenue. As stated previously, this existing 42" system was allocated a maximum future allowable discharge of 34.4 CFS in the 25-year event from the project. However, by reducing the area to the minimum size allowed without pumping, the post-development hydrology indicates that 21.8 CFS is produced in the 100-year event. Therefore, the net discharge of storm flows to the existing 42" system results in a reduction of flows discharge to the ASWPS and meets the flood protection goals outlined above. Area "B" will also be serviced by a proposed system of inlets and underground pipe conduits joining to proposed City of Huntington Beach storm drain system in First Street. Per the City of Huntington Beach, their proposed system will be designed to convey the 25-year event from the Alabama street drainage area outlined in Exhibit #2 and will accept 20 CFS from the proposed Pacific City, which is a portion of the proposed runoff Drainage Area "B". JS:wp(f\c\wo\2198\13 D03-js.doc)4-14-03 5 Drainage Study/Hydrology Analysis Hunsaker&Associates Irvine,Inc. Makar Properties Since the po.t-development hydrology of Area "B" indicates that 66.1 CFS is produced in the 25- year event, .ttenuation of about 46 CFS is required. A detention basin is proposed to store the excess storm flows and limit the amount of discharge into the proposed City of Huntington Beach system. This proposed detention basin will limit the maximum peak outflow into the system to approximatel 20 CFS as required by the City of Huntington Beach First Street Storm Drain design. A volume of :bout 0.82 acre-feet is required for this attenuation. Details of the detention basin will • be included hen final engineering begins. Flow exceeding attenuation limits will be allowed to runoff via su ace streets without impacting drainage systems or flooding lanes. A preliminar mainline hydraulic analysis was performed using the L.A. County Flood Control District "WSPG" Program. Lateral pipe hydraulics were performed using the L.A. County Department .f Public Works "Storm Drain Analysis". Typically, this program is used for lateral connector pi.es to reduce the amount of calculations to determine water surface elevations. Per the Cou ty of Orange Local Drainage Manual, a 100-year protection for all habitable structures is equired. The proposed City of Huntington Beach drainage system along First Street, and the Pacific City Area "B" drainage system, are designed to convey the 25-year event. In storms above the 25-year event and up to the 100-year event, habitable structures will be placed above the 100-year flood elevation and site discharges shall be conveyed via surface street flow along First S reet, thus meeting the flood protection goals as outlined above. A more detailed discussion re:arding design storms and flood protection goals can be found in City of Huntington Beach Stand,.rd Plan 300, and Chapter 1, Design Criteria, found the County of Orange Local Drainage Ma ual. All prelimina y hydraulic calculations regarding the proposed drainage systems First Street, and Areas "A" & "B", detention volume, and preliminary storm drain plan and profile alignments are contained in he Appendix. Atlanta . torm Water Pump Station Per the City of Huntington Beach, Master Plan of Drainage, Pump Station Analysis (Table 3), the Atlanta Stor Water Pump Station (ASWPS) has a current capacity of 551 CFS. The tributary area it services disc arges approximately 1124 CFS in the 100-year event. This indicates a capacity deficiency of about 573 CFS. In the curren condition, a total of approximately 177 CFS is discharged to the ASWPS from the Alabama Street Discharge Area including Pacific City. With the proposed City of Huntington Beach storm drain system along First Street, and Pacific City Area "B" drainage system, approximatel 155.2 CFS in the 100-year event will be diverted away from the ASWPS. Therefore, only 21.8 C'S from Area "A" will be discharged to the ASWPS from the Project and Alabama Street Discha ge Area— a net reduction of about 85%. Design flows to the ASWPS can summarily be reduced f .m 1124 to 968.8 CFS, approximately 14%, and the capacity deficiency is reduced from 574 to 396 CFS, approximately 31%. Stormwa er Mitigation The propose on-site storm drain systems will include water quality devices,.as shown on Exhibit 6. First flush ischarges, based on Order No. R8-2002 (NPDES No. CAS6018030)—The County of Orange, OCF D, and Incorporated Cities Area-wide Urban Storm Water Runoff, will be routed via JS:wp(f\c\wo\2198\13 D03-js.doc)4-14-03 6 Drainage Study/Hydrology Analysis Hunsaker&Associates Irvine,Inc. Makar Properties water quality pipes through water quality devices and discharged to the Huntington Beach Channel (D01) via the ASWPS for Area "A", and First Street storm drain via the proposed City of Huntington Beach system FSSDS for Area "B". A more extensive discussion of the Recommended Water Quality Mitigation Post Construction Best Management Practices (RWQMPCBMP) can be found in Section 6 of this study. A summary of the pre- and post-development first flush discharges (CFS) are shown on Exhibit 6 and in the table below: Summary of First Flush Discharges Discharges to: Area "A" Area "B" (CFS) (CFS) ASWPS (pre-development) (total 5.0 from both areas) ASWPS (post-development) • 1.2 0 First Street (pre-development) 0 0 First Street (post-development) 0 3.8 Discharges are based on the criteria from the above reference. Preliminary calculations can be found in the Appendix. Construction Storm Water Mitigation The NPDES General Permit for Storm Water Discharge Associated with Construction Activity requires the development and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The SWPPP is a separate document that is site specific and provide guidelines to identify impacts and mitigation of storm water discharges and quality pre- and post construction. The SWPPP identifies BMP's (storm water, non-storm water and post construction), site monitoring including reports and revisions, responsible parties and training of the implementation of the BMP's. A more extensive outline of the proposed SWPPP can be found in Section 7 of this study. Previous hydrology studies for this area include : Previous hydrology studies and reports for this area include: 1. Hydrology and Hydraulics Calculations for Mayer Corporation —Waterfront Hilton Phase I —Hilton Hotel by Fuscoe, Williams, Lindgren & Short, Inc. (February 1989). 2. Hydrology Analysis for 31 Acres Mixed-Use Development, City of Huntington Beach by Hunsaker & Associates (December 1998). 3. Drainage Study, The Waterfront Hilton, Huntington Beach by Fuscoe Engineering — San Diego, Inc. (July 1998). 4. Lake Street Hydrology Study, City of Huntington Beach (6/4/87). 5. City of Huntington Beach, Master Plan of Drainage, Pump Station Analysis, Pump Station Capacity Evaluation (October 1992). JS:wp(f\c\wo\2198\13 D03-js.doc)4-14-03 7 Drainage Study/Hydrology Analysis Hunsaker&Associates Irvine,Inc. Makar Properties WARNER AVE ci CARREID AVE rn 5 a \1NCRANAPb1(5 AVE ' i ► MANTA ANTA AVE \ frifi ASWPS HAMILTON AVE Nts PACIFIC CITY LEGEND PROJECT co.t> -' rt PROJECT AREA 'nsj. TALBERT VALLEY DRAINAGE WATERSHED [\\\N ASWPS DRAINAGE AREA DOWNTOWN DRAINAGE AREA OALABAMA STREET Not to Scale i�IiI�����II��IiI DRAINAGE AREA Prepared By. Hunsaker & Associates Irvine, Inc Vicinity Map & Drainage Areas 0:\Huntington Beach\IPacific City\Exhibit\Drainage—Areao.dwg Exhibit 1 Date Prepared:4/14/03 IMMO/ _ i f71 Ej«+«• t ♦1 • --••�.--•� •• •• •• )....j• . •♦ •♦ •• •• •f •♦ •. •♦ •♦ ' ♦ •♦ •♦ •♦ . •♦ •• ♦ . •• •♦ •+ •♦4 f ♦ + ♦ ♦ • ♦ ♦ •♦ • f •♦ ♦ ♦ f . . • ♦ • . . • ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ • • ♦ • • • + ♦ . . . ♦ . • . • ♦ . • • . • ♦ : •• .` • • • • • • • .• • . • • • • • • •▪• • INDIANAPOLIS + ` ♦ • f ♦ f ♦ ♦ ♦ • . ♦ • • ♦ •*♦*♦ .*♦ff ♦i•�•♦• • f • ♦ • • • f • • • . • ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ f • . ♦ . 4 ♦ ♦ • ♦ ♦ ♦ . ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ • • • 1 • ♦ ♦ • ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ 4 ♦ • • • • • 1 ♦ • • • • AVE -- , • • • ♦ f ♦ • • • • • • • ♦ , • ♦ ♦ • ♦ ♦ ♦ • • • . ♦ ♦ ♦ • ♦ ♦ • ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ • ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ • • ♦ • 1 ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ f ♦ . . • ♦ . ♦ ♦ ♦ 1 + ♦ . t ♦ • ♦ ♦ ♦ • ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ , . f • ♦ • f , ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ • ♦ ♦ r . ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ , ♦ • ♦ • ♦ f ♦ ♦ , ♦ ♦ ♦ • Y 1 ♦ ♦ . ♦ ♦ ♦ • ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ • • • ♦ ♦ • ♦ • ♦ ♦ ♦ • • ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ • • 1 ♦ ♦ • • • • ♦ + ♦ ♦ ♦ , • ♦ 1 ♦ • • • • , • ♦ • ♦ ♦ ♦ • • . ♦ •▪•♦ •t •♦ •♦ •♦ f ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ • •, ♦ i ♦ • , ♦ • • • ♦ • f ♦ ♦ f f ♦ • • f f t ♦ ♦ ♦ •♦ • • f f ♦ ♦ f 1 f ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ •. r ci, •♦ •♦ •♦ •♦ ♦ •♦ •f •• •♦ •♦ •f r •♦ ♦▪•♦ ♦ •♦ •♦ ♦ •f •♦ •♦ . •♦ •♦ •• . •♦ •t •♦ •♦ •♦ •♦ •• ♦ •, •♦• •, ♦ •♦ •♦ •f ♦ •, ♦ •♦ , •♦ •♦ •♦ •♦ ♦ •♦ •♦ •t •♦ ♦ •♦ •♦ •• •♦ •t f . • ♦ ♦ •♦ •. . •♦ •♦ • . • ♦ •♦ f ♦ t . ♦ ♦ . ♦ ♦ . ♦ ♦ f . f ♦ ♦.♦ ♦ , ♦ , • • + ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ t t ♦ • . ♦ ♦ ♦ t ♦ ♦ t f . ♦ f ♦ ♦ . + . • ♦ • ♦ 1 • ♦ f • ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ • • • ♦ . ♦ . ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ • • f ♦ • • ♦ ♦ • • ♦ ♦ • f • • ♦ ♦ ♦ • • • ♦ • . • ♦ • f ♦ ♦ t . • • • ♦ ♦ • • ♦ ♦ • • • ♦ • ♦ ♦ • + f f . ♦ . • ♦ • ♦ • ♦ • ♦ • • ♦ ♦ 1 ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ • . ♦ . t ♦ • ♦ • • , ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ + ♦ ♦ ♦ ••• ••.♦ ♦ . • ♦ • • • ♦ • ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ • ♦ • • • • • • ♦ 1 • • I ♦ ♦ • ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ f • ♦ . ♦ • ♦ t • + • . ♦ • • • ♦ t ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ • • • ♦ • ♦ • ♦ + + • ♦ • ♦ . • • • ♦ • • • ♦ • • . I. f ♦ ♦ . 1 t ♦ f ♦ ♦ + ♦ I. • 4 ♦ , ♦ 1 • ♦ • ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦� ♦ ♦ ♦ • • ♦ , • ♦ ♦ • ♦ • ♦ • • ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ • ♦ • ♦ ♦ • f ♦ • " •• ♦ ` . . . . . f .lATLANTA AVE Al.„ S. • ♦ ♦ ♦ f ♦▪♦ T f ♦ ♦•f ♦ ♦ f • . .....1 • ' 1 ASWPS 1 ♦ f ♦ ♦ f▪♦ f ♦ ♦ ♦ %f ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ f ♦ 44 ♦ f f f • ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ • f•W• ♦ f ♦ ♦ ♦ , t f� ♦ • t • . f ♦ • • • ♦CM • ♦ • •t t ♦ •1 • • f 1 • • • • ♦ ♦ , • , • • • f • ♦ t ♦ ♦ f ♦ ♦ , • ♦ • ♦ ♦ • ♦ f ♦ • • ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ • t . ♦ ♦ t , ♦ ♦ • ♦ ♦ ♦ • ,o • • • HAMILTON AVE 9�/ PACIFIC CITY C HUNIPNGTON BEACH - PROJECT o 1 LEGEND • • ti ATLANTA STORM WATER PUMP STATION (ASWPS) t-1' ,r:.J PROJECT AREA •'•'•'•' . ASWPS DRAINAGE AREA 1CD DOWNTOWN DRAINAGE AREA Not to Scale ALABAMA STftET DRAINAGE AREA _ •hewed By: Location Map & ASWPS Hunsaker & Associates Irvine, Inc Drainage Area 0:\Huntington Beach\Pacific City\Exhibit\Drainage—Areas_Exh2.dwg A Date Prepared:4114A Exhibit 2 3 1 , _ , , _ _ HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA ,. EXISTING HYDROLOGY EXHIBIT FOR PACIFIC CITY \T-, PRE-DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONS ^ � 4•0-A?\0 Storm Event Existing Drainage Area r �0` ��`�`�'e\�y .tswPs (Year) 34� Acres 7 FS) ,) `_,\4.+ 2p� `� Z 25 48.6 INS;:tiii 0 I 2 / t 50 ,sq,,..e- z. \ ::��;.. s� o LEGEND ..'��SLI ' 4 { fi 1�. ,� 11.L\f�\;� �� I �� � ��- ' 4 4 �`.`?1 I iE EXISTING DRAINAGE I P�'� + 4 c \�. ——— BOUNDARY 4 II 4 44 { ,,,../ yr- `'�-''� * ; i f —� — EXISTING SDRAIN LINEFIRST STREET i Ps 41,-II Ili I / ,. - EXISTING SDRAIN CHA—� —► EXISTING PATTERNS 1 I 4 • 414111,p 1 a + . 4 + + { 4 y , . \:\7w, ISTING I �n ' a a , + jj1( i ' `� 42"RCP { lI'i �� ; 4 a a1 yy 4 + 4 4 44 \ �1':N 'Z . II/ I 4 a a 4 a4. �:w fir, + 4 g ':c + , �a PACIFIC \kki a "1rf, 4 \�,I . ^��., ,_, + �� ~ AVENUE Z C� f`r 7� 'V\1 • iwr '16, I 4 '. 4 /(2ii�7 + ` ' `�,(' .: 14ci•f'i la 1 4 a 1'�o ���} {µ� 44 4 4 + +- 1,,�,. EXISTING INLET 'f, : IR' A 4 -- -t-1 f( 4- 4 . WI'It 4. • 4. 4 4 4 + I�I��� �l�r f 46` �\ aiI�1 -�`� �` ` '•rl ,i�.71t' • \4 4 4 4 4 4 4 I?I %rr 4'' 41: \� '' \."Ji'" ��•.. �`�:. '♦v'^"11� V*•4-,,,r' 4 4 4r4�'llq���iPJ • s ,�iiyr ;.�0� `1c.1\ 1 Y' ^I�, �4 , Ili i �I,jI , ,: rid►�•,),4 44 -;�. � � 11 a J ,11 f, , �i �✓ ,, 1�' ;a .�cf]� _........., . 1`)!Il=II %,, �� !._. G- —s_ ,,l-►zr� PREPARED BY: PREPARED FOR: � � H U N SAKE R & AS S O C IAT fi S ATLANTA HUNTINGTON BEACH, LLC —4 :� ' " �— *"' `�'� Ate' fir' ' , ik I a v I N E , I N C • 4100 Mac ARTHUR BLW1 SUITE 200 , �T ri - ��� g. n ,, v_ ,..: t�';'_�� ���.►� PLANNING • ENGINEERING • sURVEYINc 4 ' �- - _ —_--.-- n.:—r� .� �-w-tief!-.:i1 •. . 1�. RUNNING e•Me,uaie.•ii:049ls.imto•M6411583orsst NEWPORT BEACH, CA. 9265E i 4!.—..' , 73 ` '14 ;{ '4 { '4 (949) 622-8400 EXISTING HYDROLOGY DATE: 08/19/03 EXHIBIT 3 W.O. 2198-13X L:\PacificCity\Exhibits\Water and Sewer\Existing Hydrology Exhibit.dwg - . HUNTINGTjN BEH, .,ALIFORNIA PROPOSED HYDROLOGY EXHIBIT FOR PACIFIC CITY . POST-DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONS , Drainage Area"A" Drainage Area"B" FUTURE , r • Storm Event 7.7 Acres 26.9 Acres ALABAMA STREET �,•>j�!f-111 (Year) (cfs) (cfs) STORM DRAIN . 4�1 0!' to 25 16.7 66.1 %�� �► 100 21.8 85.2 l/ : 1.a. 1, LEGEND: qgNTA11 gi o ' 1te► O • \\, DRAINAGE AREA 'A" FUTURE I ' 0 \h - DRAINAGE AREA "B" ALABAMA STREET STORM DRAIN I I; >1� �� '; �o� I PROPOSED STORM DRAIN >, 1�� INSTALLED BY PACIFlC CITY . ' . , ,C=S . '' ... ' k -I Mk — — FUTURE ALABAMA STREET STORM INTERIM I - Oy so DRAIN INSTALLED BY CITY I ALABAMA STREET II •�' Pj� �F` —— —— EXISTING CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH STORM DRAIN pi ` 2, �►Vrt 0 STORM DRAIN SYSTEM CONNECTION TO 1 _ - ,(J, F'r t FIRST STREET ..a •1,IR2 blur `* STORM DRAIN II - BAMA Ti3 II ; MI 11 � ECT N poi I ' � � ,' y • r• TO ASWPS j ��1ii- ,.. 1 I a _ __ _ PREPARED BY: EXISTING y;I.� _ iNtk ��s wagGge•Ir-=--a-7; FA F"IC VIEW AVE FIRST STREET 1 -- - � �' �`� �:! ��k`A r i_� HUNSAKER & ASSOCIATES STORM DRAIN I.II -_ �'' _-- • V �� I R V I N E' I N C _., =-= 1 RC I - 1k PUNNING • ENGINEERING • WRVEY1NG ___ - J � 1 �I' Thies Nub•Mx,CA 92518•RI:19/9)S!}1010•Ex:(9191587d759''.,t �•4. I ram_ ___= u I _ � I 14., I ■ ' •• [.:! 1 ,/ ) �' PREPARED FOR:, "- 1 • II 0 J'l ATLANTA HUNTINGTON BEACH, LLC il 4100 Mac ARTHUR BLVD. SUITE 200 ( fghjrTh 1' NEWPORT BEACH CA. 92658 — =I 1 It _.. '-':i•V' 19, 1-I a (949) 622-8400 EXISTING 11R NOTE: `� I PROPOSED STSTORM STRE IN I \SOUTH BEACH PROPOSED DRAINAGE SYSTEMS ARE DESIGNED TO MEET STORM DRAIN�II STORM DRAIN 100-YEAR FLOOD LEVEL PROTECTION AS OUTLINED PER HYDROLOGY CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH STANDARD PLAN 300 AND DATE: 08/29/03 COUNTY OF ORANGE LOCAL DRAINAGE MANUAL CRITERION. EXHIBIT 4 W.O. 2198-13X L:\PacificCity\Exhibits\Water and Sewer\Proposed Hydrology Exhibit.dwg - HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA PROPOSED DISCHARGE EXHIBIT FqR PACIFIC CITY _ SUMMARY OF PIPE FLOW DISCHARGES Area'A' Area'B' Dtschar0es To: (oft) (�) FUTURE r Jam:.\ ALAST RM DRA N ��9 /��e�''` ASWPS(Pre-ddevelopment) Total 85.5 i100•year eventL / �� C.\J ASWPS(Post-development) 21.8 0 /�li��. �``��. First Street(Pre developmenQ 0 0 >>' LEGEND: \-0,9 • /� /� rIr\ First Street(Post-development) 0 66.1(20 max; \\ I4►y. • , ' \� 46 Attenuated) 1-ti-- 1 1 DRAINAGE AREA il' 4�AejT — %,..a z O \� DRAINAGE AREA "B" Avi, 4lII, V� FUTURE r' ` j•� • '\� PROPOSED STORM DRAIN LINE �7 �" INSTALLED BY PACIFIC CITY ALABAMA STREET Itl I 't f 4 v — — — FUTURE ALABAMA STREET STORM STORM DRAIN f .`w\1►v DRAIN INSTALLED BY CRY I � � =' \ �3 ,• �r�; AO — EXISTING CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH I r lfi �• �; STORM DRAIN SYSTEM I i I --0�AVE. I , V► INTERIM ALABAMA STREET I' ,.� PREPARED BY.• STORM DRAIN CONNECTION TO I FIRST STREET STORM DRAIN �ff�7\ 11 R.S ASSOCIATES l; i � f ��^�,;`! ,.w�.'•w�un�u.�r�eram�io„'rxa�.awa�i, . ° 'P OIFI C � � •:. - 'FU RE EET" �-r L t 21.8 CFS PREPARED FOR: \ IX. STORM DRAIN LINE SCHEMATIC DETENTION BASIN TO^ 0 M RNN \��, \, ATLANTA HUNTINGTON BEACH. LLC ATTENUATE 46 CFS; REGULATING —�CTIOtF P I r�. FLOW OFF-SITE TO 20 CFS MAX -1 r_.,, ❑ 1r�.� 1� _- T17 Asw�S 4100 Floc BrEACH tCA 926582�` �"_ ——— (949)622-6400 . 66.1 CFS (20.CFS MAX; Ram a�- �,�g .._ .--- 46 CFS ATTENUATED) - r i / ►=%mow1-71:713,1117r"eir:. c. PACIFIC VIEW AVE. IS- i II � I , J 1 1 C ; 1 I - ,! EXISTING \ 1 i I FIRST STREET 1 1 -- !1 jY1 , STORM DRAINI tt' fI \\ J ' . c:: Il �' I • \ 11 IN �C!! me:µ -- I�"1�'�-�.t i :. :A � 1; r ! �71_ -mot rs r - 20o 100 o 200 - _ - '=1 t,.,^-�"•.____ r GRAPHIC SCALE. 1"=200' L 1 _ PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY EXISTING 1 Y — -�— ---`l FIRST STREET STORM DRAIN II�SOUTH BEACH PROPOSED DRAINAGE SYSTEMS ARE DESIGNED TO MEET II STORM DRAIN 100-YEAR FLOOD LEVEL PROTECTION AS OUTLINED PER1.J CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH DARD PLAN 300 AND PROPOSED DISCHARGE + COUNTY OF ORANGE OCALDRANAGE MANUAL CRITERION. DATE:08/29/03 EXHIBIT 5 W.0 2198-13X L.VocilicCily\Exhibits\Water ono Sewer\Proposed Discharge Eshibil dreg HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA STORM DRAIN FACILITIES EXHIBIT FOR PACIFIC CITY _ MITIGATED WATER QUALITY RETURN TO STORM DRAIN FOR DRY WEATHER AND FIRST FLUSH FLOWS /iri\. • PRELIMINARY WATER QUALITY DESIGN FUTURE 9 WATER QUALITY FIRSTALABAM SlREET LEGEND: FUTURE �� TREATMENT FLUSH APPROXIMATE NUMBER ——— EXISTING CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH LOCATION (CFS) OF STORM FILTERS STORM DRAIN SYSTEM \ 7d • A 12 3B — PROPOSED STORM DRAIN / P. O J11' INSTALLED AB PACIFIC CRY � �� B 3.8 114 - - FUTURE ALABAMA STREET STORM O�� ` DRAIN INSTALLED BY CRY ''W / r 4 DRY WATER&F7RST RUSH DIVERSION&TREATMENT CHAIR '•^""•" PROPOSED TREATED � O • . Q , WATER QUALITY LINE 4 VT4 AVE, DRY WEATHER&- l —PROPOSED UNTREATED _ �`•� 4 FIRST FLUSH \ -DIVERTED FIRST FLUSH WATER QUALITY LINE - - �.� STORM FLOWS UNTREATED WATER QUALITY LINE © PROPOSED WATER STORM DRAIN DRY WEATHER& -WATER OUALRY FACILITY QUALITY FACILITY •/� ` FIRST FLUSH oNERsole _ PROPOSED DRY WEATER •. ('--I \' STRUCTURE 1 © & FIRST FLUSH • DIVERSION STRUCTURE 31 t Rol - --�- • DIVERTED FIRST FLUSH _ 20 t iNv I - • STORM TREATED WATER QUALITY LINE •'.j/ FLOWS �tfVE AVE— I_ - PREPARED BY: NOTE STORM DRAM ALABAMAcnTR ET 1 I 3 ! I -- _� 1. EACH FILTER CAN PROCESS 15 GPM (0.033 CFS). I I HUNSAKER 6.ASSOCIATES FIRST STREET STORM DRAIN •rt I � 9 I y • \ ` 2. TYPICALLY 30 FILTER UNITS PER 8'X 16' VAULT. NAIADS N.mm,•ng.ekasoIc r i f T 3. ALL WATER QUALITY TREATMENT SYSTEMS TO BE EXISTING ,1 "44I I ie �►1'1 O LOCATED OUTSIDE OF PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY ON FIRST STREET FUTURE N r I PRIVATE PROPERTY AND SHALL BE MAINTAINED STORM DRAIN 1 L°"NECTIorr�P° .-..I l_ 1. - 1 BY PACIFIC CITY H.O.A. PREPARED FOR: f,1 I ' I ni I .� - O `` —0.93 INV ATLANTA HUNTINGTON BEACH LLC SCNFMATIC OEIENIION MIN 1 I I '� 1 9100 Mac ARTHUR BLVD.5UITE 200 TO ATTENUATE 46 CIS:REGULATING I FLOW OFF—SITE TO 20 US MAX i 1 • \ EXIST 4YRCP TO AMPS NEWPoRT BEACH,CA 91638 I I (949)622-8900 DIVERT LOW FLOWS FROM STORM WATER DRAIN.TO I At,I MI SYSTEM. ,_f I , ........_„___-------- I' +_ -- - 24'RCP _36Rcp � - - PACIFIC VIEW AVE �d _- 24RL y SUMMARY OF FIRST FLUSH DISCHARGES 29 t RIY •. —.... ....,_,FL_______. -` iYR..- s—_ ts. ' _=-=-I --_.__i._..—O I2 t INY 1 O - "� Area•A• Area•B• WATER QUALITY ROWS TO 1 1 --��`. .:.•.. •. ••. ---_� THROUGHDTON BEACH STORMCHANNELDischarges To: (de) (CIs) !y I ,�� EXISTING DRAIN 9� I - ASWPS(Pre-development) (total 5.0 from both areas) 9'k) 'b ti� f , ASWPS(Postdevelopment) 1.2 0 I •!7 , �__T,___� J !`{: ' j j_ I FIRST STREET(Pre-development) 0 0 'r -• -I/ `" I Y FIRST STREET(Post-development) 0 3.8 I L/' � ��` 'I I 200 too 0 200 J • . M� ��y�-�-� PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY _- —;'-- -- -- GRAPHIC SCALE. 1"=200' i' 26 t FS����• \l I "*INV ''� STORM DRAIN SOUTH BEACH RRsTDO T— STORM DRAINFACILITIES DRAI N N Li DATE:09/29/03 i EXHIBIT 6 W.O.2198-13% l\PacilicCily\E.hibitAWaler and Sewer\Storm Drain Facilities.dwg Glossary 1 ' Q's — Defined as direct surface runoff, usually expressed in cubic feet per second (CFS). For hydrology th6 run-off (Q) is calculated by multiplying the rainfall intensity (I) expressed as inches per hour (in r), the overall area (A) in acres (acres) and a runoff coefficient (C) (dimensionless), which is bas d on the land type, i.e. pavement (fast run-off), dirt (slower run-off), and a myriad of in-between s enarios). { ,_ 2 First Flush as defined the first flush is the first 3/4 of an inch of rainfall over an area, or the 85' percentile of he overall storm event. 3 CFS—cubi feet per second; unit of measure relating to water flow. 4 100 Year S orm Event— is defined as a theoretical storm that produces a quantity of run-off with i the frequency of 1 storm event within a 100 year period. (Based on historical data) 5 25 Year Storm Event—is defined as a theoretical storm that produces a quantity of run-off with the frequency of 1 storm event within a 25 year period. (Based on historical data) 6 Sump condition—sump condition is defined as a low area in a tributary area. City of Huntington Beach codes specify that only 25-year discharges are allowed in a sump condition. '_i JS:wp(f\c\wo\2198\13 D03-js.doc)4-14-03 8 Drainage Study/Hydrology Analysis Hunsaker&Ass dates Irvine,Inc. Makar Properties SECTION 6 — Recommended Water Quality Mitigation Post Construction Best Management Practices r RECOMMENDED WATER QUALITY MITIGATION POST IONSTRUCTION BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES for • PACIFIC CITY PROJECT Prepared for: Makar Properties, Inc. 4100 MacArthur Boulevard, Suite 200 Newport Beach, CA 92660-2064 Prepared by: Hunsaker & Associates Irvine, Inc. 3 Hughes Irvine, CA 92618 April 11, 2003 (F\C\WQMP\2198-13X D03 js.doc) PRELIMINARY WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN for PACIFIC CITY PROJECT Table of Contents I. Introduction 1 II. Project Description 2 III. Runoff Management Concept Plan 3 IV, Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan 6 V. Dewatering Contingency Plan 7 Appendix A Tab A Appendix B Tab B Appendix C Tab C (F\C\WQMP\2198-13X D03 js.doc)4-11-03 i Hunsaker&Associates Irvine,Inc. 1. INTRODUCTION The purpos of this Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (PWQMP) is to outline the compre ensive approach that will be used in the attainment of water quality goals and mitigation equired for the Pacific City development project. This approach is in conformanc with the NPDES Permit, current County of Orange Drainage Area Master Plan (DAM ) and supports the City of Huntington Beach's commitment to the protection and enhanc ment of coastal water quality. This plan also compliments the goals and mission stat ment of the City of Huntington Beach citywide Water Quality Management Plan Task F rce. The Pacific City project is required by the City of Huntington Beach to develop and implement Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), that upon approval will serve the manual to aintain water quality in conformance with the NPDES Permit and County of Orange Dra nage Area Master Plan (DAMP). The WQMP shall be specific to the expected pollutants t at will be present in storm water flow from the site after completion of the constructio . The WQMP will also detail the specific operation and maintenance of each structural a d non-structural BMP. Some of the BMP's may be simply street sweeping on a monthly b.sis, while others may be structural BMP's, such as filters in vaults to filter the first flush r n-off before discharging off-site. Non structural BMP's include programs to educate the public on proper disposal of hazardous /toxic wastes, regulatory approaches, street sweeping and facility maintenance, and detection and elimination of illicit and illegal dum•ing and non structured BMP measures listed in the Orange County Drainage Area Maste Plan (DAMP) Appendix G which identifies specific water pollutant control program ele ents of the Orange County Storm Water Program. The WQMP will also outline the type of BMP being used and what mitigation is expected. Also, the WQMP outlines a routine maintenance schedule for each BMP, further complying ith the DAMP and local regulations. The WQMP is considered a living document t at grows with the experience of the project and the science. For example, the type of stru ' ural BMP that is slotted for installation (StormFilter) can contain a variety of filter mater al, each material with specific pollutant restricting capabilities. Upon completion of the project and after a short period of time, the filter material is removed, and tested for actual pollutant discharge for further filter recommendations, thus maximizing the water quality. The WQM is established from industry and agency historical data and the best available information or initial concept and design. It should be understood that the PWQMP discussed h rein will only contain the general building blocks of the actual final WQMP and shall seve to explain the methodology to determine which type of mitigation measure is best suited for Pacific City to achieve the required water quality levels as detailed by the DAMP and local requirements. (F\C\WQMP\2198-13X D03 js.doc)4-11-03 1 Hunsaker&Associates Irvine,Inc. II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Makar Properties, Inc. is proposing the development of approximately 31 acres, known as Pacific City, located at First Street and Pacific Coast Highway in the City of Huntington Beach. The Pacific City development will consist of a mixed use residential and commercial development including a premier 400-room hotel and parking structure. The 'site is presently vacant and is generally lower in elevation than the surrounding properties and drains to the southeast to existing storm drain facilities. For a more detailed description of the existing hydrology, please see the Preliminary Hydrology Study. (F\C\WQMP\2198-13X D03 js.doc)4-11-03 2 Hunsaker&Associates Irvine,Inc. III. RUN FF MANAGEMENT CONCEPT PLANS A. Gene al The runoff m nagement concept includes water quality approaches for the 31-acre project site. Treatme t of this runoff is defined as "filtration" by the City of Huntington Beach. As a result, the a proach includes a treatment train concept that includes filtration as a key component f the overall system. Using the city's recommended rule of 3/4 inches of rain for the first flush event, pollutant loads for existing and developed conditions were calc:r.11ated. These calculations are summarized in the "Drainage Area Description" on the following pa e. B. Storm ater Management System Thr,, ;-oncep utilizes state-of-the-art permanent proprietary structural best management practices (B Ps) developed by Stormwater Management, Inc. Ill.idiot-, is chieved through the use of a series of StormFilters in conjunction with the stogy chain ystem. The StormFilter is a premier filtration system widely recognized as a versatile BM for removing a variety of pollutants. The StormFilter cartridges are filled with an ,array of edia, selected to treat specific pollutant loadings at each site. These site- spec ific: med a options give the StormFilter the ability to remove high levels of storm water pollutants su h as sediments, oil and grease, soluble heavy metals, organics and soluble nutrients. T e StormFilter is unique in its ability to meet current and future pollution chalk nges. o other system offers this degree of excellence and versatility. It is important to note the tormwater Management Inc's pollutant treatment claims are supported by independent third party testing and evaluation. (See Appendix A for data.) The StormFil er unit consists of multiple filter cartridges housed in a buried concrete vault that is inst lied offline from the storm drain system. Pollutant removal is primarily accomplishe by percolating accumulated storm water through the filter cartridges. A typical unit onsists of an inlet bay where floatables, oils, and surface scum are trapped; a filter bay for the cartridges; and an outlet bay. Water from the inlet bay ponds in the filter cartridge bay and infiltrates the filter media, after which it moves into the outlet bay. Treated wat r then flows into the storm drainage system. (See Appendix A for details of the StormFilter s stem.) In conjuncts n with the StormFilter, a StormScreen unit is also proposed. This unit provides ad itional screening of stormwater and is primarily focused on the treatment of trash, debris and larger settable solids . (See Appendix A for details on this unit.) C. Design Features All Stormwater Management, Inc. BMP treatment systems are flow-based systems, and therefore, ar7 sized by estimating the peak water quality flow rate (WQF) associated with (F\C\WQMP\2198-1 3X D03 js.doc)4-11-03 3 Hunsaker&Associates Irvine,Inc. the design storm. As previously mentioned, the WQF was determined in accordance with the Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan (SUSMP). This concept proposes separate systems to treat the off-site area and the on-site area. These distinct areas have the following characteristics: Drainage Area Description On-Site Area "A" On-Site Area "B" Total Area 7.7 Acres Total Area 26.3 Acres CD 0.796 CD 0.75 Time of Concentration 30 min. Time of Concentration 30 min. Intensity, I 0.193 in/hr Intensity, I 0.193 in/hr Peak Design Flow 21.8 cfs Peak Design Flow 66.1 cfs WQF 1.2 cfs WQF 3.8 cfs The design schematic for these areas can be described as follows: (see attached schematics) 1. Option 1: StormFilter The StormFilter for Area "A" was sized based on a treatment flow rate of 1.2 cfs. To accommodate this flow rate, Stormwater Management recommends using a 6' x12' StormFilter in series with an 8' x 16' precast StormFilter with a total of 36 cartridges (see attached detail). The StormFilter for Area "B" was based on a treatment flow rate of 3.8 cfs. To accommodate this flow rate, Stormwater Management recommends using a cast-in-place StormFilter with 114 cartridges. The internal dimensions of this system would be approximately 15' x 41' ID (see attached schematic), although the configuration of the system can be modified with regard to the restrictions of the project site. 2. Option 2: StormFilter/StormScreen Combination The second option for Area A is to treat the 1.2 cfs with a combined StormFilter/ StormScreen system. The two units would be combined in such a way that the first 0.60 cfs would be treated by a StormFilter. When the flow rate exceeds 0.60 cfs the balance of the water quality flow rate would be treated by a StormScreen that would be downstream of the StormFilter and sized to accommodate an additional 2 cfs. To accommodate the 0.60 cfs, Stormwater Management recommends using an 8' x 16' precast StormFilter with a total of 18 cartridges (see attached detail). To accommodate the additional 2 cfs, Stormwater Management recommends using a 4.5' x 8.5' StormScreen with 4 screen cartridges. (F\C\WQMP\21 98-13X D03 js.doc)4-11-03 4 Hunsaker&Associates Irvine,Inc. The secon option for Area "B" is to treat the 3.8 cfs with a combined StormFilter/ StormScree system. The two units would be combined in such a way that the first 1.90 I, cfs would a treated by a StormFilter. When the flow rate exceeds 1.90 cfs the balance of the water uality flow rate would be treated by a StormScreen that would be downstream of the StormFilter and sized to accommodate an additional 4 cfs. To accommodate the 1.90 cfs, S ormwater Management recommends using two 8' x 16' precast StormFilter in series with a total of 57 cartridges (see attached detail). To accommodate the additional 4 cfs, Storm ater Management recommends using a 6' x 12' StormScreen with 8 screen cartridges. 3. Oth r Design Features Both of th on-site areas will have first flush and dry weather flows treated by the above systems. The first flush and dry weather flows will be treated and then outletted into the city stormdrain system up to 1.2 cfs would be treated then returned to the storm drain system in �iacific View. The large drainage area would include the treatment of up to 3.8 cfs then ret rned to the storm drain in First Street. If addition I treatment of petroleum hydrocarbons is required, the BioBuoy can be added to the above systems. The Stormwater Management's BioBuoy insert uses a patented organic m dium to stimulate the growth of natural microbes that consume free and emulsified oil and grease in stormwater treatment systems between storm events. (See Appendix for further description.) 4. Tre tment System Placement &Maintenance It is propo.ed that all "first flush/low flow" water quality treatment systems be located within the private project of the Pacific City project. These treatment systems will be sited with consi a eration for the size of the facility, the space available and maintenance access to the treat ent systems. 5. Poll tant Removal Predictions We have poached calculations prepared by Stormwater Management Inc. showing the predicted pollutant removals based upon average pollutant loading as obtained from City Staff. Thes- calculations are preliminary and are provided for the pollutant profile. (F\C\WQMP 2198-13X D03 js.doc)4-11-03 5 Hunsaker&Associates Irvine,Inc. 1 IV, WATER QUALITY BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES As part of a comprehensive treatment train approaches to water quality, the Pacific City project will incorporate the County of Orange DAMP Section 7. The purpose of the appendix is to identify relatively small-scale development source pollutant prevention and treatment measures that could be incorporated into new developments. These measure in( luck_ both structural and non- structural approaches. { (F\C\WQMP\21 98-13X D03 js.doc)4-11-03 6 Hunsaker&Associates Irvine,Inc. , V. DEWATERING CONTINGENCY PLAN 1 The Pacific City project does not currently anticipate the need for a dewatering operation for the proposed development. Should project revisions or site conditions require a dewatering program, it will be developed in accordance with the California Regional Water Quality Control board, Santa Ana Region Order No. 93-49, NPDES No. CAG 998001 (de minimum order) and Template Monitoring and Reporting Program No. 98-67 (see Appendix C). We have also enclosed a preliminary dewatering action plan (see j 1 Appendix I). I - . II (F\C\WQMP\ 198-13X D03 js.doc)4-11-03 7 Hunsaker&Associates Irvine,Inc. SECTION 7 - STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN 1. STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN The National ollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Storm Water Discharges As ociated with Construction Activity (General Permit) (California Regional Water Quality Contro Board, Santa Ana Region, Order No. R8-2002-0010, NPDES No. CAS618030) requires the d velopment and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan for many construc ion sites. The SWPPP specifies the implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs), as app opriate,to control the discharge of pollutants to surface waters. The SWPPP has two major objectives: (1) to help identify the sources of sediment and other pollutants that affect the quality of storm water discharges, and (2) to describe and ensure the implementation of BMPs to reduce or eliminate sediment and other pollutants in storm water as well as non-storm water discharges. In order to meet these objectives the SWPPP will be prepared according to the following outline. 1. Introdu tion and required notices • • egal framework and objectives • otice of Intent • Change of Information • Notice of Termination 2. Site Conditions • Vicinit Map p • Site Map • Storm water patterns • Pre-construction site conditions • Construction and development schedule 3. Potenti.l Pollutant Sources 4. Best M.nagement Practices • Description • Schedule for BMP implementation • BMPs for sediment and erosion control • General requirements for contractors 5. BMPs for Pollutants other than sediment JS:wp(f\c\wo\2193J\13 D03-js.doc)4-14-03 Drainage Study/Hydrology Analysis Hunsaker&AssockatesIrvine,Inc. Makar Properties 6. Non-Storm water BMPs 7. Post-Construction BMPs 8. Site Monitoring • Routine quality control monitoring • Storm-related quality control monitoring • Installation, repairs, and emergency preparedness • Annual compliance certification • Site inspection report • Non-visible pollutant monitoring • Sediment/silt and turbidity monitoring 6. Reporting and Revisions. 7. Responsible Parties. 8. Training. The developer or his agent is required to implement the provisions contained in the SWPPP and must comply with the standard provisions and reporting requirements contained in the General Permit. A copy of the General Permit will be included as a part of the SWPPP. A copy of the SWPPP shall be kept on site while the site is under construction, commencing with the initial construction activity and ending with termination of coverage under the General Permit. JS:wp(f\c\wo\2198\13 D03-js.doc)4-14-03 Drainage Study/Hydrology Analysis Hunsaker&Associates Irvine,Inc. Makar Properties APPENDIX H TRAFFIC LINSCOTT LAW & GREENSPAN ENGINEERS TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS REPORT PACIFIC CITY Huntington Beach, California Prepared for: MAKAR PROPERTIES,LLC. 4100 MacArthur Boulevard, Suite 150 Newport Beach, California 92658 Prepared By: • LINSCOTT,LAW&GREENSPAN,ENGINEERS 1580 Corporate Drive, Suite#122 Costa Mesa, California 92626 Phone#: (714)641-1587 FAX#: (714)641-0139 April 21,2003 LLG Project No. 2-002133-1 r. OfESS10 Prepared y: (45 OBERO- � Fy Keil D. aberry,P.E. yam, Senior Tr sportation Engineer W J> MAIDS �OFcra rr_ z 7D Z n m (z) - m n m 9'O „ _ > H Z TABLE OF CONTENTS LINSCOTT LAW & GREENSPAN E N G I N E i R S TABLE OF CONTENTS DESCRIPTION PAGE NUMBER EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INTRODU TION 1 PROJECT OCATION AND DESCRIPTION 7 PROJECT CCESS 7 Gate ueuing Analysis 12 • EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS 13 EXISTIN AREA TRAFFIC VOLUMES 18 EXISTIN INTERSECTION CONDITIONS 18 Level of Service Method of Analysis 18 Intersections 18 Roadway Links 23 Existing Intersection Level of Service Results 24 Existing Roadway Link Level of Service Results 24 TRAFFIC FORECASTING METHODOLOGY 29 PROJECT TRAFFIC CHARACTERISTICS 30 Pacific City Project Traffic Generation 30 Project Traffic Distribution and Assignment 30 2008 T FIC CONDITIONS 40 200 Background Traffic Conditions 40 Ambient Traffic 40 Related Project Traffic Characteristics 40 2008 Background Plus Pacific City Project Traffic... 41 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY 49 Impact Criteria and Thresholds 49 T c Impact Analysis Scenarios 50 II_� LINSCOTT LAW & GREENSPAN ENGINEERS TABLE OF CONTENTS continued DESCRIPTION PAGE NUMBER PREVIOUSLY IDENTIFIED STUDY AREA TRAFFIC IMPACTS 50 YEAR 2008 PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS 51 City of Huntington Beach Methodology. 51 State of California(Caltrans)Methodology 54 YEAR 2008 ROADWAY LINK CAPACITY ANALYSIS 56 • YEAR 2008 CUMULATIVE IMPACT IMPROVEMENT MEASURES 59 Study Intersections(City of Huntington Beach Methodology) 59 Study Intersections(State of California Methodology) 59 PERCENTAGE OF NET OR TOTAL TRAFFIC IMPACT 61 PROJECT-SPECIFIC TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS 62 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS 63 TRANSPORTATION CENTER ANALYSIS 64 DELAWARE STREET EXTENSION 65 - I PARKING ANALYSIS... 66 Off-Site Parking Analysis 66 Shared Parking Analysis 69 YEAR 2020 GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT TRAFFIC CONDITIONS 72 Year 2020 General Plan Buildout Traffic Conditions Without Pacific City Project Traffic 73 Year 2020 General Plan Buildout Traffic Conditions With Pacific City Project Traffic... 73 YEAR 2020 GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS 80 2020 General Plan Buildout Peak Hour Intersection Capacity Analysis 80 2020 General Plan Buildout Daily Roadway Link Capacity Analysis . 83 i LINSCOTT LAW & ' GREENSPAN ENGINEERS TABLE OF CONTENTS continued DESCRIPTION PAGE NUMBER YEAR 202 GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT CUMULA IVE IMPACT IMPROVEMENT MEASURES 85 Study Intersections 85 YEAR 2020 GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT PERCENT GE OF NET TRAFFIC IMPACT 85 YEAR 202 PACIFIC VIEW AVENUE GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT TRAFFIC CONDITIONS 86 CONGES ION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM(CMP)ANALYSIS 88 APPENDICES APPENDIX A: Year 2001/2002 Weekday Traffic Count Data APPEND B: Gate Queuing Analysis APPEND C: Trip Reduction Flow Diagram APPEND*D: 2008 Intersection Capacity Utilization Worksheets APPENDIX E: 2008 Highway Capacity Manual Worksheets(Caltrans) APPENDIX F: Traffic Signal Warrant Worksheets APPENDIX G: Shared Parking Analysis Worksheets APPENDIX H: Year 2020 General Plan Buildout W/Hamilton W/Walnut Alignment W/SARC Traffic Volumes APPENDIX I: Year 2020 General Plan Buildout W/Hamilton W/Walnut Alignment W/SARC Inter ection Capacity Utilization Worksheets APPEND J: Year 2002 Existing Summer Traffic Count Data&Existing Intersection Capacity Utilization Worksheets APPEND K: Pacific View Avenue Diagram r I LINSCOTT LAW & GREENSPAN ENGINEERS LIST OF TABLES 1_ TABLE NUMBER DESCRIPTION PAGE NUMBER 1 STUDY AREA BOUNDARY 4 2 PROPOSED LAND USE DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY 10 3 LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA FOR UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS 20 4 LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA FOR SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS (ICU) 21 ' 5 LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA FOR SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS (HCM) 22 6 ROADWAY LINK CAPACITIES 23 7 EXISTING YEAR 2001/2002 PEAK HOUR LEVELS OF SERVICE 25 8 EXISTING ROADWAY LINK LEVELS OF SERVICE 27 9 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION RATES/EQUATIONS 31 10 PROJECT TRAFFIC GENERATION FORECAST 32 11 RELATED PROJECTS TRAFFIC GENERATION FORECAST 42 12 YEAR 2008 PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS SUMMARY(ICU) 52 13 YEAR 2008 PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS SUMMARY(HCM) 55 14 YEAR 2008 ROADWAY LINK CAPACITY ANALYSIS SUMMARY 57 LINSCOTT LAW & GREENSPAN ENGINERS LIST OF TABLES continued TABLE ' NUMBER DESCRIPTION PAGE NUMBER 15 YEAR 2020 GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS SUMMARY 81 16 YEAR 2020 GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT ROADWAY LINK CAPACITY ANALYSIS SUMMARY 84 I !_ ; i I 1 I I LINSCOTT LAW & GREENSPAN ENGINEERS LIST OF EXHIBITS EXHIBIT NUMBER DESCRIPTION PAGE NUMBER 1 VICINITY MAP 9 2 PROPOSED SITE PLAN 11 3 EXISTING ROADWAY CONDITIONS AND INTERSECTION CONTROLS 15 4 EXISTING AM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES 16 5 EXISTING PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES 17 6 EXISTING AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES 19 7A PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION PATTERN • 34 Retail/Restaurant/Office H-- 7B PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION PATTERN 35 Residential 7C PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION PATTERN 36 Hotel 8 AM PEAK HOUR PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES 37 9 PM PEAK HOUR PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES 38 10 AVERAGE DAILY PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES 39 _ I 11 2008 AM PEAK HOUR BACKGROUND TRAFFIC VOLUMES 43 12 2008 PM PEAK HOUR BACKGROUND TRAFFIC VOLUMES 44 13 2008 AVERAGE DAILY BACKGROUND TRAFFIC VOLUMES 45 14 2008 AM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES WITH PROJECT TRAFFIC 46 15 2008 PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES WITH PROJECT TRAFFIC 47 • LINSCOTT LAW & GREENSPAN ENGINEERS LIST OF EXHIBITS continued EXHIBIT NUMBER DESCRIPTION PAGE NUMBER 16 2008 AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES WITH PROJECT TRAFFIC 48 17 EXISTING OFF-SITE PARKING PLAN 67 18 PROPOSED OFF-SITE PARKING PLAN 68 19 2020 GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT AM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES WITHOUT PROJECT TRAFFIC 74 20 2020 GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES WITHOUT PROJECT TRAFFIC 75 21 2020 GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES WITHOUT PROJECT TRAFFIC 76 I , 22 2020 GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT AM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES WITH PROJECT TRAFFIC - 77 23 2020 GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES ,Y > WITH PROJECT TRAFFIC 78 24 2020 GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES WITH PROJECT TRAFFIC 79 25 2020 PACIFIC VIEW AVENUE BUILDOUT AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES WITH PROJECT TRAFFIC 87 -- --- -- --- - - ---- - ---- { z 77D n m . � - rn (�n rn x "O m > --I Z EXECUTIVE SUMMARY LINSCOTT LAW & GREENSPAN j ENGINEERS Existin LOS onditions 6. The project study area covers thirty existing and thirty-two Year 2008 key signalized intersections and twenty four key roadway segments (links). As shown, all thirty existing study intersections currently operate at LOS D or better, except the intersection of PCH at Warner Avenue, which currently operates LOS F during the PM peak hour. Among the study roadway links, Pacific Coast Highway between Beach Boulevard/Huntington Street and Goldenwest Street/6`h Street currently operate at LOS E on a daily basis. The remaining analyzed links currently operate at LOS C or Metter. Previously Id ntified Study Area Traffic Impacts 7. As indicated in the 1998 Updated Waterfront Ocean Grand Resort Transportation and Circulation Analysis, the intersections of Beach Boulevard at Pacific View Avenue and Atlanta Avenue at Huntington Street were assumed to be signalized intersections and analyzed as such. Year 2008 Tr ffic Impact Analysis (City of Huntington Beach Methodology) 8. In the near-term horizon Year 2008, one of the thirty-two key study intersections is expected to continue to operate at adverse service levels as a result of Pacific City project traffic combined with backgroun traffic (ambient plus related projects). The intersection of Pacific Coast Highway at Warner A'Ienue is expected to continue to operate at adverse service levels during the AM and PM peak hour with the addition of Pacific City project traffic to background traffic. The remaining thirty-one key study intersections are forecast to continue to operate at acceptable service levels with the a lition of The Pacific City project traffic during the weekday AM and PM peak hours. 9. In the ne term horizon Year 2008, Pacific City project traffic combined with background traffic indicates at six study roadway links will continue to operate at adverse service levels with the addition o Project traffic when compared to the City of Huntington Beach criteria and each of the six study inks will also experience a V/C increase greater than 0.030. However, based on the City's im act criteria for roadway links, none of the study roadway links has an adjacent study intersectio (s) with adverse levels of service with the addition of project traffic. The remaining nineteen r adway links are expected to operate at LOS C or better on a daily basis, with the addition o project traffic. Year 2008 C mulative Impact Improvement Measures 10. The recommended intersection improvement at the intersection of Pacific Coast Highway and Warner Avenue, which has been identified in the Orange County MPAH and Caltrans Route Concept tudy for PCH, is expected to improve the level of service during the AM and PM peak hours. Th- recommended improvement measure and fair-share percentage is described as follows: • Install a third northbound through lane on Pacific Coast Highway at Warner Avenue consistent with the Orange County MPAH and Caltrans Route Concept Study for PCH. • Fair-Share Percentage is 22% ii LINSCOTT LAW & GREENSPAN ENGINEERS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Project Description 1. The Pacific City Project involves the construction of approximately 240,000 SF of office/retail/restaurant use, a 400-room hospitality component, a surf museum, and 516 residential condominiums to be completed in 2008. Traffic Study Analysis Scenarios 2. This traffic impact analysis evaluates the proposed Pacific City project's potential traffic impact on a near-term (2008) and General Plan Buildout(2020)basis for the following scenarios and at the following number of intersections and roadway links, accordingly: • City of Huntington Beach methodology(2008) > 32 intersections(30 existing) > 25 roadway links(24 existing) • State of California methodology(2008) > 19 intersections • General Plan Buildout: City of Huntington Beach methodology(2020) > 30 intersections > 27 roadway links Project Access 3. Access to the proposed Pacific City Project is provided via ten (10) project driveways. Five commercial/hotel driveways (2 gated access drives into the parking structure) will be provided along Pacific View Avenue, ls` Street, and Huntington Street and five (5) gated residential access driveways will be provided along Pacific View Avenue, 1s` Street, and Huntington Street, which require 44 feet of storage reservoir at each residential gated entry for residents. - - Project Traffic Generation Forecast 4. The Pacific City project is expected to generate approximately 628 AM peak hour vehicle trips (345 inbound, 283 outbound) and 1,051 PM peak hour vehicle trips (505 inbound, 546 outbound)with approximately 12,002 daily vehicle trips(one half arriving, one half departing). Related Project Traffic 5. There are four related projects, identified from a list of fourteen potential related projects provided by the City, [The Strand, The Waterfront Ocean Grand Hyatt Resort and Residential, The Beachside Project, and The Boardwalk project] in the City of Huntington Beach that could impact the key study intersections and roadways. The total weekday forecast traffic generation for the related projects in the City of Huntington Beach is estimated at 19,882 two-way vehicle trips per day with 1,303 AM peak hour trips (545 inbound, 758 outbound) and 1,781 PM peak hour trips (1,037 inbound,744 outbound). 1 LINSCOTT LAW & GREENSPAN ENGINEES Year 2008 Traffic Impact Analysis(State of California Methodology) 11. In the near-term horizon Year 2008, two,of the nineteen key study intersections are expected to continue to operate at adverse service levels as a result of Pacific City project traffic combined with background traffic (ambient plus related projects). The intersections of Pacific Coast Highway at Seapoint venue and Pacific Coast Highway at Warner Avenue are expected to continue to operate at adverse service levels during the PM peak hour and AM and PM peak hours, respective) ,with the addition of Pacific City project traffic to background traffic. The f llowing recommended intersection improvement is expected to improve the level of servic to an acceptable level during the PM peak hour at the intersection of Pacific Coast Highway and Seapoint Avenue. The recommended improvement measure and project fair- share o ercentage is described as follows: • Restripe the westbound approach on Seapoint Avenue to add an additional westbound right turn lane at Pacific Coast Highway. • Fair-Share Percentage is 26% The fe flowing recommended intersection improvement at the intersection of Pacific Coast High ay at Warner Avenue, which has been identified in the Orange County MPAH and Caltr. s Route Concept Study for PCH, is expected to improve the level of service to an accep .ble level during the AM and PM peak hours. The recommended improvement measure and p ioject fair-share percentage is described as follows: • Install a third northbound through lane on Pacific Coast Highway at Warner Avenue consistent with the Orange County MPAH and Caltrans Route Concept Study for PCH. • Fair-Share Percentage is 22% Parking An lysis 12. An off-site parking analysis has been conducted to address the existing and proposed off-site _ parking upply along the roadways adjacent to the Pacific City project site. Existing parking (approxi ately 69 spaces)will be relocated from along the project development frontages to within the site. addition, a shared parking analysis has been conducted to address the on-site parking demand or the retail/restaurant/office and hospitality uses, which requires a peak parking demand of 1,473 arking spaces at 1:00 PM on a typical weekday. With the addition of the 69 spaces to be relocate on-site, the total parking demand for the retail/restaurant/office and hospitality uses is 1,542 p king spaces. The residential parking demand will be based on City code. _ iii LINSCOTT LAW & GREENSPAN ENGINEERS 2020 General Plan Buildout Traffic Impact Analysis 13. In the General Plan Buildout Year 2020 Condition, one of the thirty key study intersections is expected to continue to operate at adverse service levels as a result of Pacific City project traffic combined with background traffic, which is based on City of Huntington Beach SARCCS traffic model data for the current General Plan Circulation Element roadway. The intersection is: • Pacific Coast Highway @ Seapoint Avenue(PM) 14. In the General Plan Buildout Year 2020 Condition, five of the study roadway links will continue to operate at adverse service levels with the addition of Project traffic when compared to the City of Huntington Beach criteria and four of the five study links will also experience a V/C increase greater than 0.030. However, based on the City's impact criteria for roadway links, none of the study roadway link has an adjacent study intersection with adverse levels of service with the addition of project traffic. The remaining twenty-two roadway links are expected to operate at LOS C or better on a daily basis, with the addition of project traffic. Year 2020 Cumulative Impact Improvement Measures 15. The recommended intersection improvement is expected to improve the level of service during the PM peak hour at the one cumulative impacted study intersection. The recommended improvement measure is described as follows: • Restripe the westbound approach on Seapoint Avenue to add an additional • westbound right turn lane and install a northbound right turn lane on a fair-share - basis. (Pacific Coast Highway at Seapoint Avenue). • Fair-Share Percentage is 63%. 2020 Pacific View Avenue General Plan Buildout Traffic Volumes 16. In order to determine the recommended buildout cross-section for the future section of Pacific View Avenue between 1st and Huntington Streets adjacent to the Pacific City project site, Year 2020 General Plan Buildout daily traffic volume forecasts with Pacific City project traffic were calculated for four(4) roadway network scenarios. Based on the forecast Year 2020 General Plan Buildout daily traffic volume for all four scenarios, which varies between 8,064 VPD and 10,789 VPD, Pacific View Avenue is expected to operate at LOS B or better as a two-lane divided roadway between 1st and Huntington Streets. iv LINSCOTT LAW & GREENSPAN ENGINEERS Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis 17. Based on ear 2008 background daily traffic, the Caltrans traffic signal planning warrant is satisfied at a intersection of 1st Street and Atlanta Avenue.The project percent impact/fair share is 57%. In ad ition, the intersection of Atlanta Avenue at Huntington Street will be signalized in conjunctio with this development. The project percent impact/fair share is 59%. Project Spec' is and Area Traffic Improvements 18. In conjunction with development of Pacific City,the project frontages of Atlanta Avenue, 1st Street, and Pacifi Coast Highway will be widened based on their appropriate classifications with raised landscaped medians and a traffic signal will installed at the intersection of Atlanta Avenue and - Huntingto Street, as described in detail on Page 61, to accommodate anticipated traffic. Pacific View Ave ue will be extended through the project site from Huntington Street to 1st Street as a 70- foot road ay with a raised median within a 90-foot ROW. In addition, one pedestrian bridge is proposed, n conjunction with this development, across PCH between 1st and Huntington Streets for improved access to the beach and transit stop on the south side of Pacific Coast Highway. K it D. Mabe7y,P. City of Huntington Beach Senior TransP.rtat Engineer Transportation Manager v m n f r- Z J > z 0 - m . (I)- mry n m r O-10 m D ,1 A Z TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS REPORT LINSCOTT LAW & GREENSPAN ENGINEERS TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS REPORT PACIFIC CITY ' Huntington Beach,California i INTRODUCTION This Traffic Impact Study addresses the potential traffic impacts and circulation needs associated with the proposed Pacific City mixed-use project located in City of Huntington Beach. The project site is bound by Pacific Coast Highway on the south, 1st Street on the west, Atlanta Avenue on the north, and Huntington Street on the east, with the proposed extension of Pacific View Avenue bisecting he site, from Huntington Street to 1st Street. The project includes the developme t/construction of approximately 240,000 SF of office/retail use, a 400-room hospitality component�(hotel/vacation ownership interval)resort hotel, and 516 residential condominiums with approxima ely 1,600 subterranean parking spaces. The Scope of Work for this project was developed based on discussions with Mr. Bob Stachelski, City T portation Manager, and the City of Huntington Beach Traffic Impact Assessment Preparation Guidelines,November 1996. The project vicinity has been visited and an inventory of key area roadways and intersections made. Existing (2001/2002) peak period manual turning movement counts were conducted at thirty of the thirty-two key study intersections. A large majority of the study intersections were counted in August 2 01 during the peak summer season. Average daily traffic counts were also conducted along the tour project frontage roadways as well as Atlanta Avenue east of the project site and PCH northwest of 9t' Street. The daily volumes shown on the City's Traffic Flow Map were used for the remaining study roadway links. Prior area traffic studies have been reviewed and information concerning other related projects,planned and/or approved,have been compiled. Per the d ection of City Staff, this traffic report analyzes existing and future peak hour traffic conditio upon completion of the proposed Pacific City project in Year 2008 at thirty-two (32) key intersections, which includes two future intersections along Pacific View Avenue, and twenty-five (25) key roadway segments. AM and PM peak hour and Daily background traffic forecasts for the 2008 ho ' on year have been projected by incorporating a one percent (1%) annual growth rate to existing eak hour and daily traffic volumes and including anticipated area cumulative project i traffic. 1 LINSCOTT LAW & GREENSPAN ENGINEERS In addition to the near-term analyses, this traffic report analyzes Year 2020 General Plan Build-out conditions without and with project traffic at thirty key study intersections (excludes two intersections studied in the near-term because of traffic modeling limitations) and twenty-seven key roadway links based on traffic forecasts using the Santa Ana River Crossings Cooperative Study (SARCCS) traffic analysis model. This traffic impact analysis also analyzes Year 2020 General Plan Build-out conditions with project traffic on Pacific View Avenue, to be constructed with this project,between 1st Street and Huntington Street under four(4)roadway network scenarios. Finally, as now required by the State of California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), the nineteen state route intersections within the project study area [SR-39 (Beach Boulevard) and SR-1 (Pacific Coast Highway)], were analyzed on an AM and PM peak hour basis, for existing and Year 2008 traffic conditions, consistent with,the recently published Caltrans Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies, [June, 2001]. Because, this project does not require a General Plan Amendment, the Caltrans guidelines do not require a supplemental General Plan Buildout analysis or select link analysis based on the Caltrans Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies. The area near the project experiences seasonal traffic variations, which have been documented in previous studies. Summer weekday traffic conditions have been found to be relatively consistent with non-summer conditions during the typical morning and evening peak hours. Higher levels of traffic are typically found during the midday on summer weekdays, though generally not in excess of the traditional peak hours. Summer weekends often experience significantly higher congestion levels due to traffic and pedestrian activity levels. In considering the need to analyze the weekend condition during the development of the scope of the traffic analysis, staff identified approximately 22 peak summer weekends and 3 typical holidays for a total of 47 potential days that represent the peak summer weekend condition. These days represent the peak traffic conditions for the downtown area based on observed congestion levels. Weekday peak hour conditions represent the worst case conditions for approximately 250 days per year. Non-summer weekends and holidays represent approximately 65 days per year and would not generally be considered peak conditions. Under CEQA, the determination of thresholds of significance and the application of those thresholds to specific conditions is delegated to the lead agency. In this case, the City of Huntington Beach has adopted several policies through its General Plan that would tend to support an analysis of the weekday condition as the environmental condition under which levels of significance are evaluated for individual projects and overall transportation planning. Level of service standards are identified that were based on evaluations of weekday peak hour conditions throughout the city. While the term "peak hour" is not specifically defined, it is consistently considered to occur during the weekday morning and late afternoon peak periods. No specific references are made to the summer weekend condition in maintaining_certain level of service standards. This approach has been supported in the past for other projects such as the Hyatt Regency Resort and the recently approved project, The Strand. This is also consistent with the concept that basic economy would dictate a design that does not address the most extreme operating conditions for a roadway. 2 LINSCOTT LAW & GREENSPAN ENGINEERS One additional issue considered by staff in evaluating the scope of the project analysis is the ability to forecast future weekend traffic volumes. Weekend analysis is not considered "standard" and limited tools are available for forecasting future traffic volumes. For example, build-out scenario analyses fo this study were prepared using a computerized traffic model. This model is based on a regional traffic model and does not address weekend conditions. It would be impossible to develop weekend traffic projections under this scenario without imposing significant hardship on the developer in preparing a new weekend traffic model. For reference, summer weekend traffic counts and analysi of existing summer weekend conditions are included in Appendix J. In consul tion with City Staff, the scope of work for the project excluded a requirement to complete hummer weekend analyses in consideration of CEQA guidelines, City policies, a practical valuation of the frequency of occurrence of the summer weekend conditions and analysis to is available. The thirty-I o key area study intersections, listed below, were selected for evaluation based on a "select-zone" analysis of the SARCCS traffic model, which was used to develop the Maximum Possible ICU Impact table, presented as Table 1. As presented in Table 1, intersections with a maximum possible ICU increase of less than 1% were not analyzed, unless directed otherwise by City staff These 32 analyzed intersections define the extent of the study boundaries for this traffic impact investigation and are listed on page 6 under"Study Intersections". The Volume to Capacity (V/C) characteristics and Level of Service (LOS) investigations for the AM and peak hour at these thirty'-two intersections were used to isolate the potential traffic- related impacts associated with anticipated area growth, adjacent cumulative developments, and the Pacific City project. Further, this report identifies recommended intersection improvements that may be r quired to mitigate the increase in future traffic volumes in conjunction with expected project tr fic. Included in this traffic impact study are: • E isting traffic counts • E timated project traffic generation/distribution/assignment • Etimated cumulative project traffic generation/distribution/assignment • AM/PM peak hour and Daily analyses for existing and future near-term traffic conditions without and with project traffic • Project-specific improvements and mitigation measures 3 LINSCOTT LAW & TABLE ! GREENSPAN ENGINEERS STUDY AREA BOUNDARY Pacific City,Huntington Beach Maximum • ZAF**14'' !,0.•!;Z:',!h:VAC:'.-314i1444:0•1 1. Warner Avenue at YES 2.2% Pacific Coast Highway 2. ' Seapoint Avenue at 2.3% • Pacific Coast Highway YES 3. Goldenwest Street at 0.4% NO • Orange Avenue 4. Goldenwest Street at 1.9% YES Pacific Coast Highway 5. 17th Street at 0.5% NO Orange Avenue 6. 17th Street at 3.0% YES Pacific Coast Highway 9th Street at 3.0% YES Pacific Coast Highway 8. 6th Street at 2.0% YES Pacific Coast Highway 9. Main Street at 0.8% NO Yorktown Avenue 10. Main Street at 1.3% YES Utica Avenue 11. Main Street at 2.1% Adams Avenue YES 12. Main Street at 2.6% YES 6th Street 13. Main Street at 2.0% YES Pacific Coast Highway 14. Lake Street at 1.4% YES Yorktown Avenue 15. Lake Street at 0.9% NO Adams Avenue 16. lst Street at 5.2% YES Atlanta Avenue 17. ls`Street at 10.3% YES Pacific View Avenue 18. 1st Street at 5.4% YES Pacific Coast Highway I 19. Huntington Street at I 4.9% YES Pacific Coast Highway 20. Huntington Street at 14.3% YES • Pacific View Avenue 4 - „ LINSCOTT LAW &GREENSPAN TABLE 1 continued ENGINEERS STUDY AFtEA BOUNDARY Pacific City,Huntington Beach ......... - Possibly I 30101figilinP0e 11CUInipaci Impacted' 21. Huntington Street at 5.2% YES Atlanta Avenue 22. Huntington Street at 0.02% NO Indianapolis Avenue 23. Atlanta Avenue at 6 1% I YES Delaware Street 24. Atlanta Avenue at 1.1%' YES Newland L „ ld Street 25. Atlanta Avenue at 0.8% NO Magnolia Street 26. Atlanta Avenue at 0 7% NO Bushard Street 27. Beach Boulevard at 0.9% NO Talbert Avenue 28. Beach Boulevard at 1.6% i YES Ellis/Main Street 29. Beach Boulevard at 2.8% YES Garfield Avenue 30. Beach Boulevard at ,z 2.7% YES Yorktown Avenue 31. Beach Boulevard at 2.9% YES Adams Avenue 32. Beach Boulevard at 3.6% YES Indianapolis Avenue 33. Beach Boulevard at 5.9% YES Atlanta Avenue 34. Beach Boulevard at 4.5% YES Pacific Coast Highway 35. Pacific Coast Highway 3.4% YES at Newland Avenue 36. Pacific Coast Highway 2 7% YES at Magnolia Avenue 37. Pacific Coast Highway YES at Brookhurst Avenue 3.6% 38. Pacific Coast Highway 0.8% NO at Superior Avenue 39. Indianapolis Avenue at 0.5% NO Newland Street 40. Adams Avenue at 0.8% NO Newland Street 5 LINSCOTT LAW & GREENSPAN ENGINEERS Year 2008 Near-Term Study Intersections 1. Goldenwest Street @ Pacific Coast Highway 2. 17th Street @ pacific Coast Highway 3. 9th Street @ Pacific Coast Highway 4. 6th Street @ Pacific Coast Highway 5. Main Street @ 6`h Street 6. Main Street @ Pacific Coast Highway 7. 1 St Street @ Atlanta Avenue 8. 1st Street @ Pacific Coast Highway 9. Huntington Street @ Atlanta Avenue 10. Delaware Street @ Atlanta Avenue 11. Huntington Street @ Pacific Coast Highway 12. Huntington Street @ Pacific View Avenue 13. Beach Boulevard @ Adams Avenue(CMP Intersection) 14. Beach Boulevard @ Indianapolis Avenue 15. Beach Boulevard @ Atlanta Avenue 16. Beach Boulevard @ Pacific Coast Highway(CMP Intersection) 17. Newland Street @ Atlanta Avenue 18. Newland Street @ Pacific Coast Highway 19. Magnolia Street @ Pacific Coast Highway 20. Magnolia Street @ Atlanta Avenue 21. Pacific Coast Highway @ Seapoint Avenue 22. Pacific Coast Highway @ Warner Avenue(CMP Intersection) 23. Pacific Coast Highway @ Brookhurst Avenue 24. Main Street @ Adams Avenue 25. Main Street @ Utica Avenue 26. Lake Street @ Adams Avenue 27. Lake Street @ Yorktown Avenue 28. Beach Boulevard @ Yorktown Avenue 29. Beach Boulevard @ Garfield Avenue 30. Newland Street @ Ellis Avenue/Main Street '31. 1st Street @ Pacific View Avenue(Future) 32. Beach Boulevard @ Pacific View Avenue(Future) 6 LINSCOTT LAW & GREENSPAN ENGINORS PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION The Pacific City project site, which is approximately 31.5 acres of vacant land, is generally located in the sou erly area of the City of Huntington Beach adjacent to Pacific Coast Highway and approximate y one-quarter mile west of Beach Boulevard. The project site is bound by Pacific Coast Highway on the south, 1st Street on the west, Atlanta Avenue on the north,and Huntington Street on the east. Ex ibit 1 presents a Vicinity Map, which illustrates the general location of the project site and depicts Is orientation within the surrounding street system. As propos d, the Pacific City Project consists of approximately 240,000 SF of office/retai estaurant use, a 400-room hospitality component (hotel/vacation ownership interval), and 516 res dential condominiums with an estimated completion in 2008..Table 2 summarizes the proposed 1 d use development and floor areas for Pacific City Project. As presented in Table 2, the 400-room ospitality component (hotel/vacation ownership interval) will include 16,000 SF of Ballroom s ace, a 5,000 SF signature restaurant, and 15,000 SF of Cardio/Yoga facilities. Exhibit 2 presents th proposed site plan for the Pacific City Project and labels each of the project access driveway to ations for future reference throughout the report. PROJECT ACCESS The Pacific City project site, which is bound by PCH, 1st Street, Atlanta Avenue, and Huntington Street, will consist of a total of ten customer/service access driveways and are labeled 1 through.10 on Exhibit 2. As depicted in Exhibit 2, two driveways are proposed along 1st Street (one right- in/right-out for the residential and one right-in/right-out service access for the retail/commercial), three drive ays are proposed along Huntington Street (two full-movement for the residential and one right-i right-out service/employee access for the hotel), and five driveways are proposed along Pacific Vi w Avenue (two full-movement for the residential, one full-movement for the retail/commercial only, one full-movement for the retail/commercial and hotel, and one right- in/right-out service access for the retail/commercial). All-way stop-control access will be provided along Pacific View Avenue at driveway access#2/#5 and#3/#6. The easterl access on Pacific View Avenue is designed as the main retail/commercial/hotel project access wi a valet parking zone proposed on site. In addition, intersection capacity analyses have been condUcted at the two proposed all-way stop access locations along Pacific View Avenue to determine the total intersection delay, operational level of service, and required left turn storage length at each driveway. Using Year 2008 AM and PM peak hour project buildout traffic volumes at the two proposed all-way stop access locations along Pacific View Avenue, LOS calculations were conducted using the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM)methodology for unsignalized intersections. The westerly proposed all-way stop access location (Driveway access #2/#5) is anticipated to operate with an intersection stop delay of 7.86 seconds/vehicle (LOS A) and 8.78 seconds/vehicle (LOS A) curing the AM and PM peak hours, respectively, while the easterly proposed all-way stop access loc tion (Driveway access #3/#6) is anticipated to operate with an intersection stop delay of 1_ 7 LINSCOTT LAW & GREENSPAN ENGINEERS 8.74 seconds/vehicle (LOS A) and 10.58 seconds/vehicle (LOS B) during the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. Based on our review of the forecast traffic volumes and the capacity analyses at each of the ten If project access driveways,the following is a list of design features for each driveway. • Driveway #1 — (Service access for Retail/Restaurant uses) right-turn in/right-turn out only with one inbound and one outbound lane. • Driveway#2—(Customer access for Retail/Restaurant/Office uses),full-movement with all-way stop control with one inbound and two outbound lanes (left turn and right turn); westbound left turn pocket recommended minimum length of 100 feet on Pacific View Avenue. • Driveway #3 — (Customer access for Retail/Restaurant/Office and Hotel uses) full-movement with all-way stop control; one inbound and two outbound lanes (left turn and right turn); westbound left turn pocket recommended minimum length of 200 feet on Pacific View Avenue. • Driveway #4 — (Service and secondary employee access for Hotel use) right-turn in/right-turn out only; one inbound and one outbound lane. • Driveway #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. • Driveway #6 — (Resident and visitor access for Residential use) full-movement with all-way stop control; two inbound and two outbound lanes (left turn and right turn); eastbound left turn pocket recommended minimum length of 100 feet on Pacific View Avenue. • Driveway #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. • Driveway #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. • Driveway #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. • Driveway#10—(Service access for Retail/Restaurant uses)right-turn in/right-turn out only with one inbound and one outbound lane. 8 , , , i , . •mommr•mm. ___,. 11111 EMI 111111 hi , 2 — - 1 ^ I, _ I _ - 1 __m_ .1 , i £ ; - -.- ;-;tg''n''..fy.:;.;,•;',`,:,,,,IC:1:;44 \N t •, ' = • - I : . RI -_I m 17 E . r- •7,'04",i'-',,1 iq.t.f..1 4,7*-k-, .. - ''. ' ..---- - 7:1,''.;71..ii.eP."-•/;:'.I.7„.,.A,..-,i.',s.A.ti.,, : il-S"oil1/0.,.''T . _ t4;04,,,tiy W.M•,,e.c...iwi:',.„ , , . 4-. ;..., r • ',:•• 1,..,5.:, 40.'A`..4,;;3,!;i4-p, ,_,,. 1- a-,,,f. t:1/ - a 1.11.11:4111111-8 7 N SI V rill n4 IAA • 14.I'I A Av '0414,•..,,-,.... .O,M-i ilA}'tvf4--'31e1'3,41-4--r4-,::-11riS4*t,H1.'W.-A1g.'r•tNr!.,o-9:i''l'i,4.m3F..,-IOr,rM,i4ie0 rts74.4.,Wr k.ic.'4V*a\.0.r-,s,CA'0s.,•.?Amo,'441 eq'1 4,I','r'-,T0..2Mk,,'4,1,,r1AF,a.''.t0'",.e,'e,,,'T.,.g!4-,,,i,1,,-.4r,,,..,,.:2a',a,4r.i44'.tSt4tV,r-;t::tpI-,1w.sltbrY4,.'-.,,1',VV e`,1'ot,;Z.,,',&t•,qii,•,4,',t,,"w,f:',°,14''p:r-.1Ez,.4 X-r''•',,.t;k,4',,'.,24i,,-'1,Pf.f',..:.k.''Pe,':f L'''4,...r,...p,41 Y-j4-'::.i._11,.,;'r'4-,‘.,'.M,,:"-x,4?,.!.Z..,l•i.,1.4r;:,„,t•.-,4..,1,:,t4.•'ri...',,24„,'-,,^,,,,.-;..0,,1f'‘,,-.W4,,.,0,;s.,'4A i,t...,',?W14.:,•...-.,-4.,g,',1,,,r-,''W..:..,,as4.,..4:" ,)..',,.;,e4.1;4',4,reI,.1.1,.J,zr4::0 f,4?4?).?..,,,,,;•,..4.0-'.'-.„.4:.,1kq-,1g...,„.,,,,.,Ap,!.,,,.,a',.,..:,,..` --0:,.•--*:,,l -.,:.•'.:.-.. .,r...'.;.'•.".„..-,.....,•s..,,. .....,.11 ...f. •4, 14 r r1d I i AL, M N, .-. r„4 w0 • s o „. ..:....,;,1•,ike--,,......";O,a,"f•',k,,',,r1Im..A,...-.1,:,i 2 . 405.z . 111A , ,,..„,.„....,. ...4.,,-,..,„,,,,,,,t,--ft4 47,,,szi:C..•..,%•1.,;..e3,,....•:„:,,,y.,i•t4.....4.,.,. •. , -... --,,,,...,,..,!.,,.,;.„,.:17,1,,,,,..4„,„,?.... .;.•; ;.,•!.14.J.,-,L.u,.91,-.,:trt.„ Ati.',i1•12,Tie,,,,z„.. ,-,.-.1.-- 'gm Tr.r.:,;;I:ti,p-ircsr-w-tielt,r;;:ey, ',,,:$40:trtt0-.;P:isr.':t,; ',;:ri... ;.',7 k,,..'-;t7"6:"(:••; ,• .:e..,:.';,,,,,I,'-.,•.%''73'''.."'.':.%••••, ".. k:u 4. i,,,,-,..,..:,•,--0,,,,,z:Pcf,-,,,-;..,,,,,i... •,„,,,,,,,,..e,,,,,•.;,....,t,..;,.••,,,.••31",•:.•r•.•.- -.•,',•••••• 39 , ' s'..;.";_•.,_„:•,.;.:N.., • ' i,,I,t 1,-,..4,‘I'Llt6-..,•gr .h,'"Oi,..?/;',..X.1' 0,p e.,s.',.,--4,*.:0- .i.,-..:,;:,.,y.e.,,,..:,......,... , h MI ,-'..4.-v-a'Ati'3;-1,'10:-',•'.--..V.tr-1., .is,t,,Mil,,,7,.$-,-,: i4.'1„---vs,:t?....5.',..ia?,y,...,,,-, ,, ',-.2-.,;'-iiii.'1,;',OL.,,,Q' i • „;,..m-I-,,,,-e,s,,,..',e,W2.;e:V ,v,,',p-PAA..-,Otcj0-en''‘A'AiR:,,:: !,,,,,,..•::).:'-` 11130- ' -,43'.; , • ,fti;t6f!,411,,c,,,,,,,it,:ts., •' :,-5') W.,4-4,4.Asp'iP,41'srz.1-4.-,:''41-,:;-A--.,-; i, 1' lea•OR 1 ON A'd a li1VrArrY' -r`V--f.0'-' ,,,,,,4t404,:. ..v,,,,.oz-,, ,,,,i,,v,:, .mt.,„...4--.---,.„, •-i-n-vt-;,3,-,,,4^,;,1','•;',,.•'•;,a1....:::a',W&ttik.s.'-."..Ai:, • r ' '44•Yr4-.4•P""-t.."..0.0" ,k'''v., '''''%'-r1,:" •",'4,•'''':',,4:4;',`'.7,.:,,,,,../.,,,... 1.,7,..;.1.,,,i. ..:4:', ' -/ ( 17;tt.4.,f4P,.:/%'trVti4;40111.r:ZiC,.M40.4.41-Ifir$•:/;e:,;14.k..:....V.:Ii1-34:re.:..41 ,A n'.!. .1,00:17;0g. V, . 1',-",afj.'e,, , • v ' g .,4,:t41,-,,,,,Ili*,-A,•P--.4,:::,.,,V1.-'-t.',•;;;', .:4..k.-Vei't-.‘",11TF.'14'-.4•Y,e;.';;‘if:'''.'4'7,i',.4.:'',.5.:.',-,`; `,5.,;.,'4.1'iV:P'*-- *Az`frei'?..,04t:',VPSOP,-7.'.. ,'' '''VZ,:41'0,0:-..?'!.:,4'.4-°:=11%.,..,!'':i':,"-'S.,' ''',,,-,-,:-......r>',..,>,,i,,...... , ''...41.,:i;.'•:; .`,-,.-,F;:,ic.:,...' •':w.,, '' :;'''°'.44:-.;•1'64-q-Mttf;!4 ja14,%trrTr;q..Gg47:.4..X0%.......n`:. -.. j.,:ifi:4i......'`.`'. P.4',': ,,..7'4,V:I .414, I., ' Il' .. \ krigg:R s r2'-'0' •'..":.t. ' 53'1,0140,4.-MtVir:- , -;"; .7.7, to -wv,..-Itaegallo.-.v.,1•.,,,,,,,,,,,,,„.,,,, 4 , ! ,,,•,,,.,-,4„,.!,‹.1.4../-...,- li*Ar,-."-;:,,i441,-,.,.:,45,i:x..43.1-0.1,,...t4t4v-Aso,g,g.,A, , .. : ..,,, r.,..„, ,..... ., ,,,,, :.., ,,,,, xl,,s,ax,"4,,-,A.p4u,1 41.,c,,iams.,5„,,;4=.,-;:„:,-;:k:,.-4,41,,,,,Tnt-. 4 .1,,,X.,,„4', .c,„„.?4,,----,,---••• AN IA. A .,/ W .,,,' eit4 . ',',44,6 f 9,.r.,,i AM ,I.,:ilt11,4,f,,,,41;e41-MO,'•-'0',P-KfariVe,VIVA*AttiW,T-0,160',, g.'' r; - it. ..-c,,,,,2.,P4 0::•-- ., _. s ' c,V-''' ‘14;',v:',,"•:-'7,4*::'(,,- 4ft*FAM:747"444t4,,,;VAW, OSTiSe'VZVA:11:, k;?:c.,?•„ ;;Wii;:t, :;:;;AN,, ' l'''''-'‘•.014,t, - . . ' - 7 ---.„4,-4.,...:-T. ._„‘",;W:s 0,•nk--24.70,-Xik'sf,_,;..rq 1,2;.4i-;',,,I.‘,-; *•-.,4..:.-;,,K;',1:1,,t,,• ••-•j,•''-S1:-‘..„7 "'.3, '4 fr.k.-„:„.w' ,nt,',, 4 A )-''..,.....,, 44-ef:41*.titi:-.9)*700.4.,f.b*,,,,s4,, V4,:t44_11.„.1'4V.44,,*;=':','/„ .‘-i-.'rk ,e7-ti;p:-•El:,-- gsi ..,.4,6,1e0W , . r,,-,..„...,•,-5. 44Z.0 ouzi-,'";,,,,',Ak....e,W,:t7ave"..•4"i`,7.i.o;4:11:ra,;-1,1 ,"=J;.r,,,,4.-4,5447.7.1,-. ,—;.•-,:4.,,,',-;:ti:N?.- ....,..,- - .?''.4.31.4-40;t1Vitit.44";440' Aritkl.:1 *k rity,t;4414,:icit'AM :4"AVLIWA-rzW:0.1344V411-V.i.".06',:,144.17,,IP:- 4'':-.."!: ::(r-',-f. . — i . "''-'2.'''''':' ':'• '''.6.4-:'4'.. .c".' • "..,t'' `--r:'''''. ...;--. .-r -•'; : ..r'.. !' , 4 ...14:4..r.A1,,Ncs,vif,-4-4,-toty.,,,,,z,r,s,4.,r,r4,,,f,,,.,,--7q or,,,,,,-;;„..,,,,,a,, ...y.,4w5tie.v,:,;..,,,;;;-..........,.1.;z,+7,,...•-•.,-.,!.:2.,.',,,g!frh.,52,,,,,,,,,, :,,,:,,,r,;,,N..p.':.',/sr.,:-9,4 4,;„,..4.7, tz,,:.,,,,,,, t.,..'g,14`.."'V:4:I'f'1,,,tAZ%,:i',*4.tr. l'<i''''i:k,15`,.4&1`.,1,..4.'t40.,i-e:r':,,,,,:'..3.':1.,4F, %`,..1;1•1?1,..'4'.,?!,,,.cl-5.,..k-sti..<,,:=y.kr,:ke..-7 zt,,..kN../....;,„;... , _...,,-..-t,t-N:,,:,-;--•., s•'Nit.,..• i . ::':::?--.-tr'-'-'•:': ....v..;' i ;;_',..t1'.).-:,-,• •L'.--,-.,/,,f- •.,',':•-,i-:.-',/,.!...i1:4,161;..ze.• ,..11;F.E.,:•.A.3.,,,. -AN, 6 '',.,.'''‘.:'.. - .- , -,,,,, i 0 s.74...W.44-rtIVitgkiii,-Vi, -,..0,'-'*-s•V'le-4';'k VICIV;Pri,:•- - -..Z1- ',.";,' :•j. ._ , .,-- .::-,. .=5."':•-•?;.1:'-1-1_,',fNP.:: :!,!:,'-,:.:', ki :• ims. -•'," •.r...%'+'.,,i,'',' .••:, "• ,••••0 i, • 2. , .-‘,0,,,,"..4,cm ..,,.f•4i..5v...,,t4,,<AA„ ;,,,,.$40-104,/o,,,,,...4.._.1.4.,,t6?-;,...••:,•:,..:.1.Yr...41',";4''.."--,:"..-• VP/nvOky"V(CIP.' :-;';'''''' •'••••`;-.. ' .- -'. ..;:''' ' '' .•'- \ ,•73..,•-i:.:6,,,..k...':,"2,. .rff,...!. ,,,,,,,.',.......,,,,,,,.:5.,?..::7:.g....I3..)7. 4 -e, .,,,,,,,,,,,-.-4,-1...,,,,.-01 -:.-4, .0.,:nte..2:,-;,,,k".-4,,..,4,,,,,„;,,,As,...••5•11;',"s...-,,,•'' :• . ,la, 4f. ,,i.p..,z—,-,_.-•:..,,,,,-;,,-„,,.,.; i: c:...;•,;.,..,,;::,,,- : '-----1--"'• -• ..:',:*,:!.•,•:-,- ...;:'-:::-, , -c:,-;,z':‘..1. '-% i ,,.....„.•*,,k,,...i., : •.:•• •e:.;'.V.,•„....4 a ,:',.„,..14,w-„z„v..",ips,,•.,-.., ,,,,,,,r4,Lyo,:.„*.6,v,mr,.4.,tyr.kt:,,,R.,0,,.,-,;.,:4,,,,,,:,xf,,s ,,t7pilifiv,v -::.,, ,,. ..;.:,,,, ,z-,,,:.,,,,;„4..,,„...,,i,.::.,,,:.:,,.... ,.:.:.,,:-.4,.... , .... , .r,,,,,-.::,..;. .,...:...,..,..„,. tze.„,erwsli-w,,,. 1.1,-•%.,-.-nwkavv,-,..''''F'41-254tYP:7'4W4-',:',Y;I:c*i.;',4,. ..1-, _Lg,3,.,S71....+T:,.7'..*.....1' ''P,.'13.,-:)4..';‘,,..-.1r.';:II,'"f,-.',,:cN,-,:;`%;7,-,-+•.-- ",n';. , S-Z,..?.,.•''"., '•,,ft:)'.".,1, .,1,..,,,p. , 11.4,4,1V.6„ 4„,,,,' ...e.,,,,,', -St,-4.-P4-,,,2:-„Jr,;,,,4,-..i.l.a.sfl,',,,-;.,,.;-1,,,).4,-,..-",,!,,.,--... , ,.. " - •".,..e.:-,','•'.!A::,,;.••,:,J,-,-,,;,,,,,•Ii,,,..,4 6::,,,,1.• ,.,.,-%, .,?, , -i.‘3',IfN'k('„:,'''. '.." ^'::f,'.,1 '' g' 'ErP44:,-1,,'it•WVIL'i$41' tiAgP1,17•174-1*Pj-X';%-4AVMP'44M,Pli.),;§; 4::1'.,',,,Z4•,'.:::•.;:•:;<!..,::,::',-• •••,,,`;'*-!,;., -;'•;,:;,1 l':;:'„,;„.',;:•,-I'nl'il: ,',,,.:'•,-" ,:!:':!:•, ,..,. . ! 1,44/104,4,3-„„14.1-0 II2,1014,4.`t .r2:?,4VA•14P,12.`",;4'*;;;NiiiVrrgriLi4).,i4;‘,1:',,,,,ii,,,,,,-0.14'; ',.1,.•;1.'" 1..,'::',-. ,,"''.7`.,.:,.•,;:::: ,..-2--,':::',.,,..,..:„`% . , N E W 9 a Di:;I' (.., 1 , -- • 4,-. lir.,-„oe ,,,,-..-„. •,' -.:,.---,w4,,,,:,..1,,,,-,,,,.vr,.,,,c..,,,,I-..,... .,1„...,6„.„ fro-,-.:,.,."5:,,,,,,,,,,.-..+-4).....-.:;,,.,c-,4,...,.:-,- i...;n-.,..,,,,-..,,!---1,v. --,.. .- ' "... ,... ,,r,,,,- ,--, ;,,,,,.,1,,,, , 4x.t;.0,,,,,4,,.,10,,,,vi ,..., ,, ,i,..‘„,,,,,,m,,,,,wv,0-1, ,,Keb-1,4,,,,,„.tt,.4:-.,.;,„,kii.,,,17,-,to...1,1,4,11.144.4%.,,,,ix„igt,aliti,,a'..V.::::4;;`).,„1304ts.k.V;:e;•4 •::..'1. :31,',,S).•'',a.i''14:•':.:-..:i 1.:-Lri::::,.../....-- lit kr ;40'. ,3 ,,, :kse-$^,v -:,;5-,-AVRIAStl',.<,;1:10,,$011:MitaikittOne,'-44.vN-`-. .vptit.',R405.i1V.{:-A** ,'::::-(4r....v.,ifiv.-:1;N:q,,-..-F,-;1';:',,,,,,,,-..-,,,-;-:;:q..F: , 1 - - ,-:•i 8 ,.. ..,4,,,,,,,,,,,_,,,,,v;„,-.,,.1,,,..,,trkty,..,n..,„,-,,,,Y.....,-:v5A;,...v,=',,-.:-Q,---,:.. ..,-4,,J,,r--74:44.-----3,:-.:-,• ';t.,,-,..--,.-'-x--...,,..z...-•••"--...'• ,-.'-=''!,.-,',--:.••,:. ®2001 Thomas Ores. Maps . 0 ,, H ,..1 • A B . C.L., D E F G . H J A 9 C D 8 - E F G H E ;,/ 4illiN IMO SCALE EXHIBIT 1 LINSCOTr LAW & GREENSPAN ENGINEERS viciNirir mAP PACIFIC CITY, HUNTINGTON BEACH , LINSCOTT LAW & GREENSPAN ENGINEERS TABLE 2 PROPOSED LAND USE DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY Pacific City,Huntington Beach GROSS SQUARE FEET " 2...!". PROPOSED LAND USES , • • •i• ••••• Office 60,000 GSF Commercial 180,000 GSF Quality Restaurant 50,000 GSF Surf Museum 5,000 GSF Retail Shops 125,000 GSF Residential(Condominiums) 516 Units Hospitality(Hotel/Vacation Ownership Interval) 400 Rooms Hotel Ballroom 16,000 GSF Signature Restaurant 5,000 GSF CardiofYoga 15,000 GSF n:\2100\2133\Tables\2002133 Table 2 Proposed Land Use Summary.xls 1 • 0 • �` • • O MOBILE ��'�'' 0 ♦. HOME '',,� -, / • Parcel t / PARK v f 1 No _...,_4 rur, L J I. ,..r ✓� , Ir 1.1yie71 1 :t,z e,0. 0-NEAVENUE u rql r 1 V r - r -rm- r �� O 1 I"i.k%t,. \1rHIli-\,. ,lirir v m`L_ _J t_ rIE• V ENu E Cf dele1 © PACIP ■ A��tt���tA plc±41111.���� ,►IV t e.f •l 9 .,,,, --.F.P'n'11.11 :11.4 pl..1.11..#.. . tiartrA,* ....\--iLini , i: Wiridi: lullill=1--------- --- 2 -C s F. AillillIA l� EXHIBIT__2 NO SCALE IJNSCO1T LAW& PROPOSED SITE PLAN GREENSPAN ENGINEERS PACIFIC CITY, HUNTINGTON BEACH LINSCOTT LAW & GREENSPAN ENGINEERS The five access driveways proposed for the residential development will be gate controlled with the three driveways on 1 St Street and Huntington Street and the westerly driveway on Pacific View Avenue for residents only and the easterly driveway on Pacific View for residents and visitors. In addition, the two access drives along Pacific view Avenue into parking structure for the Retail/Restaurant/Office and Hotel uses will be gate controlled with a ticket dispenser. In order to determine the required storage reservoir at each gated entry, a queuing analysis has been performed at each of the seven gated project access driveways using the Crommelin Methodology. Gate Queuing Analysis Crommelin Methodology The Crommelin Methodology determines the minimum storage reservoir required to provide adequate access and control for major parking facilities. Experience has proven that poorly designed parking facilities with inadequate storage capacities often times create an adverse effect on the operating characteristics in and around the facility, thereby lessening the effectiveness of the structure. The Crommelin Methodology addresses these concerns by analyzing conditions and applying a conservative analytical approach to planning access and control for parking facilities. The methodology is based on peak hour traffic volumes, parking control strategies, processing rates at a control point, and the number of travel lanes. These characteristics are used to calculate a traffic intensity factor value (IF), which is derived by dividing the peak hour traffic volumes by the design processing rate. The IF value is then plotted on the 99% confidence level curve (where storage capacity will not be exceeded 99 times of 100) per the Crommelin Reservoir Needs nomograph. This process ultimately estimates the number of queuing vehicles that will store behind the service position vehicle at the control point. This number is rounded up to the nearest vehicle and added to the single service position vehicle, resulting in the total number of vehicles stored behind the control point. The required storage capacity, in vehicles, is converted into a length(feet)by multiplying the number of expected vehicles by a vehicle length of 22 feet. Storage Reservoirs Analysis Table A in Appendix B presents a summary of the storage reservoir analysis for the gated entrance -- at each of the five residential and two retail/restaurant/office/hotel access driveways. A service rate of 180 vehicles/hour was used to determine the required storage reservoir for residents, which is based on a conservative gate access rate of 20 seconds per vehicle for residents with either a remote control gate opener or a coded-card, while a service rate of 30 vehicles per hour (2 minutes per vehicle) was used to determine the required storage reservoir for visitors. Lastly, a service rate of 320 vehicles/hour was used to determine the required storage reservoir for retail/restaurant/office/hotel customers and employees, which is based on a ticket dispenser gate access control rate contained in the Crommelin report. Driveway #6 along Pacific View Avenue will accommodate both residents and visitors with separate drive aisles for each. The recommended storage reservoir length for the visitor queuing is 66 feet, which is based on a peak visitor volume of 12 I L INSCOTT LAW & GREENSPAN ENGINEERS 16 vehicles at 7:00 PM(two times the PM peak hour volume of 8 vehicles, which is 7%of the total PM peak hour inbound residential traffic of 115) and can accommodate three vehicles between the manned guardhouse and the back of sidewalk. A separate drive aisle will be provided for residents to by-pass v_sitors queuing at the manned guardhouse. As shown in Table A, each of the five residential access driveways and two retail/restaurant/office/hotel access driveways has a maximum expected queue of two vehicles which requires a storage reservoir length of 44 feet between the gate and the back of sidewalk. However, the visitor access driveway on Driveway #6 requires a storage reservoir length of 66 feet between the manned guard house and the back of sidewalk. EXISTIN TRAFFIC CONDITIONS Regional a cess to the project site is provided primarily by the San Diego (I-405) Freeway and Pacific Coast Highway (SR-1), which generally run in a northwest to southeast orientation in the vicinity of he project. The I-405 Freeway is located approximately five miles north of the project site. Prim access to the site from the I-405 Freeway is provided via an interchange at Beach Boulevard. Pacific Coast Highway, which borders the site on the southwest, is a major highway, which extends through Orange County and links Huntington Beach with neighboring communities of Seal Be ch, Long Beach, Costa Mesa, and Newport Beach. Principal local arterials, which serve Pacific Ci , are Beach Boulevard, Main Street, 1s` Street, Huntington Street, Atlanta Avenue, and Pacific Vie� Avenue. The following discussion provides a brief synopsis of these key area streets. These desciiptions are based on an inventory of existing roadway conditions. Pacific Cast Highway (PCH), also known as State Route 1, is designated as a Major Arterial Highway in the City's General Plan Circulation Element and the County of Orange MPAH southeast f Goldenwest Street. PCH is currently configured as a six-lane arterial south of Beach Boulevard and is striped for six lanes from midway between Huntington and 1st Streets to 6th Street, which inc udes the northwesterly half of the project frontage. Northwest of 6th Street, PCH is • configure as a four-lane arterial. Metered parking is currently provided on both sides of PCH except alo g the southwesterly half of the project frontage and along the southwest side of PCH, which is i proved with a transit turnout for bus layovers and boardings. The speed limit along PCH varies from 35 MPH to 50 MPH in the project vicinity. PCH currently performs as a four-lane Expressway between Warner Avenue and Seapoint Avenue. Beach Boy levard, also known as State Route 39, is designated as a Superstreet/Smartstreet on the County of Orange Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH) and is currently 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, La Mirada, and terminates at Whittier Boulevar in La Habra. 13 _ ) LINSCOTT LAW & GREENSPAN ENGINEERS Atlanta Avenue is designated as a four-lane Primary Arterial Highway in the City's General Plan Circulation Element and Orange County MPAH. Atlanta Avenue originates at 1st 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 north 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. Angle parking is located along Main Street in downtown area between PCH and 6111 Street. 1s` 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. 1s`Street is currently a two-lane roadway and parking is permitted along both sides. 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. Pacific View Avenue existed only from Huntington Street to approximately 500 feet east along the existing Waterfront Hilton project when the counts were conducted and this study initiated. Pacific View Avenue will be extended easterly to Beach Boulevard in conjunction with current development of the Ocean Grand Hyatt Resort and will be extended westerly to 1s` Street in conjunction with the proposed Pacific City project. Parking is currently permitted along both sides adjacent to the existing Waterfront Hilton. Exhibit 3 presents the existing roadway conditions for the arterials and key intersections evaluated in this report. This exhibit identifies the number of travel lanes for key arterials, intersection configurations and traffic controls for the thirty-two key study intersections. 14 I . e \�_\ //, Fib / yeti / �d \ 1 : � c ( _ \, .., 1 5\ 18 1 m \ \ Qt, 1. // \�\ � �\� y � � ,( c� IP / ,, ' , el- y F , �b \F cr S ,-3 ° / 'G ow sge \� oy / \ , \ -0- ...A;.0cY. i ....,, , ..1,( ,.____ `') .lei .,,,s( .cr. t .i• \,,,I,1 -A..t, 'Par- / I( ( \ BBB , " I'lr c o ` \ ul / *, / i� (\„( , l N. - 1 PALM . • � AV 5\4) A--...,1§IM%.B UE I \-''qt7•\e(,-"t. 1C4'‘—'--— I /i-S..I3..-.t1_•-1,,6.•''I' /Tonr\ \ h _ ORANGE l� I '� 4:, o x u\ \ Ism— / ''> `��? \�� 9 o AV J I_ ,-oa 1 h °T / -- d'B/ r Rr $k ;zs, s F. s`zs WALNUT it ®. \ /~ / // ` ,s9 J •-B6jB J I o zt .� \ PACIFIC VIEV u L.ZIT ` 1° —�N �T �s �/ PACIFIC --� -- — `'` -ts7 -�� �j tx my 8 z1: VC Itsis—��� Y -- 1.1111111111M. \ \ �/ cotisr `�� to J.•_ _� yzo---N . uss—1. �� 2 xs /:II /EN I 1 / �g 1 /207 SI \ j /R7 T51 \ I L \.."/, 0 ,`A \ H ! J l l fists 1 ( 15 1- 1 1 J —`1155 11\is Z!4 I I J I o75 1= I J I is 1 I I l,-0 1 J I l L mN 1 PROJECT S 1 t 17 I \\ // ( teen— 1 _// 1 vaso 1LC / ( 1701- 4 II 11 txi'11,( 1 SITE g \ / \ \ °1 / \ 15-. / \ / \ ^/ r _.„,ss 1 1\\\ EXHIBIT 4 t NO SCALE LJNSCO LAW&TT GREENSPAN EXISTING AM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES \ E N G I N E E R S PACIFIC CITY, HUNTINGTON BEACH 16 /, �y P4 1 \' . i 0 \ 6 PHASE j)��/ // \ \\\ 9\ SIGNAL _i 4 >j 8 PHASE \yam SPLIT E/W ' SIGNAL 9 \ \\ <-\\\'C ��-0 \\ \ 8 PHASE 4 9 P, SIGNAL P V� \9\ of vG 0 \ \ `oQpT �� SIGNAL E �< y6 yc y�`� Py s0 / SQ P'I \la 4, 44 P, >//� 8 PHASE v4o 41, pG ` �/ p 0# SIGNAL \ap O < Y - 8 PHASE �� +„, SIGNAL •E\\\ /\\\ / \ rG \\C SIGNAL )\�� ,\\\ � ALL-WAY \ / \� �. ` / AJ >/ SIGNA8 L , \ IP \ \ — \ Et V STOP >jc ALL-WAY �v< ! \•, �`( f— 1\kv // PP SIGNAL 8 sE 43- ����a 1 '\ __ 4, 'a` a \ 2 PHASE SIGNAL PHASE S} `'G/ \ �� rs pG a \\ SIGNAL PALM AV 2U \\ \\` PHASEIv (35) \ I j L�02-W Y SIGNAL • L`phl CS ?��0 .3- 1,n; 1 A17 m I /� \ A 9 ORANGE 2U AV �. > ,L Q I ( S''G o /3:8 PHASE 9 OLNE (30) �E..� (1-WAY Ir / rs:aIGNAL w 3PHASE8r2U r p STOP / J8 PHASE8PHASE/SIGNAL WALNUT 2U /� _i SIGNAL _ ^SIGNALJL i 40 "V °®.,�-\ = DILL i — 50 y PACIFIC 4D 6D _— -- -- PACIFC vltw _ �� 6D J I_ r- 6D )µ 6D HWI ) 4D )\ T it 8 _ // \ // / i \ \ l 6 PHASE / _\ // JL \/ / _\ I 4L i \ /—�\ z a /—Lillo \ y._\ \ /! �\ 5 PHASE SIGNAL / J� ( I I JL \ 1 t / / Jl = \ € / J L \ / �\ PROJECT Y - \ SIGNAL I I /l 1 T I 1 r l a4 l SITE I 1 '* t / \SIGNAL 3 PHASE / 1 ^3 PHASE\�SIGNAL PHASE 1 / I -J^—i l Ir /1 p n ! 1 it / $ \ 6 PHASE \ \ PHASE \ 6 PHASE \ ilr ALL-WAY \ 5 PHASE —SIGNAL SIGNAL \`SIGNAL \--SIGNAL \_—STOP \— SIGNAL t — 'J (A'' KEYEXHIBIT 3 = APPROACH LANE ASSIGNMENT NO SCALE c-- = FUNCTIONS AS SEPARATE TURN LANE, THOUGH NOT STRIPED UNSCOTT • = TRAFFIC SIGNAL, a= STOP SIGN EXISTING ROADWAY CONDITIONS AND LAW& (XX) = POSTED SPEED OMIT(MPH) GREENSPAN 2 = NUMBER OF TRAVEL LANES INTERSECTION CONTROLS ENGINEERS D = DMDED, U = UNDMDED PACIFIC CITY, HUNTINGTON BEACH P = PARKING. NP = NO PARKING 15 1 — i 4?PJ / a4 \ \ // ij ( \ --- `y/' \ \ • tip PJ �5; i /// P, G? 92\ \9 131' O / \ 06'. r ck yG �`tp P / M�9 y 0 �G\ S c^� ec(.. \( y / `i, y0y `� \Cn4 \ o� c pl 13�,4 boy N // ,e, (,o \ o�� .6�' °Jy 1 V y°0 \tr. ✓�; �� ? �qo , , \(, 1 ( /— yam• r \( [\`\/ \ vG \ , ..., .,,& )\ _/ m '�\ \?� j—, . r^ ]'tiro / 1•`� P - / �/ SS \`_�/ PALM —�` AV \� 4r�'� -- n 1 ,5\ ,,,„, <0., 9 \ rt� \�� I /�► ]:.,]K IDS\ 110 ui : �A i � _,\( \ I )I 6/ I qar < °$' Hof�',�A��/e n \ 1265— �J, /1 ORANGE I ! 9 AV A 3tS N OLIVE r Err._ ( 6, iz/ / _// \ / ui / / A Al _` nor,`,m WALNUT ^ ®. \ //\ —/ // Y/ .- qN 6251 J �.�16� J A 6606 \ PACIFlr/�9E- -- L.547 ?em t"1 09 `9 � —7759 HW'( 1 1 J 1 7l'i / ab - PACIFIC ���� /T $�� IS J 11. 7 ) ( f09t—...... 'S �1~�,@,.� frri— 7-' .., —— . N \ - COAST ) 177 r t.. 12 a3.2L- / J�-2381 //gt \ 1 /S'o2 150\ g /RgmLn \ / '10 \ye_.,`1 \ o ! J I l ;IN i 1\gm— l I J `'n7 11\15' iI I J I —1)65 I= I J I -?e75 11 I ,-0 I! --`I PROJECT B 1\156 / N`—// 1 1564— / \ —/ 1 1J15�9f /IS / 1\1 1 rAg /I\ /1\ I�r / SITE I 8 \ / \ / \ / \ / \ ^// \ // / / N. / —/ 1/4 (b• NO SCALE EXHIBIT 5 LINSCO1T CREWENNSPM1 EXISTING PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES E N 01 N E E R S PACIFIC CITY, HUN11NGTON BEACH 17 LINSCOTT LAW & GREENSPAN 1- ENGINEERS EXISTING AREA TRAFFIC VOLUMES Existing AM and PM peak hour intersection traffic volumes for the thirty study intersections evaluated in this report were obtained from manual morning and evening peak period turning movement counts conducted by Transportation Studies Inc. (TSI) 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. Exhibits 4 and 5 summarize the existing AM peak hour and PM peak hour turning movement volumes for the thirty study intersections included in this traffic impact analysis,respectively. Existing average daily traffic(ADT)volumes on key roadway segments in the vicinity of the project are shown on Exhibit 6. The existing ADT volumes were obtained from recent (August 2001) traffic counts and the City's Traffic Flow Map. Appendix A contains the 2001/2002 detailed weekday manual peak period traffic count data for the thirty existing key study intersections, and the daily traffic counts for seven of the twenty-four existing key area roadway segments. The remaining seventeen roadway segments are based on the City's flow map. Appendix J contains the 2002 summer weekend manual peak period traffic counts for the seven key intersections identified by City staff. EXISTING INTERSECTION CONDITIONS Level of Service Method of Analysis Intersections HCM Method of Analysis (Unsignalized Intersections) In conformance with the City of Huntington Beach requirements, existing AM and PM peak hour operating conditions were evaluated using the Highway Capacity Methodology (HCM) for the four currently unsignalized intersections (1st Street/Atlanta Avenue; Huntington Street/Atlanta Avenue; Delaware Street/Atlanta Avenue; and Huntington Street/Pacific View Avenue). This methodology estimates the average total delay for each of the subject movements and determines the level of service for each movement. The overall average delay measured in seconds/vehicle, and level of service is then calculated for the entire intersection. The HCM delay value translates to a Level of Service (LOS) estimate, which is a relative measure of the intersection performance. The six qualitative categories of Level of Service have been defined along with the corresponding HCM delay value range, as shown in Table 3. Based on City criteria for unsignalized intersections, LOS D, which is an overall intersection delay of 35.0 seconds/vehicle or less, is the minimum acceptable intersection service level. 18 - - - iniii \ \ a% \ to. \92\\ 11 AP \ \ T 4iFy 14> \ \ `� 144: S die ` it, \ \ 4, 1: 5 ..f' 0 Az, 1\ N % ,, \„, Vse, V(\\ & 3° * 4 0 111 V41k \i'btn SOS \ \\ rho . PC� i Q ti0. o PALM AV " 'Y n ..1 1 11111*o !6 a • r J m , B % r o ORANGE gilt .� S} \f� Ilk i III \ 1 ,;� OLIVE ,,p� S n 0•'r "t '� 98,000 WALNUT ^ �E..A MILT In� b. �� i PACIFIC .. b __ PACff_IC VIEW__--'- HWf I. COAST _ 97,144 8°.W8 97 000 40,000 40.000 s z g E PROJECT g • z SITE s -r (O EXHIBIT 6 NO SCALE 11NSCOTT LAW& GREENSPAN EXISTING AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES ENGINEERS PACIFIC CITY, HUNTINGTON BEACH 19 LINSCOTT LAW & GREENSPAN ENGINEERS TABLE 3 LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA FOR UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS' Pacific City,Huntington Beach Level of Highway Capacity Manual Service(LOS) Delay Value(sec/veh) Level of Service Description A < 10.0 Little or no delay B _ > 10.0 and< 15.0 Short traffic delays 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 ICU Method of Analysis In conformance with City of Huntington Beach criteria, existing AM and PM peak hour operating conditions for the twenty existing key signalized intersections have been investigated according to the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Methodology. 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 signal green time, and thus capacity, required by existing or future traffic. The ICU methodology assumes uniform traffic distribution per intersection approach lane, and optimal signal operation. The ICU value translates to a Level of Service (LOS) condition, which is a relative measure of the performance of the intersection. As presented in Table 4, six Levels of Service have been defined ranging from A, (free flow with an ICU of 0.60 or less) to F (forced flow with an ICU in excess of 1.00). Level of Service is D (ICU of 0.81 to 0.90) is traditionally considered the maximum acceptable Level of Service for urban and suburban peak hour conditions. The City of Huntington Beach considers LOS D to be the maximum acceptable service level for signalized intersections. The ICU value is the sum of the critical volume to capacity ratios at an intersection, and is not intended to be indicative of the LOS of the individual turning movements ' Source:2000 Highway Capacity Manual. 20 L INSCOTT LAW & GREENSPAN ENGINEERS TABLE 4 L VEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA FOR SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Pacific City,Huntington Beach vel of Intersection Capacity Service(LOS) Utilization Value(V/C) Level of Service Description A 0.00-0.60 Free Flow; Very low delay, less than 10.0 seconds per vehicle. B 0.61 -0.70 Rural Design;Delay in the range of 10.1 -1 _ to 20 seconds per vehicle. C 0.71 -0.80 Urban Design;Delay in the range of 20.1 to 35 seconds per vehicle. • D 0.81 -0.90 Maximum Urban Design; Delay ranges from 35.1 to 55 seconds per vehicle. E 0.91 - 1.00 Capacity;Delay ranges from 55.1 to 80 o, seconds per vehicle. _ F >_ 1.01 Forced Flow; Delay in excess of 80 seconds per vehicles. The ICU alculations incorporate a lane capacity value of 1,700 vehicles per hour for left-turn, through aid right-turn lanes. A clearance adjusti ent factor of 0.05 was added to each Level of Service calculation to account for time lost due to yellow clearance intervals, as required by the Countyof Orange Congestion Management Plan. Please note that a clearance adjustment factor of g g g J 0.26 has been applied to the ICU for the intersection of PCH at Main Street due to the "all-red scramble walk"operation, in which all approaches of the intersection receive a red ball indication to allow pedestrians to cross in all directions, simultaneously. HCM Me od of Analysis(Signalized Intersections) In conformance with the Caltrans requirements, existing AM and PM peak hour operating condition for the nineteen Caltrans-operated signalized intersections were evaluated using the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) signalized methodology. Based on the HCM method of analysis, lvel of service for signalized intersections is defined in terms of control delay, which is a measure of driver discomfort, frustration, fuel consumption, and lost travel time. The delay experienc d by a motorist is made up of a number of factors that relate to control, geometries, traffic, a t incidents. 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, in the absence of geometric delay, in the absence of any incidents, and when there are no other vehicles on the road. 21 LINSCOTT LAW & GREENSPAN ENGINEERS In Chapter 16 of the HCM, only the portion of total delay attributed to the control facility is quantified. This delay is called control delay. Control delay includes initial deceleration delay, queue move-up time, stopped delay, and final acceleration delay. In contrast, in previous versions of the HCM(1994 and earlier), delay included only stopped.delay. Specifically, LOS criteria for traffic signals are stated in terms of the average control delay per vehicle. The six qualitative categories of Level of Service that have been defined along with the corresponding HCM control delay value range for signalized intersections are shown in Table 5. • TABLE 5 LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA FOR SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS2 Pacific City,Huntington Beach • Level of Service Control Delay Per Vehicle (LOS) (seconds/vehicle) . Level of Service Description This level of service occurs when progression is extremely A <10.0 favorable and most vehicles arrive during the green phase. Most vehicles do not stop at all.Short cycle lengths may also contribute to low delay. This level generally occurs with good progression,short B > 10.0 and<20.0 cycle lengths,or both.More vehicles stop than with LOS A, causing higher levels of average delay. Average traffic delays.These higher delays may result from fair progression,longer cycle lengths,or both.Individual C >20.0 and<35.0 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. Long traffic delays At level D,the influence of congestion becomes more noticeable.Longer delays may result from D >35.0 and<55.0 some combination of unfavorable progression,long cycle lengths,or high v/c ratios.Many vehicles stop,and the proportion of vehicles not stopping declines.Individual cycle failures are noticeable. Very long traffic delays This level is considered by many agencies(i.e.OC CMP)to be the limit of acceptable delay. E >55.0 and<80.0 These high delay values generally indicate poor progression,long cycle lengths,and high v/c ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences. 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 F >_80.0 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. 2 Source:Highway Capacity Manual 2000, Chapter 16(Signalized Intersections). 22 LINSCOTT LAW & GREENSPAN ENGINORS Roadway Links In conformance with the City's criteria, existing daily operating conditions for the twenty-four 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 2 4-hour traffic count data and the capacity based on the City's classification of each roadway. The roadway link capacities of each street classification, according to the City's General Plan and Orange County's MPAH, is presented in Table 6,except for the Expressway and Arterial Collector classifications, which have been developed in consultation with City staff. The Expressway capacities were based on a conservative assumption of 1,900 vehicles per hour per lane, which is consistent with a multi-lane highway with a free-flow speed of 45 mph (Exhibit 21-2 of the Highway Capacity Manual 2000), peak hour traffic at approximately 10% of daily traffic, and an 80% gree -time for PCH on the study link between Warner Avenue and Goldenwest Street. In addition, he Arterial Collector capacities were assumed to be approximately half the Primary Arterial capacities based on the 2-lane divided roadway relation to the 4-lane divided roadway. As presented fin Table 6, the roadway capacities, in Vehicles Per Day (VPD), are shown for the street classifications from SmartstreetlPrincipal on down,which apply to the key study roadway links. TABLE 6 ROADWAY LINK CAPACITIES Pacific City,Huntington Beach LOS A' LOSB LC S:C LOS:D LOSE :Number of Design. Design. Design Design i Design Facility Type ... .. :Lanes .... .Volume;.....:...„Volume .. Volume .. Volume . Volume. .. Smartstrelpt/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 Arierial 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 Seconcjj jArterial 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 �-I I 23 LINSCOTT LAW & GREENSPAN ENGINEERS j Existing Intersection Level of Service Results Table 7 summarizes the existing service level calculations for the thirty existing study intersections (two of the thirty-two 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 intersections of PCH at Warner Avenue, which currently operates at LOS F during the PM peak hour. Appendix D presents the Existing ICU/LOS and HCM/LOS calculations for each of the thirty existing key intersections for the AM and PM peak hour periods. Appendix J presents the existing summer weekend ICU/LOS calculations for peak midday hour at each of the seven existing key intersections for comparison purposes. Existing Roadway Link Level of Service Results Table 8 summarizes the existing service level calculations for the twenty-four existing study roadway links based on existing 24-hour traffic volumes and current roadway geometry. As shown, only two of the study links currently operates below the City's maximum V/C criteria of 0.81. Based on the V/C method of analysis, the roadway links of Pacific Coast Highway between Huntington Street/Beach Boulevard and Goldenwest Street/6th Street currently operate at LOS Eon a daily basis. The remaining analyzed links currently operate at LOS C or better. 24 LINSCOTT LAW & GREENSPAN ENGINES s TABLE7 E STING YEAR 2001/2002 PEAK HOUR LEVELS OF SERVICE Pacific City,Huntington Beach TIME CONTROL KEY INTERSECTION PERIOD TYPE ICU/HCM LOS 1. Goldenwest Street at AM 64)Traffic 0.623 B Pacific Coast Highway PM Signal 0.721 C 2. 17`s Street at AM 34)Traffic 0.580 A Pacific Coast Highway PM Signal 0.637 B 3. 9th Street at AM 34)Traffic 0.575 A Pacific Coast Highway PM Signal 0.589 A 4. fire Street at AM 54)Traffic 0.457 A Pacific Coast Highway ' PM Signal 0.504 A 5. Main Street at AM 24)Traffic 0.206 A 6th Street PM Signal 0.321 A i 6. Main Street at AM 54)Traffic 0.611 B Pacific Coast Highway PM Signal 0.697 B 7. 1st Street at AM All-Way 9.2 s/v A Atlanta Avenue PM Stop 10.8 s/v B 8. lst Street at AM 64)Traffic 0.452 A Pacific Coast Highway PM Signal 0.444 A 9. Huntington Street at AM All-Way 10.7 s/v B Atlanta Avenue PM Stop 18.6 s/v C 10. Delaware Street at AM Two-Way 3.2 s/v A Atlanta Avenue PM Stop 5.4 s/v A 11. Huntington Street at AM 54)Traffic 0.616 B Pacific Coast Highway PM Signal 0.571 A 12. Huntington Street at AM One-Way 3.0 s/v A _' Pacific View Avenue PM Stop 2.5 s/v A 13. Beach Boulevard at AM 84)Traffic 0.580 A Adams Avenue PM Signal 0.665 B _ 14. Beach Boulevard at AM 54)Traffic 0.317 A Indianapolis Avenue PM Signal 0.426 A 15. Beach Boulevard at AM 54)Traffic 0.349 A Atlanta Avenue PM Signal 0.552 A 16. Beach Boulevard at AM 84)Traffic 0.518 A Pacific Coast Highway PM Signal 0.684 A 17. Newland Street at AM 84)Traffic 0.329 A Atlanta Avenue PM Signal 0.464 A 18. Newland Street at AM 64)Traffic 0.567 A Pacific Coast Highway PM Signal 0.596 A 19. Magnolia Street at AM 64)Traffic 0.565_ A Pacific Coast Highway PM Signal 0.626 B 20. Magnolia Street at AM 84)Traffic 0.371 A Atlanta Avenue PM Signal 0.514 A -- Note: • s/v=seconds per vehicle(delay) • Bold VIC and LOS values indicate adverse service levels based on City LOS Standards 25 LINSCOTT ; LAW & _ GREENSPAN ENGINEERS TABLE 7 continued EXISTING YEAR 2001/2002 PEAK HOUR LEVELS OF SERVICE Pacific City,Huntington Beach TIME CONTROL KEY INTERSECTION PERIOD . TYPE ICU/HCM LOS 1 21. Pacific Coast Highway at AM . 34)Traffic 0.661 B Seapoint Avenue PM Signal 0.803 C , 22. Pacific Coast Highway at AM 84)Traffic 0.886 D Warner Avenue PM Signal 0.928 E - 23. Pacific Coast Highway at AM 84)Traffic 0.683 B Brookhurst Street PM Signal 0.729 C 24. Main Street at AM 54)Traffic 0.445 A Adams Avenue PM Signal 0.618 B 25. Main Street at AM 84)Traffic 0.210 A Utica Avenue PM Signal 0.308 A 26. Lake Street at AM 54)Traffic 0.512 A Adams Avenue PM Signal 0.588 A 27. Lake Street at AM 24)Traffic 0.328 A Yorktown Avenue PM Signal 0.451 A 28. Beach Boulevard at AM 84)Traffic 0.632 B Yorktown Avenue PM Signal 0.690 B 29. Beach Boulevard at AM 84)Traffic 0.624 B Garfield Avenue PM Signal 0.749 C _ 30. Beach Boulevard at Ellis AM 64)Traffic 0.557 A Avenue/Main Street PM Signal 0.669 B 31. 1st Street at Pacific View AM N/A N/A N/A Avenue(future) PM N/A N/A N/A 32. Beach Boulevard at Pacific AM N/A N/A ` N/A r' , View Avenue(future) PM N/A N/A N/A Note: • s/v=seconds per vehicle(delay) • Bold V/C and LOS values indicate adverse service levels based on City LOS Standards N:\2100\2002133Yables\2133 Updated Existing LOS.doc 26 i ; LINSCOTT LAW & G R E E N S PA N TABLE 8 ENGINEERS YEAR2001 EXISTING ROADWAY LINK CAPACITY ANALYSIS SUMMARY Pacific City,Huntington Beach P cific Coast Highway 60,800 4 42,000 0.691 B Warner Ave to Seapointe Ave Pacific Coast Highway 60,800 4 36,000 0.592 A Sapointe Ave to Goldenwest St P'cific 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 1st Street P cific Coast Highway 56,300 6 37,545 0.667 B 1 t Street to Huntington Street Piacific Coast Highway 37,500 4 37,000 0.987 E Iuntington Street to Beach Blvd Pacificll Coast Highway 56,300 6 40,000 0.710 C each Blvd to Newland Street Piacific Coast Highway 56,300 6 40,000 0.710 C Magnolia St to Brookhurst St _ -' each Boulevard 75,100 6 13,000 0.173 A EiCH to Atlanta Ave each Boulevard 75,100 6 21,000 0.280 A itlanta 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 _ ?Th tlanta Avenue 32,000 4 16,000 0.500 A each Blvd to Delaware St 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 - 1st Street 12,500 2 5,979 0.478 A Grange Ave to Pacific Coast Highway . Iuntington 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 Kahn Ave to Adams Ave c:\1921\Tables\link.xls 27 L INSCOTT LAW & TABLE 8 continued GREENSPAN ENGINEERS YEAR2001 EXISTING ROADWAY LINK CAPACITY ANALYSIS SUMMARY Pacific City,Huntington Beach ..:.....:•:v:rvv•.�::•nvhy{::m:n:�:.v::.y::.:?••?..}:::;q}}.,..,....•W}J':i::::�:}•p;:.v:i.JJw:'f+viJ�:F•:4J}}JJy:-•}-/:y +!?•i::i}•::::.:�::.iY:i.i}}:::. v...,f..J...v::i.,}n.•}'vi.:}:--:?p"::!i: \:iiv\-+A:•.{:?{+:•?:..,?;+F? ...,.;rr:.:v , f. r+ii{,'FJS�':'Y' ::?:i :::}i ..: h.r..r::::--• 4.::... k....... \.....}::.:.?:J+•t?/.;.:;:. ..iJ:?;{.;:.:...1.?+rr}:f�f f??'� :�}.•..+ A?:N}'i ii;:.'y.. '.? •:.:::.. •}•}?..:Sr•.. i'•f'i?'fYr%�•vX::J.r:i}. :�jf�:..•:S'f �y_7::::££:J :-h•::}•.:v; �?:\;:::\:•?-\;v'l•\.,^.;}}}.v::}.::.} 8:�::rr :�:fn:: :f?v:,lF i?+�'?R r-'}T!ti::: M•.. ':• :.,,�:•,:..,. ..w:.}?.u::...:.•.::.::. :.!..,'.,..�,•�•.,.�'..�:. •:.?r �9??:^•}::•::•::::::..f.'.`•:.: .+ram•:?-. • ii.J:.v��•}: •}\:::::.:vv' C+/$:•}::.•, ..:.'kf}`�rr??;'::•} S i'f,.? r• :v v.U+i.vvv:•.•ri}::.:::::. }}J: .+pv::.}:i::i. •?:ti\i:...\::�n:w • :..0 \ h;•,a[.::1.;'{'+:�•i.::.:.. fi:: % ti:,':..J.v.} .:v.v::v.i+::::::}:::•::.r::::4.}:::r 1Y. 1NTNi„ ,? i:.iMf�Wl�....:.r •? �j}iJ:ifl(�T/}ri'n?.::}}:;,.,•.TF.r.,•••,.•.'•.:::,;.?_ 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 B Beach Blvd to Newland St Indianapolis Avenue 25,000 4 7,000 0.280 A Beach Blvd to Newland St Atlanta Avenue 25,000 4 16,000 0.640 B Beach Blvd to Newland St Pacific View(future with project) — -- -- -- -- I 1st Street to Huntington Street Bold V/C and LOS values indicate adverse service levels based on City LOS standards. c:11921\Tables\link.xls 28 , LINSCOTT LAW & GREENSPAN ENGINEERS TRAFFIC FORECASTING METHODOLOGY In order to estimate the potential traffic impacts of the proposed Pacific City development, a multi-step �)1 rocess has been utilized. The first step is traffic generation, which estimates the total arriving anti departing traffic at the site on a peak hour and daily basis. The traffic generation potential of the site is estimated by applying the appropriate vehicle trip generation equations and/or rates to the'proposed land use. The secon step of the evaluation process is traffic distribution, which identifies the expected origins and destinations of inbound and outbound project traffic. These origins and destinations are based on a fisting and expected future demographics, housing, shopping opportunities, as well as travel patte in the area. The third step is traffic assignment, which involves the allocation of the project tr. n c generation estimates to area streets and intersections. Traffic assignment is typically based on minimi2ation of travel time, which may or may not involve the shortest route, depending on prevailing operating conditions and travel speeds. Traffic distribution patterns are indicated by general percentage orientation, while traffic assignment is based on specific project volume forecasts along key roadways and on key intersection movements. With the forecasting process complete and project traffic assignments developed, the impact of the project is evaluated by comparing the operational conditions at key intersections and roadway links, with and vwithout project-related traffic. The need for site-specific and/or cumulative local area traffic improvements can then be evaluated. 29 LINSCOTT LAW & GREENSPAN ENGINEERS PROJECT TRAFFIC CHARACTERISTICS Traffic generation is expressed in vehicle trip ends, defined as one-way vehicular movements,either entering or exiting the generating land use. Generation factors and equations used in the traffic -- forecasting procedure are found in the Sixth Edition of Trip Generation, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) [Washington D.C., 1997]. Table 9 summarizes the trip generation rates used in forecasting the impact of the Pacific City project. Pacific City Project Traffic Generation As stated previously, the Pacific City project consists of approximately 240,000 SF of office/retail/restaurant use, a 400-room hospitality component (hotel/vacation ownership interval), and a surf museum, and 516 residential condominiums. More specifically, the 240,000 SF will consist of 125,000 SF of retail/commercial use, 60,000 SF of office space, 50,000 SF of restaurant use, and a 5,000 SF international surf museum. Table 10 presents the forecast daily, AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes on a "typical" weekday for the proposed project. An internal trip reduction and mode-shift reduction was applied to the traffic generation forecast to account for the trip interaction between the hotel, restaurant, commercial/retail, office, existing/proposed residential, and beach/recreational uses. Appendix C contains the Trip Reduction Flow Diagram, which graphically presents the trip interaction between the proposed uses within the project(internal capture) and the trip interaction between the project uses and the beach and downtown areas (mode- shift). As presented on the Trip Reduction Flow Diagram, the retail/commercial and hotel uses present the greatest trip reduction potential, primarily due the project's proximity to the beach and the type of retail/commercial uses,such as restaurants and specialty retail shops. As presented in Table 10, the proposed Pacific City project has a trip generation potential of 12,002 daily trips, of which 628 trips (345 inbound, 283 outbound) are produced in the AM peak hour and 1,051 trips(505 inbound, 546 outbound)are generated in the PM 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 project traffic distribution pattern was based primarily on a "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. The model considers land use patterns and the roadway network, predicts normal travel patterns such as home to work, home to shopping, etc., loads these trips onto the roadway network, and predicts the resulting traffic volume. The traffic model output was utilized to determine the specific project distribution percentages at the study intersections and roadway links based on the PM peak period traffic model volume data. 30 LINSCOTT LAW & GREENSPAN ENGINEERS TABLE 9 P OJECT TRAFFIC GENERATION RATES/EQUATIONS' Pacific City,Huntington Beach Independent Tithe Percent Percent ITE Land Use Code _ Variable Period. Equations . . :;Entering Exiting • 230: Residential TEIDwelling Daily Ln(T)=0.85 Ln(X)+2.564 50% 50% ownouse Unit- PM Peak Ln(T)=0.79 Ln(X)+0.298 17% 83% m Condomlum/T PM Peak Ln(T)=0.827 Ln(X)+0.309 67% 33% Daily Ln(T)=0.768 Ln(X)+3.654 50% 50% • 710: General Office TE/1000 SF AM Peak Ln(T)=0.797 Ln(X)+ 1.558 88% 12% PM Peak T= 1.121(X)+ 79.295 17% 83% Daily Ln(T)=0.643 Ln(X)+5.866 50% 50% • 820: Shopping Centir TE/1000 SF AM Peak Ln(T)=0.596 Ln(X)+2.329 61% 39% PM Peak Ln(T)=0.660 Ln(X)+3.403 48% 52% Daily T=8.946(X)—368.112 50% 50% • 310: Hotel TE/Room AM Peak Ln(T)= 1.240 Ln(X)— 1.998 61% 39% PM Peak Ln(T)= 1.212 Ln(X)— 1.763 . 53% 47% Source:Trip Generation,6th Edition,Institute of Transportation Engineers(ITE),Washington,D.C.(1997). Revised:March 5,2003 31 LINSCOTT LAW & GREENSPAN ENGINEERS TABLE 10 • PROJECT TRAFFIC GENERATION FORECAST Pacific City,Huntington Beach AM Peak Hour PM 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%/15%) -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%/10%/10%) -134 -11 -1 -12 -3 -12 -15 Mode Shift(10%/5%/5%) -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%/12%/8%) -782 -16 -11 -27 -35 -38 -73 Mode Shift(20%/10%/25%) -1,954 -14 -99 -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%/10%/15%) -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 Note: • Internal Capture and Mode Shift values are based on the Trip Reduction Flow Diagram contained in Appendix C • (X%/Y%/Z%)=Daily/AM Peak/PM Peak) Revised:March 5,2003 32 LINSCOTT LAW & GREENSPAN ENGINE RS )_, Exhibit 7 identifies the anticipated traffic distribution and assignment pattern for the Retail/Restaµrant/Office portion of the Pacific City project. A significant percentage of the RetaiWResta lurant/Office project-related traffic is expected to use Beach Boulevard, Pacific Coast Highway, and Atlanta Avenue (35 percent on Pacific Coast Highway, 26 percent on Beach Boulevard 41d 19 percent on Atlanta Avenue). An additional 15 percent is expected to use Main Street and L e Street. Exhibit 7B 'dentifies the anticipated traffic distribution and assignment pattern for the Residential portion of the Pacific City project. A significant percentage of the Residential project-related traffic is expected to use Beach Boulevard, Pacific Coast Highway, and Atlanta Avenue (45 percent on Pacific Co. t Highway, 35 percent on Beach Boulevard and 32 percent on Atlanta Avenue). An additional percent is expected to use Main Street. The percentage of traffic using the five residential • 'veway access locations was determined based on the parking supply accessible by each drive ay. In addition, it was assumed that visitor traffic consists of 7% of the peak hour inbound tr. is and the peak visitor traffic was assumed to be twice the PM peak hour visitor traffic volume. Exhibit 7C identifies the anticipated traffic distribution and assignment pattern for the Hospitality component portion of the Pacific City project. A significant percentage of the anticipated traffic distribution and assignment pattern for the project-related traffic is expected to use Beach Boulevard, 'acific Coast Highway, and Atlanta Avenue (50 percent on Pacific Coast Highway, 45 percent on each Boulevard and 5 percent on Atlanta Avenue). The anticip ted weekday AM and PM peak hour project traffic volumes associated with Pacific City are present d in Exhibits 8 and 9, respectively. The peak hour traffic volumes generated by the proposed p oject reflect the traffic distribution characteristics shown in Exhibits 7A, 7B, and 7C and the peak h6ur traffic generation forecast presented in Table 11. Exhibits 8 and 9 also show the expected peak hour traffic volumes at the nine of the ten project driveways. Exhibit 10 presents the added daily project traffic assignments on the key roadway links in the study area. As presented in Exhibit 10, Pacific View Avenue is anticipated to carry the greatest amount of project traffic at 7,041 vehicles per day(VPD). 33 > to r m v/9x .70x 420x ^ 1 //i 0,, I 19% L20x b42x (, <15% M 18x>•I 20x► ♦I 1 I /,Xi,I ./ <lA V4 I A lox N tex J iox► R \ / V. 'J.' I ;' A \�_�/ ti+ I i , r79s 18 V �lex7 t• ENLARGED PARTIAL PLAN t4 NOT TO SCALE \419\ Off.}• 0r, 09g7,F.p, y9\ S6 yG �1PP 0 ��0 �"pJ� d? v /\^` 146 10" \ -IL %Z'p! a;�I-- Yyo hi), V n �ii �_i� I peg \ o �'o{ liSio, ' '6+I ��� `4 // p n PALM AV '�1/p �+ / '�'J , 7 • 8 4. 4,,c,.,, , to; rn '0.� t / =t G, �/ a9 , < O ►+4/ J? ri 0 P ORANGE b11 f2� 8 4E112*% 1 1111.. mAV EEgm c 3 OLIVE _ - PE©.a n . 1 fl _ z n J'�, ski` WALNUT ^ . VJ „ 412x 12x> •12 ► PACIFC N �tx 1 _ --PACIFIC NEW__-�5*I��`<27x L 424x L <23% HWY 5s <17� 8 1. -K J .17x — COAST V ‘ 1%4 17R► g 17 > 18X> 18x> 3% 24x► 23x► ?/ —T -- 27%r v C —L SEE ENLARGED .71 /,J -mM\ /,J s\ € aW- 1�� ;rz 2x PARTIAL PLAN ABOVE g \12X> / \15%> / _ �\ / PROJECT ---- SITE \ -- \ / ' \ KEY 1 <XXX= INBOUND PERCENTAGE EXHIBIT 7A NO SCALE XXX= OUTBOUND PERCENTAGE UNSCO1T PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION PATTERN GGREESPAN RETAIL/RESTAURANT/OFFICE ENGINEERS PACIFIC CITY, HUNTINGTON BEACH 34 -- - - P, 54 1 x no .Sx tag! ' 16x In 1 /, m� I iJ A20X j4, -tox <IOx <1oxI e I /. e4 a� V I tax► 1sxA 14 er I \ 's;/ 0 °� I c K J3A V♦A .20X, JI ENLARGED PARTIAL PLAN 0 NOT TO SCALE 09 % \J19\ p�S p % & f� P %/e... d. 1. 0� JV♦s O( \-9\\y\ {p 02��t JJrd G /—1\ 1 It* I♦`tom GVry+i '\ P \ ���JJJ A I 4 V Viii) /N. ,..• A p[� \ \ 8 NA 4 // ,+ PALM AV N / V ♦ , '2%J s. *6,1 1y4 ,`94,I,I �. I VpMI..... I _ INAllik W 0 I 4 / ( \ rt 13 ORANGE T"' `rl // /gyp S� \ 3g 12 OLIVE �r.� _- LP,. 1 v l. 'o'% lox N WALNUT $ NEE' k 1//' V \1LP / FA „ s lox .20x .20 .120X PACIFIC - . --PACIFIC VIEW__-___o}I — K <30% NWT l' <25% 20%> 20X> .lox 1 _�-- <31% L G30x 5x� o 20x> .lox /..,x .2ox / — I COAST �x� 30x► ` zox> 20% 20x> L --� 31xr 25%► a _ _ Sox r // P o / .2z\ SEE ENLARGED/ = 3 / G4Z PARTIAL PLAN ABOVE 2R>€ a I\52 J N a / PROJECT N. // SITE Ilia EXHIBIT 7B NO SCALE <xx%= INBOUND PERCENTAGE XXX= OUTBOUND PERCENTAGE LINSCO1T LAW& PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION PATTERN GREENSPAN RESIDENTIAL ENGINEERS PACIFIC CITY, HUNTINGTON BEACH 35 i—'_ I j2� h <42%1 / 9+ // �C4. � i• 2oc4 AL-♦INN 37L S.I r I . ;r3oz J L0z/• J ENLARGED PARTIAL PLAN +� r, NOT TO SCALE 1. S. `" ii& 4 yG�y TPF 4\ 0 y 0 441 • IP G y. �ti 40 PALM AV tV.\ ♦ n 4 .._ c .., a 9 et I A` 9 2�Q c4i ORANGE t � , 3j. 3 g'o �l LIVE t� n ItainitFA 20z WALNUT �207[ �2, Ern V 20% 20x> �2Ux PACIFIC �20% PACIFlC VIEW_=�4�41 <30x MY < 207C> 20%> ��'1.�� I COAST <307L 30x► 30% 20%> 20%> __ __ _ 30%P. 301[ 20x> 30% ] i o SEE ENLARGED • w PARTIAL PLAN ABOVE 8 € a PROJECT s SITE gJ (4 EXHIBIT 7C <XXx= INBOUND PERCENTAGE NO SCALE �XXX= OUTBOUND PERCENTAGE �W&TT PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION PATTERN ' GR SPAN • HOTEL EN 0 I N E E N S PACIFIC CITY, HUNTINGTON BEACH l 36 - -- , 4 4.- r 7 ......./..• % \ ..--- ....%.3 A r----- __ • \ e 19f / _ o" / i ( I I— \ o • ° e 1 / j1 L j' t76 / - / I 1I. •4 I•1 •I 0, / 404, Iss2 so • ( 4'04_ IF / o 4, 2 61, de 1.\ --•\e;o '6> / 4 . 0 L— ...I 45 , de • 1. •„•-• ENLARGED PARTIAL PLAN NOT TO SCALE -09-‘ CY ...As .i.Ks.'No;ri .....7,0,,-;N:1' t• c) ++ / V ., •..f. 0 . . o co ....• .b_ '‘‘'. / ( \ 0 , o k \ / /( ( 1 6 • -.4 ttl P, I0 L_ 4,4,4, . ‘0,.. __.......... \ i -- •s› PALM — —• —.... AV ) 0) °I. -7 . 6 ..... % i o / 4 •?c .5. 1 `5j\ \ \I 9. ORANGE 4kk' I( s3--la /lk / WALNUT n PACIFIC AV glE1111 % \ , / z ,r,s, ....... / .......... ..-- --- \ / EAPP_Cdig-Vi.---"-- cc --- .L.L s--15 cassr ) s( •-• ssoo 79 ) 0 - 77 jr- -g VIVN Yr 0 69—-oo 5 t 1 /ife. .'\---"' , .2"•,// i L'...--_I, 1 /._-_-_j_isa-r37,,, `\ / 1... , \---/-0.0 1/4-, \ PROJECT _50 ‘ i 59— /1( ) ,/ / )1 15 i= I J —o il Ill•,ss il )1 ,----i 1 SITE R 1 \ ' I °-' lit / I 0___ it il 1r II 7f- a / \ sg // ...._., \ 63— // N--.-.-''. 0-s / \ ('-‘ / \ 1 / / SEE ENLARGED 8 \. .... .... ..... -... ..... N........___...... ••• ....- •••• _...- PARTIAL PLAN ABOVE ' — EXHIBIT 8 NO SCALE LINSGOTT LAW& AM PEAK HOUR PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES GREENSPAN ENGINEERS PACIFIC CITY, HUNTINGTON BEACH 3 7 0 / i°1P \ _ �'� °°n V 1 ° d°I 1 4 'do3 / io \•:: I 1 'Q O� // \�`� / N ee► 4 1. dd, /// 0 i,,j, ♦3 i1 ♦iso / 5 I ♦I 6I ♦I v ° (° tiG ry / y_ Z 4 o•) 1,00 oy / , , • y L— J / ono Ad." � �° dd Or yqy_ 0 ENLARGED PARTIAL PLAN �O'�P ° \e�0 O °,,o NOT TO SCALE 1 ° g dd I t \- i/ PALM -. AV --//64 _ - 131. ` --. \o° /—�\ I iI r0 I /�� \ T a �_ /hoo L 6 \ m� \ o-°J- bS / d? I )sl \J j 9 _� gO ORANGE AV �. )I r-2 I h °-, / k".cf° E. ,t� 9 OLIVE II 10J- id / ���/-i \- / c5i t AV rFI r I\ 15"- / / / n L 0 `° WALNUT n t®. \ 1, •�\��/ / Y/ `0 _ °� i J I t ;G J 1 o O6 AV i \ r PACIFlCMEY�-� �-0 ° -126 „Vif q 0 a. PACIFIC --� -- / ` q�� —o z I•�o/1 7� ° I( 1 'dam m--a-� Y — �- �.��. \ \ ti i COAST ) 1Yiii: 'bb� _1' 107- 2 //--- \ // / / / o \ \ °� o i /000. L1s•( 1 Jm-66 1 / J�—m1 1 /000LO \ € /so L0 \ /ah= ` \ Y00jL° \ PROJECT I l I r-o I 1 65- l 1 J l u_ \I I\ 94- / / J 1 r-o I= I j i —o II ICU r,m 11 l 1 7-It ► SITE 8 1 I \N. i/ 1 B1— / __._,/ 1 si' Us / I 0--- / /I Ti'I t°— d.0 I S \ _ \ 01 \ \ ss� SEE ENLARGED \`_// \N. // \ // \`_// \`_-/ \`_// PARTIAL PLAN ABOVE I 1 (411 EXHIBIT 9 No SCALE LAW&TT GREENSPAN PM PEAK HOUR PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES ENGINEERS PACIFIC CITY. HUNTINGTON BEACH \--_ I 38 i E �J 9 09$ \ \ r, S\Sefq.• OQS c /Q' �y Y \ 2\ sum AS 1 ii4k*ikl: \\O 4%1 ok �. \�\y ,,,,.. y ,( 4 \'''P i...7::(.3 e \ \ : T. 6y3 PALM AV m y E 's..' • t tieP 9 1111 i ORANGE , /Z� �a9AV 2'LoOWEN AV �. ^ 86 —_ ____IL �'y ,786 WALNUT ^- ��. ,`l? v PACIFIC -.. 7.041 PACIFIC VIEW_ CO ST 9,198 2,170 S 822 9,990 7 0z re 0 � a PROJECT s _' SITE 's I0 - EXHIBIT 10 NO SCALE UNSCOTT LAW GGREEENSPAN AVERAGE DAILY PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES ENGINEERS PACIFIC CITY, HUNTINGTON BEACH 39 LINSCOTT LAW & GREENSPAN ENGINEERS 2008 TRAFFIC CONDITIONS 2008 Background Traffic Conditions Ambient Traffic I Horizon year background traffic growth estimates have been calculated using ambient growth factors. The ambient traffic growth factor is intended to include unknown and future related 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 has been calculated at one percent(1.0%)per year. Applied to existing 2001 traffic volumes results in a seven percent (7%) growth in existing volumes at the thirty-two key study intersections and twenty-four key roadway segments to horizon year 2008. Related Projects Traffic Characteristics Based on information provided by 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. A list of the fourteen potential related projects is provided below with an explanation of their status and traffic application within this analysis. Of the fourteen potential related projects, four have been identified as having significant traffic generation potential. Information regarding the four related projects have been compiled from either previously prepared traffic studies or information provided by the City and reflect the status of the related projects at the time the traffic counts were conducted. The four projects are The Strand at 5th Street&PCH,The Waterfront Ocean - Grand Hyatt Resort and Residential development, The Beachside project at Atlanta Avenue and Beach Boulevard and The Boardwalk project at Goldenwest Street and Palm Avenue. 1. AES Huntington Beach Generating Plant (located immediately southwest of the proposed project area).Accounted for in ambient growth traffic. 2. Ocean Grand Hyatt Resort (519 hotel rooms and 17,000 SF of conference area, located at Beach Boulevard and Pacific Coast Highway).Included in traffic impact analysis. 3. Waterfront Residential Development (184-unit residential development located at Beach Boulev rd_and PCH, adjacent to the Ocean Grand Resort project and a 300-room hotel to be constrticted after 2008)Residential component included in traffic impact analysis. 4. The Strand (130 room hotel plus 135,000 SF of retail, restaurant, and entertainment located at Main Street and Pacific Coast Highway).Included in traffic impact analysis. 5. Magnolia Pacific Specific Plan, a.k.a. Ascon/Nesi Landfill (specific plan allowing 502 dwelling units on 40 acres located southwest corner of Hamilton Ave and Magnolia Street. To be completed after Pacific City. 6. Orange Coast River Park (passive park in the planning stages which extends east from the AES Huntington Beach Generating Plant through Costa Mesa and Newport Beach.) Accounted for in ambient growth traffic. 40 I LINSCOTT LAW & GREENSPAN ENGINEERS 7. Bea hside (86 detached single-family residential condominiums located on the northeast corner of Beach Boulevard and Atlanta Avenue.Included in traffic impact analysis. 1 8. Poseidon Desalination Plant (40 MGD desalination facility proposed behind AES facility). Accounted for in ambient growth traffic. 9. Seac�lif Village (260,000 SF of commercial use on Yorktown between Goldenwest Street and ain Street).Almost completely occupied, remaining traffic accounted for in ambient gro h traffic. 10. Peninsula Marketplace (95,000 SF commercial center near completion and is located on the sou west corner of Goldenwest Street and Garfield Avenue.)Near Completion 11. Wal art (100,000 SF commercial building under construction at the intersection of Talbert Ave ue and Beach Boulevard).Accounted for in ambient growth traffic. 12. Lo e's Hardware (100,000 SF building/garden center located east of Beach Boulevard on Wainer Avenue).Accounted for in ambient growth traffic. 13. W green's (15,000 SF commercial building under construction at the intersection of Beach Bo levard and Yorktown Avenue).Accounted for in ambient growth traffic. 14. The Boardwalk (188 single family, 65 multifamily, 3.5 ac. Neighborhood park at Gol enwest and Palm).Included in traffic impact analysis. Table 11 rovides a summary of the four related projects in the City of Huntington Beach along with corresponding forecast peak hour and daily traffic volumes. As presented in Table 11, total forecast relll�ated traffic generation is estimated at 19,882 two-way daily trips with 1,303 AM peak hour trips (545 inbound, 758 outbound) and 1,781, PM peak hour trips (1,037 inbound, 744 outbound). The traffic generation forecast for the related projects are based on prior approved traffic studies. . Exhibits 11 and 12 present the AM and PM peak hour background traffic volumes (existing traffic plus ambient growth traffic plus related project traffic) at the thirty-two key study intersections for project bui dout Year 2008,respectively. , I Exhibit 1 presents the Year 2008 background daily traffic volumes on the twenty-four key area roadways vrithin the project vicinity. 2008 Bac 17 round Plus Pacific City Project Traffic Exhibits 14 and 15 illustrate Year 2008 forecast AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes with the inclusion f the trips generated by Pacific City project. Exhibit 16 presents Year 2008 forecast average I.ly traffic volumes with the inclusion of the trips generated by Pacific City project. 41 LINSCOTT LAW & GREENSPAN ENGINEERS TABLE 11 RELATED PROJECTS TRAFFIC GENERATION FORECAST1 _ Pacific City,Huntington Beach Daily : AM Peak.Hour PM 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 $ Y • 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. 2 Source: The Strand Traffic Impact Study,Prepared by LSA Associates(January 2002) 3 Source: Waterfront Ocean Grand Resort Traffic Impact Study,Prepared by LSA Associates(July 2, 1998) 4 Source:Area 4B Conceptual Master Plan and PLC Traffic Impact Study,Prepared by LSA Associates(March 8, 1999) r 1 v r \ / <,` `0. \ tP \ 1- / .0 1 �,,y'ate / 16 \y) \ �^ / ' y `� // 0 \99\ / \ i 41 y `s5*,, 0 *J 'r pPI t(\( G�+ IF // ,• c'yo \�2 / 1. 9,� 1i Ni''' s'r / /(� \ 4 / r 9 \10� \ S 4 \ ) ji.,,,, / --___ 4 i \ _ / PALM N. ../ `AV 11)\,, 4 � --- 1 a �� 13 �\(� /'�\ 1 JI r+ 1 /tea\ \ \1 '9 I ORANGE AV r. _ `�I J I ss I \°�` / — k � �`#,I 2 9 oLnrEk in I--to-, 44 I / — \_ fty L tt WALNUT n .. \ \ / Y _ y �}q 10 i J I( i-o Lf7--157E MEI e / PACIFlC/VIE_ML����c, •'250 $�`51 ilk ` MW J 1 N �� '� $'�i� Kr Np11-lAC Y PACIFIC _— ���► (�\ \ i/T—COAST )‘� 11 )tft 4 xS52 1`. xx605- I( 8 1 �� 1i /1 °, /i_�\ ��/ //gym 8`tw // / o r \ \\ tea- 1JJ° x � // BA Y —�/ -u2e\1--/--/, z a -,--1-., )'—�� /—�\ f, /IA '-m(/1 J �+ I /xn \\ I J� �44 1 /„as`s5\ € /c� ,.-55se\ / E.`0\y."�`0 \ PROJECT I J I l r-ii50 11 int- II J L L fto 11\1e 14 k I ( J 1 —119I ix 1 J I --+7 1 I I xs IL J 11�� 1 SITE ' I\1H 1 \\ _// 1�1917- / \ _// I\1sx0- ld j/ 1\�s' N+ / /1\ /1\ 1 1 � S ` i/ \� // \�_/ \�_/ Nam_/ Nam_/ `, / CA EXHIBIT 11 NO SCALE LINSCO1T LAW At 2008 AM PEAK HOUR BACKGROUND TRAFFIC VOLUMES GRE PAN PACIFIC CITY, HUNTINGTON BEACH ENGINEERS 43 / \ A I. / .;‘,sil _ — `� \ ,�^ / ' y Sr y i,c.%) m r \ 4% ' ,4f-' / V. ? \\9\ .110 \ pea e oy / 'A\ �ft, ly \F1, 41,, Vz \ e CP' Nip ....;,0,,,, 419 0 ...., <„, . .-\ 418 / ....X•Pt, \ /\t32/0 C\ \ 3'c it h._• 1,Cr i ,r.". ,( , 1 -) 4_/1, I --` �Y' N // ,td �' 1 \\ •.` // P __— `` • 0 / �J�i. (\c 3 n �\ I ,�-f1\t>a �� I JI^r8 1 /, \ a c tL ORANGE I '``,"� /oAP- 40 \ d' \ 1483- IL / I_ �_) ��/ 9 t3 AV r. J I r boo 1 ). // — T 4StiY / 9 OLIVE I--�y Ak I ,� \,_ N. In 0 c AV "MEM \ / / // 2 SgR `2A �o� Isa WALNUT N. = \ /\ / / Y239 _ ee1 n !l ie�, J —o2es AV a®.� \ - / -- PACIFlCMEYL-���' ` en a�`_2w1 ff `y 8 Nwr YI " 8 "J—. 77� 1/ ► PACIFIC , - �-- - /T ,,\�.. —e03 J I e I ,� 1917-I88 l- ✓ \ 111�, \ \ i COA.Sf ) 1 ! 14 -' 1249- .o• o / / // .. Z N 1244- \� 1438 �.h ,ss Ism 4-. c 12-5 t 10-5 \ /// `� se, �_� %jx.! \��^^ _ /—l\ Y__\` /lam\ a /a 1ewtK / tJ^—ten I / ��` \ 1 1{ r I /__� NI\ / �� n \ / go` \ y 1 \ I J I l 12 1 1 1242- // J 1p9u 1 \MN- 113 / / J 1 re I x / J 1 r zee I/ 1 r- it J I ;i�i I PROJECT 8 I\I5I I \\�_// 1 1e2o- / _// 11s's7J )blI I tls3 s4 I1 I 11 213t ,1.0 / SITE 122 o / \ / \ 0-., / •\ 141 / \ / \ 48-1�' -/ i 14\ EXHIBIT 12 NO SCALE IJNSCO1T GUREEEWNSPAN 2008 PM PEAK HOUR BACKGROUND TRAFFIC VOLUMES ENGINEER s PACIFIC CITY, HUNTINGTON BEACH 44 S $a \\ \ 'PG IA GA, p, S d In �z Ate IIIIIII:*'%' � y Y\ ` 1\11 I .1\IIII, 74 \% • II4 ...53.,, O� ti�v' o PALM AV 'I' m ,� N Al" r 1*Aqchi ORANGE �. /tj,:' `I}• \�.4 9- y OL1VE ©. 91•AV r, 13.�a 987Q4Fa _ WALNUT ^ V :Ell 12 .of 0`5, till R PACIFIC �__ ____ PACIFIC VIEW__--' -IN 8 COAST _ _42,911 I - - -48,812 48,477 a z 43,810 43,498 E n � PROJECT s • _' SITE 0 N C r 1 j EXHIBIT 13 NO SCALE LINSCO LAW&1 . GREEIVSPANI 2008 AVERAGE DAILY BACKGROUND TRAFFIC VOLUMES ENGINEERS PACIFIC CITY, HUNTINGTON BEACH 45 �-:‘ �� ♦;r' ' .29" \ Of // \` / "y �, ♦�^ /// 0G \ 9y\ / \ \ bG O�'1$ 0 / / , \ \Gp♦T \ SG"is�{ TPF fit, ye ) 't - ° n S%I i�� �J��� / .tip♦� \ )\ sn. \ �� ♦�1, ci ) .ice♦6 .^ ', \( s� / ' I} boa \ 1. 7gi \ 6 // PALM ` S} • 44 / >o>'�>� \( 1 i AV \� 1 0 �\ r o —A i �i, / ^—�\ \ Qys' 3 \.off / \ 1 Jes✓r1 1 d5. i'` \ 1 _��` _� ORANGE AV r. I ‹r'I l J 1',- \I m� // k--42 .46/ II _ y v ar J>, \ 64.- / / / n i( L 3 'em L a6 WALNUT - \ /\` / / / 7 s'.. • PACIFIC --�- -- PACT!/VIEV----�.`! '-260 = 015 1~j . —„I4 HWY J 1 N 4 1 o�� 'd/� 1557—Id Y —— �� \ / COAST �)`� I1 J I 1/ ZI 1 f 8 / / ... \ \ 12 2I IL 2654—1 267� c / `\ / `p :_j_1, l J ;H / \ z a / \ y—�\� /— \ n/Aq sao� / 1a 15uI I 1 1 /AeS ss\ z /�Ra L \ /ER,. ` \ >'or.,L o \I J l l r-n 1 1 1672— l I _ I' 189i— 1 4- l I J I 1246 I= I )I r i70/48 I I I lb,-m I/ J I -its 1 PROJECT 8 1 1564— / \\ // 1 Imo— / \\� // 1 15 J Ilk/ I 1W� 1.} 1 I At 11 i,st !'L I SITE I 8 \\'1 / \ / — \ 0-, / \ 1�ti�^/ \ _ / \ 751 -/ .- V — — — s. l NO SCALE NO 14 UN a&� GREENSPAN 2008 AM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES WITH PROJECT TRAFFIC ENGINEERS PACIFIC CITY, HUNTINGTON BEACH 46 - I -- i / 1 e • mq \ \ / .r 4,� \ \ \�' !jr�}r� I — v. ' )�� 3�4° / /5•�` \"..\ `.i 6. mow,,,/// q �t13 A S fl VA firs 14. -1/4e. •:‘ •S: s *{P.t_ .( „,,,,, , \(, _ ....._437..., :,\,,,, ,dr„,. , \ e9 , 6 A --——/ PALM ---, AV ‘11\,-6i'4G$ ut - - Al1 1V --'�, �\(,b /— J I r s 9x 1 /3 \ \ 9 'a t �\ \A- -N e I n� t5 I , O /�.� w �� /�_ c owwcE av �. �1 l I r 102\1 \� // . $.„— / o g 1--3� tri 3 13 9 OLIVE to 8 E.. I3� M / / / i — �Bt 277 �os�ial WALNUT ^�' Avg®�. \\ /�`�—/ // Y/ ` xse jj `239 + �i`t 's / I i ,'19 J I- 9 PACIFIC ____PACIFlCNIE_YL-- pi `Bx7 -_249x TV- g3 HWY 4 41-:( 199� Y / �imm► \ \ 1 COAST ( 1579—_�� 11494—��� 13s4 1399— —\ /// n�`u /—�/ l JE--Ts3\��n—� 2 u.$ /-1\ y —\\ / �\ 6 /--e� 3r3 f 19so 1 / 1 /cob Isl /��� p \ /m�e ` \Y o 1 \ n - 1 7 1 1 ax`w\1 Isa— .� I I I i919\ = 1 l I —11 Z I I lB ,-1�31 1 7 I t 3xs PROJECT P. �I l A \\7— / 7 xael I \\se - j 1 �n l 1 1 azu I I 1 I I( 11 'l�1 SITE \ / / \1911— / \I 81/I \t 30— ,,on/ b io-,5.— V. \ — \ -.'= V. cisjs EXHIBIT 15 NO SCALE LINSCO1T LAW&P� 2008 PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES WITH PROJECT TRAFFIC PACIFIC CITY, HUNTINGTON BEACH i ENGINEERS 47 6 -'I. \ \ I 9 \ r \ 6 111° 1111001,G \ 4 P V ,g"di I• tA\ fG $ty, ►, ��i ��spJ �I el: V. hilio �f 4). r^ �i \O \ n trI\ ov% ,...,.si, ti., ilkf. '''s\PA 090 i PALMN V a '1�' et'' Fi A 9 &- t c4i ORANGE tO�. ti° f I OLIVE ©II ! ���� a ' \\*:„ 6 u) �.241 41� 699 WALNUT I NEE. _' i PACIFIC MIN ". B7� I J—� PACIFIC NEW__ HWy COAST 49,816 44,681 47,116 50•00Z a 0 49,810 ^ € � PROJECT F. SITE 's N E r 1 NO SCALE EXHIBIT 16 Il1NSCOTT GGREEEENSPAN 2008 AVERAGE DAILY VOLUMES WITH PROJECT TRAFFIC ENGINEER s PACIFIC CITY, HUNTINGTON BEACH 48 LINSCOTT LAW & GREENSPAN ENGINEERS TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY Impact Cr teria and Thresholds(City of Huntington Beach) The relative impact of added project traffic volumes generated by the Pacific City Project during the AM and PM peak hours and daily basis were evaluated based on the analysis of existing and future operating conditions at thirty-two key intersections and twenty-four roadway links, without, then with, the proposed Pacific City project. The previously discussed capacity analysis procedures were utilized to investigate the future volume-capacity relationships and service level calculations at each study interjection and roadway link. As previously mentioned, thirty-two key intersections and twenty-four roadway links were identified based on discussions with City staff and use of the City's transportation model. The LOS tandards and impact criteria specified in the City of Huntington Beach Traffic Impact Assessment Preparation Guidelines have been used to assess the significance of the potential traffic impacts as ociated with the proposed project at City intersections and roadway links. In order to determine whether an intersection or roadway link will be significantly impacted by the implemen tion of the proposed project, performance criteria for significance must be established. The folio ing definitions describe the significance criteria used in this study. "Significa t Traffic Impact" for City intersections: A "Significant" traffic impact for intersections is defined as a project-related V/C ratio value greater than or equal to LOS E (0.905), which requires mitigation by reducing the V/C ratio to LOS D (0.904) or baseline, if the baseline is LOS E or F (greater than or equal to 0.905). Baseline is defined as the pre-project condition(Year 2008 Background). "Significant Traffic Impact" for Roadway Links: A "Significant" traffic impact for roadway links is defined as a project-related V/C ratio value greater than or equal to LOS D (0.805), a project-related increase of 0.030, and an adverse intersection service level(LOSE 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 Back ound). Absent any specific impact criteria for roadway links in the Caltrans Traffic Impact Studies Preparation Guide [June 2001], the City's impact criteria was applied to the study links on Pacific Coast Highway and Beach Boulevard. Impact Criteria and Thresholds(State of California) The relative impact of added project traffic volumes generated by the Pacific City Project during the AM and PI M peak hours basis were evaluated based on the analysis of existing and future operating conditions at the nineteen State-controlled key intersections, without, then with, the proposed Pacific Ci! project. 49 LINSCOTT LAW & GREENSPAN ENGINEERS The LOS standards and impact criteria specified by the State of California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) for State-controlled intersections have been applied to the nineteen Caltrans intersections within the study area. The following definition describes the Caltrans impact criteria used in this study. "Significant Traffic Impact" for State intersections: A "Significant" traffic impact for Caltrans intersections is defined as 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 (55.0 sec/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). Traffic Impact Analysis Scenarios Per City Staff,the following scenarios are those for which LOS calculations have been performed: Year 2008 Horizon 1) 2008: Future Background(Existing plus Ambient traffic plus Related Project traffic) 2) 2008: Future Background with Pacific City Project Traffic 3) Project Impact(ICU/HCM increase)/Significance 4) Condition(2)with Mitigation, if necessary Year 2020 Buildout 1) 2020: Future General Plan Buildout Conditions Without Pacific City Project Traffic 2) 2020: Future General Plan Buildout Conditions With Pacific City Project Traffic 3) Scenario (3)with Improvement Measures,if necessary PREVIOUSLY IDENTIFIED STUDY AREA TRAFFIC IMPACTS As indicated in the 1998 Updated Waterfront Ocean Grand Resort Transportation and Circulation - - Analysis, the intersections of Beach Boulevard at Pacific View Avenue and Atlanta Avenue at Huntington Street were assumed to be signalized intersections and analyzed as such. 50 l LINSCOTT LAW & GREENSPAN ENGINEERS YEAR 200 PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS City of Hu tington Beach Methodology Table 12 s arizes the peak hour ICU/HCM Level of Service results at the thirty-two study intersectio . The first column of values in Table 12 presents a summary of Year 2008 background traffic con Lions based on existing intersection geometry, but without any Pacific City project traffic. The second column presents future forecast traffic conditions with the addition of Pacific City projec traffic. The third column shows the increase in ICU value due to the added peak hour project trip , for information purposes, and indicates whether the traffic associated with the Pacific City projec will have a significant impact based on the significance criteria identified earlier. The fourth column indicates the forecast operating conditions with intersection improvements (mitigation), if required,recommended to achieve an acceptable Level of Service. 2008 Futu a Background Traffic Conditions An analysis of future (Year 2008) traffic conditions indicates that the forecast increase in background traffic will continue to cause one of the thirty-two study intersections to operate at adverse service levels. The intersections of PCH at Warner Avenue, which currently operates at LOS E during the PM peak hour, is expected to operate at LOS F (PM), with the addition of 1 ambient tra is and related project traffic. The remaining thirty-one key intersections are expected to continue to operate at LOS D or better in both peak hours. 2008 Near-Term Conditions with Pacific City Project Traffic Review of Columns 2 and 3 of Table 12 shows that, in the near-term horizon Year 2008, one of the thirty-two key study intersections is expected to continue to operate at adverse service levels as a 1 result of acific City project traffic combined with background traffic (ambient plus' related projects). a intersection of Pacific Coast Highway at Warner Avenue is expected to continue to operate at 1 dverse service levels (LOS E or F) during the AM and PM peak hours with the addition of Pacific City project traffic to background traffic. The remaining thirty-one key study intersections are forecast to continue to operate at acceptable service levels with the addition of The Pacific City project tr i is during both the weekday AM and PM peak commute hours. Appendix D presents the Year 2008 ICU/LOS and HCM/LOS calculations for each of the thirty- two key in ersections for the AM and PM peak hour periods. 51 LINSCOTT - LAW & GREENSPAN TABLE 12 ENGINEERS YEAR 2008 PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE SUMMARY Pacific City,Huntington Beach (1) (2) (3) (4) Year 2008 Year 2008 Year 2008 Background Background. Project Impact/ With Time Conditions , Pins Project Significance Mitigation Key Intersections Period ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU Inc. Y/N ICU LOS 1. Goldenwest Street at AM 0.696 B 0.713 C 0.017 N -- -- _ Pacific Coast Highway PM 0.813 D 0.837 D 0.024 N -- - 2. 17th Street at AM 0.647 B 0.666 B 0.019 N -- -- Pacific Coast Highway PM 0.725 C 0.755 C 0.030 N - -- 3. 9`h Street at AM 0.647 B 0.667 B 0.02 N -- -- Pacific Coast Highway PM 0.667 B 0.697 B 0.03 N -- -- 4. 6"'Street at AM 0.540 A 0.553 A 0.013 N -- - Pacific Coast Highway PM 0.674 B 0.694 B 0.020 N -- -- 5. Main Street at AM 0.257 A 0.269 A 0.012 N - -- 6th Street PM 0.384 A 0.410 A 0.026 N -- -- 6. Main Street at AM 0.669 B 0.681 B 0.012 N -- -- 1 Pacific Coast Highway PM 0.770 C 0.790 C 0.020 N -- -- 7. lsr Street at AM 0.284 A 0.300 A 0.016 N -- - -Atlanta Avenue PM 0.315 A 0.367 A 0.052 N -- -- 1 - 8. lst Street at AM 0.502 A 0.501 A -0.001 N -- -- Pacific Coast Highway PM 0.535 A 0.589 A 0.054 N -- -- 9. Huntington Street at' AM 11.72 B 0.355 A N/A N -- -- . Atlanta Avenue PM 28.00 D 0.516 A N/A N -- -- 10. Delaware Street at' AM r 3.34 A 3.44 A 0.100 N -- -- Atlanta Avenue PM 6.48 A 10.44 B 3.960 N - -- 11. Huntington Street at AM 0.701 B 0.717 C 0.016 N - -- Pacific Coast Highway PM 0.691 B 0.740 C 0.049 N -- -- 12. Huntington Street at' AM 4.76 A 8.89 A 4.130 N - -- _ Pacific View Avenue PM 4.62 A 13.38 B 8.760 N -- -- 13. Beach Boulevard at AM 0.651 ' B 0.678 B 0.027 N -- -- Adams Avenue PM 0.736 C 0.765 C 0.029 N - -- 14. Beach Boulevard at AM 0.358 A 0.380 A 0.022 N - -- Indianapolis Avenue PM 0.479 A 0.515 A 0.036 N - -- 15. Beach Boulevard at AM 0.412 A 0.436 A 0.024 N -- -- Atlanta Avenue PM 0.622 B 0.681 B 0.059 N -- -- 16. Beach Boulevard at AM 0.576 A 0.595 A 0.019 N -- -- Pacific Coast Highway PM 0.794 C 0.839 D 0.045 N -- -- 17. Newland Street at AM, 0.360 ' A 0.362 A 0.002 N - -- Atlanta Avenue PM 0.515 A 0.526 A 0.011 N -- -- 18. Newland Street at AM 0.619 B 0.637 B 0.018 N -- -- Pacific Coast Highway PM 0.673 B 0.707 C 0.034 -- -- 19. Magnolia Street at AM 0.617 B 0.635 B 0.018 N - -- -- Pacific Coast Highway PM 0.694 B 0.721 C 0.027 N - - -- 20. Magnolia Street at AM 0.399 A 0.402 A 0.003 N - - Atlanta Avenue PM 0.563 A 0.571 A 0.008 N - -- ' LOS indicated as intersection delay in seconds/vehicle(s/v) N:1210012002133tables12133 Year 2008 LOS Summary.doc I 52 LINSCOTT LAW & G R E E N S PA N TABLE 12 continued , ENGINEERS YEAR 2008 PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE SUMMARY Pacific City,Huntington Beach ' (1) (2) (3) (4) Year 2008 Year 2008 Year 2008 Background Background Project Impact/ With Time Conditions Plus Project Significance Mitigation Key Intersections Period ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU Inc. Y/N ICU LOS 21. Pacific Coast Highway at AM. 0.730 C 0.745 C 0.015 N -- - Seapoint Alvenue PM 0.875 D 0.898 D 0.023 N -- -- 22. Pacific Coast Highway at AM 0.966 E 0.981 E 0.015 Y 0.793 C Warner Avenue PM 1.021 F 1.043 F 0.022 , Y 0.842 D 23. Pacific Coast Highway at AM 0.743 C 0.757 C 0.014 N -- -- Brookhurs Street PM 0.809 D 0.845 D 0.036 N -- -- 24. Main Stre 't at Adams AM 0.500 A 0.509 A 0.009 N -- -- Avenue i PM 0.703 B 0.729 C 0.026 N -- -- 25. Main Street at Utica AM 0.227 A 0.231 A 0.004 N -- -- 1 Avenue PM 0.336 A 0.346 A 0.010 N -- - 26. Lake Stre tat Adams AM 0.553 A 0.556 A 0.003 N -- -- Avenue PM 0.644 B 0.656 B 0.012 N -- -- 27. Lake Stre t at Yorktown AM 0.366 A 0.373 A 0.007 N -- -- Avenue PM 0.494 A 0.509 A, 0.015 N -- -- 28. Beach Boulevard at AM 0.705 C 0.721 C, 0.016 N -- -- YorktownlAvenue PM 0.773 C '`" 0.800 C 0.027 N -- - 29. Beach Boulevard at AM 0.685 B 0.707 C 0.022 N - -- Garfield Avenue PM 0.830 D 0.858 D 0.028 N -- -- 30. Beach Boulevard at Ellis AM 0.610 B 0.621 B 0.011 N -- -- Avenue/Main Street PM 0.736 C 0.752 C 0.016 N -- -- 31. 15t Street At Pacific View' AM N/A N/A 2.62 A N/A N -- -- Avenue(iuture) PM N/A N/A 4.34 A N/A N -- - 32. Beach Bc+levard at AM 0.215 A 0.250 A 0.035 N -- -- Pacific View Ave(future) PM 0.252 A 0.284 A 0.032 N - -- LOS indicate as intersection delay in seconds/vehicle(sly) • Bold V/C nd LOS values indicate adverse service levels based on City LOS Standards i N:\2100\20021331ables\2133 Year 2008 LOS Sunttnary.doc 1 I 53 r LINSCOTT LAW & GREENSPAN ENGINEERS State of California(Caltrans) Methodology Table 13 summarizes the peak hour HCM(HCS-2000 for signalized intersections)Level of Service results at the nineteen state-controlled study intersections within the study area. The first column of HCM/LOS values in Table 13 presents a summary of Year 2001 existing traffic conditions. The second column presents Year 2008 background traffic conditions based on existing intersection geometry, but without any Pacific City project traffic. The third column presents future forecast traffic conditions with the addition of Pacific City project traffic. The fourth column indicates whether the intersection will operate at adverse service levels, which is LOS E or worse (55.1 seconds/vehicle and greater), with the addition of Pacific City project traffic. The fifth column indicates the forecast operating conditions with intersection improvements, if required, recommended to achieve an acceptable Level of Service. 2008 Future Background Traffic Conditions An analysis of future (Year 2008) traffic conditions indicates that the forecast increase in background traffic is expected to result in or continue to operate at adverse service levels at two of the nineteen State-controlled study intersections. The intersections of PCH at Warner Avenue, which currently operates at LOS E during the AM peak hour and LOS F during the PM peak hour, and PCH at Seapoint Avenue are expected to operate at LOS F (AM and PM) and LOS E (PM only), respectively, with the addition of ambient traffic and related project traffic. The remaining seventeen State study intersections are expected to continue to operate at LOS D or better in both peak hours. 2008 Near-Term Conditions with Pacific City Project Traffic Review of Columns 2 and 3 of Table 14 shows that, in the near-term horizon Year 2008,two of the nineteen key study intersections are expected to result in or continue to operate at adverse service levels as a result of Pacific City project traffic combined with background traffic (ambient plus related projects). The intersections of Pacific Coast Highway at Seapoint Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway at Warner Avenue are expected to continue to operate at adverse service levels during the PM peak hour (LOS E) and AM and PM peak hours (LOS F), respectively, with the addition of Pacific City project traffic to background traffic. The remaining seventeen intersections are expected to either operate at LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours, with the addition of project traffic. Appendix E presents the Year 2008 HCM/LOS calculations for each of the nineteen State study Y intersections for the AM and PM peak hour periods. 54 LINSCOTT LAW & GREENSPAN TABLE 13 ENGINEERS YEAR 2008 PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE SUMMARY CALTRANS(HCM) Pacific City,Huntington Beach 1 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Year 2001 Year 2008 Year 2008 Project I Year 2008 Existing Background Background Impact/ With Time Conditions Conditions Plus Project Significance Mi '_ation .ey Intersections Period HCM LOS HCM LOS HCM LOS Yes/No .. I ICM LOS 1. Goldenwest Street at AM . 38.0 D 51.5 D ' 54.9 D No Pacific Coast Highway I PM 35.0 C 45.9 D 51.4 D No ?. 17ei Street at I AM 19.5 B 21.9 C 22.7 C No Pacific Coast Highway PM 18.7 B 24.0 C 30.2 C No ` 3. 9t Street at AM 18.5 B 21.6 C 22.8 C No - Pacific Coast Highway PM 15.6 B 22.0 C 32.1 C No 1. 6"'Street at 1 AM 21.5 C 23.5 C 23.8 C No Pacific Coast Highway PM 18.3 B 21.6 C 21.9 C . No 5. Main Street at AM 21.3 C 22.1 C 22.6 C No Pacific Coast High I'ay PM 22.0 C 23.8 C 24.5 C No - 6. ls'Street at AM 33.5 C 40.1 D 47.8 D No Pacific Coast Highway PM 35.4 D 43.6 D 51.1 D No 7. Huntington Street at AM 21.4 C 28.9 C 47.7 D No Pacific Coast Highway PM 18.8 B 23.1 ,:;,..,C 41.4 D No i 1 8. Beach Boulevard at AM 39.1 D 40.9 D 41.4 D No . Adams Avenue PM 41.5 D 45.4 D 48.5 D No 9. Beach Boulevard a, AM 26.4 C 26.8 C 27.1 C No Indianapolis Aven,i a PM 27.1 C 27.9 C 28.6 C No 0. Beach Boulevard at AM 29.3 C 29.6 C 29.6 C No " Atlanta Avenue PM 32.5 C 33.4 C 34.7 C No 1. Beach Boulevard at AM 35.0 C 39.7 D 42.3 D No Pacific Coast Highway PM 25.5 C 33.7 C 46.1 D No __ 2. Newland Street at AM 23.7 C 26.3 C 27.7 C No Pacific Coast Highway PM 23.1 C 25.9 C 28.1 C No j 3. Magnolia Street at AM 23.9 C 27.0 C 29.1 C No Pacific Coast Highway PM 25.2 C 29.0 C 32.5 C No 4. Pacific Coast Highway AM 24.9 C 29.3 C 31.5 C No 29.0 C - at Seapoint Avenue PM 34.6 C 62.8 E . 79.4 E Yes 51.5 D 5. Pacific Coast Highway AM 60.7 E 105.2 F I 117.3 F Yes 44.9 D at Warner Avenue I PM , 204.9 F 293.0 F 319.8 F Yes 42.6 D 6. Pacific Coast Hig way AM 32.9 C 37.9 D 40.6. D No at Brookhurst Street PM 26.5 C 33.6 C 45.4 D No 1 7. Beach Boulevard 4t AM 39.8 D 44.0 D 45.9 D No Yorktown Avenuel PM 39.0 D 46.1 D 52.2 D No 8. Beach Boulevard at ` AM 1 38.8 D 41.4 D 43.1 D No Garfield Avenue 1 PM I 42.4 D 49.4 D 54.6 D No - 9. Beach Boulevard it AM I 36.6 D 38.5 D 39.4 D No Ellis Ave/Main Stiieet PM ' 42.5 D 49.0 D 1 54.0 D No I Note: • Bold V/C d LOS values indicate adverse service levels based on City LOS Standards N:\2100\20021331ables12133 Year 2008 HCS LOS Surmaary.doe 55 LINSCOTT LAW & GREENSPAN ENGINEERS YEAR 2008 ROADWAY LINK CAPACITY ANALYSIS Table 14 summarizes the daily roadway link Level of Service results at the twenty-five study roadway links. The third column lists Year 2008 background traffic conditions based on future roadway geometry, but without any Pacific City project traffic. The fourth column presents future forecast traffic conditions with the addition of project traffic. The fifth column shows the increase in V/C associated with the Pacific City project. 2008 Future Background Traffic Conditions An analysis of future (Year 2008) traffic,conditions indicates that four of the twenty-five study roadway links are expected to operate at LOS D, one at LOS E, and two at LOS F. The following is a list of the roadway links with adverse service levels with the addition of ambient traffic and related - project traffic. • Pacific Coast Highway: Goldenwest Street to 6th Street(LOS F/1.139) `. • Pacific Coast Highway: Huntington Street to Beach Boulevard(LOS F/1.160) • Pacific Coast Highway: Beach Boulevard to Newland Street(LOS D/0.828) • Pacific Coast Highway: Magnolia Street to Brookhurst Street(LOS D/0.826) • Beach Boulevard: Adams Avenue to Yorktown Avenue(LOS D/0.821) • Beach Boulevard: Garfield Avenue to Main Street/Ellis Avenue(LOS E/0.905) • Atlanta Avenue: Huntington Street to 1st Street(LOS D/0.825) 2008 Near-Term Conditions with Pacific City Project Traffic Review of Column 4 of Table 14 indicates that six of the seven study roadway links will continue -. to operate at adverse service levels with the addition of Project traffic when compared to the City of Huntington Beach criteria and each of the six study links will also experience a V/C increase greater than 0.030. However, based on the City's impact criteria for roadway links, none of the study roadway links has an adjacent study intersection(s) with adverse levels of service with the addition of project traffic. The remaining nineteen roadway links are expected to operate at LOS C or better on a daily basis, with the addition of project traffic. Please note that Atlanta Avenue between 1st and Huntington Streets improves to LOS A with project traffic due to project-specific improvements to add additional lanes along the Atlanta Avenue project frontage. 56 I_INSC OTT LAW 4 GREENSPAN ENGINEERS TABLE 14 YEAR 2008. ROADWAY LINK CAPACITY ANALYSIS SUMMARY Pacific City,Huntington Beach nv........^}... 'J.f. ..:d.}r}.. .Y.r... :}.}::i :..:•}:.•}?:}:::}:{$FF{•..: :"•''�J:. f?y:,}. ?::y.••:4!. ... .. :..•.:'. .:..n .�'v. n+ r....'�':•!^::rG•?:...J::JY r n:rr,.....r.•rr •::x�{{?+ ....:.;. :............f.... .... r....rr.G•..::F.•....... .}.•...�..::?, .::.,:•.� Y.•r.�-:^:::::.J:•:::•.:r.�Y••:::. ..:•:r+:::.r}.::•::::.;...:,r,..+ .,.,.{}:$;{+:{;} ]y ?^•.:.•.:n.v.•:::r.,n. .:.;r.,,.... ..{... r:...F........ ..:.�........ ...... J..._:..... tr... ... .. :............:.: hrF:.F.: .JJ'kF .... .:. .vr.. .......... .. .t... n�... ...... �....: .. r.nv..t,,xrvY\ n...v..t,: ..x}'•• •:+{,.. . ......; .... w ,.kv :{n,}. n,r.... ... n,.r:..... .....Y.. ...:n. ...r. +� �.. .n�:.�i;:•i::•'•:, iil4• ;:!r:S},:; J.•.}:....:s..,... ..tn,.......n.�.. ..,w.n ....r.. WSW v.Y+:.. .:.............. ....... .f}.... .. :::r.}..., ::.};r.; {:.,.,;{ ..,;.;}_.} .vGrhv:t•::.•},::....;k,.)t r :+.\.,.:.. ..{?•I:FF ,::.:x Yr,•:x•r:..;% >;::;} . { .rcr::}:• 't#i:'it :b{..::,.:... ..:•':•: .:.:•::G} Y.r •: v: + ,•. ....r.rrr. . •v:::::•: tl � ..nn.. ...:•y:{. ..,. ...:..... .: r.. err. . ,...., n..... ' �.... .. .. :<, s'Jif�aax .. ? dJ?N,:. r.k.v s.: :r,�:u.G•:v+fifi•:. .,. ,•.hv Jrr. .:{.;:)?. �{• r, JY , + r...'.{•.::. •:5.:n.�.... •:i•r.:•:v...:.d.•: ..1....... .... ...1...•... ..15.�. �.'tr� ..I.�. '•1� .J.. ...:....}}r...r .:. v. : ..:. .v..{e.v ::. .. :. r .;{ :,{,v.. ..... : •. � :.. FYf:i..�,- . ::•rv:J....:.....x:••::nkl.+i:•nv;J .,.rv......,.....r.. ..v :d�?k ,.. ¢}F:�':}+}}'. }Y.y. m;,;rv,, ,Lnv:{n••.v., k J'+6Y.•' d n p;{ 4 v,}te .''.�`21 All}`' ,�}.�s: % Pacific Coast Highway 60,800 4 46,456 0.764 C 48,241 0.793 C 0.029 Warner Ave to Seapointe Ave Pacific Coast Highway 60,800 4 39,794 0.655 B 41,579 0.684 B 0.029 Seapointe 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 1st Street Pacific Coast Highway 56,300 6 _ 43,810 0.778 C 43,810 0.778 C 0.000 1st Street to Huntington Street 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 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 Notes: -Bold V/C 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. n:\210012002I33\iables\Sample Link LOS Summary.xls 1_INSCOTT LAW & • GREENSPAN ENGINEERS TABLE 14(continued) YEAR 2008 • ROADWAY LINK CAPACITY ANALYSIS SUMMARY Pacific City,Huntington Beach INIFININ010441 NEM rigNagi::fitpaellegag ORI:i:q:PMEP 0 ESEI UMW POSAIGARMOISI iNtei MS650#444***06iiii1.**00"4" 001COMPOP 11W.:!:0:4:Mbeanabenta liLOSE C. EgagiiPll NPV.Nan tgleegi 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 no 1st St to Huntington St 25,000 4 10,312 0.825 D 10,589 0.424 A -0.401 Atlanta Avenue 18,000 2 12,004 0.667 B 14,235 0.791 C 0.124 Huntington St to Delaware St 1st 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 1st Street to Huntington Street Notes; -Bold V/C 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. n:\2100\2002133\tables\Sample Link LOS Sununary.xls I , - - = _ _ _ _ LINSCOTT LAW & GREENSPAN ENGINEERS YEAR 207 CUMULATIVE IMPACT IMPROVEMENT MEASURES Study Intersections (City of Huntington Beach Methodology) Cumulativk Improvement Measure-The recommended intersection improvement, which has been -- identified ii the Orange County MPAH and Caltrans Route Concept Study for PCH, is expected to improve the level of service during the AM and PM peak hours at the one cumulative impacted study inter ection. The recommended improvement measure is described as follows: Year 2008 ervice Levels @ Pacific Coast Highway/Warner Avenue a • Install a third northbound through lane on Pacific Coast Highway consistent with the Orange ll County MPAH and Caltrans Route Concept Study for PCH. Condition AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Wi out Project Traffic LOS E(0.966) LOS F(1.021) Wi Project Traffic LOS E(0.981) LOS F(1.043) Wi Proposed Mitigation LOS C(0.793) LOS D(0.842) Study Int rsections (State of California Methodology) Cumulati e Improvement Measure - The recommended intersection improvement is expected to offset the impact of the Pacific City project traffic during the PM peak hour at the cumulative impacted tudy intersection. The recommended improvement measure and the LOS summary is described follows: Year 200 Service Levels @ Pacific Coast Highway/Seapoint Avenue • Add a second westbound right turn lane on Seapoint Avenue. C ndition PM Peak Hour Without Project Traffic LOS E(62.8 s/v) Wth Project Traffic LOS E(79.4 s/v) With Proposed Mitigation LOS D(51.5 s/v) - 59 ' , , LINSCOTT LAW & GREENSPAN ENGINEERS Cumulative Improvement Measure-The recommended intersection improvement, which has been identified in the Orange County MPAH and Caltrans Route Concept Study for PCH, is expected to improve the level of service during the AM and PM peak hours at the cumulative impacted study intersection. The recommended improvement measure is described as follows: Year 2008 Service Levels @ Pacific Coast Highway/Warner Avenue • Install a third northbound through lane on Pacific Coast Highway consistent with the Orange County MPAH and Caltrans Route Concept Study for PCH. Condition AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Without Project Traffic LOS F(105.2 s/v) LOS F(293.0 s/v) With Project Traffic LOS F(117.3 s/v) LOS F (319.8 s/v) With Proposed Mitigation LOS D(44.9 s/v) LOS D (42.6 s/v) 60 LINSCOTT LAW & GREENSPAN ENGINEERS PERCENT GE OF NET TRAFFIC IMPACT Consistent with the City's Preparation Guidelines, the percentage of net traffic impact has been calculated for the two cumulative key impacted study intersections, which also operate at adverse service levels under existing or background conditions,based on the following equation. • Net raffic Impact=(100 * Vp)/(Vc—Ve) Where Vp represents the project volume, Ve represents the existing volume, Vc represents the cumulative olume, which includes existing plus background plus project traffic. The subsequent calculation ormula has been provided by the City, which determines what percentage of the total added traffic (background traffic plus project traffic), is project traffic for the AM and PM peak hour. The Net Traffic Impact,which is the fair-share percentage,has been calculated as follows: Pacific Co st Highway @ Seapoint Avenue Project's Fair Share= (100 * Vp) (Vc—Ve) PM Peak Hour Traffic= 152 * 100 = 26% 4,756—4,175 The Percent Traffic Impact/Project Fair-Share is 26%. Pacific Coast Highway at Warner Avenue AM Peak Hour Traffic= 103 * 100 = 18% 5,550—4,976 PM Peak Hour Traffic= 152 * 100 = 22% 6,123—5,433 The Percent Traffic Impact/Project Fair-Share is 22%. 61 LINSCOTT LAW & GREENSPAN ENGINEERS PROJECT-SPECIFIC TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS Atlanta Avenue The south side of Atlanta Avenue will be widened approximately 30 feet along the project frontage between lst Street and Huntington Street. This will allow for an additional eastbound travel lane and a raised median island. The widening will 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)]. A five-phase traffic signal will be installed at the intersection of Atlanta Avenue and Huntington Street consistent with prior traffic studies in the area. 1st Street The east side of 1st Street will be widened approximately 18 feet along the project frontage between Pacific Coast Highway and Atlanta Avenue. This will allow for an additional northbound'and southbound travel lane and a raised median island as well as an additional southbound left turn lane at Pacific Coast Highway. The widening will also include a 20-foot property line dedication. Pacific Coast Highway The north side of Pacific Coast Highway will be widened approximately 8 feet along the project frontage between 1st Street and Huntington Street. The widening will 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. In addition to the roadway improvements, a pedestrian bridge is proposed across Pacific Coast Highway in conjunction with buildout of the project, midway between Huntington and 1st Streets, to provide an additional pedestrian connection between the Pacific City development and the beach area. Huntington Street The west side of Huntington Street will be widened approximately 10 feet along the project frontage between Pacific Coast Highway and Pacific View Avenue. This will allow for an additional southbound travel lane as well as an exclusive southbound right turn lane at Pacific Coast Highway. The widening will also include a 10-foot property line dedication(40-foot half-width). Pacific View Avenue Pacific View Avenue will be developed as part of the Pacific City project through the project site from Huntington Street to 1st 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 will allow for one 20-foot westbound through lane, a 14-foot raised landscaped median island, a 14-foot eastbound through lane and angle parking at 45° (22 feet). The roadway will be dedicated to a width of 90 feet, which will allow for an 18-foot parkway on the north side and a 2- foot parkway on the south side. Appendix K presents a diagram of the proposed layout of Pacific View Avenue. 62 LINSCOTT LAW & GREENSPAN ENGINEERS Pedestrian Pathway In addition to the widening along Atlanta Avenue, a twenty-four-foot wide pedestrian access easement will 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. In addition, it is recommended that the proposed pedestrian bridge, which is recommended in the Coastal Element of the Huntington Beach General Plan (Policy C2.2.3), be located between Huntington and 1st Streets (aligned with Driveway#3) in order maximize use of the crossing and discourage jay-walking. The proposed bridge crossing provides a cess to the existing OCTA transit turnout area on the south side of Pacific Coast Highway between Huntington and 1st Streets. Such pathways will link with public access through the comme cial/retail portion of the project and ultimately, via the proposed pedestrian bridges, to the coastal eas on the south side of Pacific Coast Highway. TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS In order to determine whether any of the key unsignalized study intersections warrant signalization under existing, background or background plus project traffic conditions, signal warrant analyses have been onducted at the following key unsignalized study intersections: • 1st treet @ Atlanta Avenue(All-Way Stop) • Huntington Street @ Pacific View Avenue(One-Way/existing&Two-Way/future) • Pacific View Avenue @ 1st Street(One-Way/future Stop) The signal warrant analyses is 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 this intersection and using future with project peak hour and daily traffic volumes, signal warrant analyses w re conducted using the peak hour volume warrant and planning warrant(Caltrans Figure 9.4) at th three unsignalized study intersections. The installation of a traffic signal should be considered if this warrant is met. Based on pur analysis of the applicable warrants, Year 2008 conditions without and with project traffic indicates that none of the three 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 is not satisfied. However, using the planning warrant, the intersection of 1st Street and Atlanta Avenue satisfies the traffic sigtal warrant. Appendix F contains the detailed warrant analysis worksheets for the analyzed lcations.As a result,the following intersection meets the Caltrans warrant for installation of a traffic signal and the fair/share calculations are presented for the two proposed new traffic signals: I 63 LINSCOTT LAW & GREENSPAN ENGINEERS Huntington Street at Atlanta Avenue Project's Fair Share= (100 * Vp) (Vc) • AM Peak Hour Traffic= 117 * 100 = 56% 924—716 PM Peak Hour Traffic= 191 * 100 = 59% 1,384— 1,059 • The Percent Traffic Impact/Project Fair-Share is 59%. ls`Street at Atlanta Avenue AM Peak Hour Traffic= 71 * 100 = 46% 786—631 PM Peak Hour Traffic= 158 * 100 = 57% 1,177—898 The Percent Traffic Impact/Project Fair-Share is 57%. TRANSPORTATION CENTER ANALYSIS 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.,two potential sites were identified for further detailed analysis: • Goldenwest College/Huntington Center Area • Pacific Coast Highway/Lake Street Area The Goldenwest College/Huntington Center Area was developed with a transportation center along Gothard Street and provides bus layovers and transfers for OCTA as well as other transportation center facilities. The Pacific Coast Highway 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 Pacific Coast Highway between 1st 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 Pacific Coast Highway/Lake Street Area, it was determined that the existing bus turnout along the south side of Pacific Coast Highway could be upgraded to accommodate additional transportation facilities. 64 i LINSCOTT LAW & GREENSPAN ENGINEERS DELAW• ' STREET EXTENSION As present d in the City of Huntington Beach General Plan Circulation Element, Delaware Street is proposed tQ be extended from Atlanta Avenue to Pacific Coast Highway through the existing mobile ho a park located east of Huntington Street and north of Pacific View Avenue. Because of the current location of the Waterfront Hilton resort, the proposed alignment of the Delaware Street extension ould extend from Atlanta Avenue, at the existing Delaware Street, and connect to existing Huntington Street at the Pacific View intersection, thus creating a five-legged intersection. As a resuL, it is recommended that if Delaware Street is ever extended to Huntington Street, Huntington Street should be improved with a southbound cul-de-sac (designed with the bulb offset to the east) on the north side of Pacific View Avenue, such that the extension of Delaware Street would m e up the north leg of the intersection. This would require that the entire Pacific View Avenue/H tington Street intersection be redesigned accordingly. These assumptions are included in the Year 2020 General Plan Buildout analysis of the project. In addition Pacific City will be dedicating 10 feet along the west side of Huntington Street between Pacific View Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway in order to provide an 80-foot right-of-way consistent with the Secondary Arterial cross-section. 65 LINSCOTT LAW & GREENSPAN ENGINEERS PARKING ANALYSIS The parking conditions associated with the proposed Pacific City 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. The off-site parking analysis focuses to existing parking supply and future parking supply and demand on the adjacent roadways surrounding the Pacific City project site. Off-Site Parking Analysis Exhibit 17 presents the Existing Off-Site Parking Plan for the adjacent roadways surrounding the Pacific City project site, which indicates the existing number of parking spaces and areas where parking is currently restricted. As presented in Exhibit 17, there are currently 103 parking spaces (99 metered spaces and 4 unrestricted spaces) on both sides of 1st Street, Atlanta Avenue, Huntington Street, and Pacific Coast Highway adjacent to the project site and 69 parking spaces abutting the project site. Exhibit 18 presents the Proposed Off-Site Parking Plan for the adjacent roadways surrounding the Pacific City project site, which indicates the proposed number of parking spaces to be provided at completion of the Pacific City project. On-street parking on Pacific View Avenue is expected to be provided in addition to all required parking for the project, including the provisions of replacement parking for current on-street parking on other streets. Consequently, the off-site parking objective for the Pacific City project is to maximize the on-street parking adjacent to the site to enhance the urban development setting while ensuring adequate on-site parking supply should the on-street parking be eliminated in the future on Pacific View Avenue, 1st Street, and Atlanta Avenue. Therefore, a maximum of 69 parking spaces are expected to be relocated within the retail parking structure in addition to the required project parking. As presented in Exhibit 18, approximately 105 parking spaces will be provided(101 metered spaces and 4 unrestricted spaces) on both sides of 1st Street, Atlanta Avenue, Huntington Street, Pacific View Avenue, and Pacific Coast Highway adjacent to the project site. The 69 existing parking spaces abutting the site will be provided on-site as additional demand within the parking structure. The existing 27 metered parking spaces (which are part of the 69) along the north side of Pacific Coast Highway will be eliminated in conjunction with the project. Also, approximately 20 metered parking spaces will be added along the south side of Atlanta Avenue west of Huntington Street. 66 /, 1 Q 2 Q m gL. a ATLANTA AVE. !1 © 100'0 libmilmao OUVE 8 IF O ti O v co U lu Q © Z 4Q 0 F A \ AL ^ \ -....... ?9 P \ .j,G� qC/F/C\ \ ` ` VIEW ` �./ 0 i FvrVRFJ ` -......_ 1© AVE\\1 a n • ---) ' r c i /2 © N li 27 SPACES O 9 PACIFIC �1 r COAs NIGHwAyPil ACEs ©� ; I o ,LEGEND iO ARKING METERS . 02 ED CURB (NO STOPPING ANYTIME) 03 r0 PARKING ANYTIME (SIGNS) o ® UNRESTRICTED PARKING S i C J 1 411IN EXHIBIT 17 ©NO SC LE UNSCOTT LAW & EXISTING OFF—SITE PARKING PLAN GREENSPAN ENGINEERF PACIFIC CITY, HUNTINGTON BEACH J 1 Q 2 Q co iliftmlimilar L. 1 T AAVE. © A LANT A l oo'p �0 SPACES 20 SPACES 0 ir © U I ji Z I F / co ,..: O O " co co 11 y F /pgC © G V��ACES 0 W o 0 i V©` o A<r a N n 0 -----) ir iV © 4/ 0 a 9 PAC/F/Csaw p CAST N�GyW SPACES ©� AY LEGEND g CI PARKING METERS 20 RED CURB (NO STOPPING ANYTIME) in 03 SIGNS (NO PARKING ANYTIME) N ® UNRESTRICTED PARKING 8 0BUS TURNOUT 8 C 4111111 ©NO SCALE EXHIBIT 18 LJNSCOTT LAW SPAN PROPOSED OFF—SITE PARKING PLAN ENGINEERS PACIFIC CITY, HUNTINGTON BEACH J F,R Pages .9 through 71 of this report contain the shared parking analysis. This analysis has been superceded by subsequent documentation prepared by Linscott, Law & ¶reenspan in October 2003, which is available for review at the City of Hun. gton Beach and City of Huntington Beach Main and Central libraries. LINSCOTT LAW & GREENSPAN ENGINEERS YEAR 2020 GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT TRAFFIC CONDITIONS As directed by the City of Huntington Beach, Year 2020 General Plan Buildout traffic volumes have been developed using the City of Huntington Beach Santa Ana River Crossings Cooperative Study (SARCCS)traffic analysis model as executed by Urban Crossroads. In order to determine the Year 2020 General Plan Buildout traffic volumes, in the project vicinity, based on several. different potential Buildout roadway network scenarios, we conducted Year 2020 General Plan Buildout SARCCS model runs without and with Pacific City project traffic for four (4) roadway network scenarios,listed as follows: 1. With Hamilton Avenue Extension With Walnut Avenue Alignment and With the Santa Ana River Crossings(Current General Plan Circulation Element Network) 2. Without Hamilton Avenue Extension With Walnut Avenue Alignment and With the Santa Ana River Crossings 3. Without Hamilton Avenue Extension Without Walnut Avenue Alignment and With the Santa Ana River Crossings 4. Without Hamilton Avenue Extension Without Walnut Avenue Alignment and Without the Santa Ana River Crossings For clarification purposes, the Hamilton Avenue Extension refers to the potential future connection of Hamilton Avenue between Newland Street and Beach Boulevard through the existing marshland consistent with the General Plan Circulation Element. The Walnut Avenue Alignment refers to the extension of Walnut Avenue between 2nd Street and 1st Street to align with future Pacific View Avenue through the Pacific City project. The Santa Ana River Crossings refer to future bridge crossings of the Santa Ana River channel at Gisler Avenue and Banning Avenue/19th Street to connect Costa Mesa and Huntington Beach. As directed by City Transportation staff, intersection capacity analyses and roadway link capacity analyses have been conducted for General Plan Buildout 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 affect on Pacific View Avenue through the project site between 11 and Huntington Streets. 72 LINSCOTT LAW & GREENSPAN ENGINEERS Year 2020 General Plan Buildout Traffic Conditions With Hamilton Avenue Extension With Walnut A enue Alignment and With the Santa Ana River Crossings Without Pacific City Project Tr ffic Exhibits 19 and 20 present Year 2020 Buildout AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes, respectively, at thirty key study intersections (1st Street/Pacific View Avenue and Magnolia Street/Atlanta Avenue excluded) without the proposed Pacific City Project for the With Hamilton Avenue Extension With Walnut Avenue Alignment and With the Santa Ana River Crossings roadway n twork. Exhibit 21 presents Year 2020 Buildout daily traffic volumes at the twenty-seven key study oadway links without the proposed Pacific City Project for the With Hamilton Avenue Extension With Walnut Avenue Alignment and With the Santa Ana River Crossings roadway network. ppendix H presents the With Hamilton Avenue Extension With Walnut Avenue Alignment and With the Santa Ana River Crossings SARCCS Without project traffic model data. Year 2020I General Plan Buildout Traffic Conditions With Hamilton Avenue Extension With Walnut Avenue Alignment and With the Santa Ana River Crossings With Pacific City Project Traffic Exhibits 22 and 23 present Year 2020 Buildout AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes, respective , at thirty key study intersections with the proposed Pacific City Project for the With Hamilton • venue Extension With Walnut Avenue Alignment and With the Santa Ana River Crossings oadway network. Exhibit 24 presents Year 2020 Buildout daily traffic volumes at the twenty-six key study roadway links with the proposed Pacific City Project for the With Hamilton Avenue E tension With Walnut Avenue Alignment and With the Santa Ana River Crossings roadway network. 73 I —1 / 0 m4 \ i-Orb I '4, ,Us / ✓�'y�e \ti..o \ :� ( � / ) \y °S a // \_— G.p;, v d> O�y // \ \ fiO�J r•yg 6 y* 0 ', S 09 G ?P / _ V y 2 vf tEr` i..4 ,4,- •:4 V / o��o' & / s \moo � ✓(o cts 1 ) J ,5 0 /x \ C.\ P�4 / �t� p� `Clod \ 4. : / N. 1/ PALM ��` AV a ^J� � /I \ ..... _ \ ! ✓`o, .�,6. / en k-RI\ --phi\ vci $ \AIT I { �\O� jam\ \Tn9- �'f / 12��� (K( 1 9 r 1 ) 4� /om�1`23 \ O! I_ / -- / ') -05:/ =g ORANGE AV A 15fr J 1 1 /T--_ \ � �; i u+ AV 11111111 \ 01 / / / n aN3 `'0 n u L loa WALNur ^ \ /'\`_ / `C'—- `6 303 OP - J I( -2469 J I —fosa9 AV _ \ PAS atvl ,. �-1n s.s`-6i �S —go tow YT 7 4$ 7qt' / 197 1 ► PACIFIC -- --'� - — ^`°` —s79 J 1/ p I( g r 2IaL d- Y ����y \ 1 / COAST 157 4 ( 7 �4 3295—1 qm .mm \ / J 13 \ ! J +rIe . T y I \ PROJECT— \ ssi\ I1 Lus 1 o = / /J I . 21 1/ Jll�fe 1 zJ17— !! J e, ! ! l JI �s1 1zoih / \\�_ aaar- IMI \ 1g / 1 7594J-IL 1 I44—..- f / SITE * PENDING FUTURE ANALYSIS N / / \ 1r• \\3- -/ •IQ EXHIBIT 19 NO SCALE UNSCOTT 2020 GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT AM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES IIA N& WITHOUT PROJECT TRAFFIC GREENSPAN PACIFIC CITY, HUNTINGTON BEACH ENGINEERS 74 - - - -, - .- - - --- - - - ---- - - - -- -- -'• a'g \ e \\ Jai 'Pr , �C�,p\ \ �� / t. 1• 9 / q �I \ 9 \ 0d" // 0 GT \\9\ y w Vz,,,•c\ o 't 0.Ili, -',/ "'fr / ,s,_ ( 1 \\ �> S,,/ l yYy t, -sal ;c6:*: / x// PALM ——_ AV '�\ $ \\ t '‘It( F�! J Is f156\I Ii�� A < t As . I 'c\ )''',Av - j`\ \ 174& .bah / , ,1`iI'''', ( ( 19r I m 1 'LvJ /o�7S,91 L 70 \ ( 4-s / �) ei3 • A.g2�� o ORANGE AV A I;� J I 1�32 I /� —- 2..' r e l 4,7 4 owE © I - li I / - \ / � $ _L WALNUT nAV \ '\ // — 190 _y� 773 74 J I( l-2, a I LIIl 17E0 AV 1O® ' _ \ / PA�CI_FIC VIEYL-�� J �-413 A�� 2631 3 `30000 70 HW'( 1 2424 7°b.. / 494� 6 PACIFIC J --� - --- % 'Tlt "L —Ip� J I l,,-2 127 1( 8 xl -0( Isa—a. C Y —— ����► \ - coasT ) ( e2J{1 lice—11 sa� owl /--- // ` \— /�-�/ /SnS 526�—/�� Z a /�1\ \\ / �\ n \ // —r3G 1 / \ / , .-s7 1 / y--,4 L:/Ao" 4N 91 � /"-SIR@�124\ \ —Isom n a^` \I 1 2312\ _ I —2205 I J I l—420 PROJECT s / J l l/ I6 I 1934— // J m so 1%7— A4� / / J I r-0 1 J I —26 1 1-�1 I\13� \\ _-/ 1\2214--2 \ —// I\n ldt / 1\+ ��� 1 2B0 �_��� SITE PENDING FUTURE ANALYSIS `d / • (40 EXHIBIT 20 NO SCALE UNSCOTT 2020 GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES LAW& WITHOUT PROJECT TRAFFIC GREENSPAN PACIFIC CITY, HUNTINGTON BEACH ENGINEERS 75 e a e Amy \ \ \ \\\Z st It. 9 \\1. \13 \\9 \\ SG 1116 \sb ' �r a 4!V _0 6'. .e /,<6/' ! 00, PAUA \ p as Z M it o f ouvE r+ �p A RANGE AUNT r• , is r. a o arrisir 1" ',\ o PACIRC NEW_���'� lore 6.600 V" 1111L COA51 68,800 i 60,500 1 67,700 40,800 • 0 g g E PROJECT S x SITE * PENDING FUTURE ANALYSIS 8 N V. % EXHIBIT 21 NO SCALE UN SC 2020 GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC GREENSPAN VOLUMES WITHOUT PROJECT TRAFFIC ENGINEERS PACIFIC CITY, HUNTINGTON BEACH 76 y . 6. • A \\ // tr lea( \ ---- -// 3 44, \ \ —.. ,'P ) /oar / mP ." �4' / \ '`7'd' / % \ \ _o '6 (` 'S% +epos, Is p // ✓,a' rJ t So \3\ 6 yy 8 Z / ,;) /3t 0J9 Z y V F yeti \ °s \ shy- / t� ;a ; / Oho —/ 3 e I \�`\A\I // �,}, toe, „00, „:<�g . J� / N •'-' / .,` F, b / ` .— • 'J, / a ( ( * ' c \\ / PALM 't ) ,4 - \ 'q, `6.4 1`SY /Sow La\ _ \a* t Alps I A Ira A;*- ji 9 OLNE �11..111r I r89--I�Y / , // �- 648 L 490 F. p` U WALNUT r. t /• //// Y.'' / `6 303 J l r-jbru -Ioe AV 1O®.. _ / _PAACI_FIC VIE_ML--'G,"S '-172 Si.g`-831 I�T -�y7 HWY J TJ T I 7,b.. PACIFIC Mil ---t- - % t5V` - —717 1 '°41� y� 7iii—��� r -- A �► \ i coAsr 1 4 �71. r 7 1\ 3I32 ..�f / \ /// // / \ / / o r \ 2294- \•en Jae ]19� 42. �"� /la _�Il7C / `as I / _t ! .ae 1 /Boa 57 % I'L.. 71I\ / j \1 PROJECT 8 I J I l,- is 51 12i7s-- l I J iS15\I(\2es�a- �_,I, / / u I -0/8 1= —9 4 I I I\706q- I \\`-// I 2816-- \~-// I\2 big/ I\2I� ifs' I\ 145- !(� SITE * PENDING FUTURE ANALYSIS S \`—// \\`—/ \__—/ \`—/ \`�/ , (. EXHIBIT 22 0 SCALE LINSCO1T 2020 GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT AM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES LAW& WITH PROJECT TRAFFIC GREENSPAN ENGINEERS PACIFIC CITY, HUNTINGTON BEACH 77 ✓ yL\0 \ i \ \ _ ° , i \ / / / \ \ / �a —*. o pti CA g(J�\ cyo / ,�A/ 4< o! s} 13 \ 1. 3,11. 'j' / \,Ui + \ 14, h VA am( \Q�p' CT ,tiS -Crib J u O \ .6,,,,,*_- , ,.. i./14' � .Vim\• ;, / .,b�, \ 7 ► \ , ,,,, ,,,,,o, ...... 0 ).>. 1 I %�"ry \ / � -� ..„,..... �( 4110 ( �i •:' '/� c0 \N- I PALM ��` AV \� �$� /� \-1 -All I i I, J I r t 1 .,'1.�24� OI7MIGE AV �, t •,1-II 1 J I Ir i02 I /,``—' % k'\4`.^ / .i OWE / AV rilln / i /\ _ na & 1 ,— kb '—tees AV \ // ` —mxe e $ J � `�, J I+`e wALNIJT ;®. \ { PA�C_WIC�vlerL— to ,-�`flies �tC `to Nwt Y 2529 i 947..... PACIFIC --� - ( -- i ; � —ate J I z I I r 8 AI �s�ry in-��� /' —— ���� . / COAST �. 10 < � tii5—11 t \ i / /s. 16 / Y g m��\ /// ��`la\/ l Jjsr...st\��/—� z a /'1\ N \:1'1 /^`\ f /log L�2T( l J —xsu I in \ t 1 /too^_L 91 \ t /5:.'-Imo\ —_� Zit\ -:Ow I t `� I x�t— t l / J —�1e = l J I r xe / J 11,xts I PROJECT J r la I \xm9_ /i 1 l—xset 1 \ ear ^/ I in-, ° I I to i I 99 —/ SITE PENDING FUTURE ANALYSIS 8 \tee I ....... / \ztts— / \ —/ \I6 �d6 I tsn—,. l \ e1` \ 84-. ^/ C '\` EXHIBIT 23 NO SCALE UNSCOTT 2020 GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES LAW& WITH PROJECT TRAFFIC GREENSPAN PACIFIC CITY, HUNTINGTON BEACH ENGINEERS 78 ' --- i /111' \ \ 40+ \\ \ 9 \ 49 $G \15. 99\ r, \--7 O` 4 1 9 J \ IV 1,‘ 1Pt. 0 IA, ,,,,,4 4. -01-Akso• %*,900\r" As. C\ ' \?\„- -' :,?. , MIL it4 11\ 4 / * 1 . PAUL \ E3 2 1 11% \,., �� 'z ORANGE I II ��kt2 f �(\1131. ' �' 3g H OLIVE 3 �©..ar 1Z , d), i ��'Sv 61,Y66 47,tB6 WALNUT ^ ME.■ " --- 10,97' PACff_IC NEW_. — �{yN g PACIFlC -MI __ 8,212� IIIIIIIIM --�---COAST 68,600 67.048 j 62,670 = 47,310 b gE. x PROJECT = SITE CIE PENDING FUTURE ANALYSIS 8 '\\\ NO SCALE • EXHIBIT 24 IJNSCOTT 2020 GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC LAW& VOLUMES WITH PROJECT TRAFFIC GREENSPAN ENGINEERS PACIFIC CITY, HUNTINGTON BEACH 79 LINSCOTT LAW & GREENSPAN ENGINEERS YEAR 2020 GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS Impact Criteria and Thresholds The relative impact of the added project traffic volumes generated by Pacific City General Plan Buildout Analysis on the current General Plan Buildout Circulation Element network, during the AM peak hour, PM peak hour, and Daily time frames was evaluated based on analysis of future operating conditions,at the thirty key intersections and twenty-seven key roadways, without, then with the proposed Pacific City project. The previously discussed capacity analysis procedures were utilized to investigate the future volume-to-capacity relationships and service level characteristics at each study intersection. The significance of the potential impacts of the project at each key study intersection was then evaluated using the City of Huntington Beach traffic impact criteria described previously on Page 49. 2020 General Plan Buildout Peak Hour Intersection Capacity Analysis - With Hamilton Avenue Extension With Walnut Avenue Alignment and With the Santa Ana River Crossings (Current General Plan Circulation Element Network) Table 15 summarizes the peak hour Level of Service results at the thirty key study intersections for the Year 2020 General Plan Buildout condition With Hamilton Avenue Extension With Walnut Avenue Alignment and With the Santa Ana River Crossings roadway network. The first column(1) of ICU/LOS values in Table 15 presents a summary of Year 2020 peak hour traffic conditions without project traffic. The second column(2) lists Year 2020 conditions with project traffic based on anticipated Year 2020 intersection geometry. The third column (3) indicates whether the traffic associated with Pacific City Project will have a significant impact based on the City of Huntington Beach traffic impact criteria. The fourth column indicates the forecast operating conditions with intersection improvements (mitigation), if required, recommended to achieve an acceptable Level of Service. Year 2020 General Plan Buildout Without Pacific City Project Traffic Condition An analysis of future (Year 2020) General Plan Buildout Without Pacific City Project traffic conditions indicates that one of the thirty key study intersections will operate at adverse LOS E based on the SARCCS traffic model data. The one key study intersection is listed as follows: • Seapoint Avenue @ Pacific Coast Highway(PM) The remaining twenty-nine key study intersections are forecast to operate at LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours. 80 LINSCOTT LAW & GREENSPAN TABLE 15 ENGINE RS YEAR 2020 GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE SUMMARY W/HANIILTON EXT.W/WALNUT ALIGNMENT W/SARC Pacific City,Huntington Beach (1) (2) (3) (4) Year 2020 Year 2020 Year 2020 Without With Project Impact/ With Time _ Project Traffic Project Traffic Significance Mitigation Key Intersections Period ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU Inc. YIN ICU LOS 1. Goldenwest 1Street at AM 0.588 A 0.600 A 0.012 NO - -- Pacific Coat Highway PM 0.728 C 0.746 ' C 0.018 NO -- - 2. 17t Street a AM 0.624 B 0.638 B 0.014 NO -- -- Pacific Coat Highway PM 0.677 B 0.699 B 0.022 NO - -- 3. 9`h Street at AM 0.607 B 0.621 B 0.014 NO -- -- Pacific Coast Highway PM 0.596 A 0.618 A 0.022 NO -- - 4. 6th Street at AM 0.641 B 0.654 B 0.013 NO -- -- Pacific Coat Highway PM 0.724 C 0.744 C 0.020 NO -- -- 5. Main Street at AM 0.249 A 0.261 A 0.012 NO -- -- 6t Street PM 0.424 A 0.451 A 0.027 NO -- -- 6. Main Street at AM 0.778 C 0.790 C 0.012 NO Pacific Coat Highway _ PM 0.869 D 0.888 D 0.019 NO 7. 15`Street at� AM 0.210 A 0.226 A 0.016 NO -- -- Atlanta Av Jnue _ PM 0.267 A 0.318 A 0.051 NO -- -- 8. 1st Street at AM 0.648 B 0.648 B 0.000 NO -- -- Pacific Coat Highway PM 0.636 B 0.691 B 0.055 NO -- -- ' • 9. Huntington Street at AM 0.242 A 0.266 A 0.024 NO - -- Atlanta Avenue PM 0.338 A 0.353 A 0.015 NO -- -- 10. Delaware Street at AM 0.212 A 0.248 A 0.036 NO -- -- Atlanta Av nue PM 0.271 A 0.391 A 0.120 NO - -- 11. Huntington Street at AM 0.634 B 0.685 B 0.051 NO -- -- Pacific Co t Highway PM 0.606 B 0.732 B 0.126 NO - -- 12. Huntington Street at AM 0.125 A 0.278 A 0.153 NO -- -- - Pacific Vie Avenue PM 0.192 A 0.367 A 0.175 NO - -- 13. Beach Bou evard at AM 0.651 B 0.678 B 0.027 NO -- - Adams Av nue PM 0.820 D 0.849 D 0.029 NO -- -- 14. Beach Boulevard at AM 0.413 A 0.439 A 0.026 NO -- -- Indianapolib Avenue PM 0.557 A 0.593 A 0.036 NO -- -- 15. Beach Bou}evard at AM 0.408 A 0.452 A 0.044 NO -- -- Atlanta Avenue PM 0.722 C 0.783 C 0.061 NO -- -- 16. Beach Boulevard at AM 0.693 B 0.712 C 0.019 NO -- -- Pacific Coast Highway PM 0.762 C 0.795 C 0.033 NO -- -- ,' 17. Newland Street at AM 0.329 A 0.333 A 0.004 NO -- -- Atlanta Av nue PM 0.512 A 0.523 A 0.011 NO -- -- 18. Newland S reet at AM 0.745 C 0.763 C 0.018 NO - -- Pacific Co t Highway PM 0.665 B 0.699 B 0.034 NO - -- 19. Magnolia Street at AM 0.759 C 0.777 C 0.018 NO - - Pacific Coast Highway PM 0.782 C 0.809 D 0.027 NO -- -- r 20. Pacific Coast Highway at AM 0.882 D 0.896 D 0.014 NO 0.784 C j Seapoint Avenue PM 0.952 E 0.974 E 0.022 YES 0.929 E 81 LINSCOTT LAW (CL. GREENSPAN TABLE 15 continued - ENGINEERS YEAR 2020 GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE SUMMARY - , W/HAM1LTON EXT.W/WALNUT ALIGNMENT W/SARC Pacific City,Huntington Beach (1) <2) (3) (4) Year 2020 Year 2020 Year 2020 Without With Project Project Impact/ With Time Project Traffic Traffic Significance Mitigation Key Intersections Period ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU Inc. YIN ICU LOS 21. Pacific Coast Highway at AM 0.796 C 0.806 D 0.010 NO -- -- Warner Avenue PM ' 0.882 D 0.897 D 0.015 NO -- - 22. Pacific Coast Highway at AM 0.887 D 0.900 D 0.013 NO -- -- Brookhurst Street PM 0.705 C 0.742 C 0.037 NO - - 23. Main Street at AM 0.634 B 0.646 B 0.000 NO - -- Adams Avenue PM 0.718 C 0.740 C 0.012 NO -- - 24. Main Street at AM 0.626 B 0.632 B 0.006 NO -- -- Utica Avenue PM 0.495 A 0.506 A 0.011 NO -- -- 25. Lake Street at AM 0.652 B 0.658 B 0.006 NO -- -- Adams Avenue PM 0.668 B 0.677 B 0.009 NO -- -- 26. Lake Street at AM 0.563 A 0.570 A 0.007 NO -- -- Yorktown Avenue PM 0.510 A 0.525 A 0.015 NO -- - 27. Beach Boulevard at AM 0.724 C 0.748 C 0.024 NO -- -- Yorktown Avenue PM 0.871 D 0.893 D 0.022 NO -- -- V 28. Beach Boulevard at AM 0.766 C 0.784 C 0.018 NO -- -- Garfield Avenue PM 0.878 D 0.900 D 0.022 NO -- -- 29. Beach Boulevard at Ellis AM 0.691 B 0.701 B 0.010 NO -- -- Avenue/Main Street PM 0.798 C 0.814 D 0.016 NO - -- 30. Beach Boulevard at AM 0.468 A 0.506 A 0.038 NO -- -- Pacific View Avenue PM 0.669 B 0.696 B 0.027 NO -- -- • Bold V/C and LOS values indicate adverse service levels based on City LOS Standards N:\2100\20021331ables\Table 19 2020 LOS Summary.doc on LINSCOTT LAW & — GREENSPAN ENGINEERS Year 2020,General Plan Buildout With Pacific City Project Traffic Condition Review o Columns 2 and 3 indicates that one of the thirty key study intersections will continue to operate at adverse service levels with the addition of Pacific City Project traffic in the future Year 2020 Gen ral Plan Buildout condition. The one key study intersection is listed as follows: • Se point Avenue @ Pacific Coast Highway(PM) Appendix I contains the Year 2020 Build-Out General Plan Intersection Capacity Utilization(ICU) calculation worksheets for the With Hamilton Avenue Extension With Walnut Avenue Alignment and With the Santa Ana River Crossings scenario. 2020 General Plan Buildout Daily Roadway Link Capacity Analysis - With Hamilton Avenue Extensioi With Walnut Avenue Alignment and With the Santa Ana River Crossings Table 16 summarizes the Daily Level of Service results at the twenty-seven key roadway links for the Year 2020 General Plan Buildout condition With Hamilton Avenue Extension With Walnut Avenue Alignment and With the Santa Ana River Crossings roadway network. The third column of V/C/LOS values in Table 16 presents a summary of Year 2020 daily traffic conditions without project traffic based on the General Plan roadway classification. The fourth column lists Year 2020 condition with project traffic based on the General Plan roadway classification. Year 202)General Plan Buildout Conditions Without Pacific City Project Traffic Condition Review f Table 16 indicates that five of the twenty-seven roadway segments are expected to operate a adverse LOS D or worse without project traffic for the Year 2020 General Plan Buildout condition With Hamilton Avenue Extension With Walnut Avenue Alignment and With the Santa Ana Riv r Crossings roadway network. The following is a list of the roadway links with adverse service le els without project traffic. • • Pacific Coast Highway: Huntington Street to 1st Street(LOS D/0.867) • Pacific Coast Highway: 9th Street to 17th Street (LOS D/0.881) • Pacific Coast Highway:Newland Street to Magnolia Street(LOS F/1.025) • Pacific Coast Highway: Magnolia Street to Brookhurst Street(LOS F/1.005) • Beach Boulevard: Garfield Avenue to Main Street/Ellis Avenue(LOS D/0.823) Year 2020 General Plan Buildout Conditions with Pacific City Project Traffic Condition Review of the fourth Column of Table 16 indicates that five of the study roadway links will continue to operate at adverse service levels with the addition of Project traffic when compared to the City of Huntington Beach criteria and four of the five study links will also experience a V/C increase reater than 0.030. However, based on the City's impact criteria for roadway links, none ofthe study roadway link has an adjacent study intersection with adverse levels of service with the addition Of project traffic. The remaining twenty-two roadway links are expected to operate at LOS C or bett r on a daily basis,with the addition of project traffic. 83 LINSCOTT LAW & TABLE 16 GREENSPAN ENGINEERS ,-- YEAR 2020 GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT ROADWAY LINK CAPACITY ANALYSIS SUMMARY W/HAMILTON EXT.W/WALNUT ALIGNMENT W/SANTA ANA RIVER CROSSING Pacific City,Huntington Beach ''....:)::i:;:i:;::;i1;.17;:i:.!:q:P MO*01'.: :: : ... ..:;i:;"i''1i.'±: V..'.::::;:::'.:"•i:•-•:;:•.:..i Mii:?; i."7;'..::::i.. :#145101:siii ..'"NetaRZI.:.:::iiii:*ilin V.:.::100:: PCH 91,200 6 50,200 0.550 A 51,985 0.570 A 0.020 Warner Avenue to Sea_point Avenue PCH 91,200 6 45,900 0.503 A 47,685 0.523 A 0.020 , Seapoint Avenue to Goldenwest 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 1st Street PCH 56,300 6 48,800 0.867 D 47,310 0.840 D -0.026 1_ 1st 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 56,300 6 56,600 1.005 F 57,248 1.017 F 0.012 Magnolia Avenue to Brookhurst Ave, Atlanta Avenue 37,500 4 12,000 0.320 A 12,277 0.327 A 0.007 1st Street to Huntington Street Atlanta Avenue 37,500 4 12,000 0.320 A 14,231 0.379 A 0.059 Huntington Street to Delaware 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 0.113 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 - „ 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 37,500 4 1,447 0.039 A 8,488 0.226 A 0.188 1st Street to Huntington Street . , 1st Street 37,500 4 5,000 0.133 A 6,648 0.177 A 0.044 Atlanta Avenue to Pacific View Ave Beach Boulevard 75,100 8 48,500 0.646 B 51,633 0.688 B 0.042 Yorktown Avenue to Adams Avenue Beach Boulevard 75,100 8 62,200 0.828 D 64,846 0.863 D 0.035 4,./darfield Avenue to Ellis/Main Street - : cA19211Tablesklink.xls 8 4 LINSCOTT LAW & GREENSPAN _ E N G I N E E R S YEAR 20�0 GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT CUMULATIVE IMPACT IMPROVEMENT MEAS S Study In ersections Cumulati a Improvement Measures - The recommended intersection improvement is expected to offset the impact of the Pacific City project during the PM peak hour at the one cumulative impacted tudy intersection. The recommended improvement measure is described as follows: Year 202 Service Levels @ Pacific Coast Highway/Seapoint Avenue • A d a second westbound right turn lane on Seapoint Avenue C ndition PM Peak Hour Vvlithout Project Traffic LOS E(0.952) ith Project Traffic LOS E(0.974) 'th Proposed Mitigation LOS E(0.929) YEAR 2 20 GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT PERCENTAGE OF NET TRAFFIC IMPACT Consiste t with the City's Preparation Guidelines, the percentage of net traffic impact has been calculates for the one cumulative impacted study intersection, which also operates at adverse service le els under Year 2020 without project conditions. The Net Traffic Impact,which is the fair- share perc entage,is presented as follows: Pacific Coast Highway @ Seapoint Avenue Project's Fair Share= (100 * Vp) (Vc—Ve) PM Peak Hour Traffic= 152* 100 = 63% 4,416-4,175 The Perc-nt Traffic Impact/Project Fair-Share is 63%. 85 I i l LINSCOTT LAW & GREENSPAN ENGINEERS YEAR 2020 PACIFIC VIEW AVENUE GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT TRAFFIC CONDITIONS In order to determine the recommended buildout cross-section for the future section of Pacific View Avenue between 1st and Huntington Streets adjacent to the Pacific City project site, we calculated Year 2020 General Plan Buildout daily traffic volume forecasts with Pacific City project traffic for four(4)roadway network scenarios, listed as follows: 1. With Hamilton Avenue Extension With Walnut Avenue Alignment and With the Santa Ana River Crossings(Current General Plan Circulation Element Network) 2. Without Hamilton Avenue Extension With Walnut Avenue Alignment and With the Santa Ana River Crossings 3. Without Hamilton Avenue Extension Without Walnut Avenue Alignment and With the Santa Ana River Crossings 4. Without Hamilton Avenue Extension Without Walnut Avenue Alignment and Without the Santa Ana River Crossings Exhibit 25 presents the Year 2020 General Plan Buildout daily traffic volume forecasts with Pacific City project traffic for the four(4)roadway network scenarios. As presented in Exhibit 25, the Year 2020 General Plan Buildout daily traffic volume forecasts with Pacific City project traffic for each of the four scenarios are listed as follows: • Scenario 1: 10,978 VPD • Scenario 2: 8,488 VPD • Scenario 3: 8,064 VPD • Scenario 4: 8,064 VPD The buildout traffic volumes were forecast based on related project daily traffic, Pacific City project daily traffic, and ambient growth at 1%/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 five percent(5%)of the Year 2020 General Plan Buildout daily traffic on PCH at 1st Street will relocate to Pacific View Avenue with the completion of the current General Plan Circulation Element network (Scenario 1) based on the relation between the daily forecast traffic on Pacific View Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway without project traffic. Scenario 2 assumes no additional relocated traffic because of the discontinuity along Pacific View Avenue as a result of the lack of the Walnut Avenue connection. Scenarios 3 and 4 assume five percent (5%) less traffic than Scenario 2,based on the relation of the modeled daily forecast traffic on Pacific View Avenue,with project traffic, between Scenarios 3/4 and Scenario 2, which is approximately 5% (1,900 vs. 2,000). 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. 86 / ,es)), �P ��� 4i�P �diti � o w d� o w s n2 s I- CO CO WALNUT PACIFIC Io,B7e_ VIEW AVENUE hq� PACIFIC 8,084 VIEW AVENUE , 4,4,T z z O 0 ro Z y z F z z 7 7 S 2 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY O YEAR 2020 GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT O YEAR 2020 GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT W/HAMILTON W/WALNUT W/SARC W/PROJECT TRAFFIC W/O HAMILTON W/O WALNUT W/SARC W/PROJECT TRAFFIC w s w WALNUT PACIFIC 8.488 VIEW AVENUE /1 q� PACIFIC 8,084 VIEW AVENUE 9 4Gr rg z z n 0 C7 c9 - z z 1= F= ' z z _ = 7 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY E. YEAR 2020 GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT YEAR 2020 GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT $ W/O HAMILTON W/WALNUT W/SARC W/PROJECT TRAFFIC ® W/O HAMILTON W/O WALNUT W/O SARC W/PROJECT TRAFFIC I l��`� EXHIBIT 25 NO SCALE UNSCOTT 2020 PACIFIC VIEW AVENUE BUILDOUT AVERAGE LAW& DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES WITH PROJECT TRAFFIC I GREENSPAN PACIFIC CITY, HUNTINGTON BEACH ENGINEERS 87 LINSCOTT LAW & GREENSPAN ENGINEERS CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM(CMP)ANALYSIS This section presents the Congestion Management Program (CMP) traffic analysis. The analysis is consistent with the requirements and procedures outlined in the current Orange County Congestion Management Program (CMP). The 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% or more of the existing CMP highway system facilities' capacity. As noted in the Pacific City traffic study, the proposed project is projected to generate approximately 12,002 daily trip-ends,and thus meets the criteria requiring a CMP TIA. 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 TIA analysis requirements relate to the potential impacts only on the specified CMPHS. The CMP highway system arterial facilities and CMP arterials closest to the project site consists of the Beach Boulevard, Pacific Coast Highway (PCH), and Wamer Avenue. The CMP arterial monitoring locations/intersections nearest to the Pacific City 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 pattern presented earlier, the amount of project traffic using these CMP facilities indicates that only one of the three CMP intersections listed above exceeds the 3%threshold established by the CMP. The intersection of Beach Boulevard at Pacific Coast Highway is expected to have a 4.5 % increase. However, all three CMP intersections have been analyzed in this report. Hence, it is concluded that the Pacific City project will not have any significant traffic impact on the Congestion Management Program Highway System. 88 I I • Appen. ces to the Traffic Analysis Impact Report are available for review at the City of Hun.ngton Beach and City of Huntington Beach Central and Main libraries, with the exception of Appendix J that follows. it APPENDIX J TO TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS REPORT YEAR 2002 EXISTING SUMMER WEEKEND TRAFFIC COUNT DATA & EXISITNG INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION (ICU) LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATION SHEETS Transportation Studies, Inc. - City : HUNTINGTON BEACH 1820 E. Garry Avenue Study Name: H0206032 ! 1 N/s Direction : 9TH ST O Suite 116 Site Code : 00000977 E/W Direction : PACIFIC COAST HWY Santa Ana, CA. 92705 Start Date: 06/22/02 Client : LL & G Page : 1 I TURNING MOVEMENTS I9TH ST 'PACIFIC COAST HWY 19TH ST 'PACIFIC COAST HWY ]Southboun ]Westbound ]Northbound 1Eastbound Start I ] I 1 I Intrvl. Time ] Right Thru Left! Right Thru Lefty Right Thru Left] Right Thru Left! Total 06/22/021 ] 1 1 ] 11:001 7 0 81 5 239 01 0 0 01 0 262 51 526 11:151 11 0 7! 10 283 01 0 0 01 0 299 211 631 11:301 4 0 141 7 282 0! 0 0 01 0 295 121 614 11:45! 11 0 111 14 283 0] 0 0 0l 0 357 131 689 Hour! 33 0 401 36 1087 01 0 0 01 0 1213 511 2460 ] 1 ] 1 ] 12:001 15 0 91 12 271 01 0 0 01 0 319 14! 640 - 12:151 13 0 151 15 268 01 0 0 01 0 327 18! 656 i 12:301 7 0 141 21 281 01 0 0 01 0 349 13! 685 12:451 10 0 131 17 297 01 0 0 01 0 371 161 724 Hour' 45 0 511 65 1117 01 0 0 01 0 1366 611 2705 i 1 1 ] 1 1 13:001 13 0 17! 15 273 01 0 0 01 0 333 14! 665 13:151 11 0 18] 9 287 0! 0 0 01 0 308 11! 644 13:301 14 0 12! 16 264 01 0 0 01 0 322 141 642 13:451 13 0 111_ 19 310 01 0 0 01 0 347 131 713 Hour! 51 0 58! 59 1134 01 0 0 01 0 1310 52! 2664 1 1 1 1 1 Total] 129 0 1491 160 3338 01 0 0 01 0 3889 164! 7829 % Apr. 1 46.4 - 53.51 4.5 95.4 -1 - - -] - 95.9 4.0! - % Int. 1 1.6 - 1.9! 2.0 42.6 -1 - - -1 - 49.6 2.01 - 1 1 ] 1 1 ] • 1' i _3I i Transportation Studies, Inc. City : HUNTINGTON BEACH 1820 E. Garry Avenue Study Name: H0206032 N/s Direction : 9TH ST Suite 116 Site Code : 00000977 E/W Direction : PACIFIC COAST HWY Santa Ana, CA. 92705 Start Date: 06/22/02 Client . LL & G Page : 2 TURNING MOVEMENTS 19TH ST 1PACIFIC COAST HWY 19TH ST 'PACIFIC COAST HWY 1Southbound 1Westbound 'Northbound 'Eastbound Start I I I I I Intrvl. Time I Right Thru Left! Right Thru Left' Right Thru Left! Right Thru Lefty Total Peak Hour Analysis By Entire Intersection for the Period: 11:00 on 0S/22/02 to 13:45 on 06/22/02 1 Time 12:15 1 12:15 1 12:15 1 12:15 1 Vol. I 43 0 591 68 1119 01 0 0 01 0 1380 611 Pct. I 42.1 0.0 57.81 5.7 94.2 0.01 0.0 0.0 0.01 0.0 95.7 4.21 Total 102 1 1187 1 0 1 1441 High 13:00 1 12:45 1 12:45 1 12:45 Vol. 13 s 0 171 17 297 01 0 0 01 0 371 161 Total I 30 1 314 1 0 1 387 1 _J PHF I 0.850 1 0.945 1 0.000 1 0.930 • 9TH ST 43 5_ 129 yy 1 231 PACIFIC COAST HWY , 1162 4- 86/22/82 1= 68 12:15pm 81:88pm 61 2683 2738 2626 f-- 1119 1388 -4 - 1439 PACIFIC COAST HWY N 9TH ST _ -lZ 1 - Transportation Studies, Inc. City : HUNTINGTON BEACH 0 1820 E. Garry Avenue Study Name: H0206033 N/S Direction : 6TH ST Suite 116 Site Code : 00000917 E/W Direction : PACIFIC C AST HWY Santa Ana, CA. 92705 Start Date: 06/22/02 Client : LL & G Page : 1 TURNING MOVEMENTS I6TH ST 'PACIFIC COAST HWY 16TH ST 'PACIFIC COAST HWY ISouthbound 'Westbound 1Northbound 'Eastbound Start I 1 1 1 I Intrvl. Time I Right Thru Left! Right Thru Left! Right Thru Left! Right Thru Left! Total 06/22/02i 1 1 I 1 11:001 18 3 111 20 233 231 3 1 51 12 252 121 593 11:151 21 4 111 12 271 161 4 5 51 14 274 151 652 __ 11:301 17 2 101 18 265 231 5 6 61 20 246 281 646 11:451 26 9 11] 17 248 291 7 4 111 26 289 181 695 I Hour! 82 18 431 67 1017 911 19 16 271 72 1061 731 2586 1 12:001 13 12 131 15 267 301 8 6 141 27 281 161 702 -- 12:151 19 10 111 18 257 271 9 10 131 38 278 191 709 12:301 21 13 181 20 272 251 11 11 181 30 292 211 752 12:451 17 10 131 16 261 211 13 12 171 26 319 191 744 Hour! 70 45 551 69 1057 1031 41 39 621 121 1170 751 2907 1 13:001 21 13 161 19 249 221 16 10 131 22 281 171 699 13:151 18 9 141 23 273 191 18 3 111 29 274 191 710 13:301 13 6 181 17 266 211 13 9 121 27 287 211 710 13:451 17 7 131 22 281 201 16 10 131 23 290 201 732 Hour! 69 35 611 81 1069 821 63 32 491 101 1132 771 2851 1 1 Total! 221 98 1591 217 3143 2761 123 87 1381 294 3363 2251 8344 * Apr. 1 46.2 20.5 33.21 5.9 86.4 7.51 35.3 25.0 39.61 7.5 86.6 5.71 - W Int. 1 2.6 1.1 1.91 2.6 37.6 3.31 1,.4 1.0 1.61 3.5 40.3 2.61 - 1 j ,3 Transportation Studies, Inc. 1 _' :ity : HUNTINGTON BEACH 1820 E. Garry Avenue Study Name: H0206033 I/S Direction : 6TH ST Suite 116 Site Code : 00000917 :/W Direction : PACIFIC COAST HWY Santa Ana, CA. 92705 Start Date: 06/22/02 :lient : LL & G Page : 2 TURNING MOVEMENTS 16TH ST 'PACIFIC COAST HWY 16TH ST IPACIFIC COAST HWY ISouthbound IWestbound 'Northbound 'Eastbound Start 1 I 1 l Intrvl. Time I Right Thru Left' Right Thru Left! Right Thru Left! Right Thru Left! Total Peak Hour Analysis By Entire Intersection for the Period: 11:00 on 06/22/02 to 13:45 on 06/22/02 Time 12:00 1 12:00 1 12:00 1 12:00 Vol. 70 45 551 69 1057 1031 41 39 621 121 1170 751 Pct. I 41.1 26.4 32.31 5.6 86.0 8.31 28.8 27.4 43.61 8.8 85 6 5.41 Total 170 1 1229 1 142 1 1366 High 12:30 1 12:30 1 12:45 1 12:45 1 Vol. 21 13 18i 20 272 251 13 12 171 26 319 191 Total 52 1 317 I 42 1 364 1 PHF I 0.817 1 0.969 1 0.845 1 0.938 6TH ST 70 45 55 183 4-1 1 t 353 PACIFIC COAST HWY 1189 E- 06/22/02 69 �` 12:45pM 75 ÷- 1057 2555 2987 2495 1170 47 103 121 - -. 1266 PACIFIC COAST HWY N 411 .� ki 1` r' , - 269 39 62 41 6TH ST 1 I 34- Transportation Studies, Inc. City : HUNTINGTON BEACH () 1820 E. Garry Avenue Study Name: H0206034 N/S Direction : MAIN ST Suite 116 Site Code : 00000979 E/W Direction : PACIFIC OAST HWY Santa Ana, CA. 92705 Start Date: 06/22/02 Client : LL & G Page : 1 TURNING MOVEMENT 'MAIN ST 'PACIFIC COAST HWY 'MAIN ST 'PACIFIC COAST HWY ISouthboun 'Westbound 'Northbound 'Eastbound Start 1 I I I 'Intrvl Time 1 Right Thru Left_! Right Thru Utrn' Right Thru LeftI Right Thru LeftI Total 06/22/021 I I I I 11:001 25 0 221 36 293 121 0 0 01 0 240 241 652 11:151 28 0 361 55 248 81 0 0 01 0 218 411 634 11:301 21 0 321 73 278 201 0 0 01 0 201 651 690 11:451 30 0 421 65 259 131 0 0 0I 0 234 541 697 Hour! 104 0 1321 229 1078 531 0 0 01 0 893 1841 2673 I I I I I 12:001 48 0 371 57 214 231 0 0 01 0 231 701 680 - 12:151 56 0 481 74 282 271 0 0'• 01 0 259 631 809 12:301 70 0 611 82 250 201 0 0 01 0 224 521 759 12:451 58 0 541 91 294 131 0 0 0 0 257 631 830 Hour! 232 0 2001 304 1040 831 0 0 01 0 971 248' 3078 I I I I I I 13:001 66 0 471 84 260 10' 0 0 01 0 226 741 767 13:151 84 0 571 71 239 161 0 0 01 0 244 651 776 13:301 72 0 501 76 288 231 0 0 01 0 285 591 853 13:451 57 0 451 83 262 191 0 0 01 0 250 751 791 Hour! 279 0 1991 314 1049 681 0 0 01 0 1005 2731 3187 I I I I 1 Total! 615 0 5311 847 3167 2041 0 0 01 0 2869 7051 8938 % Apr. 1 53.6 - 46.31 20.0 75.0 4.81 - - -I - 80.2 19.71 - % Int. 1 6.8 - 5.91 9.4 35.4 2.21 - - -I - 32.0 7.81 - ' 1 I I I I I 1 I I I I I 1 Transportation Studies, Inc. ity : HUNTINGTON BEACH 1820 E. Garry Avenue Study Name: H0206034 /S Direction : MAIN ST Suite 116 Site Code : 00000979 /W Direction : PACIFIC COAST HWY Santa Ana, CA. 92705 Start Date: 06/22/02 lient : LL & G Page : 2 TURNING MOVEMENT 'MAIN ST 'PACIFIC COAST HWY 'MAIN ST 'PACIFIC COAST HWY ISouthbound (Westbound 1Northbound 'Eastbound Start 1 1 1 1Intrvl Time I Right Thru Left! Right Thru Utrnl Right Thru Left' Right Thru Left' Total Peak Hour Analysis By Entire Intersection for the Period: 11:00 on 06/22/02 to 13:45 on 06/22/02 1 _ ' Time 12:45 1 12:45 1 12:45 1 12:45 Vol. 280 0 2081 322 1081 621 0 0 01 0 1012 2611 Pct. 57.3 0.0 42.61 21.9 73.7 4.21 0.0 0.0 0.01 0.0 79.4 20.51 Total 488 1 1465 1 0 1 1273 High 13:15 1 12:45 1 12:45 1 13:30 Vol. 84 0 571 91 294 131 0 0 01 0 285 591 11 I Total 141 1 398 1 0 1 344 1 PHF 0.865 1 0.920 . 1 0.000 1 0.925 1 MAIN ST 280 20`8 583 1071 -I PACIFIC COAST HWY r 06/22/02 322 1361 12:45pM 01:30pm f- 1081 261 3" 2634 3226 2685 62 101E -} 1220 PACIFIC COAST HWY N 62 i, I 62 MAIN ST 1 ib Transportation Studies, Inc. City : HUNTINGTON BEACH ® 1820 E. Garry Avenue Study Name: H0206035 N/S Direction : 1ST ST Suite 116 Site Code : 00000917 E/W Direction : PACIFIC COAST HWY Santa Ana, CA. 92705 Start Date 06/22/02 Client : LL & G Page 1 TURNING MOVEMENTS 11ST ST 'PACIFIC COAST HWY 11ST ST 1PACIFIC COAST HWY !Southboun3 'Westbound 'Northbound 'Eastbound Start I I I 1 I Intrv1. Time 1 Right Thru Leftj Right Thru Left! Right Thru Leftj Right Thru Left! Total 06/22/021 1 I 1 1 11:001 6 10 18! 8 247 171 13 7 91 6 223 91 573 11:151 17 5 321 19 290 111 8 6 91 9 229 141 649 I 11:301 7 8 321 12 347 161 9 8 61 12 256 161 729 11:451 10 3 321_ 6 286 211 8 9 71 16 227 231 648 Hour! 40 26 1141 45 1170 651 38 30 31( 43 935 621 2599 1 1 1 1 1 12:001 11 9 301 17 311 271 10 12 81 17 261 271 740 '=,} 12:151 13 13 341 19 279 211 13 14 111 19 241 261 703 12:301 15 10 271 20 363 201 10 9 151 13 277 301 809 12:451 21 16 291_ 17 297 221 8 11 141 17 256 261 734 HourI__ 60 48 1201 73 1250 901 41 46 481 66 1035 1091 2986 I 1 1 1 1 I 13:001 17 13 271 21 317 191 9 10 13( 20 281 231 770 13:151 19 14 331 17 339 211 13 12 151 19 271 261 799 13:301 17 20 301 19 323 211 10 13 161 17 267 291 782 13:451 16 19 27] 22 347 181 9 14 181 27 287 211 825 Hour' 69 66 1171 79 1326 791 41 49 621 83 1106 991 3176 Total! 169 140 3511 197 3746 2341 120 125 1411 192 3076 2701 8761 % Apr. 1 25.6 21.2 53.11 4.7 89.6 5.61 31.0 32.3 36.51 5.4 86.9 7.61 - % Int. 1 1.9 1.5 4.01 2.2 42.7 2.61 1.3 1.4 1.61 2.1 35.1 3.01 - 1 1 1 r I I . \ -7 Transportation Studies, Inc. ity : HUNTINGTON BEACH 1820 E. Garry Avenue Study Name: H0206035 /S Direction : 1ST ST Suite 116 Site Code : 00000917 /W Direction : PACIFIC COAST HWY Santa Ana, CA. 92705 Start Date: 06/22/02 , lient : LL & G Page : 2 TURNING MOVEMENTS --- 11ST ST 'PACIFIC COAST HWY 11ST ST 'PACIFIC COAST HWY , ISouthbound 1Westbound 'Northbound lEastbound Start I I I I IIntrvi. Time Right Thru Lefty Right Thru Lefty Right Thru LeftL Right Thru Left1 Total Peak Hour Analysis By Entire Intersection for the Period: 11:00 on 06/22/02 to 13:45 on 06/22/02 Time 13:00 1 13:00 1 13:00 1 13:00 Vol. 69 66 1171 79 1326 791 41 49 621 83 1106 991 Pct. I 27.3 26.1 46.41 5.3 89.3 5.31 26.9 32.2 40.71 6.4 85.8 7.61 Total 252 I 1484 I 152 1 1288 High 113:30 113:45 1 13:45 1 13:45 Vol. 17 20 301 22 347 181 9 14 181 27 287 211 Total 67 I 387 I 41 I 335 I 1 PHF 0.940 I 0.958- 1 0.926 1 0.961 • 1ST ST 69 66 117 227 1 t 479 - _ PACIFIC COAST HWY 1457 06/22/02 "I_ 79 01:00pm 99 01:45pii .- 1326 2745 3176 2748 _ , • 1106 ^ 47 79 83 'y -4 1264 „ , PACIFIC COAST HWY N 380 �. <i T r> 228 49 62 41 1ST ST ' i E Transportation Studies, Inc. City HUNTINGTON BEACH O 1820 E. Garry Avenue Study Name: H0206036 N/S Direction : HUNTINGTO ST Suite 116 Site Code : 00000977 E/W Direction : PACIFIC COAST HWY Santa Ana, CA. 92705 Start Date: 06/22/02 Client : LL & G Page : 1 TURNING MOVEMENTS 'HUNTINGTON ST 'PACIFIC COAST HWY IHUNTINGTON ST 'PACIFIC COAST HWY ISouthbound 'Westbound 'Northbound 'Eastbound Start I I 1 I l Intrvi. Time 1 Right Thru Left) Right Thru Left) Right Thru Left) Right Thru Left) Total 06/22/021 I 1 1 I 11:001 8 2 121 16 284 91 5 2 31 3 247 81 599 11:151 15 6 141 18 299 151 4 1 21 3 252 111 640 11:301 14 3 9) 24 347 21l 1 1 2l 3 272 111 708 11:451 9 1 101 18 289 101 1 2 41 4 251 81 607 Hour) 46 12 45) 76 1219 551 11 6 ill 13 1022 381 2554 I I I 1 I 12:001 13 2 121 21 352 81 3 4 41 5 273 61 703 - 12:151 14 3 131 17 312 91 4 4 21 6 269 71 660 12:301 17 6 111 19 371 191 5 2 61 10 301 91 776 12:451 12 5 161 27 333 171 4 3 31 11 281 61 718 Hour' 56 16 521 84 1368 531 16 13 151 32 1124 281 2857 I 1 I 1 I f.- 13:001 18 10 141 23 352 141 5 2 21 13 287 41 744 13:151 13 4 111 21 371 161 8 1 11 17 291 31 757 13:301 6 2 141 24 344 18) 10 2 31 11 273 81 715 13:451 10 3 171 26 369 131 10 4 61 13 297 101 778 Hour) 47 19 561 94 1436 611 33 9 121 54 1148 251 2994 1 1 1 1 1 Total) 149 47 1531 254 4023 1691 60 28 381 99 3294 911 8405 1 % Apr. 1 42.6 13.4 43.81 5.7 90.4 3.81 47.6 22.2 30.11 2.8 94.5 2.61 - % Int. 1 1.7 0.5 1.81 3.0 47.8 2.01 0.'7 0.3 0.41 1.1 39.1 1.01 - I I 1 I 1 I , I I I I I II Transportation Studies, Inc. ity : HUNTINGTON BEACH 1820 E. Garry Avenue Study Name: H0206036 /S Direction : HUNTINGTON ST Suite 116 Site Code : 00000977 ;/W Direction : PACIFIC COAST HWY Santa Ana, CA. 92705 Start Date: 06/22/02 lient : LL & G Page : 2 TURNING MOVEMENTS 'HUNTINGTON ST 'PACIFIC COAST HWY 1HUNTINGTON ST !PACIFIC COAST HWY ISouthbound 1Westbound 'Northbound 'Eastbound ' Start I I I I I Intrv1. Time I Right Thru Left" Right Thru Left! Right Thru Left' Right Thru Left' Total Peak Hour Analysis By Entire Intersection for the Period: 11:00 on 06/22/02 to 13:45 on 06/22/02 Time 12:30 1 12:30 1 12:30 1 12:30 Vol. 60 25 521 90 1427 661 22 8 121 51 1160 221 Pct. 43.7 18.2 37.91 5.6 90.1 4.11 52.3 19.0 28.51 4.1 94.0 1.71 Total 137 1 1583 1 42 1 1233 High 13:00 1 12:30 1 12:30 1 12:30 Vol. 18 10 141 19 371 191 5 2 61 10 301 91 Total 42 I 409 1 13 I 320 I I. PHF I 0.815 1 0.967 1 0.807 1 0.963 1I HUNTINGTON ST • -- 25 120 60 4 I5� 1' 257 PACIFIC COAST HWY 1499 <--" 06/22/02 90 _I` 01:15pM ' 22 1427 2732 2995 2817 1160 /\ 47 66 51 - -. 1234 11 PACIFIC COAST HWY N 184 y �l 142 8 HUNT NGTON ST 1 _J10 Transportation Studies, Inc. City : HUNTINGTON BEACH 1820 E. Garry Avenue Study Name: H0206037 N/S Direction : BEACH BOULEVARD © Suite 116 Site Code : 00000918 E/W Direction : PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY Santa Ana, CA. 92705 Start Date: 06/22/02 Client : LL&G Page : 1 TURNING MOVEMENTS 1BEACH BOUL YARD 'PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY 'BEACH BOULEVARD 'PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY 1Southbound 'Westbound 'Northbound 'Eastbound Start 1 1 1 1 lIntrvl Time ( Right Thru Left' Right Thru Left' Right Thru Leftl Right Thru Lefty Total 06/22/021 1 1 1 11:001 88 35 751 41 285 201 3 19 11 10 242 351 854 11:151 93 34 711 56 243 241 1 7 71 12 196 511 795 ' 11:301 93 34 931 57 247 261 5 6 121 6 228 411 848 11:451 76 41 531 60 253 241 4 8 31 5 244 471 818 Hour! 350 144 2921 214 1028 941 13 40 231 33 910 1741 3315 1 1 1 1 1 12:001 102 43 681 54 267 201 9 10 11 10 240 551 879 12:151 120 40 851 55 266 251 0 19 01 7 255 491 921 12:301 165 37 991 90 249 4251 1 18 11 12 229 551 981 12:451 141 29 701 89 • 237 181 0 14 21 9 229 551 893 Hour' 528 149 3221 288 1019 881 10 61 41 38 953 2141 3674 1 1 1 1 1 13:001 95 54 721 66 279 181 7 20 11 16 250 461 924 13:151 123 49 841 58 242 191 0 23 21 9 240 591 908 u 13:301 116 52 781 66 275 231 2 20 91 13 234 541 942 1 13:451 115 59 821 54 262 261 0 13 141 17 287 501 979 Hour! 449 214 3161 244 1058 861 9 76 261 55 1011 2091 3753 1 Total' 1327 507 9301 746 3105 2681 32 177 531 126 2874 5971 10742 % Apr. 1 48.0 18.3 33.61 18.1 75.3 6.51 12.2 67.5 20.21 3.5 79.8 16.51 - ir Int. 1 12.3 4.7 8.61 6.9' 28.9 2.41 0.2 1.6 0.41 1.1 26.7 5.51 - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ' u -3tl Transportation Studies, Inc. - 'ity : HUNTINGTON BEACH 1820 E. Garry Avenue Study Name: H0206037 VS Direction : BEACH BOULEVARD Suite 116 Site Code : 00000918 ;/W Direction : PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY Santa Ana, CA. 92705 Start Date: 06/22/02 'lient : LL&G Page : 2 TURNING MOVEMENTS BEACH BOULEVARD 'PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY (BEACH BOULEVARD (PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY 1Southbound 'Westbound (Northbound 'Eastbound Start 1 I 1 I Intrv1. Time ( Right Thru Left! Right Thru Left! Right Thru Leftj Right Thru Left' Total Peak Hour Analysis By Entire Intersection for the Period: 11:00 on 06/22/02 to 13:45 on 06/22/02 Time 13:00 I 13:00 1 13:00 1 13:00 Vol. 449 214 3161 244 1058 861 9 76 261 55 1011 2091 Pct. I 45.8 21.8 32.21 17.5 76.2 6.11 8.1 68.4 23.41 4.3 79.2 16.31 Total 979 1 1388 1 111 1 1275 High 13:15 1 13:30 1 13:30 1 13:45 Vol. 123 49 841 66 275 231 2 20 91 17 287 501 Total 256 1 364 1 31 I 354 PHF 0.956 1 0.953 1 0.895 I 0.900 BEACH BOULEVARD 4 449 3 214 _ 529 1 iy6 1508 • PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY i , • 1533 10- 06/22/02 1- 244 01 45pM 209 : <-- 1058 2808 3753 2724 1011 - 47 86 55 71/ -3 1336 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY N , 466 T r> 355 26 76 9 M BEACH BOULEVARD jIZ. I ' Transportation Studies, Inc. City : HUNTINGTON BEACH () 1820 E. Garry Avenue Study Name: H0206038 1 N/S Direction : BEACH BO EVARD Suite 116 Site Code 00000920 E/W Direction : ATLANTA VENUE Santa Ana, CA. 92705 Start Date: 06/22/02 Client : LL&G Page : 1 TURNING MOVEMENTS !BEACH BOULEVARD 'ATLANTA AVENUE 'BEACH BOULEVARD !ATLANTA AVENUE )Southbound IWestbound )Northbound !Eastbound Start 1 1 1 1 IIntrvl 4 Time 1 Right Thru . Left) Right Thru Left1 Right Thru Left) Right Thru Left' Total 06/22/021 1 , 1 1 1 f_ 11:001 28 193 681 20 86 91 26 67 91 8 95 301 639 11:151 22 201 431 28 78 71 16 91 41 6 69 241 589 11:301 37 142 681 31 84 121 12 92 71 3 84 301 602 11:451 20 141 361 30 62 71 11 87 71 7 59 291 496 Hour) 107 677 2151 109 310 351 65 337 271 24 307 1131 2326 _ 1 1 1 1 1 12:001 29 220 701 22 73 121 15 87 81 6 71 281 641 — 12:151 21 220 581 59 94 81 14 102 41 2 79 391 700 12:301 20 221 611 46 68 6) 8 89 161 10 97 391 681 12:451 31 219 851 35 85 91 17 131 61 13 75 171 723 Hour) 101 880 2741 162 320 351 54 409 341 31 322 1231 2745 I I I I I 13:001 50 198 541 44 58 41 8 93 181 7 57 301 621 13:151 22 212 691 32 93 71 5 114 71 11 70 301 672 13:301 30 167 521 17 70 101 6 91 101 8 61 351 557 13:451 26 281 40) 16 73 91 14 88 91 12 61 311 660 Hour) 128 858 2151 109 294 301 33 386 441 38 249 1261 2510 I 1 I 1 1 Total) 336 2415 7041 380 924 1001 152 1132 1051 93 878 3621 7581 % Apr. 1 9.7 69.8 20.31 27.0 65.8 7.11 10.9 81.4 7.51 6.9 65.8 27.11 - % Int 1 4.4 31.8 9.21 5.0 12.1 1.31 2.0 14.9 1.31 1.2 11.5 4.71 - 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I i , I jI3 Transportation Studies, Inc. :ity : HUNTINGTON BEACH 1820 E. Garry Avenue Study Name: H0206038 S/S Direction : BEACH BOULEVARD Suite 116 Site Code : 00000920 /W Direction : ATLANTA AVENUE Santa Ana, CA. 92705 Start Date 06/22/02 1, :lient : LL&G Page : 2 TURNING MOVEMENTS BEACH BOULEVARD 'ATLANTA AVENUE 'BEACH BOULEVARD 'ATLANTA AVENUE ISouthbound 'Westbound 'Northbound lEastbound Start I 1 1 1 I Intrvl. Time J Right Thru Left' Right Thru Leftf Right Thru Left! Right Thru Left' Total Peak Hour Analysis By Entire Intersection for the Period: 11:00 on 06/22/02 to 13:45 on 06/22/02 1 Time 12:00 1 12:00 1 12:00 1 12:00 Vol. 101 880 2741 162 320 351 54 409 341 31 322 1231 Pct. 8.0 70.1 21.81 31.3 61.8 6.71 10.8 82.2 6.81 6.5 67.6 25.81 Total 1255 1 517 1 497 1 476 High 12:45 1 12:15 1 12:45 1 12:30 Vol. 31 21'9 851 59 94 81 17 131 61 10 97 391 Total 335 1 161 I 154 1 146 1 PHF 0.936 1 0.802 1 0.806 1 0.815 BEACH BOULEVARD 101 880 274 694 EJ 1949 ATLANTA AVENUE 455 E- 06/22/02 162 1245PM 123 : 320 931 2745 1167 322 / 47 35 31 71, -- 650 .11 ATLANTA AVENUE N 1443 I f 1 946 409 BOULEU 54 BEACH D . J '4 LINSCOTT LAW & GREENSPAN ENGINEES YEAR 2008 SUMMER WEEKEND EXISTING P AK HOUR INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE SUMMARY Pacific City,Huntington Beach Year 2002 Peak Existing Time Conditions Key Intersections Period ICU LOS 1. 9th Street at MID- 0.491 A Pacific Coast Highway DAY 2. 6th Street at MID- 0.480 A Pacific Coast Highway DAY 3. Main Street at MID- 0.778 C Pacific Coast Highway DAY 4. 1st Street at MID- 0.416 A Pacific Coast Highway DAY 5. Huntington Street at MID- 0.533 A Pacific Coast Highway DAY 6. Beach Boulevard at MID- Pacific Coast Highway DAY 0.640 B 7. Beach Boulevard at MID- 0.516 A Atlanta Avenue DAY N:\2100\2002133\ta.les\2133 Existing Weekend LOS Summary.doc ! I 1 I GI I _ -1 ! 5 LINSCOTT,LAW 8.GREENSPAN,ENGINEERS 1580 Corporate Drive,Suite 122,Costa Mesa CA 92626 (714)641-1587 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION 9th Street @ Pacific Coast Highway N-S St: 9th Street Peak hr: Weekend Date: 04/18/2003 E-W St: Pacific Coast Highway Annual Growth: 1.00% Date of Count: 2002 Project: Pacific City Projection Year: File: 2100\2002133\icu\20081W eekend\I CU 1 A • 04 EXISTlN0.1RAFF10 'WC.: ::Added: total V/C: Added' Total 'V/C. ....:Added:. .lota1: .. 'VIE: :Added `ToMal: •:*.0: Movement;:::Wume:;a5na :;:Capadtfr:::Ratlo.:..:V.oluiiie::.:V.olume..:::arias>:Capaolty.:;Ratlo:.. VoIuiie: Voiuriie::•:lanes:Gapacltyr::featta>...'::V0IUme.:volume:.anes:CapacIt.::Ratio....':VOfume.•':Volurne..lane5sCapaofty: .•Ra1Io• Nb Left 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 Nb Thru 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 Nb Right 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - Sb Left 59 1 1700 0.035 0 59 1 1700 0.035 0 59 1 1700 0.035 0 59 1 1700 0.035 0 59 1 1700 0.035 Sb Thru 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 Sb Right 43 1 1700 0.025 0 43 1 1700 0.025 0 43 1 1700 0.025 0 43 1 1700 0.025 0 43 1 1700 0.025 Eb Left 61 1 1700 0.036 0 61 1 1700 0.036 0 61 1 1700 0.036 0 61 1 1700 0.036 0 61 1 1700 0.036 Eb Thru 1380 2 3400 0.408 • 0 1380 2 3400 0.406 • 0 1380 2 3400 0.406 • 0 1380 2 3400 0.406• 0 1380 2 3400 0.406• Eb Right 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - rt., Wb Left 0 0 0 0.000 • 0 0 0 0 0.000 • 0 0 0 0 0.000 • 0 0 0 0 0.000 • 0 0 0 0 0.000 • V Wb Thru 1119 2 3400 0.349 0 1119 2 3400 0.349 0 1119 2 3400 0.349 0 1119 2 3400 0.349 0 1119 2 3400 0.349 Wb Right 68 0 0 - 0 68 0 0 - 0 68 0 0 - 0 68 0 0 - 0 68 0 0 - Yellow Allowance: 0:080' 0.050•• • ..cop):• • _. Oi050.: Dt050-• • ICU 0.491 0.491 0.491 0.491 0.491 LOS A A A A A • Key conflicting movement as a part of ICU. •'Functions as a separate turn lane,however,Is not striped as such. Project ICU Impact: 0.000 Area Traffic Mitigation: Counts conducted by: Significant Impact: NO Capacity expressed in vehicles per hour of green. i - - - • LINSCOTT,LAW 8 GREENSPAN,ENGINEERS 1580 Corporate Drive,Suite 122,Costa Mesa CA 92626 (714)641-1587 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION 6th Street©Pacific Coast Highway N-S St: 6th Street Peak hr Weekend Date' 04/18/2003 E-W St: Pacific Coast Highway Annual Growth: 1.00% Date of Count: 2002 Project: Pacific City Projection Year: File: 21 0 012 0 021 3 3U cu12008\Weekend\ICU2A '• ' 2002'EXISTING.TRAFFIC • VIC: Added: Total: :WO Added Total V/G: Added: Total' 'V/G Added 'Total V/C. • Movement ::Volurrie: Lanes.CapadltX..:f4atlo _.:;:Volume: VOluina 'Lades::Capacity:.iRat10 ..• Volume: :Volume:...Laries.:Capacityi Matto:_ .._<Volume:;Volume.-:LaneS•Capaclty.:;Ratlo.. _Volume:'.:Voluine. Lanes:;Capacljy: ..Ratio:.....: Nb Left 62 0 0 0.000 0 62 0 0 0.000 0 62 0 0 0.000 0 62 0 0 0.000 0 62 0 0 0.000 Nb Thru 39 1 1700 0.084 • 0 39 1 1700 0.084 ' 0 39 1 1700 0.084 • 0 39 1 1700 0.084 • 0 39 1 1700 0.084 • Nb Right 41 0 0 - 0 41 0 0 - 0 41 0 0 - 0 41 0 0 - 0 41 0 0 - Sb Left 55 1 1700 0.032' 0 55 1 1700 0.032 ' 0 55 1 1700 0.032 • 0 55 1 1700 0.032 • 0 55 1 1700 0.032 • Sb Thru 45 1 1700 0.072 0 45 1 1700 0.072 0 45 1 1700 0.072 0 45 1 1700 0.072 0 45 1 1700 0.072 Sb Right 78 0 0 - 0 78 0 0 - 0 78 0 0 - 0 78 0 0 - 0 78 0 0 - Eb left 75 1 1700 0.044 0 75 1 1700 0.044 0 75 1 1700 0.044 0 75 1 1700 0.044 0 75 1 1700 0.044 Eb Thru 1170 3 5100 0.253• 0 1170 3 5100 0.253 • 0 1170 3 5100 0.253 • 0 1170 3 5100 0.253 • 0 1170 3 5100 0.253• Eb Right 121 0 0 - 0 121 0 0 - 0 121 0 0 - 0 121 0 0 - 0 121 0 0 - I Wb Left 103 1 1700 0.061 • 0 103 1 1700 0.061 • 0 103 1 1700 0.061 • 0 103 1 1700 0.061 • 0 103 1 1700 0.061 • 'V Wb Thru 1057 3 5100 0.221 0 1057 3 5100 0.221 0 1057 3 5100 0.221 0 1057 3 5100 0.221 0 1057 3 5100 0.221 , Wb Right 69 0 0 - 0 69 0 0 - 0 69 0 0 - 0 69 0 0 - 0 69 0 0 - Yellow Allowance; 0050:• , - 0.050•• 0.050•• 0.050• 0050 ICU 0.480 0.480 0.480 0.480 0.480 LOS A A A A A • Key conflicting movement as a part of ICU. ••Functions as a separate turn lane,however,is not striped as such. Project ICU Impact: 0.000 Area Traffic Mitigation: Counts conducted by: Significant Impact: NO Capacity expressed In vehicles per hour of green. LINSCOTT,LAW 8 GREENSPAN,ENGINEERS 1580 Corporate Drive,Suite 122,Costa Mesa CA 92626 (714)641-1587 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION Main Street i Pacific Coast Highway N-S St: Main Street Peak hr: Weekend Date: 04/18/2003 E-W St: Pacific Coast Highway Annual Growth: 1.00% Date of Count: 2002 Project: Pacific City Projection Year: File: 2100\2002133U cu\2008\W eekendUCU3A 29a;;;EXISTIN...G T[>,aFF1G L: `WC:: : :Add@t!E total: WC :::Added: :Total WC: Added: Total Yid: .:Added 'Tofei:: 'WO: Moveitiiii!':.466104•i nes:::GdpWii,:.,jtatlo'...<:zVOlunte;..V.oluniB;:Uries_:Capaelty.:Rdtld.::s.;V.iume;:::Wume:.::Rdnes::Capdclly::;Ratfo:...:Volume. Votuma;;:Liil4:::Ca'p'aclty...:Ratio.. Vpfu4le:;:V.ofurtic.;Lariet::CapacCty.:.::Rafla• Nb Left 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 Nb Thru 0 1 1700 0.000 0 0 1 1700 0.000 0 0 1 1700 0.000 0 0 1 1700 0.000 0 0 1 1700 0.000 Nb Right 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 - Sb Left 208 1 1700 0.122 0 208 1 1700 0.122 0 208 1 1700 0.122 0 208 • 1 1700 0.122 0 208 1 1700 0.122 Sb Thru 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 Sb Right 280 1 1700 0.165 0 280 1 1700 0.165 0 280 1 1700 0.165 0 280 1 1700 0.165 0 280 1 1700 0.165 Eb Left 261 1 1700 0.154 • 0 261 1 1700 0.154 • 0 261 1 1700 0.154 • 0 261 1 1700 0.154 • 0 261 1 1700 0.154 • Eb Thru 1012 3 5100 0.198 0 1012 3 5100 0.198 0 1012 3 5100 0.198 0 1012 3 5100 0.198 0 1012 3 5100 0.198 Eb Right 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 ,9 Wb Left 62 1 1700 0.036 0 62 1 1700 0.036 0 62 1 1700 0.036 0 62 1 1700 0.036 0 62 1 1700 0.036 W Wb Thru 1081 3 5100 0.212 • 0 1081 3 5100 0.212 • 0 1081 3 5100 0.212 • 0 1081 3 5100 0.212 • 0 1081 3 5100 0.212' Wb Right 322 1 1700 0.189 0 322 1 1700 0.189 0 322 1 1700 0.189 0 322 1 1700 0.189 0 322 1 1700 0.189 YellowAllowanee,, , , OW,.. . 0:300° 01000• 0.300• __ .,,0;3001. ICU 0.788 0.788 0.788 0.788 0.788 LOS C C C C C • Key conflicting movement as a part of ICU. •°Functions as a separate turn lane,however,is not striped as such. Project ICU Impact: 0.000 Area Traffic Mitigation: Counts conducted by: Significant Impact: NO Capacity expressed In vehicles per hour of green. LINSCOTT,LAW 8,GREENSPAN,ENGINEERS 1580 Corporate Drive,Suite 122,Costa Mesa CA 92626 (714)641-1587 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION 1st Street(Split Phase)@ Pacific Coast Highway N-S St: 1st Street(Split Phase) Peak hr eW ekend Date. 04/18/2003 E-W St: Pacific Coast Highway Annual Growth: • 1.00% Date of Count: 2002 Project: Pacific City Projection Year File: 2100\2002133\icu120081W eekend\I C U4A 0.4A::ESTING: RAF.IC: ViC Add08< Tota1:. VlC: Added Total: .Vic: AdderlE 'Sorel: #t!C> Added To01` >V/C: Novemant:V6Iurte:•aanes::Capacity.: ap>.: :iVolume.::.Volume :.:La nes..-Ca eel :Ratio...,,;Voltome: .Vome..Lanes:Caachy;.Ratio:.. voluiiie..Vdlume::•Lenes.itepieliY.;RafO:::. Volume..Veiune...Lares:GapaY . Raff$-.... Nb Left 62 1.5 0 0.000 0 62 1.5 0 0.000 0 62 1.5 0 0.000 0 62 1.5 0 0.000 0 62 1.5 0 0.000 Nb Thru 49 0.5 3400 0.033 • 0 49 0.5 3400 0.033 • 0 49 0.5 3400 0.033 • 0 49 0.5 3400 0.033 ' 0 49 0.5 3400 0.033 • Nb Right 41 1 1700 0.024 0 41 1 1700 0.024 0 41 1 1700 0.024 0 41 1 1700 0.024 0 41 1 1700 0.024 Sb Left 117 1.5 0 0.000 0 117 1.5 0 0.000 0 117 1.5 0 0.000 0 117 1.5 2550 0.046 • 0 117 1.5 2550 0.046 • Sb Thru 66 0.5 3400 0.054 • 0 66 0.5 3400 0.054 • 0 66 0.5 3400 0.054 • 0 66 1 1700 0.039 0 66 1 1700 0.039 Sb Right 69 1 1700 0.041 0 69 1 1700 0.041 0 69 1 1700 0.041 0 69 1.5 2550 0.027 0 69 1.5 2550; 0.027 Eb Left 99 1 1700 0.058 • 0 99 1 1700 0.058• 0 99 1 1700 0.058 • 0 99 1 1700 0.058 • 0 99 1 1700 0.058 • Eb Thru 1106 3 5100 0.233 0 1106 3 5100 0.233 0 1106 3 5100 0.233 0 1106 3 5100 0.233 0 1106 3 5100 0.233 L. Eb Right 83 0 0 - 0 83 0 0 - 0 83 0 0 - 0 83 0 0 - 0 83 0 0 - n Wb Left 79 1 1700 0.046 0 79 1 1700 0.046 0 79 1 1700 0.046 0 79 1 1700 0.046 0 79 1 1700 0.046 Li) WbThru 1326 3 5100 0.275• 0 1326 3 5100 0.275 • • 0 1326 3 5100 0.275 • 0 1326 3 5100 0.275 • 0 1326 3 5100 0.275 Wb Right 79 0 0 - 0 79 0 0 0 79 0 0 0 79 0 0 0 79 0 0 YellowAllowahc0: 0:050.• 0:050'a.,.. O:OSO• ._ . ..-. :'........-. . . 0:050;-' ... - .-.:.,.., . . .. '..,...': ICU 0.416 0.416 0.416 0.401 0.401 LOS A A A A A • Key conflicting movement as a part of ICU. ••Functions as a separate turn lane,however,is not striped as such. Project ICU Impact: -0.015 Area Traffic Mitigation: Counts conducted by: Significant Impact: NO Capacity expressed in vehicles per hour of green. i LINSCOTT,LAW 8 GREENSPAN,ENGINEERS 1580 Corporate Drive,Suite 122,Costa Mesa CA 92626 (714)641-1587 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION Huntington Street©Pacific Coast Highway N-S St: Huntington Street Peak hr: Weekend Date: 04/18/2003 E-W St: Pacific Coast Highway Annual Growth: 1.00% Date of Count: 2002 Project: Pacific City Projection Year File: 2100\2002133\Icu\2008\Weekend\ICU5A TIN:T[iIAF G Y/G' Added '.Focal: Y/C: :Added' otal:: :V/C: :;::Added: Total; W. :Added 'Totali :WC: :..:'. . ... :. t NtovemOnt;:V.oftt1119...��neS:GdPdtity..;RdtrO:...:•YOluttt9::;:VdlGme::pain@s.:Capacity.RatIC'. :;iV41Uiri8:•:::V91uti]C:. Gin85;:Candeity>;Rdff6E...' Vdh111me:.,Voldm9:.:CangS:`Ga'P3t:ftY:::Ratio': .:;VDfulltt4>:Y.o1.u11/9:.)kd'rl8tt:;GdPdClty<..:$a t4 Nb Left 12 0.5 0 0.000• 0 12 0.5 0 0.000 • 0 12 0.5 0 0.000 • 0 12 0.5 0 0.000 • 0 12 0.5 0 0.000 • Nb Thru 8 1.5 3400 0.012 0 8 1.5 3400 0.012 0 8 1.5 3400 0.012 0 8 1.5 3400 0.012 0 8 1.5 3400 0.012 Nb Right 22 0 0 - 0 22 0 0 - 0 22 0 0 - 0 22 0 0 - 0 22 0 0 - Sb Left 52 1 1700 0.031 0 52 1 1700 0.031 0 52 1 1700 0.031 0 52 1.0 1700 0.031 0 52 1 1700 0.031 Sb Thru 25 1 1700 0.050 • 0 25 1 1700 0.050 • 0 25 1 1700 0.050 • 0 25 1.0 1700 0.050 • 0 25 1 1700 0.050 • Sb Right 60 0 0 - 0 60 0 0 - 0 60 0 0 - 0 60 0 0 - 0 60 0 0 - Eb Left 22 1 1700 0.013 • 0 22 1 1700 0.013 • 0 22 1 1700 0.013 • 0 22 1 1700 0.013 • 0 22 1 1700 0.013 • Eb Thru 1160 2 3400 0.356 0 1160 2 3400 0.356 0 1160 2 3400 0.356 0 1160 2 3400 0.356 0 1160 2 3400 0.356 , Eb Right 51 0 0 - 0 51 0 0 - 0 51 0 0 - 0 51 0 0 - 0 51 0 0 - NW b Left 66 1 1700 0.039 0 66 1 1700 0.039 0 66 1 1700 0.039 0 66 1 1700 0.039 0 66 1 1700 0.039 Wb Thru 1427 2 3400 0.420 • 0 1427 2 3400 0.420 • 0 1427 2 3400 0.420 • 0 1427 2 3400 0.420 • 0 1427 2 3400 0.420 O Wb Right 90 1 1700 0.053 0 90 1 1700 0.053 0 90 1 1700 0.053 0 90 1 1700 0.053 0 90 1 1700 0.053 Yellow.Allowance:, 0.050'• °_•`.,. 0.050•• 0050..' - .0:050• ,•,..._ 0:050..'.. ICU 0.533 0.533 0.533 0.533 0.533 LOS A A A A A • Key conflicting movement as a part of ICU. ••Functions as a separate turn lane,however,is not striped as such. Proect ICU Impact: 0.000 Area Traffic Mitigation: Counts conducted by: Significant Impact: NO Capacity expressed In vehicles per hour of green. LINSCOTT,LAW&GREENSPAN,ENGINEERS 1580 Corporate Drive,Suite 122,Costa Mesa CA 92626 (714)641-1587 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION Beach Boulevard @ Pacific Coast Highway N-S St: Beach Boulevard Peak hr: Weekend Ua e: 1812003 E-W St: Pacific Coast Highway Annual Growth: 1.00% Date of Count: 2002 Project: Pacific City Projection Year File: 2100\2002133\icu\2008\W eekend\ICU6A 2uo2.E)(ISt1 NG::T,:RAFFIC: - V1G:: A'ddEd: ':Total:: V1C` Add'e'd Total: Vie. Addad: 'Total. V/C: "Added. 'Total: V/C Moverrietit..''voluine:, anes:..Capacity:::Ratio.:.: ..:Voldirie:...Votuiiiei..::bces>:Capagty::Ratio:..• Volume :!Volume>..Lanes:::Capacity.:Ratfo;.::; wotur:4':...4o1umo, Caries::..CapacIty:.Raflo;..:,:;Volume'. V.4luine.iLiiiei.;Cap'acify... ::Ra d........ : Nb Left 26 1 1700 0.015• 0 26 1 1700 0.015 • 0 26 1 1700 0.015 • 0 26 1 1700 0.015 • 0 26 1 1700 0.015 Nb Thru 76 2 3400 0.022 0 76 2 3400 0.022 0 76 2 3400 0.022 0 76 2 3400 0.022 0 76 2 3400 0.022 Nb Right 9 1 1700 0.005 0 9 1 1700 0.005 0 9 1 1700 0.005 0 9 1 1700 0.005 0 9 1 1700 0.005 Sb Left 316 2 3400 0.093 0 316 2 3400 0.093 0 316 2 3400 0.093 0 316 2 3400 0.093 0 316 2 - 3400 0.093 Sb Thru 214 1 1700 0.126 0 214 1 1700 0.126 0 214 1 1700 0.126 0 214 1 1700 0.126 0 214 1 1700 0.126 Sb Right 449 1 1700 0264• 0 449 1 1700 0.264 • 0 449 1 1700 0.264 • 0 449 1 1700 0.264 • 0 449 1 1700 0.264 • Eb Left 209 2 3400 0.061 0 209 2 3400 0.061 0 " 209 2 3400 0.061 0 209 2 3400 0.061 0 209 2 - 3400 0.061 Eb Thru 1011 3 5100 0.209 0 1011 3 5100 0.209 0 1011 3 5100 0.209 0 1011 3 5100 0.209 0 1011 3 5100 0.209 A Eb Right 55 0 0 - 0 55 0 0 - 0 55 0 0 - 0 55 0 0 - 0 55 0 0 - l ._ Wb Left 86 1 1700 0.051 0 86 1 1700 0.051 0 86 1 1700 0.051 0 86 1 1700 0.051 0 86 1 1700 0.051 N Wb Thru 1058 2 3400 0.311 • 0 1058 2 3400 0.311 • 0 1058 2 3400 0.311 • 0 1058 2 3400 0.311 • 0 1058 2 3400 0.311 • Wb Right 244 1 1700 0.144 0 244 1 1700 0.144 0 244 1 1700 0.144 0 244 1 1700 0.144 0 244 1 1700 0.144 Yell'ovii:Allowance:. 0:050;• 0.050• .,0.080'• 0:050-• ., . . 0:05,0;,,+: ICU 0.640 0.640 0.640 0.640 0.640 LOS B B B B B • Key conflicting movement as a part of ICU. ••Functions as a separate turn lane,however,is not striped as such. Project ICU Impact: 0.000 Area Traffic Mitigation: Counts conducted by: Significant Impact: NO Capacity expressed in vehicles per hour of green. LINSCOTT,LAW&GREENSPAN,ENGINEERS 1580 Corporate Drive,Suite 122,Costa Mesa CA 92626 (714)641-1587 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION Beach Boulevard @ Atlanta Avenue N-S St: Beach Boulevard Peak hr: Weekend Date: 04/18/2003 E-W St: Atlanta Avenue Annual Growth: 1.00% Date of Count: 2002 Project: Pacific City Projection Year: File: 2100\2002133\Icu\2008\Weekend\ICU 7A • 3002':ExISTINta`T!tAFFIG • Y/C: •Addot4: ':T.otaa: MO > :Added 'Total: VLC ;;:Added: Total'. 'VIC :•:Atlded Total• YLC Vov0 ent.. fum :..aan es..Cdpaty.Akio, ;:V.otuth e;..y olum ..: 1ne Capaelty RatIo....:...Valutne..•:V. um :.. an!S:. apatlt y.;#tatfo: .: viume:.:Koluma:.a3nes:;waPaatY;:;R4f1o.:: Vafuriie' 'V.oluine:aane ::C actt Y.. :Rafo:Nb Left 34 1 1700 0.020 0 34 1 1700 0.020 0 34 1 1700 0.020 0 34 1 1700 0.020 0 34 1 1700 0.020 Nb Thru 409 3 5100 0.091 • 0 409 3 5100 0.091 • 0 409 3 5100 0.091 • 0 409 i3 5100 0.091 • 0 409 3 5100 0.091 • Nb Right 54 0 0 - 0 54 0 0 - 0 54 0 0 - 0 54 0 0 - 0 54 0 0 - Sb Left 274 1 1700 0.161 • 0 274 1 1700 0.161 • 0 274 1 1700 0.161 • 0 274 1 1700 0.161 • 0 274 1 1700 0.161 • Sb Thru 880 3 5100 0.192 0 880 3 5100 0.192 0 880 3 5100 0.192 0 880 3 5100 0.192 0 880 3 5100 0.192 Sb Right 101 0 0 - 0 101 0 0 - 0 101 0 0 - 0 101 0 0 - 0 101 0 10 - Eb Left 123 1 1700 0.072• 0 123 1 1700 0.072 • 0 123 1 1700 0.072 • 0 123 1 1700 0.072 • 0 123 1 1700 0.072 • Eb Thru 322 2 3400 0.104 0 322 2 3400 0.104 0 322 2 3400 0,104 0 322 2 3400 0.104 0 322 2 3400 0.104 t Eb Right 31 0 0 - 0 31 0 0 - 0 31 0 0 - 0 31 0 0 0 31 0 0 - Wb Left 35 1 1700 0.021 0 35 1 1700 0.021 0 35 1 1700 0.021 0 35 1 1700 0.021 0 35 1 1700 0.021 N Wb Thru 320 2 3400 0.142• 0 320 2 3400 0.142 • 0 320 2 3400 0.142 • 0 320 2 3400 0.142 • 0 320 2 3400 0.094• I Wb Right 162 0 0 - 0 162 0 0 - 0 162 0 0 - 0 162 0 0 - 0 162 1 1700 0.095 Yellow Allowance: 0:060 ICU 0.516 0.516 0.516 0.516 0.468 LOS A A A A A • Key conflicting movement as a part of ICU. ••Functions as a separate turn lane,however,is not striped as such. Project ICU Impact: 0.000 Area Traffic Mitigation: Counts conducted by: Significant Impact: NO Capacity expressed in vehicles per hour of green. A PPENDIX I BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES INFORMATION I 1 PACIFIC CITY BIOLOGICAL TECHNICAL REPORT Submitted to: Makar Properties 4100 MacArthur Boulevard, Suite 200 Newport Beach, California 92660 Contact: Ethen Thacher Prepared by: BonTerra Consulting 151 Kalmus Drive, Suite E-200 Costa Mesa, California 92626 (714) 444-9199 Contact: Joan P. Kelly Managing Principal February 6, 2002 Pacific City TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page, 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 1 1.2 PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION 1 2.0 SURVEY METHODOLOGIES 1 2.1 GENERAL PLANT SURVEYS 2 2.2 GENERAL WILDLIFE SURVEYS 2 3.0 EXISTING BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 2 3.1 VEGETATION TYPES 2 Ornamental 2 Disturbed 3 Developed • 3 3.2 WILDLIFE 3 Fish 3 Amphibians 3 Reptiles 3 Birds 4 Mammals 4 3.3 WILDLIFE MOVEMENT 4 3.4 SPECIAL STATUS BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 4 Definition of Special Status Biological Resources 5 Special Status Vegetation 6 Special Status Plants 7 Special Status Wildlife 7 4.0 PROJECT IMPACTS 7 4.1 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA 8 4.2 DIRECT IMPACTS 8 Plant and Vegetation Type Impacts 8 Wildlife Impacts • 9 Wildlife Movement Impacts 9 Special Status Biological Resource Impacts 9 4.3 INDIRECT IMPACTS 10 Noise Impacts 10 Night Lighting 10 Human Activity 10 5.0 MITIGATION MEASURES 10 6.0 REFERENCES 11 R:1ProjecIPH\J020 Bio Tech Report-020602.wpd I Biological Technical Report Pacific City Appendices Appendix A Plant and Wildlife Compendia Table 1 Plant Compendium Table 2 Wildlife Compendium Appendix B Special Status Plant and Wildlife Species Known to Occur in the Region of the Project Site Table 1 Special Status Plant Species Known to Occur in the Region Of the Project Site Table 2 Special Status Wildlife Species Known to Occur in the Region Of the Project Site LIST OF EXHIBITS Exhibit Follows Page • 1 Regional Location 1 2 Project Location 1 3 Biological Resources 2 R:1Projects1CPHU020 Bio Tech Report-020602.wpd ii Biological Technical Report Pacific City 1.0 IsITRODUCTION This Bio ogical Technical Report has been prepared to support the California Environmental Quality Act (C QA) documentation for the proposed Pacific City project (hereafter referred to as the proposed project site). This information has been reported in accordance with accepted scientific and technical standards that are consistent with the requirements of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 1.1 REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The proposed project site is located in the City of Huntington Beach in northwestern Orange County Exhibit 1). The proposed project site is located along the coastline, but is surrounded by residential and commercial development to the north, east, and west. Pacific Coast Highway is located immediately adjacent to the south of the proposed project site. The Santa Ana River is located approximately three miles east of the proposed project site. Boise Chica Ecological —Reserve is approximately 3.5 miles northwest of the proposed project site and Newport Bay is approximately 4.5 miles southeast of the proposed project site. Elevation on the proposed project site raves from ten feet above mean sea level (msl)to 40 feet above msl. The proposed project site is fund on the Newport Beach U.S. Geological Survey(USGS) 7.5-minute quadrangle map. 1.2 ROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION The pr posed project site is an approximately 32-acre site located north of Pacific Coast Highway (PCH) State Highway 1) between Huntington Street to the east and 1st Street to the west (Exhibit 2). The northern project site boundary is formed along Atlanta Avenue. The proposed project ite is currently undeveloped. Land uses surrounding the proposed project site include residen ial and commercial. The residential development is located along 1st Street, Atlanta Avenu , and Huntington Street. The commercial development consists of offices, stores, hotels, and restaurants along PCH. The topography of the proposed project site is generally flat with a grade differential of 30 feet. A water detention basin is located in the center of the proposed project hite. 2.0 SURVEY METHODOLOGIES Data ovidedr in this report has been collected from biological surveys conducted by Ecologist pP 9 Y Weena Sangkatavat and Biologist Jenna Coiling of BonTerra Consulting on December 19, 2001. In addition, existing documentation pertinent to the biological resources within or in the vicinity of the pro osed project site was compiled and reviewed. This included a review of taxa that are currently listed as Threatened or Endangered, proposed for listing, and/or candidates for listing by the CDTG, USFWS, or California Native Plant Society (CNPS). BonTerra Consulting conducted a searh of the available literature to identify special status plants, wildlife, or habitats known to occur in the vicinity of the proposed project site. The California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDb) (CDFG 2001), the California Native Plant Society's Inventory of Rare and Endangered R:1ProjectstC HU020 Bio Tech Report-020602.wpd 1 Biological Technical Report , e.stietd ' gacsteii Base / Edwards pis 4oKe 1117 �, Kern 0 `� L.Qs Angeles -a 1Cer" vs C. V e n t.0 r a Aog;forest ® m NW Nt\oaa f.►l \OS�d1.eptest `v Nalloaa\ t f 1 io \ Forest Sao9s A*ea . 4a''1'' 0 lApo( i114 pli klit L 1111.i1..s0..o aap,."„m7.il Los 0 1• VI i444l101k0 h, 1 ,%,A a p Ao9e\es Nallona y,Ndem Qfi � Angeles i _' °- . , Cana l+ie , 6:: ....„„ lif 0 . ,...... ,s, ootoca .....,,„ Ih:- mi, iillt iitlillb-„, gi 1.00`,.,14 VY 1 ID ..,:i1/1%,.//-4 , 11 ®4611 +and . - gear Sar f motional c ' a fOttest ;i 4",Si,;; a.7 4 ,,r,`.,,.,s., t '� Pend\t z=� ;ter -' . •:�,•. :,. V. L:�.t.". ':!k,..;.A r)'y Jeff. • tsto C anak �-°fat` ecnnical RepCItIort Rego Biological? pad C elty 20 Mi\es •o4 N B A /--- ,--- MCC( ' u ch 1 ? - c� L� Regf* uall t e "C° i . . NI h ale f I „oil Parka. aliallIci.idai �, _ — .. .h'' ., ..it , r__. __, J ! Ittil. U I Yjart,LL-e 1 -- •o it kon doe , irrillin ` _ # . 1-- °n wn M oLaeu _ • IV andn oa •{Sj' 4 "sir a. , , 'eh. ' . :1 t#71TTT1SIJ _L lIT vo Hunlmgtan f HuntingtonWill - O �e frig �►�. -- seam, Beach 39 .- Comm°My _ 6av — High P l 'bHrYCogego - .liter Soho0� , �{ Gres Nan. 1 _ al Yaan Port 414 Morning T tle 'r Ca. rid -* 1 OW , ..“' - 1111111111"Lvi ___. • ... - -. _..... .„1„... FE .r sldlo • RIII ♦ . � ,� i. ,r t, _ Callan Millr _ : • . • ' ' . -'amm...-LI4L':, IVO 01, ',,,. .. JILIONIalll, Ilk: . j. 7 - 11 .1111ININr* : - .F4. :Wig. jell�1 : [ ►♦♦�� � %impromp in. 7 �i♦ MIMIII •• �n :I IE1411101r. .I er111,.� — [ A� _ = _ - -ter _� Atlanta F i H. 2Jil i'.•eaw I ut Se!" MP !' IN- r.tin7 g Z -Power e ae/ a! •• ,i -IrjAN i - g LL ' e — N-1,7II °a O Community Edison , um. . f �.}' Park .�oRI . — Iron '� Rea ern ` •F, Project • v T a° N ,Kahului Y M>R>In Kelm y/119Rq ( Btn ; 7 Source: US Census Bureau TIGER 2001 -_ Project Sit Exhibit Exhibit 2 Pacific City Biological Technical Report '� w�e 025 0 0.25 0.5 Miles CIS//�fG NG s ��� CONSULTING li Pacific City Vascular Plants of California (CNPS 2000, 2001), and compendia of special status species published by the USFWS and CDFG were consulted. -- 2.1 GENERAL PLANT SURVEYS A general survey of plant species was conducted. 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 1 of Appendix A. 2.2 GENERAL WILDLIFE SURVEYS 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 2 of Appendix A. 3.0 EXISTING BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES This section describes the biological resources that either occur or potentially occur on the proposed project site. Vegetation types,wildlife populations and movement patterns, and special status plant and wildlife species either known to occur or potentially occurring on the proposed project site are discussed below. 3.1 VEGETATION TYPES This section describes the vegetation types that occur on the proposed project site (Exhibit 3). Three vegetation types occur within the proposed project site, none of which are considered native. These vegetation types are ornamental, disturbed, and developed. Ornamental , Ornamental vegetation covers approximately 0.5 acres of the proposed project site. This vegetation is associated with developed areas and typically consists of non-native 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.). R:1Projecls\CPHu020 Bio Tech Report-020602.wpd 2 Biological Technical Report c'n 3..\,,o z -6,61-2---,' t, ._ -.__=• .''.:•:-.111;•,•4,„. r-- _o • ---,e!•:7,7 , N z )4..-- (7-,a ----- ..t........,:_, , __,......r.........., __,,.. __..._n .,_,N ,.) / '. 4,-/t›.. ---- _____--- _ --f.--.::,--,7,---:-.)-• Wt l.) '‘ ) ,---- -_---',----- ow. , ,..' .,,.‘ , __,.. ..„„„1,... .____--- -•„.„.--_-_„_,-/--, --- -,.._-_-_-„,•:-_,--- 1 N".:-..i.-.,.:&.,-,-... -,:,:'-‘•••> ''''--,,,..,z4-,' •:..4.vr...„ -,„ , , ..&k ///•-•(.. ,_.5."'-,-,- -----ii- "7"-..-. '' '------f_..' . ---- Dr;'-,-',--) i ..c.,-.1,-- '' I ,4,.._., e...--.,,,,,,.:.z. z›,_ 1' .....Z,L/.,'-_ ,"'via.•....---- .:,;.:_. •-__:•.7.,---_, ,,k ,' ..._.--- .; --"" ----CI ,,3 ) , ) ..-)--A7.1)11: .......,_... i yvil , .„.„:„.. --__..... 4,=.---_-_,-:„.„4.... ,,,,• ) ? „ r• _ ...›,...., _,.... • ....._..., ...:. :„), .., , ,........sr,....„;..-____ ---r-,',---..1- ' ",,..A.-0.14„4" f f i'''-- L )1),\\L; ( cry ii.,,./), . / r / / _ 7/1117 ( E1 ., „.___ 17cir,.. .. ..,---•-j• t \ IcApal, c.-3f- 1 /,./.--ti / 7 i , ' • , • /7- .. .....-..-7_-_,..- %.es5,...., • , / „II , . i i5,,,, \ i• '-------‘—<4....?.40...rely• / ......." ) 1 h I 1 '-'-- c\-„ 10, ) IS(1 /O''f _'.I : tel 1'7 /V-- c•--' li ciaiii:/r 1 1 1 (),/ I 1 ,\ ) ,,i j 1 t t.,‘SI,\I\ 4 ) (....' '.k. --/ \ c''''''',:. .) W 1( ' f,' ."---- / .,--' 1.7441_12//11 t / \I \'-‘•• /.11/1 -7'')----k k‘k.1 ''?'\ I 1 --....•::''' '',..,-,--_.... ikcsc,:r-..... \\ \\ ''‘,..,,, V-Thr\\-\'‘ cs\-\ ..‘,..)..-c1-':kl_. \--q/4 .....-L.,.fit Qt15- i r''''_ , \ jik.e'•••••••-.4* ''\ /;'r i A 1 %‘.\\ \\,:c\ fc . . • 4.,.1' k.C.:N. (-... ---i.--------.1,-.441‹:.--- \. ''s s''•'::,-'•• ._.,,....-02"...•>•••-<,,,-----•- -----1 \ ''',- -S,...07--•........,_'-----"" `'. '..''' r . . \''.\'‘‘.\'•.-.,-'k2z H '14'-4‘kiki . .k.15--------'-------‘-''/2-'1 444, .. :.' 7 ' l'----,-...., ' "A \'tii'',-,:-'A.--,, ) .., ,,,-.0..4-• -..... -'''', ,.._JP!,)) .,-,..---___-_71:-- i...) W„,,, -ART \ ---/--• 16. ( ) c----1- ' 1/ igi \• fil (‘', ::::) , , ( s •:c4:4/ji%,...,,---• ,,, -> _i'lLk\ :' tl i It I /,4 ///yi 1 ,ervirtT,‘,,..\. ,s-...,--- - •/•,•-\( ky-I I 1',I ,fir• I i kr' re,_____. A, i -7 ', . ill i---•-•---- Vs-) i'-f.ke•I„...--\ p ., ///11", r lie / :1\if i , i1 1 r ,?!7:_.,--•--- / ,---- V 1 ii •i ti 11 Pf ,.,/ 7 . ,..\ ,, " /-. 1., .---'' ,o.r,e--t-/-1 .,./;_i lk„,,,,,,- 17 -..1 - 1,A.N. ,.. - •,1 7 li.1 /i I i ,',--.--/.:-.:;'-1\ \----< ( c ,\''-'•=tt. -.?--vf-=-:!'1`. •;,;'--Vq//// / (-- -----,.....,--, ,,,,\---\1:,:,--,.,„..,:,„.:5_-_,_,:.,-_-_,--- :„....\ ,% ,,,„ \ .26. .1 1 k., 1 i ‘ A :,-----';'"- - k.--al._.-.',--_-: \ i k,.:-..,‘:. -- l, ...------ .1' 1.1,_ /7/ , 'X Tom \\,......_ \ -,. 5.) .7/ \ ,•:-..s•A„;\,:...-:,.`:,i'%.-- .•N ,.:, '•• --e.:.--.---. •*1 e.--e..,:r,',1-"VI ,,,,... i,.._.., .!. / i, i / . , .,,C. 11\.•‘«...4>.'" '''...-.:,_.'" ,•-• ‘ ----- --;,:.-.. (3'II Vc•:-/--•\.1,a 14- e,• •';' ) '// • / (..) //j4 *a'::'•'',', • *,,,-••,,'-_,_ . -5.------ •-. .--- '-* ^- % ,1 , }.7.1 1,,,:-/ri ..*? / •,./ i/ • / ' cl)....., / 1--. \IA 1 '?. 1. -,----\ Av.., ,..:\ , ,,._,. . ,, /,7* „it ,, VIA..c.;','--•‘`,1(‘`1, .;1''.a •:-."--. .4 r. .r ' /7,/ V% ......-.:,-----... ..•:-...,...<:, --:.: ,..„24"':!:.....,- ---- -4-14,..x,-..:77----,-...----- \ ("1. k ,1 A -;t\-0\II \ , i•V‘,1,1,..•:!, -:-....\,. - /,,h ii ,./,.... 0 Lyk:_.:- ... .....,,,,,,,.. , :71 ,p!//. 1 - r— %'' -'.-'" `-. ' \g \ , ).,..f tr, : ..- - ',.. ii ' 1.;.,__.,4;\ .'' V-4:\ ,_,/, / , 4 --... ,,••••...„... ••• `,... ) \ , ,, 11_.A.-4 c,i,-,!.:„.--uTz:'h.,;,'_'1,-:-\ - ,12..;) ,,,..4,r /( 4 e. ..__----------- •- :,.. - \i , .,„: ,.,,,,,,:,..„.„._ .,;,:,..,:....._,,, „...„-,f, /. li 0 ____as C Ca --• )1.' ,''‘ - \\-\'„ A 0,..,...„_____,,. .... .,,. ,,,,„/ //I .. e 0 • ..4,--- ...•.....,,,---, ....,• -...., • - - = D,i4:. 1 Z:,.., ' . '-'\3 .":,, .., -..:.-------,T,Afri: 7,/ r , .0'. a) •-• 0 r, ---,-, ,,z -','',.:, --•-\.. \--,."'/ ..•"4--,?) ''.•=ik -.. -771 ,)///./7-i //// ': / 1:3 0 C) it C.) 7 ? -_,--........t.,\,-.... . : ..S‘.\\.. k - /d.. ,/,/• ___,/ c\ 4...4 /,v4 •r ,)- (ell ,Y• .rl'i,... ,.0.....,...t...:..,-,..,,.,›..•-tv s 1:,.. \\.. f A:c""3:-,•• •••7:'ik--N-,, ' .,, i, -,.. _ fi. ,, " , , „4 . 4/711, / Cl.. ';-%");.Z.1.''''--. "•-•=--';'- '` —'r--\.N7 )17/1;r1r i . .,' /0- 3'..„, \•-.,:•.,>,•sz, ! ,,v: ) /// /1 A... / V tS/ '•:'••• ---1-- •••:::'•' ''' s. ‘ V.-1'W' WI • / / '''''.1•1•.: . '••'•'-:••••", k, ‘,' ` /.4.illfe/P., ,4' ,.. -7,,;; ;•:-.,,,,•-•.,: ',.'-z. ...., ' "711/I,/il '''''' 7. \,.V-,,,N;•..... .'... ' i r,., ,/ n i i 4 ••• ..‘,...',..",s..,.. -' • . ''$.7,, yill.?) .i --- --- • ,/,:/4 ,,,,/.• -‹•-• ik...4';`N'-`,'.`,< 7-,----e..,/ /io,',7?"1,. -, , 4-,1:•.'._ -..„,..,.V , f/1/,,,k,1 . / -, ,,,,_•.,,-;7/ ,, . , • _..-- ' ,-- , i - Pacific City Disturbed 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 grandiflora), cheeseweed (Malva parviflora), 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. Developed • Approximately 4.5 acres of developed areas consisting of paved parking lots occur on the proposed project site. These areas typically support no vegetation. 3.2 WILDLIFE The following discussion describes the wildlife species observed or that have potential to occur within the proposed project site. Exhibit 3 illustrates the distribution of vegetation types representing wildlife habitat of the proposed project site. Fish The proposed project site does not support suitable habitat for fish. Therefore, no fish species are expected to occur on the proposed project site. Amphibians 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 run-off. Ornamental areas occur adjacent to PCH on the proposed project site. An area of run-off which drains from the water detention basin occurs in the south west corner of the proposed project site. None of these areas provide enough moisture or vegetation to support amphibian species, and are not expected to occur on the proposed project site. Reptiles 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. R:1Projects1CPHU020 Bio Tech Report-020602.wpd 3 Biological Technical Report Pacific City Birds A variety of bird species are expected to occur on the proposed project site as either migrants, �., winter v sitors, summer visitors, or year-round residents. Species observed on the proposed project ite 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 Fast occasionally include Anna's hummingbird (Calypte anna), American crow (Corvus brachyr ynchos),house finch(Carpodacus mexicanus),.and house sparrow(Passer domesticus). The pro osed project site provides marginal and limited foraging habitat for raptor species such as the ooper's hawk (Accipiter coopers); however, no raptors are expected to nest on the propos d project site due to lack of suitable habitat. Raptors require large, tall trees for nesting and roo ting site; they use grasslands for foraging. Mammals Althoug no mammals were detected during the field surveys, the proposed project site provides suitable habitat for a few common species that are adapted to urban environments. Small mamm Is such as the California desert cottontail(Sylvilagus audubonii), California ground squirrel (Spermpphilus beecheyi),black rat(Rattus rattus),and California mouse(Peromyscus californicus) _ are exp cted to occur on the proposed project site. Medium-to large-sized mammals such as the Virginia opposum (Didelphis virginiana) and coyote (Canis latrans) are also expected to occasio ally occur on the proposed project site. 3.3 ILDLIFE MOVEMENT Wildlife corridors vary greatly in their overall significance. General information that currently exists on corn ors suggests that major drainages, canyon bottoms, and rid eto s, as well as areas that t 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 betwee 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. The proposed project site is not expected to support any appreciable wildlife movement because i it is bou ded by urban development. The surrounding expanses of urban habitats offer poor cover for mo ement across the site. 3.4 SPECIAL STATUS BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES The follpwing 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 agenci s, as well as private conservation organizations. In general, the principal reason an R:1Projects\CPHU020 Elio Tech Report-020602.wpd 4 Biological Technical Report � I Pacific City 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. Tables 1 and 2 in Appendix B provide a summary of special status plant and wildlife species known to occur in the proposed project region including information on the status, potential for occurrence, and definitions for the various status designations. In addition, 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. Sources used to determine the special status of biological resources are as follows: 1. Plants-Electronic Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California. (CNPS 2001). Natural Diversity Database List of Special Plants (CDFG 2001 a). Various Federal Register notices from the USFWS regarding listing status of plant species. 2. Wildlife-CNDDB (CDFG 2001b), List of Special Animals (CDFG 2001c), Various Federal Register notices from the USFWS regarding listing status of wildlife species. 3. Habitats-CNDDB (CDFG 2001 b). 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, 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 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 proposed project. 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 R:1Projects\CPH1J020 Rio Tech Report-020602.wpd 5 Biological Technical Report Pacific City number throughout its range that it is likely to become an Endangered species in the near future in the a sence of special protection or management, and a Rare species as one present in such small n mbers 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 fully protected against take unless an incidental take permit is obtained from th wildlife agencies. Federal Species of Concern are species (a "term of art"for former Category 2 candidates)with an infor al designation by the USFWS for some declining species that are not federal candidates for listin at this time, but are noted as species of concern in the CNDDB (CDFG 2001 b). This list has not been updated by the USFWS since 1996 and is included for informational purposes only. Califor is Species of Special Concern is an informal designation used by the CDFG for some declinin wildlife species that are not state candidates. This designation does not provide legal protecti n 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 legislatidn 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 oncern are those that have no official status with the resource agencies, but are being watchedbecause either there is a unique population or the species is declining in the region. The CN S is a resource conservation organization that has developed an inventory of California's special �tatus plant species (CNPS 2001). This inventory is the summary of information on the distribu'lion, rarity, and endangerment of California's vascular plants. This rare plant inventory is compri ed of four lists. CNPS presumes that List 1A plant species are extinct in California becaus 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, threaterl�ed, 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. Special Status Vegetation The proposed project site contains no special status vegetation types. R:IProjects1CPHU020 Bio Tech Report-020602.wpd 6 Biological Technical Report Pacific City Special Status Plants Prior to the biological surveys, the site was disced. The site has continually been disced, thus preventing the growth of much vegetation. 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(Centromadia parry! ssp. australis), vernal barley(Hordeum intercedens), and Coulter's goldfields (Lasthenia glabrata ssp. coulter). Special status plant species known to occur in the proposed project region are summarized in Table 1 of Appendix B. No special status plant species are expected to occur on the project site. Special Status Wildlife The proposed project site contains no native vegetation types, 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 sandwlchensis 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 B. 4.0 PROJECT IMPACTS • • The determination of impacts in this analysis is based on a comparison of maps depicting proposed land use designations,which are assumed to be the ultimate grading limits, and maps of biological resources on the proposed project site. All construction activities,including staging and equipment areas, are assumed to be contained within the land development boundaries. 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 proposed project. Biological impacts associated with the proposed proposed project were evaluated with respect to the following special status biological issues: • federally- or state-listed Endangered or Threatened species of plant or wildlife; R:1Projects1CPHU020 Bio Tech Report-020602.wpd 7 Biological Technical Report • Pacific Cit • streambeds, wetlands, and their associated vegetation; • habitats suitable to support a federally- or state-listed Endangered or Threatened species of plant or wildlife; • species designated as California Species of Special Concern or federal Species of Concern; • habitat,other than wetlands,considered special status by regulatory agencies(USFWS, CDFG, Los Angeles County) or resource conservation organizations; and • other species or issues of concern to regulatory agencies or conservation organizations. The act al and potential occurrence of these resources on the proposed project site was correlated with the ollowing significance criteria to determine whether the impacts of the proposed proposed project on these resources would be considered significant. 4.1 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA In accordance with the state CEQA Guidelines, Section 15065(a), states that a project may have a significant effect on the environment if"...the project has the potential to substantially degrade the qual ty of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish o wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal c mmunity,reduce the number or restrict the range of an Endangered, Rare,or Threatened species.l.." An evaluation of whether an impact on biological resources would be substantial must consider both the resource itself and how that resource fits into a regional or local context. Substa tial impacts would be those that would diminish, or result in the loss of, an important biologic I resource or those that would obviously conflict with local, state, or federal resource consery tion plans, goals, or regulations. Impacts are sometimes locally adverse but not significant because, although they would result in an adverse alteration of existing conditions,they would not substantially diminish or result in the permanent loss of an important resource on a population-or region-wide basis. Section 15380 of CEQA indicates that a lead agency can consider a non-listed 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 g to the definitions for Rare and Endangered listed in Section 15380 of CEQA. 4.2 DIRECT IMPACTS Plant and Vegetation Type Impacts Implementation of the proposed project will result in the loss of 32.2 acres of ornamental and disturbed vegetation types and developed areas as shown in Exhibit 3. These vegetation types, R:\Projects\CPHU020 Bio Tech Report-020602.wpd 8 Biological Technical Report Pacific City and the habitats they provide, are generally of low biological value. Therefore, the loss of these areas is considered to less than significant. Wildlife Impacts Implementation of the proposed project will result in the loss of non-native vegetation types and the limited wildlife habitat that they provide. Non-native habitats within the proposed project site are expected to provide extremely limited nesting, foraging, and denning opportunities for a limited number of human tolerant wildlife species because the habitats are of low quality, based on the extreme disturbance from previous use, and compared to native habitats. The removal or alteration of habitats within the proposed project site would result in the loss of a limited number of reptiles and mammals. The loss of non-native habitats would not result in substantial reduction of wildlife populations in the region. 'Any loss of wildlife from project implementation would be minimal, therefore, these impacts would be considered less than significant. Wildlife Movement Impacts Ii Since the proposed project site does not function as a movement corridor, and the surrounding area is urbanized, no wildlife movement is expected on the proposed project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not impact wildlife movement. Special Status Biological Resource Impacts Plants The southern tarplant, vernal barley, and Coulter's goldfields have a limited potential to occur on the site. Proposed project implementation may result in impacts on these special status plant species if present on the proposed project site. Impacts on these species would be reduced to less than significant level with implementation of Mitigation Measure#1. Wildlife The proposed proposed project would result in the loss of potential foraging habitat for special status wildlife species with potential to occur on the proposed project site. The proposed project site also provides limited suitable nesting habitat for the California horned lark and loggerhead shrike. The proposed 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. R:\Projects1CPHU020 Bo Tech Report-020602.wpd 9 Biological Technical Report Pacific City 4.3 INDIRE T IMPACTS Noise Impacts Noise levels at he proposed project site will incrementally increase over present levels during construction act vities. The proposed project site is currently surrounded by developed land uses and species in tl a vicinity of the proposed project site are considered to be human tolerant. There is a lack of quality habitat onsite for most species, therefore the increased noise would be I_ considered less than significant. Night Lighting • Lighting of the development can indirectly affect the behavioral patterns of nocturnal and crepuscular (aclive at dawn and dusk) urban wildlife at the proposed project site. Currently, the proposed proje t site is surrounded by urban development. Although the proposed project would increase night li hting, the change would not be substantially different than the current conditions in the proposed roject vicinity. Therefore, this impact would be considered less than significant. Human Activit Since the propo ed project site is currently surrounded by urban development and the proposed project site is composed of non-native vegetation types, the increase in human activity would not be substantially ifferent than the current conditions in the proposed project vicinity. Therefore,this impact would b considered less than significant. 5.0 MITIGA ION MEASURES This section foc ses on the development of mitigation measures for those impacts of the proposed project found to e significant or potentially significant. Strategies to mitigate each impact to a less than significant level are identified and described in the following section. Direct Impacts Mitigation Measure#1: Special Status Plant Species If the proposed project site is left undisturbed before the start of construction (e.g., no discing of soils), special status plant surveys, will be conducted during the spring prior to construction of the proposed project, to determine the presence or absence of special status plant species. These surveys will be onducted 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 will b4 developed in consultation with the appropriate resource agencies if the status of the species and�he 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 adjacent open space areas. R:1Projects\CPFND20 Bio Te h Report-020602.wpd 10 Biological Technical Report Pacific City 6.0 REFERENCES Abrams, L. 1923. Illustrated Flora of the Pacific States,Volumes. I, II, and III. Stanford University Press, Stanford, California. Abrams, L. 1960. Illustrated Flora of the Pacific States. Volume IV. Stanford University Press, Stanford, California. Atwood,J.L. 1990. Status Review of the California Gnatcatcher(Polioptila californica). Manomet Bird Observatory, Manomet, Massachusetts. Atwood, J.L. 1992. Rare, Local, Little-Known, and Declining North American Breeders-A Closer Look. Birding 25: 228-233. American Ornithologists' Union (A.O.U.). 1957. Check-list of North American Birds, 5th ed. American Ornithologists' Union, Washington, D.C. American Ornithologists' Union. 1998. Check-list of North American Birds, 7th ed. American Ornithologists' Union, Washington, D.C. Beedy, E.C., S.D. Sanders, D.A. Bloom. 1991. Breeding Status, Distribution, and Habitat Associations of the Tricolored Blackbird (Aqelaius tricolor), 1850-1889. June 21, 1991. Jones and Stokes Associates, Inc. (JSA 88-187). Sacramento, California. Prepared for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento, California. Benes, E.S. 1969. Behavioral Evidence of Color Discrimination by the Whiptail Lizard, Cnemidophorus. Copeia 707-722. Burness, G.P., K. Lefevre, and C.T. Collins. 1999. Elegant Tern (Sterna elegans). In The Birds of North America, No. 404(A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Birds of North American, Inc., Philadelphia, PA. California Department of Fish and Game. 1991. California Wildlife Habitat Relationships Database System. Natural Heritage Division. Sacramento, California. California Department of Fish and Game. 1995. California Wildlife Habitat Relationships Database System. Natural Heritage Division. Sacramento, California. California Department of Fish and Game. 2001 a. List of Special Plants. Natural Heritage Division, Sacramento, California. (January). California Department of Fish and Game. 2001 b. California Natural Diversity (RareFind) Database. Natural Heritage Division, Sacramento, California. (October). California Department of Fish and Game. 2001 c. Special Animals List. Natural Heritage Division. Sacramento, California. (July). California Native Plant Society (CNPS) 2001. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (Sixth Edition). Rare Plant Scientific Advisory Committee, David P. Tibor, Convening Editor. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, California. California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 2001. Electronic Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, California. R:\Projects\CPHU020 Bic)Tech Report-020602.wpd 11 Biological Technical Report I I Pacific City Collins, .T., and K.L. Garrett. 1996. The Black Skimmer in California: an overview. Western irds 27(3):127-135. Dunn, P 1986. Endangered Species Management in Southern California Coastal Salt Marshes: A Conflict or an Opportunity. Proceedings, California Native Plant Society, Conservation and Management of Rare and Endangered Plants. Garrett, K., and J. Dunn. 1981. Birds of Southern California: Status and Distribution. Audubon Press. Los Angeles. Gray, J. and D.E. Bramlet. 1994. Habitat types of special interest. Orange County Natural Resources GIS Project. Prepared for County of Orange EMA. (Revised). L 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, California. Grinnell, J., and A.H. Miller. 1944. The distribution of the birds of California. Pacific Coast vifauna No. 27. 608pp. Hickma , J.C. Editor. 1993. The Jepson Manual Higher Plants of California. University of alifornia Press, Berkeley, California. ii Jenning , M.R. 1988. Natural History and Decline of Native Ranids in California. Pp.61-72 in H.F. Lisle, P.R. Brown and B. Kaufman, and B.M. McGurty (eds.) Proceedings of the Conference on California Herpetology. Southwest Herpetology Society, Special Publication. Johnsgard, P.A. 1990. Hawks, Eagles and Falcons of North America. Smithsonian Institution r ress, Washington, D.C. - Kaufman, K. 1996. Lives of North American Birds. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston. MacArthur, R.H. and E.O. Wilson. 1967. The Theory of Island Biogeography. Princeton University Press. Princeton, New Jersey. Munz, Ffi'.A.1974. A Flora of Southern California. University of California Press, Berkeley, California. Nagano, C.D. 1980. Population Status of the Tiger Beetles of the Genus Cicindela (Coleoptera: Cicindelidae) Inhabiting the Marine Shoreline of Southern California. Noss, R.F. 1983. A Regional Landscape Approach to Maintain Diversity. BioScience 33:700-706. Page, G.W., F.C. Bidstrup, R.J. Ramer, and L.E. Stenzel. 1986. Distribution of wintering Snowy Plovers in California and adjacent states. Western Birds 17(4):145-170. Remsen, J.V., Jr. 1978. Bird Species of Special Concern in California. California Department of Fish and Game, Nongame Investigations Report 78-1, Sacramento, California. Sawyer J.O.and T. Keeler-Wolf. 1995. A Manual of California Vegetation. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, California. R:1Projects\C'HU020 Bio Tech Report-020602.wpd 12 Biological Technical Report Pacific City Simberloff, D., and J. Cox. 1987. Consequences and Costs of Conservation Corridors. Conser. Biol. 1:63-71. Small, A. 1994. California Birds: Their Status and Distribution. Ibis Publishing Company. Vista, California. -- Stebbins, R.C. 1985. A Field Guide to Western Reptiles and Amphibians. 2nd ed. Houghton- Mifflin Company. Boston, Massachusetts. I - Thompson, B.C., J.A. Jackson, J. Burger, L.A. Hill, E.M. Kirsch, and J.L. Atwood. 1997. Least Tern (Sterna antillarum). In The Birds of North America, No. 290 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, PA, and The American Ornithologists' Union, Washington, D.C. Ware, R. 1994. Marine biologists, Coastal Resources Management. Personal communication regarding Tryonia imitator at Bolsa Chica. • R:1Projects\CPHU020 Bio Tech Report-020602.wpd 13 Biological Technical Report TABLE 1 PLANT COMPENDIUM ' Species ANGSOSPERMAE•FLOWERING PLANTS . ,DICOTYLEDONES AIZOACEAE-FIG-MARIGOLD FAMILY 1 Mesembryantheum crystallinum crystalline iceplant ANACARD/ACEAE-SUMAC FAMILY Rhus integrifolia lemonade berry APIACEAE(UMBELLIFERAE)-CARROT FAMILY - Foeniculum vulgar: sweet fennel ARALIACEAE-GINSENG FAMILY Hedera helix English ivy ASTERACEAE(COMPOSITAE)-SUNFLOWER FAMILY Heterotheca grandiflora telegraph weed Isocoma menziesii coastal goldenbush BRASSICACEAE(CRUCIFERAE)-MUSTARD FAMILY Brassica nig►a black mustard CARYOPHYLLACEAE-PINK FAMILY • Spergularia marina salt-marsh sand spurry CHENOPODIACEAE-GOOSEFOOT FAMILY Atriplex semibaccata Australian saltbush Salsola tragus Russian thistle FABACEAE(LEGUMINOSAE)-LEGUME/PEA FAMILY Acacia sp. acacia FAGACEAE-OAK/BEECH FAMILY Quercus sp. ornamental oak MALVACEAE-MALLOW FAMILY Malva parviflora cheeseweed MYRTACEAE-MYRTLE FAMILY Eucalyptus globulus Tasmanian blue gum OXALIDACEAE-WOOD-SORREL FAMILY Oxalis pes-caprae Bermuda buttercup/sour grass POLYGONACEAE-BUCKWHEAT FAMILY l Rumex crispus curly dock POACEAE-GRASS FAMILY Cynodon dactylon Bermuda grass This table consists of only those species observed during the December 19,2001 site vigil A-1 TABLE 2 WILDLIFE COMPENDIUM ' Species BIRDS L4IDAE-GULLS&TERNS Lards occidentalis Western gull COLUMBIDE-PIGEONS&DOVES Zenaida macroura inouming dove CORVIDAE-JAYS&CROWS Cowus brachyrhynchos American crow STURNIDAE-STARLINGS Std'nus 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. • A-2 -I -• APPENDIX B - SPECIAL STATUS PLANT AND WILDLIFE SPECIES KNOWN TO OCCUR IN THE REGION OF THE PROJECT SITE TABLE SPECIAL STATUS PLANT SPECIES KNOWN TO OCCUR IN THE REGION OF THE PROJECT SITE # . ",Potential t o Occur.vn Speck,* ' 0 USI=WS , CDFG''' ` .CNPS Project Site Aphanisrna blitoides SOC None 1 B Not Expected to Occur Ap4nisma Astragalus pycnostachyus var.lanosissimus PE CE 1 B Not Expected to Occur Ventura marsh milk-vetch Atriplex 4oulteri None None 1 B Not Expected to Occur Coulter's saltbush • Atriplex Pacifica SOC None 1 B Not Expected to Occur South Coast saltscale Atriplex aadshii SOC None 1 B Not Expected to Occur Parish's brittlescale Atriplex serenana var. davidsonii None None 1B Not Expected to Occur 1 Pari h's brittlescale Centromadia panyi ssp.australis SOC None 1 B Limited Potential to Southern tarplant Occur Cordylarthus maritimus ssp.maritimus FE CE 1 B Not Expected to Occur Salt'marsh bird's beak 1 Dudleya ulticaulls SOC None 1 B Not Expected to Occur man -stemmed dudleya Dudleya stolonifera i Laguna Beach dudleya FT CT 1 B Not Expected to Occur Echinodrus berteroi None/ Upright burhead None None Local Not Expected to Occur Concern Eleocharis parvula None None 4 Not Expected to Occur Sma'l spikerush Eleocharis rostellata None None Local Not Expected to Occur Bealed spikerush Concern Helianthll}rs nuttallii ssp.parishii SOC None 1A Not Expected to Occur Los Angeles sunflower Hordeurr►intercedens Limited Potential to Vempl barley None None 3 Occur Juncus ecutus var.leopoidii None None 4 Not Expected to Occur Southwestern spiny rush LasthenIa glabrata ssp.coulteri SOC None 1 B Limited Potential to Coulter's goldfields Occur LepidiuM virginicum ssp.robinsonii None None 1 B Not Expected to Occur Robihson's pepper grass Lycium ealifomicum None None 4 Not Expected to Occur Califamia box thorn Name sienocarpum None None 2 Not Expected to Occur Mud nama Navarrecia prostrate None None 1 B Not Expected to Occur Prostrate navarretia Nemacaulis denudate var.denudate None None 1 B Not Expected to Occur 1 Coast woolly-heads B-1 TABLE 1 (continued) SPECIAL STATUS PLANT SPECIES KNOWN TO OCCUR IN THE REGION OF THE PROJECT SITE Potential to Occur on Species , uSpvvS CDFG CNPS,",,',, Project'Slte Potentilla anserina ssp.Pacifica None! Southern silver-weed None None Local Not Expected to Occur Concern — Rorippa gambelii FE CT 1 B Not Expected to Occur Gambel's water cress Sagittaria sanfordi! SOC None 1 B Not Expected to Occur Sanford's arrowhead Sibara virginica None! Virginia rockcress None None Local Not Expected to Occur Concern Sidalcea neomexicana None None 2 Not Expected to Occur Salt spring checkerbloom Suaeda esteroa None None 1 B Not Expected to Occur Estuary seablite Suaeda taxifolia - Woolly seablite None None 4 Not Expected to Occur LEGEND Federal(USFWS) State(CDFG) FE Endangered CE Endangered FT Threatened CT Threatened PE Proposed Endangered PE Proposed Endangered PT Proposed Threatened PT Proposed Threatened SOC Species of Concern' 1 Note: This informal designation,although not an active term, has been reinstated for informational purposes only. California Native Plant Society(CNPS) 1A Plants Presumed Extinct in California 1 B Plants Rare,Threatened,or Endangered in California and Elsewhere 2 Plants Rare,Threatened,or Endangered in California But More Common Elsewhere 3 Plants About Which We Need More Information-A Review List 4 Plants of Limited Distribution-A Watch List Orange County I Locally Rare Species of limited distribution in the County(Gray and Bramlet 1994) Local Concern Species of limited distribution in the County, as noted since 1994(Bramlet 2000) B-2 TABLE 2 -- SPECIAL STATUS WILDLIFE SPECIES KNOWN TO OCCUR IN THE REGION OF THE PROJECT SITE Potential to Occuc'on 'Species, USFWS s, CDFG" ,r, Project.Site INVERTEBRATES l_I Snails Tryonia imi for Not expected to occur, Mimic try (California brackishwater snail) SOC None no suitable habitat. Insects — Cicindela hiriicollis gravida Not expected to occur; Sandy beach tiger beetle SOC None I no suitable habitat. -- Cicindela tr.!'nquebarica viridissima Not expected to occur; Greenestiger beetle SOC None no suitable habitat. Cicindela Obbii None None Not expected to occur; Gabb's tiger beetle no suitable habitat. Trigonoscut1 dorothea dorothea Not expected to occur; Dorothy's�El Segundo dune weevil SOC _ None no suitable habitat. Danaris p/e ippus Moderate potential for dispersing Monarch utterfl None None individuals;no suitable roosting y habitat _ Panoquina rrens Not expected to occur; Wandering skipper(saltmarsh skipper) SOC None no suitable habitat. VERTEBRATES Amphibians Scaphiopus hammondii Not expected to occur; Western rspadefoot toad SOC SSC/P no suitable habitat. • Bufo microsbaphus califomicus FE SSC/P Not expected to occur; Arroyo toad no suitable habitat. Reptiles Clemmys mlarrnorata pallida SOC SSC/P Not expected to occur; Southwestern pond turtle no suitable habitat. Phrynosom coronatum blainvillei Not expected to occur; SOC SSC/P San Diego homed lizard no suitable habitat. Cnemidoph I rus tigris multiscutatus Not expected to occur; Coastal liVestem whiptail SOC None no suitable habitat. Anniella pu%hra pulchra Not expected to occur; Silvery legless lizard SOC SSC no suitable habitat. Salvadora hexa/epis virgultea Not expected to occur; SOC SSC _! Coast patch-nosed snake no suitable habitat. Thamnophis hammondii Not expected to occur; Two-striped garter snake SOC SSC/P no suitable habitat. Birds Pelecanus iccidentalis califomicus* Not expected to occur; Califomi brown pelican FE CE/FP no suitable habitat. Phalacrocorax auritus` None SSC Not expected to occur; Double-crested cormorants no suitable habitat. P/egadis child* SOC SSC Not expected to occur; White faded ibis - - no suitable habitat. B-3 i TABLE 2 (continued) SPECIAL STATUS WILDLIFE SPECIES KNOWN TO OCCUR IN THE REGION i OF THE PROJECT SITE 1 Potential to.Occur on **cies .,LIMN COFG " Pro)* Accipiter cooperii* None SSC Moderate for foraging only; - Cooper's hawk no suitable nesting habitat. Accipiter striates* None SSC Moderate for foraging only; Sharp-shinned hawk no suitable nesting habitat. Circus cyaneus* None SSC Low for foraging only; Northern harrier no suitable nesting habitat. Elanus leucurus* None FP Low for foraging only; White-tailed kite no suitable nesting habitat. Falco columbarius** None SSC Very low for foraging only; Merlin no suitable nesting habitat. Falco peregrinus* None CE/FP Very low for foraging only; American peregrine falcon no suitable nesting habitat. Lateralus jamaicensis cotumiculus Not expected to occur; California black rail SOC CT/FP no suitable habitat. Rallus longirostris levipes Not expected to occur; Light-footed clapper rail FE CE/FP no suitable habitat. • Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus* FTSSC Not expected to occur; Western snowy plover no suitable habitat. Numenius americans* Not expected to occur; Long-billed curlew None SSC no suitable habitat Chlidonias niger* SOC SSC Not expected to occur; Black tern no suitable habitat Lams califomicus* None SSC Moderate for roosting only; California gull no suitable nesting habitat. Rynchops niger* Not expected to occur; Black skimmer None SSC no suitable habitat. Sterna antillarum brown* FE CE/FP Not expected to occur; California least tern no suitable habitat. Sterna elegans* Not expected to occur; Elegant tern SOC SSC no suitable habitat. Asio flammeus* Not expected to occur; Short-eared owl None SSC no suitable habitat. Athene cunicularia Not expected to occur; _ Burrowing owl SOC SSC no suitable habitat. Empidonax traillii extimus* FE CE Not expected to occur; Southwestern willow flycatcher no suitable habitat. Eremophila alpestris actia Low potential to occur; California homed lark None SSC potentially suitable foraging and nesting habitat. s • Campylorhynchus brunneicapillus couesi Not expected to occur; - Coastal cactus wren None SSC no suitable habitat. Lanius ludovicianus SOC SSC Low;suitable foraging habitat and Loggerhead shrike potentially suitable nesting habitat. Vireo bellii pusillus* FE CE Not expected to occur; Least Bell's vireo no suitable habitat. 13-4 TABLE 2 (continued) SPECIAL STATUS WILDLIFE SPECIES KNOWN TO OCCUR IN THE REGION OF THE PROJECT SITE Potential to Occur:on Species USFWS CMG Project Site , 1 Agelaius tricolor* Low for foraging only; Tricolored blackbird SOC SSC no suitable nesting habitat. Aimophila rUficeps canescens Not expected to occur; - Southern California rufous-crowned sparrow SOC SSC no suitable habitat. Icteria virehs* None SSC Not expected to occur, Yellow-breasted chat no suitable habitat. Passerculuir sandwichensis beldingi SOC CE Not expected to occur; • Belding's savannah sparrow no suitable habitat. Passerculu sandwichensis rostratus** SOC SSC Very low; Large ibilled savannah sparrow may occur as winter visitor only. Mammals • Lepus califomicus bennettii Not expected to occur, San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit SOC SSC no suitable habitat. ChaetodipLs fallax fallax SOC SSC Not expected to occur, NorthweTstem San Diego pocket mouse no suitable habitat. Perognathus longimembris pacificus Not expected to occur, Pacific pocket mouse FE SSC no suitable habitat. Microtus cclifomicus stephensi Not expected to occur, Stephens California vole SOC SSC no suitable habitat. Neotoma lepida intennedia Not expected to occur; San Diego desert woodrat SOC SSC no suitable habitat. - Reithrodontomys raviventris FE CE/FP Not expected to occur; 1 Salt-marsh harvest mouse no suitable habitat. i ! LEGEND • Federal (USFWS) State(CDFG) FE Endangered E Endangered FT Threatened T Threatened PE Proposed Endangered PE Proposed Endangered • ' PT Pro osed Threatened PT Proposed Threatened C Can idate Species SSC Species of Special Concern SOC Species of Concern' FP Fully Protected P Protected ' Note:This designation,although not an active term, has been reinstated for informational purposes only. *Nesting habitat protected i **Wintering sites protected I } B-5 Regulatory Guidance Letters Issued by the Corps of Engineers Page 1 of 2 Regulatory Guidance Letters Issued by the Corps of Engineers Marc Kodac(mkodack@icon-stl.net Sat, 10 Apr 1999 23:06:18-0500 • Previous message: excavation method • Next message: Public meetings on Corps'nationwide permit program • Messa es sorted by: [ date J{thread }[ subject] [ author]. The Army Corpsl of Engineers has published its Regulatory Guidance letters in the Federal Register. The first part of the notice follows. The entire notice is available at <http://wwl.access.gpo.gov/su docs/aces/aces140.html>. Scroll down to "Issue Dat " and choose "On" and type in the calendar date 03/22/99. Then go to "Sea ch Terms" and enter regulatory guidance letter. Marc Kodac mkodack@icon-stl.net 1 [Federal Register: March 22, 1999 (Volume 64, Number 54) ] [Notices] [Page 13783-13788] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr22mr99-57] DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers Regulatory Guidance L tters Issued by the Corps of Engineers AGENCY: Army Corps of Engineers, DoD. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The purpose of this notice is to provide current Regulatory Guidance Utters (RGLs) to all interested parties. RGLs are used by the U.S. Army orps of Engineers Headquarters as a means to transmit guidance on the per it program (33 CFR parts 320-330) to its division and district commanders. Each future RGL will be published in the Notice Section of the Federal Register as a means to insure the widest dissemination of this information while reducing costs to the Federal Government. The Corps no longer mai tains a mailing list to furnish copies of the RGLs to the public. FO FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr, Michael D. Smith, Regulatory Branch, Of ice of the Chief of Engineers at (202) 761-0201. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATIO : RGLs were developed by the Corps as a system to organize and track writen guidance issued to its field agencies. RGLs are normally issued as result of evolving policy; judicial decisions and changes to the Corps regulations or another agency's regulations which affect the permit program. RGLs are used only to interpret or clarify existing 3 Regulatory Program policy, but do provide mandatory guidance to Corps district offices. RGLs are sequentially numbered and expire on a specified date. Howeier, unless superseded by specific provisions of subsequently issued regulations or RGLs, the guidance provided in RGLs generally remains valid after1 the expiration date. The Corps incorporates most of the guidance provided by RGLs whenever it revises its permit regulations. We are hereby publishing all current RGLs, beginning with RGL 94-1 and ending with RGL 96-2. RGLs 92-1, 92-3, and 92-5 expired on December 31, 1997, and RGL 93-1 and 93-2 expired on December 31, 1998. All five RGLs have been htto://lists.gardencity.net/archives/acra-1/1999-April/004995.html 10/1/03 Regulatory Guidance Letters Issued by the Corps of Engineers Page 2 of 2 removed from this publication. We will continue to publish each RGL in the Notice Section of the Federal Register upon issuance and in early 2000, we will again publish the complete list- of all current RGLs. Subscription to the Internet mailing list, ACRA-L is not membership in the American Cultural Resources Association (ACRA) . The views expressed on ACRA-L are those of the authors of each post and do not necessarily reflect the views of ACRA. To UNSUBSCRIBE send mail to listproc@lists.nonprofit_net: UNSUB ACRA-L To SUBSCRIBE send mail to that address: SUB ACRA-L YourFullName ACRA-L archives: http://lists.nonprofit.net/listproc/archives/acra-1/ - Report problems to Thomas R. Wheaton <tomwheaton@newsouthassoc.com> ' - • Previous message: excavation method • Next message: Public meetings on Corps' nationwide permit program • Messages sorted by: [date] [thread] I subject] [ author] • http://lists.gardencity.net/archives/acra-1/1999-Apri1/004995.htm1 10/1/03 r-. . r 1f , .; F,__FC yr • S f� �, �/ _ } r CD N � ;� , b o n ,� f ..c) , ' ..*%' /lir.,:..,,,I . '. <Ai': . • ,- • ,410,.., ref ; , � 4� �: C� I ♦tlCbl It — •/ ; Iws / Ns. � ii / ^ '. r _■ Y r .f1/.r liw/I , 'J,a,:il, __flit:wit-0 kailit i ' 0 s• ' •.;* 7 '''' '' ' ' &..<1 111'. 4,,.. ., ,,- ...4_,.., , ,_ .... , L A.„...,,0,011— y II w4 / .� ;t • ;r.; yes.♦ C% %, • ' / Regulatory Guidance Letter 86-09 Page 1 of 2 Regulatory Guidance Letter 86-09 SUBJECT: Clarification of "Normal Circumstances"'in the Wetland of nition ( 33 CFR 323.2 (c) ) ATE: August 27, 1986 I : EXPIRES: December 31, 1988 1. This letter will serve to continue the guidance originally issued as RGL 82-2,regarding Corps policy _ on land-use conversion as it concerns regulatory jurisdiction. Specifically, the guidance addresses situations invo ving changes in the physical characteristics of a wetland which cause the area to lose or gain characteri tics which would alter its status of"waters of the United States" for purposes of the Section 404 re ulatory program. 2. The current definition of"waters of the United States" delineates wetlands as follows, at 33 CFR 323.2(0 The term wetlands means 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. The regulations now in force cover the actual discharge of dredged or fill material into "wetlands", as they are a part of the "waters of the United States". However, these regulations do not discuss what effect the convl rsion of a wetland to other uses (e.g., agricultural)has upon regulatory jurisdiction, once the land-use conversion has been accomplished. 3. As was stat d in RGL 82-2, it is our intent under Section 404 to regulate discharges of dredged or fill material into t e aquatic system as it exists and not as it may have existed over a record period of time. The wetland d finition is designed to achieve this intent. It pertains to an existing wetland and requires that the area b inundated or saturated by water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support aquatic vegetation. W do not intend to assert jurisdiction over those areas that once were wetlands and part of an aquatic syst?m,but which,in the past, have been transformed into dry land for various purposes. Neither do we intend the definition of"wetlands" to be interpreted as extending to abnormal situations including non-aquatic areas that have aquatic vegetation. Thus,we have listed swamps, bogs,and marshes at the end of the definition at 323.2(c) to further clarify our intent to include only truly aquatic areas. 4. The use of the phrase "under normal circumstances" is meant to respond to those situations in which an individual Would attempt to eliminate the permit review requirements of Section 404 by destroying the aquatic veetation, and to those areas that are not aquatic but experience an abnormal presence of - aquatic vegetation. Several instances of destruction of aquatic vegetation to eliminate Section 404 jurisdiction have actually occurred. Because those areas would still support aquatic vegetation"under normal circumstances",they remain a part of the overall aquatic system intended to be protected by the _ Section 404 program; therefore,jurisdiction still exists. On the other hand,the abnormal presence of aquatic vegetation in a non-aquatic area would not be sufficient to include that area within the Section 404 program. 1,++1,•//,:rr.,, era „cCInP arm,mil/rpcn1r-rn/recnilatnry/R c/R6-119 html 1 O/1/n3 Regulatory Guidance Letter 86-09 Page 2 of 2 ; 5. Many areas of wetlands converted in the past to other uses would, if left unattended for a sufficient period of time,revert to wetlands solely through the devices of nature. However, such natural circumstances are not what is meant by "normal circumstances" in the definition quoted above. "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(f) 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. However,if the area is abandoned and over time regains wetland characteristics such that it meets the definition of"wetlands", then the Corps 404 jurisdiction has been restored. 6. This policy is applicable to Section 404 authority only,not to Section 10. 7. This guidance expires 31 December 1988 unless sooner revised or rescinded. FOR THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS: Back to RGL Index Return to Regulatory Home Page WARNING!This is a Department of Defense Computer.This page is maintained by Chris Mayo (Christopher.Mayo@usace.army.mill,Sacramento District Corps of Engineers[URL: http://www.spk.usace.army.mil/cespk-co/regulatory/RGLs/86-09.html, last revised Tuesday,30-Apr-02 13:35:271 http://www.spk.usace.army.mil/cespk-co/regulatory/RGLs/86-09.html 10/1/03 1 1 1 i 1 APPENDIX J GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION i I 1 1 1 I I 1 RECEIVED JAN 0 8 2002 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Pacific City Northeastern Corner of 1s` Street and Pacific Coast Highway City of Huntington Beach, California. November 19, 2001 PN 01039-00 Prepared For: Mr. Ethan Thatcher MAKAR PROPERTIES,LLC 4100 MacArthur Boulevard, Suite 200 Newport Beach, CA 92660 • ZEISER KLING Consultants, Inc. November 19, 2001 PN 01039-00 Mr. Ethan Thatcher CAPITAL PACIFIC HOLDINGS, INC. 4100 MacArthur Boulevard, Suite 2000 Newport Beach, CA 92660 SUBJECT: Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Pacific City, Northeastern Corner of lst Street and Pacific Coast Highway, City of Huntington Beach, California. • Dear Mr. Thatcher: In accordance with your request and authorization, Zeiser Kling Consultants, Inc. (ZKCI) has completed this Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation using the 50-scale preliminary site plans prepared by McLarand Vazquez Emsick (the project Architect for the residential area), dated March 27, 2001, and plans prepared by Holmes and Narver (the project Architect for the hotel and commercial areas), dated September 21, 2001 for the proposed Pacific City project within the City of Huntington Beach, California. The accompanying report presents our findings, conclusions, and preliminary recommendations regarding the existing geotechnical conditions and their constraints on the design of the proposed development. The findings and recommendations presented herein are considered valid as of the present date. . However, changes in the conditions of a property can occur in the future,whether they are due to natural processes, the passage of time, or acts of man on this or adjacent properties. In addition, changes in applicable standards or codes may occur, whether from legislation or a broadening of knowledge. The findings in this report are for planning purposes only, and will be refined in subsequent, site specific studies. This report has been prepared specifically for the improvements associated with the Pacific City project. It has not been prepared for use by parties or projects other than specifically listed herein. It may not contain sufficient information for other parties or other purposes. This report is also subject to review and acceptance by the City of Huntington Beach. This report is also subject to the limitations presented in Section 11.0 of our report and the ASFE (the Association of Engineering Firms Practicing in the Geosciences) insert included in Appendix J. E:lprojects12001101039-00-Pacific City-11-01.doc 1221 E. Dyer Road • Suite 105 ■ Santa Ana, CA 92705 ■ (714) 755-1355 ■ Fax (714) 755-1366 Geotechnical Engineering • Engineering Geology • Materials Testing and Inspection Capital Pacific Holdings, Inc. PN 01039-00 November 19, 2001 The opportunity to be of continued service to Capitol Pacific Holdings, Inc. is appreciated. Please contact the undersigned with questions or comments. Respectfully submitted, ZEISER KLIN CONSULTANTS,INC. I L V" RY E.FANNING J'�+ Michael W. Lan .Larry E. arming No. -� Project Geotechnical Engineer POFEsso Principal Engineerin G ologi�,i �F' � G.E. 2539 <0o0 PEA w �F R.G. 6118; C.E.G. 1907 ' Expires 6/30/05 \G� S Expires 1/31/03 a `S No.2539 ti` m R.E.A. 04677 r Exp. 113". Expires 6/30/02 * G' v * (5, CTECH.AG` MWL:LEF:hfk:mgr:lw FOF CAoF° Dist.: (5)Addressee E:\projacts\2001\01039-0S-Pacific City-11-01.doc 2 Capital Pacific Holdings,Inc. — PN 01039-00 November 19, 2001 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION 6 1.1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 6 1.2 GENERAL INTENT AND SCOPE 7 1.3 SITE LOCATION 8 1.4 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 8 2.0 SITE CONDITIONS AND HISTORY 10 2.1 SITE DESCRIPTION _ 10 2.2 SITE HISTORY 11 2.3 OFFSITE DEVELOPMENTS AND CONDITIONS 11 3.0 PREVIOUS STUDIES 12 3.1 ENGINEERING REPORTS 12 3.2 COMPACTION REPORTS 14 3.3 ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTS 14 4.0 FIELD AND LABORATORY TESTING 15 4.1 SURFICIAL FIELD WORK PERFORMED IN THIS STUDY 15 4.2 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION PERFORMED IN THIS STUDY 15 4.3 LABORATORY TESTING 15 5.0 GEOLOGIC SETTING 16 5.1 REGIONAL GEOLOGY 16 5.2 GEOLOGIC UNITS 19 5.2.1 Artificial fill(Al) 19 5.2.2 Sedimentary Units(Qal and Qtm) 20 5.2.3 Structure 21 5.3 GEOLOGIC HAZARDS 22 5.3.1 Faulting and Seismicity 22 5.3.2 Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone 24 5.3.3 Ground Motion 25 5.3.4 Liquefaction Potential and Other Seismic Hazards 26 5.4 GROUNDWATER 28 5.5 SETTLEMENT POTENTIAL 28 5.6 OTHER HAZARDS 29 5.6.1 Abandoned Oil Wells and Methane 29 5.6.2 Ocean Related Corrosion Potential 29 5.6.3 Flood Hazards,Storm Surge and Transient Groundwater 29 6.0 CONCLUSIONS 31 6.1 LOCAL ENGINEERING GEOLOGIC CONSIDERATIONS 32 7.0 PRELIMINARY DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS 34 7.1 DEMOLITION AND UNSUITABLE MATERIALS 34 7.2 SOIL REMOVALS 35 7.3 OVEREXCAVATIONS IN NATURAL AREAS 36 E:\projects\2001\01039-00-Pacific City-11-01.doc 3 1 Capital Pacific oldings,Inc. PN 01039-00 November 19, 2001 7.4 OVERSIZED MATERIAL 38 7.5 PRELIMIN/qtY FOUNDATION PARAMETERS 38 7.5.1 Shallow Foundations 38 7.5.2 Deep Foundations 38 7.6 EXPANSIVE AND CORROSIVE SOILS 39 7.7 SUBDRAIN IGE AND UNDERDRAINAGE 41 7.8 SITE PROTE TION 43 7.9 SURFACE D INAGE 43 7.10 SETTLE ENT POTENTIAL 44 7.11 GROUN IMPROVEMENT 44 7.12 TSUNAMI PROTECTION 45 8.0 ROUGH G ING RECOMMENDATIONS 46 8.1 SITE PREPA TION 46 8.2 GENERAL RADING REQUIREMENTS 46 8.3 SPECIAL G DING CONSIDERATIONS 46 83.1 Dem lition of Existing Structures 46 8.3.2 Vegetation Removal and Grubbing 46 83.3 Exca'ation Difficulty 47 8.3.4 Dewtering 47 8.3.5 Engi I eered Fills 47 8.3.6 Bulking and Shrinkage Values 48 8.3.7 Inspection of Temporary Slopes and Overexcavations 48 8.3.8 Subdrain,Backdrain and Underdrain Installation and Inspection 49 8.3.9 Pad¶onstruction 49 8.3.10 Existing Utilities 49 8.4 PRE-GRAD MEETING 50 8.5 OBSERVATION AND TESTING IN CONSTRUCTION 50 9.0 POST GRADOi NG RECOMMENDATIONS 51 9.1 SEISMIC DESIGN 51 9.2 PAD PREPA TION 51 9.3 CONVENTIONAL FOUNDATION 51 9.4 DEEP FOUNDATIONS 52 9.5 CONCRETE LAB-ON-GROUND 52 9.6 SETTLEME T 53 9.7 CoRROSIO 53 9.7.1 Metallic 53 9.7.2 Concrete 53 9.73 Sea Ilreeze 53 i 9.8 FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT DESIGN 54 9.9 RETAINING WALLS 54 9.10 DRAINA9E CONTROL 54 9.11 BURIED UTILITIES 56 9.11.1 Trenching 56 9.11.2 Trench Bottom Preparation 57 9.113 Pipe Bedding 57 9.11.4 Trench Backfill 57 9.12 APPURTENANT STRUCTURES 57 9.12.1 Concrete Flatwork S7 E:\projects\2001\01039-00-Pacific City-11-01.doc 4 Capital Pacific Holdings, Inc. PN 01039-00 November 19, 2001 9.12.2 Landscaping 59 10.0 GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW 60 10.1 PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS 60 10.2 CONSTRUCTION REVIEW 60 11.0 CLOSURE 61 Figures Figure 1- Site Index Map/Vicinity Map Figure 2- Regional Fault and Seismicity Map Appendices Appendix A - References - Appendix B - Exploration Logs by ZKCI(Current Study) • Appendix-C - Exploration Logs from Past Reports Appendix D - Summary of Laboratory Tests and Results by ZKCI Appendix E - Laboratory Tests Results from Past Reports Appendix F - - City of Huntington Beach Methane District Building Permit Requirements Appendix G - Preliminary Deep Foundation Design Charts Appendix H - General Earthwork and Grading Specifications Appendix I - Retaining Wall Details Appendix J - ASFE Insert Plates Plate IA - Geotechnical Map Plate IB - Geologic Map Plate II - Site Plan Plates III to IV - Cross-Sections E:\projects\2001\01039-00-Pacific City-11-01.doc 5 Capital Pacific Holdings, Inc. PN 01039-00 November 19, 2001 1.0 INTRODI/CTION 1.1 Executive Summary • The general distribution of the geologic materials is roughly as described in the • previous consultant reports reviewed. • The findings with respect to engineering support capacity of the on-site materials have been evaluated with significant detail based on both surface and subsurface explorations. The following are believed to apply: . - The proposed development is feasible from a geotechnical point of view. - The site is not located within a Fault Hazard Zone as defined by the State of California and the City of Huntington Beach. The southwestern third of the site is located within a Seismic Hazard Zone for Liquefaction as defined by the State. - The site is within an area of Tsunami Run-up as defined by the City General Plan. Up to 8-feet of run-up may be expected during a 500-year seismic event. - The soils within the Talbert (also known as the Santa Ana) Gap area in the southwestern portion of the site are prone to consolidation and have a moderate pot ential for liquefaction induced settlement. - DO to the weak soil conditions in the southeastern portion of the site, deep and stiffened foundations are recommended for buildings over and under two-stores, respectively. - The terrace deposits exhibit a "medium" to "high" potential for expansion; a "negligible" to "moderate potential for corrosion towards concrete elements; and a"s vere"potential for corrosion towards ferrous metals. • The current grading scheme appears at this time to be feasible, provided the geologic d groundwater conditions are taken into account. Recommendations for such are present d herein. However, the following special provisions will apply: Existing remnants of structures, such as the slabs and foundations for the former motlel,within the grading limits should be demolished and removed from the site. Ab doned oil wells near or within proposed buildings will require special ven ing in accordance with Huntington Beach Specifications 429 and 431 (See Ap endix F). - The proposed depth of the parking lot floors are at or within a few feet of the groundwater table. This condition will most likely require some dewatering or other engineering control of excavations during construction. E:\projects\2001\01039-00-Pacific City-11-01.doc 6 1 I ' Capital Pacific Holdings,Inc. PN 01039-00 November 19, 2001 To mitigate the potential for transient groundwater conditions, the proposed buildings should be underlain by a underdrainage system to prevent hydrostatic build-up. To facilitate compaction of the terrace materials, and to limit the expansion potentials, the fills are recommended to be placed at a minimum of 120-percent over the optimum moisture content. The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are preliminary, and are subject to revision in future site- and building-specific studies. This report is intended for planning purposes only and is to be used for the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) currently being prepared for the site. 1.2 General Intent and Scope This report presents the results of our study of the geotechnical and engineering geologic aspects of the site with respect to the proposed development. The findings of this report are intended to be incorporated into the "Earth Resources" Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the subject proposed development in accordance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) requirements. This report also presents general and preliminary geotechnical recommendations with respect to grading and foundation systems for the proposed development. The general scope of work performed included: • Review of previous engineering and other scientific studies performed on the site; • Review of the site history, as well as several series of aerial and aerial stereo photographs of the site and vicinity from 1953 to 1994; • Performance of reconnaissance mapping of the site; • Performance of six 5-inch diameter mud-rotary borings which penetrated and sampled the engineering materials underlying and immediately supporting the site; • Conversion of two of the borings (ZB-2 and ZB-5) into groundwater monitoring wells (piezometers). • Laboratory testing in support of the field exploration to evaluate pertinent engineering characteristics of the underlying soils; E:\projects\2001\01039-00-Pacific City-11-01.doc 7 Capital Pacific Holdings,Inc. PN 01039-00 November 19, 2001 • C mpilation of the findings and data; • Development and evaluation of models of the site with respect to engineering g ologic structure; - • E aluation of the proposed development relative to existing conditions; and • Pi eparation of this report, presenting our findings, conclusions, and recommendations. The engineering geology of the site and locations of field e Iplorations are presented on Plate I. The base topography for our Geologic Map, Plate I, was prepared by Hunsaker and Associat s (the project Civil Engineer). We are including a copy of the plan prepared by McLaran -Vasquez-Emsick (MVE) as Plate II, Site Plan, showing the locations of the borings +ith respect to the proposed building locations. The list of reference data is presentedi in Appendix A. Our study of the site was supplemented by surface and subsurface data garnered by other competent geotechnical firms. It is recognized that the findings d recommendations presented herein are subject to jurisdictional review and approval, as well will be supplemented by future foundation specific studies. The purpose of this phase of study is to provide information regarding geotechnical feasibili 1, and information to be used in a Environmental Impact (E.I.R.) level report. 1.3 S to Location The site i located in the southwestern portion of Huntington Beach. Specifically, the site is locate adjacent and east of the Pacific Coast Highway (PCH), and is bounded by Huntington Street to the east, Atlanta Avenue to the north and 1st Street to the west. The site location is presented on Figure 1, and the site layout is shown on Plates I and II, with the roposed development being shown on Plate III. 1.4 P oposed Development Based on our site reconnaissance and our meetings with you, we understand that_the site is currently proposed for use as an integrated development including entertainment, hotel, residenti 1, and restaurant/retail centered on the"Pacific City"theme. E:\projects\2001\01039-00-Pacific City-11-01.doc 8 . , 1 i•""4":,ilt.11,,i'W.--1:,:::,'i T:,-..L;k-iii,,i..,4, 11 I. , ,,,,,ts lg.g '' 1,,,I ig irs'„, , ,,:1 ,., ,...,-,:^P;,:r• ,.3 ,:---,4` At ' ,,,, •,'",',..i•Sia;Zi:•"'i . ..17,' ',I,, tl -,r tn,;c1r,W72 .•.'i 02. ,ii3.:41.\\i, . 1.,....,...,:.),,:, ,.„, ,,„.....,:„„,k..,....„,„.„,4.,...,...:,,,,.. , ..,,. . ;t..;.;:ili,4„..7§„..y...4..,4.„:4„,...,,,,,,,! bn.A.-41:, '41: IL:I 010 •tr:A=4"6"sir0•••••,, •••••4, ..ik ' Ri../--,41-.--.,,:-:7,1•1.•=M!--'•7;:,"----Yril.---•"7-'-''''';""l': 1 •si''\;:ik's,„\\,,,..q:1/4A,Z;';',-,;i,:ak,t,,,::,....442,....:,'3 11,:,,.`4',,,;•. ..r.=",:,,ki,; !,,,,,z4.° clt,-,,;14 :', ..:. ,-., -.. t-44,:;OPii••• t;;•••ti ..a ...;lr.F.,),-.„,,<4 gro,1:::-..,:2--,,,,,, ri.;,-,-;:',41::134,....i.i.:2,,..;,,,,Ail ,.,'-'-z-,`".; -....'_..,' -;;;;,''....- -1..:c.': 0: 3,1g":!,, -,!:i.l...,,,,,:v--4,-..g7,, %.,4,:,1.t.--,-- •.-r7,' -,1 .31,-k_,,I.'o..•,,FrAl.^'7' \%..E.-„,„4.1%.,,,,,t0;:.' ft;Ms,q"-J. v-",:,:.„--4,',,4 s. ..,,,,i.;.-0,„I ! ,,,,‘.,0 W..,-,-,"'z.,---r--z•i-:::--.4-;:%:•-"----,,, ,3-k,_ \„,...1f,,f,,,,k.',..,',L• ki,V4..,v.,':••, ‘4.4,,- 1..,,.0,J," : :,„,..-„ 4,,,:p.,•.4.44.24,4,,,i-,..k.,-,..-I.... ' -44: IF.,,,-;•,,,•,s.„„,,,,,,,,,q,..„,,,,,,::.„1,,4.,,,,j:.v ..„•....,.,,, ,,,•.,L,,,1 : '•••••"'N/0\',..v.,,,.., wkit:/r'60;.4.."?\ ••,.,"'.'4,,,..',,,,,''•:.', • 1,..:Nai :- ,:I.j -inlii.zz.iielit.,g,tri-i • • • •d:•-•,..e/ :4:•,,R;.,t'i %; f:.:,.!:•-.a- .;:•01.4,p4.,,$•.a 1 0,i", • -";- ,•:,*•- ' - "Nt',4-;,.‘ii,%"•":=•: ••.,.:A>..' '-'0- •,•,-.0•;, '•'- •1::,' ••':'• ',1,.•4411•21-4:8 ..": .-s---;:,..-•••..,.=-....=,.,..0 ...•,-! •,-.y.••,;•.-,„.;,,,J..,..,„,,,„,e„i4 : - •..„ e..•....rg,„...4.2.;$,.„ cu..,; .,,..,•,./ . _. _.4 ..-11,----, , u 0„.4.i,..•• 0 , . 1 viiPtto i-, • u.,„ • • ,,,,?.. "4,7%P,,,,,x,...‘!....,5:'''f',1,11.'''),k;'''''' .44 :b•g4..:;,.•-•'''r miallin! 1 rt. 01,...r.,,„„ ,...) ,„..,,,,,.. i ..„:1,,,......:.....,itt,,r ,•`;`1,, . ) '''''0..k.,e,"5t':1".... • . g41:. ':',:k%siS%;;;<;g:i '‘‘,..c4f.' ':'a:Aran .04.'-'fPlit:',/i.,iii0. (‘;,t 0 .:?‘ ; .;.el-ht,S11 .*:,111`.::'...'1 '.;k , ,''',.':„ , :t? 9*-,/',VA ,414,,,C;! '','.4'.8'.e.)::`,.,,",e ' oft.",;:s.,•E,----, •, ," g.!:''''•?:,.':‘,::.:p,e,="12g•=‘" ,:4 ii,\''41'‘si .,.,t: , ,: cit.,,,,,L,1-,,v: ...i mr. , ; .„,y. ..0*,-;„ ,,. • .1,.,-...;,41,,,u,,,:,„,;,11,,,,,,,F.,,.,;, .,fAk•••• -ye,-,K;...•4416,'"::„: ,.1 ,.; 4,,,,... ,,,,t,:0‘).4'••'., ..;:i:10: .‘:1\\', . ,,,. 4 .P. '.1::,:7'.'2:::11,-,'-...: '.- '-'q."•%„, :. ...,0,\, ..k.' •-,IAN,...", ,••,.,,,. ...,,i, ...,...t.t_e,-,. \., / , \ ir • ./ . ... ..,,,,,,,,,„ ;:-A,\o, ,.. •'- 0 ',„ „,.• .•'; ''..J" '''t,'''..,*::,4,,,r ,' `,''”: .,..'i ' .,: ,.., ,., "-•.0.f-',"eN,,,,:: ',:•••,'",;:,v,•,,•..-...k.,..7,,,,,,ve,;:',,,,, rfl,••!,rFN",::,:i, L.:i4:•:..,.;:::::•.,....i.,•..—..1.,,,.,..,,,,,- , \0 „.„,.. ,,:.l• ••.:•••.,;..1‘..:.L.:,,,,,,,.......,,,,:i...t?- ; , 0 . ..v. 11 Ath-•-,.:,...., ,,,,...,:. ...,/,••1 :...,,,I.,..,.... ::,. ...„ ,,?.,4.....<0,,,v,...,,,..44,•4..,;;;kA-4,;,4,74,-„ez.,,,,,4‘,,.. - rot.,•••,,..:,,,-: 'ark • r- f-4•3•1131:0•••,••••,,,,•1,1:.:'.1 \ '''','. '••'4„, , .:.„.,Q,„,.3...„...y.,,s„,,r,-1„:,,,,,:!,•,,-, ,:.:•14., !",,,•;:" ;.::,,...x.,‘ 7., :-e 0-,•••••z„,0•0',..,..14„r-N`Q"..,.;',•••;."4y...;;;w:•% •••16'',.'AK '- „ .1 'i :"•••,"; 7oei :••.i,,•-••••-. .•N -.,,,,z, , Z b •••;'..-•ET'',•, 17-,u,' '„,i-la.-.: 1Y40,1,-,1.4,4,:„ "7:,...;e•••.,p, ,E,11,,,z, „, .,,%,-...___,..... ,.. N4 • ,i, •.•.? ..,:_. .,4, . • , ••••-• .•,t r.,,,:;'*'.,ki. '4,1'ir-`‘.',.:i 0, ; :;• • -si,;,°"•• •,,:t.t-..*......:,1 ,,,•,,:%;0:4.?,,,,,15X.z:.'':,0,10iiia , .14 '. 7.,\is,ot.'r,•,,T., .: .,. -r:, ..... . .•:: .7.!: •-:...4f',',V.,.,ry.'1,ti:ii,_ : , .,.. s7 „2, .....,,,,,...}.,,,.: ::-.. ..,. • „....... i•...,,,I,e,,,,,... ,, - .. . . ,-,..,,, ,R'... - •- &g$:••q.,1-"-',Y,-,c:.-- -,- •„zt- ,.. ...: ,...-...:..•..,. •,,,,.;,: -#t% ,1tIA''•I'K`!:'f' •:-.74. x:.00r.'itt:i:i-.:,-,:di.„V..;:, '„"-,- *al- •'gni-I 4/":;:: •',...-- 1,.. •-•-" -.2:1-10#7 4-,,;',vrTtl•'27; : cr) - ''' •--."- . N '''s. ,,14•••rill'•,:4) V.*-,R,:' 1?•-•::A•14 :' WM 444: '-' --'0•44!•:-' ' • ti.motg" . :,• --- - v 1 i !, 1 . :i ...\c, •,5°,5;4%-1, : .:1:i:VV,Pi"..'4i 1`"47, . - ,,, .. . ,•-..-, 4,•. •••• 1.--E7-FLIOYF,1:;,::':::.-i -'.: '" . .'". ' '"*. :.:-.\-- \•.,1%:•4 ,•'''''." ,•••'''''t•A'•.,..4::;,"1"',.$";,-:,'14i:,.dik : 7. -,-• ,7-7,- '.....,-7."7.:!..77.. ::,..0•:=7:i' sr...imtnigil •.' -,*, ,r,....'N :.;,(,,, I -'\,.. " -- - ••• •,:,. ..N.<05,9:',:-•,, P '''. .",e., r'''c'‘:-:-i-':f4')': 1r4''' :.?.-.; '-''''''' q:ji:'-, -,,- --,,:;..---,/,' .,1:,..1. rE ilkika(::17'.71 ;');.:',•••;',..i?. .•..c,''' ! '' .:;••• N:. '' .-:... .- '•-•";•.\,::'••••• ''',,.- ''-•;:. '...%,?.„ ''(°;',, •,,".;;;•',..-_,y,15,•,',.,_::'.'.%$:41i.!‘•';,.,, ::''' ri":::,",.,•!: 1 ':- .5,•'`<fi iiil i,.'1.;:i.'te:!:11 :T.?' 1614,..,- -,-. :,e0'.'?: !,,.,T.:'el--:rfr: ',1%*;-.',*4-'- ,:',...rms- %•%*.-:...k,. ..drt'• ''li;.,•:, .::.'.- ,-4..',‘, :i,q: '''.f!'i4','',;" ":.,:„,--y4it ":4 :„ ,„•';', F.' -.'i Aiiy.'" '• r;..;''''''..T.-.; •:!r1 'n;:p1,.,: '1",..tvt;:i.7,, ,,,,,„k-N,,' '... IN.:tr:L:tavc,tizi,e1x.i...e. :. • ‘-': ..:,„...4:<'-' ,.,'4.2::;.7-'f,'.,,,,*.lf.: -digL ::-; -.,‘. ,ii:+-,,p.1 II 41-5:tii; '7 7::•77;Z,,.,:.7.,:.••• „.11,-,•-.' ;.i'lW•.,,''.,Y•s-::,,,,,Vi: I ::;."...-.•...,,, N:,..,-,...: ---......::-. - .-1..:‘,.. ,i1 ,cii....,•4-',"4.7,,e-.,:-, • a r-, ?.<'..;..:,I •::: ,,,-•14.•—•,---,—,..1 ':, f•::,--.00,,.Y,';4...... ,10,.1:.i.f•-;` ..',4,.;,,i., ,,.‘,ri,;,.?4, 1 9, ,) 411 .,.., . ... .. ... .,.. .,. --,...:. ... -,,,.... ,,-W.,--,-•, 20..i- -,,- t-- - ' rzy--14-(3101-4, , '' ' itittItt4:':,..'`c,41,e,. '1"''...'''''''-' ' : , ,2.P• ,., '•-,- ',, . ,:',...: .."",-,N,??., ,,•-,,'. '; l',•• 0`,... i ..,.. ,- .,'' ''' „,_, ..1. :..- . ,i,,,,. ..,,,,,:,..:::,(......,4:,fr..::::, ,..7,,,,,,,,, ,,i:i.g....t„.1,1,,,,,,, ,,,,..,„,,,:e•1 f,;::, ! "..'i••• ' ..\-,: , '''' '57,7. -, ' ..C.i.,.. ''''Sg,,,,,,,c,t'ii'..,- v, ,'''... V, 1 a c.-„ -,::: .6 1- — t Y • h ,c—; *. ii 4 ' :•,-;' '• rt::• ••...r:',,*-.,,,e'T '1, :','••.•.,`•„ii ,;". 0 ' .--,- •••.•,...\.•::: ..• :'i, ,•••••• - 'Rkl',' 'NV:\ ', )...' ../.1..••—. .."-,..-•- •...'•..-.-,• ...-...,„',.-..:..-: ,....•.'•.._;:.:...‘',.:...\'-.:.,:<-s,•-'.;.:.N:'-;','-.',,,,.,...,.,...,,".'..•‘.":,-.,,.,.......'.':'".:..—.,.\.:.'....'.'-. :44.,':,,.):,-•';,°,-,,t/;1,;',;:..'F,-;'.';',..;:,.;'.'-?;-',:''N,,,!• y . ' .2 ::6:!i.,,1.-:1,,P,1!1„..iii..'f,.,:,',.,.,.;.7•:*.:.°..z•er..,,,,.....,...;L,•*.i...:f„l-—i it . ,".:..:?7.":..3.,.„„•.;:•1;„,•--.=-3f.:i,;i..,:.:4l,:r,i,?•,,.p,:`.,,..:1.,-,,i,-,:v=,7,'c,vi-, , Site :'t,,,n--1,,1,:i•,1,1rt,`.,-.7,7,-r.,,1...-',2:,".‘.„.'-7,.-.-.,,A8-,_,1j1.-,,-ir..--;-„--„,,,-,,,-r-,iK',..-:..)-,;'-.,,.",`p";.;7i.7:7i-.,:.4.,L7;,1,7f,4•,--'4,•":.-7.:17I',.'.ti4.r-7:.1C..-17-0,,4(:.--m 1,..,x..: ;.",;,.,• • . .4 ‘ V:" -,':-;'+;•:',-1. ,!:.:: ,-.4::„ ... „., .„,.„..,,..„,... ..,...- _ 0 3: ,-; :, ":•:.....";•••• R•r--" ;'--r.-, ,..,._....•'"'....:.? -... . -.. • -. ..,.' " - . \ • '''.• • •••,. •••- ..';‘ .;.''-'•„1,,,.,*'' •lif- --..rt-A 4•,• 4..,..•, -: :,i...:1.,!rlit/:,,.....:,,,-71r-7+:r7 `::',;i ......c... - , ''rr''''-•'-'a‘. : ... ' ., 1 . .•.-/-':-. ' . ,11...', -,.• s•- - ,. ,.:. .,,.-'.-••:.:?:::::!%...,,:•,-,71 -...,, , il • ,,,:...,,'-- • 4,— —,,q• •.•' - • - .,,,\ ,.., .,.... C): EDI k,,,,, ,v".4• g• , .., • z .• : ' • --- ,z. ... •' t oibo'ib...4-7,-,...- .116..2.---.--. ; - • "' 114,1 '''''''''' ' .'.'" • '''''" '•••:'-'4; ••• ''•-' '; ,'• :\,. \t,•._ N prii el _,t, '.'''''''''-----'';"' ,-:44:00....-- •. ft....4410.. 0,'-e,.,d,11F; : M ith-0-n -- ' Cn 01 ',- ' . ...:::':•..;'.-'.'., •'' ....: '''?*'-'..0.Z. '", '''''''''% \ , '..?... ...,,y, eit,..... '4,:y1< ', '.'-, :. '".- •.1-:,,,i;:." •• , -.1,-.-7,4t, ,s.,-.93 s„\, ,..,- •t,,„ - - ;0;evi‘„, „ , •• -,-: .:--' • ; ,•:,,,,,..::4 ••-.:, '...-:„:,••••••.,.; 4:1/4.1„., . - ,.„.,1„. lioik--t.-'•-• r--' , .. ••,..4.,:,..„, ...-44,i...,i,,,,... -*,76, „ .,.7.1,,,, •f•-.0.1, „ _ ..-- •-• .-,...-- , -.:',:_ ....,•.•..,....4.,. .:„-..:-.....• .\ --.*:.:-„-, /.<4,,,,,, g0-4. , ! ,-:_ ,.. .. 4,,..,.• .... --- '''::.:.' ...'r.r.•';',-.- .'', •:.:••. -5,..•,,%...,.,„‘`.: 'iA,',...,= 61-,. .," • -- ' r'' ., ::"• , . ." .: ,* ' '':.?.Z.„,,.i-:.,..,'''.'...:.,"ti..,•::::.•:,.: ,,,,,t1/4,..S6,44.% ". Tanks . . " i :. - • .. - . .- . - •...., , ;'. '-':-:-."--•.;,7±-,---;-...,,,,,, '-• ••. ',:- .•:'- ..- --; •": ...:":;"...:t. ..,... ''74.-_,...,. -,•i::.A,ti ',7 ' i • , ' !z - . .,. i 1 0 , = CII • 0 ,• I cn , DI ! , . , .••••: i . ; ii lisooi‘oon w 118°0600H W WGS(34 11. 059100"W ..1, Tii r . : 1 , 'mu mi,„,1 * 9 - , , , • L. . , - Pthated front TOPOI 102001 National Geopplic Holdings(www.topa.cos) i I , t ! . , Srite fitgolex t,.„ ate. 1 i , .:6,...„(1. zEISE . ,... Proposed Pacific City i �����® ; EmEmpencza.taz2=3 1 0 1 i KL1NJ 1 NEC Pacific Coast Hwy and 1st Street ; F t4 0 i..,41....-..,..............., Inc., HUNTINGTON BEACH,CALIFORNIA I AT NOVEMEEFe 2 0 0 1 1 Consultants, , ! i .__.„., . _ . . Capital Pacific Holdings,Inc. PN 01039-00 November 19, 2001 Pacific City is proposed to include: • Development of one mid-rise hotel complex (8-levels with 2-levels of subterranean parking); • Devellopment of entertainment, retail and restaurant facilities facing Pacific Coast Highway within the western third of the site (with 2-levels of subterranean parking); • Two 6- to 12-story mid-rise condominiums located in,the central portion of the site (with -levels of subterranean parking); • Several residential buildings (3- to 4-levels with 1-level of subterranean parking) along the northern, eastern and southern portions of the eastern two-thirds of the site; 1 and, • Asso fated roadways and infrastructure. 1 As a part iof our study, we have been provided with a 50-scale site plan for the residential portion of the site, dated March 27, 2001 and prepared by MVE; a conceptual 50-scale site plan for the commercial and hotel portion of the site, dated September 21, 2001 and prepared py Holmes and Narver; and, the Pacific City Concept Brochure, prepared by Makar Properties. i E:\projects\2001\01039-00-Pacific City-11-01.doc 9 Capital Pacific Holdings,Inc. PN 01039-00 November 19, 2001 2.0 SITE CONDITIONS AND HISTORY 2.1 Site Description The proposed Pacific City development is located approximately three blocks south of the Huntington Beach Pier, on the northeastern corner of the Pacific Coast Highway (PCH), and 1st Street. The Waterfront Hilton is located to the east of the subject site, across from Huntington Street. Downtown Huntington Beach and the Huntington Beach pier are located to the west of the,subject site. The site is irregular in shape, approximately 34-acres in size. There is evidence of previous oil drilling which have resulted in alterations to the previous landform. The most notable changes are berms, oil wells, and sumps constructed as part of the oil drilling operations. We observed some fire hydrants and standing light poles within and around the former Huntington Shores Motel parking lot. It is unknown if they are tied into live utilities. It is also our understanding that an active 18-inch water main is running across the site, parallel and approximately 45 feet from the centerline of PCH. The location of this line should be confirmed prior to grading. The city is utilizing the parking lot for the former Grinder Restaurant and similar pre- existing developments, to store and stage city vehicles. Also, remnants of slabs-on- grade, foundations and asphalt pavement from the former Huntington Shores Motel are present. With the exception of the remnants of the former motel and the city parking lot in the southwestern corner of the lot,the site is in a generally cleared condition. The northern portion of the site has recently been used as a borrow pit,which has resulted in a topographic depression approximately up to 20 feet below previously existing grade. - There were no signs of heavy vegetation, trees, structures, standing or running water, wetlands, active oil wells or other similar features observed at the site during our field reconnaissance or exploration. E:\projects\2001\01039-00-Pacific City-11-01.doc 10 Capital Pacific Moldings,Inc. — PN 01039-00 November 19,2001 2.2 S'te History In revie ing the previous reports, the following information was determined. This informati n is supplemented with observations made by our firm in a review of aerial photos fr m 1952 to 1994. The proj ct site is located within the"Huntington Beach Oil Field," that was operated by Chevron. Although the site_was used as an operating oil field, it has been shut down for many years. I ' The southwestern portion of the site, along PCH also had some previous development. In the 1952 eria1 photograph, there was a parking lot in the northwestern portion of the site for the b ach. In addition, portions of the site have been reported to have been used by the Pacific Electric Railway alignment. In the 19 0 aerial photograph, the Grinder Restaurant, the Huntington Shores Motel and a trailer p k were located along PCH. The northern half of the site was vacant, with scattered oil wells. In 1999, approximately 200,000 cubic yards of material was exported from the northwes ern two-thirds of the site. This material was removed from August to October 1999, an' utilized as export for the on-going Ocean Grand Hilton Resort project. The bottom of this pit was backfilled in August 2000 with approximately 2 feet of soil. 2.3 0 fsite Developments and Conditions A revie of geotechnical and related reports of the surrounding developments was I` conducte1l where reports were available. The following information was obtained from these rep rts. A detailed list of these reports is included within Appendix A. The Hiltpn Waterfront Beach Resort hotel is located to the southeast of the site. Currentl}�construction is underway for the Ocean Grand Hilton Resort,which will extend the Hotel to the southeast along Pacific Coast Highway. Huntington Beach State Park is located south of the site across from Pacific Coast Highway. li Downtown Huntington Beach, consisting of several retail and commercial buildings are located west-northwest of the site. The Huntington Beach Pier and Main Street is approximately 3 blocks northwest of the site. Residential homes and apartments are located n rth of the site and a trailer park is located east of the site. E:\projects\2001\01039-00-Pacific City-11-01.doc 11 Capital Pacific Holdings,Inc. PN 01039-00 November 19, 2001 3.0 PREVIOUS STUDIES 3.1 Engineering Reports The site was previously studied by Stoney-Miller Consultants, Inc. (SMC), Levine-Fricke (LF), Pacific Soils Engineering, Inc. (PSE) and AGRA Earth and Environmental (AGRA). The previous studies were performed from January 1989 through April 1998. • Stoney-Miller Consultants, Inc. performed a feasibility study (Reference 39) of the site in 1989. Their study was titled "Geotechnical Feasibility Investigation, Approximately Seven Acre Huntington Street Property, Huntington Beach, California," dated January 30, 1989. This study included general reconnaissance mapping and subsurface exploration of the southeastern portion of the site to provide recommendations for the placement of approximately 12-feet of fill in this area to bring this portion of the site to bring the site to a relatively level grade. The subsurface work included the advancement of eleven 8-inch diameter hollow- stem auger borings. The locations of all the borings performed in the SMC report are shown on Plate I, Geologic Map, and their logs are included in Appendix C. SMC concluded that the natural soils (alluvial) were generally suitable for placement of fill. However, due to the compressible nature of the alluvial soils, they recommended an overexcavation of 5- to 6-feet across the site. They encountered groundwater within the alluvial units at depths ranging from 3- to 7-feet below the ground surface. Based on our observations of the subject site, the proposed grading discussed in the SMC study was apparently not conducted. • Levine Fricke (LF)performed a preliminary study(Reference 32) of the site in 1996. Their study was titled "Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Study, Morgan Stanley Atlanta Property, Huntington Beach, California," dated July 22, 1996. This study included a review of the 1987 SMC report and subsurface exploration of the site to provide recommendations for grading and foundations for proposed residential homes, three to four story apartments, and related below-grade parking garages. - The subsurface work included the advancement of eight Cone Penetrometer Test — (CPT)probes across the site. The locations of the CPT soundings performed in the LF report are shown on Plate I, Geologic Map. CPT logs are included in Appendix C. E:\projects\2001\01039-00-Pacific City-11-01.doc 12 Capital Pacific oldings,Inc. PN 01039-00 November 19, 2 01 LF concluded that the Terrace deposits were generally suitable for placement as fill and for foundations. However, due to the compressible nature of the alluvial soils in the southeastern third of the site, they recommended stiffened foundations for two- story residential wood structures, and deep foundations for buildings over two-stories. • Pacific Soils Engineering, Inc. (PSE) performed a feasibility study (Reference 34) of the site in 1997. Their study was titled "Feasibility-Level Geotechnical Study, Atlanta Development, Pacific Coast Highway and First Street, City of Huntington Beach California," dated October 27, 1997. This study included surface mapping and subsurface exploration of the site to provide recommendations for grading and foundations for proposed residential homes, three-story apartments and retail/mixed - use area with related below-grade parking garages, and three 7-to 8-story buildings. The subsurface work included the advancement of ten 8-inch diameter hollow-stem auger borings, 12 test pits and five CPT soundings across the site. The locations of all the CPT soundings performed in the PSE report are shown on Plate I, Geologic Map. CPT logs are included in Appendix C. PSE concluded that the upper 20 to 30 feet of alluvial soils beneath the groundwater table i the southeastern portion of the site are compressible. Based on the 25-feet of fill pr posed for this development concept, PSE estimated that up to 24-inches of settle ent may occur. Their seismic settlement analysis estimated that liquefaction related settlement should range from 1/2 to 1-inch in addition to consolidation related settlement. Additionally, terrace deposits exhibited a "medium'.' to "high" potential for expansion, a"negligible" to "moderate" corrosion potential towards concrete and "seve rely" corrosive towards ferrous metals. They encountered groundwater within the al uvial and terrace units at depths ranging from 5- to 10-feet (elevations of appro imately 3 to—5 feet MSL)below the ground surface. • In 1998, PSE produced another geotechnical report to address the remedial grading plan review (Reference 33) for the development discussed in their 1987 study. They did npt perform any additional subsurface investigation for this report. PSE concluded that the settlement over the alluvium in the southeastern portion of the site be approximately %2-inchper foot of fillplaced. Theyestimated that this would pp y would occur within 4- to 6-months after the completion of rough grading, and that the settleMent should be monitored. • The most recent previous study (Reference 5) was performed by AGRA was titled "Summary of Findings, Environmental and Geotechnical Site Investigation, Ocean Front Plaza, Huntington Beach, California," dated April 1, 1998. It appears that AGRA advanced a total of three 5-inch diameter mud-rotary wash borings and three E:\projects\2001\01039-0 -Pacific City-11-01.doc 13 Capital Pacific Holdings,Inc. PN 01039-00 November 19, 2001 push-sample ("geoprobe") borings within the site to confirm findings presented in the PSE report. AGRA concluded that based on a isobath map they reviewed, that groundwater may be encountered within 3-feet of the ground surface in the southeastern portion of the site and at a depth of 30 feet in the northwestern portion of the site. SMC, LF, PSE and AGRA generally found the site to be generally as depicted in this report. The results of these studies were incorporated into this report and were used to supplement our independent information. The findings of these consultants reports served as a starting point for our evaluation. . 3.2 Compaction Reports Sometime between the PSE 1997 report and August 2000, the northwestern portion of the site was used as a borrow site for use at the neighboring Ocean Grand Hilton project. Approximately 30 to 35 feet of material was removed, forming a large pit. During the month of August, the bottom of this pit was backfilled with approximately 2 to 3 feet of compacted fill. The grading was performed under the observation of AGRA, and the compaction test results are presented in their August 21, 2000 report (Reference 1) titled "Observation and Testing Services During Backfill of Borrow Area, Atlanta-Huntington Beach Development, Huntington Beach, California." This report does not describe the method of placement, depth of placement or the source of the fill material, and provides only laboratory and density test results. 3.3 Environmental Reports Due to its past use as a operating oil field, numerous environmental characterization and remediation reports have been performed by Harding ESE (formerly Harding Lawson and Associates) and AGRA. These reports were written between December 1996 and January 2001. Currently, the environmental consultant for the previous property owner (Chevron) is planning to implement a remediation plan that will involve removal of oil-contaminated soils, remediation of these soil on site, and replacement of the soil removal areas with compacted fill materials. Reports and remediation plans have been reviewed for any information regarding the history of the site and adjacent areas, and subsurface information that may be useful from a geotechnical standpoint. It is our understanding that the environmental issues and remediation of the site is being performed by representatives of the previous owner. E:\projects\2001\01039-00-Pacific City-11-01.doc 14 Capital Pacific Holdings,Inc. PN 01039-00 November 19, 20 1 4.0 FIELD D LABORATORY TESTING 4.1 Su ficial Field Work Performed in this Study Field work performed in this study included geologic mapping of surficial exposures of geologic c nditions at the site. The attached Geologic Map, Plate I, presents the results of the fie d mapping and shows the location of the current and past subsurface exploratio within the subject site. 4.2 Su surface Exploration Performed in this Study Our subsurface exploration included the advancement of six 5-inch diameter mud-rotary wash borings. These borings were advanced to depths ranging from approximately 76.0 to 101.5 feet below existing grade. The borings were intended to allow us to determine the depths of the artificial fill and terrace materials. Mud-rotary borings are best suited for sampling in sandy soils with shallow groundwater, since the drilling mud applies a constant he within the boring and counteracts heaving sand conditions. The borings were also used for obtaining representative samples of the subsurface soil and formational materials. These relatively undisturbed and bulk samples were recovered, sealed and transported to our laboratory for classification and testing. The locatio s of the borings are shown on the attached Plate I, Geologic Map. Logs of the borings are presented in Appendix B. Exploration logs from previous geotechnical studies of the site are presented in Appendix C. 4.3 La oratory Testing Representa ive samples of the subsurface conditions were tested in our laboratory to determine oil classifications and pertinent engineering properties. The test results with respect to moisture/density are presented on the boring logs in Appendix B. The detailed laboratory test results and discussion are presented in Appendix D. The test r sults presented in the previous reports, as discussed in Section 3.1, are presented in Appendix E. -00- acific Ci E:\projects\200 110 1 03 9 P City-11-01.doc 15 Capital Pacific Holdings,Inc. PN 01039-00 November 19,2001 5.0 GEOLOGIC SETTING 5.1 Regional Geology Introduction The Pacific City development, as is Orange County in general, is a portion of the Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province. The Peninsular Ranges are distinguished by series of strike-slip fault controlled mountains and other structure belts that trend north- northwest. The northern/northwestern portion of the Peninsular Ranges, of which the Pacific City development and the general Huntington Beach area is situated, is a relatively broad, somewhat irregular coastal plain. 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 Bolsa and Los Alamitos Gaps located to the northwest, are the result of the combination of downcutting and subsequent flooding/depositions. These mesas represent the remaining portions of a now strongly dissected coastal terrace. The terrace materials forming the mesas are comprised of relatively well consolidated to slightly indurated marine and terrigenous sediments of a predominately fine granular nature. The material of the gaps are notably less consolidated, in general being only normally consolidated, contain significant silty fines and zones of peat, and have prevalent groundwater and saturated zones of a relatively shallow nature. The transition between the mesa and gap terrain is typically distinct topographically. The dominant structural geologic feature controlling the area of the site is the Newport- Inglewood Fault. Activity on this fault, combined with regional tectonic effects (such as uplift) have combined with climatic forces and changes in sea level since Pliocene to Pleistocene (the past 2 to 3 million years) time to form the underlying basement materials and structure that underlay and support the site. The forces that have created the geomorphology of the site and vicinity are still active today. No faults are known to cross or underlie the site. It is, along with the general vicinity, underlain at depth by a "structural zone" forming the Huntington Beach Oil Field. No ground ruptures are known to have occurred onsite in response to groundshaking induced by offsite faulting, including the 1933 Long Beach earthquakes. The site is located very near the south and north branches of the Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone. These branches strike very nearly northwest and are of very high angle to E:\ ro'ects\2001\01039-00-Pacific Ci -11-01.doc P 1 �3' 16 Capital Pacific oldings,Inc. PN 01039-00 November 19, 2001 near vertical. The seismic nature and influence of this fault is discussed in Section 5.3 of this report. Pertinent Geologic History • The majo 'ty of the terrace deposits were laid in a shallow marine to near-shore terrestrial environment on an unconformable bedrock platform in the Pleistocene time frame (i.e. about 2-r}iiliion to about 10-thousand years ago). The source of these sediments was erosion o the rocky highlands of San Bernardino, Santa Ana and other mountain belts. The Sant Ana River and other fluvial systems deposited most of these sediments that were reworked by shallow marine and coastal processes. These deposits developed into a thick regional unit. These de osits were then later uplifted by tectonic forces associated with regional faulting t at includes the Newport-Inglewood, San Andreas, and offshore deformation zones. This uplift exposed the terrace materials to erosion, removing much of their cover, w 'ch is the general source of their overconsolidation. The terrace materials were then diss cted by action of coastal plain rivers/streams starting in late Pleistocene time, forming t a topographic prism of the "gaps". These streams included the proto-Santa Ma Riv r, which carved out the Talbert Gap. These gaps were later infilled by sediment of a fluvial and shallow to lagoonal/estuarine marine nature. The dissection and infill. g of the gaps was predominately a function of interaction of uplift of the area, and flue ations in sea level. The fluctuations in sea level were a function of the "ice- ages," where periods of glaciation dropped sea level. When ,sea level dropped, downcutting of the gaps was promoted. When sea level rose, deposition was promoted, the rivers turned stagnant and eventually drowned, becoming slough-like and eventually lagoonal r estuarine. These processes have continued into recent time, until interrupted by action of man and development, and channelization of the drainages and rivers. Recent man-made developments and activities have modified the site. Oil field development and infrastructure was installed at several locations across the site since as early as the 1920's. Nearly all of these oil wells have been abandoned and the site substantizilly remediated with respect to those features by others prior to our involvement with the site, however, some features of the oil operations and associated infrastructure are antici) ated to still be present. The beacifront portion of the site fronting Pacific Coast Highway has had extensive small-scale development in the form of a motel, restaurants, trailer park and other features sescribed elsewhere in this report. These developments included grading which have placed some amounts of artificial fills in these areas. Although these developments have been demolished,the fills and foundational remnants of the buildings remain. E:\projects\2001\01039-00-Pacific City-11-01.doc 17 I Capital Pacific Holdings, Inc. PN 01039-00 November 19, 2001 The site was also modified in the northerly portion by borrow-grading in the recent past (circa mid-2000). This grading has resulted in the formation of a "pit" area. The specifics of this grading are also described elsewhere in this report. Groundwater Groundwater is a prevalent condition in the general area of the site. Although several bodies of groundwater are known to exist, particularly in the gap terrain, only the shallow groundwater members which will have an affect on the engineering and construction aspects of the project are considered in this study. Free groundwater was encountered in all the ZKCI borings and other consultant exploration points that extended to about sea level elevation. The generalized groundwater elevations are within a few feet of sea level. The average elevation onsite is about 2 to 4 feet above sea level. Localized perched zones, and areas subject to concentrated climatic effects or surface water channeling may cause localized higher areas of seepage or groundwater. The surficial/near surface groundwater is essentially an unconfined aquifer system. It may have some response to localized climatic effects (i.e. intense prolonged rainfall, strong prolonged drought, or similar) that may temporarily change the water table on a limited basis. The groundwater considered in this study, although of an overall generally unconfined nature, is believed controlled to at least some extent by stratigraphip considerations and preferential permeability. This is believed to be particularly applicable to the alluvial materials associated with the gap terrain in the south to southwest portion of the site. These stratigraphic conditions may be expected to cause this shallow, overall essentially unconfined groundwater to behave in a more semi-confined to confined manner on a localized basis. This is expected to be especially applicable under the conditions that the groundwater is anticipated to be encountered in the course of construction. Our understanding of the stratigraphy suggests the groundwater behaves as a series of anastomosing or interlensed stackings of semi confined and confined zones of higher transmissivity, separated by zones of lower permeability. The net effect is a condition where lateral permeability and transmissivity following the stratigraphic "grain" is markedly higher than moving vertically across this "grain." Our understanding of the current development scheme is that the basement / lowest finished floor elevations of the proposed buildings will be very close to the existing groundwater elevations. Because of the significance of groundwater on constructability and long-term performance, given such considerations, a detailed site-specific study for E.'projects\2001\01039-00-Pacific City-11-01.doc I 18 Capital Pacific Holdings, Inc. PN 01039-00 November 19, 2001 each struct a that addresses the effects of groundwater should be performed. Such specific stu y is beyond the scope of this report. We understand that the environmental issues with regard to contamination of groundwater have been addressed and effectively remediated by other consultants. Although environmental evaluation was not a part of our study, no obvious evidence of contaminate n was encountered in our exploration of the site. Review of he AGRA data and associated testing indicates that much of the shallow groundwate that may influence the proposed development is of a fresh water nature and supports fist life. Some areas of brackish to very salty water also exist, and are believed related to concentrations of lagoonal and tidal-flat infiltrations from ancient times, and other saltwaaer sources. No surface water, wetlands, or other non-storm drainage related hydrologic features were observed at the site. No springs or seeps were encountered on the exposed surface. Surface drainage existing onsite in response to precipitation is generally of a sheet flow nature, exce t where controlled otherwise by topography or erosion control devices. 1 5.2 Geo ogic Units In the regional vicinity of the subject site, the underlying materials are Artificial Fills 1 (Afu), Qua ernary/ recent alluvium deposits (Qal) and Pleistocene Terrace deposits (Qtm). Generalized descriptions of these units are: 5.2. Artificial fill (Al) In eneral, artificial Fill materials are materials placed by man, whether engineered or dumped on a site. The majority of the fills placed at this site are essentially undocumented, with the exception of the fill placed under the observation of AGRA in August 2000 in the borrow pit area. This fill is present on t$e majority of the middle of the northern portion of the site and along the no ern edge of PCH. These fills are discussed in detail below: Arti it! Fills (Aful: Artificial fill defines the undocumented and/or uncontrolled fills that were placed in several local areas of the site. These fills are generally silty sands, sandy silts, silty clays and silty clays that are found along the northern side of PCH and are E:\projects\2001\01039-00-Pacific City-11-01.doc 19 Capital Pacific Holdings,Inc. PN 01039-00 November 19, 2001 associated with the former hotel, restaurant and trailer park. There are also other isolated fill materials across the site related to the oil field operations. It is our understanding that there is an archaeological site consisting of debris from the former Pacific Electric Rail Line operations buried in the fill in the southeastern portion of the site. Engineered Fills (Afc): Engineered fill defines the documented fills that were placed in select local areas of the site. These fills are generally silty sands to clayey sands that are found within the bottom or near the "borrow pit" in the northwestern two-thirds of the site. The compaction of this fill is documented in the August 21, 2000 AGRA report. 5.2.2 Sedimentary Units (Qal and Qtm) Sedimentary materials are soils that are generally deposited by water. The alluvial units within the site are found within generally low-lying locations. We subdivided general alluvium into two categories for clarification and analyzing distinct properties. Alluvium (Qal The younger alluvial, young coastal, lagoonal and estuarine deposits associated with the gap terrain are all broadly similar in engineering and foundation character and occurrence, and thusly are included in this material designation. As discussed elsewhere in this report, these materials are generally found within the southeastern third of the site. These materials within the site is also characterized by zones of brown to gray sandy clay to sandy silt, and clayey sands to clayey silt with lenses and zones of silty and poorly graded sands. The estuarine/lagoonal- derived materials may contain fossil zones including small shell remnants. The structure of these gap materials is generally lensatic to crudely interstratified. Since both fluvial processes (i.e. flowing water-related) and coastal/shallow marine processes have operated over time to place these deposits, interfingering, local anomalous/unconformable horizons, cross-cutting and pinchouts are likely typical. Alluvial materials of a limited nature may also be found typically as recent deposits within localized topographic lows within the subject site. These deposits are very limited in extend and nature and are not shown on the geologic map. E:\projects\2001\01039-00-Pacific City-11-01.doc 20 Capital Pacific oldings, Inc. PN 01039-00 November 19,20 1 Te ace Deposits (Qtml: Terrace deposits constitute the oldest surficial deposit on-site. These units represent alluvial and shallow marine/coastal deposits that have been consolidated and overconsolidated in the past, experienced regional uplift, and eroded down to its present state from previously much thicker regional deposits. This process provides a material that is typically well suited for foundation support. Th terrace deposits consist of reddish brown to brown, locally yellowish to gray ish, generally over-consolidated, interlayered lenses of silty to clayey sands, cla ey silt and silty clay with some interbeds of gravel and cobbles, that are ge erally slightly moist to moist and dense to very dense. It should be noted that so a zones of clayey soils and zones and lenses of less indurated, softer sediments may occur within the terrace. These softer sediments, although of an - ov Irconsolidated nature by virtue of geologic history, represent localized conditions that may react adversely to relatively heavy foundation loading. At thin time, these zones are considered untrustworthy with respect to heavy bearing capacity, and deep foundation members for the proposed buildings should be extnded through them. The specific aspects of these softer zones and their interactions with the proposed foundations will be addressed in detail in forthcoming foundation specific studies. 5.2.3 Structure Since the subject site is located on the fringe of both the terrace and the gap terrains, it has the aspects of both. In general, the northerly and easterly portions of the site are terrace terrain, and are underlain by consolidated terrace deposits. The southerly to southwest portion is underlain by the fringe of the gap terrain, and is underlain by a wedge of softer, more poorly consolidated sediments that inc ude alluvial and lagoonal deposits. The thickness of this wedge of gap deposits increases to the south and south east, eventually becoming very deep offqite in the mid-gap areas. Underlying the wedge of gap soils onsite is a basement of terrace deposits of a well-consolidated nature. Th limits of the geologic units are depicted in the attached Geologic Map, Plate 1. he structure is depicted in the cross sections, Plates III and IV. The character of he subsurface materials is described in the boring logs presented in the ap endix. E:\projects\2001\01039-00-Pacific City-11-01.doc 21 , Capital Pacific Holdings, Inc. PN 01039-00 November 19, 2001 II 5.3 GEOLOGIC HAZARDS 5.3.1 Faulting and Seismicity The subject site, as already discussed, is within the Huntington Mesa at the northwestern edge of the Talbert Gap (also known as the Santa Ana Gap). The Santa Ana Basin and the Huntington Beach area were formed as a result of regional uplift along the Newport-Inglewood Structural Zone, and downcutting as a result of erosion from the Santa Ana River floodplain and littoral processes along the coastline. As a result, a system of mesas and gaps have developed along the coast in this area. Hazards associated with seismic activity include primary hazards, such as ground shaking and surface rupture, and secondary hazards including liquefaction, seismic settlement, seismically induced landsliding, tsunami, and seiches. The California Division of Mines and Geology defines an "active" fault as a fault that has shown evidence of activity within the last 11,000 years. A fault that has experienced activity within the last 2 to 3 million years, but has not shown direct evidence of activity within the last 11,000 years is defined as "potentially active". An"inactive" fault is defined as a fault that has not experienced activity in the last 3 million years. • The Alquist Priolo Act of 1972 (now the Alquist Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, Public Resources Code 2621-2624, Division 2, Chapter 7.5) regulates development near active faults so as to mitigate the effect of surface fault rupture. Under the act, the State Geologist is required to delineate "Special Studies Zones" • along known active faults in California. The Act also requires that, prior to approval of a project, a geologic study be conducted to define and delineate any - hazards from surface rupture. A geologist registered by the State of California, must prepare this geologic report. A minimum 50-foot setback from any known trace of an active fault is required. Active faulting is not believed to cross the site, although active traces of the Newport-Inglewood Fault have been mapped north and northwest of the subject site within the Huntington Mesa, and we believe within the alluvium of the gaps. As a result, Fault Rupture Hazard Zone (formerly Alquist-Priolo zone) for the Newport Inglewood Fault has been established by the State of California approximately 0.5 miles to the north of the site. A more detailed discussion of the Newport-Inglewood Fault is presented in Section 5.3.2 of this report. E:\projects\2001\01039-00-Pacific City-11-01.doc 22 Capital Pacific oldings,Inc. PN 01039-00 November 19, 2001 Th Southern California region is seismically active. Active and potentially active faults within Southern California are capable of producing seismic shaking at the site. It is anticipated that the site will periodically experience ground acdeleration as a result of exposure to small to moderate magnitude earthquakes occurring on distant faults. Additionally, active "blind thrust faults" (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 (M5.9) and the 1994 Northridge (M6.7) earthquakes. W have performed a computer aided search of the known active and potentially act ve faults within a 62-mile (100-km) radius of the site and we have researched the available geologic literature to determine the maximum magnitude earthquakes that may be expected to be generated on each fault (CDMG OFR 96- 08). Table 1 below, summarizes 15 of the 35 known active and potentially active fa its, which, in our opinion, may have the greatest impact on the site. Selection of hese faults was based on the proximity of the fault to the site, and the potential of he fault to generate ground motion at the site. The site is located on the USGS Newport Beach, California 7-1/2-minute Quadrangle map, using latitude 33.656 N and longitude 117.996°W as the approximate center of the site. Ta le 1 was generated using the EQFAULT for Windows computer program (B ake, 2000, Reference 2) as modified using the fault parameters from CDMG O R 96-08. The fault distances were confirmed or revised based upon actual measurements from the "Map Showing Late Quaternary Faults and 1978-84 Seismicity of the Los Angeles Region, California" (USGS Map MF-1964) and the "F ult activity Map of California and Adjacent Areas" (CDMG Map No. 6). It is our opinion that the most significant fault that may affect the'site is the Newport- In•lewood Fault Zone. E:\projects\2001\01039-0I-Pacific City-11-01.doc 23 gtie - 118° ± e , qO k011AY l t---ti q... .•''\' '.....I., :!-)'-?-i--,l,-•,i•V..:.,',.'..:.••.•..•.•••X`:-:.-•.'i;''1;A..-?---:l r,';'.'.',','..,,.,.i'.,1:...,,v..,-•.,...'-V::'t:.",il.:,,s-0:.44:1,-A:;.-;'-.-,.-:.'..,.,',...:'--;;k'.:'-'T'-',1:t:.4(.'.-'"-.*,'•-;":'ii l-i.nZ':...-•!l-•.-•.ei'iVtIf•Cr..?-•v-•':?*),.k";„•-,i•i,•.•,1 Legend: Site Location 4-...i,;,,,f: .zi,-1-.,.4.•,..,,,p4,4...&-;,,.,.1100,,...w,,.:4,..... ':`,1-. ,' :;,..,,,,.,14 ev. .0.1 ..t.,i....,.:1.•;:f., ,,,,,i,,......;;•,:;,•,,!,i,t-m?-:,,7,-,7::,.‘•i .,„::: -•.•.-1-., '",•,.7'4 X::. --,'--:i.'„'"! 4,!•!:',:.!':.:07;:';60-'..:1';:li4i,--,-"tr..pi;,""lk.'',•••-•ir,.: -7'1-,(*...1.41:'.44--, .. .taicZ141.t;.'...'%"!'1.-;'*:',•:-.:' ?•'-'•;*.t4i4P4-414:414X-..t`t:!,,I 4.1-;.f....i.c-:::,,,I.'-.....),,,, ,!Zrz '._,--:.. .40.4\ -''''. ...71,r-ttit.:.%,:tvti ..,_.. AF: I I .,'tk,'kt.:S..•'',- i''''.. V„.'N-zq.:1' ‘ . ''s ' , --•'-r , 'Af,a0V. 0 t';4,:::-'--*.i:1•17; s4N:i:.-4-4.1,MI..ti:•=7;:; g7';IT:T.-T:iic,ta''''.';,;;;;'" -•,,,4',„... 1. ,1,=••:.[•• --TVRIVir:11.1S.' ::.P.'',, ...,`.,..,ro"`._'' ' .''. .'c'1,14'1 - te, ..F., -..:. ',"'-', IV: Z.c.r, -1, ''''.r'-`1•..... i". \"er,.:-. -.."-s.-tV.A11311a*. ..„,g,... .,...„4 '..- ,;,1, '',k.".+Y.::517:::". ''' '.. ,.r1-.FIG.I.31:2;till947-f-, upiTtOLX0IMatiteon ..,I14 41„114,,1*-Ciii.•, :'1.:.fif7r''''.:-'7:,:-..'i-\....""c... ..'' '.!.,.i -',?..1.,.-. ' ,,,..I- 1. ' ,'4.14-"ipAiiiiin. ,,.f ittg.,'..4:4k.i,'•11.1AP''.'--,-,sl?'_4--.f.f.x=r:;;A:-•,•ton'4-?,.::1•!••,,,ki•-•;:.• -• ;.-..,...,.;11.,',,'::.-4',;,,f,i-,.. ",•., ,,....f4,:v i 1 ---ei,,,,,'s..•-•-'4-i• -•!J:s....-,.c-A-,-.•-•-!---.,.,:, ..--i-',.,:oj4,1.t.4.::-•.,'-.....-•.':A ,;.-1.:a,:•,:o.si .4,-14, .,.- • f-,`.'",,,;4 e371;?.4,1'''i''...',,t ,42,:-.':;'' .A44t k1.41%' t'4.-.1.,'ZiA::::.''''•.:.;-'"'ties..."05.; f'i..7.'•i'3-'''''''';' '''''''Y''''' ,-.:?e'ztiViril ...‘,•,w;-':--. ; .`'.. :'.,.,vg47,-,:.j..1,t.„es,. ',-s•; '• ,--F..::::'.s...X,_:5p1:-_tlf...,'., ,...i. ,...::•;.-i.'e,,-e,,t, ,5`...'n,..3-,' '•N..4 Earthquake Epicenters :K.'7.'t101.`414..--4-7-..$..--...'A:PrIer''!'F',.-1.'Ai.i'ff-3.-...i.'"4"..1..-;.,.--'V,'';:;P'.'11:"' .:-..',-. -,._ •I44..IA. aiLi- .•,..g.ta •al,,..•i.c...--4-r,I is : ,•*4:...‘-C••,.........'.1. .-.•,•i 1,•li,C"riii,„'Z di ".,`•1.ii•pF.,0• • ' Q=0•• .4''''.'A''''''''-I,i'•'''',.-,,'•'•1!,..ii., .........i.i..1-ie.TV',•,i: •i li 8:,- :'-.0.',,,,, "'..7 ...':?.:,' ! ...,4 i: fi .:). ,....., 'pi:,•,:;.4.','4:-,-.v-::' :!'s:'11''•,:.-': -'4.n1:1.--14-.1'.'''.-14.7 . sY'a.'----'1,k--''- .1••••••1'1•••• .,•'?1 :01A::.:•.1..ii„:`,::::,p,''',,,,i,;:1:., ).-c.:f..tif:',„,,,,r.:.,c ,,-..q;,...-.1,,--1,..„,,,,.,,-*, ...„•.,..,..,..4,,,„ ..,,,, , ty,:li: .t•.:...t.,.1,01«,,,e, s8-1411' ; -.'" ',I ••iv.r.r...%. • '.--.1,,,,,,,,,iii ,q,.... .:i-.,b....,,•4j,.-4, k, :' '1 ''. i' 't ' . M 5.0 to 5.9 ;,,,i,J,.,:..k:.iik' -'b- t., ,:,,,.?,. .'!Ift,::,,tp,.*Pf,..0017,-1,'.„--: AWA74%,7-•;. ''rfOiti•;-,, ,,,..4.,„ :':•.--•,..iti,;: ,"!?.:-5.4,j:.1/4.'.:';',i:'?!..pi! ::"..:_.,49;e4 5'4'• •-••-. ,4' .,-.;•44:•y:;-?,'.4i6.1';,-.,!......;.,11 44:,40' li:7!:i'.--- 7- if.',4:f:KV's!::i,.'1:4. 4''' '..', ;-'41#1:i.,•Q,--;''P;;A',,...1%1;EI..13.,14.4:,,Y.L•P9..:64'''.,,..ir' :, '.ittis,4)061,,N.1 -i'.,t. .i;':.' ', r..',...1,..cao. (.;,..- oili) m 6.0 to 6.0 ..f-k„,,.;,c.i:If4ri7i. . .74ki.L..._,iptf11.-'4..';• ilf:!lk•ii i,,•".,i,A -„1..q.4'.',":.:R*A - .-'-' v.,.:;•-•if-,-.4..i'-,1---,i','•-•,;;II,Ati),'-!•-ia.'-'.•••••• .44..,...,t;-1,-„,.: . .k.,-,,,d,if.. ..,,3,--,„,.e.,:,..-;.,. ,;,-.,..;$04p.!-,:k1:....448...r.p...,.vz4.1,...1:-.,•.!_t,,,.,•-,r,-.,,,,,,....41f3.;.. -2.',2:-'' ''R.41qi.otl41'il'7 s. ''''g.P.;,.:.444:70-71....--.' gr...17:P."Pr-•:1-"Tg.:Ti-4 tOEIN , •:',;,-f,',,,, l'-'421!..,'-f'...7'''*-'.::',,.."---V.I'*•, .Y.:.11,-.V!34•4":.#11.i.3:-,3?.;-.N...*:-. .4i,V. ...- 1...;,-,.."; ' '`.,: -::..- ..-.:117i';.-F,;-..:,-,,...--i.::4-A,,,.:7.7,-...1. irti.liAls.1Mak„,.! •if,=;.r.A-4i,ti,--H,i40,'- f.i?.t, •,`-:."-"'. ..1-/..,-.`',F, ,..q"..§„ ,.4.1•)f'i'",'!-V';'.:J m 7.0 to 7.9 •-..-. :411:5.4 -,•171.,4T-15.7"...., '; p---:74-4112:7-1`.4,444fifilfkii''jE:-';;-r'•,:'.'--..--4t..;44V.-Iff: "1.. .' -16=-'f:-?$ \41) / '•.".,'2-67'2'. 4:;.'..";1-i"T.''.',.k:.,:-.-1.exit-'2-Z"..,.';`'A:40/5:7;V:-Zaala..`ov:W..1.'„cei;.*1,4014.,-'',i,ipir 3r.:..:,. ..4: ,..,-.•':'.-,-,!,,-,.. ,.-.ifarVfit,v..:ie .•."a,01,:jS:f';'1,....!.-,-,1,'-.17,:ik'W...-1M,i4','.:IP. ,...•Jim, 7.7.,"7.'err . .,b ,,,,.....*5 .. ..1?. '',-:',....,.; ,42•4'.1,-f..-;. 7,310:".:..aat•-7:51Vs.tnik:::;',..(-.:;4,-.:-;!•,:f.;.1,1-.414.::„"t-i,ii-19,:i,k,,tvaH.,, ,,41:,":7;,..,,..,,t,,,:,,,,..4,-._.;:.,;:::,-.:•:,.',...s...,1:-,:.,44.7.4P:;.."7:.,,,;-',..g:tims' :•gfiv;';i3.. er..36,t're;iii''',17.7i-i:1-'4.1E"';'' ..ite‘'.-3-414?-7.4...,,,r,,,,k,:,;-:::,;..i.4,;*.*;;;...(4tr:;;Fcrliit..:14J., .::.i.::',..4. storlc Earthquake Events - ./)," ,..3.,_,• a __,,,,,,i„._b 41,,,.. ,oli,- ....1..---, -:-.4 .•-. --•= `fti!,.,.0',,, 2.7Av.ik.:74:rk,',.,::,,.tf:-'4;_t•:"..i .' '.- ,-,t4iztAN'..V.I.:;•1`tit,i''''0,b,A„-t7A:it'g'...,k1,.,-,i:i,..e,,..•i-..1'i.%''''.P,..S'i.'fi''ITV", -il.-- ,'Ik-A " i7"1-°814701:: u.... ... . :: .,- 17.,,,,,,!..„,..?.,,4:,,T.,:,1/27,,,.,ee.•%.;14,41,.,,- A.,.,,i,,,•4;;;ilik.',..si':•,• '1•-.1.,.iiifiliiiilc'ci?':;:i..F.'Stil,Lii,'•••1,0:i,,i'''i -1.r,••:,. 'tr4j!,__,. .,,,,,,,,.:.,..„ „„AL, -.7 • .-t Hj me? j4 W.''''''•'---r. ''.. i,;:t:•.iriey,..,.:.,„,..1 ...,...--,-,..-.....L1' . . i,.,",?;i1;;i.ti.?,-i,•:;',.,..',11 S-.'-,:f-jf,44. :k.:,,..',.-,,,.-. , .; 4.",t.'t;•,....:;.,..r...;.%00' X'i.,.,.4:,..;,!ii.f4,;•,....,,;;k:i'V.4.,4,.4k.$.:gj.:::-.MFri, ,ili„..,:, .....`,,-:..--*,....fi ..R.,1 ,:!,,.r.s..i3 2) 1812 WrIfi ro county :176 ‘3' ,? 1 -,,,13t,','-,P.e;,-,*;:k:::;:,,;4,%:::..'t:ii:(14.V9?'It''''''''Cl"•-k. 3) 11:6\Zoe:Angeles MI3? 4T,IV•s-'..r."- •. 1•..'''''' ';,.--,i...S. 2-t1.0'0g•&14 ;I';:iikiVr..7.1-,.;.•,•Witlii);;Ilf egii:. 'I::•.4,`-2:A?..',:;:',..,-1:40?-?;-',;,.-.. .;,-`,..*.ii'skg,i.!;:if.:„,p75.--$.4.4-,,,--„*.-4?.p,:-.41:44,,,,e1,::,--,..t,,,r,z,*4-43,-4 44 .58 san Bernardino R6? t i 'V ..' • 'I 97 . "0;`'s..den 'IN-. .1,:;;;04.ek;:fi:NV7*,atf.;',ti?..g..e''A.i...';a.a:('''''.;4::, 7, .s-:4,I,I kt4,:ifits.:,TLAiiel,t,77.:!?4',5,‘ikrgZil,# q„L.;!..!-`•..4,-,,',::::.-.; :t.;?:..1 4-'f'1(,1 0 tees san Bernardino ig.5 . • : i.'. • qi--- i.'1,_:.4„, ..0.,044.itt,;.,,,,....-4.47.,„,. tp;,r,-;4,wIr.vivis - -Al..'L''. '..,-,;.-, . , ... :;t.. .',-,7,/,,,iv.;,ivji•-• -1....f.,..! ,.1..,..,:....:-.„.. 7) Le!!M°Matda San Fernando Valley M5.9 M6 -8-'"i'f-fiA:j- * I '. ** .1• ** ' ..-*'- ' \''. **- 1.* • \ -14s•'`-;"; .A, • •41...---„- ;e •• .,,k:,...„..:!,•;.,.. .4( : 1 t 4:' cl'i.'l,ti,',2FM.A%'.1 8) 1... ona .-- • -N.„.......: .. !.:j....Nig:,...,1f,.;y:. 6k,,,,:iiti'';•',',...V;;If, •,,V,:6.0.' :4 -1: ,,6,1,.4,1,..:•,..,,,.....:k...; •'ti,w-1-4;f"i.,. :;•,....%•'.qm,,Ypi..,,,;:f:"',,, -.4.:i„ 4'8. „!.. ...;,4,.. .-:,..1 $.4 .1894 Ivo poi; ss rvis.5 if.C 6.i 4 ' i: .'' ... . ' '' •*:2".2E..':42114i '.4,:i:N.'":1?;f1,4'r •ks.;f1Ar-4,froe':';'..ttfli)lit,^•%.,4'..:1 -4,,-.J.':;!-:If_ilc.'.'''.1.4::,:iitel,412.,;-=,?,.' 1.0.'0„-,' --.47' th.t 1?).1:::sc„E,t,ID,nac,„a to m6.4 • - _•,-.1 4, .1 . t°:"V'''''''''':: .47:".6.-V.`41.1..!il4',':i'ifilti4ititittVg A'Z'aitt&411'.• :-ti l4ii-,.-Irr.0:ir.`Ii:1,1.,:riA'l'''''!7.7.1'}A.:'•11"..1:7.Z.:1''':',-450I.00N7ii i 21 1907 San Bernardino Ma ;'' . • .' .' •Y‘In's t....nr:14:11-\ -.'17 .'-'..-'''''C''4 '• ';',''' .'t• ''' '''1-'4'.--4'71-''''Ar'%.--24-4",..-'--,-' ',,'A..-,-"•-!.-4Tfq:•'''''''.'•,,,i,,,te.',N,P.:4,;';'-,e;:kt.P-) -1.-j,;!,:-. ':,,211W$,A lr:i-.:-.JV.;*'...'..'1,,•,,i-.:‘..N.1, 4 13)1910 Elsinore MB e:::71-- ''' ; • •• .4`_.. 7.-:.:.•:•-...167 .-.-.•..V, ---, ••-. ‘4,-!tka.:,..: -.,..'. I •'7,...I;,..ct..--4s.la,--14..:..t-:4.4,tjl,4;-.go?..0I,.. , 74,-..41-4). .„,.,.,;.„..1,-.4,:tri-•-.; -.'„?..;,,,,, ,..-7..L.v4.:Aik.,.., :!...ily:',......,..,,,:t,: ,. 145))1982-108 saingte9Giodnto-Hemet , . .,,,.. . -..,.... .. , . • A A . ,r-Tio.. - , ,----:;:.;,....,.. ",..,-1,...„,..„....,,,,....,...„.„...„......,..., ,,,,.. :, ,?, ..,.,.,., 1,-,,,.,I .c,....tr4A 16)1823 Loma Linda . I 1 M6 4 lki.,::-ti'''',Wit....;:,' 'il..I .1.,,,77.•)IT.,fcl-j•N_1 c-.j;1.!.',"t.,,"..;,..,. .,,,,,, .-:iiiiit',7':-4::72:. ' . ,;:-,..7.,:‹1 17)1830 Sante Monica Bay till:: \3•- :,'''''• ,..i.\ • '• L 1 ':'1'.:e t404.= .sitnIfripi.T.:,..ixi*-y.. .'. •',-; -,YiFt.4.../.. 4..1,',: ''..''''...4.f),4.,;4•ih.il,:: .,;;',:.?';51:1 19)1933 Long Beach 18 1941 Gardena M4.8 .> . -CN. .'---'• - . -L . '.:...1-.-. . • 1 : .. . . 1C, 7 ki . .. •..! ''' ' ,19 '''' ;.11..,147,1:41.1;•.:1';•Ii>.•11'..tttti 1,1, 1' i!..1';'-t--- .f:..;--,-4.;*i... f.4. '?..*4;i.i}f.:Viir4i,,,7.:1 20))1871 Bon Fernand° Niro j •• s, ,,,,*`,..s..; ,-". ._. :.: is'F,) , ; ,.....;;,..„ ; ',AIN: N.,....,...- ,,., . ...-,. ..,":4,,,,,,,',..ts... '17..';';'::.-.0.;Y:t.trii.4-:4,:.:11:.; .,..,..,',1?r,'4'...;.:,...-...-•••;i'i.1.,,...:._‘-:.,...irt g."..."'!,4„..:!;::-.:,:,:::i..,4....7.:.11:011::,:•k:1, 21)1E03 r.itjititluugu M5.2 ., ..':,. -:-.--- .-:.......;Rkf;0'.i r il..;51., • • ".':.--1.,...",'...S,, .40 4 v.15:i...t.t,'-:k...-_, -,10ye.,i,-•=.-1 22)1879 M8.0 \f-,... •• ',.'",:--41. .;" 9. * :• * ..'"..1----.,,,\......_.„.2 4T6::N,„. , ' - N-ti. ...,,.L... .1-.::'. _. -:L. ..":1-2,1':-z-,'i• - ,;::,rft"77t 1",,fffiltt.,:ii i...1tV:,..ir A:.,:e:.,'iY;-`11•-;riettlied 23)19"131'M"uwarrows m5.9 _!,.,c , '' . - .----- ....-L,,,,,- ' '' , &._• 1 - ••••••,,sy- -so..,;-, . . -,--}..""""S7. ,•,,,....,.,,,v'.-..r:4. .1;..r.'.1,,,•?...s.::....,,,'.,;374-:,..,.,r.,::.!:::!..-es:;•-. ,...,--4..„:;.-.,..:,.:.N.q_, ...t.o.„;;:-1 24)1987 Whittler- m5.0 ' . ---'s.-k-.:--': • '‘. •. 1-.7-ne'...:":" - ..r ,.›,.. .. Jr.1, . • 'Wt.i... .1,ei,V, --V-7,- . -',i';f• '','',?`-1'.••:,. .k,:°'9"3"i:.•,1, -..-4, ' ..x2- •', i -'''''-.--s_'?.•••f, ',. 25)1868 Pasadena - • , on; i" -1:-."-1,',-. a:- . ' ' or _4,-- • - m5.0 ‘r-2.--....,:-S, . A,_ .A.',.. .. • . '''' ir r• ••• - z I • , r..., ;,.,;,. ..„,.. .;r n.--e)4, 26)1989 Malibu . a 0 . - ....V,. , .-Ny i .. . , ,...., ....,..... :::: .....ni, ......:....\., 1 s:rit:T.......,...........e.......,,:::.........7.1.-.:::...:..A5:2,.......i;:,....,ti)..Iffl 1..."::::.,.!:,1:';4,.....i-...7.,:::„.;:;,...,::::.t:...,;::::;},,,':.1.:ti.',.:.7.::..,S.,z::4,..:_j.,,,,,,,,;.•?,,,,:.,-;:....,:s,••wr1.11,N21,,,.,,pe.t:;71:._,,•.1.:.: 22172)0)11989941 NSIoerra Madre M5.3 M5.8 %.,1.-.-:,.4.-.•-ii\:..,,L.: .. ... 4 . ... .. .,.- „,,;.,.. .....-„- , rthrldge m6.7 )r.>e....:.:4.,....:N*..1. . '(.1..t: ,. `',.„ :, --, .i '.:.',:,..'!,,,?,•,.. , . .. . . a 14 e„_..P•i \:'.•.0. ...• .„..._.3`.......,..vt-4....s. • .•):.1; .. r:ft.:12';. ...: .1'7.41 ,:. '• 1 ''''• •I ..- %•'1 ss‘U N ..'\\ • s -..-1:;.•?I;11 s.,,..ki,A,st4•.;', 4•';'",ej..' ...)tf. •'i.-. 4.45.4'• ':',2-t'•'..':''''-''' 1 • f: .• :•`7‘...-Alir1,4, ' ,- . '1' 2,- y,..- `--., • \N. 4 :..!,..,....,1,,,,,....,1"i7y,•?4.::...t..,;,•,-:..,',-,..-;-..i.....).-.::-.41:::_iiii, : 'Al.,...,_,..........-1,,.., ,.1...:.P.. v+.s.... .. ,,-" • 41'1 '',.k.......,==.• g.. ,-,•' .' t`,.-.'' g 1 i. •i'..?•••N,. 4 . .‘` ,• •i,!,....,..i':...;-::•:Si.57,4.il.; .1k44,,, ••-.-c-:::.+1,..N...'; :',..--fgr'f••: '''''''••,:-'' ' '':1. '''N.\ '•N... : • 'W.'S "':''''1.••''''' •-ik.r'I '' .• --...17-.4,14. ' ••:rtu,--.1 11...g=0•2?..,..c.. .....,_. '''f- -j: • "". s.'(1,,-,?3': '' ,...!. . •!de. \ . ...._,...j ... \1 •.."-N--.19- 1 ! i ir -- -\. 118° rkeferences: '119' 35 Mks RECIPE:NAL FAULT AND El IMIce-rY MAN 2 Base Mess FIBLJRES U8G8 Goidlarn Calm'. Proposed Pacific City a i 039-00 lamed an UFOS 1:1,0110.000 --a-- ZEISER PIA: 1.Angales1I.ii(N1-11) , TN* 631 A t.1 r‘.3/,iyal.s,..113.1,200/.115.w r.i3,033....%/.!40211.!./A T5nI-P--I-1-1kro NEC Pacific Coast Hwy end ist Street (atnatneil FroinibPFI CIR../ DATE: NOVENBER 2130 1 11•••• • KLir.,1 , hinted fomnTOPOI 01999 Wildflower Productions(vrivw.topo.ccim) flitt1111: COMO Map tlini 6,1994 •"-%-"•-• Consultants, Inc. EarthIlts Epleentert: HUNTINGTON BEACH.CALIFORNIA Fig.1,Fog.10. By:M.VV.Laney 11/09/2000 LAEOMAP1.cdr , , , 11111 , , , '' - - , , U , Capital Pacific Holdings,Inc. PN 01039-00 November 19, 2001 Table 1 44,,ss.. Significant Faults i... .^i:�- •fi` S'.1:'. :y_:�' C '•.�fii-�la '��f�i :.4:.�Y •:Sp�:i:.i'.--;{Y.u•�'�d`a .�'4.{1�.':T.`,'.-:.ul"yr •�,� %•''•��tY cyh'`t'✓1�d�4r :'%<.,i,,"X::' :::" it ice. ..� .,Nyi: 'y...yF 4.•.::t�:- �-.�.�,a..ari^:,X.F ..t'�:: ,tu.,<;�v..3_rc..'7::szi '- �.,-,..>:.i'���li .il+.?j.�' �:�+� ��'S�'' �S"-�"�.� :fE.*U` } �'�'k X.tE .f?'a: /ycra:i�:ycr j :P'�:i .n,�,t;:r''.^'lr. .. ;4r- (•k ;t::3-i,`.e'e �^'' ::Pg'?240, 'k; r-;i' >t!J ?�'�F^". '/ 'va' :,;1<;N "de- :,y-may att,ri 1.,:: f }+•.uc7 iet :t5i5:Q, s x: ,G'e; t i:l �-`•�` Wyk. :�:''-.:Mtxx+.�F>�;�1��lzF`?:"'r1�ys` r�^ `,"' 'w;wi�en.s�';F,°"�•.F=�:ri��.."h,�}. �..f,,, :a.,l.�, ,�< a�-.;_'. 5 ? js n `• �'.' �;�_ M -;w '3 ����}},-r ppproximate:,:'s :Maximum:Event '�,xs Fault Selsml,,,, + ',�ti� 4, ' r�:...a" d*'', s^;.w....a.,.>. ;0( `5 ik. Distance.from-;j (Moment: ..Source Type;.(199Z ''+Fault�'Narrie��`. t'�2�: •�'�j.; Site Miles: kin !Ma ntitude tMw'ge:T•' P• s',.,,. Newport-Inglewood(L.A.Basin) 0.6 (0.9) 6.9 B Compton Thrust 4.3 (7.0) 6.8 B IJewport-Inglewood(Offshore) 6.5 (10.4) 6.9 B Palos Verdes 10.0(16.1) 7.1 B Elysian Park Thrust 14.0 (22.5) 6.7 B 11(Vhittier 20.6 (33.1) 6.8 B Chino-Central Ave.(Elsinore) 22.4(33.1) 6.7 B • Elsinore-Glen Ivy 24.8 (39.9) 6.8 B Ooronado Bank 27.0 (43.5) 7.4 B San Jose 27.3 (44.0) 6.5 B l/erdugo 34.1 (54.9) 6.7 B Sierra Madre 34.3 (55.2) 7.0 B Oucamonga 35.9 (57.8) 7.0 B Anacapa-Dume 46.2(74.3) 7.3 B San Andreas(Southern) 52.5 (84.5) 7.8 A Ple se note that the fault distances presented in Table 1 are based on distances me sured to where the fault trace is mapped or projected onto the ground surface. Thg distances measured from the Uniform Building Code (UBC) Near-Source Zone Maps (ICBO 1998) for use with the 1997 UBC are based on the shortest distance from the site to the fault plane projection to the surface from a depth of 10-km. Therefore, sometimes the fault distance measured from the UBC maps may be different than those presented in Table 1. The site location in relation to known active faults and historical earthwork epicenters is shown on Figure 2. 5.3.2 Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone The Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone (NIFZ) has been fairly well studied by both structural and petroleum geologists. Like other major regional faults within the Peninsular Ranges, the NIFZ is a predominately strike-slip fault that has devIeloped sympathetically in response to the transform-fault activity of the San Andreas Fault, which is a tectonic crustal plate boundary between the Pacific and North American plates. The fault trends roughly north-north westerly. South of Newport Beach, the fault is located offshore and trends a significant distance southerly, where it interacts with other offshore faults and possibly the Rose E:\projects\2001\01039-00-Pacific City-11-01.doc 24 Capital Pacific Holdings, Inc. PN 01039-00 November 19,2001 Canyon fault zone of San Diego. North of Newport Beach, the fault zone extends as a series of en-echelon right-lateral faults with some degree of thrust (compressive) as far as Beverly Hills. It is terminated into the Transverse Ranges at that location, namely into the Santa Monica—Raymond Hill Fault Zones. The compressive components of this fault zone have created the structural zones of folded rock forming the oil fields, as well as topographic features of a belt of domal hills and mesas such as the Huntington Mesa, Alamitos Heights, Signal Hill, to as far north as the Domingez, Cheviot and Baldwin Hills. In all of these cases, the structure is similar- faulted domal to anitclinal features. Much of this deformation took place by late Pleistocene, although the fault remains very active today. The right lateral stepping components of the fault zone in the near surface are "flower" expressions in response to a more singular wrench-fault feature located at depth (ie. within the actual crystalline crust). The behavior of the NIFZ overall tends to favor deformation and blind thrusting, rather than surface rupture and displacement. This behavior explains why the large historic earthquakes on this fault zone in 1920, 1928, and 1933 had very little surface expression. No surface rupture expressions of fault movement were noted. Even in the case of oil wells directly straddling the known traces, there was little disruption. The main effect of this fault zone on the proposed development is that of strong ground motion (shaking). This shaking may be expected and has in the past caused some degrees of liquefaction, lurching, and other secondary seismic effects, predominately limited to areas of deep soft, poorly consolidated ground with high groundwater that lacked either natural inherent strength or engineering controls to resist. Ground rupture,in the form of a surface expression of offset on the fault in an earthquake event, away from mapped existing traces, is believed remote. • 5.3.3 Ground Motion Historically, a large number of moderate earthquakes have been recorded to have occurred in the region of the project site over the past 201 years. We performed a historical search using the EQSEARCH for Windows computer program (Reference 3) from those earthquakes that are known to have occurred within 62- miles (100-km) of the site. The historical acceleration was estimated using the Boore, et al. (1997), Abramson and Silva (1997), and Campbell (1997) attenuation equations. Our search was limited to those earthquakes with E:\projects\2001\01039-00-Pacific City-11-01.doc 25 c—� Capital Pacific Holdings,Inc. PN 01039-00 November 19, 2 01 m gnitudes greater than M5 and through the years 1800 to 2000. A summary of the results are presented below: Time Period(1800 through 2000): 201 years Maximum Recorded Magnitude: M7.0 on December 16, 1858 (San Andreas Fault) Approximate distance to nearest historical 3 miles,5 km on March 14,1933 earthquake with a magnitude greater than M5: (W on Newport Inglewood Fault) Maximum historic,estimated,site acceleration: 0.4 g on March 11, 1933,M6.3 (Newport Inglewood Fault) umber of events exceeding a magnitude M5: 65 Based upon our understanding of the regional tectonic framework, the largest m gnitude earthquake at the project site will most likely be generated by the N wport-Inglewood fault, with a moment magnitude of M6.9. Based on our pr babilistic analysis using Blake's FRISKSP for Windows computer program - (Reference 1) an acceleration of 0.45g for alluvium (to be used as the Design Bz.sis Earthquake) within the area may be expected to occur with a 10 percent probability of exceedance in 50 years. The site is located in Seismic Zone 4 of the1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC). Therefore, structures should be digned in accordance with parameters given within Chapter 16 of the current U iform Building Code. 5. .4 Liquefaction Potential and Other Seismic Hazards Liquefaction Potential The alluvial soils are located in the southeastern corner of the site is located within a State of California Seismic Hazard Zone Map for Liquefaction. 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. Liquefaction analysis of a specific, detailed nature is to be performed as a portion of forthcoming foundation specific studies. Terrace Deposit Areas: - The majority of the site is generally underlain by terrace and engineered fill, which are in turn underlain by the terrace.deposits. Based on the dense E:\projects\2001\01039-0'-Pacific City-11-01.doc 26 Capital Pacific Holdings, Inc. PN 01039-00 November 19, 2001 nature of the terrace and fill materials, and our analysis, the potential for liquefaction is considered to be low in these areas. Alluvial Areas: The southeastern corner of the site is generally underlain by loose to medium dense alluvial deposits. Based on the degree of saturation observed in these areas in the borings and cone penetration test data from the previous reports, the relative densities of the soils observed, it is our opinion that the potential for liquefaction within the alluvial area is moderate to high, were left unimproved. Seismically Induced Slope Failures The site is not located within a State of California designated Seismic Hazard Zone Map for Slope Stability. Since there are no significant slopes within the site boundary, the potential for seismically induced slope instability is considered low to remote. Tsunami and Seiches With respect to tsunami, the site is located within an area of"moderate" tsunami run-up as defined in Figure EH-8 of the City of Huntington Beach General Plan. According to Figure 208 of USGS Professional Paper 1360, the potential for up to 8-feet of tsunami wave run-up may be expected during a 500-year seismic event. Due to the lack of land-locked bodies of water (i.e. ponds or lakes), the potential for seiche is considered to be non-existent. Other Seismic Hazards Risk of ground lurching, cracking or seismically induced spreading or compaction effects were also evaluated. The geologic units are dense to overconsolidated 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 development.The primary geoseismic risk anticipated at the site is that of strong ground motion as a result of activity on distant faults, as described already in Section 5.2 and summarized in Table 1 above. E:\projects\2001\01039-00-Pacific City-11-01.doc 27 Capital Pacific Holdings, Inc. PN 01039-00 November 19,2 01 5.4 G •oundwater The geologic and hydrogeologic aspects of groundwater at the site are discussed in the Section 5.1 above. Groundwater at the site was encountered at depths of approximately 5- to 24-feet below the ground surface (bgs) during our site investigation, which corresponds to approximate elevations of-1/2 feet below to 4 feet above mean sea level (MSL). On July 30, 2001 the piezometelrs (ZB-2, ZB-5 and ZB-5A) were measured, and the groundwater levels were found to e between approximately 9- and 20-feet bgs (approximately 3- to 4-feet above MSL). ti Based on the past use of the site, the groundwater may be contaminated. Our understan ing is that the current remediation performed by the previous landowner should li it such contamination to nuisance levels or below. If dewatering is required during co struction, environmental testing and remediation of the discharge water should be incorp rated into the disposal plan. 5.5 Settlement Potential The southeastern portion of the site is underlain by approximately 15- to 20-feet of settlement prone alluvial/lagoonal deposits. Under currently proposed fill loads, settlement of these soils could be on the order of'A-inch for each foot of fill placed over a period of several months. Building loads imposed on settlement prone soils will increase both the agnitude and duration of settlement to occur. Settlement due to primary and secondary consolidation under typical foundation loading could cause structural and service re ated distress to structures in this area without mitigation of settlement prone soils. The site isi not within a area that has been impacted by long-term subsidence due to local oil extraction according to the Huntington Beach General Plan. The settlement potential of the buildings should be performed on a case-by-case basis once for finalized plans are produced. E:\projects\2001\01039-00-Pacific City-11-01.doc 28 Capital Pacific Holdings, Inc. PN 01039-00 November 19, 2001 5.6 Other Hazards The project site has the following additional issues that can impact the construction and development of the site: 5.6.1 Abandoned Oil Wells and Methane The site is located within a former Chevron oil field. As mentioned in Sections 2.1 and 2.2, several abandoned oil wells exists within the site. Additionally, according to Figure EH-10 of the 1996 Huntington Beach General Plan, the site is located within a Methane Overlay District. This condition requires a review by the Huntington Beach Fire Department (City Specification 429) which requires a site soils testing plan to determine the presence of methane gas and/or soil contamination. It is our understanding that this study was performed by Harding Lawson ESE, Inc. as discussed in their January 31, 2001 Remediation Plan, and the recommended remedial'grading to be implemented by Chevron and their representatives. A copy of the Huntington Beach City Specifications 429 and 431-92 are included as Appendix F. 5.6.2 Ocean Related Corrosion Potential The site is located approximately 500-feet from the Pacific Ocean. Building materials, such as metal, stucco, plastics and others are prone to corrosion and deterioration due to the presence of salts in the air and humidity from the evaporation from the ocean. Therefore, the ocean breezes and winds that will be blowing across the site should be considered to be corrosive towards metals and concrete, and the architect should take these conditions into consideration when assigned building materials for the proposed structures. 5.6.3 Flood Hazards, Storm Surge and Transient Groundwater According to Figure EH-11 of the 1996 Huntington Beach General Plan, the majority of the site, the northwestern two-thirds, is located within an area of minimal flooding (Zone X, 500-year flood according to FEMA). According to the General Plan, the southeastern third of the site is located within an area that can be flooded from 1- to 3-feet in the 100-year event (Zone A99, Special High E:\projects\2001\01039-00-Pacific City-I 1-01.doc -- 29 Capital Pacific Holdings, Inc. PN 01039-00 November 19, 2001 Risk Flood Area, according to FEMA). The site is also on the border of the area that may experience flooding due to wave action, according to the General Plan. 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. Since 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 site groundwater may be impacted by rises in the ocean tides, water infiltration during heavy storm events and surrounding irrigation, resulting in a transient groundwater condition. The building foundations and slabs should be designed to accommodate temporary rises of the groundwater table. • E:\projects\2001\01039-00-Pacific City-11-01.doc 30 Capital Pacific Holdings, Inc. PN 01039-00 November 19, 2001 6.0 CONCLUSIONS The results of our study have concluded the following: •• The existing site and vicinity is considered absent of any geotechnical conditions that would preclude the proposed construction. The site does, however, include geologic, geotechnical and hydrogeologic conditions that influence the constructability and long-term performance of the development. This firm and the design team are addressing these conditions and specific protocols and recommendations have or will be developed for these aspects. • • The proposed development is considered feasible, however, remedial grading, deepened foundations, or ground improvement methods as described in this report, will be required to limit adverse settlement, and earthquake related distress. • The proposed development is not anticipated to adversely affect adjacent properties from a geotechnical viewpoint, provided the proposed grading and construction incorporates the recommendations of this firm. • Due to the presence of relatively shallow groundwater, excavations deeper than an elevation of about 9 feet above MSL will most likely require specialized excavation methods. • The southeastern portion of the site consists of compressible "gap terrain" soils, and will require remedial grading, deep foundations, ground improvement or a combination of these techniques depending on the final grading plans and proposed structure loading. Conceptual recommendations for planning purposes are provided in this report. • The northwestern portion of the site is underlain by terrace deposit material, and should provide adequate bearing characteristics for currently proposed foundations. However, based on the height and weight of the proposed structures, mat or deep foundations may be required. The individual building foundations can be evaluated on a case-by-case basis once plans are available. • The site is located within a Tsunami Run-Up Zone according to the City of Huntington Beach General Plan. This could have an effect on proposed structures within low-lying areas of the site. • The site is located within a Methane Hazard Zone according to the City of Huntington Beach General Plan. Methane testing will need to be conducted, and remediated in accordance with City Specification No. 429, in accordance with City of Huntington Beach Fire Department requirements. E:\projects\2001\01039-00-Pacific City-11-01.doc 31 Capital Pacific Holdings,Inc. PN 01039-00 November 19, 2001 • Based on the sites past use as an oil field, the potential for exposure to hazardous waste in the soil and groundwater is possible. It is our understanding that the owner is aware of this issue and that remIediation and work plans are in progress to address it. Our conclusio s as stated above are based largely on the understanding that this firm will be retained to observe, test, and comment on the earthwork and construction. Some as-grading, depending on conditions actually exposed at the, time of earthwork, is also anticipated. Additional stu ies should be performed by this office to evaluate specific conditions and detailed geotechnical as ects of the site and proposed development once comprehensive and smaller scale (i.e. 100-scale or 50-scale) grading and design plans are formulated. An As-Graded report should be prep ed to document the nature of the actual grading performed. 6.1 Local Engineering Geologic Considerations The following engineering geologic considerations regarding the site conditions should be considered in the grading plan design: • The groundwater table is approximately at elevations of—8 to 4 feet below/above MSL. If bottom of spread foundations and/or slabs-on-grade are below an elevation of 9 feet MSL,than dewatering will most likely be required prior to construction. I7 • The alluvial soils in the southeastern third of the site are highly compressible, and are subject to significant settlements under structural loads. Therefore,"it is our opinion that this area of the site is unsuitable for use of conventional foundations and slabs- on- ade. • Wit 'n the portions of the site underlain by Terrace, overexcavation and reco paction of the soil beneath the proposed structures should be acceptable for ligh ly loaded structures. Some questionable zones may exist within the terrace materials with respect to "heavy" capacity, and deep foundation members will need to be extended through them, where they exists. For this and other reasons, foundation specific detailed studies will need to be performed. • Between the elevations of—30 and—40 feet MSL in the southeastern third of the site exists a very dense sand layer that is well suited for driven piles or drilled shaft caissons (constructed with casing or slurry-methods) for multistoried structures. • Terrace Deposits are generally overconsolidated, and have abundant cohesive soil components. Terrace Deposits represent the most likely bearing materials for the proposed_development. Although shallow foundations may be feasible for light to E:\projects12001\01039-00-Pacific City-11-01.doc 32 Capital Pacific Holdings,Inc. PN 01039-00 November 19, 2001 moderately loaded structures, multi-storied buildings may require deep foundations, such as driven piles or drilled shaft caissons, or mat foundations, due to heavy structural loads. Special, detailed foundation specific studies for each building is recommended. • No active faults have been observed on the site to date. Additionally, the southeastern portion has a moderate potential to liquefy during the design level earthquake, with an estimated settlement of less than an inch. • A majority of the on-site, near surface soils, exhibits a medium to high potential for expansion. However, if the recommendations presented by this firm are followed, these effects can be minimized. • Sulfate resistant concrete will be required to mitigate the corrosive effects of the on- site soils. Additionally, underground utilities will also need to be protected from corrosive soils relative to both concrete and metals. E:\projects\2001\01039-00-Pacific City-11-01.doc 33 Capital Pacific Holdings, Inc. PN 01039-00 November 19, 2001 7.0 PRELIMINARY DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS This section iscusses the geotechnical recommendations with respect to the proposed construction and grading. General Earthwork Specifications for typical grading procedures are presenteda in Ap�endix H. The recommendations presented in the body of this report supercede any contradicts g recommendations presented in Appendix H. These general specifications are intended only to supplement the specific recommendations discussed below and elsewhere in this report. Note: The following recommendations are preliminary only, and will be supplemented with forthcoming, sie and building specific studies and grading plan reviews. Once more detailed information. on he site conditions are known, we would be able to provide more refined design recommendatio s. 7.1 Demolition and Unsuitable Materials As described in the body of the report, the site includes slabs, foundations and asphalt pavement from the previous motel and restaurant buildings. These features will need to be demolished. It is anticipated that the main structural portions of these structures would be removed in the process of clearing and grubbing the site. Any existing utilities will also need to be abandoned and also removed or otherwise suitably demolished. The debris should be removed from the site. This firm should document these operations. Vegetation, particularly trees and shrubs will need to be grubbed and removed from the - site as vTell. The vegetation will need to have the major aspects of their root structure removed, and care should be taken to.limit the amount of roots and other organic material that remain in the ground that could be incorporated into the fills. The resulting debris should bye removed from the site. This office should also document these operations. The desired degree of demolition and grubbing should result in a surface within the grading imits that is essentially free of objectionable or otherwise deleterious materials, and is adequately cleared to allow for unrestricted earthwork to commence. It is anticipated that some foundation remnants and localized areas of underground utilities will remain after the demolition process. Based on our experience with similar sites, it is believed that these remnants will be exposed, demolished, and removed in the process of the recommended overexcavation of the site. These features, provided that the construction debris is of a non-consolable nature, can be suitably broken up and disperse, and may be incorporated into the replacement fills on a limited basis. This should be evaluated on a case by case basis by the geotechnical consultant at the time of grading. Otherwise, they should be culled and disposed of offsite. E:\projects\2001\01039-00-Pacific City-11-01.doc 34 Capital Pacific Holdings,Inc. PN 01039-00 November 19, 2001 Organic remnants, such as deeper roots from large trees, are not considered suitable for incorporation into the fill and should be removed from the underlying natural ground. Therefore, such materials will need to be chased out by local overexcavation to the -- satisfaction of the geotechnical consultant in the field at the time the removals are made. The roots and other materials should be extracted from fill soils and removed from the site. Although evaluation of hazardous wastes is beyond the scope of this study, based on our current understanding it is anticipated that environmental hazards will most likely be encountered in the course of demolition and grubbing. It is our understanding that the remediation and disposal of contaminated materials is to be performed under the observation of an environmental engineering firm. Geotechnical clearance from this office is recommended with respect to the adequacy of the demolition and grubbing operations prior to the commencement of actual grading. This is in addition to any jurisdictional clearances required. 7.2 Soil Removals The soils in the upper several inches to a foot over most of the site are generally topsoil- like in nature, and are organic enriched. As such, they are considered unsuitable. These soils may be dispersed into the planned fills provided the large or obvious concentrations of organic material are removed and the soils do not contain more than 5% organic debris. Any organic rich soil allowed will need to be processed and blended into the mass fills to the satisfaction of the geotechnical consultant in the field and such that the amount of total organics does not exceed 2% in any portion of the final fills. If this cannot be accomplished, these soils should not be incorporated into the engineered fill prisms, and will require disposal. Organic rich soils may be of value,however, with regard to post-grade landscape uses. It may be desirable to stockpile these soils for such use. The southern areas of the site underlain by "gap" alluvial soils will be influenced and limited to some extent by groundwater. Conceptual methods of addressing these removals are presented herein. Specific protocols and recommendations will be presented as a portion of our forthcoming building/foundation specific reports, and the grading/foundation plan reviews. E:\projects\2001\01039-00-Pacific City-11-01.doc 35 Capital Pacific Holdings,Inc. PN 01039-00 November 19, 2001 7.3 Overexcavations in Natural Areas Due to weathering and disturbance, the surficial soils within the limits of grading are generally not considered to be adequate for support of new fills and structures in their current conditions. These soils may be overexcavated, processed, and replaced as engineered fills to provide the required support. The effect of the overexcavation would be to pro tide a uniform, controlled subgrade for the support of the proposed additional fills and fYundations. A detail for the overexcavation is included in Appendix H. � The current conceptual general overexcavation recommendations are: • Remove upper 10-feet of natural ground as measured from the natural ground surface in the alluvium (Qal) in the southeastern portion of the site, and the upper 5-feet in the terrace deposits (Qt) where engineered fills are proposed to be less than or equal to 15-feet higher than original grade. This will most likely require dewatering in the lagoonal/alluvial areas, and the installation of a slurry cut-off wall along PCH. • Where design fills will exceed 10-feet from the previous existing grades, the depth of overe)icavation in alluvium (Qal), as a general rule, should be one-half of the difference of the finished grade elevation and the existing natural grade elevation, or to terrace. Within the terrace deposits, the depth of overexcavation should be one- quarter of the difference of the finished grade elevation and the existing natural grade elevat'on, or to competent terrace. fi The overexcations may extended below the groundwater table. This may require dewatering, and/or chemical treatment (i.e. lime or cement treating) of the subgrade soils t6 facilitate the removals. Special recommendations for such will be presented in forthcoming reports. The overexcavation bottoms should be mapped and evaluated by the project engineering geologist. If, in the opinion of the geotechnical consultant, adverse conditions exist, these conditions should be removed or otherwise mitigated to the satisfaction of the consultant. Fills should not be placed until the overexcavation bottom has been observed, evaluated, and approved by the geotechnical consultant. Once the overexcavation has been adequately accomplished, the bottom should be prepared to receive fill by scarification and moisture conditioning, or as otherwise recommended by the geotechnical consultant. E:\projects\2001\01039-0 I-Pacific City-11-01.doc 36 Capital Pacific Holdings, Inc. PN 01039-00 November 19, 2001 The exposed bottoms in the southeastern portion of the site may expose saturated zones, making a competent bottom difficult to attain. If this condition is encountered, the bottom may be stabilized as discussed below. Unstable Excavation Bottom Above Groundwater Table In areas were the exposed bottom is saturated but above the groundwater free surface and a competent bottom is not attainable, we recommend that the bottom be stabilized. One method of stabilization is through the use of crushed rock and a geotextile fabric. We estimate that on the order of 2- to 4-feet of rock may be necessary to "bridge"the bottom, however, this thickness will need to be considered on a case by case basis. A representative of our firm should monitor the placement of this rock to evaluate its effectiveness. The geotextile should be non-woven (such as Mirafi 600X, or equivalent) and should be placed directly on the overexcavated subgrade according to the manufacturers recommendations. The fabric should be placed in the direction that the rock is to be placed and adjacent panels should overlap a minimum of 2-feet. The fabric should be draped on the edges of the excavation so that the fabric will encapsulate the sides of the rock layer. If the fabric is damaged during installation, the damaged area should be exposed and a patch of fabric should be placed over the area that extends at least 3 feet beyond the damaged area. Vehicles or earthwork equipment should not drive directly on the fabric. The rock may consist of crushed rock, placed in lifts of no more than 12- to 18- inches and densified in place. Care must be taken to avoid overstressing the subgrade and minimize repeated agitation of the subgrade soils until a stable bottom is achieved. Following placement of the crushed rock, the rock layer should be covered with another layer of the geotextile fabric. The upper layer of fabric will serve to reduce the migration of fines into the rock from the compacted fill. The upper layer of fabric should be generally placed under the same guidelines as those for the bottom layer of fabric. Engineered fill should be placed on the fabric, in such a manner so as not to damage the fabric, and compacted as discussed in Section 8.3.5 of this report. Unstable Excavation Bottom At or Below Groundwater Table If the excavation is at or below the groundwater table, special considerations to dewatering and the installation of a slurry or sheet pile cut-off wall will need to be considered. Additionally, the subgrade will need to be stabilized using chemical treatment (i.e. cement or lime treatment). This issue is to be studied in more detail in subsequent studies. E:\projects\2001\01039-00-Pacific City-11-01.doc 37 Capital Pacific oldings,Inc. PN 01039-00 November 19, 2 01 7.4 Oversized Material In general, rocks and other hard irreducible particles should be limited to 12-inches or less in nominal diameter.. Particles larger than this should be culled from the fills (and may be stockpiled for landscape uses if desired). Smaller oversize particles may be dispersed hrough the fill under the observation, testing and documentation of this firm, on a case by case basis. The upper 3-feet of the final subgrade should remain free of oversize p icles to limit interference with proposed structures, utilities, and landscaping. 7.5 Pr liminary Foundation Parameters Prelimin foundation parameters are provided below based on our recent exploration and explo ation conducted by previous consultants on the subject sites. Since proposed building oads and site grading are unknown at this time, foundation parameters presented below should be considered preliminary, and be used for planning purposes only. Note: Once proposed building loads and proposed site grades are known, and additional building-s ecific geotechnical investigations are completed, preliminary foundation parameter presented below should be revised in lieu of more recent, site and building specific s dies. 7. .1 Shallow Foundations Pr posed lightly loaded, low-rise structures,(less than 4 stories) may be supported on typical spread and mat foundations. Based on our preliminary testing and our un erstanding of the subsurface conditions, we have developed the following preliminary foundation parameters for shallow foundations: Bearing Capacity 2500 psf Friction Coefficient 0.35 Passive Resistance 300 psf/ft Minimum foundation depth 5.0 feet Minimum Foundation Width 2.0 feet (continuous footings) 7.5 2 Deep Foundations W have divided the site into two areas for deep foundation design. Figure G-1 in Appendix G illustrates the Pile Design Areas to'be used with the Preliminary Pile Deign Charts. E:\projects\2001\01039-00-Pacific City-11-01.doc 38 Capital Pacific Holdings,Inc. PN 01039-00 November 19, 2001 Structures proposed in the southeastern third of the site, Area 1, should utilize deep foundations bearing into dense terrace deposits, however, additional foundation depth will most likely be required to encounter competent soils, and counteract potential negative skin friction due to settlement of surrounding soils. Figure G-2 in Appendix G provides preliminary allowable downward and uplift design loads for driven piles. Due to the nature of these soils and depth to groundwater, cast-in-drilled hole(CIDH)piles are not recommended. Mid-rise structures (greater than 4 stories, including subterranean parking) in Area 2, may also be supported on deep foundations bearing into 'dense terrace materials encountered at approximately 30 to 40 feet below grade. Figures G-3 and G-4 in Appendix G provides preliminary allowable downward and uplift design loads for CIDH and driven piles, respectively. If CIDH piles are to be considered, than casing and/or drilling mud stabilization methods of construction will need to be considered in the cost of the project. Preliminary parameters for deep foundations have been provided in Appendix G. These parameters should be considered for preliminary planning purposes only, to be verified and supplemented by site-specific studies once building loads and configurations are known. 7.6 Expansive and Corrosive Soils Expansive Soils As discussed in the laboratory testing section and described elsewhere in the report, the soils anticipated to be exposed at grade in contact with the foundations proposed are expected to have an medium to high expansive potential. Portions of the site, as tested, vary significantly with respect to clay content and expansion potential. For this reason, testing of the near surface soils exposed at pad grade should be performed to determine actual expansion index values and Atterberg Limits, and the foundation designs modified _ accordingly if necessary after rough grading. For the purposes of this report and development of preliminary foundation plans, we assumed the soils to be highly expansive. Corrosive Soils Based on our laboratory testing,the soils to be exposed at or near pad grades are expected to be severely corrosive to both concrete and buried metal. The brackish nature of E:\projects\2001\01039-00-Pacific City-11-01.doc 39 Capital Pacific oldings, Inc. PN 01039-00 November 19, 20 1 portions o the on-site groundwater should also be considered in evaluation of the corrosion potential of the on-site soils. Duringgrading, testingof the near surface soils exposed at pad grades should be performed to determine actual corrosivity values, and the foundation designs modified accordingly if necessary. Concrete mix design should preliminarily assume "Severe" soluble sulfate exposure in accordance with 1997 UBC • Table 19-A-4. We recommend that a qualified corrosion engineer be consulted to develop recommend' ations for cathodic protection or other means to limit corrosion of buried metal on the subject site. Retaining Wall Considerations Retaining walls should be composed of materials resistant to the corrosive effects of the soil. Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) or other non-conventional retaining structures should ha ye e manufacturer provided data regarding the corrosion resistance of these products. YConventional walls should be constructed using Sulfate Resistant Concrete in accordancd with Table 19-A-4 of the 1997 Uniform Building Code. See Section 10.7.2 "Concrete" for specific recommendations. Expansive soils can exert a very high stress into a conventional retaining wall system if allowed. To insulate the wall from these effects, a zone of drained, granular material , should be Irovided within a 2/3:1 projection of the back toe of the wall. To protect the wall components,the low expansion backfill should be free of cobbles and boulders. The wall should also be waterproofed. The low a pinion material should be relatively free draining and have an expansion index of 2 or less. this low expansion material should be mechanically compacted to 90- percent rel tive compaction. A detail illistrating the retaining wall backfill recommendations is presented in Appendix I. Vapor Transmission Unprepared concrete, masonry, and similar materials in direct contact with the subgrade 1 soils may be expected to transmit or wick water vapor and even liquid through capillarity when in contact with damp ground. This wicking effect may also transmit soluble salts dissolved in the water through the concrete. This may result in objectionable salt deposits id moisture condensate. The effects may be limited by a using high strength EAprojects\2001\01039-00- acific City-11-01.doc 40 Capital Pacific Holdings,Inc. PN 01039-00 November 19, 2001 and low water-cement ratio concrete mix, and by use of an appropriate vapor barrier. The underdrainage recommended herein should also serve to limit such transmission. Due to the potential presence of methane at the site, we recommend that a qualified environmental engineer review the potential for methane to be present within the subsurface, and provide recommendations for mitigation of high methane concentrations. 7.7 Subdrainage and Underdrainage The site will include two primary types of subdrains: 1) Backdrains for retaining walls. 2) Underdrainage for the Hotel and Entertainment Center Retaining Wall Drains The retaining wall drain details have been described in other portions of this report and are also presented on the attached detail in the Appendix'I. The installation of these drains and their outletting should be under the observation and testing of the geotechnical consultant. The retaining wall drains should be outletted into an appropriate drainage system. Where moisture flux through the wall is undesirable, the back of the wall below grade should be waterproofed with a suitable waterproofing. A 3-part bituthane waterproofing involving a primer/sealer, self-adhesive flexible membrane, and protection board (i.e. Miradri or equivalent) should be considered. Drainage behind the wall may consist of a conventional perforated drainpipe encased in gravel and wrapped in filter fabric (as per detail in Appendix I). As an alternative, drainage may also be provided for behind the wall using a geosynthetic drainboard system which is tied into a collector pipe and outletted (i.e. Miradrain, Quickdrain, or approved equivalent). If such an alternative is desired, details and recommendations will be provided separately. Underdrainage for the Hotel and Entertainment Center As already discussed in this report, the site is situated in an area of relatively shallow groundwater. Many of the proposed basement foundation elevations will be located very near the current groundwater level. E:\projects\2001\01039-00-Pacific City-11-01.doc 41 Capital Pacific Holdings,Inc. PN 01039-00 November 19, 2001 The groundwater is anticipated to remain relatively stable, given the current structure in which it is situated, in the long term. However, as already discussed, transient fluctuations due to exceptional climatic events, or changes in use and influx may induce changes in the groundwater table. The most likely scenario affecting the proposed development in the foreseeable future, based on our understanding, is transient fluctuations of short duration that may result in a temporary rise in groundwater. Although it is strongly anticipated that the construction of the subterranean/basement i ! foundation portions of the development will include relatively "watertight" construction materials and methods, it is inevitable that nuisance water and moisture transmission may occur. The occurrence of these nuisance influxes of water and moisture would be both as direct capillarity and wicking, as well as transmission through any flaws,joints, cracks or similar features. The magnitude of such nuisance transmissions are expected to be greatly exacerbated should groundwater impart an increased head pressure. Because of a lack of freeboard between the basement foundations and the groundwater, even small transient groundwater elevation changes may affect the performance of the basements if no controls are provided. For these reasons, it is recommended that an underdrainage array be installed under the base slab foundations in addition to the other waterproofing controls planned. This is particularly true for the entertainment/hotel facility planned on the northwest portion of the site fronting PCH. The underdrainage array is essentially a permeable sheet drain of either gravel or composite drain construction that application has a manifold system of pipes that may transmit the transient groundwater, when it occurs, to a suitable discharge. These drains. would only be active during periods of high groundwater, and then resume a passive condition forming a capillary break against vapor/moisture when the groundwater levels return to normal. Depending on the method of overexcavation and bottom stabilization utilized, the gravel bedding and geofabric used for that may be incorporated into the drain system. Further, the underdrainage may be at least partially installed in the excavation phase to bleed off seepages in the open excavation. The underdrainage and the retaining wall backdrainage may be incorporated together, provided the incorporation limits cross transmission between the two systems. Specific recommendations and details of the underdrain systems would be included within future foundation-specific studies and grading plan review. E:\projects\2001\01039-00-Pacific City-11-01.doc 42 Capital Pacific Holdings, Inc. PN 01039-00 November 19, 2001 7.8 Site Protection The site should be protected by appropriate erosion control, especially during wet weather periods. When grading is to be performed in inclement weather, it is the • contractors responsibility to leave intermediate grades that allow for collection and removal of runoff and minimize damage potential. Any damage from such inclement weather effects should be repaired to the satisfaction of the geotechnical consultant based on actual field conditions. Similarly, the site should not be allowed to "dry out" or allow the pad surfaces to desiccate. This may be prevented by regularly sprinkling the pad surfaces to maintain the recommended moisture content. Should the pads dry out from exposure, they should be adequately rehydrated and reprocessed to the satisfaction of the geotechnical consultant prior to the excavation of foundations. Foundation and other temporary excavations should be appropriately protected. Slough and debris should not be allowed to fill into foundation excavations. Common sense and OSHA guidelines should be employed with respect to excavations onsite. Slopes should be protected until vegetated and the vegetation has become established. To assist in slope performance, a jute net and hydromulch system may be appropriate. Specific recommendations for such would be provided both in subsequent grading plan reviews and on a case by case basis during grading. 7.9 Surface Drainage The long-term performance of the site and structures will be significantly enhanced by attention to providing and maintaining proper surface drainage. Surface drainage in the form of appropriate grades and capture devices should be provided for. It is recommended that roofs be guttered and drained. The roof downspouts should be outletted into an area drain system. Similarly, hardscape should also be provided with area drainage. Planters around the prgposed buildings should be avoided where possible. Planters and landscape areas should be provided with adequate drainage. This drainage should be maintained, and adjusted accordingly if the landscaping is altered. The soil grade within 5-feet of the proposed foundation should be sloped to drain 2% or greater away from the foundations. The drainage should be directed to an appropriate E:\projects\2001\01039-00-Pacific City-11-01.doc 43 Capital Pacific Holdings,Inc. PN 01039-00 November 19, 2001 area drain system. A 1-foot berm should be provided for the top of slope, and pad drainage should be directed away from the tops of slopes. Drainage water should not be allowed to flow uncontrolled over any slope. 7.10 Settlement Potential On-site alluvial soils, particularly in the southeastern portion of the site will be subject to settlement beneath proposed building and fill loads. Settlement of these soils could cause structural and service related distress. These settlement concerns will be addressed on a site/building specific basis as a part of our forthcoming foundation specific studies and grading/foundation plan reviews. 7.11 Ground Improvement In order to reduce potential settlement, decrease liquefaction potential, increase shallow and deep foundation bearing capacity, ground improvement techniques may allow for lower construction costs, and shorten the project schedule the following options for ground improvement are being presented. Engineered ground improvement would have a particularly pronounced effect in the southeastern portion of the site. Ground improvement techniques are described below: Stone Columns Stone columns'typically consist of a column of granular material, usually open-graded gravel, which replaces settlement prone or poor permeability soils which serves to enhance drainage and reduce settlement time. Stone columns can be placed by drilling a large diameter hole in which the gravelly material is placed, or the gravelly material can be placed with a"vibro-replacement"technique. Vibro-replacement has the advantage of densifying surrounding soils with the use of a vibratory probe, and replacing the resulting void with granular materials. Vibro-replacement also works well with settlement prone soils below the groundwater level. Grouting Grouting typically involves injection of a stiff soil-cement mixture under pr essure within subsurface soils to displace and densify compressible soil materials. Grouting can also include injection of fluids to permeate subsurface soils, or specific lenses of material can be treated to limit potential settlements. E:\projects\2001\01039-00-Pacific City-11-01.doc 44 Capital Pacific Holdings,Inc. PN 01039-00 November 19, 2001 - Surcharging Surcharging consists of placing a temporary overburden load over compressible soils materials in order to densify in-place soils prior to placement of foundations or other improvements on the site. The time required to complete settlement under a surcharge load may be decreased if drainage layers consisting of granular material or synthetic "wick drains"are incorporated into the compressible material. Soil Treatment/Stabilization The above-mentioned methods are considered effective, but costlyand time potentially consuming. Given the current design scheme and development layout, it is our opinion that a nominal overexcavation with chemical treatment (such as lime or cement treating) combined with geogrids may be the most cost effective method for reducing differential settlement and providing a stable bottom for the proposed slab-on-grades. 7.12 Tsunami Protection The City of Huntington Beach general plan indicates that a probable Tsunami will entail a run-up of approximately 8 feet above sea level. Living and other occupied spaces should be located a minimum of 8 feet above mean sea level, with an adequate freeboard to be determined by the project coastal engineer. E:\projects\2001\01039-00-Pacific City-11-01.doc 45 Capital Pacific Holdings,Inc. PN 01039-00 November 19, 2001 8.0 ROUGH GRADING RECOMMENDATIONS . I I The following recommendations are provided for preliminary planning. They are subject to refinement and augmentation based on studies focused on the review of detailed grading and building plans,once they are formulated. These recommendations are for preliminary purposes only and will be superceeded by further studies. 8.1 Site Preparation The site should be prepared for grading by incorporating the recommendations of this report and those to be presented in the field. 8.2 General Grading Requirements General Grading guidelines and requirements are presented in Appendix H. The guidelines are to be supplemented by further grading plan reviews and input from the geotechnical consultant based on the actual conditions exposed. 8.3 Special Grading Considerations Groundwater is a consideration where removals will be excavated to Within a few feet of sea level. 8.3.1 Demolition of Existing Structures The existing on-site structure remnants are to be removed, along with their foundations and the debris hauled offsite. These procedures are described in Section 7 of this report. 8.3.2 Vegetation Removal and Grubbing Vegetation within the grading limits should be removed, the roots grubbed, and the debris removed from the site. The procedures are described in Section 7 of this report. E:\projects\2001\01039-00-Pacific City-1 1-01.doc 46 Capital Pacific Holdings, Inc. PN 01039-00 November 19, 2001 8.3.3 Excavation Difficulty The terrace, alluvial and fill materials are considered generally rippable with --i conventional earthwork equipment. 8.3.4 Dewatering Dewatering of the majority of the proposed excavations is not anticipated to be necessary. However, the required removals in the southern portion of the site may need dewatering. Most likely a slurry cut-off wall may be required along PCH to reduce the amount of groundwater flow into these excavations. This will require further investigation during the site-specific study for the proposed hotel and entertainment center. 8.3.5 Engineered Fills Engineered fills are to be placed in approved removal bottoms in order to achieve design grade. These soils will comprise the direct major foundation soil for the development. It is recommended that the engineered fills at the site be placed at 90-percent or better relative compaction. The soils should be moisture conditioned to a moisture content of 120% of optimum or higher. The engineered fills should be placed and processed in thin, horizontal lifts such that the specified compaction may be attained. Each lift should be compacted to a uniform and unyielding condition. The actual placement, processing, and compaction should be performed under the observation and testing of the geotechnical consultant. - Should areas of less than the required compaction and placement specification be encountered, the affected area should be reprocessed or removed and replaced, such that the required conditions of compaction, moisture and mixing are obtained. All engineered fills are to be placed to the specifications presented in this report and subsequent reports of this firm, as well as to the satisfaction of the geotechnical consultant in the field, and the requirements of the City of Huntington Beach. E:\projects\2001\01039-00-Pacific City-11-01.doc 47 Capital Pacific Holdings,Inc. — PN 01039-00 November 19, 2001 8.3.6 Bulking and Shrinkage Values The existing fill, alluvial and terrace soils to be overexcavated and utilized as a base stock for the proposed fills are variable with respect to potential for bulking and shrinkage. Existing fills, topsoil and lagoonal deposits are expected to have the highest relative shrinkage potential when compacted. The deeper portions of the terrace within the limits of overexcavation are, conversely, anticipated to bulk somewhat. The net value will depend strongly on the depth of the overexcavation section, and influence of removal of any oversize or losses from soil incorporation in removed demolition and grubbing debris. For working purposes, the following may be assumed: • Topsoil and Fills: Shrinkage of 10%to 15%net. • Lagoonal Alluvial Deposits: Shrinkage of 10%to 15%net. • Upper 5-feet(from existing grade) of Terrace: Shrinkage of 5%to 10%. • Lower 5 or more feet of Terrace: Bulking of 5% to 10%. These values are preliminary only, and will be refined in subsequent field studies. 8.3.7 Inspection of Temporary Slopes and Overexcavations The excavations for the above-described features should be performed under the observation and testing of the geotechnical consultant, as described in this report. The excavations are subject to evaluation and acceptance by this firm based on exposed conditions, and ultimately, by the City of Huntington Beach. Should unsatisfactory conditions be encountered, the conditions should be corrected to the satisfaction of the geotechnical consultant, and any changes to the anticipated design noted and reported in the as-graded report. The excavation limits and bottoms should be appropriately surveyed to document removal limits and allow for a crosscheck of quantities removed. No fills are to be placed, nor is the bottom to be processed unless the excavation had been approved by the geotechnical consultant and the City of Huntington Beach. E:\projects\2001\01039-00-Pacific City-11-01.doc 48 Capital Pacific Holdings,Inc. PN 01039-00 November 19, 2001 8.3.8 Subdrain,Backdrain and Underdrain Installation and Inspection As described in the applicable sections of this report, subdrains and underdrain devices should be placed and outletted under the observation, testing, and documentation of the geotechnical consultant. The location, limits and elevations of the drain systems should be surveyed. The results should be presented in the as-graded report. These devices are subject to geotechnical release and acceptance by the City of Huntington Beach. No fills are to be placed over the drain until the subject drain has been released by the geotechnical consultant and the City of Huntington Beach. 8.3.9 Pad Construction Pads are to be constructed in accordance with the detailed recommendations presented in this and subsequent reports, and to the satisfaction of the geotechnical consultant in the field. The pads are to be compacted to the recommended moisture and 90-percent relative compaction to the surface of the pad. Finish testing of each pad is recommended. The pads, when finished, should include appropriate drainage, per City of Huntington Beach / County of Orange requirements. 8.3.10 Existing Utilities Existing utilities are known or are thought to be located on site. Many within the main portion of the site are associated with the previous oil field operations or the former businesses and are considered abandoned. Where such utilities of an abandoned nature are encountered, they should be properly removed or remediated. This may be done on a case by case basis during grading. Existing utilities, namely water, as well as other lines, are known to exist along PCH. Many of these utilities are of a main or"trunk" nature and are active. It is our understanding that there is a 18-inch water main running through the site parallel to PCH. Where such lines cross or lie within proposed building areas, they will require relocation,preferably outside the grading (overexcavation) limits. E:\projects\2001\01039-00-Pacific City-11-01.doc 49 .s Capital Pacific Holdings,Inc. PN 01039-00 November 19, 2001 Many of the utilities within the southeastern portion of the site are anticipated to be influenced by any proposed fill that may be planned. It is recommended that a detailed study of these influences be made once appropriate plans for the project are formulated, and appropriate remediation be implemented to protect and/or relocate these utilities. 8.4 Pre-Grade Meeting A pregrade meeting is recommended prior to the commencement of grading operations to discuss the recommendations of this report, clarify the schedule and approach, and to introduce the key personnel associated with the project work. 8.5 Observation and Testing in Construction The subject earthwork should be performed and documented under the observation and testing of a geotechnical consultant in accordance with the standard of practice, as well as the requirements of the City of Huntington Beach and the County of Orange. The h recommendations made in this report are based largely on the assumption that this firm will be retained to provide full time observation and testing of the subject earthwork. Should this not be the case, the recommendations and advice presented may be considered void unless adopted in full or in part, or suitably revised as deemed necessary by the succeeding geotechnical consultant. The results of the observation and testing documentation, field mapping and any as- graded changes made to accommodate actual conditions should be presented in an As- Graded report at the completion of grading. E:\projects\2001\01039-00-Pacific City-11-01.doc 50 Capital Pacific Holdings, Inc. -- PN 01039-00 November 19,2001 1 ' 9.0 POST GRADING RECOMMENDATIONS The following recommendations are provided for preliminary planning. They are subject to refinement and augmentation based on studies focused on the review of detailed grading and building plans, once they are formulated. 9.1 Seismic Design Based on the soil conditions encountered at the site and the 1997 UBC, along with the _ maps of Known Active Faults Near-Source Zones in California and Adjacent Portions of ; Nevada(1998), the following seismic design parameters may be used for the site. l• sa. .,W 't""- K4u��i7 �' w., R .pA.Xw}�tA41 d7"51�„ 'Am{ `�'T 'fC1,R�1` '',- v i.+ xfi Pit k!r Rli � r'��� elsmit Param er+ �,�� � � ecommende� �� i e ommen d't 7 i"`•zrM . z.... T 7r N F FL }I i (1r;, f `11 S tg+ ' 1'; i •Ct AT I41''?: Yy`�' t 1-�' x r�'1 Yi t ,ant '�'y f a 4�.t R.i M iv st 4 1 ' t i ""S. .c4 L r ( 'r>3 f,r f u++ dw r S g q M i •J �'. �, a 11 ) s t ''t-t .y J ipi:FR.p� 3 Ft i \.t t ¢.. ,?1 tr�4 5Ci i r ...i y�,c� 'fc�. `61a1�Q' �'I jr �� v .. 1 1.{{J,� ,{yyh7 6.f'. tS.�` r 1 1"� .+ ..i ..a x"�f 4 r9-�j i � 4� rrt•.,.. r+r'�:yr,�-. t ��Y z a.*,;,W{ .c- ;, •, *tf �.`a_ `r <::s ' i. ,`bra ;r{ ' oil ,F'.r' `• :1 J •".'.,.:` .edroc.. , Seismic Zone Factor,Z 0.40 , Governing Fault Newport-Inglewood Fault -' L.A. Basin Seismic Source T is e B Distance to Site <2 km Soil Profile T re SD Seismic Coefficient Ca 0.44 Na Seismic Coefficient Cv 0.64 Nv Near Source Factor a 1.3 Near Source Factor v 1.6 Site specific Response Spectra will be provided for the mid-rise structures in future building specific reports. 9.2 Pad Preparation -" The building pad should be cleared of vegetation, or any deleterious materials prior to construction. Disturbed or loose soils should be removed, moisture conditioned, and recompacted to at least 90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density. 9.3 Conventional Foundation For structures supported by conventional shallow spread and continuous footings, an allowable bearing pressure of 1500 pounds per square foot is recommended for footings E:\projects\2001\01039-00-Pacific City-11-01.doc 51 Capital Pacific Holdings,Inc. PN 01039-00 November 19,2001 having a minimum width of 24-inches and a minimum depth of 24-inches below the lowest adjacent grade. Spread footings should be at least 24-inches wide, founded at least 24-inches below the lowest adjacent grade. These values may be increased by 250 pounds per square foot for each additional foot of width or depth to a maximum value of 2500 pounds per square foot. If normal code requirements are used for seismic design, the allowable bearing value may be increased by one-third for short duration loads such as the effect of wind or seismic forces. A friction coefficient of 0.35 between soil and concrete may also be used for design. For calculating passive pressure, an equivalent fluid weight of 250 pounds per square foot per of depth may be used. However, when combining both passive and frictional resistance, one or the other should be reduced by one-half. 9.4 Deep Foundations Deep foundations, consisting of either driven, concrete piles or cast-in-drilled hole (CIDH)piles will most likely be required for the multi-storied structures on site. Specific recommendations for the indicator pile program and construction/installation of the driven and CIDH piles will be included in the future site specific studies. 9.5 Concrete Slab-on-Ground _ Slabs with floor coverings should be underlain by a 6-mil visqueen moisture retarder with a two-inch layer of sand over the visqueen and a two-inch layer of sand (nominal) below visqueen. For slab conditions not condusive to such a system,the y , alternative recommendations will be provided for at the request of the client. Should vinyl, wood or other highly sensitive to moisture floor coverings be contemplated, the flooring material manufacturers should be consulted for vapor emission mitigating measures, including but not limited to,concrete mix parameters,vapor retarders and rock layers. Unless slabs are designed for otherwise, subgrade soil should be presaturated at least five percentage points above optimum moisture content or 130 percent of the optimum moisture content, whichever is greater, to a depth of at least 24-inches. Moisture content must be maintained prior to the placement of concrete slabs. For preliminary design, slabs should be at least four inches thick, reinforced with No. 3 bars at 18-inches on-center each way. However, these recommendations should be superseded by the design of the structural engineer as per the 1997 UBC. For compliance with UBC, an effective plasticity index (P.I.) of 40 may be utilized for preliminary design. E:\projects\2001\01039-00-Pacific City-11-01.doc ' I 52 j I Capital Pacific Holdings,Inc. PN 01039-00 November 19, 2001 9.6 Settlement Total and differential settlement of proposed foundations are expected to not exceed approximately one-inch (1") and one-half of an inch (W') over 100 horizontal feet, respectively, provided that the recommendations presented herein are implemented during grading and final foundation design and construction. 9.7 Corrosion 9.7.1 Metallic Corrosion testing for metals was not performed at this time, since the final grading conditions of the site will dictate the actual corrosion potential for metals. In general, should ferrous pipe be utilized, the pipes should be encased or wrapped to isolate them from on-site soils. Alternatively, plastic piping may also be used. This should be verified during or after grading by additional laboratory testing. 9.7.2 Concrete Soluble sulfate testing indicated a result of "negligible" to "moderate" sulfate exposure. Concrete mix design, including but not limited to compressive strength, water cement ratios and cement type, should minin`ially incorporate the requirements for "moderate" sulfate exposure, as indicated on Table 19-A-4 in the 1997 UBC. This should be verified upon completion of'grading by laboratory testing of the exposed subgrade soils. However, for planning purposes (in order to account for soil variability), it is recommended that Type V cement or equivalent be used in structural concrete which comes into contact with the foundation soil. 9.7.3 Sea Breeze As with developments located near the ocean, salt contained in the air and transmitted in the humidity should be considered as a factor for the design life of this project. A qualified corrosion engineer should provide recommendations to mitigate against the corrosive effects of the ocean on concrete, metal and other materials in the above ground structures. E:\projects\2001\01039-00-Pacific City-11-01.doc 53 Capital Pacific Holdings,Inc. PN 01039-00 November 19, 2001 9.8 Flexible Pavement Design At this time, it is our understanding that the only pavement to be proposed for the site will be for the proposed Pacific View Drive and related driveways. The on-site parking is to consist primarily of subterranean parking garages. Preliminary pavement design recommendations will be provided in a future report specific to the proposed street improvements. 9.9 Retaining Walls li Retaining walls restraining low expansion soils should be designed to resist an equivalent fluid pressure of 35 pounds per cubic foot for level backfill, and 50 pounds per cubic foot for a 2:1 sloping backfill. Backfill material should consist of granular material (S.E. > 30) and drainage systems should be installed, as shown on the retaining wall details (upper half) presented in Appendix H. For moderate to high-expansive on-site backfill, an equivalent fluid pressure of 55 pounds per cubic foot for level backfill and 70 pounds per cubic foot for 2:1 sloping backfill may be used. On-site backfill soil should be reviewed and approved by the geotechnical consultant prior to utilization. Backfill and drainage systems should be installed as shown on the lower-half of the Retaining Wall Details. For preliminary foundation recommendations, refer to Section 10.3. Surcharge due to vehicular traffic, adjacent structures, and seismic consideration should be added to the above pressures. When combining frictional and passive resistance to resist lateral loads, one or the other should be reduced by 50 percent. 9.10 Drainage Control The intent of this section is to provide general information regarding the control of surface water. Based on the moderate to high expansion potential (assumed) of the on- site soils, the regulation of surface water is essential to the satisfactory performance of structures, site improvements, and slopes. The following recommendations are considered minimal. • Ponding and areas of low flow gradients should be avoided. • Bare soil within five feet of structures and tops of slopes should have a gradient of at least two percent away from the improvement. For drainage towards the street, a minimum of two percent gradient should be maintained. As an alternative, a gradient E:\projects\2001\01039-00-Pacific City-I 1-0I.doc 54 Capital Pacific Holdings,Inc. PN 01039-00 November 19, 2001 of one percent may be used for drainage towards the streets provided that an area drain system designed by the project civil engineer is installed. • The remainder of the graded areas should be provided with a minimum two percent drainage gradient. • • Positive drainage devices, such as graded swales, paved ditches, and catch basins should be used wherever possible to accumulate and convey water to points of paved discharge areas. • Concrete walks and flatwork should not obstruct free flow of surface water. • • Brick flatwork should be sealed by mortar or be placed over an impermeable membrane. • Any planned area drains should be recessed below grade to allow free flow of water into the basin. • Enclosed, raised or depressed planters or landscape areas should be sealed at, the bottom and provided with an ample flow gradient to a drainage device. • Planters adjacent to a structure should be avoided wherever possible. If planters are to be located adjacent to structures, they should be sealed at the bottom and provided with an ample flow gradient to a drainage device. • Planting areas at grade should be provided with good positive drainage. Wherever possible, exposed soil areas should be above adjacent paved grades. Drainage devices and curbing should be provided to prevent runoff from adjacent pavement or walks into planted areas. • Areas with accumulations of sand and/or gravel should have an impermeable bottom seal and be provided with an ample flow gradient to a drainage device. • Gutter and downspout systems should be provided to capture all discharge from roof areas. The accumulated roof waters should be conveyed to off-site disposal areas by a pipe or concrete swale system. • Water should be disposed over slopes only if contained in pipes or-paved swales discharging to paved disposal areas in benches or at the bottom of slope or other geotechnically acceptable means. E:\projects\2001\01039-00-Pacific City-11-01.doc 55 Capital Pacific Holdings,Inc. PN 01039-00 November 19, 2001 • Site plumbing, landscaping irrigation systems, and sewer lines should be checked and - maintained on a continuous basis. • Water parks, swimming pools and any related drainage systems should be maintained and periodically checked for leaks. • Landscape watering should be performed judiciously to preclude either soaking or desiccation of soils. The water should be such that it just sustains plant growth without over-watering. Sprinkler systems should be checked periodically to ensure proper working order and should be turned off during the rainy season. • Surface water should be controlled to the extent that the area beneath the structures always remains dry even during periods of heavy rainfall. • Adequate drainage gradients, devices and curbing should be provided to prevent runoff from adjacent pavement or walks into planted areas. • Any rodents found on the site which might impact structural fills or foundation soils should be exterminated and their burrows filled or sealed with soil or slurry. 9.11 Buried Utilities 9.11.1 Trenching • excavations and trench walls to a depth of four feet maybe made Temporary p vertically without shoring, subject to verification of safety by the contractor. Deeper' excavations should be braced, shored or sloped no steeper than 1.5:1 (horizontal to-vertical). No surcharge loads should be allowed within five feet from the top of cuts. All work associated with excavation shoring and bracing should meet the minimum requirements as set forth by CAL-OSHA. Temporary excavation recommendations are provided for general guidelines. Temporary slope and trench excavation construction, maintenance, and safety are the responsibility of the contractor. Cuts below or near the groundwater surface will need special, condition-specific recommendations. Such recommendations should be formulated once the utility layouts and depths are known. E:\projects\2001\01039-00-Pacific City-11-01.doc 56 Capital Pacific Holdings, Inc. PN 01039-00 November 19,2001 9.11.2 Trench Bottom Preparation The bottom of trench excavation should be firm and unyielding and free of deleterious materials. Any disturbed soils should be removed or recompacted to at least 90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density. 9.11.3 Pipe Bedding Pipe bedding materials should consist of granular material with sand equivalent of at least 30. In general, open-graded gravel should not be used due to the potential for soil migration into the relatively large void spaces present in this type of material. However, open graded gravel may be used, if desired, provided that filter fabric, such as Mirafi 140NC or equivalent, is used to wrap the gravel. 1 9.11.4 Trench Backfill All trench backfill should be placed and compacted to at least 90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density determined in accordance with ASTM D1557- 00. Mechanical compaction is recommended. Ponding or jetting should be avoided, especially in areas supporting structural loads or beneath concrete slabs supported-on-grade,pavements or other improvements. 9.12 Appurtenant Structures 9.12.1 Concrete Flatwork The following general recommendations may be considered for concrete flatwork, including expansive soils mitigation. Based upon preliminary expansion index testing and our experience with the site, soils possessing expansion potentials of medium to high may be encountered during grading. Parameters for various expansion potentials are provided. E:\projects\Z001\01039-00-Pacific City-11-01.doc 57 Capital Pacific Holdings, Inc. PN 01039-00 - , - November 19, 2001 SIDEWALKS 'Minimum 'Sub rade':',. -` ,:' ;•.. 1:?.'<,. t*f' �'t':,'..i concrete __ re-Soakin * nsion��i_- g µ;sr::. Reinforcement. Joint"1 a ; ,M1 luiess 3= sDe tli` �.. _.?::PA; , ,_ o entiall,:,- - ;�,,, - ->P, �:. {,,� _,:_.,=„-i :;;:: �::acn`Q`'�`: P t �r5=' •m ii3:.:i,: :iF;�:.'S',�Yi" (:;-';L`� .zhrSi?a_?�•,C."u.r._:'< 1t'>cs:. `s,'•.:-c.-: .-0.r„>••c ^rr. �: Inch• EI 0-20 4(Nominal) Optimum to 12" N.R. 4-5 Feet EI 21-50 4(Nominal) 120% of Optimum to N.R. 4-5 Feet EI 51-90 4(Nominal) 12" #3 @ 24"OC,EW** 4-5 Feet EI 91-130 4.(Nominal) 120% of Optimum to #3 @ 18"OC,EW** 4-5 Feet 18" 130% of Optimum to• • 24" (or 5% over optimum, whichever is greater) * Joints at curves and angle points are recommended ** Optional N.R.=Not Required DRIVEWAYS,PATIOS,ENTRYWAYS }.i -,;n;: }N;- ..tr'`v>+tiv":L.x.,_.._. ..q.6': c;.:=•:.;._5•. {,';irr.r$ .rs�:�. �.�,�' ;�.::•:� ..>•::��t... ,SubQQ�rade ,3 ,g.:::. �.;:�_::.:::::-;::;....'•; �,:x:„�:s: -S.r:chw '.;ir - .l;.l,.,..a;ci..'Cryit''i,M' .a•..(.b-.y.,1i;f:nnigXg..i1,:. �F_ac •l?•SS 2a12.::1T,,.'::,�;;. .:.1,3: - i'i�iur-V.i .,�.'{. .'ti4 •'.,rz;t. .*t.� :.P.:in:.iF'c: t e?+:�' ti�ii%I° `r" r �,i !r,•' ;xConcret@ <!, Pr'.e=Soakin +;.r 1 ,Exanson� -��� =,4,•:�...s�•;::...a g � � • :�•. �_ z>;,,-,' 1>=. p•�,:....•g�� e� P �ix'd: T�:1 C 1yi 5`�F.Rt°..,3�i•Stet k :✓, t•.`i `;rmP i �3 ,�.•;i,..$.,� a,,•:.f» 'i: 1-,-:[� s � �:.., 3' �De tli - 's..�r�;;, � , .�,:,.<,.,: •�•.�:a.,i.'c`::3�, ;.�:�=a, iPotential �s:is :.w of .,,.:a.,liop riRe:r. . c ,` az -.�• �����=�.�'�;,`.; ,`�,�,, ..��,.,v,.:°_sus : ���y1•, :lxPr..=;��r' =Reinforcement' >� !. •�;,�;N::.:�1� •:�•.,: .0*.st"` z i�:E i pr s :r} y;d: '. ? :�Ok'I '•:A4`'i-"a;ii i c,-{i;:r'15; ,.:iff,t1 girac:....+t}:rk-i':E sFva�l'.�;.sfd:..,>ri3�:q,�:.���.:,i.,,�..�s:�.t!i� ;;�.:G�s�v:; aN.a.>,5,:�•l. ._. - •.1.:=-..ai::er„a,••... 1 EI 0-20 4(Full) Optimum to 12" #3 @ 36"OC,EW 10 feet EI 21-50 4(Full) 120% of Optimum to #3 @ 36",OC,EW 10 feet EI 51-90 4(Full) 12" #3 @ 24"OC,EW 10 feet EI 91-130 4(Full) 120% of Optimum to #3 @ 18"OC,EW 18" 10 feet 130% of Optimum to 24" (or 5% over optimum, whichever is greater) * Joints at curves and angle points are recommended These recommendations may be superseded by the project architect, structural engineer or the City of Huntington Beach/County of Orange requirements. These recommendations are not intended to mitigate cracking caused by shrinkage and temperature warping. \2 01\01039-00-Pacific Ci E.'\projects 0 City-11-01.doc 58 L�I Capital Pacific Holdings,Inc. PN 01039-00 November 19, 2001 9.12.2 Landscaping Summarized below are our optional recommendations for planter area moisture control. The purpose of our recommendations is to reduce the infiltration of irrigation water towards the proposed buildings foundations and slab subgrade. Each planter or landscape area which is to be situated adjacent to the proposed building foundations should have an area drain system and a moisture barrier installed directly adjacent to the building foundation. The moisture barrier should consist of a suitable membrane material. The barrier should be installed to a depth of three feet, as measured from the proposed planter area soil surface. The moisture barrier should extend, at a minimum, three feet in both directions past the planter area. The barrier should be permanently attached to the building foundation, utilizing an appropriate waterproof adhesive. The moisture barrier should extend a minimum of 1 to 2 inches above the planter soil surface. During the installation of the moisture barrier, soil should not be disturbed beyond a 1:1 (horizontal to vertical) projection from the bottom outside edge of the foundation. Soil removed for the purposes of moisture barrier installation should be moisture conditioned as necessary and compacted to 90%relative compaction ! I' E:\ ro'ects\2001\01039-00-Pacific City-11-01.doc P J 59 ! f Capital Pacific Holdings,Inc. PN 01039-00 November 19,2001 10.0 GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW 10.1 Plans and Specifications This report is intended to be a preliminary study to develop general geotechnical design recommendations for the development as presented on the 50-scale plans, by MVE and dated March 27, 2001. It is our understanding that the proposed development is still in the planning stages and changes in slopes, grades and building locations may change with time. More detailed studies and investigations will need to be performed as the project milestones are reached. It is our understanding that the recommendations in this report are to be used in developing the rough grading plans. The rough grading and foundation plans should be reviewed and commented on by this office with respect to conformance with the intent of the recommendations presented, and any changes be made to accommodate these geotechnical comments into the final plan set. As already discussed, such reviews may require additional field study and office evaluation.of site conditions. This report and pertinent subsequent studies yet to be performed should be incorporated by reference into rough grading plans. The final rough grading/foundation plans should also be reviewed by this firm. 10.2 Construction Review The final draft foundation plans for the proposed structures and walls should be reviewed and commented on by this office with respect to conformance with the intent of our recommendations. The final plans should incorporate the results of any such comments. The geotechnical aspects of the proposed construction should be performed under the observation and testing of this firm. These. aspects include pad preparation for foundations, foundation excavation, wall construction and backfilling, utilities, and streets. E:\proj ects\2001\01039-00-Pacific City-11-01.doc 60 Capital Pacific Holdings, Inc. PN 01039-00 November 19, 2001 11.0 CLOSURE Our services were performed using the degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable geotechnical engineers and engineering geologists practicing in this or similar localities. No warranty, express or implied, is made as to the conclusions and professional advice included in this report. The samples taken and used for testing, the observations made, and the in-place field testing performed are believed representative of the project; however, soils and geologic conditions can vary significantly between tested/observed locations. As in most projects, conditions revealed by excavation may be at a variance with the reported findings. If this occurs, although not anticipated, the changed condition must be evaluated by the project engineering geologist and geotechnical engineer, and the designs affected adjusted as required or alternate designs formulated. This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner, or his representative, to ensure that the information and recommendations contained herein are brought to the attention of the project architect, structural engineer and contractor(s), and otherwise incorporated into the plans and specifications. Similarly, it is also the responsibility of the owner or his representative to take the necessary steps to ensure these recommendations are carried out during construction. This firm does not practice or consult in the field of safety engineering or surveying. We do not direct the contractors operations, and thus, we cannot be responsible for actions of other than our I staff on the site. Geotechnical services are provided by ZKCI in accordance with generally accepted professional engineering and geologic practice in the area where these services are to be rendered. Client acknowledges that thepresent standard in the engineering and geologic and environmental g g g g g profession does not include a guarantee of perfection and, except as expressly set forth in the Conditions above,no warranty, expressed or implied, is extended by ZKCI. All excavations used for subsurface exploration were backfilled prior to leaving the site. As with any backfill, consolidation and subsidence may result in depression of the excavation area and a potentially hazardous condition. The client and/or owner of the property are hereby advised to periodically examine the excavation areas, and if necessary backfill any resulting depressions. ZKCI shall not be responsible for injury or damage resulting from subsidence of backfill. E:\projects12001\01039-00-Pacific City-11-01.doc 61 I I Capital Pacific Holdings, Inc. PN 01039-00 November 19, 2001 Geotechnical reports are based on the project description and proposed scope of work as described in the proposal. Our conclusions and recommendations are based on the results of the field, laboratory, and office studies, combined with an interpolation and extrapolation of soil conditions as described in the report. The results reflect our geotechnical interpretation of the limited direct evidence obtained. Our conclusions and recommendations are made contingent upon the opportunity for ZKCI to continue to provide geotechnical services beyond the scope in the proposal to include all geotechnical services. If parties other than ZKCI are engaged to provide such services, they must be notified that they will be required to assume complete responsibility for the geotechnical work of the project by concurring with the recommendations in our report or by providing alternate recommendations. All locations of borings/exploratory trenches, cut/fill transitions, limits of fill, verification of overexcavations, contacts, elevations, etc., are represented herein to the best of our abilities. The approximate locations depicted on all plates and figures are based upon available control as provided in the field by others. Where no information was provided by others, locations were approximated using limited measuring methods and crude instrumentation. We do not verify the locations or elevations reported herein as accurate in survey or void of error. ZKCI assumes no responsibility for any future costs associated with errors in the area of survey. It is the readers responsibility to verify the correct interpretation and intention of the recommendations presented herein. ZKCI assumes no responsibility for misunderstandings or improper interpretations that result in unsatisfactory or unsafe work products. It is the readers further responsibility to acquire copies of any supplemental reports, addenda or responses to public agency reviews that may supersede recommendations in this report. E:\projects\2001\01039-00-Pacific City-11-01.doc 62 ZEISER. KL I NG H Consultants, Inc. ___ March 4, 2002 PN 01039-00 Mr. Ethen Thatcher Makar Properties, LLC 4100 MacArthur Boulevard, Suite 150 Newport Beach, California 92660 SUBJECT: Addendum report and response to city comments regarding "Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Pacific City, Northeastern Corner of 1st Street and Pacific Coast Highway, City of Huntington Beach, California," prepared by Zeiser Kling Consultants, Inc., dated November 19, 2001. Dear Mr. Thatcher: In accordance with your request and authorization, Zeiser Kling Consultants, Inc. (ZKCI) has reviewed the comments presented in the letter prepared by The City of Huntington Beach, Department of Planing, dated February 26, 2002. This review was performed on our report titled, "Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Pacific City, Northeastern Corner of 1st Street and Pacific Coast Highway, City of Huntington Beach, California," prepared by Zeiser Kling Consultants, Inc., Project Number 01039-00, dated November 19, 2001. Our responses to these comments are as follows: Comment 1: Dewatering and mitigation requirements for the disposal of groundwater during grading and construction operations are only briefly mentioned. In view of the operations already ongoing on the adjacent properties to the east, additional recommendation for dewatering and disposal of the water can be provided. Response: Our report was intended to be a "preliminary" level report to identify the issues and to give general geotechnical recommendations for planning purposes. More site-specific studies for the proposed hotel, commercial area and residential area will be performed once more final plans are provided. It is also our intention to perform a more detailed study for dewatering and groundwater issues in the near future, if future plans indicate that it is required. . The current plans used for this report show the proposed bottom of the parking garages to be at _ or above the current groundwater level in the southwestern portion of the site. As mentioned in Section 8.3.4 of our report, this is the only area that may require dewatering, and will require E:Projects\2001\01039-00-Response Comments-3-4-02.doc 1221 E. Dyer Road • Suite 105 • Santa Ana, CA 92705 • (714) 755-1355 • Fax (714) 755-1366 Geotechnical Engineering ■ Engineering Geology • Materials Testing and Inspection March 4, 2002 PN 01039-00 Makar Properties,LLC additional study. For the purpose of addressing the City's concerns, we are providing the following as a"potential"recommendation. If dewatering is required, it is our opinion that the water can be stored and treated on-site, if any treatment is required. This water can be used for the construction on site, and any extra water, once acceptably treated,may be discharged into the storm drain systems. If this is unacceptable, it may also possibly be reinjected into the ground. See our response to Comment 2 below. Dewatering and water storage/treatment/handling will be a focus of our upcoming detailed studies. It is our intent and approach to minimize disturbance or pumping of the groundwater at the site. Comment 2: The subject of contaminated water is briefly addressed but assumes the issues have been addressed by other consultants. We suggest that reference should be made to the specific documentation supporting that assumption and the results found in those studies and the remediation work performed. Response: Based on our review of the AGRA Earth and Environmental, Inc. report titled"Letter Report For Shallow Groundwater Monitoring Well Installation and Testing, Atlanta/Huntington Development Project, Huntington Beach, California,"Job Number 0-214-801200, dated May 12, 2000, it is our opinion that the groundwater on site is treatable on-site for discharge. They tested groundwater samples from three wells, and found that these samples contained trace oil (1 to 2 parts-per-million [ppm]). Well 1 had indicated elevated copper levels, and Well 2 was = highly saline, but these levels, when mixed with other "clean" groundwater from the dewatering operations and/or water from other sources,maybe suitable diluted for discharge, once treated. We concur with AGRA's opinion that this water can be treated on site using settling tanks and carbon finishing) for General National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) discharge. We also concur with their findings, conclusions and recommendations with respect to groundwater issues and quality. We thank the City of Huntington Beach and their reviewers for their considerations and thoughtful review comments. It is hoped that the responses presented herein and to be provided in our focused studies will be sufficient to address the City's concerns. We look forward to beginning our focused studies with respect to geotechnical and geohydrologic conditions at the site. E:Projects\2001\01039-00-Response Comments-3-4-02.doc f, March 4, 2002 PN 01039-00 Makar Properties,LLC The opportunity to be of continued service to Makar Properties, LLC is appreciated. Please contact the undersigned with questions or comments. Respectfully submitted, ZEISER KLING CONSULTANTS,INC. Q�pFE5Sf0Lp chael W. Laney �Q`°.PEA w. F2� Larry E. g t Ng. .� . S - �7 ' �y Senior Project Engineer - �� m Principal Engineeriri geologi.st,,,,, / )1 G.E. 2539 Ezp.2 39..5 33 R.G. 6118; C.E.G. 1 .0?':. - �,/ Expires 6/30/05 * Pv * R.E.A. 04677 a'' - � s�T sorEcHN`ova. Expires 1/31/03 and 6/3b14 4:,. MWL:LEF:wo Attachments: A- City of Huntington Beach Comments Letter Distribution: (6)Addressee E:Projects\2001\01039-00-Response Comments-3-4-02.doc i 1 I Attachment A City of Huntington Beach Comments Letter 1 -� • 77 JJ . r,ttrk-b- .,_;_.____:_• ;� City of Huntington Beach •?r, ••i 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA92648 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING Phone 536-5271 Fax 374-1540 374-1648 February 14, 2002 Ethen Thatcher Makar Properties, LLC 4100 MacArthur Blvd., Ste. 200 • Newport Beach, CA 92660 Subject: Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation • Dear Ethen: The City has completed peer review of the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation received January 8t. Please revise the report, or provide an addendum,to address the comments listed below. 1. Dewatering and the mitigation requirements for the disposal of groundwater during grading and construction operations are only briefly mentioned. In view of the operations already ongoing on the adjacent properties to the east, additional recommendations for dewatering and the disposal of the water can be provided. 2. The subject of contaminated water is briefly addressed but assumes the issues have been addressed by other consultants. We suggest that reference should be made to the specific documentation supporting that assumption and the results found in those studies and the remediation work performed. The Public Works Department can assist;you should you have any questions regarding these comments. Thank you. Sincerely, M Beth Broeren Principal Planner Cc: Scott Hess, Planning Manager ' h Appendices to this report are available for review at the City of Huntington Beach and City of Huntington Beach Central and Main libraries. APPENDIX K SHADE AND SHADOW DIAGRAMS SUMMER SOLSTICE SHADOW JUNE 21 - . . . ., •,-. ...• <,\ < .,---,<.-,••••„•, ,,i-/."/.,7';''':"?'"'"=== '.1—',-.L. -f-\.:<..'--ri ly--,--,7 ii, ,..4, ),-10 ..-•,,,.., ...: : ••.;.:, •,*-,,./-•• ;',1e q, \''''-,---1 ' )''' " :X,i\‘‘,. :''''(A\.---,^,`,.-1,7;\",..\`‘- :,-,,s' -,-;2.4,ri,I ".'•\._;.-...-;,---? 1, ; e ..,,, -:';',.‘" ,,... •-, , --i-' 'k• ",`` f ' 12:00 PM 6?.'„,,,..,, .;;•s<'-‘,./fi,,: .\...., \ .........< , <, ,-4•+-,s. ' ."'\- ., • / \i",-," 7:`,,..; ',, •. w y:-, ,?..0.14-2 -,72-: ( f....i.4t 4" „ if ,, ,a ..... .•,.,,,41 ,/°,.. ,;•:-.11.44: /•\''''''/ • ' of' --,_.i,t- ,/,:-.3----z-'t, ---r-•; . W' -• ,7- .', '------ - •,- ,.' --,.44: , .- ••,, , ,,3,/,,--,,,o, i:?,.• ,< „ ,, •<:, ,f32://;,-•:, „, ",•\,!-- ..\ k' ---;•-•ti 3:3-4- ,„ .- ,-"A.. .• , \• /-- fre - . ' N.,'-"-----.) A.: .., a' '' ' ‘." '''' "' '*-1-'1'‘`,..", •:-.."-,''—'‘.{ -,-th---'-",-.- ',-\4t. 1,4%k .," •"` ', '•'''' is. ,:'-'' i\ `' ''',. '-.„‹.--,s4ptt ICZ... '>--, ' :K(/•-/..":?,:f. ''‘-:. ;.- • '-'-' '',--T"---., 3 `-.;;;:-tt- , -/ '4'' ‘;,;.\,' " ----, f , ., • .. • •:, .t. ' "f ,t,--.., , it-",,,..-, ,f, j )..,. . . , ,,..., - , , ,,,,,,....,st,, .c,%r,,,,'" ,,f- 4, , ..,,c, % 5 ,•\<, ' ,., ,,f;',4,.,,,,,,?,:.-- -,,,,z„,s,'''.;•,-,,,:-.-: •-`‘,._1' ,r. , ,,,,7--,C j._. - -. „/\ :\.'"' /'4,6". L'.`:.,:`,\.,4; • • ' ,- . /..-":.-'1.71-/-/' 0, ) ''''- N-"'?..,"zr, :.-1)-- --• `,. 7•••••-:_;,‘ ••m•.'. /- '. •••,' - - ':',A,'.' ,---,' 2..*:\ - '‘ if" :,-- 9,-.,'::-/- , ...-,,„.<, 2,,,, :-..--, •:2-!:-.-;?:',/,..0.-' ,, '..,, ',,, .---,-,--,Vi---......,_) ,":-!..."---.-- •-•11'3''''', : \ 3.'• -.,,:s• - ".3... 2, • '''''" :. 1. 1:,. ',-..---31.--.' \.--::..‘/ ' •/ ..- ,- :3'•,,'' .'''.•'.•‘:,--- .•.-' '. , .-...147- 3"" Vs3:, \'',33 .-,.._6-3.,, -,,..g.,.._..r ,--- s.;„ , •-., ,• ,,„ , c ••—„, ,..... . - ••,, ,,,-,,,,,•,,,,, ,.,„:„.0....\--,\,_„..,J.,s-• „.:„:„.• .—.. -.. -----,:. , \,\ ,,, ..., w• t./-4\ ..-‘:-',14r ./X ' , ''...„ `',.....X. -7--L.---'t,`'ct-,_---(1, '',:%,4,' ' .44 ..4.-- -il i•-• '--; \— --, ,I" -, - y ';',', ts, ••.....3q - t.,,, -•'..-,-.„"---,_,..:.,13•_...-----1,:4-= 7 •:•:' :.;'h...,-,/ :i':' -'' ,' 4- i.,.' ,ri --= .:' s-3. ‹.,0----, ' - i I- .1-e- ,,,-,,,,,,:4, ' ./ IC. \;',- .-, , \Av•-,','..t.-.•.. 7. \"-:: ':_-,..,-" -' P ,.'''-i` 7. -.;:;,-, ..., 4,--- %.",,e' `-^,:r-,‘,`,"•^' -7.,..\,V,"„-% y .. ...‘• 'A.> '•—• — '4,..,• ',. '-• !-'1,-• , AOKI4 • :f, „, ..''' ''-.. - ---,A/1-17---\',-,---''' \,, ,,- - .. \'‘,!=:,:,°\'‘..-,-,'K .1,..:,".--_:i4---.2„---7,':'..tv---:', ,7,-,' ,:%,,,;i..,", ,,,,,.. ,: ,,P.,-:,„,_:::;:. 1,•,_-‘,/.,,',:,..:,;:,,, . :r.,-,,,,- . , • '-,,i___.tri ,.....r,;. , ri, ,,/ ' i 1. '/ . \n\'',,,L1,!<^''\:::1',,,, r''1-.1-,-;".-:.;P.--;•"' >1`,- il /0'. '.<, ,,,,,:',•, ',:,,' -,/ ---.'r,4''',„ . • ." 1' .1. 1 , ;,,,i,.. x„.\ •-..ip, ..---,_: - .? .-r---, -.2- :,../ '.-4v..,; . -.•,,.---1: [ V. 10: 1 . - 111011. ' •,\1...„t ,k"_2,1: .1-•• , •„,-,2i.,_, . : -, , • „1:•••,, • ,..,,,,v.\.. i -t' a _...,4‘ `'., ,'''.'''",),,,-::....,„t!.,\\,'.i. -7 -i-._ k -,1--;.f--i- -, ','..->:-.-'- • * . ' \n, . \.,,:--- t.,..,_4.---,:,..2,2,•--;--&•:,,, ,i ,:-...,/ A, .,,i,.. . ,_ ( .,,, ,. , . • ,,,, , .-- .-'',. \ ,,,- , -\\... t .7-..;- ,‘L,J_, -1-t.:" ,i ...c "‘ ' ."' - .‘ ' ' "</• -.2 r••;..-- U! ;3 ' n . I .._, / //*--- . ''''W.L-1..-:.';::„,71.---1:,:-::;:.,‘;-:-.,,,,j.....'7,:i,..:,:.,::::, .,,,.-s; ,, , , '',-,": -_,:. ,„ :s.-, ... , , j tki----,73 t.-2 •7- , Z'I i 1 \'Iligrw. , ' , ,, . . ...-1,;,-;:, ,\''': il 1 r . . , imi , I', ..._.--,----i ,•--i 1 M. I:1 :-. ,:.' .i „. ' silliolkis ,..`. ,, ',. t‘,.. ,), ; ,',6(,...J; _,.....,.1„:3----t•-k,:_ ,,,•,___:.....„4.,. 3„,„ sk•-• •\",ii )1 ^--, .3_3_--___ , •• --t , \ : .4 :',."''''''! ri..1, ;11.,- t-. 4, iy. Vi " IT % %.' f P. " .'"' "L , "%. . ',.•% ..,-;e4 ,,...." 4. 1.1 . ....,".. '------ 41 1 -•• : ,ff 1 4_1 1iI:11:' "O..' i 11 l'''' ' -).,.33,3•••="!'• '3?• ' • --.3,- . * ,(' l' li '.. r" ti ....,;•; ;;-.•,-----°:'::::-.,------.---''''''\ •:,i'•• vs:rf',:.',f(i.'('',..----------'t ‘-`3".. r--- 1 --8, -1 i —- t. , ,1_1. q • . ,., 'k.'')i...' ito !C 4, i''',3‘ -14,4--- :.:A'A.f.' ,---1 •, -------i ‘iil:r..•:• ",' ---- . -,' 3 ' I i-,i 1.;:i ' sem ° ; f---, it-- • - , 'i', 11. '', - ' ,,,,v, ti, •.',1 :1 - -1.1r k 1,11,1, 11 n.---• •1--1", .--t it --, ,.,, 4. 1 /-' ( I , / i )• cl, i %,..„,_ I • It -. ',.. It ' C__—.1 '''...--,,,... ''','•'•,,-__ . , r ......-.'" ki i (`-ir'. • ''' i 7:i ' .,. 0,. .--.--- i '..I, , , kri I c- 1 - .4 . • - ..„,.... .....- t m..Ittr:tt,. ... '-•?'"----------- ' '''' :::-.''''''''''.'''''''llh"°s;.''''' ''''H''.:1:''--''CL!-t-:" :-''':,i\''":H,:..1,:;;,,--1;1'1-:-7.ij,,::::::-::::::;.-,;r::54-"--:::';-j,.t-.--i;'":'.___--;:::-44..17.___..Lt5.;::.-:ttl-_.--'1-:;t1-,i'l,;t''•'r:l.--'-'Tt:'1).1.1:1-1:lt.-,-::::::::-:" •-----":74-77:77 77--- -;4.:---- ;::4\.%:'..('' i,"' - •,,,,,n. i. ........---- '''''''''-' --, _- ' .---- -17-'''''.7-- ' .-------; •------ . ,A7-7. t." • •!,,,,,,32'',''' ' fr,t,•.:' ,,, Li i Lt. 1,....._, ,,-.:,„.,,,,, ----- . , ... - . ,,,,r,_ ,. .. .. - ,_- _----- -il , I:•‘. , • ,,, , -i:., s"--\ `, ,,..,,-.,-:-'1., ,,-..; k 1, ‘',...,4•4 '••N.,. 1..,t.:•'•‘'' 4'.. r- _ --,=--=•-•••:-- --,. :.?!..73'"'-'7:ti. 1 !• L.••=•:_-.: _ ..:„...;;-;;;;r3......;_:-‘4•:-._„‘,•;-3,----;''' ' ";-----7---•;1...-,14-in-•... '..... , PACIFIC CITY - Huntington Beach7 CA , .-- , -- ' • , • I 1 , , ,_ _._ - SUMMER SOLSTICE SHADOW i'''','N',"._• '''..,, ''„ --,----,• .- - ,e, ,.., 'c' --,,- iicv.N. -,---/..,,;.-7-!:,.0 .-- ''k---' • ', ,i''''" ?-:k\-'' IC:=4-.- 1, --4AA •-<•"' JUNE 21 r-- '`: "1"' % 's, - ..4:-"-•••.;< \, r ''.„))1k., ,- , •,,-‘'.ks--",•/:,,,-5k/. ......„.4_'-%''''''(:: ;'' ' ,? :,',;;=,-..-k,,,,(, •'•=,,A<4,,,=- . ‘,•,=, ==-.',,_.,-A ,, AM _._ . \-if,: „ :,-, , •• ... -•-s., ,- ., 41,V. :: ' '/•', • ',...." ' ' r-i,5/_,---,:',.. ' - ) !..-c3tc7i-'-' -11 r' 0.• r ') '---,>, - - -.. t ,•• ..., L.7-7:",/ .. , ' e' s , ,, „ ,,,+,,4,.., Y,k, ..------ I '"?",--!•;•=:" -1. ..• '''.1 -'....,-, '''," •'' ' - ' ..'' "' '' / - '-,.//:--.'' ...c's\ ,.--i;'',..., ,L11,- L , -.'"rf • if',"is i ..... ,,,, ,• ., ., ' e;-•,, , . ,,' ..._.-_,, .--71.„).... , .1.A. ', „ 1 • ''. - ./ ...--;..., ' ''''',. \'2 ‘...., '' ^ ,/.. . ''• '' \-..."';'' /',2:.'" '''''',:,„••••`•''''' )` 7. is.-..-'- '-i.' t<---1:...: '1,.':' '•,, •., ,•,-,',,,.,14- . r. - •... • ,,,,m' ' • ',../ ..,.4),./ - ''‘t-, ,,,‘•47:!.,. ),,,s.I ,-_,k„.,!;--_-:, ',‘.1._.1. < ,-,, ',;,,, 4A` ,,,•,, .i• '• )• . , f„, .., •..,. <\: 9C.'4,, , \ ,, ,i',:',,,;,;.' ',,<,,,....`, ,,:,:r-tt.,::\.tr-..--1,0 '1-„•,-,%--9,4'..',3 s ••) ',.;‘. ''',/,'1,,' '', s „ - f'' ''' \ • / „ /,./,`,,,././',..."/ \.:• \Nr, j• ci".17,--`)\.1 ,J2,7,-41-` '''I ;Q:' ::. '•,, \.,' ',„,;lii,,,,`,,,„,"/;`,,'‹,.<'•,,,,',...,;,',.,‘„:„ ,:,;F„, , ,‘,„,..; '‘k\,,,y,:•••;;/:•":"4" V*.k •i,;‘,•:;,),;(,=7,---;"4., --,r'''', • --.1•,---t!= .;-•• ..it y ...--'., ' - ...•‘. „ ' ';.,i,-, / ,fk. -___:-.,. -,,,,„:2-vr-.-.,t,_.e'H-J..'. ..••., . ,, > ,‘, ‘,..- ..,,,.-./., ,., • ----1;--'' '../ ,/,' z• .' \ , ,-,;' ,, /./•-• , ,•• .,,,, -, \., •••- •* .•.,• ,,,,, ,,f 4i,k)- 'V t:;-,,.1,...-,t.,,,..!....„:•,-- -, --=, , • -" 4= :,•`- `-...,A-‘, :.- ' /-.,,,_ \ ,,==< .,_< .” , ;‹,cek,,,,,,k:,„/. ,,,,.-7, ,,..;,•2/ -...;-= , -,==‘;,„\-::-,,;c• i ";:-/ ..,_.g.„- \-=> . / • ' %,,,, \-.= -= C -", i ''';-;- ..`",".: s• (.. 1/// „....*,>:,=, -,,,,:\\*,t//,,,/ ,,,,,,,,,,,„ ::- ,=, ,. ‘''',..\>'"----•- •\--V-,=-Pd-.; ',.<:""2/k- " ,-.- •'''); '','-''''''s A ›' -,/ •:',-"- --- `"'-;,'"-,\=4,"\-4 -,...,, "(\,/,,:-./2- 1;;`,:,=;.• ,•';',?e'.!.,/,//' •' = , --=,'), \i‘,•,"-'-- r--72`,•,,,k;,,_,;Li=i, .„,3= 'CA,ij'. ,r ,;,. .';lc=c,...' f:--, 's;.; '1%.' '',1.- '- '-••••••,4: '''s I ---- '''`IN; -.4,•."-;''•*,-,'"' /77 --''7 t.':' 7''''' ' ''')' z'i:;",,,,' ',.: , \''''''..;‘7.;-,7"..:_.;1='=.•<„,:::‘,:Zie--!% 'k''''':: -„,, '14 it...-,•-'.;''. ,,-!.. '- ';... .\•-.'' •••••;,5,', '''s, .---.,...--..„ • ,I'. ' -''''''S •;,,,,, ' ____ ....A..-,-----5..-;/,;2:1- ..' 0 'vl7,,,,,, ',..1.....''',',..\`,...J ' 4, , : _...,..., i 4---.., f.:-, , ,,„,......., •,:,... .... - ,, ,,, 1t1r*1r•l)/`5i11:)1r;r,f.,.t1- -•----.,-1- .•i'.--7.-',--1-.-".-'.-".t,:',-•4:if:-iC-',f [ i ;,',,:'',',,,,',,r,,•,,,• --=4,4-'.* ‘''•':,..••.:,.=..'k''•,k‘,k;,,,\,,,,,i+/-...=.--,-,..'.-.:,•,..:',-..k,-.,,;,,,,4,,.,,,,.,A'.\,k.-1,IrN":.-=-<,,;-,-1C 7-r-.2-.=I?;"1-',;'"7-'k-•3=-1r•.-,,4,,f,.--'-7--•_.7-,L=-%,-1,-.I.,=-,1,'•-4=.,_-'1:"--•-r-,--,•';-•:s'?•'",•,'-.1-.r.-,'•=-,'-=.,'-.',4„',-4,,--,,-,4•-14.,,•-4``,,,•,=:,.='',,C=11,.-:...i.c,i.,.L„..-_,.;•,.:,',s,,z i./,'•'.j•,.,,-'{.,,y-i••=,i i'-f.-.s.„">7--1")',,1_;?'‘;.,"-"‘2'-.'-'N,,==,,'',-.,•'1.t,,i1,••g.'.-`,...;,t•.,‘-,‘•:="s,i/.'','',/;''':'''",•-‘„.•,I-/‘-•=-?/••,,,,.',-",,•;"-••.,',.,•'-''--',T''.,,-'. - - r i 4 N f ,-c'•,,i:„',•%,'‘•'k,,,:,''1""•,;., >-)c..'..ks... ,.,-,..:. ei.pt- tPfIrt÷ 'NN'-1-\•,---',.• -..,S. \-`,"..::,, .' ;----. :-- ' \'''''' ..__-_-:„. ,..._.,,...,t,___.1„...,,...} 1 , it,-• i1.11 7_2„, LA I : -4C:=:=; L,1 i ;;If ., .,7, ,'''`,''''''• !,.', \ •,, ,, -,...,,.,,,:,,,,' ,, ii . . `,.....7\\,,,,,,,..,\,-.\'--,',,,e;'...'",,,,‘. ,,,,,,'`,--:,,..',.. ‘,..„-:. .s.'s N,::: .,,,,,s_ _„. _I ,, , :„.., „. it i----, -1 ,! ''!1: )v '''''''`• ''1i -/, ,, &r•----tir---.,.„----- * il:0=.- '6,1-'*=,.=`,/-=- „ , „„ :,: ::,.,, / „„,„ 4 MI N., ,r„:„, '• `•,,, ' ....07,0,.°...1%,-"-; -^..\,\A„ -.,), 1,17,',',;„'7-77:73.L"A 4,if _,...`Zt1,1:, ' 1.' •••.,„„,,,1"-4:".,'. df ,'''''' _. --...7:„..,,,,..... - '0,-er'''''' ,.....----*-a-- ,....--- ,_-------"X; ' _ ... /i..., -,,,, ..... "_„_,(il, -•?.:',•<,:-.:-..A-f-..•,": los . .> ,,,,;,, \s 1,.; [ :$7, ;',• .; -.1 • ...----'''''." ,....k , i 1• e;.:t.. i'- .$1'41?, 2 1:-=•-2--- L.----'i ''.-•--- ,... . _ .'. _ ,: ...:-..---: ,,,,f,,..77,,...„ ,1 $ 2?" ;,"'''' .'. - ,.. : ' ."' '''.'I''''" !. ''''''';,;00"'"';:r",'''' ...,,,,,,,,... '11'`.. i . '''''C'''''';''t '• .`'''' "' 1''' ''''''. '''''.."::::r."'' .' , .../.; 1 W. f V\ .)(: .' ' ' '' " -'''' i0lii"...,"4'";' ''vtz,,:;:-z,-,r;:- .- --- .. - A A ; • ' 4. _,.;.---- ..„, .„...... - t„. t„ fir 1',..,1 .1 , • ... ., f.;'. ,.. .• ; , l'-75' '-<<`•,,,:‘-, •'7:---,:r.---rli• fr . i.,“,,.t.,.."...-, .1.,:s, ,..;;;--, , *, i ••••.. „.,*;-.2'4., 4.`.1' \.,./...L.,-, _<.,,,2/4,;1;4 •,,...,t ..:.",,,,,4 li. :II ..1 I-ri t----,,,g--.- ,_'1,4*.:4#6-.-, ....„,„,,..).,,,t': ''', ''''''' '- . 1 ,..........„. .i,.....4-‘,...,.. .., i !......„.. ,..,Z,41 ' \ e• ' goo. i ,,.:, 1..4 .-- •-•,--" \•:•-•• • , ,- 1,,', • -,--.1' ..,,,,„,..,,-•.-'• ..,,.,•,...• . .""..---".;- .,.. ,, . ..,„,., 4,111. •-•';‘,:,,,, ----4c*-.!:--,--;-:::::: ' . - - • ,.:.,..-..---'---;-..e•-•_:- V------1 ,.;;;;;\_, '',.;'`..-• 13r ,ve-I,- _.,.... --,,.-. . •, • , ,. , , *1-.1.2.11]•.,.•z_.• • •'-':-,k:\ t A. „:„..i,,,,,,,,,,,,..,,--,-- iti 1;.:-...----„ ....- ,-.:::.-----:-:- -• , , , -- - ..„-- ,. tOY4,„.•- .,..,:_i_7„,,,..,- .. ..,... — ,.. .._ ,}---- •- .2, 1 - i.,,t; „ , ' ..-,-,-::.,.. .1.-':-.. - _--,...rr..-.E.:.---::. . ,, q • ?.1 ;-.. ---...,--------- -- ----- =.4.,---•vi•T''''''' • "' " ..... ......- ;-"*.r"'";;''''--7';'. .- '''''''''' .. ''f; '' i i'I .....-.'"-.-140 ti. , ,1 `' , .,..„.„.,..,."' V. , . f -1tr....:, '. ' ' ' • ,,,, i....."'"C. '' ...1". '0 .","'- ..":"."... . - .... -...--"---'-.:::::.:::-...." „f-",",;----.7.747;;;:ilir;'I VI•''1' ri "\ '''''''''''`.4 '''''PACIFIC CITY - Huntington Beach, CA , - -- ; - SUMMER SOLSTICE SHADOW JUNE 21 ,.. ,, , ,,,•,,, ,,- .,,,„_, „2 , / ,/,..,. , \),,.. -; ,),:'„ ','"'.<?•iiii ,k .., ,;',-`,/--,:;',. .,,1")=:.,:.17.--1.k.---, -,,'.----,Ii. ''f'114--2. ,.'-:',\---i,/ -,,,--0 •-e.L.-. - , • - .4f:A.,, --• s's-'1 ' / •• ,./ yf..,,,'--',.•';'-' 1,ve!-----•)----"" •.--...",.s- ',,,'. ;0,1,3....P.'';;--.%:---: ;,-, .--;•-:•„,.„,:., ..,,,." ).;•. 3:00 PM '''.%\''Ir' --)z `,‘'''• \ .7-f' ,416,1e...;'*- -'' -\'' - ''.• \y'' 4,-)..„,„,?; ,/,'•,,,4:;,..---,'-`,,,,' -,,', I''---.;•'519", 1.• '- i '-'.."-P.,/ •:‘,..'it: ,'7-;-,,,' ...) ..,.... ' - ..'.." --•:'"-;-,"z, •• :c1.._,,i,,'N.Z,,,:•---,- -'.,7?.:!:-.Tr'i""'.-'` It•-,. ''.., .,4"--„', '-'7 /,- ---- ,.'"',-.. „- , . .... ':..s r ;,',. ' , t'IV 4'1," 4,...'"'( ^ ': -'.<, , • „/,,,•''''' ,7 ‘ ,Nk,r.: 4,:``'13 -''.:1. ';‘7,-)!...-.'y,.., .-16 r-=,,,-•,,o• • ..;:i :, ..•, '• ,,,,' •,%- -"'•••• ',-,'•-' , 1"',,-.14 ' ' • `., ' , "•. ‘-:-,,",,.;.•4`. '"••; '•' ' .•7..t:' .1_.`''el, .4.. .,--'-', • -•••,, i,-.--„,'tif--; . ' ''. -••: ---;.• ` .• - ••\::• -• -- .-: )N•,, //,-.,, ,. ..;'i.. -',„ - '7 :-.:--5-1.c. )1 ,-, .)'-,;', 4, ,; •:. , , ,. , , • „, /z„. , , .•:„.../ _..... ,„ ,.• \ ,,,,,,,,,p,„;:,,,,,,:- ,..,,,, -,.:,„ -,..,.- !, „cs.....4....,.-e 3,--1.-- ' ,r''',.i. ,..*,'"',4'‘; " .."-• : < , /,,,,, .,-. - ,,,, ,,,, ,, - _, --,- - --- ,.....-,. ..;, ,,,,,,0 —,:\ .. L----''' ''',. '''' ''". ) \ ' '— - -'''' •' ‘.., \"'`'" ' ` -",' ", ,„.. '"...,,,,,:,•',:,,:. ../.. i'''',„":. "MI, , ,,,,'\ _.,,;'," .'i'‹.'"-",57 , '-',,,,''.1-,,,,,,t. ;,:,,2`,„ „2-,..": .......,.... .. ,t, , t ,. „. .,. , .. ,...,,,,,.,,,,f,.. ,..,,, 44' '',4:'!" • '''' ., \,,`Z\-7." 't `rf -=',....r... ',.1-J,71 :`'' ‘, ', , / ' ,....:5;`,,,,„, ,,...,‘ '',,, s', ; ''' ,/,',' , ,/,,.. \;<;, .. A ..,-, -',;(47 .7'. i''', '-' ;7"i'-'''••• \ '• ' -''''''', \\ gfr( r'1,;',./ ..›.'\d7,,,\ST.,:_zr/ 47';' ;/'\7, '\'' •''' ''1==.- ;'''"4'.. r3"-'41-' -,,,=3• -',‘ t''' ;''''' = l••0•.\ ',." ., '''',`•,,',- . ------„,.., '''''Z'•• ,,,`;`,•.../ ,,,, ••„ ,,•/•',/,' >% ,`, „` ,A.?:' ' ''` ,, ='.. '\ ',1\'•, _!,,,%‘',„,_,L L.?, ',4$;,",,,,\.„;•: ,'', -, •-•-- '", s-,,,,,,(,, . -.,:,,,,:;;„ • , ••-, -N:-,-;:i„,r/,..,-,..: :\ ',,z J,,>',f': 7,: ., . ,- ,,,,,,,....\,,,,, „ .,.. ., .., ..,,,, ., I,. ,,:-..:....., ,..,. ..,„ ..... ...., ., •!`,'',, ' “•'.<.'' ,.;:',:., •,-..t:':-,, ',,,,,:::........„....H...4"..:•„, „.—..-....`....1;?• .. .,7? ' '^.;.,N,, r- 3 '..... ' ,4:;.• /••' ' ,, .'''' ;,' 1,,;.'„ (',,,,% '.c.,o•-••• ',--4 ' :"i, ---::,,,,. -7,-------1 .„---- •,'' !-,-, ,..,::-,...,„„k--•.,,,‘:-.,,i--; , ,s, " , ,....•.--..!? 4,, 41 ,7" . . 4 ''',..., i• , -77 :,'' /4,7,;(•,:-.-3---71 ,,,--,-,-,,,- / 0 ./ .\!'Y'S'''\i*:/ '1,4',k.4.----- ;77J-if:.:',•-,..•;; 7-„7 4 7;; sY(7(" ', ,!....: ,j ..;I:, ori,,,, ),-.1.,., . . - \ ,I,.:--.4:,--"\-1,--,,,!,.„..,.,•-•7•-•,,,,,•k:.'„„f"' .1.,' '.' .,' , .11. '''-'" ..•:. .- ',-•\,, '; k, , Liz.1 • It•r' .-1z--.,, '‘‘ ' 'ri/ .,,re/D''''' ' -Y''71Zit'''' . '''',',. '',`\,,Z\-';' ''',.,•'-.'P•14,' ')‘,,,• ---,'"--,T '' I ),/''•'' f.' .-=‘,.,', ',"--)'" .''v '',..; '", N'''' if, 1. i ,1001111.1 • ' , ,. . ,,,, ' \-'••\=\•,':...''...:,15..„:''"Z,',1•••••?-". f--5T-_,,,.;,- ,-,;: l':<.:;,, , ^‘,„;,7,- •: , "c--,.:7,,, - ,;. P , ql .. - z. ..).., -I .-..,„ ,,,,„--N , ( _....,','; \,-.k,-.--.-.?r4-, .. ,:....7.,-.,..::, .,-,,,,,,f., , i ,-.,,,--.'•, - ,...--, ',,. ,..,,, ,,,•. ‘.,:/- , .---:::: ;i: :, r --, . :,-tri:‘,A -\ s ;\\,...,,r,t,„___:s..74., ,-,-....1... j"-•!i,„,,-.1''-::: '. i„ -.;,'.,, •„., ''. ( .".„.' .„ :1;.'=*,.,-73 i '; 1,:? J`1 ' . • - .>"' 1 ,t‘Ki- ,3 .,+.!.t.-:-„,._-//I 1 1 ' 7"----) • ',. ,' ----,, ' `1"'T'''',.'-''''''7 '1'-'-.f 7, ,"-",-i--1 •, , ,_ 1-7:___I , ..„ILL.,,,,:r -_,=:`'1,.,,'..1 1 ' . \ ':•••:',..\' - • ".- '' '''''` = ''..".' ''' '''..11• i .,7,-",.\ ' ",° ;k, •,,,,,-'V.„\-:=..„ ''..„ ,, -,•-•••;,‘ ''''„i .,,,• - ,,,..."•:,-;,_,i....i.—ko.., ... ?41,_,,,...--_—_,!...,,, 1 ii,1 e- , —? ' • .1,7,'"''' .T " I k '%, 11111 '•.,::::,\\,\:t.. ):,,.';' \4,,s,,(,,.,,s,,,, --—— : *t. , : 1.1 111.9.: ,,,,i k ,E-T. ay,: ii, , . / A c-N, '- ', 't,,,,,N, \-e,-,:•,---;------ ..„_. •_ 1t....,.. , ,_— . k_,,,„ , = '='' 1: • : j'•I. '\1 --- ''-'1';'''F''', : .,•:. ' ,,..„,"/„,,,,,,,/'''" P ' N ,A, „...,,,....,_,,a,;„.1,•;;\ •••:..=‘., ''''"''''' ..fri==-..sr-tr-o-it-t,40 .; 1,r ,_ ..,„ '..z.,....---',-. ,5r.s.„ \ ‘. ..„.......„... Z 1 . '..i _......., „,.....,,,e -',0;:;'''''.:,,,- .000.- ; ........,".., ...-x „ ..,.-..,.--...'"*- / •,.. -,\,'..''‘ \ (1;11:------------=1.,„,. ' i %-7 .-fr#747,-, '''-• „,‘;,:''''' ' '',", = ,'\i., 'it'i'I i ,A4= '‘,•!.*`X^',40", ,72,1t..--...-' t T •_1.•"'"e-il'''''''''.1,,,,,,,Eee'e/ ;'` i=r---•."-- PC-"'N., 7.'/ id . ..„,..,--"' ..„,,,,,P‘ ‘c,,,_ . ' C,C C''..):7 -? t• /0 .'.-7. .‘ „ • -,''.•••••/g1 ii i • • )''' 7 9,4 - ''''' . ,..,,,,......-.-..,,,,,,...--77,„„, i•t7ti i,li .i,I it i ‘ l'..t:'- -: _ ,..., fr:fa____..,:'.• 4,' -"!. •: r7,,,,,7-,,,7;:4..,,,.;,..z.„„_..,--s..,t-,t,,,,,,,:i...1,,,E • ,,,,,,,. ,„,-;:a7.7";.:-....----,,,..7s,...q:c.„.„„, ....,--- .„,\ , '72' itr !. 11 -'`.•• - .- i -i'"-Ict,.. ..3>'''''27--''''' A .'7.1,-:1>N::„., ''`) IP.:--' I Ill 4: ''''''.,. ...:1\N'AV'A'SMAkM7‘;':, ' .•,,..,,,...„,' '''''1 '' ‘',,k ' I AA'•'..:' 1 , '; '') ‘ . ,,, . • ,,t.ii :, ii ,,,,,;.• „3,„‘ ,A i ,:, i 'r -..,,4-4 -,,,..: -4 1,i1•1 NI . „ .. . ------,\\ • ; <i) ,.4.1.'vPi 1 ft:f.'-'•-.) .1-----1.1 •,„ .!/..,,,,,:',,,,.; ,i ,5.ii•LI. , ,....c....- =r--- 4,---i-,..‘•,. ....-s„ ',4:: -4- I • i ,• • $ ,..,......__-,-; ii.A„'•,-;. !,.-N -,--.iii,• V,11 i, I.,J . i C ,,,/ ' . \ r i i-ii 1'77'.-----..„,..q ___P-'Zat.*01#1---_1_;'" 4,4,,,,L1, 'X , .. * * -,v• / . ' ,., t" -..7-';":1-it,-.Arr-7-.--,?7'``‘''-,..--F3-',."--;-;-.--,-:,',...,:t`:.:5,-;,z,zrt-,:.4-,-;:; • .,<%".• ' ‘ ill'*. °,1k '''' ‘:',''„,_,-,..'''' - :"- ' . '. , I , --, r•''''' • -':',1);., -'- ..... ..,. .......,-- , .— ;.A.,........,:::,......-.---. ,,,,1 ..„ I.,....__,.. . 1 • , it' .. _ -,-•- ..-.....--,,,-...-.7-.7,7-:',•---. - - —,r,_2-.,,.---,--,-;;':'1 o. , ,_.,--- r • I- I I, ? ) I:: — --- _--- :...., . • ,. 4 • li -....,--,vr,':- ......,,....,.- •-•,..,..- ---:-.-.47.:,-‘2-- • .--_-_-__:....--,,,,—...:.--,i---„--. -- -- .,..1,f-r.--7:---- •ff: 11 i E,.',-m.......,,,....-- ------"-**4--',,tryt :,,,,r,,c;'i t 1,„.„,„....:•:- , :. • •'-i- ---- . -,:-.7,;•-%."----..----irzr.,41•74";- ----: --- .1.-----------•-•-' -7-..''47'''''',-",,,,,,,,T.;-,i-i'illi d,/- i'''• ' ' .„.„.:7.7,--.•,-, ''' .,-;.7,1 ,, i'•, 'N., "' - ,,,..i .•,,t,-----_-_ :.=. ,'7 t,t,i't ', \ • -„,..,:,7,-"; "'''.., - „ , 7.... o ;.,..,..,;-di 7,-i '...''-‘,.. :,,,f,'-' i•••• •-•- PACIFIC CITY - Huntington Beach, CA WINTER SOLSTICE SHADOW .... .„, _ „__,..... ,.., , ... ,...., -, ..,.. •., ,.,-,, - , • ,,, December 21 -,-).3t., —,, .'„'• -•-,,--i • ' / „.` ," 'fr';, ' A,•,•:'''''''41>,‘,:\':`.43:%';‘,'771.,'"--,.?"--\.'', ‘A,--1.., -- '-1.•-••• - -,--v •.. •,- , , • ,Z\, AV< ''''.›. \ „i :• ...4,');,)) '',..•/ '5'\4'> ' ',,, - , /-\\‘),,Sf,<,' ':/,'„,,,,,.l7u"'E----"L- -,f:;s'-.-..,-,' 1 ` ?;,-,/,'''' 5,••••,.Q••4/ ';,, --•...,A, ',,..' •ir: 900 AM 4. 'c' .) • ." - ••' —kit" ''''- ' , •'''' '` :• ,\V• .•, •*,,/, ' Af-.7',--",,,'',.,' )r_2„,:,•-•-Ati... ',. i 1".:.„/ 7 ''' .ii '''' 1-; Y‘• " "•,....-4),/, .,•1'.'wa„ e,' 4\ • ,, ,s;;,,,,,/e.,,,,,,,,s,‘„:,C,,71_,;,1 -,,,,,,,,,,••- -..,,, •,,, . .,-.`,' ,,,,,•-,..,,'-4.. 1••',„'••:•••; ,,,,.,- • ---,-) ...,), .,:," , ',';'• '• N,;./ /..-.* -F's/ ,‘•, ' ;' -- \- (\'//..../., 0.'-:\\,'N' ',\ •''''',.,,‘:',- , %,..",-':-.'"i ''.''''''-'1 . ,,,, ,i,*t,,',•4, 1 ,'' \. '` ';; ''' ....'' ''''. .. .:.`.15L'\, --.- -Y7.‘ --.17 ----'.. , ,,- ..- i. s' .. .-,,-- - -...,.,_,,,z -,. :,., ,4,f', ,,'-,•• ...?'' '. ' ,.','• '' '''''''''' P')'' '''`''•.;: i; '•\.4.s.45,,•••••,, I ' '56, t• , • •-••'• ‘, ) 271 - •—•:',,,.:17i:-: „, ).;,',4,.. ,'' ,,,,. '`,' ' ' -\''• •••%•11,,, 7 . ,,:::._ ...., x, ,,,,,, ;;-•7,i ',',"41.., :'f' ,i...,,,,,,,,,,.il,,, ,. \ -- 41,.,.1. :'\,,,,,\,,.,,I,'‘./,'',‘._!:.4.:'.:.,'•,'':::,,...':,•,,---;:,_-;,,:',;,1,,,_1,,' 110,‘,,,',..,,1::,,‘_':‘,.,\.'41...:1.,.,,.,.°,,,'...,'::,,,i::,.),.,,,,,........:",,.'"'•_.'‘.._,I.,...,,_,',,,,,,_,,,r_,.,11_ic,'....2.,,,:,,,,,:,,,,,,...,,,,:.1,,,_:.,1,,,<,,,,.'' '. -''‘,',t,,;,,,,...,..1'..,,,/,,,,.\'‘,,..r>,,<,..,,..1.,'_\z''.,\..,..,,I.:I,,i .,,. iit...-''v\,..,:,.',>,.,..'..,.,..,__..'',,,...2-',__._::,.,,:.:_:.i.7..44::,:s:,'I..:,,,...;'):',.4.,:1:''''j,,,'..,,,Z.._k,:,,,,',.,'.', ,• '.1:fr, 41, •• ---7)- . "4- ':•?,,,, rii.....,_,......r. ..„„ ..,,, , - „t. -,•,„,•„ 1-j••4. ";' ' '''''••••••••••••„;»,/,';..,-,11, ';:,•1314 , to 1''<1,'•,:•1, ti,„ 5,--, ";...711';',..':''•:‘,....,/,' i;'•,,,. .../ ,-.2_,-•,..,5 "•,•••,„i ,.,..-• . ',..,-;,--m•• •o ...if',„ -,:,•,,,, •-Tr---1,....„.„/..:'4,--'7,f',„,A,' -. ..,2.,, L.:4 ' - - ' .1 -r-- / .-..•,,,,,, _14, es . 2::',,, . 11115vS) 44 1 '14r--n‘ '',.‘ 1 ?tiff • ,,,,, -',4„.•'• ,,..) ‘1 i. 1) 3 l'i:,, c;,./ . • ''''-'-''' *r , •30'' ''- ' -' ' ",, ,„;;;„ " \\.°.;",‘..7.'''`" •,,4--,--11?-..f.; '•-. ,--X-.:-T / )."--“.•!; l— - \ '',-,,' ' '-'''. , '-,• 40;.%--.-......L,&-il,•• , , .... X---t... •-c. ..-J•7••1)•/,,, r, ;IL--.4.,i'-..,,'-'/ '•'Yi.,.;i 1.'/'•..;11'';11;1''', ..' ? ,' • 14K "'''' \ ; .3., L i 11 4 4-.......4..... '' . '.':!.:,N i:I:,,-,-.!..1...,......;.....,e.... --r ,.4....i,..... `.,•7 .-1.•••:.t.;„it ‘, , •, 2.,..Y. .., ;"-c.,,ztt, ..., ,., • t', I j '--"'-' _ , , , `kz...\''ks.: -,,"",,',....1-L-e I ',-;;;-2;:c , z, .'', ? ; , 's,(','''' .---.•-', /,,,\ ''''. ' .' -:Xi ' - • . .-'-,..- • i • ',I. ,,,- .4.__1:,.<c.4' ,--•-••-•. is -,---, i-i -11"1,‘. '' W:,. v1, •11 ). '' ( ' 44"; ; ft"•'.+1 11''; ' 1., - ,,.„,„-: . , _.,',-, . r 1,i7''.111.• v'•' 's,.., •/' N,'' - ','' . . ''''' ''XI",,--`•"--•,' •;--4----I. '\,1'•--4.-2-:.1-•;1 f)1\ ''''-1 , ' •'s. ' -1 .-..23 ,t ..•-•-_,...:..,., ,1''---1,=.- ••-- . i \ •,,.i.. . \ •----.,-.- :"71'!": --,--•1 N . N ''.':•.4.N.,' - :.i. c3 .3 .. ., `,,.. ,- • . . ..,....,_....- 0 , . s .. . •,... ' .. i •-•- „ 1-.i. • 'F!., k i .7: 1 : -' ,..„: i '' ri I V 1 7, , ' ; • -''''''• '.'" ,,,,7,,,.„. ,,•••''''''''''--- --- ''' • ) ''''''''-'''' ''' „4.6 -,k,',,,,,,,:-<2.-•.,N „,.I Cx.------ . ., i.,,i 3_______ j C,,, 1_, :I. \'n,.,•••1:-,..-r"''' ,...,.. ,_,, i.,.-_,,. .--;___-t----- , 0,,?„,•; ,,,,„,,,,•1:=,,',.' •",a-34,'''Y V ' '.-' ,, '',;:i.\.,„ '-.-.7.7...j.7.--.- '' ' ,,,..,,_,....,...-----2,1",_.-z ?.i.r....7.: c.--"11--- ---i1 . I if :' f ''.. % '''''''''''',' t." 4i , '74...i 1 i. „.1., ••& • 1 '1,0'1.• f.I 12. l': ;1 . ,1. ; , ..., \11\\ ••, t,iti i f.-.-----• „, 4., -11 .k1.,•:, 11 1 i .4 .111A1,,,,,,,,4.:*, ....*107..--,_ ,, ..., _,......- n ',.: • - -...,„„ , ---,' ''' '' ''-' .' ' "-- ''IP. ' ,•ii ' Ili• '' \-.. l' I, ‹e't.' !...........f.; .-i--- (------- T1, ,---.--- , ,- ; •:„._ ...._ ,..... .......-- - ,. i.:' . ; --- 1,-.A t 'i , _____._ ,.: -'.-------, (Ml ! - - ........ .. ,..., - ,., 1 • r 04.41"'' '414* ' .*1 .. - ,, .. , -...,„.7„,..,„,,...........!..., t'•iP, :. I• ' ' ''.. '. ......, ...., : I : ...: N"'''1/4,.., ,,, . • f''''') :=7:--',...\ :'. ". 1 ,T"-----": i'0'1 .": -',''''' ''\N",S,\:..%,..'"•. }77,,,..:;."...,',7:7-i"7..,?4,,,, ,,, , tar , i 1 !1 .1 i sp..•- i .--.-'1-Yr. 1 '1,1 t • ..,. -,1.1-,!, i i,,1 1 $.?--- ,...,_.ew _._ _.,1 • -.1),, 2, 1','•&si..-j '' , - -.,:.....,1 1. :F. . . .. 'i 1.11', '''.' 1-L€ -''_...--". •''1.....-LL.-.....'7":-L7s7iP . ..1, 1-';': ^ -'''-'4'.....''' ' - ' --..s.,..'<•;-,i1 I, .,..., •,..._,, .4,...., '.ii., :.....!,„ •-•••----- -;--"S----- -------'----: . . - -0___.,_ .,\• . 1 . , . ,,,,,,ii Li" —,........_ .., , ''..,10''--* .1 2,...-,-'7:Z^."''''. • lti. 1/4,. .•. - ..: . ' ._„' • , , . .. ..:, .--...,-.1-...e.' ,_.-.....-- ak-----1.f•-.47.;.---- ..._, , , . .,•• • • —.,_ , 4, „- -:.•:.-- ..• - . , _ • t k‘' 1 I t _i'l It ,,,,,. _ - - :2----. ,- ,----::—. ..._..„....—,-...i.....-(0 - • ..._._$,,l,r ir V ,,,,,,,,,,,,f'4•,,O..... ,..,,,,,,- ,,,,,,,..„f, ,, ''-11. 'I.`...-• ")--1, 1'7,.. ;,'-- -1 ,- .:..................,,n,=u'•v=''-'"'' ,, , , f I "-- '"1----.:.4.:.T. S.,:77',2.:.1 i 1• .. . ,,.;il ''• ''s, ,,,-,-,,,,r,-,-s., .,t: .__--w-- .,,,-..••.'"- , .. _.__._;:.:._.._:,...._.____,4.,.----- _„..••••••••^•114-7.117;r:• •••1;1•1.'11c,r;;4 ; '; ' e•.;; ;I i 1, ".i.11.0;14;11', ‹.11,4.• W1-4 1' ' ! ..._-.-.. 11-7:1::::147..:21.7-1='''''''..r;-.1.7°;'''''114141":;711'i 1.1; ;;•1`;;' ;' PACIFIC CITY - Huntington Beach, CA _ . ---• ___ • __ ,,_ ._ ____ __, , , -- - , • -- .- ---- _-__ ,,_._ WINTER SOLSTICE SHADOW December 21 ..y ,;-7,,==-,,,,,- 1200 PM •-•.*, V, 0 , .„, ' ,:bAtt - ' \-- - • / ,)!- >: ,ci-,',. .-,.z. ,,- 1 ,,„...?4,-,- ; ,, ,,-:.1;-: .; ) 4 ,,) „ ; 4F„ kir, / .1•al, , " — • ''''>.•",/:"'"4,-„K'''",-c• ,1•-\ "' -4-.- I '',,"•;---:';'-' • , -., -- , — ..; ,, '` ,•:', ,,* .,„ , 10` •afte < / '' \l,'„V,;;;;;,'' '''' ',`• •--"---:•:—'•:N-'14-'—`f i ''',,,—‹ 1 "J'1' `,"• .4., ,g,0--. , , , „ ,,, ,--_ , ,,, •, ;&.''''‘is.:.'--r1-=.-1,,,s.77,-rr.--.1.,_L,..--r-, -;. , r,./ -‘,.,-,, "`f -',,'''' ••. ),„\--1_,,.:_,,„,,_,..it:--., , f' _ 44., - .,, -, ;If t•,,„ , ..„...r • ai-/,-='' ", „.'' ,..-> ". ', , ";„• '• ' '''''i';`. /'''' , /l' '''''' \ ' ss \, ',;",,,,1%;:,;' ', ' . % •:.‘.,Z\s'•--•,^1 '.4\\..,1',CT: „'•,.ri•iLs"--' - , , _ ,, L .\ '''''.6:4'?'',''' : . ' '''.•;,,N.'„ ,,;:":,,?, 1.',,, P.!..7*- „; '''.;:!\•' f,:,,, W„/'' ' '', \ ..- ,/ '' \ 'er''"' '• '„''• .4%. -' '" '::• .4 .;',''.'''\''''Nt.,--1,:'..''': ::---i..--',--'::--- 7./ ‘" • ; ' , ...' ..' •'/ 17-• • ' '`., „•, .- /'"' ', 'f'-r' -:n,,,,,,._• 'l ' ''''' -•'''' •0 ••,4 P- ..-,-1'.-:'.- s •• '.'-‘--, .,',): ',, - ,' ..,_„, .,..,_ t ,/\_„„,,,\;,„ ' -..\••• N'''•-- /":":'?":,9-',/- -‘ . .•',\•:.\.,, r,"-', '':-•,1--.4,----:` >,‘'•., < '' ) ..?" ‘, <:,'-' — - -- , *---,- ,, _liedT ' /.,!?:<, ',\• ‘`..*...,":-'2",,,,/,ii,- -,,, • -:‘,.‘•••-i -4, ,:,-.,•-•'1,u,--- •':,; ', , ' ,, /1 , •'. ,.: i ' ., >•••5(' 'As ---,.... ''',",,t,_,,St`-* s..`''''4,,, '''.,' ..-'/ 'IT k:`,,,>"/';'..;''',• ,,',,,• ' " '"'" ' ''.\4\', L'-_f;_,,,,,t,!',.-t_,,,' ''';‘,.%,,,./ ...;:, .,,,,, --$ ,/,•-- ), .).- .;,- ' ,..,', 1,2,, ''''S,:.,.,,-:',',.-:-*?- ',/ r'',',.<)'''r"..v."' ' '. • • ,,,,,,:, -,*%.,,'..,,,„*T , \7//,,,, ,,-,/-/24.,,-,' ,- .• ., ,--,;-,. • , '-';\'''<,::;:•--4-:,:::::,_,f,•:: '.?: - _ .- --.r."-...,:::,,`:, 2 1,., --' .;;, :.' „--6.:'''',‘ , ' , ...,..;:,.., --P---,-..----J.-- ,,.,ifr,,,„;.,7 • ,, / a-- , , .., • ., , , . , ,‹ :r-,.: '',::' -. * ''''•••'',, i; ' ,,,,,:::„....*e''' ..ie/ .'' '0,,,7'. •/;;.,.."4: ''.' '''' A.,- • -- ----r-X- • - ;.. ? ,..' -•/: -,4- ::. • .: ._„.-;,. 40•-.-,1- -.< ""'"•"•,5\ .i;`•"-,------;t"• „„tt,',.- • -y 4: . .,',;;;;•'m' , . ... , _„ - •. , ' , - " ; •"..,-,.,.. --:•'---•-,._,,..--7,----,. ,._.', , \-„, •,,:r. ' — -.7.-..i, ---c.•,,,,... - , - • . '- ' •;'; !. /'" 404, , . . ' _ -'.,,,,',;\(....;.- .----, :.. _J.- -.'. . „ -;-il- •, • ' ,,,-- ,,,,,, , .,. _ - , . lie \\ -r, - ,...--- ( • . . ,,-, ,, . ; , ' : , , . ,-. ,,,--.-----, -\\\- • -\-',''\:'-.,,,,.,i' :-.,,:',-i".::-:-,,..-:.,',t:'s:-,-*-- .-,-:, :-,- - ,?i- -, ; ',.- . ------ - I. .1-"- -"-'1'. -,-;,..-,,,• ‘; '.,-:;.--V4' '' ' ' '' - '\. t 1 • ';':':'-'7'.'•-‘:` -' i''•--1•-•'-'-`-y-!I, ,..i-..--, --..-.,,, , ;4+. ',,,10- --= 7:,, i i•-•---4 j - ,,,K: '', '-N\0",\'.,.4.;!,,q, ;' • , _, , ..* . 1 ' ,ge,•:-..---.,".., ,..•.•' , :''''''",s :N. ', ,;/' 1'1 f i li, -f.•, , t-r --.,...,........., 3 -,-,,,r.,7.• ';-,-.. g 'ii,.:: w.,1 ' tio . .,i,_....,:.:..:.. . ,,,,........,______.. ..... ...r:,,,„, ,,.\ -;71.•,••:4 „ --__—" ,,,,,,,ti ___\--,.. , .i ,,_—, ,--,- .. i ..1 11. • , , ,;,, . „„,,.., , - ,,r; ---- -, ,,,•,,,,,,•,:\, - ‘;,,,,, cf..-- 1-:•YA,,14,':,','-'4,.- ,`••••,'"._.:,1'7---,./', r'1,„--- •`—''''''' \,,0 'il` ' •1:1' ,,A . -1,,,A.\., • • •„.• „ i. • \I•A4 ,'-,•„. '• 1 _ .-- . ; „, ,. ,, , t_,‘. 1 P.i . .,...--,-...,,v......-- .,,,,,,, r- ,\•,o tl. r.,.... ,,,••••-,- --., _.., ____.....1:. • •.sw...: " ,). ..: 1- ., ‘..„, '.:.,,..........„„s.v......---0.,:, „„. , it, :\,. „ „....:,7--111- ' , k '' -i•, i n , i4 " 't 'I -•/' . , „k„__..„,;_,s ,•••,..., ,.:, 1 •6=0 t f" N, -,,,,y. .1',.:.I.L., I:1** N ' ,• till ' - ' : 1. ::// 1,,,...„..,),‘,„1 - , ' - , - ---1--: akzz.---,:2---...f.,,-----;,,,,-;,;•.--..•---,..-----,"----,;,...-_,;:. „. . . „...,...,., N,• . ,, 111111100 ..„,111111111 '''''' ..,._• .---_:-...r.---',;.:';.- _.„ , .,t'...7;.:..-1.-_,,.,2„,7„..•7,..,,-----i --- ....... ... • __ ,,...._. ,.., ..; ,,,,,-........„ t , , - --,. .......- --r.i . „.„.,,,--,--..-- t-,-.1 1, , f..-... r ,, 1 ............ ---„,,,,,,,,.. _. •,-......:—_,.....t.,-..,,,,„ , . -. - - At ....,.. " '',. ' ' ...,-- '-- • ,a. ,......_ - - _ _ _- 7...--„,,, . ,,....„4,„•,,. ; / \\ .. -,- • ''' "..'...'.1 ,1 'L-...::::: .::*„...,_....—.,..„ 75;;.,-. ''.M. ' ' ^. ''7.,„,`,:- .:''''.'-,..''''.7.,7,.)Pi'W''''1 f'I 4. ,' • • ::,- - ., •."'.;::........ ... , ,''' ''.:2.=2:r;.1.',..24i ,:,."`'' Tg' ' ''' 1 ... ._ PACIFIC CITY - Huntington each, CA .., WINTER SOLSTICE SHADOW • ---,.,,,,v.— \\\,..... ,.... 1, ../- 1-,i.:. " ;!,-c. , ,4 • ,,e ' -.,.--• -, December 21 , i,'f, '4 T' ' /.•A ).''Al Cr .:, , - ...I.•!.--L''' --: A.1''7,:g :'•' ;) '•'''.'''...' '1 ' ' t 44,.., ' > ' V . '''' '' \•.• - ,A, \‘;:i.A.,z,,,'V4.:••" :g'. —— —.... .•'....._,.— "•• 'A•A,...le' •••. 'W' .,,,.. ;"-1.. 4, ,..,.. .,,,,, 300 PM v:)„, ,...rt... , .../- '%, - ,, ) ',-,,07•IT -',,,i .--', '1 \;', .tf ' 2 ,t • , •* ii?;.,, , . '1,2 •">:<;,,„•,:s• ''..L.•,4-'',-=',----!-. 7' ',..44.17(f * f. -l'-'-- ••'1- ".`" ,,/' — --- '', -A- , ,, '' ‘411r-.<4, ' • - 6,.....t-'--,' '‘ "‘-''''''' t -1 ' $.' ; '.. . . ., ":',,, - ‘ ',,..}tt --%''4:-'''/ ', ' , •'" ,-.''''A. 4:-•r'...\-'1.r'-":"1:: ..:' ,-.1'1 i: ' , ' ....... — „ , , . :.:3;,---,;-'; l' ...-',. . -:=-i'..-=,\.....tiSli-• , ,,„,_ z, ' . .. Vi.. ,''f.,'),'\+,4',‘,,,,' "1‘..1,,, ' , „.„,,,,1*,,,/,,,,e4 ", , "‘„,'....,:',',-.;/N.. .4,...,11, ,,' '.....14.%7 : „ .,;›, ,,,,,, ,., , ,,,,,•,..\ '„;' , ..-`• ,..' t ,..' ',.,'„i.,'•':' \, ,d ' , , 4^.--."-',.. : ,-,a,,..._'.. e •.4.-. p- ‘,,,)';'''.-'7:4-5;Y' , -9...\ I , — - • >, • \., ' ' • .; :t.-''''''' ' ..' \'c..") 'It -" ,.,.4 ',4:4,;/;>" • ' , '% '.-. .:7' '''-'r-1:'.-1,...=','.--1-; ''' :. , ', • '' ,-..-..: ;.fs - , ,^ ------_,„_. '''''' - .-°'),,,::'\.[ ' /,' 'X'.,k‘‘',..i -,'.;f:(, ; ; •1 '' s; . ''''' .'''-'*'' .-.-•-:",,, -' // )1'.:4:,,, ' /;.7: '''''''''. -, , ' .'1----,,. '4,71-"'!.-i - 7.',-;.."'-• . ' '. „<.- .- --. , / ..f • '. ''`."'s'',' ,,, '-'1'''',`'''t,''•,../% ‘'',..,...th,-).1„„,,$) ''''''N' ..,1„it' : , '''L l. '', '%'L, ''''',„ , .")',,, , ,-,, ....''''''••,, '''S.4,.„.:,,,^',..:''',:.,•,T,.'s L,./_,,.,,,,,., .. )4ze ,, ',, ? ''',5.-' ---',2.,,- - • ''.-7, ., lgt: Til'--- '---- ,•, , .. , --, ',. • ,,.--,:,- ..' - ,-. - -N.''!!•‘t.'''• . ,. . 0, ''''''•$:. --••.;',. • '' pe/4 lt) . "' ,,'',,,„› ,,,, 4,„ /• • -4 ,, % •,„ iC,? -% •- ..., ' • - ,;' ''' t ' • .-,:t•.-'l,:',, V.7-',`A‘),, '..- ,:-*.:-/-•`!.-S,1-, ..;', .;t..:-•:.:•-- . , :: i !--`:- ,A `s• ', ''''' '' -4flii, a.N,-- , : 1 • , - 11P1:4;• '.,*-: "•:!;-.t--At --:',7 Aft,„//, ; # . „ ; , ..i0lA-7--1 -i.1-1- : •:i A •• ;.''''F1'It 1 r t. •'''' * . ... ;/%-; , • '' ' -‘;''c,''':'t-cf:SA-A5!- ---1.,1_::•24.t:-1:•-•31,':' 't '1' ii;" '-' ...•, ,.\ '''lt '-:„,\''. ''„::;.',',•:--,,,, ' ' 441k ' ' * '' ,,,,,,,4 .;.1 ;,,,,, .......t.:..L.,,,. , t,•.i “,,,, f 1 j.).1,g, ,i ! : '.-,-.' , ', ...Nt, . ' • ' ' i lf;i . '' ' ,' ..,•°". .. ' ,.,,,,,m''''''''''''''''‘.....„ \\,., ,.•_•' ,..,, -T,- , ' "''`i "'.... , •••••• f• . ' c ‘..` ' . 'k.' ''' '-'''''','; ''''',7-4,''f'''''' '',..',.,,-',,.''''' ' '' ''j - ''"• ' • ,.., '-: \ I y`':/'!,,.2' ",./ ,:Pr---i. - r , -0- ..,‘„, •., . • ,...,\,,,,,,,,,,, t ,•••, .. .. ...... Ti .,, .„, : , - .-- , .„. ,, ,.,...., ,_ I ,..li,:r----1; t t ["' l'i i ' • • i. : ,„_, 1/4_:\,,74,,.. ,I,.,,,,,, - ,, ,„ • .'• , - ,-1'. ----II 4!), , .. \ . , .,, ,, .r,,,, ,,,,,,i,,4, ,?..) ,s \ i,, :: '' \''‘''' ''''' ."''''''A L'i'''''''''''' ''' " , •, 1::, p,-.1.,,.„,',',..i, ' ' .,,•.' '', _. -' ,,.'''' '47,. t1:1:7,1.,..1-7..ill., ,,,,. \ i ...,, 1-it .,•'_.7.7 r-.f ,t'iii '-''''. '''''''i ' • i•i 1• r. , Ito ' ''': — I r 11: ,t• : '''',:,, , ',,.' ) \\\\\\'' ':',:c•S‘' , . l'Ir '1,4;0,,,,k,se.,'!„,,",k,-., ;_,....,_,—_______... __....„......77,._,„..--,...&=;;; ' , , • ' ,,, • „ ' :::----- , :1;• rli,. ' • , , , ,:. '' ' ...0 „. , , ,... 3 ' 1 '!,,,.. q ' .4.t„....-- .„ , '',1:', .S. 411 1''---7-.-""j,'L ' • '''q 1 ' . N.'*: 'tt.•t :4' • ',*4:41-, rs*-4-'3I"1 _ '' ,, -1-,-- ... .i C.• 4 .1,' . - /,., . , "1,i"."--'' '' r.•,,..,...Y" • A!. ' . 1 -.-- ,, , 2-‘ -•,. , ', a , .,., : • ,.. __.....,,,,,,, ,,„,.,...„---_ , ,, ,,., „,,.., riL.,:,..... ..__. ,„,,,,-. .:1 r''• " ,•,,,,,tx*xtzt,..tt- ttoiov-,w! • :-..,vt:,47,6-----"•--f•t,., 0 •- •' t t i.v :: ,'' iil:lt'l 1'l.,', i JiCr'sjC:t i l '—I'.rt-?••-t, '-• -.., N., -., t; ! ,,,1-7A,:z; :,.1 i . --'- ',,,,-*,‘,.."....:"‘‘.%,,,,,, :.... • ' - c - 1:ti 1 2 J , , ••\, A-- - `,.. V' : - -' - ' . -• ', ) ,,, ..p......:. ‘-,,,' ,•.,—I I:. 1,4 . - , ' ..,(;_,,, -,,,,,4 - -,• - 11 Al 1 • , 40 i..,,,,,,.' 2,,,, .,,, 7 , -.! tt, ,,,, , ., 4,`,1',. ',I,,,ii , Iv --,•,,,11..t1.____Ai .., ;e„-i,: ...,_ i t : t • Er'r ) t ., 1..., • t4 ti t:4-,i-i, _,,.„-1...... . .;--------`77--f 1 •\A' -'‘‘, :1 I ql , Q..,,,,,,, ' 1‘,. • . .,ll lot .1 1 :.","-,.. .:,,,,..,14,..,...-:.!t-F-"_ft::1......1.- ,!.-, I •'•- '• t . - 4.1,1t.. t:-:.:,',.,„;„,,..,-.1,A:,,,,i-,-5,_-"..7----,... , . • ,.__.-----.-.•-----7..:_. 4.1.--f•' . '''..l 0 l If r 1,K.T.,.;fl'it...) •'-.`it. ' '' • ..,- ,..., - ,,„... , ' '',...: • ,,,.::: ,..._,,.. :: - - ,....„,,,,- IT .......„,,,,,.....„.„,---- cr . .____-,:---_-____-.----. 1.. ----- ---.. „. - ,_. , It • ... ,, • i- f-- ----3, 1:.1 t, ••••:•/' . ,.....,.._;:;_r_r__,...x.„,:,.5..:;:,177,,_,.....,,,,..„, '-.;---0,1•,!:-, ....',5-_, ,,,;_4211•5:±.:!--'—'''' -_.,„„......x.. —,_-,-,.. ,,,,,:r,:,,,,:-.1•":11;:ii,'Ilt .... .,,, . . ,.i-II ;'.L. -I , •,-;-,:7.7 i.,p,.._ ,... • ''' ..i .,,,,,,,,,L 7,,,,,,,,,, .:1-‘,.,,,,.1:.I .--, . ,7,'',': •—••'—',..... • .•'—', ... —. --,——•—•—....---4....:".•:-''''."- :—.77•4::,:,4 ;'',•'1' ,11 . —. PACIFIC CITY - Huntington Beach, CA , , 1 , 1 11111.111/49b45 -11#'. i,,i''il i 1 .141 k . w , 1 , ,...,.., \ \":. ,. .- .-- ,.-.-,, 1.. •1 1 o 111 ?0 t -••••-• -.I :I"' i t ,s r C --.--•'''''''''- --,' i k•";'..2. i,,,.1 - -.--- , 11, i. 0' •.-"q .4, \I I 1 ... --1 da < ,' :-' --.r.r7-4-..---ir i I„.•1-, t-,..,-,-----;;:1--:i. 1,, t, -1 -.- , ,• -- til • "''•-', -J i 1,1 T.' ' "•-•••":... .,..;.::='''.. ------' 1 *f 1 ' r,, i t 1- . 1 t 1 '"1 'I 111 ..r. •••,.. .., -...,.. .., i..s... ,, , ,,, ,,,.. 1.,;ii ...., • ,, v , 1 ....tj,i0.00.------, 1,1 Hi 1,, „::, '.. i :, .,:j., ,*** , ''•'1 1'.- 4i,or ,-_,, 1 •, ill 2, Z 1 — ;-; ,..5, , i, 1 ,, 'i ! ,„ -1 ,I 4 t ,,,,, •.:t ,",--: ,,,1 ., ,,I, : . u .\ • 111--i s4-,:o= t,• P ' , , a --,,,,,, .1; ! ,,i 1.- ,-„,,!,.-. , `•••ett . /, t fl,.... \ ., ' , i 1 ot,.*.• "-,3 ' ''':` ,.._...1:"•:---- ---, ' t'c,'1, il t.i, ,.... , • •i -"‘ v, , • .• \ •^, 1 • ,-•t .• t .: . _ ia N .,„ , , ::.•, rs. ,,,,, , -,,, : .1 1,•,00 40 71-• i l'i s ' • .... ..7. i,I Z I 2 riAillis,.;..,-1,..;1. 1,.•,4 , •,. ——..,(3 < , •-• •,'- k, ,,,,....._, --, ••- -, - . ., \ 1 A.,.,,•1i jl\i*J4,•\A., ;''',...‘ ;•,,,,,":4. ' ., ,' ,.'• •'. , .• ii, 7't, : 't\; • `'''‘‘,k•. t.\\ 1 —..' .... ''' •-i• 1.6'\VI,''`.1i,,,,,,.r. '. ILI 1;• , ..;„'",,,-..•:•.•..-:',.",.,-,•,..-.,",,,',,.,, -..,,'...!,„,,-,.•,.",-.;,.,,,,-„:--, ,„'-.....••.:'..---•,..,,-•,,,5,1.-,,.'•:, 7 ,.‘.;,...,..--,,‘.-4,,-\'•-.',,z,/;•,,-; ,....;.,., Ai•i:,1 i, ,.;-r,„.1L---4..„:_.,.`71,.....=-r;-. .:-.,:...r••--.1', ..:.-_....,.:....:,...„J:.,.o,,-.,,-...,,,..,.,..., — 4:$ — --..-,--,...,/,•'•1' (0,4 ? 4 — , ). • ,.. ':•. ...; , „;- •• ,---...... i ••-. , ...1 , w• ••• -, ..:41. .., , ---..„„,- r„.,:•,...._„----•.---------\\ •• • .., •--..., . •..• ., .....,./ ,,,,i ,,, ?—",...- (..."... -., -.....!„,..!1'..1 ',.,,,,,,‘.. ..-.-- .,; •t •,;.,,...--- . t‘, ‘;t1\ It.\ li: ,,.:: :- '''',. ',..' ''.7'.'" ,f,:''....--' -'''---.'`‘'" / ' 1 %4'';‘,2...- : • • ' VI.- -r4 , ,, .T. ,„/., _ ;,ir...1 ,„ T. ;,, p 4, ,5tr 7,,, •• 1 L ' 'I' ,,,, •-" , . p , ,,,,, V: •K '':' ../ ,,i" , i f".i.,..C...; ,.."' t...,,1/ , ..... . i'A. ''''f'`,:,:f,'; '....k r''•,' ' ,'..', C;'' r ' ,/;''''''''''• 'C,•'w'i-s" ' / .1 I 1"i,•1',.:j1 ' r",/, • V ' •••''': „ '7'''',:i,. ,-.'„ !C. ',`- , 'I'. .4. , .1-4, ' :'•' ',• 4 '4 • 1 11 V, ,f,,,'"/ '",, '''•''`. 7/ ' , f ''',' ‘:;";54'...,,...' ,..,....,'' 1!„,t', 1 p-.7,,,„...,,, ,,,,,,1 i\ ., • .,,i,I ‘,‘, ,.-1.*„... -...: f.,.j. .•"'ir,,,:ri.i.f,7.4-•<, tk t 44,,"":7;•-.. ,,,,. t '',,k, 1.; :7j-4;y•,i/ ,...:.,,, , •,,;, i , f.`*," ' K,N , ,' ',.•,-,. - - - „ :r 1 .' c ' I 1..•. e't - / ' I, - -----, ;,-., • !.1 --:-.,-- - ‘..;,,,* ;-,, -;• - - ..„.. , ',,,,,, ,,-.(-;..,."..,i; i''',;:fli., 1.i.,;/-'1.. .."" . .4i 1-,v,', .11 • • P•;-,-.. Zr': =-r•-4.3.- .• , ;•...5,--1. ,. ..J.., . ,, ,, , \ ,-• • I . f'.'''.';'-' 11„,/,' .,,r/ fir . r ' ',,.• .,•t...--; ,'"-'•.:,,rt. ,r--..,i,,,,,.f>\.c,,,. •:, . ',,,N., 'IL„.!::Q,,..„).• ...:1•.,r / tl ; a 1 ,.- , -•....,,,,,. ,,/,....L.,.„Y'-',,,, --'.:‘,.•--.----... .:-zsk , ',-' ii-,,..-:,.,i....../; ../f/ ..i -;, . ii i ';',' liA '' \ A .-4 •, 1 '..-- ,#, — ,[ 1,, , ,,,-,,,,,, }• ,,,4- k. ' t,1 Iii . -,•.. , \ •,.„z i \ , ,,, , , ,) ,1-- ..›, - ,•;, ./,,,,,..•,' "A'•-•.......y /....„,,;;:f.,,..,,' ,.. i [ /.2,..-.,,,,_,..!,,,,-2, c 1 ,[...,,.'_>;,;;..,,,,...•- ' , \'''' ‘ ------.'''''',,•"1,'1;.?'-„,/: 2' iH' ' \\ . 1;:t1' \'''‘ '..f...• "•-•,‘6,;'k-1-,,,,....,3' , ,,,,;.''' i.'-'1‘ ./ '''''''-'4'1'4',,i-2 '''.-''' "1.--'-'="J.k• /="'• ' ‹,,-.:,1,'fr' 11\ 1.11111.".41:- ' .4' - .‘ b , '\V / ''' ..''---‘,...x ,,.. r )---,....., ....r ..,-..---- ..,,- ,,,,-- .,, , -.1.,-. -,i, • -- , !,-., 1.7:1,,,, -1,,, 1 ), .."tL/4?,-; <;4 . SC" Ic 1, . "-',- r '. - 4•!.: ! - ' .-- '..,,,,_,P. r""lv % •,,,,„ te,1- 1 . ' 'i\-'!''-',,,,,,',:;,f 4' 1-'•:,-- •. V 11 ! --- , -.11„,p-,1 t-. .(.. rr`t-s",-...t. _.--/'•71,•:','' ,, ,‘ .. , .. 1 . 11 ,lik! j„ T...'^..,11:LI,:•CLLi 4f-kFi.r://, '" \r•• ' 1 'i '/el': ' 11 ' A , ,... o 1, , , 1,--2,;,,,....---- -,•,,,, . • te. .....' '‘ , 1: I, iti,--6,...,;„1 L- ,97/ .,,,':,' 0. \ , .,t..„,,..; „,,, !,„....«.•...."*-- t 141, i . .'' '' 'k 1,1 .• '•;• ', -f ,i,,_ ,:0,\\,,,&, ;1\tk: .: :4 •., 1. ''11,,,i1, I''.‘ii;1 t . I'. ‘,,• i•:„..:-_ ,../xi" 1!,,,,,Xi, 1 ' '1,4 %,-..1, -,2„,.•C:,,,,,,,5/1:;- ,/,-.-V- ,. ' tl i * •1 \ i /' . ' ' 1 t 1 1 -••'''>•• r -ii.j.r:-. ,:- .•••: — • ' t, •• ve,,il• , i '''• '' 1\ i''A:,:l...,,V,•,,-;1'.'':.... • t '' ''' t 1 I „,'"-----.7.--s'A,\'' ' - "\\.',,`,\:,,-/;;":•:;;:' . '., , ,,',,,,,..;1 1 il• 7 ‘A . %',N.:;:.7.-•,,,,:,,” ,_ '.„,'..: ,,,,,,„.:it.,.,1,:;,.; , ,Sr 1 \I Tei • ; '.1". ';'''- ''''''• 1 'If ,vd •,4- A la ::,,f..--- ./.,-...,1 17, ,• ...1,- r`.4.,i k. ::,. `;,,:, •<.' ...,,,t, ,,.,,„-„,, , , ,,.4 24, ,i', niiill_, ,,.,. ,iii ....,, ,,,,,,, „ f';7'N' '''% '`, N-4r .4,,.‘.•! ' ' . ' ,, , ,11 0 - , ,' '-'', ' :.,:,".,-,'',.*.i, . .:' • . " . ... , '''it!- • -' ti ., ,. ' - -`';';''''\'' ••••• 1- '''.4 -e.: '1' -' - - "- - " i \''‘,,.\•,,.').,,'..,';ccV'''4".'0'„,,.>',.„4...6..<,*:.-.4\•...,'\,,l,„,*-'':'S',",„N<''.•''•-.'t,4,',r'.11,/7/,e,'..\'-'''i.;‘',5''.'.`•>"*-."-,,,,4,.--/'3'...'„'.-•„,--•,-•'",'-%N-'.0',''.\:-%A'•i•/-i.,';7,•;...';,.,-\ \.-,.,.'.„\.„....e..:i-,..:s:„:\'.4A.'t••,,',,"`,''xa.‘,,.\',„•,\,:."-,..,,:\a,',,.....,-',,.,,,,k','..,f,'\',.,,''-'...:•.•..,,'•,1 7,N,'.''t','7'I;,L 1•,'',',,'.'),',•..,.'f,„•-'''`='‘..'1!",'f;:• ,4'f'\l'',''e 5 6..'), '4-,i31;.,!,f,'•.;,,c)',,,,,' ,..:-',:e...-..„,'",'..'..:;A''''''",....'',Ia,!e-'i,.-,,.•-••'.-'',-•,'- ,..',"' ',..:• 7;4 1O S , r .,."- ;‘i,,,t-'•i".,:.,•'1l, 1ii,,.l f'2'-.•:,,' '0..,1,,'•,A'i I I .:,1 .,,,,, ,/ .,..,' ,,----, ,-'. 's\ /Vi----c.- s','..... '-,- .,,,`,,, -- ' ' --,..,..'`,`• -,--, i, -",-",'.'--,-! .1, ..-.'': ;').../.t" .. - '4 ';''...; '''''.''''\>‘ ...'' '. .....- - .. ""4- $1;.,•„../i,.;•• - ,Z.r.,; r. .,if.:",-...."2, ,,-"Ct-.4 , ' - f. .,"• ' ' ')'' -. 1 1 ...,..--........:-.,:::-.711*=.....1 ...-', -. ,,,-71 -,- :.,--',-',. t— ''''' ' ' l'''''' ' '''.• 's-1 4 1 ( r.-..- -: --r L:.--zti.4".:". :-L4':-;•----. *:;::-_,, 7: ,- ,r1 -,i 1'1...1'i -.'t -- - -----m-----rV:7,---1•• -"-•----, l• : ‘-.' ,ille •,''. 1, '''1` r•r'ir'•1 i----";I 1‘..--r.,. . 1 ' •,'-'...',. • :.,...,....4/) 1 I I i *i 4, ! 1 , ••• •-1, ,, • ' ; 1 1 ; 1 [..• , ; ,i/ / .:41 - }„ ,„ ,,...—, .••o , •I,2W 1: i ,I : -- 71' 1 --I •; ';:. , 4 tri:k-fif ',_ • 17 .„, --4,•--: 'i : 1 1 4. . i• ,, I 1 , , ,, ; . . i, I, I . ' ) L t r. • '-' . Li' I I - L,!!--,,.. ,,.., / !... -' 4i„).'Lb !..,.1 ! '''••6 r t, :7 1-^-1-.- -t----, ,,:i: r•-•r-il.,, ,'- - - ""! '...j 1 „.#„,.... ‘...'... '.W4-4.7.-, , `;'`'s -•'`.*:-'.-- ...i -:':Fr.f.F.aF'..,.-7.,,,::,,••• , ,-;,,,---Irtr,r-4--'4,,,,*- - • . 1 ,......... - " " " - " " SPRING EQUINOX SHADOW - - - •„.16- " ,:-,,, *.' \-,,-1 -, ' ,ee'r,,•'`,- 'A',,\'', -<c; .-, '‘'‘q,s*,?°'‘,-,..,‘ V.;77,'"':,./,A''14:',:'17,---\-i--,k,,':.'•-•// c'Z'f^J'il 1,,\\,-,''l `',.-:: `:e -;I:• ''''',".' ' MARCH 21 12:00 PM ','4.'4,''^) ', - , );' ,:lt.,V. \,,'•'-'' ' \ - ' •::.,"‹ ,-••' ''',;'le'...,".:-\,• ,.,., 1..-t.,•-"I.T:r'j""),:--1/. i Z''':,,o 1\.\;'47 ) .0' ,'Y ' p. . c ..-•,,,rik/- / ,:•• / - ," ..•,\ ,/ .c. •,‘‘Q.c..., .,„\,,...?,,-- : e '..J.1.._:,-. st 4. 'v 4-4, ',••4 ,,., ,_. „, .•,S ) - ,., , , ,,,,„, •:,,,, 4,„:.7..,/,,,=.,ot ‘,..k,; „..: ) /...,,,, , s -' ,,:eV 4.„.„.-'4,,s,\\-;Ss,7,i3.--,,,,, ,1-4-,04.'. ),,,N.,,,.--z.' ')'-„/,-,.---?- -\.,/ ,, Y. c.' ‘,"--- ,, -,.....-.. -,,, .'; •,,,,,. . , , . ,•,. %.r,/.).1:/- ,,,,,,,;?-7:,'N. -,\•;„;,,-.\7,...\„..,,,.. 1.,,,J,L.:7.,--,,,,:\ :-.3,,,....;,--..., , ri.„-\,,i l',,•,s,e,. , ,,..-,,i, , , .., ,,,,, / if:' 7.\\4544',. /' . ' ,.,-,.,?;-- 4/./..- '-,•\.‘- \,,---).. -r„ Tr''', i ''t-tr.-7,',., ••''. .•-('' *...-'0 '''S 'te '', .'/. '''''' '', \ '•\,, '''\?-/ ,- z ---,„, .,>,',.• /,, ,e, --,,,k,,,,- ,.....4_,,,,,,_t2,,--1,,,,_......„.-c,-1, ;?,: (, 1/ .)1 ,,,, .,)•, ,, ,,,, 1,,,......„ ` ',tf..‘';'",''';,'‘''-''/,7;,<'.:";\,,,/,7.;47,--'-.•„\•\,,\C.','.\\'''%,'4'i-s-,,„‘-,, .„-;',„-/-.'.‘ '',.V'-,,,..-,-f;.,;-•.:A,,,,,,,,,,/,,,,,q.,,',-•,,'/,,,,„*,4A' ,s„:,• / , /i / .,?::..,.'0 •-, •N.',-,,,,,Ks,,-.--,,..-..•,,..,.-,\.,:i-A-:„,,,4,-,:',-'-;4'1::1--:"-i-,'s?"f.r1....4....-.'4;,--•.`.•,•'..'.:',e t:--,----z,,,7,F—),-"---r1 42.t.•L.s"-,•-,.k.4-, 1!-.).,"/,"'",.'..,-,,‘,-,",,,,.,,'• ',,°.“"4,`\s„..,,`,•.' •,„/. •, ‘ ,. - -;,,, r,„:" ,,,,,,' ,/4,•. \-.. .‘N-•-,, .,....p•....,,.. • „., ,.4 ..,,,, ., •„ --..-' ,.., ^,-'- •-•,,,.,,. -‘:-r ‘i •.' :441"-':,-,-;•' )2:1/4).<\ ,>`\\‘`••\'s\s•,;••.;''''''';41'1':/ 4i••' '. .""' '''"\‘\' '''s,-\--::r" s.'''','''s---;:f."--dti "'"-- • . ,.• ..„.. --- ...., •- •_ ,....,,, - • —• • , , • -, ,•+•• . --',•,-, '4%4. s......<:: .'<./.,,,/,;/> 4.‘ ,...:,,,,"; 04:- ,„;.-•-i -•,,,,...,.,, __!-•;.:_<,,,,,._,?-,,,,,__.,/,, ,..2.,„•,,,•-,-•••-• . • :„. ,• ,.,, ',,, ,.. ,- , .,•,• 11 .. ,„„....••• -•'••,'4.•.,,,A-'f'.-', ...\\‘'-',./ ,Ayi•: . :,,/ ,,,,,-. ,iti,,• .,•/.-• --,..,..„„,, -.-.,,,,,„„.... .. ,___„,..„..„-,„,,,,i,,,--,A.,..,•.,:y 1.,:r ,,,•,,-* •1 — 'k ,.,-,,-- --;-%1' ,ti4P" ',sc....„".v_,__4:%_:.,:,',.,„_,.;,,.. .., /, „ ,,,,, _ \,,,, . ;,..,- •-.?" -,,-‘,/ --Y-: ;." -,- ;:"'34 ‘.','• ,,,,(, ' '-,.‘, r. ..-r .AA'''‘, (,.,,; A'-;:. / ' ' '''•*<,..)„.., '::7 • ••7••• , ''' ‘e..,'L,A•••. / , „ , s:••. „.' • ; ''<' •77 , .• , 7 .,. .{.- NI"'S".Cs.L..,-*,„ , l'°••••”7-e••,°' ''4'a.,••,,,4`.',,,- .„,..,,-.•,,---71` ;',;-,r7,-, ,•• ,0 \,,,,`\'-';:' •..vi ,- 1 -,-.7 -. -, - i,,,,, ,; '.> ., • `, ' \ ;': '''.., • s'-;P-4;cif I! i ,•4". 4,..„1: ,,=',/i;',-'''''''', ''''' , ,,4,;','" , ,,,..4. •,-„,„...-„,.„,--,.r.r.,..„.;„,,,.,;.:-,,ef--,., ... :7,2,;-,,-. •.5' -,,...; .,../ ,,,;,...:,,,,, ,,••..„,, ,.7. -....,,, • .., ,, rik*4 <49 ,r-li ,. F v Z. ,,-Q.„J,,., ' efr •:., '','*--t.„-.„!-- q, '-'1---,:-, ( :;,-rr;-. ----"/ %„,' ,-''' , , ' ,,- s'' .',- „.! ' ' -„-- Aell' . •P-1 '-' ...-ii.4 , II:, 1:1 1 it. ,/ ''''''' C",' ; ,'-. -/Ifiiii-1 •'''; „4--,` .; ,-1 ." '- . ,,,,, ':.:,, /,, , IP -'''' • ; I !. , "'.. c .......,471,...... .. ..........- . i ' . . . - ._ ...' ' ',' ' , ,LpI-..•.,4P,,r,r,y.!L,e0--,,_-t"__.-_1_-__-__2..7.:,.]4.„..:.--'.;i..'.)1-._;...--i;,';11•..?'A•',.'IL,:.-",.-sic,.1•'i.,/.--;'iIi•t,Pthi i •I11' fl'114.'r..4;.' ';;/, -463,,T;..A:,.:•Ar"i-k\'',i,>,•;..,.,.'--'',7,1I7.i1„i..\.;''.1-'- s-,/,"/,,,,", ",......-"'m- --,-.•-, . ,' • •'• 4,c,e lit,--,-..\.*.:k„_,!-;:.,',..-,,.7.:,,..-,,,•-p,,',\'_'\'-.':-x'.'-,,.'S.-..\\>.`•.,;X-_,,.u.?r,,_`..••.•.....,...i.Y.,‘‘.?.;-,_•-,j,V1-,,-t,,,-7_,:-s s,0,_‘,,1-__1\'.i.•1-,_-,.:S._.r..:}i,•,.,.:,.„..,,7,,,,.".:.,;:_•1..,!.t.,.-F-,.-"1.1,''„,1'c.s'4,.-%,-_•-,,L-,.,1;,-•::-'-,,-,I;-,1,.,,'-:':r'',-;':'.-;,-e."1:1;„//,',T,,‘^,:•'-:r'').'..',4''^,:../1„!-''‘.-,-'z,',"-".'.',.•',...'-',,.•,,,'"-,.,'‘4-•.• 1„, -'-,',"••..,.,,.c.I'e.„'.'.::,'...'=,,_T-:;,,i.:1-14.7-,.-..-:-.1•')-,I --'- .,,-;.•\,.‘,/.'•'''.'''' • tcc.-....7.: ii-s;1 i ---- . ',i;1,i'• ri': :' !'' ,i ... • fp_ I i '--' .1: '1 ,,,,...,.., ,<••••••,,...- .,„:„. -,- ---i---zi,-,77-":-.7-17F4 '------ ---. - , „ -...........,..---7„7:-.....- ---f-:-........, 1. .:-.:\ ...„4.-; •...... __-- -..,,,:...-- .....,„A _ .,,,,, ;, ... ....... ,,,,,,,,,.,,,,,,,„ .......-c,,,„....._ .....--....;;;;_.............,:- .4,.:,,....„:". ‘t i:'.' ..---- *;-----"--:'12:: 1 11 il f- ..'• ,7,::',” :, -., , -4, • --- , „, ...„;^,11x,-- .,...-,------m- I.,,,,, . ,, ,,, YV,ti-;---- I'D , i i -,i4 -ii ' ,,,„-,--:•;:---:" -,,,,',,'7-7,, :,,,44, -•,,, •*,&L,,,... 1:., , ssik• ,',,f4 .-Nse48- -- - •, ,--, _L --- '. ‘,,-,••2';'!,..-.:-;4'.: ,,-;',/,,,t,,),Y,'4,,".,..0 "4•"."" . ...`4•4:\ ' ',''1!'"- .4!..' 12_3: X.-et:3 '411---•-' --`1! 1._..,4----" •••,.< .,„ • ..-, ./.t- .., ....,..„ ,, .1 . vt".4`8,:i4-',• •,-'r''/ ' _ -. • fo-------..: pz,.... .... ;.,.• tli (..)....-,< ,•-0,.. ,," bi ..---,-- -'-' ------ ; ' . .Vel '•'• „.„....--. 1 'LI •,•,,.,,::,D- ..., ''''' ''''. '. ''' 111 V.s 11, --. ••• ., - ',..', F.7.,,. 41.• !.0 1 •• , . ,<. . l'.• 3 1 ---, ..-irqo •. . t.,-i2.,-,,. ......, ,- -. .t.„--.--::41.--1...,. „,. ....-..,-;;;,•;,.....-a:.,-,'•-•,,-.„.;7.,,-- ......,.....--.....-r- . it;.°;.....;••-<-;:r4.57,-----„,„;.,,,,......:> ,, 4..""' :• i 1 it «,,,,,,:,,,, ,,:.,:,....1 ;,. ,..,,,,,,.., ( 't ',77.--V. ', '.-. rr:'-'''''' i .4. - \'si,„‘N.,%,'N‘'\,,....\‘',;‘.SMIL '''''''' '''''''‘. ... ,W"'i'''''' ' 'N, ‘,,,, ' ',5,..-/-• , 1 ‘,„ . , • 1--1 1") -•-!, i / 1.)•• , , : 1. . Kr) 1 •1.,i 1 1,:i '• :1'-' ‘-2dV— -----‘.1 i ••1<;•.• ii,L 1;21,4 ..:,• ,--..i c 1,:: ,L , , - /---""-:;.);,,-,• n-, :; t_l__-, _ __-, ,------ ' ' I. 'I''',:-'---.:;-',.!‘'i, -1 44---, \':',,,,,,N, r. :-.:= --1 61,='• . 4. ti I'll. 1 'i..'''. '--:".„----:-; „.:..t.......7-- -...,..._;r1,-:::,-,,.L-1-_-7--::-.49----.1-',,_41:„.;:........ -:„.:.,--;„-.7. ,....„...„1 -11„,„„or i !,1„;.,.,•,,,,-,..----vi.:-:--1-„,-----,,..........—......„..,. 4,0_.,_......J c.:(.,2 •.,:.....-,-,, ,',,,, • • 1---N - 14,7, •••• ' ...../ ----"-- )4-,1!_--7"-',,,-1---...-- -;--77::''-''-- -- L____ ,--:::::_-1,-----2-- 4%___,3,...;,'D - :-`•3•„•--, 1 , I'-,:•: -.1.;%t -..i , _ _ 14,4 II .°.I: • • f?, ,,o-, .i.tzT.:...n..:zm:,,,,,,....,....::,__: , ... _____,...,,r.„_, , .. „,.,-„,...1.m.„-,--,-.Tirr'''' i.r., ,,1::::-- __...„....:-...._......-7. . _ ,. --4,-----.::-•;:---,--- ,T-,T'-,1:..1-: ..-•,.:---'-:--.- ----r„:-.--,,..v.:-xr,-,,..-. :-. '-. ' i (.7..'—'ril. lil • ,„ • , ..,,..;,„_.-=, ----r,.,,, _ _,,,,,,,,,,;„_..:: ... , I:--- ''''' i - 1 ' * ''''' ,,,,,,--•- ....:..--:„:;,2-7.:,!... L...:11...._)„---.:--',-4::,;-:2---;.'1, k .• , ,..- _,.. It. 11 ... -0,4 44 ..',1 IA -,...,''''.• .1 ' ' '"""''''''.'".----. '.."---' - .• . . -'"" ',..**...,.... --'''''-'.1c:.:irvf-41 f,1.1"'“;111,71.M.J'' ! `'::t' ,,-.:4•2.,.....L.„ -;....-_,J 1 '.• -r_...._ ,, .., ,L,-°' t-,-,= ,tv ..,„:„...•.}.1.„,z,,,,- ,_,....,....-------- - • - ....,-.----•-•____,..:..--44------„;,N 4,...... i,,4-4Y).1..4-I'.. •.• ' . ,. ., i t1.1 .s, \ ". .„•.,„.4:,•4-4.".• 4,;', '14' --":"-:---.-- - r-...: ,,,,,t liq'Y,•:''t,,,.,- PACIFIC CITY - Huntington Beach, CA, -- -- - - -- , , -- - - - • SPRING EQUINOX SHADOW '• 'A' ,-- :".,,, 1 ' •' ,---1 - " /' ',, ' MARCH 21,..•- '' - '..-"'(-1'r ."'''''''",,'S.el.."-,.'7.!.'"I'''" '',/;-.-,:''•--'-'••••:4--4', '-•; ''••:''//.(•-/' ;;:- i. „, '2‘„: 1' -:;„ - -', W., ,-,.`-/4'. -- \ ' • . .44*s. -.' * .. '5-'4 ' " ••,''\ '-`-.'' '-//' ••,/,'''-4' 1 •---!--" ". • * i l',•''' ''',',(: 4. " -'''.----:- - • '-..,•-• 3:00 PM - -V.-- - • -=, ', '-- - . . ,„ ,. . ' , -,.•,;-..\ , 4.,; - 7,----' „.v -- i ''''..:,i•& 1 ' ' •-••-•-- '' '''. 4,c •••• . ..,:.,N, . - ' , - lo .,..•••. • • •'-' ,‘*;.,'" •,.,.'S".,----\ \ i,--,---1--.\--,'''',,-',2-• ,-' ..:- '---,..' ;,-, ',- '' I..., - - • c' , ', ' .!1:--,;., ;:r..,;: ,.,72 .,\-feM.L4,_;!--_, „ '' 40 . .,. " lit' 644 ' , ' , \...,..47,, ,%.,,' ,,, 4,\,,-\,,,-7M-..‘,, ^.;,-,;--k.r,' ''' ,- F''''Fr 1 ' -.'j' ..','',./ :,. C44•-' . ' • s. . . \'''':(.1 .' '''r'. ''S41'''' ,,,,,-:'aA+.4\-;::::1'.?,--L.:1.'-j,,IV‘.'t..- '1'1 '", '''''''\4f ,..1, : , ,' , ''',....,--' .• „ ,.. ,., %',,, ,%-, ••••-,.. ,, , ,.. ' /'/',„„;,,/ '`''"-J.<'--L..e-,..• ' ..1"-,!•-• , -1'7.;.-:'''' , - 't c_f 4i% , , ,: :',•,,, , , °. . • , -'5-',., 4,?:;;:-; „ / ' -S„,•,,,,,,,-\:-' -)-:--,f--'-i,J.,_,4 .2%i•-• `•:-.,i_.‘ ,...;''', ,r,i ' , , ,„ , , , • .,-,,‹; ' ' •' '' ,,;,,,, --:4-'-t,..''‘4J";....:, ..) ----ie•ti-:. j-,-'., tt.."- ''.; ' J , -ir„ '• •?-:-,-.';'.'''' ' 42' \\„., •4.,'\,,,,-—`;:•,,',„„,!,-/..;.7-r-"I ...t.!„1..-f-- — ' ' z '' -'.. ' . *'' 6. , s,,', ^ •'' ' .0 . . % ,v4,4:,,Z,'' ,,' ,; .. / .'',....,;;;:,. ' \ \/<4-' ,''' ' ''.5':‘..\\ ‘4, '',/-',,,,)..[X/`'' ,.. ' '',%-'"\1,:fa'.'''.'1'''.:";!---,3'4.2; • •-..- '''.‹'.,' A ' '`''..,• ,'\\\'',' \,•',• ';',/,,,, .e " , .....,_.,„ .... ___,--;..., .,‘,4-,s; ,..„(..., „7, ..,, ;••‘.,>', ,;,/,? ' ,... , f - ''''s '''',‘,-- ,•.;,0,---..4;:- ,,,,,•:-./ ,''-',.'",-,,,,,,;-//:- . , ,"".,17,-V.-Tkl-,:.7-'-`---t-"e:,3 .. .4-4..,1-,.',../ ''.\ -' -.- ''‘- -,-).--',\- 1'1,,,..., -,-----,,.. ''-,:-4,;.,,... L'-:_t___.;;-°--.-•.'",-'..;-",,,,:,/.0-',,' ' ,, - -- • , w, . iti -',:.,,,-1,,,, . ,,...._ _p,,,......-7,- ,,%;,,, ,• , 1 ' • ,, -,A.,,-. . --''.N.'*, ,-----, . -1-1,-...-.. '•:‘,., ,,-- , -',. ' ---5 , - ,.. - . - •,_,. -- „.: ‘,, 4 • a 041‘ , ', ' ' 'S'''''''\''; ';'`,.:...7 f...''?::'''',5/-t:!:,:•.;'-4.:' -1;-:-'3:f:—.::: 5. ';'. ci;; \.,.,, '.•:•,:, ''4‘'.;-.').' ' ' '-':\-\- # i''' ; 'r r 1' 2' • - k , ••'t,1 •-.1,.., 0., 1 1 f ,„40,' • . , ": . ,X\c-...k:—,,--,,?'---,,-"r .„1„,-,,,,'.., ,-, -,-„(1,,,,,,, ,,.. .„,-; —_, ,,,I. :,, . ,-,........ .,, .., ,,,,,,_...,,,,. -,-,....,..., ,,— ,,„•,. , .„...,,,„ . ---- -- ------, \ . • • ,.: %,\,,„.\,:::,,,-,,,T2i,' ,, -.=-..A---,c_.c.: ---q.::::, — :. lA •,,- - ,,, - /./.._ — .- ,.,,.. \. • ', - ,,, - 7-1,,,,,,,;,1:''',-;-7-1, '•!'!., -;...,. -4.----, ' ,•„.,.. -,--, . — , . f , 9 '' " . „ „ . i ,. -,, . , •• s-',,,:;.!:.,c,'.-.!, '2 ''-,..-i--!,'"; ‘.,-•'-_ ,jf. •:.,, _.t.: •_,,, il 11'!Ii 4. , 1.-7,:' ''. -' '• ':, •' ' 'Xk,N,.,-,-.. ';''''' -.>. •..--'" '‘. - - .., - :::-... L--1:, -. , ,, •, Oa:, •-.::: r..._1 i ., .4 ..ik: ' 14.1-‘ Li ,,,„z„.„,:, ........„.,,., ,„:,......_,,,.,_.:.,,...,,......_,......_ ,,/• , lc- __J • 1:II: t••••'' j r', ' "4-„".. '.-•,,,,-_,,,,:.;'-'7,-, 4?---• „„ • -- --, ,%, ,------ --------- ,1:1,: j'l • '5•'-'-'--//'---"'''''''7C-. '';`...--..- :i7ii----4.47-4r'''';'''!''Vir :.'"'',7-' __,' * -4111. q ,‘ . i ..„..--" , .„ _„.„,, '... ' \f„,.-5•!--* **5'''."' ---- , ..• . ''''.,'N. t.4 V:----t't, '' l• , ' -;-' ...:eV: " ''.----.-'•.• ,•1'\\A.%'''.tf--..• ,•:4_*,,,, , ,,,i ,.ir4z=44-/ .' --, - -;,„„;.--,-..,,m'm \,_ 1- 't ,,''''' 1 7'..-t=1:4=' '-4.--' --TT •-•,- , T• , i . • _ *V----7; P5.)-37'77 r?;'11 11 . ,,,,,'• ,,, ‘' '' '.' i. , .,..-,. ' •,,., .t„ , _ - '„..°•,. L,:.04., '1' ,i, '1.,-----iL....,---„:.,-,-------; 11.c,---.:::,..-.7,v,-,--„----,,s,,,,' , ,,. „ ,- . \ • ., ' N\::',', 0,, ,it!_ ..N.-..,,, .,-. !, ,,-,-... i.,ii il...,---stt.- 1,...\,..\ .: ,--,,, \,..) ‘‘. - , .--- , i:' , ...,-„. • , ., - .. . , ,, .1;- ,• '11 -,-5--,' „I • • *,--- ,,,N., '• - ---, ilii: pi /I' -- 'N\ o. ,:,„ im, ,.. -- , ,,, ,i•-,„ , . , f........ii,-%1-..'•\:'v , 1 tl“ lli „ :1 ';'*Ik-•= . N••-•.7--li'- ,4 t ,,,,,,„.,--/ i . 1 1,..., li: 4 -i' ' :--';--;-1 ----• --,---!..,4,,,-.,-...:-..1. :„...„.._..,.... ..,.....!.. . - ,- •.,, l •..,....„,.:,_--. t 4\ - ..•),. ,-L-.J-.1,-'•,,-...--•.'-_-,--,,,,,-,•2-5 -.--',.4.--4i,-,",'',''--1-„--,--,-,--.:--:-:--::,.---=.--7-;.-::-:-,.-....'_,„-,1_-,—._..---_-----•—.-..•:....-..,4.....,_.„..:.......-..__..-!_..-,...-:-_:,-2:-7,,„,2,,,,_,7---,..--.,—,.„;:.-,•„.7.„..,-:....,t......-.,.,_--- ._.------,---r.-,-.-.1----•- .-,. -- "':-....-,.-21.----J_--::•---_;.:_:.:.:------- , - i 1 • •, , ,..,_......;:.,_r;,,...7.. .„_,,,,,___ .„.... _--- ;Ls;i-.,.;ir,s ",;:- ai ',. • r )j CO ..•• ' . ' .... , _....-,,. . - .... - me,.,-;,--,;---„7°,:g.C7:37 ..-r-:'';•7- ',,_.,k----4-7.47- ,i;r 11." y 'ri. V''' -''-'''''---k :-•• • kt„-i'; t".1--- -A. '-'-:;:', .-‘,.'t ---1,'",, ---,--—**''''' ''''''x''- - -:- -:' ---- ,--'''' -1-;,-,-;.,-------'"•;,'tt-7--"" - _---------5-L'.';97r^""•:--i--'_;,---,:i4.4-- -`'''.1-0517 1' '4 ,./ , 1 ,,..,,,,.:., , ."-,:.;1 ;••'• •"--•""-----'2,‘..!.."--7'.'"'".f!.1 1 • r.., ._. ..,,,,,,,„;,,,,_. .:•„,„",. ,',, ...;.,,,,..,,,,,,,;-.;;;,,-..1 ---;77-7---- -7-2".:::.-,..%---...,--.;•;•-;---------.7.°A.".'•,.r'''' ' „-----;---_ .-.-- ' ::''' - '' ' ' , . =, - ji1,---,i-j-,1 J. -. t...""- r• PACIFIC CITY - Huntington Beach, CA FALL EQUINOX SHADOW SEPTEMBER 21 ..› trof' ,„ >,... ., / ., 4 -,i' ' k ' rk, • ',, ,--- 900 AM 4-o. - •., •:-/ ,7,,,,,,,-, ;•`-'0,,-r.\„',.. -,. )„, -,•-).:"" ;,. .,,,, -:•'''•-,J ..> 1, ..• ''., .- r. 4.' '•,,,-•• ,••/' • ''''''..X` •"Z - '',,.‘,,,,\,\'''N‘n 7 1,,' • ,-..„--, '•'"- C ,2,,, '••, • ,,,,, 2,,,,, ,.:„,4, ,. ,... • , .,e -.. ' ' ', 44'-',., '... '. , s: "\:,,,,<''/;%%.7/ ' ' '''...‘\,-...`-.7,1....\\- -.<,,r Li'''...--i'4: -1..,i-,...';'. '''','/ ;'• '4,‘ ' ' . ' t. - ' `...! 'Z. "!• ''' , / .,•!,••!" •...;••// !\"••;•.Z;!--, ,./ ' •-•-,••-•, .. `,--,-:-. , / ,?---•„,"---it.:',- ,-- , .' '1 -, / -l'....,•, .•••.\ •.,,';•-,--,r-• \-z---4; •--: -f-----LI — - - s '41>:•-•0 -'' '7°`' :".,,` ,-' ,- 4-:.N. --,i,--.._,4':-.,„ 4:. ;.!-----;,--, ( ,,r-F2:--, 7, 4- „.,,,, .• ...0'''' '.,„ , ,'S./.'-,•;;;; /' . ''IN\ '1'.'''.:(--. lt.J.- ...,---1',:-..; '''! '-4..' '' ' „ .,„, ,- ,. ,..../1;"`,*`. . ,. ' •4.' ,. ' '`..,..\'',---.1 y\ % ‘r'' '' '''' ,"---• ' '' - ' ... 4. 07 .''''„....2 ,:,'.. ' ''.4t.( .. , '".,, ‘ • ,./A' ' , ' Z‘:.. ' L.. .,,,..'-', 1'',..q.,'''' '.: sl .-1'. *."/.. ''\ . ' ' \ „,' . il _ ':•, ' ", s :'.; ' ..' • - \"... , : .,. , ,., ‘V.;N,'":"1,-;-,,'"' -.. .-"---, ,...,' _ ,,, ' , • ' 6. * -, .:4, .21' ' , '' - ,' ',..' ',',..\-. ?.., -:., -.J•----..-'-, \---...• ' "" • ''''' ?,,'''.',- ',--„ ..g,),:r,/: ,- „ , ,,,, \•,..q.,. ,T.t. ', t!'-',--.- .-,- , , - .. , g ., , •-,› ( .<. ' .,-). ,.- ,...,..,,,,;-.:>,..•.', ,,,,,,,tx Oe,/:,, 4 / •• --4ssz)....- -, -.„. - .., _ *-• ''').4,.7:-7..„-..,;,„1:-(4..4., `r-'4. .:-' -,- •0.4-'\ /4.,' ,.. -,,"- ,,,..%'',- ' - ' 4-,-'-''? ‘i.. -„,-,,..i .;.,5„..„1 .2) '1°;,,,,,-4 ,444. v-t 4., ,,f-.-...p,"4 ; t.- ., ,-2'..,,,,,,,V,;‘,‘ ---,, •,..,-7. ,-- ,, --! .- - - .,,....8.,,. ''''---z4.--,&;.,-,1..-i4:,,,„„.44,,,_,:::„,0,147;144-,„,k.=4:--d,..„,4„„-- .).,.‘4Y ,.. . ...„, "'.4 , ,,, ,,% '''',•,.:;. 1;,!.),-Fr.-.),-,-7,- ' .4...„ ' ,,, .••• ' ':: :4A-i•,,,I :7, '''•,,,,,,\,„.1,, 3„, ,, ' ' I v,•.' ' ' ' !• t', ,..„, ',.,/,„ ,„/ „9.,• .1 0 ‘ ...Z.,•:......t. 1. ,,,,...„., „ ,„, _ .“!•••„!: .- *'• • ' ,‘..., , t!,!..,,N.',,,,,c,,L,,,-,' r.rxi . • ' 4' .,• - „ •' , •:if...2) .•'•i":•,:„.7.„4„,/I '1 „ , •40! !......;;•••‘,, 42_A.-7_74_, ., ;2:3- ,-) ., ';' .4 5 -. - • r , , • S- -14 Al' , .., ,.. , -......:''' .7,, ,fi . \, ,1,.-' '':,...:;-..,'''''`. '- i.,... ' '-. - 'br-, . - . „„ •• .. • 04141‘ 04,_...-1..).-. .,,,,,:•• ,i i .1 I i < „,e-- .„l'f'' :.!...`; 0 . ' '','' ' • , , '. - '''k,;...,H;',,,.7,1.1';',,,l'cP.:-.1i,,2_,,,i.,-,7,t-ts!---_. .1‘.`",,,•11:,(:i.,::.;,..,,,, -::,,, ,\'`''.., . • . -•, i.1,''' 1 i ' ' ;.0, •i^(1 - --il...i i ' 1 1 4k '"\'•!!,.'s. r.i''',...51`.! `,..• - '''--e'' ,...' ' !.. 4,P-4'i ', ;!..; 'i,,,''' '' i . , "*.lk , ,44-- , •,,N.:,,, --..„. ,„ :::,,,i__,r ; .,.....„1,,,:zp-, ,, :-.., ....„ , ,:-..,...,, . :::..,,,,, , , .,, _... ...., - _.__.....,,,,,..,'',..----,'"7"7".• .. • - . „ ..,.., _,,, •• , , •• , , .,„„---;‘,,,--.......„_ ,,' •,- ' .\\*" ..„......,i,..-,-..,.-1;',•-'',--; '''''' --•',.-) ''''';'' ;'117, ' :Pr- 1-1/::, •/Si- ,i, >, , , i ,, . ,,,•"" ,---..., sc' .„!,,,, ' ' . ',:.\,-,,...,0;`,..„::' %•••,'z•••4'-'•:: '''; ••••,-!:'•-• --1 '-/ ' 0,' , ,„ ••r••••s:',„ ",,,N\\:.•,,,I. ,..!. ,••• ;.--...-, 1,.... .. • „ , • •'?''', ' ,,,,,r,i.._,_•,..-,-7.:,,r,LI.34-.t.,,,,,,t,4';.' : ,: . , , , 7 \\\ ,„...•••••-.\: ' .• / - ''',,`„•.,•i,••1•,'..„.......:,::T'^:••!.-„•.;• .,-1,--t? ;....."') .• !, ,..,,'!-.,T.4:.••••••...!..1 ,., ,,• \, , , . • ,, . - „ - ••,„'", , ) ‘4- ' N, - 7.;,.--4i-',--':-4-1-,,?.: - .,. , .,4, , -- 4,-:-.-.,-.--,-,44 • ,-• • -7- 1 i t 4., ••••='!`F•=4.•1 n • •''''. • .1., '. .........,,, ,..:,..' '; i - --- I PI• ' " ' .i i: . ,•',• :, - -• e - ..4101, • :XX ''''. , / - .• , •••,. _ _.,,,,,, „.,,,.„_,.., , '.,\':'•.',,f:N.). ,o, • ..___,),..J__.1.7.,'''..'"=-?•'-t ,1 ;••••., -, .,-if,• \ ''',' ,,; • ;;,.....______.,...- i r ., , ,, ,, , 7- • ' ID:',',, . ..„ ., • .,4/d__ar::;z,-.,„.'•.--'4?-r4,----- \--' i,•, .. \ , ,, ' ,,,,...,, ....„,,7.,........-77,,,,,,&------, -- i . f_.....____I - • .,.. .,,.... .......„,4„.. , ! ., \i,,,::, •____:_...„,„---_,,,,,,,,:;_,..,; ,,,,,„2._„.....„..„... _..,_, ..:::::, ,,,,,,,.,-,f,,,,,,,,--,..,...„-...„.,—,..::.___.-4,...7:‘,„:',...,:f.r,„_„71_,L,._n..-----'..-17;-1:1„i .,,..;;;.:81:„.„:.,,,,,, SM.' M ''M '''''• \iji 1'-. ' ' V 'i i\t5f4t;4441 .•;.%5!.1.4.'.fi 1'..' ' i',,..••."'..''''''' ' .' ...., CY.':hf.-Y?::'7: ' .,::„,,.,,„..,'.,.,,,,,, .• ,,, ' '.; ''' ''' ,;'?:!.%1'''": k••.'''m'''. • -••-• •RM 11,'' , '.,1\ ' , • -•••••••••• ,„ oPolot,„,..._,-,,,, . .„,„.....,, ,,,,,,„,,,,,,,,,) .,,,„...,,rss, 17,. ,,„,ii -,,,-, ,,,,,,,,...... • •,k`..,„.;,.. ti !i. ! ti, •„: • •-`. !!v4 •.: ,•-•-• 2.-''',,-,, '2•%':• 'i: ' i ,----4,-----4.4,44,,,!r,„);,w0,4444.4.1.4,:,.., • - ,---4-4-44r.:7-.--„,,,,,,,,,,..4,-----,, ,,,,,;--... . 1 9 .;t I.-77! ; r-- ,,,,-.. 4,:-.4-- , , , ,, , „r, I,„j • :L-:• ° •....:.••••••q" 'ss\N ' -,,,,,,v,,,-...,,,,,...„,,.... • . ., . . „„ '''''':6..'V, , ' i '-..— ? : r,,t'' '1/4,iS70.7..a..\\t'N.Z;i4%.V ':::...' N., ,S' • / : , * -, i Vi ', 1,' , ; (t. ' jr:,..„ : ; l 1'W''' ‘‘. ..''.1 747''`.4 i;• ii: • . ' • , t•----1;x's..„,:' -,. -71 1 g 74 • •• ,.-- , „.• '" ' q t - ( „,,,,' 0 • • ',1.„P '; i,f— K.,, .24 ... .....,ti i •r •• , . ...,,. .1 ..,...... , 4.', .,. r--"0 ''H,,,,,,,,fr„.„,_. •,, ,..\\,,,...N,,,,,i' - „Lit-I,' . .( , . , = Oi .! --........ )./...-....,.. • , , 4 1 i .- . :' i . ', , ' _•.• OP' ‘ ..„(4-1.,-,.,P.1„..), is.• =I , , ------------4eW:-- , • ,-• -.,,ii. . \ - lt.ni -I ICL:. .).•,,,,-.7•-•• -`•:•/•.,,c.,, I .• . ' ,••• ,•,!, ,_„,,,,-,,,,,,.....:5 ,,,,,- •,, .......„.,-,.. • . ....„.„......, I ''."-___:-.....--..:i c, 11, , mot ... • ...,,,------,.. ..,,, - ... ...„,,,'... - ., 1 i :-1! ‘ , -.---- ,..., .,-f" •-• ---•.: 6'T'.' '''''''''''3o/im't': '''', . . • ,,,-,,,•„,-,..,77.,-77,7--'-`:;;", — - ' ` ^ __.------- -•:•:•;;C.Ii.°+'•-—,,,,-1'1,.,„-:1 411`,":". '. ' " '." ,._.......... :-‘7--T17-4**--- --. "1: ''''''''' , ,..i. ,y.:11.1.,---.0,•r1 „•;‘,...., ',..?--- .. ,...„ PACIFIC CITY - Hentirtgton each,B CA • ..:.74_ ,:._ - - - - - - , _ _ • _ - - ____ - - -- - , . FALL EQUINOX SHADOW SEPTEMBER 21 2,2) .. , """ .WF i\ :',' Y721.71-..'''i--,1,. .' ••,:''' ,`,'i"..---.1' fr° ',. ,' ' -1 1 ' ", , - ' - \ •- - .c. ,',.,,y/e- • , - ,-,- ' '. ,, PV.tr i':•,, ..' ,..,;• .. ,-.: ,.,„ ;, -,,. 1200 PM , Z ''''\' - :%-'"-- --':----' '- •,,--, - 14 : - f-- t - -:,,- ,-,x 1*-- c,, ' - \- ,• / ,.!...,1:4` , / '•'/ -,',.'-''.21. K,,,,/,..--:-N'',), ' --: 1',;---?-‘,:- :. -- ..- -;,'',ft 7.. A„ iii, --- i 4.' - :1;•., , \i...• i' e' •' ,0"- • , „,„3.-.-'''``,,i".--\•\'''', ir.4,"\,/- -1.--\ ' J5)..".-1.-: 7 i'i-,-. K ,:c-m. --• ,,' ‘---. ./.• .,:. „.. \ ,''',4',‘,.;--- ',. .--N-',A,,,. .,_:,_:,..s.: -,., / ,-, -,.•' ,-I'Tif.."''' : E.,i.' „:',4' / '-,t, , ' •,, ',./ . * 4/ ‘` 1-t . - „ k ,,,"?,,,"//,„!,,,,/ "i-•-4\, -- '''; '•':-•`-% i --V--•-'s- '-.,--`•-f,i '''''''i; -,- ' .-5";-'' •- ' '-: -' : " ••••' 4 f^',. \., \' '' • ' " 'Y ,',0 ••• "s • ::,/,' 7:::-...;,..;-' ••• ,'' ''',•-. '-',...\r:11. ‘-7-i-"if,:-.1--",'!"-.. (--v"---,---"r''''' •"." -if irif • • .•_, • ..-•--,' '''''`',;,,,''', •.7-''''‘. '.4f-..4 4- --=--:,7"---,1 ...1 - -:';'! -jr....'.,.-.. - , ', .:. . i.--- ' *.it,,,. .-:.:;.%,?/ •,,,:,; $t/.... ,, ".• ' ,,4...„›../4,- ," • rt, *-,,,.--,s,,'..,L., 7.i.,, 'c., `',••,•,...;--•'\.: -''-•--- 'IVY. • - , ; '''., • '..c ..-.‘',,,...:\ ‘‘,.. " ("" //,,,,-":,,,,..-0- ../ , ,- • ' ,...., r•-•-•\•.•Z„,',.ii,74.._-_,...).•..,:',„,,,i,!__,-' ; „'...,..,_j_,-',5 „.-7_.,2,,, ., ,, ,„ ... es„,,.... 2.,„5_,w.,.,,, ,, r;-,, ---;..rA ' ''/...; ;', ,S1''' 'X '',; ,;'.' '''''S '-'(:?:"/ "rt, \,,, ‘..--,-,,-, ,',.,4, '--'•-',,---' ‘4' . .''''''',‘‘.? ,,,-'1.;.,-'r„_ ..,L,:,:;,..:,--'..rs-•.c..!....- •:-•' r-.- ' ., ,,..„, 1''•,;‘,.....-,..,•.;• "-' • •, .•'4,,,,'' ,,,?,.?.,?,,\. <.,, /,'„;.'', ',/,•%,`S' ,,' •" ' ' . '---,,,.- \ 1".c;‘<'',„. ..v\.s‘ci. //:';;;•;.;/;,,, , \ /' .,„ ‘,-, ____, ,-,,...--,,ccr--- ,%,-4,>. , ?- -,.. ,' N. - '," '•'-• •;'. .:i•.•:•-••cc,---,:,,,,,\,,,N.,,,,,‘' ,,,,,,O,, " -">-,.;')\itiV\N,"..,W,,, ,e''''' ' '-' s.:'',„`'..,..s,'..,,'-_d7_,'`,'--..."; \‘'.4; '' -' .. ' ',,, '• f"--',','", -' `, ••:;•s•. 1 "•-•... "Z";••,.„.c.;,,,,,• ••,-,••:-‘•,,•\,.„ ',,''„/ ,,ic,'fv; .;,x-4.,/ ,. , •'-..,..->':'--'.'''<k-4.:\ is,/, ,,,,„/„..,, ,/,,,,,, ,..., / .-.., N.i:1.-4_4 ,,,„„,.: , , '4,i ,,., -..e .;,,,-i, ., ''';- . ..i,.„ ''',„ i'-.0,,,, :.••z, '' -,-----,,`•-• . ''''''''',:l...'4• 44-r":'" -.44-"`,.f.41%'''' --f...V.,k,i/'' ''..'" . ..;:„\`' ..sr,-- '''-i..2 4.' ,?'"4,1'4. i,.-^( ':; i' •-•`, ''''''' `.'. `--.,,"7...f,', ,'...C' -. , \ 'C' ''''''''' "'-'1"-°~-'•---:-.------.:-7-f',"'" -‘- •-.0%. \ •''.- 4- „ .t ••-••., ' r ,--••. .;.• .4.--:,- ••, .... ,...• • - , c ; ,y, ' li„,„•H_2,44': i,r,,?., r i,ef,,,,,,,' ,,., ,:.,> lr? "1(414 . .,;„..-i 11'-71. • \;\ i -Fri •'' , ,,,,, . , <,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,-,31 r,,,,, ,,,,F /4 "'‘,,,\‘7"-'''''., -'1„',.---j--C:11:5'-3-"--?-3?, e' ''''',7'2, /• '''s ;,- ''' \---17-, ''''''--''"--(\- _.%0 ,z,.......--t,,.....u,. , 46' k4N4ks:\:•-•-1 .-,.. Zr.',--1'.21-•-, ,)'---'" .-il l,•.//''.•,. ,,',"'‘. ;:- ., ,', `Ci:(0':, \ , -,., '.---- • ,I: li,frr !iii,-; _ '..,,, '%7". '-' , ,.,., .,..•, i ,.....iL, 's.. , „ , . '''. •.,--7.7.1'-'\,'N,_,,-; r-' ' t, ,-'^-,,,,--,t• -, / Z„,.•..N .,-,--1 -;Xk' - , -, - , •1-c--• ; ,, , . ,,,e '....•i '-,,,.,___..,_ 1--1;).,---:: --;:-.‘,"1...„,) ',:-'1 ''7,, ' ...„ • .'" , .:.:s''. ', '_,,.j.c:': ,. \\''. FA- ' i'• -4 '4:L.--7-.).*:-S-2: i 11141 '1,.: ''•. , 4N•\. N / \-2,-,,, "4,:...-:114,-...1,,,,,,,:r"‘"::4_,-,....."' L. --.,f.. ',•\'" ,,1,2, .i, :< •:..4." : ,::. iii_____,c.I.TI., :,)(..,,,,,<,0 ' '''' , •••:::'4\,'"",---r-''4,S'''. i"'"----'--;4'., ''--<..1 ''',', .'''"c -,• ,'''' 4 • 4; ., . ,tri-Tr-47-",--;4.i--..,7- -77ii"'''' 4: ,- 7" ----=4.--,,-,44-4 ,""' "`• -""`"r• ,...i 4....; \'t.- ' '.; '''''',, ' ' ''.'-• ----:1--'1' " '---------------------- ''''./ ,....-E7----.'T-'-'.';`-'''''.." ,j•,, . ,;5 _ i I: • •1:4,/, r , I r \,•, ,,;'', --'"--" i ' '''' .4•\* il.-.'i'- , . I, , _,...,,.....„--...T.r—,5,---N,,,.. ,....,\ .,.,„,,,. • . .. ., -,, ....,„„/;,•.-- ___ \, ..,, tic,/ ::,,...,,,.... ..„--,7,--,1.7-4-4-4\--,...._.• * ........ ,„;;\ ,.ty•,.. , ... 3f, • •, -..... •.1, ----- . ,8. ti; ' t " ,„„,......,na.:".....'.,,,,„,..1,":",''''''',:;;;,,...,„,," ' ...,,,, ..."'"-"' ,P',.., ' 4' ---- -„r ; - $ . i-- s •--. \:• --• •‘ II'i ---- i',1; ,,,,. 1 .4 t .. ... I . -, .' ' -^ - • ***1 ',O.-, L-4,740.r..., •.--. '. 1,.-- --- .4•,.. J, '-,..: " k`i!;. i', 1i . • i' . ' 1 ; 1 -, ; . 11'.;;;' '' . " r;,;" ,;`,...,•,„ '''''; WO \\‘'s:,A,. ;it i ', A;1"." \t%,,• 111.1: ..., - e"...;,,,-t:'Cr ,•: ,,, .. ‘ ,11 ,,:.^.. . m"' ... ,.,''. .....,. ..,, c*.- ,. . -.• "CA; il {'• \ -, ,... : .;••..• •;"'" „„......-rr.'"` ,•" ."..., ,,,,,c;;:. . . crj—C-c--:-'''.7b i , - c-`,..;.•''` 1,--- n ''-i• • - . , C•er-1-- --Li• ti, 1 .,,,,,,,,-;‘,-..,TA,,,,---,,,z-, L—zT,,..",:--sr.,.....-,,,,-* , ' " . .t ....);k1 :.1, 0i---1 -7:--:-4,N-• ? .'. '-'-'.''' 11 4 `."'-‘., 7;,Zs'S„MM‘N-\,,,s;;\,\2,- „•."' '... . ..., ••••„,, ,-,,,r,/ Ir. I! .• IN `if,', -.) iPi-- -‘ tg '.......... •,- : . : , • i m , .. `i',1 • ' 1- • '‹) r ii____...1,4.•;,.., -,..:,,. 1 1: rli . t, c )). _ ili;:11 ..,•:J....._, ..._ ,,,,,..._......,-w. . 1 ,,...„...,..1____,,,„,:••..,,.; 4'44"' '.- '----.11' • illi , : , .i t. ',. ,' ----.:- -7,-,7_-:11-.-,-..-,.---E------,-;-,.---:-:----.!--,!--,•„ ,-.--,----....-7,..--,-,-..• • i., , -.., -,..,.•,, , -A . , . • ;..1.,..1:,‘ '4 , --,„ \„, , *,,=',,,..,...) _il; 1 H''.• t,"' r .,,,,,„...,,,===:,•-• _,„‘„,,,,,,,,,..",-5/ti- \'57•-•'_'''..--- __,.--::.----_,,....._„.,_,- _ . , _.. — - — t.., . 1.___- i i • li, t 1- • t. • u— ---, --....,,,c..,z------, , ,,A:::,.::::,::,c,,,_,:::-1-:,,,,,::::--:-.7.:"--:,„'±:-•::----::-..,--7,.=!.0R.....7.7,„-_-::4-:- _.._.._ ,.-.1 :,.. ,i .•./.‘ '...,:;,:" --------, ------- ---- - - ....,-• '.'f 1",1 ''' 4, i El 1 ''',4-4,4,....44,-4-"'" „„.....;:'.-4-------7'-'----''',•').'•4 et •i. \,-.: i `1 1, I , k ii ,iii'?',' l'' .• -i•e"..-7,-;1"..7,--?:---' , -.-- --`„,.-„,-,;,:1•:•:7-,04--""" , ,-,4:f i ,' ,,,,-,=;''- 4.:-:^(1 ;ti •• - - -- .,, 4.-1,1 41',,,,,-----,".:•"".•i•-1 -O.; --•- I„ " . .... I " -----.-- - --------- • " ------"';'_•_: -----'-:':::-.7.---.7;,7 •;:iirri'li"-,'!4111," " " ' ' _ -,.. :, t .11..,--''--1-W:: .'‘---- t.;7---• '7" - - -- PACIFIC CITY - Huntington Beach, CA • FALL EQUINOX SHADOW • ., „' , , . //, ,,,,,, ,;,';-- ,-.."--p'k.-,j...,: '---',"/ ;17..,:,;;-,•:',: .i...; \--,,,;',"''1;;,4-...„. l'...r.;',--•''''4. SEPTEMBER 21 C 4,„ *.\ •44 ''1\ ,. ! 2 . ..4.,<". ''', -• S94 ' -.,,/ ? \::k,' ,'` '`r ......2..._ ' .../ ...,. '-‘, .- ..).- ,, ..',.. 3:00 PM ''4,s.'4,- ., :,, , ',"— / .,,t,..- V'''.,-- ' x, - ,i,,,,,,,, ,:, k,:e.,e,„,,,r__,1,,,,,,,,,,:c; 2, ._5,,,a4, •7.: j ..,,,,,,. ..,,,,f ,-,._,k ;; :-...,, ,,,.) ,,, ..,. ' .:ii‘• • - • . '`.i.* ''' /,•'''.-iji. , , ' ,,''''''''."2.,"'<\''''C" '''' \./rc-..,',"--f . ',.,;-...:71-a,` 4(-"-,,:. ,.; '..,,—2 , - ----' ,e',. ,-, ,K) s, ;,., :"- , -,,,/,‘„,/,',''' .,giN .‘, .' .`,/, ' t,,- ,,,,,, e.i,Z,..:.::::N,\ -.,,r, ''''',,. -`4,--'-''''---'4--'t,;'' !,-)--4‘.''' ''1 l '''.-d',: l''''')'''t4 • ' ='' ' • ..- . \V/,./777,.14 ' .:,' N'Sk-Vr'-'),.4---')c..,..1 ''''.1-'1,+. ;N',.'s.. ,:,'• --'ti ,,4,:j ,..'' i• ' ' '"-' ' • ,, - A? 4,...;:''// 4 .,' ''.'",-..,'7--,-4\---4.--,,C.---.. •••-1--qi- ''• ..,.- -.. N,• ;, c. •0 :,'' ' '''`''',,.•`••*1'-'' .,/'''' ''''' „"'''•i',,\!••k ,,7), . ..i.L.t-'-- . - - ,.1:-.,:l't ' -‘\ \--7-,,'\-'•'' c,'',/\ , ..,;:;•'1'- '.;„.;;,-" ' '':-'.;,-.....-..-.: ' ff. ,3,- • ' 4;-.';‘,.',',,. 'j,.s.\,, ;,,," ' ('.' ; %.,.".*I` •/At"' :,y'''1:Z.' Z..---,-..--L"..,,\Nirk-7,„1:.-..1 ...=';i1'-ti;, )..,,- Q,,e:/-. ^ ''''-;' .•k V . ' • 'AY\-*AK...., -,:,,,./.., . , • ...../,', N , ,•,,,,,-,..,.,„,/- , .- ,,,,o, ,.',.....„,t_,s„,.., ;,,,‘„•\_,,,--f.,--,. 3---,_.„. ",..- , ,-, , C., 4- ,..'1'. /' ''s,.,.. '', .' ;./ /;!..?,/4\ .4.1,,.. Jeit'1'S1,g/ '' ' ''.e.‘,. ' •',', ' ' \''.' 'ITS-''' -4-- -,.... „'<•••ti-' ,-/////...';'Cf.,,, -\'''',;*„,,;'?,:7,;,,-', / :-''' •:''' ' ; , -, `;.-',,., x;•,,.._2.,•,,,,''',.,_ .:-.-;,•13-17-._, <'<i„,..,i. , , • (.. „ ':- '.`;''''''''‘, ' ' - ' ;---s'••-' 05-: ---.:, 4‘..,,,,\_„_,....,-- ,•„,„ •('‘,/,:7-114,.....\\:., 40, ./^ ;-,,, ,-., ..'‘I-:-••\N-c-?- '-'41,. i..,..- -;. IC.,:; .','• ;';. '‘"••••1 %."-' ,v -1\ -''' 'Z:Ii,,, -47 1.2-1-'-'41.\ - .'", ),V 4,/-,- /*=;'e/ ,Tri,4 .,,,, i ' v,,4 ,•,,,.,,-'\,,-,- '. ',i.:, .-! ••-` '%\ „ 0 !,- ''''‘,. - ., , 1 1 _, ---..--;..o.-.-,.--4,..„„.- •< ,,,z,,,,...-, ..e1.- sf, . „r.44,, . 1- ,.„7,:,,,,,z.,,, -4.z•!,-.. ...,,,,,f,:=, _,...., ,,,,--- ,../.. ..-., ,,• ,-,,,,-, ,--„_- , ,7 ' i'1." -'-'-' :. 7:------;'r"' ,„-;;-<,...?' 0 .,e'''.•*,'-`4ii,1'cr----.,*.„,„„,,," ' ''' '' •-•,'; .`1.2-; - :,..*„. ... . .•: 1,„. / "•• ,••• 1:----,--*2'.- --h.-, -; -'---'.• ',.•k••„.•-' •-,.. '`, ' ,• -., ', •, „.'. , •....%,,,zA ;: i ',,,,,......-•'' ,e'-'? '''t ,„,,,,,, :-,3, :4, Al 13tra .°% $,,,t i , '-,::.(7......i.4.. . .zr.1/' ' ill ..., "Ti'k-ii,........÷.....11Z-‘, .„...-...,1,.. , ,,,- ''.• '''S ,...,.a„4 ,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,),_ /141-7 --, ''1,,,,,k,,\,. •,,-....i---., 4:,) ..., , -_,,, • --1 , ,,,.. , ,,,/,i, r tif-,•• '1. ,,, .,/ .,,,, /*, , \ '„,,\\,,,\.,,,,,:,:c.:.‘1. ' Ti-.17.....;',A.'....? Y,...,4--..'-,..,' (, . ,/ ‘i.. .',..'', --'', ;,- ‘ ... '4,;.:4'''''''''..,,,.. ' F,_, , , - -?,,'1 ' ---L--' F., ' ;f• • , ,, , -..- • :I. e -' \ , ,• •:„;. 4,' „.-, `‘‘'•., • L., L"'7't -,-...,,,J.., , . 1 ,--1- I'l '4":'..14;;•'."';;-' '.''fir-''F-'"'"'"<-,• i. \ . ., , i s., .-;'....`,:!°•:,,e..,;‘,..,_..,..t.•,-,c': ,_:_..,,,,4 • - vr., , ,' , 1---_i_i ik-,7:".4 (5:,,I .T4.4,,-,7,4,1 • '• .4. • ......,AA ...',„*.;44 I' ,. * ' ';'''',':' ""1.,-,,,--''''-91 ' ', '-;,1,2.'N\Nfs' 1.;.'',7----ti% ...- E ...,.. r;-„Y. -- . 'A • , - _ <;,...:•• .,•-• , - - .., • ,-. ,- , .., .... • ,......_,, •,,,...._.... 1-1- f ,1 ' . 7------1- :11 ".:., :II: '' , .• ,.„:4"''' '.' 'r-1 411t0''.,,, ',,,'''•;',.‘„, *\'',,,\,,,,,&14:c:.,',2.eli.,_',,,,,,, -. ,,,,...,...,...''...11,.,,,,:,,,,..,,/ "'..',r.,,''' ,_,',..-I..:,........,:I.-:::::.--:::--7:::104....7,=17,=7;3r,,.........;;::" • '-'7k,1,-,N.,, •^----,,,'".--'..:-,....:..:L'I.,24 • iii....._ ._..-L • r' 111.: r'41 !., 1.‘,, 131 ' , '''-.'"f„..../f t'' '., ,r,»T:';':-..'-1 ._,..,,,,,44.7:0'•• ' cf,1,- • '''' ,,,.'ili-, T.1-r7:41 *-47 : . • .".• *------ ,.,,„„‘'''-- :-V""' ,...;:.,,,*:;--;'•7:4`r:4....'?': . • . ,•, *,--4;4'.<1`..,::-...::-:7, .\tA.1.1 ,.„,.....-,:'-'11.., ; 1:f,,f'-^:r-,..N'tI;,-'---'' *.-.. !"...-' .-- i H. t.: --,-- v.,---*--.....,....,....,, ,r-c,- --', "•'''i.-- , :',"'' ,,,' ..,\`', ‘,'„Y'1 i 77 Ix',*.,, ..f.,,,_A r.ttr,V,X4 - ,--• --'-' ,,----.1-'4'4 l'i 1 1 0,0,,,,,,,.,,, , ,,„„;;;NS.,,,rx,,, 1N' -*'',:i.t.,, • ,,,-4,,,4, ‘-‘,0 ii i 1: 4.,,,, rk,.:_e,-.•A;•••/,-,:-.3 -..,...,.1,_•---- — •'; L.:,----•-' ---,..r.:••••,1..__L... 1 il'-- ti ,,,,,,,: ,_ - . -,--•,,‘:7---,,,,•'.' 4:•:-: look„,- ,,,-, -,.,.‘,.‘, I; ',,1 4 --1.__, - 'I,1-----.7. fiq.-'10 -VI. ;‘,: 1 .. t-',,';•'-'''.03''''''' 4ti. ,-' t., Itil• '.41 I ............r..,„,..„,,, .„.„,,ic... 10.4,..„ , „... .... , ,.__, ,•,. .....,„ ...,., "e 4 ,'.- .' •' •--1 \ ...7.7.4;,.. -:. (:. 1 F-.7....7"'jr i. "1,..‘ 14,1414,s‘St1/4,:44, --44 `7•"' k s ,,„,,,.-, le-f, ,' 11/4) ‘.., I-W ''•‘,.. -., •....7.-.....:-i-,,----1-i,. IT i .-.e,•.,,,•••-- -••m ,o,.1 A.-,,, - -. . • ,4r• _ -. Iii i( I ;,.... i 4r,—r,,,,N, ,,, 1--,. HI 4 f • / ...,..,,,,,-;) „ - tv, ,...),,,,, ,,,l_...._ _ ; • -7.1,) .• )• \.„„, .•." ,1 1,1.1 "i1,.• ' k -7."'"--,-1,-.4prr,-;::...--.r.-_,_ r_-_,.:'._ ;,:--"=:.-1--.11!--: --.7.;.:::::::-.7 I 011 -,:-..V.,1',..,-‘,:`,::-;-:-,,•-•-,-E--,- '.. , •+,'.1,-....„:„.:!--,-„--7- •'''•.'4..'3,, • tl r i i , ,A,. .-„t_.....! ,--,--‘, • ',.?::::......, 1 i 1 . , „....,. ,..„...—,,,---,-,--• ...,,,,,,----;„-.---- F--- 1,L...___. „..„,. .a....nor-.4 .-• • ,.. --- ,,,,-'7:1'7`.=-•--- --; i. ,,,--,--„1;,''W,C' ......r'''---'7 1.- , 14 k: - :,,,,„4- :- "r ;:"..l'•, ...,,,, t ._. ri • ! , ; ii ,t„ 1 - - *. .-:----7,,,,-7r.55')-- -- -- ,..___ ---,,,, .-1..k ii,* 7.,-,nt,---,';,-.111,' '''s- -,,' '''-- •—.—........./n- ......... . . • . . , _...-cr...z--,--,-,* .- - - , - - --• ---:-.-7T.---.7.s"-...,"-7..." - ' - ,_____--- ..L.;......,- ,1,7,--:::---:;,i,..„"41,-,p,111r.."' * , •—.,-- ,..,..,,,, v , .., ---,-, .1'. -11,t-L:::5--"'" :.-:-1 1 ,I r---. • ... • -____24„--- ,,,,,---- -, ,, - _._...,,...---, ^ ..,..-..*.. .-''''''' .,,.__.....,..-,1 A„..:.,,rr, , f 4., s . , i ksSi A \ . z -'7' 1. ' - .- '1".1 *;:.-----L.---:'..------:7,.... - ---.- ,...-------:-."-''-r.--".77::::t:::::,,..Per'1.,771:‘,P. !''''''' r,,, ,'. ',. '',.1i,--t-i-illri ..,.'-•-... ,,..ir-''''''T . I- --- ' PACIFIC CITY - Huntington Beach, CA - , APPENDIX L CULTURAL RESOURCES EVALUATION OF PREHISTORIC ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE CA ORA-149 AND HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE CA-ORA 1582H TEST EXCAVATIONS AND ARCHIVAL RESEARCH HUNTINGTON BEACH URBAN CENTER PROJECT PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY HUNTINGTON BEACH, ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Volume I by Philip de Barros, Ph.D. Principal Investigator and Scott Crull,Ph.D. Co-Principal Investigator Wayne Bonner, M.A. • Glennda Luhnow, M.A. Judy Mckeehan, M.A. Steve Van Wormer Susan Walter With Contributions By: Bonnie Bruce Richard Hughes,Ph.D. Craig ff, Margaret Newman,Kierui Ph.D. Tom Origer,M.A. Joel Paulson,M.A. Virginia Popper,Ph.D. Mark Roeder and Beta Analytic, Inc. Prepared For. Makar Properties 4100 MacArthur Blvd.,Suite 150 Newport Beach,CA 92660 Prepared By: Professional Archaeological Services San Dlego, CA 92129 858-484-3478 JANUARY 2002 Nationat'Archaeolocdcal Database Type of Study: Cultural Resources Evaluation. Sites: CA-ORA-149 and CA-ORA-1582H. USGS Quad: Newpoit Beach 7.5'1981. Keywords: Orange C iunty,Huntington Beach, Pacific Coast Highway,Southern Pacific Railroad,Pacific Electric railway,Los Angeles Interurban lines,archival research,radiocarbon dates,shell midden,historic dump,Coso obsidian,Late Milllngstone,Late Prehistoric,groundstone,obsidian hydration,macrobotanical remains,debitage,faunal remains,fish bone,protein residues,estuary,"bolsa",1860-1940 historic artifacts, hotelware,decatware,bluebird pattern,Phoenix Bird pattern,Ranson Clones,ceramic economic index, ceramic and bottle mean dates,bottle styles and colors,activity groups,shell limpet ring ornament MANAGEMENT SUMMARY PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION The proposed Huntington Beach Urban Center is composed of a combination of commercial and residential buildings underlain by underground parking on a 31- acre piece of property. The commercial section will tentatively include 180,000 square feet of retail, dining and entertainment space, 60,000 square feet of office space, and a 400-room hotel. The residential section will tentatively include 540 multi-story family residential units. All parking will be subterranean in two to three levels. The project area is roughly trapezoidal in shape and is bounded by Pacific Coast Highway to the south, Huntington Street to the east, Atlanta Avenue to the north, and First Street(and Lake Avenue) to the west in the City of Huntington Beach in Orange County, California. It is situated within Section 14 of Township 6 South, Range 11 West, as shown on the 1965 (photorevised 1981) USGS 7.5' Newport Beach quadrangle. SCOPE OF WORK AND PERSONNEL Professional Archaeological Services (PAS)was hired by Makar Properties of Newport Beach to conduct archival research and test excavations relating to prehistoric site CA-ORA-149 and the historic dump site CA-1582H, both situated within the project area, in order to evaluate the significance of these resources under CEQA, especially Section 15064.5(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines. The principal investigator for the project was Philip de Barros, Ph.D. of PAS. He was assisted by Co-Principal Investigator, Scott Crull, Ph.D. Key analysts included Judy McKeehan, M.A. (geomorphology); Glennda Luhnow, M.A. (shellfish analysis); Wayne Bonner, M.A. (archival research and vertebrate faunal remains); Scott CrUll, Ph.D. (historic artifact analysis); Susan Walter(vessel ceramics); Steve Van Wormer (mean ceramic date and ceramic economic index), and others too numerous to list. The field director was Judy McKeehan. NATIVE AMERICAN INVOLVEMENT Prior to the test excavations, a letter was sent to Gabrielino and Juaneno representatives listed as Most Likely Descendants by the California Native American Heritage Commission informing them of the test excavations and inviting them to a site visit. In addition, Maker Properties invited Robert Dorame of the Gabrielino and Joyce Perry and David Belardes of the Juaneno to meet with Ethen Thacher of Makar Properties and Principal Investigator, Dr. Philip de Barros, of Professional Archaeological Services (PAS), and PAS field director, Judy Mckeehan, M.A., to discuss their concerns and to deal with issues relating ix ! ! to the possible discovery of human remains and associated grave goods and the hiring of Indian monitors to monitor for such finds. Contracts were signed between these two Gabrielino and Juaneno groups with Makar Properties. Monitors during excavation included Joyce Perry and David Belardes of the Juaneno and Jordan Liggett, Mercedes Dorame, and Robert Dorame of the Gabrielino/Tongva. On June 18th, after the completion of the excavations, those responding to the site visit letter were shown the sites and presented with the preliminary results. Aside from the monitors Robert Dorame, Joyce Perry and David Belardes, Sonia Johnston of the Juaneno also attended this site visit. The other invitees did not respond. Sonia Johnston expressed her concerns about the development of more coastal land in a letter addressed to Makar Properties. Robert Dorame submitted the Gabrielino Tongva Daily Monitoring Reports with field photos to Makar Properties. A copy of this report will be made available to the Native American representatives who attended the site visit. DISPOSITION OF COLLECTIONS AND FIELD NOTES The prehistoric and historic artifacts and field notes associated with ORA-149 and ORA-1582H are currently in public storage in San Marcos, California, near Palomar College. The goal is to ultimately curate the material at the new curation facility at Cal State Fullerton when it opens its doors sometime during 2002. Some of these artifacts may eventually be put on public display within the Huntington Beach Urban Center or used as long-term teaching collections. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS A research design was prepared prior to the investigation of both sites with an emphasis on important research domains and issues relevant to each site. A combination of trenches and 1 x 1 m units were excavated in natural stratigraphic and/or arbitrary 10-cm levels depending upon conditions. Ten units were excavated at ORA-149 and six units at ORA-1589H. The field work took place in late May and early June, 2001. All material was screened through 1/8" wire mesh at ORA-149 and %4" wire mesh at ORA-1582H. Wet screening was used at both sites. All material was properly washed, identified and catalogued for curation. RESULTS OF INVESTIGATIONS AT ORA-149 ORA-149 is a prehistoric shell midden situated on gently sloping coastal sand dune deposits overlooking an ancient tidal estuary or"bolsa" that was largely filled in during historic times. It is composed of two principal loci (A and B) as well as surficial deposits that have been smeared from the main deposit to the x north and west. The site once extended well to the east but perhaps 40-50% of the site was destroyed by a deep cut associated with the creation of Huntington Street and by the construction of the Pacific Mobile Home Park on the east side of Huntington. Northern and southern portions of the site were severely impacted by Chevron oil activities from the 1950s onwards. The result is that only a small portion of the original site is left. Locus A consists of a narrow band of stratified midden partially exposed in a shallow arroyo and measures about 245 m2 in size; it represents what is left of the southern portion of the site. Locus B1 encompasses the heart of the site near Huntington Street. Locus B2 contains - shallow deposits that sit on top of sand dune and sandstone strata. These have been severely impacted by past grading on the property. Locus B1 is about 1,500 m2 in size and B2 about 2,800 m . Finally, there are two areas of smeared, surficial midden deposits north and northwest of Locus B about 2,500 m2 in size. The original vegetation probably consisted of some coastal sage scrub, grassland, and/or coastal strand vegetation, but this has now been replaced by largely non-native shrubs and grasses. The vegetation of the former°bolsa" would have been a saltwater marsh community with its associated shellfish, fish, ray and shark populations. The local geology of the bluff is composed of sandstone and loosely consolidated former dune sand deposits. Site Type: The site consists of two loci A and B. Both are probably the remains of minor residential bases. They were used primarily for shellfish procurement and processing, but they were also seasonal habitation sites based on the presence of fire-altered rock, fish bone, and groundstone tools associated with seed processing, especially at Locus B. Time Periods: Locus A: Early-to-Mid Late Prehistoric, A.D. 590 to 1280 Locus B: Late Millingstone and Early Late Prehistoric 2860— 1290 B.C.; A.D. 420-890 Depth: Locus A: 100-140 cm Locus B1: 60-110 cm in area of intact midden Locus B2: <30 cm of highly disturbed midden Elevation: Locus A: 10 feet Locus B 1: 5-20 feet Locus B2: 20-30 feet Areas of Smeared Surficial Midden: 30-31 feet Artifact Types: Locus A: Subsurface: split cobble core, core/chopper, small cobble mano?, 1-2 mano fragments, metate fragment, fire-altered rock and 15 debitage (mostly chert, some quartzite and quartz; single jasper, basalt, andesite, and obsidian); bits of historic bottle glass and metal artifacts at depths ranging from 0-110 cm. xi Locus B1: Surface: three metate fragments, 1 unshaped bifacial mano, black chert core, basalt split cobble core, quartzite flake tool, fire altered rock and 1 debitage (rhyolite). Subsurface: limpet shell ornament, bone awl frag?, fire- altered rock, 14 debitage (mostly chert, some quartz and quartzite; single chalcedony, metavolcanic, obsidian); historic bottle glass, ceramic, metal, rubber, brick, fiberglass, and cloth artifacts at depths ranging between 0-80 cm. Locus B2: Surface: 2 debitage (basalt, quartzite). Subsurface: 18 debitage (mostly chert and some quartz, single quartzite), some fire-altered rock; asphalt lumps and historic bottle glass, metal, fiberglass, and plastic artifacts ranging from 0-40 cm. Animal and Fish Bone: • Locus A: 942 non-fish bone: small mammal (51.1%), rodents (36.2%), mammal (5.0%), gopher(2.2%), snake (2.0%), mouse (1.0%), 6 large mammal (0.6%), 6 medium mammal (0.6%), 6 ground squirrel (0.6%), 3 birds (0.3%); 1 duck , 1 homed lizard, and 1 rabbit (0.1% each). 160 fish bone: shark or ray (16.9%), shovelnose guitarfish (16.3%), leopard shark (15.0%), bat ray (15.0%), bony fish (11.9%), undifferentiated midshipman (9.4%), surfperch (5.6%), shark (2.5%), croaker family (1.9%); thomback, anchovy family and diamond turbot (1.3% each), barred or kelp sand bass, California halibut, and herring (0.6% each). Locus B1: 342 non fish bone: rodent (43.3%), small mammal (26.3%), mammal (12.9%), snake (5.6%), 15 large mammal (4.4%), 6 gopher and 6 deer(1.7% each), 4 medium mammal (1.2%), 3 bird (0.9%), 2 lizard (0.6%), and 1 gadwall duck, 1 duck, 1 pond turtle, 1 rabbit and 1 mouse (0.3% each). 117 fish bone: shovelnose guitarfish (46.0%), shark or ray (21.0%), bat ray (16.1%), diamond turbot (10.5%), undifferentiated midshipman (6.5%). Locus B2: 13 non-fish bone: 1 mammal, 2 rabbit, 2 gopher, 2 rodent, 1 medium mammal, 5 small mammal. 5 fish bone: 4 shovelnose guitarfish, 1 bat ray. Shellfish Remains: Locus A: Venus clam (28.2%), scallop) (26.4%), Pismo clam (18.2%), oyster (16.9%), Pacific slipper shell (6.0%), spiny cup-and-saucer(2.1%), California horn shell (1.1%), 14 other species (1.1%). Locus 131: scallop(36.4%), oyster(20.2%), Pismo clam (16.5%), Venus clam (14.1%), Pacific slipper shell (6.3%), spiny cup-and-saucer(2.9%), California horn shell (0.8%) and 16 other species (2.7%). Locus B2: oyster (30.0%), Venus clams (24.2%), scallop (20.0%), Pacific slipper shell (9.7%), Pismo clam(8.1%), spiny cup-and-saucer (4.5%), California horn shell (1.9%), and 4 other species (1.3%). I _ xii Floral Remains: Locus A: 1 sunflower family seed, 1 wild barley seed Locus B1: 1 wild barley seed Artifact Protein Residues: Locus A: none Locus B1: prickly pear on metate fragment; chenopod and quail/grouse /pheasant on mano (both surface artifacts) Degree of Disturbance: Locus A and B1: low to high; Locus B2: high Volume Excavated : 7.05 m3 RESULTS OF INVESTIGATIONS AT ORA-1582H ORA-1582H is an historic dump site located on the edge of a low bluff composed of coastal sand dune deposits overlooking an ancient tidal estuary or°bolsa" that was largely filled in during historic times. It was created in the early 20th century and was probably buried under fill sometime after the 1950s. It is located at the end of a triangle of land formed by a northwest-southeast trending berm used for the Pacific Coast Highway (formerly for the Southern Pacific Railroad and Pacific Electric railroad lines) and an old Southern Pacific line that once branched off of the coastal line and headed northwest then north toward Stanton, following a route between Lake and Alabama Streets after crossing the subject property. The site contains an abundance of historic materials, especially glass and ceramics, and has been highly disturbed by past episodes of burning and burial with earthmoving equipment. Chevron oil activities also resulted in the deposition of oil-related materials, including masses of iron cable dumped into various parts of the dump, especially the southern half. Site Type: Historic municipal dump containing primarily consumer and kitchen items. A small, sparse prehistoric shell midden component is mixed in with the historic materials. Time Period: Historic Component : Artifacts date from pre-1860 to the 1960s, but most date from the late 1800s through the 1930s. Most of the bottle manufacturer dates of operation fall between the late 1880s and 1940. Given the known history_of Huntington Beach, the dump was probably active from some time between 1905 and 1910 and on into the 1930s with a few intrusive artifacts from the 1940s through 1960s. The weighted mean bottle manufacturer's date is 1917.1. The weighted mean ceramic manufacturer's date is 1915. Late Prehistoric Component: It dates to the terminal Late Prehistoric or after A.D.1430 based on 2 radiocarbon dates. It consists of sparse burned shell, especially in Unit 5. Its original stratigraphic context has been completely lost. xiii Dimensions/Area: ca. 120 x 60 m or 7,200 m2. Depth: ranges from two to five feet in most areas Artifact Materials and Types: All proveniences: 1,884 artifacts, excluding bulk glass,discarded nondiagnostic metal, non-artifactual shell and bone, and ceramic fragments not linked to vessels. Glass artifacts:1002/53.2%--glass bottles, 828/43.9%; glass jars, 68/3.6%; other glass items, 106/5.6% —stoppers, vials, cups, flasks, tubes, lenses, etc. Ceramic artifacts: 690/36.6% — ceramic vessels, 627/33.3%; non- vessel ceramics, 63/3.3% —fuses, insulators, marbles, buttons, pipes, toilet parts, etc. Metal artifacts: 124/6.6% -- including coins. Other materials/artifacts: 68/3.6% — shell and plastic buttons; jewelry, battery parts, spark plugs, diagnostic brick fragments, fabric, leather, wood, paper, etc. Units 3, 5, 7, 8: 1,058 items from controlled stratigraphic contexts—ceramic artifacts: 555/52.5% —ceramic vessels, 516/48.8%; non-vessel ceramics, 39/3.7%; plass artifacts: 361/34.1%; metal artifacts: 102/9.6%; other artifacts: 40/3.8%. Glass Bottle Manufacturers: Bottles made by 32 different manufacturers from 9 states (7 in the Northeast and Midwest plus California and Washington) and from Montreal, Canada. Food Companies Identified/Represented: 26 food companies from 11 states (Northeast, Midwest, South, and California). Non-Food Companies Identified/Represented: 73 non-food companies from 19 states and from Canada, France, England, and Scotland (covers all types of artifacts except ceramic vessels) Ceramic Vessels: 627 different ceramic vessels made in 6 states (mostly Ohio, then New York and California; a few from West Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Washington) and in six countries (mostly Japan and then England, but also Germany & Bavaria, China, France, and Czechoslovakia). ) YI Metal Artifacts: included numerous hardware items (screws, nails, bolts, fasteners, etc.), 4 utensils, a pail, a pan, a railroad tie spike, 2 keys, spark plugs, a cigarette case, a toy car, a spring, battery terminal, wire and wire mesh, rings, .22 caliber shells, and five 20th c. coins. Buttons: 39 buttons: 27 made of shell, 6 ceramic or porcelain, 4 glass, 1 plastic and 1 metal. Also, an abalone pendant, a shell pendant, and gray clamshell (all historic). Jewelry (examples): abalone pendant, a shell pendant, and a clamshell pendant (all historic). A red glass cabochon (part of pendant or hat pin), a cameo, a xiv sterling silver cigarette case noted under metal above, and a silver ring and two pendants with missing stones. Other(examples): ceramic& glass marbles, ceramic fuses &toilet parts, a few bricks with maker's marks, a human molar wl a gold filling, a 1960s hash pipe w/ dog's head. Activity Groups (Units 3,5,7,8): All Artifacts: 1,058 items consumer: 302—28.5% munitions 7— 0.7% kitchen: 499—47.2% coinage 5—0.5% household: 56— 5.3% building 18— 1.7% garment: 28— 2.6% auto parts 7— 0.7% personal: 35 — 3.3% unique 14—1.3% hardware: 64 — 6.0% unid. metal 8—0.8% tools: 1 — 0.1% hair/hemp? 1 —0.1% intrusive 13— 1.2% Vertebrate Fauna: Domesticated cattle and large mammal bone (probably cattle, 93%; domesticated sheep and medium-sized mammal (mostly likely sheep), 6.9%; chicken, rabbit, and rodent, 0.1%. The single rabbit bone may be prehistoric. Relatively small amounts and mostly burned. Shellfish: Prehistoric(mostly from Unit 5): scallop, 25%; moon snail, 13.6%; mussel, Venus clam, and California jack-knife clam, 11.4% each; Pismo clam, 9.0%; oyster, 6.8%; and seven others, 11.4%. Very small amounts recovered. Degree of Disturbance: High Volume Excavated: 5.63 m3 Small Surface Shell Scatter: Two test units were used to investigate a disturbed, redeposited surface scatter of shell a short distance north of ORA- 1582H. No shell was found below the first 5 cm and asphalt debris was found in deeper levels. SITE SIGNIFICANCE AND MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS Site Significance Criteria According to Section 15064.5(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, "a resource shall be considered by the lead agency to be "historically significant" if the resource meets the criteria for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources 1 (Pub. Res. Code §5024.1, Title 14 CCR, Section 4852) including the following: xv A. Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California history and cultural heritage; B. Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past; C. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or D. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. In addition, if an archaeological site does not meet one of the criteria defined above, "but does meet the definition of a unique archaeological resource in Section 21083.2 of the Public Resources Code, the site shall be treated in accordance with the provisions of Section 21083.2"; in other words, the site is significant and significant impacts (effects)would need to be mitigated to insignificant levels. If any archaeological resource is neither a unique archaeological resource nor an historical resource, both the resource and the effect on it shall be noted in the Initial Study or EIR, but need not be considered further in the CEQA process (Section 15064.5(c)(4)]. Most archaeological sites are determined eligible under Criterion D and this is the case for the prehistoric shell midden site, CA-ORA 149, and the historic dump site CA-ORA 1582H. The dump does not qualify under Criteria A and B, because it is not associated with specific events, significant patterns of history, or significant persons. It also does not qualify under Criterion C because there are no standing structures or buildings. Significance of CA-ORA-149 Given we are dealing with a prehistoric shell midden site, site significance was evaluated using Criterion "0", i.e., the site's potential to yield information important in prehistory. In addition, a site's depositional integrity must also be studied. If a site is thoroughly disturbed, it may no longer have any research potential. Site Depositional Integrity Most of ORA-149 has been either destroyed or thoroughly disturbed. Locus A is about 245 m2 and represents an intact portion of the southern end of the site. Locus B to the north contains two subdivisions, Locus B1 and B2. Locus BI is about 1,500 m2 but most of this locus has been heavily damaged; however, a xvi • core area of about 625 m2 centered between Unit 6 and Huntington Street contains intact deposits. Locus B2 consists almost entirely of shallow, highly disturbed deposits which are therefore of little research potential. In short, Locus A and a core area of Locus B1 contain sufficient depositional integrity to merit a significance evaluation under Criterion D. Research Potential Under Criterion D Both Locus A and the core area of Locus B1 are viewed as significant under Criterion D because of their ability to address the following research domains or issues as outlined in the research design. Chronology • Both loci contain abundant shellfish remains that permit dating the range of occupation of both loci. • Both loci contain small amounts of obsidian which is also datable and which can help confirm a growing body of data regarding the calibration rate for Coso obsidian in coastal Orange County. • Locus B1 produced a oval limpet shell ornament which is temporally diagnostic. • Locus B1 contains a Late Millingstone component whose subsistence trends can be carefully studied. • Locus A contains intact early to mid Late Prehistoric components which are generally absent from this portion of the coast, especially at Bolsa Chica. Data from this component can help fill in an important gap. Locus B1 also contains an early Late Prehistoric component. Subsistence. Settlement and Environmental Change • Both loci at ORA-149 contain significant data on food procurement in the form of vertebrate non fish and fish bone and shellfish remains, groundstone tools, and protein residues (at Locus B1)to help us understand changing patterns of adaptation to climatic change in north coastal Orange County, especially south of Boise Chica on Huntington Mesa. • Locus A contains evidence of intensification of fishing procurement during the early-to-mid Late Prehistoric Period. • There are sufficient data at both sites to assess site function, especially with a larger sample of excavated data. • The ORA-149 test excavation results provide tantalizing clues as to the relationship between dry and moist climatic periods (including severe droughts) during the Medieval Climatic Anomaly and changes in shellfish, animal, and fish procurement, especially at Locus A. - • Additional excavation at ORA-149 may confirm the apparent absence of an Intermediate Period component at this site while Boise Chica Mesa was continuously occupied throughout this period. xvii ; i Lithic Procurement, Reduction, and Trade • ORA-149 provides baseline data on flaked stone and groundstone lithic procurement and reduction practices during the Late Millingstone and early- to-mid Late Prehistoric in this part of north coastal Orange County. • The site has produced both Coso obsidian and possibly Franciscan chert which are known trade items. it has also produced a oval ring shell limpet ornament which is temporally diagnostic. In short, ORA-149 Locus A and Locus B1 qualify as "historically significant" resources under CEQA as they satisfy Criterion D of the California Register of Historical Places. Management Recommendations for ORA-149 Given that Loci A and B1 of ORA-149 are important historically significant resources under CEQA and given that the proposed project will completely destroy these loci, it is recommended that data recovery excavations take place at both loci to increase our knowledge of prehistory. Such data recovery should focus on the remaining intact portions of Locus A between Test Units 1 and 2 and on a core area of Locus B1 centered around Unit 4. Significance of CA-ORA-1582H & Management Recommendations Historic Component(Historic Dump) The test excavations produced 27 boxes of historic artifacts. The recovered artifacts, including large numbers of complete bottles, have provided much valuable data. The reference data provided by this dump are significant because they provide a baseline for comparison with, and the interpretation of, residential refuse deposits from the general area. However, given the highly disturbed nature of the deposits and the lack of any clear indication that it differs significantly from one area to the other, it is not felt that additional excavation would produce a great deal more new information than what has been made available by the test excavations. It is therefore concluded that the historic component of ORA-1582H is not an "historically significant" resource under CEQA. However, it would be very useful for local historical societies and departments of anthropology/archaeology if a larger sample of whole bottles and other diagnostic artifacts could be made available as teaching aides in historical archaeology and perhaps for public displays. It is thus recommended that the destruction of the dump during construction be carefully monitored for the collection of additional diagnostic bottles, ceramic xviii vessels, and artifacts, through the use of controlled grading under the supervision of a qualified professional archaeologist. Such monitored grading would involve the removal of the refuse deposit in 15-20 cm layers using a skip loader and the redeposit of the material in small to medium piles for the archaeologists to scan for diagnostic material. Screening of the earth would not be necessary and nondiagnostic material would not be collected. The emphasis would be on nearly complete to complete artifacts. The collected artifacts would be washed, identified, and cataloged for curation with the intent that they could be loaned out to educational institutions on a long-term basis and to museums for public displays. • Prehistoric Components Late Prehistoric Shellfish Remains Within the Dump: A small quantity of shellfish remains, one rabbit bone which could be prehistoric or historic, and one possible utilized flake were recovered from within the historic dump, ORA-1582H. Two radiocarbon dates indicate that some of this shell dates to the Late Prehistoric (post-AD 1400). However, the material recovered is from a very disturbed context and has no research value other than the information already gained from the shellfish analysis and radiocarbon dates. Therefore, this prehistoric component is not a"historically significant" resource under CEQA. It is recommended, however, that grading in the vicinity of the dump be monitored to check for possible intact prehistoric deposits that may be buried under the adjacent berm on which sits the Pacific Coast Highway. Redeposited Shellfish Remains Just Northwest of the Dump: Test excavations revealed that the two small shellfish scatters in this location are surface material that has been redeposited from elsewhere. The shellfish remains are underlain by deposits of broken asphalt. There are no intact prehistoric components and the material has no research value. This prehistoric component of ORA-1582H is also not an "historically significant" resource under CEQA. General Recommendation Given the rich prehistoric and historic remains thus far uncovered on the subject property, it is recommended that construction grading for the project be monitored for possible buried historic and prehistoric archaeological remains. This can be done in conjunction with the monitoring for paleontological remains. xix